DICI just had an article on this...

http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/on-adherence-to-the-second-vatican-council-bishop-fernando-ocariz-and-bishop-brunero-gherardini/

On Adherence to the Second Vatican Council: Msgr Fernando Ocariz and Msgr Brunero Gherardini

12-9-2011  

On December 2, 2011, L’Osservatore Romano published an article by Msgr Fernando Ocariz, titled, “On Adherence to the Second Vatican Council on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of Its Convocation.” The Spanish theologian, a member of Opus Dei, who was one of the Roman experts during the recent doctrinal discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, means to answer through this article the “questions posed, even in public opinion, on the continuity of certain Conciliar teachings with previous teachings of the Church’s Magisterium.”

In his latest book published in French, Le Concile Vatican II : un débat qui n’a pas eu lieu [The Second Vatican Council: a Debate That Has Not Taken Place], Msgr Brunero Gherardini, former professor of ecclesiology at the Pontifical Lateran University and director of the international theological journal Divinitas, wonders: “how can it be coherent to declare that such a radical overturning of the Tridentine tradition is also perfectly coherent with the preceding magisterium, and constitutes validly infallible, irreformable, dogmatic material?  I candidly admit that I do not understand.” (p. 82-83) And then to immediately give the example of the Decree on Ecuмenism, Unitatis redintegratio. . . . (p.83)

Contradiction or Non-contradiction with Tradition?

In his article, Msgr Ocariz  admits, “there remains space for legitimate theological freedom to explain in one way or another how certain formulations present in the Conciliar texts do not contradict Tradition . . ..” A little earlier, he recognized, “A number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council: on the sacramental nature of the episcopate, on episcopal collegiality, on religious freedom, etc.”

At the end of his book, Msgr Gherardini writes: “To summarize, we can say that philologically, historically, exegetically and theologically it is hard to find justification:

a) for the collegiality of bishops, as described in Lumen gentium 22 and 23;

b) for the manipulation that Dei Verbum 8-12 works on vital Church doctrines as Tradition, and those, which are no less important, the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible;

c) for other innovations (…) which concern the sacred liturgy, soteriology, the relationship between Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other religions in general.” (p.90)

Different degrees of adherence to various conciliar docuмents
Msgr Ocariz affirms that “it is not pointless to recall that the pastoral design of the Council does not mean that it was not doctrinal,” and he distinguishes  “Naturally not all the affirmations contained in the Conciliar docuмents have the same doctrinal value and therefore not all require the same degree of assent.

1. Those affirmations of the Second Vatican Council that recall the truths of the faith naturally require the assent of theological faith, not because they were taught by this Council but because they have already been taught infallibly as such by the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. The same full and definitive assent is required for the other doctrines set forth by the Second Vatican Council which have already been proposed by a previous definitive act of the Magisterium.

2. The Council’s other doctrinal teachings require from the faithful the degree of assent called “religious submission of will and intellect.” It is about a “religious” assent, which is thus not based on purely rational motives. This adherence does not take the form of an act of faith, but, rather, one of obedience. It is not merely disciplinary, but well-rooted in our confidence in the divine assistance given to the Magisterium, and therefore “within the logic and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis, 24 May 1990, n. 23). (…)

3. Docuмents of the Magisterium may contain— as is the case in the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council — elements that are not exactly doctrinal and whose nature is more or less circuмstantial (descriptions of the state of a society, suggestions, exhortations, etc.). Such matters are received with respect and gratitude, but do not require an intellectual assent in the strictest sense (cf. Instruction Donum Veritatis, nn. 24-31).

While reiterating, too, the different degrees of authority assigned to the various conciliar texts

(p. 76 et seq.), Msgr Gherardini offers a quadruple distinction subject to clarification to open the debate: “It seems to me that to begin, and always after having considered all the implications, a good critic should consider the Second Vatican Council on four distinct levels:

a) the generic level of the ecuмenical council as an ecuмenical council;
b) the specific level as pastoral;
c) the level of reference to other councils;
d) the level of innovations.” (p. 84)

On the last three levels, he wrote:

At the pastoral level (b), “ the theological-dogmatic discourse is not necessarily related to the variety and complexity of all that is meant by ‘pastoral.’ I say ‘not necessarily’ in reference to the exception of catechesis on revealed truth and the dogmas of the faith, as well as the fact that catechesis is a part of what is here considered pastoral, but is not pastoral. Ultimately, even this second level, which undoubtedly belongs to the supreme and solemn conciliar teaching domain, does not express in itself an irrevocable, infallible, dogmatic validity, because in principle, pastoral neither defines truth nor condemns error.”(p.86)

The level of reference to preceding councils (c), “clearly shows the link of the Second Vatican Council with previous dogmatic teaching, the one according to which the Church is mistress and pillar of truth. The truths that the magisterial intervention of the Church raises to dogmas of faith, and as such offers to all her members, without exception, are those explicitly or implicitly revealed by God and entrusted to the Church herself, so that she keeps them, interprets them and transmits them with absolute fidelity. Only some of these truths can be found in the Second Vatican Council, as it refers directly or implicitly to the councils that had defined them: these are especially the truths relating to the nature of the Church, her hierarchical structure, the apostolic succession of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, to the true jurisdiction  deriving from it, universal for the Pope as united to the See of Rome by Peter, locale of the successors of the apostles. (…)

“Therefore, it is at this third level that the magisterium of the Second Vatican Council also assumes an incontestable dogmatic validity. A validity which nevertheless remains restricted within the limits of the very level that accommodates it, without it conferring a  different formalitas to the whole Council, and without specifically transitioning from a pastoral magisterium to a dogmatic magisterium in absolute terms. It is not without reason—it seems to me—that  I have said in other places that the magisterium is dogmatic when it reverts to the preceding magisterium, and not beyond its limits. It follows that a dogmatism like this can neither be denied, because the evidence supports it, nor extended beyond this same limit, because ‘relative’ and ‘absolute’ are two different things.” (Pp. 86-87)

On some irreconcilable novelties with the claim to an irrevocable and dogmatic Magisterium

At the level of the innovations of Vatican II (d), Msgr Gherardini wrote: “Gaudium et Spes must be read carefully and without preconceived ideas: one could ask, after all, what connection can the vast majority of subjects treated therein, not only in the second part, but also in the first part of the text, have with the nature and specific apostolic activity of the Church. This novelty situates the Church on the level as States and their institutions; it makes the Church one speaker among others, and robs her not so much of her function as the critical conscience of history, but rather of her nature as sacramentum Christi [sacrament of Christ] and of her subsequent responsibility concerning eternal salvation.” (…)

“Either the Church is the sacrament of Christ, completely willing to apply the suprema lex salus animarum [supreme law of the salvation of souls], even if it is at the cost of having to once again extend her arms on the Cross, or she loses her identity. Many share the belief that, following the Council’s direction, this is precisely what happened and what continues to happen.” (…)

“But novelties are not just the prerogative of Gaudium et Spes. They are also scattered throughout each of the docuмents of Vatican II, and certain ones of them are integral novelties.” (…)

“Certain ones of them, in particular, seems to me to not be compatible with the claim of an irrevocable and dogmatic magisterium. The fact of having shifted the axis of the balance between revealed truth and religious freedom, the fact of having fixed one or other innovation—especially religious liberty—on unclear biblical foundations, all that so to try to give theological credibility  to an ideal social act of tolerance, organization and government.”

“It is precisely Gaudium et Spes which did away with the concept of asking Revelation to solve temporal problems and which dared to wait for the Church to come up with solutions that are not hers to make. That which conforms with the rational nature of man and depends upon the methodical use of reason will essentially give glory to God the creator and supreme ruler of creation, and not purport to have a place of honor among revealed truth, nor to transfer the justification for its choice of the rational and natural domain onto the revealed and supernatural domain.”

“And since a truth of reason is by its nature subject to the vagaries of discussion and dispute, the conciliar innovations regarding civil matters, or those of a greater socio-political character,—to the extent that they are always debatable and fluid—not only make the dogmatic character of Vatican II problematic, but also cast a shadow over the conciliar credibility of objectives that are not directly related to the specificity of ecclesiastical ministry.”(Pp. 87-90)

For a sure and objective evaluation of Vatican II

At the end of his article, Msgr Ocariz wishes for a “a serene and joyful acceptance of the Magisterium, the authentic interpreter of the doctrine of the faith,” while acknowledging, “even if there remain aspects that are not entirely understood,”  and accepting that “there remains legitimate room for theological freedom and further opportune in-depth study.”

Already in his book Vatican II: A Debate To Be Opened, Msgr Gherardini addressed to Benedict XVI the filial question of giving a “grandiose and, if possible, final clarification of the last council concerning each of its aspects and contents.” And he added: “Indeed, it would seem logical and, it seems to me, urgent that each of these aspects and contents be studied in themselves and in the context of all the others, while carefully observing all the sources, and from the specific viewpoint of continuity with the previous Magisterium, be they solemn or ordinary. On the basis of a scientific and critical work as full and irreproachable as possible, in relation to the traditional Magisterium of the Church, it will then be possible to draw material from it for a sure and objective evaluation of Vatican II.”(p. 260) He concluded: “In the case where all or part of this continuity could not be scientifically proven, it would be necessary to say it with impartiality and frankness, in response to the half-century-long demand for clarity .”(p. 261)

These few quotes from the article by Msgr Ocariz and works of Msgr Gherardini cannot give an exhaustive account of the question; even less can they replace the debate that needs to be done. They simply suggest that this debate has begun to open.

(Sources: L’Osservatore Romano / Vatican II: a Debate To Be Opened/ Vatican II: a Debate That Has Not Taken Place - The passages highlighted in bold and the headings by the editor – DICI No. 246 of 09/12 / 11)

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/nature-of-intellectual-assent-that-is.html

The nature of the intellectual assent that is owed to the teachings of the Council

The following article, written by Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz Braña, Vicar General of Holy Cross and Opus Dei (also one of the Vatican representatives in the doctrinal talks with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X), was published in this afternoon's (dated tomorrow) edition of the official daily of the Holy See, L'Osservatore Romano.

__________________________________

On the 50th anniversary of the indiction

On adhesion to the Second Vatican Council

 The forthcoming 50th anniversary of the convocation of the Second Vatican Council (25 December 1961) is a cause for celebration, but also for renewed reflection on the reception and application of the Conciliar Docuмents. Over and above the more directly practical aspects of this reception and application, both positive and negative, it seems appropriate also to recall the nature of the intellectual assent that is owed to the teachings of the Council. Although we are dealing here with a well-known doctrine, about which there is an extensive bibliography, it is nevertheless useful to review it in its essential points, given the persistence - also in public opinion - of misunderstandings regarding the continuity of some Conciliar teachings with previous teachings of the Church's Magisterium.

First of all, it is not pointless to recall that the pastoral motivation of the Council does not mean that it was not doctrinal – since all pastoral activity is necessarily based on doctrine. But, above all, it is important to emphasise that precisely because doctrine is aimed at salvation, the teaching of doctrine is an integral part of all pastoral work. Furthermore, within the Docuмents of the Council it is obvious that there are many strictly doctrinal teachings: on Divine Revelation, on the Church, etc. As Blessed John Paul II wrote: “With the help of God, the Council Fathers in four years of work were able to produce a considerable collection of doctrinal statements and pastoral norms which were presented to the whole Church” (Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, 11 October 1992, Introduction).

Assent Owed to the Magisterium

The Second Vatican Council did not define any dogma, in the sense that it proposed no doctrine with a definitive act. However, even if the Magisterium proposes a teaching without directly invoking the charism of infallibility, it does not follow that such a teaching is therefore to be considered "fallible" - in the sense that what is proposed is somehow a “provisional doctrine” or just an “authoritative opinion”. Every authentic expression of the Magisterium must be received for what it truly is: a teaching given by Pastors who, in the apostolic succession, speak with the “charism of truth” (Dei Verbum, n. 8), “endowed with the authority of Christ” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25), “and by the light of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

This charism, this authority and this light were certainly present at the Second Vatican Council; to deny this to the entire episcopate gathered to teach the universal Church cuм Petro and sub Petro, would be to deny something of the very essence of the Church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 24 June 1973, nn. 2-5).

Naturally not all the affirmations contained in the Conciliar docuмents have the same doctrinal value and therefore not all require the same degree of assent. The various levels of assent owed to doctrines proposed by the Magisterium were outlined in Vatican II’s Constitution Lumen Gentium (n. 25), and subsequently synthesised in the three clauses added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the formula of the Professio fidei published in 1989 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Blessed John Paul II.

Those affirmations of the Second Vatican Council that recall truths of the faith naturally require the assent of theological faith, not because they were taught by this Council but because they have already been taught infallibly as such by the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. So also a full and definitive assent is required for the other doctrines set forth by the Second Vatican Council which have already been proposed by a previous definitive act of the Magisterium.

The Council’s other doctrinal teachings require of the faithful a degree of assent called “religious submission of will and intellect”. Precisely because it is “religious” assent, such assent is not based purely on rational motives. This kind of adherence does not take the form of an act of faith. Rather, it is an act of obedience that is not merely disciplinary, but is well-rooted in our confidence in the divine assistance given to the Magisterium, and therefore “within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis, 24 May 1990, n. 23). This obedience to the Magisterium of the Church does not limit freedom but, on the contrary, is the source of freedom. Christ’s words: “he who hears you hears me” (Lk 10:16) are addressed also to the successors of the Apostles; and to listen to Christ means to receive in itself the truth which will make you free (cf. Jn 8:32).

Docuмents of the Magisterium may contain elements that are not exactly doctrinal — as is the case in the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council — elements whose nature is more or less circuмstantial (descriptions of the state of a society, suggestions, exhortations, etc.). Such matters are received with respect and gratitude, but do not require an intellectual assent in the strictest sense (cf. Instruction Donum Veritatis, nn. 24-31).

The Interpretation of Teachings

The unity of the Church and unity in the faith are inseparable, and this also involves the unity of the Magisterium of the Church in every age, since the Magisterium is the authentic interpreter of Divine Revelation transmitted by Sacred Scripture and by Tradition. This means, among other things, that an essential characteristic of the Magisterium is its continuity and consistency through history. Continuity does not mean an absence of development; down the centuries the Church deepens in her knowledge, in her understanding and, consequently, also in her magisterial teaching of Catholic faith and morals.

A number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council: on the sacramental nature of the episcopate, on episcopal collegiality, on religious freedom, etc. These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will, even though some of them were and still are the object of controversy with regard to their continuity with earlier magisterial teaching, or their compatibility with the tradition. In the face of such difficulties in understanding the continuity of certain Conciliar Teachings with the tradition, the Catholic attitude, having taken into account the unity of the Magisterium, is to seek a unitive interpretation in which the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the preceding Magisterial docuмents illuminate each other. Not only should the Second Vatican Council be interpreted in the light of previous Magisterial docuмents, but also some of these earlier magisterial docuмents can be understood better in the light of the Second Vatican Council. This is nothing new in the history of the Church. It should be remembered, for example, that the meaning of important concepts adopted in the First Council of Nicaea in the formulation of the Trinitarian and Christological faith (hypóstasis, ousía), were greatly clarified by later Councils.

The interpretation of the innovations taught by the Second Vatican Council must therefore reject, as Benedict XVI put it, “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” while it must affirm the “hermeneutic of reform, of renewal within continuity” (Discourse, 22 December 2005). These are innovations in the sense that they explain new aspects which have not previously been formulated by the Magisterium, but which do not doctrinally contradict previous Magisterial docuмents. This is so even though, in certain cases — for example, concerning religious freedom — these innovations imply very different consequences at the level of historical decisions concerning juridical and political applications of the teaching, especially given the changes in historical and social conditions. An authentic interpretation of Conciliar texts can only be made by the Magisterium of the Church herself. Therefore, in the theological work of the interpretation of passages in the Conciliar texts which arouse queries or seem to present difficulties, it is above all necessary to take into account the sense in which they have been interpreted in subsequent Magisterial interventions. Nevertheless, there remains space for legitimate theological freedom to explain in one way or in another how certain formulations present in the Conciliar texts do not contradict the Tradition and, therefore, to explain the correct meaning of some expressions contained in those passages.

Lastly, in this regard, it does not seem superfluous to call to mind that almost half a century has passed since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council and that in these decades four Roman Pontiffs have succeeded one another on the Chair of Peter. An assessment of the teaching of these Popes and the corresponding assent of the Episcopate to that teaching should transform a possible situation of difficulty into a serene and joyful acceptance of the Magisterium, the authentic interpreter of the doctrine of the faith. This must be possible and is to be hoped for, even if aspects that are not entirely understood remain. In any case, there remains legitimate room for theological freedom and for further opportune in-depth study. As Benedict XVI wrote recently: “the essential content that for centuries has formed the heritage of all believers needs to be confirmed, understood and explored ever anew, so as to bear consistent witness in historical circuмstances very different from those of the past” (Benedict XVI, Motu Proprio Porta Fidei, 11 October 2011, n. 4).
December 2, 2011

Fifty years on and they are still having to try to sell V2 to the Catholic world.

Very telling.

Santo,

I expect you lost just about everyone here as soon as they saw the words "Opus Dei".

 :smile:

Couple of things: St.Peter says that even St.Paul's writings and the other Scriptures contain things that are "hard to be understood", so that is not an argument against divine guidance.

"Hard to be understood" is different than ambiguity. I'm sure you see the difference.

2 Peter 3:16

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

Now, the people arguing about Vatican II's ambiguity, are not "unlearned and unstable." Saint Peter was talking about people that were trying to make "these things" AND "as they do also the other scriptures" to interpret things as they were not meant. CLEAR LANGUAGE that was altered or made sound like something it obviously didn't mean.

Vatican II is different! There -is no clear, concise meaning- at all. You have one person over here saying one phrase means this, and one person over there saying that same phrase means something exactly the opposite.

There are numerous Church "officials" that are interpreting the same docuмents in a different way. This would lead one to believe that since there is no clarity, that this docuмent has some VERY REAL PROBLEMS, because one of the marks of the Church is unity, and since the docuмents of Vatican II are ambiguous, it would make total sense that the Church was not the author of this docuмent, but in fact, I daresay that the Devil would be the author of these docuмents.

Otherwise, please explain why the Scriptures have been explained clearly and concisely in one interpretation that is correct, by the Church's definition, and the heretics are wrong. Another helpful thing would be to tell us why every other docuмent handed down by the Church that was either Ex Cathedra or Divine Revelation has not been open to other interpretations other than what the Church has clearly defined.

CLEAR LANGUAGE that was altered or made sound like something it obviously didn't mean.

You nailed it.

Ambiguity of some kind is not uncommon in ecclesiastical docuмents.  But ambiguity introduced into a point of doctrine already clear is the mark of the evil one.