The Wicked Witch Of The West And The Conciliar Fathers

If she had only avoided participating to Vatican II....

And so we are informed Cardinal Ranjith is of the opinion (which you can read here, and here) the Vetus Ordo is pretty much what the doctor ordered, and the Conciliar Fathers wanted.

I can only assume, then, the Wicked Witch of the West successively took control of pretty much everything in the affairs of the Church; probably whilst the Conciliar Fathers were having their tea and cake, or their afternoon nap.

Now don’t take me wrong: I can only cheer the good Cardinal for breaking a lance for the Tridentine Mass, a sport certainly not well spread among his colleagues. What I find always more than strange is this continuous desire – one would almost say, the felt obligation – to put Vatican II as the basis of everything good and sensible and consider everything that went awry afterwards as being to do with utterly external circumstances like the above mentioned female.

The simple truth of the matter is, the Conciliar Fathers might have wanted to keep Latin as the backbone of the liturgy at the very beginning of the Council – or, say, as long as they knew Pope John XXIII wanted things to stay that way -,  but they most certainly threw Latin out of the window in the course of the following years, and did so themselves in the clearest of manners, the bishops presiding over the massacre of Latin being very largely the same people who had taken part in the Council.

This of the Council being betrayed is, if you ask me, one of those legends always created to defend the indefensible (we all know the stories; for example, the imagined “good communism” or “good socialism” as opposed to the brutal reality). What happened after the council was every bit the unavoidable result of what happened during the council, and executed by the very same people.

Therefore, I welcome Cardinal Ranjith’s intervention.  I only wished he would stop trying to defend the indefensible and would either say things as they are – we’ll get there in time, I am sure – or cover with a charitable silence the thorny matter of the responsibility for the catastrophe of the last fifty years. We suffer the fruit of Vatican II every day to this day and the way out is not letting us believe in some utterly implausible “good Vatican II” ( or good communism, or good socialism), but to recognise that if the fruits have been so bad the tree cannot have been good at all, particularly considering the people tending the tree and distributing its fruits have been the same all along.


Posted on January 1, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. Dear Mundabor:
    No theologian, me but I suspect your theology: Nobody, including thee and me up to popes , has to do the right thing for the right reasons. If the church were a puerely human institution, you might be right about VII and post VII actions “in the spirit of VII”.
    Nonetheless, at least in Spanish, I cant cope with the english transaltion, there do seem to me ,unlearned, a great sinner, and getting alzheimic or something by the dayto be large differences between VII documents wording and post VII actions.
    Complex question

    • Pepe,

      If I understand you correctly you say that as the Church is no (purely) human institution, V II must be right in some way. This is simply not the case. V II was a purely pastoral council, and no expression at any time of infallible magisterium. Therefore, there is no need to make triple saltos to try to reconcile V II with Church teaching.

      Archbishop Lefebvre said it right: V II documents contain three types of expressions: the orthodox, the unclear/misleading, and the wrong ones. The first can be left as they are, the second must be explained, the third must be revised.


  2. That’s a very nice photo of Cardinal Mahony. He’s looking well.

  3. No, the point is more general: irrespective of conciliar (any, not just vat II) theologies, mass is mass tho the priest be in any given state of grace or sin, he who the bishop ordains priest, is so
    So that, other formal requirements for a council being met, for all councils….
    Get me?
    This is not to praise or defend at the time of the last council or afterwards any* of the council fathers, if thats the right expression .*

    On my second point, I see I am not alone: Frz’s post fisking a certain obrien in an american rag:
    “./………..In other words, the changes were inspired and promoted, not by liturgists, but by traditionalists in the hierarchy and a minority of ultra-conservatives within the Catholic church generally. [Oooooo. I guess this means that McBrien’s brand of liturgists must be incredibly feckless! No?]

    Such Catholics were never supportive of the liturgical reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council: turning the altar around so that the priest would face the congregation during Mass, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?] receiving Holy Communion in the hand, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?]celebrating the Mass in the vernacular, [The Council said that the liturgy was to remain in Latin.]having altar girls as well as altar boys, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?]and so forth. ./…………..” Unquote

    Thirdly * exception
    I do have a great personal penchant for
    Archbishop Casimiro Morcillo González †


    Archbishop of Madrid


    Date Age Event Title
    26 Jan 1904 Born Soto del Real
    18 Dec 1926 22.9 Ordained Priest Priest
    25 Jan 1943 39.0 Appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Madrid, Spain
    25 Jan 1943 39.0 Appointed Titular Bishop of Agathopolis
    9 May 1943 39.3 Ordained Bishop Titular Bishop of Agathopolis
    13 May 1950 46.3 Appointed Bishop of Bilbao, Spain
    21 Sep 1955 51.7 Appointed Archbishop of Zaragoza, Spain
    27 Mar 1964 60.2 Appointed Archbishop of Madrid, Spain
    30 May 1971 67.3 Died Archbishop of Madrid, Spain
    Second Vatican Council: Session One: Council Father
    Second Vatican Council: Session Two: Council Father
    Second Vatican Council: Session Three: Council Father
    Second Vatican Council: Session Four: Council Father

    Cœtus Internationalis Patrum

    El Cœtus Internationalis Patrum : grupo de 250 obispos que durante el concilio Vaticano II contestó las posturas más progresistas y cuya finalidad era organizarse frente a los embates del grupo de padres conciliares en derredor del Rin, los progresistas.
    Las diferencias principales con las posturas de la mayoría se manifestaron sobre todo en dos temas:
    Libertad religiosa, ya que defendían la confesionalidad del Estado,
    Organización de los Colegios episcopales, aseguraban que su organización chocaba con la primacía del papado y coartaba en libertad de decisión a los ordinarios en sus diócesis.
    Fueron respetados por la mayoría, aunque las diferencias irreconciliables entre ambas tendencias obligaron a acordar textos ambiguos, impidiendo una mayor homogeneidad, y consiguieron frenar muchas de las corrientes del IDOC y de Pax christiana, movimiento polaco.
    El Cœtus Internationalis Patrum se reunía en la Curia Generalicia de los agustinos, y estaba dirigido por el arzobispo Marcel Lefebvre y contaba con los cardenales Francis Spellman y Giuseppe Siri, Geraldo de Proença Sigaud, los obispos Casimiro Morcillo de Madrid, Antonio de Castro Mayer de Campos, Carli de Segni, Ruffini, de Palermo, Florit y Browne, y, sobre todo, tenía la aprobación del cardenal Alfredo Ottaviani, Prefecto de la Congregación del Santo Oficio.

    Member of Franco’s “council of state”. Some believe he shouldn’t have accepted, and I was once one of them.

    God bless

    • Pepe,
      this is beside the point as the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass is nothing to do with V II being right, or wrong, or awful, or an utter disgrace. Not even the SSPX question the validity of a NO properly celebrated.


%d bloggers like this: