Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Pre-Conciliar Church: Dull?
What is our identity as latin-rite Roman Catholic?
Now, the Oxford Wordpower dictionary defines the word 'dull' as "not interesting or exciting; boring" How could the Church have been dull?
Our forefathers never asked themselves, "Why am I Catholic?" Why? Becasue, the Church before the Second Vatican Council tended to identify Catholicism and Roman Catholicism. Those who were raised before the council were given a strong sense of identity. Holy Mother Church in her wisdom nutured and sustained her flock with maternal affection. Catholicism was more than a religion, it was an entire system of thinking, behaving, and even feeling. You could leave the Church but you'd not be able to change the way you ha been taught to view the world, God and even religion.
Today, many young Catholics do not have nearly the sense of identity their parents did. Ask the youth in your parish and they wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between their Church and the ones their Protestant friends go to. Thus, the question, "Why am I Catholic" will inevitably return during their adulthood. Many will face dilemas; some may question the authority, others may leave the Church, et cetera...
Ask any Catholic what the Mass is, many will tell you that it is just a celebration. Indeed it is, however, isn't it more than a celebration? The Mass is also a sacrifice. When the sacrificial nature of the Mass is taken away, we'd be like any other (liturgical) protestant church. Though in principle today's Catholics have greater access to the inner meaning of the Mass, do we understand the spiritual benefits that can be obtained behind it?
Where has the Catholic- or rather 'latin rite Roman Catholic'- identity gone to?
Surely, there must have been something interesting or exciting that gave rise to such a strong sense of Catholic identity...
Was it the (Latin) Tridentine Masses? Maybe, but I think no one should wish to return to the days when many priests seemed to rush through a mumbled Mass as quickly as possible (I'm thinking of Low Masses here), the congregation indeed present mainly as spectators.
Was is something else? Could it have been the fact that the pre-concilar view of the Church focused more on the importance of a universal rite of Mass and eccelesial tradition rather than on local churches, on other rites and other ecclesial traditions (Eastern Catholic Churches)?
Frankly I do not have an answer as to whether or not the pre-conciliar Church was dull or exciting.
But, judging a tree by it's fruits, it coundn't have been dull: Just count the number of ordinary Catholics who became saints, the large number of priestly and religious vocations, the strong weekly Mass attendance, the long confession lines, the unchanging Latin Mass and Sacraments, the statues of saints and our Blessed Mother, clerical clothing and religious dress, ridgid adherence to Church's laws, unswerving obedience to the Pope, et cetera... The is evidence that there must have been something 'exciting' that kept the Church alive and robust.
Then again, Christ's guarantee that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church does not, as has often been pointed out, mean that the Church necessarily flourishes in ways which can be discerned with the human eye.
The answer will be left open. Let me know what you think. Do read 'Notes of the True Church: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus', a possible significant contribution to Catholic identity.
I apologise for the parts in which I rant.
Perhaps there is a need for a Thrid Vatican Council?
"Conservative Catholic ask why the Chruch is giving up so much so fast,
liberal Catholics ask why the Church is not changing faster" Joseph Martos
Deo Juvante
Feast of the Ascension of the Lord 2007
Acknowledgements/Bibliography:
Rev. Fr. Richard Rohr, Joseph Martos, James Hitchcock
Labels: Catholic Belief, Second Vatican Council, Thoughts, Traditionalism
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
