Thursday 26 February 2009

Sitting back and watching .... or trying to define "traditional Catholicism"

A couple of days ago, a comment (that I have not posted) to my post Questions and Answers Reflecting on Blackfen's "little spot of bother" told me that the text of that post had been distributed via comments on a couple of other blogs. I wasn't quite sure what to make of this, or of what its implications might be, so I thought I would just wait and see what happened.


1. That re-distribution has drawn my reflections to the attention of the "tradosphere", as perhaps can be seen in my own site statistics, in the comments on the blogs that experienced the re-distribution and in the dialogue in the comments box to my original post. Whether or not it was a strategy that conforms to the etiquette of blogging .... I think it did achieve what the person concerned wanted to achieve. I suspect that I share the frustration of that blogger in trying to get a different perspective noticed, in circles that could usefully enter into dialogue with it.

2. I received a visit from one commenter who appreciated finding an orthodox Catholic blog that was not dedicated to the extraordinary form. My long resisted temptation to put a "TLM free zone" strapline at the top of this blog has instead given way to my coining the phrase the "tradosphere". There might be a lot of "traditional Catholics" out there, either blogging or visiting blogs, but I have begun to wonder if all they are doing is talking to themselves. There is nothing wrong with that, but I feel that one aspect of blogging is dialogue - hence the concept of the "comments box" - and that needs difference.

3. The visitor referred to above indicated that they would look round my blog to see what else I have posted. So, I thought, what should I highlight for them to visit? I think the posts from my visit to Quebec for the International Eucharistic Congress must be up there - go back to June 2008 in the archive for those. I am quite proud of my recent posts for UK National Marriage Week, too (see February 2009). Whoops, sorry, I'll do penance later in Lent for the "proud" ...

4. Up until now, I hadn't really taken much cognizance (good word, that, I think) of what Cardinal Hoyos had said during his visit to England last summer. It was quite interesting to draw the conclusion, not by any deliberate intention, that the head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei's remarks during that visit were not based on the text of Summorum Pontificum or Pope Benedict's accompanying letter! And it is precisely those remarks that have encouraged the "promotion" of the extraordinary form in the way that I do not believe to have been anticipated/envisaged by Summorum Pontificum itself. The phrase isn't mine, but it does appeal to a mischievous streak: is this "the spirit of Summorum Pontificum" at work?

5. My approach to comments received at my blog. I start with a presumption to publish a comment, in the interests of dialogue. I then apply some filters. Courtesy comes high up my criteria for putting up a comment. I am also rather more interested in posting something that presents a substantial argument, or well argued opinion, and decidedly not interested in the ad hominem, (or ad feminam?); I can cope with robustness if it is in the form of an argument, I can't cope with robustness if it is a personal attack. It is possible to dialogue with a properly argued case or opinion, whereas generalised criticism is actually impossible to respond to (and much of the tradosphere's response to the Tablet article unfortunately seems to me to fall into this latter category). If a comment says something as a statement of fact about something or someone else, I will try my best to verify the truth of that comment before I post it; a clear expression of an opinion will not be subject to that quite so much.

6. And I am still trying to find the answer to a question of a few days ago. If, as I contend, "traditional Catholicism" should no longer define itself by attachment to the extraordinary form, since one of the implications of the language of "two forms of the one Rite" in Summorum Pontificum is that the one form is, juridically speaking, just as "traditional" as the other, then what exactly is the defining character of "traditional Catholicism"?

7. And, for Zero: I haven't stopped blogging. It's just that I got rather tangled in the tradosphere, and am hoping now that I will untangle myself ....

10 comments:

Fr John Abberton said...

I appreciate this very much. Although I love celebrating the Extraordinary Form, I am wary of some of those blogs which exalt it. I can see their point. After 33years I discovered tears in my eyes after Mass and a sense of fulfillment that I have not had very often when celebrating the Ordinary Form.

Of course this is all very subjective, and this makes me careful of saying too much. However, on a theological front I have to say - honestly - that I find the Extraordinary Form richer (certainly in its Scriptural background). The there is the language. The English Liturgy is poor (to be kind) and I look forward to the new English translation (some of which I have seen).

Having said all that, I think we need to keep our balance, and you are right to be so balanced in your posts. We have to keep the good insights and practices of Vatican 11 - we have to become more, not less, ecumenical. We have to remember that there are people out there who are no Latinists-and never will be, and that there are Catholics who simply want to have the Liturgy in English. That is not a bad thing, and many of them - if not most - want reverence as well as clarity.

I think we need to be patient with each other, and careful of each other. If the Pope's intentions are followed the celebration of the English Liturgy will be improved - vastly, I hope! The Extraordinary Form will have contributed to that as well as being available for those who want it. I think you are right - sadly - to talk of a "Tradosphere". This is omething we do not need even if, at times, it is entertaining and says good things.

Joe said...

Fr John

Thank you for your observations, which, as usual, I appreciate.

My attention was caught by your reference to our need to be "more ecumenical, and not less". If one does see the unity of the Church as being the prime issue here - and I think Pope Benedict's letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum gives grounds for thinking that, in the way in which it looks in "two directions" (as I express it) - that does suggest that mutual patience between those who are attached to the extraordinary form and those who are not so attached is essential.

I would like to post at some point on Pope Benedict's theory and practice with regard to the Petrine ministry as a ministry of unity....

Anonymous said...

Well, you already know that I also appreciate the TLM but prefer the (proper) NOM. And I am very glad to have another anchor in the blogosphere :)

It's great that so many people find spiritual nourishment in the TLM, and that we can organise things like the catechesis boot camp where we celebrate both Rites, and have people of both "preferments" learning, praying and having fun together.

But I am wary of the trend that orthodox Catholics flee towards the absence of liturgical abuse that the TLM can be, instead of the rather more positive choice like Fr. Abberton illustrated above.

I would love if the two rites got more in sync - if the "mutual enrichment" could, for example, lead to a shared calendar or maybe even shared cycle of lectures. That could also make it easier for priests to celebrate both rites - much less homily-writing, in any case!

But well, that's wishful thinking...

Anonymous said...

Well, you already know that I also appreciate the TLM but prefer the (proper) NOM. And I am very glad to have another anchor in the blogosphere :)

It's great that so many people find spiritual nourishment in the TLM, and that we can organise things like the catechesis boot camp where we celebrate both Rites, and have people of both "preferments" learning, praying and having fun together.

But I am wary of the trend that orthodox Catholics flee towards the absence of liturgical abuse that the TLM can be, instead of the rather more positive choice like Fr. Abberton illustrated above.

I would love if the two rites got more in sync - if the "mutual enrichment" could, for example, lead to a shared calendar or maybe even shared cycle of lectures. That could also make it easier for priests to celebrate both rites - much less homily-writing, in any case!

But well, that's wishful thinking...

Adulio said...

Fr. Abberton - I am interested in what you say "we must become more, not less ecumenical". As far as I know, the church has always been ecumenical since the time of her creation because she quite clearly understood ecumenism as the return of those who had separated from her back into unity with Rome. She would preach this often as well as praying for it in her official liturgy, particularly on Good Friday.

Traditional Catholics have noted that this age-old definition of ecumenism was somewhat reversed after the council reforms. How do you reconcile for example the Balamand statement, saying that we now abandon the idea of ecumenism of return with Mortalium Annimos, the implications of which are great and grave?

Joe said...

On the question of the nature of ecumenical activity, Pope Benedict XVI's address during a meeting with leaders of other Christian denominations in Cologne in 2005 has always fascinated me.

1. As part of the address, Pope Benedict offered a "personal opinion" - which fascinatingly presented Catholic teaching on Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium in the language of the Word (Scripture)and Witness (Apostolic Succession) and Rule of Faith (Tradition) - in other words, in the language of Protestant theology.

2. And in this context, he affirmed: "On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called an ecumenism of return; that is, to deny and to rejet one's own faith history. Absolutely not!"

3. I use some modern worship songs - eg This is our God, the Servant King - during Eucharistic Adoration. They weren't written with that in mind at all, but instead were written from a valuing of Scripture as the source of material for prayer and worship. But they are very powerful when addressed to Jesus present in the Eucharist - they are "fulfilled" without in any way rejecting the original inspiration of their authors.

I think these examples show how ecumenism does not have to be an ecumenism of return.

Fr John Abberton said...

Strange - I was thinking of Cardinal Ottaviani just a day ago and remembering how he was maligned and misunderstood.

However, the question does raise a very important point; how vallid is the Vatican 11 concept of Ecumenism?

I think part of the answer lies in the phrase, "subsists in" in reference to the Truth and the Roman Catholic Church. There is still a debate about this phrase, but my understanding (and it is an orthodox understanding and not heretical) is that the Truth is found in the Roman Catholic Church in its fulness. As Vatican 11 teaches, elements (and sometimes almost all)of the Truth (Catholic Faith)are found elsewhere. In this sense we speak of "imperfect communion" or "separated brethren". The phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" has never been strictly interpreted as a black and white matter (e.g.You are either Catholic or damned).

The Balamand Statement is rooted in a mutual recognition of ministries and sacraments between the Holy See and the Greek/Russian Orthodox Churches (and most of their Orthodox relations). The attitude of Pope John Paul 11 is even clearer; he spoke of "two lungs" - East and West - saying that the Church cannot properly survive with only one lung. In this we see an acceptance of Orthodoxy which brings it into a VERY close relationship with the Roman Catholic Church.

At the same time, moves towards the Protestants have been diverse. We are closer to some than others. Some make a good case for possessing the Apostolic Succession (e.g. the Lutheran Church of Sweden - now lost of course in the case of women priests!).

It is also interesting to note the agreement on Justification between the Holy See and the Lutheran Church in Germany (a major breakthrough).

I am sure you will want to come back on this, and I suspect next time we will need to speak about the theology of Grace because ecumenism cannot be properly understood without that.

Thank you Joe for your excellent post.

Adulio said...

Joe - surely then this speech of the Holy Father is advocating a clear break from what the church understood ecumenism for most of her 2000 year history? How can a quasi-unity be achieved in Christianity when different sects are not united to us in faith and morals? Such a unity cannot happen because it would be a false unity (and hence displeasing to God).

The fact of the matter is that this sort of ecumenism is at odds with what the church taught only a mere 60 or 70 years ago (and what the gospel says for that matter). It is because of this, traditional Catholics are suspicious and say that elements of the conciliar reforms give the impression (which often translates into action) of a break with the past. Such a occurrence cannot be possible otherwise Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit being with his church till the end of time would be nothing short of a lie. It must follow that this new attitude to ecumenism is in fact a novelty, which traditional Catholics are right to point out.

Anonymous said...

"To be ecumenical or not to be ecumenical-that is the question".

Anonymous said...

I wonder what "The servant King" would make of all this?