Sandro Magister, "The Disappointed Have Spoken. The Vatican responds" (www.chiesa, April 18, 2011): "Inos Biffi and Agostino Marchetto reply in "L'Osservatore Romano" to the traditionalists Brunero Gherardini and Roberto de Mattei, who criticize the current pope for not having corrected the 'errors' of Vatican Council II"
Related: See Fr. Z's comment on this.
Vatican Two was the bestest council in the history of the Universe even though it was only pastoral and at least 80 Bishops voted against one or more of its Documents and yet still left the council in full communion with the Pope even thought that has never ever happened in any Ecumenical Council in the history of the Church but I have heard for nearly one-half century that it brought us all a new springtime (yay) and whatnot so we have that going for us which is nice.
ReplyDelete???? Say WHAT?????
ReplyDeleteI am not Spartacus, that is one of the most eloquent and persuasive defenses of the council I've ever read. Gidget, who I believe was one of the periti, could not have said it better.
ReplyDeleteVatican II was convoked with an agenda prepared by hundreds of hands under the guidance of the Vatican. Its agenda represented an “hermeneutic of continuity” within the Church. Before the bishops’ seats were warm, a powerful bloc of mostly European bishops and theologically wayward periti sought to overthrow that agenda and replace it with its own. It succeeded in doing so. Pope John, afflicted with the cancer that would soon take his life, chose not to contest the usurpation of his own agenda, and in fact urged that the bishops proceed with their work “swiftly.” Thus, the “hermeneutic of rupture” at the council proceeded with little effective opposition.
ReplyDeleteMuch has been made of the fact that all of these documents were approved by large majorities. The political skill of the liberal insurgents goes a long way in explaining this apparent enigma. Sadly, many of the bishops were theologically unskilled (as indeed most are today). They did not question the assurances of the liberal cadre of persuaders that nothing new or threatening to Church tradition was being broached. Satisfied with assurances of what it was not, they went with the flow, without really knowing what it was.
But more was afoot. Even as the documents were being written and revised during the council and in the months immediately afterward, hints were being dropped that they would be less important in themselves than they would be as justifications for more radical ruptures to come. Thus the wily peritus and accused heretic, Fr Edward Schillebeeckx, told a Dutch journalist in 1965 that “we will express it in a diplomatic way, but after the council we will draw out the more explicit conclusions.” In other words, the diplomatic ambiguity in the documents themselves was there by design: its purpose was to mask the radical agenda to be “drawn out” after the documents were in place as the fruit of council.
But here is the essential point: the writing of the documents was controlled by the same people who sought to control the “reform” of the Church through the implementation of those same documents. There is no “rupture” between council documents and post V2 radicalization. After all, the same general gaggle of modernists was behind both.
The only genuine rupture is that between the Church of the ages, and the Church of the post-V2 period.
We owe a great deal to Pope Benedict XVI for the sobriety he has brought to the papal office. No more kissing of Korans, no more Buddahs on the altar, no more rock star appearances at Woodstock-lite youth gatherings, and even a motu proprio to restore the mass of the ages to those who are still capable of appreciating its significance. But Pope Benedict remains Fr Ratzinger, and Fr Ratzinger’s fundamental identity is as one of the modernist insurgents of Vatican II. He cannot and will not admit to any faults or significant problems with the council’s agenda and influence, whatever he might think privately. Instead, he will try to obfuscate those problems by couching them in misleading rhetoric, such as “reform of the reform”, and “hermeneutics of continuity and rupture” in the interpretation of V2 documents. He is responsible as anyone for the fable of the good council and the bad aftermath – as if the people who pushed through the council documents were not many of the same people who favored even the most radical of the post-V2 reforms. The truth is that of a flawed council, and of the horrible aftermath that germinated from it.
Ralph,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your detailed remarks. Much to ponder in that.