Why Vatican II?

[John_Hiner]

Hi, John. Thanks for thoughtful post. You have a very interesting perspective on the question. E.g., I have not read before that the role of the laity changed because of effective repression of hiearchy during 20th century. Is that a conclusion you have drawn on your own based on your knowledge of 20th century history, etc?

Also, it’s very hard for me to see that the laity do, in fact, have a higher “level of sophistication” or an “heightened level of education and commitment” in the post-conciliar Church. Do you see evidence of that?

As I wrote earlier, I don’t think the Cold War or atomic age motives make much sense. At least, if that was part of the motivation, the Council was singularly ineffectual in that regard. I don’t know of any international leader who ever did anything differently as a result of V2.

Please correct me about any of the above if I’m wrong.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

Laudetur Iesus Christus.

Dear ASD:

I do not claim to have originated the observation about the need for an increased role of the laity due to changes in the world. I was first introduced to this idea in discussions with a priestly friend and others about the Second Vatican Council. The idea, however, makes sense to me in view of what I know of the history of the 19th and 20th Centuries. The idea seems to me to be reflected in the documents of the Council itself, for example:

This apostolate becomes more imperative in view of the fact that many areas of human life have become increasingly autonomous. This is as it should be, but it sometimes involves a degree of departure from the ethical and religious order and a serious danger to Christian life. Besides, *in many places where priests are *very few or, in some instances, deprived of due freedom for priestly work, the Church could scarcely exist and function without the activity of the laity.

(Vatican II, Apostolicam Actuositatem, 1, emphasis added.)

There are certainly questions about the degree to which the laity has risen to the call of the Holy Spirit and the Fathers of the Council to meet the increased demands placed upon its members. Certainly many have gone astray through irresponsible engagement with the Faith using tools learned in secularized studies and other arenas. This has led to many errors and confusion. However, the general availability to the laity of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997), which was written to serve specialists and Bishops as a resource for the writing of specific catechisms, indicates a level of knowledge not previously expected of most members of the laity.

Certainly there is much more that needs to be done in this area. The general availability of the *Biblia Clerus *is a striking step in this direction.

With regard to the Church’s role in staving off military disaster, you may be underestimating the matter. Certainly since the Second Vatican Council the Church’s general proclamations to the world have been conciliatory and focused on resolving issues of justice and poverty, rather than on the necessary conversion of people and nations to the Church. You may underestimate the efficacy of the Vatican as a “backdoor” forum for negotiations among ambassadors of nations who are estranged or publicly unwilling to talk directly, in the U.N., or through other diplomatic channels. Further, it is difficult to estimate the Vatican’s role in the relatively peaceful dismantling of the Soviet Union – an opportunity for apocalyptic conflict which had tempted more than a few authors of speculative fiction as well as military planners.

It may be that success in these areas is difficult to notice, because when it works, nothing “news-worthy” happens.

The Pope’s engagement of Islam and the effect it is having on the so called “war on terror” is fascinating, but still developing and so also difficult to judge.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[JReducation]

I don’t know if this has been said before. But we cannot forget that Bl. John XXIII called for the Council. When he asked how long it would take to get such a thing together they told him several years. This was in 1959. He thought about it and said that he wanted it sooner rather than later.

In his biography he was concerned about a number of things.

