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.)

 

“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

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!

 

 

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.
https://RiteBeyondRome.com

For Download of PDF Discussion Points:
EXPLORING THE WAY TO A VATICAN II RITE (PDF SLIDES)

Warm regards to all,
Sisters Lea and Consilia

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

EXISTE UNA GRAN BRECHA ENTRE EL PAPA FRANCISCO Y QUIENES CONTINUAN SOSTENIENDO UNA LITURGIA TRADICIONALISTA

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!

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
https://RiteBeyondRome

 

 

 

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
4vatican2rite@gmail.com

 

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

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)

Text:

 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

https://RiteBeyondRome.com

¿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.”

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/just-catholic/next-schism-already-here

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:
Slide Presentation: EXPLORING A VATICAN II RITE

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

Sisters Lea and Consilia
https://ritebeyondrome.com

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.”

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/just-catholic/next-schism-already-here

“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:
https://ritebeyondrome.com/picture-the-possibility-of-a-vatican-ii-rite/
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/

**http://dc2015.ei-research.net/origins/

Continue reading

Roman Rite Catholics Speak Out

(Quotes from discussion on National Catholic Reporter)

John S. to Sister Lea:  
“If you truly understood the meaning, teachings and import of the Second Vatican Council you would not be so quick to misuse it as an excuse for advocating that which is not Catholic truth and promoting what the Council Fathers never taught.
You are accepting what Pope Benedict XVI rightly called the “hermeneutic of rupture” rather than the “hermeneutic of continuity”.
The Second Vatican Council was in no sense a “super council” that denied or changed what had come before it in time. Its goal was pastoral, as the Church sought new ways to teach the ancient truths of the Church.”


Sister Lea to John S:
“
There needs to be a “hermeneutic of singularity” which addresses the age of change in which we live! Vatican II Fathers succeeded in opening the Church to change, whether they intended to do that or not.
Would the Holy Spirit not have wanted to prepare the Church for these times of geometrically progressing change…ancient truths and all…continually transvaluing them so that they stay ALIVE for every generation?
”







John S  to Sister Lea:
“And yet truth must remain rooted in what is eternally true for it to have any value for the human soul which was created immortal so that it would throughout time continue to seek the eternal God who is the source of all truth
.  Newness and change for their own sake – uprooted and disconnected from the sacred deposit of faith – are a recipe for disaster, which the history of schism, heresy and apostasy show all too well.
”

Sister Lea:
Agreed, “Newness and change for their own sake – uprooted and disconnected from the sacred deposit of faith – are a recipe for disaster, which the history of schism, heresy and apostasy show all too well.
”  The Vatican II Rite I speak of is not interested  in schism, heresy and apostasy…or even disconnection from the sacred deposit of faith…just interested in taking a look at all this from a very different point of view.

P. John to John S:
“Now hold on John. Ole Sis Lea might have a point here. Acknowledge the rupture, acknowledge the new theology, let them go off and develop their own rite (we can call it the – oh I don’t know – the NOVUS ORDO or something), give them their own bishops and let them go their way. The rest of us Latin Rite Catholics can get on with being – well – CATHOLIC, and in 50 years or so the NOVUS ORDO rite, having continued to shrink due to abortion contraception, defection, etc., will finally collapse. Then we can bury the whole thing down the memory hole as just another bad experiment and move on with the flourishing Latin Rite. I tell ya, Ole Sis IS on to something…”
    
  
  
John S. to P. John:

“Well said but I’m afraid you have spelled out what has in fact happened with far too many Catholics, all of them using a vague sense of “Vatican II” as a defense.
What is untrue will sooner or later fail because it is not of God.
As Rabbi Gamaliel said to the assembled Sanhedrin, speaking of the gospel of Christ,, “if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them.”
Heresy has always failed and will always fail because it is of man, not of God.”

Sister Lea:

Ah, YES!  We will let God do the judging.  So no worries about that!  Besides, the Vatican II Rite might just bring Catholics BACK to the Church in 50 years!  You never know.  No one has dibs on the Holy Spirit!  And thanks for your concern!

Against a Vatican II Rite

“If you truly understood the meaning, teachings and import of the Second Vatican Council you would not be so quick to misuse it as an excuse for advocating that which is not Catholic truth and promoting what the Council Fathers never taught.

You are accepting what Pope Benedict XVI rightly called the “hermeneutic of rupture” rather than the “hermeneutic of continuity”.

The Second Vatican Council was in no sense a “super council” that denied or changed what had come before it in time. Its goal was pastoral, as the Church sought new ways to teach the ancient truths of the Church.”

 
  • “There needs to be a “hermeneutic of singularity” which addresses the age of change in which we live!   Vatican II Fathers succeeded in opening the Church to change, whether they intended to do that or not.

    Would the Holy Spirit not have wanted to prepare the Church for these times of geometrically progressing change…ancient truths and all…continually transvaluing them so that they stay ALIVE for every generation?”

    Visit  PICTURE THE POSSIBILITY OF A VATICAN II RITE
    and  Reasons for a Vatican II Rite

Much As We Want Pope Francis’ Strategy for Reform to Work…

In response to article in National Catholic Reporter: “Francis is Reforming the Roman Curia by Circumvention” by Robert Mickens.

Robert Mickens asks: “Is the pope making any moves to ensure that he will leave a legacy that cannot be undone when he is gone? Which means he has to make some structural or organizational changes.”

Mickens notes Pope Francis’ strategy of “Neutralizing” the CDF and “Softening” the heads of other branches of the Curia.

Hmmmmm…will this change, which will take years that Pope Francis may or may not have, ever come about? And even if it does…

This “neutralizing and softening strategy” of Pope Francis…
…can it ever lead to structural change within the RC Rite/Church?
…… a Rite/Church in which so many ‘new’ priests/bishops of the past 30 years have been formed in the hands of O P U S Dei and SSPX…
……with their ultraconservative vision and understanding of the Church?

The Roman Rite vision of Church is A VERY different vision from Pope Francis…with his “situational ethics” which Pope Benedict XVI condemned.
But even this isn’t the core of the problem of Church reform.

Pope Francis’ vision of Church reform is stuck in Constantine’s vision of hierarchy as the only strategy to unity. This vision of hierarchic unity, in turn, is based on a theology of God as Divine Monarch, even Divinely Loving Monarch. This reform is NOT the reform that Vatican II points to, no matter how “synodal” the Church gets as the years go on.

On the other hand,

Pope Francis understands the idea of a multifaceted unity according to Cardinal Kasper and his ORIGINS article, “Vatican II: Toward a Multifaceted Unity. (Volume 45, Number 9).

Yet, Pope Francis’ reform persists in the direction of hierarchic unity instead of considering that the Roman Rite may never really take to Vatican II’s embrace of diversity.

The Church NEEDS the Roman Rite with its hierarchic vision of God, theology, governance and liturgy.  AND YET…

Just as the Church needed the input of the Melkite Eastern Rite at Vatican II to challenge it to consider and embrace synodality, collegiality, and a different view of the world…

…SO THE CHURCH ALSO NEEDS A VATICAN II RITE to challenge and be challenged by the Roman Rite and its sister/brother Eastern Rites in union with Rome.

 

Otherwise, we will be stuck forever trying to push and pull reform back and forth between Roman and Vatican II visions for the Church.   No?

Link to Robert Micken’s article: http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/roman-observer/francis-reforming-roman-curia-circumvention

Subscribe, Share, Comment or Contribute your ideas on Rite Beyond Rome. 4vatican2rite@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s see…Would we have …

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

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

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

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

Let’s see…would there have been…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit :  PICTURE THE POSSIBILITY OF A VATICAN II RITE

Blessings and thanks for reading and thinking about this!
Sisters Lea and Consilia et al
https://RiteBeyondRome.com

Vatican II, A Rupture in Catholicism?

For too long, we Vatican II Catholics have understandably confused Roman Rite Catholicism with the Universal Catholic Church,
…mainly because Roman Rite Catholicism is internally confused about that one as well.

Vatican II, however, was definitely a rupture in that kind of confused thinking.
More than that, Vatican II was a rupture in the very theology that
…supports what Rome defines as bona fide Catholicism.

Meanwhile, Roman Catholicism has tried to quietly stitch together that rupture between
…Vatican II theology and RC theology with authoritative words
…like “continuity,” “tradition,” and “unity”.
The  justifiable effort here was to spiritualize the aggiornamento (updating) of the Church …in order to save the Church from the “excesses” of Vatican II.
The unintended consequence of this action was to shut down /melt down  Vatican II …into business (theology/governance/liturgy) as usual.

The Holy Spirit, however, was not to be shut out or melted down into business as usual.
Just as the first Pentecost was a rupture in the Judaic vision of itself, humanity and God,
…so was Vatican II a rupture in the Roman Church’s view of itself, God and the world
…a rupture in Roman Catholic Theology.
(Vatican II expert Richard Gaillardetz discusses “micro-ruptures evident in the teaching of Vatican II” in Boston College School of Theology video, “Fulfilling the Unrealized Vision of Vatican II”.)

With Vatican II, the Holy Spirit initiated a challenge to Roman Rite theology,
…as well as RC hierarchic style of governance and its liturgical/sacramental practice.
Vatican II also challenged the ROMAN Catholic  vision of the Church
…as well as its concepts of Catholic identity and Catholic culture.

Any kind of rupture, even sacred micro-ruptures in theology alone;
…these were not the intent of Vatican II,
…but these ruptures were definitely the consequence of the Vatican II event.

The purpose of Vatican II was the updating of the Roman Catholic Church,
…and some cardinals/bishops didn’t even see the need for that.  

The Holy Spirit had different ideas, inviting the Council to move in other directions
…right from the start
…as typified when the cardinals/bishops resisted
…the imposition of a curial-fixed agenda on the Council proceedings.

How often, the Holy Spirit calls us in one direction, only to take us off down a road we never expected, always with results beyond any we could ever have imagined. 

Continue reading

IS This Pontificate Stuck in the Mud?

Text below is response to this NCR link:
The pontificate might be stuck in the mud | National Catholic Reporter

Is this pontificate stuck in the mud as the above NCR article suggests…
OR is it our unrealistic expectations of this pontificate that are stuck in the mud?

Almost one millennium ago, Roman Catholicism rejected synodality in favor of monarchical papacy and centralized government in opposition to Eastern Church synodality…resulting in the East-West Great Schism of 1054.

Vatican II re-introduced synodality to the Roman Church/Rite through the influence of Patriarch Maximos of the Melkite Eastern Church/Rite in union with Rome.
Yet, because of an official note Pope Paul VI attached to Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, papal monarchy was once again preserved in its former glory dating as far back as 5th century Christianity.

In response to the official papal note attached to Lumen Gentium, AMERICA Magazine article on Synodality said, “While the advance of collegiality among bishops is regarded as one of the great ambitions of the Second Vatican Council, it was an idea still born.”   7/1/2013

WHY?  Because papal monarchy and centralized government are embedded in Roman Church/Rite theology and tradition. 

As long as God is held in faith as the Divine Monarch, so long will Roman Catholicism model its divinely appointed government on monarchy over synodality.
Likewise, so long will the most significant breakthroughs of Vatican II be still born.

When are we Vatican II Catholics going to stop expecting Roman Rite Catholicism to surrender its theological understanding of itself? 

Synodality and collegiality are NOT compatible with Roman Rite theology, governance or liturgy.

WHAT CHOICES ARE LEFT FOR VATICAN II CATHOLICS? 

Must Vatican II Catholicism remain still born for another millennium or longer?
Do we just wait and watch from heaven?  God will take care of everything for us?

Could we at least look at the possibility of a Vatican II Catholic Rite in union with Rome?  Might that be something the Holy Spirit is calling forth during this papacy?

Click here for PDF visual slide presentation “Exploring the Possibilities of a Vatican II Rite”.  Link, Share, or download this and/or Position Paper on “Saving Both Vatican II and Traditional Catholic Visions

Vatican II Catholics & Church Reform?

Is the Roman Catholic Rite capable of being reformed by Vatican II Catholics?
To that question, we would answer a definitive “NO!”…
Not because we don’t love the Church,
but because we are no longer of the ROMAN Catholic culture.

For too long, we Vatican II Catholics have understandably confused
Roman Rite Catholicism with the Universal Catholic Church,
mainly because Roman Rite Catholicism is internally confused about that one as well.
Vatican II, however, was a definitive rupture in that kind of confused thinking.
More than that, Vatican II was a rupture in
the very theology that supports what Rome defines as bona fide Catholicism.

To those of us in the position of being outsiders to Roman bona fide Catholicism,
God is no longer the divine monarch who rules the heavens and the earth,
meting out rewards and punishments according to obedience/disobedience ratios.

Given this scenario, how can WE even hope to reform Roman Rite Catholicism?
It is precisely because we no longer operate out of Roman Rite theology
that we must disqualify ourselves in the effort to reform ROMAN Catholicism.

By removing ourselves from reform the Roman Catholic Church,
we can free up Roman Rite Catholicism to reform itself.
More importantly, we free ourselves up to attend to our responsibility
to raise Vatican II from the globe-shattering council it was
to the Rite it needs to be right NOW!.

As long as we delay the consummation of this divine rupture in Catholicism,
for fear of acknowledging it or fear of what it demands of us,
that much longer will we delay the action
the Holy Spirit initiated at the Second Vatican Council.

The fact of the matter is that
The Catholic Church  NEEDS BOTH  the Roman and Vatican II Rites,
each for very different reasons…
just as we needed the Eastern Catholic Rites
and the very significant role they played in
re-introducing synodality, collegiality and other reforms
at the world-wide, ecumenical Council of Vatican II.

Catholicism needs its many rites
in order that we may challenge and learn from each other.

The unity of Catholicism is the miracle of a “separate yet one-with” diverse unity,
an unimaginable oneness of seemingly contradictory perspectives
that can only be brought together by the divine intervention of the Holy Spirit.

Google:  Rite Beyond Rome
Sisters Lea and Consilia

%d bloggers like this: