Update (9/21/14): Fr. Fessio Defends the Book (September 20, 2014):
In the interview, Cardinal Kasper complained of learning about the book from journalists who had received advance copies of it. The cardinal said that he had not received an advance copy, adding, “In my entire academic life nothing like this has ever happened to me.”
“You chose to leave academia to enter public life. Get used to it,” Fr. Fessio responded.
The priest also referenced Cardinal Kasper’s statement, “If cardinals who are the closest collaborators of the pope intervene in this organized and public manner, at least in regard to the most recent history of the Church we are facing an unprecedented situation.”
“Well, you did something unprecedented,” Fr. Fession replied. “And it was organized and public. Well, it was supposed to be done in secrecy, but then you published your consistory intervention as a book.” Furthermore, Fr. Fessio responded to Cardinal Kasper’s statement that his consistory remarks had not offered “a definitive solution” but rather “posed some questions and offered considerations for possible responses.”
“Well, what are you complaining about then?” Fr. Fessio asked. “You got some answers and some responses to your considerations. Or weren’t those the answers you were expecting?”
[Hat tip to JM]
34 comments:
PP,
This is a little hard to believe to me. If Pope Francis truly hates this book, and he is NOT obviously stupid to know "Catholic" blogs are watching the Vatican and their every move, then why would he admit or act in this way?
In addition, those of us monitoring the blogosphere know that Rorate Caeli isn't the most reliable news source and is biased in favour of the more "radical" traditionalism as it were vs. a more centrist byt traditionalist source like Fr. Zuhlsdorf, so to speak.
Finally, if Pope Francis was truly against this book, wouldn't he put some kind of stop order on it, either to Ignatius press, or even get his press office to make a "demeaning" statement of the book to discourage interest?
So I am not 100% sure we can believe such news. To me, we should wait and see what the Synod holds and the words that come directly from his mouth and the documents from it. That will then tell us whether ++Kasper is a liar and is hiding his own liberal leanings behind the Holy cope of Francis (when Francis truly does NOT share his theological/non-doctrinal ideas), or if truly, Jorge Bergoglio is speaking but NOT wielding the Magisterium as the Holy Father.
Let us look as Kasper.
QUOTE"No theologian, not even the pope, can change the doctrine of the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage. On the contrary, we all have reason to help and support people to be faithful to marriage for their own good and for the good of their children. So doctrine cannot be changed and will not be changed. But doctrine must be applied with prudence in a just and equitable way to concrete and often complex situations. For these situations are very different. There is no one typical case of divorce and remarriage; therefore there cannot be one standard solution for every situation. Discernment is needed, and discernment, prudence and wisdom are the main virtues for a bishop as a pastor. The best cannot always be done, but we should always do the best possible.
[Well that seems true as far as it goes]
So the question is: If a person after divorce enters into a civil second marriage but then repents of his failure to fulfill what he promised before God, his partner and the church in the first marriage, and carries out as well as possible his new duties and does what he can for the Christian education of his children and has a serious desire for the sacraments, which he needs for strength in his difficult situation, can we after a time of new orientation and stabilization deny absolution and forgiveness? In the Creed we profess: "I believe in the forgiveness of sin." When God gives a new chance, a new future to everybody who repents and does what is possible in their situation, why not the church, which is the sacrament of God's mercy? ...END QUOTE
Well Kasper holds out for some "hope" that a development of doctrine can be found to answer yes to this question.
He likens it to the Pre V2 Church's teaching "Error has no rights" vs the Post V2 qualifier "but erroneous people do".
He believes or hopes some qualifier can be found to answer his question to his liking.
Well what is wrong with that?
God the Holy Spirit will still protect the Church so even if his "hope" is in vain it will not come to pass.
Let him hope. God's will will be done in the end.
Ben,
With all due respect I am politely calling you out and correcting you (>sigh<) yet again:
"Let us look as Kasper," you write. Really? How would we do that. Don't you mean "Let us look 'AT' Kasper"?
Slow down and think a bit, or your overheated keyboard may have a meltdown.
Ben Yachov is known for pouncing on more "traditional" blogsites and carpetbombing them with reams of aggressively overheated rhetoric from a leftishly "moderate" point of view. His comments upon comments upon comments upon comments make him an irritation, sometimes even for people who more or less agree with him on a given point. My own opinion is that anyone who responds to his provocations will simply be buried by his verbiage. So why bother?
You lost me Charles?
Oh now I get......well Charles I am infamous across tehe net for my bad grammar and spelllllngs and my complete apathy toward correcting it.
If it wasn't for self-correct and spelling Apts I couldn't write at all.
Apologies,
We have been too distracted to notice all the comments massing through the front door recently, and we've had to delete some for cause.
Those of you affected, please read Da Rulz linked in the right hand column of the blog for rules governing combox etiquette and comportment.
Please stick to the subject of the post, be concise, don't be rude, and under the last category I put circumstantial ad hominems that cast aspersion on someone or his website by tarring him with innuendo and guilt by association with views never espoused.
Read ALL the rules. ##7-9 address the maturity expected toward linked websites whose content you may not agree with. Others address the issue of cutting-and-pasting or "carpet-bombing" or "spamming" a combox. Be courteous. Avoid posturing. Remember you're a guest, not the Grand Poo-bah of the Internet or God's gift to Christian apologetics.
Also, not everybody agrees with Dave Armstrong or with Ben Yachov and Co. that Rorate represents the "far right lunatics." In my estimation, such an utterance reveals a distinct lack of discernment considering an internationally respected and largely trusted traditionalist Internet source. Even if any of you disagree about that, I would ask you to stick to the rules about being respectful, and hence terms like "lunatics" are off limits.
On the other side of the coin.
RORATE [representing] the ... right [wing] vs Far left Lunatics over at "Fishwrap"(I steal from Fr Z) paint a different picture of the Synod.
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/doctrinal-wars-both-sides-fire-over-communion-divorced-remarried
QUOTE"Remaining in the Truth of Christ," which Ignatius Press will publish Oct. 1, includes essays in response to Kasper's proposal by three synod fathers: Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature; and Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna, Italy.
On the same day, Ignatius Press will also publish two other books in which synod fathers respond to Kasper's proposal: "The Hope of the Family," an extended interview with Müller; and "The Gospel of the Family," which features a foreword by Cardinal George Pell, prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy. (Kasper's address, published by Paulist Press, is also titled "The Gospel of the Family.")
Pell calls for a clear restatement of the traditional ban on Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, to avoid the sort of widespread protests that greeted Pope Paul VI's affirmation of Catholic teaching against contraception in 1968.
"The sooner the wounded, the lukewarm, and the outsiders realize that substantial doctrinal and pastoral changes are impossible, the more the hostile disappointment (which must follow the reassertion of doctrine) will be anticipated and dissipated," writes Pell, who sits on the nine-member Council of Cardinals advising Pope Francis on Vatican reform and governance of the universal church.
Müller's essay, previously published in the Vatican newspaper, reaffirms the traditional ban. However, the cardinal notes that many Catholics' first marriages might be invalid, and thus eligible for annulment, if the parties have been influenced by prevailing contemporary conceptions of marriage as a temporary arrangement.
In the book-length interview, Müller, whom Pope Francis made a cardinal in February, makes an apparent reference to Kasper's argument, which underscores the importance of mercy.
"I observe with a certain amazement the use by some theologians, once again, of the same reasoning about mercy as an excuse for promoting the admission of divorced and civilly remarried persons to the sacraments," Müller is quoted as saying. "The scriptural evidence shows us that, besides mercy, holiness and justice are also part of the mystery of God."
Burke, head of the Vatican's highest court, warns that any reform of the process for annulling marriages -- something both Pope Francis and Kasper have said is necessary -- should not oversimplify the judicial process at the cost of justice, since Catholics seeking an annulment deserve a decision that "respects fully the truth and, therefore, charity."
Caffara, whom Pope Francis personally named to participate in the synod, argues that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may not receive Communion because their situation "is in objective contradiction with that bond of love that unites Christ and the church, which is signified and actualized by the Eucharist."
To lift the ban, Caffarra argues, would be to legitimize extramarital sexual relations and effectively deny the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage."END
Yeh boyz I'm not seeing this Synod as a hotbed of heretics wanting to change the rules on not giving Communion to those in pseudo-marriages.
Kasper might claim to have the Pope's ear but clearly these other men with opposite views where appointed by Francis to their posts.
You can repeat conspiracy theories about Burke but at the end of the day I don't see Müller going to Malta.
Apologies,
The previous "Anonymous" should have said "PP."
Ben, READ THE RULES! You cannot continue to "dump" in my comboxes and expect not to outwear your welcome as a guest. I will show you the door if you do not start following the courtesies I expect of anyone here.
No, we are not saying that every "traditionalist" is above reproach. You're a "traditionalist" too, in some sense, if you're a Catholic at all (2 Thes. 2:15).
No, it's not "open season" on the vicar of Christ or any non-Traditionalist or even any Buddhist or Muslim. Let's not be thick about this.
"You trads"??? Is that the way you talk to your African American friends when they have you over in their living room: "You colored people"? And what does taking that adversarial approach mean we should call YOU, my friend? A "non-traditional Philistine"?
I'm deleting your comment about "holocaust denier" since is a untoward slur. I've known holocaust deniers that could spell better than you. Does that make me a holocaust denier? Please.
Hypocrisy, says the pot to the kettle.
And willing to dialog in a civil manner?
When do you plan on starting. The third Tuesday of February 2037?
Maybe combox commenting just isn't your game, Ben. I know. Let's try a spelling contest!
What you are really saying Anon is those identified as "traditionalist" are to be treated as beyond reproach and above criticism?
But it is open season on the Vicar of Christ or any non-Traditionalist orthodox Catholic who disagrees?
How is that fair or reasonable?
If that is how you want to run your website then that's fine.
But like I said elsewhere. You trads forever banish yourselves to the Catholic Getto.
I'm suppose to be outraged over Cardinal Dolan marching with gays under a banner that says OUT@NBC (and I am not thrilled with that at all), [and you give Rorate Caeli more credence than ME!!!]?
That is just hypocrisy.
Contrary to the poisoning of the Well I am willing to dialog in a civil manner.
But I don't think it is me who is being uncivil.
>Ben, READ THE RULES! You cannot continue to "dump" in my comboxes and expect not to outwear your welcome as a guest. I will show you the door if you do not start following the courtesies I expect of anyone here.
I read them & for you I will pull my punches.
Oh & I don't care if you call me A "non-traditional Philistine"?
It's no different then being called a "Neo-Cath".
I find this simply fascinating!
Vatican sources deny that Pope is upset over cardinals' marriage book.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-sources-deny-that-pope-is-upset-over-cardinals-marriage-book-13772/
QUOTE"he French Catholic newspaper La Croix said Sept. 17 that “a senior source close to the Argentine Pope” claimed that Pope Francis would be “annoyed by the publication of this collective work.”
However, sources close to the Pope denied this claim, telling CNA that the Pope is not even aware of the book."END QUOTE
A the rumor mill!!!!
Where would the reactionaries & their online publications be without it?
CARDINAL RAYMOND BURKE: 'IMPOSSIBLE' TO CHANGE CHURCH TEACHING ON MARRIAGE
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/23/Cardinal-Raymond-Burke-Impossible-To-Change-Church-Teaching-on-Marriage
QUOTE"For example, Burke observed that some media outlets are presenting Pope Francis as favorable toward allowing those who are divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion, even though this is not the case.
Burke said there is a danger that “the media has created a situation in which people expect that there are going to be these major changes which would, in fact, constitute a change in Church teaching, which is impossible.”
“That’s why it’s very important for those who are in charge to be very clear,” he added.”END QUOTE
So according to Cardinal Burke the Holy Father is not favorable toward allowing those who are divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion?
Again t quote the pointy eared man on TV.
Fascinating!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFods1KSWsQ
Ben:
"Reactionaries"?
Please. If you think that, you know no reactionaries.
Still more reason to doubt the reactionaries.
Spanish Bishop: Pope Said He Won’t Change Communion Rule
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/spanish-bishop-pope-said-he-wont-change-communion-rule/
Ben,
You're right about the serious improbability of the pope changing any Communion rule.
You're wrong about seeing this simply as "reactionary" paranoia about what the pope might do.
It's not. It's paranoia on the well-grounded understanding of what the "progressives" in the Church will do with Vatican declarations that are laden with juicy equivocations and ambiguities.
This is precisely what happened in the aftermath of Vatican II, whose documents, while capable of being interpreted in conformity with Church teaching, are also full of ambiguities and loopholes lending themselves to completely heterodox interpretations.
So what happened after Vatican II? Complete institutional meltdown, the wreckovation of churches, the evisceration of religious orders, the emptying of the seminaries, and hemorrhaging of parishioners from parishes. Why? They voted with their feet, a vote of no confidence in a Church administration that gave them nothing but confusion and equivocation.
We need clarity. There was a time we used to have it. Now it's a crap shoot as to what any self-identified "Catholic" believes.
Hey Charles.
>This is precisely what happened in the aftermath of Vatican II, whose documents, while capable of being interpreted in conformity with Church teaching, are also full of ambiguities and loopholes lending themselves to completely heterodox interpretations.
Forgive me my friend. I do realize (as I have heard it for years) this is the staple of the Traditionalist Critique of Vatican II.
But I am skeptical of the claim(& in case there is any doubt I assume the good will of those who make this critique of which I am skeptical).
First in my personal experience with AmChurch types they would make all these grandiose claims about the sweeping changes instituted by V2 but never actually quote the text.
Second Traditionalist Critics don't cite texts. At best the last time I asked I was referred to V2 documents on the liturgy but no specific texts just a general "ambiguous" claim they where ambiguous and the opinion of the editor of THE REMNANT they didn't authorize Paul VI changing the litergy.
Third AmChurch types cite the "Spirit of V2" but never the texts.
Fourth heresy that is wide spread in AmChurch seems to me to be the product of "not teaching the faith beyond the childhood level". After confirmation I had no religious instruction till my early twenties reading Catholic Apologists.
Sorry I left my thoughts dangling.
If we are headed for a repeat of the 70's then the solution is not to grouse about it but to go out and teach people.
Like I said elsewhere.
We have to stop waiting for a Pius XIII, Benedict XVII or John Paul III to "save" the Church.
Teaching wasn't so great under their namesakes either as the problem has become to wide spread and entrenched.
Lay teachers have to pick up the slack.
>I beg to differ, sir.
>http://salbert.tripod.com/SClel.htm
To quote myself.
"At best the last time I asked I was referred to V2 documents on the liturgy but no specific texts just a general "ambiguous" claim they where ambiguous and the opinion of the editor of THE REMNANT they didn't authorize Paul VI changing the litergy."
I am sorry but Ferrera's opinions about wither or not the texts of V2 justify the implementation of the New Mass by Paul VI not withstanding I'm not getting from this example of "ambiguities and loopholes lending themselves to completely heterodox interpretations.".
Where from these texts on liturgy do I get ambiguities that Liberals can misinterpret justifying women Priests? Or the unlimited right of conscience to cancel the moral law? Or that birth control is ok? Or that membership in the Catholic Church is not really necessary for salvation?
Sorry don't see it.
>Sir. Mr. Ferrara spells out the loopholes for you like a tutor in remedial tutor of McGuffey's Reader. If you can't see the loopholes there, God help you.
"ambiguities and loopholes lending themselves to completely heterodox interpretations"
What does this article have to do with doctrine?
Nothing.
So this example is meaningless.
So he is upset at folk music being played at Mass.
I sympathize I once walked out of a Mass and went somewhere else because the band played music that sounded like DEEP PURPLE.
Which is great heavy metal music but not for Mass.
Oh & why should I listen to Kaspar?
@Anon
Let me try a different tact.
>Good grief, Sir. Mr. Ferrara spells out the loopholes for you like a tutor in remedial tutor of McGuffey's Reader. If you can't see the loopholes there, God help you.
What ambitious doctrines are taught in SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM?
None as far as I can tell!
The term "heterodox" I have always understood means opposite to orthodox belief?
For example the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide is a heterodox understanding of the doctrine of Justification.
But what does any of the following have to do with alleged ambiguous doctrine or heresy?
the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs."
It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority... set up a liturgical commission to be assisted by experts in liturgical Science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice.
Yes I have always hated with the fire of ten thousand suns the butchery of the Paul VI rite by the ICEL.
But what does that have to do with heterodoxy?
> Kasper declared.....etc
Well Feeneyites have their interpretation of Session Six of the Council of Florence on salvation "outside" the Church & yet Pius IX had a different interpretation which they reject.
Of course session six is a doctrinal statement and the Council of Florence only infallible exercise of the extra-ordinary magesterium.
Kasper has his interpretation of Vatican II........but what texts of V2 is he citing for example to justify
his colorful views on Communion for those in invalid second marriages?
I think you are missing some valuable points made by "Anonymous," Ben Y.
It was all-too-easy for you to dismiss his or her last comments as irrelevant to doctrine, wasn't it, as well as Kasper's words because he's, well, suspect.
One point would be that which many students of liturgy (like Geoffrey Hull, whose "The Banished Heart" comes to mind) that "First Theology" is liturgy, and that "Second Theology" is that which flows from liturgy, namely our belief. As we pray and worship, so we believe. Hence, one can't simply isolate liturgy in an air tight container and insulate it from doctrine.
Another point is that when prominent Princes of the Church, even suspect ones like Kasper, tell us something like this about what happened at an ecumenical council, it's not as if he's simply spewing heresy. He's reporting on something that happened, that has been corroborated by many others, like Fr. Brian Harrison in his report on Fr. John Courtney Murray's influence on Dignitate Humanae, and even the former Cardinal Ratzinger concerning the formation of Gaudium et spes.
@Charles
My frustration at this charge remains even after two decades.
>I think you are missing some valuable points made by "Anonymous," Ben Y.
>It was all-too-easy for you to dismiss his or her last comments as irrelevant to doctrine, wasn't it, as well as Kasper's words because he's, well, suspect.
As I already said (or maybe this blog ate that post…it happens…or it could show up) I could listen to Fr Feeney’s interpretation of the Council of Florence Session Six(that council’s only infallible document)on salvation “outside the Church” or I could listen to Pius IX or St Pius X.
Kasper can ambiguously claim the Council is ambiguous but that is not the same as showing
me texts that “lend themselves to heterodox interpretations”.
I would expect at minimum a citation from one of Vatican II’s dogmatic constitutions not the one on how to reform the liturgy.
Now if the real charge is the Council’s texts are ambiguous in terms of how to properly implement liturgical reform then simply say that. The it has something to do with discipline, not faith and morals. Thus use of the term “heterodox” is misleading and itself ambiguous.
>One point would be that which many students of liturgy (like Geoffrey Hull, whose "The Banished Heart" comes to mind) that "First Theology" is liturgy, and that "Second Theology" is that which flows from liturgy, namely our belief. As we pray and worship, so we believe. Hence, one can't simply isolate liturgy in an air tight container and insulate it from doctrine.
That is a valid point but without proper prior instruction or knowledge of doctrine one does not know what is going on in the first place. Which is why Catechumens where dismissed before the celebration of the Sacred Mystery. They have to be taught what is going on the liturgy alone (thought instructive to the properly taught faithful) doesn’t teach them that per-say.
After all an Anglican High Mass is in it’s form almost indistinguishable from the Old Mass but still being performed by a non-Priest in Church with a heterodox understanding of sacraments.
It’s attendees don’t automatically drop Protestantism.
>Another point is that when prominent Princes of the Church, even suspect ones like Kasper, tell us something like this about what happened at an ecumenical council, it's not as if he's simply spewing heresy.
Except his claims of ambiguity are themselves ambiguous.
Maybe the problem is you understand the term “heterodoxy” to refer to something other than false doctrine?
That is what is confusing me here and has always confused me in regard to the claims of Vatican II ambiguity.
Cheers and peace friend.
additional:
>He's reporting on something that happened, that has been corroborated by many others, like Fr. Brian Harrison in his report on Fr. John Courtney Murray's influence on Dignitate Humanae, and even the former Cardinal Ratzinger concerning the formation of Gaudium et spes.
Citations from Dignitate Humanae & Gaudium et spes would have been better since they contain explicit
doctrinal content.
But V2's documents on reform of the liturgy is a dead end to find ambiguity that lends itself to heterodoxy.
>But V2's documents on reform of the liturgy is a dead end to find ambiguity that lends itself to heterodoxy.
You're sadly mistaken: read Anthony Cekada's Work of "Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI"; and, if circumstantial ad hominem considerations prevent you from seeing his arguments for what they are, try reading Michael Davies' "Pope Paul's New Mass."
But given your reluctance to see any argument in the analysis offered by Mr. Ferrara's jurisprudential sharp eye, I suspect you wouldn't see one if it hit you in the head with a two-by-four.
> ... an Anglican High Mass is in it’s form almost indistinguishable from the Old Mass but still being performed by a non-Priest in Church with a heterodox understanding of sacraments.
I see you're not a student of liturgy. The Anglican High Mass is in it's material content almost indistinguishable from the Novus Ordo. In its form, the Novus Ordo is based on the Old Low Mass in a hybrid synthesis with canons, some of which were apparently written on the back of napkins in trattorias in Trasevere.
>The Anglican High Mass is in it's material content almost indistinguishable from the Novus Ordo.
I'm thinking High Church Neo Oxford movement types.
Not Evangelical Low or Broad church types.
Plus I find your claim questionable.
This traditionalist convert doesn't seem to agree with you.
https://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0707-blankenship
QUOTE" When at last I decided to convert to the Roman Catholic faith, it was confusing to see that the Mass, as most commonly celebrated in the Roman Church today, lacks so much when compared to the Anglo-Catholic Masses to which I had become accustomed. This was compounded by the often murky teachings of the Second Vatican Council. I soon came to realize that, since the schism of the English Church, its rightful Mother, the Church of Rome, had changed drastically.END QUOTE
Enough of the liturgy nonsense and red herrings.
What are these "murky teachings" of V2? Chapter and verse please?
Where is a great ambiguity in Dignitate Humanae & Gaudium et spes?
This is getting tedious.
I get it you don't like the New Mass. I don't care it has nothing to do with Faith and Morals.
What was Kaspar talking about when he spoke of “ambiguities” in the V2 Council?
I think Cardinal Dulles has an opinion
http://americamagazine.org/issue/423/article/vatican-ii-myth-and-reality
QUOTE"The council fathers, under the direction of Pope Paul VI, made every effort to achieve unanimity and express the consensus of the whole episcopate, not the ideas of one particular school. For this reason, they sought to harmonize differing views, without excluding any significant minority. In some cases they adopted deliberate ambiguities.”END
Interesting read. I recommend the whole article.
Ben,
I'm sorry, but it's pointless arguing with you, because you resolutely stick to dogmatic regurgitations of your previous statements without engaging the ideas of your interlocutors. It's pointless. All one can do is return the favor by telling you that you obviously have no clue what you're talking about and are talking nonsense. Perhaps you should spend more time reading and less time posting comments.
>I'm sorry, but it's pointless arguing with you, because you resolutely stick to dogmatic regurgitations of your previous statements without engaging the ideas of your interlocutors.
I am sorry you feel that way charles but are you sure I am the only one doing this here?
Because I don't think that is the case.
I did say to you "Citations from Dignitate Humanae & Gaudium et spes would have been better since they contain explicit doctrinal content."
After all you brought up "Fr. Brian Harrison in his report on Fr. John Courtney Murray's influence on Dignitate Humanae, and even the former Cardinal Ratzinger concerning the formation of Gaudium et spes."
So if you believe those documents contain "ambiguities and loopholes lending themselves to completely heterodox interpretations" I am all ears to hear your opinions.
Since as you can see I am predisposed to reject any "ambiguities" that are in SC for reasons I have stated.
It's up too you & you are merely bored with this conversation and don't wish to continue that is Ok too.
Ben,
The topic doesn't bore me. Your predictable boorishness does.
All the evidence in the world is out there to be seen, but I doubt you'll even recognize it.
Fr. Brian Harrison? Here's a link. There are plenty of textual quotes. Knock yourself out.
In the end Harrison defends the integrity of the document against the heretical interpretations that Fr. John Courtney Murray placed in the footnotes to one of the two English translation of the texts of the Vatican II documents. But the fact that the text, not only through many of the schemas in which he had a had, but in its final formulation has the capacity to LEND itself to heretical interpretations tells you all you need to know about "ambiguities."
Here's the link: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt33.html
>Fr. Brian Harrison? Here's a link. There are plenty of textual quotes. Knock yourself out.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt33.html
Thank you charles. At last something to work with & address my needs..
I'll give it a mull.
Post a Comment