Your Eminences, Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate and in the Presbyterate, Dear Brothers and Sisters,
The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years the description that St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church's situation after the Council of Nicea: he compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: "The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith..." (De Spiritu Sancto, XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).
We do not want to apply precisely this dramatic description to the situation of the post-conciliar period, yet something from all that occurred is nevertheless reflected in it. The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?
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 in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.
On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.
The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.
These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council's deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.
In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.
The nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood. In this way, it is considered as a sort of constituent that eliminates an old constitution and creates a new one. However, the Constituent Assembly needs a mandator and then confirmation by the mandator, in other words, the people the constitution must serve. The Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one; nor could anyone have given them one because the essential constitution of the Church comes from the Lord and was given to us so that we might attain eternal life and, starting from this perspective, be able to illuminate life in time and time itself.
Through the Sacrament they have received, Bishops are stewards of the Lord's gift. They are "stewards of the mysteries of God" (I Cor 4: 1); as such, they must be found to be "faithful" and "wise" (cf. Lk 12: 41-48). This requires them to administer the Lord's gift in the right way, so that it is not left concealed in some hiding place but bears fruit, and the Lord may end by saying to the administrator: "Since you were dependable in a small matter I will put you in charge of larger affairs" (cf. Mt 25: 14-30; Lk 19: 11-27).
These Gospel parables express the dynamic of fidelity required in the Lord's service; and through them it becomes clear that, as in a Council, the dynamic and fidelity must converge.
The hermeneutic of discontinuity is countered by the hermeneutic of reform, as it was presented first by Pope John XXIII in his Speech inaugurating the Council on 11 October 1962 and later by Pope Paul VI in his Discourse for the Council's conclusion on 7 December 1965.
Here I shall cite only John XXIII's well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes "to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion". And he continues: "Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us...". It is necessary that "adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness..." be presented in "faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another...", retaining the same meaning and message (The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., p. 715).
It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.
However, wherever this interpretation guided the implementation of the Council, new life developed and new fruit ripened. Forty years after the Council, we can show that the positive is far greater and livelier than it appeared to be in the turbulent years around 1968. Today, we see that although the good seed developed slowly, it is nonetheless growing; and our deep gratitude for the work done by the Council is likewise growing....
...It might be said that three circles of questions had formed which then, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, were expecting an answer. First of all, the relationship between faith and modern science had to be redefined. Furthermore, this did not only concern the natural sciences but also historical science for, in a certain school, the historical-critical method claimed to have the last word on the interpretation of the Bible and, demanding total exclusivity for its interpretation of Sacred Scripture, was opposed to important points in the interpretation elaborated by the faith of the Church.
Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.
Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.
These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
...This dialogue must now be developed with great openmindedness but also with that clear discernment that the world rightly expects of us in this very moment. Thus, today we can look with gratitude at the Second Vatican Council: if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.
8 comments:
"What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken?"
But was it the acceptance of the Council or, rather, the Council itself that was mistaken? The party line for the past 50 years has been the former. Maybe it is time to look at the latter as Bp. Schneider has already suggested.* The Second Vatican Council contains not only some ambiguous propositions but perhaps even some some erroneous ones. That would certainly freak-out the Modernists.
* https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/07/guest-op-ed-bishop-schneider.html
Until HFPF admits there is a problem, the first step in recovery, nothing will change. The Holy Spirit is at work nonetheless. Change will come but it will take another 20 years at least. The strain of infection runs deep and emanated out of VCII. The new generation of Priests will eventually prevail but I do pray for better leadership at the top. Time will tell
How can you expect the Francis to consider ANYTHING that ANY of his predecessors wrote or said, when he is sooooo much more humble and enlightened than them?
Read IOTA UNUM by Romano Amerio, for what is wrong with modernist Catholicism. This is a work by an Italian Philosopher/theologian. He lays it all out in excruciating detail. He names names too.
The current Church leadership is not going to reform or rebuild Catholicism. The deformation is so wide and so deep among the hierarchy that renewal can only come from an entirely nascent group who own no allegiance to anyone but Jesus Christ. I believe this renewal will happen. I have no idea how. I trust Jesus to direct this renewall.
For one, Church governance need to change. We need a new Pope. We need new bishops. We need married clergy. We need lay participants in Church governance with real leadership authority. I am not smart enough to propose anything more detailed but the message of the times is very clear: the last Council was useful only because it hastens the breakdown which started way long ago. In the late 14th century?
Let us pray for God's earliest intervention. Perhaps, the current exposure of episcopal failure on a worldwide scale is the sign that God has put the renewal project on a fast track already.
"How can you expect the Francis to consider ANYTHING that ANY of his predecessors wrote or said, when he is sooooo much more humble and enlightened than them?"
What we say about others reflects on our own character. Specifically, when we speak unfavorably of others, it not only hurts the person our words are aimed at, but it also damages our credibility and reputation in the process.
I don’t expect Francis or any of them to do much of anything. The filth is too widespread and they are all complicit in either the abuse or the cover ups. McCarrick could bring them all down. He probably has the dirt on all of them. After all Francis owes his election to these men. McCarrick, Daneels, Kasper, etc they all campaigned for him (even if they couldn’t vote). And that campaigning which is forbidden has probably invalidated Francis’ election anyway. But that’s another story for another day. Imagine. An invalid papal election takes a back seat to filth.
Read IOTA UNUM by Romano Amerio, for what is wrong with modernist Catholicism. This is a work by an Italian Philosopher/theologian. He lays it all out in excruciating detail. He names names too.
The current Church leadership is not going to reform or rebuild Catholicism. The deformation is so wide and so deep among the hierarchy that renewal can only come from an entirely nascent group who own no allegiance to anyone but Jesus Christ. I believe this renewal will happen. I have no idea how. I trust Jesus to direct this renewall.
For one, Church governance need to change. We need a new Pope. We need new bishops. We need married clergy. We need lay participants in Church governance with real leadership authority. I am not smart enough to propose anything more detailed but the message of the times is very clear: the last Council was useful only because it hastens the breakdown which started way long ago. In the late 14th century?
Let us pray for God's earliest intervention. Perhaps, the current exposure of episcopal failure on a worldwide scale is the sign that God has put the renewal project on a fast track already.
Until the clergy that is in their 60s, 70s, and 80s (with a few notable exceptions) are in nursing homes, not much will change. They are too invested in the liturgical failure to change.
Post a Comment