Beware of Sedevacantists
by Robert Sungenis
Peter Dimond writes:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
We have posted on our website our most recent newsletter (#5) dealing with the important topic of the whether or not Antipope Paul VI actually bound his subjects to Vatican II. Click on this link to go directly to the newsletter.
Was Vatican II infallible?
Many will be surprised - and perhaps startled - by the facts that this newsletter contains. For example, it is almost universally unknown by so-called "traditional Catholics" that each decree of Vatican II begins with these words:
"PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY."
This is the way in which dogmatic decrees at the true ecumenical councils were begun by the true Popes. The newsletter gives numerous examples of this. Furthermore, it is also almost universally unknown by so-called "traditional Catholics" that each decree of Vatican II ends with these words:
"EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD'S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH."
The newsletter shows, point by point, that this language is without question infallible/dogmatic language. Consequently, these facts (in addition to others) blow the claim that Antipope Paul VI could have been a true Pope out of the water; for there is absolutely no way that a true Pope could promulgate the heretical documents of Vatican II in this solemn manner, which would definitely be infallible if he were the Pope.
R. Sungenis: One of the main problems with Bro. Dimond's reasoning is that he is using as his foundation his personal opinion that Vatican II contains explicit errors in matters of faith and morals. But obviously, if Bro. Dimond's opinions are fallible, then he cannot know for certain whether Vatican II's documents contain explicit errors. What appears to him as an error is conditioned on his own understanding of Catholic dogma, and, unfortunately, his biased state of mind as a sedevacantist. In fact, as we will see, the one example Bro. Dimond asserts as an error in a Vatican II document is in fact no error at all.
In assuming Vatican II does have explicit errors, Bro. Dimond's only recourse is to say that the Pope who approved its documents with solemn language deeming the council infallible, cannot be a pope of the Catholic Church. If Bro. Dimond could prove his argument that Vatican II contained errors, his conclucions about the pope would be correct, of course. But Bro. Dimond cannot prove his assertion because: (1) as noted above, Bro. Dimond is not infallible, and (2) only a person with authority (i.e., another pope) could declare Paul VI an antipope and have it canonically binding on the faithful.
Second, if indeed Paul VI was a legitimate pope, and thus Vatican Council II, by his own Petrine formula, is an infallible council, then this means that anyone interpreting Vatican II's documents must be careful not to allow his personal interpretation to contradict any previous dogmatic teaching by any prior pope or ecumenical council.
If at any point, Bro. Dimond's interpretation of Vatican II's documents posits that Vatican II contradicts previous dogmatic teaching, then Bro. Dimond is in error. Since Bro. Dimond's only option, after claiming that Vatican II's documents contradict previous dogmatic teaching, is to say that Paul VI was not a legitimate pope, and yet it must be recognized by all, and Bro. Dimond himself, that he has no ecclesiastical authority to nullify Paul VI's papacy, then Bro. Dimond's is limited to interpreting Vatican II in light of all previous dogmatic teaching.
The more viable option for Bro. Dimond is to accept Vatican II's teaching as Paul VI signed off on it, that is, as infallible, but to reject any interpretations of Vatican II which are at variance with previously established dogma. For example, if a bishop, cardinal or pope, in an unofficial and non-binding opinion, interpreted Vatican II as teaching something contrary to prevous dogmatic teaching, then the statement of the bishop, cardinal or pope has absolutely no authority. Unless the bishop, cardinal or pope makes an interpretation that possesses equally infallible authority as the council from which the interpretation is purported to orginate (i.e., Vatican Council II), then the interpretation can be disregarded and deemed as an error.
Since it is certainly possible for a pope to be in error when he speaks or acts outside of his domain of infallibility, then the possibility of error must always be open, whereas such a possibility would not be open for Vatican Council II, since, as Bro. Dimond argues, it was signed with the papal formula of infallibility. Since outside of his domain of infallibility error is a possibility even for the pope, it is certainly possibile for a cardinal or bishop to be in error, since they have no recourse to infallibility, except when they are in unison with the pope on a matter of faith or morals.
Peter Dimond: In addition, the newsletter refutes the common objections made by those groups such as the SSPX, which are:1) John XXIII said that Vatican II would only be a pastoral council
R. Sungenis: It is agreed that whatever John XXIII conceived Vatican II to be, it is inconsequential in light of what Paul VI decreed it was.
Peter Dimond:2) Paul VI's statement in 1966 concerning Vatican II's "infallibility" proves that he did not bind anyone to its decrees.
R. Sungenis: Bro. Dimond is quite correct here. The conclusion that Paul VI did not bind anyone to Vatican II's decrees is, of course, wrong. It would be an exercie in futility to issue conciliar teachings and yet hold no one accountable to them. Be that as it may, Paul VI's 1966 remark, which stated that there were "no extraordinary statements with a note of infallibility" within Vatican II's documents, means that there are no extraordinary dogmatic definitions in Vatican II's documents, opposite of what we find, for example, in the canons of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, which do contain extraordinary dogmatic definitions.
Rather, Vatican II, because it is infallibly decreed by the reigning pope to be affirming, and not contradicting, all previous Catholic dogmatic teaching, thus, all its teachings must be considered as infallible as all previous dogmatic teachings, regardless of whether Vatican II defined anything infallibly.
In effect, it must be accepted that Vatican II, because it was affirmed with the same infallible language as previous ecumenical councils, cannot be interpreted as going against any previous dogmatic teaching; and that if an interpretation is foisted upon Vatican II that is at variance with previous dogmatic teaching, then, ipso facto, that interpretation is in error.
Peter Dimond: 3) The theological note attached to the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium proves that Paul VI did not make Vatican II "infallible"
R. Sungenis: Considering all that we have said thus far, the nota praevia of Lumen Gentium is moot. The nota praevia stated: "In view of the conciliar practice and pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so." This is the same thing that Paul VI said about Vatican II, since his words "no extraordinary statements with the note of infallibility" means the same thing as the words he issued in the nota praevia concerning Vatican II documents, that is, "defines matters of faith and morals as binding...only when the Synod itself openly declares so." Both statements are concerned with DEFINITIONS of dogma.
However, as Bro. Dimond argues above, at no time did Vatican II NOT bind the faithful to every teaching of Vatican II, regardless of whether those teachings were "defined." Vatican II is binding on the faithful because Vatican II indicates that it is abiding by previous dogmatic teaching, as was affirmed by Paul VI.
Peter Dimond: All of these objections are refuted in the newsletter, proving that unless one takes the position that Antipope Paul VI was not the Pope, he must deny the dogma of Papal Infallibility and assert that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church at Vatican II or else accept all the heresies of Vatican II and deny the Catholic faith.
R. Sungenis: As we have seen above, Bro. Dimond's conclusion is in error, since the only thing necessary in order to preserve papal infallibility, the integrity of Vatican II, and the apostolic succession of the papacy, is to recognize that any INTERPRETATION of Vatican II, whether it comes from the personal opinion of a pope, a cardinal or a bishop, that is at variance with previously established dogma, is in error. Since it is well known that Vatican II, because it was written in essay form and somewhat verbosely, is prone to eliciting what appear to be ambiguous statements, it is quite likely that its documents could be misinterpreted.
Peter Dimond: St. Peter vs. Anti-PeterIn his encyclical Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX infallibly condemned the heretical doctrine of religious liberty (which had also been condemned by numerous other Popes). Pope Pius IX explicitly anathematized the heretical idea that religious liberty should be a civil right in every rightly constituted society. The Catholic Church teaches that a government which recognizes the right to religious liberty - like the USA - is, of course, preferable to one which suppresses Catholicism. Nevertheless, this situation is only the lesser of two evils. The ideal is a government which recognizes the Catholic religion as the only religion of the state and does not give every person the "freedom" to practice and propagate his/her false religion in the public domain. Therefore, the idea that religious liberty should be a universal civil right is heretical, as Pope Pius IX infallibly declared in Quanta Cura.
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#'s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:
"From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT 'LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN'S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY.' But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition. Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED."
But watch this! Whereas Pope Pius IX condemned, reprobated and proscribed (outlawed) this doctrine by his apostolic authority, Antipope Paul VI approves, decrees and establishes this very same doctrine by his "apostolic authority" at Vatican II! In other words, that which Pope Pius IX solemnly condemns by his apostolic authority, Antipope Paul VI solemnly teaches by his "apostolic authority"!
Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty: "PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY. This Vatican synod declares that the human person has the right to religious freedom. THIS RIGHT OF THE HUMAN PERSON TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SHOULD HAVE SUCH RECOGNITION IN THE REGULATION OF SOCIETY BY LAW AS TO BECOME A CIVIL RIGHT. Each and every one of the things set forth in this decree has won the consent of the Fathers. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God's glory. I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church."
Is it possible for Antipope Paul VI to possess the same "apostolic authority" as Pope Pius IX? Does the apostolic authority of Peter contradict itself? No way! It is heresy to say so! But those who assert that Antipope Paul VI was a true Pope must assert that the apostolic authority of Peter contradicts itself, and consequently, that the gates of hell have prevailed against Christ's Church. This is what the newsletter proves.
Most Holy Family Monastery
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com
R. Sungenis: This gives us an opportunity to show how easily Bro. Dimond can be mistaken.
Let's look at Quanta Cura and Vatican II side by side.
Quanta Cura condemned the following:
"Namely, that liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society."
Vatican II asserted the following:
"This Vatican synod declares that the human person has the right to religious freedom. This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society by law as to become a civil right.
First, Quanta Cura speaks about liberty of "conscience" and "worship," whereas Vatican II speaks about "religious freedom." As we shall see, these are different things. If Vatican II had said: "This Vatican synod declares that liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right..." then obviously, this would be in direct contradiction to Quanta Cura, but it did not.
The truth is that Quanta Cura is condemning the notion that an individual has the right, morally speaking, to form his own conscience any way he desires, without recourse to natural law or Church teaching, or has the right, morally speaking, to worship any god he chooses; and that because of the so-called moral right, it should also be a civil right.
Vatican II, on the other hand, is not concerned with the moral issues of "conscience" and "worship" but with the civil issue of "religious freedom," a term specifically chosen to differentiate civil rights from moral rights. This can be gleaned very quickly from the negative judgment Vatican II’s documents cast upon any coercion by civil government to foster a religion of its own choosing on its people. Vatican II says that such governmental intrusion is unlawful and against divine mandate.
For example, Dignitatas Humanae states: "We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church..." (Flannery translation, p. 799, #1), thus affirming with all other councils that the Catholic Church is the only true Church. Any interpretation of this statement which claims that Vatican II taught that the Catholic Church is not the one true church, is in error.
Following this statement, Dignitatas Humanae states: "So while the religious freedom which men demand in fulfilling their obligation to worship Godhas to do with freedom from coercion in civil society, it leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and soceities towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ" (Flannery, p. 800, #1).
Notice first that Dignitatas Humanae specifies that "religious freedom" only regards "freedom from coercion in civil society," and thus it is speaking only of a civil matter, not of a moral matter, as I stated earlier. This is important, since if an earthly government tried to force the Catholic Church to worship another god other than the true God, such action is outside their civil jurisdiction as mandated by God's laws for civil governments, and the Catholic Church would have every right to refuse them.
Notice also that the above section of Dignitatis Humanae is careful to distinguish its decree on the civil right of religious freedom from the moral issue concerning the responsibility of individual men to worship the one, true God found in the Catholic Church. In other words, Vatian II rightly holds that its decree on religious freedom, properly interpreted, in no way conflicts with Pius IX's teaching in Quanta Cura regarding the moral obligation of correct conscience and worship.
Vatican II reinforces its meaning as referring only to the civil matter of non-coercion in the second section. It states: "The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others" (Flannery, p. 800, #2).
Again, it is clear that Vatican II is denouncing civil (i.e., governmental) coercion, not the moral obligation, taught perpetually by the Catholic Church since its inception, to worship the true God. This only makes sense, since the Catholic Church would surely not want any person to be coerced by the civil government into worshiping a false god, for that would be mortally sinful, but, by the same token, the Catholic Church would desire all men to choose, with religious freedom, the true God as He appears within the confines of the Catholic Church.
Granted, Vatican II is somewhat open and ambiguous in its choice of words, and these words can be easily misunderstood and misinterpreted, not only by modernists to the far left, but also sedevacantists to the far right, and, unfortunately, even by people in the middle of the two extremes.
In the end, however, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming that Vatican II is in error. Considering the difficulties of language, and the serious issues raised when one accuses an ecumenical council of explicit error or claims that a pope is illegitimate, it is indeed a very big burden, and one that Bro. Dimond is ill-equipped to carry.
If Bro. Dimond wants to complain about all the misinterpretations of Vatican II made by various popes, cardinals and bishops subsequent to the council, not many of good wisdom will argue with him. John Paul II's kissing of the Koran or his Interreligious Prayer meetings, for example, were never sanctioned by any document of Vatican II. John Paul II, when he is ouside his domain of infallibility, is quite fallible, and indeed could lead people astray, as do many of the cardinals he has appointed. But this does not make John Paul II an "antipope." A pope can only be formally and officially declared a heretic or an antipope by a reigning pope, or a council approved by the reigning pope, not by a "brother," or a priest or bishop or any other person who has no such authority.
Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics International
April 16, 2003
Catholic Apologetics International