LUCIUS SULLA: an important (and worrying) parallel drawn from ancient history

By Cesare Baronio - venerdì, dicembre 07, 2018

«His depth of thought in disguising his intentions was incredible.»

Sallust, Bellum Jugurthinum, 95

Patrick Archbold’s article Actuating a schism allows me to offer my kind readers a parallel with the ancient world, something which in my opinion has a lot to teach us about the current situation. In his De Oratore, Cicero gave us a sublime definition: Historia vero testis temporum, lux veritatis, vita memoriæ, magistra vitæ, nuntia vetustatis (II, 9, 36), so we see that classical writers understood perfectly the cardinal virtues, especially prudence. In the plans devised by God the Father we see how important were the natural foundations of civilisation for the building up of the whole Catholic Church. These foundations were sanctified when Rome was made the See of the Prince of the Apostles.

The events I wish to speak about occurred in Rome in 82 BC. Lucius Cornelius Sulla, a Roman general who had been active against Gaius Marius since 96 BC, was appointed Dictator reipublicæ constituendæ by the Senate, and prepared to avenge the killings perpetrated by the followers of Marius that year and two years previously. It must be remembered that as dictator Sulla was entitled to sentence somebody to death, to pass laws, to confiscate money and property, to set up cities and colonies, and to appoint magistrates. It must be remembered that at Sulla’s time Rome was still a republic, and that appointing a dictator was only envisaged in times of emergency. We must not confuse the special magistracy of the dictator in Roman times with the broader meaning given to that term in the last century. Contrary to the terms of Roman law Sulla ensured that his appointment was for an indefinite period, whereas usually the dictator only remained in office for a short time.

In his Bellum jugurtinum Sallust, who was from a noble family like Sulla, describes him in anything but complimentary terms: «His depth of thought in disguising his intentions was incredible. […] As to his subsequent acts I know not whether more of shame or of regret must be felt at the recital of them». Plutarch says that Sulla was absolutely pitiless: in one of the wars against the Samnites, he convinced thousands of enemy soldiers to betray their country and fight for him; however, as soon as they had killed his enemies, he had them taken into the circus and killed.

On 2 November 82 BC, Sulla was still proconsul and he summoned the senate to come to the temple of Bellona, the goddess of war, near Mars’ Field. As he was speaking to the senators, he had all the family of Marius cut to pieces, and all his statues knocked down in Rome. Sulla announced that he was going to draw up a list of citizens to be exiled, including all the consuls, magistrates, quaestors, legates, and former judges, together with all the senators and knights who had taken Marius’s side. Outside the Forum he published a list of all these hostes publici, who thus lost all their rights and could be assassinated with impunity, and offered to pay a reward to anyone who assassinated them. This law would remain in force until June 81 BC, and saw the death of ninety senators, fifteen former consuls, and 2,600 knights. On 27 and 28 January 81 the triumph of Sulla was celebrated, even as the heads of his adversaries were still falling. At the top of the tabulæ along with the lists appeared the words Quod felix faustumque sit, to remind everyone of the divine power behind his law.

Exiles had no right of asylum, and offering them hospitality carried the pain of death. As did hiding them, helping them escape, or giving them food and water. Their sentence of death would remain in force always and everywhere, aven after many years. Many of the exiles committed suicide rather than allow themselves to be put to death by Sulla’s killers. To prove their loyalty to the dictator, all social classes took part in this manhunt. Anyone bringing the head of an exile was paid two silver talents, equal to 48,000 sesterces. Death by jugulatio, decapitation or slitting of the throat after the condemned man had been whipped, was considered a particularly ignominious punishment because it was the sentence carried out against prisoners of war. The heads of the condemned men were affixed to pikes outside the Forum and their bodies were torn to pieces.

