Have you read this?

Your thoughts?

From: http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_181__article.htm

Cardinal Dulles Explores Pope’s View on Vatican II
Jan 16, 2006
In the 40 years since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Benedict’s views of this landmark event have remained fundamentally consistent, but there are instances where his theology has evolved, said Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., during the Fall McGinley Lecture on Oct. 25 at the Leonard Theatre on Fordham University’s Rose Hill campus.

(fordham.edu, Dec. 2005) NEW YORK — Cardinal Dulles presented this shift in Pope Benedict’s thinking by reviewing his interpretation of some points in the four great constitutions of the council: Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), Dei Verbum (the Dogmatic Constitution on the Divine Revelation), Lumen Gentium (the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) and Gaudium et Spes (the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World).

At Vatican II, Pope Benedict XVI, who was then the young theologian Joseph Ratzinger, was appointed as consultor to the subcomission revising the texts on Revelation and on the Church. He belonged to an inner circle of German theologians who had a major role in shaping the council throughout its four sessions that extended from 1962 to 1965. According to Cardinal Dulles, the pope’s theology has been firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition: He values prayer and worship, but is suspicious of social activism and of human claims to be building the Kingdom of God.

“For this reason, he most appreciates the council documents on the Liturgy and Revelation, and has reservations about the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, while giving it credit for some solid achievements,” said Cardinal Dulles, the Laurence J. McGinley Professor of Religion Professor of Religion.

Cardinal Dulles added that a young Ratzinger lent considerable importance to the theology of the bishops and local churches. Later in his life, his views on the two groups had swung in the other direction.

“Since 1992, [Ratzinger] has contended that the universal church has ontological and historical priority over the particular churches. [The church] was not originally made up of local regional churches,” said Cardinal Dulles. “Those who speak of the priority of the particular church over the universal, he says, misinterpret the council documents.”

A similar shift is apparent in the pope’s view of episcopal conferences, which he had once characterized as “collegial organs with a true theological basis.” By 1986, according to Dulles, Ratzinger says, “we must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the church as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function.”

Cardinal Dulles noted that in interpreting the document on the Liturgy in his earlier commentaries, Ratzinger praised it highly but in later writings he pointed out many of its misinterpretations. “The Council Fathers,” he [Ratzinger] insists, “had no intention of initiating a liturgical revolution. They intended to introduce a moderate use of the vernacular alongside of the Latin, but had no thought of eliminating Latin, which remains the official language of the Roman rite.

“Ratzinger seems to have nothing against the celebration of Mass according to the missal that was in use before the council,” said Cardinal Dulles.

Ratzinger’s theological orientation appeared to be shifting when he accepted the position of editor at the conservative review Communio in 1972, said Cardinal Dulles, who attributes Ratzinger’s later assessments on certain areas of Vatican II to “finding his own theological path.”

“Ratzinger’s [Pope Benedict] career appears to have affected his theology,” said Cardinal Dulles. “As an archbishop and a cardinal he has had to take increasing responsibility for the public life of the church and has gained a deeper realization of the need for universal sacramental structures to safeguard the unity of the church and her fidelity to the Gospel.”

Fordham University’s McGinley Chair in Religion and Society was established in 1985 as a tribute to Laurence J. McGinley, S.J., who first attained distinction as a professor of theology and later served as president of Fordham University from 1948 to 1963. The McGinley lectures explore the relationship between religion and current social and political issues.

Founded in 1841, Fordham is the Jesuit University of New York, offering exceptional education distinguished by the Jesuit tradition to approximately 15,800 students in its five undergraduate colleges and its six graduate and professional schools. It has residential campuses in the Bronx, Manhattan and Tarrytown, and the Louis Calder Center Biological Field Station in Armonk, N.Y.


Forgive me....

__________________

The English translation was awful.

What exactly is your concern or comment?




Edited to add a clarification:

Thanks for providing a new link. The previous link gave an automatic translation that was half Italian and half English. I was then forced to read the original Italian as the automatic translation was totally inadequate.

__________________
O Theotokos and Virgin, Rejoice!
O Mary, Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
For thou hast borne the Savior of our souls.

+ + + + +

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory Forever!
O Giver of Life, Glory to Thee!

Sorry Aria,

I corrected the OP

Forgive me.....

__________________

I have always been curious as to what Pope Benedict XVI's actual views were on the Bible.

A problem that I foresee, is the direct quotes of council literature in GT without a real reference to authority - For example: I could quote any Church Father and make a direct reference to Orthodoxy

So my question is: What makes it a proper and respectable conversation about EO? I could make direct quotes to the descisions of Church Fathers and claim that to be Orthodox.

The key to the "success" of the western church is the Papacy. It is my assumption (not ignorant) that there has been a battle between the Pope and most of the bishops. The strength of Rome will be reasserted greatly or be diminished with this Papacy.
Rome must take back control of the liturgy and traditions of the church.
Latin, the tridentine mass, the mysticism of the church including things like Fatima.
For Rome to surrvive as a power it must recover the transcendant.
Only then can Rome restore the power its priesthood once had and reclaim the seminaries.

This quote outlines the battle in the RC church. "He values prayer and worship, but is suspicious of social activism and of human claims to be building the Kingdom of God."

The reclamation of the liturgy will be a step in the right direction. It will reassert the Pontif over other bishops. "“Those who speak of the priority of the particular church over the universal, he says, misinterpret the council documents.”

Imo, this Pope will take the opposite approach of John Paul2. JP was hardline on social/moral issues such as abortion and birth control. JP also embraced mysticism by visiting many sacred sites, such as Fatima, thereby giving an endoresment to one of the more controversial aspects of RC. But, he neglected the liturgical life of the church, and its seminaries. The results have been devestating.

Pope Benedict will slowly take the opposite approach. He will be a little more lax on issues that concern the laity, but will become a proponent for liturgical reform.

(And I doubt you will see him giving much credence to Mary sightings.)


My evening armchair quarterback indulgence is complete, well maybe.

__________________

There is currently a new translation of the NO mass in the works and it is expected to be finished next year. It changes a few things like the response to "peace be with you" is now "and to your spirt" instead of " and also with you". There was much speculation when he became Pope that Benedict would bring back Latin to all the churches, but it appears to be slow in coming.
I think alot of Americans are concerned that he'll be a hardliner when it comes to things like birth control and he's already proved to be a hardliner about homosexual priests (without doing anything about the abuse issuesBTW). Personally, I think it would be better for him to lay down the law concerning liturgical abuses. Once the Catholic Church gets back to being an Apostolic Church, perhaps the other things will fall into line.
kamikat

__________________
Sometimes you get shown the light
In the strangest places
If you look at it right

It is sad that liturgical Latin cannot be restored so that every Catholic parish can have at least one Latin Mass using the 1962 missal.

Furthermore, it is equally disappointing that the devout English translation appearing in some 1962 missals cannot be used instead of the dramatic revision prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) mass. The ICEL mass has always had problems because it is not a faithful translation of the 1962 missal but an entirely new re-write that parallels the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal, which I had an opportunity to personally examine in detail. Yes, the parallels were very striking between the Lutheran Hymnal and the ICEL, so much so that ICEL seems to be a plagiarism of the Lutheran Hymnal. However, perhaps this copying was done with the permission of the six Lutheran ministers who worked with the Vatican to revise the Catholic missal in 1963.

__________________
O Theotokos and Virgin, Rejoice!
O Mary, Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
For thou hast borne the Savior of our souls.

+ + + + +

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory Forever!
O Giver of Life, Glory to Thee!

Intersting thread. I'm not sure I really understood the OP or what it was getting at exactly but Theophorus's little synaxis helped and made sense to me taking into accout anything I had ever heard or read from Cahtolic POVs. I also found Aria's piece about the Lutheran hymnal very interesting if nothing else.

Originally Posted by Xpycoctomos

Intersting thread. I'm not sure I really understood the OP or what it was getting at exactly but Theophorus's little synaxis helped and made sense to me taking into accout anything I had ever heard or read from Cahtolic POVs. I also found Aria's piece about the Lutheran hymnal very interesting if nothing else.

Do you have a copy of the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal or do you know where I can obtain one?

I discovered the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal at a Catholic retreat house on a bottom shelf of their library and showed it to the priest who happened to be my Catholic confessor at that time. He looked totally shocked when he discovered the parallels between the ICEL missae and the 1904 Lutheran Liturgy. With disgust, he tossed the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal into the trash. From that day on, he only celebrated the Latin Mass and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (or St. Basil) as he was biritual. He recommended that my family only attend Eastern Catholic Liturgies. I did so until I converted to Orthodoxy.

__________________
O Theotokos and Virgin, Rejoice!
O Mary, Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
For thou hast borne the Savior of our souls.

+ + + + +

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory Forever!
O Giver of Life, Glory to Thee!

wow...

What parts did he especially take issue with? I mean, I imagine he wasn't disgusted only because the Lutherans did it first but becasue of certain errors or wartered-downness that seeped into the NO thereby. You can PM me if you'd like.

I'll see if I can get a 1904 Lutheran Hymnal.