The Great Good Friday Vatican II Rant

Vatican II in a snapshot

I have written a blog post about Pope Benedict’s words concerning the Heresy in Austria.

On the same occasion, though, the Pontiff expressed himself about Vatican II in a way I feel obliged to comment upon. Those who think a Catholic blogger should not comment on Pope’s declarations other than in the most subservient of terms can click away now.

The Holy Father is at this point talking about the Austrian heresy, and asks the rhetorical question whether orthodoxy does not bring to unintended or unwholesome consequences. His words are as follows (emphases mine):

Let us ask again: do not such reflections serve simply to defend inertia, the fossilization of traditions? No. Anyone who considers the history of the post-conciliar era can recognize the process of true renewal, which often took unexpected forms in living movements and made almost tangible the inexhaustible vitality of holy Church, the presence and effectiveness of the Holy Spirit. And if we look at the people from whom these fresh currents of life burst forth and continue to burst forth, then we see that this new fruitfulness requires being filled with the joy of faith, the radicalism of obedience, the dynamic of hope and the power of love.

The thinking here, as I understand it, is as follows: if we remain orthodox we are not going to generate inertia and fossilisation (British English spelling on my blog, thanks…). This is proved by Vatican II and the years that followed it, so rich in true spiritual renewal engendered by the Holy Spirit.

I must, respectfully, disagree on this. Whenever I look, I find Vatican II and the years that followed only brought devastation, which often took entirely expected forms of heresy, contributed to countless souls being lost, almost completely destroyed Catholicism’s cultural patrimony and traditions, almost completely killed catechesis, and left a spiritual wasteland on its trail. 

 If you ask me, the Pontiff’s words beautifully express, and I say this in the most respectful manner but also with no falseness, everything that is wrong with the Vatican today. There is, fifty years after the catastrophe started, still no desire to see what immense disaster was put in motion when Vatican II was started. On the contrary, there are desperate attempts to still try to portray it as something positive, as a phase of renewal. Vatican II (both in its weak, approval seeking and badly worded documents and in the mentality it engendered) was, as they say,  wreckovation rather than renovation.  It was an unmitigated failure, a stupid (no, let me reword it: stupid) attempt at self-destruction in a senseless quest for popularity and consensus, a disgraceful selling out to secular fashions. 

The Pope who spoke the words mentioned above presides over a Catholic world whose members in their vast majority do not even to go Mass; who couldn’t tell you the Ten Commandments to save their lives; who have almost no notion of the works of mercy or of other mainstay of traditional Catholic thinking; who barely know what a Rosary, or a Vesper is; who have such a superficial notion of Catholicism that they couldn’t tell you where the differences with Protestants lie; who have such a superficial notion of Christianity that they couldn’t tell you why contraception is wrong, or premarital sex; who couldn’t formulate in a halfway acceptable way why the Church does not contemplate “women priests”;  who know next to nothing about Catholic teaching on wealth, capital punishment, war; who couldn’t even tell you what Mass is, or what a sin is. My dear readers, I could go on for a long time, but this is everyday experience if you live in any but the most traditionally Catholic countries, at least in the West.

All this is the fruit of Vatican II. If the Church is alive today it is not because of Vatican II, but notwithstanding it. We see the Holy Spirit at work in the Church because we saw Vatican II trying to kill Her, and failing. 

This Pontiff and the men he has around him are unable – or unwilling – to see all this. They are unable to see the Vatican II “experiment” has failed, and has failed miserably. They are unable to see that it had to fail, because it was unCatholic from the start. Instead, we are dished the same rhetoric we have been fed for the last fifty years. At this point, every defence of Vatican II seriously reminds me of a North Korean PR exercise.

The long and painful, but necessary work of disintoxication from Vatican II will not start with this pontificate, possibly not even with the next. But it will come one day, and on that day Catholicism will finally behold the horror, and the immense stupidity, of it all and look back in shame at not one, but several generations of Churchmen abetting such devastation of Catholic patrimony.

I have, and no one of us conservative Catholic can have, the shadow of a doubt about the indefectibility of the Church, and the constant protection the Holy Ghost gives her.

We only have to look at Vatican II.

Mundabor

Posted on April 6, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. Sorry to leave a comment so late in the day, but its not right to so often broadly agree with you, or at least find gunghoness refreshing, and be but a yesman.
    Nonetheless, the holy father might know or see something you don’t….
    The thing is, I wouldn’t have thought of things in terms of being a “provatII”er , exactly. I dont know if any of my generation did , tho maybe now they do , consider councils something one could be FOR or AGAINSTt….If I take issue with you its not as a Vat2-is-the-only-council-ever- existed-and-now-all-is-modernist-light nice person ( that horse wouldn”t run anyway:Im nasty as as asinner, and Isuspect that even as the sort of saint the good lord intended me to be , Id grate, but that’s hypothetical) As far as I know, at Trent, although lutheran positions on the books of the bible were ably defended, the clever ones held the field- but their thesis did not prosper. How much credence would the lutheranminded in the church have got then if they’s put it out that Trent HAD validated them?Thta’s one difference, of course however much or little the trendies got out of VII, all they did was go for more and more All these Austrian priests etc are claiming what Vat2 did not give : perhaps becuse of Vat2’s mere existance such things as wiminpriestesses became respectable? Even now?.

    Final thought- my father died not so long back, and but days before he was rather more sweepingly anti VII as such than I would have expected. He expanded ” For myself, taking all in all I would rather Vat2 and everything that happened after it had never happened, but I think that in a hundred years time it’l be seen as providential, in that it brought into the light the heretics who were slowly destroying the church from within”. I hadn’t met that idea before, and am still mulling it over, and recently saw a similar thought in FRz¡s combox.

    • I can’t understand the logic, Pepe.

      You are basically saying it is good that there is a destructive heresy doing a lot of harm to the Church, because it allowed us all to see that there were heretics wanting to do a lot of harm to the Church?

      With this reasoning, Luther is a hero.

      As to the priestesses, yes: without V II and the mentality it engendered we would have no lesbian nuns, or homosexual or paedophile priests, or anything of the bullshit. Firstly the liturgy did not allow it (when they attacked the Church, the modernists took care to rape the liturgy, so that hey could do with it what they wanted), and secondly the entire mentality was different: the Popes did not limit themselves to bland admonitions, but were men of action.

      As to Pope Benedict having some sort of uberwisdom we do not see, I can only say I can recognise heresy when I see it, and if a Pope appoints an heretical bishop there’s no superior (and highly mysterious) wisdom making the bishop less heretical.

      M

  2. uberwisdom ? If you can only have a100% perfect pope , then Im afraid you are far into donatism and the other one.Seriously, I am a touch scandalized .
    Equally if a council be only satanic, when everything in the garden was perfect, then all the dissidents and heritics in the church are justified in saying they are only following V2,. Personally I can’t stand Luther-and Im very sorry I shared a family recollection on open internet, it was not particularly to make a point- you stick to making points..Im not good at it.

    • Pepe, you are quarreling with your own fantasies: I have never said a Pope is either 100% perfect or I am not satisfied, nor have I said that a council is either perfect or satanic.

      Seriously, you must read what I write and either reflect it accurately in your comments, or you are better off if you avoid visiting this blog.

      M

  3. An evil act CANNOT ever be called a good even if its effects may include a good. The two are ontologically separate, and the causality is not from one common source. If good appears to come from an evil act, it in reality has a different source.

    This is basic Thomism.

  4. As far as the Pope’s words are concerned, I and others have commented on this speech in another place.

    Saying the the aftermath of Vatican II witnessed, a ” …. process of true renewal” is frankly the most astonishing thing Benedict XVI has said in his entire career as Cardinal or Pope, and about the most worrying.

    I won’t say any more, desirous as I am of not becoming ill.

    • Ben,

      I was even more worried of the idea that “for many” be a better way of saying “for all”, but the entire piece is frankly astonishing. What is the old testament to do with our Lord’s word at the Last Supper? And why didn’t he say a very simple thing: some people go to Hell?

      This idea one should talk like an heretic so the heretics may understand him is wrong in its very marrow; and by the way, it is in his job specifications that he should take care there are no heretic bishops around in the first place.

      I have also decided not to write on it, because I am not sure I could do it in a sufficiently equanimous way.

      M