Catholic To A Certain Degree? The Heretical Ecclesiology Of Vatican II

 

With all the errors of Bergoglio abounding, the Vatican II sect apologists certainly have their work cut out for them. Yet all can be traced back to one huge heresy, as the root of the bad tree bringing forth bad fruit. At the heart of the Modernist heresy that imbues the sect is the false ecclesiology taught at the Robber Council in Lumen Gentium. Ecclesiology is that branch of theology which deals with the doctrine on the nature of the One True Church. Pope Pius XII and all of his predecessors in the Petrine Office always taught that the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church. 

On November 21, 1964, Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) signed and promulgated the heretical Dogmatic Constitution on the Church known as Lumen Gentium (LG). This document broke with all prior Church teaching and introduced what was to be known as "communio ecclesiology." A  new and heretical idea was adopted that the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are not one and the same entity. The Church of Christ "subsists" in its fullness within the Roman Catholic Church, because it possesses all of the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, sects have some elements of the Church of Christ which subsists there "partially." To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is very good too, and are a means of salvation. 

Paragraph #8 of LG states: This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

My attention was recently brought to a couple of articles written last year for Crisis Magazine. The first article, written by Kennedy Hall, acknowledges the absurdity of  communio ecclesiology, yet he draws the false conclusion that the "popes" and Council which produced it cannot be illegitimate. A week later, Hall was criticized by Aaron Debusschere, who castigates Kennedy for not being Modernist enough and claims that communio theology was taught "long before Vatican II." 

(See crisismagazine.com/opinion/are-there-degrees-of-communion). 

This post will demonstrate that communio ecclesiology was never taught by the Church, and Vatican II propagated heresy, creating a new sect.  

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ

The greatest and most comprehensive exposition of traditional ecclesiology was put forth in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of His Holiness Pope Pius XII in 1943. The first sentence of said encyclical begins with the following affirmation: The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. Hence, the doctrine is from Christ and is therefore true. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. The One True Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and co-extensive with it. 

In order to be a member of the Church, four conditions must obtain: Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.(para. #22; Emphasis mine).  A member of the Catholic Church must therefore be (1) baptized, (2) profess the true Faith (not heretics), (3) not separated from unity (not schismatics) and (4) not excluded by legitimate authority (not excommunicated). 

Those are the members of the Church. As the encyclical explains, a person can be united to the Church by a desire to belong:

As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. (para. #103). 

These are not members of the Church, but they are within the Church by desire, but cannot be assured of remaining within the Church unto salvation for they are deprived of "those many heavenly gifts and helps" only available to members of the Church. Remember, the dogma is "Outside the Church, No Salvation," and not "Without Church Membership, No Salvation." 

This is summarized perfectly by theologian Hanahoe:

...in order to be saved, a person must in fact (in re) be visibly conjoined to the Church, i.e., be a member, or, he must, at least intend (in voto) to become a member of the Church. This intention to become a member of the Church may be explicit or implicit. The intention is explicit when a person is actually under instruction preparing to enter Catholic unity [i.e., catechumen]. On the other hand the intention is implicit if a person, while invincibly ignorant of the Church, possesses sanctifying grace. The fact that he is in the state of grace indicates that he has a sincere will of using all the means which God has established; even though he does not know explicitly single means, he implicitly receives all. This person is then unknowingly participating in the life of the Church---he is saved through the Church. 

Pius IX indicates what may well be considered an implicit intention of entering the Catholic Church:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, para. #7). 

(See Catholic Ecumenism, [1953], pg. 108; Emphasis in original). 

It must be noted that what matters is what state the soul is in at the moment of death. "But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13). God can infuse anything lacking in such a person (Divine light of faith and grace) prior to the moment of death, ensuring salvation. Theologian Hanahoe goes on to explain exactly how hard it is for those within the Church, and not members, to be saved:

However, the position of such a person is not completely secure, because once his initial ignorance is no longer invincible and his conscience, under grace, moves him to enter the Church, or at least, study its claims, then the issue is formally presented to him. If he refuses to examine further or does not seek to enter the Church, his implicit intention is dissolved, because he has withdrawn himself from the sincere will of using all the means which God wills; his condition is changed because his will towards God is changed. If he perseveres in this condition he cannot be saved. (Ibid; Emphasis in original).

Does this mean that those who are within the Church by desire are "partially" Catholic? Debusschere, cited above, seems to think so:

Thus, for [theologian] Fenton and the neo-scholastics of the pre-conciliar era, they may not be members of the Church—this is black and white—but they do belong to the Church and are even within the Church. Such ones must have some degree of communion with the Church that is not “full.”

Wrong. There are members of the Church and those united in desire. Both are within the Church; some by virtue of baptism as members, and some by virtue of votum or desire. If they did not belong to the Church, salvation would be impossible. Hence, the difference is in the mode of belonging, not by degree or being "partially" in the Church. Note well, that those who are within the Church implicitly are there in spite of their adherence to a false religion and their  ignorance of the One True Church, not because of it. This teaching will change drastically at Vatican II. 

Here is an exemplary summation of Mystici Corporis by theologian King:

Thus the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are identical; the importance of the visible aspect of the Church is not to be minimized; all salvation is caused by the visible Church; there is a sharp distinction between membership and being  related to [within] the Church by desire, though in a given case either can suffice for salvation. (The Necessity of the Church for Salvation in Selected Theological Writings of the Past Century, [1960], pg. 286; Emphasis mine).

The Modernist Attack on Ecclesiology Pre-Vatican II

With the ink on the document barely dry after the signing of Mystici Corporis, the attack on ecclesiology by the Modernist theologians began. The Holy Father hit back a mere seven years later with another theological masterpiece, the encyclical Humani Generis, in 1950. Its purpose was to condemn "some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine." 

In paragraph number 27, Pope Pius XII writes:

Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.

According to theologian King:

...the Holy Father regards these two errors as connected so that "meaningless formula" would, sometimes at least, involve incorrect notions concerning the identity of the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body. By dissociating these two concepts, the former is easily made to appear as inconsequential. 

How can a theologian separate these two concepts? One such way is to:

...overvalue the "Catholic elements" present in non-Catholic religions, considering them means of salvation in themselves. This would effectively reduce the doctrine to a meaningless formula, since there would be no urgent necessity for union with the Roman Catholic Church.  (Ibid, pgs. 290-291; Emphasis mine). 

Also a problem was Leonard Feeney, a Jesuit priest who would react to the Modernists with a heresy that now bears his name: Feeneyism. Feeney was excommunicated in 1953 for denying Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). According to him, no one could be within the Church by desire---not even explicitly. Salvation could only be achieved by Church membership through water Baptism. 

The Modernists would have their day at Vatican II.

It Depends On What You Mean By "Is"

Vatican II sect apologists, like "ecclesiastical Bill Clintons" are telling us the change at the Robber Council from "is" to "subsists in" mean the same thing. (N. B. In August of 1998, then President Bill Clinton was asked whether the statement by his lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, to Judge Susan Webber Wright that, "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton [and Monica Lewinsky]" was truthful, Bill Clinton replied, "It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is." Clinton explained that if "is" meant "never has been" that is one thing; but, if "is" meant "there is none currently" then the statement by Mr. Bennett was the truth).

First, why the change of the verb? Why not say that the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ as was always done prior to LG in 1964? The original schema on the Church used "is" until the Modernists scrapped it with the help of Roncalli (John XXIII). The reason is summed up in a single word: Ecumenism. Not Catholic ecumenism properly understood, but Modernist ecumenism which seeks to make a one-world religion stripped of the supernatural and ends up being little more than atheism in lofty sounding language. (Read the great Pope St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Domenici Gregis to understand the goals of the Modernists). 

Yet Vatican II apologists will insist that "subsists in" really means "is" but in a more precise manner. The following facts give the lie to that contention. Vatican II introduces two heretical novelties: (1) The Church of Christ is NOT co-extensive with the Catholic Church, but is found in false religions, and (2) because of this, the false religion itself--as a corporate body--is a "means of salvation." Remember what was said above, that it is ERROR to "...overvalue the "Catholic elements" present in non-Catholic religions, considering them means of salvation in themselves. This would effectively reduce the doctrine to a meaningless formula, since there would be no urgent necessity for union with the Roman Catholic Church."

The teaching of Vatican II in Unitatis Reditegratio para. #3, brings the teaching of Lumen Gentium to its logical conclusion:
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false religions] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (Emphasis mine). 

The Church has never taught that false religions, as corporate bodies, can help anyone achieve salvation. Quite to the contrary, they are means of damnation.  

Heretical Theologians Admit the Difference and Rejoice

Avery Dulles: 

For ecumenical reasons the council distanced itself from the more controversial affirmations of Mystici corporis. Where Pius XII had said that the Mystical Body and the Roman Catholic Church were one and the same thing, Vatican II contented itself with saying that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Roman Catholic Church—an expression deliberately chosen to allow for the ecclesial reality of other Christian communities. At various points the council seemed to imply that non-Catholic Christians are members of the Body of Christ, and thus of the Church. (See Theological Studies 50 (1989), "A Half Century of Ecclesiology," pg. 430; Emphasis mine). 

Francis Sullivan: 

(N.B. Fr. Tromp, discussed below, was an approved theologian and anti-Modernist at the Council. Vatican II apologists will state that since theologian Tromp was one of the major drafters of LG and thought "subsists in" could be orthodox, it must be. They are wrong. Tromp was trying to keep out an even more perverse definition of the Modernists and thought "subsists" could be accepted). 

The doctrinal commission accepted Tromp’s suggestion to say subsistit in. Becker argues that it also accepted his understanding of it. But in fact there is good evidence that it did not agree with his understanding of it. For, having accepted the change from est to subsistit in, the doctrinal commission went on to approve another change that the sub-commission had made in the section dealing with the various ways in which the Catholic Church knows itself to be joined with other Christians. The 1963 draft had said of them: “They lovingly believe in Christ, Son of God and Savior, they are sealed with indelible baptism, indeed they recognize and receive all or at least some of the sacraments.” The revised text said: “They are sealed with baptism, by which they are joined with Christ, and indeed they recognize and receive other sacraments in their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities.” The two previous drafts had recognized the presence of sacraments outside the Catholic Church.

Here, for the first time, a conciliar text uses the terms “Churches” and “ecclesiastical” of the communities in which those sacraments are received. The Relatio given for this text shows that the doctrinal commission realized that this language, of which Tromp could hardly have approved, needed to be justified. It said: “The elements that are mentioned regard not only individuals, but also communities; precisely in this fact is located the foundation of the ecumenical movement. Papal documents regularly speak of the separated eastern ‘Churches.’ For Protestants the recent Pontiffs use the term ‘Christian communities.’” If one considers the fact that the draft in which est had been changed to subsistit in was the first one that spoke of “Churches” and “ecclesiastical communities” that are found outside the Catholic Church, one can hardly escape the conclusion that the doctrinal commission did not agree with Tromp, who had forcefully insisted that subsistit in must be understood to be exclusivism, with the consequence that outside the Catholic Church there could be nothing but elements.  (See Theological Studies 67 (2006), "QUAESTIO DISPUTATA A RESPONSE TO KARL BECKER, S.J., ON THE MEANING OF SUBSISTIT IN," pgs. 400-401; Emphasis mine).

Joseph Ratzinger (later "Pope" Benedict XVI):

In an interview to the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine, at that time "Cardinal" Ratzinger states:


When the Council Fathers replace the word "is," used by Pius XII, with the word "subsistit," they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by "is" (to be) is far broader than that expressed by "to subsist." "To subsist" is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say: the being of the Church as such extends much further than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject. (Emphasis mine). 

As "pope," Ratzinger approved a document of the Modernist Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (sic) on July 10, 2007 entitled Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church. Over forty years after Lumen Gentium, he's still trying to tell us "subsists" means "is." It reads:

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, "subsistence" means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church,  in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church. (Emphasis mine)

We now have what an authoritative decision from a man the Vatican II apologists recognize as "pope." He regurgitates the same "elements" nonsense as in Lumen Gentium, and the text makes clear that the Church of Christ is not identical to the Catholic Church! The "Church of Christ" is concretely found on this earth in the Catholic Church, but it is (allegedly) possible for the Church of Christ to be present in the "churches" not yet "fully in communion" with the Catholic Church because of the "elements" of sanctification that they possess. Interestingly, the document does not cite to one single pre-Vatican II source--and with good reason. There is no Catholic doctrine before Vatican II which supports any of this novel (and heretical) teaching. 

Another Nail in the "Subsists in" Coffin: The Magisterium Cannot Teach Ambiguously

Pope Pius VI taught in Auctorum Fidei, of August 28, 1794:

In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

 Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

 In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged. The more freely We embraced a program of complete moderation, the more we foresaw.  (Emphasis mine).

On this basis alone, Lumen Gentium can be dismissed, as almost six decades later, there are "explanations" from "theologians" trying to tell us the "true meaning." We are told "subsists" is a more powerful expression of "is" and nothing has changed--Bill Clinton couldn't have said it more disingenuously.

The Teaching of the One True Church

Here is the correct teaching on ecclesiology:

Pope Pius IX: None [of  false sects], not even taken as a whole, constitutes in any way and are not that one, Catholic Church founded and made by Our Lord and which He wished to create. Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity. (See Iam vos omnes #3; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Leo XIII: Jesus Christ never conceived of nor instituted a Church formed of many communities which were brought together by certain general traits - but which would be distinct one from another and not bound together among themselves by ties which make the Church one and indivisible - since we clearly profess in the Creed of our Faith: " 'I believe in one...Church.' (See Satis Cognitum #4; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius XI: It is absurd and ridiculous to say that the Mystical Body can be formed out of separated and disjunctive members, whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (See Mortalium Animos #10; Emphasis mine)

• False sects do not help you to Heaven. If you have all the parts of a car engine except the battery, it takes you no place. Having 99% of a car engine is just as bad as having none. You don't have a working automobile. Likewise, the "elements of sanctification" are all necessary for salvation. Whatever Bible, valid sacraments, Creed, etc., is used by false sects, they are not efficacious unto sanctification and salvation because they are as stolen goods that are not meant to be used outside the One True Church. 

Pope Pius XI:  The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind. (See Mortalium Animos #11)

Pope Leo XIII: The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. (See Satis Cognitum #9)

• The True Church already possesses fullness of unity. It is not "divided," "separated," or "wounded" because of those who are not united and form false sects. The Church is One. She does not "need" the return of those outside Her fold; they need Her. False sects are just that--sects or groups of people with no right to exist. They are not a "church" and God does not recognize them. 

Pope Pius XI: And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. (See Mortalium Animos #7).

Pope Pius XII: Also they must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example, to the effect that the teachings of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance seeing that they are not all matters of faith, or, what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected by other religions. (See Instruction "On the Ecumenical Movement" by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, December 20, 1949).

Finally, it must be remembered that while someone may be within the Church who is not a member, that is only known to God in the internal forum. Baptism of Desire is a rare miracle of grace and must not be presumed. Hence, the need for the Great Commission. 

Conclusion

It should be clear that the Church has never taught "partial communion" until Vatican II. The Vatican II sect is an ecumenical, Modernist monstrosity. Anyone who thinks they can be "partially Catholic," will be totally lost.