On Saturday morning the news was spreading: Bishop Listecki of La Crosse will be the future archbishop of Milwaukee - news conference at 10:00am. I watched to see what our future archbishop would say. He did not surprise me, much. Although I can appreciate someone who is Church-centered and Christ-centered (shouldn't we all be), it makes all the difference in the world how one interprets those terms.Listecki constantly referred to the Church during his press conference. It was clear from the context that in almost every instance, Church = hierarchy. Not very good Vatican II theology. As to how his Christ-centered talk will come to fruition in his policies will be interesting. We did see an example of how papal infallibility can be misused. Listecki, multiple times, equated the Pope choosing him for Milwaukee with the movement of the Holy Spirit. When people think they have the Holy Spirit on their side, they think anything they do is Holy Spirit-inspired. In other words, they have a mandate to do what they want. Hopefully, I am wrong in this assessment, but I am nonetheless uncomfortable with that language.
Listecki's comments on politics were interesting. He basically stated that his involvement in politics was an involvement in our political system. Real lawyer talk, which makes sense because he is a lawyer. He did not state that his past political (abortion) comments were an attempt to address a society of death. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. I'm intrigued.
A Faithful Catholic
8 comments:
I'll take my bishops that have a "Catholic" theology, not a "Vatican II" theology.
At least your honest in your denial of Vatican II. That's refreshing.
Why, F.C., you seem to be saying the hermeneutic of discontinuity isn't a myth.
"When people think they have the Holy Spirit on their side, they think anything they do is Holy Spirit-inspired."
Would you characterize the womenpriests movement the same way? The constant referral is to the "Spirit" moving them to do what they do.
FC,
You have no idea what Vatican II theology is. Vatican II was not a rupture with the past. The Church is the body of Christ. Yet the Church is also the teaching body of Christ, the Magisterium. The Church is visible both in the bodies of believers and of the Bishops who are the successors of the Apostles. Individuals who refer to Vatican II Theology more often than not are Modernists who want to misappropriate the Council for their progressive theology that seeks to change the Church into something it is not. I agree with Andrew and Terrence and will always take a Bishop who has Catholic Theology over one who professes your non-Catholic brand of Vatican II Theology.
Catholic Soldier
C.S. you wrote "Vatican II was not a rupture with the past." Almost makes one wonder where the contrary idea arises.
For example, just last Sunday my pastor said in his homily that V2's universal call to holiness was "revolutionary". Yet there it is in Casti Connubii 23 (Pope Pius XI, December 31, 1930). Seems to there be associated with a topic I haven't heard come up in a couple decades of homilies at my parish. Probably a coincidence.
Terrence,
The Council very well can be revolutionary, but it does not nor never intended to fundamentally change the Truth of the Catholic Faith. Now, obviously there are those in the "progressive" camp who would argue that it was the beginning of the new age, but that is the hermeneutic of discountinuity that Pope Benedict (and previously Cardinal Ratzinger) spoke against. Vatican II has to be understood in light of Trent and the past.
We are seeing the old calling cards of the "progressive" wing as they experiencce their death-throes.
CS
"Now, obviously there are those in the 'progressive' camp who would argue that it was the beginning of the new age..."
We hear that, we just don't see it. Turns out our "progressive" camp was largely made up of people whose goal was to skip to a new era of post-revolutionary bureaucracy.
Post a Comment