Vatican II “Compromise” Documents as Creative Tension

The blog excerpt below speaks of the willingness to hold opposite viewpoints in creative tension as the “Spirit of Vatican II”.

We ask these questions in response to that viewpoint:

  • Is Roman Rite Catholicism able to hold opposite views in “creative tension” WHEN it sees itself alone as the Holy See …When it defines itself in terms of “the papacy or the papal court?”  …When it views its Roman Rite Catholicism as claim of supremacy over all other Catholic Rite/Churches. 

  • Was it not the very Second Ecumenical Vatican Council which WAS able to hold opposing views in tension because it represented a larger body of Catholicism than simply Roman Rite Catholicism?
    • The Vatican II Council of 1962-65 brought forth “compromise” documents through the work of a larger Catholic Church which included both Rome and its 22 other non-Roman Catholic Rite/Churches in union with Rome.

  • Was it the participation of these other rites/churches in union with Rome
    (along with the non-voting participation of other non-Roman Christian rites/churches) which helped hold the creative tension spoken of as the “Spirit of Vatican II”?  …a creative tension inscribed within the “compromise” documents of Vatican II?

  • And was it these very ecumenically-created Catholic “compromise” documents which resulted in the world-wide response to the “Spirit of Vatican II”?

  • Was the Holy Spirt unleashed at Vatican II by the very gathering of many Catholic rites in addition and in balance to the Roman Rite which considers itself the elder brother and hierarchical leader of all the Catholic Rite/Churches?

  • Think about it…and share your thoughts below.  Thanks from all at

“The Vatican II documents in many places are compromise documents that smooth over some of the major conflicts without resolving them. Thus the decree on the Church talks about collegiality on the one hand but absolute papal authority on the other. The decree on the Liturgy says: “Lingua Latina est lingua Ecclesiae” (variously translated as “Latin is the language of the Church.” “Latin is a church language.” “A Latin language [Italian?] is a language of the Church.” etc.) but at the same time opens the way for the widespread use of the vernacular…

…One can’t absolutize church authority to the point that there is no room for the active participation of the laity in the liturgy. Similarly, one cannot stress the hierarchical nature of the Church to the point where the Church becomes identified with the Bishops and Pope with no place for the laity or to the point where it negates the notion of the Church as the people of God.

These ideas have to be held in creative tension as the Church adapts to the needs of the time. As such they form the basis for sisterly and brotherly dialog as to where the contemporary Church should fall within the extremes. For example, we need to address the question: How should hierarchical oversight be exercised so as to encourage the active participation of the faithful….

…Perhaps the willingness to hold this “creative tension” when reading and interpreting the documents of Vatican II is a big part of what is meant by “the Spirit of Vatican II.”

………………………..Source of above blog excerpt:
The Wild Reed: Truth About “Spirit of Vatican II” Finally Revealed!


Abajo está la traducción de “Dare we Catholics Believe Differently?” on this website.

¿O quizá, aún no hemos entendido la naturaleza o grado de cambio al que él Espíritu Santo nos pidió y contInua ´pidiéndonos a partir del Concilio Vaticano II?

Algunos católicos ven las últimas décadas desde una perspectiva distinta… una erosión de la fé en nuestras doctrinas.

Pero otros ven el Vaticano II como un don del Espiritu Santo, un llamado de Dios que nos pide renovar nuestros puntos de vista de la doctrina… y si éste fuera el caso, hay necesidad de deconstruir en profundidad “cómo eran nuestras creencias antes y como quizá lo sigan siendo hasta el día de hoy”







No se trata de cambiar o quebrantar la teología del Rito Romano,
la cual mantiene a la institución focalizada, en la certeza y seguridad, del día a día en el mundo, sino manteniendo una teología amigable en su unión con Roma…
…desde la perspectiva de un mundo en constante proceso de adaptación, ante los sucesivos cambios;
…que cada teología cuestione a la otra en nuestra Fé diversa en Jesús, el Cristo y nuestra proclamación al mundo, de la Buena Nueva.

Fé diversa, que habla desde dos perspectivas diferentes 

  • El Catolicismo del Rito Romano habla desde la perspectiva de una “fuerza poderosa”, de un Dios jerárquico, inmutable, omnisciente, todopoderoso, que lo sabe todo, que está en todas partes, un dios que diseñó el universo conforme a su voluntad.
  • El Catolicismo Rito Vaticano II, habla desde la perspectiva de la fuerza “débil” de un Dios, que llama y promete, pero no ordena, espera una respuesta pero no la exige. El Nombre de este Dios contiene un evento que nos dilata, más allá de lo que sabemos, o tenemos certeza, de hacia dónde debemos ir,
    hacia un orden distinto del jerarquico, (quizá es la teoría del orden interno del caos).

…un Dios que se mantiene “ un paso atrás”, y que nos que revela lo mucho que tendemos a apoyarnos en la fuerza y en el poder

… una voluntad divina que modela y solicita el perdón, la hospitalidad y el amor al otro: el factor determinante de quién descubre o “entra” en el Reino de Dios.

Muchas gracias a Luisa Maria Rivera por su traducción de este artículo!

Ver, compartir, descargar:  Explorando el Camino Del Concilio al Nuevo Rito:

Documento de posición:  Para resolver la polarización iglesia

Por favor comparta sus pensamientos!

Sisters Lea and Consilia





HOW does Jesus save?

Rite Beyond Rome responds to MORE GOOD THINKING on

Jesus is saviour: what does it mean?

by Francis @, Kingsgrove, NSW, Saturday, April 08, 2017, 04:44 (8 hours, 9 minutes ago) @ Ynot

“It was like a rising from the dead…” doesn’t explain the transformation of the disciples after Pentecost, or the comment in Acts that “it was impossible for death to hold him”. Again, “if Christ did not rise” quoting St Paul in I Corinthians 15, our faith is in vain and our sins are not forgiven.”   M (courtesy of Francis)

Rite Beyond Rome responds:

How can we understand the Christ rising, apart from the traditional sense?
Must that rising be constrained in traditional belief in a physical flesh and blood way?
Or is there a rising that goes beyond such a physical phenomenon?
A rising of spirit that cannot be destroyed no matter the forces of evil against it…
a transformation like Pentecost perhaps?

      *     *     *     *     *

We know in our bones that love saves…
when it is larger than its often idolatrous or cultic variations…
when love is what we call divine.

Is it Jesus who saves by his physical death and rising?
Does salvation depend on the acceptance/obedience/practice of
Jesus’ often crucifying practice and message to
“Love one another as I have loved you”…?
Is it the embrace and practice of this Jesus love that “does” the actual saving?

Is it this very loving that forgives sins…because such love cannot hold judgments and hurts in the same breath as the divine love to which Jesus calls us?
Is it this humanly divine practice of love that makes it impossible
for physical death to hold us?

Our thanks for the questions M called forth through Francis for the coming Holy Week…

Sisters Lea and Consilia

Ours is just one of many responses to Tony Lawless’ essay, “A Palm Sunday reflection on the meaning of Obedience”


Reform Roman Catholicism, A Rational Alternative?

Poor Pope Francis, his hands are tied by literal interpretations of tradition regarding women’s ordination, GLBT, Communion for the divorced and other issues.

As Patriarch of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church; he is caught between a rock and a hard place…between:

  • ancient interpretations of papal leadership rooted in monarchical male dominion with its considerable $$$ support
  • modern understandings of leadership rooted in a cultural consciousness which rejects monarchic models for that of democratic unity.

How ironic is it that democracy-oriented “Catholics for reform” maintain that Pope Francis should speak as a monarch and command the Roman Rite to change.  How strange it is that reform-minded Catholics also express great satisfaction when  Pope Francis demotes or dismisses Romanist ultra-conservatives from office, no?

Doesn’t this type of reform-minded Catholicism wind up advancing the same “get rid of the opposition” uniformity position…a position that reformist Catholics have long criticized Romanist Catholics for using against Vatican II cardinals, bishops and pastors?

Despite the Roman Catholic position for a tradition against change,
reform-minded Catholics console themselves with the belief that Roman Catholicism will change eventually, even if they do not live to see that change.

A thousand years ago, Roman Rite Catholicism could not force the Eastern Catholic Churches to accept and practice Western interpretations of catholic theology, governance, and liturgy.  And so they worked out a settlement.

The settlement worked out to keep unity between East and West.  You might call the settlement a “toleration policy”…allowing Eastern Rite/Church differences such as married priests and collegial governance… as long as they promised to recognize the Patriarch of Rome as head of the Catholic Church.

This tradition of “friendly toleration” has been applied most recently with the Anglican Catholic Rite/Church which promises union with the Pope as Patriarch of Rome.   SO, why can’t dissent on this matter of women’s ordination and other matters be resolved by our Church’s ancient “toleration” policy…Roman Rite toleration of a Vatican II Rite/Church with its different interpretations and practices of theology, governance and liturgy?  …a Vatican II Rite in union with Rome?   Why not?

Dare We Catholics Believe Differently?

Literal & Poetic Interpretations of Catholicism, the real split?

Vatican II…Going the Way of Climate Change?

Like the adversaries of the climate change movement, many in the Church pacify themselves with the idea that change happens in centuries.   Trouble is, we don’t live any longer in an age where change happens strictly at a century-by-century pace.

Meanwhile, the Spirit of Vatican II as a “game-changer* “is locked away securely in a Roman vault where it can be safely guarded, controlled and memorialized.

*game-changer…that which changes
the way things are thought about,
the way things are done,
the way things relate to each other in new contexts.

Pope Francis is a game-changer in his own way, yet even he keeps the Spirit of Vatican II away from the “rooms” where doctrine is stored, making his game-changing moves dependent on his own longevity, health, and good will.

Theologians and others, who work to revive Vatican II within the Roman Church these days, do their reform work very carefully so as not to disturb the organization that can make or break their careers.

Many espouse the belief that the Church is working at the Holy Spirit’s pace.  And who determines the Holy Spirit’s pace?

COULD WE BE FAILING TO REALIZE??…THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT MIGHT BE DEPENDING ON OUR COURAGE to bring Vatican II  out from under Rome’s claim of sole control over the interpretation and implementation of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council in our world and Church?

Rome is perfectly free to normalize or spiritualize Vatican II and its implementation within Roman Rite Catholicism, but NOT within the realm of universal Catholicism.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, brother-rite/church to 22 other Catholic rites/churches which were also full voting members of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council of the Catholic Church. These 23 other Catholic rites/churches are in full union with the Roman Rite/Church.

As some are perfectly free to go on ignoring the threat of CLIMATE CHANGE…TO THE PERIL OF OUR CHILDREN AND AND OUR CHILDREN’S CHILDREN’S CHILDREN…

…so, too, Catholics are likewise perfectly free to sit back and allow Vatican II to fade into the background of our unchanging Church…citing age, helplessness, or despair as reasons for not heeding the threat of the very extinction of Catholicism and perhaps even Christianity itself.

* **********************************************************************

There are alternatives to schism when we envision the future of the Church…alternatives NOT based on changing the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. There is also an alternative NOT based on forming another catholic church separated from Rome.

In fact, the alternative already exists among us by virtue of all the local Vatican II communities, both throughout the world and online. Together we comprise a Vatican II Church, whether Roman Rite Catholicism recognizes us or not. This Catholic Branch/Rite exists whether or not we ourselves recognize it. History will declare what has already taken place through the work of the Holy Spirit among us!

Remember, the Jerusalem followers of Jesus never could have known they were founding a Catholic Church, much less the 23 other present-day official Catholic Rites in union with Rome.  So, too, we do not know what Church history will claim about us…nor should we base our work today on what others will write or think about us in the future.

We may dismiss the idea of a Vatican II Branch/Rite of Catholicism because we dread the work of creating a new organizational structure.   But think…a Vatican II branch of Catholicism in union with Rome might be bi-rite (belonging to both Roman and Vatican II Rites) much as Early Christians were both Jewish and Christian.

We’d love to hear your ideas on all this!
To comment, click on title of this post and scroll down to bottom of page.

For Download of PDF Discussion Points:

Warm regards to all,
Sisters Lea and Consilia

“The Church in the Trump Era: Catholicism or Americanism?”…or Something Else?

In reply to Massimo Faggioli’s article:  “The Church in the Trump Era: Catholicism or Americanism?”  published 11.14.2016 on

Massimo Faggioli writes, “There is the problem of political and cultural polarization within [the American] Church” and notes “this problem goes beyond the bishops and includes some American theologians, Catholic colleges and universities, and organized lay associations such as the Knights of Columbus.”

When Massimo writes this about the American Catholic Church, he comes close to identifying by name the most influential arm of Catholic neo-conservatism embedded both financially and theologically in the WORLDWIDE Catholic Church from the Vatican down to local parishes…Opus Dei.

Opus Dei was founded in the 1930’s and has since spread to over 16 countries.  In 1982, Pope John Paul II created a new juridical status for this neo-conservative Catholic clerical/lay group…the “personal prelature” as special canonical recognition by the Roman Catholic Church.  As such, it claims to eschew political involvement in its preaching and practice, while other sources claim its mission is to infiltrate the highest spheres of political, economic and cultural power.  Another neo-conservative revisionist group, the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, was offered “personal prelature” status by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012.

Opus Dei has been operating a strong recruiting campaign for young professionals, prospective seminarians and other college students in the USA and other countries since long before the 1995 America Magazine article about them…

Couldn’t this neo-conservative revisionist bastion of revisionist Catholicism have something to do with:

  • the neo-conservative relationship of the U.S. bishops with Pope Francis?
  • the neo-conservative relationship of American Catholics toward their governments?

Remembering that the well-organized Opus Dei papal prelature is doing its faithful work in many other countries beside the USA,

  • could this be part of the reason for the rise of neo-conservative political movments in other countries?

Massimo says: “a rather urgent and dramatic question for Catholics in this great country…deep at the heart of the future of the Church in the United States is the fundamental choice between being a Roman Catholic Church in America or being an Americanist Catholic Church.”

There could be a third choice here, no?   Since Roman Catholicism, beginning with the U.S., is increasingly coming to be defined by revisionist neo-conservative movements of the Roman Catholic Church, shouldn’t the U.S. and Catholics worldwide have the choice to be part of a Vatican II Rite in union with Rome?

*    *    *    *   *   *   *   *   *

Comment above does NOT appear in article comment section at above address also shown here:

Comment above DOES appear at this La Croix address

Traditionalists, a “tiny segment of the Catholic Church”…REALLY?

“Civil war in the global church?
Is there really a war in the Church between ‘loyal Catholics’ committed to upholding the unchanging traditions and teachings of the Church and ‘progressives’ who have watered down Church doctrine and practice?”  Article by Robert Mickens
La Croix International 10.21.16  

Sister Lea’s Comment on the above article censored by LA CROIX International:

Traditionalists, a “tiny segment of the Catholic faithful and hierarchy? REALLY?

“…the heads of Europe’s 33 national episcopal conferences…gathered to elect a new president of the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences. They settled on Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco of Italy, a choice that can only be seen as a direct challenge to Pope Francis.”

Commonweal Magazine 10.12.16 “Bagnasco elected in challenge to Francis”by Robert Mickens

With no Vatican II Rite/Branch of Catholicism in union with Rome, the strong outreach of traditionalists is succeeding in filling the vacuum left by disillusioned and disappeared Vatican II Catholics (and their children).

A “new style of ministry, but no new doctrine”?

“It is clear that a new ecclesial style is being called for, and this new style requires an understanding of the variety of situations that must be dealt with,” said Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

Source: Vatican official: Amoris Laetitia calls for new style of ministry, but no new doctrine : News Headlines | Catholic Culture

Our response:
IS IT all about “a new ecclesial style”? 
Be kind to Catholics and they will come flooding back into the Church?
Sounds like news commentators on the U.S. election…
where  “poise and style” are more important than truth and facts.

For Catholics, DOCTRINE is truth and facts (or at least it is supposed to be)
…so we better get doctrine right with Vatican II…
right with the Vatican II orientation to God, self and other…
if Vatican II is to make any substantial contribution to the modern world.

Roman Rite Catholicism brings immutability and permanence to the Church
in the belief that these are gifts of God .
“New style ministry” will serve Roman Rite Catholicism very well,
smoothing over hurts inflicted on individuals in the past,
comforting those who long for stability in a world of change.

Vatican II Catholicism, however, honors aggiornamento (“the act of bringing something up to date to meet current needs”) as gift of the Holy Spirit.
This aggiornamento for Vatican II Catholics means more than
updating ministry style or incorporating the internet as a means of evangelization.

“New style ministry”  is not enough aggiornamento for Vatican II Catholics! 
Scientific facts about the universe, human sexuality, climate change, etc…
for many Catholics, perceptions on these have all changed significantly
since the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council of 1962-1965.
In order to actualize a more profound aggiornamento, the Catholic Church needs
a Vatican II Catholic Rite/Church in union with Rome.

Vatican II Rite aggiornamento means transvaluing the very core
of Catholic belief and practice
in much the same way that
Judaism had to transvalue itself after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.
Permanent Temple Destruction for Judaism required far more than
simple revision of Temple/high priest-oriented theology and practice.

Destruction of the Jewish Temple required a total re-build of its core theology and practicearound home, synagogue, and Sabbath
as the new “presence of God” experience.
It required what Jacob Neuser, author of numerous works on the history of Judaism,
called TRANSVALUTION:“Everything had to be re-classified according to new information”…from values and interpretation of history to practice to
“unprecedented rereading of established symbols in fresh and striking ways…”

When Matthew Fox responds to Bishop Spong’s
“12 Principles and the Future of Religion,”
he is writing about doctrinal transvaluation in terms of a Vatican II+ orientation.

Roman Rite Catholicism has no desire or need for doctrinal transvaluation.
Vatican II Rite Catholicism needs it desperately!
Agree?  or Disagree?

Sisters Lea and Consilia

On “When bishops give up on episcopal conferences” – Massimo Faggioli

“One aspect typical of Catholicism today is the division among bishops. The first division follows geo-cultural fault lines…
…The bishops of the region of Buenos Aires in Argentina (endorsing Amoris Laetitia) talking about the possibility for divorced and remarried Catholics who cannot live “in chastity”to receive communion after a process of discernment with their pastor.
…In North America the bishops…deny the idea that the Synod and Amoris Laetitia brought any kind of change…

what is happening in the reception of Amoris Laetitia among bishops shows… the difference between the pastoral reception and what I am calling the worldview or Weltanschauung reception.”

Source: When bishops give up on episcopal conferences – Global Pulse Magazine

Response to above article: “Weltanschauung bishops” of the Romanist persuasion have successfully silenced Vatican II pastoral bishops over the past 30+ years in the USA, Canada and other countries. The few Vatican II bishops who remain are not likely to speak against brother bishops steeped in “Weltanschauung” theology.

This is no “truly strange reversal of fortune,” as Massimo calls it, for there are two distinctly different voices speaking in God’s name for Catholicism: the Roman literal voice and the theopoetic-leaning voice of Vatican II. Theology, governance, pastoral concerns and liturgy fall to each different side according to the literal/poetic cultural divide.

There are people on both sides of this Catholic cultural divide, each trying to change and/or disparage the other’s position, with the Vatican II side having become disillusioned by the dominant “Weltanschauung” Catholicism.

Isn’t it time to declare the existence of a Vatican II Catholic Rite/Church in union with the Roman Rite/Church and the 22 Eastern Catholic Rite/Churches which are also in union with Rome?

Sisters Lea and Consilia




Catholic Culture’s “Split Mind”

Some believe we have gone far beyond the need for “aggorniamento,” i.e. updating” of church structures, language and reconnecting to the culture in the vernacular.

Perhaps we have just begun the aggorniamento process which needs to acknowledge that we have arrived at a split mind within the Western/Latin Branch of Catholicism…a place where Roman and Vatican II Catholics see things so very differently, that we speak two very different cultural languages as Catholics, akin to the 1054 East-West mystical/scholastic split mind in Catholicism, including the Eastern Churches which remained in union with Rome.

This “split mind” in our Church drove the direction of Vatican II and, according to the article below and other sources, this “minority mind” had such a great influence on the Church that we are still wrestling with its contributions today.

It was, after all, Patriarch Maximos and his small Melkite band in a sea of Latin Rite hierarchs, who managed to introduce such items as:

  • the use of the vernacular,
  • eucharistic concelebration,
  • communion under both species in the Latin liturgy,
  • restoration of the diaconate as a permanent order,
  • creation of what would become the periodically held Synod of Bishops
  • creation of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity,
    • championing new attitudes to and less offensive vocabulary in ecumenical relationships with Eastern Orthodox and other Christians,
      • recognition of Eastern Catholic communities for what they are, “Churches,” not “rites.”

From “Eastern Christians in Australia” by Lawrence Cross in Australian eJournal of Theology 19.2(August 2012)

So, we ask, “Should so many be so hesitant of even addressing the option of a Vatican II Rite standing next to its 22 Eastern siblings in union with “elder sibling” Rome?

Sisters Lea and Consilia


On “Relearning critical obedience and faithful dissent” by Massimo Faggioli

Massimo, you say, “…there is actually a deep theological and cultural rift around

ecclesiology and in particular about the role of Vatican II in the practical ecclesiology of Catholicism today.”

Could there be at least two different valid interpretations of our Catholic faith, not just “continuity and rupture” or “obedience and dissent”?

As you well know, there is a split between the literal and “poetic” interpretations of Catholicism, well-documented by Catholic philosopher/theologian John D. Caputo in his books, RELIGION WITHOUT RELIGION, THE WEAKNESS OF GOD, and THE INSISTENCE OF GOD.

Vatican II pointed us in the poetic direction while retaining the literal hermeneutic. Might we have need for both literal and poetic interpretations of theology, governance and liturgy in the Church today?…

As for the Church, she has the tradition to address this problem in her agreement to allow differing interpretations of theology, governance and liturgy within the 22 other rites beyond her Roman walls. Apparently the Catholic Church, including the Roman patriarchy of earlier time, was not so hell-bent on its hegemony over Catholicism as it is today, you think?

To read original article with comment: Relearning critical obedience and faithful dissent – Global Pulse Magazine

Literal & Poetic Interpretations of Catholicism, the real split?

For too long, we have not tackled the task of transvaluing* the very important doctrines which have provided structure and meaning to our faith…for so long.
Could our Catholic doctrines have been so guarded and locked down that they gradually diminished in ability to develop their fullness of spirit in each modern age,
culminating in the rejection of Catholicism so evident today?

As more than one theologian has said, we DO need “right” theology.
We also need to transvalue,* not dilute it, according to each new epoch.
The problem, of course, lies in what is the “right theology” and
what is vehicle for the faith which has carried us into the 21st century.
There are and always will be great differences of opinion on this question.

However, too many people today cannot “buy” the essence of Christianity
according to the literal “died for our sins” version
that many still hold so very sacred.
This rejection of theological understanding in the Catholic Church today
is likewise going on in other Christian denominations.

There is a split  between the literal and “poetic” versions of Catholicism
and it is well documented by philosopher/theologian John D.  Caputo in his books,

Could there be at least two different valid interpretations of our Catholic faith
…not just “continuity and rupture”?
Vatican II pointed us in the poetic direction while retaining the literal hermeneutic.
Might we have need for both literal and poetic interpretations
of theology, governance and liturgy in the Church today?
…even if that means “allowing” (if not “fostering”) the development of a new rite
in our Church which has managed to “allow” 22 other rites in union with the Roman Rite of the Jerusalem Church of Saints Peter and Paul and the earliest Christians?

Sisters Lea and Consilia welcome your feedback…even a “like” if you are so inclined.


*transvalue here meaning:  “To represent or evaluate something according to a new principle, causing it to be revalued” differently…with the “new principle” being the work of the Holy Spirit in Vatican II and the world.

See Position Paper:  Resolving Polarization of Vatican II and Roman Catholic Visions

No Vatican II Rite!  What Loss to World and Church

“Huge gap separates Pope Francis from liturgical traditionalists” by Massimo Faggioli

Our comment below on Massimo Faggioli’s article…comment censored by Global Pulse Magazine  (GPM article link below):

“We appreciate Massimo Faggioli’s hope that Vatican II Church is going to make a come-back. However, in the few short years Pope Francis has, do you really believe he can reverse the massive “particular sympathy and irenic attitude” towards traditionalism” imbibed by the Catholic population and taught in many universities, seminaries, parishes and publications worldwide for the past 30+ years?

Furthermore, with the dying off of so many Vatican II Catholic clergy, theologians and laity, should we really sit back and depend on Pope Francis to revive the Vatican II Church…against the strong and pervasive traditionalist push for a “smaller, purer Church”?

Fact is, the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has set itself up as a formidable opponent to Vatican II and its prophetic interpretations of theology, governance, liturgy and Catholic identity.  So why not let elder brother Rome stand guard over Council of Trent hermeneutics as the representative of institutional Catholicism?

Meanwhile, Pope Francis is in a position to liberate Vatican II from the hands of those who shall never see Vatican II  as anything more than a confirmation of the Council of Trent.

Pope Francis can protect the universal Church from schism by blessing the Trentonian and Vatican II traditions as “equally valid yet different” branches of Catholic thought and practice.

This move would be somewhat akin to the “separate yet one-with” brotherhood of Roman and the Eastern Church Catholicism which has a less scholastic/more mystical interpretations of Catholic theology, governance and liturgy than its Roman “elder brother”.

Otherwise, Francis dies and the Church moves comfortably back into its Curial mode of Trent Council Catholicism, as if Vatican II never really happened, no?”

Massimo Faggioli’s article: “Huge gap separates Pope Francis from liturgical tradionalists” – Global Pulse Magazine     (article published 7.18.2016)

Dare We Catholics Believe Differently?

Have we even begun to understand what degree of change the Holy
Spirit was/is calling forth from within the event of the Second Vatican Council?

Some Catholics see the past few decades…from a different viewpoint…
…as an erosion of faith in the doctrines we have…

But others look at Vatican II as a gift of the Holy Spirit,
as God calling forth a whole new perspective on doctrine…
in which case, there is the need for a very deep deconstruction of
“how we believed before and often still do now.”

A deconstruction of Catholic belief
down to the very bedrock of our faith…

leaving behind
cherished understandings of doctrine…
in order to get to the root of doctrine
and its applications for our time.

NOT to change or break down Roman Rite theology …
which keeps the institution focused on certainty and security in the everyday world,
BUT to be a “next-door” theology in union with Rome…
……..from the point of a world constantly adapting to change…
…that each theology may call forth and challenge the other 
in our uncommon faith
in Jesus the Christ and our proclamation of the Good News to the world.

Uncommon Faith speaking from two different perspectives:

+Roman Rite Catholicism from the perspective of the “strong force” of a
…hierarchical, unchanging, all-knowing, all powerful God who is everywhere,
a God who designed the universe according to the order of His Will.

+ Vatican II Rite Catholicism from the perspective of the “weak” strength of a
…God that calls and promises but doesn’t command, awaits response but doesn’t demand.
The Name of which God carries an event that stretches us
beyond what we know to where we are certain we must go,
to an order other than hierarchy (the internal order of chaos theory perhaps),
…a divine “stepping back” which reveals how much we tend to rely on force as power,
…a divine will that models and solicits forgiveness, hospitality and love of the other
as the determining factors of who discovers or “gets into” the kingdom of God

More on Vatican II Theology to come on Rite Beyond Rome.
Meanwhile, read John D. Caputo’s books:
On Religion and The Weakness of God, A Theology of the Event with us.
Interested in conversation…comment below and/or email

View, share, download:

Position Paper:  Resolving Polarization of Vatican II and Roman Catholic Visions

Sisters Lea and Consilia

A Whole New Branch of Catholicism?

For some the path to a healthier church is about waiting for the orthodox positions of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church to change.

Others see no hope in this patient hopefulness…no hope that “patient hopefulness” will eventually resolve the polarization afflicting the Catholic Church in a post-Vatican II age.

Once Judaism had to face a similar case of on-going polarization within itself.  From this realization flowed the diversified branches of orthodox, conservative and reform interpretations of their faith.

What if we are in need of a three-pronged Catholicism…orthodox, conservative and reform?

  • Not such a strange idea as it seems, if you check out “Will Catholicism go the way of Judaism?” by Marquette University theologian, Daniel Maguire.*
  • Why even Pope Francis sees the need for a “multi-faceted unity” of faith in Cardinal Kasper’s article, “Vatican II: Toward a Multifaceted Unity,” (ORIGINS, July 2, 2015)**

Catholicism is not new to the idea of branching out.  Rome, Antioch and Alexandria are today three branches of the original Christian “mother” Church in Jerusalem.  Has the time come to officially recognize a Vatican II Branch of Catholicism?

We could say Holy Mother Church has already conceived a new Vatican II vision by the Holy Spirit at Vatican II.  That vision is the seed of a new branch of Catholicism born in the documents and in the people who experienced the implementation of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council and in those who were later influenced by it.


The Roman Branch of Catholicism was reared and educated in scholasticism, systematic theo-logic and an ethics of justice.

The yet-to-be-proclaimed Vatican II Branch has been nurtured in a conciliar commitment to “the construction of a new form of the church adequate to the demands of our age” as Richard R. Gaillardetz puts it.*

This new form of Church would, according to Gaillardetz, include:

  • dialogical engagement compared to hierocratic monoply on truth
  • mutual respect between clergy and laity, differing from a hierarchy of respect
  • pastoral approach to doctrinal formation  in contrast to a scholastic approach
  • unity-in-difference committed to humble learning from each other

In his book , An Unfinished Council, Chapter 4, “Toward a New Ecclesial Form,” Richard Gaillardetz does not suggest the formation of a new branch of Catholicism, but rather a rebuilding of the temple from within the ruins of the old temple by means of a “synthesized reading” of the documents of Vatican II.

We do not find this solution to be a fair assessment of Roman Catholicism and its contributions to the Church.

  • Roman Catholicism is hardly a temple in ruins. It has complete control of the Church.
    • Even though that complete control has driven many from the pews,
      Roman Rite Catholicism has a very faithful following of cardinals, bishops and people who want the the church to return to the highly-structured Roman system of theology/doctrine, governance and liturgy.
  • Not to mention, there will always be people who find support in highly-structured systems for the certainty and security of mind they provide. It may also be that we gravitate toward a more structured approach at different times in our lives.

There will also always be people who need a less-structured variation of Catholicism……those who need a more open Catholicism…

…much as Paul of Tarsus needed a more open interpretation of the Apostles’ original interpretation of Christianity as a Jewish sect entirely compatible with Judaism.

…much as early Catholicism later needed to make room for the Roman and Eastern Rite branches of the faith.

For these people and all those who see Vatican II as a singular event in the course of the history and future of the Catholic Church, we ask again,

Would a Vatican II Branch of the Church be such a terrible thing?

Would it not unify the Catholic Church and PREVENT schism?

Would it not it make the Church MORE healthy and LESS myopic?

For more information:
For further discussion:

Links below are to sources quoted in this article:



Continue reading

No Vatican II Rite! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Loss to World & Church!

Ah, so Vatican II was just another one of those Church Councils, was it?

Well, no, it was obviously a very dangerous Council because it could have changed today’s Church and World had it not been perceived as a threat to Roman Rite Catholicism.

“Keep it from rupturing the Church” has been the main concern of post-Vatican II popes.  “Spiritualize it…Merge it into the Roman Rite and we will be all the better for it.”

Pope Francis takes a different turn. His strategy is to socialize Vatican II by focusing it on helping the poor and away from doctrinal change which undergirds Roman hierarchical structure.

Is the World better off without the full implementation of Vatican II as a new Catholic Rite with its open vs. closed system approach to World and Church?

Let’s see…Would we have …

▪    Massive failure of Christian conscience in regard to world response to the global immigrant crisis…a crisis too similar to the global failure of Christian conscience at the time of the Holocaust.  Such moral failure, including the introduction of nuclear warfare, were major reasons the Second Vatican Council was convened.

Would we be engaged in the following global/national phenomena today if a Vatican II RITE had emerged out of the Council by the 1980’s?

•    Significant increase in ethnic and religious wars?
•    New rise in rampant racism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia?
•    So many favored national candidates with anti-xyz tyrannical positions?
•    First world regression into old self-satisfied nationalism and denominationalism?
•    Aggressive controversy in media (including blogs) replacing efforts at genuine dialog?
•    Corporate lobbying vs. climate control, bank regulation, and domestic programs?

IS the Church better off for having resisted the movement of Vatican II toward a paradigm shift in theology, governance and liturgy?

Let’s see…would there have been…

▪    Long and strong resistance to accountability for the clergy sex abuse scandal, especially at higher bureaucratic levels?

▪    Conservative/liberal rupture within the Church…with parishes, religious communities and families split asunder…even the Church itself.

▪    Unprecedented and continued loss of practicing and dedicated Catholics from parishes in much of the world…including loss of vocations to priesthood and religious life…including loss of women to ordained ministry.

According to Cardinal Kasper: “We have neither fully implemented the council nor really received the post-conciliar documents; they have remained without consequence.  We are at a standstill.”  (Cardinal Kasper, ORIGENS, July 2, 2015 (Volume 45, No. 9)  “Vatican II: Toward a Multifaceted Unity”)

Has Vatican II been resisted as a Council because it is such a paradigm shift in perspective from Roman Catholicism…so much so  that…

…in order to become once again an effective moral influence in the modern world,

…We desperately need a Vatican II Rite?
…alongside the 23 other different inter-independent Catholic Rites,
…a Vatican II Rite to stand in sisterly/brotherly union with Rome?    

Think about it!   To Comment: Click on title of article and scroll to bottom of page.


Blessings and thanks for reading and thinking about this!
Sisters Lea and Consilia et al

“La Iglesia en la era de Trump: ¿Catolicismo o Americanismo?” … o, ¿algo distinto?

Abajo está la traducción de “The Church in the Trump Era: Catholicism or Americanism?”…or Something Else?” on this website.

En respuesta al artículo de Massimo Faggioli: “La Iglesia en la era de Trump: ¿Catolicismo 0 Americanismo?”, publicado el 14.XI.16 en:

Massimo Faggioli escribe, “Existe un problema de polarización política y cultural en la Iglesia (Norte Americana)” y precisa, “este problema va más allá de los Obispos e incluye a: algunos Teólogos norteamericanos, colegios y universidades Católicas, así como a laicos organizados en Asociaciones tales como los Caballeros de Colón.”

Cuando Massimo escribe esto sobre la Iglesia Católica Norteamericana, está a punto de identificar por su nombre al brazo neoconservador Católico con más influencia, incrustado en las áreas teológica y financiera de la Iglesia Católica a NIVEL MUNDIAL, desde el Vaticano hasta las parroquias: el Opus Dei.

El Opus Dei se fundó en 1930 y desde entonces se ha extendido a 16 países. En 1982, el Papa Juan Pablo II creó un nuevo estatus jurídico para este grupo neoconservador conformado por clérigos y laicos: la “personal prelatura” como un reconocimiento especial canónico, otorgado por la Iglesia Católica Romana. Como tal, declara que evita involucrarse en la política en sus prédicas y en sus actividades; pero al mismo tiempo otras fuentes afirman que su misión es infiltrarse en las esferas más altas del poder político, financiero y cultural. Otro grupo revisionista y neoconservador es la tradicionalista Sociedad de San Pio X, a la que el Papa Benedicto XVI le ofreció el estatus de “personal prelatura”.

El Opus Dei ha venido desarrollando una fuerte campaña de reclutamiento entre jóvenes profesionales, prospectos para el seminario y estudiantes de estudios superiores en USA y otros países desde antes de 1995. Ver el artículo sobre este tema en el America Magazine:

Es muy probable que este bastión neo-conservador y de un Catolicismo revisionista haya tenido algo que ver con:

  • La relación neo-conservadora de los Obispos de USA con el Papa Francisco
  • La relación neoconservadora de los católicos estadounidenses hacia sus gobernantes

Sin olvidar que la bien organizada prelatura papal Opus Dei lleva a cabo su trabajo en numerosos países, además de en USA

  • Podría ser esta la razón del incremento de movimientos políticos neoconservadores en otros países.

Massimo dice: “Una pregunta dramática y urgente para los católicos en este gran país… en lo profundo del corazón del futuro de la Iglesia en los Estados Unidos, es la elección fundamental entre ser una Iglesia Romana en Norteamérica, o una Iglesia Católica Americanista.”

Muchas gracias a Luisa Maria Rivera por su traducción de este artículo!

Traducción en Inglés de este post de rito más allá de Roma incluye este párrafo:
“There could be a third choice here, no?   Since Roman Catholicism, beginning with the USA, is increasingly coming to be defined by revisionist neo-conservative movements of the Roman Catholic Church, shouldn’t the U.S. and Catholics worldwide have the choice to be part of a Vatican II Rite in union with Rome, yet more open to the world?”

Eucharist: My Broken Bread

“Unless you let your bread break and bless and feed others,
you will have no life in you.”
When he said it, they walked away.

Nearly everyone’s looking for better life,
more life, greater life than what is given.

Where’s it at?  Or is there no such thing?
Where’s it at and do I want to go there?

MY bread, MY everything,
My everything I think important,
I need let it break?
How could that be?

Let my bread be broke?
for WHAT?…I choke.
“No bread, No broke,
We’ll die,” they spoke.
And then they walked away.

Ah, there’s the rub against my soul:
No breaks allowed.
I want it how I want it
when, where and why.
MY Say…all else at bay.

You gotta have bread,
your very own bread.Can’t give it away
or let it be taken.

Let your bread break?
Let it BREAK?Let it break as it will?
Let it or NOT?

Broken Bread?
Won’t that make me a loser?
“Don’t we all lose our bread anyway?  Can’t take it with us.”No, …but somehow it sustains us.

Broken bread, the hopes and dreams and visions
and things that seldom come true…
’cause life don’t make itself  small enough
just all ’round me and you.

Can’t break my bread…
for life has broken it on me. “Poor me” the only bread I got…
Co-miserating’s what keeps me going
and going and going, round and round
over and over, back to where I began
…unless I let my bread break?
those precious plans for how things ought to be?
how me and you and she and he
just rightfully ought to be?

The still small voice inside
the one that calls elsewhere,
the where and how and why that has no reason or resources,
the crazy call from unknown quarters…

So, unless I let my bread break,
there will be no life in me?no life in what I do,
or just something terribly missing…

They said I’d be happy; they said I’d be safe.
Certainty and Security, my bedfellows, chafe.
Where, O where, is the bread I need break?

 by Sister Lea

Our comment on “Join the work of transformation” posted on NCR

One way we might join the work of transformation of our Church and our country is to see clearly how the present U.S. governing situation resembles the modus operandi of South American dictators trained by the U.S. School of the Americas.

William Cavanaugh has first-hand experience with the Church in Chile during the military dictatorship of General Pinochet’s reign (1973-1990), whose regime he describes as “stoking the fires of confusion and disorder” by:

  • “fragmentation and disruption of previous expected order”
  • “discrediting people and their assessments of what is happening”
  • “creating chaos to simulate the need for order” (order meaning the elimination of dissent)
  • “strategic lying and double logic” (both affirming and denying the same point in one statement)
  • “the strategic art of abnormalizing…where the people become victims of fear and anxiety.

Any of the above sound familiar?  …feel a wee bit familiar?
Of course, nothing like dictatorship could never happen in the USA?

Quotes above FROM: TORTURE and EUCHARIST by William Cavanaugh.

Chapter 2 from Cavanaugh’s book might have something to teach us all:
“The Church Learns How to be Oppressed.”   More on that to come

*  *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Above is our comment on:  National Catholic Reporter “Editorial: Join the work of transformation”


Abajo está la traducción de “Reform Roman Catholicism, A Rational Alternative?” on this website.

Pobre del Papa Francisco, con sus manos atadas por la interpretación literal sobre la posibilidad de ordenar mujeres, LGBT, comunión para las mujeres divorciadas, y otros problemas.

Como Patriarca del Rito Romano de la Iglesia Católica, está atrapádo entre una roca y un lugar duro. Antiguas interpretaciones del liderazgo papal, cimentadas en el modelo de dominio monárquico/masculino, con su considerable apoyo económico.

  • La percepción actual del liderazgo, arraigada en una conciencia cultural, que rechaza los modelos monárquicos y prefiere la unidad democrática.

Cuan irónico resulta que “Católicos por una Reforma”, con una orientación democrática, sostengan que el Papa Francisco debe hablar como un monarca y ordenarle al Rito Romano que cambie.

De igual modo parece asaz extraño que los católicos a favor de la Reforma, expresen una gran satisfacción cuando el Papa Francisco baja de puesto o despide a Romanistas ultra-conservadores, ¿o no?

¿Qué acaso este catolicismo reformista no acabará promoviendo la posición: “echar fuera toda la oposición”, llevando finalmente a un enfoque de uniformidad? Posición que los Católicos reformistas le han criticado por mucho tiempo a los Católicos Romanistas, por utilizar contra el Vaticano II a Cardenales, Obispos y Pastores.

A pesar de que la posición Católica Romana es, por tradición, contra los cambios, los católicos con una mentalidad abierta a la reforma, se consuelan pensando que el Catolicismo Romano eventualmente cambiará, aún si ellos no vivirán para ver esos cambios.

Hace alrededor de mil años, el Catolicismo del Rito Romano no pudo forzar a las Iglesias Católicas Orientales a aceptar y practicar las interpretaciones Católicas Occidentales de la teología, el gobierno y la liturgia. Ante esta situación, trabajaron para lograr un acuerdo.

El acuerdo logrado funcionó para mantener la unidad entre el Oriente y el Occidente. Puede ser que usted considere o llame este acuerdo una “Política de Tolerancia”, que le permite al Rito/Iglesia Oriental, diferencias tales como la de los sacerdotes casados o un gobierno colegial, si ellos prometían reconocer al Patriarca de Roma como cabeza de la Iglesia Católica.

Esta tradición de “tolerancia amistosa”, ha sido recientemente aplicada en el caso del Rito/Iglesia Anglicana Católica, que promete unión con el Papa como Patriarca de Roma. ENTONCES, ¿Por qué si hay un disentimiento en lo que se refiere a la ordenación de las mujeres y en otros temas, no puede nuestra Iglesia resolver este disentir, mediante su antigua política de “Tolerancia”… Rito Romano tolerancia del Rito/Iglesia Vaticano II, con sus interpretaciones y prácticas distintas de la Teología, gobierno y Liturgia?  ¿Por qué no?

¿Seremos capaces los católicos de atrevernos a creer en algo diferente?

Muchas gracias a Luisa Maria Rivera por su traducción de este artículo!




This article is a translation of our reponse to “A new style of ministry, but no new doctrine? by Massimo Faggioli” at

Fuente Oficial del Vaticano Amoris Laetitia, demanda un nuevo estilo de ministerio, no así el de una nueva doctrina :  Vatican official: Amoris Laetitia calls for new style of ministry, but no new doctrine : News Headlines | Catholic Culture
Encabezado de la sección de noticias de Cultura Católica.

“Está claro que un nuevo estilo eclesial está siendo necesario. Este nuevo estilo requiere el entender una variedad de situaciones, que tenemos que atender”, dijo el Arzobispo Vicenso Paglia, presidente del Pontificio Consejo para la Familia.

Nuestra respuesta:

¿Se trata únicamente de ésto? ¿Un cambio de estilo eclesial?

¿Sé bondadoso con los católicos y multitudes de ellos regresarán a la Iglesia?

Esto suena como los comentaristas de noticias durante las elecciones en los Estados Unidos, en cuyos comentarios parece ser que lo más importante es la compostura y el estilo, más que la verdad y los hechos.

Para los católicos, la DOCTRINA es la verdad y los hechos (al menos se supone que así debe ser)… por lo tanto deberíamos tener una doctrina en línea con el Concilio Vaticano II… en línea con la orientación hacia Dios del Vaticano II y otros aspectos… si realmente queremos que el Vaticano II haga una contribución sustancial al mundo moderno.

El Rito Católico Romano le da inmutabilidad y permanencia a la Iglesia, en la creencia que estos son dones de Dios.

“Un nuevo estilo ministerial” le hará un gran servicio al Rito Católico Romano, suavizando las heridas infligidas a algunos individuos en el pasado y confortando a aquellos que anhelan, en un mundo cambiante, estabilidad.

Por el contrario, el Catolicismo Vaticano II honra el aggiornamento (“el acto de poner al día algo, para responder o cubrir necesidades actuales”) como un regalo del Espiritu Santo.

Este aggiornamento es, para los Católicos del Vaticano II, algo más que la sola puesta al día del estilo ministerial o el incorporar el internet como un medio evangelizador.

Un nuevo estilo del ministerio no es suficiente aggiornamento para los católicos del Vaticano II.

Para muchos católicos su percepción de: los hechos científicos, del universo, la sexualidad humana, el cambio climático, etc. ha cambiado de forma significativa a partir del Concilio Ecuménico Vaticano II, efectuado en 1962 a 1965.

Para lograr actualizar un aggiornamento en toda su profun didad, la Iglesia Católica necesita una Iglesia Católica Rito Vaticano II, en unión con Roma.

El aggiornamento Rito Vaticano II significa transvalorar el centro de las creencias y prácticas católicas…

                        en gran parte parecido a lo que sucedió con el Judaismo cuando tuvo que transvalorarse a si mismo, después de la destrucción del Templo en el año 70. La destrucción permanente del templo, requirió del Judaismo algo más que una simple revisión de su Teología y prácticas orientadas hacia el Templo y el Sumo Sacerdote.

La destrucción del Templo Judio demandó una total re-construcción del corazón de su teología y de sus prácticas en el hogar, en la Sinagoga y del Sabbath, así como la experiencia de la “nueva presencia de Dios”

Requirió de lo que Jacob Neuser, -autor de numerosos trabajos sobre la historia del Judaismo- llama TRANSVALUTION, “Todo tuvo que ser re-clasificado de acuerdo a la nueva información”… desde valores e interpretación de la historia, hasta la práctica sin precedentes de su relectura de símbolos establecidos de una manera fresca y sorprendente.

Cuando Mathew Fox le responde al Obispo Spong sobre sus “12 Principios y el futuro de la Religión”, él escribe sobre la transvaluación en los términos de la orientación del Vaticano II.

El catolicismo Rito Romano no desea ni necesita una transvaluación doctrinal, mientras que el catolicismo Rito Vaticano II lo necesita desesperadamente.

¿Está usted de acuerdo? ¿O en desacuerdo?

Sisters Lea y Consilia
Y muchas gracias a Luisa Maria Rivera por su traducción de este artículo!

%d bloggers like this: