Catholic Tradition: Theologically Different Churches

Tradition Reminds Us:  Theological Differences Need Not Rupture the Unity of the Church

Eastern Catholics, while fully Catholic and in communion with Rome, differ in more ways than just liturgy.
They also possess a unique spiritual tradition, as well as a unique theological approach.

Roman Opus-genre Evangelical Catholicism also possesses its own traditionalist spiritual and theological approach significantly aligned with Church Councils prior to 1962…as different from Vatican II (1962-65) which was distinctly different from prior councils in its non-absolutist approach to Catholic theology, government, and liturgy.  (See https://www.scribd.com/document/311633660/Exploring-a-VATICAN-II-Catholic-Rite)

A uniquely transformative council from its very outset, Vatican II was often perceived as a threat to traditionalist Catholicism and its future.  In light of this perception, Popes John Paul II  and Benedict XVI gave Opus Dei the canonical status and structure of a papal prelature in support of its existence and propagation throughout the world.  To date, this move has resulted in the resurgence of traditional Catholicism globally.

Consequently, now it is the Post-Vatican II Church which is in danger of disappearing into Opus-genre Evangelical Catholicism with its well-funded strategic focus on laity as the servants of a clerical Church.  (See Heidi Schlumpf’s three-part FOCUS series at https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/focus-campus-ministry-has-big-money-conservative-connections

Meanwhile, the post-Vatican II Church falls into the background… as if the Second Vatican Council was about nothing more than spiritual renewal and the laity’s call to holiness.

Opus-genre Evangelical Catholicism is now the majority universal expression of Catholicism.  Given this, perhaps we ought to pay more attention to the Catholic tradition of unity in diversity that existed for many centuries between Rome and those Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome.  The quote below is from a website introducing the West to Eastern Catholicism:

“Is it true that the Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to have different theological expressions?
If so what does it involve?

This certainly is true. The Eastern Catholic Churches are not only “allowed” but are actively encouraged to cultivate their own distinctive theological expressions.

Eastern Catholics, while fully Catholic and in communion with the Pope, differ in more ways than just liturgy. We also possess a unique spiritual tradition, as well as a unique theological approach.

While we agree with the Latin Church on fundamental matters of doctrine, we approach doctrine in a very different way – from the Eastern perspective.

While the Western Church has traditionally formulated doctrine in terms of scholastic Latin theology, we rely almost exclusively on the theology of the Eastern Church Fathers. This difference, rather than rupturing the unity of the Church, further expresses the true UNIVERSALITY of Christ’s Church.

This is authoritatively taught by the Second Vatican Council:

“All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in-their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth” (UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, no. 4).”

                                                                 (Excerpt above from Doctrine | From East to West)

Returning to the first Roman Catholic prelature approved by two popes, Opus Dei has different theological perspectives on Vatican II.  That theological perspective has been updated and rebranded in George Weigel’s book, EVANGELICAL CATHOLICISM.  Opus-genre Evangelical Catholicism, now global majority Catholicism, is very different in perspective from Vatican II Catholicism.

Given the above, wouldn’t a Vatican II “Branch” Church with its much more culturally-open theological perspective be the best resolution to national and global Church polarization?

A Vatican II Prelature would perhaps be the first step to a global Vatican II Church.  A Vatican II Church could be an invaluable asset to the universal Church alongside the global Opus-genre Evangelical Catholic Church and the 25+ other Eastern and other Rite-Churches in union with Rome, no?

Also see:  Can the Church Dialogue Its Differences into Unity?

BISHOPS, You Belong at the Border!

Where YOU Stand Determines the Future of Authentic Catholic Identity and Authority in the Church and in the World Today.

As you seek to show genuine repentance for your communal part in the worldwide sex abuse scandal, you might consider the present immigrant situation at our national borders an opportune moment to exercise your own authentic leadership in the Church.

You must stand, be counted…and be seen, in your full clerical garb, as opposition to the world in its reliance on force as the solution to crisis.

THE SIGHT OF YOU at the borders would do so much more for the local and universal Church than diocesan letters on new reform policies or photo-ops in sanctuary cities.

BODILY STAND TOGETHER BETWEEN the immigrant poor at the border and the guns that greet them in their request for refuge from violence.  YOU have more power than you realize, both individually and as a group.

Apart from your national conferences, you have the individual power to single-handedly act not just speak for the Church as the strong and powerful witness that strengthens the faith of people everywhere …as the sainted Bishop Oscar Romero did for his people in the remaining years of this life.

Where YOU Stand Determines the Future of Catholic Identity and Authentic Authority of the Catholic Church in the world today!   Perhaps your action would even inspire bishops from different countries to stand in visible solidarity with each other…witnessing opposition to the world in its reliance on domination and force as the solution to crisis.

We offer our prayers for all in leadership of the Catholic Church.
**********************************

Rome Reports on film “Romero”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWzZ80vt4Bo Amazon.

Link to Remastered film “Romero” (film available on Amazon) https://www.amazon.com/Romero-Raul-Julia/dp/B002BU729E

 

Beware bashing hierarchy, idolizing laity, and taking comfort in moral indignation

Everyone Catholic, even Pope Francis 

scurrying to pin blame for Church failure

on clericalism…

as if laity are immune from

such sins of sexual abuse and cover-up.

