Bishop Barron on Vatican II: Intellectual Masterpiece or Glib White-Washing?
His love of Jesus and the Church comes across beautifully in his orations and is communicated in his work with Word on Fire in a way which has brought many to the faith.
I have relied personally on many of his videos as tools for catechesis in Apologetics, RCIA and in youth ministry. He has a knack for explaining the practical, logical reality of the Catholic faith and also its beauty and mysticism in a really accessible way.
In short, I know there are problems, but I am a fan.Watching this video I find his argument compelling. It makes sense. It feels Catholic. His integralism is a position I have always held and it is what I want to believe about the Church. It was what we all seemed clear about when Pope Benedict XVI was enthroned at St Peter's. But the last seven years have presented a catalogue of division and confusion with the filth in the hierarchy floating to the surface, many extremely problematic individuals being promoted by the Pope himself, distinctive voices pronouncing positions very clearly in contradiction to the faith have grown increasingly louder and more prominent. Are we to simply ignore all this?
“Nostra Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority, and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as being dogmatic, this declaration can only be understood in the light of tradition and of the continuous Magisterium. For example, there exists today, unfortunately, the view — contrary to the Catholic Faith — that there is a salvific path independent of Christ and His Church. That has also been officially confirmed last of all by the Congregation for the Faith itself in its declaration, Dominus Iesus. Therefore, any interpretation of Nostra Aetate which goes into this [erroneous] direction is fully unfounded and has to be rejected.”Also, Fr. John Hunwicke cites Archbp. Pozzo’s preamble to the quote from the above linked article about something that happened during the Second Vatican Council, specifically about Nostra aetate:
“The Secretary for the Unity of Christians said on 18 November 1964 in the Council Hall about Nostra aetate ‘As to the character of the declaration, the Secretariate does not want to write a dogmatic declaration on non-Christian religions, but, rather, practical and pastoral norms’. [We are free to disagree with “pastoral norms”.] Nostra aetate does not have any dogmatic authority and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognise this declaration as dogmatic. This declaration can only be understood in the light of tradition and of the continuous Magisterium. For example, there exists today, unfortunately, the view – contrary to the Catholic Faith – that there is a salvific path independent of Christ and His Church. That [he apparently means “The unfortunate existence today of such an unCatholic view”] has also been officially confirmed last of all by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith itself in its declaration Dominus Iesus. Therefore any interpretation of Nostra aetate which goes into this direction is fully unfounded and has to be rejected”.
Meanwhile, those commissioned to inform and teach them (our bishops) are largely silent and a majority support the wrong side!— Mark (@sitsio) August 21, 2020