Cdl Kasper: intentional ambiguities at Vatican II

You may have missed it, but on 31 May 2013 Cardinal Kasper, well known as anything but a supporter of what is nowadays called ‘Traditional Catholicism’, stated what the Traditionalists have been saying since the very days of the Second Vatican Council: that the documents are ambiguous - and intentionally so - and that this would without fail lead to confusion and disruption within the Church. The often stated argumernt that the documents are fully clear and Catholic, but that they have been ‘misinterpreted’, and that we still need ‘to implement Vatican II’ has always been denied by Catholics who now find themselves labelled at ‘Traditionalists’. They have pointed out that the documents cannot be 'implemented' because it is impossible to work out what they really want. It is very interesting to hear Cdl Kasper himself stating that the Vatican II documents were indeed intentionally thus: two opposing views are placed next to each other, in the hope that ‘somehow’ a reconciliation would be made between them. In truth, these self-contradictions are really obvious if you will only read the documents themselves. And there is nothing disloyal in pointing this out: on the contrary, it is completely loyal to our Mother Church.

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/kasper-intentional-ambiguities-vatican-ii-1749

Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano this past Thursday.[1]

Firstly, we need to appreciate his sincerity. Kasper’s statement is contra to the prevailing mantra from Pope Paul VI onwards (and the blind optimism of Cardinal Dolan of New York), and thus undermines that unrealistic vision of a Church in springtime:

For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the council are part of the church’s daily life. But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the church, which were expected at that time, but rather a church that has a wintery look, and shows clear signs of crisis….

wintery look, and shows clear signs of crisis.

Then, speaking of the challenges facing the Church and the "true implementation of Vatican II", he states:

In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction. (L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)

…

He concludes in saying that, although the story of the past twenty Church councils has sometimes been confusing, he affirms that Vatican II "however, is a special case."

This affirmation needs to be placed in parallel with the letter Archbishop Lefebvre sent to Cardinal Ottaviani on December 20, 1966, just one year after the closing of the Council.

that, [almost universally], when the Council innovated, it shook the certitude of the truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as belonging definitively to the treasure of Tradition... Whether it be the transmission of the bishops’ jurisdiction, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last things, etc.: on all these fundamental points, the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous Conciliar documents on these truths henceforth allow doubts.