The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionThe new spin on Vatican II
To downplay the council's impact, dividing Catholics into 'hermeneutic' camps has become a favorite tactic
Mar. 02, 2010
Bishops of the world line the main aisle of St. Peter’s Basilica during the opening session of the Second Vatican Council in 1962. (CNS file photo)
Analysis
Editor’s note: This is the second part of a series exploring the long-standing "liturgy wars" and how they shape today’s understanding of the Second Vatican Council.
Not too long ago, when bishops spoke about the Second Vatican Council, the language you’d hear would often include words like people of God, dialogue and collegiality.
That was then. Now, if a bishop speaks of that council, which involved the world’s bishops in meetings spanning the years 1962 through 1965, another word -- hermeneutics -- will likely dominate the discussion. It’s an unwieldy term that traditionally was used in college-level classrooms and referred to principles of interpretation, particularly in matters of scripture.
When it comes to Vatican II, however, the term has come to mean how one interprets that event and it is usually modified by phrases that have become a sound-bite way of separating Catholics into two general camps:
- Hermeneutic of discontinuity (sometimes referred to as the hermeneutic of rupture) is used to refer to those who think the council represented a distinct change from the past, and is used often to disparage those who speak of a pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II church.
- Hermeneutic of continuity or renewal refers to those who would hold that very little actually changed at Vatican II, that it was a “reaffirmation” of all that went before only cast in new language so as to be understandable to the modern era.
Dividing people into hermeneutic camps has become a favorite tactic of conservative commentators and some bishops, especially those who most want to downplay the idea that the council altered the teaching or attitude of the church in any significant way. Others, however, see the categories as artificial and overstated, attempts at marginalizing as extreme anyone convinced that Vatican II ushered in important changes.
Talking points
Whatever one’s point of view, “hermeneutics” has taken on a life equivalent to campaign talking points. The categories provide a coherent, easy-to-understand critique of what has become a standard perception of the council. Hermeneutics is echoing around the Catholic landscape and is being used to package ideas ranging from the investigation of religious orders to alterations in the liturgy.
Bishop Robert C. MorlinoThe term played large at a meeting in September of last year at Stonehill College in Easton, Mass., a gathering said to have been influential in the decision of Cardinal Franc Rodé to initiate an investigation of women religious in the United States. At that gathering, Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison, Wis., spoke of the “discontinuity hermeneutic” and “the language of rupture.”
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
He was responding to a talk by Rodé about religious formation and education.
“The language that many people have learned -- it is clear from today that most of you resisted learning it, and I resisted learning it -- but the language that many people have learned is the language of the discontinuity hermeneutic, the language of the rupture, between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II,” Morlino said. “Many if not most of our people have learned the language of the discontinuity hermeneutic. And in order to learn the language that Pope John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict are trying to teach us they have to unlearn the language that they learned.”
In an October pastoral letter on the “future of the church in the diocese of Sioux City, Iowa,” Bishop R. Walker Nickless picked from the text of Pope John XXIII’s speech opening the council, a few lines that might be seen as undergirding the hermeneutics-of-continuity point of view. “In opening the council, Blessed John stated that the ‘greatest concern of the ecumenical council’ was twofold: ‘that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be [both] guarded and taught more efficaciously,’ ” wrote Nickless. “Later in the speech he elaborated on this: ‘The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.’ ” For Nickless, that means that the teachings of the church “must be loved and guarded, yet brought forth and taught in a way understandable to the modern world.”
A few paragraphs later, he cites a 2005 speech by Pope Benedict XVI to the Roman curia in which the pope states that a large part of the difficulty in implementing the council stems from the fact “that two contrary hermeneutics came face-to-face and quarreled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.”
The “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” said Benedict, “has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology.” The alternative is hermeneutic of reform, which he also describes as the hermeneutic “of renewal in the continuity of the one subject -- church -- which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying people of God.”
Shortly after that passage, Nickless declares: “The so-called ‘spirit’ of the council has no authoritative interpretation. It is a ghost or demon that must be exorcised if we are to proceed with the Lord’s work.”
A third hermeneutic
The matter of language is not insignificant, as Jesuit historian Fr. John W. O’Malley draws out at some length in his essay for the 2007 book Vatican II: Did Anything Happen? O’Malley argues, first, that it would hardly be exceptional for a council to be “discontinuous” or distinctive from past councils. Perhaps the only thing common to councils prior to Vatican II, he says, is that they were all assemblies of bishops “that have made authoritative decisions binding on the whole church. Other than that they differ considerably among themselves” and were “to a greater or lesser degree discontinuous with one another.”
What made Vatican II especially different from all councils that preceded it, writes O’Malley, is the language used, a language so distinctive that it requires “a new hermeneutic ... that takes serious account of the discontinuity, thus putting the council’s continuity in perspective.” For lack of a sound-bite name, one might just call O’Malley’s version the third hermeneutic.
Further, he says, the “characteristic style of discourse” of prior councils comprised “two basic elements” -- the canon, or law, formulated to impose a punishment, and the vocabulary appropriate to that genre. It uses “power words,” or “words of threat and intimidation, words of surveillance and punishment, words of a superior speaking to inferiors or … to an enemy.” The language is used to define and limit, to make clear who is included and who excluded.
In contrast, Vatican II used “empowerment words,” words of reciprocity and persuasion as different from commands and anathemas. “There is scarcely a page in the council documents on which ‘dialogue’ or its equivalent does not occur. ‘Dialogue’ manifests a radical shift from the prophetic I-say-unto-you style that earlier prevailed and indicates something other than unilateral decision-making.” Such language, writes O’Malley, did not make it into the documents “without a fierce battle.” Things, indeed, were different about Vatican II at a fundamental level. Whether that difference is expressed in a hermeneutic of discontinuity or of renewal is a battle that still rages, along with, in some circles, the original fight over the language itself.
O’Malley’s view, of course, is that of one person. But it is widely seen, if the reviews are to be believed, as an updated and valuable articulation of the segment of the church that believes that the council represented significant change from previous ways of doing church business.
O’Malley’s analysis was important enough in the eyes of those advocating the hermeneutic of continuity to draw considerable attention from conservatives, not least of which was the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus in the October 2008 issue of his magazine, First Things. He disapprovingly termed O’Malley’s book “a 372-page brief for the party of novelty and discontinuity.” He declared at review’s end that the 2008 book Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition, edited by Matthew L. Lamb and Matthew Levering and offering an opposing view from O’Malley’s, makes “it evident that the hermeneutics of continuity is prevailing, if it has not already definitively prevailed.”
How the scorecard ultimately nets out is probably more complex than the scoring system for Olympic figure skating. Longtime Catholic church observer and former New York Times columnist Peter Steinfels, reviewing the O’Malley book in December 2008, notes that the world’s bishops 50 years ago could have simply “rubberstamped a series of routine texts prepared under Vatican oversight and gone home.”
“How the bishops took charge of the agenda and radically reshaped the outcome is a story of bold confrontations, clashing personalities and behind-the-scenes maneuvers,” he writes. Acknowledging that some, claiming an elusive “spirit of the council,” have used the event to stake claim to changes well beyond any imagined by the council’s participants, Steinfels nonetheless argues that “any effort to shuffle the cards of continuity and discontinuity so as to minimize the profound reorientation wrought by the council borders on the ludicrous.”
If, indeed, a “profound reorientation” occurred because of the council, what does that mean today? And does the talk of a need to relearn language an attempt to return to, for lack of a more nuanced phrase, a pre-Vatican II reality? Morlino’s comments would certainly suggest such a course as would the later words of Rodé, who said in an interview with NCR that Vatican II precipitated “the greatest crisis in church history” (NCR, Oct. 30).
Still seeking resolution
If there is little love in the Vatican these days for the council, experts in liturgy and history still exist who understand how profoundly some things have changed. Benedictine Sr. Mary Collins, a liturgy expert and former prioress, recalled in an interview that it wasn’t long before the council that Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical on liturgy, declared “quite matter-of-factly that the role of the priest is essential and the role of the laity is not essential in the Mass, that it is the priest who effects the sacrifice of the Eucharist.”
In contrast, she noted, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church that came out of Vatican II articulated a far different ecclesiology, one in which “it is the right and privilege and responsibility of the baptized, who are fully involved in the liturgy of the Eucharist.” The point, she said, was not to downplay the role of clergy, but rather to explain the more integral role of laity in the Eucharist.
“Twenty years out,” she said, “I hope we’re not still arguing about Vatican II. I think the way this gets played out and resolved will make a massive difference in the shape the church takes 50 years from now. This is not a matter of irrelevance to the future of the church, but I would not presume to predict how it sorts itself out.”
The liturgy is at the cutting edge of the debate over the direction of the council and while in the English-speaking world the “continuity hermeneutic” seems to have won the day with new prayer versions that attempt to be one-to-one translations from the Latin, the arguments seem far from resolved.
Fr. Michael Ryan, pastor of St. James Cathedral in Seattle for more than two decades, in December began a campaign to slow down implementation of the new translations of the missal. “For some time I’ve followed the bishops’ debates, read many of the new texts, discussed them with brother priests, and visited about them with Catholics in the pews, and I’ve become aware of how difficult it’s going to be to ‘sell’ ordinary, faithful, good Catholics on the new, Latinized translations of the Missal,” Ryan said in an earlier interview (NCR, Dec. 25).
So far he’s garnered more than 17,000 supporters in an online campaign at whatifwejustsaidwait.org.
In January, Benedictine Fr. Anscar J. Chupungco, director of the Paul VI Institute of Liturgy in the Philippines and former president of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute at Sant’Anselmo in Rome, gave a stinging critique of the “reform of the reform,” a phrase used weeks earlier by none other than the papal master of ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini.
In a talk at Australia’s University of Newcastle’s program of liturgical studies, Chupungco responded to Marini’s claim that the Vatican II liturgical reform has “not always in its practical implementation found a timely and happy fulfillment.”
“What are the possible implications of a reform of the postconciliar reform?” Chupungco asked. “What remedy does it offer for a reform that according to some Catholics has gone bad? What agenda does it put forward so that liturgical worship could be more reverent and prayerful?”
The liturgy envisioned by the council, he stated, “was marked by noble simplicity and clarity. It wanted a liturgy that the people could easily follow. In sharp contrast is the attempt to revive, at the expense of active participation, the medieval usage that was espoused by the Tridentine [or pre-Vatican II] rite and to retrieve eagerly the liturgical paraphernalia that had been deposited in museums as historical artifacts.”
Comparing the reforms of Vatican II to a springtime renewal, Chupungco lamented that after more than four decades “the church is now experiencing the cold chill of winter brought about by contrasting ideas of what the liturgy is and how it should be celebrated.” Such tension, he said, “could be a healthy sign that the interest in the liturgy has not abated.” But he cautioned that after the council, “we are not free to propound views” apart from principles established by the council. “There are surely instances of postconciliar implementation that are debatable, but we should be careful to distinguish them from the conciliar principles, especially the full, active participation of all God’s people in the liturgy.”
[Tom Roberts is NCR editor at large. His e-mail address is troberts@ncronline.org.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All this week, NCRonline.org focuses on liturgy. Every day a new article and lots of discussion.
Monday: Battle lines in the liturgy wars
Tuesday: The new spin on Vatican II
Wednesday: Pope aims to 'propose' practices, says liturgist
Thursday: Our brains are wired for liturgy
Friday: The hermeneutic of dysfunction, an NCR editorial
This debate could be settled
This debate could be settled by focusing instead on the Scriptural root of the Mission Statement of the Body of Christ, namely Luke 4:18"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19 and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord." 20 Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him. 21 He said to them, "Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing."
Naturally, the mission statement of the Church is a huge threat to those in the Church who wish to hang onto their exalted status, power and perks by remaining cozy with the big donors. Their defense is "Look at the good we do with our Christian service charity!" However, Eduardo Hughes Galeano reminds us that he "...does not believe in charity. I believe in solidarity. Charity is so vertical. It goes from the top to the bottom. Solidarity is horizontal. It respects the other person. I have a lot to learn from other people." One can then reflect on our Mission, and discern whether or not the "continuity" allegation might really be a snobbish pharisaical word smithing game? Our job is to advocate for, and work at our preferential option for the poor, isn't it?
However, Eduardo Hughes
However, Eduardo Hughes Galeano reminds us that he "...does not believe in charity. I believe in solidarity. Charity is so vertical. It goes from the top to the bottom. Solidarity is horizontal. It respects the other person. I have a lot to learn from other people."
Thank you Joe, for reminding us of this distinction. Until we feel solidarity the same power structures will prevail.
No. Your first job is the
No.
Your first job is the first and greatest commandment given to you: To love GOD before all else with all your capacities. The second naturally follows from it. The pagans, as St Paul warns us, can do the second better than many Christians. For Christians it is the first that must come first. Liturgy, is loving GOD by worshiping Him. So liturgy, as in the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, is paramount, and is directed to GOD exclusively, and thereby, through his, grace for our sanctification.
Sounds too much like idolatry
Sounds too much like idolatry to me, Ken! Let's not forget what Jesus told us about "rituals and sacrifices"-------"I want your hearts [love], not your rituals". Jesus was with his friends enjoying a good meal when he told them to remember him when they got together like that in the future. The key ingredient then was loving friendship: relationship, NOT the ritualistic, formal, contrived experience we have today with official Roman missals, official outfits, official rubrics, all of which scream out "RITUAL". But that's the way the Vatican wants it, so who are we to listen to Jesus!
Dear Examine, I'm afraid you
Dear Examine,
I'm afraid you brought up a bad example to use in your diatribe against all things ritual. "Jesus was with his friends enjoying a good meal" - No, we hear clearly that Jesus' Last Supper occurred at a Passover Seder. This is an EXTREMELY ritualized meal. The Orthodox Jewish ceremonial for this meal makes our current "official Roman Missal" look like a children's book. Don't forget that just as the Seder Meal was established by God (through Moses) in a ritualistic form, Jesus' meal also necessarily has some degree of ritual. Ritual does not equal bad unless it obscures what it was intended to promote.
Ray, "Ritual does not equal
Ray, "Ritual does not equal bad unless it obscures what it was intended to promote." That is exactly my point! While it may be true that his "Last Supper" was at the Passover time, all previous New Testament reporting that is authentic [cf. The Jesus Seminar] is supportive of everything non-Jewish and non-ritualistic. We must remember that even when Jesus was physically present with his "apostles", they still didn't get what he was all about, always falling back on the old Jewish way of thinking. So, after his death, they deviated rapidly to what they were taught in the old ways, thus a ritualistic, formal, observation rather than what Jesus was trying to give them: cordial, friendly, meaningful time with loved ones.
Let's hope Galeano intended
Let's hope Galeano intended his statement as a rhetorical flourish instead of a position statement. 1 Jn tells us "God is love." When someone denies belief in charity, it better be a different sense of the word charity than the charity who God is. To avoid confusion, maybe it would be better to say, I don't believe in charity without solidarity, which would be perfectly consistent with analogous behavior to the life of the Trinity in which we are called to live, and move, and have our being.
It's sad that the table of
It's sad that the table of the Lord is now a battlefield.
Parce Domine.
Now that the "magical
Now that the "magical incantations" (AKA "translations") are going to be forced down our throats & priests become the prime, sole center of liturgy, where are we people to go and what are we to do? Bow down to authority which we know to be ignorant of Jesus' words to ALL people? Toady meekly & give up our very real worship & prayer? Discard our attendance at a liturgy which tells us nothing and, more importantly, asks nothing of us?
The only point of this so-called "reform of the reform" [and even this admits that there was reform going on!!) is the quashing of the Spirit present in plain & regular people, the People of God, and the reinstatement of hierarchical "I have special knowledge" [Gnostic?] weakness.
We the people have discovered that we have our own spiritual lives which can be enriched by a responsive and participative liturgy, but which can also stand on their own with the accompaniment of like-enspirited persons, with daily prayer, with a contemplative life, with action in the service of the poor, with spiritual guides/directors...we should be able to count on the sustenance of daily attendance at and participation in Eucharist, but we've been told that celibacy among clergy is much more important than our communal meal & our sending forth to live God's Word in our daily lives.
We are being told we are only important if we hunker down as affirmative observers of the clergy/hierarchy who are refusing to lead us along with the leadership of the Holy Spirit, only important if we obey what those are no longer lead by the Spirit do and say.
What a sad affair our Church is in this present moment...bishops, priests, & hierarchy who discarded the worth and innocent lives of our children in order to "avoid scandal" have themselves fomented one of the biggest scandals in our world and they still have the chutzpah to require, not request, that we follow them...my answer, along with thousands and hundreds of thousands of others is "No...we will not follow you into that non-lifegiving darkness into which you are letting yourself fall, grabbing us to accompany you so that you do not have to do the very real & hard work of letting yourself be changed & enlightened by the Spirit of God."
No, I won't follow you to my spiritual death.
Thank you, Rachel. Count on
Thank you, Rachel. Count on me as one standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you in saying "NO"!
The fearful old men in the Vatican have given us the perfect opportunity to say "NO" and finally express our outrage publicly at their heavy handed attitude.
There will be many "training sessions" to instruct us in the new Missal - at each one I attend, I will stand and say "NO".
When they try to implement the new language, I will pray the current text in a loud and articulate voice, saying "NO" to the new Missal.
So at every liturgical event we now have the opportunity to speak as the People of God and do it in our own language.
Wow Thomas, what a rebel. And
Wow Thomas, what a rebel. And all over a few changes to the missal.
what an angry person
what an angry person
Even Jesus was angry when the
Even Jesus was angry when the Temple was being desecrated...
Remember Jesus said he wanted our hearts & our love, not words & sacrifices...
Well said, Rachel, well said!
Well said, Rachel, well said!
LOL! You absolutly have no
LOL! You absolutly have no idea what Catholicism is, what the Liturgy is about, or anything do you? You realy need to learn your faith, before you start typing where everyone can see. You have made yourself look like real fool! :) LOL!
If you actually believe what you just said, your not a Catholic anyway. At least a Protestant has the guts to admit that he rejects, or "protest", the divine established authority of the church - (Matt 16:18). However, you "Roman Protestants" just stick around like you are going to protest your way into what you want. Has it worked yet? NO! Just leave, you don't believe in the "Dogma" of no salvation outside of the Catholic Church anyway! Go join some other faith if you like, maybe the Episcopal church! In the end your going to end up the same place anyway - as long as you hold to those ideas's!
Travis Blalock
As a BA and MA in systematic
As a BA and MA in systematic theology from a Catholic women's college & a well-known national seminary, I would have to respectfully disagree with you...
Most Protestants also recite
Most Protestants also recite the Nicene Creed and Believe that they are part of a Catholic and universal Church. Almost all of Luther's 96 thesis have recently been agreed to at the highest levels of the Roman Catholic Church. The problem with an authoritarian mind set is that it fails to see its own mistakes until it is forced to. It only took the Vatican 300 years to admit the error in teaching that the earth and man are at the center of the Universe.
May we gain the grace and humility that it takes to listen to the Holy Spirit as he speaks to us in our own lives,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
I fear you are spiritually
I fear you are spiritually dead already.
A seminarian judging a person
A seminarian judging a person he doesn't even know? You condemn me without knowing anything about me? I so hope and pray that you will treat those under your future pastorate with much more charity and love...you might want to speak with your spiritual director about your judgmental attitude...I'm sure it is something which can be a springboard for learning to love all those with whom you disagree, no matter how vehemently.
chill............
chill............
Out of Vatican II has come
Out of Vatican II has come the concept of subjectivity and relativism supposedly of much of what Jesus taught. And so now also our church is supposed to be a democracy of sorts, even though Jesus was rather didactic, it seems to me, and did not mince words about abstract concepts embodied in actions he espoused. Will the Vatican II misinterpreter iconoclasts continue to dogmatically put relativism on the pedestal for us to ritually bow to? All those sufficiently vociferous in the "assembly" can bandwagon everyone in the "assembly" to self-destruct in their subjective interpretation of whatever is to be declared. The spirit of disobedience is pervasive, and it started with "He came unto His own, and His own received him not." We have moved from the age of reason and faith to the age of faith only in one's own logic in dissent even for the sake of dissent, even if the result will be the destruction of the "third" temple, Christ's Church. It sounds like we should pray to St. Michael to help us perceive what wickedness and snares can be put over on us. Sounds also like we're tripping in "fellowshipping" - for perhaps we think that we are equals with God as we now want to think of Him as a jolly good fellow, and nothing more, as we "fellowship," with God in and around the "assembly." Vatican II "tipped the canoe" to all of this we see in the new age, as the misinterpreters would have it. And thus "liberated" catholics are in their own tabernacle to be worshiped by themselves as they "worship" God in "fellowship" with equal footing.
I guess you take seriously
I guess you take seriously the injunction by Jesus, "Judge not and you will no be judged."Mt. 7:1?
IN RE: "I fear you are
IN RE: "I fear you are spiritually dead." What hubris! You are only a seminarian. Get some pastoral experience before you make such ludicrous judgements. Perhaps the formation staff needs to postpone your formation until you get your house in order.
uh oh, we just JUDGED the
uh oh, we just JUDGED the seminarian
Seminarian on Mar. 02,
Seminarian on Mar. 02, 2010.
You stated:
"I fear you are spiritually dead already."
-------------------------------------
Who died and designated you as "God" in their last will and
testament?
How do you know that someone
How do you know that someone is spiritually dead?
Rachel, thank you for giving
Rachel, thank you for giving my reaction words. Those of us "in the pew", and even those who serve at the altar, will have to strengthen our convictions and act accordingly. When will the hierarchy of our Church realize and accept that the days of the uneducated, unthinking peasants have passed and that the People have God have found their voices.
Rachel, best be careful
Rachel, best be careful before one of the autocrats excommunicates you for thinking outside the approved form! I think your comment is absolutely brilliant and right on target. All of us poor lay folk are beginning to realize that this group of hierarchs has absolutely NOTHING in common with our leader Jesus Christ. The spirit of Jesus empowers us to grow closer to one another and to his father through personal prayer and works of charity--------has NOTHING to do with dressing up, wearing gold-embroidered vestments, red silk dresses and hats, and certainly nothing to do with a sense of entitlement and triumphalism. Shame on these people who pretend to be leaders. Time for a sweeping revolution! Thank you for your insightful comments.
Rachel, you are being
Rachel, you are being histerical and overly dramatic here. How could the 'reform of the reform' (if it ever really takes place) change your call or anyone's call to social justice matters? How would any change in liturgy cause you or others NOT "to be enlightened by the Spirit of God"?
How could the 'reform of the
How could the 'reform of the reform' (if it ever really takes place) change your call or anyone's call to social justice matters?
Love for our neighbor is not a "social justice matter"...it is God's command...it is living as a Christian. "Love one another as I have loved you." Where does it say you'd better follow all the liturgical rubrics or I'll damn you to hell? Instead, we hear "I do not desire your words or your sacrifices."
Love of one's neighbor is God's call to us...
I am overwhelmed by your
I am overwhelmed by your profound humility! Surely you know better than Jesus Christ. Why on earth would He have made such a stupid mistake as to entrust Peter with the power of governance over His Church?
John Paul II and Benedict XVI successors to that grant of power to rule? Can't possibly be. Why should we pay any attention to those old fogies? Why did Jesus let them and all their predecessors lead billions of Christians to spiritual death? We enlightened post-Vatican II "people of God" must not follow. Non serviam. Sound familiar?
Anonymous on Mar. 02,
Anonymous on Mar. 02, 2010.
You stated:
"I am overwhelmed by your profound humility! Surely you know better than Jesus Christ. Why on earth would He have made such a stupid mistake as to entrust Peter with the power of governance over His Church?
John Paul II and Benedict XVI successors to that grant of power to rule? Can't possibly be. Why should we pay any attention to those old fogies? Why did Jesus let them and all their predecessors lead billions of Christians to spiritual death? We enlightened post-Vatican II "people of God" must not follow. Non serviam. Sound familiar?"
----------------------------------------------------
Indeed, indeed! And why did the Holy Spirit leave the Catholic Church in the hands of some of the Popes that we had in the past? I could name off at least a dozen---but I'll pick on Leo X---a member of the Medici family. Made an abbot at age eight, elected to sixteen offices by the age of 13, and made a cardinal at the age of 14. And this young man had never visited the people over whom he was placed and never lived in a monastery. At age 37, this Medici was elected Pope (but he wasn't even ordained a priest, yet). At his inaugural ball, which would have cost $25 million dollars in today's currency, Leo X stated "God has given us the papacy to enjoy. And enjoy it we shall." And he certainly did.
Why am I bringing Leo X up? He was the Pope in Rome when an Augustinian monk by the name of Martin Luther came there to settle business for his religious order. Luther was horrified, scandalized at what he was in Rome.
If Luther had not created the ruckus that he did----the Church would have NEVER begun a reform. Oh, there were folks who tried---but there weren't enough who knew what was going on---to come out and condemn the Church for its corruption. In the Church, it has been about power for centuries.
Jesus had no intention of having the successors of Peter live like absolute monarchs---Jesus tells his Apostles that they must not be like earthly rulers.
Jesus did not make a mistake in Peter. But too many of Peter's successors have not tried enough to imitate either Peter or listen to the ultimate Good Shepherd---Jesus.
That's it in a nutshell,
That's it in a nutshell, Rachel. I say no, too.
Rachel, I must disagree with
Rachel, I must disagree with you on almost every point you have made in regards to the Holy Liturgy (the rest was just too confusing for 1am)
"Now that the 'magical incantations' (AKA 'translations')..."
Right off the bat, I must say that the current ICEL translations, while good enough to pass are far off from what the text actually says. Keep in mind that the Mass is still in Latin first and foremost. The translations we have are dumbed-down. Worship should elevate us; it should take us beyond ourselves. The unsatisfactory translations don't do this. They bring Heaven down to earth instead of taking us up to Christ.
"priests become the prime, sole center of liturgy, where are we people to go and what are we to do?"
The priest is not, nor has he ever been the sole focus of Liturgy. The Mass is focused on Christ, and Christ alone. Why is the priest there in the first place? To lead us closer to Christ. He is in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. There is one moment in which the priest is the focus, but even then he should be seen as The High Priest, Christ. The Mass is Christ's, and it is his gift to us through His priests. Our source of life is the Mass. Whether it is in a poor translation or in High Latin, we cannot forget that it is CHRIST present.
"We the people have discovered that we have our own spiritual lives which can be enriched by a responsive and participative liturgy,"
I am deeply enriched by the Mass, and on this point I must agree with you. But it is not because it is responsive and participative, it is because it is Christ coming to me. I attend Mass said in the Ordinary Form (that is to say, the post-conciliar Mass) every day. And rarely do I feel the need to sing, to respond aloud. The Mass is first inward. Everything that is externally done is only a fruit of an inward experience with Christ. But again, remember that Vatican II was not the first time external participation was allowed. In 1922, the Holy See allowed the congregation to respond with the servers and to sing the parts of the Mass specific to the congregation (the Gloria, the Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei.) But as the Holy Father says, active participation first requires an inward experience with Christ.
Now, Rachel, I cannot agree that the Liturgy is OURS. The Liturgy is Christ's and has grown since the time of the Apostles. It became the Tridentine Mass and then it became the post-conciliar Mass. I must side with the Holy See on this one: new translations are needed. They will help us in our spiritual life. They will not lead to our death, rather they will help us see the life of Christ in a more intimate way. The Mass was said in Latin in Rome when Romans spoke Latin. But it was a higher Latin, an uncommon Latin. And so it is with these new translations.
If you wish to continue this conversation, feel free to e-mail me at joseph.antoniello@gmail.com I would love to talk to you more in depth. God Bless you Rachel.
Consider the origin of the
Consider the origin of the word "liturgy" — leitos ergon — the work of the laity.
Mr. Steffen, as far as I can
Mr. Steffen, as far as I can tell, no source except you claims that the Greek entomology of the word means "work of the laity." For clearer explanation, please see the Catholic Encyclopedia which explains it is translated as a "public duty" or "public servant" that is one (usually a well-to-do person) who did public work for the good of the whole. Religiously it would refer to the duty of the priest. It would seem that it is from that meaning the Christians derived the term. I don't mean to expand these implications to the present-day situations, but I don't believe that the term has any "grass-roots" connotation to it.
The Greek word for work is
The Greek word for work is "ergon"; the word "leitos" means "of the people" in Greek. I learned this in the Seminary already in the 1950s
Dear Mr. Steffen, I
Dear Mr. Steffen,
I appreciate that Greek etymology can be difficult thing and certainly how we define our terms cannot be based solely on their original meaning. But when it comes to the word liturgy the Church does give us some clarification here. I was talking with a friend I have who is currently in seminary about this recently and he referred me to the Catechism number 1069 which says "The word liturgy originally meant a public work or a service in the name of/on behalf of the people. In the Christian tradition it means the participation of the People of God in the work of God." In fact the first chapter of the second part of the Catechism reads "The Liturgy--Work of the Holy Trinity".
"The unsatisfactory
"The unsatisfactory translations don't do this. They bring Heaven down to earth instead of taking us up to Christ". Isn't it funny then that God CAME DOWN TO MEET US in the form of Jesus.
" The Liturgy is Christ's" - really, what does Jesus need with a liturgy? We might need it but he most assuredly does not. He served others even at the last supper.
But why did God come down to
But why did God come down to earth? So that we might be raised to Heaven.
Jesus is the center of the liturgical act. The leitourgia --public duty (if you are going to translate, do so correctly) -- of the Church is this: to bring us into full communion with Christ. The Liturgy is Christ's because it is the Church's. It is Christ's because of the Eucharistic act therein. The Last Supper, the first Mass, was a liturgy. It had form, it had a substance, and the center of this liturgy, just as every liturgy that followed was Christ himself.
But the main point I was making is this: the Liturgy is not OURS. The Liturgy is the entire Church's; yesterday, today, and forever. All of these come into effect at the same time, because the Holy Liturgy is in and of itself timeless.
Some people may say that the Mass of today is more like the first Mass. But that is where the hermeneutic of rupture that the Holy Father has spoke about comes into play. The Mass grew over time. It grew from the Last Supper to the "Tridentine" Mass, and if celebrated in concordance with this same continuity, the post-conciliar Mass.
Continuity vs. Rupture.
Joseph on Mar. 05, 2010.
Joseph on Mar. 05, 2010.
You stated:
"But why did God come down to earth? So that we might be raised to Heaven.
Jesus is the center of the liturgical act. The leitourgia --public duty (if you are going to translate, do so correctly) -- of the Church is this: to bring us into full communion with Christ. The Liturgy is Christ's because it is the Church's. It is Christ's because of the Eucharistic act therein. The Last Supper, the first Mass, was a liturgy. It had form, it had a substance, and the center of this liturgy, just as every liturgy that followed was Christ himself.
But the main point I was making is this: the Liturgy is not OURS. The Liturgy is the entire Church's; yesterday, today, and forever. All of these come into effect at the same time, because the Holy Liturgy is in and of itself timeless.
Some people may say that the Mass of today is more like the first Mass. But that is where the hermeneutic of rupture that the Holy Father has spoke about comes into play. The Mass grew over time. It grew from the Last Supper to the "Tridentine" Mass, and if celebrated in concordance with this same continuity, the post-conciliar Mass.
Continuity vs. Rupture."
----------------------------------------
Jesus came to earth so that we may have live and have it to the fullness. He spent his time preaching and curing---so that people might experience LIFE---right here and now (and in the next life).
Secondly, why did Jesus state that the Sabbath was created for man/woman and not that man/woman was created for the Sabbath. The Sabbath included not just the DAY, but also WORSHIP. God doesn't need OUR worship---WE need to WORSHIP---and we need to do it in a language that we can understand in our time. The Church is not about being immovable---it must speak a language to every age that each age can understand.
Latin belongs to the Roman Empire----not to the 21st Century.
Vatican II endorses the sense
Vatican II endorses the sense that "faith supposes reason as GRACE SUPPOSES NATURE." Jesus endorsed nature over temple. He did not profiteer from the goods of nature nor from the applaud of the people nor from honors associated with temple service. He spent his life, as he expects his followers to do, in service to the least, the despised, the sick, the politically marginalized. That is what being the "servant of servants" is about. This is what Jesus work, "people work", liturgy is about. All the pomp and circumstance of clerical fare are peripheral. Even sacrament ritual is counter to God's order in nature if the ritual represents to be more grace-conferring than natural reality itself.
Jesus eschewed Temple
Jesus eschewed Temple privilege and honor and opted the "leitos ergon." This is what people do in imitation of Jesus. Pursuit of honor attached to Church ritual is excessively cultivated in the cultic priesthood.
I grew up with Vatican II and
I grew up with Vatican II and have always thought that it's great accomplishment was that of renewal through re-connection with the scriptural roots of the early Church and, for religious communities, re-connection with the spirit of the founders/foundresses and the original intent of the community. The "hermeneutics of continuity" often feels like continuity with the 18th and 19th centuries to me....not to Jesus and early Christianity.
Amen! and that renewal was
Amen! and that renewal was life-giving.
If that is true why did pews,
If that is true why did pews, seminaries and religious congregations empty out in the years immediately following this "life giving" renewal? Why is it that certain segments of the church, the ones demonized here, are attracting young people to Mass, to seminary and to religious life? Yes these are serious questions if anyone one here dare answer them. It is the so called "spirit of vatican II" segments that are dying and it is the "reform of the reform" that is growing...as I keep saying look for what is attracting the most young people--- there is the future.
Yes, that is at bottom the
Yes, that is at bottom the question. Just what hermeneutic are we to be continuous with? Seems like the answer is Trent and Vatican I, which were quite discontinuous with Jesus's notion of servant leader and communal meal--amongst a whole host of other things.
I guarantee you have never
I guarantee you have never read one word of the Council of Trent. I challenge you to go and do so, and then you will take back your ignorant statement.
colkach, i agree with you and
colkach, i agree with you and with those to whom you are responding. but could we avoid the use of "hermeneutic of dis/continuity". to use it is just to play into the hands of the dividers-and-rulers.
The “hermeneutic of
The “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” said Benedict, “has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology.”
My response: So what? The media loves dissent. If there is no dissent, there is no story. The Pope, with all due respect, seems to imply that this is a bad thing. Shouldn't we be glad people are talking and thinking about Catholicism with such passion?
The ridiculously convoluted language proposed for the the new liturgy will not make church teaching more clear to the faithful. The liturgy should be written using the modern grammatical structures of whatever language it is being translated into. It should reflect the way people communicate today while still conveying the essential teachings of the church. It is possible to do both.
Latin may be the official language of the church, but it is a *dead* language. Twisting English to conform to its grammatical structures will not bring it or the liturgy back to life.
Do you know why they use
Do you know why they use *dead* language?
They use dead language precisely because it is dead. It is constant, unchanging, just as the law of God is constant and unchanging. Dead language, like Latin is used, so that the doctrine can be translated truthfully without the problem of the changing language.
The Orthodox Churches took more than 100 years to translate their liturgy into English. The full edition of English liturgy was only finished in the 21st century. Before that, they had to do half English, half greek or slavonic. And they said, it takes a theologian, a monk, and a poet to translate the litury. We need this poetry in the Liturgy. After all, prayer is an art, whether it is modern, or traditional.
I do not see this so much as
I do not see this so much as a "downplaying" of Vatican II as much as it is the restoration of the accurate application of it.
Here we go again; the laity
Here we go again; the laity is relegated to being serfs by the Princes of the church. They would have us all believe that Vatican II never took place and its back to the 1930's. I lived as a child through Vatican II and it was really a breath of fresh air to a church out of touch with reality. It would seem that the Vatican Curia are all demented and unable to adjust to a modern world; where the world is not flat or the center of the universe. More smoke and mirrors; the people in the pews understand this attempt divert the faithful from the ongoing abuse of children and the cover up directed by the Pope. So we create langue that is vague and unintelligible to isolate and confuse us into believing that Vatican II really didn't mean anything and its demise will not upset us. It is time to vote with our pocket books and withhold money from Rome and the Bishops. Give to you parish and restrict your contribution to parish use only. This is permissible under Cannon Law. Will someone who is sane save us from these power hungry men who are destroying our Church. Soon most of us will be forced out; may the Spirit shake these men into sanity; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Here we go again, indeed. If
Here we go again, indeed. If you really feel that you have been "relegated to being serfs by the Princes of the church," and the Vatican Curia are "all demented and unable to adjust to a modern world" who use "smoke and mirrors" in an "attempt to divert the faithful," etc., then WHY do you continue to stay? The Anglicans/Episcopals (whatever branch suits you) would welcome you with open arms and free you from all this oppression you are experiencing in the Roman Catholic Church. If our hierarchy is so errant, so corrupt, and so mercenary, why continue to wallow in this victimhood?
Get a grip on reality,
Get a grip on reality, Father. Perhaps if your crew hadn't screwed up, the new liturgy would have been more acceptable. But instead, after Vatican II, the Mass became "Father's Show." It's all about me, me, me. I am "Father Entertainer and I'm here to show you a really, really, good time." By the way, I've voted with my pocketbook and I don't give a dime to parishes inhabited with priests like you. You're sooooooooooooo 1960s and outdated. You sound like a power hungry child.
In the article, Bishop
In the article, Bishop Morlino refers to "Pope John Paul the Great." What does this mean? Is there a movement out there to give John Paul II this title? Very disturbing. It makes sense to me that the spectrum of issues related to reform, renewal, reorientation, repeal, review, and etc., get focused on the liturgy. It is the sum and summit, the beginning and end of what we as a catholic people do together as individuals. And it saddens me so deeply that the conservative, almost fascist, tendency in church leaders is ever emerging and holding sway over the language and humanity of the Second Vatican Council.
William Cardinal Levada,
William Cardinal Levada, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued this:
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH which can be read at RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS
Notably these direct quotes:
FIRST QUESTION
Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
RESPONSE
The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.
This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council.[1] Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”.[3] The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.[4]
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
"...In simple terms that
"...In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”.[3] The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.[4]"...
_____________________________________
So, does this give some clarity as to what "continuity" means in the context of the "hermeneutic of continuity?" Seems so.
Irenaeus with fellow bishops decided for the church then, and for the future, that an episcopal plurality could decide what orthodoxy is and what the faithful have to accept under penalty of sin. "Continuity" means that all new orthodoxy has to tie back to the old in its understanding. This seems to be an incestuous expectation of closed-minded control, then and now — to expect that nothing changes.
Or, does this say that the "continuity of science" has to obtain in the "hermeneutics of continuity-orthodoxy?" Now that might go somewhere.
The underlying rationale from which orthodoxy obtains its rationale (continuity) is presumed by the bishops, i.e., the "science" of the time. The "continuity of orthodoxy" requires accepting the presumptions that grounded early orthodoxy, i.e., the STATIC-CENTRIST WORLDVIEW, which worldview Pope Pius IX reinforced in his condemnations of modernity (especially evolution), and which Vatican I rubberstamped by declaring him infallible. Interesting.
Vatican II retrieved scientific openness to evolution for the church, based on the "sensus fidelium" which, the Council recognized, accepts evolution. So how are the bishops going to square the round peg of evolution to fit the box that Vatican I and the "hermeneutics of continuity-orthodoxy" dug for it? The "hermeneutic of continuity" makes sense if it includes the expectation that the continuity of science applies also to understandings that underlie episcopal intentions.
Between condemning evolution and accepting it, there is no "hermeneutic of continuity-orthodoxy" that I can see. Swallow them apples if you can.
http://www.secondenlightenment.org/ENLIGHTENED%20%20%20EVOLUTION,%20TRIM...
If we can but wait five more
If we can but wait five more years for any major changes in liturgy and Catholic life a few of the old guard will be comfortably wheeled around by nurses and those most vocal in the Vatican will be, hopefully, out of office, i.e. Rode and pals. John Paul lived too long and Benedict cannot keep doing this forever at his age. Maybe another major type of scandal might just way-lay the whole movement for a bit--something along the line of finances. Then maybe the Spirit will have another John XXIII waiting in the wings to ensure that this Church becomes a bit kinder, gentler, and more loving in the spirit of Christ and ready to embrace a new millenium which is presenting so many challenges that translations and antiquated formalities will rightfully be seen as only distractions.
O well, love sometimes needs
O well, love sometimes needs to be strict. Parents sometimes need to ground their children. In my culture, parents sometimes do whip their children. I know this is crazy to the west, but sometimes this kind of things might be just what you need, so that the ones who love you most will actually give this.
Dear Anonymous, are you
Dear Anonymous, are you really serious with this post or is it made in jest. I'm not the most intellegent, somtimes its hard for me to tell. Anyway, think about what you are saying... You wanted the last pope to die earlier, are wanting the current pope to die, and are anxious for a big scandal. Andy why? So another hero like Blessed John XXIII can be elected? Do you know anything about Pope John XXIII? He was a very 'high' pope who was much more into the ceremonies and trappings of the Church's liturgy the the previous Pius XII. As far as the "antiquated formalities" - espeicaially in regards to language - you would have fond no friend in John XXIII. He was a BIG fan of Latin. Just one quote from Veterum Sapientia:
"And We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons--the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods 13--are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor, and to do all We can to promote its study and use. The employment of Latin has recently been contested in many quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored."
How delightful to find that I
How delightful to find that I am not alone in hanging onto the "Spirit of the Council". To those who say that term is insignificant I would say that if all you know is the legalistic genre, anything that doesn't look like a law is "not significant" As O'Malley says, the documents of the Second VAtican Council are pastoral, not legal and therefore unintelligible from a legalistic point of view. It's a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
The term "rupture" applied to those who see the council as change, recalls the kind of framing that George Lakoff, professor of Linguistics at Berkley, says has put political conservatives in the ascendancy since the mid-70s and the founding of the Heritage Foundation. The words themselves betray the speaker's bias.
The word "rupture" does not describe the change that Pope John was hoping for nor does it describe what happened at the Council. What he was hoping for in his description of the Council was a broad application of the knowledge he had taught in the seminary at Bergamo about literary forms and historical criticism and analysis. John was no country bumpklin as conservatives have tried to make him out to be. He seems to me, rather, like a man gifted by God to bring about the reformation of the Roman Catholic Church and to reunite all Believers in Jesus Christ with their Founder.
Can we go back to figuring
Can we go back to figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of pin?
Ummmm...could you give us a
Ummmm...could you give us a hint as to the diameter of the pin head & the average shoulder/hip width of the angels??
Good one! As soon as I see an
Good one! As soon as I see an angel in person, I'll let you know. You can pick the pin.
Recently I was at a daily Mass in a monastery. It's a small monastery, down to about 8 men most of whom are 55/60 or older.
My observations were that the community lacked 'vigor'. There was something stale and disintegrating about it spiritually; not physically. Like the members were worn out or, maybe, not fully developed as men. My observations may be correct or not; it doesn't really matter for this comment.
What matters is that I realized that the translations, etc. that we are hearing about may be Rome's effort to re-invigorate the Church's religious orders more than the laity. In other words, Rome understands better than we do that our Church's religious morale is in dire straits.
This does not mean that Rome has chosen the correct cure or solution for this problem. In fact, I believe Rome has mostly chosen paths that will aggravate the situation and is in great danger of reducing the European and Western branches of Roman Catholicism to stagnation and faster decay.
Why? While this Mass was elegant and sacred on its own merits, I substituted just one translation, "And with your spirit." throughout the Mass. I found it ruined what was a beautiful communal celebration and brought it down to the level of glorified leader versus indentured servant follower (that's polite for non-thinking slave). It eliminated the recognition and the give and take that Christ lives in us all and saves us all. It was disturbing.
Although there have perhaps
Although there have perhaps been some abuses committed under the guise of ¨the spirit of the Vatican II¨ it´s rather absurd to now re-interpret the Second Vatican Council under the guise of some new hermeneutic. Like it or not, this Council was unique and spoke a new language in the Church, although it was not a total rupture from the past. Perhaps there´s a lesson here.
It might be more beneficial to the Church to embrace the clear and consistent call of the Council to greater dialogue and collegiality. If we were to have more frequent Council´s, Synods of Bishops, etc. where real dialogue and exchange could take place, then any changes or areas of renewal would be more gradual and would feel more natural. When the Church waits hundreds of years between Councils in a crisis management mode...then any substantial change would seem catastophic.
Although more dialogue, greater collegiality and transparency is the way to go, I fear the preferred resopnse from Rome is more spin and greater centralization.
"Some abuses?" What planet
"Some abuses?" What planet have you been living on Padre? The Novus Ordo is replete with abuse, after abuse, after abuse. Lefties could care less about the liturgical sensitivities of traditionalists. No one asked us (the overwhelming majority of Catholics in the 1960s) what we wanted. No, a liberal politburo shoved a bunch of crap down our throats and we were supposed to love it. So much so, that instead of 80% of Catholics attending Mass on Sundays we are now down to around 23% with the new, improved, and "relevant" Liturgy. Sorry, but maybe you can ask for an indult so you can have your Kumbaya liturgies in the nursing home while the rest of us return to a restored, sacred, and God centered Liturgy.
Okay now, TJM: calm down a
Okay now, TJM: calm down a bit. You can't have your cake and eat it too (remember that saying?): you rage against having "a bunch of crap (the liturgy, I assume?) [shoved] down our throats" as a rejection of what the Pope and bishops decided in Vatican II, and then advocate complete loyalty to Rome on the other. My real question is this: are you honestly saying that in all these years of attending Mass (I am assuming that you have), that you have never experienced the reverence, the profound feeling of Christ's Presence, the holiest of connections with your fellow believers and communicants, or a sense of an open connection through prayer in those private moments in the liturgy? If not, then I hope that in the upcoming Holy Week liturgies, you experience the fullness of our journey with Christ as He suffers, dies and comes to life once again. I can't wait for it. The one saying - in English, thank God! - that makes me tremble every Easter Vigil, is when the Easter candle in being prepared and the incense inserted in the sign of the cross, the priest says that Christ is the "Alpha and the Omega..." It is just one of the gifts the post VII liturgy has given me. Perhaps, if you let it be so, you can find something in it for you, too. Or perhaps you may just want to find out where in your area there is a Latin Mass celebrated so you can attend there. But in any event, try to be a real Christian in your responses to others who simply feel differently than you do. It may be you who winds up in a nursing home and unable to walk out when somebody sings Kumbaya!
I recall vividly opening a
I recall vividly opening a philosophy text inherited from a priest professor and reading: "Truth is not concerned with how many it convinces", in his handwriting. This kind of platonic objectivism seems to be the mind set of the Ratzinger/Benedict XVI era. The role of church therefore would seem to be to "cloth", or render presentation to that "Truth". The role of the individual, catholic initially and by divine obligation all mankind, is to render humble obiesence, obedience, support and evangelize that construct. The "quid pro quo" in reciprocation is "salvation". This model may be "relational" but is it that kind of relationship evoked by Christ in Incarnation and delegated to His followers or is it more reminiscent of the code He came to reform? Liturgy in this sense appears to be shaped more like Zeus descending from Olympus or the revival of the Old Testament.
It is also a stereotypical "professorial" model wherein the professor knows and dispenses the student absorbs, is formed. Ratzinger/Benedict seems to be concretized within this "hermaneutic" by his own formation and has transferred this "model" to his papacy. Within this model one can "adopt" a persona of humility and graciousness and convince as well as be convinced that it is valid, one can define terms as they support and are consistent with your model. One can construct a theology, a system of ritual or liturgy of presentation and "markers" that represent and are raised to identification with the authoritarian definitions and description of truth. Relation in this mind-set is also a definition and construct and either unable or unwilling to identify with relation as it is imbedded in and essential to the human condition.
By identifying all of these "markers" with absolute, self-contained "truth" one is not hindered by the passions, the blood and gut, the vagaries of living, of history. One is inventing the "City (or fortress)of God" as a way out of reality rather than transforming it in Christ.
Ratzinger/Benedict is reinforced in this scotosis by the comforting historical evolution (or devolution) of this model in the pre-Vatican II church. John XXIII seems to have grasped that the model had deteriorated from useful through obsolescence to counter productive; Ratzinger/Benedict sees it as essential to survival and requiring reconstruction and restoration. No wonder it is attractive to imperialistic and aristocratic hierarchy.
So many of the arguments
So many of the arguments against the reform of the reform are based on...nothing! They are not based on one word from the Second Vatican Council. Instead, they are based on mistaken notions of interpretation and some fictional thing called "the spirit of the council." It has been asked many many many times on this board for someone to point out one single thing Pope Benedict has done that "goes against the Council." And yet no one has been able to come up with anything so far. Some people are right, the issue is all about power and control--not on the part of bishops and the Vatican, however, but on the part of those who have been running (ruining?) parishes and dioceses for the last 30 years and seem themselves being exorcised.
Post new comment