SSPX's commentary on Msgr Pozzo's NDF interview now up
A very interesting and insightful commentary on Msgr. Pozzo's recent interview with Nouvelles de France:
This is very good, but also misleading at some points. For instance, it implies the entire blocked area following the point "a) There is no opposition between Vatican II and pre-Vatican II teaching." is a quote from Pope Benedict's address when only the last sentence is. I suppose the first part (about the counter-syllabus) is a non-literal recreation of another earlier work of Benedict when he was not Pope.

I may be just me, but after reading this response it seems that the entire riff is merely due to a misunderstanding. For instance, Benedict acknowledges that the Council got into the business of using the world's terminology to rephrase the eternal teachings. However, instead of being critical of this entire enterprise, Benedict seems to say this approach is okay in principle, but completely wrong in application. In other words, as the world's own meaning changes, the Church must shift in position again to compensate. For instance, when speaking of religious liberty he says:

Quote:Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

In other words, if the world suddenly started understanding the phrase "religious liberty" in this way (which is probably already has -- hence the clarification on this teaching), we would have to abandon it to maintain the consistent teaching. The SSPX on the other hand, take a broader view and criticize the entire enterprise of adopting the teaching to the modern language to begin with. This seems to be in line philosophically for the reasons to advance the Mass in a dead language (with unchanging phraseology) -- and technical theological terms, which are less prone to theological error (e.g., "transubstantiation").

But that conversation between whether or not the "pastoral" nature of the Council -- that is to say, adopting the language of the world -- was a good thing belongs to criticism of a prudential nature ... which should not characterized as disobedience. The SSPX is probably right in their criticism that this approach opened the door to all kinds of error -- and perhaps this does prompt scrapping the Council as the Society seems to want. However, if it can be shown that the Council changed nothing, even if its application led to horrible changes in the prudential decision-making on the part of Churchmen, then the "problem" is simply fixed by returning to more prudence on the part of those Churchmen -- and I think that's what Benedict wants.

Much of the criticism hinges on quotes from a young Ratzinger, some quotes which he has said he regrets ... so is it fair in charity to bring these quotes to bear against a man who clearly sees the world in a different light than he did at the Council?

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)