THE SECOND VATICAN CARDINAL WALTER KASPER, IN AN ARTICLE THAT IS ALL PROGRAM

.

We must recognize that some thesis doctrinal the council may appear ambiguous or have a certain modernist flavor, but this concern is dispelled by an appropriate interpretation, what it was the one made by post-conciliar Magisterium and authoritative theologians faithful to the Church.

.

.

.

.

PDF print format article

.

.

In an article on The Osservatore Romano the 12 April 2013 under the title A council still journeying, [text WHO] Cardinal Walter Kasper, one month and just over the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of the reigning Pontiff, says Paul VI, in an attempt to prevent formulations proposed by a progressive majority that worried him, 'Involved' traditionalist minority allowing them to introduce changes in the drafting, that attenuated or mingled sense of modernizing steps.

.

If the Supreme Pontiff He felt compelled to moderate the intervention of these so-called "progressive", making room for traditionalists, means that he, with the aim of which was equipped with intuition, and with the sense of responsibility of the Successor of Peter, was aware of the plot in place and that these so-called progressives and bandied about were actually the cryptomodernists, that with their maneuvers risked contaminating the purity of the doctrine reconcile.

.

Paul VI was not a conservative and since when he was Archbishop of Milan showed appreciate a healthy modernization of the life of the Church and the Christian life, a need, this, intrinsic to Christianity itself, animated by the Holy Spirit who makes all things and leading the Church in history the fullness of truth. So if the "progressivism" of that most worried him, it means that it was a false promotion of the advancement of the faith and a reckless assumption of modernity.

.

Cardinal Walter Kasper It seems not to have grasped the wisdom and prudence of the Supreme Pontiff, today beatified, since it succeeds in asserting that with the intervention of the Pope, "he paid a price" with the "compromise formula, in which, often the majority of the positions are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit ". That means, if I understand the words of Cardinal, that the innovative thrust, According to him, It was held back by the Conservatives, so that it could not give everything he could give. But you have to wonder if these "conservatives" were not all the way in this circumstance the guardians of orthodoxy, Considering the importance given to them by Paul VI, who approved their amendments aimed at correcting the initiatives of the pro-modernist "progressives".

.

According to the author of this article that sounds almost like an implementation program for the immediate future, these "limitations", of which he speaks not modify the original texts of all "progressive", that is - let's say it frankly - modernist, but they left them intact, limiting a star beside them in incongruous and contradictory way, implying offensively against Paul VI's inability to reconcile the Council Fathers.

.

The article goes on to explain - and this follows logically from what the author has said - that, because of these "compromise formula", "The conciliar texts have in them an enormous potential for conflict; They open the door to a selective reception in either direction ».

.

In this article, Cardinal also declares that "not even the official reception has been stationary. Partly, It exceeded the Council ", as if to say, apparently, that the Council orthodox and modernist statements are next to each other, as if the reader could then choose the ones you prefer, unless it is put on a contradictory position giving a blow to the rim and a barrel.

.

In that consists This "way" of the council according to the author? It seems the path of a drunk who now hangs here now hangs beyond: interpretation totally disrespectful and tendentious, that one is surprised that it has been hosted in a prestigious newspaper like The Osservatore Romano, which by its nature should reflect in an objective and impartial way, the supremely papal teachings, clarifying or defending positions possibly, especially if it is a question of such an important event as the Second Vatican Council and the part that it was Blessed Pope Paul VI.

.

With all due respect this well-known and influential Cardinal, what is the Cardinal Walter Kasper, for twenty years he was head of the Department for Ecumenism and enjoys great reputation as a scholar Christology, I must say that I differ markedly from this interpretation that he gives the conciliar doctrines, interpretation that negates the evidence continuity with Tradition, thing that all the Popes, by John XXIII to Benedict XVI, They have insistently maintained, to limit ourselves only to remember the famous formula of Benedict XVI "progress in continuity", from which I drew the title of one of my in-depth study on the subject, I allow myself to alert the reader [1].

.

Serious thing, in summary, It is that Cardinal Walter Kasper seems to insinuate that between the doctrines of the Council will still have infiltrated certain theses neomoderniste that Paul VI wanted to prevent, but to which you would be resigned to leaving juxtaposed to those Orthodox to "price" of "an enormous potential for conflict".

.

It is the same false reading which it calls made by Bishop Marcel Lefèbvre, because in hindsight extremes meet. All with a difference: while the Cardinal Walter Kasper welcomes it as a "progress" or "road", Bishop Marcel Lefebvre sorry it as a denial of Tradition. But the mistake of the two is common: see the Council a modernism that does not exist, rejecting the explanations put forward by all the popes of the post-conciliar.

.

It must be acknowledged that some thesis doctrinal the council may appear ambiguous or have a certain modernist flavor; but this concern is dispelled by an appropriate interpretation, what it was the one made by post-conciliar Magisterium and authoritative theologians faithful to the Church.

.

Insist, as some do, in the belief that the council contains steps modernist equivalent to think that a Council can be wrong when it comes to issues pertaining to faith and morals. Which for a Catholic does not make sense, although it is true that the Council does not contain new solemnly defined dogma. Questionable if anything could be some directions pastoral, where the Church certainly is not foolproof, but still worthy of high regard.

.

The thesis of Cardinal Walter Kasper, according to which the doctrines of the Council would lead to a simple juxtaposition undisguised or patched between opposing contradictory thesis, traditional and modernist, It is absolutely unsustainable, because it would be tantamount to accusing the council of heresy, given the heretical nature of modernism; and what would be the sign that Paul VI was unable to still prevent the presence of modernism in the Council, that much and rightly worried him, though he was not at all a notoriously conservative backwater.

.

If the council has a pastoral style and not a defining tone even in the dogmatic teachings, this does not authorize anyone to take them lightly, denying their infallibility, because in judging the authority of the Church's teaching you should not care so much come but he teaches what teaches.

.

The formal definition is a rare mode magisterial teaching, why you should not use the pretext of the fact that this style is lacking in the Council, for error accuse or modernism or rupture with Tradition. Even when Christ was teaching in a boat or sitting at the table with her and not in the temple, it was always the Word of God accepted in faith.

.

It is true that Paul VI, after Good Pope John XXIII, He allowed the Council the presence of Karl Rahner and others criptomodernisti. He was right? It hurt? It is difficult to judge. He's still the fact that, as it is clear from the studies that have been done on the contribution of these experts, they offered an innovator in the assembly reconcile contribution but substantially in the limits of orthodoxy. And how could it be otherwise?

.

It is after the Council that Rahner, with surprising boldness, unfortunately without being censored by the Ecclesiastical, He gave vent undisturbed and with great cunning to his modernist trends. But since he had already acquired a world-class, even among the bishops, even the Pope had to make the best of a bad situation.

.

We must point out that it is true that at the Council there was a clash between a reactionary traditionalism and modernism crypto, He paludava progressive appearance, to get a pass; but it must also say that this comparison - that in some circumstances took on a harsh tone, dramatic and deeply worried Paul VI -, He ended, thank God, Rated with final agreements to very wide majorities and certain tone progressive. The Council was a great innovation council, ma absolutely modernist, who feared the Pope, who he was known in the progressive line but maritainiana absolutely not at all favorable to modernism, which is notoriously a heresy condemned by St. Pius X.

.

Speaking therefore "enormous potential for conflict" It is very serious offense against the supernatural wisdom of the doctrines of the Council, we were almost in front of politicians pateracchi or conflicts of the Hegelian dialectic, and it is therefore completely misunderstand the balanced and consistent results of the conciliar debates, where is that, thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the fathers, come to a fraternal agreement, They were able to offer us a more advanced knowledge of the Word of God without any breakage or unthinkable contradiction with previous doctrinal heritage the Council.

.

Find here the contradictions It means disregard the root of wisdom and nobility of these doctrines, true light for our times, signal indicators of the way that today should the Church do to confront the modern thought and increase the number of his children. So this is not to do any 'reception selective in either direction », but to take one direction, with obvious possibility of particular choices, resulting from the harmonious confluence of fidelity and progress: the one we just mentioned by the Council documents in their authentic interpretation, that the Popes of the post-conciliar do not get tired from fifty to propose to the whole Church for the good and progress of the Church and all people of good will.

.

Those who believe they have to choose in the Council between traditionalism and criptomodernismo he has understood nothing of the teaching of the Council and it is only a proponent of divisions within the Church.

.

The official reception of the Council certainly he not remained stagnant and in some ways exceeded the Council, but not in the sense understood by Cardinal Walter Kasper, ie oscillating between two opposing thesis and leaving choose from time to time between the one and the other depending on the conveniences, but rather deepening this wise synthesis of modernity and tradition.

.

I do not know what this interpretation the council given by Cardinal Walter Kasper, that seems made to stoke the flames of controversy between opposing extremists, can serve for the dialogue between believers, which however he has devoted himself so zealously for so many years. Le dottrine dei Council, as it says the same word council: reconcile, have always had in the Church is an important pacifying and conciliatory function; and the last Council, if well interpreted and well understood, It is not called in this providential function.

.

Of course, the Magisterium of the Church Today also is in motion, but not to deny the truth of faith previously taught, but rather to guide us in a motherly and infallibly to an ever deepening his elder in the tradition and with an eye to including more advanced on the path to the kingdom of God and the fullness of truth.

.

In some ways some indications of the Council they are overcome, But not to have been abandoned, but in the sense that they lived better and more devoutly according to the new situations that did not exist at the time of the Council, but of course always in continuity with the unchanging heritage of faith that Christ offered once for all to the Church to be transmitted intact to all mankind until the end of time.

.

Varazze, 22 March 2017

.

.

___________________________

[1] PROGRESS IN CONTINUITY. THE QUESTION OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND postcouncil, Faith&Culture, Verona 2011.

.

.

.

Dear Readers,

every now and remember to support our apostolic and theological work with your valuable offerings.

Thank you!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.