When Tucker Carlson interviewed Bishop Barron earlier this month, he asked: “What were the changes wrought by Vatican II? There was famously the change in language of the Mass from Latin to colloquial, but I learned recently that there were what seem like theological changes to Church doctrine. Is that fair?” “No,” replied His Excellency, “not really. I would say there was development of doctrine. I’m using John Henry Newman’s language there. Newman says that doctrine is not just handed on like a football from one generation to the other. It unfolds more like a river expanding or like a tree growing. So, doctrine doesn’t turn back on itself, but it can grow and express itself in fresh ways.” Bishop Barron went on to say we must distinguish the Council itself from “the post-conciliar period, which was often not all that faithful to Vatican II. It was more faithful,” he says, “to the spirit of the world,
A bit of a fancy 'side-step shuffle' on the bishop's part, it would seem to me. (Poor Cardinal Newman must be tired of those who would use his deep thought and erudition to wallpaper over a myriad of unsightly cracks.) The acknowledgement that Vatican II, in "spirit" or in letter, was not followed by the "post-conciliar period" Church doesn't rectify that not much was done, or is being done, to rectify that detour. The obsession with 'weeding out' what is now referred to as the TLM is part of that. That the present pope is all in on much of this 'post-conciliar period' and has not distanced the Church from his predecessor's Pachamama theological stance should give everyone pause. Tucker, like a number of media personalities, is someone who would seem to willing to consider joining the Church if it actually stood up for that which has stood the test of time. Our Lord's teachings to His apostles do not have a shelf life.