(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.