Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Vatican II: A Pastoral Council, Hermeneutics of Council Teaching


I am very pleased to hear that Fr Serafino Lanzetta's book on Vatican II has just been published in English, it is the translation of his lectureship thesis presented at Lugano in Switzerland. it has a preface by Bishop Philip Egan.

The book aims at clarifying and indicating a possible hermeneutical principle, leading towards a more faithful reception of the Second Vatican Council, which respects the Council in its precise identity and so gives the conciliar teaching its true place in a revealed and defined structure. Hopefully this historical and theological research, involving numerous archive documents, might help looking at Vatican II as a way which will foster unity within the Church.

13 comments:

geoff kiernan said...

Dear Father Blake:
In The preface to Father Lanzetta book, "Vat II: A pastoral council, Hermenuetics of Council Teaching" Bishop Egan says,

"...hopefully this historical and theological research involving numerous archives and documents might help looking at VII as a way which will foster unity in the Church"

One problem with that are the comments of Cardinal Walter Kasper printed in the Vatican Newspaper L'osservatore Romano dated the 12th April 2013.... I quote...

"In many instances the council Fathers had to find compromise formulas in which the position of the major are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to limit them.Thus the conciliar texts themselves had a huge potential for conflict and opened the door to a selective reception in either direction"

I have trouble reconciling the two comments. They can't both be true, can they? Regs and God Bless.

J said...

The answer to V II, I think, is en 1 Macabees 4:38,58
The stones of the Pollution should be removed to an unclean place, and the profaned altar demolished and its stones put in a suitable place on the hill to await the appearance of the Lord.
No more hermeneutics, no more discussions, no more dialogues.
Because the fruits were bad, and after all it was a failed pastoral "tactic" intended 50 years ago.
It´s over.

Fr Ray Blake said...

J,
I suspect you need to read the book!

J said...

OK, Father. I will try to get a copy.
But the question is: Do we really need the teachings of the V II? and, Why?. I´ve been reading the documents, studying the different "hermeneutics", different angles and approaches. Lights and shadows. For years. Getting nothing but confussion and uneasiness, until I noticed that V II was like a curtain hiding the huge, glorious building that had been brightening the whole world for centuries. That Building was there, intact and almost empty.
I am not saying that V II is invalid, I am not saying it is masonic, satanic or conspirative, as some people might say. And I am not questioning the Popes.
I´m just saying (or questioning) if we need it. The whole Church is stuck in this hermeneutic, semantic swamp. I think (just an opinion) that is time to put it aside and move on. As I said, it was a pastoral experiment for a past generation. I was not even born on that days, so sometimes I don´t know what are they talking about.
But, OK, I will try to get a copy, and discuss hermeneutics a bit more.
(English is not my language, so I might sound a bit harsh, which is not my intention)

RichardT said...

Father, have you seen the Pope's recent comment, reported in Rorate Caeli, that "The Second Vatican Council has its value"?

Unless that's a mistranslation, it is a pretty low assessment of Vatican II. Not the way forward, not the defining document of the modern Church; it just "has its value".

If Pope Francis is saying that, perhaps there is hope that the Church can finally have a realistic assessment of Vatican II's importance.

Sadie Vacantist said...

The answer might be Trump especially if he blows up the dollar and ends the post-war era.

It's become increasingly obvious that V2 was always an American operation with occupied West Germany acting as a proxy.

Until the USA ends its obsession with empire, the Catholic Church is finished.

Jeremy said...

I am sure it will prove a work of great scholarship, but here we are 50 years on and it's too late to right the wrongs. Documents were sewn with seeds of dissent or ambiguities. For once Kasper's remarks are accurate. Vat ii is still seen by liberals as the only point if focus in the Church and traditionalists just wish it would be consigned to the bottom drawer and forgotten. Anyone under 35 thinks of it as ancient history. I dread the thought of a Vatican iii, especially now, but in time, perhaps under the next Pope, this may be the only course.

Jacobi said...

I rather suspect the Second Vatican Council, as with the 5th Lateran Council, is best just written off and consigned to history. It has achieved nothing and triggered so much harm.

Another Council will be called maybe by the next Pope and convened by the next again in say seven years time to sort out the mess in what is then left of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That is if the bishops have enough money then to afford the air fares!

Of course they could always come by sea as their predecessors did or by 2nd class rail?

Sixupman said...

'Silk Purses and Sow's Ears' come to mind?

But have not yet read the book!

Jacobi said...

Father, somewhat off-topic but the matter of decreasing Blogg and comment thereon has been discussed recently and I for one have commented, can't remember where.

But I see that Dr Shaw is now joining the list of those on "temporary" retirement.

So the problem continues and gets worse. Collapse of morale and lack of leadership by the Church authorities is one of my theories.

Now don't you get infected!

Fr Ray Blake said...

Jacobi,
One doesn't want to criticise all the time, so silence nowadays is often better.

Jacobi said...

For you Father I would not disagree. You ( and perhaps Dr Shaw ) must keep your powder dry. With others, particularly us "oldies" the sense that time is running out puts a different perspective on things!

Sadie Vacantist said...

@Jacobi I have noticed this also.

It's not clear anyone fully understands what's going on other than God.

The latest interview by the Pope in "La Croix" in respect of the confessional state is actually pro-American in a John Courtney-Murray sort of way. Bizarrely, his comments have has been interpreted as anti-American begging the question as to what is the point of these interviews?

Leaving aside the issue of whether the content of his comments is valid (the Francis generation do not seem to understand Courtney-Murray), it's time that the Pope practiced some silence also.