The Growing Scourge Of Catholic Tribalism

[mortify ii]

I'm afraid I disagree with you to some extent about the traditional Latin Mass versus the Novus Ordo Missae.  While I accept the Novus Ordo (the "Ordinary Form") as Catholic, I do think the traditional Latin Mass (the "Extraordinary Form") is objectively superior in conveying a sense of the sacred.  It might even communicate more grace, all things being equal, because it helps people to be more disposed to receive those graces.  That does not mean that I consider the Ordinary Form to be "evil."  Not at all.  I still attend it when I must, but it just feels very horizontal, bland and flat to me.

 

I tend to agree with this
 

[BarbTherese]

My thoughts

"The amount of grace received depends on the state of our soul." http://www.catholicbible101.com/thesevensacraments.htm

 

Of itself, The Mass has the power to confer endless Grace independent of the particular liturgy - objectively speaking. The actual amount of Grace received depends on the recipient.  One person may receive more Grace at an OF than the EF - another more at the EF than the OF,  Each depends on the recipient and their state of soul and how they celebrate a particular Mass.

 

_____________

Feat St John Apostle and Evagelist

Happy Christmas season

Edited December 27, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[Lilllabettt]

Obviously the statistics were superficial. High quantity but poor quality, in a decade everything would change.

 

yes. people tend to idolize the 50s.

But the sexual revolution, the divorces, and the drug use of the 60s did not come from nowhere. 

The backwards implementation of Vatican II, the sex abuse crisis, the vast defections from religious life and priesthood ... these did not come from nowhere.

There was dysfunctional family life and crummy religious formation simmering beneath the surface.

[mortify ii]

 

There was dysfunctional family life and crummy religious formation simmering beneath the surface.

 

We had built a magnificent house of cards, as beautiful as it may have been it was bound to fall
 

[Anastasia13]

I prefer the new dancing clown guitar mass, myself. 

 

You would!

[NotreDame]

What?????   You guys are now calling the 20th century church prior to Vatican II a house of cards?  Ha ha!  That's just a little bit disrespectful to our church and forebears, don't you think?   Jeesh, what's it the water here lately.

[BarbTherese]

"House of cards" is a colloquial term for something unstable, unable to endure.  I think there was instability in The Church pre V2 and still post V2.  A need for re-form and hopefully and prayerfully Pope Francis with The Lord's Grace will at very least set the ball rolling that won't stop rolling until re-forming is complete either during his papacy or after.  We are, to my very weak understanding, insight, still too dependant on the human and not on Him on which The Church is built and He Who guarantees that He will be with His Church until the end of time.  Crisis and difficulty, instability, and even more there might be as stages, transient stages - may trust and confidence prove consistent along with working where one can until He Returns and when He does, may He indeed find "Faith on earth" (Luke Ch18)

 

_______________

Feast Holy Innocents

Happy Christmas season!

Edited December 28, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[NotreDame]

FACT:  The US Catholic church grew up in every category up until Vatican II.  After Vatican II it's numbers fell off precipitiously.  Over the last decade it appeared to reverse the decline.

 

You guys can use all the colloquialisms and euphemisms and mental acrobatics you want to avoid admitting that V-II in some way shape or form played a role in this, but it's pretty hard to deny and I don't see how Vatican II can be left out of any analysis of the decline.  The facts are plain as day.  Obviously it's not all attributable to Vatican II (eg. many of the jesuits that left immediately after VII were ordained well before so what was up then?) but there was a lot of tradition and orthodoxy lost in the time after vatican II and that certainly contributed to the lack of new vocations in a major way and it's worth looking at what role VII played in that.  

 

I don't know why everyone gets their underwear in a bunch over this... It's like the whole gay thing.  People just get irrational and you can never discuss it openly.  

 

[BarbTherese]

Likely that V2 did play a role and a major role.  It needs to be analysed whether this was something that needed to happen and whether The Council was correctly understood.  Perhaps it was due to wrong interpretation of The Council and I think it was as late after The Council as Pope Benedict who said that we have only just begun to understand Vatican II.  Perhaps many in The Church and possibly me included did 'take the bull by the horns' and run amok (and amiss) calling it "the spirit of the Council" - and as time passed some realised our mistake and amended our wayward ways seeking the truth of matters.

 

We are human and humans can make mistakes; fortunately, we can with humility and a desire for truth, correct them.

 

Perhaps exchanges in this thread and other places might have shown a disrespect for The Church pre V2, but the same disrespect can take place re Vatican II itself, which was a major pastoral Council of The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

"underwear in a bunch"............... interesting colloquialism or was it euphemism?  :)

 

People just get irrational and you can never discuss it openly.  

 

 

Some do I guess and on both sides.  Others have for various reasons made up their minds and are determined they are correct no matter what anyone has to state.

 

_______________

Feast Holy Family

Happy Christmas season!

Edited December 29, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[Cherie]

yes. people tend to idolize the 50s.
But the sexual revolution, the divorces, and the drug use of the 60s did not come from nowhere.
The backwards implementation of Vatican II, the sex abuse crisis, the vast defections from religious life and priesthood ... these did not come from nowhere.
There was dysfunctional family life and crummy religious formation simmering beneath the surface.

I agree.

Vatican II was poorly implemented, and there were people trying to push their own agendas there, but reform was needed.

I agree that "Catholic tribalism" is a problem, but perhaps not a necessarily major one. I personally have seen it mostly within certain Catholic communities where there is a very strong traditionalist stronghold. That's been my (albeit limited) experience. The different groups tend to point fingers at how the other groups are somehow "less Catholic," when what it all boils down to is preferences and trivial matters. CS Lewis mentioned this in The Screwtape Letters; I'll have to find the quote. Very convicting IMO; I used to take part in this "tribalism" and point fingers myself. It's a great way for the evil one to encourage division, lack of charity, and sinfulness among us, IMO.

There's a HUGE difference between defending the Faith from heterodoxy and encouraging division, self-righteousness, and lack of charity by calling perfectly orthodox Catholics somehow less Catholic because they don't share your opinions or preferences on non-doctrinal matters.

[NotreDame]

That's why I'd look to a different framework to describe what we are seeing:

 

On one side (let's just call it the left) you have groups that hold heterodox ideas (as mortify points out) and have internalized these ideas.  I'd say the LCWR, and NCReporter crowd are easy examples of this.

 

On the other side, you have groups that hold orthodox ideas, but like the pharisees, have not internalized them (this could include the ladies that Blazingstar ran into.)   The least controversial of these groups would be the Legion of Christ, but there are many other groups, and to some extent this may describe some "traditionalists", but the vast majority in this group are no traddies.

 

In the middle are the orthodox that have (or at least try to) internalize their beliefs.  As St Thomas taught, virtue lies in the middle, and it is to this middle we are called.  Though tactics from each side may differ, those on the right and left will both try to recruit, tug at, and upset this third group genuinely pursuing virtue.

 

 

I agree that "Catholic tribalism" is a problem, but perhaps not a necessarily major one. I personally have seen it mostly within certain Catholic communities where there is a very strong traditionalist stronghold. That's been my (albeit limited) experience. The different groups tend to point fingers at how the other groups are somehow "less Catholic," when what it all boils down to is preferences and trivial matters. CS Lewis mentioned this in The Screwtape Letters; I'll have to find the quote. Very convicting IMO; I used to take part in this "tribalism" and point fingers myself. It's a great way for the evil one to encourage division, lack of charity, and sinfulness among us, IMO.

There's a HUGE difference between defending the Faith from heterodoxy and encouraging division, self-righteousness, and lack of charity by calling perfectly orthodox Catholics somehow less Catholic because they don't share your opinions or preferences on non-doctrinal matters.

 

Yes, this makes sense.   I think the Catholic tribalism is more a symptom of some of the real problems, rather than a root issue itself.   We are going to see it more with the traditionalists, because people will naturally seek out orthodoxy.  We won't see the 'tribalism' with the heterodox, who would be less "judgemental" on these trivial matters you describe, simply because we'd never seek them out since they are heterodox - but that doesn't mean the division isn't there, it's just manifested differently.

 

I think the heterodox/fundamentalist extremes are what's really tugging at the church.  I personally think the judgemental-traddies are the most benign of the fundamentalists, fwiw.  The most severe fundamentalists are some of the new novus ordo sects, the ones Papa Francis calls Pelagians (in fact, he also calls them fundamentalists, so I borrowed the term.)

[Cherie]

Yeah, I'm not even speaking so much of the truly heterodox as I am of people who are orthodox and adhere to different "flavors" of living out the Faith, as it were. THAT'S the kind of "tribalism" I've seen quite often in Catholic circles and that I think can be so insidiously damaging to our charity and growth in virtue.

Personally I think heterodoxy is a problem that *should* be addressed (albeit charitably) because at least to me, heterodoxy = error. (Correct me if my understanding is wrong on that.) We have the FULLNESS of Truth, and if someone is hanging onto error, I think it's important to do our duty to "instruct the ignorant," yet in a careful, prudent, charitable manner. To me, heterodoxy isn't so much a part of "tribalism" as it's just a matter of the current crisis of catechesis.

[NotreDame]

To me, heterodoxy isn't so much a part of "tribalism" as it's just a matter of the current crisis of catechesis.

 

Agreed.  that's why I felt tribalism was insufficient as an explanation of the polarization/issues that people are feeling.  I'm working with the "heterodox" <--> "orthodox" <--> "fundamentalist" framework for now until I see something better. 

[mortify ii]

What?????   You guys are now calling the 20th century church prior to Vatican II a house of cards?  Ha ha!  That's just a little bit disrespectful to our church and forebears, don't you think?   Jeesh, what's it the water here lately.

 

Quantitatively the Church in America was growing, new parishes formed, seminaries were overflowing, vocations were high, etc. But qualitatively Catholics were worldly, our spirituality had been reduced to devotionalism, our education nothing more than a regurgitation of answers to questions, and we became indifferent towards our Holy Religion. Usurious capitalism, Americanism, contraception, all these demolished our souls. Towards the end all that that was left was a soft affinity to externals, but when they were challenged virtually all willingly shed themselves of them.

 

I agree that "Catholic tribalism" is a problem, but perhaps not a necessarily major one. I personally have seen it mostly within certain Catholic communities where there is a very strong traditionalist stronghold. That's been my (albeit limited) experience. The different groups tend to point fingers at how the other groups are somehow "less Catholic," when what it all boils down to is preferences and trivial matters.

 

This is where I disagree, these matters are not trivial. How we pray, act, and believe are vital matters. Both Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God with good intentions, but only one of them was accepted. 

[Cherie]

Yes, some non-doctrinal matters ARE trivial. For example, some believe that women must wear skirts 100% of the time in order to be modest, whereas others don't. That is trivial. You may be surprised at the division something like that causes, but it's real. I've seen it. I experienced it. It takes much time and energy away from where we should be focusing our time and energy in regard to our Faith.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when you say "these matters," but they're likely not the same "matters" that I was referring to when I used the term "trivial."