The Beatification Of V II And The “Hermeneutic Of Embarrassment”.

Red Alert

And so the Year of Faith has begun, and I hope it will end without much damage.

I am not so sure, though. It seems to me this year of faith exists with the main objective of the beatification of V II and the attempt to sanitise it and at the same time make of it a permanent element of the Church landscape. I do think both objective will fail, but I digress…

There are rumours of the impending beatification of both Pope Paul VI ( imagine that… Who’s next? Archbishop Bugnini?) and John Paul I. As John XXIII has already been beatified and the current Pontiff has already cared for V-II marketing weapon number 1, this would make a succession of four Popes to be beatified; five, if we consider the one who would merit it – miracle presupposed – just for avoiding antics like V II.

Embarrassing. Still, it might be only a rumour, and Pope Benedict would very probably not expose himself to the very just criticism of beatifying three (perhaps four) of his predecessors, basically pre-ordering his own beatification and – besides making a mockery of the beatification process, which after JP II’s reform largely is largely the case anyway – creating a precedent  in such bad taste that  in comparison the earth-kissing and rock-concert-loving of his predecessor would be considered innocent and devout pastimes.

So, the Holy Father wouldn’t do it. Or would he? Hand on heart, would you have expected him to ever appoint one like Mueller? Exactly…

Then there are the rather absurd rumours – picked up here and there, and personally never believed – of a new version of the Traditional Mass, who would be “modernised” with the introduction of some aspects of the intermediate version of the Novus Ordo (then itself surpassed by the events when the alleged “spirit” began to wreak serious havoc within the Liturgy). According to this rumour, we would have a, say, “2013 Missal” to take the place of the 1962 (or 1955) one. This rumour seems absurd to me not because I think Pope Benedict would never do something like that to the Traditional Mass (I do think he would be well capable of that; he isn’t a traditionalist by any conceivable definition of the word), but rather because there would be more chances of Kim-Jong-Un one day becoming Pope than of such an exercise being accepted by those who are supposed to be its users, submerging the author of such an attempt with a tidal wave of ridicule for all centuries to come. This rumour can, I think, be therefore dismissed without any worry.

Much more real is the massive PR exercise we have seen in the last weeks in favour of V II. The concept truly reminds one of Gorbachev’s idea that what is intrinsically bad can be saved and made useful just taking some pieces here and there, giving it a hand of polish, talking the process to the sky and developing the entire mess into an exercise in which, suddenly, everything magically starts to work. We will be told ad nauseam that V II was oh so good, and that for reasons probably linked to the lunar phases some evil gremlin took it hostage for fifty years causing a huge wave of wannabe “spirit”, the emptying of churches, the oblivion of Catholic teaching, a scary loss of power and influence even in the most religious US States (who would have imagined the HHS mandate  in the Fifties? Abortion? Same-sex “marriages”?) and in general a long attempt – perpetrated or abetted or tolerated by the clergy themselves – to make Catholicism forgotten, irrelevant, and consisting in little more than a couple of stupid slogans about peace and social justice.

Already the Pontiff says that we must take the Council “literally”, but – as always in this kind of reasoning – he begs the question. If there are no significant novelties in the “literal” reading of the Conciliar documents, then the Beatification of V II does not make sense at all and every traditional Catholic can dismiss it as an event of mediocre content and little consequence. If there are, then this is exactly where the  problem lies; even more so, because the “reading” is now “literal” and there is, literally, nowhere to hide.

Vatican II was always a circular argument, but in the past there was at least the excuse of the “spirit” now magically waking up and starting to do things in a completely different manner than in the past 2000 years, for reasons which were never satisfactorily explained.

Now that the “spirit” is being very clearly “un-spirited” again, the circular argument is reduced to “V II was so wonderful because it was so wonderful”, and I frankly think it is high time to wake up, acknowledge the devastation, and begin a serious work or reparation of the damage done.  I’d call the SSPX theologians for that; I wonder if Archbishop Mueller would approve, though….

I personally suggest a new interpretative key of the texts of Vatican II: the “hermeneutic of embarrassment”, according to which the Vatican hierarchy acknowledge the huge amount of waffle and populism, the appalling lack of clarity, the huge doors intentionally left open to convenient misinterpretations, and the shameless desire to be friends with everyone and “in tune”  with pretty much everything under the sun, and set up to reformulate in clear and unmistakable manner all the issues touched by Vatican II documents and which have grated those who can be seen as the most credible defender of traditional Catholic faith.

In doing so, this “hermeneutic of embarrassment” would literally follow the word of one, ahem,  noted theologian:

“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of ‘superdogma,’ which takes away the importance of all the rest”

I doubt the “hermeneutic of embarrassment” will hold sway during my lifetime, which I even hope long and happy. But I have no doubt one day it will prevail, as it has already prevailed in the mind of countless sincere and devout Catholics fed up with this endless rubbish of either the “spirit” making a pig’s breakfast of everything Catholic, or the “milestone” which wasn’t even supposed to be one but must be believed under pain of, erm, excommunication.

Pray for the priests of the SSPX.

Mundabor

.

Posted on October 14, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Do you have an email I could send through which to send inquiry? Thanks and God bless!

  2. Mundabor,
    we are seeing now the full flowering of the hermeneutic of deconstruction. The modernist assault on the Church has now officially entered its fourth stage:
    1) Open Assault. 2) Ambiguity. 3) Chaos. 4) Deconstruction

    First Stage: Modernism tried to destroy the Church by introducing all kinds of heretical ideas. Pope Pius X. condemned and suppressed it. But the ideas survived and were transmitted to the next generation. Then came the Council, thereby starting the second stage.

    Second Stage: At the Council, modernism made great gains. The Church being indefectible, they could not openly proclaim their heresies as dogmas, but they were able to introduce them by reassuring faithful Catholics that the Council was, of course, only pastoral. Therefore, they argued, the Council did not need to use precise, univocal language. The result: Many ambiguities, some of them very difficult to interpret in continuity with the traditional teaching of the Church. For most people, Catholic Truth became optional or at least changeable, thereby ceasing to be Truth at all.

    Third Stage: In the post-conciliar period, modernism made further gains by building on the Council. They invented a “spirit” to cover the introduction of explicitly heretical teaching and non-Catholic practice. They also secured nearly all leading positions in the hierarchy. For most people, Catholic Truth was forgotten and replaced by a thousand different and contradictory ideas. But some were not deceived. They clung to the Truth at all cost.

    Fourth Stage: Now, we have entered a new stage in modernism’s war against the Church. Its new weapon is the hermeneutic of deconstruction, otherwise known as hermeneutic of reform in continuity. Its goal is to destroy the last vestiges of resistance within the Church against the triumph of modernism. How is it done? By placing before the eyes of the faithful both the traditional doctrine and the modernist post-conciliar doctrine and declaring them to be “in continuity” although they flatly contradict one another. Both “A” and “non-A” are to be “true”. But if there is “continuity” between two contradictory statements, anything can be claimed to be true, which means, truth will cease to have any meaning at all.
    It is no longer about introducing ambiguities into the ordinary magisterium. It is not even about pushing heresies. The new stage means a most comprehensive assault on the very possibility of Truth and even the idea of definite meaning. Anything can mean everything and nothing. Truth and meaning are to be destroyed. “Mary remained a Virgin” and “Mary ceased to be a Virgin at some point in her life” could be both “true” (in the new sense). “It is substantially changed into the Body and Blood of Christ” and “It substantially remains bread” could both be “true”. “No salvation outside the Church” and “Other religions can be means of salvation” could both be “true”. There is no limit to this. They do not need to deny any dogma, because any dogma can be made to mean its own opposite under the new hermeneutic. If applied to Vatican II, why not apply it to Trent or Vatican I? “The pope is infallible”; “The pope was wrong when he declared this or that dogma”. It is utterly without limit. They can deny anything without formally denying anything, if you understand what I mean.

    This “hermeutic of reform in continuity”, also known as “hermeneutic of deconstruction” – where is it from? I know only one possible place and I do not wish to venture there after death. Give me back the old modernism. It was less deadly and easier to fight.

  3. Mundabor,
    I’ll try to keep it a bit shorter, next time.

    • Thans Catocon,

      Your comments are always so beautifully put, though, that you should in my eyes seriously consider writing your blog in both languages.

      M

%d bloggers like this: