Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga On The Current State Of The Church

[Catlick]

The essential difference between post-Trente and post-Vaticanum II is that in the former period, 99% of the bishops professed the full Faith, whereas at some points in the latter period, 70% of the bishops refused to profess the full Faith. 

[Era Might]

And, implicitly, I am criticizing his view of the church as the kind of unhistorical romanticism that I referred to as the mythology of Trent (not to be confused with Trent itself).

[Era Might]

The essential difference between post-Trente and post-Vaticanum II is that in the former period, 99% of the bishops professed the full Faith, whereas at some points in the latter period, 70% of the bishops refused to profess the full Faith. 

 

Not true. Even the idea of a "full Faith" is anachronistic. One of the reasons Trent even met was because there was so much theology and doctrine that had not been formulated in any official way, like an official set of sacraments, an official canon of the Bible, the nature of grace and indulgences (all disputed questions in the middle ages and previously). And even in the council's formulations, there were areas where it remained vague or avoided certain questions so as not to get into murky waters. It was not even clear what constituted "Tradition"...there was still a lot of fluidity in theology.

[Nihil Obstat]

I haven't derailed the thread. He is making an historical commentary on the church, that it is in a "crisis." My point with Trent is that if he thinks this is a crisis, he must not know church history very well.

How does whether or not there was a crisis in the Tridentine period have anything to do with whether or not there is a crisis now? That is like saying that there could not possibly be any poor people in the US since there are even poorer people in Africa.

[Era Might]

How does whether or not there was a crisis in the Tridentine period have anything to do with whether or not there is a crisis now? That is like saying that there could not possibly be any poor people in the US since there are even poorer people in Africa.

 

Because the word "crisis" has to have some meaning. Otherwise, what's the point in using it. If I use the word "poverty" to refer to a broke 17 year old who doesn't make enough money at his after school job to buy a new car, I've use the word in an absurd context.

 

If we're going to talk about a "crisis" in the church then it should at least have some historical perspective. From what I can gather, the "crisis" he is referring to is just what's been going on for the last 300 years in Western history ("liberalism" and "modernism" as he calls them). Other stuff he references (e.g., nuncios and bishops being politically correct) is nothing new in the church, and is pretty tame today. Bishops had to walk on their toes to not offend their political rulers, who had some ecclesiastical privileges, back in Tridentine days. That is real "political correctness."

 

I mean, he references a Masonic quote from the 19th century. If that's not an absurd use of history...

Edited February 13, 2015 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

I have trouble finding value in discussing anything with you, to be brutally honest.

[Era Might]

Probably because we just are interested in discussing different things, even when it's the same topic. Or maybe you just don't like me. Either is fine, I don't take it personally lol.

[veritasluxmea]

Maybe we should categorize crises on a scale of 1 to 10. Council of Trent (assuming Era is accurate)- level 10. Post Vat II American Church after JPII's reign- Maybe 6. Phatmass- 11. 

[PhuturePriest]

Maybe we should categorize crises on a scale of 1 to 10. Council of Trent (assuming Era is accurate)- level 10. Post Vat II American Church after JPII's reign- Maybe 6. Phatmass- 11. 

 

Gross under-valuing of the Church right now. Some studies put over 90% of Catholic women on birth control, less than a quarter of Catholics go to Mass at least once a month (meaning the amount that go every week is even less), and half of American Catholics support gay marriage. In France, the Eldest Daughter of the Church, a study was conducted last year to see how many Catholics aged 18-28 went to Mass every week. The amount of people was so low that they put the number statistically at 0%. In one study in Ireland, over 70% of the Catholics polled didn't believe the Eucharist is the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

 

These are numbers rivaling the Arian crisis.

[veritasluxmea]

So more like an eight than

[Ash Wednesday]

What is to be gained from belittling or attempting to quantify what it is he's concerned about? And who are we to assume how much he knows about Church history anyway? Safe to say he probably is a seasoned veteran in the state of church politics and that shouldn't be disregarded -- and given his background, I can understand why his conscience prompts him to say something.

[Ash Wednesday]

Yikes, my previous post sounds a bit cranky and I just got off a flight and want to go home and have no editing tools on this phone. Sorry.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yikes, my previous post sounds a bit cranky and I just got off a flight and want to go home and have no editing tools on this phone. Sorry.

We are (mostly) all adults here. I think we can handle some directness. :)

[4588686]

I am the true Pope

[PhuturePriest]

I am the true Pope

 

Shut up, Tiffany.

[Ice_nine]

I think the present crisis always seems the worst. It's the one that's happening now. Comparatively one may be worse than the other, like breaking a bone might hurt more than burning your hand, but you are more attentive to and concerned about the present pain. Human nature right?

 

I also think the proliferation of mass media and social media in our day and age probably doesn't help with our perception of the magnitude. But yeah I don't think things are super great in the church right now. Were they ever? Not well-versed enough in history. There was probably no "golden age" but I can imagine times being better than they are now, at least with the level of fidelity among clergy and laypeople.

[Nihil Obstat]

In some ways the emergence of mass media might intensify the crisis, and perhaps in the future it will also intensify the recovery and deepening of the faith. By allowing for ideas to be spread globally and instantaneously it means that both authentic and inauthentic messages can reach everyone whereas in the past it might be more contained.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

In some ways the emergence of mass media might intensify the crisis, and perhaps in the future it will also intensify the recovery and deepening of the faith. By allowing for ideas to be spread globally and instantaneously it means that both authentic and inauthentic messages can reach everyone whereas in the past it might be more contained.

This has probably been one of the greatest challenges for the Church and its fight against error. Dosen't help when some of her clerics are filmed supporting error. Even worse when orthodox clergy speak the truth and are then chastised by their superiors for it. Makes me wonder if Fulton J Sheen was alive today if he would be told to tone down his telecasts in order to be more sensitive and to promote "dialogue."

[Hna.Caridad]

An interesting blog entry by Cardinal Wuerl related to the reality of dissent within the Church:

 

The Pope, Touchstone of Faith and Unity

Early Sunday morning I watched our Holy Father, Pope Francis, give his Angelus talk – the comments he shares before praying the Angelus with the huge crowd – tens of thousands – gathered in Saint Peter’s Square each Sunday. Here, this enormously popular and revered successor to Peter spoke about the tenderness of Jesus, his loving compassion and at the same time our need to be caring and compassionate to our fellow human beings. The Holy Father clearly is admired not only by the crowds in Saint Peter’s Square but by people around the world. But apparently that admiration is not shared by all.

 

As I was watching the Holy Father on TV, my inbox was filling with a number of emails including an interview and an article by brother bishops who are less than enthusiastic about Pope Francis. Those emails reminded me of a much, much earlier time in my life when I first experienced dissent from the teaching and practice of a pope. As a young seminarian (20 years old) doing graduate work at The Catholic University of America, I read for the first time the encyclical letter of Saint John XXIII, Mater et magistra. Its teaching was not well received by some. One of the pundits offered the observation that became rather widespread in those circles,“Mater si, Magistra no,” – Latin for “Mother yes, Teacher no.”

 

Along with a number of my classmates, I remember being so scandalized by this rejection of the encyclical that we spoke to one of the priests at the seminary. He gently chided us for our naivety and pointed out that there has always been a current of dissent in the Church, some of it as high as the College of Cardinals. It was then that I first heard of Cardinal Louis Billot who was less than discrete in his opposition to Pope Pius XI who had condemned the political and religious movement, Action Française, which involved many people who longed for the restoration of the monarchy in France and a stronger role for the Church in civil government. In 1927, as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, Cardinal Billot “was persuaded to renounce his cardinalitial dignity.”

 

Unhappiness with a Pope’s position on issues whether doctrinal, pastoral, canonical or as simple as clerical vesture, seems always to be present in some form. In 1963 Saint John XXIII again became the object of wrath of those who disliked his encyclical Pacem in terris, as did Blessed Paul VI for his encyclical, Populorum progressio in 1967 and certainly for his encyclical Humanae vitae in 1968. Dissent by some priests from the teaching in Humanae vitae led to their departure from priestly ministry.

 

On a much less important level, there was, nonetheless, considerable dismay among some in 1969 when the Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI issued an instruction concerning the vesture of bishops and cardinals. The effort to streamline and do away with things like the cappa magna (long outer garment of bishops and cardinals with a long, long train) upset some.

 

Even the short reign of Pope John Paul I was not without critique. Some wrote that they found his smile unbefitting a Pope since it diminished the gravitas (gravity or seriousness) of his office. One commentator lamented that this dear and kind Pope actually waved at people as he processed to celebrate Mass.

 

Then of course came Saint John Paul II. Everything he wrote had some critic whether it involved his social encyclicals such as Laborem exercens in 1981 or Sollicitudo rei socialis in 1987 or Centesimus annus in 1991 or his encyclical on the permanent validity of the Church’s missionary effort, Redemptoris missio. There were some who continually criticized him for his travels even though he helped in his nearly 27 years as Pope revitalize the Church. Personally, I always found the criticism of Saint John Paul II particularly painful because I have such an affection and admiration for him. In fact, the brand new seminary in this archdiocese that was opened just a few years ago bears his name, Saint John Paul II Seminary.

 

I will not belabor the point by going through the critiques, challenges, disapproval and dissent that faced so much of what Pope Benedict XVI taught and published during his pontificate. Again, I find myself greatly perplexed at the negative critique of him whom I saw as such a good, brilliant and holy Shepherd of the Church.

 

Hardly then should we expect that Pope Francis would be immune from what appears to be something that “comes with the territory.”

One of the things I have learned though over all of these years since those early naïve days in 1961 is that on closer examination there is a common thread that runs through all of these dissenters. They disagree with the Pope because he does not agree with them and therefore follow their position.

 

Dissent is perhaps something we will always have, lamentable as it is, but we will also always have Peter and his successor as the rock and touchstone of both our faith and our unity.

 

Tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, Pope John Paul I, Pope Paul VI, Pope Pius XI, Saint John Paul II, Saint John XXIII, Saint Peter

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 9:39 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

- See more at: http://cardinalsblog.adw.org/2015/02/pope-touchstone-faith-unity/#sthash.jhs98dxA.dpuf

[Nihil Obstat]

Who is dissenting, exactly?