The other day I picked up at Ancora bookstore near St. Peter’s Basilica a copy of Serafino M. Lanzetta’s book Iuxta Modum: il Vaticano II riletto alla luce della tradizione della Chiesa. The author proposes a re-reading of the Council in the light of the Church’s tradition… rather Tradition.
These days you can find any number of books and people discussing what Vatican II really said and how Vatican II was really implemented, or not implemented. Lots of questions are being raised, and rightly so. There is a growing sense that a) not everything is going well today, b) some of the problems stem from Vatican II itself, and c) others problems come from its documents poor implementation.
Moreover, I stress that Vatican II was just one Council among many and – attention! – among those Councils, Vatican II wasn’t anywhere near being as important as some think it was.
This was unthinkable speech a few years ago (except in some circles). This double-plus-ungood-thought was the stuff of expulsion from seminaries, of crucifixion in chanceries. It still is, to the extent that men and women of a certain age are in charge. But the biological solution is helping with that.
In any event, there is a great discussion rising about the Council. This is healthy.
My morning musings flow in part from a comment I read over at Rorate, namely:
Whatever might be said about the current situation of the talks between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and whatever one’s doctrinal position might be, one thing is clear: the frank discussion of the ambiguities of Vatican II and of post-Conciliar Vatican documents vis-a-vis the pre-Conciliar Magisterium has begun, and can no longer be stopped. While it would be easy to exaggerate the quality, extent and openness of the discussion so far, it cannot be denied that signs of it have been appearing in unlikely places, ….