Can Vatican II's Teaching on Religious Liberty Be Reconciled with Tradition?

[Lief_Erikson]

I understand that the Syllbus taught consistent with what the Church had taught, but I did have a question. Was the proposition ever taught ex cathedra? I only ask because the definition of heresy only applies to matters of dogma, not doctrine.

Wow, that’s a great point to add to the discussion! That’s something I wasn’t familiar with, though it really helps me a lot to understand things better. It clarifies matters for me in other areas I was wondering about, such as whether people were heretics for disagreeing that Mary is Mediatrix of all Graces or Co-Redemptrix, things like that. It also helps explain for me in a clearly defined way where the openings exist for theological disagreement. This helps clarify things a lot.

Do you have an official source to back up what you just said, that heresy only exists when it fights an established dogma? I’d love to see it so I can feel absolutely certain about this.

What you say seems to strongly imply that the Church leaders and most Catholics aren’t in heresy for believing in religious freedom to believe and teach error as a right of man. It would mean they are wrong for disagreeing with a true doctrine, like many Catholics are wrong for thinking Mary is not Mediatrix, but it would mean they AREN’T HERETICS! For I personally don’t believe the Church’s doctrine on religious freedom has ever been defined ex-cathedra.

If that’s true, I can’t tell you how happy it would make me. It would mean an error has swept through the Church but not a heresy, an evil that splits people off from the Church or makes them “less Catholic.” Thus, considering that Church leaders today seem to have opened the debate again and allowed both positions, holding different opinions today on the matter may be morally permissible.

Do you have a Church document saying that people are only heretics when they resist a dogma?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I fully understand the distinction. What I’m unclear about is whether holding untrue beliefs in this matter should be considered heresy. The Church’s bishops today certainly don’t think so. They seem to permit either view, while themselves holding to the one I believe to be wrong. There have been other times in the Church’s history where we have allowed false beliefs and true beliefs to battle each other together without condemning either side as heresy. While I know that once a definitive position has been reached, the debate should end, I also recognize that we live in times of great turbulence and the Church never has provided a dogma on this topic. So I wonder if during times such as these, a wrong belief on this matter is permissible.

My answer is a definite NO. Consider the time of the Arian crisis. A majority of the Bishops were Arian heretics (80% according to Cardinal Newman, and as many as 99% according to Fr. Jurgisn, who edited the Book Faith of Our Fathers). At the time of that confusion, was it permitted for them to deny that Jesus was God? No. In my opinion the same is true today with respect to the errors of Liberalism, such as religious liberty, which have been condemned by the Church numerous times, and formally condemned in the Syllabus.

I think we are in a worse situation today than existed at the time of the Arian crisis. Just as a majority of Bishops embraced a teaching that had previously been condemned by the Church, so too is it today. I don’t consider the error any less serious just because, as in the days of the Arian crisis, a majority of the Bishops have embraced it.

 

[diggerdomer]

I understand that the Syllbus taught consistent with what the Church had taught, but I did have a question. Was the proposition ever taught ex cathedra?

No

 

[diggerdomer]

What you say seems to strongly imply that the Church leaders and most Catholics aren’t in heresy for believing in religious freedom to believe and teach error as a right of man. It would mean they are wrong for disagreeing with a true doctrine, like many Catholics are wrong for thinking Mary is not Mediatrix, but it would mean they AREN’T HERETICS! For I personally don’t believe the Church’s doctrine on religious freedom has ever been defined ex-cathedra.

There’s no worry if Catholics believe what the Church teaches, as most recently articulated in the teachings of Vatican II and the Catechism regarding issues such as religious freedom and Mary as Mediatrix. Catholics are bound to the Magisterium, so we need to accept the teachings of Vatican II and e.g. the Catechism. Religious freedom is taught as those sources teach. Same with Mary as Mediatrix.

Whether or not a given teaching has been taught infallibly is somewhat moot in that respect, really, imho.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I think we are in a worse situation today than existed at the time of the Arian crisis. Just as a majority of Bishops embraced a teaching that had previously been condemned by the Church, so too is it today. I don’t consider the error any less serious just because, as in the days of the Arian crisis, a majority of the Bishops have embraced it.

Denying the Immaculate Conception of Mary is a serious error too, yet for most of the Church’s history there has been legitimate debate on the subject. Many of the Church’s great saints did not believe in her Immaculate Conception. Were they all heretics for accidentally disagreeing with Tradition in this matter?

Also, denying the divinity of Christ is a far graver error than misunderstanding part of His Kingship.

