2John5918
>1 brone:
This could spark an interesting conversation on the political history and current affairs in Ireland, north and south, although I wonder why you have given it the title "aggiornamento", an Italian term coined by Pope John XXIII referring to reform within the Catholic Church which has nothing to do with Irish politics.
I wouldn't characterise the government of the Republic of Ireland as "Marxist" - that would better describe Sinn Fein. The two traditional major parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, are both centre-right, although the current government is a coalition which includes the Greens. But I know that you use the term "Marxist" to describe anyone you disagree with, rather than as an accurate description.
Half of my great-grandparents were Irish, I grew up with Irish priests and people in England, and I've spent a lot of time living and working with Irish missionaries such as the ones you mention approvingly. I think you might be surprised that most of them certainly do not agree with the vision of Church which you present in these posts, quite the opposite, in fact. They are immersed in liberation theology, the preferential option for the poor, Catholic Social Teaching, dialogue, the reformed liturgy - all the things that you apparently oppose (although for the first time I hear you write approvingly of the "liberating truths" of Catholic Social Teaching with reference to the Irish constitution). At the same time they are dedicated missionaries, spreading the Gospel, and in some cases being martyred for it.
Might I add that as with many diasporas, I have found that the narratives of many Irish-Americans are often out of touch with the experience of Irish living in Ireland, again whether north of south.
And indeed may St Patrick, that great British missionary who helped to evangelise Ireland, pray for us.
This could spark an interesting conversation on the political history and current affairs in Ireland, north and south, although I wonder why you have given it the title "aggiornamento", an Italian term coined by Pope John XXIII referring to reform within the Catholic Church which has nothing to do with Irish politics.
I wouldn't characterise the government of the Republic of Ireland as "Marxist" - that would better describe Sinn Fein. The two traditional major parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, are both centre-right, although the current government is a coalition which includes the Greens. But I know that you use the term "Marxist" to describe anyone you disagree with, rather than as an accurate description.
Half of my great-grandparents were Irish, I grew up with Irish priests and people in England, and I've spent a lot of time living and working with Irish missionaries such as the ones you mention approvingly. I think you might be surprised that most of them certainly do not agree with the vision of Church which you present in these posts, quite the opposite, in fact. They are immersed in liberation theology, the preferential option for the poor, Catholic Social Teaching, dialogue, the reformed liturgy - all the things that you apparently oppose (although for the first time I hear you write approvingly of the "liberating truths" of Catholic Social Teaching with reference to the Irish constitution). At the same time they are dedicated missionaries, spreading the Gospel, and in some cases being martyred for it.
Might I add that as with many diasporas, I have found that the narratives of many Irish-Americans are often out of touch with the experience of Irish living in Ireland, again whether north of south.
And indeed may St Patrick, that great British missionary who helped to evangelise Ireland, pray for us.
3John5918
I post this here not because it is about Ireland but because I believe it is about aggiornamento, the title of this thread.
Pope Francis: Christians ‘are invited to be open to change’ (Catholic News Agency)
Pope Francis: Christians ‘are invited to be open to change’ (Catholic News Agency)
Christians should imitate Jesus in being steadfast — not inflexible — in their convictions, thus being open to change for the good of others, Pope Francis said on Sunday. “This is what God is like: He is love, and the one who loves does not remain rigid,” the pope said on Aug. 20. “You stand firm, you stay firm, not rigid.” The Christian, he added, “does not remain rigid in his own positions but allows him or herself to be moved or touched. He or she knows how to change plans. It’s creative love.” Pope Francis said: “We Christians want to imitate Christ; we are invited to be open to change. How good it would be in our relationships, as well as in our lives of faith, to be docile, to truly pay attention, to soften up for the name of compassion and the good of others”...
5John5918
>4 brone:
Aggiornamento is not a fad or a "rage for novelty" as you suggest. It was a decision taken for very good reasons by the pope in concert with all the bishops of the world at the Second Vatican Council, in deliberations spread over four years which were themselves the result of many years of discernment.
Your exaggerated caricature is just not true. There is not "a new change each week at Mass", the vast majority of the faithful are not confused (or at least no more so than they were previously when the mass was an arcane ritual in a language they didn't understand), and it is still "the sacrifice of Christ", who said, "Do this in memory of me", but didn't mean that it should be done in Aramaic by twelve people sitting round a table in an upper room in Jerusalem for the rest of eternity. There have been no significant changes to the liturgy for decades now.
Major visible changes such as moving the altar, and in some (but not all) cases the altar rails were done in the early years after the Council's decisions began to be implemented. Tabernacles have been moved off the altar but are still in a prominent and visible place in the church. Communion is served in the hand, but it is optional and those who wish to have it put directly in their mouth are free to do so. A cup has been used since the time of the Last Supper, where Jesus certainly didn't use a gem-encrusted golden vessel, but in fact the rubrics do demand that a suitable sacred vessel be used, not a domestic tea cup.