 

Yet I can attest, 

as a good number of others can,

that molestation and rape of children and women

are hardly reserved to the clerical caste.

An unknown number of fathers, mothers, family members and others

have long been complicit in both the act and/or cover-up

of the abuse of children.

++++++

Might the frenzied hatred toward any group

held in contempt and horror…May that frenzied hatred
be toward something yet uncovered in thy group,
thy family, thyself?

Could some of the moral outrage and self-righteous venom
spewed upon the sex offender or power abuser
be out of deeply-rooted dread that such
desire to abuse has or could occur
within oneself?

******

Isn’t moral indignation simply cheap grace

when it stands around Jesus at the stoning of the woman

caught in adultery?

Lest we forget, so Jesus reminds us,

Let him or her who is without sin

cast the first death-dealing blow of the stone.

There is something weirdly satisfying and grotesquely sick

about self-righteous condemnation of the other,

isn’t there?

++++++

As for hierarchy, it is only an attempt at order that has worked for a long time.

Hierarchy grows bureaucracy which naturally fails to deliver
as each age calls forth from it more and more…
until that more is more than it can manage.

Hierarchy is simply one attempt at order that isn’t working very well these days.

Yet each radically altered age is subject to the workings of evolution and new creations.

Instead of bashing hierarchy as the ultimate problem,
why not work at thinking hierarchy into new forms,
like nested hierarchies or rotating hierarchies?

…or even look at the possibility of moving away from hierarchy in the future
             toward some yet undiscovered structure of order?

Beyond Damage Control and Church Structural Reform: Theology Supports Sex/Power Abuse?

There was a time when damage control worked well for the church. That time is no more!

Now, damage control like sincere apologies, policy changes and even sacrificial scapegoats fail to convince Catholics and others that the Church is determined enough to change its fundamental “modus operandi”.

Fortunately for the church, Catholic consciousness has been raised by the Spirit of Vatican II to expect more than damage control. This new consciousness cannot be rolled back any more than a born child can go back into it’s mother’s womb.

Those who talk about the need for structural change in the church rarely, if ever, recognize the origin of church sex/power abuse in theology itself.

In the past several decades, Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Pope Francis have adamantly steered the church away from the deep theological reform that Vatican II set in motion. Their unwavering resistance to deep theological reform unwittingly supported the clerical power abuse and cover-up that we find today in the global Church. Continuation of this resistance will only lead to more virulent and deeply-entrenched power abuse cover-ups.

If the connection between theology and power abuse is not recognized now, then any policy and structural changes enacted by the Church will be worthless. As empowered as the laity will appear to be after all new policy/structural changes are in place, laity will NOT be allowed to cross the boundaries of “religious freedom” around well-guarded Church doctrine.

If Augustine could assimilate Roman ideals into Christian theology, surely by this time, Catholicism is capable of assimilating the best of modern findings in scientific, philosophical and theological research. Vatican II brought attention to the need for updating and adapting the Church to new conditions. With the extent, horror and gravity of the sex/power abuse scandals in the Church, one would think that the Church would wake up to Vatican II and its focus on the many momentous new questions that modern society must deal with in terms of human survival, not to mention the survival of its religious institutions.

The sex/power abuse scandals bring into question the domination model of traditional Biblical understanding and its application in doctrine. The domination interpretation of power in Scripture has been seriously questioned by many post-Vatican II theologians.  Even so, the institutional teaching authority of the Church has opposed little, if any, change in this ancient theology of power.

NOW IS THE TIME to re-evaluate theology that sanctifies and sacramentalizes domination. We must ask ourselves: Should modern scriptural interpretation be supporting the understanding of God as the One Who Desires Power Over Us?…justifying the way that we desire power over the earth and each other?

Gospel Woman Speaks for “misfits” outside traditional religious boundaries

Gospel Woman Challenges Jesus
“But look,” Gospel Woman Calls Jesus to Re-think his Mission:  Painting by Consilia Karli

 

“…even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters” she said to Jesus when he protested against her plea for her daughter’s healing. (Mt 15:27)

So says the foreign woman who insisted against all odds that Jesus heal her daughter...”  (Matthew Chap 7: 21-28 and Mark Chap 7: 24-30)

Jesus, by right of Jewish law, Scripture, AND tradition, ignored this pagan Canaanite woman’s plea for his attention.

He ignored her because she did not fit into the the cultural and religious paradigm of salvation which formed his mind and conscience. She was NOT only a woman but a foreign-born, Gentile woman…challenging the man who saw himself as messiah of the Jewish people.

What moxie, what strength of character, what nerve she had!

It is no wonder Jesus’ disciples were irritated by her, as they came and asked Jesus, “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.” (Mt 7:23)

But she persisted and INSISTED. And thus Jesus addressed her explaining, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

It took a woman, a foreigner, a pagan woman to see Jesus beyond the confines of his own imagination. He wasn’t going to heal her daughter of the demon which plagued her, no matter how she cried out. It wasn’t His Father’s Will, as far as he could see. She was just a foreign pagan woman. What did she know of his mission as Messiah to the Children of God?

But she persisted and INSISTED. What moxie, what strength of character, what nerve she had!

She would NOT be dismissed. She would NOT give up her desire to be part of the inclusive love of God Jesus was proclaiming. Nor would she give up her faith in him as the one who loves large.

Jesus almost listened to his friends and followers. But something made him stop. His compassion for her? …perhaps.

He engages her… at first explaining why he couldn’t help her… God’s will…his mission was at stake…the children of Israel were his only concern. “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs” he explained in a moment of cognitive dissonance. (Mk 7:27)

Yet she stood her ground and reminded him,”…even the dogs eat the crumbs from the table where the children eat.” The crumbs…yes, the crumbs… Jesus must have pondered her response to the moral dilemma she presented to him:

“Crumbs for the dogs under the table? Is it possible?
A place for the outsider at the table of the children of God?
… even if only under the table?”

Unbeknownst to her, this foreign, pagan woman asked for nothing less than a quantum leap in Jesus’ understanding of his broader mission to the world. Then suddenly the moral dilemma resolves itself in Jesus’ mind:

“When she replied and said to him, ‘Lord, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s scraps.; Then Jesus said to her in reply, ‘O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed from that hour. 
(Mark 7: 28 and Matthew 15: 28)

This foreign woman’s faith in God’s Love…her faith in her worth as a person in God’s eyes…and her faith in Jesus and his preaching…THIS faith is what brought Jesus to a moral dilemma in conflict with his Jewish tradition.

This moral dilemma called forth a choice, on Jesus part, between a strict interpretation of tradition and a quantum leap in theological consciousness of how tradition is to be interpreted in his time. It required a quantum leap in Jesus’ understanding of who God is and what God wants…in his historical time and culture.*

Isn’t this the leap in consciousness that we need today in order to re-vision the theology that forms the basis of all doctrine, governance and liturgy in our Church?

Isn’t this the very sense of a living tradition that Vatican II continues to call forth from Christianity and Catholicism today?

*    *   *.  *.  *.  *

NOTE: Some assume that Jesus knew it all and needed no development of conscience or consciousness, but that would be heresy in regard to Jesus’ full embrace of humanity as defined in the doctrine of the Incarnation.  More to come…

God’s Holy Refugees, Driven by the Search for Real

What of the Religious Refugees… fleeing theologies
… theologies that clang against the consciousness
 of this age’s sins and (w)holy wisdom?

To the Nones and Dones and those most nearly done,
the silence of the Holy One is deafeningly loud
…in theologies describing 
 a god so praise-starved and power-hungry
…that it demands our constant adulation and servile obedience
…in theologies describing an all knowing Big Father/Brother in the sky
 speaking scriptural words of love between the narcissistic lines.

What consciousness is this…
that drives us from the comfort of a sacred family
…wrapped in the solace of sweet hymns and select scriptures
so we not see and question those Words and stories
…strewn with images of such an ignoble and inglorious God?

Bereft of temple, church, synagogue or mosque,
where do we go to find a home?
Or is there even such a place?

Religious refugees driven far from safe homes we knew so long ago,
…the hymns we sang, the Scripture read, so comforting,
now crash as awkward phrases against what we “Now Know”.
“Now Know” not so stately as the holy architecture of theologies 
so long held bosom-close for comfort.

O Saints before us, who lost your faith in such Go(o)d nonsense…
Is there not something…anything, 
 other than the loss we know today?

Or is all search for the comfort of meaning and certainty 
 a useless Sisyphus task of rolling boulder uphill 
 …until it rolls back crushing us
…worn weak and weary in the futility of it all?

We go down into the pit of despair
…
 with you, O Saints who went there before us.
We have still the wisdom of your love and your courage
 to live in the not knowing,
…in the shatter-scatter pace of life’s ever-changing face 
 that re-assembles its appearance from
 …horror to grief to love and back again
…in cycles too quick to ponder or assimilate,
 …sometimes barraged in unremitting painful questions:
Why them? Why me? 
 …Why even ask why?

We refugees of theologies 
that answer questions of the past
 with answers from the further past..
 …some wisdom there buried
 under all the dust and shite, for certain.

Yet there is this tingling sense that
 wisdom buried under ages having passed, 
 yet still is with us now

for every change of time from one epoch to another
 had its pain of cracking through, 
 like a babe breaking out its mother’s womb
all tender and powerless, 
 …in need of succor and protection, 
 so like our new consciousness adapting…to its new place and time.

Let us have faith meanwhile, in each other,
 …in the everyday uncanonized saints of today and yesterday.
Not idolatrous faith, of course,
 but rather faith that nurtures love as it re-news life,
…as it makes life NEW again…
 Creation ongoing, ever-challenging us
…to go on loving…as best we can.

WHERE is the theology that can lead us
…in the way of this ever-adapting gypsy-like home-making faith?
WHERE is the theology sustaining
…a dynamic back-and-forth movement
 between the wisdom of the past
…and the present moment
…now challenging our consciousness 
 …to RISE UP and BE COUNTED.
*    *    *

Painting “God’s Holy Refugees” by Consilia Karli, SFCC

Poem by Sister Lea, SFCC with Consilia Karli
https://RiteBeyondRome.com

 

 

 

 

 

*****

Divine Mercy Sunday: Pope Francis, HAVE MERCY on the Vatican II Church!

The Vatican II Church has documents but no canonical visibility,
no prelature or Church/Rite status out of which to establish 
its unique identity and authority to
interpret theology, governance and liturgy from a different perspective.

