Here is Bishop Barren's view of the conciliar church
as two parties, Concilium and Communio, each offering a progressive vision for the Church, either in rupture or continuity with tradition. But the truth is there was a third party: tradition itself. 1/

Tradition lost because the liberal parties united against tradition. Only after tradition was defeated did the liberal parties war against one another. That battle was fought over Humane Vitae & Communio adopted the ultamontane banner, the Pope vs. Concilium. 2/

Siding with the Pope &the traditional doctrine on contraception (though arguing from Communio's novel & antischolastic perspective) attracted many defeated traditionalists to the Communio party. The war was only definitively won w/ the election of Karol Wojtyla... 3/

JP2 handed victory to Communio w/ the appointment of their standard bearer Josef Ratzinger as the Watchdog for the Faith. The traditional party was almost completely absorbed by Communio but two things stood in the way: this commitment to the New Mass &progressive theology. 4/

Blocking a final victory by Concilium was one traditionalist bishop, Marcel Lefebvre, who resisted JP2 to his face. Whether it was heroism or disobedience, the fact remained that Lefebvre insistence on concessions to tradition were the fly in Communio's ecumenical ointment. 5/

JP2 and the soon to be elected Josef Ratzinger won more traditionalist hearts, however, by granting them first an indult for the TLM, and then full recognition. And the establishment of traditional congregations gave legitimacy again to traditionalists 6/

But Communio's victory was not complete because their progressive stance remained a gateway for more of Concilium's agenda to come through. This became apparent with the resigning of Benedict16 & election of Pope Francis. This led to an overnight rout of Communio... 7/

...made evident by the folding of Communio Cardinals and Bishops to Amoris Latitia, Francis' radical encyclical on divorce. The ultramontane position that brought Communio to victory over it's Concilium rivals also led to its overnight defeat under Francis. 8/

Both liberal parties at Vatican 2 viewed the council as a revolution. This comes out in @BishopBarron 's statement that a council is not reaffirming tradition but calling it into question. What happens at V2, however, cannot be
a formula by which to define a council. 9/

Ratzinger rightly saw that a 2nd revolution before the work of the 1st had been accomplished would have split the church. But the first revolution did anyway because tradition would not go away. It never does, even if it is reduced to a very small minority. 10/

The moderate progressive strategy was clever. By defeating schosticism at the Council (and trad liturgy in the post-conciliar implementations) they were assured to make a place for their novel theology and praxis. Then by electing one of their own... 11/

... to succeed Paul6 they guaranteed they wud have the support of traditional minded papists & get the right to interpret V2 against the extreme progressives as in continuity with tradition. But traditionalism survived becuz the liturgical program was so evidently a rupture 12/

Now the ineptitude of Communio's progressive agenda is showing itself, many trad allies are jumping ship & Communio itself is suffering an existential crisis, leaving only two parties left, traditionism with Thomism & the TLM vs modernism, with nouvelle theologique & the NO. 13/

Enter Pachamama & idolatry in the Vatican, followed immediately by COVID19. Suddenly the churches are emptied of worshippers, reception of the Eucharist among the laity ends. And now with the resumption of Masses, a choice for the man in the pew: Paul6's NO or TLM? Lavabo. {End