What do you think?
Rate this book
The Council in Question: A Dialogue with Catholic Traditionalism
The ideal TAN book! The resurgence of tradition is rekindling devotion, zeal and, we pray, sanctity. But do some place traditionalism before Mother Church herself? This is the issue of our time a unique time, 50 years after Vatican II when much (though not all) of the misapplication of the Council s teaching and the liturgical aberrations have settled. In The Council in A Dialogue With Catholic Traditionalism, journalist Moyra Doorly, an SSPX attendee and Dominican Aidan Nichols engage in a vibrant and enlightening discussion on the health and future of the Roman Catholic Church. Doorly takes up the arguments of the Society of Saint Pius X, while Nichols picks up the mantel of the post-Vatican II Church. This fascinating exchange is more than just a dialogue between two factions of the Church, it is a sign and defense of the genuine continuity and development across the millennia in doctrine, liturgy, and church law. A must-read for lovers of Tradition. US and CA distribution only.
138 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 29, 2013
4 people are currently reading
25 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 30, 2025
In 2009 the Vatican agreed to hold talks with the SSPX, to try and resolve the SSPX’s objections to Vatican II. The SSPX’s position had placed it in informal (or implicit) schism with the Vatican. The purpose of the talks was to see if agreement could be found on the 6 key issues at dispute.
Although published in 2013, the letters in this book arose in the immediate aftermath of the planned discussions between the Vatican and the SSPX, and the contents of the book closely followed the planned agenda of those talks.
Looking at the issues in 2025 it is clear that the talks failed. The reason they failed is outside the scope of this book, but the tenor of the discussions within the book show some interesting faultlines in both sides of the issues. Some of the letters show easily resolvable SSPX concerns about Vatican II. Others raise SSPX issues, which the replies do not seem to properly engage with, or resolve.
The issues in Letter 3 were particularly interesting, as they focused on the concept of Tradition. The SSPX insist that the Vatican cannot teach anything that is contrary to Tradition. The Vatican agrees, but it also insists that it is the Vatican itself which determines what is the correct interpretation of Tradition. The SSPX disagree and insist that they can see for themselves what Tradition is, and thus they have the right to interpret Tradition for themselves. That is how they can know that the current Vatican is wrong, and that their position is correct.
This debate is a fascinating one, because it mirrors aspects of the Reformation debates about Scripture. At the Reformation the Catholic Church insisted that it alone had the authority to determine the interpretation of Scripture. The Reformers disagreed and proposed their own interpretations as alternatives. Insisting that they had the right to interpret Scripture for themselves, they could then conclude that the Vatican was wrong.
The issues in the Reformation debates ultimately became issues of religious authority. To the extent that the issues with the SSPX mirror those debates, then I would have expected to see the discussion of tradition making reference to the question of authority, but that never really happened. Instead, the discussion of Tradition, just seemed to present some alternative general views, but not really argue to a specific conclusion.
Perhaps the most serious issue raised in the letters was that of Religious liberty. There is a very real sense in which there is an “apparent” contradiction between the words of Vatican II, and prior Church teaching. If the Vatican is to avoid the accusation of contradiction then it needs to provide a formal and official interpretation of the words of Vatican II, so that the apparent contradiction can be resolved and dismissed. It hasn’t yet done so.
As a result, I expected one of the replies in the book to spell out the kind of shape or contents which might potentially inform an official position on that matter. But that didn’t happen. Instead, Religious Freedom was put as an objection, and the letter which was called a reply didn’t seem to really reply at all. It picked up and discussed some interesting aspects of the issues, but it did not really engage with the central issue of the apparent contradiction. That was disappointing.
Overall, the book presents some interesting points of dialogue in the opposite positions of the Vatican and the SSPX, but it doesn’t seem to argue to a conclusion. Nor does it really present any new insights or thoughts about the issues which have been points of dispute for the last fifty years.
Although published in 2013, the letters in this book arose in the immediate aftermath of the planned discussions between the Vatican and the SSPX, and the contents of the book closely followed the planned agenda of those talks.
Looking at the issues in 2025 it is clear that the talks failed. The reason they failed is outside the scope of this book, but the tenor of the discussions within the book show some interesting faultlines in both sides of the issues. Some of the letters show easily resolvable SSPX concerns about Vatican II. Others raise SSPX issues, which the replies do not seem to properly engage with, or resolve.
The issues in Letter 3 were particularly interesting, as they focused on the concept of Tradition. The SSPX insist that the Vatican cannot teach anything that is contrary to Tradition. The Vatican agrees, but it also insists that it is the Vatican itself which determines what is the correct interpretation of Tradition. The SSPX disagree and insist that they can see for themselves what Tradition is, and thus they have the right to interpret Tradition for themselves. That is how they can know that the current Vatican is wrong, and that their position is correct.
This debate is a fascinating one, because it mirrors aspects of the Reformation debates about Scripture. At the Reformation the Catholic Church insisted that it alone had the authority to determine the interpretation of Scripture. The Reformers disagreed and proposed their own interpretations as alternatives. Insisting that they had the right to interpret Scripture for themselves, they could then conclude that the Vatican was wrong.
The issues in the Reformation debates ultimately became issues of religious authority. To the extent that the issues with the SSPX mirror those debates, then I would have expected to see the discussion of tradition making reference to the question of authority, but that never really happened. Instead, the discussion of Tradition, just seemed to present some alternative general views, but not really argue to a specific conclusion.
Perhaps the most serious issue raised in the letters was that of Religious liberty. There is a very real sense in which there is an “apparent” contradiction between the words of Vatican II, and prior Church teaching. If the Vatican is to avoid the accusation of contradiction then it needs to provide a formal and official interpretation of the words of Vatican II, so that the apparent contradiction can be resolved and dismissed. It hasn’t yet done so.
As a result, I expected one of the replies in the book to spell out the kind of shape or contents which might potentially inform an official position on that matter. But that didn’t happen. Instead, Religious Freedom was put as an objection, and the letter which was called a reply didn’t seem to really reply at all. It picked up and discussed some interesting aspects of the issues, but it did not really engage with the central issue of the apparent contradiction. That was disappointing.
Overall, the book presents some interesting points of dialogue in the opposite positions of the Vatican and the SSPX, but it doesn’t seem to argue to a conclusion. Nor does it really present any new insights or thoughts about the issues which have been points of dispute for the last fifty years.
April 16, 2021
A short exchange of letters every Traditionalist should read, so they might know the origin of what has initially been a schism in Lefebvre. Hopefully they bring themselves to balance.
November 11, 2025
A short dialogue between a priest and someone who has read too many radtrad blogs.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews