Mgr Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has given an extensive interview to Nouvelles de France, published today, in which he speaks of the discussions between the Holy See and representatives of the Society of St Pius X.
Full text in French: Entretien avec Mgr Pozzo, Secrétaire de la Commission pontificale Ecclesia Dei
Extract translated into English at Rorate Caeli: IMPORTANT. Pozzo speaks
In answer to a question about the principal subjects that are under confidential discussion, Mgr Pozzo says:
The themes under discussion are known: primacy and episcopal collegiality; relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions; religious liberty; the Missal of Paul VI. At the end of the talks, the results of the discussions will be submitted to the respective authorized levels for an overall evaluation.I like the idea that the Secretary of Ecclesia Dei would so easily speak of themes "that are known." This is honest and sensible: we do all know the principal points under discussion, and Catholic blogs have helped, I think, in a sort of Distributed Denial of Stupidity by focussing on the real doctrinal questions. Some will offer various possibilities for resolving the questions, others will maintain that they are not capable of resolution. That is the frank discussion that needs to take place with good information driving out bad, reasonable people studying the evidence, and intelligent people suggesting conclusions and ways forward.
Mgr Pozzo deftly introduces a topic that is obviously dear to this blog [my translation]:
It does not seem conceivable that it would be possible to reconsider the Second Vatican Council. So where can these discussions lead? To a better understanding of it?He is speaking of the hermeneutic of continuity in terms of keeping true to the tradition of the Church. Some traditionalists have opposed the idea of the hermeneutic of continuity as a way of insisting that all the reforms and abuses that have taken place since Vatican II must be regarded as "traditional" in some way.
It is a question of clarifying points that detail the exact meaning of the teaching of the Council. This is what the Holy Father started to do on December 22, 2005, by understanding the Council within a hermeneutic of renewal in continuity. Nevertheless, there are certain objections of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X that do make sense, because there has been an interpretation of rupture. The objective is to show that it is necessary to interpret the Council in the continuity of the Tradition of the Church.
That is what I would characterise as the "glass half empty" version of the hermeneutic of continuity. The "glass half full" version is to see the hermeneutic of continuity as a means of recovering the tradition of the Church which is a fundamental criterion for interpreting the text of Vatican II, and for judging the practical reforms that have happened since then.
(In case anyone is thinking of posting pedantic comments about the need to insert the words "reform" or "renewal" in the expression "hermeneutic of continuity", let me point out that those two words also need to be understood properly, as in getting us back to our roots in doctrine and liturgy, and making all that new again. Furthermore, the Holy Father himself has more than once used the abbreviated version given in this blog's title.)
6 comments:
Observations:
* Glass half full for me (as regards the slow pace of the talks and the communiques, that is [as regards the hermeneutical context I still haven't figured out yet whether my glass is half-full or half-empty, for mine is quite opaque, on a high shelf that I can't peer over, so I can't quite see inside it, but it seems like it's both from down here!]).
* Interesting - or is it? - that the beatification of Blessed John Paul II isn't cited as a major issue.
* Nicely synchronised interviews, which indicate more than a degree of co-op.
* I remain convinced that Bishop Athanasius Schneider's call, last December, for a Syllabus of Errors regarding Vatican II (a very significant call for which he hasn't been in the slightest reprimanded for) will come into play in the medium term.
One step forward, two back. It was always going to be this way.
Oh and about the Paul VI Missal. "Yes we recognise it. It has a red cover, no? With gold lettering."
Thank you for posting this. Much more discussion needs to be clarified on this point of continuity. Can you elaborate even more on these comments and the SSPX? Thanks.
Thank you for posting this. Much more discussion on the clarity of the term "continuity" is needed for all of us regarding the SSPX. As a trad, I am concerned about the misuse of language. Can you elaborate in another post on this discussion?
Maybe slightly more worrying, his interpretation of Article 19 is somewhat broader than yours, Father (here).
As translated by John L on Rorate Caeli, he puts it as follows:
Nouvelles de France: « Les fidèles qui demandent la célébration de la forme extraordinaire ne doivent jamais venir en aide ou appartenir à des groupes qui nient la validité ou la légitimité de la Sainte Messe ou des sacrements célébrés selon la forme ordinaire, ou qui s’opposent au Pontife romain comme Pasteur suprême de l’Église universelle » (Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, § 19). Cette remarque vise-t-elle la Fraternité Saint Pie X ?
Pozzo; L’article de l’Instruction auquel vous vous référez concerne certains groupes de fidèles qui considèrent ou postulent une antithèse entre le Missel de 1962 et celui de Paul VI, et qui pensent que le rite promulgué par Paul VI pour la célébration du Sacrifice de la Sainte Messe est nuisible aux fidèles. Je veux préciser qu’il faut nettement distinguer le rite et le Missel comme tel, célébré selon les normes, et une certaine compréhension et application de la réforme liturgique caractérisée par l’ambiguïté, les déformations doctrinales, les abus et les banalisations, phénomènes malheureusement assez diffusés qui ont amené le Cardinal J. Ratzinger à parler sans hésiter dans l’une de ses publications d’« écroulement de la liturgie ». Il serait injuste et faux d’attribuer au Missel réformé la cause d’un tel écroulement.
For the non-Francophones; the interviewer asks if article 19 of Universae Ecclesiae refers to the SSPX. Pozzo answers that it refers to anyone who holds that there is some contradiction between the missal of 1962 and the missal of Paul VI, or that the missal of Paul VI is in some way harmful to the faithful. He specifies that he is talking about the missal of Paul VI celebrated according to the proper norms, not about the distorted practices that were used to celebrate it. He claims that it is these distorted practices, not the Novus Ordo itself, that were responsible for the collapse of the liturgy that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to in some of his works, and that it is false and unjust to blame this collapse on the Novus Ordo itself.
Holding to a contradiction between the missal of 1962 and the missal of Paul VI? That counts most traditionalists out then...
Father
This talk of interpreting the VII documents in the light of tradition confuses me somewhat.
On the one one hand there is much in the Council documents that just reiterate's what the Church has always and everywhere taught, and this is obvious and all men must believe this,
but there are passages of certain documents that seem to really break with previous Church teaching, I am thinking of parts of DH and GS as well as SC.
Mons.Gherardini points these out in his work 'The Second Vatican Council, a much Needed Discussion"
Its almost as if the Holy Ghost spoke in riddles or code, and this code needs to be deciphered.
Odd, since previous Ecumenical Councils were much more precise in their writings.
Reconsidering the Second Vatican Council is like going into a battlefield where tens of millions of dead and decaying bodies are lying and speaking of the good the war has caused.
More Priestly vocations have been killed after Vatican Council II than Priests during all the times of martyrdom of Priests.
That does not take into account the numbers of Religious.
Do you really believe Heaven is pleased with us?
Are you proud of the fruits of Vatican Council II?
*
Post a Comment