I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH THE CONTROVERSIAL PRELATE IN THIS REGARD

Press title for full long article. My comments below.

Bishop Schneider: We shouldn’t reject Vatican II, but save what is ‘truly good’

'We have to evaluate and esteem all that is really and truly good in the Council texts, without irrationally and dishonestly closing the eyes of reason to what is objectively and evidently ambiguous and even erroneous in some of the texts'

My comments:

I think what the good bishop is writing makes perfect sense. Vatican II was a pastoral council carried out in the culture of the time, both religious and secular, that we can do anything and do it successfully. The space program of the USA in the early 60’s culminating with a man on the moon in 1969 was a part of this winning spirit of the times.

The triumphalism of those promoting Vatican II thought it would lead to a similar grand experience as the US space program, a new spring for the Church, not in heaven but on earth.

Much of Vatican II’s pastoral decrees are like a time capsule of the period of optimism. These are far from doctrinal let alone infallible, in terms of how to revise the Mass, sacraments, divine office as well as ecumenism, interfaith relations, religious liberty and dialogue with the world. 

Yet these things are presented in such a pre-Vatican II authoritarian way to make us think these are Infallible doctrines not just pastoral theology and in some cases pastoral theology run amuck.

But worse yet, is the “spirit of Vatican II” argument which exalts the commentary and opinion on Vatican II from bishops down to theologians and ordinary lay folk into a kind of infallible dogma. 

Let me be clear. We have a Tradition of authority in the magisterium of the Church and it is related to the pope and bishops in union with him. The Sensuum fideli has been used and misused to make democratic decisions concerning doctrine and pastoral responses. Another error. Of course, progressives take the opinions and commentary of the “faithful” not from the faithful, but the infidels. That’s not sensuum fideli, but rather sensuum infideli and the complete opposite of what faithful Catholics would promote and the official understanding of sensuum fideli,, which also is a theology, not a doctrine or dogma.

But when it comes to the implementation of a Council, the pope and the bishops are in charge. But that doesn’t mean that things can’t be reevaluated when good intentions go bad and the springtime of the Church which was expected becomes a long, dark winter. 

Critical thinking needs to take place concerning the documents of Vatican II and the good fruit that has come forth but also the deleterious results too numerous to list here. 

Pope Benedict in his brilliance, much missed, had the solution in his Christmas elocution to the cardinals and Curia of the church—renewal in continuity with what preceded Vatican II!

And Pope Benedict also said to the SSPX which he was trying to fully reintegrate into the Church that the older form of the Mass and sacraments and Divine Office and devotions were allowed under his continuity hermeneutic.

As well, the documents on ecumenism, interfaith dialogue, dialogue with the world and religious liberty were simply pastoral objectives and not matters of Catholic Faith and could be rejected for good reason.