Over on Fr. Z’s blog, he re-presented some remarks made by Archbishop Müller, the Vatican Perfect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Archbishop Müller has upset both liberal Catholics and traditionalist Catholics concerning his presentation of the documents of Vatican II. At debate is the question of if Vatican II was a rupture with the past as it relates to the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Most liberals & traditionalists agree, Vatican II was a rupture. Popes Benedict XVI, John Paul II and many bishops like Müller disagree, believing that the documents are in continuity with the past when understood in the proper light.
I posted a reply on Fr. Z’s blog that I thought readers of this site would benefit from reading:
Muller is making an issue out of a non-issue. If V2 contained heresy, it was a break with the past — and traditionalists continue to believe the dogmas of the Catholic Church. If V2 did not contain heresy, only appears to contain heresy, then traditionalists are simply mistaken about the meaning of the documents but still believe what the Church teaches. Either way, we believe what the Church teaches and reject what the Church rejects.
V2 was not a dogmatic council, so it is possible that it contained heresy and it does appear, at least on surface, to have such heresy. Sure, maybe some find uncomfortable ways of understanding the documents to clear away error. If Muller wants to take that position, fine. But if he is honest, he still has to admit that what the traditionalists object to is heresy, not the contorted but legitimate understanding of the documents he supposedly presents.
Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?