Posted on 08/19/2013 3:01:40 PM PDT by NYer
There’s a common thread among many traditional Catholics (and some left-wingers too) that “the Church has gone down the tubes.” This seems to be a basic set point in too many conversations, and if one runs too far afield from this view they are “one of them” or are “off message.”
But I want to say to all the negative ones: the Church is a Bride, not a widow.
I have, in twenty-five years as a priest, found a great deal of affinity with traditional Catholics. I love the Traditional Latin Mass (and have celebrated it since 1989), chant, polyphony, traditional churches, stained glass, and I toe a line in rather strict conformity to the Church’s teachings and Scripture’s admonitions. I preached Hell and Purgatory even when it wasn’t cool.
But in recent years I have found my relationship to many (not all or even most) traditional Catholics tested and strained. I say “tested” because I have found that if I do not adhere to a rather strict, and I would say “narrow” line, I am relegated to be thrown out of the feast, and there in the “outer darkness” to wail and grind my teeth.
It would seem that for some, I am required to bash bishops, lament that the Church has “never been in worse shape,” and that every single solitary problem in the Church today is “due to Vatican II” and the “Novus Ordo” Mass. Stray too far from this, either by omission or commission, and I am in the hurt locker, the penalty box, and relegated to being no better than one of “them.”
Last week on the blog was especially hurtful. All I did was quote what I thought was an interesting statistic, that the average number of priests per parish in 1950 was “1″ and that in 2013, the average number of priests per parish is also “1″. There are many interesting questions that can be raised about this number. Perhaps there were more ethnic parishes then, perhaps church closings now are a factor, perhaps many of us remember the Northeastern Urban experience, but knew little of the rural experience back then which balanced our reality. Yes, there have been closings and declines of late, but overall there are 17K parishes nationwide today, slightly more than in 1950, and double the number of putative Catholics. And at the end of the day, the number averages out to “1″ priest per parish. More here: [01] and here: [02]
Anyway, while one may dispute how helpful or illuminating the statistic is, the real grief came to me with just how hostile and even nasty some comments (many of which I had to delete) were. There were personal accusations against me, there was a bevy of bishop-bashing, and Pope-bashing statements, and any number and variety of venomous attacks against perfectly legitimate Church realities, liturgical forms, and the Second Vatican Council itself.
Wowza! What a hornet’s nest. And all over a simple statistic that I found interesting. But it would seem that many found the statistic troubling, and generally seemed to find it, (and me) “off message.” It didn’t fit into, or help the narrative that some wish to cling to that the “the Church has gone down the tubes.” It got so bad and wearying in the combox that I finally had to shut it down. I was having to delete more comments than I approved.
It was even more discouraging since I have never shied away from talking about the need for reform and what does trouble the Church today. We have covered quite a lot of the “what ails the Church” territory here at the ADW Blog. I am no cheerleader for the Church of Wonderful. There are problems, and we discuss them.
But that said, the Church has not gone down the tubes, and things were not all wonderful (or all bad) before 1965. And frankly, we have NO WAY of knowing if the Second Vatican Council “ruined things” or saved things from being even worse. Those who say they do know, are just speculating, and some are also engaging in a post hoc-propter hoc fallacy. The fact is, we are where we are today, and we need to live now, and move forward. All the blame, bickering and murmuring generates more heat than light.
I was pleased to read an article by Jeff Mirus over at Catholic Culture.org because he says well what I have tried to say here, namely, that we are not without problems, but things are getting better, and there is a lot to be excited about today. Here are excerpts from what Mr Mirus writes:
A few of our readers seem intent on rebuking me for not taking every possible opportunity to condemn bishops for their weak leadership, as if my job is to be a whistle blower. Of course, I’ve offered my fair share of criticism, and that is unlikely to end any time soon. But it is probably true that I was quicker to criticize when I was younger…..
I suppose most readers are familiar with the tale of woe which haunted the Church, especially in the rapidly declining West, after the call for renewal in the 1960s was distorted to justify a neo-Modernist accommodation with rampant secularism. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, we rapidly lost our Catholic institutions—religious communities, dioceses, parishes, schools, social services—to a false and highly accommodated vision of the Faith….But that is simply untrue today…..The institutional Church, in the West generally and in the United States without question, is substantially healthier now than thirty years ago….
Today the institutional effort at genuine renewal is palpable. There are notorious holdouts—especially among women religious, the Jesuits and the universities they influence (along with others like them), wide swaths of academic theologians, and some sectors of Catholic health and social services. But most dioceses have better leadership now than then, the seminaries have been largely reformed, the priesthood substantially revitalized, and the push for both the recovery of lost territory and a new evangelization is both very real and very strong. Happily, this is no longer your father’s Church. [03]
Well said! I remember how awful it was back in the 70s and 80s. Things are so much better today. I am sorry if this insight is “off message” but I am quite convinced it is true.
Mr. Mirus goes on in his article to cite a particular case of the Dominicans, and how reform has blessed them. And to his focal instance I can add that there are great new seminarians here, and younger priests overall who love the Church and are solidly formed. The seminaries are in better shape, and many new and reformed religious orders of men and women are coming alive and and making their mark.
Add to this many great new lay movements, publications, EWTN, and its nationwide radio affiliates, Catholic Answers, and some great new and reformed Catholic Colleges. I am humbled too, and gratefully pleased at the wonderful caliber of converts from the Evangelical denominations who bring with them love for Jesus and the Scriptures, and are so enriching us with a zeal for the faith, and who make up a great percentage of our most effective apologists.
Every day I also meet many younger adults who are alive, focused and enthusiastic about the faith, and who do not want to make the same mistakes that their parent’s generation made. Some are turning to traditional forms, other to more contemporary worship, but either way, they are alive and eager for the truth and to spread it.
I have little doubt that our overall numbers may continue to drop in the Church for a while more. But the reform is in place, underway, and deepening. And the Holy Spirit is accomplishing this in many varied ways. We’re getting our “mojo” back and I am happy to see it.
Again, sorry if this is “off message” for some. But I speak to what I see and experience and I don’t think I am wrong. I walk in the wide Church and see a lot of variety, and what I see looks better every day.
All of us ought to be careful about ingesting too much of a steady diet of negativity. It tends to make us negative, even hostile to the good and surprising work of the Holy Spirit.
Rejoice with me! We’ve been through a lot, and there are sure to be more troubles (for there always are), especially as our culture has not recovered in many ways. But God is faithful and his Church is ever young. Great reforms are underway and seem destined to continue, perhaps in spite of us!
Again I say, rejoice! The Church is a Bride, not a widow!
Solemn Latin Mass in Movies - From the Movie "True Confessions"
Monsignor Pope, ping!
The Church depicted as a woman?? Would this be the same woman as in Rev.12? That suffered persecution?
Not even close...That woman in Rev 12 is the Nation of Israel...The woman you are referring to is in Rev. 17...
In NT times, the Church picked this up immediately, with Paul choosing this image of the church as mother, which reappears in four places in the New Testament. First and most obviously in Galatians 4:21-31 Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1 as he contrasts the enslaved descendants of Hagar with the free descendants of Sarah. While Hagar corresponds to earthly Jerusalem, Sarah represents heavenly Jerusalem --- personified as the Church.
The Church is always honored with the title of the Bride of Christ and referred to as "she" (rather than "it"). Mary the Mother of Christ is also seen as the Mother of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. Christ gave her to his disciple John to be his mother; so all disciples find her their own. And as Mary gave birth to Christ, the Church gives birth (through baptism) to all believers; this is why we use the phrase, "Holy Mother the Church."
The passage in Rev. 12 is a good example: the imagery refers simultaneously to Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, and to the Church.
It is not at all unusual for Biblical imagery to apply to multiple references: often past, present and future, as well as both individual and collective.
Did you read the article? The Church is the Bride of Christ.
Its an effective take-down of this article.
Mystical uh huh . . if you say so
Christ gave her to his disciple John to be his mother;
Whoa, back up the truck. John was already Marys son. John and Jesus were half-brothers through Mary.
so all disciples find her their own.
Nowhere does the Bible say that. They all had their own mothers.
Just getting some clarification.
"Mary the Mother of Christ is also seen as the Mother of the Mystical Body of Christ... Mystical uh huh . . if you say so"
The Epistles of St Paul deal with this extensively (a good place to start is "In Christ we form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." Romans 12:5.) Really revealing when you look at the depth of meaning of such an image.
