The Authority of Vatican II Questioned
PART 3
Fr. Gleize is a professor of ecclesiology at the seminary of the SSPX in Ecône and now a member of the commission involved in the doctrinal discussions with the Holy See. In 2006, he compiled and organized Archbishop Lefebvre’s thinking about Vatican II. It was published by the Institute of St. Pius X, the university run by the SSPX in Paris, France.
Vatican II Is Not an Infallible Council
In a spiritual conference given at Ecône on June 28, 1975, Archbishop Lefebvre explained what the intentions of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI were at the time of the Second Vatican Council. They did not intend to define revealed truths, but to give a teaching of a pastoral character corresponding above all to the “aspirations” of modern man. This is why the Second Vatican Council is not covered by the Church’s infallibility.–Fr. Gleize
Why did I allude to the Council in my Declaration [of November 1974]? Of course, it is difficult for some people to understand. Obviously, people can easily be mistaken, because until Vatican II all the councils, as far as I know, were dogmatic councils, councils that were intended to define, councils that really had as their intention and purpose the definition of truth against the errors of the day. Their intention was always to state the truth precisely. You know very well that Revelation, the body of revealed truth, the totality of revealed truth, was completed after the death of the last apostle. After the death of the last apostle, all Revelation had been given to us, but clearly it had not been fully explained, it had not all been fully stated. So, through the intermediary of the Fathers of the Church, through the intermediary of all the theologians, these truths were stated explicitly; and the Sovereign Pontiffs, either by themselves and by their own teaching authority [magisterium] or by the magisterium of a council, defined the truths that belong to the body of revealed truth, Revelation: we say that such or such a truth is revealed. This does not mean that the truth was revealed at that moment; it already was such; it already formed part of the truths revealed before the death of the last apostle. They belong to Tradition.
So, the councils always had as their goal to define truths against errors. But the [Second Vatican] Council has a particular character–this is clear, it is indicated in all the acts of the Council; it has a pastoral character, and Pope John XXIII himself was careful to say that he did not want to define truth in this Council because he judged that, at present, the truths necessary for our faith were sufficiently clear and that for the moment he saw no need to make any new definitions. This statement of the Holy Father is very important; it defines the purpose of the Council and the intention the Holy Father had in convoking it. So afterwards, it isn’t up to the theologians or the experts or even the Council Fathers, the members of the Council who worked at the Council, to say, “Excuse me, we intended this, we wanted this, we wanted that!” What matters is to know the Holy Father’s mind, for the Council is first and foremost what the Holy Father wants to do; it is he who, in some way, communicates his infallibility to all the Fathers present and who make up the Church Teaching. Consequently, the Holy Father took care to tell us that.
Then, this was told us many times–how many times did I myself hear it! At the Council I suggested there be dogmatic schemas and pastoral schemas for the sake of seminary professors. It would be interesting for seminary professors and all those who have to teach religion to have clear and precise formulas. We could make a first brief schema with clear and concise formulas that could be used by seminary professors and theologians, and then we would have another part of the schema that would be pastoral in character, that is, that these truths would be presented to the faithful and to the whole world, and consequently would necessarily be expressed in terms more accessible to mankind as a whole and to the Church as a whole and to the faithful as a whole, and consequently it would necessarily lend itself to diverse interpretations. Whereas when a truth is being defined, one looks for the scholastic terms, the theological terms that are not always within the grasp of all the faithful but which the theologians and professors like to hear because they are concise, precise, and clear, and one knows what they mean, and consequently one is able to teach something certain! Then it is up to the professors and theologians to explain what it means to the faithful. So the pastoral schemas would be addressed to all of the faithful and would make use of simpler language. But this proposal was rejected, even though it was well received by several cardinals. Several cardinals had backed this proposal, but immediately a hue and cry was raised by the so-called leaders of the Council, who said “No, no, no, no! We don’t want a dogmatic council here; we are conducting a pastoral council.”
So, it was agreed that this Council was a council that should address everybody. Inevitably, since they didn’t want to define things, since they didn’t want to employ dogmatic or theological language, then necessarily, you know, by that very fact the Church’s infallibility was not exercised. Because exercising [the Church’s] infallibility means that the Holy Ghost prevents error, for that is what infallibility is. It is not inspiration, as with Sacred Scripture where the Holy Ghost in some way takes the wit and understanding of the writer and makes him write what the Holy Ghost wants him to write–in his own style, undoubtedly, but always what the Holy Ghost wants; whereas infallibility denotes preservation from error. Well, given that [the Council] finally involved preaching and pastoral exposition, the Holy Ghost was not obliged to intervene as He would in a definition where the pope intends precisely to bind the faith of the faithful in all of the expressed terms.
Certainly, if the Church respects the truths which have already been defined, which have already been given as obliging belief, as defined truth, it is clear that they always remain of defined faith or theologically certain; they bear the theological note that was given to them–that is clear! There are many defined truths in the Council, but defined by other councils, by other teaching authorities. Undoubtedly, the Council was an important act of the Church; that’s true, it is an important act of the Church, but which, precisely, must be considered in relation to all the truths revealed and defined before the Council. But what is new is the new presentation made in the Council–and God knows if there was a new presentation in the Council!–but not necessarily a presentation marked by the sign of infallibility. This being said, I do not have before my eyes the text of Cardinal Felici’s answer to the question that had been asked, namely, what was the theological note of the conciliar documents. Cardinal Felici answered that that should be determined depending on the different texts, that a general theological note could not be given, that it had to be determined according to the documents, that he did not know, and that he couldn’t give a general note. And by that very fact he was saying: Not all the propositions of the Council are necessarily to be believed with divine faith, they are not theologically certain.
Consequently, I can tell you that logically one may discuss certain paragraphs and certain schemas of the Council, I would say in their orientation; one may, therefore, judge this Council; one is not obliged to take all its statements as articles of faith. That is why, moreover, to my understanding, some equivocations and orientations were able to slip into the Council, which, had the pope intended to hold a dogmatic council, could not have happened. But given that he himself said that he did not want to define anything, but that he wanted a pastoral council, and because they insisted on this quality of the Council by saying that it was a pastoral council, there is room for error in the Council. When you really examine the schemas overall and the way in which they were drafted–the first drafts, then the second revisions and the third revisions–one cannot help noticing certain tendencies; I would say, orientations. Undoubtedly, there may not be statements contrary to the Faith, but there is a definite orientation.
The Pope and Tradition
In these remarks excerpted from the spiritual conference given at Ecône on September 14, 1975 (the first part), Archbishop Lefebvre states that one may not follow a council in which the pope proposes novelties contrary to Tradition, for the pope should be the guardian of Tradition.–Fr. Gleize
I think that after all is said and done, the problem is rather simple. We refuse nothing except that which might go against a solid, clear tradition and a definition of faith that was made by the councils, by the pope, for two thousand years. Evidently, I imagine that faced with this response the Holy Father will say: “But then you suppose that in the Council and in the reforms and in the post-conciliar orientations there are things that might be contrary to Tradition and which can, finally, be dangerous to the faith and make people become Protestant and modernist?” I think that, if the Holy Father asked me a question like that one, I would say: “Look at the facts.” I am not looking for anything, no one wants to condemn or attack anyone; but there are the facts: people are losing the Faith, the priests are becoming protestants and modernists. The consequences are there and they’re obvious, absolutely obvious. The catechisms are no longer Catholic catechisms, and the universities no longer teach orthodoxy. What is to be done? There is, all the same, something that is not normal.
They recognize that we are keeping the traditions and that we are a traditional seminary. And if because we keep these traditions, because we keep the traditional liturgy, and because we keep the traditional orientations, we are subject to condemnation in the name of the Council, it is because from the time of the Council there is something new that is contrary to Tradition. [This condemnation] is incomprehensible otherwise…But we find ourselves before this fact.
“Then you are against the pope, you are against the Church,” people tell us. We are not at all against the pope; we are the pope’s best defenders. We are those who are united, I would say, in the most intimate way with the pope. Why?
What is the pope? Here is what, not I, but Pope Pius IX says in his encyclical Pastor Aeternus, in which he solemnly defined the pope’s infallibility: “For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith , and might faithfully set it forth” [Dz. 1836]. So there you have it; for us it is simple. For us the Holy Father has not received the Holy Ghost, the successors of Peter have not received the Holy Spirit, in order to disclose new doctrine, but to sacredly guard and faithfully set forth, with His assistance, the revelations transmitted by the apostles, namely, the deposit of faith.
That is what we are doing; we adhere to that teaching, I would say, with our whole heart, with our whole soul. All the days you spend in the seminary are nothing but that: you scrutinize the deposit of faith; you scrutinize the Revelation that was given by our Lord and which has been transmitted to us from the apostles to our days by the successors of Peter, under the protection of the successors of Peter. Thus if the pope is really the successor of Peter, he cannot not continue Tradition, he cannot not bring with him this deposit; if not, where would we find it? It is he who has received in charge the deposit of faith in order to transmit it, and we are attached to it as to the apple of our eye; we are attached to the pope’s dearest duty: to defend the deposit of faith, to transmit the deposit of faith, the revelations of the apostles, given to the apostles by our Lord. Thus we are not at all against the pope.
The Laws of the Church and the Faith
In the second part of the spiritual conference given at Ecône on September 14, 1975, Archbishop Lefebvre reiterated that the laws of the Church exist for the defense of the Faith. No law can be invoked to condemn those who want to keep the Faith.–Fr. Gleize
In any case, personally, I sincerely believe that if we are sure of following the Tradition of the Church, if we are sure of following the truth of the Church, and thus of following all that the successors of Peter have taught us and what the present pope teaches us, and sometimes allows to be abandoned, then we have a duty to hold fast to it. And all the legal opposition that can be arrayed against us, all the penalties and all that pertains to positive law, cannot touch what is of divine law, the divine law that must be believed.
“He who believes will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” That is the first of laws, and it is a divine law, whereas human laws, which canon law, penalties, and so forth, are–all that is very good and we desire to be subject to all these laws, but only insofar as they uphold the primary law for which they were made. Canon law exists to guard our faith, to uphold our faith; it is for that end that canon law was made. The Church’s positive law is made to support and defend natural and positive divine law. There is, for all that, a hierarchy among laws.
Consequently, if, because we observe the divine law, because we observe the law of faith, we are attacked by the Church’s positive law, a law that is after all, finally, I would say, an ecclesiastical law, that amounts to nothing, because that positive law is running counter to the law which is its basis, its very foundation, the foundation of canon law. So that cannot stand, it’s impossible. That is why, even if tomorrow I were to receive a letter from the pope telling me that I was excommunicated, under interdict, suspended, etc., even if they applied to me all the penalties of canon law, that counts for nothing. I would continue as if nothing had happened because one may not, by means of ecclesiastical law, pressure us to disobey a divine law.
“You must fall in line with the Council, you must fall in line with the post-conciliar reforms, you must fall in line with the post-conciliar orientations,” we are told. We know full well that if we fall in line with all that is being done, we will fall slowly but surely into error, we will be infected by liberalism, modernism, and even by communism–we will even fall into communism. Well, there is no help for it, nobody can make us do that–nobody. Nobody can oblige us to go down that path, which is a contaminated path. There is no help for it. The facts are there. People take the poison every day.
(To be continued.)
Current Issue
