{"id":77639,"date":"2023-11-25T12:11:06","date_gmt":"2023-11-25T16:11:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=77639"},"modified":"2023-11-28T21:21:02","modified_gmt":"2023-11-29T01:21:02","slug":"post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html","title":{"rendered":"Post-Vatican II “Liberal” Popes"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Chapter 13 (pp. 113-121) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries<\/em><\/a> (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly revised again in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version). Anyone who reads this book should first read the following three introductory articles, in order to fully understand the definitions and sociological categories I am employing:<\/p>\n

Introduction (on the book page<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Definitions: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, Mainstream \u201cTraditionalists,\u201d and Supposed \u201cNeo-Catholics\u201d\u00a0<\/a>[revised 8-6-13]<\/span><\/p>\n

Radical Catholic Reactionaries: What They Are\u00a0Not<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[9-28-21]<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re still confused and unclear as to my meanings and intent after that, read one or more of these articles:<\/p>\n

Rationales for My Self-Coined Term, \u201cRadical Catholic Reactionaries\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[8-6-13]<\/p>\n

My Coined Term, \u201cRadical Catholic Reactionary\u201d: Clarifications<\/a>\u00a0[10-5-17]<\/p>\n

Clarifying My Coined Term, \u201cRadical Catholic Reactionary\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[4-3-20]<\/p>\n

This book is modeled after the method and structure of the French mathematician and Catholic apologist Blaise Pascal\u2019s classic,\u00a0Pens\u00e9es<\/em> (\u201cthoughts\u201d). Catholic apologist and philosopher Peter Kreeft described this masterpiece\u00a0<\/i>as \u201craw pearls\u201d and \u201cmore like \u2018sayings\u2019 than a book . . . \u2018Sayings\u2019 reflect and approximate the higher, the mode of Christ and Socrates and Buddha. That\u2019s why Socrates is the greatest philosopher, according to St. Thomas (S.T.<\/i> III, 42, 4).\u201d<\/p>\n

I am not intending to compare myself or my own \u201cthoughts\u201d or their cogency or import in\u00a0any<\/i> way, shape, or form, to those of Pascal, let alone to Socrates or our Lord Jesus! I am merely utilizing the unconventional structure of the Pens\u00e9es<\/i>, which\u00a0 harmonizes well, I believe, with the approach that I have taken with regard to the present subject. I have sought to analyze (minus\u00a0<\/i>proper names, a la Trent) the premises, presuppositions, logical and ecclesiological \u201cbottom lines\u201d and (in a word), the\u00a0spirit\u00a0<\/i>of a false and divisive radical Catholic reactionary strain of thought held by a distinctive sociological sub-group of Catholics.<\/div>\n

*****<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Radical Catholic reactionaries claim that in order to be faithful and consistent with pre-Vatican II Church teaching, it is necessary to \u201ccarefully nuance\u201d loyalty to post-conciliar popes and Church teaching. In other words, one must play a game of equivocation and rationalizing (precisely the accusation they make regarding both \u201cconservatives\u201d and \u201cmodernists\u201d). Needless to say, this alleged dramatic contradiction between the popes before 1958 and those after is entirely mythical, and contrary to the faith of an orthodox Catholic.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    1. Yet reactionaries apparently think little of disobeying papal injunctions that they dislike. Their difficulties thus extend a bit beyond merely Vatican II and its historical aftermath. Internal submission to (even sub-infallible) papal and conciliar teaching is certainly a pre-conciliar requirement for an obedient Catholic, but reactionaries aren\u2019t widely observed to be suffering terrible pangs of conscience over their disobedience to that <\/em>quite traditional and formerly assumed Catholic distinctive.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        \n
      1. How is such a bleak (and false) view not<\/em> defectibility? Three straight heretic popes?!! Why even have<\/em> a pope at all if such a radical departure could occur? Why be a Catholic<\/em> at all, if this is what one believes? What becomes of the faith in God\u2019s guidance of His Church? Reactionaries should immediately become Protestants, where at least they wouldn\u2019t have to torture logic and the received understanding of the Catholic faith, in order to maintain the pretense of \u201cobedience\u201d when wanton disobedience<\/em> is plainly manifest. A high price to pay for one\u2019s own prejudices, limited understandings, and private judgment . . .<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
          \n
        1. Rather than simply obey the pope and council, and trust that God understands and controls things that may be beyond us, some reactionaries would rather throw out the council and disobey <\/em>the pope, considering him a heretic. How is this at all<\/em> distinguishable from Martin Luther\u2019s defiant stance at the Diet of Worms in 1521? In fact, it is worse, as papal and conciliar infallibility are both far more defined now than in his day.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
            \n
          1. Venerable Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical, Humani Generis<\/em> (12 August 1950), wrote about the authority of papal encyclicals (which reactionaries seem to have forgotten when it comes to Pope St. John Paul II):<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: \u201cHe who heareth you, heareth me\u201d;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (20)<\/p>\n

            Note that submission is not confined to ex cathedra<\/em> statements \u2014 the authoritative \u201cworld\u201d which reactionaries seem to wish to reside in almost exclusively. Ven. Pope Pius XII then touches upon development of doctrine and Church authority. This has\u00a0 relevance to the current dispute over Vatican II and supposedly \u201cnovel\u201d doctrines:<\/p>\n

            . . . together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church . . . (21)<\/p>\n

            In other words, the pope urges us to let the magisterium determine such weighty matters, not \u201ceach of the faithful,\u201d as in reactionaryism and sola Scriptura<\/em> Protestantism.<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Reactionaries often falsely accuse so-called \u201cconservative Catholics\u201d of denying the fact that a pope can be rebuked. This is certainly untrue in my case, as I have written elsewhere:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Pope John XXII was soundly and successfully rebuked by the masses when he temporarily espoused belief in a false doctrine. St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Francis of Assisi rebuked popes, and their advice was respected and heeded (St. Francis wasn\u2019t ordained). These saints were the most revered Catholics of their time (one might think of Mother Teresa in our time). I\u2019m sure there were also many instances of morally inferior popes (many during the Renaissance) being soundly rebuked by holy priests and laymen. This is nothing novel\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 whatsoever in Catholic ecclesiology. No one knows better than Catholics the distinction between the nobility of an office and (too often) the sanctity of the person holding it at any given time. Of course, this has always been the case in the Church and amongst the Old Testament Jews (one need only recall Moses, David, Judas, and St. Peter himself).<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Sure, laymen can petition the pope and so forth, but reactionary aspirations are based on the false assumption and presumption that an ecumenical council could fail in its purpose in the first place. As that is not Catholic teaching, it is hardly a conceivable scenario. It is the pope\u2019s job to correct councils, not ours. We possess no such authority. Pope St. Paul VI changed some things, and then ratified the council. Rome has spoken; case closed.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                  \n
                1. The possibility of theoretical corrections of popes is not at issue. The real issue is when and how to do so (and the frequency of such momentous occasions), and whether the present situation is such an occasion, and, on the flip side, the routine obligation of Catholics to obey the pope and his decrees (and councils), whether infallible or ex cathedra<\/em> or not \u2014 which spirit reactionaries show precious little indication of possessing.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                    \n
                  1. \u201cConservative\u201d Catholics \u2013 so it is alleged \u2014 think popes and ecumenical councils are verbally inspired, and therefore above criticism. This is ludicrous. Only the Bible is verbally inspired, of course. Reactionaries often stoop to gross caricature of the orthodox Catholic viewpoint (which they call \u201cconservative\u201d). The obligation of the Catholic is to give religious submission of mind and will<\/em> and interior assent<\/em> to popes and ecumenical councils \u2014 even when sub-infallible, or infallible in the ordinary magisterium (as opposed to extraordinary or ex cathedra<\/em>). This point is frequently ignored by reactionaries. Instead, they merely repeat the caricature of our true <\/em>beliefs about Catholic authority, because it serves as a convenient polemical \u201cclub.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                      \n
                    1. If Pope St. Paul VI was so weak and compromised with modernism, how, then, could he write the magnificent and heroic Humanae Vitae<\/em>, against the majority advice of his own advisors, in direct defiance of the liberals? Nothing was ever so unfashionable as opposition to unrestrained sexual freedom, at that time. This heroic pope suffered \u201cwhite martyrdom\u201d if anyone ever did. And I happen to have personally known one of his close advisors (Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.), so I have a little bit of inside information about that, beyond mere outward speculation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                        \n
                      1. Chapter III of the document on the papacy from Vatican I: On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff<\/em>, just prior to the next chapter\u2019s proclamations on infallibility itself, refers to a:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        . . . sovereignty of ordinary power . . . to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical\u00a0\u00a0 subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without the loss of faith and of salvation.<\/p>\n

                        Reactionaries are, therefore, fundamentally disobedient in their cavalier dismissal of the pope\u2019s teachings \u2014 even when considered as technically on a sub-infallible level.<\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. The faithful Catholic accepts all that a council or pope of his Church teaches, short of the most outrageous and glaringly obvious error (for example, the error of Pope St. John XXII about the Beatific Vision, which he changed when near death).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                            \n
                          1. I think reactionaryism has a strong attitudinal element or tendency, akin to that found in other points of view, such as anti-Catholic Protestantism or \u201cCatholic\u201d theological liberalism. One can see no good in the pope, or no bad, or one can take a middle position (which I would call orthodoxy and being a faithful, obedient Catholic), where the pope\u2019s words and actions are accorded the immense respect and reverence appropriate to his exalted office, but where aspects of prudence or particular errors might be pointed out. It seems that the reactionaries want to make out like those of us who disagree with them are ultramontanists who think the choice of socks the pope wears every day is an ex cathedra<\/em> doctrine. It is not normative or appropriate for a Catholic to go on and on, railing against the pope. It\u2019s usually bad form and highly presumptuous. There have been \u201cbad popes,\u201d of course, but recent ones are not among them.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                              \n
                            1. Yes, one can conceivably question the pope \u2014 especially his actions, yet it must be done only with overwhelming evidence that he is doing something completely contrary to Catholic doctrine and prior practice. It is not something that a non-theologian or non-priest should do nonchalantly and as a matter of course. To do so would smack far too much of the Protestant attitude of private judgment and lack of an authority structure.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                \n
                              1. Any moderately informed Protestant knows that a Catholic ought to be obedient to the pope in all but the most extraordinary circumstances. That\u2019s surely how I would have perceived the orthodox Catholic position, when I was still Protestant. I would have immediately determined that reactionaries were liberals or radically inconsistent Catholics.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                  \n
                                1. There is a world of difference between a St. Catherine of Siena or a St. Francis of Assisi rebuking a pope (or, say, Cardinal Ratzinger or St. Teresa of Calcutta, privately), and zealous, still wet behind the ears apologists and loudmouthed reactionary laymen doing so. One either immediately grasps this self-evident point or they do not. But it\u2019s clear that \u2014 failing to grasp it \u2014 rational argument from within a Catholic framework is pretty much futile.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                    \n
                                  1. It\u2019s normal and ethical (and quite Catholic) to indignantly respond to the petulant, pompous, and presumptuous tone of so many reactionary statements about recent popes. If they can speak so cavalierly and arrogantly about popes (I had far more respect for popes as a Protestant than they do), then surely we can wax indignant at them doing so, without being \u201crude.\u201d One is not awakened by a soft voice.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                      \n
                                    1. Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Gregory the Great reigned at a time when the Monophysite heresy was flourishing. Does that make them lousy popes too? When is there ever not<\/em> heresy? Reactionaries retort that Pope St. Paul VI\u2019s reign coincided with the beginning of modernism, or liberalism. That would hardly do, since modernism was written about in 1864, 1907, etc. Modernism essentially began with the so-called \u201cEnlightenment,\u201d if not the Protestant Revolution (actually, the Fall of Man, in a large sense).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                        \n
                                      1. It would be beyond silly to cast the lion\u2019s share of the blame for modernism on Pope St. Paul VI. The 1960s were merely the fruition of a long 200+ years trend, primarily due to the rapid breakdown of the larger culture. Pope Paul VI wouldn\u2019t have been able to stop it any more than a twig could stop the water from a burst dam. Doctrinal chaos and upheaval to some extent always <\/em>happens after ecumenical councils, anyway (as with, e.g., Nicaea and Arianism).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                          \n
                                        1. Many orthodox Catholic observers think Pope St. Paul VI could have been more vigilant against the liberals. But that is a far cry from being one of the worst popes ever, as some reactionaries seem to think he was. The worst popes ever were whoring and living it up, not writing heroic encyclicals in direct confrontation with the overwhelming forces of secular culture. Even reactionaries admit that Humanae Vitae<\/em> was great.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                            \n
                                          1. Many reactionaries make their excoriating judgments of popes as if they had no more importance or gravity than reeling off a laundry or grocery list. Who are they<\/em> to presume what they do? What are their<\/em> exalted credentials, whereby they feel so free to sit and condemn entire papacies with one-sentence salvoes?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                              \n
                                            1. Even if reactionaries are right about some particulars in their incessant criticisms of recent popes, they ought to express their opinion with the utmost respect and with fear and trembling, grieved that they are \u201ccompelled\u201d to severely reprimand the Vicar of Christ. St. Paul showed more deference even towards the Jewish high priest than such people do to popes (Acts 23:1-5). After saying to Ananias \u201cGod will strike you, you whitewashed wall,\u201d he stated in v. 5: \u201cI did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, \u2018You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'\u201d Even immediately before His scathing rebuke of the Pharisees, Jesus told His followers to \u201cpractice and observe whatever they tell you\u201d (Matthew 23:3). Why? Because the \u201cThe scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses\u2019 seat . . .\u201d\u00a0 (23:2).\u00a0 The pope occupies the Chair of Peter, established by our Lord Jesus Himself, and is the Supreme Head of the Church. Pope-bashing reactionaries must be willing to \u201cpractice and observe whatever they tell you\u201d (including disciplinary proclamations, liturgical details, etc.). In any event, the popes certainly have as much authority as non-Christian scribes and Pharisees. We see both St. Paul and our Lord Jesus expressing the most vehement criticisms of appointed religious leaders, yet Paul showed quite considerable deference when he found out the office of the one he was criticizing, and Jesus commanded obedience to the very same people whose hypocrisy He excoriated. This is all consistent with the traditional, orthodox Catholic (and what is called by reactionaries the \u201cneo-Catholic\u201d or \u201cconservative\u201d) view.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                                \n
                                              1. Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium<\/em>, 25):<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                In matters of faith and morals . . . religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking \u201cex cathedra.\u201d That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.<\/p>\n

