Latest from CAI is another traditionalist rallying cry: “Semper Idem”. I don’t believe it would be useful to go through it line by line, but there are two major points worthy of mention.

Mr. Michael complains that the documents of Vatican II are susceptible to many interpretations. He then proposes that, if an item has been stated by “numerous popes and saints”, it is then an exemplar of what the Church has always taught and, thus, immutable. That definition is not only an invitation to intellectual dishonesty, as you could just go hunting for quotes that bolster your own preconceived notions, but it’s also the express lane to integrism. Many of our predecessors in the faith would have said things praising the practices of their own time (or even of previous more rigorous times). They couldn’t say anything about the future as, in nearly all cases, they had no knowledge of it. It then becomes quite simple to see the difference between past and present, find obiter dicta in support of past practice and conclude that present practice is wrong. (I wouldn’t be surprised if this was just the method used by Sungenis in support of geo-centrism.) Saints aren’t endowed with infallibility. Even papal infallibility has significant limitations on it.

The Church has always taught those things that are in the creeds. Pope Paul VI’s Credo of the People of God is a more in-depth exposition of the Deposit of Faith. It isn’t comprehensive. The Catechism is more comprehensive.

The Church in her wisdom, though, has not deigned to attempt placing the entire Deposit of Faith in one document. Theology is a complex subject that isn’t best examined in blurbs of just a few sentences. That’s why the study of Theology is something that usually takes several years. Theological documents by their very nature are susceptible to many interpretations. The aphorism attributed to St. Augustine (and widely repeated by Bl. John XXIII) is most applicable here, “In essentials, Unity; in doubtful matters; Liberty; in all things, Charity”. The question then shifts to what is essential. I’d propose that the aforementioned Credo is a good compendium of the essentials.

The next point is that Mr. Michael joins many traditionalists in objecting strenuously to contemporary attitudes regarding the Church’s relationship to those outside the Church. This is usually supported by a list of citations to Mortalium Animos, a few other papal documents and an occasional medieval council. Mention is rarely made of Luke 9:50 or of the two greatest commandments. Could someone of a traditionalist bent please explain to my why so many traditionalists seem enamored of hostility toward those outside the Church?