jump to navigation

One more post on Cardinal Rodriguez-Maradiaga’s talk in Dallas November 19, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, shocking, the return, Tradition.
trackback

Dallas’ Bishop Kevin Farrell operates a blog, and last Oct. 30 he added a post on Cardinal Rodriguez-Maradiaga’s talk in Dallas at the annual ministry conference.  I present much of that post below, with some minimal comments. I think the Cardinal’s comments largely speak for themselves, but I will add a thought or two.  Some might consider this post in relation to the most recent post on this talk I did last week, in which I quoted a blogger as viewing this talk rather negatively.  Emphases and comments, per usual:

Addressing the University of Dallas Ministry Conference on Oct. 25, Cardinal Oscár Rodriguez, the chairman of Pope Francis’ Cardinal Consultors, said that “There is not a possible reform in the Church without coming back to Jesus.

The Cardinal, of course, is intimately involved in the efforts of the Holy Father to reform the Church and only recently returned from the first meeting of the Cardinal Consultors on Oct. 1-2.

Vatican II, he recalled, “wanted to renovate the Church internally, since the Church was not the Gospel, nor the perfect follower of itand from “her limited and sinful condition many habits, laws and arrangements were established that did not correspond to the teachings and practice of the Gospel.” [A few questions – in declaiming the Church’s many “sinful habits that did not correspond to the teachings and practice of the Gospel,” is Cardinal Rodriguez-Maradiaga not rather severely criticizing at least several centuries of popes and prelates who preceded Vatican II?  Does this kind of rhetoric advance an understanding of Vatican II in continuity with Tradition?]

The Cardinal stated that the great challenge of the Church today is “to revise the mission of the Church adjusting it to the mission of Jesus.The Church and each of us individually must come back to Jesus. Remember, he said, “salvation comes from Jesus, not from the Church.” [Doesn’t the first statement not just imply, but outwardly claim, that the Church did not, prior to the Council, conform to the Will of God or the “mission of Jesus?” If the Church must “come back to Jesus,” at what point did She leave?  And if the Church can be so sinful and erroneous then, how do we know She is right, now?]

Many questions come to mind.  I have covered this talk now several times. I have received some criticism for having done so.  Mostly, I have just asked questions, perhaps pointed ones.  But I cannot see in much of the Cardinal’s discourse any overt adherence to the “hermeneutic of continuity.”  It is disconcerting to me that these statements lambasting the pre-conciliar Church seem to be quite positively received in some quarters.

The foundational assumption of the “hermeneutic of continuity” and of the whole pre-conciliar Tradition is that Truth cannot change. It can be better understood, put into practice better, but it cannot radically change, and it certainly cannot contradict itself.  There cannot be some marked contrast between the Church of “before” or “after,” at least not in terms of Doctrine or what constitutes “truth.”  Saying the Church had many sinful habits and had walked away from the Gospel seems to be coming perilously close to embracing an idea of rupture, of a radically wrong pre-conciliar Church.

 

 

 

 

Comments

1. MMC - November 20, 2013

So when did the pre-counciliar church “walk away from the Gospel?”…when 75% of it’s adherents were going to Mass each Sunday and confession too? When vocations were bursting at the seams? When priests and most bishops were obedient? And what exactly would they call what has happened since the Council? the almost total destruction of the Church and world wide dissidence, disobedience, heresy, apostasy with the clergy…trickling down to the religious…isn’t THAT walking away from the “Gospel?” These leaders are out to lunch. God bless~

Lorra - November 20, 2013

Does this mean the Church was wrong then? If so, how do we know that the Church is right now?

2. jtal - November 20, 2013

extra ecclesiam nulla salus

3. Hannah - November 20, 2013

This man isn’t Catholic.

What he’s saying is outrageous and it’s even more outrageous that he was handpicked by the Pope for his G8.

4. Dan - November 20, 2013

I am always wary of the “mission of Jesus” as it is often used to replace Jesus, getting us to focus on works.

5. Martina Katholik - November 20, 2013

What is “the limited and sinful condition of the Church”? I couldn´t find a reference to this in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott where the ecclesiology and the corresponding dogmas are explained in detail.
In my opinion more than a few bishops and Princes of the Church have a somewhat distorted, not to say modernist, ecclesiology. Do they really believe that the Church ist the Mystical Body of Christ”?

6. Branch - November 20, 2013

Statements like “the mission of Jesus” or “come back to Jesus” always beg the question, don’t they? It’s as if the one using them assumes that the “mission of Jesus” is somehow always self-evident and simple, yet the Church has labored for years to understand Jesus and to articulate His “mission” more clearly and concretely. Who defines the mission of Jesus, after all? The Church, through Tradition. It was because of Tradition that the Church was able to know something of the mission of Jesus, even early on, which in turn allowed for the proper discernment of which writings ought to be included in what we now know as Scripture.

I also think we have, for many, many years now, received an overly reductionist and simplified version of “Jesus.” In the address, the Cardinal makes reference to the Beatitudes as if they are the central program of Jesus. And they are central. But what of some of the other statements He made? Can we say that the “mission of Jesus” = the Beatitudes only? Or the “poor” Christ, the Christ as Suffering Servant?

These are images of His true Holy Face, but they are not every facet it seems to me.

7. Lorra - November 20, 2013

I have many pointed questions too that I have yet to get any answers to. Here’s one of them.

Why does the Church allow a man like this to infect Catholics with his less than Catholic thinking? And he’s a cardinal no less! Have we no one better to make a Prince of the Church?


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: