Social change, tradition, and continuity

[bardegaulois]

For the time being, it might be best to keep this as open-ended as possible.

I’m sure we all understand the importance of thinking with the Church (sentire cum ecclesia), and, this being Traditional Catholicism, I’m sure we all also understand that the Church’s thought on matters doctrinal, liturgical, pastoral, and so forth is a story of gradual development over two millennia. Very often, however, I’m left rather cold by much Catholic discussion, here and elsewhere, on certain social phenomena and the Church’s response to them, as perhaps according with the thought of the Church today, but what about the Church of yesterday? Where is the development of this idea from its ancient origins into its present form?

I could provide some examples, but I’ll just leave it be for a moment and see what kind of responses I get.

 

[Greekrhetoric]

Provide an example please as I am dumb, and do not follow.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The Church has always been about the Truth.

 

[bardegaulois]

Well, GreekRhetoric, I’ll start with perhaps the most obvious such issue in this day and time, the liturgy. But that is so broad that I’ll just pick out one aspect of it, so how about the manner of receiving communion? Was communion received in the hands in the primitive Church. Yes. But had it been routinely received in the hand over the past thousand years? No. Suddenly it becomes allowed and so widespread as to be the norm in practice, though not in law. What I’m asking is where was the development over time that led to communion in the hand becoming not only licit but widespread?

So was the Church wrong insisting that Communion be received on the tongue for so many centuries? Nonsense, for the Church can never be wrong. But can it appear to a rational person that so drastic a change of course without any seeming gradual development in that direction would be like the Church rectifying a faulty practice? It can.

No doubt we could think of many liturgical examples in this regard, and I can also think of many regarding social theology for lack of a better term, particularly in practices regarding many religious and lay faithful that seem somewhat unprecedented.

Does this illustrate my point a little better?

 

[johnmann]

This assumes first that allowing a practice licit in the early church but then fell out of favor is somehow a practically irreconcilable break from tradition.

 

[bardegaulois]

Johnmann, that is true that there were many early practices that fell from favour (at least in the Christian West), but we must consider that there is likely a very good reason that they did. Otherwise, we would fall into that lazy-minded trap of so many agitators who would say that the mean old greedy patriarchy did away with these things because they were empowering to the serfs or some other tripe like that. I know of no rational persons who would say that.

Moreover, let’s look at magisterial works, starting with Pius XII’s Mediator Dei of 1947. Here the Pope condemns any form of “liturgical archaeologism,” scouring earlier Church practices in order to attempt to reform the liturgy by bringing everything back to a more ancient state, as the Anglicans and Jansenists claimed to do with their liturgies. However, Memoriale Domini, promulgated under Paul VI just 22 years later, seems to do exactly that by allowing communion in the hand.

Here’s yet another example of what I am talking about: Mediator Dei saying one thing, and Memoriale Domini and many other documents of the same time period seeming to act from a contradictory impulse. Is it any wonder that so many might be confused, or might think, quite impossibly, that the Church has changed her mind?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t think of the Church as an historian in the secular textbook sense and I don’t think the Church has the ability to make definitive historical statements about things about which there is little evidence. The Church, having learned people in it, can make historical judgements, but the Church can’t just make stuff up authoritatively. (Notice: I never said the Church actually did that.)

A lot of the post-Conciliar “this is what the early Church did” statements were not found in actual Church documents, but rather they were the writings of historians and liturgists, and sometimes theologians. Let’s assume that these people were personally convinced of the validity of their statements. That doesn’t mean their research was correct. It doesn’t mean their research was valid. But the Church went ahead and allowed certain practices to reemerge, or else prevented them from reemerging, often based on these peoples’ sometimes now-demonstrably-spurious research.

I don’t think there was some conspiracy by people to just make up a bunch of stuff and call it ancient so they could get it in the liturgy to stroke their egos and fit their ideologies, but I do think that there was a lot of questionable research, and I don’t doubt that ideology played at least some part in that.

So I’ve got two thoughts here:

I accept what is in the OF liturgy even if the historical research that supported certain elements’ introduction/reintroduction has been proven to be false and/or flawed.

At the same time, I think we should correct this research, if only as a matter of integrity. That’s part of research, validating and correcting past research.

 

[ProVobis]

But can it appear to a rational person that so drastic a change of course without any seeming gradual development in that direction would be like the Church rectifying a faulty practice? It can.

One also can point to the teaching of our previous Pope(s) that there is to be no rupture between the old form and the new. It paints a broad stroke but it appears that there has to be some continuity. I think it would behoove us to find as much continuity as we can and not dwell on the differences. Easier said than done, I know.

 

[johnmann]

Often practices are introduced to deal with issues of the times which are no longer issues today. There are valid reasons to return to a more ancient practice.

As for the research, I find that those who disparage the OF as the result of flawed research often make mountains out of molehills. Sure, the responsorial psalm was originally the recitation of an entire pslam. From that fact, some claim that the current OF responsorial pslam was invented out of whole cloth. I once read in a traditional publication, a criticism of the Sign of Peace because it isn’t a kiss as originally practiced. I’m willing to listen to real criticisms. E.g., the communion chants and the offertory prayers of the OF do appear to have undergone more than minor modifications when it appears there was no need to be so drastic. But some criticism is just flawed itself at best and possibly even malicious in intent.

 

[ProVobis]

E.g., the communion chants and the offertory prayers of the OF do appear to have undergone more than minor modifications when it appears there was no need to be so drastic. But some criticism is just flawed itself at best and possibly even malicious in intent.

Thanks for bringing this up. The Introit, Offertory, and Communion chants are still there though seldom used, if ever. I think the criticism that they should be used more often is justified IMO as not using them is a severe break with the past.

 

[bardegaulois]

I ought to note, moreover, that it’s not merely liturgical matters that are in consideration here. Let’s look at what I can only call a more social matter to give this a little context.

Of late we’ve been seeing a lot written about a “vocation to singleness.” Now perhaps we can see an analogy to this in the early Church, with even the New Testament speaking about the dignity of virgins and widows, who, along with continent men, were very well-regarded in the first few centuries. We had celibate holy men go to live as hermits in the desert. Then they began to band together for mutual support. Then they started writing rules for life, and then we had monasteries and thus religious life as we know it, which attracted women as well as men. Despite its various permutations throughout the centuries, it is fundamentally the same thing.

Now, however, the numbers of religious throughout the Western world are falling (granted, the orders themselves aren’t faultless in this regard). The average sister is elderly. Non-ordained brothers have become quite rare. And yet, many seem content to satisfy young, seeking souls that they are called to be single in the world (something certainly unpromoted until very recently) when it was that very condition that led to religious life in the first place.

So, this might stand as a non-liturgical example of what I’m talking about.

 

[johnmann]

Small ‘t’ tradition has to serve the faith, not the other way around. Clearly religious life isn’t appealing to most people anymore. Whatever the solution, refusing to change isn’t serving the faith. At the same time, we shouldn’t abandon traditions for no reason or trivial reasons. Maybe promote secular orders and/or encourage praying the liturgy of the hours.

 

[bardegaulois]

I don’t think of the Church as an historian in the secular textbook sense and I don’t think the Church has the ability to make definitive historical statements about things about which there is little evidence. The Church, having learned people in it, can make historical judgements, but the Church can’t just make stuff up authoritatively. (Notice: I never said the Church actually did that.)

A lot of the post-Conciliar “this is what the early Church did” statements were not found in actual Church documents, but rather they were the writings of historians and liturgists, and sometimes theologians. Let’s assume that these people were personally convinced of the validity of their statements. That doesn’t mean their research was correct. It doesn’t mean their research was valid. But the Church went ahead and allowed certain practices to reemerge, or else prevented them from reemerging, often based on these peoples’ sometimes now-demonstrably-spurious research.

I don’t think there was some conspiracy by people to just make up a bunch of stuff and call it ancient so they could get it in the liturgy to stroke their egos and fit their ideologies, but I do think that there was a lot of questionable research, and I don’t doubt that ideology played at least some part in that.

So I’ve got two thoughts here:

I accept what is in the OF liturgy even if the historical research that supported certain elements’ introduction/reintroduction has been proven to be false and/or flawed.

At the same time, I think we should correct this research, if only as a matter of integrity. That’s part of research, validating and correcting past research.

I agree. If certain liturgical or ecclesiastical phenomena are based on faulty research, that doesn’t suddenly make any Mass or other sacrament containing them invalid. But it does call us to take the refutation of that research seriously, and to amend what is based on a flaw.

A good example of this would be Pope Benedict’s distributing communion only on the tongue to those kneeling, to recall my earlier example, hoping to promote this practice by example rather than by mandate.

 

[johnmann]

A good example of this would be Pope Benedict’s distributing communion only on the tongue to those kneeling, to recall my earlier example, hoping to promote this practice by example rather than by mandate.

I believe that practice started with JP2 because people were selling the hosts. Communion at papal Masses for everyone else is typically in the hand.

Benedict did begin the practice of placing a crucifix directly on the altar in lieu of ad orientem so that we’re all facing Christ.

 

[bardegaulois]

I believe that practice started with JP2 because people were selling the hosts. Communion at papal Masses for everyone else is typically in the hand.

Benedict did begin the practice of placing a crucifix directly on the altar in lieu of ad orientem so that we’re all facing Christ.

Hmm… I don’t see anything about the prevention of desecration being the primary factor here here: adoremus.org/0908PapalMass.html.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Small ‘t’ tradition has to serve the faith, not the other way around. Clearly religious life isn’t appealing to most people anymore. Whatever the solution, refusing to change isn’t serving the faith. At the same time, we shouldn’t abandon traditions for no reason or trivial reasons. Maybe promote secular orders and/or encourage praying the liturgy of the hours.

Well, sure it does, but if the outward structure becomes difficult to perceive in relation to previous forms to some degree, we’ve got a problem, even if it’s only an anthropological problem; those are really nasty and hard to fix. Don’t infer any statements about liturgy here, it’s meant to be general.

While it is true that religious life is probably not as attractive as it used to be, I don’t think changing the habit is the answer. People aren’t off-put by full habits, they’re off-put by chastity and the giving of oneself. Just as an example. You can’t change something on the outside and expect it to suddenly make Catholicism a lot more attractive, because once people see the inside, and they will sooner or later, they see that precisely nothing has changed after all. Being enamored of aesthetics wears off. Substance has to sustain you. If you abhor the substance of Catholicism, and that is what the culture trains people to do, you will go away, even after being attracted by the contemporary liturgy or, for that matter, the Gregorian chant. (Not saying aesthetics is not important, just that it’s a different topic and demands special consideration.)

I think a more effective way of talking about changes vis-a-vis evangelization–instead of talking about how we can make the liturgy super-duper and make sure the sisters don’t scare off potential postulants by their black habits so let’s go ahead and change them–is to talk about human relationships and verbal communication. I do think outward appearances have an impact, but I think a far greater impact is had by small-group or one-on-one type evangelization where someone decently learned in the faith is ready to go out and talk to people, not in a pushy way, and be able to fend off common arguments charitably and constructively.

TL;DR: people don’t have visceral reactions against the faith because they don’t like how that conservative sister dresses and it offends their modern sensibilities, rather they have visceral reactions against the faith because people are trained from an early age to prefer things that are contrary to the faith on a substantial level. Changing the drapes does nothing to deal with that and can, as you imply, have negative effects.

 

[TimothyH]

Well, sure it does, but if the outward structure becomes difficult to perceive in relation to previous forms to some degree, we’ve got a problem, even if it’s only an anthropological problem; those are really nasty and hard to fix. Don’t infer any statements about liturgy here, it’s meant to be general.

While it is true that religious life is probably not as attractive as it used to be, I don’t think changing the habit is the answer. People aren’t off-put by full habits, they’re off-put by chastity and the giving of oneself. Just as an example. You can’t change something on the outside and expect it to suddenly make Catholicism a lot more attractive, because once people see the inside, and they will sooner or later, they see that precisely nothing has changed after all. Being enamored of aesthetics wears off. Substance has to sustain you. If you abhor the substance of Catholicism, and that is what the culture trains people to do, you will go away, even after being attracted by the contemporary liturgy or, for that matter, the Gregorian chant. (Not saying aesthetics is not important, just that it’s a different topic and demands special consideration.)

I think a more effective way of talking about changes vis-a-vis evangelization–instead of talking about how we can make the liturgy super-duper and make sure the sisters don’t scare off potential postulants by their black habits so let’s go ahead and change them–is to talk about human relationships and verbal communication. I do think outward appearances have an impact, but I think a far greater impact is had by small-group or one-on-one type evangelization where someone decently learned in the faith is ready to go out and talk to people, not in a pushy way, and be able to fend off common arguments charitably and constructively.

TL;DR: people don’t have visceral reactions against the faith because they don’t like how that conservative sister dresses and it offends their modern sensibilities, rather they have visceral reactions against the faith because people are trained from an early age to prefer things that are contrary to the faith on a substantial level. Changing the drapes does nothing to deal with that and can, as you imply, have negative effects.

I’ve put part in bold/red. This post is excellent.

This post is excellent and speaks to the need for Catholics to be able to give authentic Christian witness, to be able to explain how Jesus has changed their lives. Christian witness is the most powerful form of evangelization and goes back to Paul in Acts of the Apostles and beyond.

You can change all the externals but authentic Christian witness as to how a relationship with Jesus (and the church for that matter) has changed your life is going to light fires under people.

Witness comes first, then teaching. All the externals don’t matter unless there is a demonstrable effect to all of it in the lives of ordinary people.

-Tim-

 

[bardegaulois]

Perhaps, gentlemen. But I’d still think that we come to understand ideas more through our senses than through didactic learning. This is a very broad and general epistemological statement, I know, but consider: what around us isn’t symbol? Our philosophers and linguists will say that even a word is not a thing in itself, but a sign of the greater reality of that concept for which the word stands.

And in our faith, moreover, symbols matter, so much that using the wrong words or the wrong matter can be the difference between a valid sacrament and an invalid sacrament. What we present is what others perceive; we understand things from the outside in rather than the inside out. When the whole presentation of the structure, moreover, is flawed and contradictory, the inner truth, Christ crucified and risen, might be known as a fact through didactic instruction, but might never be experienced and related to as a reality which animates all things connected to it.