Pope Francis emphasizes that Second Vatican Council is the work of the Holy Spirit [CWN]

[JReducation]

“Neo-Modernists” such as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Henri de Lubac?

Are you saying that Benedict XVI is a Modernist?

True. But Pope Francis could do as St. Pius X, and take firm measures to ensure orthodoxy among the bishops, clergy, and theologians. Oftentimes stern warnings that certain things are not acceptable, and clear statements as to what is expected, can go a long way.

St. Pius did so. Yet, it did not work. The Code of Canon Law that St. Pius X approved was in effect until 1983. The code was the product of work done by Pius X.

It was not the Pope Pius was wrong. It was the same as today. People are stubborn and arrogant.

In the article, the pope says it’s stubbornness.

There is a great deal of truth to this.

 

[GloriaMaria]

Having two son-in-laws trained in engineering, I have found the old saw about the glass half full or half empty has a third option - it is twice as big as it needs to be…

All of which is to say that we have a tendency to see what we generally look for. If we are looking for grief, and problems in the Church, we can see women attempting ordination with some kook; we can see Father Happy Clappy with no clue about the sacred; we can find Sister Twitterpate talking about MotherFatherGod. In short, we can find plenty of people adrift but still calling themselves “Catholic”, only having gone through some sort of “reform”.

Then on the other side, we have Archbishop Chaput, Cardinal O’Malley, seminaries trying to figure out how to expand because they are overfull, young priests on fire with love of God and filled with the Holy Spirit.

Maybe it is because I have been around for a while; I am now on my seventh Archbishop, and seventh Pope. And I figured out, quite early on, that the crazies did not, do not, and will not represent the Church; they represent an aberration of it. I had the privilege of studying the documents of Vatican 2 as they were being released, under the guidance of priests and scholastics (I attended a Jesuit high school, college seminary and what was then still a Catholic college) and we had no problem seeing that the documents were consistent with prior Church teachings.

Maybe I was just sheltered then from all the crazies; but we accepted the fact that the Holy Spirit guided the Church (and continues to do so even today). so we didn’t tail spin over “subsist”; we didn’t look for ways of reading the documents other than with the mind of the Church. and we didn’t find a modernist twist to the documents. We were neither left nor right; we were just following the Church.

I smell wisdom. Thank you for sharing this.

 

[Lucky7]

You know the councils/popes are making decisions that come down from God…so…why wouldn’t everyone embrace it?

I think most of the folks posting here have issues in its implementation, not the actual Council. In other words, parishes across America do not properly reflect the wishes of Vatican II.

 

[Lucky7]

The answer to this is YESSS. Chalcedon and Nicea left enough dust to last about 300 years. There are some interesting reflections by the fathers of the time.

Um, Brother, this is not making me feel any better…lol.

 

[Lucky7]

I often feel like I am walking on egg shells here - always worried that I frame whatever it is I am going to ask in as charitable and non-confrontational way as possible. But I don’t know a nice way to ask a question that is really grating on my nerves.

What took fifty years to decide they want to straighten the mess out?

I wonder if the vocal laity has anything to do with it.

 

[Lucky7]

Popes are not temporal rulers. They don’t have that kind of authority. As Cardinal Arinze once said, “What do you want? Do you want the pope to send Swiss Guards to arrest everyone who does not tow the line?”

Pope Benedict once said, “Many think that the pope has power. But the truth is that the pope has no power outside of Church law.”

Church law already tells us what to do and not to do.

But we have seen a number of posts since the election of the Pope stating that the Pope is above the law. If the law isn’t working to fix a problem, then he could change the law to address the problem, no?

 

[SMHW]

But we have seen a number of posts since the election of the Pope stating that the Pope is above the law. If the law isn’t working to fix a problem, then he could change the law to address the problem, no?

But laws don’t fix behavior. When you introduce a new law with the idea of fixing a problem you have one more law that can be disregarded.

Should the oft joked about “liturgical police” have the power to forcibly escort bishops to the Vatican, priests to the diocesan offices, and parishioners to the rectory for disciplinary action?

Yes I realize I am being kind of silly. And I know there are penalties like removal of clergy from a position and refusing communion.

 

[otjm]

But we have seen a number of posts since the election of the Pope stating that the Pope is above the law. If the law isn’t working to fix a problem, then he could change the law to address the problem, no?

No.

Father Hans Kung has been removed from teaching as a Catholic theologian. It didn’t stop him from musing down the wrong path (and by the way, he and Benedict had lunch after Benedict became Pope).

Likewise, Father Charles Curran.

The list goes on.

Declaring people heretics did not get them back into the Church; on occasion excommunicating someone has helped them to see the error of their ways; but I suspect that if a tally were made, the results would not induce a tremendous amount of hope.

Furthermore, in society today, excommunicating someone is tantamount to making them a bloodless, living martyr, not something to be pursued if one is trying to silence that person, or modify their behavior. And that applies both to society at large, and within the circles of those baptized Catholic (I use that phrase as about 25%, give or take a few percent, go to Mass on a regular basis).

The Pope, the local bishop, your parish priest, a retreat master, all of them can help those who would be helped.

As for those who won’t be helped, it would behoove us to keep them in our prayers, and then stop watching what is going on. It tends to cause too much heartburn otherwise.

 

[Lucky7]

But laws don’t fix behavior. When you introduce a new law with the idea of fixing a problem** you have one more law that can be disregarded**.

Should the oft joked about “liturgical police” have the power to forcibly escort bishops to the Vatican, priests to the diocesan offices, and parishioners to the rectory for disciplinary action?

Yes I realize I am being kind of silly. And I know there are penalties like removal of clergy from a position and refusing communion.

Or there’s always the chance that the new law could be followed. I’m not getting the thinking that you ignore the problem because a new law might also be disregarded.

 

[SMHW]

I’m not getting the thinking that you ignore the problem because a new law might also be disregarded.

If there is no law to begin with then maybe you do need a law.

But if there is already a law I don’t get passing a new law telling people to obey the one they have already decided not to obey.

 

[McCall1981]

If there is no law to begin with then maybe you do need a law.

But if there is already a law I don’t get passing a new law telling people to obey the one they have already decided not to obey.

I think it would be more about enforcing the existing laws, rather creating entirely new ones.

For instance, with pro-abortion politicians receiving the Eucharist, they wouldn’t create a new law banning these people, but simply enforce the existing law.

 

[Lucky7]

I think it would be more about enforcing the existing laws, rather creating entirely new ones.

For instance, with pro-abortion politicians receiving the Eucharist, they wouldn’t create a new law banning these people, but simply enforce the existing law.

But apparently there are interpretations on when/how it is applied. In addition, apparently bishops are allowed to disregard that particular law (at least this is what I am remembering from the various, recent CAF discussions on the matter).

When I say change the law, I would say (for example, with Canon 915 above) that the Pope could change it so that no bishop is allowed to disregard it.

 

[Lucky7]

No.

Father Hans Kung has been removed from teaching as a Catholic theologian. It didn’t stop him from musing down the wrong path (and by the way, he and Benedict had lunch after Benedict became Pope).

Likewise, Father Charles Curran.

The list goes on.

Declaring people heretics did not get them back into the Church; on occasion excommunicating someone has helped them to see the error of their ways; but I suspect that if a tally were made, the results would not induce a tremendous amount of hope.

Furthermore, in society today, excommunicating someone is tantamount to making them a bloodless, living martyr, not something to be pursued if one is trying to silence that person, or modify their behavior. And that applies both to society at large, and within the circles of those baptized Catholic (I use that phrase as about 25%, give or take a few percent, go to Mass on a regular basis).

The Pope, the local bishop, your parish priest, a retreat master, all of them can help those who would be helped.

As for those who won’t be helped, it would behoove us to keep them in our prayers, and then stop watching what is going on. It tends to cause too much heartburn otherwise.

Yep…you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this…because the pastoral approach hasn’t been successful either.

 

[sennincatholic]

Having two son-in-laws trained in engineering, I have found the old saw about the glass half full or half empty has a third option - it is twice as big as it needs to be…

All of which is to say that we have a tendency to see what we generally look for. If we are looking for grief, and problems in the Church, we can see women attempting ordination with some kook; we can see Father Happy Clappy with no clue about the sacred; we can find Sister Twitterpate talking about MotherFatherGod. In short, we can find plenty of people adrift but still calling themselves “Catholic”, only having gone through some sort of “reform”.

Then on the other side, we have Archbishop Chaput, Cardinal O’Malley, seminaries trying to figure out how to expand because they are overfull, young priests on fire with love of God and filled with the Holy Spirit.

Maybe it is because I have been around for a while; I am now on my seventh Archbishop, and seventh Pope. And I figured out, quite early on, that the crazies did not, do not, and will not represent the Church; they represent an aberration of it. I had the privilege of studying the documents of Vatican 2 as they were being released, under the guidance of priests and scholastics (I attended a Jesuit high school, college seminary and what was then still a Catholic college) and we had no problem seeing that the documents were consistent with prior Church teachings.

Maybe I was just sheltered then from all the crazies; but we accepted the fact that the Holy Spirit guided the Church (and continues to do so even today). so we didn’t tail spin over “subsist”; we didn’t look for ways of reading the documents other than with the mind of the Church. and we didn’t find a modernist twist to the documents. We were neither left nor right; we were just following the Church.

My respect :tiphat: Papa.

 

[McCall1981]

Furthermore, in society today, excommunicating someone is tantamount to making them a bloodless, living martyr, not something to be pursued if one is trying to silence that person, or modify their behavior. And that applies both to society at large, and within the circles of those baptized Catholic.QUOTE]

It’s interesting, I have thought this myself, that excommunicating someone would make them a martyr of sorts and backfire by drawing more attention to them. It probably would, but since it never (that I am aware of) happens, how would we know?

Plus, it seems like there could be intermediate steps the Church could take to enforce laws more without resorting to excommuncation.

For instance, maybe the Pope could issue a statement saying something like a politician who votes against Church teaching should not receive eucharist, if they do it should be understood that they have repented of their position and are now in line with Church teaching.

This would draw attention to the issue, and put the politician in an awkward spot, without making a martyr of them.

 

[SMHW]

I think it would be more about enforcing the existing laws, rather creating entirely new ones.

For instance, with pro-abortion politicians receiving the Eucharist, they wouldn’t create a new law banning these people, but simply enforce the existing law.

Which brings us back to the question of how to enforce the existing law. And how do you enforce the enforcing?

 

[JReducation]

Um, Brother, this is not making me feel any better…lol.

Why?

But we have seen a number of posts since the election of the Pope stating that the Pope is above the law. If the law isn’t working to fix a problem, then he could change the law to address the problem, no?

The problem is not the law. The law is reasonable. The problem is that people are not always reasonable. They are often stubborn.

Take for example Archbishop Lefebvre. He ordained four bishops without a papal mandate. The law is very reasonable. You must have a papal mandate to ordain bishops. This is a safety net to preserve the unity of the bishops with the primacy. The law is reasonable. Archbishop Lefebvre was unreasonable and stubborn. The pope can’t have him arrested.

The Church has to be very careful with how she enforces law that she does not violate the principle of religious freedom. Otherwise, she becomes a perpetrator against human dignity. Even when people do what is wrong, they do not lose their God-given dignity. The Church cannot violate that dignity by violating their religious freedom.

 

[McCall1981]

Which brings us back to the question of how to enforce the existing law. And how do you enforce the enforcing?

Well, it depends which law you’re talking about. As far as I know, the laws and the “punishments” are already there, so you just enact them.

 

[Lucky7]

Why?

Because you said that those Councils took 300 years to sort out!!

 

[Lucky7]

Plus, it seems like there could be intermediate steps the Church could take to enforce laws more without resorting to excommuncation.

For instance, maybe the Pope could issue a statement saying something like a politician who votes against Church teaching should not receive eucharist, if they do it should be understood that they have repented of their position and are now in line with Church teaching.

This would draw attention to the issue, and put the politician in an awkward spot, without making a martyr of them.

This would be a good first step; however, what happens when the politician still ignores the Pope…and receives communion? I think, in addition to what you said, the Pope then says, if the politician chooses to continue to recceive communion without publically recanting their position he should be denied communion.

Anyway, I didn’t mean to get on that topic again. I know where it will lead around here.

And I can talk until I’m blue in the face and it won’t change things.