In this week’s catechesis, Leo expounds upon the conciliar treatment of “the People of God.” Sure, St. Peter used that expression (1 Peter 2:10), but rest assured, he meant something entirely different…
NOTE: An article / transcript appears below the video for those who prefer to read.
ARTICLE / TRANSCRIPT
During his General Audience on March 11, Leo continued his catechesis on Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. In it, he focused on the Council’s treatment of “the Church as the People of God.”
The first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that there is nothing controversial with that title in reference to believers, meaning, those who hold the Catholic faith. In his First Epistle, St. Peter addresses those to whom he is writing as exactly this, the people of God. (1 Peter 2:10)
Vatican Council II, however, as was its habit with certain Catholic expressions, invoked the same title but, as we will discuss, with a very different meaning.
Before getting to that, however, I’d like to briefly mention that Leo repeated yet another title for the Christian faithful, one that appears to have originated in Lumen Gentium, namely “the messianic people,” which is invoked twice in article 9.
I searched diligently for any other official ecclesial text – a papal proclamation, a decree from a Roman Congregation – that may have used it before Vatican II, but could find none, i.e., it seems to be a novelty; a title for the faithful that has never been used before.
If I missed it, I’d appreciate the correction, but even if it had at some point been used, its usage would have been exceedingly rare.
In any case, about this title, the messianic people:
There is much that could be said about this title such as it was invoked at Vatican II, so much so that I’m going to address it in a separate podcast. Even so, I’ll leave you with a hint as to what I plan to discuss:
I’m going to argue that this novelty was inspired in no small measure by the influence brought to bear on the Council by … wait for it … the Synagogue. Stayed tuned…
For now, we’re going to focus on the Council’s treatment of the Church as the People of God.
Let me repeat that: The conciliar notion that the Church is the People of God.
Why is this problematic?
As we discussed last week, the Church as described by the pre-conciliar popes is both “a human society” and “a divine institution” ( cfPope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 40 / Pope Leo XIII, Divinum Illud Munus 6).
It’s a visible, hierarchically ordered, society with Christ as its Head and the faithful …. The People of God … as its members.
And so to identify the Church as “the People of God” as if they are one and the same is to ignore her divine element and to unduly humanize the Church.
One of the persons who successfully promoted this idea at the Council was the arch-progressive Dominican, Fr. Yves Congar, a man who America Magazine hailed as Vatican II’s greatest theologian.
Taking a victory lap of sorts after the Council, Congar wrote the following:
The ecumenical interest of the idea of the People of God is obvious, especially in the dialogue with Protestants … This idea provides many points of agreement and encounter.
He went on to write about What Protestants like about the category of People of God, stating:
It suggests less sharply defined frontiers, because it is composed of a multitude assembled by God himself … Protestants are happy to find in the frank use of People of God, a way of avoiding institutionalism, with its intemperate use of ideas of “power” and infallibility, and on the other hand, the romanticism of a biological concept of the Mystical Body…
In other words, according to one the Council’s most influential progressive architects, “People of God” as proposed at Vatican II served to redefine the Church, to move away from the notion of the Church as Mystici Corporis, and to avoid institutionalism.
In the process, what got sidelined? The divine dimension of the Church. And what was emphasized in its place? Man.
Is it any wonder that the counterfeit church that emerged from Vatican II instituted a Protestantized, man-centered rite, one that, according to Francis, serves as its unique law of prayer?
Speaking of Bergoglio, Leo was moved to quote his predecessor, saying:
Looking at the People of God is remembering that we all enter the Church as lay people. The first sacrament, which seals our identity forever, and of which we should always be proud, is Baptism.
Through Baptism and by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, (the faithful) ‘are consecrated as a spiritual house and a holy priesthood’ [so that] everyone forms the faithful Holy People of God.
If you pay close attention to what Francis said, and Leo repeated, you’ll realize just how revolutionary it is.
I’ll repeat the key point in case you missed it: Through Baptism … everyone forms the faithful Holy People of God.
Big deal? Actually, yes, a very big deal.
By everyone, Leo, just as Francis before him, is making it plain that all of the baptized, and that includes, of course, the heretics and schismatics, are to be numbered among the People of God.
To be clear: Neither one is making anything up, they are merely passing along what the Council teaches. For example, speaking of how Jews and gentiles are made one in Baptism, LG 9 states:
This was to be the new People of God. For those who believe in Christ, who are reborn not from a perishable but from an imperishable seed through the word of the living God, not from the flesh but from water and the Holy Spirit, are finally established as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people … who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God”.
So, with all of this in mind, let’s connect the dots:
If, as the Council teaches, everyone who is Baptized – including heretics and schismatics – are the People of God, and the Chruch itself is the People of God, then every Baptized person – from the lesbian Episcopal minister, to the most militant anti-Catholic Baptist money can buy – all of them, are part of the Church.
Believe it or not, it gets worse. If this is true, as Leo and the Council insist, then the Baptists, the Episcopalians, the Pentecostals, you name it … all of them have a supernatural sense of faith.
