Did the Second Vatican Council
contradict Church Tradition in its teachings on
ecumenism? Many traditionalist Catholics — among
them, many members of the Society of St. Pius X —
would say yes. If they are correct, then the Catholic
Church has a serious problem: Vatican II could not be
legitimate, since a legitimate ecumenical council may
develop but may not contradict the earlier dogmatic
teaching of the Church.
To address the issue, of course, we first have to
understand how the Church defines ecumenism. Basically,
ecumenism is the spiritual dialogue and activity in which
the Church engages with other Christians. “Other
Christians” in this context is understood to mean
validly baptized non-Catholics.
This means, for example, that Catholic-Orthodox dialogue
or Catholic-Anglican dialogue constitutes ecumenism,
because both Anglicans and the Orthodox are validly
baptized non-Catholic Christians. But ecumenism
doesn’t cover Catholic-Islamic dialogue or
Catholic-Hindu dialogue, because Muslims and Hindus
don’t baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. The
Church describes this kind of spiritual activity with
non-Christian religions as “interfaith
dialogue.”
While we’re defining terms, we should note that when
dealing with common worship among Catholics and other
Christians, we must distinguish between communicatio in
sacris (sharing in the sacraments), and the more general
communicatio in spiritualibus (sharing in common prayer).
Generally,
the Church encourages communicatio in spiritualibus between
Catholics and Protestants, but strictly limits communicatio
in sacris to a handful of sacraments, and even then
only between Catholics and members of an Eastern
non-Catholic Church (see Canon 844). By “Eastern
non-Catholic Church” we mean an historical Eastern
Church (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian
Church of the East) whose sacraments and apostolic
succession the Church recognizes as valid. This is
different from Protestants (including Anglicans), whose
claim to have valid sacraments and apostolic succession
the Catholic Church does not recognize.
The
Spirit of Ecumenical Dialogue
Admittedly, the Church has seen some abuses in
the name of ecumenism since the closing of the Second
Vatican Council. SSPX adherents are familiar with many of
these abuses, and they often blame such abuses on the
Council itself. They believe ecumenical dialogue waters
down the Church’s doctrine and must necessarily lead
to the heresy of religious indifferentism (the idea that
differences in religion are essentially unimportant). A
few even argue that ecumenism itself is heresy. They
think ecumenism must necessarily entail a watering down
of the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching that
she alone is the Church founded by Christ — that she
alone is the Ark of Salvation under the New Covenant.
In making such charges, these individuals fail to take
into account the Church’s perennial Tradition. Reconciliatio
et Paenitentia, Pope John Paul II’s apostolic
exhortation on reconciliation and penance, both addresses
and clarifies where the Church stands concerning
ecumenical dialogue. In fact, the Holy Father goes beyond
mere ecumenical dialogue to include all dialogue in which
the Church presently engages with the purpose of bringing
about true reconciliation among people.
With his typical clarity of thought, the Holy Father
teaches:
It should
be repeated that, on the part of the Church and her
members, dialogue, whatever form it takes (and these
forms can be and are very diverse, since the very
concept of dialogue has an analogical value) can
never begin from an attitude of indifference to the
truth. On the contrary, it must begin from a
presentation of the truth, offered in a calm way,
with respect for the intelligence and consciences of
others. The dialogue of reconciliation can never
replace or attenuate the proclamation of the truth of
the Gospel, the precise goal of which is conversion
from sin and communion with Christ and the Church. It
must be at the service of the transmission and
realization of that truth through the means left by
Christ to the Church for the pastoral activity of
reconciliation, namely catechesis and penance.i
This
teaching solidly places ecumenical dialogue within the
Church’s theological and doctrinal Tradition.
First of all, Pope John Paul addresses the concern that
ecumenical dialogue is being used to propagate religious
indifferentism. He reiterates that dialogue “can
never begin from an attitude of indifference to the
truth.” He reminds Christians never to approach
ecumenical dialogue with an indifference towards the
truth.
In this way the Holy Father authoritatively closes the
door to the possible false usage, or abuse, of ecumenical
dialogue. He then reiterates the Second Vatican
Council’s Catholic principles governing the
Church’s involvement in ecumenical dialogue. He
explains that all dialogue in which the Church is
engaged, including that with our separated brethren,
“must begin from a presentation of truth.”
Vatican
II Asserts the Papacy’s Traditional Role
Yet what is truth as presented by the Church? What are
the principles with which the Church approaches our
separated Christian brethren? These are important
questions because the adherent to Lefebvre’s schism
will often argue that in order to facilitate ecumenical
dialogue, the Second Vatican Council downplayed the
Church’s unique claim to be founded by Christ upon
the Rock of St. Peter.
The Council Fathers anticipate these objections in their
declaration on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio. Within
this conciliar document, the Council Fathers clearly
teach:
In order
to establish this holy Church of His everywhere in
the world until the end of time, Christ entrusted to
the College of the Twelve the task of teaching,
ruling, and sanctifying (cf. Mt 28:18-20 in
conjunction with Jn 20:21-23). Among their number He
chose Peter.
After
Peter’s profession of faith, He decreed that on
him He would build His Church; to Peter He promised
the keys of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Mt 16:19, in
conjunction with Mk 18:18). After Peter’s
profession of love, Christ entrusted all His sheep to
him to be confirmed in faith (cf. Lk 22:32) and
shepherded in perfect unity (cf. Jn 21:15-17).ii
Based
on Scriptural foundations, the Second Vatican
Council’s ecumenical principles flow from the
teachings of Christ and His Apostles. The Council teaches
that Our Lord’s Church, and hence Christian unity,
must be built upon the rock of St. Peter.
Furthermore, the Council asserts that the task of
preserving and confirming this unity within our
Lord’s Church rests with St. Peter and his lawful
successors within the Roman papacy. The objection that
the Second Vatican Council’s teachings on ecumenism
water down the role of the papacy fails, for this text
reiterates what the Church has always taught according to
her Sacred Tradition. St. Peter is, and always has been,
the foundation of unity among Christians.
Ecumenism Upholds the Real Presence
St. Peter and his successors are the foundation of unity
in the Church. However, this foundation is laid down by
Jesus Christ. Our Lord is the source of unity within the
Church, especially as it concerns His Real Presence in
the Most Blessed Sacrament.
We should keep this in mind when defending the
Council’s teachings on ecumenism, since many
Lefebvrites also allege that ecumenism undermines
Catholic faith in our Lord’s Real Presence in order
to appease non-Catholics. This allegation is false.
Continue reading Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism,
and you discover the following teaching: “In His
Church [Christ] instituted the wonderful sacrament of the
Eucharist by which the unity of the Church is both
signified and brought about.”iii
In other words, the Second Vatican Council calls the
Church to promote Christian unity through ecumenical
dialogue. Yet the Council recognizes that unity can be
neither fully realized nor fully symbolized except
through the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Second
Vatican Council not only upholds the traditional Catholic
position concerning the Most Blessed Sacrament, but the
Council clearly states this position in the very decree
through which ecumenism is promoted. The Council Fathers,
by promoting ecumenical dialogue, seek to bring our
separated Christian brethren back to full communion with
the Catholic Church by means of the Holy Eucharist. The
Eucharist symbolizes our unity within the Church as
Catholics, first with God and secondly with each other.
Yet this symbolism may only be fully realized through the
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
In bringing to us the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of
our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as in perpetuating
Christ’s holy sacrifice upon the cross, the Mass
unites all of Christ’s disciples throughout time and
space, gathering them into one Church. The intention of
the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on ecumenism
is to help reunite with the Church those Christian
disciples who have become separated through historic
schisms and heresies.
The Council of Florence
This ecumenical position represents a departure
from Catholic Tradition,” allege many adherents to
the SSPX schism. “We find no example of the Catholic
Church engaging in similar ecumenical activity before
Vatican II.” This allegation troubles many Catholic
apologists, because they are unaware of other examples of
the Catholic Church’s practice of ecumenism with
those who have separated from her. Yet such precedents do
exist within Catholic Tradition.
The most important example is probably the ecumenical
Council of Florence. This entire council offers a clear
precedent from Catholic Tradition for the Church’s
present involvement in ecumenical dialogue. After all,
the Council of Florence sought to reunite the Orthodox
East and the Catholic West.
During this council’s fourth session, Pope Eugene
the IV decreed:
Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an
everlasting record. It befits us to render thanks to
almighty God. … For behold, the western and eastern
peoples, who have been separated for long, hasten to
enter into a pact of harmony and unity; and those who
were justly distressed at the long dissension that kept
them apart, at last after many centuries, under the
impulse of Him from whom every good gift comes, meet
together in person in this place out of desire for holy
union.
A couple of matters should draw our attention
here.
First, the East and West were obviously
separated from one another in schism, as recognized by
Pope Eugene the IV in this decree. These Churches
nevertheless came together after many centuries to try to
reconcile their differences. This is an act of ecumenism,
one that Pope Eugene the IV attributes to the Holy
Spirit.
In fact, the pope not only attributes this ecumenical
dialogue to the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, but he
proceeds to uphold such dialogue at the Council of
Florence as our Christian obligation, stating: “We
are aware that it is our duty and the duty of the whole
church to strain every nerve to ensure that these happy
initiatives make progress and have issue through our
common care, so that we may deserve to be and to be
called co-operators with God.”
Tradition Sustains Ecumenical Prayer
Now some critics of the Second Vatican Council
maintain that this teaching from the Council of Florence
applies solely to ecumenical dialogue, not joint prayer
between Catholics and non-Catholics. Yet if we re-read
the above citation from the Council of Florence, we find
that the pope insists: “It befits us to render
thanks to almighty God.” This is a prayer of
thanksgiving to God.
Although they had not yet healed their schism, the Roman
Pontiff led the Council Fathers gathered from the
Catholic West and the Orthodox East in the recitation of
this prayer. This is a clear example from Catholic
Tradition of a pope and Catholic bishops praying with
those Christian brethren who have been separated from
full communion.
Non-Catholic Spiritual Authority
Some adherents to post Vatican II schisms
disdain the respect shown by the Church towards the
ecclesiastical leadership of non-Catholic Churches and
denominations. These folks maintain that the Church
should continue denouncing non-Catholic spiritual leaders
as heretics and schismatics. In departing from the
Church’s spiritual unity, they claim, Protestant
ministers and Orthodox clergy forfeit any spiritual
authority they possess, and thus any right to be held in
respect by the Catholic faithful. This is not the
position, however, of Pope Eugene the IV, who said this
at the Council of Florence:
Finally, our most dear son John Palacologus, emperor of
the Romans, together with our venerable brother Joseph,
patriarch of Constantinople, the apocrisiaries of the
other patriarchal sees and a great multitude of
archbishops, ecclesiastics and nobles arrived at their
last port, Venice, on 8 February last.
This is recognition, from both Pope Eugene and the
Council Fathers, of the religious title and dignity of
the Orthodox Emperor John Palacologus and the Orthodox
Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople. Despite his
separation from Rome, Patriarch Joseph is welcomed to the
Council of Florence by Pope Eugene the IV as a brother.
The Second Vatican Council’s approach to ecumenism,
by which the Church treats non-Catholic spiritual
authorities with both respect and dignity, thus maintains
the same ecumenical principles as those upheld at the
Council of Florence. No doubt the reality of heresy and
schism still exists after the Second Vatican Council (see
canon 751), just as it did before the Council of
Florence. However, in dialogue with our separated
brethren, the Church chooses not to wave the terms
“heretic” and “schismatic” in their
faces.
What About Protestants?
Nevertheless, in arguing a traditional Catholic
position from the Council of Florence — in other
words, a position truly based upon the Church’s
Sacred Tradition — a Catholic apologist inevitably
encounters the objection that these texts apply only to
Catholic ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox. What about
Catholic-Protestant ecumenism since the Second Vatican
Council? Is there a similar example from a previous
ecumenical councils? These are important questions, since
SSPX adherents often make a big deal over the invitation
extended to six Protestant theologians to participate at
the Second Vatican Council in an advisory capacity.
As a quick aside, we should note that there were many
additional Orthodox and Protestant observers at the
Council. The famous “six Protestants”
constantly flouted by opponents of the Second Vatican
Council were simply observers at the Consilium, which was
involved with the liturgical reform mandated by the
Council. The suggestion that these “six
Protestants” virtually put together the reformed
liturgy of Pope Paul VI is a great exaggeration!
If we accept the Council of Trent as an authentic
expression of Catholic Tradition (as Catholics are
obliged to do), then such objections fail to take into
account Catholic Tradition. For in the documents of
Trent’s thirteenth session, we read:
The
sacred and holy, general Synod of Trent, lawfully
assembled in the Holy Ghost … grants, as far as
regards the holy Synod itself, to all and each one
throughout the whole of Germany, whether
ecclesiastics or seculars, of whatsoever degree,
estate, condition, quality they be, who may wish to
repair to this ecumenical and general Council, the
public faith and full security, which they call a
safe-conduct … so as that they may and shall
have it in their power in all liberty to confer, make
proposals, and treat on those things which are to be
treated of in the said Synod; to come freely and
safely to the said ecumenical Council, and there
remain and abide, and propose therein, as well in
writing as by word of mouth, as many articles as to
them shall seem good, and to confer and dispute,
without any abuse or contumely, with the Fathers, or
with those who may have been selected by the said
holy Synod; as also to withdraw whensoever they shall
think fit.
We
should make several important observations here.
First, the Council of Trent both invited and offered safe
passage to Protestants who wished to come and participate
at this ecumenical council.
