Major Heresy of Vatican II: “Gaudium et Spes”
The Constitution “Gaudium et Spes” is contrary to
the Infallible Teaching of “Quanta Cura”
and the “Syllabus Errorum”
Table of Contents
Introduction
– Section 1: The Infallibility of “Quanta Cura” and 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 Progressivism
2.4. Human Dignity Detached from God and from Truth
– Section 3: Refutation of Counter-Arguments
Conclusion
Introduction
The so-called constitution “Gaudium et Spes”, promulgated during the council Vatican II, 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 overturn infallible condemnations, render this document contrary to the Catholic faith.
The constitution “Gaudium et Spes” (G&S) constitutes, according to Paul VI, “the crowning of the work of the Council” (Paul VI, 21 November 1964).
The admission (of a suspect) is proof, according to the rules of any system of law.
“It has been considered more and more after the Council as the true testament of the latter” (Cardinal Ratzinger, The Principles of Catholic Theology, Paris, Tequi, p. 423.)
“Of all the texts of the Second Vatican Council, the pastoral constitution ‘On the Church in the Modern World’ (‘Gaudium et Spes’) has been incontestably the most difficult, and also, together with the constitution on the liturgy and the decree on Ecumenism, the richest in consequences… If one seeks an overall diagnosis of the text, one could say that it is (in connection with the texts on religious liberty and on the religions of the world) a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a sort of counter-Syllabus… Let us content ourselves here with noting that the text plays the role of a counter-Syllabus, insofar as it represents an attempt at an official reconciliation of the Church with the world as it had become since 1789.” (J. Ratzinger, The Principles of Catholic Theology – Sketch and Materials, Collection Croire et Savoir, Téqui 1985, p. 423-427)
This admission confirms, according to the principles of pre-1963 canon law, the rupture with certain doctrine.
Of this rupture “Cardinal” Ratzinger makes no illness, on the contrary he erects it into a principle:
“On the other hand, the Council also expressed and concretized the will to develop theology in the light of all the sources, in their entirety, to look at these sources not through the filter of the interpretation of the Magisterium of the last hundred years, but to read and understand them from themselves; the Council manifested the will not to listen only to the Catholic Tradition, but to deepen and assume in a critical way even the theological development of the other churches and Christian confessions.”
(J. Ratzinger, Il nuovo popolo di Dio, Ed. Queriniana, Brescia, 1971, p. 310 ff.)
This testimony is of particular importance since it comes from one of the principal interpreters of the Council.
The analysis which follows, founded exclusively on traditional teaching, demonstrates these contradictions by means of exact quotations, refuting potential counter-arguments.
Section 1: The Infallibility of “Quanta Cura” and the “Syllabus Errorum”
Quanta Cura and the Syllabus Errorum condemn modern errors, such as rationalism, religious indifferentism, liberalism and the separation of Church and State. Their infallibility is established by pre-conciliar theologians, who consider them as pertaining to the ordinary universal magisterium or the extraordinary magisterium.
The Dictionary of Catholic Theology, in the article “Syllabus” of 1912, affirms that this document is infallible, because it constitutes an “actus ex cathedra”, linked to Quanta Cura, where Pius IX proscribes with apostolic authority all the errors mentioned:
“We reject, proscribe and condemn them by Our Apostolic Authority; and We will and command that all the sons of the Catholic Church hold them absolutely as rejected, proscribed and condemned.”
The article specifies that the theologians regard it as binding and infallible, either by the ordinary universal magisterium or by the extraordinary magisterium.
Franz Xavier Wernz, in Ius Decretalium of 1905, 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 of 1908, adds that the condemned propositions contain a doctrine which 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 in Études religieuses of July 1889, 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 sort of summary, communicated to all the Pastors of the universal Church; in which mandate and act seems to be contained and manifested entirely the will to give a universal norm of thinking and teaching in these heads which are indicated therein. He stresses that the authority of the Syllabus is demonstrated by the consensus of the entire Catholic episcopate.
