The persistence of the maximum exponent of today's ecclesial magisterium in criticizing—sometimes mockingly—those who are sure of the identity of the faith and joyfully affirm themselves in it, grateful to God for being rooted in the great Tradition of the Church, is a cause of astonishment, bewilderment, and concern for many of the faithful. These faithful Christians are reviled as rigorous Pharisees. The unusual position of the Holy See at this time contradicts the teaching of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who so loved and glorified the splendor of truth (veritatis splendor). The relativistic moralism currently professed by Rome sinks the reality of faith and its ethical and spiritual consequences into the Kantian realm of practical Reason.
Worse still: the "new paradigms" proposed by the current pontificate submit to the dictates of a New World Order, managed by Freemasonry and financed by the international imperialism of money. It has long been known that the Vatican is a hive of Freemasons, who help each other to climb to the most influential positions, according to the secret pacts that have characterized the sect from its origins, pacts that have been repeatedly denounced by the pontiffs who warned about the danger this long-time enemy of Holy Church implies for the social order based on natural law, and for the support and development of the faith in the life of the peoples. I am aware of the truth and accuracy of what I have just written, so I do not fear that my freedom will be curtailed by measures that no one will dare to take.
Errors and heresies can be initiated and widely propagated in the face of the complicit silence of those who should, as has been done since apostolic times, condemn them. The testimony of the New Testament is eloquent: "It is fitting that there should be heresies, so that it may be made manifest who are faithful" (1 Cor 11:19: hina kai hoi dokimoi phaneroi genōntai). The German synod, in the face of Rome's silence, plainly distinguishes within that Germanic people the true believers from those trapped by errors, which should make Martin Luther smile (wherever he is). In the same letter we quoted, the Apostle Paul reminds the faithful of the Gospel he preached to them, the one they received, in which we stand firm (estēkate: 1 Cor 15:1), by which they are saved, if they stand firm (ei katechete: 1 Cor 15:2), because otherwise they have believed in vain (ektos ei mē eikē episteusate). The fundamental thing, Paul reminds them, is what he has delivered to them. It is scandalous that Rome disqualifies tradition. St. Peter, in his Second Letter, notes to his readers—and to us!—that his purpose is to secure them, to make them more steadfast (estērigmenous, 2 Pet 1:12); he warns them against the lying teachers (pseudodididáskaloi) who are introduced into the Church, as were the false prophets among the people of Israel; by them the way of truth is blasphemed (2 Pet 2:2).
The pastoral epistles of the Apostle Paul describe a situation that has occurred periodically in the history of the Church: "perilous times" (kairoi chalepoi, 2 Tim. 3:1) are precipitated by the introduction of errors that weaken the faith and the security of the faithful with respect to the tradition on which they rely. That is why he encourages his disciples and co-workers to resist. Many times I have quoted the passage of 2 Tim. 4, 1ff.: the pastors of the Church must tirelessly preach the truth, they must argue and rebuke (epitimēson: 2 Tim. 4, 2). The problem was, and is, false teachers who flatter ears, seeking "relevance," seeking to relocate themselves in the wider world, indulging in myths, abandoning the truth (apo men tēs alētheias...epi de tous mythous, ib 4, 4). Similar to these texts are many other biblical passages in which the exact opposite of the orientation of the present pontificate is expressed. The contrast appears in the simple comparison.
I have pointed out one cause in the predominance of moralism, which strips the doctrine of faith of the dynamism that directs it toward its mystical dimension. Faith is contemplative; its application to action depends on that fecund and sure repose in truth which is its object: it is theoria rather than praxis; and the latter knows what to do, in every circumstance, because it is illuminated by that higher light which allows us to discern with wisdom. Moralism is necessarily pragmatic and relativistic. The criticism I direct at the current that is nowadays official includes the observation that the doctrine of the faith is no longer preached in its entirety. St. John Paul II has left us in the Catechism of the Catholic Church an updated synthesis of what we must believe and spread today. In this corpus that embraces dogma, morals, and spirituality is found the identity of Catholicism, in which we Christians in this "dangerous time" can assure ourselves, directing the gaze of our spirit to the Lord who is with us "every day" (pasas tas hēmeras, Mt. 28:20).
It seems unbelievable—but it is a painful reality—that, after more than half a century, those words of Paul VI are still true: "Through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the House of God." The seductive "spirit of the Council," against which Jacques Maritain reacted so wisely in The Peasant of Garonne, appears again, this time from the Vatican Hill itself! The pontifical speeches expressly elude the truths that should be remembered with clarity, magnanimity, and patience, and dwell exclusively on those "new paradigms" that strike in vain those who are truly faithful, who try to live faithfully what they have received. The Christian is someone who has received what he believes and who, thanks to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, tries to order his life as a new man according to the example of Christ.
It should not surprise us that the sacraments have no place in the pastoral programs encouraged by "synodality." Sacramentum translates the Greek mysterion; relativistic pragmatic moralism is incapable of perceiving the mysteries of faith, and spontaneously tends to discard the supernatural dimension in the pastoral care of the sacraments, which assures the gift of grace offered to all: liberation from sin and expansion of the new life of participation in the divine nature. We are partakers of the divine nature, theias koinōnoi physeōs (2 Pet. 1:4). What constitutes the life of a Christian is to remain in what he has received, in the "old commandment," which St. John says in his First Letter, the entolēn palaiàn (1 Jn 2:7), i.e., the reception of the light that drives away the darkness: hē skotia paragetai (1 Jn 2:8).
A historical fact that allows us to appreciate how far the "danger" of this dark time extends has been the silence, or perhaps the repudiation, that has greeted the respectful presentation of dubia about the scope of the semi-disguised innovation in the Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the work namely of four eminent cardinals, Burke, Cafarra, Brandmüller, and Meisner. The question of the possibility of admitting to the sacraments divorced persons who have entered into a new union was a trial balloon of a relativist moralism for which there are no longer any intrinsically evil acts. It is a swindle against the same possible beneficiaries of that permission, with the purpose of tracing an alternative path to the one indicated by Tradition; it is an equivocation that cannot be considered a gesture of mercy.
Justice—justification by grace—is true mercy. The objectivity with which Eucharistic praxis is inscribed in the Christian life is no less important than the mere subjective desire to receive communion; in this order, Catholic Tradition, with the recognition of sound theology, is faithful to the origins that appear unequivocally in the New Testament. The security provided by embracing the truth known and loved in no way implies contempt for those who hesitate or have already been won over by relativism; on the contrary, it expresses the fraternal concern to make them participate in the joy offered by the integrity of the faith, humbly received as an undeserved gift.
The uneasiness provoked by the current position of the magisterium is aggravated when considering the system of promotions to the episcopate and to the cardinalatial dignity, because of their quantity and orientation. Indeed, what sense does it make for a diocese that lacks vocations and has an insufficient number of priests to meet pastoral needs to have two auxiliary bishops? I am referring to what is happening in Argentina, although the same attitude can be verified in other countries. It is not a sin of suspicion to think that there is an express purpose here to re-form the Church, and to spread the moralistic and relativistic criterion that, as I have already said, has become an official policy.
I would like to free myself from such concern and to be mistaken in the judgment I make of the orientation imposed from Rome. Like many others throughout the world who share this concern of mine, I can only rely on the trust and love of Christ, Lord and Spouse of the Church, and on the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, whom I invoke from my heart. I do not wish to fall into a pretentiousness of "being right" in my criticisms, even though the statements and the facts outlined above are a source of bitter pain for me, which prompt me to ponder and to judge.
May the Lord have mercy on us, and alleviate the duration of this "dangerous time" in which we live! I insist on what I observed at the beginning: astonishment, bewilderment, concern: what other feelings could be aroused by the strange spectacle of true Catholics being beat up while heretics are caressed? Our simple country people would say: "cosa 'e mandinga" ("devil's work"); the "smoke of Satan that has entered through a crack into the House of God," as a disenchanted Paul VI confessed.
Archbishop Hector Aguer
Buenos Aires
May 3, 2022
