Catholic Family News
A Monthly Journal Preserving our Catholic Faith and Heritage

50 Years Ago today - Paul VI Elected - June 21, 1963



The "new theology," as our readers who have followed us thus far have been able to discover, is not, as Pirandello would say, something to be taken seriously in itself. On the other hand, what is extremely serious is the fact that in order to force itself upon the Catholic world, it was and still is able to count on the strength of the one who is the successor of Peter in the Church. It is, therefore, of utmost importance to make a careful and close study of "Satan's master-stroke": the putting of the supreme Authority of the very person whose divinely-appointed task it is to defend the Faith, at the service of Modernism, the "synthesis of all heresies" (Saint Pius X).


In 1970, Father Raymond Dulac wrote, "It was (often) whispered that Giovanni Battista Montini (who would later become Pope Paul VI) was a keen devotee of the 'Philosophies of Action' which were made popular here through the efforts of Laberthonniere, Blondel and Ed. Le Roy." ("The New Presentation of the Novus Ordo Missae." Courrier de Rome, #74).

These "whispers" have now been confirmed to a large extent by the book Paul VI Secret (ed. Desclee de Brouwer, 1979) in which the author, Jean Guitton, a personal friend of Pope Paul VI, has gathered and published after Pope Montini's death, those intimate notes that he had taken in the course of their friendly chats. The upshot of all these notes was that Montini proved himself to be a breathless, wonder-stricken admirer of the "new theology," and specifically of de Lubac's brand.

On page 110, he says: "September 8, 1969: the Pope speaks in praise of Fr. de Lubac. He speaks highly of his spirit, as well as of the soundness and vast extent of his research; he is surprised that some people view him as already out of date" [such is the fate awaiting theological innovators].

On page 141, he writes: "April 28, 1974: The Pope, in my presence, praises today's theologians to the skies. He quotes Manaranche, de Lubac, whom he considers the very best, also citing Congar, Rahner (whom he finds quite confused), as well as Cardinal Journet (whom he judges to be a bit too scholastic)." This aversion for scholasticism, together with his admiration for the "new theology" was not an unusual state with Montini.




Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, with Pope Pius XII.


At the critical time, when the most bitter of controversies raged in France concerning the orthodoxy of Blondel, he received a letter (as shown) from the Secretariat of State of Pius XII where Monsignor Montini was substitute at the time. This same Blondel was perverting the eternal, unchangeable notion of truth, while bringing down the supernatural to the natural level, and who, while taking up the rule of a "good samaritan," was busy taking care of modern man even while he himself was sinking into the quicksand of "modern philosophy."


Montini to Blondel


The Vatican, December 2, 1944

Dear Professor,

Your trilogy on Christian Spirit and Philosophy, the first volume of which you have already published, is proving to be a veritable monument of great and beneficial apologetics; and how could the expression of your filial homage to His Holiness [Pius XII] not be pleasing to him? No one can miss the importance of such a subject wherein the relations between Christianity and philosophy, those between Faith and reason, as well as those between the supernatural and natural are studied with such sagacity. Simultaneously, you underscore very well their 'incommensurability’ without however, excluding their 'symbiosis' nor that unique end which no man is legitimately able to elude. This end (of man) constitutes a mystery full of the infinite goodness and mercy of God and which all noble and concerned souls cannot fail to embrace to their own greater intellectual and moral progress as well as to their greater and true happiness.

Your philosophical speculations, therefore, totally respectful as they are of the transcendence of revelation, are fruitfully applied to the entirety of the mysteries of the Faith, making them better known to a generation overly imbibed with the autonomy of reason whose failure is all too evident today. You have done this with as much talent as faith, and with the exception of a few expressions which theological rigor would have wished to be couched in more precise terms, your

speculation can and must bring to cultivated circles a precious contribution to a better understanding and acceptance of the Christian message, which remains the unique path to salvation as much for individual souls as for society itself.

As a matter of fact, today's tortured world is so much in search of truth and the ways leading us the most surely to it! And while we are on the subject, would it not be opportune to recall to mind once again that, even considering it from the sole point of view of philosophy, the speculation, the speculation proceeding from traditional philosophy does really offer to those apparent antinomies found in the universe, positive solutions which are the most suited to satisfy (man's) intelligence, without pretending, of course, to quench a thirst for a greater light? [...] Your intellectual charity, comparable to that of the good samaritan, seeking as it does to take care of wounded humanity while striving to understand it and speaking its own language, will efficiently contribute to replacing it in the inevitable and saving perspectives of its divine vocation.

And so, greatly delighted at the good news regarding your improving state of health, the Holy Father expresses his wishes that you may have the strength required to bring your important work to a successful conclusion, and most cordially gives you His Apostolic Blessing.

Please accept, dear professor, the respectful assurance of my religious devotion.

Giovanni Battista Montini, Substitute


Acting Secretary, Msgr. Montini



Thus, it was that Blondel's work, "with the exception of a few expressions which theological rigor would have wished to be couched in more precise terms" was approved all together and by someone at the highest level in the Vatican, both disarming and silencing most effectively his critics and detractors, who had been severely reproving him in the name of the constant and unchangeable doctrine of the Church.

To Blondel's opponents (de Tonquedoc, Labourdette, Garrigou-Lagrange, etc..) as though the very foundations of the faith were not at stake but merely a theological dispute on points still debatable, this letter gave the little satisfaction of faint praise to traditional philosophy under the timid form of a question and without excluding the possibility of "a greater light." And what of all those rigorously well-researched critical studies on all of those as well as explicit deviations of Blondel's thought? They were all simply thrown into the wastepaper basket in an unbelievably offhand manner.

There was, however, a "but" in all of this. That letter sent to Blondel certainly constituted a kind of recognition sent in the name of Pius XII, but bearing Montini's signature together with that expression of his "religious devotion."

Actually, the content of his letter is more Montinian than Pacellian. Later on, when Pius XII would personally speak on the "new Theology" and the "new philosophy" underlying it in his address to the Fathers of the Society of Jesus (1946) and then again most solemnly in his encyclical Humani generis (1950) (Cf. Courrier de Rome, no.146 of May, 1993). He expressed a judgement completely opposed to the contents of the above letter and did so in an incomparably more logical manner.

Moreover, concerning Montini's evident dishonesty and obvious breach of faith during all those years spent in the papal secretariat of state, there can be no doubt at all due to the stack of concordant and irrefutable testimony available today coming from sources never known to be hostile to him in any way.


Among those mysteries involving the isolation marking the pontificate of Pius XII, there is the particularly striking case of Montini's hasty dismissal from the Roman Curia. It is known that he was named Archbishop of Milan, but what is very significant is the fact that Pius XII refused to make him a cardinal, although Milan is a cardinalate see. Thus, Pope Pacelli simultaneously removed him from the Secretariat of State and excluded him from the next conclave, making it abundantly clear to his successor, by this tacit refusal of making him a cardinal, that his ousting had been a “promoveatur ut amoveatur” (a promotion-removal) and this for very grave reasons.

Time, however, has begun to lift the veils covering this mystery. In his book, Paul VI Secret, Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI), referring to the uproar raised by the memorable encyclical Humanae vitae, writes of Paul VI, "He is going through a trial similar to the one inflicted on him by Pius XII: the one of diffidentia. In the case of Pius XII, the distrust came from the summit since Pius XII seemed to have lost the trust he had previously placed in him. Paul VI feels that his encyclical Humanae vitae is about to inflict upon him a trial in the reverse order, where the mistrust will be coming no longer from the summit, but from the bottom" (Paul VI Secret p.144).

A Jesuit by the name of Martina, in his book Vatican II - An Appraisal and Prospects, also mentions Pius XII's "distrust" of Montini. On page 29, he refers to "the eviction of Montini, the 'substitute,' who was 'promoted' Archbishop of Milan, (but) never named cardinal, and never even once received by the Pope (with whom he had previously had daily contacts over a period of several years) in private audience."


In his turn, in the book, Pius XII in the Eyes of History, Monsignor Roche, a close collaborator of Cardinal Tisserant, reveals a precise motive for Pope Pius XII's "distrust": Montini, the substitute, flying in the face of the Pope's specific orders and (of course!) without his knowledge, had established secret contacts with Stalin in the course of the Second World War.

Pius XII was later informed of this treachery via the good offices of the protestant Archbishop of Upsala, who had received direct evidence to this effect through the Swedish Secret Service. Later on, in 1954, the Holy Father received a secret report from the Archbishop of Riga who had been imprisoned by the Soviets. This message indeed confirmed that "there had been made in his name (the Pope's) contacts with the persecutors by a highly placed personality in the Secretariat of State."

In the wake of Montini's treachery, Monsignor Roche continues, "his (Pius XII's) grief and bitterness were such that his very health was severely shaken and so he resigned himself to the idea of governing alone the work of external affairs of the Vatican's Secretariat of State" (cf. Courrier de Rome, no.53, October 1984; "The Montini-Stalin agreements of 1942" and Si Si, No No of April 15, 1986, p.5: "An Historical Fact: Msgr. Montini's Treachery").

We can now be quite certain, therefore, that Montini was politically active behind Pius XII's back and these covert activities were favoring the political left in order to achieve those utopian ideals of his youth: "It is possible to collaborate with the left, but not with the right" (see Frappani-Molinari. Montini Giovane [The Young Montini], ed. Marietti).


Pope Paul VI pledged rapid execution of the "holy deliberations" of the council. "A true Christian," he told Protestant observers, "is a stranger to immobility."



It is now unmistakably clear that Montini went behind the back of Pius XII as he set about achieving those philo-modernist and utopian dreams of his youth which had prompted him to associate (and he was the only priest to do so) with Count Gallaratti-Scotti's salon. This was the same Gallaratti-Scotti who represented the essence of modernism in Lombardy and Montini, having become Paul VI, and whose tenth anniversary after death was celebrated in these unmistakable terms by L'Osservatore Romano on July 7, 1976:

"In his (the Count's) last years, a great consolation came to him from the Vatican Council since he felt that all that bitterness of spirit that he had endured in his younger days [coming from all those condemnations of Modernism] had not been suffered in vain; the Church was now well on to its hard and difficult way in which, nevertheless, many things we had been hoping for in the past were now in the process of becoming a living reality."

Now it is Jean Guitton himself who is going to expose Montini, while still Substitute, in the very act of treachery against Pope Pius XII and his encyclical Humani generis. In his book, Paul VI Secret, he faithfully transcribed that very same evening, those notes which he had taken down during a chat with Msgr. Montini concerning the great encyclical against neo-modernism, which had just been published.

To Guitton's expressed fear that Humani generis might be interpreted as an obstacle to the "progress of thought," Montini, still Proto-Secretary of State under Pius XII, answers:

"You have doubtlessly noticed for yourself the shades of meaning to be found in this pontifical text. For example, the encyclical never once refers to errors (errores). It speaks only of opinions (opiniones)[as if errors were not also and precisely opinions!]. This indicates that the Holy See does not aim at condemning actual errors, but rather those ways of thinking, which could give, rise to errors, but which in themselves remain respectable.

On the other hand, there are 3 reasons why this encyclical should not be deformed: first, there is the expressed will of the Holy Father. The second reason is the French episcopate's frame of mind, which is so broad-minded and receptive to contemporary currents of thought.

Without doubt, any given episcopate is always liable (for it is in direct contact with souls, since it must be faithful to its mandate, which is a pastoral charge, as they say) is liable, I say, to broaden the ways of doctrine and the faith [in this sentence is to found, in embryonic form, the entire 'spirit' of Vatican II's pastoral care]. And, admittedly, it would be justified in doing so. Here is Rome; we also have the duty of watching over the doctrinal aspects (of the Faith). We remain particularly sensitive to everything, which could corrupt the purity of (Catholic) doctrine, which is truth. The Sovereign Pontiff must keep the deposit of the Faith, as St. Paul says. And now for the third reason. It will be short; the French are intelligent."


Montini the Substitute's dishonesty proved to be of unequalled gravity. Pius XII, in Humani generis, had condemned the "new theology" in the gravest and most solemn of terms as he had underscored its fatal consequences for the Faith. He had also charged, so as not to be wanting in his "sacred Duty," the bishops and the superiors general of the religious orders, "and binding them most seriously in conscience" to take most seriously "that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or to the faithful." The teachers of Catholic institutes, continued the Pope, "know that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which we have ordained."

And there we have, barely a stone's throwaway from the Pope, in the very bosom of the Secretariat of State, Montini unscrupulously declaring that these errors condemned by Pope Pius XII were, on the contrary, "respectable" opinions. Indeed, he was actually promoting them by confidentially assuring people that such was the "formal will" of Pius XII himself.

Montini claimed that he [Pius XII] had drafted Humani generis alone and in spite of himself. Given the weighty task of authority, he could not allow himself to do otherwise (a typically modernist theory of authority, to which we will presently return), but also claimed that Rome trusted in the French episcopate's "broad-mindedness" which would favor the widening of the "ways of doctrine and of the faith" and - with one last wink - he, Montini, was fully aware that the French were "intelligent," and... a word to the wise is enough! And so, thus it was that as Pius XII slammed the doors to neo-modernism, Montini, his Substitute in the Secretariat of State, was busy opening them again behind his back.

Yet, once again betrayal was standing at Pius XII's door. G. Martina S.J .in his previously quoted work, Vatican II-An Appraisal and Prospects, (pp. 56-57) after having drawn our attention to the interpretation of Humani generis as proposed by the Substitute Montini to his close friend Jean Guitton, continues, "But [Montini's] effort to dilute the purpose and aim of that solemn pontifical document was not to succeed thanks to Pius XII, who went straightaway to the editor of Civilta Cattolica to protest against the underhanded efforts being used to minimize his encyclical, which did not simply constitute a grave and solemn warning, and who also deplored and complained of the shocking carelessness of those agents and members representing the Society of Jesus to whom he had turned in 1946, exhorting them to faithfully follow his Pontifical orders."

Disciplinary measures were immediately taken against de Lubac and his "gang" by the Society, as well as against Montini by Pius XII, who promoted him to Archbishop of Milan, but who never named him Cardinal; neither did he ever wish to receive him in private audience thereafter.


Things being as they were, and coming back to the letter "of Pius XII" to Blondel, we can hardly be surprised to learn one day that Pius XII, who had never even signed it, knew practically nothing about it and what he did learn, he learned only bit by bit, and badly at that. Montini, who was acting as if he were the Pope without being so, put the supreme authority of Peter's successors at the service of the "new theology." And from that very moment, the effects of that betrayal have proven to be extremely disastrous.

On July 8, 1945, La Documentation Catholique published a letter carrying the signature of the Substitute Montini and under the title of "the Pope's letter to Blondel," together with a highly flattering account of Blondel's "main works and doctrine." This statement (falsely attributed to Pope Pius XII!) deplored those "two erroneous exclusivisms: rationalism and... Catholic theology which for opposite reasons had shown "ostracism" and "incomprehension" towards Blondel's new "Christian philosophy" which on the contrary - the article triumphantly concluded - has been completely ratified by this statement of His Holiness Pope Pius XII which we are pleased to publish at this time."

Shortly after this, Bruno de Solages, Rector of the Catholic Institute of Toulouse and a friend of de Lubac, entering the fray in Blondel's defense, confronted Father Garrigou-Lagrange with the argument of...authority: that is, the letter "sent by Pius XII via Monsignor Montini" "significantly praising" Blondel's works (cf. A. Russo, Henri de Lubac...p.347). Then, in 1946, Gerard Phillips, writing in Erasmus (pp. 202-205) used this same letter in defending the naturalized supernatural of de Lubac: "If Fr. de Lubac has resolutely refuted the possibility of pure nature, he is not any more blameworthy than the Augustinian authors whom the Holy See, on more than one occasion, has seen to protect, just as it has recently done in favor of Maurice Blondel" (quoted by H. de Lubac in Memoria Intorno Alla Mia Opera [Memoirs concerning My Works] Jaca Book, p.68).

In Italy, Monsignor Natale Bussi, whom Mgsr Rossano later unmasked as being a philo-modernist (cf. Courrier de Rome no.134, April 1992), in the Italian translation of Falcon's apologetics (ed. Paoline 1951), annihilated the strict as well as rigorous refutations of Blondel's errors by the following asterisk added to note 1 on page 39:

"Obviously, we are not able to fathom Blondel's ideas by the use of those developments which L. Laberthoniere (condemned by the Holy Office) has brought to the principle of immanence although Blondel, in the last few years, received assurances from the highest (Vatican) authorities regarding the orthodoxy of his doctrine. These assurances were given in a letter dated December 2, 1944 coming from the Secretariat of State (of the Vatican), a letter expressing, however, one single remark concerning several of Blondel's own expressions which theological rigor would have wished to be stated in more precise terms."


In short, "Pius XII's" letter, carrying Montini's signature, constituted an early type of testing-ground for the post-conciliar disasters: the "new theology" would be in a position to sweep away all resistance and impose itself on the Catholic world only on the support, even if ever so "discreet," of the Catholic Church's supreme authority. It was afforded this opportunity with Montini's accession to the Chair of St. Peter.

Ever since his exile to Milan, the archbishop of Milan (Montini) never ceased stirring up the "new theologians" against Pius XII and his encyclical Humani generis (against neo-modernism), and finally, under Pope John XXIII, he was able to favor them even more, given the influence he had over Roncalli (Pope John XXIII). In his work, Henri de Lubac - Sin Organisches Lebenswerk, Urs von Balthasar bears witness to this fact in the following terms:

"In 1946,Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange launched a full-scale attack against de Lubac and his friends as well as their "new theology" and Pope Pius XII, now really annoyed, joined in the fray with the L'Osservatore Romano publishing his speeches. Jannsens, the Father General, showed himself loyal to de Lubac, but as the attacks coming from all quarters and from all countries intensified, the more his behavior took on a diplomatic hue. They even went so far as to scrutinize that which could possibly appear suspect in other works. With the advent of Humani generis, papal thunderbolts came crashing down upon the Lyons Scholasticate and de Lubac was singled out as the chief scapegoat... his books, henceforth defamed, were taken off the shelves of the libraries of Society of Jesus and withdrawn from bookstores..."

Then, little by little - according to von Balthasar - the climate began to clear up in favor of the neo-modernists: "From Archbishop Montini came words of support and encouragement. It was he who later on, having become Pope Paul VI, insisted that de Lubac speak on Teilhard de Chardin at the close of the Thomistic Congress in the great chancery Hall... To the point of John XXIII's naming de Lubac as consultor in the drafting plans for the Commission on Theology together with Fr. Congar."

Having been made Cardinal by John XXIII who thus paved the way to the Pontifical Throne in spite of Pope Pius XII's efforts to deny him this possibility, Montini was finally elected Pope Paul VI and immediately set out to put all the strength of his newly-acquired authority - and what authority! - at the service of the "new theology.”


Enthroned as Paul VI, Montini began to open wide the conciliar doors to the "new theologians" to a much greater extent than he had previously succeeded in doing through his influence over John XXIII.

"Many well known theologians [some still under suspicion by the Holy Office and some having already been condemned] absent at the beginning (of Vatican II) began to gradually join the circles of experts (periti), thanks to Paul VI's discreet influence as he showed them his favor and received them in private audiences, concelebrated with them and praised them for their close collaboration" (R. Latourelle S.J., Vatican II – An Appraisal and Prospects, ed. Citadelle-Assise, a joint project carried out three university institutes of the Society of Jesus in Rome together with the participation of the Paul VI Institute of Brescia).

Paul VI exerted the same "discreet influence" on the Council Fathers who not knowing what was actually happening and putting all their trust in "Peter" were gradually being brought around to the point of accepting and ratifying that very same "new theology" which Pius XII had already condemned in Humani generis.

Recalling to mind that which the Jesuit Henrici (recently named bishop!) wrote: "As for the 'aggiornamento' [aggiornamento: an updating, especially with regard to the policy of modernizing Roman Catholic institutions, one of the goals of the Second Vatican Council, 1962- 1965], the Council Fathers had to depend (they could not do otherwise) on the work previously done by the theologians before the Council...To those texts approved by the Council, the Council fathers gave, so to speak, a kind of ecclesiastical authentication. If those texts seemed strangely new, it was only because the work of the (new) theologians as well as the state of Catholic theology at the end of the 1950's were, to a great extent, unknown to those who were strangers to these new texts and ideas (and many council Fathers could be found in this group). Another reason why these texts seemed new was the fact that now a part of the results of this work, which until quite recently had been (strongly) censured (by the Church), was henceforth considered as being orthodox" (Communio, Nov.- Dec. 1990).

The "prudence" shown by Paul VI who, as Msgr. A. Bugnini testifies, only wished to avoid foreseeable as well as undesirable reactions (cf. A. Bugnini La Reforme Liturgique, pp. 297-299), served to bolster the legend of his being a hesitant or indecisive Pope, but the facts are there, proving that Paul VI knew what he wanted. He acted with "discretion," indeed, but also with a still greater obstinacy: "With a stubborn and methodical firmness which gives the lie to an equally stubborn legend, he [Paul VI] steers the barque," de Lubac wrote with admiration in 1963. (Memoirs Concerning My Works, Jaca Book, p. 420).

