www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Dr Roman might not like this...

Myles,

Actually, I don't think Usque understood the reference to "Dr. Roman" as being to Alex/Orthodox Catholic (a/k/a Dr. Alexander Roman) and took it as intended to be a reference to traditionalist Roman (Latin) Catholics, a characterization with which he seems to identify.

Many years,

Neil

Myles,
*Scratches head*...who is Dr. Roman anyway?

Alex is entitled to his opinion. I think he supported it well. But I also think in general the traditionalist camp is not happy with it. To be honest, we are still reeling from Vatican II and the flood of "Roman shame" that came with it. And this is seen as another example of the "de-romanization" of the west. The papacy is part of the very fiber of western culture, Protestant or not. And the Tiara represented (among MANY other theological and non-theological things) the intregal role the Papacy played in its development. Leo the Great saving Rome from Attila the Hun comes to mind.

Now, of course I understand the East finds signs of hope in the move. I agree that the East needs to be better represented at the Vatican. But I just don't think it has to be done at the price of Western history.

Now, out of respect for Papa Ratzi, I refuse to critique his theology this early in his reign. But I will mention that every one of the other periti you mentioned in your post are notorious modernists in the traditional circle. In fact I should point out that each was suspect of heresy prior to the reign of John XXIII. And to have anything in the Vatican subject to their ideas is bound to cause a stir with us.

This is NOT to say that we don't ardently love Eastern Catholicism and desire the reunion of the Orthodox Churches. And this is NOT to say that collegiality is not a legitimate part of Catholic theology.

Pax Christi, And happy Pacha!!
With warmest wishes for your best,
Usque

Myles,
Neil is correct. I thought "Dr. Roman" was a caricturization of traditional catholics.
My most unfortunate mistake. Forgive me, I am still a newbie.

Mea maxima culpa,
Usque

Its cool. Its just Dr Roman, Alex, and I are firm monarchists. Thus I was curious as to how he'd react over the removal of the tiara because he and I are into that kinda thing (although Paul VI's crown was ugly).

I am aware of the history of the theological elites of Vatican II particularly Pius XII's dealings with the theological peritus of the Council, Henri de Lubac. I havent read much of de Lubac's work so I cant comment about why Pius XII thought he was so dangerous. I suppose being the chief intellectual amongst the ressourcement theologians of that age he was seen as the head of the snake. Personally I wish Pius XII would've known about Rahner and Kung...*sighs*

That being said the documents of Vatican II themselves are stunning. I cannot find any document within the Council that supports Cafeteria Catholicism. Even Gaudium et Spes, sometimes called 'the liberal charter' by the concilium group contains the words:

Moreover, this same document (and the other conciliar documents) makes frequent references to Satan by his various names warning the faithful of him i.e.

Those of our particular Church who identify themselves as traditionalists should not flee from Vatican II but study its documents carefully, remembering that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have repeated time and time again: "The spirit of Vatican II is in the letter of Vatican II" . It is my opinion that the cafeteria Catholic agenda was allowed to take hold because they simply kept claiming that "Vatican II said..." and nobody challenged their patently fallacious statements. Those of us who are loyal to tradition must make it our business to apply the ideal of the ressourcement to Vatican II and rediscover the authentic spirit of the Council. Ratzinger himself has said 'I didnt change, they did' and given his stance over doctrinal purity do you not think there might be something to the substance of this Council?

On this, the feastday of Pope Pius V in the Latin Calendar, I implore you not to retreat from the field so as to allow the cafeteria Catholics to run riot with our particular Church. Use the documents to defend tradition dont simply assume that they cant. If you do that you strengthen the impression that Vatican II is the preserve of the so-called liberals when in fact their entire programme is built upon falsehoods and claims about the Council that have no basis in historical fact.

God Bless
Myles

Dear Friends,

For one thing, whether Dr. Roman likes it or not, it isn't up to me to determine the papal coat of arms!

I don't see there's anything wrong with the tiara and, as I understand it, the tiara will remain as the official part of the Vatican flag and papal arms (I've talked about this with Vatican officials before and they insist that it is, in fact, the "tiara" and not a mitre!).

This Pope would like to underscore the pastoral side of the Petrine Ministry - that is great and truly wonderful.

The mitre is rich in theological and spiritual meaning and it will doubtless allow many Christians "not yet" in communion wtih Rome to think twice about the message being sent here via this symbolic action.

I will continue to wear my papal tiara coat of arms pin and I have two wooden and large antique tiara carvings with the papal cross from Quebec that will hang on either side of a portrait of the new pope in my study.

