Replies

No council is, in every jot and tittle of its proceedings, infallible.

Straw man.

The issue is not infallibility of a council.

The destructive stuff came after the council. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

Of course, actually to analyze both the Council and its aftermath, one would have to do real historical analysis.

And that would take effort.

Nicea was followed by 50 years of chaos. If you had lived in 370 (the same timepoint after Nicea as we are today after Vatican II), you’d have said, the council was disastrous.

But it wasn’t. The aftermath was disastrous, for a time.

What is infallible is not a council but the Church of Jesus Christ whose fullness subsists in the Catholic Church in communion with the bishop of Rome. It is indefectible, even if many bishops and lots of professors and laymen defect. For a time things may seem awful, as they have for a few decades. But already in 1985 with the Ratzinger Report the signs of a reversal of the destruction were at hand.

Be careful, because you can defect from the Church of Christ just as easily from the “Right” as from the “Left.”

Denouncing the entire 2nd Vatican Council as destructive is foolish. If you aren’t careful, you may end up defecting.

So back off, take a deep breath, and, out of love and loyalty for Christ’s Church and her earthly vicars since Vatican II (all of which, to the present, were shaped and formed before the council, with the present Holy Father giving powerful means of upholding continuity with 2000 years of Catholic life), stop shouting that the Council was bad and begin distinguishing between bad fruits of those who dishonestly claimed the Council on their behalf, on the one hand, and the actual fruits, good, worse, better, best that have come from the Council.

Jesus did not want disciples who lack discernment. It’s time to start discerning instead of sweepingly dismissing.