"'Part of what we're saying is that when you read the documents (of Vatican II), you can't read them from the point of view of some liberal bishops who may have been participants (at the council), you have to read them at face value,' Archbishop Di Noia told CNS. 'Given that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church, the documents cannot be in discontinuity with tradition.'"
Now, this is very telling. The archbishop makes the common distinction between the two possible readings the documents from Vatican II can take: the liberal one, and the one in continuity with Tradition. This issue will be taken up again a bit later on. The second thing that is important treats of the fact that the documents cannot, in fact, be in discontinuity with Tradition. This is a key passage. There is a confusion here between the Church when it is teaching solemnly or making judgements in the extraordinary Magisterium, and what is merely something from a document that belongs to the authentic Magisterium. The archbishop tries to put infallibility as a mark in every instance- a slight of hand that is quite contrary to the reality of the Church's teaching. If everything was infallible, there would be no need to distinguish between a definition and an assertion in the Conciliar texts. One wonders if this archbishop would be quick to speak of the infallibility of the canons of Lateran IV condemning the Jews to wear a special dress or forbidding Christians to live with, or work for them. Then, we would hear of infinite distinctions that relegate this past Council to the dustbins of history. The Church operates on three levels. There are decisions of the Extraordinary Magisterium, such as the dogmatic teachings of popes or of Councils under the pope. These are infallible and binding in Faith. Then, there are decisions of the Ordinary Magisterium, which are also judgements or the popes or undefined teachings of Councils, and these are also infallible. Then, there are things asserted by the merely authentic Magisterium, which are teachings in a very limited sense, and are not by any means infallible. Now we have the word of Pope John XXIII that Vatican II was not to define any new teaching. This is important, since what is written is, in fact, not protected by infallibility. If the Holy Ghost guided the Church in every decision, then all decisions would, in themselves, be infallible. This, however is not the case. It is the case, however, that the archbishop is trying desperately to elevate Vatican II to the level of the earlier Councils. Again, this shows up a falsehood in his understanding.
In both interviews, it is pointed out that the documents of Vatican II cannot be in discontinuity with Tradition. This is the logical conclusion of the position that the Holy Ghost was in fact behind all of the documents of the Council. It is also a conclusion which is directly at odds with the entire position of the traditionalist movement, a movement so well summarized by the title of a book of Archbishop Lefebvre: "I accuse the Council". Between Archbishop Lefebvre and Archbishop Di Noia, there is a gulf which no man may cross. One accuses the Council of being unfaithful to the Church's teaching; the other denies that any error can be present in the documents themselves. When one looks at the dealings of the forces of Tradition with modernist Rome, one is always struck by the fact that on the part of the moderns, the question always returns to the inviolability of Vatican II. There may be false interpretations of it by theologians, or false manners in which it is put into practice, but the Council itself is the ultimate dogma.
Of course, Archbishop Di Noia admits the possibility of disagreements between the various theological schools. His work with the Anglicans even opens him up to the possibility of schools of theology and spirituality based on the heretical sects themselves that may remain in existence without being absorbed into Catholic schools. The only thing necessary is to accept the divinity of the Second Vatican Council and its teaching. Even the Society can keep a kind of Tridentine theology and spirituality as long as it submits to the Council and the Conciliar popes in their positions.
The question is asked as to why there are traditionalists at all. Di Noia's answer puts him back into the mindset of John-Paul II and its subjectivism:
"To say why people are traditionalist I’d have to say it depends on their experiences. The [reform of the] liturgy has been a factor; it was a terrible revolution and shock for people. Many of these people feel abandoned, like the Church left them at the dock with the ship. So the reasons are very complicated and vary from one type of traditionalism to another and from countries, cultures and contexts in which they have arisen.
Another issue is there’s a failure to recognize a simple fact of the history of the Church: that all theological disagreements need not be Church-dividing."
We have here the basic psychological problems of traditionalists feeling abandoned, and then we pass on to the claim that this is all a theological disagreement like that between Dominicans and Jesuits. This fails firstly because it is precisely the Magisterium of the pre-Conciliar popes which mark the dividing line between them, not some school of theology. The modernists empty out the past papal and conciliar teaching in favour of a new theology and spirituality; in fact, a new religion altogether.
There are so many things meriting comment in the National Catholic Reporter interview that this article would be endless. There was the claim that the problem of the Council lay with an inauthentic reading of the documents, not of the documents themselves. But then, one discovers a very curious argument. The texts must not be read as they are in themselves, but a something growing; this strange claim undermines his whole argument that the problem lies outside the text, not inside it.
"I’ve tried to find an analogy for this. Let’s say the American Constitution can be read in at least two ways: Historians read it, and they are interested in historical context: in the framers, intentions of the framers, the backgrounds of framers and all of that historical work about the Constitution. So, you have a Constitution you can study historically and shed a great deal of light on the meaning of it.
However, when the Supreme Court uses the Constitution, when it’s read as an institutional living document upon which institutions of a country are based, it’s a different reading. So what the framers thought, including not only experts upon whom they’re dependent — they are parallel to the bishops, and the experts are parallel to the periti [theologians who serve participants at an ecumenical council].
Those documents have an independence from all of them. I often say that what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply it today that matters. It’s a living document."
Now in the text above, Di Noia makes a comparison between the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the American Constitution. One would think that the archbishop would stress that the intent of the fathers are key to understanding the documents, since the Holy Ghost used them to created these documents. But like a true modernist, the past interpretation, even of the fathers of the Council, are ultimately useless. The document is a "living document" in which the intentions of the fathers is useless. In this we see the modernist who has taken the past documents and re-interpreted them so as to empty them of the original meaning. No longer must they be understood in the "same sense and meaning" which was the orthodox understanding of Church teachings. Now these documents are fluid. There meaning changes with the times. He shows himself to be a true modernist, despite his "friendliness" to Tradition.
The final point to be considered is a sobering one. The Society of Saint Pius X is necessary to the Church- to bring a certain increase of theological and liturgical richness- but most of all to validate the false and modernist understanding of the Council's continuity with Tradition.
"If they are accepted by the Church and restored to full communion, they will be a sort of living witness to the continuity. They can be perfectly happy being in the Catholic Church, so they would be a living testimony to show that the continuity before and after the Council is real."
The very purpose of the approval of the Society is to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between the Council and the past. It becomes a living witness to the fact that there has never been any contradiction between the new teachings- religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality- and Catholic dogma. Welcome to Newchurch, where the only dogma is and will always be the Council, as understood in a fluid manner, and which the Society will be the proof that all is well. Welcome to the ecclesiastical world of 1984.
Of course, Archbishop Di Noia admits the possibility of disagreements between the various theological schools. His work with the Anglicans even opens him up to the possibility of schools of theology and spirituality based on the heretical sects themselves that may remain in existence without being absorbed into Catholic schools. The only thing necessary is to accept the divinity of the Second Vatican Council and its teaching. Even the Society can keep a kind of Tridentine theology and spirituality as long as it submits to the Council and the Conciliar popes in their positions.
The question is asked as to why there are traditionalists at all. Di Noia's answer puts him back into the mindset of John-Paul II and its subjectivism:
"To say why people are traditionalist I’d have to say it depends on their experiences. The [reform of the] liturgy has been a factor; it was a terrible revolution and shock for people. Many of these people feel abandoned, like the Church left them at the dock with the ship. So the reasons are very complicated and vary from one type of traditionalism to another and from countries, cultures and contexts in which they have arisen.
Another issue is there’s a failure to recognize a simple fact of the history of the Church: that all theological disagreements need not be Church-dividing."
We have here the basic psychological problems of traditionalists feeling abandoned, and then we pass on to the claim that this is all a theological disagreement like that between Dominicans and Jesuits. This fails firstly because it is precisely the Magisterium of the pre-Conciliar popes which mark the dividing line between them, not some school of theology. The modernists empty out the past papal and conciliar teaching in favour of a new theology and spirituality; in fact, a new religion altogether.
There are so many things meriting comment in the National Catholic Reporter interview that this article would be endless. There was the claim that the problem of the Council lay with an inauthentic reading of the documents, not of the documents themselves. But then, one discovers a very curious argument. The texts must not be read as they are in themselves, but a something growing; this strange claim undermines his whole argument that the problem lies outside the text, not inside it.
"I’ve tried to find an analogy for this. Let’s say the American Constitution can be read in at least two ways: Historians read it, and they are interested in historical context: in the framers, intentions of the framers, the backgrounds of framers and all of that historical work about the Constitution. So, you have a Constitution you can study historically and shed a great deal of light on the meaning of it.
However, when the Supreme Court uses the Constitution, when it’s read as an institutional living document upon which institutions of a country are based, it’s a different reading. So what the framers thought, including not only experts upon whom they’re dependent — they are parallel to the bishops, and the experts are parallel to the periti [theologians who serve participants at an ecumenical council].
Those documents have an independence from all of them. I often say that what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply it today that matters. It’s a living document."
Now in the text above, Di Noia makes a comparison between the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the American Constitution. One would think that the archbishop would stress that the intent of the fathers are key to understanding the documents, since the Holy Ghost used them to created these documents. But like a true modernist, the past interpretation, even of the fathers of the Council, are ultimately useless. The document is a "living document" in which the intentions of the fathers is useless. In this we see the modernist who has taken the past documents and re-interpreted them so as to empty them of the original meaning. No longer must they be understood in the "same sense and meaning" which was the orthodox understanding of Church teachings. Now these documents are fluid. There meaning changes with the times. He shows himself to be a true modernist, despite his "friendliness" to Tradition.
The final point to be considered is a sobering one. The Society of Saint Pius X is necessary to the Church- to bring a certain increase of theological and liturgical richness- but most of all to validate the false and modernist understanding of the Council's continuity with Tradition.
"If they are accepted by the Church and restored to full communion, they will be a sort of living witness to the continuity. They can be perfectly happy being in the Catholic Church, so they would be a living testimony to show that the continuity before and after the Council is real."
The very purpose of the approval of the Society is to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between the Council and the past. It becomes a living witness to the fact that there has never been any contradiction between the new teachings- religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality- and Catholic dogma. Welcome to Newchurch, where the only dogma is and will always be the Council, as understood in a fluid manner, and which the Society will be the proof that all is well. Welcome to the ecclesiastical world of 1984.
No comments:
Post a Comment