The Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council

Conference given by Fr. Franz Schmidberger, SSPX, in Dublin, Ireland, in January, 1989

Dear Reverend Father, my dear friends, I think that the most important part of my conference is already over. The most important part of the conference was the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which I celebrated with you and which summarises the whole teaching of the Church and demonstrates a hierarchy descending from heaven, giving us all graces because the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass continues the Cross of Our Lord among us. I think that in spite of this, it would be quite useful if I give you some guidelines about what is happening in the Church in our day. It would be necessary, to really understand things, to go back to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, to the time of Humanism and Renaissance. Then to look at the time of the Protestant Reformation, then to go forward to see the time of liberalism, extending its kingdom everywhere, in the spirits, in society - and, going on, to see the revolution of Marxism and the disaster it has brought to the world.

The Church after 1945

But I want to begin with and have a look at the conditions of the Church after World War II. There was an enormous destruction, not only materially, but also morally, in this war. After the war there was a tremendous reconstruction but more so, an exterior reconstruction. We find ourselves under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII and it seems that things are in good shape. The Church is flourishing and there are a lot of conversions, especially in Protestant countries. But it must be said that in other countries, there is a certain stagnation in the frequency of the offices. The number of vocations are falling and there are lapses in the clergy: priests and even bishops are troubled and do not know what direction to take. They do not know how to react to the problems of the world, which is more and more involved in an enormous progress, in technology and natural sciences. What should have been the true solution amidst such problems, in such a situation? It should have consisted of making an enormous and very urgent appeal to the Catholics, to the faithful, to the clergy, to rediscover the sources of sanctity, to refuel the institutions Our Blessed Lord had established in His spilt Blood, to give them new life. These wonderful institutions: the family, Catholic marriage, Catholic schools, the Catholic state, monasteries, seminaries, the Catholic priesthood. To strengthen the apostolic spirit in the souls and eventually find out if the mass media could not be utilized in spreading the kingdom of Our Lord, in announcing His gospel.

Yet, the authorities in the Church have very often taken the opposite way. They began to

question their whole mission and their own identity. They had a manner of self-criticism, of questioning themselves. They doubted the divine structure and essence of the Church and they said that in the midst of a completely secularised world, the Church cannot just maintain its position. The Church also must change.

Prophets of gloom

A characteristic of this attitude are the words of Hans Urs van Balthasar, a former Jesuit Father, from Switzerland, who died last year. He said in the beginning of the 1950’s, that "The Catholic bastions must be dismantled." What are these Catholic bastions? They are: the social bodies in the Catholic culture, a whole Catholic civilization. They comprise the family, marriage, especially the system of Catholic education and the Catholic state. "These bastions", he says, "must be dismantled". That means they must be destroyed. Cardinal Ratzinger in his book, ‘Theological Principles’ edited in 1982, in Rome, refers to this word of Urs van Balthasar saying that in fact it was "a duty to dismantle the Catholic bastions". The modern exegesis became more and more inspired especially by Bultman, the Protestant theologian, a complete rationalist and scepticist, who rejects whole parts of the holy gospel. His influence reached the minds of the priests, especially the future priests, the candidates, in the seminaries. Karl Rahner, the German Jesuit, began to speak about the anonymous Christian, saying that everybody is Christian and many understand by this, that everybody is therefore, more or less, automatically saved.

A Reform of the Church

They began to speak about the reform of the Church but did not mean by this, the reform of the hearts and the spirits, a true interior conversion; but they meant by this, the changes in the structure of the Church, laid down by Our Divine Saviour and Founder - so, a true revolution. Pope John XXIII then gave the word of order with his ‘Aggiornamento’. "We must update the Church", he says, "to the new living conditions in the modern world, making us acceptable to modern man." And you know who this modern man is? He is an atheistic man. He is a man that does not accept any authority, any law; he wants to be free; he is a selfish man, a man who is living by sensuality, not by faith, not by his spiritual capacities and faculties. He is a materialistic man. But the Pope thought that the Church simply needs to be at the service of this modern man and he said that there exist prophets of gloom and that he does not agree with them. We must take a much more positive, optimistic standpoint.

Opening Speech of Vatican II

Let me just read what he said in his homily at the opening of the Council, on October 11th, 1962: "In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty. We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand."

Two Modern Errors

He says, "We must disagree with those prophets of gloom". It is clear that this time before the Council and during the Council itself was characterised by two enormous errors, which had been already indicated and denounced by Donoso Cortes, the Spanish philosopher in the last century. He said: "There is one error concerning God and one error concerning man". One error concerning God: God is not absolute! It is the rejection of His Sovereignty, of His Majesty, of His unchangeable substance, of His presence in the world and of His appearance in human history, in the life of the individuals and people. They see God much more in the light of the deistic philosophers, who say that God created the world but that then He retired and is sitting behind the clouds, behind the sky, doing nothing about the world, leaving the world to itself. The second error, concerning man, is as dangerous as the first. It says that man is born without original sin, ‘immaculate’; that our souls have not been wounded, not spoiled by

evil, not touched by it, that we are all good, and so, man does not need redemption. He just needs, perhaps, some education. But it means that man does not need the Cross of Our Lord, that the character of expiation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is quite fruitless and is not needed. It means that man does need penance, does not need to deny himself, to practice mortification, to die to the old Adam in him; that the grace of God is not necessary. So these people arrive at the axiom of Rousseau, saying that we just have to return to ‘pure nature’ and all problems will be resolved and everything will be grand. This means, now, in education that there is no principle of authority; that there can be no punishment; that, the task, the mission, the duty of a teacher and of an educator is merely to develop the good ground in the children and not to restrain bad tendencies and passions because they do not exist. This means in human society that we have to orientate ourselves towards a mission of passivism, believing enemies do not exist, that there is no evil in the world, simply some political, diplomatic, psychological misunderstandings which can be resolved with patience. This means that, generally, people dream about an unlimited progress by technique, by natural sciences, by psychological and other human sciences. They dream about unlimited salvation for everybody. They dream about paradise on this earth.

Vatican II

In the midst of this general situation, of this illusion, was born the Second Vatican   Council, which I will describe as the biggest disaster of this century, if not of the whole history of the Church; and at its very beginning, it certainly committed three enormous sins. The first sin is that the Council has not really defined any Catholic truth, while at the same time not rejecting the opposite errors. The second sin of this Council was that it has adopted ambiguous notions, ambiguous statements or sentences which are absolutely contrary to one another. I will give you examples of this, later on. The third mortal sin of this Council was that it has established some doctrines which are very close to heresy. Now let me show you, taking five decrees of this Council, how these accusations can be verified within the texts themselves. We will have a look at the Decree about ecumenism, ‘Unitatis Redintegratio’; about the Church itself, ‘Lumen Gentium’; about non-Christian religions, ‘Nostra Aetate’; about religious liberty, ‘Dignitatis Humanae’; and about the Church in the modern world, ‘Gaudium et Spes’. My dear friends, I am very well aware that this conference will ask of you a great spiritual and intellectual effort, in order to follow the different developments but I think it is necessary to expose the roots of these errors, which have led to all the abuses and the decline after the Council and to the whole destruction of the Church.

1 - Decree on Ecumenism: ‘Unitatis Redintegratio’

So let us first take a look at the Decree on Ecumenism. For every Catholic, it is clear that

there is an inseparable union between God, Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. In fact, the Father sent His Son, who took a human nature for the work of Redemption, and this Son, this incarnate God, founded a visible Church, of which He Himself is the Head. He created one Church and since Our Lord is absolute and unique, since He is really God, the only true God, there is also only one Church, which is absolute and unique, as her Founder and Master is. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all", says St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians (4:5). This Church is the sign among the nations; she is the temple of the living God; she is the spouse of the slaughtered Lamb, the new Jerusalem which has descended to this earth. The Church is truly the Emmanuel, that is to say, God among us, God with us, the divine nature amidst the human nature. She is really the Mystical Body of Our Lord and so, she is a divine institution, since Our Lord is God and so all He says and does is divine and all that He has founded is established as a divine foundation. Thus, the Church is assisted by God in her life, in her teaching, in her worship, in her government and she has not the mission to involve herself with other religions for a better social world, for progress on this earth, for better culture or whatsoever. The mission of the Church is described by the words of Our Lord just before His Ascension: "Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature, to all nations, make every man a disciple, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and baptize them. He that believeth shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mt. 28: 19-20, Mk 15-16) The Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council gives us a very different understanding of the Church, of her divine mission and of her relations with the other religions. First of all it speaks of different Churches. My dear friends, that is already an expression which is very close to heresy. It is clear that already before the Council, the idea of different churches existed. But what was meant by this expression? It meant the different local churches around the bishop and his clergy: viz. the church of Paris, or the church of Dublin, or the church of Westminster, or the church of Cologne, or the church of Rome: the bishop with his clergy, surrounded by his flock. But this notion ‘Churches’ in the plural, was never used and applied to other denominations. The Second Vatican Council endorses the new meaning of this expression saying: "It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (No. 3)

