The Church Courtyard > Traditional Catholic Discussion

Timothy Gordon on Vatican 2

(1/7) > >>

Philip G.:
I don't often listen to this fellow, but I decided to click on a recent video of his on "why catholics cannot reject vatican 2".  Listen to 25:30 for about 45 seconds.  It is Gordon's take on the time bomb "subsistit in".  I have read all of the documents of the council, and I have read "time bombs of the second vatican council by Fr. Schmidberger.  And, my opinion is that the council must be rejected entirely, and that it cannot successfully be fixed.

Gordon's opinion is that "subsistence is the strongest form of existence".  He even says thomas aquinas backs him up on this(another nail in that coffin?).  Can anyone confirm that?  Fr. Schmidberger argued that subsistence implies that if the true religion subsists in the catholic church, what is to stop it from subsisting in a different church?  For. subsistence lends itself to such variance, hence the problem with the term. 

Another reason I bring this up is because this division of opinion among "traditionalists" is a perfect example of how damaging novel language can be, and why it must be rejected as one of the error's the council itself.  I no longer have my vatican 2 book, or time bombs, so I cannot go back and re read all of this before making this post.  So, this is going off on a bit of a limb, but I am quite certain this is inseparable from the MO of the council from my memory and experience.

From memory, generally speaking, the council would cite correct church teaching but with a caveat such as the novel language found above, then immediately after, it would allow or sympathize for the liberalism/opposite interpretation.  However, what would the caveat be among the liberal segment?  The caveat would be what we might call firm or unmistakable language. 

The result of this is that even if you want to claim continuity and try to make use of the traditional comments of the council, you are unable to do so as a result of the novel language such as "subsistit in".  It means that tradition can never be united behind the traditional seeming writings of the council, because they are not, which is why they must be rejected as well.  Likewise, the liberals are led on by the liberal jargon, but cannot escape the fact that it comes from a position of earthly authority, which at their extreme, they loath in itself.  For, they loath "organized religion". 

Indeed, every document had an exception proving the rule get out. It meant Paul VI did not have to content himself with revisions to the Mass that the Congregation for Divine Worship envisaged thanks to traps sown in Sacrosanctum Concilium. It still had fine words about Gregorian chant and Latin, but in context those words were aspiration. A bishop could in circumstances change things, just exceptionally...... It might have seemed possible that the Hermeneutic of Continuity could be a Hermeneutic of Forgetting and V2 could be interpreted to sideline it, but Benedict was utterly timid in placing good bishops and wasn't exactly traditional himself. Now the only solution to V2 will be somehow to bin it. How this will happen will involve a miracle akin to the 'Miracle of the Sun' but V2 has to be discarded.

I can only come to 2 conclusions.

This cannot be walked back without lying to future generations about what happened at this period of time.  Of course they may lie, and get away with it. History can be controlled and spun.  We all know that. But that would be a lie.

God can allow this because the end of the world is near.   There won't be generations to be confused by it.

I don't subscribe to the microscopic Church idea. A universal Church, tasked to teach all nations has failed if it ends up with 0.001 of the world's population down from 1.5 billion 100 years before that.

The Catholic Church was never an exclusive club.

God could wipe out most people of course at start over but that is really just option 1.

Philip G.:
The ordered disorder of the council is what makes it so deadly.  The hermineutic of continuity could be made use of if the caveats were reversed, and if the overall order was reversed.  If the traditional sections were/are framed in unmistakable traditional language, and the liberal sections were/are framed in novel language, it can theoretically be salvaged/amended in the sense that the slate need not be whiped clean.  And, we would be even better off if the liberal junk came first, followed by the traditional interpretation.  But, this was not my takeaway from reading the documents.  I think a clean sweep is required, not only for lesser reasons, but for greater reasons.  We need to come around to the idea that popes and councils find their favor in the act of defining teaching, condemning heresies/errors, and decreeing laws, not dialoging/dialecting with us.

Gordon mentioned that there were a few councils that are good and legitimate where no teachings were defined and/or I presume heresies condemned, and/or laws decreed.  I think one of those three should be required for a council in my opinion.  Is it the case that there existed councils other than v2 where no heresies were condemned, laws decreed, and no teachings are defined?  And, which are they.  Thanks. 

King Wenceslas:

When this whole mess is cleaned up by fire from the sky, who will even remember Gordon and his specious arguments.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version