The arguments over Vatican II have gone on for half a century. The one thing most theologians agree on is that the documents of Vatican II — while at times purposefully vague or difficult to reconcile with tradition — can, provided the correct interpretive context, be understood in an orthodox fashion.
It is from this basis that we hear repeated Pope Emeritus Benedict’s insistence on the so-called “hermeneutic of continuity.” This was perhaps best explained in his Christmas address to the Roman Curia in 2005:
The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years the description that St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicea: he compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: “The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith…” (De Spiritu Sancto, XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).
We do not want to apply precisely this dramatic description to the situation of the post-conciliar period, yet something from all that occurred is nevertheless reflected in it. The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?
Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or – as we would say today – on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.
On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform”, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.
The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.
[…]
The hermeneutic of discontinuity is countered by the hermeneutic of reform, as it was presented first by Pope John XXIII in his Speech inaugurating the Council on 11 October 1962 and later by Pope Paul VI in his Discourse for the Council’s conclusion on 7 December 1965.
Here I shall cite only John XXIII’s well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes “to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion”. And he continues: “Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us…”. It is necessary that “adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness…” be presented in “faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another…”, retaining the same meaning and message (The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., p. 715).
Considering the threat of such a split — and the stated desire of Pope St. John XXIII to preserve doctrine “pure and integral” — it is understandable that Pope Benedict worked so diligently to connect the threads between what came before the council and what resulted from it.
But there are certain problems that can’t be wished away.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has called for some of these problems to be seriously examined and addressed. He is not alone in his concerns, or in his desire for a new “syllabus of errors” in reference to Vatican II.
A more troubling concern, however, has recently arisen. In a brief editorial at Rorate Caeli this morning, Dr. John Lamont — a member of the theology and philosophy faculty at Australian Catholic University — examines this recently-discovered distortion:
Those who wish to apply a ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ to Vatican II, or who deny that there can be any opposition or rupture between the documents of that council and Catholic tradition, or who claim that the assertion that the authentic teachings of Vatican II formally contradict the tradition of the Church is false, might consider the following passage from the council’s pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes:
Gaudium et Spes 24: ‘Quapropter dilectio Dei et proximi primum et maximum mandatum est.’
For non-Latinists, this claim (it is a complete sentence in the conciliar document) can be translated as follows: ‘For love of God and of neighbour is the first and greatest commandment‘. No Latin is needed to realise that this is a flat contradiction of the teaching of Christ. There is a deliberate allusion in Gaudium et Spes 24 to the wording of the divine teaching it is contradicting, as can be seen from looking at the Vulgate text of that teaching:
Matthew 22:35-39: “Et interrogavit eum unus ex eis legis doctor, temptans eum; ‘Magister, quod est mandatum magnum in lege? Ait illi Iesus: ‘diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et in tota anima tua, et in tota mente tua. Hoc est maximum et primum mandatum. Secundum autem simile est huic: diliges proximum tuum, sicut teipsum.'”
This text from Gaudium et Spes suffices to prove that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are not without error, and that fidelity to Christ’s teaching requires that parts of it be rejected. It is also a fruitful starting point for reflection and investigation into the ideology and motivations of the progressive leadership of that council, and into the degree to which the Council Fathers as a whole accepted their responsibility for preserving the divine deposit of faith. (This text was pointed out to me by a Catholic professor of theology who must remain anonymous.)
As a reminder, for those of you who (like me) aren’t conversant in Latin, here is the cited passage from Matthew (22:34-40):
But the Pharisees hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together: And one of them, a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him: Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.
There is no question which commandment is first, or why. Love of neighbor is “like to this” because it flows from it. We love our neighbor because we love God first, who created and desires the good of our neighbor. Without the greatest commandment, the second is meaningless. Together, they form the basis of Christian life – but they are not equal in importance or priority.
This is an absolutely critical distinction.
Unfortunately, this error did not begin and end with the Pastoral Constitution on the Church. It appears again, in 1965, in Paul VI’s Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, Apostolicam Actuositatem, #8:
The greatest commandment in the law is to love God with one’s whole heart and one’s neighbor as oneself (cf. Matt. 22:37-40). Christ made this commandment of love of neighbor His own and enriched it with a new meaning. For He wanted to equate Himself with His brethren as the object of this love when He said, “As long as you did it for one of these, the least of My brethren, you did it for Me” (Matt. 25:40).
Most recently, we see it — this time in an evolved and even more alarming formulation — in the apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium:
160. The Lord’s missionary mandate includes a call to growth in faith: “Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt28:20). Hence it is clear that that the first proclamation also calls for ongoing formation and maturation. Evangelization aims at a process of growth which entails taking seriously each person and God’s plan for his or her life. All of us need to grow in Christ. Evangelization should stimulate a desire for this growth, so that each of us can say wholeheartedly: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20).
161. It would not be right to see this call to growth exclusively or primarily in terms of doctrinal formation. It has to do with “observing” all that the Lord has shown us as the way of responding to his love. Along with the virtues, this means above all the new commandment, the first and the greatest of the commandments, and the one that best identifies us as Christ’s disciples: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12).
Where Gaudium et Spes conflates these first and second commandments, Evangelii Gaudium replaces the first with the second. This shift in emphasis from love of God to love of neighbor, if put into practice, would become a sort of idolatry. A worship of man before God. Which is perhaps why I find myself somewhat concerned when I read statements like this:
Pope Francis said he wished for the same on the part of the Church community in Rome so that it may be more attentive, caring and considerate towards the poor and vulnerable and recognize in them the face of our Lord. How I wish, he said, that Christians could kneel in veneration when a poor person enters the church.
How are we to interpret these things? Can we chalk these up to a simple — albeit recurring and evolving — mistake? And perhaps more importantly, how might we faithful go about expressing our concerns in a way that we might have reasonable hope that this be corrected?
I am forced to admit that I don’t have any helpful answers. For the time being, it seems that the first priority should be to agree that this is a problem. Lacking consensus on this most fundamental point will make any attempt at redress far more difficult.
I just go with the understanding that Vatican II was a pastoral council and ignore the teachings that are incorrect. This passage and Lumen Gentium 16 cannot be taken seriously.
“You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application” (Letter from Blessed Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, Nov. 10, 1976).
So? That is one Pope’s opinion. The magisterium CANNOT be in err. If there is error in a document, it is not part of the magisterium. It’s that simple.
Prove that there’s error in the documents, then. But do you have the competence, ability, or authority to do so?
And by the way, His Holiness was stating fact, not opinion. Learn the difference between the two.
Christ’s words conflict with the document. I’ll go with Christ.
You can chose to put the truth in whatever corner you like, my friend.
If it’s simply stated unclearly, which is what Bishop Athanatius Schneider explains, then it needs to be clarified. But until that time, it is not dogma and does not need to be believed.
A contract that isn’t written clearly is non enforceable. So if a teaching is unclear it is precisely that – unclear. One cannot be held to that which isn’t precise.
Ann Barnhardt had a great piece on Our Lord being the Word and the Word, that is the Logos, being LOGIC.
Thanks for posting logic, Netmilsmom!
Please define what is dogma is. It appears from your comment that it is only dogma that must be adhered to. That is false.
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
Canon 749.1 says that by virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff teaches infallibly when he proclaims, by a definitive act, a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals sitting in the Chair of Peter.
That listed dogmas of the Church but t did not define/tell me what a dogma of the Church is.
*
To save us time, please see this comment of mine over at remnant.
No thanks. I’ll stick with the defined dogmas and the canon. I like actually Catholic Church teachings, not the interpretation of a poster on the internet.
God Bless!
God made us free …
We must have confidence that God will right the ship. I am not so confident about the Pope. It would seem Our Holy Father will step in!
Dear Mr. Skojec,
The Second Vatican Council is the worship of man: diabolically hidden to deceive the elect, if that were possible. Matthew 24:24
666: man is attempting to be the Triune God.
Godspeed,
Curtis
http://abplefebvreforums.proboards.com/thread/4067/out-people-apoc-xviii
Thank you, Steve, for your forthrightness in calling attention to these serious issues even lacking ready suggestions for solving the problem. But then identification is the first step to any solution.
Even small deviations lead to division when left unaddressed. And the one’s you outlined certainly do seem to fit with what we have been witnessing on the ground.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here.
In Matthew 22:34ff, Jesus is answering a question about “the Law” meaning the Mosaic Covenant, so He is speaking about the first and second commandment of the Old Covenant. This is the Covenant that comes to an end with the institution of the New Covenant at the Last Supper and Calvary.
However, the New Covenant has only one law, only one commandment: Love one another as I have loved you.
The whole of the Old Covenant Law has been superseded by the New Covenant commandment.
The moral law of the Old Covenant still informs that love of the New Covenant, but it is no longer Covenantal Law. Under the New Covenant there is really only one explicit commandment and it is this: To love one another as I [Jesus] have loved you.
Highly doubtful that Jesus intended:
Unless, of course, he was saying, I am the Lord thy God. Which He was not, because He also said: The Father is greater than I.
Nevertheless, if we have love one for another, all men will know that we are His disciples.
Jesus, in all humility did say, ‘The Father is greater than I’. But, our Lord also said: The Father and I are One.
The Father, in turn, acknowledged their oneness when he said: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Here we see that the Father says that He is pleased IN the Son – not with the Son. The earthly terms ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ suggest their oneness in nature.
“Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” No, I don’t disagree with you at all. Three Persons, One God.
The kind of conformity you’re demanding seems to be much more than that which obtains among the synoptic Gospels. The pons asinorum of Biblical studies is to always look up the parallel passages, in this case, Luke 10.
Continuity is always right. Discontinuity is always wrong. Matthew 5:18–19. “Christianity is a dialect of Judaism.” — David Gelernter, Why Should a Jew Care Whether Christianity Lives or Dies?, which quotes Luke 10.
To resolve? Write the Vatican for clarification.
*
PS A recent e-mail of mine to [email protected] re: Re: Misericordiae Vultus, 20 (“God’s justice is his mercy” not making sense) did not go through: “Account blocked from receiving mail.”
*
PPS Perhaps this rendering is an opening for those after VII who are modeled after Judas, i.e. with a pretentious love for the poor and over-stress on humanity.
*
PPPS While not exactly rendered according to the gospels, it is not opposed to it as the very same point of Gadium et Spes, 24 goes on to say:
I believe it is a stretch to say a Council of the Church with the Pope and the Council Fathers in communion with him taught error. They just can’t.
If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he
that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom
he seeth not? 1 John 4:20
If then you fulfill the royal law, according to the scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; you do well. James 2:8
This is just the kind of legalistic nitpicking that the Latin Church is often criticized for.
Councils cannot err.The Council might have misquoted but you do not look at the Council to transmit a new canon or revision of Scripture, because that was not the intent of the authors.
In several Councils, the Fathers misattributed quotations to one saint that was later proved to either never have been said by them. That doesn’t mean the Council was in error, it just was mistaken on a editorial position.
If at the writing of the Nicene Creed if someone as a joke changed it to True God of True Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn’t change the faith or the teaching of the Council.
Furthermore, while he was correct in that Matthew says this, look at Luke.
The question posed in St. Luke’s gospel is not the same. In St. Luke’s gospel the question is, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”
The Gospels are in συνοπτικός for a reason.
The Church Fathers have repeatedly joined and rearranged biblical passages and quotations from different books to develop a message throughout the centuries.
As the author mentions, it as an allusion, a literary device. Not something set in stone that must be followed verbatim.
These commandments are not fungible. There is an order of priority — and of degree — that isn’t something which can be manipulated for the sake of “developing a message.”
Look again at the first commandment, this time taken from the Gospel of Mark (12:30):
“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.”
He goes on (12:31):
“And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these.”
We are not called to love ourselves with our “whole heart, soul, mind, and strength” are we? So clearly, if we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, we can see that this love we are to show them is of a different degree, though unified in purpose. While it obvious that these two commandments are intended to be lived out together, it is to God only whom we owe our first love and our everything.
Augustine speaks about how God, being unseen, begins to be loved through love of neighbor. And this is true.
But in our modern context, the distinction takes on new gravity. Why? Because we live in the age of humanism, of materialism, and of anthropocentrism. What has so damaged the Latin rite of the Church in the post-conciliar age is the veneration of man above that of God. We have willfully “horizontalized” our liturgies. Our priests have turned their backs on the tabernacle to face and converse with the people. We have diminished the oblation of sacrifice in favor of the fellowship of a shared meal. And there has been a disastrous tendency in the social justice faction of the Church to seek out an Earthly utopia in the absence of any real belief in the Eschaton.
Remembering that we must love God first and love Him most — and why we must do this — is critical.
At his talk about liturgical reform in DC this past February, Bishop Schneider was asked what a priest is supposed to do when he recognizes the obligation to increase reverence to Christ but worries that these gestures of reverence will alienate the people who don’t understand or reject them.
“In serving God first,” the bishop responded, “man is also served. But to serve man first…it’s pagan. It’s absolutely pagan.”
We need to get these priorities right. This isn’t legalism. It’s a distinction with a difference. In some cases, it’s quite literally the difference between worshipping the true God and the idolatrous worship of self.
The Council was well aware of this distinction. That is why immediately after it clarifies:
“Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself…. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law” (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20).”
I do not argue that there has been a gross misinterpretation of the Council by a number of individuals. However, to fault the Council for its choice in language as a reason for this, I think, is too broad a speculation and does not give adequate credit to the discerning spirit of the Christian faithful.
That’s not making a distinction at all. It’s focusing on the union of these two commandments.
Again, they are inseparable. No one disputes this. But to begin treating them as though they are equal — rather than simply inextricable — is what happened at the council. And the progression of this theological diversion leads us to the replacement of the first commandment with the second in the writings (and some actions) of Pope Francis.
Christ said the first and greatest commandment is love of God. Francis says the first and greatest commandment is love of neighbor. Which is it?
I really dont believe that is the case. The God places the love of neighbor into mans heart, therefore the love of neighbor first follows from God:
“For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.”
The biblical allusion that you mention is simply a reference to the above, which precedes the allusion by several chapters.
But you didn’t answer my question. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s literal, biblical text.
Christ said the first and greatest commandment is love of God. Francis says the first and greatest commandment is love of neighbor. Which is it?
Oh, most definitely love of God.
So, your argument isn’t that this isn’t wrong – it’s that it doesn’t matter?
Yes. I believe we agree in sentiment but not necessarily substance.
♬
You like potato and I like potahto
You like ὁμοιούσιος and I like ὁμοούσιος
♬
Greetings to all. I’d like to make a contribution; hopefully it will be helpful.
The source of confusion, it seems to me, is that we have two/one commandment(s) that admit the possibility of being distinguished OR of being taken as one. The Gospel texts consider them as separate commandments. When the commandments are distinguished, the Love of God must be said to be the greater commandment. After all, as Steve showed so well, Love of Neighbor derives from Love of God. If other humans did not exist, we would still love God. But if God did not exist, we would not be bound to love our neighbor.
In reply, many have emphasized that love of God requires love of neighbor. They run together. Of course they do. But, the point is, (and Br. Jonah conceded this point to Steve) if we distinguish these commandments, then Love of God is the greater commandment. And if conflation hides this fact, then it is at least something that can/should be clarified. (Which, I think Steve showed, the Catechism of Trent, Part III, Ch. 5, does very well).
However, these two commandments are treated by Vatican II as one commandment. The pro-council folks have to show Steve why this is not a problematic conflation. Can we? I think so:
1) First, because various texts seem to do this. 1 John 3:23 says “this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another.” Here we have a two-part commandment treated as a singular commandment. Again, Paul’s words to the Galatians (Gal 5:14) seem to say that the entire law, which must include love of God, can be (albeit ambiguously) summed up in “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” So the bible gives precedent to overlook possible (and valid!) distinctions and summarize multiple commandments into one.
