Cavalcoli Father John, OP, dated January 13, 2011, addressed an open letter to Father Seraphim M. Lanzetta , FI, expressing reservations as to matters theological developed by the conference organized by the Franciscans of the Immaculate Conception on Vatican Council II . Lanzetta's father meets Jan. 16, with an open letter, which thanked him for letting the public following provision. Egli ricorda che le difficoltà sono riconducibili al modo di intendere il concetto di infallibilità del magistero e quindi all'esercizio magisteriale del Vaticano II, inteso come unicum e declinato nei suoi 16 documenti . Si tratta di un'occasione importante per l'allargamento della discussione, che non mancherà di portare i suoi frutti. E' bene che si continui a parlarne, ma soprattutto che se ne traggano piste di riflessione e di approfondimento, che non mancherò di sviluppare nei prossimi articoli.
Carissimo P. Giovanni,
la ringrazio per la lettera aperta che ha voluto indirizzarmi, la quale mi dà modo di approfondire i temi a cui and alludes to explain. I'm not saying that the break was caused by the Council: Vatican II itself may not cause rupture and continuity at the same time, "the contradiction which consents not." I say that some theologians have read the texts as a break in the continuity and others. This highlights two things:
- you give two theological readings of the Council (contradictory) to the fact that the texts can be understood in two ways, as their standard source, the pastoral and not of definition;
- This requires, therefore, a hermeneutical principle a priori correct to read, therefore, the Council correctly: this criterion is the unbroken tradition of Chiesa. Quando viene espunta la Tradizione si verifica la rottura. Porto un esempio recente.
But let's get back to us. Our meeting was not on the certificate verification of the new doctrines of Vatican II, but on an approach (initial status and way of quaestionis ) of historic, philosophical theology. Theological one might call "essential" in order to verify the nature of the council and see it reflected in the various documents (not all but in the main), which are 16 and we know to be divided in the Constitutions (of which only have two of the name "dogmatic" and have a doctrinal teaching: Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum), decrees and statements, with words and for a period eminently pastoral. There is however one thing that unites the different types of Vatican II magisterial (already different because of a tripartite distinction that appears in this way only in the Vatican), and the content of the documents: a content source, the ministry, announcing the faith rather than a definition, which expresses the same view of the Council. So would John XXIII, Paul VI thus confirmed.
From what you say, reveals a fundamental fact, which is the key problem of Vatican II: What is the magisterial exercise (overall) of the Council? She sees the Vatican as a unique , rightly so, since a council, but, in my view, goes beyond the council, when it comes on the infallibility does not stand out in all its parts, or the different levels of the Magisterium of the Council (as set out very well by Gherardini).
I summarizes briefly explain the status quaestionis exercise magisterial Vatican II, due to 5 theological positions:
- exercise of the extraordinary magisterium solemn
- exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium;
- exercise the authentic magisterium;
- homiletic exercise of a magisterium;
- exercise of differentiated teaching.
So much for the theology, which occurs, albeit with different accents, a solemn Magisterium (on the form) but ordinary (how to normal operation). The teaching itself, especially in the person of Paul VI, summed up the whole extent of Vatican II magisterial, calling it authentic ordinary magisterium (cf. Address of 7 December 1965, General Audience of January 12, 1966). Now, the ordinary magisterium is infallible because it is teaching, although a council, but only when it is repeated and when discharging the finality of a doctrine of faith or morals, even if not defined but final. The infallibility in the Vatican is only a reflection than in previous definizioni dogmatiche o a dottrine definitive; questa infallibilità, sussiste poi solo in alcune dottrine ma non nel Concilio in quanto tale, altrimenti sarebbe stata inutile la precisazione del Segretariato del Concilio per la giusta lettura di Lumen gentium , posta come Nota previa . Riporto i due punti salienti di detta nota che ci riguardano: «Tenuto conto dell'uso conciliare e del fine pastorale del presente Concilio, questo definisce come obbliganti per tutta la Chiesa i soli punti concernenti la fede o i costumi, che esso stesso abbia apertamente dichiarato come tali. Le altre cose che il Concilio propone, in quanto dottrina del magistero supremo della Chiesa, tutti e singoli i fedeli devono accettarle e tenerle secondo the mind of the Council, which is both the subject matter, both from the manner in which it expresses itself, in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation "(AAS 77 / 1 [1965] 72).
Infallibility is revealed only in the teaching obligatory throughout the Church, which requires an act of theological faith, precisely because of the doctrine of irreformabilità. For other doctrines must take into account the spirit (of the nature and purpose) of the Council, and to see unity in the subject matter and expression. I think it is inappropriate to attribute sic et simpliciter the infallible definition of the various doctrines / teachings of the Council. The ordinary magisterium because remains true, however, is binding and requires the submission of intellect and will, while being subject to any revision with the aid of the theology, because of increased understanding of the data (see this document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Donum Veritatis of May 24, 1990, nos. 22-24).
say, however, that the Vatican has a pastoral nature and is not disqualify the council does not mean it does not recognize its dogmatic teachings, but to prevent a mistake, now spread both among liberals than among traditionalists, which leads to review along the lines of the Vatican II Council of Trent or Vatican I. There notice the peculiarity of the Vatican, or of its nature, its purpose and its different levels of magisterial documents, and they end up dogmatize all his teachings. But this is fatal: so, or do you start the Church from the Vatican or the Vatican basket to bring to life the Church. The problem remains until you decide to skip this hermeneutic rigidly traditional approach to the Vatican, beginning to see that our council is sui generis : inaugurating a "new" way to teach and be reconciled to the Church , so that gives it its characteristic features of the post-council, a pastoral choice to say the doctrine of faith Chiesa. È su questo che ci dobbiamo interrogare.
E vengo così ad un ultimo punto, alle novità dottrinali di cui parla. Non sono d’accordo sul fatto che le novità in quanto tali farebbero avanzare la Tradizione. Semmai la comprensione della fede su un piano teologico, ma per il progresso dogmatico è necessaria la definitività della dottrina. Qui leggo un dato simile all’infallibilità: per lei le novità dottrinali sono per sé un avanzamento della Tradizione e pertanto bisogna collocarsi ora dopo di esse per riconoscere la Tradizione nel suo stadio avanzato in ragione del Concilio. Sembra allora che la verifica delle innovazioni non serva o che, se occorra, si pregiudichi la bontà del Concilio. E questo per il fatto che le innovazioni sarebbero infallibili.
Invece, a mio modesto giudizio, bisogna collocarsi anche qui su un piano diverso. Non sono le innovazioni che, in quanto tali, fanno avanzare la Tradizione. È piuttosto la Tradizione, che progredendo in ragione del nuovo, in uno sviluppo omogeneo, dà alle cose nuove lo statuto teologico di dottrine o di insegnamenti, in ragione di quanto detto poc’anzi in riferimento al magistero, statuto che può ascendere fino al grado ultimo di irreformabilità. È la Tradizione ovvero la Chiesa-mistero, che accoglie le innovazioni ma al contempo le precede nel suo esserci già, a livello ontologico e cronologico. Questo può appear fixist thought, but what say the Church is first and then his understanding before God and then man. It is not for the fact that we are facing a teacher in a solemn session of the Council which advances necessarily Tradition. This certainly learn it with Vatican II, but neither can we escape this council too much from the historical tradition of the ecumenical councils. Even the Council of Pavia-Siena (1423-1424), did not define any dogma but only a few issued disciplinary decrees. Nevertheless, however, is an ecumenical council (defended by Cardinal Brandmüller), but no one can define infallible.
is on the concept of infallibility she explained that I did not find. She says that to have the infallibility 'simply the doctrinal statement of faith in the Magisterium of the Church, especially if it is then the solemn Magisterium of an Ecumenical Council. " Then we should also say that, for example, Presbiterorum ordinis teaches infallibly, when in truth no 16 there is a significant historical oversight: it seems that not as familiar with the ancient "continence, celibacy, and equates to the Latin tradition and the exception to the celibacy for priests of the Greek Church, born after the exemption Trulli, but Following a true scam. Now the theological-historical research has progressed and you should provide to improve this step. I am also an example to the contrary, if it were infallible Sacrosanctum Concilium, the implementation of the liturgical reform, which occurred frequently and easily in derogation of the ius divinum of the liturgy, and going far beyond what is required by that constitution, would be heresy. You could say that? No, the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium is not foolproof but it is a constitution with a pastoral nature, which opens to the possible adjustments.
She then cites the Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom, calling it an infallible text, then doctrine. Instead, it is in the text is neither dogmatic nor discipline, but contains practical rules of conduct for religious freedom. This statement wants to give the rules and practices by no means to leave the Catholic doctrine on religious freedom (cf. AS IV / 1, 433). The abuses have often relied on his own infallibility in order to emphasize the subjective concept of religious freedom, to end in a religious relativism, against the perennial teaching of the Church about the moral duty to acknowledge the truth and to profess it alone in the person of Incarnate Word. Of course, religious freedom mentioned in the Vatican is a development of the concept of freedom, which takes into account the number of modernity, but does not exhaust the content of the classic doctrine: it is a plus, but requires the Customs to be understood, since its goal for dialogue with men.
I see a certain friction between doctrine and practice of religious freedom in his own pastoral implementation of Assisi. You can not say that Assisi change the Church's teaching on religious freedom. Absolutely not. But it is a pastoral decision that comes from the Vatican, and especially by that statement Nostra Aetate , to respect and affirm the truth of the religious freedom of every man. At the same time, however, this meeting brings with it a certain doctrinal: what is the true religion? The pastoral care that is the goal of Assisi and Diginitatis Humanae here, as always, meets dogma: Christ alone is the truth. How to combine? The Vatican does not tell us, but leaves room for subsequent interventions. The Pope chooses now back to Assisi, whilst aware of the syncretism that considerable problems were related to it because of the "spirit of Assisi", which he denounced as fatal as the "spirit of the Council." But no one could say that Assisi change the Church's faith in the truth of Christ as the only Savior. If Dignitatis Humanae was infallible, there would be even more some freedom in implementing ministry, whose decision it is prudent to the Magisterium.
In this tension between dogmatic and pastoral council, lies, in my view, the whole problem of interpretation of Vatican II. I mean for non-infallible fallible, can not be reformed: so there are very few who can say these doctrines.
then I would say that should read "infallible" in the strictest sense, classical theology, while the Second Vatican Council, which unique magisterial, more flexible and articulated by distinguishing the different plans, because of the progress theological occurred due at the same Vatican Council. The proceedings of our conference, we will publish, we will certainly help to give a speech more accurately.
The renewed sense of esteem and friendship in our Fathers Francis and Dominic
p. M. Serafino Lanzetta, FI
Florence, January 16, 2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment