Iota Unum by Romano Amerio

[StudentMI]

Has anyone read this so far thoroughly depressing work? Don’t get me wrong, it’s great and insightful, but man is it a bummer. I’m currently working my way through it.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

It’s a complex and detailed work. I have tried but set it down. I have to read it though - I feel it is one of those necessary works. Everything I gained from it was highly valuable. The philosophical insights are excellent - leading to theological analyses.
I think it is a honest critique - not heavy-handed, as I see it.
Similar to what Abp Vigano has said in some ways.
Eventually, these truths will rise up in the Catholic conciousness and more changes for the better will result, as I see it. It just takes time to absorb some unpleasant ideas like that - yes, it’s a bummer in many ways, but the truth will set us free, no matter how painful.

I add it to Abbe de Nantes’ review of the documents of that era - he is a lot more devastating and emotional, but equally insightful. He remained faithful to the Church.

 

[StudentMI]

Abbe de Nantes

I’ll check him out.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Yes, please proceed with caution.
He fought against sedevacantism and even SSPX - very fiercely. So, he remained faithful. But he was a passionate man with a great love of the Faith. Sometimes that comes across in the wrong way for people (not me, I find him invigorating and truthful). He is not happy to find things in the Church. Unlike some who delight in the stumbles of our leaders.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’ve not read it, and likely won’t. After looking into it I noticed a couple of things. The author was a peritus at the Council. Great! So was a certain Fr. Josef Ratzinger.

The author is also not an academic theologian. His Ph.D. was in philosophy. Which is all well and good. But there were some brilliant theologians (with academic training and degrees in theology) present at the Council as well, including Ratzinger, Karol Wojtyla (aka Pope St. John Paul II), and Ven. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen to name but a few. Each of these theologians said that the Council can and should be interpreted through the lens of tradition.

I don’t say this to discourage you from reading the book. I’m merely pointing out that the author’s perspective on the Council isn’t the only (nor necessarily the best) perspective. I’d suggest balancing his opinions with the thoughts of Ratzinger, Wojtyla, Sheen, and some of the others who were present. Perhaps Wojtyla’s Sources of Renewal…

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Which is all well and good. But there were some brilliant theologians (with academic training and degrees in theology) present at the Council as well, including Ratzinger, Karol Wojtyla (aka Pope St. John Paul II), and Ven. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen to name but a few. Each of these theologians said that the Council can and should be interpreted through the lens of tradition.

I don’t say this to discourage you from reading the book. I’m merely pointing out that the author’s perspective on the Council isn’t the only (nor necessarily the best) perspective. I’d suggest balancing his opinions with the thoughts of Ratzinger, Wojtyla, Sheen, and some of the others who were present. Perhaps Wojtyla’s Sources of Renewal …

I appreciate that, but are you being selective here?
What about De Lubac, Kung, Rahner, Schillebeeckx , Congar, John Courtney Murray, Suenens ?
The then Cardinal Ratzinger already rejected the hermeneutic of continuity (and has never retracted this statement from 1982):

Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789.
Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique - Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427

He’s saying that Vatican II is not understood in the light of tradition, but it is a break in the tradition. Vatican II is a counter-syllabus of Pope Pius IX - it’s a rejection of the statements against modernism, and an attempt to reconcile with modern philosophy.

Abp Vigano has said the same thing recently. I think this is the difficult truth we have to face.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

But there were some brilliant theologians (with academic training and degrees in theology)

Just a follow up. I think we need to be very careful.
Fr. Maurice Blondel was known to be brilliant, with academic degrees.
So were Frs Rahner and Kung.
We have to be careful about looking for academic credentials. These are not a substitute for fidelity.
Fr. Teilhard de Chardin was very influential in Vatican II thought - known as a brilliant man of scholarship. He was a false teacher also. A false prophet.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’m only being selective for the sake of example. No doubt there were bad theologians at Vatican II as well as good ones (although I don’t count De Lubac and Congar among the “bad” theologians).

And I’m pretty sure that, as Pope Benedict XVI, Ratzinger publicly stated on a number of occasions that Vatican II had to be interpreted within a hermeneutic of continuity (although I don’t have an exact quote at this time [perhaps someone else can provide it]).

In my experience, the biggest problem that many traditionalist Catholics have with Vatican II is that it didn’t apply the principles of scholastic theology, but instead largely went back to Patristic sources. Which is completely understandable considering that many of the key theologians were part of the Resourcement movement.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I agree with your point about being careful of academic credentials (which, by the way, is a very Patristic perspective).

That being said, I’ve never heard de Chardin called a false teacher or a false prophet. I’m not terribly familiar with him. Would you mind giving some examples of his false teachings?

 

[StudentMI]

And I’m pretty sure that, as Pope Benedict XVI, Ratzinger publicly stated on a number of occasions that Vatican II had to be interpreted within a hermeneutic of continuity (although I don’t have an exact quote at this time [perhaps someone else can provide it]).

He did indeed, as has Pope Francis. However Vigano recently called the hermeneutic a failure, which I found disheartening.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

However Vigano recently called the hermeneutic a failure, which I found disheartening.

And what gives Archbishop Vigano the authority to make such a statement? Does the fact that he sees the hermeneutic of continuity as a failure make it so? Forgive me if I put my trust more in the opinions of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI than in his. I don’t doubt the man’s holiness, but I also disagree with him on this point.

Don’t get me wrong, he says many things with which I agree. But I heartily disagree with him here.

 

[StudentMI]

And what give Archbishop Vigano the authority to make such a statement?

No one. But I do however find it fit in well with my own reading on the Council.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

What do you object to with the Council itself?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

No doubt there were bad theologians at Vatican II as well as good ones (although I don’t count De Lubac and Congar among the “bad” theologians).

And I’m pretty sure that, as Pope Benedict XVI, Ratzinger publicly stated on a number of occasions that Vatican II had to be interpreted within a hermeneutic of continuity (although I don’t have an exact quote at this time [perhaps someone else can provide it]).

Which do you think were the bad theologians? DeLubac’s work was censured before the Council. In some ways I feel sorry for him. Near the end of his life he wrote:

in his book Memoire Autour De Mes Oeuvres , already quoted above. He remains, however, light years away from what could be called his conversion. At the very most, he admits that “this new age (of modernism) is no less [indeed!] subject to all sorts of aberrations, blunders, illusions, as well as the assaults of the spirit of evil” and he continues: “What I am able to perceive nowadays from all this turmoil, from all these assaults, does not cause me to curse my years of activity, but they do make me wonder and pose this question: Would I have not done better by taking into consideration more seriously, since the very beginning, my condition of believer, my role as priest and member of an Apostolic Order, in short, my vocation, to concentrate, mainly and most decidedly my intellectual efforts on that which constitutes the center of Faith and of the Christian life, instead of dispersing them in more or less peripheral domains as I did according to my tastes or the events of the day? …Had I done so, would I not have prepared myself to intervene with a little more competence and especially with moral authority in the great spiritual debate of our generation? Would I not then, at this moment, find myself a little less unfit to light the way for some and to encourage others? For seven or eight years now, I have been literally paralyzed by the constant fear of facing, in a practical and concrete manner, those many essential and burning (moral) questions of today. Has it been a case of wisdom or one of weakness? Have I been right or wrong? Have I not finally ended up, despite myself, in the integrists’ camp which horrifies me?” (p.389).

His fear is not that he caused damage to the faith (as he recognizes somewhat) but that he has to end up as a traditionalist - given everything that gained momentum from the new theology he spawned.
It’s tragic - for all of us.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Have you read any of de Lubac?

 

[StudentMI]

What do you object to with the Council itself?

Object to is perhaps too strong a term. What I find confusing are a whole host of statements from the documents, primarily concerning the Church, other religions, religious liberty, etc.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Such as…?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Have you read any of de Lubac?

I have tried to and I found it to be toxic. His work was condemned for good reason, in my view. He asks there in the end “was I right or wrong”? He doesn’t know. He was a follower of Blondel - loved him and all of his rebellion against the Holy See.
I am opposed to DeLubac and all of his kind. They caused a lot of suffering and damage.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

His work was condemned for good reason,

Wasn’t his work vindicated by Pope St. John Paul II, or was that just von Balthasar?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Apb Vigano points to a few things in the Council.
The statement “subsists in” he says is an error.
He points to Pope Francis’ statement “God willed the diversity of religions” as founded on the incorrect principles of Vatican II.