Replies

I sure did wander in, didn't I? LOL!!! "Ecclesiastical tradition in the proper sense is inerrant. Hence it can not be alienated from the Church, nor can it ever be held as dangerous to the Faith. Accordingly no reform nor renewal of the Church can improve upon ecclesiastical tradition thus understood; for inasmuch as it is the work of the Church Herself, there exists no power on Earth able to produce something more correct than the Church Herself. Hence, he who would assert the necessity of correction in ecclesiastical tradition asserts equally the impotency and hence infidelity of the Church Herself in the fulfillment of Her Divine Mission. But this is contrary to the Faith. Therefore there can be no renewal or reform of ecclesiastical tradition; by the very fact of being a Catholic one is obliged to embrace both the Church and Her traditions. To do otherwise is apostasy. To advocate otherwise is heresy. Hence the grave necessity of every member of the Faithful, from the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops, the clergy, the religious to the layman in the pew, to hold fast to ecclesiastical tradition and to propagate it faithfully in the Church." Makes sense to me. "And thus, just as something can be introduced that disagrees in substance, quantity, and/or quality, so there can be "newness" according to substance, quantity, and quality." Hmmm, I'm still ignorant when it comes to knowing all the specific changes in Vatican II--but, since I've heard/read many priests say Vatican II wasn't the problem. The fact that many were allowed to *interperet* for themselves what it all meant and insert or delete things from the Mass and such was/is the problem. "Likewise ecclesiastical tradition in its proper sense is imcommutable by virtue of its principles. It is not immutable in the sense that is undergoes no change according to quality and/or quantity; quality in the sense of progress in clarity and application, quantity in the sense that there is an increase in the number of things and words in which it is passed on." Again, wasn't this the intent of Vatican II? <> Did I drown? :)

Vatican II must be interpreted and understood in light of Tradition.

Since 99 percent of current-day priests have never read much of anything written authoritatively prior to Vatican II (Vatican I, Trent, Papal encylicals for the past 200 years), it makes it very difficult, with the imprecise and often murky language of Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes) to be interpreted "in light of Tradition," when most of the priests haven't read this Tradition and tradition.

Your understanding though, is pretty on target. Keep up the good work!

In my humble theological opinion (which is limited since I have but a master's in theology), some elements of Vatican II, which lead themselves open to misinterpretation, are indeed the problem. Where things are unclear, a Catholic must revert to clarity, which for me, often is found in things written prior to the 1960s.