By Luca Fumagalli and Piergiorgio Seveso
In our small “sedevacantist” world – but, in some ways, the discourse could apply to the entire “traditionalist” galaxy – we come across figures that we could define, in their own way, antithetical and complementary.
The first group includes those who experience the current crisis of the Church as a fact of close relevance, linked more to the news than to history. They are often the children of the ” Bergoglian shock”. They comment with passion and legitimate indignation on Francis’ latest exit, certainly somehow they know that the crisis of the Church has now almost reached retirement age; sixty years and more, but they are continually and emotionally affected by contemporaneity: the excesses of certain parishes, the moral unrest in the modernist clergy, the alignment of the “Vatican” with the most progressive, globalist, philanthropic or “leftist” positions.
They are the ones most at risk for a short-range historical memory: “Ratzinger was certainly better, Wojtyla was against communism and against abortion, Montini wore the tiara and John XXIII even the camauro”. The near past risks being immediately idealized by them, sweetened, stuffed or selected downwards. And it takes a lot of counterculture and counter-history of the Church to straighten out some odd ideas, some crippled benevolent reconstruction that risks transforming the “executioners of Catholicism” into moderate “damage limiters”.
In others, more accustomed to the Good press and the reading of “our books”, a clearer, albeit brief, idea of the subversion that occurred with the “Second Vatican Council” is formed. If the vision of what happened it is clear enough in them, the “how” is often bowed down by hyper-conspiracional or crudely cryptopolemological theories. They range from a single and vast Jewish-Masonic conspiracy (on the basis, of course, of meritorious and fundamental texts such as those, for example, by Maurice Pinay or Leon de Poncins, but perhaps also of less adamantine things such as the Pecorelli list, down to abstruse numerologies of some old and grotesque Italian magazine), instead of more paroxysmal and extreme visions ranging from the occult papacy of Siri to Paul VI kidnapped by mysterious forces and replaced by a double (like the “deceased” Paul McCartney after all) up to get to the contemporary Minutellian eccentricities.
It is typical of an underground and de facto “clandestine” culture such as that of contemporary Roman Catholicism to elaborate (also) historical theories which, although starting from factual data (for example the lack of authority), insert doubtful, unproven elements, visionary (or worse “apparitionist”) and fantastic in the reconstruction of the facts. It is an inevitable, containable, correctable, but still inevitable aspect.
These figures having a simplest and “after-working” view of the history of the Church are coupled and contrasted with those of the “historians”.
Obviously minoritarian, because a (serious) study requires a vast availability of time and a (at least partial) freedom from servile occupations, the “historians” strive, in a more thoughtful and articulated way, to escape the pitfalls of a sectorial or partial view of the crisis of the Church, going to analyze the historical genesis of the modernist crisis and its development “under trace” in the twentieth century, but essentially going backwards, to Jansenism and the regalism of the European courts, to Protestantism and even higher to the heterodox currents of the Era of the “Renaissance” up to the ancient medieval heresies or even before the Christian heresies of the first centuries of the Christian era.
Therefore serious studies were not lacking, from Henri Delassus to Julio Meinvielle, from Umberto Benigni to Ennio Innocenti: they are texts that in a certain sense distinguish the library of an integral Catholic, but in a piece like this, we deal more with the frame than with the picture (like it is said, a good frame is worth half the picture).
Often the temptation of these scholars, remained standing in the midst of the ruins of Roman Catholicism, sometimes plagued, lightly dazed and covered with dust and rubble, is to start writing the “Restoration notebooks”. As in those american television series dedicated to the “insolved cases” or the profiling of serial killers, they start to trace, on an endless series of plastic whiteboards, a very dense network of contacts, historical, ideological, theological which gradually ends up cover entire walls. That is why we have come so far, exclaim the scholars, that time the Inquisition did not do its duty, that other time the bishop or the unsuspecting prince or accomplice protected that heretic, that conventicle,, that other congregation.
Gradually the type of integralist scholar finds the most hidden heretic in the folds of history, finds conniving, comparables, substitutes and panders: in him mounts too a kind of retrospective inquisitorial spirit, which sometimes – this is the worst temptation it faces – dangerously resembles that arrogance of the “modernist” who judges, believing himself more “enlightened”, what it has been previously.
The dramatic parable of Roman Catholicism over the centuries, the list of its internal and external enemies, the third and even the fourth ones, are written on those yellowed and sometimes greasy due to the compulsive compilation “notebooks”, full of names, dates, circumstances. forces that led us straight to contemporary abomination and apostasy. With this deepening and progressive composition of mosaic of betrayal and infidelity, the impatience towards those who do not understand the scope of the scheme, towards those who do not follow it (perhaps because it has another or does not have any) , towards those who do not grasp the absolute centrality, grows in him.
The scholar then often sees himself surrounded by inadequacy, ignorance, perhaps even betrayal and malice. If “Vatican II Council” was the crowning glory of all these errors, you have to start over, try the ancient and modernistic perpetrators , it takes ten, a hundred, a thousand Synods cadaverica, at least virtual, to be able to start again at “Instaurare omnia in Christo “, almost to purify history and memory.
Who will collect these “notebooks of the Restoration”? It is obvious, the newly Catholic Pope who is going to come one day (not like the current intruders or occupiers), the one according to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (and here Matteo Salvini has nothing to do with it), the one who will somehow restart the history of the Church (which of course never stopped completely but simply, taking up the apologue of Alessandro Gnocchi and Mario Palmaro sine dolo, fell into a lethargic sleep made of heritical spells). This future Pope will have on the pontifical desk, be it in the Vatican or in some catacomb on the outskirts of the world, all the “notebooks of the Restoration” written and sent by the various faithful integral scholars in these long years of vacation (and here the summer musical hits aren’t involved). They will be crumpled notebooks, glossy magazines, armored conferences, power point presentations or flowcharts. Will the Pope read them? Or like a new Alexander the Great, will he free the table with a stroke of his sword?
We hope to be there for being able to see Him and tell you about it.
On the Eve of the Feast of St. Pius X
Elenco delle puntate precedenti