I would not be so concerned if this were something from outside the Church. But when each one takes as his mission to criticize everything, when each one sets out to rewrite dogma and morality according to his own wishes, the Church disintegrates. When the center of unity becomes the target of the most impassioned attacks, each one feeling that he has the right to criticize the successor of Peter before the whole world on any point whatsoever, the Church herself is therefore wounded. Those who take this liberty do not fully realize what they are doing. Regardless of what pretext they may invoke, however, they are turning their backs on the gospel of Christ, and they scandalize, in the fullest sense of the word, many of their brethren.

Whether they wish to or not, they encourage the formation of small groups whose sectarian pretensions are equalled only by the poverty of their spirituality. The weakening of faith is coupled with the decomposition of the Christian community. They insult all those who hold on to what their faith requires of them as Christians. Inasmuch as it depends on them, they ruin the Church. A Church in which this form of disorder exists and where such morals are accepted is doomed. [1]

[Most Eminent Lord,

It is with my eyes fixed on the Sacred Heart, whose feast we celebrate today, that I implore, according to his own desire, of His mercy, that it might deign to impregnate the lines that follow with his light and his charity.

The Jesuit, Bishop Pierre Henrici, at the time secretary of Communio, said in a conference on the development of the Council that at Vatican II two theological traditions, that are deep down incomprehensible to one another, entered into collision.

Your letter of May 7 caused me similar sentiments of incomprehension and of disappointment.]

[We have the impression that you are trying to force us to make a choice: either we are to enter into full communion, and then we must be silent concerning the great evils that afflict the Church, that is in the absence of a golden cage, we must accept a muzzle; or we are to stay "outside". We refuse to be forced to chose between each of these alternatives. ]

[On the one hand, we have never left the Church. ]

[On the other hand, our present situation that is, without a doubt, uncomfortable, is not the effect of any culpable action on our part, but the consequence of a disastrous situation in the Church, against which we have striven, as far as we could, to protect ourselves. ]

[The various decisions made by Archbishop Lefebvre were dictated by the determination to not lose the Catholic Faith and to survive in the midst of a universal rout that involves even Rome. We call this a "state of necessity".]

[If we desire to advance beyond the deadlock to which your letter leads, we must change rather profoundly the perspectives, the questions to be asked.

In effect, for Your Eminence:

1. We have broken communion. ]

[2. The reasons that we give to justify our actions, and in particular the episcopal consecrations, are entirely insufficient.]

[For since the Church is holy and the Magisterium is always assisted by the Holy Ghost, the deficiencies that we complain about either do not exist or are simply limited abuses.]

[Our problem comes from the fact that our vision of the Church’s history and crises is much too fixed and limited, preventing us from understanding the homogenous evolution brought about by the Council and the subsequent Magisterium, necessitated by different adaptations to today’s world. ]

[3. Rome has been exceedingly generous in offering us the structure that was proposed to us. ]

[It would be abusive for us to ask for more, and even perhaps injurious towards the Holy See in these circumstances in which Rome took the initiative. No preliminary can be granted, and especially not the Mass, for it would cause trouble in the Church.]

[It seems to me possible to affirm, from our point of view, that, following Popes Pius XII and Paul VI, the Church is presently in a literally apocalyptic condition. It cannot be denied that the dysfunction of the Catholic hierarchy ?Cardinal Seper said "the crisis of the Church is a crisis of bishops" ?omissions, silences, deceptions, tolerance of errors, and even of positively destructive acts even in the Curia, and unfortunately even in the Vicar of Christ. These are public facts that can be seen by ordinary men.]

[The affirmation of the existence of these facts is not in contradiction with the Faith in the holiness of the Church, nor in the assistance of the Holy Ghost. But here we draw near to the mystery of the Church, of the joining together and coordination of the divine and human elements in the Mystical Body. In order to remain with the truth of the reality we must hold just as much to the affirmations of Faith as to the acknowledgement of the facts.]

You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat ... in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one. [2]

The Donatist party owed its success in great part to the ability of its leader Donatus, the successor of Majorinus. He appears to have really merited the title of "the Great" by his eloquence and force of character. His writings are lost. His influence with his party was extraordinary…In his lifetime he is said to have greatly enjoyed the adulation he received, and after death he was counted as a martyr and miracles were ascribed to him. [3]

Pope Melchiades summoned fifteen Italian bishops to sit with him. From this time forward we find that in all important matters the popes issue their decretal letters from a small council of bishops, and there are traces of this custom even before this. [4]

The ten Donatist bishops (for we may now give the party its eventual name) were headed by a Bishop Donatus of Casae Nigrae…On the third day the unanimous sentence was pronounced by Melchiades: Caecilian was to be maintained in ecclestiastical communion. If Donatist bishops returned to the Church, in a place where there were two rival bishops, the junior was to retire and be provided with another see. The Donatists were furious. A hundred years later their successor declared that Pope Melchiades was himself a traitor, and that on this account they had not accepted his decision; though there is no trace of this having been alleged at the time. But the nineteen bishops at Rome were contrasted with the seventy bishops of the Cathaginian Council, and a fresh judgment was demanded. [5]

St. Hippolytus was not a schismatic, why no he was "preserving tradition". (It was Pope Callistus I who was the schismatic, who was selling the Faith down the river.) The Acacian schism was not the fault of the Emperors and the entire Eastern Patriarchy. (Instead, it was the popes who were the ones in schism.) As for Photius and Popes Nicholas I, Hadrian II, and John VIII, why we know it was Photius who was "preserving tradition" and the Popes who were controverting it. Likewise with the Eastern schism - it was not Constantinople who was at fault it was Rome. (Need Fr. Martin Luther and his accusation of the pope being if not "anti-christ" then at least "his apostle" be mentioned??? After all, it is not as if Fr. Luther did not have his own excuses for failing to heed the authority of the Apostolic See.)

Yes the amazing shredding cloak of the Catholic Church over the centuries…somehow she survives despite being "wrong" so many times. The aforementioned situations were far less cut and dried than the SSPX situation in 1988. Therefore, if we call into question the judgment of Pope John Paul II on the status of the SSPX being in communion with him, than we have a free hand to call into question a lot of the events of the past. Or we can be consistent and recognize that all the other groups claiming that they were not in schism did not change the objective fact that they were. We know this the same way we know that the earlier schismatics and heresarchs were wrong:  judgment against them was rendered by the Supreme Authority.

[The First Vatican Council, in the affirmation of the infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff, explicitly gave the limits to the assistance of the Holy Ghost:

"The Holy Ghost 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." (Db 1836 in The Sources of Catholic Dogma, p. 456).]

[Obviously, we adhere with our whole heart to the paragraphs of Pastor Aeternus [Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ; Ed.] that follow, as well as to Dei filius [Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith; Ed.].]

[But it is precisely here that we draw closest to the heart of the present mystery. For it is in this regard that can be found the novelties of the new theology, that were condemned by the Church under Pius XII, and that were introduced into Vatican II. ]

[How can we explain that the Council’s great names, its expert theologians, were all sanctioned under Pius XII? De Lubac, Congar, Rahner, Courtney-Murray, Dom Beaudoin (who died just before the Council), and to go back a little further Blondel, Teilhard de Chardin...]

[They would have us believe today that these novelties are but a development in conformity with the past. They were already condemned, at least in their principles.]

Minor censures though were another matter completely - and is another example of how fine distinctions are lost on the 'traditionalist' such as Bishop Bernard Fellay. It is funny that self-styled 'traditionalists' go out of their way to pontificate as to the extent of the pope’s infallibility (as if infallibility is the criterion of obedience). They narrow the infallibility of the pope down to the most minimal of degrees then presume that a censure from the Holy Office is somehow an infallible condemnation with regards to the theologians of the twentieth century whom they personally do not like. Yet there are even Catholic apologists of a 'traditionalist' bend who are in communion with Rome who would lump Congar and de Lubac in with others such as Teilhard or even Rahner: two parties who can rightfully be listed as if not Modernist then at least Modernist-sympathizing or ambiguous. Courtney-Murray, though ultimately unable to reconcile his thesis on Church-State relations (which unfortunately is often taken as the teaching of Vatican II on Religious Liberty), was not unwilling to be obedient to the Magisterium (unlike someone like Kung or Lefebvre). Nonetheless, the mere censure from the Curia is hardly as authoritative as the Roman Pontiff himself passing judgment on the objective standing of a party in the Catholic Church. If the Popes declare in a formal manner that a certain party does not have his communion, then they are in schism.

