Pope praises critic of "Bologna School" as "best interpreter of" Vatican II
#21
Let me get this straight:
  • The "Bologna school" says there are contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.
  • Critics of the "Bologna school" say there are not contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.
Yet both schools hold that there can be contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.
Is this right?
Reply
#22
(11-14-2013, 04:00 PM)Geremia Wrote: Let me get this straight:
  • The "Bologna school" says there are contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.
  • Critics of the "Bologna school" say there are not contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.
Yet both schools hold that there can be contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.
Is this right?
No. Indeed it is one of the primary arguments for there being no contradiction that there cannot (or must not) be a contradiction. This was also the thought of Benedict XVI.
The Bologna school and the SSPX on the other hand say that the contradictions are obvious. Only that the SSPX says that for this reason one must reject Vatican II and the postconciliar magisterium, whereas the Bologna School says that the contradictions prove that the magisterium can change anything, and therefore could introduce women's ordination, allow contraception or whatever it wanted.
Reply
#23
(11-14-2013, 04:36 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: No. Indeed it is one of the primary arguments for there being no contradiction that there cannot (or must not) be a contradiction. This was also the thought of Benedict XVI.

Is this true? For example, the instruction Donum Veritatis promulgated by Joseph Ratzinger as prefect of the CDF accounts for the possibility of error in Magisterial pronouncements (and therefore of dissent) and provides the proper response that should be taken when one in good faith believes this to be the case. If there could never be error, then there could never be the possibility of dissent, so this instruction would be pointless.

Granted, it does rule out of the idea that the Magisterium would be habitually in error, so, given the constant repetition of the teachings of Vatican II by the Magisterium since, error may be now ruled out.

From what I understand of this principle concerning the possibility of error, our starting presumption is to be one of truth and internal harmony in immutable principles, but this presumption is not necessarily always insurmountable in every case. From what I understand, the hermeneutic of continuity is simply this presumption of harmony couple with the conclusion in this case that the presumption is ultimately true.
Reply
#24
I think we have left the point behind: the Bologna School is the progressive, liberal interpretation of VII, whereas the hermeneutic of continuity is the school of Benedict XVI, the school that says that all interpretations of VII must be made to agree with Tradition. Period. Therefore, if the Holy Father deems this man the "best" interpreter of VII, and if it is true he is critical of the Bologna school, then we should be happy to hear it, to the extent that we were happy to hear what Benedict XVI thought about the Council and Tradition. It is the kind of news that one supposes trads will take to be good news, but trads have become perhaps too accustomed to bad news to recognize good news when it comes.
Reply
#25
(11-14-2013, 04:36 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: Only that the SSPX says that for this reason one must reject Vatican II and the postconciliar magisterium, whereas the Bologna School says that the contradictions prove that the magisterium can change anything, and therefore could introduce women's ordination, allow contraception or whatever it wanted.
And the SSPX says continuity should exist (but it doesn't), and it seems the Bologna school says continuity should not exist (and it doesn't).
Reply
#26
(11-15-2013, 02:50 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(11-14-2013, 04:36 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: Only that the SSPX says that for this reason one must reject Vatican II and the postconciliar magisterium, whereas the Bologna School says that the contradictions prove that the magisterium can change anything, and therefore could introduce women's ordination, allow contraception or whatever it wanted.
And the SSPX says continuity should exist (but it doesn't), and it seems the Bologna school says continuity should not exist (and it doesn't).

Right.  That is the problem with this book.

This book is like all the books that engage in apologetics on behalf of things like the Special and General Theories of Relativity.  Neither theory offers a coherent explanation of the facts as they are known today regarding certain aspects of the universe, but the majority of scientists would say you are an idiot for not taking both theories seriously!  But both theories blatantly contradict common sense logical thinking!

Marchetto is doing exactly the same thing.  He is offering an interpretation of an event, a phenomenon -- the Second Vatican Council -- that militates against common sense logic.  Now, if from God's point of view that is exactly what the function of the Council IS (in other words, to militate against logical thinking), then Marchetto is on the right track.  After all, God isn't confined (or is He?) to logical thinking...

The problem here is that the Thomistic theological research program has to be thrown out the window if we go down this road...  maybe that's what God wants... maybe we're now supposed to adopt the modern German philosophical research program and apply it to the content of Revelation...  but maybe not!
Reply
#27
(11-15-2013, 04:26 PM)Joseph11 Wrote: This book is like all the books that engage in apologetics on behalf of things like the Special and General Theories of Relativity.  Neither theory offers a coherent explanation of the facts as they are known today regarding certain aspects of the universe, but the majority of scientists would say you are an idiot for not taking both theories seriously!  But both theories blatantly contradict common sense logical thinking!

Marchetto is doing exactly the same thing.  He is offering an interpretation of an event, a phenomenon -- the Second Vatican Council -- that militates against common sense logic.  Now, if from God's point of view that is exactly what the function of the Council IS (in other words, to militate against logical thinking), then Marchetto is on the right track.  After all, God isn't confined (or is He?) to logical thinking...
This is the Scribes' and Pharisees' old trick, too. They tried trapping Jesus by making false distinctions: "Either you render to Ceaser or to God, and you have to choose one or the other!" But Jesus's answer is above that.
(11-15-2013, 04:26 PM)Joseph11 Wrote: The problem here is that the Thomistic theological research program has to be thrown out the window if we go down this road...  maybe that's what God wants... maybe we're now supposed to adopt the modern German philosophical research program and apply it to the content of Revelation...  but maybe not!
Oh yes the law on non-contradiction has been defenestrated…
Reply
#28
Code:
School                  Should rupture exist?           Does it exist?

Bologna school          yes                             yes

Abp. Marchetto          no                              no
("anti"-Bologna)
(herm. of cont.)

SSPX & sedevacantists   no                              yes

ultra liberal?          yes                             no

Is this the correct understanding of the various positions?
Reply
#29
(11-18-2013, 12:16 AM)Geremia Wrote:
Code:
School                  Should rupture exist?           Does it exist?

Bologna school          yes                             yes

Abp. Marchetto          no                              no
("anti"-Bologna)
(herm. of cont.)

SSPX & sedevacantists   no                              yes

ultra liberal?          yes                             no

Is this the correct understanding of the various positions?

To me it does. However I would say that the difference between the SSPX and the Sede position is much more nuance than that regarding the second question.

I believe that the SSPX response to the second question is not "yes" or "no" but "In parts."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)