Side Topic: The Doctrinal Continuity or Rupture of Vatican II [UPDATED 15 December 2011 and 17 January 2012]
For any of you who have been interested in the doctrinal talks initiated by Pope Benedict XVI with the SSPX,Rorate posted an open letter from with which I found very insightful.
Just as a summary of the situation for those that are not familiar, SSPX had very much difficulty understanding why Vatican II was not a compromise with modernism and in conflict with previous teachings. Tensions between the society and the Holy See reached their height in 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops against the orders of Pope John Paul II. However, dialogue between the society and the Holy See has been ongoing for some years, and in January 2009 the Holy See remitted the excommunications of the Society's bishops that it had declared at the time of the 1988 consecrations[2] and expressed the hope that all members of the society would follow this up by speedily returning to full communion with the Church. As it stands right now, the society has no canonical status in the Church and last October the Holy See presented SSPX with a 'doctrinal preamble' or document to which they must agree if they wish to be considered part of the Church again, that allows for questioning of the council in pastoral matters but asked them to accept the authority of the council in doctrinal matters. The SSPX recently replied that they need clarification on the wording and this is where the matter currently stands.
2. [UPDATE: 9 January 2012]
3. [UPDATE: 17 January 2012]
Just as a summary of the situation for those that are not familiar, SSPX had very much difficulty understanding why Vatican II was not a compromise with modernism and in conflict with previous teachings. Tensions between the society and the Holy See reached their height in 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops against the orders of Pope John Paul II. However, dialogue between the society and the Holy See has been ongoing for some years, and in January 2009 the Holy See remitted the excommunications of the Society's bishops that it had declared at the time of the 1988 consecrations[2] and expressed the hope that all members of the society would follow this up by speedily returning to full communion with the Church. As it stands right now, the society has no canonical status in the Church and last October the Holy See presented SSPX with a 'doctrinal preamble' or document to which they must agree if they wish to be considered part of the Church again, that allows for questioning of the council in pastoral matters but asked them to accept the authority of the council in doctrinal matters. The SSPX recently replied that they need clarification on the wording and this is where the matter currently stands.
1. 15 December 2011
Excommunicating Gherardini?
Monsignor Gherardini is the dean of the theologians of the Lateran University, one of the most venerable Roman institutions. For half a century, he has formed hundreds of bishops and priests by attempting to present them Vatican II in continuity with the teaching of the Church. At the end of a long and serious career, he makes this terrible confession: the tireless attempt does not work. Speaking of the Council, he describes its continuity with Tradition as "problematic": "not because it did not declare such a continuity, but because, especially in those key points where it was necessary for this continuity to be evident, the declaration has remained unproven."
In other words, the theologian says that all displays attempting to make Vatican II the continuation of the teaching of the Church are to his eyes nothing but weakly convincing arguments.
"The great 50th anniversary celebration has begun. There is no media drumbeat yet, but you notice it in the air. The 50th anniversary of Vatican II will uncork the most effervescent superlatives that can be devised in its eulogistic judgments. Not a shadow of the sober attitude that had been requested, as a moment of reflection and analysis for a more critically in-depth evaluation of the conciliar event. They have already started the free-wheeling statements and repetitions of what has been said and repeated for 50 years: Vatican II is the culminating point of Tradition and the very synthesis thereof. International conferences on the largest and most significant of all Ecumenical Councils are already scheduled; others, of greater or lesser importance, will be organized along the way. And the commentary on the subject is becoming more plentiful from day to day.L’Osservatore Romano, obviously, is doing its part and is harping especially on the adherence owed to the Magisterium (Italian edition, December 2, 2011, p. 6):Vatican II is an act of the Magisterium, therefore…. The argument advanced is that every act of the Magisterium is to be accepted as coming from the Pastors who, by reason of apostolic succession, speak with the charism of truth (DV [Dignitatis Humanae] 8), with the authority of Christ (LG [Lumen Gentium] 25), in the light of the Holy Ghost (ibid.).Aside from the fact that this just proves the magisterial authority of Vatican II with the documents of Vatican II, which at one time was called petitio principii [begging the question], it seems evident that this way of proceeding starts from the premise that the Magisterium is absolute, a subject independent of everything and everyone, except apostolic succession and the help of the Holy Ghost. Now although apostolic succession guarantees the legitimacy of Holy Orders, it appears difficult to establish a criterion that guarantees the intervention of the Holy Ghost, within the parameters being discussed here.One thing, nevertheless, is indisputable: nothing in the world, the container of created things, has the gift of absoluteness. Everything is in flux, in a circuit of reciprocal interdependencies, and therefore everything is contingent, everything has a beginning and will have an end: “Mutantur enim,” the great Augustine used to say, “ergo creata sunt.” [“For they change, and therefore they are created.”] The Church is no exception, not her Tradition, not her Magisterium. It is a matter of sublime realities at the top of the scale of all creaturely values, endowed with dizzying qualities, but always penultimate realities. The eschaton, the final reality, is God and Him alone. Commentators often resort to language that turns this factual datum on its head and attributes to those sublime realities an importance and a significance above and beyond their limitations; in other words, they absolutize them. The result is that this deprives them of their ontological status and makes them into an unreal presupposition; in that same process they also lose the sublime greatness of their penultimate reality.Immersed in the Trinitarian moment of her design, the Church exists and operates in time as the sacrament of salvation. The theandric character that makes her a mysterious continuation of Christ is not disputed, nor her constitutive properties (unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity), nor her structure and service, but all this is still within a this-worldly reality that is enabled to mediate the divine presence sacramentally, but always as a reality of this world, which by definition, therefore, excludes the absolute.At any rate, she is identified in her Tradition, from which she draws continuity with herself, to which she owes her life’s breath, from which she derives the certainty that her yesterday always becomes today so as to prepare for her tomorrow. Tradition, therefore, gives her the interior movement that impels her toward the future, while safeguarding her present and past. But not even Tradition is an absolute: it began with the Church and will end with her. God alone remains.The Church exercises real quality control over Tradition: a discernment that distinguishes what is authentic from what is not. She does so with an instrument that never lacks “the charism of truth”, provided that she does not let the temptation of the absolute lead her astray. This instrument is the Magisterium, the office-holders of which are the pope, as the successor of the first pope, the apostle St. Peter, in the See of Rome, and the bishops as successors of the Twelve in their ministry or service to the Church, or in a local expression thereof. It is superfluous to recall the usual distinctions—the Magisterium, whether of an Ecumenical Council or of the pope, is solemnwhen one or the other defines truths pertaining to faith and morals; it isordinary if it is of the pope in his specific activity or of the bishops as a whole and in communion with the pope. It is much more important to define more precisely the limits within which the Magisterium is guaranteed to have “the charism of truth”.It must be said first of all that the Magisterium is not a super-Church that imposes judgments and guidelines on the Church itself; nor is it a privileged caste above the people of God, a sort of powerful authority that you have to obey and that’s that. It is a service, a diakonia. But also a task to be carried out, a munus, specifically the munus docendi [teaching office] that cannot and must not place itself above the Church from which and through which it comes into existence and operates. From the subjective point of view, it coincides with the teaching Church, the pope and the bishops united with the pope, insofar as she officially proposes the Faith. From the operative point of view, it is the instrument with which this function is carried out.Too often, however, the instrument is regarded as a value in itself, and appeals are made to it in order to nip any discussion in the bud, as though this instrument were above the Church and as though it were not confronted with the enormous mass of Tradition that it must receive, interpret and hand on in its integrity and fidelity. And this is exactly where its limits become evident, which safeguard it from the danger of elephantiasis and from the absolutist temptation.There is no reason to dwell on the first of these limits, apostolic succession. It should not be difficult for anyone to prove, case by case, the legitimacy and hence the continuous succession in the ownership of the charism belonging to the Apostles. On the other hand, a word must be said about the second, the help of the Holy Ghost. The hasty reasoning prevalent today goes more or less as follows: Christ promised the Apostles, and hence their successors (in other words the teaching Church), that He would send them the Holy Ghost to help them exercise the munus docendi in truth; error is therefore averted from the outset. Yes, Christ did make such a promise, but He also indicated the conditions for its fulfillment. However, a serious distortion can be glimpsed precisely in the manner in which appeals are made to this promise: either the words of Christ are not reported, or else when they are cited a different meaning is given to them. Let us see what this is about.The promise is recorded above all in two passages from the fourth Gospel: John 14:16, 26 and 16:13-14. Even in the first passage, one of the aforementioned limits resounds with the utmost clarity: indeed, Jesus does not stop at the promise of “the Spirit of the truth”—note the underlined words, a translation required by the Greek definite article της, which previously and further on continues to be translated of, as though truth were an optional attribute of the Holy Ghost, whereas He personifies it—but declares in advance His function: He will recall to mind all that He, Jesus, had taught before. It is a matter, therefore, of help in preserving revealed truth, not of combining it with other or different truths, or truths that are presumedto be revealed.The second of these two Johannine passages, confirming the first, goes into detail and makes further clarifications: the Holy Ghost, indeed, “will guide you into all the truth”, even the truth about which Jesus is silent now because it is above and beyond the capacity of His disciples (16:12). In doing this, the Spirit “will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak… He will take what is mine and declare it to you.” Therefore there will be no further revelations. The one revelation concludes with the men to whom Jesus is now speaking. His words are presented with an unambiguous meaning that pertains to the teaching imparted by Him and only to that teaching. This is not cryptic or code language; it is as clear as day. An objection could be raised about the prospect of apparent novelty in relation to what Jesus does not say now but the Holy Ghost will announce later; but the restriction of His help to an action of guidance toward the possession of all the truth revealed by Christ excludes substantial novelties. If novelties do emerge, it will be a matter of new senses and not of new truths; hence the very appropriate expression “eodem sensu eademque sententia” [“in the same sense and with the same meaning”] of St. Vincent of Lerins. In short, the pretense of attributing to the help of the Holy Ghost every rustling of a leaf, in other words, every novelty, and in particular those that measure the Church by the standards of the prevailing culture and of the so-called dignity of the human person, is not only an overturning of the very structure of the Church, but also a big X crossing out the two Scripture passages mentioned above.And that is not all. The limit of a magisterial intervention is in its technical formulation as well. In order for it to be truly magisterial, whether or not it defines a dogma, the intervention must resort to a formula that is henceforth rendered valid, which makes clear, without any uncertainty whatsoever, the intention to speak as “Pastor and Teacher of all Christians in a matter of Faith and Morals, by virtue of our apostolic Authority,” if the pope is the one speaking; or makes clear with equal certainty, for example in the case of an Ecumenical Council, through the customary formulas of dogmatic assertion, the intention of the Council Fathers to connect the Christian Faith with Divine Revelation and its uninterrupted transmission. In the absence of such conditions, one can speak about the Magisterium only in a broad sense: not every written or spoken word of the pope is necessarily magisterial; and the same should be said for Ecumenical Councils, quite a few of which either spoke not at all about dogma or else not exclusively; sometimes they grafted the dogma onto a context of internal diatribes and personal or partisan disputes, which rendered absurd their magisterial claim within said context. Even today we get a distinctly negative impression from an Ecumenical Council of indisputable dogmatic and Christological importance like the Council of Chalcedon, which spent most of its time in a shameful struggle over personalities and who takes precedence, over deposing some and rehabilitating others; dogma is not found in that Chalcedon. Nor is it dogma when the pope, speaking as a private person [in the book-length interviewLight of the World], declares that “Paul did not see the Church as an institution, as organization, but as a living organism, in which everyone works for the other and with the other, being united on the basis of Christ.” Exactly the opposite is true, and it is well known that the first institutional form was structured by Paul as a pyramid precisely in order to foster the living organism: the apostle at the top, then the episkopoi-presbyteroi, thehegoumenoi, the proistamenoi, the nouthetountes and diakonoi [bishops, priests, leaders, superiors, advisors and deacons]. These distinctions among responsibilities and offices are not yet defined exactly, but they are already distinctions within an institutionalized organism. In this case too, it should be quite clear, the Christian’s attitude is one of respect and, at least in principle, also of adherence. If however the conscience of an individual believer finds it impossible to approve of a statement such as the one presented above, this does not involve rebellion against the pope or the denial of his magisterial authority: it only means that that statement is not magisterial.Now, in conclusion, our discussion returns to Vatican II, so as to make, if possible, a definitive statement about whether or not it is part of Tradition and about its magisterial quality. There is no question about the latter, and those laudatores [eulogizers] who for a good 50 years have tirelessly upheld the magisterial identity of Vatican II have been wasting their time and ours: no one denies it. Given their uncritically exuberant statements, however, a problem arises as to the quality: what sort of Magisterium are we talking about? The article in L’Osservatore Romano to which I referred at the outset speaks about doctrinal Magisterium: and who has ever denied it? Even a purely pastoral statement can be doctrinal, in the sense of pertaining to a given doctrine. If someone were to say doctrinal in the sense of dogmatic, however, he would be wrong: no dogma is proclaimed by Vatican II. If it has some dogmatic value also, it does so indirectly in passages where it refers back to previously defined dogmas. Its Magisterium, in short, as has been said over and over again to anyone who has ears to hear it, is a solemn and supreme Magisterium.More problematic is its continuity with Tradition, not because it did not declare such a continuity, but because, especially in those key points where it was necessary for this continuity to be evident, the declaration has remained unproven."Published by Disputationes Theologicae
English translation of Italian original by Michael J. Miller
2. [UPDATE: 9 January 2012]
An open letter to Sì Sì No Noby Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli, O.P.Dear Friends,I read the article “Punti fermi” ["Firm Points], in [the] 31st October 2011 [issue of Sì Sì No No, the influential Traditional Catholic Italian journal closely linked to the SSPX], and the section by “Dominicus” on the matter of such sensitive character as truth in theology and our Holy Catholic Faith - with quotations from Thomist authors, as is your habit - made me think immediately of my mission as a Son of St. Dominic, of which you are already aware, having quoted me at other times in your journal.
So I would like to take the opportunity of thanking you once again, as a Dominican professor of Theology in Bologna, who has been following you for many years - in fact, since the 1980s when I was working at the Secretariat of State, where even your interesting Bollettino used to arrive.For some time now there has been a frank discussion going on between us, with regard to very important themes of topical interest in ecclesial circles; in particular, how to interpret and what value to attribute to some of the doctrinal teachings of Vatican II, which present novelty with respect to Tradition and the preceding Magisterium of the Church. Novelty which makes one think of a “rupture” or of a “contradiction”, rather like saying the Council was wrong or it teaches falsity, when referring to immutable truths from previous doctrine that cannot be reformed, i.e. dogmatic faith, or anyway, even if it is not defined as belonging to the faith, nonetheless of the substance of the faith. The first one, you are acquainted with well, in your knowledge of traditional hermeneutics, is de fide credenda or divine-theological faith, the second one is de fide tenenda or ecclesiastical faith.I know that you insist with much argumentation based on Tradition, on Holy Scripture, on the preceding Magisterium of theologians, in sustaining the thesis of “rupture” and “contradiction”, which means, if I understand correctly, even if I note in you a certain reserve or reluctance in saying it, that, according to you, the Council contains heresies and thus, with that, the Popes and the teaching body of the Church have abandoned the true path of the faith previously defined, are leading us on a deceptive road, have betrayed Tradition, cheating us with empty and indemonstrable assurances of “continuity” advancing the pretext of doctrinal “progress” or “development”, which pleases the Modernists, and this makes it understandable why the Council itself has yielded to Modernism. (1)At the same time, however, you consider yourselves and want to be Roman Catholics, recognizing the authority of the Pope as Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, infallible interpreter, who has the ultimate word in the teachings of Christ, Master, to whom we owe obedience in matters of faith; you must recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Councils as well as the Divinity of the Church, “pillar and foundation of truth” and light of the people.Now, I ask myself, how can these two convictions be brought together: you say, “the Council