A charism is (1) a particular/special gift of the Holy Spirit (2) often given in the first instance to an individual member of the Church (3) before being shared with others, and (4) which prepares the faithful to undertake a particular task or office in the Church. A charism is given (5) for the common good of the Church, (6) and for the good of men and women in the world, perhaps through the meeting of a particular need; a charism is in this way at the service of charity. A charism might be (7) extraordinary, in which case it might be more particularly given to an individual, or simple and humble, in which case it is likely to be more widely experienced in the Church. A charism should (8) be accepted and practised by the person to whom it is given, (9) accepted and practised by others in the Church who come to share that charism, and it should be (10) discerned and recognised as authentic by the hierarchy of the Church.[1]
[1] cf Catechism of the Catholic Church nn.798-801, 2003; cf Vatican II Lumen Gentium n.12, Apostolicam Actuositatem n.3; cf Paul VI Apostolic Exhortation Evangelica Testificatio n.11; cf John Paul II Christifideles Laici n.24.
The question I am really trying to ask of "traditional Catholicism" is: what is your charism? I ask the question subject to the view that, after Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter, I do not believe that it is possible to define this charism in terms of attachment to the extraordinary form.
I think the place where there might well be an answer to this question is in the constitutions (or equivalent formulations) of those societies or communities attached to the extraordinary form and in communion with the Holy See, particularly those that have received a canonical recognition from the Holy See. If anyone knows where these can be found, I would be grateful to be directed towards them.
7 comments:
Try searching the "Institute of the Good Shepherd" on google.
Joe:
Maybe the first question to be answered is, what do you mean by "traditional Catholicism"? Who is it, specifically, who are calling themselves by that label and who you would like to have explain themselves? Did someone make a statement which you took to mean that they were claiming a particular charism? If so, who was it and what was the statement?
To the extent that I think of myself as a "traditionalist", for me it means that I love and highly value many of the traditions, which Rapperger defines as "extrinsic", which were passed on in the Church up to the time of Vatican II and then largely thereafter jettisoned. Included in this are of course the Extraordinary Form of the mass, traditional church architecture, traditional vestments and sacred vessels, traditional devotions and forms of prayer, traditional mass music (Gregorian chant in particular), incense, sanctus bells, statues, and on and on.
It also means that I object to the characterization of these things as trivial or unimportant on the ground that they don't touch on the essence of the Deposit of Faith or the validity of the sacraments. I think they are valuable simply because they were passed on from prior generations of Catholics, and also because they assist individuals to put themselves in the right frame of mind in which to approach the liturgy, in that they impart a sense of mystery and transcendence, in a way that newer church architecture, music, vestments, etc., most often do not.
I also love and highly value the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, and believe the lessening of emphasis on his teachings in seminaries and Catholic schools has done untold harm to the Church and endangered many souls.
In short, while this is not an exhaustive list of the traditional things the loss or neglect of which I mourn, I mean to say that there are a lot of things in the Church's patrimony which have been largely abandoned, to the great detriment of the Church, and I feel strongly about making efforts to recover them.
I do think charisms are important, and faithfulness to a given charism is important for fruitfulness in the Church. And that goes for the life of an individual Catholic ("following faithfully their vocation") and for movements. Which is why I ask the question of "traditional Catholicism" in just the same way I ask it of, say, Youth 2000, and want to understand it of them.
And to most of your points of "extrinsic tradition" I would answer that, of its nature as Catholic, Catholic faith is able to speak to different cultures and one would expect it to have living engagement with new cultures as they occur. Something is not of value "simply because it was handed down from previous generations" - it may still be of value to some, and may have a certain objective value, but that is not simply because it has been handed down from a previous generation (essential content of faith excluded here, of course). I see no reason why Catholic faith should not be expressed in different architectural styles, for example ... Youth 2000, for example, take something "handed down" - the Forty Hours devotion - and celebrate it in a quite modern way, with contemporary music etc ...
Joe:
It's fine with me if you don't value the same extrinsic traditions that I value. I was not arguing that they are necessarily of universal value or appeal, though I believe they are. I was simply explaining what I mean when I refer to my own views as "traditionalist".
To the extent that you do not consider one or more of these things important I would consider you less traditionalist than myself with respect to that thing. For example if you consider the EF mass of no more worth than the OF, then according to my views you would be less traditionalist than I when it comes to the mass. Same if you consider it less important to re-emphasize the teachings of St. Thomas in seminaries and Catholic schools, or what have you.
By the way you didn't answer the questions I asked in my first paragraph. I'm not sure whether that omission was deliberate.
"take something "handed down" - the Forty Hours devotion - and celebrate it in a quite modern way, with contemporary music etc ..."
This is probably another area where we differ: The question whether beauty is objective or subjective. It appears you believe it's the latter. Which of course is at odds with St. Thomas . . .
I think it's a huge mistake to take the approach of conforming the liturgy to suit ourselves (if that's what you're advocating), rather than conforming ourselves to suit the liturgy. Once you have opened that door and started down that path, you deny yourself any ground upon which to argue that anything whatsoever is inappropriate to the liturgy. Which I believe explains a lot of what has gone wrong with the mass since V2.
I think the question of "traditional Catholicism" comes from those who describe themselves as "traditional Catholics" - a self-definition. If, as I am suggesting, that should not now, at least juridically speaking, be defined by way of affiliation to the extraordinary form, then how does it define itself?
However, the question of liturgical attachment and attitude to the Second Vatican Council seem to me difficult to separate in trying to get to grips with the self-understanding of,say, the Institute of the Good Shepherd.
Joe writes, 'I think the question of "traditional Catholicism" comes from those who describe themselves as "traditional Catholics" - a self-definition.'
I still would like to know who, specifically, has defined himself to you as a "traditional Catholic" without giving any basis for that definition other than attachment to the EF. Is there anyone in particular or are you just speaking generally? If you are speaking generally, are you sure there are actual people who do that? Can you name any of them?
I think I have defined it with regard to myself, have I not?
Joe writes, "If, as I am suggesting, that should not now, at least juridically speaking, be defined by way of affiliation to the extraordinary form, then how does it define itself?'
As I have expressed before, I don't agree that "juridically speaking" the EF may not be considered more traditional than the OF. "Juridically speaking", all Summorum pontificum ("SP") did was make them equally legal, it didn't make them equally traditional.
But I begin to suspect that we are using the word "traditional" in this discussion in two different senses. The OF is a part of the Church's extrinsic tradition, certainly. The fact of its having been endorsed and implemented by a Pope makes it so -- which was the case long before SP. Perhaps you think traditionalists deny that fact? Some traditionalists in fact may do so.
But when I (and perhaps others) say the EF is more traditional than the OF, I'm not using the word "tradition" in that sense. I am informed that "tradition" comes from the Latin "tradere", meaning to hand over or pass on. Thus when I say the EF is more traditional, I mean that it is more "passed on" than the OF, i.e. it has been passed on in the Church for a longer time, through more generations of Catholics. Which is simply a fact.
You may think that its being more traditional in this sense is immaterial, but I would disagree. I submit that its having been passed on through so many generations of bishops and popes gives it the endorsement of having stood the test of time, which cannot be said of the OF to nearly the same extent. The OF has been controversial since the beginning of its implementation, and remains so. There is no guarantee whatever that it is destined to be passed on from generation to generation for another 1,400 years.
You write, "However, the question of liturgical attachment and attitude to the Second Vatican Council seem to me difficult to separate in trying to get to grips with the self-understanding of,say, the Institute of the Good Shepherd."
I don't follow you here. Can you clarify this for me?
Post a Comment