Pope Benedict will reduce his activity at this week's Good Friday procession by watching most of the service from a vantage point instead of walking around Rome's ancient Colosseum, a spokesman said on Tuesday.
Rev. Federico Lombardi confirmed the change, reported earlier on Tuesday by the French religious news agency I-Media.
Lombardi said there were no worries about the health of the pope, who will turn 81 during his trip to the United States in April.
"It is reasonable that he would want to conserve his energy," Lombardi said in response to a question.
Instead of walking around the Colosseum for all 14 of the "stations of the cross" as he did in previous years, the pope will watch most of the event from Rome's nearby Palatine hill.
Benedict is expected to walk the procession only for the last three "stations". The 14 stations commemorate the events between Christ being condemned to death and his burial.
Showing posts with label Pope Benedict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pope Benedict. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Pope to Reduce Good Friday Activity
From Reuters:
Sunday, March 16, 2008
New (Old) Papal Cross
The Holy Father used the crosier (papal cross) of Pius IX and XII in today's Palm Sunday liturgy. Chances are this is only a temporary change--even Pope John Paul II used several different "ferula"during his pontificate.
From the Roman Catholic:
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Pope Benedict: The Great Hopes of Vatican II
From his questions and answers with priests, from Sandro Magister:
I, too, lived through Vatican Council II, coming to Saint Peter’s Basilica with great enthusiasm and seeing how new doors were opening. It really seemed to be the new Pentecost, in which the Church would once again be able to convince humanity. After the Church’s withdrawal from the world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it seemed that the Church and the world were coming together again, and that there was a rebirth of a Christian world and of a Church of the world and truly open to the world.
We had such great hopes, but in reality things proved to be more difficult. Nonetheless, it is still true that the great legacy of the Council, which opened a new road, is a “magna carta” of the Church’s path, very essential and fundamental.
But why did this happen? I would like to begin with an historical observation. The periods following a council are almost always very difficult. After the great Council of Nicaea – which is, for us, truly the foundation of our faith, in fact we confess the faith as formulated at Nicaea – there was not the birth of a situation of reconciliation and unity, as hoped by Constantine, the promoter of the great Council, but a genuinely chaotic situation of a battle of all against all.
In his book on the Holy Spirit, saint Basil compares the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicaea to a nighttime naval battle, in which no one recognizes another, but everyone is pitted against everyone else. It really was a situation of total chaos: this is how saint Basil paints in vivid colors the drama of the period following the Council of Nicaea.
50 years later, for the first Council of Constantinople, the emperor invited saint Gregory Nazianzen to participate in the council, and saint Gregory responded: No, I will not come, because I understand these things, I know that all of the Councils give rise to nothing but confusion and fighting, so I will not come. And he didn’t go.
So it is not now, in retrospect, such a great surprise how difficult it was at first for all of us to digest the Council, this great message. To imbue this into the life of the Church, to receive it, such that it becomes the Church’s life, to assimilate it into the various realities of the Church is a form of suffering, and it is only in suffering that growth is realized. To grow is always to suffer as well, because it means leaving one condition and passing to another.
And we must note that there were two great historic upheavals in the concrete context of the postconciliar period. The first is the convulsion of 1968, the beginning – or explosion, I dare say – of the great cultural crisis of the West. The postwar generation had ended, a generation that, after seeing all the destruction and horror of war, of combat, and witnessing the drama of the great ideologies that had actually led people toward the precipice of war, had discovered the Christian roots of Europe and had begun to rebuild Europe with these great inspirations. But with the end of this generation there were also seen all of the failures, the gaps in this reconstruction, the great misery in the world, and so began the explosion of the crisis of Western culture, what I would call a cultural revolution that wants to change everything radically. It says: In two thousand years of Christianity, we have not created a better world; we must begin again from nothing, in an absolutely new way. Marxism seems to be the scientific formula for creating, at last, the new world.
In this – let us say – serious, great clash between the new, healthy modernity desired by the Council and the crisis of modernity, everything becomes difficult, like after the first Council of Nicaea.
One side was of the opinion that this cultural revolution was what the Council had wanted. It identified this new Marxist cultural revolution with the will of the Council. It said: This is the Council; in the letter the texts are still a bit antiquated, but behind the written words is this “spirit,” this is the will of the Council, this is what we must do. And on the other side, naturally, was the reaction: you are destroying the Church. The – let us say – absolute reaction against the Council, anticonciliarity, and – let us say – the timid, humble search to realize the true spirit of the Council. And as a proverb says: “If a tree falls it makes a lot of noise, but if a forest grows no one hears a thing,” during these great noises of mistaken progressivism and absolute anticonciliarism, there grew very quietly, with much suffering and with many losses in its construction, a new cultural passageway, the way of the Church.
And then came the second upheaval in 1989, the fall of the communist regimes. But the response was not a return to the faith, as one perhaps might have expected; it was not the rediscovery that the Church, with the authentic Council, had provided the response. The response was, instead, total skepticism, so-called post-modernity. Nothing is true; everyone must decide on his own how to live. There was the affirmation of materialism, of a blind pseudo-rationalistic skepticism that ends in drugs, that ends in all these problems that we know, and the pathways to faith are again closed, because the faith is so simple, so evident: no, nothing is true; truth is intolerant, we cannot take that road.
So: in these contexts of two cultural ruptures, the first being the cultural revolution of 1968 and the second the fall into nihilism after 1989, the Church sets out with humility upon its path, between the passions of the world and the glory of the Lord.
Along this road, we must grow with patience and we must now, in a new way, learn what it means to renounce triumphalism.
The Council had said that triumphalism must be renounced – thinking of the Baroque, of all these great cultures of the Church. It was said: Let’s begin in a new, modern way. But another triumphalism had grown, that of thinking: We will do things now, we have found the way, and on it we find the new world.
But the humility of the Cross, of the Crucified One, excludes precisely this triumphalism as well. We must renounce the triumphalism according to which the great Church of the future is truly being born now. The Church of Christ is always humble, and for this very reason it is great and joyful.
It seems very important to me that we can now see with open eyes how much that was positive also grew following the Council: in the renewal of the liturgy, in the synods – Roman synods, universal synods, diocesan synods – in the parish structures, in collaboration, in the new responsibility of laypeople, in intercultural and intercontinental shared responsibility, in a new experience of the Church’s catholicity, of the unanimity that grows in humility, and nonetheless is the true hope of the world.
And thus it seems to me that we must rediscover the great heritage of the Council, which is not a “spirit” reconstructed behind the texts, but the great conciliar texts themselves, reread today with the experiences that we have had and that have born fruit in so many movements, in so many new religious communities. I arrived in Brazil knowing how the sects are expanding, and how the Catholic Church seems a bit sclerotic; but once I arrived, I saw that almost every day in Brazil a new religious community is born, a new movement is born, and it is not only the sects that are growing. The Church is growing with new realities full of vitality, which do not show up in the statistics – this is a false hope; statistics are not our divinity – but they grow within souls and create the joy of faith, they create the presence of the Gospel, and thus also create true development in the world and society.
Thus it seems to me that we must learn the great humility of the Crucified One, of a Church that is always humble and always opposed by the great economic powers, military powers, etc. But we must also learn, together with this humility, the true triumphalism of the Catholicism that grows in all ages. There also grows today the presence of the Crucified One raised from the dead, who has and preserves his wounds. He is wounded, but it is in just in this way that he renews the world, giving his breath which also renews the Church in spite of all of our poverty. In this combination of the humility of the Cross and the joy of the risen Lord, who in the Council has given us a great road marker, we can go forward joyously and full of hope.
I, too, lived through Vatican Council II, coming to Saint Peter’s Basilica with great enthusiasm and seeing how new doors were opening. It really seemed to be the new Pentecost, in which the Church would once again be able to convince humanity. After the Church’s withdrawal from the world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it seemed that the Church and the world were coming together again, and that there was a rebirth of a Christian world and of a Church of the world and truly open to the world.
We had such great hopes, but in reality things proved to be more difficult. Nonetheless, it is still true that the great legacy of the Council, which opened a new road, is a “magna carta” of the Church’s path, very essential and fundamental.
But why did this happen? I would like to begin with an historical observation. The periods following a council are almost always very difficult. After the great Council of Nicaea – which is, for us, truly the foundation of our faith, in fact we confess the faith as formulated at Nicaea – there was not the birth of a situation of reconciliation and unity, as hoped by Constantine, the promoter of the great Council, but a genuinely chaotic situation of a battle of all against all.
In his book on the Holy Spirit, saint Basil compares the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicaea to a nighttime naval battle, in which no one recognizes another, but everyone is pitted against everyone else. It really was a situation of total chaos: this is how saint Basil paints in vivid colors the drama of the period following the Council of Nicaea.
50 years later, for the first Council of Constantinople, the emperor invited saint Gregory Nazianzen to participate in the council, and saint Gregory responded: No, I will not come, because I understand these things, I know that all of the Councils give rise to nothing but confusion and fighting, so I will not come. And he didn’t go.
So it is not now, in retrospect, such a great surprise how difficult it was at first for all of us to digest the Council, this great message. To imbue this into the life of the Church, to receive it, such that it becomes the Church’s life, to assimilate it into the various realities of the Church is a form of suffering, and it is only in suffering that growth is realized. To grow is always to suffer as well, because it means leaving one condition and passing to another.
And we must note that there were two great historic upheavals in the concrete context of the postconciliar period. The first is the convulsion of 1968, the beginning – or explosion, I dare say – of the great cultural crisis of the West. The postwar generation had ended, a generation that, after seeing all the destruction and horror of war, of combat, and witnessing the drama of the great ideologies that had actually led people toward the precipice of war, had discovered the Christian roots of Europe and had begun to rebuild Europe with these great inspirations. But with the end of this generation there were also seen all of the failures, the gaps in this reconstruction, the great misery in the world, and so began the explosion of the crisis of Western culture, what I would call a cultural revolution that wants to change everything radically. It says: In two thousand years of Christianity, we have not created a better world; we must begin again from nothing, in an absolutely new way. Marxism seems to be the scientific formula for creating, at last, the new world.
In this – let us say – serious, great clash between the new, healthy modernity desired by the Council and the crisis of modernity, everything becomes difficult, like after the first Council of Nicaea.
One side was of the opinion that this cultural revolution was what the Council had wanted. It identified this new Marxist cultural revolution with the will of the Council. It said: This is the Council; in the letter the texts are still a bit antiquated, but behind the written words is this “spirit,” this is the will of the Council, this is what we must do. And on the other side, naturally, was the reaction: you are destroying the Church. The – let us say – absolute reaction against the Council, anticonciliarity, and – let us say – the timid, humble search to realize the true spirit of the Council. And as a proverb says: “If a tree falls it makes a lot of noise, but if a forest grows no one hears a thing,” during these great noises of mistaken progressivism and absolute anticonciliarism, there grew very quietly, with much suffering and with many losses in its construction, a new cultural passageway, the way of the Church.
And then came the second upheaval in 1989, the fall of the communist regimes. But the response was not a return to the faith, as one perhaps might have expected; it was not the rediscovery that the Church, with the authentic Council, had provided the response. The response was, instead, total skepticism, so-called post-modernity. Nothing is true; everyone must decide on his own how to live. There was the affirmation of materialism, of a blind pseudo-rationalistic skepticism that ends in drugs, that ends in all these problems that we know, and the pathways to faith are again closed, because the faith is so simple, so evident: no, nothing is true; truth is intolerant, we cannot take that road.
So: in these contexts of two cultural ruptures, the first being the cultural revolution of 1968 and the second the fall into nihilism after 1989, the Church sets out with humility upon its path, between the passions of the world and the glory of the Lord.
Along this road, we must grow with patience and we must now, in a new way, learn what it means to renounce triumphalism.
The Council had said that triumphalism must be renounced – thinking of the Baroque, of all these great cultures of the Church. It was said: Let’s begin in a new, modern way. But another triumphalism had grown, that of thinking: We will do things now, we have found the way, and on it we find the new world.
But the humility of the Cross, of the Crucified One, excludes precisely this triumphalism as well. We must renounce the triumphalism according to which the great Church of the future is truly being born now. The Church of Christ is always humble, and for this very reason it is great and joyful.
It seems very important to me that we can now see with open eyes how much that was positive also grew following the Council: in the renewal of the liturgy, in the synods – Roman synods, universal synods, diocesan synods – in the parish structures, in collaboration, in the new responsibility of laypeople, in intercultural and intercontinental shared responsibility, in a new experience of the Church’s catholicity, of the unanimity that grows in humility, and nonetheless is the true hope of the world.
And thus it seems to me that we must rediscover the great heritage of the Council, which is not a “spirit” reconstructed behind the texts, but the great conciliar texts themselves, reread today with the experiences that we have had and that have born fruit in so many movements, in so many new religious communities. I arrived in Brazil knowing how the sects are expanding, and how the Catholic Church seems a bit sclerotic; but once I arrived, I saw that almost every day in Brazil a new religious community is born, a new movement is born, and it is not only the sects that are growing. The Church is growing with new realities full of vitality, which do not show up in the statistics – this is a false hope; statistics are not our divinity – but they grow within souls and create the joy of faith, they create the presence of the Gospel, and thus also create true development in the world and society.
Thus it seems to me that we must learn the great humility of the Crucified One, of a Church that is always humble and always opposed by the great economic powers, military powers, etc. But we must also learn, together with this humility, the true triumphalism of the Catholicism that grows in all ages. There also grows today the presence of the Crucified One raised from the dead, who has and preserves his wounds. He is wounded, but it is in just in this way that he renews the world, giving his breath which also renews the Church in spite of all of our poverty. In this combination of the humility of the Cross and the joy of the risen Lord, who in the Council has given us a great road marker, we can go forward joyously and full of hope.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Cardinal Levada on Document and Motu Proprio
From The Weekly San Francisco:
During a July 17 interview while visiting the San Francisco Bay Area, Cardinal Levada commented on his congregation's work, Pope Benedict XVI's recent instruction on the Tridentine Latin Mass, themes of the young papacy, and challenges facing the universal Church today.
The cardinal was quick to describe as "purely coincidental" the fact that his congregation's document on the nature of the Church was made public only three days after the pope's announcement of his decision to allow broader use of the Tridentine liturgical rite.
Many commentaries have linked the two. "Many have tried to see it as some kind of one - two punch," Cardinal Levada laughed, "but the truth is that it is simply a coincidence that they were published in such proximity."
In restoring easier access "to the principal way of worship in the Church for more than 400 years," the pontiff "expressed a great generosity" toward persons intensely devoted to the Tridentine Latin Mass, the cardinal said.
The papal directive "was not primarily aimed at the United States," he said, adding that he feels it will have more impact in France, Germany and Switzerland and little effect in Latin America or Italy.
Turning to the doctrinal congregation's recent commentary, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," the cardinal said it grew out of extensive conversation and collaboration with theological consultants to the CDF and others, as well as a broad review of published materials.
The document addresses five questions about the nature of the Church "and all five are a commentary on Vatican II documents," the cardinal said, adding, "It has the advantage of collecting all that has happened since Vatican II up to the present time" and explaining how Church articulation of its own nature as well as its views of other Christian communities have developed.
He said he has been "somewhat surprised" at the amount of "ecumenical commentary" the document has generated. "It is primarily a document addressed to Catholics as believers and teachers and is intended to clarify the teachings of the Second Vatican Council," he said, "especially the teaching on the nature of the Church."
That teaching, he said, has been skewed by those who argue "that the Church of Christ can subsist in churches outside the Catholic Church, but that is not the case."
During a July 17 interview while visiting the San Francisco Bay Area, Cardinal Levada commented on his congregation's work, Pope Benedict XVI's recent instruction on the Tridentine Latin Mass, themes of the young papacy, and challenges facing the universal Church today.
The cardinal was quick to describe as "purely coincidental" the fact that his congregation's document on the nature of the Church was made public only three days after the pope's announcement of his decision to allow broader use of the Tridentine liturgical rite.
Many commentaries have linked the two. "Many have tried to see it as some kind of one - two punch," Cardinal Levada laughed, "but the truth is that it is simply a coincidence that they were published in such proximity."
In restoring easier access "to the principal way of worship in the Church for more than 400 years," the pontiff "expressed a great generosity" toward persons intensely devoted to the Tridentine Latin Mass, the cardinal said.
The papal directive "was not primarily aimed at the United States," he said, adding that he feels it will have more impact in France, Germany and Switzerland and little effect in Latin America or Italy.
Turning to the doctrinal congregation's recent commentary, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," the cardinal said it grew out of extensive conversation and collaboration with theological consultants to the CDF and others, as well as a broad review of published materials.
The document addresses five questions about the nature of the Church "and all five are a commentary on Vatican II documents," the cardinal said, adding, "It has the advantage of collecting all that has happened since Vatican II up to the present time" and explaining how Church articulation of its own nature as well as its views of other Christian communities have developed.
He said he has been "somewhat surprised" at the amount of "ecumenical commentary" the document has generated. "It is primarily a document addressed to Catholics as believers and teachers and is intended to clarify the teachings of the Second Vatican Council," he said, "especially the teaching on the nature of the Church."
That teaching, he said, has been skewed by those who argue "that the Church of Christ can subsist in churches outside the Catholic Church, but that is not the case."
Cardinal Zen Warns Against Confusion
Surrounding Pope's Letter to the Chinese Catholics, from Asia News Italy:
It is not true that the letter Pope Benedict XVI wrote to Chinese Catholics says that bishops from the underground Church can concelebrate services with “all” bishops from the official Church. It is not correct to claim that the letter says that there are no more reasons for the existence of the underground Church or that “underground” bishops are urged to seek recognition of state authorities. It is not true that there are no more canonical sanctions against unlawfully ordained bishops. This in a nutshell is the reply Card Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, bishop of Hong Kong, delivered to a July 6 article by Fr Jeroom Heyndrickx, head of the Ferdinand Verbiest Foundation at Leuven’s Catholic University (Belgium), that appeared in the UCA News agency (the cardinal’s reply was published on July 18 and Father Heyndrickx’s counter-reply on the 20).
Cardinal Zen does acknowledge that the Belgian sinologist loves China and “has done a lot of work” to bring together “the Chinese Catholic community with the universal Church.” However, he is concerned that the latter’s “every initiative needs the approval of Mr. Liu (Banian) of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA), and has to be carried out according to conditions imposed by him.” This is the same Mr Liu who is the CCPA deputy chairman and whose “enormous power . . . has allowed him to oppress and humiliate our bishops.
It is not true that the letter Pope Benedict XVI wrote to Chinese Catholics says that bishops from the underground Church can concelebrate services with “all” bishops from the official Church. It is not correct to claim that the letter says that there are no more reasons for the existence of the underground Church or that “underground” bishops are urged to seek recognition of state authorities. It is not true that there are no more canonical sanctions against unlawfully ordained bishops. This in a nutshell is the reply Card Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, bishop of Hong Kong, delivered to a July 6 article by Fr Jeroom Heyndrickx, head of the Ferdinand Verbiest Foundation at Leuven’s Catholic University (Belgium), that appeared in the UCA News agency (the cardinal’s reply was published on July 18 and Father Heyndrickx’s counter-reply on the 20).
Cardinal Zen does acknowledge that the Belgian sinologist loves China and “has done a lot of work” to bring together “the Chinese Catholic community with the universal Church.” However, he is concerned that the latter’s “every initiative needs the approval of Mr. Liu (Banian) of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA), and has to be carried out according to conditions imposed by him.” This is the same Mr Liu who is the CCPA deputy chairman and whose “enormous power . . . has allowed him to oppress and humiliate our bishops.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Pope Calls for an End to All Wars (compare the two versions)
Perhaps a hint of the encyclical he is working on?First from Asia News Italy:
“Never again war!”: from the mountains of Cadore, a place of great natural beauty that was transformed into a theatre of slaughter during the First World War, Benedict XVI launched an appeal that the path of peace and dialogue be chosen above conflict. The mountains around Lorenzago where the Pope is spending his vacation this year, still bear the scares of trenches and dig outs, built by the soldiers of the war. Recalling that “Great War” and the appeal launched by Benedict XVI, who in 1917 asked the world to stop the “senseless slaughter”, the Pope dedicated the words pronounced before the Angelus prayer in Piazza Calvi, of Lorenzago di Cadore, to the value of peace.
There to hear his words, among the festive crowds of faithful and tourists, was also the Patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Angelo Scola, the bishop of Hong Kong, Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, who had travelled to Cadore with a group of deacons and their families, the president of the Italian bishops conference, Msgr. Angelo Bagnasco, the bishop of Belluno-Feltre, Msgr. Giuseppe Andrich, the bishop of Treviso, Msgr. Andrea Bruno Mazzocato, Edoardo Luciani, brother of John Paul I – whom the Pope described as “my great friend” - and representatives of the lay associations from the diocese of Belluno-Feltre, whom he greeted after the Marian prayer.
“In these days of rest, - said the Pope - I feel even more intensely the painful impact of the news I receive about bloody conflicts and violent events happening in so many parts of the world. This leads me to reflect once again on the dramatic situation of human freedom in the world. The beauty of nature reminds us that we were instructed by God to cultivate and keep this garden that is the earth (Gen 2, 8-17). If men lived in peace with God and with each other, the earth really would look like a 'heaven'”.
“Unfortunately sin has ruined this divine project – continued Benedict XVI – generating division and allowing death to enter this world. Thus men by succumbing to the temptations of Evil, make war with each other. The consequence is that in this stupendous garden which is the world, there is now room for hell. War, with its after effects of destruction and death, has always been rightly considered a calamity which contrasts God’s project, who created everything to give life and who wants to make mankind one family”.
The Pope therefore re-evoked the appeal launched by Benedict XV 90 years ago on August 1st 1917, when he asked the nations at war to put an end to that inhuman conflict which he had the courage to define as a “senseless slaughter”. “This expression of his – continued the Pope – is carved into history. It was justified by the concrete situation of the summer of 1917, especially by what was taking place on this North Italian front. But those words ‘senseless slaughter’, contain a greater more prophetic value and can be applied to the many other conflicts which have cruelly broken countless lives. This very land were we find ourselves, which emanates peace and harmony, was a theatre of the First World War, as many testimonies and some moving Alpine songs still recall today. These events must not be forgotten! We must treasure the negative experiences which our fathers unfortunately had to suffer, so they will never happen again. Pope Benedict XV’s Nota did not limit itself to condemning the war; it also indicated, along juridical lines, the ways to build a just and lasting peace: the moral force of law, balanced and controlled disarmament, arbitration in controversy, the freedom of the seas, the reciprocal remission of war costs, the restitution of seized lands and fair negotiations to resolve outstanding issues”.
