![]() ![]() In his Octoopening address at the Council, Pope John XXIII set the pace of the Council’s work: Positive Statements on the Authority of the Documents The statements will be given in the order of most authoritative to least authoritative in each category. Not every source cited here is addressing the documents of Vatican II, but where they discuss the character of magisterial texts of a certain kind, we believe that they are applicable to Vatican II in general and UR in particular. ![]() Our passages fall into two categories: texts that speak positively of the actual status of Vatican II’s documents, and texts that admit of the possibility of error in, or reform of, those documents. ![]() ![]() We will collect these “indicators” and comment on them briefly. If these indications do not sanction a definitive judgment in the matter – which, of course, only the magisterium can do – they will at least help us to formulate an intelligent approximation. While Vatican II did not come with theological notes attached to each decree, much less to each doctrinal formulation, there are certainly indicators we can consider, statements from very qualified sources, including popes, council fathers, and theologians of repute. The difficult task is something the theologian is invited to do by DV, which says “one must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged.” He expresses the wish that magisterial texts be accompanied by a qualification of some sort, making it clear to the faithful what status a given document has. While Gallardetz thinks we have gotten beyond that kind of theology (which “presupposed a prepositional view of revelation”), he shows admiration for the usefulness of the older system. #DENZINGER SCHONMETZER ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM MANUALS#Gaillardetz outlines the difficulty of our first task when he points to the utility of pre-Vatican II theology manuals that used the system of theological notes and censures developed by such theologians as Melchior Cano and Francisco Suarez. At the same time, it is not an easy science. We stated in Chapter II that categorizing magisterial teachings is a real science even though its conclusions are not always certain. Our twofold goal of this chapter is to locate the teaching of UR on the gradation we summarized in Chapter II and, in light of this, to see if its teachings are subject to possible error and therefore to a Traditionalist “critique.” Identifying the proper taxonomy of the new teachings in the Decree on Ecumenism will help us to see if there is a place for “collaborative relations” between Traditionalists and the Holy See, or if the formers’ criticisms amount to “dissent.” Toner, “Infallibility” in the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia “…the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ.” And in fact, it held consistently to this initial direction.” (See “Before the Last Conclave: What I Told the Future Pope” by Sandro Magister.) I could add to the collection of quotations on the authority of Vatican II the recent statement of Cardinal Biffi: ““John XXIII yearned for a Council that would achieve the renewal of the Church not through condemnations, but using the ‘medicine of mercy.’ By abstaining from reproving error, the Council would by this very means avoid formulating definite teachings that would be binding for all. In fact some of them are rubbish worthy of a good, old-fashioned book burning. Many of the books referenced are not works I would recommend. Please keep in mind that this is an academic paper. Those trying to figure out a reference may find the bibliography helpful. Also, at the end of this piece I have put my complete bibliography, for one reason mainly, viz., some of the footnotes may not be entirely useful without the missing parts of the study. The larger work focuses on ecumenism, specifically, the contents of Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio (UR). This is another offering from the larger work from which I earlier excerpted “ The Three Levels of Magisterial Teaching.” As I said concerning that entry, this is a work in progress, being a section of a larger study on the various levels of magisterial teaching, the assent due to each, and where Vatican II fits into these categories.įurther explanations are needed here. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |