An epiphany of things to come?

A recent article found in that bulwark of fading flower-children, the National Catholic Reporter, unveils a conference given by the Holy Father's present Master of Ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini to the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy in Australia. The article is surprising in that the NCR does not indulge in its usual fits of liturgical inspirations but rather restrains itself to the matter at hand. Now the matter at hand is indeed an epiphany, since Msgr. Marini speaks of the Liturgy of the future- a subject of great interest to traditional Catholics. Many indeed are hoping that the Pope will move the Church away from the post-Conciliar malaise, and cite both the Motu Proprio and warming relations with the more conservative Orthodox as proof that Spring may be at hand. Now it is true that the views of Msgr. Marini are not necessarily those of the Pope, though one can be fairly sure that they are similar, especially given the fact that in his talk, Msgr. Marini makes it clear that he has learned much at the feet of the Master. Let us examine a few points made in this very revealing talk. The general theme of the talk is that of a reform of the reform in the Liturgy. This "reform" is dear to a number of clergy who cannot bring themselves to reject the Liturgical reform which took place after the Council. The Council is the touchstone. The only question is how to bring together elements of the new with those of the old.

"'I purposefully use the word continuity, a word very dear to our present Holy Father," Marini said. "He has made it the only authoritative criterion whereby one can correctly interpret the life of the church.'

Marini said that an appreciation of continuity would help bring together divergent schools of thought regarding the liturgy.

'The liturgy cannot and must not be an opportunity for conflict between those who find good only in that which came before us, and those who, on the contrary, almost always find wrong in what came before,' he said.

The way forward for any liturgical renewal is 'to regard both the present and the past liturgy of the church as one patrimony in continuous development,' he said."

The key to this speech is Monsignor's appeal to the now-famous "Hermeneutic of Continuity" that Pope Benedict XVI introduced in his address to the Cardinals on 22 December, 2005. Now continuity is fine if there actually is a continuity with the past. But the Benedictine continuity consists in gluing together disparate things and proclaiming that they are in fact consonant. Somehow, we are told, "An appreciation of continuity would help bring together divergent schools of thought regarding the liturgy." This is quite fantastical. Now what is this saying? The modernists who have concocted a "banal" liturgy (in the words of a certain Cardinal), who have jettisoned the Latin Rite, will be brought somehow to realize that they must look at that same banal production (which in its spirit and teaching depart from the teaching of the Council of Trent) as being in continuity with what came before! If it is in continuity, then why is there a need for that to be made known? It would be obvious to all. On the other side, the traditionalists must see the continuity of the old and new, which requires quite a bit of imagination! If only Archbishop Lefebvre had perceived that the reform was quite in keeping with the old! It would have saved him a lot of suffering if only he had been more perceptive. This continuity is very mysterious since Catholics formed in the new rite are completely lost when they attend the traditional rite for the first time! Let us move along to the next point.

We are told that there must be no conflict between the reformed and non-reformed rites. The two extremes are laid out: those who see no good in the new, and those who see no good in the old. This is a bit cartoonish. It is not a question of NO good, but rather a question of differing stands on the question of the liturgy's nature and purpose. There are two conflicting visions of the Mass, and these two visions incarnate themselves in liturgical guise. What is behind Monsignor's words is the desire to admit a liturgical and theological pluralism in which each side admits the complete Catholicity of the other.

The next section of the article is the most telling of all, and lays bare for all to see the Roman plan for the future:

"The way forward for any liturgical renewal is 'to regard both the present and the past liturgy of the church as one patrimony in continuous development,' he said."

Now let's examine this more closely. Firstly, the present and past liturgical forms are one patrimony. This is exactly what the Pope tells us in the Motu Proprio and its accompanying letter. There is only one Roman Rite, and the "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forms are the same rite. It is difficult to see how this is possible even from any point of view, since any rite which can differ as much as 70 percent from another is hardly the same rite. Likewise, when one speaks of a patrimony, one usually means something handed down from ones ancestors, not something fabricated in ones own times. If this isn't odd enough, we pass on to the final note of this comment. Both of these forms of the same Roman patrimony must be in "continuous development". Traditional Catholics must not imagine that the Traditional Rite is going to be left alone. No, indeed. The liturgy is a living reality, which being alive must always be changing. A thing which doesn't change is dead. This is simply a rehashing of the Modernism condemned in "Pascendi" and which underlies the current emptying out of dogma and liturgy.

Msgr. Marini brings up an example of the Pope's restoration of continuity in the Crucifix placed on the altar between the celebrant and the people. Supposedly this orients the liturgy. Now I am sure that it is edifying for the celebrant to be looking at the Crucifix, standing between the celebrant and the people, but this alone is not a restoration of "ad orientem" in which both priest/mediator and people face the same direction. Perhaps such an idea as that would be too literal in the "Benedictine" continuity.

Of course, the Monsignor insists in a renewal of a spirit of adoration in the liturgy, and this is to be accomplished by a renewal in liturgical art, or according to the practice current in Rome, to make use of the outward trappings of pre-Conciliar Catholicism in the context of the reformed liturgy. That is fine as far as it goes, but it seems little more than what ritualist Anglicans do when they clothe the Book of Common Prayer in the liturgical trappings of either the Sarum Use or Baroque Catholicism (depending on the ritualist's bent). It is not a continuity unless the outward form actually reveals the Faith of the Church.

An final and very interesting example of the Pope's concept of continuity is that of the manner of distributing Holy Communion. The article tells us:

"He [Monsignor] said it was this same desire to renew a sense of adoration that prompted Pope Benedict to make it the norm in papal liturgies for the pope to distribute Communion on the tongue to people kneeling.

'By the example of this action, the Holy Father invites us to render visible the proper attitude of adoration before the greatness of the mystery of the eucharistic presence of our Lord,'Marini said. He said the same attitude of adoration 'must be fostered all the more when approaching the most holy Eucharist in the other forms permitted today.'"

Notice that the Pope's method is not meant to be a critique of communion in the hand. Far from it! It is a sign that both methods permitted by the Church are good. However, communion on the tongue is the method which illustrates the attitude of adoration that must be fostered under every method. How strange! If communion on the tongue, kneeling renders visible the spirit of adoration, then why is not that the only method? If the other method equally renders visible the spirit of adoration, then why does the Pope distribute communion on the tongue? Monsignor obviously does not say that communion is only distributed on the tongue at papal Masses- only that the Pope distributes on the tongue. Other ministers at the papal Mass distribute in the other approved ways.

Traditionalists who are under the supervision of Ecclesia Dei or the diocesan bishops had best be prepared to evolve. In Hegelian Catholicism, only change is the sign of life, and the only continuity that is desired, is continual change.

In your patience, you shall possess your souls

The first of January is a day in which many men and women make resolutions in the warmth of sentiment. All too often, however, these same resolutions soon collapse under the allurement of other more present sentiments- the danger of living in the fluid world of emotionalism. This particular first of January arrived clad in the grey vesture of threatening rain, a threat which proved no idle one for the Catholics in this city making their way to unite their minds and hearts to the daily Sacrifice offered upon the Altar. Perhaps such a lacrimose day was a fitting beginning to the newly-born decade, for despite the optimism of starry-eyed worldlings, those who have the courage to take a look around them see the warning signs of encroaching darkness.

Unfortunately, traditional-minded Catholics are not immune from a certain naive optimism fed by deliberate blindness. How much more comfortable it is to close ones eyes and listen to the distant bells of St. Marys, promising a comfortable ending to this apparent and undesired interruption to the Catholicism of the 1950s when all was right in the Church and, well maybe not the world, but at least in America.

The first of January might be a good time, however, for more serious persons to take a real look at the world around them, however unpleasant that look might be. Therefore, a few thoughts might be ventured by this author in order to facilitate this examen. Since the state of the world is directly influenced by the state of the Church, the wise man will first turn his glance to the ecclesiastical sphere. How is the Church doing in this beginning of a new decade?

Some see great hope in the present pontificate of Benedict XVI. How consoling it was for many to receive from the Holy Father the long-desired Motu Proprio! Then came the lifting of the excommunications of those four very naughty bishops consecrated by poor Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro-Mayer! What a mark of charity, of solicitude! (Well except for poor Archbishop Lefebvre who wasn't quite vindicated-but we can't expect perfection, can we?) The important thing was to see that the Pope sees that we are alive, and that we should be included. It is so depressing, not to be included, isn't it? And for those hard-hearted Catholics who have not become hoarse in jubilation, what could be more thrilling than to see the Holy Father clothed in the vestments of his great predecessors of old!? That is proof enough that Pius Nonus Revivus sits now on the throne of St. Peter! It is thrilling no doubt, and might cause incautious Catholics to begin to indulge in alpine pilgrimages to the hills around Salzburg, but more cautious souls might want to ask a few more questions.

Given the fact that the Holy Father has some sympathy for the beauty of the ancient rite, (or rather should we say the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite which is the same rite as the ordinary form, which is not the same rite as the Ambrosian Rite even though the Ambrosian Rite is closer in form to the extraordinary form than to the ordinary form-my how confusing!) can we deduce that the Pope intends the restoration of the Catholic liturgy to its pre-Conciliar form throughout the world? Well, no we cannot. But after all, Rome was not built in a day, but then again, neither was Babylon. What about ecumenism? Has the Pope renounced the ecumenical movement, or banned praying in common with heretics, schismatics, or even infidels? Well, no. In fact, did we not see him in St. Peter's Basilica enthroned next to the usurping Patriarch of Constantinople, refraining to say the Filioque (but that wasn't a denial, of course- the Holy Father was just catching his breath!) When the present President of these United States was honoured at Georgetown University and Notre Dame, were there not lightning bolts from Rome to smite these apostate Universities even as they awarded the enemy of Christ with accolades? Well, no, but we can be sure that when the Obama visited the Pope in Rome, there were serious attempts to convert him- after all, the Obama was given a document from the CDF to peruse on his flight out of Rome! I am sure that the President did not find it quite as soft as charmin, but just as useful!

Then there is the question of Cardinals. If we may suppose that the present Holy Father is not, in fact, Peter II, then we must suppose that at some point he will depart this mortal world, forcing the Church to elect a new Successor of St. Peter. Now who has the Pope appointed who shares even his enthusiasm for the ancient liturgy? His appointees do not seem overly conservative, to say the least. Now it might come about that Archbishop Burke might be a Cardinal in the nearish future, but one Cardinal does not a conclave make.

Despite the doctrinal talks involving the Roman authorities and the Society of St. Pius X, there is not the slightest indication that Rome has decided to abandon its new theology, its new liturgy, its new vision of a pluralistic society, its new vision of the Church in relation to the false religions. The vision of the present Holy Father is not that of a return to Tradition, but rather of a pluralism of theologies, of Catholicisms, within which one may be united in canonical discipline but diverse in fundamental realities. Rome wants the SSPX, just as she wants the charismatic movement, Focolare, the Neo-Catechumenal Way, Communion and Liberation. Let us not worry about the fact that these movements are not consonant one with the other! One has every reason to mistrust the wisdom of such a course.

It is surely true that being in the bad graces of the Pope is not cause for rejoicing. For any Catholic, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, father of all the faithful. It is not enjoyable to be treated as a pariah. It would be so much more consoling to be appreciated. But the problem is, the new Catholicism will never be able to tolerate, let alone appreciate, Catholic Tradition. Error and Truth cannot really be allied. One fears that for many traditionally minded Catholics, the desire to be wanted and appreciated has come to outweigh the reasons for the fight in the first place. What importance does the truth have in the scheme of things? Can there be unity without truth in the Church which worships Truth?

Let us make a New Year's resolution to stay faithful to the Church's perennial teaching, to the spiritual doctrine of the saints, to the Mass of all times. We may be thankful for the good will of the Pope, for his actions helping Tradition- that is all well and good. But the fight is far from over, and unfortunately Rome still remains enamoured with a new gospel. We must remember the words of Our Lord: "In your patience, you will possess your souls". Patience means persevering in suffering; it is not by chance that the words for suffering and patience are in fact derived from the same word in Latin. Only those who persevere to the end will be saved.

One must not get the impression that hopelessness should abound. No, far from it; but our hope must be in God, in the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, vanquisher of all heresies, and Mother of the Church. Now is the time to pray, to work, and to suffer for Christ and His Truth.

The Magical Mystery Tour to Bohemia

The Holy Father has finished a trip to Bohemia, and while some of the Czechs might have been mildly wooed by the Professor-Pope as he struggled to awaken the Bohemians to the dangers of materialism or power, conservative Catholics must have been less than happy by some of the remarks he made on his trip. Of course, most Catholics would not complain, since few outside the Czech Republic would have been following his trip to the land of Hus, and given the mass infection of indifferentism presently found in Catholics throughout the world, the Pope's words would no doubt have been greeted with little more than a yawn. Be that as it may, words have meaning, and when those words are those of the Pope of Rome, the wise man listens. If nothing else, they indicate the mind of the Pope, and that in itself is necessary given the present crisis in the Church. On the 26th of September, the Pope gave an interview while in route to the Czech Republic, concerning the present state of Europe and the Czech Republic in particular. One of the questions and the answer by the Pope was very illuminative, and frankly, disturbing. The question with the Pope's reply was as follows:

"Q: Your Holiness, the Czech Republic is a very secularized country in which the Catholic Church is a minority. In this situation, how can the Church effectively contribute to the common good of the country?

A: I would say that normally it is the creative minorities that determine the future, and in this sense the Catholic Church must understand itself as a creative minority that has a heritage of values that are not things of the past, but a very living and relevant reality. The Church must actualize, be present in the public debate, in our struggle for a true concept of liberty and peace.

So it can contribute in various areas. I would say that the first is precisely the intellectual dialogue between agnostics and believers. Each needs the other: the agnostic cannot be content with not knowing whether God exists or not, but must be searching and sense the great heritage of the faith; the Catholic cannot be content with having the faith, but must be searching for God even more, and in dialogue with others relearn God in a more profound way. This is the first level: the great intellectual, ethical, and human dialogue.

Then, in the area of education, the Church has a great deal to do and to give, concerning formation. In Italy, we talk about the problem of the educational emergency. It is a problem common to all of the West: here the Church must again actualize, make concrete, open to the future its great heritage.

A third area is "Caritas." This has always been one of the marks of the Church's identity: that of coming to the aid of the poor, of being an instrument of charity. Caritas does a great deal in the Czech Republic, in the different communities, in situations of necessity, and it also offers much to suffering humanity on the different continents, thus giving an example of responsibility for others, of international solidarity, which is one of the conditions for peace."

The Holy Father does not debate the fact that Bohemia has been secularised. That is hardly a matter for debate, and the same goes for all of Europe, save for some struggle against this tendency here and there, as in Poland or Ireland, and to some degree in Italy. So what is the strategy of the Pope in face of the death of Christendom?

Firstly he takes refuge in the thought that the Church is a "creative minority" in Czech society, and that such minorities can have great influence. Now it is difficult to find comfort in this, since in the last five centuries and more, the only minorities which have brought about change have done so at the expense of truth and the Faith: John Hus, the protestant revolutionaries, the secret societies such as Freemasonry, and the Communists. All began as "creative minorities" and all worked for the destruction of Christendom. One might debate whether such minorities created anything of value. Rather, their influence was destructive. Where is the Pope's vision of the Church as the Kingdom of Christ which being the Church Militant, fights for the conversion of the nations to the one and only Supernatural Society under the sceptre of Christ? The most that is said speaks rather to the wisdom and values that the Church brings to the public debate. Yet the Church is not a debating society, nor is She a partner in pluralism by dialogue, for "what concord hath Christ with Belial?" (II Cor. 6:15). She is the Teacher of the nations who through her apostolic zeal is sent to convert the unbelievers so as to bring them into Christ's kingdom.

So we have the ever present demon of dialogue brought in as a solution, while any Catholic with a grain of Faith knows that dialogue only brings about the death of the Church's mission to convert the non-believer. So many souls must be in Hell because of dialogue, and we are to trust in its power to bring men to the truth! Yet the Pope takes the dialogue one further step. Not only does the Church engage in a dialogue with the non-Catholic, but the Church needs the unbeliever as well!! Is it to be imagined that the Church of Jesus Christ, the Teacher of the nations, is now in need of agnosticism??? The Will of God is that there be no more atheists, agnostics, heathens, infidels, or heretics. The Church exists so as to convert them all from their state of darkness by giving them the light of Divine truth, which she always possesses. Let us hear the words of the Pope again, and mourn for the Church that should suffer the indignity of such statements:

"...I would say that the first is precisely the intellectual dialogue between agnostics and believers. Each needs the other: the agnostic cannot be content with not knowing whether God exists or not, but must be searching and sense the great heritage of the faith; the Catholic cannot be content with having the faith, but must be searching for God even more, and in dialogue with others relearn God in a more profound way..."

Everyone is searching and no one is finding! No, Holy Father, we have no need of the godless to help us find the truth. The Church possesses the Deposit of Faith given to Her by Christ. She knows the truth, she does not need to be searching for it. All revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. There will be no other revelation until the Beatific vision in which man will see all in God face to face. This error of always searching and of mutual enrichment is the bitter and inevitable fruit of Nostrae Aetate in which the Second Vatican Council makes the claim that all religions are sparks of the truth, all are man's search for the Divine, the product of real religious experience. It is a lie. The other religions are the result of a falling away from the primitive revelation given to Adam and Eve, or the deceptions practiced on fallen man by the demonic order: "All the gods of the nations are demons" says the Psalm.

The Pope's words on education and charity are little better. The Church can bring to the table of the secular State the benefit of Catholic education. What is the heritage in education which She is to give Europe? The Pope doesn't say, but it is not the certainty of possessing the truth, since She herself is in need of agnostics to discover it! And what of charity? Is the infused virtue of charity given to souls so as to offer "much to suffering humanity on the different continents, thus giving an example of responsibility for others, of international solidarity, which is one of the conditions for peace"? Is charity now just a helpmate to the United Nations so as to bring about international solidarity?! This charity of which the Pope speaks is certainly not the charity spoken of in the Scriptures and found throughout the history of the the Church, which is a supernatural virtue infused by God by which we love Him above all things and our neighbours for God's sake. This charity mentioned by the Pope is the love of man become god for himself, the love of humanitarians rather than that practiced by the saints.

For those who thought the nightmare of liberal Catholicism was coming to an end, think again. There may be mitres of precious material, Motu Proprios galore, but it is all part of the Magical Mystery Tour of Conciliar Catholicism- only now traditionalists are invited to join in:

"Roll up, roll up for the Magical Mystery Tour- Step right this way!..."

No, Holy Father. We are not interested in an invitation to make a reservation on the bus of Magical Mystery Tour Catholicism. We prefer to be a passenger, not on that bus, but in the Barque of St. Peter which has the Truth in its fulness and is the sole Ark of salvation. Kyrie Eleison.

When you can't see the forest for the trees

Sometimes a quarrel can be the occasion for clarification. In this case, the quarrel is neither one which involves this writer, nor one which might be the cause of ill feeling. This writer, however, knowing both parties in the quarrel, and seeing the disagreement manifested openly to the world in cyberspace, cannot but intervene with his own take on the question under dispute.

On the one hand, there is the rather melancholic figure of the once bouyant "Alchemist". Gone are the wildly optimistic sentences penned by this ecclesiastic as he lauded the glowing dawn of reform under the Benedictine papacy. Gone are the flourishes of his wand by which he desperately sought to transform the words and actions of the Holy Father into so many manifestations of hope and Catholicity. In fact, the poor alchemist has found himself quite unable to convince either himself or his followers that Pope Benedict XVI is succeeding in restoring Tradition to the Church in any real and lasting way. He has been outmatched by the Master Alchemist himself who has had as his perennial goal the transformation of theology, liturgy, and every other aspect of the Faith into a new synthesis of new and old. Thus, our dear junior alchemist and one-time defender of this new papacy has settled under a cloud of gloom. He has even taken to defending some of the opinions of a bishop now notorious throughout the world for his "obscurantism" and "doom and gloom" outlook regarding the state of the Church and the world. But how has our defeated alchemist now gotten himself into a battle of the pens with a once stalwart ally in the Benedictine blitzkrieg? What is the issue at stake which could pit such allies against each other? Is it in fact a real battle or simply a feint revealing little more than a flagging of morale among the troops? Let us look for a moment at his comrade-in-arms.

Hopefully it will not seem irreverent to label his ally as "BS". After all, "BS" has such unfortunate connotations in a world so sadly full of it. But so it is. "BS" has a bone to pick with the alchemist. He is not happy that the alchemist has fallen victim to discouragement at such a time. He is even less happy that there is a certain impression given that his ally could be of the same "gloom and doom" disposition as the prehistoric bishop who presently dwells near one of the great shrines of tennis. The greatest problem that "BS" has with this gloomy view of things is that it seems that the alchemist has gone over to the side of the "Lefebvrists". Now every card-carrying member of the Benedictine party must hold as sure and certain that the Society of Saint Pius X has a false notion of Tradition which needs to be corrected by a healthy dose of hermeneutics a la Ratzinger and a draught of fresh air brought in by the opening of the windows of the Church by good pope John. Let it be said that "BS" is not a Catholic "of the left" but rather a conservative Catholic academic "of the right", or at least what passes for conservative in present Broad-Church Catholicism. Let us hear him in his own words:

"...the problem with the SSPX position is not really with the minor premiss but mostly with the major. It is not the facts on which we disagree - with one or two exceptions, I'm sure - but the principles. The trouble with the SSPX positon is not that they are facing the realities - some of which they rightly identify and some of which they woefully misunderstand - but that their methodology is fundamentally inimical to the notion of a teaching Church which can have the last word in the debate."

The charge which our sincere Catholic academic has brought against the SSPX is that of "private interpretation" or, if you will, subjectivism in matters of Faith. So as to bring home his point, he resurrects before our eyes the frigid spectre of Jansenism:

"And if there is still any doubts as to that (IMHO) steamingly-obvious reality, then take the case of the SSPX and its forthcoming dialogue with Rome and substitute for their name the name of the Jansenists. Rome wheels out its experts, and so does Port Royal (the Jansenist HQ). Rome gets clever about its arguments, and so does Port Royal. Port Royal proposes its theses, and Rome advances its own position.

And so on it goes. Where does it end? What represents the doctrinal end-game in the Catholic Church? We are not finally dependent on expertise, or even on charismatic gifts, but on a promise made to an institution..."

And of course we know who the Jansenists of our age are, don't we? Since "BS" is writing to a comrade obviously befuddled by the subtle webs of "Williamsonianism", he makes what he thinks is the killing blow against the present-day daughter of Jansenius:

"The Catholic Church proposes that such doctrinal disagreements are finally settled by Rome judging in favour of one thesis or another.

Bishop Williamson, along with the SSPX, proposes that the only acceptable outcome is for Rome to accept the SSPX theses which are assumed to be the definitive account of the Catholic faith."

In other words, the SSPX has arrogated to itself the final word on all matters of Faith and morals, making of itself the Church and by that very fact committing the gravest of errors- making oneself the final judge of what is of Faith. These charges are heavy ones indeed if they be true, for it must mean that the members of the SSPX no longer have the virtue of Faith, since the act of Faith is a submission of the intellect to truths proposed by the Church to be believed. When one believes a thing not because it is proposed by the Church but because one chooses to believe it for any other reason, there is no Faith! "BS" has certainly not lacked boldness in his charge.

Now let us look at how our alchemist reacts to these charges. Curiously, he does not deny the central charge of his opponent, that is, that the SSPX has made of itself the final word in matters of Faith:

"Yes the Pope is the arbiter of all things Catholic. To him alone belongs the right to guarantee the Deposit of Faith. In reality the Society of St. Pius X arrogates Tradition to itself (as you have called it "privatized theology") and then submits the Pope to its "authority" or "judgment". This flies in the face of Vatican I and the definitions given about Papal Primacy by the Fathers of that Council."

So in the matter of charging the SSPX with heresy, both parties are indeed in agreement, for heresy it certainly is to arrogate Tradition to oneself in such a way that the SSPX IS Tradition, if you will, and the Pope is subject ot the judgement of the SSPX. Indeed, the alchemist brings out the juggernaut of Vatican I in order to rout the "Lefebvrists". The SSPX denies the primacy of the Pope! If this is so, dear alchemist, by what right do you dare oppose in any way whatsoever the Benedictine reform? Who are you to set your will against the "arbiter of all things Catholic"? Does not the fact that you yourself rest in a position which is not that of our Holy Father not make you even more guilty than the SSPX, since you charge the SSPX of judging the Pope, while you set yourself against his vision with eyes wide open? Yet the alchemist takes refuge in a defense which is contradictory, in fact, to his own admission to his friend "BS":

"However, the SSPX rightly, in my view, point out the fact that some of the magisterium of the Second Vatican Council contradicts what was previously taught. In the past, even the then Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that, however, as Pope he tells us in his latest encyclical that it is not licit to oppose one Pope to another, or one council to another, since each is a product of its own age. This is evolutionary "tradition" in my book. However, none of this is of any interest to me. This is not my reason for having a beef. It's even more basic than theology.

I have an apocalyptical view of the world. Like Sister Lucy of Fatima, I believe we are in the end times and that basically the crisis is spiraling out of control. I do not believe that this Pope will fix the mess. Cardinal Bertone, the script re-writer for everything that comes out of the Vatican these days, recently said we should not place the blame at the Pope's door for the faults of others within the Church. Harry Truman said where the "buck" stops in American politics. In British politics there is the principle of collective responsibility, that as a member of the Prime Minister's Cabinet, even if you disagree about a policy you publicly defend it and if the issue blows up in your face the Prime Minister is supposed to take the blame. Since the days of Margaret Thatcher, that idea was well and truly ditched..."

The first part of the alchemist's defense is truly astonishing. After having accused the SSPX of being guilty of setting itself up against the decisions of the Pope, who alone is the arbiter of things Catholic, he himself does the very same thing. Has our Holy Father judged it that there are doctrines in Vatican II which contradict the past Magisterium? Would he not rather say that there must be an hermeneutic of reform by which there is avoided a rupture between the past and present Magisterium? Would he not rather say that the core truths of Revelation continue uninterrupted while certain extraneous modes of expression or manners of thinking proper to a certain age are left behind? He certainly would not say what the alchemist has said. Yet the alchemist does not fear to judge the present Pope's position in some way contradictory to the past. Does this not sound like what the SSPX is doing? He goes on to accuse the arbiter of all things Catholic of being guilty of holding, like the modernists, the idea of an "evolutionary tradition"! Does that accusation rest on objective grounds, or is the alchemist making himself, like the protestants, the subjectivist arbiter of the Pope's orthodoxy? We can only fear that the internal contradiction in the alchemist's argumentation reflects the volatile mixture of his English and Gaelic blood!

Now the alchemist claims that his "beef" is not really with the Pope's concept of an evolutive Tradition, but rather with the fact that the Pope is not taking responsibility for his actions, or lack of them. Further, the alchemist has taken refuge in an apocalyptic vision of things. With the eyes of Our Lady of Fatima, he looks out upon a world and Church in crisis. We are in the end times. The Pope does nothing. Poor alchemist put all his eggs in the Benedictine basket, and Benedict has not lived up to his expectations. Now of course the Lefebvrists have got it all wrong- they dare to judge the Pope and decide what is or is not Traditional. And the Conservatives have got it all wrong- they don't see the Pope's inaction. And the Modernists have it all wrong- they disobey the Pope. Everybody in fact has it wrong except the alchemist, of course. He sits alone by the waters of the gulf of Mexico, mourning the lost opportunities of the Benedictine papacy. He suffers from being neglected by his erstwhile hero from Bavaria. A final word from the alchemist shows us how confused and disappointed he has become:

"Benedict talks frequently about the need for unity with Peter, but that's all it is talk. A traditional priest friend calls me to discuss the latest verbal Papal blunder and I can honestly say I haven't seen it or read it because I've given up following his writings. They were excellent theological meditations from the mind of a brilliant scholar, but without action it's all meaningless. Traditional Catholics want to be under him. With all of the corruption I've documented in this column for more than a year, I have a quaint expression: I want to be in the Church but not of the Church if you get my drift..."

It is a curious thing that the alchemist has given up reading the latest writings of the Pope, especially given the proposition that the Pope is the arbiter of all things Catholic. If the Pope is writing the truth, then we must be formed by it; if he is not, then the alchemist must admit that it is possible to judge his words by an objective norm- the Faith itself, what used to be called the "rule of Faith". Do we see a contradition in the words of the alchemist who admits that the Pope seems to believe in a tradition which evolves, and yet says, "I've given up following his writings. They were excellent theological meditations from the mind of a brilliant scholar..."? How excellent can the Pope's theological meditations really be if he is a theological Hegelian? And this brings us to the real question: Can we, or can we not, have a real knowledge of the truths of the Faith which allows us to judge whether this or that proposition contradicts it?

Both "BS" and the alchemist seem to agree that the answer is "no". They claim that the SSPX is making itself the final judge of the Faith when it sees a contradiction between the past Magisterium and the novelties of Vatican II, between the past teaching (of Vatican I) that all of the teachings of the Church must always be held "in eodem sensu", that is, always with the same meaning, and the Pope's idea that the Church has always a deeper understanding of the Faith, but in such a way, that this understanding is opposed to the incomplete understanding of the past. Cardinal Ratzinger himself admitted that Vatican II rejected the too narrow vision of St. Vincent of Lerins (who authored the very words quoted in Vatican I). How can Vatican II be a Counter-Syllabus unless it is counter to it? Saint Vincent of Lerins wrote concerning the Rule of Tradition by which the faithful can know if a thing is a novelty or not. Either we have a real understanding of what words mean or we do not. If it is subjectivism to point out the contradictions between the pre-Conciliar popes and the Conciliar ones using the very texts of the papal Magisterium, then how is it not also subjectivism if one reads the texts of the present Pope? Either we can understand what these words mean or we cannot. If we can, then we can detect if there are contradictions with other texts. If we cannot, then reading any text, or indeed hearing any speech of the pope is fruitless, for our understanding will not be capable of reaching any truth in the matter. We would be left in a sea of scepticism.

It is dangerous to pretend that these Conciliar popes have made any final judgement on whether the SSPX is right or wrong. For that is problem. When truth has lost its objectivity, and evolves, then a final judgement on anything becomes impossible. No, the SSPX does not claim to be Tradition. It merely points out the incongruity between the popes and councils of the past with the novelties of the present. It is in fact the modern popes who have resurrected the errors of Jansenism, especially in the Liturgy, by implementing the very things condemned by the popes in the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia. Who indeed follows Rome and who Jansenius?

Sometime the trouble is that Catholics can't see the forest for the trees.

Broad-Church Catholicism

Ten days ago saw the release of a letter of the Holy Father addressed to all of the bishops of the world. The topic was the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X. This letter is the Pope's apologia as to why he lifted the excommunications, and as such is very important, for one is allowed into the Pope's mind, so to speak. In this letter, one is given a glimpse of the Holy Father's own view of the Society of Saint Pius X and the traditionalist position. For those Catholics who have feverishly attempted to see in him a modern Blessed Pius IX or Saint Pius X, this letter unmasks the futility of such attempts. This Pope is as he has been since his seminary days- a disciple of the revolution, though it be the disguised revolution of Napoleon's empire. Again we have the omnipresent theme of his hermeneutic of continuity, but this time we perceive just how much he considers the Catholics of Tradition as parts of a fringe group needing to broaden their perspectives. The more one reads, the more one realizes that Pope Benedict XVI has more in common with the Broad Churchmen of the Church of England than any true churchman of the Church of Rome. Let us examine more closely this letter by quoting some of the more revealing sections and then drawing out the theological implications.

The letter begins with the Holy Father acknowledging the fierceness of the opposition to his lifting of the excommunications, and this prompts him to write this letter in order to justify his actions. This is all to be expected in the "why can't all just be friends" atmosphere which has characterized the post-Conciliar papacy. But then, the Pope proceeds to point out that all of this misunderstanding is compounded by the dreaded "Williamson affair". This writer is of course pleased to see the name of Bishop Williamson mentioned in a letter of His Holiness to all the bishops of the Church, further ensuring his immortality in the annals of the Church's history, but unfortunately the connotation is not flattering. The invocation of the name of "Williamson" allows the Pope to open his first theme, that being the misunderstanding of the Pope's position regarding the Jews. He is accused of overturning the new vision of the Second Vatican Council:

"A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council – steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support..."

The Pope insists here that he has no intention whatsoever of overturning the Pax Judaica established at Vatican II. Indeed, he claims that he had desired this peace with the Jews throughout his many years as a theologian. We might ask the question how his work as a theologian in particular was to help establish the new relations with the Jews. He does not claim that this new position is one which is situated on the level of common action alone, for it is as a theologian that this new relation is sought and supported. This must mean a change in the Church's own understanding of her relation to the Jews, and certainly this has been the case. In two areas is this change apparent: in the repudiation of any guilt on the part of a Judaism which rejected and put to death its Messiah, and in the even more dangerous suggestion that the Old Covenant has not ended, but remains a path to salvation. It is fitting that the Pope reminds us of his ecumenical work regarding the Jews, for it is emblematic of his desire to renounce what he would consider a too great rigidity of the Church in the past in favour of a new approach which favours reconciliation.

As he turns to the problem of the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops, he wishes to stress that one must avoid a misunderstanding which might arise from this act. This act does not give either the bishops or the Society itself any legitimate pastoral ministry. First, he reminds the world's bishops that the consecrations of 1988 were a grave act:

"An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. "

The principle is laid down as to why the excommunications had taken place. Interestingly, the Pope puts the danger in the context of collegiality, rather than in the context of a rejection of the papal monarchy as the source of schism. One wonders why he is not concerned about the ordinations of bishops in the various Orthodox "churches"? Sadly, he speaks of these schismatic bishops as having a pastoral care when he addresses them. Unlike the Orthodox bishops, the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre are invited to "return":

"The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return..."

