Pages

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Don't make more of Vatican II than necessary

Reactions 
Vatican II and the Society of St Pius X: Where's the Beef?

The question is not whether or not to accept ( whatever that word might mean- in the literal sense, in the spiritual sense, agreement to the objectives must not the texts, agreement to the texts, but not the way they were implemented, agreement to the texts and the implementation etc, etc) Vatican II in whole or in part, but what position the Council is given in the hierarchy of authorative statements. To elevate the documents too highly would to endanger the doctrine of the indefectability of the Church, given the inconsistency with previous teaching.

The idea that the Council is in continuity with previous teaching is artificial- the break as such occured with the acceptance of "nouvelle theologie" prior to the Council.

2 comments:

Faby said...

Allow me to dissent
Especially in Argentina, Cardinal Primate Bergoglio (Jesuit) is not aligned with the Pope in regard to the propaganda of sufficient reinstated Latin rite.
That is why here, in Buenos Aires, almost all of the Catholics here are unaware of this news and continue going to the "many sub-rituals" the Novus Ordo allows, and where a few blocks away from one church to another , one can hear sometimes surprising changes in the ritual words, even with basic errors (for example, refer to the Blood of Christ as "spiritual drink") or in the middle of the rite of the Mass priests introduces Sr. Juana Inés de la Cruz poetry (Metropolitan Cathedral Sunday Mass 18 pm service).
Even though we see this very chaotic, these are the rituals that fill the churches on Saturdays and Sundays, while the Latin rite has two Sunday services, each with 10 people.
In poverty countries, people want to hear joy, hope, applause, youngness, guitars, Crosby Still and Nash lyrics, and the priests have the reimbursement of the service.
Unfortunately, Latin rite does not generate enough money here.

pclaudel said...

"The idea that the Council is in continuity with previous teaching is artificial—the break as such occured with the acceptance of 'nouvelle theologie' prior to the Council."

Thank you, Mr. Gillibrand, for a splendid précis of what Christopher Ferrara's article fails to grasp or conveniently ignores. In pastoral terms alone, acceptance of the council would require an acceptance of the appropriateness and validity of the nuclear winter that has been the council's only true fruit. When one also factors in the doctrinal element you rightly mention, a reader is left to wonder whether this Mr. Ferrara is the same man who wrote The Great Façade.