The very idea that looking to be the past entails heresy or being in schism is a rather odd concept for a religion based on a God-man who walked the earth 2000 years ago.
I've never come across anything in the VII documents that can't be understood as being in continuity with the Tradition of the Church. I've also come across some things that can very easily be confused as not being in continuity. Further, I've seen TONS of churchmen who in the immediate aftermath of VII went off the rails and sited VII as justification. Perhaps that's the biggest problem with VII? It's documents are at times seem easily open to heretical interpretations. And since the "confusion" started immediately in the aftermath of the council and was so often fomented by the very men responsible for the documents, perhaps some of those bishops had less than orthodox ideas in their head when they were writing and voting on the documents?
The problem I fear, is that most of the voices given time at the coming Synod on Synodality will be the types at this conference. And let's be clear, many of the voices at this conference, dissent from Church teaching on a host of issues, one only need to see that the main journal used to promote what came out of it, is the National Catholic Reporter.
I genuinely don’t understand the concern or confusion about calling for parts of Vatican II to be corrected/rescinded. This has already happened to documents issued at valid ecumenical councils of the past. The Council of Constance issued two major documents: Haec Sancta and Frequens. Frequens mandated that ecumenical councils be held at regular intervals and that they be ordinary parts of the governance of the Church. This document has been ignored since the moment it was printed (almost, I think they met twice on schedule before going back to the model of calling councils only to deal with crises in the Church). Haec Sancta made the declaration that the Pope is subject to the authority of an ecumenical council, which gets its authority solely and directly from God. This is heretical and was, at the very least, indirectly rescinded by Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I. And these were dogmatic statements. Vatican II claims to be entirely pastoral. There seems no reason that all or parts of it cannot be undone. I am not claiming that is what should happen. Only that there does not seem to be anything standing in the way of that happening.
I have one observation and one question. First, the observation is that "pastoral" is not the opposite of authoritative. Paul VI did say that that because of its pastoral nature, Vatican II avoided pronouncing dogmas in an extraordinary manner. However, he also said that the teachings of the council are invested with the authority of the ordinary magisterium and must be accepted with docility by all. This is the problem with members of the Church asserting that the council erred; they are not giving the religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings of the council. The ordinary magisterium is in some cases subject to error and reformable, but it can only be reformed by the bishop of Rome or an ecumenical council, and not outright rejected by the faithful.
Second, the question. Was Haec Sancta actually accepted by the Church at any point? It seems that Gregory XII, who is now regarded as the true pope of the time until his resignation, annulled it and the other acts of the Council of Constance up until the second part that elected Martin V. If the principle of papal ratification being required for an ecumenical council to have universal and dogmatic authority is true, then Haec Sancta never had that authority in the first place. This would be in contrast to the decrees of Vatican II being approved and assented to by five successive popes.
I think your interpretation of Constance is incomplete. Martin V, once elected (after Gregory XII), issued the bull Inter Cunctas, which recognized Constance as a valid ecumenical council (which is still the recognition today), and ratified all of its documents. So the situation is exactly the same as what some propose for Vatican II, a valid ecumenical council with ratified documents, some or all of which are later repudiated/ignored (pick your verb).
As for the obedience part. Again, I think your analysis is incomplete. First, we (or at least I) am not a religious. So while I am bound to obedience, not being a religious, I am not bound to religious obedience. Second, while the Church does require docility to the ordinary magisterium, there are caveats. Basically we are to give the benefit of the doubt. Yet, when what is asked is clearly harmful or incorrect, we are no longer bound (definition of “clearly” obviously being a sticking point here). This is clear from the fact that the Church equally requires (through canon law) that the faithful correct the hierarchy (respectfully) when they (the hierarchy) have erred. This fits into the governing principle that obedience is not a law unto itself, but rather in service of the good. To the extent that obedience inhibits the good, it is not to be given.
I understand that you may disagree with me about the obedience part. Honestly, this is an area of active debate. Many think that Catholicism basically teaches Jesuit-style obedience for all members as part of the deposit of faith. This is incorrect. Thomas and Ignatius (or at least his disciples) have competing concepts of obedience, what it is, what it is for, and how it is practiced. There is a decent, if imperfect and a bit biased, essay on this here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/10/tyranny-and-sexual-abuse-in-catholic.html
I agree that Constance was a legitimate ecumenical council and that Martin V approved at least some of its sessions. I think there are various schools of thought among Catholic theologians on the matter, and there have been those who have posited that papal ratification of Constance did not extend to Haec Sancta, and rather only to certain later sessions of the council. There have been other historical cases in which it is certain that an otherwise ecumenical council did not receive papal ratification for certain canons, and those canons thus did not hold universal authority. For example, canon 28 of Chalcedon was not accepted (and in fact annulled) by Leo I. My tentative position would be that Haec Sancta itself did not receive ratification at the time or since, though other decrees of Constance did. I could be incorrect in that- if so, I would say that Haec Sancta did not have a dogmatic or infallible character, but was an error in the ordinary magisterium that was subsequently reversed by the competent authority. If it was dogmatic/infallible, then I think Catholic claims about ecumenical councils are disproved, as two ecumenical councils have infallibly declared teachings contrary to each other, and one must be in error.
I am not under religious vows either, but I think you misunderstood my comment on obedience there. I wasn't sufficiently clear the first time, so that's my fault. What I mean by religious submission of will and intellect is not something specific to religious vows of obedience. It is a term used in Lumen gentium and in canon law (canon 752) for the type of obedience owed by every member of the Christian faithful to what is taught on faith and morals by the college of bishops or the bishop of Rome, even when they do not intend to speak definitively. This is the type of assent that is generally owed to the teachings that Vatican II proposed.
I'm not a canonist, and I'd like to avoid the pitfalls of being an "armchair canonist" as J.D. and Ed have described. But I don't think your description of the faithful's ability to correct the hierarchy is an accurate summary of canon law. I think the following canon (212 §3) is the closest canon law gets to that:
"According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they [the faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons."
Here I'd like to note a few things. First, it is framed as the faithful expressing their opinions, not as correcting the error of their pastors. It should not be assumed that a member of the faithful has better access to the truth of the matter, and even if they do, the actual correction belongs to the competent authority- the superior of the cleric in error, not the faithful. Second, the canon says they should make known their opinion only according to their knowledge and competence. People who are not trained theologians should not be calling for reversals in the teaching of the ordinary magisterium after an hour of online "research" (this is not at all intended to be a description of you, some people I have encountered are like this). They should keep their difficulty and opinion to themselves except in the context of asking questions to better understand the issue. More could be said how about this canon militates against how the average Catholic expresses dissent, though I think we'd agree about the respect due when manifesting an opinion.
With regard to the distinction between different concepts of obedience and the article you linked, I think that is more relevant to prudential and disciplinary matters, while I am concerned primarily with doctrinal ones. I agree that there is greater latitude for disagreement/dissent in prudential matters, e.g. to what extent you should obey your superior if you are asked to act against your conscience.
Sorry for the late reply. Sometimes the day job also becomes a night job.
I think we will likely need to agree to disagree about what obedience means in practice. It’s an ongoing conversation that needs to continue happening because it is really important. But we are at the stage now where we will need essay-length responses and this format isn’t quite suited to that.
As for Constance, I am open to the idea that only some of the documents were ratified. But I need documentary evidence that that is the case. That certainly cannot be the default position, especially in a case where a document does exist ratifying all of the documents.
I would also point out that councils are not infallible, at least not in every part. The only parts of councils that basically everyone agrees are infallible are the canons with associated anathemas. What comes before and after that is generally thought of as (authoritative) gloss that is reformable and fallible. Haec Sancta has no canons and no anathemas. So, no real problem.
I agree about essay-length responses, so we can drop the subject of obedience.
As for Constance, until now I hadn't actually looked at Martin V's actual ratification in Inter cunctas. In the context of questions to be asked to those suspected of adhering to the heresy of Wycliffe or Hus, he says the following: "And so also if he believes that what the sacred council of Constance, which represents the universal church, has approved and approves in favour of the faith and for the salvation of souls, this must be approved and held firm by all the faithful of Christ: and that what it condemned and condemns as contrary to the faith and good morals, this must be held by them, believed and affirmed as condemned."
One reason why I think that this might not be best taken as including Haec Sancta is that he goes on to mention that the canonically elected pope possesses supreme authority in the Church- and it would seem contradictory to simultaneously affirm that proposition and Haec sancta. Martin's successor Eugene IV goes on to affirm the ratifcation of Constance, excluding "any prejudice to the rights, dignity and pre-eminence of the Apostolic See".
I agree that councils are not infallible in every detail, though I don't agree that canons and anathemas are the only sure indicators of infallibility- there have been councils without the two that still have dogmatic force. As I said before, I would agree that Haec sancta certainly was not dogmatic, irreformable or infallible. So yes, assuming that it did receive ratification it poses no real problem to the Church's credibility. However, it also doesn't justify calling for the reversal of Vatican II's content, because of the reasons I gave before.
Spurred in no small part by JD's vote of confidence, I signed up for (and attended, two weekends ago) one of the synodal listening sessions that my archdiocese (Philly) has organized. There are literally dozens of such sessions happening over the next couple months. There were about 25-30 people there, and I was one of three under the age of 50.
But actually, I was pretty happy with how it went. We did not start with tedious introductions or icebreakers, but with a full 20 minute lectio divina on the Road to Emmaus story, and a prayer asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance. My table included a couple of older ladies lamenting the lost "freedom" of the days of Vatican II, and the relative conservatism of their young pastor, and I was able to share with them my own experience of being basically uncatechized in post-V2 1990s CCD, and the younger generations grateful rediscovery of older traditions that have real beauty and shouldn't be thrown out baby-with-bathwater. They seemed genuinely happy to hear from me, and reassured that someone who could like altar rails and chant could also give an unhesitating thumbs-up to the documents of V2 and the Novus Ordo. I was reminded of how many people are still in the pews who were wounded in different ways by their pre-conciliar experiences of being catechized by rote but not evangelized, and whose questions and curiosities were too often stifled instead of answered.
We also had a good discussion on some current issues in the Church, without veering into politics. (The Institute for Church Leadership helped organize these sessions for the Archdiocese and did a phenomenal job.)
Whether any of my table's comments will have an impact up the chain... Well, who can say. But I think we were all edified by participating in the way JD had hoped.
My husband and I participated in a session at our Parish and had a very similar experience. If nothing else comes out of the process, at least we learned the names of some fellow parishioners!
So why doesn't The Pillar organize an actual synodal listening session that connects the biggest players among this secret gathering of the smartest of the smart pro....whatever it is they claim to have a monopoly of being "pro" of, exactly.... and then all a dream team of the biggest players of the "opposition" who can get into the weeds on Vatican II (distinguishing perhaps between text and application), Humane Vitae (and who DID dissent from it, exactly and whatever happened to them?), and all the last 50 years of controversy like who exactly were the players involved in the so-called "American Church" or "parallel magisterium" I heard so much about in the 1990s.
I think it would be the best thing ever if we got 12 vs. 12 on a stage and gave ourselves a whole weekend or week to hash things out, once and for all, without interruptions. Like a Joe Rogan long form podcast but with a stadium of live audience members.
In my experience there's the actual experts....and then there's the public wonks. There's the real players....and then there's the media creations. There are people who grandstand but can't handle any opposition without blowing a gasket like pretty much anyone at NC Reporter.... and then there are people who can argue without becoming emotionally invested and overwrought.
I've personally met many of the cardinals and bishops over the years. To a man they're sharp cookies. Men don't become Cardinals without being able to string together a persuasive (if sometimes slippery) case for their agendas. Professors etc. tend to be smooth as well and comfortable in the high grass, down in the details of who did what, when, why, and how?
But a surprising number of in-side baseball, ad intra Catholic controversies seem to boil down on bad information, innuendo or guesses taken as infallible revelation, rumors and preference cascades taken as much more weightier than the proof or probability warrants. This sort of thing of course makes for engaging media spectacle and drives clicks but works only in echo chambers which is why the fireworks only happen indirectly across 'party lines' rather than in any open debate with both parties across a table from each other.
We need more examples of actual people who can disagree about serious topics without invective, mobs, or passive aggression and hash out their differences or at least demarcate where the borders are between their positions in real time, face to face.
That's a great and interesting idea. I can think of a lot of interesting people I'd invite to a conversation like that. Hope you'll subscribe to The Pillar, so that our little operation can afford big cool projects like that.
Or do a small event. Invite Michael Sean Winters to debate some prominent trad/conservative writer or ask a Dr. Mazza or Scott Hahn to debate or 'dialogue' with one of the university professors in Chicago on the proper interpretive lens for adjudicating what is and is not "progress" in the Church according to just the text of Vatican II (that'd be a hoot.) Or ask just that question to all of them: how do we determine what is "progress" vs. "regress" according to the text (vs. interpretation and application) of Vatican II? How do we know when we're probably being blessed by the Holy Spirit or just spinning our wheels going nowhere fast? Because the metrics on numbers of baptized, confirmed, married, Mass attendance, etc. has been on a downward slide since 1969 so if team Blue are on the side of God, why have their initiatives been so poorly "received" by the sheep? If team Red are retrogrades, rebels, at odds with "the spirit" why are their little initiatives (on shoestring budgets) the only real game in town?
I guess I'm one of those Vatican II per se was inspired but who and how they implemented it is where the problem comes from, people. That makes me annoying to both fringes. I've been around the world, not everyone had clown masses and bad theology post Vatican 2. But like GKChesterton said, if you want a post to remain white you have to re-paint it all the time. So too, if people want to grow the faith, it has to be continually reinforced and here I see a risk for both extremes' retreat into their respective "benedict option" ghettos: they become intellectually lazy and their arguments start to only 'work' among friends. That's why a live debate would be both revelatory and potentially really beneficial to all sides.
Insofar as much of the "reflexive opposition" to Pope Francis is rooted in a similar opposition to the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy's program of reform, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation's promotion of the development of doctrine, and the Declarations on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions and on Religious Freedom's unequivocal changes to the traditional teachings and practices of the Church by admitting that religion and faith are matters of personal conscience and not state coercion, then, yes, these opponents DO advocate turning back the clock.
These discussions of how the left/ right members of the Catholic Church should dialogue and synods should be implemented to reform and renew the Church are all happy talk. The right consists of the old who will unquestionably die believing whatever they choose to believe , and the left wants to move the church away from orthodoxy and doctrines. The trajectory the American Church is clear. Fewer children will be baptized and baptized Catholics will continue to leave while the old/right will die. By 2050 , between deaths and loss of membership the Church will be much smaller. It’s ultimate survival will depend on what it’s overseers want it to be. To grow, it has two problems. First, the young don’t like any “ organized religion” and those looking for a religious home don’t like absolutes. Is the Holy Spirit moving people to find God wherever he might be? Why should anyone want to be part of the Church? Previously members thought faithfulness was a sine qua non for Heaven. Few believe that any more . The sacraments are considered feel good rituals. The Church still believes it is the way , the truth and the light. Others believe He who is those things is not tied to or defined by any organization. How do you deal with that if you want to keep your organization relevant?
The present age does not seem like a big problem to me when I think about times in which people were routinely tortured and killed for professing the (extremely non-relevant) Catholic faith.
One simply has to ask God "please make me a saint" and then try to cooperate with him. It is clear from hagiographies that even one saint can make a startling difference. If we all subscribed to the Pillar (optional) AND all radically submitted to God's will for our individual lives (mandatory), the world would be an exciting and much less predictable place.
I just have to shake my head at the absurdity of a bunch of left-leaning "progressive" prelates bringing in the likes of Massimo Faggioli to 'splain America's conservative and/or trad-leaning Catholics. I mean, talk about tone deaf. Of course, the truth is that they really don't want an explanation of anything of the sort. If they did, they'd invite a Phil Lawler or a Patrick Madrid or a Father Gerry Murray or a Monsignor Charles Pope. No, they don't want information. They want an echo chamber of the comfortable lies that they've been telling each other for decades, and it sounds like that's exactly what they got.
I believe that Pope Francis is the pope and so gains the right to all the "perks" of being the Pope, if that's an appropriate word for it. But it also is extremely concerning to me that first of all any mention of the Pope being at all problematic is met with cancellation of the same degree rampant in American society today. It also is extremely concerning to me that nobody remembers that the statue of Pachamama was fished out of the Tiber and also placed on the altar of St. Peter's in a great show of reverence.
Thanks Ross. I think the phrase "Make __ Great Again" has become a general cultural meme -- at least I see it often enough. So it was something of a joke in light of that. Certainly not intended as any kind of political statement.
The very idea that looking to be the past entails heresy or being in schism is a rather odd concept for a religion based on a God-man who walked the earth 2000 years ago.
I've never come across anything in the VII documents that can't be understood as being in continuity with the Tradition of the Church. I've also come across some things that can very easily be confused as not being in continuity. Further, I've seen TONS of churchmen who in the immediate aftermath of VII went off the rails and sited VII as justification. Perhaps that's the biggest problem with VII? It's documents are at times seem easily open to heretical interpretations. And since the "confusion" started immediately in the aftermath of the council and was so often fomented by the very men responsible for the documents, perhaps some of those bishops had less than orthodox ideas in their head when they were writing and voting on the documents?
The problem I fear, is that most of the voices given time at the coming Synod on Synodality will be the types at this conference. And let's be clear, many of the voices at this conference, dissent from Church teaching on a host of issues, one only need to see that the main journal used to promote what came out of it, is the National Catholic Reporter.
I genuinely don’t understand the concern or confusion about calling for parts of Vatican II to be corrected/rescinded. This has already happened to documents issued at valid ecumenical councils of the past. The Council of Constance issued two major documents: Haec Sancta and Frequens. Frequens mandated that ecumenical councils be held at regular intervals and that they be ordinary parts of the governance of the Church. This document has been ignored since the moment it was printed (almost, I think they met twice on schedule before going back to the model of calling councils only to deal with crises in the Church). Haec Sancta made the declaration that the Pope is subject to the authority of an ecumenical council, which gets its authority solely and directly from God. This is heretical and was, at the very least, indirectly rescinded by Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I. And these were dogmatic statements. Vatican II claims to be entirely pastoral. There seems no reason that all or parts of it cannot be undone. I am not claiming that is what should happen. Only that there does not seem to be anything standing in the way of that happening.
Correct myself. Frequens is clearly pastoral. Haec Sancta is dogmatic.
This is an interesting question, Daniel. I aim to do some reading about it! Thanks for raising it.
Thanks! I look forward to reading your conclusions at some future date!
I have one observation and one question. First, the observation is that "pastoral" is not the opposite of authoritative. Paul VI did say that that because of its pastoral nature, Vatican II avoided pronouncing dogmas in an extraordinary manner. However, he also said that the teachings of the council are invested with the authority of the ordinary magisterium and must be accepted with docility by all. This is the problem with members of the Church asserting that the council erred; they are not giving the religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings of the council. The ordinary magisterium is in some cases subject to error and reformable, but it can only be reformed by the bishop of Rome or an ecumenical council, and not outright rejected by the faithful.
Second, the question. Was Haec Sancta actually accepted by the Church at any point? It seems that Gregory XII, who is now regarded as the true pope of the time until his resignation, annulled it and the other acts of the Council of Constance up until the second part that elected Martin V. If the principle of papal ratification being required for an ecumenical council to have universal and dogmatic authority is true, then Haec Sancta never had that authority in the first place. This would be in contrast to the decrees of Vatican II being approved and assented to by five successive popes.
Thanks for the reply.
I think your interpretation of Constance is incomplete. Martin V, once elected (after Gregory XII), issued the bull Inter Cunctas, which recognized Constance as a valid ecumenical council (which is still the recognition today), and ratified all of its documents. So the situation is exactly the same as what some propose for Vatican II, a valid ecumenical council with ratified documents, some or all of which are later repudiated/ignored (pick your verb).
As for the obedience part. Again, I think your analysis is incomplete. First, we (or at least I) am not a religious. So while I am bound to obedience, not being a religious, I am not bound to religious obedience. Second, while the Church does require docility to the ordinary magisterium, there are caveats. Basically we are to give the benefit of the doubt. Yet, when what is asked is clearly harmful or incorrect, we are no longer bound (definition of “clearly” obviously being a sticking point here). This is clear from the fact that the Church equally requires (through canon law) that the faithful correct the hierarchy (respectfully) when they (the hierarchy) have erred. This fits into the governing principle that obedience is not a law unto itself, but rather in service of the good. To the extent that obedience inhibits the good, it is not to be given.
I understand that you may disagree with me about the obedience part. Honestly, this is an area of active debate. Many think that Catholicism basically teaches Jesuit-style obedience for all members as part of the deposit of faith. This is incorrect. Thomas and Ignatius (or at least his disciples) have competing concepts of obedience, what it is, what it is for, and how it is practiced. There is a decent, if imperfect and a bit biased, essay on this here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/10/tyranny-and-sexual-abuse-in-catholic.html
Thanks for responding.
I agree that Constance was a legitimate ecumenical council and that Martin V approved at least some of its sessions. I think there are various schools of thought among Catholic theologians on the matter, and there have been those who have posited that papal ratification of Constance did not extend to Haec Sancta, and rather only to certain later sessions of the council. There have been other historical cases in which it is certain that an otherwise ecumenical council did not receive papal ratification for certain canons, and those canons thus did not hold universal authority. For example, canon 28 of Chalcedon was not accepted (and in fact annulled) by Leo I. My tentative position would be that Haec Sancta itself did not receive ratification at the time or since, though other decrees of Constance did. I could be incorrect in that- if so, I would say that Haec Sancta did not have a dogmatic or infallible character, but was an error in the ordinary magisterium that was subsequently reversed by the competent authority. If it was dogmatic/infallible, then I think Catholic claims about ecumenical councils are disproved, as two ecumenical councils have infallibly declared teachings contrary to each other, and one must be in error.
I am not under religious vows either, but I think you misunderstood my comment on obedience there. I wasn't sufficiently clear the first time, so that's my fault. What I mean by religious submission of will and intellect is not something specific to religious vows of obedience. It is a term used in Lumen gentium and in canon law (canon 752) for the type of obedience owed by every member of the Christian faithful to what is taught on faith and morals by the college of bishops or the bishop of Rome, even when they do not intend to speak definitively. This is the type of assent that is generally owed to the teachings that Vatican II proposed.
I'm not a canonist, and I'd like to avoid the pitfalls of being an "armchair canonist" as J.D. and Ed have described. But I don't think your description of the faithful's ability to correct the hierarchy is an accurate summary of canon law. I think the following canon (212 §3) is the closest canon law gets to that:
"According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they [the faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons."
Here I'd like to note a few things. First, it is framed as the faithful expressing their opinions, not as correcting the error of their pastors. It should not be assumed that a member of the faithful has better access to the truth of the matter, and even if they do, the actual correction belongs to the competent authority- the superior of the cleric in error, not the faithful. Second, the canon says they should make known their opinion only according to their knowledge and competence. People who are not trained theologians should not be calling for reversals in the teaching of the ordinary magisterium after an hour of online "research" (this is not at all intended to be a description of you, some people I have encountered are like this). They should keep their difficulty and opinion to themselves except in the context of asking questions to better understand the issue. More could be said how about this canon militates against how the average Catholic expresses dissent, though I think we'd agree about the respect due when manifesting an opinion.
With regard to the distinction between different concepts of obedience and the article you linked, I think that is more relevant to prudential and disciplinary matters, while I am concerned primarily with doctrinal ones. I agree that there is greater latitude for disagreement/dissent in prudential matters, e.g. to what extent you should obey your superior if you are asked to act against your conscience.
Sorry for the late reply. Sometimes the day job also becomes a night job.
I think we will likely need to agree to disagree about what obedience means in practice. It’s an ongoing conversation that needs to continue happening because it is really important. But we are at the stage now where we will need essay-length responses and this format isn’t quite suited to that.
As for Constance, I am open to the idea that only some of the documents were ratified. But I need documentary evidence that that is the case. That certainly cannot be the default position, especially in a case where a document does exist ratifying all of the documents.
I would also point out that councils are not infallible, at least not in every part. The only parts of councils that basically everyone agrees are infallible are the canons with associated anathemas. What comes before and after that is generally thought of as (authoritative) gloss that is reformable and fallible. Haec Sancta has no canons and no anathemas. So, no real problem.
I agree about essay-length responses, so we can drop the subject of obedience.
As for Constance, until now I hadn't actually looked at Martin V's actual ratification in Inter cunctas. In the context of questions to be asked to those suspected of adhering to the heresy of Wycliffe or Hus, he says the following: "And so also if he believes that what the sacred council of Constance, which represents the universal church, has approved and approves in favour of the faith and for the salvation of souls, this must be approved and held firm by all the faithful of Christ: and that what it condemned and condemns as contrary to the faith and good morals, this must be held by them, believed and affirmed as condemned."
One reason why I think that this might not be best taken as including Haec Sancta is that he goes on to mention that the canonically elected pope possesses supreme authority in the Church- and it would seem contradictory to simultaneously affirm that proposition and Haec sancta. Martin's successor Eugene IV goes on to affirm the ratifcation of Constance, excluding "any prejudice to the rights, dignity and pre-eminence of the Apostolic See".
I agree that councils are not infallible in every detail, though I don't agree that canons and anathemas are the only sure indicators of infallibility- there have been councils without the two that still have dogmatic force. As I said before, I would agree that Haec sancta certainly was not dogmatic, irreformable or infallible. So yes, assuming that it did receive ratification it poses no real problem to the Church's credibility. However, it also doesn't justify calling for the reversal of Vatican II's content, because of the reasons I gave before.
Spurred in no small part by JD's vote of confidence, I signed up for (and attended, two weekends ago) one of the synodal listening sessions that my archdiocese (Philly) has organized. There are literally dozens of such sessions happening over the next couple months. There were about 25-30 people there, and I was one of three under the age of 50.
But actually, I was pretty happy with how it went. We did not start with tedious introductions or icebreakers, but with a full 20 minute lectio divina on the Road to Emmaus story, and a prayer asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance. My table included a couple of older ladies lamenting the lost "freedom" of the days of Vatican II, and the relative conservatism of their young pastor, and I was able to share with them my own experience of being basically uncatechized in post-V2 1990s CCD, and the younger generations grateful rediscovery of older traditions that have real beauty and shouldn't be thrown out baby-with-bathwater. They seemed genuinely happy to hear from me, and reassured that someone who could like altar rails and chant could also give an unhesitating thumbs-up to the documents of V2 and the Novus Ordo. I was reminded of how many people are still in the pews who were wounded in different ways by their pre-conciliar experiences of being catechized by rote but not evangelized, and whose questions and curiosities were too often stifled instead of answered.
We also had a good discussion on some current issues in the Church, without veering into politics. (The Institute for Church Leadership helped organize these sessions for the Archdiocese and did a phenomenal job.)
Whether any of my table's comments will have an impact up the chain... Well, who can say. But I think we were all edified by participating in the way JD had hoped.
cool!
My husband and I participated in a session at our Parish and had a very similar experience. If nothing else comes out of the process, at least we learned the names of some fellow parishioners!
So why doesn't The Pillar organize an actual synodal listening session that connects the biggest players among this secret gathering of the smartest of the smart pro....whatever it is they claim to have a monopoly of being "pro" of, exactly.... and then all a dream team of the biggest players of the "opposition" who can get into the weeds on Vatican II (distinguishing perhaps between text and application), Humane Vitae (and who DID dissent from it, exactly and whatever happened to them?), and all the last 50 years of controversy like who exactly were the players involved in the so-called "American Church" or "parallel magisterium" I heard so much about in the 1990s.
I think it would be the best thing ever if we got 12 vs. 12 on a stage and gave ourselves a whole weekend or week to hash things out, once and for all, without interruptions. Like a Joe Rogan long form podcast but with a stadium of live audience members.
In my experience there's the actual experts....and then there's the public wonks. There's the real players....and then there's the media creations. There are people who grandstand but can't handle any opposition without blowing a gasket like pretty much anyone at NC Reporter.... and then there are people who can argue without becoming emotionally invested and overwrought.
I've personally met many of the cardinals and bishops over the years. To a man they're sharp cookies. Men don't become Cardinals without being able to string together a persuasive (if sometimes slippery) case for their agendas. Professors etc. tend to be smooth as well and comfortable in the high grass, down in the details of who did what, when, why, and how?
But a surprising number of in-side baseball, ad intra Catholic controversies seem to boil down on bad information, innuendo or guesses taken as infallible revelation, rumors and preference cascades taken as much more weightier than the proof or probability warrants. This sort of thing of course makes for engaging media spectacle and drives clicks but works only in echo chambers which is why the fireworks only happen indirectly across 'party lines' rather than in any open debate with both parties across a table from each other.
We need more examples of actual people who can disagree about serious topics without invective, mobs, or passive aggression and hash out their differences or at least demarcate where the borders are between their positions in real time, face to face.
That's a great and interesting idea. I can think of a lot of interesting people I'd invite to a conversation like that. Hope you'll subscribe to The Pillar, so that our little operation can afford big cool projects like that.
Or do a small event. Invite Michael Sean Winters to debate some prominent trad/conservative writer or ask a Dr. Mazza or Scott Hahn to debate or 'dialogue' with one of the university professors in Chicago on the proper interpretive lens for adjudicating what is and is not "progress" in the Church according to just the text of Vatican II (that'd be a hoot.) Or ask just that question to all of them: how do we determine what is "progress" vs. "regress" according to the text (vs. interpretation and application) of Vatican II? How do we know when we're probably being blessed by the Holy Spirit or just spinning our wheels going nowhere fast? Because the metrics on numbers of baptized, confirmed, married, Mass attendance, etc. has been on a downward slide since 1969 so if team Blue are on the side of God, why have their initiatives been so poorly "received" by the sheep? If team Red are retrogrades, rebels, at odds with "the spirit" why are their little initiatives (on shoestring budgets) the only real game in town?
I guess I'm one of those Vatican II per se was inspired but who and how they implemented it is where the problem comes from, people. That makes me annoying to both fringes. I've been around the world, not everyone had clown masses and bad theology post Vatican 2. But like GKChesterton said, if you want a post to remain white you have to re-paint it all the time. So too, if people want to grow the faith, it has to be continually reinforced and here I see a risk for both extremes' retreat into their respective "benedict option" ghettos: they become intellectually lazy and their arguments start to only 'work' among friends. That's why a live debate would be both revelatory and potentially really beneficial to all sides.
Insofar as much of the "reflexive opposition" to Pope Francis is rooted in a similar opposition to the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy's program of reform, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation's promotion of the development of doctrine, and the Declarations on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions and on Religious Freedom's unequivocal changes to the traditional teachings and practices of the Church by admitting that religion and faith are matters of personal conscience and not state coercion, then, yes, these opponents DO advocate turning back the clock.
These discussions of how the left/ right members of the Catholic Church should dialogue and synods should be implemented to reform and renew the Church are all happy talk. The right consists of the old who will unquestionably die believing whatever they choose to believe , and the left wants to move the church away from orthodoxy and doctrines. The trajectory the American Church is clear. Fewer children will be baptized and baptized Catholics will continue to leave while the old/right will die. By 2050 , between deaths and loss of membership the Church will be much smaller. It’s ultimate survival will depend on what it’s overseers want it to be. To grow, it has two problems. First, the young don’t like any “ organized religion” and those looking for a religious home don’t like absolutes. Is the Holy Spirit moving people to find God wherever he might be? Why should anyone want to be part of the Church? Previously members thought faithfulness was a sine qua non for Heaven. Few believe that any more . The sacraments are considered feel good rituals. The Church still believes it is the way , the truth and the light. Others believe He who is those things is not tied to or defined by any organization. How do you deal with that if you want to keep your organization relevant?
The present age does not seem like a big problem to me when I think about times in which people were routinely tortured and killed for professing the (extremely non-relevant) Catholic faith.
One simply has to ask God "please make me a saint" and then try to cooperate with him. It is clear from hagiographies that even one saint can make a startling difference. If we all subscribed to the Pillar (optional) AND all radically submitted to God's will for our individual lives (mandatory), the world would be an exciting and much less predictable place.
I just have to shake my head at the absurdity of a bunch of left-leaning "progressive" prelates bringing in the likes of Massimo Faggioli to 'splain America's conservative and/or trad-leaning Catholics. I mean, talk about tone deaf. Of course, the truth is that they really don't want an explanation of anything of the sort. If they did, they'd invite a Phil Lawler or a Patrick Madrid or a Father Gerry Murray or a Monsignor Charles Pope. No, they don't want information. They want an echo chamber of the comfortable lies that they've been telling each other for decades, and it sounds like that's exactly what they got.
I believe that Pope Francis is the pope and so gains the right to all the "perks" of being the Pope, if that's an appropriate word for it. But it also is extremely concerning to me that first of all any mention of the Pope being at all problematic is met with cancellation of the same degree rampant in American society today. It also is extremely concerning to me that nobody remembers that the statue of Pachamama was fished out of the Tiber and also placed on the altar of St. Peter's in a great show of reverence.
Did not appreciate the "make your inbox great again" reference.
Any particular reason?
Yup, it invokes a former POTUS, unnecessarily bringing right wing Politics someplace it serves no role. Our church has enough divisiveness without it.
Thanks Ross. I think the phrase "Make __ Great Again" has become a general cultural meme -- at least I see it often enough. So it was something of a joke in light of that. Certainly not intended as any kind of political statement.