The Second Vatican Council Was Not Infallible
The Second Vatican Council (1963-5) was not
intended to be an infallible doctrinal council but was conceived as a
“pastoral” renewal of the Church to bring it into line with the Revolution of
1789. Paul VI admitted it to be a disaster. For proof, we shall quote the
addresses of Popes John XXIII († 1963) and Paul VI († 1978) at the opening
and closing of the Council, as well as other material from Popes, cardinals
and bishops.
The Testimony of John XXIII
Pope John XXIII himself stated in his
Opening Address at the beginning of Vatican II that the Council was not
intended to be a doctrinal council concerned with defining any articles of
Faith; rather it was to be a “pastoral” council that was concerned with representing
the Catholic Faith in a manner acceptable to the modern world.
“The salient point of this council is not,
therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine
of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by
ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and
familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of
the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in
which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be
taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being
measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly
pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M.
Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)
The
Council was convoked after World War II and the defeat of Fascism and Nazism.
John XXIII intended that the Council should, by a new “presentation” of
Catholic doctrine, bring the Church in line with the World Order of liberal
pluralism, which he claimed was from God. It was a political revolution
within the Church.
“Illuminated
by the light of this Council, the Church - we confidently trust - will become
greater in spiritual riches and gaining the strength of new energies
therefrom, she will look to the future without fear. In fact, by bringing
herself up to date where required, and by the wise organization of
mutual co-operation, the Church will make men, families, and peoples
really turn their minds to heavenly things. […] In the present order of
things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations
which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are
directed toward the fulfilment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And
everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the
Church. […] She opens the fountain of her life-giving doctrine which allows
men, enlightened by the light of Christ, to understand well what they really
are, what their lofty dignity and their purpose are, and, finally, through
her children, she spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than
which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing
more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity
of all.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The
Documents of Vatican II, pp. 712-3 , 716-7)
So Vatican II was “pastoral” in so
far as it intended to change the Church, “bring it up to date”, and
incorporate it into “a new order of human relations”, so that the
Church would respect “human differences”, such as other religions, and
would work for a “brotherly unity of all”.
Pope Benedict XVI stated in 1982 that the
Council’s documents, including the text Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II’s
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), were intended to
revise the Church so that it would uphold and practice the values of the
Revolution of 1789, namely pluralism and secularisation. Those values, such
as freedom of conscience, the liberty of other religions, a separation of
Church from the state and many other basic tenants of liberal pluralism had
been repeatedly condemned by the Church, in particular by Pope Pius IX in his
Syllabus of Modern Errors. Ratzinger wrote this:
“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis
of the text [Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction
with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a
revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. [...] Let
us be content to say that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such,
represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official
reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” (Principles of
Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-2, Ignatius Press 1987)
Pope John Paul II, summed it up when he
completely contradicted the pre-conciliar Popes as follows.
“Freedom of conscience and of religion, including the aforementioned elements, is a primary and inalienable right of man.” (“The Freedom of Conscience and of Religion”, September 1, 1980)
Fr Hesse: Vatican II in Two Minutes
The Testimony of Paul VI
The Theological Commission of the Council
made a declaration, a nota previa (preliminary note), concerning the
theological note of Vatican II on March 6, 1964. Pope Paul VI had it read by
the Council’s General Secretary, Pericle Cardinal Felici, who was the Prefect
of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to the Council’s participants
on November 16 of that year. It was intended to assure them that it was not
an infallible council, before they gave their approval to the first conciliar
text, that on the Church, Lumen Gentium. The declaration was published
as an addendum to that text. It says that as the Council was intended to be “pastoral”,
it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it
openly says so (which it never did).
“In view of the
conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council,
this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church
only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ,
The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)
Cardinal Felici elaborated on this to
Archbishop Lefebvre († 1991), who narrated his experience.
“These events I was involved in. It is I
who carried the signatures to Mgr. Felici, the Council Secretary, accompanied
by Mgr. de Proenca Sigaud, Archbishop of Diamantina: and I am obliged to say
there occurred things that are truly inadmissible. I do not say this in order
to condemn the Council; and I am not unaware that there is here a cause of
confusion for a great many Catholics. After all, they think the Council was
inspired by the Holy Ghost.
“Not necessarily. A non-dogmatic, pastoral
council is not a recipe for infallibility. When, at the end of the sessions,
we asked Cardinal Felici, “Can you not give us what the theologians call the
“theological note of the Council?”” he replied, “We have to distinguish
according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the
subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which
have a novel character, we have to make reservations.” (An Open Letter to
Confused Catholics, By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 14,
“Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.”, p. 107)
According to the General Secretary of
Vatican II, distinctions must be made: the dogmatic definitions of the past
must of course be adhered to, but “reservations” must be made
regarding any doctrines of a “novel character”. Never before in the
history of the Catholic Church had a council ever taken pains to declare that
it was not teaching infallibly, unless it should “openly declare so”,
which it never did. And that a General Secretary should confide that “reservations”
must be made about its teachings of “a novel character” is quite
staggering. Vatican II was clearly unlike any ecumenical council which
preceded it.
Paul VI also stated that Vatican II was
not infallible when he concluded it.
“Today we are
concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] But one thing must be noted
here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not
wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made
thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which
today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak,
into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and
force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral
charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it
has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought
to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from
actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital,
attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.” (Address
during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7,
1965; AAS 58)
Vatican II did not “issue extraordinary
dogmatic pronouncements” at all; that refers to infallible definitions,
none of which were made. That Council was not infallible, did not claim to be
and it was repeatedly said that it was not. Rather it claimed to “descend
so to speak, into a dialogue with” man, “with the accommodating
friendly voice of pastoral charity” and to “express itself in simple,
up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a
cordial approach”. The Council was intended to reorient the Church to the
world, to be “accommodating” and “friendly”, “up-to-date”
with the pluralistic, liberal World Order.
The very same day, the Council’s pluralist
“Declaration on Religious Liberty”, Dignitatis Humanae (Of the Dignity
of Man), was finalised as addressed to the whole world.
“Over and above all this, in taking up the
matter of religious freedom this sacred Synod intends to develop the doctrine
of recent Popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and on the
constitutional order of society. This Vatican Synod declares that the
human person has a right to religious freedom.” (Dignitatis Humanae,
Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 677-8)
The Vatican ordered all Catholic countries
to alter their constitutions so that they would no longer be Catholic
countries but would uphold liberal pluralism. Francisco Franco resisted and
the Church attempted to undermine him. Before the Council, the Church had
given him the title of “Defender of the Church”.
Paul VI gave the theological note of the
revolutionary Council in his Apostolic Brief for its closing, “In Spiritu
Sancto”(December 8, 1965), which was read at the closing ceremonies of that
day by Archbishop Felici, the General Secretary. Paul VI had already stated
in his address concluding the Council the day before that the Council had not
“wish[ed] to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and
therefore was not infallible; Felici went on to explain that Paul VI was
making the Council a matter of religious submission, which is the
assent given to non-infallible material, as we shall see.
“And last of all it was the most
opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above
all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of
charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still
separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.
[…] We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to
be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the
dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. […]
Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman,
Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.” (In Spiritu Sancto,
Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)
Paul VI established at the Council’s end
that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously
observed”. The 1983 Code of Canon Law distinguishes the matter of
religious submission from infallible, definitive teaching.
“Can. 752. While the
assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect
and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff
or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare
upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to
proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore
to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”
So, “religious submission” is given when the Pope, either alone or with his bishops in a council, does not intend to “proclaim doctrine by a definitive act”: therefore the matter of religious submission is not infallible, which is why it does not require “the assent of faith”.
“Can. 749. In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals. The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.”
So, when Paul VI stated that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed”, he was making all the Council texts a matter of “religious submission” which is what is given to non-infallible matter. For the Council did not “proclaim definitively” any doctrine, “not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements”.
Paul VI again highlighted the
non-infallible, non-definitive character of Vatican II in a general audience
a year later.
“There are those who ask what
authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to
its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic
definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The
answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6,
1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the
Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas
carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966,
published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
That is plain: Vatican II “avoided
issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible
teaching authority”; it “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary
manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility”. The documents were
intended to be of the ordinary but not universal magisterium, called the
merely “authentic magisterium” in the 1983 Code.
Paul VI confirmed again in 1975 that
Vatican II was pastoral and not an infallible dogmatic council.
“Differing from
other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary
and pastoral.” (General Audience, August 6, 1975)
Vatican II was a uniquely non-infallible
ecumenical council unlike any other. It was a vehicle of a revolution.
Fr. Hesse: Why Catholics Should Doubt Whether Vatican II Was a Valid Council
The Testimony of Other Council Participants
Other Council participants also witnessed
to the non-infallible character of Vatican II.
John Cardinal Heenan of England stated as
follows.
“It deliberately limited its own
objectives. There were to be no specific definitions. Its purpose from
the first was pastoral renewal within the Church and a fresh approach
to the outside.” (Council and Clergy, 1966)
Bishop Butler of England publicly spoke to
the matter twice.
“Not all teachings emanating from a pope
or Ecumenical Council are infallible. There is no single proposition of
Vatican II – except where it is citing previous infallible definitions – which
is in itself infallible.” (The Tablet 26,11,1967)
“Vatican II gave
us no new dogmatic definitions.” (The Tablet 2,3,1968)
Bishop Rudolf Graber wrote as follows.
“Since the Council was
aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from
making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as
previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by
means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence
which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the
spirit of the Council.” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, 1974)
Bishop Thomas Morris expressed his relief
on the matter.
“I was relieved when we
were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final
statements on doctrine, because a statement of doctrine has to be very
carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as
tentative and likely to be reformed.” (Catholic World News 1,22,1997)
Hence, the participants of Vatican II were
given to understand that it was not an infallible council.
The Testimony of John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger
The day after Pope John Paul II
excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre, he tried to justify himself.
“Indeed, the extent and
depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed
commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s
continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps
because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections
of the Church.” (Ecclesia Dei, 1988)
John Paul II admitted the novelties of
Vatican II and claims that they are “new points of doctrine.” But Pope
Pius IX defined ex cathedra at the First Vatican Council as follows.
“For the Holy Ghost was
promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His
revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance,
they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit
of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.” (Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4)
Pius IX defined that a Pope cannot make
known new doctrine but John Paul II claimed that the Popes of Vatican II did
just that. So it would appear that Vatican II, John Paul II et al. were
heretical.
John Paul II admitted that Vatican II was
pastoral, not doctrinal.
“Pope John conceived
the Council as an eminently pastoral event.” (Angelus, October 27,
1985)
Cardinal Ratzinger also stated that
Vatican II was not infallible.
“Certainly there is a mentality of narrow
views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are
many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward,
everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best,
has value only in the light of Vatican II. […] The truth is that this
particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to
remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.” (Address to
the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988)
Fr Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church
The Fruits of the Second Vatican Council
Paul VI, who promulgated the Council,
witness to its destructive fruits.
“The Church finds
herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what
would even better be called self-destruction. It is an interior
upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It
is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to
a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great
sessions of the Council. But one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It
is as if the Church were destroying herself.” (Address to the Lombard
Seminary at Rome, December 7, 1968)
Indeed, half the priests in the world
simply walked out within a decade of the Council. The Church has been
destroying itself ever since, and has adopted just about every harmful or
scandalous policy it possibly could to hasten the destruction. Paul VI went
as far as to state the following about the Church in the post-conciliar
period.
“We have the impression that through some
cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God:
it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation. […] We
thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the
history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms,
of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.” (Sermon during the Mass for
Sts. Peter & Paul in St. Peter’s Basilica, on the occasion of the ninth
anniversary of his coronation, June 29, 1972)
“The tail of the devil is functioning in the
disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has
entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy,
the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest
levels within the Church.” (Address on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the
Fatima Apparitions, October 13, 1977)
But is that not what the Council was
intended to do!
No comments:
Post a Comment