The intra-Catholic warfare!

Yeah, Christians still treat each other like crap even after all these years. That is because we are all sinners and fall way short of the glory of God. Recently, in the intra-Catholic circles, we see an obsession with Vatican II and that if one does not accept Vatican II as a legitimate council, then one must be banished and chastised to the outer nether. Or if one accepts Vatican II, one is a dirty and filthy liberal. Or if one accepts Vatican II with qualifications, then they aren't a true Catholic either. The neo-Catholics as I refer to them are really something else though. Going so far as to proclaim that one must accept every jot and tittle of what a Pope says or one is not a "True Catholic®" and yadda, yadda, yadda. Or the accusation that such Traditionalists are "Protestantizing!" by opposing a heresy that a Pope has held to even though the Eastern Orthodox are never accused of such. It is really mind-boggling. I recently heard that Taylor Marshall is a "schismatic" (he's not).

The problem is that such concepts come from a radically hyper-interpretation of Vatican I which, ironically, is sorely contradicted by Vatican II. Vatican II sought out to clarify what Vatican I taught. How do we have an infallible Pope? How is one man free from error on doctrinal decisions? Can it be possible he could lead us into heresy? And Vatican II actually limited and favored a heavily more limited view on the subject of Papal infallibility. A good work on the subject would Primacy in the Church ed. by John Chryssavgis. I think there is a favoritism toward the usage of more liberalized theology in there and so I only recommend with qualifications but what is found in there is a theology of Vatican II that favors a staunchly more limited view on Papal infallibility.

Of course, the nonsense of the pro-Vatican II Catholics in stating that one accept the full demands of Vatican II is that Vatican II never actually makes any anathemas. It was set out as a pastoral council. Such a kind of council is unprecedented. I'm not going to waste time arguing whether it was a legitimate council or not but I have seen arguments from some Catholics that Vatican II may not have actually been a council at all in consideration of the prerequisites of a council. Even further, the fact that there are no anathemas would indicate that whatever "dogmas" it attempted to define cannot actually be forced as Catholic orthodoxy. This generally leads me to mockingly jest sometimes, "Can't excommunicate me, it's against your religion." The ultra-hardcore neo-Catholic doesn't really see the contradiction that he has set up for himself. He tends to have his cake and eat it too.

Claiming that one "support" Vatican II if one is traditionalist is also highly deceptive. When what you mean is not supporting Vatican II on the basis of all the previous tradition but instead supporting all the previous tradition under the interpretation of Vatican II, you are not actually maintaining to tradition. The "spirit of Vatican II" crap that has emerged in post-Vatican II discourse is probably what led Cardinal Vigano to indicting the post-Vatican II era of the Church as having mutated the Church into two churches. As Crazy Church Lady would tell me, Vatican II, pre-Vatican II, it's all the same Holy Mother Church. I think Vatican II has led to certain liberalized theology that it never intended to lead but after having read The Great Facade, I think there is a lot to say for a traditionalist reading of the precepts of the council. Especially when one looks at the Anglican Ordinariate, one could make the case that was what the Novus Ordo was meant to look like rather than the ad populum priests all over.

Then there is whole "Pope Francis Catholic" nonsense. I have no way of judging the humility of Pope Francis, but if he is truly a humble player, I'm certain he gets a chuckle about the lunacy of such a demented term. One should think of the First Letter to the Corinthians to understand how weird and puzzling such an idea is. St. Paul is thankful that he did not baptize individuals but only preached the Gospel. Not because he's changed his mind that baptism is not important but because the Holy Spirit's activity is what is important. The Church does not operate under a "spirit of Vatican II" any more that there is a "Pope Francis Catholic". In fact, these terms really make us look like we're having the same problems as the Corinthians did! One person said, "I'm with Apollos!" Another said, "I'm with Paul!" And another said, "I'm with Christ!" With these "spirit of Vatican II", "Pope Francis Catholic", and "Traditionalist Catholic" stuff, we really sound exactly like the...Corinthians! It's nonsense! There's no "Pope Francis Catholic" any more than there's a "spirit of Vatican II" and good grief, all Catholics are traditionalists!

Pope Francis is not the only Pope that ever lived and there will most certainly be another. Vatican II is not the only council and there will most certainly be another. The tradition will continue as it has and we'll grow in knowledge of the Holy Spirit. There will be bad Popes and there will be good Popes. That's the way history plays it out. But one is not "more Catholic" based on their adherence to a "spirit of Vatican II" that didn't show up until the 60s and one is not "more Catholic" based on their adherence to the homilies of Pope Francis. This is absurdity. The Church of Corinth is us right now. The Church of Corinth reflects what we've become. Such scuffles are nothing new in the Church and the remedy remains the same. The remedy is to restore ourselves to proper worship of Christ.