Next month, the 2018 Vatican-China deal expires. Those close to the negotiations, both in Rome and in Beijing, now confidently predict a one-year extension to the two-year deal to be agreed.
But while the last two years have failed to deliver any measurable progress on the Vatican’s priorities, the status quo of all-dialogue-and-no-delivery has strengthened China’s position over the Church in the country, and neutralized diplomatic pressure internationally.
The original provisional agreement, the details of which remain unpublished, had a two-fold aim: to unify the underground Church with the state-controlled patriotic church under Roman leadership, and to provide a workable means for appointing bishops in China.
At the end of its term, many Catholics in China conclude that, by both measures, the deal has failed.
Two years after the “underground Church” was said to have been effectively eliminated in China, many Chinese bishops and priests still refuse to sign up to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, citing their objection to official pledges to the state authority and to communist ideology which they are required to sign. Government officials have retaliated by harassing them; shutting down churches and evicting them from their homes, or by arresting them.
At the same time, and despite Rome’s acceptance of several communist-appointed bishops, no measurable progress has been made on the task of filling vacant dioceses on the mainland. More than 50 sees in China are currently empty. Those which have been filled in recent months have welcomed newly appointed bishops well past retirement age, even in their 80s, who cannot be reasonably expected to bring stability to the local Church.
Go here to read the rest. Clearly the Vatican is concerned about the well being of the rulers of Communist China in regard to this deal and the faithful Catholics of China can go pound sand.
China made a mistake in thinking the Pope has any real moral power. They haven’t had it since it was given away at Vatican II.
That’s not true, Pope John Paul II had plenty of real moral power born of respect from his knowledge and understanding of Church teachings. Even though I was a seriously lapsed Catholic for the last 10 years of his papacy I still respected his opinions and statements. The problem has been with popes since him diving too deeply into politics, not with Vatican II specifically. Though if people wanted to get rid of all but celebration of the Mass in the local language I wouldn’t care that much.
On that last, to be perfectly blunt, if I had to listen to Latin Mass every week you would never see me in church. I have neither the patience or time to learn Latin and would make better use of my time reading the Bible, Catechism, and Canon Law in English on my own (which is kind of counter to the whole concept of attending the Mass in the first place). It is a novel thing to attend occasionally, but when I do not understand what is being said then there is no participation in the Mass. Even as an adult my mind skips out on the majority of a Latin Mass.
Christ performs perfectly the roles of priest, prophet and king. Ideally, the holder of the papal office will model those roles, albeit in a subordinate and wholly-dependent way.
John Paul II was undeniably a great man. In terms of the papacy he executed well the roles of priest and prophet.
However, in the kingly role, he stumbled. He assumed he could govern through the priestly and prophetic roles, and the mundane work of kingly administration would work of itself.
The result was that he appointed or left in office people who were entirely at odds with with what he taught.
And now we see the result: those people are now in power. And JPII’s magisterial teaching cast has been aside or mangled and pressed into service of an agenda he stoutly opposed. One need look no further than the Pontifical Academy for Life to see how the failures of kingship have nullified his legacy.
@Nekofanatic:
Not sure how the Latin Mass became relevant to this post, but since you brought it up I must respond. The biggest problem with the post-Conciliar changes to the Mass was not the use of the vernacular, it was the changes to the text itself. The public prayer of the Church, both the Mass and the Divine Office, is but a shadow of its former self in terms of the substance, entirely apart from the presentation (i.e., the language and the posture and movements of the celebrant). Whenever this discussion comes up I invite advocates of the “new Mass” to do a side by side comparison of the texts, in English, to see what was removed. The entire character of the Mass as the re-presented Sacrifice of Christ was gutted and turned into a communal meal with barely any reference to sacrifice. The meal aspect was always there, but secondary to the sacrifice. Now it is primary. In addition, looking at what was removed, and remembering the power of prayer, imagine the cumulative loss to the world of all those eliminated prayers multiplied by the thousands upon thousands of times the Mass is celebrated every single day but Good Friday.
THAT is why we mourn the loss of the Mass as it was celebrated before the Novus Ordo was shoved down the collective throat of the Church. I’ll wager that most advocates for the 1962 Missal would gladly accept a return to those texts in the vernacular. I know I would.
Vatican II was brought up by Michael Dowd, and I have seen consistent reference of dislike for it on this site. I’ll admit I do not have a reference to the Mass pre-Vatican II, but it seems to me the problem is not with the exact changes to the administration of the Church, but in the people in those created positions. It’s simply a fact that a large organization needs a lot of administrative support, and placing that on one individual is absurd, Pope or not. Particularly since it prevents that one person from doing anything other than administrative work. Of course, on the flip side, with Pope Francis that might be a good thing…
If you know a spot I can do a side-by-side comparison, please let me know. But since I cannot read Latin, I can’t say which English translation would be accurate for that.
I’m not sure what you mean in regard to the eliminated prayers. Prayers for various individuals or hope of ending certain conflicts, etc. have been said at every Mass I’ve attended, and my current parish says a prayer for the unborn, and to Saint Michael the Archangel, at the beginning of every Mass. If I am understanding you correctly, then it seems to be an issue with individual parishes or dioceses.
“It’s simply a fact that a large organization needs a lot of administrative support, and placing that on one individual is absurd, Pope or not.”
No, you can’t praise someone for the good parts of his leadership and excuse him for the bad. Doesn’t work that way.
The reality is, JPII was warned about certain of his cardinalaital appointments before he confirmed them. Namely, but hardly limited to, Ted McCarrick and Jorge Bergoglio. Nevertheless, he appointed them anyway. And here we are.
Say whatever you will about the current pontiff, he picks loyal company men as voting cardinals in big episcopal sees. And he freezes out those who he regards as not fully on board with the new program–e.g., no red hats for the Archbishops of Los Angeles and Detroit.
The elimination of prayers reference from Mr. Dowd refers to the stripping out of prayers from the old Tridentine missal, the wholesale elimination of feast days and their associated prayers (e.g., the Feast of the Precious Blood), making the ancient Roman Canon (EP 1) optional, suppressing the office of Prime in the Roman Breviary for the Latin Rite…and that’s just off the top of my head. Which is not to say that the new rites are invalid–of course not.
But they are much different. Inexplicably so, in too many cases. And that’s before you translate them out of Latin.
The problem with Vatican II is the “spirit.”
They did need to do changes, there was an incredible lack of basic catechesis and artificial barriers to getting folks into the Church. (Because even educated people didn’t automatically learn Latin anymore, for starters.)
The problem is, the exact same folks who had failed to accurately catechize folks were then supposed to accurately convey the changes of Vatican II… I think I can see a problem with this tactic, y’know?
Incidentally, they did not eliminate any feast days. They streamlined the ones that are to be universally celebrated.
Quote:
111. The saints have been traditionally honored in the Church and their authentic relics and images held in veneration. For the feasts of the saints proclaim the wonderful works of Christ in His servants, and display to the faithful fitting examples for their imitation.
Lest the feasts of the saints should take precedence over the feasts which commemorate the very mysteries of salvation, many of them should be left to be celebrated by a particular Church or nation or family of religious; only those should be extended to the universal Church which commemorate saints who are truly of universal importance.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
Which is why I have to check if our local religious authority has waived the requirement to not eat meat on St. Pat’s when it falls on a Friday in Lent, BEFORE I have my corned beef or sausage and cabbage.
Incidentally, I don’t see any praise for Francis at all– a rather backhanded complaint, actually, since he’s so obsessed with politics.
A brief observation on the Ordinary Form vs. the Extraordinary Form from an adult convert:
It is almost impossible for the celebrant to celebrate the EF badly. It is all too easy for the lay faithful to passively “tune out.” In the OF it is all too easy for both the Celebrant and the lay faithful to “play” their respective parts badly. –to the point that the Mass becomes a celebration of the attendees celebrating themselves with the re-presentation of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice seeming almost an afterthought.
In a perfect world, all Priests would be proficient enough in Latin to be able to celebrate both forms. Every parish would offer the EF at least once a month, and the OF would be celebrated in Latin, ad orientem at least on solemnities and feasts and throughout all liturgical seasons other than ordinary time. In a perfect world we would have enough priests for every parish to offer both the EF & OF and the OF in both Latin and the local vernacular(s).
My 2 cents based on 16 years as a pew-sitting evangelical attending Mass with my wife and kids, and 8 years as aCatholic, who has been to 1 Mass in the EF.
@Nekofanatic:
Thanks for your reply. The best comparison I have found online is here:
https://lms.org.uk/missals
Agree with the comments by Dale and Ernst and Foxfier, with one exception: Concerning the elimination of feast days, Foxfier, I must respectfully disagree. Even when compared to the 1962 calendar, not to mention the pre-1955 calendar that was already significantly modified by Pius XII, many days celebrated for centuries as feasts were converted after Vatican II, (not by its documents themselves, but by actions of the Pope and the Curia), into “memorials” or “optional memorials”, which effectively eliminates them from most people’s awareness unless they pray the Liturgy of the Hours daily. A number of days that had been designated by Popes to be celebrated “in perpetuity by the universal Church” were simply taken off the calendar or merged into other feasts. Some examples: the separate feast days of Sts. Michael, Gabriel and Raphael were combined into one; the feasts of the parents of Our Lady, Joachim and Anne, were merged into one; as Dale Price noted, another example was the elimination altogether of the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, formerly celebrated on July 1; the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, formerly celebrated on the octave day of the Assumption, August 22, was eliminated and replaced by a “memorial” to “The Queenship of Mary”. This in turn was a demotion of the former feast, celebrated on May 31, of Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen. In addition, the dates of numerous feast days were abruptly changed, some for reasons that were explained, and others with no explanation. The celebration in the Divine Office and at Holy Mass of Vigils (such as those of St. Lawrence, formerly August 9 and the Assumption, formerly August 14) was suppressed. There are other similar changes, but this post is already too long. Finally, Paul VI approved the elimination of the Octave of Pentecost from the calendar, which greatly diminishes the impact of that event, in my view. I suggest a comparison of the 1962 liturgical calendar as published at divinumofficium.com with today’s, which can be found at USCCB.com and other places. If you really want an eye-opener, compare today with the 1955 Pius XII calendar for the divine office, known as Divino Afflatu (also available at divinumofficium.com, an invaluable website.)
If I may, I also heartily recommend the many articles and other writings of Prof. Peter Kwazniewski, who has studied and commented upon the numerous liturgical changes of the second half of the 20th Century in depth. They are far more than cosmetic changes, as the very prayer life of the Church has been substantially reduced.
God bless all here.
USCCB.org
Before anybody gets confused. 😀
Frank-
you don’t seem to be understanding the distinction I’m pointing to; I am aware that the American bishops haven’t instituted country-wide celebration of St. Gabriel of our Lady of Sorrows (AKA, the patron saint of hand gunners) and that does nothing to stop our observing of the celebration, the last day of each February. It doesn’t matter if our local parish is celebrating St. Pat and St. Joseph’s, we’re going to have Gaelic and Garlic week in our house.
This calendar:
https://www.usccb.org/resources/2021cal.pdf
is exactly the point.
It’s for AMERICA. And then each Bishop can focus on additional celebrations, and each parish on more, and each household or individual on yet more.
Rather than stuff sinking out of awareness because everything is raising awareness, all the time, without connection or consideration to the people being yelled at.
It strikes me as a bit ironic that we’re arguing about not enough feasts in the calendar, when more fasts might just be what’s needed.
Maybe. What do I know?
Foxfier, thanks for the correction re USCCB.ORG
As for the feasts, I fear you may misunderstand my point. I am referring to the elimination or substantial reduction in importance (in the liturgy-Mass and the Office)of Feasts of the universal Church. That has nothing to do with variations in the observation of feasts between countries or regions or localities, which has always been true, although it has become more well known in this age of instant communication. My focus is that earlier Popes decreed certain feasts to be celebrated in perpetuity by the whole Church, meaning they were to be noted at Mass and given special sets of prayers in the daily Office. Then later Popes reversed many of these decrees, especially John XXIII and Paul VI. I suppose they had that authority, but the sequence of events is what I have referred to, and it is historical fact. Take it as you wish. I find it unfortunate in the extreme.
The existence of separate liturgical calendars for separate countries is a result of the creation of “national bishops’ conferences” after V2, which is a separate issue and, IMO, was also a mistake. But it is what we have, and so be it. When I’m elected Pope I will change it. 😂
Frank-
I can’t really respond any more effectively to your objection to the feasts and days without the actual decrees that you’re focusing on, or at least some sort of detail besides it’s from popes before John XXIII! It’s hard enough to get useful results out of search engines these days when I do have enough details to work with.