Among some of the greatest of de Lubac's opponents stood the Rector of the Gregorian University (in Rome), Father Charles Boyer, whom we have already quoted. In the following lines, de Lubac himself reveals with just what "discretion" and "firmness" Paul VI humiliated and forced this highly-skilled and well-known theologian to surrender in humiliation while at one fell swoop, he rehabilitated without any form of reason other than his own (papal) authority, those two representatives of neo-modernism, de Lubac and Teilhard de Chardin, whose works had been previously condemned by a monitum [a solemn warning] from the Holy Office:

"In Teilhard Posthume," de Lubac writes, "I referred to a conference that I was asked to make on him in Rome in 1963. The invitation had been extended to me by Fr. Charles Boyer, Prefect at the Gregorian. I have just come across his letter. When we realize that Fr. Boyer was formerly Teilhard's greatest adversary in Rome (and just as much mine!), this letter takes on its full meaning. (See letter below)



The Roman Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas and of the Catholic Religion

Rome. June 10, 1963

Reverend Father,
Pax Christi. You must have already received the notice concerning the sixth International Thomistic Congress. I well understand that your various occupations have prevented your taking any interest in it. But here is the reason that I venture to bring it to your notice once again.
Having been received by the Holy Father [Paul VI] in the last few days, I have had the opportunity to see for myself the high esteem he has for yourself and for your writings. At the same time, he expressed, albeit with certain reservations, an opinion on Fr. Teilhard (de Chardin), which would not have displeased you. Further considerations on this matter have led me to think that, at this Congress, we should hear an exposition casting a favorable light on Teilhard de Chardin's thought on our theme ("de Deo"). No one could do this better than yourself.
I beg you, therefore, to simply participate in our congress which will take place just prior to the opening of the fourth session of the Council: from the 6th to the 11th of September. (If you prefer), you could come for the last days (of the congress), and if too pressed for time, you could merely read a paper on the subject..."
(Henri de Lubac. Memoirs Concerning My Works, p. 451).


Henri de Lubac


Thus, it was that de Lubac, thanks to Paul VI's will of iron and at the invitation of one of his (former) most courageous adversaries was able to exalt Teilhard de Chardin S.J. in the stately hall of the Chancery at the end of the...Thomistic congress! Nothing could have served better to highlight the veritable triumph of the "new philosophy" and the "new theology" over "traditional philosophy" and Catholic theology! Henceforth, the road to "scepticism, fancy and heresy" was opened.

It was with that same "stubborn and methodical firmness" that Paul VI bent to his will, discouraged and crushed (as in

One of Trent's chief products was a series of anathemas on Protestant errors. "Enough of condemnations!" said Pope John before the first session:...

the case of Archbishop Lefebvre) all other resistance and, what is even worse, placed the Vatican's key posts in the hands of the "innovators" in view of strengthening, in the future, their grip upon the Church by a whole series of reforms including those relative to the election of the Roman Pontiff.

In the presence of all these disasters mounting about him, Paul VI also seems to have gone through his own personal crisis, but again, in his case, as it was for de Lubac and the "new theologians" it was not to result in his conversion, but rather in a vain attempt to deny his responsibility for the part he willingly played in the rising tide of so much ruin and destruction, the blame for which he sought to shift upon the "abusive" innovators.

However, we will discuss the point in more detail later on. For the moment, it will be sufficient to recall by way of demonstration of the aforementioned tragedy, that in 1976, that is, two years after the ringing warnings concerning the Church's "self-destruction" and "the smoke of Satan" in the Temple of God, and two years before his own death (1978), Paul VI wrote the following lines to de Lubac on the occasion of the latter's 80th birthday: "You have, dear son, built a monument more lasting than bronze for the admiration and utility of the enquiring minds of researchers."

How true it is that the modernist perversion of the intellect robs us of our last hope of repentance!

Hirpinus (to be continued)

Translated from Courrier de Rome, July/ August 1993

For full Si Si No No series: "They Think They Have Won", go to:


Daily Blog - 2016 Catholic News