(Jeg krever kanskje for mye av bloggens lesere når jeg har slike overskrifter; det handler jo ikke her om å stille spørsmål til selve Vatikankonsilet, men om å angripe en (feilaktig) tolkning av konsilet, som på flere området var feilaktig – og altfor radikal. Jeg kan også legge til at jeg ikke uten videre ‘kjøper’ Damian Thompsons argumenter her, han koker kanskje i for stor grad suppe på en spiker.)
Som en fortsettelse av mitt innlegg for to dager siden, leser jeg nå idag:
«The Spirit of Vatican II” isn’t so much a concept as a slogan. For over 40 years it’s been used to justify innovations ranging from Mass in the vernacular (like it or not, an overwhelmingly popular change) to co-consecration by “eucharistic ministers” (a heretical fantasy once widely indulged in “progressive” parishes). Above all, the Spirit of Vatican II – a post-conciliar phenomenon rather than something that emerged during the Council – has branded itself as the empowerment of lay people. The truth is more complicated. ….
As for clergy, embracing the Spirit of Vatican II has been a necessary but not sufficient condition for getting on. Most of today’s bishops were steeped in “collaborative ministry” long before they received their mitres. Traditionally, a liberal English bishop could hold his own in a room full of Tabletistas, rolling his eyes at the mention of the Vatican to show that he was On Their Side but also moderating their more querulous demands. In the past he may have interfered on their behalf in parishes, too, if he caught a conservative priest trying to Turn Back the Clock. ….
Nå holder dette å forandres, mener Damian Thompson – og i Engalnd skyldes forandringa aller mest pave Benedikts besøk i fjor høst. Les hva han skriver her.