When the spirit of a council dictates, almost from day one, how the documents of a council are to be read and applied, then that spirit is the true fruit of the council, regardless what the documents may say. Luckily, the Church has never fallen into this trap, so keep calm and party on, right?
This is the conservative paradox: the same people who are blamed for “hijacking The Council” are those to whom pious submission must be given in the implementation of The Council.
Lionel:
Since both groups do not know that the Council has been 'hijacked' due to a false premise used in the interpretation.
Conspiracy theories are generally taboo among conservatives, but The Tale of Those Nasty Liberals Who Hijacked Poor Ol’ Vatican Two is one conspiracy theory still very much in vogue. The documents have borne the fruits we see (and will probably keep seeing, for a long time to come)
Lionel:
When we identify the false premise used in the interpretation the confusion ends.
because the seeds of said fruit are embedded in the documents themselves.
Lionel:
No they aren't!
The problem is caused by the inference. It is a false inference used in the interpretation of LG 16,LG 8 ,NA 2,UR 3 etc.
The false inference comes from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
This is why, as Bp. Schneider reminds us, the documents must be subjected to a thorough magisterial pruning, so that the vigor of the Pastoral Mandate can be matched by the tradition of doctrinal security.
Lionel:
Bishop Schneider has still to identify the premise used in the interpretation.If an irrational premise is used in the interpretation of any Church document it will emerge as a break with the past.
Meanwhile, the unrelenting cry for MOAR COUNCIL has a bizarre way of leading to the very abuses which The Council is supposed to have saved us. The Council cannot be a final harbor. It was a milestone, but the Church keeps moving, and I think the Church needs to either enforce the documents with a zeal that any “rad trad” would admire, or needs to admit that The V2 Experiment has failed.
Lionel:
The premise was not discovered.
The Church will–and must–go on, but, pragmatically speaking, The Spirit of The Council is the clear winner these days.
Lionel:
It is based on an irrational premise.
It is heroic of laymen to hold the magisterial line, but it is properly the duty of the episcopal college to get the led out and get our house in order. No “pastoral” strategy is guaranteed infallible immunity.
At the same time, I’m floored that unflinching defenders of Vatican II at least admit that the V2 documents shouldn’t but in fact can be read in a discontinuous, heterodox way. Can the same be said of any prior council?
Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 contradicted the Councils which defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
And even if it could be, it was the purpose of a later council authoritatively to rectify such problems. No one in the hierarchy is seriously calling for such a correction. Everything Is Awesome. Except, darn it, this time we need to really implement The Council. There’s that creeping conspiracy theory again.
I don’t see how we can have it both ways. If V2 is to be judged not as a dogmatic intervention but as a pastoral endeavor, and should therefore not be held to such rigorous intellectual standards as prior councils, then the manifest deterioration and disorientation of the Church in certain ways should suffice to show how the pastoral endeavor has been derailed on its own terms.
Lionel:
It is the irrational premise which has resulted in a break with the dogmatic teachings on salvation.
Rather than being read in an orthodox sense, the conciliar ambiguity in question
Lionel:
There is no ambiguity if the false premise is not used.
reverses the entire hermeneutic by subjecting past teaching to endless debate and doubt in the superdogma event horizon that V2 has, despite its intended “humility”, become.
Lionel:
The debates began after 1949 when it was assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
To cite prior councils is to be labeled a rad trad, which is pretty astounding a charge.
Lionel:
The liberals use the false premise in the interpretation of the Councils before 1949 and the 'rad trads' are still not aware of the false premise.They use it too.It is the basis for a theology of religions.The error is there in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission, Vatican.
As Brunero Gherardini had persuasively argued, what is need is not a declamation of continuity, but a demonstration of it, and the only possible resources for such a demonstration reside in the very things that get one labeled a rad trad.
Lionel:
The text of Vatican Council II is not a break with the past. It is inferring that all salvation mentioned in the Council is physically visible to us, an irrationality, which causes the problem.
V2 is the most self-referential council in the Church’s history, which is why, like any spiraling mass, it sucks everything else into its gravitational pull, and contorts it all into a shape of its own making.
Lionel:
The text shows that it is traditional.The use of the irrational premise is a subtle error.
The documents were not presented as platforms of change. How could a merely pastoral council aim to extend or settle dogmatic issues? The entire premise of the council, at least officially, is that the Church was simply restating long-standing doctrine. Yet, there followed a torrent of adaptation and compromise which the documents had not explicitly decreed. By avoiding the pastoral latitude that it did, the council left the door open for “the spirit of Vatican II”,
Lionel:
It was not a pastoral latitude.
which is, predictably enough, the impulse which has prevailed for decades. This is why the Church is in the tumult of a collective swing back to the center, and I am baffled why it’s so scandalous for Catholics to point out this disorientation and put V2 in its place, as it were. No one is meant to live at the peripheries of doctrinal coherence. The world has always been crazy. Human nature has not changed. It was the historical chauvinism of the V2 Fathers which led them to presume that the Church was in a new world. Blinded by a naive progressivism, the Fathers gave us a shining example of an old trick: orthodoxy can be defeated by a direct refutation or by being marginalized as optional.
Lionel:
It was neither of the two.
The latter strategy has been highly effective for decades now. Dogma doesn’t have to be changed in order to permit a revolution. It can simply be marginalized as irrelevant compared to more pressing Pastoral Needs of The People. Why deny objective truth when you can make it irrelevant?
Lionel:
With the false premise dogmas can be denied.It happened at Boston in 1949
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment