21 Major Heresy of Vatican II: “Gaudium et Spes”

Major Heresy of Vatican II: “Gaudium et Spes”

The Constitution “Gaudium et Spes” is contradictory

to the Infallible Teaching of “Quanta Cura”

and of the “Syllabus Errorum”

 

 

Table of contents

 

Introduction

 

Section 1 : The Infallibility of “Quanta Cura” and of the “Syllabus Errorum”

 

Section 2 : The Specific Contradictions

 

2.1. Religious Liberty and the Right to Error

 

2.2. The Separation of Church and State, and Neutrality

 

2.3. The Acceptance of Modernity and of Progressivism

 

2.4. Human Dignity Detached from God and from Truth

 

Section 3 : Refutation of the Counter-Arguments

 

Conclusion

 

List of Sources

 

 

 

Introduction

 

The so-called constitution “Gaudium et Spes”, promulgated at the Second Vatican Council, presents flagrant contradictions with the encyclical “Quanta Cura” of Pius IX, dated 8 December 1864, and the “Syllabus Errorum” annexed to it.

 

These direct oppositions, which reverse infallible condemnations, render this document contrary to the Catholic faith.

 

The constitution “Gaudium et spes” (G and S), still in schematic form under the title “De Ecclesia in mundo huius temporis”, was, according to Paul VI, to “crown, as it were, the work of the Council” (Paul VI, allocution at the close of the third session of the Second Vatican Council, 21 November 1964, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. LVI, 1964, p. 1013; translation from the Latin).

 

The admission (of a suspect) is a proof, according to the rules of every system of law

 

Concerning Gaudium et spes, Ratzinger writes: “Since Vatican II, it has therefore been increasingly regarded as the true heritage […]” (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology. Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, English translation by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D., San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1987, second printing, 1989, epilogue, part B, p. 378; French translation from the English).

 

“Of all the texts of the Second Vatican Council, the ‘Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World’ (Gaudium et spes) was unquestionably the most difficult and, together with the ‘Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy’ and the ‘Decree on Ecumenism’, also the one that met with the greatest success. […] If one wished to propose a diagnosis of the text as a whole, one could say that it is (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and the religions of the world) a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of anti-Syllabus. […] Let us content ourselves here with saying that the text functions as an anti-Syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” (Joseph Ratzinger, op. cit. p. 378 and p. 381–382; French translation from the English).

 

This admission confirms, according to the principles of pre-1963 canon law, the rupture with certain doctrine.

 

Of this rupture “Cardinal” Ratzinger does not make a disease; on the contrary he erects it into a principle:

 

“The Council has however also manifested and imposed its will to develop theology once again from the totality of the sources, not to consider these sources solely in the mirror of the official interpretation of the last hundred years, but to read them and understand them in themselves; it has manifested its will not only to listen to tradition within the Catholic Church, but to reflect on theological development in the other Churches and Christian confessions and to gather it up in a critical manner […].”

 

(Joseph Ratzinger, El nuevo pueblo de Dios. Esquemas para una Eclesiología, Spanish translation by Daniel Ruiz Bueno, Barcelona, Editorial Herder, 1972, coll. “Biblioteca Herder”, vol. 101, p. 319; French translation from the Spanish).

 

This testimony is of particular importance since it comes from one of the principal interpreters of the Council.

 

The analysis that follows, founded exclusively on traditional teaching, demonstrates these contradictions by exact citations, while refuting potential counter-arguments.

 

Section 1 : The Infallibility of “Quanta Cura” and of the “Syllabus Errorum”

 

Quanta Cura and the Syllabus Errorum condemn the modern errors, such as rationalism, religious indifferentism, liberalism and the separation of Church and State. Their infallibility is established by the pre-conciliar theologians, who regard them as pertaining to the ordinary universal magisterium or to the extraordinary magisterium.

 

The Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, in the article “Syllabus” by L. Brigué, reports the argumentation of the theologians who affirm that this document is infallible, because it constitutes an ex cathedra definition, linked to Quanta Cura, in which Pius IX prohibits with apostolic authority all the errors mentioned (Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1941, vol. XIV, 2nd part, col. 2916–2918):

 

“Wherefore We, by Our Apostolic authority, reprobate, proscribe and condemn all and each of the evil opinions and doctrines individually recalled in these present Letters; and We will and command that they be held by all the children of the Catholic Church as absolutely reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” (Pius IX, Quanta cura, 8 December 1864, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, Rome, 1867, p. 166; translation from the Latin).

 

The article also reports the opinions of the theologians who regard it as binding and infallible, either by the ordinary universal magisterium or by the extraordinary magisterium (L. Brigué, “Syllabus”, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. XIV, 2nd part, col. 2916–2918).

 

Franz Xaver Wernz, in Ius decretalium ad usum praelectionum in scholis textus canonici sive iuris decretalium, vol. I, Introductio in ius decretalium, 3rd revised edition, Prato, Giachetti, filii et soc., 1913, tit. XIII, § 7, n° 278, p. 392, declares that it cannot be doubted that the encyclical Quanta cura is a true ex cathedra definition of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore infallible.

 

Hugo von Hurter, in Medulla theologiae dogmaticae, 2nd edition, Innsbruck, Libraria academica Wagneriana; Paris, Bloud et Barral, 1885, n° 410, note 3, p. 243–244, adds that the condemned propositions contain a doctrine that is in some way harmful to Catholic doctrine, according to the infallible declaration of the Roman pontiff.

 

Johann Cardinal Franzelin, in a letter of 19 March 1868, reproduced by F. Desjacques in “Le Syllabus. Son autorité dogmatique, son histoire”, Études religieuses, philosophiques, historiques et littéraires, vol. XLVII, May–August 1889, Paris, Rétaux-Bray, p. 354–359, here p. 358–359, writes that by the will and command of the Pontiff the errors, which had been forbidden by him on other occasions, are noted as errors against sound doctrine and to be avoided by the faithful, and gathered into a kind of summary, communicated to all the Pastors of the universal Church; in which mandate and act there seems to be contained and entirely manifested the will to give a universal norm of thinking and teaching in those heads that are indicated therein. He underlines that the authority of the Syllabus is demonstrated by the morally unanimous consensus of the entire Catholic episcopate.

 

Jean Bainvel, in De magisterio vivo et traditione, Paris, Gabriel Beauchesne et Cie, 1905, n° 104, p. 107–108, affirms that most theologians, relying on the morally unanimous sense of the Bishops and of the faithful, who have thus understood the matter, consider that these propositions are forbidden by an infallible judgment; and moreover, the prior condemnation was already an infallible act, or else the Pope marks in the Encyclical Quanta Cura (which is an infallible act) these errors as already condemned by him.

 

The most famous collection of Pius IX is the encyclical Quanta Cura and the Syllabus Errorum of 8 December 1864. Camillo Cardinal Mazzella, in De religione et Ecclesia. Prælectiones scholastico-dogmaticæ, 2nd edition, Rome, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1880, n° 1052, note 1, p. 822–824, confirms that, in these documents, Pius IX condemns the modern errors with infallible authority.

 

These theological authorities demonstrate that Quanta Cura and the Syllabus establish a universal norm for the Church, accepted by the consensus of the bishops and of the faithful, in accordance with the First Vatican Council, which teaches that papal condemnations are binding when they concern the whole Church.

 

Section 2 : The Specific Contradictions

 

2.1. Religious Liberty and the Right to Error

 

Gaudium et spes, of 7 December 1965, at n. 16, affirms: “In the depths of his conscience, man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself, but which he must obey. This voice, which never ceases to press him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, at the right moment resounds in the intimacy of his heart: ‘Do this, avoid that’. For it is a law inscribed by God in the heart of man; his dignity is to obey it, and it is that which will judge him. Conscience is the most secret centre of man, the sanctuary where he is alone with God and where His voice makes itself heard.”

