Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[Brennan_Doherty]

This is an excellent example of how things work between the Pontifical Orders and the Church. They have their own internal communication. It was unfortunate that someone had to stick their nose where it didn’t belong and this poor Abbot hadn’t heard the good news that he was waiting for. But you see, this is what I’m trying to teach the laity. The religious will move on this, on their terms and in coordination with the Holy See.

Well, just to clarify if I miscommunicated, the Abbott had been well aware that they could have been celebrating the TLM if someone higher up in their Order (I’m not sure who) had not allowed it. It was only when the Pope was informed that the monastery had not been celebrating the TLM through the indult that this higher up was reached and something was said so that he pretty much immediately he allowed it.

 

[JRKH]

No no no, please don’t misunderstand what I said. He is not responding grudgingly. He is a Capuchin Brother. His response is consistent with the tradition of his community. They were founded to preach penance, not to run parishes or diocese. From their point of view, they will do whatever they feel is REALLY necessary to help the diocesan clergy. Anything that they believe is not necessary, they will pass, not because they have a negative attitude, simply because it’s not their vocation.

(snipped)

JR

Mea Culpa my friend. I did misunderstand.

However my belief still stands in those cases where it applies.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

(Snip)

Tonight, I went to the youth mass, which I normally do not go to, because the music is not my style. However, my son has autism and he really gets into it. He doesn’t have mental retardation. In fact, he’s in college. He does have language problems. He needs to see what he hears. He is the type of autistic who needs the visual (name removed by moderator)ut. They were going to have the young people dramatize, if that’s the right word, the gospel as it was read. I’m not sure if it’s drama, because they didn’t say anything. They just acted it out as the church went through it. I knew it was the very long gospel of Palm Sunday. To subject anyone with autism to that Gospel without the visual (name removed by moderator)ut would be cruel. They can’t follow along that long or visualize what’s happening in the story. I was pleasantly surprised. The kids did a beautiful job. Their attitude and reverence from the beginning to the end was inspiring.
They even had a scourging, crowning of thorns and a life-size cross where they actually hung one of the kids, etc.

After mass I asked my son, “What did you think?” He said, “I didn’t know that Jesus rode a coult and an ***. How the heck did he ride both?” I started to laugh, because it’s one of those details in Matt’s Gospel that I never paid special attention to. Jesus does in fact ask them to bring both animals. After I explained to him the whole story, he asked another question. “Why did they stop when he died? Why didn’t they read the part when he rose?” I explained again that this would come next Sunday. I explained the meaning of Passion Sunday to him. These subtleties are difficult for people with language disorders, but they’re important. When they pick up on them, it’s a breakthrough, because then they begin to understand their faith better.

My son has been exposed to mass and Palm Sunday since he was born. His mother was Catholic, he attended Catholic schools from Pre-K to grade 12. But no one realized that some of the subtleties of liturgical language that we take for granted went right over his head. I thank God for the opportunity to take him to a mass where there is visual representation that help him put together the whole picture. It also allows us to celebrate the Eucharist as a family.

I took him twice to an EF and he fell asleep. I had to keep nudging him. He finds it very difficult to follow the booklet with the English and Latin. We attended two masses at the Vatican, both on Christmas Eve. During one mass we sat in the rear of the sanctuary. On holy days like Christmas, the Basilica is so full that the set up chairs behind the main altar on the back of the sanctuary, but you are looking at the Pope’s back and the concelebrants. My son was desparate to leave. The second time, I made arrangements with a friend of mine who works at the Vatican for seats in front of the sanctuary. This time he was wide awake. Though he could’t follow the Latin prayers, he did follow the Holy Father’s homily, because we speak Italian and Spanish at home. He even chuckled at something funny that Benedict said. He liked the excitement when the Pope is leaving at the end of the liturgy everyone stands on the pews and chairs just to see him and he tries to shake hands with those who are close to the aisle. He got to shake Benedict’s hand.

Now I know to go with him to mass where he can see and hear what is happpening. It raises his level of interest and he is more in tune with the mystery of the Eucharist. I’m hoping that they’ll keep the youth mass in our parish, even if they do put an EF on the schedule.

JR

Thank you for sharing this beautiful story with us - especially during Holy Week. What a wonderful testimony for keeping the diverse scope of liturgies available. This story is more powerful than any theological argument could be.
God has blessed you with a remarkable son, and he with a wonderful dad.

