The Angelus english-language arTicle reprinT

Let your speech be “Yes, yes: no, no”; whatever is beyond these comes from the evil one. (Mt. 5:37)  November 2009

Reprint #89

PART 1

On the Living MagisteriuM
and
Living
traditiOn:
Towards a “Thomistic Reception” of Vatican II
A theological Congress, organized in May 2009 in Toulouse, tried to prove
that it is possible to understand council Vatican II in a thomistic way.
From May 16-17, 2009, at the Catholic Institute of Toulouse, a colloquium
organized by the Revue Thomiste was held under the direction of Fr. Serge
Thomas Bonino, O.P. The colloquium’s theme was “Vatican II: Rupture or
Continuity–the Hermeneutics [that is, interpretations] Face to Face.” Around
100 people, mainly clerics, were in attendance. Fr. Bonino’s invitation already
suficiently explains the thrust of this initiative: “Our colloquium will focus on
the ways in which Thomistic theology can contribute to a reception of Vatican II
that honors the Council as an act of living Tradition.”
19

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

The method for reaching this goal is indicated:
It is a matter of laying stress on both the “memorial”
aspect and the “novel” aspect of this major teaching of the
Magisterium of the 20th century at one and the same time.
This is the exigency Pope Benedict XVI pointed out in his
address to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005 when
he proposed the distinction between the “hermeneutic of
continuity” and the “hermeneutic of rupture.”

Starting with the fact that Pope Benedict XVI’s
December 2005 address affirms the continuity of the
teachings of Vatican II with the living Tradition of
the Church, the colloquium’s organizers intended
to consider the way in which Thomistic theology
could prove this continuity in the framework of the
hermeneutic proposed by Benedict XVI. Moreover,
in the Pope’s intentions, this hermeneutic should
prevail over the progressive extrapolations based
on a hermeneutic of rupture, which the Address to
the Curia forthrightly denounces. That is why, to
return to Fr. Bonino’s proposal, living continuity
ought to be defined as the synthesis of these two
aspects: the memorial and the novel; or, to employ
Benedict XVI’s expressions, far from any rupture,
it should correspond to a synthesis of fidelity and
dynamism. Theology’s task would be to elaborate
the speculative elements of this synthesis, and the
colloquium of Toulouse was meant to establish the
outline of a Thomistic contribution to the Council’s
hermeneutic.
Can such a proposition be warranted? To answer
this question, we shall first examine whether Vatican
II can be presented as “a major teaching of the
Magisterium of the 20th century.” To do so, we shall
scrutinize the magisterial worth of this Council (Part
1). Then we shall examine the precise meaning of
the December 22, 2005 address. Therein we shall
determine how Pope Benedict XVI conceives of the
hermeneutic of the Council (Part 2). This will afford
us an opportunity to come back to the definition
of Tradition, which is the fundamental point upon
which depends the solution of the grave difficulties
raised on the occasion of the last Council.

Part 1:
the Magisterial Value
of Vatican II

is teaching.1 A distinction has to be made in using
the word as it presents two analogous meanings:
“scientific magisterium” and “ecclesiastical
magisterium,” which is a particular instance of the
attestative magisterium. In the case of ecclesiastical
magisterium, one is dealing with the proposition
of the object of faith, which is essentially obscure.
In the case of scientific magisterium, one is dealing
with a scientific demonstration, which results in the
possession of knowledge or facts. The ecclesiastical
magisterium is not a scientific magisterium because
it does not cause knowledge. The ecclesiastical
magisterium bears witness, and so doing it contributes
to bringing about faith.
This ecclesiastical magisterium is “the activity
of the pope and the bishops who, in virtue of the
mission received from Jesus Christ, authoritatively
propose the supernatural mysteries of the Faith
and the natural truths revealed by Christ in the
name of Jesus Christ in order to conserve the unity
of faith in the Church and, so doing, to lead the
faithful to eternal salvation.” In this definition,
we can distinguish four distinct elements. First,
the material cause, or the subject exercising the
magisterium: The magisterium is the activity of the
pope and the bishops. Second, the efficient cause,
or the agent who institutes the magisterium: The
magisterium is an activity that the pope and the
bishops exercise in virtue of the mission received
from Jesus Christ. Third, the formal cause, or the
very nature of the magisterium: The magisterium
is the act by which the pope and the bishops act as
the authorized witnesses of the truths revealed by
Jesus Christ and compellingly propose them to the
belief of the faithful with the very authority of Jesus
Christ. Fourth, the final cause: The Magisterium
is an activity that the pope and the bishops must
exercise in order to conserve the unity of faith in the
Church and, so doing, to lead the faithful to eternal
salvation.
Distinctions are necessary when using the
word “magisterium.” It is of particular interest
to us to note that this word can be understood
in three senses: First, it can designate the subject
who exercises the magisterium (that is, the pope
and the bishops); second, it can designate the act
of the magisterium properly so called (that is, the
preaching carried on by word or in writing); third,
it can designate the object of the magisterium (that is,
the revealed truth taught during preaching).

a. Some elementary
distinctions

B. the Magisterium understood
in the Second Sense: the act
or exercise of the Power of
Magisterium

In the etymological sense of the word,
magisterium is a function, the purpose of which

The act of magisterium consists in making use
of Christ’s divine authority to conserve, explain,

20

THE ANGELUS • November 2009 www.angeluspress.org

or impose on the assent of the faithful the truths
divinely revealed by Christ. To accomplish this act
it is necessary and sufficient to be in possession
of the divine authority of Christ and to intend to
use it within the limits granted to it, namely, to
propose for belief divinely revealed truths. The first
condition (to be in possession of the divine authority
of Christ) is fulfilled by the pope, the successor of St.
Peter, and by the bishops, successors of the apostles,
as well as by all the ministers (priests or deacons)
to whom the pope and the bishops can delegate
their authority. The second condition (to have the
required intention) deserves further explanation.
A fundamental distinction must be made
between two types of intention. There is, on the one
hand, the intention to fulfill an office, or intention
pure and simple; on the other hand, there is the
intention to fulfill the same office for a praiseworthy
or upright motive. The first intention corresponds
to what the theologians call the “finis operis,” and it
is required for the existence pure and simple or for
the validity of the act: it is the objective intention. The
second intention corresponds to the “finis operantis,”
and it is required for the act to be meritorious:
it is subjective and accidental to the act, even if it
can sometimes change the nature of the act. For
example, the intention to do what the Church does
is required for the validity of a sacrament, while
the intention to procure the glory of God and the
salvation of souls (and not to earn money or men’s
esteem) is required for the merit of the minister
giving the sacrament.
For validity, some external acts require the
objective intention of the agent understood in the
first sense. This is the case for the sacraments.
A sacrament is valid if and only if the minister
confecting it (for all the sacraments) or the
person receiving it (except for the Eucharist) has
the objective intention of doing or of receiving
the benefit of the sacrament, the exterior act
willed as such by the Church.2 The exercise of
authority is valid and legitimate if and only if the
person exercising it has the objective intention of
accomplishing the act required for the common
good of society.3 Ordinarily, this intention is
presumed. But it can no longer be presumed when
proof to the contrary is at hand in the party’s
declaration of a different intention.4
It is not difficult to understand why this is so.
Man always acts as such, that is, as a rational and
free agent. He has to perform all his actions with
full knowledge of the facts, and willingly. He must
therefore have knowledge of the nature of the
action and wish to perform it as he conceives it.
To say that human authority or a human minister
is an intermediary between God and men does
not mean that God utilizes this intermediary like a
machine, which would always function according to
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2009

the same sedate mechanism, regardless of the man
called to exercise the authority or the ministry. The
instrument God employs is not an inanimate one;
on the contrary, it is intelligent and free. Even in
the case of mediation ex opere operato proper to the
exercise of the sacraments, the intention of man is
still absolutely required. This is even more so in the
case of mediation ex opere operantis, proper to the
exercise of authority.
If a holder of authority manifests in one way or
another that he does not have the intention required
for the exercise of authority, the actions he performs
pursuant to this habitual intention will not be acts of
legitimate authority so long as the required intention
has not been clearly manifested. How much more
would this be true were the holder of authority to
adopt an intention contrary to and incompatible
with the required intention5; for the exercise of
authority to be valid, this contrary intention would
have to be retracted. For example, a professor
who would indicate his intention to teach a course
in modern philosophy based on the principles of
the Enlightenment would by the very fact exclude
the intention of teaching Thomistic philosophy,
since Enlightenment thought and St. Thomas’s
are incompatible. None of the professors’ students
would be gullible.
In these conditions, it is easy to understand
the intention required for the exercise of the
magisterium: it is quite simply the intention to make
use of the divine authority of Christ to conserve,
explain, and propose to the assent of the faithful the
truths divinely revealed by Christ.

c. the Magisterium
understood in the third
Sense: the Proper object
of ecclesiastical Preaching
The proper object of the magisterium is the
Revelation transmitted by the apostles, that is, the
deposit of faith to be sacredly guarded and faithfully
explained. The First Vatican Council taught us this
on two occasions: first, in the Dogmatic Constitution
Pastor Aeternus on the Church:
…the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of
Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the
revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit
of faith, and might faithfully set it forth6;

and second, in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius
on the Catholic Faith:
…the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been
handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

21

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit
to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted.7

To designate the proper object of the act
of magisterium, Vatican Council I uses two
expressions: “the Revelation transmitted through the
apostles,” and “the deposit of faith.”
The Revelation transmitted through the apostles
is the totality of truths necessary for salvation which
were revealed to the apostles by Christ until His
Ascension and by the Holy Ghost from Pentecost to
the death of the last of the apostles. Revelation was
definitively closed with the apostles.8 Thus, the role
of the magisterium is to guard and transmit it, and
not to receive new revelations.
The expression “deposit of faith” is used by
St. Paul on four occasions: twice using the same
terms and twice in reference to the same idea: in
I Tim. 6:20 (“Keep that which is committed to thy
trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and
oppositions of knowledge falsely so called”) and
in II Tim. 1:13-14 (“Hold the form of sound words
which thou hast heard of me: in faith and in the
love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing
committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost who
dwelleth in us”). The idea is expressed in II Tim
2:2 (“And the things which thou hast heard of me
by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful
men who shall be fit to teach others also”) and in II
Tim. 3:14 (“But continue thou in those things which
thou hast learned and which have been committed
to thee. Knowing of whom thou hast learned them”).
This expression must be understood metaphorically.
A thing received in deposit is another’s property
in one’s own keeping that must be returned to its
owner substantially intact.
Likewise, the totality of objective Revelation
is God’s truth, which has been placed in the
magisterium’s keeping and which must be
transmitted in its essential integrity. In the two
passages in which the expression is used, St. Paul
also emphasizes the words (vocum and verborum)
which are the expression required for the substantial

22

integrity of truth. Neither the sense of the words nor
the words themselves should be changed. Dogma
being to objective Revelation what words are to
truth, the integral transmission of the deposit is
equivalent to the transmission of dogma, that is, to
the transmission of immutable expressions used to
designate truth.

d. one consequence:
ecclesiastical Magisterium
is a traditional Magisterium
Ecclesiastical magisterium is by definition a
traditional and constant magisterium. In effect, it
is a very particular function of teaching, because
it has as its object guarding and transmitting
without any substantial change9 the unalterable
deposit of truths revealed by Jesus Christ. This
traditional magisterium is distinct from the
scientific magisterium, which proceeds by means of
experiment, and whose object is the discovery of
new truths. The ecclesiastical magisterium does not
have as its object the discovery of new truths; it must
transmit the definitively revealed truth without any
substantial change being possible.
Of this we are absolutely sure. First, because
Christ Himself affirmed it in the Gospel. Wishing to
guarantee the perpetuity and the diffusion in every
place of the Revelation He had come to give to
the world, He spoke to the apostles, whom He had
established as His vicars on earth to accomplish His
work, and told them:
All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going
therefore, teach ye all nations….Teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold
I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the
world (Mt. 28:18-20).

It is in this passage that the divine institution of
the ecclesiastical magisterium is to be found; and we
can see that this magisterium is established by Christ
for the faithful transmission of Revelation. Second,
the teaching of Vatican Council I explicitly affirms
the traditional nature of the Church’s magisterium.
THE ANGELUS • November 2009 www.angeluspress.org

In the Constitution Dei Filius on the Catholic Faith,
the Council convoked by the authority of Pope Pius
IX affirmed:
Understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually
retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and
there must never be recession from that meaning under
the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 3].
“Therefore…let the understanding, the knowledge, and
wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole
Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the
ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus,
namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the
same understanding [St. Vincent of Lerins].”10

Pius IX also declared during the same Council
in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus (this time on the
Church):
[O]ur predecessors always gave tireless attention that the
saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of
the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever
it was received, it was preserved sound and pure.11

e. the Magisterium
of Vatican ii: in What Sense?
To apply these distinctions to Vatican II, it
may be said that the Council is in any case a work
of the magisterium in the first sense; that is to say,
it represents the hierarchical subject (the pope
and bishops) in possession of the divine authority
of Christ and capable of making an act of the
magisterium should the occasion arise since it was a
legitimately convoked council. It may then be said
that Vatican II was not wholly and entirely a work
of the magisterium in the third sense. In effect, the
documents of this council are full of ambiguities and
equivocations, language that is a far cry from the
clear and precise expression of dogma and of truth.
They abound in a vague, indeterminate loquacity
of expressions purportedly adapted to the modern
world. This imprecise language permits every
interpretation and allows free rein to error and
moral laxity. The very foundations of the Church
and of Revelation are seriously shaken. On the other
hand, on some points, this Council even proposed
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2009

expressions that explicitly contradict the teaching of
the previous magisterium (as, for example, No.2 of
Dignitatis Humanae, which contradicts the teachings
of Pius IX in Quanta Cura).12
Lastly, it may be said that Vatican II was not
wholly and entirely a work of the magisterium in
the second sense, for the same reason, since an act
of the ecclesiastical magisterium must be defined
in relation to its proper object: without the object
there is no corresponding act. One might even say
that Vatican II was not a work of the magisterium
at all in the second sense since the intention
clearly manifested at the Council was not to use
the authority of Christ to propose for assent truths
revealed by Christ; it was rather to present revealed
truth in terms of the categories of modern thought
for the sake of being able to carry on a dialogue with
the world.13 This Council can be considered still
less the legitimate source of magisterial Tradition.
Those who declare their loyalty to the Council, Pope
Benedict XVI prominently among them, conceive
this Tradition in a way which would be quite difficult
to reconcile with the definition of ecclesiastical
magisterium, that is to say, in an evolutionist and
relativist sense of a living Tradition.
In short, Vatican II was a Council that did not
pass into act. The exercise of its magisterium was
paralyzed by prelates already won over to the cause
of modernism and by theologians who, like Yves
Congar, profited from the circumstance to revise the
official schemas prepared under Cardinal Ottaviani’s
direction and to substitute their own ideas (already
condemned by Pius XII in the Encyclical Humani
Generis of 1950).14 We have, then, rather serious
reasons for challenging the magisterial worth of
Vatican II if we consider the acts properly so called,
taking the word magisterium in the second sense.

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

23

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

F. the advantages of these
distinctions: a critique Based
on Serious doctrinal Grounds
If we distinguish between the three different
senses of the word magisterium, we are in a position
to make a profound, serious critique that gets to the
crux of the problem posed by the last Council. It is
not enough simply to say that Vatican II was not an
infallible Council or that this Council, which was
meant to be “pastoral,” did not proceed according
to the solemn manner of a dogmatic magisterium
compelling assent to proclaimed dogmas, and that
it remained at the simple level of the authentic
magisterium. After all, the non-infallible and simply
authentic act of the magisterium also obliges in the
internal forum; it is compelling. Certainly it does not
demand an act of obedience (the famous “internal
religious assent”) under pain of grave fault. Pope
Pius IX even goes so far as to say that one cannot
refuse adherence to the teachings of the simply
authentic magisterium “under pain of sin and loss
of the Catholic profession.”15 The theologians16
are unanimous in saying that these non-infallible
teachings of an act of the simply authentic
magisterium oblige in conscience and cannot be
made the object of positive critique without great
reserve.17
the constancy of conciliar teachings
In point of fact, we see that the teachings of
Vatican II, non-infallible as they are, have been
imposed in the framework of a new constant
tradition that corresponds to the preaching of
the post-conciliar magisterium. Two examples
bear witness to this, and the value of these two
indications is all the more important in that they
correspond to the two teachings of the Council most
evidently in opposition to the entire Tradition of the
Church: the new ecclesiology and ecumenism on the
one hand, and the new social doctrine and religious
freedom on the other.
On the first point, the Sacred Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith has never ceased
reaffirming for the last 40 years–with great clarity
and remarkable constancy–the meaning of the
dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church
(No.8) and of the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio
on Ecumenism (No.3). On four occasions, in
1973,18 1985,19 2000,20 and 2007,21 the organ of
the Holy See intervened in official documents to
recall the doctrine that should be accepted in the
Church. The last document, dated 2007, even
states that “the Congregation wishes to respond
to these questions [concerning diverse aspects of

24

ecclesiology] by clarifying the authentic meaning
of some ecclesiological expressions used by the
magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in
the theological debate.”22
On the second point, Pope Benedict XVI’s
preaching, which aims to be in perfect continuity
with that of his immediate predecessor, also
reasserts, with an equally remarkable constancy, the
principle of religious freedom as it was proposed
by Vatican II in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae.
For three years, Benedict XVI has expressed himself
nearly 80 times on the new social doctrine of the
Church as it should be understood since Vatican II.
If you go through all 75 issues of the Documentation
Catholique stretching from April 2005 to November
2008, Nos. 2337 to 2411, one comes up with 87
excerpts that bear on this subject, that is to say, on
the place of the Church in the modern world, with
the double principle of religious freedom and State
secularism.23
a contradictory explanation
If one considers that the teachings of Vatican
II are part of the magisterium properly so-called,
even if non-infallible and simply authentic, it
seems very difficult to question them. As we have
shown, relying on the teaching of popes and the
common doctrine of theologians, the non-infallible
magisterium is a magisterium properly so-called,
perfectly complete in line with the magisterium. In
order to be able to consider the simply authentic
magisterium as an incomplete or improperly
so-called magisterium, it would be necessary to
begin by implicitly presupposing that the only
genuine magisterium complete and worthy of the
name would be the infallible magisterium.24 But this
goes against the constant teaching of the Sovereign
Pontiffs from Pius IX to Pius XII.25 On the other
hand, we can see that the post-conciliar teaching
absolutely does not come across as incomplete.
The official reminders of the Sacred Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith we referenced above
on the new ecclesiology and ecumenism, the
ordinary preaching of the Popes John Paul II and
Benedict XVI on religious freedom and the new
social doctrine of the Conciliar Church leave
nothing to be desired: we have in them the full and
complete expression which purports to be in perfect
continuity with the conciliar teachings, on the
points which are most patently contrary to Catholic
Tradition. If one grants the hypothesis that Vatican
II represents the exercise of the “ordinary and
manifestly authentic” magisterium,”26 it is not clear
how it would be possible to rectify or critique the
teachings relative to ecumenism, religious liberty,
or the status of the non-Christian religions. Far from
having to do with the rectification of an unfinished
teaching, we have before our eyes, on the contrary,
THE ANGELUS • November 2009 www.angeluspress.org

the most faithful echo of the fully expressed
conciliar teaching.
the critique’s real point of departure
The critique of the teachings of the Council is
then possible if and only if it is established that with
Vatican II we are not dealing with the exercise of
a genuine magisterium (infallible or not). An act
of the magisterium is defined by its object, and, as
we have explained above, this object is Revelation
transmitted through the apostles, that is to say,
the deposit of faith to be sacredly guarded and
faithfully explained. That is why the ecclesiastical
magisterium is traditional and constant. If, as did
Vatican II, truths are proposed that are in manifest
opposition to truths already taught as revealed by
the Church, this proposition cannot be the exercise
of a magisterium worthy of the name. Undoubtedly
we find a magisterium in the first sense of the word
at the Council (the subject of the magisterium: the
pope and bishops); however, this hierarchy was as
if paralyzed by the warped intention that animated
it and that led it to wish to set forth the doctrine of
Joachim Slavery, S.J., De Ecclesia, thesis 12, no.503, in Sacra Theologiae
Summa, tome I: Theologia Fundamentalis , Library of Christian Authors
(Madrid, 1962), pp.654-5.
2
For example: 1917 CJC, canon 742, §1; canon 752, §3; DS 1017; DS 1262;
DS 1312; DS 1315; DS 1352; DS 1611; DS 1617; DS 1685; DS 1998; DS
2328; DS 2382; DS 2536; DS 2835; DS 2838; DS 3100; DS 3104; DS 3126;
DS 3318; DS 3874; DS 3928.
3
For example: DS 1309; DS 1406; DS 1407; DS 1434; DS 1519; DS 2399; DS
2509; DS 2729; DS 2750; DS 2885; DS 3007; DS 3120; DS 3202; DS 3400;
DS 3428; DS 3440; DS 3448; DS 3518; DS 3793.
4
CJC, canon 830; canon 1086.
5
St.Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.104, Art.5.
6
Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4 in DS
3070 (Dz. 1836).
7
Vatican Council I, Dogmatic ConstitutionDei Filii, Chapter 4 in DS 3020 (Dz.
1800).
8
Cardinal Jean-Baptiste Franzelin, La Tradition ( Courrier de Rome , 2008),
Thesis 23, Appendix, No.499, pp.350-1.
9
We shall e xplain in P art 3, §c) to what de gree it remains possible for there
to be a certain accidental change, an extrinsic progress, to the degree that the
magisterium expresses the same truth in more explicit terms in order to enable
the minds of the faithful to grasp it with greater penetration.
10
ConstitutionDei Filius, Chapter 4 in DS 3020.
11
ConstitutionPastor Aeternus, DS 3069 (Dz. 1836).
12
On this subject, the reader may refer toSiSiNoNo [Italian], July-August 2008.
13
John XXIII, Opening Speech, October 11, 1962, and allocution to the Sacred
College, December 23, 1962.
14
Testimony to this is gi ven in the speech Cardinal Otta viani, president of
the Commission de doctrina fidei et moru , made during Vatican II on the
occasion of the 31st general congre gation of December 1, 1962, submitting
the schema on the Church to the assembly’ s examination: “Those who have
finalized this schema were careful to impart to it as pastoral and as Biblical a
turn as possible, and to make it accessible to the simple f aithful by avoiding
the use of Scholastic e xpressions and instead emplo ying a language readily
understood by all in our time. I am saying this because xpect
I e to hear the usual
jeremiads from the Conciliar F athers: This isn’t ecumenical, it’s scholastic!
It isn’t pastoral, it’s negative; and so on. What’s more, I ha ve something to
confide to you. I think that I and the other reporters will be speaking in ain,
for the issue has already been decided. In effect, those who are always telling
us, “Withdraw this schema, withdraw it!” are ready for battle. Here is a little
revelation: even before the schema w
as distributed–listen well, listen well–even
before it was distributed, they were already in the process of drafting another
schema to replace it. [Vobis revelationem quamdam facio: antequam schema
istud distribueretur–audite! audite!–antequam distribueretur, jam conficiebatu
1

the Church “following the research methods and
literary forms of modern thought, adapting them
to the needs of a magisterium of an especially
pastoral character.”27 The same reasons that render
the conciliar magisterium incapable of engaging
its infallibility also render it incapable of speaking
authoritatively in the exercise of an act of the
magisterium (in the second sense).
Because they are not the expression of a true act
of the magisterium, the teachings of Vatican II may
be judged in light of the magisterium of all time, in
light of the Church’s immutable Tradition. This is,
moreover, how Archbishop Lefebvre conceived of
the critique of the Council.
To say that we judge the documents of the Council in
the light of Tradition means, obviously, that we reject those
teachings that are contrary to Tradition, that we interpret
ambiguous teachings according to Tradition, and that we
accept those that are in conformity with Tradition.28

Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize
Translated exclusively by Angelus Press from the Courier de Rome , JuneAugust 2009, pp.1-5.
schema substituendum.] That is why, even before having been scrutinized, our
text was already judged. There is nothing left to me than to be quiet, since, as
Sacred Scripture says, ‘If someone will not listen to you, don’
t bother opening
your mouth.’ I have spoken.” (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici
Vaticani II, vol. I, pars 4 [Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 1971], p.121.)
15
In the Encyclical Quanta Cura (December 8, 1864),Pius IX says precisely this:
“Neither can We pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring
sound doctrine, assert that ‘the judgments and decrees of the Holy See, the
object of which is declared to concern the general welf are of the Church, its
rights, and its discipline, do not claim acquiescence and obedience, under pain
of sin and loss of the Catholic profession, if they do not treat of the dogmas of
faith and of morals.’ How contrary is this doctrine to the Catholic dogma, of the
plenary power divinely conferred on the sovereign Pontiff by Our Lord Jesus
Christ, to guide, to supervise and to govern the Universal Church, no one can
fail to see and understand, clearly and evidently.” In the Letter Tuas Libenter
(December 21, 1863) the same So vereign Pontiff had already e xpressed the
same idea: “But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience
all those Catholics are bound who w ork in the speculative sciences, in order
that they may bring new advantages tot eh Church by their writings, on that
account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not
sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and r vere the aforesaid dogmas of
the Church, but hat it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions
pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congr gations, and
also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant
consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that
opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although the y cannot be
called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” [Dz. 1684]
In the Motu Proprio Praestantia Scripturae (November 18, 1911), St. Pius X
said: “Therefore, we see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now
declare and expressly order, that all are bound by the duty of conscience to
submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which
have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed, just
as to the decrees of the Sacred Congre gations which pertain to doctrine and
have been approved by the Pontif f; and that all who impugn such decisions
as these by word or in writing cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on
this account be free of gra ve sin; and this besides the scandal by which the y
offend, and the other matters for which the y can be responsible before God,

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2009

25

This space left blank for independent mailing purposes.

$2.00 per SiSiNoNo reprint. Please specify.
especially because of other pronouncements in these matters made rashly and
SHIppIng & HandlIng
erroneously.” [Dz. 2113]
16
USA Foreign
Cardinal Jean-Baptiste Franzelin, La Tradition, No.254-5, pp.166-8; Fr. Dublanchy
Up to $50.00
$4.00
in DTC, s.v. “ Infaillibilité du pape ”; Fr. Straub, De Ecclesia, No.968ff.; Fr.
25% of
$50.01 to $100.00 $6.00
Reginald-Marie Schultes, De Ecclesia Catholica (Lethielleux, 1925) pp.620subtotal
2; Lucien Choupin, S.J ., Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinair es du
Over $100.00
FRee
($10.00 minimum)
5-10 days
Saint-Siège (Beauchesne, 1928), p.91.
17
For example, in the article cited in DTC, Fr. Dublanchy makes the follo wing
48 Contiguous
Up to $50.00
$8.00
States only.
remarks: “Against the moral certitude with which the [simply authentic] pontifica
$50.01 to $100.00 $10.00
UPS cannot
teaching presents itself to the intellect, normally there can only be groundless
ship to
Over $100.00
$8.00
or imprudent doubts or suspicions, which must be rejected either with the aid
PO Boxes.
FlaT Fee!
2-4 days
of motives of an intellectual nature on which the moral certitude of the teaching
rests, or by the influence of the will, which must, out of deference to authorit ,
Available from:
incline the intellect towards an assent judged practically to be v ery prudent. If
in a particular case doubts which seem well founded arrest the mind and pre
vent
ANGELUS PRESS
its assent to the proposed teaching, one should, in order to bring an end to this
2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109 USA
mental state, submit one’s doubts to capable guides to enlighten the mind, or
Phone: 1-800-966-7337
submit them to the authority itself.”
18
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of theaith
F [hereafter, CDF], the Declaration
www.angeluspress.org
Mysterium Ecclesiae, of 24 June 1973, in Defense of the Catholic Doctrine on the
Church Against Certain Errors of the Present Day (Englishersion
v
available online
at ww.saint-mike.org/library/Curia/Congregations/Faith/Mysterium_Ecclesiae.
html.)
19
CDF, Notification on the Boo Church: Charism and Power–An Essay on Militant 24 In his treatise on Tradition, Cardinal Franzelin proves in detail the existence
Ecclesiology by Father Leonardo Boff, O.F.M. (Issued March 11, 1985).
of the non-infallible magisterium, by explaining the actual thinking of Pope
20
CDF, the Declaration Dominus Jesus on the Unicity and Salvific Un versality
Pius IX and the theologians (Suarez, Gotti, Benedict XIV , Cappellari, the
of Jesus Christ and the Church (October 1, 2000).
future Gregory XVI, Zaccaria), so as to defend it ag ainst the deformations
21
CDF, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine
inflicted on it by the Jansenists of Utrecht. They could only conceive of the
on the Church (June 29, 2007).
exercise of the magisterium as infallible. Cf. Franzelin, La Tradition, Thesis
22
CDF, ibid. (English v ersion online at www .vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega12, 3rd corollary to the 7th principle, No. 254-72, pp.166-83.
tions/cfaith/documents).
25
In the Encyclical Humani Generis (August 12, 1950), Pius XII said in effect:
23
One can see, for e xample, that during his trip to the United States, the Pope
“And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of f aith and morals
positively encouraged religious pluralism in the schools: “Today, in classrooms
must be the proximate and uni
versal criterion of truth for all theologians, since
throughout the country, young Christians, Je ws, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists,
to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit ofaith–Sacred
f
and indeed children of all religions sit side-by-side, learning with one another
Scripture and divine Tradition–to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still
and from one another. This diversity gives rise to ne w challenges that spark a
the duty that is incumbent on the afithful to flee also those errors which more
deeper reflection on the core principles of a democratic society….I therefore
or less approach heresy, and accordingly “to keep also the constitutions and
invite all religious people to vie w dialogue not only as a means of enhancing
decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy
mutual understanding, b ut also as a w ay of serving society at lar ge….A conSee,”[CJC, canon 1324] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist.”
crete example of the contrib ution religious communities mak e to civil society
26
Paul VI, Audience of January 12, 1966, in D.C., No.1466 (March 6, 1966),
is faith-based schools. These institutions enrich children both intellectually and
col.418-20.
spiritually. Led by their teachers to disco ver the di vinely bestowed dignity of
27
John XXIII, Speech to the Sacred Colle ge, December 23, 1962, in DC,
each human being, young people learn to respect the beliefs and practices of
No.1391 (January 6, 1963), col.101.
others, thus enhancing a nation’s civic life.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Meeting with
28
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Conference at Ecône, December 2,1982, inVu
Representatives of Other Religions, “Rotunda” Hall of the Pope John P aul II
de Haut, No.13 (Fall 2006), p.57.
Cultural Center of Washington, D.C., Thursday, 17 April 2008.)

26

THE ANGELUS • November 2009 www.angeluspress.org