Reading Vatican II as break with tradition is heresy, prefect (Müller) says
#21
Tradition in Action has an interesting article on John XXIII and the Council. I would post it, but cannot do so in the correct format since I am on a phone.

Source: http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/150...7_2012.htm

Among these documents was a note by Msgr. Loris Capovilla, secretary of John XXIII in which, on behalf of the Pope, he gave instructions for the redaction of the Bull Humanae salutis, the bull that convened the Council. On the text typed by Capovilla, there are side notes handwritten by John XXIII himself. It is clearly affirmed in this text, Marco Roncalli assures us, that the Pope did not desire to follow the course of Vatican I because “neither in its substance nor in its form would it correspond to the present day situation.” We also see a rebuttal of the Church’s position on the temporal order taught by Pius IX, because now, the note emphasizes, “the Church demonstrates that she wants to be mater et magistra [mother and teacher].”

Reply
#22
Mueller wouldn't know heresy if it bit him right in the a**!
Reply
#23
(11-30-2012, 02:11 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Tradition in Action has an interesting article on John XXIII and the Council. I would post it, but cannot do so in the correct format since I am on a phone.

Source: http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/150...7_2012.htm

Among these documents was a note by Msgr. Loris Capovilla, secretary of John XXIII in which, on behalf of the Pope, he gave instructions for the redaction of the Bull Humanae salutis, the bull that convened the Council. On the text typed by Capovilla, there are side notes handwritten by John XXIII himself. It is clearly affirmed in this text, Marco Roncalli assures us, that the Pope did not desire to follow the course of Vatican I because “neither in its substance nor in its form would it correspond to the present day situation.” We also see a rebuttal of the Church’s position on the temporal order taught by Pius IX, because now, the note emphasizes, “the Church demonstrates that she wants to be mater et magistra [mother and teacher].”

I think the article itself is more indicative of rupture, since it posits the interpretation that John XXIII sought a break with the past. Vatican I is not the gold standard of the Faith in its tone and methods. John XXIII was clear that the Faith was to be held and taught whole and inviolate, but that the tone or manner of expression should be updated. Obviously, as I pointed out, these both would correspond with the deposit of faith, but differ in their manner of expression. Vatican II is "a planned revolution in the Catholic Church that intended to destroy her and replace her with another completely different Church". Uh, if that doesn't scream rupture, then what does?
Reply
#24
Don't you think that saying Vatican I would not correspond to the present day situation in either substance or form is problematic?

Prima facie, this looks problematic.
Reply
#25
No, it doesn't. It's a statement about correspondence. It means essentially, that was fine then, but it won't do now. There is no dogma that a Council has to be an anathema-fest. I think the gist is what we got, a different kind of Council. One that wouldn't condemn. Just step back a moment. Since the early 1500s the Church has handed probably more anathemas than the previous 1500 years together. And with what effect? Little it seems on the target audience. The modern situation is wholly new, and some new methods needed to be tried. We have modern nation states, modern governments based on consent, the different liberties, fast worldwide communication, artificial contraception, bombs to blow the earth to kingdom come 100 times over, etc. etc. I don't think there was anything wrong with the Pope saying, Let's try the way of non-violence and persuasion. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Reply
#26
Catholic teaching is applicable and relevant in all times. Techniques, styles, and fashions can grow old, but the Faith doesn't. That is why I see it as problematic. The current generation always thinks it's new and exempt from history. The Church has had to deal with contraception since her foundation. Non-Catholic nation states didn't suddenly spring up. The advent of nuclear weapons didn't change man's nature, nor the Church's mission.

With all due respect, I think your last post was just a dodge. It doesn't really address what he issue here is, which is doctrine.
Reply
#27
(11-30-2012, 02:46 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Catholic teaching is applicable and relevant in all times. Techniques, styles, and fashions can grow old, but the Faith doesn't. That is why I see it as problematic. The current generation always thinks it's new and exempt from history. The Church has had to deal with contraception since her foundation. Non-Catholic nation states didn't suddenly spring up. The advent of nuclear weapons didn't change man's nature, nor the Church's mission.

With all due respect, I think your last post was just a dodge. It doesn't really address what he issue here is, which is doctrine.

He didn't say the Faith was outdated. The substance could mean, and probably did mean "characteristic part or quality". John XXIII was clear that the Faith was not to be changed one iota. He didn't want a Council of condemnation, which Vatican I largely was. So the statement is not a break with the deposit of faith.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...599.5.html
Reply
#28
(11-30-2012, 02:06 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: No, in fact he is right. They don't view Vatican II as the focal point of their movement, but use it as the springboard and original justification. They see the need to go beyond the Council and movee forward in its "spirit". They say that the Council didn't go far enough because of the necessary compromise with the conservatives. They say that the ambiguity, statements with both sides express (e.g., Latin is the norm, but vernacular is allowed, etc.), was not sufficient, and to take the spirit and make the final move. The Cardinal is saying this is their rupture. The spirit is primary, not the Council itself. just like Protestants, they'll quote from their "bible", but that doesn't mean it really is the core of their movement. They typically call for a new Council. So, ultimately, they do want to leave behind the Council.

When they say "the spirit" they use it in a similar vein to its appearance in the Credo.  The spirit of the Coucil proceeds from the Council,  and together with it is implemented and so forth.  The use of word "spirit" is not accidental.  

Typically, they do not call for a new council.  Typically,  they just go ahead and change things as they please.  COTH, altar girls, we could go on and on

The pronouncement is another chapter in what has become a rather tiresome effort to set up an equivelency between progresssives, so called, and traditionalists.  The paradigm is clearly taken from the secular political context of right=left.  It is not applicable.  The traditionalist stance is not "the same" as the progressive.  Ortega y Gasset quipped that this kind of false equivelency is like saying two men are identical because they are not both named John.   Personally, I am sick and tired of it.  If the official spokemen cannot appreciate the difference between a bishop who thinks the state should pay for abortions and a bishop who thinks we should celebrate the old mass, then they are hopeless.  Such a thing is either obstinacy or obtuseness.  The first is hard to cure.  The last depends on good faith.  Let's see how it plays out.   Any one here willing to make a wager on it?
Reply
#29
The similarity actually stands. They both pose rupture. The answer would be that that critique doesn't matter because of a b and c. Most moderate traditionalists would say it doesn't matter because we aren't bound.
Reply
#30

I suppose it depends on what one's definition of Tradition happens to be.

We have friends who one of my children spilled the beans about Santa Clause. They told us that they insist that their children believe. Because if they don't they will not receive anything.

I told them they are modern traditionalists. And that perhaps what they are really looking for may be found by going back to Mass.

Oh well, for the moment their religion seems to be from Natalie Wood in Miracle on 34th Street.

But I'm hoping that changes and they are in my prayers.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)