 

This contradicts Tradition directly:

 

All the catechisms teach that one must listen well to and obey one’s conscience but that one has the grave obligation to allow it to be formed by the Church, otherwise the conscience can be and remain erroneous. And several consciences are erroneous (laxist or scrupulous etc.). And they can be erroneous, either by invincible ignorance or by culpable ignorance.

 

And although one must always follow one’s conscience, even if erroneous, the common good has priority over the particular good. Therefore society, the Church and especially the Catholic State must forbid the public manifestation of one’s errors, even if inspired by an erroneous conscience;

 

indeed in order to protect the Christian people from errors in faith and morals, the individual must be prevented in this kind of liberty of an erroneous conscience manifested publicly and one must forbid it to him.

 

And at n. 21, § 3 and 6: “The Church holds that the recognition of God is in no way opposed to the dignity of man, since this dignity finds in God Himself that which founds it and that which completes it. […] The Church, while absolutely rejecting atheism, proclaims however, without afterthought, that all men, believers and unbelievers, must apply themselves to the just construction of this world, in which they live together: which, assuredly, is possible only by a loyal and prudent dialogue.”

 

This recognizes a universal right to liberty of conscience, even in error, even in public, and erases the distinction between believers and non-believers.

 

This likewise contradicts directly “Quanta cura”, which condemns religious liberty as “liberty of perdition” (Pius IX, Quanta cura, 8 December 1864, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 162).

 

“And, against the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church and of the holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to affirm that ‘the best condition of society is that in which one does not recognize in the civil power the duty of repressing, by established penalties, the violators of the Catholic religion, except in so far as public peace requires it’.” (Quanta cura, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 162; translation from the Latin).

 

The Syllabus Errorum condemns

 

Proposition 15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion which, guided by the light of reason, he judges to be true.” (Pius IX, Syllabus, 8 December 1864, proposition 15, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 170; translation from the Latin).

 

And Proposition 79: “It is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power granted to all to manifest openly and publicly any opinions and thoughts whatsoever, lead more easily to the corruption of the morals and minds of the people, and to the propagation of the plague of indifferentism.” (Syllabus, proposition 79, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 176; translation from the Latin).

 

The contradiction is evident, because Gaudium et Spes grants liberty to conscience, even when wandering, and this amounts practically to giving a certain public right to error, whereas Quanta Cura and the Syllabus teach that error has no rights and that the State must repress false religions in order to protect the true one.

 

Indeed the text itself permits it, since GS 16 affirms: “However, it often happens that conscience goes astray, by reason of invincible ignorance, without thereby losing its dignity.” It is therefore legitimate to write that the dignity recognized in conscience remains even when it is objectively erroneous. Gaudium et Spes prepares and presupposes an anthropology that will be explicitly developed in Dignitatis Humanae.

 

Objection and its refutation:

 

The expression “public right to error” will be contested by the defenders of Vatican II, who will reply that the Second Vatican Council recognizes a right of the person to immunity from coercion and not a right of error as such.

 

We can then reply that, if the erroneous conscience retains this civil immunity publicly, the practical effect amounts precisely to recognizing a civil right of expression of error. This distinction between the theory invoked and its concrete juridical effect considerably strengthens our argumentation.

 

2.2. The Separation of Church and State, and Neutrality

 

Gaudium et spes, at n. 76, § 2, affirms: “The Church which, by reason of her office and of her competence, is in no way to be confused with the political community and is not bound to any political system, is at once the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.” This completely separates Church and State and denies a political role to the Church.

 

This goes against the Syllabus Errorum,

 

Proposition 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” (Syllabus, proposition 55, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 174).

 

Proposition 77: “In the present age it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” (Syllabus, proposition 77, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 176; translation from the Latin).

 

Proposition 78: “Hence it is praiseworthy that in certain Catholic regions the law has provided that it be permitted to men who go there to exercise publicly the worship proper to each.” (Syllabus, proposition 78, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 176; translation from the Latin).

 

Quanta Cura condemns this separation as an error that undermines the social kingship of Christ: “They do not hesitate to favour that erroneous opinion, than which none is more fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, and which Our predecessor of happy memory, Gregory XVI, called a delirium, namely, that ‘liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, which must be proclaimed and assured in every well-constituted State’ […].” (Quanta cura, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 162; translation from the Latin).

 

The contradiction is indisputable, because Gaudium et Spes renders the State neutral towards religions, whereas traditional teaching, as in Immortale Dei of Leo XIII of 1 November 1885, requires that the State recognize and promote the Catholic religion. (Immortale Dei, nos 6–7).

 

2.3. The Acceptance of Modernity and of Progressivism

 

Gaudium et spes, at n. 2, § 2, affirms: “The world which it thus has in view is that of men, the entire human family with the universe in the midst of which it lives.”

 

At n. 4, § 1–2: “In order to carry out this task, the Church has the duty, at every moment, to scrutinize the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel […]. The human race lives today a new age of its history, characterized by profound and rapid changes which extend little by little to the whole globe.”

 

And at n. 40, § 1: “All that we have said on the dignity of the human person, on the community of men, on the profound meaning of human activity, constitutes the foundation of the relation that exists between the Church and the world, and the basis of their mutual dialogue.” This embraces modern changes and secularization as positive.

 

This contradicts the Syllabus Errorum,

 

Proposition 80: “The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” (Syllabus, proposition 80, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 176).

 

Quanta Cura condemns modernism as a collection of errors:

 

“And, against the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church and of the holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to affirm that ‘the best condition of society is that in which one does not recognize in the civil power the duty of repressing, by established penalties, the violators of the Catholic religion, except in so far as public peace requires it’.” (Quanta cura, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 162; translation from the Latin).

 

The rupture is evident, because Gaudium et Spes celebrates the modern world, whereas Quanta Cura and the Syllabus condemn progressivism as leading to indifferentism and to atheism.

 

2.4. Human Dignity Detached from God and from Truth

 

Gaudium et spes, at n. 12, § 1, affirms:

 

“Believers and unbelievers are generally agreed on this point: everything on earth must be ordered to man as to its centre and its summit.”

 

This founds dignity on man himself, including unbelievers, and recognizes that

 

“However, it often happens that conscience goes astray, by reason of invincible ignorance, without thereby losing its dignity.” (Gaudium et spes, n. 16).

 

This contradicts Quanta Cura, which links dignity to the true religion and which fulminates against this absolutely false idea of the government of society from which arise the innumerable evils that afflict civil society (Quanta cura, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 162).

 

The Syllabus Errorum condemns Proposition 3:

 

“Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole arbiter of the true and the false, of good and evil; it is a law unto itself, and suffices, by its natural forces, to procure the good of men and of peoples.” (Syllabus, proposition 3, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 168; translation from the Latin).

 

And Proposition 18: “Protestantism is nothing other than a diverse form of the same true Christian religion, in which one can please God as well as in the Catholic Church.” (Syllabus, proposition 18, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, 1867, p. 170; translation from the Latin).

 

The contradiction is direct, because Gaudium et Spes renders dignity universal without necessity of Catholic truth, whereas traditional teaching, as in Libertas of Leo XIII of 20 June 1888, teaches that true liberty and dignity depend on submission to God and to His Church. (Libertas praestantissimum, nos 30, 36 and 40).

 

Section 3 : Refutation of the Counter-Arguments

 

Counter-argument 1 : The contradictions are not flagrant, but a difference of interpretation.

 

This is to be refuted, because the citations show direct oppositions: Gaudium et Spes takes up exactly the propositions condemned by the Syllabus, such as liberty of conscience (Proposition 15) and separation (Proposition 55).

 

In this regard, Vatican I teaches: “Neque enim fidei doctrina, quam Deus revelavit, velut philosophicum inventum proposita est humanis ingeniis perficienda, sed tamquam divinum depositum Christi Sponsae tradita, fideliter custodienda et infallibiliter declaranda.” Then: “Hinc sacrorum quoque dogmatum is sensus perpetuo est retinendus, quem semel declaravit Sancta Mater Ecclesia, nec umquam ab eo sensu, altioris intelligentiae specie et nomine, recedendum.”

 

First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, 24 April 1870, chap. IV, “De fide et ratione”; Denzinger, n° 1800; DS 3020.

 

Translation: “For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human minds as a philosophical invention to be perfected, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared.” Then: “Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be retained perpetually which Holy Mother Church has once declared, and never is one to recede from that sense under the pretext and in the name of a more profound understanding.”

 

According to the doctrine of Vatican I on the immutability of the sense of the dogmas, a formal contradiction with a prior definition would constitute, in the judgment of the classical theologians, a heresy properly so called. Thus the flagrant contradictions with infallible teaching imply heresy: the canons that accompany the Constitution are intended to anathematize the “heresies, strictly speaking”.

 

Therefore every proposition that contradicts an infallible doctrine – that is to say a truth of faith held by perpetual consensus – falls under the anathema and is therefore qualified as heresy.

 

Such oppositions render the magisterium invalid: if a proposition opposes an infallible truth of faith, it renders invalid every magisterial declaration that supports it.

 

Counter-argument 2 : Gaudium et Spes is pastoral and inscribes itself in Tradition.

 

This is untenable, because pastoral teaching cannot contradict dogmatic condemnations; Quanta cura is infallible via the ordinary universal magisterium, and Gaudium et spes reverses it, which renders it contrary to the faith. Paul IV, in the constitution Cum ex apostolatus officio of 15 February 1559, § 6, declares null the acts of those whose promotion or election is null by reason of a deviation from the faith or of a heresy prior to that promotion or election (Pietro Gasparri, ed., Codicis iuris canonici fontes, vol. I, Concilia generalia — Romani Pontifices usque ad annum 1745, Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1926, n° 94, p. 166).

 

Counter-argument 3 : The contradictions are not a heresy, but a development.

 

Dei Filius forbids developments that contradict prior definitions; the flagrant reversal in Gaudium et Spes of the Syllabus (for example, Proposition 80 on modernism) is not an evolution but a rupture.

 

This conclusion is further confirmed by the teaching of Vatican I on the very nature of the pontifical magisterium. Indeed, the council teaches:

 

“The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order that they might make known, under His revelation, a new doctrine, but in order that with His assistance they might holy keep and faithfully set forth the Revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say the deposit of faith.” (First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, chap. IV, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. VI, 1870–1871, p. 46; DS 3070; translation from the Latin).

 

Henceforth, a teaching that would present as legitimate a doctrine previously condemned would not constitute a homogeneous development of the faith, but an alteration of the revealed deposit.

 

Just as Hugo von Hurter in Medulla theologiae dogmaticae, 2nd edition, Innsbruck, Libraria academica Wagneriana; Paris, Bloud et Barral, 1885, n° 410, especially point 4 and note 3, p. 243–244, explains that the oppositions to the condemned errors define Catholic doctrine. Notably that Catholic doctrine is recognized with certainty not only in the propositions affirmed positively, but also in the propositions opposed to those that have been condemned as erroneous, heretical, schismatic, etc. For since the Church cannot err, in proscribing the false she proposes indirectly, at least negatively, the true doctrine, which must then be held as Catholic doctrine.

 

And Saint Vincent of Lérins teaches in the Commonitorium, chap. II (Patrologia Latina, vol. L, col. 640):

 

“In ipsa item catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.”

 

Translation:

 

“In the Catholic Church itself, one must take great care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.”

 

Then, at chap. XXIII: “Sed ita tamen ut vere profectus sit ille fidei, non permutatio.” (Patrologia Latina, vol. L, col. 667–668).

 

“But on condition that it be truly a progress of the faith, not a change.”

 

Conclusion

 

These proofs demonstrate flagrant contradictions between Gaudium et Spes and Quanta Cura with the Syllabus Errorum, rendering Gaudium et Spes contrary to the Catholic faith and the Second Vatican Council invalid as magisterial teaching, according to the certain Doctrine from before 1963. Indeed these contradictions render these teachings incompatible with the traditional Catholic faith.

