BONUS|The Documents of Vatican II w/ Dr. DeClue (+Nature/Grace debates)
Summary
Did Vatican II lead to a widespread loss of faith and widespread liturgical abuse? What are the four main documents of Vatican II and do they contain sound teaching? Did Dei Verbum 11 restrict the traditional Catholic view of Scriptural inerrancy? What was De Lubac’s position in the nature/grace debates of the 20th century? Dr. Richard Declue of the Word on Fire Institute joins us to discuss these questions and more.
Guest Bio
Dr. DeClue is the Cardinal Henri de Lubac Fellow in Theology at Word on Fire. He studied religion, Scripture, and theology at Belmont Abbey College, Boston College, and the Catholic University of America, completing his dissertation on the thought of Joseph Ratzinger. His articles have been published in “Communio” and “Nova et Vetera,” and he has given lectures on “Humanae Vitae,” Vatican II, liturgy, ecumenism, and more. In his new role at Word on Fire, DeClue will develop courses and write curricula, books, and articles on a range of theological topics, while also providing leadership as chair of the Curriculum & Formation Committee.
Topics
- How did you get interested in studying theology?
- What were your thoughts on the Ben Watkins vs. Trent Horn debate?
- What is the Vatican II collection just out from Word on Fire?
- How do you answer the charge that Vatican II has led to widespread loss of faith and tons of liturgical abuses?
- What’s the significance of Dei Veribum?
- Does Dei Verbum 11 reduce or restrict the Catholic doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture?
- What was the purpose and significance of Lumen Gentium?
- Can you explain some of the nature/grace debate of the 20th century and De Lubac’s position?
Resources
The Vatican II Collection (from Word on Fire) edited by Matthew Levering
DeClue’s Views (Dr. Richard DeClue’s YouTube channel)
Nature and Grace by Dr. Andrew Swafford
Related Episodes
Ep. #137 – Reclaiming & Defending Vatican II w/ Fr. Blake Britton
Ep. #84 – The Inerrancy of Scripture w/ Dr. Feingold
){kind=link}
John, I wish you would have a Traditional Catholic on to rebut the “Word on Fire” pro-Vatican II crowd. What pro-De Lubac DeClue is saying here seems to be in conflict with Humani Generis. I call your attention to paragraphs 25 and 26:
25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free actions of men – all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council.[5]
26. Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.
Hi Jim, What specifically did DeClue say that is inconsistent with Humani Generis? I consider myself part of the pro-Vatican II crowd, but I also hold to Thomistic positions on grace, obediential potency, and predestination. So, I don’t see any conflict with being pro-Vatican II (i.e. supporting the authentic documents, NOT the false spirit of Vatican II that occurred in its wake) and also being a Thomist.
The parts from Humani Generis, ghost-written above, by R. Garrigou-Lagrange, were taking aim at de Lubac.
Here is more by Ed Feser. (He does not mention Vatican II, specifically. But he does mention de Lubac.)
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/09/natural-law-or-supernatural-law.html
The problem with people like de Clue and the Word on Fire crowd, including Bp Barron, is that they are too young to remember the rape and pillage that were done to the traditional liturgy.
None of them are capable of a reflection like this, from then-Cdl Ratzinger, who himself was an early architect of Vatican II: “Anyone who, like me, was moved by this perception at the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for.” Notice how he said “the RUINS.” Strong stuff!
Hi Jim. I’m still not seeing how anything that the pro-V2 crowd says is inconsistent with Humani Generis. I consider myself part of the pro-V2 crowd because the documents are solid. However, I will acknowledge with you the horrendous misimplementation of the documents and sweeping issues across the world after the council (i.e. what De Lubac calls the “paracouncil”). The paracouncil should rightly be criticized and distinguished from the actual council documents (of which Lefebvre signed onto without coercion).