The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionVatican II themes: The church as communion
by Richard McBrien on Aug. 08, 2011
The late Cardinal John Dearden, archbishop of Detroit, noted at the University of Notre Dame some years ago that many of the bishops appointed after the Second Vatican Council never had the opportunity of experiencing the transforming effect of Vatican II.
For those bishops, like himself, who directly participated in the council, it was as if they had gone on a four-year retreat, a retreat that changed and enriched their understanding of the church.
Most of these bishops emerged from the council as new men, ready to serve their dioceses with deeper dedication than before.
What was true of the pre-Vatican II bishops was also true of the pre-Vatican II laity. A layperson today would have to be over 60 years old to have any meaningful memory of the pre-Vatican II church. Without that memory, one would find it very difficult -- not impossible, to be sure -- to appreciate what the council did for the church.
That is why mainly older Catholics are drawn to lay organizations such as Call to Action and Voice of the Faithful. It is not that younger Catholics have no interest in church renewal and reform, but they have never personally experienced the pre-Vatican II church nor the achievements wrought by the council itself.
Older Catholics -- in their 60s, 70s, 80s, and some few in their 90s -- know what the pre-Vatican II church was like and how much better it became because of Pope John XXIII and the council he convened. That is why many of them have been disheartened by what they regard as a kind of retrenchment under Pope John Paul II and now Benedict XVI, and many of the bishops they appointed.
Many younger Catholics -- at least those who care enough to remain more or less active in the church -- do not appreciate why many older Catholics are so unhappy with the state of the church today.
For the past several weeks this column has been underscoring some of the most important ecclesiological principles espoused by the council. This week the emphasis is on the council's teaching that the church is a communion -- a communion between God and ourselves (the vertical dimension) and a communion of ourselves with one another in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit (the horizontal dimension).
Because the church is a communion, its institutional structure is collegial rather than monarchical.
Understanding the church as a communion also means that the church is not a single international parish under the pastoral leadership of the pope, subdivided into dioceses and parishes for administrative efficiency only.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
The church is a communion of local churches, or dioceses, each of which is the Body of Christ in its own particular place (Lumen gentium, n. 26).
Together these local churches constitute the universal church. Their unity one with another is rooted in the presence and sanctifying activity of the Holy Spirit, manifested especially in the celebration of the Eucharist.
This communal notion of the church underscores the traditional importance of councils, synods, and conferences of bishops in the life and structure of the church, operative especially during the first Christian millennium and in the East generally throughout both millennia.
Especially in those areas of the world like our own, in the United States and Canada, where democratic, collaborative, and participatory forms of governance are taken for granted, the church, too, needs to act in an increasingly collegial and collaborative manner.
Presbyteral councils, in union with the bishops, must exercise deliberative as well as consultative authority, but always in collaboration with other conciliar or synodal expressions of the local church, including in particular the diocesan pastoral council.
The church's mode of activity will necessarily differ from region to region. It will take longer, for example, in some regions of the world to accept a married clergy or the presence of women in positions of real pastoral authority than in other regions, like our own.
But such developments as these are inevitable, even though some bishops, such as William Morris of Australia, have been sacked for even raising the possibility.
No one can hold back the future -- or the irrepressible work of the Holy Spirit. For it is the Holy Spirit, not the hierarchy, not even the pope, who governs the church and leads it through all of human history to its final destiny in the Kingdom of God.
© 2011 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the next several weeks, Fr. McBrien's columns will explore the major ecclesiological themes or principles proclaimed at the Second Vatican Council.
Vatican II themes: The church as mystery, or sacrament
Vatican II themes: The people of God
Vatican II themes: The church as servant
Vatican II themes: The church as communion
Vactican II themes: The church is ecumenical
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Fr. McBrien's column, "Essays in Theology," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow the directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Essays in Theology" to your list. |
Thank you, You describe me,
Thank you, You describe me, a non-participating catholic to a T. I function like that in whatever setting I am in and stay away from anything w/o that way of thinking. It has been most difficult - and then moving to a conservative area has exaggerated the split. I guess that I totally went along, am an Independent by nature, and is dismayed.
Power and money are strong. Over time, likely the Holy Spirit is stronger, but that will take time and many of us will not live to see it happen. However, not w/o effort and work on our parts. That situation, along with so many in a most stressed monetary situation, will slow any change.
Prayers needed, prayerful life needed.
I remember the pre-Vatican
I remember the pre-Vatican church and I don't want to go back there. I am more of a rebel than the younger generation. Thank you for your understanding and insights. Keep writing.
An interesting and
An interesting and enlightening essay by Fr McBrien. I do share a lot of his views, as I find many of today's clergy, in general, not really familiar with Vat II teachings and documents.
Thank you for speaking out.
Thank you for speaking out. I am 72 and remember clearly pre-Vatican II. Ny pastor, a good bureaucrat,is trying hard to return us to 1960 by returning to candles for sale and dreary hymns and an eagerness for the new missel which he feels is hardly different. I'm just hoping I can hang on to some part of the church until I die. Never before have I felt so strongly that church and God are two entirely different things.
God is Love. Is this no
God is Love. Is this no longer our church, no longer our church dogma, as it was in our apostolic era, as with our Blessed Pope John XXIII?
Anonymous, I read your post
Anonymous, I read your post with sadness and much empathy. I won't try to give you a pat answer, as that would be a violation to the reality of the depth of what, I believe, is your justified despairing of that state of The Church. Yet, I will hold you in my prayers as we both struggle to develop our own holiness is what is increasingly a hostile and, all to often and in many ways, an unholy environment.
Fr. McBrien. The late Fr.
Fr. McBrien.
The late Fr. Raymond E. Brown (d. 1998) believed that ordination of women to the priesthood would be the result of a gradual process: first altar servers, then lectors, then extraordinary ministers of holy communion, and finally women theologians teaching in seminaries.
The main issue as Fr. Brown saw it, was that many countries throughout the world would not accept women priests and this would result in schism. He believed the Church always make this kind of change throughout the entire Church, not just in this or that country.
I met Cardinal Deardon in San
I met Cardinal Deardon in San Antonio, Tx. at the Mexican American Cultural Center. He was a pastoral human being with a good sense of humor. He struck me as a man who had confidence in the Spirit and respect for the Spirit's presence in others. It was easy to love Good Pope John who put on his old clothes and walked across the bridge to Trastevere Jail to hear the confessions of the prisoners and chat with them. We were made mindful of Jesus who lived with the poor. There was a genuine love for the people of God and an empowerment of them. Things are so different now.
When do you get to Chapter
When do you get to Chapter Three: On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church?
Note#4 reads: "As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church's Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always fully active [in actu pleno]; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head." Gee! Did the Council really say that, Father?
What I cannot understand is,
What I cannot understand is, why do some Catholics gleefully search for evidence that the Church is a strongly authoritarian structure?
Why do some Catholics gleefully point out that "the Church is not a democracy," as if that is something to be proud of?
Why do some Catholics gleefully look for ways to have powerful chiefs so that they can be told what to do?
Why do some Catholics gleefully want to live with their bodies and minds in chains and then to be ordered to thank God for it?
Why do some Catholics gleefully seek out a church structure in which they have no say but instead leave the decisions to one or a few people in charge, trusting in their benevolence, even when evidence strongly suggests that the benevolence of the rulers is intermittent at best?
Why do some Catholics want to be a part of a Church that treats them like dirt or like ignorant peasants and assumes that their ideas are insignificant, even for themselves?
Why do some Catholics want to subject themselves to mindless ceremonial displays instead of true communion?
Why do some Catholics want to be belittled and made to feel guilty about being normal people?
Why do some Catholics want to let some oafs determine the words they talk to their loving, intimate God in?
Father McBrien has a much more inspired view of what the Church should be than the people I've been scolding. Vatican II pointed us toward this better direction. It is foolish to imagine that the explosive spirit that Vatican II unleashed was captured accurately or completely in its "documents." Pencil-pushing bureaucrats, go for the documents if that is your bent. There was a lot more about that window-opening time than documents argued and compromised and power-played over after the fact.
In answer to the "Why",
In answer to the "Why", perhaps people are lazy and really don't want to do anything. Those very direct and hard teachings of Jesus (Matt25) are just too much work. It is much easier to not have to think and act.
1. The Church is
1. The Church is authoritarian, Christ promised that whatever the Church holds to be true on earth will be held to be true in Heaven. The authority of the Church is confirmed by Christ Himself.
2. Because it is not. Democracy is mob rule, majority rule. Objective truth is not about majority rule; truth is truth whether one person agrees with it or 100 million agree with it. The majority of people who heard about Christ during His lifetime did not agree with Him, thought Him to be a false prophet at best and a lunatic at worst.
3. Because those men are charged by Christ as teachers and leaders, sanctifiers and governors. Their teaching authority is confirmed by Christ and His Holy Spirit.
4. I don't even know what this means. I can only say this, true freedom, according to Aquinas, is not the freedom to do whatever I want, it is the freedom to do what I ought.
5. I don't recall Christ conducting opinion polls of His followers, or having the disciples cast secret ballots when He determined where they went, what He taught, how He taught it, etc. Indeed, Christ often preached teachings that caused people to desert Him, yet He continued to teach.
6. I don't know what Church you have belonged to, or been a part of. The Roman Catholic Church, however, does not do any of this. In fact, of all the Christian denominations, the Catholic Church has historically been the church that preaches loudest and most significantly about human dignity and rights. Just because the Church's teaching does not permit people to do whatever they want, have sex with who or whatever they want, does not mean that she treats people "like dirt".
7. Apparently you do not have much understanding of the Church's rituals. True communion is being united in mind and heart and faith, that is what happens at Mass; it's what happens when we receive Holy Communion, and it is why Catholics who are conscious of committing grave sin may not receive Holy Communion. I am sorry that you find the Mass and the sacraments to be "mindless".
8. I am a life-time member of the Church. I have never felt belittled. I have felt guilty at times when I have committed sin or done wrong, and that is only normal and good. I fail to understand why some people want to eliminate guilt and basically say "if it feels good, do it".
9. First, I can only assume you are calling the bishops "oafs", which of course is not only insulting to them, but also insulting to Christ and the Holy Spirit Who called them and empowered them to hold the office of bishop. Second, the bishops do NOT dictate what language we can use in our prayer, they only regulate what language is used during corporate worship. Again, I can only assume that you do not have much understanding of the Church's worship and ritual.
10. The "spirit of Vatican II", which you defend, has been in full effect since 1965. The result? A decline in attendance at Mass, a decline in priestly vocations, a decline in vocations to religious life, a decline in the numbers of priests and nuns, a decline in belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacred Eucharist, a decline in parish life, a decline in Catholic identity. The "spirit of Vatican II" is all about decline. That was not what the authentic teaching of the Council was really about. That is why the papacies of Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI have seen increases in all of those areas; these popes were and are about implementing the authentic teaching of the Council.
This church has hosted popes
This church has hosted popes who turned the Vatican into a brothel, held rioutous orgies, committed genocide, enabled the Inquisition, and presided over the worst human rights abuses in the history of civilization. The church you so ardently defend is a chimera, and illusion, a cult.
If I might venture an answer
If I might venture an answer to your questions:
These particular Catholics are *sheople*.
They overlook that when Jesus said "I am the good shepherd", the key word is "I". Jesus, not pope or anybody else, is the good shepherd.
If B16 and likeminded hierarchs regard themselves as shepherds, they come across as mighty damn inept if their performance to date is any indication.
Sad.
And dysfunctional.
Mountain Dweller, You have
Mountain Dweller, You have laid out some significant principles which should be ever before us as guiding principles for the Reformation, Part II. As it spreads painfully slowly throughout this corrupt Church now in the hands of criminals and barbarians.
It's interesting the way in
It's interesting the way in which the left conveniently ignores the documents of Vatican II, in favor of the imagined "Spirit of Vatican II". Oh well, I suppose Father McBrien's interpretation of what he thinks the Council said is far more relevant than what the Council actually said.
See church historian John W.
See church historian John W. O'Malley's "The Style of Vatican II" at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2812.
I gather, Mr. Green, that you --- unlike "yours truly" --- were not around during Vatican II???
You have completely missed
You have completely missed his point. The Spirit of Vatican II is not about the exact words as stated in the documents,--some altered after the fact,-- it is about what was HEARD and EXPERIENCED in the debates by the participants. In many respects, for many participants, the words could not possibly explain what they heard and experienced. That played out in how these bishops lived their experience when they came back to their dioceses.
As with the Gospels themselves, the words were understood as needing to be lived, not read.
See historian John O'Malley's
See historian John O'Malley's "Vatican II: Official Norms" at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2883.
The willingness of those
The willingness of those deceived by this present Pope to read WHITE when it says BLACK, ad infinitum, is incredible.
The monarchial papacy is
The monarchial papacy is modeled on the Roman Emperors and feudal aristocracies. It has nothing in Christ. It is the Devil tempting, with success, weaker men than Jesus in the desert to worldly power and domination.
There are two, possibly more, congregations in the Catholic Church-the redeemed, who are in the Kingdom of God, and the unredeemed, who are not. I would not be caught dead among the damned, and my Bible reads that those who do not love their brother (and sister) are liars.
Of course, ecclesiastical politics are very complex. The issues are never that simple-or are they? I have always found those defending this religious REICH to be snide, nasty, condescending and rude. Which side are you on?
as someone who is approaching
as someone who is approaching 80 years of age, Fr. Mc Brien is accurate in describing not only the enthusiasm of the Bishops, but we lay folks now in our dotage. To know what transpired at the Council, to read the words, and today to compare what is happening , what is reality, is almost a 180 degree turn about.
Call to Action and Voice of the Faithful are two good examples of groups trying to keep Vatican II in view.
as always, thank you Father Mc Brien.
Amen, Mr. Broer. I was in
Amen, Mr. Broer. I was in high school during Vatican II.
Unfortunately, we see too many comments on here from folks who obviously lack the historical perspective of those of us who were around back then.
No way would I return to the pre-conciliar church.
What Fr. O'Brien wrote in
What Fr. O'Brien wrote in this article about church being communion sounds more like what it "should be like" and not what it is in reality at the moment. I too felt hopeful back during the days of Vatican II just to see leaders of other faiths being invited to the table. It is so disheartening to see what didn't happen. To hear others say, that those of us who lived not only through the hopeful years of Vatican II, but whose childhood was impacted by WWII, the fears of the Cold War, the violence in our country with the many assassinations of political leaders and the civil rights violence are being told that we are a bunch of old grey haired people who will soon be pushing up daisies speaks to a total lack of Christian compassion. It also speaks to their lack of knowledge of history. There is a good reason why so many of us are still engaged in the struggle to bring about a different vision of church, and hope that true communion will bring us together in all our diversity.
Thank you Lore. You make a
Thank you Lore. You make a point I bring up all the time with younger Catholics. One cannot understand Vatican II without understanding it was in part a reaction to fascist Europe and World War II. The seeds of World War III were already in motion in the communist witch hunts. To promote an environment in which mankind could survive (and with it the Church) Catholicism had to take a different and more open approach.
I cannot imagine what might have happened if Catholicism had found itself with a pope who thought it was God's will we nuke the godless communists until they glowed. Thank God for Pope John XXIII.
Thank you, thank you, Fr.
Thank you, thank you, Fr. Obrien for finding words for my own lived experience and fortifying belief that the Holy Spirit does still"hold all the cards".
The idea of communion is the
The idea of communion is the most beautiful and exalted idea in our religion. Good article, Father McB.
Father McBrien could not be
Father McBrien could not be more on target with these remarks. The recent Detroit Convention of the American Catholic Council was all about the "Seniors" of our Catholic community to whom he referred in the beginning of this column. Thanks be to the Holy Spirit who continues to rule the church, not the Roman Curial community.
LOve to all,
Joe Keffer
The Holy Father should read
The Holy Father should read the above article! Wonderful!!
The Holy Father should read
The Holy Father should read the article! Wonderful!
Fr. McBrien's article hits
Fr. McBrien's article hits home with this 68 year-old. I can remember, prior to 1978, being able to have adult conversations with fellow Catholics, including the clergy, about changes occurring or which may occur within the Church with little fear of reproach. Now, I am bombarded by such articles as one by George Weigel, "Behold a New Catholic Paradigm" in the Currents section of the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 31, and wonder whether it is possible to have an adult conversation with a more traditional Catholic.
No,it is not. They are like
No,it is not. They are like parrots, repeating the sound bytes of the Vatican. They don't even hear you. They can't show any empathy towards you (or anyone else). Because they don't know how to love, just how to judge and try to keep you in line, like a sergeant adressing his recruits.
What a pity! All the new priests I met are arrogant and bureaucratic. They are in the church but they belong to the army. Where no Love is required. Only obedience.
I pity them. But I pity more the faithful they will keep leading astray in the future.
YOU, Pat, are the "more
YOU, Pat, are the "more traditional Catholic" in practicing mature and respectful dialogue than anything from the self proclaimed trads like George, who have rendered me to bitter to converse with.
Dear Patrick Mowery, Perhaps
Dear Patrick Mowery, Perhaps you are mistaking your perception of what is good for true goodness or GOOD which is GOD. George has always kept his focus on GOD and does not back off what he has been taught as many of us do. No dogma changed during Vatican II and to interpret or re-interpret what was accomplished during this Council other than what occured is truly an exercise in futility. It is not a matter of traditional or non-traditional. It is still a problem of right or wrong. All the i's have been dotted and all the t's have been crossed. Nothing further will develop from Vatican II.
"No one can hold back the
"No one can hold back the future -- or the irrepressible work of the Holy Spirit. For it is the Holy Spirit, not the hierarchy, not even the pope, who governs the church and leads it through all of human history to its final destiny in the Kingdom of God."
Thank you, Fr. McBrien. This last sentence holds all the hope that there is available these days.
I'm in my 70s and remember well the church before Vat.II. It saddens me greatly to be living now the Reform of the Reform.
Let's pray to the Holy Spirit. May he also transform the hearts of the youth, that the may understand the richness of communion and collegiality in the church, which they never knew or fathom today.
Hi, Nice going Fr. McBrien on
Hi, Nice going Fr. McBrien on you perseverance in tauting VII and the upcoming 50th Anniversary.
Reading E. Johnson's "Quest" Enjoying it although she is a difficult read. Though provoking, she likes Rahner, Kung, Schilleebckx and a host of others.
Keep up the good work. Glen
Community does not mean
Community does not mean democracy. The Faith is not a matter of majority rule, it is a matter of Objective Truth. The laity have the charism of sanctifying the world, of bringing the message of the Gospel into their offices, workplaces, malls, the Public Square. That is the proper role of the laity and that is how we best participate in the communal nature of the Church, not by usurping the proper role of the clergy, but rather by exercising our role as laity.
"The Faith is not a matter of
"The Faith is not a matter of majority rule."
There's this reality called 'sense of faith', i.e., that which is present among ALL the People of God, not just only among the ordained, much less only among the hierarchs.
Doctrinal development.
Yes, a majority can be in error.
But necessarily so???
The Faith is not a matter of
The Faith is not a matter of majority rule, it is a matter of Objective Truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Faith is not a set of musings by theologians either. It is the consensus of the whole Church as revealed by the Church Fathers, not the product of bureaucratic caprice. The papacy is only a part of this process of reaching consensus and to think that it is the sole fount of knowledge, enlightenment, and source of illumination of the Church's mysteries is heresy.
The "Benedictine" vision of the ultramontanist Church triumphant is heretical. It is a repudiation of both Sacred Tradition and the Holy Scriptures.
CWG on Aug. 08, 2011. You
CWG on Aug. 08, 2011.
You stated:
"Community does not mean democracy. The Faith is not a matter of majority rule, it is a matter of Objective Truth. The laity have the charism of sanctifying the world, of bringing the message of the Gospel into their offices, workplaces, malls, the Public Square. That is the proper role of the laity and that is how we best participate in the communal nature of the Church, not by usurping the proper role of the clergy, but rather by exercising our role as laity."
---------------------------------------
The documents of Vatican Council II clearly shifted away from the concepts that you are defending.
'Luman Gentium' devotes an entire chapter to the pilgirm church---an effort to move away from the older triumphalistic concept of the church as a perfect society led by those who only posses the Spirit ('And with your Spirit') the clergy/hierarchy. The Church will receive its perfection only in the fullness of time (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church 72-79).
The Church is the ENTIRE people of God---not just the 4% who constitute the clergy/hierarchy/papacy. Unfortunately, the teachings of JP II (whose voice you are echoing) fails to see that there was a definite shift away from a hierarchical, juridical, and triumphalistic understanding of the Church in the modern world.
The pre-Vatican II documents regarded the pope as entrusted with the deposit of faith and knowledge of eternal and natural law, and they possessed the ability to apply these realitities to the social situation of the world. Thus Catholic teaching came from the top down.
However, if one recognizes that the pope is the authoritative interpreter of eternal and natural law---it stands in tension with the realization that natural law is based on human reason and thus is open to ALL people of good will.
Although 'Lumen Gentium' strongly upholds the authoritative teaching offfice of the hierarchical magisterium, it insists that all baptized people share in the prophetic and teaching function of Jesus (Constitution on the Church, nn. 11,16,52).
The 'Declaration on Religious Liberty' of Vatican II puts flesh and blood on this recognition that the teaching role of the Catholic Church is broader than just the hierarchical/papal teaching office.
"People nowadays are becoming increasingly conscious of the dignity of
the human person; a growing number demand that people should exercise
fully their own judgment and responsible freedom in their actions and
should not be subject to external pressure or coercion but be inspired by
a sense of duty...This Vatican Council pays attention to these
spiritual aspirations and, with a view to declaring to what extent they
are in accord with truth and justice, searches the sacred tradition
and teaching of the church, from which it draws forth new insights in
harmony with the old." (Declaration on Religious Liberty, Vatican
Council II, 551).
Vatican Council II clearly admits that it has learned from the experience of human beings. Please remember that the Catholic Church came to its teaching on religious liberty very late in comparison with most democratic governments, other Christian churches and other religous bodies.
Rather than the return to the pre-Vatican II concepts that JP II (and now Benedict) wanted/wants to impose, Vatican II tried to lay the foundation for the relationship between the church and the world and provided the basis for dialogue between them. (David J. O'Brien and Thomas J. Shannon, eds. "Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary Heritage" Maryknoll, N.Y. Orbis, 1992 p. 189).
Thanks. You have 'told me
Thanks. You have 'told me the words' that I needed to hear again.
These days they are so easy to forget.
Thank you, Fr. Mc Brien! I am
Thank you, Fr. Mc Brien! I am 74, a woman religious and a former student of yours. I find your reflection encouraging. It calls me to truly trust the Holy Spirit at work in the present movements in the church, many of which I find disconcerting. My faith calls me to trust that influences like Cardinal John Deardon and many others who have gone before us are hanging around with Therese of Lisieux, doing good upon earth.
Lead on Holy Spirit! Thanks
Lead on Holy Spirit! Thanks for your consoling words Richard.
I've been reading this series
I've been reading this series of articles, and let me begin by stating that I am a great admirer of Fr. McBrien. He was a guest once on a programme I made and I not only admired his knowledge but was grateful for his courteous advice. That being said, I think he's living on cloud cuckoo land when it comes to Vatican II, and, like so many others, sees it as some kind of Catholic Woodstock. Yes, it started out with the best of intentions, mainly due to the conservative but kind and saintly John XXIII, but once he left the helm, and it fell under the captaincy of the, again, saintly but weak Paul VI, who allowed the whole project to be hijacked by the Curial Old Guard, mainly the formidable Ottaviani. The Holy See, and therefore the pope, was mired in financial scandals, and so a trade off was done. Paul could window dress and pfaff around with liturgical niceties and definitions, but matters of real interest to real people, like human sexuality and contraception, were to remain untouched. Thus, because the bishops had to be seen to be doing something, beautiful churches were vandalised, a poetic and transcendental liturgy was ruined and an entire people was left to wander about in confusion.
I seriously suggest that Vatican II achieved little, and that misunderstandings of the liturgical reforms led to the vandalism described above. The whole thing was so vague that it was easy for John Paul II and his successor to put their regressive stamp on it. The move to restore the Latin Mass as an option, however, not as the only form of worship available, can hardly be said to be a backward step. Loving the traditional liturgy does not automatically mean that one opposes women priests or is against same sex partnerships. If one were to attend sung High Mass at London's Brompton Oratory, many gay men and their partners could be spotted taking part. Agreed, a deliberate wandering of attention is often required during the sermon, but at least those sermons are well written and delivered, unlike some of the inferior cabaret performances which have become part of the Ordinary Form.
Perhaps, if and when Vatican III is convened, real issues that affect real people can, at last, be dealt with, and the beauty of traditional Catholic worship can be restored.
Sorry, but "traditional
Sorry, but "traditional Catholic worship" elevates the ordained at the expense of the laity.
Sorry, but "traditional
Sorry, but "traditional Catholic worship" elevates the ordained at the expense of the laity.
Sorry, but the current ordinary form of the Mass does precisely what you claim traditional forms do. In the traditional form, the role of the priest was clearly defined, and there were no histrionic displays, as happen today, very much against the spirit of Vatican II, where the whole shebang depends on the priest's skill as an entertainer.
Passivity in the pews, eyes
Passivity in the pews, eyes on altar to figure out what's going on (if not dozing off asleep).
Cleric mumbo-jumbling some esoteric (read: dead foreign) language.
Cleric with back to people ("just what mysterious stuff *is* taking place up there out of sight???").
Cleric "confecting the eucharist" (hey, he really *does* have magic hands!).
Cleric distributing communion on fellow adults' tongues (hey, they're the kids --- and kneeling down, to boot!).
Your reference to "histrionic displays" on part of presider doesn't ring true at all with my experience since Vatican II. On the other hand, we've seen plenty of visual spectacle (including boys in tow) with AB Raymond Burke, Bishop Slattery, etc. dressed up in their splendid cappa magnas.
Likewise, I'm not familiar with presiders as "entertainers". On the other hand, I'm quite appreciative of presiders who use the skills of human communication to lead their fellow worshipers at the eucharistic liturgy --- skills including facing the people, using *their* language, speaking loud enough to be heard by congregation. But wait: This is facilitation in a liturgical setting, isn't it???
Sorry, but the Tridentine mass doesn't "cut the mustard" in enabling, much less encouraging, the people to participate in the liturgy. Even a conciliar pope acknowledged this deficiency of the old rite.
Like Anonymous below who
Like Anonymous below who commented on the Brompton Liturgy, Joseph, it's all a matter of perception.
You perceive the priest to be turning his back to the people. I say that he faces the same way as the people.
The passivity in the pews is the problem of the passive, and your comments here are somewhat patronising, underestimating the intelligence of ordinary folk. If they feel that they are just bored spectators, and out of boredom doze off, then they have not taken the trouble to understand what the Mass really is. I participate actively, which does not mean that I have to chatter endlessly at God, as if, somehow, I have to keep reminding him that he's there. Reflective silences do not imply passivity.
The incomprehensible, to you, mumbo jumbo; I am a lover of Italian opera, although I don't speak Italian, and I'm quite happy to follow the translation in the surtitles that most decent opera houses have. Surely God deserves at least as much effort, and I can put as much work into the holy sacrifice of the Mass. If I go to Mass in Budapest, I do not speak Hungarian, and therefore have to follow the translation, as I do at a Latin Mass, because I am not fluent in Latin either. The old Latin Mass was exactly the same in any country in the world where the Roman Rite was practiced. Classical Latin may be a dead language; Church Latin is not, as it is still used in all the official documents of the Church of Rome.
The cleric, or priest, still confects the Eucharist, whether it be at the modern or old Mass. Perhaps you question the need for an ordained priesthood, and would be happy with any Tom, Dick or Harriette consecrating the bread and wine? If so, fine; I wouldn't, however.
I prefer to receive communion on the tongue, as I do not feel that I am worthy to touch the sacred consecrated host, and I have seen so many abuses occur from reception in the hand. I kneel before God, the creator of the world, not before the priest. Were the Queen of England to grant me an audience, I would observe all the protocols that go with that occasion. Any day of the week, I can drop into a Church or just say 'hi' to my pal Jesus, but when I attend Sunday Mass, I look on it as having a formal audience with the King of Kings. I reckon he deserves at least as much respect, pomp and ceremony as the human queen. That is the way my faith works.
I'm happy for you that you haven't been subjected to the histrionic displays to which I refer, and that you enjoy, or feel fulfilled by the way the modern 'presiders' use their communication skills. I have had different experiences, and I do not feel spiritually or aesthetically fulfilled by many of the cabaret shows masquerading as sacred rituals that I have had to endure. I remember one Sunday when the priest, or 'presider', began Mass by asking the congretation for a round of applause because it was a special day; his birthday. If you approve of that class of shenanigans at Mass then mazel tof; good for you. I find it cheap and tawdry.
I am not advocating making the old Latin Mass compulsory, but I wholeheartedly support giving those of us who want it the option of having it. This does not mean that I am against the ordination of women, that I place the all male priesthood on some sort of pedestal, or buy into all the teachings of Catholicism. Those who wish to deny us the option of the extraordinary form are simply indulging in fascism masquerading as liberalism.
My comments are
My comments are "patronising"??? I'm drawing on my experience with the old rite before Vatican II. I also draw on my study and experience in adult training and group process. To keep folks involved in any group/communal activity (worship included), we must move beyond mere attendance to participation itself. (I should note that attendance per se is not "attending to".)
The old rite promotes passivity. Even Paul VI stated in 1969 that the new rite would distract worshipers from their "usual lethargy". If my own experience is any indication, this conciliar pope knew exactly what he was talking about. Past performance is the best predictor of future performance. Given the structure of the old rite, we can expect no better now or in the future than what we experienced in the past. If worshipers are expected to participate, then we should expect Rome to give us a liturgy that does not tend to promote boredom among otherwise devout and mature adults.