The tiara is, ultimately, a metallic version of the mitre after all, is it not?

It's like the metal rosary and the woolen chotki . . .

Anyway, a blessed Pascha to all who celebrate the original way of calculating Easter!

Alex

I wouldn't say it's embarrassment about the past -- at least not on everyone's part. Removing the tiara as a symbol doesn't remove the Office of Peter, but it does remove a symbol which could be misinterpreted as implying dominance of the Latin church over all other particular churches.

Personally, I am not against or opposed to the tiara, but I am also not opposed to the resumption of the more long-standing and ancient symbol of the Latin mitre. If we keep in mind that the unity of Christ's flock should be of paramount importance to the Pope, as Christ's vicar, and given that the presence of the tiara is not a theological necessity, then if it might do some good with other ancient churches (not of itself of course, but as a symbol of gathering fraternity toward other ancient sees) why not remove it from use and the coat of arms? Just my thoughts.

Personally, I believe our hope for Papa Ratzi in regards the Latin rite should be not for maintaining things such as the papal tiara, but rather in helping to clean up the theological dissent that is present and help restore some semblance of organic liturgical tradition to our parishes. In the case of the latter, that means helping the reform of the reform, and helping Tridentine communities to flourish and grow despite the opposition of diocesan bureaucracies.

Dearest Myles,
First thank you for overlooking my last flubber so quickly.

While I agree that there are good things in the Vatican II documents, and that they are indeed error free and can be interpreted in every instance in line with the perrenial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church, I must submit that the very fact that they need to be interpreted at all is the very crux of the problem. The council fathers chose to write in essay format, rather than utilize their infallible prerogatives. They could have authoritatively pronounced on so many problematic issues.

I give the Council the benefit of the doubt in every instance. But there should be no doubt in the first place. Vatican I and Trent were very clear in infallible pronouncements. Why didn't Vatican II keep hold over the reigns?

In too many instances modernist periti were allowed to insert ambiguous phrases, which admittedly can be interpreted in line with tradition, but also can go the exact opposite way.

The "letter of Vatican II", I must say confuses the daylights out of me in too many instances. A classic example, how in the world is Unitatis Reintergratio in line with Pius XI's Mortalium Annos?

Rather than having a clearer picture of Catholic Dogma after reading these documents, I am very confused as to how these loooooonnnggg drawn out statements can possibly square away with tradition. I believe that they can, but I have little idea how.

I would have hoped JPII would have cleared the matter up, but he never really did, he just praised the Council to the roof, but never answered the difficult but entirely necessary questions that are screaming for answers.

De Lubac; very generally he destroyed the Thomistic distinction between the natural and supernatural, and failed to replace it with any clear cut theory. Thus he paved the way for the subjugation of the supernatural to the natural.

Pax Domini, and Happy Pascha!!
Usque

BTW I am a monarchist too. But that is not why I have a problem with discarding the tiara.

Back to the tiara,
Regardless of Papa's personal intentions it furthers the false impression, which Paul VI first gave by throwing off the tiara, that we are stepping down from our claims and repenting of our past. With the numerous "mea culpas" of JPII, would it be unreasonable for the Orthodox to suppose that we are gradually coming around to their position? No, it is perfectly reasonable that they suppose the old heretical Catholics, with their romantic view of the papacy, are finally coming around.

But in reality, the Pope has no intention of giving up any claims which the tiara symbolised, including universal jurisdiction, personal infallibility, temporal rulership (or at least the right to it), etc.

The tiara did not symbolize the dominance of the Latin Church, it symbolized the dominance of THE POPE. And it is impossible that the Pope step down from what he has always claimed, because those claims are dogmatic. Yet, it is entirely possible for the Pope to give that impression, and I hold this is the only thing that has been given, a false impression. It is unfair to Orthodox, and to Catholics.

usque

On the original subject of this thread... I hope Alex is not ticked-off about the tiara. I can visualize the Canadian Navy right now sailing for Rome with bows drawn and axes held high. This is dangerous stuff with international implications. Be careful.

Well Charlie boy I think that'd only happen if they took the tiara of the flag and Dr Roman says they arent going to do so, so we're safe. Good thing too I'd hate to have to go on Crusade against the Canadians. After all they're subjects of the British Empire...akhem...I mean the Commonwealth

As for your concerns usqueadmortem the great thing about the letter of Vatican II is that according to it we dont have to interpret these documents ourselves. Indeed, private interpretation of them is at direct odds with the highest ranking document the Dogmatic Constitution 'Lumen Gentium'.

I feel you are right to bemoan the loose terminology of many modern theologians. Scholastic terminology is far more precise than the pseudo-patristic language that many modern theologians seem so intent on trying to fabricate. I understand their aims in many cases are admirable, to mystify the faith, but they're merely causing confusion. However, this is the fault of the theologians not the magisterium at large.

I am not surprised that Paul VI was shocked at the widespread disobidence shown after Vatican II. Looking at the documents myself and noting the status of a constitution in Church law I would've just thought, as Paul VI, probably did that those who saw loose ends in the documents of Vatican II would simply appeal to the magisterium for clarification. After all Lumen Gentium 25 reminds us that even the ordinary magisterium is binding upon all the faithful even when the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra. Any interpretations thus should have been and still should be the preserve of the Holy See alone. Nobody else but the Pope has the right to interpret these documents and nobody has the right to challenge his interpretation either.

For me that settles the question entirely. Between Mortalium Annos upto Dominus Iesus upto and including Unitatis Reintegratio and Ut Unum Sint I dont see a problem. I see shifts in emphasis in a strategy that has its ultimate ends in uniting all Christians together in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not in some sort of pan-Christian federation, which Pius XI was rightly against. In my opinion neither Vatican II, Ut Unum Sint or Dominus Iesus suggest that the Church envisions becoming a communion of parties like Anglicanism is. However, even if Unitatis Reintegratio did appear to imply such a defective ecumenical strategem it would not be for me to apply my own thoughts upon it.

Rome has spoken the case is finished, if only the quarrel would finish, no? Now that the Magisterium has given its interpretation there is no room for debate. Holy Mother Church only demands one thing of us now and thats our assent and that I give and so should all of those concerned by those documents too. Sadly many dont but that doesnt make the Council defective, it just makes them cafeteria Catholics.

Myles, you are right. Britain has already had a couple of North American wars, and lost both times. It would be wise to leave Canada alone. You said, "I am not surprised that Paul VI was shocked at the widespread disobidence shown after Vatican II." Sad to say, Paul VI was a horrible administrator. He had no gifts in that area at all, which contributed to the chaos and disobedience in the Church at the time. I think he was a holy man who was genuinely shocked, but who didn't possess the skills needed to resolve the problems. I agree with you also on the writing style of the Vatican II documents. Perhaps the intent was to make them more readable, or perhaps it was an attempt by some to water down the documents. That could be argued for some time, I suppose, with no resolution. I am reading books by our new Pope, and they are wonderful. His writings clear up a lot of things that are murky.

Of course my personal interpretation is of the least importance.
But Myles, my whole point was that no authoritative interpretation of the Council has been given. Sure, John Paul added a whole lot of thoughts on Vatican II, but he did not shown how Vatican II was rooted in dogmatic history and is in perfect accord with it. Sure he gave meditations on the usefulness of Vatican II, but he didn't address the fundamental theological problems that many expert theologians are pointing out. And theologians DO have a place in the interpretation of a council, at least until issues are infallibly pronounced on.

Let me give you a very general example, Ut Unum Sint supposedly clarified Unitatis Reintegratio. But then JPII comes out with the Assisi thing based on Ut Unum Sint. WHAT THE HECK WAS ASSISI? If Pius XI had known about Assisi, he would have had a heart attack!
But am I to think that JPII wasn't able to interpret his own document? Therefore, Ut Unum Sint hardly clarifyied the issue at hand, how in the world is Unitatis Reintegratio in continuity with Mortalium Annos?

Again, I believe that they are in continuity. But I have not been given an authoritative answer, much less a satisfying answer as to how they are in continuity, and this is a HUGE problem. It was unthinkable to previous popes, Pius IX for example, to allow such gaps in the justification of assertions in a Council. Every single sentence was carefully founded upon dogmatic history. But the number of assertions in Vatican II, the sheer length of these documents, and the paucity of dogmatic references is a problem that has not been addressed.

Usque

BZTine, thanks for the post. I will make an effort to read more of Benedicts books.

Akhem...did we not win Canada? And as for you usqie (new nickname) I see your problem. Although I think Assisi is less about ecumenism and more about trying to foster peace in the world. Dont worry anyways if you have problems write to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or just wait for Papa Ratzi to address these things, or just read his books upon these subjects. Truth and tolerance directly addresses the question of interreligious dialogue.

PS) Bring back Thomism

Thanks for the comments Myles.
Usque.