Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council

[Stone]

Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council 

by the Dominican in Avrillé
From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

Part I

Preface
Vatican II is not a council like the others. This council, which was held in St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican in four sessions from 1962 until 1965 under the pontificates of Popes John XIII (1958-1963) and Paul VI (1963-1978), was the occasion, if not the principal cause, of the gravest crisis the Church has known in its history.

The studies concerning this council are numerous, but often voluminous and very technical.  We have thought that it would be useful to provide for Catholics of good will a relatively short text, explaining what Vatican II declared and what is unacceptable for Catholics who want to remain faithful to the traditional infallible teaching of the Church.

After a brief introduction on the authority of the council, we will briefly analyze each of the 16 documents, presenting them in a thematic order.


Introduction - The Authority of the Second Vatican Council

What is an ecumenical council?
An ecumenical council is an assembly of bishops of the entire world convoked by the pope, who conducts its meetings (called “sessions”), whether directly or via legates, and who approves the texts, so that they have a binding value for the whole Church. There have been in the history of the Church twenty ecumenical councils since the Council of Nicaea in 325 until the First Vatican Council in 1870.


Is Vatican II a council like the others?
Vatican II is an atypical council because the popes who convoked and conducted it, John XXIII and Paul VI, declared that it was not a dogmatic council, like all the preceding councils, but a pastoral council.  In other words, its aim was not to define doctrine against errors, but to perform an updating (aggiornamento) of this doctrine to adapt it to the thinking of our contemporaries.


Does Vatican II contain infallible teachings?
Here again, differently than all the preceding ecumenical councils, the Second Vatican Council does not contain any infallible teaching.  For a council to be infallible, it must pronounce solemn judgments, which this council refused to do.


Even if it is not infallible, can it not be admitted that Vatican II was assisted by the Holy Ghost?
Our Lord Jesus Christ promised the assistance of the Holy Ghost for the transmission of Revelation: “the Paraclete the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and suggest unto you all things whatsoever I shall say to you.” (Jn 14:26) [Rheims version].

But, without renouncing the transmission of Revelation, the Council proposed the aggiornamento of the Church, i.e., its adaptation to the modern world, notably by introducing into the Church “the best expressed values of two centuries of ‘liberal’ culture”1, and by working to “smooth the way toward unity of mankind.”2.


Why cannot the Holy Ghost aid the Church in acquiring the values of liberal culture, once purified and corrected3?
Liberalism is an error condemned by two centuries of teaching from the Magisterium of the Church.  Such a condemnation is infallible in virtue of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. As the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself, He cannot assist the council fathers in making these values of liberalism enter into the Church.


Why cannot the Holy Ghost aid the Church in working toward the unity of mankind?
The Church was founded to save souls and unite them to Our Lord Jesus Christ.  In so doing, the Church works indirectly for peace, propagating charity in souls: “Seek therefore first the Kingdom of God, and the justice of him [the union to Our Lord Jesus Christ by grace]: and all these things [including peace] shall be given you besides.” (Mt. 6:33) [Rheims version].

But today Freemasonry seeks to reshape the unity of mankind (“globalism”) by human means and by positively excluding Our Lord Jesus Christ in virtue of “secularism”.

As was especially seen after the Council (with the secularization of the States and inter-religious meetings), the men of the Church collaborate in this work by means of religious liberty, ecumenism, and inter-religious dialogue. The Holy Ghost cannot assist the Church in working toward an end that is not Her own.

1. Cardinal Ratzinger, interview with the monthly Jesus, November 1984, p. 72: “The problem with the 1960s was to acquire the best expressed values of two centuries of ‘liberal’ culture.  There are values that, even if they are born outside of the Church, can find their place—purified and corrected—in its vision of the world.  This is what was done.”  The cardinal only specifies what the Council itself said: “This council, first of all, wishes to assess in this light [of the faith] those values which are most highly prized today and to relate them to their divine source.  Insofar as they stem from endowments conferred by God on man, these values are exceedingly good.  Yet they are often wrenched from their rightful function by the taint in man’s heart, and hence stand in need of purification.” (GS 11,2) [www.vatican.va translation].

2. John XXIII, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, 11 October 1962, DC 1383 (4 November 1962): “While it [the Council] focuses the Church’s chief energies and earnestly strives to have people accept more favorably the message of salvation, it is, as it were, preparing and consolidating the path that can bring about that unity of the human race” [Komonchak translation §20].

3. Cardinal Ratzinger, interview with the monthly Jesus, November 1984, p. 72.



Insofar as popes and bishops spoke at the Council, should not one then obey and accept Vatican II?

The council Fathers decided to adopt “forms of inquiry and literary formulation of modern thought”1, i.e., the “new theology”2 founded on modern philosophy. Now, this philosophy is subjective: truth does not come from outside; it comes, at least in part, from the knowing subject. But if truth does not come from outside, the hierarchy cannot impose it: so, the Council inaugurated a new type of magisterium, a living and dialoging magisterium that has lost its binding aspect.


Why did the council Fathers adopt this new theology?
Since they wanted to adapt the teaching of the Church to the modern world, they had to find a way to modify this teaching. The solution was to adopt modern subjectivist philosophy, according to which, as we have said, truth comes, at least in part, from the knowing subject. And consequently it evolves with it. What was true yesterday (e.g., that the Church cannot adopt religious liberty) is not true today3. So, thanks to this new theology, one could perform an updating of the Church and reconcile it with the modern world.


Are there calculated ambiguities in the Council?
Father Schillebeeckx himself affirms this in the Dutch review De Bazuin (23 January 1965)4: 

A theologian of the doctrinal commission—to whom, already during the second session, I had expressed my disappointment in the face of the minimalism on papal collegiality—responded to me, to calm me down: “We will explain it in a diplomatic way, but after the Council we will draw the implicit conclusions.”

Were there external influences on the Council?
The power of the media exerted a very strong influence. It was the fear of this influence which made Pius XI and Pius XII abandon their projects to reconvene a council to pursue the work interrupted by the First Vatican Council.

There was also a more discreet but nonetheless real influence due to the more or less secret agreements with the Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Communists, and Freemasons5.

—With the Orthodox and the Communists: For inviting Orthodox observers to the Council, John XXIII committed to not condemn communism6.

—With the Jews: Jewish leaders secretly received, at the Community Center of Peace at Strasbourg during the winter of 1962-1963, Father Congar O.P., sent by Cardinal Bea in the name of John XXIII, on the brink of the Council, to ask what the Jews expected from the Catholic Church7; Cardinal Bea himself secretly visited the Jewish American Committee at New York, 31 March 1963, with the same aim8.

—With the Protestants and Freemasons: In September 1961 Cardinal Bea secretly met in Milan the pastor Willem A. Visser’t Hooft, secretary general of the Ecumenical Council of Churches (very masonic organization of Protestant origin). Later, 22 July 1965, the same Ecumenical Council of Churches published the list of its seven requirements regarding religious liberty: all of them were satisfied by the Council in the document Dignitatis humanæ9.


(Catechism to be continued)

1. John XXIII, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, 11 October 1962 (from the Italian text [Komonchak translation]). The same text in: John XXIII – Paul VI, Discours au Concile, Paris, le Centurion, 1966, p. 64.
2. This expression signifies the neo-Modernist  theology of the 1940s. See Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., “La nouvelle Théologie où va-t-elle?“, Angelicum 23 (1946), p. 126-145, translated in Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “Where Is the New Theology Leading Us?,” trans. by Suzanne M. Rini, Catholic Family News Reprint Series #309.
3. Cardinal Ratzinger, “Magistère et théologie”, ORLF, 10 July 1990, p. 9: “In the details related to the contents, [the anti-Modernist decisions of the Church] were outmoded, after having fulfilled their pastoral need at a certain time.”
4. Ralph M. Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, Charlotte, North Carolina, TAN Books, 2014, p. 288-9, reports it in a slightly different manner.
5. Regarding these secret agreements, see Abbé Matthias Gaudron, Catéchisme catholique de la crise dans l’Église, 5e éd., Le Sel, Avrillé, 2012, question 26.
6. “Cardinal Tisserant received formal orders to negotiate the agreement and supervise its exact execution during the Council. Each time that a bishop would raise the question of communism, the cardinal, from his table where he presided, would intervene” (Msgr. Roche, Itinéraires 285, p. 157). There was in 1962 an agreement between the Vatican and Moscow according to which, in exchange for the presence at the Council of schismatic Russian observers, it would refrain from speaking of communism. See on this subject Le Sel de la terre 53 (summer 2005), p. 68-70; Le Sel de la terre 62 (autumn 2007), p. 189-194; Jean Madiran, «L’accord Rome-Moscou», Itinéraires n° 280, February 1984 and n° 285 of July-August 1984, p. 151-160; Sì sì no no, 15 September 1984.
7. “The Jews, held after almost twenty centuries in the margin of Christian society, often treated as subordinate, enemies, and decides—demanded their complete rehabilitation. Issuing directly from the Abrahamic stock, from where Christianity came, they asked to be considered like brothers, partners of equal dignity, of the Christian Church.” Lazare Landau in n° 1001 of Tribune Juive (of 25-31 December 1987).
8. See Sel de la terre 34, p. 196: «Comment les juifs ont changé la pensée catholique» (Joseph Roddy, Look, 25 January 1966).
9. “During the last council session, the bishop of Monaco, Msgr. Rupp, in a very short discourse, asked that the Council be content with taking up these seven requests and of confirming them with its own authority […]. In reality, the Council did not do it. Not only did it make these seven requests its own, in equivalent terms, but it solidly justified them […].” Msgr. Willebrands, in Vatican II – La liberté religieuse, collection Unam Sanctam, Paris, Cerf, 1967, p. 241-242.

[Stone]

Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council 

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

Part II - The Documents of the Council : Overview

What are the documents of the Council ?
The Council promulgated 16 documents :

— 4 Constitutions (documents of essentially doctrinal content, the first two being qualified as « dogmatic », the fourth as « pastoral ») :

* Lumen Gentium (LG) : the Church.

* Dei Verbum (DV) : Divine Revelation.

* Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) : the liturgy.

* Gaudium et Spes (GS) : the Church in the contemporary world.


— 9 Decrees (texts of the practical order and concrete application) :

* Christus Dominus (CD) : the pastoral duty of bishops.

* Presbyterorum Ordinis (PO) : the ministry and life of priests.

* Perfectæ Caritatis (PC) : the renovation and adaptation of religious life.

* Optatam totius Ecclesiæ Renovationem (OT) : the formation of priests.

* Apostolicam Actuositatem (AA) : the apostolate of the laity.

* Ad Gentes (AG) : the missionary activity of the Church.

* Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE) : the Eastern Catholic Churches.

* Unitatis redintegratio (UR) : ecumenism.

* Inter Mirifica (IM) : the mass media.


— 3 Declarations  (texts addressed to all men) :

* Dignitatis Humanæ (DH) : religious liberty.

* Nostra Aætate (NA) : the relations with non-Christian religions.

* Gravissimum Educationis Momentum (GE) : Christian education.


Where did these texts come from ?
Before the Council an important preparation was in place.  About twenty preparatory schemas were released.  But the majority of the schemas were rejected by the Council fathers because they were judged too tainted with traditional doctrine1.  Thus the texts could be developed beginning with the schemas that adopted « the forms of inquiry and literary formulation of modern thought2, » as Pope John XXIII demanded.


Is this teaching complete ?
The teaching is extensive : the edition of the Acts of the Council by Centurion comprises more than 700 pages.  However, it lacks a key document : a text condemning the current errors imperiling the faith, as all the preceding councils have done.  There was even a schema prepared for a “dogmatic Constitution to preserve the faith intact”3, but it was rejected with the others.

Pope John XXIII called for “the medicine of mercy rather than the weapons of severity ; and, she thinks she meets today’s needs by explaining the validity of her doctrine more fully rather than by condemning.”4  Nevertheless, the « good pope John » recognized that « there are…false doctrines, opinions, or dangers to be avoided and dispersed 5. »  Among these false doctrines, there was the « new theology » condemned, among others, by the schema of the « dogmatic Constitution on the deposit of the faith, » and that one finds in a great part of the texts promulgated by the Council and the Conciliar Church 6.

(To be continued)

1. See Ralph M. Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, Charlotte, North Carolina, TAN Books, 2014, p. 32 (Fr. Schillebeeckx, O.P., succeeds in opposing the first four dogmatic schemas on 16 October 1962) and p. 71-75 (the rejection of the schema on the sources of Revelation).
2. John XXIII, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, 11 October 1962 (from the Italian text [Komonchak translation]).
3. Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Œcumenici Vatican II, Volumen I (Periodus prima), Pars IV (Congregationes generales XXXI-XXXVI), Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1971, p. 653 et sq. [Komonchack translation: “On defending intact the deposit of faith” in The Council that Might Have Been].
4. John XXIII, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, 11 October 1962 [Komonchak translation]
5. Ibid.
6. The Conciliar Church is the collection of Catholics who accept the Council as a norm of thought.  On the contradiction between the schema for a “dogmatic Constitution on the deposit of the faith” and the teaching of the Conciliar Church, see «La Révélation et la foi», Le Sel de la terre 92, spring 2015.

[Stone]

Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council 

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

Part III - The Four Constitutions

I . Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church


What is the importance of this Constitution?
It comes first, because the new theology being subjective, as we have said, the conciliar Fathers first focus their attention on the subject (the Church) before focusing on the object (the doctrine to teach).  But in modifying the conception of the Church, in adopting a “new ecclesiology” 1, the Council overturns the entire Church and commences its self-destruction.


What are the principal errors contained in this Constitution?
This constitution Changes the notion of the Church, and presents the principles of collegiality and liturgical revolution.


Wherein does this constitution change the notion of the Church?
Until Vatican II, the Church was a society into which one entered by valid baptism, and from which one left by apostasy, heresy, schism, or a major excommunication2.

In LG (Lumen Gentium), the Church is not defined in a precise manner:

* LG says that it is “like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race” (§1), which allows for adding to its proper finality (the union with God through Our Lord Jesus Christ) a second finality (the unity of all of mankind).

* LG also says that the Church is the “people of God” (an expression used forty times in LG), which allows for including :

— non-Catholics who wrongly claim to be “Christians”, through the idea of connection (coniunctio: this signifies that a certain imperfect communion exists in Christ, which accomplishes a “real union in the Holy Spirit“, §15),

— and those not even claiming to be Christians, through the idea of ordination (ordination: this signifies more or less that there exists a certain communion, yet imperfect, in the same God) 3 .

Finally, LG says that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church » (§8), instead of affirming that they are identical4.

All these affirmations dilute the boundaries of the Church, and also prepare the way for ecumenism and interreligious dialogue such as what was practiced after the Council.


Where does this constitution introduce bicephalism [the condition of having two heads]  into the Church?5
LG, after having recalled that the pope “has full, supreme and universal power over the Church“, immediately adds that “The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church” (§22).  While the Church was until then a monarchy with the single supreme power, that of the pope, LG suddenly affirms a double supreme power, a two-headed Church.  Next to the pope, the college of bishops (including the pope) also has supreme power.

This change of doctrine was so significant that Pope Paul VI believed it necessary to intervene and draft a “nota explicativa prævia” (preliminary note of explanation) to join to the Constitution, where he mitigated this change: “so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question […] the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church.”

This note thus prevents the college alone from exercising supreme power in the Church, which is a condemned heresy, but it does not suppress “bicephalism”.  The new Code of canon law of 1983 ratifies this doctrine of double supreme power in its canon 336: “The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members […] is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.”


Where does this Constitution present the principles of collegiality?
Other than the fact that LG attributes supreme power to the episcopal college, it also affirms that “consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing” (§21) and that “one is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body“, “The order of bishops” being “also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church” (§22).

Thus, LG suggests that the bishops already have a certain jurisdiction, at least over the universal Church, before receiving it from the Pope.  And the nota explicativa prævia does not correct this point.

On the contrary, the traditional doctrine, repeated again in 1958 by Pius XII 6, teaches that the jurisdiction over his own proper diocese comes to the bishop through the Pope, who gives him the power of jurisdiction really distinct from orders.  Moreover, the Pope, if he wants, can make the body of bishops participate in the supreme power of teaching and governing over the universal Church by uniting them in an ecumenical council, but only during the council7.


Where does this constitution present the principle of democracy and liturgical revolution in the Church?
Until Vatican II, the Church was considered essentially hierarchical, with a distinction of divine right between clerics, who alone hold the triple power (of orders, jurisdiction, and teaching), and the laity: “By divine institution, clerics in the Church are distinct from the laity” (1917 Code of Canon Law, c. 107).

LG begins by treating the “People of God” in general (chapter 2) before speaking of the hierarchy (chapter 3), as if it issued from it; it treats of the “common priesthood of the faithful” before speaking of the “ministerial priesthood“, as if there were two different forms of the same priesthood.

It is to forget that the hierarchy of the Church forms the faithful: Our Lord Jesus Christ formed a dozen Apostles who themselves founded the Church: “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Mt. 16:18).

It is also to forget that only the ministerial priest is a priest in the proper sense of the word.  Sacerdos (priest) comes from “sacra dans“: he who gives sacred things, and only those who have received the power of orders can do this; the baptized laity only have a power to receive these sacred things.

Without saying it openly, the door was opened for the invasion of the laity, men and women, into the governing posts of the Church (from parish liturgical committees to Roman dicasteries) and the liturgical revolution was given a doctrinal basis, in relegating the priest to the simple role of presider over the assembly.  And thus Paul VI signed this heretical definition of the new mass:  “The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.  For this reason, Christ’s promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: ‘Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst’.8”


Are there other errors in LG?
At paragraph no. 29, this document opens the possibility of ordaining married deacons without requiring them to practice perfect continence, contrary to the use of the Church preserved in the West since the Apostles.  Paul VI will accomplish this in the motu proprio of 18 June 1967, Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem, which expressly refers to this passage of LG.

To be continued...

1. See for example: Frère Pierre-Marie, « Ecclésiologie comparée », Le Sel de la terre 1, summer 1992, p. 25.
2. See Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 June 1943.
3. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Church, Ecumenism, & Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology, Ignatius Press, 2008, p. 24: “Some (German theologians) wondered (in the 1930s) whether the image of the Mystical Body was not too narrow as a point of departure to define the manifold forms of affiliation with the Church that have actually existed in the confusion of human history. The image of the Body provides only one notion of affiliation, that of the ‘member’; someone is a member or else he is not, and there are no intermediate degrees. Yet—people asked—is this image not too restrictive precisely in its point of departure, since there are quite obviously intermediate degrees?  So they hit on the expression ‘People of God’, which in this respect is roomier and more flexible.  The Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium  adopted it for this very purpose when it described the situation of non-Catholics who wrongly claim to be “Christians”, by saying that they are somehow ‘joined’ (coniunctio) to the Catholic Church and and those not even claiming to be Christians by saying that they are ‘related’ (ordinatio) to the Church; in both instances, the document relies on the idea of the People of God (nos. 15 and 16).”
4. See Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 June 1943: “…this true Church of Jesus Christ—which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church” (Humani generis repeats this affirmation and makes it obligatory: Dz 2319, absent from DS).
5. On this and the following question, see the note by Cardinal Larraona published in Msgr. Lefebvre, I Accuse the Council!, Kansas City, Angelus Press, 1998, p. 51, 55: “From being monarchical, the Church becomes episcopalian and collegiate, and this by divine right and by virtue of the episcopal consecration. […] if the doctrine proposed in the schema were true, the Church would have been living in direct opposition to divine law for centuries!”
6. See Pius XII, encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis of 29 June 1958, which refers to the encyclicals Mystici Corporis (1943) and Ad Sinarum Gentem (1954).
7. See Sì Sì No No, 31 January 2013, which adds: “The body of bishops is thus not a stable and permanent group who with Peter and under him has the supreme power of teaching and governing the whole Church.  As one can see, collegiality is closely related, even if it is more attenuated or mitigated, to conciliarism and theological Gallicanism.”
8. Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis of the new mass according to the typical edition of 1969 [English translation]. See also Daniel Raffard de Brienne, Lex Orandi, lex credendi – La Nouvelle Messe et la Foi, 1983 (available on the site of the Latin portal, or in number 107, May-June 1984, of Lecture et Tradition): “The supper (a protestant word) or mass is thus uniquely the assembly of the people of God; the priest is only a presider; a work of the community, the Supper is only the celebration of the memorial of the Lord; according to the second phrase, the presence of Christ, purely spiritual, is accomplished by the assembly.  Luther spoke no differently.”

[Stone]

Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council 

Part IV – The Four Constitutions (continued): Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum – On the Sources of Revelation

What are the principle errors contained this constitution?
This Constitution makes an important step toward Protestant theology in refusing to distinguish clearly the two sources of Revelation.  It speaks of a progress of Tradition and utilizes the expression “living Tradition”, in the manner of the Modernists.


How does DV alter the doctrine of the two sources of Revelation?
DV leaves aside the doctrine of the councils of Trent and Vatican I on the “two sources” of Revelation (Tradition and Holy Scripture), for making Tradition and the Magisterium converge into Scripture alone: “sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture […] in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. […They] form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (§ 9 and 10).

Note in the passage the expression “in a certain way (quodammodo)”: things are left in flux without daring to affirm the error frankly.  We will find elsewhere this manner of speaking.

It is an important step toward reconciling with the Protestant heresy that denies Tradition as the source of Revelation.


How does DV speak of a progress of Tradition?
According to the infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church, Revelation terminated with the death of the last Apostle1: There is thus no objective progress of the deposit of the faith (by new truths that would be revealed); at the most, there is a subjective progress (a more precise definition of truths contained in the deposit of the faith).

Without making this major distinction, DV admits a progress of Tradition: “Now what was handed on by the Apostles […] develop[s] [proficit] in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. […] For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.” (§ 8).


How did DV introduce the Modernist notion of living Tradition?
In paragraph 12, DV says that Holy Scripture should be read taking into account “living tradition of the whole Church“.

This is also an ambiguous expression which could ultimately receive an orthodox interpretation (the immutable Tradition received from the Apostles also continues today to be transmitted by the current, living Magisterium of the Church), but which evidently, in context, favors the Modernist idea of a Tradition that is living because it is the expression of the sense of the faith of the people of God, and thus susceptible to evolution.

It is this latter meaning that will be used after the Council: In the name of living Tradition, the Conciliar Church will try to excommunicate Msgr. Lefebvre2  and to justify the ‘hermeneutic of renewal in continuity’ (the claim that post-conciliar Church is in continuity with the Church before the Council, because there is a continuity of the living subject, even if there is discontinuity on the doctrinal plane3).


Are there other errors in DV?
On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Vatican II, Le Sel de la terre 55 (pp. 26-38) indicated as contestable points:

* A false notion of Revelation described as a dialogue of salvation and a conversation with God (DV 2), not as a deposit of supernatural truths;

* A new approach to the faith (DV 5) considered as a total abandonment of the person to God is reconciled with the faith-trust of the Protestants or the faith-sentiment of the Modernists;

* The protestantization of the Holy Church and in particular the abandonment of the traditional notion of inerrancy of the Scriptures for the benefit of a truth relative to salvation (DV 11).4

It could also be added that DV encourages ecumenical translations of the Bible,5 which is an unheard-of novelty in the Church.


(To be continued)

1. Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili (approved and confirmed by St. Pius X) on 3 July 1907, proposition 21 (condemned): “Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed (completa) with the Apostles.”
2. John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei adflicta, 2 July 1988, § 5 (which DV § 8 cites): “The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. 
3. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, ‘comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. […]‘”
4. Benedict XVI, 22 December 2005, address to the curia: “On the other [hand], there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform’, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.”
5. Father Brandler SSPX, in his study [published by Le Sel de la terre 7, 10 and 12] “De Dei Filius à Dei Verbum: un progrès?” (From Dei Filius to Dei Verbum: a progress?), remarks that the text of DV favors three errors:

— The negation, or even the confusing, of the natural and supernatural orders (DV 6);

— The faith viewed as a sentiment, a trust, and not as an intellectual knowledge (DV 5);

— The Holy Scripture which is no more a «myth»: a way to think that it is not without any error (DV 19).

DV 22: “And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.”

[Stone]

Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council 

Part V  The Four Constitutions (continued): Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium  - On the Liturgy

What are the principle errors contained this constitution?
SC does not clearly assert errors, but it opens doors that will be greatly opened after the Council.

For example :

— in §22, it is said that the Apostolic See alone—and, within certain limits, the bishop—can regulate the liturgy.  But in §23, innovations are permitted, if it is useful ;

— in §36, it is clearly affirmed that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”.  In the following paragraph, one reads, surprisingly: “But since the use of the mother tongue […] frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.”


Could you give an example of calculated ambiguity?
SC frequently speaks of the “active participation” of the faithful in the liturgy. This expression—which is found roughly twenty times—would be well understood if it favored spiritual participation, because « it is in the cooperation of the power of the sacrament and of human effort, of the seriously Christian life, and of the sincere tendency toward spiritual perfection that the secret of lively faith consists1. » But, as what followed has shown, in the name of this active participation the liturgy became noisier and noisier, the laity came to take the place of clerics, etc., without any profit for the faithful2.


Are there other errors in SC?
One can collect a certain number of parallels with Protestant doctrine3:

• the notion of Pascal mystery which stresses our Redemption in the Resurrection of Our Lord and erases the reality of an expiatory sacrifice in the liturgy (§§ 5 and 6);
  

• the Presence of Christ in the Mass is practically placed on the same level as His presence in the minister of the liturgical action, in the power of the sacraments, in His word, and in two or three persons united in His name (§7);
  

• §34 requests to do a reform of the rites so that they return to the splendor of a noble simplicity and be devoid of “useless repetitions” (this rationalist and anti-liturgical influence will lead to replacing the sacrificial offertory with a simple “presentation of gifts” in the new mass);
  

• underlying §37 one finds inculturation and the so-called unity in liturgical plurality, opposed to the true unity of the Church and Roman spirit;
  

• §47 uses, for designating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, neither the notion of “repræsentatio” of the Council of Trent, nor that of “renewal” of the later popes (until Pius XII inclusive), but speaks of “perpetuating” the sacrifice and of “memorial”;
  

• §55 requests to give, on certain particular occasions, the Eucharist under two species in the manner of Protestants;
  

• §81 requires the suppression of somber thoughts on death by using other liturgical colors than black.  This pleases the Protestants who know neither purgatory nor prayer for the deceased.
  

What judgment should one make of this Constitution?
The tree is judged by its fruits: the very disastrous liturgical reform is the fruit of SC.  In summary, one can say that the liturgy, which was theocentric until Vatican II, became anthropocentric after the Council.  The worship of man took the place of the worship of God.

(To be continued...)

1. Pius XII, Lenten pastoral instruction to the priests and preachers of Rome, 17 February 1945, AAS 37 (1945), p. 39.
2. Saint Pius X was the first, it seems, to have spoken of “the active participation in the sacrosanct mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church” in his Motu proprio Tra le sollicitudine on sacred music (22 November 1903) where he encouraged Gregorian chant: “it is necessary to reestablish Gregorian chant in the use of the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical office, as in ancient times.” This is far from the guitar masses that followed the Council.
3. See Abbé Franz Schmidberger, « La protestantisation du concil Vatican II », Autorité et réception du concile Vatican II — 4e Symposium de Paris 2005, Vu de haut hors série, Paris, 2006, p. 208-210.

[Stone]

Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council 

Part VI - The Four Constitutions (continued): Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes –  On the Place of the Church in the Modern World

What is the importance of this text?
Because the Council intended to accomplish an updating (aggiornamento) to bring the Church closer to the modern world, this Constitution is the most representative of the Council.  Just as the Syllabus of Pius IX in a way constituted the charter of the position of the Church in the face of the modern world before Vatican II 1, so too is GS the charter of the Conciliar Church:

Gaudium et Spes is (along with the texts on religious liberty and the world religions) a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a sort of counter-Syllabus. […] This text plays the role of a counter-Syllabus insofar as it represents an attempt at officially reconciling the Church with the world as it has become since 1789 2.

What is the fundamental error of this text?
The fundamental error of this text, which is that of Vatican II and in a general way that of the Conciliar Church, is having attempted this “official reconciliation of the Church with the world such as it has become since 1789,” whereas Pope Pius IX solemnly condemned in advance such an attitude in the last proposition of the Syllabus: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” (condemned proposition).

Msgr. Gaume explains this well in his Petit catéchisme du Syllabus 3:

The Sovereign Pontiff neither can nor should reconcile himself with these three things 4 because they tend to ruin the tutelary authority of the Church, degrade man, and render him wretched5.

The proof is established by the facts; after Vatican II the ruin of the authority of the Church and the degradation and the miserable state of men have only accelerated.


Is there a Freemasonic influence in this text?
Masonic doctrine appears clearly in this text, as it does in the text on religious liberty.  Also, these two documents are the only ones that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to approve at the Council.


Where does the Masonic doctrine of gnosis appear?
In several places, in particular when the text affirms that “the Godlike seed…has been sown in” (§ 3, 2) man, and that “by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man” (§ 22, 2).

GS affirms it of every man; it can only be understood in the perspective of the gnosis according to which there is in the depths of man a spark of divinity, and that man should regain consciousness of his dignity, without having need of the faith or baptism.

Let us note that in § 22, 2 we find the expression “in some fashion” which allows for stating a heresy without clearly affirming it.  But afterwards, “in some fashion” will be suppressed and the heresy of universal redemption will be clearly taught, notably by John-Paul II6.


Where does the Masonic doctrine of humanism appear?
Masonic humanism is a consequence of its gnosis; because man is “Godlike“, one should affirm his dignity and even make him the center of the universe.  GS insists much on the “dignity” of man7.

The entire chapter 1 of GS is related to the dignity of man, notably that of his conscience, independently of whether he follows the moral law or not: “Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity.” (§ 16, 1).

The dignity of man is not lost, even if he adheres to error: “it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person” (§ 28, 2).

This dignity was even increased, for all men, by the Incarnation: “Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled, by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too.  For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man.” (§ 22, 2).

This dignity is equal in all men (§ 29, 3); private and public institutions are at its service (§ 29, 4); it establishes the relationship between the Church and the world (§ 40, 1); better than all others, the Church ensures its respect (§ 41); it is necessary to honor and promote it also in social and economic life; consciousness of this dignity has increased in our time (§ 26 and 72), etc.

But the most incredible passage of GS remains the affirmation:

“According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.” (§ 12).

Msgr. Tissier de Mallerais judges that “this conciliar passage is the expression of an anthropocentrism that verges on blasphemy” 8.


Where does the Masonic doctrine of the rights of man appear?
The text frequently speaks about them (three times more frequently than the duties of man), saying that the Church, in virtue of the Gospel that was confided to it, proclaims them (§ 41, 3), that it asks that they be developed in all regimes that recognize them (§ 41, 3), that these rights are universal and inviolable (§ 26, 2), that it is necessary to respect them (§ 65, 66, 75), protect them (§ 26, 2), where it is affirmed that this is one of the advantages of “socialization“, (§ 29), promote them (including the rights “to express one’s own opinion and to profess one’s religion both publicly and privately“, § 73), and defend them (including, if needs be, by strikes—although in certain civilized countries striking is justly forbidden by the law, e.g. in certain Swiss cantons).

In summary:

« With respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent.  For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored [§ 29, 2]. »

It is known that the doctrine of the Rights of Man, issuing from the masonic lodges, was proclaimed by the French Revolution (afterwards by the United States) and condemned by the Church as the expression of a new right that is not based on the natural law and on the Gospel, but on general will 9.

Subsequently, the more recent popes have sought to proclaim a correct doctrine of “fundamental rights” of the human person in the face of totalitarianism 10.  Whatever the success of such an enterprise is, the text of GS favors the Masonic interpretation of the doctrine of the Rights of Man, even if only because it does not mention any of the condemnations of the novel right 11.


Does GS speak of laicism?
No, not more than the other texts of the Council, whereas a pastoral council should have spoken of this, “the plague which now infects society12“, which consists in denying the rights of Our Lord Jesus Christ over society.  Certainly GS asks Catholics to conduct themselves thus within the framework of public life (§ 43, 1), but it specifies that it is “the function of their well-formed Christian conscience to see that the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city” (§ 43, 2).  This detour to “conscience” suffices to annul the objective and obligatory character of the submission of society to Christ the King.  Laicism is very dear to Freemasons, and it is undoubtedly why the Council would not attack it.


Where does the realization of the goal of Freemasonry appear?
The aim of Freemasonry is the “reconstruction of the Temple“, i.e., the reunification of humanity dispersed after the episode of the Tower of Babel.  This Masonic “great work” is performed under the guidance of the Great Architect of the Universe, which is none other than Lucifer seeking to be adored in the place of God and who also prepares the coming of the Antichrist.  He will lead the world government when the aim is implemented13.

Now, we have seen, the Council set itself the goal of working for “the unity of the whole human race” (§ 42, 3), and it is above all in GS that this desire is expressed. In its preface, the text joins the idea of a “brotherhood of all men” (§ 3, 2) to the gnostic thesis of the “Godlike seed” sown in all men:

« Therefore, this sacred synod, proclaiming the noble destiny of man and championing the Godlike seed which has been sown in him, offers to mankind the honest assistance of the Church in fostering that brotherhood of all men which corresponds to this destiny of theirs [§ 3, 2]. »

And in its conclusion, GS returns to the matter, affirming that this is the aim of the constitution and that this “brotherhood of all men” includes all men, believers and unbelievers.

« Drawn from the treasures of Church teaching, the proposals of this sacred synod look to the assistance of every man of our time, whether he believes in God, or does not explicitly recognize Him.  If adopted, they will promote among men a sharper insight into their full destiny, and thereby lead them to fashion the world more to man’s surpassing dignity, to search for a brotherhood which is universal and more deeply rooted, and to meet the urgencies of our ages with a gallant and unified effort born of love [§ 91, 1]. »


Could you please identify some other errors taught or favored by GS?
The text suggests the inversion of the ends of marriage14 and the condemnation of the Catholic doctrine of just war (§ 82), favors conscientious objection (§ 78 and 79), promotes democracy to the detriment of other legitimate forms of government (notably § 31, 3 and 7515), etc. One can even indicate the scandalous silence of GS, a pastoral constitution devoted to the problems of our time, on communism which savagely persecuted Christians then, despite a request from more than 450 bishops.  But this silence was the result of a secret Rome-Moscow pact.

(To be continued...)


1. See the dossier on the Syllabus appearing in Le Sel de la terre 90 (autumn 2014).
2. Cardinal Ratzinger, Les Principes de la théologie catholique, Paris, Téqui, 1985, p. 426-427. This book was reedited without changes in 2005, after the election of the author to the Sovereign Pontificate, with a preface by Cardinal Poupard.
3. French anti-liberal prelate of XIXth century.
4. Liberty, equality, fraternity.
5. Le Sel de la terre 90 (autumn 2014), p. 80-81. Msgr. Gaume explains in details these three reasons.
6. See the reviews of the works by the professor Johannes Dörmann, L’Étrange théologie de Jean-Paul II et l’esprit d’Assise (The strange theology of John-Paul II and the spirit of Assisi) in Le Sel de la terre 5, p. 185; 16, p. 186; 33, p. 218; 46, p. 191.
7. In reality, there is no longer “dignity of man” after original sin; there is only dignity of man regenerated by grace, i.e., of a Christian.
8. Fideliter, no. 94, p. 7.  Compare GS 12 with the second part of the “principle and foundation” of Saint Ignatius (Spiritual Exercises, no. 23B).
9. See Pius VI, Quod Aliquantulum of 10 March 1791, which refutes and condemns the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789.
10. See the response of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper in Mgr. Lefebvre et le Saint-Office, in Itinéraires 233, p. 68-81.  See also Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him: From Liberalism to Apostasy, the Conciliar Tragedy, Kansas City, Angelus Press, 1988.
11. On the question of the rights of men, see abbé Guillaume Devillers, « L’idéologie des droits de l’homme » in Le Sel de la terre 30 (autumn 1999), p. 56-61; text republished and improved in his book Politique chrétienne available from Éditions du Sel.
12. “…the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities.” (Pius XI, Quas Primas, 11 December 1925).
13. The Book of the Apocalypse (Ap 13) predicts that the “Beast of the earth“, a pseudo-Church, will serve the “Beast of the sea“, i.e., the satanic world government.  See Josef Pieper, De la Fin des temps, Éditions Ad Solem, 2013, p. 96-97; Fr. R-Th. Calmel O.P., « de l’Antéchrist » in Itinéraires 111, March 1967, p. 156.
14. § 48, 1 and 50, 1.  See also § 49 on conjugal love placed before § 50 on the fecundity of marriage.  This inversion was promulgated by the new Code of Canon Law: CIC 1983, can. 1055, § 1.
15. In the table of contents of the editions of Centurion, at the word “democracy”, one reads: “The word is not employed in the conciliar documents, but one does find there the affirmation of its exigencies.”  See above, p. 10, with the note.

[Stone]

Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council 

Part VII - The Nine Decrees (#1-5)

1. The Three Decrees on Bishops and Priests
1. Christus Dominus (CD): the pastoral duty of bishops.
2. Presbyterorum ordinis (PO): the ministry and life of priests.
3. Optatam totius Ecclesiæ renovationem (OT): the formation of priests.


How does Christus Dominus (CD) describe the bishop?
CD, conforming to Lumen Gentium (LG) (especially its chapter 3), views the bishop above all as a pastor (exercising the power to govern) to the detriment of his two other aspects of doctor and pontiff (having the powers of teaching and sanctifying) (§ 1, 2, 9, 11, 16).


Did CD change the doctrine concerning the episcopacy?
The principal change concerns the power given by the consecration.  According to traditional doctrine, only the power of orders is given by the episcopal consecration, with an aptitude to receive jurisdiction1.  But CD, in its § 3, affirms that the bishops receive their “episcopal office” through the “episcopal consecration”, referring to LG § 21: “Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing“.


What remarks do you make on Presbyterorum ordinis (PO)?
§ 2 (in accordance with LG § 2, 4, and 17) speaks first of the priesthood of all the baptized (“all the faithful are made a holy and royal priesthood“) and then of the ministerial priesthood (“The same Lord, however, has established ministers among his faithful“), as if the latter emanates from the former, a Protestant idea.

§ 9 encourages priests to share the ecumenical attitude of the Council: “Mindful of the prescripts on ecumenism [a note refers to UR], let them not forget their brothers who do not enjoy full ecclesiastical communion with us.”

Finally, § 12 encourages the priests to be “consistently better instruments in the service of the whole People of God” “to fulfill its pastoral desires of an internal renewal of the Church [understood: the formation of a new Conciliar Church], of the spread of the Gospel in every land [the new evangelization], and of a dialogue with the world of today” [dialogue replacing missionary work]”.  As can be seen, PO expresses, between the lines, a new conception of the priest and his mission.


What remarks do you make on Optatam totius (OT)?
This decree’s aim is to add “new elements…which correspond to the constitutions and decrees of this sacred council and to the changed conditions of our times” (preamble) and “forming the future priests of Christ in the spirit of the renewal promoted by this sacred synod“.  It thus concerns forming priests having the spirit of Vatican II.

In particular, they must be formed for dialogue (§ 15 and 19), a term “completely unknown and unused in the Church’s teaching before the council“2.  OT refers to the encyclical Ecclesiam suam of Paul VI (6 August 1964), which introduced the new conception of dialogue, to the detriment of the missionary spirit.  Before the Council, priests were formed to be missionaries.  Now they are formed for dialogue.

§ 15 is very insufficient regarding what concerns philosophical studies.  There is no mention of Saint Thomas Aquinas, but only of “relying on a philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid” (with a reference to Ecclesiam suam of Paul VI); “taking into account the philosophical investigations of later ages” is recommended.  Now, the current crisis in the Church essentially adheres to the introduction of a false subjective philosophy to the detriment of the realist philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas.  This is why Saint Pius X proposed as the primary remedy of modernism “the scholastic philosophy…which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us” (Pascendi, § 45) and vigorously insisted in his last Motu proprio, Doctoris angelici (29 June 1914): “if they [‘teachers of philosophy and sacred theology’] deviated so much as a step, in metaphysics especially, from Thomas Aquinas, they exposed themselves to grave risk“.

§ 16 asks to draw one’s inspiration from LG and SC, whose differences we have seen3.


Did not Msgr. Lefebvre rely on OT for the formation of his priests?
OT was prepared by a commission presided over by Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo, who was Prefect of the Congregation for Seminaries since 1937 and who held offices in the Curia since 1908, under the reign of St. Pius X. It is not surprising to find there some good passages.  A paragraph of OT (§ 16), which concerned the place of Saint Thomas Aquinas in a course of theology, inspired Msgr. Lefebvre for his seminary; he also drew from this decree the idea of a year of spirituality (§ 12).



2.  The Two Decrees on the Religious and the Laity4
1. Perfectæ caritatis (PC): the renovation and adaptation of religious life.
2. Apostolicam actuositatem (AA): the apostolate of the laity.


What adaptation did Perfectæ caritatis (PC) accomplish?
PC adapts the religious life… to the spirit of the world.

The Church has always honored religious life, which it considers as a state of perfection superior to the ordinary state of Christians, aiming at more easily acquiring sanctity, i.e., the heroic exercise of Christian virtues.

From the preamble, the religious life is presented not as a state of perfection but as “a splendid sign of the heavenly kingdom“.  PC does not speak of state of life, avoids the expression “state of perfection“, and mentions heroic virtues only incidentally to the search for perfection or sanctity5.

Another remarkable absence in this Decree: the virtue of religion (the word does not appear), which nevertheless characterizes religious life to the point of having given it its name.  It is by the assiduous practice of this virtue that the religious easily and rapidly achieve the perfection of Christian life.

In the name of the new “virtue” of equality, PC erases the hierarchy between the Christians of the world and the religious6, between the lay religious and choir religious7.

Thus, the Decree satisfied the objections of the Protestants who did not want to hear talk about a superiority of the religious life over the life in the world, nor of clerics over the laity.

Finally, while encouraging the religious to preserve “their withdrawal from the world” (§ 7), PC “urges them to adjust their way of life to modern needs” (§ 10), “to the needs of our time” (§ 18), “to the requirements of time and…to modern conditions” (§ 20).  And in fact the adaptation “with the needs of our age” (§ 2) will be more applied than the “separation from the world” that characterized the religious life and spirit in the past.

It is no surprise that by revising the constitutions of the religious orders8 after the Council, the religious life in all the Church was destroyed in a few years.  The few religious who remain today –  apart from the resistors who try, against the winds and tides, to conserve the ancient conception of religious life – hardly distinguish themselves from the laity, and not only by the fact that they do not wear a habit!  (Moreover, as an aside, PC also allowed for the adaption of the religious habit9.)


What are the deficiencies of Apostolicam actuositatem (AA)?
This Decree tends to promote the laity unduly, the autonomy of the natural order ambiguously, Catholic action imprudently, false ecumenism, and is silent on the scourge of laicism.


How does AA promote the laity?
The promotion of the laity is done under the pretext of battling against what the progressives call “clericalism” and which, in reality, is only the divine will of a hierarchy between clerics and the laity10.

Without explicitly suppressing this hierarchy, this Decree opens doors that will largely serve, after the Council, to allow the laity into the government of the Church.

Some examples of ambiguous phrases exaggerate the role of the laity:

“The Christian vocation by its very nature is also a vocation to the apostolate” (§ 2): one should recall that the apostolate of the laity is by nature different from the apostolate of the hierarchy, and that – except in particular cases – the laity first are sanctified by the good exercise of their duty of state: the primary mission of a family mother is to raise her children well, and not to go perform an apostolate outside her home!

“But the laity likewise share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore have their own share in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the world.” (§ 2): exaggeration of the “priesthood” of the laity.  For the lay Christian, this “priesthood” consists in offering himself in sacrifice as a holy host (Rom. 12:1), not in exercising an apostolate “in the Church and in the world“.


Can one speak of an autonomy of the natural order?
The Council, in several of its texts, opens the way toward a form of naturalism in insisting on the autonomy of the natural order (§ 7 11).  AA also speaks of the “many areas of human life [that] have become increasingly autonomous” (§ 2), the “autonomy of the family” (§ 11), and the “autonomy of…various lay associations and enterprises” (§ 26).

It is true that there are laws (“law” is called “nomos” in Greek) proper to the natural order, to the family, and to the various human activities, but it is dangerous to speak of  autonomy in an age so distinguished by the spirit of independence and difficulty in submitting to a hierarchy.

It cannot be a coincidence that the “May 1968” [riots in France] took place three years after the end of the Council, and that today all intervention of the Church in the temporal and lay domain is easily interpreted as clericalism.


What does AA say about Catholic Action?
An entire paragraph (§ 20) of AA praises Catholic action understood according to Pius XI as a “collaboration of the laity in the apostolate of the hierarchy“.  “The most holy Council earnestly recommends these associations [of Catholic action] … which…produced excellent results for Christ’s kingdom.  These societies were deservedly recommended and promoted by the popes and many bishops“.

But it is known how Catholic action, initially conceived by St. Pius X as a movement of Catholics aiming to restore a Catholic society, later became a progressive movement, a so-called apostolate “for the environment“, in fact a center of agitation and protest in the Church.


How does AA sacrifice to Ecumenism?
Vatican II having an ecumenical aim, it was necessary that it appear in the decree AA: “The quasi-common heritage of the Gospel and the common duty of Christian witness resulting from it recommend and frequently require the cooperation of Catholics with other Christians … common human values not infrequently call for cooperation between Christians pursuing apostolic aims and those who do not profess Christ’s name but acknowledge these values.  By this…cooperation…the laity bear witness to Christ, the Savior of the world, as well as to the unity of the human family.” (§ 27).

Unfortunately, as will be seen with the decree UR, the ecumenism promoted by the Council is a false ecumenism aiming not for the conversion of non-Catholics, but for the Masonic promotion of the unity of mankind: that thereafter led to the horrors of the various “Assisi” reunions and of post-conciliar interreligious dialogue.

(To be continued...)


1. “Bishops receive their actual jurisdiction not with the priestly ordination but, directly or indirectly, with the juridical mandate” (1st schema of Vatican I on the Church). See Le Sel de la terre 29, p. 41-44.
2. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century, Kansas City, Angelus Press, 2004, § 151.
3. “Similarly the teaching of Canon law and of Church history should take into account the mystery of the Church, according to the dogmatic Constitution De Ecclesia [Lumen gentium] promulgated by this sacred synod. […] Sacred liturgy […] should be taught according to the mind of articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy [Sacrosanctum Concilium].”
4. The reader can fruitfully compare these two these two decrees with the two chapters of the schema on the Church that Cardinal Ottaviani proposed on the same subject. (See: « Les religieux et les laïcs dans l’Église » in Le Sel de la terre n° 31, winter 1999-2000, p. 6-25.). Between the two chapters of the schema and the two Decrees is the distance that separates the Catholic Church from the Conciliar Church.
5. The word “perfection” is employed once in a citation of saint Paul to designate charity (“bond of perfection“) and the word “sanctity” once for characterizing the contemplatives who lend “luster to the people of God which is inspired by their example“. The expression “religious state” only appears once, at the end of the document.
6. Whereas the old 1917 code divided people into three categories (clerics, religious, laity), the new code of 1983 – applying Vatican II – divides the « People of God » (sic) into three groups ordered thus: the faithful of Christ, the hierarchical constitution of the Church, and the institutes of consecrated life (in which the religious are diluted).
7. “That all the members be more closely knit by the bond of brotherly love, those who are called lay-brothers, assistants, or some similar name should be drawn closely in to the life and work of the community.  Unless conditions really suggest something else, care should be taken that there be only one class of Sisters in communities of women.” (§ 15).
8. “Therefore let constitutions…be suitably re-edited and…adapted to the Decrees of this sacred Synod.” (§ 3).
9. “The religious habit…should be…suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed.” (§ 17).
10. Certainly clerics can abuse the superiority they have because of their clerical state. There can be a reprehensible clericalism. But it is one thing to battle against the abuse of a legitimate hierarchy and another thing to want to suppress this hierarchy.
11. One reads in this same § 7: “All those things which make up the temporal order, namely, the good things of life and the prosperity of the family, culture, economic matters, the arts and professions, the laws of the political community, international relations, and other matters of this kind, as well as their development and progress, not only aid in the attainment of man’s ultimate goal but also possess their own intrinsic value.” Certainly natural realities have a (natural) value, but the principal value of these goods is to serve as a means to the supernatural end!

[Stone]

Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council 

Part VIII – The Nine Decrees continued (#6-9)

3. The Two Decrees on Missionary Activity and Means of Social Communication

6.  Ad Gentes (AG):  the Missionary Activity of the Church.
7.  Inter mirifica (IM): the Means of Social Communication.


What sort of charity does Ad Gentes (AG) promote?
Missionary activity is a consequence of the charity that works toward the salvation of souls.  But AG has a false conception of charity:  “Christian charity truly extends to all, without distinction of race, creed, or social condition” (§ 12).  Christian charity certainly extends to all men, but with distinctions.  There is an order in charity: one should first love those who are closest, and especially our brothers in the faith:  “let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” (Gal. 6:10).


What does AG say about ecumenism and religious liberty?
Ecumenism obliges AG, too, should sacrifice to the template:

« The ecumenical spirit should be nurtured in the neophytes, who should take into account that the brethren who believe in Christ are Christ’s disciples, reborn in baptism, sharers with the People of God in very many good things. Insofar as religious conditions allow, ecumenical activity should be furthered in such a way that, excluding any appearance of indifference or confusion on the one hand, or of unhealthy rivalry on the other, Catholics should cooperate in a brotherly spirit with their separated brethren, among to the norms of the Decree on Ecumenism, making before the nations a common profession of faith, insofar as their beliefs are common, in God and in Jesus Christ, and cooperating in social and in technical projects as well as in cultural and religious ones. Let them cooperate especially for the sake of Christ, their common Lord: let His Name be the bond that unites them! This cooperation should be undertaken not only among private persons, but also, subject to approval by the local Ordinary, among churches or ecclesial communities and their works. [§ 15.] »

The content of this paragraph and the reference to the decree UR show that the ecumenism in question here is the false conciliar ecumenism that was condemned in advance by Pius XI in Mortalium animos (6 January 1928).

AG also says: “The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the Faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the Faith by unjust vexations on the part of others.” (§ 13).

This phrase would be well-understood if it did not make a footnote to Dignitatis Humanæ, 2, 4, 10. Thus, one should understand by “worrisome wiles” a slight moral pressure exerted by the public powers who would recognize—as is its right—the Catholic religion as the State religion.


What does Inter Mirifica (IM) say about the “wonders of technology“?
In its first paragraph, IM lists the means of social communication (the press, cinema, radio, television, and other such technologies) as “Among the wonderful technological discoveries which men of talent, especially in the present era, have made with God’s help“. One would have liked a bit less praise for these technologies, rapidly becoming powerful means of moral deterioration.


What does IM say about the right to information?
IM demands a “right to information“, provided that there “be full respect for the laws of morality and for the legitimate rights and dignity of the individual.” Yet, DH lists false religious liberty among the rights of man, and GS—we have seen—teaches errors on the dignity of man and the rights of man. The “right to information” is thus not suitably limited: it does not conform to the doctrine of the Church on the liberty of the press1.

Is is not surprising that in 2015, fifty years after the Council, following the attack against the journal Charlie-Hebdo2, the bishops of France signed a text in favor of “freedom of expression“:

« We are unanimous in the defenses of the values of the Republic, liberty, equality, fraternity, and in particular, the defense of freedom of expression. We commit ourselves to continue this course of sharing, dialogue, and fraternity. »


 
4. The Two Decrees Decrees on the Eastern Churches and on Ecumenism
8. Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE): the Eastern Catholic Churches.
9. Unitatis redintegratio (UR): Ecumenism.


Which novelties does the text Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE) contain regarding Eastern Catholic Churches?
This decree claims to enlist the Eastern Catholic Churches (also called “uniate” because they are not schismatic like the Orthodox, but united to Rome) in the false conciliar ecumenism.

Also, this is recommended to them: “The Eastern Churches in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome have a special duty of promoting the unity of all Christians, especially Eastern Christians, in accordance with the principles of the decree, ‘About Ecumenism,’ of this Sacred Council” (§ 24).


What is the teaching of this Decree regarding communicatio in sacris?
It is a pure contradiction endangering the principle of non-contradiction, and also the Catholic faith.

The Decree begins by recalling exactly the ban on communicatio in sacris: “Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.” (§ 26). But this just reminder is followed by a “but” where the contrary comes: “On the other hand, pastoral experience shows clearly that, as regards our Eastern brethren…”

And without any doctrinal argument, it comes to contradict the posed principle, while specifying that the principles remains posed:

« Without prejudice to the principles noted earlier, Eastern Christians who are in fact separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, if they ask of their own accord and have the right dispositions, may be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. Further, Catholics may ask for these same sacraments from those non-Catholic ministers whose churches possess valid sacraments, as often as necessity or a genuine spiritual benefit recommends such a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible. Further, given the same principles, common participation [communicatio in sacris] by Catholics with their Eastern separated brethren in sacred functions, things and places is allowed for a just cause » [§ 27 and 28].

We are in contradiction with the doctrine and practice of the pre-conciliar Church. We refer the readers to Sel de la terre 40, pp. 79 to 81, where the traditional doctrine on communicatio in sacris will be found. Here are some extracts: “It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 731, § 2). “One cannot ever ask for, except in the case of necessity, a sacrament from a heretical or schismatic minister; those who contravene this defense will fall under the penalty of excommunication brought against the credentes [those who adhere to the heresy]. In the case of extreme necessity, proximate danger of death, it is only permitted to ask for the necessary sacraments (baptism or absolution or, for lack of absolution, extreme unction). If there is risk of perversion, one must be content with an act of perfect contrition.” (Dictionary of Catholic Theology, article “heresy“, written by A. Michel.)


What is one to think of the Decree Unitatis redintegratio (UR) on Ecumenism?
It is one of the worst texts of the Council. It alone would merit a detailed study3.  We will indicate here only the principal errors:

Is the purpose of the Incarnation “the unity of the human race“?
It is known that the most common solution to the question of the motive of the Incarnation is that God incarnated “for our salvation” (Credo of the Mass).

But, until then, no theologian had thought of the motive proposed by the Council, “the unity of the human race“: “What has revealed the love of God among us is that the Father has sent into the world His only-begotten Son, so that, being made man, He might by His redemption give new life to the entire human race and unify it.” (§ 2).

It is true that Our Lord wants to gather his sheep in His fold, but it is necessary, to be a sheep, to begin by believing in Him. Those who refuse to believe cannot participate in this unity.

“The unity of the human race” is not purpose of the Incarnation, but the utopian project sought by Freemasonry.

To attain this goal, the Council will contrive new concepts: “imperfect communion“, “full incorporation“, and “elements of Church“.


Is the conception of “imperfect communion” traditional?
“But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church […]. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.” (§ 3).

The concept of full or imperfect communion is an invention of Vatican II4.  Either one fulfills the three conditions for belonging to the Church—baptism, faith, submission to the legitimate hierarchy—and one is in communion with it, or a condition is lacking and one is not in communion: “Est est, non non” (Mt. 5:37).

But what is particularly grave is the suggestion that such an imperfect communion allows one to be saved without it being necessary give up heresy or schism.


What is the danger to the Church of a “full incorporation“?
To be “fully incorporated” in the Church, UR tells us, in addition to the three usual conditions, a 4th condition is necessary:  “possessing the Spirit of Christ” (LG § 14)5.  This means that sinners, as well as Protestants (UR 3), are not fully incorporated into the Church.

The danger is formulating a Church with two categories of members: the category of perfect Christians (the fully incorporated “pure“) and that of imperfect Christians not fully incorporated. And as the sacraments are given in certain cases to Protestants and schismatics, why not also give them to sinners?


How does the concept of “elements of Church” introduce a false idea?
“Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.” (§ 3).

Before Vatican II, one spoke of “remnants“, to designate what remains of the true Church in the communities that are separated from its bosom. This term makes one think of “ruins” and it was judged too negative. Thus it opted for the notion of “elements“, also used in LG, no. 8. But doing this introduced a false idea, suggesting that these elements suffice by themselves to lead one to Christ, without the need to desire belonging to the Church.

Note that this new theology can open the door to a certain recognition of illegitimate unions (concubinage, “trial marriage“, unnatural unions, etc.), as Cardinal Kasper remarked6 and as Le Sel de la terre indicated at the time7.


What is the principal error of this Decree?
The decree tends to destroy the dogma of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation. Besides what we said regarding “imperfect communion” and the “elements of the Church“, there is the assertion that heretical or schismatic sects also rank as “means of salvation” which the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using (§ 3)8.

If one understands this assertion in the sense that the Holy Ghost can use these sects to save their members even when they do not have any desire to leave them, this proposition is heretical, because it is directly opposed to the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation“9.  To be saved, the at least implicit desire to belong to the Catholic Church is necessary, i.e., the desire to leave these sects.

If one understands this assertion in the sense that the Holy Ghost uses these sects to give their members the desire to belong to the Catholic Church, it is at the very least unrealistic.

But the worst phrase could be: “the separated Churches and Communities […] have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation“. This is to deny the unity of the divine intention to save by the Church that Jesus founded and not by another. To attribute a divine purpose (“mystery of salvation”) to the action of a sect seems to be a blasphemy again the wisdom of God and the unity of His plan.


What else do you note in this decree?
It inaugurates the era of repentance and suggests that the Catholic Church has pardonable faults for the “separated brethren“: “we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren” (§ 7).

It opens the door to communicatio in sacris: “two main principles governing the practice of such common worship [communicatio]: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace” (§ 8). In practice the second principle will serve to sacrifice the first.

It refuses to employ « polemics » in the relations with “the separated brethren“, suppressing in a stroke of the pen a good part of Tradition.

It introduces the idea that “in Catholic doctrine there exists a ‘hierarchy’ of truths” (§ 11), without recalling that the “last” truth of faith is as necessary as the first for salvation.

§ 12 hopes that “before the whole world let all Christians confess their faith in the trine God“, placing the divine faith (of Catholics) and human faith of heretics on the same level. This same paragraph hopes for the social collaboration of “Christians“, without taking into account the danger of this collaboration and the change on this point with the previous discipline of the Church.

§ 14 suggests that throughout the centuries the Roman See did not exercise primacy, which implies that the particular Eastern Churches are sisters of the Roman Church, and thus they they were not subject to its ordinary jurisdiction, and that today’s schismatic Eastern Churches are the same as those founded by the Apostles, as if the schism did not introduce any break.

§ 15 also claims that the Eastern schismatics unreservedly benefit  from “apostolic succession“, and it recommends “some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority“.

§ 16 claims that certain aspects of revealed mystery have sometimes been better grasped and explained by the (schismatic) Orientals than by Catholics.

§ 19 reduces the difference between the Catholic faith and the Protestant heresy to differences “in the interpretation of revealed truth“.

§ 23 states that the “separated brethren“, thus heretics, have the “faith in Christ“, as if this were systematically the case; that “The daily Christian life of these brethren is nourished by their faith in Christ and strengthened by the grace of Baptism“, whereas this is only true for infants or for heretics in invincible ignorance; and that they have “a true charity“, whereas charity does not exist without supernatural faith.


What judgement do you pass on the entire doctrine of the decree?
The doctrine of UR impressively strays, in its whole as in its details, from Catholic theology on the relations between the Church and other Christian sects, such as it was expressed in the preparatory schemas of the First Vatican Council, in the “Ottaviani” schema of Vatican II, and in papal encyclicals, in particular in Satis Cognitum by Leo XIII (29 June 1896), Mortalium Animos by Pius XI (6 January 1928), and Mystici Corporis by Pius XII (29 June 1943).

(To be continued...)

1. “Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor.” (Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 15 August 1832). — “Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.” (Leo XIII, Libertas præstantissimum, 20 June 1888)
2. Blasphemous journal regularly attacking Our Lord, Our Lady, and the Church with horrible cartoons.
3. See Frère Pierre-Marie, « Bref examen critique de Unitatis Redintegratio » in L’Unité spirituelle du genre humain dans la religion de Vatican II – Études théologiques – Troisième 4. 4. Symposium de Paris, Paris, Vu de haut hors série, 2005, p. 163-192.
5. See Frère Pierre-Marie, « L’Unité de l’Église », La Tentation de laœcuménisme, Versailles, Courrier de Rome, 1999, and the editorial of Sel de la terre 35.
6. See Frère Pierre-Marie, « “Ayant l’esprit du Christ” ? », Le Sel de la terre 49 (summer 2004), p. 6.
7. “Church doctrine is not a closed system: the Second Vatican Council teaches us that there is a development, meaning that it is possible to look into this further. I wonder if a deeper understanding similar to what we saw in ecclesiology, is possible: although the Catholic Church is Christ’s true Church, there are elements of ecclesiality beyond the institutional boundaries of the Church too. Couldn’t some elements of sacramental marriage also be recognised in civil marriages in certain cases? For example, the concept of  lifelong commitment, mutual love and care, Christian life and a public declaration of commitment that does not exist in common-law marriages [i.e., free unions—Ed.].” Vatican Insider, 18 September 2014.
8. See Le Sel de la terre 43 (winter 2002-2003, p. 252). In a review on an article by Father de La Soujeole who defended the new conciliar theology on the Church, the reviewer wrote: 
9. “What our Dominican does not see either are the possible applications of his theory of the ‘potential whole’. So, illegitimate unions (concubinage, ‘trial marriage’, unnatural union, etc.) could also be qualified as potential parts of marriage. Then why does the Church not bless them?”.
10. “It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” (UR 3, 4).
11. “Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach there is also contained that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.” Letter of the Holy Office to the archbishop of Boston, 8 August 1949, DS 3866. — On this dogma, see Abbè François Laisney, « Le baptême de désir », in Le Sel de la terre 11 and 12; Hugon (père) Édouard, Hors de l’Église point de salut ?, Eguelshardt, Clovis, 1995 (review in Le Sel de la terre 14).

[Stone]

Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council

Part IX - The Three Declarations

1. Dignitatis Humanæ (DH) : Religious Liberty

What is the significance of Dignitatis humanæ (DH) on Religious Liberty?
Although DH is only a Declaration, thus in principle a minor text, it has a very great importance1. Cardinal Bea, following his secret visit with the secretary general of the Ecumenical Council of Churches, prepared a schema on this theme, which provoked a serious incident during the last session of the central preparatory commission: Msgr. Lefebvre often spoke of the confrontation between Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani, because it can be seen as a prelude of the confrontation between the “two Romes”2.

By adopting the “essential principle of the modern State”3, the Council accepted one of the fundamental claims of Freemasonry: “Christians should not forget that all routes [i.e., all religions] lead to God and sustain this courageous notion of liberty of thought that—and one can truly speak in this regard of a revolution coming out of our Masonic lodges—is marvelously spread over the dome of St. Peter’s4.”


What is the fundamental teaching of DH?
DH (§ 2) teaches that “the human person has a right to religious freedom.  This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”  This right “has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person“; it “is to be recognized in the constitutional law…and thus it is to become a civil right“; and it “continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”


Is this teaching opposed to the traditional teaching of the Church?6
Yes, this teaching is opposed to numerous magisterial texts, e.g.,

— to Mirari vos (15 August 1832)5 by Gregory XVI :

“This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. ‘But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,’ as Augustine was wont to say.”

— to Quanta Cura (8 December 1864) by Pius IX:

“And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.’ From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society…’ But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching liberty of perdition”.

— and above all to the condemnation of the propositions of the Syllabus of Pius IX (8 December 1864):

77. « In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. »

Allocution “Nemo Vestrum,”July 26, 1855.

78. « Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. »

Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

79. « Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. »

Allocution “Nunquam Fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

Is this teaching opposed to the traditional practice of the Church?6
Indeed, from Constantine to Vatican II, the Church has always asked Christian princes to prohibit false cults, “except for real necessity of tolerance“7.  It has never considered that “not disturbing the public order” is a necessary motive of tolerance, except to give this expression a meaning different from that of Vatican II.

But, as St. Thomas Aquinas said: “The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things…  Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever.” (II-II, q. 10, a. 12). It is thus certain that the declaration DH gives a false teaching.


Does the Conciliar Church not realize the contradiction?
The Conciliar Church does realize the difficulty in reconciling the teachings.  It has authoritatively affirmed that the reconciliation is possible (because, to them, Vatican II cannot be mistaken) and it has spawned many studies to try to reconcile the two teachings, but without success, each study developing a new argument for how the previous one does not suffice8.  Finally, during the doctrinal discussions, the Conciliar Church invited the Society of St. Pius X to “enter into the Church” to help it find a solution!

In fact, the simplest and most honest solution is that of the future Benedict XVI who admitted: « there are magisterial decisions which cannot be the final word on a given matter as such but, despite the permanent value of their principles, are chiefly also a signal for pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional policy.  Their kernel remains valid, but the particulars determined by circumstances can stand in need of correction.  In this connection, one will probably call to mind […] the pontifical statements of the last century regarding freedom of religion »9.


Is DH based on a false philosophy?
Yes, DH is based on a personalist philosophy in considering that the common good “chiefly consists in the protection of the rights, and in the performance of the duties, of the human person” (§ 6).

Without speaking of the Masonic origin of the doctrine of the Rights of Man, it is at least paradoxical to define the common good as the protection of the rights of particular persons. The particular good is ordered to the common good, not vice versa.  Personalist philosophy, placing the person above society, is the source of a spirit of protest, egoism, and subversion.

(To be continued...)


1. “Unexpectedly, the encounter with the great themes of the modern epoch did not happen in the great Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, but instead in two minor documents, whose importance has only gradually come to light in the context of the reception of the Council. First, there is the Declaration on Religious Liberty [Dignitatis humanæ]” (Benedict XVI in 2. Osservatore Romano of 11 October 2012.)
3. On this confrontation, see Le Sel de la terre 39, pp. 117-118.
4. Benedict XVI, address to the Curia on 22 December 2005.
5. Yves Marsaudon, L’Œcuménisme vu par un franc-maçon de tradition, éd. Vitiano, Paris, 1964, p. 121. The baron Marsaudon is a 33° Freemason, minister of the supreme Council of France of the R.E.A.A. (Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite).
6. For more detail, see the works by Msgr. Lefebvre: « They Have Uncrowned Him », « From Liberalism to Apostasy », « The Conciliar Tragedy », Angelus Press, 1988, and The Dubia: « 7. My Doubts About the Vatican II Declaration of Religious Liberty », Angelus Press, 2001. See also: Fr. Pierre-Marie, «La déclaration sur la liberté religieuse du concile Vatican II est-elle compatible avec la Tradition?» in Le Sel de la terre 2, p. 7.
8. For more details, see Fr. Pierre-Marie, «La déclaration sur la liberté religieuse du concile Vatican II est-elle compatible avec la Tradition?» in Le Sel de la terre 2, p. 7.
Cardinal Billot, de Ecclesia, q. 19, a. 1, § 3.
9. We have studied several of them in Le Sel de la terre.  See for example: Le Sel de la terre 30, p. 202.
10. Cardinal Ratzinger, « Magisterium and theology », L’Osservatore romano, 10 June 1990. [translation from The Ratzinger Reader p. 216].

[Stone]

Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council 

Part X - The Three Declarations continued:  ‘Nostra ætate’  and  ‘Gravissimum educationis’

2. Nostra ætate (NA): Non-Christian Religions

What is the significance of Nostra ætate (NA) on the relations with non-Christian religions?
Like DH, it is a declaration, a text of little importance in principle.  And yet, it too, is one of the most important documents of the Council. 1    In favoring the unity of the human race, it does not suffice to promote ecumenism among Christians; it is also necessary to inaugurate inter-religious dialogue.


How does NA give a new teaching?
Never has the Church praised other “religions”.  She presented herself as the only true religion, the only one that really merits this name because she alone binds [religa] man to God.

But this document describes the false religions positively, ignoring the negative aspects (of jihad of the Muslims, human sacrifices in several “religions”, terrible idolatry, moral infamies, etc.2). Here are some examples:

In Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. […] Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. […] The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings […]

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men […] In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. […]

God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues—such is the witness of the Apostle. […] True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. […]

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.


Could you point out a sophism of this new teaching?
For example, the statement: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”

There surely are truths in these false religions, otherwise they would not attract anyone.  But, as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. correctly said, Truth is captive to error.  But these religions use these partial truths to distance men from the Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation.  What good is it to know these truths if one loses his soul?3


What are the consequences of this new teaching?
NA contains the seed for all the inter-religious gatherings that mushroomed after that which John Paul II convoked at Assisi in October 1986.  The different religions are presented as good and able to save their adherents.  The prayers performed in these religions are considered as agreeable to God.

In what concerns Judaism in particular, NA was the beginning of an engagement.4  The Church is no longer presented as the new elect people come to replace the old.5  The old Covenant would still be valid for the Jews, and they would not need to become Christians to be saved.


What does the Church become in this concert of religions?
The Conciliar Church becomes, according to the happy expression of Abbé de Nantes, the MASDU: the Spiritual Animating Movement of Universal Democracy.  Using the moral prestige accumulated by 2000 years of Catholic Tradition, the authorities of the Church contributed to establishing the spiritual nave of the Masonic Temple described by Msgr. Delassus in La Conjuration antichrétienne6.


3. Gravissimum educationis (GE): Christian Education

What do you say about Gravissimum educationis momentum (GE) on Christian education?
Even if it is a document of minor importance, one finds the same usual errors in it:

— a liberal ideology, with references to the declarations of the Rights of Man of 1948 and the rights of the child of 1959 (preamble)—the word “right” occurring 28 times in the text;

— the recommendation of ecumenism—one of the roles of the faculties being to promote “the dialogue with our separated brethren and with non-Christians” (§ 11) in view of the decree on ecumenism and with the method of Ecclesiam Suam;

— the recommendation of the right to religious liberty (§ 7).

We remark that the Council does not state that the purpose of a Catholic school is to transmit the Faith, but instead, that  « its proper function is to create for the school community a special atmosphere animated by the Gospel spirit of freedom and charity, to help youth grow according to the new creatures they were made through baptism » (§ 8).


(To be continued...)


1. “The second document that was to prove important for the Church’s encounter with the modern age came into being almost by chance, and it developed in various phases. I am referring to the Declaration Nostra Aetate on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.” (Benedict XVI in Osservatore Romano of 11 October 2012).
2. The relator explains that a principle was adopted: not to speak the whole truth, but only what unites the Church. This principle was widely applied afterwards to falsify the the meaning of Scripture, notably the phrase: “the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.” (Rom. 11:29). See « Le principe de partialité » in Le Sel de la terre 58, p. 10-11.
3. On this question, reread the editorial of Sel de la terre 35: « Dominus Jesus et les éléments d’Église ». And notably the appendices: « Jugnet et les vérités gauchies » and « Le père Garrigou-Lagrange et la vérité servante ». One reads for example in the first text: “Judaism and Islam always insist on the unity of God (which is a truth) but they do it intentionally, in a unilateral manner, which excludes the Christian dogma of the Trinity—Luther insists on the fact that it is grace alone that justifies and, in its rough state, this formula is true. But, as far as he is concerned, it excludes the Catholic economy of the sacraments, etc.”
4. See Michel Laurigan, « Chronologie d’un engrenage », article in Le Sel de la terre 55 and brochure in Éditions du Sel.
5. This traditional doctrine is contemptuously called the “theology of substitution” by its adversaries.
6. Msgr. Henri Delassus, La Conjuration antichrétienne – Le Temple maçonnique voulant s’élever sur les ruines de l’Église catholique, t. 3, Lille, Desclée De Brouwer, 1910, p. 629 and following.