By Louis Hubert Remy
Translated into English by Heidi Hagen for
“The Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes” - No. 55 - December 1987
Westcliffe, Colorado, U.S.A. - Page 3
Original text in French published in the
bulletin SOUS LA BANNIERE No.06 JUILLET-AOUT 1986
Editions Sainte Jeanne d'Arc
Director: Mr. A.M. Bonnet de Viller
“Les Guillots”
Villegenon
F -18260 Vailly-sur-Sauldre
France
Article 1: The Pope: Could He Be Cardinal Siri?
In one of his writings, Prince Scortesco, German cousin of Prince Borghese, President of the Conclave which elected Montini to the Supreme Pontificate, gives the following information concerning the Conclave of 21 June 1963: “During the Conclave, a Cardinal left the Sistine Chapel, met with the representatives of B’nai - B’rith, announced to them the election of Cardinal Siri. They replied by saying that the persecutions against the Church would continue at once. Returning to the Conclave, he made Montini to be elected.”
When paying a visit to Monsieur de la Franquerie, in November 1984, with my friend François Dallais, we spoke again of this grave problem. Monsieur de La Franquerie, in 1963, was in permanent contact with numerous Roman prelates, and he confirmed to us that he had heard of this confidentially by persons who could he trusted to be well aware of these facts.
We decided, in order to relieve our conscience, to see Cardinal Siri in Genoa. As Monsieur de la Franquerie has had the opportunity of seeing him in the past and having had pleasant conversations with him, he wrote to him in order to ask for an audience; which the Cardinal granted to us on Friday following Ascension, 1985.
In this way on 17 May 1985, we met together at my home in Lyon, Monsieur de la Franquerie, and François Dallais. The evening was marvelous. I admit that I am sensitive to the charm of the very old France of our dear Marquis, and we occupied, until a very advanced hour of the night, unforgettable moments by listening to his souvenirs of a fecund and well-filled life. In his souvenirs of Monseigneur [Paul] Jouin, the Marechal Petain or of Pius XII, Monsieur de la Franquerie is unquenchable and passionate.
The following day we left early to Genoa where the Cardinal was expecting us towards ten hours and granted us an audience of two hours. We were received with much attention in the wonderful episcopal palace of Genoa. The Cardinal speaks French very well, was cordial, attentive, and of a courtesy proper to people, who are great by their function, but still greater by their heart. A dialogue took place between these two respectable persons in a diplomatic language which I did not know and which is of a charm and delicacy resulting from the education of hundreds of years, and unfortunately no longer exists today.
They spoke of several problems of today and the past, which need not be recalled here. Of concern to us, as arranged the evening before, was to speak, first of all, about Cardinal Tisserant’s leaving the conclave. When we recalled this fact, the reaction of Cardinal Siri was clear, precise, firm, and unquestionable: “No, no one has left the Conclave.” He could only give witness of what he had seen and not of what might have happened, while he was asleep, or behind his back. But what retained our attention was this firmness, this categorical NO of the Cardinal.
Some moments later, when we asked him whether he had been elected pope, his reaction was completely different. He started by remaining silent for a long time, then raised his eyes to heaven with a rictus of suffering and pain, joined his hands and said, weighing each word with gravity: “I am bound by the secret.” Then, after a long silence, heavy for us all, he said again: “I am bound by the secret. This secret is horrible. I would have books to write about the different conclaves. Very serious things have taken place. But I can say nothing.”
Let’s think about it. If he had not been elected pope, he would have said so with as much promptness and firmness as he had replied to the preceding question. As he had been elected, he could not say so, as he was bound by the secret, and as he could not lie, he took refuge behind this secret.
In fact, it appears that someone among my trustworthy friends who knows him very well has assured me that the Cardinal had told him that he had been elected pope twice: instead of Paul VI and instead of Wojtyla. The first time he had refused, the second time he had been obliged to refuse under the pressure of schism!
We were three witnesses who have left very perturbed and practically convinced of his election.
And now there are serious questions being raised. Has he resigned? Has he been forced to resign? What about these elections? What heavy secrets are weighing upon him?
During the last Synod, he remained some hours and then left. In spite of his advanced age and the fact that he exceeded 75 years, he has not given his resignation and he has not been asked to do so [as of this publication in July 1986].
What now? The last Cardinal nominated by Pius XII, we leave to the historians and theologians the care to study this question thoroughly and to reply to it. We simply leave this grave witness.
Article 2: In "The Election of the Roman Pontiff" Siri speaks of external forces trying to influence the conclave.
THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
(L'Elezione del Romano Pontefice)
By: Joseph Cardinal Siri
originally published in RENOVATIO VII (1972), inst. 2, pp. 155-156
From “Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia”
Many, too many, have spoken apropos, and, more than ever, out of turn about the future election of the Roman pontiff, that is, about the law regulating the conclave. It is evident that they have been attempting to wield a pressure, that is absolutely improper, toward the adoption of new and very arguable criteria in the papal election. The issue is extremely serious, and so our magazine feels that it must discuss it.
Whoever wishes to put forward the issue of conclave reform must know that this lies only with the supreme authority of the Church, and that any possible interlocutors, when proposing reforms, must thus take this principle into account.
Let us review the central theological aspect. The first Vatican Council, in the canon, which follows chapter two of the bull Pastor Aeternus, so recites: «Si quis ergo dixerit non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu jure divino ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores, aut romanum pontificem non esse beati Petn in eodem primatu successorem, anathema sit» (D.S. 3058 ) (If, then, anyone shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in the same primacy; let him be anathema.) ( D.S. 3058) This means that the succession of Peter is the prerogative of the bishop of Rome. If the succession is the prerogative of the bishop of Rome, and not to another, this signifies the absolute bond between the Roman episcopate and the Petrine succession. It must logically and necessarily be inferred that the Pope is such because he is the bishop of Rome. This causal bond between the Roman episcopate and the Petrine succession becomes clearer if one reads the entire second chapter of the cited constitution (D.S. 3057); it becomes very clear when the whole tradition, especially the primitive tradition, that which benefits with immediacy and certainty of the provisions taken by the prince of the apostles, is observed. In fact Clement (first century) intervenes strongly in the Church of Corinth, with a lengthy and solemn letter, whilst the apostle John is still living and geographically nearer, in the name of the Roman Church. It is evident that he intends to infer from his Episcopal see the power to look after the far-off Church of Corinth, upon which he could only intervene as a universal pastor, being Corinth well out of the Roman diction. The two great witnesses of the very early age, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaes, in the well-known texts, use the same language as Clement.
That said, it is hard to grasp how one could theologically sustain a separateness of the supremacy in the Church from the Roman Episcopal see, or reasonably deny that the Roman see be itself the legal title of the succession to Peter.
Having clarified the fundamental theological aspect, it is not at all pointless to consider the logic that Christ has placed inside His Church. There is a primate; there are bishops successors of the apostles who are such by divine right within the framework of the catholicity of the college and of the right of the primate. Constitutive cells of the Church are the individual local churches, led by a successor of the apostles. All of the faithful belong to the Church, but the immediate reason for her unity and catholicity lies in the particular churches under Peter. The error, made by many, that has been clearly witnessed in the recent and not always orthodox diatribes on the «Lex Fundamentalis,» is precisely that of assimilating the Divine Constitution of the Church to any state political constitution. The first is absolutely unique and inimitable, like other things within the Church. It therefore appears clear why Christ entrusted the primate to Peter, and why the latter exercised it and bequeathed to his successors, as bishop of a designated cell of the Church, the diocese of Rome.
That placed, no idea of democratic or federalist constitution can surface when the issue of the election of the Roman pontiff is posed theologically and legally. It is the Roman Church that must elect her bishop.
One cannot leave out the practical aspect of the issue, an aspect that by its nature belongs to history.
The law of the conclave, brought about by Nicholas II in 1059, put an end, by reserving the election right solely to cardinals, an agony, at times humiliating, of a thousand years. Be it noted that the cardinals, as such, belong to the Roman Church and to her only, as her suburbicarian bishops, priests, and deacons. The theological reason, in the necessary and inevitable reform of Nicholas II, was perfectly adhered to.
The law of the conclave rests on two hinges: the exclusive right of the Sacred College, and the “clausura” (segregation). The latter was not put forward immediately: it came at a later time to fulfill evident situations and grave necessities. The two hinges sustain one another. It is obvious that an election entrusted to too wide an electoral body, would, humanely speaking, prove more difficult and easily influenced, and thus with a lesser guarantee of reasonableness and correspondence to the supreme interests of the Church. Only with a body of men, accurately selected, is it possible that in the ballot prevail, as humanly possible, the criterion of the true good. The segregation of the conclave is yet more necessary; with modern means, with modern technology, without an absolute segregation it would not be possible to save an election from the pressure of external powers. Today the superpowers (and the lesser ones alike) have too great an interest in having on their side, through condescendence or weakness, the highest moral authority in the world. And they would do all that they are so very good at doing. The pressures to overturn the substance of the law of the conclave could be driven by the will to obtain precisely this result.
Fair Use Notice:
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Article 3: In "The Rock" (1967), "Siri" makes veiled references to a Papacy in Eclipse
THE ROCK
(LA ROCCIA)
By: Joseph Cardinal Siri
From “Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia”
Page 6 in Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia
and originally published in RENOVATIO II (1967), fasc. 2, pp. 183-184
In The Gospel of Matthew (16,18) the “roccia” (rock), is not only a person, but also an “istituzione” (institution).
The Church founded by Christ on that “roccia” (rock) – Peter, appears clearly (in the aforementioned cited Gospel) acquiring solidity, stability, indefectibility.
The bond between the firmness of the “rock” – Peter – and the firmness of the Church appears totally beyond discussion, that one cannot make any undue inference, qualifying that same Church like “roccia” (the rock).
