The Revolutionary rewriting of Sacred History
The paid-subscriber article from the Pillar Catholic portal, dated February 21, 2026, purports to offer a nuanced historical analysis of the 950th anniversary of Pope St. Gregory VII’s excommunication of Emperor Henry IV. Its stated aim is to move beyond “caricatures” and present the “real circumstances” of the 11th century. However, a thorough examination through the unalterable lens of integral Catholic theology, as defined before the revolution of Vatican II, reveals that the article is not a neutral historical account but a sophisticated piece of Modernist propaganda. Its purpose is to subtly undermine the Catholic doctrine of the papacy’s supreme, immediate, and universal jurisdiction, to relativize the immutable conflict between the City of God and the City of Man, and to prepare the ground for the post-conciliar “hermeneutic of discontinuity” by presenting all ecclesiastical authority as a historically contingent, human development. The article’s omissions are as damning as its assertions; it is silent on the supernatural foundation of papal power, the divine origin of the Church’s independence from secular control, and the eternal principle that the spiritual power must guide the temporal, not merely dialogue with it. This analysis will expose the theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the attitudes and ideas presented, demonstrating their direct lineage to the condemned errors of Modernism.
1. Factual Deconstruction: The Naturalization of a Supernatural Conflict
The article frames the Gregorian Reform as a complex political struggle within a pre-modern world where “Church and State as we think about and cleanly separate them today” did not exist. This is a true statement but is deployed as a Trojan horse. By emphasizing political complexity and the irony of reform alliances, the author naturalizes a conflict that was, at its core, supernatural. The struggle was not primarily about “clerical and monastic corruption” in a merely administrative sense, but about the sanctification of the entire social order according to the law of Christ. The reform party, led by the true papacy, fought for the principle that the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, possesses an innate and inalienable right to govern itself free from lay coercion, a right derived not from political convenience but from divine institution.
The article notes that the reform party “began pushing for the papacy’s independence from the empire.” This is presented as a political ambition. The Catholic truth, defined by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (condemning proposition 19), is that the Church is “a true and perfect society, entirely free… endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder.” The article’s failure to ground this independence in divine law, instead attributing it to the maneuvering of “powerful Italian families” and “the party in Rome,” is a deliberate omission that strips the reform of its theological character. It reduces the heroic stand of St. Gregory VII to a factional power grab, aligning perfectly with the Modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu (Proposition 52): “Christ did not intend to establish the Church as a community lasting for centuries on earth…” and (Proposition 53): “The organic structure of the Church is subject to change…”
2. Linguistic and Rhetorical Analysis: The Tone of the Apostate
The language employed is carefully calibrated to induce historical relativism. Phrases like “far more complicated,” “pre-Conciliar,” and “as we think about… today” are not neutral; they are the very tools of the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” condemned by the true Magisterium. The author uses cautious, academic, and almost bureaucratic language (“can be said to be underway,” “to paraphrase,” “ironic”) to drain the events of their moral and doctrinal absoluteness. This is symptomatic of the post-conciliar mentality, which fears to proclaim truth with the unshakeable confidence of the pre-1958 Church.
The reference to “the munus regendi, or duty of governing the Church, as tied strictly to the sacrament of holy orders” is a direct jab at the traditional Catholic doctrine. The article implies that this strict tying is a post-Vatican II development, or at least a clarification against a medieval ambiguity. This is false. The doctrine that ecclesiastical jurisdiction flows from holy orders (and ultimately from Christ) and cannot be usurped by lay power is the constant teaching of the Church, explicated by St. Robert Bellarmine and defined against Gallicanism. By suggesting the 11th century lacked this clarity, the author prepares the ground for the conciliar error of a “Church of Christ which subsists in” the Catholic Church, a notion that destroys the identity and uniqueness of the one true Church.
3. Theological Confrontation: Exposing the Heresies
The article’s central, unspoken thesis is that the Gregorian Reform was a human, historical step toward a later, more “mature” understanding of Church-State relations, presumably culminating in the “dialogue” and “collaboration” of Vatican II. This is a direct repudiation of the Syllabus and the entire pre-conciliar Magisterium.
* **On the Origin of Papal Power:** The article presents papal elections and bishop appointments without imperial authorization as a political victory for a “reform party.” Catholic doctrine, defined by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and the Syllabus (condemning propositions 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 50, 51), is that the Church possesses an innate right to govern itself, including the election of its own pastors, independent of any civil power. The “reform” was not a new idea but the restoration of an ancient, divinely-established right violated by lay investiture. The article’s framing makes this right appear as a mere historical achievement, not a permanent dogma.
* **On the Nature of the Conflict:** The article reduces the conflict to a dispute over “control over the selection of bishops and abbots.” The Catholic truth, proclaimed by Pope St. Gregory VII himself in the Dictatus Papae and lived out at Canossa, is that this control is a matter of salvation. A bishop consecrated by a layman, or a pope subject to imperial deposition, is a threat to the sacraments and the souls of the faithful. The article’s silence on the salvation of souls as the ultimate end of the Church’s liberty is the gravest omission. It replaces the salus animarum with the “progress of sciences” and “ecclesial reform” condemned in Lamentabili (Propositions 57, 64).
* **On the Figure of St. Gregory VII:** The article allows for the possibility that Gregory is a “caricature” if presented as standing for “the principle that clerical authority always precedes lay authority.” This is a subtle attack on the doctrine of the primacy of the spiritual power. Pope Leo XIII, in Immortale Dei, taught: “The Almighty… has appointed the charge of the human race to two powers… the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power… Now, of these two powers, that of the priests is the more noble… for they… are the interpreters of God… Therefore, in the Church, there is a twofold power… but the ecclesiastical power is to be distinguished from the civil… the former has the care of divine things, the latter of human… But the Church… is not bound to obey the civil authority in those things which belong to the spiritual sphere.” To suggest Gregory’s stand was exceptional or merely political is to reject this defined doctrine.
4. Symptomatic Analysis: The Fruit of the Conciliar Apostasy
The article is a perfect symptom of the post-conciliar disease. It employs the historical method of the Modernists condemned by St. Pius X: treating doctrine as a human “evolution” (Proposition 54 of Lamentabili: “Dogmas, sacraments, and hierarchy… are merely modes of explanation and stages in the evolution of Christian consciousness”). By presenting the Gregorian Reform as a complex, ironic, pre-modern event, it implies that the clear, dogmatic, and juridical pronouncements of the pre-1958 Church on the rights of the Church (e.g., Quanta Cura, Syllabus) are a later, more rigid development, not the authentic expression of immutable truth.
The article’s final, unspoken conclusion is that the “clean separation” of Church and State is a modern achievement for which the Gregorian Reform was a primitive, confused step. This is the essence of the Modernist error: the belief that the Church must adapt her doctrine to the “progress” of the world. Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus (Proposition 80), condemned the error: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” The article’s entire narrative is an attempt to reconcile the heroic papal defiance of Gregory VII with the capitulation of the post-conciliar “papacy” to secular powers and ideologies. It suggests the true “progress” was from Gregory’s “complex” struggle to our era’s “dialogue.”
Conclusion: A Call to Reject the Conciliar Narrative
The Pillar Catholic article is not a benign historical reflection. It is a piece of theological warfare waged by the conciliar sect against the memory of the true Church. It seeks to rob the saints, especially St. Gregory VII, of their doctrinal clarity and heroic witness, recasting them as players in a prelude to the Modernist revolution. It promotes a view of Church authority as historically malleable and politically negotiated, directly contradicting the definitions of the Council of Trent and the solemn pronouncements of the popes from Pius IX to Pius XII.
The only legitimate Catholic perspective on the Gregorian Reform is one that sees in it the definitive, divinely-guided establishment of the principle that the spiritual power is supreme in its own sphere, a principle later defined by Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam and reaffirmed by Pope Leo XIII. The article’s omission of this doctrinal continuity, its focus on human irony and complexity, and its implicit endorsement of the “separate but equal” modern model of Church-State relations, expose it as a work of apostasy. It is a symptom of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place, where the teaching authority of the Church is occupied by those who seek to dismantle the very foundations of the Papacy and the social reign of Christ the King, so clearly articulated in the encyclical Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI—a Pope who would have condemned this article’s underlying premises with the same vigor as he condemned the errors of his own day.
Source:
1076 and all that (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 21.02.2026