Major Heresy of Vatican II : “Gaudium et Spes”
The Constitution Gaudium et Spes is Contradictory
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 : 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 Truth
– Section 3 : Refutation of Counter-Arguments
Conclusion
Introduction
The constitution titled Gaudium et Spes, promulgated during the Vatican II council, presents blatant 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 achievement of the Council’s work” (Paul VI, 21 November 1964).
An admission by the suspect is proof according to the rules of all law.
“It has been considered increasingly after the Council as the true testament of the same” (Cardinal Ratzinger, The Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 423.)
“Of all the texts of the Second Vatican Council, the pastoral constitution On the Church in the World of This Time (Gaudium et Spes) has been incontestably the most difficult, and also, alongside the constitution on the liturgy and the decree on Ecumenism, the richest in consequences… If one seeks a global diagnosis of the text, one could say that it is (in connection with the texts on religious liberty and on the world’s religions) 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 has become since 1789.” (J. Cal Ratzinger, The Principles of Catholic Theology – Outline and Materials, Collection Believe and Know, Téqui 1985, p. 423-427)
This admission confirms, according to the principles of pre-1963 canon law, the rupture with certain doctrine.
From this rupture “Cardinal” Ratzinger makes no illness, on the contrary he elevates it to a principle: “On the other hand, the Council has also expressed and concretized the will to unfold theology in the light of all the sources, in their entirety, to look at these sources not through the filter of the Magisterium of the last hundred years, but to read and understand them from themselves; the Council has manifested the will not to listen to the sole Catholic Tradition, but to deepen and assume critically even the theological development of other churches and Christian confessions.” (J. Ratzinger, Il nuovo popolo di Dio, Ed. Queriniana, Brescia, 1971, p. 310 s.)
The analysis that follows, founded exclusively on traditional teaching, demonstrates these contradictions through exact citations, 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 Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, in the article “Syllabus” of 1912, affirms that this document is infallible, as 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 order that all the sons of the Catholic Church hold them absolutely as rejected, proscribed, and condemned.”
The article specifies that 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 have been forbidden by him on other occasions, are noted as errors against sound doctrine and to be avoided by the faithful, and gathered in a sort of summary, communicated to all the Pastors of the universal Church; in which mandate and act seems to be contained and fully manifested the will to give a universal norm of thinking and teaching in the matters indicated therein. He emphasizes 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 most 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 furthermore, 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.
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 Vatican I, which teaches that papal condemnations are binding when they concern the whole Church.
Section 2 : Specific Contradictions
2.1. Religious Liberty and the Right to Error
– Gaudium et Spes, at n. 16, affirms: “Deep within his conscience, man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself, but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do good and to avoid evil, resounds at the right 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 lies in obeying it, and it is by it that he will be judged. The conscience is the most secret core of man, the sanctuary where he is alone with God and where His voice is heard.”
– This directly contradicts Tradition:
All catechisms teach that one must listen well to and obey one’s conscience but that one has a grave obligation to allow it to be formed by the Church, otherwise the conscience can be and remain erroneous. And most consciences are erroneous (laxist or scrupulous, etc.). And although one must always follow one’s conscience, even if erroneous, the common good takes priority over the particular good. Therefore, society, the Church, and especially the Catholic State must forbid the public manifestation of these errors, even if inspired by an erroneous conscience; indeed, to protect the Christian people from errors in faith and morals, the individual must be forbidden and prevented from this kind of erroneous freedom of conscience manifested publicly.
– And at 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 precisely in God its foundation and its fulfillment. The Church, for its part, while it rejects atheism entirely, nevertheless confesses sincerely that all men, believers and unbelievers, must contribute to the just construction of this world in which they live together; which can certainly not be done without an honest and prudent dialogue.”
This recognizes a universal right to freedom of conscience, even in error, even in public, and erases the distinction between believers and unbelievers.
– This also directly contradicts Quanta Cura, which condemns religious liberty as “liberty of perdition” (§6): “Contrary to 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 for the civil power to repress by established penalties the violators of the Catholic religion, except when public peace requires 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 to be 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, 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 a right to error, whereas Quanta Cura and the Syllabus teach that error has no rights and that the State must repress false religions to protect the true one.
2.2. The Separation of Church and State, and Neutrality
– Gaudium et Spes, at n. 76, affirms: “Moreover, the Church, by 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: “At the present time, 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: “Hence it is wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside there may publicly exercise their own particular worship.”
– Quanta Cura condemns this separation as an error that undermines the social kingship of Christ: “they do not hesitate to favor this most erroneous and fatal opinion to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, which Our predecessor of happy memory, Gregory XVI, called a delirium, namely, that ‘the liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to 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 with respect to 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.
2.3. The Acceptance of Modernity and Progressivism
– Gaudium et Spes, at n. 2, affirms: “The Council has in view the world of men, the entire human family with the universe in which it lives.”
At n. 4: “To carry out such a task, the Church has the duty, at all times, 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, where deep and rapid changes are progressively extending over the whole globe.”
And at n. 40: “All that we have said of the dignity of the human person, of the community of men, of the profound sense of human activity, constitutes the foundation of the relationship between the Church and the world, as well as 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 must reconcile and compromise 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 public peace requires 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 atheism.
2.4. Human Dignity Detached from God and Truth
– Gaudium et Spes, at n. 12, affirms: “Believers and unbelievers are generally agreed on this point: all things on earth must be ordered to man as to their center and summit.”
This founds dignity on man himself, including unbelievers, and recognizes that “The conscience often errs through invincible ignorance without losing its dignity” (n. 16).
– This contradicts Quanta Cura, which links dignity to the true religion and fulminates against this absolutely false doctrine of social communication from which arise the innumerable evils that 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 its own law, and suffices, by its natural forces, to procure the good of men and peoples.”
And Proposition 18: “Protestantism is nothing other than a different 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 His Church.
Section 3 : Refutation of Counter-Arguments
Counter-argument 1: The contradictions are not blatant, but a difference of interpretation.
This is refuted, for 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).
Dei Filius of Vatican I teaches that blatant contradictions with infallible teaching imply heresy: the canons accompanying the Constitution are intended to anathematize “heresies, strictly speaking”. Thus, any proposition that contradicts an infallible doctrine – that is, a truth of faith held by perpetual consensus – falls under the anathema and is therefore qualified as heresy.
Theologians like 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 a truth of infallible faith, it renders invalid any magisterial declaration that 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 a heresy, but a development.
Dei Filius forbids developments that contradict prior definitions; the blatant reversal in Gaudium et Spes of the Syllabus (e.g., Proposition 80 on modernism) is not an evolution but a rupture.
Just as Hugo von Hurter in Medulla Theologiae Dogmaticae of 1908 explains that oppositions to errors condemned define Catholic doctrine. Notably that Catholic doctrine is recognized with certainty not only in propositions affirmed positively, but also in propositions opposed to those which have been condemned as erroneous, heretical, schismatic, etc. For since the Church cannot err, in proscribing the false it proposes indirectly, at least negatively, the true doctrine, which must then be held as Catholic doctrine.
Conclusion
These proofs demonstrate blatant contradictions between Gaudium et Spes and Quanta Cura with the Syllabus Errorum, rendering Gaudium et Spes contrary to the Catholic faith and the Vatican II council invalid according to the certain teaching before 1963.