Magister's title for this piece is
Defenders of Tradition want the infallible Church back:
They are pleading with the Pope to condemn ex cathedra the errors of Vatican Council II.
A new book by Romano Amerio is giving new force to their request.
But Benedict XVI doesn't agree.
I believe it is unnecessarily hyperbolic and sweeping, and moreover, it does not, in fact, represent what the article itself says. It is also a flagrant misrepresentation of what the Pope can or cannot do about what an ecumenical council says officially, so I will go with a headline that represents what the article actually says.
Some defenders of Catholic tradition
want definitive clarity on
ambiguous Vatican II statements
ROME, July 12, 2010 – A new volume by Romano Amerio is out in Italian bookstores, the third of the author's "opera omnia" being published by Lindau.
Amerio, who died in 1997 at the age of 92 in Lugano, Switzerland, was one of the greatest Christian intellectuals of the twentieth century.
A philologist and philosopher of the first rank, Amerio became known all over the world for his book first published in 1985 and translated into multiple languages,
Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century.
That book, precisely because of the ideas it supports, earned Amerio ostracism in practically the entire Catholic world - an ostracism rrconsidered only recently, thanks in part to the re-publication of
Iota Unum.
Amerio dedicated half a century to writing
Iota Unum. The third volume of his "opera omnia" covers a much longer span, from 1935 to 1996. It is entitled
Zibaldone, and – like the work of the same name by the poet Giacomo Leopardi – it is a collection of brief thoughts, aphorisms, stories, citations from classics, moral dialogues and commentaries on events of the day.
With its more than seven hundred thoughts, "Zibaldone" is a sort of intellectual autobiography, in which the questions raised in
Iota Unum are naturally present.
As in this entry dated May 2, 1995:
The self-demolition of the Church deplored by Paul VI in the famous speech at the Lombard Seminary on September 11, 1974, is becoming clearer by the day.
Even during the council itself, Cardinal Heenan (Primate of England) complained that the bishops had ceased exercising the office of the magisterium, but comforted himself with the observation that this office was fully preserved in the Roman pontificate.
The observation was and is false. Today the episcopal magisterium has ceased, and that of the pope as well. Today the magisterium is exercised by theologians who have shaped all of the opinions of the Christian people, and have disqualified the dogma of the faith.
I heard an astonishing demonstration of this while listening to the theologian of Radio Maria last night. With boldness and great tranquility, he denied articles of the faith.
He taught [...] that the pagans to whom the Gospel is not proclaimed, if they follow the dictates of natural justice and try to seek God with sincerity, will go to the beatific vision. This modern doctrine goes back to the ancient Church, but it was always condemned as error.
But the ancient theologians, while upholding firmly the dogma of the faith, nevertheless were aware of all of the difficulty that dogma can encounter, and tried to overcome it with profound argumentation.
Some modern theologians, however, do not perceive the intrinsic difficulties of dogma, but run straight to the lectio facilior [easy reading], sweeping all the doctrinal decrees of the magisterium under the rug.
And they do not realize that by doing this they negate the value of baptism and the entire supernatural order, our whole religion.
Rejection of the magisterium is widespread on other points as well. Hell, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the immutability of God, the historicity of Christ, the unlawfulness of sodomy, the sacred and indissoluble nature of matrimony, the natural law, the primacy of the divine are other arguments in which the magisterium of the theologians has eliminated the magisterium of the Church.
This arrogance of the theologians is the most visible phenomenon of self-demolition.
[Doubtless, Amerio was too sweeping in using the word 'eliminate' to define the destructive work wrought by the 'spirit of Vatican II' theologians, whose views did manage to predominate - to an extent that would have killed Paul VI with mortal anguish if he had been aware of it when, in 1972, he deplored the 'fumes of Satan' infiltrating the Church.
Amerio perhaps failed to count on theologians like Joseph Ratzinger who see Vatican II as renewal in continuity with Tradition and have kept the Church's Magisterium intact and very much alive. In fact, on all the specific dogmatic issues mentioned, Benedict XVI has consistently and frequently upheld the Church's traditional teaching.]
From this strongly critical analysis, which he also applied to Vatican Council II, Amerio drew what Enrico Maria Radaelli, his faithful disciple and editor of the
opera omnia, calls the
"great dilemma at the heart of Christianity today" - whether there has been continuity or rupture in the magisterium of the Church before and after Vatican II. If it was a rupture that amounts to a "loss of truth," the Church would be lost as well.
[I disagree that it remains a 'dilemma' at all. Yes, it is still very much an issue because the 'spiritists' are not giving up without a pitched last-ditch stand. But in the Church under Benedict XVI, it is no longer a dilemma at all. 'Renewal in continuity with Tradition' is very much the conventional perspective today on Vatican II.]
Amerio never went so far as to support this outcome. Not only was he always an obedient son of the Church. He knew by faith that, in spite of everything, the Church cannot lose truth and therefore itself, because it is assisted indefectibly "by the two great oaths of Our Lord" 'The gates of hell shall not prevail against it' (Matthew 16:18) and 'I will be with you all days, until the end of the ages' (Matthew 28:20)."
But it was Amerio's conviction – and Radaelli explains this well in his extensive afterword to
Zibaldone – that
this protection guaranteed to the Church by Christ applies only to ex cathedra dogmatic definitions of the magisterium, not to the uncertain, fleeting, debatable "pastoral" teachings of Vatican Council II and of the following decades.
Precisely this, in fact, in the view of Amerio and Radaelli, is the cause of the crisis in the conciliar and postconciliar Church, a crisis that has brought it extremely close to its "impossible but also almost accomplished" perdition - the intention to give up on an imperative magisterium, on dogmatic definitions "unequivocal in language, certain in content, compulsory in form, as one would expect that at least the teachings of a council would be."
The result, according to Amerio and Radaelli, is that Vatican Council II is full of vague, equivocal assertions that can be interpreted in different ways,
some of them even in definite opposition with the previous Magisterium of the Church.
[????]
This ambiguous pastoral language is believed to have paved the way for a Church that today is "overrun by thousands of doctrines and hundreds of thousands of nefarious customs" - including in art, music, liturgy.
What should be done to remedy this disaster? Radaelli's proposal goes beyond the one made recently – on the basis of equally harsh critical judgments – by another respected scholar of the Catholic tradition, Thomist theologian Brunero Gherardini, 85, canon of the basilica of Saint Peter, professor emeritus of the Pontifical Lateran University, and editor of the magazine
Divinitas.
Monsignor Gherardini advanced his proposal in a book released in Rome last year, entitled:
Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II. Un discorso da fare [The subtitle translates diomatically as 'An argument that needs to be made']
The book concludes with a "Plea to the Holy Father" - to have the documents of the Council re-examined, in order to clarify once and for all "if, in what sense, and to what extent" Vatican II is or is not in continuity with the previous magisterium of the Church.
Gherardini's book is introduced by two prefaces: one by Albert Malcolm Ranjith, archbishop of Colombo and former secretary of the Vatican congregation for divine worship, and the other by Mario Olivieri, bishop of Savona. The latter writes that he joins
toto corde (with all his heart) in the plea to the Holy Father.
In his afterword to Amerio's
Zibaldone, Professor Radaelli welcomes Monsignor Gherardini's proposal, but "only as a helpful first step in purifying the air from many, too many misunderstandings."
Clarifying the meaning of the conciliar documents, in fact, is not enough in Radaelli's judgment, if such a clarification is then offered to the Church with
the same ineffective style of pastoral "teaching" that entered into use with the council, suggestive rather than imperative.
[But if the clarification is made by the Pope ex cathedra, then it ceases to be merely 'pastoral' teaching and becomes part of the Magisterium.]
If abandoning the principle of authority and "discussionism" have been the afflictions of the conciliar and postconciliar Church, Radaelli writes that healing them requires doing the opposite.
The
upper hierarchy of the Church must close the discussion with a dogmatic proclamation "ex cathedra," infallible and obligatory. It must strike with anathema those who do not obey, and bless those who obey.
[Surely, Romerio - and Radaelli - knew/knows that only the Pope can do all that. 'The upper hierarchy' cannot independently make a dogmatic proclamation not asserted first by the Pope!]
And what does Radaelli expect the supreme cathedra of the Church to decree? Just like Amerio, he is convinced that in at least three cases there has been "an abysmal rupture of continuity" between Vatican II and the previous magisterium:
- Where the council affirms that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church instead of saying that it "is" the Catholic Church;
- Where it asserts that "Christians worship the same God worshiped by the Jews and Muslims"; and
- in the declaration on religious freedom "Dignitatis Humanae."
In Benedict XVI, both Gherardini and Amerio-Radaelli see a friendly Pope. But there is no chance that he will grant their requests.
[i.e., he will not declare Vatican II in error on those points, but he will continue trying to affirm that Vatican-II texts must be interpreted as renewal in continuity with Tradition.]
On the contrary, both on the whole and on some controversial points, Papa Ratzinger has already made it known that he does not at all share their positions.
For example, in the summer of 2007 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a statement on the continuity of meaning between the formulas "is" and "subsists in," affirming that
"the Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change [the previous doctrine on the Church], rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it".
[That clarification is very definitive and ex cathedra - and continuing to split hairs whether Vatican II should have left the verb 'est' instead of 'subsistit' is insubstantial except to Latin language purists.]
As for the declaration on religious freedom
Dignitatis Humanae, Benedict XVI himself has explained that, if it departed from previous "contingent" indications of the magisterium, it did so precisely to "recover the deepest patrimony of the Church."
Benedict XVI defended the orthodoxy of
Dignitatis Humanae in his landmark address to the Vatican curia on the first Christmas of his pontificate, precisely to maintain that there is no rupture between Vatican Council II and the previous magisterium of the Church, but "reform in continuity."
[He has also expressed himself rather forcefully on 'the God of Jesus Christ' and the God prayed to by Muslims, in his remarks to the first Schuelerkreis seminar in Castel Gandolfo in 2005 and on other occasions after that.]
Papa Ratzinger has not yet convinced the Lefebvrists, who remain in a state of schism on this crucial point [and a couple of other Vatican-II specifics]. Nor, going by Radelli and Gherardini, other Catholics who are "absolutely obedient in Christ."
Clearly, bred-in-the-bone traditionalists should take a cue from Benedict XVI who upholds Vatican II, not just because he participated in it, but because the teachings of an ecumenical Council are just as much part of the Church Magisterium as Scriptures, received Tradition (including the Fathers of the Church], and the ex-cathedra teachings of the Popes.
Therefore, he cannot legislate anything, or say anything ex cathedra, that directly contradicts whatever is stated in the 16 official Vatican II documents. He can only interpret the ambiguities in a way that shows continuity with Tradition, as he has done whenever the occasion arises. And he is uniquely in a position to do that because he did take part in the Council and the stormy debates behind the language eventually adapted.
All the Council histories point out that the language ambiguities found in these documents were deliberately decided on, in order to arrive at a consensus between the 'conservative' and 'progressive' Fathers.
That is why the post-Conciliar ideological battle that ensued was really a battle on the correct interpretation of the Vatican II documents, not just on specific points, but on the entire 'spirit' of the Council itself.
I have not yet found a suitable brief and clear discussion on the Magisterium and its various levels, but in this respect, Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church proclaimed by Vatican II,
www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium...
is very clear about the teaching authority of the Pope. It is worth quoting, especially because dissenting bishops and theologians seem not to have read it at all, the way they have set themselves up to be fully equivalent to the Successor of Peter in declaring and imposing their own personal beliefs on the universal Church.
From Paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium:
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.
His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*)
[G]This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.[41*) [This reaffirms teh Magisterium of an ecumenical council, e.g., Vatican II itself.]
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.
And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*)
And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.
For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*)
The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*)
It has been infuriating that 'spiritists' bandy about 'lack of collegiality' as a universal pretext for any opposition to the Papal Magisterium - and completely ignore the requisite 'in communion with the Roman Pontiff' that consistently accompanies the term 'collegiality' in the Vatican II documents.
I very much hope that as soon as the Holy Father winds up his catecheses on the great Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages, he will start a cycle on the systematic interpretation of Vatican II. Perhaps the one great oversight by Paul VI in the immediate post-Conciliar period was NOT to undertake a systematic review of what Vatican-II decided and how those decisions must be interpreted - especially since they included an overnight drastic revision of the Mass in a way uunprecedented in tehChurch's history. Issues regarding Vatican-II have only ever been tackled sporadically and partially whenever one of them is the center of controversy*.
I think it is urgent that before the first half-century anniversary in 2015 of the conclusion of Vatican-II, the outstanding issues related to it must be systematically ventilated and clarified by Benedict XVI, than whom the Church cannot have a better guide on Vatican II now or ever again!
*
P.S. In a way, the Catechism of the Catholic Church already spells out the Church's orthodox interpretation of all the points made in the Vatican II documents, because the project was undertaken as one of the outcomes of the 1985 special Bishops' Synod called by John Paul II to review what Vatican II actually taught. Without the Catechism, much of what that Synod discussed would be nothing more than acvhival material. [The idea for such a catechism, as George Weigel points out in his biography of John Paul II, came from Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston.]
But the Catechism is a very broad and complex reference, in very formal language, that does not lend itself to topical discussions pegged to current events. And the Vatican-II references are necessarily diffused throughout the text.
On the other hand, a series of catecheses by Benedict XVI on what Vatican-II actually said and what it meant will focus public attention on the individual issues that remain a bone of contention fought over by extremists on both sides.
Yes, it will spur the 'spiritists' to new flights of invective, but Benedict XVI will have anticipated and preempted all their attempted ripostes in the catecheses themselves. And their invective cannot prevail against the moderation and good sense of this Pope's teaching.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 12/07/2010 19:34]