Hello Everyone,
Sorry that I haven't been active a lot on Servimus. My life is in a tailspin between a new job, all my other activities, and even a girlfriend too.
However, I think this is of important note to make a post, with the few precious hours I get outside of my weekends.
Background: To understand this post/highlight, I must make a few statements-of-fact, about Vatican II, Pope Francis, Trads Behaving Badly (which encompasses "radicals" e.g. SSPX, as well as those outliers looming about traditionalists/Latin Mass communities), and such, to understand what the content might just mean.
1) Vatican II happened. Generally speaking, liberals ran crazy with it, and many things got misinterpreted and damage to the lay faithful happened in numerous ways, from churches becoming ugly-fied from wayward "liturgical interpreters" or "wreckovations", to bubble-gum weak theology that makes Jesus sound like a fuzzy bear, to Catholics not knowing their basic faith.
2) Vatican II in itself, was not the main point of blame for all that occurred in 1). However, it got elevated to the status of a "super-dogma" that allowed so many of the liturgical, doctrinal, and moral violations that have plagued the Church and the lay faithful for 50+ years to occur. Part of this was a liberal, ultra-modernist interpretation of the Council by the "school of Bologna" and its chief architect of this way of thinking about the council, a Signor "Giuseppe Dossetti."
3) In response to the horrible events from that school of thought in 2), there were many lost vocations and faithful who have left the Church. However on the opposite spectrum, there was an opposite, but equally disturbing reaction to the events in the form of Radical Traditionalism, exemplified in the thoughts and "Pre-Vatican II" way of life by groups such as the Society of St. Pius X, other more radical groups, as well as certain members of Traditionalist communities who contain the theology and ideaology of those groups, but follow the rules of Canon Law to remain "in the Church" in order not to be excommunicated, despite sympathies/sentiments to these groups, or making statements in person or online, similar to these radical groups. Part of these groups/people's going-abouts with regard to their faith, is anywhere from a negative view of the Vatican II council to rejecting it outright (which is heretical, for to deny any TRUE ecumenical Council of the 21 held in the Church's history, is self-excommunicatory/latae sentitiae under current 1983 Canon Law, under heresy/apostasy).
4) With regards to our new Holy Father, Pope Francis, it was discovered that the situation of the Latin Mass, which the people in 3) regard so dearly, was mismanaged poorly in his former diocese of Buneos Aires, South America. In addition, the Pope has not taken an active role towards the Latin Mass in his pontificate. Between his off the cuff statements (e.g. "Who am I to judge?",) coupled with his management of the EF in his former archdiocese, those in 3), but also parts of Latin Mass/traditionalist communities (even my Latin Mass friends and colleagues) have an attitude anywhere from a cautious and critical eye on our Holy Father, to daggers of hatred and accusations of heresy and modernism (cough cough SSPX and Fellay cough cough).
Now that I've made my statements-of-fact, I turn your attention to the latest from Traditionalist internet phenom, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, of What Does the Prayer Really Say. Today, he caught wind, thanks to a "Vatican Insider" by the name of Sandro Magister, of a letter sent to one Archbishop Marchetto, of admiration from His Holiness and the unofficial title of "The best hermeneutical interpreter of the Second Vatican Council." See the translated content of the letter in the link to Fr. Z`s blog.
See, the Archbishop isn't just any interpreter. Firstly, he too, like Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, prescribes to the proper hermeneutic of ANYTHING within the Church of major importance, the hermeneutic of continuity. That is, any major pronouncement, document, etc. must be interpreted in the light of the Church's Tradition (Big T, meaning the infallible or unchangeable teaching, principles, etc.) and created to follow such Tradition. Furthermore, this archbishop wrote a book, "The Second Vatican Council: A Counterpoint for the History of the Council," which smacks down the false hermeneutic of interpreting the Council and everything that goes with it in the institutional Church, the "hermeneutic of rupture", of which the thought behind it came from the "School of Bologna" mentioned in the statements-of fact.
So what does this affirming letter basically mean? Even if the Vatican's "official spokesman", Fr. Lombardi, gets in the way and downplays the event, it means that, despite the claims, slander, detraction, etc. thrown by the kinds of traditionalists mentioned in statement-of-fact 3), THEY ARE DAMN WRONG on the Pope being the enemy of Traditionalism, once again (as they were when he slammed a bunch of Italian bishops who wanted the EF eliminated in their diocese by eliminating Summorum Pontificum). So you thought that the Pope was a modernist and enemy of the Church, believing the silly hermeneutic of rupture that the Lie-berals did? Well, unless Jorge Bergoglio is the greatest actor in the world, and is truly being two-faced to all of his subjects in the Church as the Holy Father, (which is likely less than 1% chance here), then this is proving that our Holy Father is right where he needs to be on the theological-political spectrum, and isn't stupid to the situation of the Catholic Faithful and the Church in today's world. He takes the situation of the faithful in the Church seriously and is pushing for proper renewal in the Church.
So once again, I guess this Pope is really a litmus test for the Church. He's once again showing us who he truly is, and in return, where we truly are on the narrow path.
Pax Tibi Christi, Julian Barkin.
No comments:
Post a Comment