I just finished the article 'True and False Reform' by Avery Cardinal Dulles, and would like to know if any of you have read it or have thoughts about it.

it is here:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0308/articles/dulles.html

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003

Answers

-- (top@top.top), September 18, 2003.

Here is a bitof false reform. We once had the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. No dancing arund that word 'sacrifice". Our "protestant brethren" were offended, so.....

An example of this is calling Protestant churches "Ecclesial Communities;" and the indefectible Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the "Eucharistic Celebration," "Eucharistic Sacrifice," "sacrament of the paschal mystery," "breaking of the bread," "sacrament for humanity," "Eucharistic 'amazement'," "celebration of the Eucharist," etc. Yet the only time the eternal sacrifice (which was not used as a term in his encyclical) refers to the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" is when he references, what else? Trent! Yes, the Council of Trent in paragraph 9 of the Introduction. That, in and of itself, is a breakthrough. However, at the same time, while he dabbled in the possibility of 'going there,' of reinforcing all that Trent set in stone, including reference to the "Holy Sacrifice of the Altar" in paragraph 10, he went just so far and then swerved right back into Vatican Two-speak. Oh, it's so frustrating! But then that's just John Paul giving the ol' razzle-dazzle to the conservatives to keep them on the leash and to prevent them from looking further into what he's really saying.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 19, 2003.

Excuse, me but it's not razzle dazzel. It's an ability to describe the mystery of our faith in more than one way, using more than one set of vocabulary.

Look at the many Marian devotions around the world, as well as the litany of Loreto. No typical "conservative" has any problem referring to Mary by 50 different titles. Each one expresses one or more truths about the reality that is sumed up in the name Mary of Nazareth, mother of Jesus.

Now, you can call her "Theotokos" or Tower of David, Tower of Ivory, and though different they aren't contradictory. Maybe your taste favors the greek expression rather than "Gratia Plena" Latin... but different theological pronouns or adjectives don't necessarily mean the Church is playing razzle dazzle with Mary!

Ditto with "the Mass"... It's not "the Mass" - that's the English slang for "ite Misa est"; techinically it IS liturgy of the word, liturgy of the Eucharist.

Maybe you didn't learn this in the 1950's - and that's fine. But don't immediately dump on the Pope for using theologically techincal words - which are entirely valid.

You can't argue about taste - but you can argue with those who confuse taste for theology. The whole "problem" concerning the Mass in the English speaking world is NOT the multiplication of words to describe this mystery of our faith, but is the lack of belief in the reality these words express.

It is a sacrifice - but it's more than that. It's a meal (Passover anyone? "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink"), It is a celebration (as are all liturgical events...your superficial hick- town American feel-good idea of "celebration" is the problem, not the deeply theological and pregnany classic definition of the term as used in the Church). It is "communion" - it is the banquet of the Lamb...

In the Summa Theologica, writen back in 1270 WAY before Trent, St Thomas talks about the many names of God and many ways of talking about God - the multiplicity of OUR WORDS is simply a reflection of the vastness of the concept we are trying to grasp - and our language is limited. So unable to say a single word which encapsulates the Divine, we add word upon word.

You may "get it" as a sacrifice. But it's more than that. Jesus Christ is more than "a sacrifice". The Sacrifice of the Cross - was more than that. Redeption occured then...but more than that too...

So don't get wrapped around an axle because of words or presumed theological problems. People who complain about the Pope's theology...don't know theology.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 19, 2003.

I want to thank you profusely Joe. You have set me straight, on the fact that, the Summa Theologica, really supersedes the Council of Trent. I sill have to get used to the Novus Ordo logic. Sorry.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 19, 2003.

The Council of Trent is not, and was not the last word on all things. If it were, why did we keep having Popes? Are you saying that Vatican Council ONE was not a legitimate council either SIMPLY BECAUSE IT CAME AFTER TRENT?

Show me the "aha"! text. I'll show you it's context.

Have you read both Vatican II AND Pope Paul VI's weekly catechisis and other discourses in which he authentically interprets the council documents? I seriously doubt it.

Instead you read SOME snippets of Vatican II, then read lengthy "debunking" from some priest (where's he go to school? no clue), and then maybe some wacko-liberal spin on what the New York TImes said the council was about... bingo, the blind leading the blind.

Vatican II doesn't contradict Trent. Different style, different issues, different language. But the faith was not changed and neither was most of the discipline. Application is a whole different ballgame.

But for the sake of the argument, Trent's goal was to respond to the Protestant revolt...it failed. It also "failed" to stop the slide away from Catholic monarchies and states and towards atheism and anti- Catholic socialism. Did Trent or the Tridentine Mass prevent the rise of Masonry? No. What about Comunism, facism and nazism? No. Did the Church with Trent and the T-Mass stop the 2 World Wars? How about the persecution of the Church world-wide begining in 1789? No.

Did Trent and the Tridentine Mass stop the multiplication of Protestantism, neo-paganism, and the rise of Mormonism? No.

Golly, how could that be? I thought that post hoc ergo propter hoc was the slam dunk theory PROVING that all hell broke loose after Vatican II, because of Vatican II, and that had we simply stayed with Trent all would have been halycon and lovely.

Or maybe you have some answers. Let's here them.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 20, 2003.

. Joe Why John 23? Our Lady said absoletely , If you buy into toe 'newspeak" thing, I don't stand a chance with this debate, [if that's what it is]. As for the wars and decline of the church that was the fault of the past 5 popees, ad especially John XXIII. Our Lady wantedthe consecration of Russia done right away. It could have stopped the spread of communism, and avoided much of the world's troubles. John 23, in 1959, read it and said that it did not concern him. Not Much, He called that disastrous council and the rest is history.

Joe note, in 70 AD. the tenple came down. In 1970 new mass, the church started to crumble. When anyone, pope included, puts a blatant lie into Our Lord's mouth, Watch out!

Joe, look around, and what do you see? Churches closed, sold, gigantic lawsuits against the church, seminaries closing, begging for priests, {who wants to be a presider}?

Newspeak, blame it on the times, the world, and anything else you want.

Traditional churches have no trouble recruiting priests, nuns, and people willing to travel long distances for a real mass, saing the Lord's real words. God takes care of his own.

God will not tolerate the foolishness, thatis passing for a mass today. Bad enough the lie, but Superman, football, motorcycle masses and on and on. The bishops tolerate this, so they give tacit approval. the pope tolerate the bishops, so what else is new. And you fight for that? What a waste.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 20, 2003.

-I have read it and I have thoughts on it...

I agree -that false reform is bad...

I am still digesting the material with some questions yet to be answered before posting my declarative review/observations -maybe others can offer...

1. Cardinal Dulles references "ecclessial reform" -am I correct in assuming he only speaks of 'structure' of the Church and if so, what exactly does this mean?

2. Cardinal Dulles refers to reform; however, on seems to condemn bad proposals/plans -not bad execution or misinterpretaion (which I consider to be the primary cause of abuses now)... -is my read correct?

3. Cardinal Dulles does not necessarily say anything is bad now; however, suggests that if it was/is that these things he points out would be evident -hmmm... He seems to not take a position on what is happening now but on theory...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 20, 2003.

P.S. One thing I do know is that to 'judge' merits regarding Church reform requires comparing and contrasting to Truth -when compared relative to Truth/God a 'verdict' should be simple....

Comparing reform(s) relative to anything else including previous reforms is where one can be led astray...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 20, 2003.

Terry, your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

John XXIII was bad because he didn't obey our Lady? First of all, being Pope, I think he had better direct information on exactly what the Fatima visionaries said in their letters... I don't trust any half-baked priests who claim to know more about the vision and letters than the Pope.

Secondly, a consecration to Russia is not magic. You seem to think if the Pope (and all the world's bishops) said the formula SHAZAM! instant conversion of communists. That's not how human nature works. If God wanted to convert hearts like that he wouldn't need our cooperation. Not even Pentecost was like that.

Thirdly, my point was that Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after that, because of that") is the line of reasoning whereby people FALSELY believe there is CAUSAL relationship between two events JUST BECAUSE ONE HAPPENED BEFORE THE OTHER, without any other proof.

So the Temple was destroyed in 70AD... yeah... and... your point?

Trent happened in the 1500's... and all hell broke loose AFTERWARDS. But I don't blame Trent! So why must you blame Vatican II for SOME PROBLEMS that occured after 1963?

Look at this way: Communism fell in Russia...after Vatican II, doesn't that make the fall of godless atheism the direct result of the council?

Just because things were hunky dory in the United States during the 1950s doesn't make that decade the golden age of the Catholic Church! After all, it was a disasterous decade for the Church in Asia, and Africa, and South and Central America. Europe was devastated after the War and saw a rapid rise of communism and presecution of Christians.... so don't be fooled by appearances.

If the 1950's Church was so strong and wonderful, why did it implode so quickly after the Council? Answer: it ONLY LOOKED solid.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 20, 2003.

Hi Joe.

I don't want to get into a lengthy debate, so I'm gonna make one observation/opinion about the 1950's.

The Fifty's lifestyle was like a "Dr. Jykle(sp?) and Mr. Hyde" story. People reveal themselves to the public as one character, while in private, they lived as another character. Yes, everything looked "hunky-dory" up here in front of the innocent lighted stage. May nothing upset those images and morals. But, backstage was much different and less than idealistic. Ooops! there I go with the "ideal" vs. "pragmatic" thing, sorry. Masters and Johnson comes to mind. Their research revealed some of this duality in society; well, at least, it revealed this in society's honest remarks about sexual truths and myths.

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 20, 2003.

Joe; I believe that you are a bit naive. Things were not hunky dory in the 1950's. This country was torn in a terrible, no win war in Korea. Over fifty thousand young Americans were killed in that war.Many more crippled and blinded, indeed not hunky dory. The Church was loaded with communists, and Masons, just waiting for their chance. John 23rd gave them that chance in Vatican 2. Conservative bishops were blind sided by the pope, throwing out their agenda in the first 2 weeks. Perhaps innocently, perhaps notm God only knows. Our government was also loaded with communists, and poor Joe McCarthy was made the villain on that one, just as Father Charles Coughlin was jobbed the same way by Franklin Roosevelt[ a 33rd degree Mason}. Joe, brush up on your history, it is all a matter of public record. I just read up on these things.

PS Yes I do believe that we would have had peace if those magic words were said. But do you know about the 1962 Metz pact between the Vatican and Russia. Odd that the greatest enemy of the Church was not even mentioned at V2.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 20, 2003.

Atheism was specifically mentioned in the Council. You don't have to read very far to realize that not mentioning Russia or Communism by name isn't important. Had the bishops implemented the council's true teaching (as they did in Poland and Mexico and elsewhere) the Church would have converted the culture rather than surrender to it.

So you believe in marian magic? Kind of like a global transubstantiation? Of course, to "work" all the bishops had to cooperate - so if just one refused would the magic work? According to your view of things (mechanical/magical) it wouldn't have worked without full participation.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 21, 2003.

Yup Joe; I believe in that "Marian Magic". Just like I believe that someone can take a hunk of bread, and say "This is me"

-- Terry (abc@aol.com), September 22, 2003.

There is a colossal difference between transubstantiation - the doctrine of which is explicitly revealed in the Gospels and in the tradition and in the practice of the Church from time immemorial, and the idea that any rite of consecration of a whole nation will miraculously and instantaneously convert 230 million people, not only from atheism, but from communism. That is, it would be both a spiritual and ideological conversion of heart without any other means being employed.

Now it is Catholic doctrine that grace builds on nature. Even miracles are miracles within the parameters of nature.

Neither at the Resurrection, nor at Pentecost, nor at any other time do we ever see or hear or read about some miracle that converts thousands of enemies of the Church en mass...

Not even Guadalupe! Sure 8 million indians converted...over a generation. But they still had excellent Spanish friars preaching to them and baptising them.

In short, if the matter is not there, how can you expect the form to do all the work?

In your eucharistic analogy, it would be as though saying the words of consecration WITHOUT BREAD AND WINE would some how give you the substance of Christ without accidents... thin air.

I don't doubt that it's a great idea and a wonderfully romantic dream - but it is TOO EASY, and God doesn't do things that easily. He doesn't let us off the hook. Russia couldn't have been converted without missionaries being sent. And how could missionaries be sent if the West in the 1950's and 60's was falling away from the faith?

Marriage is another sacrament involving words - the form, but which also requires the matter: without the two people who are truly commited and free to marry, you have a wedding but no marriage. Words alone are not the sacrament.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 22, 2003.

“Say the Rosary every day to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war... If they do what I tell you, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace. The war is going to end [World War I]. But if they do not stop offending God, another and worse one will begin in the reign of Pius XI... When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that it is the great sign that God gives you that He is going to punish the world for its crimes by means of war, of hunger, and of persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father.

“To prevent this, I come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If they listen to my requests, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not, she will scatter her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; many nations will be annihilated.

Joe, has Russia scattered her errors? Have the popes heeded her request? They have not. But it could help, it sure can't hurt.

“

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 22, 2003.

Terry, thanks for making my point...it was never just the consecration or lack thereof... every Catholic was called to say the rosary and keep the first fridays and saturdays. How else can error spread except when those who have the truth don't do their duty? So the consecration and Catholic piety went hand in hand. Without the 1 billion Catholics doing our part, all the nice words and consecratory prayers in the world aren't going to do much.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 22, 2003.

What they don't want the world to know yet is how close the evangelicals inadvertently came to the fact that a "future pope would establish a false liberal religion linked with the Antichrist" but we are not speaking here of the future, but of the past and yes, present. We have on authority none other than Our Lady herself who warned of this. Why are not the bishops railing against Our Lady of LaSalette? Did not the Mother of God say to the children in the mountainous regions of LaSalette in the mid 19th century the ominous message that: "Rome will lose the Faith, and become the seat of the Antichrist"?

