Pope Benedict to Curia - Vatican II

[Lux_et_veritas]

This is going to be interesting to watch unfold.

I would love to provide a link to this article, but The Wanderer does not have it up on their “recent articles list”.

In the January 5, 2006 edition, the headline for the article written by Paul Likoudis reads as follows:

**Pope Benedict to Curia…Time to Correct the Record on Vatican Council II

** " In his third major address touching on the Second Vatican Council since becoming Pope, Benedict XVI said in his Christmas address to members of the Roman Curia that erroneous interpretations of Vatican II that have divided and weakened the Church must be corrected…

…The Pope offered his analysis of the causes and consequences of what some have dubbed the “battle for Vatican II,” and the imperative of setting the record straight on what the council did and did not teach in order to strengthen the Church and equip Catholics for the struggles ahead.

In particular, he took aim at the so-called “spirit” of Vatican [II] that has led to numerous novelties not authorized by the documents of Vatican II and the jettisoning of traditions, particularly in the liturgy, not anticipated by the Council Fathers. "

Then, the article goes into his December address, verbatim on this issue. I found that text at Chiesa (scroll down to continue reading the rest of Pope Benedict’s address).

Pope Benedict XVI: …]The last event of the year that I would like to cover on this occasion is the celebration of the conclusion of the Vatican II Council 40 years ago. This memory brings to mind a question: What has been the Council’s result? Has it been received properly? What, in how the Council has been received, has been good, what has been insuffiicient or wrong? What is there still to be done? …

Select this link and scroll down for the remainder

 

[arieh0310]

I think our new Holy Father is going to exorcize the “Spirit of Vatican II” from the Church and send it back to the netherworld where it belongs.

 

[twiztedseraph]

arieh0310:

I think our new Holy Father is going to exorcize the “Spirit of Vatican II” from the Church and send it back to the netherworld where it belongs.

:dancing:

 

[warrior71]

arieh0310:

I think our new Holy Father is going to exorcize the “Spirit of Vatican II” from the Church and send it back to the netherworld where it belongs.

Below is a quote from the Holy Father on Vatican II

We can look back with gratitude to the Second Vatican Council. If we read and accept it guided by a correct interpretation, it can become a great force in the ever necessary renewal of the Church.

These are the Holy Fathers last or almost last words said during the message quoted at the beginning of this thread, , which was before made before Christmas. I don’t think there will be any real changes, seeing as the Holy Father fully supports the Vatican Council, and the continued renewal of the Church.

One of the problems is that the Pope and most other highly placed clerics and theologians don’t see religion in quite the same way that the avergfe lay person does. While they may fret and worry about things, it is not usually the same things that vex and bother us.

Example, several of the most common hreads on this and other forums are receiving in the hand vs the mouth, priests facing the altar or the people during the celebration of the Mass, the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and the relative merits of the Novus Ordo vs the Traditional Latin Mass. These arguments completely engulf the thought processes of many and are of vital importance to them.

**None **of them are of any real concern to the theologans, and while they may pay lip service to them on occasion, they really don’t understand or appreciate the lay persons view of them and their importance. No, the theologians, including the Holy Father, have a whole different set of priorities. I think if you read his words in particular, in the context that they are written, you will see that is the truth.

 

[Lapsed]

warrior71:

Below is a quote from the Holy Father on Vatican II

We can look back with gratitude to the Second Vatican Council. If we read and accept it guided by a correct interpretation, it can become a great force in the ever necessary renewal of the Church.

Emphasis added.

Sounds to me like the Holy Father is determined to bring the correct interpretation to bear on the documents of the council, which can only mean exorcising the “spirit of V2” as has already been suggested. The implication of this remark is certainly that the interpretation to this point has not been correct.

 

[warrior71]

Lapsed:

Emphasis added.

Sounds to me like the Holy Father is determined to bring the correct interpretation to bear on the documents of the council, which can only mean exorcising the “spirit of V2” as has already been suggested. The implication of this remark is certainly that the interpretation to this point has not been correct.

The Holy Father has never advocated anything of the sort. If the Holy Father felt that the interpretation was incorrect, don’t you think he would have made some concrete move by now? And I do mean something substantial, not merely cosmetic. I reiterate, the Popes views on reform and deeper understanding are not the same as ours and never have been.

The things are in the minds of most theologians and upper level clergy, including the Pope would be things like interfaith dialogue, ecumenical growth and understanding, a deeper concept of the unity and spiritual growth of all Christians. Virtually all of John Paul II’ s entire papacy was pretty much devoted to that concept. They are not worried about the street level things that generally concern us.

And I will go so far as to say this. If those goals mean a lessening of our own Catholic identity, I think that is exactly what.will happen, and in fact is exactly what has happened. The Catholic Church of today bears precious little resemblence to the Church of my youth. I’m not saying it is better or worse, but it is completely different, and there has been a tremendous loss of what you could call Catholic identity.

In reality, the Holy Father cannot really go against very much of the interpretation of the documents, since so many of those interpretations were very
much extolled by his predecessor. In drastically altering the interpretation of those documents and in effect the structure of the Church today, it would call into question the entire course the Church has taken over the past forty years, most of it under the leadership of John Paul II, and the Holy Father is not going to do that. It just is not going to happen. I’m sorry to say that, but it isn’t. The Holy Fathers actions, not words, but actions prove that.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Lapsed:

Emphasis added.

Sounds to me like the Holy Father is determined to bring the correct interpretation to bear on the documents of the council, which can only mean exorcising the “spirit of V2” as has already been suggested. The implication of this remark is certainly that the interpretation to this point has not been correct.

I’m in agreement here. We will see further clarifications coming in the future. I think Paul Likoudis hit the nail on the head with this opening remarks prior to giving us the words of Pope Benedict.

 

[Joysong]

Through recommendations elsewhere on the forum, I purchased from Amazon the writing of St. Francis de Sales (Doctor of the Church) “The Catholic Controversy.” The book is everything the others said it was, and more, on the defense of the faith!

I was reading this evening from his section* Rule of Faith,* “How the Ministers have Despised and Violated the Authority of the Councils.” (Chapter III) I highly esteem this saint’s words and opinion:

For God’s sake, when will they cease darkening the question! The Councils, after the fullest consideration, when the test has been made by the holy touchstone of the Word of God, decide and define some article. If after all this another test has to be tried before their determination is received, will not another also be wanted? Who will not want to apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled? And who shall stop another from asking as much…and why not a third to know if the second is faithful? And then a fourth, to test the third? Everything must be done over again, and posterity will never trust antiquity but will go ever turning upside down the holiest articles of the faith in the wheel of their understandings.

What we say is that when a Council has applied this test, our brains have not now to revise but to believe. Once let the canons of Councils be submitted to the test of private individuals, — as many persons, so many tastes, so many opinions.

Granted, he is speaking about the Reformation and those who do not accept the decisions of previous ecclesial Councils, charging them with errors. But I think the point can apply to V-II as well, with all of the current controversy and lack of acceptance of its decisions. Could not Lefevre be said to have the same spirit of Luther?

Even if there is a correction forthcoming, will this stop the descent into further inquiries about whether or not the correction was correct?

 

[netmilsmom]

warrior71:

The Holy Father has never advocated anything of the sort. If the Holy Father felt that the interpretation was incorrect, don’t you think he would have made some concrete move by now? And I do mean something substantial, not merely cosmetic. I reiterate, the Popes views on reform and deeper understanding are not the same as ours and never have been.

The things are in the minds of most theologians and upper level clergy, including the Pope would be things like interfaith dialogue, ecumenical growth and understanding, a deeper concept of the unity and spiritual growth of all Christians. Virtually all of John Paul II’ s entire papacy was pretty much devoted to that concept. They are not worried about the street level things that generally concern us.

And I will go so far as to say this. If those goals mean a lessening of our own Catholic identity, I think that is exactly what.will happen, and in fact is exactly what has happened. The Catholic Church of today bears precious little resemblence to the Church of my youth. I’m not saying it is better or worse, but it is completely different, and there has been a tremendous loss of what you could call Catholic identity.

In reality, the Holy Father cannot really go against very much of the interpretation of the documents, since so many of those interpretations were very
much extolled by his predecessor. In drastically altering the interpretation of those documents and in effect the structure of the Church today, it would call into question the entire course the Church has taken over the past forty years, most of it under the leadership of John Paul II, and the Holy Father is not going to do that. It just is not going to happen. I’m sorry to say that, but it isn’t. The Holy Fathers actions, not words, but actions prove that.

Goodness gracious!!!
Things move very slowly in the Vatican.
Give them time.
Do we really expect B16 to smote the ground and a correct liturgy will arise in every parish in the world??? It took 40 years to get this bad. VII was not bad, the lack of discipline for 40 years was.
Time, time, time. And patience is a virtue.

 

[netmilsmom]

Joysong:

Could not Lefevre be said to have the same spirit of Luther?

IMHO, yes.
Disobedience is just that.

 

[Joysong]

Warrior:

In reality, the Holy Father cannot really go against very much of the interpretation of the documents, since so many of those interpretations were very much extolled by his predecessor. In drastically altering the interpretation of those documents and in effect the structure of the Church today, it would call into question the entire course the Church has taken over the past forty years, most of it under the leadership of John Paul II, and the Holy Father is not going to do that.

I also doubt that he can, Warrior, unless he speaks “ex cathedra” due to a gross finding of error in the documents. I believe, from having read a great deal about Church structure and Councils in St. Francis de Sales’ writings, there would have to be another Council convened to restructure and correct any deficiencies, with a 2/3 majority vote. Unless, of course, he can do this through an encyclical?

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Carole,

I think there will always be dissenters, on both ends of the spectrum, regardless of what happens going forward.

There is a very big difference, in my mind, of accepting Vatican II itself, and having to deal with things that were not spawned by Vatican II. Rather, some things were rolled in very smoothly to make them look like Vatican II, when they were not.

It is not us saying that people exploited Vatican II to hoist their own preferences, but rather the heirarchy from Benedict to Arinze. What specifically do they mean? We can only look at some of their recent comments. Arinze wrote an entire document on liturgical piety, which gives us a glimpse.

In anticipation of Pope Benedict’s December 8th Homily, The Chiesa, begins its introduction to the subject this way:

There are conflicting interpretations within the Church of this event and its consequences. One wide-spread idea is that Vatican II marked a “new beginning” in Church history, and that thanks to it – its “spirit” more than the words of its actual texts – the dogmas, laws, structures and traditions of the Church entered a phase of permanent reform. However, Joseph Ratzinger has shown on a number of occasions that he does not share this reading of the facts. And so has – amongst others – his cardinal vicar for the diocese of Rome, Camillo Ruini.

**Only last June Ruini declared: “It is time for history to produce a new reconstruction of Vatican II – one that finally tells a true story”.

**Crisis Magazine highlighted something from his book, "Milestones" (1997 Ignatious Press).

“The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries…introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic… I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy.”

Elsewhere in the same text:

**“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”

**If everything is fine as is, what did the former Josef Cardinal Ratzinger mean when he said, “disintegration of the liturgy”? It sounds to me that he has some dissatisfaction with how some liturgies are celebrated.

Maybe your liturgy is fine, but we see many examples here of liturgies that are far from ok. I’m talking about clear GIRM violations, such as lay people giving homilies, or priests modifying the words of consecration.

That having been said, I don’t even think he is referring strictly to clear violations of the GIRM. I truly believe we are going to see a tightening of things as we move forward.

Case in point, I would not be suprised in the years to come, for there to be stronger guidelines on when EMHC’s should be used. Cardinal Arinze has already spoken that for Masses with less than 100 people, he does not believe they are necessary. Yet, we see this, and hear about it in the forums, all the time.

He recently spanked the Austrian bishops soundly for poor homilies/sermons. However, that kick in the rear could have applied to the US, Canada, Germany, Italy or any other western country. From his ad limina speech:

It is true that we bishops must act with discretion. Nevertheless, this prudence must not prevent us from presenting the Word of God in all its clarity, including those things that are heard less willingly or that consistently provoke reactions of protest and derision. **You, dear brothers in the episcopacy, know this well: there are some topics relating to the truth of the faith, and above all to moral doctrine, which are not present in the catechesis and preaching of your dioceses to a sufficient extent, and which sometimes, for example in pastoral outreach to youth in the parishes or groups, are either not confronted at all or are not addressed in the clear sense understood by the Church. Thanks be to God, it is not like this everywhere.

**Perhaps those who are responsible for the proclamation [of the Gospel] are afraid that people may draw back if they speak too clearly. However, experience in general demonstrates that it is precisely the opposite that happens. Don’t deceive yourselves! Catholic teaching offered in an incomplete manner is a contradiction of itself and cannot be fruitful in the long term.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will AGAIN encourage you all to read what Benedict wrote on the subject of the liturgy (as well as on many other subjects), when he was “merely” Cardinal Ratzinger. As someone has said, “His paper trail is a million miles long and a hundred miles deep.”

I am truly perplexed as to why so much time and talk is spent on surmising and exerpting of small phrases, when the big stuff is there for the reading?

Anna

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Joysong:

I also doubt that he can, Warrior, unless he speaks “ex cathedra” due to a gross finding of error in the documents. I believe, from having read a great deal about Church structure and Councils in St. Francis de Sales’ writings, there would have to be another Council convened to restructure and correct any deficiencies, with a 2/3 majority vote. Unless, of course, he can do this through an encyclical?

These are issues with Vatican II interpretations, not errors. (note I did not say the problem with Vatican II, because there are no problems with that council itself, just how people are exploiting it).

I think Paul Likoudis summed it up perfectly when he stated there is a battle for Vatican II. Benedict is as good a person as any other since he participated in the council and can recognize some of the more common perversions. Pope Benedict will look to clear some key points up and I believe these will happen in some kind of writings, or even simple documents, or even letters, addresses, or something out of the CDW.

I believe they will support Vatican II, but will narrow the view to close out some of the loopholes people have used as reasons to do this or that (and I’m not even talking about some of the more popular debates, such as communion in the hand, and so on). Rather, I believe we will see it aimed more at “toning down” the Masses. He’s been pushing Gregorian Chant and Latin, as has Cardinal Arinze.

It will take decades to take full effect, but I believe within the next few years, more seminaries will be teaching seminarians about the need to be reserved rather than flamboyant, sitting sideways rather than facing the people, and looking down at the Host, as opposed to looking around at the people during the Consecration.

These are subtle things that seem insignificant, yet are very significant. Watch Pope Benedict during the consecration the next time he he does Mass on TV.

We may not see fast sweeping changes out of Pope Benedict. Rather, I believe it will come slowly, methodically, one thing at a time. This will impact seminary training moreso.

The experimentation will slowly die out, but it will probaby take another 40 years to see the full effects.

 

[Joysong]

Anne Elizabeth:

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will AGAIN encourage you all to read what Benedict wrote on the subject of the liturgy (as well as on many other subjects), when he was “merely” Cardinal Ratzinger. As someone has said, “His paper trail is a million miles long and a hundred miles deep.”

At the risk of beating the dead horse, please consider that this is one Cardinal’s opinion. That he is now Pope does not automatically guarantee that he, of himself, will make changes to accord with his personal preference and opinion. Our church consists of many Cardinals and Bishops who, in collaboration with the Pope, will prescribe what is fitting for the faithful according to what they understand the Holy Spirit is inspiring.

Until then, how well will one answer to God for fostering disunity within the ranks because of private dissatisfaction with their previous councils and all that flowed from them? We are not permitted to vote our likes and dislikes as in a democracy, but we are called to obey until such time as things are amended, if at all, trusting that God is well in control of His Church. Obedience and trust seems to be the missing link, replaced with rationale for uprising in the streets … “They think that by much speaking, they will be heard.”

I cannot stress enough the teachings of the Doctors of the Church who repeatedly warned the faithful in God’s name, not to scandalize and draw others away from adherence to the magisterium as though it were a “right” to insist on one’s private preferences.

Reflections by Jeff Mirus, Sysop, CRNET, November 8, 1994

Different people, of course, prefer different styles of worship. What is very attractive to one may be distracting or even unpleasant to another, especially when people have been formed in different traditions. Within the Church herself, the liturgical upheaval of the past generation has left us sadly divided over questions of ritual, music and participation.

The critical point to remember is that these questions of style are secondary in Catholic worship for the simple reason that Catholic worship is not primarily about what we do for Christ, but about what Christ does for us.

LITURGY AND OBEDIENCE --------------------- The official liturgy of the Church, then, is meant to be both the framework and the actuator of Christ’s work at Mass. To achieve this goal, liturgical norms are promulgated by the Holy See and by the Bishops, using the authority that has been conferred upon them by the same Christ. Thus the authority of Christ as teacher and ruler in the Church ensures His continuing action in the liturgy as Priest. Once we understand this, we see immediately the first two tests for effective liturgy.

The first and by far the most important test is whether the liturgy actually brings about the reenactment of Christ’s sacrifice. Passing this test means that the Mass has been celebrated validly. The second test, which protects and confirms the first, is whether the liturgy has been celebrated according to the laws of Christ as expressed through the teaching authority of His Church. Passing this test means that the liturgy has been celebrated licitly.
Apart from whatever stylistic aspects are enshrined in the proper liturgical norms, considerations of style arise only after the validity and licity of the liturgy are ensured.

Carole

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Carole,

Joysong:

At the risk of beating the dead horse, please consider that this is one Cardinal’s opinion. That he is now Pope does not automatically guarantee that he, of himself, will make changes to accord with his personal preference and opinion. Our church consists of many Cardinals and Bishops who, in collaboration with the Pope, will prescribe what is fitting for the faithful according to what they understand the Holy Spirit is inspiring.

It has nothing to do with Pope Benedict’s personal preferences. As he has said in his December 23 address:“The problems have arisen from a struggle between two conflicting forms of interpretation. One of these has caused confusion; the other, in a silent but increasingly visible way, has brought results, and continues to bring them.”

He called the first form of interpretation “the hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture.” The second he called “the hermeneutics of reform.”
He criticized the first of these at its roots, while illustrating the reasons for and validity of the second.
It has to do with how he, as supreme pastor, sees what is good for the faithful. He would be neglectful to not address something he sees from his position (and one shared with a good many bishops and cardinals worldwide, keeping in mind the church is not just the west because we make up a small segment of the larger church). If from his viewpoint for example, he sees a way to increase reverence, that is more in line with the intent of Vatican 2, he would be guilty of omission to not approach it pastorally. In other words, he cannot bury his head in the sand for the sake of “peace” and “charity”. This is misguided peace and misplaced charity. He has the right to remove any obstacles that would hinder the growth of reverence (once again, using it only as an example, most especially if something that flowed from Vatican II - a misapplication - was at the obstacle)

As for the Cardinals and Bishops, the Bishops must be in communion with their head, but the head does not have to follow the Bishops. He can, out of charity and respect for them, listen to what they have to say, but his word is the final word. Christ did not give the keys of the kingdom to the Apostles. Rather, he gave them to Peter - Peter here on earth and all that he binds here on earth will be bound in heaven. Even on matters where “ex cathedra” criteria is not met, it is far more virtuous to follow his pastoral directions than to disregard them in favor of a band of bishops whom disagree with him. There are times when an entire group of bishops have been off the mark in a particular country, such as when US bishops told Pope John Paul II he didn’t understand American culture. Pope John Paul understood far more than they realized. The Pope does not have to create a “win-win” like we do in business for the sake of building a collaborative effort. Nor is it a democracy, nor does it work on popular opinion polls. The Pope sees far more than we ever will.

Continued next post…

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Joysong:

Until then, how well will one answer to God for fostering disunity within the ranks because of private dissatisfaction with their previous councils and all that flowed from them? We are not permitted to vote our likes and dislikes as in a democracy, but we are called to obey until such time as things are amended, if at all, trusting that God is well in control of His Church. Obedience and trust seems to be the missing link, replaced with rationale for uprising in the streets … “They think that by much speaking, they will be heard.”

Then it is the Pope himself you are lecturing on creating disunity because he himself has stated that there has already been a fracture and that chasm has existed since the inception of Vatican Council II. This is by no means the fault of Vatican II.

I get the impression you believe the best way to close the gap is to pretend it doesn’t exist and everyone just be agreeable. I would ask you what the parties on either side should agree too? I don’t know that you fully realize the broad applications that are in play in parts of the west. There are so many parishes not following the GIRM as has been repeatedly begged and requested by Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Arinze, and so many others. Who is creating the disunity here? If I use your logic, it is Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Arinze because they are the ones saying there is a problem, right along with the rest of us who feel very slighted by liturgies run amok. For some people, there isn’t a liturgy in town that is compliant with all aspects of the GIRM. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have declared that it is the right of the people to have a liturgy free of those things written and discussed in Redemptionis Sacramentum, and it should follow the GIRM.

One would need blinders to not see how many parishes are not doing this by what is posted in these threads. As St. Augustine says:“Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it.”

You want to talk about obedience, then the people you need to lecture about causing disunity are those who fail to know the GIRM, those who fail to apply what they know is in the GIRM and even moreso, those who continue to violate that which is covered in Redemptionis Sacramentum and ignore other requests made pastorally by His Holiness.

It has been some time since Pope John Paul II asked that the TLM be made widely and generously available in each diocese. Have all bishops been obedient to this direction? It is in the very dioceses where violations are rampant that a TLM cannot be found and for some, it would be the only Mass in which they could find refuge from these violations.

I cannot stress enough the teachings of the Doctors of the Church who repeatedly warned the faithful in God’s name, not to scandalize and draw others away from adherence to the magisterium as though it were a “right” to insist on one’s private preferences.

Carole

I too stress the importance of the doctors of the Church. Obedience was at the top of their list and from all that you have written, you make it clear that the only ones guilty of disobedience, per your personal judgment of them, are those who simply want to have a compliant Mass, free of major and minor violations, with traditional polyphony or chant rather than folk music, in an environment where silence and reverence are promoted by the priests, not blown off out of some kind of misguided charity.

It sounds to me like you have a beef with Cardinal Arinze, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. Because they too have written extensively about the need for sacred silence, the need for reverence, the need for a return to Gregorian Chant, and so on. These are what many of us have wanted and cannot get at 98% of the parishes.

What is so disturbing is that all the while you are preaching “obedience” you don’t see that it is disobedience itself that people are talking about. Rather, you , coming across as if you have a right and duty to judge the intentions of those who discuss the same issues the Popes and prefects have been discussing, as well as a good many bishops. The bishops themselve are fractured. This is as good a reason as any for the Pope to have his say. I wonder if all will fall in line when he does.

 

[Joysong]

Diane,

As long as you apply your own intepretation to my words, it is difficult to have any discussion. My post stands as written, and those who read it may interpret it as they will. Let’s not have another thread closed down.

It sounds to me like you have a **beef **with Cardinal Arinze, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict.

Carole

 

[warrior71]

Joysong:

I also doubt that he can, Warrior, unless he speaks “ex cathedra” due to a gross finding of error in the documents. I believe, from having read a great deal about Church structure and Councils in St. Francis de Sales’ writings, there would have to be another Council convened to restructure and correct any deficiencies, with a 2/3 majority vote. Unless, of course, he can do this through an encyclical?

Statement by his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
**
It is clear that this commitment to expressing a particular truth in a new way calls for fresh reflection upon it and a new relationship with it; it is also clear that the new word can mature only if it derives from an aware understanding of the truth expressed and that, on the other hand, the reflection on faith also requires that this faith is lived. In this sense, the plan proposed by Pope John XXIII was extremely demanding, just as the synthesis of faithfulness and dynamism is demanding. But wherever this interpretation has been the guideline for the reception of the Council, there new life has grown and new fruits have matured. Forty years after the Council, we can ascertain that the positive aspects are greater and more vibrant than they appeared in the years around 1968. Today we can see that the good seed, even if it develops slowly, nevertheless grows, and our profound gratitude for the work carried out by the Council grows along with it**.

From the above statement, made during the same address as posted at the beginning of this thread, it seems pretty plain that while the Holy Father may have and does have his own personal preferences as to certain things, overall he feels that things are fine, following the documents and texts of the Second Vatican Council and in essence doing all right…

If the Holy Father can look atthe Church today, at the state that it is in and the direction it is heading, and say that the positive aspects are greater and more vibrant then before and that they come from good seed, then there is no real reason to change anything is there. After all if it’s not broke why fix it.

It would help to remember that while he appears to be a conservative in some areas, the Holy Father is an ardent and vocal supporter of Vatican II, and the growth, as he calls it, that is the result of that council.

As I have said, the little things, the cosmetic things really don’t matter much to the powers that be and their advisors… It is the big things that count. I sincerely doubt, in fact I’m positive that the Holy Father will neither issue any directives, speak ex-cathedra or even rock the boat very much in any area concerning the reforms of Vatican II and what has happened to the Church as aresult. Any big changes would indicate that the previous growth and reforms were not what the council intended and that would be a no no. :tsktsk:

I repeat, the Holy Father just isn’t going to do that.

 

[Joysong]

In post #15, I neglected to provide the reference source for the document in that post. It is here.

Carole