Vatican rooted in the Council: So Says the Participants in the SSPX-Rome Dialogue
Vatican rooted in the Council
L’Osservatore Romano publishes an article by the Vicar General of Opus Dei, participant in the doctrinal dialogue with the Lefebvrians, who responds to the objections of the Society of St. Pius X
Andrea Tornielli
VATICAN City
Vatican II did not define new dogmas, and the fact that it was a “pastoral” council does not mean it was not also doctrinal. This is the explanation presented by theologian Fernando Ocáriz, Vicar General of Opus Dei and member of the Vatican delegation taking part in the doctrinal dialogue with The Society of Saint Pius X, in an article published this afternoon in L’Osservatore Romano. Ocáriz's reflections, entitled “On Adhesion to the Second Vatican Council” - and motivated by the fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of the great Ecumenical Council, held on 25 December 1961 by John XXIII - were made available immediately in various languages on the Vatican daily's website (www.osservatoreromano.va) .
But the author does not spend time describing the circumstances of the proclamation or the contents of its resulting bull. Instead, he responds to a series of objections that have characterized the debate on the reception of the Council in recent times: from those raised by the Lefebvrians, who believe that Vatican II represented a distancing from centuries-old Catholic tradition, to those presented by historians and theologians close to traditionalist positions, such as Roberto de Mattei (author of a Storia del Concilio Vaticano II [History of the Vatican Council II], from a right-wing point of view) and Monsignor Brunero Gherardini (author of Concilio ecumenico Vaticano II. Un discorso da fare [The Ecumenical Council Vatican II: A Necessary Discussion], which concludes with an appeal to the Pope to clarify how to properly interpret certain pages from the council texts).
The article in L’Osservatore, though not connected in any way with the imminent arrival of the Society of Saint Pius X’s response to the Holy See regarding the proposal received last September (which consists of a “doctrinal preamble” to be accepted), comes into its own when dealing with the central issue discussed by the Lefebvrians with the Vatican authorities. Ocáriz emphasizes “the nature of the intellectual assent that is owed to the teachings of the Council,” given the “persistence - also in public opinion - of misunderstandings regarding the continuity of some Conciliar teachings with previous teachings of the Church's Magisterium.”
First, the theologian explains that “the pastoral motivation of the Council does not mean that it was not doctrinal,” given that “all pastoral activity is necessarily based on doctrine” and that doctrine “is an integral part of all pastoral work.”
This is how he responds to the second thesis, which says that Vatican II did not define new dogmas and that, as a pastoral council, it had a lesser value. Though “the Magisterium proposes a teaching without directly invoking the charism of infallibility, it does not follow that such a teaching is therefore to be considered ‘fallible’ - in the sense that what is proposed is somehow a ‘provisional doctrine’ or just an ‘authoritative opinion’.” Vatican II has, explains Ocáriz, the charism and authority of the entire episcopate gathered with Peter and under the authority of Peter “to teach the universal Church.” To deny it “would be to deny something of the very essence of the Church.”
In the article he also explains that “naturally not all the affirmations contained in the Conciliar documents have the same doctrinal value and therefore not all require the same degree of assent.” There are actually three different levels of adhesion to the doctrines proposed by the Church Magisterium concerning the “Professio fidei,” the profession of faith required for those assuming an ecclesiastical office. And the “Professio fidei” also represents the heart of the “preamble” that the Vatican delivered to the Lefebvrians two and a half months ago.
In the Vatican II documents, then, there are affirmations that “recall truths of the faith” and therefore “require the assent of theological faith,” explains Ocáriz, and “a full and definitive assent is required for the other doctrines set forth by the Second Vatican Council which have already been proposed by a previous definitive act of the Magisterium.” These first two cases have to do with the truths contained in revelation (requiring assent of faith) or defined absolutely by the Church (requiring full and definitive assent).
Other conciliar teachings, explains the L’Osservatore Romano article, “require of the faithful a degree of assent called ‘religious submission of will and intellect’.” This is a “religious assent” and therefore not founded on purely rational motives - not an act of faith, but “an act of obedience that is not merely disciplinary, but is well-rooted in our confidence in the divine assistance given to the Magisterium.” The texts of the Magisterium, and thus also those of Vatican II, “may contain elements,” Ocáriz observes again, “that are not exactly doctrinal — as is the case in the documents of the Second Vatican Council — elements whose nature is more or less circumstantial (descriptions of the state of a society, suggestions, exhortations, etc.). Such matters are received with respect and gratitude, but do not require an intellectual assent in the strictest sense.”
The article emphasizes that the “essential” characteristic of the Magisterium is “its continuity and consistency” over time, but this continuity “does not mean an absence of development,” because “down the centuries the Church deepens in her knowledge, in her understanding, and, consequently, also in her magisterial teaching of Catholic faith and morals.”
Ocáriz explains that in Vatican II there were “a number of innovations of a doctrinal nature…on the sacramental nature of the episcopate, on episcopal collegiality, on religious freedom, etc.” And some of these, recognizes the author, “were and still are the object of controversy” even though they “required religious submission of will and intellect.” It is particularly notable that the Lefebvrians believe that religious freedom itself - that is, the contents of the declaration Dignitatis humanae, which affirms that every human being has the right to a space of immunity regarding his religious convictions, as well as the right to freely practice them and not to be forced to do otherwise – is one of the major points of breakage with previous tradition.
On this subject, Ocáriz emphasizes that it is not only the most recent Magisterium that is to be read and interpreted in light of the preceding one. It is also true that the oldest must be read in light of the newest. “Not only should the Second Vatican Council,” reads the L’Osservatore article, “be interpreted in the light of previous Magisterial documents, but also some of these earlier magisterial documents can be understood better in the light of the Second Vatican Council. This is nothing new in the history of the Church. It should be remembered, for example, that the meaning of important concepts adopted in the First Council of Nicaea in the formulation of the Trinitarian and Christological faith…were greatly clarified by later Councils.”
With respect to the Magisterium, the theologian concludes, “there remains space for legitimate theological freedom to explain in one way or in another how certain formulations present in the Conciliar texts do not contradict the Tradition and, therefore, to explain the correct meaning of some expressions contained in those passages” - freedom of discussion, of study, “even if aspects that are not entirely understood remain.” But the Council as a whole, and its teachings, is the common thread of the entire article - they cannot be separated, or made the object of corrosive criticism as if it were simply a matter of opinion.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/documents/detail/arti...
Views: 46
© 2025 Created by Dawn Marie.
Powered by
