misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

[JReducation]

BR JR do you think in your opinion the world maybe even including some in the Church, they are more consused when it comes to morality? Even about Jesus himself? Today one of the biggest problems we face is moral relevatism correct?

When I ask about Jesus what I mean is that many people have this definiton on who God is, and some if not most of it contradicts on what the Church teaches about the nature of God.

I believe that there is great confusion on moral issues. It doesn’t really upset me. I get the impression that it does not upset the Holy Father or the Curia either. It does not mean that morality is unimportant.

The reason why it does not upset is that the confusion is very understandable. There are many new moral questions on the table. There is an over saturation of information. And there is a socio-political change that has taken place since WW II.

I can offer just a few examples of new moral questions. One hundred years ago we did not have nuclear weapons. We were concerned about Totalitarianism and Communism.

No one ever raised the question concerning same-sex marriage. There have always been homosexual people. There are famous couples in history. However, these couples never asked for the right to marry and to raise children. This places the Church in a position where she has to respond to this question in a manner that is both Truthful and comprehensible. If you teach Truth without making it comprehensible, you haven’t done anyone a favor.

One more example, there was a time when there were Catholic nations. The Church had a place of distinction in those nations. That is no longer the case. The Church must address moral issues without the support of the State. Once upon a time, she had the support of the State.

We have a generation of people who grew up in a faith-less world. Interestingly enough, the USA is one of the few developed nations in the Northern Hemisphere where you can still find a large sector of people who are religious: Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims. In most developed countries, religion is almost non-existent. When people grow up in a faith-less world, they have no point of reference. If you don’t have a point of reference, you don’t have moral absolutes. Then morality becomes relative. Your reference point is yourself, your culture, your political persuasion, or your peers. None of these points of reference is static. Therefore, there is no moral absolute. All of these points of reference have replaced God in the mind of modern man.

Remember what I said. The USA still remains one of the most religious developed nations in the world. Canada, Europe, Argentina, Australia are also very developed nations. But the number of practicing people of faith is a fraction of what you find in the USA. The only nations where you still find religion at the center of life are the Muslim countries and Israel. I find it fascinating. I’ve often wondered how they have managed to integrate faith and civil life in their minds. I’m not referring to regimes that torture people. I’m talking about states where faith is central to their daily lives. We have lost that in the Western nations.

Moral recovery is possible. But it will not happen by force. Nor will it happen through rhetoric. I believe that John Paul II and Benedict XVI have the right idea. Moral recovery will happen very gradually. God’s grace will overcome, but we have to do our part. The first thing that we must do is to work together on common concerns. As we find that we can resolve common problems, trust begins to grow and bonds between people develop. When that happens, you’re ready to discuss the differences between you, dogmatic and moral differences. This is where you extend the invitation to “come and see.”

The other part of this process is evangelization of youth. Pope John Paul II was a master at this. Most Catholics do not know how many young men and women were inspired by John Paul to enter religious communities or diocesan seminaries. There were many young people who changed their mind about cohabitation and chose marriage. Other young people gathered together and created new religious and secular institutes. In the USA alone, we have had more than 15 new religious communities born as a result of Pope John Paul’s influence. We have to continue to reach out to youth We should not underestimate the young. They are resilient. Just look at the young people in Egypt.

The older generation is going to have to put aside its spiritual arrogance. None of us is a better Catholic than the next guy or holier than the next guy because I’m Catholic and he’s not. We must give credit to God, not to ourselves. And we must also place trust in the young, not in ourselves. If we don’t trust the young, who’s going to take over when we can no longer preach the Gospel? The beginning of moral recovery is detachment from our self-importance, cooperation with others, evangelization of the young and trust in God and man.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[laszlo]

I believe that there is great confusion on moral issues. It doesn’t really upset me. I get the impression that it does not upset the Holy Father or the Curia either. It does not mean that morality is unimportant.

I believe the historical example for our times is that of the time of Jeremias the prophet. No matter what we do, we failed we will perish. There will be a remnant some generations later; and there will be new generations as the people of God. God did not failed, only we.

As in the time of the prophet the false prophets blamed Jeremias for the problems, so some blame now the XXI Ecumenical council.

 

[JReducation]

I believe the historical example for our times is that of the time of Jeremias the prophet. No matter what we do, we failed we will perish. There will be a remnant some generations later; and there will be new generations as the people of God. God did not failed, only we.

As in the time of the prophet the false prophets blamed Jeremias for the problems, so some blame now the XXI Ecumenical council.

I’m sorry, but I’m confused. I understand what you’re saying about Jeremiah. I know his story well. Where I am lost is that I don’t see the connection that you’re making between the story of Jeremiah and the segment of my post that you quoted, which by the way, when you quote it that way, whithout the rest, it takes on a different meaning.

Anyway, can you help me understand the connection? Thanks.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[veilofveronica]

Greetings,

I’m 32 years old. I am a Catholic (recently returned “home” to my faith, by the grace of God.), that grew up post Vatican 2, born the same year that John Paul the Second was made Pope.

While my parish was welcoming and lovely, I always felt there was something “missing” and not correct. I don’t like felt banners, “guitar masses”, “children’s masses”, etc etc. I always felt that Mass was Mass and should be the same for each. When I saw pictures and read stories (and heard them, from relatives) about the pre-Vatican 2 Mass, I longed for it. A lot of the reverence seemed to be missing. I was a Catechism teacher once, and I remember that we were giving the children a “tour” of the church. The children were allowed to run, pell-mell, all over the place…the altar, by the tabernacle, hanging off the pews, to make them “comfortable” in the church. I was horrified. I went to a conservative Catholic high school by then where this would NOT be acceptable at all. Children there (it was a K-12 school) were taught to genuflect from Kindergarten in the presence of the Tabernacle, every time they passed it. They were quiet at Mass. We had that same reverence. We also had Confession offered often. I thank God for the conservative priest we had, who taught the Baltimore Catechism despite opposition. It helped bring me back later!!

I attend a Novus Ordo parish, but it is a conservative one. I also choose to keep some of the “old ways”, such as veiling my hair, receiving Communion on the tongue, etc. I think that there can be a blend between the two, and that Pope Benedict is calling for a stricter return to reverence in the Church.

I do think, though, that we have to be careful to look to the Pope and the Vatican for guidance, and Church teaching, and not fall into schism. There are still parishes that are reverent and don’t have the liberalism that some have fallen into. There are sound catechists and wonderful religious out there that shouldn’t be discounted. We can be fully faithful to Rome and to the Vatican, obedient to the Holy Church and the Holy Father, and still have the conservative ways that we wish. I think one day we will see more of them fulfilled.

God Bless.[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[bjryman]

That’s great for you, but it’s not the general experience of those eating the bitter fruits of Vatican II.

Your use of the phrase “Earliest Church” suggests there was something wrong with the Later Church. Traditionalist Catholics like me look around for a quiet, solemn mass in a well ordered church with traditional hymns and find a desert, with the occasional Latin Mass oasis.

One of the grave mistakes of those deluded by the spirit of Vatican II was to throw the baby out with the bath water. There was also the ‘pick and mix’ attitude: take things out of context from our history, or other churches, and add them to our rites.

When you do that, you devalue the whole rite in the minds of attendees. If it can change so much, so easily, how important is it?

I understand from whence you come, as the saying goes,

I do not suggest that there was anything wrong with the later Church. I only point out that

1. Your preference is not from the very base beginnings of the church community and
2. That Vatican II is not any kind of poison, but a resetting of the Church more towards its roots. A participative church of the people.

At our Church, the 7:30am Mass on Sunday is more quiet, more introspective. It is populated mostly by those in our Parish that are more elderly (BTW, I turn 60 this year so I am no spring chicken myself!), or those that have work commitments. Probably about 150 total people attend out of 3,000 plus registered parishioners

Every time there is a change, there are those that resist it sometimes with a very honest deep seated passion. I still fondly remember my 1967 and 1968 Mustang and Camaro muscle cars…and mourned the demise of their powerful engines and design. And no, I am not comparing cars to Mass, just pointing out that anyone’s ties to one method of doing anything is very understandable, especially if they were spiritually fullfilled.

But, so many that post here don’t just speak of their PREFERENCE fondly, they speak of the changes made as ANATHEMA. Which is interesting, by the way…the majority of today’s Catholics do prefer the trappings of a reasonable Vatican II. Make no doubt about that. Our Archbishop has offered to train a group of priests and restructure certain parishes that want the orignal Mass said. All he asks is that a reasonable minimum number of parishioners (roughly 30) come together to make something like a community.
Our orignal preCathedral Church in downtown Indianapolis where our assistant Bishop resides says the Latin Mass and all are welcome.

Our Parish pastor has offered the same to our folks…and of 2,100 families, not 30 came forward asking. And we have two Church buildings…our original “Mission Chapel” and the new Church. We have the infrastructure and the willingness in the clergy.

I point all this out simply to suggest that our archbishop and others like him recognize the fullness of ALL the Catholic rubrics. I suspect there are others very similar across the USA.

All well and good…but the VAST majority, in survey after survey, appreciate the participative nature of a Vatican II environment. The feel more like they belong

God Bless
bruce

 

[bjryman]

You noted:

"One of the grave mistakes of those deluded by the spirit of Vatican II was to throw the baby out with the bath water. There was also the ‘pick and mix’ attitude: take things out of context from our history, or other churches, and add them to our rites.

When you do that, you devalue the whole rite in the minds of attendees. If it can change so much, so easily, how important is it?"

Again you use words like “deluded”. You assume that stance…the majority do not feel deluded. In fact, remember, it is our very own Magisterium, the one that constantly adjusts our Catholic teachings and belief interpretations, that generated the Vatican II documents.

Again, it is your opinion that there is something wrong with liturgical variety (“pick and mix”). The message of salvation, redemption, the Eucharist, has not changed one bit. In fact, more people than ever, due to local language and cluture versions of Mass, understand the Word of Christ and our mission of Evangelizing His Word and carrying out His Works. That what he told us to do.

Finally, you note “how important is it”…Perhaps the Word and the Eucharist is so very important that the more it reaches the common man and women in ways that make them feel PART of the process and not VIEWING the process, the greater might become their spirituality.

I’m preparing now to be the co-Spritual director for our upcoming Christ Renews His Parish Men’s retreat. I am honored to participate with a group of men who will hear witnesses from their peers regarding various spiritual issues, and will spend a quiet thoughtful weekend within our church buliding together. They will be renewed in mind and spirit and will then go forward into a formation of brotherhood preparing to host the next Retreat several month hence.

I’ve tried to express the outward positive results of Vatican II with real world examples of fellowship, worship, and the like that would not normally happen before Vatican II.

Hopefully this will help take some of that “edge” and “anger” that I sense here.

Hopefully
bruce

 

[ProVobis]

Our Archbishop has offered to train a group of priests and restructure certain parishes that want the orignal Mass said. All he asks is that a reasonable minimum number of parishioners (roughly 30) come together to make something like a community.
Our orignal preCathedral Church in downtown Indianapolis where our assistant Bishop resides says the Latin Mass and all are welcome.

Our Parish pastor has offered the same to our folks…and of 2,100 families, not 30 came forward asking. And we have two Church buildings…our original “Mission Chapel” and the new Church. We have the infrastructure and the willingness in the clergy.

Here’s where I may take a small exception to this line of thinking. A pastor has to think in terms of getting the most of the community in all his Masses. That’s what a bishop would do, look at the total number of parishioners to come out. Even if the TLM does not draw more than 100, if it has the effect of making the other Masses more reverent and increase attendance there, it is worth it. Our parish has about 175 on average for the TLM but the Cardinal just recently sent our pastor a congratuatory note praising him for a 15% overall increase in parish attendance over the previous year. Some of the other “TLM” parishes have seen small increases as well.

By the way, my first car was a 69 green Camaro. Got something like 9 gallons to the mile, as they used to joke about it. But I picked up a lot of S&H green stamps enjoying it.

 

[bjryman]

Yes. Outside of the martyrs in the time of the Apostles were the judaizers, than the Gnostics, the the Arians; all wanting to disrupt the Church according to the their expectations, and causing deep problems in the Church.

Please, this is an incomplete assessment at best.

The earliest Church was present from the Apostles time. The heresies and schisms were many throughout the Church’s history…not only in the earliest Church.

I am amazed how the truth of the Church which can be found in scripture and history gets convaluted here. Once the Church’s members moved out of the persecutions, they continued to “keep it simple” following, probably more than anyone, Paul’s written guidance and the rest of the verbal Tradition

The FACT is that until Constantine made the Christian religion of his day the OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION, the formal trappings of the Church were not present.

So, if one wishes to use the worst of the Roman Empire to describe the times, then one must also recognize that the buildings, the support, the literal POLITICS of the ROMAN PAGANS adopted Christianity. I point out the obvious as one must know that most of the “Christians” were Christians of convenience.

And so the trappings grew, the buildings grew, and the opportunity for corruption grew.

…but under it all, remained the Orignal Word of Christ. The simple story of redemption, salvation, and eternal life after death. We, MAN, developed all the trappings. Then we validted them in our minds until they became “the norm”.

It is that “norm” to which you wish to return. All well and good. But please do not presume that the “norm” which you wish would return, is the basic Catholic Church “norm”.

What the Magisterium fully realized was that we had been led down a pathway of worship (introspective, passive, etc) that was simply not what the core beliefs were of the earliest , forefathers of our Faith.

Separate the heresies, schisms etc from all our discussions, and we can get back to the dialog about the core values of the Church, the core intentions of Christ, and how that applies to our modern world of the faithfull

 

[archangel04]

Please, this is an incomplete assessment at best.

The earliest Church was present from the Apostles time. The heresies and schisms were many throughout the Church’s history…not only in the earliest Church.

I am amazed how the truth of the Church which can be found in scripture and history gets convaluted here. Once the Church’s members moved out of the persecutions, they continued to “keep it simple” following, probably more than anyone, Paul’s written guidance and the rest of the verbal Tradition

The FACT is that until Constantine made the Christian religion of his day the OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION, the formal trappings of the Church were not present.

So, if one wishes to use the worst of the Roman Empire to describe the times, then one must also recognize that the buildings, the support, the literal POLITICS of the ROMAN PAGANS adopted Christianity. I point out the obvious as one must know that most of the “Christians” were Christians of convenience.

And so the trappings grew, the buildings grew, and the opportunity for corruption grew.

…but under it all, remained the Orignal Word of Christ. The simple story of redemption, salvation, and eternal life after death. We, MAN, developed all the trappings. Then we validted them in our minds until they became “the norm”.

It is that “norm” to which you wish to return. All well and good. But please do not presume that the “norm” which you wish would return, is the basic Catholic Church “norm”.

What the Magisterium fully realized was that we had been led down a pathway of worship (introspective, passive, etc) that was simply not what the core beliefs were of the earliest , forefathers of our Faith.

Separate the heresies, schisms etc from all our discussions, and we can get back to the dialog about the core values of the Church, the core intentions of Christ, and how that applies to our modern world of the faithfull

It is the norm for what ever Peter binds on this earth is bound in heaven. Jesus never meant for the Church to reamin small or “simple” as it began, but instead to grow organically and to be spread amongst all nations and people for the Church contains the truth and the word. By your notion than we should return to where the lay elect the local bishop as well. Let us abandon our Churches to return to having mass celebrates at someones home.

 

[bjryman]

Thank you for pointing it out, finally someone does it! It’s always funny how people always say that traditionalist look back to a time that did not exist. Yet “modernist” claim what they do is because that’s how it was done in the early Church, well those times were not the best times for anyone to proclaim they are Christian if they wanted to live or avoid prison. Simple time? Compared to today, the first 3 centuries of the Church makes ours look like a walk in the park.

Now, becareful here…you are starting to use labels again to categorize people. You are also pointing out certain situations that bolster and support your view but have little to do with the points I am attempting to make.

When I mention a simple time, I am directly making ONLY a comparison to the early worship practices of our Christian communities to the expansive formal trappings of the post Roman persecution Church. That’s all I am attempting to note. I think of it comparing my original 6 cylindar Mustang with a 3 speed transmission, power nothing and an AM radio, to my GM Conversion Van, loaded with everything.

One can read in the early Church history of the gathering in Christian homes. There the women of the household was of primary importance, saw to the greeting of worshipers and prepared the wine and bread meal.

The early Christian families shared scripture, offered songs of worship, broke bread and gave thanks to the Lord for it, and drank the cup also.

This is what I mean by the early Church’s rubrics. Only when the size of the Christian population grew, did the concept of home group worship become untenable.

Then, when Constintine degreed the Christian Church to be the State Approved Church, the rubrics of worship began to match the buildings and processes of the Roman Empire.
As an example, our Church’s with the raise diam were spitting images of the Roman local political gathering place.

The above are simple statements of fact. Our current Pope is urging people not to “throw out the baby with the bathwater” as other posters have noted. He wants us to keep the “doors and windows of the Church thrown open” as intended by Vatican II, but also to be able to keep many of the solemn rubrics of which many post here.

It should, in my opinion, not be an either or situation. In other words, we shouldn’t be placing ourselves in “traditionalist” versus “modernists” camps at all. The key in whatever venue we choose is how we are practicing the faith in our hearts and souls.

I have noted the happenings of our parish…and no one in these posts have commented one bit about the effectiveness, openess, of our approach. All I ever see here is a return to labels, and out of context comments of heresies, schisms, local brutality, to support postions against Vatican II.

I’d still like someone to compare my description of how our parish implements Vatican II, with the old and new together. If in the end you chose to say “well you have a unique parish”, or “I question the validity of your descriptions”, then there is little else I can contribute.

But I did try to offer thoughts that indicate Vatican II, as a whole is a return to the openess of the earlier Church, while also noting that if there were those that went overboard, they should “reboot” their activity back to the center. To turn an earlier quote made to me around "we should not throw out the baby (i.e. intent of Vatcian II) with the bathwater (those that may have gone overboard), by returning to the non-participative, excessively formal pre-Vatican II rubrics.

Thanks all
bruce

 

[JReducation]

Now, becareful here…you are starting to use labels again to categorize people. You are also pointing out certain situations that bolster and support your view but have little to do with the points I am attempting to make.

When I mention a simple time, I am directly making ONLY a comparison to the early worship practices of our Christian communities to the expansive formal trappings of the post Roman persecution Church. That’s all I am attempting to note. I think of it comparing my original 6 cylindar Mustang with a 3 speed transmission, power nothing and an AM radio, to my GM Conversion Van, loaded with everything.

One can read in the early Church history of the gathering in Christian homes. There the women of the household was of primary importance, saw to the greeting of worshipers and prepared the wine and bread meal.

The early Christian families shared scripture, offered songs of worship, broke bread and gave thanks to the Lord for it, and drank the cup also.

This is what I mean by the early Church’s rubrics. Only when the size of the Christian population grew, did the concept of home group worship become untenable.

Then, when Constintine degreed the Christian Church to be the State Approved Church, the rubrics of worship began to match the buildings and processes of the Roman Empire.
As an example, our Church’s with the raise diam were spitting images of the Roman local political gathering place.

The above are simple statements of fact. Our current Pope is urging people not to “throw out the baby with the bathwater” as other posters have noted. He wants us to keep the “doors and windows of the Church thrown open” as intended by Vatican II, but also to be able to keep many of the solemn rubrics of which many post here.

It should, in my opinion, not be an either or situation. In other words, we shouldn’t be placing ourselves in “traditionalist” versus “modernists” camps at all. The key in whatever venue we choose is how we are practicing the faith in our hearts and souls.

I have noted the happenings of our parish…and no one in these posts have commented one bit about the effectiveness, openess, of our approach. All I ever see here is a return to labels, and out of context comments of heresies, schisms, local brutality, to support postions against Vatican II.

I’d still like someone to compare my description of how our parish implements Vatican II, with the old and new together. If in the end you chose to say “well you have a unique parish”, or “I question the validity of your descriptions”, then there is little else I can contribute.

But I did try to offer thoughts that indicate Vatican II, as a whole is a return to the openess of the earlier Church, while also noting that if there were those that went overboard, they should “reboot” their activity back to the center. To turn an earlier quote made to me around "we should not throw out the baby (i.e. intent of Vatcian II) with the bathwater (those that may have gone overboard), by returning to the non-participative, excessively formal pre-Vatican II rubrics.

Thanks all
bruce

I like this. It’s well said. I can see this in parishes and in religious communities. In my own Franciscan family, there has been an incredible development of newer Franciscan communities that are coming from the three gigantic original communities. These new communities are not breaking away from the old community.

Canonically, we are autonomous. However, we have brought with us 800 years of Franciscan tradition and added to that statutes and expressions of the Gospel that respond to the man and woman of the 21st century. Some people will look at the new communities such as the Franciscans of the Immaculate or Franciscans of the Renewal and call them Traditionalist. The truth is that they are not. Others may look at them and call them radical, because they did not remain within the larger group. That’s false too.

For example, the Franciscans have always had a very strong Marian spirituality. We started the first Saturday devotions. Franciscans defended the Immaculate Conception. Francis was the first theologian to coint the term “Virgin made Church.” and more. We never had a Marian ministry. That’s the new part that Maximilian Kolbe brought to the table, which inspired the foundation of the Friars of the Immaculate.

We always said that poverty is a goal, not just a means. We always lived and worked among the poor. However, there is a whole new generation of poverty that did not exist in the past. The Friars of the Renewal have taken an 800 year tradition of working and living among the poor and implemented it among this new population of poor people that did not exist 100 years ago.

This all happened, because Vatican II called the friars to return to the original charism. As we do, we find different elements in the original charism that are necessary in today’s world. We bring those elements forward in time, without throwing out the baby and bath water.

You may see something like this picture below, where you can see a modern day minstrel, which Francis of Assisi was. You bring from the past and you add what is needed for the present. Those habits are 800 years old, but the instruments are not the mandolin that Francis played for the crowds.

View attachment 9779

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bjryman]

I like this. It’s well said. I can see this in parishes and in religious communities. In my own Franciscan family, there has been an incredible development of newer Franciscan communities that are coming from the three gigantic original communities. These new communities are not breaking away from the old community.

Canonically, we are autonomous. However, we have brought with us 800 years of Franciscan tradition and added to that statutes and expressions of the Gospel that respond to the man and woman of the 21st century. Some people will look at the new communities such as the Franciscans of the Immaculate or Franciscans of the Renewal and call them Traditionalist. The truth is that they are not. Others may look at them and call them radical, because they did not remain within the larger group. That’s false too.

For example, the Franciscans have always had a very strong Marian spirituality. We started the first Saturday devotions. Franciscans defended the Immaculate Conception. Francis was the first theologian to coint the term “Virgin made Church.” and more. We never had a Marian ministry. That’s the new part that Maximilian Kolbe brought to the table, which inspired the foundation of the Friars of the Immaculate.

We always said that poverty is a goal, not just a means. We always lived and worked among the poor. However, there is a whole new generation of poverty that did not exist in the past. The Friars of the Renewal have taken an 800 year tradition of working and living among the poor and implemented it among this new population of poor people that did not exist 100 years ago.

This all happened, because Vatican II called the friars to return to the original charism. As we do, we find different elements in the original charism that are necessary in today’s world. We bring those elements forward in time, without throwing out the baby and bath water.

You may see something like this picture below, where you can see a modern day minstrel, which Francis of Assisi was. You bring from the past and you add what is needed for the present. Those habits are 800 years old, but the instruments are not the mandolin that Francis played for the crowds.

View attachment 9779

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you so much, Brother. You helped articulate further the intentions of my post. I forgot to mention, by the way, that in addition tp the 8 seminarians we currently have from within our parish, we also have a “middle age” man who is in the midst of taking his final vows as a Brother. He moved from Indianapolis to the cloister on the East Coast (New England?) I think he is with your affiliation. I haven’t studied as much about the consecrated brothers among us, so I find myself a bit ignorant I am delighted to learn that you are reliving the intent of St Francis of Assisi and others of like dedication.

You clearly describe in another whole way, that there is good in our Mother Church’s History…its Legacy, and in its future.

I see so many good things happening at our Parish, things that meet the letter and the spirit of Jesus’s teachings about how we should interact as His Christian Community, and evangalize His word throughout the world, I cannot but feel good about the general Vatican II movement that made much of this happen.

God Bless and Keep You!
bruce

 

[Sirach2]

Bruce,

I can’t tell you how much I appreciate and enjoy your posts. A refreshing bit of sunshine in a dark February, for sure! It warms the soul to read such positive sentiments. It occurred to me that the Spirit has been unusually active on these fora today, for I have been blessed to discover quite a few really good posts! My cup overfloweth!
:heaven:

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Bruce,

I can’t tell you how much I appreciate and enjoy your posts. A refreshing bit of sunshine in a dark February, for sure! It warms the soul to read such positive sentiments. It occurred to me that the Spirit has been unusually active on these fora today, for I have been blessed to discover quite a few really good posts! My cup overfloweth!
:heaven:

I second this!!!

 

[JReducation]

One of the problems that happened between the Council and today is that some people thought that progress meant begin by recreating everything. Others thought that tradition meant preserving everything. The truth is that you preserve what needs to be preserved and your create whatever is necessary. Creating and preserving have to do with what is needed, not what is pleasing to us. It is clear that absolutes are needed. It is also clear that new ways of explaining them are needed to help people understand the place of these absolutes in their daily lives.

We must never forget that human beings are like finger prints. No two persons are exactly alike. Some people are perfectly clear when they read or hear a truth explained in the language of 1800 (picked it radomly). Other people do not understand that language. Because it sounds archaic to them, they wrongfully assume that the concept being taught must also be archaic. We have to reach into the past to bring forward that which is part of our faith tradition and frame it in language and gestures that are comprehensible to the man and woman of the 21st century.

I believe that this is what made John Paul II and Mother Teresa so popular among the young. They knew how to say the “same old thing” in a very new way. The young suddenly looked up and said, “Oh, I get it now.” :newidea:

I have seen this happen in my own Franciscan family. We have reintroduced Francis of Assisi to a younger generation. We have not changed a letter of what Francis said or did. But we have changed how we explain him. The result is that many people under 35 are saying, “I get it.” That does not mean that they all want to become friars, nuns or sisters. In fact, many who say that they get it, decide that they are not called to be a Franciscan. This is a good thing. They don’t join, because they get it and they realize that this is not a way of life for them.

One reason why we lost so many men and women was because many who had entered prior to 1970 did not get it. They thought they got it. When the order went into the past and brought forward its tradition and explained it in a language that these men and women understood, many of them realized, “Oops, I’ve made a terrible mistake.”

I remember a very good friend of mine who left the order. The night before he was leaving I sat with him and asked him, “Why?”

He said, “I entered the Franciscan family to be a priest. No one ever told me that I had to be a brother. Now that it’s clear, I realize that I can’t do this. I can’t give up a parish to live in a friary and to walk the streets of the city talking to homeless people. The only thing I ever felt called to do was to be a parish priest. Life within a brotherhood is beautiful, but I’m not called to it. It’s very hard for me to place my brothers before my ministry.”

He finally got it. It was very painful for him and for those of us who loved him very much. Today, he is a very happy secular priest in a parish, close to retirement I think. Other men, who were miserable, suddenly became very happy. The recovery of the tradition was exactly what they needed. They knew that something was missing in their lives, but they did not know what it was until we reached into the past.

This is what Vatican II invited all of us to do. We were to reach into the tradition of the Church, recover it and live it in a way that is appropriate for today.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JRPO]

This is what Vatican II invited all of us to do. We were to reach into the tradition of the Church, recover it and live it in a way that is appropriate for today.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Maybe not quite correct. The “Ravenous Wolves” weren’t suppose to deliberately misinterpret and misapply and drag Mother Church to her knees.

"Many will suffer because of the sins of others"

 

[JReducation]

Maybe not quite correct. The “Ravenous Wolves” weren’t suppose to deliberately misinterpret and misapply and drag Mother Church to her knees.

"Many will suffer because of the sins of others"

You have taken my concluding sentence and quoted it out of context. If you do that, of course one can then make all kinds of assumptions. You need to leave the sentence where it belongs, with the rest of the text that I wrote. Then you need to look at the text and see what the Council’s command looks like when it is correctly applied and the good that it can produce.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JRPO]

You have taken my concluding sentence and quoted it out of context. If you do that, of course one can then make all kinds of assumptions. You need to leave the sentence where it belongs, with the rest of the text that I wrote. Then you need to look at the text and see what the Council’s command looks like when it is correctly applied and the good that it can produce.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

There has only been one truth. I don’t think I’ve taken anything out of context. Your post was about getting in touch with today reaching out to the 21st century getting in touch with peoples different understandings… well… No. There is only one truth. Vatican II it would appear was about reaffirming the Truth.

No one was suppose to tear it apart and pull out the bits so that we could modernise and get in touch.

I think that is why Pope Paul said " The smoke of Satan has entered the Church"

 

[JReducation]

There has only been one truth. I don’t think I’ve taken anything out of context. Your post was about getting in touch with today reaching out to the 21st century getting in touch with peoples different understandings… well… No. There is only one truth. Vatican II it would appear was about reaffirming the Truth.

No one was suppose to tear it apart and pull out the bits so that we could modernise and get in touch.

I think that is why Pope Paul said " The smoke of Satan has entered the Church"

You completely missed what I said. Go back and read it again. I gave a very good example of how the Franciscan family took the command of Vatican II to go back into its tradition and to bring forward its original charism in a manner that is understandable to modern man.

The reasont that I gave that example is because I was trying to show how successful it can be when it’s done correctly, meaning that when we go back into the tradition of the Church and bring it forward, correctly applying it and stating it in language that modern man understands, it bears good fruit. It makes no difference whether we go back and bring forward the traditions of a religious community or other traditions of the Catholic faith. The key is to reach back into tradition, bring it forward, apply it correctly and explain it in language that today’s man understands.

That’s what I’m trying to say with the example that I gave. You left out the most important part of my post. Why did you do that?

One of the problems that happened between the Council and today is that some people thought that progress meant begin by recreating everything. Others thought that tradition meant preserving everything. The truth is that you preserve what needs to be preserved and your create whatever is necessary. Creating and preserving have to do with what is needed, not what is pleasing to us. It is clear that absolutes are needed. It is also clear that new ways of explaining them are needed to help people understand the place of these absolutes in their daily lives.

We must never forget that human beings are like finger prints. No two persons are exactly alike. Some people are perfectly clear when they read or hear a truth explained in the language of 1800 (picked it radomly). Other people do not understand that language. Because it sounds archaic to them, they wrongfully assume that the concept being taught must also be archaic. We have to reach into the past to bring forward that which is part of our faith tradition and frame it in language and gestures that are comprehensible to the man and woman of the 21st century.

I believe that this is what made John Paul II and Mother Teresa so popular among the young. They knew how to say the “same old thing” in a very new way.

Without this introduction the concluding statement can be twisted to mean anything you want it to mean. That’s neither fair nor ethical to do. Please don’t do it again.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sirach2]

JRPO:

No one was suppose to tear it apart and pull out the bits so that we could modernize and get in touch.

JR, the reason this poster took everything out of context with regard to your post, is due to his fixation with RealCatholicTV’s misinterpretation of Vatican II and the mass. I have just reviewed again the video he promotes and believes is the epitome of truth summarized in his words above. I’ll send you a PM about the content of the video. There will be no reasoning with that mindset, I’m afraid. We will probably see more posts from him promoting these errors,