Dr. Massimo Faggioli (Italian for beans) has a critique of Bishop Barron’s approach to Vatican II. It is a long article in the heretical, schismatic National catholic Reporter (NcR).
Despite its length, Faggioli once again shows his hand and his idolatrous worship of Vatican II and its documents, his worship of inclusive language and inclusivity and a variety of sociological angles found in Vatican II’s documents.
But not once, not once, is the Holy Name of Jesus used in this diatribe. Not once is God referenced. Not once is the fires of hell and the damnation that would be an eternal punishment on mankind acknowledged and Jesus as the antidote to it, like Moses Seraph Serpent.
There is nothing about the personal love of God for us poor miserable sinners. There is nothing about the right worship of God that offers Him all the glory and praise.
And thus, Faggioli condemns himself and the idolatry he promotes
3 comments:
Oh, I could write a book! God help me to be brief, here! Some points:
- Faggioli dings Barron for understating Vatican II's importance; Barron says, in effect, it was a big deal in the 20th century culture, etc.; Faggioli says, it was the most important thing in the Church since Trent. Barron's right. The Church has had lots of councils, they all play a role, but Faggioli speaks for those who fervently want their particular interpretation of Vatican II to remake the Church, past, present and future. Sorry, but VII is just one council. Indeed, given that VII didn't define any doctrine, and presented itself as eschewing any major development of doctrine, it remains to be seen just how significant VII will be in the long run. But as part of a century of cultural upheavals? No doubt.
- Faggioli just can't conceal his anti-American condescension; he dismisses Barron's "interpretive stance that dominates the whole volume is 'the hermeneutic of continuity,' inspired by Pope Benedict XVI, but in a particular American version dismissive of historical nuance."
- The real agenda here isn't hard to see; he and his fellow Progressives desperately want to own Vatican II and it's interpretation. And they did, for awhile, the results of which were disastrous and obviously so. That all played out in the 70s and 80s, and lots and lots of Catholics saw the results and want no part of that. The progressives want to erase that ignominious history as if it never happened, and resume their project. But Barron knows that that would be a disaster in every way.
Indeed, I suspect Barron realizes that if the progressive view of Vatican II actually confirms the rad-trad critique. Let me summarize it thusly: for the Progressives, Vatican II birthed a new Church. They want the old Church to die: hence folks like NCR Editor Father Tom Reese want attendance at the old form of Mass to be forbidden! But that mindset has one, huge problem: if there are two Churches, one pre-Vatican II and one post, then there is actually NO Church -- i.e., as a divine institution; it is simply a human one, a product of ongoing evolution and certainly cannot be infallible. Of course, progressives will only occasionally affirm this, but it is the necessary inference from their two-church thinking -- and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI clearly saw this, as do the "rad trads," and Barron too.
Thanks Father Fox for you comments. They are spot on. "Progressives' rarely engage in introspection. After the shellacking the Church took following the Council, you would think they would be a bit more humble and be asking, "could we have been wrong?"
Fr Fox writes what I think, but in kinder terms. The article in question clearly shows a facio of goals related primarily in their desire to supplant Church teachings and honest thought. While I view Vatican II as a failed experiment I also I think it helped open the minds of people to Catholic nature of society and other cultures. What has actually happened, and this article is an example, is a challenge to the basis of Faith on behalf of lesser concerns, e.g. gender inclusiveness of a translation that disregards the source language. I also think this article might be a warning and correction for Bishop Barron based on the author’s test of the bishop’s priorities. We should watch for his response.
Post a Comment