FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Reading Vatican II as break with tradition is heresy, prefect (Müller) says
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories...205009.htm

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as breaking with the truth both espouse a "heretical interpretation" of the council and its aims, said the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

What Pope Benedict XVI has termed "the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity" is the "only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology," Archbishop Gerhard Muller said in remarks published Nov. 29.

"Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, (found) both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist" side, the archbishop said.

What the two camps have in common, he said, is their rejection of the council: "the progressives in their wanting to leave it behind, as if it were a season to abandon in order to get to another church, and the traditionalists in their not wanting to get there," seeing the council as a Catholic "winter."

A "council presided over by the successor of Peter as head of the visible church" is the "highest expression" of the Magisterium, he said, to be regarded as part of "an indissoluble whole," along with Scripture and 2,000 years of tradition.

The doctrinal chief's remarks were published in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, to present the seventh volume of "The Complete Works of Joseph Ratzinger." The volume collects both published and unpublished notes, speeches, interviews and texts written or given by the future pope in the period shortly before, during and just after Vatican II.

Archbishop Muller specified that by "continuity" Pope Benedict meant a "permanent correspondence with the origin, not an adaption of whatever has been, which also can lead the wrong way."

The term "aggiornamento" or updating -- one of the watchwords of the council -- "does not mean the secularization of the faith, which would lead to its dissolution," but a "making present" of the message of Jesus Christ, he said.

This "making present" is the "reform necessary for every era in constant fidelity to the whole Christ," he said.

"The tradition of apostolic origin continues in the church with help from the Holy Spirit," he said, and leads to greater understanding through contemplation and study, intelligence garnered from a deeper experience of the spiritual, and preaching by those who through the "apostolic succession have received an assured charism of truth."

END
Vatican II is now dogmatic, I guess. 

That's cool.

He is the Pope's man, though. 

So how about that bovine excrement that he's a trad-friendly fellow who is implementing the Benedictine Plan of re-Catholicising the world? 

Also, does this make the FSSP heretics?  Don't they have issues with the Council?

tl;dr his remarks and statements are very problematic.
I can see we have hard work here! ???To agree to disagree :LOL:
I don't regard VII as a break with Tradition per se. 

It's only the parts that break from Tradition that I regard as breaking from Tradition.

Can I still be in newchurch?
The statement on how trads and wacky progressivists are both in error reminds me of the advice given by the LCRW  type nun who helped me with my confirmation. She told me not to veer too far to the left nor too far to the right, after I had asked her if she knew about the SSPX. She related to me many interesting ideas though. One was  an explanation on why  the Church or the Novus Ordo does not use bells anymore, the reason being that bells remind the faithful of a wealthy person calling his serveant. Another interesting principle she related to me was that confessing your sins weekly is a practice that was followed by the  Jansenists. Of course, she also made known to me her displeasure for EWTN, telling me that " they need to know the Church changes." But, apparently this sister and the current Prefect of the CDF seem to be in agreement that the positions of traditionalists and progressives are both equally incorrect.
So, if I read him correctly, if I reject the council, I have taken on a heretical interpretation?  I guess a lot of us on this board, but far from all, would fit this bill(that we reject VII, not that we believe heretical teachings).
  In a sense, I hope the CDF/Vatican develop this furthur.  It may help take the scales off of those that cannot see that VII and many subsequent declarations/actions of the Vatican are quite different from those under popes before Vatican II.  Also, this is probably another message to the Society-our way or the highway.

Joe
(11-30-2012, 01:37 AM)joe17 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, this is probably another message to the Society-our way or the highway.

The man appointed by the Pope (who presumably, we are told, wants the SSPX reconciled) has essentially declared the SSPX to be heretics.

You make a very good point, joe.
Nothing has gone right since the Popes disobeyed Our Lady by not doing the Consecration and revealing the entire 3rd Secret in 1960
Fr. J. Ratzinger, 1967 Wrote:The debate on religious liberty will in later years be considered one of the most important events of a Council already rich enough in important events….Few things had hurt the Church so much in the last 150 years as its tenacious clinging to outmoded political-religious positions….In its thinking, the Church has stubbornly confused faith in the absolute truth manifest in Christ with insistence on an absolute secular status for the institutional Church….[Such] habits of thought have characterized Church teaching on the relations of Church and State right up to Vatican Council II.

[...]

[Dignitatis Humanae] attempts to emphasize continuity in the statements of the official Church on this issue. It also says that it “leaves intact the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and communities toward the true religion and the only Church of Christ” (n. 1). The term “duty” here has doubtful application to communities in their relation to the Church. Later on in the Declaration, the text itself corrects and modifies these earlier statements, offering something new, something that is quite different from what is found, for example, in the statements of Pius XI and Pius XII. It would have been better to omit these compromising formulas or to reformulate them in line with the later text. Thus the introduction changes nothing in the text’s content; therefore, we need not regard it as anything more than a minor flaw.
Let me repeat this.
Fr. J. Ratzinger, 1967 Wrote:Later on in the Declaration, the text itself corrects and modifies these earlier statements, offering something new, something that is quite different from what is found, for example, in the statements of Pius XI and Pius XII.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6