Neither Schismatic nor Excommunicated (2)

The Choice of the "Sensus Fidei"

In the conflict appearing between "obedience" and Truth, better-informed Catholics have chosen the Truth, assured, in their sensus fidei, that only Truth will ensure union with the invisible Head of the Church who is Christ. Labelled, on that account, as "traditional Catholics" and deemed incapable of distinguishing between Divine Tradition and human tradition, between what is subject to change in the Tradition of the Church and what is immutable, between a homogeneous and a heterogeneous evolution of dogma; charged as disobedient and today, in addition, excommunicated as schismatics, they know well that this does not correspond to any reality. They are fully aware that they are not schismatics─that is to say, "Volentes per se ecclesiam constituere singularem":[19] they have no desire to found a Church for themselves.

On the contrary, they resist the present ecclesiastical orientation in order to remain in the one Church of Christ. None of them "refuse to act as part of a whole," nor do they want to "think, pray, behave, in a word, to live, not in the Church and according to the Church, but as a self-governing body which decides for itself the law of its thoughts, of its prayers and its actions."[20] On the contrary, this is exactly why, in order never to cease thinking, praying and acting "within the Church and according to the Church," they resist the new ecclesiastical tide in the measure that it attempts to distance them from the doctrines or the practices of the Faith, kept and transmitted by the Church.

Furthermore, they do not refuse to sub esse capiti, to submit to the head of the Church, which would be another way of being schismatic.[21] On the contrary, it is to remain obedient to the invisible Head of the Church that they resist the present-day orientation (allowed, favored or wanted by the pope, it doesn't matter), desiring without ever giving up, and in spite of many disillusionments, that the union with the present hierarchy, and particularly with the Vicar of Christ, can be re-established as soon as possible without, however, having to compromise on any single point of doctrine.

Ambiguity

However, the apparent conflict between "obedience" and Truth rests in reality on an ambiguity. It lies in the fact of a wrong identification of obedience owed to the hierarchy, with adherence to the orientations imposed by members of the hierarchy against the previous Magisterium of the Church. Take for instance liberalism and ecumenism. They inspire the new direction of the Church and provoke the greatest resistance from traditional Catholics.

Liberalism, which "defends the civil liberty of every religion, a liberty which is not contrary, in itself, to the aims of society but which conforms to reason and to the spirit of the Gospels," has been condemned many times by the Church through the Magisterium of a long series of pontiffs, particularly Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, etc.[22]

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange adds in his book De Revelatione:

This, the supreme pontiffs have always taught, for example Boniface VIII in the bull Unam Sanctam (Dz. 469), Martin V in his condemnation of the errors of John Hus and Wycliffe (Dz. 640-82) and also Leo X condemning the errors of Martin Luther."

Yet, as recently as 1967, Fr. Matteo da Casola counted in the ranks of "schismatics" denying the authority of the Roman pontiff in any particular matter, the "liberal Catholics" and "those who accept the political-religious system of pure liberalism which teaches the absolute and full independence of the State in relation with the Church."[23] It follows then that the "Declaration on Religious Liberty" (Dignitatis humanae),which they want to impose at all cost on Catholics, was drawn up by "schismatics."

We are not going to enter into the argument. A rapid glance at pontifical documents of the last 150 years is sufficient here to convince anyone that the new ecclesiastical orientation is the work of an old current which has been for a long time obstinately opposed to the Magisterium.[24] At the time of the council, this current was opposed and silenced by more or less honest means, but has since installed itself in key positions in the post-conciliar period and demands today obedience to its personal orientations against the whole previous Magisterium of the Church.

The same can be said for the peace-at-any-cost ecumenism,[25] of Protestant origin, which inspired all the ambiguous or unacceptable texts of the Council before the liturgical upheaval of Paul VI. This ecumenism, which imposed and imposes on Catholics the most numerous and most serious consequences, was on many occasions condemned by the Church, particularly through the Magisterium of Leo XIII (Testem benevolentiae, Satis cognitum), of St. Pius X (Singulari quadam), of Pius XI (Mortalium animos), of Pius XII (Humani generis).

We will not delay further, as we have so constantly denounced and illustrated it in this periodical.

Pius XI wrote in Mortalium animos that "charity cannot interfere with the Faith" and consequently "the Holy See cannot, in any way, take part in their [ecumenists'] meeting and that in no way can Catholics give their support to such an undertaking or collaborate with it. If they were do to so, they would be giving some authority to a false Christian religion completely foreign to the one Church of Christ." "Could we suffer," continued the pope, "that the divinely revealed Truth be compromised? It would be the worst of iniquities, because, in the circumstance, it is a question of respecting Revealed Truth." This demonstrates the conflict between Truth and alleged "obedience," a conflict which so many Catholics are facing today.

As to the "dialogue" which one should enter into with all the erring people and all the errors, this is only an entirely personal invention of Paul VI, absolutely without precedent in the 2,000 years of the history of the Church.[26]

However, a Catholic has the duty of being in communion with the successor of Peter only insofar as he accomplishes the duty of his charge, that is to say, in the measure that he keeps, transmits and interprets faithfully the deposit of the Faith. He (a Catholic) is not obliged to be in communion with the "adinventiones," the inventions─opinions, views, personal orientation─of the successor of Peter, particularly if these orientations are in conflict with the purity and the integrity of the Faith. Because it is not unusual that advantage be taken of this ambiguity to attempt to give qualms of conscience to traditional Catholics, it is today essential, more than ever, to have a clear idea of the papacy and its function in the Church.

Footnotes 

19 St. Thomas, in IV Sent., dist. XIII q. II a I ad 2.

20 Cajetan, In IIa-IIae, q.39, a. 1 No. 2.

21 St. Thomas, lla-IIae, q.39, a.1.

22 Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari vos (Denzinger [from now on Dz.]1613-6); Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta cura (Dz. 1689 and ff.) and Syllabus (Dz.1724-1755, 1777-1780); Leo XIII, encyclicals Immortnle Dei (Dz. 1867) and Libertas (Dz. 1932).

23 Compendio di Diritto Canonico, ed. Marietti, Turin, p.1320.

24 Cf. E.E.Y. Hales, La Chiesa cattolica nel mondo contemporaneo, ed. Paoline,1961.

25 Instruction on the ecumenical movement of 12-20-1949 by Pius Xll:

One must avoid that in a mentality called today irenic, the very Catholic Doctrine, whether in its dogmas connected to them, be assimilated or adapted in some ways to the doctrines adverse, by a comparative study and vain desire of progressive assimilation of the diverse professions of faith, and this to the extent that the purity of the Catholic Doctrine be hurt or that its certain and authentic interpretation be obscured."

26 See Romano Amerio, op.cit., chap. XVI Le dialogue.