Vatican II Ambiguities

[YoungTradCath]

This is exactly right. The attitudes of many of the influential theologians during the events prior and during V2 were that of a fundamental reform of how the Catholic Church was approaching theology; the objective by its very nature was to challenge; yet we shan’t dare contend the “ambiguity” of V2.

I’ve been Spotlighting the V2 Document ‘Gaudium et Spes’ (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World).

There is something undeniably peculiar about this document. Drawing my attention was the fact that the theologian Marie-Dominique Chenu played a pivotal role in the authoring of the document… now this is someone who I’ve just learnt was a founder of the notoriously progressive theological journal ‘Concilium’ (along side the likes of Hans Küng who’s just had his authority to teach Catholic theology rescinded by the Vatican).

What I find even more worrisome is that Chenu’s book “Le Saulchoir: Une école de la théologie” (which was published in 1937) was put on the Index librorum prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) in 1942 by Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office for being heretical.

He was heavily associated with the “left wing” of the reformist movement Nouvelle Théologie, and the plot thickened after I read the Exposé of the “Nouvelle Théologie” by Chenu’s former instructor and teacher Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (an outspoken traditionalist and Thomist) which was published in the journal ‘Angelicum’ in 1946.

The fact that this man(Chenu) was an advisor and author of one of the Four Constitutions of the Second Vatican Council is quite literally an outrage.

Maybe an outrage, but we can always be assured that the Holy Spirit will never allow a Council to teach abject error.

 

[Sirach2]

Greg_N:

I’ve been Spotlighting the V2 Document ‘Gaudium et Spes’ (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World).

There is something undeniably peculiar about this document. Drawing my attention was the fact that the theologian Marie-Dominique Chenu played a pivotal role in the authoring of the document… now this is someone who I’ve just learnt was a founder of the notoriously progressive theological journal Consilium (along side the likes of Hans Küng who’s just had his authority to teach Catholic theology rescinded by the Vatican).

I’m really not finding a source to match your claim about this periti’s authorship of G.S.
On the contrary, your link to Four Constitutions states that …

*Archbishop Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II had a significant impact **on **Gaudium et Spes. Karol Wojtyla worked very hard on the draft of *Gaudium et Spes, making over 80 amendments to the text during the Council.

Furthermore, the vote shown for this document, not only here, but in another source that I checked, was 2,309 yes – 75 no. This is an overwhelming majority, obviously. Now unless you can demonstrate that these Councillors were completely ignorant and relied on the guidance of a simple ‘periti’ to influence their minds, it is far from being worthy of belief.

Nevertheless, I do not see how this information you submitted is helpful to the reader, but attempts to polarize people away from faith in the Church and plant doubts in their minds. A person can rightfully wonder about the motive in spreading such a report, using great care to present many links of substantiating evidence.

 

[clem456]

Now unless you can demonstrate that these Councillors were completely ignorant and relied on the guidance of a simple ‘periti’ to influence their minds, it is far from being worthy of belief.

Nevertheless, I do not see how this information you submitted is helpful to the reader, but attempts to polarize people away from faith in the Church and plant doubts in their minds. A person can rightfully wonder about the motive in spreading such a report, using great care to present many links of substantiating evidence.

What is the wisdom of a Church council in light of individual worry and fear?

What** I** find even more worrisome…

 

[Sirach2]

clem456:

What is the wisdom of a Church council in light of individual worry and fear?

What** I**

find even more worrisome…

To quote his full sentence, Clem …

What I find even more worrisome is that Chenu’s book “Le Saulchoir: Une école de la théologie” (which was published in 1937) was put on the Index librorum prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) in 1942 by Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office for being heretical.

I believe we can dismiss this comment as being agenda-driven. For one to have researched this person thoroughly, and then deliberately omit a very substantial sentence such as this, is peculiar.

Although his book Le Saulchoir: Une école de la théologie was put on the Index librorum prohibitorum in 1942 by Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office, because of its then progressive ideas about the role of historical studies in theology,** he was later exonerated and his theology embraced by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.**

I would hope that Greg_N would read this instead.

 

[CrossofChrist]

This is exactly right. The attitudes of many of the influential theologians during the events prior and during V2 were that of a fundamental reform of how the Catholic Church was approaching theology; the objective by its very nature was to challenge; yet we shan’t dare contend the “ambiguity” of V2.

