Vatican Ii Embraced Modernism

[mortify ii]

An Historian,

What's significant is that this is probably one of the first public admissions of a rupture from a high ranking Cardinal. The partyline for the past sixty years was that there was no change in teaching between the Church of past and present after Vatican II.

[Nihil Obstat]

3. The cardinal in question is, in fact, openly flouting church teaching. This really doesn't seem all that plausible to me. I understand many who style themselves traditionalists are instantly suspicious of everything Pope Francis or anyone associated with him does, but it seems highly unlikely that this would happen without immediate condemnation from someone other than traddy pundits.

Just because I am a hard-hitting, no-nonsense pilgrim who simply seeks the truth and asks the tough questions that everyone else is afraid to ask ( :| :| :| ) . . .
 
Is it impossible that there is an element of truth to this? Like... is it unthinkable that things have gone wrong here and there, and traditionalists recognized it first, or more clearly recognized the root causes?

 

Call that devil's advocate if you like. 

[An Historian]

An Historian,

What's significant is that this is probably one of the first public admissions of a rupture from a high ranking Cardinal. The partyline for the past sixty years was that there was no change in teaching between the Church of past and present after Vatican II.

 

No it is not.  It is a Cardinal's opinion that a rupture occurred.  But that is not the case.  The Council documents are abysmal in their attempt to explain the faith, they are extraordinarily poor in their structure and presentation and without a doubt they can be read in an unorthodox light.  Which is one of their weaknesses.  But at the same time they can be read in light of tradition and properly understood.  And a Catholic's obligation is to view the documents and understand them in light of the Church's mind which began 2000 years ago.  Taking [i]Lumen gentium[/i] as an example people claim that it teaches non-baptised persons that die in a state of invincible ignorance will be saved.  They say that the Church teaches non-Christians can be saved.  Yet you wont actually find this teaching in the document [i]Lumen gentium[/i] and in fact the same [i]Lumen gentium[/i] itself and other documents of Vatican II contradict this claim.  It is all about proper understanding.

[arfink]

St. Thomas Aquinas was condemned as a heretic for teaching Aristotelianism when it was all the rage in 11th century academia, and was later made a doctor of the Church. I am of the opinion that condemnation of modernism as a whole is incredibly overbroad. The previous condemnations of modernism issued by the Church deal with specific issues in modernism.

 

Of course, I am approaching from the mindset of a philosopher, and thinking about modernism as a system of thought rather than a list of anathemas.

[An Historian]

St. Thomas Aquinas was condemned as a heretic for teaching Aristotelianism when it was all the rage in 11th century academia, and was later made a doctor of the Church. I am of the opinion that condemnation of modernism as a whole is incredibly overbroad. The previous condemnations of modernism issued by the Church deal with specific issues in modernism.

 

Of course, I am approaching from the mindset of a philosopher, and thinking about modernism as a system of thought rather than a list of anathemas.

 

Ah but that's the thing.  Modernism has been condemned by a list of anathemas.  Saint Thomas Aquinas was not.  There was conflict amongst the theological schools but you have misrepresented the historical case of Saint Thomas.  He was never condemned by a Pope for his theology and philosophy or an ecumenical council or even a local synod.  Your comparison between the Modernists and Saint Thomas falls wholly flat on this single point.  Saint Thomas struggled against other schoolmen and theologians.  Modernists have been outright condemned by the Church's Magisterium.  Quite frankly your post is insulting against the memory of the Angelic Doctor.

[Nihil Obstat]

St. Thomas Aquinas was condemned as a heretic for teaching Aristotelianism when it was all the rage in 11th century academia, and was later made a doctor of the Church. I am of the opinion that condemnation of modernism as a whole is incredibly overbroad. The previous condemnations of modernism issued by the Church deal with specific issues in modernism.

 

Of course, I am approaching from the mindset of a philosopher, and thinking about modernism as a system of thought rather than a list of anathemas.

What aspects of Modernism do you think should be reconciled to the Faith?

[KnightofChrist]

St. Thomas Aquinas was condemned as a heretic for teaching Aristotelianism when it was all the rage in 11th century academia, and was later made a doctor of the Church. I am of the opinion that condemnation of modernism as a whole is incredibly overbroad. The previous condemnations of modernism issued by the Church deal with specific issues in modernism.

 

Of course, I am approaching from the mindset of a philosopher, and thinking about modernism as a system of thought rather than a list of anathemas.

 

Some of St. Thomas Aquinas' works were condemned, by a lone Bishop, not by numerous Popes, and a Church Council. Vatican II could not have simply liberated what previous popes condemned, and what a prior Council condemned. Not without seeming to cause a break or a contradiction.

[Nihil Obstat]

Recent condemnations of Modernism and its pernicious sibling Americanism seem pretty strong to me, and very in keeping with the Faith.

[An Historian]

Some of St. Thomas Aquinas' works were condemned, by a lone Bishop, not by numerous Popes, and a Church Council. Vatican II could not have simply liberated what previous popes condemned, and what a prior Council condemned. Not without seeming to cause a break or a contradiction.

 

Yes this bears saying.  That lone bishop that condemned certain propositions of Thomistic thought did so three years after his death and did not condemn him during the Angelic Doctor's regency at Paris.  He waited until he was gone before he made his move.  And let it be remembered Saint Thoams died in service to an ecumenical council and a Pope.

 

Any modernists that can say the same?

[NotreDame]

Did some googling.  Here is the full speech. 

 

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-councils-unfinished-business.html

 

I haven't read it yet.

 

I went back and read the beginning of the speech... When you read the quote in context, it's much less contraversial:

 

 The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person.

The Vatican II Council officially acknowledged that things had changed, and captured the need for such a change in its Documents, which emphasized truths such as these:

1º) The Church is not the hierarchy, but the people of God. “The People of God” is, for the Council, the all-encompassing reality of the Church that goes back to the basic and the common stuff of our ecclesial condition; namely, our condition as believers. And that is a condition shared by us all. The hierarchy has no purpose in itself and for itself, but only in reference and subordination to the community. The function of the hierarchy is redefined in reference to Jesus as Suffering Servant, not as “Pantocrator” (lord and emperor of this world); only from the perspective of someone crucified by the powers of this world it is possible to found, and to explain, the authority of the Church. The hierarchy is a ministry (diakonia = service) that requires lowering ourselves to the condition of servants. To take that place (the place of weakness and poverty) is her own, her very own responsibility.

2º). Within the people, there is not a dual classification of Christians –laity and clergy, essentially different. The Church as a “society of unequals” disappears: “There is, therefore, in Christ and in the Church no inequality” (LG 12 32).
 

I'd go read the whole speech before letting that one quote get you wound up (though that one quote is all I had previously seen on blogs.)

[KnightofChrist]

I guess then the question would be, where did the First Vatican Council "condemn" points 1 and 2?

[NotreDame]

I guess then the question would be, where did the First Vatican Council "condemn" points 1 and 2?

 

Yeah, there's no hermeneutic of continuity between even those two paragaphs, lol. 

 

It sounds bad to say, but I sometimes think these guys aren't so bright.  If you are surrounded by guys all pursuing their personal sanctity it only takes a little opportunism to get promoted.

[mortify ii]

No it is not. It is a Cardinal's opinion that a rupture occurred. But that is not the case. The Council documents are abysmal in their attempt to explain the faith, they are extraordinarily poor in their structure and presentation and without a doubt they can be read in an unorthodox light. Which is one of their weaknesses. But at the same time they can be read in light of tradition and properly understood. And a Catholic's obligation is to view the documents and understand them in light of the Church's mind which began 2000 years ago. Taking Lumen gentium as an example people claim that it teaches non-baptised persons that die in a state of invincible ignorance will be saved. They say that the Church teaches non-Christians can be saved. Yet you wont actually find this teaching in the document Lumen gentium and in fact the same Lumen gentium itself and other documents of Vatican II contradict this claim. It is all about proper understanding.

Whether or not a rupture occurred is a whole new topic. I just find it interesting that one of the highest ranking Cardinals admits to what traditional Catholics have always been saying.

[Nihil Obstat]

Whether or not a rupture occurred is a whole new topic. I just find it interesting that one of the highest ranking Cardinals admits to what traditional Catholics have always been saying.

It is not necessary an all or nothing proposition. It is no secret that I consider myself a traditionalist, but nor do I believe that a wholesale comprehensive rupture occurred. 

[Aloysius]

I think this interpretation you are making is overblown.  The Benedictine heremeneutic of continuity still reigns at the Vatican.  This lone speech was awkwardly worded... but it's no secret that the post-conciliar hierarchy no longer calls out a heresy that they name as "modernism".  the Cardinal is basically saying that the thing that was called "modernism" doesn't exactly exist... which in many ways is true.  "modernism" may have been the synthesis of all heresies, but it was also very much a particular product of its time.  while current modern heresies may also make the same errors, it is hardly accurate to consider them quite the same as the heresy of "modernism" such as it was.

 

anyway, the awkwardness of the quote comes when he calls the thing that Vatican II began to cease hostilities with the same thing as that which was condemned at Vatican I.  but then when he gives his points 1 and 2, it's clear that's a little bit of a strange way to state the point he was trying to make.  

 

the internal inconsistencies of the speech coupled with the fact that there has been every indication that the Vatican still promotes the hermeneutic of continuity leads me to say that the speech wasn't carefuly crafted, it's awkward and slightly inaccurate, and it didn't quite mean something as bad as it sounded like it meant.  on the same token, I wouldn't unequivocally say that it is absolutely certain that the Cardinal himself doesn't view the history of modernism as a heresy quite differently than what I think the correct view should be... but until he starts actually promoting the modernist errors**, we can't say anything other than that he gave a bit of a strangely worded speech that didn't seem internally consistent. 

 

**(I would like to note that he didn't even go into the controversial points you would expect him to go into--religious liberty and such--which are the points of contention most associated with the "rupture" question, further indicating that this was a case of blurry imprecise wording rather than a signal that a hermeneutic of rupture was back on the rise in the Vatican)