$4.45

february 2005

“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

"T

he

Ec

um

en

ism

tr

ap

"b

yF

r. G

eor

ge

Ma

y

A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition

“The Catholic bastions must be destroyed.”
"Catholic theologian" Hans Urs von
Balthasar wrote a book about it. Cardinal
Ratzinger repeated it. In this booklet, Fr.
Franz Schmidberger explains how the
Second Vatican Council brought about this
destruction of Catholic bastions by:

W
E
N

We printed 100,000 copies.
Why? So we can sell them dirt
cheap and you can afford to give
them away (to friends, relatives,
co-workers, etc.) like there is no
tomorrow! We know of no better
booklet to give to Catholics to
help them understand that the
doctrinal roots of the crisis lie in
five key Council documents. Short
and easy to understand. Once
a man understands this, he will
quickly embrace Tradition.

l		 not clearly defining Catholic Truth
l		 failing to definitively reject error
l		adopting ambig­uous, contradictory language
l		 establishing teachings very close to here­sy

The Church After 1945 l Prophets of Gloom l A
Reform of the Church l Opening Speech of Vatican
II l Two Modern Errors l Vatican II l Decree on
Ecumenism: (Unitatis Redintegratio) l No Salvation
Outside the Church l Ecumenical Practices l Who is
to Blame? l Decree on the Church: (Lumen Gentium)
l Decree on Non‑Christian Religions: (Nostra Aetate)
l Hinduism l Buddhism l Islam l The Jews l Spirit
of Indifferentism l Declaration on Religious Liberty:
(Dignitatis ­Humanae) l Decree on the Church in the
Modern World: (Gaudium et Spes) l False Solution
l True Solution l “Keep the Faith”–Pray

32pp, color softcover, pocket-sized, blank area on back for stamping

STK# 8104✱ $0.25.

Pack of 50. STK# 8104X✱ $11.95

20
the conference pages
What Catholics NEED to Know

Bishop Bernard Fellay

Given November, 2004 by the Superior General of the SSPX about:  How the wall against Catholic Tradition is
crumbling  The “Triple Bankruptcy” of the Novus Ordo  Clerics favoring the SSPX  New confusions  The
lessons of fallen Campos  Zoo-cage Catholicism  Applications of authentic obedience  Status of SSPX in
Rome  Letters to Cardinal Hoyos  Other Latin Mass groups seek to excommunicate faithful at SSPX Masses
 No bridge to Rome without pillars. Why No Agreement  The blessing of the “excommunications”  Imposters
pretending to defend the Faith  Rome, seat of the New Ecumenism of Cardinal Kasper  The destructive
consequences of a new definition of “person”  How Christ and the Church are “dialogue”  Hope in Mary

20pp, 8" x 10¾", STK# 8073Q $2.95

The Raccolta

Revised under Pope Pius XII, this
official collection (raccolta) of the
Church’s prayers and devotions
was published in English in 1957.
It includes a timely supplement of
additional prayers for many urgent
needs all of which were composed
under the same pontiff. Many of the
more commonly used prayers and
devotions are followed by the Latin
text, thus providing the perfect aid
for teachers and parents anxious to
keep the Church’s language both
alive and spiritually efficacious.
These 800 prayers touch practically
every spiritual and physical need,
and every personal and societal
hope. They are the confidently suppliant voice of the Catholic Church
in her maternal zeal, joy and agony,
nobility and militancy.

752pp, bonded leather
softcover, STK# 6765Q $39.95

Let Us Go To Jesus
Fr. F.X. Lasance

W
E
N

Devotions in honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King.
Liturgical texts, brief visits to the Blessed Sacrament,
together with prayers for Mass and Holy Communion,
Litanies and Devotions for various occasions. Loaded!
All that and:
Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus  Act of
Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus  Litany of
the Holy Name  Litany of the Sacred Heart  Reflections on the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer: “Thy
Kingdom Come,” other prayers  Prayer to the Holy
Ghost  Prayer of St. Alphonsus Ligouri  Prayers
and Acts before the Blessed Sacrament  The Blessed
Sacrament and Our Lady Queen of the Holy Rosary
 Mysteries of the Rosary with suggested meditation
themes  An Act of Consecration to the Blessed Virgin
Mary  The Memorare  Litany of the Blessed Virgin 
Prayers to St. Joseph  Prayers for the Dying and the
Holy Souls in Purgatory  Prayers for use during Mass
 Thanksgiving after Holy Communion  Benediction
of the Blessed Sacrament. With illustrations. Easily fits
into a pocket.

122pp, pocket-sized softcover,
STK# 8062Q $4.95

“Instaurare omnia in Christo—To restore all things in Christ.”
Motto of Pope St. Pius X

The

ngelus
A JOURNAL OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION

2915 Forest Avenue

“To publish Catholic journals and place them in
the hands of honest men is not enough. It is necessary to
spread them as far as possible that they may be read by
all, and especially by those whom Christian charity
demands we should tear away from the poisonous
sources of evil literature.”
—Pope St. Pius X

February 2005
Volume XXVIII, Number 2

• Kansas City, Missouri 64109

English-language Editor and Publisher
for the International Society of Saint Pius X
PUBLISHER

Fr. John Fullerton
EDITOR

Fr. Kenneth Novak
OPERATIONS AND MARKETING

Mr. Christopher McCann

TRIAL OF OUR LORD IN HIS PASSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Rev. Sebastian Wall

MEDITATION ON THE PASSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fr. Bernard-Marie de Chivré

THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X IN GABON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fr. Patrick Groche

SECRETARIES

Miss Anne Stinnett
Miss Lindsey Carroll
CIRCULATION MANAGER

Mr. Victor Tan
DESIGN AND LAYOUT

Mr. Simon Townshend
SHIPPING AND HANDLING

Mr. Nick Landholt
PROOFREADING

Miss Anne Stinnett
Miss Lindsey Carroll

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

BOOK REVIEW: “The Ecumenism Trap” .PART
. . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Fr. Peter Scott

THE SUPPRESSION OF THE JESUITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Miss Rose Carroll

OBEDIENT IN ALL THINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Mrs. Linda Durbin

THE ROOT OF THE MATTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Hans Urs von Balthasar and the Razing of the Catholic Church
Dr. Robert Herrera

The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published
monthly under the patronage of
St. Pius X and Mary, Queen of Angels.
Publication ofﬁces are located at
2915 Forest Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri,
64109, (816) 753-3150, FAX (816) 753-3557.
Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas
City, Missouri. Copyright © 2005 by Angelus
Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Manuscripts
are welcome. They must be double-spaced
and deal with the Roman Catholic Church, its
history, doctrine, or present crisis. Unsolicited
manuscripts will be used at the discretion of
the Editorial Staff.
Unused manuscripts
cannot be returned unless sent
with a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to:
The Angelus, Angelus Press,
2915 Forest Avenue,
Kansas City, MO 64109-1529.

ON OUR COVER: This picture was given to the Editor years ago by someone
whose name he has forgotten. This scene is one of several others of Our Lord’s Passion
somewhere off a major interstate in Texas. If you know where this site is, he invites you to
contact him and/or to send photographs of the rest of the life-sized tableaus. Thank you.

THE ANGELUS SUBSCRIPTION RATES

US, Canada, & Mexico
Other Foreign Countries
All payments must be in US funds only.

1 YEAR

2 YEARS

$34.95
$52.45

$62.90
$94.50

2
At the start of Lent, as we move inexorably towards
Passiontide, we present the following examination of the
key element of the Passion itself–the trial of Our Lord which
led to His suffering and death. Understanding the juridical
authority of the people involved is vital to realizing the
merit of Our Lord and an answer to the charges, so easily
bandied about today, of anti-Semitism. Similarly, in order
to judge the accusers of Our Lord fairly we need to look
not only at the people involved, but also the acts of their
assembly, the Sanhedrin.
The Sanhedrin was the Grand Council of the Jews
established in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. It was
modeled on the Council of seventy ancients established by
Moses in the desert and which had disappeared after the
entry into the Promised Land. Before the time of Our Lord
it had a relatively brief existence appearing somewhere
between 170 and 106 BC Its late origin may be seen in
the Greek (as opposed to Hebrew) etymology of the word
meaning a seated assembly. There were three chambers of
23 members each–the priests, the scribes and doctors, and
the ancients. Towards the end of the Jewish history these
numbers were not strictly adhered to and the priests tended
to predominate. There were two presidents, the prince of the
assembly and the father of the tribunal who was in practice
the vice president. This made a Sanhedrin of 71 members.
Although, historically, the president wasn’t of necessity a
priest, during the Roman occupation this was practically
the case. Certainly the Sanhedrin had the highest authority,
even Herod the Great had to appear before it at one stage in
his youth, but it was still bound by certain rules, particularly,
as in the case we are considering here, in the matter of
pronouncing a sentence of death, which could only be done
in the temple in the room of the cut stones.
This had been the law but, 23 years before the trial
of Our Lord, the power of capital punishment was taken
away from the Council by the Romans. Herod’s successor,
Archelaus, was deposed and, to bring it into line with all
other Roman provinces, the province of Judah and its
legislative body, the Sanhedrin, had its jus gladii (the right
to put someone to death) taken away. It still had the right to
excommunicate, imprison and scourge but not to condemn
to death. Various Jewish sources contrive to suggest that,
either because of the great number of crimes at that time,
or because of the Roman occupation, it was impossible
or unsuitable to condemn Jews to death so the Sanhedrin
voluntarily left the room of the cut stones so that they
wouldn’t be able to condemn anyone. But this is trying to
put a brave face on a harsh reality. Moreover, already in
Genesis it had been prophesied that the Messiah would
come only after the kingdom of Judah had fallen and its jus
gladii been taken away (Gen. 49:8-10). In fact the scepter
had been taken away from Judah for some time. With the
Babylonian captivity the scepter passed to the Levites, the
Machabees, then to the Herods who were Edomites and
not Jews at all. That was the royal power gone, but in AD
11 the judiciary power was also taken away. Of course, to
acknowledge that openly would mean that the Jews would
also have to recognize that the time for the Messiah had
come.
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

r e v .

s e b a s t

TRIAL O
LORD I
PASSI

a s t i a n

3
W a l l

OF OUR
D IN HIS
SION

Of the 71 members of the Sanhedrin at the time of
Our Lord we have information on around 40 of them. This
comes from the Gospels, from the Jewish History of the
contemporary Jew, Joseph, and the Talmud.

The First Chamber of the
Sanhedrin: The Priests
Of the priests perhaps the two most well known are
the high priests, Annas and Caiphas. That there should
be two high priests at that time is already something of
an indictment on the house of priests. The ofﬁce of high
priest had been hereditary and for life, but already under
Herod priests had seen themselves deposed and replaced.
Under the Romans this became a regular occurrence.
Thus it was that at the time of Our Lord’s trial there were
not just two but around a dozen deposed high priests who
were all members of the Council along with the simple
priests. Someone like Annas could make sure that the ofﬁce
would stay in his family for almost 50 continuous years
but, once the position of power became up for grabs, as it
were, it became the object of ambitious scheming and even
treachery which scandalized the Jews themselves.
Caiphas was ofﬁcially the acting high priest but much
of the authority remained with his father in law, Annas.
This latter had ﬁve sons who had been or who were to be
high priest at the time of Our Lord and as such they were
all members of the Council. They, along with the sons
of Simon Boethius (three) and indeed the other ten who
are mentioned in the sources, were little edifying in their
personal lives. Joseph says they were violent thieves and
the Talmud, normally only too full of praise for Jewish
institutions and personages, calls the priests at that time
a plague. Thus the vast majority (the known 18 of the 23
members) of the house of priests was corrupt.

The Scribes
The scribes, the learned ones of Israel, formed the
second chamber of the Sanhedrin. Whereas there is little
edifying to learn from the chamber of priests, the scribes
counted one or two exceptions to a decadent house at the
time of Our Lord.
Gamaliel, for example, is praised in both the Talmud
and the Acts of the Apostles. Among his disciples were St.
Paul, St. Barnabas, and St. Stephen. When the Sanhedrin
was plotting the death of the Apostles he gave them the
advice: Leave them alone–if it is a human belief it will die
anyway; if it’s not, you won’t be able to destroy it. A short
while afterwards he converted to Christianity himself. Other
members, however, were not so edifying.
His son, Simeon, for example, although also gifted with
a great wisdom, became the intimate friend of the bandit
John of Giscala whose cruelty and excesses against the
Romans and even Jews led to the sack of Jerusalem in 70.
Onkelos, born a pagan, had all the fervor of a Pharisaic
convert, even throwing his inheritance in the Dead Sea
because it came from his Gentile parents. He was, obviously,
not well disposed to Our Lord.
Christ before Pilate, Cathedral of
Naumburg, Germany (c. 1250).

THE ANGELUS • February 2005

4
Jonathan, the famous translator of the Pentateuch
missed out, in his translation of the prophets, the book
of Daniel because the way he described the death of the
Messiah was too close to that of Our Lord.
Samuel (the less) is the composer of the curse against
the Christians which was added by the Sanhedrin to the
synagogue “blessing” Shemone Esdrah which, St. Jerome
remarks, Jews are supposed to pray three times a day.
Of the other 18 we know at least the names of half of
them. Though they were certainly gifted with a certain
wisdom, the evidence all points to most of them being
ﬁlled with pride. Hence, at the time of Our Lord, the rather
recent predilection for the title Rabbi. This was not a title
used by the scribes historically–Hillell or Esdras had this
title at the time of the captivity. But by the time of Our
Lord the coveting of titles had become such that He could
reproach them for it in Mt. 23:6-7. They introduced 24
excommunications against those who didn’t show them
sufﬁcient respect, comparing themselves to God Himself.
After the destruction of Jerusalem, Rabbi Judah wrote, “If
Jerusalem has been destroyed one has to look no further for
the cause than the lack of respect shown to the scribes and
doctors.”

The Ancients
The third chamber of the Sanhedrin was that of the
Ancients. They had the least inﬂuence and so it is not
surprising that we have less information about them than
others. Nonetheless, we can suppose something concerning
around half of them from contemporary records. From the
Gospels, for example, we know that Joseph of Arimathea
was a member. Like the other members he was a rich
man but is nonetheless credited with the title of “just
senator”–that is to say that he was one of the ten magistrates
under the Romans to govern the city. He shares his just
character with another disciple of Christ, albeit a secret one,
Nicodemus, who was also one of the three richest men in
Jerusalem. The other two mentioned by the Talmud were
Ben Calba Shebua and Ben Tsitsit Haccassat. It is, however,
probably more indicative of the interest of the Talmud than
a lack of any real virtue that they are all only praised for
their riches and, particularly in the case of the two latter,
their sumptuous lifestyle. We know but the names of six
others and of those only the notorious cruelty of one of
them, Doras, who was responsible for killing the high Priest
Jonathan under the governor Felix. It could be, therefore,
that this least inﬂuential chamber of the Sanhedrin had
better qualities than the previous two.
One fact which we learn from Josephus Flavius seems to
make this unlikely, however. The Ancients of the Sanhedrin
were recruited from the rich inhabitants of Jerusalem. But
it was also from the rich that the Sadducees took their
members. It was the Sadducees who did not believe in the
resurrection and this belief in the death of the soul with
the body led to a profound materialism–hardly likely to
be compatible with Our Lord’s teaching. An interesting

THE ANGELUS • February 2005

Duccio di Buoninsegna (1308-11)
(top to bottom) Christ Before Caiaphas,
Christ Accused by the Pharisees, Christ
Before Pilate, Christ Before Herod.

5
incident from the Acts of the Apostles conﬁrms
that Sadduceeism was rife in the Sanhedrin.
When St. Paul is brought before the Council he
cleverly causes an instant dissension amongst them
by siding with the Pharisees and unleashing a
pandemonium of recriminations and confusion. If it
is the case that at the time of Our Lord the highest
Council of the Jews is ﬁlled with notorious heretics,
it doesn’t augur well for a just trial.
Indeed, what else could one expect from a
Council made up of ambitious and degenerate
priests, mostly Pharisees who thought themselves
infallible? They were awaiting a Messiah, certainly,
but not one who exposed their hypocrisy, rejected
their invented prescriptions, and called for the
abolition of their illegal tithes with which they
oppressed the people.
What else could one expect from Scribes ﬁlled
with pride in their own knowledge? The Messiah
they were to judge proclaimed blessed those who
were humble of heart, his disciples were ignorant
artisans and ﬁshermen.
What else could one expect from Ancients
many, if not most, of whom were Sadducees, happy
with the goods of this life, neither caring for their
soul, nor God, nor the resurrection?

The Secret Pre-trial Meetings
We are familiar with the Gospel accounts of the
trial of Our Lord before the Sanhedrin and having
studied the character of most of those who made up
the Council we could make an educated guess as to
the sentence they might come up with. Nonetheless,
we see elsewhere in the Gospels that, in fact, before
the meetings on Maundy Thursday and then early
Good Friday morning there had already been three
secret meetings without the presence of Our Lord.
A look at the decisions that were taken at these
meetings will enable us to see the full nature of the
sham trial which He underwent in His Passion.
The ﬁrst meeting took place somewhere
between September 28-30, 781 ab urbe condita
[AUC, that is, “from the foundation of the City (of
Rome),” otherwise known to us as 753 BC–Ed.].
St. John tells us ( Jn. 7:37-53) that on the last day of
the feast of the Tabernacles (September 28th that
year) the Pharisees sent people to take Our Lord.
They returned empty-handed claiming that no-one
had ever spoken as he did. The Pharisees were
enraged and already determined to discuss what to
do but Nicodemus asked, “Is it the way of our law
to judge a man without giving him a hearing ﬁrst,
and ﬁnding out what he is about?” The Pharisees’
reply was a contemptuous question as to whether
Nicodemus was a Galilean. At any rate, they could
see that Our Lord’s teaching was making such
progress that they needed to call a meeting of the
Sanhedrin.

Two days after the feast Our Lord cures the
man born blind and St. John tells us that his parents
feared the Jews because, “they had already agreed
among themselves” to excommunicate anyone
who recognized Jesus as the Christ. So it seems
some time between the two dates a solemn meeting
of the Sanhedrin must have been called since
they were the only ones able to excommunicate.
It is also probable that at this ﬁrst meeting they
had decided to pronounce the most solemn
degree of excommunication (i.e., sentence of
death) which was the penalty reserved for false
prophets. Actually, the Talmud records that he was
excommunicated to the sound of 400 trumpets for
being a magician and seducer of the people. This
probable exaggeration nonetheless means that even
if the sentence of excommunication (i.e., sentence
of death) wasn’t pronounced at this ﬁrst session
then it was at least discussed. In fact, pronouncing
it at this early stage could have backﬁred since
the people were still very enthusiastic, so they
contented themselves with a lesser degree of
excommunication for his disciples, threatening
anyone who followed Our Lord with being cast out
of the synagogue.
The second meeting of the Sanhedrin took
place in February of 782 AUC, that is, around
four and a half months after the ﬁrst and was
occasioned by the raising of Lazarus. John 11:46-56
reports how the council was called and mentions
the prophecy of Caiphas regarding the death of
one for many. It is thus at this second meeting that
it was already decided that Jesus must die, and
information was sought as to his whereabouts that
he might be taken. The sentence is pronounced by
the high priest himself without hearing, without
prosecution, witnesses, nor defence. The reason
given for the sentence is neither sedition nor revolt
but, reports St. John, in order to stop the miracles
and hence that people should believe in Jesus. The
sentence is ratiﬁed unopposed, it seems, by the
Council and it is only the time of His arrest that
is awaited; when He ﬁnally appeared before the
Sanhedrin on the night of Maundy Thursday the
sentence had already been passed.
The ﬁnal meeting took place around 20–25
days later on the Wednesday before the Passion,
that year on March 12. As reported by St. Luke
(22:1-3) and St. Matthew (26:3-5) the council was
assembled in the house of Caiphas, and it was
decided that Jesus’ arrest shouldn’t take place
during the coming feast lest there should be a
revolt by the people. So, it seems that the death
sentence, which had already been decided at the
second meeting, was going to be put off until
after Easter when an unexpected visit accelerated
events. “Judas, surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve
went and discoursed with the chief priests and the
magistrates, how he might betray him to them” (Lk.
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

6
22:3-4). If the Jews were surprised, they nonetheless
rejoiced greatly that help should come from such an
unexpected quarter. Judas even promised to hand
over Jesus quickly and at a time when there would be
no crowds to prevent it, thus allaying the only fear
of the Sanhedrin in carrying out their decision. They
decide to give him money.
Thus the betrayal means that, instead of being
after Easter, the immolation of the Lamb of God takes
place on the very day that for ﬁfteen centuries the
Paschal Lamb had been offered as a prophecy of His
saving death.

The Sanhedrin’s
Rules of Due Process
After examining the actual composition of the
Sanhedrin at the time of Our Lord it is now time to
look at the legal strictures by which any member
of that assembly was bound. For if it is true that
certain members of the Sanhedrin may have had
evil dispositions towards Jesus, nonetheless what is
more signiﬁcant is whether that had any effect on the
actual trial of Our Lord or not. To see that, we need
to examine the legal procedures for a criminal trial
among the Jews.
Of course, it is important to remember that the
Jews were not only bound by the natural law. The
Pentateuch was the basis of their law and it was,
moreover, revealed by God. But it only governed
a very small number of matters in any detail.
The majority of jurisprudence was passed on by
tradition. This tradition has been preserved for the
past eighteen hundred years by the Mishna (the
Hebrew form of “deuteronomy” or “second law”),
written at the end of the second century by the
Rabbi Juda. This vast work contains 63 treatises on
all aspects of the Jewish law and there is even one
particularly dedicated to governing the procedures
of the Sanhedrin. Of course, we can be sure that not
everything in the Mishna is original but, curiously
enough, if it reports a practice that was clearly
violated at the trial of Our Lord we can know for
certain that it is authentic. The reason for this is that,
wherever possible, over the centuries, the rabbis have
in fact changed various things to extenuate their guilt
in condemning Jesus. Therefore, if they were unable
to change something it is obviously because it was so
consecrated by time and usage that they would never
have got away with it.
Considering the time of trial, it was forbidden
(and indeed invalid) to hold a trial on a feast day or
on the day before a feast day (the vigil). Likewise it
was forbidden to judge a capital case at night. In fact,
all cases had to be judged between the morning and
the evening sacriﬁces. Furthermore, a capital sentence
had to be pronounced on the second day, i.e., with a
night in between since the Jews reckoned their days
as starting from the evening (of our previous day).
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

Now regarding the time of Our Lord’s trial we can see
that it was the ﬁrst day of the unleavened bread, i.e.,
the 14th of Nisan (March) which was the vigil of a big
feast, the trial was held between the evening and the
morning sacriﬁce, precisely the time when it was not
allowed since capital offenses were not allowed to be
judged at night and by Jewish reckoning the sentence
was passed on the same day that the trial began.
Already three irregularities.
We see from Scripture that the prosecutor was
Caiphas who, as High Priest, was not only judge
as well but also the president of the assembly.
Deuteronomy 19:16 is very clear that the same
person cannot be judge as well as the accuser. In fact,
Caiphas goes even further in his irregularities since he
ﬁrst asks Jesus concerning His doctrine, presumably to
try and catch Him out in anything He should say. In
fact, what should happen ﬁrst is the witnesses should
be produced to make the charge against the accused
clear. There had to be at least two or three witnesses.
Each had to give evidence separately in the presence
of the accused (cf. the trial of Susanna by Daniel).
This was to avoid conﬂicting testimony which made
the accusation invalid and the perjurers were to suffer
the punishment due to the accused.
Our Lord’s response to this irregularity is very
discreetly to draw Caiphas’ attention to the fact that
His teaching has been public and if this is a trial then
the accusations should come from elsewhere, not from
the accused himself. For this He is slapped by one of
the servants standing by. This is a further irregularity
since the law protected the accused until he was
proven guilty.
Anyway, Caiphas understands what Our Lord
means by His remarks and calls for the witnesses.
The Gospel accounts in fact give the impression that
witnesses are sought with some desperation despite
the law requiring witnesses to be very carefully
chosen and sworn-in that they tell only the truth.
The two, called the last witnesses in St. Mark and St.
Matthew, bring the accusation that Our Lord wanted
to destroy the temple–a capital charge as we can see
from the prophet Jeremiah who had prophesied the
destruction of the temple and only narrowly escaped
being stoned to death. But even here their testimony
is found to be contradictory. They misrepresent the
words of Our Lord and impute to them a sense He
never intended. Moreover, since the accusations,
while both serious, nonetheless are not the same,
neither is valid according to Jewish law.
Caiphas continues to try and provoke Our Lord
to a response but His reply mirrors Psalm 37:1315: “And they that sought my soul used violence.
And they that sought evils to me spoke vain things,
and studied deceits all the day long. But I, as a deaf
man, heard not: and as a dumb man not opening his
mouth.”
In the case of Pilate later in His Passion, Our
Lord’s silence urges the judge to look for a means of

7
setting him free, but it only serves to increase the fury
of Caiphas, as we shall see.
In this hearing Caiphas has so far failed in any
attempt to bring forward witnesses or indeed any
charge against Our Lord. In his ﬁnal examination of
Our Lord he adjures him by the living God to tell the
people if He is the Christ or not. Hence, he seems
to have abandoned the quest for witnesses who can
agree as to the charge or even the evidence to support
it. And whereas the witnesses were not sworn to
tell the truth, Caiphas now illicitly requires it of the
accused.
It seems at ﬁrst sight a bizarre question because
both answers in justice should lead to Our Lord’s
acquittal since if He is not the Son of God there is no
other accusation, and if He is, then they should all fall
down and worship Him. In this tribunal, however,
both answers can only bring death since if Our Lord
denies being the Christ when He has explicitly taught
as much throughout His public ministry, He will be
condemned as an impostor. If He does claim to be the
Messiah when they do not accept Him as such He will
be condemned for blasphemy.
At any rate if He does not acknowledge the
legitimacy of the trial, nor the justice of those
conducting it, Jesus nonetheless respects the Name of
God on the lips of the High Priest despite the obvious
treachery of the incumbent of the sacred ofﬁce. He
afﬁrms that He is the Christ.
The result is remarkable. The High Priest rends
his garments. This was, in fact, normally a sign of
mourning for the Hebrews but it was expressly
forbidden for the high priest to do so since his
clothing was the sign of the priesthood of God.
Similarly his cry of “blasphemy” is unjust on two
counts. First, he is obliged to examine the claim
before he pronounces on its veracity, and secondly he
may not prejudice the other judges by pronouncing
his sentence ﬁrst since the authority of the high priest
would preclude their dissent. At any rate, he then
dispenses the tribunal from the need for witnesses
and indeed of any further procedure although the law
required at least seven questions with regard to the
accused and his charge.
His appeal to the general assembly, what we
would call the voice of the mob today, is a further
irregularity since each member had to give his
sentence individually in order. The idea of all
shouting at the same time “He is worthy of death”
is completely opposed to the Jewish law. First, the
assembly only has the assertion of Caiphas to base its
judgment on; secondly, the sentence is pronounced
immediately instead of waiting until the next day, the
scribes do not count the votes for and against–indeed,
it seems there are no votes against.
It might be surmised that at least Nicodemus
and Joseph of Arimathea would have registered
their dissent considering the enormous number of
irregularities in the procedures. That they say nothing

is probably due to their absence–it is likely they
would have refused to come to an illegal sitting of the
Sanhedrin at night. If they were present their voices
could have been silenced by the general press either
by being shouted down or simply by being excluded
from the proceedings. The Gospel, at any rate, gives
us to believe that Joseph, at least, took no part in the
unjust proceedings (Lk. 23: 50-1).
With that, the trial for the night is over and Our
Lord is handed over to the good pleasure of the
soldiers of the temple and servants by whom He is
wretchedly mishandled. Although there is no explicit
condemnation of this in Jewish law it is nonetheless a
scandalous breach of even common decency.
The next morning at dawn there was a further
sitting. Probably to salve the consciences of any
who might claim that a nocturnal sitting was invalid,
Caiphas called this as soon as the sun was up (i.e.,
before the morning sacriﬁce); which is to say that
it, too, was illicit. There was moreover obviously
no question of reversing the sentence from the
previous sitting but merely giving a semblance of
legality for the sake of the people. No legal form is
followed, however, merely the question regarding
Our Lord’s divinity is posed once more so that the
same condemnation can be pronounced. Once again
Our Lord clearly states His divinity and once again a
sentence by general acclamation is given. Instead of
legalizing the proceedings of but a few hours ago the
irregularities are compounded.
A cursory reading of the Gospel accounts of Our
Lord’s “trial” leaves even the casual reader with an
uncomfortable feeling that all is not right. When one
examines the procedures which should be followed,
comparing them with what actually happened, and
add to that the general character of the members of
the Sanhedrin at the time, one can only be horriﬁed
at the travesty of justice that is committed. That this
travesty is committed by His own people and by those
of His people in whom He should have been able to
have the greatest conﬁdence must have been one of
the most acute sufferings of Our Lord in His Passion
for the forgiveness of our sins.
The return of the Hebrews to the favor of God is
one of the things which Tradition teaches is to happen
before Our Lord comes in glory to judge the living
and the dead. May this article in some way inspire
continued prayer for the conversion of this people,
once the chosen ones of God, who played such a
crucial role in the dolorous Passion of Our Lord.
The Rev. Sebastian Wall was born in England and went to seminary in France
and Germany. Ordained in 1993, after a short stay in Austria, he was appointed
to the priory in Johannesburg, South Africa. Since 2002 he has been the prior
of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary at Durban. His article is based on the book
by the Fathers Lemann called Valeur de l’Assemblee qui prononca la peine
de mort contre Jesus Christ (Value of the assembly which pronounced the
sentence of death against Jesus Christ), ﬁrst published in French in 1877. The
Fathers Lemann were both Jewish converts who became priests. They were
commended for their work by Pope Pius IX.
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

8

Ten Minutes

with Fr. de Chivré:

Meditation on The

Passion

“Christ suffered.” These are two words that we
repeat without knowledge and without understanding.
“He suffered,” and we do not know, anatomically, the
reﬁnements of acuteness and diversity in suffering, moral
and physical, which that represents. “He suffered,” and
we cannot imagine what must have been His secret
calvaries before the Calvary.1

“He suffered,” and no man has the right to
fathom that word when God is the one who gave it
depth. “He suffered.” Saying it over and over is like
saying the Ave Maria over and over: though we say
it always, we never repeat it. We never repeat it, it
is true, because each time the emotion penetrates a
little deeper, the vision becomes more precise, the
inconceivable generosity of His act overwhelms
us. We are left dumbstruck and disconcerted. “He
suffered,” we murmur. We are ashamed. “He suffered”
for me, who was not worth the trouble. “Passus
est.”–“He suffered.” Who amongst us has been able
to appreciate the freedom that He brought to it or
the kindness that He infused into it? He suffered truly
Alone, and that solitude was among His greatest
sufferings.
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

“Et tenebrae factae sunt” [from the Ofﬁce of Tenebrae
on Good Friday, Second Nocturn]–“We make the
night.” That’s always the way it ends when we are
angry. We make the night: the anger of the violent,
who breaks the lamp; the anger of the weak, whose
bad faith disturbs a limpid sincerity; the anger of the
lustful and the darkness of lust. We are the sons of
anger who make the night. We are the sons of the
Leaders of Good Friday. We are the hypocritical anger
of the High Priest. We are the frenzied anger of the
mob against Him: “Tolle, tolle...”–“Take Him away.”
We sin. We eat the grapes of wrath: the grapes of
pride, which darken our judgment before the humility
of Jesus; the grapes of conceit, which dispense us from
loving Him; the grapes of excuses for doing wrong,
which distort our conscience; the grapes of lust, whose
satisfaction we seek.
Calmly, as though nothing were more natural,
justifying our attitudes of anger in the name of
open-mindedness, hygiene, medicine, service, and
temperament, we weave in ourselves and around
ourselves a tapestry of the night: of inability to love;

9
of absence of desire; of blindness to sin; of the false
light of self-satisfaction, of incapacity to grasp the
gravity of life, of problems, of evil, of eternity.
We are always busy protesting, enraged and furious
that He asks far too much, that He should ask for less,
that it is not for us. We spend our life in anger against
Him. And the earth remains in night. Whenever God
dies somewhere, the darkness appears. We have a
talent for drawing down the night on Him: on desire
for Him; on battles for Him; on reasons to love Him;
on reasons to follow Him.
With our elegant lies and our revolting formalism,
we are the makers of Good Friday, sons of anger
who make the night. And against the backdrop of
this night, He stands out, scarcely recognizable. The
sinner has a talent for disﬁguring God.
Tortured: the sinner ﬁnds it natural to corrupt the
integrity of the Good.
Bleeding: the sinner ﬁnds it normal that someone else
suffer in his place because of him.
Nameless: the interior gaze of the sinner is so rotted
out that he is incapable of recognizing the
God he has cruciﬁed or of naming Him as the
Cruciﬁed.
He stands out silent, with inﬁnite meekness,
knowing that there is no dialogue with the anger of
men but that He has to use it to preach His pardon,
His love, His patience, His goodness and (in three
days), His Power. Juxtaposing the anger of the
betrayal is the calm sermon of the Agony; against
the anger of the scourging, the groaning sermon of
reparation; against the anger of the crowning with
thorns, the stupefying sermon of silence; against the
anger of the Cruciﬁxion, the sermon of affectionate
heroism.
Our anger was necessary to make appear
deﬁnitively among us the transcendence of His
goodness. Until the end of time, we will call Him the
Good God.
“Et tenebrae factae sunt....” In calling down the
night in order to make Him disappear, we made
to rise (without knowing it) the deﬁnitive dawn of
Redemption. May we who have called down the
darkness of our sins to make Him disappear from
our heart, our memory, our life, freely merit from
the immense pity of Jesus Christ. May the night
make rise in us the dawn of deﬁnitive repentance and
amendment of life.
Before such a mad excess of mercy ﬂowing in
response to the torrent of human anger, the Church
forgets her songs, decorations, and rejoicing. She is
at the foot of the Cross, overwhelmed with gratitude.
She knows He is all the beauties of life and yet willed
the ugliness of the Cross. She knows that He is the
most ﬁtting subject for acclamations of love and yet
willed the reprobations of anger. She knows that He
is the most predilected, the most worthy of respect

and courtesy, and yet willed the scenes of derision,
humiliation, and shame.
He willed: “No one takes My life, but I lay it
down.” “I lay it down” in the hands of anger, to write
deﬁnitively on a page of human history.
The love of God has revealed itself greater than
the anger of men. The power of a God has been found
more irresistible in His suffering than admirable in
His miracles. The mercy of a God revealed itself
broader than the hateful absurdity of men.
A page of History is written to our heart, to be
read and learned by heart.
This page was written in the thirty-third year of My
earthly existence, inscribed with the indelible ink of My
blood, countersigned by the spittle of the mob, certiﬁed
by the seal of Pontius Pilate: a basin full of water, and by
the stamp of Caiphus, that is, his rent garments.
This page is historical, ofﬁcial, translated into every
language. Certain people have tried to tear it, to rip it
out, but they’ve realized their anger has only reinforced
the text of human angers which wrote it. It can no
longer be erased. The signature of God cannot be erased
because it is written in Blood that ﬂows from all the pores
of His skin.
It is too late. You will be loved until the end of the
world. And you will be judged on Love. Be assured, your
anger will not have the last word. My Love will have the
last word, in the abyss of My mercy or the abyss of My
justice.

Christ is the Priest of His own sacriﬁce. The role
of the priest is to immolate the victim; Christ the
Priest therefore has to immolate Himself. There are
two aspects to an immolation, of which the more
visible is important only in relation to the invisible
aspect. The visible aspect is what was violent and
painful on Mt. Calvary. This aspect is brought about
by the executioners, but executioners only go after
two types of victims: victims taken by force (the two
thieves) and voluntary victims (Our Lord Jesus Christ).
The death of the two thieves was an execution–
not a sacriﬁce–for there was an opposition of will
between them and their executioners. The torturers
chastised the thieves in spite of their opposition. They
were subjected to this death.
Christ, on the other hand, gave His life. He
freely let the torturers act, for their cruelties secretly
corresponded with what He desired and willed to
endure by love and goodness. The executioners did
not impose death upon Him; He offered His life to
their death-blows. In so doing, Our Lord was living in
pure active passivity which saw what was coming, let
it come, and endured what came in accordance with
His decision of love. He submits. He puts Himself
freely under the blows to make them produce that
something which can be produced only when there is
consent–true suffering (in pure virtuous activity).
The whole of the priestly immolation of Jesus
Christ is contained in this active submission to the
passivity of the ordeal. It comes from His intense will
to love, that is, to love more strongly than the strength
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

10
of the violence which hated Him. He accepted to be
hated in order to love absolutely. In this submission of
His–in this active and affectionate consent to all that
makes a true victim–all of the fruitfulness and holiness
of immolation are present.
Obedience: in submission of His will, He is a victim in
His independence.
Scorn: in submission of His heart, He is a victim in
His affection.
Renunciation: in submission of His Body, He is a
victim in His well-being.
This submission is a complete act of the person. It
asks no help of nature [i.e., it is totally supernatural–
Ed.] since it consists in the victim loving and
accepting a distress of nature(!). It is the complete act
of superior persons.
There is sacriﬁce only on this condition: to
love in active submission the state of passivity that
is immolation. Where there is no submission there
can be no sacriﬁce, but only either chastisement or
execution.
The ﬁrst ingredient of sacriﬁce is a loving soul
or a soul at least desiring to love. Our Lord Jesus
Christ’s sacriﬁce of Himself was in proportion to the
love in His soul. His submission was all the more
perfect because He enjoyed a perfect autonomy
[i.e., as the God-Man there was nothing to which
He had to submit–Ed.] in intellect (His teaching), in
will (His authority), or His Body (His miracles). The
quality of His autonomy inspired the quality of His
submission. Free of evil and falsehood, Jesus Christ
had the audacity to submit Himself to the effects of
evil because He had in His will the means to draw
out of them something better than what they usually
produce. He drew out of them the good of the
Redemption.
In face of His immolation, Christ disregarded
the possibility for escape. Bound with ropes and
immobilized by the soldiers, He used His power,
which had just thrown to the ground the mob come to
arrest Him in the garden of the Agony, to endure His
capture rather than wielding it to free Himself.
This endurance of the greatest evil reveals
the greater freedom of Jesus. He placed this
independence at the service of a greater sacriﬁce,
teaching us that the value of the sacriﬁce demands
independence of a superior quality: that of no longer
even depending on the soul’s loathing to say “yes”
and nature’s loathing to accept suffering. Ultimately,
a man is genuinely free who is sacriﬁced voluntarily
and with full consent. He breaks through that layer
of plea-bargaining and of intellectual and corporal
resistance which reveal a natural vitality tyrannizing
over the soul. Like Christ, he strikes the world dumb
with stupefaction since the force of sacriﬁce imposes
silence on nature, which in itself is totally oriented
away from sacriﬁce.
Since our Lord’s sacriﬁce was of religion and
worship, it also had to be as visible as possible, which
explains why the Passion had to be witnessed by the
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

people. And since it was to be the sacriﬁce of a God,
all that was human in Him had to efface itself entirely
before God, under the effect of the power of God in
that humanity. Hence the character of completeness
in the corporal immolation of Christ who sacriﬁced
human psychology in the agony; the human body in
the scourging; human honor by the crowning with
thorns; human life by the death on the Cross. Never
had the divinity entered into such absolute activity
in the humanity of Christ as in the Passion. Only
the divinity could draw a man into such a folly of
love–a love inspired by the vision of its redemptive
consequences, a vision which only the divinity could
possess.
For us, too, under the inﬂuence of grace, the
vision of the happy consequences of our sacriﬁces
makes up for nature’s loathing and gives us the
strength and the joy to immolate it. Sacriﬁce is the
most intelligent form of love, since to love is to decide
in favor of a good, even at the price of what costs the
most.
The Passion is but a succession of unceasing
voluntary submissions on the part of Jesus to the
supernatural occasions for saving men at the cost of
His humanity. It is the contrary of human ﬂightiness,
whose natural movement is to ﬂee the supreme
independence which is sacriﬁce.
O Crux, Ave.
As for the Cross…we are on our guard.
Never did man dream of making such a tool.
With it, we work on the same despair,
we work to leave behind and not to acquire.
We work to dig more than to reach a goal.
With it, we do the work of a giant.
The Cross?–Is it a burin? a chisel? a hoist?
It is an instrument constructed by Love
which slowly penetrates into the human substance
to extract from our hearts their cries for help.
Only Christ could bring it out of the workshop
and, in the measure of our weakness,
size it for us, rough or polished,
and then let it do its work,
a work that no one would dare undertake
but that we have to let Him accomplish, somehow,
while we weep, while we pray
until at last the moment of our resurrection.2

DID CHRIST ENDURE ALL SUFFERING?

First we have to distinguish between genus and
species. [A genus is a “family-grouping” related to
characters and characteristics, for example, “Cats.”
Within a genus, there are species of “Cat,” for instance,
“lions” or “tigers.” Fr. de Chivré is going to say that
there is the genus of “Agony,” of which Christ could
only suffer some of its species due to the limitations of
time and space, yet by those species He experienced
the breadth of the genus of “Agony.”–Ed.] It is
impossible to endure all species of suffering at once,

11
since they contradict each other, for example, burning
and drowning, or, decapitation and scalping. But
according to the genus of “Agony,” He endured all
human suffering.
On the part of men: Jews and pagans; priests
and laymen; authorities and the subjects; honest and
dishonest; young and old; friends and enemies.
On the part of His faculties:
● in His heart: friendships, relations, honor, good
name, possessions (lots cast), body, soul;
● in His soul: anguish, disgust, sadness, solitude,
knowledge of suffering;
● in His body: head, face (spit, tears), hands, feet,
body;
● in His senses: touch (nails, scourges), taste (gall,
vinegar), smell (sweat, blood), hearing
(blasphemies), sight (His Mother).