I also am thinking about this. If there has been no ex-cathedra statement on religious freedom, people who disagree are not heretics for disagreeing about it, are they? They are in ERROR when they disagree with the Church’s historic teaching, you and I would agree, but this wouldn’t mean heresy.

One other thought I’m going over is whether or not the Pope, as Supreme Head of the Church, has the right to reopen a debate that has been previously closed by former popes. Religious Freedom is the obvious case. Previous popes and a council gave definitive statements on it, but present popes and a council have reopened the discussion, allowing people to hold either position while holding themselves and encouraging the one we believe is wrong. Does the Pope have the authority to do that when in doing so he is not contradicting a dogma, as is the case here?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

There’s no worry if Catholics believe what the Church teaches, as most recently articulated in the teachings of Vatican II and the Catechism regarding issues such as religious freedom and Mary as Mediatrix. Catholics are bound to the Magisterium, so we need to accept the teachings of Vatican II and e.g. the Catechism. Religious freedom is taught as those sources teach. Same with Mary as Mediatrix.

Whether or not a given teaching has been taught infallibly is somewhat moot in that respect, really, imho.

We went over that already. We are required to give “religious submission” to these teachings, but not the “assent of faith” if we believe there is a preponderance of evidence against a position in the Catechism. The Church doesn’t oblige us to absolutely hold to positions that could be in error.

 

[diggerdomer]

Denying the Immaculate Conception of Mary is a serious error too, yet for most of the Church’s history there has been legitimate debate on the subject. Many of the Church’s great saints did not believe in her Immaculate Conception. Were they all heretics for accidentally disagreeing with Tradition in this matter?

No, because it wasn’t solemnly defined at their time.

 

[diggerdomer]

We went over that already. We are required to give “religious submission” to these teachings, but not the “assent of faith” if we believe there is a preponderance of evidence against a position in the Catechism. The Church doesn’t oblige us to absolutely hold to positions that could be in error.

It’s not just about the Catechism, it’s also about the teaching of an Ecumenical Council. There’s no higher teaching authority in the Church than an Ecumenical Council.

Regardless…sure, there’s room for individual conscience, formation, etc. I just hesitate to put myself outside the Magisterium.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

No, because it wasn’t solemnly defined at their time.

I know. I was asking if, since they could disagree legitimately on a doctrine of Tradition without falling into sin because it wasn’t yet dogma, can’t people legitimately disagree on a doctrine of Tradition in the matter of religious freedom, seeing as this disagreement isn’t over a defined dogma and the Church’s highest authorities have reopened the debate, permitting people to hold either position?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

It’s not just about the Catechism, it’s also about the teaching of an Ecumenical Council. There’s no higher teaching authority in the Church than an Ecumenical Council.

Yes, but the council did not choose to exert its fullest authority. It chose to allow difference of opinion when it said it was teaching in the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium and was only requiring “religious submission,” not necessarily the “assent of faith.”

Regardless…sure, there’s room for individual conscience, formation, etc. I just hesitate to put myself outside the Magisterium.

Great . Me too. My difference with Vatican II on this teaching is only very reluctantly held and I feel I have no choice because of Reason, Scripture, the Tradition of the Church throughout almost the whole of her history, the encyclicals of many popes and the teaching of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, which openly endorsed prosecution and discrimination against heretics. I don’t disagree with Vatican II on this point at all lightly, but I do so with the popes’ permission, judging from the lower authority in which they chose to speak.

Mine is an unfortunate difference but I feel I have no choice.

 

[pnewton]

Do you have an official source to back up what you just said, that heresy only exists when it fights an established dogma? I’d love to see it so I can feel absolutely certain about this.

Do you have a Church document saying that people are only heretics when they resist a dogma?

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, - CCC # 2089

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. CCC # 88

We still aren’t free to believe just anything and everything, but something is only heresy when it is both an obstinate belief and contradictory of something that must be believed. The Chuch permits conscientious objection to most doctrine, as long as one continues to understand the Church’s teaching instead of trying to teach the Church. For a Catholic with a properly formed conscience, these areas of disagreement should be few. However, dogma must be believed just because the Church has defined it. Therefore, denial of a dogma is a denial of the Church.

Now, when we consider how much of the doctrine taught in the documents of the Second Vatican Council is of this lesser degree of doctrine, I have to scratch my head at all the head-butting among the laity. In the area of religious liberty, one can pretty much believe anything except indifferentism and not be a heretic. The caveat being that one must continue to understand the mind of the Church.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Okay, thank-you pnewton .

I do have a couple more questions. What do you think one should do with religious liberty, considering the past official Church condemnations of it, by which I mean condemnations of the belief that we have a civil right to believe and spread error, and the present affirmations of it in the Church hierarchy and Vatican II by that same definition?

My other question is about the evidence you presented. What about the activity of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium, which can render truths infallible without defining them? These teachings “must” be believed and yet don’t seem to be listed anywhere. I wonder how one is to distinguish between them and non-infallible doctrine.

I’d be interested to hear Ultima on this one too (he and I have already been discussing the first question I just asked and agree on it) . . .

 

[pnewton]

My other question is about the evidence you presented. What about the activity of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium, which can render truths infallible without defining them? These teachings “must” be believed and yet don’t seem to be listed anywhere. I wonder how one is to distinguish between them and non-infallible doctrine.

That is a good question. I know somethings have been defined ex cathedra. Prior to Vatican II it was considered the Church taught infallible when defining faith and morals while meeting in council. I still believe that true, though some here do not.

I think those that point to the disciplinary, pastoral and prudent nature of most of the Vatican II documents, should also bear in mind that if the issue of religious liberty is pastoral, then it is pastoral, whether in the twentieth century or the nineteenth. Yet in both Pope Pius IX Syllabus and in Dignitatis Humanae there is truth. Truth has different impact in different times and cultures. That is the pastoral part. Personally, I like the Syllabus of Errors. I think it is one of the best document of that century, especially in light of the history of the time.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

My other question is about the evidence you presented. What about the activity of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium, which can render truths infallible without defining them? These teachings “must” be believed and yet don’t seem to be listed anywhere. I wonder how one is to distinguish between them and non-infallible doctrine.

I’d be interested to hear Ultima on this one too (he and I have already been discussing the first question I just asked and agree on it) . . .

Lief,

I can see how much you are struggling with this. I only have a moment to reply at this time. I’m going to reply to your question with a few questions of my own.

1.) Is a Catholic permitted to use birth control, to have any abortion, or to marry a person of the same s-x? Of course not.

But what has been condemned more often and more solemnly by the Popes, religious liberty or the above immoral acts?

If the Church can change its teaching on religious liberty, or if this condemned error can become acceptable, is the same true for the other immoral acts I listed above? Our faith is not built on sand. Is absolutely firm and unchanging.

To answer another one of your questions: The Pope is not permitted to depart an inch from what the Church teaches. On the contrary, he is bound to defend all of it. Was Pope Honorious permitted to bend a little in order to reconcile with the Monothelites? He was condemned as a heretic by a later Pope for writing one sentence that seemed to agree with their error. He tried to bend the truth just as little for false ecumenical purposes and ended up going down in history as one of very few heretical popes. If he wasn’t permitted to teach call into question a teaching of the Church, why would any other Pope be permitted?

The following is the Papal Coronation Oath that dates back to the 600’s:

**Papal Coronation Oath: ** **"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein; **

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor,** to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;**

To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear;** to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven**, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that **I will keep whatever **has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

** Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it Ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."**

One final point: It should be remembered that Vatican II is ambiguous enough that it can be reconciled with what the Church teaches. It doesn’t always say what it appears on the surface to say. In fact, when I was studying DH a few months ago, I was surprised how clearly certain parts did NOT say what they are almost always interpreted as saying.

I consider Vatican II a punishment from God for the wicked, and a test of faith for the faithful. Based on the Vatican II documents, a person can justfy rejecting certain teachings of the Church. Therefore, I see it as “a strong delusion to believe lying” (2 Thess 2:10) sent by God as a punishment for those “who believe not the truth” (ibid vs. 11). At the same time it is a test of faith for those who hold fast to the truth. You ought to read 2 Thess, chapter. 2 as it gives the antidote to being led astray during the time of this strong delusion. The antidote is found in verse 14 (15 in a Protestant Bible).

Lastly, God does not ask you to judge anyone who might reject the truth. You don’t have to worry about them. All he asks of you, and all he expects of you in this difficult day, is to hold fast to the truth. And as a result of the current talks between Rome and the hero’s of the SSPX, we should be getting some “clarifications” relatively soon.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Regarding the ambiguities in the Vatican II documents, I wanted to give a quote that was written about another council. The council in question also used ambiguities, and was condemned very strongly by the Pope for doing so. The similarities between the Council of Pistoia and Vatican II are striking; not only in the use of ambiguity, but also in some of the teachings. The diference is that the council of Pistoia was condemned by the Pope, whereas Vatican II was accepted and proclaimed to be the second Pentecost in the Church.

This is what Pope Pius VI said about the use of ambiguity. At the end he also explains how ambiguities should be handled.

Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei 1794: "[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful,** it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; **as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone’s use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error.** It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople**, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

**“In order to expose such snares, **something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.” (Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution “Auctorem Fidei,” 1794;

With that in mind, consider the follow quote from Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx who was a theolocial expert to the Dutch Episcopate during Vatican II.

**Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx: **“We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.”(Open Letter to Confused Catholics," pg.106.)

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lief,

I can see how much you are struggling with this. I only have a moment to reply at this time. I’m going to reply to your question with a few questions of my own.

1.) Is a Catholic permitted to use birth control, to have any abortion, or to marry a person of the same s-x? Of course not.

But what has been condemned more often and more solemnly by the Popes, religious liberty or the above immoral acts?

I haven’t researched this matter, though I expect you’re right. This is probably because birth control and the rest haven’t been as severe of problems before the 20th century, whereas religious liberty has been a point of discussion and debate for centuries.

If the Church can change its teaching on religious liberty, or if this condemned error can become acceptable, is the same true for the other immoral acts I listed above? Our faith is not built on sand. Is absolutely firm and unchanging.

Agreed. What I’m wondering is where the limits of permissible disagreement lie.

Thank-you for presenting the Papal Coronation Oath. It looks quite clear. I agree that the modern popes have made a mistake and (IMO) taught error contrary to Church Tradition by affirming religious freedom in the language they do. This seems to me contrary to their responsibilities as popes. I don’t know if difference on this point is a great enough error to qualify as heresy, though.

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know if the popes still use the same Coronation Oath?
Ultima Ratio:

One final point: It should be remembered that Vatican II is ambiguous enough that it can be reconciled with what the Church teaches. It doesn’t always say what it appears on the surface to say. In fact, when I was studying DH a few months ago, I was surprised how clearly certain parts did NOT say what they are almost always interpreted as saying.

Interesting. I personally still believe it publicly affirms error, though I’d be thrilled to be wrong. The interpretation the popes and bishops have given it appears one of error when compared to the historic teaching of the Church, and the obvious reading of it most people come to when they read it is error. I personally am still taken in by the “natural reading,” though I accept that the better reading remains a possibility.
Ultima Ratio:

I consider Vatican II a punishment from God for the wicked, and a test of faith for the faithful. Based on the Vatican II documents, a person can justfy rejecting certain teachings of the Church. Therefore, I see it as “a strong delusion to believe lying” (2 Thess 2:10) sent by God as a punishment for those “who believe not the truth” (ibid vs. 11). At the same time it is a test of faith for those who hold fast to the truth. You ought to read 2 Thess, chapter. 2 as it gives the antidote to being led astray during the time of this strong delusion. The antidote is found in verse 14 (15 in a Protestant Bible).

I don’t want to reject the council in such a way. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been greatly focused on evangelism, and Vatican II produced some useful clarity on certain teachings and a great push toward ecumenism, evangelism and unity. I read the Decree on Ecumenism and it looked wonderful; I didn’t disagree with any detail of it. I’ve also read the accounts of some Christians who have converted to Catholicism because of Vatican II. Pope Benedict XVI’s explanation of how Protestantism “wounded” the Church helped me in my own conversion. The changes to worship style permitted by Vatican II have also helped some Protestants feel at more home in the Church.

There is great good that has sprung from the council, while to me, Dignitatis Humanae was the council’s one flaw, and a tragic one. I’ve also read about how the council helped clarify the roles of the religious, releasing many of burdens pre-Vatican II conditions left on them, and the council’s development of traditional Catholic doctrine on the Unity of the Church is beautiful, very true, in harmony with the Church’s traditional teaching and helpful to people thinking of converting. Reading the Vatican II documents, I have often been deeply impressed by their elevated, glorious language and teaching.

I don’t feel I can dismiss the spiritual value of Vatican II, and neither do I want to. All I want is perfect unity with the Church. I’ll take that unity wherever I validly can, and I feel inspired by the mission our recent popes have called on us to commit ourselves to, the mission of evangelism and ecumenism. I love everything about our Church’s direction and leadership except the changes in teaching on the separation of church and state and religious freedom. I truly want to learn that these changes, while errors, are not so grave that they break the bonds of holy orthodoxy, that these mistakes can fall into the realm of “legitimate debate,” like many other matters of Catholic doctrine do.

If this is impossible, though, I’ll do what I can to resign myself to that cross. I’m going to look for a variety of opinions before making up my mind about this.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Ultima Ratio:

Lastly, God does not ask you to judge anyone who might reject the truth. You don’t have to worry about them.

I cannot just “not worry” about the Church’s highest leaders. They are (IMO) holy men who have done wonderful things for the Church with their lives. Some bad things too, but a marvelous number of good things. I know I’m not called to judge them, but if I must consider them heretics, I cannot see myself as in full ecclesial unity with them. This matters to me, for the Pope (Benedict XVI) is my Papa, the bishops my fathers and the other Catholics in error are my brothers and sisters. They are very dear to me. Pope Benedict XVI’s mission, unity in truth and charity, is my mission, my loves are his loves and my dreams his dreams, for he has dedicated his life to Christian Unity and that unity in Christ is my greatest love.

I’ll keep praying about this and seeking wisdom from all quarters to guide me in the matter.
Ultima Ratio:

All he asks of you, and all he expects of you in this difficult day, is to hold fast to the truth.

You don’t have to worry about that in my case, or at least I don’t think you do. The Lord has guided me firmly through Reason, Scripture, Tradition, Magesterium as well as Private Revelation in the truth of this matter and I don’t believe I could possibly fall away from Him in this. I didn’t bring this thread up again out of uncertainty; I am not weak in my beliefs about religious freedom, but fervent. I long for full unity, though, and if I can see this dispute as the bishops see it, as something that does not define a person as a heretic whatever their position on it, I will know myself to be in full ecclesial communion with our present Church hierarchy and this will allow me to . . . I guess I can’t fully describe what joy it would give me.

Besides, on a side-note, it seems likely that Pope John Paul II is likely to be canonized as a saint and many people believe the canonization decision is infallible. One of the requirements for canonization is full orthodoxy. Hence I have an added reason for examining whether this error about religious freedom is one that makes a man a heretic.
Ultima Ratio:

And as a result of the current talks between Rome and the hero’s of the SSPX, we should be getting some “clarifications” relatively soon.

I’ll pray for that.

 

[otjm]

I think we are in a worse situation today than existed at the time of the Arian crisis. Just as a majority of Bishops embraced a teaching that had previously been condemned by the Church, so too is it today. I don’t consider the error any less serious just because, as in the days of the Arian crisis, a majority of the Bishops have embraced it.

A majority is one more person than 50%. I don’t recall ever seeing any statement by all of the bishops, or even some of the bishops, sufficient to make any poll let alone an accurate one. There are a tad few more bishops than those who are in the US; and I don’t even recall any statement by the ones in the US. Aren’t we being a bit overly quick to judge the issue? Or have there been statements I have missed?

 

[diggerdomer]

I know. I was asking if, since they could disagree legitimately on a doctrine of Tradition without falling into sin because it wasn’t yet dogma, can’t people legitimately disagree on a doctrine of Tradition in the matter of religious freedom, seeing as this disagreement isn’t over a defined dogma and the Church’s highest authorities have reopened the debate, permitting people to hold either position?

It would depend on what exactly they were disagreeing with, and how such teaching had been taught. As well as their intent, knowledge, etc.

 

[otjm]

Periodically I have poked my nose in here; but I have tried to stay out of the debate.

John Paul 2 had PhD.'s in both Philosophy and Theology. Benedict 16 has a PhD. in Theology and has repeatedly been called one of the brightest lights in theology.

To repeat an old saw - they have probably forgotten more theology than the members in these forae have ever learned.

And both of them have said that the documents of Vatican 2 can and will be interpreted in light of the 2000 year of theology of the Church.

For the life of me, I sometimes wonder where we come up with all of the questions, all of the implications and innuendos that imply that one or more of the documents of Vatican 2 are a break with past theology, a denial of it, a reversal of it and that somehow the Council was not the work of the Holy Spirit.

And I am aware that in reference to at least one document, there have been comments from Rome that indicate that it is not in accord with one docuemtn in the last century.

And guess what - my bet is that Benedict 16 can answer that issue, since he has repeatedly said that all the documents need to be understood in light of the past.

I see so many people so willing to follow some guru out there who chooses either to misinterpret the documents, or is simply not educated or intelligent enough to understand how they connect with the past, or has some ax to grind. When it comes to post graduate level work in theology, it would seem to me that we shoulld be listening to what the Magisterium has to say rather than someone who is not part of the Magisterium, particularly when the implication from the latter hints (if not being more bold) that somehow the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Magisterium.

Perhaps my frustration is due to the fact that I have a graduate degree in another area with practice for more than a couple of years in that area, and I am constantly hearing people with no formal training in it expounding at length as if they actually “knew” something.

I do not suggest that asking questions is wrong; but if we are to think with the mind of the Church - which is to say, with the mind of Christ - then it would seem to me to behoove us to pay attention first to what the Church says; and if we don’t understand it, then perhaps to consider that on occasion in spite of how much we think we know, there may be some things we do not yet comprehend; and that lack of comprehension is not an indicator that the Church is wrong.