We should, then, accept the conciliar documents as official, though not always well formulated, Church teaching which must be studied with prudence and reserve and measured against, and interpreted in accordance with, the traditional teaching of the Church - particularly the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. Pope John himself provided us with a mandate for this in his opening speech when he insisted that his own Council concurs "with tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council." (Michael Davies. Pope John's Council. Augustine Publishing. 1977. page 216)Michael gives as his reference for the quotation from Pope John The Tablet 16 September 1972 p.893. Here is a link to the Latin text of the Allocution.
Given the present debate on the question of the hermeneutic of continuity, I don't pretend to know what Michael would have said on the question. However he was prophetic in setting out the central requirement that the second Vatican Council should be interpreted in accordance with the traditional teaching of the church and especially of the two previous councils. He was always a great admirer of Cardinal Ratzinger and I venture to guess that he would like the idea of the hermeneutic of continuity. He coined a famous expression referring to the "time bombs" of Vatican II: expressions that were ambiguous and would be exploited later in a sense widely different from what the Fathers intended. He would, I am sure, agree that the correct way of reading Vatican II is in reference to the traditional teaching of the magisterium.
5 comments:
Dear Fr,
You refer to "this nugget in Michael Davies' book on Vatican II".
Your last sentence states: "He would, I am sure, agree that the correct way of reading Vatican II is in reference to the traditional teaching of the magisterium".
A wonderful nugget, indeed, if I might say.
Dear Fr, thank you for your blog and sharing this "nugget" from Michael Davies. I do agree with you that were he with us today he would have no part with a hermeneutic of rupture. He may critique various formulations (as vague or ambiguous) but would stop short of declaring them contrary to faith and tradition.
Michael Davies’ was a writer of great insight and foresight. I am still exploring his work but it is rare to read anything by him which is not relevant today.
Although classified as a “traditionalist”, he is now, as the realisation of what has happened in the post- Vatican II period is at last sinking in, increasingly seen to be “mainstream”.
His works can be found if you look for them but it is pity that they are not more widely known and available to what I shall call mainstream Catholics.
For example the CTS could surely carry at least some of his works
Father: I believe the Pope has recommended we study the documents of Vatican II. Can you recommend an edition of them? The only one I have come across is one that advertises that it had been translated into inclusive language which made me a bit wary and it was also rather expensive at £21.
I don't know about new editions. These days I always work from the Vatican website which has the texts in English and Latin. I have all the English translations to be unreliable (including the one of the Vatican website).
Would others be able to recommend any versions that are in print?
Post a Comment