...The equivocal nature of these pronouncements, far from encouraging analogical thought or enriching “the analogy of the faith”, succeeds only in sowing confusion and casting doubt on what has been infallibly pronounced previously. These kinds of novel and imprecise pronouncements are the very reason for the emergence of the hermeneutic of rupture. These “pastoral” pronouncements created opportunities for confusion that was conveniently embraced and used by the purveyors of that “hermeneutic of rupture”. Can we call it mere coincidence when the “rupturists”, themselves, were so intimately involved in the Council? The floodgates of Modernist doctrinal reconstruction were thrown open even before the Council was concluded. As Radaelli points out in the already mentioned article, this was due, not to a misinterpretation of the “rupturists” after the fact, but by the interpretation of the very periti who were responsible for much of the content of the documents. As it turns out, many of the authors of the Council were the “rupturists”! Is it possible, then, that perhaps the documents were interpreted as they were intended to be interpreted, as rupture, by those who worked behind the scenes at the Council?
The imprecision of the great “Pastoral” Council and the imprecision of the Magisterium ever since was not a healthy contribution to the polity wherein analogy has its proper and vaunted place. It was, to apply Ockham’s razor, just plain old equivocal. The damage that this equivocality has produced is more than evident, as the Church currently reels in the aftermath of the failed liberal experiment.
How can Fr. Cavalcoli honestly suggest that the Magisterium’s imprecision has enriched the faith when the Church is racked by doctrinal confusion, liturgical abuse, wrecked altars and sanctuaries, and a devastating priest-sex-abuse scandal and commensurate institutional cover-up? How can Fr. Cavalcoli happily go about trusting that a redefined Magisterium has been a success when kitsch has replaced sacred art and architecture, seminaries are closing for want of seminarians, pews are emptying, parishes are closing in the thousands, and there is widespread disobedience among priests and bishops? How can Fr. Cavalcoli consider it an improvement when bishops and priests actively promote homosexual marriage or challenge the male only priesthood? That is not a healthy state of affairs!...
(Please consider ordering a subscription to The Remnant Newspaper while you are over there.)
Here's a roundup of the on-line debate thus far:
Sandro Magister: High Up, Let Down by Pope Benedict
The Remnant: Traditionalists Attacked... Again
Sandro Magister: The Disappointed Have Spoken. The Vatican responds
Sandro Magister: Who's Betraying Tradition. The Grand Dispute
Sandro Magister: The Church Is Infallible, But Not Vatican II
Sandro Magister: Benedict XVI the "Reformist." The Prosecution Rests
The Remnant: Why Not the Univocal? A Response to Fr. Cavalcoli
Sandro Magister: Religious Freedom. Was the Church Also Right When It Condemned It?
The Remnant: Why Not Univocal Indeed! Italian Theologian Responds to Remnant's David Werling
Sandro Magister: Only Beauty Will Save Us
Sandro Magister: A "Disappointed Great" Breaks His Silence. With an Appeal to the Pope
Sandro Magister: Bologna Speaks: Tradition Is Also Made of "Ruptures"
Ars Orandi: Turning the Word Rupture Upside Down; A Response to Enrico Morini