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? https://ritebeyondrome.com/201…

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

Vatican II…Going the Way of Climate Change?

For those who are “pessimistic about the short term of the Church, yet remaining totally optimistic about the long term,” those depending on the Holy Spirit to make all things right,”  Debb from Australia writes on Catholica.com:

“As I read your words I think “climate change, climate change, climate change”.
For this human species and for all life on earth the long term might be fifty years at most, if we don’t suddenly and dramatically change our ways. What are we to make of that in the light of discussing the “future” of Christianity or of the church?”

We totally agree with you, Debb!   So many of us in the Church pacify ourselves with the idea that change happens in centuries in the Church.   Trouble is, we don’t live any longer in an age where change happens at a century-by-century pace.

Yet most of us are old and too tired to take that final step necessary to rescue Vatican II from the Roman vault where it has been locked away gasping for air.  WE FEAR SCHISM…thinking there could be no other alternative.

Young theologians and others who work to revive Vatican II within the Roman Church do it very carefully so as not to disturb the organization that can make or break their career.  Many of them also espouse the belief that the Church is working at the Holy Spirit’s pace.

COULD WE BE FAILING TO REALIZE??…THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT MIGHT BE DEPENDING ON OUR COURAGE to rescue Vatican II from the over-confidence of  the Roman Rite’s claim on the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council and its implementation.

Rome is perfectly free to lock Vatican II away and/or suppress its implementation within the Roman Rite of Catholicism, but not within the realm of universal Catholicism.

As we are perfectly free to go on ignoring the threat of CLIMATE CHANGE…TO OUR PERIL AND TO THE PERIL OF OUR CHILDREN AND AND OUR CHILDREN’S CHILDREN’S CHILDREN, so, too, we are likewise perfectly free to sit back and allow Vatican II to fade into the background of our Catholic Church, citing age, helplessness, or pessimism as reasons for not heeding the threat of the very extinction of Catholicism. Some believe this extinction would be a good thing in the same way that pessimists today believe the earth isn’t worth saving. After all, there is heaven and there are other planets. We don’t happen to go along with this line of thinking.

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 (not enough time left for that). 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 Branch of the Catholic Church, whether the Roman Rite recognizes us or not. This Catholic Branch/Rite exists whether or not we recognize our connections or not. History will declare what has already taken place through the work of the Holy Spirit among us! (Remember, the followers of Jesus never could have known they were founding a Catholic Church, much less the 22 other official Catholic Rites in union with Rome.)

Meanwhile, we may dismiss even the idea of a Vatican II Branch/Rite of Catholicism because we dread the work of creating a new organizational structure. However, 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!

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

Warm regards to all,
Sisters Lea and Consilia

READ MORE:  Vatican II Going the Way of Climate Change? – Catholica Forum

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:  https://ritebeyondrome.com

Links below are to sources quoted in this article:

* https://cruxnow.com/faith/2015/09/13/will-catholicism-go-the-way-of-judaism/


Continue reading

Las Interpretaciones literales y poéticas del Catolicismo, ¿son la división real?

Translation of “Literal & Poetic Interpretations of Catholicism, the real split?” https://wordpress.com/post/ritebeyondrome.com/3071

Por demasiado tiempo no le hemos entrado a la tarea de transvalorar (ver Nota abajo) las doctrinas más importantes, que -por tanto tiempo- le han provisto a nuestra Fé de Estructura y significado.
¿Será posible que nuestras doctrinas católicas han estado guardadas y encerradas de tal manera que, gradualmente han disminuido su habilidad para desarrollar la plenitud de su espíritu,
en cada etapa de la modernidad,
culminando en el rechazo tan evidente, hoy en día, del Catolicismo?

Varios Teólogos lo han expresado diciendo que necesitamos
la teología “correcta”.
También necesitamos transvalorarla (ver Nota) y no diluirla
en cada nueva época-

Por supuesto que el problema se encuentra en saber cuál es
la “teología correcta”
Y cual es el vehículo para la Fé, que nos ha conducido hasta el Siglo XXI.
Existen, y siempre existirán, grandes diferencias de opinión
sobre esta cuestión.

Sin embargo hoy en día, es demasiado grande el número de personas que no aceptan la esencia de un cristianismo basado en la versión literal de
“murió por nuestros pecados”,
que para muchos sigue siendo sagrada.
Este rechazo de una comprensión teológica en la Iglesia Católica de hoy,
está sucediendo en otras denominaciones cristianas.

Hay una separación, una hendidura entre las versiones literal y poética
del catolicismo,
como lo ha documentado a fondo el filósofo/teólogo John D. Caputo

¿Será posible que existan dos interpretaciones diferentes, ambas válidas,
de nuestra fé católica?
… ¿y no solamente “continuidad y ruptura?
El Vaticano II dirigió nuestra mirada en la dirección poética,
conservando la hermenéutica literal.
¿Será que necesitamos en la Iglesia de hoy, de las dos interpretaciones, literal y poética, tanto de la Teología, del gobierno y de la liturgia?
… aún si esto implicaría “permitir” (o acaso “fomentar”) el desarrollo de un nuevo rito en nuestra Iglesia,
la cual ha logrado “permitir” la existencia de otros 22 ritos, en unión con
el Rito Romano de la Iglesia de Jerusalem, de los Santos Pedro y Pablo
y los primeros cristianos?

Nota; Transvalorar significa lo siguiente: “Representar o evaluar algo, a partir de un nuevo principio, provocando su reevaluación de una forma diferente… … con el “nuevo principio” que es fruto del trabajo del Espíritu Santo en el Vaticano II y en el muindo,

Las Hermanas Lea y Consilia dan la bienvenida a sus comentarios e igualmente a un “me gusta”, si desean decirlo así.

Ver : Documento de Posición (Position Paper)
Resolving Polarization of Vatican II and Roman Catholic Visions

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

Jesus Brings Division? Catholica.com

“Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. This is what it will be like. It will be as if a household of five were divided, three against two and two against three…”  From Luke 12:49-53

“At present there is increasing talk of schism. Will it be necessary for conservatives to separate, as the Old Catholics in Holland did after Vatican I? Or is it time for progressives to break away and form ‘The People of Vatican II’ as some are advocating?

In the end the question is, can we be in communion with people who have different thoughts and attitudes to ours? Historically, when divisions occur, at some point we break off communion. Religious people, whether catholics or protestants, christians, muslims or jews, take the matter of being ‘in communion’ very seriously. We value purity of doctrine above family bonds. We can’t break bread with you! This is very sad. It is very odd. I wonder is this the aberration that Jeshua knew they would not avoid?

What is the ‘unity’ he prayed for? Was it uniformity of thought and expression in a world whose very evolution and development is a product of diversity? Was it conformity that is changeless in a living world where adaptation to different environments is the rule of life’s survival? Was it to be unchanging in a cosmos where there is nothing that is not moving? Sameness, permanence, being still: these are all illusion.
Or was he thinking of a family bond that would hold us together, even while we find many different paths through life. Unity in diversity.

What is the touchstone? What is the bond that makes us one? Why do our divisions hurt more than the divisions that are part and parcel of politics in a democracy, of business interests, of sport and even of football codes? Why do we treat difference in our Christian Family as worse than criminal? Why do we cut off communion and refuse to talk with the ‘others’? Is it reasonable? Or is it childish recoil from the pain of family hurt where any disharmony is magnified into trauma.

I believe that, in the last analysis, it’s a matter of trust.
We do not trust those who are different, or go a different way. The sad fact is that our rejection of them shows that we do not trust God to lead them along their paths. We judge them because the thought that there might also be another way threatens our security. Without understanding them, we reject them on the measure of our own perception of the truth. To cement our stance in place we all claim that God’s approval makes our position absolute.  Children! Children! Behave yourselves. Remember where you are!

In our Father’s house we must first trust him. It is the embodiment of believing – to trust. It takes faith out of the airy intellectual and makes the heart big enough to embrace other sisters and brothers, God’s other children. It is not foolish or irresponsible to trust God. But it is silly to try to run his world our way.”

Article excerpt reprinted with permission.

Click link below to read Full article by Tony Lawless at Catholica.com:
He Brings Division? Sunday Readings



Garden Sin of Origin, Original Sin?

Garden Sin of Origin (audio version)


 Before sin, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God, freely and openly—no boundaries.  Suddenly God sets limits.
“Don’t eat of this tree.” “This tree is My space.”

Suddenly love defines differently. No longer you = me or me = you in womb-like comfort. Homey oneness get a push away to make room for ego-separateness, for self, for one’s transcendent mystery, for God’s transcendent mystery.

For Adam and Eve, womb-like intimacy gets a jolt and ego is born infantile.
“Poor me, God is not sharing everything with me. God must be holding something back so He can be over me. I am deprived. Let me eat of the tree and I shall be like God.”

Original Sin—Invading God’s Space…Violating Transcendence?

“Do not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.”   Was it a test? Or was God defining Divine space—the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Was this never meant to be our space?

Was eating of this tree an unintentional effort to cross boundaries with God…an unconscious effort to blot out the loneliness of self and vanquish it by invading the Other? If so, eating of this tree was denying God’s Otherness, an attempt to steal into the unique mystery of the other justified by the childish whim that love must have no boundaries. Love with boundaries was something Adam and Eve could not yet understand.

Ego boundaries were the one thing God couldn’t give Adam and Eve.
Ego must discover its own separateness and come to honor it.
Presumably, God could have forgiven Adam and Eve and allowed them to remain in the Garden, but how could Love do that?   The Garden was no place for ego development anymore than the womb is place for such development.

Adam and Eve needed an environment where they could experience themselves as separate from God in order to learn a sense of unique and individual self.
Without knowing that, they could never understand how to relate with God as adults.
And certainly God had no mind to keep them ever-children.
O Happy Fault!  Garden Sin of Origin, O HAPPY FAULT!

by Sister Lea


¿En serio? “El próximo Cisma…Ya está aquí”

Translation of RITE BEYOND ROME document  <Really? “Next Schism Already Here”>

Phyllis Zagano inicia esta página con su artículo publicado en el National Catholic Reporter:

“El próximo Cisma no se encuentra lejos en el camino, ya está aquí. Sus ponentes bien alineados para una seria confrontación, con las camisetas de su equipo bien puestas, luciendo los emblemas “Pre-Vaticano II” y “Post Vaticano II”

La fisura se está agravando, ya que más y más jóvenes van llegando, con el deseo, con la apetencia por aquellos buenos tiempos (que existieron antes de que ellos nacieran) cuando había un orden general, cuando cada cosa tenía su lugar y se seguían las reglas.”


La Respuesta de Sister Lea’s está en National Catholic Reporter”

“Esta guerra verbal… entre los Católicos buenos contra los Católicos malos y en la que la definición de “buenos” y “malos”, depende del lado en que estás… ¿cuánto tiempo va a prolongarse esta guerra?

Que enorme daño se están haciendo las dos posturas entre si y a la Iglesia por no creer que en las dos hay buena voluntad!

Que escándalo le estamos dando a nuestros niños y luego nos preguntamos porque tienen tan poco o ningún deseo de pertenecer a nuestra Iglesia.

No hay duda que existen católicos que necesitan desesperadamente, certeza y seguridad en este mundo tan rápidamente cambiante…esto podemos entenderlo.

¿Será necesario que el lado Post-Vaticano II se mofe y vilipendie a quienes están en la posición del Pre-Vaticano II por su visión de salvar al mundo aferrándose al entendimiento y prácticas “tradicionales” de la doctrina… nosotras podamos ver que algunos de esos valores están pasados de moda, o distorsionados y finalmente no-Cristianos- No hay duda que ellos nos ven de manera similar.

Y sí, si hay Católicos que sienten la desesperada necesidad de un cambio en la Iglesia… un cambio que no puede esperar 50 o 500 años… por lo mismo el tiempo apremia esta necesidad, dentro de la visión de la Iglesia como la Roca de Pedro en lugar de la de la Barca de Pedro en mar abierto.

¿Será necesario que el lado Pre-Vaticano II se mofe y vilipendie a quienes estando en la Iglesia ven al Vaticano II de una manera diferente a como ellos lo ven? ¿Es acaso necesario que ellos denuncien como herejía cualquier deseo o intento por de-construir la tradición con el fin de continuarla más fielmente en el mundo actual? ¿Es necesario que nos acosen y persigan por no ser capaces de pensar como ellos, así como ellos también son incapaces de pensar como nosotros?

Un Cisma no es la respuesta para ninguno de los dos lados. El Árbol de la Familia Católica, se inició de una Raíz en Jerusalem, extendiendo sus ramas en tres diferentes tradiciones: Roma, Antioquía y Alejandría.

Necesitamos una rama nueva en la Iglesia, la del Vaticano II, algo como lo que dice el Teólogo Daniel Maguire en su artículo de Crux 9.13.15. “El Catolicísmo ¿seguirá el camino del Judaísmo?” ( con sus tres ramificaciones: Ortodoxa, Conservadora y Reformada).”

Leer: “¿Una ramificación totalmente nueva?” y otros artículos en https://RiteBeyondRome.com

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







%d bloggers like this: