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.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Sheila Rauch Kennedy on Annulments
Most Catholics don't know that they can appeal a decision rendered by a Diocesan tribunal in this country by going to the Vatican as she did...she muses on the whole annulment process and in the end suggest adopting the Orthodox model:
From the The 'loose canon' in the Catholic Church:
Perhaps an answer is closer than we think. The Catholic Church might look to its sister institution, the Orthodox Church, and to Catholic marriage rules in other situations for a solution to the divorce dilemma. In the Orthodox Church, marriages may be viewed as valid without being "sacramental," a distinction the Catholic Church currently makes when its members marry people who are not baptized Christians. In such cases, after pastoral counseling, the Catholic spouses are still welcomed to Communion and confession.
Such an approach may not be perfect, but it's preferable to the sham of easy annulment.
From the The 'loose canon' in the Catholic Church:
Perhaps an answer is closer than we think. The Catholic Church might look to its sister institution, the Orthodox Church, and to Catholic marriage rules in other situations for a solution to the divorce dilemma. In the Orthodox Church, marriages may be viewed as valid without being "sacramental," a distinction the Catholic Church currently makes when its members marry people who are not baptized Christians. In such cases, after pastoral counseling, the Catholic spouses are still welcomed to Communion and confession.
Such an approach may not be perfect, but it's preferable to the sham of easy annulment.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The Jewishness of the Roman Rite
From First Things:
In my experience, Catholics who have an affinity for the particularly Judaic character of their Christian faith are more likely to be drawn to the Tridentine Mass than are Catholics for whom Judaism is a category on the other side of a boundary they would consider it bad manners to try to cross. You might think that, while Reform Catholics were on the subject of Catholic liturgy and Judaism, they would ask what happened to the Church’s observance of the event that most vividly marks Jesus as Jewish. The establishment of the 1970 missal as normative was accompanied by a certain curious change in the liturgical calendar: The Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord, on January 1, eight days after the celebration of his birth, wasn’t just moved. It was eliminated.
Of the criticisms that early Protestants leveled against Catholicism, the one that arguably cut deepest was that the Church presumed to revive the Levitical priesthood, which the spilling of Christ’s blood on Calvary now rendered obsolete. They inveighed passionately against the Mass, which they saw as overtly Judaic in its tone, structure, and purpose. (This Jewishness they objected to was largely a theological construct, not to be confused with the social and cultural construct of Judaism familiar to students of Jewish Studies departments at American universities.)
Protestants were correct that the Mass, in its aspect as a sacrifice, could not be fully understood outside the framework of pre-rabbinic Judaism. By the middle of the twentieth century, when Rome’s wish for some thaw in its cold war with Protestantism was in full bloom, it reformed the Mass such that the visible and audible distinctions between Mass and the worship services of the mainline Protestant churches were now greatly softened. Many Catholics saw it as an appropriate ecumenical gesture. So did many Protestants. Whether that step in the direction of Wittenberg and Geneva was deliberate or unconscious, what it was a step away from was Jerusalem, from the Temple and the daily sacrifice priests used to perform there.
In my experience, Catholics who have an affinity for the particularly Judaic character of their Christian faith are more likely to be drawn to the Tridentine Mass than are Catholics for whom Judaism is a category on the other side of a boundary they would consider it bad manners to try to cross. You might think that, while Reform Catholics were on the subject of Catholic liturgy and Judaism, they would ask what happened to the Church’s observance of the event that most vividly marks Jesus as Jewish. The establishment of the 1970 missal as normative was accompanied by a certain curious change in the liturgical calendar: The Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord, on January 1, eight days after the celebration of his birth, wasn’t just moved. It was eliminated.
Of the criticisms that early Protestants leveled against Catholicism, the one that arguably cut deepest was that the Church presumed to revive the Levitical priesthood, which the spilling of Christ’s blood on Calvary now rendered obsolete. They inveighed passionately against the Mass, which they saw as overtly Judaic in its tone, structure, and purpose. (This Jewishness they objected to was largely a theological construct, not to be confused with the social and cultural construct of Judaism familiar to students of Jewish Studies departments at American universities.)
Protestants were correct that the Mass, in its aspect as a sacrifice, could not be fully understood outside the framework of pre-rabbinic Judaism. By the middle of the twentieth century, when Rome’s wish for some thaw in its cold war with Protestantism was in full bloom, it reformed the Mass such that the visible and audible distinctions between Mass and the worship services of the mainline Protestant churches were now greatly softened. Many Catholics saw it as an appropriate ecumenical gesture. So did many Protestants. Whether that step in the direction of Wittenberg and Geneva was deliberate or unconscious, what it was a step away from was Jerusalem, from the Temple and the daily sacrifice priests used to perform there.
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
Nazareth Wants World's Largest Cross
From the Jerusalem Post:The world's largest cross will be built in the Israeli Arab town of Nazareth in an attempt to draw millions of Christian tourists to the boyhood town of Jesus, according to an initial private building plan under consideration, officials said Sunday.
The proposal, which is still in its planning stages, is being floated by a group of affluent Christian businessmen from Israel and abroad.
The massive cross, dubbed "The Nazareth Cross," would tower 60 meters high, and would be decorated by some 7.2 million brilliant mosaic tiles made of Nazareth stone, according to project adviser Ibrahim Boulous.
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
Why Feminists Hate Harry Potter
In the current edition of The Wanderer by Pete Vere:
Harry Potter Christian literature? A number of Catholic commentators, including those who have previously been critical of the children’s series, are beginning to ask this question. One such author is Nancy Carpentier Brown, who is well known within Catholic home- schooling circles as a writer who promotes Catholic orthodoxy.
Our Sunday Visitor has just published Brown’s The Mystery of Harry Potter
— to read more...
Harry Potter Christian literature? A number of Catholic commentators, including those who have previously been critical of the children’s series, are beginning to ask this question. One such author is Nancy Carpentier Brown, who is well known within Catholic home- schooling circles as a writer who promotes Catholic orthodoxy.
Our Sunday Visitor has just published Brown’s The Mystery of Harry Potter
— to read more...
Dr. Death and the U of Florida
Father Rob Johansen reports on the planned hosting of Dr. Jack Kevorkian and an organized move to protest that appearance and $50,000 payment!
The Media Just Doesn't Get It
Dave Hartline's got the goods...
My only comment is that it doesn't help that a good number of Catholic clergy, religious and laity don't get it either.
My only comment is that it doesn't help that a good number of Catholic clergy, religious and laity don't get it either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
