There is no comment waiting to be approved. I am on a mobile device at the moment, but as far as i can see there is nothing pending. Comments here only go to moderation if there are more than a couple of links. I am not sure what happened.

Luciana Cuppo

The argument of this post—the only argument of this post—which you characterized as having been so “breezily” made, is simply that Pope Benedict’s December 22, 2005 to the Roman Curia is not a mandate for a debate about the existence of hermeneutic of continuity. I provide evidence in the post. I merely asked you what was so breezy about the argumentation.

That Pope Benedict invited such a debate is the position of the September 24, 2011 open letter to the Holy Father of which Mons. Gherardini is the principle signatory. This point is made over and over again by Prof. Roberto de Mattei, one of Mons. Gherardini’s close collaborators in this debate.

Mons. Gherardini affirms many times that the Pope needs to do more than simply declare that the Council is in continuity with Tradition. (See, for example the original open letter and the book in which it was published: The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion, [Frigento: Casa Mariana Editrice], 2009). He argues that the pope must demonstrate what he has declaimed. Apparently, following Mons. Gherardini, this is your position as well.

Contrary to your contention, in a specific manner the Holy Father does indicate on which points the Council is continuity of with Tradition (December, 22, 2005). For example:

In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church’s decisions on contingent matters – for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible – should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

And:

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

Obviously this is not a complete analysis of the controversies concerning the alleged rupture of the Council with Tradition, but it does show that the Holy Father’s premise of continuity is not only general and abstract.

In any case, the Holy Father’s “position” is not merely a theological opinion to be submitted to examination by “scientific theologians.” I do not dispute the necessity and convenience of a theological debate conducted at the appropriate level in respect to difficult phrases expressed in the conciliar documents. But the premise, according to Pope Benedict, must be one of continuity, not rupture.

The doctrinal preamble presented to the SSPX and which apparently Bishop Fellay has signed, more than likely expresses the standard profession of faith required of those with ecclesiastical positions, namely,

. . . I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

Papal teaching does not need to be demonstrably infallible in order for it to be binding. There is no second magisterium of scholars who must be satisfied by the Holy Father’s reasoning. Furthermore, this debate has not been conducted primarily on an academic level. It has been a propaganda war, waged in popular publications and by means of a politically motivated open letter. One does not need to be a theologian to defend papal authority in the matter.

Thanks for your comment. I would suggest that you first READ what Gherardini has to say and THEN comment about it. This is no argument from authority; I’ll be delighted to discuss with you Gherardini’s views AFTER you read his writing.
As to the Pope proposing the hermeneutic of continuity as an answer, my reasoning is simple: where is the continuity? In the documents of Vatican II, sometimes you see it and sometimes you don’t. And the Pope has never defined precisely what is continuous and what is not.
I’ll be more specific after you do some reading; if you insist on saying that “Monsignor Gherardini questions the existence of a hermeneutic ofcontinuity and contends that he does so at the pope’s invitation”, you are obviously poorly informed.

Luciana Cuppo .

Would you be so kind as to indicate what is it that is so breezy about my contention? I don’t think an argument from authority is sufficient here. Mons. Gherardini questions the existence of a hermeneutic of continuity and contends that he does so at the pope’s invitation. My argument is rather modest. The pope did not propose the hermeneutic of continuity as a question, but as an answer. If you think to the contrary, I would be interested in your reasoning.

Luciana Cuppo