Tectonic shifts: For the Roman Curia, the end of the "super-Council"
#1
This is an interesting post at rorate-caeli that I founding interesting:

Quote:    In 1988, addressing the Chilean bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed, "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of 'superdogma' which takes away the importance of all the rest."

    While affirming his remaining attachment to Vatican II, Benedict XVI, on this September 14, 2011, brought down the taboo of the Council. For while no Pope could free a Catholic from the decisions of dogmatic Councils, the Pope, by way of the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, liberates the souls from those of a pastoral Council. From now on, one may be of the Church without holding on to the controversial points of Vatican II. In 2007, the helmsman of the Church had already undermined the monopoly held by the Novus Ordo. Four years later, he removes from the Conciliar doctrine its non-negotiable character and its exclusivity. It is not any longer the alpha and the omega of the life of the Church; that life is now once again refocused on its object: Faith.

    It is true that, in small steps, the Catholic world, and the Curia in particular, faced with what John Paul II called the "silent apostasy", have allowed themselves to be interested in the Traditional world, once exiled and condemned, now increasingly esteemed. A French bishop said a while ago that he felt forced to bow to this movement, because the youth was present in it. In Rome, the major master of ceremonies lifts from the dust the traditional ornaments of which the Supreme Pontiffs, from Pius IX to Pius XII, made use. In the doctrinal domain, some parallelism is to be found, even though it is less evident. After Benedict XVI accepted to discuss the Vatican II texts with the Society of Saint Pius X, some prelates, especially the younger ones, decided to find out in the archives what was unanimously believed before the Council. Very slowly, the phenomenon begins and widens, to the detriment of the aggiornamento... And voices rise up in Italy denouncing the spirit of the Council, which has not let fresh air in, but rather a freezing gust. These voices are those of a Monsignor Gherardini and of the author of his preface, Bishop Oliveri. Those of a Roberto de Mattei or of a Bishop Schneider. All take up their pens and do not hesitate to openly demand that the taboo of the Council be finally shattered.

    Is this a sign of the times? Recently, a prelate of the Curia, after having read the book "On priestly holiness" ("La sainteté sacerdotale"), by Archbishop Lefebvre, confided, "I cried after a while because I went through seminary and I had never had the priesthood explained to me as he does there. It is a whole world that opens up for us, for no one had explained to us what the priest was." It is a whole world that opens up...


http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09...nd-of.html
Reply
#2
Who would have even thought this was possible, even as recent as 10 years ago? It is thanks in a large part to the Society of Saint Pius X. They held their ground, and as a result of that, and of the grace of God, the tide is slowly turning. Deo gratias!
Reply
#3
I don't know.  Has Pope Benedict really made it so clear that questioning of the Council itself is now possible while remaining completely loyal to the Church?  It seems like there is a lot of speculation going on.
Reply
#4
(09-20-2011, 06:55 AM)Walty Wrote: I don't know.  Has Pope Benedict really made it so clear that questioning of the Council itself is now possible while remaining completely loyal to the Church?  It seems like there is a lot of speculation going on.

What His Holiness is getting at is this: there needs to be a proper Catholic understanding of the authority of the latest Council. In this extract, he points out three obvious things (well, if only they were obvious to most people): 1) Vatican II is simply one of a long line of Councils, 2) It was largely pastoral in orientation, hence concerned with disciplinary matters, and 3) does not contain any dogmatic pronouncements, that is, the solemn magisterium was not exercised. So all the more reason not to treat it as a Council with solemn pronouncements, let alone as some more authoritative than this! 

However he wouldn't be saying you can question 'everything' in the latest Council. After all, when it repeats age-old teaching, it is correct. Additionally, when its contents are doctrinal (and not simply disciplinary in nature), religious assent is owed. Obviously, due to the ambiguity in the documents, such assent is given in the light of Tradition, interpreting the documents (themselves authoritative due to their being part of the authentic Magisterium) in this way.

*Despite such assent, it doesn't mean the such documents are immune from criticism, i.e.: their emphasis, formulation, ambiguity etc. Even when Cardinal he called one of the documents semi-pelagian. I think it was Gaudium et Spes.
Reply
#5
I dunno, but I see this as hopeful, and the death knell for the double and triple speak. This is the beginning of a return to sentences which are simple, declarative, and actually mean what they say.

tim
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)