Johnny Proctor wrote :The Pope's new motu proprio is a call to "rethink thinking" about theology

that must adapt to the concrete circumstances of modern life, culture, and science. This is the
most blatant, unambiguous CALL FOR UNDENIABLE RUPTURE WITH the Church's PAST
and Tradition.

I replied: It's not a rupture with the Church's past only with some traditionalists' thinking about
the Church and its Tradition.

In reply, Mark Grillo quoted from then Cardinal Ratzinger's book, “Principles of Catholic Theology”
and asked in connection with it, “ isn't Cardinal Ratzinger himself claiming - and therefore not just
some traditionalists - that there is a rupture with the past ”

Consistent with a proposal made earlier, I will clarify my understanding of Johnny Proctor's comment,
Mark Grillo's comment and the quotation from Cardinal Ratzinger's book before I proceed to answer
Mark Grillo's question/rebuttal.

My understanding of Johnny Proctor's comment: From years of conversing with traditionalists here I
have come to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that when a traditionalist speaks of Tradition he is
referring to everything that the Church has done, taught or decreed in the PAST which is normative for
every Catholic, at least, and for everyone because it is from God because God is the Lord of all.

So whenever I see or hear a traditionalist speaking of anything from the Church's past, or Tradition, I
can't help but think that he is referring to what the Vatican Council calls Sacred Tradition. However,
there is a big difference between the two. Because Vatican Council II's conception of Sacred Tradition
only includes the Deposit of Faith or what God has revealed in Jesus Christ ( which already includes
the prophets because Jesus Christ is their fulfillment) and was transmitted through the Apostles and
their successors through the centuries. Vatican Council II recognizes that together with God's
revelation, there were transmitted through the centuries things that were authoritative (Church
authority) but not part of the Deposit of Faith and therefore may be revised as the Church sees fit.
Because if they got instituted by the Church's authority, why can't they be changed by virtue of the
same authority? However, what is included in the Deposit of Faith cannot be changed by the Church.
She can only receive it. Examples of things that are part of the Deposit of Faith: 1) Priestly celibacy 2)
Monogamy 3) Indissolubility of marriage 4) The authority to forgive sins. Examples of ecclesiastical
institutions which are not part of the Deposit of Faith and therefore may be revised: 1) The present
form of the Sacrament of Confession 2) The use of Latin in the liturgy and ecclesiastical documents
3)Many elements of the Roman Rite 4) All those things that the Church instituted or decreed in
response to a prevailing need or situation. When the need disappears or the situation that calls for the
institution fades away, the institution may be dissolved, replace or modified by the Church authority.

So to rephrase Johnny Proctor's comment according to my understanding: This is the most blatant,
unambiguous CALL FOR UNDENIABLE RUPTURE WITH the DEPOSIT OF FAITH as
transmitted by the Church.

So basically, when I said, “It's not a rupture with the Church's past only with some traditionalists'
thinking about the Church and its Tradition” I was in effect saying, “ It is not a rupture with the
DEPOSIT OF FAITH as taught by the Church but only with some traditionalists' thinking about
the Church and its Tradition.
So the next question to consider is this: Is the Motu Propio of Pope Francis a call to a rupture
with the Deposit of Faith as taught by the Church through the centuries.

According Mark Grillo, it is. And he offered a quotation from a book written by Cardinal
Ratzinger as proof.

The quotation is actually part of a section that runs from p378 – p382 and it is a kind of
commentary on the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes or Pastoral Constitution on the Church
in the Modern World.

Here's the quote:

“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text (Gaudium et Spes)as a whole, we might say that
(in conjunction with the texts on on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the
Syllabus of Pius, a akind of countersyllabus.”

With that, is Joseph Ratzinger saying that Gaudium et Spes has departed from Tradition or the
DEPOSIT OF FAITH?

NO.

Because in the same commentary he said the following things:

1.” … while the Council formulated its pronouncements with the fullness of power that reside in
it” (last line, p. 374, Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius Press, 1989)

I understand it to mean that Vatican II is exercising its teaching function with infallibility and
therefore cannot be unfaithful to the DEPOSIT OF FAITH

2. “ Despite its many shortcomings, the text has, on the whole, succeeded in so PURIFYing AND
DEEPening the heritage of TRADITION that, with NO CURTAILMENT IN WHAT IS
ESSENTIAL...” (p.379, ibid)

I take this to mean that in tradition (Sacred Tradition) there have been attachments whose source
is not the Divine Revelation or the Deposit of Faith which Gaudium et Spes (VII as a whole)
prunes away and and that there are details of the Deposit of Faith which until then had not been
clear but which are now being made more clear.
3. “ ...its CONTENT, which was ENTIRELY IN KEEPING WITH THE TRADITION of the
Church and exploited its LATENT possibilities.” ( ibid)

If Gaudium et Spes is a revision of the Syllabus, a kind of countersyllabus, what does it mean?

“The Syllabus of Errors, issued by Pope Pius IX in 1864, condemned 80 propositions. While some of these
condemnations are universally true, others are only true in the context of the situations for which they were intended.

What situation gave rise to some of the condemnations in the Syllabus? Let's read again.
“... the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation
created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti,
especially in Central Europe.

It seems that Cardinal Ratzinger is saying that the Syllabus represents the Church's policy or mindset towards the
world or secular society in the aftermath of the French Revolution which from where I stand ilooks like one of
suspicion and antagonism.

So the questions is: is an attitude part of the DEPOSIT OF FAITH? Is it not subject to change?

On p. 381, it says, “ The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI produced a certain openness toward a liberal
understanding of the state.”

Attitudes may change because they are not part of the DEPOSIT OF FAITH.

Gaudium et Spes is a Church document that reflects the Church's new stance and attitude towards the state and civil
society at large and represents a kind of updating of the Syllabus, particularly those parts that no longer reflect the
new attitude of the Church. NOT A BREAK FROM THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH. But an application of the DEPOSIT
OF FAITH with a new attitude of friendship, accompaniment and working with the world.