Hermenêutica da Falha. Vaticano II (ou Vaticano Too)

Após o artigo do arcebispo Viganò, no qual ele declara que o Concílio Vaticano II é a origem da criação de uma falsa Igreja Católica dentro da Igreja Católica, o assunto tenebroso Vaticano II, que nunca nos deixou, voltou à tona. Ontem, eu li um artigo bem interessante, pela simplicidade e verdade que exala, do Dale Price, no site Duspeptic Mutterings. O artigo consegue identificar com clareza que o Vaticano II (ou Vaticano Too, como Price chama, porque o Vaticano II é sempre usado como justificativa para o bem ou para mal) foi uma falha retumbante. 

Hoje, infelizmente eu não tenho tempo para tradução. Aqui vai o  excelente texto de Dale Price.

It's OK to admit failure. Sometimes it's a necessity.

And now for something completely-different:
 

It was only sixteen months ago--but it seems like a lifetime, doesn't it?

Remember the newsworthy joint declaration from the pontiff and the Sunni head of the Al Azhar University in Cairo? That bit about the Almighty willing religious diversity the same way He willed us to be male and female?

In defending that heretofore-unrevealed spin on Catholic teaching, the pontiff was adamant: "From the Catholic point of view, the document does not pull away one millimeter from Vatican II."

Interpreting what Vatican II said or what the footnotes supposedly help it say is an exercise reminiscent of late-stage scholasticism: a lot of ink spilled over puzzling/ambiguous minutiae to no benefit at all. Except for the publishing prospects or feuds of a ring of clerics or clericalized-laity who have the parchment license to use the cant of the initiated.

No, for the purposes here, the important thing is that, once again, Vatican II is invoked. In my snarkier moments I call it "Vatican Too," because like "too," the council is inserted into an embarrassing number of church contexts.

No ecumenical council insists upon itself quite like the 21st.

But why do we let our thinking be dominated by a failed enterprise?

FAILED ENTERPRISE?!

How can you say any such thing about an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church?

Well, why don't we do a couple of things before we flee to our fainting couches? First, let's consider the stated intent of that council.

Back in 1963 Pope Paul VI identified the goals of the Second Vatican Council as follows:

  

"You know the purpose of this council, which has more participants than any other: As it was expressed by our illustrious predecessor [Pope John XXIII], the Church must appear in its perennial vigor, the instrument of salvation for all; to her Our Lord Jesus Christ has entrusted the deposit of the Faith, to be guarded faithfully and in an apt and convenient way. This energetic vigor of the Church, which illuminates, attracts, moves souls, can take new strength from the council, which meets at the tomb of St. Peter.”

And how has that worked out for us, three generations later? The Church is dead in Western Europe, moribund in Latin America, withering or barely holding its own in Asia and well on the way to irrelevance in North America.

Only sub-Saharan Africa is a place of consistent growth, but that can hardly be taken for granted.

Thus, according the stated goals as set forth by Paul VI, one of the presiding popes of that council, Vatican II has failed. 

Some of you are mentally recoiling in horror right now (or haven't stopped)--but why? 

The second thing you have to remember is that

the long history of the Church tells you you should not be freaked out. A searching look back across the centuries demonstrates that a failed ecumenical council is Just One of Those Things. 

Councils have failed before and will fail in the future. Is anyone still talking about the Spirit of Vienne, or asking about Lateran IV?

I hear the sputtering "Butbutbut--it's *you* who aren't taking the long view. Everyone knows it takes a century for a council to take effect!!!”

And where is that written? That’s just one of the popular apologetics slogans, right alongside the no True Scotsman-y "hasn't been implemented properly," "it's not in the actual documents" and "bad translation." It's spin--pure ahistorical, corporate spin.

And it’s especially laughable if you peruse Church history. Lateran V closed in 1517, but by 1545 it had been justly forgotten after half of Europe had become Protestant. Certainly, there was no one in the Catholic world dumb enough to suggest that Lateran V just needed some more time to leaven the dough of faith, or some similar happy metaphor defending the downward trajectory.

Unfortunately for our time, the one thing that unites the entire leadership of the Church, regardless of label, is that Vatican II Was Just Fine, no matter what the statistics say about the disintegration of Catholic observance across three continents. So instead of accepting the fact that VToo was, by virtue of its pastoral mindset and focus on the moment, reaching out to the world of the 1960s, making it a council with a built-in sell-by date...it is turned into a platonic Form. It is a super-council, "a language event" unconstrained by time or place, a totally unique episode in the Church untethered from her past.

While the “hermeneutic of continuity” scholastics would argue against the last clause, it really has been treated like that, even by the 'conservative' popes. Both of whom unswervingly took the Council as the unalterable touchstone and functional super-event in one way or another. And they agreed that, of course, “these things take time.”

The only difference with the current pontiff is that he takes the gestalt of the council to its logical end. He’s a true believer in singing a new church and has not the slightest qualms. Forward, forward, always forward! The only problems he sees in the Church are with those who object—rigidly, of course—to another half-century of giddy autodemolition praised as a fruit of the spirit.

When you consider the undeniable ambiguity of the conciliar documents, the wholesale re-constitution of the liturgy which followed and the declarations of independence from the magisterium which were only occasionally and half-heartedly reined in, the much-derided “spirit of the council” is usually the council itself on laughing gas.

And the fact that 'conservatives' and 'liberals' alike insist on using "*the* council" as *the* polestar in the face of disintegration….well, that makes Vatican II the wordiest suicide note in history.

....

Continuem lendo no site de Dale Price, clicando aqui.