vatican 2 essay notes

7/27/2019 Vatican 2 Essay Notes

1/21

What Did Vatican II ReallyChange...?Protestants!

Issue Date: March/April 1984

Many Protestants believe that the Roman Catholic"Church" has undergone immense changes since thegreat Vatican II Council. It is widely believed that

sweeping changes took place in both doctrine andpractice among Catholics. But the Second VaticanCouncil was really just a facelift whose real success liesin the changes it brought about in Protestants!

An important aspect of the Second Vatican Council isoften overlooked. It is best expressed by this excerptfrom Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner:

An official document, "The Constitution on the Church,"prepared by the Council and promulgated by the pope,reaffirms basic Roman Catholic doctrine precisely as itstood before the Council met... The doctrine of papalinfallibility is restated. We are told that when by adefinitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith andmorals... his definitions, of themselves, and not fromthe consent of the Church, are justly styledirreformable (Article 25).

The pope has lost none of his power. He remains theabsolute ruler in the Roman church. But if papaldecrees, past and present, are "irreformable," whathope is there for reform in the Roman church?

The change made by the Second Vatican Council,

ending in 1965, were in liturgy, administrative practicesand, most important, in ecumenism. While admitting


2/21


3/21

to work to bring about this unity. Catholics were eventaught the vocabulary of the evangelical Christian,although the words were given different meanings thatwould not conflict with their relic and Mary worship.

The effect has been dramatic. Weary of the struggleagainst Rome, Protestant leaders have abandoned thewarnings of the Scriptures, and rushed pell-mell towardsharing a yoke with the idolaters of Rome. The SecondVatican Council continues to be a global success, astroke of genius to disarm and deceive the truebelievers in Christ.

VATICAN 2: A FAILURE!?

Although the Second Vatican Council ought to beunderstood as the most recent stage of the twomillenium old growth or development of the Church, itwould seem that most Catholics and non-Catholics see

the Council as a revolution within Catholicism, as anantithesis to Trent and the First Vatican Council, anunexpected novelty. The basis for such views revolvesaround the changes in liturgy and the relation of theCatholic Church to the secular world and to otherreligious denominations. Accordingly, for some theCouncil is considered positively and for others it is

judged negatively.

The success or failure of a Council as well as itsprinciples can be understood from two different view-points: first of all, with respect to the inner workings, ornature, of a Council, and secondly, with respect to theapplication of the various demands or suggestionsmade by a Council. Further one's understanding of aCouncil is very much determined by the way in whichthe Church is conceived. Vatican II, however, made aradical change in the way the Church was to be


4/21

conceived.

The pre-conciliar way of looking at the Church tendedto identify Catholicism and Roman Catholicism, it

tended to identify the Church with the Church hierarchy.The post-conciliar view of the Church, on the contraryshed light on the importance of the local churches, onthe other rites and ecclesial traditions (Eastern CatholicChurches) which are on an equal par to both the LatinChurch and tradition, and likewise on the sisterChurches (of Orthodoxy) with which the Church ofRome is not in full communion. Similarly, the innovation

that the Church consists of the people of God, that is oflaity and of clergy, was in itself a revolutionary momentin the way that Catholicism conceived its own ecclesialnature.

This radical development in ecclesiology,consequently, effected and still effects the way inwhich the Vatican Council is to be understood. Thus,

one is forced to ask whether the whole Church tookpart in the Council and whether the different parts ofthe Church were fully and equally represented inVatican II, or not? If the answer is positive, than theCouncil was indeed a Council and accordinglysuccessful in its conciliarity, if the response is negative,than Vatican II failed to be fully ecumenical andconsequently failed to qualify as a Council.

Undoubtedly, from a pre-conciliar point of view theCouncil was a visible coming together, workingtogether and deciding together of the whole Church.With the Council however, the pre-conciliarunderstanding of the Church was clarified andbroadened. But, in making this development, theCouncil failed to re-examine itself and its ownconciliarity. Subsequently, from a post-conciliarecclesiology the Council was a failure in that, the whole
http://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/e_com_e.htmhttp://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/e_com_e.htm


5/21

Church was not represented, neither fully nor equally. Itdid not extend itself to include within itself the fullnessof the One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church. Whilethe Eastern Catholic Churcheswere weaklyrepresented, and were not offered an equal role to theLatin Church in the preparation committees and in thevoting, the Orthodox Churches were not a part of theinner-conciliar dynamics. Accordingly, if these latterchurches are part of the One mystical Body of Christ,that is of the Universal-Catholic Church ascontrasted to the Roman-Catholic Church, then theirabsence means that the Council did not represent theentirety of the Church of Christ. Subsequently, VaticanII consisted only of parts of the whole Church.

A second failure in the Council was the failure todistinguish clearly, from the beginning and in eachworking committee, session and conciliar text, the Latintradition from the Church as a whole. Accordingly,many of the conciliar texts deal almost entirely and

exclusively with questions and problems proper to theLatin or Roman tradition. Probably the clearest exampleis the Dogmatic Constitution on the Liturgy,Sacrosanctum Concilium. In other texts the theologicalprinciples which are applied and the theologicalstructures which are used belong to Latin theology. Thetheological approaches and the riches of the Eastern

Traditions are generally absent from the texts. One of

the reasons for this weakness is that the EasternCatholics had been brought up and educated accordingto the methods of Latin theology to the prejudice oftheir own traditions. The very Council recognises thispoint in promoting fidelity to and a deepening in theauthentic ancient Eastern Traditions, proper to theseChurches.

Accordingly a hypothesis that Vatican II was anunsuccessful Council that became one of the most
http://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/gk_cat_e.htmhttp://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/ru_ort_e.htmhttp://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/e_com_e.htmhttp://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/gk_cat_e.htmhttp://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/ru_ort_e.htmhttp://www.catholic-church.org/church-unity/e_com_e.htm


6/21

historic synods of the Latin Church, can not only beposited but could seemingly be also well defended.

http://203.10.46.30/mre/oshea/vat2.htm

WAS IT SUCCESSFULLLLLL!!!!!

Another book about the Second Vatican Council and itsconsequences has just been published. The title issuggestive: What Went Wrong with Vatican II TheCatholic Crisis Explained. Its author is Dr. RalphMcInerny, a professor at Notre Dame University.

McInernys background as novelist helps to make thework easy to read. The cover attracts the attention andit has been nicely published by Sophia Institute Press inManchester, New Hampshire.

The method chosen by the author to present thesubject deserves comment. He does not pretend to usescholastic rigor. At times, he adopts the method ofproofad absurdo: he prefers to take for granted that itis impossible that anything could have happenedexcept what he wants. At other times, he presentsecclesiastical authorities supporting his thesis, but then

he circles around them to avoid facing theircorroborating consequences. These characteristicsmake it difficult to attribute clear and definiteaffirmations to him. For this reason his exposition seenmore to skirt around the problem of the authority ofVatican II than to demonstrate a thesis in a Thomisticfashion. One could, nevertheless, presuppose the thesisand summarize it in three arguments.

The first argument deals with the authority the
http://203.10.46.30/mre/oshea/vat2.htmhttp://203.10.46.30/mre/oshea/vat2.htm


7/21

Council would have. In McInernys opinion:A. Major premise It is an error of simplification toreduce Vatican II to the confrontation of two currents(that is, traditional statements and liberal statementscoexisting in the same Vatican documents). This is tohave a human and limited vision of the Church. .Actually, the fact that a majority of Bishops approvedthe documents and unanimously promulgated themreveals the action of the Holy Ghost (pp. 27-30, 66,150-151).B. Minor premise Paul VI solemnly promulgated thesixteen documents of the Council (pp. 14-15, 30-31).C. Conclusion Therefore, Vatican II was an infallibleCouncil (pp. 31-32, 93, 114, 149) and its documents arean authentic expression of the Magisterium (pp. 18-19,31-33, 36-37, 68, 147-148, 151).

The second argument, drawn from the conclusion ofthe first, seeks to explain the crisis of interpreting theconciliar documents and the consequent crisis ofauthority that occurred after Vatican II. In the thinkingof the author:A. Major premise Based on the documents of theCouncil, various dissident theologians affirm that it isnot necessary for the faithful to accept certainpontifical teachings (pp 60-64, 66, 73, 139, 154-155).Furthermore, these theologians should be censured fortrying to equate their teaching mission with that of theMagisterium (pp. 64-65, 74, 77-78, 93, 113, 136, 140).B. Minor premise Unfortunately, this dissidence hashad free rein in the Church, causing a crisis of authorityand arousing a lack of confidence among the faithful(pp. 67-69, 103, 125, 139).C. Conclusion Therefore, in order to solve this crisis,it is imperative that these theologians be silenced (p.97) or leave the Church (pp. 67-68, 80-81).

Given, then, the crisis and the causes he presentswould be indisputable, his third argumentdeals with


8/21

the manner in which the excesses should besuppressed. According to McInerny:A. Major premise One should no longer argue aboutthe Council, but accept it as the expression of theSupreme Magisterium. In other words, obedienceshould be imposed upon the dissidents (pp. 97, 146,148, 155, 158).B. Minor premise Through its official bodies, theHoly See has issued norms curbing the action of thedissidents (pp. 129-134, 136-142).C. Conclusion Therefore, it will not take long for suchdissidents to either submit (pp. 137, 157) or to leavethe Church (p. 142). Thus is the crisis explained, andone just hopes it will not be too long before it isresolved (p. 142).

This is a brief summary of the explanation the authorproposes for the conciliar crisis.

I admire McInerny for having the courage to deal withsuch a controversial subject and for expressing his

opinion frankly. His loyalty to the Papacy and to theteachings of ecclesiastical Magisterium is noteworthy. Icommend him for fighting against the dissidenttheologians he mentions. Above all, I commend him forchoosing to publicly deal with the subject and thus helpto open a wholesome debate about Vatican II. Whatcould be better than an elevated discussion to removethe doubts and confusion of so many Catholics about

the Council?

Notwithstanding these positive notes, it seems to methat there are problems with certain points ofMcInernys thesis. These are problems that bearmention. I hope the author will not refuse an honestcritique and is open to a cordial intellectual discussionon the subject. I ask that he accept my analysis as a

collegial attempt to gain a more objective


9/21

understanding of reality.

My observations will follow the same order as thearguments set out above.

Two currents at Vatican II?

With regard to the first argument, it would seem thatthe authors major premisedoes not correspond to whatis known of the chronicles of the Council. In fact, fromCardinal Achille Linarts first intervention in the firstconciliar session (October 13, 1962), when he objected

to the composition of the commissions presented bythe leaders of the Council and demanded an electionwhereby the Assembly should choose itsrepresentatives, until the vote on the two documentsDignitatis humanae and Gaudium et spes in the lastsession (December 6, 1965), the participants andchroniclers record the fierce contention between thecurrent of Prelates inspired byNouvelle Thologie (New

Theology) and the current that wanted to maintain thetraditional doctrine of the Magisterium.

This can be readily demonstrated by drawing on thechronicles of Vatican II. I suggest that on this pointMcInerny read the objective and well-documentedaccounts of Giovanni Caprile, Ren Laurentin, AntoineWenger, Henri Fesquet, and Boaventura Kloppenburg,as well as the Bloc des notes of Yves Congar, publishedduring the Council in Informations CatholiquesInternationales. This is the very Congar that McInernyconsiders, along with de Lubac, one of the stars thatshine in the Catholic intellectual firmament (p. 8, note6).

