High Up, Let Down by Pope Benedict
They are some of the leading traditionalist thinkers. They had wagered on him, and now they feel betrayed. The latest disappointments: the Courtyard of the gentiles and the encounter in Assisi. The accusation that they make against Ratzinger is the same that they make against the Council: having replaced condemnation with dialogue
by Sandro Magister
5 comments:
Mr. Aversa's comment appears to have been eaten by blogger again -- Regarding this, I have always thought the post-conciliar "Spirit of Vatican II" was more Cartesian than not (cf., e.g., this):
However, it is also necessary to censure a traditionalism which interprets the very rich heritage of classical theology with a mentality that is more Cartesian than Aristotelian, a priori taking changes of formulas as changes of doctrine, or treating theological concepts as if they were clear and distinct ideas, with a rationalistic approach that in no way resembles that of grand medieval Scholasticism, not to mention the Fathers of the Church.
Although Maritain thought Vatican II was a great triumph for Thomism.
This is my response--there are some who criticize scholastic theology (or the manuals) as being too rationalistic, attempting a "deductive system" from the truths of the Faith. But this conception of theology as a science (in the Aristotelian sense) does not exclude the possibility that we can grow in our understanding of the principles of that science, the truths of the Faith or the object of Faith (and theology): God Himself (though not God as He is in Himself, which is only accessible to those who have the beatific vision).
There is an interesting article in The Remnant regarding the passage I quoted: "Traditionalists Attacked…Again: A Response to Francesco Arzillo’s Essay On Continuity" by David Werling. Fr. Calvalcoli, O.P., responds.
Fr. Cavalcoli writes:
"Without a doubt, this thesis must be demonstrated, because in effect it is not always so evident. But as Catholics, supposing that matters of faith are at issue, we can suppose a priori that the Council cannot teach us something that is false or contrary to what the Church taught before, because this would suppose that Christ deceived us when he promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church to the fullness of truth, and said moreover: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."
This statement about the Church's indefectibility might seem to be correct, since an ecumenical council was involved, but does indefectibility entail a blanket guarantee that all statements in the V2 documents are infallibly true? Is it possible for infallibility to be present but not exercised, because no dogmatic definitions are offered, just (possibly tentative) responses to the times? At this point, I'd have to review what specific statements traditionalists are pointing at, besides certain parts of DH.
See:
John R. T. Lamont (2008). "Determining the Content and Degree of Authority of Church Teachings". The Thomist 72: 371-407.
Post a Comment