What year would you say this photo was taken?
If you said 1930, then you win the prize to read my post below free of charge:
Do Catholics have to give obedient consent of the will to a particular theology of the Church or this, that or the other theology? Yes, they may, but no, they don’t have to give it! We only have to give assent to defined doctrine and dogma is the highest form of it, but both require our anssent and obedience.For example, there is a theology of limbo for unborn children. A Catholic is free to believe this but is not required to do so. Those that don’t have the backing of popes, Pope Benedict XVI, in particular. Limbo is a theology not a doctrine and certainly not a dogma.
The ideology of rupture, masquerading as a theology, is new to the Church since the close of the Second Vatican Council. St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI made inroads into giving the Council with all its ambiguities the proper interpretation in continuity with the 2000 year Magisterium of the Church. They insisted that Vatican II did not create a new Church or force believers to become something else than what they were when they were baptized Catholic and eventually gave an adult consent to their Faith.
To strip Catholics of their Catholic identity and force them into a new kind of pseudo-Christianity, wreaks of manipulation, coercion, spiritual abuse, authoritarianism and has elements of the political aspects of the Protestant Reformation in monarchical Europe during the time of Martin Luther. It is wrong. It is evil.
Cardinal Roche of the Dicastery of Divine Worship seems to be the wrong person in this position and not intellectually qualified to pontificate on the liturgy or the Church, tells the truth and an untruth recently.
He lets the cat out of the bag. The post Vatican II Church as incarnated by the Germany synodal way is a completely different Church than the one prior to post-Vatican II synods and Vatican II itself.
Read this article. It makes sense to me:
From the National Review:
In a stunning interview, Cardinal Archbishop Arthur Roche, the man the Vatican has placed in charge of extinguishing the Traditional Latin Mass that Benedict XVI in 2007 had widely permitted, admitted in an interview with the BBC that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his radical traditionalist followers are right — that the faith once delivered to the saints has been abolished and substituted by the Church in the 1960s.
“The theology of the Church has changed,” argued Roche. “Whereas before the priest represented, at a distance, all the people — they were channeled through this person who alone was celebrating the Mass.” Now, however, Roche stated that “it is not only the priest who celebrates the liturgy but also those who are baptized with him, and that is an enormous statement to make.”
Roche is of course misstating the old theology. The priest celebrates the Mass not as a representative of all the people, but in persona Christi. All present at Mass assist him in doing so. All talk of distance is a silly slander.
Roche’s words follow the line pursued by more-radical theologians after the Second Vatican Council. In fact, this is the very line of thought, when I encountered it in Karl Rahner’s Theological Investigations, that caused me to become a traditionalist. (Though Rahner by that time used the language of “president” and “assembly” rather than that of “priest.”)
Just as important as Roche’s confirmation that the present Vatican has done away with wide permission for the old Mass is his affirmation of the underpinning assumptions that Benedict XVI used to license it — namely, Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” or the idea that the Second Vatican Council did not impose upon the faithful anything substantively new or different from the faith that the Church held before it. Therefore, the old Mass and the new Mass must express the very same faith.
That is not this Vatican’s position. Roche and the Vatican agree with progressives who view the old Mass as unsuited to a Church that has a new theology. And so they agree with radical traditionalists, and the Lefebvrites, that the purpose of the new Mass was to impose a new religion upon the Church.
Benedict’s view — though I’m not sure that it was correct — at least tried to address the crisis of the Church. The Vatican’s current view can only deepen it.