Lumen Gentium Annotated an examination of the hundreds of errors contained in this momentous document which turned the tide of the modernist revolution in the Catholic Church By the editors of Quanta Cura Press ©TM This book is dedicated to St. Thomas Aquinas, who is the Common Doctor of the Catholic Church, and whose writings are the vaccine (as well as antidote) against the pandemic modernism which has infected the Church, including Her hierarchy at the highest levels. ii “[C]ertain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in [the modernists] with hatred of scholasticism [i.e ., the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas], and there is no surer sign that a man is on the way to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for [the scholastic] system .” Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis , 1907, ¶42 (emphasis added) . “Thomas refutes the theories propounded by Modernists in every sphere …. Modernists are so amply justified in fearing no Doctor of the Church so much as Thomas Aquinas.” Pope Pius XI, Studiorum Ducem , ¶27. Quanta Cura Press ©TM grants to the public a non-exclusive license to disseminate this book for the greater honor and glory of God, provided that it is disseminated exactly “as is”, and free of charge. Cover art: © 2013 Pascendi Photo Services ©TM , a division of Quanta Cura Press ©TM No claim to original works quoted in this book. © 2013 Quanta Cura Press ©TM ([email protected]) Available at: scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free) & Amazon.com (sold at cost) iii Preface The Purpose of this Book Pope Benedict XVI stated that there were two ways to interpret the teachings of Vatican II. In his Christmas Address to the Roman Curia, on December 22, 2005, the pope asked: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult? Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or – as we would say today – on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarreled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit. On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform’, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. Pope Benedict XVI asserts that the correct “hermeneutic” is one of reform and continuity with the teachings of the Church before Vatican II. © 2013 Quanta Cura Press ©TM ([email protected]) Available at: scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free) & Amazon.com (sold at cost) iv The modest goal of the annotations which compose this book, is simply to place side-by-side the teachings of Lumen Gentium , with the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church starting from the time of the apostles. Then, the reader can judge for himself whether Lumen Gentium is a rupture with the Catholic Church’s traditional teachings, or not. A Preliminary Objection to the Purpose of this Book However, before beginning this comparison, let us consider a superficial a priori argument: viz ., that Vatican II’s teachings are infallible and therefore, that it cannot teach anything which is opposed to the truths of the Catholic Faith, however much Lumen Gentium ’s teachings might appear to be the opposite. According to this argument, no (apparent) opposition between Lumen Gentium and the Catholic Church’s traditional teachings should ever weaken our resolve to simply and continually insist that Lumen Gentium must be consistent with the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, no matter how great an opposition appears. Examination of an Argument Based on Lumen Gentium ’s Designation as a ‘Dogmatic Constitution’ A person might be led to this (errant) view because the council labeled Lumen Gentium as a (so-called) “dogmatic constitution”. Does this label mean that this document infallibly defines dogma? In other words, is any part of this © 2013 Quanta Cura Press ©TM ([email protected]) Available at: scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free) & Amazon.com (sold at cost) v “dogmatic constitution” infallible by the very fact of the council teaching it? Or, on the other hand, does the label “dogmatic constitution” refer to something else, such as the fact that it discusses certain particular dogmatic subjects, although the document itself does not infallibly define any dogma? A prominent Protestant observer at Vatican II, Dr. Robert McAfee Brown, gave his eye-witness impression regarding the labels which the council placed on its documents: In those early days of the Council there was much discussion about the relative degree of binding authority between, say, a ‘constitution’ and a ‘decree.’ It seemed fairly clear that a ‘constitution’ was of higher authority, and it would be a wise rule of interpretation to say that the ‘constitution’ On the Church , for example, was the context in which to understand the ‘decree’ On Ecumenism , rather than vice versa. As it actually worked out, however, there seemed little reason by the end of the Council why The Church in the World Today should be a ‘constitution’ (albeit a ‘pastoral constitution’) while the document on Missionary Activity should be a ‘decree’ or the statement on Religious Freedom a ‘declaration’. Robert McAfee Brown, Ecumenical Revolution , Doubleday, Garden City, 1967 (2nd ed., 1969), p.176 (emphasis in original). Our own research supports McAfee Brown, viz ., that there was not, and still is not, any authoritative clarity or any consistent and comprehensive rationale regarding the © 2013 Quanta Cura Press ©TM ([email protected]) Available at: scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free) & Amazon.com (sold at cost) vi respective weight of the documents, based on their designated labels (“constitution”, “decree” or “declaration”). This lack of clarity is exemplified in Pope Paul VI himself calling the Declaration on Religious Liberty “one of the greatest documents of the Council” even though it has what seems to be the lower status of “declaration”. http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Dignitatis-Humanae,-the- dignity-of-man-in-the-encounter-between-Truth-and- conscience-26172.html. This uncertainty fits with the revolutionary character of the council (and of the conciliar church since then), viz ., that just like in other revolutions, much that occurs is unclear and in flux. However, for purposes of addressing the objection that Lumen Gentium is in itself infallible, it is not necessary to determine exactly what authority a conciliar document has based on it being designated as a “dogmatic constitution”, as long as the contents of such a document are not thereby made infallible, i.e ., infallible by the very fact that the council teaches them in a document called a “dogmatic constitution”. Examination of Other Arguments That Lumen Gentium is Infallible Because there is no reason to think that Lumen Gentium is infallible because of its designation as a “dogmatic constitution”, we will next examine other arguments regarding whether any statements of Lumen Gentium are infallible in themselves, i.e ., solely from the very fact that the council teaches them. If Lumen Gentium is not in itself infallible, then it cannot be vain (or wrong) to entertain the possibility that its contents might contradict the Catholic Church’s traditional teachings. © 2013 Quanta Cura Press ©TM ([email protected]) Available at: scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free) & Amazon.com (sold at cost) vii How we Plan to Proceed in this Inquiry Whether Lumen Gentium is in itself Infall ible We propose to proceed by giving two arguments, based on two different types of evidence, in order to determine whether any teaching of the council is infallible in itself. In the first argument, we will examine whether it is possible for Vatican II to teach infallibly if (or to the extent that) its teachings are new. This argument will have three parts: 1. Whether new doctrine can be taught infallibly; 2. Whether Vatican II’s teachings are new; and 3. The conclusion (of this first argument). In the second argument , we will look at the declarations of the popes during and after the council, as well as those bishops whose opinions we could find, to see whether they consider any teachings of Vatican II to be infallible in themselves, i.e ., from the very fact that the council teaches them. © 2013 Quanta Cura Press ©TM ([email protected]) Available at: scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free) & Amazon.com (sold at cost) viii First Argument -- Whether it is Possible for Vatican II to Teach Infallibly if (or to the Extent that) its Teachings are New Part 1 : Whether new doctrine can be taught infallibly The First Vatican Council infallibly teaches that new teachings are not the proper subject matter for the guidance of the Holy Ghost: For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine , but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles . Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus , Sess. 4, ch.4, #6 (emphasis added). The Council of Trent Catechism teaches: The Catholic Church’s “doctrines are neither novel nor of recent origin , but were delivered, of old, by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the world. Hence, no one can, for a moment, doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed, as they are, to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very © 2013 Quanta Cura Press ©TM ([email protected]) Available at: scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free) & Amazon.com (sold at cost) ix different from the faith of the true Church .