The Council In Question Paperback – March 28, 2013

This book is a series of 7 letter exchanges between SSPX sympathizer Moyra Doorly and Fr Aidan Nichols, OP. Prior to reading this I only had a vague understanding of SSPX objections; Moyra lays out many of the society's grievances against the Second Vatican Council, using case studies of liturgical abuse, indifferentism, and liberal laxism as proofs. Nichols respectfully answers the objections; admitting practical failures but in the end upholding the validity of the council as orthodox and in continuity with Catholic Tradition.Overall it is a great entrance-way to the topic of traditionalism (in the schismatic sense). The format is short-form dialog, I was able to read it in one entertaining and profitable sitting.

This book is a great introduction to the problems perceived in the council by many traditionally minded Catholics and as well as good replies conceding many of the difficulties raised yet at the same time showing ways how classical doctrine is compatible with the conciliar texts.

Though I give this book 3 1/2 stars, I do recommend any serious Catholic to read and consider the issues. Those, like myself, who are converts or those, like myself, born after the council, will do well to read and understand the issues facing the council and the consequences of the decisions made.The dialogue occurs as a series of letters between a SSPX-supporting journalist (traditionalist) who views the council as a rupture with both traditional Catholicism and Sacred Tradition, and a priest who recognizes the concerns many have, agrees with some of them, but nonetheless believes the council can be legitimately viewed within the hermeneutic of continuity. The exchanges are respectful and informative.I am hesitant to give it higher rating for two reasons:1) Doorly, who takes the traditionalist position, fails to clearly establish her main premise that the council is a rupture. She assumes it throughout, and much of the rest of her arguments rest on this assumption.2) Fr. Nichols, who takes the official position, is not as direct as I would like to him to be when answering Doorly's questions. I would have like to see some responses include more ancient authorities.In the end, it was unsatisfying, though indeed edifying.

An interesting dialogue. I'm sympathetic with SSPX in what they are often annoyed about, but, frankly, I find their response a absurd. It's an ultra-right version of the sentimental emotionalism that you often find with people of the left - who ultimately hate truth. Father Aidan was extremely generous in his response and this left me a bit annoyed. On the one hand, it's very edifying that Fr. Aidan approached his opponent with so much respect, but since I'm not a holy person, I wished he had gone for the throat a bit more. Don't get me wrong, Fr. Aidan delivers many logical hammer-blows, but it's too kind for my sarcastic tastes.