The Second Vatican Council was not only unsuccessful or a failure: it was a catastrophe for the Church.
Further to my recent post on Brentwood's centenary lecture, a friend drew my attention to some recent comments from Professor de Mattei about the Second Vatican Council which seem strangely pertinent and somewhat contradict Fr Martin's thesis. The Professor said:
On the historical level, however, Vatican II constitutes a non-decomposable block: It has its own unity, its essence, its nature. Considered in its origins, its implementation and consequences, it can be described as a Revolution in mentality and language, which has profoundly changed the life of the Church, initiating a moral and religious crisis without precedent. If the theological judgment may be vague and comprehensive, the judgment of history is merciless and without appeal. The Second Vatican Council was not only unsuccessful or a failure: it was a catastrophe for the Church. [my emphasis]
Addendum:
I've been asked to removed the post linked to above and have complied as it was never my intention to upset anyone with it, rather enter into an adult syntax with regard to attitudes which I believe, all too often go unchallenged in the Church today, and which fail to recognise what is actually happening. I've complied with this wish because it came from a dear friend and beloved pastor. It does strike me as somewhat ironic though, given one of the main points of the post was this:
"the problem (whatever it is) is compounded, Sammons remarks, by a general refusal to acknowledge the reality of our post-conciliar difficulties: what he terms a “soft censorship” of unpleasant news. Bishops and pastors, diocesan newspapers and parish bulletins have bombarded us for years with reports that the Church is “vibrant,” that programs are booming, that the liturgy is beautiful, that religious education is robust. Never is heard a discouraging word. Yet we know better. We know about the shortage of priests; we see the news of parish closing; we notice the empty pews on Sundays. Something is wrong; we know that.
Sammons argues persuasively that this “soft censorship,” this see-no-evil approach, is now an impediment to evangelisation, because it thwarts serious discussions about the current state of the Church. Evangelisation means bringing people to the truth, he reasons, and that process “cannot thrive in a censored environment.”
I've been asked to removed the post linked to above and have complied as it was never my intention to upset anyone with it, rather enter into an adult syntax with regard to attitudes which I believe, all too often go unchallenged in the Church today, and which fail to recognise what is actually happening. I've complied with this wish because it came from a dear friend and beloved pastor. It does strike me as somewhat ironic though, given one of the main points of the post was this:
"the problem (whatever it is) is compounded, Sammons remarks, by a general refusal to acknowledge the reality of our post-conciliar difficulties: what he terms a “soft censorship” of unpleasant news. Bishops and pastors, diocesan newspapers and parish bulletins have bombarded us for years with reports that the Church is “vibrant,” that programs are booming, that the liturgy is beautiful, that religious education is robust. Never is heard a discouraging word. Yet we know better. We know about the shortage of priests; we see the news of parish closing; we notice the empty pews on Sundays. Something is wrong; we know that.
Sammons argues persuasively that this “soft censorship,” this see-no-evil approach, is now an impediment to evangelisation, because it thwarts serious discussions about the current state of the Church. Evangelisation means bringing people to the truth, he reasons, and that process “cannot thrive in a censored environment.”
Comments
Post a Comment