In his One Hundred Years of Modernism, Fr. Dominique Bourmaud provided a sobering assessment of the way in which the architects of Vatican II so thoroughly disavowed Pius XII’s encyclical condemning the errors threatening the Church, Humani Generis:
“Humani Generis appeared in 1950. The year 1965 marked the closing of the Second Vatican Council, which cast doubt on the fundamental points reaffirmed by the Pope Pacelli. Never before had a dogmatic encyclical been so quickly and so completely disavowed by the very men who had fallen under its condemnation. How is it possible that the new theology, censured so solemnly and so definitively by Pius XII, in perfect accord with Pius X’s Pascendi, should have become the official theology of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Church?”
Before considering the various ways in which John XXIII and his Council rejected Humani Generis, it is worth pausing to consider what faithful Catholics during Pius XII’s pontificate would have thought about the possibility of a future pope rejecting the truths set forth so clearly in the 1950 encyclical. If Pius XII was right to warn of the grave dangers posed by the errors in question, what would have happened if future shepherds not only ignored the warnings but actually promoted the errors? If such an unthinkable disaster could occur, surely it would lead to the sorrows Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pius XII) had prophesied in the 1930s:
“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul. . . I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.
Yes, faithful Catholics would have viewed the prospect of altering the faith as suicidal madness. Were it not for the warnings of Our Lady of Fatima, such a disaster might have seemed impossible.
Even with the warnings of Fatima, though, many Catholics understandably believe that “the rejection of Humani Generis” simply could not happen because the Holy Ghost protects the Church from any such missteps. Faced with the realities contradicting this belief, many Catholics have left the Church; others have concluded that we have not had a pope since Pius XII; and far too many have functionally abandoned their use of reason by determining that there is no genuine crisis in the Church.
From the first day of the Council there were already clear signs that John XXIII fundamentally rejected Pius XII’s Humani Generis and the indispensable protections of the Faith contained therein. It is as though God compelled John XXIII to leave us this unmistakable confirmation that he was rejecting the protections of the Holy Ghost.
But there is another path, one that allows us to maintain our Faith and reason intact. For sixty years, so many Catholics have experienced tremendous anxiety over the thought that God’s promise to protect the Church had become void with Vatican II. However, if we approach this deep mystery in a rational manner, trying to make the most sense out of the evident signs God has permitted in His loving Providence, we can see that the Holy Ghost’s protection of the Church was exercised by making it perfectly clear that John XXIII rejected that protection for his Council.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can recognize that from the first day of the Council there were already clear signs that John XXIII fundamentally rejected Pius XII’s Humani Generis and the indispensable protections of the Faith contained therein. It is as though God compelled John XXIII to leave us this unmistakable confirmation that he was rejecting the protections of the Holy Ghost.
Abandoning Condemnations. Like his predecessors, Pius XII made himself an instrument of the Holy Ghost by condemning the errors opposed to the immutable Catholic Faith. In the final paragraphs of Humani Generis, he charged the Church’s shepherds with defending their flocks against the errors threatening the Faith:
“[A]fter mature reflexion and consideration before God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We charge the Bishops and the Superiors General of Religious Orders, binding them most seriously in conscience, to take most diligent care that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful. Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be aware that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We have ordained.”
Conversely, in his October 11, 1962 address to open Vatican II, John XXIII announced that his Council would adopt an entirely new way of responding to the errors threatening the Church:
“The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays, however, the spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated.”
Even though the dangers to the Faith were as lethal as ever, John XXIII determined that his Council would not condemn them — he thus preemptively abandoned one of the primary means by which the Holy Ghost has protected the Church for two thousand years. Thus, John XXIII put the world on notice that he was deliberately depriving his Council of this vital means of safeguarding the Faith.
Even though the dangers to the Faith were as lethal as ever, John XXIII determined that his Council would not condemn them — he thus preemptively abandoned one of the primary means by which the Holy Ghost has protected the Church for two thousand years.
Choosing Modernists as Council Experts. As Fr. Bourmaud observed above regarding the rejection of Humani Generis, the men who worked so hard to overturn Pius XII’s great encyclical were the men whose ideas were condemned by it. Taylor Marshall succinctly described this travesty in his Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within:
“The engineers of Vatican II were Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Küng, Henri de Lubac, and Yves Congar. All five men were held under suspicion of Modernism under Pius XII.”
Tellingly, the Council Daybook entry from the first day of the Council expressed how remarkable it was that John XXIII had included men representing “every shade of opinion”:
“A galaxy of Catholic scholars and theological experts such as rarely assembled at one time has gathered here for the Second Vatican Council. These men represent every shade of opinion. Contrary to views expressed by the skeptics, they are far from being just ‘yes-men’ or rubber stamps. . . The men named are serving either as official ‘experts’ of the council so named by the Pope, or in other conciliar positions or as personal advisers to bishops individually. Among the theologians who are best known internationally are Fathers Yves Congar, O.P., of Strasbourg; Jean Daneilou, S.J., of Paris; Henri de Lubac, S.J., of Lyons, France; Karl Rahner, S.J., and Josef Jungmann, S.J., of Innsbruck, Austria; Msgrs. Romano Guardini and Michael Schmaus of Munich; Fathers Karl Adam and Hans Kung of Tuebingen, Germany; Otto Karrer of Lucerne, Switzerland; and Reginald M. Garrigou- Lagrange, O.P., of the Angelicum, Rome.”
Congar, de Lubac, Küng, and Rahner were as notorious for their heterodoxy as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was well-known for his orthodoxy. By naming the modernists as experts for his Council, John XXIII left absolutely no room for doubt: he rejected Pius XII’s Humani Generis and all of the protections of the Holy Ghost it imposed on the Church’s shepherds.
Reformulating Catholic Truth for Modern Needs. Pius XII also warned of the danger of trying to reformulate Catholic dogma to satisfy modern needs:
“In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs . . . this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind.”
Pius XII was not warning against those who would openly contradict Church doctrine — no such warning was necessary because the Church’s enemies employed far more subtle and lethal methods. Rather, he warned that trying to reformulate Catholic teaching by abandoning the terminology long established by the Church was “supreme imprudence” and “would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind.”
As we can see from the following words from John XXIII’s opening address, he intended for his Council to do precisely what Pius XII condemned:
“[T]he Christian, Catholic and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciences in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”
Apologists for John XXIII and his Council emphasize his assertion that authentic doctrine must be preserved, and indeed John XXIII made similar points elsewhere in his opening address. But the modernists condemned by Pius XII made the same assertions — they sought to “reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas,” which necessarily meant that they recognized that the doctrine reformulated for modern needs had to preserve some “authentic” core of the respective doctrine, but could otherwise change with the times. This is exactly what we see from John XXIII’s statement above, which corresponds with what Pius XII called “supreme imprudence.”
Although John XXIII obstructed the protections of the Holy Ghost with respect to his Council, the Holy Ghost never ceased protecting the Church. In large part, that protection consisted of permitting it to be abundantly clear that the Council did not benefit from the protections of the Holy Ghost — as such, no Catholic can follow any innovations of the Council that deviate from what the Church has always taught.
Even today, faithful Catholics may not appreciate Pius XII’s insistence that Catholic truth must be presented in its fullness, free from any ambiguity. Already within the first few sessions of the Council, though, the problems of ambiguity became evident, prompting Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to present an intervention on November 27, 1962:
“The suggestion is this: that each Commission should put forward two documents, one more dogmatic, for the use of theologians; the other more pastoral in tone, for the use of others, whether Catholic, non-Catholic or non-Christian.”
We know, of course, that the Council rejected this approach, and Archbishop Lefebvre’s explanation of the rejection confirms the Catholic wisdom of Pius XII’s warnings:
“The ambiguity of this Council was apparent from the very first sessions. . .This could have been the opportunity to provide a clearer definition of the pastoral character of the Council. The proposal met, however, with violent opposition: ‘The Council is not a dogmatic but a pastoral one; we are not seeking to define new dogmas but to put forward truth in a pastoral way.’ Liberals and Progressives like to live in a climate of ambiguity. The idea of clarifying the purpose of the Council annoyed them exceedingly.”
Even though Archbishop Lefebvre adamantly opposed this dangerous orientation, he apparently did not yet appreciate the full significance of John XXIII having rejected Pius XII’s Humani Generis and, ultimately, the protections of the Holy Ghost. However, in his preface to the small book compiling each of his Vatican II interventions, I Accuse the Council!, he saw it clearly:
“The conclusion is inescapable, especially in light of the widespread turmoil which the Church has experienced since the Second Vatican Council. This destructive occurrence for the Catholic Church and all Christian civilization has not been directed nor led by the Holy Ghost.”
Yes, this conclusion that the Holy Ghost did not direct John XXIII’s Council should be inescapable, as Archbishop Lefebvre wrote. Why, then, do so many seemingly faithful Catholics absolutely insist otherwise, even today? In his interview with Diane Montagna, Christus Vincit: Christ’s Triumph Over the Darkness of the Age, Bishop Athanasius Schneider provided invaluable insight on the related question of whether the Council was infallible:
“It was for me impossible to think that a Council or a pope could make any mistake. Implicitly I considered every word of the Council and the pope as infallible, or at least without error. . . It was for me a kind of unconscious and total ‘infallibilization’ of the Council—unconsciously, not on the theoretical level—and of all pronouncements of the popes. I was uncomfortable when there were critics, and I did not like to follow or study the critics because I was afraid of going in a direction that would be unfaithful to the Church and to my devotion to the pope. Instinctively, I repressed every reasonable argument which could, even in the slightest, be a critique of the Council texts. Nowadays, I realize that I ‘turned off’ my reason. However, such an attitude is not healthy and contradicts the tradition of the Church, as we observe in the Fathers, the Doctors, and the great theologians of the Church over the course of two thousand years.”
If great shepherds of the Church such as Bishop Schneider come to this realization only after considerable prayer and reflection, it is no wonder that so many faithful Catholics still labor under the mistaken belief that the Holy Ghost protected the Council from error. Almost certainly, none of us would have recognized the signs on October 11, 1962, much less would we have known how to intervene. All that truly matters, though, is that we can see it today, when it is even more clear from the fruits of Vatican II that the Holy Ghost cannot possibly have protected the Council.
By ostentatiously rejecting Pius XII’s Humani Generis with his Council, John XXIII rendered one of the most egregious insults to God in human history. Vatican II’s aftermath has been the increasingly severe punishment for that sin.
Although John XXIII obstructed the protections of the Holy Ghost with respect to his Council, the Holy Ghost never ceased protecting the Church. In large part, that protection consisted of permitting it to be abundantly clear that the Council did not benefit from the protections of the Holy Ghost — as such, no Catholic can follow any innovations of the Council that deviate from what the Church has always taught.
Even more significantly, the Holy Ghost’s protection of the Church has extended to allowing it to be painfully obvious that the Council’s errors have caused disastrous fruits. This fact both adds a profound reason to avoid the errors denounced by Pius XII and his predecessors, and allows the true doctrine of the Church to shine forth more brilliantly.
Against this backdrop we can better appreciate the evil of otherwise faithful Catholics vehemently defending Vatican II and denouncing those who have questioned its heterodox documents. Almost certainly, many more Catholics would have abandoned the vile reforms of Vatican II were it not for the fact that those purporting to give “Catholic answers” to the pressing questions of the post-Conciliar period have fought tooth and nail against those who insisted on recognizing the reality of the current crisis. Men like Rahner, de Lubac, Congar, and Küng built the crisis in the Church, and today’s class of reality-deniers play an invaluable role in sustaining it.
By ostentatiously rejecting Pius XII’s Humani Generis with his Council, John XXIII rendered one of the most egregious insults to God in human history. Vatican II’s aftermath has been the increasingly severe punishment for that sin. Thanks be to God, though, the path of repentance is also the path of overcoming the wickedness in the Church and world: we must return to the unadulterated and immutable Catholic Faith that the Holy Ghost has never stopped protecting, and firmly reject the errors flowing from John XXIII’s unholy Council. Our Lady, destroyer of all heresies, pray for us!
Latest from RTV — THE FBI’s OBSESSION: Latin Mass Catholics & the Conspiracy that Canceled Benedict
