Posted on 06/15/2022 2:07:00 PM PDT by Saint Athanasius
It strikes me that relative newcomer around the Holy See Press sector, listed as CNA‘s “senior Rome correspondent” – which as I get older strikes me as amusing – Hannah Brockhaus should rethink her priorities.
Francis had an audience with a bunch of editors of European Jesuit journals – imagine what that was like. In the Vatican News piece relating what was exchanged in their Q&A there are some 2400 words. The section Hannah chose to report on is 188 words of the whole. La Civilità Cattolica HERE. What was her game? Click-bait?
The topic: Francis criticized, belittled, “restauratori”, “restorers who do not accept Vatican II”.
According the Francis, …
Q: What signs of spiritual renewal do you see in the Church? Do you see any? Are there signs of new, fresh life?
FRANCIS: It is very difficult to see a spiritual renewal using very old-fashioned schemes. [Is that what he was asked?] We need to renew our way of seeing reality, of evaluating it. In the European Church I see more renewal in the spontaneous things that are being born: movements, groups, new bishops who remember that there is a Council behind them. [Like in Germany?] Because the Council that some pastors remember best is that of Trent. [And why would that be?] And what I’m saying is not nonsense. [Oh… my….]
Restorationism has come to gag the Council. [1!] The number of groups of “restorers” – for example, in the United States there are so many – is impressive. An Argentine bishop told me that he had been asked to administer a diocese that had fallen into the hands of these “restorers”. [Given Francis’ disdain for Americans and the United States, you would think that he knows that Argentina and the United States are sort of far from each other.] They had never accepted the Council. [2!] There are ideas, behaviors that arise from a restorationism that basically did not accept the Council. [3! Say it again, until people believe it.] The problem is precisely this: that in some contexts the Council has not yet been accepted. [4!] It is also true that it takes a century for a council to take root. We still have forty years to make it take root, then!
To MAKE IT take root.
That’s one way to do things. If it doesn’t work, force it.
One thing I do know is that Francis doesn’t have 4o years. I suspect he knows that and so he is… what?… dominated by the idea of these “restorationists”? Whoever they are! Are “restorationists” the boogey-men hiding under the bed?
QUAERITUR: Do those who want traditional liturgical worship and solid preaching really want things as they were before the Council?
No, I don’t think so. For the most part, they want clear teaching from the Church and reverent worship. They find that the old ways appeal more, work better, and are, therefore, their preference. They have seen that the new ways are hardly recognizable as Catholic sometimes and they don’t prefer them.
QUAERITUR: Why would some pastors remember Trent better than Vatican II?
Just a couple thoughts on that.
Why accept the premise? Maybe pastors know Vatican II quite well! They have not forgotten Vatican II, which they had to study in seminary and which they have heard of ad nauseam ever since. It could be that Vatican II just wasn’t as important in the long run, in the history of Councils, and, though they remember it, they have other things to worry about.
Another idea.
QUAERITUR: Could be it that when you read what the Council of Trent produced, it is clear? The human mind, especially well-trained, is better proportioned to clarity than it is to foggy. The documents of Vatican II, while they have moments of clarity, as when they cite previous Councils, get a little dreamy and ambiguous.
No. This is a straw man.
There are some people who really hate the Second Vatican Council. I am not sure that they know why they do. There are others who resist what the Second Vatican Council’s documents say and suggest because they sense – on the basis of pretty good arguments – that they are imbued with modernism, in particulars and in an overarching way. Some parrot this, others can articulate exactly what they mean with citations and arguments. They resist certain things in the Council, while admitting that it was a real Council.
Others… okay, we can play this game forever. There are always more wrinkles.
This is a straw man. There is no homogeneous group as Francis describes. It’s fantasy.
What is clear, however, is that if you want “those people”, those “restorationists” to come on side, it might be better to stop treating them like trash, even if you think they are trash. It’s neither smart nor pastoral. As a matter of fact, in places like the United States, where there are (apparently) many restorationists and where there is a demographic sink hole opening up under the church gobbling up those imbued with the last 60 years of Vatican II… it’s kind of stupid to treat them like trash, because they are going to be the only ones left.
Back to the Q&A with Francis and the Jesuits.
After he said what I fisked, above, Francis added comments about how wonderful the late Jesuit leader Fr. Arupe was. Then he said:
A Jesuit from the province of Loyola was particularly aggressive toward Fr. Arrupe. He was sent to various places and even to Argentina, and always made trouble. He once said to me: “You are someone who understands nothing. But the real culprits are Fr. Arrupe and Fr. Calvez. The happiest day of my life will be when I see them hanging from the gallows in St. Peter’s Square.” [NB:] Why am I telling you this story? To make you understand what the post-conciliar period was like. This is happening again, especially with the traditionalists. That is why it is important to save these figures who defended the Council and fidelity to the pope. We must return to Arrupe: he is a light from that moment that illuminates us all. It was he who rediscovered the Spiritual Exercises as a source, freeing himself from the rigid formulations of the Epitome Instituti, the expression of a closed, rigid thinking, more instructive-ascetical than mystical.
I can’t help but think of a caudillo talking about opposition.
BTW… Arupe was the first General of the Jesuits to RESIGN instead of remaining in office until he died. He resigned and St. John Paul II – whose magisterium someone seems determined to obscure – appointed Paolo Dezza as General over Arupe’s vice general.
Arupe could be a personification of the 60s-70s for Francis, a halcyon age.
The Civiltà version has a footnote about the Epitome Instituti (consider the source, of course – Spadaro): “a kind of practical summary in use in the Society and formulated in the 20th century, which was seen as a substitute for the Constitutions. Jesuit formation in the Society for a time was shaped by this text to such an extent that some never read the Constitutions, which are the foundational text. For the pope during this period in the Society the rules risked overwhelming the spirit.”
Some insight is gained from this about whom Francis thinks “restorationists” to be.
Here’s a problem.
Vatican II was one among many Councils. Some of them were far more important in the history of the Church that Vatican II. However, today some people (Francis?) have reduced Vatican II to a new Epitome Instituti. It is the be all and end all for them. However, there remains the whole gamut of the Church’s Councils and history.
Vatican II must be read with all other Council and not against all other Councils. Certainly not instead of other Council.
What the team, the New Red Guard, around Francis want to do is turn Vatican II into the sole-hermeneutical principle through which the entirety of the Church, her doctrine, practices, laws, liturgy, are to be – must be – must be made to be – reinterpreted.
Never forget this when you hear certain figures in Francis’ orbit talk about the Second Vatican Council.
Meanwhile, I just read elsewhere that when Francis was faced with an accusation of being pro-Putin he responded:
“Someone may say to me at this point: so you are pro-Putin! No, I am not. It would be simplistic and wrong to say such a thing. I am simply against reducing complexity to the distinction between good guys and bad guys.”
We were just talking about Fr. Pedro de Arrupe y Gondra - and here he comes up with Pope Francis. And he praises him.
https://ia601600.us.archive.org/30/items/TheJesuits_749/TheJesuits.pdf
The problem is with those who choose to misrepresent what was actually written in the documents of Vatican II, to suit their own personal, liberal agenda.
When you read the phrase, "in the Spirit of Vatican II", you can be sure it was nothing of the sort.
So, does Vatican II have merit in what was actually written? Is anything lost by disregarding it because of the abuse?
I invite you to read "Reclaiming Vatican II - What it (Really) said, what it means, and how it calls us to renew the Church", by Fr. Blake Britton (~173 pages)
I was quite skeptical, but respected the Priest who not only recommend it, but bought a copy for each family in the Parish. (He encouraged his assistant Pastor to have Latin Mass during the week)
I can't envision how disregarding it because of the abuse would resolve anything. What would you expect to change if the Pope announced "Just Kidding"?
So tired of the Vatican II apologists.
Ping
Can we not be critical of anything relating to Vatican II?
May we not question whether calling the Second Vatican council was prudent? Can we not question whether Pope John XXIII’s achieve his said goals of calling the council?
Can we not be critical of certain bishops and priests who were playing politics during the council?
The Council was suppose to be a pastoral council that “that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously...” - John XXIII’s words. Did it do that?
John XXIII stressed that there should be a “renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in their entirety and preciseness, as they still shine forth in the acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council”. Did the Council achieved this? Or has it murky the waters of Catholic teaching?
Then how about how it was implemented - I mean that was a shock to the system - or a gut blow. Revolutionary even. Was that prudent?
I have not read the book you suggested... but I have read What went wrong with Vatican II by Ralph McInerny, and I do suggest reading The Rhine flows into the Tiber by Fr. Wiltigen.
I’m not questioning the validity of the Council -even though it was a pastoral council - whatever that means, but I do wonder whether it was prudent and whether it’s implementation was wise. It seemed pretty revolutionary to me.
I understand the misrepresentation of Vatican II, but what happens when a Pope does it?
So, you’ve read the Vatican II documents?
Just make sure you know whether you're criticizing the actual documents produced by Vatican II, or whether you're criticizing the bastardization of what is in those documents.
That's B.S.
And I have read the documents.
If VC II hasn’t taken root after 60 yrs, I doubt it will in the next 40 yrs.
Rotten fruit rarely bares good fruit.
Can we be critical of other documents from other Ecumenical Councils? I am sure that you would be critical of some of those documents. Why can’t we be critical of some the writings of the Second Vatican Council as they were written? They are not scripture are they? Some of them are vague on purpose - so they can be misinterpreted. No?
To answer your tag line - Adding St. Joseph to the Canon was a good thing, no?
Please re-read my post #10.
I’ve read the documents that promote ecumenism, collegiality, and religious liberty.
I’m still sick and tired, and quite disgusted at this point, of those who defend them as truly Catholic. What those that do need to read is the Catholic Faith as it was always taught prior to Vatican II.
Then the contradictions are glaring. It’s like a disturbing image that once seen, can not be unseen.
The book GLarry read was recommended by Bishop Barron. Need I say more?
You ask people disagreeing with you if they have read the documents of Vatican II. More to the point, have you read St. Pius X’s 1907 Encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis?” If you had, there would be no way you could defend the documents of Vatican II, as they are completely at odds with Pascendi. St. Pius X was very clear in his condemnation of Modernism, calling it the “synthesis of all heresies.” The documents of Vatican II are replete with Modernism. Therefore, they are full of heresy. It really is quite simple. Those who argue otherwise are intellectually dishonest.
Would you care to share a chapter or two from Vatican II that is heresy?
I don’t have time to go over everything. A quick example is Ecumenism, which is heretical because it states all religions are equal, in direct defiance of Jesus’ own words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.” Taking Ecumenism to its logical end, we get worship of the Pachamama, which goes against God’s own command, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.