So, now the Pope has remitted the excommunications. But he insists that there is no legitimate mission given to these bishops or to the Society of Saint Pius X. There is, of course, a difference in the remitting of a penalty and the conferral of a mission. Why then does the Pope not give such a mission to these bishops? The answer he gives is telling. He places such a refusal on the level of doctrine. There is a doctrinal problem with the Society of Saint Pius X:

"The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church..."

Firstly, it must be pointed out that the Holy Father makes a very strange and novel distinction between individuals and institutions such as the Society of Saint Pius X. In fact, canonical approval is given to religious orders such as the Society. It is not a doctrinal problem but rather a canonical and disciplinary one. Be that as it may, there is, of course, a doctrinal dispute underlying the entire relation between the Pope and the Society and that involves the Second Vatican Council and the New Rite of the Mass.

The Pope now proposes a way to begin to resolve this dispute. The Ecclesia Dei Commission, established by the late John-Paul II to help reconcile the "Lefebvrists" is to be joined to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This is significant for a number of reasons. The CDF deals with problems of doctrinal deviation (or is supposed to do so). Thus the doctrinal problems will be handled by the competant authority. This does pose an interesting question as to the communities which currently are under the authority of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Who will oversee them if the Commission is absorbed into the CDF? Ecclesia Dei has up until this point dealt with a great many issues which would normally have been handled by various Congregations in the Curia. This could expose traditionalists to being dealt with by a great many modernists indeed. The Pope mentions, almost in passing, that this will also allow not only other Congregations to be involved, but the world episcopate as well, which is hardly an encouraging thought, given the state of the episcopate. Again he mentions the real bone of contention between Rome and the Society: "the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes".

It is at this point that we enter the heart of the Pope's letter, and a real glimpse at both his thinking and his intentions. It begins with a very Hegelian vision of the two opposing camps represented by the Society and many of the bishops (among others):

"The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life."

The Pope, of course, is the great corrector of both these opposing views. His is the Via Media. It has been expressed many times before and consists in what he calls the "hermeneutic of continuity". On the one hand, he accuses the Society of freezing the Magisterium in 1962- in other words before the Council. Now this is very curious, since the Society has never claimed that the Magisterium ceased in 1962, or that it should in fact cease. We must look for another explanation for this accusation. It is not difficult to find. It lies in how the Magisterial teachings are to be read. Before he was Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger had spoken of the Council finding insufficient the manner of interpretation given by St. Vincent of Lerins and canonized at Vatican I, namely that all doctrine must be understood always in the same sense and meaning. There can be no development which can move away from the former understanding of the Magisterium's teaching. The Cardinal insists that the Church, contemplating her teaching, can have a deeper understanding. This is ambiguous since he is opposing this view to that of St. Vincent of Lerins, Vatican I, and the Anti-Modernist Oath. This new view is necessary if one is going to move away from the anti-Modernist and anti-Liberal teachings of the pre-Conciliar Magisterium,which reprobated religious liberty for heretics, ecumenism, and the other novelties "discovered" by the Council. No, indeed. For Benedict XVI, the Magisterium cannot be frozen- that is, retain exactly the same meaning throughout all the ages.

On the other hand, there cannot be a total break with the past. Such a break would destroy the Church. There cannot be two Churches with two Magisteriums- the Pre-Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Church. The past must be accepted with the present, Vatican II with the other Councils. Of course Vatican II is the hermeneutic key. The other Councils must be understood in the light of Vatican II, not the other way around. In other words, the past must be re-interpreted in the light of an ever growing understanding of the Faith, with a different understanding from those who were in many ways a product of their own time. This is all the very essence of Modernism as Saint Pius X defined it. The Holy Father would do well to remember the Oath he swore to only understand the teaching of the Church " in eodem sensu" that it had always been understood.

The Pope then asks whether this act is worth all the trouble as there are other more important matters to deal with. Of these more important matters he lists that of "strengthening the brethren" as the first. By this he means not just the episcopacy but it seems, everyone. He sees a world falling into darkness, and his struggle is to lead men and women to God. The language he uses, unfortunately sounds all too much like a Lutheran one:

"Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time."

One might ask whether the Pope's words do not suggest that revelation is only contained in Sacred Scripture rather than in both Scripture and Tradition? But this phrasing allows him to open up his justification for his actions, for it leads to the path of ecumenism:

"Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority."

One cannot help but see in these words the erroneous claim that there is some kind of common "faith" which all Christians confess. This is nonsense. There is but one supernatural Faith and that is the Catholic Faith. All others are human conterfeits. The Pope now uses the uproar over the "Williamson affair" to broach the question of extremism, both in society at large, and within the Church. This gesture of reconciliation is, it is hoped, to lead to a broader understanding of the Faith on the part of the Society of Saint Pius X- broader and less rigid. This hope on the Pope's part has already been confirmed by those groups which left the Society in the past in order to put themselves under the Ecclesia Dei Commission:

"Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole."

Here we reach the real heart of things, and it must serve as a warning to all those who would give up the fight for Tradition in order to ingest the fruit of the Council. Here we see a call to the broad Church, avoiding the "narrowness" of a frozen Magisterium. Let all contraditions be overcome, to be sure. We must embrace all positions in the new pluralism of Conciliar Catholicism! We must not be one-sided, or narrow, or rigid. What would this Pope have thought of the great saints and popes of the past who preached crusades, made war on heresy, condemned error?... oh no, this is all too rigid. For those who thought that this pope was somehow on the side of Tradition, let them take note. Here is the very soul of modernism and liberalism laid bare. Here is the spirit of apostasy. Here is the teaching of antichrist. No, Holy Father, the truth excludes as well as gathers. Our Lord came not to bring peace but a sword; His peace comes on His terms, not on ours.

If this is not enough, the letter goes on to preach tolerance and broadmindedness, the dogmas of antichrist. For the very position of the Society vis-a-vis Rome tells us that while heretics may rule dioceses, while priests such as Hans Kung can publicly deny dogma and remain priests in good standing, the one unforgivable thing is to be rigid and narrowminded; only a hope that this can be overcome by the lifting of the excommunications may justify this Pope to act with mercy towards the traditionalists:

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint."

No, Holy Father. The only broad vistas that we Catholics desire is the blessed vision of God who will reward true Faith with the light of glory. It is not tolerance which sets us free, nor broadmindedness, nor dialogue, but the truth. This truth resides in the teaching of the One true Church and in that Church alone. It is a truth which the Church cannot change, but must preserve always in the same meaning and sense as the ages roll by. There is no Via Media in religion. There is only Catholicism as it has always been understood, and on the other side, the abyss.

The Partial Communion Hoax: Part IV

In the previous article, we began to examine one of the three bonds which unite man to God and to His Church, that being the supernatural virtue of Faith. It cannot be overstated that this virtue is not simply human belief in things religious, but is, in fact, the supernatural divinely-produced virtue by which man assents to those truths revealed by Almighty God. The current apostles of ecumenism never cease telling us that this virtue of Faith is shared between the children of the Catholic Church and those who profess other "Christian" creeds, whether they be those of the Orthodox churches or the various Protestant bodies. Other bolder ecumenists do not fear to extend "faith" to those who profess the monotheistic creeds other than Christianity. Thus the Jews are said to share a common faith in God. All of this, of course, has greatly diminished the missionary spirit, since if everyone already has "faith", there is not much point in insisting that all embrace the Catholic one.

The Faith of which the Church speaks is differentiated from "opinion" not only because it is supernatural, not only because God moves the soul to assent to what is revealed, but also because of the formal motive of Faith. Why does one assent to the truths of Faith? Because God has revealed them who can neither deceive nor be deceived. It is the infallibility of God revealing which provides the motivation in the act of Faith. We believe those things which are revealed because all that God reveals must be true. Therefore Faith requires an infallible witness to the truth of what is to be believed. This is central to understanding the act of Faith. One does not believe because one is convinced by ones own natural reason that the things revealed are true; neither does one believe truths of Faith because they are appealing or seem probable. They are believed because of the authority of God who reveals. This immediately separates the true Faith from the "belief" of heretics or infidels. Many are confused on this point. The ecumenists look at the act of Faith either as an act which springs from the believer's own powers, or at the material object of Faith, that is, those things which are to be believed. Thus they see Lutherans and Catholics both agreeing that Christ is the Son of God. They then proceed to make the claim that there is a shared faith in Christ. But this ignores a central aspect of the act of Faith, that being the infallible witness to the truth by Whose authority one believes. It will no doubt be objected that both the Lutheran and the Catholic believe in the Divinity of Christ because of God who has revealed this truth to us in the Sacred Scriptures. Thus Both for Catholics and Protestants, the Scriptures are this infallible rule of Faith. Catholics and Protestants then both believe for the same reason. The only difference becomes the interpretation of the infallible rule. There are two reasons which disprove this. Firstly, the Sacred Writings are the sensible instruments by which the truth is conveyed, not the truth itself. It is the meaning of the Scriptures which is assented to, not the instrument used to convey this meaning. This is clear because words are signs, they are not the things signified. Words, either spoken or written, convey to the intellect meaning. This does not mean that the words are false or erroneous. Indeed, that cannot be, for they are the means by which the truth is conveyed. If the signs were false, the meaning would not be conveyed. Thus, to believe the Gospel is not to simply assent to words unconnected with their meaning. It is to assent to what the words are meant to convey. This leads us to the second reason why Catholics and Lutherans do not share a common Faith through assent to the Scriptures. The Scriptures require an infallible interpreter which ensures that the true meaning is conveyed to the believer. Protestants do not, in fact, assent to the Scriptures per se; rather, they assent to their own opinion as to the meaning of Scripture; they judge for themselves what the meaning is supposed to be. But Saint Thomas Aquinas is clear that such private interpretation of what is to be believed by Divine Faith is contrary to the very essence of Faith, which is not to choose what is to be believed, but simply to submit to it on the authority of an infallible witness:

"Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.
The reason of this is that the speciess of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things..."

Thus we see that although Catholics and Protestants might agree on certain points of doctrine, the reason they do so is quite different. The Catholics believes an infallible witness- the Church; the Protestant accepts according to the rule of his or her reasoning or sentiments concerning what is contained in Scripture. But here also there is a problem. The Scriptures are a source of Divine Revelation, but who witnesses to its inspiration? Not all of the books claim expressly to be inspired. Then there are other books claiming to be inspired, but which are not in fact inspired, such as the New Testament Apocryphal writings. Where is the infallible witness as to the inspiration of these 73 books as opposed to other books? It is the Church. Thus the Protestant believes that the Scriptures are inspired, not on the basis of an infallible witness, but for other reasons. Indeed, Luther did so because he believed that one could detect by a certain spiritual "taste" what books were inspired and which were not. The result? Protestants reject 7 books which Catholic accept. All of this is meant to show that there is not, in fact, a faith common to Protestants and Catholics, for as St. Thomas Aquinas shows when he speaks of the heretics of his day, the whole act of Faith is founded on the infallible witness of the Church and the authority of God. Thus if one rejects only one dogma of the Faith, Faith is lost. The individual then becomes the arbiter of the contents of Revelation, not the authority of God revealing.

It is not the purpose of this article to delve into the question of whether a non-Catholic who is in invincible ignorance may or may not be saved. Certainly one must possess supernatural Faith and Charity in order to be saved, as the letter of the Holy Office to Cardinal Cushing in 1949 reminds us:

"But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith, 'for he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him.' (Hebrews 11:6)."

What is important to realize is that since supernatural Faith requires the submission of the intellect to revelation on the authority of God revealing, there can not be a partial communion between heretics and Catholics based on certain truths which are common to both. The Catholic believes the truths of Faith revealed by God through an infallible witness, His Church. This act is elicited in a supernatural fashion by which the intellect assents to God revealing. The heretic, on the other hand, does not believe based on the authority of God but rather upon private judgement. We are speaking here, of course, of formal heretics- those who either reject the Church's teaching outright, or who could with diligence find the true Church. Material heretics will not be dealt with at the moment.

When we leave the question of who is or is not a material heretic individually, and pass on to the question of whether such and such a "church" or "ecclesial community" is in partial communion with the Church, we must point out that these "churches" and "ecclesial communities" are distinguished from the One true Church precisely by either a denial of truths revealed by God to be believed or affirmations which are contrary to the truth. Thus these sects have by their very nature only an negative relation to the Church. They are, for example, Anglicans, not because of what they profess in common with the Catholic Church, but rather by what they profess against the Catholic religion. Thus it is absurd to speak of partial communion with a group in opposition by its very nature to the true religion. In the next article, we will continue to examine this question in light of the sacramental order. Does the fact that non-Catholic "churches" or "ecclesial communities" have one or more valid sacraments establish by that fact partial communion with the One Church?

The Partial Communion Hoax Part III

In the second article of this series, we began to look more closely at the question of the unity of the Church and the communion between its members. Unlike all other societies, the Church's unity is not a unity based simply on common ideas or goals in the natural order. It is not the result of men agreeing to form an institution. The unity of the Church is a supernatural unity, willed by Christ, and indeed established by Him; it is a unity which reflects the unity of the three Divine Persons within the Godhead. This understanding of the Church as a supernatural society and its unity as a supernatural one is crucial. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, as Pope Pius XII taught in his encyclical "Mystici Corporis", and the unity it possesses, which is a Divine gift, can never be lost. The Mystical Body of Christ is always one within itself and with its Head, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Men may break their communion with the the Church through heresy, schism, or excommunication, but the Church herself remains One, and loses nothing of her own unity. Those who leave her simply lose their union with her. 

Given that the unity of the Church is a supernatural one, we must now examine what it is that makes the Church one, that is, what is the essence of this unity and in what does it consist? The Church teaches that the unity of the Church rests upon the foundation of unity of Faith, government, and communion in sacred things. Cardinal Billot, in his masterful treatise on the Church, speaks of this unity:

"...propria societatis ecclesiasticae unitas comprehendit triplicem unitatem regiminis, fidei, et communionis."

"...the unity proper to the ecclesiastical society comprehends a threefold unity of government, faith, and communion."

Vatican Council I speaks of this unity in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in the following terms:

"But that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of Faith and communion, placing the blessed Peter over the other apostles He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities..."

In this quotation, we see the unity of Faith and communion protected by a third principle of unity,that of the Petrine primacy of government. This threefold unity is itself based on the triple dignity of Our Lord Himself, who is the Head of the Church: Priest, Prophet, and King. Just as these three offices of Our Lord cannot be separated from the One Lord in which they find their perfection, the three principles of ecclesiastical unity cannot be separated. He who loses one of these principles must of that very fact no longer be part of the Church. The Church, like Christ her Head, exercises the same threefold offices which are at the heart of her unity: She is Prophet, that is Teacher (Magistra). She alone authoritatively and infallibly teaches the truth revealed by her Lord, through the protection of the "Spirit of truth" promised her by Christ. The content of her teaching is the material object of the virtue of Faith- those things which must be believed as revealed by God in order to inherit eternal life. The Church exercises the priesthood of Our Lord primarily through those in sacred Orders, whereby the seven sacraments are administered to the faithful for their sanctification. She shares in the royalty of Our Lord since Christ has given to those in apostolic succession the power to rule over a certain portion of the Flock of Christ. The particular portion of the flock given to a bishop only is given by delegation from the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of St. Peter in the primacy. So the Mystical Body of Christ is one with her Head, sharing in those offices which in Christ are their source and perfect exemplar. St. Paul expresses this truth in another way by reminding Catholics that the Church is one because she has "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Let us proceed now to the first of those bonds which unite the members of the Church, that being the Faith.

The Rite of Baptism illustrates the fundamental role which the Faith plays in the unity of the Church. The Rite begins with a question:

"Quid petis ab ecclesia Dei?" "What do you ask of the Church of God?"

The answer is simple: "Fides." "Faith".

Faith alone is not, of course, sufficient of itself to ensure salvation, but it lies at the foundation of the spiritual life, and of the unity which the Church enjoys. The union of the members of the Church is a spiritual, supernatural union, and thus must unify the members in the highest faculties of their souls: the intellect and the will. Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical "Satis Cognitum" clearly shows this by showing that just as in the natural order concord is the result of agreement between men, so is it in the spiritual order:

"Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results Wherefore, in His divine Wisdom, He[God] ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful- one Lord, one Faith, one baptism..."

Unity of Faith, therefore, is at the centre of ecclesiastical unity. Further, we know from St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, that "without faith, it is impossible to please God." In the new theology of full and partial communion, this Faith is said to exist outside of the Catholic Church. For the more extreme "progressivists", anyone who believes in God in any fashion whatsoever is a "person of faith". These "persons of faith" form the various "faith communities" to which Catholics are in some way joined. Other more cautious churchmen restrict the use of "faith" to those who profess some form of Christianity. The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar popes have adopted this position in many of their utterances, and certainly in all forms of common declarations between the Catholic Church and other "churches" and "ecclesial communities". Thus it is said that with the Orthodox, Catholics share the "apostolic faith". The same has been said of the Armenians and Copts. With the various Protestant groups, one speaks of a "common faith in Christ." It is admitted that there is not a complete agreement in matters of Faith between the Catholic Church and these various groups, but the popes and the various cardinals, bishops, etc continually speak of these groups as having "faith". And this shared faith in some revealed truths constitutes one of the ways how the Church can be in different degrees in partial communion with them. This new notion is what drives ecumenists to produce various "Joint Declarations" with non-Catholic theologians of the Anglican or Lutheran stripe, not to mention the common declarations with the Orthodox and the Nestorians and Monophysite bodies. Is it possible that a partial communion can exist between the Church and non-Catholic sects based on certain common teachings upon which they agree? This is something which we must look at more carefully.

The first step in answering such a question is to ask a more fundamental question: what is faith? What does one mean when we use this term? Do we mean the same thing when we say that someone professes the Catholic Faith and another professes the Orthodox or Protestant faith? The new theologians certainly imply that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all possess faith. But is this true? Is there a common faith in which all of these groups share? The Church has provided many definitions of Faith throughout the ages in the works of her theologians and the many catechisms which helped form the faithful. We shall look at the definition given by the Church at the First Vatican Council in its dogmatic decree "On the Catholic Faith."

"But the Catholic Church professes that this faith, which 'is the beginning of human salvation', is a supernatural virtue by which we, with the aid and inspiration of the grace of God, believe that the things revealed by Him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the revealed things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived..."

Firstly, we note that Faith is a supernatural virtue. It is not something which springs from our own natural powers. It is not an opinion, more or less well-founded, on religious matters. It is a supernatural virtue given to us by God. He is its Author, not ourselves. It is not produced by man but in man by the action of Divine grace. This being the case, the Faith must be one, for God "can neither deceive nor be deceived". He cannot reveal contradictory "truths"- to the Catholics one truth and to the Protestants another which contradicts the first. This is why St. Paul necessarily speaks of "one Faith" alongside "one Lord" and "one baptism". The truths of Faith are not believed because they can be known by the use of ones natural reason; rather they are believed by the authority of an infallible and supremely truthful Witness. By Faith, the Church means the Catholic Faith, for there cannot be more than one true Faith.  This is brought out clearly in the bold confession of the Athanasian Creed: 

"Whosoever 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..."

The Catholic Church has always professed that the Faith is one. The members of the Church alone therefore may be rightly named "the faithful".  It must be apparent that the non-Catholic sects which ex officio profess doctrines contrary to those taught by the true Church of Christ cannot by that very reason be partially in communion with the One Church. One reason for this is that these bodies are separated or distinct from the One Church precisely in the measure that they profess a faith different from hers. Therefore the members of these bodies among themselves cannot have a corporate faith in the sense understood by the Church. Their "faith" is not revealed by God, although it may well contain truths which it shares with the true Faith. It is not supernatural in its origin or its operation. God has not, in fact, born witness to the truths of its assertion, although there may remain vestiges of the truth mixed with error in its profession.  The mark of the true Faith is its unity. It cannot be divided. If one denies one of its truths, the virtue of Faith ceases to be. We will examine later how the act of Faith made by a Catholic differs essentially from the acts made by those who profess another creed.