I
IbnFiktur
Guest
Amen!!
Brother JR, do you have a blog or some other publication? I want to share several of your posts with some friends of mine
From Pope Benedict XVI: Conciliar documents: A compass to guide the ship of the church
- Status
Brother JR, do you have a blog or some other publication? I want to share several of your posts with some friends of mine
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
I strongly recommend What Happened At Vatican II by John W. O’Malley.
This book goes into great length explaining the history (starting effectively from the French Revolution) that lead up to Vatican II, as well as the climate within the Church immediately leading up to the Council. All of this background information helps us to understand the Council and see it as a continuity, albeit the exercise of an option or options hitherto foregone for various reasons.
The book explains the various **and legitimate **theological disputes and controversies that were very much alive in the Church: it makes plain with the historical facts and evidence that the Church on certain issues was most certainly not monolithic and decided and had been for a long time tending increasingly more and more toward the programmes adopted or recommended by Vatican II, usually by the advancement or progress of argument and demonstration, resulting in the opposition to these things becoming increasingly draconian, as becomes increasingly necessary where no logical or coherent rebuttal exists.
It also explains the style of Vatican II (i.e. basically panegyric (*We believe *or We believe because as opposed to juridical Anyone who says… let him be anathema]. Notice that the juridical is concerned with law and order and consequently proscribes with very precise and specific language external acts or behaviour (anyone who says…) and not interior beliefs (i.e., not “anyone who believes…”) The reason for this is of course plain: we can’t read minds. The panegyric, however, concerns itself on the interiority of belief and is therefore (and necessarily to be effective) more personal and takes the form of an appeal or invitation: it’s an appeal to the heart and mind of man. A juridical element here would not only destroy the effectiveness of the document in its goal or aim, but also risk abuse: i.e., canons might be read as actually proscribing interior beliefs, opinions or convictions which could result in mind police and people constantly interrogating each other).
I hope this helps!
D
Dirt
Guest
Br. JR, how do you answer the cases made that:
a group of Rhine Bishops along with some French and American Bishops steered the Council away from the original Schema and replaced them with their own versions, which led in part to the final documents that came from the Council?
That the motives of some of these Bishops was to modernize and liberate the Church and realign the Hierarchy to a more local level, thereby reducing the Authority of The Holy Father? Which some would argue continues to this day.
That the results of the vagueness of the documents gave rise to the novelties we have endured for fifty years and continue to do so with little control from the Holy Office or the Curia?
I am not trying to rain on the V-II love-fest on this topic, but there are discrepancies between the actual history of the Council and the glossed over version that is mostly prevalent today. There were a number of “modern” theologians, some of great stature, that were pushing for some of the very changes that resulted within the council documents. And many of the pereti at the council were students of these theologians.
I still find this encyclical from His Holiness Pope Saint Pius X a dire warning for our times.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html
a group of Rhine Bishops along with some French and American Bishops steered the Council away from the original Schema and replaced them with their own versions, which led in part to the final documents that came from the Council?
That the motives of some of these Bishops was to modernize and liberate the Church and realign the Hierarchy to a more local level, thereby reducing the Authority of The Holy Father? Which some would argue continues to this day.
That the results of the vagueness of the documents gave rise to the novelties we have endured for fifty years and continue to do so with little control from the Holy Office or the Curia?
I am not trying to rain on the V-II love-fest on this topic, but there are discrepancies between the actual history of the Council and the glossed over version that is mostly prevalent today. There were a number of “modern” theologians, some of great stature, that were pushing for some of the very changes that resulted within the council documents. And many of the pereti at the council were students of these theologians.
I still find this encyclical from His Holiness Pope Saint Pius X a dire warning for our times.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Very good thought Brother JR.Not to derail my own thread, but I always wonder what people are looking at when they lament that the secular seminaries and religious houses of formation today are empty. First, they’re no more empty than they were during the mid 1800s. Vocations go in cycles. When something catastrophic happens, people respond with religious fervour. The greatest number of religious communities are a result of the French Revolution.
After WW I and WW II, there was a vocation explosion. Seminaries and religious houses of formation had standing room only. However, forty years later, people are suing the Church because those men who entered the seminaries during the 1950s and early 60s sexually molested them. The number of reported cases drops dramatically after 1975. For a man to be a priest in 1975, he had to have been born no later than 1950, because the old code of law said that you had to be at least 25 yrs old to be ordained.
The people who report having been beaten, humiliated, neglected and treated cruelly by sisters in Catholic schools are all over age 50. This would place them in Catholic schools 1970 and before. These sisters entered during the vocation explosion after WW II.
Those who taught heresy and wrote suspiscious theological books did so between 1960 and 1985. Theology begins to settle down after 1985. That creative wing of theologians is now in its 70s or even 80s. This is not the group that entered seminaries after Vatican II. This is the group that entered before Vatican II.
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.
We must always avoid the temptation to forget the past. This can happen both ways. We can deceive ourselves into believing that nothing good existed before year X. That’s not true. Before Vatican II there were many very good things in the Church. The most important of all was the catechesis was very solid. That went down the tubes when people tried to write new catechisms, but over emphasized love and community at the expense of morality and dogma. This is horrible. People like me are still trying to correct this in our parishes. I teach religious education to grade 6 and I refuse to use the book. I use my notes from the seminary. I teach them OT Christology. The book is OT, but it presents the OT like Disney, all of the great miracles: the creation, the flood and rainbow, parting the Red Sea, Jonah and the whale, etc. Well, Disney has already filmed those stories. But Disney and this religious education book have left Jesus out of the OT. So I don’t use it. Finally, someone asked me why and I explained. The Rel. Ed Director, who is a wonderful person, looked at my book and saw what I saw. She has decided to shelve this book for one recommended by the bishops.
We have to resist the temptation to believe that everything before Vatican II was better than today. That’s just as bad and as false. I’ve already spoken about the abuses of human beings. But let’s not ignore that bishops and pastors were feudal lords. When the Holy Fathers spoke about collegiality they knew what they were talking about. They were talking about a greater involvement between bishops and the pope. Bishops are more closely involved with the Holy See today than ever before in history. At the same time, the Holy See respects the seat of the bishop. It tries to work cooperatively with them, rather than ride over them or do as in the past, “No news is good news.” The singularity of the diocesan bishop is preserved, while at the same time, the primacy of Peter is more than a warm fuzzy feeling with a picture of the pope on the wall. There is ongoing communication between the Holy See and the dioceses around the world, via the nuncio or directly.
Bingo
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
But if I may point out, the vocation crisis is only present in the North America and Europe. There are parts of the world where seminaries are still busy but not necessarily in crisis.
Perhaps there is a better way of looking at it. Maybe it is the first world development that has lead to the decrease in vocations. Most of the countries with high vocations are people who are more used to suffering and therefore relying on God.
Something I also noticed though is that many priests from these areas tend to be more prudent and lively with the faith. I think this adds credence to the idea that our developed lives have made us a bit lethargic toward our faith including that of priests.
What are your thoughts on this?
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I think even if the Devil himself somehow managed to participate in the council, the council would still be kept free from error by the Holy Spirit and Divine Providence.
But I do believe that the actual post Vatican II Europe and North America did go off the rails. This is not to say that no Vatican II would have not resulted in it. Vatican II just gave them directions along to expand their evil plans.
So while Ecumenical statements of Vatican II were not problematic at all, the clergy would use it to further their own agenda regarding ecumenical work by the council approval. Or with respect to the mass change. The Clergy (and even lay persons) would use it as license to shape the new mass to whatever they liked and so on.
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, I don’t deal with any of that stuff nor do I let it bother me. I pay very close attention to what the current pontiff is saying about the Council. What he’s saying is very consistent with what the Church has always believed. I feel no need to go back to St. Pius X or anyone before that to find out what to think about Vatican II. I believe that Pope Benedict is doing a perfectly fine job at explaining it.
Have you been reading his daily posts on Vatican II? He has had one on the news every day this week. It’s not a love fest. It’s more of mandate to Catholics to learn to live with Vatican II by trying to understand it in a prayerful manner and allowing ourselves to be guided by his Magisterium. We have to be very careful in bringing up former popes not to juxtapose the Magisterium of two popes, when in fact they are not speaking about the same thing.
If we read what you cited from St. Pius X and what Pope Benedict said this week, they’re not talking about the same thing. They’re both telling the truth. The problem is not the Council or the popes. The problem is the individual who is not paying close attention to the details and the nuance of each pope and each document.
For me to understand Vatican II, St. Pius is not going to be very helpful, because he never dreamed of it. Pope Benedict is much more helpful. He was there. Right now, he has a synod in progress with the presidents of the different conferences of bishops and the living fathers of Vatican II. They are speaking precisely about what they meant and why they wrote what they wrote. St. Pius cannot answer those questions, but these men can.
If anyone does not have it, there is a news service that’s available to the laity, Vatican Information Service. You can have it sent to your email every morning, if you subscribe. There you will find the answer to many of these questions. Look at how Pope Benedict answers these questions and which questions he considers so silly that he completely ignores them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
S
simple_soul
Guest
Good morning Br. Jay,Actually, I don’t deal with any of that stuff nor do I let it bother me. I pay very close attention to what the current pontiff is saying about the Council. What he’s saying is very consistent with what the Church has always believed. I feel no need to go back to St. Pius X or anyone before that to find out what to think about Vatican II. I believe that Pope Benedict is doing a perfectly fine job at explaining it.
Have you been reading his daily posts on Vatican II? He has had one on the news every day this week. It’s not a love fest. It’s more of mandate to Catholics to learn to live with Vatican II by trying to understand it in a prayerful manner and allowing ourselves to be guided by his Magisterium. We have to be very careful in bringing up former popes not to juxtapose the Magisterium of two popes, when in fact they are not speaking about the same thing.
If we read what you cited from St. Pius X and what Pope Benedict said this week, they’re not talking about the same thing. They’re both telling the truth. The problem is not the Council or the popes. The problem is the individual who is not paying close attention to the details and the nuance of each pope and each document.
For me to understand Vatican II, St. Pius is not going to be very helpful, because he never dreamed of it. Pope Benedict is much more helpful. He was there. Right now, he has a synod in progress with the presidents of the different conferences of bishops and the living fathers of Vatican II. They are speaking precisely about what they meant and why they wrote what they wrote. St. Pius cannot answer those questions, but these men can.
If anyone does not have it, ***there is a news service that’s available to the laity, Vatican Information Service. You can have it sent to your email every morning, if you subscribe. ***There you will find the answer to many of these questions. Look at how Pope Benedict answers these questions and which questions he considers so silly that he completely ignores them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Do you have a link for this service? I went to the Vatican web-site and could only find the Bulletin but it was all in Italian and I could not figure out how to sign up for the daily emails.
I know I am not very computer smart so any help would be most appreciated.
J
JReducation
Guest
If you go to the site, one the left, there is a column where you can select your language.
visnews-en.blogspot.com/
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
The original schema were always working drafts subject to the Council’s approval. The supreme majority (85%-95%) of bishops were not in favour of the original schema, as most agreed that this Council needed to do more than simply grant a long list of doctrinal teachings. They based themselves on the Pope, who naturally served as a reference point for wider or general unity. The original schema had nothing to do with aggiornamento but in fact were frequently and effectively the very opposite.
Doctrine wasn’t actually an issue and there was hardly a crisis of doctrine in the Church at the time of Vatican II, except, in fact, a one-sided and finally lop-sided doctrinal emphasis that resulted from Vatican I or, rather, the fact that Vatican I wasn’t able to also provide a complimentary doctrine concerning the episcopacy: Vatican I was cut-short by war. Ironically, those this war in part aimed at frustrating the Papacy, by cutting-off the Council from its work, it left the Church with an extremely and singularly centralized and monarchical view, which facilitated a rally-to-the-leader mentality that made attacking the Papacy especially a very dangerous prospect. There’s a lot of irony here and perhaps not a little Divine Providence at play.
Still, because Vatican I wasn’t able to finish all of its work, it resulted increasingly on an inordinate emphasis on Rome, the Pope and the Roman Congregations that severely limited the Bishops’ abilities to accomodate to local problems and needs, especially in more missionary areas and lands. The Church since the Counter-Reformation, further, had seriously struggled with missionary efforts in lands where the Church didn’t have the assistance of the local (colonial) governments: the reason was simple enough, the local peoples had zero understanding and no way of appreciating or relating to certain peculiarly Latin customs, which made no sense to their cultures, such as the practice of priestly celibacy or the use of Latin in liturgy. Ironically, missionaries naturally did all they could to incorporate local culture into those things not strictly regulated by rubrics, for instance, such as Church architecture; in this they did engage in inculturation, and what we see is paradoxically completely (and recongizably) Catholic, but also completely different from what we are accustomed to. Such church buildings were also most beautiful even though they may have had no parallel in Europe on North America. That’s an example of inculturation or adaptation where it was permitted: it was Catholic but different.
Rome had actually at least tolerated a great deal of innovation in certain missionary lands to help the missionaries, such as the Jesuits, gain traction with the locals. Still, their inability to develop and foster a native clergy in many cases severely impeded and continually outright sabotaged progress and the local Church’s abilities to truly take root; where a certain amount of liberty was granted to accomodate to local Churches or cultures, however, the success was always greater. There was a strict correspondence between inculturation or cultural accomodation and success.
Centralization and decentralization each have their strengths and weaknesses; their pros and their cons. Missionaries in local cultures have a vastly better understanding of the nuances of the people and the place than someone who has never been there. The missionary’s experience gives him a practical or prudential advantage in judgement over those who are ignorant of the local realities. In this respect - and historically, also demonstrably so - a certain amount of decentralization was what the Church needed so that Catholicism could graft itself into and become expressed in and by local cultures, which enables the local people to really identify with their new religion.
Finally, take comfort in knowing that the Pope was certainly watching carefully everything happening at Vatican II, and whenever something seemed potentially problematic he did intervene and ensure that core doctrines were affirmed if even they only appeared neglected. The primacy of Saint Peter is continually affirmed in all Vatican II documents, almost to obsession. Further, Vatican II was received in Apostolic Faith by the Pope(s): it is therefore ultimately subject to the understanding that they themselves received Vatican II in: i.e., on points that might seem potentially problematic or vague, we should take comfort in knowing that the ultimate sense these were understood in was and is agreeable to the Popes. Therefore, something only “potentially” problematic is not actually problematic, because it would require us to presuppose or assume that the Holy See interpreted these things prejudicially to itself, which is rather absurd
I hope this helps.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Holy Father is not about to let Catholics off the hook on aggiornamento. Here is what he wrote this week.
*
"AGGIORNAMENTO" DOES NOT BREAK WITH TRADITION BUT EXTENDS ITS VITALITY"*
Vatican City, 12 October 2012 (VIS) - This morning in the Clementine Hall, the Holy Father received a group of Council Fathers of Vatican II. They were accompanied by presidents of episcopal conferences from around the world who came to Rome for yesterday’s inauguration of the Year of Faith.
The Pope, who himself participated in Vatican Council II as an expert, noted that "many memories come to mind, memories inscribed in each of our hearts, of the period of the Council which was so lively, so rich and so fruitful. However I do not wish to dwell upon this for too long, … I would merely like to recall how a word launched by Blessed John XXIII, almost as if to establish a programme, resurfaced continually during the course of the conciliar sessions: the word ‘aggiornamento’.
“Fifty years on from the opening of that solemn gathering of the Church”, Benedict XVI added, "some people may ask themselves whether that term was perhaps, from the very beginning, not entirely appropriate. Choice of words is something that can be discussed for hours without reconciling contrasting opinions, for my part I am convinced that the intuition which Blessed John XXIII summarised in that word was and remains correct. Christianity must not be considered as ‘something that has passed’, nor must we live with our gaze always turned back, because Jesus Christ is yesterday today and forever. Christianity is marked by the presence of the eternal God, Who entered into time and is present in all times, because all times are brought forth of His creative power, of His eternal ‘today’.
“For this reason”, the Holy Father went on, "Christianity is always new. We must never see it is a fully mature tree sprung from the mustard seed of the Gospel; a tree which has grown, given its fruits and one day grows old as the suns sets on its life energy. Christianity is, so to speak, a tree … that is ever young. This constantly updated vitality, this ‘aggiornamento’, does not mean breaking with tradition; rather, it is an expression of that tradition’s ongoing vitality. It does not mean reducing the faith, debasing it to the fashion of the times using the yardstick of what we like and what appeals to public opinion. Quite the contrary, just as the Council Fathers did, we must mould the ‘today’ in which we live to the measure of Christianity. We must bring the ‘today’ of our times into line with the ‘today’ of God.
“The Council was a time of grace in which the Holy Spirit taught us that the Church, on her journey through history, must always speak to contemporary man. But this can only come from the strength of people who have deep roots in God, … who live their faith with purity. It cannot come from those who adapt themselves to the passing moment, from those who chose the easiest path. The Council understood this well when, in the Dogmatic Constitution ‘Lumen Gentium’ … it noted that everyone in the Church is called to sanctity. Sanctity reveals the true face of the Church”.
“The memory of the past is precious”, the Pope concluded, “but it is never an end unto itself. The Year of Faith we began yesterday shows us the best way to remember and commemorate the Council: by concentrating on its core message which is, in fact, nothing other than the message of faith in Christ, the one Saviour of the world, proclaimed to mankind in our time. Today too, what is important and essential is to take the ray of God’s love into the heart and life of each man and woman, and to bring the men and women of all places and times to God”.
At the end of his audience, the Pope had lunch with Synod Fathers who are currently participating in the synodal assembly on new evangelisation, the Council Fathers of Vatican II and presidents of the world’s episcopal conferences. Also present at the meal were Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople and Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, primate of the Anglican Communion.
Forget about even discussing this with the Holy See. It ain’t gonna happen. The Holy Father has defined what Vatican II said on this subject and he will not budge on this one. Unless something changes so dramatically that the circumstances are no longer the same, no future pope is likely to change this position.
Popes only change a position when the circumstances no longer coincide or when they find something that the previous pope did not consider.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
*
"AGGIORNAMENTO" DOES NOT BREAK WITH TRADITION BUT EXTENDS ITS VITALITY"*
Vatican City, 12 October 2012 (VIS) - This morning in the Clementine Hall, the Holy Father received a group of Council Fathers of Vatican II. They were accompanied by presidents of episcopal conferences from around the world who came to Rome for yesterday’s inauguration of the Year of Faith.
The Pope, who himself participated in Vatican Council II as an expert, noted that "many memories come to mind, memories inscribed in each of our hearts, of the period of the Council which was so lively, so rich and so fruitful. However I do not wish to dwell upon this for too long, … I would merely like to recall how a word launched by Blessed John XXIII, almost as if to establish a programme, resurfaced continually during the course of the conciliar sessions: the word ‘aggiornamento’.
“Fifty years on from the opening of that solemn gathering of the Church”, Benedict XVI added, "some people may ask themselves whether that term was perhaps, from the very beginning, not entirely appropriate. Choice of words is something that can be discussed for hours without reconciling contrasting opinions, for my part I am convinced that the intuition which Blessed John XXIII summarised in that word was and remains correct. Christianity must not be considered as ‘something that has passed’, nor must we live with our gaze always turned back, because Jesus Christ is yesterday today and forever. Christianity is marked by the presence of the eternal God, Who entered into time and is present in all times, because all times are brought forth of His creative power, of His eternal ‘today’.
“For this reason”, the Holy Father went on, "Christianity is always new. We must never see it is a fully mature tree sprung from the mustard seed of the Gospel; a tree which has grown, given its fruits and one day grows old as the suns sets on its life energy. Christianity is, so to speak, a tree … that is ever young. This constantly updated vitality, this ‘aggiornamento’, does not mean breaking with tradition; rather, it is an expression of that tradition’s ongoing vitality. It does not mean reducing the faith, debasing it to the fashion of the times using the yardstick of what we like and what appeals to public opinion. Quite the contrary, just as the Council Fathers did, we must mould the ‘today’ in which we live to the measure of Christianity. We must bring the ‘today’ of our times into line with the ‘today’ of God.
“The Council was a time of grace in which the Holy Spirit taught us that the Church, on her journey through history, must always speak to contemporary man. But this can only come from the strength of people who have deep roots in God, … who live their faith with purity. It cannot come from those who adapt themselves to the passing moment, from those who chose the easiest path. The Council understood this well when, in the Dogmatic Constitution ‘Lumen Gentium’ … it noted that everyone in the Church is called to sanctity. Sanctity reveals the true face of the Church”.
“The memory of the past is precious”, the Pope concluded, “but it is never an end unto itself. The Year of Faith we began yesterday shows us the best way to remember and commemorate the Council: by concentrating on its core message which is, in fact, nothing other than the message of faith in Christ, the one Saviour of the world, proclaimed to mankind in our time. Today too, what is important and essential is to take the ray of God’s love into the heart and life of each man and woman, and to bring the men and women of all places and times to God”.
At the end of his audience, the Pope had lunch with Synod Fathers who are currently participating in the synodal assembly on new evangelisation, the Council Fathers of Vatican II and presidents of the world’s episcopal conferences. Also present at the meal were Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople and Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, primate of the Anglican Communion.
Forget about even discussing this with the Holy See. It ain’t gonna happen. The Holy Father has defined what Vatican II said on this subject and he will not budge on this one. Unless something changes so dramatically that the circumstances are no longer the same, no future pope is likely to change this position.
Popes only change a position when the circumstances no longer coincide or when they find something that the previous pope did not consider.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Thank you for sharing those words of the Holy Father with us, Brother. I think they do a lot to help understand what aggiornamento means and the balance that must be maintained.Forget about even discussing this with the Holy See. It ain’t gonna happen. The Holy Father has defined what Vatican II said on this subject and he will not budge on this one. Unless something changes so dramatically that the circumstances are no longer the same, no future pope is likely to change this position.
Popes only change a position when the circumstances no longer coincide or when they find something that the previous pope did not consider.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Our religion is Incarnational, which means that it must take root in the flesh. People should know that the liturgy and the Incarnation are very closely linked, as is the whole sacramental system with it. It is a great mystery:
1 Tim. 3:16: Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:
He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.
“He took bread…”
Now bread seems to us most ordinary and plain; however, here and now it suddenly becomes something so much more. Think of human cultures -at least anything basically good in them- like the bread Our Lord takes, whether our languages, traditions and customs, which He (and He alone) is able to ‘lift up’ and so offer unto (or return it to) God the Father. It is, as it were, redeemed and restored; it is made good, pleasing and acceptable. Now Our Lord by His Passion did this with the whole of our human nature, our flesh or, as it were, fleshly-ness; He offered it (as it were ‘back’) to God the Father; and, in His Ressurection and Ascension, He truly and totally “took it up” with Him.
In inculturation we basically, as it were, incarnate Catholicism into a people’s culture. Suddenly Christ, and His Church, becomes ‘one of us,’ truly present in our midst.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Looking forward to clarifications about the “core message”.
J
JReducation
Guest
I was thinking about these things and as one who did not come from a Protestant background, I think I can look at some of these things with less apprehension. I believe that one of the fears that some people have is that Catholicism will be Protestantized * by some of Vatican II. The truth is that there is no possible way.
First, we would have to lose the entire sacramental system. Which means that we can no longer teach transubstantiation, absolution of sins, permanency of marriage, or apostolic succession. That’s just not going to happen.
Secondly, our entire ecclessiology would have to be revamped. Actually, Vatican II spent most of its time on ecclessiology. Most of Vatican II is about the Churhc’s place in the world and every component from liturgy, Sacred Scripture, Revelation, religious life to newer subjects such as communication. What Vatican II did was just the opposite of weakening our ecclesiology. In fact, it actually expressed it in a way that is more complex than ever before. It’s the same Church, but the understanding of the Church is requires greater reflection if for no other reason that she exists in a more complicated world. But the ecclesiology put forth by Vatican II is far from Protestant.
It actually reduces Protestantism to ecclesial communities and acknowledges a true Church only the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches. In prior ecclesiologies we spoke about a Lutheran Church and an Anglican Church. Today we speak about an Anglican or Lutheran communion, because they are communities, but not as Churches with upper case C.
Finally, no matter how simple our liturgies may be or how much they may look like Protestant services, the fact is that they will never be Protestant services for a number of reasons.
- The Protestant took their services from us. In reality, a Lutheran service mimics a Catholic mass. An Evangelical service mimics Lectio Divina and a Liturgy of the Word. The big tent revival services mimic the same time of evangelization events led by such men as St. Anthony of Padua and St. Vincent Ferrer who drew such crowds that the only place to preach was under tents or in fields. Talk about mega churches. St. Anthony of Padua would attract such a gathering that entire towns would close shop for a day and some farmer would lend his fields for the people to gather an listen to Anthony, pray and sing hymns. There is nothing that Protestant worship has that is not Catholic. The reality is just the opposite. They are missing parts.
- This leads to the second point. No matter how simple our liturgy, you have certain elements that are absolutely necessary for a mass: priest, liturgy of the word, consecration, transubstantiation, sacrifice, atonement, celebration and thanksgiving and a Church (not a building). Without these elements there is no mass. Even if they’re never mentioned, they must be present and are present at every Catholic mass.
- Is there such a word?
J
JReducation
Guest
My experience of Pope Benedict, which goes back for 25 years, first as a professor, later as the Prefect for the CDF and then as pope, tells me that this is about as clear as it’s going to get. He’s not a person to spend a lot of time on clarifications. He is brilliant. He understands the core message. He’s trying to summarize it for the rest of us and he expects the rest of us to do two things: a) to take his word that the documents are safe and b) to read the documents not looking for theological comprehension, but as spiritual reading. Earlier this week he spoke about reading them as spiritual reading. He has never been very big on the laity dabbling in theology, unless the person is a theologian. In this regard, he’s very traditional. This was very much the pre-Vatican II school. Theology was for a select group, which did not include women at all and only some laymen, most of them non-Catholics.Looking forward to clarifications about the “core message”.
Catholic lay theologians don’t enter into the picture until after Vatican II. Prior to Vatican II, we did a great deal of work with Protestant and Jewish biblical scholars. They were the only laymen that were admitted to the halls of theology, as it were. Pope Benedict comes from that school. I believe that he likes Catholic theologians of either gender. He certainly enjoys a lively theological debate. But he does not see the need for the person in the pew to know more theology than the basics. I think this comes from another idea that predates Vatican II, that is faith in the Church and in the papacy. If the man in the pew has to examine every detail before giving his assent, this raises the question, “How many popes are there?” There has to be one person who says, “This is safe. Let’s go with it.”
In human matters there can always be mistakes. In matters of faith and morals, no pope needs to get on his chair and speak ex cathedra for us to believe that he is protected from error. This is a doctrine of the Church. As long as he sticks to faith and morals, he cannot teach error. He can believe it, but not teach it.
I don’t expect every question to be answered. I don’t know why, but that’s my sense. I do expect many more laws and instructions to come down from the Vatican about these documents. Just this week, he’s already stated that the documents are error free and that the council was essential to the tradition of the Church. That’s not a light statement. That’s something that he expects his audience to buy into. He does not make statements like this on a whim. When he does speculate, he tells you that he’s speculating.
Be ready to be told, “It is what it is. Take it or leave it.” All of us are going to have to just go with the flow. Who was it that said, “You can’t fight City Hall?” The same is true about the Vatican. Let’s remember, it was Pope Benedict who said that we will end up with a smaller Church, but a more faithful Church. It’s a subtle way of saying that if people leave, there is not much that we can do about it. We’re not going to change our direction to keep the numbers up. In the end, someone is always going to be upset.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
S
simple_soul
Guest
Thank you so much. The link you provided was better than anything I was finding in my own search.
R
Rich_C
Guest
This touches on the heart of my original question, thank you.
If someone who knows the mind of the Holy Father pretty well says that this is his position, I believe it.
I think I’ll leave Vatican II to the hierarchy and stick to the basics.
T
TrueLight
Guest
This is what I mean in terms of clarifications. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of confusion in the past due to people presenting as Church teaching what they want Church teaching to be. I definitely believe there is a move for more clarity.. I do expect many more laws and instructions to come down from the Vatican about these documents.
Br. JR, FFV
Although it’s fine for the person in the pew to just follow the basics, after Vatican II, there are a lot of lay people teaching whether it be CCD or other classes. Unless that is to be eliminated, lay people are going to need to understand more.
T
TimothyH
Guest
My experience with PSR is that the catechists stick to the training material. In our parish there are set curriculia and the catechists can’t just go bushwhacking. They have to stick to the training plans.
My experience is that the training plans, books and manuals are not good at all. They treat teenagers like they are three year olds. I have often wondered if catechesis should just be put into the hands of Dominicans. The USCCB put a Dominican in charge of Catholic Education. A good start, perhaps.
-Tim-
J
JReducation
Guest
I can assure you that I know for a fact that we’re going to be seeing a lot more of this. It’s not going to come straight from the Vatican, but it will certainly reflect the Vatican’s mind. With the opening of the Year of Faith and the Synod of Bishops in Rome, there has been an increased interest on the part of many bishops in starting synods in their own dioceses.
In my own diocese, we have a synod going for the year of faith. The Archbishop and two members of his staff made themselves available to more than 110 parishes. It was a lot of work, but it paid off. They selected parishes in different geographical ares of the Archdiocese so that people could attend.
The Archbishop sat, said not a word. There were three questions:
- What do you like about your archdiocese?
- What concerns do you have about your archdiocese?
- What would you suggest to address these concerns?
All of the comments were recorded, tallied and grouped according to concerns. From there, focus groups were created to respond to these concerns. The focus groups will be meeting for four hours each month, during their work time. I mean that to make this more serious. those who are on the focus groups will meet on a workday. More than 1,000 individuals will be taking an afternoon off every month for the next year to address these concerns according to the mind of the Church.
These reports are then returned to the Archbishop. Obviously, not every concern can be addressed. Based on the findings of the focus groups, there will be three or four concerns that will be identified. Then an action plan will be put into place.
I know for sure that one of them is Adult Faith Formation for the man in the pew, Directors of Ministry (includes clergy and religious), Directors of Religious Education, RCIA and ongoing adult faith formation.
How do I know this? I’m on this particular focus group. I attended three listening sessions. Adult faith formation came up at each of them. I can foresee that this will be one of the top concerns to be addressed.
This how the corrections and responses are going to reach the individual in the pews.
We have some wonderful bishops, religious superiors and lay leaders who are very interested in tweaking what needs to be tweaked, clarifying what needs to be clarified, and finding the answer to questions to which no one knows the exact answer.
On a more personal note, I have already begun to see some change. I received an invitation from an FSSP parish to support them and join them for the March for Life. To the best of my knowledge, it’s the first time that a Traditionalist parish reaches out to a mainstream religious community to support in such an important area of faith and morals. There is a recognition that there are people out there who are knowledgeable and experts in different areas of Catholic faith and that if everyone brings their piece to the table, we can do beautiful things for God.
If we pull in different directions, nothing will change. I was very humbled and moved by the invitation coming from a Trad parish with the permission of the FSSP superior, the local bishop and the FSSP pastor.
As I have said in the past, the FSSP and the Franciscan family do have a warm relationship. We (Franciscans of all kinds) feel very positive about the FSSP, ICRSS, and Canons of St. John Cantius. We know them the more, because there has been cooperation between us. I was trained by the FSSP on how to celebrate the EF so that I can train deacons and seminarians.
This is just another sign of things changing for the better. I find that when I walk into a room to do a workshop on the EF, the guys sitting there feel quite comfortable, because I don’t belong to a traditionalist community. I belong to a Franciscan community. We’re not traditionalists or liberal. We’re just Franciscan. The minute I open my mouth and say something positive about the Ecclesia Dei institutes, there is a sigh of relief. Most people have no contact with them. It’s not like they’re in every diocese. The little they know about Traditionalists is not flattering. When I say, “I trained with two FSSP guys and their the greatest people I know,” then there is a moment of enlightenment.
We need more of these moments of enlightenment on both sides: the Trad side and the Mainstream Catholic side. People need to see diversity without disunity.
I think that bishops are moving to providing this. Some will move more slowly and others more quickly. Some will put more time into it and some less. But the Holy Spirit works according to the nature of the person. He does not push the person beyond what is in his personality. We have to be patient, but filled with hope.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
Hey wait a minute! Salesians, Franciscans and Piarists have much more experience in catechesis than do Dominicans. Dominicans and Jesuits are great educators, but the young is not their area of expertise.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status