http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1347758?eng=y

Response to the traditionalists of "The Remnant," in defense of Arzillo

by Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli, O.P.


Dear friends of "The Remnant,"

I am a Dominican friar who teaches systematic theology in the theological faculty of Bologna, a scholar of the doctrines of Vatican Council II for forty years.

I have read your criticism of the article by Francesco Arzillo on www.chiesa, and after obtaining his permission, I am happy to come chivalrously to his defense, in a fraternal debate within our shared Catholic faith and desire to obey the magisterium of the Church and the pope.

I will cover only three of the points of your commentary that seem central to me.

First point. I read in "The Remnant":

"What does Arzillo mean by 'Cartesian' as opposed to 'Aristotelian' mentalities? Is he saying that this traditionalism that must be censored is somehow dualistic? That’s not at all clear from what he wrote. Those who understand changes in formula as changes in doctrine really don’t seem to me, at least on the surface of the matter, to be dualistic Cartesians. Nor does it seem dualistic to me, at least on the surface of the matter, to treat theological concepts as if they were clear and distinct ideas. I’m not saying they should be treated as such, but it’s not specifically Cartesian to do so in any case."

By comparing Descartes with Aristotle, Aristotle did not intend to refer to the dualism of Descartes, of whom he does not speak, but to the Cartesian way of thinking, too attached to clarity and distinction, something that can be acceptable in mathematical thinking, but not in theological, which is a form of thought based more on analogy than on univocality. Now, it is precisely the method of analogy that is characteristic of Aristotle, and not of Descartes.

Analogical thought makes it possible to understand how a concept, while still remaining identical to itself, can however at the same time develop, progress, explicate and clarify itself. This is typical of all vital phenomena, from the biological level to the spiritual. Because of this, Blessed John Henry Newman compared dogmatic or theological progress to the development of a plant, which grows and develops while still remaining itself. A five-foot oak tree is still itself even when it has reached one hundred feet.

Thus the doctrines of Vatican II must not be viewed as a disowning or rupture with the previous magisterium, but as a confirmation and explication of them. In other words, with Vatican II we know better those same truths of faith that we knew before.

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."

As for the practical-pastoral dispositions, however, we should not be surprised if, with the Council, the Church offers us a direction that contrasts with the directives of the precouncil. Here, at times, change is not only possible, it is necessary. What would we say if the Church, as happened in the Middle Ages, ordered us to confess only to the priest of our own parish? Here we do not face the problem: what magisterium to obey, the medieval one or that of today. It is clear that we must obey that of today.

Moreover, in this field the Church can even err: it can abandon attitudes that should be kept, or introduce laws that the test of experience shows to be harmful. In this case, efforts must be made either to restore what has been abandoned, or to correct mistaken decisions.

But in the field of dogma, where notions are immutable, all of that means nothing. The only progress that can and must be made does not lie in replacing concepts, but in deepening them, in making them richer and clearer, but always with the same meaning. Here the Church will never get the idea to say, for example, that Christ is not God or that in God there are not three persons, but that there are two or four.

And with that, I begin my response to the second point. I read further in "The Remnant":

"Arzillo completely misses the point of the traditionalist argument. Traditionalists aren’t being disobedient to the Church’s Magisterium, especially when it comes to the issues of ecuмenism and religious freedom. Traditionalists are simply pointing out the fact that the Church’s Magisterium has contradicted itself. Present teachings from the ordinary Magisterium of the Church regarding ecuмenism and religious freedom are at best contrary to what the Church has always taught before the Second Vatican Council. It isn’t a matter of disobedience to the Magisterium, it is a matter of being obedient to which Magisterial teaching. Do the present Magisterial teachings abrogate prior teachings? If so, why hasn’t this been clearly stated? If not, what is the reason for the contrarieties? How are the faithful to interpret these seemingly contrary Magisterial teachings?"

On the basis of what I have said, the problem, as far as the doctrines of the Council are concerned, is not that of asking if we must obey those of now or those of before, because they are the same: the former presented in a way that is more advanced and adapted to modern culture, the latter in a less developed phase, adapted to the times in which they were enunciated. Vice versa, in the practical-pastoral-juridical directives it is evident that we must obey the dispositions of the Council, and not the previous ones.

What nonetheless seems to me should be taken into serious consideration in what "The Remnant" writes is effectively the fact that the language of the Council is not always clear, lending itself to contrary interpretations, even of a modernistic kind, which the modernists are now exploiting as if the Council agreed with them, while it is they who are falsifying the doctrines of the Council to their advantage.

On the other hand, it is important to follow the interpretations of the Council made by the subsequent magisterium, considering also the doctrinal condemnations issued by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, condemnations that are generally aimed against false interpretations of the Council.

Moreover, a good guide for understanding the real meaning of the conciliar doctrines in continuity with the previous ones is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And it is also very useful to follow the discourses of the pope, in which the tendency to present the Council in continuity with Tradition is evident.

With my two theologian friends Fr. Enrico Finotti and Fr. Piero Cantoni, I am preparing a book in which we propose to demonstrate the doctrinal continuity between the Council and the previous magisterium through a careful comparison of the official texts of the Church.

Finally, for a model of theology that demonstrates the possibility of continuity between Vatican II and the previous magisterium, allow me to direct you to the Czech Dominican priest, the servant of God Tomas Tyn (1950-1990), of whose cause of beatification I am the vice postulator. Fr. Tomas Tyn was proud of his traditionalism, but he lived it in full communion with the Church of the postcouncil. In this regard, I invite you to visit the sites www.studiodomenicano.com and www.arpato.org.

A third point is the interpretation of the words of Saint Ignatius of Loyola: "I will believe that the white I see is black, if the hierarchical Church establishes it to be so."

In this regard, Arzillo simply intends to extol the great saint's spirit of obedience, although this is expressed in a paradoxical form. We must not, in fact, understand Saint Ignatius as if he were an irrationalist.

Today he as well, in the face of the obscurity of the conciliar texts, wherever doctrine is concerned, would certainly have considered them by way of principle in continuity with the previous magisterium.

As for the request for a clarification from the Holy See, we do not know what his reaction would have been, but he certainly would have made a contribution to clarifying the continuity.


Bologna, May 5, 2011

Wow. An incredibly weak essay, subject to devastating attack. The rank historicism here, for example:

"On the basis of what I have said, the problem, as far as the doctrines of the Council are concerned, is not that of asking if we must obey those of now or those of before, because they are the same: the former presented in a way that is more advanced and adapted to modern culture, the latter in a less developed phase, adapted to the times in which they were enunciated. Vice versa, in the practical-pastoral-juridical directives it is evident that we must obey the dispositions of the Council, and not the previous ones."