2) Now, if we (i.e., the council) decides to treat these two distinguishable commandments as one, what can we say about it? We have to say that this commandment, comprised of the two greatest commandments, is the greatest commandment. We can look to Mark 12:30 for support, since he says that no commandment is greater than these two.
In summary, then, the council looks to the bible (1 John 3:23, 4:20, Romans 13, Gal 5:14) to treat these two commandments together as one commandment. Then it says that this commandment, considered as one, is the greatest commandment. Does this deny that, when distinguished, there is an order between the two parts? Well, Steve, what do you think?
3) An Analogy: Let’s consider the two hypothetical commandments: “do good to man’s soul” and “do good to man’s body.” Of these two, the first is obviously greater, since it is the greater part of man, and is the reason that we love man’s body. Now of course, they run together, since you cannot love a man’s soul if you are maliciously beating up his body. Nevertheless, if we distinguish them, the love of soul obviously has priority.
Now, if we ignore the distinction between them, and summarize both commandments as one, saying “the love of man” then what do we have? We have one commandment that comprises a two-part or two-fold commandment. And it seems licit that we attribute to the two-compressed-into-one in a general way the same attributes that we attribute to the two commandments distinguished from each other.
So, does Vatican II conflate the two commandments? Absolutely. Is this problematic? No.
“And the Sentiment shall set you free.”
What you are saying matters, since Catholicism isn’t just for clever people or wise people or learned people or for nice people.
“And he shall speak words against the High One, and shall crush the saints of the most High: and he shall think himself able to change times and laws, and they shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and half a time.” Daniel VII, 25
A different question, and a different answerer.
” “purposefully vague” Dogmatic teaching” is an oxymoron.
“Pastoral Counsel” is an invented term to explain how heretical modernist thought bore its way into The Church. There is no continuity with; The Church and what was brought about directly from the counsel. Its a myth. It seems the boomer generation has been looking for it fruitlessly for most of their lives at this point. Big books with lots of intellectual gymnastics that nobody really reads or cares about are not the answer. Men need to be men again and have The Faith to believe that Christ comes in the form of Bread at every valid Catholic Mass and that it is significant and profound enough to change you for the better every single day.
There is no such thing as a Pope Emeritus. Pope Benedict lost his office when he resigned. He is simply Fr. Joseph Ratzinger again. He admitted as much in an interview I read, he simply didn’t want to fight the title of Pope Emeritus at the time it was announced. Sounds like the kind of thing cooked up by Modernists.
Unfortunately, Pope Benedict was never going to do a thing to fix Vatican II. He was incapable of it. He was one of the leading liberal hijackers of Vatican II at the time. He was a peritus at Vatican II, along with Rahner, Kung, Congar, and others. Part of the liberal periti who hijacked the council. It was their baby. He would have to deny himself and repudiate what he and his generation did and stood for their entire ecclesial careers. He could not do it. Thus his Hegelian hermeneutic of continuity to save Vatican II.
Emeritas – holding after retirement an honorary title corresponding to that held last during active service.
On his resignation as Pope (Bishop of Rome), Benedict XVI became His Holiness Benedict XVI, Supreme Pontiff Emeritus or Pope Emeritus.
There are 6 sentences or so, in the V II Documents that most of us would like to see clarified.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider points these out very well. This is a link where the Bishop explains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8iBeaGeuxw
There has never been a Emeritus Pope in the history of the Church. That title never existed. It has been created out of thin air. Ratzinger is not the Pope anymore. He does not have the office of the papacy and is not the bishop of Rome. He’s not even a cardinal anymore.
Of course Benedict XVI is not the Pope anymore. His resignation is posted on the Vatican web site.
Have you never heard of Bishop Emeritus, Cardinal Emeritus, etc ?
Even Roger Mahoney is Cardinal Emeritus.
There is no thing as Cardinal Emeritus. You are either a cardinal or not a cardinal. There is a Bishop Emeritus of a diocese, but there has never been a man who has left the papacy and been called Pope Emeritus. Ex Popes no longer continued to use any papal title. Joseph Ratzinger was even trying to do some sort of combination of Fr. and his former papal name. He wanted to be called Father Benedict:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/the-request-of-a-retired-pope-simply-call-me-father-benedict-49952/
“I thank especially Pope emeritus Benedict XVI for his presence”. – Pope Francis
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/speeches/2014/september/documents/papa-francesco_20140928_incontro-anziani.html
Plus others on the Vatican web site.
Please pay attention to the Pope’s official web site.
I find the unprecedented nature of this situation rather telling. Especially in light of Anne Catherine Emmerich’s vision of the two popes.
…and the Fatima seers “Bishop in white.”
I find it rather telling and baffling that He has not gone back to the clerical black of a priest but instead insists on the papal white and has been given some sort of Pope Emeritus title. I don’t know what to make of it. Only two possibilities:
1. He is no longer Pope, but just Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, but he is stubbornly clinging to his past, by still wanting to wear a white cassock, wanting to keep his former title, and basically keeping up appearances and façade of being Pope, only that he considers himself a retired Pope somehow still connected to the office.
2. He really is Pope, and we have a crisis of there being 2 Popes in the Church that has been foreseen in Church prophesy. I have never completely discounted the possibility that somehow Benedict might still be Pope, but I am just waiting to see how history plays out in the next couple of months and years.
