Podcast interview with Larry Chapp and Michael Lofton on the “Reason and Theology” podcast. Topic: Vatican II and its retrieval.”

Posted by

As I continue working on my next blog post on David Hart’s universalism, I link below my latest interview with Michael Lofton. It was a great conversation I think.


  1. The interview was excellent and a refreshing take on understanding post Vatican II popes. I look forward to your books for both Word on Fire and Ignatius Press.


  2. Dr Chapp

    This is a very good discussion.

    One of the reasons I’ve started visiting your blog is because you’re one of the few people who actually “get it” especially with regard to the pre-concilar Church. If I make any criticisms of your positions its done in good faith.

    Firstly, I think the vindication of the ressourcement position of the council was absolutely correct, but I see it as a victory of the “least worst” of the three positions you listed. It’s very easy to blame the liberals for the rot after the council but I think that the ressourcement guys deserve some of the blame as well. They did not develop a “theology” or culture that would enable liberal containment.

    I remember reading how de Lubac was alarmed at the direction the Church took after the council as he hadn’t expected it. I think they had a mistaken understanding of human nature which was essentially liberal. But I also think that there was a quietistic and pacifistic strain that is common with the ascetic. The “mystical” solution to the problem of neo-thomism created a climate that downplayed the importance of the pragmatic. The solution to any problem post v2 seemed to be more prayer and less action.

    The problem, as I see it, was a divergence between the father of ressourcement–Peguy–and his disciples. I put it to you would Peguy–the brawling nationalistic streetfighter for Dreyfuss, and man took up arms against Germany–find a home in today’s modern Church, in either of its Liberal or Conservative chapters? Peguy’s incarnational carnality–and all it brings with it–is still foreign, and from what I’ve read, I don’t think the ressourcement guys grasped this aspect of his thought very well.

    It’s also why I think the council didn’t achieve what it set out to do, despite the ressourcement guys being the victors there.


  3. Really good discussion, Dr Chapp.

    I agree that to have a Vatican 3 would be… I’ll advised, given the current state of the Church.

    I would be interested in your thoughts on this point – you say that what is needed is to go back and receive the Council as it was meant to be received – in line with ressourcement theology. Whilst I can see the attraction of that, one wrinkle that I can see is that the theologians of that school, at the time, included people who were not the Ratzingers, the Von Balthasar’s etc – I’m thinking here of Kung and Rahner. Is there not a risk, were we to get to an agreement that this is the approach we should take, that the Pope Francis’ of the world would say “great – Kung and Rahner were were part of that group, now it’s Rahner time, all the time.”

    How do we guard against that?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s