Tradtionis Custodes has emboldened the liberal Catholics(?) in their attacks on Traditional Catholics.
In the CommonWeal article by Massimo Faggioli, Matthew Hazell noted that 'reasons' for their anxiety about us T-Catholics. The growth of Traditional Orders who hold to the Teachings of the Church.
Can't have that can we? It would be divisive - casting a slur upon the Novus Ordo Missae and by extension the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
Yup ... this is going to be an interesting time to the next conclave.
I've attached portions of the article below with some comments.
I think that the Liberals need to do a few things if they want to beat the mounting wave of Traditional Catholics:
- Have more children
- Teaching them the 'Liberal Faith' in concrete terms (bon chance! By definition a Liberal Faith is muddy and indistinct).
- Have vocations to the priesthood and religious life (oops - that didn't work out so well).
P^3
Link CommonWeal: The Limits of Traditionis Custodes
 |
| From Matthew Hazell's Twitter Feed |
+++
Excerpts from the article ...
More than a document, Traditionis Custodes represents one of the most important papal acts in the history of the reception and implementation of Vatican II. But it would be naïve to understand Francis’s response to neo-traditionalism simply as a return to the status quo ante. Such a return is impossible. It’s not because a future pontificate could reverse Francis’s reversal of Benedict. Nor is it because the magisterium can no longer expect “obsequium religiosum” (Vatican II, constitution Lumen Gentium, par. 25), not even from bishops and conservative Catholics. Rather, it’s because the ecosystem of Western Catholicism has changed significantly since 2007. The rise of social media has helped nurture a post-modern, media-savvy, resentful traditionalism that plays out in the undermining of this papacy both by prominent conservative laypeople and by clergy—an effort that began within days of the election of Francis in 2013.
Another factor is how our current age of disintermediation has affected the experience of Catholics, particularly our experience of the liturgy. Since March 2020, the celebration of the liturgy for many Catholics has taken place through a computer screen. This affects how we see the link between liturgy and ecclesiology. Covid-time Mass has increased the tendency to re-sacralize the Catholic priesthood[Tradicat: Oh - can't have that can we???]: more distance from the altar and within the pews, the impossibility of the kiss of peace (which even in the early Church helped differentiate between a temple-like understanding of worship and the Church as a communion)[Tradicat: What the heck is a 'Church as a communion'???], and a drastic reduction in (if not redefinition of) active participation. The post–Vatican II Catholic Mass has suffered more from the pandemic than has the pre–Vatican II, traditionalist Mass, in which the concept of participation is quite different (to say the least) from the “actuosa participatio” [Tradicat: Ok so he doesn't know that dancing around the altar isn't active participation. Frankly, there's way may conherent particpation the Tridentine Mass than I've ever experienced in a Novus Ordo Missae.]that Vatican II talks about.
In short, anti–Vatican II traditionalism (liturgical and theological) will not disappear by papal fiat[Tradicat: Yup we're here to stay because we actually have a strong culture!!!]. It was kept at bay in first few decades following Vatican II, even during the papacy of John Paul II, who with a doctrinal policy inimical to theological progressivism nonetheless maintained the authority of the council[Tradicat: He has blinders on ... growth in SSPX and Traditional Catholicism has been steady]. But Benedict, citing a “hermeneutic of continuity and reform” meant to prevent SSPX-like rejections of Vatican II [Tradicat: More blinders, even as Cardinal, Ratzinger had this opinion.], instead helped foster a rehabilitation of traditionalism that reinforced his anti-progressive positions. [Tradicat: Oh - can't have that can we???]This is the most important and lasting legacy of Joseph Ratzinger’s pontificate. Anti–Vatican II liturgical and theological traditionalism is not only present, but in some local churches in the U.S. and in Europe is here to stay. It’s evident in the fervor of monasteries that are seeing an increase in vocations, which suggests a rise in presbyteral ordinations and the growth of monastic commitments. More importantly, there is reason to believe that anti–Vatican II traditionalism is not a minority position among young clergy[Tradicat: I can smell the fear!]. It’s also hard to deny that Catholic traditionalism sometimes expresses exclusivist, sexist, and racist worldviews, and that the “old Mass” leaves the door open for a pre–Vatican II theology of the relationship between the Church and Judaism [Tradicat: Oh - can't have that can we???]that resurfaces old anti-Semitic tropes.[Tradicat: Pot meet kettle :-)]
... at this point they (JP2, B16) alone can’t be blamed. Though it’s clear now who’s attacking Vatican II, it’s not clear who is defending it, or “which” Vatican II should be defended. [Tradicat: I wonder if he understands the severity of what he wrote - there is only one 'Vatican II' if you think that there can be multiple versions, you are justifying the SSPX et al but proving their point.]The teaching of the council was once the vanguard—the future of Catholicism.
Vatican II needs an interpretation that speaks to the receivers of that tradition today.[Tradicat: Oh - wait - what about those of tomorrow and the next decade??? We don't need a Vatican II for today, we need a Vaticn III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X as well as a Trent II, III, IV etc] We can’t ask Pope Francis to do it alone while we let his opponents aggressively work to abrogate it. Simply countering or reacting to right-wing traditionalists isn’t a defense; it just won’t work. Rather, it’s time to take up the theological meaning of the documents of Vatican II and the magisterial significance of the conciliar event. The Catholic Church is called to begin again, especially in the United States—in the seminaries, in the parishes, in academia—to undertake a process of the reception of the theology of Vatican II that puts aside generational rifts and fills the gaps in conciliar teaching. We can do that by building on the very basis of the tradition dynamically understood, as opposed to “tradition” that emphasizes contrast, conflict, and conquest.
Comments
Post a Comment