This is a must read short article from Catholic World Report’s George Weigle:
Three pontificates and Vatican II
Pope Francis has spoken of his respect for the Council. Yet the present pontificate has diverged from the Council’s teaching in several ways.
On the morning of October 17, 1978, the newly-elected Pope John Paul II concelebrated Mass with the College of Cardinals and pledged that the program of his papacy would be the full implementation of the Second Vatican Council. That was his “definitive duty,” for the Council had been “an event of utmost importance” in the two millennia of Christian history. As I explain in To Sanctify the World: The Vital Legacy of Vatican II (Basic Books), the next 26-and-a-half years saw John Paul II fulfill that pledge, for his pontificate was an epic of teaching and witness that helped provide the Council the interpretive keys it had not given itself.
Unlike the previous 20 ecumenical councils, Vatican II did not articulate or identify a definitive key to its proper interpretation: something that made clear that “This is what we mean.” Other councils had written creeds, defined dogmas, condemned heresies, legislated canons into Church law and commissioned catechisms. Vatican II did none of those things, which was one reason why a donnybrook over the Council’s intention and meaning ensued.
Read the rest there…
Unlike the previous 20 ecumenical councils, Vatican II did not articulate or identify a definitive key to its proper interpretation: something that made clear that “This is what we mean.” Other councils had written creeds, defined dogmas, condemned heresies, legislated canons into Church law and commissioned catechisms. Vatican II did none of those things, which was one reason why a donnybrook over the Council’s intention and meaning ensued.
Read the rest there…
5 comments:
I respectfully disagree.
The appendix to Lumen Gentium reads:
"A question has arisen regarding the precise theological note which should be attached to the doctrine that is set forth in the Schema de Ecclesia and is being put to a vote.
"The Theological Commission has given the following response regarding the Modi that have to do with Chapter III of the de Ecclesia Schema: "As is self-evident, the Council's text must always be interpreted in accordance with the general rules that are known to all."
"On this occasion the Theological Commission makes reference to its Declaration of March 6, 1964, the text of which we transcribe here:
'Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.'"
Vatican II. Never before in Church history have we spent so much time wasted so much money and used so many words to say so little.
George Weigel said..."I suggest that the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI should be understood as one, continuous, 35-year arc of conciliar interpretation, providing the keys that unlock Vatican II’s authoritative teaching and evangelical power."
"I suggest..."
Who determined the validity of George Weigel's "suggestions" in question? Are his "suggestions" infallible?
In regard to Popes Saint John Paul II, as well as Benedict XVI:
If George Weigel is free to "suggest" the above, then another person is free to "suggest" that Pope Francis has provided "the keys that unlock Vatican II’s authoritative teaching and evangelical power."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"ALL THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS PRIOR TO VATICAN II GAVE THE MEANS BY WHICH THOSE COUNCILS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED;
https://theophilogue.com/2009/12/20/trents-interpretation-and-implementation-after-the-council/
Trent’s Interpretation and Implementation: After the Council:
Father John W. O’Malley, "The Council of Trent: Myths, Misunderstandings, and Misinformation:"
"From Rome itself, therefore, sprang the myth still prevalent today that ‘Trent’ was comprehensive in its scope and exhaustively detailed in all its provisions”.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, the empty suit weighs in. Please respond to Jerome Merwick’s comments if you wish to retain any credibility here. Otherwise, Begone, because we are bored!
In unfortunate fashion, George Weigel has replayed that sorry game that he has played for years:
That is, not only has he again attacked Pope Francis, but George Weigel has again pitted Pope Francis against Popes Saint John Paul II, as well as Benedict XVI.
George Weigel declared 10 years ago:
"Providence raised up...John Paul II and Benedict XVI...to give Vatican II an authoritative interpretation. Their teaching, carried throughout the world by an unprecedented series of papal pilgrimages, has given the Church the truth about the Council..."
I agree, in the following manner, with George Weigel:
In regard to Vatican II, and thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, Popes Saint John Paul II, as well Benedict XVI, had taught in authoritative, orthodox fashion.
That applies as well to Pope Francis.
But George Weigel has insisted that Pope Francis has deviated from Vatican II's/Popes Saint John Paul II/Benedict XVI's orthodox teachings.
George Weigel has attacked Pope Francis' teaching authority/orthodoxy. In addition, and in unseemly fashion, George Weigel, has pitted Pope against Pope.
Mister Weigel, Providence has also raised Pope Francis to "give Vatican II an authoritative interpretation.
Pope Francis' teachings have "given the Church the truth about the Council..."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment