Narrative theology and traditional Catholicism

[DC_AngloC]

As a Catholic convert with traditionalist sensibilities, I have little patience for things like the “emerging church” movement among post-modern-minded evangelical protestants. But one feature of that movement which I find fascinating is its use of ideas from narrative (post-liberal) theology. To my mind, a Catholic reading of narrative theology — situating the Church and oneself in a Catholic worldview through participation in the liturgy, sacraments, and traditional devotions — is precisely what distinguishes traditional Catholicism from post-Vatican II Catholicism (and from Protestantism, for that matter).

The fundamental difference between the Catholic and Protestant worldviews, as I see it, is that the Catholic understands Christianity as all-encompassing — the Catholic Church is the “people” of God and a world that one enters into; the more one participates in the traditional rites of the Church, the more one’s thoughts and actions accord with traditional Catholic faith. Salvation, in a sense, is the process through which one is saved from the secular world into full participation in the Body of Christ, both now and in the world to come. Sure there are dogmas, but those are understood only through participation in the Church. For Protestants, on the other hand, Christianity is about intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and what one does follows from (or is secondary to) the particular menu of beliefs that one assents to.

The primary problem I have with post-Vatican II Catholicism is that it suppresses the aspects of Catholicism that are most at odds with the sensibilities of the modern secular Western world. If the language of mass is “chatty” and the supernatural is downplayed, mass is not much different from what goes on outside the parish and its power to transform is diminished. The result is that a post-Vatican II Catholic is not encouraged to abandon a rationalist, secular mindset. The minimum set of beliefs a Catholic must assent to can be adopted into a secular worldview, with the result that post-Vatican II Catholicism does not look all that different from some forms of Protestantism. In other words, a modern Catholic’s participation in the life of a typical post-Vatican II parish does not readily lead to acquisition of a Catholic worldview — the result being that the modern Catholic is often unable to situate himself or herself within the narrative of the Church.

I don’t mean to overstate the case because obviously not all ideas coming out of narrative theology are compatible with Catholic teaching. But I do think that the core of traditional Catholicism — placing the Church and oneself into the Christian narrative through participation in the Body of Christ — is precisely what narrative theology sets out to do.

Does this make sense to anyone?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

As a Catholic convert with traditionalist sensibilities, I have little patience for things like the “emerging church” movement among post-modern-minded evangelical protestants. But one feature of that movement which I find fascinating is its use of ideas from narrative (post-liberal) theology. To my mind, a Catholic reading of narrative theology — situating the Church and oneself in a Catholic worldview through participation in the liturgy, sacraments, and traditional devotions — is precisely what distinguishes traditional Catholicism from post-Vatican II Catholicism (and from Protestantism, for that matter).

The fundamental difference between the Catholic and Protestant worldviews, as I see it, is that the Catholic understands Christianity as all-encompassing — the Catholic Church is the “people” of God and a world that one enters into; the more one participates in the traditional rites of the Church, the more one’s thoughts and actions accord with traditional Catholic faith. Salvation, in a sense, is the process through which one is saved from the secular world into full participation in the Body of Christ, both now and in the world to come. Sure there are dogmas, but those are understood only through participation in the Church. For Protestants, on the other hand, Christianity is about intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and what one does follows from (or is secondary to) the particular menu of beliefs that one assents to.

The primary problem I have with post-Vatican II Catholicism is that it suppresses the aspects of Catholicism that are most at odds with the sensibilities of the modern secular Western world. If the language of mass is “chatty” and the supernatural is downplayed, mass is not much different from what goes on outside the parish and its power to transform is diminished. The result is that a post-Vatican II Catholic is not encouraged to abandon a rationalist, secular mindset. The minimum set of beliefs a Catholic must assent to can be adopted into a secular worldview, with the result that post-Vatican II Catholicism does not look all that different from some forms of Protestantism. In other words, a modern Catholic’s participation in the life of a typical post-Vatican II parish does not readily lead to acquisition of a Catholic worldview — the result being that the modern Catholic is often unable to situate himself or herself within the narrative of the Church.

I don’t mean to overstate the case because obviously not all ideas coming out of narrative theology are compatible with Catholic teaching. But I do think that the core of traditional Catholicism — placing the Church and oneself into the Christian narrative through participation in the Body of Christ — is precisely what narrative theology sets out to do.

Does this make sense to anyone?

what is narrative theology?

 

[DC_AngloC]

I hate to link to wikipedia, but it provides the best overview I’ve seen: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postliberal_theology

My apologies for the long opening post. I see the core ideas of narrative theology providing a fruitful way of understanding traditional Catholicism (even though the two may at first seem to be strange bedfellows) and am curious whether anyone else has thoughts on the matter.

 

[fred_conty]

As a Catholic convert with traditionalist sensibilities, I have little patience for things like the “emerging church” movement among post-modern-minded evangelical protestants. But one feature of that movement which I find fascinating is its use of ideas from narrative (post-liberal) theology. To my mind, a Catholic reading of narrative theology — situating the Church and oneself in a Catholic worldview through participation in the liturgy, sacraments, and traditional devotions — is precisely what distinguishes traditional Catholicism from post-Vatican II Catholicism (and from Protestantism, for that matter).

The fundamental difference between the Catholic and Protestant worldviews, as I see it, is that the Catholic understands Christianity as all-encompassing — the Catholic Church is the “people” of God and a world that one enters into; the more one participates in the traditional rites of the Church, the more one’s thoughts and actions accord with traditional Catholic faith. Salvation, in a sense, is the process through which one is saved from the secular world into full participation in the Body of Christ, both now and in the world to come. Sure there are dogmas, but those are understood only through participation in the Church. For Protestants, on the other hand, Christianity is about intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and what one does follows from (or is secondary to) the particular menu of beliefs that one assents to.

The primary problem I have with post-Vatican II Catholicism is that it suppresses the aspects of Catholicism that are most at odds with the sensibilities of the modern secular Western world. If the language of mass is “chatty” and the supernatural is downplayed, mass is not much different from what goes on outside the parish and its power to transform is diminished. The result is that a post-Vatican II Catholic is not encouraged to abandon a rationalist, secular mindset. The minimum set of beliefs a Catholic must assent to can be adopted into a secular worldview, with the result that post-Vatican II Catholicism does not look all that different from some forms of Protestantism. In other words, a modern Catholic’s participation in the life of a typical post-Vatican II parish does not readily lead to acquisition of a Catholic worldview — the result being that the modern Catholic is often unable to situate himself or herself within the narrative of the Church.

I don’t mean to overstate the case because obviously not all ideas coming out of narrative theology are compatible with Catholic teaching. But I do think that the core of traditional Catholicism — placing the Church and oneself into the Christian narrative through participation in the Body of Christ — is precisely what narrative theology sets out to do.

Does this make sense to anyone?

I’m not sure I understood exactly what you said, but I think you said that the Post Vatican II time has changed the direction of the liturgy from being one of peaceful, heavenly, experience of God to one of being like the noisey society we live in and is killing us.

If I have put words in your mouth, I apoligize. In a way this is true, but only because as I recall living thru the times noone seemed to know just how to carry out the norms of that council. It seemed to me that there was a lot of guessing going on even among the clergy. I sat thru many a sermon listening to the parish priest doing his best to calm everyone down and reassuring all of us that everything was ok and under control. I took this to mean, that everything was not ok and not under control. There was just a lot of confusion in knowing exactly how to carry out the new changes. I believe the council was a good thing, but it was not understood very well even and especially by the clergy. That was my impression. By the way, I’m not blaming the priests because 5 will get you 10 that they were not instructed either. They did their best.

 

[mauricewilliams]

The perfect blend of fine art portraiture
and spontaneous capture by Vancouver wedding
photographers.​

Vancouver Wedding Photographer

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I hate to link to wikipedia, but it provides the best overview I’ve seen: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postliberal_theology

My apologies for the long opening post. I see the core ideas of narrative theology providing a fruitful way of understanding traditional Catholicism (even though the two may at first seem to be strange bedfellows) and am curious whether anyone else has thoughts on the matter.

Thanks. I read up to the middle and got sleepy.
When the dust settles, I will study what remained in the ground and did not fly away…

 

[Tsuwano]

As a Catholic convert with traditionalist sensibilities, I have little patience for things like the “emerging church” movement among post-modern-minded evangelical protestants. But one feature of that movement which I find fascinating is its use of ideas from narrative (post-liberal) theology. To my mind, a Catholic reading of narrative theology — situating the Church and oneself in a Catholic worldview through participation in the liturgy, sacraments, and traditional devotions — is precisely what distinguishes traditional Catholicism from post-Vatican II Catholicism (and from Protestantism, for that matter).

The fundamental difference between the Catholic and Protestant worldviews, as I see it, is that the Catholic understands Christianity as all-encompassing — the Catholic Church is the “people” of God and a world that one enters into; the more one participates in the traditional rites of the Church, the more one’s thoughts and actions accord with traditional Catholic faith. Salvation, in a sense, is the process through which one is saved from the secular world into full participation in the Body of Christ, both now and in the world to come. Sure there are dogmas, but those are understood only through participation in the Church. For Protestants, on the other hand, Christianity is about intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and what one does follows from (or is secondary to) the particular menu of beliefs that one assents to.

The primary problem I have with post-Vatican II Catholicism is that it suppresses the aspects of Catholicism that are most at odds with the sensibilities of the modern secular Western world. If the language of mass is “chatty” and the supernatural is downplayed, mass is not much different from what goes on outside the parish and its power to transform is diminished. The result is that a post-Vatican II Catholic is not encouraged to abandon a rationalist, secular mindset. The minimum set of beliefs a Catholic must assent to can be adopted into a secular worldview, with the result that post-Vatican II Catholicism does not look all that different from some forms of Protestantism. In other words, a modern Catholic’s participation in the life of a typical post-Vatican II parish does not readily lead to acquisition of a Catholic worldview — the result being that the modern Catholic is often unable to situate himself or herself within the narrative of the Church.

I don’t mean to overstate the case because obviously not all ideas coming out of narrative theology are compatible with Catholic teaching. But I do think that the core of traditional Catholicism — placing the Church and oneself into the Christian narrative through participation in the Body of Christ — is precisely what narrative theology sets out to do.

Does this make sense to anyone?

I believe I understand what you are trying to say, but I’m afraid I disagree with some of your observations. You state, for example, that " a Catholic reading of narrative theology - situating the Church and oneself in a Catholic worldview through participation in the liturgy, sacraments, and traditional devotions - is precisely what distinguishes traditional Catholicism from post-Vatican II Catholicism . . ." but you fail to note that it was a lack of participation in and understanding of the liturgy and the sacraments and traditional devotions which the Second Vatican Council sought to address. The Second Vatican Council was not an attempt to do away with a Catholic worldview or to draw closer to Protestantism. It was, in part, an attempt to deepen the Catholic worldview by giving the laity the opportunity to participate in the liturgy and sacraments more than they had before and to claim the faith as their own and not merely the property of a priestly class. The Council’s hope was to situate the Church and the faithful within a Catholic worldview based on understanding of the faith more than simple adherance to tradition. I disagree that the post Vatican II Church has promoted a “chatty” liturgy or downplayed the supernatural. I agree that the post Vatican II Catholic is not encouraged to abandon a rationalist mindset and I do not equate a rationalist mindset with secularism. The Church has always encouraged the faithful to think through their faith. It has always maintained that Christianity is a rational faith and that reason can draw us close to God. One need only study Aquinus to realize this. It is not a sign of rampant secularism to think about one’s faith. I disagree that a Catholic who has nourished his faith in the post Vatican II Church is unable to situate himself within the narrative of the Church. I wonder if you really take the Second Vatican Council seriously or if you are simply prejudiced against it because of preconceived notions of what you think it created in the Church.

 

[Warrenton]

.

Does this make sense to anyone?

It does, although I think the traditional Catholic mindset is a little more complex than the “academics’” systems.

I’ll take a run at explaining it, and perhaps with your Anglo Catholic background, it would make more sense.

Old fashioned Anglicans held an idea of England in mind, and they held an idea of the Anglican Church in mind. The two were closely related, but they were distinct. Clearly, in his speech, the Englishman would borrow from the BOCP and the Authorised Version - that accounts for the richness and depth of even popular literature, such as “Little Foxes,” “Less than Angels,” “Invictus” and Kipling’s “Recessional.” The old fashioned Englishman allowed the two worlds to inform each other, but kept the balance in favor of the Church informing English culture.

But he (or she) also attended jumble sales, festivals, blessings of this or that sporting event. Of course, as old fashioned English society became smaller in relation to the whole, this idea got somewhat attenuated,but one can see glimpses of it in the idea behind Ms. Marple mysteries, which stands for the idea that all of life is present in an English village in miniature. One could say the same thing about the Church - all of life is present there, in miniature, and in a formalized, somewhat ideal manner. But consciously so.

The problem we have now is that secular, or perhaps the better word really is “political” society absolutely refuses to permit any Church influence upon its activity. It also refuses to allow people to opt out of political society, an enforces its absolute dominion over the masses through a bewildering and contradictory array of laws, regulations, taxes, confiscations, and prohibitions which hamper all attempts at external reform. As the Libyans and Syrians are showing, sadly, all one can do with such entities is destroy them or tolerate them. Perhaps if an effort at non violent change could be sustained for long enough, an alternative to force might be found, but this would not change the basic nature of the conflict - namely, the reshaping of society and the restoration of a balance that has not prevailed on a wide scale since, at the latest, World War I.

Personally, I am of the view that because of the refusal of the political world to accomodate the Church, no accord, no “aggiornamento” is possible between the two views. The present political system must be dismantled, or the Church must cease to be a meaningful institution. Since the latter is impossible, the former is a necessity.

Victory in any struggle requires clarity of purpose. The Church must remain clear in her vision in order to strengthen the people for the contest ahead.

 

[True_Mass]

DC Anglo,

Excellent post. Great insight.

It is claimed in response, “it was a lack of participation in and understanding of the liturgy and the sacraments and traditional devotions which the Second Vatican Council sought to address.” And did it succeed in addressing them? In addition to the majority of Mass attendees who left the Church after the reforms, do those who remained participate in and understand the sacraments and traditional devotions more than before the Council? To ask the question is to answer it.

Much is made of “active participation” and liberals have used this phrase in SC of VCII to justify making the verbal recitations and actions of the congregation the primary end of the Mass. In reality the verb used in the Latin of VCII was not the same as “activity”, it meant a deeper inner participation in the Mass which is all that really matters. External acts only matter as far as they improve one’s interior disposition to receive grace.

No matter what the intent of the VCII Fathers was or what the documents say, DC points out correctly that the reality, the situation on the ground, is that the supernatural is deemphasized and a secular mindset has crept into a lot of parishes.

 

[Dirt]

Interesting idea.

Many have written about the change in the centering of Our Faith over the last fifty years. Root causes can be argued ad infinitum, but suffice it to say that in the western world, we do seem to see a major decline in a worldview that is predicated on the Teachings of the Church. This decline in and of itself is leading to the advance of secular theology becoming the dominant worldview. We will soon find that this ideology is not only self-destructive to peoples and countries, but will become evermore agressive in its hatred for the Church and all things Christian. That is one reason why, imho, we are seeing Cardinals and Archbishops calling for both a return to tradition and a clarification of the Documents of Vatican Council II. They are just as aware as we as to the destruction of modern society that we seem to be on the brink of today. As is The Holy Father with his call for a Re-Evangilization of the west. A re-catechising of Catholics with an emphasis of learning the Faith in all it’s richness and Glory, as opposed to Catholic lite, which seems, from my humble perspective, to be what most cradle and convert Catholics now receive.

 

[Tsuwano]

DC Anglo,

Excellent post. Great insight.

It is claimed in response, “it was a lack of participation in and understanding of the liturgy and the sacraments and traditional devotions which the Second Vatican Council sought to address.” And did it succeed in addressing them? In addition to the majority of Mass attendees who left the Church after the reforms, do those who remained participate in and understand the sacraments and traditional devotions more than before the Council? To ask the question is to answer it.

Much is made of “active participation” and liberals have used this phrase in SC of VCII to justify making the verbal recitations and actions of the congregation the primary end of the Mass. In reality the verb used in the Latin of VCII was not the same as “activity”, it meant a deeper inner participation in the Mass which is all that really matters. External acts only matter as far as they improve one’s interior disposition to receive grace.

No matter what the intent of the VCII Fathers was or what the documents say, DC points out correctly that the reality, the situation on the ground, is that the supernatural is deemphasized and a secular mindset has crept into a lot of parishes.

In my experience, yes, the Second Vatican Council was successful in helping people understand and explore their faith more deeply than before the Vatican Council. You mention a deeper inner participation in the Mass as a goal of the Second Vatican Council. I agree that this was indeed a goal of the Council and rightly so. You mention that “External acts only matter as far as they improve one’s interior disposition to receive grace.” No doubt about it. This is why the external acts of worshipers in the liturgy have such importance. Again, I believe that to understand faith with reason is not to deemphasize the supernatural aspect of faith, but I also believe that the supernatural aspect of faith, the miracles that have and do take place, are not the most important aspect of faith. Paul Johnson, the historian, writes in his recent book Jesus: A Biography From a Believer “Jesus was always prepared to demonstrate God’s power by miracle, when it was necessary to do so. But he repeatedly rejected the mere role of miracle worker as a human instrument of “signs and wonders.” Luke says he regarded the incessant clamor of the people for “signs” as itself the sign of “an evil generation”: “They seek a sign: and there shall no sign be given it” (11:29). And in telling the story of Lazarus the beggar and the wicked rich man (Lk 16:19~31) Jesus makes it clear that it is preferable in God’s eyes that men show faith by listening to the holy truth, and by accepting it and following it, rather than by waiting for signs and miracles to convince them. Jesus taught that the truth was reasonable, that goodness made sense, that to follow his teaching and obey God’s commandments was a rational thing to do.” Again, it is not a sign of a secular mindset to approach faith with reason and a desire to understand.