On 2 December, the publisher Lindau of Turin has published the work of Prof. Roberto De Mattei: The Second Vatican Council. An untold story .
A story written by a historian now known to all.
The text, in its 632 pages, it's all to read and consider, given that it is only in recent years that it is facing the problem regarding the Council the texts of the Council, the application of the council, the interpretation of Council. Until a few years ago there were only outstanding critical or laudatory texts. The first almost completely ignored for decades because a priori deemed unworthy of consideration, the latter mentioned at every 'driven, although the vast majority of them reveal a serious lack of information and a minimum of serious study. These two categories should be added to that sort of projection consists of the post-Vatican II monuments History of Vatican II, in five volumes, written in that of Bologna by a group of scholars dedicated to the exaltation of the Vatican with a view to convening the Vatican III. Work that represents a consistent presentation of the Council in relation to the mentality that informed him for his conduct and for its application. The work has been translated into several languages \u200b\u200band used through lecture notes or texts side in all seminaries in the world. These teachers, not surprisingly direct heirs of the Bologna Curia and the political-religious Lercaro the famous Giuseppe Dossetti, taught, directly and indirectly, that Vatican II was a historical event that has transformed the universal Church "Counter "in the modern Church into the future, thereby taking advantage of the carrier that has characterized the post-Council and the council. A sort of Protestant Reformation intra moenia , having in view the sort of "parliament of religions" since the end of the 800 coveted by all the anti-Catholic circles and deniers of God
These last thirty years have passed with the education of generations of priests who have to drink from this source, from which they drew a mindset harmful to the life of the Church, and many of them are now Monsignors of the Curia, bishops and Cardinals.
Sooner or later something had to happen, the Lord will not only pay on Saturday, and thanks to God and thanks to the election of Benedict XVI as Pope, has opened a new season that rightly could be called "revisionist" , although today the term has become taboo, and you can use it legitimately only to reverse the historical truth of two thousand years of Christianity. We do not have
yet read the book by Professor De Mattei, but from what we heard and read here and there, and from what little we know of the author, we feel that it will be counted among the works of "revision" of the Vulgate Council.
waiting to read and following the controversy that ensued, we would like to express here a few comments inspired by some articles that appeared here and there over its content, even if not all of their editors to show that they actually read. Generally, these newspaper articles written on hearsay and based on a novel kind of taboo the Council can criticize, but you must first accept .
One of the repeated slogan driven by what the Pope in December 2005, spoke of the "hermeneutic of reform in continuity", agreeing finally that the Vatican II council is questionable because forty years later still needs a serious interpretation.
Among the various articles, particularly keep in mind what has written one that claims to have read the book: Dr. Massimo Introvigne, founder and regent of CESNUR national vicar of the Catholic Alliance. He has written an article published on the website of CESNUR, an article which in reduced form was taken up by Future of December 1, 2010 (p. 30). Not aware of the importance of the desired combination of Introvigne enjoys the credit and the fact that the future is the newspaper of the CEI, as to be allowed to believe that the contents of the article represents, to some extent, the position of the Italian Bishops.
In this article, Introvigne claims that the book of De Mattei is to be counted among the works anticonciliari because it would support and endorse the 'hermeneutics of rupture "between the texts of Vatican II and the Tradition, like the writings of conciliarists and of "Lefebvre" and in opposition to the 'hermeneutic of reform in continuity "supported and promoted by Benedict XVI. According
Introvigne, De Mattei made the mistake to pretend to read the documents of Vatican II into account the context in which they were born. One mistake, he said, should be avoided because the texts must be read regardless of the context, and this reading can easily be implemented in the light of Tradition: seizing the continuity of the first with the second.
Of course, it is likely to care, but first we must understand if you initiate such a reading to justify a posteriori the 'hermeneutic of reform in continuity ", or does the hermeneutic is so evident in the texts of Vatican II to render unnecessary consideration of context and misleading.
is clear that this approach is based on the assumption that the texts of the Council have authority to themselves, that it should only result of their acceptance, subject to the reservations that may legitimately advance on one point or another in the strength of their character "pastoral."
We are facing a strange formula that we find in the same decree of erection of some new institutes Ecclesia Dei. In them, the Holy See recognizes the right to proceed by "constructive criticism" against the texts of the Council. Now, the term "constructive criticism", which follows verbatim from the versatility of the modern language, it can mean many things in opposition, but it certainly has a deeper meaning: "critical" tantamount to dissent, and "constructive" is tantamount to participation agreement. Can behave as a disagreement that is both consensual? One of the mysteries of language and modern costume! Critics disagree
object under consideration, in whole or in part, and for it to come to an agreement possible is required to be removed elements of dissent. In our case, criticizing the texts of Vatican II, partly because it found inconsistent or break with tradition, is to reject "the light of Tradition", and it is possible to come to sharing them only if they are removed from all factors of contradiction and rupture. Argue that despite the existence of these factors, for which the Holy See itself recognizes the right of "constructive criticism", you can practice a hermeneutics in continuity with tradition is that they contradict a literal and conceptual impossibility.
On this basis it is impossible to read the texts of the Council for themselves, because every time you find an item in a break with tradition, to understand the scope and implications of current and future need to refer to the context in which they were born and one in which they were applied. What's more, if we confined ourselves to only these two contexts, the Council should be considered as the cause of the elements of strength, This does not correspond to reality, since it is clear to all that Vatican II represented the culmination of an extensive anti-traditional movement that has permeated the life of the Church since the second half of the nineteenth century and that Vatican II was able to emergence up to the top of the hierarchy. It is impossible to understand the council, seriously consider his texts, in its proper context post-council, without having a clear picture destabilizing that has been forming within the Church for more than a century and a half.
to seriously address this issue, however, it is essential that before you put it very clear why today it is considered necessary to re-read operation Vatican II, in short, because it insists on renewed interpretation of his texts in the key of continuity with the Tradition.
In fact, these texts, which were developed and defined by all the bishops of the Church and have been approved by the popes, were later used by popes and the bishops themselves, and this could be done, of course, only on the basis of their correct interpretation, if only because the writers and performers were the same people. Who better than they would interpret and correctly apply the texts they themselves developed and defined?
Well, if today, 40 years away from the Vatican, it is essential to interpret key continuity Tradition is quite clear that they were drawn up and applied without regard to this key, and not from this or that, but by bishops and popes. It follows that something has gone wrong in the Vatican and its application. Believe today that we can try to re-read these texts in accordance with Tradition means or resolve to eliminate all factors in contrast to the tradition that they contain or consider that these factors are inexplicably in accordance with the same tradition with which they are in contrast.
In his critical article, Introvigne insists on another controversial issue. According to him, De Mattei, denying the continuity of tradition with the documents of the Council, would assume a position incorrect because it contradicts what the Pope said
This critical fact, which has become a recurring theme in conservative circles, revealing the persistence of prejudice "papist" that since the Council has been used by strength and ruthlessness Paul VI. What the Pope says there is no question, it is accepted. Although this same Pope laments promulgating documents which determine a movement to subvert the Church, as the new Missal, but despite this Pope laments about disasters after the Council and not lifting a finger to remedy the situation. Despite this, the only thing that can and should do is obey the Pope Obedience, blind, total, despite the evidence and despite the fact that the same authority that demands it recognize the negative consequences of his actions. And click here
injury dominates the other as they could to hide the previous contradiction. It is not that the Pope was wrong, not the hierarchy who declined to do his duty, not the bishops and cardinals who have perverted and subverted the doctrinal and liturgical Tradition of the Church, but only certain people, certain liturgists, certain theologians, some bishops and some cardinals, all, alone, incredibly dedicated to trying to break with the tradition of the Church. In short, the crisis is now clearly established that for 40 years grips the life of the Church was the work of some people. Many
people in good faith support this view surprising, and many others are trying to become famous as grasping a club against the minimum critical fact that arises from the consideration of the miserable state in which pay for many years the life of the Church.
This second injury, combined with the first, is based on the famous speech to the Curia of Benedict XVI on December 22, 2005. According to a strange vulgate in vogue now for 5 years, the Pope said that the Council and its documents are in continuity with the Tradition of the Church, then, to say the contrary, it means contradicting the Pope year, this, that, according to many conservatives, would be performed free from any kind of "traditionalist".
It is useful then to recall what the Pope actually said, in order to refresh your memory is certain to be conservative defenders of tradition that seems to be convinced that, since 2005, "all is well ... Lady the marquise."
We pass the examination of the entire speech, from which you can make many other interesting information, and consider only the song which speaks of the two hermeneutics:
Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems of implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarreled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore fruit. On the one hand there is an interpretation that I would call "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture", it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also a part of modern theology. On the other hand there is the 'hermeneutic of reform ", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given us.
Neither in this passage, nor in all his speech, the Pope argued that the Vatican is in continuity with Tradition, he spoke only of "hermeneutics of reform", making clear that reform is meant for the "renewal in continuity of the one subject-Church."
While on the one hand there would be an "interpretation of discontinuity and rupture", on the other there would be an "interpretation of the reform", which reform, legitimate, says the Pope, would be "renewal in continuity '.
To be exact, this is not even speak of "the hermeneutic continuity", but "hermeneutics of reform" and "interpretation of the reform", of "interpretation of the renewal." Renewal that is what has made the council, says the Pope renewal that could not operate if not in continuity.
The Pope does not speak of a council in continuity with Tradition, but reiterated that the Council wished to reform, renovation, and this renewal can not be but a continuation of what has always been the Church which the Lord won. " But this continuity, the Pope considers it as a matter belongs to the Church, not the council, with respect to it because he speaks of "hermeneutics" and "interpretation". The Council has been interpreted both in terms of breaking in terms of renewal, the Pope says, the first interpretation is wrong, the second is correct.
So, what is right is not the Council, not the documents of the Council, but the interpretation of them according to a renewal in continuity.
Now, what is striking is the fact that we can talk about interpretation. If the Council and the Council's documents are subject to interpretation it is clear that in themselves are confused and uncertain, and even if you may produce conflicting interpretations, one of which leads to breaking even with what the Church has always taught is even more clear that the Council and the Council's documents are also equivocal, and once recognized that the Council and the Council's documents are confusing and ambiguous, it must ask whether this confusion and ambiguity that have been produced by chance or by a precise understanding.
We had to consider this question on another occasion, then refer to it , limiting ourselves here to consider the intention expressed by the Pope in his famous speech of which we speak.
In it the Pope expressed his thought actually, his intentions, so that we could speak of a "keynote speech, he also expresses a kind of demand that is certainly understandable, and corresponds a desire to respect and even a necessity of the Church, but it is clear that such an interpretation of renewal in continuity can seriously only be based on the real continuity that exists in those documents.
Now, if these documents were actually in continuity with Tradition, what need would there be an interpretation from the perspective of continuity? Would suffice to refute the 'hermeneutics of rupture "is isolated in the Church. If in forty years that has not happened is because the documents are not in continuity, and only now it asks for a new interpretation to try to put a stop to not so much a "hermeneutics of rupture" which occurred in spite of these alleged documents, the documents produced by the same drift. If the failure was not contained in these documents would not have been a "hermeneutics of rupture", implemented by most of the Church, popes, cardinals and bishops in the head.
As an example of this desire to break that since Vatican II has permeated the whole of the post-conciliar Church, do not remember, Introvigne and others, the sensational case of the so-called liturgical reform which continues to contradict even Sacrosanctum Concilium because it is so well known by now that there is no doubt that he wanted a new liturgy because he wanted a new church, remember Instead the application of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum , with which the Pope wanted to give a signal in terms of continuity with the Tradition.
This Motu Proprio, three years of its entry into force, it is entirely different ways and almost universally rejected and fought by the cardinals, bishops, priests. If the Motu Proprio has enabled that eventually showed the faithful, clergy and laity, yet fearful to do so, perhaps because of their small minority position, has also helped to understand that of hermeneutics or interpretation of it, but the will , widespread, to break with tradition and not allow any approximation to it. The Holy See itself is still impotent in the face of widespread opposition from the bishops and priests, and it is for his own choice, because there is still anything designed to make operating as specified by the Pope in the Motu Proprio, not counting, of course, that is the same articulation Motu Proprio extremely difficult to make its operations consistent (and here we refer to As we wrote in these pages the contents of the motu proprio ).
In reality, the facts of these three years show that more than for the good of the Church's own initiative and was wanted in mind what the Pope wrote in the accompanying letter to bishops
The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and access to the Latin language is one or the other are not very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clear that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, not only because of the juridical norms, but also the actual situation they are in the communities of faith.
and that is that this instance of the traditional liturgy (as we call it) or extraordinary (like calling the Pope), is the stuff of small groups.
is clear that this is not the good of the Church, nor the emphasis on continuity with tradition, here is a device that can produce different effects. Meanwhile, some forty years silence resistance, damping, or canceling the effect, then give a signal to the clerics and theologians who would decattolicizzare even more subversive to the Catholic Church, finally to prepare the ground for putting their hands to some modern touches of the liturgy. The liberalization of the use of the traditional liturgy is therefore a tool that is used for other purposes other than defense of tradition and a concern for continuity. Effects that have occurred in favor of tradition flow from the consistency and strength of the tradition itself, despite the intentions of the Motu Proprio. Moreover, the Pope knew that this was the price to pay, but he also knew that he could reap the benefits in his view of things. It is no coincidence that in these three years has never celebrated with traditional liturgical books, in fact he was at pains to mix in any event the modern with the old, as in the sensational case of the distribution of Communion in the mouth and on her knees to very few, while at the same time, at his side, most of the faithful take Communion in the feet and hands. Indeed a strange sign of continuity, where the modern and the majority remains "normal" despite the break is rooted in hermeneutics, while the traditional is maintained minority and "extraordinary", despite its roots directly in the tradition without any need for hermeneutics of any kind.
Small steps, some will say, ... there will be others, make sure someone else will do ... but everyone pretends not to understand that the intent is to make a sort of mixture of ancient and modern force that finally the substance of modern ancient forms.
Finally, are obliged to remember that the book of De Mattei is not an unexpected meteor, in the five years since the Pope's famous speech in December 2005 were written articles, essays and books that have raised the issue of revision of Vatican II, both from the historical point of view from both the theological point of view. Texts written by serious scholars known for their production. It has really opened up a debate that will take years of work because we strive for some definition of the problem: in this context that places the book of De Mattei, and it makes an important contribution to the development of a framework to serve as a historical background to other work.
Now, what is surprising is that in the face of such an issue, which concerns the whole life of the Church and the keeping of the same faith, we had to wait 40 years to open a serious debate.
In these 40 years, those same conservative Tugging is today to support the supervening "hermeneutics in continuity 'have done nothing but follow the shore and hermeneutics and work of rupture. The few interventions that have appeared here and there are kept to a purely academic exercise a kind of dialectic that it took no scratched the current vulgate Council "New Pentecost", especially in terms of practice of the Faith.
Moreover, some critical remarks about the modern liturgy, for example, had been advanced by the same Cardinal Ratzinger 25 years ago, it was not then a new brand exclusively "conservative", yet no concrete attention in recent years has come not from the Holy See, for example by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, nor by the bishops, some of which have now discovered the need for "continuity", nor even by lay people "committed". Indeed, the latter should be noted that particularly in the past 25 years when they are industries in various ways to defend theoretically and practically the whole of the plant by breaking became established and consolidated since Vatican II by ecumenism, religious freedom , from the lively ecclesial autonomy diocesan parishes to the democratization of liturgical creativity, accompanying this with persistent hostility against every note with a critical and open opposition to the continued use of the traditional liturgy. All clergy and laity, have proven that the advocates of what we now say they want to fight ... after the Pope's speech in 2005.
There were even the most notorious cases of those who endorsed and called for the inclusion in the lists of "new religions" and "Seven" group of Catholics whose only crime was and is not to be conservative, but traditional or " Lefebvre, "that is faithful to the ancient tradition of the Church.
And today we find these same conservatives are quick to criticize the work of the De Mattei simple fact that it coincides with their views, and always with the same reasons: it contradicts what the Pope says, today Benedict XVI, John Paul II yesterday or Paul VI. Ligi
to the Pope, it seems, maybe ... but above all loyal to impeach all that and all those who seek to defend the tradition and claiming the rights for the good of the Church and the salvation of the souls of the faithful.
Nevertheless, we recognize that today welcomes many seem to awaken dormant consciences and a new focus seems to be replacing the old tacit assent of the past years. Even with the reservations and prejudices die hard, now you begin to distance themselves from many parts of the Vatican applications and its terrible, and all this thanks to the tenacity of the forty traditional Catholics, laity and clergy even more, tenacity and across the various fruits produced, albeit indirectly, that famous speech of 2005, whose real merit lies in allowed it removed the gag to criticism and dissent. What
mind then this is understandable in some conservative circles, but someday will have to accept it, even if waiting will see more and more visceral attacks against the traditional groups that perform the sacred task of putting his finger on and , led by the state of emergency prevailing in the Church and the fate of the souls of the faithful, are sometimes forced to turn over your finger in the same plight acquire some horror in hypersensitive conformists who would like to change everything because they do not change anything.
Source: Vox A
0 comments:
Post a Comment