The 2nd Vatican Council

Thanks for your thoughts on this. As you reference the opening speech by Pope Saint John XXIII, let me quote a section of it:

In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty. We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.

I think there are small groups within the Church, particularly in the USA and maybe UK and France, who fit the holy saint's description of "prophets of gloom". Fortunately that is not the feeling throughout most of the Church, where there is vibrancy, growth, optimism and evangelical hope.

As you say, Pope John notes that many bishops were imprisoned for their faith at that time. I don't know how the statistics compare today, but those who are imprisoned for their faith remain potent symbols of the Church standing up and speaking out in a prophetic manner against the established cultural, societal, economic, religious and political ideologies of our time. Bishops who are friends of mine have in recent years been imprisoned, bombed and shot, and of course we remember the martyrdom of Saint Oscar Romero and so many other bishops, priests, nuns, religious brothers, missionaries and laity who have suffered and died for their faith.

John's speech continues, "Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity... the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her." I'm sure these words would have inspired Pope Francis with his emphasis on love, mercy and inclusivity. I don't see any "ambiguities of text and meanings".

I doubt whether we will see another Council in our lifetimes, a mere sixty years after the last one when its teachings and implications are still being examined and implemented. I believe there have only been twenty-one over a span of two millennia, and the gap between Vatican I and II was around ninety years. However we do already have an ongoing consultation and discernment process involving not only the bishops but the whole Church namely the Synod on Synodality. If there are major issues to be faced, they are being unearthed in this Synod and the Holy Father and the bishops will be able to make appropriate decisions.

If I recall correctly, when Vatican II opened the Vatican establishment had already produced schema, working documents, as was the custom. When the bishops gathered and prayed together they scrapped the schema as being inadequate and decided that aggiornamento needed a more open approach. They also decided that the first teaching document of this Council should be on the liturgy, recognising lex orandi, lex credendi, that the liturgy is the centre of our life and unity, our theology and our praxis as Catholics. Hence they gave us Sacrosanctum concilium, approved by 2,147 bishops with only four disagreeing. This describes the liturgy of the Church which unites us, and that's why there is now some dismay at small groups of Catholics who choose to separate themselves from the Church at prayer by insisting on a different liturgy.

>3 brone: a collegial to a monarchial method of proceeding

Seems to me it was precisely the opposite. The schema represented the top down legalistic "monarchical" system prepared by the Vatican elite, while it was the gathered bishops who demanded a different, more collegial, process.

I would not agree that the reform has "come to fruition" under Pope Francis; I think it still has a long way to go, and indeed the Kingdom of God may never come to complete fruition until the end times. However Francis is certainly responsible for the Synodal process which will take it forwards, and which is a good example of the collegial method that you appear to support.

>5 brone:

I'm interested to hear that "collegiality became a bone of contention between the primacy of Peter and the episcopal body", as I certainly haven't seen it. Can you elaborate on it, please, and maybe cite some examples?

My understanding is that the atmosphere of collegiality in Vatican II was appreciated so much by both bishops and pope that in 1965 Pope Paul VI instituted a process of regular Synods to maintain that spirit of collegiality. The pope cannot lead the Church effectively without the support and advice of the bishops.

>5 brone: the canon of the Mass, to which not one change had occured since Gregory the Great

Not true. Actually "the Tridentine Missal did in fact undergo many minor (and sometimes even major) alterations before it reached the 1962 form", for example in 1605 (Clement VIII), 1634 (Urban VIII), 1884 (Leo XIII), 1920 (Benedict XV), 1925, 1932, 1935 and 1955 (Pius XII) (link). The liturgy has been constantly revised since the earliest days of the Church; we no longer celebrate mass in Aramaic in an upper room. As you say, it was revised again in 1962 by Pope Saint John XXIII, and again in 1970 by Paul VI. After 1970 concessions were made by various popes, notably Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, to allow the antecedent rite to be used in certain exceptional circumstances, particularly by the old and infirm who found the transition difficult, but note that the rite which they permitted to be used was not the pre-1962 Tridentine rite but was "the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962" (Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum pontificum, 2007), a version which you apparently disapprove of.

>8 brone:

Because the bishops disagreed with the pope on a single issue does not mean that "collegiality became a bone of contention between the primacy of Peter and the episcopal body". As I mentioned in >6 John5918:, Paul VI was so convinced of the value of collegiality that he instituted regular Synods.

I know you use the term "progressive" as a pejorative, but the fact is that most of the bishops in Vatican II were not "progressives", but they were in favour of aggiornamento, reform in continuity with tradition. This put them broadly in line with Paul VI and his predecessor, John XXIII, although obviously not every bishop agreed on every single issue. Unity does not mean uniformity, and disagreement does not have to mean controversy, public vitriol and near-schism. Charity, not "lovey dovey", is at the root of our Church.

>10 brone:

I think you're overstating your case. Wherever there are human beings there will be some disagreements, and this is true of popes and the college of bishops. Four bishops (out of more than two thousand) even voted against the liturgical reforms in Vatican II. That "the whole framework {of a document} was rejected, rewritten and repreresented in a future session" was a sign of collegiality, not the opposite - the document presented by the Vatican elite, a group which you often criticise, was rejected as the college of bishops proposed their own ideas. In that particular case I'm not surprised that the African bishops and missionaries rejected a document prepared by the eurocentric Vatican. Thank God we have moved beyond that and Pope Francis especially has brought the young churches of the Global South in from the margins. Pope Leo XIV, as a Peruvian and a missionary, will hopefully continue that dynamic.

One case where Paul VI did exercise his authority as you say was in Humanae vitae, a 1968 document (ie not part of Vatican II) in which he overruled his theological experts and the commission which he himself had set up and insisted on maintaining a ban on artificial family planning. Many in the Church thought this was a mistake, and indeed in the Global North Catholics have generally voted with their feet (or other appropriate body parts) and ignored that one.

You seem surprised that the Council "overlooked" the resurgence of Islam, but I think that is a little anachronistic. Was the resurgence of Islam really so obvious in the early 1960s? I don't think so.

So yes, I agree with you that there is room for healthy disagreement between the pope and the bishops, but I don't agree that this means collegiality has been a "bone of contention". Paul VI instituted regular Synods, Francis instituted the ongoing Synod on Synodality, an unprecedented opportunity for consultation and discernment involving every layer of the Church which has been wholeheartedly welcomed particularly in the Global South where the centre of gravity of the Church now is, and since Vatican II we have seen a huge growth in the importance of national bishops' conferences as well as regional ones such as SECAM for the whole of Africa and AMECEA for East Africa.

Disagreement does not have to mean polarisation, divisiveness, polemics, vitriol, toxic social media campaigns, name-calling and near-schism. Most Catholics just shrug their shoulders and get on with life and their faith. When I was young we used to say that if a pope ever declared one day that we would have women priests, it would just happen overnight without all the soul-searching and divisiveness that the Anglicans had to go through, because that's who we are as Catholics - we remain united with our pope and Church even when we disagree with them and even when we quietly and privately go our own way. Sadly that's no longer the case and there are small but vocal pockets of divisive opposition, but I come back again to a wise quote from Cardinal Cristobal López Romero, Archbishop of Rabat, "Unity isn't created by the Pope, it's created by all of us. He is there as a sign and centre of unity, but it's up to each of us whether we join or not... If I separate, it won't be the Pope's fault" ("Unity is not made by Pope”: Morocco-based Cardinal Elector Weighs In On New Papacy and Unity, Emphasizes Collaboration).

A Roman Catholic friend of mine told me that she was on the pill. She had had a very difficult pregnancy with twins, but the doctors had managed to save both her and the babies. She had two healthy children. The doctors said she had a high chance of twins again, with worse complications. I said, "But B, I thought you were a good Catholic." and she was, too, not just regular at mass, but lots of other activities in her parish, including teaching children's classes. Her response was, "I'm not THAT good a Catholic."

>11 John5918: When I was young we used to say that if a pope ever declared one day that we would have women priests, it would just happen overnight without all the soul-searching and divisiveness that the Anglicans had to go through, because that's who we are as Catholics - we remain united with our pope and Church even when we disagree with them and even when we quietly and privately go our own way.

No. No. No.

That could never happen.

First it would not agree with any of the 3 pillars of the Church.

Sacred Tradition.
Sacred Scripture.
Magisterium.

All 3 legs have to be present on that chair, for anything to get up.

Next. The pope's one job, is to clarify Church teaching in agreement with the 3 pillars, and hand it on.

We listen to our pope when he is...

Teaching in the Extraordinary or Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Not when he is...

Speaking privately, off the cuff, as a private person.

Or when he contradicts anything in the 3 pillars, for example suggesting unrepentant public adulterers can recieve the Holy Eucharist.

Or

Bless relationships that are sodomitical, adulteress, or fornication etc.

When you let the cat out of the bag...

_______
For Pope Paul VI, the cardinal continued, the worst outcome of the post-conciliar liturgical reform was the "craving to be in the limelight" that caused many priests to ignore liturgical guidelines. Cardinal Noe recalled that the Pope himself believed in careful adherence to the rubrics of the Mass, firmly believing that "no one is lord of the Mass."

Speaking for himself, the former top Vatican liturgist said that the liturgy must always be celebrated with reverence and careful respect for the rubrics. He said with regret that in the wake of Vatican II "it was believed that everything, or nearly, was permitted." Cardinal Noe said: "Now it is necessary to recover-- and in a hurry-- the sense of the sacred in the ars celebrandi, before the smoke of Satan completely pervades the whole Church."
______

https://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=58473

Can't recall the last time I witnessed a reverent gathering of the Novus Ordo.

Chatting, laughing, singing happy birthdays....

Sigh.

>14 LesMiserables:

Yes, after Vatican II there were some unfortunate experiments and there were indeed some who "believed that everything, or nearly, was permitted." One priest told me that they more or less just got instructions one day to turn the altar round and say mass in English - that was all the liturgical education that they received. We're well past that stage now, and liturgy is a major subject in seminaries and in pastoral centres. Although I'm not a "top Vatican liturgist" I myself believe "that the liturgy must always be celebrated with reverence and careful respect for the rubrics" and I think it's sad that there are quite a few priests who celebrate it sloppily and carelessly, to say nothing of appalling homilies. But that was and is always the case, including during the pre-Vatican II period when the antecedent rite was still the normative rite. As a young altar server I was frequently at the early morning weekday mass in a cold and empty church where the priest rushed through the mass to get it over with as soon as possible. Is that what some people wish to return to?

>15 LesMiserables: Can't recall the last time I witnessed a reverent gathering of the Novus Ordo

Sorry to hear that. Did you not see the first papal mass celebrated by Pope Leo XIV last week? I can say I have frequently witnessed (and participated in - it's not a spectator sport) "reverent gatherings" of the normative rite of the mass, what you choose to call the Novus Ordo. But you can't judge a whole rite by the worst-case examples of poor liturgical celebration. If you can't find what you consider to be a "reverent" mass in your local area, maybe you could petition your parish priest and bishop to improve liturgical catechesis within your diocese?

https://youtu.be/dvBRTwNdL8k?feature=shared

MICHAEL DAVIES (Friend of the future Pope Benedict XVI) SPEAKS: Vintage Address on Vatican II and the Latin Mass

This is the REALITY of what happened at Vatican II

Watch it and learn something.

>18 LesMiserables:

Well, I've watched some of it, but right near the beginning it announces its particular bias and it's not at all convincing, so I'm certainly not going to sit through more than an hour of it. It's an opinion which is out of step with that of the magisterium and the Church, but good luck with it.

>19 John5918: Go to 1:07:45

>20 LesMiserables:

Thanks, I've looked at it. I don't find the opinions quoted by the speaker to be convincing. His contention that the Mass has been destroyed is just plain wrong.

I, and I think many liturgists and theologians, would argue that the fundamentals of the Mass have not changed. There is a clear continuity between the Tridentine and the current missals in both structure and content: opening prayers, confiteor, kyrie, gloria, scripture readings, homily, credo, offertory, sanctus, eucharistic prayer (which is still structured to contain praise, thanksgiving, intercession, epiclesis, anamnesis and doxology), pater noster, agnus dei, domine non sum dignus, communion, closing prayers. Eucharistic Prayer I is basically the old eucharistic prayer. Some superfluous accretions and repetitions have been removed, as instructed by Sacrosanctum concilium, and some older material has been reclaimed or restored, eg Eucharistic Prayer 2 and the sign of peace, but it is still recognisably the same liturgy.

Since we are sustaining a civil conversation, thanks be to God, can I ask you two questions which have always puzzled me about those who reject the ordinary Catholic Mass but I've never really received a satisfactory answer to?

1. Are you simply looking for Mass in Latin, or are you intent on Mass according to the antecedent rite? If the former, Mass in Latin is available without restrictions, major liturgies in the Vatican are in Latin, and there is daily Latin Mass in St Peter's in Rome, Westminster Cathedral in London and no doubt many other cathedrals and churches. If the latter, are you seeking the original Tridentine Rite of 1570, or the 1962 version as revised by John XXIII, or one of the other revisions in between those two?

2. If you are simply looking for a "reverent" Mass (and I'm 100% on board with you there - me too) why do you think the only way of getting it is by reverting to an antecedent rite in Latin? There are many opportunities for reverent masses, if not in every parish, at least in monasteries, pastoral centres, retreat houses, etc. And rather than working and campaigning against the current rite, why not put the same energy into working for better liturgies, more liturgical education for seminarians and catechesis for laity, closer adherence to the rubrics by priests, etc? And as a corollary, if the older rite were to be celebrated universally by ordinary priests, do you not think many would celebrate it as sloppily, carelessly and irreverently as they used to do in the old days, and as many of today's priests do with the current Mass?

You see, we are not in disagreement that the Mass should be celebrated reverently, with dignity. Where we apparently disagree is whether or not the only way to achieve that is to scrap the Mass as it exists and go back to an antecedent rite.

Some superfluous accretions and repetitions have been removed

A minute info graphic of the butchering https://youtu.be/HsoyQhSC4kg?feature=shared

There is a clear continuity between the Tridentine and the current missal

Insofar that I recognise that the beef mince in the supermarket refrigerator, originated in a cow.

Why the Tridentine Mass and not the Novus Ordo?

The Novus Ordo is a clear rupture, thus departs from all previously held Magisterial declarations, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture.

The Novus Ordo is fixated on a communion of worshippers like Protestants and departed from the re-enactment of the sacrifice of Our Lord on Golgotha.

The traditional Rite conservatively is estimated to be around 1400 years old, with minimal adjustment and codified at Trent.
The Mass that nurtured all our great Saints and Martyrs. And the modernists banned it.

I want that treasure, that fullness, that silence to participate in the miracle, that focus on God first and last, that universality, that unmolested unchanging Church language, that reverence for the Eucharist.

I haven't even scratched the surface.

>22 LesMiserables:

Thanks for that answer. Clearly we see this through completely different lenses, and we're not going to agree.

You think the Mass has been butchered; I don't. You see no continuity between the Mass and its predecessors; I do, and indeed I honestly don't understand how anyone with an understanding of liturgy can't see that continuity. You see the antecedent rite as being 1,400 years old; I see the Mass as being two thousand years old, but having developed in continuity for all those years without being "butchered" and without losing continuity.

I want that treasure, that fullness, that silence to participate in the miracle, that focus on God first and last, that universality, that unmolested unchanging Church language, that reverence for the Eucharist.

So do I, with the exception of the "unchanging Church language", which has changed, from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to the current situation where we use many languages. All the rest we still have in the current incarnation of the Mass when celebrated correctly and well, although I admit that it often isn't celebrated well, just as the antecedent rite often wasn't celebrated well in its own era. At heart it's not about rites, it's about the Mass.

One more personal question, if you don't mind? I don't know how old you are, but do you remember the old rite as it actually existed pre-1970? I was an altar server and often acted as Master of Ceremonies during Tridentine Rite masses and my own experience suggests to me that many of its modern day advocates seem to be looking back through rather rose-tinted spectacles. It was a universal rite, and overall it was celebrated no better and no worse, no more carefully and no less carelessly, no more reverently and no less irreverently, with no more or less dignity, than today's universal rite.

>23 John5918: Butchered is my word, justified by the glaring evidence I provided above.

The more accepted term is 'rupture'.

Pope Benedict XVI.. On the suppressing of the Roman Rite...

What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.

With this one sentence, with a mere twenty seven words, Pope Benedict told the world’s bishops that the Traditional Latin Mass was sacred; that it had always been sacred and would always be sacred.

So, that really puts to bed the nonsense of the 'dissedents' and the 'antecedent rite'.

That whiffs of a willingness of punishment or separation.

The fact that Pope Francis acted like a Dictator, God have mercy on him, and attacked Benedict's Summorum Pontifican and suppressed the Roman Rite, is irrelevant.

More telling is the vast majority of Bishops quietly ignored Francis' Traditiones Custodes and allowed the flourishing Roman Rite to continue in their diocese.

I'm a few years shy of 60, and was Baptised in the Roman Rite in 67'.

>24 LesMiserables:

Again, we disagree. Of course the old rite is sacred, as are all rites. But it is no longer the universal rite of the Church, just as we no longer say mass in Aramaic with twelve Jewish males in an upper room, so it is "antecedent".

the vast majority of Bishops quietly ignored Francis' Traditiones Custodes and allowed the flourishing Roman Rite to continue in their diocese

If you're referring to the antecedent rite, yes, it is still permitted in certain limited and restricted circumstances as stated in various papal documents to which you refer. But as for "the vast majority of Bishops", you're way off reality. I have asked many African bishops about the Latin mass, and the subject is not even on their radar. I suspect you'll find the same to be true in much of Asia and Latin America, ie the three continents where most of the world's Catholics come from. It's only in the USA and to a lesser extent France and UK where it seems to be an issue. I don't have much contact with France apart from occasional French missionaries, but in the USA and UK the ordinary Catholics that I come across also have no urge for a return to Latin when they have a perfectly good Roman rite which provides a recognisable Mass (not a rupture) in their own language.

>25 John5918: Of course the old rite is sacred, as are all rites.

So how can one be a dissident by following the Sacred Roman Rite?

>26 LesMiserables:

Well, to use your own definition posted to another group a couple of weeks ago, Dissident is formed from 2 Latin roots: 'dis' = apart + 'sidere' = sitting ... therefore dissident literally means sitting apart. Thus Catholics who choose literally to sit apart from the ordinary liturgy of the universal Church are dissidents. Hoist with your own petard?

But semantics aside, if someone is just quietly attending a 1962* Rite Mass licitly permitted under the Church's guidelines, that in itself does not make them a dissident. If I found myself in a place where that was the only version of the Mass available, I would attend - the Mass is the Mass. Even if there was a choice I might still attend just out of curiosity, or a bit of nostalgia for the old days, perhaps.

Unfortunately though that is often not the case (and let me once again make clear that I am not accusing you personally of anything but simply referring to a common dynamic which surrounds this issue). The antecedent rite has become a rallying point not just for people who want a reverent and dignified Mass (which can be had under the ordinary rite with a bit of effort) nor Mass in Latin (which can also be had under the ordinary rite) but for those who challenge the legitimacy of the normative rite, and thus undermine the teaching of the Church as expressed in Vatican II, and indeed also try to delegitimise the Council itself. In a spirit of reconciliation Pope Benedict XVI made a magnanimous concession to such people by allowing them to practice the antecedent rite (and confirming, as you say, that it is still a valid rite albeit an "extraordinary" form, not normative), no doubt hoping that they would stop attacking and undermining the teaching of the Church, but the offer was thrown back in his face and it just encouraged some dissident individuals and movements to be more confident in their attacks. No wonder Francis tried to rein that in a bit, although clearly it didn't work. I think one of the reasons Leo was elected was in the hope that he might find a better way of handling the dissidents.

* I believe this is the version of the liturgy which Benedict permitted, not the 1570 Tridentine Rite.

>27 John5918: But semantics aside,

No. You used the term dissident, not me, If as Benedict says the Roman Rite 'cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful then we are not dissident, but you have to search your soul if you are willing schism on those of us who use the Roman Rite.

>28 LesMiserables:

Well, yes, I used the word dissident, but you are the one who furnished that particular definition. I would hate to see schism, but those who "sit apart" from the rest of us Catholics are certainly on the slippery slope, and some of them are flirting dangerously with schism. As Cardinal Cristobal López Romero says, unity is created by all of us, and "If I separate, it won't be the Pope's fault".

So why does a small group of US Catholics insist on "sitting apart" and using a rite which, while valid and even licit in certain circumstances, is not the Ordinary Rite of the Roman Catholic Church? Why does that same group seek to undermine the teaching of Vatican II? Why did a pope feel moved to make an extraordinary liturgical concession in an attempt to maintain unity?

But this is becoming a pointless conversation. You and I have completely different lenses through which we view our Church, and we are talking past each other. God bless us and help us both.

Shouldn't you actually be trying to get back to good medieval tradition where the priest mumbled Latin (that he often did not himself understand) while his congregation got on with reciting their rosaries or, if rich enough, leafed through an illustrated book of hours.

I have often been shocked at how many good Catholic Austrians either cannot or will not even pretend to make the responses. I particularly remember one time in St Stephen's Cathedral when there was a special service for some UN occasion. My husband and I did our best, but would have been lost (not our service, not our language) if there hadn't been somebody just behind us making strong responses. After the service ended we turned to thank him, just as he told us how glad he had been to have others participating nearby. He was a priest, and was just as shocked as we were at the silence in the pews. BTW, we were there for the UN connection, but most of the congregation wanted to hear whatever setting of the mass the joint choirs and orchestras were singing.

>30 MarthaJeanne: I suggest you read Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars, reflect, and reconsider your response about Medieval religion.

Sounds like you dug that up from some Henrician-Cramner propaganda manual.

>31 LesMiserables:

On the other hand, it was often still true in the 1950s and '60s, apart from the illustrated book of hours.

>33 brone:

Yes, all the preparatory documents done in the run up to the VII were quickly dismissed at the beginning of the council, and the modernist liberal secretly prepared alternatives were foisted upon the Council committee by committee, with all of their ambiguities and time bombs that those chosen (the liberals - mostly German) to lead the commissions afterward to implement them and "interpret' the ambiguities according to their agenda.

A complete stitch up.

>32 John5918: Well St John Henry Newman used to look with love upon the laity from the altar at Mass 'telling their beads'.

But I suppose that wouldn't be participation for you.

You see the difference is, we do see things differently: I for one hold that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is Catholic, and that the Communion Meal is a protestant concession of the Bugnini Mass, signed off by Paul VI. This Novus Ordo has spawned into every type of shockingly hideous ape of a ritual. Clown masses. Balloon masses. Skateboard masses. Guitar masses. Pool masses. Rock concert masses. Funeral-Wake sing along masses. Scandal beyond scandal.

I assist at Mass by being at the sacrifice of the Mass.

The Novus Ordo-Bugnini gathering doesn't suit me: the pant suits, the waving and chatting across pews, the 20 priests concelebrating something, the 20 blue rinsed laity eagerly wanting to 'participate' on the altar touching the very Holy Chalices and Our Lord's body and Blood (mind you they santised their hands with the go around disinfectant first), passing it out to the mostly ancient congregation, dropping Our Lord on the floor, spilling his blood, folks walking away with Our Lord in their dirty hands, to do who knows what with Our Lord. Certainly it goes beyond scandal and irreverence: hosts are stolen for occult masses and orgies.
Terrible.

>33 brone:, >34 LesMiserables:

Well, obviously I disagree with both of you about your characterisation of the process and result of Vatican II. Yes, when the bishops gathered in Rome they dismissed the routine preparatory documents prepared by the Vatican bureaucracy and demanded a new process as part of aggiornamento. That's collegiality in action. But "modernist liberal secretly prepared alternatives... foisted upon the Council" is nonsense, and shows that you have very little confidence in nor respect for the capability of the bishops of the world sitting in communion with the pope, nor indeed for their ability to discern the working of the Holy Spirit in an Ecumenical Council. You really believe that they were manipulated like sheep over a four year period by a small secret cabal to accept something they were not in agreement with? Conspiracy theories gone mad. I only personally knew half a dozen or so of the Council Fathers and I can assure you they were nobody's fools.

I did not judge people for "telling their beads" during Mass, merely challenged your assertion that it didn't happen. I have great respect for popular piety. But I notice you were not able to challenge the mumbling priest. Look, a well celebrated Tridentine high mass was indeed a beautiful, mystical, reverent, sacred, and dignified spectacle, but let's not pretend that was the norm in every low Mass in every little parish church and chapel throughout the Catholic world. The same is equally true of the current Mass.

Like you, "I for one hold that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is Catholic", and also like you, "I assist at Mass by being at the sacrifice of the Mass". Its form has varied throughout the history of the Church, leading to the current version, which is clearly in continuity, not rupture, with previous forms. I don't disagree with you that there have been unfortunate unauthorised variations, although I would argue that the use of guitars is not in itself an abuse. Is the organ the only sacred musical instrument?

