Notebooks of CASSICIACUm

1
FOUR-MONTH
70 ~ <R.ANCS
•
ISNN 0221 75 89
NOTEBOOKS
OF
CASSICIACUM
RELIGIOUS SCIENCE STUDIES
3-4
c Cassiciaco, ubi ab œstu sœculi re-
quievimus in te, amœnitatem sempi-
dull virentis paradisi tui._.
S. AUGUSTIN,
Confessions IX, 3.
(... in Cassiciacum, where we tasted
in You a holy rest after the agi-
tations of the century, the delights and the eternal
spring of your paradise.).
THE. FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS

PATHOLOGY AND OF THE FAITH
Part Two: SCHISM
by RPML GUÉRARD des LAURIERS, op,
2
HELP US WITH YOUR GENEROSITY
TO MAKE THESE "NOTEBOOKS" LIVE
TO ENCOURAGE THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
FOR THE HONOR OF THE CHURCH
FOR GOD'S GLORY
READ THE MANAGEMENT REPORT on 177
CASSICIACUM NOTEBOOKS
RELIGIOUS SCIENCE STUDIES
Quarterly - Number: 40 F
Subscriptions:
- simple
(foreign: 150 F)
- encouragement
.
- Support
from
Checks payable to:
ASSOCIATION SAINT - HERMENEGILDE
18, avenue Bellevue - 06100 NICE
CCP Marseille 117 542 C
120 F
250 F
500 F
Director of the Publication: Abbot Bernard Lucien
Association Saint-Herménégilde - 18, avenue Bellevue - 06100 Nice
Legal deposit: 2nd quarter 1980 - Joint committee: N- 61904
Imprimerie de Trion, G. Bernardet, 14, rue de la Favorite, 69005 Lyon
3
RESISTANCE TO THE POPE:
A TEXT BY S. ROBERT BELLARMIN.
A text by S. Robert Bellarmin, circulated since a few years by various traditionalist publications, would justify,
according to some, the position of those who recognize Jean-
Paul II as true Pope and yet resist him.
We will study this text, to see if it really brings
a support to those who invoke it. But we need before
recall very briefly why the resistance of Catholics such
that it is currently required, and as it is in fact exercised, does not
cannot be classified under the rubric " resistance to a real Pope ",
We do not affirm, in fact, as some reproach us
falsely, that never, under any circumstances, under any circumstances, is it
possible to resist a real Pope.
But we say that the current resistance is not a resistance.
tance at a true Pope, and cannot be. Here are some again
reasons:
• This resistance relates to acts that should have come under the
Infallible Magisterium (declaration on religious freedom, name). he
it is impossible, in such matters, to have to resist a true Pope.
• This resistance overrides, even the external forum, the
sanctions from Rome concerning priests; those who resist like this
must therefore recognize that the Pope no longer has his Authority, under
penalty of denying the Primate of jurisdiction.
• In this resistance, priests give sacraments
that require jurisdiction without having that jurisdiction that
the " authority" are denied. Such an attitude supposes that the " authority"
in place does not actually have the Authority.
-1-
4
• This resistance is usual. It is in fact about everything
which comes from the conciliar church. It may only accept this
which is only a pure material repetition of the past.
Such habitual resistance is incompatible with the recognition
session of an Authority usually assisted by Our Lord.
This brief summary obviously leaves open many questions.
tions relating to this problem; but it is sufficient for our purpose: the
text by S. Robert Bellarmine justify the resistance zealots
of John Paul II?
This text is taken from the treatise of the Holy Doctor On the Pontiff
Roman (Book II, chapter 29).
In this second book, from chapter 12, S. Robert Bellar-
min endeavors to show that the Roman pontiff succeeds St. Peter
in its primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church. This work occupies
chapters 12 to 31.
Chapter 26 develops this proof:
"The tenth argument is taken from what the Roman pontiff cannot
be judged by no one. Indeed, we cannot show our primacy with
more evidence than by showing that he is superior to all so that he
is nobody's subject ".
Then follows the proof of the argument.
Then, chapters 27-29 respond to various objections
against this assertion.
It is in the answer to the seventh ob) ection of chapter 29 that
is the text alleged by some traditionalists. Let us cite the objec-
tion and the full text of the answer, in order to be able to enter it
fully the actual scope:
“Seventh argument. It is permissible for anyone to kill the Pope, if he
is unjustly attacked by him; and therefore it will be much more allowed
kings or the council to depose the pope, if he disturbs the order
public, or if by his bad example he tries to kill souls.
I respond by denying the consequence, because to resist an attacker
and to defend oneself, there is no need for authority; and it is not necessary that
-2-
5
A TEXT BY S. ROBERT BELLARMIN
the one who is attacked is judge and superior of the attacker; while,
to judge and to punish, one needs an authority. This is why, likewise that it is permissible to resist the pope who attacks the body,
so it is permissible
to resist the one who attacks souls, or who disturbs public order, and
even more if he tried to destroy the Church: it is permissible, I say, to
resist him, by not doing what he orders and by preventing him from acc-
to bend his will; however, it is not permissible to judge, punish or
to put it down, things that belong only to a superior ”.
The intention of S. Robert Bellarmin is well indicated at the beginning
of his refutation: " I answer by denying the consequence ... ", Such is
The formal object of his answer, the light that guides him in this brief
paragraph: the consequence is incorrect, because an act of
defense is not an act of authority. The other considerations he
will be brought to do will only be secondary, and will not be developed
only to the extent that the response requires. Maybe there would be
there other possible rebuttals? S. Robert does not take care of it; that
that it is enough for him to present, because it is simple and entirely
effective.
It is quite true, therefore recognizes our Doctor, that a man has
always the right to defend oneself; so if someone is attacked by
the Pope, in his body and a fortiori in a higher good, he has the
right to defend oneself. This right is a natural right which does not
accepting the person of the attacker. It cannot therefore be
suppressed by the fact that the attacker is the Pope. But that doesn't prove
in no way, as the objector claims, that the Pope can be
deposited and therefore has a superior on earth. Because defending yourself is
not an act of authority.
Such is the answer, perfectly clear, of the holy Doctor. But
does this positively affirm, in passing, that a true Pope can
really " attacking souls" or " striving to destroy the Church"?
This is far from certain.
S. Robert Bellarmine admits that in as a hypothesis, but its
refutation takes no account of the reality of this hypo-
thesis. So he does not need to discuss her, which could have trained him
very far away. It is indeed much simpler, to refute the objector,
to show that the hypothesis being accepted, we cannot draw the
conclusion that he affirmed.
-3-
6
We therefore believe that S. Robert has quite simply, in this
text, ignored the problem that we now claim to make it solve.
He neither questioned nor positively asserted that a true Pope could
" Attack souls" or " strive to destroy the Church ",
This interpretation is confirmed by the position of S.
Robert Bellarmine on the question of the heretical pope, discussed in
next chapter of the same work.
S. Robert considers that an openly heretical pope
would ipso facto lose his pontificate.
However, it is impossible to exclude from the category " attacking pope
souls or pope striving to destroy the Church ”the case of a pope
propagating his heresy.
Under these conditions, if S. Robert had thought positively, in
writing the passage we are analyzing, that " the attack on
souls ”or “ the attempt to destroy the Church ”did not
lose the pontificate, he would have specified that these were cases in
which there was no heresy involved.
The fact that he gave no such details confirms
that he did not consider the problem of the real possibility of the fact
admitted to hypothetically.
This explanation only implements the light that
corresponds to the formal object of the text explicitly announced at the beginning;
however, it may seem too laborious to new
zealots of S. Robert Bellarmin.
We will show that even giving to this passage
the strong sense that it most likely does not have, nothing can be learned from it
in favor of our opponents.
The strong meaning would be, let us remember: S. Robert affirms positively
that there are cases in which a true Pope can " attack the
souls ”or “ strive to destroy the Church ”.
Supposing therefore that our Doctor of the Church affirmed this,
nothing can be drawn from its text for the present problem.
-4-
7
Because this assertion remains, in any event, irremedia-
largely undetermined on two crucial points:
1) To what degree, in these actions that S. Robert Bellarmin
would affirm as really possible, would the Pope engage his
Authority? This is not specified at all. Now the points
litigation concerns cases in which the Supreme Authority of
Pope is supposed to be engaged. There is no evidence that S. Robert
had such cases in view; so nothing allows to invoke it for
settle the debate.
2) What do Sr. Robert Bellar mean in a precise way?
min, the expressions "to attack souls", "to strive to destroy
the Church ”?
It remains absolutely undetermined. If we admit the strong sense of
text, which is the hypothesis in which we currently place ourselves-
ment, it is necessary to eliminate the expressions in question in all cases in
which the Pope would show himself to be a heretic (Cf. supra). But this sorting is
not mentioned in the text.
There is therefore no criterion by which to determine what
S. Robert included or excluded by these expressions.
And it is therefore impossible to say that the judgment
of S. Robert can consolidate the position of those who claim to
him to resist, on the points that we recalled in the beginning
çant, to the one they recognize as true Pope.
These inaccuracies also confirm that it is the weak meaning
which is the real one. S. Robert did not determine anything, precisely because he
did not care to assert the real possibility of this or that
hypothesis. And he didn't care because it was, like
we have seen it, apart from its object.
Let’s conclude. At the risk of offending some polemicist, we
remember that theology does not consist only of repeating, but
also to think about. It's not just about waving something
text collected in a fashionable magazine, it consists in studying the
meaning, scope, value of the texts on which we feel we owe
lean.
It is distressing to see that some reduce the theology at
level of the worst byproducts of daily journalism. It becomes
-5-
8
grotesque when these same people reproach us, not without
cumbersome, to “ ignore the complexity of the issues to be discussed”.
ADDENDUM
This text was completed when we learned
of statements by Father COACHE, aimed at justifying by history
resistance to a true Pope. Here is his text (The Fight for Faith,
No. 53, p. 2):
" You should know that Saint Clare refused for a long time Constitutions
imposed by the Pope! that Sr. François-Xavier, who had made a vow to obey
sance to the Pope, refused a new Breviary imposed by 4 popes
successive! S. Robert Bellarmine protested against a Bible that would
impose Sixtus-Quint, and obtained, its withdrawal! - because these books were not
not according to Tradition -. ”
Regarding the Sixtus V Bible affair, our
readers already know what to expect (Cahiers de Cassiciacum, N ° 1,
pp. 53-54, note 43; N ° 2, pp. 95-96). There is nothing to do with this
which concerns us, since Sixtus V had not promulgated his Bible.
Now here is the historical truth about St. Francis-
Xavier (Cf. Histoire du Béviaire, by Dom Suitbert Bâumer, translated
tion française, Letouzey and Ané, T. II, p. 144).
" .U same St. Francis Xavier ... gave a good example of respect
for the old [Breviary], still using it, despite the dispensation
that had been granted to him for the new one. As his
biographer with visible but excusable pride, despite his many
work he always recited the long office with his nine lessons. However,
this antipathy of the apostle of India or Japan for the new
Breviary might not have been so strong, his objections were
perhaps not been so strong, because, in a letter to Saint Ignatius, he asks
for six clerks the authorization to use the new Breviary ”.
And we read on s 145-146 of the same book, this clarification:
“Paul III allowed the recitation of the new Breviary to priests
secular, on condition that they obtain one from the Pope himself
authorization, motivated by their scientific studies or other work
important. But soon the legates and nuncios of the various countries were
authorized to grant the same favor. Finally this license was entrusted
to the papal secretariat and date in the ordinary course of
business ”.
-6-
9
We can see, with this, what the statements of Abbot COACHE are worth
(Doctor of Canon Law) ! But is it allowed to laugh at this point
of the truth, and thus to abuse the confidence of its readers?
As for Saint Clare, it is obvious that if she resisted the Pope,
as Father COACHE asserts, his resistance had nothing in common
with that of faithful Catholics today. Indeed, the choice of
the state of life of the faithful does not enter into the object of pontifical power.
The choice of a state of life is eminently an act falling within the
free decision of each. So if Saint Clare was opposed to a
Pope who wanted to impose such a constitution on him, she did not
opposed to a Pope engaging his Apostolic Authority.
While: determine in the light of Revelation what is
in truth the nature of " religious freedom ", to fix the rite of the Mass
and sacraments, are specific acts of pontifical power. Yes
the current occupant of the Apostolic See was truly Pope, the Catho-
They would have to oppose the Pope even as Pope.
There is therefore no parity with the supposed resistance of Saint
Claire.
Let us add that here again, Father COACHE exposes History to his
way. Here is what Canon A. Boulenger writes (General history
of the Church, T. II, vol. V, p. 453):
" Daughter of a knight of Assisi, Claire SCIFFI, having heard the Poverello
to preach Lent in St. George's Church, resolved to leave the world:
she retired with two of her sisters and several companions in a
convent near the church of Saint Damien, put on the robe of bure, and asked
it is up to Saint Francis to draw up a rule for him. The saint gave him a
first rule, verbally, in 1212, then, when the Fourth Lateran Council
(1215) ordered new religious creations to adopt a rule
old, Cardinal HUGOLIN imposed on them, in 1219, the Benedictine rule,
with a mixture of Cistercian customs. When the same cardinal
became Pope Gregory IX, Saint Clare obtained from him the privilege
the absolute poverty: the first rule itself, spirit
Franciscan, was approved in 1253, by Innocent IV.)}
We now know what to stand for on the assertions of
Father COACHE.
Abbot Bernard LUCIEN.
-7-
10
11
FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS
AND THE PATHOLOGY
FAITH
-: 0 -: -
B. - The schism
M.-L. GUÉRARD des LAURIERS, op
12
The text has two kinds of divisions:
1) The chapters, themselves divided by
subtitles numbered on the inside of each
chapter.
2) Continuously numbered paragraphs
from (47) to (1 () {)). Some paragraphs behave
tent of the divisions indicated by letters
lower case letters followed by a parenthesis: a), b), ...
The subdivisions of subparagraph a), are
indicated by: aa), ab), ac), ...
The numbers placed in brackets at the
during the text refer to the numbers of
paragraphs (1) to (46) contained in the
Cahiers de Cassiciacum N ° 2 and numbers
ros of paragraphs (47) to (1 () {)) contained
in this issue.
13
B. - SCHISM
CHAPTER 1
SCHISM
CONSIDERED IN ITSELF.
ESSENTIAL DEFINITION OF SCHISM.
We observed in the introduction that Faith is the only
roc 23 to which, in "times of crisis", we can refer to judge
of all that concerns the Church, and in particular of the vices which
threaten the Faith itself. We will therefore specify which are the
reasons why it is appropriate to adopt the point of view of
Faith to examine the schism (47-51). This leads to research
how the schism is opposed to the Faith, and to bring out the notion of
“ Schism-wandering” (52-54). It is then necessary to consider which ratio
port support between them the two kinds of schism, first in
right (55-56), then in fact (57-60). It follows that the opposing report
sition between Faith and schism must be included in the definition
essential of the schism (61). This conclusion is confirmed by the
fact that the situation of the schism with regard to the false conscience,
or "definition of situation ", founds, in the natural order, the definition
essential tion (62).
* A - HERESIA (see Cahiers de Cassiciacum N ° 2).
C - MODERNISM (will constitute N ° 6 of the Cahiers de Cassiciacum).
23
Matt. VII, 24. " Whoever hears the words that I say and puts them
in practice will be like a wise man who built his house on a rock. "
The one who puts the words into practice is the man of Faith: " Fides ex
auâitu, auditus autem per verbum Christi ” (Rom. X, 17).
-11-
14
1. IT IS APPROPRIATE,
TO EXAMINE WHAT IS SCHISM,
TO PLACE YOURSELF IN THE POINT OF VIEW OF FAITH.
We will give three reasons: They are taken respectively-
ment: of the goal we are pursuing (48); the respect that is due
to the doctrine which has been developed by Tradition (49); extra
that heresy brings to our inference by induction (50).
Before explaining what these reasons are, it is worth recalling
a doctrine which governs all this question, namely that
mutual relations, and even reciprocity, which exist between
Faith and Charity (47).
BELIEVE AND LOVE, CONCRETELY, INVOLVE MUTUALLY.
47. Charity supposes Faith, like the relationship which is proper
to love supposes the relation in which the truth consists.
Love aims in fact to end in a possession which
requires the presence of the beloved in the magnet, each one remaining
even while exercising the act of love. And as the presence consists
in a common actuation, it requires, if each is to remain
oneself, that each become the other without becoming another. Now this
condition is realized, in the created order, only by the mind and by
only him. Thus charity requires, as being the measure:
Faith in via, the vision in patria.
Reciprocally, Faith cannot be fixed in the Mystery, by
Adoration which completes its stability, that by being sustained by the
charity.
"
Let us clarify this point which is important. Faith, even theological,
do not stop being knowledge by testimony. It follows
that the act of Faith, which is in the intelligence, requires, simultaneous
ment, an act of the will 24 which fixes the mens in the attraction exerted
by God as He is the obvious supernatural Good. And it is in
suffering the spiration of the obvious Good that the mens adhere to God
24
S. Thomas. Contra Gentes III, 40, P 3: “In cognitione autem [iâei,
principalitatem habet voluntas. "
-12-
15
1 - SCHISM
Revealing itself. Now the lie can love God who is his good of two
different ways: either for God, and then it is the love of charity
which sustains the Faith; either for oneself, and the Faith is then said
" Formless" or " dead".
The true theological order, that of which God is the Principle,
as It is the Term and the Object, therefore requires that charity
itself sustains the Faith as it supposes it.
But it is quite remarkable that the dead Faith bears immanent
to itself, as a Faith foreign to the love of God, a privation
which is there like the vestige of lost charity. The act of Faith,
even dead, consists in fact in intelligibly tending towards
Reality from the article revealed. Now this act which, psychological-
ment, therefore consists in "tending towards ", cannot be completed and cannot
therefore subsist, that by reaching Reality in Itself, as
therefore that it is Mystery. This requirement is connected with
Faith, and even belongs to the dead Faith, which does not
to be intelligible communion with God revealing Himself. Now, precisely,
if the Faith formless nourishes the servile fear of God, and compelled to
believe in the Mystery as from the outside in the manner of demons 25 who
do not have the Faith, on the other hand it makes one experience, in relation to the in-
time of the Mystery, not an attraction but a repulsion. The fear of
hell, enlivened by dead Faith, prevents it from ending in
perceiving itself trans-fixed in Adoration. The act of faith
dead is therefore in a state of deprivation, in its completion with regard to
the fear of worshiping, as it is in its origin by the lack of
the charity.
This coherence, even in the viciousness, confirms the existence
of the connection that exists in law between Faith and charity. The
charity presupposes Faith; Faith cannot end as such, in
its own line which is that of intelligibility, that by virtue of
charity.
We can thus see why, the schism consisting of a
ture of unity, it is opposed, at the same time as to charity, to the Faith
which also generates unity. This is what we will examine
25
Demons don't have Faith. " They believe and they are in terror"
(credunt et contremiscunt, Jac. II, 19): that is to say, they believe in the Transcen-
dance and to the justice of God, by the evidence of signs, especially by their
own damnation.
-13-
16
(52-54), after indicating what are the reasons why,
in order to examine what the schism consists of, it is necessary to
place from the point of view of Faith.
THE FIRST REASON IS FOR THE GOAL WE PURSUE:
“ CREDIDI, PROPTER QUOD WCUTUS SUM” 26.
48. If we speak, it is because we believe. Our purpose
is to justify our resistance to the hierarchs who
are apparently responsible for the serious disorders by which
the Church is upset. Resisting them requires establishing that
their ordinations are deprived of significance.
Now we say that in justice for those we owe
to accuse, and to be sure of what we have to prove,
this proof must only state the external forum, that is to say the report
port that the hierarchs support with the acts that anyone
can observe. It is therefore in order to make this proof precise and
certain, that we limit its scope, and that
we aim to excuse as much as possible in the internal forum those
even that we have the imperative duty to accuse in the external forum.
However, on the other hand, the upheaval of the Church is ultimately
tive so that the exercise of the Faith is there, so to speak, asphyxiated.
The meaning of Scripture, the rites of the sacraments, catechesis deviates
in fact more and more from Tradition, and starting from the truth.
It is therefore from the point of view of Faith that we must place ourselves in order to situate
with exactitude the responsibility of the " authority ". And as it is
rightly that the charges of " schism s and " mod-
nism ”have been frequently uttered, our point is pre-
state, from the point of view of Faith, what is its scope.
We will show that, like heresy (39-41), schism and
modernism can be considered to be, in the order
theological, phenomena due to distorted consciousness. From this results
that the responsibility can be, in the internal forum, attenuated. And that
even requires all the more to determine which is objectively
26
II Cor. IV, 13.
17
1 - SCHISM
harmfulness, to denounce it more effectively, to conclude
finally, that the " pseudo-authority" which usually hatches and is effective
this harmfulness is not the Authority 5.
THE SECOND REASON FOR WHICH IT IS SUITABLE
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE FAITH
IN ORDER TO EXAMINE WHAT SCHISM CONSISTS OF,
IS RESPECT FOR TRADITION.
49. Because the classic definition of " schism", as an opposite vice
to charity, requires characterizing the " schism" in terms of
Faith.
a) Let us recall what this definition is.
“ The sin of schism consists in its own right in voluntary separation.
of the unity of the Church ... And as this unity comprises on the one hand
the connection of members to each other, on the other hand the ordination of members
bres au Chef, namely Christ in whose name the Sovereign Pontiff governs
the Church, those who refuse to be submitted to the Pope are called schismatics
and to be in communion with the members of the Church who are
submitted ” : 17.
Here, on the other hand, is an important clarification:
“ Heresy and schism are distinguished according to the things at-
which, respectively, they are opposed by themselves and directly (per se and
direct). Now heresy, by itself, is opposed to faith; schism, to the unity of
ecclesial charity. Hence, just as faith and charity are
different virtues although one cannot have charity without having faith,
thus schism and heresy are different vices, although any heretic
that is schismatic although not inversely ... However, in the same way
that losing charity leads to losing faith, no, so schism leads
to heresy. So Sr. Jerome adds: “ At the beginning, the schism can, in
part, to be conceived of as different from heresy; on the other hand, there is
has no schism which does not secret [confingat] a certain heresy, to the point
to present oneself as being alienated from the Church. " 28
27
S. Thomas, Summa theologica, Ha-Hœ, q. 39, a. 1.
28
S. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Ha-Hœ. q. 39, a. 1, 3m.

Could this " exclusion" from the Church not concern
than the government of the Church? The Could schism consist in
refusal to submit to disciplinary power? We do not think so ; since,
in the Church, the exercise of this power is always ordered to the application of
magisterial power or the power of sanctification.
-15 -
18
PAPERS CASSICIAC ~
b) These comparative definitions of schism and heresy are
clear, but they are descriptive. Also they leave sub-
sister two questions which, we will see, come back to the same thing.
On the one hand, in fact, the schism being characterized as being opposed
if at a certain unity, the nature of the schism cannot be known
that by reference to the unit in question, namely that of the
ecclesial charity. Now, if this unity is manifested in the
charity which is the fruit of it, it is founded only in Faith. Because the
ecclesial charity exists only among those who have received the same
Baptism; consequently, the unity of ecclesial charity depends on that of
Baptism, and it could not be produced by charity alone.
And the unity of Baptism only manifests and communicates the unity
of Faith: “ Una fides, unum baptisma ” 29.
Such is the order. " On-
mounting doctrinal differences in the unity of a rite ” 4,
it's
purer Paul VI, but it is in contradiction with St. Paul: there is
first the unity of Faith, and then that of Baptism is possible.
Without the unity of Faith, there is no unity of Baptism, no ecclesiastical charity.
sial; and the very notion of " schism", as it is customary -
clearly defined, is meaningless. It follows that the " schism",
although formally defined in terms of charity, refers
by nature and necessarily to the unity of Faith.
On the other hand, in accordance with the observation of S. Jerome, observe
vation resumed by S. Thomas and confirmed by experience, the
schism always secretes heresy. However, when a phenomenon deter-
mined always occurs, i.e. in all cases where it can be
observed, it must be concluded that it is due to the nature of the realities within
from which it is carried out. Since any schism, we can see it, gives
rise to heresy, it is thus established that by nature schism is the cause
next of heresy. And as her ~ ie is opposed to the principle
same on which is founded the unity of Faith, namely the Light
revealing, it follows once again that " schism" refers by nature
and necessarily to the unity of Faith.
Let us therefore conclude that the classical definition of " schism" as
vice opposed to charity, requires characterizing the " schism", and
even more so the " state-schism", that is to say the schism that lasts, in
29
Eph. IV, 5.
19
1 - SCHISM
function of Faith; this is what we will confirm by a three-
second reason.
THIS THIRD REASON CONSISTS OF THAT THERE IS
ANALOGY BETWEEN THE MORAL ORDER AND THE THEOLOGAL ORDER.
50. This analogy, effectively observed (35), requires consideration
derive the schism from the point of view of the Faith.
This, in fact, leads us to consider as possible a
such an analogy is the consideration of the distorted consciousness. And
which, from the point of view of distorted consciousness, concretely
analogy is, as we have seen (39), the case of heresy. It follows
that, in order to examine the schism as it relates to consciousness
distorted, and this in accordance with the analogy that we have just recalled
peel, it must be considered from the point of view that the scope
real analogy is assured. It is therefore the point of view that
heresy with regard to the distorted conscience; it is therefore the
point of view of Faith.
CONSIDERING SCHISM FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF FAITH
CONDUCT TO DISTINGUISH, FOR SCHISM, THREE DIFFERENT ASPECTS.
51. a) These three aspects are implicitly mentioned in the
texts that we have cited (49).
These are the following.
The "schism-scission D
is, in accordance with the etymology (schizô
= to tear, to divide), a rupture [of the unit]. This is the aspect
more obvious. He founds the phenomenology of schism; and he gives
instead of the descriptive definition, which S. Thomas systematized,
in accordance with the ramifications of unity.
The "schism-indifference D,
it is the schism as it is
a breach of ecclesial charity, which is uniquely the cause
next and the ultimate fruit of ecclesial unity.
The "schism-wandering D,
it is schism insofar as it includes
concretely, in the schismatic believer, a deprivation in relation to
port to the Faith, deprivation which makes it possible in law and inevitable in
degrades the schism into heresy.
-17-
20
b) The connection between the three aspects of the schism.
It is obvious that in the Church any rupture of unity
comes from a failure of charity and of truth. In other words,
the schism-scission comes from the schism-indifference and the schism-
wandering.
However, evil has no cause of its own. evil occurs in
because of a deficiency in the causes of the good of which it is the deprivation.
Now there are, a priori, two causes of unity: charity, truth. Of
this duality results that the considerations on the schism, either
as to the definition, or as to the relationship it maintains with
heresy, remain at the empirical stage. We will show below
(57-60) that this duality is only apparent, and that it is
objectively resolves in the essential definition of schism.
It is therefore appropriate at present to insist on the fact that, not only
not only charity, but also truth is the cause of unity.
And, indeed, Christ Himself refers to the unity which is the object
from His prayer, to the communication of the word and to Faith. " I pray
also for those who, thanks to their preaching, will believe in me, so
may all be one, as You Father You are in me and I in
You, so that they may be one in us. " 30.
Believe in the same Word
entails having the same way of being: having the same way
to be is to be " one ". Faith is therefore a generator of unity.
Would it be argued that if Faith involves a way of being, and not
only to think, it is not in so far as it is an intelligent adhesion
reading, but in so far as it springs, in the mens, to a depth
where love is also involved? It is true. But it's
even that which results from the "involution ) ~, and even from the reciprocal
quoted, which we observed above (47) between Faith and charity.
We have just seen that the schism must be referred to the Faith.
We will now examine how he opposes it.
30
John XVII, 20, 21.
-18 -
21
I - SCHISM
2. THE SITUATION OF "SCHISM"
IN RELATION TO FAITH.
THE CONCEPT OF " SCHISM-ERRANCE ",
52. The relationship that the schism maintains with the Faith concerns,
in both, the same deprivation, concerning the ecclesiastical aspect.
sial of the unit.
The schism being a viciousness of charity, the relationship that
support with Faith is doubly specified. On the one hand indeed,
this relationship is obviously subordinate to that which charity itself
even sustains with the Faith; on the other hand, the schism as it is
a viciousness can only be formally referred to that which, in
the exercise of Faith, is positis ponendis the same viciousness. This
viciousness is a lack of unity; and, more precisely, a deficiency
of the unity which is for the faithful, in the very act of theological exercise
gal, the seal of ecclesial membership. We recalled it with
S. Thomas: “ Heresy is opposed to Faith, schism to the unity of
ecclesial charity ”, which, therefore, corresponds to the schism
on the side of the Faith, it is a deprivation of unity as this
belongs to the Church.
In other words, and recapping what we have here-
above observed (47), charity requires Faith; unity, as it
arises in the Church from charity, requires the unity of Faith in
as long as the Church contributes in a proper way to found it. The
schism is opposed to the unity of ecclesial charity; it matches him
deprivation which may, with regard to the Church, be opposed to the unity of
Faith.
We are therefore led to recall what the
the Church's own contribution to the unity of the Faith.
THE UNITY OF FAITH REQUIRES, EX PARTE ECCLES / lE,
WHICH THE MAGISTRY OF THE CHURCH AFFIRMS OF HIMSELF
THAT HE IS DIVINLY ASSURE OF INFILLIBILITY.
53. The unity of Faith, like that of charity, comes from the fact that
the theological order has for Principle, Object and Term, God-
Trinity. It is God Himself who, through the free Communication of
- 19-
22
Its own Nature 18,
operates the unity which is proper to Faith and
charity, from the three points of view of efficiency, form and
purpose. But it is obviously not from this primordial point of view
that it is advisable to place oneself in order to discern, in whatever respect
or, a viciousness. The fault, if it occurs, can only be attributed to
the contribution made to the theological exercise by created causes.
To determine it with regard to the Faith, it is therefore necessary to
consider what must be, in the believer, the qualities
the exercise of this virtue is in law accompanied.
Now the theological Faith is a knowledge which rests on a
Testimony. And it stands out from all other knowledge
of the same kind by the certainty which is proper to it; certainty who
transcends even all those implied, in the natural order,
the evidence is either the most primitive or the most immediate. This
which, therefore, is, for the believer, the touchstone of the Faith
of which he has the grace, it is the quality of the certainty that is entitled
inherent in any act of Faith. The act of believing therefore requires the
rancid certain, certain according to this same quality of certainty which is
that of Faith, that the statement whose intelligible content specifies the act
of Faith expresses, admittedly not adequately ex parte Objecti, but
exactly ex parte subjecti, the Truth.
This " certificate of conformity" to the Truth must therefore satisfy
two conditions.
First, conformity to the Truth must be expressed under
the form of a testimony which is humanly intelligible, since
certification is integrated into the act of Faith which is a human act
of intelligence, an act whose very nature requires witness.
It follows that the Authority responsible for this certification,
must expressly notify all the faithful. The Authority must by
therefore take human responsibility in the Church for
this certification.
Second, conformity with the Truth must be affirmed with
a certainty which is the very same of the theological Faith. Now, if a
such certainty can only be founded on divine veracity,
it also presents the two modalities of which the unit integrates the
-20-
23
1 - SCHISM
very nature of certainty, namely inerrancy and firmness: that
this being intimate with the subject, that one concerning the relation of the subject to
the object.
Faith can only be one if it is, so to speak, the ark
in which all believers sail together on contingencies
of life, with a common and transcendent security, because
each one is intimately entwined in the same certainty, that of not being able to
see wandering.
But inerrancy, which certainty requires ex parte objectively , is not
assured, that if the Magisterium specifies, without possible wandering, what is
the meaning, and therefore what is the scope, of the statements revealed.
And the firmness, which certainty requires ex parte subjecti , is not guaranteed.
that if the believer perceives, in each of the acts of the Magisterium, the
very manifestation of Truth.
It follows that, from either point of view, the Authority
which is responsible for the certification of conformity to the Truth, must
be free from all wandering and be known as such "" known
as such ”, not only by arguments of reason, which
would disqualify the certainty of the Faith; " Known as such ", with
the certainty which is that of Faith, and which cannot be humanly
based only on this same Authority.
It is therefore the Authority which must assert itself as being
infallible, by performing its proper function,
to know how to certify the conformity of the articles revealed to the Truth.
CONFIRM, BY "REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM",
THIS SO IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE DOCTRINE
WHICH CONCERNS AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH.
54. Supposed that the Authority did not assert itself as
being infallible, this would result in two insurmountable difficulties.
The first is that of the "indefinite process ", If the Authority which
defines [Articles of Faith] was not asserted infallible, the assertion
tion of infallibility should be made by another Authority. From
then the same dilemma would arise for this second Authority as
for the first: or indeed it would not affirm itself-
- 21-
24
even infallible, and it would therefore refer to a third
Authority, and this to a fourth, etc., ... indefinitely; or
the second Authority would assert itself as infallible,
and this prerogative should then be attributed to the first Auto-
rity, because the contrary eventuality would give rise to the second difficulty.
Which is that, to transfer infallibility, from
the second Authority which we suppose would assert itself
infallible, to the first Authority which we suppose does not assert itself
itself infallible, to make this transfer therefore, we
should forge an inference whose certainty would be founded alone
lie on human reason, and not on divine veracity. The certificate
cation of infallibility would therefore ultimately rest on reason; by
continuation, it would not have the quality which is however absolutely
required so that it can be integrated, as it should, in the judge-
ment and the certainty of the theological Faith.
It can therefore be seen that the Authority, which is responsible for defining the articles
revealed keys must affirm of itself, explicitly and by commu-
humanly fucking, that she is divinely infallible, otherwise
says she enjoys the charisma referred to as infallibility.
This is required, as we have just shown, in view of the economy
of the theological faith. This is possible, we will come back to it (58), because
may the Church enjoy, in Christ, of whom she is the bride, the pre-
gative which is peculiar to him, namely to bear witness to oneself 31.
And we may note, by the way, that NEWMAN still Anglican
believed that the Roman Catholic Church gives the most sign
manifest of its divine origin by being the only one to affirm of it-
even that it is infallible 32.
We have also shown that c ~ he self-affirmation that
the Authority must make its own infallibility, is a condition
necessary for the unity of Faith to be achieved. As well,
the being and the one are convertible. Faith is “ one ”, quite simply
because it " is ", And, if it " is ", it is " one ", Observe that
31
John VIII, 14: " Although I bear witness to myself, my
testimony is true, because I know where I came from and where I am going ”,
32
An Essay on the development of Christian Doctrine Ch. 1, section 2:
An infallible developing authority to be expected.
- 22-
25
1 - SCHISM
the exercise of Faith be and must be the same for all believers,
in a way constitutes the phenomenology of unity, but brings
we have just seen it in the very nature of Faith. And if, in sight
to situate the schism in relation to the Faith, it is advisable to
from the point of view of unity, according to which, primordially, the schism
is specified, it is in reality the very substance of Faith that is found,
by schism, threatened.
It is in order to clarify it, that we designate as we
announced (51) by the expression “ schism-wandering ”. schism
as it is opposed to Faith and unity.
3. WHAT SENSE IS “ INVOLUTION”
BETWEEN THE TWO EVENTS
FROM THE SAME DEPRIVATION OF UNIT?
One concerns ecclesial charity, and constitutes the schism-
indifference; the other concerns the ecclesial foundation of the Faith, and
it is schism-wandering.
VOCABULARY DETAILS.
55. We say that two things are in " involution", when
each exercises a certain causality on the other; the causality of
first thing on the second, and that of the second on the first,
obviously being of a different nature.
We recall on the other hand the terminology which was above
(51) specified.
We call “ schism-indifference” or “ considered schism
from the point of view of charity ”, the schism understood in the usual sense:
" We call schismatic those who refuse to be submitted to the Pope
and to be in communion with the members of the Church who are
submitted ”(49).
We call " schism-wandering" or " schism considered at
point of view of the Faith ”. the fact of opposing, either actively by the
word or deed, either passively by simple preterition, to
what, in the Church, the Authority must affirm of itself that it
divinely enjoys the charisma of infallibility.
-23 -
26
THERE is A ({OBJECTIVELY "INVOLUTION,
BETWEEN THE SCHISM CONSIDERED AS TO CHARITY,
AND THE SCHISM CONSIDERED AS TO FAITH;
56. in other words, between schism-indifference and schism-
wandering.
We say “ objectively ”. to reserve a question on
which we will return to in Chapter II: that of knowing what
the nature of the sin committed by those who " objectively " fall
in the schism.
a) First part of the involution. The wandering schism leads to
schism-indifference.
By virtue of its very nature, wandering schism destroys unity
of Faith, since it removes its indispensable ecclesial foundation.
Opposing the unity of the Faith, the schism-wandering is opposed by the
even (49 b) to that of ecclesial charity; and that's it
that consists, according to St. Thomas (49 a), the essential schism.
b) Second part of the involution between the two kinds of
schism. Does the schism in charity result in the
schism in the Faith?
If we make this question explicit by replacing the defined by
most of the definition, it reads as follows. Not have,
towards Authority, a submission of communion, does it entail?
to oppose the Authority having to assert itself that it
is infallible?
- Answering this question requires clarification, which
comes down to specifying the usual definition of schism-indifference. Yes
in fact non-submission to the Authority concerns, in this one, the exercise
magisterial power, this non-submission is opposed by the fact
even to the self-assertion made by the Authority of its own infail-
libility; but then, this non-submission is not only a
schism, it is accompanied, in fact and objectively, by a heresy.
So if we hear that the question asked concerns the schism itself
even, and not heresy, it should be specified that the non-submission of
communion in which the schism-indifference consists, is accompanied
- 24-
27
l - SCHISM
However, a submission to the Authority as the latter
exercises magisterial power I.
The question, thus clarified, is therefore the following. Is it pos-
sible not to be subject to the Authority and not to be in
nion with the faithful who are subject to him, although we recognize
Authority as to the exercise of magisterial power, and as to the self-
assertion that it must make its own infallibility?
- This question is the same as that of the so-called faith ({dead ",
know: can faith subsist without charity? Likewise: the
faithful can he remain in intelligible communion with the Magisterium
exercised by Authority, without being in communion of ({ecclesiastical charity
siale ”with this same Authority?
The first question concerns the believer's relationship to God,
second the relationship of the faithful to the Church; but it is radically the
same difficulty, which therefore calls for positis ponendis, the
same resolution.
This resolution, here it is. It is not impossible that Faith
subsists without charity, on condition of course that there is no
of sin against the Faith. Likewise, it is not impossible that the
schism in charity, supposing it to be strictly schism and
not heresy, is not accompanied by schism as for the Faith.
This is not impossible, because God is Master of His gifts;
and that He can keep, even communicate, such through such subject
even ill-disposed who accepts to receive only this grace,
and not the graces which would normally have been its accompaniment.
- Does this non-impossibility of law correspond to a reality
effective station?
Regarding the believer's relationship to God, we must answer
affirmatively. The " Author of the Faith" can preserve and even
communicate the grace of Faith, without communicating charity if the
grace is refused. The believer does not enjoy, then, the " charity
ecclesial ”, but it does not weigh any act that would formally oppose it
to: Church Authority. The inclination he has for his own good
supernatural, playing in the grace of Faith, is enough for him to
this grace, thus adhering to all the articles revealed, especially
- 2S-
28
to the existence of the Magisterium affirming its own infallibility. The act of
believing is thus made possible, the believer's relationship to the Church
playing the role it should play, because it is carried out within the
port that the same believer maintains with the " Author of the Faith". And
experience confirms that the Faith frequently subsists a whole
life, in the latent expectation of a conversion that the imminence of
death finally demands to face.
With regard to the relationship of the faithful to the Church, we must answer
dre to the same question negatively. It is not impossible, according to
absolute divine Power, that the schism in charity does not
is not accompanied by schism as for the Faith. But in fact, the experience
rience founding and confirming the testimony of S. Jerome and
S. Thomas, schism-indifference always degenerates into heresy, and
therefore in schism-wandering a fortiori.
Why are the two relationships that the believer maintains respectively-
lie with the " Author of the Faith" and with the Church do they differ on this
point?
The following paragraphs are devoted to the examination of this
apparent anomaly.
4. THE CHARITY SCHISM
AND THE FAITH SCHISM
ARE PRACTICALLY CONVERTIBLE WITH EACH OTHER.
We have specified above (55), what is to be understood by
" Convertibility ",
SCHISM LEADS TO HERESY.
57. We cannot prove that it should be so (58), but
we can report it a posteriori.
The principle of the explanation is that God respects the
freedom that moreover He creates. God Himself cannot communicate
such grace, if this grace is expressly refused; it should,
so that He communicates it, that first He converts the one who must
the. to receive. It suffices to apply this principle in the case of the schism
as for charity, to understand how it is degraded,
-26 -
29
l - SCHISM
inevitably in fact, first in schism as regards the Faith,
then in heresy. In other words, it is the notion of "schism
as to the Faith ”. or "schism-wandering", which constitutes the medium
in both concrete and intelligible degradation of schism by heretic
sie. On the other hand, it is because the schism-indifference is deteriorating
until the heresy that it is in fact inseparable from the schism-wandering,
in other words, it is practically convertible with it. As to
notions, schism-wandering is foreign to schism-indifference;
but, as to reality, there is in the Faith the same deprivation of unity
than schism-indifference in charity. In order to show it,
the incoercible demand which, in fact, seeks the how, leads to
recall an important data.
58. The believer, if he is subject to Authority and in communion
intelligible with the Magisterium, in fact adheres to the self-affirmation that
the Magisterium makes its own infallibility, without, however,
explicitly an act of intelligence [and of Faith] whose object would be
this self-assertion.
It is in fact in Christ, and in Him alone, that the
intelligible communion of each believer with the Magisterium. Because
this communion is the result of the two relations that support
with Christ, the Magisterium on the one hand, the believer on the other.
The act by which the Magisterium affirms its own infallibility does not
may indeed be that the act of Christ of which the Magisterium is
trument. Because asserting yourself that you are what you should be,
it is to realize within oneself what precisely consists of
the truth; it is therefore to be the truth. “ Christ, [Alone on earth], can
witness to Himself and His testimony is true : 11, because He is
the Truth ” 7. If the Magisterium bears witness to itself, it is by virtue of
the " being with" promised by Christ 33, It is by being invested with Christ,
being with Christ the same act according to the being, that the Magisterium
bears about himself, as an instrument of Christ, a testimony
who entered into that of Christ. The self-witness of the Magisterium is
so to speak, the sensitive and institutionalized manifestation of witness
gnage which is immanent in the militant Church, as the Chief is
each of Its members.
33
Matt. XXVIII, 20.
-27-
30
Conversely, Christ carries in Himself, in His own
Self-Witness, self-witness of the Magisterium; He brings some
therefore, wherever He Himself is present, singular grace.
And as, according to St. Paul, Christ who is, uniquely "the Author
and the Consumer of Faith ” 34, lives as in each of Its members,
He bears the grace of self-witness in every believer who welcomes him.
The sign that there is welcome is, for this same grace, the condition of
the reception; and this sign is to be in communion with the Magis-
ter, in whom this reception is adequate, primordial, plenary.
The Magisterium, which participates in the Self-Witness of Christ, cannot
communicate their own self-testimony, because the participant is
say the Magisterium, cannot be the pseudo-principle of an imposition
sible " parallel participation". But conformity, or communion
intelligible with the Magisterium is, by virtue of the order established by the
Christ, the necessary and sufficient condition for the believer to have
in himself, as it suits him, the grace of Self-Witness
which is proper to Christ.
The believer has indeed this grace in the certainty of the Faith; and
he has it, more precisely, in the quality of firmness which is proper
to this certainty: the believer KNOWS that he is not mistaken, that he is
in the Truth. Entity in Christ, and in communion with the Magisterium
the believer, in the very act of believing , therefore has in himself the
Testimony which proceeds from Christ and which remains institutional-
in the self-affirmation of infallibility which is peculiar to the Magis-
ter. So that the believer in the act of believing actually adheres,
as it should be, to this self-affirmation; -vt that, by the spontaneous game-
tanned from its connaturality with Christ, whatever the case
of a formal exercise of the Faith concerning the Magisterium.
Thus the self-affirmation of infallibility which is peculiar to the Magis-
is obviously an object of Faith, and it must be the object of such and such
such act of Faith; but if this truth is immanent as it should
34
Heb. XII, 2.
35
Gal. II, 20.
- 28-
31
1 - SCHISM
in any act of Faith, it cannot be formally as an object
raw; and it is, really, through vital and intelligible communion that
Christ establishes between each of its members, and Himself the " Au-
and the Consumer of Faith ” 34, as“ He is with ” 33 the
Magisterium of the Church.
WE UNDERSTAND, FROM THERE, HOW THE SCHISM DEGRADES,
INEVITABLY IN FACT, IN HERESY.
59. a) The first phase is the passage from the schism to the
charity to the schism as to the Faith.
Of itself, that is to say with regard to the formal aspect of the different
considered, not to be submitted to the Pope according to this sort of
submission that ecclesial charity requires, does not necessarily entail
ment (56 b) of not being in intelligible communion with the Magis-
from the point of view of Faith. But in fact, in the concreteness of
theological life, it is not so. The intelligible communion
being founded, as we have just explained (58), in communion
of charity, the rupture of this one entails that in fact the first
is no longer insured.
Let us insist on this point. The believer, who is no longer or subject to
Pope nor in communion of ecclesial charity with the faithful submissive
to the Pope, is he one with Christ, in such a way that he participates vita-
to the Self-Testimony of infallibility without which he would be
impossible to perform an act of Faith?
Yes, it is not impossible, we repeat, that Christ
give this grace of Light, independently of charity
ecclesial whose grace is refused. But it is so to speak a
doubly gratuitous favor and, in fact, experience proves it, rare-
granted. The " ordinary" order is that the breakdown of charity
ecclesial suspends participation by connaturality in the Self-Witness
annoyance which is proper to Christ. So that the schismatic quant
to charity, although he may explicitly do acts of Faith in
self-affirmation of the Magisterium, and thus not already being a heretic,
is nevertheless affected, virtually because usually,
that is to say as to the habitus of Faith, of the privation in which
formally consists the schism with regard to the Faith.
~ 29 ~
32
In other words, the charity schismatic can
to keep the habit of Faith informed, and to receive the actual graces
of enlightenment required to perform acts of Faith in self-affirmation.
tion of infallibility which is proper to the Magisterium; but this schismati-
that is no longer vitally and usually at its disposal
affirmation, because it no longer has the gratuitous fruition in the Chef
who alone can communicate it. Therefore, the acts of Faith carried out by
the schismatic have in fact only by free substitution
granted act by act, and not by the spontaneous exercise of habitus
of formless Faith that remains linked, a component that is essential to them.
tielle in law, this component being, as we have recalled (52),
the presentation of the articles made by the Magisterium affirming moreover
of himself that he is divinely assured of infallibility.
It follows that the certainty of the Faith, even if it remains
still materially intact as to inerrancy, is shaken
as to firmness. And this viciousness creeps in, because of the unity
exercise which is inherent in living psychology, even in
acts of Faith in the self-affirmation of the Magisterium. This one, well
that it is not denied, gradually fades into the visual field
of the schismatic still believing. This believer, in fact and at least
objectively if not consciously, no longer usually adheres (for
habitus of Faith) to the self-affirmation that the Magisterium must make
its own infallibility; that is to say that by simple preterition, objec-
tively albeit not consciously, virtually and not actual-
Finally, he is in a state of schism against the Faith.
Thus, the schism-indifference that lasts normally evolves into
schism-wandering, because of the character, \! tal which is inherent in the
communication of which the schism against the Faith is precisely
if we.
b) The second phase of the degradation of the "schism as to the
charity ”into heresy, is the passage from“ schism as to the Faith ” to
heresy.
The schism in the Faith, if it is conscious and deliberate, 'entails
heresy for two reasons. On the one hand it consists in rejecting an article
of determined faith, namely self-affirmation of infallibility. Else
-30-
33
1 - SCHISM
part, and as a consequence, it makes it impossible to perform any act of
Faith whatever.
The second phase of the process we are analyzing is equivalent to
therefore to the awareness, and the ratification that its
own condition the believer who, at the end of the first phase, finds himself
objectively, but by simple preterition and virtually alone-
ment, in the state of schism against the Faith.
But this awareness, accompanied by relevance, stems from
general norms concerning the disappearance of habitus. The
believer who, without yet denying the self-affirmation of infallibility which
is specific to the Magisterium, practically no longer adheres to this article
that implicitly and per modum actus , practically equally
ment, unable to perform a true act of Faith. he can
still pose the act of intelligence which is the support of the act of Faith;
and he can even receive actual graces to do so. But,
in reality, such an act does not proceed from the habitus of Faith, not even
informed; and this habit, not exercised, disappears at the moment when the self-
affirmation of infallibility, fallen into oblivion and practically
ousted, is explicitly denied, whereas it should have, in such circumstances
determined constancies, to be explicitly affirmed.
c) This description, of a psychological nature, can be schematically
cally summarized as follows.
Schism-indifference is a deprivation of unity which concerns
formally ecclesial charity; and this deprivation extends, in
virtue of the synergy which is inherent in the theological order, in the acquies-
habitual cement that the believer, in order to believe, must nourish intimately
of itself, concerning the self-affirmation of infallibility which is
proper to the Magisterium of the Church. The schism in charity
therefore implies, inevitably by reverse synergy between the Faith
and charity, the state in which the schism in regard to Faith,
less objectively and irrelevant.
However, the wandering schism, even if it consists of a simple
preterition, radically alters the exercise of the Faith, and in particular
the firmness of theological certainty. So that, in this state, the
believer no longer implements the habitus of Faith, although he may
still take action by enlightenment and by the impulse of
-31-
34
current graces. But, on the one hand, these graces are generally sus-
hanged, because of the rupture which separates the schismatic from the
ecclesial communion; and, on the other hand, the schism in the Faith,
if it lasts, is in fact accompanied by an awareness that provokes
inevitably arise from the confrontations of life, and which
form into heresy.
THE CONVERTIBILITY THAT EXISTS " PRACTICALLY"
BETWEEN SCHISM AS REGARDS CHARITY AND SCHISM AS REGARDS FAITH
IS DEFINITIVE SHOWN
BY THE FACT THAT SCHISM LEADS TO HERESY.
60. In other words, the exact scope of the assertion
loped in this fourth section is clarified by the argument that
we have just developed (59).
The crucial moment of this argument is indeed the sequence
of the two phases, i.e. the fact that a second phase follows
inevitably at the first; or, equivalently, the moment
crucial is that the schism-wandering, by simple preterition
of the self-affirmation that the Magisterium must make of its own infail-
libility, becomes conscious and deliberate schism-wandering.
If the schismatic who was still a believer continued to receive
present graces which supplement the firmness of his own Faith in
self-affirmation of the Magisterium, it would actually remain in the state
of schism-indifference, and this state would imply only virtually
that of schism-wandering.
But, in reality, it is not so. The divine government does
do not include in a lasting way those graces of substitution which
hold in suspense, for the schism-wandering, the passage of the " virtual"
to the " current " The sign is precisely that leads to schism
heresy, and that consequently the virtual schism-wandering ends
if we can say in deliberate schism-wandering, which is convertible
with heresy itself, as we have observed above "
(59 b}. It is therefore the observed degradation of the schism in hereditary
sie, which manifests and proves the convertibility which exists in practice
-32 -
35
1 - THE SCHISM
ment between the two forms of schism, one concerning the Faith, the other
as to charity; one indifference to Love, the other wandering
contrary to the Truth.
This, moreover, is the reason why this distinction between
two forms of schism may at first glance seem futile.
On the one hand, in fact, this distinction, as such, does not
we have just seen, of consistency, that by virtue of the relation that exists
concretely between schism and heresy; therefore it seems that
these two data are sufficient to account for the reality
ity.
On the other hand, the schism in the Faith is difficult to observe.
vable, since the deliberate form is in fact heresy, while
its virtual form is unstable. Is it appropriate, therefore, to retain
a notion which seems not to answer to the observation? And so alone
the schism in charity really exists, just call it
quite simply schism, as we have always done.
We will observe in Chapter II that these difficulties are the only
clearly visible.
The notion of " schism-wandering" has a real scope, since it
allows to locate with exactness what is the behavior of the ac-
the " authority" of the Church. So this is the current situation
which manifests the lacuna with which the definition is mortgaged
classic schism.
If this definition, in practice, was sufficient, it is because the
" Common consensus " has always implied, more or less cons-
cially according to the people, a clause which states, precisely,
schism in the Faith; clause that the "new church" would like
abolish, when it must be proclaimed as the cornerstone
of the Church wife of Christ "who is the Truth" 7.
We therefore retain the notion of schism with regard to the Faith, or of
schism-wandering; and we will integrate it into the definition of schism.
-33-
36
5. THE ESSENTIAL DEFINITION OF SCHISM.
THE ESSENTIAL DEFINITION CONSIDERED IN ITSELF.
61. a) We say that this definition is essential, because
that it consists in coordinating the two meanings with each other
schism; which, in practice, are convertible between themselves,
we have shown it (57-60).
Schism has no essence, nor does evil in general. he
has two " proper " characters , and like the {(proper "
arise from the essence, thus, taken together, the two pro-
close to the schism constitute its " essential definition ",
This definition, which manifests what the instinct of Faith has always
days included, here it is.
“ The schism consists in not being subject to the Pope, and in not being
not in communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him,
and to be thus deprived of the infallibility of self-assertion without
which the act of Faith is impossible ”.
These two characteristics peculiar to the schism, namely the lack of
submission and deprivation of self-affirmation, being practically
convertible between them (60), it suffices, for there to be a schism in the
less objectively, whether one or the other of these two characters
is actually achieved.
b) The essential definition of schism, [or usual definition
completed and thus made adequate], has three characteristics.
\
1) It adequately specifies, and not only partially,

why schism is an evil, how it is a viciousness which
concerns not only charity, but also the exercise of
Theological faith.
2) It expressly assumes that the Pope and the bishops who
. are in communion with him, that is to say the highest Authority of
the Church affirms of herself that she is infallible. This is the prin-
what matters, and it is this principle that we consider; we
-34-
37
1 - SCHISM
do not have, here, to state the different modalities of infail-
libility: ordinary power, extraordinary power.
3) It is objectively convertible with the ({ definition of
situation ” (8) , the waiting stone of which has been laid above (46).
The schism is in fact, according to this definition, to subvert the
subordinate fundamental norm, that is, the manner according to
which the Church presents as such the revealed articles. Now, if we
specifies what this subversion consists of, namely to oppose
in any way to the self-assertion of infallibility that
is inherent in Authority, on the one hand we end up in our own
line the definition of situation, and on the other hand we find objective-
lies the essential definition which links the organically-schism indif-
ference and schism-wandering.
Thus, the two definitions of schism, one essential, the other
situation, must be objectively convertible between them,
in view of the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church which is the
Mystical Body of Christ, Authority must affirm of itself
that she is divinely assured of her own infallibility. The challenge
essential nition of the schism concretely designates the entities that
the definition of a situation according to the human act and
the distorted consciousness.
It is therefore necessary to specify how the duality of the defini-
tions comes down to unity.
THE ESSENTIAL DEFINITION OF SCHISM IS BASED ON
IN THE NATURAL ORDER, THE DEFINITION OF SITUATION.
62. We can indeed express as follows the relationship that exists
between the two definitions.
The definition of situation refers to the fundamental norm
subordinate (46); which consists, in the theological order, in this
that the Articles of Faith are to be presented as divine-
mentally revealed. However, this standard, by nature, links two entities:
on the one hand what norms, on the other hand what is normed. Having regard to what
is standardized, the norm must be notified to the faithful: they must
therefore be subject to the Pope and in communion with the faithful who
-35 -
38
are submitted. Having regard to what standard, the standard must be founded, and
it can only be done in Authority; it must therefore affirm
of itself that it is divinely assured of its own infallibility.
To oppose these two aspects of the norm constitutes, respectively
schism-indifference and schism-wandering, the whole of which is
precisely signified by the essential definition.
We have just established that the two definitions of schism, one
referring to the metaphysics of moral order, the other to the whole
of the theological order, are objectively convertible to each other;
and the medium which shows this convertibility is the notion of
"Schism as to the Faith", or "schism-wandering".
We have already observed, in connection with heresy, that the act
considered from the moral point of view, and the act of the theological Faith
mange correspond by analogy (39). Let this analogy have a
real range, has been confirmed by the fact that the first degree
of the distorted conscience makes it possible to specify how heresy is
subjectively a viciousness (41).
Similarly, the second degree of distorted consciousness induces,
by analogy, to define the schism as opposing, in the order
theological, to the subordinate fundamental norm. This is what we
we have just shown by taking an objective point of view , that
which consists in considering the nature of the schism. It is now suitable
not to examine, using the same analogy, and for as much in
by confirming the scope, how the schism is subjectively,
that is to say in the schismatic, a viciousness.
We will consider in succession to; 1 as "subjects" of
schism, in the following three chapters: physical persons
what are the baptized (chapter II), legal persons who are
vested with "authority" (chapter III), the natural person and
moral of Cardinal K. WOJTYLA and the natural persons who
try to be in communion with him (chapter IV).
- 36-
39
CHAPTER II
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHISM
OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED
AND THE BAPTIZED
IN QQI IT CAN BE REALIZED.
We first observe that, far from being abstract, the questions
that this relationship poses between the two incidences of the schism, one
objective the other subjective, arise from observation. The scope
is therefore very concrete. However, what we observe is first of all that
the schism can last. We will thus be led to show that
the existence of the schism-state confirms the essential definition of
schism. This one is " wandering ", and not just " indifference"
(63-65). What, secondly, one experiences is that it takes
proceed with caution regarding the return of the schismatics.
And this will lead us to show that such a baptized person can
be " objectively" in a state of schism, although this state may
not to have in it the reason for sin: at least from the point of view of
Faith (66-70), although not to that of charity (71-73). We
We will again concIlve that the unit on which the definition is based
essential to the schism (61), is corroborated (74).
In other words, the state-schism can be considered, either
theoretically, objectively as to the nature of the
schism, either from the practical point of view, subjectively as to the
psychology of the schismatic. The two resulting questions have
the same principle of resolution, namely the essential definition of
schism. This definition is thus doubly confirmed.
-37-
40
1. THE PERMANENCE OF SCHISM.
THE FACT. THE EXPLANATION.
OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED THE “SCHISM-STATE”.
That the schism can last is a fact that has been observed.
This permanence of the schism gives it in a way a
objective existence, which relatively dominates the succession
contingent of subjects in whom the schism is realized. The observed fact
permanence therefore founds what we designate in a way
more "formal" by the locution: "schism-state objectively considered
derailed ”; “State-schism” since the same schism, the same specific
cally and numerically, lasts over time; "objectively
considered ”, since we consider the characteristics that are common
to the different subjects who make up the same schismatic group.
How can the “ same” schism last? This is what he
should explain. It simply comes down to accounting for the
observed reality. We will show (63) that the permanence of the schism
can only be explained in terms of the schism-wandering; and then,
that the permanence of the schism-wandering only parasitizes (65)
the permanence of the theological Faith to which it is subordinate.
The existence of schism-wandering, and consequently the definition
essential to the schism, are confirmed.
THE PERMANENCE OF SCHISM,
OR " OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED SCHISM-STATE ",
CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED BASED ON THE SCHISM-ERRANCE.
63. The permanence of a thing is in fact the identity it
supports with itself, in view of the virtual differentiation which
could affect the succession of time. The permanence of the schism
objectively considered therefore requires referring the schism to the
temporality.
However, schism-wandering and it alone can support a relationship with
the passage of time. Because a relationship can only be real if
the extremes are similar. And like the succession of time
is one and subsists only by the spirit, it cannot really be
in connection with the schism only if it is considered to the point of
view of intelligence; it can therefore only be a question of the " schism
wandering ",
- 38-
41
II - SCHISM AND BAPTISED
This reason is confirmed a contrario. Because the schism-
indifference, which is voluntary, concerns exclusively
the present. "To be subject to the Pope", or "not to be subject to the
Pope ”have no meaning with regard to a Pope whose reign is over.
Our question is thus circumscribed. The " state of schism",
which can be the lasting consequence of a single act, personal or
collective, concerns the “schism-wandering ”, And like this one, radica-
is contrary to the Faith, we cannot understand the relation
with the temporality that according to the same relation concerning the
Faith itself. We will therefore recall how Faith achieves
unity, in the flow of human life.
FAITH REMAINS UNCHANGED,
WHATEVER THE PHASES OF TEMPORALITY ARE.
64. a) “ Una fides” 29.
Unity of Faith dominates all space-
time. It not only takes place every moment between all
believers, but also among all believers of all times,
those on earth who preceded, or knew, or followed, Christ (1 Author
and Consumer of Faith ” 34. We believe in Christ, in the same
in
Faith that Abraham; until the end of time, the faithful will believe
Assumption of the Faith that have even exercised, the ter November 1950
those who witnessed the promulgation. This unity of Faith
in particular requires the following.
The relationship that, in the Church, support with such and such a Declaration
which it is supposed to be infallibly promulgated, all
natural and legal persons who make up the Church, this report
always remains unchanged. Formed in the very act of the promulga-
tion, he is forever what he is when he is divinely
instituted. The content of the Declaration is immutable, whatever
or the explanations which are subsequently given. The Authority
is also immutable, regardless of the natural persons
who successively assume responsibility. Believers are,
as such, always the same, by virtue of the same Light of Faith
freely communicated.
The generations follow one another; the Church, even a militant, participates
the duration without succession which is Eternity. The infallible exercise of
Supreme Magisterium [Pope and Council united together], that the
-39 -
42
in either ordinary or extraordinary, the consensus of the faithful who
is spontaneously granted, the reports that all support at the same time
among themselves and with revealed truth, are, in the Church whose Head
is the Truth, endowed with perenniality.
b) This fact being recalled, it is advisable to highlight it
originality.
ba) Is the immutability of the revealed statements only a case
particular?
Many other proposals are in fact commonly considered
derived as retaining the same meaning, from generation to
generation. We do not intend to examine this question. Just
observe that the presumed stability is justified because it is
find, directly or indirectly, referred to realities of which we
it is commonly believed that they themselves remain unchanged. These
realities, these are the " natures ",
Such a proposition which is commonly held to be obvious
now, and which was commonly taken for granted
two thousand years ago, such a proposition is legitimately considered
as having retained the same meaning and scope.
The evidence being indeed, in the fields of knowledge where it is
possible, the proper measure of human intelligence, the stability of
this as nature founds the semantic stability of propositions
which are commonly taken for granted.
On the other hand, all the expressions which signify an experience
immediate, either sensitive or metaphysical, are supposed to have the
same stability as the realities " of natUJ: ~" they are
the intelligible designation.
bb) The immutability of the articles revealed is irreducible to that
any other statement.
Faith is indeed a knowledge by witness, of which the Object
is Mystery.
The act of Faith therefore contains neither evidence nor experience which
it would be antecedent. Far from founding the semantic stability of
-40-
43
statements of Faith, the mystical experience presupposes it, and it is
communicable only because, above all, the statements of Faith
are.
The unity of the Faith is therefore not founded in the assent of
believers, how the stability of language in terms
fundamentals is based on that of human nature. Unity
of Faith comes from above, like Faith itself. The foundation in
transcends, in every believer, the experience that he can
make. It is by virtue of "the Spirit of Truth" 36
let it extend
from the start to all temporality. The immutability of revealed statements
is therefore not a particular case comparable to that of certain
privileged proposals in the natural field of intelligibility.
be) The transtemporal unity of Faith, or what amounts to the same
the immutability of the revealed statements is experienced by each believer,
as long as he opens himself to the grace communicated to him.
The analogy with the natural order, which we have just refused for
found the transtemporal unity of Faith, does not fail to have a
real significance, if we consider, concretely in such and such believer,
how the grace of unity is received. The progress of Faith is, in
every believer, qualitative type. It therefore concerns
unite all the qualities of the Faith, and even the perception which,
normally it is made by the believer. It is measured, primordial-
ment, by the grace that is communicated; and, in the believer, by
two provisions which correspond respectively to the "formal object
mel ”and to the “ material object ”of Faith. We believe all the better
that we open more humbly to the revealing Light and that we scrutinize
more carefully the statements revealed. This is the reason for
which the mystical experience, if it is authentic, does not find
expression better than the statements revealed; it consists of
discover the scope, “ in the Spirit of Truth” 36.
36 John XVI, 13. “ When the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth comes,
he will guide you into all the truth. ” -
" Guidera" translates " hodéguêsei ". of
" Hodos " which means " path ", It is the Spirit of Truth Himself who does it
Living path, and which thus makes one penetrate in all the Truth. That is to say, He
renewed, because He is Return by being " him" (Gal. IV, 6), in the Person
from which he proceeds at the same time as from the Father, namely the Word who is
Truth.
- 41-
44
However, we observe that these two provisions, opening to the Light,
assimilation of the statements, transpose, in the supernatural order, the
perception of evidence and the objective reference which, in order
natural, are the basis of stability, or in other words transtemporal unity,
language.
It follows that these data of a natural nature may be entitled
and are in fact assumed to ensure, in the Church, the trans-
temporal of Faith. They intervene as an instrument, also
well for the Magisterium that for each believer, under the motion
of the Holy Spirit who “guides [the Church] into all Truth ” 36.
c) We thus see that the transtemporal unity of Faith derives
in fact of two different principles: one is primordial and supernatural
turel, and it is the Light of Faith, free of charge and also
communicated to all believers of all times; the other is subordinate
given, and it consists of the semantic stability of the terms which
refer either to the permanent nature of the realities they signify, or
to the nature of the mind by the obviousness they imply.
SCHISM-ERRANCE IS OF ITSELF A STATE,
IN ANY “SUBJECT}) WHICH IS AFFECTED.
65. There is no transtemporal unity of schism-wandering, which
would be comparable to that of Faith: evil, or error, has no
of own cause. But there is a permanence of the schism-wandering, which,
observed in fact, is explained as follows.
a) The causal complex which is at the origin of the schism-wandering
has three components, namely:
The ({ Light of Faith, "communicated at least per modum
news; since we are considering "subjects " in whom the schism-
wandering has not [yet] degraded into heresy.
The {( normal propositions ", We designate, by this locu-
tion, the propositions which are part of the revealed given, and to which
your schismatic " subjects" continue to adhere. So, for example,
for the schismatic "orthodox " , the dogmatic statements which
-42 -
45
concern the Incarnation are " normal propositions ",
The
" Normal propositions" refer to the exercise of the Faith. for the
schismatic as for the authentic believer.
The " irregular propositions ", These are the propositions which
oppose in any way whatsoever the " regular proposals
lières ”, And the “ regular proposals ”are those which are
of the given revealed and which are not " normal propositions";
that is to say that they are not admitted by the schismatic " subject"
that we consider. Thus, in our example, the definition of
ecclesial infallibility as understood by the Roman Catholic Church
is a " regular proposition" which is not a "proposition
normal ”, The definition of ecclesial infallibility as understood
the Orthodox Church, is an "irregular proposition", that is to say
that it is neither regular nor normal. Irregular proposals
specify whether we can say the irregularity of the schismatic belief
compared to true Faith.
b) “Schism-wandering” is in itself a state.
The causal complex which is at the origin of the schism-wandering com-
carries in fact, as we have just observed (a), three components.
But each of them is permanent. Because the "proposals
normal ”are preserved in the“ Light of Faith ”, even
for the schismatic, although less perfectly than for the authentic
tick believer. As for "irregular proposals", they are
humanly transmitted, within the group where they were forged,
in accordance with the timeless character of intelligibility. Here at
In this regard, two complementary and converging observations.
On the one hand, the semantic stability of irregular propositions
is not, metaphysically, of the same nature as that of the
regular situations which are contrary to them. There is, it is true, to the point
of superficial psychological experience which can be
made of this stability, a similarity between the two kinds of pro-
positions, either regular or irregular; but the foundation of
this stability is only natural for the seconds,
while it is supernatural, and it is perceived by the instinct of
Faith, for the former. If then there is, as experience
confirms, a semantic permanence of the schism-wandering, this
- 43-
46
permanence has an ongme which comes at least partially
the natural order; this excludes that there is, for the schism, a unity
transtemporal, in the transcendent sense which makes it a specific
of the theological faith.
On the other hand, what matters from the point of view of the Faith is
formally that the schismatic does not adhere to such and such a proposition
regular. The irregular proposition to which the schisma-
tick may or may not undergo semantic variations in the order
natural; as long as the regular proposition, which is excluded by one
either of the irregular propositions remains the same, the schism
remains radically the same. In other words, the permanence of
schism is taken from the supernatural data of which it is the deprivation,
and not data of a natural nature which can mask this privacy.
tion.
The schism therefore has no unity of its own; it has, however, concretely
tement, a permanence which has for its framework the transtemporal unity
faith.
c) We can therefore see that the permanence of the schism is perfectly explained
based on the schism-wandering, while it cannot be explained
not formally in terms of schism-indifference. And as the
"Schism-state" is unfortunately observed, it
It follows that the existence of the schism-wandering, as being immanent
the schism, and therefore the essential definition of schism is
find confirmed.
2. THE SCHISM-STATE,
AS IT IMPLIES AN "OBJECTIVE" ASPECT
AND A “ SUBJECTIVE” ASPECT ,
ASK A QUESTION THAT IS MADE MANIFEST
BY PASTORAL EXPERIENCE.
The " objective-subjective" distinction corresponds, for the schism,
to that which we have already recalled for heresy 19. Such an orthodox,
educated in his religion and ignorant even of the existence of the Church
Roman Catholic, is " objectively " schismatic , or materia-
liter. In fact, he can ignore it; it is not schismatic " subjective-
-44-
47
ment ”, or formalize. The relationship that the
objective schism and subjective schism pose a question of as much
more serious as the schism lasts longer. The question therefore arises
typically for schism-state; and it remains a question,
because the answer that should be given to it is not imposed
necessarily. This is what we will recall in this section.
We will then draw the consequences, as regards, for
the schism as such, the relationship between the objective aspect and the
subjective, and consequently the essential definition.
So here is the question; and, one might say, the state of question.
66. Is it appropriate to induce a move towards the Catholic Church
a schismatic "in good faith" who usually strives to
conform his conduct to his convictions?
The affirmative answer seems to be necessary. Experience proves
however, there are cases in which the question remains.
Indeed, it is very unlikely that the subject, psychologically fixed
and even "pointed ", can discern his error, and if observations
repeated statements could not trigger in him a spontaneous movement of
curiosity towards the Truth, is it not appropriate to no longer insist, and
do nothing but pray?
However, the simple fact that this question can arise requires that a
any affirmative answer is justified. Supposed indeed
that the schismatic is in danger as to the Faith, then it is impossible
sible in law, it is not possible under any circumstances and for whatever reason
whatever, to deliberately leave it in this state. So if the question
tion arises seriously as to whether we should leave it there, we must
clue that the schismatic is not inevitably in a state which
be a danger to the Faith.
How to explain it? Simply by stating this in
what the schism properly consists of , taking into account
quent of the fact that the viciousness of the schism extends to the Faith, and
not just charity.
The schism results objectively, from the point of view of the Faith,
to be deprived, ex parte Ecclesiœ, of the self-affirmation of infallibility.
The schismatic, in the sense of the essential definition (61), is subjecti-
-45-
48
tively in a state of sin against the Faith, if aware of this deprivation,
he wants it. While he may not be in a state of sin against the Faith,
without however having adequately the Faith, if he is not
aware of this deprivation, and if therefore he does not want it.
Let us examine only the second part of the alternative, since the
first does not present any difficulty.
3. THE BAPTIZE WHO IS NEITHER SUBMITTED TO THE POPE,
NOR IN COMMUNION WITH THE FAITHFUL
WHO ARE SUBMITTED TO THE POPE,
MAY NOT BE FISHING
AGAINST FAITH.
In other words, a baptized person presumed to be schismatic can last
in this state without [never] falling "subjectively" into the
" Schism as to faith", or "schism-wandering" (54).
This seems to be the case with most of the " Orthodox", who practice
only ignore the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning
nant the Magisterium and infallibility.
LET'S EXPLAIN THE FACT,
BASED ON THE ESSENTIAL DEFINITION OF SCHISM.
67. The Orthodox faithful, on the whole, are no more
warned that the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church; they believe,
"By following", by being psychologically entangled in the faith as
that it is commonly exercised in their church. This moreover is
also true for other religious groups; but there is other
part, in this case which is typically that, of the schism, this parti-
culier. The Orthodox faithful believe that they really enjoy,
within their church, self-affirmation of infallibility as it is
required for the exercise of the theological faith.
To understand it well, it is necessary to state a distinction
familiar. Nature is not function; for the same thing,
one belongs to exteriority, the other to interiority. Two things that
differ in nature may have the same function in
sets which, respectively, integrate them. In this case, it is
very precisely what is happening.
-46-
49
On the one hand, the notion of infallibility is not the same in
the Roman Catholic Church and in the Orthodox Church. For the
second infallibility is immanent and diffuse throughout the body
ecclesial; while, for the first, infallibility involves
expressly manifested in precise formulations elaborated
under the responsibility of the Authority. It follows that in the Church
Roman Catholic self-assertion of infallibility is in law
explicit, in intelligible order; in other words, the Authority, which is
infallible, must assert of itself that it is infallible. While,
in the Orthodox Church, the self-affirmation of infallibility resolves into
that of life; the way it is while living that the living becomes
firm as such.
On the other hand, the faithful who performs the act of believing esteem,
right from the psychological point of view, that the article to which he adheres,
is offered to him in an infallible manner by the church to which he
belongs, as being revealed. The believer leans, to exercise the
faith in the church's self-assertion of its own infallibility.
This is true for the Orthodox, as it is for the Catholic.
Thus, if we compare the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
dox, the notion of infallibility is not the same; but the role played
with regard to the act of faith by the self-affirmation of infallibility, is there
the same 37.
If therefore we refer to the definition of " schism as to the Faith",
or schism-wandering, we must conclude that the Orthodox faithful, whose
we suppose that it fulfills the previous conditions, is not found
psychologically, within the scope of this definition. He is by
therefore possible that the Orthodox faithful is not in a state of
sin against the Faith, at least because it is neither subject to
Pope nor in communion with the faithful who are subject to him.
37
Let us denounce, in passing, one of the multiple implications of
harmful confusion between the "objective" and the "subjective ". between the objective aspect
which concerns the notion of infallibility, and the subjective aspect which concerns the role
played by the assertion of infallibility. That Catholic doctrine and doctrine
orthodox are the same as for the " role", does not imply that they
be so as to the " notion ", Admit that they are so as to the "notion" ',
this is to fall into the confusion analyzed above (5, 6), and it is to promote
false ecumenism.
-47-
50
In other words, schism-indifference, that is to say as to
charity, is not necessarily accompanied by what consists
the schism as regards the Faith, or schism-wandering. This is why the challenge
essential nition (61) resolves the apparent contradiction
which arises, between pastoral experience and the norms of
moral.
NOW SPECIFY THE " HOW"
WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE OBSERVED FACT.
68. " How" can it be that " not to be subject to the Pope"
does not necessarily result in being in a state of sin against the Faith?
In short, "how" such baptized person who is objectively schisma-
tick not subjectively? The answer is easy, in
the perspective of this chapter II which is that of the " false consciousness
sée ”.
a) Let us first express ourselves according to the same example
concrete. If the " orthodox" can legitimately believe that he finds
in his own church the self-affirmation of infallibility he needs
to believe, the reason is that infallibility is a notion
which functionally meets these conditions. But this notion is
wrong. And it is the error on the notion, which allows to save some
function. Note that we find here the antinomy as to the
degree, which is specific to the distorted consciousness ( 22bb) : the function is
the more assured the more the notion is distorted.
In abstract terms, which add to the generality,
say that the subordinate fundamental norm, that is to say the pre-
sentation of the revealed articles made by the Church in a self-infallible act
bility, this norm can in fact be conceived by the schismatic of a
erroneously, and thus be functionally preserved for him.
Schismatic takes an action in which, psychologically, is
find the two basic components correctly coordinated
of the act of true Faith: the revealed article which specifies the
judgment of credit, the presentation by the Church which specifies the
judgment of credibility (35). The act is therefore (22 ab) formally good,
since the two judgments are " one", but it is a bad objecti-
tively by the end, since the infallibility it is designed as
appears to be and not as it should be in Truth.
-48-
51
II - SCHISM AND BAPTIS ~ S
b) We underline “ objectively ”. because we are talking about
schism, not heresy. Let us make this point clear.
The "orthodox" who, educated and enclosed in his church, conceives
infallibility in a mistaken way, objectively mistaken . We
have, in the foregoing, assumed that it is in fact impossible to
practicality of realizing it; under these conditions, it is
only schismatic. If, on the contrary, the " orthodox" discovers
Catholic doctrine, and if after reflection it retains the conception
orthodox, his behavior is therefore not only
schism but also heresy. Self-witness of infallibility
can no longer be reduced to an existentially lived datum, whose
content remains diffuse; it is, even psychologically for the
faithful who became aware of it, an object of faith, that is to say an article
which is objectively presented by the Church as to be believed,
just like all other articles. It is one of the norms
my specials (35), under the immediate influence of the founding nun
main mentality, it is no longer only integrated into the fundamental
mental subordinate.
We see therefore that, in the psychology of the possible believer, the
schism borders on heresy from which it is however formally distinguished.
It only distinguishes it psychologically as the implicit
explicit, with regard to the moreover distorted apprehension of
self-assertion of infallibility. The notion of " schism-wandering ") puts
therefore clearly in evidence, we observe it again, in which
schism is distinguished from heresy. This makes it possible to respond, on the
very plane of praxis, to the question (66) of which we are
left from this same point of view, and which is related to the one we will
now consider.
This question follows logically from the answer that
we just did the previous one. If it is indeed possible that
the " schismatic" is not in a state of sin against the Faith,
does it not follow that he can have the Faith? So, on this point
at least, on par with the faithful who belong to the Catholic Church
Roman?
-49-
52
DOES THE "SCHISMATIC" HAVE FAITH ?
69. a) How to ask the question.
Note that this question can only be asked in the concrete,
that is to say, it can only be done for such and such a schismatic. Because,
for the schism considered as such, we have already indicated (60)
the principle of resolution.
The schism in fact results in being deprived of
affirmation of infallibility which providentially is inherent in
the Church. Now if this deprivation is lucid as to the object and willed
as for the act, it is in itself a heresy, and more precisely a
formal heresy, which is for the Faith a deadly viciousness. And
that, on the other hand, this deprivation is neither lucid nor intended as
such, it can only be due to the psychological conditions realized in
such and such a singular subject, that is to say in such and such a schismatic, and this is
accidental to the schism considered as such.
In other words, it is accidental for the schism to subsist by being
only oneself, and not heresy. Such is, printed in the
schism itself, the inevitable corollary of the degradation from which it
arises, which affects the very economy of the Most Holy Faith.
Thus, the question should be asked as follows, i.e.
concrete point of view. Such a schismatic, who is only schisma-
tick and not heretic, does he have Faith?
In order to answer this question, let us formulate, by way of
sic and no, two possibilities.
,
"
b) The possibility of the affirmative answer.
It seems that this " pure " schismatic , in which only subsists
per accidens the schism as such, have the Faith. It is indeed supposed
to have received the grace of it by a valid Baptism, and there is no
sin against the Faith: neither against the main fundamental norm and
special standards, since he believes in all articles revealed nor
against the subordinate fundamental norm, we have shown
(67-68).
-50-
53
c) The possibility of the negative answer.
It seems that the schismatic in question does not have the Faith. Born
should we not in fact extend to the very ontology of Faith, the
gence concerning the object: " nothing false can be found under
the light of Faith ”? Is it admissible that an error can be
organically involved in the concrete exercise of the act of Faith,
error concerning the notion and for all that the self-affirmation of infail-
libility?
This error is true, and cannot be raised, we have it.
shown (38), that of distorted consciousness; but isn't it yet
grant too much? The support, in the natural order, of a theological act,
that is to say of an act whose " ratio " is God Himself, can it be
distorted? Should it not be perfectly pure, that is to say conform to
what nature requires? Although she is neither conscious nor confessed,
the error concerning infallibility is nonetheless inherent in
this subject who exercises the act of believing, in so far as it makes him
possible to exercise it. However the exercise of an act whose " terminari " is
in the Truth, could it be intrinsically subordinate (68) to
a viciousness which consists in an alteration of the truth?
THE " SCHISMATIC" CAN HAVE FAITH, ALTHOUGH IMPARFECTLY.
70. a) We respond to the difficulty circumscribed by the two
opposite answers mentioned above (b, c), noting the
distinction between the act of theological Faith and the habitus of Faith
theological.
The real scope of this distinction is established, by
example, through the process of justification. The adult who, by receiving
the sacrament of Baptism, receives the habitus of theological Faith, had to
prepare for it by posing, with the current thanksgiving ap-
requested, acts of this same virtue which he had not yet
habitus. It is therefore possible that authentic acts of theo-
logale are posed, independently of the habitus of which, then, they
normally prepare the infusion. In this case, the act of Faith exists,
although the habit of Faith does not exist.
There is one case, symmetrical in a way; it's the one in
which the habitus of Faith exists, although the actualization becomes
- 51-
54
difficult, and ultimately practically impossible. This is what we
observed by analyzing, as to the psychological genesis, the
degradation of schism-indifference into schism-wandering (59 a). It is
possible that the acts of Faith posed by such a schismatic subject
more in fact than by free replacement granted act by act,
and not by the spontaneous exercise of the habitus of formless Faith which
remains bound, a component that is essential to them in law .. this
component being (52) the presentation of the articles made by the Magis-
ter affirming of himself that he is divinely assured of
infallibility.
b) This being recalled, it is necessary to distinguish two cases, in
view to answer the question asked; that of knowing if such subject
schismatic who is only objectively, an " orthodox" by
example, baptized and reached the age of reason, to the Faith?
ba) If this subject corresponds to the current graces which
put acts of Faith, it retains the habitus of Faith
informs received at Baptism; but this habit remains linked, because it
is in itself altered, and because the exercise cannot be under-
extended by charity (59 a, 72). This " fervent" schismatic therefore has the
Faith, but he has it imperfectly, that is to say inadequately with regard to
the very economy of the theological faith. So that it is only
to this qualitatively diminished Faith , and not to the theological Faith in
its integrity, which it is inevitable to attribute a material wandering
concerning the doctrine of infallibility.
bb) If this schismatic subject neglects to perform acts of Faith
whose grace he receives, he can nevertheless be considered
being in process and in a state of conversion. The finality from which it suffers
spiration, it is objectively although not consciously to receive
the habit of theological Faith.
From this result two consequences.
First: this " negligent" schismatic has not [no longer]
the habit of the theological faith. But, unlike the irrational adult
religious, the schismatic has a habit of human faith. It's a habit
of a natural order, whose acts are specified by the data of the
[" orthodox "] faith , insofar as these have an intel-
-52 -
55
eligible in the natural order. Such an act therefore has the same " form ",
conceptually, that the act of the theological faith which
is, of itself, only the ghostly vestige, but of which it can, by
grace, be the expectation and become the support.
Second, this schismatic finds himself incited, even within
of his church, to perform authentic acts of theological Faith, free of charge
granted, whether or not these acts assume the acts of order
naturalness just discussed.
c) The pastoral observation of which we have spoken
tis (66) is thus justified; and our approach taken in its
together (66-70), however, confirmed.
We must in fact prevent grace, not anticipate it. Which is
true for an " ordinary " conversion , is more imperatively true
again for that of a " schismatic ", This is what we have
recalled (66).
However, the reason is, from what precedes, obvious. The concept
true of infallibility is presented, by the graces of illumination
which accompany the conversion of the schismatic, in the " belief
bility ” and in the attraction of Truth. While, presented prematurely
turement, that is to say independently of these graces, this same
notion constrains the schismatic to make explicit the error that he is not
still gratuitously induced to disavow. Therefore the risk is not
utopian that he becomes a heretic (59). It is therefore advisable to be circumscribed
conspect when one aims to enlighten, as it should be, a schismatic.
It goes without saying that a critical study of the doctrine which is
underlying schism in general, or such schism in particular,
does not present the drawbacks with which the
catechesis which is addressed to such a schismatic personally.
We have just seen that the notions of "schism as to the
Faith ”and distorted consciousness, allow us to specify what is
personally the situation of the schismatic, as a believer
and from the psychological point of view. The schismatic can last
while waiting for the Faith, by performing real acts of Faith. The question
The question then arises whether it is not the same with regard to
about charity?
- 53-
56
4. THE BAPTIZE WHO IS NEITHER SUBMITTED TO THE POPE
NOR IN COMMUNION WITH THE FAITHFUL
WHO ARE SUBMITTED TO THE POPE,
MAY NOT BE FISHING
AGAINST CHARITY?
71. Let us recall some data concerning the order of charity.
The formal object of theological charity is God Himself. She
is therefore no exception, with regard to the realities of
which it should be practiced.
To exercise charity in respect of such natural person or
moral, requires however to consider the relation that supports
that person with God who is the object of charity. The duty of
charity is based on the existence of this report, and it is specified by
the nature of this report. Hence the multiple forms of charity:
" In due time, while we have the means, accomplish
let us be good to all, especially to our brothers in the Faith ” 38.
" If someone does not take care of their own, and mainly of
those who live in his house, he has denied the faith and he is worse than a
unfaithful ” 39.
Charity is therefore a duty towards all. This duty is returned
more imperious by proximity, either according to the supernatural order ", or
in the natural order 39
• And it is the ecclesial bond which, by definition
same, specifies the form of charity to which the schism is self-evident
opposite. This observation makes it possible to specify what is the
between schism and charity.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHISM AND CHARITB-
72. It would seem that this report is quite simply excluding
if we; and this is what ultimately, " exclusis supponendis ", we
will conclude. Remember, however, that we consider the schism
" Objective", that is to say the state of the baptized who in fact achieve the
characteristic conditions of the schism, although they may
38
Gal. VI, 10.

39
1 Tim. V, 8.
- 54-
57
be born what are the nature and consequently the scope of these
conditions. These schismatics who, ultimately, ignore each other, are they
in a state of sin against charity? Do they have charity?
a) The schism-state, if it is only " objective", does not constitute
not, of itself, a sin against charity.
It follows in fact from what precedes (71) that sin against
charity, to which self- schism is linked, requires, on the part of
the one who is supposed to commit this sin, to have specified what
the Church is the bond of unity.
There is therefore actually sin, only for one who, knowingly
and voluntarily, breaks what he considers in conscience to be the link
of unity. So if consciousness is objectively distorted, if
the little informed " orthodox" considers that the unity of the Church as it
conceives it does not require submission to the Pope as it is
conceived in the Roman Catholic Church, this " orthodox" does not
held with Pope unrelated apparent that own the
“ecclesial” charity as such.
This "orthodox" must obviously practice charity towards
of the faithful who belong to the Roman Catholic Church, as
that these are members of Christ; but not be subject to
Pope does not subjectively constitute for him a leader of the opposition
to ecclesial charity, nor consequently to charity. It is therefore
not this non-submission which could lead by itself and
directly, that the subject affected by a purely objective schism-state
be deprived of charity.
But doing nothing that would prevent you from receiving a free donation
not enough to ensure receipt.
b) The schism-state, even if it is only "objective", excludes
to have charity.
This exclusion primarily concerns the habitus of charity.
For, the Holy Spirit being the soul of the Church, it is impossible that the
permanent communication of charity, communication whose
Holy Spirit is Principle 40,
either in a state of deprivation in relation to
40
Rom. V, 5. " The charity is diffused in our hearts by the Holy Spirit
given to us. "
-55-
58
to the Church: it is impossible that this communication does not extend
to the whole Church of which the Holy Spirit is the Soul. Now it would be so
if the schismatic who, if only objectively, is cut off from
the Church, had in itself in a permanent and diffusive state 40
the charity
which is by nature ordained to the whole Church.
The same exclusion from charity, due to the very schism
only objective, also concerns, and consequently,
the acts of charity. If it is indeed possible that an act of Faith
theological be posed, under the present motion of thanksgiving, by a
subject who does not have the habit of theological Faith, it is
possible that an act of theological charity is produced by the will,
without having previously received the habitus of theological charity.
scabies. This difference between Faith and charity, both theo-
logals, follows from their respective nature.
The act of intelligence, the ({ intus legere ", is relational by
gasoline; he can, in so far as he objectively has the economy of a
relation, to be assumed in the supernatural order, and to constitute an act
of theological faith under the present motion of thanksgiving. While
the act of loving is ecstasy and possession; it ends by nature in
the immanence of a fruition. It is impossible for such an act to be gra-
tuitously assumed in the supernatural order, without also being
the proper principle from which it proceeds immediately. God Himself
could not communicate to the will a single act of charity sur-
natural, without communicating to it the disposition of the same name. And if
this disposition is communicated, it remains, unless a sin
do not destroy it; that is to say, it is the habitus of charity. So,
no act without habit. And since there is no habit, there is
no act.
c) We must therefore conclude that the schismatic, even if he does not
finds engaged in the schism-state that " objectively" and independent
according to his will, cannot have charity: neither as a habit
tus, nor even per modum actus.
This schismatic, if he is fervent, that is to say if he takes action
of Faith of which he receives the grace, keeps what he received in Baptism in
namely: besides the character, the habitus of theological Faith in the bound state, and
for all that qualitatively " diminished ", The schism-state, if it is
- 56-
59
only objective, does not constitute a " present sin" against
charity (a). But it prevents us from adequately receiving the fruits of
Baptism concerning original sin (b). This conclusion is found
confirmed by the following.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SCHISM-STATE,
AND BELONGING TO THE MYSTICAL BODY CHURCH OF CHRIST.
73. a) The teaching of Pius XII.
aa) In the Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (June 29, 1943).
Do not imagine that the Body of the Church, having
(1
the honor of bearing the name of Christ, does not consist, from the time of his
earthly pilgrimage, only of eminent members in holiness, or does not include
than the group of those predestined by God to eternal happiness.
It must be admitted that the infinite mercy of our Savior
not now refuse a place in his Mystical Body to those to whom
he did not refuse her formerly at his banquet (Matt. IX, 11; Mark II, 16;
Luke XV, 2). Because every fault, even a serious sin, has no self for
result - like schism, heresy or apostasy - of separating
the man of the Body of the Church. All life does not disappear from those who,
having lost charity and sanctifying grace through sin,
therefore incapable of any supernatural merit, yet retain the
faith and Christian hope, and in the light of divine grace, under the
interior inspirations and the impulse of the Holy Spirit, are driven to a
salutary fear and stirred up by God to pray and repent of their
faults. "
ab) In the letter to the Archbishop of Boston (August 8, 1949).
This letter was intended to correct an overly narrow interpretation of
the adage: " Outside the Church, no salvation ", Interpretation according to which
the only non-Catholics who have access to salvation are the catechists.
leaders who have the explicit desire to enter the Catholic Church.
1) “ Knowing that the Church was divinely instituted by Christ excludes
that one is saved if, on the other hand, one refuses to be submitted to the Church, or
to obey the Roman Pontiff who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Because the
precept of the Savior entails not only that all enter into
the Church, but also that the Church be the means of salvation without which
no one can enter the kingdom of heavenly glory (Ecclesiam medium
esse salutis sine quo nemo intrare valeat regnum gloriœ coelestis) ”.
-57-
60
2) "However, these means of salvation are ordered to the ultimate end,
not by intrinsic necessity but by divine institution alone. As well
God, in his infinite mercy, did he wanted, positis ponendis, the
effects [of these means] which are necessary for salvation are obtained when
that [these means] are applied only by desire (ubi voto solum-
modo vel desiderio adhibeantur). This was clearly recalled by the
Council of Trent, both for Baptism and for Penance (Denz.-S.
1524, 1543) ",
3) "The same is true of the Church insofar as she is a means
general hi. Obtaining eternal salvation does not always require being incorporated.
entered into the Church as a member, but at least requires membership by
wish and desire. It is important that this vow be in the catechumens,
even if it is not always explicit. But in anyone who suffers a
invincible ignorance (ubi homo invincibili ignorantia laborat), God
also accepts the implicit vow, so called because it is contained
in the good disposition of soul by virtue of which man wants to conform
sea his good will to that of God ”.
4) Pius XII then insists on the security that membership gives
to the Church, a security that cannot be enjoyed even by those who, by a certain
unconscious desire, are ordained to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer.
[" Qui inscio quodam desiderio ac vota ad Mysticum Redemptoris Corpus
ordinentur "},
5) “ [This doctrine also condemns:] on the one hand that
saved all those who have the only implicit vow to belong to the Church;
on the other hand that we can also save ourselves by any religion ....
vow by which one is ordained to the Church must be informed by the perfect
charity; and the implicit vow can only have effect through Faith over-
natural ”.
b) The schismatic who is engaged in the schism-state only
" Objectively ", and which preserves the habitus [linked] of the theological Faith.
it belongs to the Body of the Church.
This statement only clarifies the teaching of Pius XII.
in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (aa). This teaching
has two parts.
On the one hand, in fact, schism is assimilated to heresy and the apos-
tasie. This is the case examined above (70 bb), in which the schismati-
that Faith no longer has. In this respect he is not distinguished from the heretic
- 58-
61
II - SCHISM AND BAPTIS ~ S
and the apostate, that because he is in a less bad situation
as to a conversion still possible. As he has neither Faith nor
charity, nor therefore any supernatural life, it is therefore
" Separated from the Body of the Church ".
On the other hand, Pius XII mentions those " who have lost by
sin charity and sanctifying grace ... but which keep for-
both faith and Christian hope ... ”, The schismatic who is
only " objectively", and who has retained the Faith (70 ba) is found
appreciably, as for the life of grace, under these same conditions.
It is true that he did not lose charity through personal sin;
but it is deprived of it by the consequence, still not abolished for him,
of original sin. It is also true that the habitus of Faith, in him,
is linked; but he poses authentic acts of theological Faith, under the
present thanksgiving. This schismatic who has Faith is found
therefore, with regard to charity, in a state of deprivation and not in a state
waiting like the infidel. So that he has, inchoarily but
positively, supernatural life; it therefore belongs to the
Body of the Church, although there is a particularly
frant, affected one might say with an infectious disease ... and yet
curable.
Affirm that the schismatic as such, even if he is alone
objectively, is in a state of deprivation in relation to charity,
does not necessarily imply that the grace of salvation is denied.
This is because the state of objective schism, that is to say
tion of the relationship with the Authority, can be experienced " subjectively"
in different ways. The " subjective schism" is not only
schism but heresy. It involves knowing the doctrine of the Church
Roman Catholic concerning the infallible Magisterium and to refuse
this doctrine. The objective state of schism involves ignoring this
doctrine. But the question is whether this ignorance is, according to
the usual phrase, " invincible"? This is indeed what matters,
with regard to the supposedly independent justification process
owing to ordinary means, in particular of material belonging
rielle to the Church. If there is invincible ignorance, says Pius XII (ab 3), the
the only implicit vow to belong to the Church suffices.
- 59-
62
Similarly, if the state of objective schism is accompanied, no
only ignorance, but invincible ignorance concerning the
doctrine of the infallible Magisterium, this state does not exclude having the
charity. Many " Orthodox" probably suffer from this
invincible ignorance, and can therefore be saved without
to belong " materially" to the Church. Note, however, that
post-conciliar pastoral care tends to increase this inconsiderate number
recently; it does indeed present the two pitfalls indicated by
Pius XII (ab 5). These considerations apply, positis ponendis, to
any other case of schism, in particular the " capital schism" which
will be the subject of the last two chapters.
c) Outside the Church, no salvation.
It is not inappropriate to recall the traditional axiom. The
salvation, through Faith in Jesus Christ, consists in living by Him. Where he
there is Life, there is the “ influx” of the Head, there is the Body. Where there is
Faith, where Faith dwells, there also remains the Author of Faith
and therefore the Body of which He is the Head. The distinction between
the faithful on the one hand, the schismatic who has the Faith (70 ba) on the other hand,
can only be internal to the Body of the Church. Likewise, more
generally, the distinction between " that which is grace in act " and " that
who is grace in power ”can only be internal to the Church, because
that there is, outside the Church, no effect of grace.
This is the aspect which interests us particularly, of the doc-
traditional trine recapitulated in the axiom: " Outside the Church, not
of salvation ”. The Church is coextensive with grace, may it be realized
read in act or in potential. The Church can enclose certain schisma-
ticks; we will have to report this observation. While
humans, in whom the elevation to the supernatural order remains
of simple non-impossibility, do not belong to the Church.
The fact of belonging to the Church does not, moreover, be accepted.
tion, as to how to be introduced. The translation of the state
in which man is born as the son of Adam in the state of grace and
adopted son cannot be fulfilled, after the promulgation of the Gospel,
only through baptismal regeneration, either in action or in desire (ab 2).
Let us observe in this regard that we must not confuse the desire of the Bap-
teme, state which is common to all catechumens, with Baptism
- 60-
63
of desire, which is an act equivalent to that of the sacrament, and which
like him, provides justification. This desire there "must be informed
by perfect charity, and it only has effect through supernatural Faith ”
(ab 5).
The same fruit can be communicated in the act of Baptism,
whether it is Baptism of desire or Baptism by the Sacrament.
In either case, the habitus of Faith is given in the act and not
before. The two modes of Baptism can, in fact, be coordinated.
If, for example, a validly baptized schismatic remains in
the state of objective schism, being moreover in invincible ignorance
of the doctrine concerning the Magisterium, it can be found incorporated into
the Church by the act of a desire which makes her recover the theo-
logic inherent by nature in Baptism already received, a desire that can be
assimilate to a Baptism of desire.
5. THE REPORT SUPPORTED BY SCHISM
OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED WITH BAPTISES
IN WHICH IT CAN BE ACHIEVED,
MANIFEST AND CONFIRMED
THE ESSENTIAL DEFINITION OF SCHISM.
The essential definition of schism (61-62) has indeed for
object of the unity manifested by the convertibility between the indif-
ference and schism-wandering (57-60). This definition is therefore fundamental
born and manifested, as is this convertibility. So we will
show that the considerations set out in this chapter confirm
the conclusion of the previous one. It suffices, for this, to observe that
finds, in the psychology of the schismatic subject such as we
analyzed it from the point of view of Faith and charity (67-73),
this same convertibility that we have highlighted for
the economics of the objectively considered schism (57-60).
74. The two forms of schism present between them the same
convertibility, either we consider them in themselves, or we
observed in the subjects affected by it.
a) This is true first of all of these two forms themselves.
On the one hand, in fact, objectively, the schism which by nature
opposed to ecclesial charity is in fact inevitably accompanied
-61-
64
of the schism-wandering which, gradually, destroys the possibility
even to exercise Faith (60).
On the other hand, in subjects who are engaged in the schism-
state, the deprivation of charity entails precisely the alteration
litative (70 ba), even the loss (70 bb) of the Faith. Or one or
the other is, of itself, at the origin of the schism-wandering. That is, the
schism-indifference is in fact accompanied, at least virtually,
schism-wandering.
b) The statement (74) is also true, with regard to the
possible degradation of the schism into heresy.
On the one hand, this degradation, objectively considered,
uniquely identifies the two forms of schism (59 ab), which are
therefore from this point of view convertible between them.
On the other hand, the schism which is only material and not
consented as such as to the Faith, does not necessarily imply that there is
fault against charity (72 a). The two forms of schism are therefore
in fact convertible between them, not only objectively, but
also in the schismatic subject in which they may not have
neither one nor the other reason for sin, as long as this subject does not become
heretic.
It is thus confirmed that the "essential definition", here
above proposed for the schism (61), is adequate, since it
coordinates the two modalities, which in fact are always linked.
75. We see further that the " situation definition" of the schism
is justified a posteriori, since it is the basis , as we have shown (62)
the essential definition. In other words, the ~, chism corresponds to effect
tively to the second degree of distorted consciousness, as to the norm
fundamental subordinate (35). This suggests that the moder-
nism corresponds, in the theological order, to the second degree of
false consciousness, as to the main fundamental norm (35).
This is what we will examine in a future issue of Cahiers
of Cassiciacum.
The current " conjuncture" makes it particularly opportune,
to complete this one, to examine another aspect of the schism that
we call " capital schism ",
-62-
65
CHAPTER III
OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED,
AND QQI LEGAL PERSONS ARE
INVESTED BY THE AUTHORITY.
The " authority" can she do schism within the Church?
The question is hardly asked in classic treatises except
as a useful hypothesis, though not plausible. So SUAREZ
does he think that a pope would break up, if he altered the whole liturgy of
the Church. The post-conciliar situation certainly encourages us to invoke
the authority of SUAREZ.
But, however authorized it may be, it does
In this case, it would not be possible to conclude with certainty. The
This is because the proposed argument is informal; in particular,
what meaning should be given to the words " alter ", " any", in order to
be able to state with certainty that the presumed guilty pope was
schismatic?
We are therefore led to specify, depending on the question asked,
the principle of resolution which has already been developed, namely the definition
essential schism; and this will in a way be the introduction to
this chapter (76-78). We can then examine what is the state of
the " occupied church ", and specify what relationship this state supports with
the persons invested with the " authority" that the " pope" in par-
culier. This state is both a question of fact, since it is
cutif to the pontificate of Paul VI, in particular to the act of December 7
1965, and a question of law, in the sense that it constitutes a given
objectively imposing itself in the same way for the person
-63-
66
that she is who is invested with " authority ". It is by placing us
in this perspective, both that of fact and that of law, that
in this chapter we will develop the following points. We
observe that the official behavior of the " occupied church"
realizes the clause which constitutes the schism-wandering, or schism
at a time. And we will conclude that at least in the person of the cardi-
nal JB MONTINI, the " authority" was found objectively in
the Church in a state of schism: an "essential" schism, having regard to nature
schism; "capital " schism . because it is that of the " self-
rity ) l; schism-state because it lasts as long as there is no " authority"
remedied (79-81). We will then indicate the " theological" reason ,
for which the capital schism is " schism", that is to say " scis-
sion ”radically, and how it is permanent (82-85). We
then analyze an important symptom which confirms the character
radical of this capital schism insofar as it is a state (86-87). We
finally specify the clauses which preside, both in fact and in
right, to the " resolution" of this state (88, 89).
-64-
67
III - SCHISM and LEGAL PERSONS
1. THE QUESTION OF KNOWLEDGE
IF THE " AUTHORITY" MAKES SCHISM,
WITHIN THE CHURCH,
CAN ONLY BE FITTED WHEN IN STATE
FROM " FAITH SCHISM",
AND NOT ONLY IN FUNCTION
OF THE “ CHARITY SCHISM”.
This results from three considerations: the first of a practical nature
(76); the other two of a theoretical nature, the same relation being
considered from one or the other extreme: either the definition of
schism (77), that is to say the nature of " authority" (78).
76. The opposition that currently exists within the Church cannot
can be qualified according to the schism only by considering it
from the point of view of Faith.
In order to show that Catholics attached to Tradition do not
are not schismatic, although they are not III with the " council" nor
with the “ pope” who approved the “ council”, we usually refer to-
ment to the Authority as it was " before", that is to say before the crisis
current: " better to be with two hundred and sixty-two Popes
with only one pope ”,
But the argument is not against who poses absolutely and therefore
unconditionally the usual definition of schism. If indeed we
poses simpliciter, that is to say without any restrictive clause, that " the
schism consists in not being submitted to the Pope ”, it is up to the Pope to
now that you have to be submissive in order not to be schismatic,
holding. Substitute the “ before” Popes for the now pope
actually involves introducing a semantic shift in the
definition of schism. Recourse to the past does indeed become legitimate
that if we specify: " The schism consists in not being submitted to the Pope,
assuming that this is in communion with the Popes of the past,
that is to say with all Tradition ”. Then, but only then,
not being subject to the pope does not ipso facto entail being schisma-
tick. We may not be schismatic, but we may not be
subject to the pope, if the latter is not in communion with Tradition.
= 65 "" -
68
However, this being the case, it is still necessary to explain what consists of:
"To be in communion with Tradition ", There can be no question or
submission or only mental charity in regard to people
missing. To be in communion with Tradition means primordial-
ment: "to profess fully the Faith which was that of Tradition ".
Only this clause gives scope to the argument we come from
to allege. We are not schismatic if we are not subject to a
pope who does not fully profess the Faith which was that of
Tradition.
But if we reason in this way, we therefore consider
the schism from the point of view of the Faith. Schism is not considered
as being only an opposition to the charity which must exist
in the Church between successive generations, through communion
Saints; it is implicitly defined as being the breaking of
the unity founded in the Church by the permanence of the unchanged Faith.
Such is indeed, manifested it is true from the point of view of temporality,
the " schism as to the Faith"; it consists of the breaking of unity
that founds and that only Faith can be founded.
77. The schism, situated in terms of charity, cannot be attributed
to the " authority", that with regard to the Faith on which charity is
founded.
If indeed we define schism as consisting in not being
subject to the Pope and not to be in communion with the faithful who
are submitted to him, it is impossible that the assembly constituted by the
Pope and the Council together is schismatic. An entity, which
that it is, is necessarily subject to itself, and it is with
herself, since she is herself. In fact, the usual definition
schism supposes that the order, and consequently the principle of this
order, exists in the Church; and it characterizes a possible disorder
by the ultimate consequence which consists in a rupture of the charity.
This definition therefore does not make it possible to detect the viciousness which
there is schism, when the very principle of the Church is
find, if it was possible, affected.
The schism can therefore be attributed to "authority" only if it
is seen from another point of view than that of charity. Now everything
principle having a normative role by nature, according to which the principle
can be flawed must standardize what the elements can be
-66-
69
III - SCHISM AND LEGAL PERSONS
VICIES. And as "authority" is, on earth, the principle of order
ecclesial, what it can be flawed must standardize what
may be members of the Church. The schism being contrary to
the " ecclesial charity", that according to what he can achieve the "authority"
can therefore only be the norm of charity as it
is “ Church This norm is Faith insofar as it is “of the Church”.
1).
So if the schism can concern, in the Church, " authority ",

it is in so far as it undermines, not formally but indirectly
and inevitably, to the Faith insofar as it is " of the Church ",
78. " Authority" being defined by the function it performs,
the schism cannot concern the "authority" of the Church and if it is
considered from a functional point of view, that is to say according to the
a split which he introduced into the Church.
This argument differs from the preceding one only in the order of the exposition.
sition. It is a question, here and there, of the relation which can exist, according to the nature,
between schism and " authority 1).
But the inference can have for

origin: either the nature of the schism (77), or that of the " authority"
(78).
a) We say that Authority is defined by function.
Authority is in no way based on function. Firstly
indeed, in general, “ all power comes from God” 41.
On the other hand,
in the Church, power derives from " being with 1)
promised by the
Christ to the Apostles and their successors 33.
But Authority is defined by function. For this reason
that the Authority can only be exercised if it is recognized as such,
and that the Authority can only be recognized if it exercises effective
ment the functions to which it is providentially ordained.
However, the primary function for the Authority is to ensure the
" Living tradition", that is to say to keep alive in the Church
the revealed Deposit and all the sacred order.
Two contrary errors circumscribe the truth.
41 Rom. XIII, 1.
-67-
70
On the one hand, the Church only intervenes in the external forum. So it would be
a first error to consider that it is incumbent on the Authority to
a judgment on the theological exercise, either of Faith or of charity
ecclesial. And it is clear that the Authority, as a legal person,
does not have to practice, as do the faithful who have a
“ Habitus ”, ecclesial charity. It might therefore appear, in view of
the usual definition of schism, that it is a viciousness whose
the Authority is, by its very nature, immune.
On the other hand the Church, which is "Guardian and Mistress" 42,
is
also <'. Mother ” 43. The second error would be to think that the Self
rity must simply keep the letter of a Codified Deposit. He him
It is also incumbent upon the faithful to encourage the exercise of
theological, and make the conditions maximally favorable.
The first of all is that this exercise must be possible; and the
The role of the Authority consists in this regard, as we have explained
(53-54), to assert of herself that she is divinely sure to be
foolproof by presenting the items as revealed. It is therefore
by asserting itself that it is infallible, that the Authority is
found integrated, in principle, in the order required.
Living tradition. This is the proper function of the Authority, different
annuity of those belonging to the members of the Church.
These functions, although different in nature, are all equal-
ment necessary for the theological exercise is achieved, the unit
of the Church assured, and Christ glorified. “There is a variety of gifts,
but it is the same Spirit ” 44; it is the same order, which is the Church
mh &
..
b) This being so, to make a schism consists in itself of splitting the forie-
tional that exists between the different parts of the Mystical Body,
And to make a schism consists, for such part, in not exercising the
tion of its own; which results in, firstly, mutilating
the functional unit which must exist between all the parts, and two
xthly to cut himself off from this unity.
42
Vatican I, Constitution iÙiFilius, of [ide catholica; cap, 3. · Denz. 3012.
43 John XXIII added, to “ Magistra ”, “ Mater ”,
44
1 Cor. XII, 4.
71
In particular, and eminently, the (authority "is schism,
like any other part, if it does not perform the function which
is clean. And this schism can be called capital: because, pre-
firstly, it undermines in the militant Church the functional unit which
can only come from the " leader" instituted by the " Leader ", because,
second, this schism concerns that distinguished member who is the
principle of order and whose: function is " to be a leader ",
This is what we mean by saying that the schism can
concern " authority" as it is considered from the point of view
functional, that is to say according to the split it introduces
in the Church, in particular with regard to the function which is proper
in the Church that of Authority.
2. NATURAL AND LEGAL PERSONS
WHO OF SELF SHOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED
LASUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH,
KNOW THE " POPE" PAUL VI AND THE VATICAN COUNCIL II,
WERE OBJECTIVELY
IN A " CAPITAL SCHISM " STATE,
BECAUSE THEY ACHIEVED, AT LEAST FROM DECEMBER 7 , 1965,
THE CONDITIONS WHICH ARE THOSE OF " FAITH SCHISM",
THIS IS CONSIDERED FROM A "FUNCTIONAL" POINT OF VIEW,
79. These conditions consist for " authority" we have
observed (53, 54), to refuse to assert of itself that it is infail-
readable when it presents such and such an article as revealed. But this refusal
to affirm has been realized, we will show it, when the
Declaratio “ Dignitatis humanœ personœ ” was promulgated.
If indeed the conditions are such that there must be infail-
libility, there is obviously a refusal to assert infallibility, if there is,
on the contrary, affirmation of non-infallibility. This was the case in
the act by which the Declaratio in question was promulgated.
On the one hand, in fact, this promulgation should have enjoyed the infail-
libility. Because, at least of itself, it is made by the Pope and the Council
together, explicitly invoking the authority of Scripture; and
it takes up a doctrine which was affirmed under the note of the infail-
- 69 ': ""
72
libility. If such conditions did not lead in law to the breach
bility, it should be concluded that no declaration of the Ordinary Magisterium
nary is not infallible, which is manifestly false .
On the other hand, the very "authority" which made the promulgation
affirmed that {{the Council avoided proclaiming according to the mode ({extra-
ordinary "dogmas affected by the note of infallibility ...
attributed to its documents the authority of the supreme ordi-
naire ” 46.
By this declaration, the ({authority "therefore asserted that it was not
not read in any of the promulgations concerning the documents of the
({council »Vatican II, in particular in the promulgation of Digni-
tatis humanœ personœ, which however should have been infallible
we have just recalled it.
It follows that in this act of promulgation: first;
the ({authority " should have been infallible; secondly should have been
refuse to explain what was the relationship she maintained with the in-
fallibility. Because, if she had explained this relationship, she should have
to assert itself infallible; and therefore she could not have said
a posteriori that it had not been.
We see therefore that in the very act in which the ({authority "promulgated:
Dignitatis humanœ personœ, she expressly refused to explain
what was the relationship she maintained with infallibility, and that by
therefore she expressly refused to assert herself as
being infallible. This refusal was not expressed externally. But
it didn't need to be manifested, to be a qualification
mental which must ineluctably be attributed to the act of ({ authority ";
this is what results from the recitals that we have just explained.
Thus, it was possible that a ({pseudo-authority ", in law the
highest in the Church, refused to assert himself as being
infallible, when it had to. What is the result for said ({auto-
rity ”is what should now be examined.
45
Cf. Cahiers de Cassiciacum N ° 1, s 12-14.
46
Paul VI, audience of Wednesday January 12, 1966. Cf. Cahiers de Cassiciacum
N ° 1, p. 15, note 8.
-70-
73
80. The " authority" is schismatic in written off, if she refuses
to assert of herself that she is infallible, while she is
placed in conditions where it should affirm it.
This statement goes without saying, since it is quite simply the
essential definition of schism (61), deciphered in the most typical
cases where it can happen. If indeed the schism implies,
essentially and inevitably (59), to be deprived of self-affirmation
tion of infallibility, the " authority" which alone is capable of
this affirmation, and which refuses to affirm itself as being
infallible, is ipso facto radically [at the root] deprived of this
self-assertion; and it deprives the whole Church of it. She is in a state of
schism, and universal cause of schism.
We measure in this case the full scope of the " definition
essential ”of the schism (61).
If this is defined as " not to be with the
Pope and with the bishops who are in communion with him ”, he is
impossible that the assembly constituted by the Pope and the
together is schismatic. But this definition alone is
inadequate, because it characterizes the schism only in terms of
the effect and not as to the cause. So it does not allow to assign any
for surely the achievements, not even that which is the capital and
the most typical of all.
The capital schism therefore consists of this. The " pope", alone or with
the " council ". even if he apparently holds all the articles of the Creed,
is objectively schismatic, since he refuses to affirm
oneself, positis ponendis, that it is infallible.
81. The question remains open, in accordance with what has been
presentation (64, 65), whether the cardinal JB MONTINI, which was objec-
tively schismatic at least from December 7, 1965, had
sufficiently distorted consciousness and ignorance [in these matters]
sufficiently " invincible D,
so as not to be, at least on this head,
in a state of sin against the Faith?
We leave the question open for three reasons.
a) It is not impossible to leave it open.
-71-
74
Paul VI, in his speech of December 20, 1976 to the Sacred
College 47, dealt with “religious freedom”; but he did not resume
the heretical proposition contained in the Declaratio “Dignitatis
humanœ personœ ”. The " Pope", of whom the Lateran students said
jokingly, around 1965: "non ha fatto studii ", he had learned
sance of the document before promulgating it? Did he not understand
that " after" the whole staff? These [too] " pious" assumptions
would not excuse the "pope" of all sin, but they would modify
the nature of the fault committed. It is therefore not impossible to leave
the open question.
b) There is no need to resolve the question.
Our purpose is in fact to determine what should be the
practical conduct of the faithful in the present situation. Now what, from
Authority as such concerns the faithful, it is not the forum
internal; which intervenes indirectly only for the per-
ring the Pope. What concerns the faithful is the relationship that
keeps the Authority with the acts of government it takes.
A morally bad Pope remains Pope. It is enough to
on the contrary that "authority" is objectively schismatic for
not be the Authority. It is therefore unnecessary, for our purposes, to examine
whether "authority" has been, or is, subjectively schismatic .
c) It is not appropriate to seek to resolve the issue.
The Church herself, usually, does not judge in the internal forum.
She alone is qualified to do so exceptionally, because she
is then divinely inspired. This is particularly true and has for-
tiori if it is a " pope ",
"
Cardinal JB MONTlNI may not have been subjectively schis-
matic, because he was objectively modernist. We will understand
the scope of this observation by the study we propose
to publish on modernism in the next Cahiers de Cassi-
ciacum.
47
Catholic documentation. No. 1712, January 16, 19TI.
-72-
75
3. THE " CAPITAL SCHISM"
IS · SCHISM ... RADICALLY.
IT IS, FOR AS MUCH ~ PERMANENT.
We pass, as it should, from the fact that we have just observed-
ver (79-81), to the question of " how"?
82. The " authority" which refuses to assert of itself that, posttts
ponenâis, she is infallible, is schismatic in two ways.
Obviously first, it operates a split between the Church, and
Christ “ Author and Consumer of Faith” 34 •. She: ruin in
effect for the whole Church the very possibility of believing, introducing
thus a rupture, a " schism ". in the living Tradition.
the Church.
Mysteriously, and more profoundly, if the " authority" refuses
to assert itself infallible whereas epele should, it is a schism, in
separating from the Head of the Church.
83. The current conjuncture makes it appropriate to insist on this
secondpoint ..
This radical separation between Christ and " authority" fails
lante, results from what we observed above (58). The act by
which the Authority of the Church affirms of itself " that it is infail-
readable can only be the act of Christ whose Authority is entitled
the instrument.
If don ~. " A ~ tority " refuses to assert itself infallible
when she should, she is in fact deserting the Testimony that is in
own that of Christ. Because if Christ has promised. to " always be
with this Authority ” 33,
in particular " to" testify " 48,
for
inspire an " irresistible" 49
Testimony is in accordance with
norms that He Himself has set: " You will be my witnesses, because
that you are with me from the beginning >, 50. The Authority is
48
Luke XXI, 13. “[We will deliver you], which for you: will lead to
testimony ”.
.
.
.
49
Luke XXI, 15. "It is I who will give you word and wisdom,
that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. ”
50
John XV, 27.
-13-
76
qualified to witness to Christ, on condition that she is with
He, in this respect, from the beginning; that is to say that it is
from the beginning, with what consists for Christ does
to testify. Now, if Christ is “the Witness” 51, this is very precise.
lie because He can, Him and Him Alone as He affirmed of Him-
Even, to bear witness to Yourself: "Although I bear witness to myself
to myself, my testimony is true ” 31.
The Authority is qualified
in order to bear witness to Christ as indeed it owes it, if, in the
cipe even of the Testimony, she "is with" 49
The one who promised
to “be with her” 33; if consequently she is alone among all
the other churches 32 to witness to itself, in Him who alone absolute
ment testifies to Himself.
The "authority" which refuses to affirm of itself that it is
infallible, ipso facto deserts the Testimony of Christ. This' self-
rity ”- this is essentially schismatic; that is to say, she is schisma-
tick, because of what defines the essence of schism, namely
to be a split, a separation, and because of what the Authority
is in essence in the Catholic Church. This "authority" there, in
the Catholic Church cannot really be the Authority.
The reference to the past confirms it is true the fact of the schism,
but it does not reveal its nature.
If it is true that, in order not to create a schism, one must "be with J)
two hundred and sixty-two deceased Popes, and not with the present pope-
reigning, the reason is not that the truth would decide to
the majority. The reason is that, very precisely for this, for
not to make a schism, it is necessary to remain in the Testimony which is
that of Christ, Testimony on which rests the Faith of
the Church and hence the unity of the Church: “ unasjiâes ” 29, it is first of all through
the Faith that the Church is one. It is therefore to ruin the very principle of
the unity of the Church is therefore to introduce the schism not only
in fact, but in law, inevitably, than to desert the Testimony
of Christ.
But she does not bear the Testimony of Christ alive within her,
the "authority" which refuses to affirm of itself, while it
Yes
Apoc. l, S.
-74-
77
III • SCHISM AND LEGAL PERSONS
should, that it is infallible. This "authority" is not in conformity
to the "self-witness" which is proper to that of Christ, she has
deserted the Testimony of Christ. It is at the root and as for the essence,
that it consummates the schism; schism that we can call " capi-
tal ”, since only the “ authority ”, that is to say the head of the
aunt can, not without deserting the Chief, perpetrate it.
The capital schism is so singular that it seems to escape the
phenomenology of schism. However, it is part of it “qualitati-
vement ”because it is, so to speak, the“ schism-wandering ”in
the pure state. It therefore constitutes a typical demonstration
for questions that formally concerns this aspect of the schism,
to know especially as we have seen: the permanence of
schism (65), the essential definition of schism (61). Let's examine
one and the other.
CAPITAL SCHISM CAUSES A STATE OF SCHISM.
84. The capital schism is radically schism. We come
to explain (83) what is the original meaning of this affirmation. The act
of December 7, 1965 enclosed in itself, implicitly but ineluc-
tablely, to be schismatic. It is because of the components
whose unity he integrates, which are at the root of Faith. It is
therefore radically schism , by the origin. This is what we come from
to exhibit.
This same act is also schismatic by the consequences
which result from it and which, taken together, constitute a
"State of schism". The act of December 7, 1965, being at the origin of
this state, so to speak, is its root; it is radical schism-
ment by the consequences. It is this second aspect that we will
now consider.
Schism-wandering, as we have seen (65) is of itself a state, in
all subject
(1 D
who is affected. The recitals that found

this conclusion is eminently valid, when this "subject is the " self-
D
rite". There is, in this case, only one proposition " irregular
lière ”. Besides, it is not affirmed, but it is " existential-
LEMENT lived "by the DC authority It does not declare itself,
D.
neither in general, nor in such particular circumstances, that it is

-75-
78
not infallible; in this declaration would consist the affirmation of a
“ irregular” proposition ; since false. But T 'authority})' does
not declare of itself that it is infallible; in such circumstances
particular where it should. It is this omission which constitutes the
capital schism. If this omission persists, the capital schism of which
it is the origin becomes a state.
In order to clarify it, let us recall a general data.
When the authority is exercised by different natural persons
férentes which follow one another in the same office, the ordinations
ted by each of these persons are of two kinds. The ones
fall, when the natural person who wore them leaves the
load: the. others are imputed to authority as such, and, of itself,
they remain, although there is a succession of natural persons. The
ordinations, of itself, subsist; that is to say that the authority cannot
not mention them, either that she must keep them, or that she can
modify them.
These different clauses are effectively implemented in the
government of the Church. .
.
.
In particular; the ordinations of a doctrinal order which are
established by an Ecumenical Council approved by the Pope and which
from a traditional doctrine already defined, such ordinations
'are by nature irreformable and moreover promulgated with the note
infallibility.
It follows that the relationship between such ordination and the Authority
as such remains the same, regardless of the physical person
which occupies the Seat of the Authority. So, for example, the Popes who
succeeded Pius IX have, by the very fact, that they occupied the See
apostolic, adhered, very exactly Count Pius IX 'himself, to the
ordinations of the Vatican Council I. For it not to be so, he
one of these Popes would have had to question, from some
anyway, not directly the Vatican ordinations there,
but the relationship that they maintain with the subjected Authority
in the person of Pius IX. And, in general, the physical person who
holds ' the Authority is supposed to recognize unless it declares
expressly 'to the contrary, that it has, with the Deposit' revealed, the same
report that other natural persons who preceded him in
The exercise of Authority.
'. .
79
III - SC, HISM AND LEGAL PERSONS
However, the capital schism consists formally in the deprivation
which affects the relationship between such ordination [in this case the
Declaration of December 7, 1965] and "authority", this deprivation
consisting, as we have just recalled, in the “lived” preterition
infallibility.
And since this ratio remains the same, whatever the per-
sounds physical which occupies the Seat of the Authority, the deprivation which
affects this ratio also remains the same; so that the state
of schism, which consists of this deprivation, is subject to
each of the natural persons who materially occupy the
Seat of the Authority. Unless one of these people poses a
act which is proper to put an end to this state, and thus covers formal
LEMENT Authority ..
Thus, the capital schism entails of itself a state of schism that
only the person who is precisely affected by it can stop,
by virtue of the fact that it holds "authority ".
THE ESSENTIAL DEFINITION Dl! SCHISM (61) IS CONFIRMED,
BY THE FACT THAT IT EXTENDS TO THE CASE OF CAPITAL SCHISM;
AND IT IS THUS PRECISE.
85. "Deprivation" being based on " what is by itself".
first of all the absence of schism which must be characterized from the
faith. And it is this definition of "non-schism" that is found,
on the contrary, usefully specified in terms of the capital schism.
"Not to make a schism" is to be with the Authority that Jaffirrrie
d; elIe-ÏTIê: ine that it is infallible.
.
“To create a schism ”, at least objectively, is:
. ' 1) or not to be with the Authority which affirms of itself
r-
that it is infallible being ..with "Authority" means, for 'the
faithful: "to be subject to Authority, and to be in" communion with the
r.idels who are subject to him ”];:
.
.. -.
"
"
2) or to be the "authority" who refused; to assert itself
that she is infallible: 'When she should; "
".
. ·, 3) or be with this. "Authority" [<! to be with ”means:
'"To be in intelligible communion", or' ", to cooperate, either actively or
passively ”, .- .. Many- degrees are possible 'in, the partici-
pation to schism]. '
.
80
4. THE AFFECTED CAPITAL SCHISM,
AS A STATE,
THE “CHURCH” POST MONTINIENNE.
SYMPTOMS.
THE EXISTENCE OF SYMPTOMS.
86. We have seen (84) that the schism objectively perpetrated by
Cardinal JB MONTINI on December 7, 1965, continues if we can
say within the very heart of " authority", precisely insofar as it is
capital.
This schism consists in admitting in fact, more or less explicitly
or consciously, but objectively, that the " authority"
may not assert of itself that it is infallible, when
circumstances expressly require it. It ruins by the very fact,
insidiously but radically because at the root of the Faith,
the very principle of Authority in the Church founded by " He who
is the Truth ” 7.
This same schism, objectively specified as we have just
to recall it, is found spread, so to speak, in an endemic way.
in the whole post-Montinian " church", in the sense that there
constitutes a condition to which the subjects are more or less affected
who agree to participate. So be it, that this enduring state
be the sequel to the capital schism, this is made manifest
by two symptoms which concern, one positively and the other
negatively, this state.
The positive symptom, so to speak, is the degradation of
authority in the Church. " Impossible to be more Catholic than the
Pope ". And indeed, if the very principle of authority is undermined
at the top, authority is no longer taken seriously anywhere. The
"Episcopal conferences ", either reject " Rome", or in
call for " Rome", for that is their pleasure. It's consistent,
of this objective consistency imposed by the principle of no
contradiction. There is no longer to be, it is no longer possible to be, with
an "authority" which falters because it is scuttled in principle
even. The proliferation of initiatives in the service of "creativity",
brings about, in the post-conciliar church, a general non-submission
-78-
81
which is strictly correlative of the degradation of self-
rite. The first symptom of the capital schism is, one might say,
a sort of universal “ schismatite ” . The thing is pretty mani-
celebrate so that it is useless to insist.
The second symptom, negative, showing that the capital schism
is endemic in the church, is that, for
remedy this state, we aim precisely to resolve the schism by
an approach of " authority ", which in fact comes up against the schism
capital itself. So that a state whose experience proves
contrary to the good of God, is it not enough that the church
become as before Vatican II? Would it not be so, if
the " authority" proposes and then imposes an interpretation of this council in accordance with
mement to Tradition?
But this project, far from remedying by " authority" the schism
who entered the church between the present and the past, this project
therefore cannot relate to reality without the mediation of
capital schism, the diffuse existence of which is thus reaffirmed.
It is this latency of the capital schism in the project ordered to
restore the unity between the present and the past, which we will now
nant to show.
87. Admit in principle that there may be, and a fortiori
claim to elaborate in fact, an " interpretation of the Second Vatican Council
which would be in accordance with Tradition ” is to positively support
and expressly with the schismatic act accomplished by the Pope
Paul VI on December 7, 1965.
Let us observe two things concerning such an interpretation. The
first is that the very hypothesis, that of interpreting Vatican II
in accordance with Tradition, this hypothesis was therefore put forward and
formulated in a particularly authoritative manner 52.
The second
observation concerns the genesis of such a strange thing. That he
to interpret, to make it conform to Tradition, a
" Declaratio " which should forge Tradition, it cannot come,
52
Audience granted by John Paul II to Monsignor Marcel LEFEBVRE,
November 16, 1978. The two interlocutors formulated and envisaged with
favor the hypothesis in question.
-79-
82
CASSICIACVM NOTEBOOKS
humanly, that 'of a " faulty " 53. But what is true in reality,
what must be considered, judged, qualified are the texts of Vatican
can II as promulgated, however
that were not expressed.
The proof of statement (87) can be presented, either analytic
cally, or synthetically.
a) The analytical presentation of the evidence.
.aa) The schismatic act of December 7, 1965 consisted (80) in
dodge the assertion of infallibility, while the circumstances of
promulgation implied this clause, objectively and inevitably.
bluntly. However, by proposing a “ traditional interpretation of
Vatican II ”, and in particular of the Declaratio “ Dignitatis humanœ
personœ ”, we implicitly affirm, and we recognize as being
legitimate, that this Declaratio was made by the " authority", with
wanted preterition of infallibility. So be it, that the only
hypothesis of a " traditional interpretation of the Declaratio
Dignitatis humanœ personœ excluded that this Declaratio could
to be promulgated by the " authority" referring in action to the charism
infallibility, this follows from the following two recitals.
:: ab) The first is that there needs to be an " interpretation ".
It may be necessary to interpret a law whose conditions of application
tion depend on circumstances which the legislature could not foresee.
53
We have a Bishop, “ Father of the Council ”. than the vote whose object
was the approval of the Declaratio in question, took place in curious
conditions. The majority of voters, and in particular the. Anglo-Saxons, ignored
the meaning of the text proposed to them. They voted hastily, in
blindly yielding to pressures of which they were in fact the effective instrument.
This process explains the result, but it does not make the error true.
The fact that he was employed confirms two things. The first is that the " being
with "promised by Christ aux.Apôtres and to their successors may be refused.
The bishops' who prepared the vote at the refreshment bar, rather than by studying the
text, the bishops did not have the Holy Spirit " with them ," The proof is
that they affirmed a heresy. In other words, the first thing that shows
the event is that the notion of " ex opere operato ", a precious instrument of
intelligible, should not be converted into an intangible norm. The second is
that . " Council l> Vatican should be, as a " council - .: disqualified: for
if .the form occasionally makes it right .of the substance, it is like deception
may be the origin of the wandering.
- 80-
83
see. But the Declaratio in question categorically affirms a
" Truth ". by basing this assertion on Scripture and on the meta
physical. A truth does not have to be " interpreted ", although it may
be appropriate to explain it. Propose to interpret, while only-
it might have been opportune to have to explain, it is in fact
proud that this Document does not have, as to the responsibility of the "self-
rity ”. the scope which however has been given to it, in the application and
starting in reality. And, in this way, one defuses, in the " opi-
nion ", the question of infallibility in the act of promulgation;
question which can obviously only be asked for propositions
categorically stated.
ac) The second reason why the instigators of the operation
" Traditional interpretation of Vatican II and Dignitatis huma-
node personœ ” promote, consciously or not, the “ capi-
tal ", eliminating the self-affirmation of infallibility made by the " self-
rity ”. consists in proposing not only to " interpret" such and such a truth
which should integrate itself into Tradition, but to propose
to interpret it "according to Tradition ",
Let's take an example. The second Council of Orange dealt with the
Faith, as this is a free gift; and Vatican Council I
insofar as it involves a rational justification. Both
documents are written, each respectively, at two points
different views. It would make no sense to pretend the
interpret one by the other. It is only by deepening them one and
the other, we see the " tensions" vanish that we had initially believed
observe. Such is the authentic Tradition, that of which the Magisterium
infallible, always equal to itself, guarantees the determinations
convergent concerning the different aspects of the same Reality.
While it never happened, and it can't happen, in
the Church which is truly the Church, that an Ecumenical Council convokes
qué and approved by the Pope who is truly Pope, proceeds to a
.affirrnation which supports the opposition of contradiction with a
document previously promulgated by the Magisterium under the note
infallibility.
And we have never observed, in the Church which is truly
Church, that we have sleepy to interpret an affirmation that is
false, "in accordance" with the negation which, it is true, is true, but
- 81-
84
which is the contradictory of this assertion. There is, in this case
rence, neither to interpret, nor even to explain; it is simply necessary
remember that what is opposed to the truth is wrong. And it is necessary "to realize
ser ”, in word and deed, that the error as such be: first-
declared, second condemned, third dismissed.
ad) It follows, on the contrary, that to claim possible the interpretation
tradition of Vatican II is in fact to refuse that it is necessary
to denounce as such the erroneous proposition contained in
the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ.
It is therefore to deny that the conditions under which this
proposal was promulgated are actually those of the infalli-
bility.
[Because, to admit that the conditions of the promulgation are real-
also those of infallibility, implies that the proposition should have
be true. And since it is false, it must be declared a posteriori
created by the Magisterium to whom the guardianship of the truth is committed
revealed. Unless this Magisterium knowingly refuses to exercise the
function which is proper to it, refusal which, even in a single case,
implies that this Magisterium is schismatic].
Therefore, claiming possible the traditional interpretation of Vati-
can II, involves the following alternative: either, it is to admit that
the Magisterium [and therefore " authority "] is schismatic, and such is the
conclusion that we aim to establish; or it is to deny that the
conditions under which the erroneous proposition was promulgated
are really those of infallibility.
Now, to deny that the conditions under which the erroneous proposition
was promulgated are actually those of infallibility, then
that objectively these conditions are those of infallibility, it is
admit at least, to avoid this contradiction, that the " self-
rité ”refused to mention the charisma of infallibility. It is therefore
admit, as we have shown (SO), that " authority" has posed a
act which implied for her to be schismatic.
ae) We thus see that are schismatic by participation in
capital schism, by the judgment they implicitly but
inevitably on this state of schism, all those who admit in
-82-
85
principle that there may be, since they actually propose that there is,
an "interpretation in accordance with the traditional doctrine" of Vati-
can II, and therefore in particular of the Declaratio “Dignitatis humanœ
personœ ” 54.
b) The same argument can be made as follows, synthetic-
is lying.
We must distinguish: on the one hand, the ordinations of the Vatican Council
can II, and in particular the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ;
on the other hand, the relationship that these ordinations maintain with the " self-
rity ”which promulgated them. [In what immediately follows we
let us designate this report by the word " report" placed in quotation marks].
The legal truth is that, by virtue of the common law of the Church,
the "ordinations" are true, if the "relation" is what it should be;
that is, if first it proceeds from the Authority which is really
the Authority, if secondly the officially recognized qualification
for this "report" by the Authority is in accordance with what
the circumstances of the promulgation. In this case, having regard to
content of the Declaratio, the recitals alleged therein ,
the "authority" which promulgated it, this promulgation should have been
made under the infallibility note.
The factual truth, that is to say the reality is:
that, first, the Declaratio contains an erroneous proposition
born which is a heresy;
54 The Direction of the review Fidelidad a la Santa Iglesia (Casilla de Correo
4224, Correo Cental; 1000 Buenos Aires) initiates a debate on " the hypothesis
of a traditional interpretation of Vatican II)) (No. VIII, April-June 1979). These
thirteen s, based on reliable and accurate documentation, establish that there
a incompatibility between two ways of conceiving and defining the Church: one
traditional, the other set out in the Constitution Lumen gentium. It follows
that a traditional interpretation of Vatican II is in law impossible. "The
new Pentecost could only produce a new church. ” We
let us place, in what follows, from a point of view that is both more analytical and more
concrete. That is, we consider the opposition between the two ways
to conceive of the Church, in an observable fact which is the consequence, rather
than in the principles which are its origin. But this, to know that Vatican II
affirmed a heresy, actually stems from the pseudo-principles which are
the origin of this heresy. We will come back to this in the following paragraph (83). We
let us call " soft traditionalists" those who admit the possibility of
interpretation in accordance with traditional doctrine, for Vatican II, and therefore
in particular for the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ.
- 83-
86
that, secondly, those of the traditionalists 55 who hold to the
tranquility more than the truth 56
recognize the error from which it comes
to be questioned and even vomit it out with indignation; but they
hold firmly that the " authority" was really the Authority in
person of Paul VI approving and promulgating the Declaratio erro-
born.
The position of the soft traditionalists implies contradiction.
For, affirming that the " authority" was really, in the person of
Paul VI, the Authority, they should affirm that the " report" was and
remains what it should be, between the promulgated [false] ordination and
the " authority" - Authority which promulgated it. Soft traditionalists
are aware of this contradiction, and they try to hide it
non-coherent ignoring the qualification of " Special Rapporteur
Harbor"; which allows them to forge the satanically men-
dreams of a " traditional interpretation of Vatican II ",
Now, to ignore the qualification of the " report" is what
targeted by the " authority " by misleading statements about
the implementation of infallibility in the promulgation of the Council
Vatican II 57, and it is very precisely this preterition which, coming from
the " authority" is the " capital schism" (80).
The position of the soft traditionalists therefore constitutes a
at least mental pation to the " capital schism ", This participation
mental state in the state of schism, by the judgment made on this state,
does it imply that there is not only mental participation but
real, this is what we will examine (100), after having determined
which came out clean on the " authority" (90-99).
55
Use the word "traditionalist" to designate certain Catholics,
has two drawbacks. On the one hand, every Catholic must be faithful to the
Tradition. While the phrase "traditional Catholic" suggests that he could
there are Catholics who are not faithful to Tradition. On the other hand, the [false]
"Traditionalism" was condemned by Pius IX (June 21, 1855). We comply
However mons to a use convenient; and we use the locutions:
"traditional Catholics ". or "traditionalists ",
56
This attitude has been the subject of keen analysis. Newsletter

The Christian West, No.39, February 1979, pp. 1 14.
57
Cahiers de Cassiciacum N ° 1, p. 16, note 7.
-84 -
87
5. THE AFFECTED CAPITAL SCHISM,
AS A STATE,
THE “CHURCH” POST MONTINIENNE.
THE CLAUSES WHICH PRESIDE PRIORITY
THE POSSIBLE RESOLUTION OF SCHISM.
The considerations that we have just developed (86,87), concerning
nant the state which the capital schism introduced in the church, are
uniformly for any member of the church, including the "authority ",
However, with regard to the capital schism, this is found in a
singular situation; because she is alone, in the church, to realize
existentially the relationship that it maintains with the
Deposit revealed. She alone can cause the state of schism, or
continue, or be resolved. It is therefore important, in completing this cha-
clown, to return to what constitutes its formal object, namely the "self-
rity ”as such.
88. The “relationship” that the “authority” currently maintains with
the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ can, a priori, present
two modalities.
The relationship in question must obviously be considered in the forum.
external, as manifested by declarations and deeds
of " authority ", We will specify which are, for this report,
two possible modalities , which correspond respectively to
also possible attitudes of "authority ". This category
risation is therefore abstract. We only offer it for the better
locate the concrete considerations that we will develop
in the next chapter (IV).
The three a priori possible hypotheses , concerning, at the point of
view to which we place ourselves, the behavior of " authority",
are the following. This behavior can: either show nothing
of the “ relationship” that the “ authority” maintains with the Declaratio Digni-
tatis humanœ personœ ”; either show that this " relationship" consists
in an approval; either show that this " relationship" consists of
disapproval.
- 85-
88
The first two hypotheses are the same, by virtue of
what we observed above (84). Because, in doctrinal matters,
the natural person who currently holds the " authority" is
deemed to be in solidarity, unless otherwise stated, with those who have
preceded. Believing to be the Authority, the " authority" indeed recognizes
the norms which are of common law in the Church. So there is.
in law, concerning the behavior of the " authority", that two
possible hypotheses, to which correspond two modalities for
the envisaged “ report”; the " report" is: either of " approval",
or “ disapproval ”, Tertium non datur.
One might object that the nomenclature of hypotheses is
incomplete. Are there not in fact, in the conciliar votes themselves
same, three options to choose from: " placet, non placet, [placet] juxta
modum ”; " Yes, no, [yes] under such conditions".
We answer that it is not, in this case, a text
to develop. This is a categorical proposition, which has been heard
as such in practical application, and which supposedly asserts
a truth based on Scripture and on metaphysics. Such a
proposition, as we have already observed (87 ab), is not susceptible
interpretation. It is either true or it is false. Tertium non datur.
And like, in reality, sooner or later and whatever we want, what
what does the person who holds the " authority" subjectively want ,
it is the principle of non-contradiction that applies, the
ment of " authority" cannot manifest, in reality, for the
" Relationship" that the " authority" maintains with the Declaratio Dignitatis
humanœ personae, that either one or the other of two ways:
"Approval", "disapproval". We will clarify which are
the respective implications of these two contingencies.
89. The two a priori possible modalities for the “ report”
that the " authority" currently supports with the Declaratio Dignitatis
humanœ personœ, correspond respectively to two statuses of
"authority".
We will consider, in the following chapter (IV), the signs of these
behaviors, in other words the way they manifest themselves
externally. We consider them here, as they proceed from
the "authority", and consequently manifest its qualification,
intrinsically.
-86-
89
a) The behavior " approval" consists, from the point of view
to which we place ourselves, in that the holder of the " authority ",
as such, in particular the current holder, holds as having been
an authentic act of the Church the approval and promulgation of the
Declaratio, and stands in solidarity with Pope Paul VI who took this act.
And so, in this view, the Declaratio is, supposedly, a computer.
nation attributable to " authority" as such; she subsists by
therefore, identical to itself, regardless of the people
who successively hold the " authority", and who, ipso
facto, are all objectively in the SAME " disposition" with regard to
of the Declaratio (84).
That this " provision" is objectively always the same,
entails, whatever the person who may subjectively wishes
holds the "authority ", the following consequence. The " authority" which, in
the person of cardinal JB MONTlNI, put himself in a state of schism
capital (80) with regard to the Declaratio, remains in a state of schism
capital in the person who currently holds the " authority ", eu
regard to the same Declaratio; being assumed, as we do,
that this person adopts the behavior " approval ",
Under such conditions, i.e. if the legal person and
body who has the " authority" adopts the " appropriate " behavior.
bation ”, is a priori resolved an important question.
This question is whether, whatever the case of the two
conclaves whose votes have humanly resulted in the establishment of the " self-
rity ”, a divine substitute could be granted, with a view to
of the Church, to the [current] holder of " authority" so that he may be
Pope formalize 5 ?
The correct answer to this question is obviously
mentally negative.
It is indeed possible that Christ " compensates " for a
person who actually nods objectively, even to his body
defending, to a state of schism. The Church is one and holy. The character
holy and sacred land of unity excludes that in the Church which is true
the Church, the Authority which is truly the Authority is embodied in
a person who is in a state of capital schism, probably not
subjectively, but objectively and inevitably, since pre-
precisely as it is the " authority ",
-87 -
90
It must therefore be concluded that if, in the person of the cardinal
K. WOJTYLA, or for that matter any other canonically enthroned,
the " authority" adopts the behavior " approval", this per-
ring cannot be Authority; she cannot be Pope forma-
liter.
b) The " disapproval" behavior supports the opposition of
contradiction with " approval " behavior ,
It would consist, in essence, for the [current] holder of the “ au-
tority ”, to declare that he does not consider to have been an authentic
that act of Church the approval and promulgation of the Dec! aratio,
and that he therefore dissociate himself from Pope Paul VI who posed this
act. We say " in substance", because never the situation of
the Church has not justified, much less required, to employ such
procedure. It is therefore to " authority" and to it alone that he would return.
to specify what should be the " form" of this procedure. We
can think of the convocation of a new Council. Mr. Abbot of
NANTES has already put forward the hypothesis of " Vatican III ", But, in the
current economic situation, such an undertaking would probably not
that increase the confusion.
Regardless of the " form " as to the procedure,
behavior " disapproval" would entail, from the per-
sounds who [currently] holds the " authority", a break with
this " authority " " established" [and degraded] by Cardinal JB MON-
TINI, and therefore a break with the state of capital schism
which is inherent in this " authority". Besides, only the person who
has the " authority" can break with the " authority" as such;
only the person who is objectively in a state of capital schism
by the simple fact that it holds the " authority ~ 'that is intrinsically
affected by this state, can put an end to this state of capital schism, by
dissociating himself from this irremediably contaminated " authority".
In this second perspective, that implied by the behavior
ment " disapproval ". the answer to the very question that we
just mentioned (a) should, it seems, be affirmative.
Christ should supply, on behalf of a person who
is at least apparently qualified, since those who could
-88-
91
being really in fact renouncing to state it 58, and which manifests
the plan to restore order in the Church by action.
The first of all these acts is obviously to break
with all that continues to enclose in itself the endemic state the original
gine of disorder. Such an act would seem to suffice to restore the per-
moral and physical sound that would posit him as an " authority", in
the quality of Pope exercising formalizing the Authority.
c) The a priori existence of two possible modalities for the
behavior of the " authority" with regard to Vatican Council II and
more precisely of the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ, the existence
tence of this duality, therefore, is confirmed a posteriori and
concretely by the resulting " tension" within the " church",
and even “ authority”.
The best proof that this tension exists is the audience
granted to the ingenuous and satanic discovery that we made
above (87) criticism, namely the " traditional interpretation of
Vatican II ”, A balloon inflated to the point to [appear] col-
tame an abyss! The excess in the absurd of what we claim
veil the schism, namely to take the contradiction as the norm
of reality, this very excess reveals the gaping depth of the schism.
This schism is, so to speak, subject to " authority", then
that it is within herself that she is torn. Is she the " self-
rity ”which can persist in the state of schism? Is she the Authority
who could put an end to the state of schism? This is the stake of
tension: " Approval" or " Disapproval"? Either one or
the other. Tertium non datur ... ? Unless, however, you " choose ". no
not of not choosing, since it is impossible (88), but of " choosing
sir ”to wait. What do the " authority"? Ignoramus. Ignorabi-
mus ... ? At least we can look at what she did.
58
The most sinister aspect of the arcane in which "Rome" hides
Vatican is the silence of authentic cardinals. Heartbroken by the council, they
encouraged “others” to act; but they, the only ones authorized to do so
officially, always alleged a pretext for recusing themselves, when
solicited their qualified patronage.
- 89-
92
93
CHAPTER IV
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAPITAL SCHISM
OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED
AND THE SUBJECTS IN Q! II IT CAN BE ACHIEVED.
90. This last chapter is devoted to the conclusions which
slow of precedents. The principles of action must impose
consequences which concern the practical order.
The subjects in whom the capital schism can be realized are
fundamentally as we have explained (84), the person
moral and physical which is legally invested with " authority";
these are also the people who profess to recognize
the " authority "
What matters most, from the point of view of the theological Faith
it is obviously the relation that maintains with the capital schism
tal the legal and physical person of Cardinal K. WOJTYLA. We
let us, for greater clarity, specify what will be on this point our
conclusion (a), what is the meaning (b), what is finally
the scope, based on both the order (c) and the bases (d) of
proof by which we will establish it.
a) The statement of the conclusion, concerning the relationship between the
capital schism and " authority".
It is increasingly probable, and practically certain, that the
time to observe the actions and words of
the " authority", that it adopted the behavior " approval"
- 91-
94
(89a), and that it is therefore objectively in the state
of " capital schism ",
b) The meaning and scope of the stated conclusion (a).
We use the word " approval" in the most acceptable sense.
forte which has been specified above (88). The object of this "approval
tion ”is. globally, the approval of Vatican Council II par. the
Pope Paul VI, and consequently the approval of the acts of said
council; but the object of " approval" as we understand it
in this chapter, it is very precisely the approval, made by
the " authority" on December 7, 1965, of a heretical proposition that
that it supports the opposition of contradiction with the truth 59.
This is because we give the word "approval" this
precise scope, which we say on the other hand: "it is more and more
probable that ”. The only encyclical Redemptor hominis 60 manifests
indeed as not only being probable, but as being
evident and certain, that John Paul II is in a state of "approval" to
with regard to Paul VI61 and Vatican II 62. But the question is
whether this "approval" extends to the contested proposal.
The answer to this question is extremely serious. He imports
therefore to formulate this answer in terms such that it can
be rigorously proven. This is why we are content
to say, for the moment: "it is more and more probable, and it is
practically certain that ”; and not [yet]: " it is absolutely
certain that ",
59
Let us recall what this proposition is: "... in religious matters ... • null
should not be prevented from acting according to his conscience, either in private. either in public.
either alone or with others, within fair limits. " ,
60
We will cite the encyclical letter Reâemptor hominis under the acronym RH;
and we refer to the edition: “The major texts of the Catholic Documentation
lic, No. 25; Supplement No. 1761 1 st April 1979 ". We indicate the number
of the , and the column: a or b.
61 “ In doing so [taking the two names John and Paul], following
the example of my venerated predecessor, like him I wish to express my
love for the unique heritage left to the Church by the Pontiffs John XXIII and
Paul VI ... ” (RH, 3a). John Paul II even manifested, for Paul VI,
feelings of affection and gratitude; and he expressed the intention to open.
for the late pope, the canonization process. All these behaviors do not
are that "approval ",
62
RH refers to Vatican II very frequently, always in a way

laudatory and without any restriction.
-92-
95
IV - CAPITAL SCHISM AND SUBJECTS
c) The order of the evidence on which the stated conclusion (a)
is founded, in order a priori the scope.
We allow ourselves to refer back to what we already have
specified 63.
It is the observed facts which form the basis of the
conclusion, in accordance with induction reasoning. Such
reasoning leads of itself to the certainty whose type is proper to
every area of knowledge. Observation of facts is affected, and
of the contingency which is inherent in the observed reality, and of the
contingency which comes from observing; it therefore carries, of itself, a
only probable conclusion. And by " probable" we mean
an assertion which may be true, not being excluded the possibility
that a contrary assertion is true.
Now the probable, insofar as it can be true, is, in the subject,
the correlate of an objective similarity of the truth, that is to say the correlate
the real-like. The different probable assertions are therefore
also supposed to be true-alike. In reality, some are real-
somewhat similar to the real one, and obviously compatible with each other;
the others are opposed to the former, and are not really
blable to the truth.
The convergence of differentiated observations designates as being
most probable such assertion which appeared first in a set
assertions considered equally probable. It is this assertion
more probable which is, in reality, true-similar, i.e. it
expresses, in the subject, the similitude of the truth which is in the object. Yes
the repetition of differentiated observations confirms [indefinitely] this
which preceded, it is the sign that the assertion thus distinguished expresses
the nature of reality, and therefore the truth.
Such, reduced to the essential, is the metaphysical justification,
therefore valid in any domain whatsoever, the reasoning
ment by induction. He virtually carries certainty within himself,
from the " mental moment" when the "probable" is objectified
very " converted" to " probable".
In this case, the data that we will explain (d) does
do not seem sufficient to rule out any hesitation in law ,
63
Cahiers de Cassiciacum N ° 1, pp. 65-68.
- 93-
96
SIGNATURES OF Cassiciacum
concerning the question whether the {(authority "adopts at least
objectively the behavior {(approval "in the strict sense.
thing is, however, so highly probable that, in practice, it
must, as we shall see (98), act as if it were certain.
d) The basis of the evidence on which the stated conclusion (a)
is based.
We have just recalled (c) what epistemology consists of
of proof, namely reasoning by induction. It remains to indi-
quer what are the facts likely to form the basis of this
induction. The clear proof that the {(authority "subject to the
ringing cardinal WOJTYLA adopts the behavior {( approval "
with regard to the {(authority "subject in the person of the cardinal
MONTINI, would obviously consist in making the computers its own.
statements of Vatican II, without expressing, at least and temporarily fault
better, a reservation, concerning those of those ordinations of which either
both content and form are flawed.
What is it actually? We refer, to determine it,
to the document which remains the most important to this day, namely
the encyclical letter Redemptor hominis 60.
And as behaves-
ment {(approval "has as its express object the {(liberty reli-
gieuse ”(a), and that it is closely related , in the legal person
and physical which is likely to exercise it, with the light of Faith
and with the rule of Faith, we will consider, in the document cited,
the passages which respectively belong to each of these three
perspectives.
We will observe successively:
That the way in which Cardinal WOJTYLA expresses himself about
the {(religious freedom "leads one to believe that he has opted for the
ment " approval" (91);
That this conclusion is not invalidated, nor by Marian piety
that Cardinal WOJTYLA likes to manifest, nor by the theological instinct
who (?) inspired him to reaffirm that Mary is Mother of the Church
(92-94);
-94-
97
That the same conclusion is confirmed by the accommodatice usage
at the very least questionable that Cardinal WOJTYLA makes of the rule of
Faith and the Gospel, by posing at least implicitly that
“ Man” constitutes the absolute principle of hermeneutics (95-97);
That this same conclusion must, therefore, be practical-
held to be true (98).
We will then specify what are the consequences of order
practice entailed by having to attribute to 'authority' the op-
“approval”; consequences for the legal person
and the physical nature of " authority" (99), consequences for the personnel.
people who profess to " recognize" " authority" (100).
-95-
98
DECASSICIACUM NOTEBOOKS
1. THE WAY IN WHICH IS EXPRESSED
CARDINAL WOJTYLA
ON THE “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ”,
INDUCED TO ESTIMATE THAT HE OPTED
FOR THE “ APPROVAL ” BEHAVIOR .
91. “ Religious freedom” is in fact considered in Redemp-
tor hominis from three different points of view, namely: in itself,
as to the [false] principle from which it derives, as to the consequences
which follow from this principle.
a) “ Religious freedom” considered in itself.
The encyclical Redemptor hominis has three paragraphs on
freedom. The third evokes freedom in Christ 64.
The second
reminds us, quite appropriately moreover, that freedom is a right
normed by truth 65.
The first is precisely the
religious freedom: " This is why the Church of our time grants
of great importance to everything that Vatican Council II laid out
in the declaration on religious freedom, as well as in the first
first part of the document than in the second ” 66.
But it is at
middle of paragraph 2, therefore at the beginning of the first
part, that is the erroneous proposition 59 and in fact heretical.
The insistent clause: " both in the first part of the document-
only in the second ”seems to reaffirm, implicitly.
mentally but determinedly, the wrong proposition.
However, there is more. For the doubtful principle hence
cedes this proposition, and the false consequence which accompanies it,
are also affirmed, the first implicitly, the second explaining
quote.
64
It is by such " freedom that Christ made us free" (Gal. V,
1; V, 13); (RH 21a).
65
RH 9a.
66
RH 8b. The declaration includes in fact: an introduction which
title the first paragraph; and two parts, namely: I. Libertatis religiosœ ratio
generalis (paragraphs 2 to 8), II. Libertas religiosa sub luce Revelationis
(paragraphs 9 to 14).
-96-
99
b) “ Religious freedom ” as to the [false] principle from which it derives.
The questionable principle is as follows:
"Does it not sometimes happen that the firmness of the belief of the members
non-Christian religions - also an effect of the Spirit of Truth
operating beyond the visible borders of the Mystical Body _ ... lO 67
But if it is possible to attribute, by appropriation,
to the Spirit of Truth, the graces of illumination which lead to the Faith
members of non-Christian religions, it is impossible to Him
ascribe steadfastness in a human belief that is actually
stubbornness in error. The psychological similarity between two
dispositions, one natural, the other supernatural, must not induce
to assign them formally and immediately the same Cause,
know the Spirit of Truth.
Maybe we will see that it can be a "slip men-
tal 10, the author not having expressed his thoughts with sufficient precision.
We would like to believe it. The difficulty in doing so is that the
About Cardinal WOJTYLA is, in substance and so
say radically, in the Constitutio dogmatica de Ecclesia ({ Lumen
Gentium " :
"... although
there are many, outside the Roman Catholic Church,
the elements of sanctification and truth: which, in so far as they are
in their own right, the gifts made to the Church of Christ, bring back to [put in
movement towards] Catholic unity. " 68
67 RH Sa. The text continues: “.u should shame Christians, if
often led to doubt the truths revealed by God and announced by the Church ... ",
"To shame", of course, it is appropriate to underline it, because Christians are
less generous in the service of the Truth than certain proselytes of secularism or
of atheistic communism. This generosity obviously has God for Cause, but
she is outside grace. If it contributes to salvation, it is exclusively through
Mercy of God and not by itself. It has nothing in common with the
Faith which alone justifies (Mark XVI, 16).
68
" Hœc est ûnica Christi Ecclesia quam in Symbolo unam, sanctam,
catholicam and apostolicam profitemur, quam Salvator noster, post resurrectionem
suam Petra pascendam tradidit (Jo. XXI, 17), eique ac cœteris Apostolis
diffundendam et regendam commit (Mtt. XXVIII, 18 sv.), and in perpetuum ut
columnam and firmamentum veritatis erexit (1 Tim. III, 15). Hœc Ecclesia, in hoc
mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a
successore Petri and Episcopis in ejus communione gubernata, licet extra ejus
compaginem elementa plura sanctificationis et veritatis inveniantur, quœ ut
dona Ecclesise Christi propria, ad unitatem catholicam impellunt.lO (Lumen
Gentium, N. 8). We underline the passage that we translate in the text.
-97-
100
Thus, according to Cardinal WOJTYLA, “the Spirit of Truth operates beyond
visible borders of the Mystical Body ”, not only as
Source of enlightenment that converts, which may be true, but
also as inspiring "the firmness of belief" which of itself
is sanctifying. It is Vatican II: “it exists, outside the Catholic Church
Roman law, multiple elements of sanctification and truth
which are in their own right the gifts given to the Church of Christ ” 68.
It's here
same doctrine. And it's the same 69 error .
Now, if we admit this error, it follows that all humans in
as long as people are entitled to equality, with regard to,
religious point of view, the exercise of freedom. Belonging to
the Roman Catholic Church does lead to a differentiation, but
this only concerns the social order. "Belonging to the Catholic Church
Roman law, and consequently to share the revealed Truth,
in no way differentiates the right of persons to liberty: neither
in the natural order, it is obvious, nor in the supernatural order, since
whoever can, even outside the Church, have "working [in oneself] the Spirit
of Truth ”, and consequently gain free access to freedom.
Now this "equal" among all humans can, with regard to those who
belong to the Roman Catholic Church, be referred to either one
or to the other of the two terms whose comparison it expresses. This
gives rise to the following two assertions: 1) every human has, at
69
This doctrine is in fact in opposition to the affirmation of Pius XII:
“ The Mystical Body of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church” (first
sentence from the Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi). Indeed, according to the doctrine
traditional, as according to that of Vatican II, there are human beings who
are not legally part of the Roman Catholic Church, and have the
thanks. But the difference, irreducible, is in this., According to traditional doctrine
these humans are part of the Roman Catholic Church; although circums-
accidental losses prevent their being legally incorporated into it. While
that, according to the doctrine of Vatican II, these same humans are outside (extra
ejus compaginem) of the Roman Catholic Church. They are members of Christ,
since they receive grace; and yet they are not in the Church. We
can therefore be part of the Mystical Body without belonging to the Catholic Church
Roman. This is not therefore the Mystical Body of Christ; she is
only a way of subsisting, " as a society constituted and ordered
born ”, pardoned humans suffer the attraction of this society, and are brought back,
by affinity, to unity. This " unity" is therefore conceived, according to Vatican II, as
subsequent to the infusion of grace; while in reality and according to doctrine
traditional, it is the concomitant condition. The definition of the Church,
and consequently the way of conceiving the relationship which the Church maintains with
humanity, are, according to the doctrine of Vatican II, radically flawed.
-98-
101
IV • CAPITAL SCHISM AND SUBJECTS
point of view of religious freedom, the same rights as the Catholic
than; 2) the Catholic has no other right than other humans,
since he has the same rights.
c) “ Religious freedom” as a consequence of the [false] principle
from where it arises.
The two preceding assertions imply, each respective-
ment, the two consequences here.
Every human being supposedly having the same right to religious liberty
gious than the Catholic, and Catholics having the right to
celebrate their Faith in public and collectively, it follows that this same
right belongs to every human. {{No one, therefore, should be prevented
to act according to his conscience, even in public and even with others.
To do so is and remains a right, even if external circumstances
“rieures limit the exercise of this right ”, Here is, very precisely, the
erroneous proposition 59 which Pius IX condemned in advance. We see
that it necessarily follows from the alteration introduced by Vati-
can II in the definition of the Church 68,
alteration as cardinal
WOJTYLA takes over 67.
The Catholic supposedly having no other right to liberty
religious than any other human, the principle of this right is, for
the Catholic, the same as for any human. It is very exactly
what Cardinal WOJTYLA says : {( No privilege is requested,
but respect for an elementary right ” 70.
And this is, once again, the
70
"(A) If we refrain from going into details in this area
- and we would have a special right and duty to do so - it is above all
because, united with all those who suffer from discrimination and
persecution for the name of God, we are guided by faith in strength
redeemer of the cross of Christ. (b) However, by virtue of my charge, I
wish, on behalf of all believers around the world, to address those whose
depends in some way on the organization of social and public life, in their
urging to respect the rights of religion and the activity of
the Church. We are not asking for any privilege, but the respect of an elementary right. "
(RB. 15 a).
Paragraph (a) [this subdivision is ours] seems to be inspired by the clear-
clairvoyance of Faith and humility; we could not omit these lines, since
we cite the following. But paragraph (b) ends in a capitulation
to the Testimony of Faith. The Roman Catholic Church is assimilated, endorsed, to
all the others. Now this is, in reality and in truth, unacceptable: since
the Roman Catholic Church alone is the Mystical Body of Christ.
- 99-
102
sign that Cardinal WOJTYLA subscribes 71 to alteration 68
that Vati-
can II introduced into the definition of the Church.
71
Let's explain it again. According to the false doctrine of Vatican II, the Church
Roman Catholic Church is indeed the "Mystical Body of Christ", but only
insofar as the latter “subsists as a constituted and organized society”. In
so that all the members of the "Mystical Body of Christ" thus conceived, that they
whether or not they belong to the Roman Catholic Church, have, as persons
independent of any human collective , the same right to religious freedom. We
cannot therefore claim, in favor of each Catholic, in favor of any
the Roman Catholic Church, that the same "elementary law" which can be
prevail any human person. If we admit the alteration introduced by
Vatican II in the definition of the Church, we can only express ourselves as the
says Cardinal WOJTYLA.
Father Luc J. LEFEVRE seeks, it is true, to show that the expression
employed by Cardinal WOJTYLA conforms to the purest orthodoxy:
“Some have regretted that the Pope does not admit privileges for the Church,
for the truth etc. This regret reveals a total ignorance of the notion of
right ”, (La Pensée catholique N ° 181. Editorial pp. 10-11). Father LEFEVRE
dissolves the issue in the ambiguity that covers the word "privilege " must,
to understand it, distinguish three things, namely: 1) "elementary law",
of which Cardinal WOJTYLA speaks , and which we call "common law" because
that it is claimed for all men by virtue of principles which are of order
natural; 2) the law which is specific to the Roman Catholic Church because it
is the sole depositary of revealed Truth, a right that we call the "right
Catholic ", because it is that of the Catholic Church which is not a"
universal ”; 3) the “privilege”, of which Cardinal WOJTYLA and M. l'Abbé speak
LJ LEFEVRE. However, Cardinal WOJTYLA
does two things that are
between them like the back and the right side. The first is to identify
Catholic law with common law; and this by virtue of the famous
doctrine formulated by Vatican II and taken up by Cardinal WOJTYLA, doctrine
according to which the Mystical Body, now and in action, overflows the Church
Catholic. So that Cardinal WOJTYLA
request, for the Church
Catholic, common law, given that common law is the right
Catholic. The second of the things the cardinal does is the reverse
of the first, and that is to renounce Catholic law. It means it very
clearly: on the one hand, to non-Catholics, because these are Catholic law
can only appear to be a privilege, and Cardinal WOJTYLA "does not ask for
privilege : on the other hand, to Catholics who want to understand, since
precisely he does not speak of a Catholic law distinct from common law.
Father LJ LEFEVRE wants to act as if he does not understand. He observes that
Catholic law is not a privilege: yes. He praises the "pope" for not
ask for privilege: well, in a way. But Father LJ. LEFEVRE would like
make believe that the "pope" asks, as it should, as it should, the
true Catholic law, therefore distinct from common law. Gold,
unfortunately, it is not. We must adulate the person of the "pope" for
make a text by Cardinal WOJTYLA mean the opposite of what everyone
world will understand, namely that Cardinal WOJTYLA asks for the Church
only common law, since it does not ask for it what the
non-Catholics call it a privilege.
-100 -
103
d) Here then is a first fact, the observation of which leads to con-
clure that the " authority" subject to the person of Cardinal WOJTYLA
adopts the behavior " approval", with regard to the " report"
that " authority" supports as such with Vatican II and in parti-
culier with the erroneous proposition '12.
Indeed, the encyclical Redemptor hominis: 1) seems to reaffirm
this erroneous proposition; 2) affirms in equivalent terms 67
the
false principle 69
whence necessarily follows this erroneous conclusion
born; 3) asserts a false consequence 70 which necessarily follows
of the same false principle 69.
2. EXPOSURE OF THE DOCTRINE
CONCERNING MARY MOTHER OF THE CHURCH
BY CARDINAL K. WOJTYLA,
DO NOT REFUSE THAT THE "AUTHORITY" HAS OPTED
FOR THE "APPROVAL " BEHAVIOR ,
The " Marian devotion" of Cardinal WOJTYLA a factor
reassuring, skillfully implemented with regard to " traditionalists "
worried ... and supposedly too rowdy. How could such a faithful pope
to the traditional Faith make the sequelae of a
council which in fact introduced in the Church a rupture of the Tra-
edition? The question is worth considering, especially since it is
present under an incidence which is particularly sensitive to
faithful, that of devotion: Redemptor hominis reaffirms, after
and with Paul VI, that Mary is Mother of the Church.
'12
This is what Cardinal WOITYLA explicitly confirmed, in
declaring to the ü.NV on October 2, 1979: " Let me list
some of the most important of inalienable human rights ...
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to demonstrate
his religion, individually or in common, both in private and in public ... "
(Cf. Documentation catholique, N ° 1772, October 21, 1979, p. 876, col. 2). The
Cardinal WOJTYLA therefore takes up, word for word and in full, the proposal
heretic contained in the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ.
-101-
104
The exposition of the doctrine concerning Mary Mother of the Church by the
Cardinal WOJTYLA behaves, from the point of view to which we
of course, that required by the examination of ' approving ' behavior.
tion ”, three aspects: the first two, one positive (94 a), the other
negative (94 b), concern the doctrine itself; the third (94 c)
in regards to an ingenious implication. To explain it,
briefly recall the immediate history of the
doctrine concerning Mary Mother of the Church (92), and what
the discussion in Redemptor hominis (93).
THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING " MARY MOTHER OF THE CHURCH ",
THE "LUMEN GENTIUM " "CONSTITUTIO ",
AND THE “DECLARATIO” OF PAUL VI.
92. a) The content of documents from a doctrinal point of view.
The dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium contains two arnbi
somehow fundamental, in the sense that they affect
the doctrine itself; not only the form, but the substance.
The first concerns the relationship between the aforesaid ' college of
ques »'13 and the Sovereign Pontiff 74;
the second concerns the report
between the Church and the Blessed Virgin Mary 75.
rs All the Apostles are always referred to in the New Testament as
by the locution: "the Twelve"; or "the Eleven ". after Judas left. We
will read with profit on this subject: The swindle of the " collegiality" in the Church, Jean
MARTY. Editions Michel Servant; BP 34, 78103 Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Cedex.
74
Notebooks of Cassiciacum ND 1, p. 17. This ambiguity appeared all the more
dangerous to Paul VI himself, that it concerns the part of the document which
the editorial staff "had required the most labor " (Paul VI's speech, 21 November-
bre 1964. Acts published by the General Secretariat of the Council p. 974). The Note
explicativa previa communicated to the fathers of the Council, November 16, 1964
[the session closed on November 21], was intended to dispel this ambiguity.
It appears in the Acts of the Council, under the title of " Notification"; she is
inserted after the Constitutio.
75
The Constitution Lumen Gentium mentions, for Mary, the title “Mother
of the Church ",
A) Here are the texts:
1. " Quapropter etiam ut supereminens prorsusque singulare membrum
Ecclesiœ necnon ejus in [ide et caritate typus et exemplar spectatissimum saluta-
- 102-
105
Turkish Catholica Ecclesia, a Spiritù Sancto edocta, filialis pietatis aijectu
tamquam. matrem amantissimam prosequitur : ” (N. 53, Acts p. 192).
"This is why the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, venerates in
Mary, an eminent and unique member who, by faith and charity is the
prestigious exemplary and archetype of the Church; and moved by the affection of the
filial piety, follow Mary as one follows a very loving Mother. "
2. “ Deipara est Ecclesiœ typus... in ordine scilicet [iâei, caritatis et perfectœ
cum Christo unionis. In mysterio enim Ecclesiœ, quœ et ipsa jure mater vocatur
and virgo, Beata Virgo Maria prœcessit, eminenter et singulariter tum virginis tum
matris exemplar prœbens ... Filium autem peperit, quem Deus posuit primo-
genitum in multis [ratribus (Rom. VIII, 29), fidelibus nempe, ad quos gignendos
et educandos materno amore cooperatur ” (N. 63, Acts p. 201).
" The Mother of God is the type of the Church ... namely in the order of faith,
of charity and of perfect union with Christ. For in the mystery of the Church,
which must be in law also called virgin and mother, the blessed
Virgin Mary has the Precedence, eminently showing the example of the Virgin and
of the mother, ... She gave birth to a Son whom God posited as the first born
of a large number of brothers, namely the faithful that she herself cooperates in
to beget and educate through his maternal love. "
3. " Iamvero Ecclesia, ejus arcanam sanctitatem contemplate, et caritatem
let's imitate, voluntatemque Patris [ideliter adimplens, per verbum Dei fideliter
susceptum and ipsa fit mater : ... And ipsa est virgo, quœ [idem Sponso datam
integrated and pure custodit, and imitans Domini sui Matrem, virtute Spiritus Sancti,
virginaliter servatintegram [idem, solidam spem, sinceram caritatem, ” (N. 64,
Proceedings pp. 201-202).
“ Besides, the Church, too, is a mother, contemplating holiness and
imitating the charity of Mary, faithfully receiving the word of God ... and
the Church, too, is virgin, since she keeps pure and integrates the faith which she
dedicated to her Bridegroom, since imitating by the virtue of the Holy Spirit the Mother of
her Lord, she preserves virginally the integrity of the faith, the assurance of
hope, the sincerity of love. ”
4. "Dum autem Ecclesia in Beatissima Virgine ad perfectionem jam relev-
git ... Ecclesia de Ea pie recogitans Eamque in lumine Verbi hominis iacti contem-
plans, in summum incarnationis mysterium venerabunda penitius intrat, Spon-
soque suo magis magisque conformatur, ” (N. 65, Acts p. 202).
The Church strives for her perfection in [the person of] the Blessed Virgin ...
The Church piously remembering Mary, and contemplating her in the light
of the Word made man, penetrates further, completely respectfully, into the
mysterious mystery of the incarnation.
B) Much has been said, after Paul VI himself, (Alloc. Of 21 November
1964, Acta p. 984), this piece of literature.
However, it should be noted that it does not contain the phrase "mother OF
the Church ”. That Mary has this title, it is suggested in one passage, that
we have transcribed above (end of text 1). " The Church follows Mary, as we
follows a very loving mother ”. And such is, in reality, the only idea concerning
the relationship between Mary and the Church, which is expressed, by way of leitmotii,
in these paragraphs. They describe how we can hear that Mary is
Mother in the Church. The Church herself is mother and virgin (text 3). And like
the Church reaches her perfection in the person of Mary (4), Mary is Mother and
virgin in the Church, as the Church is mother and virgin.
-103 -
106
The role devolved to Mary and to the Church differs only by the degree
of that which every Christian must assume, namely to cooperate by faith and by
charity to the communication of supernatural life. It is this common role that
Jesus Himself explicitly meant: "This is my brother and sister.
and my mother who does the will of my Father who is in heaven "
(Matt. XII, 50). Every Christian is a mother in the Church, so that the Church is
mother; Mary is therefore Mother in the Church, eminently since she is the
first and perfect member of the Church, but not unlike others
members. NOT OTHERWISE: this is what you have to understand, to locate
with exactitude the so-called and too famous Marian apotheosis celebrated by
Vatican II.
C) That "not otherwise" is the meaning of these paragraphs is found
confirmed by the following three recitals:
1) Many passages of Lumen Gentium remind us of the relationship
staff of Mary to Christ. But it is carefully excluded to report
this relationship, to determine what is the nature of the relationship between Mary and
the Church. “The Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles:
Lawyer, Help of Christians, Help, Mediator. However, it should be understood in such
in a way that neither takes away nor adds anything to the dignity and efficiency of the
Christ, unique Mediator. No creature in fact can number with the
Incarnate Word, with the Redeemer ... ” (Lumen Gentium 62, Acta p. 200).
Thus, "Mediatrix", "co-Redemptrix", can be, according to Vatican II,
invocations, ways of speaking. But it can't be the designations
objectively adequate privileges which are peculiar to Mary [...
conference, Father René LAURENTIN ... took special care to demonstrate that
the qualifier of "mediator" was not justified in any way in this constitution.
dogmatic tution ”G. Richard MOLARD. The winter of Vatican II. Paris 1965 (Albin
Michel), p. 35]. May Mary support with Christ, Mediator and Redeemer, a
proper relation, singular, different by nature from the relation that maintains with the
Christ any other creature whatsoever, this difference in nature therefore
does not imply any difference in kind for the relations maintained with
the Church, Mary on the one hand, another member of the Church on the other.
Mary's relationship with the Church is of the same nature as for any other
member of the Church. This is the false principle, laid down in fact by Lumen Gentium,
because of the application made to Christ of a false conception of
transcendence. This error is in this case that of Protestantism: it
consists in degrading transcendence into a separation which excludes immanence.
The truth is that Mary is Mediatrix in Christo, which in no way diminishes, nor
adds nothing to the one and only mediation exercised by Christ. Not more than
Mary conceiving assumed Humanity in no way diminishes, nor adds anything, to
the Assumptive Operation terminally exercised by the Uncreated Word.
Refusing to mention the relationship that Marie maintains with the Head of
the Church, to characterize the relationship that Mary maintains with the Church, Lumen
Gentium can only do this by a homogeneous comparison between Mary and
other members of the Church. Marie is " the one we follow", because she
is the example, the model, in the theological order. Being a Mother in the Church
consists, for Mary, in believing, in loving, in thus cooperating in the communication
of life, and to be followed: “tamquam matrem amantissimam prosequitur JO.
2) The second recital which proves the “ no otherwise” is the following.
If Mary's relationship with the Church is of the same nature [is not other than)
the report of the other members, so there is precedence of Mary on all the
-104 -
107
other members as to degree, and Lumen Gentium frequently insists on it. But
this precedence only makes sense within the Church. Marie is the excellent member,
eminent; but these qualifications, which are taken in relation to others
members, only have meaning if Mary is a member like all the others,
that if it is part, like any other member, of this set of all
members that the Incarnate Word, even as Redeemer, transcends from
His Divinity (Lumen Gentium 62). Mary, as She is "of the Church", is
isolated, like all the other members, from the Incarnate Word Redeemer; She
is great, as She is of the Church, only in relation to the other members:
Mary takes precedence over all other members, but inevitably there is
precedence of the Church over Mary. [That's why, we said it ironically but
precisely, it was necessary to pray, not Mary for the Council, but the Council for
Married].
However, this consequence, which inevitably results from the false principles laid down
and implemented in Lumen Gentium, corresponds to reality.
On the one hand, in fact, the missals and breviaries published at this time (from 1962)
involve an intentional reversal. The common of the Blessed Virgin there
figure more first; it is located after the common Church and no longer
before. We have very opportunely discovered, before developing Lumen Gentium,
that the Church is before her Mother. It is also evident that the mother would not be
not a mother if there was no child. "So" it is thanks to the child that the
mother is mother. Happy Marie! The Church is there precisely so that she can
to be a Mother there. Mary is first in the Church, but it is Mary who is
indebted to the Church.
On the other hand, the first diagrams which had been prepared for the
Councils were distributed in accordance with true order. A diagram concerning
the Blessed Virgin preceded another diagram concerning the Church. Precedence
of Mary on the Church was thus affirmed, very simply and organic-
is lying. The order followed required that we first situate Mary in relation to Christ;
and then the Church, united in relation to Christ and Mary, the Head and
the mother. It is this order, the true one, that Achille LIÉNART refused with violence in
introducing the revolution into the Council: “We do not want this
diagram ". We do not want Mary to take precedence over the Church.
therefore the Blessed Virgin as an appendix, with but after the Church. And, of course,
the goal of the enterprise which consisted in amalgamating Mary with the Church so as not to
not even to signify the precedence of Mary over the Church, this goal absolutely required
argument that the same refusal manifested itself at the very heart of what
could not not express from Mary. We say in our turn: we do not
not want this pattern. We do not want, for the Mother of the Church, to
this flashing crown which, in reality, is an insult, because it measures
from men the greatness of She who is the Mother of God. That we have
skillfully reduced: "Mother OF the Church" to "Mother in the Church", it is again
the seal of Satan on Lumen Gentium and on Vatican II.
3) The third recital which proves the "no otherwise", that is to say the
that according Lumen Gentium, the report to the Church is the same as in the
nature, for Mary and for any other member, and therefore precedence is
of the Church in relation to Mary and not vice versa, this third recital
therefore consists, in that the "walking" and active wing of the conciliatory
Liaire was hostile to the declaration of Paul VI on November 21, 1964:
"Mariam Sanctissimam declaramus Matrem Ecclesiœ, hoc est totius populi
christiani, tam jiâelium quam pastorum ” (Acta Apostolicœ Sedis; Ann. and Vol.
LVI, N. 16, 29, 12, 1964, p. 1015). "Maria igitur utpote Mater Christi, Mater etiam
-the bone -
108
Paul VI endeavored to remove these ambiguities, and to set aside the
errors they conveyed. In the " allocutio " 76
which closed the
third " period ". session or session of the Council and promulgated its
actions, he developed two arguments. First, recalling the
doctrine set out in the Nota explicativa previa 74
he reaffirmed
the absoluteness of pontifical power. We cannot distinguish: on the one hand
the Pope, on the other hand all the bishops; because this set has,
as a whole, of consistency only if it is one with the Pope. But
we can distinguish on the one hand the Pope alone, on the other hand the Pope with
the bishops. Second, Paul VI “ declared” that the Blessed Virgin
Mary being Mother of Christ, She is Mother of Pastors and of the faithful,
Mother therefore of the Church; and this, at the same time, clarified and rectified
trusted 77 expressions contained in Lumen Gentium.
b) The qualification of documents from a legal point of view.
But if the " Declaratio " of Paul VI rectifies the Constitutio of
Council, the qualification of the “ Allocutio ” from a canonical point of view,
does not go without difficulty. And this from two different points of view.
First, as to the timing of promulgation. He is pre-
stated, in the “ Allocutio ”, that the promulgation of Lumen Gentium
[idelium ac Pastorum omnium, scilicet Ecclesiœ, habenda est ” (ibid.). The same
title is repeated three times, pp. 1016, 1017. Mgr JP VINCENT, bishop of
Bayonne, boasted of not having stood up when Paul VI pronounced this
declaration. He was not the only one.
We understand the reason for this reluctance. Paul VI clearly states this
that Lumen Gentium avoids and in fact refuses to say: Mary is Mother OF the Church,
and not just Mother in the Church. And what is more, Paul VI assigns it summarily.
rement but very formally reason: " it is as the Mother of Christ
that Mary is Mother of Pastors and of the faithful, [and therefore] of the Church. ” It is
thus recalled that the relationship of Mary to the Church stems from the personal relationship
and proper from Mary to Christ, and not just as implied and implied
Lumen Gentium of union with Christ according to faith and charity, a union which is
common in nature to all Christians. The opposition to the declaration
tion of Paul VI confirmed that Lumen Gentium was knowingly written in
view to accredit the confusions and errors that were intended to rectify this
Declaration.
.
76
Summi Pontificis Pauli VI Allocutio, tertia SS Concilii periodo exacta
(Sessio V, November 21, 1964) Acts of the Council pp. 971-991; AAS, Ann. and Vol. LVI,
Nos. 16, 29, 12, 1964; pp. 1007-1018. We refer to this document by the word
" Allocutio " placed in quotation marks.
77
See end of note 75: 75 C) 3).
-106 -
109
is made under condition 78 of the details which have been given 74.
But these details are given separately; they are not incorporated
rees to the text which ends with an unconditional approval. The
Nota previa is inserted in the Acts of the Council under the title of “Noti-
fication ”, but after the duly approved Constitutio , without any
reference to this Notice. As for the " Allocutio ", it was given
by Paul VI after the act of promulgation, which seems to have value
in itself, absolutely, independently of what has happened.
Secondly, as to the “ authority” who made the “ Allocu-
tio ”, This “ authority ”is indeed Pope Paul VI; but he does not have
clarified what was the scope of his intervention. After having magni-
trusted in the work of the Council, he adds: “ However, the chapter which
requested the most labor is that whose object is the doctrine of
the Episcopate. So let us now be permitted, in what
concerns this chapter alone, to briefly set out what we think
sounds ” 79.
" Let us be permitted ..."; no one had anything
to allow! it was the "authority" that acted. But what was and
what remains the value of the act performed? Numerically deferred act
rent of that by which the "pope" had just approved and promulgated
guer la Constitutio dogmatica Lumen Gentium 80.
Compared to
qualification of the first act, is that of the second,
degree: lower, since the Pope intervenes "privately", and not
more in its own quality, " liceat nunc Nobis "? equal, since the second
act involves setting out the clauses which condition the first?
superior, since the second act regulates the first as regards
content? Alone, in the Church, could if it is useful to decide
Authority, supposing that it really was Authority.
These two recitals show that an ambiguity hangs over the
scope of the “Allocutio ”, and therefore on the scope of the Declaratio con-
held in the “Allocutio ” and concerning “Mary Mother of the Church ”.
78
Acts of the Council p. 975.
79
" Quare,de hoc tantum capite, liceat nunc Nobis paucis exponere quid
sentiamus ” (Acts of the Council p. 978).
80
“ Dogmatic Constitution” is not “ Apostolic Constitution ”. The
“ Apostolic constitution” engages the personal authority of the pope. The “ Cons ti-
tutiones ” of Vatican II are conciliar documents approved and promulgated.
fords by the Pope.
-107 -
110
THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MARY MOTHER OF THE CHURCH
IN THE "REDEMPTOR HOMINIS " ENCYCLIC .
93. Here are the salient passages from the paragraph that Redemptor
hominis consecrates to the doctrine of "Mary Mother of the Church".
a) “ Since Pope Paul VI. inspired by Marian doctrine
[exposed in Lumen Gentium], proclaimed the Mother of Christ the Mother of
the Church, and that this title has found a wide resonance. let it be allowed
also to his unworthy successor ... to address Mary as Mother of
the Church. Mary is Mother of the Church because, by virtue of the ineffective election
ble of the Eternal Father Himself.,., she gave human life to the Son of
God ... "
b) “Her own Son explicitly wanted to extend the motherhood of
his Mother - and extend it in a way easily accessible to all
souls and to all hearts - by giving him from the height of the Cross his
beloved disciple for his son (John XIX, 26) ... "
c) “It is not only the dignity of this same motherhood. who
is unique and absolutely singular in the history of mankind. But
which is also unique by its depth and the amplitude of its action,
it is the participation of Mary, because of this same maternity. at
divine plan for the salvation of man through the mystery of the Redemption. "
d) “ The characteristic of this maternal love that the Mother of God
made pass into the mystery of Redemption. and in the life of the Church,
is expressed in the fact that it is singularly close to man and
all his life. It is in this that the mystery of the Mother consists. Church
who considers her with special affection and hope
wishes to appropriate this mystery in an ever deeper way. The
again, the Church recognizes the path of her daily life that
any man. " 81
THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING “MARY MOTHER, OE THE CHURCH ”.
,.
MANIFEST WHAT IS THE BEHAVIOR
FOR WHICH A OPT ~ The "AUTHORITY ~ ".
94. a) The texts (93, a, b, C,) show positively that the "self-
rity ”subject in the person of Cardinal WOJTYLA adopts the
“approval” behavior , broadly understood, with regard to the
"Rapport" between the "authority" as such and Vatican Council II.
81 RH 21 ab.
-108-
111
[By “broad sense” we mean that “approval” does not
does not expressly relate, although it does not exclude it, on the Declaratio
disputed Dignitatis humanœ personœ.]
Indeed, these texts, by their doctrinal content, are official
cially in the line of Paul VI81 ble. But what is more, they
follow in fact the restoration inaugurated by Paul VI.
The place and role of Mary in the Church must be situated,
primarily, according to the Head of the Church. Here we are out
of the ornate rut skillfully braided by Lumen Gentium. Married
is Mother of the Church by virtue of her participation in the Incarnation and in
the Redemption considered both ex parte Christi. Married
is Mother of the Church, “ because her own Son wanted to be explicit-
to extend the motherhood of his Mother ”. The Motherhood of Mary by
relationship to the Church comes, formally, from the Head, and not from the
bres. The mother is not only the living example that her
child, or the one who cooperates in giving life through her feelings 82.
Because the mother is the one who communicates her own nature to her child,
physically [" phusis " means "nature"]. Mary is Mother of
members and of the whole Church, because She cooperates in their commu-
to deny the "supernatural nature", in the same act where, remaining
eternally Mother of the Chief, She communicates to him the “natural nature
relle ”, Mary is Mother of the Church as every mother is of her
child. This is the conclusion from which the doctrine expounded in Reâemp-
tor hominis constitutes objectively, if not of intention, the stone
waiting. Now this doctrine completes the Declaratio of Paul VI, of which
it therefore constitutes, eminently, an “ approval ”.
b) The same texts (93 a, b, c) show negatively that
the subject " authority" in the person of Cardinal WOJTYLA adopts
“ approval” behavior , broadly understood, with regard to the
“ Relationship” between “ authority” as such and Vatican Council II.
81 bIs
“Since Pope Paul VI, being inspired [by Marian doctrine
clarified in Lumen Gentium], proclaimed the Mother of Christ Mother of the Church ...
it also helped to his successor ... unworthy to speak to Mary as
Mother of the Church J)
(RH 21 ab).
82
This is, as we have seen (note 7S a2), to which Lumen Gentium reduces the
role - and title - of " Mother in the Church
D.
-109-
112
By "negatively" we mean that these same passages
leave to remain, as to the form, the deficiency which mortgages
the “ Allocutio ” and the Declaratio.
If indeed Cardinal WOJTYLA resumes, at least officially,
in writing and objectively, the affirmation: "Mary is Mother of
the Church ”, he expressly refers to“ Paul VI, drawing inspiration from the doc-
Marian trine exposed in Lumen Gentium ”, Now, being considered the
documents of the ordinary Magisterium, an Encyclical has, all things
equal, moreover, less scope than a Constitutio coming from
of an Ecumenical Council approved by the Pope, or that a Declaratio
solemn declaration of the Pope. The encyclical Redemptor hominis is therefore, at
point of view of the legal qualification, subordinate to the " Allocu-
tio ” and the Declaratio. The encyclical has its own value ; but he is
impossible that, except special provisions which have not been stipulated,
it makes up for deficiencies in the documents to which it refers, and
which are canonically no longer authorized.
It follows that, in fact and until possible intervention on this
point, Cardinal WOJTYLA opts for the behavior "approving
tion ”with regard to the deficiency which mortgages the Allocutio and
Declaratio of Paul VI on the subject of "Mary Mother of the Church ",
c) The text (93 d) induces to estimate that the "authority" subjectée
in the person of Cardinal WOJTYLA adopts the behavior "appropriate
bation x understood in the strict sense, with regard to the relationship between
rité ”as such and the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ.
The conclusion is in fact that "the Church recognizes the path of
his daily life which constitutes all man ”, Now we will see
(97 bd), the doctrine according to which "man is the road to the church"
requires to pose, for the "church", the definition [distorted] that in
gives Vatican II; this therefore requires opting for the
behavior "approval" with regard to this definition, and therefore
with regard to the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ, which follows
we have seen (91c) of this distorted definition.
These considerations do not seem to have much to do with the
doctrine concerning Mary Mother of the Church. The astonishing thing is that they
are however attached to it in the passage cited. Here is how
is lying. “The mystery of the Mother [“ Mother ”probably designates the
-110-
113
mother in general, and Mary in particular] consists in the fact that
[the Mother] is singularly close to man and to his whole life.
[Now] the Church wishes to appropriate this mystery [of the Mother, that is to say
to appropriate the fact of being singularly close to man and
all his life] ”. So that the Church "recognizes in man the
path of his own life ”.
The argument is ingenious. He assumes, however, that "to desire
to appropriate the mystery of the proximity of a thing ",
causes this thing to be a path that leads towards itself;
since, as we will see (96 as), the road that man is for
the Church leads towards man. We are not discussing this intuition.
But we do not see what are the syllogisms by which he
should underpin it, so that it was, as it should,
communicable to all by reason.
What is evident, without any reasoning, is that the thought
sée of Cardinal WOJTYLA presents, in favor of man, a
almost hegemonic rity which reveals its affinity with the Declaratio
Dignitatis humanœ personœ; which leads us to consider that the “ self-
rity ”opted for the behavior“ approval ”with regard to
said Declaration.
d) The doctrine concerning "Mary Mother of the Church" manifests
typically what is the behavior of the "authority".
Let this behavior be of "approval" with regard to Paul VI
and Vatican II, this is, as we have just seen, clearly expressed
by Cardinal WOJTYLA, as regards both “ Marie Mère
of the Church ”than “ religious freedom ”. The second " case" (94) is
however of great interest, because of the two differences
which he presents with the first (91). On the one hand, in fact, the “approval
tion 'of documents prior to 7 December 1965 does not entail
of itself the state of capital schism; which allows to observe the game
spontaneous in a more confident manner. On the other hand, if we can be
worried about the humanist tendencies of Cardinal WOJTYLA and their
repercussions in the doctrinal order, the reaffirmation of " Mary
Mother of the Church ”is objectively the indication of a very sure instinct of
the faith. The play of this instinct spontaneously prompted to realign in a
-111-
114
the Christocentric perspective the sumptuous considerations, but
confused, aberrant and even by prejudicial insulting, of Lumen
Gentium.
Unless we suppose that Cardinal WOJTYLA wrote without
think, or that everything is not from him (?), it is impossible to make
account of the double approval he gives of Lumen Gentium, of a
part with explicit reference to it 81,
on the other hand by accepting it
implicitly the scope, by a personal option concerning
doctrinal order. This, we could assume in the first case:
Cardinal WOJTYLA's humanist tendency is sufficient to account for
of his “ approval” behavior with regard to “ religious freedom ”.
gieuse ”. While the Christocentric doctrine, and not anthropo-
centric, which is implemented to affirm that Mary is Mother
of the Church, does not account at all, and on the contrary makes it difficult
can be explained, the “ approval” behavior that the author of
Redemptor hominis manifested with regard to the formal Marian doctrine
mulated in the Constitutio Lumen Gentium 81.
The behavior which would correspond to the Marian tendency of the
actual writer would be to take over and promote the Decla-
ratio of Paul VI, from the canonical point of view, in the same way
than from a doctrinal point of view; that is to say to convert this " Declaration
tion ”in “ Definition ” 83.
While, for reasons, or a
absence of reasons that we do not have to scrutinize since it raises
of the internal forum, Cardinal WOJTYLA adopts the " appropriate
bation ", even though the instinct of Faith should have inspired him,
by a game as coherent as it is assured, if not the disapproval of the
the less the more prudent circumspection. How can it be that exal-
the privilege of Mary Mother of the Church, cannot be completed without
to find the man asserting his rights? We will have to come back on
this point (98 b J.
83
The Marian devotion of Cardinal WOJTYLA is exalted at will . She does not
would however constitute a sign - an argument capable of proving that the
cardinal WOJTYLA would be Pope [ormaliter, that if it were the devotion of the Pope
as Pope. The Pope must manifest the feelings or intentions that
are proper as Pope, in acts which by nature are proper to the
Pope. Making a pilgrimage is not unique to the Pope. Define, as being from
Faith, that Mary is Mother of the Church as every mother is of her child, would be
proper to the Pope and would tend to prove that John Paul II is really Pope.
-112-
115
3. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WRITING,
AS IT IS PRACTICE
IN THE ENCYCLIC REDEMPTOR HOMINIS.
It confirms that the subject "authority" in the person of
Cardinal WOJTYLA in fact opted for the behavior " approving
tion ”with regard to the“ relationship ”between“ authority ”as such and
Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ.
May Cardinal K. WOJTYLA approve and wish to follow the Council,
and John XXIII and Paul VI, he himself declared it emphatically and
insistence 61.
Fortunately, excellent studies have highlighted it.
dence 84.
But, we remind you, we give to the word " approba-
tion ”a precise scope. We mean that the " approval"
relates to the report which was carried out, and which remains so long
that it is not canceled, between the subject " authority" in the person
of Cardinal MONTINI, and the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ.
Now, if Cardinal WOJTYLA has affirmed at least once 72 the " appro-
bation ”taken in the precise sense, it generally understands it in the broad sense 85.
It is therefore important to examine whether the spontaneous reactions of the
cardinal would not constitute the revealing clue of his pro-
based. We limit ourselves to considering two of these spontaneous reactions.
tanned. They concern the meaning of Scripture 86.
84
Let us quote, among others: 1) N ° 57 of the Revue Forts dans la Foi [Fr.
Barbara explains very well that “ the conductor has changed (John Paul II
replaces Paul VI), but the piece is still the same (the ambiguity continues
to convey error, since Vatican II) >>; and the Direction of the Review exhibits,
under the title “ Still and always the man ”. a critical analysis of the encryption
click]; 2) The number 13 of the Journal Diâasco, BP 2, Brussels 24 [ " Encyclical or
booby trap ”. Twenty five s, of rare acriby, highlight the
multiple semantic flaws contained in the encyclical: since the
" Vocabulary innovations" to " traffic" on Sacred Scripture].
85
The cardinal has repeatedly reaffirmed the right to liberty
religious; but the context given to understand that he was speaking for
Catholic Church. While the Vatican II Declaration is supposed to be
for any religion. It is in fact inserted in the first part of the document,
devoted to general standards (Cf. note 66); and she founds the right that she
affirms on the dignity of the human person, a dignity which is obviously
common to all men.
116
They are in fact, although not of intention (?), According to the expression of Peter
BOURGUIGNON, a “ traffic in Scripture” (Didasco, N ° 13, p. 12).
-113 -
116
95. To esteem man, or not to trust man?
a) In order to justify that: “The missionary attitude begins
always by a feeling of deep esteem in front of "what there is in
every man ”, Redemptor hominis refers 87 to St. John:
“Now as [Jesus] was in Jerusalem for Easter during the feast,
many believed in his name, seeing the miracles he performed. But him
Jesus did not confide in them, for he knew them all, and he did not
no need to bear witness about man, for he himself
knew what is in man ”,
Many believe, and therefore trust in Jesus. Him, no.
But what did He have to entrust? Otherwise the secret of his mission by
Passion. Jesus, it is true, revealed this secret to the Apostles, but no
without scandal 88. Jesus therefore proceeds in moderation. "Knowing what he
there is in man ”, Jesus does not count on what there is in
man to make man hear a mystery which passes the understanding
ligence of man.
b) The missionary attitude as such, in the proper sense and in
truth, begins with the desire to communicate Crucified Love;
it therefore begins with confidence in grace and mistrust
with respect to man: that is the truth. Cardinal WOJTYLA does not
would certainly not deny 89. If, however, he takes the liberty of pointing out
trust the quoted verse, the opposite of what is actually meant there,
the reason is that he spontaneously visualizes a primary beginning
mordial that he confuses with the proper and true beginning .
Before being a missionary in the sense that Christ understands it, it is appropriate
to have a feeling of deep esteem in front of " what is in everything
man ”, Yes, “ before ”. it is not impossible.
87
RH 8 b. The words we underline are placed in quotation marks
and followed, in the text of RH, by the note (75) which refers to: John II, 25.
88
To Peter's reproach, Jesus replied: “ Get back! Satan, because your
feelings are not those of God, but those of men ”(Mark VIII, 33).
89
This is the end of this paragraph: " As for the conversion which
must take root in the mission, we know well that it is the work of
grace, in which man must find himself fully. "
doctrine of salvation through the Cross was recalled in the paragraphs which
previous (8 a, b). We are, however, very surprised by a reference, very intem-
pestive, which attributes to man what man is incapable of: " What value
must have man in the eyes of the Creator if he deserved to have such and if
great Redeemer ”(note 65 of the encyclical). " God gave his Son"
(John III, 16), the encyclical reminds us. This gift actually resulted in sin
of man. But it is wrong that man deserved this gift.
-114 -
117
But, if one persists in this view, it becomes a kind of
mirage which leads astray outside reality. Because everything coming back to this
which is its origin, what begins in man ends in
the man. And indeed, according to Redemptor hominis, the mission, which
originates in the esteem of man, is, by grace, at the root of
conversion; it finally ends in a fruit which is immanent to it:
this fruit is man, man " [before] finding himself fully
himself ”89. From man to man through the mission and grace of
conversion.
It is, of course, understood that the End of man is
God; but it is explicitly meant that all supernatural destiny
turelle of man is found as embedded " between a pre-before"
which is man, and an " ultra-end" which is man. This is the
real scope of the semantic opposition introduced by the translation
altered tion. Jesus "does not trust in man," because He aims for
supernatural vocation of man. Cardinal WOJTYLA advocates the pro-
establishes the esteem of man, because he considers this very vocation,
not as Jesus does from the point of view of God, but from the point of view of
human view.
c) It is certainly open to consider from the point of view of man,
even that which in man belongs to God, for example the psycho-
logic of conversion or the exercise of freedom in matters of
gion. But standing at a point of view can result in not seeing
what we see only if we place ourselves from another point of view, and by
continuation of wandering if we express ourselves as if we had seen everything.
To place oneself from the point of view of man, precisely in order to
state of a sacred text whose author expressly places himself at the
view of God is to devote oneself to wandering; and indeed, it actually results in
to make this text signify the opposite of what is meant therein. Se
to place from the point of view of man, to the point of ignoring the right
of God by affirming the right of man is to err; and it is this
wandering which is at the origin of the heresy which is affirmed in the Decla-
ratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ. The point of view of man,
man first; here is the error, the same error made by
Vatican II, and with which Cardinal WOJTYLA makes a pact .
-115 -
118
CHRIST, THE ({ROUTE ", AND THE" MAN ",
THE TEXTS OF REDEMPTOR HOMINIS AND THEIR CONTENT.
96. a) Redemptor hominis recalls that “Christ is the Way” 90.
But here are the curious comments which are given, of this pri-
mordial truth.
(1) ({ At the center of all the routes by which the Church of our
time 91 must continue its march in accordance with the wise directions
Paul VI, he has a unique way: the experienced road since
centuries and which is at the same time the road to the future. " 92
(2) “ Christ the Lord indicated this route, especially when, for
to use the words of the Council, “ through the Incarnation the Son of God became
united in a certain way to every man. " 93
(3) ({ The Church therefore recognizes its fundamental duty by acting
so that this union can continually be actualized and
renew. The Church desires to serve this unique objective: that every man
can find Christ again, so that Christ can walk the road to
existence in the company of everyone ... "
90
John XIV, 6. Quoted: 5 b (note Tl); 13 b (note 88).
91
The phrase " Church of our time" comes up several times in the
text of RH It is as improper as the phrase " Church of France" etc.
(See note 1). There is, in our time, the Church still the same, which has been in
the past and who will be in the future. The unity of the Church, even a militant one, transcends
space and time, both. There is no partition of the Church,
no more in time than in place.
92
Texts (1) to (4) can be found on p. 9 b. The texts (1) to (3) form a
continuous linking. We have separated them for the convenience of references
subsequent.
93
RH refers to Vatican II. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes
(December 7, 1965): "Cum in Bo natura humana assumpta non perempta sit, eo
ipso etiam in nobis ad sublimem dignitatem erecta est. Tpse enim, Filius Dei,
incarnatione sua, cum omni homine quoâammads Se univit ” (n" 22, Acts of
Council, p. 710).
"Since, in Christ, the assumed human nature was not
alienated, by the very fact, this nature is, even in us, raised to a sublime
dignity. He himself, in fact, the Son of God, by his incarnation, united himself to all
man in a way ”.
It is therefore asserted, falsely as we shall see, (Cf. note 98), that only
by virtue of the Incarnation, human nature AS NATURE, and therefore
in a human it is, is promoted to an " eminent dignity";
and that, therefore, whatever the personal relationship between each
human and sin.
We will designate by the expression "innovated nature", this status of nature
human as nature, supposed to be consecutive to the mere fact of the Incarnation,
since Redemption is not even mentioned.
-1.16-
119
(4) “Jesus Christ is the main road of the Church. Himself is
our road to Father's house 90, and it is also the road for everything
man. On this road that leads from Christ to man, on this road
where Christ unites with every man, the Church cannot be stopped by
no one. "
(5) "Man, in the full truth of his existence, of his being
personal and at the same time of his community and social being, this
man is the first road that the Church must take in accomplishing
its mission: it is the first road and the fundamental road of the Church,
road traced by Christ himself, a road which, in an immutable way, passes
through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption. ” 94
(6) “If indeed, as it has been said previously, man is the
route of the daily life of the Church, it is necessary that the Church be
always aware of the dignity of divine adoption that man obtains
in Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit ... » 95
(7) “The characteristic of this maternal love that the Mother of God
pass into the mystery of the Redemption and into the life of the Church
is expressed in the fact that it is singularly close to man and
all his life. It is in this that the Mystery of the Mother consists. The Church,
who considers her with special affection and hope,
wishes to appropriate this mystery in an ever deeper way. The
again, the Church recognizes the path of her daily life that
all man . " 96
b) Let us try to inventory the content of these texts 97.
ba) It is about roads, and it seems that it is necessary, between
others, distinguish two and even three roads.
There is a central road; she is unique, because there are
others ... and because it is the only one to be central; she is tested
through experience, and as such permanent (1); she is "first"
and it is "fundamental" (5) -
This route is designated as a
nally by the use to which it seems reserved; this is the road
" By which the Church must continue her walk" (1), this is the road
"That the Church must go through while accomplishing her mission" (5) -
This route was indicated by Christ, at least when he is
supposed to have spoken by Vatican II (2), (5); and it is confirmed by the
94
RB. 10 a.
95
RH 16 a, b.
96
RH 21 b.
97
In the following paragraph, we refer to the seven texts that we

just cited by the numbers which precede them respectively.
- 117-
120
Blessed Virgin, because it is proper for the Mother to be close [to man],
so that by venerating Mary as Mother of the Church, the Church dis-
identifies in Mary this closeness to man, and "recognizes [by
therefore] the path of his daily life that is all
man " (7) -
What is this road? What is its nature?
This road is "man in the full truth of his existence,
in his permanent being ... ” (5);
"[This] road, traced by the
Christ himself, passes immutably through the mystery of the Incar-
nation and Redemption ” (5). The “central”, “first” route,
" Fundamental", it is therefore man as such, and consequently
quent human nature; but it is human nature " passing
steadfastly by the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption
tion ”: it is therefore human nature in the statute which results for
she of the accomplishment of this mystery, it is very precisely 'the
" Innovated nature" conceived and generated by Vatican II 93,
to this
near that the Redemption is added to the Incarnation; it's this
nature " who obtains through Christ in the grace of the Holy Spirit a
divine adoption, the dignity of which must always be aware of
the Church ” (6).
There is, in the second place, in second since after the "central road"
which is " first", a " main road" (4). It is Christ. This
road is not only for the Church as is the “pre-
mother ”, but also“ for us ”,“ for every man ” (4); he
should probably mean "the Christians" (us), and the "no
Christians ”(all men). But there are, on this main road, two
direction of travel. The faithful, all the men (?) Go, by the road
principal who is Christ, “to the house of the Father”. While
the Church follows this same road, that is to say Christ, in the sense
reverse, that is to say from Christ to man. "Christ is the road
principal part of the Church ” (4), because “ Su ~ this road which leads
from Christ to man [Please read: this road is the
Christ, and it is considered to lead from Christ to man;
it is man who is the end], on this road where Christ unites
to each man [Same observation: Christ comes to each
man; man is the term], the Church cannot be stopped
per person (4).
There is finally a third road that we can call the road
trivial. "So that Christ may walk the road of existence
-118 -
121
in the company of everyone ” (3). We recognize the meaning of the phrase
usual: ({road of life ", Human life is compared to a
min that each must go through, from the origin which is different to the
term that is common.
bb) The same texts indicate which relationships exist
between the three routes, and thus confirm the respective qualifications
tives. ({The Church desires to serve this unique objective: that every man
can find Christ SO THAT Christ can walk through the
road of existence in the company of each one ” (3). We underline
this ({so that '. which has, for the overall ordination, an impor-
capital tance.
What the Church ultimately aims for is not precisely that
" Every man may find Christ ", This, it was true
always the goal of the Church; and that is enough for Christ to be for
every man the " main road ",
But the “ Church of our time” 91, without denying it, considers it
dere as to be exceeded. If indeed it is appropriate that " all
man can find Christ ”, it is “ so that Christ may
[come in everyone] ”; because in this way Christ walks the road
principal that He is Himself, in the very sense that the Church must
to walk it, that is to say from Christ to man. The main road
has a good value of principle, since everything comes from Christ. But however
the " Church of our time" believes that the main road is
subordinate to the central route; moreover, this one being " first ",
it goes without saying that any other road, everything that is right in the road,
perhaps only subordinate to what is first as a road.
The texts cited, at first glance not very coherent, in reality
are linked together perfectly. On condition of admitting the existence of
the " central road", namely man and more precisely nature
innovated9:!, on the condition also of recognizing the
primordiality.
This then is, ultimately, the affirmation ({central ”. ({ Pre-
miere ”, contained in these texts: man, ({human nature
innovated ",
-119-
122
\,
CHRIST, THE "ROAD" AND THE " MAN ",
ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTRINE THAT IS EXPRESSED
IN THE ENCYCLIC REDEMPTOR HOMINIS.
97. What about this “ first road”, “ human nature?
innovated ”?
It must be said that this notion, at least as it is
presented, accredits an untruth; it is only a seductive myth
tor, a sophisticated notion, because it induces to give the consistency
tance from reality to what is at most a non-impossibility.
We will show it by " internal criticism", that is to say
by examining this notion in the light of the Most Holy Faith (a).
We will then seek to account for the fact that this notion
has been forged. We will bring it closer, for this purpose, to the context
semantics constituted by the Constitutio " Gaudium et Spes ", and by
the encyclical Redemptor hominis (b).
a) The notion of “ innovated human nature ”. as she is
presented in Gaudium et Spes and in Redemptor hominis, is
a sophisticated notion.
We will first recall what is the principle whose consequences
quences norment, in these matters, the truth (aa). We'll be able to
then specify what are the different states of which human nature
has been or may be affected (ab). From this will result the qualification that
should be attributed to " innovated nature" (ac).
aa) Let us recall, with S. Thomas 98,
what is the principle of
consequences nor the truth.
Statement of principle.
“ Original sin occurred in such a way that, first, the
no one has altered nature; then it is nature that has reached the
no one. Conversely, Christ first repairs what comes out of the
no one; then, in all [men] at once, He will repair what
stands out in nature. Therefore [Christ] immediately takes away by the
baptizes original sin insofar as it is right of fault and even the
98
III q. 69, s. 3, 3m: "... Christus vero, conversa ordine, prius reparat id
quod personœ est, and postmodum simul in omnibus reparabit id quod naturœ
is ... ",
-120-
123
pain of deprivation of divine vision, [things] which concern
the person. While the pains of life present, like death,
hunger, thirst, concern nature; they result from the principle of
nature, because it was deprived of the original justice. As well
are these defects not removed, if not during the final repair of
nature, by the glorious resurrection. "
Here is the consequence, negative, of the principle that
reminds St. Thomas, a consequence confirmed by experience. That the
human nature be, in Christ, clothed with an eminent dignity,
and that it be, in Him, the joint instrument [with the Uncreated Word] of
Redemption, this is not in itself sufficient to ensure that this same
nature, such as it is in every man, participates in action and positively
ment to this eminent dignity.
Let it be so, that by virtue only of the Incarnation,
the state of human nature is in every human being the same as in
Christ, or the actual and positive participation of what he is in
Christ, this is what Gaudium et Spes affirms : " by the very fact
of the Incarnation, also in us [eo ipso, etiam in nabis] nature
human is clothed with a sublime dignity ” 93. But this is false. This is
manifestly false since human nature, in every human
except the Immaculate, is clothed, not with a " sublime dignity",
but from the shame of sin. The dead in Christ's seal
Love crucified, in human beings who die, that of sin. who
therefore would dare, in front of a rotting corpse, to speak of dignity!
It is only through the resurrection that nature will ultimately be
fixed.
So we see that St. Thomas teaches the reason for error as
bet. The redemptive Incarnation does not repair nature directly,
but only through the mediation of the person. State of nature
human does not follow immediately, in every human, from
what he is in Christ.
I! is true that in such and such redeemed, that is to say in such person
human who is supernaturally " one" with Christ the Redeemer,
human nature can be “ renovated” on one point or another 99; But
99
saints.
This is shown by the heroic degree of the virtues practiced by the
- 121-
124
these are favors the ex parte Dei courtesy of which is not reduced.
tible to any law ((of nature ", These things manifest, as he
pleases God, a certain union with Christ of human nature
such as she subsists in such a member of Christ; but they do not constitute
in no way kill the foundation of such a union 100. These things
are, it is true, in such a person, communicated to nature itself.
even. But they are not, formally and immediately,
due to a state of nature which would proceed from nature as
that it is in Christ and which would therefore be common posi-
tively to all humans. These things are given in nature,
but ratione personœ; they are given to the person who, by his
free act, participates in the merits of Christ.
ab) The different states of human nature. Fallen nature and
renovated nature.
The existence of two different states for nature, in
humans who are currently living.
The question posed by Gaudium et Spes 93 issue made more
urgent by the doctrine expounded in Redemptor hominis concerning
the notion of (road "(96) is that of knowing whether human nature
as it currently exists in every human being can be a
path to salvation. Now, among humans now living,
some have already received the grace of salvation, although they must continue
correspond to it, and they are those who are members of Christ and
the Church, even if they are in a state of sin (73); the others don't have
yet received the grace of salvation, and these are those who are not [yet]
members of Christ and of the Church, although they are objectively
ordered to become so.
\
The question of access to salvation therefore has two different meanings,
that of perseverance or that of conversion, for these two
categories of humans. So if we link to this first question the one
to know if human nature is the ((first road "of salvation, it
must obviously be examined whether or not this nature is in the same
state, on the one hand in humans who have already received the grace of
hi, on the other hand in those who have not yet received it. The
100
Ut somniaverunt patres Vaticani secundi (Cf. note 53).
-122 -
125
answer to this question is obviously negative. Human nature
is, in the former, [potentially] renovated; while, in
the second, it is [still] fallen.
- In order to better situate this distinction, let us recall which
have been the qualifications of human nature, referring to
in the successive phases of temporality: 101
1 natural nature
2 nature integrates
3 nature pardoned
4 fallen nature
5 assumed nature
6 renovated nature.
It must be emphasized that fallen nature is not the
natural nature and integrity. Raised to the supernatural order, and having
lost grace through sin, man finds himself in a state of deprivation.
That is to say that the fact of being pardoned developed in him an inclination.
tion which he experiences, after sin, as being a frustration.
In other words, by losing the supernatural end through sin, man
did not recover the natural end it would have had, according to nature
natural and upright, if he had not been raised to the supernatural order 102.
Fallen nature is communicated, as nature, directly;
and the person is affected and altered by nature. While, according to
the observation of St. Thomas 98, human nature in the state in which it is
101
Here are some details. (We denote " nature" by - n. "In
the following lines).
The n. natural is the set of data that make up the n. human, and
that allow it to be defined: spirit, soul, body. The n. integrity is the n. natural,
man having received from God the help necessary to remain faithful to the
norms of the natural order. The n. pardoned is the n. as it is in
man, because he has been freely raised to the supernatural order. The
D. fallen is the n. in the state in which it is found in man after sin. This is
the transmission of this state, by way of generation, which constitutes, ex parte

hominis, the “ sin of nature” insofar as it is “ original”. The n. assumed is
proper to the Incarnate Word, the n. renovated to Its members.
It is commonly believed that man was raised to the supernatural order in
moment of creation. The n. natural and integrity therefore only existed immanently
to pardoned nature, since it is different from fallen nature.
102
The most important aspect of this end is natural religion, and in
especially the offering of a sacrifice. The sinful man remains subject to offering
to God a sacrifice; but this sacrifice is no longer accepted, so that the man
suffers from a contradiction within its own finality. This contradiction
is solved only by Redemption. Man, redeemed, becomes free
capable of participating in the offering of a Sacrifice which is [necessarily] accepted.
- 123-
126
found in Christ is not communicated as a direct nature-
lie to the members of Christ. For "Christ first repairs what
belongs to the person ”; and then each human person becomes
naked member of Christ has within itself the human nature in a state
of which the human nature of Christ is the exemplary cause. This state
is, if we can say by very definition, that of nature [poten-
tiellement] renovated.
- “ Renovated human nature” is therefore human nature,
as it is primordially in Christ and in Mary His Mother;
such as it will be eternally in every risen elect.
In via, human nature as such is renewed, not by
act as in the universe of Glory, but only potentially.
And this exclusively in those humans who, in via, are mem-
bers of Christ and therefore of the Church.
By " power" we mean two things.
First, in every member of Christ, but only in
every member of Christ, human nature is positively and
ontologically ordered to be renewed in Christ in Glory, and
this by virtue of an immanent disposition which is, in nature
itself, the fruit of which grace is the principle 103.
.
While, in humans in via who are not currently

members of Christ and of the Church, human nature is ordered
to be renovated, very exactly as these humans are to be
saved: that is to say by an ordination which is " of right", ex parte
Dei, but which remains, ex parte creaturœ, abstract and not ontological.
completely immanent, as long as the subject does not pose
the personal act of conversion by which he effectively receives the
fruit of the merits that Christ has acquired, for all and in particular
for him. In humans who are not presently [i.e.
" In action "] members of Christ and of the Church, human nature
is simply fallen nature.
103
Thus, each communion, received in a state of grace, deposits, even in
the body, the germ of the glorious resurrection. The formula that the priest pronounces
by distributing communion is at the Dominican rite [= Parisian rite of the thirteenth
century]: “Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat te in vitam œternam D.
TE: that is to say the whole person, body and soul therefore, since the soul
separated is not a person.
-124 -
127
Second, by <, potential renewal of nature
human ” in every member of Christ in via, we understand that this
this renovation "can be, sporadically and depending on a particular aspect,
to bind, updated all gratuitously by the divine operation 99. The renovation
of nature obviously concerns nature, and as such it remains
formally went out of the natural order; "Formally", that is to say
as to the form or essence which is the object of the definition. But
this renovation takes place only by virtue of grace, in the movement
even advance of grace; it is therefore supernatural as to the mode.
Because it is only in fashion, it can be
actuated "more or less" in the member of Christ who possesses in
act sanctifying grace. But because this "renovation" cannot
be that supernatural as to the embodiment, concretely and
in reality, it is absolutely irreducible to the natural order.
There is therefore no continuity, as to the state whose nature is
finds affected, between fallen nature and renewed nature. There is
that, the same person retaining the same "natural nature", this
nature passes from one state to another in the operation exercised by the Word
embodied. From the first state to the second, there is conversion with regard to the
permanence of "natural nature", and renovation with regard to
change of state, but there is no continuity.
ac) The notion of "innovated nature" is a sophisticated notion.
The "innovated human nature" is, if one may say so, a "double"
of "renewed human nature". That is to say, it is supposed to
have both characteristics, as we have just indicated.
But it differs radically from it, by the genesis. Human nature
would be " raised to a sublime dignity even in us, by the sole fact of
I Incarnation ” 93,
independently of the Redemption, independently
therefore from the personal acquiescence that each
human must give to the grace of salvation. This nature, high even
in us to a sublime dignity independent of Redemption,
and which we call "innovated nature", is in reality an innova-
tion 104 of Vatican II, taken up by Cardinal WOJTYLA. It's only
104 The “innovated human nature” is to the “renovated human nature”, this
said that "new Mass" is the Mass. These are ersatz. denied
any real significance except that of sacrilege, forged by man and not by God,
from the cunning inspired by Satan, and not from grace in Him who
is the truth.
-125 -
128
an abstract entity which can become the measure of a reality, but
which by itself is not. It is therefore a sophisticated notion, in
this sense that it misleads under the exterior of truth. Let us specify-
it from two different points of view.
- “Innovated human nature” is sophisticated in itself.
Because she has three faces, each one being false since there are
two others.
The "innovated nature" seems to be the " assumed nature", since
the " sublime dignity" attributed to it results precisely from the
fact that it is assumed.
"Nature innovated" appears to be " nature renewed", since
this sublime dignity also belongs to him " in us ". etiam in
nobis; the <c kind innovated "therefore in us the same condition it was
in Christ it is therefore impossible that she should have better or more
floor, it is " renovated" as much as possible.
The " innovated nature" appears to be the " fallen nature ", since it
is " in us ", that is to say in every man, and therefore in those who
indulge in unnatural vices, which collectively commit
crime against nature, and who claim both as
being a right ... of nature? is not it in this claim
even that consists, precisely for " fallen nature", the sublime
dignity of "innovated nature"? Yes it's obvious in the light
of Satan 105 who ruled at Vatican II 106.
The " Nature innovated ." in reality, is neither the "assumed nature ",
or the " renovated Nature " or the " fallen nature ", the " Nature innocent
vée ” in reality, is NOTHING. She is, like the liar, faceless
105
Gen. III, 5: "... you will be like God, knowing the good and the
evil ”, the man “ of our time ”refuses to submit to the norms which are
divinely inscribed in its own nature. He claims to ape God, and " know
to be ”its own nature by recreating it.
108
“ The spirit that dominated the council ... it was not the Holy Spirit ... but
the spirit of the modern world ... ”(Mgr Marcel LEFEBVRE. I accuse the Council, p. 7).
The council certainly did not affirm anything which was against nature. But the spirit of the world
consists in coming to terms with the lie, and thus ensuring the right of citizenship. The
notion of "innovated nature" is a secret door, in very high places, by
which the smoke of Satan rises to the heart of the Church which is to be
Guardian and Mistress of Truth.
-126-
129
because it is three-sided, similar in this to the two-sided omega of
TEILHARD, whose subtle venom she distils from the very heart of the order
hypostatic.
This is the first aspect according to which "innovated nature" is
sophisticated. She leads in the void, capturing curiosity,
makes it seem to recapitulate all of reality.
- “ Innovated human nature” is sophisticated to the point of
functional view. In the sense that it is presented in Redemptor
hominis as being the "first road " that in reality it cannot
not to be.
This "first road" is indeed " the man in the full
truth of its existence, in its permanent being ”(96aS); But
as "it passes immutably through the mystery of the Incarna-
tion and Redemption "(96 aS), it can only be the " nature
renovated human ",
Now, as we have observed when defining the " nature
renovated human being ”(97 ab), no human can have in himself this
" Nature renovated" if at first it is not a member of Christ and
the Church. It is only by being a member of Christ and the Church
that we can have in ourselves, at least in power but positively
and really, “ renewed human nature”. It is therefore metaphy-
sically impossible that " renewed human nature" constitutes
the route by which any non-Christian human could
become a member of Christ and of the Church. The route is, according to the modus
usual significance , before the term. However, in this case, what is
“ Before” is to be a member of Christ and of the Church; what
happens then, that is to say by way of consequence, is to have in
itself “ [potentially] renovated human nature”. The first is
the condition of the second: the second cannot be the " route" of the first.
mier.
We can therefore see that “ innovated nature” is a sophisticated notion.
quée. Or indeed it is only accessible in the Incarnate Word
Redeemer who is "the main road" (96a4), and so it is
this " main road" which is first; or, to be able
to be " first" before Christ the Redeemer, it is reduced to the
" Fallen nature", 'which in itself is not a way but a
dead end which prohibits access to salvation.
-127 -
130
ad) The doctrine exposed in Redemptor hominis, concernaat
" Christ, the road, and man", therefore departs from the traditional doctrine
tional (aa), borrows from Gaudium et Spes a sophisticated notion
(ab), risks seriously misleading the faithful too eager to
novelty, even obscurity (ac). How is it that
could such a doctrine have been forged?
b) The sources of the doctrine concerning " Christ, the road
and the man ”,
These sources, we have already discerned them. We're going, dere-
chief, to observe its presence, latent but effective. Existence
even thus will be confirmed. These two sources are:
conception of the Church according to Lumen Gentium (ba), the primacy of
" Man's point of view" posited as being the absolute principle
of hermeneutics (bb).
ba) The doctrine of the Church as it is conceived and explained
in Lumen Gentium constitutes a [pseudo-] basis for the
" Innovated human nature".
We have above (91 b) recalled how this doctrine
is opposed to traditional doctrine. The novelty, and error 69,
consists in admitting that the border of the Mystical Body within the
collective humanity overflows the Roman Catholic Church.
Now if we admit, with Vatican II, “ that there are multiple elements
elements of holiness and truth outside the Catholic Church
Roman " 68,
and, with Cardinal WOJTYLA, that “ the Spirit of Truth
operates beyond the visible borders of the \ Mystical Body ” 67,
so
the status of human nature in those humans who receive
these fruits of the Holy Spirit while being outside the Church, this status
raises a serious difficulty. Said nature cannot be as is
of forfeiture, since “ elements of sanctification are attributed to
tion and truth ”, “ fruits of the Spirit ”, the reception of which requires
the habitus of charity (72 b). Would this nature be already redeemed
ex parte Christi? although not, not even potentially,
renovated? An insoluble question, because it results from erroneous premises.
born. But this question is conveniently ruled out, if we
admits the hypothesis of " innovated human nature ", because this nature
-128 -
131
being tri-sided (ac), it faces everything 107, at least apparently 108.
It is therefore apparently justified, and the genesis is thus
explained.
Thus, the doctrine concerning " man first road"
follows, as it were, from the novelty introduced in the doc-
trine of the Church by Vatican II.
bb) To posit that the “ point of view of man” constitutes the main
absolute principle of hermeneutics, induced to forge the notion of " nature
human innovation ”.
The reading of the texts concerning " Christ, the road and the man "
(96a ) raises the following question.
The Christ said, " I am the Way" 7.
He did not say: " The way
[or the “ road ”] is man)). Now, if Cardinal WOJTYLA recognizes
is born that Christ is the " main road " (96 a 4), he insists on
the existence of another route, " other" since it is " central,
unique, first, fundamental ” (96 b). Why this insistence on
To “ teach” something other than what the Master said about Him-
Same?
It might seem opportune to highlight the role played
by human nature in the redemptive Incarnation. The verb
incarnate being God and man, human nature is the " road " of
God towards man and from man towards God. And even, nature
human as it subsists in Christ has in common, with the
fallen nature of having suffered because of sin, with nature
renovated to be sanctified and glorified; it is the " road" of all
way: this is what the Church has always taught, because she has
still practiced.
107
She is not the "renewed nature", she clothes the fallen nature of
the "eminent dignity .. it holds the" nature assumed . " UES thus provides,
fictitiously, a seemingly coherent status for humans who are supposed to
receive, outside the Church, the fruits of holiness.
108
We say apparently, since "innovated nature" is only
sophisticated concept . If the " kind innovated was a concrete entity, UES would
l>
composite, fallen in one sense, renovated in another sense. However, the condition that affects
nature as such is as simple as nature itself. Any
partition, concretely, is impossible. The human nature, as
subsists in such and such a person, cannot be simultaneously in two states which
mutually exclusive, and which would belong to different parties. Because
each state can only affect all of nature, integrally.
-129 -
132
But, for the “ Church of our time ”, this is no longer enough. This
is no longer enough, since Cardinal WOJTYLA says something quite different. In
Indeed, according to the traditional doctrine that we have just recalled,
human nature, " man" is well regarded as being
" The road", but it is only so in Christ who alone is the
Way. There are not two lanes or two roads; but such reality, which
subsists in Christ, distinctly assumes in a way that
the role of Christ Himself is proper. While,
according to Cardinal WOJTYLA, there are two routes 109. The “ first” route
that is man, is not the road ({principal ", which is ineluc-
table second since it is not first; but this road, to
the main and the second is Christ. What a strange doctrine!
Would " man " prevail over Christ?
Obviously no. But in " the church of our time )>, the point
of man's point of view prevails over all others, and even on the point of
view of God. It is a kind of " conditioned reflex " )
people
church “ of our time”: wherever they see man, they remain
feel viscerally the ecclesial imperative to affirm its
diality. Cardinal WOJTYLA gives, as it should be, an example
authorized. We have already observed this (95 c), by examining the interpretation
tion of: " Jesus, He knew what is in man ") 87.
We
let us look at it again in hermeneutics with regard to
proclaimed by Jesus Himself: " I am the Way". These words, which
109
Lumen Gentium concedes to Mary that she can be called “ Mediatrix :

but it is under the title of devotion, not that of doctrine. It is to be feared in
effect, according to Vatican II, that " neither one removes nor one adds anything to the dignity and
the effectiveness of Christ, the only Mediator. No creature indeed can do
number with the Incarnate Word, with the Redeemer ... ”(Note 75 cl). Force is
to observe that RH grants very largely to} ;, man what the " council" has
refused to Marie. No Mediator deputy to the Mediator; while in the " road
principal "which is Christ, not only is another road added, but
it is this other road which is " the first" and which is man. This non-
coherence, insulting to the Mother of God, is signed: Satan; this is the " bite
at the heel ”predicted in Genesis III, 15. The Truth is that Mary is Mediator,
exclusively and truly in the Mediator, by personal relationship
nel. The truth is that " man", human nature, is " road" or " way",
exclusively and truly in Him who is the Way; human nature is
" Route", in the " Route", and not another route before or after the Route,
or next to it. All things fall into place, if we refer them to the Principle.
They become chaos and contradiction if we pretend to " order" them according to
of what is only subordinate. " I am the Principle, I who speak to you"
(John VIII, 25).
-130 -
133
are from Christ, which concern Christ, which are an invitation to
to refer to Christ, it is necessary in spite of all this, in the "church of our
time ”. interpret them in terms of man, by implementing
the primordiality which must return to the point of view of man.
How to do? Just " ask ". as being first,
a reality which corresponds to the point of view of man, and which
embraces Christ as an eminent but special case. This don-
born, moreover, exists, in the natural order: it is precisely the
" Natural nature" common to all men and to the Incarnate Word.
This, it is true, is not sufficient to account for the fact that " the
Christ is the Way ”; for it is first in the supernatural order.
So, we transpose, unduly and here begins the error, we trans-
places in the supernatural order this "natural nature" which is com-
common to all humans, and also to Christ by virtue of
only Incarnation, independently of the Redemption. And that's it for-
gée the “ innovated human nature ”, It is the “ natural nature” sub-
cleverly, but not validly, baptized 110.
It allows to do
this why it is invented, namely to situate the eminent case of
“ Christ-Way” according to what must be absolutely and unconditional
tally first: man. We have seen that "nature
innovated ”is a sophisticated notion (97 ac); so we are not
surprised to discover that she is, so to speak, the "natural girl"
of " man ". that we claim to " over-naturalize" by adorning it with
the dignity stolen from nature assumed in the Person of the Word
embodied.
Thus the creation of "innovated human nature", which makes pos-
sible the unusual and captious interpretation of the statement: " I
follow the Way ”, she manifests the [false] principle from which it stems:
human rights, man's point of view, man first lll.
110
There is indeed a "supernatural nature" in each member of the
Christ, by virtue of adoptive sonship. This " supernatural nature" is
constituted by the whole: sanctifying grace, virtues, gifts; she is "partici-
pation to divine Nature ”(II Pet. I, 4), but it is the fruit of Redemption,
and not at all a path to salvation.
III
“In the beginning was the Word” (John 1, 1). " In the beginning
was the Action ”(Faust). "In the beginning was Man" (00 ')'
- 131-
134
4. " YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUIT ".
These words of Jesus 112 lead us to draw from the preceding analyzes
dent the following conclusion.
98. It is increasingly probable, and practically certain,
the passage of time to observe actions and words
of the subject " authority" in the person of Cardinal WOJTYLA, that
the latter opts for the behavior " approval" with regard to the
Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ and the " authority" which
promulgated.
The behavior in question is indeed manifested, both by the
spontaneous behavior of the person who currently holds
the " authority " that the social conditions in which it
is involved. We will recall that the first recital
establishes our conclusion (a); we will then show that the second
confirms it (b); and we will thus be able to specify the
scope (c).
a) The analyzes developed in the three previous sections
(91-97), establish that the subject " authority" in the person of
cardinal WOJTYLA opted for the " approval " behavior ,
It suffices to refer to the conclusions (91 â, 94 â, 95 c, 97 b) which
have been clarified, and which we are going to recap.
Redemptor hominis seems to reaffirm the erroneous proposition
contained in the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ (91 a);
affirms, in equivalent terms, the false principle from which the necessary
this erroneous conclusion, this false principle being the definitive
tion of the Church in Lumen Gentium (91 b) ; affirms a consequence
false which necessarily follows from the same false principle (91 cl,
this error consisting in " asking for the Church only respect
of an elementary right ",
Redemptor hominis states, fortunately in Christian terms
tocentric, the privilege of Mary Mother of the Church, but not without
find, as through Mary Herself and in favor of
man, a privilege whose affirmation requires admitting as
being true the distorted definition of the Church (94 cl.
112
Matt. VII, 16.20.
-132-
135
Redemptor hominis mentions a text of St. John in such
way that precedence is in fact given to the " point of view of
man ”on the “ point of view of God ”. Now it is precisely this
reversal which is at the root of the error made by Vatican II (95 c).
Redemptor hominis borrows from Gaudium et Spes a notion
sophisticated, that of “ innovated human nature” (97 ac); notion
which follows both from the false definition of the Church (97 ba), as
from the point of view of man over the point of view of
God ( 97bb).
We can summarize these connections in the following table:
Precedence from the "human point of view"
on the "point of view of God"
Error concerning
religious freedom
----- l. False definition
from the church
l "We do not ask
that respect
of an elementary right "
Human nature innovated: sophisticated concept.
The statement located at the end of an arrow follows from
the one located at the origin of the same arrow.
The radical error consists in the claimed precedence for the
"Man's point of view" on the " point of view of God 1).
She
leads as its consequence to the false definition of the Church. And
these are the two, so to speak, fundamental errors, since
the others follow from it.
These five errors are " interdependent" with each other. And we say
that two errors are interdependent, in the sense that: 1) Objectively,
the second follows [necessarily] from the first; 2) Subjective-
ment, we only fall into the second because we fall into the
first, so that subjectively the existence of the second
testifies to the existence of the first.
-133 -
136
We can therefore see that the error concerning religious freedom is
in solidarity with all the others. Because it is immediately so of every
either of the two fundamental errors; and, through the mediation of those
here, it is also bound by the other two errors.
The error concerning religious freedom is by far the most
important of the five, given that the wording specifies
allows to qualify its significance from the point of view of the Faith: it is
a heresy. However, from an epistemological point of view, the error
concerning religious freedom, on the one hand is "derived", on the other
part constitutes the same set with the four others of which it
is united.
It follows that the "approval" behavior cannot concern
ner these five errors only simultaneously. So that the proof
more assured showing that the "authority" admits each of these
errors, consists in the observation that it admits them all. In part-
culier, the assured proof showing that the "authority" opts for the
“approval” behavior with regard to the Declaratio Digni-
tatis humanœ personœ, is that she opts for the same behavior
ment regarding each of the other four errors; each-
cune indeed is, we observed it by analyzing Redemptor
hominis, implemented spontaneously and even explicitly stated
is lying.
b) The social situation in which it is involved
quée the "authority" subject in the person of Cardinal WOJTYLA,
confirms that said "authority" opts for "appropriate behavior"
bation ",
We come back to the question we left in suspense.
pens (93 d).
This question is as follows. How could it be that the cardinal
WOJTYLA appears to manifest a very sure instinct of Faith in reaffirming
mant, in a Christocentric perspective, that Mary is the Mother of
the Church, WHILE it opts for the behavior "approval",
with regard to errors concerning the nature of the Church?
We will show that the option, made by the " authority", of the
“approval” behavior: 1) gives rise to a real question-
tion, that is to say to a question that is objectively posed
-134 -
137
in reality (ba); 2) surely leads throughout the " church"
subversion, and more precisely by " subversion"
loss of Faith (bb); 3) stop questioning, for anyone
understands that the occult power infiltrated in the " church" aims precisely
sure to achieve subversion (be) there,
bal The option, made by the " authority", of the "appropriate
bation ”, gives rise to a real question, that is to say a question
tion which is objectively posed in reality.
That this question is "real" and inevitable, it is important
to insist on it, because we have tried to avoid its advisability, either by
proposing an [apparent] resolution, either by asserting that to pose it
implies contradiction.
The apparent resolution of the question posed by the anti-duality
nomic between the behavior "approval" and the confirmation
of "Mary Mother of the Church", consists in affirming that this duality
is quite simply wanted by the character who holds the "self-
rite". Could it not be that Cardinal WOJTYLA was only doing
play the comedy, that he be a skilful "conductor in the service
of the same melody ? " 84.
However, even if this is so, what we do not exclude or assume
it remains that Cardinal WOJTYLA occupies the Apostolic See.
We do not have to judge whether he is personally devout to Mary, or
if he is personally heretic. We observe that these two
behaviors objectively persist in the legal person
and physical which currently occupies the Apostolic See. This dua-
ity entails, it is true, a subjective question which concerns the pure
malice or distorted conscience; but, first of all, it constitutes
objectively an anomaly, and therefore a question, which is
inherent in reality.
The proof is that most "traditionalists" apply themselves
quent to dodge it, so that their peace would not be disturbed.
Whoever asks the question, they answer by deleting it, or at least
by trying it. It is impossible, they say in substance, that the two
things coexist in the same believer. And since the cardinal
-135 -
138
WOJTYLA manifests such a sure instinct of Faith, the doctrine which he advocates
buttocks on the nature of the Church can only be perfectly
orthodox.
However, it is not. The principle invoked turns out to be erroneous; because
two things, which of themselves are contrary, can exist simultaneously
ment in the psychology of the same subject, at least temporarily.
This will be understood by comparison with a phenomenon to which
we have already referred in order to analyze the " consciousness
distorted ”(24). Users of abortion and contraception,
not long ago knew how to do wrong. It is probable that now their
judgment of conscience is distorted; some may even believe
do well. On the other hand, the fathers and mothers of the pilulists do not have
[again], in general, the conscience distorted on this point; they reproach
wind, when they know it, what their daughters do, but on principle
or out of principle, they refuse to oppose.
Now, many of these fathers and mothers have the Faith; some practice it
quent and are generously faithful. Thus, the parents of the pilulists
can, simultaneously, be fervent believers, and adopt, in
moral order, behavior which is in itself incompatible with
the theological faith. They do indeed accept what they should prevent,
which they could have prevented if they had done it in time. They are
practically in a state of acceptance with regard to what their own
Faith, however, proscribed.
A similar case, more delicate but even more illuminating, is
that of the modernists of the first generation. A LEROY had the
Faith, although he could profess because of Ill .. distorted conscience, a
mortally mortgaged doctrine of naturalism, in what con-
identifies the epistemology of the dogmatic formula, or the taking of
awareness that the believer can do grace.
Now it is very plausible that Cardinal WOJTYLA, unless he
plays a tragicomedy, is, positis ponenâis, similar to parents
pilulists or the modernists of the first generation. It is
may the theological Faith coexist with " acceptance" or
the " approval" of flawed behavior which concerns certain
-136 -
139
realities of a natural order, which are in law and should remain
in fact, under the immediate influence of the Faith, which
therefore condition the very exercise of Faith.
This coexistence, if it is not a deceptive parody, is
inconsistent and provisional; it can only be realized because
of an inchoically distorted consciousness. This is all true. It doesn't
remains no less than this coexistence is; she is in reality,
it is in Cardinal WOJTYLA. Is he an " actor) aware of
role he must play? Is he a believer whose conscience is
distorted? Anyway, whether we question the Faith or not
of the witness who reaffirms that " Mary is Mother of the Church", this
Faith, if real, may not be incompatible, in the successor
of John and Paul, with the sincerity that proclaims in time and against
the 'man's point of view ' takes precedence over that of
God.
There is therefore no contradiction, not even from the point of view
psychological ex parte subjecti, which would a priori make it impossible
that the question was objectively and inevitably asked
that we have specified. How is it that the current occupant
of the Apostolic See seems to manifest a sure instinct of Faith,
by reaffirming, from a Christocentric perspective, that Mary
is Mother of the Church, WHILE he opts for the behavior
" Approval" concerning the nature of the Church?
The truth appears to us to be that, as has also revealed
Professor Joseph B., from Brussels, Cardinal WOJTYLA was
chosen as the leading figure, to lead to good
a satanic tragedy. It will be understood by what follows.
bb) The option, made by the " authority), of the " appropriate
bation)), leads for sure, throughout the " Church D,
subversion,
in particular the ruin of the Faith.
To show it, we are going to reason by analogy from
of the two data to which we have already referred (ba).
The girl pilulists, on the whole, no longer have the Faith. Because,
objectively and inexorably, it is impossible to have Faith if
one practically professes, were it because of the distorted conscience,
that behavior that is unnatural can be good. The cons-
-137 -
140
ciency distorted may, in a measure, excuse the sin; she does not
not destroy the metaphysical unity of the person: the same subject
human, perhaps, by the lie, in the Truth, and by the body in
the mistake. This is possible, · apparently, for a while; but this
cannot stand, Deus non irridetur 113.
And similarly, the modernists of the second generation have
lost faith. Because, objectively and inexorably, it is impossible
to have the Faith, even in the shadow of a distorted conscience, if we confuse
the natural and the supernatural within the same " reli-
gious ”, if we dissolve in a sentimental “ immanence ”the Trans-
inheritance proper to revealed Truth. The same believer cannot be,
by the light of Faith in the Truth, and by human experience
in the untruth. This is possible, for a while, apparently;
but that cannot hold, Deus non irridetur 113.
The loss of the Faith, for the pilulist girls or for the moder-
nists of the second generation, does not come from an opposition to such
dogma revealed. She comes from an insidious desertion, by which the
subject gradually becomes foreign to the light of Faith. Now this
desertion, it is not only prepared, it is rendered ineluc-
table by the diffuse contradiction which is inherent in the behavior
parents whose daughters use the pill, or behavior
modernists of the first generation. Girls, basically
condemn their mothers by ceasing to take them seriously, by
which they are right, since it is impossible to attribute any-
conque reality to what conceals a contradiction 114. The modernists
of the second generation disowned their fathers, in the name of the
[false] principles that they had taught them.
The loss of Faith therefore originates from a deadly virus which
seeps into a rift between Faith itself and teaching
subaltern to the Faith: whether it be the norms of morality, or the experience
religious knowledge, or the relationship of the Church with the human collective.
We must insist on this point, which is extremely important.
113
Gal. VI, 7: "We do not make fun of God".
114
Matt. XII, 27: " Also [your sons] will themselves be your judges". The
daughters, although in error, judge, precisely, in their mothers, that the
contradiction cannot be at the heart of the Truth.
- 13.8 -
141
Experience shows that the enemies of Faith. Satan the first.
do not attack the Faith directly. They contaminate areas
frontiers where the supernatural Faith is rooted in the " human" who
is natural. Faith withdraws from those areas which become uninhabited to it.
tables; she withers and dies. So if we want to destroy the Faith.
nothing is more effective by appearing harmless. than to subrep-
human rootedness.
Ten years of " TV". And here's opinion turned around. Abortion,
not bad. “ Since everyone admits it.” But there is a contra-
diction. objectively and in reality. enter on the one hand practice
abortion, and on the other hand believing that God creates the human soul.
The mother who bears a child and performs the abortion surrenders
in fact impossible for herself to believe that God is Creator; because.
which she practically violates. she must. so as not to destroy herself-
even. Theoretically repudiate it. And like the existence of God.
and of God the Creator. plays a leading role in relation to all
other articles of Faith. mothers who perform abortion are
vow themselves. sooner or later but inevitably
bluntly. to practically apostatize.
Some encyclicals of the Redemptor hominis style , and some
" Speech to the ONV". And here is the whole " church", here are the conform-
pseudo traditional mists. intoxicated by Vatican II. by " freedom
religious "and by " innovated human nature " 93. Now there is a contra-
diction, objectively and in reality. enter on the one hand believe that
the Roman Catholic Church must be the only one to affirm of itself
that it is infallible, because to it alone is committed the Deposit of
revealed Truth, and on the other hand admitting that every sincere human
have the right to publicly manifest their own beliefs, such as
if these were the Truth; Deus non irridetur 113.
So that if
strong in " Catholic opinion" which can only " be with" the Pope.
one lives existentially, by " charity". by " breadth of mind" and
by " docility ". the second part of the alternative. we vow to alienate
in itself the very meaning of what the supernatural Faith consists of.
real and revealed Truth .
The wojtylanisme ovationnel, it's practically. for sure and to
in a short time, the " cult of man". " world religion" ....
and ecclesial apostasy.
-139-
142
be) The option, made by the "authority ", of the "appropriate
bation ”, stops questioning, for anyone who understands that the
occult power infiltrated in the "church" aims precisely to realize there
read subversion.
What is to happen through Cardinal WOJTYLA ... will happen? What
Be that as it may, Cardinal WOJTYLA is, as Mr. Pro-
spanker Joseph R, put "in place" for this.
" What must happen" is perfectly clear. The mothers of
pilulists [still] have the Faith, their daughters have lost the Faith. The
modernists of the first generation [still] had the Faith, the
second generation modernists have lost the Faith. Cardinal
WOJTYLA, at least officially " insofar as it occupies the Headquarters
apostolic ”, to the Faith, the faithful pastorated by Cardinal WOJTYLA
will lose the Faith.
Unless God "cleans up his threshing floor and burns the ball in a fire
inextinguishable ” 11S.
In this regard, we can only pray, wait, suffer
silence 116.
What is important, in the present conjuncture, to understand,
is this. What must happen by Cardinal WOJTYLA, what we
hopefully by God will not happen, but who humanly happens-
would, it is precisely this that resolves the obscure question posed
by the antinomy inherent in Cardinal WOJTYLA.
Soft traditionalists, concerned about their peace of mind, say:
“The antinomy cannot exist. Therefore, Cardinal WOJTYLA being devout
of Mary, he can only be in orthodoxy ”, It is unrealism.
The antinomy is in reality, because the two components in
are both observed. We must not reconstruct reality
denying the antinomy, but to judge that it is the real scope of the anti-
nomie according to the reality which is observed.
But two things are obvious. The first is that we
just explained (bb), the antinomy in question would of itself entail
irreparably, whether Cardinal WOJTYLA likes it or not, the
115
Matt. III, 12.
us Isaiah XXX, 15: "In silence and in hope will be your strength D.
-140 -
143
loss of Faith in the Church. The second thing is that the " occupa-
internal "tion" of the church began to achieve and continues to aim
the ruin of the Church, to begin with that of the Faith.
We must therefore conclude that Cardinal WOJTYLA is the " man of
the situation ” is the social situation in which he finds himself
finds implicated which confirms precisely that he opts for the behavior
ment " approval" for precedence to be given
from the “ point of view of man ”.
A zealot for " man first", who would not have shown
Faith, would not have been accepted as pope. An unconvinced believer
of " man first", could not have contributed to destroying the Faith.
The satanic plan, of which Cardinal WOJTYLA is, that he ignores
or not, the instrument, requires that there be, to govern the " church",
a " believer" who simultaneously seems to have the instinct of Faith,
and burn with zeal for " man ", Believers of this strain are
many in Poland, as they were in France at the beginning of the
century. In France, there are only a few ashamed survivors and
hesitant. The others, or their descendants, or have lost the Faith,
or have understood that we are not making fun of God. So we got
addressed to Poland. Unfortunately, the guide adored by Catho-
lics faithful to Tradition, the great tenors, the Brückberger and
the Salleron, played the " submission" or practiced the ovation, instead
to denounce the " great illusion ", They begin to be disillusioned,
bottom of the pit where they dragged the blind people who followed them 117.
c) It is increasingly probable and virtually certain that
the this authority "subjectée in the person of Cardinal WOJTYLA opts
for the " approval " behavior ,
The two arguments we have just presented (a, b) induce
feels, it seems, to be absolutely concluded: " it is certain that".
However, it is necessary to take into account a possible
ity which is not excluded a priori. It may be that Cardinal WOJTYLA
breaks with what has broken Tradition. He himself did not ask any
act which forces him to persist in the “ approving ” behavior.
tion ”.
117
Matt. XV, 14.
-141-
144
It is obvious that such an eventuality becomes less and less
probable, as time elapsed, deeds and words
of Cardinal WOJTYLA confirm the option he made of the behavior
ment " approval". But it is clear that we can not normalize a
priori the exercise of a free will.
So we say: " virtually certain". In this meaning that
the experience of a year seems sufficient to establish the quality
of certainty that is commonly believed to be required and
sufficient in order to act. In other words we must act
as if there was certainty that " authority" opts for behavior.
ment " approval ", This is not presumption, but magnanimity in
service of Faith. If there is an error, it is Cardinal WOJTYLA himself
that it is incumbent on those who hold this opinion to deceive, and to restore
blaze the situation.
5. THE CONSEQUENCES THAT CAUSE,
IN PRACTICE,
THE FACT THAT THE " AUTHORITY" OPTS
FOR THE " APPROVAL" BEHAVIOR ,
IN FAVOR OF
DECLARATIO DIGNITATIS HUMANJE PERSONJE.
These consequences concern all members of the church who
share this same option, the responsibility of each corre-
laying in the place it occupies in the ecclesial hierarchy. The " at-
tority ”occupying a unique place, it should be dealt with
part (99). We will then examine the case of the " faithful" who profess
at least in words of being subject to the ~ (authority "
(100).
99. The practical consequences for
the legal person of " authority", subject in the natural person
sic of Cardinal WOJTYLA, the fact that said " authority" opts for
the behavior " approval" in favor of the Declaratio Dignita-
tis humanœ personœ.
a) First consequence. The " authority" is in a state of " schism
capital ",
Because the " authority ". in the person of Paul VI, has refused
able to assert of herself that she is infallible, while she
-142-
145
found it placed in conditions where it had to affirm it (80). Gold
this refusal remains unchanged in the person who currently holds
the " authority" (84). So that it is in the same state
of capital schism than Paul VI; schism-state in which the hypo-
théquée the DC authority " as such, as long as said DC self-
rity ”will not perform the act which alone could put an end to it (89 b).
Let us specify, with regard to the personal responsibility of the
cardinal WOJTYLA:
That, first of all, he did not make a schism; but it turns out
in a state of schism, as long as he himself, and he alone could,
not stop this state.
That second, we say that the DC authority "is in a state of
schism objectively; we expressly leave open the question
tion of whether the person who has held or who holds the " authority"
would also be subjectively schismatic (81).
b) Second consequence. Cardinal K. WOJTYLA is not Pope
formalize (89 a).
Because he in fact fails to perform the most eminent office
by which the Authority must ensure the divine Good for which the responsibility
bility is entrusted to the Church; this function consisting in making pos-
sible the exercise of Faith in the Church (78).
It follows that Cardinal WOJTYLA is not a capable subject
receive the communication of DC to be with "exercised by Christ
which would constitute it as the Authority 118.
That is to say, he has
no right to the religious and theological submission that is due, in
the Church of Christ, to the Authority, he is not Pope formaliter 119.
118 Cahiers de Cassiciacum, N ° 1, pp. 50-57.
119
It should be noted that the distinction cc [ormaliter-materia-
liter " does not have a cc plus or minus". Being pope materialiter does not mean
not that we would be cc a little " [ormaliter. Such subject is Pope [ormaliter, or he
is not Pope [ormaliter, tertium non datur. The reason is that the shape, or
the essence as such is simple. The cc parts ", if there are any for gasoline,
only subsist together, constituting the unity of essence. Introduce some
partition, whether in form or essence, is to destroy them (Cf. note 108).
To say that such and such a subject has such a quality, at the same time formalizing and cc more or less " is
contradictory in terms.
-143-
146
SIGNATURES OF Cassiciacum
C} Third consequence. The cardinal K. Pope is WOJTYLA
materialiter 119 [We only assert this until proven guilty].
By this we mean that he occupies the Apostolic See, and that
no one else, during his lifetime, could legitimately occupy it. This
statement is not a consequence in the proper sense of the fact that
"authority" is in a state of capital schism. Because this state can also
entail that Cardinal WOJTYLA is not Pope of any
way. So we're saying exactly this.
The state of capital schism excludes Cardinal WOJTYLA from being
Pope to formalize ; but this state does not exclude, for Cardinal WOJTYLA,
to be a materialiter pope . And this firstly because, as
as we have observed (73 c), the state of objective schism does not entail
necessarily that we are outside the Church. And secondly because
that the objective capital schism consists in not exercising the act of
Magisterium infallible, under conditions where it should be, but
without realizing the extent of this deprivation. This state is
therefore compatible with the intention to put an end to this schism. And he can
be preferable for the good of the Church that the See remains occupied
with this possibility of reinstatement, rather than being vacant.
We believe this is so; but we are ready to
change his mind, if it is established by certain argument that the cardinal
WOJTYLA is not Pope in any way.
That it is materialiter is moreover made plausible by three
reasons:
1) It is not impossible that the Conclave, including the cardinal
WOJTYLA was elected, was valid.
\
Some canonists think so, and their argument is serious. The
Conclave included ten Cardinals who had certain-
ment this title since they had received it before Cardinal MONTINI
occupied the Apostolic See. These authentic Cardinals constitute
there is a true Conclave within the Assembly. But they
“recognized” the election. This can be interpreted in two ways.
Or these Cardinals, at least two-thirds of them, gave
their voices to Cardinal WOJTYLA, or not. In the first case,
It is probable that the Conclave is valid. In the second, these Cardi-
-144-
147
nals simply " recognized" the result of an election in which
they did not participate, but we do not see that it is enough
to make this election valid. Being reunited in Conclave
to elect a Pope, and therefore without being one with the Pope, does not
Cardinals members of the Conclave to validate the appointment of
[pseudo-] cardinals.
This is a fine subject for discussion for canonists. Without
to push further, let us remember this: " It is not impossible that the
Conclave in question was valid ”. We admit that it was
so for the following reason.
2) The Unity of the Church must be safeguarded.
Formaliter, this unity proceeds from the Head, is founded in Faith,
blooms in Love. Materialiter, this unit has for condition,
as to permanence and development, the good order of the
skin. Now, if the Church is in a state of deprivation, as regards simul-
immediately the Authority and the Unit heard formalize, it is better
that it preserves, as a vestige and expectation, the unity materialiter ...
On the condition of course that this permanence is not in
made, by the "mystery of iniquity, " an obstacle to the return of the ple-
nth unity, both materialiter and formaliter.
It therefore appears to be in accordance with divine wisdom that the cardinal
WOJTYLA was validly elected, which confirms the first reason;
and that it was only materialiter , since it happened, by
this very election, invested with a hypothecated " authority" of the
capital schism, which excludes being Pope formaliter. Be pope
materialiter was enough for Cardinal WOJTYLA to be entitled to
put an end to the state of schism. State of which, originally, it was only
the victim; and this is the third reason that we are going
now formulate.
3) The Cardinal WOJTYLA has not done schism; he contracted a
state of schism.
To consider only the act of election, it would therefore be unfounded
to consider that the state of schism was incompatible with the fact of being
pope materialiter. To contract the state of schism was, in the act of
election, the sine qua non so that the Church can go out
of schism.
-145-
148
This argument, of course, is losing its value more and more,
as time passes ..., while the state of schism remains.
However, what was certain is still, as we have observed (98 c),
a possibility, ... the hope of a probability!
Let us therefore conclude that Cardinal WOJTYLA is still a mate pope .
rialiter, "in potential to become formaliter ...; unless it is
D
quite simply a comedy character who, " set up" by

the occult power, the aim of which is to ruin the Church (98 be), is
Pope in any way.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF PRACTICAL
THE STATE OF SHALE CAPITAL
FOR “SUBJECTS” WHO RECOGNIZE THE POST-MONTINffiNNE “CHURCH”.
100. a)
The capital schism does not only concern
the " authority ".
The schism that we have called " capital" (80) having for
Originally an act of the DC authority, " it is probable that if the state
schism lasts, it is mainly under the responsibility of
the "authority D.
However, it should be considered whether this responsibility is

not " shared ". All the faithful have the instinct of Faith; all,
if they really want to, can be informed.
It suffices, under these conditions, to participate objectively in
the state of schism, to " recognize the post-Montinian church",
instead of expressly dissociating oneself from it, in view of the state of schism
which is endemic there.
We say "objectively ", that is to say that the determined
actions we are proceeding with have a strictly objective
tive. We say that with regard to a given recital, such a physical person
sic or moral is objectively in a state of schism. We don't
let's not say that she always has the consciousness or even the intention to
being. For that, this person would have to have thought
on the recital which leads to this conclusion.
And we mean, by " recognizing the post-Montinian church ",
the fact of holding as canonically valid, the "ordinations" of the
-146-
149
Vatican Council II as a Council, and those of the three popes:
Paul VI, Jean-Paul l'er, Jean-Paul II. And that, whatever may be a
share of the intrinsic value of these ordinations; anyway
on the other hand, reservations, even refusals, that one would oppose,
to the "content", to such ordination of this council or of these popes.
Finally, by “participate” we mean “participate in” 120. We
apart from the effect, insofar as and insofar as one "is with" the cause.
We share in the capital schism, in so far as we are "
with ”the cause of this schism, namely the “ authority ”considered very
precisely in so far as it has caused, in so far as it continues to cause
the capital schism, since it alone could put an end to it and
allows it to continue 121. Anything that contributes, directly or indirectly
to make this state last, is participation in the capital schism.
tal, directly or indirectly, more or less seriously. Such is
the principle that we are going to implement, and in better light,
by examining the modalities of application. This principle concerns
Obviously the relationship of people with the " authority " Now these
relations are realized, on the one hand in the mediation of the
ecclesial praxis endorsed by "authority" (b), on the other hand direct
in the professions of obedience [or dissent] towards
of " authority" (c). And concretely, that is to say in the same
natural person, these two points of view may be in agreement or
collide (d).
b) The capital schism eventually extends to all the faithful, in
mediating praxis church that condones the " authority ".
It will suffice to consider a single "case", both eminent and
typical. Number of traditionalist priests, either accidentally or
by conviction, or by constraint, appoint John Paul II to the canon
of the Mass. The question is not about praying for the
120
"Participate" translates "metechein": meta, with; echein, have. "To have
with"; have one thing, with and at the same time as another person [or
entity] which itself has this thing. So the creature has being, being with
God who in essence is being, and who consequently has being eminently. The
creature participates, according to the being, in God who is the Participant.
121
It is a " case" of indirect causality, but intelligent in reverse, which
not surprisingly. Prohibens removens. The " authority" prevents itself
[pTohibens] to be what would remove [removens] the capital schism.
-147 -
150
Pope. We must indeed pray for all, more for who is more
exposed. What is in question is to link this " pope" to the Church, it is
to appoint with the Church [UNA CUM Ecclesia] 122 and as " being
one with the Church, a subject who is affected by a capital schism; so
that, this " being with" being that according to which Christ Himself constitutes
Church Authority 123,
it excludes by nature whatever wandering
is. A schismatic subject cannot be una cum Ecclesia 124;
this is even more impossible if this subject is the " authority" by whom
and in whom the capital schism ruins unity.
What to think, therefore, of all those, faithful or priests or bishop,
who undergo, or who approve, or who want, or who demand,
that we call Johannes Paulus UNA CUM Ecclesia? We must think
that everyone should be educated, because, we can legitimately hope,
they don't know what they're doing. And we can't not think
that all are guilty of the capital schism ... in proportion to
their mental actuation. They are not [necessarily] schisma-
ticks; but by attending the traditional Mass, at a higher
reason by celebrating it, and by accepting, or by approving, or by
wanting, or demanding that be appointed, UNA CUM Ecclesia
[the Church which is the Church, since it is the Mass which is the Mass] the
natural person who holds the " authority " , each one at his own
rank, accredit the error that the " authority" would be the Authority. Because the
natural person who is [already] vested with " authority", that is
to say who is the materialiter pope , that person, necessarily, is
also invested with Authority, and she is formaliter Pope , if she
is "UNA CUM Ecclesia sancta catholica ",
Thus the faithful, or priests, or bishop above-named are not
[necessarily] schismatic. But all participate, actively
or passively, formally or materially, to the capi-
tal. All, except the unconscious, participate in a behavior
which by nature is contrary to the Testimony of Faith.
122
"Pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica, una cum [amulo tua Papa nostro
Joanne Paulo ... "
123
Matt. XXVIII, 20. Cf. Cahiers de Cassiciacum, No. l, pp. 4449.
124
St. Thomas observes (III q. 79, a. 7, 2m) that should not be mentioned
to the canon of the Mass that legal or natural persons who are in
communion with the Church.
-148 -
151
The same considerations apply, positis ponendis, in what
concerns all sacred actions which by their very nature are
under the immediate influence of the Authority. Refer, during
these actions, to the " authority", is falsely to accredit that
the " authority" would be the Authority.
c) The capital schism eventually extends to all the faithful, in
the profession of obedience in regard to the " authority "
We call profession of obedience to " authority"
any act which, by virtue of its very nature, cannot of itself be addressed
than to the Authority. For example:
1) Address petitions to the " authority" to ask that
the Mass is officially recognized; while only the Authority
can " decide" on what concerns the celebration of Mass in
the whole Church.
2) Recognize publicly, in concert with the " authority", that
may there be a traditional interpretation of Vatican II 52;
whereas on the one hand the Authority and it alone, if we disregard the
principle of non-contradiction, is qualified to carry a judge-
lying on an Ecumenical Council supposedly approved by the Pope;
while, on the other hand, the " interpretation" of Vatican II that pro-
poses " authority" consists, as we have observed, in reaffirming the
the most contentious passages of Vatican II (91, 97 ad).
3) Refer to the documents that emanate from the " authority",
Redemptor hominis in particular, without expressing the reservations and
criticisms that are in order; whereas such an attitude is not justified
would trust that if these documents were guaranteed by the Authority.
In all these cases, and others like it, the profession of obedience
dience with regard to " authority" entails, whatever one may wish,
to affirm, not in words but in deeds, that " authority" is
the Authority. It is therefore, subjectively, that is to say by a free act
of the subject, to unite unconditionally with “ authority”;
since it is to grant to the " authority" the absoluteness which belongs to
the Authority. Consequently it is ipso facto, and whatever we want
find in the same situation as the " authority" in relation to objects
faith. It is therefore to participate in the state of capital schism.
-149-
152
d) Polyschism, or absence of schism? An ambiguous case.
How to qualify the behavior which consists, in the same
person attached to Tradition [faithful, priest or bishop], in the amal-
game of the following components:
1) To be attached to the traditional Mass; that is to say, gone.
cipate, or celebrate it, or make it possible by forming
priests.
2) Accept, or approve, or want, or demand that be pro
stated, in Te igitur, the words ({ una cum famulo tua Papa nostro
Joanne Paulo ",
3) To consider as " schismatic" the faithful or the priests who
refuse that these words be spoken.
4) To claim that there can be a " traditional interpretation
nelle ”of Vatican II.
To qualify this behavior, it is necessary to distinguish two
meaning for the locution ({to schism), according to the definition
essential of the schism (61) that it suffices to shorten:
TO MAKE SCHISM is not to be subject to Authority, and thus
deprive oneself of the self-affirmation of infallibility which is peculiar to
the Authority;
To schism is not to be subject to " authority". Not
There is no question, in this case, of the self-affirmation of infallibility;
since precisely the ({authority "is in a state of capital schism
because she refuses to exercise it.
The behavior we are analyzing therefore results in:
'>
• MAKE SCHISM, by virtue of 2), a clause which is made better
determined in itself, and more decisive as to the conclusion
sion, by 3), and by 4). And
• Make schism under 1).
It's polyschism ...
Proponents of this behavior will, it is true, observe that
this does not lead to:
-150 -
153
Nor to MAKE SCHISM, under 1);
Nor to make a schism, by virtue of 2), 3), 4).
It is the absence of schism.
Which one? Polyschism or absence of schism? We
opt for polyschism, in virtue of the principle: Bonum ex integra
causa, malum ex quocumque defectu.
Be that as it may, nothing more effectively encourages
faithful not to disavow the latent schism in which they
let " settle ", than to propose a behavior which implies
to recognize in fact this state as being legitimate, which makes
therefore impossible to disavow it. It is to promote a quiet
generalized tism in the consented schism; which results in imman-
fairly, except God's intervention, to the ruin of the Faith. What
whether, therefore, polyschism, the behavior in question
constitutes an extremely serious offense, if not a sin (?) against the
gnage of the Most Holy Faith.
- 151-
154
155
EPILOGUE
We will, by way of epilogue, recap with a view to
better complete, from the point of view proper to theology, the argument
that we have just developed in this N ° 3 of Cahiers de Cassi-
ciacum on schism, and in No. 2 (ch. III) on heresy.
The analogy between the human act considered from a moral point of view,
and the act of the theological faith (35-36), must be extended to the vicious
which respectively affect these two acts, and which concern the
distorted consciousness (37-38). This is confirmed by the fact that the first
third degree of distorted consciousness allows us to locate and analyze
accurately heresy, as a result of the preterition
proper forms that the norms take, in the theological order
special aspects of the human act considered from a moral point of view (39-41).
It follows that in the second degree of distorted consciousness must cor-
respond, with regard to the theological Faith, two viciosities
radicals (42-46).
And as the schism is found, we showed it to the cha-
clown, defined " essentially", although not by the essence, if one
the fact that it consists in the preterition of the fundamental norm
a given which is moreover specific to the theological order, and like the
schism is currently raging in the " church" in the capital form
(chapters II to IV), it is to be expected by virtue of the consistency which
is the unveiling of the truth, that a second radical viciousness of
the theological order consists of the preterition of the fundamental norm
principal, and that this preterition can be introduced in some
kind "innocently" by a social phenomenon of " conscience
distorted ”, following the example of what can, as we saw in chapter II,
occur for the schism which constitutes the first viciousness.
This second viciousness which, currently, overflows with all
shares in the moral order, originates from the questioning of the
-153 -
156
theoretical point of view, and negation from the practical point of view,
of human nature itself. Behaviors such as abortion
homosexuality, and tomorrow euthanasia, which are introduced and
assert themselves as "rights" in the human city where, in
reality, a right can only be founded in human nature, all
these behaviors because they are claimed to be
rights, are, in law and not only in fact, the negation of
nature.
This human disaster is presented as the immanent punishment.
emerge, and hence the inexorable corollary, of a similar viciousness which
first affected the theological order. This viciousness is the moder-
nism. We feel, from the above, that it must be defined
as to the essence, as being the negation, both practical and
theoretic, of " supernatural nature" which is " participation in the
Divine nature ” 16.
This is what we propose to establish in
a forthcoming issue of Cahiers de Cassiciacum.
ML GUÉRARD des LAURIERS, op
\
-154 -
157
SUMMARY
s
CHAPTER I. -
THE SCHISM CONSIDERED IN HIM-
EVEN. ESSENTIAL DEFINITION OF SCHISM
11
1. IT IS APPROPRIATE, TO EXAMINE WHAT CONSISTS OF THE
SCHISM, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE FAITH
12
• Three reasons for this suitability (§ 47-50)
12
• Consider the schism from the point of view of the Faith
leads to distinguish, for the schism, three aspects
different (§ 51)
17
2. THE SITUATION OF SCHISM IN RELATION TO FAITH. THE
CONCEPT OF "SCHISM-ERRANCE" (§ 52)
19
• The unity of Faith requires that the Magisterium affirms
of himself that he is divinely assured of infail-
libility (§ 53-54)
19
3. THE INVOLUTION BETWEEN DEPRIVATION OF A UNIT CONCERNING
ECCLESIAL CHARITY (SCHISM-INDIFFERENCE) AND THAT
CONCERNING THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH (SCHISM-ERRANCE)
(§ 55-56)
23
4. SCHISM AS REGARDS CHARITY AND SCHISM AS REGARDS CHARITY
THE FAITH ARE PRACTICALLY CONVERTIBLE WITH THEM
(§ 57-60)
26
5. THE DEFINITION OF SCHISM ......... • ................
34
• The definition itself (§ 61)
34
• The basis of the definition in the natural order
rel (§ 62)
35
-155 -
158
s
CHAPTER II. - THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHISM
OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED AND THE BAPTISES
IN WHICH IT CAN BE REALIZED
37
1. THE PERMANENCE OF SCHISM: THE FACT. THE EXPLANATION.
THE OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED SCHISM-STATE. . . ... . .. ...
38
• The persistence of the schism cannot be explained
that according to the schism-wandering (§ 63)
38
• Faith remains unchanged regardless of
phases of temporality (§ 64)
39
• Schism-wandering is of itself a state (§ 65)
42
2. THE SCHISM-STATE, AS IT IMPLIES AN ASPECT
“OBJECTIVE” AND A “SUBJECTIVE” ASPECT (§ 66)
44
3. A BAPTISED PRESUMED SCHISMATIC MAY NOT BE IN
STATE OF SIN AGAINST FAITH ..............
46
• Explanation of the fact according to the definition
essential of the schism (§ 67)
46
• The “ how” corresponding to the observed fact
(§ 68)
48
• Does the schismatic have faith? (§ 69-70)
50
4. THE BAPTIZED SCHISMATIC MAY NOT BE IN A STATE
OF SIN AGAINST CHARITY?
54
• Recall of data concerning the order of cha-
rity (§ 71)
~ .. .. .. .. .. ... .
54
o The relationship between schism and charity (§ 72).
54
• The relationship between the schism-state, and belonging
to the Church, Mystical Body of Christ (§ 73)
57
5. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED SCHISM
AND THE BAPTIZED IN WHOM IT CAN BE REALIZED MANIFESTLY
AND CONFIRMS THE ESSENTIAL DEFINITION OF SCHISM
(§ 74-75)
61
-156 -
159
SUMMARY
s
CHAPTER III. -
OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED, AND THE PEOPLE
MORALS INVESTED BY THE "AUTHORITY"
63
1. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE "AUTHORITY" MAKES A SCHISM,
WITHIN THE CHURCH, CAN ONLY BE LAID BY MAKING
STATE OF "FAITH SCHISM" (§ 76-78)
65
2. INDIVIDUAL AND LEGAL PERSONS WHO ARE SELF-SELF
SHOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF
THE CHURCH ARE OBJECTIVELY FOUND IN A STATE OF
"SCHISME-CAPITAL" AT LEAST FROM DECEMBER 7
1965
o. •••• .. •. ••• .. •••••. •••••••••• .... •••. •••• .. •
69
• "Authority" is schismatic in radiated if it is
refuses to assert by herself that she is infail-
readable, while it is placed under conditions
tions where it should affirm it (§ 79-80) o ........
69
• The question remains open whether the car-
dinal J.-B. MONTINI was or was not in a state of sin
against the Faith (§ 81) o ...........................
71
3. THE "CAPITAL SCHISM" IS RADICAL SCHISM. HE
IS, FOR AS MUCH, PERMANENT .......................
73
• The two ways of being schismatic for the “self-
rity ”(§ 82-83)
73
• The capital schism leads to a state of schism
(§ 84)
75
• The essential definition of schism is confirmed
by the fact that it extends to the case of the capital schism;
and it is thus clarified (§ 85)
77
4. CAPITAL SCHISM AFFECTS, AS A STATE, THE "CHURCH"
POST-MONTINIENNE. SYMPTOMS
78
• Existence of symptoms (§ 86)
78
• The hypothesis of the “traditional interpretation of
Vatican II >> (§ 87)
79
-157-
160
s
5. THE CLAUSES WHICH PRESIDE a priori TO THE POSSIBLE
RESOLUTION SCHISM AFFECTING THE " CHURCH" POST-
MONTINIENNE .......... • .................... •. • .....
85
• The two modalities of the relationship between " authority"
and the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personœ
(§ 88-89)
85
CHAPTER IV. -
CAPITAL
OBJECTIVELY
CONSIDERED
AND
THE
SUBJECTS IN WHICH IT CAN BE REALIZED (§90) ....
91
1. THE WAY IN WHICH CARDINAL WOJTYLA EXPRESSES
SUBJECT OF "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" INDUCED TO ESTIMATE
THAT HE OPTED FOR THE "APPROVAL" BEHAVIOR ..
96
• “ Religious freedom” in Redemptor hominis
(§ 91)
96
2. THE STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MARY MOTHER OF
THE CHURCH BY CARDINAL K. WOJTYLA
101
• The doctrine concerning "Mary Mother of the Church ",
The Constitutio Lumen Gentium, and the Declaratio
of Paul VI (§ 92)
102
• The doctrine concerning "Mary Mother of the Church"
in Redemptor hominis (§ 93)
108
• The doctrine concerning “Mary the Lord of the Church”
manifest what is the behavior for which a
opted for " authority" (§ 94)
108
3. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WRITING, AS IT IS
PRACTICED IN Redemptor hominis
113
• Estimate the man or not to rely on the man?
(§ 95)
114
• Christ, the <c Road "and DC man" (§ 96 · 97) ..
116
-158 -
161
SUMMARY
4. " YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUIT"
s
............_. - 132
• It is almost certain that the “ authority”
jected in the person of Cardinal WOJTYLA opts
for the behavior " approval" with regard to
the Declaratio Dignitatis humanœ personnœ (§ 98)
132
5. THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS BEHAVIOR
TEMENT OF THE "AUTHORITY" ... •. • ....................
142
• Consequences for the legal person of the “ self-
rity ” (§ 99)
142
• Consequences for " subjects " who recognize
the post-Montinian " church" (§ 100)
146
EPILOGUE
153
SUMMARY
155
-159-
162
163
OUR BIG ENQ! HEAD
FIRST FRUITS
One or two readers got excited, fearing that we might put
the truth to the voices! Such an abbot, on the contrary, a veteran of interstate Catholicism
gral, saw very clearly the possible fruits of such an enterprise.
Neither infallible nor supreme judges, we want to know the objec-
of those who do not accept our conclusions, in order to be able to answer
or rectify any of our positions. We want the objective discussion
theses in attendance.
We also want to show that those who abuse us
more, who vilify us, try to silence us and dis-
qualify in the eyes of the faithful, do it for all the reasons that one will want
apart from the love of the truth. They condemn us, but certainly not for
doctrinal reasons.
From this double perspective, a big step has already been taken. We
must, however, admit that the militant spirit of those who approve of us
wind was sorely lacking. But there is still time, and we are counting
on all those who agree with us:
- to order and widely distribute our "SUPPLEMENT
AU No. 2 ”;
- to question the “leaders” clerics and laics who oppose
to our conclusions, obtain their precise objections, or on the contrary
note their absence of objections.
Our opponents, for the most part, claim loyalty to
Bishop LEFEBVRE. We raise doctrinal issues, and we are
answers: "fidelity, obedience to Mgr LEFEBVRE ". As we answered
in the parishes a dozen years ago: "obedience to
bishops ”,
The most offensive usually stick to this "argument".
-161-
164
Many others manifested what we feared, what
we announced: THE LOSS OF CATHOLIC SENSE TOWARDS
MAGISTRY. In short, disregard the case of a solemn definition "ex
cathedra ”, each person is ultimately a judge of the Magisterium of the Church.
Let us draw attention to this extremely serious point. If an agreement is
realized between John Paul II and Bishop LEFEBVRE in this perspective, this
would be the real stroke of Master of Satan.
What modernists have been working on for a century: destroying the
Magisterium of the Church, now they would succeed, at the level of the Church
conciliar, with the agreement and rallying of the "traditionalists"
to Bishop LEFEBVRE!
***
We asked those who disagree with our conclusions to
let us know their objections.
From the responses received, it appears that some do not know
very well what that word means. Here are some details of this
subject.
Let a conclusion (C) presented as the end of a proof.
An OBJECTION is a rational discourse which results in the negation
Dec).
The objection can relate either to the existence of (C) [question quia],
either on the nature, or essence, or content of (C) [question propter quid].
The objection to the existence of (C) must, if it is real,
demonstrate: either that the premises of the demonstration are false;
or that the reasoning is incorrect.
The objection to the essence (or content) of (C) consists, if
it is real, to show that (C) necessarily entails a consequence
false.
If there is a real objection to the content, although there is no
no real objection to the proof (as to the existence), we find ourselves
in the presence of an "antinomy ", And it is the theory in which at the
times (C) and its negation could be proved which must be rejected as
not consistent.
Theology has for principle the revealed given; it is therefore express-
of Reality, and consequently it cannot give rise to
antinomies.
-162 .....
OUR BIG SURVEY: FIRST FRUITS

This is why, in concrete terms, any objection " as to the content"
against a conclusion must be accompanied, in order to be completed, by an objective
tion " as to existence ", And conversely, the one who affirms (C),
if confronted with an objection " as to the content", must show that
this objection is only pseudo, that is to say it contains a vice
in the premises or in the reasoning.
Faced with a conclusion, in the absence of an objection, one can present
" Difficulties ",
Unlike the objection, the DIFFICULT does not prove. She
consists in showing (or even insinuating) that, being admitted (C), such and such a question
arises whose solution no longer appears, precisely because we
admits (C). Difficulty is therefore something that is difficult to
understand ... based on what we already know. If (C) is certain,
the difficulty of understanding such and such a thing in terms of (C) comes from this
that we have a distorted notion of this thing. the knowledge
de (C) can therefore be an opportunity to rectify what was wrong.
But we see that contrary to the objection, the difficulty does not invalidate
not the conclusion. It follows that one cannot demand of someone who
affirms a conclusion that it resolves all the difficulties that can be
present. And conversely, the existence of difficulties raised by a
a well-established conclusion cannot dispense with adhering to this conclusion.
Simply, it is often opportune to carefully examine a
difficulty, precisely to show clearly that it is not an objection,
and to rectify the distorted notion which is its origin.
For example:
The question: " But then, what becomes of the visibility of the Church?"
sets out a difficulty, not an objection. This question cannot
therefore not exempt the one who formulates it from adhering to our conclusion. The
difficulty comes from the fact that we have a concept that is only a diagram
tick, descriptive, of the visibility of the Church. It is necessary, for
solve this difficulty, to find the essence of the visibility of the Church,
and thereby determine the modalities of the need and the duration of
this attribute. Such work, as we have explained, is not necessary
not to us. However, we will give (see below) some elements of
solution. But this work would be necessary for anyone who wants to build a
objection based on the visibility of the Church.
On the other hand, if someone asserts, with an argument, that the
Vatican II's text on religious freedom does not fall under infallibility,
he objects to the evidence. It is then up to us to
refute his argument. This is what was done vis-à-vis the position
of the review De Rome et d'Ailleurs (cf. Cahiers de Cassiciacum, N ° 2,
p.87-92).
-163 -
PAPERS CASSICIAC ~
Finally, if someone says that it is impossible for John Paul II not to
be not Pope, because the whole teaching Church accepts it, we have
case with an objection as to the content. We must refute it (cf. infra),
but the objector must, for his part, respond to the arguments which establish
our thesis.
These points of method being specified, we can go through the
objections presented to us, as well as some difficulties
which are of particular interest to the question under discussion.
• Many faithful (traditionalists) do not accept the thesis of
the vacancy of the Apostolic See. But we can't ignore the feeling
of the faithful.
- We must obviously take the greatest account of the instinct of
Faith, which is the firm element of the " sentiment of the faithful ",
However, it would be unwise to attribute to the instinct of Faith all
collective reaction of a group of faithful. In particular, we cannot
see the instinct of Faith at the origin of a feeling that does not hold
only by the practical rejection of Catholic doctrine on the Magisterium.
The instinct of Faith indeed, unlike free examination, receives
all the teaching of the Magisterium, and so can discern, especially by
a negative judgment, a false doctrine.
But the existence of this consensus of the faithful confirms one
of our conclusions: the heavy responsibility of the " Leaders" who
refuse to give to their faithful Catholic teaching on the magis-
ter. They thus succeeded in creating in many a Protestant feeling
which stifles the delicate play of the instinct of Faith.
• Your conclusion applies to Paul VI. But lean-Paul II still has
said he wanted to continue the Catholic tradition.
- To say that John Paul II is p ~ Pope formally, we
do not pass judgment on his intentions.
We say that, to be Pope, John Paul II should break with
the capital schism introduced by Paul VI (Cf. in this issue, p. 69 ff .;
142 sq.),
In fact, currently, not only did John Paul II not do so,
but he took over the most contentious points of Vatican II
(Cf. ibiâ., P. 96 ff.).
Moreover, we believe that there is a lot of illusion and
Freely to believe that John Paul II will restore the situation. But it's a
another problem. The future will decide.
-164-
167
OUR BIG INQUIRY: FIRST FRUITS
• Your argument has an important flaw: the Magisterium
ordinary universal of a given moment is infallible only if it does
than to repeat or explain the teachings of previous centuries.
- For this objection, we refer to the note from RP GUÉRARD
des LAURIERS (Cahiers de Cassiciacum, N ° 2, p. 87-92).
• According to the text of Vatican 1 that you quote (Cahiers de Cassiciacum,
Sup. in N ° 2, p. 5), it is not enough that the ordinary universal Magisterium
offers a truth to be believed so that it is infallible. It is also necessary
that this truth be " contained in the Word of God ",
- This interpretation of the Vatican 1 text presupposes the notion of contra-
dictory of the Magisterium refuted by Fr. GUÉRARD des LAURIERS (Cf. question
former).
The text of Vatican 1, which takes place from the point of view of
membership, indicates the reason why what is proposed to believe
by the universal ordinary Magisterium must be believed of divine and Catholic faith
lique: because it is revealed.
Suppose that the believer should, in order to adhere to this teaching,
observe not only that the Magisterium gives it but also that this
teaching belongs in fact to the revealed Deposit, it is to destroy the Magis-
ter. This is what the traditionalists do, who refuse to
to recognize the formal vacancy of the Apostolic See.
Let us confirm all this with a particularly topical text from Pius IX
(Let. Inter gravissimas, October 28, 1870, to the episcopal assembly of Fulda,
on " Old Catholics "):
"Like all the instigators of heresy and schism, they falsely boast
for having kept the old Catholic faith, while they overthrow the main
the very foundation of the Catholic faith and doctrine. They recognize well
in Scripture and Tradition the source of divine Revelation; but they refuse
to listen to the still living Magisterium of the Church, although it clearly emerges
of Scripture and Tradition, and instituted by God as a perpetual guardian
of the infallible exposition and explanation of the dogmas transmitted by these two
sources. Consequently, with their false and limited science, independently and even
against the authority of this divinely instituted magisterium, they establish themselves
themselves judges of the dogmas contained in these sources of Revelation.
For are they doing something else, when, in connection with a dogma of faith defined by Us,
with the approval of the Holy Council, they deny that this is a truth revealed by
God and demanding an assent of the Catholic faith, quite simply because
their opinion that dogma is not found in Scripture and Tradition? As if he
there was not an order of faith, instituted by our Redeemer in his Church
and always preserved, according to which the very definition of a dogma must be
held by itself for sufficient demonstration, very safe and suitable for
all the faithful, that the defined doctrine is contained in the double deposit of the
revelation, written and oral. This is also why such dogmatic definitions
-165 -
168
have always been and necessarily are an immutable rule for faith as
for Catholic theology, to which returns the very noble mission of showing
how the doctrine, in the very sense of the definition, is contained in the
deposit revealed. "
It can not be any clearer! And that should lead to thinking about
souls of good will.
• What becomes of the visibility of the Church?
- The Church is visible, insofar as she is a human society; gold
from this point of view, the visibility of the Roman Catholic Church remains.
On the one hand, in fact, the profession of Faith and the sacraments which have always
his days were perpetuated by the faithful who remained attached to the
Tradition. On the other hand, the visibility of the hierarchy is maintained by
the fact that the occupant of the Apostolic See remains the material pope -
ment (as well as the bishops who are subject to him but who are not
not personally heretics materially retain authority).
Let us insist on this important consequence of the material permanence
rielle of the hierarchy: bishops who are not heretics occupy
"In law" the place which is theirs within the hierarchy, although they
do not currently have the Authority, because they remain affected from
capital schism introduced by Paul VI. It follows that these bishops assure
really the permanence of the visibility of the hierarchy within
Church, although they are not currently the Authority of the Church.
We should further note that the visibility of the Church can some-
not be subject to fluctuations.
Thus, during the Arian crisis, the profession of the Catholic Faith
was almost eliminated, and for a time hardly remained visible.
S. Jerome remarked on it with vigor.
In addition, S. Vincent de Lérins considers the possibility that
heresy strives to poison "no more a small part of the Church,
but the whole Church at the same time. ” (Commonitorium, III). He admits
therefore, and no one has come to dispute this, that the profession of Faith
could suffer an eclipse. Eclipse to which seems to have to be linked
a similar eclipse of the hierarchy.
Likewise, during the Great Western Schism (1378-1417), concrete
the hierarchy was no longer visible to the faithful who did not know
more who really was Pope.
The Gospel also lets us glimpse that this visibility for-
could well be lacking at the time of the end of the time which will precede the
parousia.
-166-
169
On the one hand, in fact, Our Lord asks if the Faith will subsist in
this time (Luke XVIII, 8); on the other hand the prophet Daniel announces
than perpetual sacrifice. the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the interpretation
common and otherwise obviated, will be abolished in the time of the Antichrist
(Dan. XII, 11).
Such conditions correspond well to an eclipse of the profession
of Faith, of the sacraments. and consequently of the Magisterium which norma-
lement procures one and the other.
This deficiency of the Magisterium is confirmed by the fact that the elect
will run the risk of being deceived by false prophets (Matt. XXIV. 24).
Would this risk be possible, for the elect, if the Magisterium were present?
to guide them?
This possibility of "eclipses". observed in practice. is perfect-
ment in accordance with Catholic doctrine on the Church. Let's briefly expose
this point to finish.
Our Lord founded a Church which is at the same time his Body Mys-
tick and a human society.
When one attributes a quality to the Church, this attribution can
be founded either on the fact that the Church is a Mystical Body (as
when we attribute to the Church Unity, Holiness ...) or in fact
that it is a human society (as is the case for "visibility"
which is the subject of this question).
Now what is attributed to the Church because she is a Mystical Body
necessarily and absolutely belongs to him. It is impossible that a
reality whatever it is of "Church" and opposites, for example. at
one of the "notes" of the Church.
While what is attributed to the Church because she is a society
human is attributed to it necessarily, of course, but according to nature
of a human collective. This necessity therefore entails, as to its realization
sation in time, a part of contingency.
However, because the Church is the Mystical Body of Our Lord.
it cannot perish, even as a human society. As well. even the
qualities which are attributed to it because of this aspect (Church society
human), do they necessarily come true, in the long run and
Mercy.
"The Church ... can be shadowed, it cannot fail."
(S. Ambroise. Hexameron, L. 4, n. 7).
• What becomes of Our Lord's Assistance to his Church?
- Our Lord is with his Church, which is his Mystical Body.
All that is in the Church subsists in the sustained relationship with Our
Lord, Head of the Church.
-167 -
170
Currently, the Authority is suffering a kind of " eclipse ", because
the "authority ", which remains, is no longer " rectified" enough to reflect the
" Sun of Justice ", the light of Him who is Truth; Christ however
dant does not fail to enlighten anyone who is " of the Truth" (John XVIII, 37).
Thus, Our Lord always exercises his “ Assistance”; but pro
visually, He no longer exercises this particular and moreover eminent form
of its Assistance which it normally exercises through the mediation of the Authority.
Such an eclipse of Authority is possible, because people
who must have the Authority remain free, and must therefore acquies-
personally to the Communication of the Authority including Jesus Christ
is the Source. They therefore condition its reception.
The Church, as a human society, is subject to the vicissitudes
that can affect such a society, including the defection of leaders.
The circumstances painfully recall this point of doctrine in fact
forget it.
But, because the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, such
situation, however terrible it may appear, cannot destroy it: the Church
will last until the end of the world, even as a human society.
Finally, let us note that the material permanence of the hierarchy, and in
of the Pope, is in itself an element of the Assistance that Our
Lord continues to Communicate to the Church. This explains why the " auto-
rity ' may in fact contribute to the production of certain effects in accordance with
for the good of the Church, as the affirmation of data of Faith or
moral and condemnation of people propagating heresy, while
remaining affected by the capital schism which prevents it from being the Authority.
• This is a matter of high theology - It is a good problem
secondary school for all the faithful - It is a school exercise without
practical interest.
- No doubt, the detailed examination of the situation and its " how})
is part of a thorough theological study. But the \ ait: Paul VI, John Paul II
are not Popes is, as we have shown (Sup. to N ° 2),
accessible to everyone.
The faithful who live by the Faith, who not only, according to the expression
of Father Emmanuel, Faith but also the spirit of Faith, cannot fail
not to have perceived all the degradation introduced by Paul VI (We par-
lons of degradations officially desired or permitted by the " self-
rity ”, and not just “ abuses ”) and maintained by its successes.
sisters. And when he notes that Vatican II, promulgated by Paul VI,
taught a heresy, he must without difficulty, in the light of Faith,
adhere to the conclusion: Paul VI was not Pope (nor John Paul II, who
recognizes this council).
-168 -
171
As for saying it's a secondary problem, it's a reaction
objectively scandalous, but which shows once again how much
the notion of the Magisterium has deteriorated in the minds of the faithful, under the
leadership of the " Leaders" who reject the principles involved in
their resistance. Yes, their responsibility is heavy.
• How can we impose this way of seeing things? With which
authority?
- We obviously have no authority, and we do not impose anything
at all. We present arguments which in themselves lead
mind to a certain conclusion. Evidence is objective data
and communicable.
Thus, any mind placed before our arguments is able to follow
reasoning and therefore to adhere with certainty to the conclusion.
As for those who reject the conclusion, they must refute the evidence.
Without this, they live in voluntarism, which is not without sin.
• The Pope is accepted by all bishops; it is therefore certain that he
really is Pope.
- This argument is a reminiscence of Catholic doctrine on
the ordinary universal Magisterium; it seems underlying the position of
the Abbot of NANTES or the Abbot DULAC.
Let us therefore remember that the universal Magisterium is not the whole
distinguished bishops from the bishop of Rome. It is the set of bishops
united with the Pope.
If therefore we suppose that such an elected cardinal is not Pope, it would be
a vicious circle of wanting to reverse this assertion on behalf of a judge-
infallible element of the universal Magisterium. Since this one, cannot be
one with the Pope (who is not), cannot exercise an infallible act.
• The ND.M. is not obligatory, or in any case its obligation is
doubtful. So it is not guaranteed by infallibility.
- 1) Even if the name obligation is doubtful, there is no
doubts that this is promulgated and permitted: since it is found in
Acta Apostolicœ Sedis, authentic criterion of promulgation.
However, whether the Church " imposes" or "permits" her responsibility as a guide
of the Christian people is always the same. It is still a " discipline
pline ”, of a principle of conduct (and here, for the very act of Sacrifice,
highest act of religion) established and approved by the Church, and which
consequently cannot be bad or dangerous, according to the teaching
very general development of Pius VI (Cf. Cahiers de Cassiciacum, Suppl.
N ° 2, p. 5).
-169 -
172
Here also said that Dublanchy, in the Dictionary of Theodosius
Catholic logic (art. " Church", col. 2197}:
" The infallibility of the Church must also extend to all teaching
dogmatic or moral practically included in what is ordered, approved
or authorized by the general discipline of the Church ... "
- 2) Let us add that if we can admit that there was a doubt about
obligation by sticking to the text of April 3, 1969, we can no longer
after the consistorial speech of May 24, 1976 (Cf. Cahiers de Cassiciacum,
N ° 2, p. 97).
- 3) Note, finally, that it is the same people who
want to " cover" Paul VI, stating that the name was not guaranteed
by infallibility, and who want to force us to recognize the validity
of the name, Curious, isn't it?
\
-170 -
173
NOTULES
Despite some unfavorable opinions, we believe that we should
follow this chronicle of NOTULES.
Indeed, the intellectual and doctrinal level of many
opponents is so distressing that it is better to laugh about it, because laughter
delivers especially when it is based on the truth.
And then we want to leave it to others to be " hats
night ”... Serious even difficult Theology cannot make
sad.
+ or IS THE DANGER? -
Among those who hold that Paul VI
was Pope, that John Paul II is Pope,
but we can disobey them and we
must not assent to their ma-
ordinary gistery, some accu-
willingly feels schism, or
to be on the path to schism. We
will only make one observation: if we
we are wrong, it is a mistake of
made; if they are wrong, it is a
error of doctrine.
Let them think about it.
+ PRECURSORS.-
If it is necessary to thank RP Guérard
des Lauriers for clarifying and stating
clearly a coherent solution to
problem of the Authority, we must recognize
to be born that this thesis had already been
anticipated by other faithful.
Thus, Miss Luce Quenette spoke of
the "certainty that the Church is no longer
governed"; she affirmed: "the Pope
alive no longer governs ” (Routes
No. 204, pp. 99, 101).
Long before, in 1973, the professional
Sister Marcel De Corte proposed the
distinction we make between
Pope formaliter and pope materialiter:
"What is a pope who does not rule
not his Church? Is he a real pope,
the real pope? It is worth insisting
on the article. The real pope, yes, can-
that he was elected according to the rules. A real
pope, no ”,
(Routes,
No. 173,
p. 215).
The distinction of Marcel De Corte
and ours coincide perfectly.
+ SUBJECTIVISM OF INTEN-
TIONS. -
In the same article, Marcel De
Corte asserts that "Only a spirit
misguided in the subjectivism of
intentions ” may deny that “ the analysis
of the new "mass" confirms the
remains with brilliance the transformation of
the Mass of Saint Pius V in celebration
Protestant Eucharist " He in con-
clut: " Ergo, the new" mass "
is not a true Catholic mass,
and whoever invented it does not reiterate
what Jesus Christ did, does not do
what the Catholic Church has always done
lique ”.
It is quite certain that we cannot
analyze the name and study its validity,
if first we do not remember that
the sacramental order is an order
goal (Thank God 1).
-171-
174
+ ILLUSTRATION
OF
ABOUT
PREVIOUS. -
M. l'Abbé des Graviers in "Propos
on the Mass, by editors of
Courrier de Rome, 1 "' July 1979 ",
written from the punctuation of the "story of
the institution "in the name: " The
story therefore continued, the priest can,
if he has a solid theological training
act in persona Christi, but if he does not
not received this training, nothing in the
text only pushes him to act like
priest, sanctifier ... ".
So? The validity of the name depends
from the priest's note to his examination of
theology?
+ LIBERATORY QUESTION. -
Alexis Curvers, in
Itineraries,
N ° 163 (May 1972):
"I don't understand why the
most declared opponents of the
new mass, while reproving it,
assure so readily that she is not
invalid. What do they know about it? the-
father although they are wrong. Because if
the new mass was valid, she
would be manifestly sacrilege in the
most cases. Now it is better a
simulacrum of contempt that an outrage is
effective. "
+ ADVICE FROM MGR LEFEB-
IS VRE MORE INFALLIBLE
THAT THE TEACHING OF THE MAGIS-
UNIVERSAL ORDINARY TERE? -
This is what a doctor wants to impose
in Canon Law, ecclesiastical lawyer,
who pretends to be faithful to
the Teaching of the Church.
Indeed, for this character, it is
quite normal not to hold
account and even fight a
education ("religious freedom ")
affirmed by a supposed true Council
(Vatican II) and promulgated by a no
less supposedly true Pope (Paul VI);
it is also quite normal to
reject the new mass of a real one
Pope and imposed by the same;
it is obvious to him that a bishop
declared " suspens a divinis" by the
true Authority of the Holy See, then
to continue, as if nothing had happened, to
do what Rome forbids him very
officially.
But on the other hand, if this bishop
give (private) advice and we
take it into his head not to follow him, so ... the
Official Doctoral Journal promulgated
the sentence: " Vitanda est!" ".
We quote in full:
"WARNINGS. Warning!
a religious community founded in
the West against the advice of Bishop Le-
febvre, [it is not us who stress-
gnons] whatever the Superior says!
In addition the data is not
sure, ” (The Fight for Faith, N ° 53,
p. 6).
How amazed that the world
traditionalist is not taken
serious by those who observe it, and
would like to expect the real one
doctrine and not feelings not
very pious and even less doctrinal.
+ ZIZANIA.-
" Don't think that I came
bring peace on earth: I do not
am not ~ naked to bring peace, but
the Glave. I came to separate the man
of her father, her mother's daughter, the daughter-in-law
from his mother-in-law, and the man will have the
his for enemies ”,
(Matt. X, 34-36)
Obviously, it was not lacking!
We are accused of dividing, of sowing
discord, etc.
Fortunately, the Gospel is there.
Our Lord prayed for the unity of
his; He announced that we should
recognize their brotherly love.
And experience shows that it takes all
-172 -
175
NOTULES
the vigilance of the Authority of the Church
to make it happen.
But Our Lord also announced
that He would be the cause of divisions within
of the most intimate human groups,
like family.
This is why the observation of divi-
sions or disputes cannot be
a criterion against cewc who are
the occasion.
Moreover, this kind of reproach,
and the hundred others in the same vein
(impiety, lack of charity, intolerance
rancid, 0 rgueil ...), we will find some
the almost exhaustive sampling in
the panoply of the progressive activist
base at war with the villain
fundamentalist. And for cewc who love
this sport, they will find the answers
in abundance in the sheets, magazines, period
dics of the good "traditionalists" who
take us to task today.
We would be happy to refer there
interested parties.
+ ABBE COUSSERAN IS GOING
T-AT WAR.-
While waiting for the "refutation" of
learned teachers of Ecône (of whom we
whispers that she will appear in the
“Next” Fideliter), Abbé Cousse-
ran could not help but deliver us
cheerfully hers (Courrier des
AFB, N ° 47, p. 30). Fruit of insomnia
fertile as much as personal reflection
picace, we must greet her
in passing. She will immortalize her
author!
Here then, for our readers, the
marrow of this masterpiece:
1) It's "ridiculous".
2) He [Father Lucien] thinks he is
a "great judge" and drags all the
world to its "supreme court ".
3) This is "foolishness".
And There you go! Tremble mortals, Don
Quixote is gone, Abbé Cousseran
has spoken, Tartarin has won!
Let’s not be too hard. After all,
why would we reproach the Abbot
Cousseran to take his readers
for fools, since these
show that they like it in him
now their customers?
Note, however, that Ab-
Cousseran bés of this caliber come
too often to explain contempt
which surrounds traditional "thought"
list, outside the small circle of admirers
as little as self-righteous.
+ POOR LOGIC. -
"Find mistakes and learn from
such conclusions in the name of a logi-
that supposedly infallible, let's say
that it's foolishness ”.
The reader will have guessed at the depth
deur of thought flush with
the most hidden corners of this aami
rable aphorism which is meant to be
epitaph: it is still Abbé Cousse-
ran who just instructed us.
He has nothing against our principles at
contrary: "we do not need
of its lights to see it "
he writes. He doesn't blame us for er-
fear of judgment. Fi then! Advancing,
Supreme Judge against the Grand Judge,
he declares the bankruptcy of logic.
He will go a long way in this direction. Besides,
it's already done. So after having us
vilified because we say
that currently there is no more Authority
in the Church, the Abbe in question
declares (p. 32) that "men
Church today lose all
Authority"! It is true that a long
footnote explains
this oracle: they lose it, but without
lose it while losing it. that
do you want an Abbot Cousseran
can bother with logic!
For us, faithful to the Church, faithful
to St. Thomas and to all philosophers
and realistic theologians, since Aristotle
to this day we believe that
the logic is:
-173-
176
" The art which directs the very act of
reason, that is to say who gives us
to move forward in order, easily and
without error, in the very act of
reason "(S. Thomas, in Anal. Post.
lib. t. read 1).
Poor St. Thomas, who dares to claim
infallible logic!
.
[Doctrinal note: it is precisely
because man is fallible that he has
need an art, which is also a
science, infallible, allowing him to
advance without error in the act of
reason.]
• JUDGE SUPREME -
SCENE IIl.-
After having " refuted" us, then
condemned logic, our Supreme
Judge turns his arms against the
Magisterium of the Church.
Every believer knows that the Magisterium
is instituted and assisted by God for
keep and make known the
Deposit revealed to successive generations
sives of believers. It is therefore loaded
divinely to tell us if such
doctrine, such teaching, such practice
whether or not they comply with the
Revelation.
Here, of Cousseranesque institution
(p. 33) a new “ Magisterium”: in
sort of the " Magisterium" of
Magisterium.
This new " Magisterium", generous-
ment granted by Abbé Cousseran to
all the faithful (except probably at
Magisterium) is responsible for declaring whether
the judgments of the Magisterium are or are not
in accordance with the Revealed Deposit.
After this hyper-coper revolution
nicienne, the sun reflects the light of
the. Moon!
But why the vicious circles
would they arrest the Supreme Judge of
logic?
• ZELE BITTER? -
The doctrinal response to the theo-
logic raised to about by the extent to
any vacancy of the Apostolic See:
- After 25 years of struggles for " a
intellectual and moral reform ", J.
Madiran no longer speaks of RP Guérarâ
des Lauriers than in selected terms:
" The delusional slanderer" who writes
" A filthy letter" which contains
“ Among other infamies” “ all of them
your insults of great baseness "
"What was happening to each other
dirt lovers " (Routes,
No. 237, p. 156).
For the reformed intellectuals and
moral, it really would have them
perverse taste for it go further
near ...
- Mgr Ducaud-Bourget has categories
equally chosen gories , but poetic
ques : according to the latest news,
" Fundamental or zizanists " that we
are, " bedbugs, woodlice and mor ·
pawns, that's what I call them! "
(Current values, N ° 2257 from 3 to
March 9 , 1980, p. 39). Not much time
before who could he treat well
of " ecstatic mystical bedbugs and
other batrachians of giant clams ”? (My-
de et Vie, Courrier des AFB, N ° 47, ...)
One that we don't envy: it's the
Vatican which, it seems, is preparing to
string with these gentlemen.
Rather, we believe that there was
long that the occupants of the Vati-
can't have had the opportunity to have fun
with such intrepid defenders of the
faith and doctrine: the cat can
still playing with those mice who, they
at least, are not full of
" Bitter zeal ",
\
• ULTRAS? -
We will not give ourselves the
ridiculous to make a " semantic note
on the term of ultra ”to write that
its' use is new and this
this news, (that) the catholics
who wear it generally ignore
that they received it from their adversaries.
One more time. " (Itineraries, N ° 241,
p. 30). Nor to decree that he does not
does not apply to us, since it is to
we - who are no longer called
-174 -
177
NOTULES
traditionalists -
that it is intended
(after the term "hard" which was
on trial for a few years but
seems to have to be abandoned beyond
Léman).
As for Victor's enlightened lover
Hugo who, with a ... papelard air
unleashes to impose his " truth
prudential ” which for him is independent
dante of the "
dogmatic truth ”,
we highly recommend toni-
that the necessary development:
"A time to be silent, a time
to speak ” published by Forts in
the faith.
+ IN THE NAME OF TACTICS ? -

RP Barbara just published
(Strong in the Faith, N ° 59-60) a series
most informative articles. Notam-
ment, in " A New Church"
(pp. 269-332), he cites an anthology of
the firmest texts of Archbishop Lefebvre
against the conciliar religion. There's the
enough to reassure the hesitant, and
we sincerely thank the
Reverend Father.
We also know that we are
my in agreement with RP Barbara
on the essential point concerning the Au
tority; John Paul II (like Paul VI)
is not formally Pope, he does not have
the Authority. Our disagreement, who what-
that second is not negligible, is
as well net.
RP Barbara believes that Jean-
Paul II " put himself in
heresy and in schism; from him-
even he separated from the Mvsti-
that who is the Church. Separated from the Church
of Christ, he cannot be
head, he cannot be Pope " (op. cit.,
p. 332). In short, John Paul II (as
Paul VI) being personally hereditary
tick and schismatic, he is no longer
Pope, not even materially.
On the contrary, we want Jean-
Paul II (like Paul VI) remains
Pope materially: We have
given various reasons, and criticized the
opposing thesis (Cf. Cahiers de Cassicia-
cum, No. 1, pp. 78-88 .. N ° 2, study on
distorted consciousness; No. 3, especially
p. 144 ff),
And we are surprised, on the one hand
that RP Barbara does not report
the important agreement between the
sions of Fr. Guérard des Lauriers and
his own, on the other hand that he
in no way undermines the difficulties that we
oppose it.
Forgot, no doubt? So it will be fine
quickly repaired.
• CATHOLIC REACTION? -
A national delegate of the movement
ment "Let them live" writes:
“Fortunately, all the delegates from
LLV are not disciplined Christians
ples of Archbishop Lefebvre. "
We suspected it a little.
• WELCOME TO OUR “CA ·
YESTERDAYS". -
The complicity in the silence
starts to be beaten in breach by
the dissemination effort. Besides the reception
fraternal of some new journals
that we thank:
- Einsicht (Germany) ..
- Bulletin of the Christian West;
- Letter from the Alliance Saint-Michel;
- French readings;
- Parish bulletin of Domqueur
of Abbé Sulmont;
there are beginning to be shy people
allusions to the thesis of RP Guérard
Laurels among those of which we
expect clear objections and
loyal. Obviously, there is no
ment no "summons" (?) but
desire to finally see certain
questions after several years of
ruinous silence.
-175 -
178
PS - When putting under
press we find that the abscess is
die.
We will devote our N ° 5 to eJta
undermine the astonishing "âémonstra-
tions ” of Itineraries, and the others “ re-
futations " of La Pensée Catholique, of
Rome and elsewhere, ...
+ DISRUPTING DISORDER.-
Several readers, and others, we
reproached for disturbing the faithful.
Thus, before the Cahiers de Cassicia-
cum, these worshipers lived in a
blissful serenity and sweet tranquility:
"as before ".
Vatican II, the name, ecumenism,
liberalism, heretical episcopates
ques, the "popes" who covered everything:
it did not cause the slightest trouble
in them.
The troublemakers, it's us (not
the first: Fr. Barbara wrote it
before us) who affirm and prove
let these monstrous things not come
don't come from a Pope, don't come
from the church.
And that's what troubles these good guys
faithful!
Curious faithful, curious trouble!
Curious priests who formed such
faithful!
.
All this is decidedly well
blant.
\
..., ... 176 ..., ...
179
MANAGEMENT NOTE
Here we are at the end of a stage.
THE COMPANY:
When we founded the Cahiers de Cassiciacum, we
had for objectives:
• disseminate the work of RP Guérard des Lauriers on the
question of the Authority. This work had been undertaken for many
years, but despised in silence and suffocated by those very
who today claim the "late" thesis without being afraid
to approve those who find the conclusions "hasty ":
• to obtain sociologically established traditionalism that it
studies this question which is at the root of the crisis in the Church (and
no - should it be specified? - get people to talk about ... us!
as those who are thus convinced to have refuted
our arguments). Souls of good will inspired by the spirit of
faith, and those who remain at the gates of the Church need
light be shed on these crucial issues.
We proposed ourselves as means:
• launch the debate with a religious science journal:
it was indeed a scientific, theological work, and not
feelings or personal preferences, to help
to hold the faithful in the true Catholic doctrine, ·
• to give our journal a presentation worthy of the work
carried out (and of the defended cause) so as not to provide the adversary
- 177 ...., ...
180
WITH THIS DOUBLE NUMBER
YOUR SUBSCRIPTION
END
*
THANK YOU FOR SUBSCRIBE AGAIN
FROM TODAY
FOR THE NEW SERIES
*
USE
THE SUBSCRIBE BULLETIN
WITH THE MENTION
"SERIES B"
181
IN THIS NUMBER
- ABB "É B. Lucien: THE RESISTANCE TO THE POPE: TEXT DB
S. ROBERT BELLARMIN ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1
- RPML GUÉRARD LAURIERS: THE FAUSSÉB AND CONSCIOUSNESS
THE PATHOLOGY OF FAITH (PART TWO: SCHISM)
9
e Chapter 1: The schism considered in itself ... 11
~ Chapter II: The relationship between the schism and
baptized in whom it can be realized
37
• Chapter III: The relationship between the schism and the
legal persons vested with the " authority"
63
o Chapter IV: The relationship between the capital schism and
the subjects in which it can be realized
91
e Epilogue
153
• Summary
155
-
OUR BIG INQUIRY: FIRST FRUITS ..... •• .. •. •. • ... •
161
- NOTULES ... •• .... •• ...... •• ....... ••••• .. •. •. •. •••. •. ••• ••
171
- MANAGEMENT NOTE ........... • .. • ...... •••••••••••••. •. •. ••• 177

Notebooks of CASSICIACUm

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notebooks of CASSICIACUm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

THE. FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS

S. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Ha-Hœ. q. 39, a. 1, 3m.

1) It adequately specifies, and not only partially,

Gal. VI, 10.

So if the schism can concern, in the Church, " authority ",

But the inference can have for

who is affected. The recitals that found

neither in general, nor in such particular circumstances, that it is

This attitude has been the subject of keen analysis. Newsletter

RH refers to Vatican II very frequently, always in a way

In the following paragraph, we refer to the seven texts that we

the transmission of this state, by way of generation, which constitutes, ex parte

While, in humans in via who are not currently

Lumen Gentium concedes to Mary that she can be called “ Mediatrix :

l "We do not ask

quite simply a comedy character who, " set up" by

However, it should be considered whether this responsibility is

OUR BIG SURVEY: FIRST FRUITS

+ IN THE NAME OF TACTICS ? -

You might also like