Bishop Schneider has released a very long text about the Second Vatican Council and the necessity to keep what is good in it. I have not read the extremely lengthy paper in its entirety, because I don’t need to. Still, I post the link so everyone who is so inclined can have a go at it.
My opposition to the survival of Vatican II is a matter of principle, not of detail.
It is fully irrelevant that the V II documents had something good in them, if you look for long enough. We all know this. I am pretty sure Stalin had something good in him, too. The simple fact is, that V II is not the inventor of Catholic goodness, nor is Stalin the inventor of whatever human goodness he had (I don’t know: perhaps he loved dogs, or classical music, or a beautiful sunset).
Whatever goodness the Vatican II document contained was already part of the teaching of the Church. Whatever goodness Stalin had, was already there in the heart of countless good men. You don’t need to preserve for posterity Stalin’s (assumed) love for dogs other than as a pure fact, rejecting the entire Stalinian nightmare. You don’t need to remember the fact that the Vatican II documents had some orthodox parts in them, other than as a pure statement of fact, rejecting the entire V II nightmare.
This is not only a matter of logic, it is a matter of everyday common sense.
The Bishop contests the “poisoned cake” theory, stating that some parts of the V II documents (and even of Amoris Laetitia) are, actually, good per se! No poison there!
This is the same as being presented with a huge cake whose upper strata consist exclusively of excrement, and having Bishop Schneider tell you, with ill-concealed satisfaction, that, if you look well enough, you will notice that the lower strata have excellent cream in them, untouched by all the shit above!
We should keep that high-quality cream, he says. You don’t want to throw that away, surely?
Well, yes, I do.
The high-quality cream in the strata below is tainted forever by the association with all the excrement above! The only thing to do is to throw away the entire cake and cry, as loud as we can, “no more excrement cakes for us, Bishops! Who cares for the cream in the lower strata!”
We have 2000 years of excellent, 1A, certified organic, Catholic Cream made by martyrs and saints. We do not have any need for cream (however tasty per se) made by those who have given us the shit cake! We will throw away the one and the other, and will thrive and prosper with all the cream we had before, we have now, and will have forever.
Vatican II must be destroyed, all its documents rejected and banned from use as instruments of Catholic teaching. The Liturgy must be resumed exactly as it was before Vatican II. The Catechisms produced in V II years must be expunged and substituted for the Pre-V II ones. Vatican II must be remembered as an age of barbarism, depravity, and – literally – sympathy for the devil.
You will never hear this from Bishop Schneider.
But I am not a Bishop. So you hear it from me.
I know you think it, too.
The text below is part of a comment I have received, from the faithful reader Akita:
What of all the children who would suffer because the Church, who should be their protectress, enables divorce and remarrying, saying their remarried parent is A-Okay–nothing to see here folks! All the poor, faithful abandoned spouses! It’s utter insanity and chaos looming.
If all the above comes to pass, (and I’m not kidding myself that homosexuals in drag and the divorced and remarried have not already received Holy Communion by renegade priests) and doctrine does change, because praxis changes, how is the deposit of faith maintained?
Okay, it has not happened yet, and I am praying mightily against modernism, but it’s as if all of Catholicism is holding their breath, waiting for the results of the next Synod.
I found this very interesting, and would like to make an observation or two as to how we should react in the unfortunate, but not inconceivable case that the SHTF.
A) The Church cannot say that it is fine to divorce and remarry. Individual priests, bishops and even Popes may say that, but they would be heretical and sacrilegious. If many of them say so, many of them are heretical and sacrilegious.
Mind: no matter how many priests, bishops or Popes are heretical and sacrilegious, the Church teaching does not change. The teaching of the Church cannot change more than 2+2 can make 5. Bad teachers do not get to rewrite the rules and facts of their subject matter,
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18)
Amen quippe dico vobis, donec transeat cælum et terra, iota unum, aut unus apex non præteribit a lege, donec omnia fiant.
The iota (i) was the smallest letter in Greek and Hebrew. “Not one iota” means “not the smallest thing”.
This, my friends, we must keep in mind every day and every moment. Not.One.Iota.
B) I am under no illusion in many countries (Germany, says) sacrilege happens every Sunday, en masse. Does this change anything in the Eucharist? No. Not one iota. Will God punish the priest and (un)faithful insulting Him in this way? Bar repentance, most certainly. Has the doctrine changed? No. Not one iota. Has the doctrine changed if thousands of priests do the same? No. Not one iota. Has the doctrine changed if, every Sunday, every single faggot and dyke breathing in Germany stands in line to “receive” Communion? No. Not one iota. Will the faggots and dykes, and the priests abetting them, and all those accessory to their sins with their own “inclusiveness” be punished for that according to God’s justice? Bar repentance, most certainly.
C) The concept of “doctrinal change” is non-existent. It is an oxymoron. When orthodox priests and cardinals say to the press that to change the discipline means to change the doctrine means simply this: that you cannot claim that you are following the doctrine if your praxis gives the lie to your claim. The rules of mathematics cannot change. Neither can Church doctrine.
D) The Deposit of Faith is maintained as it was always maintained: by transmitting to those who will come after us the truths we ourselves have received from those who came before us. Tradidi quod et accepi, “I have transmitted what I (myself) have received”.
In concrete, the one or other will notice that his priest is not interested in avoiding sacrilege as much as he reasonably can, and subscribes to the “radical Neo=Paganism” (bishop Athanasius Schneider) of the new Religion of Mercy. Means allowing, time for another parish, I would say. If you are 104 years old, have stopped driving during the Reagan administration and have no means to drive or be driven to a sound parish, offer it up to the Lord but do not stop attending Mass if you reasonable think the consecration is valid.
Many others will notice that their priest remains steadfast. The beauty of the Deposit of Faith is this, that it can’t be tampered with. You can’t twist it to let it say what you want it to say, like political slogans and tenets. No one who is vigilant can ever be deceived; actually, only those can be deceived who want to.
The doctrine can never be changed. There can never be an issue of “the Church has changed her doctrine”; this talking is BBC hogwash. What can happen, is that even inside the Church heresy and desecration are ripe, and clergy abandon Doctrine to follow heresy.
Let those who feel inclined to do so reap what they sowed. But we, dear readers, we will transmit what we ourselves have received.
It may be our lot to die in the middle of a paganised world, and with the daily sight of a raped Bride in front of us. If this is so, then let us die in the faith of the Lord, and in the sure knowledge that the rape will not remain unpunished.
There is on the NCR a disquieting interview to the disquieting Austin Ivereigh.
In it, Mr Ivereigh tries to absolve Francis from the accusation of actively promoting the Kasperian heresy, but in doing so depicts a papacy that is every bit as heretical and subversive as he denies it is.
Take this phrase:
What do you think is the Pope’s general view of the synod?
It’s a misreading to see Pope Francis as seeking to impose a concrete solution to anything. He sees himself as initiating and overseeing a process, which is basically of the Holy Spirit. His own criteria for discernment are: If you get people together who are faithful to the magisterium, who speak boldly from their own experience and listen humbly to each other, and you give the process sufficient time for a proper discernment, then, if there is a convergence at the end of it, you can be confident that is of the Holy Spirit.
If this is what the Pope thinks, I ask for the privilege of being the one who sets fire to the stake. This would be a Pope who thinks: “let us call together who are orthodox today and, if they wake up heretics tomorrow hey, it's the Holy Spirit”.
In the same vein, the entire interview is made as if discussions about fundamentals of the Faith were something permissible, or even good. Read the rest on the interview there and you will see what the drift is.
If Francis is as bad as that, whether he is in favour of this or that particular heresy or sacrilege or abomination is merely an incidental problem, the byproduct of a general issue. If Francis is as bad as that, we simply have a Pope who considers Truth disposable, provided it is disposed of by people whom he considers “sound” before agreeing on some new heresy.
This is insane.
But mind, this is what a journalist says who is defending him from the accusation of promoting a heretical agenda!
Seriously, what has become of us? Is anyone still sober around Catholic magazines?
The Catholic discourse has decayed so much, it has fallen to such an abject level of ignorance that one cannot even recognise any element of Catholicism in it. This is like reading the magazine of the Chinese Communist Party, articles written by people who pretend to be communist for the benefit of people who pretend to read them.
There can be no debate about heresy, desecration, abuse of Sacraments, whatever goes clearly against the Depositum Fidei. There can be no good in a Pope thinking, even for a second, of proposing such a debate. There can be no way or mechanism or triple salto by which Truth can be changed. There can be no way a Pope thinks a madness like that and is not the enemy number one of the Church, and Satan's most helpful chess piece on the chessboard.
What has become of us.