Self-refutation

[Nihil Obstat]

Interestingly, the stereotype sometimes is that traditionalists are all uneducated Catholic bumpkins who simply do not like all the newfangled learnin' of enlightened modernist Catholicism. But, when convenient, suddenly traditionalists are all arrogant ivory tower eggheads who worship dusty documents and their own intellects.

I guess it depends on who precisely needs to be demonized.

 

We should not do that.

[Nihil Obstat]

Good point... I like the Waugh and Tolkien traditionalism (also known as Catholicism), not the denim jumper-wearing variety (more of a simple reaction to modernity) :).

By the way, have you read that recently published book "A Bitter Trial", which is a collection of Evelyn Waugh's letters around the time of the liturgical changes? I found it to be a fascinating look at the Church climate at the time, from the perspective of a faithful 'old-world Catholic'.

"If you see Cardinal Bea spit in his eye."

[Era Might]

Legitimate traditionalism of today used to simply be called "Catholicism", and it is unfortunate that the people of the Roman Church have forgotten their patrimony to such an extent that we need a separate term to refer to it. 

I very much disagree with your assessment of modern traditionalism. You, like the previous poster, are referring to a particular subset which does not represent the whole.

 

I'm not sure what "legitimate traditionalism" means. Who legitimates traditionalism? Lots of things used to be called Catholicism, depending on where you lived. Even the idea of "legitimate traditionalism" strikes me as a bookish kind of religion, something that lives in ideas and theories, not in reality.

 

I'm not referring to a subset. Is there one person who you would say represents "legitimate traditionalism" who has built on the world they actually live in? I like Waugh as a writer, "Brideshead Revisited" is one of my favorite books, but it's a very small contribution to a large literary conversation in the 20th century. I don't see any real place for Traditionalism except as a ghetto, because it begins from a retreat, it abhors the course of history, and its grand project is to stitch together a civilization from books.

 

You know what "Catholicism" is? It's what you find in the pages of The Canterbury Tales: cuckolded husbands, lascivious priests, rebellious women, spiritual corruption, oppressive hierarchy, and all kinds of beautiful flashes of holiness, beauty, art, etc. It was the real world Chaucer wrote about. It was the real world people like  Michelangelo and More engaged with during the Englightenment. I don't see any of that realness in modern "Traditionalism." It's a movement for people who want to escape their parishes, who want to escape what they see as a deluge of error, waywardness, etc. It's partly what scandalizes many people about Pope Francis. Whatever he is, nobody would accuse him of living in retreat from the world that actually exists.

[Era Might]

You know what "Catholicism" is? It's what you find in the pages of The Canterbury Tales: cuckolded husbands, lascivious priests, rebellious women, spiritual corruption, oppressive hierarchy, and all kinds of beautiful flashes of holiness, beauty, art, etc. It was the real world Chaucer wrote about. It was the real world people like  Michelangelo and More engaged with during the Englightenment. I don't see any of that realness in modern "Traditionalism." It's a movement for people who want to escape their parishes, who want to escape what they see as a deluge of error, waywardness, etc. It's partly what scandalizes many people about Pope Francis. Whatever he is, nobody would accuse him of living in retreat from the world that actually exists.

 

Also, just to add that one of the reasons why Brideshead Revisited is so great is because Waugh understood precisely this. The Catholics you find in Brideshead Revisited are just as messed up as the ones you find in The Canterbury Tales. Despite Waugh's sympathies for older aristocratic ways and civilization in England, Brideshead Revisited is a powerful statement of the theme of what Catholicism actually is: a house of dysfunction and grace.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm not sure what "legitimate traditionalism" means. Who legitimates traditionalism? Lots of things used to be called Catholicism, depending on where you lived. Even the idea of "legitimate traditionalism" strikes me as a bookish kind of religion, something that lives in ideas and theories, not in reality.

 

I'm not referring to a subset. Is there one person who you would say represents "legitimate traditionalism" who has built on the world they actually live in? I like Waugh as a writer, "Brideshead Revisited" is one of my favorite books, but it's a very small contribution to a large literary conversation in the 20th century. I don't see any real place for Traditionalism except as a ghetto, because it begins from a retreat, it abhors the course of history, and its grand project is to stitch together a civilization from books.

 

You know what "Catholicism" is? It's what you find in the pages of The Canterbury Tales: cuckolded husbands, lascivious priests, rebellious women, spiritual corruption, oppressive hierarchy, and all kinds of beautiful flashes of holiness, beauty, art, etc. It was the real world Chaucer wrote about. It was the real world people like  Michelangelo and More engaged with during the Englightenment. I don't see any of that realness in modern "Traditionalism." It's a movement for people who want to escape their parishes, who want to escape what they see as a deluge of error, waywardness, etc. It's partly what scandalizes many people about Pope Francis. Whatever he is, nobody would accuse him of living in retreat from the world that actually exists.

Do you realize that you do precisely what you have implicitly accused me of? That is, forming your own version of Catholicism and claiming that it is somehow more authentic than the alternatives that you have identified?

[Era Might]

Do you realize that you do precisely what you have implicitly accused me of? That is, forming your own version of Catholicism and claiming that it is somehow more authentic than the alternatives that you have identified?

 

I don't claim a version of Catholicism. I don't look at Traditionalism as something unknown in Catholic history...but neither do I look at Pope Francis that way. The church has always had struggles for control over the terms of the conversation. I only ask that self-knowledge always be present. I don't have a problem with people who find Traditionalism suiting to their brief lives, but neither do I freak out over people who live in different contexts and are drawn to stuff like liberation theology. Life is a complicated beast.

 

I don't claim to speak FOR Catholicism, but I do claim to speak about it.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Era Might

[fons_vitae]

I think as long as we realize that "old" Catholicism and "new" Catholicism are actually the same thing, we'll pay no heed to the one thing both "radtrad" and progressive agree on: the hermeneutic of rupture.

Edited October 4, 2013 by fons_vitae

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't claim a version of Catholicism. I don't look at Traditionalism as something unknown in Catholic history...but neither do I look at Pope Francis that way. The church has always had struggles for control over the terms of the conversation. I only ask that self-knowledge always be present. I don't have a problem with people who find Traditionalism suiting to their brief lives, but neither do I freak out over people who live in different contexts and are drawn to stuff like liberation theology. Life is a complicated beast.

 

I don't claim to speak FOR Catholicism, but I do claim to speak about it.

 

I said nothing about Pope Francis. I say as little as possible about him, for my own sake.

 

I think as long as we realize that "old" Catholicism and "new" Catholicism are actually the same thing, we'll pay no heed to the one thing both "radtrad" and progressive agree on: the hermeneutic of rupture.

I think it is too shallow a view to look at a hermeneutic of rupture or a hermeneutic of continuity as a single unified subject. I think we can and should look at specific subject areas, for instance the propers of the Mass, the ordinary of the Mass (perhaps even subdivide such that the Canon is a separate entity), the Divine Office vs. Liturgy of the Hours, social teaching, sexual morality, ecclesiology, etc., etc.. I think in most areas, and in all areas which we properly consider vital (ETA: vital in the sense that the Church retains Her identity and nature), there is demonstrable continuity. I do think it is also fair to say that there was rupture in some areas at some points in time. Rupture at least in a material sense, such as with the propers of the Roman Rite, or the Divine Office.

On the other hand, when I say that there could exist a rupture in a material sense, I mean material in a very limited way. I do not mean that the Church as a whole fell into a state of rupture in a theological sense. I do not mean that at all. But it is simply untrue, to use that same example, that the propers of the classical Roman Rite are 'the same' as the Pauline missae.

 

I forget what my point was. Maybe I did not have one. Anyway, I like talking about the liturgy.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[fons_vitae]

But it is simply untrue, to use that same example, that the propers of the classical Roman Rite are 'the same' as the Pauline missae.

 

I forget what my point was. Maybe I did not have one. Anyway, I like talking about the liturgy.

 

Yes, but the liturgy has frequently been revised and altered and snipped throughout the centuries (I know, I know, but back then it was more organic snippery). They just need to continue restoring the sense of the sacred to the current Ordinary Form, and there you go. Or, for goodness' sake, just translate the Extraordinary Form into the vernacular and be done with it. :P I know the propers aren't verbatim the same, but reverence is all I require.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, but the liturgy has frequently been revised and altered and snipped throughout the centuries (I know, I know, but back then it was more organic snippery). They just need to continue restoring the sense of the sacred to the current Ordinary Form, and there you go. Or, for goodness' sake, just translate the Extraordinary Form into the vernacular and be done with it. :P I know the propers aren't verbatim the same, but reverence is all I require.

I think it is demonstrable that the (essential) loss of the traditional propers is extremely serious, both from a liturgical patrimony perspective and an artistic, cultural perspective.
I am not entirely against reasonable use of the vernacular in liturgy. I do think the Canon should remain in Latin, and the most stable parts of the Ordinary. But the propers are a unique, living element in their own right. What they represent is many centuries of living organic tradition - in countless cases the propers are far older than the tridentine missal itself. Unfortunately the renovation of the propers was not an exercise in organic continuity, and I think for the continuing good of the Roman Rite they need to be restored or revived. This would allow the liturgical reform to be carried out in the way that it was more truly intended.

 

Are you familiar at all with Laszlo Dobszay, the late Hungarian musicologist and (in a certain sense) liturgist?

[Era Might]

I said nothing about Pope Francis. I say as little as possible about him, for my own sake.

 

hehe. I remember when people were worried about Benedict's liberalism. Now Benedict has become the new Slayer of Heresies in some people's minds. I can only imagine what will become of Francis once a new Pope comes along.

[Era Might]

I think as long as we realize that "old" Catholicism and "new" Catholicism are actually the same thing, we'll pay no heed to the one thing both "radtrad" and progressive agree on: the hermeneutic of rupture.

 

Yeah, just an aside, when I speak of the neurosis of traditionalism I speak from experience. I remember when the book "The Great Facade" came out circa 2002, and sites like Novus Ordo Watch, etc. getting a buzz, I went through my traditionalist phase. I still have the 1962 Missal I bought (it is still in the actual cardboard box from 1962). I went through an Eastern Catholic phase too lol. But like you say, each phase was driven by a rupture, not unlike people who convert from religion to religion, though I was never attracted to another religion.

 

But I've also experienced more sane "traditional" currents. I've actually had a pretty tame experience in that regard, have always found parishes where stuff like benediction, rosaries, etc. were normal. Though they weren't "traditionalist" in the sense of using the Latin Mass. And I have also encountered less outwardly "traditional" communities in terms of aesthetics, but still very sane in terms of living the Gospel in the Catholic tradition.

 

I am not a fan of fanaticism of any side, because I find it always to be fake, not true to real life.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

hehe. I remember when people were worried about Benedict's liberalism. Now Benedict has become the new Slayer of Heresies in some people's minds. I can only imagine what will become of Francis once a new Pope comes along.

I do not remember anyone besides sedevacantists, privationists, etc., calling Benedict a liberal. At least not since Vatican II. :hehe:

[Era Might]

I do not remember anyone besides sedevacantists, privationists, etc., calling Benedict a liberal. At least not since Vatican II. :hehe:

 

You forget, grasshopper. There was LOTS of fear over Benedict, from the picture of him in the '60s not in clericals but in a suit and tie, to various quotations from past books like the one about dogma being a graveyard of heresy (I forget the exact quote), and then fears during his pontificate itself, from the time he wore those blue vestments in Austria, to his dropping the title "Patriarch of the West," convening another Assisi, naming Levada to the CDF, etc. Benedict was never the Heresy Hunter that people imagine him as now...he even met with Hans Kung during his pontificate lol.

 

Of course, all this was Internet-driven. People in the real world weren't obsessing over this stuff. But that's true about most of what goes on on the Internet.  :disguise:

Edited October 4, 2013 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Oh, and I forgot, removing the Papal Tiara from his coat-of-arms, replacing it with a mitre.  :pope2:  

Edited October 4, 2013 by Era Might