Vatican Insider mistake
#1
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07...stake.html

Vatican Insider mistake

From the July 23 report by Andrea Tornielli on the latest leaked document of the Society of Saint Pius X:

In the letter sent to bishops after the Williamson case in 2009, Ratzinger wrote: “The Church’s magisterial authority cannot be frozen back in time in 1962 – the Fraternity should get this clear. But those Lefebvrians who put themselves across as great defenders of the Council should recall that the Second Vatican Council encapsulates the Church’s entire doctrinal history. Whoever wants to obey the Council must accept the faith professed over the centuries and cannot sever the roots which give the tree life.” This is the essence of reform according to the Second Vatican Council presented by Benedict XVI straight after he was elected Pope. But his proposal has so far fallen on deaf ears.

From the actual 2009 letter of the Holy Father:

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.


Update: Regarding the translation problem above referred to in the previous post, now unavailable, Mr. Tornielli informed us in the comments that the translation will be fixed. We thank him for that.




Talk about mistranslations, intentional perhaps? And I just checked his article, http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/hom...nos-17010/  he changed to the real translation except "encapsulates" which is suppose to be "embraces." Always pushing that Vat II superdogma down everyone's throat. Anyways, I'm following the same line of reasoning that Benedict is calling for in embracing the entire doctrinal history of the Church. So does the SSPX, FSSP, ICK (ICKSP) and every other trad... because of this, we see contradictions... now what? All this talk about "light of tradition" "hermeneutic of continuity" and "embracing the entire doctrinal history" doesn't solve anything and doesn't give us an interpretation of Vat II that is non-contradictory of tradition. By reading the Vat II documents in question with the lens of tradition IS EXACTLY WHAT CAUSES TRADS TO DISSENT FROM THE COUNCIL! There is not one single interpretation of the documents in question that shows continuity with the past, we hear a lot of talk about this proper way of interpretation but no one has written of such an interpretation and clouds the issue in usual ambiguity. That's some wild schizophrenia, call for an interpretation that is supported by entirety of tradition and attack those that do it like the SSPX. Sounds more like a political smoke out then a call for true interpretation.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)