On his popular blog, Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington, himself a traditionalist, laments the negativity of traditionalists. You can read his post entitled, The Church is a Bride, not a Widow. A Word of Reminder and Encouragement to the Faint-hearted and Negative Ones. YOU CAN READ IT BY PRESSING HERE.
Here are his money quotes from his post: I have, in twenty-five years as a priest, found a great deal of affinity with traditional Catholics. I love the Traditional Latin Mass (and have celebrated it since 1989), chant, polyphony, traditional churches, stained glass, and I toe a line in rather strict conformity to the Church’s teachings and Scripture’s admonitions. I preached Hell and Purgatory even when it wasn’t cool.
But in recent years I have found my relationship to many (not all or even most) traditional Catholics tested and strained. I say “tested” because I have found that if I do not adhere to a rather strict, and I would say “narrow” line, I am relegated to be thrown out of the feast, and there in the “outer darkness” to wail and grind my teeth.
It would seem that for some, I am required to bash bishops, lament that the Church has “never been in worse shape,” and that every single solitary problem in the Church today is “due to Vatican II” and the “Novus Ordo” Mass. Stray too far from this, either by omission or commission, and I am in the hurt locker, the penalty box, and relegated to being no better than one of “them.”
One of the hallmarks of liberalism in the Church is thinking for oneself independent of the pope and bishops. It is a kind of loyal opposition, although in some cases the loyalty part of the opposition really is disloyal.
For me a cusp child of pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II Catholicism, I know quite well that the hallmark of a good Catholic in pre-Vatican II times, which included the clergy and religious as well as the laity, was obedience to the Magisterium of the Church, meaning of course, the pope and bishops in union with him. This obedience was carefully nuanced to mean in the areas of faith, morals and Church law only.
Of course if you watch the 1985 documentary that I posted on women religious you learn that religious life went way off track and into the tail spin that has led to its diminution was the psychology of self-actualization and becoming one's own authority in all things including religion. Community values, the common good and obedience to legitimate authority were thrown out the window for the secular revolution of the 1960's of the self, what came to be the "me generation" and I'm okay and you're okay drivel.
In this scenario, the patriarchy of the Catholic Church was seen as the enemy and that the deconstruction of the the male hierarchy and in fact all hierarchy was the desired course of destruction of the Church for those of the liberal bent in the Church who wanted and want to remake the Church into a egalitarian, hand holding, do it yourself type of Christianity which boarders on Unitarianism and non-theism.
Traditional Catholics that were often labeled as pre-Vatican II began to emerge in this period refusing to conform to the deconstruction and rebuilding of the Church in an entirely different way after Vatican II.
But even here, traditionalists became like liberals picking and choosing what the pope and bishops were teaching, like cafeteria Catholics and denigrating those popes and bishops depending on who they were and what they taught. In a sense these traditional Catholics were becoming like fragmented congregationalists and sort of neo-Protestant in terms of the authority of the Church. They also fomented disregard if not disrespect for the male hierarchy but in a different way from the liberals.
Catholics still owe the Pope and bishops in union with him obedience in the areas of faith, morals and Church law. We can disagree on certain aspects of personality and administration although we must keep in mind that Canon Law gives the clergy the edge and legitimately so.
Traditionalists should not conform to the politicization of the Church which the liberals have done so well.
But traditionalists are doing this and sometimes in the most subversive ways possible. One might read some comments on my blog to see what I mean.
I think anyone who reads this blog knows that I am a traditionalist but in the most post-Vatican II way possible. I was trained in liberal Catholicism in the 1970's and embraced much of it liturgically and otherwise for the first several years of my priesthood. But soon I realized that Cardinal Ratzinger, who I read widely, was right about so much, liturgically and otherwise. One could say that I became a disciple of Cardinal Ratzinger.
But Cardinal Ratzinger isn't regressive, he makes a new way for Vatican II in continuity with what preceded. He made us feel good again about our Catholic heritage, something completely different from the liberal model which hates the pre-Vatican II Church, liturgy and laity.
So as a disicple of Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Benedict, I would describe my traditionalism in the following ways:
1. Faithful and loyal to the pope and bishops no matter who they are, in the areas of faith, morals and Church law.
2. Embracing the liturgy of the Church, both the EF and OF and trying to celebrating them as envisioned by the GIRM and Rubrics and allowing what is allowed for both of these forms of the Mass in the modern context. The OF is the normative Mass and has much more flexibility and need for minor reforms compared to the EF which is set in stone except for the Liturgy of the Word which today has more options than previously, but it remains the non-normative Mass.
3. Post Vatican II Catholicism is not prone to rigidity as was pre-Vatican II Catholicism. This is a shift in ethos and embraces some of the pastoral theology of the Second Vatican Council. But traditional Catholics know that pastoral theology even from an Ecumenical Council can never be dogmatized or made infallible. It is always open to course correction and even change. This has to do in particular with ecumenism and the manner of dialogue with other religions and people of no faith. The principle of dialogue though is a good one, if a Catholic is properly equipped to do so. It seems traditional Catholics well imbued with the Catholic faith would be the ones to do this, not wishy-washy liberal Catholics who discard the immutable truths of the Church for a bland, boundaryless Catholicism.
4. Traditional Catholicism is not afraid to critique the modern and some of the administrative decisions of the hierarchy acting in a prophetic way, but never disrespectful of the popes, bishops and priests (religious also) by virtue of their role in the Church. So by engaging religious, deacons, priests and bishops in their critique, they are always respectful even if they dislike this or that person.
5. Traditional Catholics know to be respectful in dialoguing with the clergy and religious always calling them in a respectful way, Father, Sister, Bishop and so on, never using negative terms or their first name without the title.
There is a Protestant version of traditional Catholicism, a sort of Episcopalianism. It is not Catholic, it is neo-Protestant and born of the Reformation and its disregard for the hierarchy of the Catholic Church--anti-hierarchical or anti-pan-authority of the Catholic hierarchy.
I wonder if some who comment here are not completely "converted" to Catholicism and hold on the Protestant, reformation sentiments when it comes to the Church hierarchy and place of privileged service in the Church? Can we label them "neo-Catholics" rather than neo-Protestants?
35 comments:
Father, I have spent a lot of time in traditionalist circles and I don't think Msgr. Pope's assessment is accurate or fair. It is true that traditionalists complain a lot, but the majority that I have known are loathe to "bash" any bishop. Quite the opposite, many have grave concerns for their bishops and urge everyone to support their bishops in prayer.
As far as discussing what kind of shape the Church is in and the root causes, it is not necessarily negative to be realistic. The decline since Vatican II has been almost unstoppable. The very pope who initiated changes in the liturgy which St. Pius V codified for all time lamented that the smoke of Satan had entered the highest levels of the Church. Msgr. Pope's assessment and broad stereotyping is like criticizing a physician for telling his patient that he needs surgery, when not doing so would be malpractice.
As far as traditionalists "picking and choosing", that is completely inaccurate. The most liberal pope of the modern epoch, Paul VI, issued the most disobeyed encyclical of all time, Humanae Vitae. Yet it is the liberals who have chosen to ignore it while the traditionalists have paid dearly to honor it. Traditionalists may criticize the failed policies or bad homilies of a pope, but they certainly don't ignore magisterial teachings of the Church and any criticism given usually seems to be pointing out where the words of a pope might contradict the magisterium.
Pius XII expressed his fears about tampering with the liturgy. But if you quote HIM, suddenly you are "disobedient" or "disrespectful" of the current pope.
Everything is not OK and we are fools if we delude ourselves into ignoring what's wrong because someone might think we are too "negative".
I think he is creating a straw man.
As could be expected, traditionalist, behave as most battered minority groups, religious or otherwise, Traditionalist whine. Big deal!
The culture does not appreciate their criticisms because they are "loosers". That is really their major sin. Liberals, the majority, are "winners" so they must be the good guys. Blaming the victim has been a favorite sport of winners everywhere.
"5. Traditional Catholics know to be respectful in dialoguing with the clergy and religious always calling them in a respectful way, Father, Sister, Bishop and so on, never using negative terms or their first name without the title."
The farce continues.......
