According to the SSPX North American District website:
Here are our comments on this interesting piece of news on the role of the Magisterium in the Catholic Church and the problem raised by the interpretation of it.
The divine institution of the Church demands a social authority, the Magisterium, exercised by its constant preaching. Its function is to propose with authority, to clarify, always in the same sense the deposit of the faith.
Hence, the Church could not be defined in principle as the “Church of the seven or twenty first ecumenical councils.” It is defined in principle as the “Church of all times”. This means that the Church remains substantially the immutable in its signification, despite the verbal elaboration in which the Magisterium gives an ever clearer precision of the same truth.
Pius XII in Humani Generis explains that the Magisterium is exercised “in view of a more and more exact presentation of the truths of faith”, not in view of a clarification of its own teachings. The Magisterium interprets and clarifies the divine truths, but it does not need to interpret itself. On the contrary, the Scripture needs interpretation because it often uses figurative and metaphorical language open to different senses. But the interpretation which the Church gives of the Scripture clarifies the scriptural sense, and there is no need of “an interpretation of the interpretation” under pain of going on forever in the process.
As a rule, the role of the Magisterium is to interpret the points of doctrine not yet clarified by the anterior Magisterium. Thus, Nicea I gives a clear teaching on the Second Person of the Trinity, and Nicea II, far from clarifying Nicea I, dealt with another dogma, of the Third Person of the Trinity.
The problem with the post-conciliar Magisterium is that it tries to give the good interpretation of Vatican II, by eliminating the wrong one.
Lionel: Different premises will result in different conclusions.The post –conciliar Magisterium like the SSPX is using the premise of being able to see the dead saved on earth.It sounds riciculous but here is where the problem lies.The result is a wrong interpretation.
Take as an example the speech of Benedict XVI of December 22, 2005:
Why was the reception of the Council, in great parts of the Church, reached with such difficulty? Well! Everything depends on the just interpretation of the Council—or, as we would say today—of its correct hermeneutic, of the right key of reading key and application. The problems of the reception came from the confrontation of two opposite hermeneutic.
Lionel: Correct. There are two hermeneutics one in accord with tradition and the other is opposed to tradition. The premise responsible for this error when identified should end the wrong interpretation of Vatican Council II which is a break from tradition. The premise itself is a break from tradition.
This in itself is the proof that, far from clarifying the doctrine, this Council has at least obscured it.
Lionel: This is the 'proof' of the wrong premise. The SSPX and the Magisterium have to identify the ‘proof’ with the faulty premise. They have not noticed it.
This alone puts into question its proper magisterial nature. Hence, it is vain to take Vatican II as the criterion, since we could not understand the teachings of the previous Magisterium, clear in themselves, by following equivocal teachings.
Vatican Council II is equivaocal since awrong premise is jused.
Iota Unum (#48) explains that the very fact that theologians most faithful to Rome strive to disculpate the Council from equivocity is a sign that things are not right.
Lionel: Things are not right since both sides have not identified the wrong premise.Change the premise of ' the dead are visible to us on earth' to 'the dead are not visible to us on earth' and Vatican Council II changes. Same Council but with different premises leading to different interpretations and conclusions.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment