More conversation about the "hierarchy of truths"

Author Moyra Doorly, who has been having published discussions with theologian Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P. about Vatican II and related matters, has conversed with me a bit via e-mail about the hierarchy of truths, which I had addressed in a recent (May 14, 2010) post. Moyra has graciously given me permission to post the conversion we had a few days ago, which I offer here with minor edits:

Doorly: Your comments about the 'hierarchy of truths' were helpful but raised problems for me.  Taken at face value, and without a philosophical training, the term surely opens the door to the sidelining of traditional Catholic doctrines, which is what has happened after all.

Olson: We should be careful, I think, to distinguish between what the documents of Vatican II actually say and how they have been misused or misunderstood. If someone wishes to sideline traditional Catholic doctrine, as many dissenters did and do, they could, of course, employ a misuse of the hierarchy of truths. But, then, this is the way of heresy always and everywhere: to take something that is true and to skew it, taking it out of context or using it incorrectly. As long as this world exists, people will fall or jump into heresy. There was concern at the Council of Nicaea that the use of a term such as homoousion to express and defend the divinity of Christ could lead to misunderstandings or further errors. And, in fact, the next few councils had to keep addressing further Christological errors. As you know, following the Council in A.D. 325, there was a long period when a large number (a majority, according to many scholars) of bishops adhered to the errors of Arianism and "semi-Arianism." In short, while there should be an awareness of how a term might be misused or misunderstood, the essential issue is that of truth.

Doorly: The current position is to focus on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Vatican II documents.

Olson: There is much truth to that, I think, and it is because there has been such a huge amount of misinterpretation and misapplication. It is something like responding to The Da Vinci Code: you must address all of the falsehoods in order to clear the way for truth to be seen and appreciated. Yet it is also very much the case that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have positively articulated and "unpacked" the documents of Vatican II. In fact, their pontificates are, in so many ways, continuations of the Council, as can be seen especially in their encyclicals and other major writings.

Doorly: But the SSPX argues that this has been made easy by the inclusion of new teachings and abiguous statements in the documents themselves.

Olson: I can hardly begin to address this here (and I know Fr. Nichols has addressed it to some degree), but this, of course, is the point of Benedict's insistence on a "hermeneutic of continuity," which rejects the notion (embraced by many "progressives"/dissenters) that Vatican II is a (positive, in their eyes) rupture from the past. Ironically, the SSPX seems to also see the Council as a rupture from the past. But the Council did not happen in a vacuum, nor were its documents ever meant to be read apart from the Church's unbroken Tradition.

Doorly: Surely the 'hierarchy of truths' represents a new teaching expressed in such a way as to make misunderstandings almost inevitable, given the use of the term 'hierarchy' which can so easily be taken to mean that some truths are more important than others.

Olson: Many things can be misunderstood. Truth is constantly being misunderstood, but we know that hardly disqualifies it from being true. Being misunderstood is not a criteria for rejection, but a challenge to explanation.

Frankly, I don't see how the Council's use of "hierarchy of truths" is so confusing or ambiguous. Theologically/logically, it makes perfect sense, for it simply notes that there is an organic relationship and structure within and between doctrines of the Faith. This is what the Catechism further describes as "The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence..." (par. 90). And why the CCC states, "The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the 'hierarchy of the truths of faith'" (par. 234). As I explained in my post, we don't try to explain or understand the Trinity by referring to, say, sacramentals or indulgences, but recognize that we start at the top or center, so to speak, in explaining those doctrines that rely upon the source, or heart, of the Faith.

If the term "hierarchy" is easily misunderstood, does it follow that the Church should rid herself of its episcopal hierarchy? I think this analogy is helpful, for there are obviously many people who think bishops are "more important" than lay people. But that confuses role/function of an office with the dignity/worth of each individual. Each person has the same dignity and value before God, but there are different vocations, roles, and offices. Likewise, each doctrine is true, but each doctrine has a different role, so to speak, within the larger reality of divine revelation.

Doorly: One last thing.  All buildings need foundations, walls, roofs.  Without these a building cannot exist.  The question is - what makes a particular building into a house?  Surely these additional features are just as essential.

Olson: And that, in fact, is exactly what I said in my original post: "Perhaps the analogy of a house and its structure is helpful: every part of the house—cement, wood, roofing, etc.—is integral to the house being a house, but without a foundation and a basic frame, the particulars of plaster, tiling, plumbing, and so forth would not matter. You wouldn't build a house on roof tiles, but you also wouldn't have a house without roofing." What makes a house qua house is how the many parts and components--foundation, roofing, plumbing, windows, etc.--work together in proper relationship to each other, ordered toward being "house." The hierarchy of truths is not about saying this or that doctrine is not essential (quite the contrary!). To continue the analogy: if you were asked by an aborigine, who had never seen a house, to explain "house," would it make sense to show him a picture of a bunch of plumbing? Or would it be better to start with a picture of the whole house--the "bigger picture"!--and then explain how the foundation, walls, doors, roof, and so forth make up the house?

It seems to me, in reflecting on your remarks, that perhaps you have accepted the incorrect idea that the hierarchy of truths says that certain doctrines aren't essential, and so you are then asking that this incorrect idea be defended. But one does not need to defend the idea that certain doctrines aren't essential because that is not what Vatican II, the Catechism, or the Church teaches or wishes to impart. Put simply, the issue is not about parsing value, but perceiving relationship.

Moyra has sent some further thoughts, but I doubt I'll be able to get to them soon. For more on this topic:

• Moyra Doorly and Aidan Nichols, OP, discuss ecumenism, "hierarchy of truths" (May 14, 2010)
• Understanding The Hierarchy of Truths | Douglas Bushman, S.T.L. (Ignatius Insight)

Comments

[Jeffrey Pinyan]

The same paragraph of Unitatis Redintegratio which mentions the "hierarchy of truths" begins thus:

11. The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.

I don't see how "hierarchy of truths" should be interpreted to mean that one truth of the Catholic faith need not be believed, simply because it is dependent on other, more "fundamental" truths.

[Sawyer]

The hierarchy of truths should be understood in terms of prior truth and derivative truth. Consider Euclid's Elements as an analogy. Every theorem in Elements is true, but some theorems are derived from other theorems. The prior theorems are greater hierarchically than the derivative theorems, by way of logical relation, but both the prior and the derivative are equally true. In Catholic doctrine, all doctrines are equally true. However, some doctrines are prior and others are derivative, meaning some doctrines are derived from other doctrines by way of logical relation.

[Tim Cronin]

We need to remember that our faith is not a set of doctrines to know. It is about knowing and following Jesus Christ in the entire gift of oneself to Him.

[Carl E. Olson]

It is about knowing and following Jesus Christ in the entire gift of oneself to Him.

Very true. But, then, "knowing" and "following" requires knowing what to know and following what should be followed. In the words of the Catechism:

There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.

The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ. "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith." (pars. 89-90)

[LJ]

And to paraphrase Chesterton, everyone lives by dogmas. Without them we could not live.

What those dogmas are, then, determines who we are and what we do, as well as how we pray and to whom we pray.

It seems that Doorly's concern or fear perhaps, is the abandonment of doctrine for the sake of ecumenism. As others have pointed out, that is not the intent of Vatican II.

I have been seated at the table negotiating a collective agreement and a common practice is for both sides to run through a list of items that are not in dispute first, in order to focus on the issues that are in dispute. Occasionally, some of those items perceived to be in dispute can be resolved when it comes to light through discussion that both sides have virtually the same desire but from different perspectives.

However, this is where the analogy breaks down, because the Church has no intention of horse-trading or negotiating a compromise on doctrine in dispute. But from the point of view of ecumenical discussion, it seriously undermines some forms of rabid hatred, to come to this point of knowing the actual issues in dispute, and to see how they fit into that organic "hierarchy of truths".

In our modern world, however, the presumption is that everything is negotiable and there are those in the various "spirit of Vatican II" movements who would gladly negotiate doctrine, or just simply toss it overboard unilaterally. Thankfully they are not in charge.

[Dan Hunter]

The FSSPX is doing the work of Almighty God.

They love the Holy Father!

[Jackson]

Agreed, Dan. Although I don't attend SSPX Masses (I go to an FSSP parish nearby), I'll be eternally grateful for their preservation of the faith and resistance against the VII cult of novelty and its poisonous fruit (the vandalized Mass, etc.). It wouldn't surprise me if Archbishop Lefebvre is one day recognized as a Saint.

[Christopher Lake]

Jackson,

Regarding Archbishop Lefebvre and at least his original compatriots, how can they be said to have been involved in the "preservation of the faith" by rejecting and leaving the very Vicar of Christ and the Church that preserves the Faith?

Such actions do not speak of Sainthood. Sedevacantists, by definition, cannot be declared Saints in the Catholic Church. Usually, your reasoning seems spot-on, but the above comment is far afield of Catholic orthodoxy. The abuse of Vatican II does not nullify the proper use (and interpretation) of it.

There are no valid reasons for what Lefebvre chose to do in leaving the Church. There are *reasons*, but if the Church is what she claims to be, and the Pope is, indeed, the Vicar of Christ, there are no *valid* reasons for leaving. That one action, alone, disqualifies Lefebvre from canonization.

[Apolonio]

I find the conversation a bit boring. It is not that Doorly's objections are not well intentioned or even unimportant. It is that they do not really have any effect on every day affairs. My experiences with radical traditionalists like SSPX and others have convinced me many things, such as that they do not really know anything about Aquinas, the Fathers of the Church, theology in general, and they even reason improperly. Take the example of the "hierarchy of truths" argument. One of the things that the world lacks nowadays is actually the notion of a hierarchy. So why shouldn't there be in dogmas too? Did not Christ say, "the Father is greater than I?" But this doesn't mean that Christ is not essential? My heart is more essential than my leg. But if you try to cut my leg off, I'll probably try to tackle you. Or take the example of fatherhood, motherhood, etc. Reality is a well ordered hierarchy.

But the most important thing that they have convinced me is that they are not really in touch with the real world. One cannot propose Christ to the world today with Denzinger in one's hands. Or one cannot simply make the priest turn east and sing a couple of gregorian chants to convert the world. I am not saying that these are not necessary. I believe they are. But solving the problem with a policy or a law will not help the human person. I find that to be the problem with American Church especially. What is necessary is a true education of the human heart, that the heart is made for Christ. This takes time and patience, and something other than proposing what Aquinas said or what Pius X said. Tim Cronin got it right. Christianity is following Christ and Christ is not a doctrine but a Person. This is not to say that doctrines are not important. But to limit education to orthodoxy won't help. Try taking classes at a Pontifical University where all they talk about is essence/existence distinction. You'll find yourself reading T.S. Eliot and John Keats instead. The fact is, most Catholic universities have this idea that Catholicism is simply orthodoxy. And that is just plain wrong from a Catholic point of view. Education is much more than just memorizing the Council of Trent. It is helping the person truly live. It is about proposing something to a cashier in an American Eagle store, that his Sunday life at Mass is the same thing as him spending his nights counting money in the store. Life is much more beautiful than just attending a Mass said in latin and the smell of incense. There are big problems that hits our lives every day than just seeing whether Vatican 2 contradicted all the Piuses. And that is why this traditionalist movement will die. It has nothing to offer to life. As Balthasar said, the SSPX movement will not endure because its reasons are too weak.

Unless you can propose something to the real world, something to a woman who stays up at night with her baby, to a young man studying astrophysics, to a farmer, to a telemarketer, to an old man dying in a hospital, to a brat who spends all his time on the internet and video games...unless you can propose something beautiful to these people, what you will have is an abstract Christ, a Christ not worth following. What will happen if the Masses become all pre-Vatican 2...would that take away what seems to be the monotony of life? No..it will still be there. What we need is a witness who can show us the novelty of every instant because Christ is all in all. And this is where true dialogue comes in: we can only talk to others if we are certain of Christ in *our* lives, in our experiences. Otherwise you will have bad exchanges such as whether the paschal mystery takes away the notion of satisfaction. Next thing you know, you will find everything that happens in Rome part of a conspiracy theory, that the masons have been behind the Church all along.

[SDG]

"Taken at face value, and without a philosophical training, the term surely opens the door to the sidelining of traditional Catholic doctrines, which is what has happened after all."

Actually, the reverse is the case. A common dissident ploy is to effectively deny the hierarchy of truths, insisting that all teachings are equally important. Comparatively peripheral issues are then used as a wedge to sideline more central issues. Ambiguity around the periphery between less-important defined truth and non-definitive teachings is used to bring all teaching down to the level of non-definitive teaching. For example, immigration reform is no less important than abortion. Etc.

[Brian J. Schuettler]

I concur with SDG. Giving equality of value to all Church teachings negates the need for, indeed, eliminates the discussion of hierarchy altogether. It is analogous to relativism's attempt at leveling, or "equalizing" all forms of spirituality and therefore eliminating the essential teaching of Jesus as being the Way, the Truth and the Life for all human beings.

[Jackson]

Christopher, Lefebvre wasn't a sedevacantist, nor does the SSPX support sedevacantism. In fact, sedevacantists attack the SSPX for not being so. See:

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm#sedevacantistnoncatholic

Again, I'm not of the SSPX, but I live with a fellow student who is. He's not a sedevacantist.

Regarding your first question, I'd refer you to this:

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm

You might also see Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics.

[Christopher Lake]

Jackson,

In sincerity, I thank you for your correction about Marcel Lefebvre. I was mistaken as to his exact position, regarding the Pope and the Church, and on his status, as related to the Church.

However, as I understand it (and please correct me again if I am wrong here), it appears to still be the case that Lefebvre consecrated bishops without the approval of the Pope, which was described by John Paul II as a schismatic act. Moreover, in Lefebvre's letter to his soon-to-be "bishops," he stated, "I do not think that one can that Rome has not lost the Faith." http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/To_the_Four_Bishops_Elect_June_13_1988.htm

Quoting from the above document: "In Rome they are most upset. De Saventhem gave me Cardinal Ratzinger's fax number. They have spiritual AIDS down there. They no longer have God's grace, their immune system has shut down. I do not think one can say that Rome has not lost the Faith."

Are these the words of a potential Saint? I think that they speak for themselves. I must still maintain that any man who declares that Rome has "lost the Faith" is not even close to displaying the heroic virtue required for Sainthood. Again, if the Church is what she claims to be, and the Pope is actually the Vicar of Christ, Rome will never "lose the Faith." To think otherwise speaks of a failure of one's own Catholic faith. The gates of Hell shall *not* prevail...

[Jackson]

Christopher,

[W]hen the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?"

-Luke 18:8

Archbishop Lefebvre had in mind the prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette who said that Rome will lose the faith. Thus it's not only possible but certain that Rome will lose the faith. This does not mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed. Rome can lose the faith without the gates of Hell prevailing against the Church.

As for the issues of the alleged excommunication after the consecrations, schism, the proper response to the crisis in the Church, and whether obedience can oblige us to disobey, the SSPX addresses that on their site. E.g.,

http://tinyurl.com/354dv6q

Regarding L's possible sainthood, he heroically stood for the uncompromised Faith when few others at the top of the hierarchy would do so. If not for Lefebvre and the SSPX, who knows how much worse things would be.

As for his words, their tone is akin to those of past Saints. For example:

"How are they of the Catholic Church, who have shaken off the Apostolical faith, and become authors of fresh evils?"

-St. Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I-4

"Only one offense is now vigorously punished: an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries, and transported into deserts."

-St. Basil, Epistle 243

"The apostles and their successors are God's vicars in governing the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments of faith. Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so neither may they deliver another faith, nor institute other sacraments."

-St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, 64, ad. 3

"It is a work of charity to shout: 'Here is the wolf!' when it enters the flock or anywhere else."

-St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, III, Ch. 29

"It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind."

-Pope Leo XIII, Instruction to the Sacred Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, January 27, 1902; quoted by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, par. 55

"[T]he great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer....Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists."

-Pope Saint Pius X, Letter "Our Apostolic Mandate" to the French Episcopate

[John Herreid]

Jackson--I do not think we've ever canonized someone who was directly and obstinately disobedient to their superiors in the Church. For example, St. Pio even obeyed his superiors when they were incorrect. The Curé D'Ars submitted to his wrong-headed bishop when the bishop decided to wrest the control of an orphanage the Curé had started away from the parish.

There have been many reformers who have been obedient while still voicing disapproval of what was going on among the hierarchy. Lefebvre was not one of them. And it's because of his actions that the SSPX is in the situation it's in right now.

[Jackson]

"I do not think we've ever canonized someone who was directly and obstinately disobedient to their superiors in the Church."

I doubt this is true. But even if it is, I wouldn't be surprised if the unprecedented nature of the Second Vatican Council and its fruit lead to unprecedented kinds of Saints. And see:

http://tinyurl.com/354dv6q

I'm done. Anyone who likes can have the last word.

[Christopher Lake]

Jackson,

Honestly, I'm disappointed and a bit disturbed. You aren't a sedevacantist now, but you are using almost the exact same fallacious arguments as the ones that I have heard from Catholic converts who, impatient and upset with goings-on in the Church, have become sedevacantists. I have seen it happen repeatedly.

First, none of the Saints whom you quoted ever engaged in such open defiance of, and showed such disrespect to, the Pope as did Lefebvre.

Second, while many of the quotes do refer to heretics and heresy "within the Church," in a sense (as with the Arian heresy which invaded the Church), none of them dares to opine (as did Lefebvre) that Rome has "spiritual AIDS." One does not "heroically stand for the uncompromised Faith" by making such statements.

Third, I don't think that it's wise to use Our Lady of La Salette to try to justify Lefebvre's actions. Lefebvre's personal interpretation of the message, and his seeming application of it to the entire post-Vatican II Church, reveal an attitude that prizes private interpretation and application over submission to the Pope and the magisterium. Simply put, when Lefebvre decided that he could openly defy commands of the Pope, regarding the consecration of bishops, he ceased to "stand for the Faith" in a true, Catholic sense. He did not become a Protestant, but he acted as one.