|
Newsletter of the District
of Asia
April
- December 2008
On
the Authority of the Second Vatican Council:
Infallible or not?
By Fr. Pierre
Marie O.P.
(A slightly abridged translation of an article in Sel
de la Terre, n. 35, pp.32-63)
Introduction
The Thesis:
It seems that the Council was indeed infallible:
Letter of Paul VI to Archbishop
Lefebvre, June 29, 1975
“You permit the
case of St. Athanasius to be invoked in your favor. It is true
that this great Bishop remained practically alone in the defense
of the true faith, despite attacks from all quarters. But what
precisely was involved was the defense of the faith of the recent
Council of Nicea. The Council was the norm which inspired his
fidelity, as also in the case of St. Ambrose. How can anyone
today compare himself to St. Athanasius in daring to combat
a council such as the Second Vatican Council, which has no less
authority, which in certain respects is even more important
than that of Nicea?”
“One must clarify
first of all that Vatican II is based on the same authority
as Vatican I and as the Council of Trent: that is the pope and
the college of bishops in communion with him. Concerning the
content, we must also recall that Vatican II falls in close
continuity with the two previous Councils and that it re-iterates
them on certain decisive points. (…) It is impossible to side
‘for’ the Council of Trent and Vatican I and ‘against’ Vatican
II. Whoever denies Vatican II, denies the authority which upholds
the other two Councils and abolishes it in its very principle.
[This applies also for what is called ‘traditionalism’, in its
extreme forms.] Here, any partisan choice destroys the whole,
[the very history of the Church], which can only exist as an
undivided unity.”
(French edition, 1985, pp. 28-29
with the following remark: “Words … in brackets have been added
on the manuscript of the present book.” in Sel de la Terre,
n. 35, p.33)
However these two texts are private
texts, not acts of the Magisterium
Further objection: But, an ecumenical
Council gathering the pope and all the bishops of the world
is infallible, according to Vatican I:
“By Divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed
which are contained in the written word of God and in Tradition,
and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn
pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium,
to be believed as divinely revealed.” DzS 3011
Therefore, Vatican
II must be infallible.
Arguments
against the Thesis:
A. Official
Texts stating that Vatican II is a pastoral Council, therefore
not an infallible one.
1. Popes and Cardinals : their
intention is clear before, during and after the Council
a) John XXIII,
Opening Address, Oct. 11, 1962
“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.”
(Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents
of Vatican II, p. 715)
b) Paul VI, Sept. 29, 1963, Discourse at the Opening of
the Second Session (He quotes many passages of, thus confirming,
John XXIII’s Opening Discourse) “But while stressing in that
manner the higher goal of the Council, you have join to it
another more urgent goal and actually of a more beneficial
nature, a pastoral one, declaring: ‘The salient point
of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article
or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church’, but
rather that this doctrine ‘be deepened and exposed in a manner
corresponding to the needs of our time.’ (In Sel de la
Terre, n. 35, p. 35)
c) Paul VI, Sept. 9, 1963 Letter to Cardinal Tisserant,
Dean of the Sacred College and Member of the College
of the Presidents of the Council. “When revising the schemas,
we were careful to highlight the pastoral character of this
Council. It is indeed necessary that the certain and immutable
doctrine of the faith, which has been declared or defined
by the supreme magisterium of the Church and by the previous
Ecumenical Councils, especially the Council of Trent and the
First Council of the Vatican, and to which we must faithfully
submit ourselves, be exposed in a manner that corresponds
to our time, and that today’s men have an easier access to
the truths which must be embrassed and to the salvation to
be received which Christ has obtained for us.” (In Sel
de la Terre, n. 35, p. 36)
d) Cardinal
Tisserant, Sept. 9, 1964, from Acta Synodalia
“We must also restate that this ecumenical Council, as the
sovereign pontiff John XXIII has stated many times, has no
intention to pronounce itself on new doctrinal issues; but
its specific goal consists in giving to the pastoral zeal
of the Church a new boost, so that it becomes more active
and more fruitful in the dioceses, in parishes and in all
mission territories, and also among all religious families
and lay associations.” (In Sel de la Terre, n. 35, p.36)
e) Cardinal Felici, General Secretary of the Council,
Declaration of March 6,1964 and reiterated Nov. 11,
1964, Monitum. 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 members 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.
“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. Other matters which the Sacred
Synod proposes as the doctrine of the supreme teaching authority
of the Church, each and every member of the faithful is obliged
to accept and embrace according to the mind of the Sacred
Synod itself,which becomes known either from the subject matter
or from the language employed, according to the norms of theological
interpretation.”
(Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents
of Vatican II, p. 98
f) Paul VI,
Dec. 7, 1965, at the last General Meeting
“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 intending 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)
g) Paul VI,
December 8, 1965, Closing Speech of the Council “
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 tranquility 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.”