According to Leo:
The sense of faith therefore belongs to individual believers not in their own right, but as members of the People of God as a whole.
Of course, the Council’s defenders would vehemently deny that it opened the door for giving consideration to such Protestant ideas as women’s ordination or gay ministers.
So, let’s talk about that.
Leo went on to quote Lumen Gentium directly:
The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One…
Let me stop here just to remind you: When the Council talks about the faithful, anointed by the Spirit, it is referring to all baptized persons. Picking up where we left off, about this entire body of the faithful the Council says:
[They] cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when, from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful, they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.
For many, this might seem reasonably Catholic, but Leo immediately went on to clarify to whom the Council is referring when it spoke of the entire body of the faithful. , anointed as they are by the Holy One, and saying that they cannot err in matters of belief. Leo says:
…the supernatural sense of faith of the entire People of God is manifested in the consensus of the faithful.
The Council is plainly stating that the entire People of God, which again – forgiven the repetition – includes every Baptized person, heretics included, has the supernatural sense of faith.
Obviously, this is lunacy. I’m sure that point is lost on no one. But there’s another profound, yet more subtle, shift away from what the Church actually believes here, one that may have escaped notice.
I’ll explain.
The concept of “Universal Agreement” as mentioned in LG 12, is described in the Catholic Encyclopedia as “the universal teachings of the Catholic schools…”
By this, it is referring to the Thomistic, the Dominican, the Franciscan schools of theological opinion, etc… it’s not referring to institutions but rather theological positions.
The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to state:
From the unanimous doctrine of the Catholic schools follows naturally the conviction of the universal Church. But since it is a dogmatic principle that the whole Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals, the consent of the various Catholic schools must offer the guarantee of infallibility in these questions.”
So… when “universal agreement” exists on a matter of faith and morals, that doctrine cannot be in error.
Lumen Gentium, however, offers something different. It spoke about the whole peoples’ universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.
Notice the difference: In the conciliar presentation, “universal agreement” goes beyond the various Catholic theological schools to include the whole people, i.e., the whole People of God, which again… repeat after me… includes the heretics.
But wait, there’s more! Leo went a step further still. Did you notice? He said:
…the supernatural sense of faith of the entire People of God is manifested in the consensus of the faithful.
Not only does the Council expand the Church to include every Baptized person – that’s bad enough – but Leo then lowered the bar from “universal agreement” to mere “consensus.”
Is Leo taking liberties here? Is he blazing a new course?
No, of course not. He didn’t invent the idea of consensus, he’s simply carrying on the revolution that formed him, the one he now leads.
In 1989, during the reign of John Paul the Great Ecumenist, the International Theological Commission issued a document called, The Interpretation of Dogma.
Before we look at the contents of this document, think about the title: The Interpretation of Dogma…
If ever there was a conciliar concept!
Does dogma really need to be interpreted?
No, of course not. It needs to be taught. It needs to be explained. And most important of all, it needs to be believed.
The very suggestion that it is necessary to parse the Church’s dogmatic teachings implies that they may mean different things, to different persons, in different ages. In other words, the title to that document alone raises a red flag.
But just wait until you hear what it says!
The interpretation of dogmas is a form of the service supplied by the consensus fidelium, through which the People of God, “from the bishops to the last believing layman” (Saint Augustine), expresses its general agreement in questions of faith and morals.
Notice how the interpretation of dogma is derived: It comes about via general agreement and consensus among the People of God.
What is this?
It’s synodality … which itself is built on the conciliar notion that the Church is the People of God, which includes Catholics, and heretics, and schismatics alike.
It’s the neo-modernist conviction that even the dogmas of the faith should be re-examined by both clerics and laymen, gathered in round table discussions with non-Catholics, in order to discern what the Spirit may be saying in light of the signs of the times.
This is how the Synodal Church builds consensus and arrives at general agreement, concerning noting less grave than the supposed interpretation of dogma.
This isn’t just me picking at nits, this is what the conciliar church truly believes and puts into practice. The official Synod on Synodality organizational documents – you can read them online at the Unholy See website – states concerning the makeup of the Synod on Synodality:
Fraternal delegates, members of other Churches and Ecclesial Communities will also participate.
In other words, heretics and schismatics are welcome to share their supernatural sense of the faith.
And all of this is the fruit of Lumen Gentium’s teaching that the Church is the entire People of God, and their supernatural discernment concerning matters of faith and morals is without error.
At this, let’s return to those who would insist that the Council didn’t open the door for even considering such Protestant ideas as women’s ordination or gay ministers.
As we all know, the Synod on Synodality is treating women’s ordination as if it’s up for discussion. And just this past week, Novus Ordo Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich was quoted as saying in reference to the possibility of women’s ordination:
I cannot imagine how a Church can continue to exist in the long term if half of the people of God suffer because they do not have access to ordained ministry.
Hollerich went on to say about those People of God:
When I speak with women in parishes, 90 per cent share the same opinion … this is not just a demand of some left-leaning women’s groups.
Well there you go, the conciliar People of God, with their supernatural sense of the faith, seem to be well on their way to achieving consensus and general agreement!
