From Pope Benedict XVI: Conciliar documents: A compass to guide the ship of the church

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve been reading up on Orthodox theology (Byzantinizing myself) and we pretty much agree on the same thing about Tradition and being relevant. We can change how we do things without changing what we believe. I think a lot of people has this false pretense that how things are done should remain the same exact way. But that was never how it was in the Church. The Liturgy evolved, the Rites of Sacraments evolved, the belief and the essentials remain the same but it was done in a way to maximize the significance of it to the people in the era where it is used. A lot of the pomp and brilliance of our Rites evolved at a time where Church and State were lock in step with each other. Today is a different time compared to when the Holy Roman Emperor was Christian, when the Russian Tsars supported the Church, when the Kings of Western Europe bowed to the Pope, we have none of that today. The Vatican is the only true Christian state in the world, and it’s not much of a country. Bishops have waning influence over the secular powers in their territory. We need to adapt our practices to the needs of today.

 

[JReducation]

I’m just happy that the Holy Father, during the past week, sees it fit to clarify certain things.

He loves the people entrusted to his care.

I think that he is trying to answer the questions that are out there, while at the same time making it clear that the Council documents and the CCC are not just collector’s items for your shelf. They are official documents of the Church and what they contain must be adhered to, like it or not. He’s trying to make it more palatable for those who do not like it. Let’s see if it helps.

I’ve been reading up on Orthodox theology (Byzantinizing myself) and we pretty much agree on the same thing about Tradition and being relevant. We can change how we do things without changing what we believe. I think a lot of people has this false pretense that how things are done should remain the same exact way. But that was never how it was in the Church. The Liturgy evolved, the Rites of Sacraments evolved, the belief and the essentials remain the same but it was done in a way to maximize the significance of it to the people in the era where it is used. A lot of the pomp and brilliance of our Rites evolved at a time where Church and State were lock in step with each other. Today is a different time compared to when the Holy Roman Emperor was Christian, when the Russian Tsars supported the Church, when the Kings of Western Europe bowed to the Pope, we have none of that today. The Vatican is the only true Christian state in the world, and it’s not much of a country. Bishops have waning influence over the secular powers in their territory. We need to adapt our practices to the needs of today.

That’s what the Council said when it spoke about religious freedom. The situation of the past when the state was the third arm of the Church no longer exists. Today, the state is the Church’s enemy. New definitions have to be written, because there is a new reality, not because what was said before was wrong. It not about the past being wrong. It’s about many things in the past that no longer exist and new things that the past did not address, because they did not exist at the time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think that he is trying to answer the questions that are out there, while at the same time making it clear that the Council documents and the CCC are not just collector’s items for your shelf. They are official documents of the Church and what they contain must be adhered to, like it or not. He’s trying to make it more palatable for those who do not like it. Let’s see if it helps.

That’s what the Council said when it spoke about religious freedom. The situation of the past when the state was the third arm of the Church no longer exists. Today, the state is the Church’s enemy. New definitions have to be written, because there is a new reality, not because what was said before was wrong. It not about the past being wrong. It’s about many things in the past that no longer exist and new things that the past did not address, because they did not exist at the time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Totally agree! I actually lament that the Catholics seem to be lagging behind accepting this as opposed to most Orthodox people I know. Perhaps the Ottoman Emprie and the Bolshevik Revolution has made the Orthodox realize this decades and centuries ago. The Roman Catholic Church is only experiencing secularization in the last few decades. It does seem that Vatican II is pretty visionary in this aspect, they anticipated that secularization will eventually grip the West, and it did. The problem now is people are blaming Vatican II for the decline in the Church when Vatican II was preparing for this decline before anyone realized it was coming.

 

[TrueLight]

He’s trying to make it more palatable for those who do not like it. Let’s see if it helps.

I think it’s a little more critical than making something more palatable.

That is why there is a call for returning to the Letter of the Church. Why leaders were allowed to diverge from the “Letter” is a question I cannot answer.

I like what Pope Benedict says here:

This is why I have often insisted on the need to return, as it were, to the “letter” of the Council – that is to its texts – also to draw from them its authentic spirit, and why I have repeated that the true legacy of Vatican II is to be found in them. Reference to the documents saves us from extremes of anachronistic nostalgia and running too far ahead, and allows what is new to be welcomed in a context of continuity. **The Council did not formulate anything new in matters of faith, nor did it wish to replace what was ancient. **Rather, it concerned itself with seeing that the same faith might continue to be lived in the present day, that it might remain a living faith in a world of change.

If we place ourselves in harmony with the authentic approach which Blessed John XXIII wished to give to Vatican II, we will be able to realize it during this Year of Faith, following the same path of the Church as she continuously endeavours to deepen the deposit of faith entrusted to her by Christ. The Council Fathers wished to present the faith in a meaningful way; and if they opened themselves trustingly to dialogue with the modern world it is because they were certain of their faith, of the solid rock on which they stood. In the years following, however, many embraced uncritically the dominant mentality, placing in doubt the very foundations of the deposit of faith, which they sadly no longer felt able to accept as truths.

"In the years following, however, many embraced uncritically the dominant mentality, placing in doubt the very foundations of the deposit of faith, which they sadly no longer felt able to accept as truths."

This is a big admission. If we look at everything that has happened in the context of this statement, is it not understandable why some of us cling to tradition or why some of us were scandalized by certain behaviors of Church leaders?

I think this is a wonderful thing that the Pope is doing. He is saying that “Yes, we acknowledge that many caused the faithful to doubt even the foundations of the faith, but I am here to tell you that Vatican II was a wonderful thing and the intentions were good.”

 

[JReducation]

Totally agree! I actually lament that the Catholics seem to be lagging behind accepting this as opposed to most Orthodox people I know. Perhaps the Ottoman Emprie and the Bolshevik Revolution has made the Orthodox realize this decades and centuries ago. The Roman Catholic Church is only experiencing secularization in the last few decades. It does seem that Vatican II is pretty visionary in this aspect, they anticipated that secularization will eventually grip the West, and it did. The problem now is people are blaming Vatican II for the decline in the Church when Vatican II was preparing for this decline before anyone realized it was coming.

Men like Pope Pius XII, Bl. John XXIII, Cardinal Montini, Bishop Wojtyła, Bishop Luciani, Archbishop Cooke, and many others saw the clouds in the horizon. They could not predict what would happen, but they knew that bad weather was coming and they tried to prepare for it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ConstantineTG]

Men like Pope Pius XII, Bl. John XXIII, Cardinal Montini, Bishop Wojtyła, Bishop Luciani, Archbishop Cooke, and many others saw the clouds in the horizon. They could not predict what would happen, but they knew that bad weather was coming and they tried to prepare for it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I just hope people today realize that instead of blaming this mess on them. This mess was bound to happen whether Vatican II happened or not. Pope John Paul II/Bishop Wojtyla knew about this from his experience with the Soviets. We think living in democratic societies spared us, but it doesn’t. Soviet Russia has taught us how quickly things could turn around, from Tsars that adhere to the Church to a government who has atheism in their agenda.

 

[M-Dent]

I’m just happy that the Holy Father, during the past week, sees it fit to clarify certain things.

I am pleased he touched on some delicate issues w/out much fear. As the one below (emphasis mine).

Unexpectedly, the encounter with the great themes of the modern epoch did not happen in the great Pastoral Constitution, but instead in two minor documents, whose importance has only gradually come to light in the context of the reception of the Council. First, there is the Declaration on Religious Liberty, which was urgently requested, and also drafted, by the American Bishops in particular. With developments in philosophical thought and in ways of understanding the modern State, the doctrine of tolerance, as worked out in detail by Pius XII, no longer seemed sufficient. At stake was the freedom to choose and practise religion and the freedom to change it, as fundamental human rights and freedoms. Given its inner foundation, such a concept could not be foreign to the Christian faith, which had come into being claiming that the State could neither decide on the truth nor prescribe any kind of worship. The Christian faith demanded freedom of religious belief and freedom of religious practice in worship, without thereby violating the law of the State in its internal ordering; Christians prayed for the emperor, but did not worship him. To this extent, it can be said that Christianity, at its birth, brought the principle of religious freedom into the world. Yet the interpretation of this right to freedom in the context of modern thought was not easy, since it could seem as if the modern version of religious freedom presupposed the inaccessibility of the truth to man and so, perforce, shifted religion into the sphere of the subjective.

 

[curlycool89]

I’ve been reading up on Orthodox theology (Byzantinizing myself) and we pretty much agree on the same thing about Tradition and being relevant. We can change how we do things without changing what we believe.

There seems to have been a lot of thought into this date for the Year of Faith. I couldn’t help but think of tradition and development as I read from Saint Vincent of Lerins in today’s Office of Reading (2nd Reading):

Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.

Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.

The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.

The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person.

The tiny members of unweaned children and the grown members of young men are still the same members. Men have the same number of limbs as children. Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood.

There is no doubt, then, that the legitimate and correct rule of development, the established and wonderful order of growth, is this: in older people the fullness of years always brings to completion those members and forms that the wisdom of the Creator fashioned beforehand in their earlier years.

If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled. In the same way, the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.

In ancient times our ancestors sowed the good seed in the harvest field of the Church. It would be very wrong and unfitting if we, their descendants, were to reap, not the genuine wheat of truth but the intrusive growth of error.

On the contrary, what is right and fitting is this: there should be no inconsistency between first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.

(I copied this from divineoffice.org)

 

[TimothyH]

What was happening? There was a vocation explosion. The dioceses and religious communities saw numbers, but did a poor job at screening and observing these incoming men and women.

I havn’t been following the thread but will comment that the screening process now seems pretty brutal.

The application for the diaconate is 70 pages. There is a background check and a week long psychological battery, credit checks, health screening, plus several inteviews. The candidates are asked to review their peers periodically - an instructor who sees a candidate in a class for a few hours twice a month isn’t going to notice what men who spend significant time together will about each other - anger problems, marriage problems, etc. They even pull your driving history. The candidates have to keep a journal which is reviewed by the formation director, and ongoing spiritual direction is verified. A yearly retreat is required. Formation isn’t just a few hours on Saturday night either. It is all day, two Saturday’s each month, for five years, plus a ten week hospital ministry internship.

That’s just the diaconate. I can’t imagine what it must be like for secular priesthood, let alone religious communites who are accepting people as true family.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

I havn’t been following the thread but will comment that the screening process now seems pretty brutal.

The application for the diaconate is 70 pages. There is a background check and a week long psychological battery, credit checks, health screening, plus several inteviews. The candidates are asked to review their peers periodically - an instructor who sees a candidate in a class for a few hours twice a month isn’t going to notice what men who spend significant time together will about each other - anger problems, marriage problems, etc. They even pull your driving history. The candidates have to keep a journal which is reviewed by the formation director, and ongoing spiritual direction is verified. A yearly retreat is required. Formation isn’t just a few hours on Saturday night either. It is all day, two Saturday’s each month, for five years, plus a ten week hospital ministry internship.

That’s just the diaconate. I can’t imagine what it must be like for secular priesthood, let alone religious communites who are accepting people as true family.

-Tim-

In my community, screening begins from the moment you say “Hello.” If you say to me, “I want to be a priest,” that’s the end of our conversation. I give you a card with the name and address of the diocesan vocation director. You join the Franciscan family to be a son of St. Francis and a brother to all. Then we’ll talk about the priesthood as you go along the journey.

If you get past that, there is a week of psychological tests. You must go through one interview with the superior, one with three brothers, one with the diocesan Vicar for Religious. You must provide references, transcripts, credit reports, health records, three essays:

1. Explain why you believe that you’re called to be a Franciscan of Life
2. Describe, in detail, with examples, how you relate to members of both sexes.
3. Describe the anatomy of your soul.

Then there are school transcripts, letters of reference, degrees, and you must pass the GRE or the MAT. You must prove that you have the ability to learn. You can have a learning disability. That’s not an obstacle. Even people with learning disabilities have an ability to learn, just not the same way.

Then you being your stages:

Aspirancy – 6 months

Postulancy – 12 months

Novitiate – 24 months

Juniorate – 5 years

Solemn Profession

After you make solemn vows (perpetual vows) we tell you if you can be ordained a priest or not. If you can, then it’s another year as a deacon, provided you have completed at least a Master’s of Divinity. No degree, no ordination.

It is getting very hard to enter the secular seminary and the religious life. Even the secular orders have extended their formation programs. Some last as long as five years.

Through those years of formation, you’re evaluated quarterly and people are filtered out.

It’s not an easy process. That’s the reason that most communities do not take people over 50. You’re also going to school for different degrees while you’re doing religious formation. You attend class at the university and then come home to more classes, meetings and other activities to help you grow in the religious life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Rich_C]

Br. JR, do you think laymen should read these documents, or read commentary on them, or just focus on the day to day and wait for our bishops and priests to give us instruction on how they should shape our faith?

My reaction to the confusion in the Church today has been to go back to 1962 and start from there (EF Mass, Baltimore Catechism, Rosary, etc) and work forward again, like my own faith live emcompasses the last 50 years in microcosm. How does a Catholic work up to 2012 in light of the Council as it was intended to be by the council fathers?

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, do you think laymen should read these documents, or read commentary on them, or just focus on the day to day and wait for our bishops and priests to give us instruction on how they should shape our faith?

My reaction to the confusion in the Church today has been to go back to 1962 and start from there (EF Mass, Baltimore Catechism, Rosary, etc) and work forward again, like my own faith live emcompasses the last 50 years in microcosm. How does a Catholic work up to 2012 in light of the Council as it was intended to be by the council fathers?

I don’t see a problem with laymen reading the documents with a proper guide. This could be a good professor in an adult faith education program or a good commentary.

I’m probably going to get some hate mail here, but the truth is what it is. The greatest damage to Vatican II has been done, not by laymen, but by some priests and many religious sisters (not nuns), sisters who are active in ministry. These people have the greater contact with the laity. The laity always trusted them. But they violated that trust by teaching the laity their spin on Vatican II rather than what Vatican II actually wanted and said. This has been done by liberals and traditionalists alike. They’re equally guilty of distorting Vatican II. I’m willing to defend that position.

The problem today, with the laity, is that the world (not the Church) has produced two generations and a third on the way, of entitled people. The lay Catholic does not live in a cloister. He is born into society and is formed by society. If his family does not groom him, he becomes his environment. In other words, he becomes an entitled person.

Now, he brings this entitlement attitude into everything he does, including his relationship with the Church, especially with the clergy and religious. He is no longer a sheep who follows. This is good. However, he is now an arrogant toy dog who doesn’t know that Pitbulls are bigger and stronger than Sitzuhs. This is bad. I’m willing to defend this point too. All we have to do it point to the internet at the many blogs by self-appointed lay theologians, apologists, spiritual gurus and what have you.

In the end, the institutional Church will always win. Christ does not betray his Church nor abandons her, especially to the arrogant. Neither the cocky priest who dissents, the feminist sister who supports abortion rights or the beligerent layman are going to win. They’re going to be like barking dogs. They will bark and bark, until they finally tire out and the Church will go on to the next crisis.

The Church is an urgent care center. She does not spend too much time on anyone crisis.

Oh dear! I got on my soapbox and am not sure if I answered your question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

I think it’s a little more critical than making something more palatable.

“Palatable” is a very Catholic theological expression my dearrrrrrrrrrr. We use it to mean, “to make it easier to understand and digest.” Going back to the letter is the means to making it palatable.

Just hang around a few Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits and soon enough you’ll be using terms like “palatable” too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[april32010]

I don’t see a problem with laymen reading the documents with a proper guide. This could be a good professor in an adult faith education program or a good commentary.

I’m probably going to get some hate mail here, but the truth is what it is. The greatest damage to Vatican II has been done, not by laymen, but by some priests and many religious sisters (not nuns), sisters who are active in ministry. These people have the greater contact with the laity. The laity always trusted them. But they violated that trust by teaching the laity their spin on Vatican II rather than what Vatican II actually wanted and said. This has been done by liberals and traditionalists alike. They’re equally guilty of distorting Vatican II. I’m willing to defend that position.

The problem today, with the laity, is that the world (not the Church) has produced two generations and a third on the way, of entitled people. The lay Catholic does not live in a cloister. He is born into society and is formed by society. If his family does not groom him, he becomes his environment. In other words, he becomes an entitled person.

Now, he brings this entitlement attitude into everything he does, including his relationship with the Church, especially with the clergy and religious. He is no longer a sheep who follows. This is good. However, he is now an arrogant toy dog who doesn’t know that Pitbulls are bigger and stronger than Sitzuhs. This is bad. I’m willing to defend this point too. All we have to do it point to the internet at the many blogs by self-appointed lay theologians, apologists, spiritual gurus and what have you.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Br.,if i may paraphrase http://chirho.me/memes/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/photo.jpg

 

[Rich_C]

Oh dear! I got on my soapbox and am not sure if I answered your question.

Well, sort of.

I don’t see a problem with laymen reading the documents with a proper guide. This could be a good professor in an adult faith education program or a good commentary.

I almost PM’d you about how this relates to me personally, but to keep it general: is it okay for the laity to just focus on the Mass and examinations of conscience, read our catechisms (not the CCC, something for laity) and our rosaries and works of mercy and whatnot, and let our shepards figure out what the Council meant in God’s own time?

I am wary of over-educating myself and forgetting humility and meekness; pride and stubbornness are my biggest faults. I feel God telling me to be one of the little souls that just lives the Faith instead of telling people how to live the Faith. Would I be wrong to practically ignore Vatican II until my superiors bring it my attention in some way (I mean, father, our bishop, or the Holy Father)? I mean, it added nothing to the Faith so in good conscience can I just try to do what works until told otherwise? I mean in full obedience. I just don’t see how its grand reflections affect the spiritual life of one layman. I’m ready to jump when the Church says jump, but right now our shepards seem to be talking in another language.

 

[Rich_C]

Br.,if i may paraphrase http://chirho.me/memes/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/photo.jpg

LOL. Have you seen the Kayne West meme about Vatican II? So good.

 

[april32010]

I almost PM’d you about how this relates to me personally, but to keep it general: is it okay for the laity to just focus on the Mass and examinations of conscience, read our catechisms (not the CCC, something for laity) and our rosaries and works of mercy and whatnot, and let our shepards figure out what the Council meant in God’s own time?

I am wary of over-educating myself and forgetting humility and meekness; pride and stubbornness are my biggest faults. I feel God telling me to be one of the little souls that just lives the Faith instead of telling people how to live the Faith. Would I be wrong to practically ignore Vatican II until my superiors bring it my attention in some way (I mean, father, our bishop, or the Holy Father)? I mean, it added nothing to the Faith so in good conscience can I just try to do what work until told otherwise? I mean in full obedience. I just don’t see how its grand reflections affect the spiritual life of one layman.

thanks rich,this is something pray about often.

 

[freshwind]

Well, sort of.

I almost PM’d you about how this relates to me personally, but to keep it general: is it okay for the laity to just focus on the Mass and examinations of conscience, read our catechisms (not the CCC, something for laity) and our rosaries and works of mercy and whatnot, and let our shepards figure out what the Council meant in God’s own time?

I am wary of over-educating myself and forgetting humility and meekness; pride and stubbornness are my biggest faults. I feel God telling me to be one of the little souls that just lives the Faith instead of telling people how to live the Faith. Would I be wrong to practically ignore Vatican II until my superiors bring it my attention in some way (I mean, father, our bishop, or the Holy Father)? I mean, it added nothing to the Faith so in good conscience can I just try to do what works until told otherwise? I mean in full obedience. I just don’t see how its grand reflections affect the spiritual life of one layman. I’m ready to jump when the Church says jump, but right now our shepards seem to be talking in another language.

Rich, I share your thoughts but I think the Holy Father is looking for more from us…

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/new-evangelization/year-of-faith/plenary-indulgence-for-the-year-of-faith.cfm

particularly when we read —

“The day of the fiftieth anniversary of the solemn opening of Vatican Council II”, the text reads, “the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI has decreed the beginning of a Year especially dedicated to the profession of the true faith and its correct interpretation, through the reading of - or better still the pious meditation upon - the Acts of the Council and the articles of the Catechism of the Catholic Church”.

 

[TrueLight]

“Palatable” is a very Catholic theological expression my dearrrrrrrrrrr. We use it to mean, “to make it easier to understand and digest.” Going back to the letter is the means to making it palatable.

Just hang around a few Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits and soon enough you’ll be using terms like “palatable” too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

That’s the same meaning it has outside if theology, dear Brother.

 

[JReducation]

That’s the same meaning it has outside if theology, dear Brother.

You see, you’re learning already. You’re a good student.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV