A reader sent a link to an engaging address given at Wigratzbad (the FSSP HQ) by the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” back on 2 July about “Aspects of Catholic ecclesiology in the reception [assimilation] of Vatican II”.
He is addressing the intrepretation of the Conciliar documents.
The article is on the site of DICI.
Here is an excerpt. I suggest you read the rest there.
Msgr. Pozzo’s analysis of the influence of the para-council
Msgr. Pozzo intends to prove that, concerning two controversial points (the first being the unity and uniqueness of the Catholic Church, along with the question of the expression subsistit in from Lumen Gentium 8, and the other—the relations between the Catholic Church and other religions, including ecumenical and interreligious dialogue) “the authentic proclamation of the Church, with regard to its absolute claim, has not been modified substantially with the teaching of Vatican II.”
Hence one can only wonder why the conciliar documents, which in Msgr. Pozzo’s view are so clearly in conformity with Tradition, have given rise to a contrary interpretation on this point. [Some readers will be tempted to jump in and say that the Council documents were riddled with “time bombs”, that they were made purposely ambiguous on certain points.] The Roman prelate asks the question and answers: “What is the origin of the interpretation of discontinuity or of rupture with Tradition? It is what we may call the conciliar, or more precisely, para-conciliar ideology which took hold of the Council from the beginning and superimposed itself on the proceedings. By this expression we do not mean something concerning the documents of the Council, nor the intention of the participants, [All the participants?] but rather the general framework of interpretation in which the Council was placed and which acts as a sort of internal treatment [conditionnement intérieur] affecting our subsequent reading of the facts and the texts.
The Council is not the same thing as the para-conciliar ideology, but the story about that ecclesial event and about the mass media has served in large part to mystify the Council, and that is precisely the para-conciliar ideology. [Certainly entities such as IDOC played their part in distorting the Council’s teachings.] In order to show all the consequences of the para-conciliar ideology as an historical event, one would have to examine the Revolution of 1968, which was based on the principle of breaking with the past and radical change in history. In the para-conciliar ideology, the 1968 Movement meant a new paradigm for the Church in breaking with the past.” [And that wasn’t in play before and during the Council?]
Msgr. Pozzo concluded that we must use “the hermeneutic of reform in continuity” recommended by Benedict XVI “to address controverted questions, thus freeing, so to speak, the Council from the para-council that has become mixed up with it, while preserving the principle of the integrity of Catholic doctrine and of complete fidelity to the deposit of faith handed down by Tradition and interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church”.
At the end of this presentation, one question remains: can the para-council denounced by the Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission be identified with the post-conciliar period?
This is an engaging piece. Read and discuss.
BTW… it really is worth reading. It ends with this:
On the one hand, Monsignor Pozzo proposes liberating the Council from the para-council, and on the other hand, Amerio and Radaelli demand that the Roman Magisterium stop being “pastoral” so as to be clearly dogmatic. This is the heart of the debate about Vatican II, which Msgr. Gherardini calls “a much needed discussion”.