The first 100 days

The Tablet approves:

John Paul II was perhaps the last Pope to embody the best of the Counter-Reformation tradition; Benedict XVI offers a link with far older roots of European civilisation such as those of the Fathers of the Church, and of the founders of European monasticism, like his namesake. That may give him a deeper insight into the European soul than his predecessor, and suggests this could be a much more creative and surprising papacy than many might at first have expected.

Comments

[al]

Again, the simplistic juxtaposition of "tridentine" Catholicism, with some hidden, long obscured tradition. One wonders if the coiners of such blithe antinomies have ever read any Counter Reformation authors, as replete as they are with references and justifications drawn from Scriptural and Patristic sources.

[Caroline]

Have we mined Scriptural and Patristic sources mainly for ammunition to use against Protestants? Have we distorted them in our search for ammunition? Are there gems in these sources which we have overlooked in our hunt for ammunition?

[Touchy Tech]

"Are there gems in these sources which we have overlooked in our hunt for ammunition?"

I doubt that all the saints and scholars pouring over these sources over the last 500 years were only looking for stuff to counter the claims of Protestants. There may yet be gems to find, but they will be spotted against the background of our own times and concerns and insights, not because of the sudden lack of some formerly operative monomaniacal focus on apologics.

[Der Tommissar]

I thought the Counter-Reformation ended in 1965. Aren't we Easter People now?

[Caroline]

"There may yet be gems to find, but they will be spotted against the background of our own times and concerns and insights"

And that is precisely what we need for the development of doctrine and for couching doctrine in contemporary comprehensibility, I believe the purpose of V2.

[Caroline]

"There may yet be gems to find, but they will be spotted against the background of our own times and concerns and insights"

And that is precisely what we need for the development of doctrine and for couching doctrine in contemporary comprehensibility, I believe the purpose of V2.

[Der Tommissar]

And that is precisely what we need for the development of doctrine and for couching doctrine in contemporary comprehensibility, I believe the purpose of V2.

Exactly which doctrines were incomprehensible to contemporary man? I mean, I've always heard people say this, but I've never gotten any examples.

[Ronny]

Der's got a point.

[Tom McKinney]

I don't think the counter-reformation should be over. Last time I checked, there were still plenty of strident Protestants trying to convert poorly catechized Catholics.

[Caroline]

If it were all comprehensible to modern man, the theologians could all retire. Exactly how man fits into evolution needs a lot of work. Original sin requires original sinners and only one pair of them. There are different theories of soterology. Anselm's was once comprehensible; I doubt it is anymore. Anyway, if there were saints and theologians in the past who explained things to their own age, why shouldn't there be saints and theologians in the present and future with yet better explanations or at least acceptable alternative explanations?

[reluctant penitent]

What a strange comment! Was the counter-reformation not a product of the the 'european soul'? Was it a middle eastern import? And what was so 'counter-reformation' about JPII?

[Tom]

Anyway, if there were saints and theologians in the past who explained things to their own age, why shouldn't there be saints and theologians in the present and future with yet better explanations or at least acceptable alternative explanations?

The fact that they didn't need an Ecumenical Council which was billed in some quarters as the birth of a new church comes to mind. You've switched the goalposts. You mention the role of theologians and saints throughout every age in spreading the faith. None of them required a Council to do their work. The only time such things were called were called was to combat heresy. So exactly what was so especially different or incomprehensible that a Council was required?

Original Sin? Really? Honestly, I can understand how doctrines need to be made intelligible to man but we needed to summon all the bishops in Rome to clear up "the sin of Adam and Eve is carried down through the generations to each of us"? I know not everyone will accept that truth but if we need to radically re-present that one, we might as well just pack up our bags and call it a day.

Soterology? The doctrine of the necessity of salvation for mankind? If that's true, it's the most ironic thing Alanis Morrisette could ever dream of. The idea of being saved or redeemed is probably the one thing that's taken the biggest hit in the church since Vatican II.

[Robin]

"I thought the Counter-Reformation ended in 1965. Aren't we Easter People now?"

No, Der Tomissar. We are "AN Easter people" now.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

His most significant act to date so far has been the appointment of Archbishop William Levada, Archbishop of San Francisco, to replace himself as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The American is a subtle and nuanced theologian and administrator, a reconciler rather than a punisher, and for this reason the choice bodes well for other appointments.

Really? How?

Does the Church really need a "reconciler rather than a punisher"? Or does it need somebody to crack down on liturgical abuse, theological confustion and moral corruption?

If this is what being an "Easter People" means, I'll take Good Friday, thank you very much.