"Profound Alteration" Only in the West - Yves Congar, Theologian of Vatican II

[@nicolaj62]

Thank you Father for this edifying lecture/excerpt! God bless all at OE! This sounds very much like all Blessed Seraphim Rose told us in one of the earlier Lectures you did!

[@stavrouladeessegloria]

May we all have your blessings Father Peter ☦️ Modern Catholicism never allows their member of their cult to access any of Eastern Orthodox references especially for their seminarians. The worst of their curriculum is the years of philosophical study in the seminary and the teaching about the "absolute" free will as long as you are on Earth. Asking your prayers. May we all have your blessings Father Peter ☦️

[@nicolaj62]

yes, and the worst is that they are fully aware that they go lost by doing so. I was once there, before my pilgrimage to Orthodoxy. The breaking point for me was the reading of the Russian Pilgrim, which we once got from the priest to read during lent. And then somewhat later I heard one priest telling the other, that Orthodoxy has the truth for they have the Holy Spirit guiding their Church, and the other replying, be silent, you want them all to leave! And so I left......... ;)

[@stavrouladeessegloria]

@@nicolaj62 Glory to Jesus Christ ☦️ Thank you very much for sharing a great milestone of your spiritual journey in Christ 😊☦️

[@ExVeritateLibertas]

I think the answer to Fr. Peter's question, how Congar could admit all this and not go Orthodox, boils down to how Catholics view the church being under the supreme and total authority of the pope. If the pope does it, it's right and God-willed. Hence how they accept filioque, though they eventually had to admit the plain fact it broke with the decrees of the ecumenical councils. Because, well, the pope can overrule a council if he wants. (Which begs the question why Rome even holds them.) If the church/pope does it, it's right - so ditching tradition to them is seen as part of a process of continuing revelation to the church through the popes.

[@ruhmuhaccer864]

But then the question is where the dogma of the supremity of the Pope come from.

[@0utc4st1985]

Rationalism is a very effective and useful tool to understand things of the world. The computers everyone is using to watch this video rely on over half a dozen scientific theories in order to be manufactured and operate, which were formulated in a rational way. If these theories were wrong, your computer couldn't be made and/or couldn't run. However, that's where rationalism has it's boundary. The things of the world were not truths that were revealed to us, we had to discover them. When it comes to theology the truths of Christianity were revealed, both through the prophets and Jesus Christ. The misapplication of rationalism to try to find things that were not there has lead Western Christianity astray to such a profound degree that it's unrecognizable today. That's been a great tragedy.

[@AdolfSchicklegruber]

Much of modern technology is a gift from demons. The inventors say so themselves. Rationality has nothing to do with it.

[@0utc4st1985]

@@AdolfSchicklegruber No they don't. A few wingnuts might but many aren't. Some people in my parish in fact are in the tech industry.

[@josephjude1290]

Very good analysis; very sad the western churches have lost their way.

[@piotrbukowczyk2575]

We cannot imagine the Orthodox Church without monasteries, but is their experience sufficient for people living in different circumstances, having family?

[@OrthodoxEthos]

Have you been to Athos, spent time with elders there?

[@piotrbukowczyk2575]

@@OrthodoxEthos I was 10 days in a monastery in Melissochori near Thessaloniki in 2016

[@vessietaylor2938]

I must agree. I concluded that this mental manipulation begins in public school. I was known a lazy in my younger days about school work but I've always been a hard worker and did my best if I saw value. I asked too many questions adults didn't answer so research began in my youth.. I recieved my education with flying colors but unable to use it for employment to keep a good conscious. Teaching is a skill to open minds to think independently and be properly guided by one who enjoys to see another progress with truth, rightness and God. Every seed gets fertilized but not every seed needs what the fertilizers contain. Orthodoxy should come natural without dispersion in the same knowledge of God. Not all seeds kept the toxic fertilizers away and people love their sins to attract the wrong all sorts. This also increases the filth in the churches.

[@julianphillips2100]

Maybe Congar felt the Catholic Church could have returned to what it was.

[@warrenermish1454]

His boat pattern was considered radical back then, and now would be considered orthodox. God bless him.

[@dinovalente2947]

Vatican II - A normal council? The mind of the early Church was specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine. Did Vatican II leave out or ignore some essential Catholic Doctrine? A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it, the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person; Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Furthermore if someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words, the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing, the truer our knowledge is. (Truer, in the sense of having more truth. Adeguatio res et intellectus) This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unnatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Using an analogy this would be like a seasoned cavalier who has known horses his whole life attempting to not consider a horse anymore as a horse but rather as an unspecified animal. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive, in the sense that an essential difference is added to the genus in order to define the species. This sets it apart from other species. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Whereas, when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now, things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. A specific account of the Church includes more essential elements than a generic one. The Councils, pronouncements and doctrines throughout the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically. Instead, our knowledge specifies as we gain acquaintance and experience of a thing. One may object that the Apostles or early Christians had a very clear and specific knowledge of the Church. This is true. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was necessary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand leaves out essential elements since it can never define as well and as close to reality as a specific account can. Take for instance the treasure of Dogmas the Church has and considering for instance the doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. These are very well defined truths of our faith. To try and forget about them and return to a more generic explanation would, at this point in time, leave out essential elements. One may ask, why say "at this point in time" would entail leaving out essential elements? Its necessary to say "at this point in time" since one could object and say that the early Church's catechising was not as formulated as it was post Council of Trent, yet we cannot say that the Church left out essential elements in its teaching at that time. This is true and that is the point. When heresies attacked the faith of the Church, as what happened with Luther's idea of the Real Presence during mass, the older formulation of what happens during the consecration was no longer specific enough. Therefore the Church better and more specifically defined this miracle using the concept of transubstantiation. Any teaching now on the Real Presence which left out the concept of transubstantiation would at this point in time leave out what has become essential elements. Unless we would pretend that the threat of heretical interpretations no longer persists and a generic account would immediately render a correct understanding. However we know this is not the case. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now, one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowledge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowledge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew or defined creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget or forget to mention what one once knew or defined? How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic? Furthermore, there is a prevalent assumption amongst "post conciliar" Catholics that Vatican II attempted to strip Catholicism of whatever is non essential. But, this leads to a contradiction since to hold this view would be to believe that a specific account is less essential than a generic account. This is the same as saying that the definition of man as rational animal is less essential than defining him as an animal. I would therefore like to ask: Why do we think Vatican II is supposed to be a type of update of Catholicism or a type of refocusing of the Church on what is really essential? Did the Council Fathers intentionally want to be less specific for the sake of truth or was this a consequence of trying to find consensus both internally and with the outside world? Was the Church's self awareness and identity diminished on account of this? Following the proverb Lex orandi lex credendi and its just as true corollary lex credendi lex orandi is it fair to say that an analogy can be drawn: as the new council (specific to generic) compares to the organic evolution of doctrine (generic to specific) so does the new mass compare to the organic evolution of the ancient mass? This leads to the next question: in trying to reverse the natural progression from generic to specific and trying to return to the more generic with the excuse of returning to the mode of expression of the early Church does the real danger exists of actually becoming more generic than the early Church itself? There is an essential difference here: the mind of the early Church was very specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.

[@javaman8895]

Did you read the whole book? It would be nice to hear you opine on the rest of the story that brings us to an ever divided church. Also, while scholasticism and rationalism could be blamed for what ills society, what would society be like if we didn’t have them? It’s easy to paint a box with straight lines and say everything in here is good and anything outside is bad. Sounds rational to me.

[@panokostouros7609]

"Dialectic" is fitting for a gnomic will yet to have found rest. The Scholastic movement befits those "seeking" that which has always been available to them from the start

[@piotrbukowczyk2575]

Dear Father! This words from the beginning of your lecture a profound true. However, you and Yves Congar overlooked that we are "products" of the academic theology - Roman Catholic or Orthodox. I have come to Orthodoxy not only by the experience of God in liturgy and monastic life, but also by comparative analysis of Orthodox and Roman Catholic believes showing this "great break" which you told about, combined with the papacy's pretension to continuity in the fields of doctrine, morality and worship with the Church of the Apostles and the Holy Fathers. I do not understand this Orthodox criticism of Scholastic theologians (not only yours). I think they erred because ignorance of the Patristic heritage and the original, Greek text of the New Testament, known in the East and too much abiding by Aristotle (the Dominican school). I agree with prof. Richard Swinburne that a trend to rationalize theology prevailed in the history of Christianity, not fideism. As instance I can mention works of St. Justin the Martyr, St. Clemens of Alexandria, Origenes, St. Austin, Socrates Scholastic where they said about necessity of philosophy and rhetorics in developing theology because we don not find everything in Bible and the Tradition to discuss with people rejecting them.

[@OrthodoxEthos]

We are not rejecting a properly ordered cultivation of the rational intellect, but the hierarchy of things must be maintained - a balance and order which was lost in the West. This was proven out over time; you shall no them the their fruits.

[@joshw3010]

The way I've heard it described is, the Orthodox church doesn't reject scholasticism, just western scholasticism. The idea that we can explain all aspects of God through rational thought. Aquinas tried to explain God completely through Aristotelian metaphysics, but God cannot be completely fathomed through the human mind. We can only understand him through what he has revealed to us.

[@piotrbukowczyk2575]

@@joshw3010 The papacy has never taught, as far as I know, that God is completely cognizable with our reason and senses. One of dogmas of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent excommunicates all who maintain that in religion there is no secret.

[@piotrbukowczyk2575]

@@OrthodoxEthos Therefore why Fr. Heers condemns in some moment of this lecture theological schools, also those Orthodox? As far as I know, first such a school was founded in Alexandria yet in the 2nd Century. One of it graduates was Origenes. By the way: why he teaches in such a school? Are monasteries sufficient?

[@Orthodoxi]

Going into the Orthodox realm is like walking through the wardrobe in C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. We return forever changed. But Children of God. To the perturbation and dismay of our still un-orthodox relations. No fixing that. Reformed in love. Glory to God. 😅

[@terrytzaneros8007]

The Celts, Franks and Goths etc. having become "Latins" became "Romans". The "Greek East" would have to either bend of break.

[@kyrieeleison1243]

Father, you tell lies when you suggest that the west chose "rationalism" over the monastic/asceticism life. Firstly, you don't know what rationalism is. That is a condemned philosophy of the early modern period. The scholastics, which you are referring to, were mainly monastics and ascetics such as Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure. They were monastics from the mendicant orders. The whole intellectual impulse of the mediaeval church was rooted in monasticism and began in monasteries and cathedral schools. They were first and foremost ascetics and men of prayer whose chief labora became the pursuit to make sense of their faith using their God given intellects for the sake of being united to God more closely, since one cannot love what one does not know. Your whole commentary against the West is straw man and reflects a shallow knowledge of Latin theology and spirituality, I'm sorry to say. Instead of embarrassing yourself and sowing division in Christ's Church, how about before judgement day we seek Jesus' will that they all be one.

[@eldermillennial8330]

It was a SUPER subtle form of rationalism compared to the much later post enlightenment radical rationalism, and they obviously didn’t call their new thinking that, but in effect that was what they unwittingly did. But it is accurate to retroactively refer to it as a kind of rationalism.

[@OrthodoxEthos]

You are really calling Yves Congar a liar. You said it yourself without realizing it: men “whose chief labora (!) became the pursuit to make sense of their faith using their God given intellects (!) for the sake of being united to God more closely, since one cannot love what one does not know (!).” True knowledge of God, however, is not acquired using the rational intellect but the NOUS/SPIRIT of man, for it is Supra-rational. It is true that, indeed, that “men of prayer” eschew all thoughts when ascending in prayer, seeking the Lord in their NOUS. The acquisition of rational knowledge ABOUT God is fine but wholly other and secondary to this pursuit. Knowledge of God in the Scriptures and Fathers is NOT this kind of rational knowledge but EPIGNOSIS/hands-on knowledge, experiential knowledge, which means become “eyewitnesses of the Word” not speculative theologians who consult Aristotle and seek to abide by his guidelines and standards when “doing theology.” Again, you should take up your objection with Yves Congar as much as with me. If you re-read what says in the book you will see that this is the beginning of the path which leads to the ultimate TAKE OVER of rationalists in the West. HE says that there was a transition AWAY from the monastic life and ideal toward rational thinking and scholasticism: - “from a predominantly essential and exemplarist outlook to a naturalistic one, an interest in existence.” [visible in change of art form, loss of orthodox iconography] - “‘from a symbol to dialectic,’ or from a synthetic perception to an inclination for analysis and ‘questions.’ Here we have the beginning of Scholasticism…” - “from a culture where tradition reigned and the habit of synthesis became ingrained, to an academic milieu where continual questioning and research was the norm, and analysis the normal result of study. The East followed the road of tradition, and we have shown how one of the principal differences among the various peoples of the Orthodox faith is in fact that they are not trained, as are the Latins, by the schools…the East knew no Scholasticism of its own, and was to experience neither the Reformation or the 16th-18th century rationalism. In other words, the East remained foreign to the three influences that shaped modern Catholicism. “Therefore, the West has evolved towards a type of analytical knowledge which, in sum, is rational; it needs to define the exact shape of things, to see them independently of one another. In the first half of the Thirteenth Century (1200-1250), a new kind of theological teaching and study appeared and established itself in the West [scholasticism]. Until this time, the dominant type of teaching or study had been of a contemplative or monastic nature, linked with the liturgical life of the abbeys or cathedrals. Now, there was added a new type of teaching and study, of an academic and rational nature which was soon to take the place of the former.”

[@ruhmuhaccer864]

@@OrthodoxEthos Father my I ask, notwithstanding the fact speculative theology is not within the main purvey of Orthodoxy, whether there is a comprehensive good book on pure dogmatic theology. Perhaps of an apologetic nature. There are some books like "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Michael Pomazansky or like "Byzantine Theology" by John Meyendorff, I would like to know whom the father trusts in these matters. God bless.

[@OrthodoxEthos]

The massive and stupendous achievement by God’s Grace by Saint Justin Popovich: his Dogmatics. Over 1000 pages. Translated into Greek. Not yet in English. Secondly, the “Dogmatics” of Fr. John Romanides, also not yet in English, although two volumes about his teaching is available from Met. Hierotheos Vlachos entitled Empirical Dogmatics.

[@seelenruh7908]

@@OrthodoxEthos Thank you father But then what is the most trustworthy in English? My Greek is restricted to some Aristotle and Platon readings back in school.

[@caedanjennings]

With all due respect sir you mince Fr Congars words like Protestants mince the Bible…. Take into account the wisdom that flowed from scholasticism…. Not modern public schools…. Consider the world growing and changing at the time science growing… The Church is an organism it grows. Fr Congar was a devout Roman Catholic even for his criticism of the Church at times. He wrote at a time in which the Church needed reform. And it did so not perfectly but as Fr Congar said himself in Journal of a Theologian it is Christs Church…. God bless

[@Philotheist777]

Yet he said that the Catholics changed everything