By Msgr. Thomas G. Guarino
As everyone knows by now, the episcopal ordinations carried out by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) resulted in the automatic excommunication of the six bishops involved. No matter how it tries to disguise its canonical status, the Society today stands definitively outside the Catholic Church.
Insofar as the SSPX denies the authenticity of Vatican II, this outcome was inevitable. After all, Pope Leo himself was uniting the Church around the Council, dedicating his weekly audiences to examining and lavishly praising conciliar teaching.
One cannot coherently argue, as the SSPX does, that Vatican II was not a legitimate council. (Subsequent events, of course, may be debated, and are, within the Church). In fact, the great synod bears all the marks of an authentic ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. What are these marks?
• The Council was formally convoked by the Bishop of Rome, John XXIII.
• A vast number of bishops, more than 2,500 from around the world, gathered at the Council to debate and deliberate between 1962 and 1965.
• All the bishops were free to speak or, if they wished, to submit written comments (which were then carefully examined by the Theological Commission).
• The Theological Commission (where the conciliar documents were drafted or revised) was composed of a mix of more conservative and more progressive bishops and theologians. A review of their diaries reveals that even the smallest points were freely and extensively debated.
• Anyone who studies the texts of Vatican II will see the extraordinary care and balance achieved by the documents, which went through numerous drafts before the final vote.
• Paul VI always insisted that the concerns of the minority (the more conservative bishops) be properly addressed. To cite just two examples: at the last moment, Paul ordered nineteen changes to the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) to satisfy those bishops who wanted a stronger emphasis on truth mediated by Sacred Tradition. Second, Paul insisted on the Nota Explicativa Praevia attached to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). This interpretative note was added to ensure, in juridical-canonical language, that papal primacy would not be endangered in any way by episcopal collegiality.
• Each of the sixteen conciliar documents was approved by an overwhelming majority of votes.
• Each of the documents was formally promulgated by the Bishop of Rome, Paul VI.
In truth, one could more easily raise doubts about the First Vatican Council, held in 1869–1870. At that council, episcopal speakers were at times shouted down, and some seventy bishops left Rome rather than vote “non placet” on the infallibility of the papal magisterium.
The argument against the legitimacy of Vatican II, formulated by the founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, is straightforward. He and his movement maintain that the most recent council fulfilled the old dream of liberal Catholicism: marrying the Church to the French Revolution.
It is claimed that the Council betrayed the ancient Catholic faith by incorporating the three fundamental principles of the revolution of 1789: liberté, égalité, and fraternité. The conciliar declaration on religious freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) is little more than the “liberty” of the revolution, leading inexorably to religious indifferentism and thereby undermining Catholic truth.
And by promoting episcopal collegiality, Lumen Gentium made common cause with the revolutionary notion of “equality,” speaking as though all bishops were equal and thereby eroding the authority and primacy of the Pope.
And revolutionary “fraternity” can be found most clearly in the Decree on Ecumenism, in which the SSPX claims that despised heretics are now casually called “separated brethren.”
Also central to the SSPX’s argument is a statement by Yves Congar, one of the important theological experts at Vatican II. In October 1963, the Council held several votes to guide the work of those drafting Lumen Gentium. The votes overwhelmingly endorsed the importance of episcopal collegiality.
Regarding these votes, Congar wrote in his diary: “The Church peacefully carried out its October revolution.” This was perhaps not the happiest phrase, but it was meant to indicate that, after a long period of autocratic papacy, the college of bishops had regained its supreme authority in the governance of the Church; although, as the Dogmatic Constitution states, this authority must always be exercised “together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head.”
Congar hardly intended, as the SSPX argues, to compare Vatican II with the Bolshevik Revolution. On the contrary, Lumen Gentium stands in fundamental continuity with the Church’s earlier teaching, clearly preserving papal primacy even while defending the apostolic authority of the episcopal college.
A chiaroscuro effect accompanies all conciliar teaching, and so it has always been. Some teachings that are emphasized will necessarily leave others in the shadows. And teachings that had been in the shadows are, at times, highlighted once more.
At Vatican II, episcopal collegiality balanced the prior emphasis of Vatican I on papal authority. And the most recent council’s emphasis on the universal priesthood of the faithful aimed to balance Trent’s legitimate emphasis on the ministerial priesthood.
One can certainly argue that some emphases of Vatican II need further balancing. But there is a vast difference between seeking greater balance and rejecting the authentic teachings of an ecumenical council.
Vatican II was an extraordinarily fruitful synod, with considerable advances in ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, and religious freedom. To use the language of the fifth-century theologian St. Vincent of Lérins, the conciliar documents allowed for a true development of the faith (profectus fidei), not an alteration of the faith (permutatio fidei).
In truth, there is no solid theological foundation on which the SSPX can stand. They sowed the wind and today reap the whirlwind.
About the Author
Msgr. Thomas G. Guarino is Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at Seton Hall University. He is the author of The Disputed Teachings of Vatican II: Continuity and Reversal in Catholic Doctrine and Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine (Foundations of Theological Exegesis and Christian Spirituality).