Vatican II Ecclesiology Refuted Before Vatican II

Mgr. Joseph Fenton explains…

Vatican II Ecclesiology Refuted Before Vatican II

A battle of doctrine: Pope Pius XII (left) vs. Antipope Paul VI (right)

Part of the core mission of Novus Ordo Watch is to demonstrate how the teachings, laws, and worship of the modern ‘Catholic Church’ reflect a faith that is essentially different from, and therefore wholly incompatible with, the Roman Catholic Faith as it was known until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

One of the most glaring deviations from the prior doctrine is visible in the theology of the Church (ecclesiology), that is, in the Catholic Church’s understanding of her own nature, function, and necessity. The Second Vatican Council (1962-65), whose documents were solemnly ratified by ‘Pope’ Paul VI (r. 1963-78), embraced a novel doctrine in order to enable Ecumenism, the effort to procure ‘Christian unity’ with Orthodox and Protestant sects in some way other than by requiring Protestants to convert to Catholicism.

As the perennial Catholic teaching on the Church did not allow for such an endeavor — as clarified by Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII — Vatican II replaced the ‘old’ teaching with its new ‘elements’ ecclesiology that revolutionized how the Church views herself and other religions.

Whereas for 1900 years the Catholic Church understood herself to be the only true Church established by Jesus Christ, and all other ‘Christian’ religions as heretical and schismatic sects fundamentally alien to her, the ‘new and improved’ doctrine of Vatican II presented the Church established by Jesus Christ as existing fully (‘subsisting’) in the Catholic Church and partially (in ‘elements’) in Orthodox and Protestant sects (so-called ‘other Christian churches and ecclesial communities’). This opened the door to ecumenism, which has caused untold harm to souls ever since.

We have demonstrated the incompatibility between the pre-Vatican II teaching and the doctrine of the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium many times before:

• Vatican celebrates 60 Years of Ecumenism: How it Contradicts Catholic Doctrine
• The Vatican and the Ecumenical Movement: From Stern Condemnation to Enthusiastic Approval
• No False Unity: Cardinal Stritch’s Rebuff of the Ecumenical Movement
• The Ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council
• On the True Church of Christ: Vatican II vs. Roman Catholicism
• Christian Unity without Catholicism: ‘Pope’ Francis spews Ecumenical Bilge at General Audience
• Video: Ecclesiology Debate: Did Vatican II Teach Heresy?

In the present post, our focus will be on how the new doctrine (in rudimentary forms) had already been floated in the Church in the years before Vatican II but was refuted by Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (1906-1969). (For this find we are indebted to Twitter/X user ‘kennhistoria’, who in a series of posts on the social media site pointed it out.)

In his impressive work The Catholic Church and Salvation (1958), Mgr. Fenton describes and refutes what would, in essence, become the doctrine of Vatican II just a few years later. He calls it a “doctrinal aberration” and identifies it as simply another variation of Indifferentism (or Latitudinarianism), the idea that, as far as salvation is concerned, it does not matter what religion (or what church) one adheres to.

In his chapter on Pope Pius IX’s teaching in the allocution Singulari Quadam of Dec. 9, 1854, Fenton explains what errors run counter to it:

In this section of the Singulari quadam Pope Pius IX goes on to urge the Bishops of the Catholic Church to use all of their energies to drive from the minds of men the deadly error that the way of salvation can be found in any religion. To a certain extent this is a mere restatement of the erroneous opinion according to which we may well hope for the salvation of men who have never entered in any way into the Catholic Church, the first misinterpretation of Catholic teaching reproved in this section of the allocution. Yet, in another way, the error that the way of salvation can be found in any religion has its own peculiar and individual malignity. It is based on the false implication that the false religions, those other than the Catholic, are in some measure a partial approach to the fullness of truth which is to be found in Catholicism. According to this doctrinal aberration, the Catholic religion would be distinct from others, not as the true is distinguished from the false, but only as the plenitude is distinct from incomplete participations of itself. It is this notion, the idea that all other religions contain enough of the essence of that completeness, of truth which is to be found in Catholicism, to make them vehicles of eternal salvation, which is thus reproved in the Singulari quadam.

(Joseph C. Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation: In the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See [Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1958], p. 47; underlining added.)

There it is: partial communion, imperfect communion, ecclesial elements, partial truth vs. fullness of truth — rejected as incompatible with the traditional teaching!

The relevant passage in Pius IX’s Singulari Quadam to which Mgr. Fenton refers is the following:

We have learned with grief that another error, not less melancholy, is introduced into certain parts of the Catholic world, and has taken possession of the souls of many Catholics. Carried away with a hope for the eternal salvation of those who are out of the true Church of Christ, they do not cease to inquire with solicitude what shall be the fate and the condition after death of men who are not submissive to the Catholic faith. Seduced by vain reasoning they make to these questions replies conformably to that perverse doctrine. Far from Us, Venerable Brothers, to lay claim to put limits to the Divine mercy, which is infinite! Far from Us to scrutinize the counsels and mysterious judgments of God, unfathomable depth where human thought cannot penetrate! But it belongs to the duty of Our Apostolic office to excite your Episcopal solicitude and vigilance to make all possible efforts to remove from the minds of men the opinion, as impious as it is fatal, according to which people can find in any religion the way of eternal salvation. Employ all the resources of your minds and of your learning to demonstrate to the people committed to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no respect contrary to the Divine mercy and justice. Faith orders Us to hold that out of the Apostolic Roman Church no person can be saved, that it is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever will not enter therein shall perish in the waters of the deluge.

On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things? When delivered from the bonds of the body, we shall see God as He is, we will comprehend perfectly by what admirable and indissoluble bond the divine mercy and the divine justice are united; but as long as we are upon the earth, bent under the weight of this mortal mass which overloads the soul, let us hold firmly that which the Catholic doctrine teaches us, that there is only one God, one Faith, one Baptism; to seek to penetrate further is not permitted.

However, as charity demands, let us pour out before God incessant prayers, in order that, from all parts, all the nations may be converted to Christ; let us labor, as much as it is in us, for the common salvation of men. The arms of the Lord are not shortened, and the gifts of the heavenly grace are never wanting to those who sincerely wish for them, and who beg for the assistance of that light. These truths should be deeply engraved on the minds of the Faithful, that they may not suffer themselves to be corrupted by false doctrines, the object of which is to propagate indifference in matters of religion, an indifference that we see growing up, and spreading itself on all sides, to the loss of souls.

(Pope Pius IX, Allocution Singulari Quadam; underlining added.)

Let’s be serious: Does anyone in the Vatican II Church adhere to this teaching of Pope Pius IX? To ask the question is to answer it. Of course not!

Anyone interested in Fenton’s complete elucidation of this passage, including an explanation of the correct understanding of the role invincible ignorance can play, please see Fenton’s entire chapter here (pp. 42-56) and also consult John S. Daly’s chapter 11 of his book Michael Davies – An Evaluation here.

Fenton was known (and hated) by many for his staunch orthodoxy, yielding neither to the liberals of his day nor to the rigorist Leonard Feeney. As professor of dogmatic and fundamental theology at the Catholic University of America and editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review (1944-1963), Fenton had considerable theological influence on American clergy and seminarians during that time. On Mar. 1, 1954, he was recognized by Pope Pius XII for his theological contributions and awarded the medal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice (‘For Church and Pope’):

Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton receives Papal Medal

Article from Mar 6, 1954 The Tablet (Brooklyn, New York)

.
During the Second Vatican Council, Fenton served as theological advisor to Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. His council diaries (available online here) provide fascinating and petrifying insights into the theological bloodbath that was taking place.

Less than three weeks after the opening of the supposed ecumenical council, Fenton wrote: “This is going to mark the end of the Catholic religion as we have known it. There will be vernacular Masses, and, worse still, there will be some wretched theology in the constitutions” (Oct. 31, 1962). Less than a month later, he remarked: “If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end.”

Some may object that Fenton nevertheless accepted Vatican II’s ecclesiological teaching when it was promulgated in 1964 (in Lumen Gentium) and 1965 (in Unitatis Redintegratio). That is true, but it is irrelevant for our purposes here. For one thing, our concern is what was known to be the orthodox Catholic position before anyone was influenced by the council. Secondly, like everyone else, Fenton obviously believed that Paul VI was the Pope, and so, given his firm adherence to the traditional Catholic teaching on the Papacy, he accepted the conciliar doctrine as necessarily safe and Catholic. Furthermore, in the few years he still lived after the council — Fenton died on July 7, 1969 — it may have been possible still in good conscience to give the council’s ambiguous texts an orthodox spin, insofar as an official Vatican interpretation of certain disputed points in the council had not yet been rendered.

To our knowledge, Fenton never commented on Vatican II’s doctrine on the Church in public, although we do know from one of his last diary entries (Nov. 23, 1968) that he was intending to write a book on the topic.

They key takeaway from the present write-up is this: The ecclesiological doctrine of Vatican II is novel and incompatible with the perennial doctrine known, taught, and believed before the council. One cannot defend it on the specious grounds that it is simply a ‘different approach’ to the unity of the Church that puts the emphasis on different aspects than was done before; nor is it simply a restatement of the timeless doctrinal truths in a more conciliatory way.

Rather, the relationship between the two ecclesiologies is such that if the one is true, the other must necessarily be false. In other words, it is a matter of true vs. false and not simply a matter of good vs. better, traditional vs. contemporary, partial vs. full, or negative vs. positive.

One must choose, therefore: Did the Catholic Church get it wrong for 1900 years; or is it perhaps the Church of the Second Vatican Council that is in error?

Image source: composite with elements from Shutterstock (Julia Raketic, Cris Foto), Alamy (colaimages/Alamy Stock Photo), Wikimedia Commons (Edirov; changes made to original image)
Licenses: paid, fair use, rights-managed, CC BY-SA 3.0