Quick, closing thought – those waiting for a formal repudiation of…… August 11, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, episcopate, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
…….the problematic/disconcerting/unprecedented aspects of Vatican II by some future Church leadership will be waiting for a very long time. The Church will not admit of error, not in an ecumenical council approved by the reigning pontiff, even a pastoral one. Or, at the very least, it will be many, many years – on the order of many decades if not a few centuries – before Vatican II is spoken of publicly by the Church/Magisterium/great Saints etc as being mistaken in various regards (assuming the world lasts that long). It simply will not happen. It also shows how Vatican II is different from other “robber councils” of the past in that those others were never approved by the reigning pontiff. The situation surrounding Vatican II is in so many respects unprecedented in the history of the Church.
I know many people have a desire – I would almost call it a need – to see just this kind of hand-wringing, breast-beating mea culpa from some future Pope. Having been told they were wrong or goofy or outdated for so long, there is a profound human urge to have one’s most cherished beliefs clearly confirmed. And I think that will happen, gradually (it must), but I’m much more of the camp that Vatican II will be overcome not by formal repudiation, but more through mokusatsu…..”killing with silence.” Those statements of Vatican II which are problematic – and the vast majority are not – will simply be marginalized and ignored more and more. Or, more precisely, the Church will return to the pre-conciliar practice (be it the Liturgy, Breviary, return to right understanding of ecumenism/collegiality/etc) gradually once the revolutionaries have passed from the scene.
Or is that naive? Do the revolutionaries make the Council, or the other way around? I guess what I’m asking is, so long as various aspects are not formally repudiated, will they serve as a seed-bed for the production of revolutionaries in the Church far into the future? I think not, since the revolution does not seem to be replacing itself, but who knows?
I just don’t see that “glorious” moment where the Church begs forgiveness (of whom?) for past “errors” associated with Vatican II? Doing so would be a profoundly revolutionary act (we never saw such apologias until the conciilar mindset was firmly entrenched), which would seem to weigh against the very idea of restoration in the Church.
It’s one thing for your or I (even though it means nothing, doctrinally) to say that VII departed from the perennial belief and practice of the Faith in areas X, Y, and Z, or is at least very difficult to reconcile with those areas without violating the principle of non-contradiction. Bishops and priests could do so, as well. But for a Pope to make such a repudiation…..such would be a truly radical act. I just don’t see that happening. I suppose it could be overcome, without formal repudiation, by convening some future Council that simply re-affirms the constant belief of the Church in those problematic areas. But I don’t think a letter of apology will be attached.
I think this is what Bishop Schneider meant when he said that there tends to be too much fixation on Vatican II. It happened, and it cannot un-happen. It can be overcome, certainly. The question is how. I have seen evidence that Bishop Schneider tends to share my view that the revolution in the Church will be overcome by a slow process of restoration, not a lightning bolt from on high that throws out the revolutionary content and forcibly re-instills Tradition.
Discuss, if you are minded to. One thing I do know, barring a miracle of Resurrection-like proportions, I fear the crisis in the Church will get much worse before it gets better.