I wouldn’t think that a bishop has any authority to impose such major excommunication on anyone
Catholic Encyclopedia specifies that besides the penalties, the word “anathema” sometimes “signifies also to be overwhelmed with maledictions”, and perhaps this is what was meant (as uncharitable as that may sound to our ears
).
Anyways, here’s the seventh paragraph:
Declaration III, 5 : “The statements of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium with regard to the relation between the Catholic Church and non-catholic confessions and to the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, (1) the formulation of which it is difficult to reconcile with previous doctrinal statements of the Magisterium, (2) must be understood in the light of Tradition complete and uninterrupted, (3) in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Church’s Magisterium, (4) without accepting any interpretation of these statements which can lead to Catholic doctrine being laid out in opposition to, or breaking with, Tradition and that Magisterium.”
According to him, the first issue is that this is turning things a bit around: “
it is not the statements of Vatican II that are problematic, but only their “formulation”.” He obviously seems to believe that the statements themselves are problematic. Is it reasonable to expect any reconciliation to take place, if our pretense is to call “problematic” the statements of an Ecumenical Council?
He further resents that “
there is suggested no objective impossibility of reconciling Conciliar nonsense with Catholic sense, they are merely “difficult” to reconcile subjectively”. Again: can the common ground for dialogue be that one of the two sides has spoken nonsense? If a small community wants to reconcile with the large society it separated itself from, is it reasonable for it to expect the latter to agree to such premises?
He makes a clever inference on why the Declaration employs the terms “in the light of” and “in a manner coherent with” (I am not saying I agree with his inference): he says:
understanding the Vatican II novelties “in the light of” Tradition is to understand that they are wholly irreconcilable. Understanding them “in a manner coherent with” Tradition is to understand them as though they are reconcilable.
Whether or not this is a correct interpretation of the usage of those two expressions, it does make sense: if (the majority of) a certain group considers that “in the light of Tradition” A and B are irreconciliable, then the sole way to move towards reconciliation is to find a way to somewhat make A and B reconciliable
But probably what bothers the most is part (4)…as he writes, this sentence is rather clear: “
any subjective understanding of the novelties that makes them clash with Tradition and the age-old Magisterium is absolutely to be rejected”. Thus, the very usage that he makes of the word “novelties” would probably be numbered amidst the unacceptable statements (which makes sense: I cannot believe at once that the Church does not contradict and contradicts itself…“no one can believe that the same thing can (at the same time) be and not be”…!).
If the Society and the Church were to agree on such a point, it would necessarily imply that those who belong to the Society would no longer be allowed to affirm that certain statements regarding the relation between the Church and non-catholic communities are in opposition or breaking with tradition. But he separated himself (or was separated) from SSPX and opposes “modern-day SSPX and its desire to obtain an agreement with Rome”, claiming that this is one of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre (a questionable statement). Obviously such a statement is indeed unacceptable to him and one realizes why he would be so upset at whoever wrote it.
Where I disagree (in my ignorance) is in this statement: “
the paragraph as a whole constitutes a most clever step-wise movement from a shadow of truth to the outright error of the “hermeneutic of continuity”, which is pure Alice in Wonderland”. As far as I know, the latter refers to a statement of Pope Benedict XVI:
Too many in the Church, he laments, approach the Council through a “hermeneutic of rupture”; and a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” with the past. (“Hermeneutic” basically means, “interpretation”. Thus, Pope Benedict says, many Catholics have approached the Council with an interpretation of rupture with the past.) The proper way to approach the Council, he insists, is through a “hermeneutic of continuity”. His basic claim — and this has always been his claim as Cardinal Ratzinger — is that Vatican II did not constitute a rupture with Tradition, but a legitimate development of it. We can find this legitimate development if we approach the Council through a hermeneutic — an interpretation — of continuity.
It seems, according to some, that Benedict XVI does not employ a traditional terminology, but a new one (“hermeneutic of continuity”). This in my ignorant mind means a major thing that requires much carefulness: the Holy Father is providing a way to understand something, and as a Catholic I do believe that the Holy Spirit enlightens the Vicar of Christ on matters of faith. Thus, I do not consider that the most prudent reaction would be simply to dismiss this as “outright error” and then go ahead and mock it. Even if it were only Cardinal Ratzinger to speak, I would keep in mind his deep theological knowledge…how much more when the one who speaks is the Bishop of Rome, who according to our Tradition has special light on matters of faith…
thanks for your excellent post which shed alot of light on the complexities of his thinking and ‘logic’
seems to me like he’s in this version…