sep 212011
 

Jeg skrev for noen dager siden et innlegg der jeg spør: “Forandres forståelsen av Vatikankonsilet?“. Father Z. skriver nokså skarpt imot en del av disse tankene i et senere innlegg; der hans hovedpodeng er at det ikke kan være snakk om å fire på ting som konsilet tydelig har bestemt i sine tekster. På den annen side (men det er ikke nytt) kan det være synspunkter (men ikke bestemmelser) fra konsilet som man ikke trenger å ta så alvorlig, og så er det jo hele den store debatten om hvordan konsilet skal tolkes/ forstås, der man jo ikke trenger å være enige. Man diksuterer jo tolkningen av konsilet nettopp fordi man ikke er enige om hvordan det skal tolkes. Han skriver:

… speculation about the “Doctrinal Preamble” offered by the CDF to the SSPX during their meeting of 14 September, last. I wrote about that here.

The speculation rises to a climax in an assertion that the “Doctrinal Preamble” might constitute a “Copernican Revolution” concerning the documents of the Second Vatican Council and subsequent Magisterial teaching.

Again, what Rorate posted from Messa in latino is a long piece of speculation about the hypothetical text of the “Doctrinal Preamble”. From my reading of what they posted, if the speculation is correct, nothing new has been offered.

As much as I enjoy astronomical comparisons, the claim about a “Copernican Revolution” isn’t accurate. It suggests something new and challenging has been offered. Not quite.

First, the hypothetical “Doctrinal Preamble” is supposed to say that the SSPX must express concerns in a respectful manner. That was already a point made in the conditions for further dialogue offered by the Holy See and accepted by the SSPX in 2008. Nothing new there. …

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(obligatorisk)

(obligatorisk)