Please note that the argument of my present post is narrow. It answers only one question: Did or did not the pope invite this debate? Both Gherardini and De Mattei have claimed that he has, precisely by his statements in the 2005 address. The point is not rhetorical. They do not merely claim that the address provoked the debate, or that the Holy Father opened a door. They claim that their musings are a response to his invitation.

I made this point several times in the text.

What many traditionalists ask is, can Vatican II be interpreted in the light of Tradition, and if so, please explain how certain statements from Dignitatus Humanae and other conciliar documents can be, or are to to be, interpreted in the light of Tradition. I’ve read Gherardini’s book, and my impression was that he was pleading for clarification, not rejecting the idea that the most recent council can be interpreted in the light of Tradition (although, he does ask very pointed questions, and does at time seem to cast doubt on the possibility of of that continuity, but this to me is primarily to support his request for clarification).

You’re hanging a great many assumptions on a turn of phrase that could have lost something of its meaning, or had its meaning subtly changed, in translation. But since the Franciscans of the Immaculate arranged to have Gherardini’s text translated from Italian into English (I pray they do so with De Mattei’s, as well!), perhaps you can read the Italian or have a good sense of the original.

I don’t think I have to guess what conclusion you will reach in your next post. I think alot of people who strive to be faithful, who really care a great deal about the Church, are gravely stricken in their hearts with the present condition of Holy Mother Church. They want to know why things are the way they are. There is no question there were grave problems, mostly unseen, prior to Vatican II, but many feel that the council released forces that have run amok and gravely wounded the Church. Why is that? Is it coincidence, or was it some thing(s) in the council itself? I don’t know.

I’m a convert. I love the traditional Mass. As still something of an outsider, I look at certain statements from Vatican II, and statements from the Council of Trent or other councils, and I have difficulty reconciling them. Or, I struggle to understand how they can be interpreted without seriously undermining what had been previously revealed as Truth. I think many people struggle with that. I want to understand how these things can be aligned – how can beliefs about religious liberty and primacy of conscience be aligned with previously statements of the Magisterium? In some cases, there has been no Magisterial clarification, simply statements that the last council stands on its own.