The developments in Vatican relations with both the SSPX and the Eastern Orthodox may best be understood neither through a "Hermeneutic of Continuity" nor a "Hermeneutic of Rupture," but through a Hermeneutic of Fatima:
If you were the pope, in the twilight of your career, a true son of VII, yet you could see the severe problems that have wracked the Church since VII, what would you do? If you had a deep seated fear that the Church would continue its moral decline if nothing is done, what would you do? If you truly believed the actions of the Vatican regarding Fatima were, at the time, honest and forthright, but now you had a real doubt that all was not as it seemed then, what would you do?
You would look at the most important aspects of the Message of Fatima that may not have been addressed, and you would systematically work to undo the damage.
1) Restore the TLM.
2) Propose a reconsideration and reinterpretation of VII.
3) Figure out a way to bring Russia back into the fold.
How?
1) Summorum Pontificum
2) Lift the SSPX excommunications, and task them with addressing the problems of VII. Put them directly in contact with the CDF. Let the tail (the SSPX) wag the dog (CDF.) Then let the CDF wag the Church.
3) Make real moves towards reuniting Eastern Orthodoxy, and use the Grace of that unity to fight the errors of post-Christian western decay.
This may be the interpretive key to truly understanding the "Marshall Plan" of Pope Benedict XVI.
This "Hermeneutic of Fatima" continues apace, it seems.
In May, 2010, the Pope "reopened the file on the Third Secret of Fatima," declaring:
Beyond this great vision of the suffering of the Pope, which we can in substance refer to John Paul II, are indicated future realities of the Church which are little by little developing and revealing themselves. Thus it is true that beyond the moment indicated in the vision, one speaks, one sees, the necessity of a passion of the Church that naturally is reflected in the person of the Pope; but the Pope is in the Church, and therefore the sufferings of the Church are announced…. As for the novelty that we can discover today in this message, it is that attacks on the Pope and the Church do not come only from outside, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from sins that exist in the Church. This has always been known, but today we see it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from enemies outside, but arises from sin in the Church.
Now, see the post at Rorate-Caeli, Tectonic Shifts: For the Roman Curia, the end of the "super-Council" as well as the Missa in Latino post, Il contenuto del 'preambolo dottrinale' presentato alla FSSPX, Google Translation: The contents of the 'doctrinal Preamble' presented to the SSPX
And what about the more "apocalyptic" parts of Fatima that were either forgotten or never fully revealed? See our last post, For fourth anniversary of Summorum Pontificum, Pope draws attention to little known prophecies of Venerable Elena Aiello
UPDATE:
Rorate-Caeli now has an entry with translation of the Missa in Latino post on the contents of the doctrinal Preamble:
UPDATE:
Rorate-Caeli now has an entry with translation of the Missa in Latino post on the contents of the doctrinal Preamble:
Messa in latino on the Preamble
We do not assume responsibility for the content below, which has just been published by Messa in latino, and the most relevant part of which we merely translate for the English-speaking world. Though wordy, it does not seem to add any substantial information to the analysis written for us by Côme Prévigny, or even, if one considers it carefully, to the official communiqué itself - other than the indirect claim of the Italian author of actually knowing the content of the Preamble.
The content of the Preamble, which at the end of the day is a somewhat synthetic document, can be essentially summed up in two points. We begin with the second one because it is a simple thing: to say it in broad terms, the FSSPX must modify its tone and express whatever it wishes to say in a respectful and filial way, as well as collaborate loyally with all the other structures of the Mystical Body. In clerical-theological level, that is defined as 'sentire cum ecclesia'.
The first point of the preamble, instead, the most important one, is the re-proposition of the content of canon 750 of the CIC [Code of Canon Law], that is, the need for a Catholic to accept the magisterial teaching according to the degrees of assent sanctioned by that canon and by the Apostolic Letter Ad tuendam fidem, of John Paul II. To sum it up, there are diverse degrees of binding of magisterial teaching: as an Explanatory note of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, clarified, there are truths that the Church proclaims as divinely revealed, and that are thus unchanging, and to be received with "theological faith". Whoever does not believe in it is not a Catholic. Such are, for instance, the dogmas of faith, regarding which, in any event, the SSPX has no problem (Bishop Fellay exemplified it with the dogma of the Trinity). An equal assent of firm faith (and equally non-problematic for the FSSPX) concerns those doctrines on faith and morals not directly founded on Scripture, but taught by the Church infallibly, either because proclaimed thus or because always repeated by the Magisterium. Examples of the latter (read in the explanatory note itself) include the impossibility of female ordination, the prohibition of euthanasia, the canonization of saints.
Those teachings of the Magisterium of the [Supreme] Pontiff or of the College of Bishops which require mere 'religious assent of mind and intellect' are those that are not definitive (perhaps because they contradict preceding teachings: one could consider - the example is ours [Messa in latino's] - the prohibition of loans with interest). The Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith prudently avoids mentioning examples of any kind, perhaps because it would be as if minimizing the teachings that might have been listed in this category. The fact is that the most controversial teachings of the Council, as also [of] the subsequent Magisterium that has repeated those teachings, could not rise up ... to a binding level above this one, considering that the Council declared its will not to define any new "truth" and that the very fact of being propositions, if not in "rupture", at least "reforming" the previous Magisterium, they are necessarily deprived of any character of definitiveness.
In practice, it is asked of the Fraternity to sign the profession of faith which every Catholic must hold; it seems pretty feasible. But some could fear that this obligation of "religious assent of mind and intellect", if applied to certain Conciliar teachings, could curtail, even if it would not nullify (under certain conditions, it is possible to dissent - but not loudly - from non-definitive teachings), the right of criticism to the Council. And here is the great innovation.
As the official communiqué of the Holy See reports, the Preamble leaves "open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it." Let it be noted that the object of this discussion, which is expressly recognized as "legitimate", is not merely the interpretations of the documents, but the very texts of the latter: the "expressions or formulations" used in the conciliar documents. If the words used in the preamble, and thus in the official communiqué, have a sense, there is here a Copernican revolution in the approach to the Council: that is, the displacement from a mere exegetical level to a substantive one.---So, we are back to the communiqué, then. Well, that is good: the communiqué mirrored perfectly where things stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment