Dear Dave,
In a recent post you replied to my discussion of some of the fundamental questions at play in the debate about Vatican II on the level of philosophy and the level of history. First I will admit for the sake of the debate that I have not responded with corresponding rigor to your answer of mine regarding Newman, which I thought was a very good reply, so that point is well taken. But let me summarize your assertions in that article in that Newman appears from your quotes there. He seems to say that he did not mean by “temporary suspension of the teaching Church” that anything absolute happened, but only that the Magisterium in some way was obscured, even though it was still acting in various ways, including a Roman synod. Is that a fair summation?
Another important point in this dialogue is to say that I do not call myself a traditionalist, nor do I call our apostolate traditionalist (please see the explanation why here). However, I do agree with some basic assertions of the “trad movement,” thus the use of the label in the title for the sake of summation. In your most recent response, you called me a radical Catholic reactionary in contrast to you as an orthodox Catholic. We already agreed that my confession of faith is almost completely acceptable to you, and we originally proceeded with a shared agreement of those basics. So perhaps you could clarify why you see me as not orthodox? Where have I ever asserted anything erroneous or heretical or ever said anything that was reactionary? I ask sincerely, as one hoping to be corrected as it is written, The way of life, to him that observeth correction: but he that forsaketh reproofs goeth astray (Prov. x. 17).
If I may say, my brother, I do think your labeling of me as a “reactionary” weakens your argument, because you seem to rely on a preliminary criticism of unknown comments of which I have no part, then an attack on a reasoning “as reactionaries do” to critique my argument, without mentioning or addressing the distinctions I made about causality both philosophical and historical.
The fundamental concept that I was addressing was about your assertion of causality in the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I conceded this point, then contrasted the rejection of this fallacy with the skepticism of Hume. I’m happy to go into these different historical instances, but these concepts are the primary assertions I am making. I am attempting to answer the question: is it possible for a Council to fail?
I’m not sure you adequately faced the quote from Ratzinger, which says that the Council did not accomplish its intentions in so many words. I certainly concede that Ratzinger had no mind to reject the Council or assert that the Council was the cause of these things, but in this quote he is saying that the best intentions of the Council did not come about. In other words, the cause of the Council did not produce the desired effect, but the opposite occurred.
What was the cause of this crisis? I argued that it cannot be the Council on a philosophical level, since every Council is in some way an act of the Holy Spirit. But I said that the Council could be a cause on a historical level, since some Councils simply fail to address the situation adequately. Put another way, it is simply an assertion that we need another Magisterial Act such as an Ecumenical Council or something with binding force, since Vatican II has not worked, nor will it work for the future. This is my thesis. This does not mean that the Council was not an act of the Magisterium, but merely that the Magisterium needs to add some greater act for the situation to be resolved. The main point of my analogy with Lateran V is this:
Lateran V intended to address abuses
Voices at the council warned of dire consequences
These abuses were not corrected
***Then a sudden (but not completely unexpected) revolution wrecked havoc for souls***
An entirely new Magisterial Act—Trent—was necessary to address the crisis
Similiarly:
Vatican II intended to create a renewal based in part on optimism from John F. Kennedy and De Chardin, as Ratzinger admits
Fatima, Ottaviani and the original Schemas, and the Coetus warned that optimism was misplaced (despite the excellent things that are said in places like Gaudium et Spes as you note).
***Then a sudden (but not completely unexpected) sexual/Marxist/Feminist revolution wrecked havoc for souls***
My assertion: therefore a new Magisterial Act—analogous to Trent and its anathemas—is necessary to address the crisis
Councils and Magisterial Acts are generally called to address a current crisis. The real crisis (the sexual/Marxist/Feminist revolution) erupted after Vatican II. Therefore Vatican II cannot address the crisis which did not exist at the time of the Council. It would be similar to Catholics saying we should not call Trent to address Protestantism because we already have Lateran V. Or Catholics asserting we should not call Ephesus because we already have Nicaea.
My argument is the same as Dietrich von Hildebrand. He pleaded with St. Paul VI to condemn heresies, even drafting condemnations himself and giving them to him, but Papa Montini refused saying it was “too harsh.” The charitable anathema, as Hildebrand argues in the book of the same name, is the solution to our times as it has been for centuries. Nevertheless, this method was refused not only by Pope St. Paul VI, but also St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and certainly by Pope Francis. Moreover, this time-proven yet abandoned pastoral method was used effectively by two other saintly popes–Pius IX and Pius X–the latter of which was canonized by Ven. Pius XII specifically as a model for our times immediately before the Council (which is why Pius XII canonized him in a rush job). The traditionalist argument boils down to the assertion that Vatican II is inadequate to address the situation, and something traditional must address it: the charitable anathema, which has already proven effective in our times against what you admit is the greatest problem right now: Modernism.
As a corollary, as Hildebrand also argued, the New Mass has fundamental problems in its Latin texts in weakening the Tridentine emphasis on the Real Presence. Thus it failed to create a renewal, but rather the opposite occurred. It is so reactionary to say we should try something different at this point? You seem to assert that it is. Hildebrand argued that the New Mass should be abrogated and the Tridentine restored. This is not a schismatic, reactionary, irrational Pharisee assertion, as you forcefully assert, but a respectful plea to Holy Mother Church to use more effective means of saving souls—the anathema and the Latin Mass—means which have already proven themselves effective over centuries.
Perhaps you could clarify: do you regard Hildebrand as a traditionalist or a reactionary according to your definitions of those terms? My thought is greatly influenced by Von Hildebrand who, in my view, provides the most convincing arguments of any other writer in the 20th century crisis.
If I have misunderstood your argumentation please correct me, brother. Also, I admit my historical assertion about Lateran V and indulgences was made for memory, and I may have confused Lateran V with Lateran IV in that regard (these are corrections I definitely appreciate). I look forward to more conversation brother, and I hope you and your family are well.
In Jesus and Mary,
Timothy
Tim, excellent article. Dave has replied on his web site. Although I disagree with some of Dave’s reply, they are worthy of a continuing dialogue. I very much encourage you to continue this dialogue with Dave. I believe you have the knowledge and right temperament. to dialogue with Dave. I believe I am not the only one who is finding this back and forth discussion very educational and edifying. God bless.
Glad to hear it thanks brother! 🙂
Dave removes this link from his website.He does not respond to it.
OCTOBER 1, 2020
Dave Armstrong and my interpretation of Vatican Council II is different : he uses the false premise
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/10/dave-armstrong-and-my-interpretation-of.html
___________________
HOW DO YOU CREATE UNITY HERE ?
For Dave UR 3 would be an exception to an ecumenism of return. For me it is not since it is a hypothetical case only. An invisible person cannot be an objective exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Similarly for him and perhaps also for you LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 would be an exception to 16th century, EENS with hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc not being objectie exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.
Thiis was the objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.-L.A
OCTOBER 3, 2020
Dave Armstrong’s debates with Karl Keating and Christopher Ferrara were based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, EENS, the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, Creeds and Catechisms. They were all interpreted with the false premise
Dave Armstrong has written so many articles on Vatican Council II with reference to other apologetics and he has always interpreted the Council by wrongly confusing what is implicit as being explicit, invisible as being visible.Then with this false premise his conclusion has to be non traditional, a rupture with exclusivist salvation in the Catholic Church. Then he considers this the norm.
When I interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise there is no rupture with exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So he lets the issue remain unanswered. He removes links and does not comment on his website.He does not affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and is a Cushingite.
He would prefer to remain with his illusion. It is politically correct with the Left.
He has responded to Timothy Flanders on the blog The Meaning of Being Catholic but will not respond to any of my comments on that blog thread.
Since if he does respond to my comments he would have to admit that he has been irrational all these years.The Council is not a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, which says all need to be Catholic for salvation.But he is a Cushingite and not a Feeneyite.
For me there is nothing in Unitatis Redintigratio(UR), the Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II, to contradict an ecumenism of return.Dave Armstrong cannot handle this.All his life he has interpreted UR 3 etc as being exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
For me there is nothing in Lumen Gentium, Vaticam Council II, to contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.This too is difficult for him.Since LG 8, LG 16 etc have been exceptions to 16th century EENS.He accepts this irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO).
At this time in his life, at his age, all this must be a big challenge.It could be asking too much of him.
It would be peaceful to remain with the irrationality -after all the whole Church is following the same error.Why create problems for a conforming apologist ?
I am not troubled by the old rules, the errors of the last 55 years.Dave Armstrong’s debates with Karl Keating and Christopher Ferrara were based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, EENS, the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, Creeds and Catechisms. They were all interpreted with the false premise.-Lionel Andrades
The above artiicle for all is the reality we face regarding our worship we owe to God. Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood shall have everlasting Life. The Novus Ordo is a Protestant rendition to promote the forces of the Masonic thinking that reinforced the French Revolution, along with Luther, who predominates in the new mass. These forces are the result of LeoXIII and his vision that God’s permissive Will let Satan play havoc and demolish the Catholic Church and all that she is in the Traditional manner. This is the reality that Pope Benedict XVI came to and which caused his resignation. Vatican II did nothing to promote the workings of The Holy Ghost, in that, nothing was said in it that had not been previously given to us by Vatican I and Trent, and in Vatican II, the teachings that stand out are the ones erroneously put into use to form the confusion that we now have from its documents. The only remedy is to get back to authentic worship of a God Who so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, to die for all our sins and to reanact the remission of those sins by giving us the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass, through Himself saying the Mass for all through the Priest, the only acceptable prayer from the people to the Heavenly Father in the perfection that He requires from all of us THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS is the barometer by which we can diagnose the state of the world, and the Novus Ordo reads as the lowest point in that scale. The Magisterium of the Church can only be lived out in the authentic teachings that have been tested and proved over the centuries, under the guidance and promulgation of the Holy Ghost. Any other Magisterium that takes on change from that is null and void in God’s eyes. To bring about an authentic renewal for all is The Divine Will of God, which we are all called to do. If this happened for every soul to do, any errors that have entered into that soul would be corrected by the power of that Divine Will, revealing at all times to them TRUTH. The Holy Ghost along with Our Blessed Mother, the spouse of the Holy Ghost, would be the protection against all errors that are of Satan and his followers and would eventually bring to every soul THY WILL BEING DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN, The era of sanctification, Heaven on earth and the salvation of all souls. Deus Benedicta in The Divine Will of God.
My reply:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/08/dialogue-6-w-1p5-columnist-timothy-flanders.html
This statement is factually untrue, and it is simple to prove it: by recourse to the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and its footnotes, which are comprised of copious references to Holy Scripture (which may be considered “prior magisterium”: being inspired revelation) in 35 out of 42 of the notes. The other seven make reference to previous magisterial conciliar documents (five, referring to five councils: Florence being cited three times) or Church fathers (two: St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom). Here are the ones referring to prior councils:…-Dave Amstrong
Lionel: The Decree on Ecumenism(UR) refers to hypothetical cases only for me. So UR no where contradicts the traditional ecumenism of return.
Neither does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions, as it was known to the Church Fathers or the missionaries in the 16th century.
So we have two interpretations of UR , Dave and mine.
Similarly we have two interpretations one in which LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 are exceptions to EENS and the other, mine, in which they are not exceptions.
So our premise and inference is dfference when interpreting Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades
If by that, you mean that the documents contain literal heresy that binds the faithful, I say no: it’s not possible (and this follows from Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, since the ecumenical council must be ratified by the pope, who cannot fall into such error). -Dave Armstrong
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake when it assumed hypothetical and invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were objective examples of salvation and so exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
LOHO says that one does not always need to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. This is heresy.
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
‘Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’ because there are objective exceptions which are known to us ?
The same mistake is made in Vatican Council II which cites LOHO.
.Lumen Gentium 16 is projected as an exception to EENS. This is an error. This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. This cannot be Magisterial.
I interpret LG 16 as being implicit and not explicit, invisible and not visible and so there is no rupture with EENS etc. But the Council Fathers ( Cushing, Rahner, Ratzinger etc) made a mistake in 1965.
In principle they assumed unknown cases are known and then they projected them as rupture with traditional exclusive salvation.
So Redemptoris Missio is Christocentric and not ecclesiocentric. This is human error and cannot be attributed to the Holy Spirit.
LOHO was teaching heresy.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 13, 2020
With the false premise we create a false church within the Catholic Church
When we interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise we create a false church within the Catholic Church.
When we accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which interprets EENS with a false premise we create a false church within the Catholic Church.
When we interpret the Nicene Creed with the baptism of the desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance being objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church without the baptism of water( this is a false premise), we create a false church within the Catholic Church.
When we interpret CCC 946 as saying all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church as if we know of exceptions to EENS; this is false premise, and so we create a false church within the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/09/with-false-premise-we-create-false.html
SEPTEMBER 13, 2020
We have to re-read Vatican Council II knowing that the Council is referring to hypothetical cases only. LG 8, LG 14 ( baptism of desire), LG 16 (invincible ignorance), UR 3, NA 2, GS 22( people saved with good will ) etc are always only hypothetical.
We cannot see St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water. We cannot meet or see someone saved without faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7). So we have to re-read Vatican Council II knowing that the Council is referring to hypothetical cases only. It is not referring to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.This would be irrational. Though this was the false reasoning of the Council Fathers ( Cushing, Rahner, Ratzinger etc).
LG 8, LG 14 ( baptism of desire), LG 16 (invincible ignorance), UR 3, NA 2, GS 22( people saved with good will ) etc are always only hypothetical. They are not objective exceptions to Tradition( EENS, Syllabus etc).-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/09/we-have-to-re-read-vatican-council-ii.html
SEPTEMBER 13, 2020
The interpretation of Vatican Council II by Pope Paul VI was not Magisterial when he contradicted John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 and the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise and inference. In this way he contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). EENS was defined by three Church Councils in the Extraordinary Form. So did he discard the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra, in Vatican Council I ?
His interpretation of the Council was not magisterial when the contradicted John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 and the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church. -Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-interpretation-of-vatican-council_13.html