Ratzinger’s Subsistent Error — Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn — www.traditionalmass.org A Critical Analysis of the “Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. ON JULY 10TH, 2007, only three days after the publication of the long-awaited Motu Proprio which liberalized the use of the John XXIII Mass, the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” (CDF), the Vatican II replacement for the Holy Office, issued a document in question and answer form purporting to “clarify” the Vatican II doctrine concerning the nature of the Church of Christ. The nature of the questions make clear the import of the document: it is to answer critics not from the left but from the right, who are saying that the ecclesiology — the doctrine con- cerning the Church — of Vatican II contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church. To my knowledge, the only quarters from which this criticism has come is from our own camp, namely that of the sedevacantists. I have never read in any of the literature of the Soci- ety of Saint Pius X any objection at all to this novelty (as the CDF itself, surprisingly, refers to it in this document). I know of no objection to it even from the most conservative regions of the Novus Ordo. The appearance of this document is, therefore, rather curious. After more than forty years of Vatican II, is it now necessary to defend this council from the accusation of heresy? For the first question in this list of five questions is really asking the question if Vatican II is heretical or not. As we shall see, this document is nothing more than the parade of Ratzinger in heretical nakedness, while the crowds of Novus Ordo conservatives and now many traditionalists hail him for his new suit of orthodox clothes. The CDF document is a mere repetition of the Frankenchurch heresy, which holds that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are not absolutely the same thing, excluding any other entity outside of itself. Instead the heresy perceives the Church of Christ to be an entity composed of many elements, many “particular churches” and “ecclesial communities” which are partially the Church of Christ, and of the Catholic Church, which is fully the Church of Christ. So this heresy has been correctly called the Frankenchurch heresy, since it makes one think of the horrid creature which was manufactured by Dr. Frankenstein, in which body parts from many and varied cadavers were sewn together to produce what looked like a man. Life came into this monster by lifting it to the sky in the midst of a thunderstorm, where the light- ning bolts repeatedly hit the electrodes which were inserted into the monster’s neck. The mon- ster then got loose and terrified the peasants. The analogy, while humorous, is very demon- strative of what Ratzinger and fellow Modernists have done to the doctrine concerning the nature of the Church of Christ. The text of the CDF document is in italic. My commentary follows. — 1 — Introduction to the Questions clusions go far beyond the limits to the heresy de- sired by the Modernists in charge, “clarifications” CDF Text: The Second Vatican Council, with its were issued. These “clarifications” merely pre- Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, and its De- sented again the same, tired Vatican II Frank- crees on ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the enchurch heresy, but forbade the logical conclu- Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has sions which flow therefrom. The three documents contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic referred to in this paragraph all propose and ex- ecclesiology. plain the Frankenchurch heresy, especially the 1992 Communionis notio, which was Ratzinger’s brain- Commentary: “Renewal” is the classic word child. In other words, these documents were a call which Modernists have used for over one hun- for “unity in one heresy.” dred years in order to indicate their destruction of the traditional dogma under the guise of ambigu- CDF Text: The vastness of the subject matter and the ous and high-sounding language. All of the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to documents which he refers to fit into this very provoke theological reflection. Among the many new category. contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to CDF Text: The Supreme Pontiffs have also contrib- confusion and doubt. A number of these interpreta- uted to this renewal by offering their own insights and tions have been referred to the attention of the Congre- orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter gation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the univer- Ecclesiam Suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyc- sality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congre- lical Letter Ut unum sint (1995). gation wishes to respond to these questions by clarify- ing the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological ex- Commentary: Paul VI’s Ecclesiam suam encyclical pressions used by the Magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate. was essentially a blueprint for the destruction of the Catholic Church through the practice of ecu- menism and “dialogue” with non-Catholics. Its Commentary: “Novelty of the themes involved” message to Catholics, still living at that time in is a euphemism for heresy. Nowhere in the his- relative peace and stability, was that major tory of the Church has any Pope, council, or changes were about to come down the path, and theologian spoken about the Church of Christ as that all had to be obedient to them. John Paul II’s “subsisting in” the Catholic Church, or of “ele- Ut unum sint is an overtly heretical document ments of the Church of Christ” being present in which denies the unity of the Catholic Church, non-Catholic sects. It appears that the term “new repeats the Vatican II Frankenchurch heresy, and interpretations” refers to criticism from the tradi- gives instructions and rules as to how to destroy tionalists that Vatican II substantially altered the further the Catholic Church through the poison of teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the ecumenism. Church. For the questions which follow are clearly for the purpose of responding to this accu- CDF Text: The consequent duty of theologians to ex- sation — they are not addressed to the left, but to pound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of eccle- the right, to those who are saying that Vatican II siology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this has departed from the traditional teaching. field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times re- 1. A Change in Doctrine? quired clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance, in the declaration “Mysterium CDF Text: First Question: Did the Second Vatican Ecclesiae” (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church? of the Catholic Church “Communionis notio” (1992), and the declaration “Dominus Iesus” (2000), all pub- Commentary: This question is devastating. Since lished by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the the doctrine concerning the Church is dogmatic, Faith. and not merely a matter of theological opinion, the question really is: “Is Vatican II a heretical coun- Commentary: “Theologians” — read heretics — cil?” Never before in the history of the Church has have taken the heretical principles of Vatican II to such a question been officially proposed or an- their logical conclusions. But because such con- swered. Vatican II closed in 1965. So forty-two — 2 — years later, nearly half a century, the Vatican is dicative that at face value its teaching is contra- defending the orthodoxy of Vatican II. The lapse dictory to the teaching of the Catholic Church. of time is very significant, for it attests to the fact When did any pope make such a statement in the that, far from being quietly accepted, Vatican II is past about a Council document? coming under greater scrutiny, and is apparently It was this very “papal” seal of approval upon comparing unfavorably with what went before it. heresy which was the grease upon which the One would have expected this reaction immedi- whole Council slid into place. It silenced what- ately during or after the Council, but its appear- ever critics there were, branding them as being ance after a near half-century is indicative of the “anti-papal,” and cleared the way for the doubtful souring of a once fresh and fragrant exuberance to give their wholehearted assent to these hereti- about the Council in the 1960’s. The thought that cal acts. It gave birth to the whole conservative a general Council would have contradicted the Novus Ordo movement, whose motto is “Nothing teaching of the Church was unthinkable in the has changed.” These people, for example the edito- 1960’s. But as time wore on, and the devastating rial staff of the The Wanderer, have lived in a effects of the Council can be seen by all, it be- dream world for these forty-two years, believing comes now necessary to defend its orthodoxy. that nothing has changed since the Council, but that everything bad must be assigned to mere in- CDF Text: Response: The Second Vatican Council correct interpretation. Its the emperor’s new neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, clothes. rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained Paul VI did a similar thing with regard to the it. This was exactly what John XXIII said at the begin- document on religious liberty, to quell accusa- ning of the Council.