Pollyanna And V II

Empty Pews. The work of the Holy Ghost?




Someone tweeted me the question whether I believe that V II was not the work of the Holy Spirit. The tweet was possibly a joke, as anyone who takes two minutes to read my blog cannot really have many doubts where I stand. Still, we must confront the tragic reality that as I write this there are people out there who in fact believe the Holy Ghost, instead of Satan, was the source of inspiration for the entire matter.

So let us think for a moment what the logical consequence of this thinking is. If the Holy Ghost inspired V II, it follows that the Holy Ghost has changed his mind very radically about the way to say Mass, thinking on second thoughts that the injection of Calvinist elements and the removal of Catholic elements from the Mass is just the ticket. Following, we must also agree the Holy Ghost desired that theologians censored by the Church only a few years before may now be called to redefine what Catholic theology is, even trying, as they almost successfully did, to demolish Papal authority or – as, if memory serves, Rahner tried, inter alia, to do – to steer the Church towards embracing the Protestant tenet of sola fide.

Further, the Holy Ghost must in this perspective have wanted the most spectacular exercise in muddling of Church teaching ever attempted in two thousand years – involving key aspects of the Church, like religious freedom – with the explosion of duplicity and doublespeak – and the utter abandonment of clear theological language and Thomist thinking – found pretty much everywhere in the conciliar documents.

But this is not all. The biggest crisis of vocations ever experienced, and a significant percentage of the clergy leaving the habit, must also have been wanted by the Holy Ghost, because if the Holy Ghost wills a revolutionary council he must perforce will its consequences. From this follows, with elegant inevitability, that the Holy Ghost also willed (as opposed to: allowed) the huge loss of grip of the Church in Catholic countries, and Catholics all over the West starting to divorce, contracept and abort in a manner not really distinguishable from the ways of non-Catholics.

I could go on for very long, but I will keep it short. In short, the idea of these people is that the Holy Ghost both changes his mind and starts doing things in a catastrophically wrong way.

If you ask me, in order to believe such a huge load of rubbish one must be equipped with either a very low intelligence, or a robust dose of disingenuousness, or a substantial emotional investment blinding him to the obvious error of his ways. I’d say the first kind is rather spread among the less gifted pew sitters; the second is the preserve of those desiring to do away with hell and all the unpleasant teachings, and the third is the main trait of most of the clergy, starting from the Popes – all of them, almost certainly; though we do not know what Pope Luciani would have done with V II behind the usual words – and ending with the stupid priest wishing “a bigger role for women with the new Papacy” about whom yours truly has reported.

To all of them is common a good dose of denial. To see so many Western countries introduce a parody of marriage whilst church attendance plummets to very low levels and still think that this is nothing to do with the Church’s surrender to the desire of popularity and harmony proves that it is the desire not to see that blinds them, and makes them think V II may have something to do with the Holy Ghost rather than being an open attack to Him.

In the meantime, we experience a new generation of Catholics: those whose sons are generally indifferent and whose nephews don’t get baptised. I wonder when this has happened last. I actually wonder whether it has ever happened in the first place.

Two generations after V II, we are seeing post-Christianity at work. To say this immense work of demolition of Christian societies all over the West is merely a problem of implementation has the same content of intelligence and logic as to maintain Communism was good, but unfortunately its implementation was lacking.


Posted on May 22, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. Patrick Gray

    As sharp, may I say, as ever Mundabor. I really do despair. I know that despair is a sin. The abominable heresy of Rahner, for one, is terrifying. As for Lubac, Balthasar and the rest – appalling heretics to a man. That anyone can argue the Second Vatican Council was a work of the Holy Ghost boggles my mind. The Council was lamentable and a bitter, bitter trial.

    • Patrick Gray

      No. I do not despair. God’s Holy Catholic Church will endure to the end of time, even if I serve to quote Evelyn Waugh ‘The last Mass for the last Pope in the catacombs at the end of the world’, Holy Faith will still endure intact and triumph at last. Forgive me.

    • Do not despair, Patrick.

      I suggest that you buy and read the wonderful “Providence” of father Garrigou-Lagrange. It will help you, as it helped me, to get perspective and some serenity in these disastrous times.


  2. Thank you! “Providence” is on sale for $0.99 on Kindle

    • You mean Garrigou-Lagrange? I have missed it for just a couple of months then, after waiting for months to order it because there was no Kindle edition… 😦

      A wonderful book.

      I am now reading “Predestination” of the same author. More scholarly and therefore somewhat less accessible for some, but another treasure.


  3. Mundabor,
    there are people out there who maintain that Communism was good, but the implementation was hindered by evil monarchist structures of Russia and by the revolutionaries becoming too bourgeois. At many universities, they are a majority. They are considered the elites of the future, because in the struggle between Communism and Christianity – the two main rival faiths of the last century – Communism has won by transforming itself from a crude doctrine about collective ownership into a rather more subtle doctrine about total equality for all, while Christianity has lost by surrendering in its essentials.

    Its essential victory was during the Council, even if most explicitly communist states have since collapsed.

    A “pastoral” Council that holds off on condemning Communism in the sixties is, on this account alone, at least unpastoral, if nothing else. It is as if the Council of Trent had neglected to condemn the errors of the Protestants. A “pastoral” Council that does so precisely in order to gain favor with the butchers in Moscow is almost guilty of something akin to treason.

    That such a Council had to produce poisonous fruits is not surprising in the least. The most urgent problem in 1962 obviously was that half the world was dominated by a satanic ideology many in the other half sympathized with. The Council shrugged its collective shoulders and carried on with sanitizing the faith for the modern mind steeped in communist propaganda unwilling to even think about supernatural Truth. And why not? The leading theologians of the Council thought everyone was going to be saved after all (an opinion Pope Francis repeated just a few days ago), so why bother converting or fighting? Why demanding that secular authorities bow to Christ rather than his eternal opponent? Why not just get along with everybody? Why not, indeed, just change the Mass to please the protestants, change the social teaching to please the Socialists, change the moral teaching to please perverts and change the Faith to please their master, that is Satan?

    Of course, they cannot really change the Faith, but they can change the appearances in a world that depends on them to keep it, thereby effectively abolishing the traditional Faith in the hearts of almost all.

    If the Holy Spirit “inspired” the Council, it must have been for reasons akin to the way the Lord “inspired” the flames to descend upon those two typically modern cities in the Old Testament, called Sodom and Gomorrah.

    • I agree with most of the analysis, Catocon, particularly the fact that a council refusing to openly condemn Communism in 1962 could not be good.

      I think communism is dead and buried, but some of the residues have remained with us. More directly, I see a link between the potheads of the Sixties and the current generation of politicians, often the same potheads with a suit, or sharing their utter lack of values.

      As to the crisis in the Church, yes in many I see the mental process you describe, but I fear often an even worse phenomenon is at work: priest who have lost he faith – or never really had it – and who have discovered pleasing the crowds give them a better life. It’s not, I think, that they believe in an empty hell; rather that they do not believe there is a God who would send them there. But I might be biased of course, I have seen such priests in my youth and in some way it stuck.


%d bloggers like this: