DICI Vatican II: a "stupefying superficiality" of Magisterium

Vatican II:
a "stupefying superficiality" of Magisterium

10-12-2012 | DICI >

October 11, 1962 – October 11, 2012: 50 years ago now the Second Vatican Council first convened. Already the celebrations have begun with enthusiastic, downright dithyrambic eulogies. Some do not hesitate to declare that the Church was genuinely re-founded by that Council, thus putting an end to the Constantinian Era that extended from the Edict of Milan in 313 until the saving date October 11, 1962. Pardon the understatement!

In his book, Vatican II, a Much-Needed Discussion, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini wrote in 2009:

With a stupefying superficiality they stretched out over the previous Magisterium a veil, or a shroud, preventing the observer from taking his bearings from the past, from the Tradition that is a constitutive part of the Church and the central pillar of Christianity. [In this view] there was nothing and there must be nothing but the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council.

And he added further on:

It seems to me, now that the time for applause has passed, that an historical and critical reflection on the conciliar documents is imperative today by necessity: a reflection that investigates the connections between these documents (if there are indeed any) with the Catholic Tradition in its continuity.

I consider such a reflection as one of the most urgent duties of the Church’s Magisterium, of every bishop and of the Catholic educational institutions, for the good of the Church; in addition to this duty there is the right of the entire people of God to have a clear and objective explanation of what Vatican II was on the historical, ethical and dogmatic level. This is a matter of the faith and of authentic Christian witness.

SSPX FAQ #6: What are Catholics to think of Vatican II?

Msgr. Gherardini: Vatican II is not a super-dogma
If the Second Vatican Council is part of the Magisterium what adherence must be given to its text? 12-12-2011

Gherardini agrees with SSPX in new book about Vatican II
Msgr. Gherardini is a phenomenon producing seismic reactions in the Roman milieu. His is a dissenting voice in the all too common chorus of Hosanna in praise of the past Council... 5-11-2012

Is recognizing the SSPX questioning the Council?
The rift between the Holy See and the SSPX arises because the Society rejects these particular elements of Vatican II [religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality]… 4-19-2012

The Second Ecumenical Vatican Council: a Debate That Has Not Taken Place, by Msgr. Gherardini
Msgr. Gherardini does not stop at deploring that the debate on Vatican II shouldn't take place, he even shows why it would be more indispensable than ever today. And above all, he indicates how this debate could be opened, giving the reader the first elements of a rigorous analysis, far from sterile invectives and blind ovations... 9-19-2011

Vatican II: a debate between Romano Amerio, Msgr. Gherardini and Msgr. Pozzo
A brief analysis on the "authentic interpretation" of Vatican II 9-29-2010 DICI

Fissures in the impregnable walls of Vatican II: a petition to the ...
50 Catholic leaders petition Pope Benedict XVI for a more in-depth examination of the Second Vatican Council 10-14-2011

source

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dawn Marie on October 13, 2012 at 7:18am

The Second Vatican Council:
A History
Never Written

This is certainly what many a traditionalist thinks about this major Church event of the 20th century. The real history of the Council needs to be written-up right! Well, this in fact is the title of a non-traditional professor, Roberto de Mattei, offering a distinct viewpoint from what the Bologna school has offered since then.

Here, he is referring to the encyclopedic work of Joseph Alberigo, Storia del Concilio Vaticano II (five volumes finished in 2001). So now, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Council, we have a second historical study (also in Italian, Il Concilio Vaticano II, una storia mai scritta).[1] Besides this most recent work, we may surmise some of the most important studies made lately on the same topic as follows:

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: a much-needed discussion;
Problems, ambiguities and compromises of the interreligious dialogues;
Quod et tradidi vobis: Tradition, life and youth of the Church;
Il Vaticano II: Alle radice d'un equivoco (Vatican II: at the roots of a misunderstanding).[2]

A rather philosophical and theological approach, given by Romano Amerio in Iota Unum, upholds the thesis of discontinuity of Vatican II from previous Church teachings. This thesis corroborates various ‘traditionalist’ voices although they do not all agree on particulars.

The historical approach of Alberigo is clearly leaning towards the ‘hermeneutic of discontinuity.’ The author stresses the dimension of ‘event’ over that of ‘doctrine’ on the basis that the Council was convoked without a purpose, rejecting all previous documents, acting democratically, under intensive media coverage. Hence, he stresses more the development of the assembly and the reception by the faithful. The ‘historical practice’ becomes a locus theologicus, and truth follows history according to the New Theology of de Lubac who, in this, was preceded by the Modernists (see 100 Years of Modernismfor more).

Another theological approach was made by the hierarchy, Pope John Paul II and especially Benedict XVI (December 22, 2005). The popes clearly state that the conciliar texts express the non-infallible but authentic magisterium, in continuity with the previous magisterium “in the light of Tradition.”

The most recent theological studies come from Msgr. Gherardini, in several volumes,After having tried for decades to defend the Council in one of the most prestigious Roman universities, the author found out that, on certain points, it was impossible to do it, and had the intellectual honesty to make his retractations.

It is interesting to notice that none of these writers, De Mattei included, are connected with a ‘fundamentalist mentality” attributed to traditionalists, particularly those who associate themselves with the SSPX. De Mattei, for one, considers this historical re-setting necessary for multiple reasons, of which we wish to choose two simple ones:

Never before has any Church Council used aggiornamento - modernization - as its leitmotiv. Instead of getting the world to change in order to meet the Church, it was sure to bring about the change of the Church in order to meet the times. It is the reverse of the axiom of Cardinal Aegidius of Viterbo (Opening of Lateran V Council, 1512): “Homines per sacra immutari fas est, non sacra per homines” – “it is necessary to change men by the sacred laws, and not to change the sacred laws by men.”

Whereas many supporters of the hermeneutic of continuity tend to separate the Conciliar “event” from the post-Council, and to isolate this last as if some pathology had developed on a healthy body. Yet, Vatican II did not finish with the last session but was intimately knit with its application and historical reception. In other words, the post-Council is the consequent offspring of the Council.

Few of our readers will be surprised that de Mattei was fiercely attacked from both the modernist and the conservative wings, since both sides have constantly worked under the assumption that the Council is untouchable. The author, however, based on the examination of historical facts which happened in the course of the Council and in its posterior application, reaches the unavoidable conclusion that it is subject to critique.