Vatican Council II: A Debate That Has Not Taken Place

From 2013: Vatican II must be debated: Gherardini (via Pertinacious Papist)

Il Vaticano II. Alle radici d'un equivoco. Is someone working on an English translation? Probably not the Friars of the Immaculate. What does Contrappunto conciliare add?

Related:
Vatican Council II: a Debate That Has Not Taken Place, by Msgr. Brunero Gherardini

Disputing Vatican II's authority: Gherardini
Francis and Traditionalist Catholics
Vatican Council II: An Open Discussion, by Monsignor Brunero Gherardini

CFN: The "Canonizations": CFN interviews Professor Roberto de Mattei

Someone I knew at Christendom was in the area several months ago to give a talk at the DSPT on canonization. He wrote this article on the same topic for Crisis.

Is there an analogy between canonization and canon law, such that the pope does not have authority to promulgate something that is binding upon the whole Church in these two respects, the liturgical calendar (and official cultus) and canon law? For those who believe that the Eastern churches do not have to accept anything of the exercise of the papal office beyond what was done in the first millenium, is there anything in Church History during the first millenium that would uphold this sort of authority for the bishop of Rome? Can the pope declare (or teach) that someone (Roman-rite or otherwise?) is a saint and have it binding on the Church Universal? (It may be that some who believe that such proclamations are instances of papal infallibility must do so because they believe that this is part of the pope's authority with respect to the Church Universal, rather than as a part of his authority as "Patriarch of the West.")

Why is Vatican II So Vexing? by Peter Kwasniewski


A subtitled version of the presentation given by Mons. Brunero Gherardini at the conference organized by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, Rome, December 2010.

Transcript

Monsignor Gheradini on Vatican II

Some links to articles on Monsignor Brunero Gherardini.

Obtaining a copy of the English translation of his book appears to be difficult. I hope there is a second printing.

ON THE PASTORAL NATURE OF VATICAN II: AN EVALUATION

Rorate Caeli: Mons. Gherardini's new book: Vatican II: at the roots of a misunsderstanding

Rorate Caeli: In defense of Mons. Brunero Gherardini - Part 2

Rorate Caeli: In defense of Mons. Brunero Gherardini - Part 1

Mary Victrix: Traditionalist Sleight of Hand

Note that the question answered here is not whether the traditionalists are right in challenging the hermeneutic of continuity. That will be answered in the next post. The question here is simply whether the Holy Father has really invited or encouraged the debate over the possibility of an interpretation of the Council based on a hermeneutic of continuity. He has not.

What will he write in the next post?

Rorate Caeli: Msgr. Gherardini: Vatican II is not a super-dogma
The importance and the limits of the authentic Magisterium

Vatican Council II: a Debate That Has Not Taken Place, by Msgr. Brunero Gherardini
(via Ite Ad Thomam)

John Allen, Laicizing bishops, a movie flap, Ireland and America, and Vatican II

More often than not, people like to see their own convictions as a middle position between two extremes. We all feel better, I suppose, thinking of ourselves as rational moderates, standing against ideologues on either side.

When it comes to interpretations of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), some progressive Catholics are tempted to see Pope Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of reform,” which stresses continuity with the pre-Vatican II church, as the opposite end of the spectrum from more liberal views. That’s not, however, how most people in the Vatican size things up, where the “hermeneutic of reform” is instead understood as a balanced position between thinking that church history began with Vatican II, and thinking that the council was just plain wrong.

For that taxonomy to work, there have to be credible exponents of the “just plain wrong” position. That’s where Italian historian Roberto de Mattei and Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, a canon of St. Peter’s Basilica, enter the picture.

Both have published provocative books about Vatican II. Last year, de Mattei offered Il Concilio Vaticano II: Una storia mai scritta (“The Second Vatican Council: A Story Never Told”), styling Vatican II as a rupture with tradition comparable to the French Revolution, and faulting every pope since Pius X for allowing it to happen. Gherardini produced Concilio Vaticano II: Il discorso mancato (“The Second Vatican Council: The Missing Discussion”), in which he said some council fathers believed “the church was to be a kind of research laboratory rather than a dispenser of truths from on high.”

Both books were recently reviewed in L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, and in both cases the verdict was fairly negative. The commentary on de Mattei came from Italian Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, author of a study of the council openly critical of the more liberal “Bologna school” associated with Italian scholars Giuseppe Alberigo and Alberto Melloni. Marchetto wrote that de Mattei’s work is “ideological” and suffers from “extremist tendencies.” Likewise, Inos Biffi, a medieval expert and a frequent writer for L’Osservatore, charged that Gherardini doesn’t so much “discuss” Vatican II as “denigrate” it.

The dividing line is this: If the post-Vatican II period brought some confusion and excess, is that the fault of the council itself? Benedict XVI, and figures in sync with his views such as Marchetto and Biffi, say no; traditionalist critics such as de Mattei and Gherardini say yes.

All this illustrates a core insight about the Catholic Church: Deciding who the moderates are depends on the range of views one takes into consideration. When you see the whole picture, it’s often tougher to conclude that the Vatican, or the pope, represents an extreme.

Again, Allen talks about "moderates" -- this is a unhelpful term, when it comes to evaluating the second Vatican Council or its documents. I think those who are critical are critical primarily of the documents approved by the Council Fathers and of certain ambiguities. As for explaining how the documents came about, that is the job of a historian, not of a theologian or bishop, even if it is up to the theologian or bishop to interpret the documents in light of Tradition and to present them in that manner.

This is also separate from the question of whether the second Vatican Council is the cause of all the problems in the Church from the late '60s through the '70s. Again, I don't think that this is what Gherardini would claim.

The hermeneutic of continuity might be mandated by charity (and fidelity?), but does it not presuppose that the Church must reconcile the documents of the Council with tradition because of their authoritative weight? Are not syllabi and anathemas better?