Fr. Robert Barron and Dr. Scott Hahn on Biblical Interpretation & The Liturgy

Fr. Robert Barron: Impressions from St. Peter's Square

Why Pope John XXIII is a Saint

Fr. James Martin, S.J. on Pope John XXIII

Gaudium et Spes: The Right Reading of Vatican II by Fr. Robert Barron

George Weigel on the Canonization of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II

The following comes from George Weigel:

I doubt that Pope Francis has heard of Ernie Banks, the Hall of Fame shortstop. But like “Mr. Cub,” whose love for baseball led him to exclaim “Let’s play two!” before Sunday doubleheaders in the 1950s, the pope from the end of the world seems to think that papal canonizations are better in tandem: hence the Sept. 30 announcement that Blessed John XXIII and Blessed John Paul II will be canonized together on Divine Mercy Sunday, April 27, 2014.

Predictably, the decision caused some unhappiness in some quarters.

Some Poles wanted John Paul II canonized by himself. Some who welcomed the decision to canonize John XXIII are disgruntled that “their” pope has to share the billing with the pope they think hijacked John XXIII’s Vatican II. The aggrieved Poles should (and most will) recognize that, while John Paul II brought uniquely Polish insights and experiences to the papacy, he now belongs to the entire world Church. The aggravated partisans of John XXIII should, but probably won’t, concede that the “John XXIII” they’ve have constructed in their imaginations bears little resemblance to the real John XXIII, and that the charge of Council hijacking is ludicrous.

In fact, it might be reasonably speculated that Pope Francis liked the idea of a papal canonization doubleheader precisely because it will underscore the continuity between John XXIII’s intention and John Paul II’s authoritative interpretation of Vatican II: Vatican II was intended to prepare the Church for the challenges of evangelization in late modernity, an intention realized by John Paul II’s use of the Council’s teaching to launch the world Church into the new evangelization of the third millennium.

Vatican II differed from the previous 20 ecumenical councils in that it provided no authoritative keys for its proper interpretation. Unlike other councils, it defined no dogmas, condemned no heresies (or heretics), commissioned no catechism, wrote no new canons into the law of the Church. Vatican II did give the Church 16 documents of differing magisterial “weight,” but it provided no interpretive keys to its body of teaching. The result was 20 years of argument, sometimes quite bitter. And in those arguments, as Benedict XVI put it, the idea of Vatican-II-as-rupture-with-the-past (which seemed to detach the Church of the future from its historical and doctrinal moorings) contended with the idea of Vatican-II-as-development-of-the-authoritative-tradition-of-the-Church (the tradition providing the reference points for grasping the true meaning of the Council).

At the very outset of his pontificate in 1978, John Paul II said that the full implementation of Vatican II would be the program of his papacy. He kept that pledge, providing authoritative interpretations of virtually all of the Council’s documents through his own encyclicals, apostolic letters, and post-synodal apostolic exhortations. Perhaps most importantly, he called a special meeting of the world Synod of Bishops in 1985, to assess what had gone right, and what had gone not-so-right, in the 20 years since Vatican II closed on Dec. 8, 1965. That synod, in turn, offered the Church a connective thread with which the various pieces of Vatican II might be woven together into a full tapestry, by describing the Church as a communion of disciples in mission. Catholicism begins with Christ (hence discipleship); those disciples are joined in a community, a “communion,” that is different from any other association because it is the mystical body of Christ; that “communion” exists for mission—to spread the Gospel and offer men and women the possibility of friendship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

The liveliest parts of the world Church today are found where Catholics have embraced this vision of a communion of disciples in mission; the dying parts of the world Church are those that cling to the false idea of Vatican-II-as-rupture. Pope Francis, who urges the Church to avoid being “self-referential” and to get about the business of spreading the healing message of the Gospel, is very much a pope of the new evangelization, which he understands to be a fruit of Vatican II.

And that’s why it’s entirely appropriate for him to canonize John XXIII and John Paul II the same day.

Word on Fire: The Necessity of Youth Ministry

The following comes from Word on Fire:

Recently, "Bad Catholic" blogger Marc Barnes wrote a thoughtful piece on the "problem" with youth ministry within the mission and life of the Church. Today, WOF Blog contributor Fr. Damian Ference responds to Marc's critique of youth ministry and offers his own priestly perspective on this aspect of the Church's evangelical outreach. 

Last week one of my priest colleagues here at the seminary emailed me about a new essay on youth ministry. The piece was entitled, “The Problem With Youth Ministry,” written by the young, brilliant, prolific, and envy-inducing, Marc Barnes over at Bad Catholic. Barnes is almost half my age, yet I look up to him. He knows his faith, he gets the culture, he writes very well, and he’s funny. 

 

Barnes’ essay on the problem with youth ministry is provocative, which is evidenced by the many comments, likes, and re-posts of this particular work. His thesis is that, unlike the family and the apostolic priesthood, which maintain a natural authority to proclaim the Gospel to young people, youth ministers have no natural authority to do so. Barnes argues, “Youth ministry as a primary catechetical and evangelical tool only exists as a necessity if the family has failed.” Youth ministers, according to Barnes, are spiritual band-aids that are doing important work, but in a perfect Catholic world, there would be no need for youth ministers or for youth ministry as we know it.

 

Barnes is right that the home is the fundamental and original source of catechesis and evangelization – he cites the Catechism twice to ground his argument. Let me bolster the argument even more by referencing the Rites for Marriage and Baptism.

First, before a couple professes their vows at the altar in the sacrament of marriage, the priest or deacon asks them three questions. Here’s the third: “Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and His Church?” The minister needs a public confirmation from the couple that they understand that their duty as a husband and wife is to be open to bringing children into the world, and to educate those children in the Catholic faith. As Barnes notes in his essay, parents have a natural authority over their children and it is fundamentally their duty as Christian parents to hand on the Faith to their sons and daughters. 

Second, in the Rite of The Baptism of a Child, just before the Renunciation of Sin and the Profession of Faith, the priest or deacon speaks to the parents and godparents: “On your part, you must make it your constant care to bring him (her) up in the practice of the faith. See that the divine life which God gives him (her) is kept safe from the poison of sin to grow always stronger in his (her) heart.” I have always liked the tone of these words – they are pointed and serious. They make demands. Sometimes parents and godparents gulp when I deliver them. And that’s a good thing. It means that they understand their responsibilities.
Following the actual baptism, the anointing, the clothing in the white garment, and the presentation of the candle, the minister offers prayers over the mother, the father, and then the entire assembly. Here’s an important excerpt from the prayer over the father: “He and his wife will be the first teachers of their child in the ways of faith. May they also be the best of teachers, bearing witness to the faith by what they say and do.” This prayer supports Barnes’ argument as well. To quote Barnes, “The family consists in a natural authority, and as such, is a fundamental space in which to proclaim the Gospel.” Amen.
Barnes and I agree that the fundamental and original source of catechesis is in the home, and it comes specifically from mothers and fathers who have a natural authority over their children. Parents have a privileged role in passing on the Faith to their sons and daughters, not just in what they say, but more importantly, in what they do. Moms and dads are called by the Church to be disciples of Jesus in order to show their children how to be disciples.
So what of youth ministry? Is Barnes right that if Catholic parents simply did what they were supposed to do (as the natural communicators of the Gospel to their children) that the American model of youth ministry would have no need to exist? I don’t think so, and I’d like to suggest a few reasons why youth ministry is necessary, good, and dare I say, supernatural.
First, in this Year of Faith – a time when we’ve been asked by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to study not only the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but also the documents of the Second Vatican Council – let’s see what, if anything, the Church has to say about lay ministry, in particular, youth ministry. Lumen Gentium states that “the laity can be called in different ways to more immediate cooperation in the apostolate of the hierarchy. . . . (t)hey may, moreover, be appointed by the hierarchy to certain ecclesiastical offices which have a spiritual aim.” (LG §33) Barnes argues that only the family and the apostolic priesthood enjoy a natural authority in the proclamation of the Gospel, but Lumen Gentium seems to indicate that some lay people are indeed called to direct cooperation in the apostolate of the hierarchy. In other words, the Church extends some of its natural (or supernatural) hierarchical authority to the laity.

A shorter document from the council, The Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People (Apostolicam Actuositatem) states that “different fields of apostolic action are open to the laity” and it mentions ministry to “the young” in particular. (AA §9) Barnes is right that the apostolic priesthood contains a natural authority, but the Church insists that the laity are able to participate in that very authority through their baptismal priesthood. The Council reminds us that, “Their activity within the church communities is so necessary that without it the apostolate of the pastors will frequently be unable to offer its full effect.” (AA §10)   Youth ministers may not be clergy, but the clergy need them to help carry out their mission. 

What particular actions does the Church envision from such lay persons? Here’s a nice list: “(T)hey engage zealously in apostolic works; they attract people towards the church who had perhaps been far away from it; they ardently cooperate in the spread of the word of God, particularly by catechetical instruction; by their expert assistance they increase the efficacy of the care of souls.” (AA §10) The best youth ministers I know embody this list in their parish or campus apostolate. 

Youth ministry, when it is being what it is called be, is not out to replace the family or the apostolic priesthood – it offers humble and zealous cooperation in the Church’s saving mission which begins in the family and continues in the ecclesial community. 

Second, we must not forget that youth ministry has been around for a long time –we just didn’t call it “youth ministry.” Men and women in religious communities played the role of “youth minister” for centuries, and they were good at it. Think of all the Catholic grade schools and high schools that were once staffed almost entirely by consecrated religious. Parents wanted other faithful people to play an important role in the religious formation of their children, and they knew that religious communities could offer such help and cooperation. In other words, they looked to other faithful people to assist them in raising and forming their children. 

Do men and women religious who are not ordained to the apostolic priesthood have a “natural” authority over children? Maybe not, but surely they have some authority – it’s the authority that comes from their baptism. It may not be natural, but perhaps “super-natural” is more than sufficient. And maybe that’s what Jesus was getting at when he told the crowd, “Who are my mother and my brothers? . . . Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” 

Third, recall Pope Francis’ words from World Youth Day 2013: “What is the best tool to catechize a young person? Another young person.” It’s true that parents are called to be the first and best teachers to their children in the ways of faith, but they can’t do it alone. Even good Catholic parents are constantly longing for other credible models who can affirm all that has be learned in the home and expand upon it. They know that they need the help of the church community to raise their children well. Children eventually come to a point in their lives where they ask, “Is everything I learned at home true?” Having credible witnesses close at hand is necessary to confirming all the good work that began in the home. Teens need to see people other than their parents living a rich life of faith to assure them that what they’ve been told is actually true. (Trust me, I’ve worked with many parents who did a fine job communicating the Gospel to their children in the home, but whose children are now very far from Christ and his Church.) 

Fourth, “LifeTeen” and “Edge” are not meant to replace the role of the family in religious education and formation. Both the middle school and the high school programs exist in order to bring teens closer to Christ and his Church, regardless of family background. My first parish assignment was a “LifeTeen” parish, and I will admit that I too approached the program with suspicion. But when I noticed that teens from very solid Catholic families were participating to grow deeper in their lives of faith, and then would reach out to minister to their peers whose faith and whose families weren’t so strong, I changed my tune. Moreover, when I witnessed a youth minister and his core staff modeling good Christian living as they often played the role of father, mother, sister, and brother to teens who needed to know that they were loved, I was reminded of the way that many religious communities took care of young people as their own throughout the history of the Church. And when teens who came from non-practicing families experienced profound conversions through their participation in youth ministry, and then were eventually able to catechize their own parents and bring them back to Jesus and his Church, I was sold. (It’s also worth noting that that same parish has eight young men studying for the apostolic priesthood in our diocesan seminarians, and not all of them come from “ideal” Catholic families.)

Finally, it’s important to remember that our world is fallen. Yes, Jesus has saved us, and yes, original sin is washed way in baptism, but the effects of original sin remain with us, even after baptism. Augustine called this reality concupiscence, and its power should not be taken lightly.   People are weak and they do stupid things, and a lot of the time they don’t even know why they do them. Often, they don’t even want to do them, but they do them anyway. I’ve never met an engaged couple that planned on getting divorced after marriage or a seminarian who hoped to leave priestly ministry after ordination, but unfortunately it happens. We ought to do everything we can to prevent it from happening, but it happens. And every time it happens, it’s sad. 

So what do you do with children who come from divorced families, or families of unwed parents, or families who don’t practice their faith, or families who get to church on Sunday but lack even the most basic understanding of Catholicism? Who is going to evangelize their children? Who is going to help parents in their Christian formation of their children? Should we leave them in the dark? Of course not. 

 

Parents are supposed to be the fundamental, original source of catechesis and evangelization to their children, but many parents fail in this responsibility. Marc Barnes is right to say that parents need to be better at parenting, to do the work that they promised to do at the altar and at the baptismal font. But as we’ve seen, even the best of parents need help from the Church in raising their children in the life of faith, and that help comes not only from those in the apostolic priesthood, but also from youth ministers, whose authority comes to them through baptism and who have been entrusted “with tasks more closely connected with the duties of pastors.” (AA §24)
The world is fallen, but ecclesia supplet.
Rev. Damian J. Ference is a priest of the diocese of Cleveland.  He is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy and a member of the formation faculty at Borromeo Seminary in Wickliffe, Ohio.

Fr. Robert Barron: Turning the Dream of Vatican II Into Reality

The following comes from the NCR:

New-media evangelist Father Robert Barron says the dream of Vatican II is still unrealized: that Catholics in every walk of life embrace the missionary call to proclaim Jesus Christ to the world outside their doorsteps.

Father Barron, a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, theologian and the founder of the media apostolate Word on Fire Ministry, has followed up his 10-part award-winning documentary series Catholicism.

The second part, called Catholicism: The New Evangelization, will debut this fall and addresses both the challenges the Catholic Church faces in bringing the Gospel to contemporary society and the innovative ways Catholics are helping others encounter Jesus Christ.

Father Barron spoke with the Register June 19 at the Catholic Media Conference in Denver, where he was the keynote speaker, and he shared his thoughts about the New Evangelization and why discovering the authentic spirit of Vatican II is the key to its success.

Father, one thing that’s been on the minds of many Catholics is the “New Evangelization.” We talk about it, but many of us really still don’t quite understand what it means. What do you think is the essence of the New Evangelization?

I agree with you. I think that term has been floating around for a long time, but it’s vaguely defined. What I’ve done is follow John Paul II, who, in 1983, said the New Evangelization is the Old Evangelization — meaning declaring Jesus Christ is Lord — but it’s new in ardor, new in expression and new in method.

The new ardor — I think [John Paul II] saw a new recovery of Vatican II’s missionary spirit. I came of age right after Vatican II, so I know the Church was not an ardent Church. It was dissenting, doubting, wondering about itself and unsure about itself. John Paul, I think, sensed that and said we needed a new ardor, a new fire, a new confidence: the Vatican II missionary spirit.

New in expression — and this is something I think about a lot in dealing with the secular culture, the New Atheists and all that. You have to find new ways to express the age-old faith: so certain areas like how to understand God and Jesus, how to express the Church and how to express salvation in a way that people today are going to find compelling.

What attitude should we have in order to keep the New Evangelization “new” or fresh?

We should have that confidence or conviction that we are entering mission territory whenever we step outside our own homes, even in the United States of America. We have to have this ardor born of the faith in the Resurrection and be finding new ways to express this age-old faith.

Like with technology?

No, that’s more methods. That’s the third step. I would say this one is more theological.

Really?

Yes. How do you say that God is worthwhile to a culture that thinks God is a medieval superstition or an afterthought? How do you say the Bible is the central book of your life to a culture that says the Bible is just old superstitions? How do you say that the Church’s sexual teaching is liberating when the culture sees it is as enslaving? So that’s the challenge: to read the cultural signs and, working with those, find a new way to say it.

How is it new in method?

That’s where the media come in, I think. We’ve had this explosion of media, the greatest that’s happened in 500 years. The Church has to be willing and able to use all these methods of communication to get the message out.

So in the video [Catholicism: The New Evangelization], I explore and present a number of those approaches.

You would say the Church ignores these new methods to its peril, right?

Oh, absolutely. We have to be on the cutting edge of it. We shouldn’t be just catching up, and for too long — even though Fulton Sheen was the pioneer — we got behind. I want the Catholic Church to be on the cutting edge of new technology.

It’s interesting. You’ve mentioned how the vision of the Second Vatican Council has not been realized yet, but being on the cutting edge of communications is exactly what Vatican II talked about in Inter Mirifica, the decree on social communications. Why are we so behind?

I think what happened is we lost the missionary verve of the Council and turned inward. Vatican II was an outward-looking Council. It was trying to get the Church to be a more apt vehicle for the “Christofication” of the world. But its focus was not so much inside, but outside. What happened though, in the wake of the Council, for all kinds of reasons, is that we tended to turn inward.

That self-referential Church Pope Francis has been talking about?

Exactly. When I was a kid, it looked like “unsure of this, unsure of that; we’re reassessing this; we’re re-examining that. What do we hold about sex, authority, Jesus?” ... That’s not what Vatican II wanted. If you read the texts themselves, you see this missionary élan, this missionary spirit. And I think that’s the new ardor that John Paul insisted upon.

What did you decide would make Word on Fire Ministries different from existing, traditional Catholic evangelization efforts?

I guess it was the use of the new media. There were some presence of Catholics on radio and TV — and, obviously, EWTN [parent company of the Register] made a huge contribution there — but the new media was not being exploited adequately, and I thought Word on Fire could do that.

How should we see the relationship between the bishops and the laity in the New Evangelization? If the old model was “pray, pay and obey,” then what does Pope Francis and the Council expect of laypeople?

To be a great Catholic businessman, to be a great Catholic businesswoman, to be a great Catholic journalist, a great Catholic doctor, a great Catholic nurse, a great Catholic politician. Not just in name, but that it informs everything that you’re doing.

Bishops and priests can’t do that. We’re priests, prophets and kings: We teach, sanctify and govern, but the governance, the teaching and the sanctifying is for the sake of sending: “Go; now you’ve been sanctified, taught and governed. Go into the world and change it.” But again, that, too, has been unrealized.

Who’s a good patron saint for the New Evangelization?

Ours is [St. Thérèse] the Little Flower. I think she is a saint for the New Evangelization. She wanted to be a missionary. She had that heart of love to carry it out into the world. Fulton Sheen — we have a picture of him in our Word on Fire office — he’s a great patron saint, obviously, for the use of the media.

At Mundelein [Seminary, where Father Barron is rector], we’re redoing our house chapel, which has never been named for a saint, and I’m naming it for John Paul II, and I’m going to fill the windows with 16 evangelists who have some connection to him.

So I claim those three: the Little Flower, Fulton Sheen and John Paul II.

You were appointed rector at Mundelein Seminary. How is that going so far?

So far, so good. I’ve liked it. I wasn’t expecting it at all. It was a complete surprise. We had just come out with the Catholicism series, we were planning this new video, and the office was going strong —  when the Cardinal [Francis George] asked me to come out and be rector of the seminary.

But I honestly have enjoyed it.

Any challenges?

Yeah, a lot of challenges. We’d actually changed a lot and done a lot the first year. What I’ve tried to do is give the whole seminary a New Evangelization focus. That’s what we’re about: We’re creating priests for the New Evangelization — so the formation program and the academic program I’ve kind of revamped to get them ordered that way.

The John Paul II Chapel has been a big priority of mine. We’ve also changed from a quarter system to a semester system to make it more contemplative. So (there are) a lot of things we’ve done to give it that New Evangelization focus.

We’ve talked a lot about truth in the New Evangelization, but what’s the role of beauty?

I think we should lead with beauty. It’s the Catholic strong suit, and it’s the transcendental that has the least offensive quality today. I think when you lead with the true and the good, people today tend to get defensive in a postmodern context.

But if you lead with beauty, it’s less threatening. It’s more winsome, and that’s our strong suit. We are a beautiful religion.

Thank you so much, Father. And good luck on the second Catholicism series on the New Evangelization. Do you have plans for a third in the future?

Thank you! We have one that we are cooking that I’m calling “the Pivotal Players.” This will take me around the world again to talk about the 10 or 12 key figures in Catholic history who have shaped the Catholic imagination. So that’s something we're thinking about, and we’re looking forward to it.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Interview Special with Raymond Arroyo

Pope Benedict to Rome's Priests: Vatican II as I saw it

(Vatican Radio) Pope Benedict XVI has met parish priests and clergy of the Diocese of Rome in the Paul VI Hall at the Vatican. Led by Cardinal Vicar Agostino Vallini and auxiliary bishops, they greeted Benedict XVI with great affection and prolonged applause

"It is a special and providential gift of - began the Pope - that, before leaving the Petrine ministry, I can once again meet my clergy, the clergy of Rome. It' s always a great joy to see how the Church lives, and how in Rome, the Church is alive: there are pastors who in the spirit of the supreme Shepherd, guide the flock of Christ". "It is a truly Catholic and universal clergy, - he added - and is part of the essence of the Church of Rome itself, to reflect the universality, the catholicity of all nations, of all races, of all cultures”. 

“At the same time I am very grateful to the Cardinal Vicar who is helping to reawaken, to rediscover the vocations in Rome itself, because if on the one hand Rome is the city of universality, it must be also a city with its own strong, robust faith, from which vocations are also born. And I am convinced that with the help of the Lord we can find the vocations He Himself gifts us, guide them, help them to develop and thus help the work in the vineyard of the Lord. "

"Today - continued the Pope - you have confessed the Creed before the Tomb of St. Peter: in the Year of the Faith, I see this as a very appropriate, perhaps even necessary, act, that the clergy of Rome meet at the Tomb of the Apostle of which the Lord said, 'to you I entrust my Church. Upon you I build my Church’. Before the Lord, together with Peter, you have confessed: 'you are Christ, the Son of the living God.' Thus the Church grows: together with Peter, confessing Christ, following Christ. And we do this always. I am very grateful for your prayers that I have felt - as I said Wednesday - almost physically. Though I am now retiring to a life of prayer, I will always be close to all you and I am sure all of you will be close to me, even though I remain hidden to the world. "

"For today, given the conditions of my age - he said - I could not prepare a great, real address, as one might expect, but rather I thought of chatting about the Second Vatican Council, as I saw it".

The Pope began with an anecdote: "In 1959 I was appointed professor at the University of Bonn, which is attended by students, seminarians of the diocese of Cologne and other surrounding dioceses. So, I came into contact with the Cardinal of Cologne, Cardinal Frings. Cardinal Siri of Genoa, - I think it was in 1961 - had organized a series of conferences with several cardinals in Europe, and the Council had invited the archbishop of Cologne to hold a conference, entitled: "The Council and the world of modern thought." The Cardinal invited me - the youngest of the professors - to write a project; he liked the project and proposed this text, as I had written it to the public, in Genoa".

"Shortly after - he continued - Pope John invited him to come [to Rome –ed] and he was afraid he had perhaps said maybe something incorrect, false and that he had been asked to come for a reprimand, perhaps even to deprive him of his red hat ... (priests laughing) Yes ... when his secretary dressed him for the audience, he said: 'Perhaps now I will be wearing this stuff for the last time... (the priests laugh). Then he went in. Pope John came towards him and hugged him, saying, 'Thank you, Your Eminence, you said things I have wanted to say, but I had not found the words to say' ... (the priests laugh, applaud) Thus, the Cardinal knew he was on the right track, and I was invited to accompany him to the Council, first as his personal advisor, then - in the first period, perhaps in November '62 – I was also appointed as an official perito [expert-ed] for the Council”.

Benedict XVI continued: "So, we went to the Council not only with joy, but with enthusiasm. The expectation was incredible. We hoped that everything would be renewed, that a new Pentecost really would come, a new era of the Church, because the Church was not robust enough at that time: the Sunday practice was still good, even vocations to the priesthood and religious life were already somewhat fewer, but still sufficient. But nevertheless, there was the feeling that the Church was going on, but getting smaller, that somehow it seemed like a reality of the past and not the bearer of the future. And now, we hoped that this relationship would be renewed, changed, that the Church would once again source of strength for today and tomorrow. "

The Pope then recalled how they saw "that the relationship between the Church and the modern period was one of some ‘contrasts’ from the outset, starting with the error in the Galileo case, "and the idea was to correct this wrong start "and to find a new relationship between the Church and the best forces in the world, "to open up the future of humanity, to open up to real progress."


The Pope recalled: "We were full of hope, enthusiasm and also of good will." "I remember - he said - the Roman Synod was considered as a negative model" - where - it is said - they read prepared texts, and the members of the Synod simply approved them, and that was how the Synod was held. The bishops agreed not to do so because they themselves were the subject of the Council. So - he continued - even Cardinal Frings, who was famous for his absolute, almost meticulous, fidelity to the Holy Father said that the Pope has summoned the bishops in an ecumenical council as a subject to renew the Church.

Benedict XVI recalled that "the first time this attitude became clear, was immediately on the first day." On the first day, the Commissions were to be elected and the lists and nominations were impartially prepared. And these lists were to be voted on. But soon the Fathers said, "No, are not simply going to vote on already made lists. We are the subject. "They had to move the elections - he added - because the Fathers themselves wanted to get to know each other a little ', they wanted to make their own lists. So it was done. "It was a revolutionary act - he said - but an act of conscience, of responsibility on the part of the Council Fathers." 

So - the Pope said - a strong activity of mutual understanding began. And this - he said - was customary for the entire period of the Council: "small transversal meetings." In this way he became familiar with the great figures like Father de Lubac, Danielou, Congar, and so on. And this – he said "was an experience of the universality of the Church and of the reality of the Church, that does not merely receive imperatives from above, but grows and advances together, under the leadership - of course – of the Successor of Peter" .

He then reiterated that everyone “arrived with great expectations" because "there had never been a Council of this size," but not everyone knew how to make it work. The French, German, Belgian, Dutch episcopates, the so-called " Rhineland Alliance”, had the most clearly defined intentions." And in the first part of the Council - he said - it was they who suggested the road ahead, then it’s activities rapidly expanded and soon all participated in the "creativity of the Council."

The French and the Germans - he observed - had many interests in common, even with quite different nuances. Their initial intention - seemingly simple - "was the reform of the liturgy, which had begun with Pius XII," which had already reformed Holy Week; their second intention was ecclesiology; their third the Word of God, Revelation, and then also ecumenism. The French, much more than the Germans - he noted - still had the problem of dealing with the situation of the relationship between the Church and the world.

Referring to the reform of the liturgy, the Pope recalled that "after the First World War, a liturgical movement had grown in Western Central Europe," as "the rediscovery of the richness and depth of the liturgy," which hitherto was almost locked within the priest’s Roman Missal, while the people prayed with their prayer books "that were made according to the heart of the people", so that "the task was to translate the high content, the language of the classical liturgy, into more moving words, that were closer to the heart of the people. But they were almost two parallel liturgies: the priest with the altar servers, who celebrated the Mass according to the Missal and the lay people who prayed the Mass with their prayer books”. " Now - he continued - "The beauty, the depth, the Missal’s wealth of human and spiritual history " was rediscovered as well as the need more than one representative of the people, a small altar boy, to respond "Et cum spiritu your" etc. , to allow for "a real dialogue between priest and people," so that the liturgy of the altar and the liturgy of the people really were "one single liturgy, one active participation": "and so it was that the liturgy was rediscovered, renewed."

The Pope said he saw the fact that the Council started with the liturgy as a very positive sign, because in this way "the primacy of God” was self evident”. Some – he noted - criticized the Council because it spoke about many things, but not about God: instead, it spoke of God and its first act was to speak of God and open to the entire holy people the possibility of worshiping God, in the common celebration of the liturgy of the Body and Blood of Christ. In this sense - he observed - beyond the practical factors that advised against immediately starting with controversial issues, it was actually "an act of Providence" that the Council began with the liturgy, God, Adoration.

The Holy Father then recalled the essential ideas of the Council: especially the paschal mystery as a centre of Christian existence, and therefore of Christian life, as expressed in Easter and Sunday, which is always the day of the Resurrection, "over and over again we begin our time with the Resurrection, with an encounter with the Risen One. " In this sense - he observed - it is unfortunate that today, Sunday has been transformed into the end of the week, while it is the first day, it is the beginning: "inwardly we must bear in mind this is the beginning, the beginning of Creation, the beginning of the re-creation of the Church, our encounter with the Creator and with the Risen Christ. " The Pope stressed the importance of this dual content of Sunday: it is the first day, that is the feast of the Creation, as we believe in God the Creator, and encounter with the Risen One who renews Creation: "its real purpose is to create a world which is a response to God's love. "

The Council also pondered the principals of the intelligibility of the Liturgy - instead of being locked up in an unknown language, which was no longer spoken - and active participation. "Unfortunately – he said - these principles were also poorly understood." In fact, intelligibility does not mean "banalizing" because the great texts of the liturgy - even in the spoken languages ​​ - are not easily intelligible, "they require an ongoing formation of the Christian, so that he may grow and enter deeper into the depths of the mystery, and thus comprehend". And also concerning the Word of God - he asked - who can honestly say they understand the texts of Scripture, simply because they are in their own language? "Only a permanent formation of the heart and mind can actually create intelligibility and participation which is more than one external activity, which is an entering of the person, of his or her being into communion with the Church and thus in fellowship with Christ."

The Pope then addressed the second issue: the Church. He recalled that the First Vatican Council was interrupted by the Franco-Prussian War and so had emphasized only the doctrine on primacy, which was described as "thanks to God at that historical moment", and "it was very much needed for the Church in the time that followed”. But - he said - "it was just one element in a broader ecclesiology", already in preparation. So a a fragment remained from the Council. So from the beginning - he said – the intention was to realise a more complete ecclesiology at a later. Here, too, - he said - the conditions seemed very good, because after the First World War, the sense of Church was reborn in a new way. A sense of the Church began to reawaken in people’s souls and the Protestant bishop spoke of the "century of the Church." What was especially rediscovered from Vatican I, was the concept of the mystical body of Christ, the aim was to speak about and understand the Church not as an organization, something structural, legal, institutional, which it also is, but as an organism, a vital reality that enters my soul, so that I myself, with my own soul as a believer, am a constructive element of the Church as such. In this sense, Pius XII wrote the encyclical Mistici Corporis Christi, as a step towards a completion of the ecclesiology of Vatican I.

I would say the theological discussion of the 30s-40s, even 20s, was completely under the sign of the word " Mitici Corporis." It was a discovery that created so much joy in this time and in this context the formula arose "We are the Church, the Church is not a structure, something ... we Christians, together, we are all the living body of the Church" . And of course this is true in the sense that we, the true ‘we’ of believers, along with the ‘I’ of Christ, the Church. Eachone of us, not we, a group that claims to be the Church. No: this "we are Church" requires my inclusion in the great "we" of believers of all times and places.

So, the first idea: complete the ecclesiology in theological way, but progressing in a structural manner, that is alongside the succession of Peter, his unique function, to even better define the function of the bishops of the Episcopal body. To do this, the word "collegiality" was found, which provoked great, intense and even – I would say – exaggerated discussions. But it was the word, it might have been another one, but this was needed to express that the bishops, together, are the continuation of the twelve, the body of the Apostles. We said: only one bishop, that of Rome, is the successor of one particular apostle Peter. All others become successors of the apostles entering the body that continues the body of the apostles. And just so the body of bishops, the college, is the continuation of the body of the twelve, so it is necessary, it has its function, its rights and duties.

"It appeared to many - the Pope said - as a struggle for power, and maybe someone did think about power, but basically it was not about power, but the complementarity of the factors and the completeness of the body of the Church with the bishops, the successors the apostles as bearers, and each of them is a pillar of the Church together with this great body”.

These - he continued - were the two fundamental elements in the search for a comprehensive theological vision of ecclesiology, meanwhile, after the '40s, in the '50s, a little 'criticism of the concept of the Body of Christ had already been born: mystic - someone said - is too exclusive and risk overshadowing the concept of the people of God. And the Council - he observed - rightly, accepted this fact, which in the Fathers is considered an expression of the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. We pagans, we are not in and of ourselves the people of God, but we become the children of Abraham and therefore the people of God, by entering into communion with Christ who is the only seed of Abraham. And entering into communion with Him, being one with Him, we too are people of God. That is, the concept of "people of God" implies continuity of the Testaments, continuity of God's history in the world, with men, but also implies a Christological element. Only through Christology do we become the people of God, and the two concepts are combined. And the Council - said the Pope - decided to create a Trinitarian construction of ecclesiology: the people of God-the-Father-Body of Christ- Temple of the Holy Spirit.

But only after the Council - he continued – was an element that had been somewhat hidden, brought to light, even as early as the Council itself, that is, the link between the people of God, the Body of Christ, and their communion with Christ, in the Eucharistic union. "Here we become the body of Christ, that is, the relationship between the people of God and the Body of Christ creates a new reality, that is, the communion." And the Council - he continued - led to the concept of communion as a central concept. I would say philologically that it had not yet fully matured in the Council, but it is the result of the Council that the concept of communion becomes more and more an expression of the sense of the Church, communion in different dimensions, communion with the Triune God, who Himself is communion between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, sacramental communion, concrete communion in the Episcopate and in the life of the Church.

Vatican II-The Greatest Meeting of All Time: A Commentary by Fr. Barron

Vatican II and Religious Liberty

The following comes from Bishop Etienne of the Diocese of Cheyenne:

Given the significance religious liberty plays in this election season, prophetic wisdom from Vatican II in this Year of Faith:

The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.  Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others.  The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.  (John XXIII; Pacem in Terris)  This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right.  (Declaration on Religious Liberty, #2)

Fr. Robert Barron: The Meaning of Vatican II