You're wrong! What do you call LG#25?
Vatican II and its Authority
by I. Shawn McElhinney
"Roma locuta est, causa finita est. There must be a demonstrable coherence and consistency between what the Roman Pontiffs teach firmly and definitively in one period of Church history and what they teach with equal force in any other age. I find it hard to see how any "cause" could be "finished" by Rome - that is, how any doctrinal dispute could be considered definitively settled by her - if Rome herself were to flatly contradict, in a forum as august and solemn as an Ecumenical Council, even one doctrine which she had previously proposed as certainly true by either her ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium. Such a contradiction would be, quite simply, suicidal for the authority of the See of Peter, and thus for the credibility of the Roman Catholic religion as such." - Fr. Brian W. Harrison
I - Introduction:
The reason ‘traditionalists’ treat Vatican II with such derision is precisely for the reasons Fr. Harrison noted above. They believe that the Council DID contradict past teachings and therefore are in a quandary. Because they believe this a priori, they use this assumption as the foundation from which they advance their arguments. What is a General (Ecumenical) Council and its function in the Church??? That is what this essay will examine. In the process the sitz im leben of Vatican II and the period preceding the Council will also be taken into consideration. This is necessary for properly understanding what the Council taught.
A General Council is a meeting where the entire Church in union with the Roman Pontiff is represented and where doctrinal judgments to settle controversies are rendered as well as a revision of the disciplinary regulations binding on the whole Church. Despite this and the well-known prominence historically of the General Council as an authority whose decisions cannot be controverted, there is a problem today on many fronts. Dissident liberals, Modernists, and ‘traditionalists’ feeling that somehow they have a privilege to act contrary to all of history with regards to the way the General Council Vatican II (VC II) is received. Thus, the focus of this essay will be on the locus of their derision. As Steve Hand has pointed out in his essay for the Wanderer on ‘traditionalism’:
"No serious scholar contends that the fathers of the Second Vatican Council ever intended the destruction of Roman Catholicism, or its morphing into some variation of Protestantism or the World Council of Churches. That is why John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger have insisted that the "true council" must be rediscovered precisely in its texts! Not in any alleged "spirit of Vatican II." Many or most Traditionalists have never even read the conciliar documents, only smatterings out of context and filtered carefully by extremists. When they do read them thoroughly, they are often shaken by its traditional expressions and responsible elucidation of the faith in such complex times!" [1]
As a General Council is a gathering of the entire Church, Mr. Hand understands much as Fr. Harrison the implications of a General Council erring. Such an assertion would be disastrous. The very notion of a General Council erring should give people pause. St. Thomas Aquinas in speaking of a symbol of faith being proscribed by a General Council made the following notation on the matter, which should provide some food for thought:
"The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord's promise to His disciples (Jn. 16:13): "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth. NOW THE SYMBOL IS PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. THEREFORE IT CONTAINS NOTHING DEFECTIVE." [2]
The Angelic Doctor recognized the same principle that the Church has always recognized when it comes to General Councils: that they are incapable of erring doctrinally. ‘Traditionalists’ are not at all consistent in their rationale. They commit the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc by claiming that all that has come out in the post-Council period is because of the Council. They assert this but do not prove it. The Council itself is seen as a starting point, a rupture with the past. In doing so they take passages from context and misinterpret them to find boatloads of ‘contradictions’ acting the same way with the Council and the post-Council papal magisterium the way Protestants do with ALL Magisterial documents (and the way atheists and agnostics do with the Bible). Many of them undoubtedly see the problems of the past 30 years and do not know what to make of it. Many of them are probably possessing of good intentions in seeking to combat the evil that is prevalent today. But sticking a shotgun in one’s mouth and pulling the trigger does not properly cure a migraine headache. Nevertheless, this is how ‘traditionalists’ act towards Vatican II and the post Council papal magisterium.