Sorry for the lack of posts

Hello everyone,

I am sorry for the lack of posts over the past several weeks.  I was on holiday in California for part of the time, with only my phone for internet access and while in the Sierra Nevadas even my phone access never mind internet was iffy.

In other news, my younger son is now a first time father as of July 16, Feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.  Baby Kaiya, a girl, decided to enter the world five weeks early at only 3.5 pounds!   But she and Mom are doing well.  This is my third grandchild and second granddaughter.

I have been on a reading jag concerning the Second Vatican Council over the summer.  I am half way through Yves Congar’s My Journal of the Council;  I could not put down Roberto de Mattei’s gripping  Second Vatican Council: the unwritten story and I highly recommend it for its historical look at the debates at the Council.  It also provides a sympathetic view of the traditionalists’ point of view, which I found valuable, but that makes me want to take a look at the other side!

I have a couple of books by Cardinal Jean Danielou on the go and have ordered some more books by others of the great Vatican II theologians.

Part of the reason I am interested in doing this stems from the Fr. Louis Bouyer  article I posted, where he wrote about how Mgr. Lefebrve seemed to many like the only one who was standing up for Catholic truth in the period of confusion after the Council.   What I think is happening now is people who are unsettled by what is going on around the synod are seeing only a progressive, modernist interpretation of the Second Vatican Council upheld (the hermeneutic of rupture) and are consequently finding a traditionalist model increasingly attractive.   That’s because they are not hearing much, or they don’t think they are hearing much, from those who interpret the Council in the way Pope Benedict XVI did, as reform in continuity with what the Church has always taught.  I think I recall seeing something de Mattei had written postulating that this hermeneutic of Benedict’s is now defunct.

I respectfully disagree.   Last night I listened to this lecture by Fr. Robert Barron on Gaudium et Spes that adds some perspective on what the intent of the Council fathers was, though perhaps that intent did not play out as planned.  Very interesting!

http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/lecture/gaudium-et-spes-the-right-reading-of-vatican-ii-lecture

That’s it for now, but I will be posting regularly again, I promise!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Sorry for the lack of posts

  1. Rev22:17 says:

    Deborah,

    You wrote: I am sorry for the lack of posts over the past several weeks. I was on holiday in California for part of the time, with only my phone for internet access and while in the Sierra Nevadas even my phone access never mind internet was iffy.

    Welcome back!

    You have been missed. Very, very missed!

    You wrote: In other news, my younger son is now a first time father as of July 16, Feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. Baby Kaiya, a girl, decided to enter the world five weeks early at only 3.5 pounds! But she and Mom are doing well. This is my third grandchild and second granddaughter.

    Congratulations on the new arrival!

    You wrote: I have been on a reading jag concerning the Second Vatican Council over the summer….

    Hopefully this endeavor will continue to be insightful.

    There are at least a couple challenges in reading the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

    1. The council fathers saw a need for reform, but also a need for caution out of concern that some reforms might not work as well as hoped. Thus, there is a lot of doublespeak (“White man speak with forked tongue.”), especially with regard to reforms, in the conciliar documents. Here are a couple obvious examples from the sacred constitution Sacrosanctum concilium on divine worship (boldface added).

    36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

    2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

    3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

    4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

    120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.

    But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.

    The intent of this doublespeak was to provide the latitude to test the waters while preserving latitude for the magisterium to proceed further with reforms that worked well and to scale it back reforms that failed.

    2. In some cases, subsequent documents modify the assumptions that are inherent in earlier documents and thus affect the appropriate manner of implementation. In particular, many of the principles and reforms articulated in Sacrosanctum concilium require reapplication in the context of the development of ecclesiology in the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium, which really is the keystone of the council.

    You wrote: Last night I listened to this lecture by Fr. Robert Barron on Gaudium et Spes that adds some perspective on what the intent of the Council fathers was, though perhaps that intent did not play out as planned. Very interesting!

    The pastoral constitution Gaudium et spes is still an enigma to many people, primarily because it is still awaiting implementation. The “New Evangelism” — actually inaugurated by Pope John Paul II, though Pope Benedict XVI clearly was its stronger advocate — is the first real step toward its implementation. Unfortunately, I don’t see much evidence of the “New Evangelism” gaining the traction that it really needs.

    Norm.

  2. Dalene Gill says:

    Hello Deborah,
    Congratulations on the birth of Kayia. May she bring much joy.
    Michael and Dalene

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s