Very interesting. I guess you could say, here is the Vatican response to Trad criticisms of the Council in a nutshell.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1347525?eng=y

The Disappointed Have Spoken. The Vatican responds
Inos Biffi and Agostino Marchetto reply in "L'Osservatore Romano" to the traditionalists Brunero Gherardini and Roberto de Mattei, who criticize the current pope for not having corrected the "errors" of Vatican Council II

by Sandro Magister

ROME, April 18, 2011 – Two of the "greats disappointed by Pope Benedict" on whom www.chiesa reported in a recent article have been the special focus of "L'Osservatore Romano," with two consecutive and authoritative reviews of their latest books.

The "disappointed greats" are those traditionalist thinkers who had initially placed hopes in the pontificate of Joseph Ratzinger and in his restorative action, but then saw their expectations betrayed. And now they are making their discontent public.

Their disappointment comes above all from the way in which the current pope interprets and applies Vatican Council II.

Because it is there, in this Council, that is found the root of the evils present in the Church, in the view of these thinkers.

In particular, this is what has been written and argued in the latest books by Professor Roberto de Mattei and Canon Brunero Gherardini, the one from the historical point of view and the other from the theological point of view.

The aforementioned article from www.chiesa provides a concise summary of their theses:

> High Up, Let Down by Pope Benedict (8.4.2011)

Among the reasons for his disappointment, the theologian Gherardini complains about the silence with which Church authorities reacted to one of his previous books: "Concilio Vaticano II. Un discorso da fare [Vatican Council II. Time to talk]."

So much so that his latest book, released this year, expresses his disappointment right from the title: "Concilio Vaticano II. Il discorso mancato [Vatican Council II. The missing discussion]."

This time, however, things have gone differently. Gherardini's new book hasn't been ignored, but has been given a full-page review in "L'Osservatore Romano" of April 15. Done by a first-rank reviewer, Inos Biffi of Milan, professor emeritus at the theological faculties of Milan and Lugano, the leading world expert on medieval theology and the top theological writer for the newspaper of the Holy See.

The salient parts of the review are reproduced further below, while the complete text is on this other page of www.chiesa:

> Riletture conciliari

Inos Biffi has strong criticism for Gherardini's theses. But he also recognizes their merits.

And he himself does not fail to criticize some aspects of the conciliar event. He does so by enlisting an authority of the stature of Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, with whom he shares a last name – without any relation – but above all ideas.

The criticisms of the two Biffis, Giacomo and Inos, of the conciliar event concern its "pastoral" nature, the refusal to condemn errors, the ambiguities of "aggiornamento."

But in their view, the docuмents produced by Vatican II are nonetheless "not guilty" of the subsequent deviations. And in this, their view diverges distinctly from that of Gherardini and other traditionalists.

Professor Roberto de Mattei, author of a history of Vatican Council II that demonstrates its character of rupture with tradition, has also had a review in "L'Osservatore Romano" of April 14, written by another prominent author: Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, former secretary of the pontifical council of migrants as well as a staunch critic, for years, of the most widely read history of Vatican II in the world, the one produced by the "school of Bologna" founded by Giuseppe Dossetti and by Giuseppe Alberigo, which also interprets the conciliar event as a "rupture" with tradition and a "new beginning," but in a spirit opposite to that of the traditionalists.

Marchetto's review of the book by de Mattei is on this other page of www.chiesa:

> Ma una storia non ideologica si può scrivere

And the following is an extract from the review of Gherardini's book, from "L'Osservatore Romano" of April 15:

_________________



CONCILIAR REREADINGS

by Inos Biffi


It is without a doubt possible, and also desirable, to make a critical interpretation of Vatican Council II that is aimed at an exhaustive analysis of the sources, in their various kinds, at a complete historical reconstruction of its preparation and its unfolding, and, finally, at the interpretation of its doctrinal content, evaluated according to the methodological criteria known to theology. This last effort is not easy because of the literary genre of the conciliar texts, very effusive and similar to theological treatises, unlike the summary dictation that marked the proceedings of past councils.

In reality, this is a work already underway and broad in its scope, but not without reason reviewed negatively because of the ideologies of opposite bent that have guided it and led it to one same conclusion: that of a "revolutionary" Vatican II, viewed as representing a break with Tradition, either through a disruptive aggiornamento promoted by a John XXIII conciliar from his mother's womb, or through a resurgence of "modernism" due to the carelessness of the popes who succeeded Pius X.

The implausibility of such a conclusion should already appear from the approval and promulgation of the conciliar docuмents on the part of the successor of Peter and of the episcopal college assembled in council and in communion with him. The hypothesis that they proposed a body of doctrine that clashes with Tradition would inevitably result in the affirmation that in the Church the Magisterium has been breached and the certainty of the faith has been lost.

Nonetheless, both of the results recalled above are inevitable when, more or less consciously, what is working at the basis of the reinterpretation is not the intention of identifying and considering the facts, but the effort to prove a thesis.

*

But once the prejudices destined to compromise an objective understanding of it are removed, it is certainly legitimate and opportune to reexamine the Council and, on different levels, to discover its limitations or apparent limitations.

I think of the concise but penetrating reflections of Cardinal Giacomo Biffi in "Memoirs and digressions of an Italian cardinal" (Siena, Cantagalli, 2010). He maintains, for example, that John XXIII's expression "renewal within the Church" is more pertinent than the term "aggiornamento," also used by Pope John. It was this term, however, that had "an undeserved fortune," which included the idea – beyond the pope's intention – that the Church "should try to conform better not to the eternal plan of the Father and his salvation, but 'to the day', meaning temporal and worldly history."

The cardinal himself does not fail to manifest his reservations about John XXIII's preference to abstain from condemnation and use the "medicine of mercy," thus avoiding "formulating definitive teachings binding for all" according to the declared intention to aim for a "pastoral Council," pleasing everyone "inside and outside of the Vatican assembly." [...]

*

With regard to "Gaudium et Spes," Giacomo Biffi recalls three authoritative judgments.

The first is that of Hubert Jedin, for whom "this constitution was greeted with enthusiasm, but its subsequent history has already demonstrated that back then its significance and its importance were greatly overvalued, and that it had not been understood how deeply that 'world' which it wanted to win for Christ had penetrated the Church."

The second judgment is that of a Protestant theologian highly respected by Giacomo Biffi, Karl Barth, according to whom the concept of "world" in "Gaudium et Spes" was not that of the New Testament: a judgment that Giacomo Biffi maintains is "perhaps too strict if applied to the docuмent itself," but "unobjectionable, if it is extended to a good part of the postconciliar mentality."

The third judgment evoked is that of Cardinal Giovanni Colombo, "keen and independent as always," who stated: "That text has all the right words; it is the accents that are wrong," and "unfortunately" – Biffi's words again – "the postcouncil was influenced and captivated more by the accents than by the words."

*

In particular, "Memoirs and digressions of an Italian cardinal" dwells on the liturgical constitution "Sacrosanctum Concilium."

When it came out, Cardinal Biffi recalls, "I was overjoyed. All of the most intelligent and balanced liturgical movement – which in the preceding years I had followed passionately – found here its greatest welcome and its coronation. From here began, providentially and unstoppably, the reform that we had so desired." Undoubtedly, also "the most disconcerting ecclesiastical foolishness arbitrarily took from here the cues for its flagrant aberrations. But this constitution is not guilty of that."

Continuing, Giacomo Biffi brings to light the providential reforms intended to make effectively possible a "devout and active participation of the faithful" in the celebration, for which "a total and perfect return to the forms that before the Council were normal for less solemn celebrations would be in explicit contrast with the teaching and intention of Vatican II."

The cardinal then does not fail to observe that, if "the Council had neither intended nor foreseen the complete disappearance of Latin from our celebrations," already in the new reformed missal "the Holy See had settled on a general concession." [...] In the cardinal's view, "an only partial permission, with the result of having a 'bilingual liturgy', could not be maintained for long; and it is therefore justified that the conciliar dictate was superseded."

*

It seems to me that the theologian Brunero Gherardini dissents outright from this assessment of the constitution "Sacrosanctum Concilium," reserving for it a series of accusations, in my view are unfounded and unacceptable, in his book "Vatican Council II. The missing discussion" (Torino, Lindau, 2011). What is unacceptable is above all the lack of distinction between the dictate of the Council and the subsequent authoritatively promoted and guided implementations on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the careless whims of the postcouncil, of which, nonetheless – as Cardinal Giacomo Biffi observes – the "constitution is not guilty."

Completely acceptable is what Gherardini says about the "anti-liturgical absurdities committed in the name of Vatican II" and about the "gross situation of liturgical anarchy that is before the eyes of all." But I do not believe that direct or indirect responsibility for this can be attributed to the Council itself.

In reality, Gherardini himself recognizes the validity and precision of the principles for reform enunciated by "Sacrosanctum Concilium," which "as a whole and each on its own, are of crystalline clarity, timely precision, and prudent balance." But in the end this does not prevent him from charging the same constitution with being the cause of the subsequent disastrous  tendencies, and in particular of anthropocentrism and liturgical horizontalism, of which it contained the seeds and the inclination.

Moreover, according to Gherardini, anthropocentrism, naturalism, horizontalism had been the "dominant notes" of the "careless liturgical movement," represented for example by Beaudin, Parsch, and Casel, objectively responsible, beyond their rectitude of intention, "of at least in part diverting the course of the liturgical movement, centering it on man."

A statement of this kind does not seem to me at all defensible in regard either to Casel, for whom, in harmony with the conception of the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy represents in sacramental form the work of salvation, or to Beaudin, engaged in making the Christian community actively prayerful, or of Parsch, with the merit of having initiated the people as much as possible into an understanding of the liturgy. Unless one maintains that pastoral work fostering the more and more active participation of the faithful in the liturgical action is a sign of anthropocentrism and horizontalism. [...]

Gherardini is convinced that Vatican II, speaking in regard to the liturgy of "a part that is unchangeable because it is of divine origin, and parts subject to change," made "any sort of innovation child's play." But neither the pope nor the competent organisms of the Apostolic See seem to me to have behaved like children, by admitting, in the implementation of the Council, "any sort" of innovation, even if the more deplorable children were – and are – the authors of the "flagrant aberrations," as Cardinal Biffi called them.

It might be pertinent to note that in "Mediator Dei" (1947), Pius XII states: "The sacred liturgy consists of human elements and divine elements: these, having been instituted by the Divine Redeemer, clearly cannot be changed by men; those, instead, can undergo various modifications, approved by the sacred hierarchy with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, according to the needs of the times, of things, and of souls."

Is Gherardini really sure that, after the promulgation of "Sacrosanctum Concilium," in the time of the various reforms, the Holy Spirit had nodded off or gone on vacation, leaving the sacred Hierarchy itself, represented by Paul VI or by John Paul II, completely lacking his assistance and prey to their "craving for new things"? [...]

I really do not see how those eager for new things got their support from the "conciliar dictate," from its language and from the "doors that it was opening." It even reaches the point of saying that "yes, the door really is open," and "if some have passed through it to introduce a liturgy subversive of its own nature and of its primary ends, in the final analysis the conciliar text itself is responsible," the Fathers are responsible with "that pro-openness into which the Council itself had plunged them." [...]

*

Gherardini reserves special attention to the question of liturgical Latin. Its value is absolutely incontestable and relevant. Nor must one ignore the shoddy results and even the errors – some of a theological nature – of certain versions in Italian, rightly pointed out by Gherardini. This is why, as Cardinal Biffi writes, vigorous reminders are needed of "the provision to celebrate on Sundays and feast days, at least in the cathedral churches, a solemn Latin Eucharist, obviously according to the missal of Paul VI."

But I wonder if we are not outrageously out of bounds to maintain, as Gherardini does, that "with the substitution of the vernacular in the place of Latin, the intention was to favor man, indeed not elevating him through the sacred rite to the levels of the divine, but lowering the rite to the level of man, of his historically delimited condition," as if in the liturgy it were the language and not grace that elevates "to the levels of the divine," or as if these find themselves lowered if the faithful immediately understand the texts in their usual tongue. [...] It should be clear that the Christian "mystery" is something quite different from profane "arcana."

The great defendants of this introduction of the vernacular language are the popes. For the prejudicial openness of Vatican II – Gherardini maintains – "toward everything that was or seemed to be a need of man, the men of the postcouncil provided, popes included." Who thus find themselves equated with the reckless who, improperly referring to the Council, instead betrayed it and subverted its sound principles and judicious directives.

As for the individual popes, these were Paul VI, complicit in having adopted the vernacular out of "fondness for man," and John Paul II, who for a quarter of a century had "a true devotion" for man: both of them remained, in any case like "the stars looking on." We are still in the vein of the preconceived and unacceptable thesis that orients and influences Gherardini's whole contorted and unfortunate reconstruction.

Here it seems to me, however, that even the measure of good taste has been exceeded. And so it would be perfectly useless even to remark that the liturgy does not exist so that God may render worship to himself, but so that man may praise and glorify him through the sacred rites celebrated "actively and in full awareness," and so receive the grace of salvation.

And in fact, this was the only aim of the conciliar reforms, which, if they had limitations that can or must be corrected, above all have brought immense benefits. It may be opportune to have a discussion about Vatican II: but it is one thing to have a discussion, and another to denigrate.

_______________


The newspaper of the Holy See that published the two reviews:

> L'Osservatore Romano

__________


The two articles from www.chiesa on the autobiography of Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, with selections of his views on Vatican Council II and the postcouncil:

> The Inconvenient Memoirs of Cardinal Biffi (16.11.2010)

> Before the Last Conclave: "What I Told the Future Pope" (26.10.2007)