“…There has never been a Emeritus Pope in the history of the Church.”
No indeed.
This is pitiful. The good Aussie doctor linked to the Latin text…and forgot to add that the council did not even cf. Matthew’s gospel. I wonder why the doctor chose Matthew and not Luke or Mark. Wait, I know why…it wouldn’t fit his interpretation mof that ONE sentence. Notice the actual references in the text, Romans 13 and 1 John. Read those, then tell me the council is contradicting Christ. Hermeneutics is an art, yes, but this is simply malignant or idiocy.
Crap!like this gives trads a bad name, with good reason.
Serious thinkers do not insult their opponents out of the starting gate. Show yourself to be a serious thinker, or take your comments elsewhere.
Personal abuse is something we don’t tolerate here.
Personal abuse. Who did he abuse? @jpaYMCA said This is pitiful and but this is simply malignant or idiocy. Crap!like this gives trads a bad name, with good reason. And I am afraid he is right.
When I was posting my comment above, the following phrases crossed my mind: much ado about nothing, storm in a tea cup, knickers in a twist, etc. The decision not to use them was that the matter is serious because when someone suggests – reminiscent of the tempter’s approach in the garden of Eden – what in the first place cannot be true because if it were the entire Catholic Faith collapses. The other danger is that the faithful who tend to pick and choose as what to adhere to, have one more thing to confirm their error.
Here is a solution to this alleged contradiction: http://consolamini.org/2015/05/12/defending-vatican-ii-a-friendly-response-to-dr-john-lamont/
Unfortunately, I don’t see a solution, merely a restatement.
Christ said that A is the first commandment and B is the second. This document says A+B is the first commandment. It’s simply false. It’s a conflation.
Even if we were to accept somehow that A+B is the first commandment, what then becomes the second? Can we re-arrange Christ’s own words at whim?
I can’t see any way around the fact that stated the way it is, this is an erroneous assertion. And while it is troubling enough by itself, when we see it coupled with GS #12 and related efforts at anthropocentrism — most of which have been hugely successful and have thus diminished the sacred mysteries — it looks less like an accident and more like an agenda piece.
As a refresher on GS #12:
“According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.”
And here is Bishop Schneider on the central problem in today’s Church:
“I think this issue of the reception of Holy Communion by the remarried will blow up and show the real crisis in the Church. The real crisis of the Church is anthropocentrism, forgetting the Christocentrism. Indeed, this is the deepest evil, when man or the clergy are putting themselves in the centre when they are celebrating liturgy and when they are changing the revealed truth of God, e.g. concerning the Sixth Commandment and human sexuality.
‘The crisis reveals itself also in the manner in which the Eucharistic Lord is treated. The Eucharist is at the heart of the Church. When the heart is weak, the whole body is weak. So when the practice around the Eucharist is weak, then the heart and the life of the Church is weak. And when people have no more supernatural vision of God in the Eucharist then they will start the worship of man, and then also doctrine will change to the desire of man.
‘This crisis is when we place ourselves, including the priests, at the centre and when God is put in the corner and this is happening also materially. The Blessed Sacrament is sometimes in a cupboard away from the centre and the chair of the priest is in the centre. We have already been in this situation for 40 or 50 years and there is the real danger that God and his Commandments and laws will be put on the side and the human natural desiring in the centre. There is causal connection between the Eucharistic and the doctrinal crisis.
‘Our first duty as human beings is to adore God, not us, but Him. Unfortunately, the liturgical practice of the last 40 years has been very anthropocentric.
‘Participating in liturgy is firstly not about doing things but praying and worshipping, to love God with all your soul. This is true participation, to be united with God in your soul. Exterior participation is not essential.
‘The crisis is really this: we have not put Christ or God at the centre. And Christ is God incarnated. Our problem today is that we put away the incarnation. We have eclipsed it. If God remains in my mind only as an idea, this is Gnostic. In other religions e.g. Jews, Muslims, God is not incarnated. For them, God is in the book, but He is not concrete. Only in Christianity, and really in the Catholic Church, is the incarnation fully realised and this has to be stressed therefore also in every point of the liturgy. God is here and really present. So every detail has meaning.
‘We are living in an un-Christian society, in a new paganism. The temptation today for the clergy is to adapt to the new world to the new paganism, to be collaborationists. We are in a similar situation to the first centuries, when the majority of the society was pagan, and Christianity was discriminated against.’”
The two commandments cannot be one commandment because the love with one’s whole heart, and with one’s whole soul, and with one’s whole mind that one owes to God is not same love as the love of one’s self that one owes to one’s neighbor.
A+B = B only if A = 0.
In this context, you should be doing set addition, not numerical addition. A+B=B is then quite true, because sets A and B are the same.
Please define the objects of set A and set B and show that A = B.
A is the set of actions that love God, and B is the set of actions that love neighbor. Whatever action is in set A is in set B. And vice versa.
(No one is a completely isolated individual. Whatever makes me worse makes you worse. And vice versa.)
I disagree that every action that loves God loves neighbor or that every action that loves neighbor loves God. Adam loved God before Eve existed. The Buddha loved his neighbor without loving God. Abraham did not take the sword to sacrifice his son for love of Isaac. God commanded His chosen to kill people. The first four of the Ten Commandments have little if anything to do with loving one’s neighbor as one’s self; the six commandments that follow are obeyed and disobeyed by people who love God and people who don’t love God. Jesus thought unworthy of Him anyone who loved father or mother or son or daughter more than Him, and He told a person who wanted to follow Him to let the dead bury their dead.
These and other examples from my reading and my own experience tell me that the commandment to love God with my whole heart, and with my whole soul, and with my whole mind and the commandment to love my neighbor as myself are not the same commandment. People who actually obey either commandment may see things differently.
A brilliant assessment. Thank you.
“Abraham did not take the sword to sacrifice his son for love of Isaac.”
Most certainly he did. God had specifically promised to Abraham that his descendants would come through Isaac. Abraham knew that what God said was true, and that obedience to God would bring about that outcome. How that might come about was surely unclear to Abraham when he was asked to sacrifice Isaac, but he knew that obedience and love for God would bring what would also be good for Isaac — because Isaac would inherit the promised land. Love of God was simultaneously love of Isaac.
“…the commandment to love God with my whole heart, and with my whole soul, and with my whole mind and the commandment to love my neighbor as myself are not the same commandment, however much the two are alike…”
That’s not at all the issue. There are certainly two commandments, and it’s certainly a help that we are given two guides to discerning how we are to be obedient. However, obedience to either one of those commandments cannot ever be a disobedience to the other. They always work together.
Pointing out various actions that may be said to have a primary goal in one way does not mean that they do not unavoidably also have secondary effects.
The most cloistered nun who never offers a prayer except in praise of God does nothing except benefit herself, and me, and you, and all of us.
And scripture says, Gal 5:14: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” Galatians is not wrong in saying this.
The issues are Steve’s issues, one of which is whether the first commandment is greater than the second. I can gladly agree with all your examples in which loving God is loving neighbor and loving neighbor is loving God and where just loving God benefits neighbor and just loving neighbor praises God. Any counter example I offer about obeying one commandment without obeying another can be explained as obeying both, but I offer two more in an attempt to show that the two do not “always work together”: 1) Noe did not love his neighbors, Lot the Sodomites, or Jonas the Ninevites, 2) When Peter preferred Jesus to God (or if you like, savoured not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men), Jesus called Peter Satan.
Jesus said: “Whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets.” He was not wrong in saying this, but He said much more than this about love.
I would leave it here if it were merely a matter of interpretation or elucidation, but I think that Steve is more deeply concerned about another issue, namely the differences between (for short) Kasper and Schneider. On that issue I recommend from First Things: Daniel P. Moloney and Walter Kasper and Daniel P. Moloney.
“…Abraham had faith, not knowledge. That he thought that killing his son was loving him, because somehow God would make things good through him, I, as a father, doubt.”
But God had explicitly told Abraham that he would have descendants through Isaac. And since Abraham had faith, be believed this. Abraham may have been stunned, puzzled, worried sick, shivering with fright. But he believed what God said: that he would have descendants through Isaac.
“Noe did not love his neighbors…”
Here, and in the other examples you give, it is very unclear to me exactly what actions by Noe you might be referring to. (The word “love” can be equivocal. I am quite sure that God hates any sinful action I take, or any sinful state I am in. But I am even more sure that God never acts towards me in any way except with love.)
“The issues are Steve’s issues, one of which is whether the first commandment is greater than the second”
And, to be clear, what kind of “greater” is referred to here? Steve claims that it is more important to love God than to love neighbor. I find such a thing to be inconsistent with Scripture (not the Council, but Scripture), and rather see that both commands always work together, in the sense that obedience to one is obedience to the other.
For example, as I pointed out, Galatians explicitly says: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” As far as I can tell, Steve would have to claim that this statement is wrong. (Though perhaps it is not clear in exactly what sense “importance” was meant by Steve.)
Or what about Matthew 5:23-24, where we are commanded to interrupt our worship of God if we need to be reconciled with our neighbor?
So, I see nothing wrong with what the Council said in this matter, because it is straightforward to read it in a way that is consistent with Scripture.
I am obedient to Matthew 5:23-24, as how I could I not be? In fact, I quoted it yesterday when I told my wife to leave Ascension Thursday Mass (Albany diocese!) well before it ended because it was running long (Fr. Pape! Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception!) and she was in danger of being late for an appointment, and I myself will miss Mass today because during my lunch break from jury duty I will go home to walk my dog Anne. It is not about what you see that we differ, but about what I see. Peace.
“And, to be clear, what kind of “greater” is referred to here? Steve claims that it is more important to love God than to love neighbor. I find such a thing to be inconsistent with Scripture (not the Council, but Scripture), and rather see that both commands always work together, in the sense that obedience to one is obedience to the other.”
You’ve presented a false dichotomy here. Love of God is unquestionably a greater imperative than love of neighbor. This is made clear throughout the scriptures, as well as in the teachings of the Church.
But that in no way implies that these two commandments do not work together, and I’ve said as much many times already.
If there were no other person alive on this earth, you would still be obligated to love God. If God did not exist, you would not be obligated to love your neighbor. Love of neighbor is accidental; love of God is essential.
“Moreover, no honor, no piety, no devotion can be rendered to God sufficiently worthy of Him, since love of Him admits of infinite increase. Hence our charity should become every day more fervent towards Him, who commands us to love Him with our whole heart, our whole soul, and with all our strength. The love of our neighbor, on the contrary, has its limits, for the Lord commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. To outstep these limits by loving our neighbor as we love God would be an enormous crime.” – Catechism of Trent, Part III, chapter V, question V
Paul, you also say:
“For example, as I pointed out, Galatians explicitly says: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” As far as I can tell, Steve would have to claim that this statement is wrong. (Though perhaps it is not clear in exactly what sense “importance” was meant by Steve.)”
If the above-cited quotation from the Catechism is insufficient to make this clear, I’ll offer something simpler: since we live out the love of God, who is intangible and unseen, through love of neighbor, it stands to reason that “the whole law is fulfilled” through a virtuous love of neighbor, because by it we show that we love God.
I take the love of God to be primary in the sense that He is the origin and animating force for all love. Then what I see is that although there may appear to be occasions in which we seem to be faced with a choice between love of God and love of neighbor, this is an illusion: any correctly discerned action will always be accomplishing both at the same time.
You said: “…since we live out the love of God, who is intangible and unseen, through love of neighbor, it stands to reason that ‘the whole law is fulfilled’ through a virtuous love of neighbor, because by it we show that we love God.”
But then what you say seems entirely compatible with Evangelii Gaudium, so I am left puzzled at why you found it problematic.
The second command is ‘like’ in what context? In the context of greatness. It is utterly impossible to perform an action motivated by love of God but hatred for your neighbor. Similarly, it is utterly impossible to perform an action which is motivated by hatred of God but love of neighbor. One command is not greater than the other, because they can only be obeyed simultaneously.
Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?
Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.
These two commandments can only be obeyed simultaneously.
Did Christ say For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment.? No he did not.
What did Christ answer to one of the scribes who asked him “Which commandment is the first of all?”
Did Christ say [f]or this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment? No he did not. Who said this? His Church did.
What was Christ’s answer to one of the scribes who asked him “Which commandment is the first of all?”
Notice it is the LORD who brings in the second and the adds [t]here is no other commandment greater than these.
When the Church taught [f]or this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment did she say it was Christ who said this? No she didn’t. She based her reasoning in the opening Gaudium et Spes, 24 and on Scripture.
Does the Church have the authority to teach as she taught? Yes she does.
Quite frankly I see no error nor can there be a teaching error by a Church Council under a Pope. This should be the starting point.
To the question
One ought to first state what is an infallible teaching: that a Church Council under a Pope CANNOT teach error and then go on to seek clarification from the Church to put to rest their concerns instead of taking paths that may be a danger to their faith and others.
There’s a “small” caveat to the statement made above: …”that a Church Council under a Pope CANNOT teach error”…
Caveat: Since the birth of the Holy Roman Catholic Church on the day of Pentecost, roughly one out of seven Supreme Pontiffs have been Antipopes.
“Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.” Philippians 2:12
(With fear: This is against the false faith, and presumptuous security of modern sectaries.) Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes
And CCC 891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
Greetings to all. I’d like to make a contribution; hopefully it will be helpful.
The source of confusion, it seems to me, is that we have two/one commandment(s) that admit the possibility of being distinguished OR of being taken as one. The Gospel texts consider them as separate commandments. When the commandments are distinguished, the Love of God must be said to be the greater commandment. After all, as Steve showed so well, Love of Neighbor derives from Love of God. If other humans did not exist, we would still love God. But if God did not exist, we would not be bound to love our neighbor.
In reply, many have emphasized that love of God requires love of neighbor. They run together. Of course they do. But, the point is, (and Br. Jonah conceded this point to Steve) if we distinguish these commandments, then Love of God is the greater commandment. And if conflation hides this fact, then it is at least something that can/should be clarified. (Which, I think Steve showed, the Catechism of Trent, Part III, Ch. 5, does very well).
However, these two commandments are treated by Vatican II as one commandment. The pro-council folks have to show Steve why this is not a problematic conflation. Can we? I think so:
1) First, because various texts seem to do this. 1 John 3:23 says “this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another.” Here we have a two-part commandment treated as a singular commandment. Again, Paul’s words to the Galatians (Gal 5:14) seem to say that the entire law, which must include love of God, can be (albeit ambiguously) summed up in “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” So the bible gives precedent to overlook possible (and valid!) distinctions and summarize multiple commandments into one.
2) Now, if we (i.e., the council) decides to treat these two distinguishable commandments as one, what can we say about it? We have to say that this commandment, comprised of the two greatest commandments, is the greatest commandment. We can look to Mark 12:30 for support, since he says that no commandment is greater than these two.
In summary, then, the council looks to the bible (1 John 3:23, 4:20, Romans 13, Gal 5:14) to treat these two commandments together as one commandment. Then it says that this commandment, considered as one, is the greatest commandment. Does this deny that, when distinguished, there is an order between the two parts? Well, Steve, what do you think?
3) An Analogy: Let’s consider the two hypothetical commandments: “do good to man’s soul” and “do good to man’s body.” Of these two, the first is obviously greater, since it is the greater part of man, and is the reason that we love man’s body. Now of course, they run together, since you cannot love a man’s soul if you are maliciously beating up his body. Nevertheless, if we distinguish them, the love of soul obviously has priority.
Now, if we ignore the distinction between them, and summarize both commandments as one, saying “the love of man” then what do we have? We have one commandment that comprises a two-part or two-fold commandment. And it seems licit that we attribute to the two-compressed-into-one in a general way the same attributes that we attribute to the two commandments distinguished from each other.
So, does Vatican II conflate the two commandments? Absolutely. Is this problematic? No.
“Although I make no objections to this theology, anyone with eyes and ears is forced to admit that the characters of the two are sometimes so dissimilar that their theoretical unity seems quite unreal.” — Martin Mosebach on a different subject
Hi Leo,
You’re saying that the characters of the two commandments are so dissimilar that their theoretical unity seems unreal, yes? This is the point I was trying to address in the second paragraph of #2 above, which referenced:
1 John 3:23 (NRSVCE) And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
1 John 4:20 (NRSVCE) Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.
Note the singular in 1 Jn 3:23, which treats the believe in Jesus and love of another as a single commandment. Then 1 Jn 4:20 notes that the two-pronged commandment is of a unity such that the one cannot be fulfilled without the other.
Therefore, the unity of the two commandments seems biblically proved.
Thoughts?
Matthew
Hello Matthew,
I am commanded to love my wife and commanded to love the girl next door. Both commandments can be seen as one commandment. I am commanded to love God (with my whole heart, and with my whole soul, and with my whole mind) and commanded to love my neighbor (as myself). Both commandments can be seen as one commandment. In my experience, the theoretical unity of these commandments—which I don’t deny—can sometimes seem unreal.
1 John says that loving God requires loving neighbor. John uses the singular and the plural. I don’t think he is addressing our particular question.
Leo
Oh, whoops, my bad. I thought you were denying the theoretical unity of these commandments. I agree that it can sometimes seems unreal, or at least obscure.
No, not your bad. I’m sure we would clash over the meaning of “theoretical”! I’m more concerned about the Irish referendum on Friday.
Did it occur to anyone that “Along with the virtues, this means above all the new commandment, the first and the greatest of the commandments, and the one that best identifies us as Christ’s disciples: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” might refer to two commandments: the first and the greatest (Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul) and “the one that best identifies us as Christ’s disciples”, namely “Love your neighbor as yourself”? The assumption here is that the text is referring to one commandment. I am not convinced of this. I am astonished that people who claim to be Christians are attempting to put the worst, most vicious interpretation on the Holy Father’s words, and to accuse him, essentially, of idolatry. This is nothing less than judgment of the sort our Lord forbids.
Not just people who claim to be Christians – people who are well-credentialed theologians, with doctorates in their field of study, decades of experience in teaching and researching the faith, and who have taken oaths of fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church. The nerve of these people, thinking they have the right to tell us that there’s something wrong here!
Jesus didn’t say that His new commandment was the first or the greatest. He commanded His little children, not all (not even all Jews), to obey it. Therefore, His commandment doesn’t comprise the two great commandments. It is a third great commandment, applicable to those of us who claim to be Christians.
This process of making the Catholic faith primarily horizontal, has chipped away at the very basis of the Catholic faith over 50 years-now to the point where the supreme pontiff completely ignores the vertical and anyone thinks differently is punished.
If that is the best example that someone can come up with about “errors” in the documents of the second vatican council, then indeed it is as pretty error-free as one can get.
If you go back to the quote of the second vatican council, it did not claim to be quoting sacred scripture. Instead, it was relating the tradition of the church, which is equal to scripture. The tradition of the Church understands that the greatest commandment is the love of God, which includes indirectly the love of your neighbour. If you look up the definition of the “greatest commandment” in many catechisms both before and after the council, that is what it says. So the council fathers were only expressing the faith of the Church, not attempting to quote directly sacred scripture, otherwise it would have given a quote and put it in ” “‘s.
All the second vatican council was trying to do was what Pope John XXIII said above, which Pope Paul and other popes afterwards have confirmed: to teach the same message, but in a new way, to a different audience, which again was the message of John Paul II, which he called the New Evangelisation. The problem is, some traditionalists believe that theology of the Church stopped with Pope Pius IX, and we are stuck in some sort of neverending theological time warp. To me, this is actually a heresy, the church has never believed that. For example, presenting the Liturgy of the council of trent as some sort of final forever liturgy that can never be changed, which again is the sort of reading of the actual tridentine text in the style of an autistic 12 yearold. The church never interpreted the text like that, and made (albeit minor) adjustments to that liturgy even though a literalist interpretation would be that not a single dot or stroke could be changed. Of course, all the Tridentine Pope was saying was that no bishop or priest can mess around or change one stroke or dot of that liturgy, it was left reserved for a future pope, or council in conjunction with the pope to do. When a court makes a judgement that a law is not to be changed, it means that lower courts cannot change it, it doesn’t mean that a higher court or a later court of the same level cannot change it without good reason. So likewise, if a pope says “no one” can change the liturgy, he was obviously excepting himself and his own office from doing so in the future, which is of course is what in happened pretty soon after when minor changes were made, when in the document itself it rules out even minor changes. Fools!!!! This is why ultra-traditionalists (of the restorationalism heresy bent) do not believe in Personalistic theology, or the Theology of the Body which comes from Personalism, even though Personalistic thought began in the nineteen century and was included in parts within Pope Leo XIII’s encyclicals, as well as in Encyclicals such as Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XII. Any new theology for such heretics, that explains the same faith in a new way is rejected. This is a heresy, I am sorry and needs repentance and is taking vast number of souls away from God.