Veiled message to traditional Catholics: Hurry up and die so we elitists can get on with the revolution in the Church.

There is a sense something happened in 1962 that was not an organic growth, or a representation of a Church that is always young, always renewing herself, always beautiful, Mulhall said. Some have characterized Vatican II as something akin to the 1917 revolution in Russia, a distinct break with the past leading to the Bolshevik takeover. The change seemed to have an abruptness to it, that it created something new out of nothing, he said.

This before-and-after dynamic has some people seeing “before the Council” as good and after the Council as bad, and others who see the reverse, he said.

The Church has been living this tension for the past 50 years.

“The day is going to arrive when no one remembers the days before the Council,” he said. Then it will be perceived as part of the natural growth of the Church.

“It was an age of great difficulty and confusion for some,” he said. The Church faced “a perfect storm” in the societal changes of the 1960s. But soon people will no longer be looking back only 50 years but 2,000 years, especially for those invited to live the life of a priest.


Editor’s note: “…part of the natural growth of the Church.”What growth?



  1. Cancer is “growth”. Malignant growth. Like Vatican II, which continues to metastasize. Traditional Catholicism is the only therapy that can save the patient—Holy Mother Church—from going terminal.

  2. Pius XII was aware that in a post-World War world the Church required new answers to new questions. He understood that many of the old certainties hardly applied in a new world (the church now recognised for example the state of Italy) and that new dangers were arising to challenge the Church and its evangelising mission. He stepped back from calling a new council as he himself was the war pontiff and it was only a few years since Vatican One.

    In 1869 Pius IX had called the Vatican 1 Council which was a challenge and direct opposition to the new state of Italy. It reminded the New Powers in Italy that despite their ability to acquire all the Papal States and subjugate Church Possessions at will, the Pope was still able to be an International Figure and his Universal Authority in Faith Doctrine was Final, Infallible and Absolute.

    Yet Pius XII left it for his successors to call for a council. Surprise then that Roncalli was elected over his rivals and especially Montini (later Paul VI). It was supposed that bank scandals had made some Cardinals wary of Montini and Roncalli was seen as a stop-gap. As John XXIII was to show his reign was a new era for a new world. In America Kennedy, in Soviet Russia Khrushchev, everywhere a more liberal sexuality and the growing rise of Communism. In Calling Vatican 2, Pope John was “opening the windows” on the Church.

    The Council unlike others would last years to complete and when Pope Paul VI would close it with great ceremony the Church was full of optimism. In its wake Bishops were generally delighted that after centuries of conflict and very unchristian behaviour they were now encouraged to work with and beside other Christians.

    It is also true that sometimes and in some places the Council has been abused. Human frailty and misunderstanding have led to incorrect and overzealous zeal of some to restart the Church as if from year one not accepting its long tradition and merit. This misconduct has led the popes to remind the Faithful of the True nature and aspirations of The Council. The fact however that interpretation has often been incorrect is not a logical denunciation of the Council itself. As with just about every Council in Church History the learning curve has been a steep one fraught with hazards.

    In some corners of the Church, in Southern France for example; Resistance led to the open conflict of ideology and demands upon us all a re-evaluation of what Roman Catholicism really is about. Some Bishops and individuals have refused to acknowledge the Council and its directives as Legitimate. They profess obedience to True Roman Catholism claiming to follow the Pre Conciliar Church which they maintain is the only legitimate one and the Popes since are irrelevant and anti-popes bordering towards Anti-Christ himself. The storm centres mainly on the ecumenical directives and they refused to see other Christians as Brethren because in their perception of tradition, heretical Protestants and others are enemies of the Church of Christ forever.

    The faltering attendance in Catholic Churches in the West is held up as a sign of Gods anger and inconsistencies of a post Councilor Church. That if it returned to the good old days of a PreVatican2 Church the pews would be full once again! This rather simplistic argument fails to appreciate that across the western World many faiths may be in decline. Economic and social reasons may well provide the answers to why this is happening but it is equally certain that in other places such as Africa and Asia the Church is in ascendancy. It is also uncertain that the decline would not have greatly increased without the Council as with other Christian denominations and the effects much worse than it is today.
    Because of this mistrust by the few however, Pope Paul VI suffered greatly. He asked them to return to Mother Church and to accept unity and papal authority as the authority from Christ. Not wishing to publically splinter the Church and for the sake of their souls he often left their public disobedience as an open question. Against this growing scandal many others saw these rebels as heretical parasites. (despite this Pope Paul considered their approach schismatic) Many see that it was/is unacceptable to claim to be Roman Catholic and yet publically refute both Pope and Council of the Church, its Bishops, and Magisterium by tongue or deed.

    Under John Paul II however a greater public obedience to Papal Authority was requested. His worldwide and public devotion to The Madonna (also mirrored by Pope Francis today) showed the claims of him as Anti-Christ to be nothing short of obscene blasphemy! The future Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger allowed them to become excommunicated and whilst they still profess to be true Catholics theirs is a claim of outright unyielding Protestantism.

    In effect they are not Catholic nor Traditional nor Christian.

    There will certainly come a time when the Church only remembers The Council and the protests against it by the few will be forgotten but that is in the course of things showing that history can be forgetful but which may also heal divisions that seem presently unsolvable.

    It is therefore unlikely that anyone in the Roman Catholic Church that loves its Pope and its Council and its Madonna would jeer at the loss of these souls. Like Judas going to his ruin by his choice they have decided on their own disobedient course and it hardly makes any Christian desire to leap with joy at their demise. Whilst they have life it is to be pressed that they return to Mother Church in its entirety, which will always welcome with great joy the repentant.

    • “There will certainly come a time when the Church only remembers The Council…”

      I’d lay a heavy earthly wager on the table contra that proposition and give you long odds if you bet against me. However, neither of us will be around to collect, whatever the outcome.

      Meanwhile, your position that the only things wrong with V-II are that it is misunderstood and misinterpreted—and that, if only people would obey the Pope, no matter what, all would be well with the Church—continues to be a threadbare fig leaf attempting to cover the hideous elephant in the middle of the room.

      I realize, my friend, that you are not alone in your insistence. Nor alone in its being dead wrong.

      • LOL Mark, Do you read a lot of Wittgenstein?

        “An elephant in the middle of the room”

        I like the notion but alas it is insanity par excellence. Perhaps the beast is invisible or so grotesque that like Quantum Physics would have it in explanation we do not really see it, hear it or feel it . .but it is there! Oh yeah. Cuckoo!

        My “thesis” above clearly states that there have been many abuses of V2 and everybody understand this is so. But that does not invalidate the direction, aspiration or authority of the Council. It certainly does not disrespect the personage of the Pope and I do not think I stated that we should obey the pope no matter what BUT of course I do accept his Authority and demand Obedience from him as Primate Bishop on this earth.

        That means that any other Roman Catholic bishop (or cleric or lay person) that thinks brawling against his Leader Bishop is acceptable is in grave error. As with St Pio (whom did not accept unconditionally the will of the Council) obedience is fundamental to sanctity and grace. Without it there is only sin.

        So Mark I would accept your bet no matter what odds because I believe that the Council of Vatican 2 is essentially about the will of God and that all other arguments to the contrary are little more than idle fancy and the wisp of unholy phantoms. So we will agree to disagree I think and probably continue similar debate no doubt through many of Doug’s interesting curiosities on his blog.

      • Mark: “Meanwhile, your position that the only things wrong with V-II are that it is misunderstood and misinterpreted…”

        scampy: “My ‘thesis’ above clearly states that there have been many abuses of V2…”

        Sorry. I forgot “abused” 😉

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s