... on Rorate, headed Attacks on Thomism, is really a very good piece on Neomodernism. I warmly commend it, with a warning that it is quite long; and I would remind you that in 2008 Fr Aidan Nichols wrote a book (Reason with Piety) about Fr Garrigou-Lagrange; whom Lamont defends.
There is just one correction I would like to offer. Lamont, in my view, does S John XXIII an injustice. He cites the speech which the Holy Pontiff made at the opening of Vatican II. But he quotes it in an inaccurate English translation, which culpably omits four crucial words. That translation was widely disseminated by Abbott's English translation of the Conciliar documents [Pages 710 and following, especially 715], and became the basis upon which one Peter Hebblethwaite spun an entire narrative of falsehood. This passage as translated has, indeed, done a great deal of harm; but the harm is attributable to others, not to the pope.
The crucial words omitted are eodem sensu eademque sententia.
2 January 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As I have a copy of the book of Abbot's translations I would be interested to know whereabouts this error occurs. I don't see the 'article repeated below.' Is it just me or is it not there?
Prof. Lamont's article is very interesting, indeed, Father, in many ways, not least of which being his defense of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's approval of Vichy and an explanation of his association with Action Francaise. But his discussion of the historicism of neomodernism is the most valuable aspect, and once one has read it, I think one could never look at some neo-conservative explanations of Vatican II again without thinking of Lamont's discussion. For example, to read Fr. Martin Rhonheimer (of the Santa Croce in Rome, no less, those in the know will understand what that implies) in his defense of Dignitatis Humanae, as, for example, in the Nova et Vetera article here: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Benedict%20XVI%27s%20%22Hermeneutic%20of%20Reform%22%20and%20Religious%20Freedom%20%28Rhonheimer%29.pdf
will, I think, see some of the same historicism at work, and so, ultimately, the introduction of the same uncertainty about the ability, at least of us untrained laity, ever to know what is true and unchangeable in doctrine. Unless, of course, we just go along with whatever our betters tell us is true and unchangeable for today.
Peter Hebblethwaite wrote a falsehood? My whole view of the Catholic Church based for years on his spiritual and doctrinal wisdom collapses in tatters.
Post a Comment