Jean Bainvel, in De magisterio vivo et traditione of 1905, affirms that the majority of theologians, relying on the morally unanimous sense of the Bishops and the faithful, who have thus understood the matter, consider that these propositions are forbidden by an infallible judgment; and moreover, the previous 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.
Camillo Cardinal Mazzella, in Prælectiones scholastico-dogmaticæ de religione et Ecclesia, 6th edition of 1907, confirms that the most famous collection of Pius IX is the Encyclical Quanta Cura and the Syllabus Errorum of 8 December 1864. In these documents, Pius IX condemns 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 the faithful, in accordance with the council Vatican I, 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, in n. 16, affirms: “In the depths of his conscience, man discovers the presence of a law which he has not given himself, but to which he is bound to obey, and the voice of which, which always calls him to love and to do good and to avoid evil, resounds at the opportune moment in the ears 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 this 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 directly contradicts Tradition:
All catechisms teach that one must well listen to and obey one’s conscience but that one has the grave obligation to have it formed by the Church, otherwise conscience can be and remain erroneous. And several consciences are erroneous (lax 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 the society, the Church and especially the Catholic State must forbid the public manifestation of one’s errors, even those 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 erroneous liberty of conscience manifested publicly and it must be forbidden to him.
– And in n. 21: “The Church maintains that the knowledge of God is in no way in contradiction with the dignity of man, for such dignity has its foundation and its fulfilment precisely in God. The Church on her part, although she entirely rejects atheism, sincerely confesses that all men, believers and non-believers, must contribute to the just construction of this world, in which they all live together; which certainly cannot be done without an honest and prudent dialogue.”
This recognizes a universal right to liberty of conscience, even in error, even in public, and effaces the distinction between believers and non-believers.
– This also contradicts directly “Quanta Cura”, which condemns religious liberty as “liberty of perdition” (§6)
“Against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to affirm that ‘the best condition of civil society is that in which no obligation is recognized in the civil power to repress by established penalties the violators of the Catholic religion, except when the public peace demands it’.” (§5)
– 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 true.”
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 whatever, leads more easily to the corruption of the morals and minds of the people, and to the propagation of the plague of indifferentism.”
– The contradiction is evident, for Gaudium et Spes grants liberty to conscience, even erring, 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: “Conscience often errs, by invincible ignorance, without thereby losing its dignity.” It is therefore legitimate to write that the dignity recognized to conscience remains even when it is objectively erroneous. Gaudium et Spes prepares and supposes an anthropology which 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 Council Vatican II 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 conserves publicly this civil immunity, the practical effect amounts precisely to recognizing a civil right of expression of error. This distinction between the invoked theory and its concrete juridical effect considerably strengthens our argumentation.
2.2. The Separation of Church and State, and Neutrality
– Gaudium et Spes, in n. 76, affirms: “Moreover, the Church, in virtue of her task and competence, must in no way be confused with the political community, nor bound to any political system; she is at once the sign and the safeguard of the transcendence 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 must be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”
Proposition 77: “In the present age, it is no longer useful that the Catholic religion be considered as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.”
Proposition 78: “Whence it is wisely decided by law, in certain Catholic countries, that persons who come there to reside may publicly exercise their own particular worship.”
– Quanta Cura condemns this separation as an error which undermines the social kingship of Christ: “they do not hesitate to favour this most erroneous opinion, most 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 proper right of each man, which must be proclaimed and assured in every well-constituted State’”
– The contradiction is indisputable, for Gaudium et Spes renders the State neutral towards religions, whereas traditional teaching, as in Immortale Dei of Leo XIII of 1 November 1885, demands that the State recognize and promote the Catholic religion.
2.3. The Acceptance of Modernity and Progressivism
– Gaudium et Spes, in n. 2, affirms: “The Council The world which it thus has in view is that of men, the whole human family with the universe in the midst of which it lives”
In n. 4: “In order to fulfil such a 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… Today, humanity is entering a new phase of its history, in which profound and rapid changes are progressively extending over the whole globe.”
And in n. 40: “All that we have said about the dignity of the human person, about the community of men, about the profound meaning of human activity, constitutes the foundation of the relationship between the Church and the world, as well as the base of their mutual dialogue.” This embraces modern changes and secularization as positive.
– This contradicts the Syllabus Errorum,
Proposition 80: “The Roman Pontiff can and must reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”
– Quanta Cura condemns modernism as a set of errors:
“contrary to the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church and of the holy Fathers, they do not fear to affirm that ‘the best form of government is that in which the civil power is not obliged to punish the violators of the Catholic religion, except when the public peace demands it’ (§5)”
– The rupture is evident, for 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, in n. 12, affirms:
“Believers and unbelievers are generally agreed on this point: everything on earth must be ordered to man as to its centre and summit.”
This founds dignity on man himself, including unbelievers, and recognizes that
“Conscience often errs by invincible ignorance without losing its dignity” (n. 16).
– This contradicts Quanta Cura, which links dignity to the true religion and which fulminates against this absolutely false doctrine of social communication from which arise the innumerable evils which afflict civil society.
– The Syllabus Errorum condemns Proposition 3:
“Human reason, without regard to God, is the sole arbiter of true and false, of good and evil; it is a law unto itself, and suffices, by its natural forces, to procure the good of men and peoples.”
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.”
The contradiction is direct, for Gaudium et Spes renders dignity universal without the 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.
Section 3: Refutation of Counter-Arguments
Counter-argument 1: The contradictions are not flagrant, but a difference of interpretation.
This is to be refuted, for the quotations 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).
Regarding this Vatican I teaches: “For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human minds as a philosophical invention to be perfected, but as a divine deposit handed over to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared.” Then: “the meaning of the dogmas must be perpetually retained… and one must not depart from that meaning…”
Denzinger 1800 (DS 3020).
Translation: “For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human minds as a philosophical invention to be perfected, but as a divine deposit handed over to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared.” Then: “The meaning of the dogmas must be perpetually retained… and one must not depart from that meaning…”
According to the doctrine of Vatican I on the immutability of the sense of dogmas, a formal contradiction with a previous definition would constitute, in the view of classical theologians, a heresy properly so called. Thus the flagrant contradictions with infallible teaching imply heresy: the canons which accompany the Constitution are destined to anathematize “heresies, strictly speaking”.
Therefore every proposition which contradicts an infallible doctrine – that is to say a truth of faith held by perpetual consensus – falls under the blow of the anathema and is therefore qualified as heresy.
Theologians such as Franz Xavier Wernz in Ius Decretalium of 1905 (IV, Title III, n°516) confirm that such oppositions render the magisterium invalid: if a proposition opposes an infallible truth of faith, it renders invalid every magisterial declaration which supports it.
Counter-argument 2: Gaudium et Spes is pastoral and fits within Tradition.
This is untenable, for pastoral teaching cannot contradict dogmatic condemnations; Quanta Cura is infallible via the ordinary universal magisterium, and Gaudium et Spes overturns it, which renders it contrary to the faith according to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV of 15 February 1559, which grants no authority to erroneous documents.
Counter-argument 3: The contradictions are not heresy, but a development.
Dei Filius forbids developments which contradict previous definitions; the flagrant overturning 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 sacredly guard and faithfully expound the deposit transmitted by the Apostles.”
(Pastor Aeternus, chap. IV; DS 3070.)
Hence, a teaching which 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 of 1908 explains that the oppositions to condemned errors define Catholic doctrine. Notably that Catholic doctrine is recognized with certainty not only in the positively affirmed propositions, but also in the propositions opposed to those which have been condemned as erroneous, heretical, schismatical, 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. 23:
“In the Catholic Church itself, great care must be taken that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”
Translation:
“In the Catholic Church itself, great care must be taken that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”
Then: “profectus fidei, non permutatio”
“progress of the faith, not 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 council Vatican II invalid as magisterial teaching, according to the certain Doctrine before 1963. Indeed these contradictions render these teachings incompatible with traditional Catholic faith.