Did not the Blessed Mother say at Fatima that if Russia is not consecrated to her Immaculate Heart then her errors would spread? Was this not before Lenin even came to power? Has Russia's error spread? Is the Pope Catholic? Maybe I should rephrase that. Does the Pope see a bear in the woods? And if he does, does he recognize it as the great symbol of the Soviet Union whose fur is furled with the hammer & sickle dripping with the blood of millions and millions of Catholics who have been over the years sold out by the very ones who should have protected them, at the very least spoken out on their behalf in an act of heroic virtue. But alas, they did not for Metz and also the Pact of Balamand would not permit it for fear it would upset the applecart of ecumenism. Horrors if that were to happen. And so today as September arrives we are faced with the following predicaments:

1. America is bogged down in the unyielding and shifting sand of Iraq, enmeshed and trapped as a lone participant in the quagmire that no one wants - that even the citizens of Iraq have no idea how to solve. Our Lady clearly warned that the second time the U.S. went back into Iraq it would not be the same as in 1991. Indeed, once again that impeccable source from Heaven is right on. 2. The Holy Father - in the twilight of his life, should at least try to undo some of the damage.

Yes Joe, the people are not doing their share, but they have no leadership, to rally them.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 22, 2003.

I agree with you (as does George Weigel, Fr Benedict Groeschel, and many other Catholics) that there is a leadership crisis in the Church, especially in the "middle management" (local bishops). For all the Pope's holiness and zeal, he's still only one bishop... he proposes, teaches, gives clear direction, but without a police and political arm (no inquisition, no Catholic ruler), he has moral authority only.

This is what many Catholics don't understand...we want heads to roll, we want priests or wayward bishops sacked, heretical theologians summarily fired, etc.... and we sit here like bumps waiting for "Rome" to do it for us! And when "the Pope" doesn't take care of our little backyard tyrant or neighborhood heretic, we suspect him of collusion or laziness...all while WE DO NOTHING!

In reality, the job of discipline falls on all local bishops - they're the one's who can and should sack heterodox teachers, punish scandalous Catholics, rein in loose canons (pun intended) and other so-called "theologians" *(which really don't study "theo" as much as they study their own navels).

Bishops - according to Canon law and the tradition of the Church, have always had authority to sack and fire wayward Catholics. But many don't use their authority because a) it requires courage b) it typically involves sacrifice and even martyrdom and c) to be effectual, discipline also requires a critical mass of FAITHFUL priests, nuns, and bold lay Catholics who will carry out the sentence... such as physically removing a stubborn professor from his classroom, or backing up an unpopular college dean who fires a wayward theologian...

But wait, there's more! (as the commercials say). Lay people can "discipline" wayward fellow lay people and pastors as well! In Canon Law, we laity have rights to hear the faith taught as the Church teaches it! It's false advertising for a theologian to teach his own personal view, or for a pastor to dabble in liturgical "experiments"... We laity can withhold funding, withhold cooperation....or conversely, so occupy their time with our helpful suggestions that they are cowered into obedience!

Think about it: what's more useful for that wayward person? To be confronted by an outraged parent or lay person, or to be constantly bombarded with helpful tips, suggestions, birthday cards, dinner invitations, all-expense-paid-trips to a good spiritual exercise or retreat...etc?

See, I'm all for the combative side of apologetics - I know the faith WELL, and can defend it against ANYONE. But winning an argument is only half the battle. Insofar as it may help 99% of people who are lurkers, I will dismantle and destroy someone...on-line. But for that 1% of people who really believe in their heterdox heresy or schism... being proven wrong on-line doesn't help very much.

That's why, - a la St Paul with the Corinthians - in person, I prefer to take people out to dinner or have a BBQ, in the hopes that good cheer and beer will help us come to an understanding that is beneficial to their eternal salvation.

My beef with heretics and schismatics is not their persons but with their erroneous ideas! We are not supposed to unconditionally tolerate ideas (they could be good or bad, healthy or insane)...but are are supposed to tolerate and indeed more than that, LOVE the people who may have such ideas.

So while I think many people have wrong ideas, I don't think "they're wrong". As the good priest Fr Van Straaten told me once "People are always better than you think they are."

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 23, 2003.

Joe; Thanks for a well thought out, and thorough reply. What are we as laymen to do? Whereis our power or voice? They will not, {in their arrogance], listen to reason. The only answer that always hits home, is the purse strings. Oh yes, that will wake them up!

I, for one am giving it a try. Mony is better spent donating to crisis pregnancy shelters.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 23, 2003.

Joe, you are very blessed to have known the late Fr. Wehrenfried van Straaten. Through frequent contact with Aid to the Church in Need, I was able to follow the last 15 years (or so) of his holy life.
I think that he will probably be beatified in your lifetime. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 23, 2003.