Jeg leste lørdag formiddag både artikkelen av prof. Mattei (som jeg skrev om her) og en artikkel der dominikaneren P. Giovanni Cavalcoli svarer på en kristisk artikkel fra David Werling i The Remnant. Enkelte tradisjonalister har en tendens (mer enn en tendens) til å tolke Vatikankonsilet i verst mulig lys, for så å forkaste det. De ser ikke ut til å ville lytte til bl.a. pave Benedikt, som vil tolke konsilet i lys av Kirkens tradisjon. (Igjen vil jeg anbefale nettstedet www.chiesa, der kan man lære mye.)
Etter en diskusjon om analog tenkning, og Aristoteles og Descartes, skriver P. Cavalcoli:
Analogical thought makes it possible to understand how a concept, while still remaining identical to itself, can however at the same time develop, progress, explicate and clarify itself. … Thus the doctrines of Vatican II must not be viewed as a disowning or rupture with the previous magisterium, but as a confirmation and explication of them. In other words, with Vatican II we know better those same truths of faith that we knew before.
Without a doubt, this thesis must be demonstrated, because in effect it is not always so evident. But as Catholics, supposing that matters of faith are at issue, we can suppose a priori that the Council cannot teach us something that is false or contrary to what the Church taught before, because this would suppose that Christ deceived us when he promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church to the fullness of truth, and said moreover: «Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.»
As for the practical-pastoral dispositions, however, we should not be surprised if, with the Council, the Church offers us a direction that contrasts with the directives of the precouncil. Here, at times, change is not only possible, it is necessary. What would we say if the Church, as happened in the Middle Ages, ordered us to confess only to the priest of our own parish? Here we do not face the problem: what magisterium to obey, the medieval one or that of today. It is clear that we must obey that of today.
Moreover, in this field the Church can even err: it can abandon attitudes that should be kept, or introduce laws that the test of experience shows to be harmful. In this case, efforts must be made either to restore what has been abandoned, or to correct mistaken decisions.
But in the field of dogma, where notions are immutable, all of that means nothing. The only progress that can and must be made does not lie in replacing concepts, but in deepening them, … And with that, I begin my response to the second point. I read further in «The Remnant»:
«Arzillo completely misses the point of the traditionalist argument. Traditionalists aren’t being disobedient to the Church’s Magisterium, especially when it comes to the issues of ecumenism and religious freedom. Traditionalists are simply pointing out the fact that the Church’s Magisterium has contradicted itself. …
What nonetheless seems to me should be taken into serious consideration in what «The Remnant» writes is effectively the fact that the language of the Council is not always clear, lending itself to contrary interpretations, even of a modernistic kind, which the modernists are now exploiting as if the Council agreed with them, while it is they who are falsifying the doctrines of the Council to their advantage.
On the other hand, it is important to follow the interpretations of the Council made by the subsequent magisterium, considering also the doctrinal condemnations issued by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, condemnations that are generally aimed against false interpretations of the Council.
Moreover, a good guide for understanding the real meaning of the conciliar doctrines in continuity with the previous ones is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And it is also very useful to follow the discourses of the pope, in which the tendency to present the Council in continuity with Tradition is evident. …
Finally, for a model of theology that demonstrates the possibility of continuity between Vatican II and the previous magisterium, allow me to direct you to the Czech Dominican priest, the servant of God Tomas Tyn (1950-1990), of whose cause of beatification I am the vice postulator. Fr. Tomas Tyn was proud of his traditionalism, but he lived it in full communion with the Church of the postcouncil. ….
Jeg har tatt med ca 1/4 av artikkelen her – les gjerne hele artikkelen.