Author Topic: Pope praises critic of "Bologna School" as "best interpreter of" Vatican II (Read 1533 times)

Geremia · « **on:** November 14, 2013, 12:12:12 PM »

Dear Abp. Marchetto,

With these lines I wish to be close to you and join myself to the act of presentation of the book “Primato pontificio ed episcopato. Dal primo millennio al Concilio ecuмenico Vaticano II” [Pontifical primacy and epicopate: from the first millennium to the Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council] I beg you to consider myself spiritually present [there].

The topic of the book is an homage to the love that you have for the Church, a loyal and at the same time poetic love. Loyalty and poetry are not an object of trade: they cannot be bought or sold, they simply are virtues that are rooted in a heart of a son who feels the Church to be a Mother; or, in order to be more precise, and saying it with an Ignatian familiar "tone", as "the Holy Mother Hierarchical Church".

You have made this love manifest in many ways, including correcting a mistake or imprecision on my part - and for that I thank you from my heart -, but above all it is manifest in all your purity in the studies made on the Second Vatican Council.

I once told you, dear Abp. Marchetto, and I wish to repeat it today, that I consider you to be the best interpreter of the Second Vatican Council.

I know that this is a gift from God, but I also know that you made it bear fruit.

I am grateful to you for all the good that you do for us with your testimony of love for the Church, and I ask the Lord that you be abundantly blessed.

I beg you please not to forget to pray for me. May Jesus bless you, and may the Virgin protect you.

Vatican, October 7, 2013

Fraternally,

Francis

(source: Rorate)

2Vermont · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2013, 12:21:30 PM »

Again with bearing fruit.

This guy is delirious.

Geremia · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2013, 12:30:12 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Again with bearing fruit.

Was he talking about the council or this book he praised on the council? It's hard to tell.

2Vermont · « **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2013, 12:51:00 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: 2Vermont
Again with bearing fruit.
Was he talking about the council or this book he praised on the council? It's hard to tell.

Either way he's still praising Vatican II, no?

Geremia · « **Reply #4 on:** November 14, 2013, 12:54:58 PM »

The "Bologna school" says that "Any new development in Catholic teaching, Catholic devotion, Catholic discipline and Catholic worship must be understood as a development which corroborates and confirms what has come before, even as it proposes a new and deeper insight, a more precise formulation, or an important emphasis that has either been overlooked or has special relevance to our current situation." (source).

Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity" (cf. his "Hermeneutic of Continuity speech" of December 22, 2005) is one example of the "Bologna school."

Thus, Francis conceives Vatican II as a sort of "Copernican revolution" in the Church, a break with the past. As he said in the La Civiltà Cattolica interview, what "was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible."

Matto · « **Reply #5 on:** November 14, 2013, 01:20:19 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Again with bearing fruit.

This guy is delirious.

If by fruit, he means ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs . . .

Geremia · « **Reply #6 on:** November 14, 2013, 01:22:32 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

The "Bologna school" says that "Any new development in Catholic teaching, Catholic devotion, Catholic discipline and Catholic worship must be understood as a development which corroborates and confirms what has come before, even as it proposes a new and deeper insight, a more precise formulation, or an important emphasis that has either been overlooked or has special relevance to our current situation." (source).

Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity" (cf. his "Hermeneutic of Continuity speech" of December 22, 2005) is one example of the "Bologna school."

Thus, Francis conceives Vatican II as a sort of "Copernican revolution" in the Church, a break with the past. As he said in the La Civiltà Cattolica interview, what "was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible."

From the publisher of Abp. Marchetto's book:

Quote

This important study by Archbishop Agostino Marchetto makes a significant contribution to the debate that surrounds the interpretation of the Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council. Archbishop Marchetto critiques the Bologna School, which, he suggests, presents the Council as a kind of “Copernican revolution,” a transformation to “another Catholicism.” Instead Marchetto invites readers to reconsider the Council directly, through its official docuмents, commentaries, and histories. Marchetto’s volume will be a useful resource for graduate students, seminarians, and scholars interested in the theological significance of Vatican II.

But that is just Abp. Marchetto's interpretation of it.
If he's a Modernist, what is really continuity with Tradition would indeed seem like a "Copernican revolution."

Jaynek · « **Reply #7 on:** November 14, 2013, 01:35:02 PM »

Here is an interview that I think makes Archbishop's position more clear:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/clearing-the-record-on-vatican-ii]

For example:

Quote

Q: Some historians, such as professor Giuseppe Alberigo and his collaborators [in the Bologna Group], have presented the Second Vatican Council as a discontinuity in the history of the Church, a conservative Curia against progressive theologians, tradition against renewal, a Paul VI who betrays John XXIII. What is your opinion?

Archbishop Marchetto: Whoever reads my book will realize that, while trying to situate myself in the historical interpretation of the Second Ecuмenical Vatican Council, taking into account the framework of the general historiographic "tendencies," I retain my specific vision of what the Catholic Church is, also historically.

Therefore, I see Vatican II in continuity with all the ecuмenical councils, not as a shooting star, but as part of a constellation, though having some of its own characteristics. Hence, it does not constitute a break, a sort of birth of a new Church.

He is taking a "hermeneutic of continuity" approach. While I don't expect many people here to agree with that, it is better than the position which simply throws out Tradition.

Geremia · « **Reply #8 on:** November 14, 2013, 02:02:20 PM »

Let me get this straight:
• The "Bologna school" says there are contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.
• Critics of the "Bologna school" say there are not contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.

Yet both schools hold that there can be contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.

Is this right?

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #9 on:** November 14, 2013, 02:04:14 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek

Here is an interview that I think makes Archbishop's position more clear:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/clearing-the-record-on-vatican-ii]

For example:
Quote
Q: Some historians, such as professor Giuseppe Alberigo and his collaborators [in the Bologna Group], have presented the Second Vatican Council as a discontinuity in the history of the Church, a conservative Curia against progressive theologians, tradition against renewal, a Paul VI who betrays John XXIII. What is your opinion?

Archbishop Marchetto: Whoever reads my book will realize that, while trying to situate myself in the historical interpretation of the Second Ecuмenical Vatican Council, taking into account the framework of the general historiographic "tendencies," I retain my specific vision of what the Catholic Church is, also historically.

Therefore, I see Vatican II in continuity with all the ecuмenical councils, not as a shooting star, but as part of a constellation, though having some of its own characteristics. Hence, it does not constitute a break, a sort of birth of a new Church.

He is taking a "hermeneutic of continuity" approach. While I don't expect many people here to agree with that, it is better than the position which simply throws out Tradition.

If Vatican II was just a continuation of tradition, why are the changes so drastic? You can take a snapshot of a pre-Vatican II church during Mass and put it next to a post-Vatican II church and put a caption below which states: Is this the same church?

Every facet of Catholicism (and for the sake of this post, let's include conciliar with Catholicism) saw a decline immediately after Vatican II. Trads just need to wait. In the decades to come, the novus ordo will continue to decline and the scandals and court ordered payments to victims will eventually bankrupt new vatican.

In short, these positions that Vatican II is a hermeneutic of continuity is insulting to the intelligence of an average person. The people who forward these ideas are merely jockeying for a promotion or covering up for past crimes.

Oh yes, since I mentioned "hermeneutic" - that's just a Greek word for "interpretation" and that's something else that switched after Vatican II - the replacement of Latin with Greek. This replacement is a clean break with the Catholic Church.

Lighthouse · « **Reply #10 on:** November 14, 2013, 04:03:11 PM »

Where I grew up, no matter how you spelled it, it was pronounced "baloney".

Jaynek · « **Reply #11 on:** November 14, 2013, 04:10:10 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Let me get this straight:
• The "Bologna school" says there are contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.
• Critics of the "Bologna school" say there are not contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.

Yet both schools hold that there can be contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.

Is this right?

I don't think so. I have not seen anything from Abp. Marchetto that suggests he believes there can be contradictions.

Geremia · « **Reply #12 on:** November 14, 2013, 07:12:48 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek

Quote from: Geremia
Let me get this straight:
• The "Bologna school" says there are contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.
• Critics of the "Bologna school" say there are not contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.

Yet both schools hold that there can be contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.

Is this right?

I don't think so. I have not seen anything from Abp. Marchetto that suggests he believes there can be contradictions.

I'll have to check out his book. Does he talk about Dignitatis Humanæ versus Mirari Vos, Quanta Cura, the Syllabus, etc.?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** November 15, 2013, 03:04:23 AM »

Quote from: Geremia

Let me get this straight:
• The "Bologna school" says there are contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.
• Critics of the "Bologna school" say there are not contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.

Yet both schools hold that there can be contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II magisteria.

Is this right?

As ridiculous as it might seem it is an outgrowth of the hermeneutic of continuity.

B16's hermeneutic of continuity is essentially the denial of the principle
of non-contradiction.

If you don't know what the principle of non-contradiction is, or how
important it is to right reason, common sense and all thinking whatsoever,
then you've been uneducated.

Then (if you don't know this) you are trying to step into an area of
observation and analysis for which you are unprepared, a lot like
soulguard who tries to grapple with philosophy when he harbors utter
contempt for the most basic principles of philosophy.

This Bologna School couldn't have a more telling name. The way we
would say it in America would be, "THE BALONY SCHOOL."

That's in honor of Cardinal Balony -- (who is Roger Cardinal Mahony).

.

Geremia · « **Reply #14 on:** November 17, 2013, 10:16:21 PM »

Code: [Select]

School                  Should rupture exist?           Does it exist?

Bologna school          yes                             yes

Abp. Marchetto          no                              no
("anti"-Bologna)
(herm. of cont.)

SSPX & sedevacantists   no                              yes

ultra liberal?          yes                             no

Is this the correct understanding of the various positions?