Posted on 07/25/2020 4:18:06 PM PDT by ebb tide
Sandro Magister, a prominent critic of the current pontificate—with good reason aplenty— seems to have abandoned his critical faculty when it comes to the suggestion by Archbishop Carlo Viganò that, for all the trouble it has caused, the best approach to the Second Vatican Council is not the endless pursuit of Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” whose meaning remains elusive, but rather simply “to to drop it ‘in toto‘ and forget it.”
My co-author Tom Woods and I made the same argument back in 2002 in our book The Great Façade, citing the historical example of the disastrous Second Council of Constantinople (553), whose ambiguous treatment of the Monophysite heresy (no human but only a divine nature in Christ) led to confusion and outright schisms in the Church. Constantinople II defended the true doctrine but tried to placate the Monophysites by condemning the writings of three of their prominent opponents. Defending theological truth on paper while placating its enemies. Sound familiar? If it does, that is because it has been the ruinously irenic program of the entire post-Vatican II epoch.
In this article on his popular blogsite, Magister goes so far as to suggest that the Archbishop is on the “brink of schism”—not that again!—merely because he advocates abandonment of the fruitless “hermeneutic of continuity” along with the Council that, per Benedict, requires it—whatever it is. Who knows? And we still don’t know after more than fifteen years of hearing about the idea.
Magister does admit, however, that when it comes to the Council’s novel teaching on “religious liberty,” what we have is “a clear discontinuity, if not a rupture, with the ordinary teaching of the Church of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which was strongly anti-liberal.” So, thanks to Vatican II the Church today is not strongly anti-liberal? Well, that much is obvious, but then is the “hermeneutic of continuity” not really a hermeneutic of discontinuity?
Yes, says Magister! Unperturbed by this double-talk, Magister, concerning Benedict XVI’s address on the subject in 2005, writes that the “hermeneutic of continuity” is more precisely (to quote Benedict) a “hermeneutic of continuity in reform.” Meaning, said Benedict, a “combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that [is] the very nature of true reform…”
Ah, no. True reform never involves “a combination of continuity and discontinuity” but rather precisely the elimination of discontinuity so as to restore—that is, re-form—the proper order of things. That is why, for example, reform schools are called ‘reform schools’: the wayward youth is brought back to the path from which he strayed. That is, he is brought back into continuity with the right way of living.
And, in the Church, reform means exactly that: restoration of the Church’s good order when, for whatever reason, some aspect of her life has fallen into corruption. Hence the great reforms of the Church after the Council of Trent—producing what today’s neo-Modernists sneeringly dismiss as “Tridentine Catholicism.” Meaning orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Meaning the Faith in its integrity.
In his 2005 address, Benedict XVI lamely attempted to explain away the abandonment after Vatican II of the Church’s entire stance against the errors of “liberty” in the modern sense—the errors condemned in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, including separation of Church and State, unlimited freedom of conscience, and unlimited freedom of opinion, whose final results are nothing less than what we now witness: the end of civilization.
But according to Pope Benedict in 2005: “In the 19th century under Pius IX, the clash between the Church’s faith and a radical liberalism… had elicited from the Church a bitter and radical condemnation of this spirit of the modern age.”
Bitter? This is how Benedict describes the teaching of the Magisterium in opposition to fatal errors whose consequences we now suffer?
But then, if the anti-liberal teaching of the great Popes before Vatican II can be diminished as “bitter”—indeed something to be surpassed by some new, more accepting attitude, as Benedict suggests—how does Vatican II escape the same sort of psychoanalysis? Why can we not say, after more than fifty years of bitter experience with the Council’s novelties, that its approach to the “modern world” was foolishly irenic or fatuously optimistic?
With this difference, however: the anti-liberal papal pronouncements that Benedict belittles as “bitter” represent the constant teaching of a long series of Popes of which Blessed Pius IX was merely one. Their repeated and insistently condemned errors against the Faith, meaning that their constant teaching was doctrinal in character, so that the anti-liberal encyclicals of Pius VI, Pius VII, Leo XII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X and Pius XI must be considered well-nigh infallible as an exercise of the universal ordinary Magisterium.
Whereas, when it comes to the Second Vatican Council—a Council like no other in Church history—we are still arguing over how exactly it can be reconciled with the prior teaching of the Magisterium. This much is certain, however: the very need for this endless attempt at reconciliation is a powerful argument in favor of Archbishop Viganò’s position that the obviously fruitless effort be abandoned and that Vatican II, like Constantinople II, simply be left behind as an epochal misadventure that is best forgotten.
Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. John 14:6
If Mohammed was not a prophet, then the ‘faith’ he founded is a falsehood. As Catholics we must pray for all Muslims, as they have been misled by this falsehood and only God, the God of Abraham, who sent his only Son Jesus Christ to save us, can deliver them from the evil that is Islam.
No arguments with that. That they at least are not atheists or polytheists is something. But the same can be said for demons.
Oh, but Nostra Aetate has nothing but good things to say about those folks also:
Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions."
Exactly was is "true and holy" in the above cults?
And for those atheists:
Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven
I'm still waiting for you to list them.
Dei Verbum, while capable of improvement at points, on some points articulates doctrine on revelation in ways that are commendable and helpful, and have not been done at this level of magisterial teaching before. It is very good on Canonical criticism.
While it could be slightly clearer on the apostolic authorship by explicitly naming Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors of their respective gospels, that it states that the gospels were written by apostles (i.e. Matthew and John) and apostolic men (i.e. Mark and Luke) is very useful. It is true that one could take advantage of the failure to name the disciples to defend a few positions other than the traditional ones: i.e. hold that Peter, Jude, Silas, and Barnabas are collectively responsible for the gospels, but the vagueness does not suffice to allow any theory of authorship that is held by more than one person that I am aware of to be defended with the exception of the traditional one.
As I teach theology, I can pull these examples off the top of my head, and could compose a list of “good things of Vatican II” if I had time. I do not know of such a list to which I can link. I need to get back to my day job and work on a talk to be delivered via Zoom on the New Jerusalem for which I am actually paid.
Maybe true. But one rarely hears about Dei Verbum when invoking the Spirit of VC II. One hears mostly "Nostra Aetate", Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes iinstead.
Even if it were just a teaspoon of cyanide, it negates any good that might be in there. The Vatican II apologists are just fooling themselves.
Could be—it probably depends where you are— but Dei Verbum and Sacrosanctum Concilium are the two that pertain most to what I teach. I like DV a lot more than SSCC.
The letter of SSCC and what was dished out are often very different.
So you teach only select documents of VC II? How convenient.
As for me, I prefer the Syllabus of Errors, the Oath against Modernism and Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Encyclical of of Pope Pius X On The Doctrines of the Modernists) over all the documents of VC II.
But I guess I'm just a "functionary", "restorastionist", "Pelagian", "rigid christian", "museum mummy", "rosary counter" in Francis' eyes.
In my Intro Scripture course I teach Dei Verbum, along with Providentissimus Deus, the decrees of the PBC, Spiritus Paraclitus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, and some other scripture documents. Why should I toss Scriptural Encyclicals out of a Scripture course to introduce, say Gaudium et Spes?
In my Liturgy Course, I teach Sacrosanctum Concilium, along with a whole pack of other scriptural documents. Should I toss Tra Le Sollecitudine for Nostra Aetate?
There is another prof who covers off a variety of other documents as appropriate in appropriate courses. He also offers a course that goes through all 16 documents.
I’d rather spend my time on Hebrew and Greek.
Is that prof critical of any of the 16 documents?
I ask because I'm questioning the orthodoxy of your institute.
[17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
Matthew, Chapter 7
In my opinion the above applies to all of Vatican II and its ever pestilent "Spirit".
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised.
Brings to mind the full circle of pro multis, to pro omnis, back to pro multis.
21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself.
Do you believe the Christian people more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the "sacred" liturgy of Bugnini's Mass than the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, Hieronymus?
I believe that “holy Mother Church desire[d] to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself.”
I don’t believe Bugnini delivered this, but that is a separate question from what were the goals/wishes of the Fathers.
One could point to similar disconnects with other councils where the desired future and the actual future diverged.
FWIW I attend the EF to the extent that I am able, but believe that so long as Jesus shows up too, going to Mass in general is worth pursuing and encouraging.
I believe he critiques them all in as rigorous a way as the length of a course and the ability of the students allows. One could spend an entire course on Lumen Gentium or Gaudium et Spes, but that would be along the lines of a grad level seminar.
Because with me DV is embedded in a larger course that has to do a lot of other things, it only gets an hour or two worth of lecture time, though it is presented in a context where the Scriptural Encyclicals, the Decrees of the PBC, etc. have already been examined, which makes it easier to highlight what it does well and what it is silent on.
At least DV is short compared to some of the other documents.
There is some middle ground between burning the documents of Vatican II and canonizing the spirit of Vatican II. I believe orthodoxy can be found in a portion of the middle ground (and that is by no means to say that the majority of the middle ground is Orthodox, just that it is not in the extremes and reducing things to the extremes is inadequate.)
FWIW—about half of our Faculty frequent the EF at least with some regularity to the extent that it is available in our area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.