God will judge those who would rebelliously set up another Chair against the Chair of Peter and not repent of this before they die. This does not only mean going to the extent of setting up an antipope though. Indeed any group which severs the bond of sacred communion with the Roman Pontiff puts the salvation of their adherents in serious jeopardy. One of the principles of the Church throughout history is to draw the truth from error and this has included the previously condemned heresies and erroneous philosophies. Heresy is evil and evil is a perversion of the good. But every heresy has some grains of truth to it as heresy is best described as the most vile of lies: the half-truth. In opposition to a complete lie (which is not as successful in snaring unsuspecting victims), a half-truth contains truth to it mixed in with its error. As St. Vincent of Lerens in his Commonitory explained it:

For [heretics] know that the evil stench of their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with any one if it be exhaled pure and simple…They do, in fact, what nurses do when they would prepare some bitter draught for children; they smear the edge of the cup all round with honey, that the unsuspecting child, having first tasted the sweet, may have no fear of the bitter. So too do these act, who disguise poisonous herbs and noxious juices under the names of medicines, so that no one almost, when he reads the label, suspects the poison. [6]

[Cardinal Ratzinger himself called Gaudium et spes a counter-Syllabus. (Theologishce Prinzipienlehre, p. 398, Erich Wewel Verlag, Muchen, 1982). ]

But was the approach taken by Vatican II to draw from these erroneous philosophies the seeds of truth that they contained therefore an erroneous approach??? Certainly not. This is what St. Thomas Aquinas did with Aristotle, and what St. Augustine and the earlier Fathers did with Plato. And this is what St. Paul did in his preaching at Mars Hill along with St. John’s Gospel incorporating the Greek theology of the Divine Logos in explaining Our Lord as the "Word of God". (See John 1:1 for a Scripture verse read at the end of every Tridentine Mass which affirms this.) The Church’s approach has not changed. It is only those who claim to be "preserving tradition" who have too much tunnel-vision to see the forest for the trees.

[We have therefore necessarily to make a choice.

To make these doctrines acceptable, it is not enough that they were afterwards approved by a Council that chose not to be dogmatic. ]

[A]ll those teachings - on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest".[7]

Authority is not contingent upon a teaching being infallible. This ironically is a version of one of the errors condemned in Bl. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus. Error twenty-two read as follows: "The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church." The modification of the modern 'traditionalist' error stems in presuming that infallibility is the criterion of truth. This is not true at all and has never been viewed as a legitimate opinion to hold by the Magisterium.

[The seal of a vote does not transform an error into infallible truth.]

Bishop Fellay has again confused truth with infallibility. A truth does not have to be infallible to be true. Nor does it have to be infallible to command obedience. But as we have already dealt with this common 'traditionalist' (and liberal/modernist) error, there is no need to rehash it at this point.
 

[In fact we have only to read Msgr. Felici’s response to the Council on the question of its own infallibility (Notification of November 16, 1964, DH 4350-4351).]

APPENDIX ANNOUNCEMENT MADE BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL AT THE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THIRD GENERAL CONGREGATION 16 NOVEMBER, 1964

A query has been made as to what is the theological qualification to be attached to the teaching put forward in the schema The Church, on which a vote is to be taken.

The doctrinal commission has replied to this query in appraising the modi proposed to the third chapter of the schema The Church:

As is self-evident, the conciliar text is to be interpreted in accordance with the general rules, which are known to all. On this occasion the doctrinal commission referred to its Declaration of 6 March, 1964, which we reproduce here:

Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals, which it has expressly put forward as such.

Whatever else it proposes as the teaching of the supreme magisterium of the Church is to be acknowledged and accepted by each and every member of the faithful according to the mind of the Council which is clear from the subject matter and its formulation, following the norms of theological interpretation.

The following explanatory note prefixed to the modi of chapter three of the schema The Church is given to the Fathers, and it is according to the mind and sense of this note that the teaching contained in chapter three is to be explained and understood.[8]

However, the predominant approach to the Vatican II Council was to reaffirm previous teachings in more modern idioms for greater understanding. There was also the expressed intention of developing doctrine in a few areas (the Constitution Gaudium Et Spes and the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae to name a couple that come to mind) as well as settling some theological controversies. The latter was dealt with primarily in the two Dogmatic Constitutions. The Church is infallible with regards to theological conclusions and there were several theological controversies that Vatican II took a distinct position on which were later incorporated into the Catechism of the Catholic Church as doctrine. These doctrines though undefined would be infallibly rendered.

It is nuances such as these that theological amateurs do not properly comprehend. And beyond a shadow of doubt, the theological formulation of Bishop Fellay and others within the SSPX is deficient in proper understanding on these matters. That unfortunately is not a franchise that they own the exclusive rights to since even Tridentine Catholics make mistakes in these areas. So do many so-called "conservatives". (And the errors of the liberal dissenters on this score are legion.) Because of this, we have a Magisterium to guide us and divine assistance is not lacking simply because a certain teaching is not set forth in a recognizably definitive manner. This is why religious submission of mind and will to the teachings of the ordinary magisterium pertaining to matters of faith and morals is required. True "Traditionalists" do not seek to skirt this obligation or explain away its necessity with arguments borrowed from heretics and schismatics.

[Furthermore, the problem of the Council is not primarily one of individual interpretations. It comes as well from its lack of precision in the use of terms, and its willful ambiguities (as one of the Council’s experts said), that make several differing interpretations possible. ]

Just as Scripture having God as its Author cannot contain any errors (and does not properly understood), a General Council has as its soul the guidance of the Holy Spirit with regards to what is finally promulgated as binding. And all sixteen documents of the Second Sacrosanct Vatican Ecumenical Synod bear the ratification of the Sovereign Pontiff. Therefore, they are free from doctrinal or moral error and to assert otherwise is to go against the unanimous consensus of the Church on the protection of the Holy Spirit of the doctrinal and moral teachings of a General Council. (An assertion that would be gravely erroneous if not proximate to heresy by the norms of theological interpretation.)

[It also comes from certain interpretations given by the Holy See itself. If one were to follow the Holy See’s own directions, one would end up with Assisi, in the synagogue or the sacred forests of Togo (Pope John Paul II, Audience of August 22, 1986: "Seeing Assisi in the light of the Council").]

[How does one explain in the light of the Catholic Faith this key phrase of John Paul II’s theology, that clarifies many passages that would otherwise have been incomprehensible: "man is the path of the Church" (in the light of which this passage from Gaudium et spes §22 can be understood: "For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man" Cf. Flannery, Vatican Council II, p. 953; Ed.) ]

[Likewise:

"In the Holy Ghost each person and each people have become, by the cross and the resurrection of Christ, children of God, participating in the divine nature, and heirs of everlasting life" (John Paul II, Message to the peoples of Asia, February 21, 1981, DOC 1894, March 15, 1981, 281).]

This author in his treatise outlined about forty such examples of 'traditionalists' making these kinds of text-snipping criticisms. In every case when the document can be retrieved and the sitz im leben ascertained, there can be shown to be an error on the part of the 'traditionalist' or the statement in context has an obvious orthodox understanding to it. These examples by Bishop Fellay would almost certainly not prove to be exceptions to the rule.

[A Magisterium that contradicts the teaching of the past (for example, between today’s ecumenism and Mortalium animos) is a Magisterium that contradicts itself ]

"The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.

AT THE SAME TIME, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, IN SUCH A WAY AND IN SUCH TERMS AS OUR SEPARATED BRETHREN CAN ALSO REALLY UNDERSTAND." [9]

[(See the Joint Declaration on Justification and the preceding note from Cardinal Cassidy, where is to be found the condemnation and the praise of the term "sister churches") - here lies the painful problem.]

[This crisis in the Magisterium constitutes a problem that it is practically impossible to resolve practically.]

[I]n spite of so much that is good in them, in spite of their sense of duty, their tenderness of conscience on many points, their benevolence, their uprightness, their generosity, they are under the dominion (I must say it) of a proud fiend; they have this stout spirit within them, they determine to be their own masters in matters of thought, about which they know so little; they consider their own reason better than any one's else; they will not admit that any one comes from God who contradicts their own view of truth. What! is none their equal in wisdom anywhere? Is there none other whose word is to be taken on religion? Is there none to wrest from them their ultimate appeal to themselves? Have they in no possible way the occasion or opportunity of faith? Is it a virtue, which, in consequence of their transcendent sagacity, their prerogative of omniscience, they must give up hope of exercising? [10]

[How are we supposed to have the discernment necessary to distinguish between that which truly belongs to the Magisterium and that which only gives the appearance of doing so?]

[Moreover, the nightmare concerns also the Curia and the residential bishops. Here are two very recent examples, taken from a thousand.

Was Bishop Tauran faithful to the Catholic Faith when he declared in the Philippines on June 4, 2001:

"It would be erroneous to consider the faithful believer of another religion as someone to be converted. He is rather someone to be understood, leaving to God the role of enlightening his conscience. Different religions ought not to enter into competition with one another, but should rather be like brothers and sisters who walk hand in hand to construct the channels of brotherhood, building up a good world in which it is possible to live and to work."?]

Cardinal Yves Congar's intellectual and spiritual stature, as one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century, has been enhanced with the publication of his memoirs of the difficult years, when he was subjected to sanctions by his superiors.

Cardinal Congar (1904-1995) was one of the great theologians of the Second Vatican Council and a pioneer in fields such as ecumenism and the theology of the laity. John Paul II made him a cardinal in 1994, for his long and faithful service to the Church.

Entitled "Journal d'un theologien," published by the French Dominicans' Cerf, the book covers Father Congar's writings from 1946-1956, in which he reveals the restrictive measures and increasing isolation to which he was subjected, by order of the Holy Office, on behalf of his religious superiors.

Father Congar's journal includes a detailed listing of the ecclesiastical sanctions he was bound to obey, without ever having had the possibility of knowing the specific accusations against him. [11]

With regards to conversions, this is another area with more complexities then a "trad" can generally handle. To start with, it is not possible for any individual to convert another individual. Conversion is the sole action of the Holy Spirit. The most any individual can do is present the truth to another person in a charitable manner and in language and concepts that they can readily understand. How can one aid in enlightening the conscience of a person using terms or principles that are antiquated or which run counter to the person’s understanding of the meaning of terms??? Are we preaching to them a Faith or a culture???

As long as self-styled 'traditionalists' insist on pushing a culture rather than the Catholic Faith, their attempts will for the most part be fruitless. As for the comments of Bishop Tauran, his statements can have both an orthodox and a heterodox interpretation. Without seeing the text of the speech and knowing the target audience he was addressing, it would not be possible for the reader to know what the Bishop meant. It would appear heterodox at first glance but this author’s treatise is filled with debunking supposed "errors" and "contrary condemned statements" set forth by self-styled 'traditionalists'. Let us take a closer look at a few of the underlying factors here with the text of the comment from the Zenit News Agency on June 6, 2001:

Manila (Fides) - The role of religion is to promote and respect and understanding in our societies: religions should never be misused to instigate hatred or violence. This statement was made by Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Holy See Secretary for Relations with States, on June 4, at a meeting with religious leaders in Manila at the Catholic Nunciature. The papal representative was in the Philippines to mark 50 years of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and the Holy See.

The Archbishop recalled that the present Pope has been dedicating enormous energy and time for the past 23 years as head of the Catholic Church, to tear down walls that have separated people of different religions. "Pope John Paul II has done this in his fervent desire to restore unity within Christianity and to establish significant relations with non-Christian believers," the Archbishop said. He said that besides promoting harmony among peoples, religion also plays an important role in the promotion of justice. "These two elements, harmony among peoples and justice within society, clearly defined by the Pope, are principles which guide our relations with all religions", Archbishop Tauran explained. A believer of a different religion to our own is a person to be understood, "leaving to God the role of illuminating the conscience." Religions should not be in competition with each other, they should be like "brothers and sisters walking hand in hand to build channels of fraternity and a peaceful world in which to live and to work, Archbishop Tauran said. [12]

As any credible Scripture scholar can tell you, when there is a question as to the meaning of a certain passage, recourse must be had to parallel passages that could help in clarifying the interpretation of the passage in question. The same principle applies to ascertaining the interpretation of a given passage. On May 27, 2001 (ten days before the passage that Bishop Fellay cited), Bishop Tauran was in Moscow, Russia presiding at a concelebrated Mass. Here is the Zenit news story on the theme of his homily, which helps shed some light on this issue:

Moscow (Fides) - A vigorous call for Christian unity was voiced to Catholics in Moscow by Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Holy See secretary for relations with states, appointed Papal Envoy for celebrations in the Russian capital to mark the tenth anniversary of the re-organisation of the Church of Latin Rite in Russia. In his homily during Mass which he presided on Sunday May 27 in the Church of the Immaculate Conception concelebrating with about twenty bishops, including Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, Apostolic Administrator for northern European Russia and a number of priests, Archbishop Tauran said: "The history of the Church through the centuries is fundamentally a story of witness to Christ in every language and every nation, the story of a Church "walking amidst the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God". And you, dear people of this land  - he added - know the cost of witness and sufferings borne for Christ, like the apostles".

The Church, Mgr. Tauran said "must dialogue with the world" and "the source of this dialogue with the world and with the Russian society of today is God’s conversation with mankind. WE MUST LEARN TO "SPEAK" CHRIST IN EVERY LANGUAGE, IN EVERY CULTURE AND LAND, including Russia, so that every person will come to know that they are loved by God who calls them to enter his Kingdom. This is the one piece of Good News that people long to hear". Dialogue, he continued, "is certainly never proselytism or propaganda. Jesus never forced himself on anyone and his disciples, in turn, must be discreet and show respect for others." But at the same time, "it would be lack of respect not to share with others what we have discovered, not to answer their questions about our faith, about life, the future". On behalf of the Pope he thanked Catholics in Russia "for your commitment to keep and nourish the Catholic faith". "But here in Moscow - he added - we cannot forget that our Catholic community lives side by side with the Russian Orthodox Church, in which most Christians in Russia have their spiritual roots. Christians united render more credible to the message Jesus entrusted to us: a message of reconciliation with self, with others, with God. Together we are called to be signs of God for the world.

As one of the Holy Father’s co-workers - I am aware of his longing for unity among Christians and also of the special esteem he has for the faithful of the Orthodox Church. No difficulty, misunderstanding, or event of the past or present should prevent us from regarding each other with trust and sincerity as true brothers and sisters. We are not competitors, we must not see others ONLY as persons to be converted. We are all pilgrims and, as God watches over us, we try to love as Christ loved. To succeed there must be mutual attention, delicacy and respect. We must love as Christ loved, learning to be reconciled with one another so that together we may open the door of the Church to all who come knocking." Present at the Mass were representatives of the Orthodox Patriarchate and of the city’s Lutheran, Jewish and Muslim communities. [12]

1 Corinthians 9:

19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. [13]

[Did Cardinal Kasper express the Catholic Faith, and was he faithful to Saint John, to Saint Paul, and to Our Lord Himself, when he declared in New York:

"The old theory of substitution is no longer relevant since the Second Vatican Council. For we, today’s christians, the alliance with the Jewish people is a living heritage…There cannot be a simple coexistence between two testaments. Jews and christians, by their respective specific identities, are intimately bound to one another. The Church believes that Judaism, that is to say the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, has the effect of saving them, for God is faithful to his promises"?]

So in essence Cardinal Kasper’s words (like Bishop Tauran’s) can have an orthodox sense. We have to learn to live together not merely co-exist in isolation from one another. An orthodox sense of the passage would claim that in the absence of explicit Christian faith, following the dictates of prevenient grace and adhering to the Torah may be a road to salvation for the Jews. By no means can it be presumed so of course. Only through love is salvation possible to anybody. After all, love is the fulfilling of the Law. This is where the most important of the theological virtues comes into play. Charity "is a supernatural virtue, infused into our soul by God, by which we love God above all for His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God" (Pope St. Pius X Catechism: Answer to Q 42 on Charity). While the exact wording of his statement may seem problematical, it would help to look at the fuller context of the passage to understand better the mind of Cardinal Kasper. Here is a link to the speech:

http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/Documents_Dialogue/IJCLC_KASPER_Dominus_Iesus.htm

If one reads carefully at the above link, they will see the cardinal say:

Besides the already mentioned main problem raised by Dominus Iesus, there are other questions that I cannot deal with in this paper, since they would need a much more thorough discussion. These questions have already been object of our dialogue and should be on the agenda also in the future. In this context, I can only mention them, without claiming to solve them. Neither has Dominus Iesus the intention to enter these issues: they are beyond its intra-theological and intra-catholic intention.

One of these questions is how to relate the covenant with the Jewish people, which according to St. Paul is unbroken and not revoked but still in vigour, with what we Christians call the New covenant. As you know, the old theory of substitution is gone since II Vatican Council. For us Christians today the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality. There cannot be a mere coexistence between the two covenants. Jews and Christians, by their respective specific identities, are intimately related to each others. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE NOW TO ENTER THE COMPLEX PROBLEM OF HOW THIS INTIMATE RELATEDNESS SHOULD OR COULD BE DEFINED. SUCH QUESTION TOUCHES THE MYSTERY OF JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN EXISTENCE AS WELL, AND SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN OUR FURTHER DIALOGUE.

The only thing I wish to say is that the Document Dominus Iesus does not state that everybody needs to become a Catholic in order to be saved by God.

On the contrary, it declares that God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises. [14]

Could he have stated this better??? Certainly but since the statement was not intended to be a detailed exposition on these themes, Bishop Fellay in presuming to find a complete doctrinal presentation of a complex topic in a scant few lines absent proper context is of course not going to find it. But then that seems to be the idea with "trads" such as him. The authors treatise contains over forty such snippets from various Magisterial documents torn from context to create so-called "doctrinal contradictions". This method of fabricating errors is very disingenuous since we could do this with anyone’s writings. The true Traditionalist does not presume the good faith (or lack of it) among fellow Catholics on such flimsy evidences. If Cardinal Kasper explicitly claims that the subjects that Bishop Fellay highlights are too complex to deal with in the speech then why quote that speech as reflecting the fullness of the Cardinal’s thought???

[However, the first of these is a close collaborator of the Pope, and the second a prince of the Church, recently honored by receiving the purple Cardinal’s biretta, becoming an elector of the future Vicar of Christ. It is impossible to be in communion with them. They no longer have the Faith.]

[We could quote dozens and dozens of statements of bishops that are equally shocking. ]

[What are we to do when the guardians of the Faith fail? Are we to follow them blindly? Do they not merit the same descriptions that Saint Catherine of Sienna used for certain prince of the Church of her time?]

He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal. [15]

[Such declarations do not place us in the good graces of the Holy See. However, we have much more serious concerns. Thousands and millions of Catholic faithful are losing the Faith and damning themselves on account of Rome’s failures, this is our concern. ]

["Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. - Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity." (Athanasian Creed, Ds 75; The Sources of Catholic Dogma, p. 15).]

[A distinction must be made between Rome and Rome. This is what we strive to do.]

[Pius XII’s words, while yet Secretary of State for Pius IX, ring loud in our ears: ]

["Suppose, my dear friend, that communism is only the most visible of the organs of subversion against the Church and against the Tradition of divine Revelation. Then, we are going to see the invasion of everything that is spiritual: philosophy, science, law, teaching, the arts, the press, literature, the theater and religion. I am obsessed by the Virgin’s words, that she entrusted to the little Lucia of Fatima. Our Heavenly Mother’s standing up against the danger that threatens the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that an alteration of the Faith would mean to its liturgy, its theology and its soul…]

[I hear around me those fascinated with novelties who would like to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the Church’s universal flame, reject its vestments, and make it regret its historical past. Well, my dear friend, it is my conviction that the Church of Peter must assume its past, or it will dig its tomb.]

[…the day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. It will be tempted to believe that man has become God, that His Son is only a symbol, a philosophy as so many others, and in the Churches Catholics will seek in vain for the red lamp where God wait for them." (Mgr. Roche and P. Saint Germain; Pie XII devant l’histoire, pp. 52 & 53).]

[Paul VI said, in effect, to his friend Jean Guitton, that there is in the Church a type of thinking that is non-Catholic, and that although it is possible that it may become prevalent, it will never be the Catholic Church (Jean Guitton, Paul VI secret).]

[Faced with this catastrophe, how are the faithful supposed to react? Is it permissible for them to react? We follow quite simply the counsel given by Saint Vincent of Lérins in his Commonitorium (N3):

What will the Catholic Christian do if some part of the Church happens to separate itself from the communion of the universal Faith? What other position could he hold than to prefer the body as a whole, which is healthy, to the gangrenous and putrid member. And if some new contagion were to try to poison not only a small part of the Church, but the entire Church at the same time? Then still, his great concerns will be to attach himself to antiquity, which, quite obviously cannot be seduced by any lying novelty."]

[These are the questions that are to be considered if we are to try and find a solution. We are but a clear sign the terrible tragedy that the Church is presently suffering, perhaps the most terrible of all until now, for it is not just one dogma, but all dogmas that are attacked, and this from the pontifical universities themselves down to the desks of elementary schools.

The liturgical problem is rather similar. The furthermore, the faithful are obliged to take it upon themselves to find an appropriate liturgy. They can no longer simply go to the parish. This is a fact that does not just affect traditional Catholics.]

[Hence the great transformation in the Catholic world, at least in the old world. Parish life has fallen apart. The growth of ecclesial movements is due in large part to the fact that the faithful no longer find in their parishes the nourishment of which they are in need to live the life of Faith and of grace. The New Mass is not without responsibility in this phenomenon.]

[We cannot sweep this gigantic problem under the carpet. We desire to work without our whole heart and our whole soul for the restoration of the Church. However, we cannot simply pretend that all is well, and that these are but questions of detail. ]

Either say that faith is not necessary now at all, or take it to be what the Apostles meant by it, BUT DO NOT SAY THAT YOU HAVE IT, AND THEN SHOW ME SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT, WHICH YOU HAVE PUT IN THE PLACE OF IT. In the Apostles' days the peculiarity of faith was submission to a living authority; this is what made it so distinctive; this is what made it an act of submission at all; this is what destroyed private judgment in matters of religion. If you will not look out for a living authority, and will bargain for private judgment, then say at once that you have not Apostolic faith. And in fact you have it not; the bulk of this nation has it not; confess you have it not; and then confess that this is the reason why you are not Catholics. You are not Catholics because you have not faith. [16]

[We are ready to explain our Faith to Rome, but we cannot call that which is evil good, nor that which is good evil.]

[May Your Eminence deign to excuse the length of this letter, and the generality of certain statements that ought to have been much better back up. We are entirely willing to continue this work, if Rome desires it…]

[We desire to remain Catholic, we desire to conserve our entire Faith, without abandoning anything. ]

[This is the cause of our combat, of our sufferings, and of the opposition that we meet with. We are convinced that we cause no evil to the Church by doing this, even if appearances speak against us.]

[May Your Eminence kindly accept the expression of our devout and religious affection in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, +Bernard Fellay]

I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your Blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails… He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist. [17]

In the face of the evidence and contrary to all justice they attribute to that most faithful Shepherd of the Church ideas, which are not ideas of reform, but which are even destructive of the teaching and discipline of the Church. There are many things that can be corrected and modified in Catholic life, many doctrines that can be studied more deeply, completed and expressed in more comprehensible terms, many rules that can be simplified and better adapted to the needs of our times. But there are two matters beyond argument; the truth of the Faith, authoritatively sanctioned by Tradition, and by the ecclesiastical magisterium, and the Constitutional law of the Church. Obedience must be given to the ministry of pastoral government, that Christ established, and that the wisdom of the Church has developed and extended in the various members of the mystical and visible body of the Church, to guide and strengthen the many component parts that make up the People of God. Therefore: renewal, yes. Arbitrary change, no. History of the Church, ever living and new, yes. Historicism destructive of traditional dogma, no. Theological integration according to the teaching of the council, yes. Theology deriving from arbitrary subjective theories often borrowed from hostile sources, no. A church open to ecumenical charity, to responsible dialogue, to the recognition of Christian values among our separated brethren, yes. An irenic theology that betrays the truth of the faith, and adopts certain negative principles which have contributed to the separation of so many Christians from the centre of unity of the Catholic communion, no. Religious liberty for all in civilized society, and liberty of personal adherence to religion according to the well- considered choice of the individual conscience, yes. Liberty of conscience as the criterion of religious truth, without reference to the authenticity of serious and authorized teaching, no. And so on. [Pope Paul VI (circa 1968)]

[1] Fr. Henri de Lubac, SJ: From a speech titled "Crisis in the Church" (May 29, 1969)

(While Fr. De Lubac was censured by the Holy Office at one point, at no time were any of his theses actually condemned to the knowledge of this writer. Despite the injustice of his treatment, he did not cease to render obedience towards his superiors. This is something that dissidents such as Bishop Fellay, the SSPX, Remnant, and others of a similar mould can and should learn from.)

[2] St. Optatus of Mileve: The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c.A.D. 367), in GCC, 55*

[3] The Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Donatists" authored by Dom. John Chapman (c. 1913)

[4] The Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Donatists" authored by Dom. John Chapman (c. 1913)

[5] The Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Donatists" authored by Dom. John Chapman (c. 1913)

[6] St. Vincent of Lerins:  Commonitory, Ch. 24 (c. A.D. 434)

[7] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone: "CDF Commentary on the Professio Fidei" (c. 1998)

[8] Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" - Explanatory Note (November 21, 1964)

[9] Vatican II: Decree "Unitatis Redintegratio" §11 (November 21, 1964)

[10] Ven. Cardinal John Henry Newman: From his sermon "Faith and Private Judgment" from the Discourses to Mixed Congregations series  (c. 1849)

[11] Zenit News Agency: excerpt from the article "Theologian Yves Congar´s Heroic Silence" (March 25, 2001)

[12] International Fides Service - June 15th 2001 - No 4252, NE 336

[13] 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

[14] Cardinal Kasper: ILC Meeting, New York, 1 — 4 May 2001 "Exchange of Information" Session Dominus Iesus

[15] St. Catherine of Siena: Letter to Barnabas, Viscount Lord of Milan Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28

[16] Ven. Cardinal John Henry Newman: From his sermon "Faith and Private Judgment" from the Discourses to Mixed Congregations series  (c. 1849)

[17] St. Jerome: To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375), in NPNF2, VI:18*

Other Notes:

All citations from the Church Fathers indicated with a * were taken from Joe Gallegos’ web-site Corunum Apologetics Web-site which specializes in Patristic Studies: http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm

The citations from the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Dontatists" were obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm

The citation from St. Vincent of Lerens can be located at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

The citation from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone's "CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei" was obtained at the following link: http://www.memorare.com/liturgy/ratz.html

The citation from the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" was obtained at the following link: http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/lumen.gen

The citation from the Second Vatican Council's Decree "Unitatis Redintegratio" was obtained at the following link:
http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/unitatis.red

The citations from Ven. Cardinal John Henry Newman’s sermon "Faith and Private Judgment" were obtained at the following link: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse10.html

The citation from Zenit was obtained at the following link: http://zenit.org/english/archive/0103/ZE010325.htm#3894

The first citation from International Fides Service was obtained at the following link: http://www.fides.org/English/2001/e20010615c.html

The second citation from International Fides Service was obtained at the following link: http://www.fides.org/English/2001/e20010601c.html

The passage from 1 Corinthians 9 was obtained from the following link: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=1COR+9&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=off&showxref=off

The quote from Cardinal Kasper was obtained at the following link: http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/Documents_Dialogue/IJCLC_KASPER_Dominus_Iesus.htm

Page created by: Matt1618. Send email with questions on this article to I Shawn McElhinney ismac@lycos.com