 

 

List of Sources

 

1. Bainvel, Jean, De magisterio vivo et traditione, Paris, Gabriel Beauchesne et Cie, 1905, n° 104, p. 107–108. Latin text.

 

2. Brigué, L., “Syllabus”, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. XIV, 2nd part, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1941, col. 2916–2918. French text.

 

3. First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, 24 April 1870, chap. IV, “De fide et ratione”; Denzinger, n° 1800; DS 3020. Latin text and French translation.

 

4. First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, chap. IV, in Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. VI, 1870–1871, p. 46; DS 3070. Latin text and French translation.

 

5. Second Vatican Council, declaration on religious liberty Dignitatis humanae, 7 December 1965.

 

6. Second Vatican Council, pastoral constitution on the Church in the world of this time Gaudium et spes, 7 December 1965, n. 2, § 2; n. 4, § 1–2; n. 12, § 1; n. 16; n. 21, § 3 and 6; n. 40, § 1; n. 76, § 2. French translation.

 

7. Franzelin, Johann, letter of 19 March 1868, extracts reproduced by F. Desjacques in “Le Syllabus. Son autorité dogmatique, son histoire”, Études religieuses, philosophiques, historiques et littéraires. Revue mensuelle publiée par des Pères de la Compagnie de Jésus, XXVIth year, vol. XLVII, May–August 1889, Paris, Rétaux-Bray, article p. 353–379; letter p. 354–359, especially p. 358–359. Latin text of the letter with French presentation.

 

8. Hurter, Hugo von, Medulla theologiae dogmaticae, 2nd edition, Innsbruck, Libraria academica Wagneriana; Paris, Bloud et Barral, 1885, n° 410, especially point 4 and note 3, p. 243–244. Latin text.

 

9. Leo XIII, encyclical Immortale Dei, 1 November 1885, nos 6–7.

 

10. Leo XIII, encyclical Libertas praestantissimum, 20 June 1888, nos 30, 36 and 40.

 

11. Mazzella, Camillo, De religione et Ecclesia. Prælectiones scholastico-dogmaticæ, 2nd edition, Rome, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1880, n° 1052, note 1, p. 822–824. Latin text.

 

12. Paul IV, constitution Cum ex apostolatus officio, 15 February 1559, § 6, in Pietro Gasparri, ed., Codicis iuris canonici fontes, vol. I, Concilia generalia — Romani Pontifices usque ad annum 1745, Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1926, n° 94, p. 166. Latin text.

 

13. Paul VI, allocution at the close of the third session of the Second Vatican Council, 21 November 1964, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. LVI, 1964, p. 1013. Latin text and French translation.

 

14. Pius IX, encyclical Quanta cura, 8 December 1864, in Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, Rome, 1867, p. 162 and 166. Latin text and French translation.

 

15. Pius IX, Syllabus, 8 December 1864, in Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, Rome, 1867: proposition 3, p. 168; propositions 15 and 18, p. 170; proposition 55, p. 174; propositions 77–80, p. 176. Latin text and French translation.

 

16. Ratzinger, Joseph, El nuevo pueblo de Dios. Esquemas para una Eclesiología, Spanish translation by Daniel Ruiz Bueno, Barcelona, Editorial Herder, 1972, coll. “Biblioteca Herder”, vol. 101, p. 319. Citation translated from Spanish into French.

 

17. Ratzinger, Joseph, Principles of Catholic Theology. Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, English translation by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D., San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1987, second printing, 1989, epilogue, part B, p. 378 and 381–382. Citations translated from English into French.

 

18. Vincent of Lérins, saint, Commonitorium, in Patrologia Latina, vol. L: chap. II, col. 640; chap. XXIII, col. 667–668. Latin text and French translation.

 

19. Wernz, Franz Xaver, Ius decretalium ad usum praelectionum in scholis textus canonici sive iuris decretalium, vol. I, Introductio in ius decretalium, 3rd revised edition, Prato, Giachetti, filii et soc., 1913, tit. XIII, § 7, n° 278, p. 392. Latin text.