I'm not sure to what you're referring with the "Communion Meal", nor why you choose to label the universal rite of our Catholic Church as a "Bugnini gathering", but if you say it doesn't suit you, that's a very individualistic preference. Should we offer a different rite to everybody for whom the universal rite doesn't suit?

Again, while your last paragraph does note (and highly exaggerate, caricature even) some of the abuses which might occur, it does not intrinsically devalue the Mass. Pants suits? Should we really care about what people wear as long as it is modest and respectful? I partly agree with you about concelebration; having twenty males in long white dresses up around the altar does emphasise both the patriarchy and the ordained-lay divide, and I think there are good reasons to limit concelebration. I recall a few years ago my archbishop instructed that he didn't want to see all the priests who worked in diocesan offices, seminaries, the Catholic university, etc in the capital city concelebrating in a few elite parishes when we had poorer parishes and numerous outstation chapels which often had no priest on a Sunday. The only times I've seen the consecrated hosts dropped on the floor it was the priest who dropped them, and I've never seen the consecrated wine spilled. Waving and chatting across pews is not dependent on the rite; it is a wider symptom of current society which one may or may not think unfortunate, but is likely to occur whatever rite were being routinely celebrated. Folks walking away with Our Lord in their hands to do who knows what? If that occurs, it's very rare. People are instructed to put the consecrated host in their mouths respectfully before walking away, and in my experience that's what they do. If you're going to pick on extreme and rare examples, what about the people who used to receive the host in their mouth and then secretly regurgigate it into their handkerchief once they were back in their pew, "to do who knows what with Our Lord"? Really, you're beginning to sound ridiculous.

Much of what you say is also very culturally specific. I don't recognise "the mostly ancient congregation"; our churches here are packed to overflowing with youth. And "blue rinsed laity"? I don't think we have them in most of the world, outside of the USA and perhaps one or two other Global North countries. Lay eucharistic ministers? Yes, waiting to assist in distributing communion in those packed churches, but more importantly eagerly waiting to take holy communion to the sick and housebound, who are now able to receive communion far more regularly than they used to, and with the shortage of priests to serve our ever-increasing number of Catholics, probably wouldn't receive it at all without lay ministers. My pious and traditional mother was a lay eucharistic minister in her later years (although she never had a blue rinse) and when occasionally someone would bemoan the fact that a lay woman was "touching the very Holy Chalices and Our Lord's body and Blood", to use your words, she would simply ask them, "Does it matter who brings it to them? The important things is that they actually have the opportunity to receive holy communion."

>36 John5918: Yes, when the bishops gathered in Rome they dismissed torched the routine preparatory extensively prepared documents prepared by the Vatican bureaucracy Holy Bishops appointed by the Pope and demanded subverted a new process revolution as part of aggiornamento Nouvelle Théologie. That's collegialityModernism in action.

>37 LesMiserables:

Replacing words with emotionally value-laden ones doesn't alter the reality. I believe the bishops of the world decided that the prepared documents were inadequate and asked for a revised process. You believe that they were manipulated and fooled by a secret cabal for four years, and were somehow conned into near-unanimously accepting resolutions with which they actually disagreed. Were there only four bishops in the whole world who saw through this giant scam and voted against Sacrosanctum concilium? Pure fantasy, my friend. I think it's an insult to the bishops and the pope (and indeed to the Church) to suggest that they were all so gullible and stupid.

>38 John5918: Not emotional: rather more accurate I'd say.

Look John, you don't believe in the doctrines of the Church. Just remember that Holy Mother Church recognizes that it only requires one rejection of a dogma or doctrine for you to reject it all.

You're a Darwinian right?

There is a guiding rule to keep you from leaving the path: NEVER deviate from the Sacred Tradition of the UNANIMOUS UNDERSTANDING of the CHURCH FATHERS (all 87 of them) as their understanding comes directly from the Apostles who understood everything from the Holy Spirit.

Novelty, New Theology, Darwinian Evolution: all condemned.

The New Age movement (a pantheistic system influenced by Gnosticism, Hinduism, Theosophy, and the evolutionary theology of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a heretical priest of the 20th century who is considered by New Age leaders as the movement’s most influential figure. He embraces Liberal theology (defined as those who claim Christian roots but who reject Scriptural inerrancy and, for liberal Catholics, those who reject the authority of the Magisterium).

Catholic Faith (as when identifying something to be “a matter of Catholic faith”): from Fr. John Hardon S.J.: “the belief of the universal body of the faithful, namely that which is believed ‘everywhere, always, and by all’ (Vincentian Canon)” Note: The Vincentian Canon is presented below.

Deposit of Faith: from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The heritage of faith contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, handed on in the Church from the time of the Apostles, from which the Magisterium draws all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed.”

Doctrine: from Fr. John Hardon, S.J.: “any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful…This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority.”

Dogma: from Fr. John Hardon, S.J.: “those doctrine which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.”

Several respected theologians concur that the Church Fathers unanimously taught the immediate Creation of Adam, by God, from the dust of the earth, as stated in Genesis 2:7. Dr. Ludwig Ott writes in The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: “The Fathers concur in teaching that God immediately created the first man, both as to body and to soul.” Further, referring to Genesis 2:7 he writes: According to the immediate, literal sense, God created the body of the first man immediately out of inorganic material (“from the slime of the earth”) and vivified it by breathing into it a spiritual soul. The idea that the spiritual soul was created in an animal body is foreign to the letter of Holy Writ and to the Fathers. The question of the descent of the human body from the animal kingdom first appeared under the influence of the modern theory of evolution.

One of the errors confronted repeatedly by the Fathers was the Gnostic tendency to question Special Creation, as was explained by St. Augustine: Although God has made man from dust of the earth, the same earth, and all earthly matter, is absolutely from nothing; and He gave to the body the soul made from nothing when man was made. Those enemies of the Ancient Books…looking at everything carnally, and thus always in error, are accustomed to criticise bitterly even this fact, that God has taken man from the clay. Two of the more well known Gnostic groups were the Manicheans and the followers of Valentinus. Both groups denied the resurrection of the body.

Since both Tradition and Sacred Scripture convey revealed truths faithfully handed down from the Apostles, they are accepted by the Catholic Church with equal reverence. The Vatican II document, Dei Verbum, (1965) explains: Sacred tradition and sacred scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other…Sacred scripture is the utterance of God put down as it is in writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And tradition transmits in its entirety the word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the holy Spirit…Thus it is that the church does not draw its certainty about all revealed truths from the holy scriptures alone. Hence, both scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal devotion and reverence. Over time, the oral teachings of the Apostles—including their teachings on the meaning of Genesis—were written down by holy witnesses to this Tradition. These writers were the Church Fathers. The Encyclopedia of Catholic History (1995) lists 87 Church Fathers, while Fr. John Hardon, S.J. lists 88.

Due to the intimate linkage between the Church Fathers and the transmission of Apostolic teaching, the Church has taught that, in faith and morals, it is not permissible to depart from the unanimous teachings of the Fathers, nor are the faithful to depart from the unanimous interpretation of Sacred Scripture by the Fathers. Again, this is because the Apostles had a divinely revealed understanding of the Scriptures, including Genesis, and because the Fathers faithfully recorded the teachings of the Apostles.

St. Thomas Aquinas and other Church Doctors taught the immediate Creation of Adam’s body, by God, from the dust of the Earth, plus the immediate Creation of Eve’s body, by God, from Adam’s side. They held this teaching to be Catholic doctrine.

>39 LesMiserables:

That's an extraordinary ad hominem response and, as with all such attacks, fails to address the substance of any of my arguments.

I do in fact believe in the doctrines of the Church. As a Catholic missionary for fifty years, I suspect that if I didn't, then one of the many bishops I have worked with, to say nothing of my confessors and spiritual directors, might have noticed and pointed it out to me. But wait, I think I've mentioned elsewhere that I was corrected by a cardinal a couple of years ago. I was asking him if there was any appetite in his country for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (his answer was an emphatic "no"), and he advised me to call it the "antecedent rite" rather than "Extraordinary Form".

I don't know what a Darwinian is and I'm not one. I am someone with a training in both science and biblical exegesis, and I see no contradiction between scientific theories and biblical creation stories, if that's what you're getting at. But there's a whole thread devoted to that elsewhere in this group.

When I asked you whether you accepted Vatican II, you answered yes but not the errors. Since then you have effectively asserted that the entire top leadership of the Church in the early 1960s during the four years of Vatican II, that is over two thousand bishops and two popes, was a collection of gullible fools who were manipulated by a secret cabal into passing resolutions with which they disagreed (and which are against Church tradition and doctrine). That rather sounds as if you actually don't accept the resolutions of Vatican II as the most recent most authoritative teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

>40 LesMiserables:

As I said, there is a whole thread on evolution in this group so I won't repeat a lot of what has already been discussed there.

Oh, so you accept the literal and obvious meaning of the history of Genesis 1-11 in all its entirety?

If yes, I apologise unreservedly. I thought you were sympathetic to Teilhardian evolutionary thought.

Re >39 LesMiserables: My basis for that was the paragraph directly above.

>42 LesMiserables:

Once again, I see no contradiction between scientific theories of evolution and the two different creation stories in Genesis. But the details have been discussed ad nauseam in the evolution thread and I will not repeat them all here.

>43 John5918: If you don't believe the literal historical and obvious meaning as per the Church Fathers and numerous dogma, doctrine, and tradition of the Church, then I fear for you.

PLEASE go and watch the first two free episodes of Foundation Restored.

>44 LesMiserables:

I've been studying creation spirituality for many years, reading widely on the the subject, both theology and science, and indeed I wrote my MA thesis on it thirty years ago. I'm not a great one for watching videos; I prefer the written word.

>42 LesMiserables: How does one "accept the literal and obvious meaning of the history of Genesis 1-11 in all its entirety?" Were humans created before or after the animals? How many goats were on Noah's ark?

>46 MarthaJeanne: Have you read Genesis? It's pretty much straightforward. Line by line unambiguous Sacred Scripture.

>45 John5918: Ah okay, here you go.

https://kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

>47 LesMiserables:

Have you read Genesis? Two different creation stories? It's not pretty much straightforward, and indeed no ancient document which has been preserved in different fragments, translated and retranslated, written by multiple authors, being read by people of a completely different culture thousands of years later, is "pretty much straightforward". While of course there are simple insights we can get from the bible, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics are academic disciplines which inform theology.

>49 John5918: What?

The Church has based its entire teaching on St Jerome's Vulgate translation.

It IS straightforward.

You are a lover of novelty my friend. Repent!

According to Gene s is 1:24-25, the animals came first, then the humans. Genesis 2:18-20 It was human first, then animals.
In Genesis 6 there are two of every animal, in Genesis 7 there are 7 pair of the clean animals.

So, am I to believe Genesis 1 or 2; Genesis 6 or 7? I think you have not read Genesis carefully if you really think it is straightforward and unambiguous.

>48 LesMiserables:

Thanks. I've read it and I'm not impressed. I note it frequently references the Catechism of the Council of Trent and not the current Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I also note an important sentence: "Pope Leo XIII, following St. Augustine, affirmed the Catholic rule for interpreting Sacred Scripture, 'not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.'” That's exactly what we do, with the tools of both secular science and bilblical exegesis to help us make that determination. I might also call your attention to Dei verbum (12):

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men {sic} in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns {sic} men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

As our fellow LT member brone wisely said, the parable of the sower is about souls, not farming. The eternal spiritual truth of biblical texts is not always a literal interpretation.

>50 LesMiserables: The Church has based its entire teaching on St Jerome's Vulgate translation

Which is a collection of ancient document which had been preserved in different fragments, translated and retranslated, written by multiple authors, being read by people of completely different cultures thousands of years later, and finally translated from Greek to Latin.

>52 John5918: You misunderstand 'Literal' obviously. The arm of God is power not a limb.

Well you wouldn't be impressed because you would have to face the reality of a threadbare and heretical ideology that you may have been clinging to all these years.

Let me ask you. Do you think Adam is a real historical figure formed by God from slime?

>54 LesMiserables: No.

>52 John5918: Save your soul. Read this
https://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/modernism-in-catholic-church-characteris...

Marks of a modernist

Modernists are driven by pride, curiosity and ignorance. (PDG 40 - 41)

Modernist "dogmas" are driven by a denial of external revelation and denial of the intervention of God into human history. (6)
Therefore, their philosophy arises from the "self" and is mired by subjectivity and relativism. (30)

Modernists attribute a mystical quality to this interior "sentimentality" (vital immanence). (15)

Modernists believe that since religion is an outgrowth of interior need, all religions are equal because they all grew from this interior place of need in humans and not from an exterior intervention by God. (10)

Therefore Modernists believe Jesus was an exceptional man but not God. (35)
It therefore follows that the Catholic Church is just one more manifestation of this outgrowth and is therefore not set apart as the True Church and cannot claim Jesus as the only Saviour of mankind. (15)

Modernists deform human history to support their belief that God doesn't work miracles and is not actively intervening in human history. (9)

Modernists cannot as a result of this false doctrine claim superiority of the Catholic Church and cannot identify "falsities" in other religions. (14)

Modernist philosophy originates from a place of agnosticism and its logical destination is atheism. (6)

Modernists believe in the separation of faith from science but then in a bizarre way re-relate them to one another placing faith subordinate to science. (16)

Modernism presents itself as a disparate set of philosophies that are not unified but is really a coherent (and diabolical) system. It's purpose is to empty the Catholic Church of its moral and dogmatic authority, to reduce its prominence and compromise its Truth. All of its "parts are solidly joined so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all". (39)

Modernists assert that the ecclesiastical magisterium must be subordinate to individual consciences, and should therefore take democratic forms rather than an authoritative form. (23-25)
Modernism is a "synthesis of all heresies".(39)

The Modernist system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone but of all religion. (10)

>55 MarthaJeanne: I was asking Catholics? Sorry are you Catholic?

>54 LesMiserables: You misunderstand 'Literal' obviously

No, but you and I obviously have different understandings of the same thing.

Do you think Adam is a real historical figure formed by God from slime?

I think Adam is a real archetype of humanity. And I think there's a whole thread on this topic so we don't need to repeat it all here.

>58 John5918: So that's a no. Shame on you.

>57 LesMiserables:

This is a Christianity group, so it's interesting to hear responses from any Christian, not only Catholics.

>60 John5918: True, but my question was to a Catholic. What non-Catholics believe is irrelevant to the Dogmas of the Church.

>56 LesMiserables: Modernists are driven by pride, curiosity and ignorance

Fine, so by definition I am not a modernist.

>61 LesMiserables:

But is relevant to a conversation about Vatican II in a Christianity group.

>51 MarthaJeanne: But this is nonsense.

Of course God created the animals first according to the 6 Day Creation.

Genesis 2:18-20 does absolutely not say otherwise. What translation are you using?

2:18 And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.
2:19 And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.
2:20 And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

>62 John5918: ha ha. Go through the list.

>63 John5918: You still haven't told me if you believe Adam was a real historical figure formed by God from slime.

Sigh.

I guess John, you also reject the dogma of Complete Scriptural Inerrancy ?

Some homework for you.

Read Leo XIII Providentissimus Deus

>64 LesMiserables:

Using a Catholic bible (New Jerusalem):

2:7 Yahweh God shaped man from the soil of the ground and blew the breath of life into his nostrils, and man became a living being.
8 Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned.
9 From the soil, Yahweh God caused to grow every kind of tree, enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And only afterwards,

18 Yahweh God said, 'It is not right that the man should be alone. I shall make him a helper.'
19 So from the soil Yahweh God fashioned all the wild animals and all the birds of heaven. These he brought to the man to see what he would call them; each one was to bear the name the man would give it.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of heaven and all the wild animals. But no helper suitable for the man was found for him.

I've also looked at the Catholic bible of my childhood, the Douay-Rheims version, which is no different.

But really, this conversation is no longer a conversation and is becoming uncharitable, un-Christian even.

>67 LesMiserables:

Scripture is inerrant if properly understood, as per Dei Verbum, op cit.

>70 John5918: ha ha. That's so modernist. All down to one's own interpretation eh? Sola scriptura eat your heart out! ;-)

Agree that's it's unchristian to doubt the word of God.

See ya!

>68 LesMiserables:

I have. Have you? It's a call to study and understand the scriptures more fully, "to investigate and ascertain its true sense" (13), in order to defend it against those who attack it. It specifically recognises the problems of translating ancient languages and calls for study of other versions, not only the Vulgate, "For although the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek is substantially rendered by the Vulgate, nevertheless wherever there may be ambiguity or want of clearness, the 'examination of older tongues,' to quote St. Augustine, will be useful and advantageous" (13). We are warned that there is more to the bible than the literal sense: "There is sometimes in such passages a fullness and a hidden depth of meaning which the letter hardly expresses and which the laws of interpretation hardly warrant. Moreover, the literal sense itself frequently admits other senses, adapted to illustrate dogma or to confirm morality", and hermeneutical work is encouraged, that "the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church" (14). The biblical scholar "must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires" and remarks that "Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense" (15). And, relevant perhaps to your rather disdainful comment about a non-Catholic opinion, "the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student".

I could go on and on expounding this rich document, as it talks of biblical scholarship. I'm not sure how you're interpreting it, but I find it inspiring and encouraging.

>71 LesMiserables:

No, it's not down to one's own interpretation but to that of biblical scholars informing the magisterium of the Church, as most recently expressed in Vatican II. It's not sola scriptura, because we as Catholics find divine revelation in both scripture and tradition. I'm surprised that you even have to ask.

>73 John5918: Well from reading hundreds of your posts, you cherry pick anything prior to V.II, the Council that John XXIII said explicitly that they would NOT define any new dogma, yet you constantly treat V.II as the only thing in town.
And even at that, you defend the atrocities of the Novus Ordo in all its infinitesimal variations, whilst ignoring anything orthodox in V.II documentation on the liturgy, Eucharist, vernacular use etc.

I guess it's hard to let go of a lifetime of V.II or die, eh?

By the way, as a 'missionary' (did Papa Francis not frown on you guys?) You haven't been spreading any of that evolutionary stuff or pantheism around have you?

It must be sore to consider that all of the flourishing parishes with young families in Europe and America are traditional, whilst the Novus Ordo parishes are falling like dominoes. The experiment is well and truly over. Traditiones custodes has failed.

And in Africa, to burst a bubble, there is a marked decline in growth rate of the Catholic Church, even with population growth, and contrasts with the continued growth of Protestant sects, showing that the changes of V. II have not been as beneficial as commonly portrayed by the cheerleaders.

Even in Africa, the revolutionaries failed to implement their blessing of gays in Fiducia Supplicans, and the African bishops told the modernists in Rome to jump: Papa Francis and Toucho Fernandez.

You cannot bless sin. Even though that might align with ""the spirit of Vatican 2".

All of this is merely evidence of the crises in the Church, that can only be addressed by abandoning the project, and getting.g back to orthodox Catholicism.

>74 LesMiserables:, >75 LesMiserables:

There's so much misrepresentation and nonsense in these two posts that I don't know where to begin.

Let me first say that you seem unable to comprehend that we are both faithful Catholics, we are both (as are all Catholics) traditionalists by definition, we both believe Catholic doctrine, and we are both committed to our Church. The fact that we differ in our interpretation of much of that should not divide us. I think it's fair to say that my interpretation is generally closer to that of the Church and the majority of Catholics, but that doesn't invalidate your opinion. Obviously our life experiences have been very different. We're the same age group more or less, although I'm a few years older and can remember the pre-Vatican II days which apparently you can't, but we grew up in different countries in different continents, with different experiences of Church. I then spent fifty years of my life outside my own cultural milieu and experienced different cultures and a different Church, an experience for which I feel very blessed.

Vatican II is but the latest of many Councils and a whole body of doctrine and dogma which has not been abandoned, but the understanding of which is constantly deepened and strengthened.

The "Novus Ordo" does not contain "atrocities". At a macro level, if you want to see atrocities, come to Sudan, or to Gaza or Ukraine. At a liturgical level, I, along with the pope and the majority of Catholics, believe that the current liturgical rite of the Church is a legitimate development built on and in continuity with previous rites which were reformed by a Council of the pope and all the world's bishops for very good reasons. Reforming liturgical rites is part of our tradition.

As a missionary I have been involved mainly in serving and strengthening the local Church in Sudan and South Sudan, and implementing Catholic Social Doctrine through peacebuilding, reconciliation and nonviolence, although in my younger days I was involved in a bit of primary evangelisation amongst people who had not encountered the gospel.

That "all of the flourishing parishes with young families in Europe and America are traditional" is true at one level because all of us Catholics are traditional. But that's probably not what you meant. I know many "flourishing parishes with young families" in both Europe and America which do not follow your path.

In Africa there is not "a marked decline in growth rate of the Catholic Church". I've been googling just to see if there is anything I have missed, but all the articles I can find, including from "conservative" Catholic voices such as National Catholic Register and EWTN, show that the number of Catholics in Africa is still growing. Far from a "marked decline", an EWTN affiliate reports that, "Apart from Europe, Asia was the only region to see a decline in Catholics as a percentage of the total population, with a reduction of 0.02%" - not Africa (my italics).

As for Fiducia Supplicans, the African bishops did not tell Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez "to jump". They disagreed with some aspects of that much-misunderstood document, so they met under the leadership of Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu, the president of the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM), who then went to Rome to present their concerns to the pope and Fernandez face to face. A statement was then agreed and signed by the three of them, and the matter was resolved amicably and charitably. Apart from one or two early outbursts by one or two bishops, we did not see the sort of public social media campaign against the Church and the pope which we have seen from others on certain issues. The African bishops value collegiality, synodality and unity, and I think the way they handled this disagreement should be an example for us all.

There is no evidence of a crisis in the Church, unless you consider dissent from small groups in the USA, France and UK, a tiny minority amongst the 1.3 billion Catholics in the world, to be a crisis rather than a difference of opinion and interpretation within a family which ought to be possible to resolve amicably and charitably. Many cardinals are suggesting that this is what is expected from Leo, a "bridge builder" who may be able to deal with this dissent more successfully than Francis did. And the solution to a problem of today is never to go back to an earlier era, but to move forward, building on both the earlier era and the present day.

>76 John5918: oh please don't get me started on the sinodal Church, the sinod on sinodality (sic).

Heresy.

The democratisation of the Church is scandalous.

The Catholic Church is a monarchy.

Was Vatican II necessary? No.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/renew2.html

An Ecumenical Council is a meeting of bishops whose decisions are approved and promulgated by the Pope. Before Vatican II, there were twenty such Councils in the history of the Church. The Cardinals well knew that the Church convokes a Council only in cases of absolute necessity.

>77 LesMiserables:

The Church is not a democracy, but neither is it a monarchy.

But what is it you object to about a pope or bishop seeking to consult before making decisions? Listening to different experiences can only help him to make a better decision. That's one of the reasons we have Synods and Ad Limina visits (when all the bishops of a particular country go to Rome and spend a few days with the pope), so that he can listen to their concerns. He's not omniscient, and the only way he can know what is concerning the bishops in Sudan, Gaza or the USA is by listening to them. And the bishops are also not omniscient, so the only way they can know what is concerning their own Catholics at the grass roots level is by listening to them. What is "scandalous" about that?

>79 John5918: Because they are inviting Tom, Dick, and Harry to round table discussions about trying to change sacred Tradition. Of course we know the agenda. The SINod wants to change moral teaching on sodomy.

Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) on Vatican II

""The second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy-----the form in which the liturgy was handed down-----suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited."

Points of Rupture” of the Second Vatican Council with the Tradition of the Church – A Synopsis

https://onepeterfive.com/the-points-of-rupture-of-the-second-vatican-council-wit...

>80 LesMiserables:

Whenever I see "Tom, Dick, and Harry" I always think of Tom, Dick and Joe, the three US missionary priests with whom I studied Arabic at the Catholic Church's language school in the Sudanese desert nearly forty years ago. Good blokes.

No, they are not "inviting Tom, Dick, and Harry {or even Joe!} to round table discussions about trying to change sacred Tradition", they are listening to them prior to making decisions, and I suppose sitting around a table is more comfortable than standing.

The Synod is not trying to change moral teaching on anything. It is a listening exercise. Decisions, as always, will be made by the competent authorities, whether that be pope or bishops.

>81 LesMiserables:, >82 LesMiserables:

Yes, I agree with Pope Benedict when he says that Vatican II is often misinterpreted, I would say most notably by those who oppose it, as well as by some of those who try to implement it. Nobody is perfect.

As for the One Peter Five website, I have often looked at it, and I have rarely agreed with its opinions. Most of the 26 points mentioned in this opinion piece actually have no direct connection with the mass but are disagreements with various Vatican II teachings. As for the rest, I join many bishops and liturgists in disagreeing with them. You apparently agree with them. Touché.

>85 brone:

Thanks for mentioning the updated Vatican website. For anyone who is interested, it's here.

>29 John5918: That observation and characterization about the differences between you both is something that I find most interesting. I come from a tradition outside and different from your own -- yet abidingly respectful of the considerable differences yours contains. So, as a way of bringing your two respective positions into some relation to one another, in order to extend and further the overall dialogue, let me get the particular "take" each of you has on, say, the overall life-work of someone like Hans Kueng (need the umlaut here)? That will help me grasp where both of you stand in the wider ongoing current contemporary context. (Please don't let my question distract or interfere with what you're exchanging in this discussion. It's merely my way of trying to find a suitable base for bringing the overarching 'conceptual contexts' to the fore so we can better address these and take them into account. And, thereby, possibly establish a "common ground" pertinent to us all.)

>87 GeneRuyle: Heretic.

Over the course of time, he undermined and opposed Church teaching on papal infallibility, the magisterial authority of bishops, euthanasia, abortion, contraception, the inadmissibility of ordaining women as priests, the need of a priest for the valid consecration of the Eucharist, the consubstantiality of Christ with God the Father, the meaning of hell, and various aspects of Church sexual teaching, including the sinfulness of homosexual activity. He also was a persistent critic of the Church’s practice of mandatory priestly celibate chastity.

Follow the breadcrumbs: Kung > Kasper > Bergolio

>87 GeneRuyle: Good. I sincerely thank you for this. That's clear and gives us those objective aspects involved. Now, if you will, please state your overall personal frame-of-reference -- as the individual you are -- of those conceptual categories or "fields of study" and "intellectual modes of thought" you personally hold in the highest regard, if you will, OK? Those, say, that are very much at the core of your own faith and belief as you live them day in and day out. That is to say, as you seek to live and bring to completion your own faith as your offering to God.

>89 GeneRuyle: Very simple. The Apostles Creed.

Roman Catholic. Hold fast to the orthodoxy of the Church’s teaching over 2000 years, the whole of Sacred Scripture, inerrant and the inspired Word of God, Sacred Tradition as that which has been passed down from Christ to the Apostles, Church Fathers, The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. I reject rupture, heterodox theology, novelty.

>90 LesMiserables: That is concise and admirably clear -- as a foundational statement of the community of the faithful as a group to which one belongs as a whole. That summarizes all that was, is, and is yet to come. But can you also please indicate any individualized manifestations of it, as found in specific interests you yourself enact and embody personally and in your life as the particular person you are? As seen in the kind of books found in your personal library perhaps, and the specific types of books you like to read. (I'll check your Librarything listing, which will no doubt afford some indications -- but these, of course, are best when they come from the unique source of your own self, right? Which is why I have asked what I did. I didn't want to miss the opportunity to go to that source, which is what you're speaking and living from, correct?) When I've looked, I'll mention the kind of thing I mean and am referring to here. Every individual is a "one of a kind" are they not? Thanking you for your taking the time you'rea generously giving to this.

>87 GeneRuyle:

Thanks, Gene. It's a long time since I've spent time reading the greats of modern Catholic theology, but I would include Kung as one of them, along with Yves Congar, Bernard Lonergan, Edward Schillebeeckx, Joseph Ratzinger and others whom I studied in my younger days.

>92 John5918: What a rare and refreshingly civil sentiment your comment adds to worthwhile conversing John! It's been a very long time for me as well. Like you, I definitely include Hans Küng in this group of those who truly made a measurable and lasting historical difference in the understandings we hold today. I remember driving to hear him speak at St. Leo's College in Florida for an entire evening, which was cram-packed to the rafters, and both memorable and moving because of the sincerity with which he spoke -- and all he brought to it because he was obviously paying the high cost of living in accordance with his very soul. Those were extremely eventful and formative times, which changed things in the institutional Church forever -- and we're still dealing with many of those issues. I relish the works and writings of the four people you mentioned as well! (As for me, I went on to eventually make my way through these impressive works of Küng's: "The Council, Reform and Reunion, with a new Introduction" "Structures of the Church," "Unfehlbar?", along with his "Was Ist Kirche?", as well as "The Catholic Church: A Short History," . . . and, not to fail to mention, his monumental tome of nearly a thousand pages, "Christianity -- Essence, History, and Future." ( I am currently adding all of these to my own listing of LibraryThing books, after a lapse of a good number of years, into which I will also be sure to put Leonard Swidler's unrivaled and meticulously documented recounting of the whole twelve-year controversy: "Küng In Conflict." It took a full sixteen years to finally reach that point from the unforgettable time I first heard him speak.) Isn't it amazing how much of our lives are bound up in the pages of the books found in our respective libraries? They evoke and elicit the ongoing unfolding our very lives, which continue moving on up to our the very last breath of our experiencing. Thanks for your benevolent reply, John. It would be an honor indeed if another encounter should arise again. In the meantime, my prayers for you will continue to grow into more than I could well express . . . but which I have no doubt you genuinely understand!

>93 GeneRuyle:

What a privilege to have heard Hans Kung speak! A few years back I heard Walter Kasper speak in the USA, which was also a memorable occasion. I see in your LT profile a mention of your dissertation all those years ago. My MA dissertation thirty years ago was on Thomas Berry, another great modern Christian thinker whom I had the privilege of interacting with. Mine was "A Model for Personal Holiness in the Writing of Thomas Berry", but remained an MA thesis and never made it to being a book; fortunately more competent people than me have written much about him and his work. My own books are more recent and deal with the Church in Sudan, South Sudan and Uganda.

>95 brone:

Just for the record, I don't recall ever saying that Kung is "misunderstood".

>97 brone: And what is the particular issue or ground on which you yourself claim to stand? You've not yet stated that in this conversation -- or did you mainly wish to register an overall lament built on the remarks presented here? Make your personal aim clear, if you will . . . or at least proceed to state your primary concern openly. Enlighten us, please, as to the core issue or matter at hand (as you enact and embody it anyway) that is now confronting us here.

>99 brone:

Is this the one you are talking about? I don't see any reference to the archbishop watching the performace. The "archdiocese has distanced itself from the controversial performance 'Westfalen Side Story' in Paderborn Cathedral and told CNA Deutsch, CNA’s German-language news partner, that it had no prior knowledge of the specific content of the performance..expressed regret that the staging had 'hurt religious feelings, and has since initiated internal reviews".

Just for the record our earlier conversations in which I acknowledge abuses taking place were about liturgical celebrations, not about concerts or other performances staged in churches. This performance may well have been inappropriate, but it has nothing to do with Vatican II's liturgical reforms.

>76 John5918: John 5918 What a commendable, forthright, substantively significant, enabling, helpful, genuinely engaging, and all-around furthering response yours is here! That's the kind of response that gets us somewhere. We're in your debt, my friend.

>102 brone:

Yes, I agree with you that there is a strong feeling amongst many Catholics (and particularly the younger generations) for the emancipation of women. However I don't think it has anything particularly to do with Vatican II; it's a sociological development which is taking place slowly but surely right across the world. While it often includes a call for the ordination of women, I think you overstate the likelihood that the Church will actually do so, at least in our lifetimes.

As for Pope Leo, who knows? But he has continued his predecessor's policy of appointing women to senior positions within the Vatican.

>104 brone:

As you say, the position of the Catholic Church on the ordination of women to the priesthood has been reaffirmed by various recent popes up to and including Francis. The fact that many Catholics would like to see women ordained to the priesthood does not mean it will happen; the Church is not a democracy, and decisions are taken by the pope and the bishops, after listening to theologians as well as laity, and after prayerful reflection on the Church's Tradition. The Holy Spirit will blow where she wills, and neither you nor I know where that journey will lead; we are simply pilgrims on that road. Incidentally two days ago was the feast of Saint James, the patron of one of the largest and most ancient Christian pilgrimages, the Camino to Santiago de Compostela.

You talk of a "hijacked" Vatican II, when in fact it's simply an interpretation of Vatican II which you (and a very small minority of Catholics) disagree with. It is used by some within that minority (not by you, I'm sure) as a smokescreen for rejecting Vatican II wholesale while purporting to support Vatican II itself but claiming that its results have been "hijacked" and distorted.

>105 John5918: Unfortunately, most of the Catholics do not agree with Catholic teachings in general, and a large portion of those who actually do agree see problems in Vatican II.

>106 Diamondhead:

I'd be interested to see some statistics to support that view. My experience of the Church in four continents suggests the opposite, although I concede that the opponents are vocal, visible and well-funded, while the silent majority just keeps their heads down and gets on with it. I would also concede that three areas where many Catholics do see a problem with the Church are (1) its prohibition on artificial contraception; (2) its attitude towards women; and (3) its handling of clergy sexual abuse.

>107 John5918: You are not aware that most modern Catholics support premarital sex?
How about abortion allowed in Catholic lands, with no mass protest of people to go against it.
Most Catholic's don't attend mass.
The apparitions of Virgin Mary send dire warning against course the church and modern people have taken. Approved apparitions in Anguera, approved apparitions in Akita, etc... all say this is the worst humanity ever and there is a great punishment coming.
In Anguera Virgin Mary speaks of false church leading a battle against true church (Quito Ecuador the same)

The text of the third secret of Fatima was never revealed in full by Catholic Church - it was supposed to be revealed in the time of the Second Vatican Council, some say it was suppose to prevent the effects of Second Vatican Council.
When it wasnt revealed immeditaley you had reaction from heaven in the form of Garabandal apparitions.

How bout group of cardinals openly saying that homosexuality is okay?
Recently church in Croatia send a public warning to church in Germany as most of the German bishops openly support homosexuality.
That Cardinal from Luxembourg that Pope Francis put as a chief of commision on that recent sinod is openly saying that he finds Catholic Church doctrine no longer correct on the matter of homosexuality. Doctrine cannot be changed and he is openly saying that it should be changed.
These people should be expelled from the Catholic Church, and they hold key postions in church and they pick Popes.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

>108 Diamondhead:

Fair comment about premarital sex. On abortion, I find that most Catholics are against it but differ on the best way to go about reducing abortions in pluralistic and democratic societies. Yes, Catholic mass attendance has dropped in the Global North, although it's patchy: a friend just informed me last week that a parish in London which was getting a little under a thousand people at mass each Sunday when we were both there forty years ago is now getting more than two thousand. But in many parts of the world it continues to hold up and increase (especially in Africa). A pessimistic view of the Church can often be very eurocentric, forgetting that the Global North is not where most Christians live. I'm not sure that it's correct to say that cardinals "support" homosexuality. Rather there is ongoing (and these days more visible) tension between our desire to respect the human dignity of every person created in the image and likeness of God on the one hand, and to maintain Christian moral teaching on the other. That "Doctrine cannot be changed" is patently untrue. Our understanding of doctrine has evolved, developed and and deepened (in other words, changed) throughout the history of the Church, and it continues to do so. If "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark", a big "if", then Catholics now have the process of Synodality to help to root out the rottenness.

But just to repeat the point I was making: even if Catholics do disagree with the Church on some issues, as you suggest, it is not Vatican II with which they are disagreeing; it is the older forms of Catholic teaching.

>110 brone: "It is the older forms of Catholic teaching" That John says we disagree with

Well, yes. The assertion was that many/most Catholics disagree with the teaching of Vatican II. You and Diamondhead give lists of things which Catholics disagree with. Most of these are not the result of Vatican II, they are older manifestations of doctrine. QED.

The rights and wrongs of what Catholics believe or don't believe, and of the manner in which the Church's understanding of Catholic doctrine has developed and evolved, make for an interesting conversation, but not the one I was answering here.

>111 John5918: Collaps of morals happened exactly after Vatican II.
The more you think about more shocking it is.
It is absolutely shocking that in such a short time Christians become twisted that much.
It's less then two decade, and by 1980 we have modern man as a result.

For example, Vatican II proposed women should remove veil from their heads.
Why would they promote such idea?
What was the result?

I doubt that not wearing a veil at church really destroyed morals. If it did then the men ought to be wearing blindfolds.

As I recall, several popes managed to have children long before Vatican II. Since I don't think there has been a case since, maybe Vatican II has actually improved matters.

The things that were done to single mothers and their babies in convent 'homes' in the first half of the 20th century are absolutely appalling. Is this your pre-Vatican II morality?

>112 Diamondhead:, >114 brone:

Once again I have to disagree with you that the "collapse of morals" occurred as a result of Vatican II. Correlation is not the same as causation. The fact that something took place after Vatican II, which happened to be the mid-sixties, is a result of sociological changes across the western world; indeed a large part of the impetus for Vatican II and its aggiornamento was to address these changes which were already in motion.

A prime case of "collapse of morals" is the clergy sexual abuse crisis. It was rampant in the pre-Vatican II Church, but it was never addressed, simply covered up. Vatican II opened the door for it to be recognised and dealt with. Most of the cases were from priests and bishops who had been formed by the pre-Vatican II Church. The financial payouts which many dioceses have had to make, which brone frequently reminds us of, are largely reparations for that era. While crime will never be eliminated completely, most dioceses now have robust safeguarding procedures in place and the number of new cases has dropped dramatically, as have the cover ups. Of course there are still a handful of high profile cases, as again brone rightly reminds us, but one of the reasons they get so much publicity is precisely because of their rarity.

Moral excesses were not "confined to small circles". You don't have to delve far into history to find that rape, pillage, looting, murder, robbery, prostitution, forced marriage, slavery and a whole range of other immoral activities were rampant. "Modesty was a general characteristic of the Christian centuries"; again, I think it would be hard to justify that statement over the course of two thousand years of western Christianity. Read the Canterbury Tales. Look at the very public excesses of European Christian emperors, and indeed popes and "prince bishops". Look at the genocide (which of course included rape and sexual abuse of minors) unleashed on African, South American, Australian and North American native peoples in the name of Christian civilisation. Look at the atrocities committed by both Christian sides during the Northern Ireland Troubles.

As for films, the Church has no power to ban films, but it has continued to speak out against films of which it disapproves. I'm not a film buff myself, but I know there were outcries against Ken Russell's 1971 The Devils (heavily censored, edited or completely banned in many countries), The Exorcist (1973), Month Python's Life of Brian (1979) and even the Harry Potter films in the early 2000s. A couple of years ago Pope Francis spoke out against pornography. But I'd certainly like to see the Church speaking out more strongly against graphic and gratuitous violence in films. And if you think that public entertainment "yesterday" was not run by a "vulgar horde" you only have to look a bit more deeply at that scandal-ridden industry, and particularly to hear the testimony of young women who were sexually abused and exploited by powerful men of whom the likes of Weinstein, Epstein and Trump are just the latest manifestation.

It's also worth noting that on many controversial issues where there is disagreement the Church has not changed its official position. She still opposes abortion, euthanasia, artificial contraception, sex outside of marriage, the ordination of women, homosexual acts and much more. The difference is that there is now a more open conversation about these things, and also a more public emphasis on a pastoral, charitable and merciful rather than a strictly legalistic approach. A succession of popes up to and including Francis and Leo have denounced the “culture of death” which is so prevalent in today’s society, and it's encouraging to see the Church speaking out more strongly on a number of other moral issues - human dignity, a consistent ethic of life, the environment, war, nonviolence, capital punishment, human trafficking, artificial intelligence, weapons of mass destruction, the arms industry, the media, poverty, extractive industries, exploitation of natural resources in the Global South, xenophobia against migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and more. Thanks be to God.

As for women wearing veils, thanks >113 MarthaJeanne:! But I find it interesting that many of the people who want to see Catholic women wearing veils for religious reasons apparently object to Muslim women doing the same.

>113 MarthaJeanne: church was heavily infiltrated before Vatican II and Vatican II was result of infiltration and not revealing the third secret of Fatima that warned on this - amongst other things

>116 Diamondhead: church was heavily infiltrated before Vatican II and Vatican II was result of infiltration

Would that be part of the Sedevacantist conspiracy theory that French communists hijacked the 1958 conclave which didn't really elect Pope John XXIII?

Considering what I know of early church history, the church has been heavily infiltrated for almost 2000 years now. It has never been just an organisation of perfect people. And never will be, at least not as long as most members are human beings.

>119 brone: One point is fundamental, The Apostolic Tradition, the teaching of Jesus and the Aposltles, taken from the New Testament and taught by Popes and Councils by the Magisterium, is the only criterion doctrinally for all teaching on doctrine and practice.

Indeed. And the teaching of Vatican II is an authentic and authoritative part of that Tradition.

>117 John5918: Yes and no. I believe Pope John XXIII was true Pope, validly elected. I also believe Cardinal Siri was validly elected in the same conclave. Which brings us to two pope prophecy by Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich. Two popes, two churches, and the words of Blessed Catherine Emmerich on how baleful that relation will be for the Catholic Church in general.
In Anguera approved apparition Virgin Mary uses that language, saying that the future of the church is in the sign of the battle between the true church and the false church of Jesus Christ. She speaks of Catholic Church.
So that false church had to be sewn somewhere.

>118 MarthaJeanne: to that I could also agree

>125 brone: Dialogue is a common word of Vat ll it was never before used in the church

Well, yes and no. There are many theological terms which are commonly used today which entered the Church's vocabulary at various points in Church history but which describe beliefs and practices which were already firmly part of the Tradition. Dialogue can clearly be seen in Scripture and Tradition even when it is not named as such; Jesus himself often taught through dialogue. It has been an important part of missionary activity since the time of Saint Paul - his famous encounter in Acts 17:23 with the people of Areopagus and their "unknown god" represents dialogue. To give just one of many historical examples, the work of Saints Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century, whom we honour in the Catholic Church, was both dialogue and inculturation, another word which names an age-old Christian practice but only really entered our lexicon in the twentieth century.

Ugandan Church Leaders Call for Greater Lay Participation as Vatican II Decree Marks 60 Years (AMECEA)

The Catholic Church in Uganda commemorated the 60th anniversary of the Vatican II Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity with a three-day study conference that brought together 50 pastoral coordinators and lay leaders from dioceses across the country to examine the document’s continued relevance for contemporary evangelization. The conference, held November 17-20, 2025, at Ulrika Guest House in Kisubi, Wakiso district, focused on Apostolicam Actuositatem, the 1965 decree promulgated by Pope Paul VI that reaffirms the laity’s participatory role in the Church’s mission of spreading the Gospel and renewing the temporal order. Archbishop Paul Ssemogerere of Kampala, who doubles as the chair of the Lay Apostolate Commission of the Uganda Episcopal Conference (UEC), opened the conference by emphasizing that the decree remains more relevant today than when it was promulgated. He urged priests, religious, and laity to work together to enhance the Church’s mission of evangelization and social development...

Vatican II wrapped 60 years ago. Here are the council's highlights (NCR)

The Second Vatican Council, which after three years of dialogue and document drafting closed on Dec. 8, 1965, changed the face of the church, and opened it to the modern world. The council, opened under Pope John XXIII and closed under his successor, Pope Paul VI, initiated a comprehensive renewal, with major council texts released on hot-button church issues. As the church commemorates 60 years since the closing of Vatican II, here are seven key issues and documents that serve as its legacy for future generations. Understanding of the church... Liturgy... Religious freedom... Ecumenism... Judaism and other non-Christian religions... Church and the world... Bible and divine revelation...

I was only 9 years old when the Council began, so I can't say I have any clear memories of it, but I do remember the excitement, exhilaration and deep sense that the Holy Spirit was at work in the Catholic Church as the changes mandated by the Council began to develop. It was a formative period in my young life, and that of many others. Since then I have studied it in depth, tried to live by its teachings, hopefully played my own small part in implementing it, acknowledged that a few experiments during its immediate aftermath did not turn out well and have fallen by the wayside, been saddened by the slow progress of and indeed outright opposition to some parts of the Council's teaching by a small number of Catholics, but remain confident and hopeful that the Vatican II trajectory will continue. A luta continua! It is the most recent most authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church, and is a great gift from God to the Church and indeed to the rest of the world. Deo gratias! Thanks be to God!

Another reflection from NCR: Vatican II: 60 years old and still going!

Monday, Dec. 8, marked the 60th anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council. It is an axiom among church historians that it takes a century for a council to be received, so we are almost two-thirds of the way. That is another way of saying, Vatican II may have ended 60 years ago but it is still a work in progress... Vatican II was an enormous achievement. Like Trent, it was a reforming council that changed many of the ways we Catholics go about being Catholic, not by inventing new ideas but by returning to the sources of revelation in Scripture and the church's own tradition, and by attending to Christ here and now for, as Sacrosanctum Concilium states, "Christ is always present in His Church" (Paragraph 7). Vatican II is still an ongoing project as we all dig deeper into its treasures, hold ourselves accountable for any misreadings we once foisted upon the texts, and let its teachings seep into every nook and cranny of our faith. As we Catholics chart our way forward, Vatican II is the map.

The sprouting of the Council, sixty years on (Vatican News)

In a memorable homily delivered on 11 May 2010 in Lisbon, Pope Benedict XVI noted: “We often worry about the social, cultural and political consequences of the faith, taking for granted that this faith exists—and unfortunately, that is becoming less and less realistic.” It is precisely this observation—an honest reckoning with the reality of secularization and dechristianization—that lay behind the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, whose sixtieth anniversary we have just celebrated. Already in the early decades of the twentieth century, many within the Church had sensed the growing difficulty of transmitting the faith in the so-called “Christian world.” The difficulty did not stem from overt hostility toward Christianity, but rather from indifference... The great question behind John XXIII’s bold decision to convene the Council—and behind Paul VI’s skillful leadership in bringing it to a virtually unanimous conclusion—was therefore a simple one: how can the Gospel be proclaimed anew to the men and women of today? It was already evident that the “age of Christendom,” in which societies were steeped in Christian culture, was coming to an end, and that transmitting the faith required new languages capable of recovering what is truly essential and bearing witness to it before the world. In the decades following Vatican II, its effects have been the subject of ideological debate and controversy—many of them still unresolved—between those who blame the Council for the Church’s crisis and for dechristianization, and those who believe the answer lies in adapting to the world. The former fail to see that the crisis began long before 1962 and continue to chase the dream of an impossible restoration, projecting the image of a beleaguered Church whose only defense is to seal itself in a fortress... What the Council taught—and what has been echoed in the magisterium of every Pope since 1965—is well summed up in the opening lines of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium: “Christ is the Light of nations. Because this is so, this Sacred Synod gathered together in the Holy Spirit eagerly desires, by proclaiming the Gospel to every creature, to bring the light of Christ to all men, a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church.” Here lies a central insight that can never be taken for granted. The Church does not shine with its own light; it does not radiate a light of its own; it is not the source of the proclamation. The Church can only seek to be transparent—allowing the light of Christ to pass through and shimmer. It is Christ’s light that shines upon the face of the Church. This awareness, so clear in the teaching of the Church Fathers, carries profound consequences. A Church that knows it is neither the source nor the “owner” of the faith shuns self-sufficiency and self-reference. It does not live with its gaze fixed nostalgically on the past; it does not seek the support of the powerful; it does not impose the faith, reduce it to rules or traditions, or trust in strategies and human plans. It knows how to acknowledge its inadequacies and ask forgiveness. It engages in free dialogue with all, seeks the face of its Lord, allows itself to be evangelized by those far away, and recognizes Him wherever He freely reveals Himself. It lives out mercy, welcome, closeness to the poor, and commitment to peace and justice as ways of being the salt of the earth—allowing Christ’s light to shine in the world and bearing witness to the logic of a God who, as Pope Leo XIV reminded us in Istanbul’s cathedral on 28 November, “chose the path of smallness in order to come down among us,” and therefore does not require our proclamations, our denunciations, or our strategies to make Himself known...

While we're reflecting on the Second Vatican Council, I think it's worth mentioning the Pact of the Catacombs. This is an agreement signed by 42 of the Council Fathers (the bishops who participated in Vatican II) during the closing weeks of the Council in November 1965, and later by about five hundred other bishops. It was initiated by Latin American bishops, including Dom Helder Camara. Outside of Latin America it is not as well known as it should be, but in recent years it has received some visibility again. I had the privilege of meeting the last surviving signatory, Italian Bishop Luigi Bettazzi, before his death aged 99 in 2023.

I copy it in full below. I think it is as valid now as it was then, and one might hope that more bishops would be guided by it.

The Catacombs’ Pact of the Poor and Servant Church

We, bishops,

– gathered at the Second Vatican Council;

– recognising the inadequacies of our lives with respect to evangelical poverty;

– encouraging each other to avoid any appearance of exeeptionalism or presumption;

– united with all our brothers in the Episcopate;

– counting above all on the grace and strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the prayers of the faithful and the priests of our respective dioceses;

– placing ourselves in thought and prayer before the Trinity, before the Church of Christ and before the priests and faithful of our dioceses;

– humbly conscious of our weakness, but equally determined and fortified by the grace that God gives us, commit ourselves to the following:

1) We will seek to live according to the ordinary manner of our people, in the current sense of the term, with respect to housing, food, means of transport and everything else that springs from this. Cf. Mt 5,3; 6,33s; 8,20.

We definitively renounce both the appearance and the reality of wealth, especially

– in our way of dress (sumptuous fabrics, loud colours)

– in marks of distinction made from precious materials, which should in reality be evangelical signs made from “neither gold or silver.” Cf. Mc 6,9; Mt 10,9s; Acts 3,6.

3) We will not possess real estate, goods, bank accounts etc. in our own names; to the extent that this may be necessary, we will place everything in the name of the diocese, or of charitable and social works.. Cf. Mt 6,19-21; Lk 12,33s.

4) Whenever possible, we will entrust the financial and material administration of our dioceses to a commission of competent laity, conscious of their apostolic role, so that we may become less administrators and more pastors and apostles. Cf. Mt 10,8; Acts 6,1-7.

5) We refuse to be addressed, orally or in writing, by names or titles which signify prestige and power (Eminence, Excellency, Monsignor…). We prefer to be called by the evangelical title of Father. Cf. Mt 20,25-28; 23,6-11; Jn 13,12-15.

6) In our behaviour and social relations, we will avoid anything that may seem to confer privilege, priority or any preference for the rich and powerful (including banquets, offered or accepted, class distinction during religious services Cf. Lk 13,12-14; 1Cor 9,14-19.)

7) In the same way we will avoid fostering or pampering the vanity of anyone in order to seek reward or solicit donations, or for any reason whatsoever. We will invite our faithful to consider their donations as a normal participation in worship, the apostolate and social action. Cf. Mt 6,2-4; Lk 15,9-13; 2Cor 12,4.

8) We will dedicate whatever is necessary of our time, reflection, heart, means etc to the apostolic and pastoral service of people and groups of workers and the economically weak and underdeveloped, without prejudice to other people and groups in the diocese. We will support those laity, religious, deacons and priests who the Lord calls to evangelise the poor and the workers, sharing the work and life of labourers. Cf. Lk 4,18s; Mk 6,4; Mt 11,4s; Acts 18,3s; 20,33-35; 1Cor 4,12 e 9,1-27.

9) Conscious of the demands of justice and charity, and their mutual relationship, we will seek to transform aid activities into social works based on justice and charity, which take into account all that this requires, as a humble service to the competent public organs. Cf. Mt 25,31-46; Lk 13,12-14 e 33s.

10) We will do our utmost to ensure that those responsible for our government and for our public services make, and put into practice, laws, structures and social institutions required by justice and charity, equality and the harmonic and holistic development of all men and women, and by this means bring about the advent of a new social order, worthy of the sons and daughters of humankind and of God. Cf. Acts 2,44s; 4,32-35; 5,4; 2Cor 8 e 9 ; 1Tim 5, 16.

11) Convinced that the collegiality of the bishops finds its greatest evangelical significance in meeting the challenges faced by the human masses, who suffer the effects of physical, cultural and moral misery – two thirds of humanity – we commit ourselves:

– to participate, according to our means, in the urgent investments of the episcopates of poor nations;

– to call on the international organisations, while bearing witness to the Gospel, as Pope Paul VI did at the United Nations, to establish economic and cultural structures that no longer create cause poor nations in an increasingly wealthy world, but which will enable the poor masses to overcome their poverty

12) We commit ourselves in pastoral charity to share our lives with our brothers and sisters in Christ – priests, religious and laity – in order that our ministry will become a genuine service.

Therefore,

– We will strive to “review our lives” with them;

– We will seek out collaborators who will aim to become animators in the way of the Spirit, rather than in the ways of the chiefs of this world;

– We will seek to be more humanly present, more welcoming…;

– We will show ourselves to be open to all, whatever their religion. Cf. Mc 8,34s; Acts 6,1-7; 1Tim 3,8-10.

13) On returning to our respective dioceses, we will make this resolution known to our people, asking them to help us through their understanding, collaboration and prayers.

“MAY GOD HELP US TO BE FAITHFUL.”

Pope Leo calls on Catholics to rediscover Vatican II teachings (OSV)

The teachings of the Second Vatican Council are still “the guiding star” the Catholic Church is meant to follow, Pope Leo XIV said. Rereading all of its teachings “is a valuable opportunity to rediscover the beauty and the importance of this ecclesial event,” he said Jan. 7, and because its work remains “a guiding principle for us today.” “We have yet to achieve ecclesial reform more fully in a ministerial sense and, in the face of today’s challenges, we are called to continue to be vigilant interpreters of the signs of the times, joyful proclaimers of the Gospel, courageous witnesses of justice and peace,” he said... the pope said that with the conclusion of the Holy Year Jan. 6, he was beginning a new series of talks dedicated to the Second Vatican Council... “Vatican Council II rediscovered the face of God as the Father who, in Christ, calls us to be his children,” he said in his talk The council looked at the Catholic Church “as a mystery of communion and sacrament of unity between God and his people; it initiated important liturgical reform, placing at its center the mystery of salvation and the active and conscious participation of the entire people of God,” he said. “At the same time, it helped us to open up to the world and to embrace the changes and challenges of the modern age in dialogue and co-responsibility, as a Church that wishes to open her arms to humanity, to echo the hopes and anxieties of peoples, and to collaborate in building a more just and fraternal society,” he said... However, since the council was held so long ago, that means that “the generation of bishops, theologians and believers of Vatican II is no longer with us,” said the pope, who would have been 10 years old when the council ended in December of 1965. “It will be important to get to know it again closely, and to do so not through ‘hearsay’ or interpretations that have been given, but by rereading its documents and reflecting on their content” directly, he said...

The Holy Father continues his catechesis on Vatican II:

Pope at Audience: We are God's beloved children (Vatican II)

“Thanks to Jesus, Christians know God the Father and entrust themselves to Him with confidence.” Pope Leo XIV expressed this during his Wednesday General Audience, as he continued his catechesis series on the Second Vatican Council. He concentrated again this week on the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum on Divine Revelation, which the Pope last week called “one of the most beautiful and important” documents of the Council...

Inspired by Pope’s Catechesis on Vatican II, Ibadan Bishops in Nigeria Recommend Youth Catechism to Strengthen Faith (ACI Africa)

Inspired by Pope Leo XIV’s ongoing catechesis on the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), Catholic Bishops in Nigeria’s Ibadan Ecclesiastical Province (IEP) have recommended the Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church (YOUCAT) as a key pastoral response to the challenges posed by contemporary life and modern ideologies... the Catholic Bishops reflected on the Holy Father’s renewed focus on Vatican II, which seeks to represent to the people of God “the treasures of the historic event” held from 11 October 1962 to 8 December 1965... In his catechesis, the Holy Father observed that more than six decades after the Council, the generation of Bishops, theologians, and lay leaders who directly shaped Vatican II is no longer alive, making a fresh and systematic engagement with its teachings both necessary and urgent. Against this backdrop, the Bishops of Ibadan Ecclesiastical Province have emphasized catechesis as a strategic priority, particularly for young people navigating rapidly shifting cultural and ideological landscapes... They urged the people of God in the Ecclesiastical Province “to continue to expand the frontiers of hope in our society by promoting at every opportunity the Social Teachings of the Church, also known as Catholic Social Teachings (CST).” They explained that the four cardinal principles of CST, namely: the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life, the principle of Solidarity, the principle of Subsidiarity, and the Common Good, have proven to be very effective and reliable principles for social engineering and the advancement of society in many parts of the world”...

>140 brone: Has our theology in the past few years gradually watered down our faith, which has been found too demanding and always so subtly that nothing seems to be lost

No, it hasn't, not in the least. And while it has not yet brought about "reunited Christianity", we're certainly far further along that path than we were sixty years ago. But I don't think the point of Vatican II (or of the Church more generally) was ever to bring about "a re-Christianized Europe". Rather the Church has spoken of a "new evangelisation" of the whole world, not just a single continent.

>142 brone:

Well I do tend to think of Europe as a geographical continent, the one I come from (despite the efforts of right wingers in my own country to separate us from that continent). I'm also well aware of the impact European cultures and civilisations have had on the world for both good and ill, just as I'm aware of other great historical civilisations such as Egyptian, Chinese, South American, African, Arab and Muslim, all of which left a greater or lesser impact on the modern world. In the context of Christianity, Europe certainly played a major role, but the centre of gravity of Christianity has definitively shifted from the Global North (your "Europe is a cultural and historical concept") to the Global South, which is where the majority of Christians live and where Christianity is still vibrant and expanding. However the concept of "new evangelisation" in the Catholic Church, first popularised by Pope Paul VI in 1975, does aim to increase the evangelical zeal of already baptised Christians, which I think is what you are speaking of, although not exclusively in Europe.

>144 brone:

Not sure where the politics is there. I'm responding to your geopolitical comments about Europe.

Pope Leo speaks about Vatican II teachings, and all Catholics should listen (NCR)

The pope began by noting how Lumen Gentium reflected the council fathers' desire to explain the origins of the church. They chose the Pauline word "mystery"... a reality that was previously hidden and is now revealed." Revelation is our Christian data. Yes, we should still be attentive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, who calls us still. The circumstances we face are often far different from those St. Paul and the Ephesians faced. But we test our thoughts and our deeds to see if they warrant the adjective Christian by examining them in the light of revelation... just because a Christian has an idea does not mean it is a Christian idea. The Holy Father then goes on to explain that the mystery is God's plan "to unite all creatures thanks to the reconciliatory action of Jesus Christ, an action that was accomplished through his death on the cross. This is experienced first of all in the assembly gathered for the liturgical celebration: there, differences are relativized, and what counts is being together because we are drawn by the Love of Christ, that broke down the wall of separation between people and social groups (cf. Ephesians 2:14)"... the pope here places the liturgy, which is a foretaste of that heavenly banquet for which we yearn, at the center of the church's self-understanding. Everything else we say and do in the realm of church organization, or social and sexual ethics, or theological development, everything flows from the paschal mystery which is made present at each and every Mass in a unique and unassailable way. It is this which brings us, properly, of necessity, to our knees... Leo is not advocating any kind of empty-headed universalism. This son of Augustine does not shy away from the enormity nor the explicitness of the Christian claims about God... I hope, oh, how I hope, that all Catholics, left and right, devout and lapsed, will take a moment and hear what Leo is highlighting for us. These short catechetical reflections invite us to become a part of the renewal to which Vatican II pointed, a renewal that is no new-fangled ideology but something very old and ever new, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

Pope Leo XIV's Catechesis. The Documents of Vatican Council II. II. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium. 1. The mystery of the Church, sacrament of the union with God, and the unity of all humanity given in a general audience in St Peter's Square on Wednesday, 18 February 2026 can be read here.

>147 brone: So,we are now saying the Church's claims for millennia were monstrous

Just wondering who "we" refers to here? If you're speaking on behalf of yourself and your own group, I'd say you're mistaken to describe the Church's claims as "monstrous". If you're speaking about Catholic leadership and/or Catholics in general, I have never heard it said that "the Church's claims for millennia were monstrous". If you're speaking about the world at large, well yes, the Church has always been criticised by her opponents and detractors. Some of their criticism has been justified, some of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I know my friend the devout African hates primitive prophecies, but I will give one from (gen 49-10) and that referes to "the one who is to be sent." It tells us the fate he met at the hands of his own people. Like my friend in this post who would rather see a bloodthirsty regime survive in the Middle East than a coalition of moderate Chistians,Jews, and Arabs who strive for equal rights in Iran. This blind rejection and human ingratitude are the same fate of the cry "kill Him," that has been shrieking down the rugged way of human history. But God our Master has a plan for our destiny, and his Messiah will not be defeated by a terrorist regime who would not tolerate the resurrection and glorification of Christ the Messiah. It is no secret that secularists like the African and yes maybe the pope the book is still out on him. John generally reacts to any disagreement with Allah with obsequiousness or silence, this cowardice is simply the old adage: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But with the African it is more than that. I don't know if you non-African posters have noticed that I often call John 5918 a Marxist. His support for everything Muslim including the influx of Mohammedanism into the west is nothing if not Marxist. The big thinkers of the 20th century noticed this Mohammedanism as the Marxism of our times.So you'll forgive me not to let the African stiff-arm Reason because I stand in his way here. What signs in a supernatural way did Mohammed bring to the table? What divine revelation of truth did he inspire us with? On the contrary he was to send the power of arms. So Is John foolish when he supports having tea and cookies with these robbers and tyrants. Dont't forget how the Ayatollahs since the beginning have seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which we are goaded. In all this they are obeyed by carnal men which from thier teachings are to be expected. By trying to ease the human suffering and murders the African is upset John would have us lose our liberty when the filth of what Muslims really believe they are uncomfortable especially with the respectively distinct prevailing means of persuing carnal pleasure, Like the Pakistani rape gangs in England denied by the English expat. It is important that the crimes committed under the banner of Allah be called what they are and that is filth."AMDG"

>151 brone:

Just for the record:

1. I am not a Marxist.
2. Islam is not Marxist. Marxism is an atheist philosophy. Islam is definitely not atheist.
3. Allah (اللَّهْٰ) is simply the Arabic word for God. In Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan and many other Arabic-speaking countries Christians (including Catholics) routinely pray to Allah.
4. Crime is crime, no matter who commits it. The vast majority of Muslims, just like the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists and indeed human beings, are not criminals.

Namecalling is against the ToS.

Thanks, >153 MarthaJeanne:. It's always been my hope that this Christianity group would foster understanding and consensus amongst Christians, and that disagreements would be constructive, civil and charitable, without name-calling, ad hominem attacks, disinformation and demeaning language. Apparently it was not to be. From time to time I quote Ephesians 4:29-32, which I think should be a challenge to all of us, and could be included in the introduction to this group if we had a Group Admin to do so: "No foul word should ever cross your lips; let your words be for the improvement of others, as occasion offers, and do good to your listeners; do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God who has marked you with his seal, ready for the day when we shall be set free. Any bitterness or bad temper or anger or shouting or abuse must be far removed from you -- as must every kind of malice. Be generous to one another, sympathetic, forgiving each other as readily as God forgave you in Christ."

When posts breach the ToS, as you mention, there is the option of flagging them. I tend not to flag posts which are abusive towards me personally, as my judgement on those would not be impartial - I leave that to other posters. I do flag posts which abuse other LT members.

Hope you're having a good Lent, John.

Thanks, Tim. Always good to see you posting here. Likewise, a blessed Lent to you and to all on this group.

>157 brone:

Thanks for this thoughtful response. A key step in conflict transformation is talking and trying to understand where each side is coming from. Clearly you and I come from very different backgrounds and life experiences in just about every way (except that we are both cradle Catholics and male), and we have different worldviews and see everything through different lenses. Thus we are often talking past each other.

I speak and write confidently and assertively because I believe it is the best way to get a message across with clarity, especially in this medium where one has to use relatively few words. I'm truly sorry if that comes across as lack of humility - mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - but it's the fruit of a lifetime of teaching, preaching, public speaking, writing, negotiating, etc.

Frustration? Rather I would say that sadness is the dominant feeling, sadness that in Christian conversations there is so much demeaning and insulting language. "Ad hominem" is not a pejorative, it is a logical fallacy, and I find it sad that this fallacy (along with demeaning labels and unsubstatiated innuendo) is used against popes, cardinals, bishops, homosexuals, Muslims, migrants, socialists and other individuals and whole groups of people rather than focusing on the issue with which you disagree and rationally arguing its pros and cons. Part of our Catholic tradition which I treasure is semper caritas, always with charity, in everything we do and say. As for me, I'm not so worried about personal abuse directed at me - in my career it's not been unusual for the people I've been negotiating with to have been pointing guns at me, so your efforts pale in comparison - but other LT members have picked up on it, and it doesn't give a good impression, especially to non-Christian readers, for a Christianity group to have so much vitriol and abuse in it. Can't we disagree without the insults?

But yes, there is frustration. My background includes dealing with facts and evidence, writing reports, investigating issues before reaching conclusions, writing non-fiction books about the Church in Africa which are already becoming part of the historical record of certain under-reported areas, and so for me accuracy is important, even more so in this modern world where fake news, conspiracy theories, political ideologies, populism and distrust of facts are becoming so dominant. It frustrates me greatly that you constantly refuse to cite any evidence for any of the statements and claims that you make no matter how politely I ask for your help - I'm conditioned (a) to try to help when asked and (b) to back up anything I say or write with citations and references. If all of us (not just you and me) are to have fruitful conversations it's important that we are able to read original sources in full and in context rather than relying on short extracts which you or I might quote. Just telling the reader to google for a claim that you have made is neither courteous nor very useful, as Google throws up hundreds of results and we don't know which is the exact one you are referring to. Surely the onus is on the one making the claim to be prepared to back it up?

It also frustrates me that you make blanket assumptions about what I and others believe, which often means you are actually arguing against a straw person. Even the last sentence of your post ("what you would call cruelty") is an example of making assumptions about me, putting words into my mouth. You say that you will not be pulled into "abstractions, theories, semantic games", but it seems to me that in fact that's often what you are doing, making vague unsubstantiated generalisations rather than focusing in on the reality of the issues under discussion.

So I hope you don't find that too dominating or lacking in humility, but it's an honest attempt to respond to your post, with the hope that it might raise the tone of some of the conversations in this Christianity group. Now it's time to go for mass, if I can coax my trusty old Land Rover through the mud and seasonal rivers to the corrugated iron Catholic chapel in our village, built thirty odd years ago by one of my own missionary colleagues, where a Kenyan Passionist priest will come for mass today if he can coax his own much newer vehicle through the mud and seasonal rivers from his parish twenty odd miles away. I shall pray for you, as I hope you will for me. May God bless us all.

>159 John5918: I hope that both you and the priest got to the chapel and back home safely. t

When I lived in Geneva, one of the Africans in our congregation asked if the church could raise money for a project in her home village. That village did not have a chapel, but went to a neighbouring village for services. This worked well in the dry season, but in the wet season, the villagers could not cross the river, so they would gather at their side of the river and stand, often in the rain, worshiping and praying during the service they could not reach. They wanted to build their own chapel. Could our church raise the money for the building materials? The people themselves had a building site, and would do the work, but even the quite moderate costs they had estimated for materials were beyond them.

My friend came from a very religious family, and during the time that she spent in Geneva working for the embassy, I remember the joy when once her mother was able to visit. Her brother, an Anglican priest, also visited once. Our priest became ill during his visit, and I remember standing next to him at the altar, taking care of the service book, turning to various parts of the service, and pointing out where we were, as he presided in a service that he had never even seen before. I knew the details, he knew how to lead worship. It worked magnificently. (Due mostly to him.)

Anyway, we held a few fundraisers and the money went off, I think this was Ghana, and now the people can have a regular service in a dry chapel. How often they are able to have a priest, I don't know, but I am sure that there is prayer and praise and worship in abundance.

>160 MarthaJeanne:

Thanks for that inspiring story of what life is like in some of the parts of the world where most Christians live. I've frequently been stuck on the wrong side of a swollen river in Sudan, and at times risked driving through with the water level higher than the bonnet (hood) of the car. I only ever once got really stuck, and on that occasion luckily I was rescued by a passing Irish missionary as we watched the water rising higher around us. But today the two small seasonal rivers between home and the chapel had both dried out enough that my trusty Landie only had to drive through shallow puddles, so I arrived safely at the chapel only to find that the priest hadn't made it. So we chatted about parish affairs, drank chai, and then returned safely home.

A continuation of Pope Leo XIV's catechesis on Vatican II:

Full text: Pope Leo XIV’s general audience given March 11, 2026 (OSV)

Continuing in our reflection on the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium (LG), today we will look at the second chapter, dedicated to the People of God...

Pope at Audience: 'Every baptized person is to bear consistent witness to Christ' (Vatican News)

During his weekly General Audience, Pope Leo XIV continues reflecting on the Second Vatican Council's 'Lumen gentium' and insists that "every baptized person is an active agent of evangelization, called to bear consistent witness to Christ"...

>166 brone: Pope Leo XIV conceived a contempt and hatred for representative democracy?

Pope Leo’s Short Take on Democracy (Appia Institute)

In a recent interview with Crux correspondent Elise Ann Allen, Pope Leo briefly touched on the issue of democracy, adopting an apparently negative tone: «Democracy is not necessarily a perfect solution to everything.» However, when you consider the context in which this statement was made and the subject to which Pope Leo refers, it becomes clear that this is neither a negative judgement on democracy itself nor an endorsement of the totalitarian tendencies currently evident in many democratic systems around the world. First and foremost in the United States, to which Pope Leo feels he belongs...

Pope Leo can help save American democracy (The Hill)

Leo’s American identity-at a time when two American leaders embody opposing visions of democracy-places him at the intersection of a deepening global struggle over democracy, nationalism, and faith. Critics argue the Church is historically anti-democratic. Popes like Gregory XVI and Pius IX condemned democracy... Conservative Americans benignly criticized Pope Francis as ignorant of America. Leo, however, is an American who might best trump the president in a quick quiz on democracy... In the free market of religions, democracy here allowed, nourished, and strengthened Catholicism and other beliefs... Leo could become a pivotal voice as Christian nationalism rises in the U.S., pushing for the collapse of the church-state wall... Leo XIV invoked Leo XIII for his teachings on labor and democracy. But the most famous Leo is Leo the Great (391-461), who stood up to the barbarians that sought to destroy what remained in his era of Roman society. This new Leo is poised to save America’s democracy from American barbarians within, seeking to destroy centuries of democratic compromise toward a more perfect union...

Pope at Audience: Church’s hierarchy born from Christ to proclaim Gospel (Vatican News)

At the weekly General Audience, Pope Leo XIV continues his catechesis on the Second Vatican Council document ‘Lumen gentium,’ and reflects on the essential nature of the Church’s hierarchical structure in her mission to preach the Gospel...

Pope Leo XIV Explains Why the Priesthood is Reserved to Men (ACI Africa)

Pope Leo XIV on Wednesday said priestly ministry in the Catholic Church, entrusted only to men, is understood in light of apostolic succession and called for priests who are “ardent with evangelical charity” and “courageous missionaries.” During his March 25 catechesis dedicated to the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, from the Second Vatican Council, Leo explained that the Church “is founded on the apostles, whom Christ appointed as the living pillars of his mystical body”... The pope recalled that the apostles, as authoritative witnesses of the Resurrection, received from Christ the mission to teach, sanctify, and guide, and that this ministry “is handed on to men who, until Christ’s return, continue to sanctify, guide, and instruct the Church ‘through their successors in pastoral office.’” This transmission, he explained, forms the basis of apostolic succession and of the sacrament of holy orders, which is structured in three degrees: the episcopate, the presbyterate, and the diaconate... Thus, the ordained ministry is conferred on men who receive “sacra potestas,” or sacred power, for service in the Church, in continuity with the apostolic mission originally entrusted to the Twelve Apostles. This link with the apostles — chosen by Christ from among men — constitutes the theological foundation explaining why the Church considers the ministerial priesthood to be reserved to men, in fidelity to tradition and to the mandate received from Christ...

Pope at Audience: Lay people help Church reach all and promote peace (Vatican News)

During his weekly General Audience, Pope Leo XIV highlights the important role that lay people play in the Church’s mission in bearing witness to the Gospel, as he continues his reflection on the conciliar document "Lumen gentium"...

>171 brone:

Not sure why this is in a thread on Vatican II, but just for the record, while the president of Nigeria is indeed a Muslim, his wife is a Christian pastor. And while a number of Catholic priests have been kidnapped, insecurity in Nigeria is widespread and indiscriminate. Over 7,500 people are kidnapped annually by criminal gangs, and thousands from all communities murdered. I can't find your figure of 278 Catholic priests kidnapped and you don't cite a source nor what period that statistic covers, although I can find figures suggesting over 200 priests were kidnapped over a ten year period. For criminals seeking a ransom they are a tempting target as the church is perceived as having assets and money.

these peace-loving {Muslims*} murdered 11 people in the Gari Ya Waye community

That's a bit of a contradiction, isn't it? If they murdered 11 people then by definition they were not "peace-loving" Muslims, they were part of the minority of Muslims who are violent. The vast majority of Muslims do not murder people any more than the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists and followers of other different faiths and/or none do.

* This quote from >171 brone: is edited to replace an anachronistic, inaccurate and offensive term for "Muslims".

Pope at Audience: 'Holiness is not a privilege for the few' (Vatican News)

Pope Leo XIV continues his catechesis series on the Dogmatic Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' and reminds us that holiness 'is not a privilege for the few,' but for all the baptized, and 'is manifested in our daily life every time we receive it with joy and respond to Him'...

Pope Leo XIV: Church Serves Coming of God’s Kingdom in History (ACI Africa)

Pope Leo XIV continued his catechesis on the documents of the Second Vatican Council at his Wednesday general audience, reflecting on the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium and the Church as “pilgrim in history towards the heavenly homeland.” Speaking May 6 in St. Peter’s Square, the pope said that “the Church, in fact, journeys through this earthly history always looking towards her final destination, which is the heavenly homeland.” “This is an essential dimension which, however, we often overlook or downplay, because we are too focused on what is immediately visible and on the more concrete dynamics of the life of the Christian community,” he said. The pope explained that “the Church lives in history in the service of the coming of the kingdom of God in the world”...