The objectives of Vatican II:

1. To more fully define the nature of the church and the role of the bishop
2. To renew the church
3. To restore unity among all Christians, including seeking pardon for Catholic contributions to separation
4. To start a dialogue with the contemporary world

I’ve been Spotlighting the V2 Document ‘Gaudium et Spes’ (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World).

There is something undeniably peculiar about this document. Drawing my attention was the fact that the theologian Marie-Dominique Chenu played a pivotal role in the authoring of the document… now this is someone who I’ve just learnt was a founder of the notoriously progressive theological journal ‘Concilium’ (along side the likes of Hans Küng who’s just had his authority to teach Catholic theology rescinded by the Vatican).

I’m not that familiar with Chenu so I can’t do much in terms of commenting on him, but he didn’t found Concilium. That was Rahner, Congar, etc etc.

What I find even more worrisome is that Chenu’s book “Le Saulchoir: Une école de la théologie” (which was published in 1937) was put on the Index librorum prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) in 1942 by Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office for being heretical.

Some saints had books that the Holy See prohibited. Not necessarily damnable.

He was heavily associated with the “left wing” of the reformist movement Nouvelle Théologie, and the plot thickened after I read the Exposé of the “Nouvelle Théologie” by Chenu’s former instructor and teacher Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (an outspoken traditionalist and Thomist) which was published in the journal ‘Angelicum’ in 1946.

The fact that this man(Chenu) was an advisor and author of one of the Four Constitutions of the Second Vatican Council is quite literally an outrage.

While I don’t particularly enjoy the more liberal wing of the New Theology, it isn’t per se bad. Cardinal Schoenborn called Rahner’s and von Balthasar’s theologies complementary.

But perhaps you have a problem with the Nouvelle Theologie in general? Then you probably don’t like the theology of Bl. Pope John Paul II, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, or even Ven. Pope Paul VI. In short, the “new springtime” ushered in by Vatican II isn’t welcomed by you. Hopefully that’s not the case.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I’m really not finding a source to match your claim about this periti’s authorship of G.S.

I’m not either, but the French did significantly influence Gaudium et Spes, so it wouldn’t be surprising if Chenu did as well.

 

[Sirach2]

I’m not either, but the French did significantly influence Gaudium et Spes, so it wouldn’t be surprising if Chenu did as well.

Perhaps, and only “perhaps.” That still does not account for such an overwhelming vote by the Cardinals. Were they dumbstruck?

 

[CrossofChrist]

Perhaps, and only “perhaps.” That still does not account for such an overwhelming vote by the Cardinals. Were they dumbstruck?

It begs the question, “Is the New Theology really that bad?” I mean if it was the driving force behind the Council documents and our previous 3 Popes (not including JPI) seemingly supported it?

 

[jerome_ky]

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.

I would argue that if the conciliar documents are “interpreted ambiguously” then they are misinterpreted.

I do not claim to speak for the Holy Spirit, far be that from the likes of me. But Church teaching is that the Holy Spirit protects the Magisterium from error. From that, we must conclude that the conciliar documents cannot be ambiguous, because ambiguity implies either inducement of doubt or two different meanings. So, let us be charitable to the Holy Spirit of our Lord and presume Him to be wiser than we are. Let us presume that He gave us Vatican II for a very good reason and follow that to its logical conclusion. Perhaps the purpose of Vatican II was to draw out liberal errors so as to expose them. And if it took two full generations to do so, so be it. Our Lord told us there would be tares sown among the wheat. Just my two denarii.

 

[jerome_ky]

It begs the question, “Is the New Theology really that bad?” I mean if it was the driving force behind the Council documents and our previous 3 Popes (not including JPI) seemingly supported it?

That’s not begging the question. “Begging the question” is a logical fallacy.

Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. Nothing personal.

 

[sw85]

But Church teaching is that the Holy Spirit protects the Magisterium from error. From that, we must conclude that the conciliar documents cannot be ambiguous, because ambiguity implies either inducement of doubt or two different meanings.

Ambiguity just means that there is more than one way to understand something and it isn’t clear *just from the words themselves *which way is the right way, nothing else. On this understanding of ambiguity, it can arise from something as simple as leaving out a comma (consider the difference between “I invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin” and “I invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin”). Does the Holy Spirit protect the Church from grammatical error?

Not at all. Christ promised the Church that they would not err in their teachings, but he did not promise that any particular teaching would be particularly clear to any particular group of people at any particular time.