A-5 makes good points about labels, liberal, conservative, traditionalist and progressive, moving forward and going backwards. A-5, he or she, prefers orthodox and heterodox. I would agree and disagree, for moving backward means moving to the heterodoxy of the 1960's and 70's a longing which a goodly number of aging Catholics would prefer.
Or moving backwards, means applying the 1960's mentality to current day issues.
Let me count the ways.
1. The heterodox of the 1960's wanted to do away with any semblance of the pre-Vatican II Liturgy and create a new liturgy considerably different and impose it upon the unprepared faithful. And even when prepared, a goodly number of the faithful did not see the created product as new and improved but rather heterodox. They were right, not so much in terms of the traditional theology and doctrine of the Mass, but the faux theology that the cabal of post-Vatican II theologians tried to create for the new Mass.
For the most part they failed from the Magisterial point of reference. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes that clear as does papal teaching from Pope Paul VI through Pope Francis.
These aging heterodox priests and theologians and some of them aren't that old, are apoplectic that Pope Benedict allowed with little or no restriction the pre-Vatican II Mass of the 1962 Missal and its other liturgies and devotions. For Pope Francis, the doctrine and dogmas are the same, except liberties taken with the new Mass, in unofficial ways and the dictating of so-called new theologies supposedly promoted by Vatican II or encouraged by it so that post-Vatican II theologians could take the ball and run, was and is called into question by the genius of Pope Benedict for which the Church will be eternally grateful.
2. Going backwards to the immediate Post Vatican II era is ideological and Pope Francis doesn't want to do that. The Holy Father wants to proclaim the Faith to a paganized world, which includes paganized Catholics. But he wants to do it without being shrill.He doesn't want to condemn but invite people to conversion and he wants them to do so by the Grace of God and through faith and reason and with full consent of the will, in complete freedom. Who can call that Heterodox? It is orthodox!
3. He does not want to condemn sinners, but call them to conversion. This includes those who have same sex attractions. Yet he will uphold the doctrines of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and that the sanctity of marriage extends beyond the Catholic Church as it is a divine institution that transcends the Church. But he will work within soceity and social trends to make this message known, just as we do today with Catholics who are divorced and "remarried" outside of the Church in legal ceremonies of the state and sometimes in the churches of our separated brethren.
Thus, moving backwards doesn't mean embracing the Mass of any era previous to the current one, but simply embracing the Mass in any orthodox form is moving forward and the real presence of Christ is there, His sacrifice on the Cross and the manner in which He makes us members of His Church, which is His spotless bride. It matters not which way the Liturgies of the Sacraments are celebrated as long as they are faithful to orthodoxy!
Moving backwards is the heterodoxy of the 1960's and moving forward is the orthodoxy of the Church of the ages.
6 comments:
The irony of your using an image of Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's book for this post surely won't be lost on any one familiar with his book, podcast, and blog.
Nice try, Father, but this post shows that though you've tried to liberate yourself from the forward-backward model, you're still imprisoned by it. You envision moving backward as something chronological, i.e., going back to the heterodoxy of the 1960s and 1970s. Try removing the concept of chronology; try returning to orthodoxy without regard to forward or backward on the timeline and you'll be closer to the point I'm trying to make.
I think you are playing with us a little. Canadian Italian Southern humor. I don't care for the forward backward terms because it implies that one is better than the other. What about being in the right place? I tell my folks that we are always playing for position, any one move sets up the next shot or pass. Progressives want to be the leader even if they don't know where they are going. They keep you disoriented with the new so can't tell if things got better or worse before they decide to make another move.
After reading A-5's post I agree with that what he is saying is to return to orthodoxy without regard to forward or backward on the timeline is what we need.
I had a good laugh at the picture, since that book is on my shelf, and has a very different opinion of orthodoxy and heterodoxy than the readers of this blog (or maybe not, just on a few issues, like the Papacy).
I think the "backward/forward" model is the primary cause of many looking badly on the want to return to orthodoxy, because they see it as "old-fashioned" or, well, backward.
I can state it even more succinctly...belief/unbelief.
Post a Comment