"Christ gave her to his disciple John to be his mother"... Whoa, back up the truck. John was already Marys son. John and Jesus were half-brothers through Mary.
You may have your Johns mixed up. We're speaking of the son of Zebedee and Salome, and the brother of James the Greater. In the Gospels the two brothers are often called "the sons of Zebedee" after their father.
"
So all disciples find her their own..". Nowhere does the Bible say that. They all had their own mothers.
You are taking an honorific title too literally. Of course the disciples had their own mothers, just as John has his mother Salome, the wife of Zebedee.
To use a rather puny analogy, it's like calling George Washington the Father of his Country. It's not that he had rampant paternity issues with pregnant women throughout the 13 colonies; it's that he played a role which brought the United States of America "to birth."
A similar thing is said of Mary. She brought the Messiah to birth. She was also espoused by the Holy Spirit, whose overshadowing of her caused her to be with Child. Notice that this "handmaid of the Lord" is also with the Apostles in the Upper Room when the Holy Spirit comes again, this time at Pentecost, the birthday of the Church. Hence the maternal title.
This is not about biology, but about grace. Mary was "Full of Grace." That should help us see the connection. We honor her with such unprecedented titles only because she --- a lowly creature --- was so honored by God.
Interestingly enough the THREE Marys seem to cover all the women: Mary, Jesus'/God's mother, Mary Magdalene, holy, virtuous woman who followed Jesus and Mary, the repenting whore who wept on Jesus' feet and anointed His feet.
Included among those holdouts is the entire USCCB, of which Msgr Pope's superior, Donna Cardinal Wuerl, is a member.
Ignoring the usual disrupters and trying to go back to his point, I really sympathize with Msgr. Pope. Personally, I do think Vatican II is to blame for a lot of our problems because it destroyed the link with tradition, both in the Mass as well as in thing like Catholic theological teaching, popular devotions, the dress and discipline of religious orders, etc. However, there was a rot that had already infected the Church and this was what made it so easy for Vatican II to destroy things.
I was originally very sympathetic to the traditionalist movement - until I came to know some of them better and also when I saw the vicious way they reacted to the election of Pope Francis. Even now, they spend all of their time waiting for something to attack him on.
This makes me think that perhaps one of the things that was quietly wrong with the Church before Vatican II was precisely these people or, at any rate, their predecessors who shared their attitudes: narrow, accusatory, seeking out the errors of others rather than trying to enhance their own faith, and completely obsessed with externals.
I agree that things are improving. And it’s not the traditionalists carrying out their personal inquisition who are responsible for it. If anything, they have now marginalized themselves and made themselves so disliked and mistrusted that I think they’ve effectively excluded themselves from making any contribution.
Au contraire! The Bishop of Rome, as he prefers to be called, wasted no time to attack the Franciscans of the Immaculate, even though the Franciscans had never attacked Pope Francis.
Meanwhile, regarding homosexual priests in general, and a homosexual head of the Vatican Bank in particular, he has the attitude of Alfred E. Neuman.
The bible says New Jerusalem will come down out of heaven as a bride. (Revelation 21:2)
The bible nowhere says it is the “church.”
fantastic news ... as the church is repenting, we will know something has changed when we see a public Act of Contrition from the duo who arranged the “state funeral” for Edward Kennedy.
I know many here in CT who occasionally will say, “many of the local priests don’t like Catholicism much, do they?” And to avoid getting into negativity, well we often pretend it isn’t so. Is this called cognitive dissonance?
Please send missionaries to Connecticut. And pray for the poor pagan children. In CT suburbs.
The woman in Rev 12 is not the “nation of Israel.”
Galatians 4:26 says that Sarah, symbolic of the Jerusalem *above*, is the “mother of us all”. (Yes it does). Paul explains that Jesus Christ is the child/seed of promise (Gal 3:16). And those who believe in him are also children by virtue of “being in Christ.”
Not Mary; not Eve (though a good guess), and definitely not the rejected “children of the bondwoman”. But faithful Sarah.
I read this article yesterday and really felt for Msgr. Pope. Sometimes I think that the world can be divided into two kinds of people: those who are in a FUSS, and those who aren’t. It’s hard for everyone, from parents to priests, to deal with the fuss-people.
And that has nothing to do with the woman in Rev. 12...THAT woman is the Nation of Israel...
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.