Wed 16th Apr 2014 | Last updated: Wed 16th Apr 2014 at 10:48am

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 The volume collects both published and unpublished notes, speeches, interviews and texts written or given by the future pope in the period shortly before, during and just after Vatican II.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”.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Oh do shut up. You are determined to pin beliefs on me and other Traditionalists that I and they do not hold. 

  • Sweetjae

    What beliefs do I pin to you that you don’t hold? Tell me! All I’m doing is just exposing your misrepresentations and name calling to our Pope,CCC and V2 whenever I see them. Truth hurts, isnt it?

  • JabbaPapa

    are they to be called heretics, because they allowed the wrong bishops to be their pastors ?

    Nobody has described traditionalists as heretics, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said that the *doctrine* that a rupture occurred in the Second Vatican Council is a heresy.

    It does not matter that anyone may have said so in the past, no not even if a Pope has said so, because that Prefect’s current declarations carry no retroactive penalties — but we, as Catholics, and this includes the Pope, are now no longer permitted to use that word in relation to the works of that Ecumenical Council. Nevertheless, those among traditionalists who may have claimed so in the past are not now suddenly accused of being “heretics” !!!

    It does not mean that thought and debate about the Council, and any of its potential failures, cannot continue — but it is still, IMO, a doctrinal necessity that the Roman Curia must start to be absolutely clear that the Tradition of our Church is unbroken by the Second Vatican Council, and if the h-word needs saying then so be it, because it is an absolutely necessary precondition IMO for the healing of these harmful wounds in the Body Ecclesial.

    And as for the kerfuffle over the word “pastoral”, as though the pastoral  & the doctrinal were Polar opposites,or were at least not compatible: to think they are necessarily incompatible is muddled.

    This, I agree with 100%

  • Sweetjae

    Your argument is just deviation and based on “doubt”, the FACT of the matter is, that Greek is the Liturgical Language of the Roman Rite from the Apostolic Age in the 1st to 4th century makes your position untrue. Face it.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Blah blah. I now return to not responding to you.

  • Sweetjae

    Yes they have valid seven Sacraments but you can’t deny the fact they are not the Catholic Church and they are “PROTESTING” against infallible Dogmas of Papal Primacy and Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Filoque, etc, therefore they are still considered “protestants” in that sense, ergo you are again found wanting.

  • Sweetjae

    Ok, may God bless you brother, i mean it.

  • scary goat

     I really hope they come out with a document that explains it  properly and in detail.

  • Nat_ons

    I do excuse you, not least because you are wrong .. I do not follow a Canute line of discourse – the tide will simply not obey such folly.
     

    Yes, of course, popes can be wrong in their personal opinions - but witnessing by Christ’s teaching authority cannot.
     

    Moreover, popes – like the other bishops – can be corrected, as in the Beatific Vision debacle.
     

    Notwithstanding any disagreements, the ordinary teaching authority of the church catholic is infallible. It relies not on the personal ideas of individual popes, bishops or theologians – let alone commentators on councils. So dogma is not necessary to infallible teaching authority, the authority to teach – ‘magisterium’ – is necessary; in the church catholic this is Christ’s abiding authority (not man’s) that counts.
     

    “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’” Matt 28 : 18-20.
     

    A philosphy of rupture – in this divine authority ever at work within the Catholic Church – is therefore the spirit of protest the Spirit and not the Holy Ghost at work. And that form of protestantism is clearly the spirit driving the extremes of reaction against (the humanly flawed presentation) of the work of the Spirit (who is infallibly guiding) the body of Christ .. even in its grossly maligned Magisterium. Look at the vile contumely levelled against Bishop Felley because he dares to seek what Archbishop Lefebvre sought, an honoured restoration of continuity in the teaching of Church (applicable for both the SSPX and the Curial Offices); these extreme accusations are those of the Protestants in their deepest heresy - e.g that Rome has abandoned Christ, so any who consort with the Whore of Babylon is to be sold over to Satan; still and all, the teaching authority of Christ’s church did not cease with Paul VI or John XXIII or Pius XII or Pius X or Leo XIII or Clement VIII or Pius V etc, etc .. a new spirit of protestantism had once more entered into the reception, acceptance and handing on of magisterial teaching (among its thinkers, commentators and hangers-on from the mind-darkening Enlightenment).

    http://www.goodmorals.org/smith6.htm

    *

  • JabbaPapa

    Greek is the Liturgical Language of the Roman Rite from the Apostolic Age in the 1st to 4th century

    Not only is this declaration untrue, but it’s a total logical absurdity — the Roman Rite can only be in Greek when translated into that language from the Latin.

    The Greek Rite is not the Roman Rite. You are extremely confused.

    Are you ignorant of the fact that the Mass evolved from readings and discussions and teachings from Scripture followed by the ritual of the Eucharist for the baptised into what it has become today ? Why would poor illiterate Christian slaves and workers in Rome use Greek, when they had Latin translations of Scripture at hand from the 1st century onwards ?

    Just because you’ve read some revisionist rubbish in a book doesn’t make it true — the Romans (and then the Western Christians generally) started using Latin in their liturgy from the 1st century onwards, this is a well-established historical fact.

  • JabbaPapa

    Nonsense.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Jabba! You’ve been to ONE Old Mass. Not enough to be able to make any judgement of it at all. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The Pope has said that Modernism and secularism influenced some documents of Vatican II – as has, surprisingly enough, Archbishop Muller in an interview not six weeks ago. 

    Another huge “miss” from Sweetjae ……!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Well done Jabba, that’s spiked his nonsense. 

  • Sweetjae

    Revisionist?? You are just refuted again and again, so many times by me…Garabandal apparition and now this. You are losing face Jabba, google it, research it and the historical facts dont support your thesis…..St. Paul was a Roman citizen himself had written his letters and epistles (Book of Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians etc) in the GREEK LANGUAGE!!! In fact the original NT was in Greek Septuagint.

    The heart of your argument is based on: If the people of Ireland speak predominantly English language during the Middle Ages, therefore the Liturgical Language Used in Ireland back then was English.

    Taken from Encyclopedia Britannica, Catholic Encyclopedia and World Christian History: “The continuous use of Greek in the Roman Liturgy came to be replaced in part by Latin by the reign of Pope Saint Damasus I.”

    Very convienient for you to dismiss historical books and a scholarly dissertation by Cardinal Francis Arinze, who happen to have a Doctorate Degree in Sacred Theology in Rome, Summa cum laude honors, well as long as it doesn’t agree with Jabba!

  • Sweetjae

    Same birds flock together…you had been refuted and exposed so many times already sir.

  • Sweetjae

    Yah right, you ‘traditionalists’ have this habit of taking words out of context again and again to fit your bias……where did the Pope or Archbishop Muller say V2 is therefore a rupture, like what Sedevacantists and SSPX have asserted? Where?

  • JabbaPapa

    More than one actually — and I’m liable to move somewhere closer to that church, so will be attending it more frequently.

    Please note that I’m not judging “the Latin Mass” in general, just giving my impressions of that particular Sunday morning Mass as it currently stands.

  • JabbaPapa

    In fact the original NT was in Greek Septuagint.

    blimey !!! I didn’t know that the Greek Old Testament of 3rd century BC contained the New Testament hundreds of years before the birth of Christ !!!

  • Sweetjae

    Jabba you are losing it, really….NT means New Testament originally written in Greek After the birth of Christ and NOT the Old Testament which was written in Aramaic-hebrew.

  • Sweetjae

    “Vatican 2 is a complete departure from the Magisterium” ….don’t you people know that this is self-refuting statement? If any of the legit Council from past to now can teach error at all, then why stop at V2? This is intellectual suicide. Period.

  • Sweetjae

    They are clear enough for me. Don’t expect that everything would be explained to you in a crystal clear way, well even in that stage, some people wouldn’t just understand it and some would just dismiss and some would just outright disagree with it.

    Holy Scripture is not crystal clear about the Hypostatic union of Jesus Christ, as well as the explanation of the Church, how about the clarity of the mystery of 3 Persons in One God? Do we then blame the Scripture or the Pope?

  • JabbaPapa

    Oh ?

    Let me emphasise your words for you then :

    In fact the original NT was in Greek Septuagint

    I mean, your ideas about the Scripture in the Ancient languages are obviously very confused — but here you are, lecturing in your amateurish manner, to someone who has actually specialised in the study of Vulgate and Late Latin as relative to Christianity, doctrines, and Scripture ???

  • scary goat

     I was actually quite pleased to hear the h-word.  It shows a bit more firmness than we’ve seen for some time.  But I don’t think they were labeling traditional Catholics.  It seemed to be aimed at both dissenting extremes.

  • scary goat

     ”The
    local church of Rome had begun as a Greek-speaking body; the majority
    of its members were Greek-speaking Levantines living in the foreign
    quarters of the city. But it began to use Latin in its liturgy, probably
    in the latter half of the second century, as the faith spread among the
    Latin-speaking inhabitants; though the use of Greek went on side by
    side with Latin down to the fourth-perhaps even the fifth century.
    Elsewhere in the West, for example in Africa, Latin had been used by the
    church from the second century.http://www.liturgica.com/html/litWLLit.jsp

  • scary goat

     I’m guessing he might be referring to my pet difficulty, Nostra Aetate.  It doesn’t actually say that, but it is a worrying document.  It does tend to give a rather strange impression. I am not the only one who is nagging for clarification of this document. 

  • Yorkshire Catholic

    Given the difficulties and divisions of the Church, and the fact that chronologically at least, they became more acute after Vatican than they had been before, it really is not very helpful to sling words like ‘heresy’ around against people whose beliefs are clearly overwhelmingly orthodox and loyal to the Church and its traditions and who live by its tenets.  Exactly who has used the word “rupture”–and how many traditionalists has Archbishop Mueller got in his sights?

  • Yorkshire Catholic

    That is surely not correct. Pope Liberius (355-362) seems to have signed an Arian profession of faith in 357, no doubt under pressure. As a result he is the only fourth century pope not to be canonised.

  • JabbaPapa

    Sorry, those “catholics” who want wimmin priests, gay marriage, holy abortions, “catholic” divorce, and so on and so forth are not exactly un-targetted by the Prefect …

  • Parasum

     Maybe that’s why he looks so gloomy.

  • Parasum

    “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.”

    ## Maybe that should have been said in 1962 ? Just saying.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Only in your dreams.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Only in your dreams.

  • JabbaPapa

    It was, at least in the Italian — but it’s clear that not nearly enough care was taken with the documents in translation into the various other languages thereafter…

  • Sweetjae

    Another one crowning his own head yet found wanting as ever! Waste of time.

  • Sweetjae

    Reality as well as in dreams, rebutted and refuted.

  • Sweetjae

    By the way JB, why dont you just refute the multiple sources I have cited that demolished your assertion instead of your non-tangible “i-have-studied-Vulgate-formally-at-university-thus-an-authority” that really nobody cares.

  • Sweetjae

    Thanks but I think JP here is the final authority on “vulgate-latin stuff” because he had announced to have formally studied it in some college.zzzzzz.

  • Sweetjae

    The original text of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek and not according to Jabpap.

  • Scholar

    Does it matter? it was 60 years ago. We can hardly turn back the clock. But to condemn anyone as a heretic is rather strong. What has happened to the forgiveness that they are supposed to preach?
    the church often got things wrong in the past when they preached. Remember Galileo?

  • JabbaPapa

    Why don’t you just accept that bookish learning has led you into error.

    Your scenario, quite apart from being unhistorical, is both illogical and unrealistic.

    Christians in Western Europe spoke Latin, and only a small minority of them had any Greek whatsoever.

    It is completely unreasonable to imagine that the Mass, which was much MUCH simpler in the first few centuries than from the 5th and 6th centuries onwards (which is when the Mass started to be a more formal and structured affair), would have been conducted in some foreign language that very few could understand — given that 90% of the Mass, at the time, involved readings and discussion of the Bible, as translated into Latin (in Latin-speaking Europe, anyway).

    However, given that you seem to value bookish learning more than the facts as provided to you by someone who actually knows what he’s talking about, unlike yourself :

    http://www.unitypublishing.com/liturgy/OldLatinMass.htm

    The Orthodox Patriarchs pointed out that the early Christians prayed the Mass in their own languages. The language of the Mass became Latin because Latin was the language spoken by the people.

    http://www.traditio.com/feature/inscript.txt

    (THE CHRISTIAN INSCRIPTION AT POMPEII — by Paul Berry)

    We know from the Acts of the Apostles (28:13) that St. Paul visited the nearby city of Puteoli for seven days, where there already existed a community of Latin-speaking Christians. Of the 1800 inscriptions cataloged in that city, all appear in Latin, none in Greek.

    In Chapter 3 Berry presents the focal point of his thesis: “the language of the Christian ritual at Rome, from the groundline of its existence, was Latin and not Greek.” Point by point, he challenges the conventional wisdom that Greek was the language of the Christian communities, even in Rome and Italy, until around the third century. His evidence is carefully developed and is fully documented from the classical Roman sources with whom students of Roman history are fully familiar: Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Juvenal, Cicero, Pliny, Plutarch. To these Berry adds insights from the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles.

    Berry argues that “the language that mattered in the Apostolic Age was not Greek, but Latin.” Although the Romans admired the ideals of 5th-century Greece, five centuries later the Greeks were a conquered people — conquered by Rome. Rome, far from being officially bilingual, did not allow a person to apply for citizenship or be granted civil rights without a knowledge of Latin. One recalls the understandable pride that St. Paul had in his Roman citizenship [Jabba -- ie, St Paul was a Latin speaker, no surprises there] — so unusual in the East that even the Roman
    officials he encountered were careful to protect his rights, even against the hostile Jewish officials, who dogged him at every turn.

    From such evidence, Berry regards it as highly unlikely that a Roman would participate in a Christian ritual celebrated in Greek. In addition, the number of dialects of the Koine Greek of the time were quite numerous. Even the early liturgical evidence supports this thesis. The chanting of the Latin hymn Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus can be dated to a time before the papacy of Pope Clement (91-100). The Greek hymn Kyrie
    Eleison was not officially added to the liturgy until the close of the 5th century

    ….

    His evidence confirms the position that the Church has traditionally taken: the Latin language is inseparable from the Roman Catholic Faith. Tolle Latinam linguam, tolle Romanam ecclesiam.

    Reviews : “This thrilling monograph provides an exciting glimpse into the world of the earliest Christians. Beginning with a vivid description of the burial of the city of Pompeii under tons of volcanic ash during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D., the author takes us through the dramatic tale of the gradual unearthing of the city in modern times. He gradually narrows his focus from the city as a whole to a particular street, then to a particular block, then a particular house, and finally to the enigmatic words inscribed on one of the interior walls of this house. The author effectively describes the wave of excitement which swept over the world when the great archaeologist Alfred Kiessling announced the discovery of the inscription in 1862. This is followed by an able summary of the lengthy scholarly dispute which has ensued regarding the precise reading of the letters and their possible meanings. Upon this foundation, Mr. Berry grounds a new and compelling argument leading to the conclusion that, contrary to the opinion usually held today, the language of worship by Christians in Italy was Latin virtually from the moment of the arrival of the apostles in Italy. . . . This work will be of great interest to readers with an interest either in Roman antiquities or in Christianity itself.” – Robert J. Edgeworth

  • scary goat

     I thought what I posted sort of agreed with Jabba’s view.  It says Latin was used regularly (although not exclusively) from mid second century …i.e one hundred and something.

  • JabbaPapa

    Sorry, but that is very inaccurate — contemporary inscriptions and remnants of 1st century Latin Christian texts, including early translations of Scripture, all point to the majority of Christians in Rome and Italy as having been Latin speakers, with no evidence that most of these would have had any knowledge of Greek at all.

    Yes — there were indeed some communities of Greeks and Greek-speakers in Rome and the rest of Italy, and in fact, large stretches of Southern Italy were almost entirely Greek-speaking — among these and in those parts of Italy, there is no doubt that the liturgies would have been held in Greek ; but Pompeii (close to modern Naples) was a Latin-speaking city, and the Christian inscriptions found there are not in Greek.

    The tradition of the Catholic Church has always been that the Mass in the Western Church was celebrated in Latin right from the beginning, and it is only in some relatively recent and completely revisionist theories of 19th century and later that the opposite claim has been made — the claim rests, however, on such a paucity of evidence that it cannot possibly be accepted ; it is based, moreover, on the whole group of revisionist theories that falsely placed the writing of the New Testament in the 2nd Century ; falsely claimed that the text underwent continuous changes to its contents until the 13th or 14th centuries ; and all sorts of other revisionist nonsense whose only purpose was anti-clerical and anti-Catholic.

    Contrariwise, the surviving Vulgate Latin texts of 1st to 3rd centuries portray a vibrant, Latin-speaking Christian community spread throughout Western Europe, having nothing to do with any Greek whatsoever, except in translation of Scripture from that language and so on.

  • JabbaPapa

    Whereas you OTOH are, as your postings on the subject reveal quite blatantly, almost completely ignorant of anything to do with the 1st century Latinity of the West.

  • JabbaPapa

    Galileo was punished for his rebellion against the Roman Curia — NOT for his scientific theories, the development and publication of which had been financed by that selfsame Curia.

  • JabbaPapa

    The dates given are far too late, and they correspond with the false notion that has been perpetuated since 18th-19th centuries that the New Testament was 2nd century — hence this theory falsely assumed that no Latin translations of Scripture or liturgy could be earlier than that. Except that it’s nonsense, the contents of the New Testament cannot have been written later than AD 65, so the whole edifice collapses.

    Surviving 1st century Vulgate Latin Christian texts also disprove the theory.

  • JabbaPapa

    ???

    my my my …

    Not even when your errors are bolded do you see them …

  • Sweetjae

    Nobody is denying that there are christians who used Latin language in their Liturgy during the Apostolic age, THAT IS NOT THE POINT!!!!!what you don’t seem to understand is the crux of the argument and yours is against a tidal wave of Biblical scholars and historical evidences yet again from Catholic Encyclopedia and Early Christian History:

    “The Church in Rome used Greek from the beginning. Only gradually was Latin introduced until the fourth century when the Church in Rome was definitely latinized.”

    “The continuous use of Greek in the Roman Liturgy came to be replaced in part by Latin by the reign of Pope Saint Damasus I.”

    Your answer is blah, blah according to my knowledge and from a guy named Paul Berry.

  • Sweetjae

    Nobody is denying that there are christians who used Latin language in their Liturgy during the Apostolic age, THAT IS NOT THE POINT!!!!!what you don’t seem to understand is the crux of the argument and yours is against a tidal wave of Biblical scholars and historical evidences yet again from Catholic Encyclopedia and Early Christian History:

    “The Church in Rome used Greek from the beginning. Only gradually was Latin introduced until the fourth century when the Church in Rome was definitely latinized.”

    “The continuous use of Greek in the Roman Liturgy came to be replaced in part by Latin by the reign of Pope Saint Damasus I.”

    Your answer is blah, blah according to my knowledge and from a guy named Paul Berry.

  • Sweetjae

    Wow, charges of bookish that he himself was wikipedia bookish and sources taken from “tradicio” a well known ultra-trad website???

    Well no surprised here folks….zzzzz.