Who's right about Vatican 2? A debate.

[Gnarwhal]

Here's an episode of the Rules 4 Retrogrades podcast that I thought was particularly interesting. Tim reunites with one of the co-founders of his podcast Christopher Plance, and Richard DeClue, both of whom recently posted a podcast discussion wherein they challenged Taylor Marshall's (and the average trad's) position on Vatican II.

Tim Gordon invited them to a formal debate wherein Tim, although actually in total agreement with Plance and DeClue's position, simulated Marshall's position and engaged in a really interesting discourse over nearly two hours.

Some of the points that stood out to me as contra to what I've always understood up until this point about Vatican II:

1. Vatican II is not the first and only pastoral council the Church has ever held.
2. Pope Paul VI did not tell everyone that they didn't have to fully abide by what was decreed in the council, rather quite the opposite. In 1966 he said "it's not extraordinary magisterium" which is something trads may cite, but he continues "but [the council] has invested it's teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. Which ordinary magisterium is so obviously authentic that it must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful. According to the mind of the council as expressed in the nature and aims of the individual documents."

Another point that stood out to me was something DeClue said about the paradoxical attitude of some trads who oppose Vatican II in that their rejection of a [valid] Council is believed to be faithfulness. He took that further with some rad trad's propensity to "LARP" and favor monarchy as a form of government, saying that if that's true they're not even honoring the monarchy they already have (the Church) in the way that they're positioning themselves as oppositional to the Church.

Just a few things that made me think pretty hard about some of the thoughts I've had up until this point.

At any rate, I invite you guys to give it a listen. Like most of the podcasts I post it's a long episode, longer than most actually at roughly 1hr45mins but I think it gives all of us some meat to chew on about this old argument.

Here are the show notes from the YouTube post:

Who Is Right About Vatican 2? On a podcast last week, “DeClue’s Views,” Chris and Richard pointed out errors Taylor Marshall made in discussing the sacred Constitutions of Vatican Two. Notwithstanding these errors, Tim defends some of the Traditionalist conclusions (and concedes others) about the weaponized ambiguity softwired into the Council documents. Summarily, Tim’s position constitutes a geometric mean between Marshall’s on one side and Plance’s/DeClue’s on the other; ultimately, he sides with any who advocate the indefectibility of the Roman Catholic Church via the hermeneutic of continuity. DeClue’s Views podcast referenced above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeQen...

 

[Basil the Great]

I listened to 98% of the talk, just skimming a little when I thought it got bogged down. Personally, I was disappointed, as almost no time was spent on the two controversial VII documents on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty. I assumed that such would be a good part of the discussion, but this was not the case. Anyway, it was a little interesting at times and I had nothing better to do.