Rome or Econe: who has to change?
The Lefebvrite Priestly Society of St. Pius X released today a communique resulting from their general chapter concluded a few days ago. The most important paragraphs seem to be these:
For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation; our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth; our faith in the universal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of both the natural and the supernatural orders, to Whom every man and every society must submit.
The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere.
The Society finds its guide as well in the constant Tradition of the Church, which transmits and will transmit until the end of times the teachings required to preserve the Faith and the salvation of souls, while waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.
The first paragraph quoted here sets out the three matters on which the Lefebvrites believe Vatican II was (as it is put in the second paragraph above) “tainted with errors.” These are (1) the Council’s ecumenical statements, including that the means of salvation can be found outside the Roman Catholic Church; (2) the assertion of the collegial authority over the entire Church possessed by the college of bishops; and (3) the compromising of Christ’s social reign by the endorsement of religious freedom. These are the three teachings that Archbishop Lefebvre said introduced “the principles of 1789) into the Church: fraternity, equality, and liberty.
The third paragraph appears to regard the present discussions with Rome to have failed. The Society can only wait for the day “when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.” It is the ecclesiastical authorities, that is, Rome, that must move, not Econe.
But the Vatican’s Press Office says that the dialogue with the Society continues:
Vatican City, 19 July 2012 (VIS) – Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office released the following English-language communique concerning the declaration which emerged from the General Chapter of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.
“The recently concluded General Chapter of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has addressed a declaration regarding the possibility of a canonical normalisation in the relationship of the Society and the Holy See. While it has been made public, the declaration remains primarily an internal document for study and discussion among the members of the Society.
“The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication of the Priestly Society as their dialogue with the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ continues”.
We’ll have to see what else develops in the next days.
My own view is that, if the SSPX does not accept the Holy See’s offer, there should be a formal declaration of schism and all those members of the SSPX who do not return to Rome should be excommunicated.
That being said, I also think part of the reason that the SSPX has persisted is the dismal state of the Church in much of the West since Vatican II. Can anyone name a single diocese in the West where the level of religious observance (Mass attendance, baptisms, weddings) is higher than it was before Vatican II, or a single diocese in the West where there are more vocations to the priesthood and religious life now than there were before Vatican II? If there is no such diocese, what should we make of that fact, since it cannot have been the intention of the Fathers of Vatican II to decrease religious practice among Catholics.
Something I’ve wondered — has the SSPX ever used the clergy abuse scandals as a point in their arguments/discussions with the Vatican? And I mean not just the abuse itself, of course, but the cover-ups, the stone-walling, everything. And if they’ve haven’t used it or mentioned it, why not? I know that’s kind of a random question, but I’ve been thinking about how odd it is that some people get all worked up and huff and puff about liturgical deviations (I know it’s more about doctrine with the SSPX though, of course), but are somehow unperturbed by, say, Cardinal Law still being a member of all those Vatican congregations.
outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation
Is this interpreted very strictly? As in there is no salvation for any non-Christians (or non-Catholics) under any circumstances whatsoever? Or does it included such things as “baptism of desire”? I used to chat with a Protestant friend who maintained that all non-Christians went to hell, and this included such people as Native Americans before word of Christianity reached this continent.
Someone pointed out to me recently (and it seems to be correct) that although Fr. Feeney never recanted, he was accepted back into the Church before he died, and there is a religious community in good standing that holds to his views (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary/St. Benedict Center).
David Nickol – would suggest that the church’s acceptance of Feeney was a merciful act not based upon technicalities and encouraged by supporters of Feeney, Jesuits community, etc.
A thorough expose of Feeney and the community: http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt
(this is actually in the EWTN library, of all places)
Money quote:
” When Feeney was old, some church authorities out of sorrow for him,
let him be reconciled to the Church. They did not demand that he recant.
So he did not. As a result, some former followers of his came back to
the Church. Others even today insist that the lack of demanding a
recantation meant Feeney had been right all along. Of course not. We
have proved that abundantly with official texts above and the texts
of the Fathers of the Church.- “
Thorin –
What are we to make of the shrinking of the Church since V II? If we compare the RCC losses with those of other Christian bodies, we see that *all* of them have been shrinking. This certainly suggests that the cause(s) of the shrinking were common to all the churches. Since the other churches had no V II, it seems we shouldn’t see it as a cause of the RCC diminution.
I suspect that the losses would have been worse if there had been no V II. When one looks at the old, over-simple theology that assumed that “the Church” was the hierarchy, VII looks can be appreciated as a great gift because it did not limit “the Church” to the sick culture of the hierarchy, but, rather, it defined “the Church” as *all* the members. If people still thought that the Church is only the hierarchy, then they would have even more reason to leave it.
What is the communique from Rome talking about? The message from SSPX is from “the participants, bishops, superiors, and most senior members of the Society” gathered in an extraordinary session similar to the body that will decide on any reunification. So where does the idea that this is an internal document come from? That internal discussions and another communique to Rome will be coming?
I know Muller and diNoia have only been responsible for the Ecclesia Dei commission for a couple of weeks, but they sound out of touch. (it can’t be good to be put in charge of something, and then find out no one is going to work with you)
sick culture of the hierarchy
Perhaps even more so to the at least equally sick culture of the laity….
@David Nickol –The SSPX does hold baptism of desire to be true. But just as the Catholic Church has always taught those saved by it are save by and through the Catholic Church and in spite of their erroneous beliefs.
@Ann Olivier –I have heard this argument many times from liberals. But the facts make it clear this argument just does not hold any water. Prior to Vatican 2 the Catholic Church was growing very rapidly. The decline did not start until immediately after the council. Furthermore it was not just a small lose but a dramatic decline. Nearly all of the statistics show losses of over 50%. The mistake you are making is not seeing that Vatican 2 is the CAUSE not the effect of the decline, not only of Catholic Church, but of both Protestantism and western society in general. The Catholic Church was the last flood gate holding back the tide of secularism and that gate was opened with Vatican 2. Also, though parishes that have remained traditional are growing, youthful, and vibrant.
The Tablet of 7 July, just arrived in my mailbox, has an article about Archbp. Augustine Di Noia, OP, who appears to be the Vatican’s point man in dealing with SSPX. He notes that “the dominant progressivist reading of [Vatican II] is in retreat, and this should make reconciliation with Econe easier. Benedict, he says, has “liberated us” so that it is now permissible to criticize de Lubac, Congar, and Chenu without fear. He added that the traditionalists had first to be converted from the point of view that Vatican II was a rupture, so that they could see it as continuity. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, head of Germany’s SSPX, has welcomed Di Noia’s appointment. (The same page of the Tablet also has an article about the pressure being applied to Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna to rein in the Austrian Priests’ Initiative).
Of course it’s neither here nor there, and poor Di Noia is hardly responsible for his own name, but the Garzanti Linguistica defines “noia” thus:
noia: s.f. 1 (tedio) boredom, tedium, ennui, as in “sbadigliare di noia,” to yawn with boredom,” or “il suo discorso era una noia terribile, his speech was terribly boring.”
sorry, left out a close quote after “retreat” in the above.
Mr. McCoy, I can’t speak to growth/decline in the Catholic Church’s population over the years, but I clearly recall reading that the decline in mass attedance during/after Vatican II was not unexpected. My source (and I don’t have attribution readily available) mentioned that decline in church attendance was back to pre-WWII levels! This was not surprising: It’s well accepted that religious vocations, for example, typically increase during the years after a war, taper off later, and then decline during periods of tranquility.
As for our more “traditionalist” Roman Catholic (not SSPXer) parishes, especially those that offer the Tridentine mass, I don’t see any groundswell of support in the Louisville archdiocese. We have one parish, old St. Martin’s just east of downtown, that offers the old rite on Sunday along with the Novus Ordo. It’s a beautiful old church, has eucharistic adoration 27/7 in its chapel. That said, I’m not aware of folks at other parishes calling for revival of the old mass.
As a postscript, I note that the 2012 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, published by the National Council of Churches USA, reports a 0.44 percent decrease in Catholic Church membership. Figures were collected by the churches in 2010 and reported to the publisher in 2011.
oops…”has eucharistic adoration 24/7 in its chapel.”
By their fruits you will know them.
This communique by the SSPX is a considered, reflective response articulated after dialogue and prayer.
Their communique is angry, confrontational, rude and obnoxious.
You cannot replicate the renaissance by dressing up forever in renaissance costumes and language, nor can you really understand the history of the civil war by wearing old uniforms and drawing up old borders.
Tradition is not kept alive by freezing all developments in some never never land of an imagined glorious past. It is kept alive by fidelity to that spirit that breathes through scripture, the liturgy, real live relationships and prayer at his particular, historical time.
Ann O: You write: “When one looks at the old, over-simple theology that assumed that “the Church” was the hierarchy, VII … can be appreciated as a great gift.” But when I have tried to insist on this point on this blog, I have been told by many people (including you) that this still isn’t what people (and I don’t mean just the hierarchy!) mean by the term. So my impression has been that Vatican II still has not been received, even among people who like to think of themselves as “progressive.” This has been a great disappointment to me because I have spent most of my scholarly work trying to rehabilitate the notion of the Church as the body of believers…
More widely, why the Council was followed by precipitous declines in vocations, declines in Mass-attendance, etc., is a perfectly legitimate question. I don’t think simplistic answers of the post hoc, propter hoc sort work, but the question remains.
To cite mass attendance, vocations to the priesthood, is asking the wrong questions. The question should be is the gospel preached to the poor, do the blind see and do the lame walk. In that sense the church has grown from a born into religion too often along ethnic grounds, to a chosen faith. The church helped afro/americans get civil rights and fed the hungry and housed the poor. If your church is a church of liturgy then you go off in the wrong directions. Liturgy is important to manifest ones way of life. Not pontificate with clashing symbols. Too often the priesthood was a way of upward mobility and domination for too many.
Always important to ask the right question.
Many questions arise about the Council and its aftermath. None of them should be dismissed. That’s the definition of obscurantism.
No thoughts about my comment before, as to why the SSPX doesn’t mention the clergy abuse issue? To make clearer what I was getting at: if you were the SSPX, or any similar group, trying to argue that Rome or the Church as a whole had gone wrong, why on earth would you NOT mention sexual abuse and its cover-up? I mean, wouldn’t it be something the SSPX would want to “use against” the Vatican in its arguments? Even better, since the Vatican is so eager to reconcile them, wouldn’t it be nice if the SSPX were to make it a condition of reconciliation that bishops guilty of cover-up be removed from positions of power, or something along those lines?
The SSPX is not pointing to decline in mass attendance and religious vocations as evidence of the problems with Vatican II. They are pointing to the texts of Vatican II themselves as evidence of the problems of Vatican II; particularly the texts concerning collegiality and religious freedom.
Quebec, at one time, was a 100% Catholic “country” in that the public institutions, the unions, the schools and the hospitals were all run by the Church. And when I say the Church I mean the hierarchical church. It, in fact, governed. This was in the not too distant past. It was similar in other Catholic countries.
The fact of the matter is that democracy and secularism (properly understood in the American sense of the state shall make no law prohibiting the practice of religion or the free exercise thereof) became a powerful force. It made the governing of public life by a particular religious denomination untenable.
The Declaration of Religious Freedom was a statement of discerning REALITY, in this historical moment. Religious life cannot be some kind of quaint anachronism, it has to permeate public life.
I have said it before, and I sincerely believe, that many in this group suffer from personality disorders and that the response to them should not be engaging in doctrinal discussions which will lead nowhere but instead setting up clear boundaries and parameters.
This situation has not been resolved because they don’t want it resolved. They don’t want to be “regularized” (or whatever the proper canonical term is). They feed on negative energy and without an enemy at the gate who in this case is the community of faithful, they don’t know how to function.
Patrick McCoy –
Yes, the American Church blossomed after WWII. I remember it well. The veterans came home from the war, went to school, married my friends and could afford to have 4,8,12 babies that my parents generation couldn’t have in the depression. Also, with the leaps and bounds made by American medicine in those years (e.g., penicillin and other “wonder drugs”) people didn’t die as young, so the Church membership increase was huge because of natural influences. It had little to do with the state of the Church, though there were some signs of things to come.
As to discord *after* V II, it takes two to have a fight, and don’t you forget it. I blame the conservatives just as much as the liberals for the discord, in fact more. Pope John Paul II was even more conservative than John XXIII, and, his reign, after the promises of John, helped drive many people away. Yes, he was a very holy man, but a narrow one and not always wise. As to the increase in membership in conservative parishes, we’ll see how long that lasts. New York City ordained exactly one priest this spring.
“Ann O: You write: “When one looks at the old, over-simple theology that assumed that “the Church” was the hierarchy, VII … can be appreciated as a great gift.” But when I have tried to insist on this point on this blog, I have been told by many people (including you) that this still isn’t what people (and I don’t mean just the hierarchy!) mean by the term. So my impression has been that Vatican II still has not been received, even among people who like to think of themselves as “progressive.”
JAK -
What did the faithful mean by “the Church” pre- and post- Vatican II? In my experience before VII and at least for a long time (30 years?) after it, most people meant “the bishops, especially the pope”, but certainly not all of us. Yes, the Baltimore catechisms included all members as “the Church” in its definition, but we also learned from the BC No. 3
“Q. 490. How may the members of the Church on earth be divided? A. The members of the Church on earth may be divided into those who teach and those who are taught. Those who teach, namely, the Pope, bishops and priests, are called the Teaching Church, or simply the Church. Those who are taught are called the Believing Church, or simply the faithful.”"
I suppose this certified that restricted meaning of “the Church” as permissible, and no doubt it is why some older people still us it this way. (The Baltimore Catechisms were used into the ’70s.)
I do not think that educated progressives who welcomed VII still use the old meaning, at least not when we’re talking theology. I think we’ve gotten the message quite clearly that “We Are Church”, as the name of that grass-roots organization puts it. (The name of that organization irritates me, but it verifies that the message has been received by many. But educated progressives are only part of the Church in the VII sense.
What is really strange to me is that the first two Baltimore Catechisms define the Church as including all the members. You’d think VII on the subject would not have come as a surprise or as something new. Or was this just a teaching of the American Church before VII?
P. S. I should add that we were taught very clearly that the whole group of early Christians were “the early Church”, but of course that is a somewhat different expression. I guess there were in diferent contexts different uses of the term even in the ’30s and ’40s.
Ah, Vatican II. The bad music, the hippy priests (and the increasingly slovenly theological attitudes of those hippy priests), the retchingly distasteful spectacles of Vatican II-liberated laity (boogying wildly at perish dances, trying desperately to be hip and with it); oh, but the music! Modified cowboy songs refitted with up-to-date social lyrics, twanging guitars strummed by acne-inflicted young men who could play but three chords (and those out of tune). God, what a mess! Ah, and the sneering at elderly devout parishioners asking about the communion bells, the statues, the candles…I thank God its about run its course. Our priest, Father Shea, gives thundering sermons and sometimes gets standing ovations. Hey, here’s a news flash: Its over, praise be to God.
Bob S. ==
Odd. I’ve never met anyone who claims to have seen any laity “boogying wildly at parish dances, tryig desperately to be hip and with it”. Nor have I ever heard of any cowboy music at Mass until you mention it above. And the young people I knew who played guitar at Mass were usually decent musicians. Nor did I know any young people who sneered at the old.
You must have been in a particularly sad parish.
@Bob Schwartz
Ah, and the sneering at elderly devout parishioners asking about the translation they have known for 40 years, why they can no longer sing that nice St. Louis Jesuit music, why they have been told that their service as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion is no longer needed, why the Friday morning Mass is now done according to the 1962 Missal…
Pot, meet kettle.
“This has been a great disappointment to me because I have spent most of my scholarly work trying to rehabilitate the notion of the Church as the body of believers.”
When I was in a Catholic HS run by not-at-all-progressive Polish Catholic sisters, I was taught the Church is ” the People of God on pilgrimage”.
I always, always took that to mean the Church is all of us, lay people, religious, clergy as equals, all trying together to reach Christ’s Kingdom.
This resonated with me as a teenager because it seemed pretty rare that adults told us we were equal members of anything.
I hear a lot about the aftermath of Vatican II, but never anything about the WHY of Vatican II in the first place. Because we’re a church that places such value on tradition, I’m assuming there must have been great internal pressure for change at the time. So what was going on back then that led to the convening of the Council?
Irene: at least you’ve heard about the aftermath. Not long ago I mentioned Vatican II to a student in his twenties, who opened his eyes wide with surprise bordering on disbelief: “What? Vatican 2? I’ve been to the Vatican, but I had no idea that there was another one!”
Irene Baldwin, here’s one statement from benedict about why VIi was needed:
And,
Thank you, John Hayes. And do you know what were the human forces that helped convene a Council to address these important issues? I’m having a hard time articulating this question, but I think, even when there is a compelling need for change, some person or people have to actually make it happen. Were the events leading to Vatican II set in motion by just one person- a Pope who thought it was a good idea- or were lay people all around the world saying we need to address these things? Or was it something else?
The bad music of post- Vatican II. . . . . yes, much of the folkish stuff that gums up the Missalettes (at least the ones we use) is tuneless, terrible, and unsingable. But my memories go back to the days when we would get “Mother dear, o pray for me” almost every Sunday, and I wonder whether there’s ever been a worse, more cloying hymn than that? And our Missalette today, along with the glop, has some good stuff in it — Elgar, Vaughan Williams, the Wesleys, and above all (for my tastes, at least) those early Lutheran chorales, which even when badly sung, make one mentally hear Bach.
On Quebec (my neighbor to the north): it was, of course, the “quiet revolution” of the 60s and 70s that brought about the de-Catholicization of the province, and I think that had many causes that had little to do with Vatican II. And more recently, unless we are terribly misinformed, it has been the behavior of the Irish priesthood and episcopacy (including their descent into secularism and legal blather to defend their positions) that appears to be bringing about the de-Catholicization of what was St. Patrick’s mission territory.
Catholics were also boogeying wildly in the fifties at parish dances. But there were excesses in the sixties like there are excesses in any change.
As I see it the biggest message of Vatican II is that the fourth century was not the triumph of Christianity as we were taught. But the demise of it. We were taught that the magisterium was infallible and that the RCC was the only true church. Basically, VII signaled the end of the church of dogma which is what the church was since Augustine. Jesus had no time for dogma. He was about preaching the gospel to the poor, enlightening the blind an making people feel cared for by God, i.e., the lame walk.
Certainly the fact that the church survived through such empire building is a tribute to the protection of Christ. But the costume wearers in the Vatican and episcopal chanceries have forgotten the message long ago. Like 17 centuries.
So while it makes sense to work out a solution to the Lefebrites because of the people involved, it should be clear that they represent a church of dogma which forgot its humanity.
As a first grader in 1960 -I remember studying my catechism to prepare for my first commmunion. The answer to the question in this pre vatican 2 baltimore catechism-what is the church, I distinctly recall being[verbatum];the church is a congregation of all baptized people,united in the same true faith, the same sacraments and the same sacrifice, under the holy father-the bishop of rome.The laity has always been included [of course] in the definition of the church!No need for straw dogs or revisionist history to make a point or solidify your anti-church heirarchy agenda.
rose-ellen ==
Let’s be accurate. The Baltimore Catechism No. 3, 490 admits in so many words that sometimes “the Church” means the bishops and priests.
I am not “anti-hierarchy”. I am anti- the current culture of the hierarchy which, as a system of governance, makes no provision for correction of bad administrators. I’m against a hierarchy which does not admit the intellectual problems that have persisted in the Church.
The reason I feel so strongly about these matters no doubt is because when I was young my diocese had a great archbishop, and I remember Pope John XXIII so clearly, so I know that things can be different.
Open your eyes. Our leaders fail us.
Irene,
Even Pius XII approved the new ways of bible study and changes in the liturgy. The world had changed more in the 29th century than all other centuries before it. There were theologians pressing for change and most of them were silenced. John XXIII lifted the ban on people like Congar, Rahner, Schillebexx, DeLubac, Kung, chenu, Danielou and VanBalthasar. Most of these formerly censured theolgians became leading forces in Vatican II. The traditionalists who were alarmed that Vatican II was called continued to resist any new insights. This is why there are tensions in the documents of Vatican II. The documents are quoted as if they are authoritative documents. In truth they are compromises between different factions at the council. Those opposed to Vatican II continued to fight it up to the present day. Ratzinger who was on a different side at the beginning changed to the more cautious side later as he feared anarchy coming. Kung states that the wresting of the speaker from Ratzinger when he was lecturing was Ratzinger’s turning point.
When the Council was announced we were surprised but excited. There were increasing writings at the time about renewal and reform in the church. Those who were comfortable with the status quo resisted. Cardinal Spellman wrote that the changes would “not get past the Statue of Liberty.”
There was another very good reason given by Pope John in his opening speech to the Council. http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm The pope said that perhaps for the first time in its history the church was not impeded by secular governments who influenced the Councils in unhelpful ways. ” It cannot be denied, however, that these new conditions of modern life have at least the advantage of having eliminated those innumerable obstacles by which, at one time, the sons of this world impeded the free action of the Church. In fact, it suffices to leaf even cursorily through the pages of ecclesiastical history to note clearly how the Ecumenical Councils themselves, while constituting a series of true glories for the Catholic Church, were often held to the accompaniment of most serious difficulties and sufferings because of the undue interference of civil authorities. The princes of this world, indeed, sometimes in all sincerity, intended thus to protect the Church. But more frequently this occurred not without spiritual damage and danger, since their interest therein was guided by the views of a selfish and perilous policy.”
So here was a council to be held without the undue influence of the secular arm.
Vatican II certainly did not intend to and did not in fact do away with dogma. Its documents are filled with the faith preached and vigorously defended by the apostles and dogmatically declared in ecumenical councils beginning before Augustine. The leaders of the Council, both bishops and theologians, insisted that to be pastoral did not mean discarding or minimizing doctrine, but expressing it in a manner that would be intelligible and attractive to contemporaries in the various cultures of the world of the late twentieth century.
Irene: The idea of calling the Council was very much Pope John’s idea. He did not consult very widely before he announced that decision, and it greatly surprised many Church leaders. I have discussed this question in two papers that you can find on my blog, which you can find here: http://jakomonchak.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=524&action=edit
Joe,
I never said Vatican II did away with dogma. Yes the Nicene Council was before Augustine; called by an emperor as emperors called the first seven councils. My point about dogma is that the literature dominated by the hierarchy is full of it. Theologians certainly get caught up in it also. It is certainly not the priority of Jesus. How is a dogma intelligible? Specifically? As Jesus said the commandments of loving God and Neighbor comprises all. Eo Ipso. There the intelligibility is transparent.
Pre VII lots of change and thought was in the air, but JXXIIII made it surprisingly a time”to open the windows.”
But post VII, almost immeditely, the old holy Office, now cDF, began a kickback .
Last weekend, the push to “the Year of Faith” began at out parish =in which we’re told how little we know, how we need to understand VII throught the prism of CCC.
I see this as more pf the same -another propganbda push like the”Year of the priest” or FFF to bring everyone into line.
There are days I think the Vatican/Curia is much like the old USST telling us comrades (laity) here’s the party line, here’s how you should think, and using ptopaganda tools to promote.
Of course, we’ll hear much appreciation of the role ofof the laity. conscience, but the leadership in rome and here in USCCB goes on their way -it strikes me as almost delusionally – as they continue to pronounce.
I think that for the many good thins happening across Mother Church in ways great and small today, it is still (pace Fr. Martin who brings wonderful humor with his optimism) a sad time at bottom.
Thorin: could it be that this church as well as other churches throughout the US simply have not found a way to speak to people who were not raised in a “pray, pay, obey” mode of living?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-07-19/no-religion-affiliation/56344976/1
Three years after the close of Vatican II, we flew to the moon, took some pictures of the Earth rising over the moon’s horizon, beamed them back, and read part of the first chapter of Genesis from space. If that’s not mind-blowing, I don’t know what is. This was followed on in short order by the proliferation of television; the civil rights movement; the anti-war movement; the explosion of the digital world, including computers, the Internet, cell phones, and digitized audio, video, and text; the booming of capitalism; the world-flattening effects of globalization; and the rise of millions of not billions out of poverty and various “Springs.”
Humans are boldly going where no one has gone before — that’s the real issue—and the institutional Church is way behind in keeping up. Talk of hermeneutics of continuity / rupture rather misses the point.
I agree Vatican II has not been sufficiently received. We have a lot of work to do. But whatever change comes will come from the bottom up, from individual people, members of what the nuns used to call the Mystical Body of Christ—as re-affirmed by Vatican II’s idea of the Church as the people of God—that’s one that did sink in.
How do we reinvent Catholic tradition in an empirical world? That is the real question.
ISTM that, prior to V2, the vast majority of US Catholics had only the experience of the Tridentine mass, usually in their geographical parish, and all of its surroundings (music, church decorations, creed, code and cult). People either accepted it or skulked away. I say “skulked” because I had an uncle who de-poped and he suffered the unending wrath of his family until he died.
Fast forward to 2012. People now have a choice of parishes, liturgy styles, and geographical locations. If Parish A isn’t what they want, try Parish B or D or X. And people really don’t have to skulk away – just turn around and go. Their family members may be unhappy, but there is not the degree of “shunning” that happened in the past.
Which is the better type of church membership?
Jim McCrea ==
Aren’t you sort of conflating Mass attendance, the pope, and family culture? They’re related of course in the process sometimes called “the Church” in a sense even wider than “the People of God”.
Even within the Church in the widest sense (t whole historical process called the Roman Catholi Church) there are a number of not entirely synonymous but useful meanings of “the Church”. They include
* the Church – the People of God
* the Church – the teaching authorities
* the Church – what secular historians study (they don’t undertand the spiritual parts)
* the Church – what Catholic historians study (they focuse on the political and cultural parts)
* the Church – what individual theologians study
* the Church – what the artists portray in a very limited way
* the Church – what various groups of believers think is Christ’s church, e.g., in different times
* the Church – the metaphors for it, e.g., the bark of Peter
No doubt other groups have their own useful descriptions of what the *referent* of all those terms is. But it seems to me that the referent (what Christ came to bring into being) is pretty much the same in most cases. There are constants.
First of all, THE CHURCH is considerably larger, not smaller than it was before the Council. The Catholic Church quadrupled in size between 1910 and 2010.
If we simply take the last 60 years, in 1950, there were 437,314,645 Catholics in the world; in 2010, 1.18 billion. There were 48,415 more priests in the world in 2010 than in 1950 and 57,652 more seminarians in 2010 than in 1950.
There has been tremendous staggering Catholic growth in places like Africa. We need to be clear that what we really mean when we talk about a post-Vat II decline is the Catholic Church in North America and Europe, not the Church as a global whole.
Because if we look at the growth of the Church in Africa (16 million in 1950, 130 million in 2000) and Asia (28 million in 1950, 107 million in 2010) since the Council, we could with as much reason, come to the conclusion that the Council caused the growth in the global south. The outcome suggests that the Council was traumatic for the old, established Church of the west which had lived through and been shaped by reaction to the Reformation and the Revolutionary eras and very nourishing for the brand new Church of the global south which has no memory of either. Both could be true. But we must acknowledge both sides of our Post Vatican II history if we are to truly evaluate its impact.
I suppose the problem is that you can never completely reject the people at the edges, absurd and wrong as they may seem. If you do, you eventually, logically, disappear, having whittled yourself down to nothing. This is how the Church has survived for two millenia.
Sherry Weddell’s post is exactly right, which is why my initial post asked about decline in the West. Catholic growth in Africa and Asia is as encouraging as Catholic decline in Western Europe and North America is discouraging.
Catholic decline in parts of Latin America is also discouraging, though that is largely the result of the endemic shortage of priests in Latin America, a shortage that long predated Vatican II.
Jeanne, you write that “Vatican II has not been sufficiently received”, but I’m not sure it’s been taught. I’ve started looking at CCD programs in France, and they’re incredibly light on content.
For mainstream Catholics, in France at least, CCD consists of arts and crafts and a few discussions, and, increasingly, computer games. The official texts on the French bishops’ website say explicitly that “there are no lessons to memorize” and that learning will naturally happen by being exposed to texts and prayers during liturgies (incidentally, this forgets that the kids who go to CCD can no longer be assumed to be regularly attending Mass). The goal of catechesis is to “discover the gift that God makes to each of us”. The failure to impart specific content is a feature, not a bug! Thus, Vatican II is not mentioned: I think that its influence is implicit and primarily consists in promoting fuzzy values of tolerance, inclusiveness and openness.
I could give you examples of CCD activities that would make me sound like Bob Schwartz. You would not believe me.
Maybe this style of catechesis plays a role in the decline?
One thing that might explain the Lefebvrists’ resistance to decline: they have rigorous CCD programs.
Pope John must have been a really extraordinary person to pull off the Second Vatican Council. I find it really inspirational that he accomplished this when he was 80 years old. I bet, when he was 75 or so, he thought his biggest professional achievements were probably behind him.
Fr. Komonchak: Thank you for spelling out the three issues of concern.
However, I don’t understand the third item.
What is “Christ’s social reign”? Isn’t Christ’s social reign supposed to follow the Second Coming? If so, how does Vatican II’s declaration regarding freedom of religion compromise Christ’s social reign following the Second Coming?
Claire, much of what you describe went on here (“The failure to impart specific content is a feature, not a bug!” ;-) My kids went through 8 years of CCD and came out knowing that Jesus was nice. They were a little light on concepts like the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the Eucharist.
To me it all comes down to a collapse of authority. You can’t change rules in a rule-based tradition and have people not question the result. Imagine that one day, the sanctuary behind the communion rail was a holy place, accessible to only priests and altar boys during Mass (and the nuns and girls who cleaned it off-hours); the next day some neighbor was in there reading the Epistle. One day, the last thing we would ever do was touch the consecrated Host—only a priest could do that, his fingers specially blessed for that purpose when he was ordained; the next day the priest was putting the Host in our hands, a stunning break of taboo. I’m not saying these were bad things – most people loved them. But the rules that held it together went out the window. That’s what SSPX objects to. I think they’re clearly nuts but I see where they’re coming from. And then came the birth control encyclical, which was the nail in the coffin as far as Church authority was concerned. After that, we decided for ourselves what was important and what was not, parsing the beliefs and practices of the faith, making sense of it on our own rather than receiving it whole from the tradition. The definition of faith passed from the institution to the believer. Nothing in Vatican II said we should give up dogma but that’s what happened.
Meandering on Fr K’s site, I found this quote from Congar’s preparatory proposals:
One of the reasons why so many young people abandon religious practice is that they have never gone beyond the stage of “faith” as a list of statements to be acknowledged and learned by heart from a Catechism. The religious affirmations have never reached the level of conscience where are formed the responses that must be made to the calls of God.
Couple that with changes among the volunteers who teach CCD and among those who ‘volunteer’ to attend, and you should get an idea of why “Jesus is nice” may have replaced “Jesus is union of two natures in one person, and is one of three persons who are the one God.”
The conservative critique of post-Vatican II Catholicism is fleshed out by “Buddy Christ:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Christ
But the conservative answer, which is essentially not to question old-school authority, is equally ridiculous. It comes down to the classic fight between faith and reason in the establishment of institutional authority and thus the transmission of belief across generations (which can only be done by an institution).
If your beliefs are validated by institutional authority, you don’t see the need to validate them by arguing them from reason. You don’t want to reform authority, you want to reinforce it. Conservatives want to restore that which they sense has been lost in our understanding of mystery and tradition by restoring centralized authority. They see any attempt to dilute authority as an attempt to dilute the faith.
If your beliefs are not validated by institutional authority, they only consist of what you can understand from personal experience or what is plausible. The argument from the tradition is never made. Progressives rightly want to reform the structures of authority but miss the loss of mystery and tradition and see any attempt to recover the treasures of the past as a return to the authoritarian days of old—as though we’ve successfully escaped them, which we clearly and painfully haven’t.
If we do nothing, the mindsets of conservatives and progressives will continue to push us further apart, with conservatives evolving into anachronism and progressives drifting toward a sort of reasonable blandness encumbered with all the old baggage of the royal European court.
It’s such a mess the whole thing needs to be completely rethought, top to bottom, bottom to top.
I agree the center has collapsed.
Post VII, many of the elementary and secondary education institutions that taught a lot of doctrine declined.
Concomitant was a belief that our faith should focus more on adults than indoctrinating youth. Prigrams like RENEW or Our Hearts Are Burning sprung up in that context but tended to fizzle,
Of course, Humane Vitae led to the collapse -one should read Michael Leach’s “Scotch at Midnight with the bishop of of Paris” to see the pastoral problem it created.
BUt also, in the years folowing, and deeply important, the world chnaged as well!
I don;’t see progressives drifting into that kind of blandness but rather retreating to a spirituality they see as congruent with modernity especially modern science.
I rhink consevatives wil shrink more into the’definitive” world of CCC.
The problem is -we can’t go back again and no consensus on how to rebuild.
Prof. Farrell:
The “social reign” of Christ refers to his authority over not only individuals, families, and the Church but also societies, polities, and cultures. It is a short-hand reference to the ideal, once realized (proponents think) during the Middle Ages when Christ’s authority was acknowledged also by nations and rulers. Its modern realization was the Catholic confessional state, where Catholicism was constitutionally declared to be the religion of the state and was to be assisted and favored by the financial and even the coercive power of the state. Traditionalists like Lefebvre regard this as the political arrangement required by the dogma of Christ’s full and absolute authority.
The Feast of Christ the King was established in 1925 as a celebration of Christ’s universal authority. Until the liturgical reforms it was celebrated on the last Sunday in October (was it an accident that Protestants keep that as “Reformation Sunday”), but now it is celebrated as the last Sunday of the liturgical year. Abp. Lefebvre took this shift in date to be an indication that Christ’s sovereign reign would be achieved, not in history, but only in the Kingdom. “When was the last time you heard a sermon on the social reign of Christ?” he complained.
Ann: I don’t view the church as anything having to do with the “bark” of Peter. The barque, maybe, but his bark is far from the church.
Who was it that said: all church is local? I suspect that the vast majority of Catholics see the church as being their immediate parish with the odd visit from a bishop of his delegate. (Bishops used to be the prime administrator of confirmation, but I guess they are too busy now lambasting the government and particularly That One.)
And, of course, there is the periodic breathless spectacle (complete with all-night vigils and straining to see the color of the smoke) of the election of a new barking Peter.
” — you can never completely reject the people at the edges, absurd and wrong as they may seem –”
Why do you assume that people at the edges are absurd and wrong? St. Francis of Assisi? St. Mary Helen McKillop? Yves Congar OP? Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ? Jesus Christ?
Isn’t it possible that people at the edges are, more than not, prophets?
Claire and Jeanne Follman raise important points about catechesis. There is nothing in Vatican II that mandated vacuous, content-free catechesis, yet such has been the case for decades in many places. It is a serious problem in need of serious attention.
Another problem has been all the changes that were seen as flowing from Vatican II but that were not required by Vatican II. There was nothing in Vatican II requiring the displacement of Palestrina and Mozart, but they largely vanished from Catholic churches. Nor did Vatican II mandate the abandonment of the beautiful settings for the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei, but they largely disappeared. Vatican II did not require that stained glass now consist only of abstract colored squares, that statues be taken away and hidden, or that vestments be plain at best or ugly at worst, but statues, Roman chasubles, and stain glass featuring recognizable people or events largely vanished. Vatican II also did not require that Catholics stop building cruciform churches or stop drawing inspiration from the great Romanesque, Gothic, and Baroque churches that still awe all who enter them, but we largely stopped building such churches.
Fortunately, Benedict XVI understands the importance of beauty as a path to God, and we are seeing signs of Catholics starting to reclaim the great cultural patrimony that was thoughtlessly cast aside in the wake of the Council.
Of course. That’s another good reason not to reject them out of hand.
“Nothing in Vatican II said we should give up dogma but that’s what happened.”
Jeanne –
Back to Wittgenstein and saying and showing.
Nothing in V II *SAID* we should give up dogma, but two of the documents — the one on the right to religious freedom and the one the Jews — SHOWED that the hierarchy of VII itself no longer believed and asserted what the hierarchy of the 19th century (at Vatican I) had indeed asserted. Those two VII documents contradict those earlier “historical decisions”, as Benedict likes to minimize them. But they were NOT “decisions” based on historical contingencies, they were *judgements* about religious freedom and non-Catholics.
In other words, some of the documents of VII were indeed dogmatic in intent — they clearlyy presented something different from what went before.
Jeanne – @10:59
Fine analysis. There is fault on both sides. What irritates me about the youngsters is that they criticize the old stuff without really understanding what it was about. It isn’t their fault that they weren’t taught the old stuff well, but they need to recognize that to criticize something validly you have to know it.
“Ann: I don’t view the church as anything having to do with the “bark” of Peter. The barque, maybe, but his bark is far from the church.”
Jim McC. –
Oops and Ha! But maybe I was thinking of the barking popes. I must say, though, that I don’t think Benedict barks at us.
By the way, I’m reading Daniel Kahneman book “Thinking: Fast and Slow” on types of thinking styles. Recently reviewed in Commonweal. He discovered as a young man that it makes no difference whether a teacher yells at his/her students or praises them — they will learn about the same either way. (Very important counter-cultural finding.) Great book so far. I recommend it highly.
Thorin –
I agree that the Church lost much of the beauty of the old rituals. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been replaced by equivalents. But I don’t blame the Vatican for that. The American culture isn’t willing to pay artists what they’re worth (except for super-rich folks who pay fortunes for what is rare).
And, I’ll say it — I blame a lot of the narrow-minded, extremist liturgists, liberal and conservative, who think they know everything. And few of them seem to realize that they could find out what the rest of the faithful really think is valuable if they just did extensive surveys asking us what we admire and dislike or find inadequate. (I doubt that the bishops will ask us. They never ask us about anything.)
Art and beauty underwent huge changes with the advent of “moving pictures” and recorded music. 150 years ago the only way to hear music was to assemble musicians in one place, while now it is near impossible to get away from recordings playing in the ‘background.’ so I suspect if we got Jackson Pollack or Martin Scorsese to design a Church there would be as much of an outcry as there is now.
One reason I cited Congar above is because of his concern, before V2, for the young people leaving the Church. Memory heavy indoctrination is as ineffective as vacuous content free catechesis. Is it better to train youngsters to repeat words without knowing their sense, or to know Jesus as an example of caring?
Ann,
Yes, you are right: dogmatic liturgists bear much of the blame for the loss of beauty in Catholic worship.
Jim McK –
I’m not sure that a church designed by one of the great modern artists would be unpopular. Matisse’s Vence chapel and Houston’s de Menil chapel with the “black paintings” by Mark Rothko have been extremely well-received. Of course, by the time Matisse did the chapel his work was no longer really avant-garde..
A big problem with radically different new art movements is how to distinguish the fly=by=night innovators who ride on the coat-tails of the truly great artists of their day. Only people of great “taste” like the de Menils seem able to spot the difference. Maritain, in his little classic, “Art and Scholasticism”, cautioned against choosing radically new public art, including public religious art, for this very reason — not every one can tell what is really valuable and what is only interesting for the moment.
Thorin is, I fear, living in an alternative universe. VII was not the only sweeping movement or event that occurred during the 60′s that affected how law, tradition, and authority were impacted. The civil rights movement in the US swept away the acceptance of bigotry and racism even while fought tooth and nail who wished to cling to the traditional social stratification. The assassination of a young president threw the nation into an almost unprecedented period of mourning. It led many to question a good God who permitted such a tragedy. Who ever imagined seeing someone (jack ruby) murdered in cold blood on tv right before or after church? We’re talking about events that traumatized a nation and the world. As we move on to the Vietnam war protests and the overthrowing of a president, the council had begun to rearrange the deck chairs on the varios decks of the universal, local, and parish church. By the time that Paul VI issued HV the traditional notion of authorities ordering around their subjects had already been shattered. I believe that all the changes in worship and how church teachings were passed on were simply valiant efforts to establish a new sense of equilibrium. This is not about a bunch of faithless liberals deciding to reconstruct a perfectly viable church. The church in Europe was already moribund by 1962.
John F. ==
I bet you’re right about the amount of actual violence on TV being a new phenomenon and one of the important reasons for social change. Three assasinations (plus Oswald’s) and the war during supper time were new. and it hasn’t stopped. Plus craving for our 15 minutes of fame is an added motivation for some to cause mayhem. We don’t even ban assault rifles. Insanity.
… [Trackback] …
[...] Read More: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=19923 [...] …