                                                  \n
                                                1. To submit an analogy: I, as a parent, can tell my son to not fornicate. That would be, in effect, an infallible statement, in terms of moral certainty. I could also forbid him to stay out till after, say, 11:00 PM. Obviously, the second is a much less certain proposition, in terms of right and wrong. But my son is bound to obey both \u201ccommands,\u201d by the natural order of the authority of parents. Thus, I have exercised two very different levels of \u201cinfallibility,\u201d yet both entail more or less absolute obedience, by the order of things \u2014 the way God set up the family and \u201cchain of command.\u201d That\u2019s why this desire to have so many loopholes in conciliar and papal authority is a fundamentally liberal and dissenting outlook.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                                    \n
                                                  1. We might ponder other examples of authority, such as the military. Does a private cavalierly disobey the orders of a captain, let alone a general? Of course he does not. Does a lowly trial lawyer disregard the orders of a judge, let alone the rulings of the Supreme Court of his state or the nation? No; or if he does, there is a penalty to pay. Even in a family, there is a clear God-ordained authority. Children obey their parents. They instinctively know this. Down deep, they want to do this (and they know that they need to). Just as the father is the head of the household, so the Holy Father is the head of the Church. This is all self-evident. People understand the basic concept of authority. Yet when it comes to the Catholic Church, which has always believed in a supreme teacher, the vicar of Christ, the head of the Church, upon whom rests the final appeal in Church matters in every sense, we have the curious and astonishing novelty of mere laymen (reactionaries) routinely questioning papal authority and running it down at every opportunity.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                    *<\/p>\n

                                                    *****
                                                    \n*<\/p>\n

                                                    \n
                                                    \n
                                                    Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty-three books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/div>\n
                                                    *<\/div>\n
                                                    Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/div>\n
                                                    *<\/div>\n
                                                    PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/div>\n
                                                    <\/div>\n
                                                    *<\/div>\n
                                                    ***
                                                    \nPhoto credit:<\/strong> Pope St. Paul VI in 1969<\/span> [                                                    Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/ public domain]
                                                    \n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

                                                    Summary<\/em>: Chapter 13 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries<\/em> (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version).<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                                    Chapter 13 (pp. 113-121) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly revised again in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version). Anyone who reads this book should first read the following three introductory articles, in order to fully understand the definitions and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":77864,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[18218,3000,18221,10218,74,133],"class_list":["post-77639","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-liberal-popes","tag-pope-st-john-paul-ii","tag-pope-st-john-xxiii","tag-pope-st-paul-vi","tag-radical-catholic-reactionaries","tag-vatican-ii"],"yoast_head":"\nPost-Vatican II "Liberal" Popes Post-Vatican II "Liberal" Popes<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Chapter 13 (pp. 113-121) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly Chapter 13 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version).\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Post-Vatican II "Liberal" Popes Post-Vatican II "Liberal" Popes\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Chapter 13 (pp. 113-121) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly Chapter 13 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version).\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-11-25T16:11:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-29T01:21:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/11\/PaulVI2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"460\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html\",\"name\":\"Post-Vatican II \\\"Liberal\\\" Popes Post-Vatican II \\\"Liberal\\\" Popes\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-11-25T16:11:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-29T01:21:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Chapter 13 (pp. 113-121) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly Chapter 13 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version).\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Post-Vatican II “Liberal” Popes\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Post-Vatican II \"Liberal\" Popes Post-Vatican II \"Liberal\" Popes","description":"Chapter 13 (pp. 113-121) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly Chapter 13 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version).","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Post-Vatican II \"Liberal\" Popes Post-Vatican II \"Liberal\" Popes","og_description":"Chapter 13 (pp. 113-121) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly Chapter 13 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version).","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2023-11-25T16:11:06+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-29T01:21:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":460,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/11\/PaulVI2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html","name":"Post-Vatican II \"Liberal\" Popes Post-Vatican II \"Liberal\" Popes","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-11-25T16:11:06+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-29T01:21:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Chapter 13 (pp. 113-121) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly Chapter 13 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version).","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2023\/11\/post-vatican-ii-liberal-popes.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Post-Vatican II “Liberal” Popes"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77639","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77639"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77639\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/77864"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}