First Part
First published in Sodalitium [No 44 IT – No 43 FR]
Fr Giuseppe Murro
I knew the unforgettable Don Putti (‘Father Francesco’ to his friends) and it is in his memory and honour that I take up the pen to respond to the errors written in the newspaper he founded. Not only would Don Putti never have published them, but he would certainly have fought and stigmatised them as he was used to doing.
In this issue I will analyse a first error, saving for the next issue the refutation of what Abbé Philippe Marcille wrote.
For convenience I will use the following abbreviations:
F. = Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. S. = Si Si No No. I. P. = Insegnamenti Pontifici – La Chiesa, Edizioni Paoline, Rome 1961. DS = Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum definitionum et declarationum, XXXVI ed., Herder, 1976. Conc. Vat. = Vatican Council: in this article we indicate the Council celebrated in the Vatican from 8/12/1869 to 20/10/1870, commonly called Vatican Council I.
The consensus of theologians is more important than an Ecumenical Council
Is it possible that S. would say such a thing? If I had not read it with my own eyes I would not have believed it. Let us read together Si Si No No, Year XXII, No. 7, 30/4/1996, pg. 6-7: “Why Hell cannot be empty”. The enormity consists in this: to prove that Hell is not empty, S. rightly uses the argument of the consensus of theologians, which gives the infallible doctrine of the Church. But in the same article, S. goes so far as to say that an Ecumenical Council (which has the highest authority in the Church, far superior to the consensus of theologians) is not infallible!
The issue rests on the question of theological notes (cf. Sodalitium IT 41, p. 67): when studying a doctrine, the theological note is the judgement given by the Magisterium of the Church indicating which is said doctrine’s degree of certainty in relation to the Catholic Faith. Conversely, censure indicates the degree of falsity of a doctrine, again in relation to the Catholic Faith. Many mistakenly believe that one is bound to adhere to a doctrine only when it is defined as a doctrine of faith, so that in all other cases one would be free to believe or not. Let us see why this is not true.
The expression (or note) “of faith” generically indicates a truth contained at least implicitly in the Deposit of Revelation 1. This generic note needs a specification: it is of divine faith that which is contained explicitly or implicitly in Revelation 2; it is of divine and catholic (or ecclesiastical) faith that which, in addition to being contained explicitly or implicitly in Revelation, has also been defined by the Magisterium of the Church 3; it is of catholic (or ecclesiastical) faith that which is contained only virtually in the deposit (connected with it) and has been defined by the Magisterium. Whoever denies any doctrine of faith sins gravely against the faith, and can easily slip into schism or heresy.
What is not of faith may have one of the following notes: close to the faith, Catholic doctrine, theologically certain, common sentence, true, sure. All Catholics are obliged to follow a doctrine affirmed with any of these notes, and to reject doctrines that have received censure 4: all of this, under penalty of grave sin.
On the other hand, a doctrine that has only the value (or note) of probable can be the object of opinion, so one is free to hold it or adhere to one contrary to it.
I repeat that we speak of the notes or censures given by the Magisterium of the Church: we do not deal here with the notes or censures given by theologians. But where theologians, or the most important of them, are unanimous in teaching a doctrine, one is not free to reject a doctrine. It is evident that if a doctrine taught by the unanimity of theologians must be followed, all the more reason to hold a doctrine taught by the Magisterium of the Church.
What does Si Si No No say instead? Concerning the doctrine that there are damned in Hell, a reader of S. asks: «Is it or is it not a truth of faith? If yes, what kind of truth of faith (divine, divine-catholic, ecclesiastical etc.) is it?» 5.
For years now we have been accustomed to hearing the F., who controls S. after Fr Putti’s death: in the Magisterium of the Church there can be errors; only solemn declarations are infallible, others can contain errors. Therefore one can safely disobey the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the teachings of Paul VI and John Paul II, and all the legislation given by the Holy See for the past 30 years, since none of this is guaranteed by infallibility.
Now beginning to read S.’s reply I rejoiced to see some of the sacrosanct truths shamelessly denied until now finally affirmed. In fact one reads: that the Church’s Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible; that the Church is the authorised interpreter of the Scriptures; that the voice of the Magisterium obliges even in what is implicitly defined. I believed, I hoped (naive me), that in taking a cue from this letter, the F. would silently return to the right path.
I had to change my mind, immediately. Continuing to read the article, S. presents a second letter on the same subject, which I abbreviate here for reasons of space. The reader affirms: it is only an opinion that Hell is full, an opinion as valid as the opposite one (which affirms that Hell is empty); the proof is given by the principle (taught and disseminated for years by the F.) that only the doctrines contained in Revelation and solemnly defined are true (as «the experience of Vatican II has taught me» the writer confesses). From this principle, the reader concludes: if the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is not infallible (because it would not have given solemn definitions) and can be rejected, then the doctrine that Hell is inhabited by men (which has neither a solemn definition nor an Ecumenical Council on its side) is also not infallible and can therefore be lawfully rejected. Read to believe: «Why would I be authorised to reject (as I reject) certain doctrines of Vatican II and not authorised to reject doctrines that have equal or lesser theological weight?» This is why, he concludes, neo-Modernist theologians were able to create the doctrine of the empty Hell, since the issue was not settled.
In practice, the reader is a fervent follower of the old F. principle: “only revealed and solemnly defined truths are true”. But he has made two mistakes. First, he has carried out of it the logical consequences, and does not know that carrying the logical consequences of F. principles inevitably leads to heresy. Second, he has not kept abreast of the F.’s latest doctrinal developments: from what we have just read at the beginning of this article by S., it seems that the F. has now realised (after decades) that – apart from the solemn definitions – there are many other pronouncements of the Magisterium that are infallible and oblige the believer.
S.’s reply begins by showing some nerve. The reader has therefore been indoctrinated for who knows how many years with the Lefebvrist principle “only dogma is of faith, the rest is not”, and now it is from his masters that he is to receive the chastisement. S. writes: «The patrimony of the Catholic faith is not limited … to “dogmas clearly and solemnly defined by Ecumenical Councils and Popes” and – what will certainly surprise you [but the surprise comes from hearing S. say this!] dogmas are not limited to defined dogmas» 6. Moreover, S. admits [I find it hard to believe this after hearing it denied a thousand times] that even a simple “common sentence of theologians” has its value and can be defined by the Church. Not to mention the authority of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, from whom we cannot distance ourselves.
What made me completely reconsider S.’s good faith was the issue of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Let me explain: if the consensus of the theologians obliges the believer, all the more does an Ecumenical Council, the expression of the sacred hierarchy of the Church, which is far more important than the consensus of the theologians: «Christ… presides over and guides the Councils of the Church», teaches Pius XII 7. A council does not bind believers only when it has not received approval from Church authority (like the Council of Basel). The Second Vatican Council is an Ecumenical Council and was approved by Paul VI; to reject it is to reject Paul VI’s authority.
In order to escape Catholic doctrine, S. develops a new thesis: for the Church to be infallible, the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not enough, but it must repeat what has been said always and everywhere (semper et ubique), otherwise it may contain errors. This is an absolute principle. The Magisterium, according to S., is no longer infallible by itself: it is therefore the task of every believer to check, whenever the Magisterium speaks, whether what it says has always and everywhere been upheld. «It is an absolute rule» says S., «that the Catholic must believe only what is not in contradiction with what the Church has always and everywhere taught and believed» 8. If this rule is absolute, it must always be applied without exception, and its conclusions will always be true. Let us try to see. When Pius XII affirmed, contrary to what had previously been affirmed, that the Matter and Form of the Sacrament of Orders are the laying on of hands and the reading of the Præfatio, his pronouncement – according to the rule of S. – cannot have been infallible! The same fate will befall the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: not always and not everywhere has this truth been believed, indeed, great theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas thought otherwise. Not to mention the vespertine Mass and the three-hour fast for Communion, established by Pius XII: according to S.’s thesis, all this constituted a true revolution that undermined the absolute rule, the semper et ubique!
The rule of Faith then for S. is no longer the Magisterium of the Church (as seen on pages 48-49), but the teaching of always and everywhere. And to better affirm this new theory, the Act of Faith must be changed. Read to believe: «”My God, I firmly believe all that you have revealed and the holy Church proposes us to believe…”». For everyone, the Church means the reigning Pope; instead, S. changes the interpretation of the Act of Faith and thus changes its meaning, adding: «…(the Holy Church – it is obvious, but today it is necessary to specify this – does not identify itself with the actual Pope when he does not speak ex cathedra)» 9. Maybe S. has forgotten the axiom: “Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia”. S.’s new rule is absolute; but the Rule of Faith and the Act of Faith, are not!
I only remind the words of Pius XII 10: «And although this sacred Magisterium must be for any theologian, in matters of faith and morals, the closest and universal norm of truth (inasmuch as to it Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith – that is, the Holy Scripture and divine Tradition – to be guarded, defended and interpreted), nevertheless, it is sometimes ignored, as if it did not exist, the duty that the faithful have to shun even those errors which, to a greater or lesser extent, come close to heresy, and therefore “to observe also the constitutions and decrees by which these false opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See” 11».
Someone will say: but don’t you see that the F. people have taken a step forward? You have to encourage them and they will take another: after all, they are in good faith, they also seek the truth.
I am sorry, but there is proof that good faith just isn’t there. In fact, S. cites Pius IX in his famous Brief to the Bishop of Munich 12, in which the Pope says that obedience must not be limited to truths that have been defined… «but must also extend to those truths which the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, spread throughout the world, transmits as divinely revealed and therefore by the common and universal consensus of theologians are held to be matters of faith». It is clear from the text that, after the pronouncement of the Magisterium indicating what has been revealed by God, theologians are unanimously obliged to agree with that doctrine which now is a matter of faith. In the described case, there would have been no consensus among theologians without the teaching of the Church. Thus for theologians the rule of faith is the Magisterium, teaches Pius IX; for S. the absolute rule is the “always and everywhere” 13.
S. itself quotes Pius XII: theology must be «under the vigilance of the sacred Magisterium» and it is good when carried out «by persons of uncommon genius and holiness» to whom «the Magisterium of the Church has given, by its authority, such notable approval» 14: thus Pius XII once again says that it is the Magisterium that is the Rule of Faith. But does the columnist of S. understand this?
If the doctrine of the Church is not enough (and I stop at Pius IX and Pius XII in proving this), let us proceed by absurdity: let us use S.’s principle together with the doctrine of Humani Generis to see where it takes us. For S., Paul VI and John Paul II are Popes and have Authority in the Church: under their “Authority” the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium has declared that it is revealed by God that every man, even sinners, has a dignity that is never lost. So we should adhere to this definition! If this were not enough, theologians of uncommon genius (such as de Lubac, Congar, Von Balthasar) “under the vigilance of the sacred Magisterium” of Paul VI and John Paul II, have affirmed that this is a truth of faith. S. tries to object that they are modernist theologians. But (I keep quoting S.) to this theology “the Magisterium of the Church has given, with its authority [of Paul VI and John Paul II, ed.] a notable approval”, to the point of making them Cardinals of Holy Mother the Church! Why then should we not follow this consensus of theologians?
Dear friends of S., if you believe that John Paul II has authority over the Church, how can you dispute what he says? By what authority can you judge him? Can there be anyone above the Pope? Or do you reject Wojtyla’s authority, as Sodalitium does? But no, you say that he has authority. Just as the Pharisees hypocritically cried out to Pilate: “We have no king but Caesar”, so you proclaim: “We recognise the authority of John Paul II”. Whoever did not recognise Caesar, became his enemy; whoever does not recognise John Paul II, stands against the whole world. «Judge for yourselves whether it is right in the sight of God to obey men rather than God» (Acts IV, 19), said St. Peter to the Sanhedrin, which had lost authority.