The full title of the report of Father Florian Kolfhaus is: "Teaching Pastoral fundamental reason del Vaticano II. Ricerche su Unitatis redintegratio, Dignitatis humanae e Nostra aetate ". Egli parte dalla considerazione che "Il Concilio Vaticano II voleva essere un concilio pastorale, cioè orientato alle necessità del suo tempo, rivolto all’ordine della prassi. Il cardinal Ratzinger già nel 1988 davanti ai vescovi del Cile affermava che 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, è ormai chiaro che molti difendono the binding nature and meaning of Vatican II - that there - but few remember the winds earlier dogmatic councils. That is why there is a sort of fear of a retreat from the council and its arbitrary devaluation. Our environment and our thoughts do not want to get to this, but only to shed light on the events, their scope and meaning of where we are taking ...
In fact, what date is the last council can be rightly understood only if it remains in the living teaching office of all the previous ones. Yet it is undeniable that it is not due to any previous year. Everyone can agree on this, albeit from different positions and evaluations. No new dogma, no solemn anathema, different categories of documents compared to previous councils, but, subject to its legitimacy and authority, the centrality of the issue that is resulting in tension created by the concept of "pastoral Council" or "pastoral teaching "due to the new type of council introduced in terms of practice rather than conceptual.
is not called into question the binding nature of the Magisterium, which demands obedience and consensus-albeit non-binding, even when it is not dogma, but rather whether the Magisterium, understood as an exercise of the "munus determinandi "is recognizable in all documents. Don Kolfhaus thus expresses the question: "The Council has not announced any new dogma, but maybe he had a teaching comparable to that of the Pope in his encyclical?" And so replied: "The decrees and declarations of the statement is not magisterial truth, but of action practical, eg as a result of the doctrine of the ministry. In theology there is no concept for this pastoral teaching [...]. One can not help but blame some theologians "modern" a conservative attitude, as they often look to the decrees and declarations of Vatican II as a dogmatic texts, which define "new" truth. The Council himself did not want that. "
And this is the big problem that needs to be addressed and resolved. It is now unavoidable and bring order to outline the different terminologies to do, above all, a distinction between 'doctrinal teaching," teaching specification "," pastoral teaching "and thus define the" pastoral Council ", the only Church History ... Mostly clear distinction between different categories of documents, we would refer to different" levels "of Msgr. Gherardini. In short, according to the efficient synthesis of P. Lanzetta, "the main doctrines of Vatican II, those concerning interreligious dialogue, ecumenism and religious freedom, which are then those that have most captured the attention, should not define your own "doctrine" but rather "lessons learned" (there are decrees and declarations) pastoral (as specified by the same council fathers) for which we are still in search of a theological category to describe the Magisterium, which surely is neither dogmatic nor disciplinary. Don Kolfhaus proposes the status of munus praedicandi : a teaching which, like a sermon, about doctrinal issues, but the content and the same proposition are eminently pastoral address, binding, but not infallible. "
Interesting notation initial arm, that science and theology also becomes sine ira et studio , however the problem of the Council is treated cum ira et studio ... Also interesting to note that the distinction between different categories of documents we can see something new that does not consider the council as a block.
Here is the text of the Report: _________________________
Here is the text of the Report: _________________________
He recently started a new discussion about the interpretation of Vatican II, is debating the extent to which the texts of the Council is effectively confined in the continuity of the Magisterium. The same Pope Benedict, in the now famous Christmas speech to the Curia Romana del 22 dicembre 2005, ha affermato che il Concilio Vaticano II può essere adeguatamente compreso solo nel contesto dell’intera tradizione della Chiesa. Non ci fu alcuna “rivoluzione copernicana”, alcun nuovo inizio, alcuna rottura con tutto ciò che i papi e i concili precedenti avevano insegnato. Oggi si pone, tuttavia, la pressante domanda di come abbiano potuto svilupparsi, nella ricezione del Concilio, certe teologie (e non pochi dei loro autori ne fanno motivo di vanto) che rappresentano proprio un “nuovo inizio”, per superare le strette guide dogmatiche del Magistero. Sembrerà paradossale, ma uno dei motivi di questa rottura con la tradizione è una modalità del tutto “tradizionale” di lettura del Concilio Vaticano II come concilio dogmatico.
Il Concilio Vaticano II voleva essere un concilio pastorale, cioè orientato alle necessità del suo tempo, rivolto all’ordine della prassi. Il cardinal Ratzinger già nel 1988 davanti ai vescovi del Cile affermava che «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». Noi tutti lo constatiamo giorno per giorno: molti difendono il carattere vincolante e il significato del Vaticano II, che senza dubbio ci sono, ma solo pochi ricordano i venti concili dogmatici precedenti. In effetti, non mancano oggi forti richiami che mettono in guardia da un arretramento rispetto al Concilio e da una sua arbitraria svalutazione. Ciò è fuori discussione, non si tratta di questo. Al contrario: quello che finora è l’ultimo concilio può essere rettamente compreso solo se rimane inserito nel magistero vivo di tutti i precedenti. E d’altra parte, il Vaticano II è stato un concilio come mai ve ne erano stati prima. Questa affermazione troverà d’accordo tutti, per quanto differenti possano essere le valutazioni su di esso. Nessun nuovo dogma, nessun solenne anatema, different categories of documents compared to previous councils, and yet the Vatican must be included in the unbroken continuity of the Magisterium, because it was a legitimate council of the Church, ecumenical and with the relevant authorities. What does it mean, though, the "hermeneutics of continuity"?
A council like no other before
The central problem, the solution of which I wanted to make a modest contribution to my doctoral thesis, is the tension created by the concept of "pastoral council" or pastoral teaching. The Vatican has introduced, not on a conceptual level, ma su quello della prassi, un nuovo tipo di concilio. Qui non è in discussione il carattere vincolante del Magistero, che, anche quando non si tratta di dogmi, ovvero di definizioni infallibili della dottrina rivelata, si pronuncia in questioni di fede e morale con autorità, cioè esigendo consenso o obbedienza. Si tratta piuttosto della questione se il Magistero – inteso almeno come esercizio del “munus determinandi” – sia affatto presente in tutti i documenti. Cosa significa, quindi, che un concilio si esprime in termini non dogmatici, ma pastorali o – per dirla con le parole del cardinal Ratzinger – «a un livello inferiore»?
Il Concilio non ha proclamato no new dogma, but maybe he had a teaching comparable to that of the Pope in his encyclical? Certainly, in the constitutions of the doctrine is exposed (such as in Lumen Gentium, which states explicitly for the first time the sacramental nature of the episcopal ordination), while in the decrees and declarations of the magisterium of the statement is not truth, but practice of action, namely the pastoral as a result of the doctrine. In theology there is no concept for this pastoral teaching, and this often leads to their interpretations of the Council mentioned above. One can not help but blame some theologians 'modern' attitude conservatore, poiché essi non di rado guardano ai decreti e alle dichiarazioni del Vaticano II come a testi dogmatici, che definiscono “nuove” verità. Il Concilio stesso non voleva questo. Per esempio, a proposito della dichiarazione sul dialogo interreligioso, il 18 novembre 1964 il relatore del Segretariato per l’unità dei cristiani affermava nell’aula conciliare: «Per quanto concerne lo scopo della dichiarazione, il Segretariato non vuole emanare alcuna dichiarazione dogmatica sulle religioni non cristiane, bensì presentare norme pratiche e pastorali» (cfr. Acta Synodalia (AS) III/8. 644). Quanti teologi, invece, richiamandosi alla Nostra aetate , da questi principi miranti alla prassi del dialogo hanno elaborato una teologia delle religioni che vede nelle religioni non cristiane vie di salvezza autentiche e indipendenti da Cristo e dalla Chiesa? Quanto spesso si è sostenuto, citando la Unitatis Redintegratio , che il Vaticano II avrebbe rinunciato alla “pretesa di assolutezza” della Chiesa, la quale dovrebbe comprendersi finalmente come una tra molte chiese? Chi legge gli atti, resta sorpreso. Nel decreto sull’ecumenismo si dichiara espressamente che le sue asserzioni non toccano nel modo più assoluto la verità dell’assioma “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (cfr. AS III/7. 32) e che non v’è alcun dubbio che solo la Chiesa cattolica è la Chiesa of Christ (" Clare apparet ID Ecclesiae Christi cum Ecclesia Catholica et ... ... a unique dicitur Ecclesia Dei" AS II / 7. 17.)
The intentions of Vatican II
The statement of the Secretary General at the 123 th General Congregation of 16 November 1964 states that you are in front of revealed doctrine " de rebus fidei et morum " unless it is explicitly defined. That statement [explicit] has never taken place. For all other claims are crucial object Treaty ("that field"), the rules classic theological interpretation (" ratio secundum normas interpretationis Theologicae) intention of the Holy Synod, the" mens Sanctae Synodi . Just about worth it with particular care. The documents published show a clear picture of how the pastoral plan of the Fathers has developed slowly and with difficulty. Not infrequently, however, namely the representation of the Council of Giuseppe Alberigo, it conveys the impression that John XXIII had from the outset - for more resistance against the Roman Curia - established a clear route of the pastoral council, the which could be summed up in the elusive password "update", which, moreover, the Pope had not used for the Council, but for the reform of the Code. So though you pretend not to see that John XXIII and approved the draft prepared by the curia. Its own guidelines on what should be understood to "pastoral" were not unique. Beginning of the Council, for example, he placed the emphasis on clear presentation of doctrine and gave the Church as the "intention of the Holy Father" in October 1962, the prayer that "the infallible teaching of the Council" could effectively defend the faith against hazards and errors. The special "character pastoral "Vatican II was also a novelty for the Council Fathers. This new "style" is manifested primarily in the desire to compose texts in a language easily understandable and Bible topics. It is not wanted or definitions of theology school, before or magisterial definitions, then, but the Catholic doctrine of course this was to be decisive and always and in all texts. The Fathers gathered for the Council had all the textbooks of their years of study at the head (or at least in the briefcase of their theological advisers). This doctrine they would not change, but set out more clearly. Who knows by heart the answers of the catechism can be used with a clear conscience, new images and phrases, when it comes to using Catholic doctrine and practice in a manner consistent with the times. The ministry is based on the doctrine, the practice requires the right doctrine. The reversal of this order leads too easily to ensure that "a new pastoral reality" to develop a "new" doctrine. Examples of this are there in abundance in the daily life of ecclesial communities. This is also true that many theologians - a smile of simple truths of the catechism - consider the claims like the pastoral council of doctrinal statements, then develop from there new positions (personal).
Differenti categorie di documenti
Il Vaticano II, in contrasto con i due concili precedenti, utilizza tre diverse categorie di documenti (costituzioni, decreti, dichiarazioni), per ponderare in tal modo il suo discorso. Questa evidente realtà spesso non viene presa in considerazione. Accanto alla “ Lumen Gentium ”, la costituzione sulla Chiesa e il documento dottrinale centrale del Concilio, si trova la costituzione sulla divina rivelazione “ Dei Verbum ”. Altri documenti, vale a dire decreti e dichiarazioni, come “ Unitatis Redintegratio ” sull’ecumenismo, " Nostra Aetate" on non-Christian religions and " Dignitatis Humanae" on religious freedom, are not doctrinal documents setting out infallible truth or disciplinary texts that have specific standards. These are normally returned to the directors that should be written after the Council. Decrees and statements have not then, say much in general, nor the doctrine or discipline. Herein lies the great novelty of Vatican II: in contrast to all other councils, exposing doctrine or discipline, it overcomes these categories. It is a teaching, but that does not want to give definitions or boundaries according to the contrary errori, ma è rivolta all’agire pratico condizionato dal tempo. Questo avviene senza che si emanino concrete norme disciplinari. La teologia finora non ha a disposizione alcun concetto appropriato per questa nuova forma di Magistero pastorale. Un errore ampiamente diffuso nell’interpretazione del Concilio consiste proprio nel leggere decreti e dichiarazioni sullo stesso piano delle costituzioni del Vaticano II – quindi come documenti dottrinali. Che questo non possa essere vero lo mostra già uno sguardo attento alle categorie dei documenti. Così può sembrare provocatoria la constatazione oggettiva che “ Unitatis Redintegratio ” detiene la stessa qualifica formale del decreto sui mezzi di comunicazione sociale “ Inter Mirifica ". In both texts should therefore addire the same formal qualification. But no one assumes that "Inter Mirifica" is a dogmatic text! This is a matter of practice, not doctrine. Without a doubt, the ecumenical dialogue is a more important challenge of the rapid growth of social media. Both themes are performed within the same category of documents, not because they are equally significant, but because they are common practice guidance. In the two documents is not a new doctrine, but a new practice, or rather renewed. The difference between the doctrinal statements and those oriented practice is substantial, since the latter are based on the first and can not conflict with these, if you really want to be a Catholic pastoral. This distinction between the unchangeable doctrine and act in accordance with the time refers to the question of what it is, therefore, a pastoral council in the final analysis. Also, the Council Fathers found themselves confronted with this important point, as I show in the following example taken from the documents.
change the "fundamental law" or reform of the "Rules"?
The fact that in Britain they drive on the left is not in the English constitution, and could be easy, from a legal point of view, to adapt this rule to the continental European practice - even if the change could cost some effort and cause accidents. Change the traffic rules - rules practice - does not mean in any way undermine the constitution and the fundamental values \u200b\u200banchored in it. If you apply this comparison to the Council - the constitutional provisions WOULD BE in this case for the dogmatic truths and principles of natural law - may sound provocative to consider the major themes of Vatican II to the level of road traffic. However, because this example uses the Bishop De Smedt in one of his last speeches relating to the declaration on religious freedom. He wants to make clear that "freedom from civil state," which the Council speaks, do not collide with the traditional doctrine, since it is not a "constitutional debate." "So little did the traffic rules exempt from the moral duty to move with intelligence and care on the roads, how little legal protection of religious freedom raises men from the requirements of" objective moral law "and, if Catholic, by the laws of the Church (AS IV / 5. 100..) Elsewhere, De Smedt, speaks more clearly of this "objective moral law", which is not touched by the "new" practice of religious freedom: "It is certain that the moral order all men, all societies and all civil authorities are obliged to seek the truth and is not allowed to defend the false. Worth the moral duty of all men to the Church for approval of their doctrines and commandments. No instance has a human objective moral choice in approving or rejecting the gospel and the true Church. On closer observation even this requirement is subjective "(AS IV / 1. 433). Of course, a "new" practices also poses new questions to the doctrine. To these questions the " Dignitatis Humanae " but does not want to answer, but relies on - it clearly says De Smedt September 21, 1965 - 'the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. "
not foolproof, but even non-binding
At this point it is necessary to look in more detail in the already mentioned question of the peculiarities of a pastoral teaching. In school we talked about two forms of teaching. Starting by the one who teaches Thomas Aquinas knows the "magisterium cathedrae pastoralis" of the bishop and the "magisterium cathedrae magistralis " the theologian. Today is meant by teaching only one the bishops and the pope. The Bishop for his diocese, the pope and the college of bishops gathered under him for the universal Church, are the bearers of this teaching in the sense that the term is used today. The concepts currently available for the qualification of doctrinal texts are part of surprisingly recent: in 1835 Gregory XVI used for the first time in " Commissum divinitus " the concept of " magisterium" in a doctrinal document, where he speaks of a "potestas magister" next to a "potestas of governance." He was also the first to use the shape of the encyclical to the exercise of his teaching. In 1964, " Lumen Gentium "appears for the first time in the use of teaching the word" munus docendi. Both concepts - "magisterium" and "munus docendi" - but is in close relationship, although they are frequently used interchangeably, are not equivalent. " Munus docendi " means - generalizing and simplifying - the binding character of doctrinal teaching by the legal authorities and the proclamation of the Gospel by the ordained ministers and licensed through the " canonical mission"; " magisterium" - as part of " docendi munus "- strives for the establishment of doctrinal issues, usually as an authoritative clarification of controversial issues.
Since the distinction made earlier in the councils of doctrinal statements and disciplinary is not appropriate for the particular character of Vatican II, it appears that the terminology of theology, distinguishes between statements of doctrine as infallible and not infallible, is to be found a further category. On this issue the Council itself is silent. In addition to doctrinal statements that they want to defend and to clarify the truth, found in Vatican II and as a result of doctrinal assertions that it wants to motivate a particular pastorale e regolare una prassi. Bisogna poi ricordare che il Concilio non rinuncia in linea di massima all’esercizio del magistero, ma lo fa in un modo nuovo. Davanti a questo sfondo si concretizza la domanda sulla forma magisteriale dei documenti e sulla gradazione, o meglio, sull’intenzione con cui questi sono stati prodotti.
Manca, come già si è detto, il concetto per un “magistero pastorale”. Così resta difficile dire cosa sia realmente un concilio pastorale. È necessario, però, distinguere tra “dottrinale” e “pastorale”. Ugualmente, “pastorale” non può essere messo sullo stesso piano di “disciplinare”, dato che non si tratta simply concrete norms of a legal nature. These, in fact, have been consciously delegated by the Fathers to specific directors who had to be made until after the closing of the Church. If a pastoral teaching is neither doctrinal or disciplinary, what then? In
papal encyclical, in a good sermon on Sunday, in the words of encouragement after a well-thought confession is announced each time the Catholic faith, and yet with very different methods and purposes. In the first case it is primarily to clarify doctrinal issues, the other two moments are entirely oriented to the pastoral. Far from being non-binding, the homily and the words di incoraggiamento vogliono muovere a un determinato agire – a una vita “nuova” secondo la fede. Perché tale annuncio abbia un buon esito, esso deve prendere in considerazione il tempo e il luogo, la formazione e l’età, la maturità spirituale e l’apertura religiosa dei destinatari. Pastorale significa “tradurre” la dottrina in prassi – non apportare modifiche alla dottrina. Per essere chiari, torniamo ancora una volta al decreto sull’ecumenismo. I Padri non volevano pronunciare alcuna definizione di dialogo ecumenico, perché erano coscienti che questa prassi pastorale può e, se vuole essere efficace, deve assumere forme molto diverse. Essi hanno chiaramente messo da parte le questioni dottrinali, a cui “Unitatis Redintegratio” per l’appunto non doveva rispondere: il decreto tace esplicitamente sulla controversia riguardo all’appartenenza alla Chiesa, sul problema della bona fides, sulla chiara valutazione di quali comunità al di fuori della Chiesa cattolica siano Chiesa in senso teologico, sul tema della definizione del rapporto tra Scrittura e Magistero, sulla descrizione dettagliata del primato papale come su una rappresentazione differenziata delle diversità dogmatiche tra cattolici e ortodossi (AS III/7. 675ss.).
Una nuova pastorale pienamente inserita nella tradizione
Il Concilio non proclaimed any "new" dogma and has not revoked any "old" doctrine, but rather he founded and promoted a new practice in the Church. Of course the question about the nature of a pastoral council then connect other, requiring a more precise explanations about doctrine and practice: the ministry is only a means of communication or the doctrine also raises questions of the Magisterium? The Vatican with its being a different council "has actually created a new form of teaching? Otto Hermann Pesch said in a provocative way and, no doubt, too exaggerated, "has not yet thought enough about forms and conditions by which the Church can do in the future what it did for the first time with a lot of courage in the Council: to speak on a temporary, provisional, with a view to overcoming them, and doing so with full awareness admittedly "(Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil , 379) . Declare a doctrine, not even when it has the character of infallibility, raises the need for it to be trustworthy, true and valid. This is all the more reason to doctrinal statements as defined solemnly dogmas are not "temporary, overcome, temporary" answers to urgent problems of the moment-oriented practice must be given time to time, to suit the political, social and cultural. In answer then these issues is not about doctrine and practice put into play against each other, to understand the "pastoral" as a synonym for "not binding" or "discretionary" and seeing the care of souls in constant conflict with the Magisterium. The Vatican wanted to preserve the doctrine and to renew the pastoral care. It would finally be asked to fill this gap in the appearance of the conceptual theology that is opened by Vatican II. My suggestion would be - and this can be nothing more than a modest contribution still to be discussed - to call the fleeting expression of pastoral teaching "munus predicandi ", well delimitata rispetto al “ munus determinandi ”. Si tratta, infatti, di un “ munus ” cioè dell’insegnamento della legittima autorità, e “predicare” non significa per niente che detto insegnamento non sia vincolante, ma richiama il fatto che l’omelia è il luogo privilegiato di esporre la dottrina cattolica già definita e di applicarla per la vita concreta per la vita dei fedeli. Questo significa: Annuncio del Vangelo ed insegnamento della dottrina, non definizione dottrinale; legato al tempo e conforme al tempo, non immutabile e non sempre uguale; vincolante, ma non infallibile. Il Concilio, almeno nei suoi decreti e dichiarazioni, non vuole esporre dottrina, much less change the teaching handed. With elements of Catholic doctrine - as it was and as rimmarrà - Vatican II teaches the faith and the new pastoral guidelines derived from it.
No one can deny the tensions in this teaching ministry. Unfortunately, there are theologians who with the change of practice based breaking with the traditional doctrine. Perhaps the Council Fathers were too optimistic in some respects when he stops solemn doctrinal definitions and sentences, but wanting to preserve and defend the dogma. Of their intention to do so, there is also doubtful. In this sense, Paul VI, in the meeting for the approval of two Council documents on the Church Lumen Gentium and Ecumenism " ibid. " said: "This seems to be the most significant comment on the promulgation of these documents, as Christ willed, we want it too. What was the remains. What the Church has taught through the ages, just that we teach "(AS III / 8911.).
See also: Florian Kolfhaus: Pastoral Lehrverkündigung - Grundmotiv des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils. Untersuchungen zu "ibid.," "Dignitatis Humanae" und "Nostra Aetate" . Münster 2010. LIT-Verlag. ISBN: 978-3-634-10628-5. This is the first publication of the new series of doctoral dissertations produced in Rome: "Theologia ex Urbe Mundi."
0 comments:
Post a Comment