1. The world had changed after World War II and the voice of the Church needed to be heard not only by Catholics, but by others. Therefore, the Church had to speak about itself and its place in the modern world to the entire world, not just Catholics.
2. Being a historian himself, he knew that the golden years of priestly and religious vocations between 1900 and 1960 were at an end. The number of vocations was a response to a world in crisis, torn apart by war and hunger. After WW II a new era of prosperity and other contexts to serve mankind would reduce the number of vocations. Therefore, the laity had to be prepared to take a more active role in evangelization, Catholic education, catechesis, mission work, Catholic health care, pastoral care and other roles that were traditionally relegated to priests and religious.
3. He also understood that the separation between Christians had to be faced head-on. The Christian people have been separated far too long and the rhetoric of hatred between Christians had to be replaced with a rhetoric of cooperation and understanding. It was not going to unite all Christians, but it was a step, which was better than no step.
4. As the former colonial churches became independent churches, especially in the USA, South America, Africa and Asia, no longer would you present the Catholic faith with a European flavor in nations that felt nothing but resentment toward their former European tyrants. The Church had to speak with her own language and her own personality, not that of Europe. It had to present itself as the Catholic Church not as the European Church. In many countries that Catholic Church was losing ground, because it was too closely identified with European domination. There were dioceses in the former colonies that had never had their own bishops or native bishops who had never had a voice in the universal Church.
5. The Church could no longer maintain its isolation from the State. It had done that since the collapse of the Renaissance. But now the State was preaching its own religion: capitalism, socialism, communism, and other isms. The Church had to step outside the Vatican again and deal with the leaders of nations and the people in those nations on subjects that affected their faith, such as religious freedom.
6. Contrary to popular opinion, the liturgy did not have the same influence in the lives of the newer churches in Latin America, Asia and Africa. It represented a culture that was very much associated with colonization. There was a need to make changes to the liturgy to allow it to speak to people of every culture and nation, while keeping the unity of the liturgy.
7. Religious life as was lived from 1800 - 1960 was very far from what the founders had in mind. Religious communities had become too connected to parishes. The original spirit of mission, enclosure, brotherhood, itinerant preaching, street ministry, cloistered life, community life, was being replaced by apostolic ministries. The older religious orders were never founded as apostolic orders. They were founded to be brotherhoods and sisterhoods where the life of prayer and community was the main focus. These communities were going to die out and many have. There was a need to address the possibility of newer forms of religious life, as well as older religious communities recovering their roots. Male communities had lost their religious vocation. They had turned into parish priests. Monks, friars and mendicants were never meant to be parish priest or even priests in some orders. This was a favor that the orders had done to the laity, because of a shortage of diocesan priests. It was time for these religious to recover their own spirit and move out of the parish setting. This was going to require years of work. Too many religious men had become very comfortable serving as parish priests and putting aside their religious life.

As the Pope, John XXIII saw these and other needs that needed to be addressed. He never believed that this work would be completed in his lifetime or within the 20th century. No council is ever completely and correctly implemented in less than 50 years. But you had to begin somewhere.

We need to yield to the office of Peter. It is his vocation to move the Church along, even though there are casualties. At least there is also movement and dialogue.

Some of us do not give John XXIII enough credit. It’s a real shame.

JR

 

[Tsuwano]

As always JR, your posts are clear, well informed and to the point. I always learn something new when you write.

 

[JReducation]

As always JR, your posts are clear, well informed and to the point. I always learn something new when you write.

I just spent the day in a similar discussion. Our Franciscan Orders are facing the challenge of finding their identity away from parish ministry. My own community spent the day praying and dialoguing about Vatican II and St. Francis.

We know that Vatican II wanted us to return to our Franciscan roots. At the same time, the bishops and the laity keep asking us to hold on just a little longer and help them in this or that ministry. Most are ministries that are not really part of our charism.

However, Francis also ordered us to help the bishops and to be humble before the laity. Then he also wrote in the rule that we should not ask for or take on ecclesiatic duties. So what do you do?

You want to be faithful to your vocation. This includes helping the bishops and the laity, but not taking on ecclesiastic duties, which is the very thing that the laity and the bishops want us to continue doing.

We have been discussing this since September 2008. We are no where near a solution today. We spent 10 hours on this subject. The only thing that we came up with was that we would offer the local bishop to take over other ministries that are not parochial so that those who do them can take over parochial ministries. This does not mean that the bishop or those other persons from other communities are going to agree.

This is just one tiny example of how long and how complex the implementation of a Council can be. I for one would welcome nothing more than to be out of parish work. I love my home ministry to families with disabled loved ones and my ministry of spiritual direction. Then there are those who are very comfortable with the status quo, because they have done this for years and this is the only form of Franciscan life that they have ever known.

This happens to people with the mass, religious life, catechesis, and a lot more.

There are so many details that go into implementing a council that it is incredible.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Tsuwano]

My prayers are certainly with you and your community as you discern your spirituality and its implementation through ministry in the modern world. I’m sure the Holy Spirit will guide you.

 

[Jude_Smith]

And yet in away Vatican II played right into the hands of the people of the 60’s giving them "what they wanted. Soon folk masses became the vogue and the high mass was avoided like the plaque. When the mass became customizable, the Vatican lost some of it’s Authority with people, as they thought the mass was about them and their likes, instead of service to God.
I am basing all of this ONLY on my observation with MY church. But when the celebration of mass became "optional’ in the mind set of those going from child to adult, the attendance also became optional

The problem wasn’t Vatican II per se. The problem was that some changes were instituted without being explained (I’m talking about individual churches here; this is from my own experience and recollection), so that people started to get the idea they could do whatever they wanted. Obviously, this is generally a very attractive idea to people!
It’s curious that people will point to Vatican II (presumably without having read the documents) to justify something they find attractive, but dismiss Humanae Vitae entirely (again, presumably without having read it).

 

[Robster7]

We have to know and understand the past to understand the present and how it got that way, and why. .

Here’s a question
If the '50s-early’60s was the heyday of the the Catholic Church in American, how solid a foundation was it really if things fell into disarray so quickly and completely? Certainly, there were other factors, genl. disarray in USA, lack of discipline and obedience within the Church, etc. Any ideas?

 

[ASD]

Interesting info. Thanks.

1. The world had changed after World War II and the voice of the Church needed to be heard not only by Catholics, but by others. Therefore, the Church had to speak about itself and its place in the modern world to the entire world, not just Catholics.

People say this about the council, but the world is always changing and people who aren’t Christians always need the Gospel. I don’t say that changes in the 20th century were irrelevant, but I think it would easy to exaggerate that aspect.

1. Being a historian himself, he knew that the golden years of priestly and religious vocations between 1900 and 1960 were at an end. The number of vocations was a response to a world in crisis, torn apart by war and hunger. After WW II a new era of prosperity and other contexts to serve mankind would reduce the number of vocations. Therefore, the laity had to be prepared to take a more active role in evangelization, Catholic education, catechesis, mission work, Catholic health care, pastoral care and other roles that were traditionally relegated to priests and religious.

I certainly don’t know that you’re wrong about what J23 knew. However, I would really like to follow up on that point, if you can provide citations, etc.

1. He also understood that the separation between Christians had to be faced head-on. The Christian people have been separated far too long and the rhetoric of hatred between Christians had to be replaced with a rhetoric of cooperation and understanding. It was not going to unite all Christians, but it was a step, which was better than no step.

Look, I don’t like the separation between Christians any more than anybody else. But, it’s been a fact of life for a millennium or so, depending how we count. Why did it have to be addressed in 1959? I mean, I know that ecumenism was very important at the council. But,

1. 
   *]Why was it more or less suddenly important in 1959?
   *]For such a pressing issue for the Catholic Church, what’s been accomplished in the ensuing half century? I don’t know, but I think not much. It’s odd that a pressing cause of Council amounted to nothing. (Again, if I’m right.)
   

   1. As the former colonial churches became independent churches, especially in the USA, South America, Africa and Asia, no longer would you present the Catholic faith with a European flavor in nations that felt nothing but resentment toward their former European tyrants. The Church had to speak with her own language and her own personality, not that of Europe. It had to present itself as the Catholic Church not as the European Church. In many countries that Catholic Church was losing ground, because it was too closely identified with European domination. There were dioceses in the former colonies that had never had their own bishops or native bishops who had never had a voice in the universal Church.

   1. Contrary to popular opinion, the liturgy did not have the same influence in the lives of the newer churches in Latin America, Asia and Africa. It represented a culture that was very much associated with colonization. There was a need to make changes to the liturgy to allow it to speak to people of every culture and nation, while keeping the unity of the liturgy.

   This is an interesting aspect, too. I read somewhere that one of the goals some people hoped V2 would accomplish was that the Catholic Church would become more universal and less Roman. No doubt you’re right that those considerations had something to do with calling the council in 1959. However, aside:
   
   1. 
      *]It was a reasonable game plan, but did it work? How well has it succeeded? Another pressing cause that amounted to nothing?
      *]Is it really possible for an institution to deny its traditions and not lose its identity? I know “deracination” isn’t the right word; but that’s what it reminds me of.
      

      1. The Church could no longer maintain its isolation from the State. It had done that since the collapse of the Renaissance. But now the State was preaching its own religion: capitalism, socialism, communism, and other isms. The Church had to step outside the Vatican again and deal with the leaders of nations and the people in those nations on subjects that affected their faith, such as religious freedom.

      Please give examples of new or unprecedented Church actions along these lines. Mr. Hines mentioned some background maneuvers at end of cold war, etc. But those sound to me like the kind of thing the Popes have always done.
      

      1. Religious life as was lived from 1800 - 1960 was very far from what the founders had in mind. …

      Fascinating.
      

      Some of us do not give John XXIII enough credit. It’s a real shame.

      I, for one, certainly am willing to give credit where credit is due. But, I still don’t think I understand very well; still not sure what credit is due.
      
      However, I have high hopes for this thread.
      

      ASD​

      Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Thanks JReducation! :bowdown2:

 

[JReducation]

Interesting info. Thanks.

I certainly don’t know that you’re wrong about what J23 knew. However, I would really like to follow up on that point, if you can provide citations, etc.

You would have to read his letters before the Council began and his own autobiography, extrapolate and connect the dots.

Look, I don’t like the separation between Christians any more than anybody else. But, it’s been a fact of life for a millennium or so, depending how we count. Why did it have to be addressed in 1959? I mean, I know that ecumenism was very important at the council. But,

1. 
   *]Why was it more or less suddenly important in 1959?

1. 
   The year was arbitrary. The point is that it has to be addressed and resolved. One of the arguments for John XXIII’s beatification was precisely his great push for ecumenical dialogue. It demonstrates a heroic faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to unite a house divided.
   

   This is an interesting aspect, too. I read somewhere that one of the goals some people hoped V2 would accomplish was that the Catholic Church would become more universal and less Roman. No doubt you’re right that those considerations had something to do with calling the council in 1959. However, aside:

   1. 
      *]It was a reasonable game plan, but did it work? How well has it succeeded? Another pressing cause that amounted to nothing?

   1. 
      It has certainly succeeded in the developing churches of the world. The idea was not to make it less Roman, but less European. Today we have Cardinals, bishops, religious communities, seminaries, friaries, monasteries, secular institutes in parts of the world where there were only European ones. Today, the developing churches lead Europe, Canada and the United States in the number of religious orders of sisters and brothers that they have founded. They lead the Church in the number of secular institutes and secular orders. They lead the Church in the number of seminarians to the secular priesthood.
      
      In my own community, we have expanded to 114 countries around the world. We now have 900,000 Franciscans around the world. The brothers and sisters from the developing churches outnumber the Americans and Europeans. We are now importing them from abroad.
      
      Like the Franciscan family, many other religious families have experienced incredible growth in Africa, Asia, South America and the Caribbean.
      

      Please give examples of new or unprecedented Church actions along these lines.

      1. The Franciscans have their own delegation to the United Nations. They represent the Church’s Commission on the Family. This had never happened before.
      2. The Franciscans are the official representatives of the Vatican in Israel and with the Jewish and Islamic community in Jerusalem they run the Franciscan Center for the Family.
      3. The Vatican and the United States established diplomatic relationships with ambassadors in the Vatican and the USA. There were no formal diplomatic relationships between the Vatican City State and the USA.
      4. Catholic colleges and Catholic universities in the USA were chartered by the State to offer accredited secular degrees.
      5. The Military Archdiocese of the United States was recognized by the Department of Defense as an autonomous branch of the Armed Forces in the USA.
      6. Communist countries have diplomatic relationships with the Vatican, as well as Muslim nations.
      7. As Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict founded the Commission on Islamic and Catholic Studies, never heard of before.
      8. The anathemas and the excommunications between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches were lifted, after 1000 years.
      9. Communism was unable to silence John Paul II and Catholics in the Eastern European Block.
      10. The Missionaries of Charity have been given open access to almost every nation on earth, including nations that are traditionally anti Catholic.
      11. The rights of the Catholic working class in the European nations has improved, despite secularization and anti-clericalism.
      Like this there are many more examples.
      

      Fascinating.

      Religious communities that were founded to do other ministries are returning to them and are able to leave parish work. Of course, this is hard on bishops; but they accept it, because they understand that religious life must flourish on its own terms, not around the demands or needs of the laity. Therefore, cloistered communities are opening more houses where men can be religious AND priests, without feeling guilty that they never hear confessions, baptize, perform weddings, preach, bury the dead, or perform other typical priestly functions of the parish priest. They can dedicate their entire day to silence, manual labor and prayer.
      
      Many cloisters for women are opening new houses, where women can become nuns instead of sisters. They no longer have to teach, run hospitals, teach CCD or do social service. They can spend the day in silence and prayer as they were meant to do by their founders.
      
      Other religious are working on the streets, nursing homes, shelters, in the missions, with children, families, the sick, hospitals, and prisons. They are freed from parishes. They don’t have to ordain as many men as they once did, because they no longer take on new parishes. They expand into those apostolic works that their founders wanted them to do.
      

      I, for one, certainly am willing to give credit where credit is due. But, I still don’t think I understand very well; still not sure what credit is due.

      You can begin by giving him credit for being a Blessed of the Church.
      
      Fraternally,
      
      JR

 

[bkovacs]

Everyone I talk with says the church is a better place due to Vatican II. This is asking a wide range of people at my church. I read the traditional posts on here but I have yet to talk with a traditional follower yet.

Thanks JReducation, I really enjoy your posts.

Yeah a way better place!. Decline in priests worldwide, decline in nuns worldwide, less people attend Mass worldwide. Catholics voting for pro-abortionists, Masses that don’t look remotely Catholic, etc… Yeah a way better Church. Yeah Right!!:nope:

Read this article the whole article:
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009–131-ferrara-neocatholic_sour_grapes.htm

 

[bkovacs]

I just spent the day in a similar discussion. Our Franciscan Orders are facing the challenge of finding their identity away from parish ministry. My own community spent the day praying and dialoguing about Vatican II and St. Francis.

We know that Vatican II wanted us to return to our Franciscan roots. At the same time, the bishops and the laity keep asking us to hold on just a little longer and help them in this or that ministry. Most are ministries that are not really part of our charism.

However, Francis also ordered us to help the bishops and to be humble before the laity. Then he also wrote in the rule that we should not ask for or take on ecclesiatic duties. So what do you do?

You want to be faithful to your vocation. This includes helping the bishops and the laity, but not taking on ecclesiastic duties, which is the very thing that the laity and the bishops want us to continue doing.

We have been discussing this since September 2008. We are no where near a solution today. We spent 10 hours on this subject. The only thing that we came up with was that we would offer the local bishop to take over other ministries that are not parochial so that those who do them can take over parochial ministries. This does not mean that the bishop or those other persons from other communities are going to agree.

This is just one tiny example of how long and how complex the implementation of a Council can be. I for one would welcome nothing more than to be out of parish work. I love my home ministry to families with disabled loved ones and my ministry of spiritual direction. Then there are those who are very comfortable with the status quo, because they have done this for years and this is the only form of Franciscan life that they have ever known.

This happens to people with the mass, religious life, catechesis, and a lot more.

There are so many details that go into implementing a council that it is incredible.

Fraternally,

JR

Does your community look at the teachings of Vatican 1 or that of Pope Pius X.

JR read through this guys blog:
verbum1.blogspot.com/

Then tell me if this is fair.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
Article entitled “the more things change…”
Traditional Catholics having to hold a Mass outside of a church in the freezing weather!. Thanks to the French Bishop.

Loyal Catholics and loyal to the Pope.
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/a-thaw-in-the-cold-war-at-amiens/
Really having to serve Mass outside for all those years!.

 

[Mike_Dye]

I just spent the day in a similar discussion. Our Franciscan Orders are facing the challenge of finding their identity away from parish ministry. My own community spent the day praying and dialoguing about Vatican II and St. Francis.

We know that Vatican II wanted us to return to our Franciscan roots. At the same time, the bishops and the laity keep asking us to hold on just a little longer and help them in this or that ministry. Most are ministries that are not really part of our charism.

However, Francis also ordered us to help the bishops and to be humble before the laity. Then he also wrote in the rule that we should not ask for or take on ecclesiatic duties. So what do you do?

You want to be faithful to your vocation. This includes helping the bishops and the laity, but not taking on ecclesiastic duties, which is the very thing that the laity and the bishops want us to continue doing.

We have been discussing this since September 2008. We are no where near a solution today. We spent 10 hours on this subject. The only thing that we came up with was that we would offer the local bishop to take over other ministries that are not parochial so that those who do them can take over parochial ministries. This does not mean that the bishop or those other persons from other communities are going to agree.

This is just one tiny example of how long and how complex the implementation of a Council can be. I for one would welcome nothing more than to be out of parish work. I love my home ministry to families with disabled loved ones and my ministry of spiritual direction. Then there are those who are very comfortable with the status quo, because they have done this for years and this is the only form of Franciscan life that they have ever known.

This happens to people with the mass, religious life, catechesis, and a lot more.

There are so many details that go into implementing a council that it is incredible.

Fraternally,

JR

Thank You For this post. I believe you all know what Francis would advise regarding what you should do.
I am digging out my rule tomorrow and re reading it. I know that a big part of Franciscan Spirituality involves fraternity, but sometimes I think that if those you fraternize with are materialistic you may be better to go it alone.

 

[ASD]

We have to know and understand the past to understand the present and how it got that way, and why. .

Here’s a question
If the '50s-early’60s was the heyday of the the Catholic Church in American, how solid a foundation was it really if things fell into disarray so quickly and completely? Certainly, there were other factors, genl. disarray in USA, lack of discipline and obedience within the Church, etc. Any ideas?

Good question. It reminds me a little of questions about the Protestant Reformation: Why did such an enormous fracture open up so suddenly?

An attempt to answer: In both situations there were people with legitimate concerns. In the case of V2, whereas discontented Catholics had been back-benchers, so to speak, before the Council, the Council had the effect of moving them to front and center. So, circa 1966, a couple of generations worth of “reform” ideas hit the fan.

So, maybe the flurry or frenzy of “reform” after 1966 was to be expected just because the party of “reform” got the reins.

 

[ASD]

Thanks for expanding on those point, JReducation. Here’s my “take away,” (as we say in cubicle land these days). Somewhat distilled, etc, making every effort to simply state facts.

Some reasons that Bl. John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council in 1959

1. 
   *]Per Fr. Andrew Greeley, et al, the fundamental situation of the Church in 1960 was still defined by the trauma of the French Revolution. It’s sometimes described as an anti-modern fortress mentality. Maybe that should have been adjusted before 1960, but history kept getting in the way. Hence, J23’s desire to “throw open the windows.”
   *]Cold war. J23 called the council in part because he wanted to lead by example in the cold war world.
   *]Social and cultural changes calling for increased role of laity. “Many areas of human life have become increasingly autonomous.” See Apostolicam Actuositatem.
   *]Similarly, some people may have been able to foresee decline in vocations, which can be addressed, in a sense, by increased role of laity.
   *]In the wake of disasters of the 20th century, J23 thought that he had a good opportunity to begin to work for Christian unity.
   *]As European colonialism faded away, the Church needed to reconsider its approach in mission lands, including liturgy.
   *]Because 20th century states themselves had become embodiments of competing philosophies and -isms, the Church could no longer maintain its isolation from the State. Hence, Dignitatis humanae, the Declaration on religious freedom; new formal diplomatic relationships, etc.
   *]Religious life as was lived from 1800 - 1960 was very far from what the founders had in mind.
   *]Although the Church was flourishing in many ways between, say, 1945 and 1960, especially in the USA, not everybody was happy. See, e.g., Garry Wills. J23 had some sympathy with various critics.
   
   That’s a much better list than I had when this thread started.
   

   You can begin by giving him credit for being a Blessed of the Church.

   Well, I may end up there.
   
   Aside: I like Zhou Enlai’s response to a question from Nixon or Kissenger c. 1972:
   
   Q: What do you think about the French Revolution?
   A: It’s too soon to say.
   

   ASD​

   Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[JReducation]

Does your community look at the teachings of Vatican 1 or that of Pope Pius X.

JR read through this guys blog:
verbum1.blogspot.com/

Then tell me if this is fair.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
Article entitled “the more things change…”
Traditional Catholics having to hold a Mass outside of a church in the freezing weather!. Thanks to the French Bishop.

Loyal Catholics and loyal to the Pope.
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/a-thaw-in-the-cold-war-at-amiens/
Really having to serve Mass outside for all those years!.

We look at the Holy Rule, the life and writings of Saints Francis, Bonaventure and Clare. That is what the Church has commanded us to recover.

Vatican I does not speak on recovering the original charism of religious orders. Pius X was a Franciscan; therefore, he too was looking at the Holy Rule.

Thanks for the links, but I don’t see how they relate to the return of religious life to its roots. Did I miss some part of it that you wanted me to look at?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

Thank You For this post. I believe you all know what Francis would advise regarding what you should do.
I am digging out my rule tomorrow and re reading it. I know that a big part of Franciscan Spirituality involves fraternity, but sometimes I think that if those you fraternize with are materialistic you may be better to go it alone.

If your brothers or sisters are struggling with fidelity to the rule, your first ministry is to them. A Franciscan was not meant to live alone.

As to what to do, we know that we have to recover our original spirit of fraternity, prayer, simplicity, equity among the friars, nuns and secular Franciscans, and ministries that do not interfere with the religious life. The problem is that bishops often ask us to wait until the can get vocations to take over the parishes that our friars staff. But there comes a point when you cannot sacrifice the religious life for parish ministry.

Our Holy Father Benedict made that very clear to our last General Chapter in November 2008. He told the Order to go back to the beginning.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[LeroyCRHP]

I read the article and not sure why Williamson has such obsession with Jewish people, they are only 13M people of the global population of 6 billion… He really should worry about non believers, other christians, and Muslims. It shows a weakness of character. To speak as he did when Pope Benedict was welcoming SSPX back shows something.

Show me the numbers year by year. They are very difficult to find and there are some very misleading numbers out there. I’ve seen the Jones numbers promoted by Buchanan and my priests say they are very misleading. The church has been in decline for many years before Vatican II in few regions. Europe was dying from early in the 1900’s, the heartland of the Vatican. Why was Europe dying in such numbers even before Vatican II. Living in Belgium for 2 years I asked those questions and heard what the people there said as I expected to be moving to the Catholic homeland and instead it is the homeland of empty churches.

The church overall has grown year by year in recent 10-20 years. The way some numbers were counted has changed over the years. For example, high school seminaries were common two generations ago. Most of the men who entered them would never be ordained. Even now, it unusual to see college seminarians. Since men enter seminary later in life and a greater percentage are ordained, the difference is a little exaggerated.

My understanding is the number of Catholics in the US has grown slightly. The real number of ordained clergy has decreased slightly.

The seniors I talk with, ages 70 - 99 years old all say the Church is better since Vatican II. I look at my church that is 12,000 members and has doubled over the past 10 years and perhaps that distorts my view. We are blessed with the number of seminary students from our parish year by year. While we may not like it people do have free will. I don’t like Catholics voting for pro-abortionist anymore than you, people do have free will. Should we have few high level ex-communciations based on public officials views? I would support that. Do I think the church is better worldwide, yes. Has it suffered in Europe? Definitely, In the USA, some, other countries are up and down. Look here at the numbers usccb.org/plm/summary.shtml The Priest shortage is due more to the increase in Catholics and decrease in slight decrease in Priests.

Just think: 1959 President Dwight Eisenhower states in a press conference that birth control “is not a proper political or government activity or function or responsibility” and adds emphatically that it is “not our business.” By the end of the year 500,000 women were on the pill.

Yes, I think it’s way better in my parish and around me, bless the lord.

Yeah a way better place!. Decline in priests worldwide, decline in nuns worldwide, less people attend Mass worldwide. Catholics voting for pro-abortionists, Masses that don’t look remotely Catholic, etc… Yeah a way better Church. Yeah Right!!:nope:

Read this article the whole article:
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009–131-ferrara-neocatholic_sour_grapes.htm

 

[MonkforChrist]

I will give you a MANY reasons why Vatican II is so wrong…
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/The_Principal_Heresies_of_Vatican_II.html

 

[Robster7]

Re Vatican II: it is the way the decrees of the council were interpreted and applied in some cases that caused problems.
Perhaps the wording was vague where it should have been specific.

Beware the “after this, therefore because of this reasoning” as applied to Vatican II. That many regrettable activities happened after it does not necessarily mean it was caused by it.

Unfortunately, I have little hope careful reasoning is ever employed today. The lifting of the SSPX bishop’s excommunication was announced at the same time he was making waves with his comments on the holocaust. Certain Jewish groups broke off relations with the Vatican over this, apparently not checking out the excommunication history, which had nothing to do with the bishop’s comments.