Peace
James

 

[JReducation]

Well, just to clarify if I miscommunicated, the Abbott had been well aware that they could have been celebrating the TLM if someone higher up in their Order (I’m not sure who) had not allowed it. It was only when the Pope was informed that the monastery had not been celebrating the TLM through the indult that this higher up was reached and something was said so that he pretty much immediately he allowed it.

OK, so it wasn’t someone in the Vatican, it was someone within the hierarchy of the Order. There is nothing illegal here. The major superiors of an Order have the authority to do this. What probably happened is that the Holy Father or someone in the Vatican took up the issue with the major superior or his delegate. In these cases one of two things can happen. Since the EF is not a law, but an indult, the major superior is free to say thanks but not thanks or he may be persuaded to authorize it. In the end, it is his judgement call. All that the Holy Father does in these cases is try to use persuasion and its usually pretty cordial.

I know that with our Brothers the Holy Father tried to use persuasion and the Superior General very cordially said that he would see if it was good for the Brothers and if the Brothers felt that they needed it in the few parishes that they adminsiter. This was acceptable to the Holy Father. I have never seen a battle of wills between the Holy Father and a Major Superior on something that is optional. The EF is optional as far as religious orders are concerned, because the parishes they run are not the only ones that can offer an EF in a diocese. It’s not like the EF is not going to be available if the Benedictines (just an example) say they don’t believe it’s needed in their parish. There are other parishes that can offer it.

I thought someone in the Vatican had poked their noses where it doesn’t belong. But if it’s within the hierarchy of the order, this is legal. The Holy Father always has the option of advocating in favor of the Abbot and his Abbey. This is always going to be treated with the utmost respect, even if they decline or limit its use to some abbeys.

This is not a power struggle.

For example, we had our Holy Week Reconciliation service at our parish tonight. They had to rent three priests from the diocese. One of them celebrated the ritual of confession in Latin for those who wanted it. We had about 200+ people going to confession between the ages of 7 and 90. Only about 25 went to the priest who was using the rite in Latin. But these are concessions that religious orders often make when they don’t want to put their religious in an uncomfortable position. I went to the priest who used the Latin and it turned out to be bilingual, because he said most of the prayers in English anyway. Which almost made me chuckle. I didn’t choose hime becaue of the Latin. I chose him because he’s a very good moral theologian who has taught moral theology at our seminary for 33 years. But it was a beautiful experience to go to confession to someone who knows moral law and who speaks the language of moral law and philosophy in the confessional. It makes you feel that you’re speaking to someone who has insight, not just pretty words.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I believe that we have exhausted several important points on this thread. I want to thank everyone who has participated. I never expected such a sound response to this topic.

If you would allow me to do so, I would like to redirect our sharing to another matter that comes under the same concept of Church and Democracy, which is very near and dear to my heart. That’s the papacy.

I have seen much debate on CAF about TLM and the NO. While I consider myself a moderate on most issues, there are some areas where I am very conservative and one of them happens to be the papacy.

I believe that TLM has its place in Catholic tradition and as the Holy Father has so clearly stated, NO is the ordinary form of the Church’s liturgy. As he also stated, he does not want to rites in the Western Church, but two forms of the same rite.

Putting aside, for a moment, that we have had abuses and misunderstanding of the NO rules and expectations and these must be corrected, as I’m sure will happen with time, I am deeply concerned about the comments that some people on both sides of this question make about our departed Holy Father John Paul II.

I don’t know if this bothers other people as well. I am a firm believer that Tradition, with an upper case T includes many things, not just liturgy. Our Eucharistic celebration is certainly the focal point of our faith and I would never deny this. However, the papacy is an equally distinctive part of our faith.

One of the realities that drew me to Catholicism was the Papacy. The two popes who most inspired me were John XXIII and John Paul II. Their love for the Church and their openness to the world was refreshing. John Paul’s openness and outreach to the younger generation was like a breath of fresh air. I have never seen a religious leader in any Church or other religious tradition care so much for youth and be so accessible to them. Nor have I ever seen or heard of youth responding with so much love and enthusiasm to a religious leader as they have to this Pope.

I lived many years in Latin America and am from Latin America. I saw the Holy Father there several times, as well as in Baltimore and at the Vatican when I was working for a diocese that sent me to the Vatican to complete an assignment. I saw the young people and how they clung to his every word. I have seen my own children, who grew up under his leadership admire and love this man as if he were part of their family. They were glued to the TV when he died. My daughter wept for him. She was older when she met him and remembered him better than my son. He was only nine when he met John Paul.

I have serious concerns when people claim that he acted immorally, or was in theological error, or that he is not as saintly as we believe, as a defense for their positions. I think that positions should stand on their own merit, not at the expense of a holy man’s character. Some have gone as far as saying that he abused his power or that he deliberately compromised truth for political correctness.

These are very serious allegations, against anyone, especially a pope. If you made these allegations against the President of the USA you would have to prove them in court or before Congress and it would take deliberation by a serious group of experts to decide the matter. These are not judgments that the person on the street can make.

Yes, we live in a free country where you can say whatever you want. However, there is also the law of common sense that says, “Think it, but don’t say it, unless you can prove it and have the power to pass judgment.” Unless there is a Cardinal here among us, who has voting rights at a Conclave or a Council of Bishops, who are we to pass judgment on this man, because he doesn’t represent everything that we want or believe?

In addition, are we so focussed on liturgy that we are willing to sacrifice the integrity of the papacy? I don’t believe that the Lord calls us to choose one over the other. I believe that the Church is a package deal

Unless we those who have knowledge and authority to pass judgment do so, we are bound by obedience and by respect to Peter. Otherwise, we run the risk of placing ourselves over him. Where does that leave us in relation to the Institutional Church?

Is it fair and honorable to defend what we want or condemn what we don’t want at the expense of a Pope whom the Church is seriously considering for canonization?

Is this religious freedom or an abuse?

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

Message Box is full

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

(This is in response to Post #304 above):

I agree that we should set aside the issue of abuses because I don’t know anyone at CAF, no matter their liturgical preference, that wants them at the Mass. Plus they are something that is “fixable.”

I am one who greatly prefers the TLM, and hopes over time it replaces the NO, and looks at the authorization of the NO as the greatest pastoral blunder in the history of man. Having said that, however, I don’t look at these assertions as being at the expense of Pope John Paul II.

After all, he didn’t originally authorize the NO, and I actually believe that he was pastorally concerned and astute enough (and had enough love for the TLM) that at the very least he would not have allowed the TLM to be suppressed throughout the Church. And he may not have even authorized the NO at all as it stood.

I do think Pope Benedict has a greater focus on the liturgy and a tremendous understanding of its importance. Yet in saying that, that is not to disparage Pope John Paul II. Rather it is to recognize that every Pope has different emphases and foci. And Pope John Paul II did allow for the TLM to be celebrated with the permission of the Bishops.

Also, I believe that of far greater importance than any Pope’s visits or travels is what goes on at the parish level, particularly with the liturgy. Because that is where the rubber meets the road and where Catholics will be shaped for better or worse. Thus I believe that Pope Benedict’s MP, which in a way was started by Pope John Paul II, will ultimately have greater impact on the lives of Catholics than any of Pope John Paul II’s travels. For while the Pope can certainly inspire people with his visits and generate a lot of enthusiasm, what then? What happens after the Pope leaves? Again, that is where the parish is of such crucial importance.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

One of the realities that drew me to Catholicism was the Papacy. The two popes who most inspired me were John XXIII and John Paul II. Their love for the Church and their openness to the world was refreshing.

I agree with your remarks on the papacy. These two popes were also my two favorite. We were truly blessed to have such shining lights in the role of Peter. Our present pope was one of my two equal choices for pope and even picked the name I was hoping for.

I have heard so many say that Popes John XXIII and John Paul II were not valid popes. Yet one is now declared blessed and the other is on the way. He even was the first in a long time to have the cry of Santo Subito arise from the crowds in St. Peters square.

We have seen such an outpouring of blessings from the Holy Spirit on the Church with the string of popes that we have had in the last several hundred years, that we are truly in a position to sit and count our blessings. We should look at this time period and count the blessings God has bestowed upon us in this non democratic (thank God) Church. In fact, this might even be a good topic for an entirely new thread. God Bless you all
Deacon Ed B

 

[DustinsDad]

…, I am deeply concerned about the comments that some people on both sides of this question make about our departed Holy Father John Paul II…

Does your love and filial devotion to Pope John Paul II requre that he be perfect in every way? Or can we love him even despite his faults? I would say no to the fomer and yes to the latter.

Some things he did, however earnest and charitable his intentions were, were very troublesome. This doesn’t mean we need to walk around advertising them and shouting them from the rooftops, but it also doesn’t mean we need to pretend these things don’t exist - or worse yet, to use them to subtly attempt to change unchangeable Catholic Truth. Neither of these approaches serve the Church or the late Holy Father.

There are many things regarding Pope John Paul II - not all of them good or positive- that will be examined in the course of his cause for canonization. I think we’re too close to him in history, too emotionally attached still. Such things are better done very slowly (which is the traditional catholic way after all), It seems Pope Benedict would agree…I believe he has called for a slowing down of the rush to canonization, despite his obvious personal love and devotion to Pope John Paul II.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[catharina]

It seems Pope Benedict would agree…I believe he has called for a slowing down of the rush to canonization, despite his obvious personal love and devotion to Pope John Paul II.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

What leads you to believe this?

 

[DustinsDad]

What leads you to believe this?

Various news reports that came out about six months or so ago I think. I don’t have anything bookmarked, but I’m sure they’re out there somewhere. I thought the slow down was common knowledge now.

I think with a papacy of 26+ years, a slow and steady approach is understandable and reasonable. If for no other reason, part of the canonization process is a thorough examination of writings - personal and public. And it will take many, *many *years to wade through the immense volume of writings of Pope John Paul II.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Does your love and filial devotion to Pope John Paul II requre that he be perfect in every way? Or can we love him even despite his faults? I would say no to the fomer and yes to the latter.

The only perfect one on earth was crucified almost 2000 years ago.
Deacon Ed B

 

[JReducation]

Does your love and filial devotion to Pope John Paul II requre that he be perfect in every way? Or can we love him even despite his faults? I would say no to the fomer and yes to the latter.

Some things he did, however earnest and charitable his intentions were, were very troublesome. This doesn’t mean we need to walk around advertising them and shouting them from the rooftops, but it also doesn’t mean we need to pretend these things don’t exist - or worse yet, to use them to subtly attempt to change unchangeable Catholic Truth. Neither of these approaches serve the Church or the late Holy Father.

There are many things regarding Pope John Paul II - not all of them good or positive - that will be examined in the course of his cause for canonization. I think we’re too close to him in history, too emotionally attached still. Such things are better done very slowly (which is the traditional catholic way after all), It seems Pope Benedict would agree…I believe he has called for a slowing down of the rush to canonization, despite his obvious personal love and devotion to Pope John Paul II.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Actually, Benedict has already appointed a postulator for the cause of John Paul II and has given him an honorary title, John Paul the Great. He has made no formal announcements, but those of us who work with dioceses are looking at the actions that he is quietly taking and as Deacon Ed said, he is moving the process along. There have been ony two people whose cause moved along so quickly, Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa.

Francis was canonized without a process of investigation, as the Pope believed that he was The Mirror of Perfection for the entire Church and dispensed with the process. He was canonized 18 months after his death.

Mother Teresa had one miracle dispensed with. I’m not sure when the next step is.

Now there is a postulator for the cause of John Paul II, less than three years after his death and the Pope publically said that he believes that John Paul the Great is in Heaven. Granted, this is not the same as canonization, it is an expression of his personal belief. But, if you look at history, many saints were canonized based on the belief of the pope and miracles etc. were dispensed with. As I said, Honorius didn’t allow an investigation of St. Francis. He canonized him, end of story. No pope has ever called it into question, nor have the faithful.

We may see a St. John Paul II in less than 10 years.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Saints don’t have to be pefect. They have to be holy and faithful. I can’t see any proof that John Paul II was not both of those.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I believe that one problem that many lay people are having with John Paul II is that they disagree on some of his pastoral practices. Another is the tendency that people have to confuse papal encyclicals with eternal church law.

John Paul may have acted contrary to many of his predecessors, but his predecessors would have agreed that he had the authority to do so. He was the pope.

Also, in moral theology one has to look at the material deed. Is the material deed intrinsically evil? The deed may have raised some eye brows, but was it evil?

There is nothing that people can claim that John Paul did that was evil. Maybe unorthodox, but unorthodox is not the same as evil.

The man’s personal life was one of penance, poverty, suffering, and charity. How many of us can claim that we have practiced those virtues to such depth as he did?

When he died he had no Will, because he owned nothing, not even clothes. The only posessions that the Vatican was able to send back to his relatives in Poland was an old pair of working shoes. That’s all that he owned.

Benedict, whom so many love, as do I, actually is wealthy. He owns property in Rome and in Bavaria. He’s entitled to it. He’s a diocesan priest. He doesn’t have a vow of poverty. He earned his money. He worked hard as a university professor and as the Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith.

But many people don’t know that John Paul gave his property to the poor long before he became a Pope and that he gave away his salary as well.

JR

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

I believe that one problem that many lay people are having with John Paul II is that they disagree on some of his pastoral practices. Another is the tendency that people have to confuse papal encyclicals with eternal church law.

John Paul may have acted contrary to many of his predecessors, but his predecessors would have agreed that he had the authority to do so. He was the pope.

I’m going to leave out the encyclical comment above for the time being - but as for his pastoral practices…remember than in prudential decisions, popes have the authority but not the guarantee of infallibility. The fact that people can look at prudential decisions (or lack thereof) and lay a case for disasterous consequences therein does not mean they are disobediant or disloyal or schismatic or sedevacantist - it might just mean they are genuinely concerned for the welfare of Holy Mother Church. It’s simply not an exercise of Christian charity to paint such folks with so broad a brush.

I think it’s hard for folks who have such a heartfelt love of Pope John Paul II (he was a very charismatic individual) to look at his papacy objectively. Ultimately, time will be the test of Pope John Paul II’s papacy - not emotion.

I hesistate to use the title “The Great” simply because, historically, these titles are extremely rare, and reserved for (what two or three) popes whose papacy oversaw tremendous gains for the Church. Whether coincidental or not, Pope John Paul II’s papacy happened to occur during tremendous losses of vocations, of faith, of conversions, of catechesis, etc. and also presided over one of the biggest and gravest scandals in Church history. Whether or not one wants to blame him for these things personally is irrelevant (and I wouldn’t be in this camp) - his papacy was not simply not able to overcome them - unfortunately, they happened on his watch. If one doesn’t judge the greatness of a papacy by these sorts of criteria - the term “the Great” might just lose its significance.

And keep in mind that JP2 was the pope of almost my entire life (I vaguely remember the death of JP1), I remember him fondly - but I acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses inherent in his papacy. At least as much as a lowly catholic in the pew can.

And in closing, I think it’s just as catholic (if not moreso) to pray for the soul of the late pontiff as it is to pray* to* the soul of the late pontiff. If you know what I mean.

Now whether PJP2 actualy wrote things that contradicted previous popes - whether or not this is “ok” depends on the nature of what he was writing about.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JReducation]

I’m going to leave out the encyclical comment above for the time being - but as for his pastoral practices…remember than in prudential decisions, popes have the authority but not the guarantee of infallibility. The fact that people can look at prudential decisions (or lack thereof) and lay a case for disasterous consequences therein does not mean they are disobediant or disloyal or schismatic or sedevacantist - it might just mean they are genuinely concerned for the welfare of Holy Mother Church. It’s simply not an exercise of Christian charity to paint such folks with so broad a brush.

I think it’s hard for folks who have such a heartfelt love of Pope John Paul II (he was a very charismatic individual) to look at his papacy objectively. Ultimately, time will be the test of Pope John Paul II’s papacy - not emotion.

I hesistate to use the title “The Great” simply because, historically, these titles are extremely rare, and reserved for (what two or three) popes whose papacy oversaw tremendous gains for the Church. Whether coincidental or not, Pope John Paul II’s papacy happened to occur during tremendous losses of vocations, of faith, of conversions, of catechesis, etc. and also presided over one of the biggest and gravest scandals in Church history. Whether or not one wants to blame him for these things personally is irrelevant (and I wouldn’t be in this camp) - his papacy was not simply not able to overcome them - unfortunately, they happened on his watch. If one doesn’t judge the greatness of a papacy by these sorts of criteria - the term “the Great” might just lose its significance.

And keep in mind that JP2 was the pope of almost my entire life (I vaguely remember the death of JP1), I remember him fondly - but I acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses inherent in his papacy. At least as much as a lowly catholic in the pew can.

And in closing, I think it’s just as catholic (if not moreso) to pray for the soul of the late pontiff as it is to pray* to* the soul of the late pontiff. If you know what I mean.

Now whether PJP2 actualy wrote things that contradicted previous popes - whether or not this is “ok” depends on the nature of what he was writing about.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

You’re entitled to this opinion. As to the term John Paul the Great. It is Benedict XVI who refers to him as such and it seems to be catching on. Several authors who are now writing about him and his role in Church history are using it and citing Benedict.

JR

 

[catharina]

DD -

Rather I keep in mind that the Popes of my lifetime were the Holy Fathers Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and now, Benedict XVI. I truly thank God for the blessing of all of them, for their selfless lives and their papacies in His Church. For today, Good Friday, we might simply thank God for all of His gifts, from salvation through Peter’s recent successors.

 

[catharina]

You’re entitled to this opinion. As to the term John Paul the Great. It is Benedict XVI who refers to him as such and it seems to be catching on. Several authors who are now writing about him and his role in Church history are using it and citing Benedict.

JR

In reference to the title of this thread, surely one factor that has led to the notion that the Church (here in the States) is more reflective of democracy (and painfully so) is the very new habit of criticism of both Popes and Magesterium - as if they were elected officials who should/must be more responsive (knee-jerk) to their “constituencies.” It’s a sad and “new” kind of abuse, when in fact we are always called to pray for the Pope, not to stone him.

 

[JReducation]

Many of you may know this already. The official preacher to the Pope must always be a Capuchin Franciscan Friar/Brother. As you may have seen on TV, the Brother preached to the Pope and the Vatican at the Good Friday liturgy.

The entire theme of the sermon was Ecumenism. The Brother not only used exegesis from the scriptures of the day, but he also used concepts from St. Francis’ understanding of the scriptures and more importantly, almost everything that he said in his homily came from John Paul’s teachings and thoughts on Ecumenism.

If it had been in conflict with the beliefs of the Church he would not have preached this way or made ecumenism the theme for the Pope’s Good Friday Liturgy.

One very important thing that the Brother insisted was on what John Paul II taught about the Mystical Body. He spoke about Protestants, Orthodox and other schismatic groups and said that the teaching on the Mysitical Body had been incorrectly applied. All these churches, even though they are outside of the physical church remain part of the Mystical Body. He explained, as John Paul had already done so, that the saving work of Christ’s spirit is not limited because of these separations. But that Christ can and will save these people according to his plans.

He gave a beautiful explanation on the tunic that Jesus wore. He explained that the seamless tunic, was not literally seamless, as Jews did not wear such clothing, but that good exegesis tells us that this is a symbol that John uses to speak about the Church. The Church is seemless. No one can be separated from the Mystical Body because they belong to another faith.

He reminded the Vatican and the world that we must proceed quickly with ecumenical charity and slowly with dialogue, because Christ will work things out on his time table, just as he had worked out redemption on his time table.

I found it interesting that despite the fact that so many people believe that John Paul was a disaster with ecumenism, the theme for Good Friday at the Vatican was ecumenism and that the preacher they chose was a Capuchin Brother who is the Pope’s personal preacher. It is equally interesting that he chose to use the words of John Paul II in connection with Christ’s saving act.

If we know one thing is that these sermons are not spontaneous. They are carefully examined before by the Sacred Congregation on the Faith, because the Vatican knows that the world will hear them.

I srongly believe that the Church prays as she teaches. This is not a quiet liturgy in the privacy of the Pope’s apartment.

It was equally interesting that those who played active roles in the liturgy wore the traditional vestments of the Tridentine liturgy, except the maniple, but the preacher was allowed to follow the traditions of his order. He wore his Brother’s habit, without vestments, not even a stole. Which is the tradition of the Capuchins. They do not wear priestly vestments, except to celebrate sacraments to avoid clericalism and distinctions among them.

What I saw was the Vatican integrate tradition and Vatican II very seamlessly. Better yet, integrate previous papal practices with modern papal practices, even practices from a religious order, which they didn’t have to do. They took advantage of the worldwide audience they had to affirm what John Paul II had said about other churches and the importance of ecumenism and its relation to the cross.

I don’t believe this was an accident. I believe this was done on purpose to send a message to the Church regarding non Catholics and our obligation to respect and love those who are not believers, more importantly to believe that Christ’s spirit will save, not us.

JR