Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you
#89
(07-28-2009, 02:22 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: LS.... You are misreading me because I'm more on your side than against you.. yet you continue to challenge me.
No, I do understand that you are largely on "my side". What I am challenging is some of what you say.

Quote:I know Sacred Tradition (big T) can never change.
Yes, I'm aware of that as well.

Quote:And once again you missed the irony in my last statement-  - the similarities I made between traditionalists and progressives who both claim to preserve the traditions of antiquity.
I don't see any irony. Those who wish to preserve the traditions of yesterday (literally) are not remotely comparable to those who wish to bring back traditions from 1800 years ago. The latter have been condemned. That's why I see no irony. :)

Quote:You accuse me of setting up straw men and telling me how confused I am - how I will view every tradition as a small "t". I could turn it around and say you will view every tradition as a big "T". Maybe you should tell us what constitutes a "small t." This should be interesting.

You did set up a straw man and there are places where I believe you are confused. I ddin't say that you view EVERY tradition as a small "t", only that you resort to this line of defense quite often.

The rules for the reception of Holy Communion are a small "t" (the practical judgment portion). These rules were changed by Pope Pius X. There were valid arguments against this modification of the law. The rules for the eucharistic fast were modified by Pope Pius XII. There were valid arguments against this as well. These types of things can be changed and are changed from time to time. There are also accidental changes that occur over time.

Sweeping changes to many, many longstanding traditions (small "t") seems impossible to justify.

"Summa Theologica" Wrote:From the Summa:

Article 2. Whether human law should always be changed, whenever something better occurs?

Objection 1. It would seem that human law should be changed, whenever something better occurs. Because human laws are devised by human reason, like other arts. But in the other arts, the tenets of former times give place to others, if something better occurs. Therefore the same should apply to human laws.

Objection 2. Further, by taking note of the past we can provide for the future. Now unless human laws had been changed when it was found possible to improve them, considerable inconvenience would have ensued; because the laws of old were crude in many points. Therefore it seems that laws should be changed, whenever anything better occurs to be enacted.

Objection 3. Further, human laws are enacted about single acts of man. But we cannot acquire perfect knowledge in singular matters, except by experience, which "requires time," as stated in Ethic. ii. Therefore it seems that as time goes on it is possible for something better to occur for legislation.

On the contrary, It is stated in the Decretals (Dist. xii, 5): "It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just."

Reply to Objection 1. Rules of art derive their force from reason alone: and therefore whenever something better occurs, the rule followed hitherto should be changed. But "laws derive very great force from custom," as the Philosopher states (Polit. ii, 5): consequently they should not be quickly changed.

Reply to Objection 2. This argument proves that laws ought to be changed: not in view of any improvement, but for the sake of a great benefit or in a case of great urgency, as stated above. This answer applies also to the Third Objection.




Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - by lamentabili sane - 07-28-2009, 05:20 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)