Abp. Lefebvre and Vatican II

[DavidPalm]

It’s just that at least one major participant insists on flying off onto multiple tangents. But hope springs eternal…

 

[malphono]

It’s just that at least one major participant insists on flying off onto multiple tangents. But hope springs eternal…

Ah … now I see where you were going.

 

[JaMc]

I tend to agree with this approach. An ecumenical council of the Church isn’t going to be formally and publicly condemned, as YT would wish for. But it can eventually be more or less, forgotten. That would probably be best in this instance.

Actually, part of the problem is that what Vatican II really said has been forgotten, in favour of the “Spirit of Vatican II.” Take, for example, the “Supersoaker Mass” in another thread, with the priest in tie-dyed vestments - Vatican II did not approve anything like this, yet I highly doubt something like that would have happened pre-Vatican II.

 

[Brian777]

I tend to agree with this approach. An ecumenical council of the Church isn’t going to be formally and publicly condemned, as YT would wish for. But it can eventually be more or less, forgotten. That would probably be best in this instance.

Actually, Pope Leo the Great publically condemned the First Council of Ephesus, denouncing it as a synod of robbers and usurpers if i remember correctly. So it can be done, but that was suredly under much worse circumstances…although i’m sure someone is willing to argue that one.

 

[pnewton]

Since Pope Benedict XVI has used the words “for all” in every Mass he has celebrated in English during his pontificate one could assume that he knows what he is doing.

Why? He is only the Pope and no doubt not as educated and Spirit lead as posters here.

Let me add in a general response to the rest of the thread:

I still can’t get how people here jump in and want to start telling the Church how wrong it is, how full of errors John Paul II was, how we should reject the Church Council they do not like.

This is not traditional Catholicism. Never in the good old days of Athanasius or Trent would the laity take on such an arrogant attitude as to think they know better than the Holy Father and Holy Spirit that is guiding the Church. And no, I do not buy the Athanasius arguement for reasons I enumerated on a thread on just that topic.

 

[DavidPalm]

Actually, Pope Leo the Great publically condemned the First Council of Ephesus, denouncing it as a synod of robbers and usurpers if i remember correctly. So it can be done, but that was suredly under much worse circumstances…although i’m sure someone is willing to argue that one.

It can’t be done after the presiding Pope and all the bishop in communion with him declared that it was a valid ecumenical council and then three Popes after that and all the bishops in communion with them affirmed it. No way.

(And as you mentioned, there certainly were worse circumstances at the Robber Council of Ephesus, like the Archbishop of Constantinople being physically attacked and later dying of his wounds while the Papal legates had to flee for their lives. Slight contrast )

And I don’t buy the St. Athanasius parallel either, for many reasons (including the fact that I am not convinced by the evidence that he ever was excommunicated by the Pope of Rome.)

 

[TMC]

Why? He is only the Pope and no doubt not as educated and Spirit lead as posters here.

Let me add in a general response to the rest of the thread:

I still can’t get how people here jump in and want to start telling the Church how wrong it is, how full of errors John Paul II was, how we should reject the Church Council they do not like.

This is not traditional Catholicism. Never in the good old days of Athanasius or Trent would the laity take on such an arrogant attitude as to think they know better than the Holy Father and Holy Spirit that is guiding the Church. And no, I do not buy the Athanasius arguement for reasons I enumerated on a thread on just that topic.

As I have said before on this forum, the difference between a traditionalist and a liberal is that a liberal says: “I know the Church teaches X, but I dissent from that teaching. I think the Church should teach Y, and I wish the Chuch would change to what I think it should be.” The traditionalist says: “The Pope and the bishops say the Church teaches X, but I say the Church really teaches Y. I am not in dissent, the Pope and the bishops are in dissent until they conform to my view of what the Church is.”

Both dissent, but one group admits it.

 

[DavidPalm]

The traditionalist says: “The Pope and the bishops say the Church teaches X, but I say the Church really teaches Y. I am not in dissent, the Pope and the bishops are in dissent until they conform to my view of what the Church is.”

Both dissent, but one group admits it.

The core of the traditionalist movement says, “The Church taught X in the past, but she seems to be teaching Y now. We know that the Church does not change her solemn teaching (that itself being one of her teachings), therefore we ask her to 1) tell us the note of authority with which Y has been proposed, since perhaps Y really is an error or 2) clarify how Y may be properly harmonized with X. Since at this time I cannot see how Y can be harmonized with X, I will continue to hold to X since that’s what the Church has always taught.” That’s not dissent, it’s a prudent reserve. And it’s allowed by Rome.

All of the traditionalist groups which have normalized relationships with Rome have as part of their “charter” the ability to respectfully raise points of concern with respect to how modern ecclesiastical pronouncements can be harmonized with prior Church teaching. So it’s not nearly sufficient for folks to simply assert that there aren’t any such problems. There are real issues and it is perfectly acceptable to raise them in a respectful way. I’m objecting here that, “It all needs to be thrown in the garbage” doesn’t really meet that standard of respect. But I think your equally extreme caricature is also erroneous.

 

[pnewton]

The core of the traditionalist movement says, “The Church taught X in the past, but she seems to be teaching Y now. We know that the Church does not change her solemn teaching (that itself being one of her teachings), therefore we ask her to 1) tell us the note of authority with which Y has been proposed, since perhaps Y really is an error or 2) clarify how Y may be properly harmonized with X. Since at this time I cannot see how Y can be harmonized with X, I will continue to hold to X since that’s what the Church has always taught.” That’s not dissent, it’s a prudent reserve. And it’s allowed by Rome.
.

Except sometimes it is more than holding a belief in prudent reserve. Sometimes it progresses to proselityzing and trying to convert faithful Catholics away from Church teaching to that which one holds in prudent reserve. Sometimes this prudent reserve even progresses to defiance and disobedience and the ordination of bishops, which can result in excommunication. It is not the holding of these postitions that is so dangerous as the refusal to acknowledge that one might be wrong.

 

[daughteroftruth]

Why? He is only the Pope and no doubt not as educated and Spirit lead as posters here.

Wow, am I to assume that you also believe that the Pope can not only make no mistakes, but that he’s the smartest person in the world? I’m just curious, which Council, Pope, or Saint taught this? I must not have been at my Catechism class that day.

 

[pnewton]

Wow, am I to assume that you also believe that the Pope can not only make no mistakes, but that he’s the smartest person in the world? I’m just curious, which Council, Pope, or Saint taught this? I must not have been at my Catechism class that day.

No that is not what I said. Let us ask the other quesiton. Do you think that people who post here can not make mistakes and are the smartes people in the world?

Which question sounds more absurd? Why? Because why the Pope is not perfect, nor the smartest person in the world, he at least has the authority given of God, a charism that goes specific to his office and is well versed in theology and Church history. On the other hand, we have … lay posters. That is all I meant. Let us put these in the scales of reason and see which is heavier, not perfect.

 

[DavidPalm]

Except sometimes it is more than holding a belief in prudent reserve. Sometimes it progresses to proselityzing and trying to convert faithful Catholics away from Church teaching to that which one holds in prudent reserve. Sometimes this prudent reserve even progresses to defiance and disobedience and the ordination of bishops, which can result in excommunication. It is not the holding of these postitions that is so dangerous as the refusal to acknowledge that one might be wrong.

Yes, I agree. On the one hand even sincere Catholics who are seeking to be orthodox bid us embrace post-conciliar positions which seem to contradict prior Church teaching. On the other, there are Catholics who urge us into open rebellion against the Holy See. Mix in one’s own struggle with intellectual pride and it becomes a pretty harrowing walk on the razor’s edge.

 

[daughteroftruth]

No that is not what I said.

I’m sorry, but that’s exactly what was insinuated by your words: the Pope cannot be wrong.

Let us ask the other quesiton. Do you think that people who post here can not make mistakes and are the smartes people in the world?

They can, but you’re saying that they’re wrong and prideful because they disagree with the Pope (who cannot make a mistake?). Honorius had the authority also, as did Stephen VI, Alexander VI, and a few others whose names escape me. St. Paul (I believe) said that the civil authorities are also appointed by God. Does this mean Obama knows best, because he’s the President and I’m not into politics? I’m not saying that the Pope is the Catholic Obama, but I think the comparison holds at least some validity.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, I agree. On the one hand even sincere Catholics who are seeking to be orthodox bid us embrace post-conciliar positions which seem to contradict prior Church teaching. On the other, there are Catholics who urge us into open rebellion against the Holy See. Mix in one’s own struggle with intellectual pride and it becomes a pretty harrowing walk on the razor’s edge.

This is a good description. I am reminded of the Catechism’s teaching of the role of conscience and formation. Combined with the way most agree that Vatican II can be understood properly in light of previous Church teaching, without contradiction, even among traditionalist who dissent, I think the key to the Council is ignoring the actions and abuses that have proceded from it, for some of this would have occured without a council, and focus on the teaching of Rome; principles above personalities (or incidents)

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry, but that’s exactly what was insinuated by your words: the Pope cannot be wrong.

They can, but you’re saying that they’re wrong and prideful because they disagree with the Pope (who cannot make a mistake?).

Your ability to read what I write without imposing assumptions and additions is sorely amiss. It is generally not polite to add to what people say and tell them what they mean. I am not going to repeat myself but leave these posts as they are to see what I really said. A “daughter of truth” should stick closely to truth and not add to what people say.

Truth needs neither exaggeration or embellishment.

 

[DavidPalm]

I think the key to the Council is ignoring the actions and abuses that have proceded from it, for some of this would have occured without a council, and focus on the teaching of Rome; principles above personalities (or incidents)

I would like to agree with this. The difficulty comes precisely in that certain words and actions by highly placed clerics, up to and including the Pope, are not easily reconcilable with the Church’s perennial teaching and discipline and therefore have caused confusion. I wrote an article about this for the New Oxford Review some time ago. It’s a very dicey topic, however. Judging from the feedback I got, the article was more helpful to people than it did harm, but dopes like me, bulls in the china shop, can easily harm the tender conscience.

 

[TMC]

The core of the traditionalist movement says, “The Church taught X in the past, but she seems to be teaching Y now. **We know that the Church does not change her solemn teaching (that itself being one of her teachings), **therefore we ask her to 1) tell us the note of authority with which Y has been proposed, since perhaps Y really is an error or 2) clarify how Y may be properly harmonized with X. Since at this time I cannot see how Y can be harmonized with X, I will continue to hold to X since that’s what the Church has always taught.” That’s not dissent, it’s a prudent reserve. And it’s allowed by Rome.

All of the traditionalist groups which have normalized relationships with Rome have as part of their “charter” the ability to respectfully raise points of concern with respect to how modern ecclesiastical pronouncements can be harmonized with prior Church teaching. So it’s not nearly sufficient for folks to simply assert that there aren’t any such problems. There are real issues and it is perfectly acceptable to raise them in a respectful way. I’m objecting here that, “It all needs to be thrown in the garbage” doesn’t really meet that standard of respect. But I think your equally extreme caricature is also erroneous.

I have no problem with any group respectfully raising points of concern with the Church. But I see a few issues with what you have written.

The first is the part I have bolded - I don’t think it is accurate.

The next relates to your 1 and 2 - explaining the authority and continuity of Vatican II. The Church has done both repeatedly. The authority is the Ecumenical Council and the Pope. As for continuity, the Pope and others have spoken and written at length on how Vatican II relates to prior teachings. I understand that some people do not accept their explanations, but its not true that they have not explained.

Finally you say that it is “not nearly sufficient for folks to simply assert that there aren’t any such problems.” But its not just “folks” - its the Pope and the vast majority of the bishops, and its not that they deny there are ANY problems, but they assert that the Vatican II documents are valid and binding.

I certainly agree that there are real issues that can and should be raised in a respectful way. I have my own issues with certain Church teachings, and I feel I can and should raise them in a respectful way. But, (and here I am not referring to you, you’re post is perfectfully respectful), I don’t think its respectful to claim that the Church has been coopted by Masons and Zionists, to suggest that the Pope and bishops are making a conscious choice not to uphold the true faith (e.g. they have ‘sold out’ to Protestants) or to make other outrageous and insulting claims. And I don’t think its respectful to claim that one’s own views are the Church’s “real” teachings, because that can only be true if one or more of the insulting and outrageous claims is also true.

 

[DavidPalm]

The first is the part I have bolded - I don’t think it is accurate.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I mean that the Church’s teaching does not change in the sense that she now teaches the opposite of what she once taught on a matter of faith or morals. Of course, Church teaching develops, but it is not always obvious how certain modern statements represent a true development of prior teaching.

The next relates to your 1 and 2 - explaining the authority and continuity of Vatican II. The Church has done both repeatedly. The authority is the Ecumenical Council and the Pope.

Well, I know what you’re trying to say, but I have to differ somewhat. It has been widely confirmed, even by the present Holy Father, that not all of the Vatican II documents carry the same note of authority. It certainly cannot be said that each and every statement in those documents is infallible, let alone that they are all timely and prudent.

As for continuity, the Pope and others have spoken and written at length on how Vatican II relates to prior teachings. I understand that some people do not accept their explanations, but its not true that they have not explained.

Although I think it’s technically possible to harmonize the Vatican II documents with prior Church teaching, in certain cases it’s exceedingly difficult. Dignitatis Humanae is the most notable example. And in that specific case, at least, we do not have any official clarification on how certain passages of that document are to be harmonized with the solemn teaching of a whole line of pre-conciliar Popes.

And for what it’s worth, certain statements and actions by John Paul II and even Benedict XVI that do touch on Dignitatis Humanae seem to compound this difficulty, not alleviate it. On the other hand, the Catechism provides some welcome clarification. So it’s a mixed bag in this specific instance. We need some official clarification.

Finally you say that it is “not nearly sufficient for folks to simply assert that there aren’t any such problems.” But its not just “folks” - its the Pope and the vast majority of the bishops, and its not that they deny there are ANY problems, but they assert that the Vatican II documents are valid and binding.

We’re talking a bit past each other. I accept the documents as valid and binding. My question and the question of other traditionalists is, how can certain portions of the conciliar documents be harmonized with prior Church teaching? This difficulty unfortunately gets expanded quite a bit by other post-conciliar documents and actions. For example, you’ll see it repeated over and over by folks here in this forum that the Novus Ordo Mass isn’t really what was intended by Vatican II. But there are any number of statements from Paul VI and John Paul II stating that it is. So which is correct?

Bottom line, the path of continuity isn’t always that clear.

I certainly agree that there are real issues that can and should be raised in a respectful way. I have my own issues with certain Church teachings, and I feel I can and should raise them in a respectful way. But, (and here I am not referring to you, you’re post is perfectfully respectful), I don’t think its respectful to claim that the Church has been coopted by Masons and Zionists, to suggest that the Pope and bishops are making a conscious choice not to uphold the true faith (e.g. they have ‘sold out’ to Protestants) or to make other outrageous and insulting claims. And I don’t think its respectful to claim that one’s own views are the Church’s “real” teachings, because that can only be true if one or more of the insulting and outrageous claims is also true.

I’m glad you consider my own approach here to be respectful (it isn’t always, since I’m a knucklehead.) I agree with you that those who attribute evil motives and hatch grand conspiracies don’t provide much help.

 

[daughteroftruth]

Your ability to read what I write without imposing assumptions and additions is sorely amiss. It is generally not polite to add to what people say and tell them what they mean. I am not going to repeat myself but leave these posts as they are to see what I really said. A “daughter of truth” should stick closely to truth and not add to what people say.

Truth needs neither exaggeration or embellishment.

Part of being Catholic is humility, to admit when we’re wrong, as well as having a concern with the truth. You’re comment:

He is only the Pope and no doubt not as educated and Spirit lead as posters here.

The *sarcasm *of this comment makes obvious your belief that the pope cannot be wrong. If that is not in fact your belief (and I’m sure it’s not) fine, but that is what you said, nevertheless. I don’t know how you’re not seeing it. When I became interested in the Faith several years ago I said the same sort of things. The problem was that Protestants and other non-Catholics actually listened me, and made the assumption/argument that I just pointed out. Many Catholics today tend to make the Pope out to be a demi-god, though probably not intentionally. I’m just saying that we have to be very careful in how we word things so as not to reinforce anti-Catholi (and incorrect) propaganda.

 

[pnewton]

He is only the Pope and no doubt not as educated and Spirit lead as posters here.

The *sarcasm *of this comment makes obvious your belief that the pope cannot be wrong.

It was a copmment about the posters here, not the Pope. The Catholic Church is lead from the top down, not the laity up. Pope Benedict is a very educated man and knows his theology.

He is not a demi-god.

I hope this clears this up.