(Brief ‘In Spiritu Sancto’, Walter M.
Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)
h) Paul VI,
Jan. 12, 1966, General Audience
“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 but has
strengthened its teaching with the authority of the supreme
ordinary Magisterium; this ordinary and truly authentic Magisterium
must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all faithful,
according to the spirit of the Council, concerning the nature
and the goal of each document.”
i) Paul VI, Aug. 6, 1975, General Audience
“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly
dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.”
j) Pope John
Paul II, Oct. 27, 1985, Angelus.
“Pope John conceived the Council as an eminently pastoral
event.”
k) Cardinal Ratzinger, July 1988, Address
to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato
“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 onwards, 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.”
l) Archbishop
Lefebvre, Intervention during the Council, read on Dec. 1, 1962
He proposed two versions of each document, one dogmatic,
one pastoral. It was opposed violently: “The Council is not
a dogmatic Council, but a pastoral one; we do not want
to define new dogmas, but seek to expose the truth in a pastoral
way.” This proposition (which before the Council had been approved
by the majority in the Preparatory Commission) was rejected.
(I Accuse the Council, Angelus Press,
p.6)
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)
“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 Nov. 26, 1967)
“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)
“By Divine and
Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are
contained in the written word of God and in Tradition, and those
which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement
or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium, to be believed
as divinely revealed” DzS 3011
Solution 1. Yes: Vatican II
pronounced a solemn judgment (Thesis of: Sacerdotium
USA, Sub Tuum Praesidium France)
Argument: Dignitatis Humanae gave
a true solemn definition of Religious Liberty (cf. nn. 1,2,9,12,15)
n.1: “This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires
in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly
in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches
into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury
out of which the Church continually brings forth new
things that are in harmony with the things that are
old.
n.2: The Council further declares that the right to religious
freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human
person as this dignity is known through the revealed word
of God
n.9: What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots
in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians
are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. (…)
In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely
consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian
faith.
n.12: In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel,
the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles
when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of
religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being
in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages
the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received
from the Master and from the apostles.
n.15: Each and every one of the things set forth in this
Declaration has won the consent of the fathers of this most
sacred Council. We, too, by the apostolic authority conferred
on us by Christ, join with the Venerable fathers
in approving, decreeing and establishing these things
in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been
enacted in Synod be published to God's glory.”
(Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of
Vatican II, p. 673 – 696)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_decl_19651207_
dignitatis-humanae_en.html (But the last part of n.15 quoted
above is not online)
Answer:
1. The Allocution of Paul VI on
Jan. 12, 1966 (above, text 1, h) is diriment: there was no infallible
definition at the Council: “it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic
definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority”.
2. Vatican II was an act of the
Supreme Magisterium - of the Supreme Magisterium,for
the sake of the argument, granted - in its supreme degree
– no, cf Paul VI Jan. 11, 1966 (above text 1, h):”this ordinary
and truly authentic Magisterium”
3. Vatican II simply exposed
the doctrine, which is the act of the Ordinary Magisterium.
The solemn Magisterium, in its supreme act, judges the
doctrine in definitive sentences.CIC (1917)
Can 1323, 1. All these things must
be believed which are contained in the written or handed down
Word of God proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely
revealed either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and
universal Magisterium.
2. To pronounce such a solemn judgment
belongs both to the Ecumenical Council and to the Roman Pontiff
speaking ex cathedra.
3. Nothing is to be understood
as declared or dogmatically defined unless it is explicitly
established.
Solution 2. Yes: Vatican II
was an act of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium (O.U.M.)
(Thesis of Cassiciacum)
Argument: The O.U.M. consists of
the pope acting with all the bishops. Such was Vatican II. Therefore,
it was infallible.
Answer:
-
1. “Universal” also includes the element
of time. Although, we must clarify that the element of time
is a condition for the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium,
it is not mentioned for the whole of the bishops dispersed
worldwide.
(cf. Sel de la Terre, n. 34, pp. 47-48)
- There was no unanimity in the votes.
- However the best answer is from the efficient cause: The O.U.M.
consists in fact of the whole of the episcopacy dispersed:
DzS 1514: (The Church’s teaching on original sin) “is not to be
understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere
(ubique diffusa) hath always understood it.” (Council of Trent,
Sess. V, n.4)
DzS 2879: “This submission that must be manifested by the act
of divine faith (…) must also be extended to what the ordinary
Magisterium of the Church spread in the whole universe
(per orbem dispersae) transmits as being divinely revealed.”
(Pius IX to the Archb. of Munich, 1863)
a) The reason of common sense for this element of ‘dispersion’
is that when all the bishops are gathered together there can be
influences, pressures by the media, pressure groups, etc. (eg.
DH was voted 6 times...),
b) The theological reason here is that the O.U.M. is only infallible
in its definitions. (eg. The Council of Florence said that the
matter of Holy Orders was the tradition of the instruments (DzS
1326). If Pius XII changed that in 1947 (DzS 3858) it shows that
Florence was not infallible, as not being a definition but rather
a practical instruction.
- Another good argument, taken from the material cause: The matter
of infallibility is Faith and Morals. It is not enough just to
say that a doctrine is conformed to Revelation (eg. DH quoted
above). The O.U.M. must teach the doctrine as an immutable teaching,
necessarily linked to Divine Tradition (vs. modernists). Now it
doesn't.
Solution 3. Yes: Vatican II
is the Authentic Magisterium.
Argument: And to such Authentic
Magisterium one owes the internal religious assent, as in CIC
1983:
“Can. 752 Although
not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect
and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff
or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals
when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do
not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the
Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which
do not agree with it.”
- It seems that the present Roman authorities attribute this kind
of authority to the Council as they asked Archbishop Lefebvre
to present his Dubia on religious liberty. Had it been a dogma,
he would have been condemned as heretic.
-
Since such simply Authentic Magisterium
of the Church is not infallible, the assent required is not
absolute, but only morally certain and conditional. However
a certain respectful opposition is allowed, as St Thomas teaches
on the issue of correcting one’s superior on matter of Faith:
Summa Theologica 2-2, q.34, a.4, ad 2m.
Solution 4: No: Vatican II is
simply the Magisterium … of Vatican II !
Argument: Vatican has an authority
of its own.
-
Gaudium et Spes 11:
“This Council, first of all, wishes to assess in this
light (of 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.
What does the Church think of man? What needs to be recommended
for the upbuilding of contemporary society? What is the ultimate
significance of human activity throughout the world? People
are waiting for an answer to these questions. From the answers
it will be increasingly clear that the People of God and the
human race in whose midst it lives render service to each
other. Thus the mission of the Church will show its religious,
and by that very fact, its supremely human character.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_cons_19651207
_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
- Paul VI Allocution on Dec. 7, 1965
“Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anti-clerical
reality has, in a certain sense, defied the Council. The religion
of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is)
of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash,
a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was
none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the
spirituality of the Council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has
permeated the whole of it. The attention of our Council has been
absorbed by the discovery of human needs (and these needs grow
in proportion to the greatness which the son of the earth claims
for himself). But we call upon those who term themselves modern
humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the
highest realities, to give the Council credit at least for one
quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too,
in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.
(Original Latin:) Humanitatis illud laicum atque profanum studium,
immani qua est magnitudine, tandem aliquando prodit, idemque
ad certamen, ut ita dicamus, Concilium lacessivit. Religio,
id est cultus Dei, qui homo fieri voluit, atque religio - talis
enim est aestimanda - id est cultus hominis, qui fieri vult Deus,
inter se congressae sunt. Quid tamen accidit? Certamen,
proelium, anathema? Id sane haberi potuerat, sed plane
non accidit. Vetus illa de bono Samaritano narratio excmplum fuit
atque norma, ad quam Concilii nostri spiritualis ratio
directa est. Etenim, immensus quidam erga homines amor
Concilium penitus pervasit. Perspectae et iterum consideratae
hominum necessitates, quae eo molestiores fiunt, quo magis
huius terrae filius crescit, totum nostrae huius Synodi
studium detinuerunt. Hanc saltem laudem Concilio tribuite, vos,
nostra hac aetate cultores humanitatis, qui veritates rerum naturam
transcendentes renuitis, iidemque novum nostrum humanitatis
studium agnoscite: nam nos etiam, immo nos prae ceteris,
hominis sumus cultores.
And what aspect of humanity has this august
senate studied? What goal under divine inspiration did it
set for itself? It also dwelt upon humanity’s ever twofold
facet, namely, man’s wretchedness and his greatness, his profound
weakness—which is undeniable and cannot be cured by himself—and
the good that survives in him which is ever marked by a hidden
beauty and an invincible serenity. But one must realize that
this Council, which exposed itself to human judgment, insisted
very much more upon this pleasant side of man, rather than
on his unpleasant one. Its attitude was very much and deliberately
optimistic. A wave of affection and admiration flowed from
the Council over the modern world of humanity.” (Original
Latin of last sentence:) Multum enim studii atque admirationis
in nostrae aetatis homines Concilium contulit.
“Vatican II was right to wish a revision of
the relations between the Church and the world. Because there
are some values which, although born outside the Church, may,
if examined and amended, find their place in her vision. In
those years, we fulfilled that duty, however the person who
would think that these two realities can meet or even identify
themselves without conflict would show that he doesn’t understand
the Church nor the world.”
(in Sel de la Terre n. 35, p.56)
Answer:
However, in Pastor Aeternus,
Vatican I taught:
“For the Holy Spirit 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.” (DzS 3070)
And Syllabus, n. 80, condemned
the following statement:
“The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile
himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern
civilization.”
“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)
5. Cardinal Ratzinger, to the
Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988
“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated
as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but
as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. 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;
and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort
of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
“This ‘pastoral’ Council is neither pastoral
nor does it come from the Catholic Church: it doesn’t feed men
and Christians with the evangelical and apostolic truth, and
moreover, never has the Church spoken thus. We cannot listen
to this voice because it is not the voice of the Spirit of Christ.
The voice of Christ, our Shepherd, we know; this voice we ignore.
It may be sheepskin, but the voice is not of the Shepherd, perhaps
of the world.
Dixi. I have spoken.
(In Sel de la Terre, SiSiNoNo
Congress 1996. Bishop Fellay actually quoted an intervention
of Archbishop Lefebvre, (of Sept. 9, 1965 in I accuse the
Council, p. 80), simply by substituting the word ‘Council’
to the original word ‘Constitution’ (ie.GS)
7. Archbishop Lefebvre
“We believe we can say, by following closely
the internal and external critique of Vatican II, ie., by analyzing
the texts and studying what leads to it and what flows from
it, that, turning its back to Tradition and breaking with the
Church of the past, it is a schismatic council. The tree is
judged by its fruits.”
(Interview with the Figaro, August 2, 1976,
in Sel de la Terre, n. 35, p.62.)
Conclusion
We have examined the various opinions
on the authority of the Council. The first two we reject as
non probable, the third may have a certain likelihood but we
prefer the fourth which sees in the Council the first act of
the ‘Conciliar Church’. This ‘Conciliar Magisterium’ is not
protected by Divine authority (not falling under any category
of the infallible Magisterium), nor has it any human authority
(by virtue of the errors which have been introduced in it subversively).
Consequently, far from having any authority, it deserves the
distrust of good Catholics.
**********
Additional Text
The
Modernist Magisterium
By Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
To a Living Tradition
corresponds a new Magisterium, the Conciliar Magisterium.
From a spiritual conference, Ecône, January 13, 1976
(The spoken style
has been kept)
Since they cannot lean on Tradition,
since what they are asking is not in conformity to Tradition,
then, I would say, they have established in the Church a new
Magisterium, or in other words, a new conception of the Magisterium
of the Church, a conception which is moreover a modernist conception.
Because, as St Pius X explained beautifully in his encyclical
Pascendi dominici gregis, this corresponds perfectly to
the conception of a Church which is a living Church. Obviously
the Church is alive, with a living Magisterium, no doubt that
this Magisterium is alive, but nevertheless it cannot be a Magisterium
which is in contradiction with previous teaching. It must be
a clarification, an explanantion of the dogmas of faith, but
not a change, like the change of something transforming itself,
like a life which has substantial changes. Now this is the conception
that they now have in the Church, and it is why Mgr. Benelli
is asking us to be faithful to the Conciliar Church. Mr. Salleron
expresses that very well. His conclusion is wonderful, his conclusion
really needs to be read, it corresponds so well to reality!
“In his letter of 25/6/76 to
Archbishop Lefebvre, Mgr. Benelli invokes the necessary fidelity
to the Conciliar Church. Consciously or not, the use
of this expression is very meaningful: a bishop no longer
acts in a Christian manner by the fact that his faith is the
Catholic faith and that he obeys the law of the Church.
From now on, in order to be Christian, he must be faithful
to the Conciliar Church. What is this fidelity? What is precisely
this absolute innovation of a Conciliar Church, distinct
from the Catholic Church? We are still waiting for an
answer, but we notice the novelty, we notice a that a Magisterium
which is getting more and more badly defined,
makes its own will the supreme norm of religious
life. (Louis Salleron, Itinéraires, no. 209,
Jan. 1977, pp. 86-87 – Emphasis ours – Ed.).
That is capital, this last sentence
is absolutely fundamental: “we notice the novelty, we notice
that a Magisterium which is getting more and more badly defined,
makes its own will the supreme norm of religious life.”
That is precisely what we are colliding with! And it is
always about this that we are told: “Obey, obey, you owe the
pope obedience, and if you do not obey the pope, then you are
not in the true faith; look at Vatican I.” But the Holy Father
is at the service of faith, as we all are at the service of
faith, because we are at the service of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The first duty of a bishop, the first duty of a pope, the first
duty of a priest, is to be at the service of faith. Faith is
not at his service, he cannot command faith, we cannot make
up the faith, not even the pope can make up the faith. He can
define certain things, which are however already in the Church,
already in Tradition, he can define them, clarify them, but
he cannot do with it whatever he wills, he cannot say today:
“This was said yesterday, but now we say the opposite.” In matters
of faith, that is not possible. (Vu de Haut, no.
13, Autumn 2006, pp.51-52)
contents
|
