>>Hermeneutik des Bruchs
Roberto de Mattei ist und bleibt eben ein knallharter Vertreter der [...] - "Hermeneutik des Bruchs".<< Im Kommentarbereich hier.

Unabhängig von meinen eigenen Leseeindrücken, die ich hier schon in sehr amüsanter Form von Kommentatoren begleitet vorfand ("Mehr Demut!" oder auch "Obacht!") obwohl ich noch keinen einzigen meiner Eindrücke veröffentlicht hatte (außer, wenn ich mich recht entsinne, dass ich das Buch spannend und kurzweilig fand oder so etwas), lasse ich an dieser Stelle Roberto de Mattei selbst zu Wort kommen.

>>The Councils can promulgate dogmas, truths, decrees, canons, which are issued from the Council, but they are not the Council. While dogma formulates a truth, the Councils are born and die in history. The Council is different from its decisions. The decisions of the Council, if they are promulgated infallibly, enter to become part of Tradition.

No Council, not even Trent or Vatican I, and much less Vatican II, is above Tradition. Benedict XVI affirms that the documents of Vatican Council II must be interpreted in their continuity with the Tradition of the Church. Tradition is not an event, it is not a part, it is the whole. Tradition is like Sacred Scripture: a source of Revelation, with the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit.

It is devoid of logical sense, let alone theological, to wish to contrast, as some do, Tradition and the "living" magisterium, as if Tradition were the past and the living magisterium were the present. Tradition is the magisterium present, past, and, we could say, future.<<

Weiter schreibt er in diesem Artikel konkret in einer Verteidigung gegenüber eben dem Vorwurf Bruchhermeneutik:

>>I do not deny with this the supreme authority of the Council and the authenticity and validity of its acts. But this does not mean infallibility. The Church is certainly infallible, but not all the expressions of its representatives, even supreme, are infallible; and a Council is not necessarily holy or infallible: because if it is true that the Holy Spirit never fails to assist it, it is also true that there must be cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit, which does not automatically produce either holiness or infallibility. If it is true that every Council can exercise, in union with the pope, an infallible magisterium, a Council can also refuse to exercise this magisterium, to place itself on a completely pastoral level, and, on this level, commit errors as happens, in my view, when Vatican Council II failed to condemn communism.

Vatican Council II, let's not forget, was not a dogmatic Council, but pastoral, which does not mean that it was devoid of magisterium, but its magisterium can be considered definitive and infallible only when it proposes again and explicates, as it often does, truths already defined by the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium of the Church.<<

Und stelle das hier also zur Diskussion.