What will become of the Jesuits?

[ShannonMcCatholic]

If you are out, you are out and doesn't matter if you are out for being too liberal or too conservative, Orthodox, SSPX or Sedevacantist or if they are in schism on the liberal side ... other than in how we try to bring them back home.

Amen!!

 

[Irish Melkite]

Saints & Blesseds of the Society of Jesushttp://www.companymagazine.org/saints/sjsaints.html

Jesuit Cardinalshttp://www.holycross.edu/departments/history/vlapomar/cardinals.htm

The Servant of God Father Walter Ciszek, SJ, of blessed memoryhttp://nyssa.cecs.uofs.edu/wcpl2.htmlhttp://nyssa.cecs.uofs.edu/wcpl2.html

The El Salvadorean Martyrshttp://www.creighton.edu/CollaborativeMinistry/10th-anniv.html

The North American Jesuit Martyrshttp://www.martyrs-shrine.com/

A Century of Jesuit Martyrshttp://www.companysj.com/v172/martyrs.html

Jesuit Martyrs of the 20th Centuryhttp://www.companysj.com/news/martyrs20.html

The Spanish Jesuit Martyrs of Virginiahttp://www.catholicherald.com/cns/jesuits.htm

Jesuit Mathematicians, Scientists, & Astronomershttp://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/sjscient.htm

Jesuit Artists & Scholarshttp://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/sjartsch.htm

Jesuit Schools & Foundershttp://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/sjschool.htm

Jesuit Missionaries, Explorers, Saints, & Martyrshttp://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/sjmissio.htm

The Jesuit Martyrs of Paraguayhttp://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/martyr14.htm

Sketches of Chivalry from the Early Societyhttp://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/jp/jpnames.htm

A Litany of Jesuit Saintshttp://www.sentex.net/~jveltri/litany.html

The Jesuit Martyrs of Nagasakihttp://www.adoremus.org/999-NagHitch.html

 

[PetertheRock]

I am confused...what's wrong with the Jesuits? I go to a Church run by the Jesuits and there was said to be a couple Jesuits on the "short list" to be Pope. The Jesuit priests I know are all good people so I don't know what all this talk is all about.

 

[NDIrish]

ND bites his tongue to avoid the wrath of Shannon!

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

ND bites his tongue to avoid the wrath of Shannon!

Now- yur learning!

 

[ThereseOfLisieux]

Would someone please stop biting their toungue, and tell the rest of us what this thread is about? What have "some" Jesuits done that have upset some of you?

 

[Paul S]

Would someone please stop biting their toungue, and tell the rest of us what this thread is about? What have "some" Jesuits done that have upset some of you?

There's been a lot of heresy to come from Jesuit writers, seemingly much more so than from other orders. But I don't know any specific examples. And that doesn't mean that all Jesuits are bad - Fr. Pacwa is wonderful.

 

[plainswolf]

Speaking of the SSPX, Does anyone wonder why the Church goes out of it's way for those who have no intentions of accepting the same doctrines, yet seem to ignore those in her own fold that she has considered to be in an "irregular status"?

In China, the Communist have set up a puppet Catholic Church refered to as the 'Patriotic Association' controlled by the state while the real Catholic Church in China is under severe persecution and has to operate underground situation.. On April 28, 2005 AsiaNews reported that, according to the Kung Foundation, "Seven priests of the underground Church were arrested last April 27 in the village of Wuqiu, near the city of Jinzhou (Hebei). The priests, whose age range from 30 to 50 years, had gathered for a spiritual retreat together with Bishop Julius Jia Zhiguo, unofficial bishop of Zhengding." By "unofficial" bishop, the communist regime in Beijing means a true Catholic bishop not hand picked by the communist government.

The arrested priests were on a religious retreat at the time of their arrest. The AsiaNews story further reports that "the arrests were made by the Security Bureau and Religious Affairs Bureau of Shijiazhuang at 5:30 p.m., with dozens of policemen and 9 police cars surrounding the retreat site." The leader of the retreat, Msgr. Jia Zhiguo, "had just been released from a period of round-the-clock surveillance, from the time of John Paul II’s death to Benedict XVI’s election, March 20 to April 25. Security forces and the Religious Affairs Bureau had warned Msgr. Jia to refrain from all religious activity."

The story provides a succinct summation of the Beijing regime’s policy of forcible suppression of the Roman Catholic religion: "The government in China allows religious activity only in places and with people registered and monitored by the state and the Patriotic Association. Any religious activity outside of state control is considered unlawful and a threat to public order. Control by the Patriotic Association aims at fostering the birth of a national church, independent of relations with the Pope."

Since 1988 we have heard a great deal about the purported "schism" of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), whose head, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, consecrated four bishops in that year without the allegedly technically required prior papal approval — although John Paul II had already agreed to the consecration of at one bishop on a date to be determined. Lefebvre acted according to what he believed was permissible under Church law in view of the necessity of preserving Roman Catholic tradition in a time of crisis in the Church, and he did so with an express and firm attachment to the Holy See.

But why, on the other hand, have we heard nothing about the undeniable schism of the Patriotic Association — formed by communists, controlled by communists, and designed precisely for the express purpose of creating a "Catholic" church independent of the Pope?

This curious double standard is one of the issues Pope Benedict XVI will have to address. Optimistically at least, Cardinal Ratzinger himself declared in an address before he became Pope Benedict, concerning negotiations to "regularize" the SSPX: "We must do everything possible to return to these brothers their lost confidence."

Now I'm not so much trying to defend the SSPX, but pointing out what seems a double-standard sometimes..

J.M.J.
Mark

 

[NDIrish]

* ND's tongue is now bleeding... *

 

[Aaron-Aggie]

There's been a lot of heresy to come from Jesuit writers, seemingly much more so than from other orders. But I don't know any specific examples. And that doesn't mean that all Jesuits are bad - Fr. Pacwa is wonderful.

So of this mass amount of hersery there are no examples?
Sounds like a rumor taken out of the pages of a certian best seller

 

[NDIrish]

So of this mass amount of hersery there are no examples?
Sounds like a rumor taken out of the pages of a certian best seller

Do you seriously think there are no problems within the Jesuit order? Exactly how many examples do you need?

It might be wise to avoid posting every example we can find (and I can assure you, there are plenty), but to deny that there is a very fundamental problem is nothing short of silly.

 

[NDIrish]

Here's a little joke for ya:



What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?

Well, they were both founded by Spaniards, St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were also both founded to combat heresy: the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants.

What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders? Well, have you met any Albigensians lately?

 

[Aaron-Aggie]

Do you seriously think there are no problems within the Jesuit order? Exactly how many examples do you need?

It might be wise to avoid posting every example we can find (and I can assure you, there are plenty), but to deny that there is a very fundamental problem is nothing short of silly.

First of all there are 4 examples of good Jesuit's on this thread and to that I add another set from a parish in texas.

Second of all there are 0 example of bad Jesuit's

Third the charge of heresy and shcimtiziom is a pretty hefty charge to level against a single priest let alone an entire order priest. Sepcialy when no suggest charges have been filed by the heircary of the church it self.

4th telling deragator jokes about any priest or group of preist shows a lack of respect for their Holy Order and for the Lord our self.

Fifth I'm getting feed up with the holy then thou attidtue of posters on this board specaily when it goes to the extent that its consider proper to accuse and judge even priests.

May the Lord have mercy on our souls.

 

[NDIrish]

Second of all there are 0 example of bad Jesuit's

Here's some for you:
Jesuit Priest Investigated By Vatican For Heresy

ROME (CWNews.com) - A Jesuit priest at the Pontifical Gregorian University is being investigated by the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith for a book he wrote on religious plurality, the priest told the Italian news agency ANSA on Saturday.

Father Jacques Dupuis, 74, said he had been sent an initial interrogative survey related to his book "Towards a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism" by the Congregation. The priest explained that he had been given three months to reply and is not allowed to discuss the inquiry.

"I can't explain the allegations because I've been banned from talking to anyone, colleagues or journalists, about the charges and I cannot talk publicly about my arguments," ANSA quoted him as saying.


------------------

Vatican investigating two theologians

VATICAN (CWNews.com) -- The Vatican is investigating the teachings of two theologians, Luigi Lombardi Vallauri and Father Jacque Dupuis, SJ, according to informed sources in Rome.

Lombardi, a professor at the University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, has taken a leave while the Congregation for Catholic Education reviews his latest work. The Vatican is reportedly studying Lombardi's statements on the authority of the magisterium, the reality of hell, sexual morality, and in particular the question of original sin, which Lombardi argues is "contrary to the principle of personal responsibility."

Father Dupuis, who teaches at the Gregorian University in Rome, is being investigated because of positions he took in a recent book about pluralism in the Church. Specifically, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is studying whether the Dupuis book contradicts the proposition that the Catholic Church offers the only sure path to salvation. The Jesuit priest has recently been criticized in the Italian daily Avvenire because of his theories on that issue.


-------------------

Theologian prepares response to Vatican questions

VATICAN (CWNews.com) -- Father Jacques Dupuis, the Belgian Jesuit whose writings are being examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has been relieved of his teaching duties at the Gregorian University while he responds to Vatican queries.

Father Dupuis, who teaches Christology at the pontifical university, was removed from his classroom assignments when the Jesuit Father General, Hans-Peter Kolvenbach, decided that the theologian should have more time to prepare his responses to questions raised by the Vatican congregation about his latest book, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Father Kolvenbach, who is also the vice-chancellor of the Gregorian University, arranged to give Father Dupuis his freedom from academic work during the three months he has been allotted to defend his work.

A statement issued by the administration of the university said that the professor's leave of absence should also "avoid any misunderstanding." Complaining about "uncontrolled rumors" regarding the Dupuis case, the university pointed out that there has been-- and will be-- no public announcement regarding the content of the Vatican's concerns, at least until a final decision is reached. Father Dupuis, the editor of the theological journal Gregorianum and a consultor to the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, has maintained his silence on the affair.

Would you like more?

Third the charge of heresy and shcimtiziom is a pretty hefty charge to level against a single priest let alone an entire order priest. Sepcialy when no suggest charges have been filed by the heircary of the church it self.

Go ahead and let the CDF know that they were a bit harsh with Father Dupuis.

4th telling deragator jokes about any priest or group of preist shows a lack of respect for their Holy Order and for the Lord our self.

You're right, I don't respect our Lord.

Fifth I'm getting feed up with the holy then thou attidtue of posters on this board specaily when it goes to the extent that its consider proper to accuse and judge even priests.

To suggest that every Jesuit is guilty of heresy is wrong, as we've seen several examples of strong Jesuits on this thread (to which I would add Father Kenneth Baker), but on the flip side, to suggest that nothing in the order is wrong is to willingly look the other way.

Quite honestly, I don't care how fed up you are. The attitude of "everything's great, and if we ignore it long enough, it will go away!" kind of reminds me of:

 

[Annabel Lee]

First of all there are 4 examples of good Jesuit's on this thread and to that I add another set from a parish in texas.

Second of all there are 0 example of bad Jesuit's

Third the charge of heresy and shcimtiziom is a pretty hefty charge to level against a single priest let alone an entire order priest. Sepcialy when no suggest charges have been filed by the heircary of the church it self.

4th telling deragator jokes about any priest or group of preist shows a lack of respect for their Holy Order and for the Lord our self.

Fifth I'm getting feed up with the holy then thou attidtue of posters on this board specaily when it goes to the extent that its consider proper to accuse and judge even priests.

May the Lord have mercy on our souls.

Very good post.

 

[PetertheRock]

I suppose it is right to think that all priests are child molesters because we know of a bunch that are? I suppose you would have no problem if people made jokes about Catholic priests being sexual predators? If you look hard enough you can find examples of bad priests in every order and in diocesian priests. The implications on this board I have heard makes one think that all but a few Jesuits are bad. If I was a newbie or someone who didn't know my faith I would be thinking I better stay away from all Jesuit Priests! Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I think a lot of people here have this "holier than thou" attitude. May God have mercy on all of us.

 

[Markh]

My friend went to Ireland recently and went to a Jesuit parish.

Most was fine except a bit of a major flaw- they replaced the creed with a different creed, which was very liberal and certainly not an official one.

I think he mentioned a couple of other abuses that went on.

 

[Irish Melkite]

My friend went to Ireland recently and went to a Jesuit parish.

Most was fine except a bit of a major flaw- they replaced the creed with a different creed, which was very liberal and certainly not an official one.

I think he mentioned a couple of other abuses that went on.

Mark,

Thank you for that well-documented factoid about "a Jesuit parish", somewhere in Ireland, regarding which you "think" your friend "mentioned a couple of other abuses" in addition to a "different creed, ... very liberal and certainly not an official one." Now, I know for a fact that the Society needs to be interdicted.

Amazingly, among the extraordinarily diverse litany of liturgical abuses that I have heard chanted on this and other forums, this is the first instance I've heard of a "different, very liberal, certainly not official" creed. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Here's some for you:
Jesuit Priest Investigated By Vatican For Heresy

...

Go ahead and let the CDF know that they were a bit harsh with Father Dupuis.

Hmm, the Congregation "sent an initial interrogative survey." You, on the other hand, have adjudged Father Dupuis a heretic.

CWNews throws the word "heresy" around a great deal, as do you and a few other folks here; I didn't see any quotes from the Congregation that used that particular word. I did see some particular wisdom in the words of the Pontifical Gregorian College however

A statement issued by the administration of the university said that the professor's leave of absence should also "avoid any misunderstanding." Complaining about "uncontrolled rumors" regarding the Dupuis case, the university pointed out that there has been-- and will be-- no public announcement regarding the content of the Vatican's concerns, at least until a final decision is reached.

Last I recollect slander, calumny, and defamation were all sins and rumor-mongering is right in there.

To suggest that every Jesuit is guilty of heresy is wrong, as we've seen several examples of strong Jesuits on this thread ... but on the flip side, to suggest that nothing in the order is wrong is to willingly look the other way.

To suggest that an order comprised of 14,000 priests and 21,000 religious men is rife with heresy, as you and others have done, is beneath shameful.

This entire thread is a black mark on the Catholics who post to this forum and ought to be deleted.

I suggest strongly that all of those who post here, and claim charity as a virtue, that they espouse report this thread and request its deletion.

 

[D'Ann]

To those who want some details regarding Lefebvre... Please read the following essay. It will give a precise account about Lefebvre Schism.


My Journey Out of the Lefebvre Schism

by Pete Vere

Click here to read An Aid to Understanding 'My Journey Out of the Lefebvre Schism'

If you’re a Catholic who’s faithful to the Church’s teaching Magisterium, you’ve probably met up with followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 schism, known as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). They’re filled with devotion to the Blessed Mother, extremely conservative with regard to most moral issues afflicting the Western world today, and quite reverent before the Blessed Sacrament during their old Latin liturgies. In short, on the surface, adherents to Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism appear to be devout Catholics

It’s easy to sympathize with these folks since most of them have joined the SSPX after being scandalized by contemporary abuses in doctrine and liturgy in some of our Catholic churches in North America. In fact, it was precisely because of such sympathies, as well as the beauty of the Tridentine Mass, that I found myself frequenting SSPX chapels about eight years ago. Like most SSPX adherents, at the time I thought that my separation from Rome was merely temporary.

I failed to realize, however, that at the root of every schism, as the present Code of Canon Law explains, “is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (Can. 751). Such ruptures from communion with the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out, “wound the unity of Christ’s Body” (CCC 817). For that reason, at the heart of my journey back to full communion with Rome lay many questions about the unity of the Church as an institution founded by Christ.

What follows is a practical reflection on questions concerning Catholic Tradition that troubled my conscience during my sojourn in the SSPX schism. The answers to these questions eventually led me to conclude that Sacred Tradition can only be fully actualized in communion with Rome. My conclusions draw upon eight years of personal experience within the Traditionalist Movement — the last five after being reconciled to Rome. In addition, during the last two years I’ve pursued a licentiate in canon law from the Church, studies that have culminated in the publication of a major research paper entitled “A Canonical History of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Schism.” Here’s a brief account of what I learned that led to my reconciliation with Rome.

Who Was Archbishop Lefebvre?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was ordained a Spiritan Missionary and later became the first Archbishop of Dakar, Africa. In this capacity he founded many missionary dioceses in Africa, and in fact under Pope Pius XII he was appointed the papal legate to French-speaking Africa.

Before retiring in Rome just after the Second Vatican Council, he also served as Superior General of Spiritan Missionaries.

Certain problems, however, began to arise in the French seminaries during this time, and many young seminarians became disenchanted by the confusion that had arisen within their program of formation. Thus they approached Archbishop Lefebvre in 1970 and coaxed him out of retirement in Rome. Concerned with the lack of discipline that had overtaken many French seminaries and the many doctrinal weaknesses in the formation program of seminarians, in 1969 Lefebvre founded a House of Studies, which soon evolved into both a seminary and his Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

Both these institutions received canonical approval on an experimental basis near Econe, Switzerland. However, Lefebvre’s continued use of the Tridentine Mass eventually became an issue with the Vatican. By 1974 the controversy had become so heated that Lefebvre made a famous declaration within Traditionalist circles calling into question the validity and orthodoxy of the Second Vatican Council.
Finding this declaration problematical, Pope Paul VI canonically suppressed the SSPX and its seminary in 1975. Yet Lefebvre ignored the canonical suppression and began illicitly ordaining his seminarians to holy orders, an action which led to the suspension of his faculties later on in the same year. Over the next thirteen years, Lefebvre continued to operate illicitly and expand the SSPX, while negotiations continued on and off again with Rome.

Relations between Rome and the SSPX remained rather static until May 5, 1988. On this day, agreement was finally reached between the SSPX and Rome, reconciling the SSPX to the Church. The protocol agreement was signed by both Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre. Neverthless, a few days afterwards, Archbishop Lefebvre retracted his signature and announced his intention to consecrate bishops without Rome’s permission.

On June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded with this intention in violation of canon law, incurring an automatic excommunication under the law. The following day, Cardinal Bernadin Gantin of the Congregation of Bishops declared Lefebvre’s excommunication. In a papal motu proprio on July 2, 1988, the Holy Father John Paul II also confirmed Lefebvre’s excommunication for schism and for having consecrated bishops despite the Holy See’s warnings not to do so.

Sadly, Lefebvre passed away in Econe in March of 1991, without having formally reconciled with the Church. Today, the SSPX includes approximately four hundred priests in over twenty-seven countries representing all five continents. Most estimates place the number of adherents to Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism at the one million mark.

Pope St. Pius V and Quo Primum Tempore
The first argument I ever encountered by an SSPX apologist, in fact the very argument that led me into their schism, was a citation of Pope St. Pius V’s sixteenth-century papal bull Quo Primum Tempore. In a nutshell, the SSPX proponent claimed that St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Mass in perpetuity, meaning for all time. The SSPX claimed — and I found the claim convincing at the time — that every priest has the right to use the Roman Missal codified by St. Pius V in Quo Primum Tempore, and that this right cannot be taken away from him.

As I later discovered, however, the problem with the Quo Primum Tempore argument is a failure to take into account canonical Tradition. First, this argument does not distinguish between the doctrine and the discipline of the Catholic Church. Yet that distinction is critical.

Briefly put, a dogma is a doctrine the Church declares with certitude to be infallible. Take, for example, the dogma of the Blessed Mother’s assumption into heaven. Pope Pius XII didn’t suddenly declare it as a new truth in 1950 that Mary was assumed into heaven; this truth, after all, had come into existence nearly two millennia before when Mary was assumed. Rather, the pope declared this dogma because the Church had come to know for certain Mary that was assumed into heaven.


In essence, the Holy See did not agree with Lefebvre’s analysis of the situation in the Catholic Church, namely that a sufficient emergency existed to warrant the consecration of bishops without Rome’s approval. This is an important point in resolving the dispute between Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope John Paul II, for where there exists a difference in interpreting the application of canon law, canon 16 states clearly: “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.”

In Lefebvre’s situation, he knew in advance that his interpretation of canon law in this case was not acceptable to the Roman Pontiff, who is the highest legislator. So even though Lefebvre disagreed with the Roman Pontiff’s interpretation of canon law, it nevertheless remained up to Pope John Paul II to interpret that law authoritatively. Therefore, because the idea of a state of necessity in Lefebvre’s circumstances was rejected by Pope John Paul II, I came to realize that I could not legitimately invoke the state of necessity canons in defense of Lefebvre’s consecration of bishops without Rome’s permission.

The Novus Ordo Missae: Intrinsically Evil?
A common argument now put forward by the SSPX is that the revised liturgy of Pope Paul VI is intrinsically evil, or at the least poses a proximate danger to the Catholic faith. This would mean that the post-Vatican II liturgy is in and of itself contrary to the law of God. How individual Lefebvrites approach this issue will often vary, but they typically insist that the new Mass contains heresy, blasphemy or ambiguity. In resolving this question, I came to the personal conclusion that Christ has a sense of humor, since the same text from Catholic Tradition the SSPX quotes in defense of this claim is the very text that refutes it.

A preliminary observation is in order. The Mass has not changed since Christ instituted this sacrament on the night before His crucifixion. In essence, there is neither an “old” Mass nor a “new” Mass, but only the Mass. In fact what changed after the Second Vatican Council was not the Mass, but the liturgy.

This means that while the “accidents” (to use a classical theological term) differ somewhat between the pre-Vatican II liturgy and the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI, their essence remains the same: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ transubstantiated into the Eucharist. This central mystery of the Mass takes place regardless of whether the priest celebrates according to the liturgical books in use before the Second Vatican Council or according to the liturgical books revised by Pope Paul VI. In fact, both sets of liturgical books are usages of the same Roman liturgical rite.

When I was associated with the SSPX, to defend the claim that the reformed liturgy is intrinsically evil I used to quote the seventh canon on the Sacrifice of the Mass from the Council of Trent. This canon states: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.”

Let’s look at this more closely. Since the definition of intrinsic evil is “something which in and of itself is evil,” we see from the Council of Trent that an approved liturgy of the Church cannot be such. For something that is intrinsically evil is naturally an incentive to impiety, while the Council of Trent declares dogmatically that the approved liturgical ceremonies of the Catholic Church cannot be incentives to impiety.

But wait a second: Wasn’t the revised liturgy of Pope Paul VI an approved liturgy of the Church? Of course! So according to the Tradition of the Church as dogmatically defined at the Ecumenical Council of Trent, I could only conclude that the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI cannot be an incentive to impiety. It necessarily follows, then, that neither could it be intrinsically evil. Thus in my defense of the schismatic position I stood refuted by the very Catholic Tradition from the Council of Trent that I was seeking to preserve through adherence to the SSPX schism.

Illicit Consecration of Bishops: An Act of Schism?
One argument commonly presented within SSPX circles is that the act of consecrating bishops without papal permission is an act of disobedience, but not an act of schism. Although I didn’t give much thought to this argument, either before or after my involvement in the SSPX, nevertheless it should be addressed because it’s frequently made among schismatic ranks. The SSPX folks generally claim that they have not withdrawn subjection to the Roman Pontiff. Rather, they refuse obedience in some matters.

We should reiterate here that canon 752 defines schism as “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Notice that the canon does not distinguish between degrees of withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. In other words, a person need not completely withdraw submission to the Roman Pontiff to enter into a state of schism. Rather, partial withdrawal of obedience in certain matters — and consecrating bishops without papal mandate is a serious matter — remains an act through which a person withdraws submission to the Roman Pontiff. In short, the Holy Father told Archbishop Lefebvre not to consecrate bishops without Rome’s permission, and Archbishop Lefebvre refused to submit.

I never paid this argument much attention during my time in the SSPX chapels. But afterward I realized that the SSPX claim — that they haven’t withdrawn submission to the Roman Pontiff, but rather have merely temporarily suspended their obedience to him in certain matters — could not be sustained by Catholic Tradition. For such an act of disobedience in a serious matter remains at least a temporary withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, with sufficient moral certitude I could only conclude that Archbishop Lefebvre’s act of consecrating bishops against Pope John Paul II’s stated wishes was an act of schism according to canon law.

Pope Liberius
Probably the most common claim I came across within SSPX circles was the claim that Pope Liberius (reigned A.D. 352-366) was a heretic, sympathetic to Arianism, who falsely excommunicated St. Athanasius. For this reason, the SSPX claims, Pope Liberius became the first pope in the history of the Church not be recognized as a saint. Of course, by analogy the SSPX considers Archbishop Lefebvre a modern St. Athanasius and Pope John Paul II a modern Pope Liberius.

Their argument is that if it happened once, it can happen again. And yet, as our Lord showed me in a rather amusing fashion, such claims have little basis in Catholic Tradition.

Convinced the SSPX claims pertaining to this situation were true, I was reading my copy of Henri Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma one day when I noticed that Denzinger listed Pope Liberius as “St. Liberius.” To say I was surprised would be an understatement — ironically enough, the SSPX had sold me the particular edition of Denzinger I was reading, since they held all subsequent editions as suspect. Yet this portion of Denzinger clearly did not accord with what was being preached from our local SSPX pulpit. So I simply dismissed this listing as a probable typesetting error and continued reading.

A mere ten pages later, I came across a papal epistle authored by Pope St. Anastasius subtitled “The Orthodoxy of Pope Liberius.” In it, Pope St. Anastasius clearly states: “The heretical African faction [of the Arian heresy] was not able by any deception to introduce its baseness because, as we believe, our God provided that that holy and untarnished faith be not contaminated through any vicious blasphemy of slanderous men — that faith which had been discussed and defended at the meeting of the synod of Nicea by the holy men and bishops now placed in the resting place of the saints” (see art. 93 of the thirtieth edition).

So far, so good; God had clearly preserved the Church from Arianism through the actions and prayer of holy men. But who were these holy men, and how does this relate to Pope Liberius? I wondered. To my surprise, Pope St. Anastasius answered the question in the subsequent paragraph this way: “For this faith those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is . . . Liberius, bishop of the Roman Church.”

I was stunned by this pope’s answer, for clearly there was a contradiction here: Was I to believe Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers as the authentic teaching from Catholic Tradition? Or was I to believe the teaching of Anastasius in his papal epistle Dat mihi plurimum — the claim of one who was a saint, a pope, and a writer much closer to the time the Arian heresy took place? When my local SSPX priest failed to provide an adequate solution for this quandary, I could only accept the claim of Pope St. Anastasius as the authentic voice of Catholic Tradition.

Traditional Rome vs. Modernist Rome
The question of Rome eventually weighed in on my conscience, as it should for anyone who leaves the Church. Given what Catholic Tradition consistently teaches concerning faithfulness to Rome, how could I justify my separation from the Roman Pontiff? In fact, even five years after reconciling myself to Rome, the question of communion with Rome and the local Bishop remains the catalyst for much of my theological and canonical exploration.

While I was with the SSPX, however, I accepted their solution to this problem. The SSPX claimed that the questionable behavior of the post-Vatican II popes had divided the faithful into two camps. One camp, the institutional Church, was faithful to contemporary Rome, which the SSPX claims has been infiltrated by modernists and liberals. In the other camp rests the SSPX, who naturally are faithful to Traditional Rome.

Nevertheless, I was unable to deceive my conscience. So I kept wondering whether Catholic Tradition actually sustained the argument that a Catholic could be faithful to Traditional Rome, without remaining faithful to temporal Rome.

“Our hearts are restless, O Lord, until they rest in You,” remarks St. Augustine at the opening of his Confessions. My heart was spiritually restless because it didn’t rest in full communion with Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church. Yet Christ also promises us in the Gospels that if we seek the truth, we will find it (see Matt. 7:7).

In my case, the truth lay in the back room of my parents’ basement. There I found an abandoned box full of old papal encyclicals left over from my father’s college days. At the bottom of this box was Pope Pius XII’s masterful papal encyclical Mystici Corporis.

Curious as to the content, I immediately opened this work to the following passage: “We think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possessing a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life” (par. 64). This theological discovery from Catholic Tradition as expressed by the pre-Vatican II popes astounded me even more than my previous St. Anastasius discovery in Denzinger.

Here, from the Church’s Tradition, was the teaching that we cannot separate the Church into a mere spiritual communion as opposed to a mere human institution. In short, the Rome of Tradition and the Rome of Today were the same Rome. Everything suddenly made sense to me about Catholic ecclesiology. Just as at the Incarnation Christ was fully human and fully divine, without sacrificing either nature, so too must the Church, as Christ’s Mystical Body, be a perfect union of the visible and the invisible.


I remembered that St. Paul had asked somewhere in his epistles the question “Is Christ divided?” (see 1 Cor. 1:13). Of course, the answer was no. Therefore, why in the name of Catholic Tradition was I dividing Christ’s Mystical Body into a spiritual communion and a human communion?

Furthermore, in frequenting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass outside the visible communion of the Church, why was I dividing Christ’s Sacramental Body (Body, Soul and Divinity) in the Eucharist from Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church? For didn’t expressions such as “Body of Christ” and “Communion” carry this double meaning: the first sacramental, meaning the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and the second ecclesiological, meaning the sacred unity of the Church?

Captivated by these questions forming in my conscience, I kept reading Mystici Corporis and came across the following section:

But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. . . . Since He was all-wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. . . . That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same (par. 40).




​

Of course, I said to myself; the Roman Pontiff and Jesus Christ form but one head of the Catholic Church. The word “tradition,” which I recalled from so many homilies in SSPX chapels, comes from the Latin verb tradere, which means “to hand down.” Ultimately, I reasoned, there must be a source from which Tradition was first passed down, and that source is Jesus Christ. In the end I realized that Tradition is a Person — the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who incarnated Himself in the womb of an immaculately conceived Virgin.


As Christ and His vicar constitute but one Head of the Church, then the voice of Tradition must speak through St. Peter and his lawful successors in the Roman Primacy. Therefore, I had to make a choice to follow Catholic Tradition and embrace the Rock upon whom Christ founded His Mystical Body here and now.

Like the prodigal son, I realized my error in following Archbishop Lefebvre into schism, and I was now making my way home to Holy Mother Church. Through his generous papal indult in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, John Paul II was exactly like the father in Christ’s parable: He was living up to his title “Pope,” which means “Father,” by welcoming into the Church his Traditionalist sons and daughters who in 1988 had followed Archbishop Lefebvre out of the vineyard of authentic Catholic Tradition.

Was Archbishop Lefebvre Excommunicated?
The last argument I consistently came across within SSPX circles is more of a technical one that never affected my decision to reconcile with the Church. In fact, I myself never thought about researching an answer to this question, but rather stumbled across the answer accidentally while researching my thesis. Even so, the argument is made often enough to deserve mention. It’s the claim that the Church never actually excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre, but rather informed him that he was automatically excommunicated by virtue of canon law itself.

The Church can excommunicate an individual in two ways. The first is by means of latae sententiae excommunication. This means that the offender is automatically excommunicated by virtue of the law itself, and thus the sentence need not be imposed by a judge within the Church. However, in order for such an excommunication to be enforced by canon law, a legitimate Church authority must still declare that the excommunication has taken place.

The second method of imposing an excommunication is by ferendae sententiae. This refers to the decision of a judge in a Church tribunal.

Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated by virtue of the law, and not by any penalty imposed by a judge. However, Lefebvre’s apologists fail to note in making this argument that his excommunication was subsequently declared by the Church. Cardinal Gantin, in a decree from the Congregation for Bishops dated July 1, 1988, declared on behalf of the Church the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre as follows:

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law. . . . Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.



​

Without getting into all the canonical particulars, we can nevertheless clearly establish in this statement that the Church has excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre. Rome has clearly spoken as the voice of Catholic Tradition, and thus the case is now closed.


The Substance of Catholic Tradition
In my journey back to the Church, through the grace of God I’ve been led from the mere “accidents” of Catholic Tradition to the substance of Catholic Tradition. Although I enjoy the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which I now recognize as the normative liturgy of the Latin Church, I’m as firmly committed to preservation of the 1962 liturgical missal today as I was during my time in the Lefebvre movement. However, I realize that our liturgical tradition as Catholics cannot be preserved apart from John Paul II and all the other legitimate successors of St. Peter. For his voice is the voice of Catholic Tradition in the Church today — a Tradition that has been passed down to him by Christ and the Apostles.

Pete Vere
The Catholic Legate
Date, 2004

edited:... I will not apologize for the length of this post... it is necessary that we completely and fully understand the "whole picture". God's Peace to All.

 

[D'Ann]

Here is another good article... Please read.

Vatican II & Ecumenism: What did the Council Really Say?

by Pete Vere

Did the Second Vatican Council contradict Church Tradition in its teachings on ecumenism? Many traditionalist Catholics — among them, many members of the Society of St. Pius X — would say yes. If they are correct, then the Catholic Church has a serious problem: Vatican II could not be legitimate, since a legitimate ecumenical council may develop but may not contradict the earlier dogmatic teaching of the Church.

To address the issue, of course, we first have to understand how the Church defines ecumenism. Basically, ecumenism is the spiritual dialogue and activity in which the Church engages with other Christians. “Other Christians” in this context is understood to mean validly baptized non-Catholics.

This means, for example, that Catholic-Orthodox dialogue or Catholic-Anglican dialogue constitutes ecumenism, because both Anglicans and the Orthodox are validly baptized non-Catholic Christians. But ecumenism doesn’t cover Catholic-Islamic dialogue or Catholic-Hindu dialogue, because Muslims and Hindus don’t baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. The Church describes this kind of spiritual activity with non-Christian religions as “interfaith dialogue.”

While we’re defining terms, we should note that when dealing with common worship among Catholics and other Christians, we must distinguish between communicatio in sacris (sharing in the sacraments), and the more general communicatio in spiritualibus (sharing in common prayer).

Generally, the Church encourages communicatio in spiritualibus between Catholics and Protestants, but strictly limits communicatio in sacris to a handful of sacraments, and even then only between Catholics and members of an Eastern non-Catholic Church (see Canon 844). By “Eastern non-Catholic Church” we mean an historical Eastern Church (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East) whose sacraments and apostolic succession the Church recognizes as valid. This is different from Protestants (including Anglicans), whose claim to have valid sacraments and apostolic succession the Catholic Church does not recognize.

The Spirit of Ecumenical Dialogue
Admittedly, the Church has seen some abuses in the name of ecumenism since the closing of the Second Vatican Council. SSPX adherents are familiar with many of these abuses, and they often blame such abuses on the Council itself. They believe ecumenical dialogue waters down the Church’s doctrine and must necessarily lead to the heresy of religious indifferentism (the idea that differences in religion are essentially unimportant). A few even argue that ecumenism itself is heresy. They think ecumenism must necessarily entail a watering down of the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching that she alone is the Church founded by Christ — that she alone is the Ark of Salvation under the New Covenant.

In making such charges, these individuals fail to take into account the Church’s perennial Tradition. Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on reconciliation and penance, both addresses and clarifies where the Church stands concerning ecumenical dialogue. In fact, the Holy Father goes beyond mere ecumenical dialogue to include all dialogue in which the Church presently engages with the purpose of bringing about true reconciliation among people.

With his typical clarity of thought, the Holy Father teaches:
​

It should be repeated that, on the part of the Church and her members, dialogue, whatever form it takes (and these forms can be and are very diverse, since the very concept of dialogue has an analogical value) can never begin from an attitude of indifference to the truth. On the contrary, it must begin from a presentation of the truth, offered in a calm way, with respect for the intelligence and consciences of others. The dialogue of reconciliation can never replace or attenuate the proclamation of the truth of the Gospel, the precise goal of which is conversion from sin and communion with Christ and the Church. It must be at the service of the transmission and realization of that truth through the means left by Christ to the Church for the pastoral activity of reconciliation, namely catechesis and penance.i
​

This teaching solidly places ecumenical dialogue within the Church’s theological and doctrinal Tradition.

First of all, Pope John Paul addresses the concern that ecumenical dialogue is being used to propagate religious indifferentism. He reiterates that dialogue “can never begin from an attitude of indifference to the truth.” He reminds Christians never to approach ecumenical dialogue with an indifference towards the truth.

In this way the Holy Father authoritatively closes the door to the possible false usage, or abuse, of ecumenical dialogue. He then reiterates the Second Vatican Council’s Catholic principles governing the Church’s involvement in ecumenical dialogue. He explains that all dialogue in which the Church is engaged, including that with our separated brethren, “must begin from a presentation of truth.”

Vatican II Asserts the Papacy’s Traditional Role
Yet what is truth as presented by the Church? What are the principles with which the Church approaches our separated Christian brethren? These are important questions because the adherent to Lefebvre’s schism will often argue that in order to facilitate ecumenical dialogue, the Second Vatican Council downplayed the Church’s unique claim to be founded by Christ upon the Rock of St. Peter.

The Council Fathers anticipate these objections in their declaration on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio. Within this conciliar document, the Council Fathers clearly teach:
​

In order to establish this holy Church of His everywhere in the world until the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying (cf. Mt 28:18-20 in conjunction with Jn 20:21-23). Among their number He chose Peter.


After Peter’s profession of faith, He decreed that on him He would build His Church; to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Mt 16:19, in conjunction with Mk 18:18). After Peter’s profession of love, Christ entrusted all His sheep to him to be confirmed in faith (cf. Lk 22:32) and shepherded in perfect unity (cf. Jn 21:15-17).ii
​

Based on Scriptural foundations, the Second Vatican Council’s ecumenical principles flow from the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. The Council teaches that Our Lord’s Church, and hence Christian unity, must be built upon the rock of St. Peter.

Furthermore, the Council asserts that the task of preserving and confirming this unity within our Lord’s Church rests with St. Peter and his lawful successors within the Roman papacy. The objection that the Second Vatican Council’s teachings on ecumenism water down the role of the papacy fails, for this text reiterates what the Church has always taught according to her Sacred Tradition. St. Peter is, and always has been, the foundation of unity among Christians.

Ecumenism Upholds the Real Presence
St. Peter and his successors are the foundation of unity in the Church. However, this foundation is laid down by Jesus Christ. Our Lord is the source of unity within the Church, especially as it concerns His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

We should keep this in mind when defending the Council’s teachings on ecumenism, since many Lefebvrites also allege that ecumenism undermines Catholic faith in our Lord’s Real Presence in order to appease non-Catholics. This allegation is false. Continue reading Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism, and you discover the following teaching: “In His Church [Christ] instituted the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist by which the unity of the Church is both signified and brought about.”iii

In other words, the Second Vatican Council calls the Church to promote Christian unity through ecumenical dialogue. Yet the Council recognizes that unity can be neither fully realized nor fully symbolized except through the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Second Vatican Council not only upholds the traditional Catholic position concerning the Most Blessed Sacrament, but the Council clearly states this position in the very decree through which ecumenism is promoted. The Council Fathers, by promoting ecumenical dialogue, seek to bring our separated Christian brethren back to full communion with the Catholic Church by means of the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharist symbolizes our unity within the Church as Catholics, first with God and secondly with each other. Yet this symbolism may only be fully realized through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

In bringing to us the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as in perpetuating Christ’s holy sacrifice upon the cross, the Mass unites all of Christ’s disciples throughout time and space, gathering them into one Church. The intention of the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on ecumenism is to help reunite with the Church those Christian disciples who have become separated through historic schisms and heresies.

The Council of Florence
This ecumenical position represents a departure from Catholic Tradition,” allege many adherents to the SSPX schism. “We find no example of the Catholic Church engaging in similar ecumenical activity before Vatican II.” This allegation troubles many Catholic apologists, because they are unaware of other examples of the Catholic Church’s practice of ecumenism with those who have separated from her. Yet such precedents do exist within Catholic Tradition.

The most important example is probably the ecumenical Council of Florence. This entire council offers a clear precedent from Catholic Tradition for the Church’s present involvement in ecumenical dialogue. After all, the Council of Florence sought to reunite the Orthodox East and the Catholic West.

During this council’s fourth session, Pope Eugene the IV decreed:
Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. It befits us to render thanks to almighty God. … For behold, the western and eastern peoples, who have been separated for long, hasten to enter into a pact of harmony and unity; and those who were justly distressed at the long dissension that kept them apart, at last after many centuries, under the impulse of Him from whom every good gift comes, meet together in person in this place out of desire for holy union.

A couple of matters should draw our attention here.
First, the East and West were obviously separated from one another in schism, as recognized by Pope Eugene the IV in this decree. These Churches nevertheless came together after many centuries to try to reconcile their differences. This is an act of ecumenism, one that Pope Eugene the IV attributes to the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the pope not only attributes this ecumenical dialogue to the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, but he proceeds to uphold such dialogue at the Council of Florence as our Christian obligation, stating: “We are aware that it is our duty and the duty of the whole church to strain every nerve to ensure that these happy initiatives make progress and have issue through our common care, so that we may deserve to be and to be called co-operators with God.”

Tradition Sustains Ecumenical Prayer
Now some critics of the Second Vatican Council maintain that this teaching from the Council of Florence applies solely to ecumenical dialogue, not joint prayer between Catholics and non-Catholics. Yet if we re-read the above citation from the Council of Florence, we find that the pope insists: “It befits us to render thanks to almighty God.” This is a prayer of thanksgiving to God.

Although they had not yet healed their schism, the Roman Pontiff led the Council Fathers gathered from the Catholic West and the Orthodox East in the recitation of this prayer. This is a clear example from Catholic Tradition of a pope and Catholic bishops praying with those Christian brethren who have been separated from full communion.

Non-Catholic Spiritual Authority
Some adherents to post Vatican II schisms disdain the respect shown by the Church towards the ecclesiastical leadership of non-Catholic Churches and denominations. These folks maintain that the Church should continue denouncing non-Catholic spiritual leaders as heretics and schismatics. In departing from the Church’s spiritual unity, they claim, Protestant ministers and Orthodox clergy forfeit any spiritual authority they possess, and thus any right to be held in respect by the Catholic faithful. This is not the position, however, of Pope Eugene the IV, who said this at the Council of Florence:

Finally, our most dear son John Palacologus, emperor of the Romans, together with our venerable brother Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople, the apocrisiaries of the other patriarchal sees and a great multitude of archbishops, ecclesiastics and nobles arrived at their last port, Venice, on 8 February last.

This is recognition, from both Pope Eugene and the Council Fathers, of the religious title and dignity of the Orthodox Emperor John Palacologus and the Orthodox Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople. Despite his separation from Rome, Patriarch Joseph is welcomed to the Council of Florence by Pope Eugene the IV as a brother.

The Second Vatican Council’s approach to ecumenism, by which the Church treats non-Catholic spiritual authorities with both respect and dignity, thus maintains the same ecumenical principles as those upheld at the Council of Florence. No doubt the reality of heresy and schism still exists after the Second Vatican Council (see canon 751), just as it did before the Council of Florence. However, in dialogue with our separated brethren, the Church chooses not to wave the terms “heretic” and “schismatic” in their faces.

What About Protestants?
Nevertheless, in arguing a traditional Catholic position from the Council of Florence — in other words, a position truly based upon the Church’s Sacred Tradition — a Catholic apologist inevitably encounters the objection that these texts apply only to Catholic ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox. What about Catholic-Protestant ecumenism since the Second Vatican Council? Is there a similar example from a previous ecumenical councils? These are important questions, since SSPX adherents often make a big deal over the invitation extended to six Protestant theologians to participate at the Second Vatican Council in an advisory capacity.

As a quick aside, we should note that there were many additional Orthodox and Protestant observers at the Council. The famous “six Protestants” constantly flouted by opponents of the Second Vatican Council were simply observers at the Consilium, which was involved with the liturgical reform mandated by the Council. The suggestion that these “six Protestants” virtually put together the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI is a great exaggeration!

If we accept the Council of Trent as an authentic expression of Catholic Tradition (as Catholics are obliged to do), then such objections fail to take into account Catholic Tradition. For in the documents of Trent’s thirteenth session, we read:
​

The sacred and holy, general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost … grants, as far as regards the holy Synod itself, to all and each one throughout the whole of Germany, whether ecclesiastics or seculars, of whatsoever degree, estate, condition, quality they be, who may wish to repair to this ecumenical and general Council, the public faith and full security, which they call a safe-conduct … so as that they may and shall have it in their power in all liberty to confer, make proposals, and treat on those things which are to be treated of in the said Synod; to come freely and safely to the said ecumenical Council, and there remain and abide, and propose therein, as well in writing as by word of mouth, as many articles as to them shall seem good, and to confer and dispute, without any abuse or contumely, with the Fathers, or with those who may have been selected by the said holy Synod; as also to withdraw whensoever they shall think fit.
​

We should make several important observations here.
First, the Council of Trent both invited and offered safe passage to Protestants who wished to come and participate at this ecumenical council.

Second, Trent invited Protestants of all social and ecclesiastical rank to share their theological views, propose topics for debate, and generally participate in the daily affairs of this ecumenical council.

Third, Trent allowed Protestants to withdraw at any time.
Finally, Trent invited Protestants to be more than simply observers.
Clearly, at Trent the Church issued an invitation to ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. And since Lutheranism enveloped most of the German nation around the time of the council, this invitation was much broader than the invitation extended to a handful of Protestant theologians at Vatican II. Trent even permitted the Protestants attending the Council a greater level of participation than was allowed to the Protestant theologians observing Vatican II. In all these ways, then, the Lefebvrite objections to Catholic-Protestant ecumenism, both at and after the Second Vatican Council, are little more than objections to a precedent set by the Council of Trent.

Vatican II and Religious Liberty
We can now turn our attention briefly to the matter of Vatican II and religious liberty. While technically speaking this is a distinct theological issue, it’s nevertheless often lumped in with ecumenism by those who challenge the orthodoxy of the Second Vatican Council. In fact, this is probably the most difficult theological hurdle former SSPX adherents must overcome before reconciling with the Church, mainly due to the mistaken popular belief that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to sign the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae.

Any scholar with access to the Vatican’s archives knows this rumor to be false. Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed sign the document in question. In fact, anyone seeking Lefebvre’s signature on this document need not look any further than the Acta Synodalia (the Acts of the Synod).iv

Once the adherent to the SSPX schism overcomes the initial shock of seeing Lefebvre’s signature on Dignitatis Humanae, he will often offer a theological objection to the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on religious freedom. In a nutshell, this objection is expressed as follows: Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition in his Syllabus of Errors: “15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion.” This appears to contradict Dignitatis Humanae’s teaching on religious freedom, which states:
​

This Vatican Synod declares 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 in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.v
​

At first glance, these two magisterial teachings do appear irreconcilable. However, the Church can’t contradict herself, and she obviously can’t fail, either. So we must carefully distinguish between moral and political freedom.

Pope Pius IX’s condemnation of religious freedom addresses those who claim all religious expression to be more or less equal — those who say that man possesses a moral freedom to choose whatever religious expression fits his fancy. Around the time of the Second Vatican Council, approximately two thirds of the world lay under the oppressive political yoke of atheistic communism, so the Second Vatican Council addressed this situation through Dignitatis Humanae. In short, the Council taught that all believers have the political freedom to worship God, and the various communist states cannot coerce religious believers into atheism.

Once we understand this context, we can see that the teachings of Pope Pius IX and the Second Vatican Council are easily reconcilable, because they address two different situations. In recognizing religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae reaffirms man’s moral obligation to seek truth, stating: “All men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of the truth.”vi

Fresh Insights With a Solid Foundation
In concluding this apologetic for the Vatican II’s teachings on ecumenism, we can affirm that these teachings are fresh insights into our Catholic Tradition, formulated to address new crises arising in the modern world. They mark no departure from what the Church has always taught. Catholic ecumenism is solidly founded in Catholic Tradition, as handed down from previous ecumenical councils, and it simply resurfaced at the Second Vatican Council.

The teachings of Vatican II on ecumenism build upon the Church’s ecumenical precedents established at the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. As Catholics, we can embrace the Second Vatican Council’s teachings on ecumenism, because these teachings are solidly rooted in Catholic Tradition.

Pete Vere
The Catholic Legate
July 20, 2004

i Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 26.
ii Unitatis Redintegratio, 2.
iii Unitatis Redintegratio, 2.
iv See page 29 for Archbishop Lefebvre’s signature on the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty.
v For an in-depth treatment of how Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom is both consistent with Catholic Tradition and represents a legitimate development of Catholic doctrine, I recommend the writings of Dom Basile, a theologian from the Benedictine monastery of Ste. Madeleine de Le Barroux, which has the privilege of using all the liturgical books in force in 1962.
vi Dignitatis Humanae, 2.
________________________

This Article orignally appeared in Envoy Magazine.
​