Just To Be Clear

Since I've gotten more than a couple of emails on the Vatican II series. This is actually about portraying the conciliar teachings as valid and orthodox. Searching for the hermeneutic of continuity, as it were.

We must ask ourselves, though, why such a search is even necessary. Why are parts of the Council so difficult to understand? Why is there a "spirit of Vatican II" to begin with? How is it that heretics can use portions of the conciliar texts to derive the teachings of said "spirit"?

These questions can't be answered without taking a look at the Vatican II proceedings themselves and looking for any wackiness. We have it on the testimony of our five commentators that shenanigans were in abundance and that the totality of these shenanigans hinged on the conflict between groups dedicated to changing and preserving the teachings of the Magisterium.

When a liberal Catholic reporter, a secular non-Catholic reporter, a Presbyterian theologian observer, a traditional Catholic theologian, and a somewhat liberal but overall unbiased Catholic priest reporter all come to the same conclusion on such matters, I think we have enough smoke to determine that there is a fire.

Hence the need to read the documents and their footnotes with sufficient background in mind to catch ambiguities and what-not when they arise.