I received an email today. The author of said email asked why I hadn't responded to Fr. Giovanni Cavalocoli's rebuttal (Response to the traditionalists of "The Remnant," in defense of Arzillo) of an article of mine that was published in The Remnant a few weeks ago (Traditionalists Attacked... Again). Fr. Cavalocoli's essay appeared on Sandro Magister's blog, Chiesa, along with another reference to my article here, "The Church is Infallible, But Not Vatican II".
Well, the short answer is, I didn't know about it.
I really wish you guys would tell me these things sooner!
I've read over Fr. Cavalocoli's reasoned response. It was good, and an important contribution to the debate. I enjoyed reading it, even though I had to walk away from the laptop a couple of times flailing my arms, which garnered some strange looks from the wife and kids, and am currently at the mumbling stage of formulating a response. I've even gone so far as to crack open Newman's essay on the development of doctrine. For me to do that, you know I'm serious. God willing, when I do get around to finishing my research and writing a response, I will submit it directly to Sandro Magister, in addition to posting it here.
In the mean time, please do read Roberto de Mattei's essay, which I'm getting ready to read over a second time.
And consider that this debate is a positive development. This debate isn't solely concerned with the question of whether or not the Second Vatican Council was a disaster for the Church, but it also indicates a new willingness on the part of theologians, members of the Magisterium, and the lay faithful to consider the merits of the Council in light of the traditionalist critique.
When I was a seminarian back in the late eighties, no one would have thought that the traditionalist critique would ever be taken seriously, much less spark a debate among members of the Magisterium, serious and respected theologians, and the lay faithful. Yet here we are today seriously discussing what would have been considered back then as nothing short of radical traditionalism. So, whether or not one agrees with new hermeneutic of continuity proposed by the Holy Father, we can thank him, sincerely, for initiating a renewed respect for the traditionalist critique, but most importantly for the traditional Catholic who now, I believe, is starting to find a welcomed place in the Church after so long being treated like the red-headed step child.
I have no idea how I missed that you were published in the Remnant, Dave. Congrats!
ReplyDeleteWow, thats quite something! Well said David, I remember back in the late 90's when I heard my first Traditional Latin Mass that started me on the path to Tradition. I had attended the Indult Mass at Saint Vincent de Paul church in Toronto, Canada, said by the Fathers of the Oratory with the permission of the Archbishop of Toronto, Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic. When I informed the "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion" at the Novus Ordo parish I attended, a group of ladies who I considered friends at the time, about this Mass, and praised the beauty of it, they instantly declared me "excommunicated". It has now been many years since anyone has "excommunicated" me, the climate has definitely been changing for the better :)
ReplyDelete