I note that with the excommunications of the SSPX plus the 50th anniversary of the announcement of the Second Vatican Council, now there is discussion on what Vatican II was supposed to be.
I note also that the left wing of the church must be in defence mode because of this article that I read, where to the lseft wing "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd we are not supposed to read the documents as they were written but to understand all the background arguments first before putting any credence on the actual documents. obviously they are finding the actual documents too "conservative".
This is the same silly argument run by opponents of Vatican II (such as the SSPX) from the opposite tack.
Hey guys - the documents are the documents that were voted on. Read them. There is no further interpretation, just further understanding. (btw I am one of the few people who have sat down and actually read them and hope to do so again during Lent).
By the way, much of the arguments around St Marys of Brisbane are actually around Vatican II and its interpretation. We wait to hear news on that count.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm not sure I get what you are saying about the SSPX's approach to the Council - they certainly are focused on the words of the text as far as I can see; the problem is just that they see a lot of those words as erroneous!
The correct approach according to our current Pope is surely not just to read them as if they were standalone documents, nor (as you point out) in historico-critical mode, but in a hermaneutic of continuity with tradition.
Post a Comment