Why is it that men like Francis, who do so much to attack the Catholic Church and its traditions, nonetheless fight tooth and nail to defend the Second Vatican Council? In other words, how can a man who partners with the leaders of the Great Reset, advances the LGBTQ movement against traditional morality, apologizes for the Church’s past missionary efforts, condemns those who “rigidly” hold to what the Church has always taught, and promotes a known heretic (Bishop Tucho Fernández) to prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, have these words to say from his letter to bishops accompanying Traditionis Custodes?:
“But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the ‘true Church.’ The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition ‘which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit’ ( DV 8). A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.”
Francis answered the question himself: aside from anything that the documents of Vatican II actually say, the Council represents the precedent for the “Holy Spirit” guiding the Church to take a different path. One of the guiding lights of the Council and the inspiration behind Francis’s Synod on Synodality, Yves Congar, was even more direct in his assessment of the Council’s importance:
“By the frankness and openness of its debates, the Council has put an end to what may be described as the inflexibility of the system. We take ‘system’ to mean a coherent set of codified teachings, casuistically-specified rules of procedure, a detailed and very hierarchic organization, means of control and surveillance, rubrics regulating worship — all this is the legacy of scholasticism, the Counter-reformation and the Catholic Restoration of the nineteenth century, subjected to an effective Roman discipline. It will be recalled that Pius XII is supposed to have said: ‘I will be the last Pope to keep all this going.’”
This is exactly what we have seen for the past sixty years, such that everything infected with the innovations of Vatican II is so flexible that it can accommodate anything other than “rigid” Catholicism.
Continue to read at The Remnant