Aug 31·edited Aug 31

This one! This one has to be, so far, my favorite post in your substack! 😊 Thank you for your always inspiring words!

"The reaction of any sane believer is to fall to his knees in adoration, along with generations of his fathers and—may God in His mercy grant it—generations of children to come." AMEN!

Expand full comment

Dear Eric

I will be brief by stating the obvious: Council = "binding."


Donald Richmond, DD

Expand full comment

Dear Dr. K ~. I have to admit you lost me on the conciliari part of your essay, but I always gleefully absorb your descriptions of the transcendent beauty found inside the doors of a Roman Rite church. Thank you for lifting up my heart as I am seated in my armchair! I cannot wait to attend the TLM this Sunday again. Knowing we have this communion of lovers of the Traditional Latin Mass is very enriching and comforting.

Expand full comment

Yes, with two minor points to make. I thought the peripheries were good, but the center-periphery analysis here makes it seem like...some in Rome think traditionalists are bad, despite our peripheral status. Oh dear. I'm confused. Re. Humane Vitae: well, don't we live in a time of rampant hedonistic nit-wittery? But seriously, great job, Dr. K

Expand full comment

Paul VI was indeed one of the worst Popes the Church ever had. Is it known to you that he violated flagranti modo what his predecessor Leo XIII had established about the relation with anglicans when he appeared togethter with Michael Ramsay, presumed Archbishop of Canterbury - a layman and masson - at the Church of Saint Paul out of the wall and both jointly blessed the faithful. There is a certain logic in the behaviour of the successors of Pope Pius XII as Roncalli committed adultery with his non rispect of tradition,, Montini divorced from tradition and Woytila legalized concubinage with modern world

Expand full comment

Although appreciating Benedict's theological conservatism far more than Francis' socio-psycho-pneumatic radicalism, your fine article may overlook several important points:

HH Benedict XVI's (of blessed memory) perspective on Vatican II represents only his perspective. Other true Fathers, and not just theological consultants, had different perspectives. I am sure, however, that we both agree that the implimentation of the Council was badly done. Very badly done!

As well, although broadly "pastoral" in nature, there is a Dogmatic Constitution included among Vatican II's four primary documents. Moreover, if we use St. Paul (or Pope Clement's first letter) as examples, pastoral instruction often bears the same moral weight as does a dogmatic expectation. To assign the council a "pastoral" role, without really unpacking what this means, minimizes its import.

Third, and importantly, the conciliar issue is far from being decided --- except when the Pope makes an ex cathedra statements. A tension remains, ideally, in place --- although it is not being currently exercised properly. If it was, Francis' radicalization would be restrained. Conciliarism, embracing a conciliar posture, restrains vice and restores sainity.

Finally, with George Weigel, I embrace Vatican II's sanctifying intentions --- although not always its applications. Upon re-reading the documents again this year, I was impressed with how often the LM was given primacy of place. Repeatedly this is emphasized, which makes the actions of our present Pontiff all-the-more aggregious.

A final thought: Vatican II, when taken within the broadest historical sweep of the past millienium, Trent and Vatican I in particular, is meant to serve as the interpretational center for pastorally applying the two earlier Councils. HH Saint Pope John XXIII made this clear beforehand and in his opening remarks. Contrary to it being a renegage Council leading to a renegade Pope, it offers both guidelines and guardrails that, unfortunately, both sides of the isle conviniently ignore.

Donald Richmond, DD, DMin

Expand full comment