No offense to last comment, but I think the Catholics at the Council of Trent were trying to convert those who had left the Faith, rather then exhibit some type of false ecumenism or syncretism. Trent is a long way from Modernist Heresies in the Church today, and present in the Council. Having taught the documents, I can say there is room to question some of the seemingly innocence statements, to the point that even my young students found "universal salvation" as a possible interpretation in Lumen Gentium There are real, not imagined grounds for seeing less than Catholic influence in the wording of some of the documents, especially the big four.
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 30, 2012 11:15:04 GMT
It is possible to find the roots of the post-VII crisis in many sources and as Hibernicus indicated, there were even liberal voices within the Curia. However, if one single factor propelled the Church furthest along the line the Council was to follow, it was the experience of the Second World War in Europe. We're still suffering from its effects - both in secular and ecclesiastical terms.
It was not just Trent which issued invitations to the Protestants and the Eastern Churches to attend - so did Vatican I, and those are the only General Councils between the Reformation and Vatican II, so it can hardly be said that inviting Protestant observers to Vatican II was unprecedented. The point of such invitations was to allow Protestants and Easterners to state their general grievances and see if some of them were legitimate/could be accommodated, on the lines of the various attempts to reconcile East and West at earlier General Councils. (Even without Protestants present, Trent seriously debated whether Communion should be offered under both species, for example, even though it decided against it on prudential grounds.) Whether the specific attempts to accommodate Protestant sensibilities at and after Vatican II were wise or unwise is another matter, but the mere attempt to accommodate them can't be dismissed out of hand as "false ecumenism or syncretism". The fact that the Council documents can be interpreted in a heretical manner does not mean that heresies are present in them, otherwise we would have to junk most of the Old and New Testaments, given that they contain numerous passages which have been interpreted as advocating heresies.
Christ is the morning star who when the night of this world is past brings to his saints the promise of the light of life and opens everlasting day
This interview with Archbishop Di Noia, the new vice-president of the congregation Ecclesia Dei, has some interesting comments on how far Vatican II is a doctrinal council: www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x#ixzz1zSVFoELj EXTRACTS What stage has the Vatican reached in its talks with the SSPX? To be honest, I don’t know. I have a steep learning curve in terms of the issues as they have developed in the dialogue. When I came here, I studied the history of the reform and took a close look at the council, so I’ve learned a lot about the objections that come from that world. I’ve read books by Romano Amerio and Roberto de Mattei on the [Second Vatican] Council, and, of course, I’ve been studying the Council for years; so, in that sense, I have a framework out of which I can talk with them about their problems. Another factor of great importance, autobiographically for me, is that I had lived my entire religious life, until I came here to Rome, in a Dominican priory, mostly in Washington or in New Haven, Conn. In those places, the hermeneutic of continuity and reform, if I may put it that way, was lived. I never experienced the Council as a rupture. It’s interesting — only as I’ve begun to read this traditionalist literature and interpretation have I begun to understand that, in a certain sense, there are problems that are real. But if you cease to believe that the Holy Spirit is preserving the Church from error, you cut your moorings. The councils cannot — whatever their interpretations may be by the left or right, or whatever the intentions of the authors were of the council documents — be led into error. All of the documents stand. Schism is not the answer. So I’m sympathetic to the society, but the solution is not breaking off from the Church.
That being the case, why do you think some Catholics have decided to stick to “frozen” tradition, as it were, rather than coming into full communion? I don’t honestly know; I can only speculate. To say why people are traditionalist I’d have to say it depends on their experiences. The [reform of the] liturgy has been a factor; it was a terrible revolution and shock for people. Many of these people feel abandoned, like the Church left them at the dock with the ship. So the reasons are very complicated and vary from one type of traditionalism to another and from countries, cultures and contexts in which they have arisen. Another issue is there’s a failure to recognize a simple fact of the history of the Church: that all theological disagreements need not be Church-dividing. So, for example, the Jesuits and Dominicans had a tremendous disagreement in the 16th century about the theology of grace. In the end, the Pope forbade them to call each other heretics, which they had been doing. The Pope said, “You may continue to hold your theological opinion,” but he refused to give a doctrinal determination, saying the Jesuits or Dominicans were right. Now, this is a very interesting example, because it shows that Catholicism is broad enough to include a tremendous amount of theological diversity and debate. Sometimes the Church will act, but only when it sees people slipping into heresy and therefore breaking off from communion.
You’ve worked closely with Pope Benedict XVI in the past. How important is this reconciliation for him? The Pope hopes for reconciliation — that’s the Pope’s job. The ministry of Peter is above all to preserve the unity of the Church. So, apart from whatever personal interest Pope Benedict might have, he shares his concern with John Paul II. As you know, he has been involved in this from the beginning. The Pope is bending over backwards to accommodate them, but he’s not going to give in on the issue of the authenticity of the teaching of Vatican II as a series of acts of the magisterium.
The Society of St. Pius X argues the Second Vatican Council promulgated no infallible and irreformable teaching. It was pastoral and not dogmatic. If that is so, why is it important that they agree with it? There’s enough that’s dogmatic in it. The sacramentality of episcopal ordination, to take one example, is a development of the teaching of the episcopacy, so it is doctrinal. Traditionally, the doctrines were stated as canons with anathemas. There aren’t any of those, but it’s certainly full of the ordinary magisterium and a restatement of it. It’s doctrinally rich. But did it seek to clarify what Trent left open or that Vatican I left open with regards to Scripture and Tradition? There are doctrinal developments here and there. And the society thinks, of course, that the whole teaching on religious liberty is a departure from the tradition. But some very smart people have tried to point out it’s a development that is consistent. What I’ve tried to argue is that all they have to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition and that every text, or every part of it that is controversial, should be read in context of the Council — and read it in light of the Tradition. It seems to me, despite their difficulties, they should be able to do that.
What do you say to the argument that if the Council documents are neither infallible nor unchangeable then they are therefore not binding? To say they are not binding is sophistry. The Council contains swathes of the ordinary magisterium, which is de fide divina [of divine faith]. Now, the pastoral constitution “On the Church in the Modern World” [Gaudium et Spes] makes comments about the nature of culture which, generally speaking, everyone now believes was overly optimistic. Well, that’s not de fide divina. It’s not precise; it’s very imprecise. But the Council’s full of the ordinary magisterium. When I worked at the [U.S.] bishops’ conference and I was discussing, say, Veritatis Splendor, people would ask me: “Is it infallible?” I would say, “The more important question is: Is it true?” What I meant was: The overemphasis is on infallibility. This is why John Paul II and Benedict XVI decided not to define anything infallibly anymore because you see what happens is: People say: “I only have to believe what’s been infallibly defined.” Now, that is very little. So that’s why there’s a distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. The extraordinary magisterium is what the Church defines, and it almost always involves settling disagreements that probably have been defined. The Church would perhaps have never said Mary was the Mother of God if Nestorius hadn’t denied it. But with the ordinary magisterium there’s huge amounts of what we believe that’s de fide divina that’s never been defined. That’s why people have talked about the ordinary magisterium, trying to get out of this reductionist reading that says you only have to believe what’s infallible. So, no, the Council does have binding teaching. The Fathers are writing as bishops of the Church in union with the Pope; that’s why the Council is so important.
Yet Cardinal Ratzinger stressed the Council should not be seen as a kind of “superdogma.” It did not seek to define infallibly any doctrines; that’s what he’s saying, but he’s not saying it doesn’t contain great amounts of the ordinary magisterium. If you take the dogmatic constitutions, they are called dogmatic constitutions — Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum], Lumen Gentium, those two surely, but other ones, too.
What would the Society of St. Pius X bring that would positively impact the Church if they reconcile? The traditionalists that are now in the Church, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, have brought what the Pope has insisted upon: that in the solemnity of the way in which they celebrate the liturgy, especially in the area of the liturgy, they are a testimony to the continuing liveliness of liturgical tradition previous to the Council, which is the message of Summorum Pontificum. The thing is: They can’t say that the Novus Ordo is invalid, but their celebration of the 1962 Missal is something that remains attractive and nourishes faith, even of those who have no experience of it. So that’s a very important factor. I’ve tried to find an analogy for this. Let’s say the American Constitution can be read in at least two ways: Historians read it, and they are interested in historical context: in the framers, intentions of the framers, the backgrounds of framers and all of that historical work about the Constitution. So, you have a Constitution you can study historically and shed a great deal of light on the meaning of it. However, when the Supreme Court uses the Constitution, when it’s read as an institutional living document upon which institutions of a country are based, it’s a different reading. So what the framers thought, including not only experts upon whom they’re dependent — they are parallel to the bishops, and the experts are parallel to the periti [theologians who serve participants at an ecumenical council]. Those documents have an independence from all of them. I often say that what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply it today that matters. It’s a living document.
Yet it’s the way it has been applied that’s the problem. What’s very important for theologians, people in charge to understand is that the Council has been interpreted in wildly destructive and discontinuous ways. I’m reading a book by Louis Bouyer, who wrote a book -– in 1968 — called The Decomposition of Catholicism. Then there’s Xavier Rynne, who shaped the Western world’s understanding of the Council by writing those articles in The New Yorker. The Pope has written brilliantly about this many, many times, but, you see, in part, the traditionalists are reacting justly against the outlandish interpretations of the Council by the progressivists.
margaretann: Is anyone hanging out white and yellow bunting for the Popes visit this year as we did for the last Popes visit.
Apr 1, 2018 15:57:13 GMT
maolsheachlann: I hadn't planned on it but it's a good idea.
Apr 4, 2018 12:52:39 GMT
maolsheachlann: I remember our parish priest complaining about the lack of flags for the Eucharistic Congress.
Apr 4, 2018 12:53:02 GMT
Magus123: I don't know what to believe about Medjegorje now. I was there in 1989. I saw the Priest and 2 of the visionaries. Is it real?
Apr 23, 2018 2:17:30 GMT
Magus123: Please, talk to me.
Apr 23, 2018 2:18:56 GMT
Young Ireland: No Magus, it is not. Anything miraculous happening there is the result of people's faith and not the apparition.
Apr 23, 2018 18:18:29 GMT
i like the nuns: i like nuns
May 19, 2018 19:56:19 GMT
Frank In: Hello
Jul 24, 2018 17:55:53 GMT
Nov 6, 2018 11:04:25 GMT
myholylandartifacts2: Definitely, the seven joys are different devotion. Yesterday I bought a beautiful handmade Rosary from holyland-artifacts.com/collections/frontpage/products/2 blessed in the Holy Sepulchre. The Rosary is mainly use by Roman Catholics while saying s
Nov 9, 2018 11:54:02 GMT
Claritas: Medjugorje ? I leave the visions / visionaries up to the Church. As for Our Lady - She is there. Go and experience the grace for yourself for a week. I was completely skeptical of Medjugorje until I did. It's an indescribably spiritual place.
Nov 17, 2018 2:53:29 GMT
maolsheachlann: Why did you go if you were completely sceptical?
Dec 18, 2018 19:36:25 GMT
woody: Medjugorje is a big hoax!
Dec 25, 2018 15:50:19 GMT
Claritas: It was not my intention to go until a series of events led me there. I'll leave it up to the Church to decide what is and is not a hoax, I can only judge what I personally experienced, and those of others pilgrims I met. My only regret is not going sooner.
Jan 16, 2019 22:58:04 GMT
Claritas: Maria, Regina Pacem, ora pro nobis.
Jan 16, 2019 22:59:12 GMT
Colmcille: Forum is all into politics of the world and mickey measuring instead of any depth of spirituality - wrong focus. No salt or light. Pray and Fast. May God bring blessings to you.
Feb 27, 2019 19:42:56 GMT
maolsheachlann: Well, that is because it is a forum. I suspect everyone who does post here prays and fasts and cultivates a spiritual life. But these are things we agree on, so it doesn't really make for discussion.
Feb 28, 2019 10:18:21 GMT
maolsheachlann: Of course, if you want to take it in a different direction you are welcome to post something.
Feb 28, 2019 13:18:15 GMT
Colmcille: Political nonsense. You don't have to disagree with the depth of Catholic spirituality, lives of the Saints and treasures of the faith in order to discuss them.
Mar 3, 2019 16:48:29 GMT
maolsheachlann: This is why I disabled the shoutbox on the Irish Conservatives Forum. People with substantive contributions to make will do so in the forum.
Mar 4, 2019 13:57:20 GMT