6 April 2010

Shucks on you ...

(a good Americanism, yes? have I got it right? is this what they say in Texas?) if you haven't by now read Mgr Gherardini's book on Vatican II (see earlier post). Among his perceptions (it's obvious if you think about it, but it hadn't occurred to me) is this nice point: those who claim that Vatican II is a completely new start for the Church ... a rupture with what was in the past ... are in exactly the same error as the sedevacantists (those who claim that the postconciliar Church is so mired in heresy that no pope since Pius XII is a legitimate occupant of the cathedra Petri). They are two sides of the same heterodox coin, in as far as they both claim that "Vatican II is outside of and contrary to the Church".

Perhaps the strongest part of Monsignore's book is where he establishes this. Those who apply a hermeneutic of rupture to Vatican II are in fact in the position of arguing that a lot of its words are traditional garbage just repeated for the form of it: the bits that really matter are those which are different or - at least - point or hint at something revolutionary. This is exactly the heretical myth with which adherents of the Protestant superstition surround the so-called 'Reformation'. In my college in Oxford, tucked away in a dark old room, is a picture of the 'Reformers', each with a flame upon his head - just like the Apostles at Pentecost. It is something of a Sin against the Holy Spirit to deny that it guides and guards each generation of the Church, and to claim instead that the Church has gone so totally off the rails that she needs a radical New Start or New Pentecost. This has been the root heresy of such diverse groups as Reformation Protestantism; the Mormons with their even newer Testament; the inventors of Feminist Theology; the German Christians who evicted from their Bible both Moses and the Jew from Galilee.

Mgr Gherardini points out that, since Vatican II claimed textually to be folllowing Tradition, the Hermeneutic of Rupture "distanced itself from the very Council it interpreted. And if some pale connection was maintained with Vatican II, it was only in order to celebrate the year 'zero' of the 'new beginning'".

To be continued.

6 comments:

Fr LR said...

I've never heard shucks used as a verb! I like it. Very in your face, in the fan or on the boots or better yet rolling down hill.

GOR said...

Hmmm. Not sure about "Shucks on you", Father. Mostly one hears the expression: "Aw, shucks" - which is more about a self-effacing disposition. It might be a Texas thing, though...

And FrLR, you have never heard of "Shucking and jiving"...? But that is more akin to "bobbing and weaving" or saying one thing while meaning another!

JamesIII said...

Father,
I rather like your use of “shucks”. Transforming word usage is a tradition as old as language itself.

The problem was not Vatican II. It was the liberal and heterodox use of the proclamations and decrees, those bits of (perhaps) fresh air brought by opening the windows of the church a bit. Most of us who have had children realize that measles and mumps are a fact of life but in the end make our children's immune systems stronger. Not all the councils were perfect and the Church, like we mortals, often profit more from our mistakes than we do from our successes.

As the old adage says, “absence makes the heart grow fonder”. The reform of the reform may stir lack-luster Catholics into a new appreciation for the real patrimony of our faith and its practices.

Fr LR said...

Yes, GOR shuckin' an jivin', "the dozens" and early hip-hop culture (not its present vulgar, violent manifestation but its simple "Sanford and Son"/"Good Times" origins) (What's "Good Times"? Please enjoy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM95AwDgask

I think Fr. Hunwicke is onto something - leave it to an Englishman to nuance fresh vitality into Americanisms.

Woody said...

So far as I am aware, "shucks on you" is not used in Texas in that way, but the more usual "shame on you" or "too bad for you" would be more likely.

Or you could push the edge of the envelope a little and say soemthing like "your dog won't hunt", although that is normally used in relation to an idea that is unlikely to be accepted, such as "Disband the Rangers? That dog won't hunt!"

BTW, I have emailed the address given to ask for ordering information on the book, but have not heard back from the good friars. Maybe they are celebrating the Octave of Easter by taking the whole 8 days off?

davidforster said...

"The problem was not Vatican II. It was the liberal and heterodox use of the proclamations and decrees."

But is that true? Can Vatican 2 itself escape all blame for the troubles? Was it all down to nasty misinterpreters (or even nice misinterpreters, perchance)?
Regrettably, that increasingly appears like wishful thinking.

The "time bombs in Vatican 2", as the late Michael Davies called them, have well and truly gone off. It would be simplistic to blame only Vatican 2, and ignore all the other factors. But it is surely equally simplistic to ignore the elephant in the room, and deny that V2 is also on trial with other suspects.