Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
sw85 has a great mind.
- Status
K
Kevin12
Guest
You are right of course. There are definitely people even in the Church who would like nothing better than to compel people to the faith with physical force. Such opinions should not be taken lightly or treated as idle talk - I have every reason to believe that such people would do so without hesitation if the possibility presented itself. Indeed, not academic at all.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I think that if you read carefully several of the pertinent posts of this thread, you will be very hard pressed to come to the conclusion that we advocate a compulsion of the Faith on anyone. Indeed, “compulsion of Faith” is itself a dichotomy.
I don’t doubt that there exist somewhere Catholics who would like to do this impossible act, but they cannot be found in the halls of this thread. I agree with your sentiment fully, but I do not see how this relates to this thread except as a small tangent.
Instead, I pray for a culture in the West, and in the whole world more generally, that allows us to spread the Faith with freedom and joy and that puts non-Catholics in a position to want to accept that Faith.
Related to this, I do believe that most of our discussion itself in this thread is academic. However, I believe that it can be and should be applied. edwest, Elizabeth, sw85, others, and I offer some thoughts.
S
sw85
Guest
I don’t think it’s necessary to read it that way. For instance, he could be talking not about the Council as an exercise in the Magisterium of the Church but as a congregation of particular people, i.e., the bishops and periti present at it. In other words, “If the Church weren’t divine, these men would’ve sunk it.” We may disagree with his assessment, but he was hardly unique in holding it, that there were some in attendance at the Council who wanted it to go in a much more radical direction than it did.
There’s an interesting parallel to be drawn here, one that is largely lost on us because of our own historical ignorance but would’ve been well known to at least some of the men present at Vatican II. That parallel was the 1930 Lambeth Conference, in the Anglican Communion. Nearly everyone agrees that the Lambeth Conference OK’d contraception. Most rejoice that it did so and some regret that it did so.
But nearly no one has actually read the minutes of the Lambeth Conference, because if they had, they’d know that it didn’t do so at all. No words of approval appear. No words of condemnation appear. The much-vaunted OKing of contraception consists entirely of a deliberate misreading of a single ambiguous phrase, “other methods,” which, had it been read in proper context (specifically the line which immediately followed, “provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles” – those same principles having been previously described in a way perfectly consistent with Catholic moral theology), would not have been interpreted that way at all.
Lambeth was sort of a turning point for the Anglican Communion. 20 years later they warmly expressed support of contraceptors and maybe ten years after that they were talking about women priests. Today as we know they’re about five minutes away from lesbian bishopesses. And all of it for nothing – worse than nothing. Because of a single, stupid, throwaway line wrenched illicitly out of context.
Lambeth wasn’t the problem – it was the spirit of Lambeth!
So perhaps Card. Siri was thinking of this when he spoke the words attributed to him (if indeed he did). Lambeth was a moment that ruined the Anglican Church. It was able to be ruined because it was a fraud. The Catholic Church cannot be so ruined, but only because the Holy Spirit sustains it – not because of the merits of the men who rule it.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Oh, sw85, apples to oranges here. I know you’re just drawing some comparisons, but I’m not really sure we can extend the argument except for the most non-ecclesiastical of strands. (We cannot honestly compare the Catholic Church to the Anglican Communion in regard to Holy Orders, the Eucharist, ecclesiology, etc.) This is where I think you go a bit off. The Catholic Church cannot mess up in the same way that the Anglicans can. Yes, you know this, but I think this is worth pointing out anyway.
Furthermore, isn’t this “other methods” thing with its relatively weak subordinate clause yet another example of Christians tragically–perhaps tragicomically–being so darn trusting of the world? I think at least some of the blame can be laid at the 1930 LC’s feet. It maybe was not a sin of commission, but the act of omission, grossly misinterpreting the much vaunted signs off the time. Shouldn’t they have know better? Or, maybe I’m overestimating things.
Regardless, the Anglican Communion is succumbing to such things as lesbian bishopesses because they have no grace of Holy Orders and the Eucharist in the first place.
Furthermore, isn’t this “other methods” thing with its relatively weak subordinate clause yet another example of Christians tragically–perhaps tragicomically–being so darn trusting of the world? I think at least some of the blame can be laid at the 1930 LC’s feet. It maybe was not a sin of commission, but the act of omission, grossly misinterpreting the much vaunted signs off the time. Shouldn’t they have know better? Or, maybe I’m overestimating things.
Regardless, the Anglican Communion is succumbing to such things as lesbian bishopesses because they have no grace of Holy Orders and the Eucharist in the first place.
S
sw85
Guest
I agree, and moreover, I’m saying that Siri agrees, too. (Or rather that this is the most charitable interpretation of his words). There were some who wanted Vatican II to be to the Church what Lambeth was to the Anglicans, but divine assistance ensured the thwarting of their plans in a way it didn’t protect the Anglicans, whose church was (is) a counterfeit of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Yes, that is the conclusion I have come to also. Divine assistance did in fact come to the Church in the latter half of the 20th century, we can see that clearly.
A
AndyP2010
Guest
Why is that, the author seems to be claiming in the bolded to understand how the Holy Spirit does and doesn’t work. I can’t see St Thomas Aquinas being so bold.
A
AndyP2010
Guest
Without Divine assistance the church wouldn’t have survived the 1st century or any other for that matter. If Traditionalist held other Church councils to the same standard as Vatican II, then Trent is a failure. After all we still have Protestants.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Lots and lots of conjecture for a randomly spoken, casual statement that is unsupported by any further indications of his meaning. That is very poor reporting and it should never have been attributed to him without some sort of clarification. Your lame example of Lambeth is not a proof-text to document his meaning … again, if he said it at all! Why spend so much time defending a mere possibility?
L
Lucky7
Guest
I took sw85’s comments to mean that the Church is protected from error in matters of faith and morals, but not in other matters (which is true, no?). He was including “how” the Church expresses herself as other matters (ie. prudential matters). Do you have Church teaching that says the opposite? f so, please offer it. Otherwise, I’m not sure how you can take issue with what sw85 said.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Many of us noticed that SW85 is a brand new Catholic, just entering the Church a year ago. Doesn’t it seem strange for him to be assuming the role of Vatican II instructor? There are so many errors in his post that I don’t want to spend time addressing them all, since the faithful who read these fora are sufficiently knowledgable to recognize them, and will just pass over this private opinion without further comment. For instance, he infers that the Council Fathers don’t know how to write a document and labeled their work “liberalism.”
Most likely, Thomas Casey’s warning had posts such as this in mind.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Perhaps relevant:
*As you know, the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council also takes place in October. Some would argue that the Church has been hampered in its mission to evangelize by the confusion that came after the Council. Will there be some initiative during this Year of Faith to help remove some of that confusion?
The problems that we had after the Council were not caused by the Council. The development of the secularist mentality, for instance, had nothing to do with the Council. It came about before the Council, in the 19th century, when we had secularism promoted by liberals who denied the supernatural and saw the Church only in terms of a charitable institution. But the role of the Church is not only to help in the social field; its secondary mission is to help the bonum commune [the common good], but the first reason for its existence is to preach the Gospel and thus give hope to the world. Therefore, we have an interlinking between the event of the Council and assault of secularism. The waves of secularism began to undermine the Church long before the Council, but they accumulated into a tsunami at the same time as the great event of the Council. Partly because of this co-incidence, a certain type of secularism then found its way into the inner circles of the Church. The result is that we now not only have secularism coming from outside the Church, but we have a type of liberalism within the Church which has caused us to loose our direction a little. We must look to our own resources – the Scriptures, the Fathers, the dogmatic teachings of the Church - and, like a good captain, steer the way ahead.
*
*Many of the traditionalists have trouble reconciling the fact that we’ve had Popes in the past who’ve categorically stated teachings that then appeared to be refuted by the Council, religious freedom being one example. What do you say in response to this concern?
That is not true – it’s a false interpretation of history. In the 19th century, the free masons or liberals interpreted religious freedom as the freedom to reject the truth given by God. It was this false notion of religious freedom that the Popes of the 19th century rejected, and the Second Vatican Council repeats that we are not free to reject the truth. It is on another level, on the level of human rights, that everyone has to be true to him or herself and act according to his or her own conscience. Furthermore, the Church cannot, on the doctrinal level, contradict herself – that is impossible. Any perceived contradiction is caused by false interpretation. We cannot say today: Jesus is the Son of God, he has a divine nature. And then tomorrow accept what the Arians said [that Christ was distinctly separate from God the Father]. That would be a real contradiction. What they [SSPX] are proposing is, in essence, a tension arising from the use of terminology, but the Church never contradicted herself. If you study the texts of different centuries, of different contexts, of different languages, you must do so on the basis of established Catholic doctrine.
*
*Was the Council binding or merely pastoral?
The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral”. All Councils are pastoral in that they are concerned with the work of the Church - but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. Vatican II is an official Ecumenical Council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels. We have Dogmatic Constitutions and you are certainly obliged to accept them if you are Catholic. Dei Verbum discusses divine revelation, it speaks about the Trinitarian God revealing Himself, and about the Incarnation as fundamental teaching. These are not only pastoral teachings, they are basic elements of our Catholic faith. Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone.*
From an interview with Archbishop Mueller (now head of the CDF)
*As you know, the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council also takes place in October. Some would argue that the Church has been hampered in its mission to evangelize by the confusion that came after the Council. Will there be some initiative during this Year of Faith to help remove some of that confusion?
The problems that we had after the Council were not caused by the Council. The development of the secularist mentality, for instance, had nothing to do with the Council. It came about before the Council, in the 19th century, when we had secularism promoted by liberals who denied the supernatural and saw the Church only in terms of a charitable institution. But the role of the Church is not only to help in the social field; its secondary mission is to help the bonum commune [the common good], but the first reason for its existence is to preach the Gospel and thus give hope to the world. Therefore, we have an interlinking between the event of the Council and assault of secularism. The waves of secularism began to undermine the Church long before the Council, but they accumulated into a tsunami at the same time as the great event of the Council. Partly because of this co-incidence, a certain type of secularism then found its way into the inner circles of the Church. The result is that we now not only have secularism coming from outside the Church, but we have a type of liberalism within the Church which has caused us to loose our direction a little. We must look to our own resources – the Scriptures, the Fathers, the dogmatic teachings of the Church - and, like a good captain, steer the way ahead.
*
*Many of the traditionalists have trouble reconciling the fact that we’ve had Popes in the past who’ve categorically stated teachings that then appeared to be refuted by the Council, religious freedom being one example. What do you say in response to this concern?
That is not true – it’s a false interpretation of history. In the 19th century, the free masons or liberals interpreted religious freedom as the freedom to reject the truth given by God. It was this false notion of religious freedom that the Popes of the 19th century rejected, and the Second Vatican Council repeats that we are not free to reject the truth. It is on another level, on the level of human rights, that everyone has to be true to him or herself and act according to his or her own conscience. Furthermore, the Church cannot, on the doctrinal level, contradict herself – that is impossible. Any perceived contradiction is caused by false interpretation. We cannot say today: Jesus is the Son of God, he has a divine nature. And then tomorrow accept what the Arians said [that Christ was distinctly separate from God the Father]. That would be a real contradiction. What they [SSPX] are proposing is, in essence, a tension arising from the use of terminology, but the Church never contradicted herself. If you study the texts of different centuries, of different contexts, of different languages, you must do so on the basis of established Catholic doctrine.
*
*Was the Council binding or merely pastoral?
The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral”. All Councils are pastoral in that they are concerned with the work of the Church - but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. Vatican II is an official Ecumenical Council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels. We have Dogmatic Constitutions and you are certainly obliged to accept them if you are Catholic. Dei Verbum discusses divine revelation, it speaks about the Trinitarian God revealing Himself, and about the Incarnation as fundamental teaching. These are not only pastoral teachings, they are basic elements of our Catholic faith. Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone.*
From an interview with Archbishop Mueller (now head of the CDF)
S
sw85
Guest
Not at all. On the contrary, I’m not the one declaring that the Holy Spirit did this thing or that thing through the Council. I’m simply stating what we know as a matter of faith to be true about the Holy Spirit’s relation to the Church, which is purely prophylactic. This owes to the fact that we are men with free will and moral responsibility and that God, in his love for us, largely allows us to act freely and holds us accountable for our actions, because our own good demands it. He intervenes only to protect us from outright catastrophe. I’m not aware of any teachings to the effect that the Holy Spirit acts in any other ways through the Church. Which isn’t to say he doesn’t, of course, it only means that such is all unverifiable speculation we’d do best to avoid.
I am generally baffled and alarmed by the sentiments that prevail today which treat Papal conclaves, ecumenical councils, etc., as if they were nothing more than groups of teenagers huddled around a Ouija board trying to channel the influence of the Holy Spirit!
I don’t think that’s quite fair. Trent’s purpose wasn’t to abolish Protestantism but to cauterize the wound caused by the schism and to reform the Church internally. I think Trent succeeded at that quite well, but I also think reasonable people can disagree about whether it chose the right course of action. Was it really necessary to lose the limb, after all? I happen to think it made the best of a very bad situation, but it seems to me the situation admits to a legitimate diversity of opinion.
I don’t know why you’re getting so mad. All I’m saying is that Card. Siri’s words (if, in fact, he spoke them) can be understood in a way that isn’t mere gratuitous bitter sniping but rather pertains to real historical considerations he would’ve been aware of, even if we aren’t.
Right, this is what I’m saying. Not sure how else they could be taken!
I’m not sure what you’re accusing me of here or what my newness to the faith has to do with it. The texts of Vatican II are freely available online and I’ve read them. My analysis of, for instance, the doctrinal content of Dignitatis Humanae may or may not be right but it has nothing to do with my being a relatively new Catholic (FYI, my interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae in post #77 is perfectly in accord with Benedict’s exhortation to understand Vatican II in continuity with tradition). And my analysis of the prudential rationale behind the wording of Dignitatis Humanae may or may not be right but it wouldn’t seem to have anything to do with my Catholicism at all, because it has nothing to do with the faith itself but with the historical circumstances surrounding the Council, the stated intentions of its participants, etc.
Maybe you could address just one.
Everything I write is my private opinion, obviously. I don’t pretend otherwise. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
S
sw85
Guest
That would indeed be an error if that were what I had said, but it wasn’t, so it isn’t. Go back and read what I said. What I said was simply that Dignitatis Humanae affected liberal language in order to express a theologically correct principle to liberal (i.e., “modern”) man.
Saying something in Mandarin is not the same thing as *being *Chinese. Likewise, that the Church prudentially co-opted liberalese doesn’t mean that the Church is liberal or endorsed liberalism. The problem here is that if I say something in Mandarin, even if what I’m trying to say is technically correct, I’m likely to be misunderstood because my grasp of the language is tenuous and I’m ignorant of the cultural context within which that language is spoken day-to-day.
In other words, the correctness of what I’m saying is one question and whether or not I’ve said it correctly in Mandarin is another one. As far as the Church is concerned, the former is doctrinal/dogmatic and so infallible, while the latter is prudential and therefore not.
So it is perfectly reasonable to say, as I do, that Dignitatis Humanae, properly understood, is 100% theologically correct and error-proof in its discussion of “religious liberty,” while also acknowledging that “properly understood” is the exception that devours the rule and that the categories of speech with which the Council elected to express itself in Dignitatis Humanae is the reason why. Because, again, the latter is not a matter of the faith.
J
jerome_ky
Guest
It’s always refreshing to read when a Prefect of the CDF weighs in on a subject. All the supposed ambiguities disappear. As Prefect, then-Cardinal Ratzinger made similar statements to the above when asked about the Council. I don’t think a thorough and faithful reading of the documents will reveal any ambiguities. A subject may be more emphasized in one place than it is in another, but just because something isn’t hammered home in every sentence doesn’t mean it stops being true. For example, The first documents state that being in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, and that doesn’t get abrogated because, in a later document, dialogue with other faiths is encouraged. My 2 cents.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Something several of us here on CAF have also been aware of for quite some time, have posted about, have offered links to articles, etc. (Not new to us, anyway.
)In fact, these words of his:
“The waves of secularism began to undermine the Church long before the Council, but they accumulated into a tsunami at the same time as the great event of the Council”
were virtually identical to some of what we have said, without being aware of this interview. Some of us called it A Perfect Storm (I know I did); once one of us may have even used the same term, “tsunami.”
This we have also spoken about on CAF, because we’ve been aware of it. (Merely confirming that on the part of many of us, it is not new information, but it certainly confirms that we’re not crazy or over-imaginative.)“Partly because of this co-incidence, a certain type of secularism then found its way into the inner circles of the Church. The result is that we now not only have secularism coming from outside the Church, but we have a type of liberalism within the Church which has caused us to loose our direction a little.”
…Further echoing what is obvious to many of us. It may also be very obvious to others who have not spoken about it on CAF; however, a great deal of the whistling-past-the-graveyward talk is coming from those who deny that there is (a) the effect of secularism within the Church, or even the existence of secularism within the Church (b) that many in the Church did and still do regard the Church as a mainly or even strictly social agency, a role which the Cardinal is denying.
“But the role of the Church is not only to help in the social field; its secondary mission is to help the bonum commune [the common good], but the first reason for its existence is to preach the Gospel and thus give hope to the world. Therefore, we have an interlinking between the event of the Council and assault of secularism. … …We must look to our own resources – the Scriptures, the Fathers, the dogmatic teachings of the Church - and, like a good captain, steer the way ahead.”
Hopefully this looking to our own resources will be done soon? Steering the way ahead instead of not realizing that we are being steered?
“the Second Vatican Council repeats that we are not free to reject the truth. It is on another level, on the level of human rights, that everyone has to be true to him or herself and act according to his or her own conscience.”
In the second sentence he is speaking of the ecumenical dimension.
Furthermore, the Church cannot, on the doctrinal level, contradict herself – that is impossible.
Your Eminence, a majority of two generations of Catholics do not know this.
“Any perceived contradiction is caused by false interpretation.”
Yeah, no kididng. And that’s what we (still) have today: false interpretation.
“Was the Council binding or merely pastoral?”
"The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral”. All Councils are pastoral in that they are concerned with the work of the Church - but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. "
Of course, those of us (YoungTradCath, myself, others) who have discussed poetic language have never said that the poetic language (or any other aspect of the council) was “not binding.” Quite the opposite. But here’s where the confusion arose, on the part of the laity:
[cont’d…]
Yeah, no kididng. And that’s what we (still) have today: false interpretation.
“Was the Council binding or merely pastoral?”
"The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral”. All Councils are pastoral in that they are concerned with the work of the Church - but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. "
Of course, those of us (YoungTradCath, myself, others) who have discussed poetic language have never said that the poetic language (or any other aspect of the council) was “not binding.” Quite the opposite. But here’s where the confusion arose, on the part of the laity:
[cont’d…]
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
[continuing…]
“the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels.”
In his words that follow, he’s not necessary referring to this, but I am:
The formal and official direction of the Church is set by the hierarchy, not by the laity. Laity has an influence, as part of the People of God. But they are not the directors, not the editors of Magisterial teaching, not the discerners & authors of essential dogma, individually or collectively – not through the exercise of indiividual conscience, not through Parish Councils, not by committee, not because “The Holy Spirit tells me so.”. Many of us have witnessed, even if His Eminence does not (or does not mention it in this interview) that the laity, even some clergy (less so) no longer regard the Holy See as the prime authority in the Church.
This development – and it is a fact – has serious consequences for the unity of the Church, not to mention the clarity, both internally and to the world. Judging from internal and external surveys of Catholics, it is not possible that the majority of Catholics, who are opposing doctrine in their stated beliefs and individual lifestyles, are submitting to “doctrine which has not changed,” in some fundamental areas (not regarding custom or discipline). The spirit of autonomy remains the controlling dynamic among Catholic laity, post-V2. His Eminence can say all he wants (and he is correct), that the influence of secularism has affected the perceived integrity of the Church, but those effects do not disturb the majority of Catholics, even though its reality disturbs the work of the salvation of souls.
Therefore, ironically, it is not the (mainline, anyway) traditionalists who do not view the Council as binding: It is the majority of post-V2 Catholics who informally and by their behavior declare independence from “the doctrines which do not change.”
“the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels.”
In his words that follow, he’s not necessary referring to this, but I am:
The formal and official direction of the Church is set by the hierarchy, not by the laity. Laity has an influence, as part of the People of God. But they are not the directors, not the editors of Magisterial teaching, not the discerners & authors of essential dogma, individually or collectively – not through the exercise of indiividual conscience, not through Parish Councils, not by committee, not because “The Holy Spirit tells me so.”. Many of us have witnessed, even if His Eminence does not (or does not mention it in this interview) that the laity, even some clergy (less so) no longer regard the Holy See as the prime authority in the Church.
This development – and it is a fact – has serious consequences for the unity of the Church, not to mention the clarity, both internally and to the world. Judging from internal and external surveys of Catholics, it is not possible that the majority of Catholics, who are opposing doctrine in their stated beliefs and individual lifestyles, are submitting to “doctrine which has not changed,” in some fundamental areas (not regarding custom or discipline). The spirit of autonomy remains the controlling dynamic among Catholic laity, post-V2. His Eminence can say all he wants (and he is correct), that the influence of secularism has affected the perceived integrity of the Church, but those effects do not disturb the majority of Catholics, even though its reality disturbs the work of the salvation of souls.
Therefore, ironically, it is not the (mainline, anyway) traditionalists who do not view the Council as binding: It is the majority of post-V2 Catholics who informally and by their behavior declare independence from “the doctrines which do not change.”
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Again, whether or not there were ambiguities within the documents, they were interpreted ambiguously (accidentally or deliberately, or both), and those ambiguous interpretations have altered the direction, and I will argue, the stature of the Church, for two full generations.
S
sw85
Guest
And, worse still, have gone largely unchallenged.
- Status