Fiftieth Anniversary Of Vatican II
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-04/fiftieth-anniversary-vatican-ii
When the Second Vatican Council opened 50 years ago this month, many called it the most important religious event of the 20th century. The council expanded church teaching on ecumenism and religious freedom, and had a major impact on liturgy and church life. But its repercussions reached far beyond the Catholic Church. Champions of Vatican II often see it as having liberated Catholics from the oppression of church leaders. Detractors blame it for shattering unity and order in the church -- and introducing an era of doubt. The accomplishments and shortcomings of Vatican II.
Guests
Maureen Fiedler
host of public radio's Interfaith Voices and Sister of Loretto.
Christopher Ruddy
associate professor of historical and systematic theology at Catholic University of America.
The Very Reverend Ian Markham
dean and president of Virginia Theological Seminary, and priest associate at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Va.
Monsignor Richard Hilgartner
executive director of Secretariat of Divine Worship, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor
vice president of philanthropy at World Union for Progressive Judaism.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
In spite of what Pope John XXIII did and his intentions, the Catholic Church continues to alienate people of other religions.
The Church continues to insert itself into matters that are not the purview of the Church. It inserts itself into civil elections and threatens those who do not agree with the positions that the Bishops take by denial of communion.
It still has no real place for women in its hierachy, it totally ignores the fact that the Apostle to the Apostles was a women who brought the message that Christ had risen from the dead.
I'd be interested to hear each member of the the panel explain why, despite the council's effort to update the church, there has been a dramatic drop in church membership in western countries. Why have Catholic people seemingly lost their faith?
Great topic. Could your guests explain why the church has done such a poor job of disseminating the richness of the Council to the faithful.
The Church has recently done a fantastic job of pushing people to walk away. Congratulations for showing all of us that power is more important than morality in the arena of child molestation. Thanks also for trying to meddle in the reproductive freedoms of nonmembers. The free thinkers among us find it very revealing.
I believe the name that Maureen was thinking of is Elizabeth Johnson. Another contemporary theologian is Sandra M. Schneiders, also a noted biblical scholar.
Thank you for the conversation. I am curious, as a member who has only known Church as post-VII, what is the church doing to bring women and our needs-views to the church. As a wife & mother I often consider whether I have a home in the church. As the heart to my home, that means a potential loss oft family to the church.
In terms of the language of the Liturgy, and the comment that the language of the marketplace was not appropriate, it begs the question of what manner of speech did Christ address the disciples and those he preached to?
Excellent program, FROM A ROMAN CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE. Might it be well to include a Lutheran, like Will G. Rusch (ELCA) to discuss what is acknowledged as the most fruitful FORMAL ecumenical dialogues. From a Lutheran perspective the RC Church has moved to a Lutheran understanding on six of seven so-called "abuses" (Lutheran language, 1530), codified in the documents of Vatican II:
1) Both kinds received in Holy Communion YES
2) Married Priests NO
3) Role of the "Mass" (HC Liturgy) in parish life YES!!!
4) Absolute necessity of oral confession before receiving HCommunion YES
5) Role and Obligation of Fasting YES
6) Nature and Obligation of Monastic Vows YES
7) Secular power of Bishops YES
And, of course, the most important - Agreement on Justification
(The Rev.) J. Jeffrey Zetto, Th.D.
Houston, TX
My husband is Lutheran; I am "cradle" Catholic. When we go to Mass, he has a difficult time following and participating....as I!! I observe other "regulars" attending the Mass and they seem to have the same problem!! Therefore, participation by the congregation is really hindered. When we attend a Lutheran or Presbyterian service, one can follow very easily. The flow (w/ responses) is printed weekly in their Sunday bulletins. I observe that these congregations are fully engaged...UNLIKE the Catholic attendees. I think the Catholic church needs to address this....one has to switch to 2-3 different booklets in the pew in order to follow the Mass!
Second---> why do I still see Catholic Mass attendees leave the Mass early i.e., before it is completely finished. I find this disrespectful to God, to the Mass itself. This does not occur
(or Rarely does) in these other denominations. Why do the Catholics do this, so regularly??
It is not just the Roman Catholic Church that has been found guilty of sexual abuse and coverups... The Morman Church, or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has been doing the same as discussed in the book The Sins of Brother Curtis... and the Ultra Conservative Jewish society in NYC to name just a few... This is a universal problem in organized religion...
LOTH
The liturgy of the Mass has been discussed and will continue to be discussed.
The Church has another liturgy - the Liturgy of the Hours - or breviary. I imagine this was pretty much unknown to the laity prior to Vatican II. One fruit of Vatican II was to translate the psalter into English and to encourage its publication.
The Divine Office may be prayed individually. It is best prayed in public with two sides alternating among the Psalms and canticles. The best example of this are the many Gregorian chants.
I cannot begin to say enough good things about a (relatively) scheduled and set prayer format.
I have been told by at least 5 Catholic friends that is no longer necessary for a Catholic person to accept Christ as the entrance to heaven. I am told that in the "Catholic Bible" it is stated that one simply needs to live a "Christlike" life. As a Christian, I find this interesting. Does this fit with what the speakers believe
DrAndreuJRichar...on October 4, 2012 @ 12:00 pm wrote: "This is a universal problem in organized religion."
Correction: This is a universal problem in human nature. Why should one expect religion, run by humans, to be exempt?
The point is not that religion (organized or not) is inherently evil, but that it has no right to claim it is inherently good. Like all things run by humans, it is capable of both great good and great evil.
MCS, sounds like your Catholic friends are a bit confused. If by "accepting Christ" you mean "sincerely confessing Christ as one's personal Savior", educated and faithful Catholics know that is necessary. Catholics "accept Christ" every time they recite the liturgy, cross themselves, bounce on a knee, pray Hail Mary's, and, ultimately, when they receive the Eucharist (considered to be the full presence of Christ Himself). If your Catholic friends do this insincerely, they are committing a grave sin (something you don't want to commit as a Catholic).
jlynwood, could you tell me what Pope John XXIII's "intentions" and "the purview of the Church" are? I also forgot the Church was required to be obedient to the standards of secularist and progressivist principles. Thanks for the reminder.
The Church has always identified and articulated herself as being a "light unto the nations" by making herself an intelligent voice in the marketplace and the public square. In doing that, she stands on principles of Natural Law, which prohibit her from making her sacred texts the authority on civil matters. Instead of saying "this is wrong because the Bible says so", she appeals to Nature and, from that, derives a philosophy of the human person, which often conflicts with the latest, coolest, suavest trends of thought.
And yes, because the Church cannot intentionally contradict her sacred texts, she does things like refuse communion to her members who blatantly defy what she teaches. They can't take communion, because communion is a sign of communion with the Church.
And you do know that Mary (a woman, believe it or not) is considered to be Queen of Heaven and Earth, right? Or do we need to dress her up like a man and make her King of Heaven and Earth to give women their due respect?
If all of this is what you mean by "alienating" people, don't expect to see any changes in your lifetime.
bnichols85 (on October 4, 2012 @ 2:32 pm)wrote: “I also forgot the Church was required to be obedient to the standards of secularist and progressivist principles.”
I think you are missing an important point. Whatever authority the Church might have to tell its members what to believe or do, that authority ends where the rights of non-members and non-believers begins. So, demanding that its members vote a certain way (especially with the threat of denying communion - the essence of excommunication) is simply an attempt to gain political power and dominion over everyone.
You can “pretty it up” as much as you like by phrases like “light unto the nations”, or “principles of Natural Law”, but at the end of the day that “light” becomes indistinguishable from the fires of the Auto da Fe (literally “Act of Faith”) in which the Church burned Jews and other “heretics”. That is the path which leads to religious persecution and warfare (in which the Church ‘led the world’). Shall we return to the days when Catholics and Protestants gleefully slaughtered each other over the correct way to worship “the Prince of Peace”, the Unholy Inquisition, or the Unholy Crusades?
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
The Founders of this nation wisely rejected that path, in favor of the “secularist and progressivist principles” (which arose in reaction to that dreadful centuries-long history) and “the latest, coolest, suavest trends of thought” of the Enlightenment - the era in which America was born. They created a government “with no particle of spiritual jurisdiction”. (Alexander Hamiliton, The Federalist Papers, Number 69.) And recognized that “. . . nothing is more evident, both in reason, and in the holy scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals. . . .” - Reverend Isaac Backus, The Debate on the Constitution - Part One (The Library of America, 1993), Page 93. Departing from this principle “. . . hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world.”
So, yes, in this country (at least) I expect the Church to recognize Separation of Church and State, and stop trying to use Caesar to render what the Church believes belongs to God.
Besides, given its history (especially recently), I hardly think the Church is in a position to lecture us on the subject of morality!
In Re: "No real place for women in the hierachy", you are correct if you are referring to the priesthood. However, if you are referring to the ministries of the Catholic Church, this is much different. In the Archdiocese of Louisville there are sixteen offices that oversee and support all the work in diocesan ministries. One half of the directors of these offices are women. Likewise, in Louisville, like other dioceses, most all parishes have only a pastor. Thirty-three of the larger parishes have a pastoral associate. Thirty of these pastoral associates are women. Only three are men. Fifteen years ago the associate pastor of our parish, Saint Bernard, was transferred and not replaced. My wife Mary, who was involved in parish ministry was appointed pastoral associate, one of the first in our diocese. She remains one of the longest tenured pastoral associates in our diocese. She is empowered for most all of church ministries except those soley only a priest can administer. By virtue of our baptism, the laity are empowered to assume a vast amount of the ministries that used to be the sole domain of priests, brothers and nuns. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is thinning the ranks of priests, brothers and nuns so that more laity can respond to their baptismal call to ministry.
Let's try to state this in another way.
If I accept Christ and accept what He stands for and lead my life in a "Christlike" manner, I am in good standing with the Lord.
If I have never known Christ but I lead my life in a "Christlike' manner, I am in good standing with the Lord.
If I accept Christ and think this is all that is necessary for salvation and do not lead my life in a Christ like manner, I am in deep trouble.