WHAT SAY THE “TRADITIONALISTS” (ABOUT THEM AND CONVICTION IN BLOCK)
My dissent against the father Ariel just about externals, while of course I agree with the complaint of ideological fanaticism and commingling policies found in traditionalist. In which area we are, but, even legitimate opinions and legitimate stances, and I can not deny my strategy theological, that is to judge only the doctrine
In my previous article I have already expressed my dissent from the way, in my view unwise, with which my brother Ariel S. Levi Gualdo has treated the subject of blasphemous cartoons of Charlie Hebdo. [see which]. Now, perhaps abusing his patience, I go back to disassociate myself from certain aspects of his way of arguing with Italians members of militant traditionalism; he, indeed, It is not limited to legitimate and indeed necessary criticism of certain ideas but switches to heavy personal references, making the names of some publicists (book authors and editors of newspapers) and even some serious scholars. Everything in the article entitled "We are the change of an era, the Holy Father Francis is necessary to suspend judgment and proceed on the wings of faith” [see which].
Even before these recent events I had published which, on 'Patmos Island, an editorial in which - on behalf of all three editors of the magazine - precisavo one that I thought would be our doctrinal policy, and consequently our editorial line: "Why can not we tell us traditionalists but even progressives" [see which]. The essence of the speech that I made it this: when it comes to matters of faith of the Church and its correct interpretation, We can not dogmatize what is questionable, ie absolutizing what is relative, because in the end is to be put in perspective just what is absolute, that is, the truth of the dogma. As a result, The island of Patmos should have, in my opinion, on every occasion to reaffirm the truth of the dogma and discern, among many theological opinions that are proposed, those that constitute a legitimate interpretation / application of the dogma from those that are incompatible with the dogma itself. Doing so could avoid taking positions theologically confused, such as to jeopardize the function of orientation to the truth of the dogma The island of Patmos must have. For "theologically confused positions" I mean those that emphasize beyond measure any legitimate opinion on the Catholic doctrine, eventually take the epistemic quality (negative) ideology.
I, calling Fondazione la mia "Apostolic Union for scientific defense of Catholic truth”, I meant precisely that it was promoting a proper scientific, ie founded on secure principles and guided by an appropriate method. Ideology is exactly the opposite of this way of interpreting the dogma, because it confuses dogma uncritically with questionable, the limited and relative human science with the absoluteness and finality of divine revelation, as it is formalized in dogma, St. Thomas considered a participation 'Knowledge of God and the saints». What forms of ideology, I mean? At these ideological positions that today in the theological debate are contrasted provocatively and I mentioned in the article title: traditionalism and progressivism.
We dell 'Island we would had to look from appearing supporters of one of these opposing ideology, and explain to all our theological reasons for this distancing. But not passing through the criticism of certain ideas "extremist" denigration of individuals. Because individuals with an idea you never indentificano, let alone with the ideas of a political group, a current of thought. And every person has a dignity that should not be unfairly convolta in the criticism of ideas, His area or cultural environment. Nor should they be criticized, in this doctrinal background, its hypothetical intentions, much less the personal and private facts.
My disagreement with Ariel So far only externals, while of course I agree with the complaint of ideological fanaticism and commingling policies found in traditionalist. In which area we are, but, even legitimate opinions and legitimate stances, and I can not deny my strategy theological, that is to judge only the doctrine (that is something to be known with sufficient certainty on the part of a believer with theological criterion), and not the conduct, especially if private, of people (given that their intentions and the complex events of their lives are never knowable properly and then do not allow anyone to make certain judgments but only more or less legitimate suspicion and speculation more or less well-founded).
I have been faithful to this theological strategy even when I felt compelled, for the preservation of the faith in the people of God, flatly disapprove doctrines that seemed totally incompatible with the dogma (I did it, as everybody knows, denouncing the incompatibility with faith seen in the speeches of certain public figures, including lay people as Enzo Bianchi and Vito Mancuso, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, and as Walter Kasper, bishops like monsignor Bruno Forte, etc). In this line, I have also worked to promote the Church mutual respect among all the opinions that are compatible with the dogma, whatever the differences in its doctrinal interpretation or historical application. For this reason I refrain from judging what is not doctrine, but practice (pastoral practice, institutional, apostolic etc.), because the practice of individuals is made up of many prudent choices that the individual has to operate in the face of various concrete circumstances and must be guided, note, by virtue of prudence: virtues that I want to play in my own work, but about which I have no way to judge the work of others.
in traditionalist There are opinions and are also recognized legitimate. Let me explain: If the "area" or "current" you can talk, it is because the different actors have in common a certain ideological approach, which consists in considering illegitimate (totally or in part) the teaching of Vatican Council II, because it would have welcomed (totally or in part) instances ideology opposite, that of progressivism or modernism. Hence hermeneutics of Vatican II as a radical "break" with the Tradition, particularly with the decrees of the Council of Trent and Vatican I, with the condemnation of theological modernism by Saint Pius X and the condemnation of "new theology"By Pius XII. From here also the rejection in block of the entire post-conciliar theology and the constant reference to the sole pre-reconcile theology. From there the fact to consider doctrinally and pastorally unacceptable reforms introduced by Vatican II in the Church's life, beginning with the liturgical reform, with the consequent attachment to The old order, considered the only valid way of celebrating the Eucharist. From here finally the systematic critique of the pastoral decisions of the popes of the post-conciliar (Blessed Paul VI, St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and especially the current pope, Francesco), considered deleterious effects of the conciliar reforms.
The most extreme positions, in this sense, are those represented by the followers of Archbishop. Marcel- François Lefebvre, some of whom come to speak of "vacant" and "Church apostate". Evidently, these extreme positions are not made their, all together, by all the representatives of the Catholic traditionalism, because among them there are also serious and balanced scholars, whose ideas - taken one by one - can and should be appreciated, although not necessarily shared, as valid and legitimate interpretations of Catholic dogma and history of the Church. It is a question of objectively respectable theological opinions, and I, When the opportunity presents itself, I find it quite right to respect them, and sometimes also to express my appreciation. And to those who work with me I suggest you do the same, ie respect these objectively respectable theological opinions. Respect them - I clarify – not for the impersonal context (socio-cultural) ideology which is their humus, but in the personal context of righteous arguments of those who propose.
I do a first example, so to further clarify This my criterion. The historical research of Roberto de Mattei on Vatican II are in themselves - regardless of ideological use that they can do - a record that has a great scientific value. I do not share his interest in pursuing the Council as an "event", because I'm interested in the Council as the Magisterium, regardless of how the conciliar documents have been developed in the committees and voted on in the classroom; but that does not stop me from reading his works without bias and to draw useful indications for the hermeneutic of the Council, that papa Ratzinger leads to recognition in Vatican II a "renewal in continuity of the one subject Church". I not even completely share his strategy of intervention of Catholics in social life in defense of "non-negotiable principles": but I know well that some initiative in civil society must indeed be taken, and my mistrust of the use of certain means (the inevitable mingling with political issues) does not take away my full sharing of ends. This is why not just believe that you find fault in 'Patmos Island without distinguishing between its historiographical considerations (which fall within the limits of legitimate freedom of opinion of Catholics) and its cultural and socio-political (the expediency of which does not touch us of 'Patmos Island to judge).
As another example,. Piero Vassallo Genovese is a cultured intellectual, good knowledge of the history of modern philosophy, and he and I are in agreement there on the validity of the "philosophy of common sense" and the critical idealism of theology; why should I refuse his friendship as manifested, when he is dealing with matters unrelated to theology, sympathies for the political right? In addition to not talk (neither good nor bad) political conviction, I should also point to it to public contempt? And what theological argument I should come up to attack? I should perhaps say that the Catholic morals forbids to have sympathies for the right? But the view that we must necessarily be left to be a good Catholic has no theological foundation: It is the classic view of "fundamentalist" (that can be right-wing Catholics, m also left Catholics: just think of the theorists of "political theology" or "liberation theology").
The "fundamentalists" are theologically astray, because they ignore the complexity of policy issues and the area of freedom that the Church gives to the faithful in the choice of means to operate the necessary "mediation" between the principles of social ethics and the concrete possibility of promoting the common good in the historical contingency. I do so I must limit myself to theological considerations, reminding everyone that in politics there are no dogmas, and the real dogma, what is the basis of Catholic morality, does not oblige the faithful to any contingent political option. The principles of moral theology (and the Church's social doctrine is a chapter of moral theology, said St. John Paul II) indicate the criteria that the conscience of the faithful must follow, applying them with freedom and personal responsibility to concrete historical circumstances in which it has to operate.
A third example is that of Brunero Gherardini, theologian of the Lateran and exponent of what was once the famous "Roman School", to which progressives wanted to inflict damnation of memory. Traditionalists however exalted Gherardini because he put at the center of theological discussion of the post-conciliar precisely the notion of "Tradition", without, however, fully understand in its complexity epistemica. I think I've fully understood and not convince me at all (He knows this because we hang out amicably for many years and we exchange opinions on many topics), but nonetheless I recommend to everyone the study of his texts, full of good doctrine and deep piety. In one of them his lyrics he concludes his analysis of the doctrinal documents of Vatican II detecting in some cases the ambiguity: ambiguity as to enable progressive false and tendentious interpretations, justifying their "hermeneutic of discontinuity", namely the argument that the Vatican II would mark a radical rupture with Tradition. But what is the consequence that Gherardini draws from his analysis? Do not indiscriminate rejection of the Council's teachings but rather a respectful and heartfelt appeal to the supreme authority of the Magisterium, The Pope, to make provision in the way that he believes should be made clear in which direction those ambiguous propositions can and should be interpreted in continuity with the previous magisterium. I thought it right and proper to join this public plea to the Pope, although personally I have always thought that the problem of the ambiguity contained in some Council texts should be solved with the hermeneutical criterion of "analogy fidei", ie assuming that the Church of Christ - only subject permanent in the changing historical circumstances – He never intended to contradict, so that in the intentions of the teaching Church every evolution of dogma is always substantially harmony with Tradition (it is a "homogeneous evolution", as Marin Sola said).
And I could give many other examples, but these are enough. And new dell 'Patmos Island indiscriminately we condemn individuals of a certain ideological area, without saving the objectively positive aspects of their theoretical proposals, we do too ideological operation, and so our work of public theological orientation is to be severely limited.
We point out to our readers that the previous article by Antonio Livi was particularly appreciated within the French and has been translated and reproduced in an online magazine which can be viewed by clicking below