This allowed Sulla’s friends to carry out a series of private acts of revenge, usually motivated by greed for the goods and property of those they reported to the authorities. Sextus Roscius of Ameria was put on one of these lists because Lucius Cornelius Chrysogonus, an avid and debauched Greek freedman of Sulla, wanted his lands. In 80 BC Cicero, in his Pro Roscio Amerino, defended the innocent Roman patrician at his show trial for parricide.

Sulla removed all forms of opposition to him. A plebiscitum awarded him special power: all legislative, executive, judicial, and military powers were now in his hands. Finally he ordered that he was to be given the name Felix, in a frenzy of omnipotence which marked the start of his decline.

In 79 BC Lucius Cornelius Sulla completely unexpectedly decided to retire from politics and lead a private life. Plutarch says that in his last speech to the senate Sulla scandalised the Patres by revealing that he had been in a relationship since his youth with the actor Macrobius, who would accompany him to his home in the country with a group of prostitutes and dancers. Here he would die of leprosy the following year as punishment for his many vices, as his Greek biographer would later say.

Let us now examine these events very briefly. This is because, as Patrick Archbold says, «these people have a playbook.»

Enacted laws have been changed, to bring all the power of command towards the centre and make any sort of autonomy impossible in the power hierarchy. «The rules were changed so that would never happen again.» Sulla corrupts the judiciary so he can be appointed consul and the dictator, with absolute power for an indefinite period. The elimination of all forms of dissent has taken many different forms over the course of history, but it is an undeniable part of the process for implementing any tyranny. If one wishes to see a parallel with what is being done in the post-conciliar Church, even if we only look at recent history, I am sure my readers will remember the purge of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and how its Grand Master was sacked, or the removal of many Cardinals and Prelates from the Roman Curia, or the latest nominations to any number of Bishops’ Conferences, or the removal of many Bishops from their Dioceses, Superiors from their Religious Orders, and university lecturers from their chairs. Finally, the abdication of Benedict XVI, with all its legal and canonical implications. Surely all these things are undeniable proof that the rulebook was changed to help put on the Papal Throne a Cardinal Archbishop who, had they not changed, would still be in Argentina.

The subjugation of assembly bodies. Sulla had ninety senators eliminated to ensure his absolute majority, then increased the number of senators from 300 to 600 to expand the number of his supporters. Something very similar was done by Paul VI, using purely canonical means; in his Motu Proprio Ingravescentem ætatem he excluded all Cardinals over the age of eighty from the Conclave, and thus ensured that the majority of Cardinal Electors would be progressives. The same thing happened with the rules for the Synod: «The votes caused problems, let’s do away with votes.» These manoeuvres by the modernist conventicle, the so-called St. Gallen Mafia, allowed a large number of Electors to vote for Cardinal Bergoglio.

Limiting the power of the Tribunes of the People: their suggestions required approval by the Senate, and their powers of veto were greatly limited. A parallel can be seen in the limits placed upon the power of the Bishops, who are now subject to Bishops’ Conferences and the Roman Congregations (from above) or are thwarted by the Priests of their Diocese (from below). Rome must now give a favourable opinion if a Bishop is to erect a new Institute of the Consecrated Life, and there is also the great deterrent of the Apostolic Visit; both these measures place de facto limits upon the Bishop’s authority. The same applies to Superiors in Religious Communities, who are now subject to the whims of their Federation President thanks to Vultum Dei quærere and Cor orans.

Apparently unanimous consent: the appointment of a tyrant and his supporters is always presented as the outcome of universal - or at least widespread - acclamation, certainly by those on the ground. Sulla is appointed dictator by means of a plebiscitum, which expresses the wishes of the concilia plebis, those collegiate bodies from which all patricians have been excluded but whose decisions are binding upon all citizens. The parallel with how Vatican II was carried out is perfectly clear, because it was broken down into language groups and Commissions, thus permitting extremely malleable work and making it practically impossible for the Holy Office and the Curia to do anything. In practical terms, anyone who is likely to go against the trend is excluded from the very outset. The same sort of procedures have been seen at all the recent Synods, whose “final” documents had all been prepared long before any votes were cast. The synod process has been twisted «into something unrecognizable, something with only the ability to tell the Emperor, in ways preordained, how wonderful his new clothes are». I think the same thing is being done by the Bishops’ Conferences. An important role in the plebiscite method is obviously played by the mainstream media.

Lists of citizens to be exiled: lists of hostes publici are drawn up all the time, but to crush enemies and to use as a deterrent. Dissent is not part of the process of healthy debate (something which occurs naturally in a democracy): it identifies dissenters as absolute and permanent enemies (something which one sees all the time in a tyranny). The greatest specialists in drawing up these lists inside the church are those at the top of the various Roman Congregations (not necessarily their Prefects), Bishops’ Conferences, and Religious Federations. They belong to a whole network of spies and informers among parish councils and groups of priests, right up to the Vatican, and with the unqualified support of the press and media they can put an immediate end to somebody’s brilliant career, and discredit and pillory the utterly innocent. Last but not least is the Canonical Visitation, which is instituted - ça va sans dire - when one of the usual fifth columnists inside the body to be visited makes an application.

Eliminating one’s enemies, using special laws. When he declared that a citizen was a public enemy or hostis publicus, Sulla made him a non-person (to use the term coined by Orwell). We all know that in the New Church Public-Enemy-Number-One is the schismatic, the rebel. He doesn’t need to be killed; it is enough to bring about his canonical death. Some of the first victims after Vatican II were Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers (not an accidental term). They were left no route to escape so they were forced into disobedience because they could not deny their faith. First they were suspended a divinis, then excommunicated, and finally declared schismatics. More recently we have seen what has happened to the Franciscans of the Immaculate and other Orders and Congregations swept away by Apostolic Visitation. The latest was only a few days ago, the Priestly Fraternity Familia Christi.

Dividing one’s enemies. The elimination of dissent does not finish when one’s enemies go somewhere else: they must be weakened and divided so that many will defect to the other side. Sulla weakened the followers of Marius by corrupting his allies and magistrates, which the dictator then brought over to his side by promising them all sorts of promotions and benefits. People at the very bottom of society were promised riches if they helped eliminate the enemy. Two talents were to be paid for every enemy head handed over to Sulla. Bargaining on the greed of the unscrupulous he systematically persecuted his enemies, which would have been much more difficult in ordinary circumstances. In the modern Church this work of division - every schoolboy knows the expression divide et impera - can mainly be seen when certain advantages are offered to those who leave the more Traditionalist wing. Clearly this tactic is only used when the Traditionalist wing is well organised and has a good media presence. Where the press and TV cannot censure them, an extremely effective tool is when some Traditionalists defect to say that they have come back to the fold, where they have been welcomed with open arms by the Authorities. For example, after the excommunications imposed on the Society of St. Pius X the Holy See published the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei. In certain conditions this permitted the celebration of the Tridentine Mass and the canonical erection of several Religious Congregations for those who had defected from Archbishop Lefebvre. It was already clear in 1988, and it is even clearer now after the publication of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, that the whole purpose of these Papal documents was to make transfer to the authority of Rome more tempting. The Society of St. Peter and the Institute of the Good Shepherd, for example, owe their very raison d’être to this damage limitation exercise, the main purpose of which is to weaken the enemy. Clearly this exercise is publicised as a sign of fatherly care towards the dissidents, to whom Holy Mother Church opens the door of mercy. After slamming the door of justice firmly shut. Offering reception to a defector means making an attractive offer so that one does not feel one has shamefully and publicly abandoned one’s convictions, which were the real reason behind one’s original choice. A proper canonical assignment is offered, as is a partial recognition of one’s demands: being able to continue to assist at the Tridentine Mass and to receive a proper seminary training for the Priesthood. Last but not least, some money will be offered, as will medical care and pension rights. And the care of souls in some sort of structure very similar to the one which one is being invited to leave. If we look at the way all this is done, we can immediately see that everything concerning the legal aspects is set out in writing, but everything concerning traditional Priestly training is only spoken, if it is mentioned at all. The style used in the legal documents, with all its high-flown language and quotations in Latin, its changes to the usual post-conciliar vocabulary, its seals and coats or arms, and all the rest, serve only to distract one’s attention from the essence of the pactum sceleris, which invariably contains some trap or other designed to open as soon as the process of reabsorption has been completed. I need hardly point out that this is exactly what is currently being done against the Society of St. Pius X, with all those promises of guarantees and protection. Nothing has been said about certain doctrinal aspects about which, thank heavens, their new Superior General does not seem to be ready to negotiate. He knows perfectly well what was done with his predecessors.

Re-education. Once an agreement has been written down and the defector has decided to come away from the enemy camp, a certain degree of liberty is given so that he will think that nothing has changed. Seminarians will continue to receive a Catholic training, and will be able to assist at the Tridentine Mass and recite John XXIII’s Breviary. Certain transgressions are allowed beyond the terms of the agreement, such as the Rites of Holy Week celebrated using the rubrics before Pius XII changed them, with folded chasubles, the triple candlestick, and the clapper. An occasional Cardinal will come to say Mass for the Institute, and Bishops are told to leave them alone. Naturally all this freedom and all this Roman approval, all these Masses in beautiful churches rather than in the converted stables of an elderly Earl, lead the beneficiaries to express their love for the Holy Father and their unreserved fidelity towards the Papal Throne. The press then reports their enthusiasm. Even the protests by certain well-known progressives are hushed up by the Vatican, to show that the Holy See wishes to keep faith with its commitments. As happens so often in everyday life, the drama of the situation is milked to full effect. In the meantime, people begin to see cracks in the whole post-conciliar structure and the New Church. This might be nothing other than a smug gesture towards the hermeneutic of continuity, a more Catholic reading of a conciliar document or an Encyclical. We have seen it all before. If the Institute obediently submits, it can go on using silk and ermine; if it makes any sort of objection, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will act immediately to remind everyone no negotiation is permitted with the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, and that the Novus Ordo must always and everywhere be accepted as a Rite. If the Superiors defend what has been said, it only needs two or three members to write the usual letter to Rome and an Apostolic Visitation begins next Friday. The Superiors are changed and a General Chapter is called to appoint people more in keeping with the party line in Rome. Thus the Community approved by Ecclesia Dei is seen for what it really is: a re-education camp. When one reads what Father Joseph Bisig, one of the Founders of the Society of St. Peter, says, it almost seems as if this is what has come about. «I pray very much for my old, good friends in the SSPX to join the Church» and to «come in without any conditions,» but to «accept the authority of the living Magisterium.» As Archbold says, «So there you have it. Any approved group that resists the changes or complains too loud gets the Apostolic Visitation and is squashed for refusal to submit to the Pontiff.»

For all this to happen, you have to know the cast of characters, those who have allowed such a tyranny to come into force: the fearful, the obsequious, those with something to hide, the ideological accomplices, the actual perpetrators. This is what I shall be speaking about soon.

Let me just add a comment here to say that all these things are also happening in the world of politics. The position of open hostility towards the Universal Church by the Chinese regime is no different from the position of open hostility towards Traditional Catholics by the progressive Hierarchy in the Church. Politically - although there are also doctrinal implications - Papa Bergoglio has handed the clandestine Church over to her persecutors and told her She must recognise the validity of those Bishops faithful to the communist regime. In the same way, he now wants to hand Traditionalists over to their persecutors by forcing them to proclaim the absolute inerrancy of the Pastoral Council and to obey those who openly work to wipe Faith from the face of the earth. It is an absolute scandal that the man sitting on the Throne of the Vicar of Christ is an accomplice and even a spearhead of the betrayal of Chinese Catholics and of Traditional Catholics. Faced with such a scandal, anyone who refuses to speak out is guilty of a tyranny such as never has been seen.