is in error, but we believe in the indefectibility of the Church and we want to be Catholics; in fact, it is in the name of our being Catholics, faithful to Tradition and the Gospel that we say the Council is wrong de facto in dogma and in the doctrine of the faith.”You sustain that, with the excuse of a mistaken notion of its “pastoral” [nature], the Council and the subsequent Popes, in reality, have manipulated doctrine, have deviated from the truth, have mutated that which should never have been mutated, and want to dish out novel doctrines which deny what the Church has always, everywhere and universally taught in matters of faith.You say that the Council proposes a false concept of the Church, which is no longer the true one, previously taught. It is no longer the “Church of the Ages”. The concept of Revelation has been falsified. The Mass that has been submitted to us is half-protestant, it is no longer the “Mass of Ages”. A conciliar collegiality has been submitted to us, an ecumenism that suggests indifferentism, a “religious liberty” that suggests relativism. The Council is contaminated by the errors of the Enlightment, of the French Revolution, of anthropocentrism, of naturalism, of Liberalism, of pantheism, of Protestantism; in other words, of all the errors of modernity. But all of these doctrines are either false or heretical. So, the Magisterium of the Council teaches us heresy. Well, then, is the Church no longer lumen gentium? Is it no longer the pillar and sustainer of the Truth?Yes – you say – we believe in the indefectibility of the Church as a teaching subject, but not in relation to the object taught, i.e. doctrine. This is the same distinction wrought by Küng, a heretic, with the difference, that while for him, as a historicist, the Magisterium is fallible because immutable truth does not exist, for you, who believe in immutable truth, the Magisterium is fallible because it can stray from this truth.I notice that this distinction between subject and object has no sense when we are dealing with teaching the truths of the faith or connected to the faith or when the truth previously defined from Scripture and Tradition, has been taken up again, explained or developed. Here the object, that is doctrinal teaching, is ruled by the subject: the subject is indefectible because it teaches the truth infallibly. In the object, the Church cannot err, otherwise we would have to say that Christ deceived [Her] when He promised to assist Her until the end of time and lead Her to the fullness of truth.You insist on the fact that the Council did not want to define new dogmas in order to deny the infallibility of its doctrines, or that is the impression that you give, but you do not have the courage to say it openly: to conclude that the doctrines of the Council are false, wrong, heretical. This lack of courage, “courage” in fact, that would be a scandal worthy of the protestants, or modernists, in some way is what saves you. But this does not prevent you leaving a vague idea of your false conviction. Are you not aware, in fact, that there is something off in your reasoning? Is the Church’s Magisterium, in matters of faith, infallible or fallible? You have to choose.It is here that we will see if you are truly Catholic or crypto-Protestants, or, despite your intentions to the contrary – crypto-Modernists. But at least the Modernists are coherent: as a principal, they have a relativist and evolutionist gnoseology. How can you, Thomists, who claim the existence of an immutable and definite truth and also see the Church as teacher of the truth, end up alongside the Protestants and Modernists by saying that the Church can err de facto in the doctrine of the truth?The Magisterium is not only infallible when it proclaims or defines a dogma, but also when it simply teaches a truth of the faith or close to the faith, without declaring the need to define it. It is enough that is about matters of the faith, as in the case of the new conciliar doctrines. It is this teaching that is found in the [Motu Proprio] Ad tuendam fidem, which you most certainly know. Besides, when you negate infallibility, certainly with this you do not identify sic et simpliciter, the fallible with the actually false. And yet you do not exclude the possibility of error, you do not deny that in the future, that which is taught today will become false or show itself to be false.Now this contrasts with the Divine mission of teaching the Gospel which was entrusted to the Church by Christ. Therefore, denying the infallibility of the Magisterium is against the faith and so it is heresy. The moment you accuse, even in a veiled way, the Council of having fallen into heresy, you do not realize that you have fallen in it yourselves.If the Church cannot be other than infallible in doctrine (defined or non-defined) it can err in pastoral matters. And it is on this point that it is permitted to criticize the Council. For example, it has a far too optimistic attitude with regard to the modern world and it is too vague and indulgent in condemning and confuting errors. The Council’s language lacks juridical form, and it is at times imprecise and equivocal and lends to modernist interpretations. Modernism is a heresy and so it makes no sense to accuse the Council of heresy. It must be interpreted in line with Tradition.Such errors or imprudence, then, instead of being corrected in the period after the Council, have further worsened, arriving at the present situation in which heresies of every type freely circulate without anyone intervening. I have also written a book to deal with this grave pastoral problem. (La questione dell’eresia oggi, Edizioni Vivere In, Monopoli (BA), 2008).You say that the situation is disastrous, Modernism is reigning, heresies are spreading, orthodox (Catholics) are marginalized, priests do not intervene and even go off the tracks themselves and give scandal. All of this is true, but you, what are you doing to remedy this situation? Certainly faith in the indefectibility of the Church is good, but the Church is also indefectible, above all, in teaching the truth.Trust in Our Lady is excellent, but Mary, Mother of the Truth and Founder of the Church, desires that you accept docilely and trustingly, not only the pre-conciliar Magisterium but also the post-conciliar one, making an effort to see the continuity and discerning in it, an enhanced knowledge of the Word of God.The way to remedy this situation is specifically a correct interpretation and application of the Council, as the Pontiffs of the last fifty years have been saying. The problem is that Rome finds it hard to intervene in correcting the deviations because it does not have the support of the episcopate.Modernism is indeed rampant and finds its greatest exponent in Karl Rahner (2). Modernism can be defeated, not by turning back to the past, but by a sound recall to Tradition and actually applying the Council which teaches us a healthy modernity. We are in fact, Christians of the 21st century not of the 19th or 16th [centuries].If anything, let us ask the Holy Father to explain, to clarify or to interpret for us the controversial points in a definitive way, unequivocally and precisely, those that the modernists play with, but let us do it with trust not setting off with the false conviction that in reality there is no continuity.It is true that continuity has to be demonstrated, but it is absolutely indemonstrable that there is no continuity. It is not because it is not objectively there, but it is because it is us, subjectively, that do not understand it. Otherwise, I repeat one more time, we will have to conclude that Christ has deceived us. Do we want to arrive at this conclusion? Do we want to correct the Church that has strayed from the truth? So, now, who is infallible? The Church or ourselves?Fraternally,P.Giovanni Cavalcoli,OPChristmas 2011________________________________Notes[1]As you know , along with the Pope I am sustainer of continuity and I believe that I have been able to show this in my recent boo,. Progresso nella continuità. La questione del Concilio Vaticano II e del Postconcilio, Edizioni, Fede e Cultura, Verona 2011.[2] Allow me to indicate my critique of Rahner in the book – Karl Rahner- The Council Betrayed. (Il Concilio Tradito).
3. [UPDATE: 17 January 2012]
After the talks: "Would you kindly explain where the continuity is?"
Background: On Christmas Day, 2011, Father Giovanni Cavalcoli, a respected theologian and a Friar Preacher in the Convent of Saint Dominic in Bologna - where the Founder himself is buried - authored an open letter to Italian traditional Catholic journal Sì Sì No No, dealing with matters central to the ongoing debate on the Second Vatican Council, its interpretation, the so-called hermeneutics of reform in continuity and in rupture, and the degrees of obedience owed to different teachings of the Church and to the words of our most Holy and Apostolic Father, the Bishop of Rome and universal Pastor. Rorate published a translation of this letter earlier this week. Unsurprisingly, all these matters are at the very heart of the current debate between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), following the doctrinal talks held between 2009 and 2011.We publish below the response of the Sì Sì No No editorial team to the letter, part of the ongoing discussion. (Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana)________________________________________January 3, 2012Reverend Father Giovanni Cavalcoli,We gladly respond to your letter sent to us at Christmas.The Second Vatican Council did not want “to define and bind belief” (Cfr. Vatican Council I. DB 1800) (1) and so it did not want to impose infallibility, thus it can be fallible. The Church is indefectible and God does not permit errors in Her dogmatic or infallibly assisted teachings. (2)The Church as subject is always one; She is and will always be “pillar and sustainer of the Truth ”, even if the object or doctrine taught by Her may be multiple regarding “the way” and the “substance”. Now the Second Vatican Council is “pastoral” (as Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI said explicitly (3)unlike certain theologians who are not part of the teaching Church and instead, have dogmatized it). So the doctrine of Vatican II is different regarding “the way” of the other XX Councils preceding it and in some cases it even deviates from “the substance”.
We believe in the indefectibility of the Church as subject and also in the infallibility of the doctrine taught by Her, but according to the conditions set out by the First Vatican Council, not those set out by theologians. Now, the will to define a doctrine as divine revelation and to bind the faithful to believe in it by Faith for their eternal salvation, is taught infallibly by the First Vatican Council (DB,1800).When the Church teaches the truths of the Faith, the Subject teacher and the Object taught are divinely and infallibly assisted. On this we have never had any doubt. As you have written rightly in your letter “the object of Faith taught is the rule of the Church as subject”. Therefore, the Magisterium is not an Absolute and must transmit the doctrine revealed by God, without changing it. Revelation is the rule of the Magisterium. Whereas, you Reverend Father, tend to make even the non-infallibly assisted Magisterium an Absolute, independent from the Faith.A few lines further on, when you write that “denying the infallibility of the Magisterium goes against the Faith and therefore is heretical”, you contradict what you have written previously (which we have just cited) and does not complete the definition of the infallible Magisterium. According to the First Vatican Council in the will to define and bind belief it is necessary for the infallible assistance on the part of God to the Magisterium in (DB,1800). In some matters, you tend in good faith, to substitute yourself for the Magisterium and excommunicate and declare heretical, right, left and centre, promulgating new dogmatic definitions which deviate from those of the Church.Christ did not deceive the Church when He promised to assist Her “until the end of the world”, but there are different types of assistance and not all of them are infallible.Some doctrines of the Second Vatican Council seem to be erroneous to us, but it is up to the teaching authority of the Church to have the last word on them, not us, nor you for that matter.Finally, you write: “it is absolutely indemonstrable that there is no continuity”.Would you kindly explain – without denying the principle of non-contradiction – where the continuity is between the Catholic Faith and the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in the following four points:
- On the 7th December 1965 during his address at the 9th session of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI came to proclaim: “the religion of God Who became man has met the religion (for that is what it is) of man who makes himself God.What happened? A clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. […]A feeling of boundlesssympathy (for every man not for human nature) has permeated the whole of it. (…) But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.” (4) Note well! Pope Paul VI says “all of the Council” not only the ‘spirit of the Council’, not only the radical hermeneutic of rupture with Catholic Tradition. Now here, the authentic interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is given by Pope Paul VI and not Tizio, Caio, Sempronio nor Don Cantone (equivalent of: Tom, Dick or Harry), nor myself. Furthermore, Pope Paul VI urges the “modern humanists” that is, the atheists, who “reject the truths” of supernatural Faith, which transcend human reason “ to give credit” to “all of the Council” for this “religion of man that makes himself God” on his own strength without the free gift of sanctifying grace. But if “all of the Council”, and not its hazardous interpretation or its “spirit” can and must please the atheist or pantheists, it cannot please the Christians, who believe in the supernatural truths revealed by God which distinguish the creature from the Creator. As we can deduce from what Pope Paul VI said, it is the text itself of the Council which is in rupture with the Catholic Faith and as such cannot be accepted. The heart of the “problem at the present time” is really the foolish hope of reconciling the irreconcilable: theocentrism and anthropocentrism. The Roman–Rite Mass and the “Novus Ordo Missae”, Divine-Apostolic Tradition and Vatican II.
No comments:
Post a Comment