The traditionalist and the modernist.

[ConstantineTG]

Seven pages and not one mention of either neo-modernism or the fact that the Church threw Ven Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis - along with scholastic theology - in the dustbin during and after Vatican Council II…

And of course, there’s been a gross misunderstanding of what’s meant by traditional Catholics and Modernism.

Lastly, it’s sad to see an excessive appeal to obedience. Please read this carefully: newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article5

History has already shown us that the bishops - even the majority of them - aren’t always right: during the Arian crisis (even after Nicaea I), only 1-3% of Catholic bishops kept the Faith (i.e. the Nicene Creed).

We can only say that with history in perspective. If we are living in the same era today, I wonder how many here would have subscribed to Arianism? We can’t sin for following the Church. God will not condemn us for following the Church. If the Bishop is in error, the God will take it up with him. But our intention is to follow the Church so following the Church can never be a sin.

 

[SouthpawLink]

We can only say that with history in perspective. If we are living in the same era today, I wonder how many here would have subscribed to Arianism? We can’t sin for following the Church. God will not condemn us for following the Church. If the Bishop is in error, the God will take it up with him. But our intention is to follow the Church so following the Church can never be a sin.

If a priest preaches heresy, then we are bound not to follow him but to instead offer fraternal correction (privately). We are not excused from sin if we follow others into sin, and we must answer to God when we meet Him (we are responsible for our own souls). Have you ever heard St. John Chrysostom’s saying, “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops”?

 

[MarkThompson]

If a priest preaches heresy, then we are bound not to follow him but to instead offer fraternal correction (privately). We are not excused from sin if we follow others into sin, and we must answer to God when we meet Him (we are responsible for our own souls). Have you ever heard St. John Chrysostom’s saying, “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops”?

Only every time someone disagrees with his bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If a priest preaches heresy, then we are bound not to follow him but to instead offer fraternal correction (privately). We are not excused from sin if we follow others into sin, and we must answer to God when we meet Him (we are responsible for our own souls). Have you ever heard St. John Chrysostom’s saying, “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops”?

How would you know one is preaching heresy and not merely preaching something you personally do not agree with? Schismatics don’t think they’re wrong or are in heresy. From their perspective we’re wrong and we’re in heresy. If not for the Church, who judges right from wrong? Isn’t the Church supposed to be the pillar of truth?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Only every time someone disagrees with his bishop.

Interpretation: 1 in 3 threads in CAF

 

[SouthpawLink]

How would you know one is preaching heresy and not merely preaching something you personally do not agree with? Schismatics don’t think they’re wrong or are in heresy. From their perspective we’re wrong and we’re in heresy. If not for the Church, who judges right from wrong? Isn’t the Church supposed to be the pillar of truth?

So, we can never know if someone’s preaching heresy? If that’s true, then doesn’t it also follow that we can never be sure if someone’s preaching orthodoxy? If we can’t tell the difference, then it doesn’t matter what they preach, does it?

“It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 890).

Is this objective possibility never realized? Either we have the means of “objectively professing the true faith without error” or we do not. If we do, then it should follow that we can spot error when it’s being espoused.

The Church is the “pillar and ground of truth,” but that doesn’t guarantee that each individual member of the clergy will always and everywhere proclaim the truth. The Church is infallible under certain circumstances and not simply every time a bishop gives his personal theological opinion. When he repeats the teaching of the ordinary and infallible magisterium (or of the extraordinary infallible magisterium), then what he says is indeed infallible.

The Church has certainly and definitively expressed the truth through various creeds, councils and decrees (whose meanings cannot change). She is bound by what she has taught in the past – indeed she is the guardian of the deposit of revelation – and so she herself is gravely obligated not to deviate from her own teaching. Obviously, the Holy Spirit will protect her from defining what is false or contrary to the faith or to morals, but we must also remember that the authentic ordinary magisterium is not infallible; we must be respectful to what is taught and even be ready to give such teaching the benefit of the doubt, but if it’s manifest that it’s contrary to the faith, then we are to reject it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So, we can never know if someone’s preaching heresy? If that’s true, then doesn’t it also follow that we can never be sure if someone’s preaching orthodoxy? If we can’t tell the difference, then it doesn’t matter what they preach, does it?

“It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 890).

Is this objective possibility never realized? Either we have the means of “objectively professing the true faith without error” or we do not. If we do, then it should follow that we can spot error when it’s being espoused.

The Church is the “pillar and ground of truth,” but that doesn’t guarantee that each individual member of the clergy will always and everywhere proclaim the truth. The Church is infallible under certain circumstances and not simply every time a bishop gives his personal theological opinion. When he repeats the teaching of the ordinary and infallible magisterium (or of the extraordinary infallible magisterium), then what he says is indeed infallible.

The Church has certainly and definitively expressed the truth through various creeds, councils and decrees (whose meanings cannot change). She is bound by what she has taught in the past – indeed she is the guardian of the deposit of revelation – and so she herself is gravely obligated not to deviate from her own teaching. Obviously, the Holy Spirit will protect her from defining what is false or contrary to the faith or to morals, but we must also remember that the authentic ordinary magisterium is not infallible; we must be respectful to what is taught and even be ready to give such teaching the benefit of the doubt, but if it’s manifest that it’s contrary to the faith, then we are to reject it.

Isn’t it why we have the Church, and isn’t it why we believe the Pope to be infallible? My point is this, between a heretic bishop and a laity who probably is telling the truth, if we do not know better how do we know who’s telling the truth? If we make a decision based on our on opinions and knowledge, then we probably would make a mistake. A lot of people now side with laity or priests or even bishops who try to preach their own truth rather than the actual truth. We should follow the Church always. If a bishop speaks for the Church, we should listen. Unless the Church speaks otherwise.

Thing is the Bishop can speak for the Church, the laity cannot. We can repeat what the Church says, which is what I tell people when I catechize. I always remind them that what I tell them is not my own faith, but what is in the CCC. There is a difference between telling people what the Church says, and telling people what you think the Church is saying.

 

[SouthpawLink]

Isn’t it why we have the Church, and isn’t it why we believe the Pope to be infallible? My point is this, between a heretic bishop and a laity who probably is telling the truth, if we do not know better how do we know who’s telling the truth? If we make a decision based on our on opinions and knowledge, then we probably would make a mistake. A lot of people now side with laity or priests or even bishops who try to preach their own truth rather than the actual truth. We should follow the Church always. If a bishop speaks for the Church, we should listen. Unless the Church speaks otherwise.

Thing is the Bishop can speak for the Church, the laity cannot. We can repeat what the Church says, which is what I tell people when I catechize. I always remind them that what I tell them is not my own faith, but what is in the CCC. There is a difference between telling people what the Church says, and telling people what you think the Church is saying.

I disagree with you when you say that we do not know better. The Church has said that we have the “objective possibility of professing the true faith without error.” That possibility comes from Church-approved catechisms and theology manuals. If we cannot depend on the Church’s own documents, then we may as well be blowing in the wind, being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. The Faith doesn’t change; people, however, can change and can make mistakes.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8).

There is a difference between telling people what the Church says, and telling people what you think the Church is saying.

• I fully agree with you on this point.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The Church threw Ven Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis in the dustbin during and after Vatican Council II…

I’m sure the Holy Father, most Catholic bishops, most theologians, and most philosophers would disagree completely.

Why should I believe you and not them?

History has already shown us that the bishops - even the majority of them - aren’t always right: during the Arian crisis (even after Nicaea I), only 1-3% of Catholic bishops kept the Faith (i.e. the Nicene Creed).

As I pointed out in the now-closed sedevacantist thread, one could easily identify orthodoxy around A.D. 380 because the First Council of Nicaea had authoritatively and infallibly condemned the Arian heresy decades earlier.

By what authority can we justify rejecting as heterodox the things in contemporary philosophy, theology, and liturgical matters of which the bishops in union with the pope officially approve today?

If a priest preaches heresy, then we are bound not to follow him but to instead offer fraternal correction (privately).

I agree. But what does that have to do with something like Vatican II? It would be at best an oxymoronic joke and at worst intolerable arrogance to “correct” a priest who teaches something of which the Church approves or refuses to denounce.

How would you know one is preaching heresy and not merely preaching something you personally do not agree with? Schismatics don’t think they’re wrong or are in heresy. From their perspective we’re wrong and we’re in heresy. If not for the Church, who judges right from wrong? Isn’t the Church supposed to be the pillar of truth?

QFT!

So, we can never know if someone’s preaching heresy? If that’s true, then doesn’t it also follow that we can never be sure if someone’s preaching orthodoxy? If we can’t tell the difference, then it doesn’t matter what they preach, does it?

Sure we can. But no Catholic should tolerate a fellow Catholic’s criticizing a priest’s words for “heresy” when they’re not - when they are approved by the Magisterium today. The difference here is obvious.

If a priest says contraception is morally acceptable, yes, that’s heresy.

If a priest says something that Vatican II also says, I don’t care who doesn’t like Vatican II. That’s just too bad for them. It’s an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church.

The Church has said that we have the “objective possibility of professing the true faith without error.” That possibility comes from Church-approved catechisms and theology manuals. If we cannot depend on the Church’s own documents, then we may as well be blowing in the wind, being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. The Faith doesn’t change; people, however, can change and can make mistakes.

I agree completely. Especially with this part:

If we cannot depend on the Church’s own documents, then we may as well be blowing in the wind.

That’s why I’m puzzled at what I perceived - perhaps erroneously - as a negative comment about the Second Vatican Council in the first quote of my reply.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I disagree with you when you say that we do not know better. The Church has said that we have the “objective possibility of professing the true faith without error.” That possibility comes from Church-approved catechisms and theology manuals. If we cannot depend on the Church’s own documents, then we may as well be blowing in the wind, being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. The Faith doesn’t change; people, however, can change and can make mistakes.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:8).

• I fully agree with you on this point.

The bold and red is what I am replying to. Isn’t this clearly stating that the correct teaching are coming from those in authority? “…which WE have preached to you.” Clearly, they have to take the word of Paul and the Apostles and other duly appointed Bishops over others. Same we have today, we have to take the word of the Bishops who are the successor of the Apostles.

 

[SouthpawLink]

Fone Bone 2001,
A number of the very people - though unnamed - condemned in Humani Generis and suspected by the Holy Office later became “experts” at the Second Vatican Council. And there are Web sites which scholarly document the history of the “nouvelle theologie,” condemned twice by Ven. Pius XII, and how it eventually triumphed at Vatican II. After the Council, it split into two groups, the conservatives (who founded Communio) and the liberals (who started Concilium). This “New Theology” was at odds with the Church’s own theology, Scholastic theology, and was rightly condemned by Pius XII.

The fourth century was not the Information Age we have now, literacy wasn’t nearly as high and codices were scarce, so what chance did a layman in 380 have at confirming whether or not his bishop was one of the 1-3% who had kept the Faith professed at Nicaea decades earlier?

I’m astonished that you would so easily approve of contemporary philosophy (read Humani Generis, par. 6-34). Well over 40 Roman Pontiffs have given Scholastic philosophy and theology the highest praises (it was mandated by the Church before the Council both in Canon Law and in an apostolic constitution of Pope Pius XI), so how prudent do you think it was for the Church to abandon it in the 1950s and '60s?

The Church has called Scholastic philosophy “her own” and when it’s questioned, conciliar definitions from Lyons II, Vienne, Trent and Vatican I are all called into question (cf. Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, n. 22; Pius XI, Studiorum Ducem, n. 11).

“Nor, are We ignorant that in Germany also there prevailed a false opinion against the old school Ed.], and against the teaching of those supreme doctors, whom the universal Church venerates because of their admirable wisdom and sanctity of life. By this false opinion the authority of the Church itself is called into danger, especially since the Church, not only through so many continuous centuries has permitted that theological science be cultivated according to the method and the principles of these same Doctors, sanctioned by the common consent of all Catholic schools, but it (the Church) also very often extolled their theological doctrine with the highest praises, and strongly recommended it as a very strong buttress of faith and a formidable armory against its enemies” (Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, 21 December 1863).

“Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. … While scorning our [Scholastic - *Ed.] philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics” (Pius XII, Humani Generis, nn. 18, 32).

I said no such thing about falsely accusing a priest of heresy. Moreover, “heresy” should not be subject to change over time. What was manifestly heresy 100 years ago should still be heresy today, lest the Magisterium contradict herself.

Can it be questioned why the Council seemingly avoided the Church’s own Scholastic terminology like the plague? For example, can you find the traditional expression “members of the Church” along with its three prerequisites in Lumen Gentium? Is the new understanding of partial communion truly a development of the thought of Popes Leo XIII (Satis Cognitum), Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) and Pius XII (Mystici Corporis Christi)?

That’s why I’m puzzled at what I perceived - perhaps erroneously - as a negative comment about the Second Vatican Council in the first quote of my reply.

“Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church” (Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, 5b).

The depth of the Council’s teaching calls for a deeper study in order to reveal the Council’s continuity with Tradition… Shouldn’t the Council’s continuity with Tradition have been evident from the texts themselves? Why is it necessary for the Church to repeatedly release CDF documents explaining what subsistit in means (even as late as 2007, 43 years after Lumen Gentium)? The previous statement of Pope Pius XII wouldn’t have caused any confusion: “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing” (Humani Generis, n. 27).

My main point is that, not only is it evident that things have drastically changed in the Church, but that they have changed for the worse. People can squabble about the liturgy (EF vs. OF), but the deeper and underlying issue is one of theology. What was once condemned is now accepted by almost everyone, similarly to what happened during the fourth century. Let us pray for our superiors.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

A number of the very people - though unnamed - condemned in Humani Generis and suspected by the Holy Office later became “experts” at the Second Vatican Council.

But if they weren’t named…

I realize that the majority faction generally - and not, perhaps, inaccurately - called the “liberal” one prevailed at Vatican II. But Vatican II is less abrupt than many portray it. The Ven. Pius XII himself considered and was working on plans for calling an ecumenical council, but he never got to it. Humani Generis did approve some new things overtly, for instance some new methods of Biblical scholarship.

Anyway, I’m sure you know all that already. But SouthpawLink, is there any non-academic relevance to your points? Okay, the Second Vatican Council took a more open stance about some things of which the Church had been cautious. And I admit that Dignitatis Humanae was indeed a big shift.

What are we to make of that? Some things never change; some things do. Shouldn’t we trust the leadership of the Church? And I’m not talking about blind trust. I think the liturgical, theological, and philosophical development of the twentieth century Catholic approach makes sense. I understand St. Pius X’s caution. I also understand where the Council Fathers and Paul VI were coming from. I understand that even today, Benedict XVI runs things in a slightly different way than John Paul II did.

I trust the Church, and I trust the wisdom of the successors of the Apostles in union with the pope.

This “New Theology” was at odds with the Church’s own theology, Scholastic theology, and was rightly condemned by Pius XII.

Thank you for providing examples to illustrate this claim below. I still would like to know, however, how it’s possible for an authoritative ecumenical council to embrace positions at odds with the theology of the Church.

The fourth century was not the Information Age we have now, literacy wasn’t nearly as high and codices were scarce, so what chance did a layman in 380 have at confirming whether or not his bishop was one of the 1-3% who had kept the Faith professed at Nicaea decades earlier?

You’re right. Point taken.

But that justifies disobedience even less. If a Catholic couldn’t confirm such things for himself or herself, by default (s)he should trust his or her bishop’s theology.

I’m astonished that you would so easily approve of contemporary philosophy (read Humani Generis, par. 6-34). Well over 40 Roman Pontiffs have given Scholastic philosophy and theology the highest praises (it was mandated by the Church before the Council both in Canon Law and in an apostolic constitution of Pope Pius XI), so how prudent do you think it was for the Church to abandon it in the 1950s and '60s?

Oh, don’t get me wrong, of course I don’t approve of every kind of modern and contemporary philosophy. And I know how well scholastic philosophy has earned its place of honor in the Church. I also very much understand why Leo XIII made Thomistic philosophy the standard for seminaries, and why his successors confirmed this.

But why do you think the Church “abandoned” scholasticism? Yes, the Church is now open to other strains of philosophical thought and insight besides the Thomistic one. How is that a bad thing? Phenomenological realism and personalism, for instance, have done wonders for philosophy today. I don’t think anyone here - least of all the Church - encourages consideration of openly relativistic or nihilistic philosophies.

The Church is just using the same attitude and approach St. Thomas Aquinas himself had: openness to, consideration of, and amalgamation of many philosophical sources rather than staying locked into one era. St. Thomas wasn’t afraid to incorporate Aristotle - a pagan - into his philosophy, and as a result we owe so much to him. Likewise, today, Catholic academics and philosophers shouldn’t be scared to search through a variety of thinkers to hone their understanding of metaphysics, ethics, epitemology, aesthetics, etc…

I guess I don’t see how this wider approach threatens important conciliar definitions from Lateran IV, Vienne, Trent, and the like. Sure, if someone denies something they use, then there’s a problem. But no philosophical system is exhaustive or conclusive, and the Church has never pretended that one is.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

"Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. … While scorning our [Scholastic - *Ed

.] philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics" (Pius XII, Humani Generis, nn. 18, 32).

Again, how has the Church thrown this paragraph “into the dustbin”?

(a) No orthodox thinker today teaches or implies that “any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma.” I can’t think of a single thinker who would dare posit that Kantian epistemology or Hegelian philosophy, for instance, are compatible - as systems - with Catholic teaching.

(b) Being open to new philosophies is, again, not the same thing as embracing what Pius XII rightfully calls “idealism” or what he rightfully calls “materialism.” Those aren’t the only two options.

(c) Who’s claiming that reason is useless for metaphysics? Of course that would be heresy, but not even Kant goes that far.

Your application of the above quote constitutes, I suggest, a set of false dichotomies.

I said no such thing about falsely accusing a priest of heresy. Moreover, “heresy” should not be subject to change over time. What was manifestly heresy 100 years ago should still be heresy today, lest the Magisterium contradict herself.

I agree with both of these. But you have to admit that some well-intentioned individuals occasionally think they’ve perceived heresy when they haven’t. And obviously when I spoke of change, I meant changing approaches, disciplines, academic contexts. Of course the Church’s doctrine and dogma can never change, but methods once suspected of almost inevitably leading to heresy can be found, in subsequent generations, to have enough value in them to justify permitting them. That is, in terms of philosophical development, what I believe happened during and after Vatican II.

Can it be questioned why the Council seemingly avoided the Church’s own Scholastic terminology like the plague?

Well, of course it can. I think - and this is just my opinion, of course - it’s for the reason I explained just above. They wanted to lead by example in lawfully permitting the study and - to whatever extent this is possible and good - integration of other kinds of philosophy into the Catholic academic world.

Is the new understanding of partial communion truly a development of the thought of Popes Leo XIII (Satis Cognitum), Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) and Pius XII (Mystici Corporis Christi)?

What else could it be? If it were an entirely new teaching that was implicitly contradictory to established teaching and divine revelation, then we’d have a big problem: an ecumenical council authoritatively approving and promulgating error. What then?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

“Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church” (Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, 5b).

The depth of the Council’s teaching calls for a deeper study in order to reveal the Council’s continuity with Tradition… Shouldn’t the Council’s continuity with Tradition have been evident from the texts themselves?

I agree. But the impression of discontinuity comes from a lot of heterodox Catholics today basing their interpretation on something other than the Council documents themselves. I don’t deny that there is some contextual legitimacy to the idea of a “spirit of Vatican II,” but sadly many of the practices and teachings that people appeal to that phrase to defend are actually not consistent with the renewal of the Catholic Church but are - as I’m sure you would acknowledge - heterodox.

Another source of the confusion - again, I admit this is my opinion - is that throughout the turbulent years of modernity, especially the ninteenth century with the rise of secular philosophical systems, industrialization, Marxism, Darwinian thought, etc. - the Church rightfully cultivated an image of consistency and continuity rather than change. After Vatican II, when so much seemed different, I think it’s understandable that certain people were confused about which elements of the Catholic faith and life actually are unchangeable and which are not.

Hindsight is 20/20. It’s now been several decades since the end of the Council, and our current Holy Father is both a man regarded as a “liberal” during Vatican II and one who is today considered staunchly conservative in his theology, episcopal appointments, etc.

This is not a result of moving the goalposts. It’s an inevitable result of the much-needed clarification of how continuity (Eph. 4:5) and change (1 Cor. 9:22) apply to the Catholic faith and life today.

My main point is that, not only is it evident that things have drastically changed in the Church, but that they have changed for the worse. People can squabble about the liturgy (EF vs. OF), but the deeper and underlying issue is one of theology. What was once condemned is now accepted by almost everyone, similarly to what happened during the fourth century. Let us pray for our superiors.

But the dividing line is clear. The Church authoritatively condemned Arianism in the fourth century. Today the Magisterium - the bishops in union with the pope - and an ecumenical council have endorsed many (not all!) of the shifts and changes in the Church today.

 

[Warrenton]

But the dividing line is clear. … Today the Magisterium - the bishops in union with the pope - and an ecumenical council have endorsed many (not all!) of the shifts and changes in the Church today.

The problem is that the dividing line is not clear. We don’t know what shifts are endorsed or what are not. Neither do they.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The problem is that the dividing line is not clear. We don’t know what shifts are endorsed or what are not. Neither do they.

I’m not sure what you mean, since I can’t think of any examples of shifts that are both significant enough to be potentially problematic and also officially unaddressed by the Church. Would you mind giving an example or two so that I can better understand what you’re thinking of by such “shifts”?

 

[At_Trent]

It’s now been several decades since the end of the Council, and our current Holy Father is both a man regarded as a “liberal” during Vatican II and one who is today considered staunchly conservative in his theology, episcopal appointments, etc.

Perhaps he has not swayed.

There is a theory that as time passes, in general, the moderates become liberal and the conservatives become moderate.

 

[Stephentlig]

Nice blog post; I enjoyed it (and agree).

It could have been better and will have to revisit it sometime in the future.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Perhaps he has not swayed.

There is a theory that as time passes, in general, the moderates become liberal and the conservatives become moderate.

I agree that he hasn’t swayed. And I read somewhere - sorry, I forget where - that he himself does not believe he has shifted.

After all, he was always as staunchly orthodox as he is today, and he also still holds the opinions considered “liberal” during the Council. The difference is that today, the Second Vatican Council’s effects on the Church have entered the mainstream, and today “liberal” no longer means “supporting religious freedom, liturgical reform, etc.” but now is unfortunately taken to mean “pro-contraception, pro-women’s ordination, etc.”

That’s the trouble with such vapid terms like “liberal” and “conservative.” They can be useful to a point, but what constitutes liberalism or conservatism changes depending on the time period and the context.

I generally try to avoid these labels, although if everyone is on the same page - same time, same context - they can be useful.

 

[Layman]

I don’t think the Pope is as Traditionalist as Traditionalists would like. He’s made some good moves, however. Let’s list them, shall we?

• Summorum Pontificum;
• Rapprochement with the SSPX;
• Anglicanorum Coetibus;
• Investigation of American women religious;
• Revising the Missal;
• Tried appointing a conservative bishop to Austria.

The effects should be … interesting