For Aristotle, democracy is possible only within homogeneous ethnic groups, while despots have always reigned over highly fragmented societies

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (148).

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Traditionalists cite its many concerning anomalies as justification for rejecting it outright - the fact that working documents were scrapped, the (weaponized) ambiguity in the texts, the fact that Pope John XXIII when opening the council stated they did not intend to exercise the Church's extraordinary (infallible) magisterium through the Council, and Pope Paul VI echoed the same sentiment upon closing the council, etc. Then of course the liturgical reforms that were carried out in the spirit if Vatican II. It was undoubtedly a unique council, and undoubtedly exploited to the detriment of the faithful.

And to answer your question, it is widely viewed as representing a break with Tradition. The majority of naive liberal laypeople see it this way, and welcome it - despite the drop in numbers among young people attending Mass, among priestly and religious vocations, etc. And many trads see it this way also, and so reject it on these grounds.

The facts are these: indeed, the extraordinary Magisterium was not exercised (no heresies were anathematized, no dogmas were pronounced, as badly as this was needed in the 60s). Therefore the possibility of error does exist. However, as I said above, the weight of ordinary Magisterium must be understood by comparing it in terms of previous Tradition and previous Magisterium. Because ambiguity was written into the documents, there is room for interpretation. This is where Pope Benedict XVI has stressed the need to apply a hermeneutic of continuity rather than one of rupture to the Council documents- and this can be done. The fact that it has to be done should compel the Church to call another Council, but that is a separate point. What matters is that, as things stand, the faithful are obliged to understand these documents in continuity with the previous Tradition and Magisterium, and in fact, because the documents are only ordinary Magisterium, then if this is not done they do not carry the same weight (or any weight) at all. So the modernist bishops who have employed a hermeneuric of rupture to justify the liturgical reforms in the spirit of Vatican II etc., and the naive liberal Catholics who have welcomed this, are acting on grounds lacking sufficient Magisterial authority.

The Syllabus of Errors, promulgated by Pope Pius X (I think it was him), condemns modernism as the synthesis of all heresies; that's why trads like to cite from that document so much. But in paragraph 22 of that very document, the pope anathematizes those who think they only have to assent to extraordinary Magisterium because it alone is infallible. "Religious assent", even if this is not the full assent of faith, must be given to the ordinary Magisterium (again remembering from what the ordinary Magisterium receives it weight and must be understood), and it certainly cannot be rejected outright.

And so even though we know there was malicious intent, and that this was exploited, the faithful are obliged to see the documents in both a charitable and traditional light, and cannot justify just applying a hermeneutic of rupture to support their own narrative - whether this be by the left or the right. But yes, most people do apply such an hermeneutic, without justification.

Traditionalists cite its many concerning anomalies as justification for rejecting it outright - the fact that working documents were scrapped, the (weaponized) ambiguity in the texts, the fact that Pope John XXIII when opening the council stated they did not intend to exercise the Church's extraordinary (infallible) magisterium through the Council, and Pope Paul VI echoed the same sentiment upon closing the council, etc. Then of course the liturgical reforms that were carried out *in the spirit if Vatican II*. It was undoubtedly a unique council, and undoubtedly exploited to the detriment of the faithful. And to answer your question, it *is* widely viewed as representing a break with Tradition. The majority of naive liberal laypeople see it this way, and welcome it - despite the drop in numbers among young people attending Mass, among priestly and religious vocations, etc. And many trads see it this way also, and so reject it on these grounds. The facts are these: indeed, the extraordinary Magisterium was not exercised (no heresies were anathematized, no dogmas were pronounced, as badly as this was needed in the 60s). Therefore the possibility of error does exist. *However*, as I said above, the weight of ordinary Magisterium must be understood by comparing it in terms of previous Tradition and previous Magisterium. Because ambiguity was written into the documents, there is room for interpretation. This is where Pope Benedict XVI has stressed the need to apply a hermeneutic of continuity rather than one of rupture to the Council documents- and this *can* be done. The fact that it *has* to be done should compel the Church to call another Council, but that is a separate point. What matters is that, as things stand, the faithful are obliged to understand these documents in continuity with the previous Tradition and Magisterium, and in fact, because the documents are only ordinary Magisterium, then if this is not done they do not carry the same weight (or any weight) at all. So the modernist bishops who have employed a hermeneuric of rupture to justify the liturgical reforms *in the spirit of Vatican II* etc., and the naive liberal Catholics who have welcomed this, are acting on grounds lacking sufficient Magisterial authority. The Syllabus of Errors, promulgated by Pope Pius X (I think it was him), condemns modernism as the synthesis of all heresies; that's why trads like to cite from that document so much. But in paragraph 22 of that very document, the pope anathematizes those who think they only have to assent to extraordinary Magisterium because it alone is infallible. "Religious assent", even if this is not the full assent of faith, must be given to the ordinary Magisterium (again remembering from what the ordinary Magisterium receives it weight and must be understood), and it certainly cannot be rejected outright. And so even though we know there was malicious intent, and that this was exploited, the faithful are obliged to see the documents in both a charitable and traditional light, and cannot justify just applying a hermeneutic of rupture to support their own narrative - whether this be by the left or the right. But yes, most people do apply such an hermeneutic, without justification.

parent
link