The Vatican II Church has no canonical status or authority.
Opus Dei and the Eastern Churches/rites in union with Rome
have both canonical status and authority in their efforts
to preserve Catholicism as they see it.
Does the Conciliar Vatican II Church have no such rights?
*   *   *   *

Does Pope Francis believe the “Reform of the Reform Church” would be a Vatican II Church if it just represented Church laws and doctrines from a more open and pastoral mindset?

Vatican II theologian Massimo Faggioli seems to differ with pastoral approach as being an adequate response.   He writes with alarm about “the growing one-way consensus of ‘doing theology’.  He further claims that “the politics of funding theological initiatives on Catholic campuses…has even distorted the way of doing theology…whereby “various entities offer not only different but obviously incompatible understandings of Catholicism.”

international.la-croix.com/news/polarization-in-the-church-and-the-crisis-of-the-catholic-mind/6444
 Have our expectations of Pope Francis been somewhat naive in our insistence that the “Reform of the Reform” Church is just some fringe minority and not a global Catholic phenomenon well-structured, well-strategized and well-resourced?  Check out the metadata collected by National Catholic Reporter:

Conservative donors aim to shape Catholic narrative for the wider culture

•  “The annual Napa Institute gatherings held at one of Busch’s California resorts regularly attracts leading conservative archbishops and cardinals from the U.S. and the Vatican. It is a gathering for those at the upper end of the economic spectrum…”
•  “In addition to Acton, the Becket Fund and the Federalist Society, [another high-profile conservative funder] lists as affiliations on his company’s website the following: the American Enterprise Institute; Catholic Leadership Institute; EWTN; Ethics and Public Policy Center; FOCUS (Fellowship of Catholic University Students); and the Napa Institute.”
• “Timothy Busch, speaker at the ‘Good Profits’ conference for high-profile conservative funders at Catholic University, noted “that big money and the right economic philosophy can bridge deep ideological and theological divides.”
 
• “A former director of Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies perceives this surge in growth of Catholic nonprofits like the Napa Institute seeing themselves as “the real evangelizing corps in the church” as providing an alternative structure to the church.”
 
*   *   *   *
The Vatican II Church has documents but no canonical visibility,
no prelature or Church/Rite status out of which to establish 
its unique identity and authority to
interpret theology, governance and liturgy from a different perspective…

no canonical status or authority as Opus Dei
and the Eastern Churches/rites in union with Rome have
in their efforts to preserve Catholicism as they see it
.

*    *    *

Remember when Francis told us to act and not worry about the consequences?
On the feast of Divine Mercy, April 8, 2018, shouldn’t we be challenging Pope Francis to act and not worry about the consequences, instead of continuing to allow the Church to fall into a monolithic consensus of “Reform of the Reform” Catholicism?  Polarization or Stifling Consensus: The Only Choices?
 

The HOLY THURSDAY REVOLUTION

Holy Thursday Rev picCLICK HERE TO SEE QUICK VIEW SLIDES: holy-thursday-the-ultimate-revolution

Beatrice Bruteau, in her book, THE HOLY THURSDAY REVOLUTION details two Jesus events that were and still are revolutionary challenges to the prevailing domination paradigm:

  • Washing the Feet of His Followers…where masters and lords are the ones to be served by “lower caste” in the domination paradigm.
  • Sharing Bread and Cup, His Whole Personhood in Loving Communion of Equals…WITH those who considered themselves as less than their Teacher.

These two events were each strong statements and symbolic signs that the long-held paradigm of inequality and domination was repudiated, that is, no longer to be held as God’s Will.

For this lifetime breaking of the domination paradigm, Jesus was crucified and for this he rose again in the Jesus’ Movement that all generations may know… THAT THE WAY OF GOD IS COMMUNION, NOT THE DOMINATION OF INEQUALITY.   For this, many after Jesus have been “crucified and risen again and again” over the centuries in order that the Communion Paradigm of All People may not perish from this earth.

Click on link here to COPY Quick View Slides to your download file:  Holy Thursday, The Ultimate Revolution

Polarization or Stifling Consensus: The Only Choices?

Certainly, the Vatican’s choice for “Profound Consensus” over polarization in the Church would seem to be the most logical one.  But is it?

Logical or not, the Church is well on the road to a profound consensus which may not be what Vatican secretary Cardinal Parolin was recommending.

National Catholic Reporter: Cardinal Parolin addresses US bishops with call for ‘profound consensus’

Vatican II expert, Massimo Faggioli, describes the reality and danger of one-way polarization within the Church.  See link below where Rite Beyond Rome responds to his La Croix International article:

aa

To Read more:   https://www.scribd.com/document/370006049/Church-Polarization-or-Stifling-Consensus-Not-the-Only-Choices

 

To view and download PDF: Church Polarization or Dangerous Consensus?

aaa

When “profound consensus” is rooted in “safe choice” over the risk of allowing the Holy Spirit to break through staid Catholic consciousness, is it the preferred choice for the Church in the world today?

In this instance, wouldn’t it be wiser and more rational to diversify the Church’s expressions of Catholicism in ways that maintain “consensual unity” AND dynamic and creative diversity…?
…as described in the 1973 book, POLARIZATION IN THE CHURCH, edited by Hans Kung and Walter Kasper?

Thanks for reading…Comments and questions appreciated!

(Click on article title to comment.)

 

Can the Church Dialogue Its Differences into Unity?

A conversation with Paula Ruddy in regard to her comments to our post,  Church Unity: NOT about merging disparate factions, on this website.

Paula Ruddy:

“I can see the intention for this, empathize with it. However, I think there is another way to unity through dialogue among people of different worldviews.  

The postmodern cultural view that all are equally valid ways of viewing “reality” supports this strategy for unity, but is it true that Vatican II can be interpreted both as true to the Gospel in opening to the world and as not true to the Gospel in opening to the world? Isn’t there some objectivity in what the Gospel teaches and how the Church should exist in the world?”

Sisters Lea and Consilia reply: 

Yes, there have always been different ways of viewing “reality” with every view claiming its own view as valid, even superior to the other’s view of reality. 

The problem within the Catholic Church begins when two or more worldviews diverge so radically that they no longer see the Gospel through the same “objectivity” lens.   This is the case of the different Gospel views between Opus Dei/ Evangelical Catholicism AND Post-Vatican II understandings of the Gospel.  In other countries, the problem is that cultural adaptation to the Gospel is thwarted by “one way only” interpretations of Catholic doctrine and practive.

Pope Benedict may have correctly described the two interpretations of Vatican II as continuity and rupture…continuity with the Council of Trent and rupture as break.  However, one might interpret his words differently…as meaning continuity with Church Tradition AND rupture…NOT break or Schism as Pope Benedict implied…but rupture into a new shoot, an evolutionary outgrowth from the Root of Jesse.

Paula Ruddy:

“What about the Petrine Ministry to lead in the Gospel direction? Should the Pope say ‘all interpretations of Vatican II are valid’?”

Sisters Lea and Consilia reply: 

Insofar as any interpretation of Vatican II can be supported by Vatican II documents or post-Vatican II theology, it would seem the pope ought to consider those interpretations valid.  

Of course, this has not been the case with the two popes preceding Pope Francis.  For many Catholics today, including George Weigel, the interpretation of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are the ONLY authorized interpretations of Vatican II.

As for the Petrine Ministry of the Pope to lead and unify the Church in the Gospel direction, perhaps the papal ministry for the future lies in coordinating/negotiating the differing Gospel interpretations within a shared Papal/People of God relationship… a negotiating servant-leadership for a challenging multifaceted set of Gospel interpretations. For example, the 20+ Eastern Catholic Rites/Churches in union with Rome, the Opus Dei prelature, and the Anglican ordinariate are but a few examples of this negotiating servant-leadership.

Paula Ruddy:

“The question I have about dividing us up is this: Is it good to abandon the mainstream Church to the point of view that the Holy Spirit is NOT IN the world while establishing an ordinariate that believes the Gospel calls for discerning the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom of God WITHIN the world as it is?”

Sisters Lea and Consilia reply: 

The questions we have here are these:  What is “mainstream Church” Catholicism?  The majority viewpoint?  The viewpoint of the presiding pontiff? 

Is there any point of view within the various Catholic Rites/Churches, prelature, or ordinariates that teaches “the Holy Spirit is NOT in the world”?  Perhaps the answer is “yes” when we consider post-Trent Church vs. world theology where the Holy Spirit resides only in the One True Catholic Church.  The Second Ecumenical Council pushed back on this view of Church and  world.  Is this theological viewpoint what is “dividing us up” along with the scientific revolution, the loss of leadership credibility, clericalism, and marginalization of women, divorced Catholics, LGBTQ+, etc? 

Paula Ruddy:

“Isn’t it better to continue the dialogue among people with evolving worldviews within the Church, depending on the Holy Spirit, faith and reason to keep us together?”

Sisters Lea and Consilia reply: 

Indeed, it is ALWAYS better to continue dialogue within the Church.  When there is radical divergence in theological interpretation, however, dialogue becomes much more difficult, if not impossible. 

Throw inequality of relationship into the mix, as Leonard Swidler discusses in his Dialogue Decalogue and dialogue actually becomes impossible.  One has to ask if even the Holy Spirit is impeded from holding us together if we cannot treat each other as the sisters and brothers that Jesus called us to be.  

Paula Ruddy:

Do the believers in the rightness of Vatican II have brave spokespeople who can make the vision clear and compelling to the mainstream Roman Rite Catholic? If not, how are they going to run an ordinariate?

Sisters Lea and Consilia reply: 

One has to wonder if it is necessary “to make the vision clear and compelling to the mainstream Roman Rite Catholic.”  If the goal is to win mainstream Catholicism back from the decades of spiritual groundwork done by Evangelicial Catholicism (and its precursor, the Opus Dei Movement/Prelature), that ship has left the harbor.

What we see as possible and URGENT is the redirection of energy spent by those who stand continually waiting in the vestibule of Roman Rite Catholicism, begging and hoping that someday Vatican II will rise again…if only we are patient enough.

If the Apostles never came out of the Upper Room, there would be no Catholic Church today.  What were they waiting for?  Approval by the Temple High Priest?

 

As for “brave spokespeople” of the great Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, we have many both in this life and in the hereafter.  Fortunately, those who have left us in this life have also left their writings for us to study and discern the earliest spirit and wisdom of Vatican II. 

As for how a Vatican II prelature or a Vatican II ordinariate might operate, we do have models today within the Church, models which might be adjusted and applied both to different national cultures and different evolving understandings of a Post-Vatican II Church in an ever-changing world.  As in every institutional model, what the model presents is always ONLY a model.

Paula Ruddy:

“I appreciate the “Rite Beyond Rome” effort to discern how we should proceed. I hope we keep talking.”

Sisters Lea and Consilia reply: 

We appreciate your efforts and the efforts of all those working to discern how we should proceed in moving forward.  We intend to explore the prelature, ordinariate models here on https://RiteBeyondRome.com as precursor to a Post-Vatican II Rite/Church in union with Rome, if that is where the Wisdom Spirit of God leads.

And YES, let’s keep talking!

https://RiteBeyondRome.com

“All Catholics are cafeteria Catholics” says Jesuit priest. Is this a good thing?

Maybe Fr. Thomas Reese, editor of National Catholic Reporter, is right when he says, “Welcome to the cafeteria” as a way of expressing Catholic unity.  He explains why…

“The truth is all Catholics are cafeteria Catholics. Conservative Catholics were quite willing to ignore John Paul’s and Benedict’s strong statements on justice and peace, and progressive Catholics are happy to ignore Francis’ opposition to women priests.”

If this is cafeteria Catholicism, then certainly it will continue to obstruct change in the Catholic Church for generations to come. Thus the Catholic Church will remain one big unhappy family adamantly arguing back and forth as we decide what to fight and what to ignore about liturgy, justice and peace, and opposition to women priests, etc, etc.

So what happens to deep Vatican II reform of the Catholic Church…beyond even its pastoral and merciful approach?  Does it simply die of benign neglect or fear of causing schism?

Fr. Reese says, “Catholics need to grow up and learn to live in a church where arguments take place, but we should not let disagreements break up the family. We need to understand that people have different viewpoints and that we can learn from one another by having dialogue. Rather than dividing into partisan factions, we need to model what it means to be a community.”

Yes, “WE ARE Family!”   But family cannot grow if it cannot respect each other’s differences and allow one another the space to grow differently.  And what if certain members of the family are against differences, against change and against dialog?  Do the other family members just bow their heads in submission…in hope that something someday will change before or long after they die?   We think NOT!

In 2015, Cardinal Walter Kasper wrote an article in ORIGINS “Vatican II: Toward a Multifaceted Unity”. (Vol 45, #9). He wrote about the unity in diversity needed if we are to make any further progress in ecumenical endeavors. We suggest it is time to look WITHIN our Church to see the possibilities for a “multifaceted unity” because cafeteria style is definitely NOT working for either side of the Church.  Pick&Choose cafeteria-style offers no challenge for growth on either side.

We say, “NO” to Cafeteria Catholicism and “YES” to Multifaceted Unity!
https://ritebeyondrome.com/2017/09/23/church-unity-is-not-institutional-merger-cardinal-kasper/

Fr. Reese’s article:  https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/more-catholic-pope

Hope for the Church: Young adults from all over the world at Vatican Seminar talk freely!

“They did not hesitate to challenge the academic presenters or to raise the stakes by freely expressing their views during the debates.

In fact, they even protested when the presentations of the experts exceeded the time limit and ate into their precious discussion time.

They also criticized the Vatican survey addressed to young people which was considered to be too long or poorly translated.

‘The pope asked us to ‘make chaos,’ that’s precisely what we’re doing,’ said Lucas Barboza with a smile.”

VIEW short VIDEO snippets of their discussions on the link below

via Young people make waves at Synod meeting – La Croix International

La Eucaristía: Mi pan roto

(Abajo está la traducción de  Eucharist: My Bread Broken on this website.)

“Si no dejas que se rompa tu pan para que bendiga
y alimente a otros, no habrá vida en ti.”
Cuando esto dijo, los demás se alejaron.

Todos quieren una vida mejor,
más vida, y más grandiosa que la dada.

¿Dónde está el punto? ¿Existe tal cosa?
¿Dónde está el punto? ¿Quiero ir ahí?

MI pan, MI todo,
Todo lo que me es caro,
¿Debo dejar que se rompa?
¿Cómo podría ser?

¿Dejar que se rompa mi pan?
¿para QUÉ?… ¡Me ahogo!.
“Sin pan, sin rotura,
“Moriremos”, dijeron.
Y se alejaron.

¡Oh!, ahí está el roce en mi alma:
MI Pan, MI PAN…
No se debe partir.
Lo quiero como lo quiero
por qué, dónde y cuándo.
Yo lo decido…. y punto.

Debes de tener pan,
tu propio pan. No lo puedes dar,
o deja que se lo lleven.

¿Dejar que se rompa tu pan?
¿Dejar que se ROMPA como se ha de romper?
¿Permitirlo o NO?

¿El Pan roto
no me hará un fracasado?
“¿No acaso lo perdemos de todas maneras?
No nos lo podemos llevar.”
No, pero aun así nos sustenta.

El pan roto, las esperanzas, sueños, ilusiones
y las cosas que casi nunca se cumplen…
porque la vida no se ajusta lo suficiente,
sólo te rodea a ti y a mí.

No puedo partir mi pan…
me lo ha partido la vida.
“Pobre de mí”, el único pan que tenía…

La con-miseración es lo que me hace seguir
seguir y seguir, más y más,
una y otra vez, de vuelta a donde comencé
…¿a menos que parta mi pan?
¿preciosos planes para que las cosas sean lo que deben?
¿lo que yo, tú, ella y él
simplemente deberíamos de ser?

La quieta vocecilla interior
que llama donde sea,
el dónde, el cómo y el por qué carece de razones,
el loco llamado desde un lugar desconocido…

Así que, a menos que parta mi pan,
¿no habrá vida en mí?, ¿en lo que hago?
O sólo sentiré la terrible ausencia de algo…

Me dijeron que sería feliz; que estaría a salvo,
La Certeza y la Seguridad, mis fieles compañeras, merman.
¿Dónde, dónde está el pan que he de partir?

La hermana Lea

(Nuestra más profunda gratitud a Cinthia De Gortari por su fina traducción profesional de este poema.)

 

 

 

 

Los documentos del Vaticano II que contienen una “formulación de compromiso” propician una tensión creativa

Abajo está la traducción de  Vatican II “Compromise” Documents as Creative Tension on this website.

El extracto del blog que aparece abajo, habla de una disposición para recibir puntos de vista opuestos, en una tensión creativa como la del “Espíritu del Vaticano II”

En respuesta al punto de vista expresado en ese texto, hacemos* las siguientes preguntas:     (*Hermanas Lea y Consilia)

  • ¿Será capaz el Rito Católico Romano, de abrirse a puntos de vista opuestos, en una “tensión creativa”, cuando se ve a si misma como la Única Santa Sede? ¿O cuando se define a si misma con expresiones como “El Papado” o la Corte Papal? Cuando ve su Catolicismo Rito Romano por encima, por sobre todas las otras Iglesias/Ritos Católicos.
    • ¿No fue acaso en el Segundo Concilio Ecuménico Vaticano, en el que se fue capaz de mantener en tensión puntos de vista opuestos, por el solo hecho de que representaba un cuerpo católico más numeroso y no ser únicamente el Rito Romano del Catolicismo?
  • El Concilio Vaticano II, de 1962-1965 dio a luz documentos con una “formulación de compromiso”, gracias a un trabajo de toda la Iglesia Católica, que incluía tanto a Roma. Como a las otras 22 Iglesias/Rito no-romano, en comunión con Roma.
    • ¿Fue acaso la participación de estas Iglesias/ritos en unión con Roma, (junto con la participación, -sin derecho a voto-, de otras iglesias ritos no-romanos), lo que ayudó a mantener la tensión creativa, de la que se habla o llama “El Espíritu del Vaticano II” …una tensión creativa inscrita en los documentos del Vaticano II que contienen una formulación de compromiso?
  • ¿Y no fue acaso la creación ecuménica de estos documentos de “compromiso” que provocaron una respuesta mundial al “Espiritu del Vaticano II”?
    • Fue el Espíritu Santo quien abrió las compuertas en el Concilio Vaticano II, precisamente por el hecho mismo de estar reunidos muchos católicos.

Los invitamos a reflexionar sobre estos puntos y a compartir aquí sus opiniones. Gracias. De parte de todos nosotros en https://RiteBeyondRome.com

Las preguntas anteriores son en respuesta a la publicación en el blog traducido debajo:

The Wild Reed: Truth about “Spirit of Vatican II” finally reveled

“En varias partes de los documentos del Vaticano II, se pueden encontrar formulaciones de compromiso que suavizan algunos de los principales conflictos, sin llegar a resolverlos.

 

El Decreto sobre la Iglesia habla, por un lado, de Colegialidad, por el otro, de la autoridad absoluta del Papa. El Decreto sobre la Liturgia dice: “Lingua Latina est lingua Ecclesiae”. (Diversas traducciones dicen: “El Latin es la lengua de la Iglesia”, “ A Latin language (italiano) es la lengua de la Iglesia,” etc.), pero al mismo tiempo, este decreto abre el camino para un amplio uso de las lenguas vernáculas.

 

No podemos darle un valor absoluto a la autoridad en la Iglesia, que nos llevaría a un punto en el que no queda espacio para una participación activa de los laicos en la liturgia. De igual manera no podemos enfatizar la naturaleza jerárquica de la Iglesia, que nos llevaría a identificar a la Iglesia con los obispos y el Papa, dejando fuera a los laicos hasta el extremo de estar negando la noción de la Iglesia como Pueblo de Dios.

 

Estas visiones o posturas, deberán mantenerse en estado de tensión creativa, mientras la Iglesia va adaptándose a las necesidades de los tiempos. Como tales, conformar la base de un diálogo entre hermanas y hermanos, sobre dónde debe ubicarse, dentro de los extremos. Por ejemplo: necesitamos abordar la pregunta, ¿cómo debe ejercerse la vigilancia de la jerarquía, de tal forma que se aliente laparticipación de los creyentes?

 

…Quizá la voluntad de mantener esta “tensión creativa” cuando se leen e interpretan los documentos del Vaticano II, constituye en realidad una gran parte de lo que llamamos el “Espíritu del Vaticano II”

Animate a compartir

(Nuestra más profunda gratitud a Luisa Maria Rivera por su fina traducción profesional de este artículo.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post-VATICAN II RITE, Theological Activism for the Sake of World Survival, Peace, and Justice

Post-Vatican II efforts to significantly rethink Catholic theology have been suppressed over the past few decades, in the same way that the implementation of a Post-Vatican II Rite has been suppressed. WHY?

  • Because a post-Vatican II Theology would cut across the political and economic agendas of western civilization, both church and state?
  • Because a post-Vatican II Theology created cracks in the wall that kept Judeo-Christian scriptures and tradition within strict political and economic boundaries?
  • Because the foundation and daily functioning of top-down church/state structures depend most heavily on the Roman “God-in-charge” model?
  • Because the survival of western political/economic agendas depends on the  image of an all-knowing, all powerful, judgmental (exclusionary) God-in-Charge?   If that image changes, do political/economic agendas change as well?

Modern communication breakthroughs have chipped away at the religious rationale and justification of the Roman Rite western model of authority and power as the gift and will of God.  This “chipping away” appears to some as an attack on “God-in-Charge” theology, as if there can only be one and only one theological view of authority .

Post-Vatican II progressive theology emphasizes power-sharing images of God as core scriptural and traditional concepts…concepts heretofore minimized and neglected in favor of the Roman Rite western standard.

Constructionist/activist theologian, Joerg Rieger* explains that the “God in Charge” theological perspective is not the only one, nor even the most beneficial one for society in our time.  Rieger explores the popularity and success of right wing theological activism in our time and poses this question:

“Is it possible that Trump’s way of projecting power resonates with the way in which many people of faith perceive God’s power to be at work?”


  • (God/Trump) as a doer who can single-handedly fix things if he wants to.
  • (God/Trump who) acts without consulting others and without asking for permission
  • (God/Trump who) acts without being influenced by anyone else.
  • (God/Trump) projects power…strictly from the top down, from a subject to its objects, from the ruler to the ruled.
  • (God/Trump) can do anything. According to this logic, might also makes things right.

If “Trump’s way of projecting power resonates with the way in which many people of faith perceive God’s power to be at work,” then the post-Vatican II Rite urgently needs to engage in a Theological Activism that highlights shared power as bona fide scriptural and tradition-based concepts and practices…shared power in no way inferior to the efficient Roman model.

The present underlying theological substructure of politics/economics continues to support the political rise and popularity of dictator-type personalities and trickle-down economics.  With no input from progressive activist theologians, is there any hope for substantive change of heart and mind in regard to the stranger? …or any hope, that matter, for change in the ultimately apocalyptic direction in which we are moving at full speed ahead?

Activist progressive theologians, Joerg Rieger* and Kwok Pui Lan*, raise two important questions for us to ponder:

  1.  Is it time for people of faith to think more deeply about the God they are worshiping and the kinds of power they want to support?
  2. SHOULD we be leaving prayer-based theological activism solely in the hands of politically conservative religious leaders? (And, whether we acknowledge it or not, are we already doing so at our own peril and the peril of our faith, country, and world?)

A post-Vatican II rite in union with Rome has no fear to engage in prayer-based Theological Activism in ecumenical dialogue…exploring how we might see God in new ways…in wisdom ways that are invitational, NOT confrontational or polarizing.

——————————————-

References:
*Activist theologian and author of several books on this subject, Joerg Rieger, co-author of OCCUPY RELIGION: Theology of the Multitude with Kwok Pui Lan are both part of the Occupy Theology Movement.

JOERG RIEGER’s Website: http://joergrieger.com/

URL Link for Huffington Post piece: “Divine Power, Donald Trump, and How the 2016 Presidential Elections Challenge Common Religious Assumption” by Joerg Rieger

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joerg-rieger/divine-power-donald-trump_b_12488082.html

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 Rites/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 Spirit 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 https://RiteBeyondRome.com

Questions above are in response to the blog post excerpt below:
The Wild Reed: Truth About “Spirit of Vatican II” Finally Revealed!

“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.”

¿NOS ATREVEREMOS LOS CATÓLICOS A CREER DE OTRA MANERA, A REORIENTAR NUESTRA FE?

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”

DECONSTRUCCIÓN DE LA FÉ CATÓLICA

HASTA LLEGAR A LOS FUNDAMENTOS DE NUESTRA FÉ,

ABANDONANDO

CREENCIAS ATESORADAS DE LA DOCTRINA

CON EL FIN DE LLEGAR HASTA LA RAIZ Y

A SU APLICABIULIDAD EN NUESTRO TIEMPO

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
https://ritebeyondrome.com

 

 

 

 

“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: international.la-croix.com

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: http://www.americamagazine.org

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:
MY Bread, MY BREAD…
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

HOW does Jesus save?

Rite Beyond Rome responds to MORE GOOD THINKING on http://www.Catholica.com.au

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?
OR
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
https://RiteBeyondRome.com

Ours is just one of many responses to Tony Lawless’ essay, “A Palm Sunday reflection on the meaning of Obedience”  http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?mode=thread&id=197593#p197641

 

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 ever 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”    ncronline.org/news/justice/editorial-join-work-transformation

https://RiteBeyondRome.com

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
    and
  • 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?

REFORMAR EL CATOLICISMO ROMANO, ¿ES UNA ALTERNATIVA RACIONAL?

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!