The 1989 Profession of Faith:
More Errors and Dishonesty from the SSPX
John F.
Salza, Esq.
April A.D. 2023
For the average Catholic
who reads the material of the Society of St. Pius X, it is often very difficult
to discern the Society’s many theological errors. This is because one error is
generally based upon another error, or multiple errors, resulting in a tangled
web of interdependent errors that can only be untangled by systematically
addressing each error, one at a time (not to mention having the theological
knowledge to do so). We see how complex this web of errors can be, by just
looking at the Society’s treatment of the Church’s Profession of Faith,
promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1989.
The Profession of Faith
contains the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed followed by three propositions
which describe the truths of the Catholic Faith: (1) we believe with divine and
Catholic faith the truths which the Church proposes as divinely revealed; (2) we
firmly accept and hold (also with divine faith) everything definitively
proposed by the Church on faith and morals; (3) we adhere with submission of
intellect and will (not divine faith) to the teachings of the authentic
Magisterium, even if not proclaimed by definitive act.
Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the 1989 Profession of Faith, and hence the Society he founded continues to do so to this day (after all, Lefebvre is the Society’s practical rule of faith). In its rejection of the Catholic Church’s Profession of Faith, Lefebvre and the Society make, inter alia, the following interrelated errors, creating that proverbial tangled web:
· The SSPX claims that all of the teachings of Vatican II fall into at least the third category of truths, but the Church has said no such thing. In fact, Church has not even said whether “ecumenism,” or “interreligious dialogue” or statements on “non-Christian religions,” for example, constitute a “teaching” or “doctrine” on “faith or morals” at all, which is required for category 3 truths.
· The SSPX claims that all of the teachings of Vatican II are binding upon Catholics, but the Church has said no such thing. In fact, Abp. Pozzo (the Vatican point-man for the SSPX), among others, said certain conciliar documents contain statements which are not binding on Catholics, such as Nostra Aetate, Unitatis Redintegratio and Dignitatis Humanae.
· The SSPX interprets certain statements of Vatican II to be erroneous (and assumes they are “teachings”), when the Church has either not given a definitive interpretation of the statement, or has rejected the SSPX’s interpretation as being the correct interpretation (e.g., the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued multiple clarifications on Lumen Gentium’s subsistit which rejects the Society’s interpretation that subsistit means the Church of Christ may be present in other Christian churches).
· The SSPX concedes that the third category of truths (teachings of the authentic Magisterium) does not require the unconditional assent of faith but only the conditional assent of intellect and will, but then contradicts itself by claiming that the third category requires Catholics to “accept unthinkably every statement of the authentic Magisterium” in reference to Vatican II).
· The SSPX claims to accept the first and second categories of truths of the Profession (those truths to be believed with divine faith) but not the third category, but fails to recognize that the third proposition itself must be believed with divine faith (the proposition according to which we are to give religious deference to the authentic Magisterium) because it is a truth contained within the Profession of Faith (hence, contradicting itself).
· The SSPX claims that the third category of truths is a novelty, created by the “Conciliar Church” to force acceptance of Vatican II, even though the proposition was taught at the time of the First Vatican Council (e.g., Cardinal Franzelin) and in the many theology manuals that were written up to the time of Vatican II.
As you can see, the Society’s rejection of the Church’s Profession of Faith is based on one error after another (and these are just a few of their errors), which makes it difficult for the average Catholic to discern the truth from their many falsehoods. Unless one has significant knowledge in a variety of technical areas (e.g., theology, papal teaching, history) and critical distinctions within those areas (e.g., teachings vs. statements of fact; definitive vs. non-definitive), he can be easily fooled by the Society’s arguments, which often have a prima facie appearance of orthodoxy. After all, Society priests wear cassocks and celebrate the 1962 Missal, and this veneer of “traditional Catholicism,” unfortunately, dupes many into falling into their web of errors.
The SSPX’s Latest Disaster of a Defense
Having set forth these basic errors, let us now address the SSPX’s latest effort to defend its rejection of the Profession of Faith. On March 23, 2023, the Society of St. Pius X released an article called “Why Didn’t Archbishop Lefebvre Sign the Vatican’s Profession of Faith in 1989?” to justify its position. In my critique of this article, I will amplify a number of the errors already cited above, as well as address a few more.
No doubt this latest article from the SSPX was a response to my recent articles and podcasts demonstrating their blatant and scandalous rejection of the Professio. The Society’s article is yet another knee-jerk reaction to control the damage. But each time the Society and its apologists attempt damage control, they only expose their errors and dishonesty even more. Their latest article is no exception.
Let’s start
with their title of the article. Even the title is misleading. The “Profession
of Faith” in question is not “the Vatican’s Profession of Faith” as the
SSPX falsely labels it (later in the same article, Fellay is quoted as
disingenuously calling it “the profession of Ratzinger”), but rather the
universal Profession of Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,
required by all Catholics, East and West, to maintain communion with the
Church. As noted above, the Profession contains the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed followed by three propositions which
describe the very truths of the Catholic Faith. Further, Catholics who hold
office in the Church promise before God to adhere to the Profession on the Holy
Gospels.
Also, the
Profession was not simply “written in February of 1989” as the SSPX claims
(even claiming it was written “by the Vatican” to coerce the Society into
“accepting the Second Vatican Council”). Rather, the Profession was universally
promulgated by the supreme authority of the Church, Pope John Paul II, to be
binding on all Catholics, East and West, in order to maintain communion with
the Church. Theologians teach that the Church’s Professions (or Symbols) of
Faith are equivalent to dogmas.
Not only does the Society, right out of the gate, mislead the faithful about the nature and authority of the Profession, but also falsely equates accepting the Profession of Faith with accepting the “consequences that harmed the Faith” which, according to Abp. Lefebvre (the Society’s rule of Faith), means Vatican II and its reforms. In the Society’s introductory remarks, we read:
“The Archbishop went on to say that at that time he did not see the possibility of regular contacts with Rome, because Rome was demanding that, for any concessions to be made, the SSPX sign a new profession of Faith written in February of 1989. He equated making that profession with the explicit acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and its consequences that harmed the Faith.”[1]
Thus, to
justify its rejection of the Profession of Faith, the SSPX equates accepting
the harmful consequences of the post-conciliar reforms with accepting the
Profession of Faith itself, just like it wrongly attributes liturgical
abuses to the Novus Ordo Missal itself, and heretical interpretations of
the council to the Vatican II documents themselves, rather than to those
Modernists who foster these abuses.
Of course, anyone
with a modicum of intelligence can see the causal fallacy of the Society’s
position. The fallacy leads to the proverbial “throwing the baby out with the
bath water” (that is, attributing positive errors to the Profession of
1989, the texts of Vatican II and the 1969 Missal), which is then used as the
basis for rejecting them outright). But, in this case, throwing out the baby
means rejecting the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church, for the Profession of
Faith promulgated by John Paul II, as we noted, is required by all Catholics to
maintain “full communion with the Church.”[2]
What makes
the Society’s position even more absurd is that it both misunderstands and
misapplies the doctrinal truths of the very Profession it chooses to reject,
thereby revealing its own inability to even adequately comprehend the Profession.
First, the Society actually incorrectly defines the Profession’s first
proposition of doctrinal truths (thus, erring in its understanding of the
Profession). As we will see, the Society claims that the first proposition of
truths “is everything proposed by the Church’s Magisterium.” This claim is so obviously
erroneous, we wonder who proofreads the Society’s material (surely a second-year
seminarian would not make such a blunder). What this shows us is that not only
are there no real theologians within the SSPX (at least none who reviewed the
latest article), but also that the Society rejects a Profession of Faith that it
has manifestly failed to understand, at the most basic level.
Second, as noted above, the Society initially explains the level of assent required for the third proposition of truths correctly (requiring conditional submission of intellect and will), but then flatly contradicts itself by concluding that the third proposition requires one “to accept unthinkingly every statement of the authentic Magisterium” (thus, erring in its application of the Profession to the documents of Vatican II). Finally, and most unfortunately, the Society simply lies to its followers when it claims that it is no longer required to accept the 1989 Profession as a condition for communion with the Roman Catholic Church. We now look at these errors and misrepresentations in more detail.
The SSPX Errs in
Describing the Truths of the Profession
“The first group of truths is everything proposed by the Church’s Magisterium. That includes both the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church, its “solemn judgments” and the ordinary Magisterium, what has everywhere and always been taught but never solemnly defined.”[3]
Compare the Society’s definition of the first proposition of truths with the actual definition from the Professio Fidei itself:
“With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.”[4]
Obviously,
the first category of truths is not “everything proposed by the Church’s
Magisterium” as the SSPX alleges. Rather, it is everything contained within the
Deposit of Faith, written or unwritten, which the Church “sets forth to be
believed as divinely revealed.” Of course, not “everything proposed by the
Church’s Magisterium” (again, in the words of the SSPX) is proposed as
“divinely revealed,” which is why there are two additional categories of truths
(taught by the Magisterium) after the first category.[5]
Nowhere in the Society’s definition of category 1 truths does it refer to “everything contained in the Word of God” (Scripture or Tradition) or “divinely revealed” truths, which is why the Society errs in describing the first proposition. Thus, the Society of St. Pius X rejects a Profession of Faith it doesn’t even understand (or, more strangely, accepts a false definition of category 1 truths, and rejects a true definition of category 3 truths, which it first defines correctly but then rejects through a false application). Again, a second-year seminary student wouldn’t make these errors - unless, of course, he was enrolled in one of the Society’s seminaries.
As we
mentioned above, what makes the Society’s position even more strange is the
fact that it correctly acknowledges the type of assent owed to category 3
truths (conditional assent of intellect and will, and not the unconditional assent
of divine faith), but then falsely claims that the third category forces the
SSPX to unconditionally accept all the teachings of Vatican II, thereby
contradicting itself.
In the article in question, the Society correctly describes the third proposition as follows:
“Both Lumen Gentium and the Profession demand a religious obeisance of mind to the authentic Magisterium. That does not mean that the one making the profession is asked to accept it by the assent of an act of faith. Rather, the religious obeisance is a presumption of acceptance in favor of the superior. Authentic Magisterium refers to teaching made in a non-definitive way by someone who can teach magisterially.”[6]
So far so
good.
The Society then goes on to address the question of whether religious obeisance is owed to those teachings which might contradict previously defined teaching. In its own words:
“Since the authentic Magisterium is non-infallible and is only a presumption in the favor of a superior, we may well ask: what if the superior teaches something contrary to clearly defined teachings of the Church? In such a case, the faithful are obviously entitled to reject the new teaching.”[7]
In support of
this position, the Society cites Dom Paul Nau who explained in his book Pope
or Church? that assent to the authentic Magisterium is one “of inward
assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not
escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected
was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical
affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught.”[8] Assuming, as Dom Nau
states, that such a refusal is done with great prudence lest it be an act of
temerity, the Society is correct to conclude that “a faithful Catholic can
reject what is contrary to the constant teaching of the Church in Vatican II or
post-conciliar teachings.”
Again, so
far so good.
The problem
is that the Society then goes on to falsely claim that Vatican II actually
taught positive errors (problem #1), and then contradicts itself by claiming
that the third proposition of the Profession of Faith would require it to
embrace those errors (problem #2)! You read that correctly. After initially
conceding that third proposition teachings require only a conditional assent of
religious submission (and not the unconditional assent of divine faith), the
Society then perverts the level of assent owed to the authentic Magisterium in
the context of the teachings of Vatican II. Hence, its false application of the
third proposition is driven by its false accusations against (and seeming
hatred for) the Second Vatican Council.
The Society articulates its witless error by stating: “The authentic Magisterium presented as it was in 1989 makes it possible to affirm one thing one century and then another in a subsequent century…” Thus, the Society would have us believe that the 1989 Profession of Faith requires us to accept unthinkingly every statement of the Magisterium unconditionally, even though it elsewhere concedes that the deference is only conditional and could be suspended! Don’t believe me? In the SSPX’s own concluding words:
“What in practice would happen to a faithful Catholic if he were to accept unthinkingly every statement of the authentic Magisterium? For him, the Catholic religion would be the one true religion one decade, and the Church of Christ would subsist in the Catholic Church and therefore also be found elsewhere the next decade. Marriage would be for life and divorce forbidden at one time and communion given to the divorced and remarried at a later one. The unchanging Tradition of the Catholic Church conveyed by the Magisterium would be degraded by something that is called Magisterium!”[9]
Yes, folks, this is a
blatant contradiction in the Society’s position. And the contradiction is borne
from the Society’s related error that Vatican II contains teachings which
depart from the pre-conciliar Magisterium. The example the article provides of
the alleged “manifest discordance” between Vatican II and previously defined
teaching is Lumen Gentium’s phrase “the Church of Christ subsists (subsistit)
in the Catholic Church.” As the article affirms, the Society interprets this
phrase to mean the Church of Christ is not exclusively the Catholic Church,
when it says: “The Church of Christ would be something subsisting in the
Catholic Church as a subject, but not exclusively found there. The supernatural
society founded by Christ for man’s salvation can also be found elsewhere.
Therefore, the Catholic Church is not identical to the Church of Christ and so
the Church of Christ can extend beyond it.”[10] In the same article, the
SSPX also says: “The authentic Magisterium of Lumen
Gentium is in opposition to the authentic Magisterium of the
Syllabus of Errors.”[11]
However, the Magisterium has officially rejected the Society’s interpretation of “subsists” and affirmed the Church’s traditional teaching by issuing various clarifications over the years. For example, the CDF explicitly rejected the SSPX’s interpretation in a 1985 notification on a book by Fr. Leonardo Boff, when it said “he derives a thesis which is exactly the contrary to the authentic meaning of the Council text, for he affirms: 'In fact it (sc. the sole Church of Christ) may also be present in other Christian Churches' (p. 75).” And in an office responsa in 2007, which also rejects the SSPX’s interpretation, the CDF explained subsistit as follows:
"In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium 'subsistence' means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. [...] [T]he word 'subsists' can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the 'one' Church); and this 'one' Church subsists in the Catholic Church.”
As we can see, the Society imputes an error to a statement found in a document of Vatican II, by imposing a meaning upon the statement that the Magisterium has officially rejected! And if that isn’t erroneous (dishonest) enough, the Society then claims that because the Profession would require it to accept this alleged error (false!), it is justified in rejecting the Profession itself (also false)! In other words, the SSPX rejects the Profession of Faith, because it wrongly believes the Profession requires it to accept theological errors of Vatican II (error #1), which “errors” it merely asserts but does not prove (error #2), and the example it provides has actually been disproven by the Magisterium (error #3). As we said, the Society creates a tangled web of errors, since one error is related to another. We hope the reader can see just how ludicrous the Society’s position is – which, of course, began with Marcel Lefebvre.
The Misrepresentations of Bishop Fellay
First,
Fellay referred to the 1989 Profession of Faith as “the profession of
Ratzinger.”[12] As alluded to above, this
is a total misrepresentation of reality, designed by Fellay to downplay the
SSPX’s grave, Protestant rejection of the Church’s universal Professio Fidei,
binding upon all Catholics throughout both the Latin and Eastern Rites, and
which is solemnly professed before God on the Holy Gospels for those who are to
hold offices in the Church. No, Bp. Fellay, this is not the ”profession of
Ratzinger” as you dared to call it (even if Cd. Ratzinger did have a part in
its drafting), but rather the Profession of Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic
and Apostolic Church, promulgated by the supreme authority of that Church, the
Roman Pontiff, whose jurisdiction you refuse to submit to. As far as
“Ratzinger” is concerned, he wrote a doctrinal commentary on the concluding
formula of the Profession in 1998, which was nine years after Pope John Paul II
promulgated the Profession.
Second,
Fellay claimed that the Roman Catholic Church does not require the SSPX to
accept the Church’s 1989 Profession of Faith, by making the following
statements: “In effect, they (Vatican representatives) dropped some rather
important things. They no longer ask us to recite the “profession of Cardinal
Ratzinger”; and, “Well, as it turns out, they no longer demand it [the 1989
Profession of Faith] of us!” The article also repeats Fellay’s claim: “The very
fact that Rome stopped demanding the 1989 Profession of Faith shows that at
least what the SSPX objects to is open to some disagreement and that it is
possible to question the authentic Magisterium.”[13]
Now, Bp. Fellay’s claim that the SSPX is
exempt from making the Catholic Profession of Faith is obviously absurd on its
face. He would have us believe that for the Society priests to become Catholic,
they don’t have to actually profess “the truths of her faith.”[14]
But it’s worse than that, because Fellay’s claim is flatly contradicted by Abp.
Pozzo, who said the Society’s acceptance of the 1989 Profession of Faith is non-negotiable.
In
his interview with Famille Chretienne, Abp. Pozzo was asked: “What,
then, is the non-negotiable point (with the SSPX)?” Pozzo replied: “What is essential,
what we cannot give up, is the adherence to the Professio fidei,
and to the principle that the Lord entrusted to the Church’s Magisterium alone
the faculty to interpret authentically, that is, with the authority of Christ,
the written and transmitted Word of God.”[15] Note well that Fellay
made his outrageous claims after meeting with Abp. Pozzo, Cardinal Muller and
other Vatican officials in 2014 and the Pozzo interview that same year, thereby
explicitly contradicting the testimony of Pozzo himself.
If
Bp. Fellay’s claim were true, then why has the SSPX not been regularized and
brought into the Catholic Church? If, in Fellay’s words, the Church “no longer
demands” the Society to accept the Profession of Faith, then why has the SSPX
continued to willfully remain outside the Church? After all, the Profession
would no longer be an obstacle to full communion, because the Society would not
be required to given any deference to the teachings of Vatican II. If
Bp. Fellay’s claim were true, the Society’s ongoing refusal of submission to
the Roman Pontiff (which is the definition of schism) would be even more
egregious and without excuse. It follows that Bp. Fellay’s claim is false.
Third, Bp. Fellay claimed that the Roman
authorities created the third proposition of the Profession in order to force the
Society into accepting Vatican II. Said Fellay: “Cardinal
Ratzinger, at that time, had explained that with this addition [the third
proposition] they were asking for religious submission to the documents of the
authentic Magisterium, obliging Catholics to accept the Council.” As the
article notes elsewhere, this was the position of Lefebvre, who “equated making that profession with the explicit
acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and its consequences that harmed the
Faith”; and, “As Archbishop Lefebvre said in his sermon, the 1989 Profession of
Faith would mean accepting Vatican II and its consequences.”
The SSPX’s claim that the
third proposition (religious submission to non-definitive teachings) was
created to coerce the Society into accepting Vatican II, and was even a novelty
of Vatican
II itself (Lumen Gentium did teach the proposition), [16] is also completely false. The truth that
we must “hear the Church” are the words of Christ Himself, revealed in
Scripture (Mt 18:17), and was consistently taught in theology manuals long
before Vatican II. Once again, what this shows us is that the Society does not
have real theologians with any meaningful formation in pre-Vatican theology.
For example, in his Sacrae Theologia Summa (1956), Salaverri taught: “An internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See which have been authentically approved by the Roman Pontiff.”[17] Fr. Nicolas Jung, in his classic book, Le Magistère de L’Église (1935), also addresses non-definitive teachings:
He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one’s superior...[18]
In The Sources
of Revelation (1961), Van Noort also teaches: “Granted the need for
submission to the authentic
Magisterium, it still remains true that just as a merely authentic proposal is
by its very nature incomplete and provisory, so, too, is the religious assent due to it.”[19] In Wilhelm & Scannell’s Manual of Catholic Theology
(1906), we also read: “Points of doctrine expressed, recommended and insisted
upon in papal allocutions or encyclical letters, but not distinctly defined,
may create the obligation of strict obedience and undoubting assent, or may
exact merely external submission and approval.”[20] Even the “liberal” Commentary on the 1983
Code of Canon Law acknowledges that the Church leaves room for dissent on
non-definitive teachings based on preponderant evidence, just like the
pre-Vatican II theologians.[21] Indeed, the SSPX schizophrenically
reserves for itself the right to “dissent from non-definitive teachings” of the
Church, while also rejecting the Church’s Profession of Faith which
accommodates this right to dissent![22]
In fact, in Wilhelm & Scannell’s manual we further read: “Modern Liberalism…is an attempt to conciliate Extreme Liberalism by giving up these various distinctions [assent of faith vs. intellect], and reducing all decisions either to formal definitions of Faith or to mere police regulations.”[23] This means the Society’s rejection of the third paragraph of the Profession of Faith is a liberal Modernist error. But the SSPX does embrace many of the liberal errors they condemn the Modernists for, such as the right to publicly propagate its theological errors, and its claim that they are part of (ironically, that they, according to their own definition, “subsist in”) the Catholic Church, without having any juridical status in the Church, and that the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using their illicit ministry as a means of salvation. Indeed, the errors on the Left are the errors on the Right.
Closing Comments
This web of
errors can be untangled as follows. First, not all statements of the authentic
Magisterium, including those of Vatican II, are considered “doctrines” or
“teachings.” Many of the controversial statements are considered “statements of
fact,” such as the Church’s explanation of what non-Christian religions believe
about themselves (and which could contain errors of fact). Statements of fact
are distinguished from teachings or doctrines. In its haste to condemn the
council, the SSPX never makes this most critical distinction.
Second, the
Society imputes error to the controversial statements, even when the Church has
officially rejected its interpretation. And if the Magisterium has not
clarified the meaning of controversial or ambiguous statements, this does not
give the SSPX the right to accuse the Church of error (and even heresy!), for
the Church teaches that “Whenever it becomes necessary to expose
statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of
ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which
the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.”[25] The approach of the Society of St. Pius X is
exactly the opposite of what the Church requires, and this has always been
the approach of the Church’s enemies.
The other issue
is addressing the Society’s substantive accusation of error. While critiquing
the Society’s accusations of error against the Second Vatican Council is beyond
the scope of this article, suffice it to say that the Society’s favorite
whipping boy, Collegiality, is its gravest error against Holy Mother Church,
for it has accused this teaching of Vatican II of being heretical. The
Society falsely claims that Lumen Gentium teaches a bishop receives
jurisdiction proper upon his episcopal consecration, even though LG teaches no
such thing (it does not even use the term “jurisdiction” in the context of what
the bishop receives, but rather munera, which is an ontological capacity
to receive jurisdiction upon being given a canonical mission). The Society also
claims that the Pope together with the College of Bishops is not a second
subject of the Supreme Authority, and that is because it erroneously conflates
the Primacy with Supreme Authority.
Thus, the
Society’s second error is composed of several sub-errors (again, highlighting
the tangled web): (1) it rejects the Church’s directive to denounce the
perverse meaning of ambiguous statements; (2) it rejects the Church’s official
interpretations of ambiguous or controversial statements; and, (3) it advances
its own erroneous interpretation of Magisterial documents and then falsely
accuses the Church of heresy for allegedly teaching it.
Third and
finally, the religious submission of intellect and will to truths in the third
category is required only for “doctrines” on faith or morals taught by the
authentic Magisterium (see, for example, the CDF’s doctrinal commentary, no.
11). As noted above, not all of the ambiguous or controversial statements of
Vatican II would qualify as “doctrines,” and hence would not even fall into the
category of the third proposition. But even if such statements would fall within
category 3, the Society would be permitted to suspend judgment where prudence
demands, because the religious assent of intellect and will to these teachings is
necessarily conditional.
And this is the
biggest irony of all – the proposition that the Society rejects is the
very proposition that would allow it to critique the council and suspend
judgment where prudence would reasonably require it! In other words, the third
proposition is the Society’s “out” in terms of withholding religious assent to
the controversial statements of Vatican II, but its unwillingness to concede
any deference to certain conciliar statements, leads the Society to “cut off
its nose to spite its face” (a metaphor for a self-destructive overreaction to
a problem). This overreaction is no doubt driven by an a priori
rejection of the Second Vatican Council and the so-called “Conciliar Church” as
a whole.
Of course, like almost
all of the Society’s errors, this error originated with Archbishop Lefebvre,
who called the third proposition “very bad,” “dangerous,” “ridiculous” and
“false.”[26] By
having refused to give proper deference to the teachings of the council (which
no doubt shows a schismatic mentality), the SSPX ended by rejecting the
Church’s Profession of Faith, which is required for belief in order to be
Catholic. Indeed, the Church has always understood that divine faith in her
Professions was necessary for salvation, and the Church’s traditional theology
always classified as heretics those who rejected Catholic truths to be believed
with divine faith, such as those in Creeds and Professions of Faith.
While the Society ends its article by
claiming “to profess the Faith” and “the unchanging Tradition of the Catholic
Church,” the rejection of a Profession (or Symbol) of Faith has always been
considered a mortal sin against the faith that merits eternal punishment,
according to the very “unchanging Tradition of the Catholic Church” that
they claim to profess.
[1] “Why Didn’t Archbishop Lefebvre Sign the Vatican’s
Profession of Faith in 1989?,” March 23, 2023, www.sspx.org.
[2]
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Commentary on the
Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei, www.vatican.va.
[3]
“Why Didn’t Archbishop Lefebvre Sign the
Vatican’s Profession of Faith in 1989?,” March 23, 2023, www.sspx.org.
[5] The Society’s incorrect
explanation of the first proposition can also be read to mean solemn acts of
the Extraordinary Magisterium are limited to category 1 truths. While this may
not be intended, it should be stated that only those solemn judgments of the
Extraordinary Magisterium which set forth truths as divinely revealed
belong to the first category (e.g., the Incarnation; the Assumption). However,
the “Extraordinary Magisterium” can also “solemnly define”
doctrines when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra (CDF Commentary, No.
6). Even if that is not the Society’s position, its explication of the first
proposition cited above is erroneous.
[6]
“Why
Didn’t Archbishop Lefebvre Sign the Vatican’s Profession of Faith in 1989?,”
March 23, 2023, www.sspx.org.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Ibid., citing Pope or Church?, p. 29.
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Ibid.
[13]
Ibid.
[14] Pope
John Paul II, Ad Tuendam Fidem, No. 1.
[15]
“No
Capitulation but what Unity? Pozzo Interview, www.sspx.org.
[16] “This religious submission of mind and
will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman
Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in
such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the
judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind
and will.” No. 5.
[17]
Quote taken from Fr. Fenton, “Infallibility in the Encyclicals,” AER (1953).
Fenton taught the same as did Billot, Jung, Tanqueray, Nau and many others.
[18] Jung,
Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp. 153, 154; cited in Clear Ideas, On the Pope’s Infallible Magisterium, SiSiNoNo, January 2002, No. 44.
[19] Van
Noort, The Sources of Revelation, p. 237, Reprint by Arouca Press
(2019).
[20] Vol. 1. Third Edition, Revised,
London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., New York, Cincinnati,
Chicago, Benziger Bros., 1906, p.
85.
[21] John
Beal, James Coriden, and Thomas Green, A
New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (New York: Paulist Press, 2000), p.
917.
[22] The
very nature of the “submission of intellect and will” is a conditional assent,
because the intellect could have a genuine conflict based on a preponderance of
evidence (unlike the assent of divine faith, which is unconditional).
[23] Vol. 1. Third Edition, Revised,
London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., p. 101.
[24] Cor Jesu,
http://fsspx.asia/sites/sspx/files/cor_jesu-january.pdf
(emphasis added).
[25] Auctorem
Fidei, August 28, 1794.
[26] Cor Jesu,
http://fsspx.asia/sites/sspx/files/cor_jesu-january.pdf.
