by Rev. Fr. Noel Barbara
Editor’s commentary: This article is a translation of a lecture given originally in French by Fr. Barbara in the 1980’s. The author (who was probably the first European priest to come to the conclusion of the vacancy in the papal chair), after recalling the Catholic doctrine on the Church and its Magisterium, shows why the popes of Vatican II cannot be true popes.
Part I: Explanation of Church Teaching on Papal Infallibility
What is the Church? It is the society of all those who have faith in Jesus Christ and who follow His teaching. This is the society of the faithful — of all those who hold the Catholic Faith — and constitutes the believing or taught Church. Some of its members have been chosen, set aside and consecrated to God. They constitute the principal members, the Church hierarchy or teaching Church. By the institution of Jesus Christ, the teaching Church consists of a sovereign Pontificate with the subordinate episcopate.
Here are two important points: First, all the members of the Church — even the principal ones, the Pope and the bishops — necessarily belong to the believing Church. This means that all, ordinary laymen or principal members, must accept and believe what is taught by the teaching Church. Second, unless they are the Pope or the Bishop, theologians do not belong to the teaching Church. They form part of the believing Church and like all the faithful, they are taught by the hierarchy. It is important to remember that when disagreement arises between the teaching of the hierarchy, the Pope and the bishops in submission to him, and that of one or several theologians, even that of the greatest doctors. It is only the teaching of the hierarchy or teaching Church that must be believed and followed and not that of the theologians.
The Part of the Principal Members
To those faithful chosen to be the principal members of the Church, Christ communicates a share in His triple power: kingship, prophesy and priesthood. These are the powers of order and of jurisdiction. The powers of order, or priestly powers, are conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders, which imprints an indelible character on those who receive it. Because of the indelible character of this sacrament, these powers cannot be lost. Once received they always remain — one is a priest for eternity. The powers of jurisdiction are conferred by installation in a particular office and by a mission entrusted by a superior. Unlike the powers of order, the jurisdiction received at the moment of installation or the giving of a mission are also lost with them. They can be restricted or withdrawn by the superior who imparted them. The recipient may also renounce them.
The Pope
The Pope is the successor of St. Peter in the episcopal city of Rome. As such, he is the visible head of the apostolic college, the Doctor of doctors, the Pastor of the whole Church — ordinary faithful and principal members — the Vicar of Christ on earth, His representative. Let us explain.
First, these titles are not merely honorary; they express realities.
Second, the head (from the Latin caput) is that which commands and directs. In this capacity the Pope is invested with the authority of Christ whom he represents. If, as the Apostle says, all authority comes from God, how much more so does that of the Pope.
Third, the visible head, the one whom we see, who appears, is the one by whom we see in faith the invisible Head — as the true Head of the Church is Christ, Who, even though He has ascended to the right hand of the Father, still governs His Church directly by Himself and the Pope, His Vicar.
Fourth, the Doctor of doctors: A doctor, from the word doctus, “learned,” is one who knows and possesses knowledge and is authorized to teach. The chief duty of the principal members is to teach everything revealed to them by Christ; therefore, the bishops are doctors of the Faith, those who teach the faith, and the Pope, the Bishop of bishops, is as such the Doctor of doctors. Christ has empowered him to teach even the other doctors, charged to teach the others and to confirm them in the Faith. The Pope is taught by no man. But let us note this: that “the Pope is taught by no man” means that there is no doctor above him who can teach him, but prior to being Pope and in order that he may be Pope, the Pope is and remains a believer, a faithful member of the Church, someone who possesses faith. As such he is taught by all his predecessors and adheres to their teaching. If a Pope did not accept all the irreformable teaching of his predecessors, if he did not believe it, if he refused to profess it, he would cease to be one of the faithful — someone who possesses faith — and by this very fact, he would cease to belong to the Church and would lose his pontifical authority, for the man who no longer belongs to the Church cannot be its head.
Fifth, a pastor is one who defends, protects and leads his flock to the good pasture. The Pope, like any other bishop, is bishop of a particular church, which in his case is the church of Rome. But he is also the bishop of each and every other church. The Catholics of the whole world, except those of Rome, have two bishops: one in their diocese and one in Rome. That is why, as Catholics, we are all Romans.
Sixth: the Vicar of Christ, His representative, who is visibly in His place, Who holds the keys to His kingdom, who is its Head. To fulfill his office, the Pope enjoys a special privilege which preserves him from all doctrinal error. He is infallible. We shall return to this later.
The Pope’s Church
As a bishop, the Pope, like all bishops, has a particular church, a diocese, which is Rome. As the Pope’s Church, Rome is a case apart; it has the power of eternal life. Other churches are capable of change. The Pope who made them may enlarge or reduce them, or even suppress them. That of Rome, founded by Peter, will remain to the end. The Church of Rome alone is the Mother and Mistress of all the other churches. She gives them life and is given life by none. Other churches are daughter churches; she alone is the Mother Church. She instructs them as their Mistress and is instructed by none.
We now come to a point of the utmost importance. Among the twentieth century heresies, we must note one which, without ever having been stated explicitly, has developed with the complicity of the greater number of bishops. It consists in the fact that in everyday practice, the Church of Rome has come to be considered as only one church among the others — worthier and more venerable, no doubt, but possessed of no more authority than the others. The consequence of this practical heresy has been that too often bishops have received teaching from Rome with respect but have not always heeded it, not feeling any obligation to do so. As far as they are concerned, these teachings from Rome express the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome and nothing more. Accordingly, this teaching merited respect, but in the same way as the teaching and practices of the other dioceses. Less and less did the bishops feel obliged to adopt it.
The Second Vatican Council manifested only too clearly the independent spirit of the greater part of the episcopate, and for many, the signal of revolt was the publication of Humanae Vitae by Paul VI. This behavior is typically heretical. In place of a Sovereign Pontiff and the subordinate episcopate instituted as such by Our Lord, there exists in the New Church a Sovereign Pontiff and an independent episcopate.
The Magisterium
The word magister means master or teacher. In the Church, magisterium means the teaching office and those who are charged with it. The magisterium is thus that part of the Church that teaches — hence the name, teaching Church. The magisterium is the specific function of the principal members. This teaching office, magisterium, is exercised every day in the Church by the Pope and by the bishops united to the Pope. That is the ordinary magisterium which is given with suitable gravity but without great solemnity. To be united to the Pope means that, even though dispersed throughout the world, the bishops are in communion of faith with and teach the same doctrine as the Pope. In certain circumstances, when, for example, it is necessary to stress the urgency or the particular importance at a given moment of a precise teaching, or again, when it is necessary to counter very strongly an error which is beginning to gain ground, the Church then exercises her teaching authority with greater solemnity. That is the extraordinary magisterium, the solemn form of which does not take the form of day-by-day teaching.
Listen to Pope Pius XI explaining this doctrine to us: “The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever intact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men.” This authority is indeed daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the bishops who are in communion with him, but it has the further office of defining some truth with solemn decree whenever it is opportune and whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics or again to impress the minds of the faithful with a clearer and more detailed explanation of the articles of sacred doctrine.
But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority, no fresh invention is introduced. Nothing new is ever added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained within the Deposit of Revelation divinely committed to the Church, but truths which to some perhaps may still seem obscure are rendered clearer, or a truth which some may have called into question is declared to be of faith. Whether it be surrounded by greater solemnity (the extraordinary form) or given with everyday simplicity (the ordinary form), it is the carrying out of the hierarchy’s same teaching office. It is the one and only magisterium. It has the same value, the same certainty, and it requires of the faithful the same submission. This teaching function of the principal members, this magisterium, is infallible. The infallibility of this magisterium follows from its very nature from the obligation imposed by God on all men to submit to it and from the express promise of Our Lord.
Its Nature
The works of God are perfect — that is to say, they possess everything necessary to attain the end God assigns to them in creating them. God has instituted the magisterium in His Church in order to teach the faithful and that they might learn from it, to keep until the end of time all that He came to reveal to men. How could this magisterium fulfill its office, which is to teach faithfully everything revealed by Christ, if it were not effectively protected from forgetfulness and error? We need only to read the Gospels to realize that Our Lord did not fail to take this precaution. He has undertaken to assist this magisterium in person: “And behold, I am with you all days even until the consummation of the world.” He has assured the magisterium of the efficacious aid of the Holy Ghost: “And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever.” “The Holy Ghost will bring all things to your mind whatsoever I shall have said to you.” “When the Holy Ghost comes, you will be filled with strength from above and you will bear witness to me. He will put into your mouths what you are to say.” It is this personal assistance of Christ who has pledged Himself to remain with this magisterium every day, together with the permanent assistance of the Holy Ghost entrusted especially to ensure that the magisterium forget nothing revealed by Christ and constantly to teach the magisterium all things necessary and to give it the strength necessary to teach without fear and error, which guarantees the infallibility required by the nature of the magisterium.
Second, the infallibility of the magisterium arises also from the obligation that God imposes on all to hear it. “Going therefore, teach ye all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” “He that believeth not shall be condemned and whosoever shall not receive you nor hear your words, going forth out of that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen and the publican.” Conscious of such dire warnings — to be rejected as the heathen or publican, to be treated more harshly than Sodom and Gomorrah, to be condemned to eternal fire — is it possible to doubt that God Who is Wisdom Itself, has given to the magisterium of His Church the effective means to fulfill its office? That is, to teach all things without fear of error so that the faithful may hear the magisterium with confidence and submit to it, assured that in following it they will not be led astray. Listen to Pope Leo XIII:
“Therefore, each time that the magisterium declares that this truth or another forms part of the body of divinely revealed doctrine, all must believe with certainty that it is true since if it could be in any way false, it would follow — which is eminently absurd — that God Himself is the Author of the error of men, who could then say to Him: ‘Lord, if we are in error, it is You Yourself who have misled us since it was You who told us to hear them as they would hear You.’”
Third, the infallibility of the Magisterium follows, lastly, from the express promise of Christ. In addition to the promises already recalled, Jesus has given us His assurance that the powers of hell will never prevail against His Church built upon Peter: “Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If at any time the magisterium could teach error, the whole Church would be involved, and by the same fact, the gates of hell, the powers of lying and error, would have prevailed against her. But our Lord Jesus Christ, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has assured us that this is not possible. During the evening of Holy Thursday, in His prayer for His disciples, Jesus recalls to His Father that He is leaving them in the world, though they were not of the world, and ask Him to protect them from the evil one. This evil one is the prince of this world, a liar and the father of lies. If, which is impossible, the magisterium were not infallible, if it could be mistaken and teach error, then the believing Church, misled by the magisterium, would find itself in error in the midst of a lie and in the grip of Satan. We should then be forced to conclude — which is not only absurd but blasphemous — that the Father has not heard the ardent prayer of His Son, when He assures us the contrary, “Father, I give Thee thanks that Thou has heard Me, and I know that Thou hearest Me always.” “Heaven and earth shall pass away,” said Our Lord, “But My words shall not pass away.” Thus the words of Jesus remain now and will remain until the end of the world, promising that He will be personally present among us every day, and likewise promising the active presence of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, and the impossibility for the father of lies to prevail against His Church. His teaching Church is, therefore, infallible. She cannot be mistaken; she cannot teach error. This doctrine is a dogma of our Faith solemnly proclaimed by the First Vatican Council: “All those things are to be believed with a divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching magisterium proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.”
The Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff
So that we may better understand why Peter must be infallible, we must remember who Peter is according to Jesus. First Peter is the foundation of the Church: “And upon this rock I will build my Church.” The foundation is that on which a building stands. It is that which insures the stability and maintains the cohesion of the whole structure. To disturb the foundation of a building is to separate violently its parts, to disrupt its unity and to bring about its ruin. Peter had received the keys of the kingdom of God: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” The Church is the kingdom of God here below. Because Peter is the only one to receive the keys of the kingdom of God, he is therefore, the guardian, the steward, the governor of the kingdom of heaven here below. Peter is also the Supreme Pastor of the whole flock of His Lord: “Feed My lambs; feed my sheep.” Whether it concerns the lambs, the little ones (the faithful) or whether it concerns the sheep (the other shepherds), it is Peter alone who has been charged by Jesus to feed them — that is to say, to guide them towards eternal life. As the foundation and holder of the keys of the Kingdom, the shepherd of the whole flock, Peter also is the support, the prop of the faith of his brethren: “And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” The faith of his brethren, the other bishops, can waiver. None of them has received the assurance that he will never stray. When this misfortune occurs, it is Peter’s duty, since he has been so commissioned by Christ, to confirm his brethren in the Faith.
All these functions which belong to Peter are divine functions and require omnipotence. That is why, from the beginning, but particularly at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus declared before the whole apostolic college that this man, for all appearances merely the son of John, had received in himself a divine reality, invisible to the sight of man but which is real, which transforms him so intimately as to make of him another Christ by the divine power that He communicates to him. Let us not forget that out of the true stone, that which the builders rejected, the Father has made the cornerstone of the whole edifice which is Christ. St. Peter speaking before the Sanhedrin declared this solemnly.
Now it is this reality, this Christly function, which was communicated to Simon, son of John. It was communicated to him from his first calling. When his brother Andrew brought him to Jesus, the Gospel tells us, “intuitus eum” — “He looked upon him.” The word intuitus from which we derive the word intuition indicates an act of interior vision. Thus, seeing Simon approach, Jesus, Who had already chosen him, saw him with His intuitive and divine vision and brought out this reality which was in him, which only God could see, which would make of him the foundation of the Church. And Jesus said to him, “Thou shall be called Cephas” — which is interpreted, Peter. Let us not forget that the name expresses a characteristic which allowed him who bore it to be distinguished from others.
This characteristic of being — with Christ and like Christ, Christ being this by nature, Peter by privilege — the Rock and foundation of the Church, was emphasized by Jesus at the very first meeting with His disciple: “Thou shalt be called Peter.” Several months later, Jesus was to proclaim this solemnly while explaining it at Caesarea Philippi. The apostles, having been sent out in pairs for their first mission, had returned, and Jesus asked them, “Who do men say that the Son of Man is?” Each one reported what he had heard said. And Jesus said to them, “But whom do you say that I am?” Simon Peter immediately answered, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus answered, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven. But I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
To understand the full meaning of these words today, we must also remember that Jesus said, “And no one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.” Why is it that no one knows the Father but the Son? Because since the Father is a Divine Person it is necessary to be God in order to know Him truly. That is why only the Son Who is God knows the Father Who is God, and knowing the Father, Jesus has revealed Him to us. In the same way and for the same reason, because the Son is a Divine Person, it is necessary to be God to know Him. But the Father who is God knows Him, and knowing His Son can reveal Him. And this is what happened. The Father revealed to Simon that this man Jesus, Who everyone knew to be Mary’s son and who was thought to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, is in reality the very Son of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Having understood that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, Peter confessed this. But Jesus emphasized that His Apostle had not received this knowledge from men, not from flesh and blood, but from His Father in Heaven. Then, profiting from His Divinity being revealed by His Father to Simon, Jesus, the Son of God, in the presence of all the others, tells Simon who he is, “And I, the Son of God, say to thee that thou art Peter.”
Let us fix this clearly in our minds. Jesus was a man. Everyone knew that, because everyone could see it. But Jesus was also God; however, His Divinity could not be seen except by His Father, Who being God, could see it, know it and reveal it to Simon. In the same way, Simon was a man, the son of John, and everyone knew that, but henceforth, being chosen by God, there was to be in Simon a new reality, supernatural and divine, which only God could see. Men could not see it. Then Jesus, Who saw it since He is God, made it known, “I say to thee that thou art Peter.”
After these explanations, which are essential for an understanding of the texts which I have quoted, let us turn to it again to explain it: “And I say to thee” — this is the Son of God speaking — “thou art Peter.” The verb to be expresses the reality of things. Simon is, therefore, not only the son of John, he is also Peter. And, just as the divinity of Jesus hidden from the sight of men is seen by the vision of God and also by faith which permits the believer to see the vision of God, in the same way the reality of Peter in Simon, hidden from men’s sight, is visible only to the vision of God and also to faith which allows men to see with God’s vision.
Peter
At the time of Christ, this word was not in use as a man’s name. No one took the name of Peter, which means rock or stone. On the other hand, as the Apostles, being of Jewish origin, well knew the word rock — Peter — was often used in the Bible to refer to God: “The Lord is my rock, and my strength and my salvation.” In saying to Simon, “Thou art Peter (Rock),” Jesus says that there is something in his Apostle likening him to God.
“And upon this rock I will build My Church.” The possessive adjective My distinguishes the Church of Christ from all the other churches which are not His. His — which He called My Church — is that built upon Peter. Separated from Peter, the other churches, eastern or western, are not of Christ’s fold.
“…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The gates of hell mean the infernal fire. Thus the devil, Lucifer will never prevail against Christ’s Church built upon Peter. He will never succeed in overthrowing Christ’s Church. He may prevail against individuals, over entire nations, but against the Church of Peter — never!
In the present crisis, with the occupant of the Holy See teaching error, are we not justified in thinking that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church of Peter? Absolutely not! To dwell on such a thought is to entertain a blasphemy. Never forget, to accept that would be to admit that hell has overcome Christ, that hell has proved stronger than God — which is absurd and blasphemous. But some of you may think: Is it possible to deny reality? And is it not a reality that Rome has lost the faith? The object of this talk is precisely to comfort you in the Catholic Faith by showing you that the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church of Christ built upon Peter. This will become clear at the end. There is no need for us to anticipate. I have mentioned this objection so that you may know that I will not pass it over. Be patient a little longer — I must first remind you of other truths.
“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom.” It is the master or the steward who holds the keys, because the keys, by permitting the opening and closing of the entrance gates of the kingdom, show that the holder of them is, if not the master, at least the steward of the master with full power to admit and to exclude from the kingdom.
“And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shalt be bound also in heaven.” To bind means to attach, to oblige; to loose means to detach, to dispense. Thus, whenever Peter by a command, ordinance or decision imposes an obligation, Christ approves it in Heaven, and Peter’s faithful are bound in conscience by Peter’s decision. In the same way, whenever Peter’s faithful find themselves bound by a particular law or by a vow or a promise that they have made regarding themselves from which Peter looses them, Christ looses them in Heaven, and the faithful are truly in conscience before God dispensed from the law, the vow or the promise. In this declaration made at Caesarea Philippi, we have the words that confer the Papacy.
Jesus went on to complete His work, first, by assuring Peter that his faith would never fail: “Simon, Simon behold Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” And second, by entrusting to him the personal direction of the whole flock, the pastors as well as the faithful. It was during His third appearance after His Resurrection, after Peter had three times affirmed his love to make up for his having three times denied his Lord, that Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.” To understand these texts, as all those of the Gospel, it is necessary to have an understanding of the Old Testament. In the first text, Jesus is alluding to the first two chapters of the Book of Job, which remind us of the existence of Satan and his activity in the world. Satan is not a myth; he really exists and possesses a nature superior to that of man. Intelligent, subtle and ingenious, he could cause us serious harm if his natural powers were not limited and restrained by the will of God. But in this time of trial which makes up our life, God can grant him certain permissions and, in fact, God allows him to tempt us. We read this in the first two chapters of Job. St. Paul himself in the second letter to the Corinthians reveals to us that God had permitted “an angel of Satan to buffet me.”
Lastly, in the text that we are explaining, Jesus affirms that Satan had asked God for authority to sift you — you, that is, the Apostles and the whole Church; sift, that is to shake very vigorously. Our Lord makes use of this vivid image to warn us of a severe spiritual trial. Was this request granted by the Father? It seems probable, given the Son’s special prayer for the faith of Peter. Quoting these words in an allocution to the parish priests and preachers of Rome, Pope Pius XII added words full of meaning in this our day. They hold good not only for the Shepherd but for the whole flock:
“In the formidable religious struggle of which we are witness, we can only count on those of the faithful who pray and strive even at the cost of much self-denial, to live in obedience to the law of God. All the rest in the life of the spirit which is our present concern, have exposed themselves unarmed to the blows of the enemy.”
That was spoken on the 23rd of March, 1949. What would he have said after Vatican II?
And so Christ prayed for the faith of Peter and the prayer of the Son cannot be refused by the Father. The faith of Peter is thus assured. It will never fail; Peter is infallible. Because Peter is infallible, Jesus can henceforth entrust to him the guidance of the whole Church. He will not allow poisonous doctrines to prevail. “Feed my lambs; feed my sheep; be the Pastor and the universal Doctor.”
Infallibility throughout the Centuries
However far back we may look, the Church of Christ, the Church of Rome, the Church of Peter, has always been received as the Mother of truth by all the other Churches. Allow me to quote a few witnesses. St. Irenaeus, who grew up close to Bishop Polycarp, one of the last survivors of apostolic times, speaking of the Roman Church said: “It is to this Church, in fact, because of its particular authority that every other church must go.”
Another example is the Council of Chalcedon, held in 451. During the Council a dogmatic letter by Pope Leo I was read concerning the true nature of Christ. “It is the faith of the Fathers of the Church,” cried the bishops. “It is the faith of the Apostles, it is what we believe. Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.” The teaching authority of Rome is summed up in the old proverbial expression: Roma locuta est, causa finita.
Finally, let us add an observation which goes to form, in its own way, a final proof. In every age all heretics have sought to win the Pope over to their cause. And for what reason, if it were not because they knew that the local churches would always stand by the teaching of the Roman Pontiff. To win the Pope over to their doctrine would be to have their doctrine accepted by the whole Church. We may thus objectively declare that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility has always been accepted by the Church. Unfortunately, our enemy, as a roaring lion goes about and never misses the opportunity to sow cockle among the wheat of good doctrine. In the second half of the nineteenth century, it was necessary to solemnly define the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. It was the work of Pope Pius IX at the Vatican Council in 1870. Before quoting to you and explaining the constitution Pastor Aeternus, which solemnly defines this doctrine, I would like to draw your attention to two things.
First, God who knows all things knew that at the end of the twentieth century Vatican II would put the Faith in great danger. Although it is a question of private revelation, we may permit ourselves to recall that at LaSalette the Blessed Mother of God announced to the seer, that Rome will lose the Faith. In His mercy, God, who had given Satan permission to sift the Church as wheat, prepared the remedy before Satan had even carried out his work in order to help His own, that they might better resist. “For he who does not believe will be condemned.” In order to show beyond doubt He wanted this definition in spite of displeasure and opposition expressed by influential laymen, priests, bishops and even governments, God allowed Pope Pius IX to carry the Council through to the definition of the dogma. The dogma of Papal Infallibility was no sooner promulgated when the war of 1870 broke out, forcing the Conciliar Fathers to return to their respective countries and the Pope to interrupt the Council. The essential thing had been done. God who had wanted it, brought it to its successful conclusion. Now that the remedy existed the Council could be interrupted. Satan could prepare to sift the Church. The faithful belonging to Christ, having faith in His words, might henceforth have recourse to the dogma of Papal Infallibility under which they might take refuge so as not to be swept away by the tempest of Vatican II.
Second, at the time of the First Vatican Council, the definition of Papal Infallibility had, as we will recall, become urgent because more and more people were daring to deny it. In the course of the same Council, there were heated debates between the supporters and opponents of this truth. The liberals, whose doctrines had so often been condemned by the Popes, were aware that to vote for the definition of papal infallibility was the equivalent to the voting of their own condemnation. Also, all the objections capable of preventing or at least deferring this definition were made in the Council chamber and seized upon by the important newspapers of the day. The cases of Liberius, Honorius I, Paschal II, Sixtus V and others were put forward to show the futility of such a doctrine. It is not necessary to be a specialist in theological problems to understand that the Church would never have solemnly promulgated as a dogma of faith the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff if previously the Conciliar Fathers supporting this definition had not masterfully refuted every objection put forward to counter it by the liberals and established beyond all doubt that throughout the nineteen centuries that had passed since Pentecost, never had a single Pope — even among those who had caused scandal by their conduct or who had weaknesses — never had one erred in his specific function as Pope, that is, in his teaching as Universal Pastor and Doctor of Doctors.
If full light had not been shed on these cases put forward by the opponents of infallibility, and if their objections had not been absolutely refuted, the opponents of this dogma and the enemies of the Church would not have failed to ridicule her by publishing far and wide the so-called erroneous teachings of former Popes. Why have they not done so? Why did they submit? Because the proof had been irrefutably established. Never had the Pope officially taught error to the universal Church. I want you to bear in mind this last detail, because nowadays in traditionalist circles, among the followers of Lefebvre, the Abbot de Nantes, etc., the same old objections of the enemies of infallibility are being raised. I will show you later on that Bishops Lefebvre and De Castro Mayer, together with those who follow them, take up again the old objections of the liberals. For, in the same and for the same wrong reasons, they are afraid of Papal Infallibility.
On the day set to ask the Conciliar Fathers of the first Vatican Council to reveal their intentions regarding the final draft of the text, “Do you vote for or against infallibility of the Roman Pontiff?”, the most relentless of the opponents of the dogma, foreseeing the favorable outcome of the vote, left Rome to make it clear that they did not want to participate in this decision. Beforehand, they took the precaution of declaring that if the Pope were to proceed with the promulgation of this doctrine, they would submit to and would accept in advance the decision of the Sovereign Pontiff. Monsignor Gaye, Auxiliary Bishop to Cardinal Pie, wrote at that time in the letter to his sister, “May Heaven grant that their submission be sincere.”
Pastor Aeternus
On the 18th of July, 1870, Pope Pius IX, in union with the Fathers of the Vatican Council, solemnly promulgated the Constitution Pastor Aeternus, which finishes thus: “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the Tradition received from the beginning of the Christian Faith, to the glory of God our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and assign that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his Supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church is, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility of which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. But if anyone, which may God avert, presume to contradict this Our definition, let him be anathema.”
Roma locuta est. Rome had solemnly spoken; the matter was settled. All discussion on the subject was at an end — or, at least, so we have the right to hope.
Part II: Application of Church Teaching to the Current Crisis
Was the submission of those opposed to the dogma [of Papal Infallibility] sincere? That is known to God alone, Who penetrates to its very depth the heart of man. But what is certain is that, no longer able to deny the infallibility of the pope without leaving the Church for formal heresy, the liberals set to work to render it ineffective. How? By limiting its scope as far as they could: “Certainly, the pope is infallible. The Church has defined that. But wait, the pope is not infallible every time he opens his mouth….” And under the pretext of specifying the terms of the definition in order to defend the dogma more effectively, they did so much and so well — for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light — that the children of light ended by being convinced that the pope only made use of his privilege very exceptionally — once or twice a century, said Ducaud-Bourget from the pulpit of St.-Nicholas-du-Chardonnet, Paris, and in his review.
Is there any truth in this? We have recalled above that in the Church founded by Him, Jesus Christ has instituted a Magisterium whose principal function is to teach. This Magisterium, the pope and the bishops united to him, is assisted by Christ to teach exclusively what Christ has revealed. Theologians, often very helpful to the Magisterium, do not belong to the teaching Church. One of their major roles is to clarify the terms or texts of the Magisterium which might have appeared to be or actually were obscure. But they are not to obscure clear texts.
When, then, is the Roman Pontiff infallible? The text of Pastor Aeternus is very clear. That should not surprise us. As Pope Pius VI recalled in his Bull Auctorem Fidei which condemns the Synod of Pistoia, the chief glory of the Council consists precisely in teaching the truth with clarity by excluding all danger of error. So let us read this text, underlining the obvious meaning of the words of the definition that certain sorrowful spirits have been pleased to confuse and obscure.
In order to enjoy in full his privilege of infallibility, the Council said that the pope must speak ex cathedra. What is the meaning of this term? The word cathedra designates the chair, the seat of the master — of one who teaches. The expression ex cathedra, then, designates the office of the master, one who teaches with authority. Whoever is the holder of a chair teaches authoritatively the subject with which he is charged. The pope, the successor of Peter in the city of Rome, his cathedra, speaks ex cathedra when he fulfills his office as Teacher of teachers, Doctor of doctors, and is within his proper sphere — that is, teaching all that Christ revealed. Let me draw your attention to the fact that it is in that sense that it was carefully explained by the Council. When he speaks ex cathedra — that is, specifies the Council, when (and it enumerates the four conditions that designate the teaching of ex cathedra) first, in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; second, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines; third, a doctrine concerning faith or morals; fourth, to be held by the universal Church. These, then, are the four conditions required by the Council, for the pope fully to possess infallibility. Let us come back to each of them. It is both necessary and sufficient.
First, that the pope speaks as pope in his capacity as Doctor of doctors in discharge of the office and teacher of all Christians, thereby excluding the man as a private doctor.
Second, that he defines — this word has been enshrouded in great mystery in the expression ex cathedra. Nevertheless, the meaning of the word define is normal: to define is to delimit; to say what something is in order to distinguish it from what it is not, and to say this with authority. One defines, for example, areas within a field: this one is Peter’s; that one belongs to Paul. One defines the meaning of a word when one declares that it means this; it does not mean that. And when there is no one to say with authority what it is, one may only put forward an opinion. For the pope to speak ex cathedra he must define, that is to say, teach, speak with authority. To do this there is no need for him to raise his voice, or to brandish the thunderbolts of excommunication or anathema. It is necessary and it is sufficient — allow me to repeat this — that he speak as a teacher with authority while affirming; Est, est, non, non; yea, yea, no, no; that which is over and above these is of evil.
Third, a doctrine regarding faith or morals. The pope is only charged with teaching what Christ has told him to go and teach “…all that I have commanded you.” Within this formula is included all that must be believed (faith) and all that must be done (morals) in order to be saved. Thus, the pope is not infallible if he speaks concerning a subject for which he has not received the mission, as, for example, architecture, medicine, politics, finances, etc.
Fourth, to be held by the universal Church. Two things are here to be emphasized: first, the pope must speak with intent to be heard, with intent to be taken seriously. It must not be mere dialogue, but teaching. There again, it is not at all necessary that his teachings be linked with sanctions. It is sufficient that those who have the use of reason understand that the pope is speaking, that they may pay attention to him — that he is teaching so that they may put into practice what he says. Second, that the teaching he gives be not limited to only one part of the Church; it must concern the whole Church. The pope can address one person directly, as for example Pope Leo XIII writing to Cardinal Gibbons on January 22, 1898, to condemn Americanism, or to a group of people, such as Pope Pius XII addressing Italian midwives on October 20, 1951, to treat of conjugal morality. But in each of these examples, it is evident from their objects that the teaching given applies to all. Through the medium of these particular people, these popes are speaking to the entire Church.
When is the pope infallible? What infallibility does he possess? Here again the Council has taken care to be precise: “possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed.” Thus, what the Council defined in the preceding session concerning the Church is equally true for the Roman Pontiff. What had it defined concerning the Church? “Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic Faith which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down in which the Church either by her solemn judgments or by her ordinary and universal teaching Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.”
Let me draw your attention to this. I’m not saying that it follows from the conciliar texts; I’m saying that these texts from the Council clearly state that the pope is infallible when the four conditions specified by Pastor Aeternus are fulfilled. It also states that the form of his teaching is of no importance. Whether he teaches in the solemn form or the ordinary form of each day, the pope is infallible when he teaches ex cathedra — that is, once more, when the four conditions are met.
The pope and the bishops in union with the pope are the voice of the Church. This voice is used in order to teach each day. Listen to Pope Pius XI stating it with his authority:
“The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever intact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men.”
This authority is indeed daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the bishops who are in communion with him. Some of you, then, may wonder what is the difference between ordinary and extraordinary teaching. This is explained by Pope Pius XI in the same encyclical:
“But it (the Magisterium) has the further office of defining some truth with solemn decree whenever it is opportune and whenever this is necessary, either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or again, to impress the minds of the faithful with a clearer and more detailed explanation of the articles of sacred doctrine. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority, no fresh invention is introduced. Nothing new is ever added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained with the deposit of revelation divinely committed to the Church. But truths which to some, perhaps, may still seem obscure are rendered clear, or a truth which some may have called into question is declared to be of faith.”
Thus there exists only one Magisterium in the Church with the Roman Pontiff as its mouthpiece when he addresses the universal Church ex cathedra, either in an ordinary or extraordinary manner. The excerpt from Pastor Aeternus finishes with these words: “Such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable.” This means that the authentic teaching of the pope given ex cathedra — whether in the ordinary day-to-day form or in the extraordinary form — always retains its value and cannot be changed. The words of the Council also apply to him concerning the understanding of the teachings of faith which must progress, but simply in its own proper kind — that is to say, in one and the same doctrine, one and the same judgment.
Vatican II and the Present Crisis
The crisis which has disturbed the Church since Vatican II particularly concerns faith and the courage of that faith. Two scenes from the Gospel will clarify this remark. The apostles were crossing the Sea of Tiberias. Jesus was with them but was evidently asleep. A storm arose and grew worse until it seemed that their boat would sink. “Lord, save us, we perish!” With one word Jesus calmed the storm, and He said to them, “Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith?”
In the second scene we see the Apostles again on the Sea of Tiberias, but this time alone. In the night the Master came to them walking upon the sea, troubling the apostles who took Him for an apparition. And immediately Jesus spoke to them saying, “Be of good heart, it is I; fear not.” And Peter making answer said, “Lord, if it be Thou, bid me come to Thee upon the waters.” And He said, “Come.” And Peter going down out of the boat walked upon the water to come to Jesus. But seeing the wind strong, he was afraid and when he began to sink, he cried out, saying, “Lord, save me.” And immediately Jesus stretching forth His hand, took hold of him and said to him, “O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt?”
In both these cases, their little faith gives rise to fear and this weakens their faith a little more. In each case the apostles doubt Jesus’ power and are afraid of the unleashed elements. Is it their little faith that has weakened their courage or the lack of courage that has weakened their faith? In both cases, Jesus reproaches them, both for their lack of faith and of courage.
From these scenes we learn a lesson in regard to the present crisis. While the storm rages all around and the bark of Peter takes in water from all sides, Our Lord appears asleep and allows Satan to sift His Church as wheat. The remark of Pope Pius XII, already recalled, is of great importance to our times. In the formidable religious struggle in which we are witnesses, if we want to resist, we must — and this is essential — we must pray and strive, even at the cost of much self-denial, to live in obedience to the law of God. If not, we shall be carried away. I will come back to that.
Allow me to remind you, in a few words, of the attitude of Catholics since the beginning of the crisis. The popular proverb says primum est vivere — survival is the first priority. Therefore, faithful Catholics took it upon themselves to preserve the Mass, to assure themselves of the supersubstantial Bread which gives and preserves life. Very soon, for ourselves — but also to answer those who attacked us — it was necessary to justify our actions, and the problem of the pope could not be put aside, since when all is said and done, he was responsible for everything that Paul VI called the auto-destruction of the Church. It was the imposition of the New Mass by dishonest means that made me lose all confidence in Paul VI. Studying his pontifical acts, it then appeared to me that Paul VI was a heretic, a schismatic and an apostate from the Catholic Faith, who by this triple fact had lost the sovereign pontificate.
Theologians throughout the centuries have taken up this question. They may be cast into two groups. The first group, together with Cardinal Cajetan, think that a pope who has fallen into heresy as a private doctor must be deposed (deponendus est). Those of the second group maintained, together with Cardinal Bellarmine, that the pope fallen into heresy as a private doctor is deposed by the very fact of his heresy (depositus est).
I have chosen the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine for two reasons as simple as they are convincing. First, because coming after Cajetan, Bellarmine had refuted him, fearing the dangers that his opinion presented for the faith of the simple faithful who were left in submission to a heretical pope and for the Church who found herself in inextricable danger, since there is no higher authority than the pope that could depose him. Second, because the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, pontiff and illustrious Doctor, afforded a reliability that that of Cajetan did not: the assurance that the Church had given regarding his works by canonizing him and proclaiming him Doctor of the Church. Even though it appeared surer, the opinion of Bellarmine was, however, only an opinion and, as the Church had never condemned the opinion of Cajetan, it was not for us to impose the one that we had chosen.
The opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine was preferred by us, but nothing more. Most of those named traditionalists adopted Cajetan’s opinion for it enabled them, at least so they tried to convince themselves, to recognize as pope the heretical occupant of the Holy See until he should be deposed, and at the same time to resist him in all that did not seem to them to be Catholic. All our efforts to show them the inconsistency of their heretical and schismatic behavior with regard to doctrine, were regarded by them as a desire for power so as to impose our chosen opinion. Having nothing to reply, they contented themselves by repeating, “He always wants to be right.”
But the foolish things of this world hath God chosen that He may confound the wise. And thus we were given the grace to discover the error which we were committing in presenting as an open opinion that which, in fact, was a truth of faith. We were in error, but we were there in good faith. Our error proceeded from our attachment to the Papacy and to the dogma of infallibility. Like all Catholics we knew that the pope when teaching ex cathedra cannot teach error. By virtue of his office he cannot mislead or be misled. He is infallible. And so when we had to submit to the evidence and recognize that Paul VI had fallen into heresy, we understood — and it could not be otherwise — that it could be only as a private doctor that he had fallen into heresy. We were following what theologians said concerning this, that for years we had not realized that though the pope can only fall into heresy as a private doctor, he may manifest his heresy in one of two ways, either privately or officially. Since only formal heresy puts a man out of the Church, a pope who falls into heresy as a private doctor and manifests his heresy in conversation or a private document, is entitled to the same presumption of good faith as everyone else. We must make the customary representations to him. Once warned of his error, his reaction to the representations will manifest his good faith if he corrects himself (as did St. Peter and Pope Paschal II) or his obstinacy in error — that is to say, his formal heresy. Only then, in the case of formal heresy, may we speak of his forfeiture.
But if the pope having fallen into heresy as a private doctor manifests this in an ex cathedra teaching, then not only may we not suppose his good faith but we must not. The reason for this is easy to understand. If supposing the impossible, the pope could be in good faith while teaching error ex cathedra, it would have to be concluded that the responsibility for this error taught ex cathedra must be attributed to Christ, Who had not kept His promise of assistance. Is there any need to say that such an hypothesis would be not only ridiculous but also blasphemous? Faith forbids me to make it. And thus, if by some misfortune, the pope were to teach error ex cathedra, we would have to conclude that from the moment he began to teach such error, he would thereby manifest that he was already truly a formal heretic and was no longer pope — if indeed he had ever been pope.
Has this misfortune happened? That is something I have yet to establish. Before that, I would like to give one last explanation in order to avoid all unnecessary discussion later on. The Council was, we are told, a pastoral council, which did not wish to engage its infallibility, and, in fact, time and again during its sessions, Fathers put forward questions so as to know with what theological mark certain teachings were being presented. Each time Monsignor Felici, Secretary General of the Council, reassured them, if not to say misled them, in reminding them that Vatican II was a pastoral council. Let us listen to Paul VI speaking officially:
“Certain people ask, what is the authority, what is the theological qualification, that the council has intended to attribute to its teachings, given that it declined to put forward solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallible Magisterium of the Church? Whoever refers to the conciliar declaration on the 6th of March, 1964, repeated on the 16th of November, 1964, knows what the answer is. Given the pastoral character of the council, it has avoided proclaiming in the extraordinary way dogmas having the mark of infallibility. However, [added the sly old fox] the Council has attributed to its teachings the authority of the ordinary supreme magisterium, which is so manifestly authentic that it must be welcomed by all the faithful according to the norms issued by the Council, taking into account the nature and purpose of each document.”
As we have all ready pointed out in our study on the question of faith, Paul VI by this use of ingenious ambiguity, leads us into error from the outset. The meeting of an ecumenical council, Vatican II, which was the twenty-second in history, is that not already an extraordinary means of pontifical teaching? Further playing on this ambiguity, he claims that the Council has at the same time avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary way dogmas having the mark of infallibility, and also that this teaching must be welcomed by all the faithful.
How could there be an obligation for the faithful to welcome a non-infallible teaching — that is, one that might well contain error? In spite of this confusion, and, we may say, using it to protect themselves, many people have been reassured. Since Vatican II — according to Paul VI, an expert on the subject — had not taught the whole Church in an extraordinary way, everything would become possible, even the impossible: a true Catholic pope teaching henceforth from the very height of his chair (in the ordinary way, of course) any heretical doctrine whatever, and this with the assistance of an ecumenical council. What was it in reality? I hope no one will disagree when I point out that in the audience of Wednesday, January 12, 1966, Paul VI, even supposing he was still pope, was not speaking ex cathedra. He was not infallible, and thus, in giving the answer that we have quoted, at the least ambiguous, he could be mistaken — even, if you like, in good faith. So we must refer to the text that he has published as the text of the Council, and the more so as even Paul VI recognized the teaching of Vatican II, at least to all appearances, as covered by the authority of the ordinary supreme magisterium, “which is so manifestly authentic that it must be welcomed by all the faithful according to the norms issued by the Council, taking into account the nature and purpose of each document.”
Let us refer to the texts of Vatican II. Take for instance the declaration Dignitatis Humanae, on Religious Liberty. This declaration has all the characteristics of a solemn judgment of an ecumenical council, the infallibility of which has never been contested. And that no one may doubt that this teaching is invested with the authority of the supreme magisterium or that it must be welcomed by all the faithful, Paul VI concluded his declaration in this way:
“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Declaration has won the consent of the Fathers of this most sacred Council. We too, by the apostolic authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the Venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God’s glory. Given at Rome at St. Peter’s on the 7th day of December, 1965, I Paul, Bishop of Rome and the Catholic Church.”
This teaching is clearly a teaching of the supreme magisterium. To those who wish to contest our explanation under the pretext that Dignitatis Humanae was not an act of the pope speaking ex cathedra, and that Vatican II refrained from giving solemn dogmatic definitions, we reply thus: Vatican II at the least made use of the official ordinary teaching of the Church. By this fact alone, it must, in any case, be infallible. We must believe on divine and Catholic faith all the truths that are contained in the word of God written or transmitted by tradition, and that the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium proposes as divinely revealed. Let us continue the argument of this text.
According to Vatican II the doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae on Religious Liberty is in conformity with divine revelation — the Church has received it from Christ and the apostles. In saying this, the Council clearly proposes this doctrine as a doctrine divinely revealed by Christ and transmitted through the apostles. Normally, this teaching of Dignitatis Humanae must be infallible, without error, since the faithful must believe it as being of divine and Catholic faith. Now it is a fact that we can in no way deny that this teaching of Dignitatis Humanae is an old error already condemned by the previous infallible magisterium, which affirms, concerning this same religious liberty, that it is contrary to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the Church Fathers. It is a totally false notion, an erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls. It is insanity. Now this teaching of Quanta Cura is irreformable. Pope Pius IX in giving it has engaged all his authority. Listen to him:
“Consequently, each and every one of these irregular opinions and doctrines recalled in detail in this letter, we reprove, proscribe and condemn with Our Apostolic Authority, and we will and ordain that all the sons of the Catholic Church regard them as absolutely reproved, proscribed and condemned.”
Let us take up again where we left off before this explanation of the so-called pastoral character of Vatican II. Has this misfortune of a pope teaching error in the infallible magisterium come to pass? The response is in the affirmative. It is not the result of reasoning but lies in a fact that anyone can recognize if he knows how to read and understand what he reads. It is the discovery of this contradiction that necessarily constitutes a question of faith for all who hold the Catholic Faith. For according to our Catholic Faith, it is impossible that the authentic magisterium of the Church could officially teach error. Faced with this fact, unheard of before Vatican II, faith has only two possibilities. Either, despite appearances to the contrary, there is no contradiction between the two official teachings, or if there really is erroneous teaching, it is because, despite all appearances to the contrary, the author of this erroneous teaching is not the magisterium.
The first explanation is untenable. There is patent contradiction, and to recognize that, let us repeat, it is enough to know how to read and to understand what is written. We are left, then, with the second explanation. Our conclusion is based on the most sure certainty — the certainty of faith — and assures us that the assembly that has given us this false teaching, which took the name of Vatican II and which presented itself as an ecumenical Council of the Church, in reality was no such thing, because, in spite of appearances to the contrary, the pope who presided over it was not the pope. In saying that, are we casting doubt on his election? Not at all. We are simply stating that this man, Paul VI, even if he had really been pope until then, fell secretly as a private doctor into formal heresy, and by this fact lost the sovereign pontificate, supposing he were in possession of it. Being no longer pope, he no longer enjoyed Christ’s promise of assistance. Being no longer assisted, he could teach error to the universal Church. It is a classic doctrine which applies equally to all men, the pope included. But God never abandons us if we do not abandon Him first. Paul VI officially taught error. Having abandoned Christ by his formal heresy, Paul VI was abandoned by Christ.
Allow me to anticipate the familiar objection that is often put forward: In affirming the formal heresy of Paul VI, you are judging his conscience; only a new pope would be able to say with certainty if Paul VI yesterday and John Paul II today are formal heretics. This objection is an absurdity. You will judge that for yourselves. Certainly we are never allowed to judge other people’s consciences. One situation, however, is an exception to this rule, and that is precisely the case of the pope teaching error in the infallible magisterium. In this case, as has already been stated, we not only cannot suppose the good faith of the pope, but we must not. We must recognize his formal heresy. It is theological faith that obliges us to do so. Why? For the simple reason explained above, and which I am going to repeat. If, purely hypothetically, it were possible to excuse the pope from formal heresy in this case — that is to say, if we could suppose his good faith in teaching error in the infallible magisterium — we would have to conclude that the responsibility for this false teaching is attributable to Christ, Who promised to assist His Vicar but Who has, in fact, not assisted him. To this fact, for fact it is, of error being solemnly taught, only one explanation is possible in the realm of faith. That is, allow me to repeat it, that in spite of all contrary appearances, this man whom we had thought of as pope was not pope, and God permitted this to be made clear by his solemnly teaching an error that had been previously condemned by the true magisterium.
Rather than being indignant on recognizing this, see in it the divine goodness. Having become a formal heretic as a private doctor, the pope is no longer pope. But nobody knows that with certainty. His heresy, not having been discovered, he continues to spread evil doctrines that are accepted by most people because they are from the pope, whilst in reality he is pope no longer. Then God, rather than preserving him after his fall, blinded him and permitted that he be clearly unmasked in the eyes of the faithful by solemnly teaching a doctrine that had already been condemned. It is truly the new gospel which St. Paul had warned the Galatians against and which allows them to discover and to anathematize the false teacher.
That is what I wanted to point out to you in speaking to you of the action of Divine Providence in favor of the Church. If Satan has been allowed to sift us as wheat, it is God who has granted this permission. But in permitting this terrible crisis, which in some mysterious way formed part of God’s plan for the punishment of the apostate world, God wished to give to His faithful — that is, those who have the Faith, who hold God’s word as true and certain — a true anchor of salvation to which they could cling so as not to be carried away by the storm. This anchor of salvation is the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in his ex cathedra teaching. We can never thank our Lord enough for this single grace because, allow me to say to you once again, it is by resting on the dogma of papal infallibility that we can affirm with the assurance of our faith, the greatest assurance there is, that the popes of Vatican II since Paul VI are not and cannot be popes. Their Church is thus not the Church of Christ; it is only an anti-church, a synagogue of Satan.
This necessary conclusion is, I repeat, a matter of faith. It alone clarifies and resolves the problem presented to Catholic consciences by Vatican II and illustrates once again the words of the apostle St. John: “And this is the victory that overcometh the world, our faith.” Yes, it is our faith, our firm adherence to Christ’s word, which assures us that Peter’s faith cannot fail when he is in his role as Peter, when he confirms his brethren. It is faith which assures us that, in spite of all appearances to the contrary, this man whom people thought of as pope, who had all the appearances, in reality in the sight of God and of those of the faithful who see as God sees, he was not and could not be pope.
But some will think, with Archbishop Lefebvre: what you are saying is frightening. Reflect a little. If the pope is not pope, those named cardinal by him are not really cardinals. Who will give us a new pope? Where shall we find him? “O ye of little faith!” said the Master to his apostles, frightened by the tempest. The violence of the winds and the crashing of the waves, the imminent disaster, were these not reasons enough for their fear? No, otherwise Jesus would not have reproached them for their lack of faith nor for their lack of courage. In fact, we are obliged to acknowledge that if the apostles had not doubted their Master’s omnipotence, if they had not accepted the idea that the unleashed elements could escape His Providence, they never would have been overcome by fear. It is beyond all doubt that, because of their little faith, they had begun to doubt His complete control over what was taking place so that they were overcome with fear.
Is that not what is happening once again around us? In the perilous situation in which the bark of Peter is now placed, affecting us all, while the formidable religious struggle shakes the very foundation of the Church, and Jesus seems to be more deeply asleep than on the Sea of Tiberius, what faith must we have to believe that the all-powerful providence of God is in ultimate control of all that is taking place, even when it concerns those happenings which seem to ruin His Church, and which, apparently, at least, cannot be reversed? On the Sea of Tiberius, the apostles were at fault for forgetting that when Jesus was on board with them, they could come to no harm. Is it not the same thing that prevents Bishops Lefebvre and Castro Mayer and those who follow them from doing their duty now? Do they truly believe that Jesus is still governing His Church and that nothing can happen to it without His consent? And Peter, making answer, said, “Lord, if it be Thou, bid me to come to Thee upon the waters.” And He said, “Come.” Peter obeyed. But lifted up by the waves, he began to doubt and went under.
In the storm provoked by Vatican II, is it not the same Master Who has reassured us and Who has called us, ordering us to go towards Him walking on the waves of Vatican II? But there are those, who swept away by the rough waves of the crisis, begin to doubt. “Blessed are those,” they say, “who have never had to face such problems.” Why should those who never had to face such problems be any happier than we? Will not Jesus not remain with us today as He was yesterday and will be until the end of time? Will His Providence not watch over us as much because the world is affected by madness? Has He not the power to calm the present storm with one word if He pleases? Christ, may we point out, did not command Peter to calm the waves, but to go towards Him without fear. He asks nothing more of us but to go towards Him, to commit ourselves to His word, adhering with our whole soul and proclaiming it. Heaven, earth, the tempestuous crisis of Vatican II — all will pass. His word alone will never pass, assuring us that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church built upon Peter.