Posted on 06/24/2005 4:54:35 AM PDT by bornacatholic
It's a bit late but I just didn't have time to respond last weekend.
I agree with Mark! (Shea) MY point is not and never has been "Everything was bad before the Council, now things are great! Good heavens, I spent my first 13 years as a Catholic in Seattle.
And I’m not arguing against the traditional Mass. Frankly, I’d be happy if every parish had a wide spectrum of rites: NO, T, Anglican Use, Byzantine. In my parish in Seattle, people receive communion on the tongue while kneeling and on the hand while standing and no one looked askance at one another. I thought it was both normal and great. We routinely sang the Agnus Dei and chanting a Byzantine Our Father and I loved it. I will probably never understand the Catholic insistence that the gestures of every participant at Mass must be “en mass”, that is, absolutely identical or you are somehow destroying the unity of the community. Kneel away as far as I’m concerned.
What is simply not true is the working assumption so widely shared in the Trad/conservative community that the Church was vastly more healthy in 1950 than it is today in all the ways that matter most and that the Council and the NO are the direct causes of unprecedented disaster and institutional collapse. I have had traditionalists tell me directly: “If the whole Church just went back to the Tridentine Mass, all the other problems in the Church - vocations, faithfulness to magisterial teaching, Mass attendance, catechesis - would resolve.” That’s magical thinking plain and simple. And it is terrible history.
First, the 4 centuries between Trent and Vatican II, during which the Mass of the Council of Trent flourished, contain some of the lowest spiritual lows in the entire history of Christianity. Most of us don’t know as much about them because they weren’t as colorful as say, the Borgia popes, but the late 18th century/early 19th century was simply dismal.
The fire of the Counter-Reformation had burned out, the Jesuits has been suppressed, once dynamic orders like the Dominicans were at a really low ebb, Gallicanism and Josephitism (movements by the French and Austria-Hungarian states to control the Church) had sapped the life of the Church and then Revolution destroyed the Church in France. Napoleon added insult to injury by capturing the Papal states. When Pius VII excommunicated him, Napoleon simply marched in and took the Pope captive. Pius didn’t see Rome again for 14 years.
By any standards, spiritually or institutionally, the Church was in terrible shape and no spirited reformation movement emerged as had happened in the 16th century.
Second. Newsflash: the Council/NO didn’t cause the 60’s. Jack’s Kennedy’s famous “I won’t let my faith interfere with my judgment as President” promise, which had paved the way for John Kerry and his ilk, was made in 1960 at what Traditionalists often refer to as the high point of Catholic institutional fortunes. The Catholic ghetto in the US had already broken down before the Council ever started its deliberations.
The collapse of the old pieties before the cultural whirlwind of the 60’s show that the foundations of a seemingly “triumphant” traditional Catholicism can be exceedingly shallow and very dependent upon support from the culture about it. Dietrich von Hildebrand noted this, to his dismay, in beautiful, Catholic, 1930’s Munich where very few Catholics (including priests and bishops) saw clearly that Nazism was absolute opposed to the faith.
“Christendom” presumes a central role for the Church in society and that the structures of society, family, culture, government, would fundamentally support the faith and the institutional Church. The 60’s changed all that but we weren’t able to cope. 1300 years of cultural supremacy in large parts of Europe had severed our corporate memory of how to survive and flourish while being fundamentally at odds with the culture about us.
That’s why pre-Vatican II racism is relevant to the discussion. American Catholicism, even at the height of its prosperity before the Council, couldn’t see and judge the culture in light of the Tradition. One poster said that the whole American culture was deeply racist so Catholics weren’t any different from other Christians in this respect. Actually that isn’t true. American Catholics, as a group, have one of the worst records in this area. American Quakers, as a body, renounced slavery as incompatible with Christianity and freed their slaves (many paid back wages) before the Revolutionary War. Both liberal and evangelical Protestants in Britain and the US were campaigning for an end to the slave trade by the end of the 18th century (William Wilberforce, etc.) and were at the center of the 19th century abolitionist movement in this country. Abolitionism was a deeply Christian movement but almost entirely Protestant.
From the very first, when the earliest Jesuits and Carmelites in Maryland owned slaves, right through the Civil War, the Church was simply not involved in the struggle for abolition in any significant way. 80 years later when Catherine Doherty faced off with the Jesuits, not much had changed. Our desire to just “get along” and our inability to seriously critique our culture in light of our faith compromised us in serious ways just as it did many German Catholics in the 1930’s. The struggle of the past 40 years has broken through that naivete and laid the foundation for better discernment and the recognition that our situation today vis a vis western culture is much closer to that of the early persecuted Church than of the medieval Church.
I think that a comprehensive compare and contrast between our situation and the *American* Church in 1960 would say it was doing much better in certain things than we are (priestly vocations and basic catechesis for instance) and considerably worse in others. Based upon what I’ve heard from many Catholics who were there (I wasn’t), I do think that there are a number of issues, which the Church now does better than before the Council but “conservative” Catholics don’t tend to focus on:
2) Personal Discipleship: If I had a dime for every intelligent older Catholic who has told me “ I thought being Catholic was all about rules, I didn’t know it was a relationship with God”, I would never have to raise money for the Institute again. What’s fascinating is that I hear this mostly from ones who were seriously practicing before the Council, the never miss Mass on Sunday,-daily prayer - went to 12 years of Catholic school - Catholic college- kind of Catholics. They were “well-catechized”, serious, faithful, and they still didn’t get this most foundational concept. Then at 60 or 70, the possibility that it is first and foremost about *relationship with God* hits them like a ton of bricks.
My point: Human beings were intended to love God with their whole heart, body, will and mind. Many (not all, of course) ordinary Catholics prior to the Council somehow got the impression that faith was a matter of rule and duty, a matter of the mind and will only, and the heart and experiential relationship had very little to do with it. I don’t know how or why it happened but it did for many. In reaction to the previous overemphasis on mind and will, many after the Council put all their eggs in the heart and body basket – with, as we know, disastrous results. The JP II generation, following the lead of their mentor, is already doing a much more better job of challenging people to whole person discipleship than did their parents or grand-parents.
3) Scripture: I know that there has been a partial indulgence for reading the Bible since the turn of the 20th century. But despite the much talked about superiority of catechesis before the Council, the average Catholic in the pew didn’t get the news. Over and over, one of the biggest Post-Vatican II changes that lay Catholics mention to me is Bible reading and study. I’ve had a large number of older Catholics all over the country tell me that they thought it was Protestant and therefore, wrong for Catholics to read the Bible before Vatican II. One sharp, elderly lady told me that she actually went to Confession to confess that she had read the New Testament! Something was amiss with a catechesis that didn’t convey that “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”
4) Marriage and sexuality/Theology of the Body. In the 1930’s, when devout convert philosopher Dietrich von Hildrebrand wrote a book extolling the unitive power of sex in marriage, it was widely regarded as dangerous and potentially heretical. Twenty years later, the Dominicans at the University of Salamanica were still referring to him as the man “who wrote that immoral book”.
We now take for granted that idea that there are two ends to marital sexuality: unitive and procreative. JPII’s Theology of the Body is an absolutely ground-breaking development in Catholic thought in this area and is a critical foundation for the pro-life movement, and the renewal of marriage and of intentional celibacy, that we are beginning to see. Even though we are live in a ferociously anti-marriage/anti-life culture, this time, US Catholics haven’t just capitulated but are fighting intelligently and are slowly making real headway in the abortion wars.
4 The centrality of Evangelization in the Church’s mission: Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote a fascinating piece in John Paul II and the New Evangelization about the tremendous emphasis that the Council placed on understanding of evangelization as the greatest service it can offer to individuals and to the world and what a change this represented in ecclesiology. If we know ourselves to be no longer living in Christendom but in a world clearly in need of evangelization, everything changes. Hundreds of schools of evangelism like the great Emmanuel School of Missions in Rome where young adults get a year of terrific personal and missionary formation before being sent out are the fruit.
end of quote
* here is another excellent example from Weddell
Traditionalism seems to presume some kind of catechetical/liturgical/devotional nirvana before 1962 which when you read - oh the experiences of some of the great lay apostles of that era, for instance, - does not seem to been the case.
For instance, I have never heard those hankering after the pre-Vatican II Church talk about the profoundly institutionalized racism in early 20th century Catholicism which made even the devotional lives of black Catholics extraordinarily difficult. For every Katherine Drexel or Josephite priest, there were 20 Irish priests who wouldn't let their children into his school or black converts to do the stations of the cross in his church. One of the most vivid stories that Catherine Doherty tells is of facing a whole roomful of elegantly cassocked Jesuits (including then President Gannon, SJ) with her 25 cent Bible and trying for two hours to convince them to let an outstanding black Catholic student into Fordham University. Latin Masses and Cassocks aren't miracles, moral disinfectants, or a guarantee that you won't miss entrenched sin right under your nose. Nor did theological orthodoxy turn these guys into saints or heroes. They kept telling Catherine: "It's too soon, our southern students would never understand, there's nothing we can do,." Hmmm - why, they sound a lot like a lot of clergy today.
And even Bishops who supported Catherine's work didn't bust the asses of the hordes of openly racist priests and sisters (much less lay Catholics). They would intervene to correct specific situations of injustice that she brought to their attention, they would roll their eyes and sigh, they would ask her to pray for them, etc. They behaved remarkably like, well, post-Vatican American bishops. It is possible that it has almost always be thus and bishops who do otherwise have always been the exception. Celebrating the Tridentine Mass on a regular basis didn't seem to foster larger amounts of episcopal backbone than does the Novus Ordo.
The question is, is our situation today unprecedentedly abnormal - a inexplicable and complete break with the Catholic past or are we simply dealing with a heightened version of a perennial problem? My knowledge of history makes me vote "perennial problem." As long as the Church and the world is made of human beings, heroes and saints will remain the exception, not the rule.
Knowing that makes it, well less personal, less outrageous, and much more "well, that's life outside the garden". This is our equivalent of what all generations have faced with in different guises.
If they became saints and heroes by trusting God and ultimately, His Church in the midst of (you name it, Thomas More standing alone in the England of 1534, Ireland under Cromwell, Japan in the 17th century, France in the late 18th century with huge numbers of priests siding with the revolutionaries and Goddess of Reason enthroned in Notre Dame, a Catholic women of mixed race trying to found the first inter-racial order in New Orleans in 1835, Spain during the civil war, a Jewish-convert Carmelite watching the Catholic Nazi movement take shape in 1930's Germany, Rwanda in 1994 anyone?) we can try to respond with some faith, hope, charity and creativity to a mere 4 decades of liturgical chaos and lousy catechesis.
"What is wrong with the world? The Church established by Jesus. That's love, baby. At least it is what passes for love for too many of those who call themselves traditionalists"
A lot of the debating I see is reminiscent of what you see in some of the fundamentalist Protestant sects in the southeast; 'only one light is burning, and that's the one in OUR cave!'
But we should be thankful. Our ultra-radical traditionalists in the Roman Catholic Church have so far refrained from handling poisonous snakes.
Remarkably, for a dimwit trad, I am familiar with Belloc. Opposite me as I type, I have several of his works and have read them - in the original. If the point of your link was to broaden any of your or my prior postings on this thread, in the context of Hilairean perspective, I have a suggestion. Let's move the thread over to the smokeybackroom and we can explore that author at length over the next few weeks.
true :)
* I though you were insinuating such a time as the past 40 years has never been experienced. (They have been, plenty of times)If you weren't insinuating that, I apologize.
No, I had meant the statement to specifically address the last 40 years. Though I can now see where it might have been construed otherwise. I, likewise, apologize for being more than a little irrascible.
For the very reason you yourself just posted - "We appear to be of the same generation." ;-D Who better to understand than someone who experienced the 'golden age' of catholicism (and, no, I am not being cynical).
If you were born a Catholic, then that may well be true, and I will certainly take your word for it. I’ve heard it the same thing too many times from too many people for it to be a quirk. I believe you.
On the other hand, that wasn’t the case if you were an evangelical protestant in the 50s and 60s. I was there and I know that. The emphasis is still on discipleship and God, although they have their problems too.
I’m a convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, and I didn’t realize how many people had missed the point of Christianity when I became Catholic. Catholics WILL NOT talk about their spiritual lives and this is why. They are very neuralgic about it. They only talk about politics and rules and structures. Ever notice?
Sherry Weddell has used the Pew Reports data, which has very sound science behind it, to understand what’s going on with Catholics. It’s shocking but I can tell you that it explains nearly everything that I’ve scratched my head over the whole time I’ve been Catholic. Her book is VERY IMPORTANT to understanding the Catholic Church.
You don’t have the right to tell someone what they experienced if you weren’t even there. And you don’t have the right to try to drown them out with ideology either, and that’s what you’re doing.
No, the problems we have in the Church are caused by the huge number of people who don’t think religion is about discipleship and God. According to Sherry Weddell’s research, the overwhelming majority of Catholics do not have a personal relationship with God. In fact, 40% of them think you CAN’T have a personal relationship with God. For them, Catholicism is something you are, something you got from your parents and it’s a bunch of rules and expectations you have to follow.
This always just floors me. Once in a while I hear a Catholic say that a relationship with Jesus is wrong. How can you be a Christian and think this? HOW? That’s just messed up.
You’re talking ABOUT Christ like he was a sofa or something. You’re NOT talking to him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.