Thursday, May 21, 2015

Sacrosanctum Concilium's lost footnotes confirm "hermeneutic of continuity"?

This is essentially the claim made by Susan J. Benofy in the most recent issue of Adoremus Bulletin (Spring, 2015) in two related articles, both in the same PDF file linked in each title below:The Five Vatican Liturgy Documents whose citations were removed are:
  • Tra le sollecitudini (1903), a Motu Proprio by Pope Pius X
  • Divini cultus (1929), an Apostolic Constitution by Pope Pius XI
  • Mediator Dei (1947), an Encyclical by Pope Pius XII
  • Musicae sacrae disciplina (1956), an Encyclical by Pope Pius XII
  • De musica sacra et sacra liturgia (1958), an Instruction released by the Sacred Congregation of Rites under Pope Pius XII
Two pertinent questions that come to mind are: (1) Is going back to the beginning of the 20th Century sufficient for establishing a hermeneutic of continuity? (2) Does establishing a hermeneutic of continuity not require a hermeneutic for understanding how later documents interpret and apply earlier ones?


6 comments:








Anonymous

said...

For a hermeneutic of continuity we have to identify and avoid Apparition Theology. It is as simple as that.
_____________

What is Apparition Theology ?

Many may ask: what is Apparition Theology '
Apparition Theology (AT) is the new theology which emerged in the Catholic Church with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
It replaces the traditional 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It postulates that there is known salvation outside the Church and so every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church in the present times.
It suggests that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It presumes that these cases are physically visible and known in the present times( apparitions) to become exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is upon the premise of being able to see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith that it infers that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma, the Feeneyite version.
It is upon this irrationality of knowing objective exceptions to the dogma in the present times, that Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits supported the new theology, a 'development' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In Vatican Council II, being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire was mentioned in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 along with orthodox passages supporting the dogma.So Catholics have inferred that there are known exceptions to the dogma.
This new theology was also enforced in Vatican Council II when the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was still not lifted and he was dismissed from the Jesuit community.There was no correction issued when secular media reports said that the Church had changed its position on the dogma.
The new Apparition Theology, was accomodated by Cardinal Ratzinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1257) which says God is not limited to the Sacraments.In other words the cardinal knew of explicit exceptions to the traditional dogmatic teaching on salvation.Also CCC 846 says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church, again denying the necessity of formal membership in the Church and implying that there are known exceptions.
CONTINUED
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1280-google-closes-down-blog-eucharist-and-mission





Raider Fan

said...

Dear Doc. There is such a wealth of information about this topic easily available on the internet and here is link to where some trouble maker collected at one spot the great liturgical series by the excellent, Rad Trad:

It is shocking to discover the part played in the liturgical movement by those we trads consider heroes, Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII

http://southernvermontcrank.blogspot.com/2014/01/eye-opening-series-on-liturgy.html

and Rorate was well known for exposing to many of us the anti liturgical principles of the great Dom Prosper Gueranger, the father of the liturgical movement:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/04/liturgical-creed-principles-of-anti.html

It will be impossible to retrace our steps back to any particular point in time of the liturgical movement - do we go back before the Holy Week massacre of Pope Saint Pius X or do we just go back to the 1962 transitional missal used by FFSP and SSPX as the Traditional Mass?

Lord have mercy; Mediator Dei is a document of Papal Positivism that can be cited by every opponent of the trad twins - Tom and Dick Verbo - who denounce innovations and novelties.

It does appear to give subsequent Popes unlimited authority but what about Tradition?

We in the west are conditioned to cite rules, precedent, laws, etc and so Tradition vis a vis the liturgy can be seen as but a gnostic game played by partisans who merely favor some particularistic prejudice.

We have met the enemy...






Pertinacious Papist

said...

Thanks for the links, R.F.





Robert Allen

said...

'Any careless reader is able to see in this mid-19th-century text the unfolding events which led to the collapse of Catholic liturgy in the post-Conciliar age.'

No, RF; RC is not calling DPG 'anti-liturgical.' The 11 principles they list are HIS OWN indictment of the anti-Traditionalists of his day. The writer was 'shocked' to read them because he found them to be so prescient. And, to answer your question, we do indeed need go back to the pre-'HWM' liturgy. RC posted a great essay during the recent HW on why so many of P 12's innovations make little or no sense. (P 12, not 10, was responsible there)

RFGA, Ph.D.





William C.

said...

Hey Robert,

I'm very interested in what you're saying, but lost by your abbreviating initials for everything. I got Pius XII for "P 12" but that's about it. Can you restate? Sorry.





Robert Allen

said...

No, Raider Fan; Rorate Caeli (RC) is not calling Dom Prosper Guerrenger 'anti-liturgical' (sic, 'anti-Tradition, I believe, is what you mean to accuse him of). The 11 principles they list are HIS OWN indictment of the anti-Traditionalists of his day. The RC writer was 'shocked' to read them because he found them to be so prescient. And, to answer your question, we do indeed need go back to the pre-'Holy Week Massacre' liturgy. RC posted a great essay during the recent Holy Week on why so many of P 12's innovations make little or no sense. (P 12, not 10, was responsible there)