If I could only offer this additional thought to His Excellency, it would be that his calling on the reality of authentic tradition to bolster his argument is an excellent and a needed thing, but it might have more resonance if those who are now in Rome would stop breaking with the very traditions they are now calling upon to help them. The Archbishop – and Rome – have to be honest and face up to the fact that it was their total trashing of tradition that began in the late ’60s that has brought the Church to the rather miserable state it is in now. Don’t perceive this as sour grapes, or an attempt to rain on Archbishop Dolan’s parade. Perceive it, instead, as facing up to the facts.

When the Church starts to bring back the devotions it so heartlessly threw out, when it rescinds some of the more idiotic liturgical abuses it has allowed and encouraged, if it starts to seriously – and I mean SERIOUSLY – discipline wayward clerics, when it begins to govern strongly again, when it faces up to the horrors of Communion in the hand and the truly awful “Ordinary Form” of Mass then and only then will the fine words of Bishops calling upon tradition have some meaning.

But all this is not meant to diminish the value of the Archbishop’s words. It is only meant to bring back realism to the discussions.

And I thank His Excellency once again for standing up to the live jackals circling the wounded lion.

So when is Rome going to start mandating these \rich traditions\. Seems like the only traditions that are mandated are the ones that started after the Second Vatican Council. Like Altar girls, EMHC, folk music, priest facing people instead of God. Sex seems to be the big topic in the Roman Catholic Church, instead of the teachings of the Church Fathers. Funny how in Russia the Church is growing, and tradition is not debated. But in the West tradition is all but extinguished. Sorry +Dolan, like most of your fellow western Bishops, and Cardinals, it’s all talk and NO action!!!.

I believe your column causes great reason to pause and reflect on the rich tradition of the Catholic Church and its doctrines. Yet the column fails to acknowledge the theological developments and changes that took place at Vatican II. The changes issued by the ecumenical council were not only associated with “discipline,” but also dealt with deeply theological elements such as ecclesiology, ecumenism, and interreligous relations. To presume that these changes were merely of a “disciplinary” nature is to deny the truly fruitful debates that took place during that momentous period of Catholic history.

Isn’t that exactly what happens? Wasn’t that the “aggiornamento” of the Second Vatican Council?

Can you really expect the American Catholic to differentiate between what the Church can and can’t change? Many of these Catholics were taught that they could go to hell by eating meat on Friday. That change was a change of “discipline” but the lesson learned was that the pronouncements of bishops are seriously mutable.

I think that those who favor the ordination of women or who favor gay rights assume that someday a pope will say “The Holy Spirit has spoken to me and told me why these things are in line with the tradition and teaching of the Church.” No change in doctrine, just an unfolding of the truth of Jesus Christ in the fullness of time.