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.

Professor Roberto de Mattei (som jeg nevnte her) likte ikke kritikken han fikk for sin bok om Vatikankonsilet – «Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta» – og har svart ganske grundig på kritikken her. (Nettstedet www.chiesa har ofte svært interessante artikler.)

Han begynner med å skrive at han ville ha foretrukket å bli vurdert av fagteologer eller -historikere, men det har han ikke blitt i denne omgang – dessuten er han blitt kritisert ut fra et ideologisk ståsted og ikke et faglig. Overskrifta på hans innlegger er at «konsilene kan også ta feil», og han bruker så en del tid på å vurdere hvordan Vatikankonsilet og andre konsiler kan og bør vurderes historisk. Her er et utdrag av hans artikkel:

The criticism of Marchetto and Introvigne seems to have a single purpose: to close off preemptively that debate which Benedict XVI has opened with an invitation to develop it. […]

I believe, on the contrary, that Vatican Council II can be discussed on the historical level in a way no different from how Church historians have always done.

Addressing them in 1889, Leo XIII wrote that «those who study it must never lose sight of the fact that it contains an ensemble of dogmatic elements that are imposed upon faith, and that no one can call into question […]. …

… The Church is indefectible, and yet, in its human part, it can commit errors and these errors, these sufferings, can be provoked, Leo XIII says, by its children and even by its ministers. But this takes nothing away from the greatness and indefectibilty of the Church. The Church, Leo XIII said, opening the Vatican archives to scholars, is not afraid of the truth. …

… My book is born from a profound love of the Church, of its magisterium and of its institutions, «in primis» of the papacy. And my love for the papacy wants to be so great as not to stop with the current pope, Benedict XVI, to whom I feel deeply bound, but seeks behind the man the institution that he represents. It is a love that wants to embrace with this pope all of the popes in their historical and intellectual continuity, because for a Catholic the pope is not a man, he is a bimillennial institution; it is not that individual pope, but it is the papacy, it is the uninterrupted series of the vicars of Christ, from Saint Peter to the reigning pontiff.

So then, there is no better way to express one’s attachment to the pope and to the Church than to serve, in all areas, the truth, because there does not exist any truth, historical, scientific, political, philosophical, that could ever be wielded against the Church.

And so we must not be afraid to tell the truth about Vatican Council II, the twenty-first in the history of the Church. I emphasize this word, twenty-first. Vatican Council II was neither the first nor the last Council of the Church’s history: it was a point, it was a moment of the history of the Church.

In the history of the Church, there have been twenty-one Councils that are held as ecumenical today. Some of these are unforgettable: the first, the Council of Nicaea, which defined our «Credo,» then the Council of Trent, Vatican Council I. Other Councils are forgotten today, which does not mean that they were not authentic Councils, supreme expressions of the Church’s magisterium.

But a Council enters into history through the documents that it has produced. In the XVI century there were two Councils: Lateran Council V (1512-1517) and the Council of Trent. The only dogmatic definition of the fifth Lateran Council was that according to which the individual human soul is immortal; the Lateran was under certain aspects a failed Council: …

… No Council, not even Trent or Vatican I, and much less Vatican II, is above Tradition. Benedict XVI affirms that the documents of Vatican Council II must be interpreted in their continuity with the Tradition of the Church. Tradition is not an event, it is not a part, it is the whole. Tradition is like Sacred Scripture: a source of Revelation, with the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit. …

… I have been criticized for overlooking the documents of the Council or for interpreting them in a vein of discontinuity with the Tradition of the Church. Neither the first nor the second statement is true. The interpretation of the documents of the Council is not up to me, nor to any aspiring interpreter of the Council, but it is up to the magisterium of the Church, and to the magisterium I adhere. What I present are the facts, what I reconstruct is the historical context in which those documents came to light. …

… Vatican Council II, let’s not forget, was not a dogmatic Council, but pastoral, which does not mean that it was devoid of magisterium, but its magisterium can be considered definitive and infallible only when it proposes again and explicates, as it often does, truths already defined by the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium of the Church.

The problem that interests me, however, is not the discussion of the texts of the Council; I leave this exegesis to the theologians, and first of all to the pope. The problem that interests me, as a member of the Church, is to understand the historical roots of the crisis that we are going through. Remote roots, because the crisis we are going through is plurisecular, but also close, because the current crisis goes back, even before 1968, to the time of Vatican Council II, which is not necessarily the 16 documents that concluded it, but the words, the actions, the omissions during and after the Council of the conciliar fathers, and, on the other side, the parallel magisterium, above all that of the media, which flanked the authentic magisterium of the pope and the bishops. …

… There is no tempest, however well-publicized or ferocious, that may frighten us, because the Church is always standing through the storms: heresies, scandals, revolutions have not shaken it or halted its march through history.

Det har vært en hel del uro rundt en katolsk biskop som er bedt av Vatikanet/ pave Bendikt om å gå av 67 år gammel – han har selv sagt at han er blitt bedt om å slutte. Noen liker ikke dette, men Christopher Pearson i avisa The Australian forstår det ganske godt (pga det biskopen har gjort og fordi prosessen har tatt minst fem år), og skriver:

… The bishop in question was the outgoing Bishop of Toowoomba, William Morris. He is one of three men who have been relieved of their dioceses by the Vatican in the past few months.

The others were the bishops of Pointe-Noire in Congo-Brazzaville and Orvieto-Todi in Italy. But while they were removed for financial mismanagement in one case and misbehaviour in the other, Morris’s ouster was on doctrinal grounds.

Bishops are in some respects akin to sovereigns in their dioceses and, while it has the authority to remove them, the Holy See is usually very slow to do so, preferring discreet solutions such as early retirement.

The three forced departures in seven months have no precedent in recent years and suggest an increasing preparedness to intervene on the part of the Pope and his new prefect for the Congregation of Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouellet. The previous prefect, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, was an uber-liberal.

The Catholic archbishop of Brisbane, John Bathersby, who will be retiring in 11 weeks, professed himself at a loss to understand the decision. He told the ABC: » I just wish it hadn’t happened and I don’t know why it happened and I would very much like to know.»

Perhaps I can enlighten him: Morris issued an Advent pastoral letter in 2006 that canvassed various options to make up for the lack of priestly vocations in his diocese.

Some were uncontroversial. Others, including the ordination of married or single women and recognising the validity of Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting Church clergy, were heretical.

He has since then maintained what he likes to call a dialogue on these non-options. …

Father Z. skriver også (naturlig nok) om dette.