Introduction Letter About Our Dental Practice

written notations on a Father Cavalcoli: Vatican II and the Society of Saint Pius X

Ho preso visione della Lettera aperta [ consultabile dal link ] di p. Giovanni Cavalcoli, mossa dalla relazione di Don Florian Kolfhaus al recente convegno di Roma sul Concilio. Nell'esprimere una certa sopresa - tenendo conto the role of institutional official of the Secretary of State Don Kolfhaus - the fact that he has been called into question publicly, I would like to make some comments, that focus on certain points relating to the SSPX, starting from the following premise.

says PM Cavalcoli:

"At the same time the Holy Spirit, that" all things new, "the leading [the Church] to the" fullness of truth ", not the way to teach new truths - non nova sed nine - but in sense of learning more about these same truths, the same word that does not pass and that the bridegroom gave the bride. "

I believe that if we were so confident that this, which is the prerogative of the tradition that we love, is what really happened in the council and as a result of the council, there would be no reason for all these fans and well-argued debates ...

Adds p. Cavalcoli:

"For this reason, together with you, I reject the interpretation both of which lefevriani rahneriani, who see in the new doctrines of the Council with the Magisterium, which breaks the previous dogma as if it were not immutable, but subject to development or change to a modern, indignant at the lefevriani this supposed to break, instead rahneriani to rejoice. "

The junction of the Society of St. Pius X and Rahner in fact exist: the 'break'. But do not forget that Rahner, who along with others has been the soul of the council, is the author, while the fraternity is one of those-we-along with the note, without absolutizing entire council, which is demonstrated they can not take it as "a single unit" or as "mythical event and untouchable," and therefore not all infallible ...

register these statements of p. Cavalcoli in to review the two positions, the modernist and the SSPX:

«Il Concilio è considerato un “superdogma” dai modernisti, i quali peraltro, spregiatori come sono del vero dogma, si riservano di prendere dal Concilio solo quel che pare a loro o di falsificarne il vero significato, infischiandosi dell’interpretazione del Magistero, esattamente come fanno i protestanti.

I lefevriani, dal canto loro, si sono irrigiditi ad uno stadio della Tradizione superato (anche se sempre valido), precedente a quello del Vaticano II (al 1962, come ha detto scherzosamente, ma non troppo, il Papa), senza rendersi conto che proprio il Vaticano II è testimone infallibile dello stadio più avanzato della Tradizione.»

Mi trovo perfettamente d'accordo con l'affermazione riguardante i modernisti, mentre penso alla percentuale di Chiesa visibile che ricade in questa definizione, perché si tratta esattamente della crisi nella Chiesa non della Chiesa del nostro tempo e del grande disorientamento e oscuramento delle verità di Fede che molti fedeli, che ancora si identificano come cattolici, vivono e soffrono quotidianamente.

Piccola chiosa : il termine 'cattolico' è sempre più desueto nel lessico ecclesiale. Insieme a molti altri (es. Redenzione, Espiazione, Sacrificio, Penitenza e Riconciliazione, Grazia Santificante, Chiesa come Corpo Mistico di Cristo); mentre altre espressioni ormai signoreggiano con sempre maggior forza (es. enfasi sulla "mensa della Parola", equiparazione della Presenza nella Parola a quella nelle Sacre Specie)...

Mi sembra invece riduttivo presentare i "Lefebvriani" come congelati al pre-concilio. Riduttivo, in ragione della loro realtà così inserita nel vivo del tessuto sociale, in altri Paesi piuttosto che in Italia, non solo con la pastorale e la fedeltà al Rito Gregoriano -peraltro prerogativa di molti cattolici che non aderiscono alla Fraternità- ma anche nel campo dell'Educazione. Personalmente, nelle occasioni che ho avuto di confrontarmi con molti di loro, ho trovato persone e sacerdoti aperti e ben consapevoli delle sfide del nostro tempo. Poi, come in ogni realtà ecclesiale, fringes may be more 'extremist', but in such a delicate moment I would not be to focus attention on those.

Cavalcoli Father puts it this way again calling into question the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X:

'... the Holy Father, with a view and hope to welcome into full communion with the Church Society of St. Pius X (the so-called "lefevriani"), put them as a condition of acceptance of the "doctrines" of the Council, and evidently the doctrines new, because lefevriani have no difficulty to accept the truths of faith that are already defined can be found in the teachings of the Council. "

so hasty Refer to the "so-called" lefevriani '"(sic) [Lefebvrians], is already to position itself in antithetical terms in respect of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, not so much Lefebvrian, just as Catholic . It can not be identified tout court as a follower of Bishop Lefebre, who is the founder, but by the attitude that there is no figure of the cult of personality found in other contexts. Furthermore, there is 'doctrine ' of Lefebvre: the council expressed reservations about the fraternities are in the name of the Catholic Tradition . And then they put it on equal footing modernists, which is more than obvious the gap all'alveo respect of tradition, I think frankly inappropriate and inaccurate, since the 'newness' of the council objected to it coincide with the 'nodes' that any true Catholic can be found , especially in their applications 'pastoral' made by innovators who have marked in fact the existence of two different 'souls' in the Church as a result of two different ecclesiology. This is the heart of the problem.

While the Fraternity, its fidelity to tradition, challenges the 'innovations' introduced by some teachings of the Council, it does not seem true that the Holy Father makes the fullness of ecclesial communion to a slavish acceptance. He has, indeed, accepted and ordered the holding of talks at the Doctrine of the Faith: which goes to show that something to be discussed there and, above all, it is appropriate to discuss . The awareness of this now I think it is now established. I think I can pick up a contrast between the attitude to dialogue with Benedict XVI and hardness of expression of this page Cavalcoli.

Another consideration is imposed: it is true that the fraternity accepts the doctrine of pre-conciliar - which incidentally belongs to every Catholic in the twenty-first of the council while con i suoi 'distinguo' - ma è altrettanto vero che i modernisti la negano , ed è qui la vera 'rottura'.

Afferma inoltre p. Cavalcoli:

«E del resto i Papi del postconcilio hanno più volte detto che il Concilio non è stato solo pastorale ma anche dottrinale»

Ormai le cosiddette "dottrine nuove", sono sufficientemente smascherate e non vengono più passate sotto silenzio per essere forzosamente ricomprese in una fantasmatica "ermeneutica della continuità", proclamata, ma di fatto non ancora dimostrata nei termini in cui abbiamo constatato essa dovrebbe dispiegarsi. Questa è la nostra attuale consapevolezza, that makes us hope with Bishop Schneider: "So there is really need a Syllabus reconcile with doctrinal value and there is also the need of increasing the number of holy pastors, courageous and deeply rooted in the tradition of the Church, without any kind of attitude strength is in matters of doctrine, both in liturgical . "

Cardinal Ratzinger himself in 1988 before the bishops of Chile stated: the Second Vatican Council" devised to remain in a low level, as a simple pastoral council "that is oriented to the needs of his time, pointing to the order of practice and quindi «il Concilio stesso non ha definito alcun dogma e volle coscientemente esprimersi a un livello inferiore, come concilio puramente pastorale». Tuttavia, proprio questo "concilio pastorale" – proseguiva il cardinal Ratzinger – viene interpretato «come se fosse quasi un superdogma, che priva di significato tutti gli altri concili». Del resto, per dirla con Don Kolfhaus, è ormai chiaro che " molti difendono il carattere vincolante e il significato del Vaticano II - che non mancano -, ma solo pochi ricordano i venti concili dogmatici precedenti . È per questo che si registra una sorta di timore di un arretramento rispetto al Concilio e di una sua arbitraria svalutazione. Il nostro contesto e le nostre reflections do not want to get to this, but only to shed light on the events, their scope and meaning of where we are bringing "add-of course-with the aim of finding the bed of Tradition, without which there ' is the Church, but something 'other' and 'beyond' ... The same can be said of the position of Lefebvrians who, despite all the distinctions of order placement and experiential canonical determined by the complex and painful historical events from which gave rise, not facing different objectives.

Finally Cavalcoli p. says:

"Doubtless, there remains the problem of knowing for sure what they are and where they are. Here no doubt the council do not say so explicitly nor is it always clear, and sometimes gives the impression of change or deny the doctrines of faith have already been defined. Obviously this is impossible. However here is good if not a duty, for the theologian, to show continuity. Hurt and I would say those who give scandal questioning. "

To prove the continuity argument is necessary in the texts and not merely proclaim it. Those Catholics, including the SSPX, who seek to remain within the fold of tradition, not way call into question the continuity, but want to find it and rebuild it in the crucible of that elusive and fascinating conversational, engaging in a language often carries the vacuum experiments disguised as an adventure on the skin of the faithful who are likely to continue to be diverted and turned into "other-believers." I fear that as we approach with great strides to 'separated brethren' no longer regarded as heretics and now risen to the rank of "churches" - when the only true Catholic Church is -, we who approved them and for them is not pronounced the word "conversion" to the true Faith, which still exists in the Catholic Church, which is the custodian as carries a presence in its fullness ....