Tuesday, February 5, 2013


Father John O’Malley, SJ a well known Jesuit theologian and expert on Vatican II wrote about the shift that Vatican II brought to the Church but in terms of "rupture" with what he thought/thinks is bad, no good, and worth discarding in order to "re-imagine" a new church into being.

But I would like to take his words and apply it to "anti-spirit" of Vatican II pundits who have hijacked Vatican II's true spirit and true implementation and have won the day for the past 45 or 50 years but no more and they know it! They are running as they shake in their boots about this turn of events that they can not control.

And so, let's apply Fr. O'Malley's words to those who are now embracing the true spirit of Vatican II as they reject the post-Vatican II anti-spirit, which is helping the Church now actually to implement Vatican II.

So this is applied to the anti-spirit of Vatican II adherents who now have seen the light and are embracing the "reform in continuity" true spirit of Vatican II. So they must move from the anti-spirit perspective to the true spirit perspective by doing the following things Fr. O'Malley suggests:

from commands to invitations

from monologue to dialogue

from laws to ideals

from threats to persuasion

from ruling to serving

from hostility to friendship

from rivalry to partnership

from suspicion to trust

from withdrawal to engagement

from passive acceptance to active participation

from behaviour modification to conversion of heart

[He goes on –-]

What the Council was asking really was a kind of conversion and a shift in core values; a new heart.

My final comment: Apply the above to the dogmatism of those who have no real authority in the Church and thus are authoritarian to those who do have authority in the Church like our Holy Father which is actually authoritativeness.

Anti-spirit of Vatican II is bogus authority and many are screaming as they lose this ill begotten authority and the spirit of Vatican II authentic authority exercised by the Holy Father and the bishops in union with him is the authentic authority!


Unknown said...

I'll respond. Some who read this blog will hate it, but c'est la vie.

1. "from commands to invitations"

True. And there is the obliteration of liturgical law. That was object #1 of the radical left who sought to overthrow right reason and thinking after Vatican Council II.

2. "from monologue to dialogue"

This is a lie. The Mass has always, always, always been a call and response. It has been the hallmark of the liturgy from time immemorial. To argue otherwise isn't naive, it is stupid.

3. "from laws to ideals"

See point #1. This is object #2.

4. "from threats to persuasion"

Threat of what, exactly? And persuasion to what, exactly? The Council was pastoral, so what was the pastoral nature trying to persuade the faithful toward? And what was threatening (other than some ephebophilia priests) in the pre-conciliar church?

5. "from ruling to serving"

And this mistake will get Paul VI canonized. What a crock. The Holy Father is a monarch. He does rule, whether he likes it or not. Object #3 regarding my first point.

6. "from hostility to friendship"

Hostility toward what? Heresy? Error? What is the opposite of the Good? If the Church is good and some of her members are caught up in a heresy (namely 2; Protestantism and Modernism), how is that being hostile? It is only hostile, IF one accepts the heresy as legitimate.

7. "from rivalry to partnership"

Thank you Anibale Bugnini, his Consilium, and the Protestant cohorts involved, regarding the deregulation and reform of the Mass. "Nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble an evangelical protestant." MG Siegvalt; a professor of dogmatic theology in the Protestant faculty at the University of Strasbourg.

8. "from rivalry to partnership"

Who exactly considers the Protestant a rival?

9. "from suspicion to trust"

And that trust has brought us what, precisely? The pews are empty. There is more disdain for the priesthood now, than ever.

10. "from withdrawal to engagement"

Withdrawl from what? The Catholic mind, heart, and soul was more engaged before the Council than it has been since. Ever sit in on a CCD class? Or an adult catechesis class?

11. "from passive acceptance to active participation"

Passive acceptance? So, unless somebody is doing something, he is not active? So, if somebody is not doing something he is passive? That is rather limiting. I wonder how Stephen Hawking feels about that? Actual participation is more important than active participation. We should engage our whole heart, our whole mind, our whole soul and our whole body in prayer, not just our body and call it good. If I am an EMHC (God forbid), but I don't pray, what good am I? If I am a lay reader, but don't understand the Scriptures, what good am I? That happens a lot, many lay readers stumble over words during the readings, must take time prior to Holy Mass to read through what they are charged with, etc...

12. "from behaviour modification to conversion of heart"

The Catholic was converted at baptism. Catechesis is not a form of conversion, but rather it is a modification of a behavior, to conform to the Life of Christ.

This isn't rocket science. But O'Malley and people of his mindset are so far off the mark that they can't even see in front of them.

ytc said...

This kind of speak is very feminine on the part of the Good Jesuit. I agree that dialogue, etc., have a place, but we cannot fail to recognize that there is a time and a place for more than persuasion, that is, there is a place for force and imperialism.

I agree that the less threatening methods should be tried for a time (and for how long is a purely prudential/"pastoral" decision), but when push comes to shove, sometimes pushing and shoving must be done.

For example, for military members most offenses will result in a warning the first time. The second time, a letter of admonishment or some such text is drawn up and placed in the individual's personnel file; these things do have a cumulative and great impact on one's present and future.

But there is a point to which even minor inconveniences cannot be tolerated anymore and the person becomes an annoying nuisance, and there are delicts which are so grave as to require immediate and harsh action, both in the Church and elsewhere. Of course we see this in the secular realm as in murder, and in the ecclesial realm as in desecration of the Blessed Sacrament and assaulting the Pope.

I do not understand this obsessive-compulsive focus on these softy feminine qualities. In case you haven't noticed, the wackiest and harshest period of Church history was, what?, the EARLY and PATRISTIC PERIODS, that "model" that the libs say they'd love to return to (oh 'cause, you know, the Popes who decried Nestorianism and Pelagianism and Arianism were, like, totally nice and stuff :D). We can't be DBs, but we can't act like we're in preschool, either. Sometimes the most charitable thing to do is to bring down the hammer hard.

Wendell said...

"...from commands to invitations..."
"...from laws to ideals..."

So, Fr. O'Malley wants that we should become Anglican?
Thank you, no.

Gene said...

"From laws to ideals..." Let's see, that would be like instead of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to like "Hey, wouldn't it be wonderful if nobody ever killed anybody." Totally, Dude, totally...
Does this guy bless his bong before he lights up?

rcg said...

Shepherds guide with a stick. It is a testament of the shepherd when and how he uses it.