Letter from Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary

[Luke65]

Here’s a link to the rest.

Hi Ultima, first of all, thanks for this link. That is a very interesting and informative dialogue. I agree with Mr. Salza on almost everything he said, although I disagree with some of his conclusions. One problem is that I didn’t see him ever say that the NO Mass is valid. I didn’t see him say it isn’t valid, but he should have made that clear. Whatever his opinion, according to everything I have seen the NO is valid, and the Sacraments are valid (unless they are invalid for other reasons). He says:
First, Pope Paul VI did NOT impose the NO on the universal Church. He offered it as an alternative in the Latin Rite of the Church. Second, because the pope didn’t bind the universal Church to use the NO, his act does not invoke the charism of infallibility. Third, you are simply wrong to say that a pope cannot impose a harmful rite upon the Church. The Council of Trent disagrees with you…
Granted. But I disagree with how Salza equated “infallible” and “binding” - they are not the same thing. I would argue that the Pope did bind the whole Church when he declared that the NO may be promulgated throughout the Church. To me that means the Mass is valid, though not necessarily harmless.

First of all, I’m not a fan of Robert Sungenis, especially on theological and ecclesial matters.

What else is there?

He had a debate with a Sedevacantist named John Lane and, in my opinion, embarrassed himself.

Well, I haven’t watched the debate, but considering that Sungenis promotes it and links to it, I assume that he would disagree with you. But I’ll check it out.

But to your point. Let me make a few admissions. First of all, I am personally still trying to interpret Dignitatis Humanae “in light of tradition”. In many places it appears to say (and is interpreted as saying) what it does not actually say.

Very true. That’s why it’s important that we understand “the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’” (1 Cor. 4:6) - don’t interpret Scripture or Church decrees in a way that makes them contradict each other.

There are also distinctions that can be brought to the interpretation that enables a person to interpret the document in accord with what the Church has always taught. To do this requires a lot of twisting and, I would even say, taking out of context, but it is possible with most of it.

It can be difficult, but it can be done in context and in truth. In fact, that is the only way to come to a knowledge of the truth.

However, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE that I have ever heard of (including Father Harrison) interprets Dignitatis Humanae in the manner. They all interpret it as being contrary to what the Church has always taught.

Everyone who believes the Holy Spirit protected VII from teaching error believes that it does not contradict previous decrees. I just showed you what Sungenis said, and I for one agree with him.

Here’s what the Syllabus condemned as a heretical statement:

[It is an error to believe that] “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Syllabus of Pius IX, #15).

So, to claim that every man has a right, based on his “dignity”, to embrace and profess whatever religion he chooses, is an error. The reason it is an error is because man’s rights flow from his duties, while his duties correspond to the Rights of God.

But you’re not making the distinction that Sungenis points out: moral vs. civil rights. To harmonize the decrees, then, the Syllabus says that no one has a moral right to practice false religion, in accordance with the first commandment. Moreover, that no government should say that anyone has that moral right. On the other hand, VII says that governments should give man the civil right to freedom of religion, without coercion. And this distinction is made right there in the title:

DIGNITATIS HUMANAE:
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
“Social and civil freedom” - not moral freedom. And in the text:
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
And nowhere will you find the Council say that man has a moral right to practice false religion. And it is helpful to keep in mind how the world changed in those intervening years: at the time of VII more than half the world was communist! I think that was a good time for the Church of God to declare that man should have a civil right to freedom of religion, don’t you?

 

[Luke65]

According to the quotes I provided from Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar, Vatican II taught the contrary of the Syllabus. I agree with them.

I’m not as familiar with Congar, but Pope Benedict - Joseph Ratzinger chooses his words very carefully, and I have not seen him say “contrary”.

For one, Vatican II was different than other Councils, since it was merely pastoral, rather than dogmatic.
…
The Holy Ghost will protect the Church from error when the Pope defines a dogma to be held universally by all Catholics, or when the Pope ratifies dogmas defined by a council. ratifies a dogma defined by a Council, because such actions engage the extraordinary, and thus infallible, magisterium.

I would think that the Syllabus itself, while infallible, belongs to the ordinary Magisterium, but I don’t really want to debate technicalities. I give my full assent to both. But what is missing from Cardinal Ratzinger’s quotes is that, while VII did not define any new dogmas, it most certainly did teach many of the Church’s previously defined dogmas, and it did so infallibly. And everything that was not doctrinal is still binding on the whole Church and requires our assent, although those pastoral teachings can be changed.

According to Paul VI, Vatican II specifically “avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority”.

Therefore, since it specifically avoided engaging the extraordinary magisterium, it is within the realm of possibility that it could teach error - since infallibility is only guaranteed when it is exercised, and Vatican II explicitly “avoided” exercising it.

Now, the universal ordinary magisterium is also infallible. But for the something to be a teaching of he universal ordinary magisterium, it must be a teaching that has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all”, which rules out any novelties, such as Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty.

First of all, what Pope Paul said there is not infallible. But again, the Council did teach Church dogmas, and, as you just acknowledged, it must have done so infallibly, since they were already defined dogmas.

But what if a new teaching is presented that is contrary to a previous infallible teaching? You claim that is impossible…

It is impossible. But VII did not contradict any infallible teachings. You need to make the proper distinction between doctrines and disciplines - the meaning of doctrines cannot be changed, disciplines can be changed. The fact that practicing false religion is sinful means it is a matter of faith and morals, and the Church cannot err. But having a civil right to practice false religion is disciplinary in nature, and the Church can change that teaching. The point is that VII did not err on matters of faith and morals - it did not contradict the fact that practicing false religion is a sin. But a civil right to practice false religion is not a black and white issue: if you have a Catholic nation with a Catholic government, then by all means do not allow the practice of false religion; but if you have a Protestant nation with a Protestant government, then by all means allow Catholics to practice the true religion. Can we have it both ways? Yes we can! We are the Church of God! And when we have Catholic nations with Catholic governments again - when the Catholic Church triumphs - the Church will change Her teaching, I predict.

but the reality is, everyone interprets Vatican II as teaching what was formally condemned by the Church - including Cardinal Ratzinger.

You’re overstating the case. I and many others reject the view that VII contradicted the Syllabus. I have seen Cardinal Ratzinger say it was a “revision” and a “counter-syllabus”, which I would interpret to mean that while the Syllabus condemned a moral right to freedom of religion, VII countered and revised that teaching by saying that there should be a civil right to freedom of religion - without contradicting the fact that practicing false religion is immoral.

Since Vatican II specifically “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility” I have no problem believing that it taught error.

Not on matters of faith and morals.

What I cannot accept, however, is that infallible teachings (such as those contained in the Syllabus), or teachings that form part of the universal and ordinary magisterium (which is also infallible) were in error.

Agreed.

If we have a contradiction between infallible teachings and teachings that are not protected by infallibility, I will stick with those I know to be true. And I happen to agree with Cardinal Ratzinger who said Vatican II was a “counter-syllabus”.

Do you agree that a civil right to freedom of religion is not part of the Church’s deposit of faith - that it is not a matter of faith and morals? And that it only requires our assent at this time? That the Syllabus is a matter of faith and morals because it condemns the practice of false religion as sinful, and condemns anyone or any state that says otherwise? And that VII never said otherwise? This is the bottom line, and I hope we can agree on all of those questions. God bless.

P.S. Sorry if this is a bit disorganized, but hopefully you’ll be able to piece it all together in your mind.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

But you’re not making the distinction that Sungenis points out: moral vs. civil rights. To harmonize the decrees, then, the Syllabus says that no one has a moral right to practice false religion, in accordance with the first commandment. Moreover, that no government should say that anyone has that moral right. On the other hand, VII says that governments should give man the civil right to freedom of religion, without coercion. And this distinction is made right there in the title:

I was about to suggest that we start a thread and go through Dignitatis Humanae, to show how it can be interpreted “in light of tradition” (a monumental task indeed) but I’m probably going to give up the message board for Advent. But let me comment on the civil vs. moral right issue, and then give you are few other important distinctions.

A civil right with respect to religious liberty is referred to as a “negative right”. It is a right not to be impeded in the public practice of religion. This is not a right of nature. If it was, it would be a “positive right”. Only Catholics have a positive right to religious freedom, since only Catholic practice the religion revealed by God.

Another example of a negative civil right today is abortion. Women have a “civil right” to have an abortion, but certainly not a moral right to do so; and just as women who have an abortion commit an objective mortal sin, so too do those who practice false worship. The Church has always referred to a *negative civil right *as “toleration” rather than “right”.

So, the State can either tolerate false worship (and thereby make it a “civil right” as it has done with abortion), or it can forbid false worship and punish the violators… The latter is the ideal, but the circumstances sometimes warrant the false worship be permitted.

Another distinction deals with coercion: The teaching of the Church is that the ideal situation is for public worship of false religions (including that of heretical sects) to be absolutely forbidden by the State; however, it also teaches that it is wrong for force someone to convert to the true religion. These are two different things: It is one thing to attempt to force another to convert to the Catholic faith, and another to forbid them from publicly practicing a false religion.

Another distinction that is important is that between an objective vs. subjective right to religious freedom. Try to follow this closely because it might be difficult to grasp. I’ll do my best to explain it.

**Subjective right to religious freedom: ** If you read one of my last posts, I discussed the order and relationship between rights and duties. It begins with God’s rights, followed by man’s corresponding duties, and ends with man’s right to fulfill his duties toward God.

Now, since God commands that ALL men worship Him (and in the manner in which He chooses to be worshipped) it follows that all men have a subjective right to worship God in that way. And since we have a duty to worship God, we therefore have a right to do so. This right given to us by God is called a “subjective right”, which flows from our duty to worship God.

Objective right to religious freedom: Now, since God has given to us the manner in which he desires to be worshipped, and since false worship (and false religions) are violations of the first commandment, it follows that only those who worship God in the manner in which he desires to be worshipped have an objective right to do so. Let me flesh it out a little.

All men have a subjective right to worship God. However, this subjective right to worship God - which all men possess - only applies when they worship God according to the manner in which he desires to be worshipped. So, for example, when a Muslim or a Hindu practices false worship, they are not exercising their subjective right, since the subjective right is for them to worship God the way He chooses (objectively). They still possess the subjective right to worship God, but it only applies when they worship Him in the manner in which he chooses. So, for example, if they convert to the true religion, they will be able to exercise this subject right. And they will always have this right, since they will always have the duty to worship God in the manner in which He chooses.

The Catholics, who practice true worship, have both a subjective and objective right to religious freedom. They have a subjective right to worship God, and also an objective right since they practice the form of worship God has enjoined.

Interpretation: So, if Vatican II says, for example, that all men have a right given by nature to worship God, this is true, but it only applies when they worship God in the manner in which God has enjoined. No one has a subjective or objective right to worship God in a false way.

continue…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

Luke65:

And nowhere will you find the Council say that man has a moral right to practice false religion. And it is helpful to keep in mind how the world changed in those intervening years: at the time of VII more than half the world was communist! I think that was a good time for the Church of God to declare that man should have a civil right to freedom of religion, don’t you?

Not without making distinctions. It should certainly affirm the truth: namely, that Catholics have a civil right to religious freedom (since this is also moral right they have by nature), but I don’t see any reason it should have said that non-Catholics are to be given a civil right to commit an objective mortal sin against the first commandment.

In fact, due to Vatican II, Spain was pressured to amend its Constitution to allow false forms of worship in public. Prior to that, the Catholic religion was the sole religion of the State and public worship of false religions was forbidden. Just prior to Vatican II, Pope Pius XII said this was the ideal situation for Church/State relations.

The following are a few propositions that Catholics are forbidden from holding. I’ll begin each with “it is an error to believe” so that they are easier to understand.

[it is an error to believe that] “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”. (Syllabus #55].

In other words, we must affirm that the State should not be separated from the Church. What that means is that the State has a duty to profess the true religion, no less than individuals do. (See also Quas Primas, Libertas, and Immortale Dei for a further explanation).

[it is an error to believe that] “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship”. (Syllabus #77).

In other words, the Catholic religion SHOULD (ideally) be the only religion of the State.

[it is an error to say].“it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship” (Syllabus #78)

Those are all errors that we are forbidden to hold. Let me give you another quote from Quanta Cura, which was the encyclical that accompanied the Syllabus:

Quanta Cura: “For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.”** From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society**; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” … Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned."

The last part shows the document to be infallible, as it meets all the requirements for Papal Infallibility stipulated at Vatican I. The Pope, as universal teacher of the Church condemned the above mentioned errors, and commanded that “all children of the Catholic Church” hold them as condemned. That meets all the requirements infallibility.

One final point: John Salza does not question the validity of the new Mass as long as the correct Form, Matter, and Intent are present, and a validly ordained Priest is celebrating. However, when, for example, invalid matter is used (and I could tell you stories where this has happened in entire diocese), the “mass” is without any doubt completely and totally invalid.

 

[Luke65]

One final point: John Salza does not question the validity of the new Mass as long as the correct Form, Matter, and Intent are present, and a validly ordained Priest is celebrating. However, when, for example, invalid matter is used (and I could tell you stories where this has happened in entire diocese), the “mass” is without any doubt completely and totally invalid.

Thanks for that info. I would have been very surprised if he had said otherwise, but I wish he would have stipulated this in that dialogue. And hey, he’s a lawyer, he knows all about stipulating!

Not without making distinctions. It should certainly affirm the truth: namely, that Catholics have a civil right to religious freedom (since this is also moral right they have by nature), but I don’t see any reason it should have said that non-Catholics are to be given a civil right to commit an objective mortal sin against the first commandment.

In fact, due to Vatican II, Spain was pressured to amend its Constitution to allow false forms of worship in public. Prior to that, the Catholic religion was the sole religion of the State and public worship of false religions was forbidden. Just prior to Vatican II, Pope Pius XII said this was the ideal situation for Church/State relations.

Granted. This is a valid argument that the Council’s decree, as is, was not a wise one. But I think that on the whole it was wise to issue this decree at that time. It put Catholics in a much better position to argue against the intrinsic evil of the communists denying billions of people the right to practice religion. And what alternative did the Council have? “The communists are right to ban the practice of all false religion, but Catholicism is the one true faith so they should grant the freedom to practice Catholicism.” Obviously they couldn’t say that, and it would have been unwise to decree anything approaching that position - anything that could have been characterized that way by the Church’s enemies. And if they didn’t issue a decree on this issue, or simply reiterated previous decrees, our enemies still would have had this argument against us. But with this decree, let them try and figure out exactly what the Church is saying - we can’t even figure it out! But all we have to say is that the Church is infallible on matters of faith and morals; and since the Church has not always and everywhere taught one way or the other on this issue, and thus a civil right to freedom of religion is not intrinsically evil, then it is not a matter of faith or morals. Thus, the Church gives pastoral guidance on the issue suitable to the state of the world, and of nations, at that time.

The following are a few propositions that Catholics are forbidden from holding.

The last part shows the document to be infallible, as it meets all the requirements for Papal Infallibility stipulated at Vatican I. The Pope, as universal teacher of the Church condemned the above mentioned errors, and commanded that “all children of the Catholic Church” hold them as condemned. That meets all the requirements infallibility.

Not without making distinctions. On matters of faith and morals the decrees are infallible and forever binding. But where they were not about matters of faith or morals, though binding, they were not infallible, and thus could be changed. So even if we interpret something in them to be condemning a civil right to freedom of religion, then the fact is it was never an infallible teaching but was instead binding pastoral guidance, that has in fact been changed by the equally binding and superseding decree of VII, Dignitatis Humanae.

Consider that Vatican II declared that the whole Church cannot err on matters of faith or morals - that due to our anointing by the Holy Spirit, we, as a body of believers, are infallible on these matters. Now, remember that when Constantine declared a civil right to freedom of religion, the whole Church rejoiced! And again, when the Soviet Union collapsed and freedom of religion was restored (to varying degrees), the whole Church rejoiced. Could the whole Church have celebrated an intrinsic evil? No. No way. Could the whole Church have been in error on a matter of faith? No way. And all of this points to the fact that it would be a serious error to consider the denial of a civil right to practice false religion to be a matter of faith or morals. And it would be an even more egregious error to believe, based on that erroneous belief, that Vatican II was not protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error on matters of faith and morals. The Holy Spirit most certainly did protect this ecumenical council from error, and it requires our assent on all it decreed. I hope we can agree on this, even if we disagree on whether this decree was the wisest the Council Fathers could have defined and declared. God bless.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

St. Thomas aquinas seminary is a SSPX seminary.

 

[JReducation]

There is something that has to be understood here. The Syllabus of Errors was written to counter some very specific situations. It was not the intention of the Holy Father to raise the Syllabus of Errors to the status of Dogma. Those who treat it as such are mistaken. The succeeding popes did not contradict the Syllabus. They operate in a different time with different issues and different goals. Since the syllabus was never a dogma, there is no conflict between the different generations of popes. The Syllabus continues to be a handy guide to the faithful, but it is not binding on any pope. It was not intended as such.

Second. to presume that the Gates of Hell would prevail against the Church were it not for Archbishop Lefebvre is to state that the Holy Fathers do not possess the protection of the Holy Spirit, but that Archbishop Lefebvre did. Even Archbishop Lefebvre would have repudiated such a claim. The Archbishop always acknowledge the power and authority of Peter. He never claimed for himself the role of Peter or the promise that was made to Peter, that the gates of hell would not prevail against him. The Archbishop had issues with certain documents and with the prohibition of the TLM. But he did not have any doubt in his mind that the popes were endowed with the protection of the Holy Spirit and that the Church would not collapse under them. Those who give the impression that the Archbishop saved the Church from the gates of hell are not only atributing to him something that he cannot do, but also something that we would not have ever said about himself, but only about the Pope. This needs to stop, because it is misleading.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF