Benedict XVI’s new “conservative” Vatican document on the Church reaffirms only Vatican II’s heresies and denies the true Church

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

- Benedict XVI’s new document on the Church does not reaffirm the Catholic Church as the one true Church of Christ; it’s a heretical joke –

-7/27/07- Here's a link to the entire heretical document, for those who want it: “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.”  In this article, in which I quote all five responses of the document, the document will be referred to as “Responses.” Recently there have been many news reports that the new Vatican document on the Church reaffirms that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ.  The document entitled Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Churchwas issued by the Vatican II sect’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 29, 2007.  I refer to this as Benedict XVI’s document because it is a Vatican document which has been issued with his approval and which is reflective of his personal teaching.  The many news reports which described the document as “conservative” and “traditional” helped to further circulate the myth that Benedict XVI is returning to Catholic teaching and correcting “misconceptions” that became widespread after years of supposed “misinterpretation” of Vatican II.  Nothing could be farther from the truth, however.  (At the end of this article I make reference to two “traditional” outfits which outrageously praised this heretical travesty.)  “Responses” is a short document, yet it is jam-packed with reaffirmations not of traditional Catholic teaching, but of Vatican II’s heresies.  I will try to highlight the problems with the new document as briefly as possible here.  Near the beginning, the document states:

BENEDICT XVI’S NEW VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE CHURCH, “RESPONSES…”: “The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiology. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis:  Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).” (www.vatican.va)

Right off the bat, we see that the document mentions John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint as an expression of true ecclesiology (true doctrine on the Church).  Ut Unum Sint is not only John Paul II’s most heretical encyclical – it has ecumenical heresy spilling out of it – but it’s one of the most heretical documents (in terms of the number of significant heresies) that has been issued by any of the Vatican II antipopes.  Most of the false traditionalists and members of the Novus Ordo who blithely linked to the recent Vatican document, or praised it as an expression of Benedict XVI’s conservatism, probably don’t know about Ut Unum Sint since they probably never bothered to read it.  I will not spend this article cataloguing many of Ut Unum Sint’s heresies, for that would take too long, but I will mention a few of the prominent ones.  Ut Unum Sint teaches that there are saints and martyrs in non-Catholic sects, and that their non-Catholic sects gave them salvation.

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995, Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”: “Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the saints - those who, at end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory.  These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities WHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”[1]

This is undeniable, clear-cut manifest heresy.  It is an article of divine and Catholic Faith that those who are not in the Catholic Church, even if they shed blood in the name of Christ, cannot be saved.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “… no one, even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[2]

This solemnly defined dogma of the Council of Florence was repeated by Pope Pius XI:

Pope Pius XI, Rappresentanti in terra (# 99), Dec. 31, 1929:  “It stands out conspicuously in the lives of numerous saints, whom the Church, and she alone, produces, in whom is perfectly realized the purpose of Christian education…”[3]

In Ut Unum Sint #46 and #58, John Paul II mentions the Vatican II sect’s heretical teaching that non-Catholics may receive Holy Communion.  He refers to it as “sharing in the sacraments.”

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 58), May 25, 1995: “… By reason of the very close sacramental bonds between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church… the Catholic Church has often adopted and now adopts a milder policy, offering to all the means of salvation and an example of charity among Christians through participation in the sacraments and in other sacred functions and objects… There must never be a loss of appreciation for the ecclesiological implication of sharing in the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.”

In Ut Unum Sint #16, John Paul II approves the astoundingly heretical Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism.  This outrageous directory literally provides a program of how to commit mortal sin by partaking in non-Catholic worship.  The Directory is exposed in this article on our website: The Vatican II sect vs. the Catholic Church on partaking in non-Catholic worship.

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 16), May 25, 1995: “More recently, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, issued with my approval by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has applied them to the pastoral sphere.”

Ut Unum Sint is also filled with statements that John Paul II is in communion with non-Catholic sects, and that his “Church” shares faith and communion with non-Catholic sects.  He mentions the latter concept about 16 times.  In Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II also mentions how he prayed with the leaders of heretical sects: the head of the Anglican sect (#24), a schismatic patriarch (#24), Lutheran “archbishops” for Vespers (#25), and more.  John Paul II also repeats Vatican II’s heresy that Protestant sects give access to salvation (#13).  There are others that could be mentioned in Ut Unum Sint, but the point is that this outrageously heretical encyclical, Ut Unum Sint, is mentioned near the beginning of Benedict XVI’s new “conservative” document on the Church as a reflection of true doctrine.  That’s all one really needs to know, but there is more.   The document addresses the first question:

BENEDICT XVI’S NEW VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE CHURCH, “RESPONSES…”: “FIRST QUESTION Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church? RESPONSE The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it. This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council. Paul VI affirmed it and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.”

Heretics rarely admit that they are changing Catholic teaching.  Hence, the claim that they are simply handing down traditional Catholic teaching is empty and irrelevant.  Vatican II’s document on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, said essentially the same thing in #1 of its heretical decree.  But even Benedict XVI admitted that Dignitatis Humanae did contradict Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors and constituted a “countersyllabus,” as we mentioned in our debate and in our article on Vatican II’s heresies: The Heresies in Vatican II. I thought this point was worthy of mention, but what I want to focus on in this paragraph is what I have bolded.  Referring to Vatican II’s teaching, notice that “Responses” makes it clear that Vatican II’s teaching clarifies that which, prior to Vatican II, was “argued over” or “uncertain.”  This is another indication by a formal Vatican document that Vatican II is binding and magisterial for those who accept the Vatican II antipopes.  According to “Responses,” Vatican II’s documents constitute certain formulations of doctrine which end arguments. Let’s move on to the next question.

BENEDICT XVI’S NEW VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE CHURCH, “RESPONSES…”: SECOND QUESTION What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church? RESPONSE Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7] In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

We see here that “Responses” admits, in the typical modernist fashion, that the Church of Christ exists outside the Catholic Church.  One could spend some time and some lines unraveling its language, but that’s what it means.  It states that the Church of Christ is “present” in non-Catholic sects.  And this is the supposedly conservative document which unequivocally reaffirms traditional Catholic teaching that the Catholic Church is the one Church of Christ?  What a lie!  The fact that it has been portrayed as doing such, when it does just the opposite, shows how darkness, deception and dishonesty characterize our times and especially things dealing with the Vatican II sect. Now, what about what this document says about “subsists”?  It says that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, and that this word can only be attributed to the Catholic Church.  Again, this is different from stating that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.  The word “subsists” means to “1.  Exist as a reality; continue to exist, remain in being.  2.  Maintain, support, keep, provide food or funds for, provision; maintain or support oneself” (Oxford Illustrated Dictionary).  To subsist is to maintain or support oneself.  According to “Responses,” the Catholic Church, with the fullness of its teaching on the Papacy, etc., is necessary to maintain the Church of Christ, to support it and to keep it going; but that is very different from stating that it is identical to the Catholic Church.  Allow me to elaborate. The fact that this document and Vatican II understand “subsists” to mean “supports itself” is clear from the very paragraphs quoted above.  “Responses” states: “In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity…”  To perdure is to “last permanently; to endure.”  In other words, according to this heretical document, the Catholic Church, with all of its teaching and “the fullness of truth,” is necessary for the Church of Christ to last, to endure to the end, even for those parts of the Church of Christ which exist outside of the Catholic Church.  According to this, these other parts of the Church of Christ which exist outside the Catholic Church would die if the Catholic Church died, but that does not mean that the Catholic Church is identical to the Church of Christ.  That’s why, as we saw already, the document clearly states that the Church of Christ is “present” in non-Catholic sects.  We will see shortly that this document proceeds to teach that schismatic “Orthodox” sects are parts of the Church of Christ. To give an example which further illustrates the aforementioned point, one could say that the Communist Party in Russia subsisted on the cruel leadership of the Politburo.  The cruel leadership of the Politburo (the executive committee of the Communist Party) in Russia was necessary to maintain and support the Communist Party.  It was necessary to keep it going, for it to endure; but that is not to say that the Politburo was the Communist Party – that membership in the Party was limited to members of the Politburo; for it was not. Moreover, even if this document did say that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church (which it didn’t) it wouldn’t matter because it contradicts that truth numerous times.  Heretics frequently contradict themselves.  The fact that they do doesn’t exonerate them from teaching heresy.  Let’s move on to the next question:

BENEDICT XVI’S NEW VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE CHURCH,“RESPONSES…”: THIRD QUESTION Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”? RESPONSE The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.[11] “It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

Here we see that “Responses” admits, again in typical modernist fashion, that it doesn’t regard the Church of Christ as identical to the Catholic Church.  If it did, it would not use the word “subsists,” of course, but it would simply say “is.”

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (# 27), Aug. 12, 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of divine revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.  Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

But again, what about the fact that it says that subsists “indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church”?  This means that it indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church in terms of making the Church of Christ carry on, as stated above, not in terms of membership in the Church being limited to the Catholic Church.  This is proven by the fact that it states that subsists emphasizes that there is sanctification and truth outside the Catholic Church. (This is another heresy, by the way, for there is no sanctification outside the Church: Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, Denz. 468).   If “subsists” simply indicated the identity of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ, it would indicate nothing at all about supposed “sanctification” outside the Church.  The fact that this document admits that the use of “subsists” has something to say about those outside that is different from the use of “is” confirms that the use of “subsists” means exactly what I discussed above: that the Catholic Church is necessary for the continuance of the Church of Christ, but the Church of Christ is not limited to the Catholic Church.  That’s why “Responses” acknowledges in typical modernist fashion that it avoided “is” and used “subsists” precisely to emphasize the point about things outside the Catholic Church. After that, we see that the document repeats the bold heresy that non-Catholic sects are instruments of salvation and that people can be saved in them.  This obviously rejects the defined dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church and that all who die as heretics are lost.  I will not spend the time here to quote the dogmatic teachings relevant to this point, which are obvious and well known.  Let’s move on to the next question:

BENEDICT XVI’S NEW VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE CHURCH, “RESPONSES…”: FOURTH QUESTION Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church? RESPONSE The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.[15] “It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.[16] However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.[17] On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.[18]

“Responses” here addresses the issue of the schismatic Eastern churches, such as the “Orthodox.”  It affirms that they are “true particular churches.”  A true particular church means a diocese of the true Church.  The Diocese of Philadelphia, for instance, would be a true particular church.   This passage, therefore, constitutes a bold statement that schismatic sects are parts of the true Church.  People cannot underestimate how heretical this is.  Think about it; allow it to sink in.  It means that you can join your local “Orthodox” church and be part of the true Church.  It is to trash the dogma upon which the Church was built (Mt. 16), which has been repeated by pope after pope: namely, that the Papacy is the principle of unity in the Church and that if you refuse communion with the pope or the Papacy you are outside the Church.  Below are just some quotes from popes reaffirming this dogma.  Many more could be given:

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”[4] Pope Pelagius II, epistle (2) Dilectionis vestrae, 585: “Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church believe that he has the faith?  Does he who deserts and resists the chair of Peter, on which the Church was founded, have confidence that he is in the Church?”[5] Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791: “Finally, in one word, stay close to Us.  For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”[6] Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.”[7] Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15): “From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest.  They are therefore outside the edifice itself…”[8] Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”[9] Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943: “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can only be one faith.  And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and publican.  It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”[10] Pope Pius VII, Diu Satis (# 15), May 15, 1800: “So the sheep of Christ should consider safe and eat cheerfully the food to which Peter’s voice and authority directs them; but despite any beauty and charm, they should shun as harmful and plague-ridden, what this voice forbids them.  Those who do not comply are certainly not to be counted among the sheep of Christ.”[11] Pope St. Leo the Great: “It is necessary that the Church throughout the whole world be united and cleave to the center of ecclesiastical communion, so that whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery.”[12] Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “Just as he who does not gather with Christ, so he who does not gather with Christ’s vicar on earth, clearly scatters.  How can someone who destroys the holy authority of the Vicar of Christ and who infringes on his rights gather with him?”[13]

“Responses” then states that the Eucharist, which is celebrated and received by these schismatics, helps the Church to grow.  That comes from Vatican II.  Such an idea rejects the traditional Catholic teaching that he who receives the Eucharist outside the Church sins mortally and is headed for damnation.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”[14] Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.’”[15] Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”[16]

Finally, in the passage of “Responses” cited above, it mentions that the “universality” or catholicity of the Church isn’t fully realized in history because of the existence of these other “Churches.”  This is heretical on two fronts:  1) It denies that the Church fully possesses one of her marks (i.e. she’s “Catholic”), and 2) this ridiculous idea stems from a heretical understanding of what happens when heretics leave the Church.  When heretics and schismatics become heretics or schismatics they don’t break the Church apart, since the Church is indivisible by nature; they simply depart from the Catholic Church, leaving her universality unharmed and the oneness of the remaining members intact.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 4), June 29, 1896: "The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature…"[17] Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5): " … This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts."[18]

Let’s move to the next question covered by the new heretical Vatican document of Benedict XVI:

BENEDICT XVI’S NEW VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE CHURCH,“RESPONSES…”: FIFTH QUESTION Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century? RESPONSE According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20]. The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication. Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.”

In this final response, we find one of the only things in the document which could be called slightly conservative.  It’s what the mainstream media and so many false traditionalists noticed.  It says that Protestants sects, since they don’t have a valid Eucharist or a valid priesthood, cannot be called “Churches” in the proper sense.  Wow, big deal!  Notice that, according to “Responses,” the primary reason that Protestant sects should not be called true Churches in the “proper sense” is NOT because they reject Catholic dogmas and the Papacy!  But that is the primary reason they are not true Churches! People can belong to the true Church when they don’t have access to valid priests or a valid Eucharist, as long as they have the true faith which includes a fidelity to all Catholic dogmas, including the Papacy.  But if they reject the Papacy, as the Protestants and schismatics do, they cannot belong to the true Church.  The Protestants’ rejection of the Papacy, however, isn’t even mentioned in “Responses,” since the Vatican II sect has no problem with it.  Nor does it have a problem with the Protestants’ rejection of the Catholic dogma on Justification (e.g., the Joint Declaration on Justification) or anything else.  This omission of any mention of the Protestants’ rejection of the Papacy, especially in response to this question, is very telling. The most important thing to understand about Response 5 is that even though “Responses” says that Protestant sects cannot be called “Churches” in the proper sense, it still says they give salvation, as we saw in the response to the third question.  So, in terms of what ultimately matters (i.e. salvation), it doesn’t make any difference, according to the Vatican II sect, whether they are “Churches” in the proper sense or not: they’re still giving access to salvation and therefore (according to them) there is no need to be Catholic. In conclusion, Benedict XVI’s new Vatican document “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church” is not conservative or traditional; it’s a heretical joke.  It does not unequivocally teach that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ.  It says that the Church of Christ exists outside the Catholic Church, that Protestant and schismatic sects give salvation, that sects which reject the Papacy are true parts of the Church, that the true Church is not fully Catholic, and it makes reference to a document which teaches that partaking in non-catholic worship (a mortally sinful activity) is great. Despite these facts, the despicable apostates at The Remnant even referred to it as a “bombshell,” while the phonies at the St. Benedict Center stated that it “affirms the identity of the Catholic Church with the Church of Christ,” ignoring (in their diabolical blindness) the fact (which was covered above) that the document clearly contradicts that truth by teaching that schismatic “Orthodox” churches are true particular Churches and that the Church of Christ is present in non-Catholic sects. This new Vatican document, which was covered all over the news with headlines such as, New Vatican document reaffirms truth, oneness of Catholic Church, is simply a reiteration of the foundational heresies of the Vatican II sect on the doctrine of the Church.  The fact that it has been paraded as conservative and traditional – a reaffirmation of the Catholic Church as the one Church of Christ! – by clueless media outlets and supposedly knowledgeable “Catholics” alike illustrates the level of spiritual deception and bad will which exist today. Endnotes: