Theologian Peter Kwasniewski believes that Vatican II should be remembered with shame and repentance:
I would not subscribe to the view that the Council should be “forgotten” as though it never happened. That is not how history works. Rather, it must be remembered with shame and repentance as a moment in which the hierarchy of the Church, to varying degrees, surrendered to a more subtle (and therefore more dangerous) form of worldliness. Moreover, the errors contained in the documents, as well as the many errors commonly attributed to the Council or prompted by it, must be drawn into a syllabus and anathematized by a future pope or council so that the controverted matters may be laid to rest, as former councils have wisely and charitably done in regard to the errors of their times.
Just as Viganò has exposed the Vatican’s and much of the hierarchy’s complicity with evil in the case of Theodore McCarrick, so too he has turned a bright light on the doctrinal and liturgical evils that plague the Church because of the orientations, decisions, and texts of the Council. He must be taken seriously. It’s no longer enough to point to some nice things Vatican II said, or some good things that have happened in the past half-century. We know that already. It’s also more than a bit silly at this point to say, “You know, the Church wasn’t perfect before the Council,” as if anyone asserted that it was.
Most of those who have “responded” to Viganò have, to varying degrees, walked right past the most important questions. It’s as if they’ve arrived very late to a party where an in-depth conversation has been going on for a long time — in this case, ever since Dietrich von Hildebrand’s The Trojan Horse in the City of God and Romano Amerio’s Iota Unum, down to Henry Sire’s Phoenix from the Ashes and Roberto de Mattei’s The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story — and they burst in with observations that were taken up and thrashed out hours before. After an awkward pause, the conversation resumes among the serious participants, while the interrupters stroll away for a cocktail, feeling satisfied that they’ve “made their point.” Alas, it was beside the point; it didn’t advance the discussion, but merely interrupted it.
What cannot be denied by any objective evaluation is that, between 1962 and 1965, there took place a “paradigm shift” with regard to the intimate relationship of identity, continuity, tradition, and culture. These were dissociated in a way that was radically uncatholic — and radically unstable.
Go here to read the rest. Vatican II is the New Coke of the Catholic Church. Pretending that it was some sort of brilliant success is simply dishonest and Orwellian. Be honest, repair the damage and move on.
Vatican II was a catastrophe for the Church. It must be abrogated in its entirety. It cannot be fixed. The underlying devilish intention was to destroy the Catholic Church by Communistic leaning or inspired prelates and theologians.
I am most pleased that Archbishop Vigano has come on the scene to testify to this truth and vigorously argue for Vatican II complete condemnation and abrogation.
For recent support for abrogation please see:
Second Intervention of Prominent Italian Professor on Vatican II
https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2020/07/30/second-intervention-of-prominent-italian-professor-on-vatican-ii/
You can’t get rid of Vatican II without fatally compromising Vatican I.
I’m not sure how you get past correcting errors of interpretation and implementation of the texts to correcting errors in the texts themselves without fatally compromising Vatican I.
What does Vatican I have to do with Vatican II? I don’t see how they are any more connected than any other two Church Councils.
I think Papal Infallibility goes right out the window if you overturn Vatican II (so to speak; I don’t have the theological language, so I’m trying to make do with legal/political).
Part of what makes the robber synod the robber synod and not the Second Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (4th Ecumenical Council overall) is Papal approval.
Now, if a Pope can be wrong in promulgating the documents of something like a Council, what else can he be wrong about?
I imagine that’ll make everybody who rejects Humanae Vitae, and favors women’s ordination deliriously happy.
Plenty of decrees of councils approved by Popes have long since been rendered as dead letters. For example from Lateran IV:
Canon 67: Jews may not charge extortionate interest.
Canon 68: Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress to enable them to be distinguished from Christians so that no Christian shall come to marry them ignorant of who they are. [13]
Canon 69: Declares Jews disqualified from holding public offices, incorporating into ecclesiastical law a decree of the Holy Christian Empire.[14]
Canon 70: Takes measures to prevent converted Jews from returning to their former belief.
Of course as we constantly hear Vatican II was intended to be a Pastoral Council which was not going to change Church doctrine. Euthanizing all or part of this Council is nothing that has not happened many times in the history of the Church.
Those examples don’t touch on faith and morals, except indirectly.
Neither did most of Vatican II. When it did it usually contradicted prior statements of Popes and Councils.