Fri 18th Apr 2014 | Last updated: Thu 17th Apr 2014 at 22:10pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Prefect of the CDF says seeing Vatican II as a ‘rupture’ is heresy

By on Friday, 30 November 2012

Archbishop Müller, prefect of the CDF (Photo: CNS)

Archbishop Müller, prefect of the CDF (Photo: CNS)

Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as a “rupture” both espouse a “heretical interpretation” of the Council and its aims, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has said.

Archbishop Gerhard Müller said that what Pope Benedict XVI has termed “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity” is the “only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology”.

“Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, [found] both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist” side, the archbishop said.

What the two camps have in common, he said, is their rejection of the council: “The progressives in their wanting to leave it behind, as if it were a season to abandon in order to get to another Church, and the traditionalists in their not wanting to get there”, seeing the council as a Catholic “winter”.

A “Council presided over by the successor of Peter as head of the visible Church” is the “highest expression” of the Magisterium, he said, to be regarded as part of “an indissoluble whole”, along with Scripture and 2,000 years of tradition.

The doctrinal chief’s remarks were published in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, to present the seventh volume of The Complete Works of Joseph Ratzinger. The volume collects both published and unpublished notes, speeches, interviews and texts written or given by the future pope in the period shortly before, during and just after Vatican II.

Archbishop Müller specified that by “continuity” Pope Benedict meant a “permanent correspondence with the origin, not an adaption of whatever has been, which also can lead the wrong way”.

The term “aggiornamento” or updating – one of the watchwords of the Council – “does not mean the secularisation of the faith, which would lead to its dissolution”, but a “making present” of the message of Jesus Christ, he said.

This “making present” is the “reform necessary for every era in constant fidelity to the whole Christ”, he said.

“The tradition of apostolic origin continues in the Church with help from the Holy Spirit,” he said, and leads to greater understanding through contemplation and study, intelligence garnered from a deeper experience of the spiritual, and preaching by those who through the “apostolic succession have received an assured charism of truth”.

  • Sweetjae

    Why don’t you read your official wikipedia sources again?

  • Sweetjae

    We are NOT talking about inscription or Bible translation or people speaking Layin here….scary goat and the credible sources as many refutable others that she cited was talking about the Language used by the Church of Rome in her Liturgical celebration….DO YOU UNDERSTAND the point and the difference???

  • Sweetjae

    Poor Jabba, keep insisting on his well misplaced argument on the of latin inscription, biblical translation and people in Rome speaking predominantly Latin in the first century etc. (of course it’s obviously natural). Nobody is denying that Jab and that was not the crux of the argument, the point is, that you don’t seem to comprehend, is that the Church of Rome during the Apostolic Age use the Greek language in her celebration of the Liturgy. Please have some sense to distinguish between the two. This is a well known historical fact attested by a tidal wave of Biblical scholars and academic sources NOT from wikipedia or “traditio” website- a well known ultra-trad website that you read as your sources.

    No wonder!

  • Sweetjae

    Poor Jabba, keep insisting on his well misplaced argument on the of latin inscription, biblical translation and people in Rome speaking predominantly Latin in the first century etc. (of course it’s obviously natural). Nobody is denying that Jab and that was not the crux of the argument, the point is, that you don’t seem to comprehend, is that the Church of Rome during the Apostolic Age use the Greek language in her celebration of the Liturgy. Please have some sense to distinguish between the two. This is a well known historical fact attested by a tidal wave of Biblical scholars and academic sources NOT from wikipedia or “tradicio” website- a well known ultra trad website that you read as sources.

  • Sweetjae

    Jabpab sai, “The Greek Rite is not the Roman Rite”. Ahhh, of course, pretty obvious but that’s not the point, the point is the Church of Rome (Roman) use the Greek language in her Liturgy during the first century.

    Its like this Jab, the Irish Church use Latin language in her celebration of the Liturgy during the Middle Ages, does it make their Liturgy an Irish Rite?

  • Sweetjae

    What you have posted just demolished the position of Jab, see his reply to you, again a misplaced assertion.

  • Sweetjae

    Surviving 1st century Vulgate Latin texts (even if true) doesn’t ecessarily mean the Church in Rome celebrate her Liturgy in that language. Insisting otherwise makes you Jabpap, a clear historical revisionist as ever.

  • Sweetjae

    Let me be clear here, Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament 200 years before Christ, NT was originally written in Koine Greek after Christ, does it please you?

  • Sweetjae

    Let me be clear here, Septuagint (latin meaning seventy) is a Greek translation of the Old Testament 200 years before Christ, NT was originally written in Koine Greek after Christ, does it please you?Enough for the sideshow, prove to us that the Church of Rome didnt use Greek in the 1st and 2nd century, please NOT from wiki and “traditio”.

  • Sweetjae

    Jabpap said, “just because you’ve read some revisionist rubbish…” Are you talking about your sources like wikipedia and “traditio” (ultra-trad) website?

  • No more No!

    Any remarks made in 1990 by the then Cardinal Ratzinger were made prior to his ascension to the See of Peter and are therefore not infallible  It is only in the position of Pontiff that he is assured of being without error in his teachings relating to faith and morals guided under the protection of the Holy Spirit

    I read somewhere that he has apologised regarding some judgments that he now believes (viewed from the position of his new protected Office) to have been erroneous, attitudes that he had assumed prior to becoming Pope, which he has evidently now altered his stance on.2 such matters that he has changed position on, I believe, were a previously held viewpoint regarding the apparitions of Fatima, and his former attitude towards Archbishop Lefebvre

  • JabbaPapa

    oh good grief !!!!

    Where is this “traditio” website that I supposedly consult ? And since when am I an “ultra-traditionalist” ????? (I get soooooooooooo tired of having these ludicrous epithets thrown at me by every single extremist on the forum)

    It is a FACT that the 1st century Romans, Italians, and other Western Europeans practiced their Christianity in Latin.

    Your protestations otherwise are based on nothing more solid than total ignorance of the primary source materials.

    Very simply, you do not have the foggiest clue what you’re talking about.

  • JabbaPapa

    You don’t, in any case …

  • JabbaPapa

    (even if true)

    Your bad faith is quite sad.

  • No more NO!

    “The Holy Bible also contains some very ambigious texts (Mariology, ”
    I think the word “Ambiguous” is wrong.  Wouldn’t the word “veiled” be better?

    Every honour and title granted the Holy Virgin originates from her being the eternal Mother of the Jewish King.  The Mother of the King was always enthroned as Queen in the Davidic Kingdom.  Research “Gebirah” ( the Queen of the Davidic Kingdom) and “Ark of the New Covenant.” – all of these teachings are alluded to in the Old Testament book of Kings.  Whereas St Luke clearly draws comparisons in his Gospel between the untouchable, sanctified Ark of the Old Covenant which contained the manna and the word of God on Stone, and Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, immaculate and untouchable because she housed the living manna, or the Word of God made flesh!

    Both Arks spent 6 months in the Hill Country of Judea and St John the Baptist leaped in front of the New Ark as King David had once leaped in front of the Old Ark.

    King David said “Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me”  St Elizabeth said “Who am I that the MOTHER of my Lord should come to me?”

    Mariology is 100 percent authentic, but is in no way ambiguous.  As is the Primacy of Peter.(rooted in the office of the Chief Steward,(Prime Minister)  second in charge to the King who was given the keys to the kingdom (like St Peter, and who’s responsibility it was to look after the Kingdom whilst the Davidic King was away from His lands  (Christ quotes Isaiah 22:22 whilst He grants Simon the new name of “Rock” (Peter) and grants him the keys of the office of Prime Minister or Chief Steward)

    Basically it is an act of treason to disobey the Kings elected Prime Minister.

  • JabbaPapa

    wow, it only took you two days, after it was pointed out to you, to realise your grossly ignorant mistake.

    Impressive.

    Though it doesn’t exactly militate in favour of you being any kind of expert in the Ancient Languages of Christianity — heck, even Wikipedia is better at it than you are !!!

  • GildasWiseman

    The SSPX certainly do not consider the Council as a rupture. Bishop Fellay has stated that they accept 95% of the Council documents. All of the people, I know who attend SSPX masses, as I do,  are 100% loyal Catholics. They,like me, have always had a problem with the progressive interpretation of the Council and the actual reality of the new liturgy, the re-ordering of our churches to suit this new liturgy; for example the removal of altar rails, the removal of the Blessed sacrament from the high altar, (not everywhere of course); the altar table facing the laity;Mass said in the vernacular. The laity distributing the Blessed Sacrament. Holy Communion in the hand. 
           When it comes to accusing Catholics of heresy.will the good Archbishop include all those   Catholics who dissent against Humanae Vitae and other core catholic doctrine. That should diminish Catholic membership somewhat.
          To change the subject, I wish Archbishop Mueller would stand up and vehemently urge all of our Bishops and priests to defend real marriage from the pulpit and warn the Government that the redefinition of marriage is utterly unacceptable and that it will be the cause of dire consequences for our society, the world and hopefully certain depraved politicians  at election day. I also wish that all Catholics of good standing would write and bitterly complain to the Government about this issue. Any assurances made for the  protection for our religious ministers is absolute nonsense and will be impossible to maintain once the law is changed. We must all act now if we wish to avoid future persecution for our Catholic beliefs. 

     This insert is taken from the Coalition for Marriage.

    ‘Legal  advice from leading human rights lawyer Aidan O’Neill QC has made clear that the only completely safe course for churches will be to stop hosting weddings altogether, a massive change to Britain’s social landscape. He has also shown that, quite apart from the issue of buildings, individual people from any background who believe in traditional marriage face damage to their careers or even dismissal from their jobs, especially teachers, chaplains, foster carers and others in the public sector.

    Very disturbing portrait of a future Britain. 

  • Timotheos

    How can a Catholic hold that one Ecumenical Council of the Church,
    convoked and ratified by a Pope. is in “rupture” with others? The SSPX
    position is scandalous and heretical.
    There is no rupture because
    the Vatican II Synod was not an Ecumenical Council. In fact it was not a
    Council of the Church at all. It was convoked by one Antipope and
    ratified by another. Neither were Catholic, neither had any authority
    over the Church, neither benefited from the grace of the Holy Spirit
    protecting them from error.

    If Paul VI were a pope, all the documents of Vatican II would be
    infallible, since he amply fulfilled all the requirements for
    infallibility laid by the Vatican Council in 1870. The fact that he
    subsequently stated that the documents did not fall under the
    Extraordinary Magisterium is both irrelevant and wrong, because he had
    ALREADY fulfilled all these requirements. 

  • Sweetjae

    blah, blah….I didn’t say you’re an ultraTrad, I said that you have been using an ultratRad website for your source. Do you have at least an ounce of common sense, Jabba?

  • Sweetjae

    Another Sedevacantist, why the trouble bothering us then? Waste of energy, don’t you think? Why don’t you just elect your own pope or yourself  and be done with it?

  • Sweetjae

    You put a link of “traditio” website that you consulted as a source to support your flawed and unHistorical position, now you deny it? Look it up in this thread to jolt your memory.

  • Sweetjae

    Blah..wiki as your source, no wonder.

  • Sweetjae

    Tasted your own medicine, huh?

  • Sweetjae

    WRONG!!! Galileo was ordered to recant which  he uttered the famous statement: “And yet
    it moves,” a reference to the Copernican theory that the Earth rotates on its
    axis which was against the Church teaching that Earth is the center of the Universe and was originally  imprisoned.However, the Pope commuted his sentence to house arrest…which Galileo served
    until he died blind at the age of seventy-eight.

  • Sweetjae

    You have no idea what was the *POINT* of the argument. Though I wholeheartedly agree to your citations which i also used in dealing with Protestants however, that is NOT the crux   for this particular discussion.

    The Holy Bible does not explicitly teach and not clear about the Marian Dogmas that were later Defined by the Church we have now.

  • JabbaPapa

    Oh, I just picked one of the links to that story pretty much at random, and wassn’t particularly bothered which site was hosting it. OK. That’s irrelevant to the history, though.

    I tend to trust the contents of 1st-3rd century documents for knowledge of events at that time more than to your confused and ill-informed opinions.

  • Sweetjae

    I still take you alibi, better than lying about it, right? Anyways, again and again, I and Ms. Scary goat directly quoted reliable, academic sources and scholarly dissertation of Cardinal Arinze (Summa honors) and countless biblical scholars that say your position is confused and ill-informed. What more could we say…..believe whatever you want to believe, you have been found wanting. Enough said.

  • Sweetjae

    The FACT is that you are just a plain revisionist, NOT IN ANYWAY supported by Historical, Academic and Scholarly works of *REAL* university educated people.

  • Sweetjae

    Yes SSPX accepted about 90% of V2 but the problem with this position is, where does it say in the Holy Bible and Tradition that a catholic has the freedom to accept only 90% and rest can be rejected? Where?

    Well maybe can only be found in the gospel of Sedevacantism and Bp.Williamson.

  • JabbaPapa

    You appear not to have the faintest understanding of either Church History, Ancient Languages, 1st-3rd century Latin texts, nor even just plain, simple common sense.

    Do you understand that I have personally consulted primary source texts in the Vulgate Latin of the period ? Have you done so ?

    You’re just demonstrating not only your ignorance, but your unwillingness to learn.

  • JabbaPapa

    Your weird fantasy that 1st-3rd century Latin peasants and slaves followed the liturgies in some foreign language rthat they understood not at all is seriously warped.

  • GildasWiseman

    It is well known that not all of the documents from the council carry the same weight. Ecumenism Collegiality and Religious liberty are problematic because the time bombs inserted into the texts have created havoc for the Church. I do not know how old you are but I was a young man when the council was convoked. The Church then was vibrant and growing ,with many vocations to the priesthood and religious life. Within ten years of the council the Church was in serious decline and on the road to its auto-destruction. Have doubts about this? read Pope Paul V1; Oh! and where does it say that a Catholic does not have to accept novelties that appear to contradict the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church; read St Thomas Aquinas. He explored that area of Church teaching. The truth is Sweetjae, nothing is a black and white as you portray it. And for your information Bishop Williamson has been expeled from the order.

  • Jon Brownridge

     Sweetjae – I would leave it at that! Jabba has you beaten hands down when it comes to knowledge of the facts.

  • Tridentinus

     The term “aggiornamento” as well as meaning update can also mean revision, a dictionary definition of which is, “to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update”.

  • Tridentinus

      ‘Sancta Romana Ecclesia’ in the fifteenth century undoubtably referred
    to the Catholic or Universal Church as the eastern church was in schism
    so the SRC and the Catholic Church are synonymous.
    ‘Sancta Romana
    Ecclesia’ in the fifteenth century undoubtably referred to the Catholic
    or Universal Church as the eastern church was in schism
    so the SRC and the Catholic Church are synonymous.

    “The point is that God is not limited in His Actions by the contents of Council documents — as such, Cantate Domino, whilst correct in principle (obviously), cannot possibly be understood as a limitation upon God’s Sovereign Power of Grace.”

    I
    have difficulty understanding what you mean by this vis a vis, Matthew,
    16: 19, Et tibi dabo claves regni cælorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris
    super terram,
    erit ligatum et in cælis : et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit
    solutum et in cælis. (And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of
    heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound
    also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be
    loosed also in heaven.). This would seem to assert that the Pope/Council
    can only ever proclaim the Will of God and thereby never limits nor
    cannot limit His Power as the Church has been bequeathed that limitless
    Power.

  • Tridentinus

    Does anyone else have the same problem that I seem to have. When replying  to a post the box does not enlarge vertically when the typing reaches foot of the box so that I cannot see what I am typing and have to repeat my comment elsewhere then cut and paste it into the appropriate ‘reply’ box where it is still not fully visible? Then it appears on the thread as you can see above, disjointed.
    On the other hand perhaps am I doing something wrong?

  • No name Jane

    It’s heresy alright! I mean read the text!
    Vatican II said this in it’s Constitution Dei Verbum:
    “Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”

    Vatican II showed that traditions should be kept with loyalty.