Over on Mark Shea’s blog, Mark is having a discussion with some folks who are asking for a detailed consideration of what would have happened if Vatican II didn’t take place. Mark has been concerned to point out that the actions of an ecumenical council must be understood in relation to their animation by the Holy Spirit.
Some thoughts:
1) Concerning the theological nature of an ecumenical council, not every question has been answered here. It has been a tradition since the Council of Jerusalem (which wasn’t an ecumenical council per se but which serves as the prototype for such councils) to speak as if the council’s decisions are prompted by the Holy Spirit (though in that case the council seems to have been called by the Holy Spirit himself in special revelation, so the participants might have extra reason to think that the results they arrived at were at His prompting). They certainly are protected from error by the Holy Spirit when the Council engages its infallibility, but even when it does not do so the motions of the Holy Spirit must be presumed to be animating the Council, though the human element at work in the Council can make bad decisions and even say false things when not under the protection of infallibility.
2) It seems to be an open question theologically whether ecumenical councils are always called at the appropriate time. One could maintain that a council should have been called, should not have been called, or that it should have been called earlier or later. Nevertheless, once it has been called the successors of the apostles gathered in council invoke the Holy Spirit to guide their actions, and the motive of faith tells us that He does so. We can think that in particular things the human element in the council predominated, but we cannot dismiss a council as not guided by the Holy Spirit.
3) Regarding the "What if Vatican II never happened?" fantasy, it seems to me that it is okay for people to wonder about how history would have been different if different things happened in it. God gave us the gift of reason, which invariably leads us to wonder about "what if" scenarios. It’s therefore okay in principle to wonder about such things. It’s even okay to wonder "what if" questions about the actions of God (e.g., What if God had not let Adam fall?, What if Mary had said No to Gabriel?). These are questions every child asks at some point while absorbing the faith and thinking it through. We don’t always have good answers to such questions, but the questions are okay in and of themselves.
4) That being said, there is something distinctly unhealthy about asking historical "what if"s for people who have an axe to grind. They invariably conjure up "what if" scenarios in which, if history had only taken a turn in their direction at a key juncture, then everything would have been wonderful and humanity (or the Church or the nation) would have entered a Golden Age in which their view triumphed and all problems vanished and everyone gratefully recognized that They Were Right. These are not serious alternative histories. They are fantasies. In reality, history would have been hard and difficult on the other side of The Turning Point as it always is. No Golden Age for mankind until the Second Coming.
5) It is part of human nature to fantasize. It is part of how our intellect works to imagine how things might be different, and part of our emotional nature to imagine how they might be vastly better than they in fact are. It is therefore natural for pro-lifers to fantasize about how the world would be different if only Roe v. Wade didn’t happen, or for Democrats to fantasize about how the would would be if only Gore or Kerry had won, or for militant Muslims to fantasize about how it would be if only their forces were victoriously triumphing over the West everywhere, or for people who have an unhealthy fascination with the idea of Vatican II not happening to fantasize about Vatican II not happening. That’s human nature.
6) But this does not mean that one should encourage people to indulge in such fantasies. They can be very destructive, both for oneself and for those who are led to entertain them. We don’t need any more Muslims fantasizing about vanquishing the West than we already have, thank you. Similarly, we don’t need to spend all our days pining away for a fantasy world in which Vatican II never happened and Traditional Catholicism rules the world. That’s not the world we live in, and if we spend most of our time thinking about what we can’t and won’t have then we will only frustrate and disappoint ourselves, and possibly ruin our spiritual lives and the spiritual lives of others in the process.
7) It is therefore okay to spend a *little* time on "what if" fantasies, but one must not bog down in them. One must face the task that God has put before us, which is making *this* world better, not spending excessive amounts of time in a different world. It is unhealthy to do the latter, and totally appropriate to point out the unhealthiness of doing so.
8) A serious attempt to construct a "what if" scenario would involve no Golden Age and a chronicling of all the *problems* that would have emerged even if The Turning Point had gone differently. These are much less fun than fantasies about where everything goes the way one wants it to, but then that is why there is a difference between fantasy and reality.
