Vatican 2's Infallibility-Where's the Beef?

[Spartacus]

The Church is supposed to be the supreme spiritual authority, and the Roman Pontiff, the supreme authority within the Church. If what he says is vague or seemingly contradictory to earlier teaching then it is our obligation to point this out, as showing respect and adherence to the routine authority of the Pope does not equate to blind submission and/or abstaining from rightful criticism of his fallible statements.

The rhetorical virtue of charity means ascribing to one's interlocutor the strongest possible argument. In this context, it means that, when a Papal statement is ambiguous, you give him the benefit of the doubt instead of accusing him of promoting heresy.

[TimelessTheist]

The rhetorical virtue of charity means ascribing to one's interlocutor the strongest possible argument. In this context, it means that, when a Papal statement is ambiguous, you give him the benefit of the doubt instead of accusing him of promoting heresy.

They clearly state when the texts in question were simply being ambiguous and when they were contradicting earlier Church teaching/tradition. I don't really see an actual response to any of the points listed, or why they're supposedly giving said uncharitable interpretation....and mind you, this is just the first part. It goes into the more serious stuff in later parts.

[Spartacus]

They clearly state when the texts in question were simply being ambiguous and when they were contradicting earlier Church teaching/tradition. I don't really see an actual response to any of the points listed, or why they're supposedly giving said uncharitable interpretation....and mind you, this is just the first part. It goes into the more serious stuff in later parts.

For the sake of clarity, I'd like to make it clear that I have absolutely no intention of writing an extensive point-by-point refutation of a 10-year-old article in an SSPX publication, nor would I be prepared to do so at this moment even if I wanted to. I'd much rather be sure that I'm addressing a specific topic that we are both interested in and can adequately understand before I attempt anything like a refutation.

Of all elements of Vatican II, I would be most prepared to discuss Dignitatis Humanae. If you like, I could make a thread in which we go through it line by line and examine it and its context, including the Syllabus of Errors.

[TimelessTheist]

For the sake of clarity, I'd like to make it clear that I have absolutely no intention of writing an extensive point-by-point refutation of a 10-year-old article in an SSPX publication, nor would I be prepared to do so at this moment even if I wanted to. I'd much rather be sure that I'm addressing a specific topic that we are both interested in and can adequately understand before I attempt anything like a refutation.

Of all elements of Vatican II, I would be most prepared to discuss Dignitatis Humanae. If you like, I could make a thread in which we go through it line by line and examine it and its context, including the Syllabus of Errors.

Well, seeing as how you were only addressing the first part, and not any of the others, just give me one point from the first part, and explain how it's intentionally giving the text an uncharitable interpretation. I'll probably make another thread relating to Dignitatis Humanae a little later if you want. Anyway, this thread is just supposed to be about its infallibility anyway.

[Spartacus]

SECOND ERROR: -The contamination of Catholic doctrine with intrinsically anti-Catholic "modern thinking."

Connected to this unprecedented renunciation of error is another flagrantly grave assertion made by John XXIII in his January 13, 1963, Christmas address to Cardinals. He said that "doctrinal penetration" must occur through "doctrine's more perfect adhesion to fidelity to true doctrine."

However, he followed this by explaining that

true doctrine ought to be expressed using the forms of investigation and literary style of modern thinking, since, to do so, is to sustain the depositum fidei's classic doctrine and is the way to recast it: and this ought to be done patiently, taking into great account that all must be expressed in forms and propositions having a predominantly pastoral character.1

Liberals and modernists had already long recommended that classical doctrine be re-cast in forms imported from "modern thinking." Doing so was specifically condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi2 and his decree Lamentabili which condemned the following:3

§63. The Church shows herself unequal to the task of preserving the ethics of the Gospel, because she clings obstinately to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with present day advances.

§64. The progress of the sciences demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine about God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, the redemption, be recast. (Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, dz 2063, 2064)

In Humani Generis4Pope Pius XII said the same thing. Thus, Pope John XXIII’s predecessors had condemned his proposed doctrine. This is a typical of all modernist errors.

In fact, it is not possible for the categories of "modern thinking" to be applied to Catholic doctrine. In all of its forms modern thinking negates-a priori- the existence of an absolute truth and holds that everything is relative to Man, who is his own absolute value, divinized in all of his manifestations, from instinct to "self-consciousness." This way of thinking is intrinsically opposed to the fundamental truths of the Catholic Church beginning with the idea of God the Creator, of a living God Who has been revealed and incarnated in His Second Person. In the end, modern thinking means only a politics and an ethic. By proposing a similar contamination, Pope John XXIII showed himself to be a disciple of the of the neo-modernists' "New Theology," already condemned by the Magisterium. Regarding the Catholic Church's salvation mission, the needs of the day required of the Second Vatican Council to reinforce the rejection of modern thinking found in the prior popes-from Pius IX to Pius XII. Instead, the Council gave full sway to "the study and expression" of "authentic" and "classic" doctrine via "modern thinking."

Let's look closely at the two statements from Lamentabili, then at the JXXIII quote.

§63. The Church shows herself unequal to the task of preserving the ethics of the Gospel, because she clings obstinately to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with present day advances.

The idea being condemned here is that the Church's credibility on ethics is endangered by resisting "present day advances" because of "immutable doctrines." Exactly what advances and what doctrines are being here discussed is not in fact immediately clear. It could refer to a specific idea or an array of them-- including any number of contemporary pseudosciences, e.g. eugenics and race theory. It is as true today in the context of, for example, embryonic stem cell research. The pope is here rejecting the idea that, because we have found the means through science to achieve a certain task, that we must therefore be allowed to pursue that means.

§64. The progress of the sciences demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine about God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, the redemption, be recast. (Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, dz 2063, 2064)

The idea being here condemned is the proposition that science necessitates a re-examination of doctrine.

Now for J23:

true doctrine ought to be expressed using the forms of investigation and literary style of modern thinking, since, to do so, is to sustain the depositum fidei's classic doctrine and is the way to recast it: and this ought to be done patiently, taking into great account that all must be expressed in forms and propositions having a predominantly pastoral character.

OK, so what the Pope is saying here, in essence, is that theology itself demands re-examination-- not because of the challenge posed by modern science, but because of the very nature of the theological task. Not because the Church's ethical credibility is in question, not because modern science demands it, but because the very nature of divine revelation necessitates it. We aren't adopting a literary approach to Scripture because the world wants us to, but because we want to and because we sincerely believe that these methods can bring us to fuller understanding of the texts.

Therefore, the Pope's statement falls afoul of neither condemnation from Lamentabili, and it is only by mis-reading all three quotes that the author arrives at their conclusions.

___

The two major theological tasks of Vatican II, as they were taught to me, were ressourcement and aggiornamento. Ressourcement (a French word) means a returning to the sources. This means looking at the theologians and their work on their own terms. It means going beyond the prepared textbooks from seminaries and actually reading the original theologians closely to understand what these theologians did and did not teach so as to understand what actually is and is not genuine Catholic doctrine or genuine Catholic theological discourse.

Aggiornamento means "bringing up to date"-- which most emphatically does not mean conforming with the age, and is in fact entirely in keeping with being in opposition to the world. Aggiornamento means understanding how authentic Catholic doctrine-- which we come to understand through ressourcement-- can best express itself to the world in which it finds itself. The Church does not conform to the world: it adapts to it, bringing forth especially those elements of the tradition which the world most needs. Rather than demanding that the world understand the Church on Her own terms or surrendering Herself to the world on the world's terms, we look for a way of translating eternal truths into contemporary language.

[robrecht]

Personally, I do not believe that Vatican II, or any councils or popes or scriptures should be seen as infallible. I know most will consider this view as heretical but I dare say it is a majority view among Catholic theologians, at least among the hundred or so 'Catholic' theologians that I have known personally.

[TimelessTheist]

Let's look closely at the two statements from Lamentabili, then at the JXXIII quote.

§63. The Church shows herself unequal to the task of preserving the ethics of the Gospel, because she clings obstinately to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with present day advances.

The idea being condemned here is that the Church's credibility on ethics is endangered by resisting "present day advances" because of "immutable doctrines." Exactly what advances and what doctrines are being here discussed is not in fact immediately clear. It could refer to a specific idea or an array of them-- including any number of contemporary pseudosciences, e.g. eugenics and race theory. It is as true today in the context of, for example, embryonic stem cell research. The pope is here rejecting the idea that, because we have found the means through science to achieve a certain task, that we must therefore be allowed to pursue that means.

§64. The progress of the sciences demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine about God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, the redemption, be recast. (Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, dz 2063, 2064)

The idea being here condemned is the proposition that science necessitates a re-examination of doctrine.

Now for J23:

true doctrine ought to be expressed using the forms of investigation and literary style of modern thinking, since, to do so, is to sustain the depositum fidei's classic doctrine and is the way to recast it: and this ought to be done patiently, taking into great account that all must be expressed in forms and propositions having a predominantly pastoral character.

OK, so what the Pope is saying here, in essence, is that theology itself demands re-examination-- not because of the challenge posed by modern science, but because of the very nature of the theological task. Not because the Church's ethical credibility is in question, not because modern science demands it, but because the very nature of divine revelation necessitates it. We aren't adopting a literary approach to Scripture because the world wants us to, but because we want to and because we sincerely believe that these methods can bring us to fuller understanding of the texts.

Therefore, the Pope's statement falls afoul of neither condemnation from Lamentabili, and it is only by mis-reading all three quotes that the author arrives at their conclusions.

___

The two major theological tasks of Vatican II, as they were taught to me, were ressourcement and aggiornamento. Ressourcement (a French word) means a returning to the sources. This means looking at the theologians and their work on their own terms. It means going beyond the prepared textbooks from seminaries and actually reading the original theologians closely to understand what these theologians did and did not teach so as to understand what actually is and is not genuine Catholic doctrine or genuine Catholic theological discourse.

Aggiornamento means "bringing up to date"-- which most emphatically does not mean conforming with the age, and is in fact entirely in keeping with being in opposition to the world. Aggiornamento means understanding how authentic Catholic doctrine-- which we come to understand through ressourcement-- can best express itself to the world in which it finds itself. The Church does not conform to the world: it adapts to it, bringing forth especially those elements of the tradition which the world most needs. Rather than demanding that the world understand the Church on Her own terms or surrendering Herself to the world on the world's terms, we look for a way of translating eternal truths into contemporary language.

Alright, fair enough.

[robrecht]

Personally, I do not believe that Vatican II, or any councils or popes or scriptures should be seen as infallible. I know most will consider this view as heretical but I dare say it is a majority view among Catholic theologians, at least among the hundred or so 'Catholic' theologians that I have known personally.

Hi, Spartacus.

What about you? Do you think this might be the majority view of the theology professors you had at Notre Dame? I know back in the day it was considered a hotbed of heresy and dissent. Is that still the case today?

[Spartacus]

Hi, Spartacus.

What about you? Do you think this might be the majority view of the theology professors you had at Notre Dame? I know back in the day it was considered a hotbed of heresy and dissent. Is that still the case today?

The teachers I had in the Theology department were all pretty good. The most infamous professors, as I understand it, don't teach very often if at all.

Oddly enough, there weren't many discussions of the nature of magisterial authority or the conflict between Papal and Conciliar authority (the most direct encounter I had was actually in a political science course), though we read Pastor Aeternus in one of my courses. Frankly, I don't know what they believe about Church infallibility, though I strongly suspect most of the Theology professors I had for class or interacted with extensively would ascribe to it (the one certain exception being the Jewish professor).

And then there's this bit, where a number of ND professors wrote essays on Pope Benedict's work and presented the collected works to him: http://www.todayscatholicnews.org/20...om-notre-dame/ .

tl;dr ND Theology seems orthodox afaict

[robrecht]

... The most infamous professors, as I understand it, don't teach very often if at all. ...

There used to be a (unwritten?) rule at Notre Dame that every professor, no matter how famous or infamous, was required to teach undergraduates. Hesburgh used to tell a story about firing (or refusing to hire) some hotshot academic who refused to teach undergrads. Is that no longer the case?

[Spartacus]

There used to be a (unwritten?) rule at Notre Dame that every professor, no matter how famous or infamous, was required to teach undergraduates. Hesburgh used to tell a story about firing (or refusing to hire) some hotshot academic who refused to teach undergrads. Is that no longer the case?

I mean they're either retired or semi-retired.

[TimelessTheist]

Hi, Spartacus.

What about you? Do you think this might be the majority view of the theology professors you had at Notre Dame? I know back in the day it was considered a hotbed of heresy and dissent. Is that still the case today?

Well, whether people say it is or not, that definitely is a heretical view.

[TimelessTheist]

I mean they're either retired or semi-retired.

Oh, and you can make that thread about Dignitatis Humanae if you want, Spartacus.

[robrecht]

Well, whether people say it is or not, that definitely is a heretical view.

Would you call this heresy 'modernism', or do you have a more specific name for it?

[TimelessTheist]

Would you call this heresy 'modernism', or do you have a more specific name for it?

I don't know. I'm pretty sure even modernists affirm the infallibility of dogmatic councils, or if they don't, they certainly do so with the scriptures. Then again, modernism cover a lot of heretical thinking, so I don't know.