WAS HIS SUFFERING
GREATER THAN ANY OTHER?

Yes.
Reasons proper to Christ:
● No one knew as Christ knew the intellectual
content of suffering, that is, what suffering was.
● No one willed as much as Christ to suffer without
refusal, without dilution, without admixture. He
bathed in suffering.
● No one had a soul more sensitive than that of our
Lord.
● No one had a more perfect body and therefore
more keenly disposed to experience physical
suffering.
Reasons proper to His form of death:
● the position: stretched out upon the Cross, the
weight, the immobility (crown of thorns);
● the duration: a slow death, three hours of cramps,
fever, thirst;
● the wounds: (preceding the cruciﬁxion) the
scourging, the crown of thorns piercing beneath
the eyelids; (during the cruciﬁxion) nails in
hands and feet, the wrist, through the major
nerve centers.
Reasons proper to the Redemption:
● For all sins, for which He was neither guilty nor
responsible.
● For His compatriots.
● For His disciples.
● With the vision of the damned who would reject
the beneﬁts from His suffering.

DID CHRIST SUFFER
IN EVERY PART OF HIS SOUL?

The different powers of the soul are comparable
to parts of a whole. If all of the faculties of the soul
are affected by suffering, the entire soul suffers.
Therefore, the entire soul of Christ suffered.
The lower part of Christ’s soul (i.e., the senseappetites) suffered horribly on the Cross because it
experienced the total pain-agony of His body. The
higher part of His soul (i.e., the intellect and will)

suffered in relation to His desired end, that is, the
glory of His Father and the salvation of souls. This
caused Him joy and intellectual delight, but this
end also included the mental pain caused by His
awareness of the very reasons that made the Cross
necessary–namely the sins and offenses of men.
Hence, the higher part of His soul experienced a
sadness, too, which was not only of the senses, but
also affected the will of that higher life. Just as no
physical movement gave Christ any relief but instead
increased the suffering of His body, so no thought or
idea gave Him consolation but instead tortured His
mind even more: “My God, My God, why hast Thou
abandoned Me?”
He brought together all the elements of the genus
of “Agony” to experience them all at the same time.
The suffering of a single faculty of the soul makes
all of the other faculties suffer. For instance, by the
wounds inﬂicted upon His head by the crowning with
thorns, the whole body would be exasperated by the
intermediary of the nervous system. If we understand
this, we have a better idea of the totality of the
sufferings of Christ. All of His spiritual, intellectual,
voluntary, imaginative, sensitive, and bodily powers
suffered simultaneously. Each rendered the others
more acute by a redundancy of suffering in an
inconceivable combination and thereby formed an
agony impossible for us to imagine.
As the One who was acted upon directly, Christ
submitted to His executioners. As the One who acted,
Christ was the indirect cause of His own Passion:
● because though He had prior knowledge of it, He
did nothing to prevent it (which is heroic).
● by His acceptation of it in time and space, in
spite of His ability to escape (which is doubly
heroic).
● by the use He made of it for the honor and glory
of His Father and for our Redemption–an
action which was supernatural, full of charity,
and fully consenting–which were the supreme
reasons for His accepting the Passion without
complaint nor seeking to diminish its agony or
escape it.
The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ is an act
of astonishing self-possession, of self-control, and of
self-mastery in an event of the most utter confusion
and complete abandonment. Hence, it is absolutely
redemptive and assures victory over all sin. To
reproduce this possession of ourselves, this fullness
of consent, this formal abandonment to sacriﬁce, is to
continue the Passion of Christ.
Translated exclusively for Angelus Press with editing by Fr. Kenneth Novak
for clarity. Fr. Bernard-Marie de Chivré, O.P. (say: Sheave-ray´) was ordained
in 1930. He was an ardent Thomist, student of Scripture, retreat master, and
friend of Archbishop Lefebvre. He died in 1984.
1
2

Taken from the beginning of the text, “Contempler,” (p.80).
From: “Une idée sensée sur ses souffrances insensées.”

THE ANGELUS • February 2005

THE SOCIETY OF S

12

GAB
An interview with
Fr. Patrick Groche,
Superior of Gabon
10 E

N

for Fr. Marcel
Ndjolé
--------- Base
Lefebvre's ministry

CAMEROON

E
Bitam
Oyem

Médouneu
R. Como
Ntoum

Libreville
-------------

Donguila
-------------

ué

Booué

Ndjolé
---------

R. Ogooué

ou
nié

Mandji

Setté Cama

EQUATOR

Camba
R. N

Tchibanga
a

CONGO

ilo
u

Mayumba
Fl. Niari

R.

Ko
u

ATLANTIC
OCEAN

Okondja

Lébamba

yan
g

The map of Gabon is taken
from the book Marcel Lefebvre:The
Biography (available from Angelus
Press. Price: $34.95)

Edounga

Akiéni
Moanda
Léconi
Franceville

Mouila

Fr. Marcel Lefebvre (bottom row, far right)
with priests and seminarians at the seminary in
Libreville, Gabon, where he was a professor.

Makoukou

Lastourville
Koulamoutou

Ng

Fougamou
Omboué

0

100 milles
100 km

GABON
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

Mékambo
R. Djadié

Lambaréné
---------------R.

O
R.

h

R. Djoua

Belinga

Mitzic

Kango

o

go

PortGentil

kano

EQUATORIAL
GUINEA

Minvoul
R. Aïna

S

R. O

W

AFRICA

0

F SAINT PIUS X IN

BON

13

Boys in the St. Joseph
de Calasanz primary school.

Bishop Richard Williamson celebrates
Mass for the school children.

Tell us about the beginnings of Tradition in Gabon.
Fr. Groche: Gabon is half the size of France: 85%
forest and one million inhabitants. I visited Gabon
for the ﬁrst time in 1983, when I also met Bishop
Ndong for the ﬁrst time. He is the ﬁrst Gabonese
Bishop who was consecrated by Archbishop
Lefebvre. I asked Bishop Ndong why he had asked
Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate him as a Bishop.
He answered: “Because I have always seen in
Archbishop Lefebvre the model priest.” So in 1985
after the ﬁrst trip I had made, I asked Archbishop
Lefebvre to come to West Africa and especially to
Gabon. In January 1985 we made the trip arriving
on the January 15, 1985, on the eve of the Feast of
St. Marcel. The next day we went to the Bishop’s
house to see Bishop Ndong. He was retired, and was
living at the Bishop’s House of Libreville, and was
very happy to see Archbishop Lefebvre. He gave

him lodging at the his house and even made him
preside at the table, saying to him: “Please sit here,
Archbishop Lefebvre. It’s the Pope’s seat!”
We also went to one of the Missions in Donguila
where Archbishop Lefebvre himself had worked
for two years. There, with the help of one of his old
faithful, who later became Minister of Justice and
also Ambassador in Korea, Mr. Valentin Obame, a
Mass was organized, and we had at least 40 people.
They sang the Mass of the Epiphany just like that,
with no preparation. Just 15 minutes before the Mass
they asked the Archbishop: “Which Mass would
you like to sing?” And they sang practically by heart
the Mass of the Epiphany. Amazing! Most of them
knew it by heart. That played a large part in the
Archbishop’s decision to open this mission.
Bishop Ndong organized an interview with
the President, who warmly received Archbishop
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

14
Lefebvre, and spoke with him on the history
of all the Lefebvres in Gabon. Archbishop
Lefebvre was a missionary priest there for
13 years together with his elder brother, Fr.
René Lefebvre who remained 40 years in
Gabon. He did much work, built schools
for the boys and the girls, built houses for
the religious sisters, as well as for the laity.
He did much for the development of sports,
especially football, to the point that the
ﬁrst stadium of Libreville was called the
“Stadium of the Reverend Fr. Lefebvre.”
It was at this time that Bishop Ndong
asked Archbishop Lefebvre: “Send us
priests, we need holy priests. Here in
Gabon, there aren’t any.” When Archbishop
Lefebvre returned home it was decided
that I would come to open the house in
Libreville in January 1986. I arrived again in time
for the Feast of St. Marcel, January 14, 1986. At ﬁrst,
I stayed at the hotel. The parents of Fr. Selegny, our
Secretary General, lived in the area, so, while they
were down South, I was able to stay in their house.
Now I had to look for a house. Divine Providence
guided us to the house where we now are. Once I
had the house, the then deacon, now Fr. Carl Stehlin,
joined me and we started the St. Pius X Mission. After
the June ordinations another priest joined us. We are
now four priests at the mission, two brothers and ﬁve
religious sisters. And at the school there are another
three priests.

In the beginning, how many faithful did you have?
At the ﬁrst Mass that I celebrated in Libreville
in 1986 there were four people, of whom three were
white! But little by little it became known that we were
there, at least through the owner of the house and
also through Bishop Ndong, who, when he received
visitors, would tell them about us. Then the faithful
started coming quite quickly.

You’ve been there now for 18 years.
What has been the growth rate?
There was at ﬁrst a constant growth. At the present
moment there’s no growth, probably due to lack of
space. In 1990, when we enlarged the church, we had
about 400 people at Mass. Our old chapel could only
accommodate 300 people. So many were outside.
After we enlarged the church, in about a month it
was already full. In that chapel there were about 700
places. We bought adjoining properties, and were
able to enlarge still more and now we have a church
with about 1000 seated places. On Sundays, we now
have between 1500 and 2000 people. And for the big
feasts, like Christmas, Easter...well…for Midnight Mass
we had easily 1700 people. We take all the benches
from the catechism classes and place them around the
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

Sacred Heart Academy
which has 200 students.

Church, because it was built in such a way that one
can accommodate almost as many people outside
as inside. As we can no longer enlarge inside, we
enlarge outside!

Do you have many converts? Marriages? Baptisms?
Well, ﬁrst the old people arrived with the other
faith, and with them arrived the children and the
grandchildren. So they of course did not know
all this, but the Mass, the liturgy, the singing they
liked a lot. Many arrived that were not baptized, so
after catechism, they received baptism. I think that
up to now we have had more than 4000 baptisms,
children and adults. At present we have about 740
people enrolled for catechism of whom 180 are
adults.

And they’re not baptized yet?
Some of them are not baptized, others are
preparing themselves for the sacraments, either

M
Im

The outside altar erected for the
Feast of Corpus Christi.

15

The statue of Our Lady of
Libreville, Queen of Gabon.

Mass in the church of the
Immaculate Heart of Mary.

ﬁrst holy Communion or conﬁrmation, or they’re at catechism
because they want to learn catechism, because they don’t know
much. And we also prepare them for marriage. It’s marriages
which we have the least, because of the difﬁculties we have
with the Africans, which you know about, often due to their
customs….Often the traditional custom of marriage imposes a
dowry which is beyond the means of many, which often amounts
to several million CFA francs. This is what delays the marriages,
what complicates things. And there’s also the primary problem
that the men, well, they like polygamy. And the State recognizes
polygamy with up to four wives. So this does not make things any
easier.

Do you have many confessions?
Well, of course, all those that can confess do confess. So in
that area there’s been a deﬁnite progression since the beginning,
especially with so many young people. And then there are
all those that have regularized their situations, that’s about
100 people now. Not enormous, of course, but if we had not
been there I do not know whether they would have thought of
regularizing their situations.

We hear confessions every day, every
evening. That’s when we have Mass for
the faithful because they can get there
more easily at that time, at 6:30pm.
We hear confessions most evenings so
it amounts to about ﬁve or six hours
of confessions per week. It’s not a lot,
really. But on Sundays we hear more
confessions, almost the whole morning,
and there are two or three of us. It works
out to about three hours per priest in the
morning and half an hour in the evening,
so that’s nine and a half hours. But out of
2000 people nine hours is not so much.
But they confess quite regularly.
We also have retreats during the
holidays. Always Ignatian retreats. This
year we will give two retreats but last
year, in other words, every second year,
we preached ﬁve retreats. Last year
we had for the ﬁve retreats 105 of our
faithful. And it always produces good
fruits. Sooner or later. And there are
people who come and then regularize
their lives. It doesn’t happen in week or
two, but…

THE ANGELUS • February 2005

16
canticle, as well as after the Consecration
and during Communion. It lasts a while.
For them, to sing is to pray twice. One feels
that it is really with their hearts not just with
their mouths.

Do you have any vocations from Gabon?

The priests, brothers, and sisters
of the community at prayer.

Yes, we have at present two Gabonese
priests. We also have one seminarian in
Ecône, another in Flavigny, and another
young man who is soon entering the
Benedictines of Bellaigue. We also have
three postulants at the Mission. There are
sisters also. We have two professed sisters
of the Sisters of the Society and another
who has just taken the habit, who has been
a novice since Low Sunday, and another
who is a novice with the Sisters of St. John
the Baptist, Le Rafﬂay, close to Nantes, in
France. And we have one that is preparing
herself at the Mission. There are others, but
they are still at school.

Do you have to help out everywhere
with the sacrament of Extreme Unction?

Two Gabonese novices with the
Disciples of the Cenacle,Veletri, Rome.

Do the Gabonese prefer
Gregorian more than the Tam-Tam?

Yes, often. Firstly, we take Communion to homes, to about 60
people over a period of two weeks. It may have diminished now
as we had a few deaths, but it’s between 50 to 60. We get called
by day and by night. The people come, even those that are not of
our faithful, because they know if they ring at our doorbell we will
answer, and we will go, by day or by night. Whereas in the other
parishes there’s no petrol to put in the car, there’s no money to buy
petrol or they don’t want to go. And the people know we will go
because they talk amongst themselves.

How do you make these trips?

Yes. The people do not like the tamtam at the church. That’s for the village,
for parties. While at church they want
religious singing, and there’s nothing
better than Gregorian. Polyphony also.
The priests looks after the two choirs:
the Gregorian choir (St. Cecilia) and the
polyphonic choir (St. Gregory).

Always by car. There are practically no more horses. The roads
are also not good, they are often very damaged. We have a parish
95 miles away, called Four Blasse, which we go to every Sunday.
There we have between 70 and 100 people. It is a village of 700
inhabitants. They are planters and they have plantations up to 20
miles away. Some of them walk up to 10, even 12 miles to come to
Mass on Sunday. The people themselves are without cars. They are
a fairly poor people, and they don’t always have the means. They
often have many children, if not their own, those of the family.

Do people sing during the Mass also?

Tell us a little about the school.

Yes, everyone sings. In Gregorian.
On great feast days, like the Ascension,
Easter, Christmas, Epiphany, they
sing by heart. It’s very impressive. For
example, after the Midnight Mass,
at the prayers at the foot of the altar
and you hear the Dixit Dominus–it’s
impressive! Then there’s the Kyrie,
and at the Offertory we always sing a

Well, we started this school, only for the boys, eight years ago.
We started with the lowest grade for the little ones, and each year
we opened a new grade. Today we are up to the 8th Grade. Next
year we will open 9th Grade. In the ﬁrst year we started with 8
pupils and now we have 170 pupils. We started at the Mission,
in the boys’ catechism class because as we have 700 people for
catechism we had to build catechism classrooms. So the girls are
in the catechism classrooms under the Church. Then we bought
another property. The Mission is situated on a dead-end, so that

THE ANGELUS • February 2005

(continued on p.25)

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

Let your speech be, “Yes, yes,” “No, no”; whatever is beyond these comes from the evil one. (Mt. 5:37) ● February 2005

Reprint #62

A new book by Fr. George May

“THE ECUMENISM TRAP”

Whether it’s the Catholic priesthood or religious orders, marriage
or the happiness of children, attendance at Mass or the reception of
the sacraments, all are in shocking decline. Ecumenism, established
by Vatican II, promoted by the pope and bishops, is one of the
principal causes for the ongoing self-destruction. In acts of unparalleled
blindness and mindlessness, the standards of conduct regarding
contact with those who have separated themselves from the Catholic
Church have been discarded to the great harm of the Church’s life.
Declaring it a matter of survival for the Catholic Church, Fr. George
May desperately sounds the alarm in The Ecumenism Trap to return to
sound practices of dealing with non-Catholics.
17

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

Fr. George May is a German priest (ordained
1951) who was professor of canon and ecclesiastical
law and history of canon law at the University
of Mainz (1960-94). He has written many critical
essays on the post-conciliar Church. This review
is of his latest book The Snare of Ecumenism (not
yet available in English), which is a denunciation
of the ecumenism now professed by the Catholic
hierarchy.2 The ﬁrst of its seven chapters addresses
the “scope and orientation of the ecumenism
issuing from Vatican II.” The central part of the
book makes an effective synthesis of the doctrines
of the Protestants, Orthodox, and non-Christian
religions, both on their own terms and in relation to
ecumenism. The last chapter dwells on the effects
of ecumenism on the Catholic Church. Fr. May’s
condemnation of ecumenism is irrefutable. He writes
to conclude his book:
Ecumenism destroys the Catholic faith. Ecumenism
deals a deadly blow to the Catholic priesthood. Ecumenism
drains the marrow from the bones of believers. There is
a clear sense that, as a consequence of ecumenism, the
Church has become Protestant. Ecumenism is a sickness,
and furthermore a mortal sickness, the cancer of the
Church, the metastasis of which has reached virtually
all its members. The Church may die of ecumenism;
she cannot live with it. It must be put done away with
as soon as possible and in the most radical possible way.
(Emphasis added)

These last words reﬂect a characteristic aspect
of this work. The author does not limit himself to a
diagnosis of evil; he asks that the cause be done away
with as soon as possible. The survival of the Church
demands it. A sense of exasperation is apparent
from the book’s analyses, which are impeccably set
forth with many concrete examples and theological
and canonical arguments, providing an unequivocal
demonstration of the heterodoxy of contemporary
ecumenism. While the author criticizes the clergy,
especially bishops, for their complicity, neither
does he spare the faithful, the majority of whom
apparently ﬁnd the current drift advantageous:
For the great mass of post-conciliar Catholics of today,
nothing is more pleasing than interconfessional practices
[such as the mortal liturgical embrace with the Protestants
and Orthodox]. It must be said: ecumenism ﬂourishes
because truth has become a matter of indifference
for most people. It ﬂourishes, because most ﬁnd the
Protestant form of Christianity [above all on the moral
level] more convenient and therefore preferable to that
of the Catholic Church. (p.240)

This is most apparent in Germany where
Protestants and Catholics live side by side, as in
other countries where this is the case: the UK,

18

Ireland, and the US. It is hard to deny that Catholics
these days, as a consequence of the “reforms”
imposed by Vatican II, perceive the Faith and live
it in a manner like that of Protestants, heretics, and
schismatics. How many Catholics today accept the
authority of the Magisterium in morality and dogma?
Furthermore, it must be said that a Magisterium that
has disqualiﬁed itself by refusing to condemn error–
because it preaches doctrines infected by modern
thought hostile to Christ, because it has renounced
the only mission that justiﬁes its existence, that of
converting souls to Christ–lacks the moral authority
to impose its institutional authority.

The Trap of
Ecumenism is Deadly
Adherents of ecumenism err gravely. Ecumenism
is founded on a utopian vision.
[It] follows a chimera, based on the illusory expectation
of seeing Orthodox and Protestants in agreement with
the doctrine and order of the Catholic Church and visibly
united with her. Ecumenism founders on the insuperable
contradictions of doctrine. One cannot pretend to overcome
the problems posed by the truth of the Faith with the
maneuvers of ecclesiastical politics. One must have the
courage to say it: from a human perspective, it seems that
Christianity will still be divided when the Lord comes to
judge the living and the dead. (Emphasis added, p.241)

There is only one authentic ecumenism, that
established by Pope Pius XI (1926) in the encyclical
Mortalium Animos [available from Angelus Press]. It
postulates the “return” of “separated” Christians to
the house of the Father which they have culpably
abandoned (ibid.). Contemporary ecumenism is
therefore a deadly trap which dissolves the Catholic
Church. The majority of the current hierarchy seems
to take no heed of this. The author does not refrain
from criticizing either Walter Cardinal Kasper (the
center of all ecumenical overtures) or the reigning
pope, who has made ecumenism the trademark of his
pontiﬁcate. Pope John Paul II considers himself the
faithful interpreter and executor of Vatican II from
where is derived today’s perverse ecumenism.

Ecumenism and Vatican II
By dedicating part of his ﬁrst chapter to the
relationship between ecumenism and the Council,
Fr. May sets the tone for his overall analysis. In a
1987 essay, he wrote:
I consider ecumenism to be the worst decision taken
by the Council; with this decision an axe was laid to the
root of the tree of the Church. All the developments
brought forth by post-conciliar ecumenism have their
roots in the Council.3

THE ANGELUS
February 2005

In the work under review he points out that “the
conciliar decree Unitatis Redintegratio (UR) sought
to establish the ‘Catholic principles of ecumenism.’”
This document
contains things just and worthy of consideration, but also
things that are false and dangerous. Here the Church
began that vertical descent the end of which is not yet
in sight. Its afﬁrmation (UR §4) that the ecumenical
movement began “under the inspiration of the grace of
the Holy Ghost” is unacceptable, because the Holy Ghost
is a power that produces clarity, not confusion.

It was not the Holy Ghost at work, but the
Secretariat for the Unity of Christians that, accepting
the suggestions of the so-called “separated brethren,”
inserted them into that decree (UR) and other
conciliar documents. This was possible because the
Secretariat enjoyed a signiﬁcant power of censorship
over all the texts submitted for a vote, revising them
in conformity with the principles of ecumenism
(pp.7-8).

The Church of Christ
and the Catholic Church
The Council proposed to re-establish the unity
of Christians (UR §8), in particular with the so-called
Orthodox (UR §18). But this unity is understood
as the result of a “reconciliation” meaning “a unity
to be restored”(UR §§15-16) with differences in
customs and usage remaining in place (UR §16).
This terminology, Fr. May notes, is not conducive
to true unity (p.8). UR proposes that the unity of
Christians should be realized in the one Church,
which “subsists” in the Catholic Church (UR §4).
Accordingly, Fr. May says that “it is stupefying
to assert [as UR §8 recommends] that Catholics
ought to assemble to pray for this unity” (ibid.).
The Catholic Church herself already possesses this
unity by deﬁnition! Indeed, the document states that
Christians must reconcile themselves in the one and
only Church of Christ (UR §22). Though keeping in
mind Lumen Gentium §8 (containing the infamous
“subsistit in”), it must be admitted, says Fr. May,
that for the Council the Church of Christ is unique
because numerically it is one and one only. But, this
can only be understood in the sense that the Catholic
Church and only the Catholic Church is the Church
of Christ (pp.8-9).
Even if we were to take the “subsistit in” in a
manner conforming to Catholic Tradition (a premise
not altogether well-founded as we will see), the
fact remains that UR’s depiction of Protestants and
Orthodox is false. The afﬁrmation (UR §4) that
through baptism the “separated brethren” are
brought to or in some way united with the Church
is ambiguous, and “does not permit us to maintain

that they are members of the Church” (p.9). Thus the
afﬁrmation at UR §1 that “almost everyone, though
in different ways, longs for the one, visible Church
of God” is mistaken. It derives from an unfounded
optimism. Protestants and Orthodox do not seek
this unity, and are for the most part possessed of a
radical aversion to Catholicism. It is in their interest
to proﬁt from the situation and to win Catholics over
to their sects. They are more aptly called “heretics”
and “schismatics,” which the Council scrupulously
refrains from doing (pp.9-11). As a ﬁnal example of
the confusion introduced by UR, Fr. May observes:
It is not possible to separate the people of God from
the Body of Christ, as though one could belong to
the people of God [through baptism] while not (fully)
belonging to the Body of Christ. But this seems to be the
sense of UR §4, when it speaks of “separated brethren”
[“joined to the Church by baptism, yet separated from
full communion with her...”]. This would mean that nonCatholics belong in some way to the people of God and
yet are still awaiting full incorporation in the Church of
Christ. But the people of God and the Church of Christ
have the same extension. Who belongs to the people of
God is also part of the Body of Christ [the separation of
non-Catholics from “full communion” thus appears to
contradict the conception of the Church as the “people
of God”]. One should recall that UR §3 does not maintain
that baptism makes non-Catholics part of the Body of
Christ, as the German translation has it, but that they
are rather “incorporated into Christ.” It is difﬁcult to
understand how all these declarations can be reconciled
with one another (p.11).

UR§3 Afﬁrms a Falsehood
The statements contained in LG §15 and UR §19
that non-Catholic religious communities are to be
considered as “Churches and ecclesial communities”
is “inappropriate and deceptive” (p.11). Father
writes:
A religious community that lives from Christian
elements [cf. LG §8] does not thus become “Church,”
although the Council ascribes this name to it. There
is but one Catholic Church....Expressions such as
“Churches and ecclesial communities” must be corrected.
Unfortunately this manner of speaking has become
established...(pp.11-12).

The Council sowed confusion everywhere. On
some points, however, it speaks with clarity. In UR
§3 it is afﬁrmed that “the means of salvation” in nonCatholic religious communities receive their efﬁcacy
“from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted
to the Catholic Church” (p.12). This is a traditional
formulation that was well-expressed already by

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
THE ANGELUS
February 2005

19

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

St. Augustine. Baptism validly administered by a
heretic is efﬁcacious because it is that of the Church,
administered “according to the intentions of the
Church,” not because it has been performed by a
heretic. It thus is valid notwithstanding the fact that it
has been performed by a heretic. It is valid because
of the Grace of Truth that the Holy Ghost accords
the Catholic Church and to her alone. But this
incendiary particle of orthodox doctrine is isolated, in
UR §3, in a passage that maintains that the separated
“Churches,” notwithstanding their “defects,” are used
as such by the Holy Ghost as “means of salvation.”
The text is unambiguous.4 Fr. May does not mince
his words:
But the Council then says of these “Churches and
communities” that the “Spirit of Christ has not refrained
from using them as means of salvation” (UR §3). This
statement is certainly false. Determined to revalorize
non-Catholic religious communities, the Council fell into
a grave [doctrinal] error. Non-Catholic communities, as
confessions and institutions, cannot in and of themselves
be means of salvation in any way. The individual
Christian may indeed be saved in a separated community,
but not through it [i.e., thanks to belonging to it and thus
by its merit]. The Holy Ghost works in individual persons,
not in separated Christian communities as such, which
do not procure salvation for their members. (Emphasis
added, pp.12-13)

The New Deﬁnition
of the Church
An analysis of the connection between the
Council and ecumenism must consider the
importance for the latter of the new deﬁnition of the
Church that appeared with Vatican II. The Church is
deﬁned as the “people of God,” in which the Church
of Christ “subsists.” Fr. May addresses this question.
He recalls how previous popes always maintained
the traditional teaching: the Catholic Church is the
Body of Christ: only the Catholic Church is the
Mystical Body of Christ. Pope John Paul II himself,
in his encyclical Novo Millennio Ineunte, recalled that
the Catholic Church is the one and only Church
of Christ (p.129). Nonetheless, May shows how
confusion was introduced at Vatican II, a confusion
that subsequent declarations of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith have failed to eliminate
(p.130). From recent declarations, the following
premises can be established, says Fr. May, but
together they render one confused:
1) The invisible Church is realized in the visible
Church, which is the Catholic Church.

20

2) The Church of Christ is unique: “Vatican II
does not admit a plurality of ‘Churches.’”
3) The Church is the universal communion
of particular churches, in which are also included
“non-Catholic Christian communities which
have maintained apostolic succession and a valid
Eucharist.” But this inclusion on one side of
“separated brethren” in “particular Churches,” the
author argues,
is unfortunate and a source of confusion, since Catholic
particular churches and non-Catholic particular churches
are different from one another by nature. It is hazardous
to think of including these latter under the rubric of
particular churches, since they refuse to obey the successor
of Peter, not to mention many other differences in belief.
The idea that the Church of Christ is an ensemble of
churches and ecclesial communities is false. (Emphasis
added, pp.130-131)

4) The notion of “sister churches” applies only
to individual churches that are within the Catholic
Church, their mother (p.131).
5) The Catholic Church was endowed with all the
truth revealed by God and by all the means of grace
(UR §4); there is no ecclesial reality outside of her the
absence of which she perceives as a deﬁciency.
6) We now come to the question of “subsistit
in.” The identiﬁcation of the Body of Christ with
the Catholic Church found in Humani Generis was
not reafﬁrmed by the Council. In place of “est ” the
Council placed the “subsistit ” of LG §8 which states
that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic
Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the
bishops in communion with him.” The choice of the
word “subsistit ,” Fr. May says,
has been a manifest disaster. In the last decades this
term has been used indiscriminately and has provoked
a noteworthy chaos: it would be better not to use it. 5
Whatever the sense that has been imputed to it, one
thing is certain: it doubtless weakens the unity of the
Catholic Church with the mystical Body of Christ. If it
did not have this function, its use would be altogether
superﬂuous. For Protestants it represents a “spontaneous
relativization” of the Catholic Church. A Protestant writer
understands it as “a break in the theological ranks of the
Catholic pretense to being the unique Church of Christ.”
The Anglicans also have seen in this language a point of
rupture. (pp.131-132)

How do things stand now? Fr. May cites Cardinal
Ratzinger who “has attempted several times to
interpret the fatal language in such a way as to render
it innocuous” (p.132). In 1985, the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith speciﬁed that
the Council chose the word “subsistit “ precisely in order
to clarify that there is but one “subsistence” of the true
Church, while outside its visible structure only “ecclesial
elements” exist that, being elements of the Church
herself, tend to lead to the Catholic Church (LG §8)”
(AAS, 71 [1985], pp.785-789).

THE ANGELUS
February 2005

Fr. May comments: “This interpretation is
surely correct. If the one Church of Christ (merely)
subsists in the Catholic Church, it is also excluded
that she also subsists in other ‘Churches’” (p.132).
Is then the phrase “a single subsistence of the true
Church” equivalent to the “is” always professed
by the Magisterium in the past? Apparently. We
say apparently because the text does not expressly
say that this “subsistence” is that, and only that, of
the Catholic Church. It would seem to imply that
conclusion in a manner that [is] tortuous, not to say
obscure.6 The Father observes that,
all the same, Ratzinger has not maintained a univocal
interpretation. In the declaration Dominus Iesus he
interprets the “subsistit” as though it meant that the
Church of Christ “subsists fully only in the Church of
Christ” (DI §16). This type of expression is at the least
unfortunate. If the Church of Christ maintains itself
“fully” only in the Catholic Church, that authorizes us to
conclude that it may also exist in another manner, albeit
not “fully.” (pp.132-133)

The notion of the full existence of the Church
of Christ in the Catholic Church is a notion which,
though seeming to conﬁrm Catholic doctrine,
denies it because it implicitly admits the “not full”
or “less full” existence of the Church of Christ
outside the Catholic Church. This false notion can
already be found in the texts of the Council in its
notorious articles on ecumenism. In UR §3 we read
that “means of salvation which derive their efﬁcacy
from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted
to the Catholic Church,” it is clearly stated that
“separated” Churches and communities are also
“means of salvation” although without possessing the
“fullness” of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, “it
is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is
the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness
of the means of salvation be obtained,” meaning only
the “fullness” and not the unique means of salvation,
which are understood to be found also elsewhere
(albeit less fully) amongst those who are in a less full
communion with the Catholic Church. In UR §4,
the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from
realizing the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those
of her sons who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet
separated from full communion with her. Furthermore
the Church herself ﬁnds it more difﬁcult to express in
actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects. (Emphasis
added)

These two texts of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith are mutually contradictory. If
by force of will we make the declaration of 1985 to
mean that the “subsistence” of the true Church is
only that of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus,
a more recent document, maintains that such
subsistence is “full” only in the Catholic Church
[i.e., “full” but not “unique”–Ed.]. While the

concept of uniqueness presupposes the absolute lack
of the named “subsistence” among non-Catholics,
that of the “fullness” of such subsistence implies the
existence of a less full or imperfect subsistence among
non-Catholics, given that they suffer from “defects.”
Today’s political correctness describes these heretical
and schismatic sects as being in a visible, imperfect
communion with the Church. The Council did not
teach this directly, but indirectly. Doubt remains.
May concludes:
Outside of the Catholic Church there are many
elements of sanctiﬁcation and of truth, that are the true
gift of the Church of Christ. But also in this manner of
speaking one observes a revaluation of the fragments of
the Church found in non-Catholic confessions. Before the
Council it was possible to speak of the vestigia Ecclesiae,
the vestiges of the Church. The word “vestiges” expresses
a very tenuous relation with the reality in question.
Such vestiges may intimate or even evoke the Church,
but they are not constitutive elements of the Church.
In speaking of elementa ecclesiae Christi, however, the
Council suggested a stronger connection. The expression
“elements” of the Church suggests as it were constitutive
parts of the Church to which they belong, which however
ﬁnd themselves torn from their context.” (p.133)

The Church According
to Non-Catholics
Fr. May sketches the conception of the Church
held by Orthodox and Protestants. This outline helps
the reader understand the absurdity of the current
ecumenical dialogue.

The Orthodox
The Orthodox see the Church above all in its
mystical and charismatic aspects. From the point
of view of the Church as an institution, they are
divided into separate “national churches” under
their own direction [called “autocephaly”–Ed.]. The
strict connection with the national, popular, and
state-directed elements impedes the growth of the
Church, promotes the subjection of the Church
to the State, and favors “instrumentalizing” of the
Church. Orthodoxy is the totality of the independent,
autocephalous “churches.” The patriarchate of
Constantinople does not possess any jurisdiction
over the many Orthodox communities. What unites
the Orthodox is their hostility towards “Rome.” The
Orthodox do not have a hierarchy like the Catholic
one, even apart from the pope. They deny that Christ
could have a universal vicar for the whole Church.
From them there is no primacy by divine right.

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
THE ANGELUS
February 2005

21

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

Protestants
For Protestants, the Catholic doctrine of the
Church is “altogether irrelevant” (p.133). Beyond
their own internal divisions, they all share the
following doctrine: “One must distinguish the
visible from the invisible Church.” The Church
is, in its hidden essence, invisible. It consists
only of true believers and is known only to God.
Through the preaching of the Word of God and the
administration of the sacraments, it becomes the
visible and empirical Church. The Church of Christ
exists in the historical “Churches.” The Church
is where the Word of God is properly preached
and the sacraments are correctly ministered. That
is enough for the Church to exist. The priesthood
(in the Catholic sense) is not essential for the
Church. The only authority in the Church is the
Word of God (contained in Scripture). There is
no episcopal succession as a constitutive element
of the Church. Protestants consider their religious
communities to be Churches in the fullest sense.
They deﬁne themselves as “evangelical Churches.”
The individual Churches that now exist are only
individual Churches that make up a part of the
Church of Christ. The latter does not identify
herself with any particular Church. All participating
“Churches” have a share in the one Church of
Christ. They claim to recognize the equal value of
the Christian “sister Churches.”
For the Protestants, the Catholic Church is an
ecclesiastical organization like any other. Since
for them it is enough to have the Word and the
sacraments for the Church to exist, the structure
and constitution of the Catholic Church seem
irrelevant to them and even contrary to the faith.
The Protestant communities consider that they are in
competition with the Catholic Church.
The Catholic ecumenists try to give top billing
to Protestant religious communities as “Church
entities.” Cardinal Kasper describes them as “a
new type of Church.” He rejects the view that they
are not, strictly speaking, “Churches.” For him
the Protestant communities are not Churches in
the Catholic sense, but they are in another sense.
(pp.134-136)
For Protestants, the hierarchical structure of
the priestly ministry is only a contingent historical
construction. For them, no hierarchy of divine
right can exist in the Church. Their ministers are
only preachers of the Word and dispensers of the
sacraments. They are elected by their communities.
From the Protestant perspective, the service of
preaching the Word and of administering the
sacraments are of divine right (as ordained by

22

Our Lord in Scripture), but are not sacramental
ministries. Protestants recognize neither the
sacrament nor authority of orders by which only
clergy can perform certain actions, nor a power of
jurisdiction, capable of imposing obedience and
discipline. The power exercised by the Protestant
ministry is conferred and revoked by the community.
Protestantism does not recognize any ecclesiastical
authority which can pronounce on the faith in an
infallible manner (p.137).
The conception of the Church here is open and
democratic, built from the bottom up. The Church is
reduced to a community of laymen, lacking priests,
authority, altars, sacriﬁce, or any transcendental
foundation. By abolishing the priestly ministry,
rejecting the centuries-old Tradition of the Church,
declaring that every baptized person is a priest and
capable of understanding Scripture by the private
revelation of the Holy Spirit, Luther opened the path
to religious anarchy.
Today religious anarchy has also infected
Catholics, thanks to the religious “pluralism”
championed by ecumenism. Pluralism entails the
loss of the teaching of a single revealed Truth and

THE ANGELUS
February 2005

leads to the adoption of a conception of the Church
rather similar to that of the Protestants. It is the ruin
of Catholicism:
Today a false conception of Christianity and of the
Church of Christ is being diffused among Catholics. It
consists in this: there is one invisible Church, in which all
Christian communities participate. Christianity is divided
in many “Churches.” Each one of them has a portion of
the truth. All together they form the Church of Christ.
The unity of the Church thus need not be re-established,
because it already exists. Since there is no visible unity
of doctrine, cult, or teaching in the Church, the only
real unity must be invisible. Many ecumenist Catholics
advance these false ideas and even distinguish between
the “Church of the pope” and the Church of Christ. In
the former are found only Catholics, in the latter all the
baptized. The Catholic Church has been debased to the
point of being one Church among many. While the Curia
may explain the authentic sense of subsistit in as they
like, the ecumenists control the discourse. Unperturbed,
they continue to maintain the coexistence of many
“Churches” as legitimate, these Churches together
constituting all together the “Church of Christ. Cardinal
Walter Kasper himself sees a difference between the
Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ. Such a
concept is unacceptable for a Catholic who has the faith.
The Catholic Church cannot be placed on the same level
as other religious communities. It is impossible to unite
the Catholic Church and the other Christian confessions
as parts of a sort of Superchurch. (pp.137-138)

Primary blame for the deviations among the
faithful belongs to the hierarchy who in their
conception of the “Church communion” include
individual “Churches” of even non-Catholic
Christian communities who have material apostolic
succession and a valid Eucharist. This is the
illegitimate extension Cardinal Kasper is attempting
to enlarge so to include the Protestants. That is why
he is questioning if Anglican orders may be indeed
valid. This is trying to form a “Superchurch” that
unites not only the other Christian confessions but
also, prospectively, all religions and, in fact, all
humanity.

False Ideas of “Unity”
Vatican II spread the notion that all Christians
are nostalgic for unity. This is incorrect, partly
because the different confessions understand unity in
completely different ways in accord with their idea of
“Church.”
Fr. May outlines the different conceptions
beginning with the Catholic idea of “unity”
expressed by several pontiﬁcal documents including
some of Pope John Paul II. Unity, for the Catholic
Church, is the full and visible unity of believers
under Peter. For the Catholic, unity cannot be
separated from the truth of the Faith–it is the

visible unity of the truth of the teaching of the
Church as maintained over centuries in its entirety,
not limited to ecumenical councils. No dogma is less
important than another, in the sense that it could be
questioned in discussion with heretics.
Protestants do not speak of the “unity” of the
Church but rather of “communion of Churches.”
This is signiﬁcant. Protestant religious communities
do not look for visible and institutional unity of the
“Churches,” because for them the communion of
Churches does not signify the fusion of Churches,
but rather their reciprocal recognition as a true
expression of the one Church of Christ. This is
so because the unity of the Church is for them
invisible. It already exists through the work of God
whence the one Church of Christ is constituted
by all the Churches that profess themselves to
be Christian. For them, “we are already united
in Christ.” What is lacking is merely “agreement
in the ecclesial image of this unity.” This means
that, for them, unity exists only if “Churches of
different confessions” reciprocally guarantee their
“communion in the Word and in the sacraments,”
that is to say, their peaceful reciprocal coexistence.
Unity in the Protestant sense is nothing more than
“a friendly commerce of confessions that remain
separate.” So-called “unity in diversity”–the ﬁxation
of contemporary ecumenism–is a Protestant concept.
From this perspective it is not possible to reach
a univocal understanding of the Gospel. It is enough
to ﬁnd consensus on certain fundamental questions.
The “ecclesial communion,” understood in this
way, implies “communion of the pulpit and the Last
Supper, reciprocal recognition of ordinations, and
the possibility of interconfessional celebrations.”
This means that, for the Protestants, it is possible
to stand together without confronting the problems
posed by the truth of the faith, holding separately to
contradictions and errors.
Protestantism does not aspire to unity with the
Catholic Church, but to this universal “communion
of Churches.” It desires that, within the “communion
of Churches,” the Protestant Churches should be
recognized by the Catholic Church as they are. The
Catholic Church should recognize the validity of
their “ordinations” as guaranteeing the “communion
of the Word and of the sacraments” as realized for
them through various interconfessional rites. The
Protestants want to be recognized as a plurality of
“Churches” perfectly equal in dignity to the Catholic
Church.
Professor May’s presentation shows how the
“ecclesiology of communion” pursued in the

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
THE ANGELUS
February 2005

23

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

George May, Die Krise der Kirche ist eine Krise der Bischöfe
(Kardinal Seper) (Cologne: Una Voce-Korrespondenz, 1987).
2
George May, Die Ökumenismusfalle (Stuttgart: Sarto Verlag,
2004).
3
May, Die Krise, p.13. See also p.10 of the same work: “The
Council promulgated the marching orders, which set the postconciliar movement in motion. The post-conciliar catastrophe
was made possible by the Council itself.”
4
For the sake of clarity we quote the entire phrase: “It follows that
the separated Churches and communities as such, though we
believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have by
no means been deprived of signiﬁcance and importance in the
mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained
from using them as means of salvation which derive their efﬁcacy
from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic
Church” (UR §3, emphasis added).
5
It seems that the subsistit in was inserted in the text of Lumen
Gentium on the suggestion of the Protestants, as shown in the
article “The Protestant Origin of the ‘Subsistit in’ of Article 8 of
Lumen Gentium,” SÌSÌNONO, May 15, 2001, No.9, p.5.
6
On the obscurity of this “clariﬁcation” promulgated by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, cf. Francis A.
Sullivan, S.J., “Sussiste’ la Chiesa di Cristo nella Chiesa cattolica
romana?” in Vaticano II. Bilancio e prospettive, venticinque anni
dopo, ed. R. Latourelle (Assisi: Cittadella, 1987), 2, pp.812-824.
“I must confess that I am not sure how one should understand
the phrase ‘only one subsistence of the true Church exists.’ In
fact, the notion of the ‘existence of a subsistence’ is not only
a cumbersome formulation, but apparently a tautological one,
because the existence of that which subsists is nothing different
from mere subsistence, whatever the manner by which the
subsistence is actuated” (p.820).
1

“dialogue” of the contemporary Catholic hierarchy
itself manifests the ecclesiology of the heretics.
For the Orthodox, the “communion of
Churches” and the unity of Christians is of little
interest since they consider themselves to represent
the one true Church of Christ. For them the Church
of Rome is heretical. To have dealings with Catholics
is therefore a sin (Canon 45 of the Canons of the
Holy Apostles). Their only concern is to maintain
themselves and to expand, all the better if at the
expense of Catholics.
The national-popular principle of Orthodoxy
does not constitute a unity but a collection of
national “Churches” that identify themselves with
the people and identify the people as the Church and
conferring on them the duty of defending Orthodoxy
against foreigners. Catholics and Protestants are
enemies of the homeland and of national unity.
The Orthodox “Church” relies on the State to
be maintained, beginning with the “canonical
territory” it considers subject to its competence and
jurisdiction. For the patriarchate of Moscow this
“territory” coincides with the entire extension of the
former Soviet Union. In this territory other “religious
communities” have no right to exist. For this reason
the Orthodox tenaciously oppose every effort of
the Catholic Church to re-establish work in Russia
(Chap. 3, “Orthodox and Uniates,” pp.117-119).
Pope John Paul II has abandoned the Uniates to
themselves and ofﬁcially renounced “proselytism.”
He has sacriﬁced missionary action to ecumenism.
The result has been the spread of Protestantism
in Russia, not Catholicism (p.118). The Orthodox
do everything possible to close opportunities to
Catholicism and undertake proselytism against
Catholics (p.119).
In this connection let us recall that Pope John
Paul II has given a church in Rome to the Greeks
and another to the Bulgarians for the celebration
of their schismatic liturgy, infected by heretical
teachings on the Filioque and consecration by
epiclesis. He also offered a church to the Russians,
who refused it to begin construction of the “greatest
Orthodox cathedral in the West” in the shadow of St.
Peter’s. Russia is not converting to Catholicism, but
Rome is being invaded by the forces of schism and
heresy. This is another demonstration that the Pope
has not performed the consecration of Russia to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary. (To be continued and
concluded in a second part.)
Speculator

24

Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from SiSiNoNo (Italian ed., Nov. 15,
2004); abridged and edited by Miss Anne Stinnett and Fr. Kenneth Novak.
Part 2 of this book review will be published in the April 2005 installment
of the Angelus Press edition of SiSiNoNo. An essay authored by Fr. George
(Georg) May, “The Disposition of Law in Case of Necessity Within the
Church” was published in Is Tradition Excommunicated? (available from
Angelus Press. Price: $9.95).

$1.95 per SISINONO reprint. Please specify.
SHIPPING & HANDLING
US/Canada

Foreign

$.01 to $10.00
$3.95
$10.01 to $25.00
$5.95
$25.01 to $50.00
$6.95
$50.01 to $100.00
$8.95
Over $100.00
9% of order

$7.95
$9.95
$12.95
$14.95
12% of order

AIRMAIL surcharge (in addition to above)
Canada 8% of subtotal; Foreign 21% of subtotal.

Available from:

ANGELUS PRESS

2915 Forest Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64109, USA

Phone: 1-800-966-7337

WWW.ANGELUSPRESS.ORG

THE ANGELUS
February 2005

25

(continued from p.16)

we were able to buy various
properties along the dead-end.
So we bought and renovated a
house and there we also have
four catechism classrooms for
the boys. The girls and the
boys are well separated.
The Sisters look after the
girls and the Fathers look after
the boys. So the school began
in the boys’ house. But at the
end of the third year we had
to ﬁnd something else. They
were becoming too numerous
and there weren’t facilities for
the children to have fun, for
break periods, and so on. And
that’s when during a novena to
the Infant Jesus of Prague we
found this property, which was
for sale, the residence of the
Ambassador of the United States. We were able
to buy it for a good price, despite everything.
The Americans made a gesture of good faith
towards us because it was for a school.

The library is currently
in the hallways!

Work on the new library.
The mission on
December 8,
2004, celebrating
the Feast of the
Immaculate
Conception.

Are there any plans to start a girls’ school?
Well, we’d like to start a school for the girls,
but I don’t want to start with a primary school
if I can’t follow it up with the high school. I’ve
already asked for help from the Dominican
Sisters in France, but until they tell me: “We are
coming soon,” or even in three years, I’m not
starting, because I don’t want to start and then
have to let them go.

I remember reading in Archbishop Lefebvre’s book
that several missionaries died from illness in
Gabon. Do the priests still suffer from illnesses?
At that time, when he was a missionary,
there was no electricity, there were no facilities.
Next to him we are missionaries living in luxury!
Electricity, fridges, air-conditioning, all these things,
of course, contribute to a better health. So, yes, from
time to time some of our colleagues suffer from a bit
of fever or malaria, but it’s quite rare. Personally, in
the past 18 years, I’ve never had malaria or anything
like that. The climate is very difﬁcult. Archbishop
Lefebvre used to say that in Gabon you need twice
as much determination to do half as much work
because of the climate.

How did the modern clergy react to you?
Straight away, the clergy did not agree. The
Archbishop of the diocese was very unhappy with
us. He tried to get help from the President, but the
President had given his agreement to Archbishop

Lefebvre when he saw him in 1985, and again in
1986 with Bishop Ndong and myself. So it was
hard for him to say no when he had said yes to
Archbishop Lefebvre already in the presence Bishop
Ndong, (who died in 1989 on the eve of Archbishop
Lefebvre’s 60 years of priesthood), with whom he
was on good terms.
To come back to the modern clergy, they, of
course, always spoke against us in sermons, saying:
“They are this and they are that…” in such a way
that everyone found out that we were there! It’s
good advertisement! Many of these modern priests
are not credible because of their lives. Many of
them, and even some of the Holy Ghost Fathers,
were not always exemplary. All their innovations,
the fact that they dressed like the laity, without any
distinct sign that they were priests, resulted in the
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

26
fact that they didn’t have much authority with the
Gabonese. So the people came to see us. And that’s
how little by little we ﬁlled up the Church. People
rediscovered Gregorian chants, they rediscovered
order, priests in cassocks, people who welcomed
them and loved them. Even amongst the authorities,
they said to themselves: “We must go and see,
because it’s becoming unbearable here (in the
modern Church).”

Does it appear the modernist clergy
is disappearing because of its modernism.
It’s difﬁcult to say because the average African
man is quite religious. Of course, if he has enough
knowledge, he won’t go just anywhere. But because
of his religious spirit, if he is not satisﬁed somewhere
he goes somewhere else. And the fundamentalist
churches do a lot of damage. And because the
modern Church does not give spiritual and
intellectual matter to defend oneself, many of them
go into these fundamentalist, Protestant churches.
The Catholic churches are nonetheless still very full.
According to our faithful there are fewer people in
the churches than previously. There are more people
today in Libreville, there are more churches, but
there are proportionally fewer people in them. If, in
Libreville, permission was granted to all the priests
to celebrate the old Mass, I think everyone would be
happy.

Are there modern priests
who desire to say the old Mass?
The modern priests, yes, but not the Holy Ghost
Fathers. They are too bad. So, it’s the diocesan
priests, the African priests. I don’t know them very
well, but I think that among the younger ones, there
are quite a few. In February we had the visit of the
seminarians of Libreville, the ﬁnal three years, so
that’s the theological part. They came to visit our
Mission, about ten of them with their teacher. They
came in cassocks–disguised for the occasion! They
came to see what a traditional Church is. I wasn’t
there but they visited everything and were interested
and surprised to see in the sacristy the names of
Pope John Paul II and the Bishop, because they’ve
heard so much against us. Some of them had already
come to our Mass in secret. So there is a work being
done. And we also have the advantage that three,
four, or ﬁve times a year the television station comes
to record our Mass and then they show it on a
Sunday. We are part of a circuit that shows Mass on
Sundays on TV.

Through your initiative or theirs?
Theirs, but there are some of our faithful who
work at the television. Even the Director General
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

was one of our faithful. But before he came to us,
and even now that he’s no longer there, it’s still
being done. Usually it’s on Sundays. So we’ve
already had Pentecost, the Christmas Mass, Easter,
Fr. Medard’s ﬁrst Mass, Fr. Pierre Celestin’s ﬁrst
Mass, with the Bishops, for the Conﬁrmations.
Sometimes it even shows two Sundays in a row. So,
of course, it does a great deal of good in the whole
country. St. Pius X is known throughout Gabon. It’s
an apostolate. The Bishops are not very happy.

Are there many Muslims in Gabon?
There are, but they are foreigners.
Unfortunately, in Gabon there are many foreigners.
The government realized a few years ago that in
Libreville, with a population of 450 000, about
half are foreigners. They come from West Africa
and most are Muslims. The Gabonese love doing
administrative work but not other jobs! The
President himself is a Muslim, and each year at
Christmas, and also at Easter, he sends us his wishes,
with ﬂowers. We aren’t the only ones but we’re on
the list.

Are you visiting other groups?
We visit groups in the area of Lambaréné
and Oyem. Lambaréné is a former mission of
Archbishop Lefebvre in Gabon, and Oyem is in the
north of Gabon. Bishop Ndongo was ﬁrst Bishop
of Oyem. We also go to Cameroon where we have
two groups of people: one in Douala and one in
Yaoundé, the capital. They are bilingual FrenchEnglish. Also, Nigeria and Cameroon. In Nigeria, in
the former Biafra region in the south east, we have a
group of about 40 people. Also in Senegal, although
we have nothing established as yet, there are people
to whom we go.

What is the future of the Society’s work in Gabon?
Well, to continue to develop our school, of
course. We’ve started a ﬁrst stage of enlargement
for the priests’ accommodation, in view of the
future. Also, the accommodation for the religious
sisters. Normally, we should be building another
section with about ten classrooms for the secondary
school, with a refectory and an adjoining kitchen.
And we also want to extend the chapel because it’s
already too small and people have to stand outside.
Otherwise, our future is rather to open something
in Nigeria and in Cameroon. Of course, if we had
more priests we could open other things. Benin is
asking for us, so is Togo, so is Ivory Coast as well as
Senegal. Everyone’s calling upon us for help.
Fr. Patrick Groche was ordained for the Society of Saint Pius X in 1976. He
has been District Superior of Gabon since 1983. He was interviewed by Fr.
Coenraad Daniels of the Society of Saint Pius X.

F R .

p e t e r

Is slavery evil, and if so, surely the North
was right in the American Civil War?

Slavery as an institution can be understood in two
ways. The ancient pagans understood it as the right of
ownership of one person over another, as over a thing or
an animal, the slave entirely belonging in every aspect to
his master, without any recognition of his free will. This
is illicit and immoral, for one person can never have the
right of control over another’s intellect and will, according
to which he is made in the image and likeness of God.
Such a pagan concept of slavery is manifestly opposed to
the natural law, and a violation of every man’s duty to use
his own intellect and will to freely serve God.
However, slavery need not be understood in this
sense. It can be simply the ownership of a man’s ability
to work, his abilities, his productivity. Understood in this
sense, it does not violate a man’s free will, nor his duty to
love and serve God, and is consequently not opposed to
the natural law.
Furthermore, slavery is not opposed to the divine
positive law, i.e., to the law promulgated by God Himself.
We consequently ﬁnd it in this sense allowed in the Old
Law for the Jews. Slavery is also mentioned several times
in the New Testament as something licit, slaves not being
encouraged to revolt, but to maintain their faithful service,
for example by St. Peter: “Servants, be subject to your
masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle,
but also to the froward” (I Pet. 2:18). St. Paul says the
same: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords
according to the ﬂesh, with fear and trembling, in the
simplicity of your heart, as to Christ” (Eph. 6:5). Also Col.
3:22. Likewise, masters are not told to free their slaves, but
to treat them well: “Masters, do to your servants that which
is just and equal: knowing that you also have a master in
heaven” (Col. 4:1). Also Eph. 6:9. Consequently, it cannot
be said that God forbids slavery in itself.
The fact that slavery is not in itself intrinsically
wrong can also be established from the fact that it is licit
for one man or for society to have power over a man’s
services or his acts. If a man can hire his labor out for a
time, he can hire it out for life, as was the case of the serfs
in Christendom. Likewise, if society has authority over
a man to impose imprisonment or capital punishment
for crimes, then it has the authority to impose a lesser
sentence, such as the ownership of a man’s services.
This being said, it is manifestly obvious that the rise
of the Catholic Church little by little put an end to this
institution, which it has many times condemned. The
problem with slavery is that it is so open to abuse, the
slaves having no protection against the infringing of their
interior, personal freedom, nor having any guarantee of
being treated with kindness, of being supplied with all the
necessities of life, of not being overworked, and of respect
for their person.
These abuses became horriﬁcally apparent in the
slave trade for the New World. Slave-hunting, selling
of children into slavery, inhumane treatment in the
transports and by slave traders, and some slave owners
are but some of these immoral conditions. It is for this
reason that the Popes again and again condemned this

R .

s c o t t

27

slave trade, starting with Pius II in 1462, including Paul
III (1537), Urban VIII (1639), Benedict XIV (1741),
Gregory XVI (1839) and Leo XIII (1888). Gregory XVI
had this to say:
The Roman Pontiffs our predecessors of glorious memory
have not at all failed to many times seriously reprehend
slavery, as is their duty, as being harmful to their (the black
peoples’) spiritual salvation and bringing opprobrium to the
Christian name…whence we admonish and order by our
Apostolic authority all the faithful of every condition…not
to reduce into slavery…or exercise this inhuman trade.
(Dec. 3, 1839)

Leo XIII was even more explicit in his letter In
Plurimis on May 5, 1888, to congratulate the bishops
of Brazil on the emancipation of slaves in Brazil on the
occasion of the 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination:
This decision was particularly consoling and agreeable
to us because we received the conﬁrmation of this news, so
dear to us, that the Brazilians desire henceforth to abolish
and completely extirpate the barbaric practice of slavery.…
For in the midst of so much misery, we must particularly
deplore that misery of slavery, to which a considerable part
of the human family has been subject for many centuries,
thus groaning under the sorrow of abjection, contrary to
what God and nature ﬁrst established….This inhuman and
iniquitous doctrine that slaves must, as instruments lacking
reason and understanding, serve the will of their masters
in all things, is supremely detestable–so much, indeed, that
once it has been accepted there is no oppression, no matter
how disgusting or barbarous, that cannot be maintained
uncontested with a certain appearance of legality and law.

Consequently, there can be no doubt that the
importing of slaves from Africa to the New World,
so frequently condemned by the Church, as actually
practiced was evil. This does not, however, mean that
the Church condemned every slave owner. There were
certainly Catholic slave owners, who took real care of
their slaves, supported their families, provided for all
their needs, gave them every facility to become Catholic
and save their souls, and who consequently committed
no sin, but rather acts of virtue. In practice, however, the
multitude of evils and abuses far outweighed the good.
This being said, Catholic historians who have studied
the Civil War point out that the real question was not
one of slavery at all, but one of economic control. It was
the capitalists of the North, with their factories, mines,
means of production, forcing an industrial and economic
revolution on the agrarian South. The Northerners had
long had slaves of their own. However, the Industrial
Revolution produced a new kind of slavery, that of the
factory workers, who would sweat very long hours for
little income, for the proﬁt of their capitalist masters.
The struggles for the rights of workers demonstrate
that despite their technical freedom, they were just as
oppressed as the slaves of old, and very often more so,
for the slaves at least were provided with all the
necessities of life. The question of slavery is consequently
of little importance in the discussion of right and wrong
in the Civil War. It really is a question of economic
revolution.
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

28

R o s e

C a r r o l l

THE SUPPRESSIO
OF THE JESUITS
“Yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you,
will think that he doth a service to God.”–Jn. 16:2

The Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius
Loyola, prior to Vatican II had always and
everywhere been a major inﬂuence on Catholic
lives. The Jesuits were excellent missionaries and
strong Catholics, and for centuries after their
founding were held in the greatest esteem by
Catholics everywhere, and even by non-Catholics.
They were a great aid to the popes and their
missions and schools and colleges and seminaries
became known worldwide. They have had a
vast inﬂuence on history, and thus are of great
importance and interest to Catholics, who still use
their teachings and writings today. But of even
greater interest is the Suppression of their Order
in 1773, which had a tremendous impact on the
Catholic world then and even now. In this paper I
shall present a basic account of the Jesuits before the
Suppression, of the Suppression itself, with its causes
and effects, and of the Order after the Suppression.
St. Ignatius Loyola founded “The Company of
Jesus” in 1540, a society of missionaries to live as
Christs on earth, and uphold His standards. This
“Societas Jesu” was more instrumental than any other
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

inﬂuence in the Counter-Reformation; and the
re-conquest of southern and western Germany and
Austria for the Church, as well as the upholding of
the Catholic faith in France and other countries, is
owed chieﬂy to their exertions. Their missionaries
were sent among the pagans of India, Japan, China,
Canada, Central and South America, and worked
as well in the Christian countries. Portugal, at the
time of the founding of the Jesuit Order, was in
her heroic age. “Her rulers were full of enterprise,
her universities were full of life, her trade routes
extended over the then known world” (1912). The
Jesuits played an admirable part in the restoration
of Portugal’s liberty, in 1640. France was always an
important base to the Jesuits–in the early days they
received their instruction there, and afterwards there
were many missions and colleges in that country.
The order had rapid success in Spain. The Spaniards
of that day played the greatest roles in the Society,
despite many serious troubles in their country. In
Italy, the history of the Jesuits is mostly peaceful,
and in Germany, Jesuit colleges grew so popular that
they were demanded on every side. In England, it

29

SION
S
was very difﬁcult to ﬁnd an entrance, as the English
Schism had begun. However, the English who ﬂed
to France found refuge and education. (It is likely
that even Shakespeare was Jesuit-trained, and their
inﬂuence can be seen in his writings.) But with the
Restoration in 1660 came a period of greater calm,
only to be followed by “…the worst tempest of
all, Oates’s plot, when the Jesuits lost eight on the
scaffold and thirteen in prison in ﬁve years, 167883.” (1912) This was followed, however, by a greater
prosperity, which was interrupted by the Revolution
of 1688. The number of Catholics in England was
fewer but not wholly extinct. The Jesuits came to the
United States in 1634 and worked amidst hardships
and sufferings, converting many Indians and some
Protestants. Unjust penal laws were passed against
them and grew worse and worse. Many of their
labors were unsuccessful due to the anti-Catholic
administration. The Jesuits faced opposition, exiles,
injustice, and persecutions; yet their missions, due
to their courage and work and prayers, held strong.
They had a great inﬂuence over all Catholics of
Europe and America. The popes approved of their
order; they were esteemed by all.

Paul III approved of the Society of Jesus, by his
Bull of 27 September 1540, and allowed it to draw
up rules and statutes to ensure its peace, its existence,
and its government…the same pontiff by a brief of 15
November 1549 accorded very great privileges to this
society… (1986)
Others of our predecessors have exhibited the same
muniﬁcent liberality to this order. In effect Julius III, Paul
IV, Gregory XIII, Sixtus V, Gregory XIV, Clement VIII
and other popes have either conﬁrmed or augmented, or
more distinctly deﬁned and determined, the privileges
already conferred on these religious. (1986)

In the 18th century the Church began slipping
back into some of the evils that had earlier afﬂicted
her.
Especially in France, many of the bishops were little
different from wealthy noblemen, and some had been
infected by liberalism…the faith of the ordinary people
and the parish priests was still strong, but the leadership,
where it was not corrupt, was too often weak. (1986)

St. Ignatius’ order was hated by the Bourbons
because it represented a sovereign and spiritually
powerful force “…which commanded the loyalty
and love of Catholics throughout Europe and
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

30
the New World.” (1986) Père Antoin La Vallette,
the superior of the Martinique missions, had
great success with the vast Jesuit mission farms,
but his success encouraged him to go too far.
There was an unfortunate bankruptcy, the
Jesuits were accused and many joined in favor
against them–the Jansenists, the Sorbonnists, the
Gallicans, the Philosophes, and the Encyclopédistes.
The Jesuit colleges were closed and the Fathers
were compelled to renounce their vows under the
pain of banishment. At this same time, in Portugal,
Carvalho was minister, and his quarrel with the
Jesuits began with a dispute over an exchange of
territory with Spain. The Portuguese believed the
Jesuits were mining gold, and thus the Indians of
their missions were ordered to leave the country.
The Jesuits tried to lead them out quietly but the
Indians rose in revolt due to the harsh conditions
imposed upon them by the Portuguese. “The socalled war of Paraguay ensued, which, of course,
was disastrous to the Indians.” (1912) Portugal’s
quarrel with the Jesuits was gradually pushed to
extremities, and the weak Portuguese king, Joseph
I, was persuaded to remove them from the Court.
The Fathers were ﬁrst barred from undertaking the
administration of material and temporal help to
their missions, and then they were deported from
America. The Suppression in Spain, and in Naples
and Parma, its quasi-dependencies, was conducted
in secret. The autocratic kings and ministers
intentionally kept their deliberations to themselves.
The council resolved to incriminate the Society,
and by January 29, 1767, its expulsion was settled.
Parma immediately drove all the Jesuits out of its
territories, conﬁscating all their possessions. Pope
Clement XIII was harassed from this time until his
death, with the greatest violence and insolence–the
Bourbon representatives insulted him to his face,
and Portugal had already risen in schism. Upon his
death, the Bourbon courts “succeeded in excluding
any of the party…who would have taken a ﬁrm
position in defense of the order, and ﬁnally elected
Lorenzo Ganganelli, who took the name Clement
XIV.” (1912) Before his election, Ganganelli had in
some way promised to suppress the Society upon
his becoming pope. He kept his promise, though he
delayed it as long as he could. In 1772, Charles III of
Spain sent a new ambassador to Rome, by the name
of Don Joseph Moñino, “a strong, hard man, ‘full
of artiﬁce, sagacity, and dissimulation, and no one
more set on the suppression of the Jesuits.’” Moñino
took the lead and ﬁnally, by September 6, gave the
pope a paper suggesting the line he should follow
in drawing up the Brief of the Suppression. “In the
Brief of the Suppression, the most striking feature is
the long list of allegations against the Society, with
no mention of what is favorable; the tone of the
brief is very adverse. On the other hand the charges
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

are recited categorically; they are not deﬁnitely
stated to have been proved. The object is to
represent the order as having occasioned perpetual
strife, contradiction, and trouble.” (1912) The way in
which the Brief is written avoids many difﬁculties,
especially the open contradicting of preceding
popes, who had so often commended and conﬁrmed
the Society. To quote the Brief itself:
…the truly faithful hope to see the day dawn which
will bring peace and calm. But under the pontiﬁcate
of our predecessor Clement XIII, the times grew
more stormy. Indeed, the clamors against the society
augmented daily. In some places there were troubles,
dissensions, dangerous strifes and even scandals which,
after completely shattering Christian charity, lighted in
the hearts of the faithful, party spirit, hatred and enmity.
(1986)
…the tenor and even the terms of these apostolic
Constitutions show that even at its inception the society
saw spring up within it various germs of discord and
jealousies, which not only divided the members, but
prompted them to exalt themselves above other religious
orders, the secular clergy, the universities, colleges,
public schools and even the sovereigns who had admitted
and welcomed them in their realms. (1986)

The Brief of the Suppression stated that all
members of the Society who had only made simple
vows and who were not yet in Holy Orders were
to depart from their houses and colleges freed from
their vows, and that they were at liberty to embrace
whatever state they judged most conformable to
their vocation, strength, and conscience. Those
professed in the Order were to either leave their
houses and colleges and enter some religious order
approved by the Holy See, or (if they had made
their solemn vows) to remain in the world as secular
priests or clerics, and wholly under the jurisdiction
of the local authority. St. Alphonsus di Liguori says
on the subject:
Poor Pope! What could he do in the circumstances in
which he was placed, with all the Sovereigns conspiring
to demand this Suppression? As for ourselves, we must
keep silence, respect the secret judgment of God, and
hold ourselves in peace. (1912)

Following the Brief of the Suppression was a
protest against it, in 1775, by Lorenzo Ricci, General
of the Society of Jesus, who wrote the document in
all honesty, believing it absolutely necessary. He
made two declarations and assertions:
1.) I declare and assert that the Society of Jesus has
given no reason for its suppression. I declare and afﬁrm
this with that certainty which a well-informed superior
can have of what is going on in his order.
2.) I declare and assert that I have not given the least
reason for my imprisonment. I declare and assert this
with that highest certainty and evidence which everyone
has concerning his own actions. I make this second
assertion only because it is necessary for the reputation

31
of the suppressed order whose superior general I have
been.

He continues to say that he does not judge the
thoughts behind it, as only God knows the thoughts
of man; only God sees the errors of the human
mind. Then he says he sincerely pardons all those
who
tortured and insulted me with all the evil they heaped
upon the Society of Jesus, by the severity they have
employed against the members of the order, by the
further suppression of the Society, and the circumstances
which accompanied this suppression; ﬁnally, by my
imprisonment and the hardships added to it, and by the
damage they have done to my good reputation. (1986)

The protest, however, did not succeed in revoking
the Brief of the Suppression.
After the Society was suppressed, great changes
took place. In Austria and Germany the Jesuits were
mostly allowed to teach (but with secular clergy as
superiors). But in Russia, and until 1780 in Prussia,
the Empress Catherine and King Frederick II wished
to maintain the Society as a teaching body. They
forbade the bishops to broadcast the Brief until their
placet was obtained. The English Jesuits succeeded
in obtaining oral permission from Pius VII for their
aggregation to the Russian Jesuits, May 27, 1803.
The commission was kept entirely secret. In their
zeal for the re-establishment of the Society some of
the ex-Jesuits united themselves into congregations
that might, while avoiding the now-unpopular name
of Jesuits, preserve some of its crucial features. Thus
came about the Fathers of Faith (Pères de la Foi),
founded with papal sanction by Nicholas Paccanari
in 1797. Soon after the Jesuits were restored, Russia
expelled them from the country altogether. It seems
a remarkable providence that Russia, contrary to all
precedent, should have protected the Jesuits just at
the moment when every other nation turned against
them, and reverted to her usual hostility when the
Jesuits began to ﬁnd toleration elsewhere. For, after
decades ﬁlled with trials and hardships and new
elections, Pope Pius VII had resolved to restore
the Society during his captivity in France; and
after his return to Rome he did so with little delay,
on August 7, 1814, by the Bull Solicitudo Omnium
Ecclesiarum. In France, the Society began again in
1815 with the direction of some petits séminaires and
congregations, and by giving missions. They were
attacked by the liberals, but still began to recover
inﬂuence. In Spain, the course of events was similar.
The Society was attacked at times, many Jesuits
were killed in revolutions; they were banished and
often driven out, with great cruelty and violence,
but managed to keep some hold. In Italy they
were expelled from Naples (1820-1821) but in 1836
they were allowed into Lombardy. Driven out
by the Revolution of 1848 from almost the entire
peninsula, they were able to return when peace was

restored, except to Turin. Then with the slow yet
steady growth of United Italy they were gradually
suppressed again by law everywhere, and ﬁnally at
Rome in 1871. And yet nowhere did the Fathers get
through the troubles unavoidable with the interim
more easily than in conservative England. The
college at Liege continued to train their students
in the old way, while the English bishop permitted
the ex-Jesuits to maintain their missions and a sort
of corporate discipline. But there were difﬁculties
in recognizing the restored order, lest this should
impede Emancipation, which remained in doubt for
so many centuries. The Jesuits in the United States
had retained much of their positions from before
the Suppression even during the interim. After 1814
there was not much change, but their missions grew
and they again began to thrive. It is written:
Though the Jesuits of the 19th century cannot show a
martyr-roll as brilliant as that of their predecessors, the
persecuting laws passed against them surpass in number,
extent, and continuance those endured by previous
generations. (1912)

And the Jesuits of the 20th and 21st centuries
leave a great deal to be desired, for they have
strayed from their original Constitution and
discipline, and no longer represent to us what their
founder intended.
Perhaps, if the Suppression of the Jesuits had
never occurred, life would be very different now.
Perhaps, if Jesuit inﬂuence had remained what it
was, the Declaration of Independence would not
have been so liberal; perhaps there would have
been a different outcome of world powers; or
perhaps even some of the current wars would not
be taking place. But God allowed it to happen,
and we know there is a reason. Therefore, as St.
Alphonsus di Liguori said, we must remain at peace
in ourselves and respect the secret judgment of God.
We must do this, hoping and praying all the while
for better days, when the Immaculate Heart of Mary
shall triumph and the world shall be Catholic once
more.
Rose F. Carroll resides with her family in St. Mary’s, Kansas, where she is a
junior at St. Mary’s Academy.

Barry, Colman J., O.S.B., Readings in Church History. Collegeville, Minnesota: Christian Classics, 1985. Pope Clement XIV: Brief “Dominus ac
Redemptor,” Suppressing the Society of Jesus, 21 July 1773 from Thomas
J. Campbell, S.J., The Jesuits 1534-1921 (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1921); Lorenzo Ricci, General of the Society of Jesus: Protest
Against the Suppression of the Society, 19 November 1775 from Hubert
Becker, Die Jesuiten (Munich: Koesel, 1951). Trans. by Bro. Conrad
Zimmermann, O.S.B.
Carroll, Anne W. Christ the King: Lord of History. Manassas, Virginia:
Trinity Communications, 1986.
Herbermann, Charles G., et al., The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV. New
York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912.
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

32

A story of
historical fiction
based on the
life of Emperor
St. Henry II

OBEDIENT IN
ALL THINGS
L i n d a

D u r b i n

The Abbot, Brother Richard, of Saint-Vanne
at Verdun, watched as his emperor, Henry
II, walked the grounds of the abbey. Brother
Richard was accompanied by the Bishop,
Haimon. Both of these religious men walked
at some paces behind their emperor.
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

33
Not because he was the emperor, but because
Brother Richard knew somehow that the emperor
wanted to be alone in his contemplation. Henry’s
shoulders were slightly slumped with all the burdens
that weighed upon them. His step slowed by the
many battles he had fought and won, both on the
ﬁeld and through endless negotiations. Henry
often came to the abbey to pray, hear the Ofﬁce
chanted by the brothers, and especially to seek
spiritual advice from Brother Richard. It calmed his
troubled soul. And today, Brother Richard knew his
emperor’s soul was in turmoil, and only solitude and
listening to God alone would help Henry solve his
troubles. Brother Richard thought of all the talks he
and Henry had had in the past. And then Brother
Richard mulled over the worldly events in Emperor
Henry’s life up until now.
In his youth, Henry had prepared for the
priesthood. He had been educated by the Bishop
Wolfgang of Regensburg. But at the age of 22 [995
AD], all that ended with the death of his father,
Duke Henry II (the quarrelsome) of Bavaria. Henry
obediently became Duke. At 25, to secure the lands
of Luxemburg, a marriage was arranged between
Henry and the young daughter of Count Sigfried,
the 19-year-old Cunegundes. However, Cunegundes
had made a vow of virginity to God before the
marriage arrangements were made known to her.
To Henry, as he told Brother Richard, a vow to God
came ﬁrst, and so with a dispensation from the Pope,
the two were allowed to wed, maintaining their
virginity. Henry admitted to the abbot that he felt he
was not suited for the role of ruler, but he saw this
as God’s will, and so he tried to rule Bavaria with a
benevolent but ﬁrm hand. And he always helped to
further the cause of the Church within his domain.
And then God asked more of Henry. In 1002, when
the King of Germany, Otto III, died leaving no
heir, Henry, a second cousin, was crowned king.
This immediately threw Henry into a battle of land
rights with Bohemia. Two years later, adding to his
burdens and thrusting him into a still more worldly
life, the bishops of Pavia crowned Henry their king
in hopes of bringing the troublesome Lombards
back into accord with the Church. Without having
time to secure his rights in Lombardy, Henry
went north to battle Boleslaus of Poland over the
rights of Bohemia. In 1006, Henry was at war with
Boleslaus. Each new year brought on more battles,
more negotiations. Henry often lamented to Brother
Richard that his worldly duties often took up so
much time that he didn’t have time for a spiritual
life. And this was made even more difﬁcult in trying
to balance a spiritual life when he sometimes had
to battle with bishops over territories and ﬁefs. But
in matters of the Church, Henry always remained
in accord with Rome. Brother Richard always
reminded Henry that duties in his state of life were

his prayer, and therefore pleasing to God. But to
Henry, his duties in a worldly life only seemed to
him to be hindering a spiritual life.
In 1013, Brother Richard heard that Henry
and Cunegundes entered Italy. Henry ﬁnally had
established a foothold in Lombardy, but only after
a conﬂict between the citizens and Henry’s German
supporters had caused the destruction of Pavia.
Negotiations seemed to be moving along with
Boleslaus in Bohemia as well, and so the following
year, 1014, Henry, at the age of 41, was crowned
Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by Pope
Benedict VIII in Rome. Cunegundes at 35 was
crowned Empress. In 1018, the war with Boleslaus
ended. Emperor Henry II returned from Bohemia
and made ﬁnal negotiations of ﬁefs within Germany
to Boleslaus. But Henry told Brother Richard
that he was tired of all the worldly burdens in his
life. And so Emperor Henry gave to the religious
communities he knew all his wealth. But only in the
abbey at Saint-Vanne did Henry feel at peace within
the community, and ﬁnally able to communicate
freely with God, without worldly distractions.
Brother Richard watched as the Emperor heaved
yet another heavy sigh. Henry looked longingly at
the serenity of the quiet brothers, simply praying in
silence while doing their chores. Bother Richard’s
thoughts turned to that of the troubles Henry
disclosed between himself and his beautiful wife,
Cunegundes, before they were crowned Emperor
and Empress. At 32, Cunegundes had grown in
grace and poise. She was greatly admired, not
only for her physical beauty, but for her humble
and quiet, yet cheerful disposition. The war with
Bohemia had meant a long separation for Henry and
Cunegundes. Cunegundes had relied on the help
and support of Henry’s vassals to look after the day
to day affairs of the people. Not all had agreed with
her on many points, especially all the money she
was putting into the construction of the cathedral at
Bamberg. It was the largest cathedral in all of the
empire at that time. Many courtiers thought that
they could ﬁnd better ways to spend the money and
she had made enemies with some of them. But there
was one who always supported Cunegundes in her
efforts. While he may not have always agreed, for
the love of Henry and Cunegundes, he remained
faithful to Cunegundes’s every command regarding
the cathedral construction. Brother Richard couldn’t
even remember the young vassal’s name. But he
remembered the horrible calumnies against him and
Cunegundes. And he remembered how ashamed
Henry had been of the incident, and the remorse he
felt as he told it all to Brother Richard.
“I had just come back from yet another battle
and then endless negotiations with Boleslaus that
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

34
ended in naught,” Henry said with a heavy sigh.
“I was so tired from the travel that the next day I
barely listened to all that Cunegundes tried to tell
me about the state of affairs in Bavaria. But she was
patient, and as she knew I was tired, left me and told
me she would discuss it later.”
Brother Richard listened in silence, for he could
tell that his king had come to unburden his soul.
“Then most of the vassals came and started
complaining about how Cunegundes had handled
everything. How she had wasted too much money
on the cathedral and had not seen that the money
was spent properly,” Henry continued. “I was
immediately annoyed with Cunegundes for allowing
the cathedral to be improperly supervised and for
the unrest to happen. But mostly for not warning me
of it beforehand,” Henry added emphatically. “What
I didn’t know at the time was that the vassals were
unhappy that the money was spent on the cathedral
at all, when I thought they were concerned with the
improper spending of the cathedral money.”
Again, Brother Richard remained quiet, and
waited for Henry to continue.
“But then they began to tell me of how one
of my newest vassals had always been with
Cunegundes to discuss the affairs of the kingdom.
How she always called upon him when she wanted
something done. How they had been seen often
together, talking secretly, often laughing together,
and looking knowingly at each other whenever one
of the other vassals disagreed with Cunegundes
regarding money and the cathedral,” Henry
informed him. “But it wasn’t what they said, it was
the way they said it,” Henry told Brother Richard.
“And how did they say it?” Brother Richard
asked in an even tone.
Henry thought a moment for the best word
to describe how his vassals retold the incidents of
Cunegundes dealing with this vassal.
“Insinuating” Henry said ﬁnally. “They
described how beautiful Cunegundes always looked,
and how he always looked admiringly at her.”
Henry almost spat the word “he” out.
“It is hard not to look at Cunegundes and
admire her,” Brother Richard said quietly. “She has
a divine beauty that shines from within,” he added,
almost in a whisper.
But Henry hadn’t heard. He was shaking his
head ruefully.
“It immediately made me suspicious,” he
admitted.
“Suspicious of your vassals’ story?” Brother
Richard interjected.
“No,” Henry moaned remorsefully. “Suspicious
of Cunegundes and this vassal.”
“Did you ask Cunegundes?” Brother Richard
wanted to know.
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

“No. But I began to watch them. And he seemed
to act very familiarly with Cunegundes, and she in
return,” Henry stated in an accusing tone, wanting
to justify his suspicions. “She was often with him
discussing the cathedral construction and always
came to the dinning hall escorted very comfortably
on his arm!”
“Was it because you were not there, and because
you were watching her, that she discussed the
cathedral with him and not you, and because you
were not there to escort her to table that it was his
arm and not yours that she was escorted comfortably
on?” Brother Richard countered.
Henry raised remorseful eyes to meet the gently
admonishing ones of Brother Richard’s. Henry
lowered his head in shame.
“Then the rumors started,” Henry went on.
“I tried to convince myself that they were not
true,” Henry tried to explain.
“But you listened to them just the same.”
Brother Richard said.
“Yes,” Henry admitted with a heavy sigh.
“Finally, someone accused Cunegundes openly,
in front of the entire court, of adultery with this
man,” Henry told him. “He was not there,” Henry
added.
“And what did Cunegundes say then?” Brother
Richard questioned. It was not that he wanted to
know, or even cared to know, the answer to the
question, but Brother Richard wanted to help Henry
unburden himself by having him retell the story.
“At ﬁrst, she didn’t say or do anything. As if the
accusation didn’t even deserve an answer from her,”
Henry relayed in somewhat awe.
“But then the accusation was repeated, and
taken up by more than a few voices,” Henry
continued.
“Then Cunegundes stood up,” Henry informed
Brother Richard, “and faced her accusers. ‘It is a
lie,’ she told her accusers, ‘you know it is a lie. My
husband knows it is a lie, and God knows it is a lie,’
she continued, and then looked at me for support.
But I, may God forgive me! I couldn’t meet her
unwavering and conﬁdent eyes; I brieﬂy looked
at her in question, and then my eyes must have
clouded and showed the doubt and shame that I
felt.”
Henry paused and covered the very eyes that
had betrayed his wife’s trust. He struggled with his
shame for a moment and then continued.
“For a moment, Cunegundes was stunned by
my distrust. But without giving any other word to
defend herself, she, and then her ladies, left the
hall,”
“Her silence seemed to condemn her further,”
Henry went on. “Some of the crowd murmured
more outrages against her. And, as always, someone

35

The Trial by Ordeal
mentioned the fact that she had slapped her niece’s
face.”
Brother Richard only smiled at this statement.
The calumny always seemed to come up. And
Brother Richard knew the full details of the story.
Cunegundes’s niece Judith, the ﬁrst abbess of the
Cassel foundation, was a frivolous young girl,
more concerned with the world and feasting than
in the establishment of the order to prayer and
piety. Cunegundes tried many written attempts to
correct her niece, and even met with her formally
to reprimand her, but Judith ignored her advice.
Finally, when Judith was about to cause a scandal,
Cunegundes slapped the girl’s face to stop the
act,1 and to remind her niece of the seriousness of
religious vows. Brother Richard was interrupted in
his musings as Henry continued. “Cunegundes’s
loyal friends and subjects spoke up against what was
being said of her, but the words were out and the
damage done.”
“Did you ask God to give you guidance on the
matter?” Brother Richard advised.
“In my silences, all I heard were the words of
her accusers,” Henry admitted. “But Cunegundes
took solace with God,” Henry then said. “For three
days and nights she fasted and remained in solitude
in the chapel.”

Henry paused in his narrative as he tried to
recollect the next sequence of events.
“Afterwards, Cunegundes came to me and told
me that she would prove her innocence by a trial
of ordeal.2 Many heard her, and soon the news was
spread throughout the castle and beyond,” Henry
said.
“It was then that I pleaded with her not to do it,”
Henry exclaimed. “That I believed her innocence.”
“But Cunegundes said to me with great sadness
in her voice, ‘No, my beloved husband, you do not
believe me, for you fear I will perish in the ﬂames.
And that would mean I was guilty of the crimes
for which I have been accused. But God has asked
me to perform this act of proof, as He knows my
innocence, and in Him I will trust.’”
Henry told Brother Richard that he had ﬂinched
when his wife had said “trust,” for Henry realized it
was his lack of trust alone that had brought her to
this.
“In bare feet, she walked the burning
ploughshares,” Henry shamefully admitted. “And
not only was she unharmed, but the trailing skirt of
her dress was not even singed!”
“I threw myself at her feet and begged
her forgiveness,” Henry said. “And she pulled
me up and into her arms, hers eyes ﬁlled with
tears of sympathy and pity for my shame and
embarrassment,” Henry continued, his own eyes
clouding with tears at the remembrance. “And
I asked for her forgiveness and God’s for ever
doubting,” Henry concluded.
All this was going through Brother Richard’s
mind as he watched Henry’s sad and troubled face
as he walked about the abbey grounds. Then, as
Henry looked at the brothers, he suddenly stood still
as if he had reached a difﬁcult decision.
“This is the place of my repose,” Henry signed
in relief. “Here I shall dwell forever.”
Brother Richard felt the bishop jerk to a stop
beside him. And then Bishop Haimon pulled
Brother Richard a distance from the emperor.
“Did you observe the words the Emperor has
just now spoken?” He asked. “He has resolved at last
to lay aside the crown and scepter and to become a
monk.”
Brother Richard turned his gaze upon the
Emperor. He did indeed have the look of a man
who had come to a ﬁnal decision.
“Now, if you yield to his request, and receive
him among your brethren, the empire, which God
has entrusted to his care, will suffer a loss that
nothing can repair,” Bishop Haimon continued
woefully.
Brother Richard bowed his head in prayer.
He was not in turmoil, as the bishop was, because
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

36
Brother Richard was conﬁdent that God would
instruct him in what best to do. Brother Richard
knew that the most important thing he had to
consider would be the salvation of Henry’s soul.
If God meant to save Henry’s soul by having him
enter the monastery, then Brother Richard would
do it happily. But if it meant denying the Emperor
his heart’s desire, then he would do that too. Unlike
Bishop Haimon, Brother Richard knew that Henry
had considered all possible objections to his entering
monastic life. He knew that both Henry and
Cunegundes had both vowed to enter a religious life
if they were asked to give up the crown, or upon the
death of the spouse. But Brother Richard prayed,
and God gave him the answer.
“I know what I shall do,” he said. “I will both
satisfy the pious desires of the Emperor, and at the
same time preserve the peace of the state.”
Still, Bishop Haimon was anxious.
Brother Richard assembled all the brothers. He
turned to Henry.
“What is it that you intend to do?” Brother
Richard asked.
Henry looked at all the friendly and calm faces
before him and he began to cry silently for joy.
This was what he most wanted, to be a part of the
community. To live in solitude and silence. To spend
every day chanting the Ofﬁce and live a life of
prayer with God. Henry now felt it was at last within
his grasp.
“Venerable Father and brothers,” Henry began,
a choke in his voice, “I have resolved to forsake the
vanities of the world, and to spend the rest of my
days in this holy house in solitude and prayer, that I
may save my soul.”
If the brothers were surprised or shocked by
their emperor’s announcement, they did not show
it. They simply watched the abbot to see what he
would do.
Henry turned to Brother Richard and knelt
before him.
“Do you promise me,” Brother Richard began,
“that according to the rule of this house, and
according to the example of Jesus Christ, you will be
obedient in all things till the day of your death?”
“With all my heart, I promise,” Henry stated
solemnly.
“Then,” Brother Richard said. “I receive you
into this monastery, and admit you among the
number of my monks.”
A low moan of despair escaped the lips of the
bishop.
“And from this day, I myself, will take charge of
your soul.” Brother Richard continued.
Henry reached out and took hold of the abbot’s
hand. He reverently kissed the ring on Brother
Richard’s hand.
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

“But you must promise me again to be obedient
in all things and to do whatever I command you, in
the name of God,” Brother Richard stated.
“I promise,” Henry reiterated.
Brother Richard’s eyes were full of compassion
as looked down at the exuberant face of Henry.
“It is therefore my will,” Brother Richard
continued gently, “and I command you in the name
of God...” Brother Richard paused and gave a small,
sad sigh at the pain he was about to inﬂict, “...to
return to your palace, and continue to govern the
empire which God has entrusted to you.”
Henry’s exhilarated face went suddenly white
with disbelief. Tears smarted his eyes and began
to silently roll down his face. He felt somehow
betrayed. Brother Richard read the look in his eyes
and continued quickly. “That by your watchfulness
and your zeal you may procure the eternal salvation
of your subjects,” Henry slowly stopped crying.
He stood up slowly and gave a reproachful look to
Brother Richard. But then he gave a brief, solemn
nod, and forced a sad smile of resignation to his old
and trusted friend. Henry accepted Bother Richard’s
command as God’s Will for him.
Not long after, in 1021, the Pope commissioned
a very ill Henry to try to ﬁnally bring about
order in Lombardy. In 1022, this ﬁnal campaign
accomplished just that.
Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor, died on July
13, 1024. On the ﬁrst anniversary of his death,
Cunegundes entered as a Benedictine Nun at the
Kaffungen Monastery. She died March 3, 1040, and
her body was carried to the cathedral she and Henry
built at Bamberg, where she was buried next to
Henry.
Henry was canonized by Pope Blessed Eugene
III in 1146.
Cunegundes was canonized by Pope Innocent
III in 1200.
Mrs. Durbin lives in Manasses, Virginia. Her family assists at the Latin Mass
at St. Athansius Catholic Church in Vienna, Virginia, where her children also
go to school. The author’s references were Butler’s Lives of the Saints and
The Catechism in Examples.

1
2

Allegedly, the marks of the slap remained visible until the day of Judith’s
death.
Trial of Ordeal: To walk over red-hot plowshares to prove your innocence
of a crime.

D r .

R o b e r t

A .

37

H E R R E R A

The Root of
the Matter
Hans Urs von Balthasar and the
Razing of the Catholic Church
Orestes Brownson, Catholic convert and
apologist of the past century, once called Ballou’s
On the Atonement the book most full of heresies
ever published in the United States. In spite of
Brownson’s talent for the dramatic, it very well
may have been. But it was limited in scope both
geographically and religiously. Moreover, Ballou
was not a Catholic nor a hard-line New England
Calvinist. Today, in a culture that is called global
and within the conﬁnes of Catholicism, a case
can be made that Hans Urs von Balthasar’s small
volume, Schleifung der Bastionem: Von der Kirche in
Dieser Zeit, published in 1952, though scarcely the
most heretical book of its era, can be considered
one of the most noxious. Translated as Razing
the Bastions,1 it did much to prepare the way for
the radical trends that led up to Vatican II and

helped to create a polluted atmosphere from which
Catholicism has not yet escaped.
Oddly, Balthasar, because of his later works,
became a favorite in conservative circles, perhaps
because, as Bishop Schönborn, who authored
the foreword (written in 1988) notes that this
“programmatic little book” has often been set
against his later, more theologically conservative
works. He adds that the author himself, in 1985,
believed that the views expounded there had been
adopted, with reservations and second thoughts,
by Vatican II, which deepened and taught it.2 The
good Bishop, clearly forbearing by nature, urges, in
spite of the depredations of the past three decades,
that one should hear afresh the summons to raze the
bastions, and to meet today the claim articulated in
the small volume.3
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

38
Written some 45 years ago, this small volume
captured a heady blend of naive optimism regarding
the future and bleak pessimism concerning the
past that is characteristic of the present era, in
fact, of all eras infatuated with utopia. It is a
theme that bombards us even now: the media, the
educationalists, and the pulpit conspire to spread
the euphoria. Von Balthasar skillfully conveys the
inebriating vision of a new world coming into being,
a world that for the ﬁrst time is fully conscious of
the unity of the planet and of the imperative of
stewarding itself.4 Echoes of Teilhard, Buckminster
Fuller, and other worthies are heard. The youth,
designated as the prophets of the new age, are left
cold by the “ancient Church,” which evokes only a
“sense of unreality.” Their principal task is to act as
a “springboard” for what is to come.5
Von Balthasar speaks of “youthful holiness,”
of their “holy audacity,” and so on. This lionizing
of youth, coupled with enthusiasm for the “new”
and near-idolatry for the present, is no less bizarre,
especially when he waxes eloquent over the presentday revelation of God, the deepening of Christian
consciousness in modern man, and proposes the
“shift in Christian awareness” as the dominating
idea of our age.6 A new Pentecost is at hand, a rather
surprising possibility less than a decade removed
from the horrors of Auschwitz and a period in which
the Gulags were ﬂourishing, when the youth had
demonstrated their exceptional spiritual afﬂatus by
ﬁlling the ranks of youth organizations such as Hitler
Jugend and Komsomol.
For the author of Razing the Bastions old is bad
and the Church is undoubtedly old, the oldest
of the old. The most striking mark of her dotage
is “the fact that Christianity has dissolved in the
course of centuries like a crumbling rock into even
more churches, sects, and confessions.”7 A chilling
exaggeration (as well as a bit old hat) to be brought
up in 1952. His solution is simply preposterous:
reduce the Catholic Church to simply another sect
in the mosaic of religions. This from the highest and
most spiritual motives based on the discovery of
“human solidarity” and the subsequent elimination
of the barrier between sacred and profane, the civitas
Dei and civitas terrena.8 The traditional Church has
outgrown its usefulness and now represents the
forces of inertia struggling against real holiness.9
This entails a frank devaluation of history
that cannot provide solutions for today, an epoch
grounded on the new awareness of “ultimate
solidarity and fellowship in destiny.” The very
distance that separates it chronologically from
Christ, indicates Balthasar, allows us to come more
directly in contact with the source–the revelation of
Christ.10 This may be true in a Kierkegaardian sense,
but to devalue the past while claiming authority
from a historical revelation is counterproductive,
THE ANGELUS • February 2005

if not absurd. Kant, it is known, woke from his
“dogmatic slumber” by reading Hume. Von
Balthasar suggests that the Church must wake from
its “historical sleep” by interpreting, understanding,
and responding to the signs of the times,11 that
convenient catch-phrase for everything and nothing.
The age of the laity is fast approaching and will
be evidenced by radical changes. For example,
architecture should be modiﬁed to enable the liturgy
to be performed as a “community celebration.”12
The swarm of bare, ugly meeting houses and
trivial, uninspired liturgies with which we are today
afﬂicted comes immediately to mind. Von Balthasar
is convinced that the Church is living at a privileged
moment. She perhaps has never been “so open,
so full of promise, and so pregnant with the future
at any time since the ﬁrst three centuries.”13 An
“irresistible process” has been advancing since the
Middle Ages and is now arriving at fruition. Clergy
and religious orders no longer sufﬁce for the needs
of the Church: worker-priests and consecrated
laymen are the “radiant signs of the times.”14 This
rank utopianism, almost hallucinatory enthusiasm,
romanticism at its least attractive, is hard to digest.
But the proposal that “the historical consciousness of
Christians” be shattered touches the demonic:
from the perspective of the philosophy of history, the
Church is superannuated15...in terms of the history of
religion, each year the Church spends on the earth is
another proof she will the sooner die.16

Although the truth of the Church is always
the same, the “onward march” of the world allows
something new to become visible even in the Truth
itself.
Two great changes have taken place since the
Middle Ages: the Western division of the Church
and an altered awareness of the non-Christian
world. They serve to accelerate the march of
humanity into a unity that now can be seen in its
totality.17 It is now urgent to interpret the plans of
Providence for the Church in today’s world.18
One wonders what happened to the notion of
the Church as a sign of contradiction, especially
as the “signs of the times” are culled from the
secular world, probably through the distorted
prisms of church groups, classrooms and lecture
halls. The author’s contempt for history issues
into a rank confusion of realms: St. Augustine and
the Enlightenment are appealed to as equals. Von
Balthasar suggests that the axiom “extra ecclesiam
nulla salus” be rethought from the perspective of
the Enlightenment’s rejection of dualism, which
transforms the axiom into–“outside the Church
there is every possibility of salvation.”19 A further
modiﬁcation. The function of the Church as yeast
of the world is now grounded on “an indissoluble
solidarity with the separated brethren and through
them with the world.” This proclaims the advent of

39
a new form of “osmosis” between the Church and
the world.20
This agenda, accompanied by bursts of esoteric
language verging on the mystagogical (probably
taken from the Kabbalah), adds an indeﬁnable sense
of mystery to the theses that are expounded. The
“invisible fragrances of the beloved” are scattered
in the most worldly parts of the world. The “outer
shells” are falling away, the “shells of error” break
open and release the captive kernels of truth.21
This is hardly normative Christian speculation but
corresponds to a process known to the Kabbalists as
the “gathering of the sparks” which has ancient roots
in Gnosticism and more recent ones in the Zohar,
speciﬁcally the Lurianic Kabbalah.22 In any case,
it is out of place in the present work and had an
uncomfortable reception in Judaism because of its
tilt toward pantheism.
This “new stage of awareness” produces a
turnabout in the Christian from “possessor to giver,
from usufructuary23 to apostle, from privileged
person to responsible person.”24 Small wonder that
the author remarks “for when did God not cast
pearls before the swine.”25 The point Balthasar is
making is that throughout the ages the Church has
been transmitting truths to the world that eventually
became the common property of humanity.26 He
insists that the time has arrived for the Church to
reclaim these truths by means of “a deeper and more
serious incarnation” in the world.27 To accomplish
this the Church must imitate the Lord’s kenosis
(emptying) and become merely “one religion among

others…one doctrine and truth among others” just
as Christ became one man among others.28 This, we
are told, is the “good path” devised by Providence.29
Was the sublime drama of Incarnation, Cross
and Resurrection enacted simply to establish a
Church without a unique vocation, content to
share the world with Buddhism, Stoicism, Christian
Science, and what-not–on the basis of equality–
Balthasar is emphatic on this point. The Christian
should experience worldly truths and endure the
alien character of this truth. This will cause the
return home of all truth to the Una Catholica, “the
truth of Goethe…of Nietzsche…of Luther, and of
all who took up a fragment of the inﬁnite mirror,”
the “great return” of the heresies, the religions, and
the philosophers.30 In a burst of utopianism, the
author contends that the more mankind becomes
one, and is dependent on the honesty of all, the
more will deceit, falsehood, and other negativities be
rejected.31 This is amazingly naive and runs counter
to the Christian notion of original sin, individual
responsibility, and even most views dealing with the
End Times.
A further result of this new situation generated
by the discovery of solidarity is the abandonment
of “monastic spirituality” and its replacement by
the “new religious life in the world.”32 No longer
can a Christian aspire to a private existence. The
Augustinian path of interiority that separates sacred
interior space from the profane exterior is now faced
by tremendous difﬁculties as the person searching
for God in the “inner room” ineluctably encounters

“The Catholic bastions must be destroyed.”
Catholic theologian and
former Jesuit Hans Urs
von Balthasar wrote a
book about it. Cardinal Ratzinger repeated
it. In this booklet, Fr. Franz
Schmidberger explains how the
Second Vatican Council (196265) brought about this destruction by:

W
E
N

not clearly defining Catholic Truth;
failing to definitively reject error;
adopting ambiguous, contradictory language;
● establishing teachings very close to
heresy.
●
●
●

Fr. Schmidberger proves his points by examining five harmful decrees of the Second
Vatican Council. An understanding of these
decrees is crucial to seeing that the root
of the crisis in the Church is not simply an
accumulation of abuses since the Council,
but is to be found in the Council itself.

CONTENTS
The Church After 1945 ..................................................................3
Prophets of Gloom .........................................................................4
A Reform of the Church ................................................................5
Opening Speech of Vatican II ........................................................5
Two Modern Errors ........................................................................6
Vatican II ........................................................................................7
Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio ............................... 8
No Salvation Outside the Church .........................................10
Ecumenical Practices ............................................................11
Who is to Blame? .................................................................13
Decree on the Church: Lumen Gentium....................................... 14
Decree on Non-Christian Religions: Nostra Aetate ...................... 16
Hinduism ..............................................................................16
Buddhism..............................................................................17
Islam .....................................................................................19
The Jews ...............................................................................21
Spirit of Indifferentism .........................................................22
Declaration on Religious Liberty: Dignitatis Humanae ............... 23
Decree on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes ... 25
False Solution .......................................................................28
True Solution ........................................................................29
“Keep the Faith–Pray” ..........................................................29

Available from Angelus Press.
32pp, color softcover
THE ANGELUS • February 2005
STK# 8104✱
$0.25.
Pack of 50. STK# 8104X✱ $11.95

40
character, extends salvation indiscriminately,
undermines authority to the vanishing point, and
transforms the Catholic Church from a light shining
in the darkness to another patch of darkness within
a sunless universe. Piety and salvation are displaced
from the individual to the collectivity. A social
Catholicism is concocted which adheres to the
gloriﬁcation of the ant-heap as well as the implicit
denial of the Mystical Body of Christ. Melded with
a sickly humanism, it strives for a united world of
“love” and “caring” in which all antagonisms and
individualities are eliminated. A world of convenient
arrangements, lacking seriousness, where good
and evil meld into an attractive neutrality, a world
of entertainment, very much like the world that
is presently forming in the crucible–theologically,
what we ﬁnd in Razing the Bastions is a monumental
trivialization of the incarnation.36
Perhaps the most noxious proposal found
in Razing is that of shattering the historical
consciousness of Catholics so as to disengage
Catholics from a Church considered empty and
superannuated. It ignores the truth that the past
illuminates the present and makes the future a real
possibility.
It sets the course of the fragile barque towards
an uncertain, indeed, a perilous future. The muted
sounds of simian37 chattering is beginning to be
heard.

the exterior, the profane. Only together, with “all
the brethren” and “all the creatures,” can man come
before the One God.33 The collapse of the ﬁnal
wall, that between God and the world, signiﬁes that
even in eternal beatitude, our vision will not be
worldless.34
Behind the facade presented by its theology,
a conﬂation of the traditional, the radical, and the
outrageous, one can discern its real force: a wild
enthusiasm engendered by the myth of a new
Pentecost. This, above all other factors, accounts for
the theological unsettlement, liturgical perversity,
and banality of Catholic existence now become
commonplace. Von Balthasar’s perverse infatuation
with the present, youth, the future, and his cavalier
dismissal of the past, when joined to a constellation
of other factors, generated the expectation of the
advent of a New Order. The phenomenon was
similar to the long lasting Joachite35 fantasies of
the Middle Ages, which enjoyed a subterranean
existence and came to inﬂuence personalities of the
stature of Christopher Columbus. However, in the
Joachite version contemplative spirituality becomes
the common inheritance of humanity, while in
Balthasar contemplative spirituality is discarded and
Christianity ﬁnds itself absorbed in a monolithic
secularism.
It is not surprising that the Marxism and
incipient globalism of the 1950’s inﬂuenced to some
extent a clerical intellectual like Balthasar. These
views were absorbed in a theological cocoon and
attached to the doctrine of solidarity based on a
nominalistic interpretation of the Church. Under
the cover of a mock piety it makes the suicide of
Christianity an obligation, a duty that Christianity
owes to the world. It obliterates its unique, salviﬁc
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Razing the Bastions, translated by Brian McNeil, CRV (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 1993).
Ibid., pp.7; 10-11.
Ibid., p.7.
Ibid., p.7.
Ibid., pp.18-19.
Ibid., pp.25-26; 61; 68-69, et al.
Ibid., p.21.
Ibid., p.84.
Ibid., p.24.
Ibid., pp.27,31.
Ibid., p.37.
Ibid., p.39.
Ibid., p.41.
Ibid., pp.42-43.
Superannuated. 1. Retired or ineffective because of advanced age. 2. Outmoded; obsolete: superannuated laws.–Ed.
Ibid., p.44.
Ibid., pp.47-49.
Ibid., p.51.
Ibid., p.53.
Ibid., p.57.
Ibid., pp.56, 61, 88.
Though there are many excellent works on the subject, for a clear and succinct
presentation, refer to Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (New York: Quadrangle,
1974), especially pp.165-68.

THE ANGELUS • February 2005

Dr. Robert A. Herrera, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey, was educated in the United States, Cuba,
and Spain, receiving his Ph.D. at the New School for Social Research under
Hans Jonas. He has lectured extensively, both in the US and in Europe, and
has authored and edited 6 books and over 30 scholarly articles, principally on
medieval thought and spirituality.

23

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

36

37

Usufructuary. One that holds property by usufruct; the right to use and enjoy
the proﬁts and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the
property is not damaged or altered in any way.–Ed.
Razing, p.58.
Ibid., p.92.
Ibid., p.63.
Ibid., p.71.
Ibid., p.77.
Ibid., pp.99-100.
Ibid., pp.87-88.
Ibid., p.74.
Ibid., p.100.
Ibid., pp.101-102.
Ibid., p.103.
Cistercian Abbot Joachim of Fiore (12th century) developed an outline of the
history of mankind in three ages. The ﬁrst two ages were guided by the Father
and the Son, respectively. The Third Age of history, that of the Holy Spirit,
he foresaw as a period of peace and harmony in which a renewed Church
would encompass a reformed people devoted to the contemplative life. His
extensive writings inspired a wide body of pseudo literature by generations
of Joachites after his death, and a vast modern secondary literature of diverse
opinion.–Ed
In stark contrast read St. Athanasios, On the Incarnation, translated and
edited by a Religious of CSMV (Westwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1993).
Simian. Relating to, characteristic of, or resembling an ape or a monkey.–Ed.

 Methodological and linguistic definitions  Denial of the crisis  The error of secondary Christianity  The crisis as failure to adapt  Adapting the Church’s contradiction of the world  Further denial of the crisis  The Pope recognizes the loss of direction  Pseudo-positivity
of the crisis  False philosophy of religion  Further admissions of a crisis  Positive interpretation of the crisis  False philosophy of religion  Further false philosophy of religion.  The crises of the Church: Jerusalem (50 A.D.)  The Nicene crisis (325 A.D.)  The deviations of the
Middle Ages  The crisis of the Lutheran secession. The breadth of the Christian ideal  Further breadth of the Christian ideal. Its limits  The denial of the Catholic principle in Lutheran doctrine  Luther’s heresy, continued. The bull Exsurge Domine  The principle of independence
and abuses in the Church  Why casuistry did not create a crisis in the Church  The revolution in France.  The principle of independence  The Auctorem Fidei  The crisis of the Church during the French Revolution  The Syllabus of Pius IX.  The spirit of the age  Alexander Manzon
 The modernist crisis. The second Syllabus  The preconciliar crisis and the third Syllabus  Humani Generis (1950)  The Second Vatican Council. Its preparation  Paradoxical outcome of the Council  Paradoxical outcome of the Council, continued  The Roman Synod  Paradoxical
outcome of the Council, continued  Veterum Sapientia  The aims of the First Vatican Council  The aims of Vatican II  Pastorality  Expectations concerning the Council  Cardinal Montini’s forecasts. His minimalism  Catastrophal predictions  The opening address  Antagonism
with the world  Freedom of the Church  The opening speech. Ambiguities of text and meaning  The opening speech. A new attitude towards error  Rejection of the council preparations  The breaking of the council rules  The breaking of the Council’s legal framework, continued
 Consequences of breaking the legal framework  Whether there was a conspiracy  Papal action at Vatican II  The Nota praevia  Further papal action at Vatican II. Interventions on Mariological doctrine  On missions  On the moral law of marriage  Synthesis of the council in
the closing speech of the fourth session  Comparison with St. Pius X  Church and world  Leaving the Council behind  The spirit of the Council  Leaving the Council behind. Ambiguous character of the Conciliar texts  Novel hermeneutic of the Council  Semantic change  The
word “dialogue.”  Novel hermeneutic of the Council, continued  “Circiterisms.”vUse of the conjunction “but.”  Deepening understanding  Features of the post-Conciliar period. The universality of the change  The post-Conciliar period, continued  The New Man  Gaudium et Spes
 Depth of the change  Impossibility of radical change in the Church  The impossibility of radical newness, continued  The denigration of the historical Church  Critique of the denigration of the Church  False view of the early Church  Sanctity of the Church. An apologetical
principle  The catholicity of the Church  Objection  The Church as a principle of division  Paul VI  The unity of the post-Conciliar Church  The Church disunited in the hierarchy  The Church disunited over Humanae Vitae  The Church disunited concerning the encyclical
continued  The Dutch schism  The renunciation of authority. A confidence of Paul VI  An historic parallel. Paul VI and Pius IX  Government and authority  The renunciation of authority, continued  The affair of the French catechism  Character of Paul VI. Self-portrait  Cardinal
Gut  Yes and no in the post-Conciliar Church  The renunciation of authority, continued  The reform of the Holy Office  Critique of the reform of the Holy Office  Change in the Roman Curia. Lack of precision  Change in the Roman Curia, continued  Cultural inadequacies  The
Church’s renunciation in its relations with states  The revision of the concordat, continued  The Church of Paul VI. His speeches of September 1974  Paul VI’s unrealistic moments  The defection of priests  The canonical legitimation of priestly defections  Attempts to reform the
Catholic priesthood  Critique of the critique of the Catholic priesthood  Don Mazzolari  Universal priesthood and ordained priesthood  Critique of the saying “a priest is a man like other men.”  Change in the post-Conciliar Church regarding youth  The delicate task of education
 Character of youth. Critique of life as joy  Paul VI’s speeches to youth  Juvenilism in the Church, continued  The Swiss bishops  The Church and Feminism  Critique of Feminism  Feminism as masculinism  Feminist theology  The Church’s egalitarian tradition  Subordination
and superordination of women  The subordination of women in Catholic tradition  Defense of the Church’s doctrine and practice concerning women  Catholicism’s elevation of women  Decline in morals  Philosophy of modesty  Natural shame  Personal shame  Reich 
Episcopal documents on sexuality  Cardinal Colombo  The German bishops  Modern Somatolatry and the Church  Sport as the perfecting of the human person  Sport as an incentive to brotherhood  Somatolatry in practice  The penitential spirit and the modern world 
Reduction of abstinence and fasts  The new penitential discipline  Origins of the reform of penance  Penitence and obedience  Renunciation of political and social action  Disappearance or transformation of Catholic parties  The Church’s surrender in the Italian campaigns for
divorce and abortion  The Church and communism in Italy  The condemnations of 1949 and 1959  The Church and communism in France  Committed Christians  Weakening of antitheses  Principles and movements in Pacem in Terris  On Christian socialism  Toniolo  Curci  Fr
Montuclard’s doctrine and the emptying of the Church  Transition from the Marxist option to liberation theology  The nuncio Zacchi  The document of the 17 bishops  Judgment on the document of the Seventeen  Options of certain Christians, continued  Bishop Fragoso 
Examination of Bishop Fragoso’s doctrine  Support for the teaching of the Seventeen  Schools in the post-Conciliar Church  Relative necessity of Catholic schools  The Congregation for Catholic Education’s document of 16 October 1982  Catholic rejection of Catholic schools 
Bishop Leclercq  Modern pedagogy  Catechetics  Novel pedagogy  The knowledge of evil in Catholic teaching  Teaching and authority. Catechetics  The dissolution of catechetics  The 1977 synod of bishops  The dissolution of catechetics  Fr. Arrupe  Card. Benelli  The
dissolution of catechesis  Le Du  Charlot  Bishop Orchampt  Renewal and vacuity of catechetics in Italy  The Roman catechists’ meeting with the Pope  Contradiction between the new catechetics and the directives of John Paul II  Cardinal Journet  Catechesis without catechesis
 Restoration of Catholic catechetics  The religious orders in the post-Conciliar Church  Change in principles  The fundamental change  The religious virtues in the post-Conciliar reform  Chastity  Temperance  Poverty and obedience  New concept of religious obedience
 Rosmini’s teaching on religious obedience  Obedience and community life  Theological setting of the argument  Pyrrhonism in the Church  Cardinals Leger, Heenan, Alfrink and Suenens  The discounting of reason  Sullivan  Innovators’ rejection of certainty  The discounting
of reason, continued  The Padua theologians  The Ariccia theologians  Manchesson  Dialogue and discussionism in the post-Conciliar Church  Dialogue in Ecclesiam Suam  Philosophy of dialogue  Appropriateness of dialogue  The end of dialogue  Paul VI  The Secretariat
for Non-Believers  Whether dialogue is always an enrichment  Catholic dialogue  Mobilism in modern philosophy  Critique of mobilism  Ugo Foscolo  Kolbenheyer  Mobilism in the Church  Mobilism and the fleeting world  St. Augustine  Mobilism in the new theology 
Mobilism in eschatology  Rejection of natural theology  Cardinal Garrone  Bishop Pisoni  The theological virtue of faith  Critique of faith as a search  Lessing  Critique of faith as tension  The French bishops  Reasons for the certainty of faith  Alexander Manzoni 
Hybridization of faith and hope  Hebrews 11  Reasonableness of the supernatural virtues  The Virtue of Charity  The Catholic idea of charity  Life as love  Ugo Spirito  Love and law  The denial of the natural law. Sartre  Catholic doctrine recalled  Grandeur of the natural
law  The despising of it  The natural law as taboo  Cardinal Suenens  Hume  Critique  The law as a human creation  Dumry  Rejection of the natural law by civil society  Divorce  Bishop Zoghby  Patriarch Maximos IV at the council  Maximos IV, continued  The formula
“humanly speaking.”  The value of indissolubility  Abortion  Historical development of doctrine  The formation of the foetus  The new theology of abortion  French Jesuits  The new theology of abortion, continued  The Beethoven argument  The Italian Constitutional
Court  Fundamental root of doctrine concerning abortion  Theory of potency and act  The death penalty  Opposition to the death penalty  Doctrinal change in the Church  Inviolability of life  Essence of human dignity  Pius XII  Christianity and war  Pacifism and peace
 Cardinal Poma  Paul VI  John Paul II  The teaching of Vatican II  War’s unanswered questions  The question of moderation in war  Voltaire  Pius XII  Ultimate impossibility of modern war  Removal of the problem of war by an international confederation  Situation ethics
 The practical and the praxiological  The law as a forecast  Critique of creativity of the conscience  Passivity of man’s moral life  Rosmini  Situation ethics as an ethics of intention  Abelard  Whether Catholic morality removes the dynamic power of conscience  Global
morality  Moral life as a point in time  Critique of globality  The gradualist morality  The anthropocentric teleology of Gaudium et Spes  Critique of anthropocentric teleology  Proverbs 16:4  The autonomy of worldly values  The true meaning of the autonomy of nature
 Whether man should be loved or not  An objection solved  Anthropocentrism and technology  Work as dominion over the earth and as punishment  Modern technology  Genetic engineering  The Moon landing  False religious interpretation  New concept of work  The
encyclical Laborem Exercens  Christ as a working man  Critique  Work as man’s self-realization  Critique  The distinction between the speculative and the practical  Superiority of contemplation to work  The perfecting of nature and of persons  The City of the Devil, the
City of Man, the City of God  Secondary Christianity. Confusion between religion and civilization  Critique of Secondary Christianity  Theological error  Eudaemonological error  Church and society in the post-Conciliar period  Catholicism and Jesuitism  The myth of the
Grand Inquisitor  The principles of 1789 and the Church  Change in doctrine concerning democracy  Passage from a species to a genus  Examination of the democratic system  Popular sovereignty  Competence  Examination of democracy  The sophistry of taking a part for
the whole  Examination of democracy  “Dynamic majorities.”  Parties  The Church and democracy  Influence of public opinion on the life of the Church  The new role of public opinion in the Church  Episcopal conferences  Synods  Synods and the Holy See  Spirit and
style of synods  The Swiss Forum of 1981.  Philosophy and theology in Catholicism  Misrepresentation of Thomism  Schillebeeckx  Present and abiding importance of Thomism  Paul VI  Post-Conciliar rejection of Thomism  Thomist theology in the post-Conciliar Church  The
setting aside of Aeterni Patris  Theological pluralism in Catholic tradition  The innovators’ view of theological pluralism  Dogma and its formulation  Theology and Magisterium  Hans Kung  Change in the notion of Christian unity  The instruction of 1949  The Conciliar change
 Villain  Cardinal Bea  Post-Conciliar ecumenism  Paul VI  The Secretariat for Christian Unity  Consequences of post-Conciliar ecumenism  Drop in conversions  Political character of ecumenism  Unsuitability of current ecumenical methods  Movement towards non
Christian ecumenism  Naturalist character of non-Christian ecumenism  Teaching of the Secretariat for Non-Christians  Theory of anonymous Christians in the new ecumenism  Critique of the new ecumenism  Pelagian coloring  Unimportance of missions  Changing religion
into culture  Campanella’s ecumenism  Influence of modern psychology on the new ecumenism  A “Summa” of the new ecumenism in two articles in the Osservatore Romano  Critique of the new ecumenism  The unimportance of missions, continued  Theological weakness of the
new ecumenism  Real state of ecumenism  The movement from a religious to a humanitarian ecumenism  Change in the theology of the sacraments  The practice of baptism down the centuries  New tendency to subjectivize baptism  Baptism on the strength of the parents’ faith
 The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist  Theology of the Eucharist  The new theology of the Eucharist  Decline in adoration  Worship of the Eucharist outside Mass  The degradation of the sacred  The Eucharist as venerandum and tremendum  Priesthood and eucharistic
synaxis  Analysis of Article 7  The degrading of the priesthood in the Eucharist. Cardinal Poletti  Dominance of synaxis over sacrament  Liturgical Reform  Popular involvement in the Latin liturgy  The value of Latin in the Church  Universality  Relative changelessness 
Distinguished character of the Latin language  The new version of the liturgy. Change in vocabulary  Pelagian tendencies  The new version of the liturgy. Dogmatic ambiguities  General collapse of Latin  Critique of the principles of the liturgical reform  Human expressiveness
 The principle of creativity  Movement from the sacred to the theatrical  Transition from public to private  Bible and liturgy  Variety and imprecision of the new version  Altar and table in the liturgical reform  The altar facing the people  The new church architecture 
Summary of the liturgical reform  New concept of conjugal love and marriage  The primary and secondary goods of marriage  Predominance of the procreative end of marriage in traditional teaching  Luke, 20:35-36  Marriage and contraception  Critique of the theory of
contraception  The new theodicy  New conception of divine causality  The French bishops  Change in the doctrine of prayer  Providence and misfortune  Moral origin of human suffering  Death as an evil  Preparation for death and forgetfulness of death  An unprepared
death  Pius XI  Death and judgment  Justice and mercy in Christian death  Marginalization of the fear of judgment  Dignity of burial in Catholic ritual  Indignity of burial today  Cremation  The triumph of justice  Hell  Defense of Hell  The eternity of punishment 
Hell as pure justice  The change in the Church as Hairesis  Notional and real assent  The unchanging character of Catholic doctrine  St. Vincent of Lerins and Cardinal Newman  Substance interpreted as mode by the  indifferentism  Etudes  Bishop Le Bourgeois  Loss of
unity of worship  Loss of unity of government  Deromanization of the Sacred College  Condition of the Church today  Cardinal Siri  Cardinal Wyszynski  The French bishops  Crises in the Church and the modern world  Parallel between the decline of paganism and the
present decline of the Church  Decline of the Church’s social influence in the world  Decline of the Church’s vital influence in international affairs  The Church thrown off course by secondary Christianity  The encyclical Populorum Progressio  Obscuring of Catholic doctrine
regarding the last things  Humanistic ecumenism  Laws of the Spirit of the Age  Pleasure  Forgetfulness  Instances of forgetfulness in the modern Church  Metaphysical analysis of the crisis  Diagnosis and prognosis  Two final conjectures  The burden against Duma

Hardcover
Edition now
Available

“You must read. You must nourish your souls. You must enlighten your spirit. You must enkindle your hearts, your charity.
You must inform yourselves! There is a...book, a very thick book,
which was published relatively recently [in English]. It would not
be for everybody—Iota Unum. It is not an easy book, but it is a
very informative book. Excellent! Archbishop Lefebvre wished...
that it would be the book every seminarian had in his hands.”
—Fr. Franz Schmidberger (February, 22, 2001)

Archbishop Lefebvre comments:

“A

book has just appeared, Iota Unum, written by Professor Romano Amerio [†1997, professor at the
Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, a peritus at the Council—a scholar and an insider!], who lives in the north of Italy. In my opinion, it is the most perfect
book that has been written since the Council on the Council, its consequences, and everything
that has been happening in the Church since. He examines every subject with a truly remarkable perfection.
I was stupefied to see with what serenity he discusses everything, without the passion of polemics, but with
untouchable arguments. I do not see how the current attitudes of Rome can still persist after the appearance
of such a book. They are radically, definitively condemned, and with such precision, for he only uses their
own texts, citations from Osservatore Romano. The whole is absolutely magnificent.
“One could base an entire course on this book, on the pre-Council, the Council, and post-Council. I assure
you that not much is left standing. The Popes take a licking; he is not at all soft on the Popes, but he recounts
their deeds, their words, everything. They stand condemned. In his epilogue he shows how the consequence
is the dissolution of the Catholic religion. Nothing is left. But he says that since the Church is not going to
perish...there must be a remnant; after all, the good God said that the Church will not perish, therefore there
must be a witness or the witness of a remnant that will keep the faith and tradition.”
816pp, color softcover, STK# 6700. $24.95.
816pp, color hardcover, STK# 6700H $44.95

NOWI NG
PP
I
H
S

Angelus Press is proud to announce the publication of the first
totally re-typeset, Latin-English daily missal for the laity since
Vatican II. This is the most complete missal ever produced in
the English language. We have included everything and have
produced a missal that is affordable while being of the highest
durability. The Roman Catholic Daily Missal will become your
life-long liturgical companion—at Church, at home, and on the
road.
 All new typesetting—not a photographic reproduction.
Clear and crisp type  According to the 1962 juxta typica
(typical edition) of the Missale Romanum  1,980 pages
 All liturgical texts in Latin and English (both Propers and
Ordinary)  All readings in English (Douay-Rheims) and
Latin  All music in Gregorian notation  Ordinary with
rubrics in red  Gilt edges  5 liturgically-colored nonfraying ribbons  Smythe Sewn, rounded back binding

1980pp, sewn binding,
gold-embossed
skivertex cover,
STK# 8043 $59.95

with durable, leather-like Skivertex polymer gold-embossed
flexible cover  Rounded corners on pages and cover
 Reinforced 80 lb. resin-impregnated endsheets for
extreme durability  Fully and thoroughly Indexed
 Printed and bound in the USA  The finest ivory Bible
paper (imported from France–Bolloré Primalux)

ents )
cram orders
a
S
All t holy in
ep
te
(exc comple glish
En
n&
Lati

Why is this the most complete missal ever?
 All the Masses of the Liturgical Year according to the Roman Calendar of 1962—Temporal and Sanctoral Cycles
and accompanying rites (Blessing of Ashes, Blessing of Palms, Chrism Mass, and the Blessing of Holy Oils, etc.)
 Complete Holy Week Liturgy of 1962  Supplements containing the additional Masses for the United States
and Canada  Feasts of particular Religious Congregations  Liturgical Calendar  Table of Movable Feasts
updated to 2050 AD  Masses for the Dead (including infants), Complete Burial Service, Prayers for the Dead
 Marriage Service  Special Commemorations  39 Votive Collects  17 Votive Masses  Common Masses
of the Saints and the Blessed Virgin  Conclusions of Collects  Rite of Baptism  The Churching of Women
 Rite of Confirmation  Rite of Extreme Unction  Various Blessings  Vespers for Sundays and Feasts 
Compline for Sundays  Office of Tenebrae  The Itinerary or Office before a Journey  Various Devotions
and Prayers including favorite Litanies, the Way of the Cross, prayers of the Rosary and others.  Morning and
Evening Prayers  Devotions for Confession  Litany of the Saints  Devotions for Communion  Anthems
to the Blessed Virgin  Hymns in honor of Our Lord and Our Lady  An explanation of “The Liturgy or Public
Worship of the Catholic and Roman Church”  A Summary of Christian Doctrine  Kyriale with Tones for the
most common sets of Masses (I Lux et Origo, II Kyrie Fons Bonitatis, IV Cunctipotens Genitor Deus, VIII De
Angelis, IX Cum Jubilo, XI Orbis Factor, XXVII Sundays of Advent & Lent, XVIII Deus Genitor Alme)  Tones for
Asperges and Vidi Aquam  Tones for three of the most common Credos—I, III, IV  Te Deum

Shipping & Handling
US/Canada

Foreign

$.01 to $10.00
$3.95
$7.95
$10.01 to $25.00 $5.95
$9.95
$25.01 to $50.00 $6.95
$12.95
$50.01 to $100.00 $8.95
$14.95
Over $100.00
9% of order 12% of order
Airmail surcharge (in addition to above)
Canada 8% of subtotal; Foreign 21% of subtotal.

angelus Press
2915 Forest Avenue,
Kansas City, Missouri 64109

1-800-96ORDER
1-800-966-7337

www.angeluspress.org
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.