Dear Dr Taylor Marshall,
I wanted to take a moment and reflect upon your Article “7 Questions for Pope Francis regarding Vatican 2”.
Introduction
I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic. I send all my children to Catholic schools. I attend a Byzantine Catholic divine liturgy, and I pray the rosary every day. As a father and a husband I am dedicated to ensuring that my family remains faithful to the Church, and I often go to great lengths to study theology in order that I may better pass on my faith to others.
Like you I have encountered a great deal of heresy and liturgical abuse in the Church. I have been called a “liturgi-cop” and a “pharisee” in the confessional. I have been told that I can use birth control. I had a priest tell me on the day of my daughter's baptism that I could go to one of the extraordinary ministers for a blessing as we were waved away when we approached the priest for this purpose. During an attempt at spiritual direction the priest told me that a lot of what the Church teaches is “monkeyrod”. I have had to listen to homilies that criticized the new translation of the Novus Ordo “we should have told Rome to take a hike”. I have heard John Lennon's Imagine played on piano while we took communion. I have had to tolerate liberal biblical scholarship in the RCIA when the director led people to question Paul's authorship of a few of his epistles. I have sat and watched horrified as a priest, during his homily, performed yoga positions on the floor telling us that he “channels the Holy Spirit through his body like energy”. I have even watched a bishop turn a blind eye to a New Age teacher that was working within his diocese.
Believe me when I tell you that I am appalled at priests, bishops, and even popes who say and do the worst things imaginable. I wonder all the time how people like James Martin is not formally recognized as being in a state of excommunication from the Church. A great deal of perversion and abuses have been done in the name of Vatican II. I have heard very disturbing stories about the council and its circumstances, much of which I read in Lefebvre's A Letter to Confused Catholics. I am well aware that the Modernists intended to utilize any ambiguity to their own benefit. You and I share a passion for tradition and long for a stronger magisterium that will stand up against progressivism and remain faithful to the deposit of faith.
I was hoping that you would take the time to consider my reflection upon your article, as I have taken the time to reflect upon it, and ask that you would offer a response when time permits. The focus of my analysis will mainly examine the usage of quotations from Nostra Aetate. Notice that my sole concern is the meaning of the text. I do not make any attempt to address any other question other than the meaning of these texts within the document. Whatever we may think or feel about Francis or the events concerning Vatican II are not the focus of my analysis. I make the effort to be as specific and as direct towards this end as possible so as to avoid equivocation and the many tributaries that could easily cause us to drift away from textual interpretation. Therefore, my method was to quote and explore the text as it is without considering external factors. I endeavor to apply what I consider to be basic interpretative reasoning in order to find the most coherent meaning that fits the plain sense of the text. In the following I share what has been my understanding of the issues you raised in your 7 questions in the hopes that we could have some fruitful dialogue.
Church Authority
You first raise the question whether or not Vatican II “falls under extraordinary magisterium” or if it “bear[s] the mark of infallibility? To these questions you have quoted the following:
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.” - Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January 1966.
“But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity.” - Pope Paul VI, Discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December 1965
I can determine from these quotations that Vatican II did not intend to establish any new dogmas but that it did intend to offer pastoral responses to interesting questions. But it does not absolutely follow that since the council did not proclaim any new dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility in an extraordinary manner that it was not an authentic council, this does not exclude that it did nothing at all in an extraordinary manner. The teaching authority simply did not wish to issue any “extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements”, but it did intend to set forth “authoritative teaching on a number of questions...”. This fact should not necessarily be of great concern for there are several Catholic teachings that have never been dogmatically proclaimed. Throughout Church history there have always been degrees of certainty placed upon certain doctrines which have not been formally taught as dogmas. “If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.” Yet there are also teachings that are (sententia fidei proxima), that is “a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.”
To conclude more fully with Lugwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: “With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable.” And we can see that this is true for Vatican II. The council could have acted de fide definita, in defining new dogma but they didn't. “The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, decisions of the Roman Congregations are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See.” (Ott, 9-10)
To answer your first questions: Vatican II did involve the extraordinary magisterium but it did not issue any “extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and therefore none of its teaching carries the mark of infallibility, because only teaching declared as dogma bear the mark of infallibility. But as I pointed out before, not all Catholic teaching is dogma. For example, as to the question of the relation between grace and freedom we find among Catholic thought the Thomistic teaching, Augustinianism, Molinism, Congruism, and Syncretism. Catholics are free in their theological speculation on these subjects none of which are considered dogma and therefore none of them carry the mark of infallibility.
The Liturgy
As for the liturgy you have correctly pointed out the following:
Latin: Sacrosanctum Concilium 36. 1. “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”
Gregorian chant: Sacrosanctum Concilium 116. “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”
It would be appropriate to say that the complete removal of the use of any Latin at all, and the complete neglect of Gregorian chant is not an action that was encouraged by Vatican II, and as you have shown here is that in response to the council it would be required that the Novus Ordo immediately begin to implement these directives from Sacrosanctum Concilium.
