Catholic Orthodoxy, Not Mere Traditionalism

Reconciling After ‘Reconquista’: Part 2. Mr Grigorieff continues his thoughts on what will happen when the Church returns to sanity. Penetrating!

From One Peter Five

By Maxim Grigorieff

Read Part 1

We live in days when the overthrow of the Churches seems imminent; of this I have long been cognisant. There is no edification of the Church; no correction of error; no sympathy for the weak; no single defence of sound brethren; no remedy is found either to heal the disease which has already seized us, or as a preventive against that which we expect. Altogether the state of the Church (if I may use a plain figure though it may seem too humble an one) is like an old coat, which is always being torn and can never be restored to its original strength.[1]

Although one might take the passage as cited from some present-day traditionalist bestseller, it was actually written in the 4th century by an Eastern Catholic bishop. His name was Basil the Great of Caesarea and he belonged to the choir of the great Church Fathers of the East who laid the very foundation of Catholic dogmas and theology – something both Western Traditionalists and Eastern Catholics hold in high esteem.

However, as he actually tradidit [passed on] the Tradition we acceptavĭmus [have accepted], the very term ‘traditionalism’ is an umbrella too small both for him, the Eastern Catholics, and the coalition of Western Trads to hide under when it rains bad in the entire Church.

An umbrella wide enough is Catholic Orthodoxy, i.e. devotion to the Truth – passed and received, then and now – forever. It is through this devotion to perceiving the true reality of sacred things that Catholics of all times and places can help each other restore Christianity.

Only guided by this principle can we escape from the empty and ‘mechanical’ Traditionalism that is rather Habitualism in its essence –  a disease we and our ‘Liberal’ neighbours are equally susceptible to. It is by means of that devotion to ‘believing and praising’ [δοξία] in the right way [ὀρθο] how we also avoid the future divorce of Traditional East and Traditionalist West after our joint ‘reconquista’ over modern errors. Unfortunately, this divorce has a high probability due to different experiences of East and West with the Second Vatican Council, not to mention differences in liturgical and spiritual practices and discrepancies in theology, as we discussed in the first part of our journey.

Moreover, I shall claim that same Catholic Orthodoxy is a precondition for the reconquista to succeed, even before the post-victory struggles become a real thing.

Same Problems, Same Arms

I understand that in the modern world it is very difficult to comprehend the universal nature of eternal problems, as it is to see the basic principles of their solutions being somehow universal, but I do believe that appealing to the experience of the Fathers has a value to be demonstrated in a way that will benefit universally.

According to St. Basil, a heresy is like a disease. This disease tears the Church apart. There are sound brothers who fight it, the weaker ones who get scandalised, and the pitiful heretics. By rejecting Orthodoxy these latter commit blasphemy. Out of their guilty blindness they say ‘non serviam’ as if to idols, while indeed – to God Himself, when upon every high hill and under every green tree they wander, playing the harlot (Jeremiah 2:20).

Who were those heretics St. Basil was talking about? In his time they were called the Pneumatomachians. Living in the 4th century, they called the Holy Spirit a creation and refused to render Him divine worship. I do realise that now it may sound as bad as… irrelevant. But the truth is that this heresy was extraordinarily destructive and its genetic trace still circulated in our blood. Those who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit also did it against the Son of God, being in fact an offshoot of radical Arians – those who did not consider Jesus Christ our Lord even similar to God the Father in His essence, but completely different instead, just like a creature is different from its creator. ‘God is God, men are men, we are completely separate’: the West feasted on the practical fruits of this attitude in the age of Modernity, while the roots that nourished them go as deep as to Eastern antiquity with seemingly pious men paving the way to hell by denying what Jesus Christ chose to become, taking a leaf out of Satan’s book of pride.

Those radical Arians’ leader, Eunomius the heresiarch, from whom they took their second name (the Eunomians) was a Catholic bishop. Or – he used to be. Bishop Eunomius had a strict logical mind and clear, expressive speech, which gained him popularity among weak Christians. Along with his followers, he even disapproved of his forefather Arius, calling him out for his ‘inconsistency’, because it was logical consistency per se that Eunomius and his followers truly worshipped, feasting on the fruit of their own deduction despite it being totally strange to the Divine revelation that the Holy Ghost is divine. St. Basil writes on this:

‘I need use no argument to prove to those who are even slightly trained in Scripture, that the creature is separated from the Godhead. The creature is a slave; but the Spirit sets free. The creature needs life; the Spirit is the Giver of life (John 6:63). The creature requires teaching. It is the Spirit that teaches (John 14:26). The creature is sanctified; it is the Spirit that sanctifies. (Romans 15:16) Whether you name angels, archangels, or all the heavenly powers, they receive their sanctification through the Spirit, but the Spirit Himself has His holiness by nature, not received by favour, but essentially His; whence He has received the distinctive name of Holy. What then is by nature holy, as the Father is by nature holy, and the Son by nature holy, we do not ourselves allow to be separated and severed from the divine and blessed Trinity, nor accept those who rashly reckon it as part of creation.’[2]

As a reader may still find the Arian, Pneumatomachian or any other crackjaw heresy of the past a bit grotesque and irrelevant for us today, I shall ask a couple of questions. Are we not now dealing with new Iconoclasts who hate beautiful, not merely abstract holy images? In what manner do the old icon-haters differ from those who have been torching the Western Church since the 1960s with their daub, who mangled the ancient altars and erected numerous loathsome buildings they called Churches? They will claim to be against idolatry of the past, yet they have their own idols, specifically the same human intellect and ‘logical consistency’ (like Eunomius) that is being put above all reality revealed and discovered.

Seminarians of today often hear that the Christian faith is not based also on the Gospel miracles, but solely on the moral personality of Jesus; that He did not transfigure in front of the chosen disciples talking to Moses and Elijah, because there was no real Moses in the first place! Is it not Modernism based on blindly rationalistic premises? Is it all not reminiscent of some older errors?

A seminarian may even hear from their spiritual mentors that Jesus Christ might not have risen from the dead… at least, not in the manner we are accustomed to believing. As if there had been no precise moment in history two thousand years ago where Christ “trampled death by death and granted life to those in the tombs.” Or as if it all was a kind of Jungian story, albeit the ultimate one. Such heresies can all be traced to the same ubiquitous rationalism that denies revelation and miracles per se. This mentality has its roots a couple of centuries deeper, back to Hegel and the Enlightenment, mostly through Liberal Protestantism.

Should one doubt if it can possibly go worse and deeper in this rabbit hole, sometimes our folk are even told that the very Fall of Man was actually a kind of Spring of Humanity; the Lapse from Virtue, the Lapse for Adulthood and Emancipation of mankind. This is a type of Gnostic narrative that used to spread and torture Christians between 2nd-3rd centuries in the Roman Empire, yet it resurfaced this year in one of the Seminaries when a supposedly Catholic professor asked one of his students, a third-year Seminarian, to translate from English a blasphemous article[3] containing these ideas and written by a Calvinist theologian from Switzerland. On these pages I have to refrain from naming names just as much as from calling them names, although too often esprit de corps in the Church just smells like a corpse. But I can swear to the reader that I did not invent any of these stories, just as I would willingly go under oath to tell the same truth at a ecclesiastical trial should it ever take place against these heretics.

Now standing at the bottom of this pit, somewhere as deep as in the first centuries, we may seriously ask each other: if all these ancient errors still torture the Church, why should we neglect the means that the Fathers used to combat those alike? It all goes to ridiculous lengths with modern people having literally the same misconceptions about the Holy Spirit as the most radical Pneumatomachians of antiquity, considering Him to be nothing more than an impersonal force.[4]

Besides, just like centuries ago, it is the ordained who preach today’s heterodoxy on human sexuality, the supposed emptiness of Hell, the non-exclusive role of the Catholic Church for people’s salvation, and the very aims and purposes of that Church… Are these heresies even different? They don’t seem to be: for these neo-Modernist heresies are a blending of all those in past epochs.

It was 1964 when Pope St. Paul VI wrote his condemnation against one particular heresy new and old:

The Church itself is being engulfed and shaken by this tidal wave of change, for however much men may be committed to the Church, they are deeply affected by the climate of the world. They run the risk of becoming confused, bewildered and alarmed, and this is a state of affairs which strikes at the very roots of the Church. It drives many people to adopt the most outlandish views. They imagine that the Church should abdicate its proper role, and adopt an entirely new and unprecedented mode of existence. Modernism might be cited as an example. This is an error which is still making its appearance under various new guises, wholly inconsistent with any genuine religious expression. It is surely an attempt on the part of secular philosophies and secular trends to vitiate the true teaching and discipline of the Church of Christ.[5]

Indeed, just as St. Basil could have written his notes on the Church’s condition for us today, St. Paul VI could have changed Modernism for Arianism and secular philosophers for Hellenistic ones to perfectly suit the needs of the 4th century. Unfortunately, neither of them had a time-machine at their disposal. There is a small difference between the 4th century and the present age, however. The world, in the past more interested in strict philosophy, is now captured by a storm of fragmented feelings and sensual passions. But the common root does exist, and it is the sin of pride that is intolerant to any mystery of God that a puffed up mind (1 Cor 4:18) cannot crack, and a heart embrace.

The good news is that the same steel taken up by the Fathers against ancient heresies is as sharp for today’s crisis. Practically it means that we perfectly can use the testimony of all the Fathers who have ever fought any heresy, although I shall concentrate on those from the East, being a Russian Catholic.

Just like Pope St. Paul VI whom I quoted above, his more ancient and Asian predecessors (now – compatriots in the Heavenly Kingdom) preferred balance and used dialogue to establish peace and ensure strict orthodoxy all at the same time. How exactly did they manage it?

Perfect Balance: the Four Aspects of Reconciliation and what can go Wrong

In this one letter to the Tarsus’ clergy St. Basil points at the following elements of restoration that all faithful Catholics can follow:

1. Healing the disease (that is, correction of the relevant error);
2. Accommodation of the Weaker brothers;
3. Defence of the Sound brethren – those who hold tight to and fight for the true doctrine;
4. Reconciliation of the Church that has been torn apart.

I will write more about these steps in the final instalment in this series on the ‘reconquista’. But in a nutshell, these four points are exactly what the Fathers did, constantly seeking unity with others, without demanding from them anything more than Orthodoxy in the minimal sense of the word: the truth that is not just my truth. They believed that perfect healing comes from the Holy Spirit, who works in the Catholic Communion, and that is why they tried to include as many people as possible into it. That is why they saw stubborn heretics as pitiful (worthy of crying over), while trying to convince them as well.

This wisdom comes from looking at the problem holistically with no ideological fragmentation. This temptation is a constant thorn in the flesh, as it appears that we are cheating today in one way and will cheat tomorrow in another.

Out of Balance with the Left: Reconciliation without Correction

One may argue that Pope Francis started the whole Synodal Process to redirect the Catholic Church in a new balanced way of mutual hearing, which is based on Non-Confrontation, Engagement, Gathering of Diverse Ideas, “Taking the Temperature of the Room,” Prayerful Discernment, Theological Reflection, Continuing Discussion and Consensus.So did, for example, Mr. Joe Paprocki, D.Min at Loyola Press[6]. He quotes Pope himself:

The purpose of the Synod… is not to produce documents, but ‘to plant dreams, draw forth prophecies and visions, allow hope to flourish, inspire trust, bind up wounds, weave together relationships, awaken a dawn of hope, learn from one another and create a bright resourcefulness that will enlighten minds, warm hearts, give strength to our hands.[7]

But indeed, a secret was left out amidst the many soundbites. The documents are produced, and they are just as vague as the slogans quoted above, while their true aim is apparently kept in secret. A secret rots, so no wonder why the vague language and all the dealings behind the scenes of the Synod led to justified and logical suspicion, as well as accusations. Bishop Athanasius Schneider successfully synthesised all these concerns when he wrote:

The Instrumentum Laboris for the October 2023 Session of the Synod on Synodality essentially promotes, albeit in a more sophisticated manner, the same heterodox ideas put forward by the German Synodal Path.

It substitutes the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with a fantasy “synodal church” that is worldly, bureaucratic, anthropocentric, neo-Pelagian, and hierarchically and doctrinally vague – all the while masking these features behind unctuous expressions such as “conversation in the spirit.”

But we do not believe in – nor would anyone give his life for – a “synodal church.” We believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and we hold fast to His unchanging divine truth, for which countless Catholic martyrs have shed their blood.[8]

Thank God, the final document proved to be a mine disarmed. Moreover, we have a reasonable hope that the Pope, who many times soundly opposed the heretical German Synodal Way,[9] here used his brand-new Synodal Process to hijack the heterodox agenda with a view to reintegrate the flock in danger. But we also have a reasonable objection: it all could have been less divisive and stressful for the entire Church had only Pope Francis been completely honest with everybody including himself from the very beginning.

But the Pope did not do it so clearly and was not that open. Through his ambiguity, he lost a moral right to blame his brothers, sons and daughters for their distrust and assumptions about his alleged plans to rebuild the entire Church. The whole reconstruction seems to be presented in a way to gaslight the flock or treat them like little children unable to recognise a scandal. We all see the scandal, Your Holiness…

It is right to point out the problems and be clear in one’s actions to solve them, like St. Basil and any other Catholic hero did during the first millennium. There are heresies that have been poisoning the well of the Church for decades. Even Pope St. Paul VI said as much in the ‘60s, when we were miles from blessing homosexual couples! And it is this Vatican II Pontiff standing now side by side with the saints of old who may say to Pope Francis from above: ‘You are the Pope today. Please, be clear with your brothers and children about the problems, yet with all tenderness and love your heart is capable of. They will understand. Don’t be afraid of the divisions that have been there for a long time anyway. Otherwise, no healing – no sustainable reintegration – is to be expected in the long run. Neither with the Germans, nor with the Tradi-Conservatives.’

I am not saying that Pope Francis is not occasionally clear in his orthodoxy, but all the scandals, inconsistency and apparently deliberate unclarity spoils the good that is done like a spoon of dirt in a pot of stew. A second spoonful, a third… Be sure, very soon religious anorexia may soon replace Covid 19 as the pandemic in chief among the Catholics: for Pope Francis is not the only tricky chef in this kitchen…

Out of Balance with the Right: Correction without Accommodation

When the ‘reconquista’ arrives and we have a Pope of our persuasion giving his first address on the St. Peters’ balcony, he will certainly face the same temptation as Pope Francis – that is, to use his power for the implication of his own ideological views while not considering legitimate differences among those in his flock.

A conservative ‘dictator pope’ who reacts against his ‘progressive’ persecutors could put his own method and ideas above reality and love for his neighbour. This could result in the following actions:

– send the most traditionalist commissars with suspicious minds to all these new ‘non-traditional’ movements and congregations to investigate and pass a predetermined verdict on them;

– remove ‘unlike’ bishops from their sees if they should even mildly criticise the new course: not because of their crimes and due to no expediency, but solely to enjoy his arbitrary power disguised as sacred ministry of St. Peter;

– not look at the real and local problems of his subjects, but speak in slogans such as ‘neo-modernism’, ‘heresy’ or ‘apostasy,’ (compare with ‘rigidity,’ ‘backwardness’[10] etc.) thereby provoking a witch hunt that will certainly break out locally as it always does in complex human societies when left unattended;

– try to canonise as many right saints as possible in order to legitimise his own new course regardless of the veneration actually paid to this or that person by the People of God (this is exactly what the current Church authorities have been accused of during the mass canonisation of post-conciliar pontiffs that has been going on for half a century);

– make an attempt to radicalise or even dogmatise some theses and particular wordings that do not need any final dogmatisation with a considerable risk of unneeded scandals and schisms;

– condemn the former stars of the new theology for reasons more lucrative, than pious.

I list all these points with such confidence, not due to some special predictive gift befitting a prophet rather than a seminarian. Rather, my certainty comes from the history of the ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church.

Many of the future princes of the Church now say that the Second Vatican Council should be revised for having introduced such innovations that allowed the creepy Modernists to get away with their filth and eroded the bastion of faith for old enemies. Moreover, some of the accused and suspended clerics were actually acquitted during the Council and in direct connection to it.

Henri-Marie Joseph Sonier de Lubac was an extremely interesting theologian of the pre-conciliar era, who at the same time was ‘accused of pernicious errors on essential points of dogma’[11] during the pontificate of Pius XII, which led to the relinquishment of his professorial mantle – a sentence approximating the pain of excommunication for a modern theologian.

Verily, the future conservative pontiff, who might bear the name of Pius XIII, will be eager to raise the banner of his predecessor Pius XII and embark on a deep reevaluation of the entire legacy de Lubac and his fellow ‘new theologians’ have passed through up to present days, including large portions of Vatican II’s major texts.

As this line of development sounds very natural, it leaves us alone with a Biblical question: Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us (Ecclesiastes 1:10).

The Council of Chalcedon, known as the 4th Ecumenical Council, stands as a beacon of Orthodoxy that gave a sound response to the heresy of Monophysitism – a teaching that held Christ to be solely God, neglecting His full Humanity.      

Yet, the methods and literal wordings promoted by Pope Leo the Great and the fathers who gathered at the Council were not entirely in line with some prominent Eastern traditions that had developed prior to the Council. Thus Chalcedon was accused of disregarding the closest historical context and tender spots that ached severely after the diametrically opposite crisis of Nestorianism shook the East and tore it apart. The coals of this heresy were still smouldering in advance of the Chalcedon Council, just as the coals of Modernism were smouldering badly in the time of Paul VI and Vatican II.

The Council’s decisions seemed to provide a loophole for the rehabilitation of Nestorianism – a heresy that divided Christ into separate entities and diminished the role of the Mother of God. Actually, its decrees even acquitted some of the accused theologians, like Ibas of Edessa and Theodoret of Cyrus. These two were some very controversial men within the Eastern world, not less scandalous and just as prominent as de Lubac or de Chardin for the 20th century.

Amidst this theological turmoil, serious discontent brewed among the ‘conservative opposition’ whose intentions were quite contaminated with pride and intolerance to the competitive theological schools, although somewhat genuine at the same time, as is usual for human beings. When that coalition entered the inner circle of Emperor Justinian the Great, they successfully manipulated events to elect a seemingly compliant pope Vigilius to the See of Rome and sway the Eastern patriarchs to their cause.

Long story short, Pope Vigilius managed to upset the apple cart a little bit, but, eventually he revealed frailty and signed the condemnation of the Three Chapters attributed to the three theologians, two of whom had been acquitted of any charge by the previous Ecumenical Council. It was just as scandalous as it would be now if Donald Trump and Viganò make Pope Francis condemn a bunch of Vatican II main theologians.

As easy as it seems to guess, the repercussions were profound, compromising the authority of the Apostolic See, sparking an actual schism in the West and opening grounds for the entire East to fall into another schism a couple of centuries further. The question is, was it worth it? And will something like that be worth it for us tomorrow? I genuinely doubt it, although neither de Lubac, nor Ibas of Edessa and Theodoret of Cyrus were immaculate in their theology. Should one doubt that we still can make the feathers fly, I shall give an example.

Today, in the midst of the Eucharistic crisis in the West, a conservative dictator pope may start fighting against all the non–Latin historical ways of understanding the transubstantiation by oppressing the Eastern Churches, forcefully changing their liturgical traditions and spirituality. The same unkindness may be shown to the same Catholic Charismatics, the Neocatechumenals and some other minor movements regardless of how many families, children and priestly vocations God sends to the entire Church through them, or even because of these numbers, when seen by an evil eye of some older and ‘traditional,’ yet fruitless monks and religious that may enter that pope’s inner circle.

Should a doubting-thomistic reader still find such developments unlikely in the modern West, I shall provide two more recent and more Western examples compared to that of Chalcedon. The fight between the major Catholic religious institutions like the Jesuits, Franciscans and the Dominicans led to Asia’s failing to convert to Catholicism during the Age of Discovery. The missionary monks diffused their own efforts by carelessly mocking others in their beloved Catholic Church before the Gentiles. A bit earlier it was the Dominicans who nearly derailed the reconciliation with the Greeks in the Council of Florence with their highly biased view of Eastern theology and its philosophical grounding. If these errors have happened before, they will tend to happen again. Such is the law of history and politics done by men, with no exception for the Church founded by the Son of Man.

The good news is that among these old and respected institutions there will remain some faithful and humble Christians, just as there are present today. These faithful Catholics are now surviving the vocational crisis in their local experience of the Church while paying genuine thanks to the Lord for the success of the others – those ungentle post-conciliar upstarts now on the rise. Having preserved their hearts from resentment, they will likewise be able to avoid revenge. The question is, shall we be wise enough to join the team of the righteous?

The Golden Mean is Achievable: Benedict XVI Knew the Way of the Fathers

The last point I wish to demonstrate is the following: that beautiful holistic balance of Catholic Orthodoxy that loves everybody and hates only evil is practically achievable. That this is not another mirage of the golden age, which always turns out to be gilded when given a closer look. Rather, it is a recent case.

We all love and appreciate Pope Benedict XVI, because he was direct, honest, far from manipulations and kind at the same time. No wonder he was the one who created a way for Anglicans to reunite with Rome while preserving their liturgical heritage at the same time. He was also the good pope who saved the Traditional Latin Mass within the Roman Church, while extending his fatherly hand to those who had found themselves almost broken-away from it (the SSPX).

The truth to face is that Pope Benedict was exceptional in both senses of the word: we must understand that his nearly perfect manner comes not by default and should not be taken for granted. Like breaking up with a sissified narcissist does not make a girl immune to falling in love with an Andrew Tate, getting rid of a ‘Red Pope’ may easily lead to getting a Brown one elected for the chair of Peter.

The truth to cheer about is that we know his secret. At his Wednesday audiences between 2007 and 2008 Pope Benedict gave short talks on the Fathers, making them available and their testimony useful for his modern flock. Being a man of Tradition, this 21st century Pope was working at the start of the Council and defended the balance of Orthodoxy for his entire life.

The same Church Fathers who brought up late Pope Benedict will show us now how to maintain the perfect balance after the victory and stay in the light.

Read part 3

---

[1] St. Basil of Caesarea, Letter 113 (to the presbyters of Tarsus.) URL: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202113.htm

[2]  St. Basil of Caesarea, Letter 159 (to Eupaterius and his daughter), 2 URL: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202159.htm

[3] Schmid K., ‘The Ambivalence of Human Wisdom: Genesis 2–3 as a Sapiental Text,’ published in: Scott Jones S. Roy C. Yoder (Ed.), When the Morning Stars Sang: Essays in Honor of Choon Leong Seow on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Berlin / Boston 2017, 279-290.

[4] Cachila G.B., ‘3 common misconceptions about the Holy Spirit’ at Christiany Today, URL: https://www.christiantoday.com/article/3.common.misconceptions.about.the.holy.spirit/123020.htm

[5] St. Paul VI, ‘Ecclesiam Suam’, URL: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam.html

[6] Paprocki J., ‘The Synodal Process: The Church’s Way of Proceeding’ at Loyola Press, URL: https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/scripture-and-tradition/church-leadership/the-synodal-process/

[7] Preparatory Document, #32, sited from ibid.

[8] Bishop Athanasius Schneider, ‘A New “Synodal Church” Undermines the Catholic Church’ at The Catholic Thing, URL: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2023/06/29/a-new-synodal-church-undermines-the-catholic-church/

[9] See, for example: ‘Pope Francis expresses ‘concerns’ about German Synodal Way, says it threatens Church unity’ at Catholic News Agency, URL: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256068/breaking-pope-francis-intervenes-with-german-synodal-way ;
See also Tomlinson C., “Pope Francis: German Synodal Way Not in Alignment With Church’ at The European Conservative, URL: https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/pope-francis-german-synodal-way-not-in-alignment-with-church/ ;

As well as Liedl J., ‘Will the German Bishops Defy Pope Francis? All Eyes Are on Augsburg to Find Out’ at National Catholic Register, URL: https://www.ncregister.com/news/will-the-german-bishops-defy-pope-francis-all-eyes-are-on-augsburg-to-find-out ;

And also Coppen L., ‘Pope Francis warns Germany is ‘steering away’ from universal Church’ at The Pillar, URL: https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/pope-francis-warns-germany-is-steering

[10] ‘Pope chides ‘backward’ conservatives in US for replacing faith with ideology’ at The Guardian, URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/29/pope-francis-criticizes-us-conservatives

[11] See in De Lubac, Henri (1993). At the Service of the Church: Henri de Lubac Reflects on the Circumstances That Occasioned His Writings. Translated by Englund, Anne Elizabeth. San Francisco: Ignatius Books. Quoted from open sources.