Page 5, 20th March 1970

20th March 1970
Page 5
Page 5, 20th March 1970 — Sorry, Mr Stevas, but Vatican II virtually paraphrased Pius XII
Close

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.

Tags

Locations: Dublin, Rome

Share


Related articles

Mgr. Montini Pope Pius And Xii

Page 5 from 2nd October 1964

Diplomat Calls On Vatican To Shelve Cause Of Pius Xii

Page 5 from 3rd November 2006

The Maligned But Mighty 'representative' To Whom All Of...

Page 6 from 31st July 1970

The Truth About Pius Xii

Page 4 from 27th September 1963

Ten Years Of Pius Xii's Pontificate

Page 3 from 4th March 1949

Sorry, Mr Stevas, but Vatican II virtually paraphrased Pius XII

NORMAN ST. JOHN-STEVAS, in his authoritative state ment of March 6, says that Pius XII "went so far as to state" (which was very naughty of him) that once the Pope had exercised his ordinary magisterium cm a disputed matter it could no longer be regarded "as a question open to discussion among theologians."

He also states that "there were others" (unspecified) who claimed that encyclicals had no higher status than "the private theological opinions of the Bishop of Rome" (sic): and that the Second Vatican Council "adopted a mean between these two poles."

And of course the Vatican Council did nothing of the kind. It practically paraphrased Pius XII, saying that when the Pope proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith and morals "his opinions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of The Holy Spirit. Therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgement."

Then it goes on: "For the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person. (This makes short work of the "private theological opinions of the Bishop of Rome" nonsense. Rather, • as the supreme teacher of the Universal Church, as in one in whom the infallibility of the Church herself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of the Catholic Faith."

And if this clear ruling is a

mean between the two poles of Mr. St. John-Stevas, then I might say, in view of certain TOcent events, that I'm a Dutchman.

Your contributor, just before his majestic "I conclude," quotes Hans Kung (and he might get better guides — Cardinal Danielou, for instance) on the need for "a genuine candour in thought, word, and deed." Then he adds: "Without this, you cannot be a charismatic leader in the modern world; with it, anything is possible, as President Kennedy and Pope John have shown."

What this has to do with the ordinary magisteriurn I can't sec for the life of me. Other qualities, loyalty and obedience, for instance, are even more necessary in a charismatic leader, and they are as important in the twentieth century as they were in the sixteenth. With them (and the graze of God) anything is possible, as Fisher and More have shown.

John D. Sheridan Terenure, Dublin.




blog comments powered by Disqus