In the new interview with Bishop Hounder, the statement is given that Archbishop Lefebvre was disposed to accept the entirety of Vatican II. Bishop Fellay is comfortable in saying that he's simply following the Archbishop when he accepts 95% of Vatican II. Those of us who grew up in the old SSPX have certainly heard that we do not accept Vatican II at all. What is the 'percentage of acceptability' of Vatican II?
We cannot reject Vatican II in every single line of the docuмents. The council quotes Trent and other sources that require our belief. What percentage of the council falls under that category? Perhaps 5%. The description of papal infallibility in Vatican II is very beautiful, for example, which doesn't help the fact that a few lines down, that infallibility is more or less pushed aside.
The great bulk of Vatican II quite resembles the post-conciliar encyclicals in the respect that, whereas for 19 centuries the popes and councils spoke very succinctly, getting straight to the point without an abundance of words, Vatican II rambles on and on and on, for pages and pages, flooding the reader with words that don't really say much at all. I once heard this category described as 'microwaved doctrine'. Or think of a giant inflatable. The docuмents are huge, but just read them; almost nothing but thin air within. This is certainly 90% of the council. Ambiguity prevails, as well as the stinky breath of the Revolution, though it is possible to interpret these lines in a Catholic sense. These lines do not need to be rejected, but if we had a good pope, he would throw the whole thing in the garbage simply because of it's uselessness. Why give such a huge pile of blah-blah-blah the dignity of getting attention? This is without even going into the possibility of un-Catholic interpretations of these lines.
What remains is 5%. This category is the really problematic content. For example, "The Moslems together with us adore one merciful God." Or, "The Holy Ghost does not refrain from using the efforts of the protestant churches as means of salvation". There are about 40 different lines as terrible as these. No amount of mental gymnastics can help you twist these lines into a Catholic interpretation.
Why, then, would the Archbishop say time and again that he was ready to sign an acceptance of Vatican II? Even when he took back his initials from the Protocol of '88 it was not because he had changed his mind on this point (rather, it was to prevent the administration of the Society from being turned over to Modernist wolves).
The Archbishop did not mean that he could accept the evil statements at face value. He specified that because of the Explanatory Note in Lumen Gentium, he could indeed sign below the council taken as a whole. The Note, which was asked for by Archbishop Lefebvre during the council, and which Paul VI inserted into the official docuмent, says, "... the sacred Council [!?!] defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding". Well, the council and the conciliar popes many times and clearly stated that they refused to proclaim anything as binding. To make the Note more succinct, it says, "none of this council must be accepted". It is there in the council itself!
It was with this Note in view that Archbishop Lefebvre declared himself ready to sign the council as a whole. Let's see the Neo-SSPX or Bishop Hounder give this explanation!
Topic: Accepting Vatican II (Read 25121 times)