The Meaning of Nostra Aetate
Your final set of questions relate to the opening paragraphs in Nostra Aetate, which is the Vatican II document “Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions”. We shall examine these passages using the translation by Fr. Killian as found in the Flannery edition.
The broader context of these passages will help us understand the purpose of these statements, which I can assure you is the plain sense of the passages and by no means constitutes a “massaging of the passages to make them sound more traditional.”
“People look to their different religions for an answer to the unsolved riddles of human existence. The problems that weigh heavily on people’s hearts are the same today as in past ages. What is humanity? What is the meaning and purpose of life? What is upright behaviour, and what is sinful? Where does suffering originate, and what end does it serve? How can genuine happiness be found? What happens at death? What is judgment? What reward follows death? And finally, what is the ultimate mystery, beyond human explanation, which embraces our entire existence, from which we take our origin and towards which we tend?”
The opening paragraphs of section 1 lays the philosophical foundation of a shared experience between humans. People have pondered the deepest questions of reality in attempt to discover meaning and purpose, in search of an overarching explanation for all of existence. This is deep longing that is shared across space, time, and culture. It is this shared intellectual exploration that characterizes the deepest longings of the human heart. No man can be faulted for considering such questions, for these are the questions which we all seek to answer, and it is certainly understandable that men, who have a greater or lesser degree of that “light which enlightens all men”, would come to various conclusions even if those conclusions do not immediately and completely conform to that fullness which is only in Christ. We can not fault a man for longing for such answers, and we certainly can not fault a man for falling into error during this process, this intellectual journey which often has pitfalls, diversions, and detours.
“Throughout history, to the present day, there is found among different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life. At times, there is present even a recognition of a supreme being, or still more of a Father. This awareness and recognition results in a way of life that is imbued with a deep religious sense. The religions which are found in more advanced civilizations endeavour by way of well-defined concepts and exact language to answer these questions.”
It is important to highlight that the attempts of other religions to “answer these questions”, to ponder the mysteries of the universe is that part of all of us that searches for meaning and purpose, it is that common experience among men to explore and penetrate more deeply the loftiest ideas which reason can produce.
This last excerpt brings us to your quotations of the text. But before we consider the passages you mentioned I shall conclude this premise with the ending of section 2, the text that immediately follows, which serves as the broader context for our assessment, bookends for this discussion. Section 2 ensures that we keep the most important point in mind: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflects a ray of truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (2 Cor. 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life.”
The document clearly states that the Catholic Church believes and proclaims that Christ is the way, the true answer to these deepest longings of our heart and the fulfillment of all our philosophical considerations. To ensure that this is unambiguously clear I will quote Unitatis Redintegratio 1.4: “For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated...” Again it says: “...the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace...” It is within this context that the Catholic Church is the one true faith that we now consider your quotations from Nostra Aetate.
Fr. Killian Translation: “Thus in Hinduism men explore the divine mystery and express it both in the limitless riches of myth and the accurately defined insights of philosophy. They seek release from the trails of the present life by ascetical practices, profound meditation and recourse to God in confidence and love.”
It is more clear in the statement on Buddhism that “it proposes” an answer, and mentions “So, too, other religions... attempt in their own way...” by means of what they consider for themselves to be “doctrine, moral precepts and sacred rites.” It should be important to note that no attempt is made in the document to demonstrate that the understanding of Hinduism is the exact same as Catholic teaching, as if there is no difference in these teachings. There is no formal declaration here that we are to accept the falsehoods of non-Christian religions, no directive to affirm that their understanding is without error. When the text says “divine mystery” it is not at all claiming that what they consider to be “divine mystery” is synonymous with what a Catholic means by divine mystery. The text does seem to draw general parallels of intent and method. For instance, in Hinduism, which the documents of Vatican II already consider deficient, there is a shared desire to know the mysteries of the divine reality. Yes, we go about it in different ways, and yes, Catholics come to understand divine reality correctly, since we have divine revelation, but nevertheless the claim is that they make attempts to do this though imperfectly and with imperfect understanding, some measure of truth mixed with great error.
The point is not that we engage in ascetical practices with the same understanding, but that there are some, if not very small and minor, parallels that could be drawn. Is there error contained therein taught by demons? Yes. Are those errors detrimental to their spiritual life? Of course, but the point is the general attempt to pursue truth and to better understand reality through an overarching explanation, even if they have been misguided in these pursuits, even if by following those teachings they unfortunately end up worshiping demons. I think the council is in agreement that those elements in other religions which are contrary to Church teaching is to be rejected, but if we recognize some glimmering ray of truth, a faint light as small as a mustard seed, it can serve as a basis for evangelism. We would both agree that some of the most convincing falsehoods are only appealing because they contain a partial truth. Just as many Protestant converts to the Catholic Church will tell us, “we did not have to abandon absolutely everything in order to become Catholic, rather we simply embraced the fullness of truth and came to walk in the fullness of light.” Some of the teachings we used to believe were in error but the longings underneath were as authentic now as they were then, for this longing comes from God and our hearts are restless until they rest in Him. This is a true desire for truth, and the passion to pursue it, even if imperfectly at first.
Fr. Killian Translation: “Buddhism in its various forms testifies to the essential inadequacy of this changing world. It proposes a way of life by which men can, with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either through their own efforts or by the aid of divine help.”
Killian's translation seems more clear when it says “it proposes”. It is only a statement of what the religion claims for itself, not what a Catholic should conclude about it. The entire context of these passages is not to expound upon these issues with great detail, but rather to only briefly mention that while some people may not yet have attained to the fullness of truth we can nevertheless recognize their efforts to seek and understand truth, and maybe draw some vague parallels that can serve as a point of evangelism. If a strong emphasis within Buddhism is the inadequacy of this world, that it is not to fully satisfy us, we can easily find a point of contact with them since Catholics maintain that while we can be reasonably happy in this world, we will only be ultimately happy in the next in the beatific vision. I can not emphasize enough that these passages are only speaking of the attempts made by these religions in order to answer these questions for themselves, not that a Catholic can believe as they do, or that their teaching is identical to ours, or worse of all, neither is the document proposing other religions as another means of salvation. It is only in and through the Church that the fullness of truth is to be found as it says in Nostra Aetate 4: “...the cross of Christ as the sign of God's universal love and the source of all grace.” Again it says: “...[The Catholic Church] proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (2 Cor. 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life.”
Fr. Killian's Translation: “So, too, other religions which are found throughout the world attempt in their own ways to calm the hearts of men by outlining a program of life covering doctrine, moral precepts, and sacred rites.”
Even using your own quotation, the “likewise” directs us to form a connection here to the examples we have already considered. These other religions “attempt in their own ways”, and allow me to write this properly, that in their own way and in their own understanding have established what they consider to be doctrine, moral precepts and rites which they consider sacred. It isn't as if their rites are sacred according to Catholic teaching but that those rites are considered sacred by those who follow those religions. The text goes out of its way to ensure that these statements are interpreted in this manner when it states: “ attempt in their own ways”. We are not being asked to accept these ways as alternative methods to salvation, as the Modernist would have us believe, they contain error but we are to recognize that those ways are important to those who hold them.
Two Concluding Remarks
It seems fitting to have higher regard for a Jew than we would for an atheist. It seems right that we would be willing to appreciate that the Jew at least claims to be worshiping the one true God, and at least attempts to follow the Old Testament as they understand it. I would much prefer that I shared this amount of common ground with the Jews than to have them all be atheists. It seems that it would be much easier to lead a theist to conclude that the most relational thing that God could possibly do is to become incarnate, than to convince an atheist since for him you would have to also demonstrate that there is a God. At least with the theist you are much closer to the truth, and I do hold those who have a greater measure of the truth in much higher regard. While the people we encounter are not Catholics today, perhaps they might within 5, 10, or 20 years if we were charitable, built connections, shared common ground, and patiently stirred the pot of theological discourse. Even the most beautiful of roses appear to lose their scent and color when it is immersed in mud. The scent and color remain but since it was presented in the worse manner possible we may have just done these people a great disservice and loaded our best ideas with emotional baggage that turns them off any time they are influenced by it in the future. By our demand for immediate conformity we often present truth in the least charitable manner imaginable and by doing so we greatly wound their journey which God has established in His own time. We should lovingly engage in open dialogue, develop mutual understanding, establish trust that leads people to greater openness, and be a vessel through which the love of Christ compels them seeing such beauty within our soul.
Brevity often leads to ambiguity, an author attempting to say too much in too short a space. While attempting to be concise end up leaving the text without a lot of context. Such a text requires you to bring more to the text than what the text offers itself. Being familiar with all the documents of Vatican II it is much easier to see how they are to be read together. Pulling a short passage or two without the broader context of the other documents and the immediate context of the surrounding text can lead to misunderstanding. I do agree that the documents are in need of in-depth commentary in order to not misread them. I would suspect that the manner in which you seem to have interpreted these passages is the exact same way a Modernist would attempt to use it to justify their heretical indifferentism, to which I would offer the same analysis demonstrating that they are misusing the documents. Even though the intent behind the use of these quotations may be different, the result is ultimately the same.
With much respect and charity I offer this explanation in the hopes to create further dialogue on these subjects.
