Vatican II Ambiguities

[clem456]

Then who does it profit? The theologically inclined. But then why is every Jim, Tom and Suzy expected to read them? … Hmm… There’s that tension I was mentioning.

Second bold: is that really true? Then what’s this business about everybody understanding and doing his/her part, “read the docs,” etc?

note to mod: I’m not being argumentative, I’m trying to understand and have a conversation, much like amateur theologians around a fire I imagine.

No problem its all good.
To clarify, It’s not my business to demand full understanding. It’s not possible, so I should not covet after it. It is my business to remain faithful though, to trust and give my loving assent even when I can’t understand. As a human being, my ability to understand is very limited, my ability to practice, maybe more limited yet.

The teaching profits us all regardless of an individual level of understanding. If it is truthful (which it is guaranteed to be), it is of infinite value. If it guides one person to conversion who say, becomes a pope, then God’s will is working through his truth.
Is it fair to say the Church’s teaching is like a mustard seed who’s benefits may be hard to visualize or predict?

 

[CrossofChrist]

The “status quo” was not “repressing” anyone, let alone “unjustly.” You’re talking about the Magisterium here.

Men of the Church sometimes don’t see everything clearly in matters of judgment. This was a time where the Church was very fearful of modernism and took a very defensive stance. But perhaps “repressing” wasn’t quite the right word (although it would be fitting for de Lubac).

But Henri de Lubac was indeed silenced.
Karl Rahner was censored (who, despite ambiguity, was orthodox)
Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI, was suspected of heresy
Hans Urs von Balthasar was banned from teaching
Yves Congar also had some of his works prohibited

With four Cardinals questioned, along with one future Pope, I think they were indeed unjustly questioned or silenced, depending on the individual.

While there are numerous quotes on the criticism the leaders of the Nouvelle Theologie gave Neo Scholasticism, I think this quote from de Lubac is more significant for this moment:

*Allow me to recall something that happened. Joseph Ratzinger, an expert at the Council, was also the private secretary of Card. Frings, Archbishop of Cologne. Blind, the old Cardinal largely utilized his secretary to write his interventions. Now then, one of these interventions became memorable: it was a radical criticism of the methods of the Holy Office. Despite a reply by Card. Ottaviani, Frings sustained his critique.

It is not an exaggeration to say that on that day the old Holy Office, as it presented itself then, was destroyed by Ratzinger in union with his Archbishop.*

 

[Classicist]

To the OP:

A priest who is very conservative (but accepts Vatican II unequivocally) told me that the documents of the Second Vatican Council are more narrative than dogma. There is a certain prose to it, he said, rather than strict poetry. The rhythm of “anathema” upon “anathema” in the older Councils was poetic and strict. The freedom of the narrative style of Vatican II is very prosaic - in every sense of that word - …often with an unintended meretricious effect.

 

[edwest2]

This is the tension I was talking about. On the face of it, Vatican II was written to be read by theologians, clerics, and religious. It was written to be applied to and largely motivating for not only those people, but also your average laity as well.

People say “salt of the world” and other fun catchphrases and then say, “Go read Lumen Gentium and you’ll see,” or whatever, and you get blank stares. Since when has the Church expected laity to read apostolic constitutions and encyclical letters? I bet ya very few read Pastor aeternus, yet most Catholics in, oh, 1903 had at least some very basic understanding drilled in to their heads that the Pope is infallible when he teaches faith and morals.

In short, all Councils have affected Catholics in differing ways. Yet what we have with Vatican II is this Council that hyper-affects laity. The natural tendency is to tell them to read the documents. But how many can, or are willing to do that? That is what I mean by impracticality. If you want people to do that kind of stuff, you have to provide them with the prerequisite education. I can go read Dei Verbum and I will understand the words, sentences, paragraphs, even the whole thing on one level. But unless I have an extremely good education before that, it won’t have any real value. It’s like trying to jump in to any subject without a very good prerequisite education. Sure, some people will be able to understand an anatomy textbook without first having taken basic biology courses, but the vast majority will be lost. They will understand the words, but probably not much past that. I do think this aspect of the whole hubbub is really that simple.

Plus, when you take a document that isn’t technical in nature but is very poetic and flowery and has lots of internal tensions and ebbs and flows, this is getting in to a whole other level of practical difficulty.

The Church expects me to understand Vatican II, right? I don’t think you can really say no. So, I want the education or the Cliff’s Notes.

Here you are:

harvestingthefruit.com/store/faith-formation-series/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is the tension I was talking about. On the face of it, Vatican II was written to be read by theologians, clerics, and religious. It was written to be applied to and largely motivating for not only those people, but also your average laity as well.

1- The tension there could have been resolved right in the documents, to a large extent, by issuing one of two things: A summary addendum, confirming existing dogma & doctrine in some specifics (such as the tension between ecumenism and salvation or The One True Church), or a summary at the end of each section which dealt with new theology on specific topics or “strands.”

2- I agree that there was motivation for the average lay person as well. The Council strove to make The Faith accessible, and in that, the Council documents as well. And in making a following point, I want you to understand that I agree with your basic premise, that most people will not be motivated to become sufficiently educated, and others will not be able to Theology is considered the queen of the academic disciplines. (Thomas Aquinas: “The queen of sciences.”) In order to be able to be literate in it, so that you can categorize what has not been categorized for you, you must also be trained in philosophy and in logic. The three disciplines are mutual.

3- Thus, where V2 often “worked,” was in unusually and homogeneously educated parishes. There was enormous enthusiasm and engagement with the faith there. Excited conversation, without a loss of fidelity. Not everyone was “talking theology,” although the priests often were. However, the insights into appllications were often discussed, and there was both a fervor and a celebration (the mini “utopia” you have referred to). Such parishes were full to overflowing. (SRO, extra chairs brought in, that kind of thing.) Music was also vibrant.

4- Again, in different (more typical) parishes, such was not the case. People would not have been interested in picking up a copy of Lumen Gentium if their lives depended on it. (Confirming this, which is operative today):

“Go read Lumen Gentium and you’ll see,” or whatever, and you get blank stares.

Back to my paragraph 3, and the follow up. (Why didn’t that mni-utopia sustain itself?) Because many of those very dynamic priests left to get married, and priests like that were excellent interpreters. When the leadership leaves, and the continutiy dissolves, Houston, We Have a Problem. (<—Before your time.)

Some say that priests leaving to marry was the affect of the secular media and nothing else.

The natural tendency is to tell them to read the documents. But how many can, or are willing to do that? …It’s like trying to jump in to any subject without a very good prerequisite education.

Which is why those of us who are trained, and some who are simply well-read, spend endless hours arguing with the shockingly poorly trained in the Apologetics sections of CAF. For example, one key element of this essential education I referred to, is knowing what the Church means when she says that God is a God of order, ruling an ordered universe. If one doesn’t understand that, or the implications of that, one cannot understand “what’s so wrong” about homosexual activity or “marriage,” deconstruction of the natural family, or artificial contraception. The “open” quality of the documents of V2 (much of which is style, as we both have said) never included a statement or implication that God represents chaos, or that God is subordinate to society – that God has been suddenly marginalized. Yet modern Catholics, in “arguing” moral positions, are essentially arguing for chaos. Nothing could be less Catholic than such a premise.

In agreeing with you, I do think that IF the Church is serious about The New (Internal) Evangelization, and IF she does accept that a certain level of catechesis is essential to that, I think the Church needs to make some decisions, yes, on how she will go about it. I actually agree with the Bishop who was referenced in the OP. I agree with that as the starting point, because then the questions will begin and the answers will be forthcoming. Just my puny opinion.

 

[godisgood77]

The Council was meant to be a starting point for future spiritual and theological revival and renewal. It wasn’t meant to be very authoritarian or decisive in its theological content because it wasn’t meant to weigh down heavily on future generations. This would leave room for different schools of theology to have dialogue with one another (e.g the New Theology, which heavily influenced the Council, wanted more breathing room since the neoscholastic status quo was unjustly repressing it.). Of course, the assumption was that the documents would be read in light of Catholic teaching, something not always done.

Well said…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Correcting Self:

I meant the Cardinal in the OP, not bishop.

Also, regarding my statement about priests leaving to marry (and the influence toward that), there’s evidence both of secular and internal pressure for ‘an expectation that priest shoud/would be allowed to marry,’ but my personal opinion on this is that the most operative pressures were external.

It may not matter. The effect of those priests leaving, who had previously received a classical training in what was necessary to authentically interpert & apply V2, had a significant impact on what followed in terms of less well-trained priests (by their own admission today) leading parishes. Again, there’s some evidence for internal politics & forces occurring which had a negative effect on two generations of Catholics. It’s not for me to determine the Ultimate Cause of all that, but for whatever reasons, it’s now in the Church’s lap, and merely doing nothing, formally and structurally, will not resolve the ongoing crisis.

 

[edwest2]

I think some people are looking in the wrong direction. The problems with Vatican II must be in the documents. So far, after many threads, the question remains unanswered: where? And then more ambiguities are added about misinterpretations or communications. That does not appear to be the case either. After 1965, the seeds of what we are living through right now were planted. While a thorough examination is good, I think the suspects here are clearly over two hundreds theologians who took out a full page ad in the New York Times in 1968 basically telling everyone Pope Paul VI got it wrong for affirming constant Church teaching about artificial birth control in the encyclical Humanae Vitae.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

So, who, as a Catholic in the pew, are you going to listen to? A large group of dissenting theologians out to say that the Pope got it wrong or the Pope? And where did the money come from to take out a full page ad in the New York Times? Plus let’s not forget that in order to sell The Pill, you can’t have someone like the Pope getting in your way. Social change - society being turned upside down - was in motion.

The ambiguities, if they exist, appear to not be the issue here. The problem was a network of dissenters inside the Church who were told one thing and decided to do something else. This during a time period where the Church, and Christianity in general, was taken a lot more seriously by people in the West than today. The evidence is plain: you see it in public behavior, speech and dress today. Human dignity? Out the window. Marriage? Disposable. Promiscuity? Who isn’t? And artificial birth control? Too many Catholics are contracepting and it didn’t happen overnight, and was clearly engineered by the media and dissenters to make sure the wrong message got out.

Just like the earlier article I posted. Someone, somewhere had the authority to issue contracts and pay moneys to contractors to get ugly Churches built starting in the late 1960s, and this is not a coincidence - at all. It is evidence that a secondary, dissenting command structure was set up inside and outside the Church. And that a group of someones was running enough interference for them to explain away any ‘irregularities.’ Trust was high in the late 1960s among the American public regarding the Church and the Media. Apparently, among the workers in the local vineyard, some were spoiling part of the crop and blaming it on something else if those higher up asked any questions.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lormar]

Ed West, or anyone here, I have a question in reference to your post and I hope I word it well but the only way I can ask my question is to put it bluntly.

Why didn’t the hierarchy work harder way back when the dissenters took control (and they did, especially in the United States) to stop it? If they had, much of what we have today could have been avoided I believe. But now, the errors of the dissenters are rooted, and it is that much harder to uproot the errors.

Please know that I am not asking this question to start any kind of trouble; I sincerely would like to know what others think about this. Thank you!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Why didn’t the hierarchy work harder way back when the dissenters took control (and they did, especially in the United States) to stop it? If they had, much of what we have today could have been avoided I believe.

Because (I think) things happened way too quickly. It was a very rapid pace. Before the hierarchy knew the scope of what was happening, it had happened. They were unable to control the momentum, internally. The Council itself (and John XXIII & Pius VI) did not anticipate the ramifications, nor were they able to control them, and John XXIII was dead.

However, the Church is now much more in a position to do so, imho. So, I have asked this question before, and I will ask it again, *What is the Holy See waiting for? * We are in the Emergency Room with a still-beating heart. Let’s rescue the patient.

 

[edwest2]

Correcting Self:

I meant the Cardinal in the OP, not bishop.

Also, regarding my statement about priests leaving to marry (and the influence toward that), there’s evidence both of secular and internal pressure for ‘an expectation that priest shoud/would be allowed to marry,’ but my personal opinion on this is that the most operative pressures were external.

It may not matter. The effect of those priests leaving, who had previously received a classical training in what was necessary to authentically interpert & apply V2, had a significant impact on what followed in terms of less well-trained priests (by their own admission today) leading parishes. Again, there’s some evidence for internal politics & forces occurring which had a negative effect on two generations of Catholics. It’s not for me to determine the Ultimate Cause of all that, but for whatever reasons, it’s now in the Church’s lap, and merely doing nothing, formally and structurally, will not resolve the ongoing crisis.

The ongoing crisis is subsiding. Pope John Paul II was lambasted by a certain theologian in the Los Angeles Times about causing problems in the Church. No, he was fixing things, quietly, like removing this theologian’s authority to teach theology. The Church does not believe in airing its dirty laundry in public. It engages those inside the Church that disagree or oppose what it teaches as Christ would. Not so strangely, this same theologian would accuse Pope Benedict of trying to return the Church to the Middle Ages. It’s quite clear that Pope Benedict’s efforts to strengthen Church tradition were in question. Yet, good fruit came forth:

ncregister.com/daily-news/benedicts-men-u.s.-vocations-strengthen-during-his-eight-year-papacy/

And around the world, growth in terms of the Catholic population has shifted from the West to other areas:

pewforum.org/Christian/Catholic/The-Global-Catholic-Population.aspx

We have access to a form of technology the world has never known until recently and we cannot afford to ignore it. Vatican II or no Vatican II, apparently people in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region seem to “get” it, meaning the Church. While Europe, in particular, has taken a big hit. Vatican II? I don’t think so.

And Pope Francis is telling me, and all Catholics, exactly what I was taught as a boy before Vatican II. God has given us a great Holy Father. He is showing every sign of moving the Church in the right direction and dissenters had hopes that he would do it their way. It’s obvious that that will never happen.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TimothyH]

I think you have a point, but there is a tension… Which is it: are we supposed to be totally and fully active members of the Church as laypeople (doesn’t that necessarily mean we will have a very deep theological training), or are we supposed to just take marching orders and get on with it?

Either give us theological training–that’s not going to happen–or give us a crystal clear road map. Or abandon that paradigm all together.

Read " a Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II" by Edward P Hahnenberg. It explains the hows and whys of all these supposed “Ambiguities”.

There is also the issue of trust and of humility. Trust that God is working through his Church and humility in the classic sense - not humiliation but knowing our proper place in the Church. The vast majority of us are not theologians nor were we called to be. We are called to be excellent mortgage brokers, firefighters, math teachers and construction workers, to be the best husbands and wives and parents and children we can be and through these to imitate Christ in the small matters of everyday life.

Jean Pierre de Caussade called it the “Sacrament of the present moment”.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

To the OP:

A priest who is very conservative (but accepts Vatican II unequivocally) told me that **the documents of the Second Vatican Council are more narrative than dogma. **There is a certain prose to it, he said, rather than strict poetry. The rhythm of “anathema” upon “anathema” in the older Councils was poetic and strict. The freedom of the narrative style of Vatican II is very prosaic - in every sense of that word - …often with an unintended meretricious effect.

Huh, I was not aware of that. Why is Lumen Gentium titled like this?

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

 

[october_baby]

very interesting…

 

[Tigg]

Although I understand the Cardinal’s words are only in Italian, here is one translation of part of what he said:

"In many places, they had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of
the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit
them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the
door to a selective reception in either direction.

He also said, "“For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the council are part of the church’s daily life. But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the church, which were expected at that time, but rather a church that has a wintery look, and shows clear signs of crisis.”

I understand this to mean a multitude of interpretations might be possible. And no - not everyone can be a theologian, but with the attitude of dissent coming from some in high levels it is important we understand just what our faith teaches and not assent to anything it does not.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You are an optimist, Ed.

I, OTOH, if not a pessimist, am highly cautionary.

And, yes, I agree with you that there is not as much of a current and conscious awareness of V2, but to say that there is no lingering effect from the errant informal teaching of a decentralized Church, is to be somewhat, I argue, naive. In history, as you know well, effects of single actions and seminal events can be felt for decades, even when they’re not actively in the public consciousness of a society. It’s not so much that there’s some kind of ‘active’ “excuse for V2” still operative, it’s the situation of passivity/inaction that continues to be a Life Force of its own. YoungTradCath touches on this when he describes the mismatch between doctrinally aware pre-V2 Catholics who did not demand self-verification of Truth in order to be faithful, vs. today’s Catholics who do, yet have not the tools.

The current tension (opposing Life Forces) in the Church is this: The Faith approach “versus” the intellectual approach. Some who talk about The New Evangelization are convinced that the way to bring dissenting Catholics into the believing fold is by blind commitment first. I respectfuly disagree. I think this will work with some segments, and has worked with some segments, on a small scale. I do not think that this works with the crowd (large) which is very secularized, sophisticated, experienced, and educated. I think they have demanded and will demand intellectual answers as well.

Here’s where The Faith approach works: with those (generally older) who were already previously spiritually formed, pre-V2, within the seductive and effective spirituality of the Church. Those people are returning to their roots, through the avenue of Faith, first. Then, through the experience of fidelity, their intellectual eyes are illuminated to understand Truth, and that marriage is successful. However, most post-V2 Catholics have received insufficient or even totally absent formation in Catholic spirtuality (prayer, the writings of the saints, etc.) They have no foundation for that Faith, and so still must be brought into it in a systematic way, through parish and other adult programs, acquainting them for the first time with the beauty of Catholic spirituality and the essential operation of the three Theological Virtues, one of which is Faith. Faith is something actively sought and passively received, through cooperation by the individual Catholic with the font of grace. (Today’s Catholic typically thinks the opposite: that Faith is the end result of knowledge. ‘Modernist’ Catholics are typically enamored with control of knowledge. Modernist does not equal modern; it describes an orientation.) The dynamic between Faith and Reason has not been properly taught to modern Catholics, and has been rejected by modernist Catholics.

 

[Tigg]

In short, all Councils have affected Catholics in differing ways. Yet what we have with Vatican II is this Council that hyper-affects laity.

Out of your whole long and very worthy post, the above hit me like a rock! You are right, but WHY is this so? It wasn’t just because Pre-Vat II Catholics had to change, but because things we had grown up with all our lives and believed were being told to us in conflicting and astounding ways. It wasn’t because of the changes we saw in church buildings and the liturgy, but because the world went mad and we were being taught things that rocked our very Catholic minds and hearts. For a highly influential nun to tell a class that Mother Mary was not as significant to God’s plan of salvation as we were originally taught, to be told by a priest in confession that ABC’s were up to our individual conscience, or to be told by another priest that the Sacrament of Marriage only lasted as long as the love the two individuals had for each other - it was monumental (and of course, erroneous) news. (This is to be continued after I read this whole thread.)

 

[edwest2]

Ed West, or anyone here, I have a question in reference to your post and I hope I word it well but the only way I can ask my question is to put it bluntly.

Why didn’t the hierarchy work harder way back when the dissenters took control (and they did, especially in the United States) to stop it? If they had, much of what we have today could have been avoided I believe. But now, the errors of the dissenters are rooted, and it is that much harder to uproot the errors.

Please know that I am not asking this question to start any kind of trouble; I sincerely would like to know what others think about this. Thank you!

Part of the answer to your question is the way the Church deals with dissenters and Catholics in public office who are clearly ignoring or disagreeing with Church authority. For example, a day or so ago, Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, wants to decriminalize abortion after 24 weeks. Even here, a few people were calling for the excommunication of openly practicing Catholics in office for doing things like this. Isn’t it obvious that the Church has no reason to stay its hand regarding Catholics in public office?

But things are getting tougher now. In the past, we do not have the answers regarding what was going on behind the scenes right after Vatican II. Pope Benedict, shortly before stepping down, made two statements regarding Vatican II and his words give us a few clues although names are not named.

ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/

For now, I’ll leave everyone with this, but will look for additional information shortly.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

You are an optimist, Ed.

I, OTOH, if not a pessimist, am highly cautionary.

And, yes, I agree with you that there is not as much of a current and conscious awareness of V2, but to say that there is no lingering effect from the errant informal teaching of a decentralized Church, is to be somewhat, I argue, naive. In history, as you know well, effects of single actions and seminal events can be felt for decades, even when they’re not actively in the public consciousness of a society. It’s not so much that there’s some kind of ‘active’ “excuse for V2” still operative, it’s the situation of passivity/inaction that continues to be a Life Force of its own. YoungTradCath touches on this when he describes the mismatch between doctrinally aware pre-V2 Catholics who did not demand self-verification of Truth in order to be faithful, vs. today’s Catholics who do, yet have not the tools.

The current tension (opposing Life Forces) in the Church is this: The Faith approach “versus” the intellectual approach. Some who talk about The New Evangelization are convinced that the way to bring dissenting Catholics into the believing fold is by blind commitment first. I respectfuly disagree. I think this will work with some segments, and has worked with some segments, on a small scale. I do not think that this works with the crowd (large) which is very secularized, sophisticated, experienced, and educated. I think they have demanded and will demand intellectual answers as well.

Here’s where The Faith approach works: with those (generally older) who were already previously spiritually formed, pre-V2, within the seductive and effective spirituality of the Church. Those people are returning to their roots, through the avenue of Faith, first. Then, through the experience of fidelity, their intellectual eyes are illuminated to understand Truth, and that marriage is successful. However, most post-V2 Catholics have received insufficient or even totally absent formation in Catholic spirtuality (prayer, the writings of the saints, etc.) They have no foundation for that Faith, and so still must be brought into it in a systematic way, through parish and other adult programs, acquainting them for the first time with the beauty of Catholic spirituality and the essential operation of the three Theological Virtues, one of which is Faith. Faith is something actively sought and passively received, through cooperation by the individual Catholic with the font of grace. (Today’s Catholic typically thinks the opposite: that Faith is the end result of knowledge. ‘Modernist’ Catholics are typically enamored with control of knowledge. Modernist does not equal modern; it describes an orientation.) The dynamic between Faith and Reason has not been properly taught to modern Catholics, and has been rejected by modernist Catholics.

There was a reason Pope Benedict made a point of outlining the lingering effects of what happened after Vatican II just before stepping down.

ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/

I understand what you’re saying, but faith is an active word. Faith without works is dead. As a young man I heard on Catholic Radio related, he defied his parents, sinned like crazy, but the faith of his parents bore fruit. He became a priest. And he thought. “This is great! Why isn’t everybody telling everyone about Jesus and the Church?”

Here’s the key: Pope Benedict has called us not to radical individualism, which he has stated is a problem today, including in the Church, but to radical obedience. Pope Francis has taken it to the next level: just like the parable about us being the salt of the earth, he does not want “museum-piece Christians.”

ncregister.com/site/article/museum-piece-christians/

This Pope is leaving zero room for ambiguity.

There is a resource that deals with the intellectual and analytical dimension.

harvestingthefruit.com/

But back to faith. As in the time of Jesus, some rejected the good news. But He outlined the process of faith formation, which involves all three persons of the Trinity: John 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draw him; and I will raise him on the last day.” NAB. Then, after you accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, the Holy Spirit steps in. John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.’” NAB

Faith is a free will acceptance but it involves a spiritual process. I get that modernists and intellectuals can’t get that. But the Church teaches that God can be known through human, non-religious, reason. And the Bible confirms that faith, if we believe Jesus is God, is not blind acceptance. We know that we have heard the truth. “Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1. NAB

The Church Fathers? Get this:

amazon.com/Fathers-Know-Best-Jimmy-Akin/dp/1933919345

The modern, highly educated, and mostly secular intellectuals, including Catholics, have it backwards today. Faith and reason coexist in the Church, which Pope John Paul II addressed here:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Yes, it’s a long read but getting the whole answer, as opposed to the Cliff’s Notes version, is very important.

Here is a Mormon scholar talking about how, after over 40 years, he became a Catholic, and how faith and reason were involved in his conversion.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/08/a-mormon-scholarrsquos-journey-to-catholic-faith

Peace,
Ed

 

[Elizabeth502]

There was a reason Pope Benedict made a point of outlining the lingering effects of what happened after Vatican II just before stepping down.

ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/

Words. Admirable words. Beautiful words. Words I agree with. (I loved BXVI.) But no concrete programs. Uninformed Catholics are not relating to the words, and often not even listening to the words, Ed.

I understand what you’re saying, but faith is an active word. Faith without works is dead.

I don’t know how that relates to absolutely anything in the subject at hand. We have been talking about errant belief, not errant works. Nor have we been talking about “Faith alone.” (And I’m not with the Faith Alone crowd, remember? I just said it in my last post.) I am of the opinion that a return to Faith+Reason, hand-in-hand, with appropriate resources for the modern half-believing Catholic, is the only way to strengthen the Church and prevent further attrition and non-commitment by those remaining.

Here’s what I believe with every fiber of my being, based on both reason & life experience: more words, more encyclicals, more apostolic letters, more papal homilies, are not succeeding in stopping the hemorrhaging. Action is what is needed.

As someone wisely said, *Not to decide is to decide. * I couldn’t agree more. The ignorance and misinformation within the Church is not going away without direct oppositional effort. As in, action.

Here’s the key: Pope Benedict has called us not to radical individualism, which he has stated [words] is a problem today, including in the Church, but to radical obedience. Pope Francis has taken it to the next level: [words] just like the parable about us being the salt of the earth, he does not want “museum-piece Christians.”

This Pope is leaving zero room for ambiguity.

It doesn’t matter, Ed, because he is being interpreted differently (conveniently) by dissenters than how you are (more correctly) and I (more correctly) are interpreting him. Just like the documents of V2, as well as those who exploited those documents, Catholics of all persuasions, and secularists of all persuasions, are reading his warm, accepting, inviting pastoral style as a form of further doctrinal openness and permissiveness.

There is a resource that deals with the intellectual and analytical dimension.

harvestingthefruit.com/

Nice words. Still no action. Still no programs. Dreams.

You already have faith, as do I. You are preaching to the choir here. We are not the majority in the Church, and I for one do not want to see us becoming increasingly a minority, having to argue every single basic doctrinal point with secularists who go through the motions of attending Mass once/week and have little interest in catechizing themselves about basic matters – spiritual, sacramental, and doctrinal.