Thursday, January 29, 2009
Cardinal Castrillón:
Relevant declarations to Corriere della Sera
Excerpts of an article published today in Italian national daily Corriere della Sera:
"[Card. Castrillón:] Full communion will come. In our discussions, Bishop Fellay recognized the Second Vatican Council, he recognized it theologically. Only a few difficulties remain...[sic]"
Maybe on Nostra Aetate, the declaration which represented a turning point in the relationship with the Jews?
"[Card. Castrillón:] No, that is not a problem. It involves discussing aspects such as ecumenism, liberty of conscience...[sic]"
Full interview here
Not only that but madcap Bishop Williamson of SSPX has apologised to the Holy See for his ridiciulous holocaust denial comments.
On another matter, Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro, chief of Human Life International’s Rome bureau said his Curial source told him that they are currently busy working out the practical arrangements for a fully regularized Society of St. Pius X.
See here.
In light of then Cardinal Ratzinger's comments to the bishops of Chile this may not prove intractable at all:
Certainly, there is mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.
The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy – the form in which the liturgy was handed down – suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith – for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. – nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation.
Notes to Lumen Gentum:
ReplyDeleteIF this is good enough for the fathers of Vat II its good enough for us. As far as I am aware nothing was declared doctrinally binding at Vat II. THere were no new dogmas just pastoral admonitions.
“Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.”
Council appendix to Lumen Gentium of Vatican II
‘NOTIFICATIONES’ GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL
OF THE COUNCIL AT THE 123rd GENERAL CONGREGATION,
NOVEMBER 16, 1964
NOTES to Gaudium et Spes
Preface
1. The Pastoral Constitution “De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis” is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called “pastoral” because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man’s existence, and on man’s relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind-especially in part two-the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves.