"It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew"
It seems to me that this passage from the letter that Pope Benedict XVI wrote to accompany the motu proprio allowing an easier use of the "extraordinary form" of the Roman Rite is key to understanding the decision to lift the excommunications that had applied to the Bishops ordained within the Society of St Pius X. An able drawing together of the comments in response to the news can be found at a Charlotte was both in a post entitled Your move. It is a long post, but it covers every aspect of the issue (so far as I can see), including the difficulties presented by the odd views of one of the Bishops involved. The texts of the correspondence from both the Vatican side and from the Society of St Pius X indicate that the excommuncations have been lifted in view of a forthcoming dialogue between the two parties with regard to other issues, these issues being diplomatically described as "open".
I cannot see that this situation would have been possible without Summorum Pontificum. The provisions of Summorum Pontificum, in my view, looked both towards communities such as the Society of St Pius X seeking to offer them an opportunity for reconciliation with the Church, and towards the life of the Church as a whole. In this latter respect, my view is that it is less the easier availablity of the "extraordinary form" that is the issue (though that is clearly a condition of possibility for the developments with regard to such as the Society of St Pius X) and more the question of "mutual enrichment" of the "ordinary form" by that easier availability, and the possibility of the enrichment of the "extraordinary form" from the "ordinary form".
Now, why do I say this? Because I think the forthcoming dialogue between the representatives of the Society of St Pius X and the Vatican has a similar two-fold glance. Where the reconciliation of other groups has occurred with a certain "quietness", the relations with the Society of St Pius X are high profile and will provide a kind of model for the whole Church. How the teaching of the Second Vatican Council is understood (and the correspondence from the Society of St Pius X indicates "some reservations", albeit in a way that can and should be taken diplomatically, as the indication is given in the context of the subject matter of the forthcoming dialogue with the Vatican), for example, is of just as much importance to those who celebrate the "ordinary form" as it is to those who celebrate the "extraordinary form". The dialogue looks both towards those who might be reconciled with the Church and towards those who are already in full communion.
Which leads me to the question I ask in the title of this post: What exactly is "traditional Catholicism"? This is clearly a political (small "p") question so far as the dialogue between the Society of St Pius X and the Vatican is concerned. But, both for that dialogue and for the rest of the Church, both those who celebrate the "extraordinary form" in communion with the Holy See and those who celebrate the "ordinary form", it is also a more a spiritual and theological question.
And we all have a stake in the answer to that question. I, for example, would like to know whether I should consider "traditional Catholicism" to be a movement in the Church like the many other "new movements". In which case, I would like to know and understand its founding charism - with both words, founding and charism being of importance here. Was it a movement that began with just the political (small "p") aim of keeping a particular liturgical practice after the Second Vatican Council, or is there a clearly discernable action of the Spirit in establishing a charism, a special gift for the Church?
The dialogue between the Society of St Pius X and the Holy See also needs to be informed by how "traditional Catholics" in communion with the Holy See understand their place in the Church, and how others understand their place in the Church. Is a "mutual information", analagous to the "mutual enrichment" of the two liturgical forms, required?
My sting in the tail! Since Summorum Pontificum and the establishing of a language of "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" with all the associated precautions of the motu proprio itself and the accompanying letter, I do not think it is possible to define "traditional Catholicism" any longer in terms of one or other forms of the liturgy. One of the implications of Summorum Pontificum is that no one of the two forms is more "traditional" than the other.
5 comments:
Until quite recently I refused to use or honour the title "Traditionalist" in reference to the Catholic Faith or spirituality. This attitude goes back to my semiary days (late 60's and early 70's). At an open conference (with invited outsiders etc) I once asked one of our emminent professors (the late Mgr McCreavy)if the true "progressive" was a "traditionalist". You can guess his answer.
There are many who use the word "traditionalist" for wht is actually theological and spiritual stagnation. A better word, in my opinion is "orthodox" (small "o"). Orthodoxy, as Chesterton pointed out, is the only real option - and it is alive, not dead. Newman's "The Development of Doctrine" can be called in to back this up. Those who want to class themselves as "liberal" also misunderstand what is going on.
I recently used the word "traditionalist" to speak about myself (and regretted it!)because I was on another blog where all the priests of my generation were being blamed for everything that is wrong (in the blogger's opinion) with the modern Church. I did not stay on that blog to argue my case because it seemed there was so much irrationality there that resoned arguments got submerged under the emotionalism.
I am and orthodox Catholic, and I would encourage others to adopt this term. it clears away a lot of nonsense. The only clear divisions that matter in this contect is then whether a person be orthodox or unorthodox and this could lead on to heterodoxy. My rule of thumb has always been that those who are orthodox are in union with the Pope and try to follow him (whoever he may be at the time) those who are not orthodox are not followers or supporters of "Petrine" theology or teaching and are therefore - in my view - losing their Catholic identity. For this reason one of my favourite theologians is Fr. Gerald O'Collins for whom the word "Petrine" is central to his approach as a Catholic theologian.
Where this leaves the bishops, priests and laity of SSPX is a question I cannot answer. The dialogue will colapse again if Vatican 11 is rejected, but the Holy See will surely make this plain - you accept Vatican 11 or you are outside the Church.
I copy here a comment from Charlotte was both's post Your move referred to above. Copying it doesn't mean I agree with it; but I do think it gives some sort of indication of an answer to the question posed in my post above.
"Many Catholics consider themselves “orthodox,” but see it merely as affirming certain doctrinal points. They see no need to enter into the religious and liturgical tradition of the Church in any meaningful way. Indeed, some of these people, e.g., the late Fr. Neuhaus, George Weigel (who wrote a column in Newsweek about it) were decidedly cool to Summorum Pontificum and were very defensive about its enactment, just the way several commentators have been about the lifting of the SSPX excommunication - it will have no effect or at least no great effect, it’s just for a small group, etc. When people like these do theological treatments (and this includes even David Schindler of Communio), they go back into Church history only as far as Vatican II (usually they stop with John Paul II). So they are “orthodox” as far as dogma and doctrine are concerned, but that is not all there is to being fully Catholic and that is what has been missing for the last fifty years. It was not intended by the Council Fathers, but that is what happened."
Being orthodox does not mean being perfect. Orthodoxy is dynamic. The people mentioned in the posting above (George Weigel, Fr. Neuhaus etc) may not have understood the reason for the extraordinary rite, but this depends on whether or not they have read and understood the Pope's (Card. Ratzinger's "Spirit of The Liturgy") or know anything about Mgr. Klaus Gamber. being orthodox does not mean we have crossed all the "t"'s and dotted all the "i"'s. it does mean trying to follow and support the Pope and the Magisterium.
I do not agree that it is possible to be "orthodox" and to be stuck in post Vatican 11 theology and spirituality. Vatican 11 itself cannot be understood properly without reference to what went before, just as the renewal of Catholic teaching, which we so badly need, cannot be pursued without reference to the teaching of the Apostles as it developed through the ages.
My hope is that one of the things that will help us to move forward and develop a real wisdom in this area will be the canonisation of Cardinal Newman. perhaps he will encourage us to see that we can only go forward by respecting continuity in the transmission of the faith and the development of the Liturgy. We cannot progress unless we learn from the past. it seems to me that this is one of the main reasons for Summorum Pontificum.
It doesn't sound as though you are going to be one of the "New Trads"
Thank you for the comments.
Now, the idea of a "New Traditionalist Movement" ... hmmm.
Post a Comment