What appears to you as Traditional Catholics "thinking for themselves" is actually people who have studied the pre-conciliar faith, the councils and popes, and are following those guideposts. This is consistent with post-conciliar Cathlicism in two ways: first, Vatican II didn't change the Faith so it stands to reason it can be lived in the same way now as before (even assuming it did change pastorally how those outside the Church are viewed, this doesn't really change anything on the ground for most laity). Second, the post-conciliar popes, with the notable exception of Humane Vitae, haven't taught anything requiring extraordinary submission, meaning the pre-conciliar papal decrees on Carholic life still control for those who are willing to read and follow.
In partner words, every Catholic should be traditional, following all the teachings regardless of when they were issued. Traditonalists, or some anyway, are reacting against the popular idea, which this blog seems to buy into, that the leading of the Catholic life has changed since 1970. For us, it hasn't in our own piety, but it has in the parish life. Try to get an Epiphany blessing (the one involving chalk)... Priests don't know it. Scapulars... Priests don't bestow them. Processions... No longer held in most parishes.
My points its these examples is to say that traditionalists lament priests who insist, with the actions and lack of knowledge, that things changed. In point of fact, of things didn't change, why so you all not know these things any more? I think traditionalism is important because, without it, most modes of Catholic living would have been lost.
From A5:
Like Gene, my first thought reading this was "straw man."
Sure, there are angry trads out there. Sometimes that anger takes counterproductive and disrespectful forms. But the anger per se isn't a problem if it's based on a belief that sound doctrine isn't being taught. And the things that trads "dissent" from (note the quotation marks) are innovations that haven't been squared with two thousand years of unquestionably authoritative teaching.
I would also take issue with the concept that modernists are a "loyal opposition." Some of them are probably loyal, in the sense that a) they genuinely believe themelves to be good Catholics and that b) they genuinely believe that their way is good as opposed to evil. But I personally know peple--heck, I have relatives--who, though raised Catholic, are essentialy apostates. Nevertheless, they have thought about becoming priests because of all the social justice they could work towards achieving as priests, even though they do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Even _they_ believe that they would be doing good, but I could hardly call this "loyal" in any meaningful way to the Church--if, that is, the Church holds herself to be anything at all more than a social welfare agency.
In short, at least some modernists are out to destroy the Church. They ain't loyal, and we _should_ be angry about that.
"All the blame, bickering and murmuring generates more heat than light." Msgr Charles Pope
Yes, indeed! Excellent post, Father. Thanks for the redirect to the adw.org blog. The thing that has most distressed me over the years about comments on your blog is not just the highly charged, sometimes reprehensible (dare I say sinful?--my mother sure would!) personal attacks that go on, but the disturbing way these comments distract from good dialogue about the issues you post. I sometimes come away feeling not only personally vilified, but soiled and needing a spiritual shower. If the goal here is good dialogue about important Church issues, we miss the mark when we indulge this kind of behavior.
It occurs to me that some folks just enjoy creating heat and have no desire for generating light. I too, like Msgr. Pope, am ..."no cheerleader for the Church of Wonderful". It has seriously threatened my spiritual underpinnings since 1965. But Holy Mother Church is my bride, not a widow, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, til death do us part...
I've no doubt I will be blasted here for these comments, or at the very least ridiculed in some way. So be it. Thanks for allowing me to air thoughts that have been stewing over the past couple of years. God is my judge, and I trust Him to control all outcomes.
I agree with the good Monsignor. From my own personal experience, it is never productive to stay after the EF of the Mass for “conversation” and “fellowship.” This is lamentable – but it is my experience. Is this the same everywhere? I am sure it is not.
I, also, agree with My Bohr. It has also been my experience, if one mentions Pius XII – even in the most basic way – one is then asked about John XXIII (and Paul VI to a lesser degree). As my grandmother says, “What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?” What many of these people wish is to “catch me” saying something negative about John XXIII.
This reminds me - sort-of - of Showtime’s The Borgias. The show was cancelled (and no TV movie is planned wrap-up the story). The show was supposed to end with Alexander VI on his death-bed after a long search for a priest (any priest) to hear is last Confession. In the middle of his Confession the line was supposed to be: “I am sorry You Holiness, but you are dead and in Hell.”
God, in his wisdom, will not let us even judge Alexander VI’s fate.
Niels Bohr sums it up nicely.
I would also add that if Christ is the Bridegroom, the Catholic Church, since V-2, and maybe even before, has been, to say the least, a less than completely faithful Bride. She has been dallying with Modernism without for years.
The consequences of her inconstancy are numerous; to name just a few: the sexual abuse crisis, the collapse of the faith particularly in Europe, various ambiguities introduced by V-2 in her doctrinal teachings, the continuing crisis of the priesthood and many many more. The list is just too long to try to be comprehensive.
None of these problems were created by today's Traditionalists. Ironically, remaking the old liturgy to make worship more accessible and unifying turned out to be the opposite. While the TLM was and still is a symbol of world-wide unity of the Church, the Novus Ordo due to the many accidental and deliberate mistranslations of the Latin texts coupled with the countless abuses introduced on an ad hoc basis have degraded understanding and created disunity among Catholics even in small geographic areas.
Whining does not describe Traditionalist rhetoric. They mourn now but shall be consoled. They cling to truth as it has been taught before and that truth shall make them free.
Whilst I'm in venting mode...
I have been thinking about your "neo-Catholic" nomenclature. It does seem appropriate here. I cannot help but think of Marcus Grodi, a former Presbyterian minister who hosts "The Journey Home" on EWTN. I had the chance to talk with him once (family member worked at EWTN) and was so impressed by his love, fidelity and zeal for the Church despite sometimes obvious flaws. To me, his ministry is a sign of how healthy the "Church militant" really is, and how to build the Church, whether we be neo or cradle Catholics.
John hit on the key word. I propose that the name of this blog be changed from "Southern Orders" to Southern Whiners". All in favor whine "Post Vatican II".
(I'm the Anon who lives under the couch and sometimes comes out to try to p***......to irritate some of you.)
The popular Msgr Pope seems to be trying to be fair and avoid triumphalism. However, he comes across as less than committed to 'traditionalism'. His argument is that the Traddies are no better than the Progressives. This will only makes both sides ignore him.
He would be correct to point out that being disrespectful is not good for either side and should be a goal of Traddies to ensure that difference distinguishes us from Progressives. I completely agree and am pained by the attacks on Pope Francis from traditional perspectives. I perceive it as evidence that the Progressive infection is still in need of treatment.
The TLM was suppressed for many years, falsely, and with the complicity of the Clergy at large. Pope Benedict set the record straight in a single document that cut through the phalanx of disinformation put out by bishops with agendas. There is a legitimate fear, not that Pope Francis will try to rescind SP, but that he will allow its regional suppression by the various bishops through neglect. I won't say that he considers the Liturgy unimportant, but I think he considers it a perfunctory vehicle to other details. I do not think he has a real enmity, but that he has a sense of relativism about the Mass that makes a wide variety things not just allowable, but acceptable.
Msgr Pope needs to work on both his leadership and his followership. He should not allow himself to be relegated to "outer darkness" and show the Traddies the sin of pride, among others, they are committing. He can also show them how follow a pastor, in this case our Pope, when he is not exactly what you would want, and make the Church stronger at the same time.
Is it possible to have an affinity for both Pope St. Pius X, to hold to what he wrote and practice it, and to have a similar affinity for Pope Bl. John Paul II and Paul VI, to hold to what they wrote and practice it? Are these positions inconsistent in some way?
This is the dilemma against which Traditionalists are reacting. It isn't a necessary one, but many priests and bishops in the last decades have forced this dichotomy.
In the current times, when so many are promoting rupture, whether explicit or implicit, only Traditionalists are promoting continuity. Are some doing so with harshness of tone? Of course, but in their defense, they have been criticized for their adherence to the Faith for a few decades now. One would think that Benedict would have been sufficient to vindicate the rightness of their steadfastness. However, there are those who depend on the idea of rupture because, for them, Catholicism was evil before it was delivered by the light of Vatican II. For these, their very vocation depends upon the Church as they have constructed it in recent decades.
Marc's analysis is excellent.
Re Anon friend at 10:29: While you make a valid point, it is an unfortunate fact that a _certain_ amount of heat is not only unavoidable but healthy. Follow:
Take as a premise that doctrine matters--that we cannot even properly define or understand (much less practice) caritas without it. Thus, even granting arguendo that "love is all you need," you still need the Church to tell you the true nature and fruits of "love."
Take as an additional premise that orthopraxis also matters--that we must not only believe certain things, but act in ways congruent to and harmonious belief, and that wrong belief or praxis can endanger both your soul and, if propagated (through scandal or heresy, for instance) the souls of others.
Take as a final premise that different people/groups/movements in the Church understand both belief (doctrine) and praxis in materially and substantially different and contradictory ways that are mutually exclusive.
The result is debate that is liable to become heated.
The problem is not the debate. The problem is not even the heat. The problem is when people refuse to debate honestly. That can range from refusal to concede the logic, validity, or accuracy of other's arguments to deliberate obfuscation (which may take many forms) to full-blown personal attack to silly attempts deliberately designed to tee people off. (_That_'s sure an exercise in love! Why don't you just flat-out tell us all to go to hell, Anonymous at 12:20, and be done with it? Is it because that wouldn't be sufficiently irritating to us?) All of these things are designed to frustrate an honest, mutual search for the truth.
If one believes one's position to be correct, and that it will prevail in an honest debate. But I, who do my best to make my debate honest, have found very little honest debate from the other side. Some, but not a lot. Maybe the other side feels the same way about my points. But if that's the case, one or the other of us is failing or refusing to grasp the fundamentals of logical analysis and linguistics. When that happens, the only reason I keep debating is that I'm quite confident that anyone with an open mind will be able to see which arguments are the sounder.
In sum, I prefer light and I seek to encourage that here. And to get light, some heat is unavoidable. But this incivility accomplishes nothing good.
How gratifying to read this post! Thanks to both Father McDonald and Msgr. Pope for providing a much needed sense of perspective. And we can’t go far wrong it seems to me by following the prescriptions of Anon. 5 regarding honest debate when we disagree.
As Anon5 has aptly demonstrated, a discussion could be had, but it generally devolves too quickly to be productive. From my perspective, to be Catholic is to be a traditionalist.
On the other hand, to be liberal is to be heterodox (at best) and heretical (at worst).
The debate, then, isn't about which category is correct, it is about how to define these terms. At the outset, we must reject the political baggage that comes along with them. Then, we simply turn to the teaching of the Church. To be Catholic is to believe all the Church teaches to be revealed by God who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Understanding that, one must simply apply this to one's life. In essence, the conscience and the will submit to the Church and her teaching.
Liberals seem to argue about what teaching binds and place their own conscience above the Church. This is an inversion of how we are to respond to the Church's teaching. For some, this even comes from an altruistic sense of avoiding conflict and tending to people's material needs. This merely human approach is faulty.
There is some debate about which teaching binds. And this is true in both definitions. But, this shouldn't be the case because the teachings are all quite clear and open to all to discover in the deposit of faith. At any rate, those teachings that appear unclear right now have little impact on most Catholics. Our call is the same: become saints. In order to live up to that call, we have to know, love, and serve God. To do all that, we must learn the true doctrine about him.
In the post Vatican II Church, one is orthodox, not heterodox if one is in favor of ecumenism and dialogue with others of other faiths or no faiths. This isn't heterodoxy, it is encouraged by an ecumenical Council.
One in the post Vatican II Church can certainly appreciate the revised liturgy with its added "ministries" for the laity, male and female. This isn't heterodoxy, it is orthodoxy.
Since Vatican II one can appreciate that the clergy should consult with the laity in parish administration and finances, this isn't heterodox, it is orthodox.
Heterodoxy is denying the need for fidelity to the Pope and Magisterium, the living one in union with past ones. There is no orthodoxy in the Catholic Church without fidelity to the Magisterium, the living pope and living bishops in union with him.
I think you are over-stating your case, Father. None of the specific things you mention are doctrinal. I see it this way:
One is not heterodox for participating in the various liturgical functions appointed for the laity. And one isn't heterodox for advocating lay involvement in parish administration. At the same time, one isn't heterodox for thinking these things to be erroneous disciplinary norms and advocating their dissolution. These are things about which reasonable people can disagree.
As for ecumenism and religious dialogue, I think one cannot make blanket statements. Some forms of this are good and some miss the mark. Again, reasonable people can disagree about how this is carried out. For example, many think the recent popes have made a mistake with the Assisi gatherings. Having this opinion doesn't make one heterodox.
For most Catholics, we engage in regular interreligious dialogue. We only become heterodox in that connection when we compromise the faith, put our faith at risk, or give scandal by appearing to be indifferent about the nature of the Church. Even then, these are probably better described simply as sins depending on our disposition.
None of these things evidence a denial of the living Magisterium. What they demonstrate is that the pastoral and disciplinary activities of the Church, rooted as they should be in the doctrine, are subject to different understandings that change with time and place. But, again, they must be rooted in the doctrine if they are to be legitimately modified for time, place, and audience. And even still, some aspects of custom and tradition bind in all instances.
FrAJM, you are correct, of course. But what was missing, at least in my experience, was a clear limit for the lay ministers. I work with a credit union that supports several parishes and we get all sorts of 'help' from people with 'ministries' to help people control spending. They aggressively limit good information that would be of great help to the low income groups that dominate our parishes because it does not meet their personal version of how money should be managed. They won't meet with us and restrict access to educational materials for the parishioners. They have taken their ministry very seriously and are preaching their mix of theology, economics, and social justice. It is very one sided, too. If you really want to offend one of them just ask them where they got their information on either Church Doctrine, social justice, or economics. Yikes.
I do like the idea of the laity having a 'mission' to act out our beliefs and reflect well upon the Church for the world to see. I have to pull up well short of quoting scripture for the reasons of what I do, nor even the writings of saints or Church teachings. I don't perceive specific instructions in those writings, but a duty and somewhat of a burden to figure it out on my own and stand for the results of what I do. If I had to pick a point of departure for Progressives and Traditionalists, I think it is there.
I certainly agree with Marc. It is possible to disagree with the Pope on certain issues and still support him. As for the Magisterium, thank God it trumps the Pope. I believe that so-called "inter-religious dialogue" is dangerous ground, especially when the stance of most of the inter-religious is that the church should compromise her principles and beliefs in order to accomodate all kinds of secular nonsense, un-natural acts, and other abominations. I find inter-religious dialogue to be largely a waste of time and an egalitarian pipe dream...except for discussions with protestants who are interested in the Catholic Church. Seriously folks, I really don't give a hoot about what Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and other pagan religions believe. I took the world religions course in college and was bored to death...even then. The only good thing about the class was that there were some hippie girls (now teaching your children) in the class who were worth lusting after...
"Straw PERSON", Gene. Come on, get with the program.
Yikes! It's amazing how civil and Christian this place can get when the Straw Man is silent.
JBS, the straw person also has to be transgender...giving "roll in the hay" all kinds of new meanings.
But the problem with some traditionalists is that they desire the Ordinary Form of the Mass to be abrogated and in a sense this attitude is heterodox because of their antipathy toward the Ordinary Form even when celebrated in the most traditional manner possible with it. Of course those who are orthodox and love the Ordinary Form don't want the Extraordinary Form which in a sense makes them heterodox if they think the two Masses are not the same expression of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharistic Banquet in an unbloody way.
It really doesn't have to be "either/or" does it? How about "both/and"? I'll bet Jesus likes both.
Father, once again, with all respect, I think you're overstating this. I don't think it's heterodox to want the Novus Ordo abrogated and the Tridentine Mass returned to its rightful place. I guarantee most FSSP priests would probably agree that this should happen. Mere antipathy toward the Novus Ordo is justifiable when one studies how it was promulgated and why. Again, there are good priests, in regular canonical standing, who have raised these issues (I am personally not qualified to guage this for myself, but they certainly are).
But, one could slip into a heterodox attitude if one said the Novus Ordo isn't valid since the Church has promulgated this Rite. I think it is imprudent to be overly antagonistic about the Novus Ordo in certain environments. I don't think this blog is one of those environments since we are here to discuss these issues, so many of us speak more freely here amongst others who have studied the issue.
Finally, you're logic is self-refuting. For, if it is heterodox to suggest the abrogation of the Novus Ordo, then those who made the me suggestion vis-a-vis the abrogation of the Tridentine Mass were themselves heterodox. In that case, the construction and promulgation of the Novus Ordo is doubly suspect. To me, this suggests that these things can be subject to reasonable differences of opinion and discussion.
Gene said: “‘Right and Left depend on where you stand.’
And, there you have it, ladies and gentleman, another relativistic performance by a member of our legal profession.”
And, there you have it, ladies and gentleman, another failure by Gene to think through and understand what is actually being said instead of always trying to sniff out the “enemy” and consequently leaping to conclusions.
Of_course_Right and Left depend on where you stand. How else to explain Gene’s own point that “progressives think that anyone who really believes in God, the Incarnation, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the Judgement at the end of time is, in fact, ‘right wing,’ reactionary, and to be scorned and attacked”? It is because of where they stand on the “Left-Right” continuum that such “progressives” (if we really must use such labels) consider these “orthodox” positions to be to the “Right.” By the same token, it is because of where_they_stand on that continuum that some “traditionalists” consider various “orthodox” positions to be to the Left (see Father McDonald’s 4:30 comment in the next post).
Is this relativist? Well, of course it is, and rightly so since we are necessarily talking about positions on a continuum of positions. But this is quite different from “relativism” in the sense of denying some absolute standard by which to measure those positions. In that regard, sometimes those more “to the Left” will be closer to that absolute standard; in other cases, it will be those more “to the Right.” And this is so even if they themselves might deny that such absolute standard exists.
I trust I have now made myself sufficiently obscure. =)
Anonymous at 8:10: Of course, it doesn’t have to be either/or and can be both/and. Father McDonald certainly understand this very well, even if a few followers of this Blog may not. Indeed, this is the orthodox position.
And I would join you in your bet.
Oh, and Gene, it seems I have to repeat something I needed to say several threads ago. Here it is again (and I apologize to all if this seems to be uncharitable, but I see no other alternative given the recurring tendency to project an unintended meaning into what I say):
Sometimes I have the sense that you treat what I say as presumptively coming from “an enemy.” Perhaps I have been too indirect before. Now I will be more direct. I appreciate many of your contributions to the Blog but not this sort of thing. Please STOP it. I am getting really, really tired of it. Thank you.
My apologies: I inadvertently posted my 8:50 and 9:02 comments to the wrong thread. I guess this is a symptom of how upsetting I find the matter. They should be deleted from this thread (although I don’t know how to do that) and I will repost them in the previous thread where they belong.
Anonymous at 8:10: You posit as an unspoken assumption that one must choose either a) either/or, or b) both/and. You then choose both/and. You yourself thus apply the either/or model in getting to this result.
Anon 2, Sorry you are so befuddled. It is because of your sliding up and down your "continuum" that no one can tell what you really believe.
There is no "continuum" of Christian belief. You either believe the Gospel and the articles of the Creed or you do not. There may be a continuum as to how these beliefs are implemented behaviorally and socially, but it is a narrow one.
Gene:
No, and no again. I am not befuddled – you are. You project your own meaning into what I (and sometimes others) say instead of responding to their actual meaning. Admittedly, we can all be a little unclear sometimes. However, in my response to your “relativistic performance” comment, I made it perfectly clear what I meant and the distinction between positions on a continuum (which I accept are necessarily relative – duh) and measuring those positions by an external standard of truth (which is not). And yet, even now, you still insist on twisting my words by accusing me of “sliding up and down your ‘continuum’ that no-one can tell where you stand.”
There is no doubt where I stand on the continuum because I try my level best to stand with the magisterium of the Church and the positions in the CCC. This is because I am trying to be a faithful Catholic (and, admittedly, failing sometimes because of my sinfulness as we all do). Show me one place, just one, where I have not stood with the magisterium.
But you do not like that because I disagree with you, and challenge you – on the question of violence and war, for example, or of dialogue with others, including Muslims – even though my position on these matters is perfectly in sync with the magisterium. And, of course, these positions are “to the left” of yours. And now we see Pope Francis once again emphasizing the importance of dialogue for peace. Don’t you just hate it?
No, Anon 2, I don't hate it, but I have reservations about it, as expressed before. I do not twist your words...you are difficult to understand because you are so vague and tentative. I am glad you stand with the Magisterium. So do I.
That is good, Gene. Thank you. We will do much better in our exchanges (we already do alright in some of them), if you apply the presumption that I stand with the magisterium, and if you then read what I say in that light.
Post a Comment