Editorial

VATICAN II or THE EVOLUTION IN THE CHURCH (part 2)
By Father Jacques Emily, District Superior

This introduction, however, has produced several violent reproaches on the part of those who assist regularly at Novus Ordo parishes, accusing us of criticizing members of the hierarchy. These reproaches we have received show us how difficult it is, even for Catholics, to make the basic but essential distinction between the judgment of a person's intentions and the judgment of his words, writings or actions.

It is true that Jesus told us that we must not judge: "Judge not, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew VI I, l-2). But Jesus mindfully added, immediately, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you shall know them." (Matthew VII, 15-16).

Our Lord teaches us therefore, in a very clear manner, in His Sermon on the Mount, the essential distinction that must be made between the judgment of conscience: "Judge not," and the judgment of works: "By their fruits you shall know them."

Jesus forbade us to judge someone's conscience, because that pertains to God alone: "For it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans XII). But with even more solicitude he commands us to judge the works of others when it is a question of prophets who teach in His Name. These false prophets who are (or who have changed into) ravenous wolves, have they become thus, consciously or unconsciously? This is specifically that which we are not to judge. It is of no concern to us, and changes nothing of the problem with which we are preoccupied. What concerns us is to have the certitude that our pastors transmit to us in its integrity the message of the Gospel and the Deposit of the Faith taught through the Church. In a word, what concerns us in the highest degree is that the teaching of our pastors conserve pure and entire for us the Catholic faith, which we have received by our Baptism and through which we shall be saved.

The problem which presents itself to every Catholic, since the beginning of the Church, (as Our Lord Himself warns us), is to know if the teaching or doing of our pastors, (be it even the Supreme Pontiff), is or is not in conformity with the message of the Gospel and with what has always been taught by the Church. Wasn't St. Paul himself obliged, in the beginning of the Church, to reprehend St. Peter precisely because he wasn't walking according to the Gospel? "I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed . . . But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas . . ." (Galatians II, 11-14). It is evident that in this dispute with St. Peter, even though he reproached his conduct, the great Saint Paul certainly did not allow himself to judge the conscience of the Prince of the Apostles.

Such are precisely our dispositions in regard to the Holy Father, the bishops, priests, or theologians of whose doctrines or actions we are forced to criticize. We criticize them simply because they do not walk according to the Gospel and are consequently, "reprehensible," but as St. Paul with regards to St. Peter, we do not intend in the least to judge the conscience of the Pope or the bishops.

It has seemed important to us to recall this essential distinction and to dispel, once and for all, any doubts as to the intentions of the persons we may cite, either in this series of articles on the Second Vatican Council or in any other article of Communicantes which implicates the members of the hierarchy.

The question which one asks, and which has always been asked concerning teaching members of the Church is how and with what criteria one can recognize if the doctrines proposed by these members of the Church indeed conform with that of the Gospels. The answer to this question is essential, simple and logical. However, it is so important and of such grave consequence, that it is constantly brought up in a solemn manner by St. Paul in his Epistles, by the Fathers of the Church, by the Popes and by the Councils. In substance and in brevity it consists of this: To recognize if the doctrines of teaching members of the Church are in conformity with those of the Holy Gospels, we must see if they conform with what the Church has always taught, because the truths of yesterday are the same today and will be the same tomorrow and forever!

"But though we, or an angel from heaven," says St. Paul, "preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. "(Galatians I, 8).

"If any man teach otherwise and consent not to the sound words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing. . . O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so-called which some, for having preferred, have erred concerning the faith." (I Timothy VI, 3-4).

St. Vincent de Lerins has resumed this teaching of St. Paul and of the Church in his Commonitoria with his famous statement: "It is of the greatest importance that within the Church itself, WE HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH HAS BEEN BELIEVED ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE AND BY ALL... that the divine Canons be interpreted according to the tradition of the Universal Church and the rules of Catholic dogma. It is of necessity that they (the Catholic faithful) adhere, in this the Catholic Church, to the UNIVERSALITY, the ANTIQUITY, and the CONSENSUS. And in the case of rebellion, may they prefer the integrity of the universality to the corruption of a part; and in this universality, may they prefer the religion of antiquity: and in this decay (of dogmas, of beliefs) may they keep in priority the general consensus of all (the Doctors, Fathers, and Bishops); and may they prefer above all the decrees of the Holy Councils, if there be one on the subject of which they are concerned. And if there be nothing, or little, let them adhere to what is like to it, that is, the writings of the Masters on those subjects with which they agree. Thus, without much difficulty, we will be able to undo the errors of new heretics." (Saint Vincent of Lerins, 2^nd Commonitorium, Ch. XXIX, a.).

This rule of Saint Vincent of Lerins has thus permitted, from the 5t" century, all the members of the Church to protect themselves from errors proposed by certain of its members and to keep the Catholic faith. This rule still holds today and, as you may have noticed and as we have mentioned above, it is essential, simple and logical. It is enough for us to be assured of keeping the Catholic faith without allowing ourselves to be fooled or seduced by a "gospel besides that which has been preached to us" or by "profane novelties", to believe what has been believed EVERYWHERE, that is to say, in all the Catholic world (universality), ALWAYS, that is to say, since the beginning of the Church (antiquity), and BY ALL, that is to say, by all the Fathers, Bishops, and Doctors of the Church (consensus).

It is therefore simply because the new theories propagated by the Second Vatican Council, such as religious liberty and ecumenism, have not been believed everywhere, always, and by all, that we cannot receive them as a part of the revealed Deposit of the Faith and of the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. In doing thus, we do not judge the conscience of the Pope or of the bishop who propagates these new doctrines, but as Saint Paul said with regards to Saint Peter, "we withstand them to their face" and we tell them simply, firmly and respectfully "that they walk not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel" (Galatians II, 14).

(to be continued)