Jimmy,
Are you familiar with this article by Fr. Brian Harrison?
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/skel.htm
I’m not a Roman Catholic, but I did find it quite interesting how church teaching with respect to the conversion of the Jews was “watered down” from a previous draft. (Who would have thought that such drafts were available?)
I think we need to be careful with the term “rad trad” … To doctrinally liberal Catholics “rad trad” might be just any old orthodox Catholic. To others it might be folks who attend the indult Latin mass in their diocese … To even more I think it refers to schizmatics who have left the Church over this fantasy about Vatican II having never happened.
The people I think Mark is talking to are not in the schizmatic group so they might find the term “rad trad” a little offensive. You can be very traditional and well within the confines of what Holy Mother Church teaches.
Other than that I think you are right on with this. It does no good to consider what might have happened because the fact of the matter is that it DID happen.
Jimmy, you shouldn’t just called everyone who disagree with Shea a rad trad. It’s poisoning the well. In fact many of them are not trad at all.
I think the characterization of the posters on Mr. Shea’s blog as “rad trad” is unfair. First of all, it is a very unfortunate term to begin with, if used as an opprobrium, since a Catholic ought to be both radical and traditional when compared to the spirit of this age. Second, if you actually read what Mr. Shea’s opponents (myself among them) are writing, you will see that they are anything but “rad trads” (if I understand how “conservatives” use that term). Mark’s claim is that Oecumenical Councils are called by the Holy Spirit and that anyone who disagrees with this proposition is a “radical dissenter.” The famous quote by Cardinal Manning, whom Bl. Pius IX personally chose to head the hierarchy in England when it was restored, shows Mark’s claim to be false.
“[T]o convoke a General Council, except when absolutely demanded by necessity, is to tempt God.”
Obviously God cannot tempt Himself, so it is clear that Card. Manning believed that the convocation of a Council was not necessarily inspired by the Holy Spirit. And it is furthermore obvious that His Eminence was anything but a “radical dissenter.” Therefore Mark’s claim is false, and the charge of heresy against his opponents is calumnious.
One could maintain that a council should have been called, should not have been called, or that it should have been called earlier or later.
This is exactly what Mark is claiming that one cannot maintain.
I am not calling everyone who disagreed with Mark a rad trad. As dcs notes, I myself disagreed with Mark, at least in how strongly he asserted a particular position.
Also, the modifier “rad” is in there specifically to distinguish the group I am talking about from ordinary traditionalists (e.g., attendees of the indult Tridentine Mass). Preferring the indult Tridentine Mass, as John Paul II has indicated, is perfectly fine with the Church.
Therefore, some qualification must be used to pick out those whose views are problematic. Since not all of such individuals are schismatic (it is possible to be in communion with the Church yet have problematic views, after all), the term “schismatic traditionalist” is not apt.
The term “rad trad” (shorthand for “radical traditionalist”) is in currency, and its modifier “radical” conveys the idea that something is problematic without specifying that the person is a schismatic.
Jimmy,
Your characterization of what is happening on Mark’s blog is not quite correct. Mark thinks that he is arguing with people about alternative histories and whether we’d be better off without VII, and with some people he is. You think that too, and thus you blogged some good points that I think other people (such as myself) with whom Mark has been arguing have already made and would agree with you. That is because these other people have been trying to engage Mark in a theoretical discussion of whether this single claim of his in the orginal post is accurate: “The fact is, the Spirit called the Council, so it was the best thing that could have happened…” The reaction to the questioning of this statement has been uncharitable, in my opinion. Speaking for myself, a 32-year-old cradle Catholic who been to weekly Novus Ordo mass nearly every Sunday since childhood, who has attended indult masses maybe 5 times in my life and none recently, who completely and enthusiastically accepts the authority of VII and every other council for that matter, who admires JPII in many respects (especially his writing), who disdains dissenters of every stripe (be they Americhurch or Remnant/SSPXers types) applying the label of “rad trad folks” to me as one of those who was arguing with Mark about the theological subtleties of what I believed was an ecclesiological overstatement goes beyond insulting to being laughably inaccurate. It is that sort of rhetoric that caused the discussion on Mark’s blog to degenerate in the first place, so it would do you well to avoid such name-calling yourself.
Ronny, please note my comment above about the non-applicability of the term “rad trad” to everyone arguing with Mark.
UPDATE: I re-read the beginning of the post and discovered a comment using the term “rad trad” that could be taken as a reference to all those disagreeing with Mark. This was not my intention (the intention was to say that *some* disagreeing with Mark were of this stripe, not all). To clarify matters I have deleted this term from the beginning of the post and added a clarification later in the post. My apologies to those who were offended.
Maybe it would help if you would just list out the actual handles of Mark’s commenters who you define as “radtrads”. Because otherwise it ends up looking like you and Mark are battling straw men. My perception of the exchange over there is that Mark said something ridiculously Liebnitzian – “The fact is, the Spirit called the Council, so it was the best thing that could have happened …” is a literal quote, emphasis mine – and got called on it by perfectly ordinary Catholics readers. I didn’t see a single “radtrad” boogeyman crawl up out of the preconciliar graveyard to scare the peasants in the entire discussion.
But if you’ll give us the actual names of the people you are accusing it might at least be clarifying for all involved, even if it doesn’t resolve differences.
This would not be a productive course of action in my view. It would only start a flame war about whether the people I might name are or are not rad trads, and that would be productive for nobody.
I think the better thing to do is to modify the post to remove the problem. I have attempted to do this, and I hope the clarifications have rectified the problem.
Incidentally, I agree that Mark states himself in terms that are overly Leibnitzian. Hence my points #1 and #2, above.
Jimmy,
Thanks — I did not see your clarification until after I posted. As dcs notes, the slight difference between your position and Mark’s is actually quite significant. So far, both you and Kevin Miller have offered arguments in Mark’s defense that actually subvert his claim that “The fact is, the Spirit called the Council, so it was the best thing that could have happened…,” but he does not seem to have noticed this fact (consider yourself lucky).
Wouldn’t be productive for whom? It seems to me that if you want to use categories credibly you need to be able to provide actual instances and defend those instances. Otherwise, as I said, there is at least the appearance that you are doing battle with a straw man rather than real men. Not that battling straw men isn’t at times productive: indeed it is arguable that that is the basis of the Socratic and Scholastic methods. But sitting in the muddly middle, with interlocutors equivocally real or fictional but unnamed, seems to me to be a relatively modern and decidedly inferior kind of rhetoric.
Ronny,
I would agree with Mark’s general conclusion (which I take to be that it would be unhealthy for him to call for a story-writing contest about what the world would be like if Vatican II didn’t happen), but I do think that not all of the premises he has used in support of this conclusion are ones that can be held with confidence.
The statement “The fact is, the Spirit called the Council, so it was the best thing that could have happened…” seems to me a *possibly* true assertion (and one Mark may hold as true) but not a *certainly* true assertion.
I could be wrong, but I would suspect that Mark would agree to this statement, in which much of the controversy might be resolved.
I could be wrong, but I would suspect that Mark would agree to this statement, in which much of the controversy might be resolved.
Yep.
the intention was to say that *some* disagreeing with Mark were of this stripe, not all).
This is a very coy and interesting way of speaking. I have read the vast majority of posts intently the past fews days, and I see a very animated and lively, but civil discussion from Mark’s detractors and I see namecalling from Mark (several times) and his so-called apologists defenders. If you don’t like the term “Neo-Catholic,” then how about you and all the rest lose the term “rad-trad.” And just for your information, Catholics who attend SSPX Masses can do so to fulfill their Sunday obligation (just like they can attend a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy), as long as they don’t adhere to the schism. And by the way, Cardinal Hoyos has a letter to Bishop Fellay stating specifically that after meeting with His Excellency and two of the other three SSPX bishops, he found them to be (personally) neither heretical nor schismatic. But don’t let facts stand in the way of your “rad-trad” comments, where you flail away at strawmen in your garden.
Here’s my main problem with what Mark wrote:
But the suggestion that the Council itself was a mistake or illegitimate is, I believe, no different than saying the Church is not guided by the Spirit. If you think that, then you need to consider becoming a Protestant because you already are one.
He conflates believing that the Council was a mistake with believing that the Council was illegitimate. You yourself aver that one can maintain the former, but not the latter, if I understand you correctly (“[o]ne could maintain that a council . . . should not have been called”). Furthermore, however, someone who maintains that a Council is illegitimate is not necessarily a Protestant. One can’t really maintain that the Council of Trent (for example) was illegitimate, since the Symbol of Faith approved at Vatican I demands acceptance of its decrees. But as far as I know there is no Profession of Faith that demands acceptance of the decrees of Vatican II. Someone who regards the Council as illegitimate is in very dangerous waters, IMO, but is not a non-Catholic as far as I can see. Of course I am open to corrrection on this point.
If Mark will withdraw his claim that those who believe the Council was a mistake (i.e., those who believe it should not have been called) are “Protestant,” then this controversy will be resolved.
I don’t think there’s anyone taking part in the debate on CAEI who could fairly be characterized as a radtrad (at least on the basis of what they’ve been saying). No one has said that Vatican II was illegitimate or that it stated any erroneous propositions. No one has said that Vatican II taught anything contrary to previous magisterial statements, even those that had been proclaimed non-infallibly. I think instead that a lot of people have been trying, as gently as possible, to point out to Mr. Shea that he’s overstated his position (and thus undermined his credibility), that he’s dug himself into a hole, and that he ought to stop digging before he disappears from sight. For some reason, however, he insists on maintaining that the prudence of calling the Second Vatican Council must be taken off the table as a legitimate subject for discussion, because that decision was (he maintains) the work of the Holy Spirit, and that it is heretical to say otherwise.
All of which, by the way, is a big distraction from what would have been a much stronger point (which I believe Pavel Chichikov hade on CAEI): that it’s a waste of time to indulge in counter-factual speculation, that the Council is a historical fact, and that we ought to deal with it.
And just for your information, Catholics who attend SSPX Masses can do so to fulfill their Sunday obligation (just like they can attend a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy), as long as they don’t adhere to the schism.
You cannot fulfill your Sunday obligation by assisting at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. You may attend one if you are not bound by the Sunday obligation (because of travel, grave inconvenience, etc.), but it does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.
Btw, His Eminence is Hispanic, so his surname is Castrillon and not Hoyos.
All of which, by the way, is a big distraction from what would have been a much stronger point (which I believe Pavel Chichikov hade on CAEI): that it’s a waste of time to indulge in counter-factual speculation, that the Council is a historical fact, and that we ought to deal with it.
I don’t believe it’s a waste of time. If all one does is fantasize about the Golden Age Of The Church If Only Vatican II Had Not Happened, then it’s a waste of time; but speculation isn’t a waste of time because it actually might help address the problems in the Church today.
All of which, by the way, is a big distraction from what would have been a much stronger point (which I believe Pavel Chichikov hade on CAEI): that it’s a waste of time to indulge in counter-factual speculation, that the Council is a historical fact, and that we ought to deal with it.
A point with which, by the way, most of Mark’s interlocutors likely agree wholeheartedly. Mark made some points that were not central to this thesis, and those are what have become the real fuel for this debate, not the thesis itself.
Ironically, but more to the point that I made on Mark’s blog about talking past each other and in support of Zippy’s that perhaps people should start naming whose positions they are critiquing instead of saying “we” and “you” generally or, worse, inflammatory labels, I am seeing above that there is disagreement about what people on Mark’s blog were disagreeing with him. Mark is not arguing against a monolithic unified movement against him, so it is time that his defenders quit acting as though they were and his critics, myself included, to quit enlisting the unspecified and inaccurate “we” against him.
This is part of my point. I have never conceived of those arguing with Mark as a monolithic bloc. I have always understood him to be interacting with people coming from different perspectives, and I have tried to progressively explain that in a clearer fashion.
I continue, however, to not feel that directly applying the label “rad trad” to particular individuals is a productive way of handling the situation. I would propose the following: Whereever the term “rad trad” appears above, replace it with “someone who has an unhealthy fascination with the idea of Vatican II not occurring.”
This substitution (which is not a synonym for “rad trad” but which has a significant overlap) will pick out the individuals that I am most concerned with.
It also does not prejudice the question if whether Vatican II was a good thing or a bad thing, for it is possible to have unhealthy fascinations both with the idea of good things not happening and with the idea of bad things not happening. If a person spent a lot of their mental life in a world where the Coming of Christ (a good thing) never happened or where 9/11 (a bad thing) never happened then that would be unhealthy.
In the same way, spending an undue portion of one’s time in a mental world of any counterfactual nature (including one where Vatican II didn’t happen) is unhealthy, and it is folks of this nature to whom my comments principally apply.
Why don’t we therefore eject the whole terminology issue from the discussion and, if the discussion needs to be continued, continue it on the terms just indicated? This should get us out of a quarrel about words and (if needed) into a quarrel about substance.
Whereever the term “rad trad” appears above, replace it with “someone who has an unhealthy fascination with the idea of Vatican II not occurring.”
I’m not sure that this describes anyone who took part in the debate.
I’m not sure that this describes anyone who took part in the debate.
Exactly dcs. I don’t mind the scholastic method applied to interesting questions with imaginary interlocutors posing rational questions and objections. And I don’t mind addressing people directly with the categories applied to them (e.g. Bob, you have taken the radtrad position XYZ and here is what is wrong with it). But I do object to a style of debate that insinuates that a label applies to some real interlocutors from a group but, with a wink, refuses to say who exactly. Jimmy, do you really think that your deliberate ambiguity (“I mean that some people in the discussion are radtrads, but I won’t say who”) is actually helpful to civil discourse?
I mean, if you are making a scholastic-style argument against positions and not attributing them to someone directly, why not say so? And if you are addressing someone in particular, why not say who (and hey, maybe even quote their own words back to them as you respond)? Because leaving it in the muddy middle, where you claim to be addressing particular actual persons but you won’t say whom, undermines your argument and offends the people you are speaking to (whether or not they are the ones you have labeled in your own mind, since none of us know who they might be). Really. No, don’t protest; yes, it really does undermine you and offend them.
I’m all in favor of using labels, don’t get me wrong. I’m just saying that using them in this wink-wink its-someone-but-I-won’t-say-who way is a particularly self-undermining style of rhetoric.
Why don’t we therefore eject the whole terminology issue from the discussion and, if the discussion needs to be continued, continue it on the terms just indicated? This should get us out of a quarrel about words and (if needed) into a quarrel about substance.
Don’t think the latter is needed — I agree with everything else that you wrote in your post.
My previous post, by the way, was as much for Mark’s critics as for his defenders. I was satisfied with your earlier clarifications.
Ronny: Thanks. I want to compliment you on your helpful contribution to this discussion.
DCS: You will notice that in the revised post the term “rad trad” only occurs in the section of my remarks that pertains to Mark’s general thesis that it would be unhealthy for him to call for the kind of story contest that was proposed. If you make the substitution “person with an unhealthy fascination with the idea of Vatican II not occurring” then it becomes clear that what I am saying pertains to the reasons it would be unhealthy for Mark to call for such a contest. It does not mean that those discussing the matter with him exhibit this characteristic.
Zippy: You seem to be bent on reading my position in particular manner that does not correspond with my actual intent. I am not playing a “wink wink” game, I am trying to avoid a flame war, and I do not find your contributions in this regard helpful.
If this thread does not maintain a civil tone I will close comments on it and, if necessary, I will ban those causing the problem (something I have never had to do before).
I have already apologized for and attempted to rectify the cause for any inadvertent offense that was introduced at the beginning of this thread. I have also–now *literally*–removed the term “rad trad” from the above post. A gentleman would take me at my word and let the matter drop.
I do not mind disagreement as long as it is polite, but with insinuations that “wink wink” games are being played we are getting into the area of personal slur, which is a violation of Rule 1.
The persistence with which you are pressing this point is approaching the stage of being in violation of Rule 2.
Please refer to Da Rulz for an explanation of the mode of conduct I expect on this blog.
It does not mean that those discussing the matter with him exhibit this characteristic.
OK, good.