Is modernity wrong?

[TMC]

The “theme” is inferred. We are surely not required to assent to a “theme” that an individual in the Church has inferred from the documents when it does stand in gross contradiction with what has come prior?

I am not here to require anyone to assent to anything.

I understand that some believe that the themes of Vatican II are a “gross contradiction” of long-standing Catholic tradition. I think that the facts belie that claim. Certainly the themes of Vatican II run counter to a counter-theme that gained popularity in the post-Reformation Church. But I don’t see Vatican II as being a contradiction with the long-standing (as in back to the beginnings) teaching of the Church.

 

[Brendan_64]

I am not here to require anyone to assent to anything.

I understand that some believe that the themes of Vatican II are a “gross contradiction” of long-standing Catholic tradition.

And what themes would they be? Are these themes that have been approved by the Church as actually being the themes of Vatican II, or are they the personal opinions of individuals whose own personal interpretation of Vatican II has identified such themes?

I think that the facts belie that claim. Certainly the themes of Vatican II run counter to a counter-theme that gained popularity in the post-Reformation Church.

Again are these personal opinions or facts? Are these ‘themes’ actual Church teaching? Who determines what these themes are? If it si not the Church that has determined these themes, then they are nothing more than individual interpretation.

IBut I don’t see Vatican II as being a contradiction with the long-standing (as in back to the beginnings) teaching of the Church.

Of course Vatican II is not a contradiction of previous Church teachings. The documents of Vatican II are actually pretty conservative in nature. They represent a continuity of reform that has been in existence since the formation of our Church. They were not a radical new agenda or a rupture with the past. The fact that they were not radical documents with new ideas this resulted in certain elements within the Church (who would have liked them to be radical in nature) then going on to identify certain ‘themes’ and then running off down paths that they viewed these themes as pointing towards (hence the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ nonsense).

As Pope Benedict XVI (and I believe Pope John Paul II before him) have said, the true Spirit of Vatican II is the actual wording of the documents of Vatican II, nothing more. And I reckon that before too long Pope Francis will say the same thing, he certainly has said nothing to the contrary.

 

[Genesis315]

With regards to the quote from the “G8” Cardinal, I don’t think he’s referring to the theological modernism condemned in Pascendi. Given the context of his relating it to the decisions of the First Vaitcan Council and to reactions against injustice and abuses against human diginity and rights, as well as later affirming an objective standard that the Church must always conform itself to, it doesn’t seem like he is referring to the theological modernism of Loisy, etc, but rather aspects of civil Liberalism or “modern society.”

Especially in light of his criticism of secularism and laicism in Europe and elsewhere today in that speech, it seems more like a less sophisticated attempt to reiterate what Joseph Ratzinger wrote on this topic in “Principles of Catholic Theology” with regard to the Church’s relationship to various forms of moderated Liberalism and modernity. I don’t think that he is claiming that Vatican II embraced rationalism or theological modernism (ie that there is no objective source of revelation or that it exists, but should not play a role in society). Rather, Vatican II moved the Church’s orientation toward modern society as that of engagement rather than antagonism.

As I mentioned, Liberalism had become moderated from it’s anti-clerical and anti-Catholic status in the 19th century and after WWII seemed to be a system the Church could now work within, promoting what was good and purifying what was not, rather than reject it outright as was necessary in the century prior.

Of course, a lot of the things that caused the Church to outright condemn it in the 19th century are gaining momentum again.

 

[TMC]

And what themes would they be? Are these themes that have been approved by the Church as actually being the themes of Vatican II, or are they the personal opinions of individuals whose own personal interpretation of Vatican II has identified such themes?

The themes I am referring to are the themes we have been discussing for the last week or so on this thread - the themes Cardinal Maradiaga referred to in his speech. Those are not the only themes or topics addressed in VII, of course.

Again are these personal opinions or facts? Are these ‘themes’ actual Church teaching? Who determines what these themes are? If it si not the Church that has determined these themes, then they are nothing more than individual interpretation.

Aren’t all interpretations personal? At any rate, I was referring to the Cardinal’s interpretation of Vatican II, which I generally agree with.

Of course Vatican II is not a contradiction of previous Church teachings. The documents of Vatican II are actually pretty conservative in nature. They represent a continuity of reform that has been in existence since the formation of our Church. They were not a radical new agenda or a rupture with the past. The fact that they were not radical documents with new ideas this resulted in certain elements within the Church (who would have liked them to be radical in nature) then going on to identify certain ‘themes’ and then running off down paths that they viewed these themes as pointing towards (hence the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ nonsense).

As Pope Benedict XVI (and I believe Pope John Paul II before him) have said, the true Spirit of Vatican II is the actual wording of the documents of Vatican II, nothing more. And I reckon that before too long Pope Francis will say the same thing, he certainly has said nothing to the contrary.

Not sure who you mean by “certain elements” that promote “radical” interpretations of Vatican II. I have been discussing statements made by the Cardinal that the Pope recently named to head his council of eight. I don’t consider him or his views to be radical.

 

[Brendan_64]

Aren’t all interpretations personal? At any rate, I was referring to the Cardinal’s interpretation of Vatican II, which I generally agree with.

Which is why, as Catholics, we leave interpretation of Church documents to the Magisterium of our Church. To do otherwise is to each of us end up being our own magisterium, making our own interpretations of Church documents, each man his own authority. We may hold personal opinions, but those personal opinions are not part of our Catholic Faith.

 

[TMC]

Which is why, as Catholics, we leave interpretation of Church documents to the Magisterium of our Church. To do otherwise is to each of us end up being our own magisterium, making our own interpretations of Church documents, each man his own authority. We may hold personal opinions, but those personal opinions are not part of our Catholic Faith.

But isn’t that entirely circular? We have the documents, which I think are pretty straight forward, but everyone puts their own spin on them. Then we have the statements and documents from the hierarchy, which tend (in my humble opinion) to be somewhat less clear than the actual documents. And everyone puts their own spin on that, too. The nature of human communication is that the hearer must always interpret what is said by the speaker. So “personal” interpretation is inevitable.

I think the best way to minimize spin is to go back to the actual documents, but even that does not prevent interpretation, it just removes some layers of interpretation.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think the best way to minimize spin is to go back to the actual documents, but even that does not prevent interpretation, it just removes some layers of interpretation.

Well I guess that would then at least be an interpretation of the original documents (which as you say are actually pretty straightforward) rather than an interpretation of someone’s interpretation of someone else’s interpretation. So that would at least be an improvement.

However what our Church has officially said on the documents should suffice. We are not free to add to, or remove from, what the Church interprets for us.