“The Holy See proposal was directed towards the future of Europe and of the world, according to a project inspired by Christianity, but open to all because founded on the rights of the people. It is the same imposition which the Servants of God Paul Vi and John Paul II followed in their memorable addresses to the United Nations Assembly, repeating in the name of the Church: ‘Never again war!’. From this place of peace, in which the horrors of ‘senseless slaughter’ are amplified’, – ha concluded the Pope – I renew my appeal to tenaciously pursue the rule of law, to refute with determination any recourse to arms and the temptation to apply old systems to new realities”.
Then from the wire services as taken here from Forbes:
Pope Benedict XVI called Sunday for an end to all wars, saying they were "useless slaughters" that bring hell to paradise on Earth.
Benedict made the appeal in this small mountain town in Italy's Veneto region while on vacation. He recalled that 90 years ago - on Aug. 1, 1917 - predecessor Pope Benedict XV urged a similar end to the first World War, then ravaging this part of northern Italy.
"While this inhuman conflict raged, the pope had the courage to affirm that it was a 'useless slaughter,'" Benedict said. "These words - 'useless slaughter' - contained a fuller prophetic value that can be applied to so many other conflicts that have cut off countless human lives."
Benedict didn't cite any conflicts in particular in his comments to several hundred faithful gathered in the main piazza of Lorenzago di Cadore for his traditional Sunday blessing. Rather, he made a general appeal.
"From this place of peace, where one still senses how unacceptable the horrors of 'useless slaughters' are, I renew the appeal to pursue the path of rights, to strongly refuse the recourse to weapons and refuse to confront new situations with old systems," he said.
Notice the avoidance of real reporting in the second, while the search for a sensational headline.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Pope to US in the Spring--Canada in June?
From Western Catholic Reporter:
A statement issued July 16 by Joseph Zwilling, New York archdiocesan communications director, was apparently the first official indication that such a visit would take place in the spring.
Zwilling told Catholic News Service July 16 that unnamed sources said the pope would visit in the spring instead of late September, when the new session of the UN General Assembly opens, because of next year's presidential elections. It would be Pope Benedict's first visit to the United Nations and his first visit as pope to the United States...
...The pope is also expected to come to Canada for the International Eucharistic Congress next June 15-22 in Quebec City.
A statement issued July 16 by Joseph Zwilling, New York archdiocesan communications director, was apparently the first official indication that such a visit would take place in the spring.
Zwilling told Catholic News Service July 16 that unnamed sources said the pope would visit in the spring instead of late September, when the new session of the UN General Assembly opens, because of next year's presidential elections. It would be Pope Benedict's first visit to the United Nations and his first visit as pope to the United States...
...The pope is also expected to come to Canada for the International Eucharistic Congress next June 15-22 in Quebec City.
Pope Benedict to Promote Women to Vatican Top Jobs
So says Cardinal Bertone...from Monsters and Critics:
'Everybody knows we are discussing new appointments at the Vatican,' said Tarcisio Bertone, who as its secretary of state is one of the Vatican's most influential figures after the pope, 'I certainly think some of these will be taken by women.'
Bertone singled out women's charisma, potential and sense of responsibility as qualities that could help them 'render great services' to the pope and the Church.
'Everybody knows we are discussing new appointments at the Vatican,' said Tarcisio Bertone, who as its secretary of state is one of the Vatican's most influential figures after the pope, 'I certainly think some of these will be taken by women.'
Bertone singled out women's charisma, potential and sense of responsibility as qualities that could help them 'render great services' to the pope and the Church.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Papal Visit to US Could Come as Early as Spring 08
Strikes me they already know the date...from the New York Times in an otherwise ugly story:
“Practically the first thing Cardinal Egan did after Pope Benedict was elected was to invite him to New York,” Mr. Zwilling said, referring to Cardinal Edward M. Egan. “We had been hoping he would be willing to come. We first got word of this several months ago that the pope had accepted the invitation of Ban Ki-moon to address the United Nations. A few days later the Holy See made it clear it would not be in 2007, so from that point on we anticipated it would be in 2008.” Mr. Zwilling added that the visit to New York could occur as early as the spring, but cautioned that no firm date had been set.
“Practically the first thing Cardinal Egan did after Pope Benedict was elected was to invite him to New York,” Mr. Zwilling said, referring to Cardinal Edward M. Egan. “We had been hoping he would be willing to come. We first got word of this several months ago that the pope had accepted the invitation of Ban Ki-moon to address the United Nations. A few days later the Holy See made it clear it would not be in 2007, so from that point on we anticipated it would be in 2008.” Mr. Zwilling added that the visit to New York could occur as early as the spring, but cautioned that no firm date had been set.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Pope Regularly Uses Older Rite?
Report from Catholic World News:
Informed sources at the Vatican have confirmed reports that the Holy Father regularly celebrates Mass using the 1962 Roman Missal.
In his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum the Pope says that the older form-- the form in universal use before the liturgical changes that followed Vatican II-- was never abrogated.
Since becoming Roman Pontiff, Benedict XVI has always used the new ritual-- which he identifies in Summorum Pontificum as the "ordinary form" of the Roman rite-- for public celebrations of the Eucharistic liturgy. However few people have witnessed the Pope celebrating his private daily Mass.
I'd like to spontaneously ask the Holy Father to be able to attend.
Informed sources at the Vatican have confirmed reports that the Holy Father regularly celebrates Mass using the 1962 Roman Missal.
In his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum the Pope says that the older form-- the form in universal use before the liturgical changes that followed Vatican II-- was never abrogated.
Since becoming Roman Pontiff, Benedict XVI has always used the new ritual-- which he identifies in Summorum Pontificum as the "ordinary form" of the Roman rite-- for public celebrations of the Eucharistic liturgy. However few people have witnessed the Pope celebrating his private daily Mass.
I'd like to spontaneously ask the Holy Father to be able to attend.
Monday, July 16, 2007
How to Apply the Second Vatican Council
To Liturgy and Ecumenism, from Sandro Magister:
Just a few months ago, the French bishops were extremely concerned about the news that Benedict XVI was preparing to liberalize the celebration of the Mass labeled as that of Pius V. “Such a decision endangers the Church’s unity,” wrote the most alarmed of them.
Benedict XVI shot straight from the hip, with the “motu proprio” released on July 7. But there was no reaction of rejection from the French bishops. Nor was there from the bishops of the touchiest countries: Switzerland, Germany, Great Britain. On the contrary, their most authoritative leaders hailed the pope’s decision with positive comments: from the German cardinal Karl Lehmann to the English cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, both ranked among the progressives.
The same happened with the document released on July 10 by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, which nails down some firm points of doctrine about the Church. There was no comparison with the criticisms that in the summer of 2000 were hurled – even by high-ranking churchmen – against the declaration “Dominus Iesus,” signed by then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, which to a great extent dealt with the same points of doctrine. Cardinal Walter Kasper, one of the critics back then, decisively supported the Vatican document this time: “Clearly stating one’s own positions does not limit ecumenical dialogue, but fosters it.” And from Moscow, metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, president of the department for external relations at the Russian Orthodox patriarchate, described the text as “an honest declaration, because sincere dialogue requires a clear vision of the respective positions.”
Criticisms did arrive, naturally, against both of these promulgations, from within and outside of the Church, and especially from Protestants and Jews. But in the Catholic camp the protests were limited to confined sectors, mostly Italian: the sectors of the liturgists and of the intellectuals who interpret Vatican Council II as a “rupture” and a “new beginning.”
Among the liturgists, the one most pained in contesting the papal “motu proprio” was Luca Brandolini, bishop of Sora, Aquino, and Pontecorvo, and a member of the liturgical commission of the Italian bishops’ conference, in an interview with the newspaper “la Repubblica”:
“I cannot hold back my tears; I am living through the saddest moment of my life as a bishop and as a man. This is a day of mourning not only for me, but for the many who have lived and worked for Vatican Council II. What has been negated is a reform for which many worked at the cost of great sacrifices, motivated solely by the desire to renew the Church.”
Among the theorists of Vatican II as a “rupture” and a “new beginning,” the most explicit against the papal provisions were the founder and prior of the monastery of Bose, Enzo Bianchi, and the historian of Christianity Alberto Melloni, coauthor of the most widely read “History of Vatican Council II” in the world. For Melloni, the objective of pope Ratzinger is nothing less than that of “deriding” and “demolishing” Vatican Council II.
But instead it is known that Benedict XVI’s clear objective – plainly enunciated and argued in the memorable discourse to the Roman curia on December 22, 2005 – is that of freeing the Council from a particular interpretation: precisely the interpretation of “rupture” and “new beginning” dear to Bianchi and Melloni.
"The hermeneutic of discontinuity,” the pope said in this address, “risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church".
While instead the correct interpretation of Vatican Council II, in the view of Benedict XVI, is this:
“... the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.”
Just a few months ago, the French bishops were extremely concerned about the news that Benedict XVI was preparing to liberalize the celebration of the Mass labeled as that of Pius V. “Such a decision endangers the Church’s unity,” wrote the most alarmed of them.
Benedict XVI shot straight from the hip, with the “motu proprio” released on July 7. But there was no reaction of rejection from the French bishops. Nor was there from the bishops of the touchiest countries: Switzerland, Germany, Great Britain. On the contrary, their most authoritative leaders hailed the pope’s decision with positive comments: from the German cardinal Karl Lehmann to the English cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, both ranked among the progressives.
The same happened with the document released on July 10 by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, which nails down some firm points of doctrine about the Church. There was no comparison with the criticisms that in the summer of 2000 were hurled – even by high-ranking churchmen – against the declaration “Dominus Iesus,” signed by then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, which to a great extent dealt with the same points of doctrine. Cardinal Walter Kasper, one of the critics back then, decisively supported the Vatican document this time: “Clearly stating one’s own positions does not limit ecumenical dialogue, but fosters it.” And from Moscow, metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, president of the department for external relations at the Russian Orthodox patriarchate, described the text as “an honest declaration, because sincere dialogue requires a clear vision of the respective positions.”
Criticisms did arrive, naturally, against both of these promulgations, from within and outside of the Church, and especially from Protestants and Jews. But in the Catholic camp the protests were limited to confined sectors, mostly Italian: the sectors of the liturgists and of the intellectuals who interpret Vatican Council II as a “rupture” and a “new beginning.”
Among the liturgists, the one most pained in contesting the papal “motu proprio” was Luca Brandolini, bishop of Sora, Aquino, and Pontecorvo, and a member of the liturgical commission of the Italian bishops’ conference, in an interview with the newspaper “la Repubblica”:
“I cannot hold back my tears; I am living through the saddest moment of my life as a bishop and as a man. This is a day of mourning not only for me, but for the many who have lived and worked for Vatican Council II. What has been negated is a reform for which many worked at the cost of great sacrifices, motivated solely by the desire to renew the Church.”
Among the theorists of Vatican II as a “rupture” and a “new beginning,” the most explicit against the papal provisions were the founder and prior of the monastery of Bose, Enzo Bianchi, and the historian of Christianity Alberto Melloni, coauthor of the most widely read “History of Vatican Council II” in the world. For Melloni, the objective of pope Ratzinger is nothing less than that of “deriding” and “demolishing” Vatican Council II.
But instead it is known that Benedict XVI’s clear objective – plainly enunciated and argued in the memorable discourse to the Roman curia on December 22, 2005 – is that of freeing the Council from a particular interpretation: precisely the interpretation of “rupture” and “new beginning” dear to Bianchi and Melloni.
"The hermeneutic of discontinuity,” the pope said in this address, “risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church".
While instead the correct interpretation of Vatican Council II, in the view of Benedict XVI, is this:
“... the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.”
Latin Leaves Priests at a Loss
From the Guardian:
In nomine Patris, et, er, ... thingummy.
Pope Benedict may want more of his flock to have the chance to hear mass in Latin. But there is a snag. Not many of his priests know enough of the language to hold a service in it. Even in Italy.
Yesterday the newspaper La Stampa reported on priests' reactions to the Pope's decision this month to extend the use of the old Latin-only rite. Their views ranged from embarrassment to downright anger.
In nomine Patris, et, er, ... thingummy.
Pope Benedict may want more of his flock to have the chance to hear mass in Latin. But there is a snag. Not many of his priests know enough of the language to hold a service in it. Even in Italy.
Yesterday the newspaper La Stampa reported on priests' reactions to the Pope's decision this month to extend the use of the old Latin-only rite. Their views ranged from embarrassment to downright anger.
Pope Hopes to Visit USA Next Year
Hopefully, more than just the UN. From USA Today:
Pope Benedict XVI has a heavy international travel schedule coming up, with plans to deliver an important speech to diplomats in Vienna in September and confirmed trips to the United Nations, Australia and Lourdes, France in 2008, the Vatican spokesman said Sunday.
The Rev. Federico Lombardi did not specify what the speech would cover during the pope's Sept. 7-9 trip to Austria, but Lombardi said Benedict would deliver an "internationally important" speech to diplomats accredited to international organizations.
He said early plans are underway for a papal trip next year to the shrine at Lourdes, to mark the 150th anniversary of the apparition of the Madonna. The trip will also be a significant emotional one, Lombardi said, since Pope John Paul II's last foreign trip was to Lourdes.
"We also hope to go to the United Nations," Lombardi said. No date for the trip has been set.
The archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, has invited Benedict to visit Boston next year, saying it would help mend wounds from the clergy sexual abuse scandal that erupted in Boston.
Pope Benedict XVI has a heavy international travel schedule coming up, with plans to deliver an important speech to diplomats in Vienna in September and confirmed trips to the United Nations, Australia and Lourdes, France in 2008, the Vatican spokesman said Sunday.
The Rev. Federico Lombardi did not specify what the speech would cover during the pope's Sept. 7-9 trip to Austria, but Lombardi said Benedict would deliver an "internationally important" speech to diplomats accredited to international organizations.
He said early plans are underway for a papal trip next year to the shrine at Lourdes, to mark the 150th anniversary of the apparition of the Madonna. The trip will also be a significant emotional one, Lombardi said, since Pope John Paul II's last foreign trip was to Lourdes.
"We also hope to go to the United Nations," Lombardi said. No date for the trip has been set.
The archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, has invited Benedict to visit Boston next year, saying it would help mend wounds from the clergy sexual abuse scandal that erupted in Boston.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
An Encyclical on Social Issues?
Something along those lines seems to be in the works, from the International Tribune:
Benedict said as he arrived in Lorenzago on Monday that he hoped to start writing the second volume of his book "Jesus of Nazareth" while on vacation. He also said he would begin writing an encyclical, which Lombardi said would be on a "social theme." News reports have suggested it would cover issues of globalization.
"There is also this idea about an encyclical, which, however, still seems to be at a very early stage, at the level of reflection on how it can be laid out, even though the social themes" are at the heart of it," Lombardi told RAI television. "It is still not at the level of production, of actual writing."
Benedict said as he arrived in Lorenzago on Monday that he hoped to start writing the second volume of his book "Jesus of Nazareth" while on vacation. He also said he would begin writing an encyclical, which Lombardi said would be on a "social theme." News reports have suggested it would cover issues of globalization.
"There is also this idea about an encyclical, which, however, still seems to be at a very early stage, at the level of reflection on how it can be laid out, even though the social themes" are at the heart of it," Lombardi told RAI television. "It is still not at the level of production, of actual writing."
Pope's Vacation Angelus
Reflects on next year's World Youth Day in Austrailia and on his present vacation--from Asia News Italy:“Before the wonder of these pastures, forests and summits which rise towards the heavens – continued the pontiff – the soul spontaneously rises in a song of praise to God for the wonders of his works, and our admiration of nature’s beauty is easily transformed into prayer”.
Benedict XVI then urged everyone to use this period of vacation “to rest the body and nourish the spirit through greater space for prayer and meditation, thus deepening our personal relationship with Christ and in turn increasing our understanding of his teachings”.
Note the "tree man" in the picture...Amy will understand why I find this interesting.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Answers to Questions Catholics are Asking
Ever since the Second Vatican Council....from the Congregation of the Faith:
Introduction
The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen gentium," and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter "Ecclesiam suam" (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter "Ut unum sint" (1995). The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church "ommunionis notio" (1992), and the declaration "Dominus Iesus" (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS
First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it. This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council (1). Paul VI affirmed it (2) and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution "Lumen gentium": "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation" (3). The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention (4).
Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
Response: Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community" (5), that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. (6) "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him" (7). In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church (8), in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. (9) Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church. (10)
Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?
Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity" (11). "It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church" (12).
Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds" (13), they merit the title of "particular or local Churches" (14), and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches (15). "It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature" (16). However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches (17). On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history (18).
Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery (19) cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense (20).
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication. Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. William Cardinal Levada Prefect Angelo Amato, S.D.B., Titular Archbishop of Sila Secretary
Introduction
The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen gentium," and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter "Ecclesiam suam" (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter "Ut unum sint" (1995). The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration "Mysterium Ecclesiae" (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church "ommunionis notio" (1992), and the declaration "Dominus Iesus" (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS
First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it. This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council (1). Paul VI affirmed it (2) and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution "Lumen gentium": "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation" (3). The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention (4).
Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
Response: Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community" (5), that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. (6) "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him" (7). In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church (8), in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. (9) Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church. (10)
Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?
Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity" (11). "It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church" (12).
Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds" (13), they merit the title of "particular or local Churches" (14), and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches (15). "It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature" (16). However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches (17). On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history (18).
Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery (19) cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense (20).
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication. Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. William Cardinal Levada Prefect Angelo Amato, S.D.B., Titular Archbishop of Sila Secretary
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Remember Who You Are
New Vatican document reasserts Catholic identity as stated by the Second Vatican Council....to promote true dialogue...
From Javno.com:
The document said the Council's opening to other faiths recognised there were "many elements of sanctification and truth" in other Christian denominations, but stressed only Catholicism had all the elements to be Christ's Church fully.
The text refers to "ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation", a term used to refer to Protestants and Anglicans. Father Augustine Di Noia, Under-Secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue, but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.
"The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment," Di Noia told Vatican radio.
"But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be."
From Javno.com:
The document said the Council's opening to other faiths recognised there were "many elements of sanctification and truth" in other Christian denominations, but stressed only Catholicism had all the elements to be Christ's Church fully.
The text refers to "ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation", a term used to refer to Protestants and Anglicans. Father Augustine Di Noia, Under-Secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue, but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.
"The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment," Di Noia told Vatican radio.
"But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be."
Saturday, June 30, 2007
For Truth and Love of the Church in China
From Asia News Italy:
With the ‘Letter to Chinese Catholics’ published today, Benedict XVI launches the Church and society in China into the third millennium. Putting together “truth and love” the Pope accurately identifies the problems Christians and the Chinese state have to face and moves towards a solution that guarantees a fruitful future for China and the world.
Only the head of the Catholic Church could have written this kind of letter, touching every aspect of the Church’s life in China and its society, with sympathy and understanding even for its political leaders, but also with great clarity about what is necessary and indispensable for the Church, claiming independence in spiritual matters vis-à-vis the system, asking Chinese bishops, priests and faithful to preserve and pass on to the next generations the great treasure which the Catholic faith.
Thoughtfully and in cordial participation, Benedict XVI shares the cries and dismay of Christians “at God's silence in the face of the persecutions,” praising the fidelity of so many “witnesses of the faith, “ “the hope of the Church for the future!” At the same time he looks mercifully even upon those bishops and priests who are illegitimate and in ambiguous situations, urging everyone to live in open unity with the pontiff, to forgive one another, to pastorally work together for mission and the good of Chinese society.
In a loving and open attitude he demands in the name of the Catholic faith the right for the Holy See to appoint its bishops. He calls on underground bishops to seek official government recognition and on official bishops to overcome their fear and publicly acknowlede their ties with the Pope so that bishops and the faithful alike can become reconciled. He especially urges the Chinese Church as a whole to go beyond the defensive mode persecution imposed on it, and try instead evangelising Chinese society, Asia and the whole world by giving itself the necessary means—bishops’ conference, pastoral councils and diocesan administrations—that the task entails. This will mark as it were the end of the time of emergency, and allow the Church of China to become an integral and active part of the universal communion.
With the ‘Letter to Chinese Catholics’ published today, Benedict XVI launches the Church and society in China into the third millennium. Putting together “truth and love” the Pope accurately identifies the problems Christians and the Chinese state have to face and moves towards a solution that guarantees a fruitful future for China and the world.
Only the head of the Catholic Church could have written this kind of letter, touching every aspect of the Church’s life in China and its society, with sympathy and understanding even for its political leaders, but also with great clarity about what is necessary and indispensable for the Church, claiming independence in spiritual matters vis-à-vis the system, asking Chinese bishops, priests and faithful to preserve and pass on to the next generations the great treasure which the Catholic faith.
Thoughtfully and in cordial participation, Benedict XVI shares the cries and dismay of Christians “at God's silence in the face of the persecutions,” praising the fidelity of so many “witnesses of the faith, “ “the hope of the Church for the future!” At the same time he looks mercifully even upon those bishops and priests who are illegitimate and in ambiguous situations, urging everyone to live in open unity with the pontiff, to forgive one another, to pastorally work together for mission and the good of Chinese society.
In a loving and open attitude he demands in the name of the Catholic faith the right for the Holy See to appoint its bishops. He calls on underground bishops to seek official government recognition and on official bishops to overcome their fear and publicly acknowlede their ties with the Pope so that bishops and the faithful alike can become reconciled. He especially urges the Chinese Church as a whole to go beyond the defensive mode persecution imposed on it, and try instead evangelising Chinese society, Asia and the whole world by giving itself the necessary means—bishops’ conference, pastoral councils and diocesan administrations—that the task entails. This will mark as it were the end of the time of emergency, and allow the Church of China to become an integral and active part of the universal communion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
