What's In A Name?
Hopefully I didn't completely destroy my credibility by referencing a cartoon. Even if it is an awesome one.
I've been meaning to carry over a conversation that was recently begun by the Duebster regarding the language used by John Paul II (or as the Duebster fondly refers to him, St. John Paul the Great) and the postconciliar Church in general. I think there are a range of Catholics that have viewed the change in language (and I don't mean translation) that took place after Vatican II as affecting a change in meaning. These vary from Pope Michael through sede vacantists to "normal" SSPX-ers and on to those like the Abbe de Nantes, who do not seek to separate from the Roman Church but still believe that the modern Church has become corrupt by heresy. They all seem to agree that changing the wording has changed the meaning, but they differ regarding the degree of damage that has been done and what should be done in response.
I've been trying to find a balanced article looking into this debacle, and I found this. Though not entirely on point, it certainly provides a solid foundation to discuss this issue. Here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite:
I gather several things out of this article that I find compelling. First, it doesn't really ask the question of whether Vatican II was necessary. And perhaps this is because, for the purpose of analyzing the Church's actions after Vatican II, it is a moot point. Second, the author clearly believes that it is possible to rightly carry out the desire of the Council, albeit an extremely difficult task. So whether or not Vatican II was necessary, its goals are achievable. If this is true, then these accusations of heresy should be directed to individual men and not the institution of the Church itself. The institution has not faltered, it has set out to accomplish a difficult, but possible task. That is why I believe this author places both the challenge and the fault upon the "ecumenist" rather than the Church itself.
We all agree that the doctrines of the Church have not changed after Vatican II. At the same time, we could find many instances where members of the modern Church have communicated these ancient truths in very different ways than before. Perhaps many have failed in walking the line and have betrayed these ancient doctrines, but I don't believe that is an indictment upon the institutional Church.
The new language of the Church is not meant to replace the ancient one, but to extend it. The new language is not meant for those of us who already believe, but rather for the world. And we hope that when they respond to this new evangelization that they in turn come into the depth of the ancient language of the Church.
I've been meaning to carry over a conversation that was recently begun by the Duebster regarding the language used by John Paul II (or as the Duebster fondly refers to him, St. John Paul the Great) and the postconciliar Church in general. I think there are a range of Catholics that have viewed the change in language (and I don't mean translation) that took place after Vatican II as affecting a change in meaning. These vary from Pope Michael through sede vacantists to "normal" SSPX-ers and on to those like the Abbe de Nantes, who do not seek to separate from the Roman Church but still believe that the modern Church has become corrupt by heresy. They all seem to agree that changing the wording has changed the meaning, but they differ regarding the degree of damage that has been done and what should be done in response.
I've been trying to find a balanced article looking into this debacle, and I found this. Though not entirely on point, it certainly provides a solid foundation to discuss this issue. Here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite:
Vatican II had placed upon us all the necessity of restating Catholic doctrine in a way which carried a meaning to contemporary society. There were all sorts of reasons for this. But the primary reason was that of compassion and love. The Church, like Christ, had compassion on the multitude. It wanted to share its treasures with the world. It realized that the Church and the world had drawn apart and were speaking a different language. Pope John had prepared the way for this, and the Council was an acceptable time for implementing it, offering the truth to the world in its own language and without rubbing their noses in it. The whole ecumenical movement was born of this compassion, a sincere and lively compassion. But its very compassion, if misplaced, could be its worst enemy. We carry the precious gift of the Faith in frail ecumenical vessels, and any false concealment, any false accentuation born of false compassion, and we have a heresy on our hands. The ecumenist who, knowing that a particular truth of the Faith carries little meaning or conviction to contemporary man, thereby plays it down or conceals it, instead of painfully searching for a language which would be relevant, is a false shepherd who feeds nobody but frightens everybody. He may not have angry sheep on his hands, but he still has hungry ones.
The overriding necessity here is to recognize that speaking this new language is the most difficult task that the Church has ever assigned herself. We are exploring new country, cutting new trails, balancing truth on a razor's edge.
If the ears are itching, it is up to us to speak our old doctrines in a language which takes care of the itch. This is never easy. It is not made any easier by those who are too ready to see heresy in very turn of phrase, or by those who are too ready to repudiate the magisterium.
I gather several things out of this article that I find compelling. First, it doesn't really ask the question of whether Vatican II was necessary. And perhaps this is because, for the purpose of analyzing the Church's actions after Vatican II, it is a moot point. Second, the author clearly believes that it is possible to rightly carry out the desire of the Council, albeit an extremely difficult task. So whether or not Vatican II was necessary, its goals are achievable. If this is true, then these accusations of heresy should be directed to individual men and not the institution of the Church itself. The institution has not faltered, it has set out to accomplish a difficult, but possible task. That is why I believe this author places both the challenge and the fault upon the "ecumenist" rather than the Church itself.
We all agree that the doctrines of the Church have not changed after Vatican II. At the same time, we could find many instances where members of the modern Church have communicated these ancient truths in very different ways than before. Perhaps many have failed in walking the line and have betrayed these ancient doctrines, but I don't believe that is an indictment upon the institutional Church.
The new language of the Church is not meant to replace the ancient one, but to extend it. The new language is not meant for those of us who already believe, but rather for the world. And we hope that when they respond to this new evangelization that they in turn come into the depth of the ancient language of the Church.
posted by Qahal at 12:49 PM
4 Comments:
I find that it is difficult for some people, myself included, to regard change in language concerning eternal concepts as ever positive. One thing that was so intellectually animating about the Church was its butressing of our salvation with such steady approach to truth, expressed in teaching. Therefore, it is hard to envision positive development from changes from some very questionable characters (like Paul IV) when those with so much fidelity to the institution were also attempting to halt these changes (like Ottaviani, Abbe d. nantes etc...). For people like this, the issue is of symbol and object that we, naively so, find a near perfect connection in her teachings unrivaled in the world. Changing the symbol to accommodate an evil world is difficult because we feel that we are losing some of the aesthetic perfection of that connection and it is hard not to imagine an inverse relationship in who is actually changing. (Especially because of Paul VI and John XXIII and the Communist/Masonic infiltration of the Vatican that is well documented)
We aesthetes have a hard time with faith during these changes because it all at once raises our suspicion, which is in turn confirmed by fallout and our natural distrust of people like Paul VI who spoke very positively about the world and the possibilities of opening the Vatican doors. We scream, "BUT WHAT IS THE TRUTH?" Some run to schism for the answer or go to elect Pope Michael assuming that all is lost because the words have changes.
Well, the answer I believe, is that though words matter and express truth in a way, words are tools that lead people to truth. Symbol and Object are important, but the idea is what we go through to get to the truth. (Very thomistic, not modernistic). Eternal truths can't really be expressed fully with words because they are essentially known through subjective experience. Jesus constantly worked through irony and parable which expressed deep truths but rarely succinctly and literally. "Before Abraham was, I AM" is a meaningless sentence but the irony is the truth. The trinity and other mysteries are just that and the Church must bring people into those mysteries whether it is in Latin or Ebonics. If there is error, it must be corrected. If there is heresy... well, you all know what we do with heretics. But if the error is stylistic and accommodating, the challenge to the aesthetes is to trust in the Holy Spirit and to work in their communities in ways most effectively. You dont have to use the current catechism or the Douay-Reims
Good points. I agree with you almost entirely, but I'm not so quick to identify it as an accomodation, at least in the general sense. Although it certainly becomes an accomodation in many individual cases. But your exactly right. Its not an either/or here. Its more about what is most effective in your community.
While the circumstances surrounding the whole Vatican II controversy are completely unique, I do think there is an interesting comparison that can be drawn to the Jesuits interacting with the Indians (or Injuns if you prefer) when they were colonizing North America. The natives had no concept of, and therefore no word for, an all-powerful monotheistic God. They were pantheistic (I think that's the word I want, you know, they equated the natural universe with various divine personages). So many Jesuits cleverly compared things such as the Virgin Mary to their motherly fertility god (I think she had some connection to maize). There are many other instances that I just don't have in front of me, but the Jesuits did largely the same thing that the Church as a whole sought to do with Vatican II. They tried to adapt eternal truth into the language of the savages (their words, and mine). For the Jesuits it was an incredibly fruitful exercise.
I'm sure at the time there were many Jesuits that crossed the line, for example by equating the Virgin Mary and the native god of fertility and maize, rather than using a harmless comparison as a means to an end. I'm also sure that many natives were baptized without a very deep understanding of the Church's Truth. Perhaps the best they could ever describe Mary would be to say, "she's like our fertility god". Obviously unsatisfactory. But then there were exceptional people that arose from these missions, such as Bl. Kateri Tekakwitha.
I just find it interesting that this was a period of time that many seem to think was the golden age of the Jesuit order (perhaps that was exclusive to Europe). A large part of their evangelical success, I think, can be attributed to the same sort of thinking that went into Vatican II.
For examples of creative uses of language and concepts of truth, check out the following:
http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/coolasice/
Things like that make me love the internet so much that I feel like I'm being unfaithful.
Post a Comment
<< Home