via the Pertinacious Papist
Q: Is it a mission of the FSSP, or of specific FSSP theologian priests, to attempt to show the “hermeneutic of continuity” with certain difficult passages of the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition? For instance, religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and inter-religious dialogue?
A: This is a mission that was given to the Fraternity from the protocol at its very foundation. I would say that it is carried out at two levels. Any Society that forms priests to go out and do work has to form them in accord with what they think those priests are going to face. For example, a missionary order is going to form its young men so they are ready to go out into that area of the world where they are going to be assigned.
In the Fraternity of St. Peter, our men know they are going to serve a particular group of the faithful within the diocese, and that there are particular types of objections that are going to be there. Certainly, some of these objections are going to be from people who have really spent a lot of time studying the documents of Vatican II. But often times, there are going to be cases where the documents haven’t been read, or sometimes, the presentation of what the text really is, or what it really says is only from a second-hand source with its own interpretation.
The problem with theological study today is not so much that it’s the study of the Second Vatican Council, but sometimes it is the mindset, which is a very modern attitude, that the only thing that is important is what happened in the last day or the last week.
If you look at the modern media, nobody remembers what the President did two weeks ago. In fact, politicians recognize this and make use of it. They simply wait things out.
The same thing has happened, I think to a degree, within theology. We forget that there is the extraordinary Magisterium, but also the ordinary Magisterium by which all things are measured.
There is a danger of forgetting the full span of the Magisterium and giving greater theological weight to what was is said at a Wednesday audience than to what has been stated dogmatically at a given Ecumenical Council simply because it took place more than 1,000 years ago.
The main thrust of theology that is presented at our seminary is to take all the documents of the Church and to put them into the perspective of the Magisterium, in its extraordinary statements and by the universal teaching of the Church as found in the ordinary Magisterium. With regard to the documents with passages that are unclear within the Second Vatican Council, there should be no cause for scandal. They simply need to be read in light of the full teaching Tradition of the Church. Of course, ultimately, these two cannot contradict. This is the work that needs to be done.
I think then [it is essential] to teach people to have a historical perspective. There is vocabulary used within the Council of Ephesus, for example, that is corrected or adjusted by the Council of Chalcedon regarding the hypostatic union, which needed to be put into its proper context. It shouldn’t be so surprising that there are at times teachings that need to be given a coherent interpretation by the Church as the years go by.
The second part of our efforts is to send more men for further studies. We now have one man from North America doing theology at the Dominican House of Studies (in D.C.). We constantly have one or two doing further studies—most of them are in dogmatic or moral theology. To a certain degree we do focus on it [Vatican II in light of Tradition] because we do want to be able to address the people we will serve and wish to give them a right understanding.
It’s mainly about looking at whatever the subject matter might be, whether it is the sacraments, or it’s the Trinity or it’s marriage, or whatever it might be, and to look at that truth with the full teaching and doctrine of the Church. That, I think, is really the only way we’ll ever come to a right vision of things—that is, to read them in the right way.
No comments:
Post a Comment