Ep. #137 & #175 – Reclaiming & Defending Vatican II w/ Fr. Blake Britton

by · Published · Updated

10 Responses

  1. David says:
    February 17, 2021 at 4:02 pm

    It is an excellent talk and good for all to hear.
    It would be good if parish priests would organize study groups to actually read Vatican II documents and understand them.
    The average parishioner is never going to read Vatican II documents unless it’s actively promoted.

    It can be perceived that there is a New Mass, because we hardly ever see priests perform mass ad orientem. So it becomes a question of, “if it’s really truly
    acceptable and not frowned upon, then why aren’t many priests doing it?” Why not ad orientem one week and versus populum the next. If the answer is: it makes parishioners uncomfortable because they are used to versus populum, then that lack of comfort could be a teaching experience. If people are getting too comfortable with the rhythm of masses, it becomes rote, it could be good to wake them up a little.

    Reply
  2. Jim says:
    January 20, 2022 at 1:44 am

    Hi John,

    I generally love your podcast. But the continuing “Word on Fire” propaganda about Vatican II is tiresome. Fr. Blake seems like an amiable guy and a holy man, but he does not address any of the core problems with the Council. It is objectively a failed council.

    First off, 70% of US Catholics reject transubstantiation. Great job, Vatican II! Second, even though the world population nearly doubled since 1970, the number of priests is actually less! Church attendance rates, infant baptisms, confirmations, and religious vocations have all dwindled. By your fruits you shall know them.

    Also, Fr. Blake makes some comments that are ridiculous. He claims that “Traditionalists” are not happy people. Maybe that is the case. But we have an auto-genocidal pope who hell-bent on eradicating the TLM from every diocesan parish in the world. How are we supposed to feel? Why could you have not simply asked him about Traditionis Custodes.

    And what kind of an ecumenical council needs a “hermeneutic” to understand it? To paraphrase Ed Feser, the Church’s statements should be CLEARLY orthodox on a plain reading, not merely arguably orthodox on some creative reading. Perfect example: your failure to press Fr. Blake on whether the Church of Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church. The issue is not really whether “good things” can be found in the Protestant churches or other religions. That’s a red herring . The issue is whether the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. (The “subsistence” language was recommended by a Protestant minister to make Vatican II more palatable to Protestants.)

    Also, Fr. Blake, consistent with the Word on Fire propaganda arm, acts as if Catholicism began in 1965. Hence his recommendation that we all need to read the Vatican II documents. Now reading those documents may be a good idea. But why not ALSO read the documents of the Council of Trent? What about the Syllabus of Errors? Not one word about that. Vatican II documents do not, as Fr. Blake seems to suggest, supersede the Council of Trent. (Hence his derogatory reference in the conversation to the “pre-conciliar mind.” Say what you want about the “pre-conciliar mind.” At least it affirmed transubstantiation.

    I note that in dealing with other philosophical and theological topics, you always have on “both sides.” Why not invite a Trad guest on to rebut Fr. Blake? E.g., Taylor Marshall, to discuss his book, Infiltration (which far outsells any Word on Fire book)? On Vatican II, how about Peter Kwasniewski or Roberto de Mattei? Also, Timothy Flanders or Eric Sammons. or Christopher Ferrara, all of whom are authors who have written books on Traditional Catholicism. Or Michael Matt, or Fr Ripperger, or Bp Athanasius Schneider.

    Also, SSPX has recently has a TERRIFIC 50-party podcast and YouTube series on modernism and the problems with Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass. Why not invite one of the SSPX priests who specializes in this area, and have them give their side of the story? Instead, all we get are millennials like Fr. Blake, or de Clue, or Brandon Vogt, who merely parrot the Word on Fire line, none of whom are ever seriously challenged.

    Respectfully,
    Jim C.

    Reply
    • John DeRosa says:
      January 21, 2022 at 5:38 pm

      Hi Jim,

      Thanks for these comments. My replies are interspersed:

      Re: “I generally love your podcast. But the continuing “Word on Fire” propaganda about Vatican II is tiresome.”

      Thank you for the kind words. I honestly don’t view it as propaganda but rather as the propagation of the correct Catholic view, namely: the Vatican II documents are sound and the para-council misimplemented them and caused grave harm and confusion in the Church.

      Re: “First off, 70% of US Catholics reject transubstantiation. Great job, Vatican II!”

      The documents of Vatican II uphold transubstantiation and the Eucharist as “the source and summit” of our lives as Catholics. That many US Catholics reject transubstantiation is sad and problematic. But why not fault the paracouncil? Nothing you’ve said shows that the council as opposed to the para-council is what caused this lapse in Catholic belief. The error I see in this line of thought is post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore, because of this”).

      Re: “Second, even though the world population nearly doubled since 1970, the number of priests is actually less! Church attendance rates, infant baptisms, confirmations, and religious vocations have all dwindled. By your fruits you shall know them.”

      These claims commit the same post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Why not blame the para-council instead of the council itself? I see no reason to blame sound documents for the problem. You should listen to Timothy Gordon’s recent Rules for Retrogrades podcast when he discusses his theory of “bad council, good documents” (personally, I’d qualify it to “bad para-council, good documents”).

      Re: “Also, Fr. Blake makes some comments that are ridiculous. He claims that “Traditionalists” are not happy people.”

