Speaking about loyalty and obedience to the Pope, here is a beautiful forthright essay written by the editor of Il Timone whom Vittorio Messori cited in his essay about 'the task of the Popes' - appropriately inspired by a coffee-klatsch talk that Barra gave - and to which this is a serendipitous companion piece... Thanks, as usual, to Lella and her blog for the link to this piece.
The good soldier
and the Pope
by Gianpaolo BARRA
Translated from the Jan. 2011 issue of
The thick book of historian Roberto Di Mattei,
Il Concilio Vaticano II: Una storia mai scritta(The Second Vatican Council: A history never written)(Lindau, 2010) has aroused a lively and interesting dispute among those whom, for convenience, I shall call 'Catholics faithful to the Pope' (by which I mean, in general, those who love him and do not question his instructions and teachings). The discussions have remained so far civil and peaceful.
The bone of contention, of course, is Vatican-II, or better yet, some passages in the contents of the 16 documents approved by that supreme assembly which some 'faithful to the Pope' consider 'problematic' because they seem to contradict the Church's perennial teaching.
[In this sense, they are no different from the Lefebvrians, who prefer not to recognize any Magisterium that comes after 1962; the passages both groups consider problematic are probably almost or completely identical).
The 'questioning faithful' would like the Pope to lay down a definitive word that would get rid of any doubts and put an end to all the equivocations that arose after Vatican II.
As far as I know, the Pope has given - repeatedly - precise instructions in this respect, denouncing the existence of two opposing modes of interpreting the conciliar texts, saying that
only one way is correct: to understand these texts, appreciate them and follow them, as being 'reform in continuity' with the tradition of the Church. Thus, and only thus, the Pope underscores, can any equivocation or ambiguity disappear.
[That would seem simple enough. Unless one is the willing captive of the 'spirit of VAtican II' ideology. The original problem about the 'interpretation' of Vatican II is hat it was co-opted early on when the media bought the narrative of the Council progressivists (Kueng, Rahner et al among the theologians, and the European progressive bishops they advised) that Vatican II was a break with the past and the birth of a 'new Church' - and this is the myth that has persisted, especially as it had a striking 'objective correlative' in the Protestantized New Mass. The progressivists easily won the day - and the media - against the more 'conservative' theologians like Von Balthasar, De Lubac and Ratzinger, who were considered retrograde, and therefore, not worthy of attention, by the dominant progressive wave that expressed itself in the secular world as the 1960s counterculture. As Benedict XVI says in LOTW, in one of the passages that has not been quoted enough:
Above all, the Council took up and carried out its great mission of defining in a new way the Church’s purpose as well as her relation to the modern era, and also the relation of faith to this time with its values.
But to put into practice what was said, while remaining within the intrinsic continuity of the faith, is a much more difficult process than the Council itself. Especially since the Council came into the world in the interpretation devised by the media more than with its own documents, which are hardly ever read by anyone.
I have no desire - and frankly, I am not capable - of getting into the merits of the confrontation that goes on even among valued collaborators of
Il Timone.
But I believe I can say one thing, not about the 'merits' in dispute, but about the 'method' that must be adopted and applied inflexibly by anyone who considers himself 'faithful to the Pope' - especially as an apologist (ie., someone engaged in apologetics), and therefore ready to fight like a good soldier to defend the Church.
Above all, when, with the Pope, the good soldier must face the problems raised by the interpretation of some Vatican II texts. It is a method that will avoid wrong judgments. And which, in my opinion, consists of three 'moves'.
The first: Acknowledge, dutifully, that Vatican II was an act of the highest Church Magisterium, because the decisions were made by all the bishops of the world who had assembled under the leadership of the Successor of Peter. Therefore, it must be respected as all the other Church Councils that preceded it.
The second: Acknowledge that
the Holy Father, as a good and paternal 'general', being the universal pastor of the Church, has laid down the guidelines on how to interpret Vatican II so that its teachings are not distorted and can bear fruit for the mission of the Church in the world.
The third: A true soldier - namely, every good Catholic - should not dispute the Pope's instructions, must not quibble about these guidelines, or split hairs, but use every 'weapon' at his disposal (the talents God has given him) to support, examine in depth, explain, clarify and defend not just the Pope's guidelines but the teachings in question.
If Benedict XVI has said that Vatican II - all of it - must be read in the light of Tradition, and if he has reitrated time and again that this is the only way not to falsify its teachings, and the only way to harmonize it with the Church's perennial teaching, then the Catholic soldier must fight so that the Pope's guidelines, his directives and his strategies with respect to Vatican II are understood, accepted, followed and promoted.
I don't think that is too much to ask. And if anyone accuses such a loyal soldier of being servile, passive, humiliated, blindly obedient, then tell them with compassionate benevolence to get lost. The Catholic soldier answers only to God for how he has acquitted himself in battle, and should not care what others may think.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 14/01/2011 00:46]