More modestly, I propose that the author read a recentwork In the Murky Waters of Vatican II in which he

can find a considerable number of trustworthy


10/21

statements attesting to the existence of two opposingcurrents in the Council (op. cit. Chaps. IV, VI et passim).It can be easily shown that the conflict between thesetwo currents was a determinant factor in thepreparation of the final documents. Ipso facto, onecannot hold that there was unanimity among theBishops during the preparation of the documents, norduring their approval. Such unanimity can only befound at the final signing of Vatican II.

The assertion that the approval of a document by themajority or unanimity of the Bishops implies the

guarantee of the Holy Ghost will be dealt with furtherdetail when speaking of the authority of the Pope andthe Bishops in union with him.

Thus the fundamental affirmation of the major premisethat it is an error of simplification to consider theCouncil as a fight between two currents has no base.

For this reason, it is surprising to see the contemptuoustreatment the author gives to Fr. Ralph Wiltgensexcellent book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, a workhe dismisses as appropriate for those who consider theCouncil a kind of ideological dogfight (p. 28).

Are the teachings of Vatican II infallible?

Regarding McInernys minor premise, Paul VI did

solemnly approve all the documents using expressionsthat were practically the same. These closingstatements can be found at the end of each one of thesixteen documents. No doubt, this approval indicatesthe desire to give weight to the documents and makesone lean toward the idea that the Pontiff wanted tomake use of his prerogative of infallibility. The questionis: Did this fact happen? My response is the following:


11/21

* If employing practically the same formula in all thedocuments indicates the desire to use infallibility, thenthat infallibility should extend to the whole. However,there are subjects to which infallibility does not apply,such as, for example, those in the decree Inter mirifica,which deals with means of social communication, amatter outside of Faith and Morals. Obviously, it wasnot Paul VIs intention to impose upon the Church asinfallible these considerations regarding the media.

Therefore, employing the same formula in all thedocuments should not be understood as revealing anintention of using infallibility. It expresses a vaguemanifestation of authority, imprecise regarding what itactually obliges.

* Furthermore, theAnnouncementwritten by theSecretary General of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici,that precedes the Preliminary Explanatory Note toLumen gentium says:

Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoralpurpose of the present Council, the sacred synod hasdefined as binding on the Church only those matters ofFaith and Morals which it has expressly put forward assuch (1).1. Pericle Felici, Notificaes, November 16, 1964, inV.A. Atas do Conclio Ecumnico Vaticano II, (Petrpolis:Vozes, 1966), pp. 108-109.

If we hold this passage to be valid for the sixteendocuments of Vatican II, this would only obligeobedience in matters of Faith and Morals. Furthermore,this is the only statement on this matter that emanatesfrom Vatican II. Therefore, it did not wish to be taken asinfallible.

* Above and beyond this, Paul VI himself, author of the

aforementioned formulas, declared after the close ofthe Council:


12/21

There are those who ask what authority, whattheological qualification the Council intended togive to its teachings, knowing that it avoid

issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engagingthe infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.The answer is known by whoever remembers theconciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeatedon November 16, 1964: given the Councilspastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in anextraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with thenote of infallibility(2).

2. Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966 inInsegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol.4, p. 700.

Therefore, Paul VIs solemn approval of the conciliardocuments cannot be used as a conclusive argument infavor of the infallibility of Vatican II. Thus it can bestated that McInernys minor premise is true Paul VIapproved the conciliar documents but it isinconsequential, because it doesnt lead to his desired

conclusion. That approval does not imply infallibility.

Further, it can be affirmed that the approval by themajority or unanimity of the Bishops does not add thenote of infallibility to the documents. This corroboratesthe analysis above about the weakness of the major

premise.

Since the two premises of the first argumentare not assolid as the author would have hoped, the firstconclusion that the Council is infallible is withoutfoundation and must be relegated to the field ofopinion.

Is the Council an expression of the perennialMagisterium of the Church?

The second conclusion that the Council is an


13/21

authentic expression of the Magisterium must beaddressed.

McInerny argues that Vatican II should be followed in as

much as it is an expression of the ordinary papalMagisterium, which calls for attitudes of respect andobedience (pp. 36-38, 88, 108). This affirmation isdeserving of analysis.

Holy Mother Church in matters of Faith and Morals hasvery precise and defined norms regarding progress.Progress is acceptable when it follows the same sense

and meaning of the earlier Magisterium (in eodemsensu eademque sententia). The Church promulgatedthese prudential norms in order to avoid grave errors,at times taught even by Popes (Marcellinus, Liberius,Zozimus, Vigilius, etc) and Councils (Milan 355,Constantinole 360, Constance, Basle etc). Therefore, itcannot be categorically stated that Vatican II, nor anyother Council, is the expression of the unchangeable

Magisterium of the Church except in the measure thatit is coherent with prior teaching.

In Vatican II many times it is very difficult to harmonizethe present with the past. I will cite just one exampleamong many.

The conciliar decree Unitatis redintegratio teaches thatthe salvation can be found outside of the Church:Large communities became separated from the fullcommunion with the Catholic Church . However, onecannot charge with the sin of separation thosewho at present are born into these communities and inthem are brought up in the faith of Christ, and theCatholic Church accepts them with respect andaffection as brothers .

"Moreover, some, even very many of the most


14/21

significant elementsand endowments which gotogether to build up and give life to the Churchitself, can exist outside the visible boundaries ofthe Catholic Church: the written Word of God; thelife of grace; Faith, hope and charity with the otherinterior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visibleelements . The brethren divided from us also carryout many liturgical actions of the Christian religion .

These . can aptly give access to the communionof salvation (UR 3a, b, c).

This teaching is basis for ecumenism, which constitutesone of the greatest innovations of Vatican II.

Comparing this thesis with the perennial Magisterium,we find the contrary affirmed. Pius IX, along with otherPopes, firmly fought what we label today ecumenism:And it tends to the same end as this horrible systemof religious indifferentism tends in matters ofreligion, a system that is even repugnant to thesimple light of natural reason. It is through this

system, in fact, that these subtle artisans of thelie seek to destroy all distinction between viceand virtue, truth and error, honor and shamefultorpidity, criminally thinking men of all cults andevery religion can be led to the hope of eternalsalvation. As if there could be a participation ofjustice with iniquity, and alliance of light withdarkness, some sort of relationship between

Jesus Christ and Belial(3).

3. Pius IX, Encyclical Qui pluribus of November 9, 1846,in Recueil des allocutions consistoriales, Encycliques etautres lettres apostoliques (Paris: Adrien le Clerc,1865), p. 181.How can this doctrine be harmonized with that ofVatican II? It is really very difficult.

There are other conciliar novelties that clash with


15/21

traditional teaching. Among these would be the notionof the Church as mystery; its affinity with modernistpneumatology and its opposition to the teaching of St.Pius X; the notion of sinning Church, whichcontradicts the divine nature of the Spouse of Christ;the adaptation of the Church to the modern world incontradiction to the anathemas of Pius IX; theacceptance of the so-oft-condemned motto Liberty-Equality-Fraternity in the ecclesiastical and civilspheres; and the acceptance of the principles ofmodern historicism and its application to the dogmaresulting in a grave damage to the unity of the CatholicFaith. This is not to mention the questions that altertraditional teaching regarding the militant, missionaryand Roman characters of the Holy Church.

Thus, until the Councils novelties can be shown to becongruent with the prior Magisterium, the formerobviously cannot be taken as an expression of thelatter.

One sees, then, that the authors second conclusion ishasty. Vatican II has still not been sufficiently shown tobe an authentic expression of the Magisterium. TheCouncil will or will not be found to express the perennialMagisterium until these many doubts are cleared up.

McInerny avoids making this clarification and hides

behind formalism: Since the Councils documents wereapproved by the majority or unanimity of the Bishopsand endorsed by the Pontiff, then they must be theindisputable expression of the Supreme Magisterium(pp. 18-19, 31-32, 68, 147-148, 151). If the substanceof matters dealt with in a Council were more importantthan the form observed to promulgate it, then thecondemned statements at the Councils of Constance

and Basel should be taken as an expression of theMagisterium, because they apparently followed the


16/21

canonical formalities.

Furthermore, intellectual honesty demands that aperson be allowed to use any legitimate means to

safeguard the integrity of the Catholic Faith from theintroduction of justifiably suspect doctrines. Evenshould such doctrines come from three Popes and aCouncil. Should Prof. McInerny be interested, I can showhim citations of Saints and Doctors of the Church whodefend the right and obligation of Catholics to resistPrelates even Popes who endanger the Faith (In theMurky Waters of Vatican II, General Introduction, note

3).

Would the cause of the crisis only be theprogressivist theologians?

The major premise of McInernys second argument istrue: he affirms that certain theologians advocate arevolutionary defiance of the principle of authority. It is

also true that these theologians claim a position ofequality, and even superiority, in relation to thetraditional Magisterium.

In the minor premise it is necessary to make adistinction. Doubtless, the dissent of progressivisttheologians is an important factor in the cause of thecrisis of authority. From this angle, the premise isunassailable. However, although it is an importantfactor for the loss of authority, it is neither the sole orprincipal cause, even when considered from a broaderperspective, which would include trendy catechists,creative liturgists, and antinomian moral theologians(p. 118).

* In fact, the germ of the crisis of authority wasinoculated in the very documents of the Council. For

example, in the discussion on the schema ofLumen
http://www.traditioninaction.org/tiabk005_MW.htmhttp://www.traditioninaction.org/tiabk005_MW.htmhttp://www.traditioninaction.org/tiabk005_MW.htmhttp://www.traditioninaction.org/tiabk005_MW.htm


17/21

gentiumregarding the actual makeup of the Church, theconciliar fathers resolved to invert the accepted orderand put the people of God before the Hierarchy. Agreater emphasis was given to the faithful as thefoundation of the Church than to the Hierarchy, whichwas relegated to a secondary position. RenownedPrelates, commenting upon this inversion that wasincluded in the promulgated text, have called it aCopernican revolution in ecclesiology. Sooner or laterthis inversion was bound to foster a certain arroganceamong some of the faithful, as in the case of theaforementioned theologians. Therefore, suchtheologians are neither the sole nor principal cause ofthe crisis.

* Besides this, the abettors of the conciliar reformswere the Council, Popes and Bishops. For example, thedemolition of venerable traditions effected by theliturgical reforms was initiated by the conciliarConstitution Sacrosanctum concilium, confirmed by

Paul VI s Apostolic Constitution Missale romanum, andput into effect by Bishops around the world. Thedecisive blow against a liturgy spanning centuries didnot come from progressivist theologians, but from theofficial ranks of the Church. How can one not see in thisiconoclast period an example for other traditions tobe broken? Couldnt the contesting of authority madeby the learned be invoked as a precedent to change

other institutional aspects of the Church, such assubmission to authority? It seems undeniable. Onceagain, it is obvious that the learned dissenters wereneither the sole nor principal cause of the crisis.

* Another cogent example of this was the reform of theHoly Office and the abolition of the Index, whichforbade the reading of books harmful to Faith and

Morals. Paul VI effected this reform in his Motu proprio


18/21

Integrae servanda (December 5, 1965). His statedobjective was to mitigate theological punishments. Whodoesnt see that this lowering of the guard served tostimulate the audacity of the liberals? Again, thedissent of learned theologians was neither the sole norprincipal cause of the crisis.

* Furthermore, there are theologians who heretoforewere considered suspect of heresy by the Holy Office.

Yet after the Council, even though they did not changetheir thinking, they were promoted and are nowconsidered representatives of official theology. These

include Cardinal Yves Congar, Cardinal Henri deLubac, Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar, Fr. KarlRahner, Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenuand Cardinal

Joseph Ratzinger.

Why does McInerny only condemn todays liberals?McInerny does not mention the relationship of thosewho are now mistakenly taken for moderates with the

liberals of yesterday. The principles that a Fr. CharlesCurran defends are based on those preached by todaysaccepted scholars that I listed. If McInerny wanted topoint accurately to the causes of the present day crisis,he would need to point to both groups. Not doing this,he shields the most dangerous wing of theology. Andthese theologians were the ones who exercised adecisive influence at Vatican II. Ignoring these

theologians and assuming the Council to be infallible,McInerny takes an incomplete position that can hardlybe called impartial.

* With regard to the minor premise, anotherobservation can be made about the example chosen bythe author to prove the evil of the dissentingtheologians: the case of Humanae vitae. McInerny

avoids dealing with the opposition to the encyclical thatcame from official ecclesiastical circles. He lightly


19/21

dismisses such opposition as rare (p. 47).Unfortunately, this does not correspond to whatactually happened. Not only did many Bishops contestthe papal teaching, but entire Episcopates did so (inBelgium, Brazil, Holland, France and Germany, forexample). McInerny can find proof of this in the book Inthe Murky Waters of Vatican II (Chap. X, note 24). Onceagain, it is obvious that the dissenting theologians areneither the sole nor principal cause of the crisis ofauthority.

These are considerations that seem to me

indispensable to make an objective analysis of theminor premise of the authors second argument.

Finally, McInernys conclusion is valid: the theologianshe names should be silenced. But I will go a stepfurther. If the disciples are to be condemned, why notalso their masters? And if the masters are condemned,how can one avoid considering the influence of their

thinking in Vatican II? This brings us back to the needfor an open and objective debate on this subject.

Punishment with or without explanations

The third argumentsupposes the preceding ones.However, while the former two arguments are notindisputable, this one lacks solid foundation. The authoradvocates authoritarian disciplinary measures, whichmight be just if his argument had been solid. Since itwas not, Prof. McInerny appears to have taken anarbitrary position.

The major premise posits that one should not longerargue about the Council, but instead acknowledge in itthe Supreme Magisterium and demand obedience fromthe dissidents. No more polemics. If McInerny had

proved his thesis, perhaps the measures he asks for


20/21

would be sufficient. But since he did not, without causethere is no effect.

For arguments sake, it seems that his suggestion to

punish the guilty without due explanation would goagainst the normal practice of the Church. Since she isthe Mistress of Truth, she can easily prove the truth orerror of doctrine. To offer proof would reflect hersovereignty in teaching truth and guarding Revelation.On the contrary, railing to do so would be to hid behindpapal infallibility, which would give the impression of aninstitution uncertain about what she asserts.

Therefore, regarding the major premise of the thirdargument, it would seem to me both illogical andimprudent. Notwithstanding, I agree with McInerny thatthese theologians should be silenced. However, Ibelieve that this should be done with a full explanation.

Then, should they remain recalcitrant, a detailedinvestigation following due process should be carried

out, a just sentence issued, and the punishment metedout.

McInernys conclusion seems debatable: that punishingdissenting theologians would resolve the crisis. As Ihave demonstrated, these theologians are neither thesole nor principal cause of the crisis. It is not onlybecause of the dissent of learned theologians that we

are witnessing the sorrowful passion of the CatholicChurch, but because of more profound and importantfactors. And among those factors is the apparent or realcontradiction of many of the teachings of Vatican II withthe earlier ecclesiastical Magisterium. For this reason, Ido not believe that simply punishing theologians willsolve the crisis.

The need for an elevated and elucidating debate


21/21

In order to find such a solution, the courage to debatethe topic of the Council is necessary.

We know that the Catholic Church is immortal and that

the gates of hell shall not prevail against her (Matt.16:18). Why not begin a wide-ranging discussioncomparing Vatican II and the perennial Magisterium?

That is my suggestion. This would be a frank andhumble way to determine if there were deviations, tocorrect them should they exist, and to truly help to endthe ecclesiastical crisis. On the contrary, isnt itincongruent today to be continually asking pardon for

the Churchs past when we lack the courage toinvestigate and correct the present?

vatican 2 essay notes

Documents