Jeg leste i dag om en ny motu proprio fra pave Benedikt – datert 11. november, men offentliggjort i går. Tittelen «Intima Ecclesiae natura» er oversatt med «The Church’s deepest nature», og den handler om Kirkens barmhjertighetstjeneste. Den ligger på Vatikanets nettsider, og starter slik i engelsk oversettelse.

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
Apostolic Letter issued “Motu Proprio”
On the Service of Charity

Introduction
“The Church’s deepest nature is expressed in her three-fold responsibility: of proclaiming the word of God (kerygma-martyria), celebrating the sacraments (leitourgia) and exercising the ministry of charity (diakonia). These duties presuppose each other and are inseparable” (Deus Caritas Est, 25).

The service of charity is also a constitutive element of the Church’s mission and an indispensable expression of her very being (cf. ibid.); all the faithful have the right and duty to devote themselves personally to living the new commandment that Christ left us (cf. Jn 15:12), and to offering our contemporaries not only material assistance, but also refreshment and care for their souls (cf. Deus Caritas Est, 28). The Church is also called as a whole to the exercise of the diakonia of charity, whether in the small communities of particular Churches or on the level of the universal Church. This requires organization “if it is to be an ordered service to the community” (cf. ibid., 20), an organization which entails a variety of institutional expressions. …

Jeg så dette først på Rorate cæli.

Erkebiskop Müller, den nye lederen av Troskongregasjonen, er ganske tydelig når han uttaler seg, slik også i går, da han sa at pave Benedikt hadde definert bare én måte å forstå konsilet på; som en fortsettelse av Kirken ubrutte historie. Selvsagt kan man fortsatt diskutere hvordan konsilet best skal forstås, men ytterpunktene på begge sider – som sier at konsilet er et brudd med det Kirken tidligere stod for – kan ikke godtas. Jeg har lest følgende på Catholic News Service (etter tips fra Pray Tell, der utsagnet også diskuteres på en ganske fornuftig måte):

What Pope Benedict XVI has termed «the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity» is the «only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology,» Archbishop Gerhard Muller said in remarks published Nov. 29.

«Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, (found) both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist» side, the archbishop said.

What the two camps have in common, he said, is their rejection of the council: «the progressives in their wanting to leave it behind, as if it were a season to abandon in order to get to another church, and the traditionalists in their not wanting to get there,» seeing the council as a Catholic «winter.»

A «council presided over by the successor of Peter as head of the visible church» is the «highest expression» of the Magisterium, he said, to be regarded as part of «an indissoluble whole,» along with Scripture and 2,000 years of tradition.

The doctrinal chief’s remarks were published in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, to present the seventh volume of «The Complete Works of Joseph Ratzinger.» The volume collects both published and unpublished notes, speeches, interviews and texts written or given by the future pope in the period shortly before, during and just after Vatican II.

Archbishop Muller specified that by «continuity» Pope Benedict meant a «permanent correspondence with the origin, not an adaption of whatever has been, which also can lead the wrong way.» …

Som jeg skrev i går kveld, leste jeg nylig i the Vatican Insider om pave Benedikts synspunkter på noen av Vatikankonsilets tekster. Paven tar her opp to tekster – om religionsfrihet og andre religioner – som i flere tiår (og fortsatt) har skapt problemer for tradisjonalistiske grupper, som SSPX. Andrea Tornielli skriver (jeg har selv uthevet noen ord):

(about) …. two minor documents, whose importance has only gradually come to light in the context of the reception of the Council. First, there is the Declaration on Religious Liberty, ….. the Pope explains. “With developments in philosophical thought and in ways of understanding the modern State, the doctrine of tolerance, as worked out in detail by Pius XII, no longer seemed sufficient.”

“At stake was the freedom to choose and practise religion and the freedom to change it, as fundamental human rights and freedoms,” Ratzinger writes, before going on to explain that “given its inner foundation, such a concept could not be foreign to the Christian faith, which had come into being claiming that the State could neither decide on the truth nor prescribe any kind of worship.”

“The Christian faith demanded freedom of religious belief and freedom of religious practice in worship, without thereby violating the law of the State in its internal ordering; Christians prayed for the emperor, but did not worship him. To this extent, it can be said that Christianity, at its birth, brought the principle of religious freedom into the world.”

Yet, Benedict XVI points out, “the interpretation of this right to freedom in the context of modern thought was not easy, since it could seem as if the modern version of religious freedom presupposed the inaccessibility of the truth to man and so, perforce, shifted religion into the sphere of the subjective.” ….

“The second document that was to prove important for the Church’s encounter with the modern age came into being almost by chance and it developed in various phases. I am referring to the Declaration “Nostra Aetate” on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. At the outset the intention was to draft a declaration on relations between the Church and Judaism, …. then there should also be some words on Islam. …. The text apparently also talks about other religions and the subject of religion in general, referring also to the dialogue between religions.

But Benedict XVI recognises that “in the process of active reception, a weakness of this otherwise extraordinary text has gradually emerged: it speaks of religion solely in a positive way and it disregards the sick and distorted forms of religion which, from the historical and theological viewpoints, are of far-reaching importance; for this reason the Christian faith, from the outset, adopted a critical stance towards religion, both internally and externally.” …

Som vanlig sier pave benedikt også noe om at Vatikankonsilet på ingen måte var et brudd med Kirkens historie og tradisjon:
Finally the Pope returns to the hermeneutics of the Second Vatican Council, recalling that “the Council Fathers neither could nor wished to create a new or different Church but rather to understand these more deeply and hence truly to “renew them”. This is why a hermeneutic of rupture is absurd and is contrary to the spirit and the will of the Council Fathers.”

Jeg leste for 4-5 dager siden en artikkel av Andrea Tornielli i the Vatican Insider om pave Benedikts synspunkter på enkelte elementer i Vatikankonsilets dokumenter. Dokumentet som omatlte vår tids moderne verden klarte ikke riktig å definere vår moderne verden, hevdes det:

The conciliar constitution “Gadium et spes” did not specify what was essential and constitutive of the modern era. Benedict XVI states this in the preface of a conciliar text which will soon be published by German publishing house Herder. A preview of the text is given in a special illustrated issue of L’Osservatore Romano, the Holy See’s official newspaper, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. The description of the Council given is based on news stories from the time, new or barely known details and rare images and photographs.

In terms of the so-called “Schema XIII” from which “the pastoral Constitution of the modern world was born,” the Pope says: “This point touches on the real expectations of the Council. The Church, which during the Baroque era was still, in a broad sense, shaping the world, had from the nineteenth century onwards visibly entered into a negative relationship with the modern era, which had only then properly begun. Did it have to remain so? Could the Church not take a positive step into the new era?”

“Behind the vague expression “today’s world” – Benedict XVI continues – lies the question of the relationship with the modern era. To clarify this, it would have been necessary to define more clearly the essential features that constitute the modern era. “Schema XIII” did not succeed in doing this. Although the Pastoral Constitution (“Gaudium et spes”, Ed.) expressed many important elements for an understanding of the “world” and made significant contributions to the question of Christian ethics, it failed to offer substantial clarification on this point.”

Ratzinger then pointed out that “unexpectedly, the encounter with the great themes of the modern epoch did not happen in the great Pastoral Constitution, but instead in two minor documents, whose importance has only gradually come to light in the context of the reception of the Council. First, there is the Declaration on Religious Liberty, which was urgently requested, and also drafted, by the American Bishops in particular,” the Pope explains. “With developments in philosophical thought and in ways of understanding the modern State, the doctrine of tolerance, as worked out in detail by Pius XII, no longer seemed sufficient.” ….

Jeg siterer litt mer herfra (om religionsfriheten) om ikke lenge.