It strikes me that, when Traditional Catholics refer to Traditional Catholicism, what they generally mean is the kind of Catholicism which was forged in the crucible of the Counter-Reformation and which achieved classic status between the 1850s and the 1950s (i.e. under the popes from Pius IX through to and including Pius XII).
Traditional Catholics lament (with good reason) many of the post-Vatican2 developments within the Church, but any attempt to criticize the Catholicism of the post-Trent and pre-Vatican2 period and to advocate a return to the Catholicism of Late Antiquity (the age of the Church Fathers) or the Catholicism of the Middle Ages is met with the standard accusation of “archaeologism”.
According to a certain kind of Traditional Catholic reading of Catholic history and culture, Catholicism achieved something close to an ideal form during the period after Trent and before Vatican2, and any deviation from this ideal, whether this takes the form of further development (as in the case of post-Vatican2 Catholicism) or of a return to the pre-Tridentine past, is regarded as “un-Catholic”.
Indeed, those who wish to rediscover the riches of Patristic and Mediaeval Catholicism are often suspected of being Modernists who have the same agenda as the updaters but who are cynically using a “return to the sources” as a Trojan horse for Modernist ideas (the fact that the Trojan horse argument is not without foundation in the case of certain theologians is further grist to the Traditionalist mill).
One of the ironies in all this that, just as it is possible to discern both continuity and discontinuity between pre-Vatican2 and post-Vatican2 Catholicism, so also is it possible to discern both continuity and discontinuity between pre-Tridentine and post-Tridentine Catholicism.
Certainly, the Counter-Reformation marks a watershed in the minds of Traditional Catholics, for it was with the Counter-Reformation that a distinctive “style” of Catholicism that reached its apogee between the pontificates of Pius IX and Pius XII began to take shape.
One thing that troubles me, however, is this: Why is it okay to say “modern Catholicism is in a mess, so let’s rediscover the glories of pre-Vatican2 Catholicism”, but not okay to say “and, since pre-Vatican2 Catholicism was pretty flawed as well, let’s get back behind
Many Traditional Catholics have a surprisingly narrow definition of Catholic Tradition, which they restrict to a supposed “golden age” between Trent and the eve of Vatican2 – or, more narrowly yet, between the pontificates Pius IX and Pius XII.
I can’t help feeling that our understanding of what constitutes Traditional Catholicism needs broadening – and if at times that means getting back not just to the time before Vatican2 but to the time before Trent as well, I certainly don’t think that we should be constrained by the Traditionalist view that, while much development since Vatican2 has been “bad” and needs to be abandoned, all development before Vatican2 was by definition “good” and needs to be unquestioningly retained.
If re-assessing the worth of “development” is on the agenda, I don’t see why the Catholicism of the period between
14 comments:
What an excellent post, Mark. Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself, nor would I have tried. Do you think this is what Pope Benedict refers to when he speaks of the Continuity of Reform? Tradition is key to the Catholic understanding of passing on the Faith, traditionalism is not.
I too must agree with you. Traditionalists are so often concerned to get back to the ideal (as the opposition are so keen to change and so get to it in the future) that the idea that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church here and now seems to elude them. There was never nor will there be before the Second Coming a perfect earthly Church. You are right too about the need to get back tot he Patristic and Medieval roots of the Church. The Reformation has done far greater damage to Christianity that people think. Perhaps this is where healing the rift with the Orthodox is so important - restoring a balance to Christianity. keep up the good work.
Thanks for your kind comments.
Paul - Yes, I do think that's an aspect of what Pope Benedict is referring to when he speaks of the Continuity of Reform. When he speaks of Vatican2 and the "hermeneutic of continuity", I think he's talking not just about a continuity between the pre- and post-Vatican2 periods, but about a more fundamental continuity with all that is most authentically and vitally Catholic in every period of the Church's history.
Br Tom - I totally agree with what you say about the damage wrought by the Reformation. I sometimes feel that, at least to some extent, the Counter-Reformation Church allowed the Reformation to set the agenda, and that one of the many positive consequences of healing the rift with the Orthodox would be (as you rightly say) to restore the balance that was lost when the Reformation - and the reaction against it - changed the very character of theology, liturgy, spirituality, etc.
Wonderful post Mark! The Reformation obviously was trying to address some valid concerns, but it continues to inflict damage on Christians.
Why go about digging out the past at all?
It's a very strange idea, "going back to".
Mad Trads, Mad Liturgical Archeologists (cf. Neocats and part of the Liturgical Movement) ...
Berenike - if there are spiritual or theological or liturgical riches from the past that we've forgotten about, shouldn't we be rediscovering them so that we can benefit from them in the present?
Does the fact that the post-Tridentine Church allowed some wonderful aspects of Patristic and Mediaeval Catholicism to disappear from view mean that we should just accept their disappearance instead of trying to rediscover them?
Sometimes the Church makes mistakes and lets go of things that should have been retained. Shouldn't we be constantly trying to recover the lost treasures of former ages?
It's a formal thing, not a material one.
Hi!
I am a servant of God on www.prophecyfilm.com and wish to beg you, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to please link to this wonderful site which has free glorious Prophecies & Revelations of Jesus and Mary from Saint Bridget in many languages!
We also have free videos for download on various catholic topics, and maybe hoped that you could tell your visitors and your family and friends! They are a bit further down on the page and are quite interesting. They are extremly good for catholics to strengthen their faith, for protestants to come to the true faith, and for atheists to see the scientific evidence of the Bible that proves God's existance. You are free to copy all videos and books on our site www.prophecyfilm.com to your site if you like them. This can draw lots of brothers and sisters to your site. We know by experience. We hope you also read the revelations and watch our videos personally!
Peace and God bless!
Another unfortunate caricature I must say. It is all too easy to pot-shot Catholics who are attached to the traditions that were unfortunately done away with after the council. Most "traditionalists" do not necessarily harker back for the 1950s and frankly couldn't care less about that period either. There has never been a "perfect" era for the church but what "traditionalists" are correct on is that before the council, the church was certain of her identity, unapologetic of the uncomfortable truths and was faithful to her missionary directive, which Christ gave her. After the council, the church is in a compromised situation, where even her supposed followers are calling her authority to question. The church now is more concerned with apologising endlessly to the world and dialogue has now replaced evangelisation. And quite frankly, the last 40 years of liturgical debacle have been an embarrassment for the church.
Traditional Catholics can hardly be blamed for wanting to restore the church to her former glory.
Hestor - I certainly wasn't seeking to criticise or caricature traditional Catholics in general. I was simply highlighting the fact that there's a tendency within some traditional Catholic circles to understand Tradition in a way which I feel is rather narrow.
"I was simply highlighting the fact that there's a tendency within some traditional Catholic circles to understand Tradition in a way which I feel is rather narrow."
This is perhaps a better place to start than the one where you wonder (legitimately) about pre-Tridentine Catholicsm. The parish Catholicsm of Fr Tim F and (increasingly) Fr Ray B is radically different to the Catholicsm of the average parish in the 1950s, and responds to the reforms VII thought necessary, rather than the changes which happened afterwards.
However, and afterwards, I'd start at post Vatican I changes myself, particularly the "reform" of the breviary by Pope St Pius X, and I'd wonder what the consequences of Vatican I being stopped after the definition of Papal Infallibility but before the definition of Episcopal Authority are.
Ttony - thanks for your post. I'm interested in what you say about Fr Tim and Fr Ray. And I tend to agree with you about the post-Vatican1 changes.
I definitely agree with you, Mark. Regarding the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, I would note that there are both good and bad sides to it. Some reactions to the Reformation were good, some over-reactions, or reactionary attitudes, were bad. John of the Cross, for example, is surely positive. (It may be hard, though, to say to what extent his writing is a result of addressing the needs raised by the Reformation.)
Joseph - thanks for your comment. as you say, the reactions to the Reformation were a mixture of the positive and the negative. I think one could probably say the same of the reactions to the Modernist crisis, which did so much to shape the Catholicism of the decades leading up to Vatican2.
Post a Comment