Second, Trent invited Protestants of all social and
ecclesiastical rank to share their theological views,
propose topics for debate, and generally participate in
the daily affairs of this ecumenical council.
Third, Trent allowed Protestants to withdraw at
any time.
Finally, Trent invited Protestants to be more
than simply observers.
Clearly, at Trent the Church issued an invitation to
ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants.
And since Lutheranism enveloped most of the German nation
around the time of the council, this invitation was much
broader than the invitation extended to a handful of
Protestant theologians at Vatican II. Trent even
permitted the Protestants attending the Council a greater
level of participation than was allowed to the Protestant
theologians observing Vatican II. In all these ways,
then, the Lefebvrite objections to Catholic-Protestant
ecumenism, both at and after the Second Vatican Council,
are little more than objections to a precedent set by the
Council of Trent.
Vatican II and Religious Liberty
We can now turn our attention briefly to the matter of
Vatican II and religious liberty. While technically
speaking this is a distinct theological issue, it’s
nevertheless often lumped in with ecumenism by those who
challenge the orthodoxy of the Second Vatican Council. In
fact, this is probably the most difficult theological
hurdle former SSPX adherents must overcome before
reconciling with the Church, mainly due to the mistaken
popular belief that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to sign
the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on
Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae.
Any scholar with access to the Vatican’s archives
knows this rumor to be false. Archbishop Lefebvre did
indeed sign the document in question. In fact, anyone
seeking Lefebvre’s signature on this document need
not look any further than the Acta Synodalia (the Acts of
the Synod).iv
Once the adherent to the SSPX schism overcomes the
initial shock of seeing Lefebvre’s signature on
Dignitatis Humanae, he will often offer a theological
objection to the Second Vatican Council’s teaching
on religious freedom. In a nutshell, this objection is
expressed as follows: Pope Pius IX condemned the
following proposition in his Syllabus of Errors:
“15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that
religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to
be the true religion.” This appears to contradict
Dignitatis Humanae’s teaching on religious freedom,
which states:
This
Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a
right to religious freedom. This freedom means that
all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of
individuals or of social groups and of any human
power, in such wise that in matters religious no one
is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his
own beliefs.v
At
first glance, these two magisterial teachings do appear
irreconcilable. However, the Church can’t contradict
herself, and she obviously can’t fail, either. So we
must carefully distinguish between moral and political
freedom.
Pope
Pius IX’s condemnation of religious freedom
addresses those who claim all religious expression to be
more or less equal — those who say that man
possesses a moral freedom to choose whatever religious
expression fits his fancy. Around the time of the Second
Vatican Council, approximately two thirds of the world
lay under the oppressive political yoke of atheistic
communism, so the Second Vatican Council addressed this
situation through Dignitatis Humanae. In short, the
Council taught that all believers have the political
freedom to worship God, and the various communist states
cannot coerce religious believers into atheism.
Once we understand this context, we can see that the
teachings of Pope Pius IX and the Second Vatican Council
are easily reconcilable, because they address two
different situations. In recognizing religious freedom,
Dignitatis Humanae reaffirms man’s moral obligation
to seek truth, stating: “All men should be at once
impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation
to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are
also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and
to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of
the truth.”vi
Fresh Insights With a Solid Foundation
In concluding this apologetic for the Vatican II’s
teachings on ecumenism, we can affirm that these
teachings are fresh insights into our Catholic Tradition,
formulated to address new crises arising in the modern
world. They mark no departure from what the Church has
always taught. Catholic ecumenism is solidly founded in
Catholic Tradition, as handed down from previous
ecumenical councils, and it simply resurfaced at the
Second Vatican Council.
The teachings of Vatican II on ecumenism build upon the
Church’s ecumenical precedents established at the
Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. As
Catholics, we can embrace the Second Vatican
Council’s teachings on ecumenism, because these
teachings are solidly rooted in Catholic Tradition.
Pete Vere
The Catholic Legate
July 20, 2004
i Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 26.
ii Unitatis Redintegratio, 2.
iii Unitatis Redintegratio, 2.
iv See page 29 for Archbishop Lefebvre’s signature
on the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on
Religious Liberty.
v For an in-depth treatment of how Vatican II’s
Declaration on Religious Freedom is both consistent with
Catholic Tradition and represents a legitimate
development of Catholic doctrine, I recommend the
writings of Dom Basile, a theologian from the Benedictine
monastery of Ste. Madeleine de Le Barroux, which has the
privilege of using all the liturgical books in force in
1962.
vi Dignitatis Humanae, 2.
________________________
This Article
orignally appeared in Envoy Magazine.
|