Conversation with SSPX Priest about Vatican 2

[Zynxensar]

Hi all,

I was discussing with a SSPX Priest about Vatican 2. There were two points he said via email which I don’t completely understand:

• Religious liberty means that the Catholic Church profess that all religions, true and false, must be given the same civils rights and that the State must profess no State religion. Which is absolutely false and injurious to Christ the King
• It is completely false to affirm that Leo XIII and Pius XII promoted ecumenism. Vatican II affirms in its document Unitatis Reintegratio that the “ Holy Ghost uses other religions as means of salvation ”. The result of ecumenism has been the cessation of the work of evangelisation in the world, under the reason that it was no longer necessary to try to convert people to the Catholic Faith.

Can someone give arguments to refute this from the “Vatican 2 Catholic” standpoint?

EDIT: For the “Religious Liberty” argument, this is the full explanation given by him:

However Pope Leo XIII mentioned: “While not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, the Catholic Church
does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil,
or of obtaining or preserving some greater good”. In other words, in order to preserve peace in the country, the civil powers may
give some civil rights to religious societies which oppose Christ’s teaching. See for example in Singapore: there is the
“Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act” which is a good example of how, for the sake of peace, the civil powers can make a
civil law giving civil rights to religious societies which oppose Christ the King. But this concession from the civil powers is just a
prudential concession, not a right belonging to these religious societies.

 

[Fauken]

The result of ecumenism has been the cessation of the work of evangelisation in the world, under the reason that it was no longer necessary to try to convert people to the Catholic Faith.

That’s why Catholic Answers and programs like “Why are you Atheist” and the Coming Home Network were immediately shut down and denounced as soon as they were started, right?

Religious liberty means that the Catholic Church profess that all religions, true and false, must be given the same civils rights and that the State must profess no State religion. Which is absolutely false and injurious to Christ the King

This is just a massive non-sequitur. Catholics can respect that people may believe what they want, even if it’s erroneous. That is religious liberty. What civil rights does the Church argue that non-Catholics should have that they shouldn’t have? Should we start advocating, for example, that the Jewish people should no longer get Saturdays off? Is that what Christ the King wants? Will that really win us converts?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It’s good that you don’t understand them. It means that you have some understanding of the Gospel.

Neither one of those two statements could be reconciled with the Gospel. I didn’t know the SSPX was so far gone. I can’t say what I think those statements really sound like without violating the TOS of CAF, not necessarily because it would be uncharitable, but simply taken the wrong way.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Be glad you don’t understand. Those two statements are absurd on their face, and they show a lack of understanding of how the church operates and what it teaches.

 

[Genesis315]

It is completely false to affirm that Leo XIII and Pius XII promoted ecumenism. Vatican II affirms in its document Unitatis Reintegratio that the “ Holy Ghost uses other religions as means of salvation ”. The result of ecumenism has been the cessation of the work of evangelisation in the world, under the reason that it was no longer necessary to try to convert people to the Catholic Faith.

I think we need to define terms here. Ecuemnism is simply those means taken to seek the corporate reunion of separated, baptized Christians with the Church. Seeking such reunion has never been condemned. Leo XIII and Pius XII and other Popes both permitted friendly conferences (and even limited common prayer) in seeking the reconciliation of separated Christians, including corporately where possible (in fact, the Church has always permitted and engaged in such thing since there has been separated Christians, albeit limited more or less by authority to avoid any danger of scandal, indifferentism, or irenicism, as Vatican II also says).

That being said, the SSPX have legitimate concerns that some measures taken by those in the Church in the name of ecumenism violate these principles.

Second, let’s address the whole quote: "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

The SSPX do not deny the possibility of salvation for non-Catholic Christians in good faith, nor that whatever sacraments those communities might have would be efficacious for those in good faith. They are efficacious for the very fact that they derive from the Church and properly belong to her. They are a means of salvation precisely because they are the Church’s means.

 

[yankeesouth]

That’s why Catholic Answers and programs like “Why are you Atheist” and the Coming Home Network were immediately shut down and denounced as soon as they were started, right?

I think though that as far as individual Catholics the ‘I’m okay, your okay’ indifferentism does seem prevalent. ‘Getting along’ takes precedent over evangelization. We’re all going to Heaven anyway, right? Anyway Pope Benedict XVI addressed this right after he resigned so I think the SSPX priest is not so far off on this.

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/10/23/pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-dialogue-cannot-substitute-for-mission/

“The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people,” retired Pope Benedict wrote. “‘But does that still apply?’ many inside and outside the church ask themselves today. ‘Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?’ The counter-question is: ‘Can dialogue substitute for mission?’

“In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the retired pope wrote. “The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world.

“It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine,” he wrote.

 

[Quis_UtDeus]

Leo XIII and Pius XII and other Popes both permitted friendly conferences (and even limited common prayer)

I’d love a source on this if you can find me a good one. I could definitely use it for later.

 

[Genesis315]

Religious liberty means that the Catholic Church profess that all religions, true and false, must be given the same civils rights and that the State must profess no State religion. Which is absolutely false and injurious to Christ the King

That’s not what it means at all. The right proposed by Vatican II is not a right to err, but a right to be free from coercion in religious matters within the limits of the common good. This is what the Church has always taught, albeit more often with respect to the duties and limits on the state’s power, whereas Dignitatis Humanae looks at it starting with the person.

The Church has never taught that the state always has the right or duty to forcibly repress error. Civil authority is “established for the common good of all” (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 5). In fact, “The attainment of the common good is the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities.” (St. John XXIII Pacem in Terris 54). This mission to serve the common good defines the scope of the state’s authority–the “orbit” or “fixed limits within which it is contained.” (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 13)–it can only take action over human freedom to ensure that human activity serves, rather than harms, the common good.

With respect to religious activity, therefore, the state can only limit it when it would serve the common good–it does not have a right to do so otherwise (of course, the specific limits that are appropriate to serve the common good will vary according to the circumstances of particular places in particular times.)

That’s why in the address Ci Riesce, Pius XII could answer affirmatively that in such circumstances God does “not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false” and that the duty to repress religious error is not “an ultimate norm of action,” but rather “is subordinate to higher and more general norms.”

But again, the state can limit it when necessary to advance or defend the common good. To be fair, Digniatis Humanae could be clearer on this point (it does discuss it in DH 7), but the Catechism is very clear:

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

In other words, the common good must also take into account revealed truth and man’s supernatural end (naturalism denies this) and must be based on objective truth, not just accomplished facts (positivism denies this). “Thus, the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize his eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.” (St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 59)

That is where distinction between truth and error comes in. Reference to the true religion is needed to properly evaluate the common good (cf. CCC 2244).

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above

Vatican II does not address societies’ duties toward the true religion other than to say it leaves those duties untouched. It also clarifies in various places that it is the laity’s job to ensure this (again, nothing new here, since temporal authority is, with a few exceptions, a lay role).

 

[Genesis315]

Here is an instruction from the Holy Office for Pius XII which provides regulations for these meetings–definitely with plenty of warnings and cautions, but again, these are regulations for them, not condemnations of them. It should be noted it uses the term “ecumenical” at the beginning different than Vatican II, doing so in the sense of the pan-Christian assemblies described in Mortalium Animos (see paragraph 7 of that encyclical for their false principles, which are also ruled out by Vatican II).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfecum.htm

In the encyclical Testem Benevolentae, Leo XIII says:

But if, among the different ways of preaching the word of God that one sometimes seems to be preferable, which directed to non-Catholics, not in churches, but in some suitable place, in such wise that controversy is not sought, but friendly conference, such a method is certainly without fault. But let those who undertake such ministry be set apart by the authority of the bishops and let them be men whose science and virtue has been previously ascertained.

Leo XIII also approved various confranternities of prayer for the reunion of separated Christians–one of which was that of the Assumptionists in Constantinople, which even some separated Easterners participated in.

 

[guanophore]

Religious liberty means that the Catholic Church profess that all religions, true and false, must be given the same civils rights and that the State must profess no State religion. Which is absolutely false and injurious to Christ the King

Christianity was born into an Pagan Empire that was full of “false” religions. There are many NT references to how Christians should relate to non-Christian persons and non-Christian governments.

It is actually not the case that religious liberty means anything must be tolerated. If there was a religion that was contrary to the common good, such as Satanism, that seeks to harm others, they would not be allowed to commit crimes in the name of their religion. If a “church” wanted to start sacrificing children or something bizarre, this would not be tolerated.

Civil rights are a different matter than the obedience of faith. Catholics are called to a higher standard than what exists in the government. For example, in the U.S. abortion is considered legal, but Catholics do not have the “liberty” to commit this sin.

There is nothing injurious to Christ the King about having Pagan or non-Christian government. What injures Him are people who are created in His likeness and image that engage in a way of life contrary to what He desires for us. The solution to this is to evangelize people, not to force some kind of State religion onto them. People cannot be coerced to have faith.

The best example of why this does not work is the Protestant Reformation, which was largely motivated by the State attempting to force Catholicism onto citizens. Eventually there was rebellion and it continues to fracture the church today. Governments are not persons, and therefore, are not an appropriate target for evangelization.

 

[guanophore]

Vatican II affirms in its document Unitatis Reintegratio that the “ Holy Ghost uses other religions as means of salvation ”.

This is the teaching of the Church, and is consistent with Scripture and Tradition. There are also good examples for this.

The result of ecumenism has been the cessation of the work of evangelisation in the world, under the reason that it was no longer necessary to try to convert people to the Catholic Faith.

I do agree that the focus needs to be on evangelization, and Catholics have not been as effective with this as our evangelical siblings. It is necessary to convert people to the Catholic faith, because in it is the fullness of faith. The Catechism also says that the HS being active toward salvation in Protestant communities is in itself a call to unity. Conversion should always lead people back to the One faith.

Can someone give arguments to refute this from the “Vatican 2 Catholic” standpoint?

I commend your efforts, but if he does not accept the documents of Vatican 2, how will this help?

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t think an email dialogue with an SSPX priest is likely to be very fruitful for you if your goal is to change his mind.

I agree with what has been said above. Religious liberty is about the right not to be coerced into belief. You could ask him if he thinks the Church has the ability and/or duty to force people to be believing Catholics. It’s simply not possible to force genuine faith on someone. It is a gift that must be freely chosen and received. That’s the basic message of Humanae Dignitate.

And with regards to ecumenism, the passage says:

“It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”

The document is very clear that these other communities do not have the fullness of the faith, but any good they do is derived from the One Church.

Really, that naturally follows from our teaching on Baptism. Baptism wipes away Original Sin and restores sanctifying grace making it possible for us to be saved and enter into Heaven. And the Church recognizes that any Baptism done with the proper formula and intent is a valid Baptism. We do not re-baptize non-Catholic Christians because we can only be baptized once.

So if a non-Catholic is validly baptized (i.e. they have Original Sin wiped away and have sanctifying grace restored) and thus prepared to enter Heaven, how can we object to saying “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation”? The only way to deny that statement is to deny that their Baptisms are valid.

 

[edwest]

Can Non-Catholics Serve as Baptismal Sponsors? - Canon Law Made EasyCanon Law Made Easy

 

[Fauken]

I think though that as far as individual Catholics the ‘I’m okay, your okay’ indifferentism does seem prevalent. ‘Getting along’ takes precedent over evangelization. We’re all going to Heaven anyway, right? Anyway Pope Benedict XVI addressed this right after he resigned so I think the SSPX priest is not so far off on this.

Sure, I agree that’s an issue among lay Catholics. But, and I’m sure that the SSPX priest would agree on this, the indifference of the laity does not translate into what the Church teaches. Using this site as an example, they had to get official permission from the Church to put “Catholic” in “Catholic Answers”. Its goal is to convert others to Catholicism by means of apologetics. As such, Catholic Answers released publications that outright call certain teachings from other faiths as wrong. If it was the policy of the “Vatican II” church to teach indifference, then a website like this would be viewed as offensive, since if all religions lead to God like the “Church” teaches, then why are we criticizing other faiths?

 

[guanophore]

There have been many Satanic ritual murders in this country, and Congress has not moved to ban that “religion,” either.

Certainly the acts are banned, and we all need to work to prevent child sacrifice. However, forcing the Catholic faith on the entire population as was done in the Middle Ages has not been shown to be effective. We must be light and salt in the culture we occupy. We don’t have to be tolerant of crimes against humanity, but we have to respect those who have not yet come to faith.

Try getting that into congressional hands!

This is exactly what we need to do!

 

[adamhovey1988]

Ask him if he’s actually read Vatican II documents.

 

[fhansen]

Religious liberty means that the human conscious must be free to decide, even if wrong. Ask if he wants to enforce faith, if that were even possible in any genuine way.

And Evangelization means to convert people to Christianity, to Catholicism IOW. That obviously still needs to continue. But we need to know that salvation is possible outside of direct communion with the Church. Or else we don’t understand more fully the nature and will of God who won’t send someone to eternal torment just because of the technicality that they haven’t heard the full truth.

 

[Zynxensar]

@fhansen @Joe_5859 @PaulfromIowa @Genesis315

Updated post about his Religious Liberty explanation

 

[vsedriver]

However, forcing the Catholic faith on the entire population as was done in the Middle Ages has not been shown to be effective.

but this wasn’t done by the Church. It was done by the State. Force conversion was expressly forbidden by the Church.