Look, everybody knows that there was some unauthorised experimentation by some poorly-instructed priests in the years immediately following the Council, but that is long behind us now. Everybody also knows that there is some sloppy and unorthodox liturgy practiced by some priests, but that was also true of the old pre-Vatican II liturgy. Even as a young altar boy I remember some pretty appalling liturgies. The fact that there are isolated abuses of the liturgy does not invalidate the universal liturgy of the Church. There are rubrics (I wonder if you've ever read them?) and in most churches those rubrics are followed most of the time by most of the priests. And as you and I have agreed elsewhere, there is room for deviation from the strict letter of the rubrics in exceptional circumstances, such as your army chaplain celebrating mass on the bonnet of a jeep or my priests in South Sudan celebrating mass in several inches of muddy water in the middle of the swamp, often under fire.
And finally, aggiornamento is not confined to the liturgy. It is a reform which has touched many aspects of Church life, including for example a new openness which means that the priests who sexually abused children and got away with it in the pre-conciliar era are now being caught and exposed, or that the "elite mafia" which held sway in the Vatican which you constantly refer to has been challenged by recent popes including John XXIII, John Paul I and most recently Francis. Deo gratias.
Aggiornamento is not a fad or a "rage for novelty" as you suggest. It was a decision taken for very good reasons by the pope in concert with all the bishops of the world at the Second Vatican Council, in deliberations spread over four years which were themselves the result of many years of discernment.
Your exaggerated caricature is just not true. There is not "a new change each week at Mass", the vast majority of the faithful are not confused (or at least no more so than they were previously when the mass was an arcane ritual in a language they didn't understand), and it is still "the sacrifice of Christ", who said, "Do this in memory of me", but didn't mean that it should be done in Aramaic by twelve people sitting round a table in an upper room in Jerusalem for the rest of eternity. There have been no significant changes to the liturgy for decades now.
Major visible changes such as moving the altar, and in some (but not all) cases the altar rails were done in the early years after the Council's decisions began to be implemented. Tabernacles have been moved off the altar but are still in a prominent and visible place in the church. Communion is served in the hand, but it is optional and those who wish to have it put directly in their mouth are free to do so. A cup has been used since the time of the Last Supper, where Jesus certainly didn't use a gem-encrusted golden vessel, but in fact the rubrics do demand that a suitable sacred vessel be used, not a domestic tea cup.
Look, everybody knows that there was some unauthorised experimentation by some poorly-instructed priests in the years immediately following the Council, but that is long behind us now. Everybody also knows that there is some sloppy and unorthodox liturgy practiced by some priests, but that was also true of the old pre-Vatican II liturgy. Even as a young altar boy I remember some pretty appalling liturgies. The fact that there are isolated abuses of the liturgy does not invalidate the universal liturgy of the Church. There are rubrics (I wonder if you've ever read them?) and in most churches those rubrics are followed most of the time by most of the priests. And as you and I have agreed elsewhere, there is room for deviation from the strict letter of the rubrics in exceptional circumstances, such as your army chaplain celebrating mass on the bonnet of a jeep or my priests in South Sudan celebrating mass in several inches of muddy water in the middle of the swamp, often under fire.
And finally, aggiornamento is not confined to the liturgy. It is a reform which has touched many aspects of Church life, including for example a new openness which means that the priests who sexually abused children and got away with it in the pre-conciliar era are now being caught and exposed, or that the "elite mafia" which held sway in the Vatican which you constantly refer to has been challenged by recent popes including John XXIII, John Paul I and most recently Francis. Deo gratias.
8John5918
>7 brone:
I doubt very much whether the people who "ushered in the era of free love, tune in, turn on, and drop out Hippies, Acid, and Timothy Leary" had even heard of Vatican II, let alone been influenced by it. I had to look up Timothy Leary, incidentally. You obviously know more about psychedelic drugs than I do. Most of your post is just nonsensical ranting. But I have heard some superb, moving and inspiring homilies over the years, not a mere 600v but 25kv!
I doubt very much whether the people who "ushered in the era of free love, tune in, turn on, and drop out Hippies, Acid, and Timothy Leary" had even heard of Vatican II, let alone been influenced by it. I had to look up Timothy Leary, incidentally. You obviously know more about psychedelic drugs than I do. Most of your post is just nonsensical ranting. But I have heard some superb, moving and inspiring homilies over the years, not a mere 600v but 25kv!
12John5918
>11 brone: to give any comfort to those who reflexively oppose any change
To oppose any change is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of Vatican II, nor with the Tradition of the Church which has seen continuous change and frequent reform over the last two millennia.
To oppose any change is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of Vatican II, nor with the Tradition of the Church which has seen continuous change and frequent reform over the last two millennia.
