One hears numerous times, in the conservative Novus Ordo circles, of a distinction between the Vatican II Council itself and its unquestionably nefarious and problematical "spirit." "The Council itself," they say, "is perfectly fine, and most of our problems would disappear if only we could get back to it and follow it more closely and stop going along with this liberal and heretical 'spirit of the Council' which actually undermines it."
Well, I most certainly can appreciate the Catholic-at-heart good will desire to be charitable and to see everything in as Catholic of a sight as possible, to "read in" to every document its most Catholic-like interpretation possible, or even to go beyond what the document itself allows and interpret in some Catholic sense that the document itself does not admit. But doing that does not help but merely adds to the confusion. Every time they point us back to the Council all they do is spread more unrest and disorder, as that indeed is what was mandated by the Council itself.
"Oh, but that just the liberal spirit of the council which is a corruption of its true meaning!" they shout, as much to themselves (to try to convince themselves of something they know as well as we to be utterly untrue) as to us who dare to remind them of what they don't like to think about. It is quite plain that they think with such a distinction that they can put the Council documents over here in this pile and say "this is good and we must follow it, and indeed if only we followed it closely enough everything would be fine and all the abuses would stop" and put the spirit of the Council over there in that pile over there and say "well that's just a bunch of liberal interpretations which we can reject without rejecting the Council itself."
But how many of you know that a thing cannot be separated from its spirit without killing it altogether? Without its liberal and heretical "spirit" the Council is but a dead letter. Sadly, the "Spirit of Vatican II" is neither more nor less than other than what that council itself was really and truly all about. You either accept the whole thing and go join the new religion and follow it into all its errors, or you reject the whole thing and consciously work to have it officially annulled and revoked in full.
One curious effect which has been observed since the beginning of "the crisis" has been a most remarkable and perversely "consistent" direction in the heretical trajectory that the Vatican has taken since that time. Surely, if the problem had been the heretical natures of the Vatican leaders, one would expect the errors of one to correct or womp the errors of the one previous, and the next to do the same and so forth, with things wandering in all different directions, this way and that way and this way and that way, with a net result of little actual change beyond a serious loss of credibility.
Yet that is not what has occurred. In a shocking and horrific mockery and aping of Catholic constancy the Post-Vatican II Vatican institution has moved with a most startling and unaccountable steadiness in its heretical direction no matter who was at the helm. It is time to realize that the problem is not merely that the guy at the tiller is merely ignoring the compass and going off in his own direction, but rather that the compass itself has been corrupted, so that in following its incorrect direction the person at the tiller (no matter who) simply continues in the same wrong direction.
So what bent the compass in the wrong direction? What else but the Council itself. It needs to be revoked, pure and simple. It makes no sense to say that all we need to do is "go back to it" or "follow it authentically" or "interpret in the light of tradition" or whatever of that ilk since that is exactly what has been leading the Vatican institution and the whole Novus Ordo religion away from the Faith of all time.
So once again the claim is made that "we are distinguishing between a hermaneutics of rupture and a hermaneutics of continuity," as if rupture (which is widely evident) and continuity would somehow both be valid "interpretations" of Vatican II. Most certainly, the "hermaneutic of rupture" is a truly valid interpretation of the Council and its documents and its "spirit." Also spoken of is a "hernaneutic of reform" which is only rupture under a different name. Who do they think they are fooling? The Church was as perfect on the eve of Vatican II as it has ever been throughout its entire 1900+ year existence and not the least in need of the least "reform" whatsoever.
But back to the supposed "hermaneutic of continuity" can the Council really be "interpreted in the Light of Tradition" as Vatican prelates seem to promise to us Catholics endlessly? Unfortunately, it is difficult to speak of the documents as a whole as they represent a patchwork product of numerous and faceless committees and the like. Some portions certainly would pass muster, as they merely quote former Magisterial documents of the Church, and it is possible that some other small and few portions might similarly pass muster despite not being any exact quote of any previous document. A most significant chunk of them (by volume, as V-2 appears to have been written like a Charles Dickens' novel, as if the author receives an additional penny for each word used) might adequately and reasonably serve on the level of the sort of writings that a sincere, orthodox, and well-meaning layman might write about such theological topics, with that particular sort of imprecision for which a layman could be quite reasonably excused, but which is inexcusable coming from a purported "magisterial document of the Church."
But then come those other parts, the ones that fly in the face of the eternal teaching of the Church, and which require at least some "interpretation" to be "understood" in a Catholic sense, and finally some passages for which the nature of the "interpretation" needed to bring it at least something vaguely in line with any possible Catholic opinion takes on the qualities of special pleading, mental gymnastics, and rationalization.
And who is going to mandate such creative interpretations as needed to "interpret Vatican II with a hermaneutics of continuity"? Benedict XVI? Even if he is so inclined, who is to say that the next guy won't be like those who went before him? For if Vatican II is not revoked while Benedict XVI still lives, then he could only be, at best, a little like Good Queen Mary of Protestantizing England who only brings things in a Catholic-ward direction for a few years, only to be followed by those who will continue the Protestantization and Modernistization of today's Vatican as soon as the man is gone. And that's at best.
Let us grant, for the sake of argument (and there are some reasons not to) that Benedict XVI really wants to make things better. Certainly this reputation he has for being some sort of Latin-Mass-saying-arch-conservative does seem to carry far and wide, far in excess of any actual acts of the man since his election to lead the Vatican institution of today. The illusion, though productive of some good Catholic-ward direction on the part of some, is beginning to wear thin as the acts of the man seldom if ever conform to such an image. But he guards the Council and refuses to consider it to be the utterly disposable thing it in fact is.
Again and again, Catholics who want to "play ball" with him are invited, even encouraged, to fight and oppose "abuses," but the Council is to be held absolutely sacrosanct and totally above any criticism, despite its evident need of a "hermaneutic of continuity" (who ever heard of having to apply a "hermaneutic" to any previous Magisterial document of the Church throughout its entire history before?). That is exactly like opposing the spread of venereal diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions while insisting on holding everyone's right to commit wide and wanton fornication absolutely sacrosanct. "All we need to do is give out more free condoms and then the problem will go away." How many times have we heard that?
The Council itself IS the malignant tumor, all other abuses from the Novus Ordo to the most outrageous "liturgucal abuses" are but mere metastasizings thereof. The only possible recovery for the Vatican of today would be a total and unconditional revocation of the Council in its entirety, together with all that follows from it, and even anything else that may not actually follow from it at all, but which was still made possible by the disorder it has introduced, and also its perverse and destructive "spirit." The crisis will not and cannot end until the Council is revoked; any lesser solution is only like putting a bandaid over a bursting appendix, as whatever good as could possibly come from "interpreting" it "in the light of tradition," with a "hermaneutic of continuity" and so forth can be easily and quickly blown away with a different and more obvious interpretation. Ever notice how in the Vatican institution even the most tiny and marginal improvement seems to require just about an "act of Congress" to maybe get through, while destructions can be just unilaterally imposed without the least question from those in power therein.
Fr. Sissy, in a momentary hissy fit, can with the stroke of a pen eliminate yet another of the very few remaining altar rails, but we all know what it would take to get that altar rail reinstalled. Or again...Father "devoutness" Indultarian has to get 400,000 signatures from people, all of whom want the Latin Mass without having the least reason or desire to avoid the new nor have any association with those evil schismatic SSPX'ers or sedevacantists, and beg the "Pope" and Ecclesia Dei Commission to help him, so then maybe he might get to do some tiny once-a-month Mass in some retirement home funeral chapel (with room for about ten people including himself and his gender-unspecified altar person), and even then have to endure a constant and close watch from spies sent by his bishop ever looking for the leastways bit of sympathy on his part for the SSPX.
But meanwhile, the local Novus Ordo Fr. "cross-dressing" Frankenfurter can just go into his big church, centrally located in the city, or to his "Diocesan Cathedral" or wherever, and do, without any need whatsoever of any permission or consultation, a "Rocky Horror Picture Mass" every Saturday Night if he likes, and he never gets questioned, but instead is offered the use of the choir who conveniently already know how to sing "Time Warp" and "Touch-a-touch-a-touch-a-touch me, I wanna feel ble-e-e-e-essed." Welcome to the inevitable result and fruit and world of Vatican II.
And it will come. Maybe not on Ratzinger's watch, but if he does not revoke Vatican II, that, and even far worse, can and will happen. Count on it.
