The dead hand of the Sixties continues to grasp the Church by the throat:
The Pope’s second point had to do with catechesis and the future. In 2020, the church in Italy marked the 50th anniversary of the “renewal of catechesis” following the Second Vatican Council. “The catechesis inspired by the Council,” said Pope Francis, “is continually listening to the heart of the man, always with an attentive ear, always seeking to renew itself.”
Pope Francis insisted: “This is the Magisterium. The Council is the Magisterium of the Church. Either you are with the Church and therefore you follow the Council, and if you don’t follow the Council or you interpret it in your own away, as you desire, you do not stand with the Church.” He asked that there be “no concessions to those who seek to present a catechesis that does not agree with the Magisterium of the Church.”
Go here to read the rest. Translation of the above: the beatings will continue until morale improves. Vatican II: the Groundhog Day time loop of the Church.
By this stage of the game most of us know that Vatican II is bad and should be abrogated and that Francis is a bad Pope and should be replaced. Nothing new.
What we need from traditional Catholic thought leaders is direction. The Novus Order Catholic Church is a burned out house. It is uninhabitable. Both FSSP and SSPX are too associated with Vatican II and the Papacy. We need a new underground Church led by someone like Archbishop Vigano and with priests like Fr. Altman.
I’m getting tired of all the analysis of what is wrong and wish to get on with some positive actions and solutions.
Oh the times they are a changin’! Anyway, who is he to judge? He should just learn to deal with it. I mean, is he resistant to the Holy Spirit? Is he a slave to some man-made tradition? Maybe he needs a re-education camp?
Michael
You may find the Taylor Marshall podcasts interesting.
https://taylormarshall.com/podcastarchive
Something something self-referential church something something museum piece.
The emperor’s new clothes.
“If you interpret it in your own way” has been the SOP of the response to Vatican II. I’m not saying that the council itself can’t be analyzed and criticized. But it’s certainly true that what was done “in the spirit of Vatican II” went far beyond anything said in the council (and always what modernists had wanted to do for years anyway).
Years ago when Bishop Barron had experienced some of the administrative boredom involved in being a seminary rector, he made the great analogy that Vatican II was like a meeting that had never ended. (Hope you’ll omit the Bp. Barron criticism here, I’m already crestfallen about his recent musings.)
Great summary statement of the problem:
“The dead hand of the 60’s continues to grasp the throat of the Church..”
Vatican 11 is not the problem. I have read and reread the key documents and see nothing but good in them. The problem is how the documents of the council have been interpreted, or rather misinterpreted, and that the leftists within the Church saw the Council as an opportunity to “reform” the Church by falsely labelling it as reformist council. Pope Benedict rightly saw the Council as being perfectly in accord with Church teaching, that it does not represent a breach in the history of the Church. We should respect and uphold Vatican 11 while firmly rejecting the so-called “reforms” justified by misleading interpretations of the council documents.
Vatican 11 is not the problem. I have read and reread the key documents and see nothing but good in them.
Christopher Ferrara suggests you read them with a lawyer’s eye, attempting to identify what the document allows the other guy to do to you.