Archbishop Di Noia [new Vice-President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei] told Catholic News Service June 26 the Vatican needed to help people who have strong objections to the Second Vatican Council see "that these disagreements don't have to be dividing or keep us from the same Communion table."
"It is possible to have theological disagreements while remaining in communion with the see of Peter," he said.
"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."
MY COMMENTS: When I was in the seminary, theologians around the world were pushing (like the LCWR) that they were like a parallel magisterium often offering dissent toward the hierarchy like the loyal opposition of various political parties.
Often the dissent of the loyal opposition of these theologians hinged on the "pelvic issues" of:
1. women deacons, priests and bishops
2. married clergy
3. redefining the Sacrament of Marriage
4. redefining Original Sin so as to throw it out altogether
5. redefining sin so as to make it more palatable
6. redefining the liturgy to make it more appealing to Protestants and inviting inter-communion
So, is what Archbishop Di Noia suggesting for the ultra conservatives in the Church not having to agree with everything that the Church proposes apply to the loyal oppostion on the left?
Just wondering?
14 comments:
Archbishop DiNoia says what he means and means what he says. He said that the documents of Vatican II cannot be read in discontinuity with tradition.
Which is precisely how the majority of the Church has read them in recent decades. If you say that is "what the Church proposes" then so be it, and the Church needs to straighten out what it proposes.
But those who insist on reading Vatican II in continuity with tradition--as Pope Benedict also insists we must--are not "arch-conservatives", even if they thereby stand in contrast with much of the Church bureaucracy.
Nor are they standing on any "slippery slope of dissent". They are standing on the bedrock of faith and fidelity. The dissenters are those who departed from tradition, be they lay or bishops.
Acknowledging that there are two ways to interpret VCII documents, especially the four constitutions, one rightly in continuity and another wrongly in discontinuity with Sacred Tradition, does not sound to me like any kind of concession to dissent.
Interesting question. I think for me it makes little difference. I shall continue to seek a parish where the musical dissonance doesn't wrench me from worship, setting my teeth on edge.
I have found a parish where they do at least follow the Missal--except for the responsorial psalm, which it seems every lyricist feels qualified to reword.
As to the Spirit of Vatican II folks, so long as they remain in their enclaves, and do not migrate into whatever parish I eventually find brings me peace, I can accept that they are not (necessarily) closet Lutherans.
As Vatican II was a pastoral Council, it is possible to disagree with its pastoral applications while nevertheless agreeing with every single dogmatic canon, dogmatic declaration, and anathema of the Church.
We can certainly disagree with ecumenism, for example, yet still legitimately call ourselves good Catholics. That is, as long as we don't go around trying to sabotage it, since it is Peter's prerogative to do as he wishes.
...oh, but there's more!
I do have grave objections if the good Abp is suggesting that the Chuch accept any of:
1. women deacons, priests and bishops
2. married clergy
3. redefining the Sacrament of Marriage
4. redefining Original Sin so as to throw it out altogether
5. redefining sin so as to make it more palatable
6. redefining the liturgy to make it more appealing to Protestants and inviting inter-communion
Although the horse is clearly out of the barn on #6.
Also, I have read the joint agreement between the Lutherans and the Church on the matter of justification. To say that it is filled with weasel words might be kind.
He said that the V2 documents cannot be read from the point of view of some liberal Bishops who might have been on the council. He also said that they cannot be read in discontinuity with tradition. It appears to me that the Vatican is trying to put a stop to the Church's listing to the left.
Have we not had pseudo theologians dissent in this diocese from the pulpit since Bp Lessard? What's good for the Libs is good for the trads?
We need to all pray and fast. I just don't see a long term for the Church under a "big umbrella", meaning there must be uniformity of belief. I can't think of an example from history for this - lack of uniformity in Rite, yes. Lack of uniformity in belief is a huge problem, at least from where I'm sitting.
Maybe the historians among us can show me I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a lack of agreement about an Ecumenical Council is a HUGE problem... The last time that happened, well, there was a schism. And not only a schism, a GREAT schism. The Holy Father simply must tell us what we are to believe - he is the final arbiter of Tradition.
Peter, we need you guidance!
Without too much effort, I believe you could come up with a way to describe gender issues by some other term than "pelvic issues". Since one's gender includes but does not solely reside in the pelvis.
The VII documents _can_ be in discontinuity with Sacred Tradition if they're merely pastoral, but in that case their discontinuity would present no problems.
He mentions everybody being able to be at the same communion table. Freudian slip: Why can't we all be at the same altar instead? The modernism goes so deep that even archbishops who rebuke modernist dissenters fail to realize that they themselves are infected.
Anonymous, Pelvic issues is being usd on this blog as satire. One of our modernist visitors used it in a dismissive sense regarding the Church's stance on certain things. So, since it has a nice ring to it and is pretty funny, it continues to be used. Why does it upset you so much? So, we are not merely parsing pubic pronouncements here, nor are we speaking in genital generalities. These are penetrating issues that touch the nether regions of the social fundament. Our use of the term is an effort to prick the bubble of modernist arrogance.
There is plenty of arrogance on all sides of this altar/communion table.
Anon, Yes, but the Catholic Left has institutionalized arrogance. It is a presupposition of their methodology...
"...the Catholic Left has institutionalized arrogance. It is a presupposition of their methodology." Beautifully put, Gene W. (formerly Pin). Not to mention their determination to replace logic with emotion, and to maintain prominent membership in an organization they do not believe in.
Post a Comment