About doctrinal preambles,
formal profession of Catholic faith,
and oaths of fidelity to the Church
So much has been said about the Doctrinal Preamble that the Vatican wants the FSSPX to sign as a condition of reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church. But no one outside of the Vatican or the FSSPX knows exactly what's in it.
In its statement after their recent Chapter General, the FSSPX said:
...We reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord Himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth; our faith in the universal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of both the natural and the supernatural orders, to Whom every man and every society must submit.
One would certainly welcome an explanation from Mons. Fellay as to how they can profess faith in the Roman Catholic Church and its 'monarchical constitution' and the Pope's 'supreme power of government', but refuse to take his word that the Vatican-II concepts they disagree with are
not incompatible with the Tradition of the Church.
These concepts are religious freedom, ecumenism, inter-religious dialog and collegiality, which they call 'novelties tainted with error'. They were novelties in pastoral terms - big concepts to be carried out concretely by way of learning as one proceeds, by trial and error, one might say - but not novelties as ideas within the Church.
1. Religious freedom - Christ said, "Go and preach to all nations', which, meant first of all, announcing Christ to pagans or people of other religions. And if they refused Christianity, that was no reason to make enemies of them. The parable of the good Samaritan was not just a lesson in charity but also in openness and good will to those who do not share your faith, doing unto them as you would want them to do unto you, as the good Samaritan did with the Jew in need, defying age-old enmities between their races. And that is the concept of religious freedom: Each person chooses the faith he wants to profess (or no faith at all). The Church can only propose the Christian faith - it cannot impose it.
2. Ecumenism - When Christ established his Church, he certainly did not intend the 'one Church' to splinter as it has over the centuries. "Ut unum sint", he said at the Last Supper. What Christian can possibly object to the ideal of all Christian churches and communities coming back together and able to share the Sacraments?
3. Inter-religious dialog is a concept that goes along with religious freedom. Being friendly to other religions or those who have no faith also means willingness to dialog with them - not about trying to convert them to Catholicism (which can be done one on one, behind the scenes, and not in a way that blatantly offends the other religions) - but about human and spiritual values that are common to men of good will, with a view to establishing a strong common front in the promotion and defense of those values in the world.
4. Collegiality - A tricky concept because progressivists have interpreted it to mean that every bishop is as authoritative as the Pope himself, ignoring the fact that Vatican-II hardly ever mentions
collegiality without at the same time stressing that bishops must also be
in communion with the Successor of Peter. That seems to be the least problematic of the FSSPX objections. [As a personal prelature, they will not have to deal with any diocesan bishops, only with the Pope directly.] It does impose a greater burden on whoever is Pope to make sure all his bishops are in communion with him. Perhaps as the post-Vatican II generation of progressivist bishops die out, it will be less of a problem.
So what might it be about that Doctrinal Preamble - which would reaffirm their faith in the Church and its teachings - that the FSSPX object to? It obviously has to do with a specific statement about the Magisterium of Vatican II.
It is useful to first take a look at the Church's most recent formulation of a Profession of Faith, and a corollary Oath of Fidelity required of persons who are to exercise specific functions in the Church.
Conforming to Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio
Ad Tuendam Fidem in 1998, the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity cited here supersede the 1989 version of the Profession and Oath. (All prepared by the CDF, so in both versions, under the supervision of Cardinal Ratzinger.]
The Profession of Faith is made by new Catholics upon their conversion - e.g., the Anglicans who have converted under
Anglicanorum coetibus, or by reverts to the Church (including persons who have written heretical teachings and who have admitted to their error, after abjuring such errors, and committing not to perpetrate such errors).
PROFESSION OF FAITH
I, N., with firm faith believe and profess everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith: namely: [The person recites the Apostles' Creed as it is recited in Sunday Mass.]
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
The above Profession of Faith corresponds to the three levels of the Church Magisterium, without specifying particular teachings. However, based on information said to have come from Mons. Fellay's first assistant himself, Fr. Pfluger, leaked through the blogosphere (in France and in Latin America), it seems the following paragraph, or a variation thereof, would be part of the FSSPX profession of faith (i.e., the 'Doctrinal Preamble') and applies specifically to Vatican-II (my translation from the French):
The entire Tradition of the Catholic faith must be the criterion and guide to understanding the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which clarifies certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church that are implicitly present in her but not yet formulated. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and subsequent Pontifical Magisterium concerning the relationship between the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions must be understood in the light of the entire Tradition...
Fr. Pfluger reportedly said on June 9, before the last FSSPX response was submitted to the Vatican, that this was the paragraph Mons. Fellay was prepared to accept and sign.
[I must say I am very surprised that Fellay finds the almost generic statement acceptable - and if the leak is credible, it indicates that the FSSPX are far less exigent and far more amenable than their public rhetoric would indicate.]Even if we are still in the realm of speculation here, the obvious question raised by the above citation is "What do the CDF cardinals and bishops find unacceptable in that statement?"
It is equally instructive to look at the 'Doctrinal Declaration' by the late Mons. Lefebvre in the Protocol of Understanding he signed with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in May 1988 but which Lefebvre unilaterally revoked less than a month later, in order to ordain four bishops, expressly violating John Paul II's orders. (This, of course, led to the automatic excommunication of Mons. Lefebvre, the other bishop who was co-consecrator, and the four illegally-ordained bishops whose excommunication was lifted by Benedict XVI in January 2009.)
I. Text of the Doctrinal Declaration
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by me:
1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.
2. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that Magisterium.
3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.
4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
Now, we come to the corollary to the Profession of Faith -
OATH OF FIDELITY ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE
TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH
Canon 833, Nos. 5-8, obliges the following to make both the profession of faith and the Oath of Fidelity: a) vicars general, episcopal vicars and judicial vicars; b) "at the beginning of their term of office, pastors, the rector of a seminary and the professors of theology and philosophy in seminaries; those to be promoted to the diaconate"; c) "the rectors of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university at the beginning of the rector's term of office"; ) "at the beginning of their term of office, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines which deal with faith or morals"; and e) "superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic life in accord with the norm of the constitutions."
[Note that c) and d) would have applied to to the rector and theology teachers at the now ex-Pontifical, ex-Catholic University of Peru! And presumably, the bishops, priests, rectors and seminary teachers of the FSSPX would be required to take the oath in the event of reconciliation.]
I, N., in assuming the office of __________, promise that in my words and in my actions I shall always preserve communion with the Catholic Church.
With great care and fidelity I shall carry out the duties incumbent on me toward the Church, both universal and particular, in which, according to the provisions of the law, I have been called to exercise my service.
In fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall hold fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety; I shall faithfully hand it on and explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings contrary to it.
I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.
With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish.
I shall also faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.
So help me God, and God's Holy Gospels on which I place my hand.
Variations in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the formulary, for use by those members of the Christian faithful indicated in can. 833, n. 8 (Superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic life, according to the norm of their respective constitutions):
I shall foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall insist on the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.
With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish. I shall also — with due regard for the character and purpose of my institute — faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.
The Profession of Faith was in the news earlier this month in the United States for a different reason, which is made clear in the following commentary by Prof. Beckwith, a famous Catholic 'revert' - he grew up Catholic to the age of 15, and then went over to evangelical Protestantism to the point of being elected president of the Evangelical Theological Society of the United States in November 2006, at a time when he was already thinking of going back to Catholicism, which he did in April 2007. In this commentary he coins two expressions - 'egopapism' which, as he uses it, seems to mean being your own Pope, and 'the Arlington 5' for the five catechists of Virginia who refused to sign a profession of faith.
Egopapism and the Arlington Five
by Francis J. Beckwith
July 22, 2012
The Catholic Diocese of Arlington, Virginia has recently drawn national attention because it has asked its catechists to sign a profession of faith that asserts that they believe the catechism that the Church has commissioned them to teach and are committed to the Church as the guardian and custodian of that faith.
In short, they are being asked to admit that they are Catholics and that they believe in Catholicism. This, apparently, is so controversial that five out of the 5,000 diocesan catechists (including parochial school teachers) have resigned over this request. Five, by the way, is the number of Popes that have served the Church over my lifetime.
At least one of the five catechists, Kathleen Riley, who is 52, is, like me, a Catholic child of the 1970s (I am 51), which means that we were part of the first generation of Catholics who were spiritually and intellectually formed “in the spirit of Vatican II.”
There was, of course, nothing wrong with Vatican II; its deliverances were a natural development of prior Church teachings. The problem was with how these changes were implemented and understood by clergy and religious who had a different agenda in mind.
As I noted in my 2009 memoir,
Return to Rome,
the lack of theological seriousness that flowed from this agenda is what pushed me and many others into the arms of Evangelical Protestantism.
When I was in Catholic high school, to provide but one example, I took a mandatory religion class in which Jonathan Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach was one of the required texts. This was fairly typical of the catechetical infidelity that dominated the era in many parishes and schools in the United States.
Instead of introducing us to great Catholic literature, we were given this sort of tripe (from Bach’s book): “We can lift ourselves out of ignorance, we can find ourselves as creatures of excellence and intelligence and skill. We can be free! We can learn to fly!”
That’s quite a descent from “for You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in You,” or even, more contemporaneously, “the modern critics of religious authority are like men who should attack the police without ever having heard of burglars.”
Ms. Riley is a computer scientist. Because she is trained in computer science, and is a professional in the field, she can speak authoritatively on matters concerning computer science. This is because computer science, like numerous other fields of study, is a knowledge tradition.
Over time that tradition, like all others, develops standard practices, ways of assimilating new discoveries and insights into already established understandings, and a hierarchy of expertise that grounds the authority of those in the profession.
If, for example, a non-expert such as myself were to tell a computer science authority, such as Ms. Riley, that I feel in my heart of hearts that the operating system of the iMac on which I am writing this essay is “no different” than the most recent version of Microsoft Windows because it seems to me that they “do the same things,” I would suffer no injustice if she were to correct me.
If I were to complain that her correction violates my autonomy or “right to dissent,” she would, I hope, gently tell me that in fact she had contributed to my intellectual flourishing by imparting the truth to me.
She would insist that if I continue to harbor any doubts about the deliverances of computer science that there are established means by which I may voice my dissent and perhaps change the trajectory of the discipline.
I can, for example, submit articles to peer-reviewed publications and deliver papers at professional conferences. If the leading lights in the profession, its authorities so to speak, do not find my arguments compelling or too inconsistent with the body of knowledge that the profession considers nearly indisputable, then perhaps I should reconsider my dissent and begin to reflect on the possibility that the flaw lies with me rather than with the profession.
All that the Church is asking the Arlington Five is that they treat the Church’s theology and its development with as much respect and deference as Ms. Riley expects others to treat the knowledge tradition about which she is an expert.
Just as she and her peers correctly require those who dissent from the dominant understandings in computer science to offer their case within the confines of practices, an established body of knowledge, and methodological constraints that have developed over time for the good of the profession,
the Church requires those who dissent to offer their case within the confines of practices, an established body of knowledge, and methodological constraints that have developed over time for the good of the Church.
So what are the Arlington Five’s arguments? How do they ground their dissent, and how is it consistent with, and a natural development of, the deliverances of the Church’s theological tradition?
To simply say – without any regard to argument, precedent, or established norms of theological engagement – that “the Holy Spirit gives us the responsibility to look into our own consciences,” as Ms. Riley asserts, is in fact to embrace an anti-intellectual and fundamentally irrational position.
The Arlington Five, like many American Catholics and Protestants, have assimilated a contemporary understanding of theology that is intrinsically hostile to the faith they claim to embrace. It is an understanding that sees theological beliefs as irreducibly personal, private, preference driven, and non-cognitive.
This is not intellectual freedom. It is solitary confinement in an egopapist prison.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 23/07/2012 01:54]