Contrary to your apparent suggestion, there is no value in "incomprehensible" language in the sacred liturgy. Although SC-36 states that "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites," the article goes on to state "But..." The vernacular, of course, has enjoyed overwhelming acceptance since its introduction more than forty years ago. SC-21 states that "both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly [note this contrast with old rite] the holy things they signify and that the Christian people, as far as possible, are able to understand them with ease and to take part in the rites fully, actively [again, note the contrast with old rite], and as befits a community." On this latter point, I doubt most folks --- Jesus included --- would want their prescribed form of worship to require "at least as much effort" as it might take to understand Italian opera. Finally, SC-27 states that the "active participation of the faithful...is to be preferred, as far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and, so to speak, private [perhaps akin to a patron's enjoyment of Italian opera?]." Maybe because of my training/facilitation background, I've found it more than a bit amusing that the conciliar fathers felt it necessary to use the modifier 'active' or, as translated in some quarters, 'actual' when referring to participation. As a former boss used to say, "If it hasn't been done right, it hasn't been done." People either participate, or they don't.
As for Church Latin, it's dying if not effectively dead. The Papal Latinist acknowledged as much in a 2007 interview in The Telegraph. Rome can publish in Latin all it wants, but documents must eventually be translated or interpreted in vernaculars, and it is here where the Vatican can "hiccup" or "go peptic" when a local understanding does not satisfy the powers-that-be. Latin is simply inadequate to the task of accommodating cultural nuance and differences, especially for papal and curial types hellbent on control.
"Confecting the eucharist"??? This phrase conjures up the image of cleric as candymaker --- or worse. It trivializes the eucharist, turning it into something that's "made". The eucharist is a mystery; it defies explanation. Indeed, "transubstantiation" ultimately is a non-starter. The word 'confect' brings to mind "hocus pocus", and a cleric using an esoteric language, speaking "sotto voce", and turning his back to the congregation doesn't help matters any. After all, Jesus said, "This is...", not "Let me explain this mystery to you." In its feeble attempt to try to explain a mystery, Rome is just as bad as those fellow Christians who try to demystify the eucharist.
"Communion on the tongue"??? You're not worthy to touch the sacred host??? Our primitive ancestors in the faith would disagree with you. So would Jesus, I suspect, if the Incarnation or the Last Supper is any indication. Folks began receiving on the tongue around the eleventh century and began kneeling soon thereafter, apparently to facilitate this kind of eucharistic reception. If you're a sinner, you are more than worthy to extend a hand, so to speak, to the Lord (on this point, see "Tax Collectors and Sinners" at http://www.crivoice.org/tax.html). Seriously, we need to dispense with this "I'm not worthy" approach to faith and worship. It is not healthy. If anything, Jesus' ministry was --- and remains --- ample proof that each of us *is* worthy to receive communion in the hand!!! Don't let the guys in Rome convince you otherwise.
Jesus may be "King of kings", but his gospel legacy is anything but kingly. He eschewed the trappings and privileges of royalty. He stressed that when religious observance and human need conflict, the latter takes priority. Always. Kneel as you will before queen, pope, or churchly prince, but Jesus did not ask for or expect such performance art.
And, yes, you do end up kneeling before the "priest". After all, he does the "confecting", he is "ontologically" superior to you, he is the mediator between you and God. The "priest" is above you on the ecclesial totem pole. It's not for nothing that back in the day, folks were quick to recognize the phenomenon of clergy on pedestals --- the higher the rank, the higher their standing in the ecclesial pecking order (cf. Mk 10:42-45).
The Catholic presbyter or bishop's primary function/service is liturgical presidency. Indeed, I'm reminded of Justin Martyr's reference to "president" of the liturgical assembly in his "First Apology", ca. 150 AD. (Both 'president' and 'presider' derive from the common Latin root 'praesidere'.) It is his (or her) duty to facilitate participation in the eucharistic liturgy, i.e., the communal act of thanksgiving to God. The presider maintains order and accepts the gifts of the people at worship. Facilitation or presidership involves facing the people, using their language, and speaking loud enough to be heard.
I'm sorry to learn that you have had to "endure...shenanigans at Mass." I'm reminded of the time in 1961 or 1962 when a visiting cleric boasted that he could get through the Tridentine mass in fifteen minutes or less. And, by golly, he did! (I should confess that when I wasn't serving mass during the school week, I was just as busy as some other grade schoolers in engaging in shenanigans during the service. Maybe it was our way of staying awake.)
When I look back on my youth, "gezzamac", I realize how deprived we were at worship, how Rome had enforced our passivity in worship. We took this style of worship for granted, of course; that's the way things were done back in the day. I realize now how the Tridentine mass, the focal point of Catholic parish life, promoted and sustained the elevation of the ordained and subordination of the laity. I hope you might agree, "gezzamac", that recent years have finally revealed the proverbial "fruits" of this Tridentine culture, to wit, the "sacrifice" of children --- innocent lambs all --- on the perverted altars of clerical privilege and sexual abuse, not to mention the shameful behaviors of bishops and popes who tolerated it, threatened complainers, or ignored it altogether. All for the sake of "protecting Holy Mother Church against scandal." For now, I'll simply refer you to theologian James Mackey's "Turning punishment into instrument of love", which appeared in Irish Times in May 2010.
Sorry, "gezzamac", but I cannot accept that "ol' time religion - Catholic style" to which you apparently gravitate. From an ecclesiological perspective, I find it toxic.
Thanks, but no thanks.
So, as we are likely to
So, as we are likely to remain poles apart on this, let's agree to disagree. I also draw on my experience of the old rite before Vatican II, and draw on my experience as a reasonably well respected commentator on matters of religion. We have different ways of giving expression to our faith, and so it should be.
I will continue to love the beauty of the Tridentine Latin Mass, while never seeking to force it on anyone else. It is to be made available to those of us who want it as the extraordinary form of the Mass, so you worship in your way, and I'll worship in mine. Jesus did take on human form and inhabited our space to bring us the true meaning of love, but he is still God, and I will continue to kneel to him. I do not kneel to a priest, and please stop saying that I do. At the age of 62, and being at least as well informed as you about Catholicism, I ask you to respect that I know what I'm doing. I will also continue to advocate the ordination of women, and decry the appalling treatment of homosexual people.
But please, don't blame the 'Tridentine culture' for the evils of child abuse, no more than I blame Vatican II or the 60s. The reasons for those horrors are far deeper than that. As a boy, I served the Latin Mass for many good and holy men who would no more entertain harming a child, than I would entertain desecrating the Blessed Eucharist. The pre conciliar church had many faults, but it also had a lot of good and beneficial aspects. Difference is good; respect it!
"Let's agree to
"Let's agree to disagree."
Amen.
Brompton Oratory has indeed
Brompton Oratory has indeed beautiful musical and visual presentations, but it isn't liturgy. Enjoy the performance!!
Afterward, you can go to "Harrod's" just down the street and do a little shopping and get a bite to eat.
Brompton Oratory has indeed
Brompton Oratory has indeed beautiful musical and visual presentations, but it isn't liturgy. Enjoy the performance!! Afterward, you can go to "Harrod's" just down the street and do a little shopping and get a bite to eat.
This all depends on the disposition of the person attending liturgies like that in Brompton Road. Anytime I go there, the congregation sings the Gloria, Credo and Pater Noster along with the choir, and, where appropriate, make the spoken responses in Latin. What is missing is cabaret style performances from jolly, joshing priests, and they are no loss. I'm glad that you can at least admit that the ceremonies are beautiful, which is a lot more than can be said for some of the shenanigans that pass for liturgy nowadays.
After offering my
After offering my intellectual and spiritual participation in the unceremonious 9am Extraordinary Form liturgy at the Oratory I go for some croissants and coffee and read a Sunday paper; feeling liberated, truly Catholic and heavy "religious" baggage free. If you are after a performance the extrovert evangelicals at Holy Trinity [CofE] round the corner can provide. May I suggest you nip along. Suspect you might be more "at home" dude. Pax tecum.
The ironic thing is that most
The ironic thing is that most of these aging hippies who "lived through Vatican II" are the same ones who are clueless as to what the Council actually said. They can quote to you what guys like Kung and Tricky Dick say about the Council but when it comes down to what the Fathers of the Council actually said they are clueless. They have no idea what the documents say, only what dissidents say about them. I taught a class in a parish on V2 and before we started I had people write down the changes Vatican II made and what the Council said. To their great surprise almost nothing they wrote down was actually part of the Council. And many of this group were the people our neck-tied hero was talking about!
Anonymous on Aug. 09,
Anonymous on Aug. 09, 2011.
You stated:
"The ironic thing is that most of these aging hippies who "lived through Vatican II" are the same ones who are clueless as to what the Council actually said. They can quote to you what guys like Kung and Tricky Dick say about the Council but when it comes down to what the Fathers of the Council actually said they are clueless. They have no idea what the documents say, only what dissidents say about them. I taught a class in a parish on V2 and before we started I had people write down the changes Vatican II made and what the Council said. To their great surprise almost nothing they wrote down was actually part of the Council. And many of this group were the people our neck-tied hero was talking about!"
-----------------------------------------
Speak for yourself, my child. I teach Church History, all the Ecumenical Councils and I can cite the Vatican II documents, page, chapter and verse.
As a young Catholic at the
As a young Catholic at the rip age of 23 and having read Father McBrien's words for a few years and having seen his views on the Church drifting away from Vatican II, I would like to offer my assessment. I would agree that the Church in some ways is going to back, but is it all necessarily a bad thing? Vatican II happened so quick and for many Catholics who did not want all of the changes the Church they had known disappeared. And they felt abandoned. Just like some of the people on here express feeling abandoned. But I thing the Church is universal and there should be a place for everyone whether you are conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between. No one side is ever going to get everything it wants.
And as for Popes like JP II or Benedict they are far from perfect and have made many mistakes in handling the abuse crisis and not making the right choices all the time. However, they are still holy men who while at times being too reactionary have made great strides in helping to advance the Church in the spirit of Vatican II. JP II did a lot to bring the Church into modern times and influenced a whole generation of Catholics who are proud to call themselves the JP II generation. I am proud to be among that cohort. Do I agree with everything JP II did or stood for, no. Yet I witness the good it has brought.
I am tired of the politicization/polarization of the Church on both sides. Each sides has its fair share of grievances and ideas that need to be addressed but infighting is not going to save the Church. Maybe I'm a product of my time and do not have the experience of some in my views. However, I want to stay in the Church my entire life and work to make it better even with those I disagree with because in the end we all worship the same God and are nourished by the same Eucharist. That sense of unity is far greater than any division or it should be.
Lastly, I want to say I greatly respect the views put forth by Father McBrien whom I read and take to heart his words just as I might someone with the opposite views or vice versa. I continue to grow in my faith as a young adult and recognizing the role I can serve within and outside the Church to advance to the teachings of Catholicism. Even in these times there is still so much good in Church that can be advanced and at the same time recognizing the need for reforms. As Pope John XXIII said, "seize the good...and multiply it."
Luke "is it necessarily a bad
Luke
"is it necessarily a bad thing?" Yes, it is necessarily a bad thing!
"is it necessarily a bad
"is it necessarily a bad thing?" Yes, it is necessarily a bad thing!
So everything about Catholicism before Vatican II, or before what you think Vatican II sanctioned, was bad? I think not. Like Catholicism today, not all of it was good, but not all of it was bad either.
"...but not all of it was bad
"...but not all of it was bad either."
Just bad enough to warrant an ecumenical council calling for ecclesial renewal.
Just bad enough to warrant an
Just bad enough to warrant an ecumenical council calling for ecclesial renewal.
Renewal did not mean throwing the ecclesial baby out with the ecclesial bathwater.
But Joseph, you pick at certain bones from my posts yet never address my main arguments. What did Vatican II actually achieve, and please bear in mind that I am 62 and lived thrugh the before and after periods? Apart from a vernacular Mass, for which there was little, if any, demand, and a few definitions and vague niceties here and there, I am suggesting that it did not achieve very much.
Did it tackle the treatment, or mistreatment, of homosexual people? No!
Did it alter the unscientific and blatantly wrong teaching on contraception? No!
Did it deal with the disrespectful way that women are perceived? No!
In short, did it tackle any real issues of importance to real people? I think not!
And that's the argument that I am making, Joesph.
If Vatican II achieved
If Vatican II achieved anything, perhaps it was awakening folks to the idea of a new way of "being and doing church". Unfortunately, Paul VI --- a fencesitter given his willingness to go along with liturgical renewal but also a product of his pre-conciliar upbringing --- wasn't around long enough to push the renewal further along, much less with greater vigor.
JPII steered Rome in reverse direction. As I like to remind people, while this charismatic pope was kissing tarmacs, holding babies, reaching out to non-Catholics and non-Christians, he was simultaneously "cracking the whip" within. He was appointing bishops prepared to tow and enforce the party line. JPII was autocratic. In a very real sense, he was Rome's version of the benevolent despot: Do as I say, and I'll reward you or at least leave you alone, but upset me, and I'll make you rue the day!
B16 --- well, let's just say I don't care for this pope at all (and --- I suspect you'll agree [being aware of my thinking] --- that's putting it mildly :-)
If there was "no demand" for the vernacular mass, perhaps it was because (before Vatican II) people were unaware of its being an option. We don't know, after all, what we don't know. What I do know is that people began to appreciate worshiping in their own language. True, there were holdouts, but they formed then --- as today --- a distinct minority. Although not a prognosticator, I'll risk saying that never again will the Church of Rome employ the Tridentine mass or anything akin to it as its primary expression of worship.
Issues of homosexuality, contraception, and treatment of women aside, I think Vatican II did, in fact, tackle an issue of great importance to "real people" --- namely, the meaning of church by looking back in time to the gospels and subsequent ecclesial developments. Robert Egan, in his COMMONWEAL article on women's ordination, quotes Bernard Lonergan: "The meaning of Vatican II was the acknowledgement of history." The primary theme of this council was ecclesial renewal, which necessarily requires pruning the overgrowth that occurred over two millenia.
JPII and B16's actions notwithstanding, Vatican II set a trajectory that cannot be changed by papal, curial, or episcopal fiat. It is within this new direction that we are, indeed, seeing new Catholic thinking including, for example, the acceptance of gay civil marriage, no real continuing controversy over artificial contraception, and the expanding roles of women in the wider Catholic world (including their presbyteral/episcopal ordinations).
New ways of being/doing church. New thinking. New trajectory.
The legacy of Vatican II.
Thank you Luke for your
Thank you Luke for your comments. As I read them, I get the sense that we would differ on many things, but we would agree on the broader mystical body of Christ that exists in the Church. And that this body deserves to be respected; that we should refrain from calling someone "not Catholic" because that persons views a teaching of Vatican II or the magisterium differently. And we should not use the Eucharist as a political tool. I hope that there are enough of us who are both conservative and liberal to lead the way for a church that truly reflects the many mansions in God's kingdom.
Luke, you wrote, "I want to
Luke, you wrote, "I want to stay in the Church my entire life...." Me, too. I truly want you to have your wish and be an eternal member of the Church. That would be a great goodness, and the Church will be better because you are part of it. I, too, want to be a member of the Church for my entire life.
And now for my point. It is that "progressive" leaning Catholics, such as I, pretty much welcome people with a variety of ideas into our Church. I don't get worked into a lather because people have different ideas of what they see as holiness or what they prefer to do. We don't go around threatening to excommunicate others, or snidely telling them that the Episcopal Church or the Presbyterian Church welcomes them, or cruelly telling them to "simply" leave already and get out of my zone of attention. But why do people in the "traditional" camp give such ultimatums to people they have different ideas from? This is worth thinking about. It is not left vs. right. It is not progressive vs. traditional. It is inclusive vs. intolerant and cliquish.
Wishing you the best.
I am 29 years old and part of
I am 29 years old and part of the "younger Catholic" that gets thrown around. Young or not one thing I realize is that something massive happened to this church about 50 years ago that destroyed it. The only way I can describe it is that the people of the Church put themselves on the same level as our Creator. I can get into the theological debate and the effects that human nature have on us, but I don't have the time to write it all. I go to the ordinary mass and I don't even stay for the whole thing. It is a joke. None of my friends and family go anymore. They may go for holidays because they feel a need for it. But if they go 10 times a year it is a lot. The way I see it is that because of the selfishness of the older generation, (60 and 70yr olds)to make things the way they wanted it in turn completely alienated future generations. I started attending the Latin Mass in the greater NY area and see a stark difference. I did it just because of all the talk back in forth in the news. After seeing the pre-Vatican II mass and knowing the post-Vatican II mass I can understand why no one goes to church anymore.
Joe, each generation seems to
Joe, each generation seems to start out by pointing a finger and each has their job to do. My generation was no different. But, over time, there is a lot for all of us to learn no matter from where we started. I hope I have been open to doing this learning, as I hope you will be as well.
May The Risen Lord guide you on your journey.
John David
There is a lot of truth in
There is a lot of truth in what you say. For whatever reason, the Church seems to be dying out now. However, we know from scripture that it cannot be destroyed. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Thank you Fr. McBrien! This
Thank you Fr. McBrien! This is a accurate and respectful view of the intent and results of Vatican 11. I miss the days of thoughtful conversations with clergy and laity and largely find the current newly-ordained unwilling or unable to even discuss differences. It is easy to understand why many Catholics have just opted out as any sincere question just brings a judgmental and condescending reply. The semenaries seemed to have been successful in fully disinfecting candidates of any human, Christlike qualities! Come, Holy Spirit and save your Church.
Since Vatican II was a
Since Vatican II was a pastoral council, it could have defined no new doctrine & it could not have altered the Deposit of the Faith in any way by definition. It could have developed some doctrines if it were a doctrinal council but it was not. So nothing doctrinal changed. Yes, there was pastoral change but for the most part it was for the worst. This is the legacy of Vatican II.
Thank you Fr.McBrien. It is
Thank you Fr.McBrien. It is rereshing to hear a member of the clergy say what I am thinking - & not act as though I'm an old, useless fool. I am 75 years old & a life long Catholic. What has happened to the church I loved is physically painful to me. Yes, I am a member of Call to Action. My children have no understanding of how I feel & we often discuss the different reactions of our respective generations - exactly the way Fr. McBrien describes. It actually makes me feel a little better to know he understands.
Post new comment