An Honest Assessment of Vatican II

[rest_in_thee]

The Bishop of Basel, Switzerland has published an interesting letter regarding the various false interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, as well as those who lament traditionalists as somehow not being faithful to Vatican II. Anyone who actually reads the documents of Vatican II will recognize that with the exception of the real far right

Comments

[efriden]

Good one!

Liberals who invoke "the spirit of VCII" are in actual fact not referring to the Holy Spirit, but "the spirit of the world", how on earth they could ever come to believe that it was what informed the council fathers (among whom our current pontiff was a not insignificant player). Also, Hans Küng may be a learned theologian, but he can be such a wanker. I wasn't surprised when nothing further came of the outstreched hand of the Holy Father than a friendly luncheon. HK seems to enjoy his position of "resident heretic" - sorry: "Liberal martyr-prophet" - way too much.

" - The council expressly requested that governmental authorities voluntarily give up those rights to participation in the selection of bishops, that had arisen over the course of time. Which defender of the council advocates "without qualification" for that? "

I do!

[napoleonofnerds]

No, Andorra should get a say, since they're governed by the Bishop of Urgell.

[rest_in_thee]

It always impresses me when you know stuff like this, that I would consider somewhat obscure but of which I am nonetheless slightly jealous of your Church Geekdom :)

[napoleonofnerds]

Technically I oversimplified. They're only co-governed by the Bishop of Urgell and the King (i.e. President, due to laws that seem sketchy and anti-republican to me) of France, and they have roughly the same authority as the Queen of England (which is to say they can sometimes order the holding of fancy-dress parties but little else).

But now I'm just showing off.

[napoleonofnerds]

That's a very good letter, and the better for being without Fr. Z's complaining

[rest_in_thee]

I think that things need to be clarified in an official way regarding the Council. You and I recently had a discussion about the use of chant, but as you pointed out, while the Council says that it is proper to the Roman Rite and must be given primary place - what exactly does that mean? Does that mean in all Masses? Does it mean in special celebrations? How much leeway is given?

I would like to see at least some of the issues, mainly liturgical ones, given clarification. You know where I stand regarding how I believe they should be interpreted in many instances, but the fact that we are often so unsure I think is reason enough for clarification.

I haven't thought enough about the discipline question to really have an opinion.

[napoleonofnerds]

The reason I think the discipline question is significant is that it's possible that what the council means by pride of place isn't actually a relevant question except as a historical consideration. If the popes and the bishops with them were entirely free to change their mind about practice (which recent history would indicate, but medieval history and the conciliar movement would not, so I think it's controversial either way), what the conciliar fathers wanted doesn't matter and we should start discussing ways we can let both sides live in peace and what liturgical changes would facilitate that. If the council does matter, we really need to know why the changes that did happen did, and what changes they would have rather had.