J
JayDyer
Guest
www.nicenetruth.com
[My replies are single-spaced. -Jay]
Jay,
Recently I read a book on Vatican II by a supporter of the Novus
Ordo “Catholic” church. The author very rightly and adroitly said
that the decisive question, as regards Vatican II, is whether or not
the so called “spirit of Vatican II” is the Holy Spirit of God. Agreed.
Reply:
I’ve read several books both pro and con Vatican II, including Ferrara, Blanshard, Dimonds, Lefebvre, the Radeckis, Rhynne, Davies, Likoudis and SSPX publications and numerous articles and lectures, and, of course, the documents themselves. Anyway, I say all that to point out that I know where you are coming from. Presently, I do think that Vatican II was a valid council. Firstly, because of the more perplexing theological difficulties that arise in the hardcore trad positions. I’ve learned that any position will have its apparent difficulties, whether you’re defending biblical inerrancy or any certain theological stance. I’m not advocating theological relativism, but simply saying that finitude can only give rise to incomplete information. As it stands, I know many trad priests, SSPX folks, sede folks, and apologists of different stripes. In short, I’m not a neophyte to these disputes.
When I was a hardcore trad, my theology was almost strictly western. Unfortunately, my observation is that most western Catholics are entirely or largely ignorant of Eastern theology. And yet, the first Seven Councils were Eastern and the Trinitarian and Christological theology that became normative is all Eastern in origin. So, no one can deny that in God’s providence, He determined to use this theological and philosophical milieu to shape and mold the normative view of what would forever constitute Trinitarian Orthodoxy. But many Catholics, even learned ones, are often unaware of the ins and outs of this heritage. The New Catechism, however, goes to great lengths to extract from this heritage by providing many citations from these Councils and Fathers such as Ss. Cyril, Basil, Gregory, John of Damascus, Theodore of Studium, Maximus the Confessor and others, which, if one compares citations in this catechism with, say, Trent’s Catechism, are very few in number. I can’t recall off the top of my head, but I doubt that anywhere in the Catechism of Trent there is a single citation of an Eastern Rite, yet this liturgical tradition is of the utmost importance in understanding the fullness of the Apostolic Deposit/Tradition, along with the Western Rites and Fathers.
Anyway, point being, I was ignorant of a lot of this until 3 ½ years ago, at which time, I was becoming disenchanted with the absurdities of sedevacantism and the weekly sects and factions that were a result thereof (literally). From this Eastern heritage, I learned that Christ is united to all men via the Incarnation, and as such, He is “the universal man” to use the Damascene’s terminology. Now, many trads object to this as being the central error of Vatican II, especially in the V2 docs where this is treated. And yet, this is the teaching of the 5th and 6th Councils, whose theology derived from the aforementioned Eastern Fathers. Lumen Gentium even cites these Councils in reference to this concept. I have read several works of those Fathers, along with Pelikan’s set (particularly volume 2 is relevant here), and that notion is correct—Christ did unite Himself to all men because He assumed human nature, which is universal, and He offers Himself to all men thereby. Now, this affects soteriology—yea, all of one’s theology, because it means that we must be somewhat ecumenical.
Besides that, the more one delves into Church History and the actual practice of the councils, you will find much more ecumenism in practice than the trads are willing to admit. For example, St. Cyril sought ecumenical union with John, Patriarch of Jerusalem over the Christological controversy and compromised his “mia physis” terminology for a formula of Reunion with John. This angered many “Copts” who later ended up splitting and forming their Coptic Church, in order to preserve the “true faith” against the unfortunate yet excusable “compromises” of St. Cyril! So, what’s the pattern? There have been many such instances as these. This is why Vatican II is called an “Easternizing” of the Church. In that case, the “Spirit” of Vatican II is simply a more cosmic, all-encompassing theology such as is found in St. Maximus and other Eastern Fathers, like St. Gregory of Nyssa. To the Tridentine (theologically speaking) trad, that seems to be a different “spirit,” while I see it as a legitimate development. The Church must breathe with both lungs (East and West), as Pope John Paul II stated.
In moral theology, heresy is a very specific species of sin, not a state that a person is ‘automatically’ in. To be a formal heretic requires full knowledge and obstinacy in that error. Plus, when one know the correct doctrine of ex opere operato, all persons baptized in the name of the Trinity receive grace, no matter what Church they are in; therefore, ecumenism can be practiced at some level with these groups. St. Augustine called the Donatists separated brethren, as did Pope Leo XIII the Anglicans. There is nothing wrong with this term.
Continued here.
[My replies are single-spaced. -Jay]
Jay,
Recently I read a book on Vatican II by a supporter of the Novus
Ordo “Catholic” church. The author very rightly and adroitly said
that the decisive question, as regards Vatican II, is whether or not
the so called “spirit of Vatican II” is the Holy Spirit of God. Agreed.
Reply:
I’ve read several books both pro and con Vatican II, including Ferrara, Blanshard, Dimonds, Lefebvre, the Radeckis, Rhynne, Davies, Likoudis and SSPX publications and numerous articles and lectures, and, of course, the documents themselves. Anyway, I say all that to point out that I know where you are coming from. Presently, I do think that Vatican II was a valid council. Firstly, because of the more perplexing theological difficulties that arise in the hardcore trad positions. I’ve learned that any position will have its apparent difficulties, whether you’re defending biblical inerrancy or any certain theological stance. I’m not advocating theological relativism, but simply saying that finitude can only give rise to incomplete information. As it stands, I know many trad priests, SSPX folks, sede folks, and apologists of different stripes. In short, I’m not a neophyte to these disputes.
When I was a hardcore trad, my theology was almost strictly western. Unfortunately, my observation is that most western Catholics are entirely or largely ignorant of Eastern theology. And yet, the first Seven Councils were Eastern and the Trinitarian and Christological theology that became normative is all Eastern in origin. So, no one can deny that in God’s providence, He determined to use this theological and philosophical milieu to shape and mold the normative view of what would forever constitute Trinitarian Orthodoxy. But many Catholics, even learned ones, are often unaware of the ins and outs of this heritage. The New Catechism, however, goes to great lengths to extract from this heritage by providing many citations from these Councils and Fathers such as Ss. Cyril, Basil, Gregory, John of Damascus, Theodore of Studium, Maximus the Confessor and others, which, if one compares citations in this catechism with, say, Trent’s Catechism, are very few in number. I can’t recall off the top of my head, but I doubt that anywhere in the Catechism of Trent there is a single citation of an Eastern Rite, yet this liturgical tradition is of the utmost importance in understanding the fullness of the Apostolic Deposit/Tradition, along with the Western Rites and Fathers.
Anyway, point being, I was ignorant of a lot of this until 3 ½ years ago, at which time, I was becoming disenchanted with the absurdities of sedevacantism and the weekly sects and factions that were a result thereof (literally). From this Eastern heritage, I learned that Christ is united to all men via the Incarnation, and as such, He is “the universal man” to use the Damascene’s terminology. Now, many trads object to this as being the central error of Vatican II, especially in the V2 docs where this is treated. And yet, this is the teaching of the 5th and 6th Councils, whose theology derived from the aforementioned Eastern Fathers. Lumen Gentium even cites these Councils in reference to this concept. I have read several works of those Fathers, along with Pelikan’s set (particularly volume 2 is relevant here), and that notion is correct—Christ did unite Himself to all men because He assumed human nature, which is universal, and He offers Himself to all men thereby. Now, this affects soteriology—yea, all of one’s theology, because it means that we must be somewhat ecumenical.
Besides that, the more one delves into Church History and the actual practice of the councils, you will find much more ecumenism in practice than the trads are willing to admit. For example, St. Cyril sought ecumenical union with John, Patriarch of Jerusalem over the Christological controversy and compromised his “mia physis” terminology for a formula of Reunion with John. This angered many “Copts” who later ended up splitting and forming their Coptic Church, in order to preserve the “true faith” against the unfortunate yet excusable “compromises” of St. Cyril! So, what’s the pattern? There have been many such instances as these. This is why Vatican II is called an “Easternizing” of the Church. In that case, the “Spirit” of Vatican II is simply a more cosmic, all-encompassing theology such as is found in St. Maximus and other Eastern Fathers, like St. Gregory of Nyssa. To the Tridentine (theologically speaking) trad, that seems to be a different “spirit,” while I see it as a legitimate development. The Church must breathe with both lungs (East and West), as Pope John Paul II stated.
In moral theology, heresy is a very specific species of sin, not a state that a person is ‘automatically’ in. To be a formal heretic requires full knowledge and obstinacy in that error. Plus, when one know the correct doctrine of ex opere operato, all persons baptized in the name of the Trinity receive grace, no matter what Church they are in; therefore, ecumenism can be practiced at some level with these groups. St. Augustine called the Donatists separated brethren, as did Pope Leo XIII the Anglicans. There is nothing wrong with this term.
Continued here.
Available at