The Misdirection of Vatican Council II

Father John O'Malley, SJ has written a strong OPINION piece for America Magazine entitled, Misdirections.

It is his understanding of the faithful's mixing up of Vatican Council II.  The title is apropos, but it is not for what he thinks, the misdirection is on his part.  In order to understand my commenting, you will need to read the piece first.  Slog through it and then what I write will make more sense.  I do think that this is an interesting piece. I think that the old timer liberals are now starting to see the writing on the wall and they are doing EVERYTHING they can to justify their behavior over the last 50 years.  They are like 5 year olds who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, at Grandma's house. This article speaks volumes about that...

A couple of points, I won't belabor the whole thing...because frankly most of it is nonsensical. But there are a couple of points of which to speak.

1. We must insist that Vatican Council II was a pastoral council, because that is how it was defined by the Pontiff who called it.

"The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character."  (Bl. John XXIII; opening address of Vatican Council II; emphasis mine)

It is clear that Fr. O'Malley is trying to revise history. For all we can do is take history for what it is...and Bl. John XXIII was clear. Especially, if we're going to follow his advice and look at the Council beyond the scope of the documents....(I bet he wasn't thinking that would come back on him that way, huh? LOL!!!)

2. Nobody has banished the idea of the "spirit of the Council." However, understanding it does mean that we find the spirit in the letter. Where else do we find it? If a Council is defined by what it promulgates, then that is the only place the spirit can be found. Fr. O'Malley is playing some mental gymnastics which are unnecessary, I think.

3. Nobody wants to outlaw "diaries, etc..." except the liberals. Case in point, The Ottaviani Intervention. Why don't the libbies take that bit of post-conciliar writing seriously? Hmmmm....

4. I disagree with the prevailing thought that Benedict doesn't mean to speak about rupture, Benedict does mean to speak about rupture. He is very clear about that. All we have to do is look to Benedict's writings to see that point. There is to be a change to RETURN to continuity, but in all honesty, right now we do live an ruptured age...

Clearly, there is misdirection going on, but it isn't from the faithful mixing up the understanding of Vatican Council II.  No way.  It is through the liberal clergy distorting the intention of Vatican Council II.  And friends, is the rupture that Benedict is talking about.