      I do not remember these comments. But if you want to let me know where and when he said them, I will listen again. I can assure you that in his book Fr. Blake is not unfair to traditionalists and does not make sweeping accusations like this.

      Re: “Why could you have not simply asked him about Traditionis Custodes.”

      Fair question. I had planned to ask him a question about papal authority over liturgy, but then in a moment decided to skip it with time constraints. If we do another episode on this topic with Fr. Blake, I will ask him about this. But don’t ignore that Fr. Blake holds that the Ordinary Form should be celebrated ad orientem with great reverence and that ad orientem should be the norm (not the exception).

      Re: “Perfect example: your failure to press Fr. Blake on whether the Church of Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church. The issue is not really whether “good things” can be found in the Protestant churches or other religions. That’s a red herring . The issue is whether the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. (The “subsistence” language was recommended by a Protestant minister to make Vatican II more palatable to Protestants.)”

      You are correct that I failed to press Fr. Blake. That’s no fault of “WoF propaganda” though. It’s been a criticism since I’ve started the show that I don’t really press guests enough and tend toward being too praiseworthy of them. I take this piece of constructive criticism and hope to work on it. Matt Fradd, I think, does a commendable job of pressing guests as an interviewer. But it’s a skill that takes practice, and I’m still working on it.

      As to the origin of the “subsists in” language, it came from by Sebastian Tromp whom Dr. Christopher Malloy calls “a stalwart defender of the faith.” In fact, Tromp was a ghostwriter for Pope Pius XII in the document where he taught strict identity between the Catholic Church and the Christ’s Church. Vatican II did not change this teaching and all of the hub-ub about “subsists in” is a red herring. The CDF has repeatedly interpreted the language in continuity with prior teaching. See Chapter 5 of Malloy’s recent book “False Mercy” (which is very traditional btw) for all of the gory details.

      Re: “Why not invite a Trad guest on to rebut Fr. Blake?”

      Well, I must say the main purpose of the show is classical apologetics defending God, Jesus, and the Church. It’s true I do expand the boundaries of that in Bonus episodes and stuff like the Vatican II episodes. I don’t want to invite SSPX people on because of their canonically irregular status (that doesn’t mean they are bad people, I’m just not really comfortable promoting them at the moment). Perhaps if I did more dialogues or debates on the show (which I don’t really do at the moment), I could put Fr. Blake or DeClue in conversation with a critic like those you mentioned.

      As Tim Gordon recently pointed out so starkly, the council had good documents and all of them were signed by Archbishop Lefebvre because they were good (unless you want to say that Lefebvre wasn’t sharp enough to catch glaring doctrinal errors or seriously problematic statements). So, I think having guests on to criticize Vatican II is a dead end.

      That doesn’t mean their objections will be ignored. Their objections deserve attention, and I think they can all be answered (DH is the thorniest, but Thomas Pink’s work is outstanding). I do listen to Taylor Marshall periodically and haven’t been impressed with his argumentation against the council (though I do think his argumentation in other contexts is strong e.g. his book “The Catholic Perspective on Paul”).

      My bottom line view: The council was a valid ecumenical council of the Catholic Church with good documents that Archbishop Lefebvre signed. I’m more interested in showing the continuity of Vatican II with prior Church teaching and implementing the true vision of the good documents (not the bad vision of those in the paracouncil). I don’t view this as propaganda; I view this as the correct Catholic position.

      In the future, Jim, what do you say to this: I will reach out to you with what you think are 2 or 3 of the strongest objections to Vatican II, and I will press my guest with them. Thank you for your comments and criticisms, and I understand that we hold some different views on this. I greatly appreciate your forthrightness and your listenership.

      Peace,
      John

      Reply
  3. Jim C. says:
    January 21, 2022 at 9:24 pm

    Hi John,

    Yikes. You bring on all views to discuss divine simplicity, but not the Second Vatican Council? Disappointing! And I didn’t say you have to bring on Taylor Marshall. Don’t like him? Fine. How about Roberto de Mattei, who wrote a book on it? I suggested other names as well: Peter Kwasniewski, Timothy Flanders, Eric Sammons, Christopher Ferrara, and Michael Matt. Another name I would add: Brian McCall. Or John Rao.

    Sorry to see that your understanding of SSPX is misguided. For the record, I attend diocesan TLM, and have never visited an SSPX chapel. But facts are facts. SSPX priests are validly ordained priests. They offer all seven sacraments. The consecrated host at an SSPX Mass is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. Attendance at an SSPX Mass fulfills your Sunday obligation. An SSPX priest can absolve you of your sins and witness your marriage. More here, from a diocesan priest: https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/ask-father-whats-the-truth-about-the-sspx/

    Say what you want about the SSPX. The fact is that it preserved the Traditional Latin Mass for posterity. If you ever attend the TLM today, you can thank the SSPX for that.

    Your comment that you would not bring on an SSPX because of their canonical status is a red herring. You regularly have on your show Protestants, who actually are NOT in communion with Rome.

    By the way, the Protestant minister at Vatican II who suggested the “Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church” was Wilhelm Schmidt. Thank you fo acknowledging that you failed to get to the core of this issue in your two conversations with Father Blake. (Listening to your interview of him was so frustrating. He raised some good points, but so many times I wanted to jump in a challenge him on the arguments he was proffering.)

    You keep saying that the Vatican II documents are “solid.” I disagree. Let’s go through some examples. The first line of DIgnitatus Humanae is “A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty.”

