I received the basic simple catechism at school like other Catholics.Nothing special.Then I was brought up with Pope Paul VI's concept of Vatican Council II, like every one else.It was flawed but I did not know it at that time.
So my formation as a Catholic was the same as ' the approved version' in the churches all over the world .
All most of my life I went for Holy Mass in the vernacular.I was 11 years in 1965. I was conservative and I thought this was mainstream,most Catholics were like me.This would gradually change.
I would read a lot.I had read the writings of the saints, and the mystics and had fallen in love with St.Teresa of Avila.I read and re-read St.John of the Cross. I bought the entire collection of the writings of St. Louie Marie di Montfort and was really hung up on him for a long time.So the concept of exclusive salvation would come across in many ways in the writings of the saints but it was missing among my priest-friends.Among the Franciscans, I noticed, there was a split with the doctrines of the St. Francis of Assisi . Among the Dominicans it was the same.With the Jesuits it was the same story.
I could not understand why. Since catechesis was good and constant among all of us.When I read the saints I was inspired but something was wrong in the parishes.
Then when I was in my late 20's I came across the books criticizing Vatican Council II as being a rupture with Tradition. They made sense. For the traditionalists and liberals the Council was a rupture with the past.One group did not like it and the other group accepted it.
I had the faith within me and I could not understand how the Council could be a rupture with the past and yet also be approved by the popes and cardinals.
I knew I had to study Catholic theology and philosophy on my own.
There was a Catholic minor seminary on the next street from where I lived and the major seminary was a 30-minute walk.I would speak to the priests and read up things on my own.It was obvious that Vatican Council II was a split with the past.Something was wrong.I couldn't just accept everything in Vatican Council II.
I would subscribe to a Jesuit liberal theological magazine from India.I found theology interesting.I liked that magazine at that time and would wait for the next issue. Now I consider them balmy.
I began attending theology classes for lay people approved by the diocese.Then I would sit in class for the theology semesters with the seminarians at the Major Seminary.I give the exams along with them. It was approved by the bishop. Some of those seminarians are bishops today.
Then in Rome I began formal studies in philosophy at the Legion of Christ UPRA-university and it was a revision of what I studied personally and in depth.Philosophy was interesting for me even as a youth. I read the Greek classics, with that longing to know. The books were there at the American Center library.
But I was still affirming the old ecclesiology and trying to adapt to it with the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II.Our Lady would help me. Vatican Council II was still ambiguous and this was a problem.This would come across clearly in discussions.Then gradually the insight came. It grew clearer and stronger.
I was interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally. This was the missing link.There really were no ambiguous passages in the Council-text.I had to make the distinction, in my mind, between what is explicit and implicit, invisible and visible, hypothetical and concrete.
Then when I made the distinction the split with the saints and Tradition ended.
But I realized that I was the only one doing this in the Catholic Church.But Vatican Council II became an ally.It was a friend I could quote, in a discussion, to support the old ecclesiology of the mystics and the Jesuit missionaries.
Most Catholics would not understand one since they had my old conditioning. Others would understand but it was asking too much of them. Since they felt they would be opposed by their Superior or employer.
But there was a great joy within me. The-I-found-it-type one. There was no split in the theology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.The loose ends were tied. And I realized that it was the liberals who now were in trouble and not traditionalists.
They would have to re-interpret the Council, rationally.
My personal search was over. I found out the truth. I became aware also of a great organized deception.
But there was no more a rupture with the founders of the religious communities. Franciscans today can interpret the Council in harmony with the past ecclesiology of St. Francis.The Dominicans and Jesuits can do the same with the founders of their communities.
Vatican Council II was no more a split with my St.Teresa of Avila and the others.
But still, I am alone,in this way of thinking.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
