Gravissimum educationis

After a bit of a break, let us resume with Gravissimum educationis: Vatican ll’s text on religious education.  I am suggesting this as there has been a lot of discussion (cf Mark Lambert’s, Ttony’s and my blogs, inter alia) and I thought this might be relevant.  I haven’t read it yet, so don’t know what to expect.

The English text can be found here, and the Latin here.

If anyone would like to suggest questions or themes to discuss, feel free!

It looks rather shorter than some of the other texts we have read, which I find comforting…

2012 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 3,000 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 5 years to get that many views.

Click here to see the complete report.

Next text

Having looked back at our poll, I would like to propose that we read Veritatis Splendor. The English text can be found here, and the Latin, here.

However, based on the discussions following our reading of Gaudiem et Spes, I also propose that we read it one section at a time, have a discussion on each section, and then, when we get to the end, see if we can pull the threads together.

Therefore I propose we read the Introduction and Chapter One (say by next weekend?); then the rather longer Chapter 2 (over the following fortnight – to allow some time for discussion of Ch 1) and so on. We should be able to read the whole letter in this way in 3 chunks, over, say 6 weeks, and (maybe) not be too overwhelmed.

If anyone wants to post a few questions to start the discussion, either now or as they read it, that would help. I shall try to remember to do so.

If anyone thinks this a bad idea, feel free to say so – but you will need a counter-suggestion!

Ben T.

Gaudium et Spes

1. Fundamental Moral Theology.

The Second Vatican Council called for moral theology to be renewed by “a more vivid contact with the mystery of Christ” (Optatum totius, n. 16). The last of the Council documents, Gaudium et Spes, so important for moral theology, has a structure in part 1 which is Christocentric.

Looking at the human person, human society, man in relation to the world the Council examines the moral questions about each which people see as central and offers to people of good will throughout the world an answer which in every case is centred on Jesus Christ.

Thus, “it is only in the light of the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear” (GS. 22), the communitarian dimension of man “is perfected and fulfilled in the work of Jesus Christ” (GS. 32), the transformation of the world will enter its perfection “when the Lord comes” (GS. 32), since the Church proclaims that “the key, the centre and the purpose of the whole of human history is to be found in its Lord and Master” (GS. 10). We will never adequately understand any of the critical issues of our time except “in the light of revelation” (GS. 33), “in the light of the Gospel” (GS. 43) of Christ.
Question 1. Read Gaudium et Spes, nn. 11-22 or 22-32 or 33-39. How is the Council open to all people of good will and yet truly Christocentric?
Question 2. Read Gaudium et Spes nn. 13, 27, 37, 39. List the ways in which sin affects us as persons, in society and in our work, both internally and externally.
Question 3. Read Gaudium et Spes, nn. 14, 35 with a view to understanding of ‘nature’ and ‘natural law’. What comprises ‘human nature’ according to these passages of Gaudium et Spes? How does this compare to Sollicitudo rei socialis, nn.15, 30, and Humanae Vitae, n. 14? How can revelation give us a deeper and clearer understanding of the moral demand: How is our social dimension as human beings deepened by considering us as “the only creatures God wanted for His own sake” (GS. 24)? Does this affect the view of man as being “by his innermost nature a social being” (GS. 28)? How does it affect our view of the role of work (GS. 34)? How are our efforts on this earth related to the realisation of the Kingdom of God in its fullness (GS. 38-39)?

Question 4. What specific moral absolutes are given in Gaudium et Spes n. 27?

Question 5. Read Gaudium et Spes, nn. 16-17, 51 (if you want, you can cross reference Dignitatis humanae, nn. 2-3). When does acting wrongly through ignorance or error excuse and when does it not? On what basis is this? When someone acts contrary to God’s will through invincible ignorance, does he commit sin? Does his conscience lose its dignity? Does he have a right to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience? If so, are there any limits to that right?

(Introduction and questions courtesy of Mark Lambert @sitsio)

Gaudium et spes in English can be found here  The Latin text may be found here.

Next text… by popular demand!

It seems clear from the poll that Gaudium et Spes should be our next text. So I propose that we read this over the next week or so, and that someone (ideally not me) should undertake to post some discussion questions towards the end of that period. Gaudium et Spes may be found here. The Latin text is here

Poll – what shall we read next?

Since I posted what next?, we have had a number of suggestions.  I have added to these thing that were mentioned earlier on the blog, to create this entertaining and useful poll…

What should we read next?

What next?

Thanks for all the comments in response to the Review and Reflection post.

What come through clearly is that people would like to continue with this reading group, but nobody has a strong sense of what we should read next.

I liked Lazarus’ suggestion of listing a few things to read over the coming months, as well as Hugh’s that we could look at earlier Church documents and other genres.

I think in many reading groups, people take it in turns to suggest a book to read, which is good as it leads one to read things one might otherwise not have read.  So I would like to suggest that as a Modus Operandi.

So I propose we all suggest one thing we’d like to get everyone to read and discuss, and then we agree a sequence for them (it may be when all the suggestions are in that there is some logical sequence which suggests itself).

To set the ball rolling, I am going to suggest Gaudium et Spes, simply because I am sure I’ve read it, but really can’t remember any of it, so think it would repay further attention.

Please pitch in with your suggestions – ideally before Thursday when I’m off to Chartres, so we can agree where we are going next before I leave.

Review and Reflection

Ttony recently tweeted asking when we would close the discussion on Sacrosanctum Concilium. I think he is right that now is the time to ask that and some other questions, including reviewing how it’s going so far.

Since the SC post was posted on 4 May, we have had 36 comments from 8 contributors. The 8 contributors are:

• Idle Rambler
• Part Time Pilgrim
• Ben Trovato
• Ttony
• Marc Puckett
• Lazarus
• Mark Lambert
• Patti Fordyce

We have had 556 visits to the site overall.

Some of the questions that present themselves:

1 Has this been a useful and/or interesting discussion?

2 Have we learned anything about having this kind of online reading group which might help us do it better next time (if there is a next time – see 3 below)?

3 Do we want to continue with another text?

4 If the answer to 3 is yes, what text? And who would like to write an introductory post (and take on joint moderator status to approve posts etc)?

5 Do we declare discussion on SC closed, or allow people to continue to contribute indefinitely?

I am sure there are other questions we would usefully consider, so please add them in the Comms Box.

Sacrosanctum Concilium

Introductory note

Before suggesting the questions to discuss, I thought it might be helpful to give a little background.  I do so with some trepidation, as I am not an expert in these matters, and further, the period and events we are considering are much contested.  I have tried to stick to facts, but even that is a selective process.  My hope is that these notes, as much as anything else, will be subject to discussion and improvement, if they are in any way inadequate or biased.

1 Context

Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) is one of the four constitutions promulgated by the Second Vatican Council.  The other three are:

• Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation)
• Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church)
• Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World)

These four Constitutions are the weightiest documents issued by the Council, which was the twenty first Ecumenical Council of the Church.

Unusually for an Ecumenical Council, it was not convoked to combat heresy or define dogma.  Rather, it was seen as a continuation of the work of the First Vatican Council, which had been halted prematurely in 1870, after defining Papal Infallibility, due to the taking of Rome and the Papal States by Victor Emmanuel ll.  It was thus heralded as a pastoral Council.

The Council was opened in October 1962 by Pope John XXlll but quickly suspended as some Cardinals (led by Cardinals Liénart and Frings) declined to go along with the suggested process of electing the conciliar commissions, and asked for time to make alternative suggestions.  This move by Cardinals Liénart and Frings brought to the surface a tension that was played out throughout the Council between (some of) the Cardinals of Northern Europe and the Vatican Curia (and others).  Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVl, was theological advisor to Cardinal Frings.

The subsequent preparations were automatically suspended on the death of Pope John in June 1963.  His successor, Pope Paul Vl, announced immediately on his election in the same month that he would re-convene the Council.  The Council then met in three further sessions, in 1963, 1964, and 1965.

Sacrosanctum Concilium was the first of the four Constitutions to be promulgated (December 4, 1963), and was voted for by an overwhelming majority of the Fathers of the Council: 2,147 – 4.

One other piece of contextual information seems particularly relevant to me. In the 1950s, the Rites for Holy Week were revised. In some ways, this was a major breach with the continuity of tradition (the New Liturgical Movement blog  carries extensive analysis of the changes).  However, in many ways, they retain the feel of the Traditional Mass, certainly when compared with the New Rite of Mass introduced in 1969.  I think it reasonable to assume that when the Fathers of the Council voted for Reform of the Liturgy, this most recent experience of it will have informed their thinking.

2 Impact

The impact of Sacrosanctum Concilium developed over time.  Initially, the impact was the introduction of the vernacular to some parts of the Mass, while a committee was established to consider and propose revisions to the Mass.  Thus at first, the Mass (the Extraordinary Form as we now call it) was simply, in part, translated.  The Canon was retained in Latin, and no substantial changes were made. In 1967, the Canon was permitted to be said in the vernacular, and in 1969, the New Rite (Ordinary Form) was introduced.

The reaction of Cardinal Heenan of Westminster to his first exposure to the New Rite of Mass (in 1967, when it was celebrated in draft form, as it were, for the synod of bishops) is documented here. Indeed it was discussion of this post, along with posts on Ttony’s blog, that led to this Catholic Reading Group being established.

With the promulgation of the New Rite, the previous Mass was de facto, if not de jure suppressed, an astonishing and I think unprecedented occurrence in the history of the Church. (When Pius V standardised the Mass in the 16th Century, he allowed any rite that could demonstrate 200 years of use to continue…)

Since then, the celebration of the New Rite (Ordinary Form) has changed in many ways, such that its celebration may fairly be said (in my view) to be very different from the celebration of the Traditional Mass (Extraordinary Form). See here  and here for discussions of this.

Finally, in terms of impact, it is worth noting that Sacrosanctum Concilium is cited 85 times (if I counted correctly) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  That makes it (I think) the sixth most cited source, after the Holy Bible, Lumen Gentium, Gaudiem et Spes , the Code of Canon Law, and the Council of Trent.

That, I think, gives the context for some of the questions which I, at least, am keen to discuss.

3 Questions

3.1 Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium, what can we conclude about the intentions of the Council?

3.2 What are the principles underlying the proposed changes?

3.3 What is meant by Active Participation?

3.4 Reading Chapter l Part lll: Reform of the Liturgy, what do we believe the intentions of the Council Fathers were, specifically?

3.5 What does Sacrosanctum Concilium intend with regard to Latin and the Vernacular?

3.6 What does Sacrosanctum Concilium intend with regard to Sacred Music and Art?

UPDATE

At around 04.30 this morning, I remembered the question Ttony wants us to discuss:

3.7 What problem (if any) were the Fathers of the Council trying to fix?

SECOND UPDATE

Courtesy of Part Time Pilgrim, another good question to discuss:

3.8 Are there any recommendations of the Council that have yet to be implemented? If there are, would the Church benefit from implementing them now?

–

These are some questions I would find interesting to discuss: feel free to ignore the boring ones, and to add better ones!

First Post

Please see the About page for background and posting guidelines.

In the first instance we will be discussing Sacrosanctum Concilium, the text of which may be found here.

Discussion will start later today (4 May) when I shall post some initial questions to stimulate the discussion. Others may post further questions, answer questions, respond to each others’ answers and so on.

We will review the process and doubtless learn about the process as well as the texts as we proceed.  I am open to suggestions about any and all of this, and will actively be seeking others to share the administration of the blog, the suggestion of texts, the posing of relevant questions and so on.

I would like to thank John H @Johnthelutheran, the kind and gracious volunteer who answered my plea for help and set this site up for me.