    That’s a false opinion. It was objectively false in 1965 and is objectively false now. There was no “growing sense of the dignity of the human person.” Six million Jews had just been slaughtered in Europe, and countless millions in the Soviet Union. 1965 was around the time of the tens of millions of people being annihilated in China by Mao! Eight years later the Supreme Court rendered Roe v. Wade.

    Let’s turn to Nostra aetate: “Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, BY THEIR OWN EFFORTS or through higher help, supreme illumination.” So you think it’s “solid” the idea that a person can obtain “perfect liberation” or ‘supreme illumination” by their OWN EFFORTS? Really? C’mon, John. That’s the Pelagian heresy.

    The idea that people have a “right” to religious freedom is in direct contradiction to the Syllabus of Errors. Error has no rights. Period.

    Guadium et spes states: “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.” Do you really agree with that John? You think that is a statement from the Holy Spirit? C’mon.

    Your charge of post hoc propter hoc fails. Nice try, though. I am expressly arguing that the fact that there is a CAUSAL link between the Novus Ordo Mass and the fact that 70% of US Catholic reject transubstantiation. The Novus Ordo Mass is a fabricated (Ratzinger’s term) Protestantized Mass designed with the input of Protestants to make the Mass more appealing to Protestants. Out went the altars, and in went the Cranmer tables. The Mass was less of Sacrifice and more of a “communal meal.” No more communion by tongue on bended knees. In went communion by hand while standing, often from a lay “Eucharistic Minister”. 50 years of that nonsense is going to have a negative impact on a lack of belief in the Real Presence.

    Further, EVERY SINGLE MATERIAL CATEGORY has headed in the wrong direction. since 1970. If it was one or two, fine, post hoc ergo propter hoc. But we’ve had 50 years of liturgical abuse.

    Interesting that you consider yourself a Thomist yet seem to be unaware that Vatican II nouvelle theologie was a frontal assault on Thomism.

    Frankly, all the charges of Trads being “angry” etc., is a red herring. There are plenty of Traditional priests, authors, theologians, and philosophers who have refuted, point by point, everything that Fr. Blake raises. (As mentioned above, the discussion in your second show about the SUBSISTS language was an evasion by him of the core issue.)

    In short, Vatican II is a failed council. It failed in its aims. 50 years have shown that. It revelled ambiguities, and emptied the pews, convents, and seminaries. Did I mention that 70% of US Catholics reject transubstantiation. It resulted in the promulgation of a Mass that tends to be destructive to the Faith. And it also produced a pope who has the auto-genocidal desire (Traditionis Custodes) to abolish a 1,600 year old Mass.

    Best,
    Jim

    Reply
  4. Jim says:
    January 22, 2022 at 4:04 am

    Hi John,

    You bring on all views to discuss divine simplicity, but not the Second Vatican Council? Disappointing! And I didn’t say you have to bring on Taylor Marshall. Don’t like him? Fine. How about Roberto de Mattei, who wrote a book on it? I suggested other names as well: Peter Kwasniewski, Timothy Flanders, Eric Sammons, Christopher Ferrara, and Michael Matt. Another name I would add: Brian McCall. Or John Rao.

    Sorry to see that your understanding of SSPX is misguided. For the record, I attend diocesan TLM, and have never visited an SSPX chapel. But facts are facts. SSPX priests are validly ordained priests. They offer all seven sacraments. The consecrated host at an SSPX Mass is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. Attendance at an SSPX Mass fulfills your Sunday obligation. An SSPX priest can absolve you of your sins and witness your marriage. More here, from a diocesan priest: https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/ask-father-whats-the-truth-about-the-sspx/

    Say what you want about the SSPX. The fact is that it preserved the Traditional Latin Mass for posterity. If you ever attend the TLM today, you can thank the SSPX for that. Your comment that you would not bring on an SSPX because of their canonical status is a red herring. You regularly have on your show Protestants, who actually are NOT in communion with Rome.

    By the way, the Protestant minister at Vatican II who suggested the “Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church” was Wilhelm Schmidt. Thank you fo acknowledging that you failed to get to the core of this issue in your two conversations with Father Blake. (Listening to your interview of him was so frustrating. He raised some good points, but so many times I wanted to jump in a challenge him on the arguments he was proffering.)

    You keep saying that the Vatican II documents are “solid.” I disagree. Let’s go through some examples. The first line of DIgnitatus Humanae is “A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty.”

    That’s a false opinion. It was objectively false in 1965 and is objectively false now. There was no “growing sense of the dignity of the human person.” Six million Jews had just been slaughtered in Europe, and countless millions in the Soviet Union. 1965 was around the time of the tens of millions of people being annihilated in China by Mao! Eight years later the Supreme Court rendered Roe v. Wade.

    Let’s turn to Nostra aetate: “Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, BY THEIR OWN EFFORTS or through higher help, supreme illumination.” So you think it’s “solid” the idea that a person can obtain “perfect liberation” or ‘supreme illumination” by their OWN EFFORTS? Really? C’mon, John. That’s the Pelagian heresy.

    The idea that people have a “right” to religious freedom is in direct contradiction to the Syllabus of Errors. Error has no rights. Period. Guadium et spes states: “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.” Do you really agree with that John? You think that is a statement from the Holy Spirit? C’mon.

    Your charge of post hoc propter hoc fails. Nice try, though. I am expressly arguing that the fact that there is a CAUSAL link between the Novus Ordo Mass and the fact that 70% of US Catholic reject transubstantiation. The Novus Ordo Mass is a fabricated (Ratzinger’s term) Protestantized Mass designed with the input of Protestants to make the Mass more appealing to Protestants. Out went the altars, and in went the Cranmer tables. The Mass was less of Sacrifice and more of a “communal meal.” No more communion by tongue on bended knees. In went communion by hand while standing, often from a lay “Eucharistic Minister”. 50 years of that nonsense is going to have a negative impact on a lack of belief in the Real Presence. Further, EVERY SINGLE MATERIAL CATEGORY has headed in the wrong direction. since 1970. If it was one or two, fine, post hoc ergo propter hoc. But we’ve had 50 years of liturgical abuse.

    Interesting that you consider yourself a Thomist yet seem to be unaware that Vatican II nouvelle theologie was a frontal assault on Thomism. Frankly, all the charges of Trads being “angry” etc., is a red herring. There are plenty of Traditional priests, authors, theologians, and philosophers who have refuted, point by point, everything that Fr. Blake raises. (As mentioned above, the discussion in your second show about the SUBSISTS language was an evasion by him of the core issue.)

    In short, Vatican II is a failed council. It failed in its aims. 50 years have shown that. It revelled ambiguities, and emptied the pews, convents, and seminaries. Did I mention that 70% of US Catholics reject transubstantiation. It resulted in the promulgation of a Mass that tends to be destructive to the Faith. And it also produced a pope who has the auto-genocidal desire (Traditionis Custodes) to abolish a 1,600 year old Mass.

    Best,
    Jim

    Reply
    • John DeRosa says:
      January 28, 2022 at 10:08 pm

      Hi Jim,

      Here’s my response to your comments.

      “You bring on all views to discuss divine simplicity, but not the Second Vatican Council? Disappointing!”

      The difference is that I bring on Protestants and other guests to defend Catholic teaching. I don’t bring them on to defend Protestantism or something contrary to Catholic teaching. The reason I’m uncomfortable with SSPX is because of their canonically irregular status. Of course, I could host a dialogue between guests who disagree, but that’s not really something I’ve done on the show.

      “And I didn’t say you have to bring on Taylor Marshall. Don’t like him? Fine.”

      I actually do like Taylor Marshall, and I’ve benefited from his work in the past, but I disagree with his arguments against the Vatican II documents (because they are invalid or unsound arguments).

      “By the way, the Protestant minister at Vatican II who suggested the “Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church” was Wilhelm Schmidt.”

      Do you have any scholarly source for this? Dr. Christopher Malloy says it was Sebastian Tromp and cites sources. Even if you were correct that this person suggested the phrase, that by no means implies it cannot have an orthodox Catholic meaning. Subsisting is just a special kind of existing as a substance. Here is a good master’s thesis that shows why the language is continuous with Catholic teaching. And this is the position that the CDF has taken in several statements. Also, if the “subsists” language was so obviously problematic, then why did Archbishop Lefebvre sign the document? Was he not sharp enough to recognize problematic language? Please answer this question if you reply. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with the “subsist” language from a Catholic perspective, but we can address this in a future show some more.

      “Say what you want about the SSPX. The fact is that it preserved the Traditional Latin Mass for posterity.”

      I don’t deny that. The problem was the disobedient act of ordaining Bishops in contradiction to papal orders.

      “There was no “growing sense of the dignity of the human person.” Six million Jews had just been slaughtered in Europe, and countless millions in the Soviet Union. 1965 was around the time of the tens of millions of people being annihilated in China by Mao! Eight years later the Supreme Court rendered Roe v. Wade.”

      Your conclusion does not follow from those examples. While the people carrying out the atrocities you mention did not display a “growing sense of the dignity of the human person,” that does not mean there wasn’t a growing concern among other people, especially in response to such atrocities. So, you have not demonstrated anything objectively false about the statement in DH.

      “Let’s turn to Nostra aetate: “Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, BY THEIR OWN EFFORTS or through higher help, supreme illumination.” So you think it’s “solid” the idea that a person can obtain “perfect liberation” or ‘supreme illumination” by their OWN EFFORTS? Really? C’mon, John. That’s the Pelagian heresy.”

      You have misread that text. The document does not say Buddhists succeed in obtaining perfect liberation by their own efforts. It says of Buddhism that “it teaches a way…” In other words, the document merely describes what Buddhism teaches. By misreading this text (and other texts), people have falsely attributed an error to the documents of Vatican II.

      “Guadium et spes states: “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.” Do you really agree with that John? You think that is a statement from the Holy Spirit? C’mon.”

      Questions are not arguments. You have not given any reason to disagree with the statement. Like Taylor Marshall, you have failed to show that the documents approved by Archbishop Lefebvre (i.e. the documents of Vatican II) are anything but true Catholic teaching.

      “Your charge of post hoc propter hoc fails. Nice try, though. I am expressly arguing that the fact that there is a CAUSAL link between the Novus Ordo Mass and the fact that 70% of US Catholic reject transubstantiation.”

      Asserting that you are arguing for a causal link is not the same thing as demonstrating a causal link. You have only asserted one. I simply counter-assert that it was the para-council (not the solid documents) that was responsible for the negative outcomes you mention.

      “The Novus Ordo Mass is a fabricated (Ratzinger’s term) Protestantized Mass designed with the input of Protestants to make the Mass more appealing to Protestants.”

      What is the Ratzinger source for this? Also, Vatican II did not promulgate the Novus Ordo, so you have not done anything to demonstrate a causal link.

      “Interesting that you consider yourself a Thomist yet seem to be unaware that Vatican II nouvelle theologie was a frontal assault on Thomism.”

      I’m only a studious amateur Thomist, and I acknowledge the assault on Thomism and it’s been a theme that’s come up in multiple podcast episodes such as this one: http://www.classicaltheism.com/levering

      “Frankly, all the charges of Trads being “angry” etc., is a red herring.”

      Who has made that charge? I don’t recall saying anything to that effect. It’s not part of our present exchange.

      “There are plenty of Traditional priests, authors, theologians, and philosophers who have refuted, point by point, everything that Fr. Blake raises.”

      This is another assertion with no substantiation. Also, Fr. Blake defends many unobjectionable Catholic beliefs (i.e. the Catholic Church is the true Church, Mary has a special role in salvation, etc.).

      “50 years of that nonsense is going to have a negative impact on a lack of belief in the Real Presence.”

      I don’t deny the existence of such nonsense. However, that nonsense came from the para-council, not from the solid documents of Vatican II.

      “In short, Vatican II is a failed council. It failed in its aims. 50 years have shown that.”

      That the council was not properly implemented (a premise I agree with) does not imply that the council documents themselves were “failures.” They contain authentic Catholic teaching and can be understood in harmony with what came before Vatican II. But the para-council certainly prevailed over the authentic council in many ways.

      “It revelled ambiguities, and emptied the pews, convents, and seminaries.”

      More assertions with no substantiation. How do you know this was the fault of the authentic council documents as opposed to the para-council’s failed misimplementation? You’ve not even attempted to establish such a causal link.

      “It resulted in the promulgation of a Mass that tends to be destructive to the Faith.”

      The new mass was not part of the second Vatican Council.

      Re: “And it also produced a pope who has the auto-genocidal desire (Traditionis Custodes) to abolish a 1,600 year old.”

      This is another assertion that the Council produced something. Yet, it is an assertion with no substantiation. How would we know it was the council documents that caused a concerning situation and not the para-council’s misimplementation of council documents?

      So, I have not seen any reason to abandon this position: The council was a valid ecumenical council of the Catholic Church with solid documents that Archbishop Lefebvre signed. It seems to me that is the correct Catholic viewpoint. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that the concerns you raise are real and serious (as Fr. Blake acknowledges as well), but we disagree, it seems, on the precise cause of current woes as well as on the soundness of the V2 documents.

      Peace,
      John

      Reply
  5. Jim C. says:
    January 29, 2022 at 1:40 am

    John,

    Here are my responses to your comments:

    “The difference is that I bring on Protestants and other guests to defend Catholic teaching. I don’t bring them on to defend Protestantism or something contrary to Catholic teaching. The reason I’m uncomfortable with SSPX is because of their canonically irregular status. ”

    Huh? Catholic teaching is that divine simplicity is true, yet you bring on Ryan Mullins to criticize it. In any case, SSPX is thoroughgoing Catholic. SSPX priests are validly ordained Catholic priests. The consecrated host at an SSPX Mass is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

    In any case, I provided you with a list of Catholic non-SSPX authors and academics to discuss these topics. Not just Taylor Marshall. But Timothy Flanders, Eric Sammons, Robert de Mattei, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Brian McCall, John Rao, Peter Kwasniewski, just for starters. Pair any one them with Fr. Blake, and see a real dialogue. If Fr Blake and you are so confident that Vatican II has such “solid” documents,, then you should not hesitate.

    “I actually do like Taylor Marshall, and I’ve benefited from his work in the past, but I disagree with his arguments against the Vatican II documents (because they are invalid or unsound arguments).”

    That’s an assertion without substantiation. Invite him on your show to refute him.

    “Do you have any scholarly source for this? Dr. Christopher Malloy says it was Sebastian Tromp and cites sources. Even if you were correct that this person suggested the phrase, that by no means implies it cannot have an orthodox Catholic meaning. Subsisting is just a special kind of existing as a substance. Here is a good master’s thesis that shows why the language is continuous with Catholic teaching. And this is the position that the CDF has taken in several statements. Also, if the “subsists” language was so obviously problematic, then why did Archbishop Lefebvre sign the document? Was he not sharp enough to recognize problematic language? Please answer this question if you reply. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with the “subsist” language from a Catholic perspective, but we can address this in a future show some more.”

    Yes. The Italian historian Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council (English edition, 2012), p. 420 n. 366. Pastor Wilhelm Schmird, a Protestant observer at V2, said in a 2000 letter that he suggested the formula to Fr. Ratzinger, who then transmitted it to Cdl. Frings.

    Yes it does imply that “subsists in” has a heterodox meaning. Since the beginning, the orthodox understanding is that the Catholic Church IS the Church of Jesus Christ. The Protestant re-wording was designed to make Catholicism more palatable to Protestants. This alone is enough to bring the council into question. NOTABLY, you did not get into this point in any detail with Fr. Blake because he cannot rationally defend it. Instead, he came up with red herrings about how other religions can have aspects of truth in them, etc.

    As for Abp Lefebvre, I am not his spokesperson. (Your comment about him “not being sharp enough” is just rhetoric, and demeaning. He obviously forewarned us about the modernist drift of the Church and the liturgy, when few were listening.). It’s also a red herring, because even if he did “miss” this issue at the time, it doesn’t mean it’s not an issue now!

    “I don’t deny that. The problem was the disobedient act of ordaining Bishops in contradiction to papal orders.”

    Obedience has its limits, and is always subject to the common good, the natural law, and the salvation of souls. Abp Lefebvre was dying, and the Vatican was not moving fast enough to ordain SSPX bishops. So it was a matter of supplied jurisdiction. Fast-forward now, under this papacy, SSPX is in a better position than FSSP and ICKSP, who do not have their own bishops. Abp Lefebvre was prescient, and merits canonization. He was the St Athanasius of the 20th Century.

    “Your conclusion does not follow from those examples. While the people carrying out the atrocities you mention did not display a “growing sense of the dignity of the human person,” that does not mean there wasn’t a growing concern among other people, especially in response to such atrocities. So, you have not demonstrated anything objectively false about the statement in DH.”

    That is a very weak response, John. Study 20th Century history, even post-WWII history, a little closer. The Chinese Great Cultural Revolution was occurring in the same decade as V2. One decade later, Roe v. Wade and the Cambodian auto-genocide. The idea that there was a “growing sense of the dignity of the human person” occurring in the 1960s is preposterous.

    “You have misread that text. The document does not say Buddhists succeed in obtaining perfect liberation by their own efforts. It says of Buddhism that “it teaches a way…” In other words, the document merely describes what Buddhism teaches. By misreading this text (and other texts), people have falsely attributed an error to the documents of Vatican II.”

    C’mon, John. 🙂 The sentence quote above, and is written in declarative form. Notably, it does NOT say that Buddhism’s teaching is FALSE. (More ambiguity.). Instead, as written, it rhapsodizes about how another religion leads man “to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, BY THEIR OWN EFFORTS .. .supreme illumination.” That’s not a “solid document,” no matter how much Fr Blake and you claim it is. That is the Pelagian heresy, in its pure form. The Church Fathers would recoil at it. (Aside: the author of the first draft of Nostra aetate was Fr. Gregory Baum, a Marxist, who left the priesthood, supported SSM, and “married” another priest.)

    “Questions are not arguments. You have not given any reason to disagree with the statement. Like Taylor Marshall, you have failed to show that the documents approved by Archbishop Lefebvre (i.e. the documents of Vatican II) are anything but true Catholic teaching.”

    That’s not a substantive response. Again, Guadium et spes states: “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.” The orthodox Catholic view is that all things on Earth should be related to Christ the King as their center and crown. Again, hardly a “solid document.” Don’t avert your eyes.

    “Asserting that you are arguing for a causal link is not the same thing as demonstrating a causal link. You have only asserted one. I simply counter-assert that it was the para-council (not the solid documents) that was responsible for the negative outcomes you mention.”

    No, I have given arguments. As for the “solid” documents, I have shown above why they are problematic,, and at best ambiguous. (No council before has ever needed a “hermeneutic” to understand it. Again, to paraphrase Feser, church documents should be CLEARLY orthodox on a NATURAL reading, not ARGUABLY orthodox on SOME CREATIVE reading.” Ambiguity is the hallmark of Satan.)

    “What is the Ratzinger source for this? Also, Vatican II did not promulgate the Novus Ordo, so you have not done anything to demonstrate a causal link.”

    The Spirit of the Liturgy. You are correct that, Vatican II, strictly speaking, did not promulgate the NOM. But it’s architect was a Freemason (Bugnini), whose goal was to Protestantize the Mass to make it more appealing to Protestants.

    “Who has made that charge? I don’t recall saying anything to that effect. It’s not part of our present exchange.:

    Fr. Blake did in the episode. He had all these throw-away lines about Traditional Catholics being “angry,” etc.

    “I don’t deny the existence of such nonsense. However, that nonsense came from the para-council, not from the solid documents of Vatican II.”

    And I don’t deny that the “para-council” (as you put it) played a part. Effects can be multi-causal.

    “That the council was not properly implemented (a premise I agree with) does not imply that the council documents themselves were “failures.” They contain authentic Catholic teaching and can be understood in harmony with what came before Vatican II. But the para-council certainly prevailed over the authentic council in many ways.”

    I already pointed out some problems with the “solid documents” (your term for them). And sure, some of them contain authentic Catholic teaching. Abp. Lefebvre I understand said that about 85% of the content in the documents was fine.

    But even if the documents were clearly written, and orthodox on a natural reading, 55 years later the Church is an abject disaster. Fr. Blake and you are Millennials and therefore too young to understand why. And you were taught by Boomer Catholics (e.g., Bishop Barron) who are too invested in V2 to concede that it has been a disaster. They think that Catholicism began in 1965.

    Whatever the case, the world population has almost DOUBLED since 1970, and there are LESS priests now than then! SOME “EVANGELIZATION” FR, BLAKE!! GREAT JOB, VATICAN 2!! There are less infant baptisms, less confirmations, and less religious vocations. Mass attendance rate is in the toilet (except at TLM). AND 70% OF US CATHOLICS REJECT TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

    “More assertions with no substantiation. ”

    Amply substantiated, John. See the Pew Survey. 70% of Catholics reject transubstantiation. Also, see the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators. (You really need to familiarize yourself with the precarious state the Church is now, compared to 1960. It’s as if a nuclear bomb was dropped. In the 1950s in the US. the Catholic Church was healthy. People went to Mass. The liturgy was reverent.)

    “The council was a valid ecumenical council of the Catholic Church”

    I never said Vatican II was not.a valid council. I said it was a failed council.

    What is so ironic is that you have a podcast devoted to Classical Theism. Virtually all Traditional Catholics are strict observance Thomists and ClassicalTheists to their core. Yet it is post-conciliar “conservatives,” such as de Lubac, and Balthasar who are not really Thomists, but more Nouvelle Theologie. Yet when it comes to Vatican II, you essentially follow the lead of the Nouvelle Theologie crowd. Go figure.

    Best,
    Jim

    Reply
    • John DeRosa says:
      January 29, 2022 at 8:10 am

      Hi Jim,

      Here’s my reply.

      Re: “Huh? Catholic teaching is that divine simplicity is true, yet you bring on Ryan Mullins to criticize it.”

      Yes, that was 1 of 2 dialogue episodes that we’ve done. Afterward, I did multiple shows (solo and w/ Prof. Tomaszewski) rebutting Mullins’ views. I suppose I could do something similar with an SSPX guest, but I think it strays from the classical apologetics the podcast aims to be.

      Re: “In any case, SSPX is thoroughgoing Catholic. SSPX priests are validly ordained Catholic priests. The consecrated host at an SSPX Mass is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.”

      I don’t deny the validity of their consecration nor their Catholicity in many respects. Nonetheless, sadly, they remain in a strained relationship that is “canonically irregular” and no Pope, to my knowledge, has taught yet that they are in full communion with the Catholic Church. I pray there can be greater reconciliation in the future. In the meantime, I don’t deny SSPX teach and say many true things. Nonetheless, they stray when they insist that the Vatican II documents contain errors based on a hermeneutic of rupture.
      Re: “In any case, I provided you with a list of Catholic non-SSPX authors and academics to discuss these topics. Not just Taylor Marshall. But Timothy Flanders, Eric Sammons, Robert de Mattei, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Brian McCall, John Rao, Peter Kwasniewski, just for starters. Pair any one them with Fr. Blake, and see a real dialogue. If Fr Blake and you are so confident that Vatican II has such “solid” documents,, then you should not hesitate.”

      I think shows of this sort could have value, but realize that I haven’t ever hosted dialogues on the show between guests. So, while this is something I might consider in the future, it’s not the main purpose of the show, which is to deliver classical apologetics content (and sometimes go into other philosophical, historical, or theological issues). Also, I’m not sure Fr. Blake would be interested in such a dialogue or not. Regardless, I acknowledge that traditionalists have raised legitimate concerns (as Fr. Blake does as well). However, their concerns don’t amount to any good arguments against the truth of the documents of Vatican II (as I’ll continue to show below).

      Re: “Yes. The Italian historian Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council (English edition, 2012), p. 420 n. 366. Pastor Wilhelm Schmird, a Protestant observer at V2, said in a 2000 letter that he suggested the formula to Fr. Ratzinger, who then transmitted it to Cdl. Frings.”

      I don’t own that work. Can you provide the quote from pg. 420 with some context? I don’t deny the possibility, but I am interested in the historical evidence because Dr. Christopher Malloy and Cardinal Karl J. Becker have presented historical evidence to the contrary, indicating it was not a Protestant, but rather Sebastian Tromp.

      Re: “Yes it does imply that “subsists in” has a heterodox meaning.”

      This assertion has not been substantiated. The CDF has clarified many times that the meaning is not heterodox. For instance, in 2000, they wrote, “Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”? RESPONSE; “The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity.”

      Of course, one can choose to deny this interpretation and insist that the council intended to create a rupture with traditional teaching. But such a position begs the question, as the phrase has been shown to be consistent with Catholic orthodoxy.

      Re: “That’s an assertion without substantiation. Invite him on your show to refute him.”

      I don’t think he’d be interested. But there are sharper Catholics than I that have already rebutted his arguments. Did Taylor do a response to DeClue and Plance? If so, I’d be happy to take a look. Also, Timothy Gordon would be a great dialogue partner for Taylor Marshall, since Gordon now holds that Vatican II produced “good documents.” But there are better venues for this, such as Gordon’s show.

      Re: “As for Abp Lefebvre, I am not his spokesperson. (Your comment about him “not being sharp enough” is just rhetoric, and demeaning.”

      The comment was not demeaning since I am not the one claiming he wasn’t sharp enough. I hold, since I affirm Vatican II and its documents, that Abp Lefebvre was sharp enough to discern if the documents contained glaring errors. Since he voted yes and signed the documents, I hold that the documents contained no such errors. Rather, it’s traditionalists who charge the documents with absurd errors that are in a bind, since their position entails Abp. Lefebvre wasn’t sharp enough to catch the errors (or some other theory?).

      Re: “He obviously forewarned us about the modernist drift of the Church and the liturgy, when few were listening.).”

      Agreed!

      Re: “That is a very weak response, John.”

      This is an assertion without substantiation.

      Re: “Study 20th Century history, even post-WWII history, a little closer. The Chinese Great Cultural Revolution was occurring in the same decade as V2. One decade later, Roe v. Wade and the Cambodian auto-genocide.”

      This advice on what I should study does not show that Vatican II contains an error.

      Re: “The idea that there was a “growing sense of the dignity of the human person” occurring in the 1960s is preposterous.””

      Calling something “preposterous” does not show that Vatican II contains an error. You have not shown there was no growing sense of the dignity of the human person among people who weren’t committing the atrocities, or among the people who had lived through them, or among the people who wanted to put measures in place to avoid them in the future.

      Re: “That is the Pelagian heresy, in its pure form. The Church Fathers would recoil at it.”

      You have not substantiated this assertion. The document is describing what Buddhism teaches. Describing is not the same as approving or endorsing. When Lot offers his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom in Genesis 19, Scripture describes his action. It doesn’t approve of it. It doesn’t condemn it either.

      Re: “(Aside: the author of the first draft of Nostra aetate was Fr. Gregory Baum, a Marxist, who left the priesthood, supported SSM, and “married” another priest.)”

      If true, that is terribly regretful. And yet, Abp. Lefebrve voted yes to the document.

      Re: “The orthodox Catholic view is that all things on Earth should be related to Christ the King as their center and crown.”

      This is not incompatible with Vatican II’s teaching. The line in Gaudiem et spes has in view that man is the “center and crown” of “all things on earth.” In other words, because man is uniquely made in God’s image, human beings take precedent over all material things and other animals. But you are also correct that when the full scope of reality is in view, all things should be related to Christ as the center. These are not contradictory but rather two compatible ways of talking from different reference frames.

      So, I still have not seen an error in the Vatican II documents.

      Re: “No council before has ever needed a “hermeneutic” to understand it.”

      I’m not so sure of that. I think Catholics always need to read councils in harmony with Scripture, Tradition, and previous Church teaching. Sometimes this is easier to do than at other times. While councils are not inspired, we have a similar phenomenon in resolving Bible difficulties. Sometimes, it’s easier to resolve discrepancies than at other times. But from the fact that it’s easier to resolve difficulties in some portions of Scripture than others, does not mean that the difficult parts are less authoritative. So, none of this amounts to showing an error in the documents of Vatican II.

      Re: “Again, to paraphrase Feser, church documents should be CLEARLY orthodox on a NATURAL reading, not ARGUABLY orthodox on SOME CREATIVE reading.”

      I agree with this. I don’t think the V2 documents require creative readings. However, Feser’s remarks are indeed more applicable to prelates and Bishops who have made statements difficult to square with orthodoxy.

      Re: “Fr. Blake did in the episode. He had all these throw-away lines about Traditional Catholics being “angry,” etc.”

      I will listen again to this, and if that’s accurate, I will push back against such remarks in the future.

      Re: “55 years later the Church is an abject disaster.”

      Despite any disasters or setbacks, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

      Re: “Fr. Blake and you are Millennials and therefore too young to understand why.”

      I think Fr. Blake has a better command of these issues than you give him credit for. He has studied them deeply, and though he is committed to an orthodox understanding of all Vatican II documents, he does not believe Catholicism began in 1965.

      Re: “And you were taught by Boomer Catholics (e.g., Bishop Barron) who are too invested in V2 to concede that it has been a disaster.”

      But what about all of the “Boomer” Thomists that have taught us so much (e.g. Fr. Michael Dodds)? In short, I think it’s silly to dismiss Bishop Barron because he defends the council. He is responsible for a lot of young, orthodox enthusiasm for the faith, and I bet, many new seminarians. The priests ordained in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s are retiring or dying off. The next generation of priests were brought up on a steady diet of JP2, Benedict XVI, and Bishop Barron. I think they’re going to do great (but yes, perhaps some of my young optimism is mixed in there).

      Re: “What is so ironic is that you have a podcast devoted to Classical Theism. Virtually all Traditional Catholics are strict observance Thomists and Classical Theists to their core. Yet it is post-conciliar “conservatives,” such as de Lubac, and Balthasar who are not really Thomists, but more Nouvelle Theologie. Yet when it comes to Vatican II, you essentially follow the lead of the Nouvelle Theologie crowd. Go figure.”

      I agree with Thomistic critiques of De Lubac and Balthasar. I just don’t think that requires that we reject the documents of Vatican II. I’m going with Timothy Gordon’s line “bad council, good documents” except I’m qualifying it as “bad para-council, good documents.”

      I realize we disagree on this, but I value our exchange. You have provided a clear reminder of the true and good things defended by traditionalists. Me and my boomer teachers 😉 think that trads just go too far when they want to jettison V2 documents themselves or claim errors in V2 teaching. I’ll give you the last word on this, and you can comment on my forthcoming episode with Dr. Christopher Malloy if you want to revisit the issues again. May God bless you and your family.

      Peace,
      John

      Reply
  6. Jim C. says:
    February 15, 2022 at 6:55 am

    John,

    It’s just strange that you have a podcast devoted to “Classical Theism,” which approaches everything from a Thomistic perspective. But when you discuss anything involving Vatican II, you embrace decidedly anti-Thomist Nouvelle Theologie mush.

    In any case, here is the Ratzinger quote on the Novus Ordo Mass. It appears in the preface to Klaus Gamber’s classic work, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background”What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced—as if it were a technical production—with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.”

    God bless you,
    Jim C.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *