As orthodox Catholics, we know, or at least we should know, that we don’t worship the Bible, Doctrine, Councils of the Church, like Vatican II, ecclesiology or any other idol. We worship the Most Holy Trinity.
We are also concerned, as is God, for the salvation of souls, not so much out of fear of hell but love of God.
We recognize that the Church has institutional aspects that are horizontal, carry authority and require obedience, but not blind obedience.
Dr. Massimo Faggioli presents a talk in the form of a treatise which I link below. It is long; it is boring; and it is the most horizontal aspect of Vatican II which Pope Emeritus Benedict opposed, the enclosed circle which has cause so much division in the Church since Vatican II.
There is absolutely no mention of God, or God Incarnate, Jesus Christ. Nor of the Blessed Virgin Mary nor of the need to save souls. It is all about accepting Vatican II as Dr. Faggioli believes it should be accepted and it is all about the god that ecclesiology has become for him and others and Church organization and who does what and accepting that particular god as Dr. Faggioli expresses it.
It is all about organization and sociology and that his perspective is the right one and everyone else who disagrees with his gods are wrong.
And that is the problem of the Church of Vatican II and its gods. And traditionalists who want to experience the true God of Catholicism, Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, in the Mass and in a mystical, transcendent and inspiring, vertical way and want direction from Him (Jesus Christ, True God and True Man) through His Church, will never worship Vatican II and its horizontal inward, self-referential ethos as their god.
That is it and Dr. Faggioli and others of his ilk simply don’t get it. Catholic idolatry that worships Vatican II is not the way forward!
4 comments:
LOL - these "liberals" are really quite the little fascists. He is an embarrassment. He should try and peddle his pablum to Fathers Hunwicke and Z.
Personally, my favorite Council is Trent, you know, the successful one. As an American that prides itself on winners, Vatican II is not even on the radar screen. It was an utter flop, if saving souls is what the Church is about. If a Council is about making little pseudo intellectuals feel good about themselves, then I guess it is a success
This is directly connected to Professore Faggioli's earlier lament about "young people" not caring about a synod on synoding about synodal synodality in a truly synodalicious way.
News flash for il Professore and his friends at N"C"R:
No one cares about Vatican II anymore.
I'm not saying people reject Vatican II. I'm saying, it doesn't move the needle. It elicits a shrug. This is true for several reasons. First, because Vatican II has had its impact and that is now the status quo. Good, bad or otherwise. Second, because the "progressives" have almost entirely discredited themselves on Vatican II, and now they are reduced to stamping their feet and shouting ever louder, repeating, "VATICAN II! I SAID, VATICAN II! LISTEN TO ME!!!!"
FYI, when discussing this topic, class, it is necessary to separate out the two -- perhaps three -- different Vatican IIs. There is the invented Vatican II that never actually existed, but became the justification for a great deal of nonsense; there is the longed-for Vatican II, sometimes also called "the Spirit of Vatican II" that so-called "progressives" believe will finally be ushered in, just around the next corner; and then there is that actual Vatican II event and it's documents.
These latter can be further divided into several categories. Some are fairly straightforward and have largely had their impact which isn't terribly controversial. Some contain notable ambiguity and this has helped feed mischief. Some, while not exactly controversial, nevertheless now look very dated. Your assignment, class, is to see which of the various documents fit into these three categories.
John Nolan directed me to some books on the topics that I am wading through in bits. The questions I have are simple: why was it necessary? And, If it were to go away, would it make a difference?
I was in Catholic Schools when Vatican II emerged and many of my teachers invoked it as “the authority” as if the Bible, the. 10 Commandments and almost 2,000 years of theology and tradition no longer meant anything. It was actually quite puerile. It showed me how shallow many of my teachers were.
Post a Comment