April 2008 Print

^{Fr. Alain Lorans}

On December 14, 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a doctrinal note "On Certain Aspects of Evangelization." On July 10, 2007, it had already published a study entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." Both texts are intended to clarify the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on ecumenism and religious liberty, thus acknowledging that the conciliar documents are not, in themselves, explicit.

The note of July intends to "[clarify] the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate." Its main objective is to address the difficulties arising from Vatican II's statement (Lumen Gentium, I, 8) that "the Church of Christ subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church." The document issued in December was intended to "clarify certain aspects of the relationship between the missionary command of the Lord and respect for the conscience and religious freedom of all people."

These clarifications are in line with the "hermeneutics of continuity" developed by Benedict XVI, from the beginning of his pontificate, on the occasion of his address to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005. According to this interpretation of Vatican II there is no rupture between traditional teaching and conciliar teaching. Thus the Pope declared that: "The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church." And he gave the example of the Christian martyrs who refused to worship the divinized Roman emperors. This example gave rise to some skepticism. Indeed, if the first Christians refused this worship, it was first of all because they wanted to bear witness to the divinity of Christ and considered worship of the emperor as idolatry, and rightly so. From an historical viewpoint, it is difficult to admit that the martyrs opposed the State religion in the name of freedom of conscience. Or, if that were the case, the Church would have been wrong ever since 313, when it recognized the Edict of Constantine which authorized Christian institutions.

By inscribing themselves in the perspective of a continuity between Tradition and Vatican II, the two doctrinal notes from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith fail to prove that the conciliar notions of ecumenism and religious liberty do not introduce any rupture in the traditional Catholic teaching. Let us read the note released in December.

The Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization

The authors of the text acknowledge that the relation between religious liberty and the necessity of evangelization is not clear. This means that, in the minds of many of the faithful, the one excludes the other:

There is today, however, a growing confusion which leads many to leave the missionary command of the Lord unheard and ineffective (cf. Mt. 28:19). Often it is maintained that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom. From this perspective, it would only be legitimate to present one's own ideas and to invite people to act according to their consciences, without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic Faith. It is enough, so they say, to help people to become more human or more faithful to their own religion; it is enough to build communities which strive for justice, freedom, peace and solidarity. Furthermore, some maintain that Christ should not be proclaimed to those who do not know him, nor should joining the Church be promoted, since it would also be possible to be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ and without formal incorporation in the Church.

While recalling the necessity of evangelization, the doctrinal note means to safeguard the religious liberty promoted by Vatican II:

After having affirmed the right and the duty of every person to seek the truth in matters of religion, it says: "The search for truth, however, must be carried out in a manner that is appropriate to the dignity of the human person and his social nature, namely, by free inquiry with the help of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue. It is by these means that people share with each other the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in such a way that they help one another in the search for truth."¹ In any case, the truth "does not impose itself except by the strength of the truth itself."² Therefore, to lead a person's intelligence and freedom in honesty to the encounter with Christ and his Gospel is not an inappropriate encroachment, but rather a legitimate endeavor and a service capable of making human relationships more fruitful.

For the authors of the doctrinal note, this quotation from the conciliar declaration Dignitatis Humanæ on religious liberty does not seem to contradict the evangelizing mission of the Church. Yet, it is far from being so. Let us be allowed to recall here the teaching of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who saw at once, in the free search for the truth and in dialogue with non-Catholics "the death of the missionary spirit"!

The Second Vatican Council indeed canonized searching in its Declaration on Religious Liberty: "The truth must be sought according to the manner proper to the human person and to his social nature, namely, by means of a free investigation...." The Council puts searching into the first place, ahead of instruction and education! Reality, however, is otherwise: children get strong religious convictions by a solid education; and once they are acquired, anchored in the minds, and expressed in religious worship, why search any more? Moreover, "unrestricted research" has very rarely led to religious and philosophical truth. The great Aristotle is not immune from errors. The philosophy of open investigation results in Hegel. And what is there to say of the supernatural truths? Speaking about the pagans, here is what St. Paul writes: "How will they believe, if no one preaches to them? And how will anyone preach to them, if missionaries are not sent?"³ It is not the search that the Church must proclaim, but the need for the mission: "Go, teach all nations" (Mt. 28:19); such is the only order given by Our Lord. How many souls will be able to find the truth, remain in the truth, without the help of the magisterium of the Church? This free searching is a total unreality, at bottom, a radical naturalism. And in practice, what is it that distinguishes a free searcher from a free thinker?

And the former Archbishop of Dakar goes on to denounce dialogue with non-Catholics:

"The truth must be sought...by means...of exchange and dialogue, by which some set forth to the others the truth that they have found or think that they have found in order to help each other reciprocally in the search for the truth."⁴ Hence, in the same way as the unbeliever, the believer should always be searching! St. Paul, however, really pinned down the false doctors "who are always learning without ever arriving at the knowledge of the truth"!⁵ For his part, the unbeliever could provide the believer with the elements of truth that are lacking to him! The Holy Office, in its instruction of December 20, 1949, on ecumenism, nevertheless dispelled this error and, speaking of the return of the separated Christians to the Catholic Church, said: "We will, however, avoid speaking on this point in such a manner that, in coming back to the Church, they delude themselves that they are providing it with an essential element that it would have been lacking up to now."⁶ What contact with non-Catholics can supply us with is from human experience, but not doctrinal elements!

For the intrepid missionary, there exists in the conciliar spirit an error of perspective which changes the very nature of Catholic evangelization:

The Council considerably altered the attitude of the Church towards other religions, the non-Christian ones in particular. In a conversation that I had on September 13, 1975, with the secretary of Bishop Nestor Adam, then bishop of Sion, this secretary came to agree with me: yes, something has changed in the missionary orientation of the Church. But he added: "And it was necessary that this change take place." He said to me, "For example, now, in those who are not Christians, or in those who are separated from the Church, we look at what there is of good, the positive, in them. We try to discern, in the values that they have, the seeds of their salvation."

Of course, every error has its true, positive aspects; there is no error in the pure state, just as absolute evil does not exist. Evil is the corruption of a good, error is the corruption of the truth, in a subject that nonetheless keeps its nature, certain natural qualities, and certain truths. But there is a very great danger in basing oneself on the residue of truth that error preserves. What would we think of a doctor who, called to the bedside of a sick person, would declare: "Oh, but this sick person still has something; it is not as bad as that!" In regard to the sickness, there would be no use in saying to this doctor: "But then, look at the sickness, can't you see that he is sick? He has to be taken care of, or he is going to die!" He will reply to you: "Oh, after all, he is not as bad as all that. Besides, my method is to pay no attention to the disease that is in my patients–that is negative–but to the remainder of health that is in them."

In such a case, I will say, let us leave the sick to die of their lovely death! The result is that, by dint of our saying to non-Catholics or non-Christians: "After all, you have an upright conscience, you have some means of salvation," they wind up believing that they are not sick. And then how to convert them after that?

Now, this spirit has never been that of the Church. On the contrary, the missionary spirit has always been openly to show to the sick their wounds, so as to heal them, to bring them the remedies that they need. To stand before non-Christians, without telling them that they need the Christian religion, that they cannot be saved except through Our Lord Jesus Christ, is an inhuman cruelty. In the beginning of a private conversation, to make a captatio benevolentiæ by praising whatever is honorable in their religions, this is indeed legitimate. But to raise that up to being a doctrinal principle, this is an error, it is to deceive souls! The "salvific values of other religions" is a heresy! To make of this a basis for the missionary apostolate is to wish to keep souls in error! This "dialogue" is anti-missionary to the highest degree! Our Lord sent His Apostles not to dialogue, but to preach! Now, as it is this spirit of liberal dialogue that has been inculcated since the Council in the priests and the missionaries, we can understand why the conciliar Church has completely lost the missionary zeal, the very spirit of the Church!⁷

The attitude which consists in wanting to see only the partial truths contained in other religions, without considering their general spirit of error and negation–in order to consider only what unites and not what divides–has religious indifferentism, or even syncretism as its actual consequences. René Raymond, an author who can in no way be suspected of traditionalism, acknowledges this. Speaking of the idea "very strongly anchored in contemporary mentality, that no religion alone possesses the totality of the truth," this liberal Christian does not hesitate to say:

The Church itself contributes to this insofar as she shows respect for other beliefs, especially since the last council. Non-Christian traditions are no longer likened to error. Hence, the classic blueprint which for so long has preserved the cohesion of the Catholic people has been smashed to pieces: the well-defined and absolute opposition between truth and error.

And he draws from this the logical conclusion:

Prevailing opinion is not very far from the idea that all the various religious traditions are all of equal worth. Why then should we not look elsewhere for what is lacking to us, through a sort of spiritual tourism? This can lead to a kind of syncretism....⁸

The note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith insists that religious liberty does not preclude love of the truth and missionary zeal:

Respect for religious freedom and its promotion must not in any way make us indifferent towards truth and goodness. Indeed, love impels the followers of Christ to proclaim to all the truth which saves.

This statement is repeated several times, but without any regard for the facts, that is, without taking into account the concrete effect produced on the mind and behavior of the faithful by inter-religious meetings such as that of Assisi. We may wonder if such a discourse which ignores the lesson of the facts to such an extent is not an ideological discourse, a utopia totally cut off from reality.

The study "On Some Aspects of Evangelization" claims to show, in accord with the "hermeneutics of continuity," that there is no rupture between traditional teaching and conciliar ecumenism, but it makes no reference to any Roman documents dealing with Christian unity prior to Vatican II. In this document, not a single quote from Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, or from Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, or from the Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement from the Holy Office in 1949, can be found. On the other hand, the Second Vatican Council is quoted abundantly for, as the authors freely admit, they "presuppose the entirety of Catholic doctrine on evangelization as extensively treated in the teaching of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II." Would this mean that the Church has only come to understand her relationship to the other religions since the last council, and that, prior to 1962-1965, she was wholly in error?

One week after the release of this note, in his address to the Roman Curia, on December 21, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI was keen to reaffirm the necessary reconciliation between Catholic evangelization and conciliar ecumenism. Referring to his visit to Brazil, last May, and the document published on the occasion in Aparecida, "Disciples and Missionaries of Jesus Christ," the Pope declared:

"A disciple of Jesus Christ," the document tells us, "must also be a 'missionary,' a Gospel messenger." It is here, furthermore, that the objection arises: is it still legitimate today to "evangelize"? Should not all the world's religions and conceptions rather coexist peacefully and seek together to do their best for humanity, each in its own way? Well, that we must all coexist and cooperate in tolerance and reciprocal respect goes without question. The Catholic Church is actively committed to this and, with the two meetings in Assisi, has left evident signs of it, signs that we renewed again at this year's Meeting in Naples. On this topic, I would like to mention the kind letter sent to me last 13 October by 138 Muslim religious leaders, testifying to their common commitment to promoting world peace. I responded joyfully, expressing my convinced adherence to such noble intentions, and at the same time emphasized the urgent need for a binding accord to safeguard the values of reciprocal respect, dialogue and collaboration. Shared recognition of the existence of one God, the provident Creator and universal Judge of everyone's conduct, constitutes the premise of a common action in defense of the effective respect of the dignity of every human person in order to build a more just and united society.

After having recalled the two inter-religious Assisi meetings, and this year's meeting in Naples which was along the same lines, and having acknowledged what in his opinion unites Catholics and Muslims, Pope Benedict XVI wished nevertheless to maintain the missionary exigency of the Church:

But might not this desire for dialogue and collaboration also mean at the same time that we can no longer transmit Jesus Christ's message, no longer propose to humanity and to the world this call and the hope that derives from it? Those who have recognized a great truth or discovered a great joy have to pass it on; they absolutely cannot keep it to themselves. These great gifts are never intended for only one person. In Jesus Christ a great light emerged for us, the great Light: we cannot put it under a bushel basket, we must set it on a lamp stand so that it will give light to all who are in the house (cf. Mt. 5:15). St. Paul traveled tirelessly, taking the Gospel with him. He even felt under a sort of "compulsion" to proclaim the Gospel (cf. I Cor. 9:16)–not so much out of concern for the salvation of the single non-baptized person who had not yet been reached by the Gospel, but rather because he was aware that history as a whole could not attain fulfillment until the Gospel had reached the full number [pléroma] of Gentiles (cf. Rom. 11:25). To reach its completion, history needs the proclamation of the Good News to all peoples, to all men and women (cf. Mk. 13:10).

The Pope does not appear to consider that inter-religious meetings such as those of Assisi and Naples–like the prayer at the Blue Mosque of Istanbul, in 2006–carry in themselves, independently of the personal intentions of their authors, a practical teaching that goes against the missionary exigency of the Church. And such a teaching speaks much louder to people than all the explanations given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Let us now turn to the note released last July.

Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church (July 10, 2007)

The first answer given in the document consists in a declaration that: "The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, but rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it." Concerning the novel expression "subsists in," the document puts forward the following explanation:

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium "subsistence" means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

In other words: The Church of Christ is concretely found in the Catholic Church. This tends to affirm the identity of the Catholic Church and of the Church of Christ. But the same answer adds that if "the word 'subsists' can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone," it is nevertheless possible "to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches [Orthodox] and ecclesial Communities [Protestant] not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them," according to John Paul II's teaching in Ut Unum Sint (§11).

Consequently, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith justifies the use of the verb "subsists in" instead of the verb "is" in the following manner: "The use of this expression indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church," but it is meant to signify also that "'numerous elements of sanctification and of truth' are found outside her [the Church's] structure," because

these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.

In the commentary attached to the document, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith admits that

the Council Fathers simply intended to recognize the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a "churchless void."

This is precisely where lies all the ambiguity the document claims to clear without managing to do so. Indeed, subsistit in was substituted for est

to signify a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognize truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the "plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis" present in them. Consequently, although there is only one Church which "subsists" in one unique historical subject there are true ecclesial realities which exist beyond its visible boundaries.

And the commentary adds that the document, far from questioning the ecumenism promoted by Vatican II,

offers valuable indications for the future of ecumenical dialogue. This dialogue remains one of the priorities of the Catholic Church, as Benedict XVI confirmed in his first message to the Church on April 20, 2005, and on many other occasions, especially during his apostolic visit to Turkey (November 28–December 1, 2006).

From Paradox to Ambiguity, and from Ambiguity to Contradictions

The most instructive passage of the commentary is the following:

Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical. The Second Vatican Council used the phrase subsistit in in order to try to harmonize two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite all the divisions between Christians the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church whether in the particular Churches or in the ecclesial Communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church. For this reason, the same Decree of Vatican II on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio introduced the term fullness (unitatis/catholicitatis) specifically to help better understand this somewhat paradoxical situation.

The reader is left somewhat confused to see that the commentary on the document explicitly acknowledges that it is somewhat paradoxical. The ambiguities which were supposed to be cleared up are, in fact, replaced by the paradox in which the Council wants to harmonize two statements: "the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church" and "separated communities, without being in full communion with the Church, are not for all that, a 'churchless void,'" because they contain many elements of sanctification and truth, which, according to the Second Vatican Council, are ecclesial elements.

One question arises: if the desire to harmonize these statements results in a paradox, are these two statements reconcilable? Are they not contradictory? And is not this attempt at harmonizing them simply a suspension of the principle of non-contradiction? Since this paradox wants to wed the traditional definition of the Church with the conciliar definition of separated communities, it is useful to recall here the traditional definition of separated communities. Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre wrote on the subject in his book They Have Uncrowned Him:

The Council took pleasure in exalting the salvific values, or the values–period–of the other religions. Speaking of the non-Catholic Christian religions, Vatican II teaches that "Although we believe them to be victims of deficiencies, they are not in any way devoid of meaning and of value in the mystery of salvation." This is a heresy! The only means of salvation is the Catholic Church. Insofar as they are separated from the unity of the true Faith, the Protestant communions cannot be used by the Holy Ghost. He can act only directly on the souls or make use of the means (for example, baptism) which, in themselves, do not bear any indication of separation. One can be saved in Protestantism, but not by Protestantism!"

Hence the comments made by Bishop Bernard Fellay in the American review The Remnant, concerning the release of this note by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

You have a perfect illustration of what we have said for six years. That is that Rome is continuing in a confusing way because they don't seem to give much care to contradiction and non-contradiction. This document seems to be a clarification of nothing but assuring once again that "Yes" means "No."

And to the journalist, Brian Mershon, who was asking for an example [Bishop Fellay replied]:

Sure. One example is precisely the question about subsistit. [The question is] why use the expression subsistit in and not est? You read the answer, and you conclude nothing.

They say it is est and that there is an identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church; and there is no change of doctrine. And then the next phrase is precisely a change in doctrine. So...it is a contradiction....This text tries to tell us that there is no contradiction between the doctrine of the Church of the past and of Vatican II. And we insist by saying that Vatican II is in disharmony–is in contradiction–is even teaching error opposed to the traditional teaching, especially on ecumenism. And here [in this new document on ecclesiology] you have both sides put together; that is, the past and Vatican II.

This text is a confirmation of all of our reproaches against the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II [documents]. It is a superb example of ambiguity, and maybe it has never gone so far by trying to put together what cannot be put together, by pretending that there is no position which is a clear position.

Ambiguities mean that you have at least two ways to understand them or to interpret them. This is terribly damaging for a document that is supposed to be from the highest solemnity in the Church–a document which comes from an Ecumenical Council. It is a great tragedy. These ambiguities, I must say, you find them almost everywhere. In addition to these three major errors of ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality, you have all these ambiguities everywhere. It is not in the Catholic spirit. It is this modern, progressive spirit which has partly been condemned by Pope Benedict XVI, but which also basically and fundamentally has been approved by him. We're going around in circles there. And I must say once again, this document [Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church] is a perfect illustration of this ambiguity and of contradictory statements.

Four years ago, on January 6, 2004, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the pontificate of John Paul II, Bishop Fellay sent a study entitled From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy, to all the Cardinals of the Roman Church. It was preceded by a letter of introduction which read:

The Pope himself, in his Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Europa, acknowledges noticeably that the time in which we live is that of a "silent apostasy" wherein there reigns a sort of "practical agnosticism and religious indifference whereby many Europeans give the impression of living without spiritual roots and somewhat like heirs who have squandered a patrimony entrusted to them by history."⁹ Amongst the principal causes of this tragic state of affairs, how can we not put in the chief place the ecumenism that was officially initiated by Vatican II and promoted by John Paul II? In the avowed purpose to establish a new unity, and in the name of a will to "see rather that which unites us rather than that which divides us," there is the pretense to sublimate or to reinterpret or to put aside specifically Catholic elements that appear to be causes of division. One despises thereby the constant and unanimous teaching of Tradition, which states that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Catholic Church and that outside of it there is no salvation. This ecumenism has seemingly destroyed the most beautiful treasures of the Church, because instead of accepting the Unity which is founded on the plenitude of truth, it wishes to establish a unity adapted to a truth mixed with error.

The cardinals to whom the study was addressed have never replied. And we can scarcely consider that these two doctrinal notes emanating from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith today constitute a convincing response.

 

Fr. Alain Lorans was ordained for the Society of Saint Pius X. He served as Rector of the Society's Institut St. Pie X located in Paris from 1980-83, as Rector of the seminary at Ecône from 1983-88, then again Rector of the Institut St. Pie X from 1988-2002. Since then, he has been the editor of the Society's news bureau, DICI. This article reprinted with permission from Christendom (Jan.-Feb. 2008), published by DICI, the international news bureau of the SSPX. It is available on line at www.dici.org.

 

¹ Ecumenical Council Vat. II, Diginitatis Humanæ, §3.

² Ibid., §1.

³ Rom. 10:15.

⁴ Dignitatis Humanæ, §3.

⁵ II Tim. 3:7.

⁶ Instruction "De Motion Oecumenica."

⁷ They Have Uncrowned Him, Ch. 26 "Searching and Dialogue, Death of the Missionary Spirit" (Angelus Press, 2003) pp. 175ff. [Available from Angelus Press: Price: $15.00.]

⁸ Le christianisme en accusation [Christianity Under Accusation, our translation] (Desclée de Brouwer, 2000), pp. 45-46.

⁹ Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in Europa, §§7, 9.