L’Osservatore Romano addresses traditionalist concerns

[Melchior_1]

Here’s the link to the entire article, written by Jimmy Akin.

There is a thread in this over in the News Section, but this is the Traditional Catholicism section, so perhaps a discussion could be had.

 

[Warrenton]

I read the article and the translated version of the original article in L’O.

My initial reaction to the article was that it did not squarely address the question that need to be addressed. However, having mulled it over a while, I’m starting to warm up to it.

The author’s main assertion is undoubtedly correct: there is no way the Church is going to admit that as a whole, the council was in error. Too many bishops were gathered together, for too long a period, to make a wholesale repudiation of the council feasible.

I don’t think that is what SSPX claims, but if SSPX can agree with the truth that proposition, then the nature of the debate changes fundamentally for the better.

I also liked the way in which the author characterised the diffrerent aspects of the documents. When the council documents say “the Church is a hierarchy,and the pope leads it,” it does announce doctrine which no Catholic can in good faith deny. When the council documents say that “modern” men are growing closer together, a Catholic is free to disagree, since that is an opinion that a certain number of bishops agreed with at the time.

I was a bit confused how someone can permissibly disagree with unsettled “new doctrines” but not express the disagreement. I am still digesting that part. It seems that if a doctrine is new, and it conflicts with an old doctrine, then Catholics have the right to express their disagreement. Unless a doctrine can be challenged, it’s not unsettled. It is perhaps unwise to force people out of communion in order to challenge unsettled or novel doctrines. There ought to be a method for challenging new doctrines within the established Church.

 

[jmj1984]

Here’s the link to the entire article, written by Jimmy Akin.

There is a thread in this over in the News Section, but this is the Traditional Catholicism section, so perhaps a discussion could be had.

I think this was posted on Rorate Caeli a while ago, its an interesting piece but frankly flawed.

Its an interesting because:

1)It accepts Vatican II was not infallible
2)It accepts Vatican II introduced innovations

Its flawed because:
1)It doesn’t seem to make any distinction between the assent due to infallible and non-infallible teachings, it merely plays semantics. Regardless of infallible or not we must believe anyway and must (in the eyes of the SSPX) ignore what they believe are clear contradictions.

2)It says that despite these innovations, despite all the bishops and bishops conferences particularly in Europe that explicitly stated Vatican II was introducing a new order of things and that older teaching was redundant, doesn’t contradict anything and we just need to trust this is the case.

3)It uses the teachings of Vatican II on the submission required to various dogmas to justify submission to Vatican II. This is a circular argument. You cannot say 'X is right because X says so’ or ‘X is good according to X’s standards’.

4)It says we must view earlier tradition in the view of of Vatican II. So we are to view 20 ecumenical councils and 1900 years of history in the light of 1 council and 50 years of history? That is not logical nor reasonable.

5)It asserts a creeping infallibility to Papal actions in the last 50 years. This is illogical, look at from the point of view of the SSPX (which the document is most likely aimed at) they believe the popes have contradicted the ordinary magisterium, therefore no matter how many popes teach contradictions to the ordinary magisterium, the fundamental contradiction between pre and post conciliar teaching remains and their teachings cannot be part of the ordinary magisterium. It would require an infallible teaching to overrule the previous teaching of the magisterium.

Frankly speaking, I hope this is not how the discussions between the SSPX and Rome have been proceeding because it is highly unlikely they would accept such document. Its even worse off than the document Archbishop Lefebvre was asked to sign back in 1988, as instead of interpreting Vatican 2 in the light of tradition they must now interpret tradition in the light of Vatican II.

The above is my private criticism of a private document not a general criticism of Vatican II or Rome before anyone takes it the wrong way.

 

[Warrenton]

I agreed with a lot of what you wrote - you said it better than I could have.

let me play devil’s advocate with a few ideas - because I want to give this approach the benefit of the doubt!

1)It doesn’t seem to make any distinction between the assent due to infallible and non-infallible teachings,

The commentator correctly (I thought) observed that the “dicta” about the rosy state of modern man contained in certain documents concerns traditionalists, and under this interpretation, may be disputed in good faith.

2)It says that despite these innovations, despite all the bishops and bishops conferences particularly in Europe that explicitly stated Vatican II was introducing a new order of things and that older teaching was redundant, doesn’t contradict anything and we just need to trust this is the case.

Do you think this approach opens the possibility of bringing the hammer down on certain post Vatican 2 bishops and their writings? I have a strong preference for realism in dispute resolution. I wonder if Rome may not be signalling SSPX to draw up a list of specific post Vatican 2 alleged errors. I think Rome may be quite willing to throw the more liberal bishops under the proverbial bus to salvage the grand scheme of the council.

3)It uses the teachings of Vatican II on the submission required to various dogmas to justify submission to Vatican II. This is a circular argument.

I interpreted this part simply to re-iterate that in the sprawling mass that is the council documents, the greater portion comprises doctrines that no one really questions. Did I misread it?

5)It asserts a creeping infallibility to Papal actions in the last 50 years. This is illogical, look at from the point of view of the SSPX (which the document is most likely aimed at)

Wasn’t the author suggesting that the positive acts of the post council popes can help put the thing into its proper place within tradition? For example, the council produced a document on religious liberty that at the time, read too broadly to be harmonized with tradition. Later popes made clear that the meaning of this doctrine is that communists cannot deprive Christians of the right to worship and Muslims cannot deprive Chritians of their right to live. These post council clarifications serve to “correct the course” of the teaching.

Its even worse off than the document Archbishop Lefebvre was asked to sign back in 1988, as instead of interpreting Vatican 2 in the light of tradition they must now interpret tradition in the light of Vatican II.

In one sense yes, but in another, isn’t it a little more realistic? The problem in 1988 was that no one believed that there was any agreement on what tradition meant. If SSPX had signed the document, the next likely step would have been for Rome to say “Tradition says we get to suppress you. Disband.”

This document, in acknowledging that new things were pronounced, seems to open the door for debate on how to handle the new things. I agree that SSPX won’t likely accept it, but isn’t it better than sweeping the disagreements under the rug? At least under this approach, we can start to pin down what, exactly, is new.

The above is my private criticism of a private document not a general criticism of Vatican II or Rome before anyone takes it the wrong way.

 

[Boulder257]

Great essay! I wish I thought it would convince those that need convincing, but I doubt it will do much. Let’s all just continue to pray!!!

 

[jmj1984]

I agreed with a lot of what you wrote - you said it better than I could have.

let me play devil’s advocate with a few ideas - because I want to give this approach the benefit of the doubt!

The commentator correctly (I thought) observed that the “dicta” about the rosy state of modern man contained in certain documents concerns traditionalists, and under this interpretation, may be disputed in good faith.

To me it seems to be saying 'You can dispute it but only on our terms and when we let you’ that’s not an approach that will resolve the situation between the SSPX and Rome.

Do you think this approach opens the possibility of bringing the hammer down on certain post Vatican 2 bishops and their writings? I have a strong preference for realism in dispute resolution. I wonder if Rome may not be signalling SSPX to draw up a list of specific post Vatican 2 alleged errors. I think Rome may be quite willing to throw the more liberal bishops under the proverbial bus to salvage the grand scheme of the council.

I’m not sure its as simple as that, simply put I don’t think Rome is prepared to test bishops loyalty to that extent, I suspect much the same will happen as happened with the controversy around Humanae Vitae, bishops and bishops conferences often ignored it, disparaged it, outright criticised it or stated the faithful merely had to act according to their conscience. Besides which the idea still lives amongst many bishops especially I suspect in France, Italy, other parts of Europe and the USA.

I interpreted this part simply to re-iterate that in the sprawling mass that is the council documents, the greater portion comprises doctrines that no one really questions. Did I misread it?

I believe so, yes. The document is using Vatican 2’s definition of assent to justify assent to Vatican 2, now aside from the fact that’s self-evidently a circular argument, its not going to persuade those who believe that large sections of Vatican II are problematic.

Wasn’t the author suggesting that the positive acts of the post council popes can help put the thing into its proper place within tradition? For example, the council produced a document on religious liberty that at the time, read too broadly to be harmonized with tradition. Later popes made clear that the meaning of this doctrine is that communists cannot deprive Christians of the right to worship and Muslims cannot deprive Chritians of their right to live. These post council clarifications serve to “correct the course” of the teaching.

I don’t think so, he appeared to be subscribing to the creeping infallibility idea, which basically states that the Church can’t have been wrong for 50 years, ergo its not wrong, ergo case closed on saying some sections of Vatican II are simply wrong. As for religious liberty its easy to see what the SSPX will say about that, Assisi 1-3.

In one sense yes, but in another, isn’t it a little more realistic? The problem in 1988 was that no one believed that there was any agreement on what tradition meant. If SSPX had signed the document, the next likely step would have been for Rome to say “Tradition says we get to suppress you. Disband.”

Not really, there is absolutely nothing wrong with viewing V2 in the light of tradition, it is after all always how the church has operated. There is simply no way the SSPX will accept that we should read V2 back into history, in fact that idea is simply illogical. Why would you read 20 infallible ecumenical councils in the light of one non-infallible one? Its difficult enough trying to read the teachings of Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius IX, St Pius X, Pius XI and XII in the merely ordinary magisterium through Vatican II let alone infallible teaching. As far as I can see the article merely takes the normal Pro V2 arguments ‘Vatican II is right in its entirety, there’s nothing wrong with it at all and that’s the end of that’ and tries to dress it up in traditionalist clothing. The problem with that is that the SSPX know that and are extremely unlikely to concede to it.

This document, in acknowledging that new things were pronounced, seems to open the door for debate on how to handle the new things. I agree that SSPX won’t likely accept it, but isn’t it better than sweeping the disagreements under the rug? At least under this approach, we can start to pin down what, exactly, is new.

Undeniably true the problem is that they need to actually discuss this not simply say ‘There’s problems but we’re only going to let you discuss them once you agree that they are true and you must agree with them no matter what’. Again I’m simply pointing out the problems from the point of view of the SSPX.

I suppose the fundamental problem with the essay aside from the logical issues is that it is ‘* Preaching to the converted*’, only those who already accepted V2 as a whole and unequivocally are likely to be persuaded by it.

The above is my private criticism of a private document not a general criticism of Vatican II or Rome before anyone takes it the wrong way.

 

[runningdude]

I think this was posted on Rorate Caeli a while ago, its an interesting piece but frankly flawed.
…

3)It uses the teachings of Vatican II on the submission required to various dogmas to justify submission to Vatican II. This is a circular argument. You cannot say 'X is right because X says so’ or ‘X is good according to X’s standards’.

4)It says we must view earlier tradition in the view of of Vatican II. So we are to view 20 ecumenical councils and 1900 years of history in the light of 1 council and 50 years of history? That is not logical nor reasonable.

…

The above is my private criticism of a private document not a general criticism of Vatican II or Rome before anyone takes it the wrong way.

Point 3 of your argument, in my private opinion, is flawed. Its not technically a circular argument, but rather instruction from a person of authority. While the author himself does not possess authority on his own, he is representing what he believes to be the opinion of the Holy See.

As Catholics, we are presumed to accept the authority of the Holy See. It is the opinion of the Holy See that the Second Vatican Council does not represent a break from the Sacred Tradition. Because of the independent authority of the Papacy, we are not asked to accept a circular argument. We are being educated in the proper interpretation of councilor documents by the legitimate authority charged to interpret these documents.

Its my opinion that when the author of the article in question is offering an accurate portrayal of the Holy See’s position on the matter. The validity of the authors argument are heavily reliant on the accuracy of his portrayal.

In light of this caveat, its my belief that should the Holy See cite a Vatican II document, such as the one elaborating of forms of religious accent, then the Pope would be giving an independent endorsement of these teachings. The document on religious accent would independently draw on the authority of both the Council and the sitting Pope.

Therefore, it not a circular argument to use the council to interpret the council, but rather an outside instruction on how to interpret the council by pointing out key areas that need to understood to interpret.

Whether the SSPX accepts this instruction is a matter of obedience. They can have legitimate concerns, but these must be discussed with humility and due respect to the lawful and broad authority of the Holy See.

 

[jmj1984]

Point 3 of your argument, in my private opinion, is flawed. Its not technically a circular argument, but rather instruction from a person of authority. While the author himself does not possess authority on his own, he is representing what he believes to be the opinion of the Holy See.

As Catholics, we are presumed to accept the authority of the Holy See. It is the opinion of the Holy See that the Second Vatican Council does not represent a break from the Sacred Tradition. Because of the independent authority of the Papacy, we are not asked to accept a circular argument. We are being educated in the proper interpretation of councilor documents by the legitimate authority charged to interpret these documents.

Its my opinion that when the author of the article in question is offering an accurate portrayal of the Holy See’s position on the matter. The validity of the authors argument are heavily reliant on the accuracy of his portrayal.

In light of this caveat, its my belief that should the Holy See cite a Vatican II document, such as the one elaborating of forms of religious accent, then the Pope would be giving an independent endorsement of these teachings. The document on religious accent would independently draw on the authority of both the Council and the sitting Pope.

Therefore, it not a circular argument to use the council to interpret the council, but rather an outside instruction on how to interpret the council by pointing out key areas that need to understood to interpret.

Whether the SSPX accepts this instruction is a matter of obedience. They can have legitimate concerns, but these must be discussed with humility and due respect to the lawful and broad authority of the Holy See.

Its not an instruction from a person in authority, its the private opinion of one of the theological experts.

Reading the essay, it does not even refer to the authority of the Pope, it simply uses the criteria established by Vatican 2 to judge Vatican 2, that is a clear example of a circular argument.

Your comments regarding the Papacy come under point 5, a pope giving independent assent to Vatican II doesn’t change matters if the Pope simply uses Vatican II to justify his assent. Saying 'Vatican II is right because the Pope says Vatican II says so’ is ultimately just a more convoluted form of 'Vatican II is right because Vatican II says so’.

This situation would never arise with infallible ecumenical councils as the Pope would simply be bound with what the council said, he would not be giving independent assent to the council he would simply be submitting to the De Fide truths taught by it. Pragmatically its no good using V2 to justify or explain everything prior to it as the SSPX question the majority of the council documents.

 

[jam070406]

Point 3 of your argument, in my private opinion, is flawed. Its not technically a circular argument, but rather instruction from a person of authority. While the author himself does not possess authority on his own, he is representing what he believes to be the opinion of the Holy See.

As Catholics, we are presumed to accept the authority of the Holy See. It is the opinion of the Holy See that the Second Vatican Council does not represent a break from the Sacred Tradition. Because of the independent authority of the Papacy, we are not asked to accept a circular argument. We are being educated in the proper interpretation of councilor documents by the legitimate authority charged to interpret these documents.

Its my opinion that when the author of the article in question is offering an accurate portrayal of the Holy See’s position on the matter. The validity of the authors argument are heavily reliant on the accuracy of his portrayal.

In light of this caveat, its my belief that should the Holy See cite a Vatican II document, such as the one elaborating of forms of religious accent, then the Pope would be giving an independent endorsement of these teachings. The document on religious accent would independently draw on the authority of both the Council and the sitting Pope.

Therefore, it not a circular argument to use the council to interpret the council, but rather an outside instruction on how to interpret the council by pointing out key areas that need to understood to interpret.

Whether the SSPX accepts this instruction is a matter of obedience. They can have legitimate concerns, but these must be discussed with humility and due respect to the lawful and broad authority of the Holy See.

I don’t like comments such as in your last paragraph. I’m not defending the SSPX and I don’t know if you meant it this way but, none of the people on these boards are personally involved in the discussions to make a judgment that the SSPX are not acting in humility in these discussions. But by so many of the negative comments about them on these boards you would assume so. (not pointing the finger at you)

 

[jmj1984]

It is also worth pointing out that the circular argument problem becomes more dire when it involves fallible sources, a circular argument could be used for an infallible source though it would still be an inferior argument, as an infallible source must be right and is as if from God, it is therefore true and cannot contradict anything. None of this of course is true regarding non-infallible teachings.

It should be noted that even infallible councils and teachings justified themselves by reference to earlier teaching and tradition e.g the Council of Florence, of Trent, the Lyon and Lateran Council etc…

 

[Warrenton]

I suppose the fundamental problem with the essay aside from the logical issues is that it is ‘* Preaching to the converted*’, only those who already accepted V2 as a whole and unequivocally are likely to be persuaded by it.

This is true, but nevertheless important. I read it as a signal to the “converted” that the amount of assent necessary is open to debate, which many of the “converted” do not accept.

The converted are getting sent the message that the optimistic tone of many documents is simply that, a viewpoint that no one is bound to accept. Indeed, the signal says the viewpoint may well have been proved wrong by later events. That alone would be progress.

The converted are also getting the sent the message that certain, unnamed council ideas are indeed innovations, as has long been claimed. This is also good.

As you correctly observed, a lingering problem with grappling V2 has been the schizophrenic nature of the discussion: one group of people says the council changed everything, and that old things are not needed any longer as a result. The next group says the opposite: the council changed nothing, and the new mass is the old mass, if only we could see it aright.

That kind of thing beggars any intellectual treatment of the matter.

This article, at least, acknowledges the existence of new things. Moreover, some of them, it indicates, are up for debate.

Obviously, (as you correctly state), the method that is proposed for debate is problematic. How can something be unsettled, yet not open for debate until after it is accepted, hence settled, at which point there is no need for debate?

That is why, on reflection, I simply disregarded that part as a nod to the “converted.” The author knows that dissenters are not going to rise to that bait.

Your reference to HVitae was perceptive: the bishops and others who derided it in the 70s, 80s and 90s look positively foolish today. I am more sanguine about the prospects of Rome taking the left to task with greater force.

You may ask, “what good does that do, if the SSPX remains forever outside the fold?” The answer is more tactical and less theological. The most vociferous resistance to the reintegration of SSPX is among the most liberal bishops, clergy and intellectuals. If they are engaged in defending their own existence under the title “Catholic,” then they will be less able to block the work of re-unification between Rome and SSPX.

No one can be everywhere at once, not even the scholars of Lueven.

 

[jmj1984]

This is true, but nevertheless important. I read it as a signal to the “converted” that the amount of assent necessary is open to debate, which many of the “converted” do not accept.

The converted are getting sent the message that the optimistic tone of many documents is simply that, a viewpoint that no one is bound to accept. Indeed, the signal says the viewpoint may well have been proved wrong by later events. That alone would be progress.

The converted are also getting the sent the message that certain, unnamed council ideas are indeed innovations, as has long been claimed. This is also good.

As you correctly observed, a lingering problem with grappling V2 has been the schizophrenic nature of the discussion: one group of people says the council changed everything, and that old things are not needed any longer as a result. The next group says the opposite: the council changed nothing, and the new mass is the old mass, if only we could see it aright.

That kind of thing beggars any intellectual treatment of the matter.

This article, at least, acknowledges the existence of new things. Moreover, some of them, it indicates, are up for debate.

Obviously, (as you correctly state), the method that is proposed for debate is problematic. How can something be unsettled, yet not open for debate until after it is accepted, hence settled, at which point there is no need for debate?

That is why, on reflection, I simply disregarded that part as a nod to the “converted.” The author knows that dissenters are not going to rise to that bait.

Your reference to HVitae was perceptive: the bishops and others who derided it in the 70s, 80s and 90s look positively foolish today. I am more sanguine about the prospects of Rome taking the left to task with greater force.

You may ask, “what good does that do, if the SSPX remains forever outside the fold?” The answer is more tactical and less theological. The most vociferous resistance to the reintegration of SSPX is among the most liberal bishops, clergy and intellectuals. If they are engaged in defending their own existence under the title “Catholic,” then they will be less able to block the work of re-unification between Rome and SSPX.

No one can be everywhere at once, not even the scholars of Lueven.

As usual your commentary is intelligent and perceptive.

I suppose the issue with the bishops in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s who derided Humanae Vitae take a similar attitude to correctly interpreting Vatican II or the council itself as well as the Hermenuitic of continuity, that would certainly throw a spanner in the works especially if the Holy Father does not exercise his powers as Pope in all its plenitude i.e with censures as well as catechesis.

Let us hope that the Holy Father can ensure greater orthodoxy and obedience amongst the worlds bishops and more importantly amongst the Curia, that will certainly help the Church’s restoration.

 

[Speedypizza]

As somebody just coming into the Church I find a lot of this confusing, however one point I do get very clearly and that has me scratching my own head is this whole idea that somehow almost everybody is going to get into heaven and that not being part of the Church is not a big deal. This is not what all the fathers of the Church that I have read thought, or what the church has been teaching for the past 1900 years.

While I agree with VII that SOME people who are not Catholics will be saved, I do not agree with the idea that somehow MOST or even MANY of them will be. I know that the visions of Saints are not infallible, however I find it odd that many of them talk about how out of thousands who died, only a handful will get into heaven. If this was one person, I would not think much about it, but there are MANY saints who have all said this same thing.

In conclusion, I feel as if instead of getting a rare wine in a crystal glass, I have been handed a dixie cup with the watered down kool-aid they serve at school functions. What makes it even worse is instead of saying “We know there is a huge problem here, and we are really working on fixing it” many of the people in the church are saying “This is all great and perfect, please ignore the fire in the building.” Sorry, but I cannot do that. I have fallen in love with the authentic Church, and I cannot forget all I have learned about her history and teachings.

Pax

 

[Dirt]

As a side not to the discussion from Rorate Caeli today we have this:
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/words-of-monsignor-ocariz-and-conciliar.html#more

Please note the author:
Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz Braña, Vicar General of Holy Cross and Opus Dei

Powerful words from a powerful theologian.
I find this paragraph to be the most intruiging:
“A number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council: on the sacramental nature of the episcopate, on episcopal collegiality, on religious freedom, etc. These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will, even though some of them were and still are the object of controversy with regard to their continuity with earlier magisterial teaching, or their compatibility with the tradition. In the face of such difficulties in understanding the continuity of certain Conciliar Teachings with the tradition, the Catholic attitude, having taken into account the unity of the Magisterium, is to seek a unitive interpretation in which the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the preceding Magisterial documents illuminate each other. Not only should the Second Vatican Council be interpreted in the light of previous Magisterial documents, but also some of these earlier magisterial documents can be understood better in the light of the Second Vatican Council. This is nothing new in the history of the Church. It should be remembered, for example, that the meaning of important concepts adopted in the First Council of Nicaea in the formulation of the Trinitarian and Christological faith (hypóstasis, ousía), were greatly clarified by later Councils.”

Through the looking glass.

 

[Alfonsus]

The problem is, according to tradition, who has the ultimate authority to interpret and teach Tradition, and by that of course it includes the whole Magisterial teaching and documents.

The Church teaches constantly, that it is the Magisterium who has the authentic and ultimate authority. You can appeal, you can ask for clarification, but the Magisterium has the last word and it is binding (infallible or not).

The side note is, once we decide to sidestep the Magisterium, there is no boundaries where to stop. It becomes an academic debate in accord with Protestant principle. There will be some documents, some creed, some council, Scripture for basic measure. But not all party will agree how many documents, which documents, which saying, which pope, which era, which council.

Simply because we believe the ultimate authority has no authority to interpret it authentically and authoritatively. To be blunt, we come to “I accept it as authoritative if I authoritatively declare it so, to hell with Magisterium since I know I’m right and they are wrong” mentality.

Then for instance, there is no point we argue about liturgical rubrics. Rubrics are not infallible pronouncements. Then what the fuss with bad architecture, dancing, guitar, no vestments, clerical celibacy etc etc etc? Not infallible, merely norms, consensus, pick and choose magisterial statements, then those are justifiable, no?

 

[Warrenton]

The side note is, once we decide to sidestep the Magisterium, there is no boundaries where to stop. It becomes an academic debate in accord with Protestant principle. There will be some documents, some creed, some council, Scripture for basic measure. But not all party will agree how many documents, which documents, which saying, which pope, which era, which council.

This analysis does not hold in the case of traditionalists. Traditionalists are not “sidestepping” the Magisterium. They are appealing to the Magisterium itself, but at a different point in history.

The boundaries are not indistinct, because the boundaries are already laid out in the teaching of the Magisterium up until 1963.

This is fundamentally different than Protestantism, which did not appeal to earlier popes, or earlier doctrines. Rather, Protestantism posited that the teaching of the Magisterium and the hierarchy of the Church were mistaken for at least 800 years, and that the understanding of grace had been in error for even longer.

Calling traditionalists “protestant” debases both traditionalism and Protestantism.

 

[Warrenton]

Let us hope that the Holy Father can ensure greater orthodoxy and obedience amongst the worlds bishops and more importantly amongst the Curia, that will certainly help the Church’s restoration.

Amen.

Thanks also for the kind words. Dirt posted a link to Rorate Caeli that is worth a read. Interestingly, my thoughts seemed to echo some of the writer’s comments - its always nice learn one is in agreement with a 'professional"

The common denominator in all of our posts (including the R. C. link) is that it is not permissible to reinterpret past documents in light of present ones.

I think what we are saying is that it’s fine to build on the past, but one cannot change the past to suit a present preference.

 

[NewsTheMan]

snip

It is more nuanced than this, simply because the magisterium has a certain kind of authority. Namely, they are carriers of sacred tradition, not inventors of it. The deposit of faith ended with the last Apostle. The Magisterium exists to protect and guard the faith - not to say “believe this new thing because we say so”. It is, and always has been, “believe this apostolic belief because we declare it has always been believed”. The Pope, and Bishops, again, are not the makers of tradition but the defenders of it. It is not schismatic or heretical to believe that they can do badly in that job. And that is precisely the traditionalist concern. Especially when, since 1965 we have Bishops and Cardinals of all kinds telling us how novel Vii was and how there are new things to believe etc etc etc.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

You may discuss the article. However, keep in mind forum rules. This is a Catholic apostolate faithful to the Holy See. Therefore, any sign of opposition or attack on the Holy See or that which the Holy See holds as valid is unacceptable, this includes the conclusions of Vatican II. It is one thing to disagree on the meaning of said conclusions and it is quite another to demean them.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

I like to think that the Catholic Church is never afraid of the truth.

If there are ambiguities in these documents, then they need to be clarified. Their meaning should be plain. They are legal documents. Legal documents usually go to some pains to make sure their intent is understood e.g. “I hereby will and bequeath …”

My personal perceptions are:

1. The documents are not clear;
2. They have been used to justify things like removing altar rails and CITH;
3. They have become an idol in themselves i.e. they are sacred texts, which to disagree with is to be a heretic.

It would be a great thing if the SSPX discussion could clarify all this and then we could get on with the serious business of our own salvation.