Intro to Vatican II and the Events Leading Up to It ~ Fr Smith https://youtu.be/bHutE8eon8w
Ecumenical Councils ~ Fr Smith https://youtu.be/ieNRckkXh-g
Sacrosanctum Concilium ~ Fr Smith https://youtu.be/JALVFYObel4
Lumen Gentium ~ Fr Smith https://youtu.be/lIo_gL3MN-g
Dei Verbum ~ Fr Smith https://youtu.be/LU-3--3L6N8
Gaudium et Spes ~ Fr Smith https://youtu.be/ABAjQQJFbyc
51 Years After the Council ~ Fr Smith https://youtu.be/OLDTk7zPf-M
I am not a fan of these talks. I heard them all, and I find so many problems with them. Has anyone else heard these? What critiques could you give? One thing that was basically expressed was that Romano Amerio who wrote Iota Unum did not give adequate analysis and that Fr. Wiltgen who wrote The Rhine Flows into the Tiber did not give adequate testimony.
I am not sure if the one who posted the videos actually believes all of what was said, but perhaps the person wanted to see how traditonalists would respond.
I do not mean to attack the priest though. I simply see problems in the talks themselves.
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 29, 2017, 07:52:20 PMHas anyone else heard these?
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 29, 2017, 07:52:20 PMOne thing that was basically expressed was that Romano Amerio who wrote Iota Unum did not give adequate analysis and that Fr. Wiltgen who wrote The Rhine Flows into the Tiber (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/6227) did not give adequate testimony.Iota Unum
is not an in-depth analysis of each of Vatican II's documents, and Fr. Wiltgen's book is a journalist's reporting on the council, not a theological analysis of its documents.
The best thing to do is not waste your time with all these private interpretations of Vatican II and simply read pre-Vatican II theological works like those of Msgr. Fenton (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/matches/authors/1172) (the greatest American theologian) and Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/matches/authors/8) (the greatest 20th century theologian and Msgr. Fenton's teacher).
See also the Preparatory Commission's first drafts (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/4253) sent to the fathers at the opening of Vatican II. The first document, On the sources of revelation
, is what the council fathers rejected by a simple majority (1,368) on Nov. 20, 1962; what Ratzinger harshly criticized (Ratzinger Reader
(https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=4196) pp. 258 ff.); and what John XXIII thereafter called upon a mixed commission with members from the Doctrinal Commission and from the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (incl. liberal Card. Frings et al.) to redraft. The other documents weren't even voted upon, because it was thought they didn't correspond with John XXIII's opening address!
and: the Acta synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani
(https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/search?query=title%3A%22Acta+synodalia+Sacrosancti+Concilii+Oecumenici+Vaticani%22), "a full record of what was said and discussed at the Second Vatican Council."
Too late. I heard all the talks. ;D Again, not to attack the priest, but the talks are given from a false objective premise. Thanks for the links though. It was tragic to hear the old charge spoken of about neo-Thomism being supposedly too technical, abstract, and boxed up. Benedict XVI and John Paul II's line of thinking is still favored unfortunately.
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 29, 2017, 09:11:29 PMIt was tragic to hear the old charge spoken of about neo-Thomism being supposedly too technical, abstract, and boxed up.
Which "flavor" of Neo-Thomism? There are many; cf. Edward Feser (https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/)'s The Thomistic Tradition (part 1) (https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/10/thomistic-tradition-part-i.html?m=1#6717933511240612484) & part 2 (https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/10/thomistic-tradition-part-ii.html?m=1#8763230683057498696):
Is it also true that moral theology was treated as a subset of canon law? And was there really a separation between dogmatic theology and moral theology as I have heard claimed? I recall a book by a Fr. Pinckaers, O.P. on the matter called Morality The Catholic View.
Did neo-Thomism get to describe the relationship between Scripture and Tradition? I found a claim in the video about Dei Verbum that it was contributed amd worked out by those of the new theology. Shouldn't the new theology be trashed though?
I know that the priest who gave the talk studied in Rome and did his doctoral dissertation on Fr. Henri de Lubac.
The word "subsistit" was also said to mean "stands under" and was claimed to be clearer than identification, in other words "is." I need to also read The Catholic Dogma by Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, who wrote about extra ecclesia nullus omnino salvatur.
There is a claim also that the Church's structure is not a monarchical constitutional and that it is instead concentric.
I also gathered a claim that the Council was Christocentric and that it distinguished itself as such with the claim of having things start with Christ as the beginning and end with Christ as differing from neo-Thomism saying that God in His essence as the beginning and end of all things and differing from the neomodernists who put man as the beginning and end.
Proper development of theology should have continued from neo-Thomism. It is so ridiculous to even deny that there is a rupture wrought by and in Vatican II when it is so obvious.
There is a mention of the "intentio auctoris" concerning the Council Fathers, but what does that matter if the fruits speak for themselves? Magisterial documents are not Holy Writ and must be clear if they are to properly guide the faithful. The media also has some partial blame, but it does not carry the main responsibility of the Church crisis.
The Hegelian dialetic is still being pushed.
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 29, 2017, 10:30:20 PMIs it also true that moral theology was treated as a subset of canon law? And was there really a separation between dogmatic theology and moral theology as I have heard claimed?
Theology is both a speculative and a practical (applied) science (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FP/FP001.html#FPQ1A4THEP1), so "dogmatic theology" and "moral theology" (e.g., that of St. Alphonsus (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/search?query=%22Theologia+moralis%22), who frequently cites St. Thomas) cannot be inseparable. We often hear today from heretics (e.g., re: Amoris Lætitia
) that dogma cannot change but "its pastoral application to concrete situations" can; this is untrue.
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 29, 2017, 10:30:20 PMDid neo-Thomism get to describe the relationship between Scripture and Tradition? I found a claim in the video about Dei Verbum that it was contributed amd worked out by those of the new theology. Shouldn't the new theology be trashed though?
Yes, Nouvelle Théologie
(https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/3035) is Modernism; this is what Fr. G.-L. wrote concerning Humani Generis
(http://scholastic.us.to/hg_gl.html) (of which he's thought to have been the drafter) and what he concluded in his famous "Where is the New Theology Leading Us? (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/3032)" article (OCRed here (https://web.archive.org/web/20131004223423/http://www.cfnews.org/gg-newtheo.htm)).
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 29, 2017, 10:30:20 PMextra ecclesia nullus omnino salvatur.
Fr. G.-L.'s student Msgr. Fenton's The Catholic Church and Salvation: In the Light of Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See
(https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/5299) is a solid treatment of this.
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 29, 2017, 10:30:20 PMThere is a claim also that the Church's structure is not a monarchical constitutional and that it is instead concentric.
What's meant by concentric?
Read the first chapters of St. Robert Bellarmine's On the Roman Pontiff
(https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/5349), which prove the excellence of monarchy and that this is in fact the way Christ constituted the government of the Church.
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 29, 2017, 10:30:20 PMProper development of theology should have continued from neo-Thomism.
The term "Neo-Thomism" really lacks precision. Fr. G.-L. didn't use it when he wanted to refer to theology or philosophy based on the principles, method, or commentators of St. Thomas; he simply said "Thomism." The term "Neo-Thomism" is generally used by Modernists (e.g., those of the Nouvelle Théologie
(https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/3035)) who disregard the Thomistic commentators ("those rivulets which, derived from the very fount [of 'the doctrine of Thomas'], have thus far flowed, according to the established agreement of learned men, pure and clear," as Pope Leo XIII put it in Æterni Patris
(https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html)) and instead want to go straight to the sources (risorgimento
or resourcement) of St. Thomas's writings and invariably put their own Modernist ideas right into the mouth or pen of St. Thomas! Thus, "Neo-Thomists" apply to St. Thomas's writings the same method of historicism (condemned in Humani Generis
(//http://), spec. §7: "There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.") that Modernists apply to Holy Scripture or that Modernist liturgists applied to "rediscovering" (translation: "inventing") the Novus Ordo
eucharistic prayers 2, 3, 4 (i.e., the non-Roman Canon ones); this latter action was condemned in Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei
(https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html) encyclical on the liturgy.
Quote from: Kephapaulos on June 29, 2017, 10:30:20 PMThere is a mention of the "intentio auctoris"
The Neo-Thomists think they know the "intentionem auctoris
" better than the "authors" (the Church and her theologians) themselves do! Bouyer, for example, ridiculed orthodox Thomism (https://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/08/louis-bouyer-enemy-of-traditional.html?m=1) represented by Fr. G.-L. et al., calling it "John of St. Thomist theology"! Modernists deny Vatican I's Dei Filius
, where it says: "that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to be departed from, under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them
." Modernists (or Neo-Thomists) might start with the Church's (or St. Thomas's) principles, but then they "develop" them and end up with something that denies these very principles, turning something good into something quite evil and false. Modernists abhor the logical-deductive method and instead prefer inventing "truths" that suit the exigencies of "modern man."
Have you read Roberto de Mattei's The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/6322)? It delves much deeper into the theology of the council. For example, right off the bat (beginning in part 1, ch. 1, §b) it delves into the Nouvelle Théologie crisis of the '50s leading up to the eve of the council. It's copiously footnoted, too. Fr. G.-L. is cited about a dozen times.
(De Mattei is a student and biographer (https://books.google.com/books?id=rJW5p1vDs4UC&pg=PP1) of the great Brazilian Catholic thinker and founder of TFP, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/matches/authors/5).)
No. I had not, but I have heard of the title though.