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

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

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

Sisters Lea and Consilia

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


Reform Roman Catholicism, A Rational Alternative?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dare We Catholics Believe Differently?

Literal & Poetic Interpretations of Catholicism, the real split?


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!



Vatican II…Going the Way of Climate Change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rome is perfectly free to normalize or spiritualize Vatican II and its implementation within Roman Rite Catholicism, but NOT within the realm of universal Catholicism.   There are many Catholic Churches in union with Rome. https://ritebeyondrome.com/2016/05/02/diagram-of-riteschurches-from-jerusalem/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Download of PDF Discussion Points:

Warm regards to all,
Sisters Lea and Consilia


This article is a translation of our reponse to “A new style of ministry, but no new doctrine? by Massimo Faggioli” at   https://wordpress.com/post/ritebeyondrome.com/2692

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

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

Nuestra respuesta:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¿Está usted de acuerdo? ¿O en desacuerdo?

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

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

In reply to Massimo Faggioli’s article:  “The Church in the Trump Era: Catholicism or Americanism?”  published 11.14.2016 on https://international.la-croix.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*    *    *    *   *   *   *   *   *

Opus Dei in the United States: From February 25, 1995 by James Martin, SJ


See Also:


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

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

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

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

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

Commonweal Magazine 10.12.16 “Bagnasco elected in challenge to Francis”by Robert Mickens https://international.la-croix.com/news/bagnasco-elected-in-challenge-to-francis/4046

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


Abajo está la traducción de “Huge gap separates Pope Francis from liturgical traditionalists”by Massimo Faggioli   https://wordpress.com/post/ritebeyondrome.com/2692

Nuestro comentario sobre el artículo de Massimo Faggioli, publicado en el Global Pulse Magazine (ver link del Global Pulse Magazine abajo ):

“Apreciamos la esperanza que tiene Massimo Faggioli sobre la posibilidad de que la Iglesia del Concilio Vaticano II va a regresar.

Sin embargo ¿cree usted que en los pocos años que le quedan al Papa Francisco, le sea posible revertir “la masiva simpatía e Irénica actitud” hacia el tradicionalismo, que ha sido succionado por la población católica y transmitido en numerosas universidades seminarios, parroquias y publicaciones en todo el mundo durante los últimos 30 años o más?

Además el deceso de tantos clérigos, teólogos y laicos creyentes del Vaticano II. ¿Usted cree que podemos sentarnos cómodamente y esperar que el Papa Francisco reviva el Vaticano II… enfrentándose a un movimiento fuerte, tradicionalista, generalizado y penetrante hacia una “Iglesia más pura y pequeña?

El hecho es que el Rito Romano de la Iglesia Católica, se ha establecido como un formidable oponente al Vaticano II y a sus interpretaciones proféticas de la teología, gobierno, litúrgia e identidad católica.

Por lo tanto, ¿por qué no permitir a Roma, -el hermano mayor-, que siga siendo el guardian de la hermenéutica del Concilio de Trento, así como la representante del catolicismo institucional.

Mientras tanto, el Papa Francisco queda en una difícil posición: la de liberar al Vaticano II de las manos de aquellos que siempre verán al Vaticano II solo como una confirmación del Concilio de Trento.

El Papa Francisco puede proteger de un sisma a la Iglesia universal y bendecir las tradiciones de la Iglesia de Trento y de la Iglesia del Vaticano II, ramas “igualmente válidas aunque distintas” del pensamiento católico y de su práctica.

Esta postura sería semejante a la de “separada pero siendo una en” hermandad, como es el caso de Roma y la Iglesia Católica Oriental. Esta última tiene una interpretación menos escolástica/más mística, que su hermano mayor Romano, tanto de la teología católica, como del gobierno y la Liturgia.

Por otra parte, si el Papa Francisco muere, la Iglesia se acomoda de nuevo en su modo curial, de un catolicismo del Concilio de Trento, como si el Concilio Vaticano II nunca hubiera existido, ¿o no?

Link para Global Pulse Magazine

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

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

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!

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 Dr. Faggioli’s article and comments: Relearning critical obedience and faithful dissent – La Croix International

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

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!







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massimo Faggioli’s article: “Huge gap separates Pope Francis from liturgical tradionalists” – Global Pulse Magazine
http://www.globalpulsemagazine.com/news/huge-gap-separates-pope-francis-from-liturgical-tradionalists/3568     (article published 7.18.2016)

Dare We Catholics Believe Differently?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncommon Faith speaking from two different perspectives:

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

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

More on Vatican II Theology to come on Rite Beyond Rome.
Meanwhile, read John D. Caputo’s books:
On Religion and The Weakness of God, A Theology of the Event with us.
Interested in conversation…comment below and/or email 4Vatican2Rite@gmail.com

View, share, download:

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

Sisters Lea and Consilia

Really? “Next Schism Already Here”

Phyllis Zagano starts out here with her article on National Catholic Reporter:

“The next schism isn’t down the road somewhere. It is already here. The proponents are lined up in a serious face-off, their team shirts emblazoned “Pre-Vatican II” and “Post-Vatican II…

The fissure is getting worse, as more and more younger people come along yearning for the good old days (before they were born) when everything was orderly, everything had its place, and the rules were followed.”


“This verbal war…the one of the good Catholics against the bad Catholics, with “good”or “bad” being defined by which side you are on…how long must that war endure?

What Massive Harm the two sides are doing to each other and the Church by not believing in each other’s good will!
What scandal we give to our children and then wonder why they have little or no desire to remain in our Church!

So, there are Catholics who desperately need certainty and security in this rapidly changing world…one can understand this.

Must the post-Vatican II side deride and vilify the pre-Vatican II side for their vision of saving the world by hanging on to “traditional” understandings of doctrine and practice…even though we might see some of those values as outmoded, distorted, even un-Christlike?  Surely they see us in a similar light.

And yes, there are Catholics who see the desperate need for change in the Church…change that cannot wait 50 or 500 years more…whereby time presses that need under the vision of Church as Rock of Peter rather than Barque of Peter on the open sea.

Must the pre-Vatican II side deride and vilify those in the Church who see Vatican II differently than they do? Must they denounce as heretical any desire or attempt to deconstruct tradition in order to follow it more faithfully in our time? Must they harass and hound us for not being able to think like them anymore than they are unable to think like us?

SCHISM IS NOT THE ANSWER FOR EITHER SIDE. The Catholic Family Tree started out from one Root in Jersalem, branching out into three different traditions of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.
We need a Vatican II Branch of the Church something like theologian Daniel Maguire’s article in Crux 9.13.15, “Will Catholicism go the Way of Judiasm?” (with its Orthodox, Conservative, Reform branches).”

Read “A Whole New Branch of Catholicism?” and other articles on https://RiteBeyondRome.com

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

Aunque sería excelente que la Estrategia del Papa Francisco, lograra una reforma efectiva…

(Translation of RITE BEYOND ROME document  Much As We Want Pope Francis’ Strategy for Reform to Work…)

Aunque sería excelente que la Estrategia del Papa Francisco, lograra una reforma efectiva…

En respuesta al artículo de Robert Mickens, publicado por el National Catholic Reporter, “Francisco está Reformando la Curia Romana con una Estrategia de soslayo”.

R. Mickens pregunta: ¿Está el Papa llevando a cabo los movimientos que aseguren que, el deje un legado que no podrá ser revertido cuando muera?

Esto implica que el Papa tendría que llevar a cabo, algunos cambios en la organización y en la estructura.

Mickens señala que la estrategia del Papa Francisco de “neutralizar” a la CDF (Congregación de la Doctrina y la Fe) y “suavizar” las cabezas de otras ramas de la Curia,

Hmmmmm… estos cambios van a tomar años, y
además no sabemos si el Papa logrará llevarlos a cabo; y aún si lo hace…

Esta estrategia del Papa Francisco de neutralizar y suavizar, ¿logrará llevar a un cambio dentro del Ritual de la Iglesia? 1

…una Iglesia/Ritual en la cual tantos sacerdotes y obispos han sido formados, durante los últimos 30 años, en las manos del Opus Dei y de la Sociedad de San Pio X (Hermandad Sacerdotal de San Pio X), fraternidad sacerdotal internacional, cuyo objetivo es formar, apoyar y animar a los santos sacerdotes a permanecer fieles a las enseñanzas tradicionales de la Iglesia y de la misa… con su visión ultraconservadora y entendimiento de lo que es la Iglesia?

La visión de la Iglesia Romana/Ritual, es una visión muy diferente de la del Papa Francisco… con su “ética situacional”, que el Papa Benedicto XVI condenó.
Pero esto no es aún el centro o el corazón del problema de la reforma de la Iglesia.

La visión del Papa Francisco sobre la Reforma de la Iglesia, está estancada en la visión jerárquica de Constantino, según la cual, esta es la única estrategia para lograr la unidad. Esta visión jerárquica está basada, a su vez, en una teología de Dios, como el Divino Monarca o como el Amoroso Divino Monarca. Esta reforma NO es la reforma que el Concilio Vaticano II plantea, no importa cuan “Sinodal” (de Sínodo) pueda volverse la Iglesia con el paso de los años.

Por otra parte,

El Papa Francisco entiende la idea de una unidad multifacética, de acuerdo con el Cardenal Kasper en su artículo “Vatican II, hacia una unidad multifacética” (ORIGINS Volumen 45, número 9).

Sin embargo el Papa Francisco persiste en su postura de la unidad jerárquica, en lugar de considerar que el Ritual Romano, probablemente nunca lleve a la Iglesia a abrazar la diversidad.

La Iglesia necesita el Ritual Romano con su visión jerárquica de Dios, de la teología, gobierno y Litúrgia. Y sin embargo…

Así como la Iglesia necesitaba la aportación del Rito Malakita de Oriente durante el Concilio Vaticano II para confrontarlo y considerar la posibilidad de abrazar lo Sinodal, la colegialidad y una visión distinta del mundo…

La Iglesia necesita también un Ritual del Vaticano II para confrontar y ser confrontada por el Ritual Romano y sus hermanos y hermanas de los Ritos Occidentales en unión con Roma.

Sin esto, estaremos estancados para siempre, tratando de empujar y lograr la Reforma entre las visiones de Roma y del Vaticano II, de lo que es la Iglesia.

1 Aquí la palabra Ritual (Rite en Ingles) se entiende como la herencia litúrgica, teológica, espiritual y disciplinaria, que es diferente, dependiendo de la cultura y las circunstancias históricas de los pueblos y encuentra su expresión en la forma autónoma de cada Iglesia de vivir su fé.

El link para leer todo el artículo de Robert Micken es: http.//

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


[Escriba aquí]



%d bloggers like this: