Benedict’s church: Exorcising liberal demons?
Two news items that may elicit celebration or anxiety, depending on one’s view of life in the church these days.
First, Archbishop Raymond Burke, formerly of St. Louis and of late heading the Apostolic Segnatura in Rome–when he’s not roiling the waters of American or church politics–has been named to the Congregation of Bishops. Rocco has the story from Saturday. As Rocco notes, Burke joins U.S.prelates such as Cardinal Justin Rigali (the real move-and-shaker, it is said), Cardinal Bernard Law (remember him?) and Cardinal William Levada (ex-Frisco, now heading CDF) as the main vetters and promoters of the men who will be made bishops.
That is interesting, to say the least, as Burke has certainly come down squarely on one side of the internal battles in the church and inside the hierarchy.
It also may presage more appointments like that of Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, who was last seen on these pages dismissing the idea of a “right” to health care, contra the pope and Catholic teaching.
In a new pastoral letter (hat tip to Catholic World News), Bishop Nickless takes on the idea of church reform and uses Pope Benedict’s parsing of a “hermeneutic of reform” (often labeled continuity) as opposed to a “hermeneutic of rupture.” The first is viewed as the valid view of the Ratzingerian camp, the second the invalid and destructive view of the “liberals” who champion the “Spirit of Vatican II.”
Nickless has a money quote about the latter, which will grab the attention–as it should–when he says “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.”
Cardinal George recently told John Allen that he wished Catholics would stop paying attention to the bishops so much. But devil-may-care Catholics who may find themselves in the sites of Nickless or Burke may want to take note.
Or not? Read and discuss.
PS: A couple other notes worth mentioning in this regard. Also appointed to the Congregation of Bishops was Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, a small man (he is known as “Little Ratzinger) with a love of very big vestments. Also, Archbishop Malcom Ranjith of Colombo, who recently returned to Sri Lanka, after reading the riot act on the liturgy in the Curia for a few years, has (according to CWNews) “called for an end to “inordinate and loud music, clapping, long interventions and gestures which disturb the sobriety of the celebration.” The archbishop said that “para-liturgical” celebrations should not be scheduled to conflict with Sunday Mass. He reminded priests that Catholics should be sensitive to the impact their parish celebrations might have upon Buddhist and Evangelical neighbors, who look askance at disorderly religious rituals.”
Add to that the directive of Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani of Lima that lay people should received Communion on the tongue, kneeling, in that city’s cathedral. The cardinal urged others to adopt the same practice, saying that this is “the most respectful way to receive the Eucharist.” He explained that he is instituting the policy because “we must regain the respect and reverence that is due to the Eucharist.”
And Robert Moynihan of the Traditionalist-leaning mag, “Inside the Vatican,” reports on the opening of talks between Rome and the schismatic SSPX, and sees it–as many do–as a chance to re-open discussions on what the Second Vatican Council was really about:
With Benedict’s decision, the Second Vatican Council is, in a certain sense, as it were, being called in “for further questioning” — for an new examination and cross-examination, like a witness in a trial, to determine what the Council actually said, and intended.
And this means that theology, the strong point of this “theologian-Pope” (his career before he was consecrated a bishop was as a professor of theology in Germany), is about to take center stage in Benedict’s pontificate.
And the goal in all this will be to arrive at clarity and a common understanding of the faith which will allow the reunion of the Lefbevrists with Rome, and so end of the only formal schism since Vatican II.
So it goes?
David’; you say this is how it’s going.. if so, i predict a lot more ‘going’.
Let Commonweal do an article about intentional communities. a refuge from the disfunctional institution… something like ‘simply Catholic’ but surely not what Cardinal .George intends.
Burke’s appointment is a real disappointment. From what I have seen in the press, he does not seem like a man who wants to build bridges or seeks to give another the benefit of the doubt. I pray that I am proven wrong but I fear that we will be seeing more American bishops of his style rather than Abps Dolan or O’Malley
Yeah, baby, we’re turning a corner, all right, rock and roll. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdnZWh7_Xxs
I only wish the left would move to the center, so we could all move forward together.
Mr. Gibson – excellent post but with lots of threads. You missed noting Burke’s mass yesterday at St. Peter’s….the first 1962 Tridentine High Mass there in 40+ years. Crowd was so big; not everyone could be admitted.
Would suggest highlighting Nickless’s tome – titled Ecclesia Semper Reformada. It is really well crafted a la Raymond Arroya, Fox News, etc. (are sure that Arroyo did not ghost write this). Not sure that any reputable church historian or theologian would agree with his definition and use of “hermeneutic of reform”…….IMO, O’Malley does a better job of explaining the majority/minority polarization since 1965 and cites numerous examples of Vatican II documents that were both/and – both traditional and change (disruption?).
What especially attracts your attention in Nickless’ letter is his use of the phrase – John Paul the Great…numerous times. He ends by stating that in his diocese they will spend the next year focusing on 5 documents – all have been written and announced after the year 2000. Talk about a “cafetaria catholic” who picks and chooses what he wants to highlight as tradition.
This reminds me of the field of US history – you get landmark works of history and then 20 years later, a new school of historians rewrite and reinterpret the same history (always from their vantage point, cultural bias, impact of their social times, etc.). We call this historical revisionism. Revisionist history has many motivations – some times it is new found historical facts, events. Sometimes, it is just the change in generations, social & cultural mores, etc. Link to a definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism and reasons to revise history:
Accession of New Data
Developments in other academic areas
Culture:
Ideology
Historical causation:
In re-reading Nickless, if anything his drive is “ideological”….not based on any new data; definitely not an academic development; “culture” …..only if Tridentine is a culture; historical causation……no evidence of this.
Wonder what Cardinal George would think of this – Nickless picks a particular time in the 2000 year history of the church; ordains it as “Tradition or Magisterial Tradition”, rejects the ressourcement efforts of Vatican II, rejects a council with 2000+ bishops, and poses his own individualistic notion. Fantastic.
Just more crap from Rome and the ‘little Romes’
…and from a fearful but fightin’ pope.
Kathy–
Yes, there is a rupture in Catholic Tradition. It is being caused by people who are incapable of any sort of change even when a Council of all the bishops and two popes call for some,, who distort the history of the Church and who resist those who are willing to accept the movement of Vatican II towards better articulation of the Faith.
It is you who are cafeteria Catholics and self-styled “orthodox”. Yes, that goes for two recent popes too. Face it , Kathy, popes sometimes contradict each other and sometimes change Church doctrine. Get over it. The best of Church Tradition requires it.
Gibson says: Also, Archbishop Malcom Ranjith of Colombo, who recently returned to Sri Lanka, after reading the riot act on the liturgy in the Curia for a few years, has (according to CWNews) “called for an end to “inordinate and loud music, clapping, long interventions and gestures which disturb the sobriety of the celebration.” The archbishop said that “para-liturgical” celebrations should not be scheduled to conflict with Sunday Mass. He reminded priests that Catholics should be sensitive to the impact their parish celebrations might have upon Buddhist and Evangelical neighbors, who look askance at disorderly religious rituals.”
I’m not sure this comment belongs on this list. I think it has more to do with liturgy in Africa or Asia than the US/Europe, where liturgy is relatively sober, for cultural reasons. I mean, I don’t think there are many Buddhist neighbors near my parish, let along scandalized ones.
Also, I assume Joseph Jaglowicz comment will be removed, right?
Having seen the provocative statement of Bishop Nickless, over the weekend I read his entire pastoral letter and found it far more balanced than that single sentence might lead one to expect. I might simply add that he himself does not identify the view criticized with the Bologna School, although others have done so. In fact, he describes the wrong interpretation in such absolute terms that one may wonder whether anyone in fact holds it.
As for the Mass celebrated by Abp. Burke in St. Peter’s Basilica yesterday. the Mass was held, not in the main part of the Basilica nor at the altar of the Chair, where the reformed liturgy was being carried out simultaneously, but in the side altar of the Blessed Sacrament, and it is this small chapel that was filled with people. An Italian website gives details–http://blog.messainlatino.it/2009/10/solenne-pontificale-san-pietro-con.html–and you will find there many complaints about the way participants were treated by the people who work in the basilica, the difficulties placed in the way of those who wanted to go to the unreformed liturgy, the curtains drawn to keep it from attracting other people, etc. Several contributors to the blog also lament the fact that Pope Benedict himself, two years after his motu proprio, has yet to say Mass in St. Peter’s in the unreformed rite.
I find it interesting that seemingly-conservative/”orthodox” curial officials like Ranjith and Cipriani (and others could be mentioned) are from the Third World. I wonder if the Catholic Church is destined to experience First World/Third World tensions, as has happened in the Anglican Communion.
Ann, now is the time of change. The Church train is turning a corner. All aboard!
As per Fr. Komonchak’s note, I edited above as not everyone associates the “spirit of the council” school with the Bologna school, and Nickless did not explicitly do so, though plenty of course make that connection, here and in Rome. I also edited to make clear (was there a doubt?!) that I am not endorsing one view as “valid” and the other not. I do agree that again, the two, either/or views presented are almost caricatures.
Jim Pauwels, I think you are correct as regards the North-South division (a characertization I prefer to Third World-First World.) The itneresting thing is that folks like Ranjith and even Arinze have become “more Roman than the Romans’ and go back home and critique the liturgical styles that they grew up with and that they once embraced. Arinze could be scathing in his critiques of imposed Euro-centric liturgical ways. Not any more.
I still think change is a comin’, in that Catholics in the South (esp Asia and Africa) are going to go where the spirit leads. Then again, the spirit could be exorcised. I am not a prophet.
Kathy:
You’ve mentioned that the Church is turning a corner twice now. Fitting, since turning two corners reverses course.
I’ve thought before that what the Church seems to be pushing these days is looking more and more like and alternative natural science rather than an authentic human spirituality.
Hey, David G., thx for the North/South phraseology. I wasn’t entirely comfortable with my formula, either, but couldn’t think of anything better.
(Now off to consult a globe to discover the latitude of Sri Lanka …)
Yes, David, it has been clear for a long time that The Wanderer was “right” all these years in its stance supporting a “hermeneutic of continuity” in understanding Vatican II, and that the “left” really had another agenda all along, a “hermeneutic of disruption.” As Chesterton famously said, when the clock is wrong, you have to re-set it. That is what Benedict is doing, but he is only continuing work that John Paul II started. At the end of the day, it will be very clear that what the big fight between the “right” and the “left” — or conservatives and liberals — was all about was Vatican I.
Liberals just never accepted it. Had they, the “troubles” of the post-Vatican II years would have been pretty small, maybe insignificant.
As much as some folks seem to long for some sort of split or tear or break from the past, Pope Benedict is working hard to ensure there will not be one. The reason the Anglicans are splitting has more to do with the ordination of homosexual clergy than it has to do with a north-south or first world-third worlds division.
God does not promote confusion and division.
Obviously this bishop is correct in that there is no split in Church doctrine between pre-Vatican II and post Vatican II. The calendar of readings and the form of mass changed, but the Catholic Faith is the same now as it was a thousand years ago. I heard on Catholic radio awhile back that some are considering using the new readings calendar with the Tridentine form of mass. In fact regarding the two forms of Mass, Pope Benedict mentioned the notion of one form influencing the other. And so that sort of thing changes, but our Faith does not change.
And I agree JC about removing Joseph’s comment; it was overly strong and blunt. He must feel strongly about how Pope Benedict is guiding the on-going implementation of Vatican II, but there is no need to be so frank about it.
Good point Paul (about the First Vatican Council); I had not thought of it that way.
Thank you Joseph Komonchak for your comment on reading the whole Nickless letter. It is actually quite balanced and conciliatory. Unfortunately, some of those on the hard-right have taken one sentence out of context for their own purposes. I recommend reading the whole letter.
“The Church train is turning a corner. All aboard!”
No, Kathy, said train will not invite “all aboard.” Rather, only those who smile, say “Yes, Fadduh – whatever you say,” and swoon over vestments that most drag queens would kill to own will be welcomed.
Hence the train will have a lot fewer cars attached while and after turning the corner.
If y’all think Anglicanism is suffering because of the Third World shenanigans of their retrograde bishops and congregations, wait until we see what Romanism is going to experience.
The 2nd largest denomination in the US (ex-Catholics) will soon become the LARGEST denomination in the US. Actually, that might be quite liberating. Then folks can refocus on what is important rather than this internecine infighting that is self-destructive and conterproductive.
Lots of confusion about what changes and what remains for all time – two posts obviously have hundreds of Vatican II bishops turning in their graves not to mention theologians.
Link to comments about both liberal and conservative despair: http://www.catholica.com.au/gc2/ap/001_ap_190408.php
Yes, the truth (tradition correctly understood) continues but some things have changed and the expression and the way catholics live those traditions have changed. A brief list since 1965:
developments we take for granted, developments we found unthinkable even in the euphoria at the close of Vatican II.
Latin-rite married convert Catholic pastors
Ecumenical and Interfaith Weddings
the Pope at the World Council of Churches or praying in a Lutheran Church to honor Martin Luther or entering with devotion a synagogue or mosque
a formal apology by the Pope to the world for the evil done to it by Catholics
a majority of Catholic laity in favor of abortion in some circumstances, homosexual committed relationships, a married priesthood, the ordination of women (even though all of these were condemned by three popes in succession)
the legal status of homosexual marriages in traditionally Catholic countries
a conviction, Church-wide, by most Catholics that one remains a Catholic in good standing and is entitled to communion in divorce and remarriage, in homosexual relationships, after excommunication, resigning from canonical priestly ministry without dispensation, after an abortion
Catholics taking a bishop to court, favoring the bankruptcy of dioceses, forcing cardinals to resign in Austria and in the United States
world-wide acceptance of the ministry of non-canonical married priests
organized communities of Catholics favoring issues Church administrators condemn while insisting they are Catholics in good standing
a Pope meeting for hours, in a friendly environment, seeking no retraction, with Hans Kung, a theologian who seriously challenges the legitimacy of papal infallibility
Assisi days of prayer with leaders of world religions gathered with the Pope as his equal
a formal acceptance by the Pope of the Augsburg Confession, the charter of the Reformation
communion at the Vatican, by the Pope, to those who are not Catholic, such as United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair
A number of the above items could have led to formal heresy charges against John Paul II by the Council of Trent.
Pius X at the beginning of the twentieth century excommunicated Catholic theologians for less than this.
“Ecclesia semper reformanda”
I would have thought that meant “The Church is always in need of REFORM”.
Joe – read it a few times. Appears to be a very slick “pastoral letter” based on a jaundiced interpretation of the spirit and documents of Vatican II.
Picking up on a couple of posts above, would say that Vatican II did not over-ride anything said by Vatican I. It did produce valuable directions for the church and opened up new ways of “pouring new wine into new winseskins”.
One big difference that I see:
- Vatican II was a council
- this pastoral letter and B16′s re-interpretation are the works of a decidely small minority; nor are they a council.
- at least, both Vatican I and Vatican II were councils and not the work of a small minority that have stamped their interpretation as the correct answer going forward.
I found Bishop Nickless’ five-point plan for renewing his diocese to be pretty interesting. His five-step program (each point progressing to the next) includes:
1. Increasing love and devotion for the Eucharist, greater participation in the sacrament of Reconciliation, and devotion to the Blessed Mother
2. Better catechesis, especially of adults
3. Strengthened family life
4. More vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life
5. An evanglizing, outward-facing church
I wish his program great success. If I may say so, though: had I written a pastoral letter, I might have re-ordered the steps. To my mind, the starting point is preaching the Good News. That leads people to want to become initiated (or more deeply initiated) into the faith, including via the Holy Eucharist. It also leads to mystagogy and on-going catechesis. The fruits of responding to the Good News and being more fully inititaed into our faith, I believe, include stronger families and more responses to God’s call to the priesthood or consecrated life.
“God does not promote confusion and division.”
O, really?
See Luke 12:51-53 at http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke12.htm .
For two different “takes” on this scriptural passage, see:
+ http://www.stphilipscathedral.org/sermons/sermprint/Aug_19_2007_Candler.html , and
+ http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10158 .
Mr. Likoudis, many practitioners of change management would suggest that “disruption” is precisely the strategy needed for bringing about organizational/institutional renewal. The word ‘renewal’ means to make new again; restore. The word ‘restore’, in turn, means to return something to its original condition. In one of his books on church councils, historian Christopher Bellitto has noted that nearly 75 percent of all renewal language in the documents of the 21 general/ecumenical councils can be found in the pronouncements of Vatican II alone!
Unfortunately, both JPII — and, with gusto, B16 — have worked overtime to frujstrate the renewal called for by the world’s bishops at Vatican II. There’s a reason they and their supporters are called “reactionaries.” JPII appointed bishops who would support his autocratic notion of ecclesial authority. Ratzinger lost no time in reaching out to reactionary groups such as SSPX and related.
JC, I use the word ‘crap’ so as to avoid using other terms (definitely more objectionable in this forum) that might better describe my assessment of the stuff coming out of Rome and various chanceries.
Although I have a graduate degree, I did serve nearly two years as a military riverboat deckhand where I learned a lot of things never acquired in my formal education.
I like to think the word ‘catholic’ can embrace choice of blunt language as well as universality of shared core belief.
Something of a different take>
This morning my wife and I had the privilege of talking with three East Africans, two laymen and a priest, bout the pressing needs in their part of the world. As one of them put it, “water is life.” many parts of East Afroca are desperately short of all water, to say nothing of good water. If you really wants to promote peace and justice among different groups or tribes, you must deal with the many facets of the water issue. If you seek to improve health, or diet, or education, or the condition of girls and women, you’ve got to address the terribble shortages of usable water.
In East Africa, as elsewhere, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), an agency of the U. S. confeerrence of Bishops, plays a leading role in improving life by providing both technical and financial aid to help these African people devise and implement solutions to so many of their problems. Especially noteworthy is CRS’s assistance with wate projects. Its work is both financially transparent and professionally accountable. [Would anyone argue that these two traits generally characterize the pracitces of American Catholic dioceses?]
Then this afternoon, I read David Gibson’s posting about the pope’s appointments of new members to the congregation that selects new bishops. And I connect Gibson’r report with John Allen’s reports from the Synod on Africa. Who are these new members? What are they noted for? An attraction to big vestments? Worry about noise levels at liturgical celebrations? Communion on the knees and on the tongue? And then, of course, there’s the prince of pastors , Archbishop Burke.
What should I conclude from all this this evening as I cry in my beer? How about this? The pope really agrees with Cardinal George that there’s not much reason for us ordinary folk to bother much about what the bishops are up to.
Except— these prelates will also appoint bishops in East Africa.
What should I conclude this
Does the word ‘disconnect’ come to mind here?
I think many of you worry too much about all this. The Holy Spirit is in charge, and unless you anticipate the Gates of Hell prevailing, hey, its out of our hands. Some of us will be disappointed, some delighted, others will be scratching their heads saying, uh… what? Relax and enjoy the ride!
I should have added that it is extremely unlikely that any of the teachings in the Catechism will be altered, except cosmetically as it were. The Faith is the Faith, it is what it is, if I may indulge in tautological statements.
A few observations:
1. Early in his letter, Bishop Nickless referred to the New Evangelization as a project aimed at “the faithful, our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, and all those who do not know Jesus Christ or the Church.” I’m not familiar with this formulation, and it reads as presumptuous and triumphalistic to assume that our separated brethren need to be evangelized. It sounds like the wrong kind of ecumenism–one of return rather than one of dialogue. But this may be just a nit-pick, given the overall turgid tone of this letter. In many places, I find Bishop Nickless getting carried away by his own prose. It’s quite possible that here (as in other places) he ends up saying something he doesn’t really mean to say. I hope that is the case!
2. I agree with Jim Pauwels’ comment that the order of the bishop’s five-point plan seems out of sync. What good is making adoration more accessible, or making the liturgy more exalted, if the people who attend such things have yet to come to a personal encounter with Jesus? Of course, one could hope this will happen at adoration, but it is far more likely that it will happen through engaged, consistent, and informed evangelization. Overall, it seems that Bishop Nickless is more interested in making his people distinctively Catholic in their practices and cultural markers than he is in fostering the inner life that is a necessary precursor to much of these practices. Yet another example of carts being placed in front of horses.
3. The concept of establishing pastoral priorities for the diocese is commendable. But what he has laid out reads more like a wish list than a set of achievable goals. Practically, concretely, how does Bishop Nickless intend to accomplish all that he wants to see happen? Is there some new directive from his office outlining what constitutes a worthy liturgy? Are there new programs of catechesis that he will be implementing? And how will these programs be administered? Leadership by inspiration is good, as far as it goes. But where is the perspiration?
4. The bishop would profit greatly from an objective, no-holds-barred editor. This piece is far too long and convoluted to hold the attention of the average Catholic.
In the thread on Fr. Willenborg, Jimy Mac talked about Catholics celebrating in the dark times upon us. That goes in spades after the current spate of news, despite the best face some would put on an obvious continued move to the right and a berak and non continuity with VII.
Kathy can rejoice and Ken can live in his happy world of a Church that has lived over 2000 years, but the exodus away will continue as the lurch right grows and the Kathys and Kens can jump on the lurch and others will move away.
Talk about the center today is laughable!
Still many good folks soldier on, as Jimmy Mac notes in loving comunion and eucharistic communion.
(I think it ironic that eucharistic adoration, growing out of a practice that in times past substituted for real reception) is such a big deal -except for a shortage of clergy – a topic that is not really on the table except to say “the priest is everything” and pray for more vocations.
I think it ironic that the joint statemant of Catholics and Lutherans on Justification”s anniverary t was hardly noted in the ecumenical chill except for a best face from Cardinal Kaspar -but I could go on and on.)
Being a US Catholic today strikes me as being analogous to a senior in the health care debate today – the next ten years don’t promise a lot for us but hopefully things will get better down the road when better heads lead.
I think that finding and holding the center is a valid project. It’s certainly, imho, the urgent project of the moment.
While I am a bit distressed by Abp Burke’s appointment to the Congregation for Bishops, the rest of the worries expressed here seem a bit paranoid.
The chief proponents of “a hermeneutic of rupture” are the descendants of Abp Lefebvre. The theological dialogue commencing now will center on whether the SSPX can accept that what has happened since V2 is in continuity with what came before. The underlying aim is to overcome the ruptures Lefebvre created in through time and in the present.
“Exorcising the Spirit of Vatican 2″ is a vain effort that neglects the history of our Church. From the beginning, John XXIII cast himself as inspired by the Holy Spirit, calling for a New Pentecost, opening windows to let in the fresh air of the Spirit. Fidelity to V2′s history is fidelity to the Spirit, and distancing one from the Spirit is more problematic than turning to the Spirit for guidance. It is a rupture, no matter how well intentioned. (which is not to say there have been no misunderstandings of the Spirit’s role)
As I thought it over it seemed to me that “Ecclesia semper reformanda” and “Ecclesia semper renouanda” come to the same thing. What is the difference between between returning the church to its original form and returning the church to its form when it was new? Not much! Does Bishop Nickless know what he is calling for? Really? It does not seem that Christ placed the bread piece by piece on the tongues of the Twelve.
The center might well be where tepid or luke warm lie. Jesus promised to spit those who follow this out of his mouth. Harvey Cox in his new book: The future of Faith, distinquishes between belief and faith. He writes: “We can believe something to be true without it making much difference to us, but we place our faith only in something that is vital for the way we live.” So that is the problem with so called continuity. People ignore it because it is irrelevant, pushed by those more interested in Empire than faith. The Holy Spirit is with faith, not belief. The wrong belief had people burned at the stake or thrown out of the ‘church.’ Faith does the will of God, feeds the hungry, nurtures the downtrodden, visits prison and brings the good news to the poor.
Jim Pauwels –
Istm also that the third world/first world and north/south descriptions of the Church are not very accurate. The Oceanic bishops have been quite outspoken in their criticism of the Curia, ass has Archbishop Rbinson of Australia. Perhaps great physical distance does give them a different perspective on the Western Chuch and hierarchy.
I would like to know Sunil Korah’s and F. O’leary’s views about differences between Far Eastern and Western – and Africa– Catholicism. I think Bernard’s last post shows that as far as Africa goes, things are not so simple. Maybe political dichotomies (liberal/conservative) really aren’t too useful when applied to the Church. Too many of us are hybrids.
Bob Schwartz said that “the Holy Spirit is in charge.”
Really? Is this the same Holy Spirit Who is “in charge” of the election of the pope?
What happened here, then?
• Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.
• Pope John XII (937-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
• Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044,1045,1047-1048), who “sold” the Papacy.
• Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy.
• Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.
• Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.
• Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors’ reserves on a single ceremony.
• Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
I think that the major copout of Catholics is to think that the Holy Spirit guides this church on a micro basis. She hasn’t done a very good job over the years in that respect, has She?
Jesus’ promise that the church would always endure (Mt 28:20) does not necessarily mean that it will endure everywhere. (Msgr. John Tracy Ellis)
Bill deHaas. –
It is my understanding that by the end of Vatican I the vast majority of bishops had gone home. My question: how could it be considered a gathering of tee universal Church when most of the bishops were missing? In other words, I can’t see how it can be accorded the same authority as Vat II
The American delegation on the Congregation will likely have a huge influence on who will run the American church in the next twenty years or so. Assuming that they will select men of their own cast of mind and character, we are in for a dark period in the history of the American church. Loose cannons, a rogue exiled for cause, a couple of smooth Vatican insiders who know how to do what they are told. Bad news. Depressing in the extreme.
Ann – it is a complex history. My memory is rusty on Vatican I but I recall that roughly 30% of the bishops left before approval of the dogma of infallibility. There were various reasons for these departures…….history does tell the story of the bishop of Little Rock who refused to approve of Pius’s manipulations; German bishop who refuted this dogma and was later excommunicated; the “old” catholic church (interesting how no one seems concerned about their schism compared to SSPX a hundred years later); the threat to the Papal States and Italian nationalism as the backdrop to this council; the Franco-German War that was looming, etc.
Many historians indicate that the drive for infallibility was partly in response to the loss of the Papal states – not exactly a very high ideal to support this dogma. There are also psycho-historians who would describe Pius as a pyschopath – moved by fear, psychiatric issues, etc.
I would not really compare the two councils at all – especially when you realize how few bishops attended Vatican I; how the majority were almost all European compared to Vatican II; much less compared to some future council – 4200 plus bishops today; overwhelming majority of catholics are from the southern hemisphere, etc. What does that say about the future – not sure a small number of African/Indian bishops who have adopted the Roman way completely express what you are hearing in the synod for Africa. Lots of support for relooking at enculturation, role of women, celibacy, ecumenism, questioning how Rome has at times supported corrupt African governments, etc.
I found the introductory passage in Bishop Nickless’s letter to be wanting. I don’t buy the Benedictine dichotomy of continuity and rupture. I would characterize, for example, the witness of Archbishop LeFebvre and others not as rupture, but as the hermeneutic of obstruction. The Holy Father is enough of a wise man to realize that the decades after every council had its detractors, its resistance. I find Bishop Nickless’s comment on exorcism to be deeply hurtful, if not at outright falsehood. Which is too bad, because otherwise, he has good things to say about participation and faith formation (better term than catechesis).
Jimmy Mac:
You will gain no purchase by mocking the Holy Spirit. Since the Church is administered by sinful human beings (the only ones available last I checked) there will always be scandalous behavior (some spectacularly so) on the part of some administrators. So what else is new? But you are making a grave mistake if you use that fact to conduct your spiritual life. I know, because I have made that same mistake in my own life. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit bi***-slapped me into a recognition of my folly.
I have read your posts over the months with great interest, and what I perceive is a man of great sensitivity and intelligence, of shrewd insight and perception, who is firing at the wrong targets. I understand your spiritual dilemma, to some extent, and sympathize with that dilemma. I have a dilemma (different from yours, but similar in gravity) and I have great trepidation for my own spiritual situation; the only difference, in that regard, is that I know what my problem is. I pray, Jimmy Mac, that you find the solution to your situation and I hope you will pray for me that I find mine. God Bless.
Hello Ann (and All),
To add to Bill D.’s response to your question, at the Second Vatican Council the first official act of the council fathers was to declare the First Vatican Council closed. (The participants at the First Vatican Council were unable to officially end that council in 1870 because of the outbreak of the Franco Prussian War.) So I think one could argue that the First Vatican Council’s validity is secured because the fathers of the Second Vatican Council ratified the First Vatican Council.
Peter,
Is closing the same as ratifying or confirming? I don’t know. A bishop reminded VOTF in Latin that silence is not assent.
I am privileged to know a peritus at V II and through him have had minor contact with others who were there, in the midst of deliberations. To a man, each one considers the promise of the council foreshortened if not dismantled in the years since.
This is a very discouraged lot who have seen the effects of countermoves in vivid, practical, unmistakable terms. The flourishing of a revisionism that so twists reality is heartbreaking and alarming to those who know otherwise from personal experience. But they and we find much mutual support and comfort.
There is a cadre of priests who have seen their hopes and life’s work basically defeated, with little on the horizon to brighten their hearts. The drip-by-drip retrenchment, with developments like those David G lists, is longstanding. Robert Mickens has written persuasively of changes regarded as unthinkable that are slowly working their way to reality (can’t find the file).
When others indicate there is nothing to be concerned about, all is well, over-reactions are rife, etc. etc, it feels surreal. A world of elephants in the room that you are told don’t exist. It feels crazy-making.
The right gloats; the left is dispirited, even despairing. (We all know the essentials of both positions, so let’s not quibble about labels.) But people will be pushed only so far before patience is exhausted. Remember, threats of hell don’t work anymore. So, lighten up folks.
Finding some refuge is vital, and we will somehow carve out breathing room to keep the dream alive. The priest shortage will do the rest.
Behind all is a sustaining Word and Sacrament, shared outside the din of accusations of dissident, and cafeteria Catholic (no matter the source) — terms which in their own way can be considered honorifics these days.
Hello Carolyn (and All),
“Is closing the same as ratifying or confirming?”
I’m not sure. I only meant to say that one way to interpret the official closure of the First Vatican Council is as a confirmation or ratification of that Council.
Ann Olivier asked about Far Eastern Catholicism. The Church in Japan has remained static at half a percent of the population and is shrinking (though this is offset by a hugh influx of immigrant Catholics in recent years). I would say its failure to grow is largely due to the over-western and staid character of its liturgy. Interreligious dialogue is not popular with Japanese Catholics, nor is there a strong dimension of social consciousness. Things are more vibrant in Korea, Philippines and Indonesia. On the other hand, Japanese Catholics have a high intellectual and cultural level and Catholic schools and hospitals are highly respected.
Carolyn Disco may be right that this surreal rise of the Right is really transforming Catholicism. An ignorant majority may choose a sect-like Church. The liberals will migrate to other Christian locations or to Buddhism. It’s not an impossible scenario, though it is indeed a very dispiriting one for those who honestly labored to fashion the Church that Vatican II envisaged. On the other hand, recall the rightwing movements in Italy and Germany and Spain in mid-century; or in France in the 19th century; or the frozen dogmatism of China and Russia in the communist world — all of these countries are now thriving liberal hotbeds. Rightwing insanity has a way of petering out or imploding.
Hello All,
I’m taking the liberty of repeating part of Carolyn’s last post:
“The right gloats; the left is dispirited, even despairing.”
I agree with Carolyn. But frankly I’m mystified why my friends in the Roman Catholic right, at least in North America, are gloating. In North America, is the rate of weekly participation in Mass rising? Is the rate of Roman Catholic married couples who use contraception steadily dropping? Are legions of North American women entering consecrated lives in religious communities? Are legions of North American men entering seminaries? Are North American Roman Catholics abandoning the practice of receiving the Body of Christ in their hands? Are North American Roman Catholics shunning women Eucharistic ministers? I’m not trying to criticize or laud the practices of any of my fellow American Roman Catholics here. I’m only claiming that I don’t think the practices of American Roman Catholics are changing in the direction my friends in the Roman Catholic right clearly want.
Obviously I could carry on. But maybe the central question here is this: Are more North American Roman Catholics returning to the belief that God likes best His children who are Roman Catholics who follow all the rules and the pre-1960s practices of the Roman Catholic Church? I very much doubt it. I for one certainly don’t, and I am trying my best to obey all the laws of the Roman Catholic Church, though I follow certain contemporary practices such as receiving the Body of Christ in my hands, frequently from women Eucharistic ministers.
I much appreciate the comments here by those who are concerned that American Roman Catholics seem to be no different from non-Catholic Americans. And I much appreciate the comments expressing frustration over what looks like now more than three decades of the hierarchy trying to reverse the changes in belief and practice inaugurated by Vatican II. I’m similarly frustrated. What are struggling Roman Catholics to do? To be honest, I’m thinking that maybe for the time being I should take Cardinal George at his word, do my best to follow Roman Catholic Church teaching, and pay as little attention as possible to what bishops are saying.
By the way I do not mean to use “friends” sarcastically. Participants here know I have on occasion expressed my dislike of certain public figures in the Catholic right such as Mr. George Weigel. But we are all fellow members of the same part of the church Christ founded, so I mean it when I refer to those in the Catholic right as friends.
Peter,
I think the right is gloating because they sense their views have support at the highest levels, and episcopal appointments both in Rome and the US endorse this opinion.
Motu poprio, more Latin and bells back even in my little parish, reinforcement from B16 against “progressive” measures that are DOA everywhere, a bishop here reverts to ad orientam, a bishop there is back to communion on the tongue, visitation/investigation of sisters, overtures to Lefebvrists, cappa magna etc. comeback, ICEL changes on the horizon, Roger Haight forbidden to teach — name it, and the signs and trends are in their direction. I’d be thrilled, as Kathy rightly is, if that were my bent.
Joseph O’Leary,
while I would dearly like to think “right wing insanity” peters out, right wing initiatives are thriving, and the power of the right dominates. Where it gets insane is a matter of interpretation, grin.
I do take Cardinal George at his word in the sense that bishops are totally irrelevant to the living of my faith, in fact grave obstacles to same. A certain distance is necessary for balance, as my tolerance for what issues from chanceries and curia declines precipitously each year. Too much exposure to their lies and cover-ups, I guess.
When the blinders are lifted, one really wakes up. It’s an epiphany of sorts, and very clear. Then all the piety sounds like so much drivel, with untruth at the core. Justice Anne Burke spoke powerfully a few months ago of the need for truthfulness in the church, something sorely lacking. I wait for prelates to speak truthfully in a way that resonates, that has an on-the-ground validity. Meanwhile, Scripture and wonderful writers through the ages and today provide sustenance, challenge and joy.
Keeping my eyes on Christ is essential, essential, to survive. Our faith is a true gift, with a lavishly loving God I am just getting to know, sad to say. A return to anything approaching the old days is anathema, if I may indulge some humor, in using that word from Trent.
It’s a bad patch for us liberals down here right now, but hopefully not in the Kingdom to come, where God willing, we will all commune. Does anyone have the citation where Aquinas says he would rather face God having violated the rules of the church than his conscience?
Peter –
The closing of Vat I is on issue. Its status as representing the universal Church is another. When 1/3 to 1/4 of the bishops are missing, I submit that de facto the meeting cannot be considered deliberation of the universal Cjurch. Between the 1860s and 1970s there were four generations of bishops who did not meet. In the inglorious lexicon of democrat (relevant when talking of the universal Church) they voted with their feet. There was no Vat I in that period, as there was no universal meeting even in the sense of “consensus” towards the end of that process which we call a Cpumcil.
I see the hand of the Holy Spirit in these facts. Infallibility of neither pope’s nor pope’s-plus-council was de facto ratified by Vat I, because even by its own definitions, at the end it was not de facto a universal meeting of the Church in any sense.
I consider myself a scholastic philosopher, and I think I know logic chopping when I see it. This is logic chopping — to ssy Vat I was a meeting of of the universal Church until Vat II flies in the face of facts.
Thanks, Fr. O’Leary. Glad to hear the Japanes Catholic intellectual culture continues. I hope it isn’t too Western in its emphasis on logic. I read a letter of Francis Xavier once in which he praises the Japanese. He particularly loved them. I can understand that. There seems to be an appreciation in the Japanese of both the logical and the intuitive that is sadly lacking in many other cultures, I know there are few Catholics there, but I continue to hope that the ability of the culture to balance opposites can profit the Church and the rest of the world.
There is indeed a fund of Japanese wisdom that I hope is quietly at work among Japanese Catholics (and in Japanese society at large) today — it would take dogma rather lightly, prizing religion only as practically useful or contemplatively vibrant.
Who could quarrel with Bp Nickless on eucharistic, catechetical and family renewal? His opening remarks where he talks about rival camps on the Church seem to contradict his own denunciation of one camp and uncritical embrace of the other, when he writes: ‘It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council. This interpretation sees the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church almost as two different churches. It sees the Second Vatican Council as a radical break with the past. There can be no split, however, between the Church and her faith before and after the Council. We must stop speaking of the “Pre-Vatican II” and “Post-Vatican II” Church, and stop seeing various characteristics of the Church as “pre” and “post” Vatican II. Instead, we must evaluate them according to their intrinsic value and pastoral effectiveness in this day and age.’ If this is not a vague straw man, as Fr Komonchak suggests, it must be sly propaganda against liberal Catholics — Catholics who voted for Obama, for example. Most theologians do not use the sweeping rhetoric the bishop castigates, but there are certainly immense differences between pre and post Vatican II — notably in our attitudes to Judaism, religious freedom, interreligious dialogue, certain aspects of ecumenism, the place of Scripture in theology, the centrality of the Justice and Peace dimension (not mentioned by the bishop, as if it were irrelevant to Iowa), the valorization of episcopal subsidiarity, the status of the laity in the Church, the sense of the Church being at the service of the world in solidary with all people of good will, and so forth. Each of these new “developments” in Newman’s term are in deep continuity with the ancient faith, as the Bologna School historians and theologians well understand. It is their critics who have invented the scenario of discontinuity and rupture, which seems to have no objective basis in the five-volume History of Vatican II. The reactionary Catholic right are in continuity, of which they boast, with a certain strand in Catholic Tradition — with Pius V, Joseph de Maistre, Gregory XVI, Blessed Pius IX, St Pius X, ultramontanism generally; they are uneasy with John XXIII, Vatican II and Paul VI, and the leading theologians of the conciliar period (preferring to them Von Balthasar and the later and more conservative writings of Bouyer and de Lubac); very many conservative Catholics today are actually in avowed discontinuity with Vatican II which they see as basically a bad thing, and they cherish the vain hope that the Vatican will succumb to Lefebvrite demands for a reevaluation of that Council.
Peter,
You ask very thoughtful questions.
I’ve spent 8 of the last 10 years living in an unusual environment: the immediate
Peter, I’ve lived 8 of the last 10 years living in the immediate vicinity of Catholic University, once known as “little Vatican” because of the concentration of Religious and priests. Although the majority of folks even there are not markedly churchgoing, and although the music in most situations is just as casual as anywhere else in the US, there are certain signs of change, and, I would suggest, renewal. At the Dominican House of Studies, for example, there are 31 men in initial formation. At the University, Eucharistic Adoration is “the” place to be on Wednesday nights.
It’s not that the whole Church is changing. However, the YOUNG Church is producing leaders who are likely to make a real difference in direction.
Peter, thank you for your thoughtful questions. (Sorry for my truncated comment above.)
Let me once more insist that Benedict does not make use of a dichotomy between continuity and rupture when he discusses how to interpret Vatican II. His distinction is between rupture and reform, and so far from denying any discontinuity at the Council, he defines reform as continuity and discontinuity at different levels. In the famous speech of December 2005, he devotes most of his time to explaining the need for change, even discontinuity, in the Church’s relationship to the world; he uses the Council’s teaching on religious freedom as an illustration. This is why I believe that his main target in the speech are the Lefebvrites and their hermeneutic of discontinuity. What others make of his distinction is another matter.
As far as what the future will bring is concerned, I recall that 95% of the bishops present at the beginning of Vatican II were appointed by Pope Pius XII or by his predecessors, and that no one predicted in 1958, when Pius XII died, what the Church would look like ten years later.
Can we agree that the center of our Catholic faith is the encounter with God through Jesus Christ in the unity of the Holy Spirit, and this encounter takes place, not merely or even primarily in Vatican bureaucracies or even basilicas, nor in diocesan chancery offices or cathedrals, but in local communities of faith and in one’s personal prayer-space and in one’s heart? Just for the sake of perspective?
Fr. Komonchak,
While the encounter with Jesus Christ in the unity of the Spirit occurs on a personal level, it is also deeply communal and mystical. I would suggest that this mystical, transcendent sensibility is the aspect of our faith that has been most at risk during the years since the Council. The concreteness of the local community is significant, particularly as a help to growth in charity and a reality check regarding one’s own progress in the life of the Spirit. But the transcendent aspect remains. There is a universality to the Church on earth and in heaven that cannot, it seems to me, be fully realized by the individual person or fully instantiated in one place.
In many cases, the tendency towards congregationalism has occurred on the right. Numerically, though, this is not our problem in the US. The vast problem–as distinct from the smaller problem of extremely traditionalist enclaves–is a congregationalism that tends to reduce all community, even communion in Christ, to the present company.
Yves Congar–the “later” Congar, I suppose–seems to me to have thoughtfully held the center. Where do human beings meet God? What is our privileged place of encounter with saving reality? It’s here, concretely in community, and yet it extends in time and space to everywhere and eternity.
“At the end, there will be a state in which God will be ‘everything to everyone’, in other words, there will be one life animating many without doing violnece to the inner experience of anyone, just as, on Mount Sinai, Yahweh set fire to the bush and it was not consumed. (I Believe in the Holy Spirit, p. 17)
“As a man of the Middle Ages, Thomas insists on the satisfaction that can be offered for another person, and even stresses the importance of indulgences. Prayer for the departed is based, he claims, on the fact that death…cannot separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, and he bases the effectiveness of that prayer on the unity of charity. That unity makes a bond between the Church on earth and the Church beyond the veil. The liturgy of the Church expresses the conviction tha these two parts of the same people of God are united in praise and concelebrate the same mystery, above all in the Eucharist. We enter into the holy action of the Eucharist only in unity with the angels and the blessed who acclaim that God is three times holy. Even more importantly, our sovereign celebrant is Jesus Christ himself, our High Priest, and we call upon the Spirit to concelebrate with us.” (I Believe in the Holy Spirit, p. 60)
Yes, Fr. Komonchak, I agree with you without qualification.
And, I should take this opportunity to say that I very much appreciate your comments on this site, since I have learned so much, especially that there is often a middle way highly underrepresented in the comments on this site.
You will gain no purchase by mocking the Holy Spirit.
Bob,
It is not mocking the Holy Spirit to say you see an absence of his (or her) influence in particular places.
“1. Early in his letter, Bishop Nickless referred to the New Evangelization as a project aimed at “the faithful, our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, and all those who do not know Jesus Christ or the Church.” I’m not familiar with this formulation, and it reads as presumptuous and triumphalistic to assume that our separated brethren need to be evangelized. It sounds like the wrong kind of ecumenism–one of return rather than one of dialogue. But this may be just a nit-pick, given the overall turgid tone of this letter. ”
Hi, Mark Jameson,
I’m not sure if it’s the term “New Evangelization” you’re not familiar with, or the way that Bishop Nickless intends to apply it. The term “New Evangelization” is one that JPII used in several places – although it might have originated with Paul VI? At any rate, what distinguishes “New” Evangelization from a more traditional understanding of evangelization as spreading the Good News to those who hadn’t heard the news before, is the insight that even those of us who have already been evangelized need to be continually evangelized. Thus Bishop Nickless’s naming of various groups – the faithful (meaning us), separated brothers and sisters, and those who have not yet heard the Good News. Each is, in a sense, a separate target of the New Evangelization.
I don’t know if it was much of a occasion where you are, but in the Chicago Archdiocese, the millenium, Throwing Wide the Doors to Christ, was actually a rather big deal. Groups of parishioners were convened in parishes throughout the archdiocese to study the New Evangelization and start up small faith groups so we could share faith with one another – in effect, to evangelize one another.
I agree that we can’t think of evangelization as substituting for ecumenical discussion. The two are, or should be, linked, as unity among Christians – the fruit of ecumenical outreach – is necessary in order for us to bear effective witness to the world. I would be pretty surprised if Bishop Nickless opposes ecumenicism, but I don’t claim to know his specific views.
Kathy: My progression was deliberate: local communities of faith, one’s private room, one’s heart. By the first I was thinking of eucharistic communities which, of course, I take for granted are in communion with the other local Churches within the communion that is the entire Church. So I’m not proposing congregationalism, although I do think that Louis Bouyer was correct that Catholic ecclesiology could learn a thing or two from Congregationalists.
I agree with Fr. Komonchak that Bishop Nickless’s pastoral letter was a fairly balanced piece. However there was enough there to inspire or dispirit both right or left leaning believers. I do fail to understand how Jim Pauwels judges Bishop’s letter as turgid in tone. That is just not the nature of the man
“I do fail to understand how Jim Pauwels judges Bishop’s letter as turgid in tone. That is just not the nature of the man”
I Sheila, I do, too (fail to understand, that is) – it wasn’t me that wrote that. I did quote the commenter who did write it, so I can understand why you’d mistake it for my opinion.
(Believe me, I should be the last person to criticize someone for turgid prose!)
Mea culpa Jim-whoa
Mark Jameson-”turgid tone” what the what?
Although I read with great interest (and gnashing teeth) the musings of the various and fractious Commonweal bloggers, I can’t help but think that everyone (right and left) is way over thinking all of these things, as if everyone is now theologian, philosopher, and metaphysician. I realize that it is all exciting and interesting; it is for me also. But really now, what is all of this going to do for each one of us spiritually? Will it bring us closer to Him? Will it induce that serenity of spirit we all long for? If serenity is accepting that which we cannot change and complacency is accepting that which we can change, why do we bicker and parse those things we cannot change? The the Holy Spirit is not a politician who can be lobbied, as if He were the mayor of Chicago.
Just a thought.
Jim P. and Sheila:
Okay, okay. “Turgid” may not be the right word. Sorry! But neither is “limpid” or “mellifluous,” either.
By the way, “What the what” is great–reminds me of Tina Fey and brings a smile to my face. Thanks!
What I didn’t get was the thought of a “New Evangelization” targeted toward believers of other faith traditions. As I said above, it has an undertone of proselytism, which would not be a good thing. Perhaps the problem is that the term “New Evangelization” is so flexible (and therefore meaningless?) that it can be applied to just about any religious undertaking, as if to give said undertaking a stamp of approval. It reminds me somewhat of the way other buzz words like “Gospel of Life,” “Theology of the Body,” and “Culture of Death” are used to describe just about anything. I understand that slogans can be helpful, but only if they’re the right slogans.
I”m sure it’s obvious by now that our parish did not engage in any extensive “New Evangelization” projects during the turn of the millennium. ;-)
I still hold that the pastoral letter left much to be desired, both in terms of what it had to say and how it was said. Shelia, you said, “there was enough there to inspire or dispirit both right or left leaning believers.” And that’s part of the problem Bishop Nickless tried to say too much about too many things, and so he ended up saying not very much at all–only enough to give everyone something to crow or grouse about. I still want to know exactly *how* he intends to implement these priorities and how he will measure success or failure. Perhaps he wanted nothing more than to inspire the troops. Oh, and weigh in on Vatican II. I just don’t get it.
Thanks to both of you for your thoughtful, and smile-inducing-comments!
Cardinal Law in charge of vetting who can become a bishop? What a sad, sad joke.
Bob; To answer your question ….what causes the ‘the musings of the various and fractious Commonweal bloggers’ [not many of us professional theologians, philosophers and thank God not metaphysicians.. ,most are just common disciples, as of old]
It is our hope that someone like John XXIII who on his own called a Church changing council will come again. Hope is a key spiritual virtue, dear to the Spirit, so please bear with us common hopeful folk who witness the fugue of the so many who are dear to us.
Ann, the bishops who left Vatican I before the vote on infallibility (including the bishop of Little Rock) eventually voted for it, so I understand.
We should remember, too, that the declaration on infallibility indirectly supports Vatican II’s understanding of the “sense of the faithful” by acknowledging the freedom from error enjoyed by the whole church.
In other words, Vatican II merely completed the work on infallibility begun by Vatican I.
I’ve already stated that Catholics soldier on because of the community and communion they find with each other through worship.
Still, there are deep divisions that are well documented.
The anger expressed by Sr. Kane in the NCR article in the new print issue aboiut the “investigation” :
“Regarding the present interrogation(sic) I thuink the male hierarchy is truly impotent, incapable of equality, co-responsibility in adult behavior.”
Those on the righ twill say another angry person speaking out of line, those on the left may see iy as spot on, bu twhat can you do?
And what the curiua and our Bishops do does affect lives very much, though not “at the heart of.”
And current doings are widening the cleavage, not finding a center.
Of course there’s the Spirit, but that cry is reminiscent of a Pippa like view of Church. I think here many beleive grace builds on nature.
So it goes….
Re: Vatican I
In The True Story of the Vatican Council, (London: Burns & Oates, 1877), Manning wrote that the major concern of Pius, and many of his cardinals and bishops, notably Bishop Emmanuel von Ketteler of Mainz, was that the modern State was putting limits on the Church’s freedom and, in fact, it was being excluded from civil society. “Modern revolutionary Liberalism,” wrote Manning, “consists in the assertion of the supremacy of the State over the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, over education, marriage, consecrated property, and the temporal power of the head of the Church. This Liberalism, again, results in the indifferentism which equalizes all religions and gives equal rights to truth and error.”
Among the reports submitted by the cardinals to the Holy Father, Manning revealed, several raised concerns about the “infiltration of rationalistic principles” into Catholic schools, inculcating opposition to the authority of the Church, the breakdown in seminary training for priests, and the widespread disregard of ecclesiastical laws by the laity.
From the Council of Constance (1414-1418) up to the mid-19th century, Manning wrote, one of the thorniest issues for the Holy See was the “constant meddling” in the Church’s affairs by secular powers, especially Catholic rulers, by interfering in the Church’s educational institutions by appointing and protecting “unsound teachers,” especially in canon law and theology courses.
As a consequence, Manning wrote, “the public laws even of the nations in which the people are Catholic are Catholic no longer. The unity of the nations in faith and worship, as the Apostles founded, seems now to be dissolved. The unity of the Church is more compact and solid than ever, but the Christendom of Christian kingdoms is of the past. We have entered into a third period. The Church began not with kings, but with the peoples of the world, and to the peoples of the world, it may be, the Church will once more return. The princes and governments and legislatures of the world were everywhere against it at the outset; they are so again. But the hostility of the 19th century is keener than the hostility of the first. Then the world never believed in Christianity; now it is falling from it….
“Pius IX saw in the Council of the Vatican the only adequate remedy for the world-wide evils of the 19th century.”
From March 1865 over the next several years, the Holy Father queried the world’s bishops on the subjects and schema of the Council, particularly on the matters of papal infallibility and the independence of the Holy See. Due to, at least, one prelate well-placed in the Vatican, the enemies of the Church in governments and the academy were kept well-informed of these secret deliberations, leading to political plots by the major European powers to prevent the gathering of bishops in December 1869 – at a time when Rome was occupied by anti-clerical Masonic revolutionaries.
ASSAULT BY THE PRESS
In The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, a 250-page pastoral letter Cardinal Manning addressed to his clergy in 1871, Manning detailed the machinations of the secular powers, especially through the press.
The major newspapers in England, France, Italy and Germany published numerous reports spreading the belief, he wrote, “that the Council would explain away the doctrines of Trent, or give them some new or laxer meaning, or throw open some questions supposed to be closed, or come to a compromise or transaction with other religious systems; or at least that it should accommodate the dogmatic stiffness of its traditions to modern thought and modern theology…..
“But the interest excited by its preliminary skirmishing external to the Council, was nothing compared to the exultation with which the anti-Catholic opinion and anti-Catholic press of Protestant countries, and the anti-Roman opinion and press of even Catholic countries, beheld, as they believed, the formation of an organized ‘international opposition’ of more than one hundred bishops within the Council itself. The day was come at last. What the world could not do against Rome from without, its own bishops would do from within…..
“A league of newspapers, fed from a common center, diffused hope and confidence in all countries, that the science and enlightenment of the minority would save the Catholic Church from the immoderate pretensions of Rome, and the superstitious ignorance of the universal episcopate. Day after day, the newspapers teemed with the achievements and the orations of the opposition.”
Manning’s depiction of the two sides anticipates that of the major reporters who covered Vatican II:
“[B]y a wonderful disposition of things, for the good, no doubt, of the human race, and, above all, the Church itself, the Council was divided….and by an even more beneficent and admirable provisions, it was so ordered that the theology, philosophy, science, culture, intellectual power, logical acumen, eloquence, candor, nobleness of mind, independence of spirit, courage, and elevation of character in the Council, were all to be found in the minority. The majority was naturally a Dead Sea of superstition, narrowness, shallowness, ignorance, prejudice; without theology, philosophy, science, or eloquence….bigoted, tyrannical, deaf to reason….”
THE CHURCH-STATE ISSUE
Behind the press’ party line, however, were collaborators in all the governments of the great European powers, Manning showed in The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, a series of reports he wrote for a New York newspaper, and syndicated across the United States, later published by the Catholic Publication Society in New York in 1875.
Manning reproduced a letter written in April 1867, allegedly by Prince Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, Bavaria’s foreign minister and future president and chancellor of Germany to the heads of state and the leading diplomats in Europe, urging them to a concerted effort to prevent the declaration on infallibility. The likely author, or source for Hohenlohe’s information, Manning speculated, was a dissident bishop with high sources in the Vatican intent on causing a schism, which eventually formed as the Old Catholics.
“It is evident that this pretension,” wrote the prince, “elevated into a dogma, would go far beyond the purely spiritual sphere, and would become a question eminently political, as raising the power of the Sovereign Pontiff, even in temporal matters, over all the princes and peoples of Christendom. This doctrine, therefore, is of such a nature as to arouse the attention of all those governments who rule over Catholic subjects…..It cannot be denied that it is a matter of urgency for Governments to combine….against all decisions which the Council may promulgate without the concurrence of the representatives of the secular power in questions which are at the same time of a political and religious matter….”
Manning, of course, is the Archbishop of Westminster, Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, the main mover for Vatican I
Many, many thanks to Gene Palumbo for writing Mickens and finding Mickens’ article I mentioned. This is a cogent, insightful evaluation, occasioned by the overture to the Lefebvrists
The link is :
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=27F08DDE-1438-5036-4F8792220B462A90 but I had trouble with it. I have problems with America’s website anyway, but this should work fine for others.
Conclusion (spot-on accurate, IMHO): Joseph Ratzinger is completing, as pope, the work he began more than twenty-five years ago as prefect of the CDF. It is no less ambitious than the wholesale reinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. And no one seems willing or able to stop him.
Excerpt:
But do not think the Lefebvrists will be made to budge. The Vatican is intent on finding a formula that they sign without denying anything they hold.
A young professor at the Legionaries of Christ’s university in Rome, Fr Mauro Gagliardi, gave a clue of what to expect.
“The Fraternity of St Pius X can offer the Church an important contribution in applying the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ that must be applied to the documents of Vatican II,” he said.
This apparent reference to Pope Bendict’s hermeneutic for interpreting the Council is imprecise — as Fr Joseph Komonchak and others have clearly pointed out — but it is not altogether mistaken. And Fr Gagliardi is not just any professor in Rome. He was recently named as consultant to the papal liturgical ceremonies office and mixes in the circles that are currently in favour in the Vatican. He said, “The ‘Lefebvrists’ have a spirituality and charism that can be a richness for the life of the entire Church.” This certainly is the view of Cardinal Castrillon and probably reflects, at least in some measure, the Pope’s thinking, too.
There is no question that Pope Benedict wants the SSPX back in the Church. Up to now he has done everything to accommodate them on their terms. He will do so on the interpretation of the Council, as well. The two CDF documents in 2007 (on the nature of the Church on 29 June and on evangelisation on 3 December ) have already begun paving the way for this. The Lefebvrists will argue, and the Pope will agree, that, in substance, we have the same doctrine after Vatican II has we had before. All “changes” were merely stylistic or operational, but not theogical — i.e. none of the changes were essential, so none have to be adopted. The Vatican and the SSPX will also say, together, that much of the Council was badly misinterpreted by theologians and bishops in the post-conciliar period, and they will even cite the long list of theologians the CDF condemned to prove that Rome never caved in. Despite everything to the contrary (i.e. the fact that the SSPX does not really buy or live Vatican II), they will find a way together to finagle a formula that helps them profess “true fidelity and true recognition” of the Council (in light of the constant Tradition) but allows them to continue living as if Vatican II never existed. There are already a number of “Ecclesia Dei” communities in communion in Rome (off-shoots of the SSPX like the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter) that currently do this .
The formula that is produced will be just as disingenuous as the invented nonsense of “two forms of the one Roman Rite”.
You are probably saying this scenario is an exaggeration and that this could never happen. Many have said it before. Not a few people called me strident, hysterical and worse back in 2005 when I started saying that the Pope was intent on issuing a universal indult for use of the Tridentine Mass. The motu proprio finally arrived in July 2007 and then most people tried to downplay it, saying it would have no practical effect in our parishes, etc.. Again I said they were greatly underestimating the force of this legislation. It has only been eighteen months (!) and the changes are beginning to take place, especially in seminaries.
All of this should be a cause of great alarm to those of us who still believe that something monumental happened at Vatican II, that there were developments, reforms and — yes — points of rupture with the past (despite the Pope’s unconvincing arguments to the contrary).
Joseph Ratzinger is completing, as pope, the work he began more than twenty-five years ago as prefect of the CDF. It is no less ambitious than the wholesale reinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. And no one seems willing or able to stop him.
Boston College is offering a lecture tomorrow night on V II that is fully booked. I hope they offer it again. Anyone in the area interested? How to fulfill the Council’s unrealized vision is a pressing topic.
http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/acadprog/nondegree/ce/ce-offerings/ce5.html
Fulfilling the Unrealized Vision of Vatican II
Presenter: Richard R. Gaillardetz
Co-sponsored by the Church in the 21st Century Center
Location: 9 Lake St., Room 100, Brighton Campus
Free of charge. Register
Maps, Directions, and Parking
We are fifty years removed from Pope John XXIII’s shocking announcement of a new ecumenical council. Although no one can doubt the importance of Vatican II for the life of the Church, important disputes remain regarding how properly to interpret the council and whether or not the council’s teachings have been adequately implemented. In this presentation, Dr. Gaillardetz will assess the council’s implementation over the past few decades and consider whether the most pressing task for the church involves a recommitment to the council’s vision or the beginning of remote preparations for a new council. Register
Richard R. Gaillardetz, Ph.D., is the Thomas and Margaret Murray and James J. Bacik Professor of Catholic Studies at the University of Toledo, Ohio. He has published numerous articles and seven books including, Ecclesiology for a Global Church (Orbis, 2008) and the Church in the Making (Paulist, 2006). He served for five years on the U.S. Catholic Methodist ecumenical dialogue and is the recipient of the Sophia Award (2000) offered by the faculty of the Washington Theological Union in recognition of excellence in service of ministry in the Church.
Der Wanderer, February 12, 1870, under the heading, “Catholics, Take Note!,” editor Franz Fassbind wrote:
“The proposal to define papal authority as infallible has led to contentious debate between factions that are friendly to the Church as well those who are enemies of the Church. Obviously, it is of the highest importance to have a clear understanding of the issues involved. In its previous issue this newspaper printed the proposal as presented to the Council. In the current issue we are able to present to our readers the motivations underlying the proposal.…
“[T]he bishops too have chosen, as guardians and defenders of Catholic truth, to accept the task in these times of ascribing through synodal decrees and collegial statements the apostolic See’s highest teaching authority.
“However, the clearer Catholic truth is taught, the more vehement it has been attacked in recent times through broadsides and the daily press. The opponents of the Church are seeking to prejudice the Catholic people against sound teaching or even to intimidate the Vatican Council from proclaiming the truth…
“In the first instance, however, the Catholic people has the right to demand that the Vatican Council teach and declare precisely what is to be believed with respect to a matter of faith that is so important and one which has in recent times been so vehemently debated. This is to prevent people unversed in theology from falling prey to serious error….
“Should it happen that a few people fall away from the Church as a result of the definition of the true teaching by the Vatican Council, these will be people who have for a long time already suffered shipwreck of the faith and are just looking for a pretext to make the break public inasmuch as they have left no doubt as to their interior breach…[source Bishop Martin of Paderborn]
“Thus, there are three factions at the Council. Using political terms one could talk of the right (bishops from Spain, South America, Italy, and Belgium, etc), the center (most of the bishops from France and Germany, England, Ireland, Holland, Portugal, Austria, etc) and the left (a few bishops from Germany, France, and North America). One can assume with certainty that the views of the center will emerge victorious.”
On March 12, 1870, under the heading “German Bishops in Rome,” The Wanderer reported:
“Through a variety of communications in earlier issues of this newspaper the reader will have noticed that the position of the German bishops with respect to the resolution of certain central questions at the Council has been interpreted as a public expression of party affiliation in the press. The published declaration of war a few weeks ago by Canon Döllinger in Munich against papal infallibility was the start and it was asserted in more than one newspaper that the majority of German Bishops in Rome agreed with Döllinger. Among them was said to be Bishop von Ketteler of Mainz. This situation induced this prelate to make a public declaration that, given the circumstances, has extreme significance. For that reason we feel obliged to bring this to the attention of our readers. We print the declaration in full….
“[The signed document was dated 8 February 1870. In it Bishop Ketteler distanced himself from Döllinger’s current stand on the question of papal infallibility even as he expressed his admiration for the theological training he had received from Döllinger. Döllinger sometimes wrote under the penname ‘Janus’ and was against a declaration of papal infallibility, although he claimed his views were ‘essentially’ the same as that of the bishops.] Ketteler: ‘But I have nothing more to do with the Döllinger whom the enemies of the Church and the Holy See crown with honors.’
The Wanderer also published a declaration from the Archbishop of Cologne (dated 9 February) warning against non-factual and intemperate reporting in the secular press.
The April 30, 1870 Wanderer reported, under the heading, “Latest from Rome”:
“Telegraph reports indicate that the 3rd public session of the Council took place on April 24, 1870. It was an imposing event… The four chapters of the schema on faith were read and were approved unanimously. Then the Holy Father promulgated the decrees from his throne…. The Council fathers now turned their attention to the decree on papal infallibility….
The May 7 1870 Wanderer reported, under the heading, “Dashed Hopes”:
“The Council Fathers in Rome are subjected to intense scrutiny by the agents of European states, the gray eminences of the daily press, and especially those men who look forward to the overthrow of all order. No legislative body has ever been the object of such scrutiny. …
“The utterances of individual Council Fathers are turned into evidence of factional controversy. If the well of news seems to be drying up, a ready pen invents an audience with the Pope and attributes to the Holy Father statements which he never made, never even thought of. …
“These journalists intend to paint a picture of a Church torn apart by factions and thereby, as far as it depends on them, to give it the coup de grace. …These expectations were quickly deflated. ..
“A fruit of the freedom [of debate] is seen in the result of the vote. If some prelates had previously held differing views the final vote on the entire text showed that every doubt was removed, and when the Vicar of Christ solemnly promulgated the decree on faith the Catholic Church appeared again in the triumph of unity and indivisibility of doctrine. That is the great significance of the [unanimous decision in favor of the] decision.
The May 14, 1870 Wanderer took note of the disinformation circulating wildly in the European and American press under the heading, “Another Protest”:
“….The New York Herald reports that 21 American Bishops led by three Archbishops have lodged a protest with the Pope against papal infallibility. [There was no proof.]
“The Wisconsin Banner launches an investigation into the positions taken by American bishops and reproaches those whose names are not included in the list of names in this protest.…When the author speaks about the ‘Order of Executioners’ (Dominicans) to which the Archbishop of San Francisco is said to belong he merely convicts himself of charges similar to those made above. No further rebuttal is necessary…”
On June 11, 1870, The Wanderer published its own, unofficial, translation of the Decree on Papal Infallibility, “for which the whole Christian world has been waiting with bated breath,” and editorialized under the heading, “A Significant Pronouncement.”
In its issue of August 13, 1870, Der Wanderer published the full text of the Council’s Second Constitution, Aeternus Pastor, and on August 20, the Pope’s allocution of the day, in which Pius IX said:
“The Supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, venerable Brothers, does not oppose, but supports; it does not destroy, rather it builds up and strengthens others in their grace; it unites in love and strengthens the bishops in their rights… Since it is only God who can do great wonders may He illuminate minds and hearts so that all may abide in the bosom of the Father…”
Paul: I’m sure I can find such opinions in The Wanderer, New Oxford Review, ad nauseum, when and if I want them.
Please, don’t waste dotCommonweal space and its readers’ time with them.
Thank you so very much and have a nice day.
Bob S: I wat not mocking the Holy Spririt. Rather, I was disagreeing with the idea that She is micro-managing, nor can be credited with/blamed for the follies of humanity.
If, by mocking, you are referring to my use of She rather than He, that is your problem, not that of the HS nor mine.
My problem is naivete. I still keep thinking that, before I pass to my afterlife, the Catholic Church will become Christian again, as it tried to do in the middle of this past century. You can color me increasingly doubtfully hopeful.
I thank God daily that my salvation does NOT depend on being in or believing all pontifications of said Church.
How “wholesale” the reinterpretation of Vatican Ii that, it is alleged, Ratzinger/Benedict has been pursuing will, no doubt, depend on what the interpretation is that is thought to be threatened. That some interpretations ought to feel threatened is no doubt true; that all of them need be is not true. I think a good deal will depend on particular issues and how they have been understood.
Jimmy Mac – and yet, in both pieces about Vatican I, you see the cultural and political context for promulgating this dogma…..it appears to have had little connection to faith, truth, etc. but was a misguided attempt to re-assert the political power of the papacy…no connection to the gospel; no mention of scriptural roots or justification. Only a response to nations and politics – basically, tit for tat.
Neither excerpt does an adequate job of giving the numbers of bishops present – the number of sessions over different years; who ultimately voted for, was present, not present, etc.
If anything, our 21st century understanding of religious freedom; democracy; church-state separation makes the motivations for this dogma all the more weaker.
I know that i’m late on this post, and I’m not as well versed on various interpretations that are being presented, but it seems to me if you use the Eucharist as the food for your journey and the Sermon on the Mount as the guide of your life; much of this becomes tingling brass and clanging symbols.
IMPORTANT CORRECTION: what I posted by Mickens was NOT an article published by The Tablet, and does not reflect the views of that or any publication. It was simply his personal opinion posted on a blog at America magazine.
Re: Fr K’s comment about how “wholesale” the reinterpretation of V II: yes, naturally, it depends on what interpretations are in play for restatement, and how many key provisions are affected. I am a bit confused if I read correctly that it is true that all interpretations need be threatened or in play. Sorry, I cannot make out the meaning.
Andrew, agreed that the Eucharist and Sermon on the Mount are the core guides, but find the fallout from issues here affect mightily the functioning of the Church — in how we pray, what we profess, and what our various roles and obligations are. The challenge, when matters are right in your face, is to keep enough balance by focusing on the essentials. But I believe all the verbal gymnastics can have painful, real life consequences.
Ms. Disco: Sorry for the confused sentence. I have corrected my last post to make my meaning clear. (It’s not good when one omits a “not” from one’s sentence!)
A wild suggestion: instead of despair at the direction the magisterium is taking, consider this: the magisterium do not, nor have they ever, OWNED Catholic tradition. There are numerous Independent Catholic groups that claim the mantle of tradition without fidelity to the Roman pontiff. In other words, people need not be Roman to be Catholic.
To say, as so many do, that “my church is the local community, not the leadership” is ostrich-like behavior. We are, as members in a community, responsible for our leadership as well as to them. I’m not counseling a mass exodus to Independent Catholicism–but it is the way of despair for those with serious issues with the current magisterium to feel that they’d leave Catholicism if they left the Roman Church. Not so.
A word of warning: caveat emptor! The Independent Catholics are all over the map from hard-core sede-vacantist right-wingers to equally unhinged leftist groups. But the movement also includes lots of middle-of-the road and progressive people who just can no longer agree with the direction of the contemporary magisterium. Many independent Catholic clergy find themselves presiding at interfaith weddings or second (unannulled) marriages. One independent priest I know recently presided at the funeral of a woman denied Roman Catholic funeral rites because she was a suicide. Yes, the Roman priest behaved wrongly–but who could stop him?
If independent Catholics had their act together as a movement (they do not,) they might find themselves with a rich evangelical opportunity (all those ex-Catholics out there who haven’t found another ecclesial home,) well-formed clergy (men booted out of Rome for marrying, women trained but unordained, and others) and a deep tradition to celebrate.
Re: Independent Catholicism —- http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2007/09/old-catholic-church-catholicism-beyond.html
A major problem with these denominations, however, is that their parishes are few and far between, and usually small to the point of always being on the verge of distinction.
Oops, that s/b “extinction.” Being on the verge of “distinction” is probably the exception to the rule.
Some are indeed on the verge of “distinction”! :-) And ’tis true–many are small groups. But of course, Jesus started with, what, a small ragtag bunch without even an M.Div among them. That worked out OK, I think. (Again, :-) ) Generally, folks who join independent Catholic parishes are expected to step up and participate in the work of the community. But…isn’t that WAY better than “Pray, Pay and Obey”?
Hello Jimmy (and All),
“Re: Independent Catholicism”
Thank you for the interesting link. I’ve wondered for some time why neither the SSPX nor the Old Catholic Church (or should I refer to it as the American Catholic Church?) nor the Greek Orthodox Church have taken off in our country. We hear again and again that the second largest religious group in our country is Roman Catholics who no longer practice the Roman Catholic faith. One would think that a lot of these people would be attracted to either the SSPX or the Old Catholic Church or Greek Orthodoxy (but not all three simultaneously, for obvious reasons). Some of my Greek Orthodox friends tell me that Greek Orthodoxy remains numerically small in the United States because it’s tied with ethnicity – in short, they claim that Greek Orthodox people don’t encourage people who are not Greek to join them.
Perhaps with the SSPX perhaps their suspicion of religious freedom is enough to turn most Americans off on them, even those who left the Roman Catholic Church for being too liberal.
But with the Old Catholic Church I have no idea. One would have thought that people who left the Roman catholic Church because for being too conservative might find a home in the Old catholic Church. It’s an interesting puzzle to me.
“…instead of despair at the direction the magisterium is taking, consider this: the magisterium do not, nor have they ever, OWNED Catholic tradition. There are numerous Independent Catholic groups that claim the mantle of tradition without fidelity to the Roman pontiff. In other words, people need not be Roman to be Catholic.”
Right you are, Lisa. But even people ostensibly loyal to Rome really showed Rome what the gospel should be. Francis and the leaders of all religious orders or congregations were usually an example to the hierarchy to change their ways. The hierarchy has always been shrewd to mold these units to its own orthodoxy. But in the beginning they showed what the Christian way should be. Today the church is certainly not best witnessed in the clergy who are comfortable and egotistic in general. We definitely need to remind ourselves that the clergy is but a small part of the church and more frequently the most corrupt.
Fr Komonchak says the Benedict does not uphold the continuity v. discontinuity paradigm that is widely attributed to him (with the left and notably the Bologna School of church historians being seen as agents of discontinuity). This seems to me somewhat wishful.
Cardinal Ruini formally attacks the Bologna School as wicked reincarnations of Paolo Sarpi, teaching that ‘Vatican II marked a fundamental rupture between the preceding, pre-conciliar period and the post-conciliar period that followed’ (Sandro Magister’s summary as quoted in Nicholas Lash, Theology for Pilgrims); Ruini was launching the book by Agostino Marchetto of the Secretariat of State , the most violent critic of the Bologna School, in 2005.
On 22 December 2005 Benedict talked of ‘two contrary hermeneutics’ — the hermeneutic of discontinuity caused confusion, the hermeneutic of reform bore good fruit. The hermeneutic of discontinuity is characterized as saying that ‘the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council’ — this seems to echo directly what Ruini said the previous June, namely, that for the Bologna historians ‘the documents produced by Vatican II are not its primary elements. The main thing is the event itself. The real Council is the “spirit” of the Council.’ It is quite clear who the target of Benedict’s remarks is: not Ultratraditionalism but Catholic liberalism that appeals to the spirit of Vatican II.
Of course later in the speech the Pope upholds the hermeneutics of reform in a way that undercuts the Lefebvrites opposition to religious freedom etc. The whole text is here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html
Coincidentally, I came across this remark on Sebastian Moore OSB’s website:
‘Authority in Rome is so moved by the fear of losing control, that, in a recent outright attack on the standard history of Vatican II by an official of the Secretariat of State, the author is driven to the preposterous expedient of discrediting the minutes of the last General Council of the Church. The author is Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, and his book had a launch in Rome on 17 June 2005. It consisted in a systematic attack on the afore-mentioned History, and was said to give ‘the Holy See’s point of view on that milestone event.’ This points, somewhat polemically, to a crisis in the church, which not surprisingly reflects the crisis of our time.’
Lisa Fullam,
Those you call “independent Catholics” seem to me to represent the all too American drift away from Catholicism to Congregationalism.
I wonder what “hermeneutic of Vatican II” can be invoked in its support?
Fr. O’Leary: Pope Benedict’s speech is far more nuanced than the comments of Ruini or Marchetto, and I don’t think that the latter’s attacks on the history produced out of Bologna should be without qualification attributed to the Pope, who in fact has referred favorably to the “History of Vatican II” in footnotes to essays. Eighty-five per cent of the Pope’s speech was devoted to an argument about the need for change and even correction (discontinuity) in the Church’s relationship with the modern era, a lesson that did not need to be given to Alberigo whose view about the “epochal shift” achieved at Vatican II refers to precisely the same change. It is surprising to me (well, no, it’s not) that it’s the two short paragraphs that describe and criticize the so-called hermeneutics of continuity that have attracted all the attention and not what was obviously the Pope’s main interest.
Fr Komonchak,
The “hermeneutic of continuity” may not have been the Pope’s main intent in his 2005 Christmas address to the Roman Curia. But it is undeniable that he has allowed (encouraged?) this concept to expand and be promulgated widely; so much so that perhaps he, too, has come to own it.
In a footnote to his post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, “Sacramentum Caritatis” (22 February 2007), he writes:
(6) I am referring here to the need for a HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY also with regard to the correct interpretation of the liturgical development which followed the Second Vatican Council: cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005): AAS 98 (2006), 44-45.
Benedict is a man of nuance and subtlety, one might say. But look at those with whom he surrounds himself and those whom he appoints to important posts. A happy legacy? Many will not agree.
Bob: Thanks for the reference to the footnote in Pope Benedict’s exhortation. Mr. Gannon: I also am not happy with many of the Pope’s appointments (but not the one to New York). One complaint one sometimes hears is that the Pope is too busy completing his second volume on Jesus to attend to the nitty-gritty of daily administration. If true, this is the second pope in a row to do so.
What an interesting theological education one encounters here. This tyro is grateful to the participants, truly.
I am still left with the sense that Benedict’s actions speak louder than his words, and sometimes even the words in a footnote comport with his actions.
When busy writing books, how critical it is to select those in administration who will implement your true intent.
Just searching for light in the tunnel…aiming for perspective along the way.
Thanks, Fr Komonchak, for the context and nuance, which Nicholas Lash missed in his comments on the Dec. 2005 speech in his Theology for Pilgrims. One reason the passage in question drew all the attention is that it occurs earlier on in the speech.
Yes, they say in Rome that “le Pape est mal entoure” — the Pope has a bad group around him.
And yes. it is papal actions rather than nuanced papal speeches that speak loudest –
“Yes, they say in Rome that “le Pape est mal entoure” — the Pope has a bad group around him.”
That was once said of Charles I, if I’m not mistaken.
Robert Imbelli,
I’d appeal first to the founding events of one main thread of independent Catholicism. Back in the late 17th century, the bishop of Utrecht died. In keeping with their tradition, they elected a bishop, who was rejected by Rome. Rome sent their own guy; the Utrecht church said “no thanks.” Many years later Archbishop Varlet, traveling through to his own new assignment, was stopped by the locals, who said “We have 600 people to be confirmed. Do your episcopal duty.” Which he did. Rome was unhappy, and recalled Varlet. The Utrecht folks said, “You know, WE need a bishop…”
Many moderate-progressive independent Catholics see themselves as living out the Vatican II church that is the people of God. So yes, voice in electing bishops (and really, while many on this site think it’d be a good idea, why on earth should Rome ever agree to that??), or, perhaps, what could be called subsidiarity–local needs met locally, but with wider unity. They ordain the leaders they need–men, women, celibate and married, rather than preferring that the people go without Eucharist so that only celibate males may lead. Their requirements for membership tend to be along the lines of “show up and pray,” based on the creeds and the first several ecumenical councils, instead of the “orthodoxy test” of sexual issues we are preoccupied with. I have never heard of them including in the church bulletin (as many Roman churches do,) a list of those who may not receive Communion.
As I said, the independents are in fact scattered. There’s no unifying institutional structure, no standards for training clergy (or bishops!) They need a Paul, and none has been forthcoming.
How is “Independent Catholicism” not a new schism? I believe that there are other groups not in communion with the Catholic Church that already pretty well fit the description given just above, and I wonder why there is thought of starting a new one.
“One complaint one sometimes hears is that the Pope is too busy completing his second volume on Jesus to attend to the nitty-gritty of daily administration.”
I had heard this rumor also. But why? My theory is that he left the knottiest questions for the second volume, e.g., the infancy narratives. Here he can no longer rely on what he takes to be the reports of the Beloved Disciple, who shows no interest in the in the material of the infancy narratives. What to say?
Lisa,
If I follow your drift, it sounds like a hermeneutic of Vatican II that would do for “Lumen Gentium” what Thomas Jefferson did for the New Testament.
Question for Fr. K:
I have a copy of what I would call a personnel directory for V2 listing all participants accredited to the Council.
There are names (in Italian) for Congar, Danielou, the Baum’s Gregory and Wm Wakefield, de Lubac, Haring, Kung and Rahner — that my limited background recognizes — in the section listing periti.
Why not Ratzinger? The booklet is undated. Might this be a session he did not attend? Were there advisors bishops brought along unofficially, but who were not periti? Just curious…
Thanks in advance for checking.
Carolyn:
Without checking in name-by-name, I’m not sure how to answer except for this: that some experts at the Council were accredited by the Vatican and others served as personal theological advisers to individual bishops or groups of them. I know that Joseph Ratzinger was the personal theological adviser to Card. Frings of Cologne, and that may be why he wasn’t on your list. Hope this helps.
Thank you, Fr. K., it helps. JCMurray was not on the list either. The booklet is an interesting artifact, with Holy See’s seal, titles, commissions and all.
On a practical level, it looks as though the distinction between peritus and personal theological adviser to a bishop is meaningless. Both did the same work, I gather, but maybe only periti got to sit behind bishops in the risers and patronize the nearby coffee bar. Still, the idea of Ratzinger not being accredited by the Vatican is humorous. I wonder what the standards for accreditation were.
I’d like to see these various independent Catholic groups come together to offer a unified voice — and place — for disaffected faithful.
A unified voice and place for disaffected faithful would be an oxymoron to begin with. So it goes.
Carolyn
I suspect that Murray’s “rabbi” was Francis Cardinal Spellman.
Took me awhile to find this presentation in my archives. From John O’Malley, SJ, May, 2009:
http://www.elephantsinthelivingroom.com/John_OMalley_talk.doc
Read this and compare to the original thread title and especially the pastoral letter of Bishop Nickless.
Highlights:
“So I have three phases of interpretation of the Council. The first phase would begin when the Council ended in 1965 and would go on for about twenty years to roughly 1985. These were commentaries by participants in the Council or journalistic accounts of the Council by journalists and others who were there. That’s the first phase – not doing much more than taking the text line by line to see what they meant.
Then the next phase took place principally in Europe in Louvain le Neuve, in Russia and Italy, and in Bologna in Italy, also in France and Germany, but especially in those two places. And that was characterized by a lot of archival work and a lot of work on the background that was not available until after about twenty years. Meanwhile, the Vatican had published fifty-three volumes, in Latin of course, each of which ranged from about 700 to 900 pages of the official documents of the Council, that is to say, the preparatory documents, the drafts of the documents, all the speeches in St. Peter’s, the official sort of internal correspondence between Paul VI and the Council, and so on and so forth. So that was now available. So that phase, I think, is now pretty much over. So that work has been pretty much done.
It’s brought us to this third phase. And the culmination of that phase was a five volume history of the Council, published in seven languages almost simultaneously, also in English called, History of Vatican II, edited by an Italian, Giuseppe Alberigo, who died a few years ago. That brings us to a whole new stage. Interestingly, that history has been semi-officially criticized in high Roman circles, has been criticized in high Roman circles, for occurring in the Council as a kind of a rupture of the past; whereas, actually, all the Council was, was a continuity with the Catholic tradition; and in my words, if that’s ultimately true, you press it as far as it can go – that means nothing happened, right? No change. It’s all continuity.
So right now there is this controversy going on, and Cardinal Ratzinger was part of the instigator of it, because in 1985 he gave a very famous report in which he said, “Oh, the Council, I mean, there is no before and after in the history of the Catholic Church.” Oh! That was news to me as an historian. (Laughter) If that’s true, I lose my job. It means nothing happened. The year he was elected as Pope Benedict XVI in December 2005, the year he was elected, he gave an important conference to the Roman Curia, to the cardinals, in which he brought up this whole question of the hermeneutics, that is to say, the framework of interpretation of the Council. Previously, he was saying a hermeneutic of rupture on the one hand and a hermeneutic of continuity on the other.
Well, the only people I know, who espouse an interpretation of rupture, are the Lefevre crowd, who see the Council as a heresy and as a complete break with the Catholic tradition. We all, of course, believe in the continuity of the Catholic tradition. But did anything happen? But in this address to the cardinals, he changed his tune a little bit and spoke of a hermeneutic of rupture and a hermeneutic of reform. And reform implies both change and continuity. And I think that’s where everybody is except for these radical people on the far, far, far, far right, who deny that anything good happened at the Council and it was a rupture with the tradition.
So at any rate, my book appears in that whole, you might say, tradition. And what so obviously I’ve tried to do, as Tom Gumbleton mentioned, I’ve made use not only of all these official documentation, but also, all the other documentation, and this very rich scholarship in Europe, of which most American historians and theologians are innocent. It’s amazing how few people – I think I can count them on one hand: one of the great ones is Fr. Joseph Komonchak at Catholic University, and Fr. Jerry Wicks, formerly of the Gregorian University, now living in Cleveland, Ohio; but there aren’t many. So that’s where the book fits and what I tried to use. It was a lot of work, but I’m happy I did it.” (gets to Fr. K’s comments about defining B16′s hermeneutic of continuity as reform”)
Other highlights:
” o The first one is the issue of world church. The council occurred in the 1960s after the Second World War and after the end of colonialism – that bitter, bloody end of colonialism, when especially the French and the Belgians from the Catholic side, but also the English, pulled out of their colonies – and with that a wave of anti-western sentiment. There were all kinds of problems within those former colonies themselves. But this also provided for the missionaries, Catholic and Protestant, a major crises, because they were no longer supported directly or indirectly by their governments back home; and also the thought that they were bringing civilization and carrying the white man’s burden – that didn’t wash anymore at all. Right? It was a big crisis in the mission field; and for Catholics it had a kind of special focus: the Latin liturgy.
This liturgy, which was a symbol of Catholic universality, now in many people’s eyes was looked upon as an instrument of westernization and cultural imperialism, and so on and so forth, and would be very unsuited for this new cultural and religious situation in which the churches found themselves. So if you look at the Council, and what the Council was dealing with, the issues it was dealing with, you see the Council was in so many ways still Eurocentric. The great spokesmen at the Council were Europeans or quasi-Europeans, I mean, North Atlantic types. The issues even tended to be European issues. Latin liturgy: that’s a European issue.
As Maximos Saigh IV, the great Melkite patriarch at the Council, came from Melkite tradition – he’s probably my biggest hero at the Council – they didn’t have that same problem. He’s the only person in the Council who refused to speak in Latin. He addressed the Council in French; and he kept making the point: “Latin is not the language of the Church. Latin is the language of the Western Church. So I’m not going to speak it, because I’m not a westerner.” And he got away with it. So that’s the whole program with ecumenism. That’s the problem of the reformation. That’s a Eurocentric problem. It’s not a problem in Africa, except as it’s imported in other parts of the world, and so forth.
So the Council was struggling to emerge from that Eurocentric perspective; and the very first document, the Document on the Liturgy, says, “We welcome the traditions,” and so forth, “of all races and all cultures as long as they’re not filled with superstition,” and so on and so forth. So it tried to move out of that in an attempt to give the local Episcopal Conferences more determination, especially for the new churches another attempt to move out of the Euro-centrism. So this problem of the world church is a very important way to look at the Council and helps us get it into perspective. You can see that popping up in different ways. So I have four issues here and they are all interrelated. You touch one, you touch the other.”
o The second issue was what I call the issue of change which I’ve already mentioned – this whole problem of history. So the nineteenth century, the proliferation of official documents, how are we going to deal with that? How can the Church deal with that? Well there were three words current at the time of the Council that we can kind of use as hooks to understand what was going on. And the first one is the one you’re familiar with, aggiornamento, that Italian word, which means updating or modernizing. And indeed that is a John XXIII word, as the word often used to describe what the Council tried to do. That is to say, the Council tried to modernize the Catholic Church. I hate that expression “modernize the Catholic Church,” because it sort of trivializes what the Council was really doing, although it is certainly a good aspect to it, a valid aspect to it. So, at the Council itself, yes, the very first document, the Document on Liturgy, says: we want to make the liturgy appropriate to the people of our time; and the liturgy does change through the course of history, and so forth, but nobody in the Council really opposed the idea of modernizing or updating in certain ways. The whole question was: in what areas, and to what extent? Now what’s distinctive of Vatican II in this regard is not that it attempted to sort of update certain areas because other councils were doing that all the time, the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 said we make changes when there’s urgent necessity, or evident utility, we change things, we change discipline, and so forth. But it was the extent now this updating becomes kind of a light motif and a principle of the Council. So that’s a big change. So it’s important. So aggiornamento.
Happy reading – then, go back to Nickless – he misses almost all of this history; in fact, he does really address major issues. His focus is on accidents; he has skewed the council and ends with a diocesan project to focus on papl documents written after the year 2000. Is he advocating for development? aggiornamento? status quo? supporting only recent papal documents? change?
Perhaps an example or two will help. Monsignor Frederick McManus, a priest of Boston who served on the faculty of CUA for 40 years, was named at age 37 by the Holy See (Secretariat of State) a peritus to the liturgical commission of the Central Preparatory Commission for the coming Council. As such, he was actually present in the room during the drafting of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which would be presented to the Fathers of the Council at the first session in 1962. When the work of the preparatory commision was finished, Fred McManus was appointed, again by the Holy See, as a peritus to the Council. He participated then both in the preparatory phase and the conciliar phase and actually had a role in drafting for the consideration of the bishops of the conciliair liturgical commission various articles of the constitution, especially those dealing with the sacraments and sacramentals. These remain in the text with some amendments made in the debate before passage of SC in December 1963. Another American, also appointed directly by the Holy See, Father Godfrey Diekmann, OSB, had a large role in the drafting of the important articles (37-41) that deal with inculturation. So in fact the periti nominated by Rome didn’t just have good seats in the basilica.
An aside, during the Council, Fred’s bishop, Cardinal Cushing, named him a monsignor and sent the nomination along with a fuller list to the then Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Egidio Vagnozzi, a determined opponent of the conciliar reforms, including the liturgical reforms. Abp. Vagnozzi crossed Fred McManus’s name off the list before sending it on to Rome. The Delegate informed Cardinal Cushing of this in a kind of by-the-way when he was visiting Boston a few weeks later. Fred was eventually named a monsignor in 1980. The then Delegate, Abp. Jadot, invited him to lunch and at that time gave him the official scroll from Rome. Fred never had an investiture and never wore a monsignor’s cassock in the twenty-five years before his death in 2005.
You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
It was Cardinal Spellman who arranged for J.C. Murray to be appointed as a conciliar peritus, beginning with the second session. I know that Ratzinger took part in the commissions that prepared the constitutions on the Church and on divine revelation. I’m not sure what other texts he may have worked on. He had, then, official status, but I do not know if he had this from the beginning. By the way, he was present for all four sessions and wrote pamphlets on each of them that, translated, were gathered into a little paperback published by Paulist Press and entitled “Theological Highlights of Vatican II.
Carolyn, if you could send me the bibliographical data for the volume you have, I might be able to figure it out.
… [Trackback] …
[...] Find More Informations here: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=4969…