No salvation outside the Church

Ladies and Gentleman, it is clear that followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions. That is to say, if they are in invincible error. If they are trying to the best of their abilities, God will give them actual graces and if they are faithful to these graces and work with these graces, God will finally give them sanctifying grace and so, they might be saved. But they are always saved as individuals. Although they are saved in the other religions, they are never saved by the other religions. It is not possible that errors should lead to the kingdom of truth. It is not possible that God, having descended to this earth, having become incarnate and having appeared among us, having founded one Church which continues Himself, which represents Himself, which is His Church, His spouse, that anybody can be saved by false religions not founded by Him. Because He says about Himself: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. Nobody comes to the Father but by Me." This applies also to His Church. These false religions were not founded by Him but rather by men and very often have been inspired by the devil. So, if one can be saved eventually as a member of another religion, or in another religion he will always be saved by the Catholic Church, by the Cross of Our Lord, by His sacrifice and by His prayers. So, he is not saved by other religion but in spite of the other religion. So, this statement that the Holy Ghost has used these other religions and denominations as a ‘means of salvation’ is almost heretical and I think it is one of the worst statements from the Council, absolutely contrary to the teaching of the Church to the present day. It is absolutely contrary to what was previously taught, to what the Holy Scripture says, to what the Fathers of the Church, the theologians, the Councils and the Popes have always said. Absolutely contrary.

Ecumenical Practices

Once it is established that these other religions also have a significance, an importance towards salvation, it is clear that Catholics are then invited to work together with these other religions, to collaborate with them, to eventually pray together with their members. This is exactly what the Council says: "They (the faithful and followers of other denominations) also come together for common prayer where this is permitted." (No. 4) A little further on it says: "In certain special circumstances, such as in prayer services ‘for unity’ and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which even now bind Catholics to their separated brethren." (No.8) What must we say about those prayers? First of all it is clear that the prayers of members of other religions can be agreeable to God, according to their interior disposition. But it is sure that the prayers of other religions, as other religions, are never agreeable to God. It is not possible because there is only one Mediator. Our Lord is "semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis": He is always living and pleading the cause of His Church and His elects, says St. Paul. (Heb. 7:25) So, the prayers of these other religions, as religions, are fruitless. They have no efficacy and so, it is harmful to the fruitful to join these other religions in common prayer services. It is harmful because, there, the prayer is useless and this brings a lot of confusion and in practice, an enormous number of abuses will flow forth from this custom; it means finally to put all religions on the same level. It is very common nowadays to see Catholics go to receive the Protestant meal and to see the Protestants come to receive the Catholic Communion. It is common to hear of intercelebrations, during which the Catholic priest pronounces the words of the Consecration over the bread and the Protestant pastor over the wine. Things like this are the final result of these texts of the Council.

Who is to blame?

It is very astonishing to see the Council putting the blame, for the separation, for the divisions among Christians, only on Catholic shoulders. It is very clear, my dear friends, that Catholics do not always live according to the commandments of God, that they do not always live according to their baptismal promises, that they are not always living according to the Creed they profess. But it is wrong to blame them for the divisions and the separations. In fact, the fault is on the side of those who have separated themselves from the See of Peter, from the sacrifice of our altars, from the Catholic priesthood. This is a very important point. These people are always confusing the objective and the subjective order; confusing the other religion or religions with the individual members; the knowledge of the truth (Catholic Dogma) with the realisation of this truth (morality and discipline). They say that in other religions you find very kind people engaged in social work, very friendly and smiling. Well, that might be. What follows from this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It is also true that in the Catholic Church, you find Catholics who are not taking very seriously their belief and do not appreciate it as they should. What flows forth from this? That they are bad Catholics. That is all. No aspersion on the Catholic faith or on the Catholic Church. Absolutely none. Now, I will give you an example showing that there are statements and phrases, in the Council documents, which are quite contrary to one another. Here are two statements which follow one another: 1) "The manner and order in which Catholic belief is expressed, should in no way become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren." 2) "It is, of course, essential that doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety." (No. 11) If we take the first sentence, it removes all obstacles for any dialogue. What are these obstacles for dialogue? All that Protestants reject. What do they reject? The priestly character, the supremacy of Peter, the sacrificial character of the Mass, transubstantiation, the intercession of the saints, the dogmas about the Blessed Virgin Mary, purgatory, etc. So, if you want to dialogue with them, you must remove these obstacles, the Council says, you must be silent about them. We have to consider them as secondary truths which are not so important and eventually they can simply be omitted. The next sentence says: "It is, of course, essential that doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety". So, who is right? If, after the Council, a progressist reads this Council text he will say: "Well, you have it here, the Council itself says that we have to be silent about things which are embarrassing for dialogue". If a conservative man reads the text he will say: "No, the whole doctrine has to be expressed". Who is right? Both of them. Both can refer to the Council. So, you see how divisions and misunderstandings and a lot of embarrassment are already pre-programmed by these texts of the Council.

2 - Decree on the Church: ‘Lumen Gentium’

In this context, let us look at another decree of the Council, the decree ‘Lumen  Gentium’, about the Church itself. There is one word in this text which is, perhaps, the most harmful word in the whole Council. In the Latin text, it is: "Ecclesia Dei subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica" (No. 8), this means ‘the Church of God subsists’ or takes its concrete form, is realised ‘in the Catholic Church’. You will say: "That’s quite right, that’s absolutely true". But that is far from the whole truth. The whole truth is much more. The whole truth is: ‘Ecclesia Dei est Ecclesia Catholica - the Church of God is the Catholic Church’. If you say that the Church of God subsists in the Catholic Church, you mean that there are two entities: the Church of God and the Catholic Church and it is quite by chance that these two entities come together. The Church of God subsists, is realised, takes its concrete form today, under the present conditions, in the Catholic Church. Perhaps in future times it could be otherwise and in fact it could also be that the Church of God is shared between different religions, nobody having the full truth but only some elements of truth. The Council itself already gives this idea. Here is the exact text: ‘This Church, constituted and organised in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor, although many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside of her visible structure." (No.8) So, it is already very clear that there is a relativisation of the truth and of the Church in its very essence. St. Paul says that the people will lose the love for the truth and for that reason God will send them spirits of error by which they will be deceived (2 Thess. 2:10). This is exactly what is happening in our days. We are seeing, my dear friends, a spiritual punishment from God, a blindness of spirit as well as a hardening of hearts, especially among the leaders of the Church and the leaders of human society.

3 - Decree on Non-Christian religions: ‘Nostra Aetate’

Let us now look at non-Christian religions, which is the third decree I want to discuss with you. It is clear that these non-Christian religions have a number of natural truths. For example, to respect older people, to help those who are in misery, to be wise in your behaviour, prudent in your actions, etc. It is also clear that those religions have sometimes elements, although much hidden, which are remnants of the primitive revelation of God to Adam and Eve. Thirdly it is clear that sometimes these religions have taken elements from the Catholic Church. For example, Islam which confesses one, unique God, takes this belief from the Christian religion. But on the other hand, we must say that these non-Christian religions not only do not lead to salvation but, very often, are obstacles to finding the truth, systems of resistance to the Holy Ghost. Very often, they have such a hold on their followers, on their members, that they hinder them to leave. Take for example a Moslem. It is very difficult to convert him. He is completely held by his system, by his surroundings, by his clan, by his Islamic state. It is much easier to convert a pagan in the bush. So, these other religions not only do not lead to salvation, but very often are systems by which the father of lies holds the souls in error, far away from Jesus Christ.