Here we speak of that rock. As Christ wants it.
That placed, there are many important considerations to be made.
The Church provides security because it is the “roccia” (rock), not thick, and not sand. It deals with a significance that goes beyond the material sense of the metaphor: in fact the rocks of the earth crumble in time, due to the effects of the elements. This “roccia” (rock) will never crumble, nor flake, given that its solidity is guaranteed in the text of Matthew until the end of time. The “rock” remains and no one will scratch it, implicated as she is in a divine undertaking. But on occasion some men may take from others the vision of the rock. Other things may be made to seem like the rock, other things that may appear to all as such. The distinction is a profound one, even if the errors of these men are capable of veiling the reality (truth), they cannot destroy it. The question, easy for all, that presents itself is one of the visibility of the rock. If then situations should occur, that took from certain men the visibility of the “roccia” (rock) in the Church, the consequences would be grave. Those that convert to the Church, convert because they are convinced that they have found the “roccia” (rock), not doubt, hesitation, contradiction or doctrinal anarchy. One converts when one knows that ones hope is not futile. Taking away the visibility of the “roccia” (rock): what happens?
It is necessary that the “roccia” (rock) remains visible in her unity and her invulnerability.
Maybe it is best that we emerge from the metaphor for a moment. Here are the elements from which the Church can be in her significance, full and pure, considered the “roccia” (rock).She has for her head and divine guarantor Jesus Christ. He has assigned to her the four distinctive marks mentioned in the Nicene Creed
It (the Church) has legitimate and secure sacramental efficacy.
It has ability to reconcile, a distinction that cannot be disregarded (or omitted) between the truth acquired with certainty and hypothesis, opinion, the always free search. In total because in her (the Church) operates an Infallible Magisterium.
The infallible Magisterium is tied to the hierarchical structure of the Church. It is for this reason that he who does not see the hierarchy, does not see the “roccia” (rock). He loses and does not acquire easily the security.
Fair Use Notice:
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Article 4: In "The Hour of Peter," Siri speaks of True and False Theologians, Drugs & Hallucinogens
THE HOUR OF PETER
(L'Ora di Pietro)
By: Joseph Cardinal Siri
From “Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia”
Page 33 in Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia
and originally published in RENOVATIO V (1970), fasc. 3, pp. 325-326
How many write of religion and of Christianity, and automatically label themselves as theologians. Yet rarely do they deserve this title, because theology is not based solely upon a degree or on instruction, but rather upon a crystal clear, coherent, and consistent method, faithful to the thinking of the Church and living within the Church.
It is this precise and binding connection with the Church that determines the quality of the theologian.
An errant rabble takes us towards the darkness. We do not say that they are all decadent or ignorant. They probably are not always in bad faith, but it is certain that they carry us all towards the darkness, certainly not towards the light. They have obscured God and amongst them are many that labor to show us the substitute for God.
They have- not the true theologians- but rather the others, obscured and darkened the Church. They presently believe that when humanity refuses that which is real they will substitute in its place an idealized and elusive image. The divine - exactly this superior form of humanity, living in a time like the present and yet to be fulfilled. This community no longer admits of authority, if it does not come from the mind of this superior (super) man and what ultimately serves him. One no longer speaks of truth; one accepts as valuable only the single activity of Marx: one no longer speaks of orthodoxy but rather of a rising practice. Why marvel then that some openly deny that the MAGISTERIUM extends also to the truth of ordinary morality? These are the errors of children, not those of thinkers (Philosophers)! To be such, one must, say little other than what is required is a category grander and more elevated, it is required to arrive at a global vision of the Church that is intended not as the Kingdom of God, but rather only as the automatic conscience of a human being in whom God is present only in so far as man has an infinite dimension. The becoming of history is the becoming of God!
Church, Magisterium, Pope, Hierarchy, Moral Tradition, celibacy all condemned to the bonfires. And even if someone fails to admit it, or does not comprehend the logic of what he says, he will be obliged to admit that in the heart of this bonfire is GOD. Now one understands why the ideals of man burn all, in this great bonfire, always in favor of superior truths, that are substituted with drugs and hallucinogens.
This fact is striking. The disorder is at such a point that a representative of “the new theology” holds that every thought is orthodox, if it is considered within its own values. Over there are the good and faithful people that hope to be able to nourish their faith with clarity and simplicity. They know what it is to suffer and because of this to hope. They feel the fruits of hatred and because of this ask only to love: they must go to polluted sources. These polluted sources are dissipated reservoirs.
Enough of these preachers. It is the Magisterium that we must turn to now and the theologians cannot consider themselves as genuine fonts; unless they submit to it, translate it and safeguard it. It is certain that good theologians exist. God increase the strength of their voice in the splendor of their obedience.
But, where is the Magisterium, where is it totally certain? The Church can without doubt teach infallibly but it can do so only if it is with Peter!
It is therefore necessary to return to the center, the alternative to this is the demolition of all, including man. Then? This is the hour of Peter!
Fair Use Notice:
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
