Mgr Pozzo, Continuity and the SSPX
#1
Check out the following post on Rorate Caeli:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/06...ns-of.html

In it, Mgr Pozzo says that some of the objections of the SSPX (in the context of the doctrinal talks with the Vatican) "make sense" because of an interpretation of rupture.

I take this to mean that some (Novus Ordo) Catholics interpreted V2 according to a hermeneutic of rupture, and interpreted in that way V2 is susceptible to certain of the SSPX' objections.

The implication is that, as we have heard before from our Pope, V2 can be interpreted in a way which is not susceptible to these objections, by the latter meaning that under at least one interpretation V2 is compatible with the Tradition and does not rupture it in any way. That interpretation is called the hermeneutic of continuity.

The claim then is that if you interpret V2 according to continuity, it doesn't disagree with anything that has gone before it in the Tradition. When we say "interpret V2" I take it that we're talking about the texts or documents.

So, if we can do it without descending into a maelstrom of fire and sword, let's take a look at some of the most problematic texts in the V2 documents and see if it is indeed possible to come up with an interpretation that does no violence to the Tradition.

This doesn't mean defend the NO, which is a post-V2 phenomenon. It doesn't mean trying to say that V2 was good, was a binding council, had this or that aspect which was prudent, etc. Just merely looking at the texts only and trying to come up with a way of reading them that is both valid and compatible with Tradition.

Any takers? Somebody throw a text out there and let's work on it.

Reply
#2
I think your intentions are laudable but the effort needed to remove the ambiguity is more than the Council or saving face for the Council is worth. 

After a number of studies on the documents themselves have been done, it's a bit dishonest to think the documents themselves are not the problem and it's only interpretation that's the problem. 

Iota Unum, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II  all demonstrate the destructive intent within the documents themselves and the progressivist mentality in the writing of them. 

Chris Ferrara's now famous article on looking at loopholes in Sacrosanctum Consilium shows the futility in trying to repair documents that work perfectly well in dismantling the Church. 

http://latinmas.s701.sureserver.com/ferrara.htm

Quote: Two Themes
I ask the reader to focus on the two themes of the SC which are apparent from the quoted provisions: (a) open-ended authorization for liturgical reform on what is potentially a vast scale, but without requiring that any particular reform of the liturgy be enacted or avoided; and (b) "democratization" of the liturgy by ceding effective liturgical control to the "ecclesiastical territorial authority" of each country, and the liturgy commissions to be established in each diocese. These two themes are couched in language which seems to inhibit the scope of potential reform in the light of tradition, but does so in a way which always admits of immediate exceptions to suit local needs, conditions and circumstances as determined by "territorial ecclesiastical authority," subject only to Rome's approval or ex post facto confirmation - which has rarely been withheld. The playing out of these two themes over the past 30 years has meant nothing less than what Msgr. Klaus Gamber (with Cardinal Ratzinger's approbation) called "the real destruction of the Roman Rite," with the consequent loss of unity of cult in the Western Church. The results speak for themselves.

The prudently skeptical reader of SC can readily see that SC is composed of both "conservative" and "liberal" norms, the latter serving to undermine and negate the former. In reading the "liberal" norms of SC, the reader will no doubt wonder how the Council Fathers, including the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, could have been induced to approve such an open-ended document. As Msgr. Gamber observed in Reform of the Roman Liturgy: "The Council Fathers, when publishing the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, simply did not expect to see the avalanche they had started, crushing under it all traditional forms of liturgical worship, even the new liturgy they themselves had created . . ." [p. 21] As we have seen, today's "conservatives" evince a similar blindness, even though they, unlike the Council Fathers, have had the benefit of seeing the document interpreted and implemented by two Popes, with manifestly disastrous results.

In retrospect we can now see quite clearly that the unprecedented language of SC permitted the unprecedented reforms which followed. Again, we were reminded of this fact by Pope John Paul II's address on the 25th anniversary of SC, in which he praised the document and "the reforms which it has made possible," noting that "the liturgical reform is the most visible fruit of the whole work of the Council." As the Holy Father's remarks should make clear, SC can no longer be made to serve any agenda but that of its drafters, which agenda has been carried out. Given the past 25 years of liturgical reform, all of it approved by the Holy See as consistent with SC, any search for an "authentic" interpretation of the document which differs from the Holy See's constant reading of it must now be abandoned as quite pointless. If our Latin liturgical tradition is restored, it will not be restored under some newly discovered interpretation of SC.





Better to adopt the position that the Holy Father even points out as a possibility for Vatican II  despite his personal hopes. 

“Not every valid Council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been just a waste of time.” --Josef Cardinal Ratzinger
Reply
#3
(06-09-2011, 12:12 AM)Gerard Wrote: I think your intentions are laudable but the effort needed to remove the ambiguity is more than the Council or saving face for the Council is worth. 

Hey if I were elected Pope tomorrow I'd be the first to declare a Papal Mulligan on the council and pick up where we left off with CotT, ad orientem, male altar boys, the TLM ASAP and all the rest of it.

And your quote from Ferrara is really interesting.

I just thought it would be a fascinating thought experiment to have some of the people who hate V2 the most take the most potentially thorny, aggravating statements from the texts and see if there were some way to lawyer out a Traditional reading of them.
Reply
#4
Fr. Malachi Martin was once asked what he would do if he were elected Pope.  One of the interesting things he said about the documents of Vatican II was that he would by himself with close collaboraters simply rewrite them.  He had previously held the idea that the documents were okay but bloated with "verbal slobberiness" but towards the end of his life, he believed the problems were "in the documents themselves."   

It's almost like a house restoration that is a near teardown.  A few beams are good, the subjects discussed but so much has to be stripped away and so many other essentials would have to be added in order to bring them up to snuff.  I think it would require new documents that supercede the old ones.  (too dangerous for a new council ) but the problems resulting would have to be addressed. 

But, I don't want to derail your thread with my cynicism and more extreme solutions to the problem. 

So, I'll provide a bite for you: 

From Nostra Aetate:

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.



Reply
#5
(06-09-2011, 12:42 AM)Gerard Wrote: So, I'll provide a bite for you: 

From Nostra Aetate:

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Oh, good one.

How about something like this as a gloss?

"Muslims say that they believe in the God of Abraham, but their religion is false because they deny the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation and other basic truths of the faith. They propose to accept Christ as a prophet but fail to accept Him as God. Thus they may be considered as heretics. Like most heretics they believe at least a few things that we Catholics, possessing the one, true and apostolic faith, also believe. They practice the material components of some virtues, but do not possess the virtues themselves because they lack the formal component of the theological virtue of caritas."

Reply
#6
Derrida  - the deconstruction guy - said there is nothing outside the text.
So applying that to the Gerard quote from NA we could say that its merely a reflection by the Church on another faith. The later quote is different because its a prescriptive statement of what we believe vis a vis this other faith.
You could argue nothing has changed  - which is pretty much my position.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)