Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

Before I get to the subject of this post I will thank Shelray and Chris for taking up the slack while I was goofing off over Christmas. I was off with the Mrs. to Dayton to spend Christmas with her family. We had a great time with everyone until about 2 am this morning. That was when Tricia woke me up saying she needed to take her dad to the ER and for me to follow with her mom. Her dad had chest pains and, after about 19 hours in the ER, was finally admitted. Trying to find a cardiac doc on St. Stephen’s Day can be a challenge. We had already planned that Tricia would stay in Dayton and I would go back for during the New Year break so that is what we did. I stayed on a few extra hours to help with what I could and then left on the normally peaceful drive. It was not this time. A couple of very bad accidents, one with frozen meat scattered all over I-70 in Indianapolis had things quite backed up. Then I arrived home to find the heat not working. All in all, I suppose that I could sit here with my winter coat on, struggling to type with gloved hands and play the martyr. But that would mean I did not read Christopher’s post well enough. When one thinks about families that have no heath care and so few options for their loved ones when emergencies strike, or those folks in accidents who will not make it home tonight, or those who do not even have a home of which to worry about trying to get the heat working, there is so much for which to be thankful. I will try not to complain. Well then, on to the topic . . .

Just before Christmas, Sandro Magister published the English translation of Benedict’s speech to the Curia that summarized what he sees as an important problem with the reception of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and what is impeding its authentic reception. This was the second time this Pope has talked about the implementation of the Council this month, which makes sense since this is the 40th anniversary of the closing. However, as Magister infers, here B16 seems to be going directly after the Bologna school and the many who support this defective view of the Council. I have mentioned the Bologna school before. Though he doesn’t mention them by name, the boloney school can be identified in B16’s speech as representing those who hold what he calls the hermeneutic of discontinuity or rupture. These folks try to make the case to ignore the Council texts as written as nothing but the flotsam of compromise and so they say one must look deeper to find the spirit of the Council.

B16 says such a view is fraught with logical problems. A biggie is that it reflects a lack of understanding of the nature of a Council. He says the boloney school folks consider it an assembly of the representatives of some constituent group. However, for such an assembly to change a constitution it would have required a mandate and a mandator. For the Council there could be no mandate because the Mandator could only have been Christ Himself. Then the Council Father’s mandate was given by the Good Pope John which required faithfulness to the truth as it had already been expressed by the Church. B16 points out the fundamental issues around which many of the boloney school proposals arise and he presents the way forward which is true to the Church and the Council. These surround the understanding of the human person and the relationship between faith and the modern world in its many aspects.

B16 has said that his mission is to continue to implement the authentic reforms of the Council following the path laid by his predecessor JP the Great. Is it anything less than providential that he would have this auspicious anniversary so soon in his pontificate in which to begin to reassess the good and bad which has come from reform in the wake of the Council? I am hopeful that B16 will be successful in rooting out the boloney hermeneutic that remains among too many Catholics today. Now, as way of explanation not complaint, I had to get rid of the gloves so now that my hands are numb . . . I’m done.