For the sake of convenience, permit me to map the many diverse reactions, pro and con, under four basic headings. Supporters of Traditionis Custodes have generally either (1) “celebrated” the pope’s move, or (2) accepted it as a “sad necessity.” Opponents of the pope’s legislation have typically adopted postures I call (3) “mourn and move on” or (4) “reject and resist.” In addition to the words of the pope himself, these diverse reactions can help us dig deeper into the “issue under the issues”—the legacy and interpretation of Vatican II. -- Shaun Blanchard
Blanchard's four headings are roughly equivalent to Andrew Likoudis's four groups of Catholics. And as he points out, the reactions generally reflect the "issue under the issues"... the legacy and interpretation of Vatican II. So I'm putting them here as a capsule form.
Basically, the narrative outline:
- What the Church was like before the Council
- What happened at the Council
- What happened after the Council
- Where the Church should go from here
- Who or what is the main obstacle to this
The main idea here is not the details of the stories. Every Catholic has their own story and this is not a Sorting Hat. The point is that the narratives --- about the exact same historical record, mind you, which is well established and not in question -- diverge pretty dramatically in what they mean. Questions of meaning are existential... it's not surprising that we can't agree on much.
#1 Traditionalist Catholics
Before the Council, the Church was handling things effectively. Yes, there were problems, chiefly the forces of Modernism, which were multiform.
The Council perhaps didn't need to be called at all, but perhaps we did need to conclude Vatican 1, which was interrupted and never resumed. But it should have been run along the lines of past ecumenical councils.
The Council was co-opted by modernists, at least to some extent -- chiefly the theologians of the northern European countries.
We saw the bitter effects after the Council -- every quantifiable is in crisis trajectory.
The Church needs to get back to where it was.
#2
The Church as a whole has had a consistent witness since earliest times. In its human membership, it has struggled with error and corruption, but it has a marvellous (God-given) ability to prevail. Reforms may be needed but do not change this essential framework.
The Pope certainly had a right to call the Council, and the Council met all the requirements for a true ecumenical Council -- therefore it is binding. There may be ambiguities in the documents but they can all be interpreted in an orthodox manner, and they should be. The Church after the Council is the same Church founded by the Apostles.
The craziness after the Council was the unleashing of modernism -- progressives running wild. Immediately there was a need for counter-measures against the well documented overreaches.
The Church is currently struggling with its identity but will be triumphant because it is the Church.
#3
The Church before the Council was repressive, extrinsicist, mainly due to the general clerical dislike of modernity and overemphasis on authority and ritual. The laity were passive and detached.
The Council needed to happen and it brought fresh air and life to the institution just in time.
Crazy things happened, but this was the 60s and 70s. The whole world was in turmoil. If the Church hadn't prophetically moved towards renewal and reform, it may have simply shattered.
While the conserving efforts of John Paul II and Benedict XIV may have been necessary at the time to provide some clarity and order, this mode was temporary and defensive. Pope Francis was moving us towards a more global, inclusive, pastoral interaction with the world, and hopefully Leo will continue this.
#4
The Church before the Council needed to go. It had become archaic, a relic of time past, a curiosity, often a bad example.
John XXIII was prophetic .... the Council itself was a battle and became a starting point for what needed to happen, but there was enough backpedalling and resistance that it didn't end up going far enough, at least not in the documents themselves.
The goings on after the Council were part of the birthing process as we moved away from hierarchy and authoritarianism and towards a new unity with the culture, which often has access to truths that the static nature of the former Church did not admit.
The Church of the future needs to be fully free of the past ....less dependent on the clergy and on defined formulations, which are often time bound and are best seen as provisional.
No comments:
Post a Comment