jump to navigation

Quick, closing thought – those waiting for a formal repudiation of…… August 11, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, episcopate, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
trackback

…….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 Having been told they were wrong or goofy or outdated for so long, there is a profound human urge to have one’s most cherished beliefs clearly confirmed.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.

Comments

1. Peter - August 12, 2015

Waiting for any pope to apologize for or repudiate any aspect of Vatican II strikes me as delusional and perhaps a little prideful.

2. LaGallina - August 12, 2015

The Catholic Church as it had been known for more than 1900 years will not continue to exist for “a few centuries” more if Vatican 2 is not repudiated — or more likely — we have some sort of Divine Intervention in the matter.

The Vatican has become very much like the Lutheran church or Episcopal church — going with the flow of popular culture, to heck with the Magisterium. The Catholic Church — as it is now — will continue to splinter and separate just like the Protestants have done since Luther and Henry VIII. As it is, the most devout Novus Ordo Catholics I know have almost no knowledge of what the Church teaches — even those who were catechized before Vatican 2 because they have been trained to believe that the old ways were bad.

The Faith cannot continue to decay for centuries. The massive amount of decay from the past 50 years has almost annihilated all Catholic beliefs and practices, so how on earth could there be a centuries-long slow restoration? It doesn’t make sense. We would no longer have people left who remembered the old ways and to bring back a restoration. It might be doubtful if we had any validly ordained priests or bishops centuries from now if we continue a slow decline followed by a slow restoration.

The only way for the one, true faith to remain in existence is for a repudiation of the errors that have taken place because of and since V2. Since I am confident that Catholicism is the One, True Faith I am confident that we will have either the repudiation or the Divine Intervention.

If we don’t have either one of those than the fact is one of the following:
Either it is not the One True Faith, or
The sedevacantists were right.

There is just no way that the Church will go centuries of slow restoration and then 500 hundred years from now finally return to Truth. I don’t necessarily think we will have repudiation or Divine Intervention in my lifetime. I do think we could have a dark decade or two ahead. But centuries? No way. Para nada.

TF - August 12, 2015

LaGallina makes an excellent point. Besides that, a widespread apostasy followed by a sudden chastisement and restoration have been long foretold from Heaven. But a question: how long did it take for the Church to recover from the Aryan heresy? I am one of those unfortunate souls who was never taught Church history in the years following Vatican II.

Tantumblogo - August 13, 2015

I should have added that yes if this is the end times then what is occurring is ordained by God and unavoidable. However we know – or can infer -from the lives of Saints like St. Vincent Ferrer that humanity may come close to destruction a number of times but through repentance and return to the Faith have stayed that destruction.

Where I did blow it, and I admit it, was failing to tie the Consecration of Russia into the restoration of the Church. Having said that, I strongly doubt, even when the Consecration occurs, that there will be a formal mea culpa of the errors promoted in the Church. At most there will be a sort of acknowledgement that there were a lot of bad popes and bishops and thank God we have better ones now (in AD 2350, or whatever).

Think on it this way: how painful and destructive has it been for souls (and how many may have fallen away) when Popes have apologized for things like the Crusades, the sacking of Constantinople, pointing out Eastern Orthodox schism and error, etc. For some future Pope to say…..”Guess what, we’ve been wrong on most everything since 1960, and we beg the forgiveness of the 0.5% of the Church that remained faithful” would be murderous to the reputation of the Church – intrinsically and extrinsically – and highly damaging to souls. How many would fall away after such a statement, 100 years from now, when some Pope says the Church was infested by a heresy even among the Popes themselves and has been wrong on tons of things for 150 years? I just don’t see that happening

3. c matt - August 12, 2015

This is how the council ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper… apologies to TS Eliot.

4. kimzef2015 - August 12, 2015

The Church cannot teach error. So either this an altogether different religion–a new Vatican 2, Novus Ordo religion—or the Church has ceased to be The Church and we must continue our faith in our homes and in chapels that have severed ties with the conciliar church and that remain faithful to Church teachings before Vatican 2. You cannot serve God and Mammon.

5. MFG - August 12, 2015

Thank you for saying so Tantum. Going back and trying to rehash what happened at Vatican II is important but it won’t reverse the destination of many lost Catholic souls in the Church today. What will save those souls is the preaching against the worldly persuits and desires that many lost Catholics (others) indulge in.

By preaching out against the heresy of modernism–which is the root of Vatican II and long pre-dates it, traditional priests today can and are turning things around and saving souls (albeit in small pockets). They don’t need to wait for an apology which won’t come soon. The Church took 500 years to correct one small error in the Council of Florence. Do we sit around and wait another 500 years or do we start spreading the gospel now?


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: