What I have gotten from it is efforts to force me into the collective.
That by itself would not be wrong; communal worship is in fact a part of being Catholic. Be it as it may, my point was that the intention of Vatican II was to rouse the laity, and of course it failed at that, at least in the demographical sense.
very, very protestant in form
Indeed.
No, [the reaction to Vatican II from the traditionalist] is entirely theological
Really? I understand that there is opposition to the Vatican II watered down ecclesiology, but I don't think it was advertised enough by the SSPX. To the extent that anyone heard of SSPX at all, it is about Latin Mass. Where is the theological outreach of SSPX?
Pascendi Dominici Gregis
It is good on modernism in general. What part, do you think is particularly relevant to Vatican II?
PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS
I think, Vatican II is reactive to modernism but it is not itself altogether modernist. Persuade me otherwise.
“I pointed out that blaming lack of evangelizing spirit on Vatican II is at most not obvious.”
That seems to be true.
“SSPX suffers from the same timidity.”
I’m not sure it’s timidity.
“That by itself would not be wrong”
I think it is wrong. I resent it.
“communal worship is in fact a part of being Catholic.”
So are holy hermits. There is no reason that people should be jerked around like puppets on strings every time they go to mass.
There is no reason I should have to dread mass. But I do dread its hand-shaking, woman-lectoring, and hootenanny slop music.
“To the extent that anyone heard of SSPX at all, it is about Latin Mass.”
To the extent that most people hear of SSPX, it is similar to hearing about Reagan through the LSM.
I don’t think, though, that the preservation of the Latin Mass is completely free of theological issues.
“Where is the theological outreach of SSPX?”
Beats me.
“What part, do you think is particularly relevant to Vatican II?”
...the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.
I think Pope John XXIII and Paul VI were such men. Even if they were not, they could not have been unaware that hordes of such men lurked ready to pounce upon any opening, or that the Church would be harmed.
“I think, Vatican II is reactive to modernism but it is not itself altogether modernist. Persuade me otherwise.”
Right now I just don’t feel up to the task. Sorry.
Do you know of anything in the Catholic faith that was strengthened through VatII? I’m not talking about the introduction of protestant elements; I mean something Catholic.