Learning from the Dutch church

Hi Gus,
I believe that one of the first lands that John Paul II confronted with his "orthodox" approach was the Dutch Church. And how did this "thriving, orthodox" church do with his campaigh to stop reforms and discussion? - a 1.3 million decline. I'm not so sure how great one is with his numbers!

Church is more than numbers. It is even more than money. It is, in case someone forgot, following Jesus. I believe from what I have read of the Dutch theologians, that they are on to something good -- something that Jesus would have done were he here on earth today. This "orthodox" church you speak about with its 'pay, pray, obey' mentality, is not the church Jesus founded. "Orthodox" church members are so involved with being "right" and feeling good and remembering the old days that they miss the unique Presence of Christ here and now.

This may have been asked and answered before, but what about St Ignatius of Antioch? He sent letters to every corner of the christian world as he was being taken to Rome in AD 107c., and repeatedly mentioned Bishops, Priests, and Deacons with particular and defined roles. He had no need to define what he meant by any of these words.

So, what is your definition of a "catholic"?
Your simplistic dismissal of Schillibeecks, one of the great and respected theologians of the previous century, is pathetic and ignorant.
I remember the Dutch church after Vatican II as an exciting and vibrant church with bishops like Alfrink, Van Luyn, Bekkers, and later Muskens, and Ernst, etc., etc. But then came bishops like Gijssen and his ilk, and the rest is history: the dismanteling of the Dutch church initiated by the Vatican. And the Dutch? ....many don't care anymore. Sad, very sad.

If Schillebeeckx is a "leftist" theologian, then count me in. The overarching theme of this pastoral council was renewal, not reform.

In his RENEWING CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY OF CHURCH REFORM FROM DAY ONE TO VATICAN II, published in 2001, church historian Christopher Bellitto writes, "[A] simple comparison of reform and renewal language...reveals 113 examples of reform language in the ecumenical councils' documents, compared to 86 examples of renewal language. But 63 of the latter examples, nearly 75 percent of all uses of renewal language at ecumenical councils, are found in Vatican II documents alone."

The words 'renew' and 'reform' have different meanings. To renew means to make new again and is synonymous with 'restore', which means to return or bring something back to its original condition. Tridentine aficionados like to use the word 'restore', and Benedict labels the 1570 liturgy the "Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite." Talk about obfuscation! Some things never change, and I'm not just referring to the old silent mass. I'm also referring to the managerial penchant to sell the same old stuff under new labels. In this respect, the pope is no different than an executive or manager trying to sell us the "flavor of the month."

According to my dictionary, the word 'reform' means, among other things, to improve something by alteration, correction of errors, or removal of defects. It can also mean to abolish abuse or malpractice, as in "reforming the government" (or the church).

Ironically, in his quest to "reform the reform," the current pope is enthusiastically promoting cultic beliefs and practices largely responsible for the historic growth and maintenance of the dysfunctional and sinful mess in which the institutional church finds itself! Along with papal thrones, capa magnas, and other "traditionalist" artifacts, Benedict brings with him a notorious record from his tenure as CDF head.

If this pope wants to reform the church, he's on the wrong path. He's motivated by fear, not love --- "Deus caritas est" notwithstanding. In his agenda, genuine renewal is not even part of the equation.

As they say, "Go figure." I have, and it doesn't look good.

"Those who don't learn (or don't want to learn) the lessons of history..."

I am not so sure the Church expects a divine intervention to bolster vocations (though obviously a true vocation is of divine origin not of Man).

The seminarians I have met are fiercely orthodox (even if we don't agree on our aesthetic preferences and pet issues) and looking around the American Church, the orthodox and unapologetically Catholic dioceses are the ones who are getting lots of vocations.

Other than being loyal to the Truth, these local churches and religious orders are presenting priesthood as a worthwhile thing, worth the sacrifices; a manly thing to do, not pushing for androgyny; As much a vocation as marriage is; Special and awesome, not merely functionary; distinct from the lay state (different in kind and degree, says Vat II), ordered toward governance and leadership of the faithful, yet grounded in service to them.

Priesthood and religious life are countercultural already, the least we can do is act as if we respect and those vocations within the Church.

Dear Joseph-
There is another phenomenon-of which I am a part-that seems potentially quiet interesting. I left the church when I was 12-couldn't stomach the treatment of women and the pre-Vat2 teaching about non-catholics...but I have been being drawn back to Catholicism by the contemplatives-began with centering prayer and have found myself-shockingly-coming back ....part of what allows this is knowing progressive catholics --and a fierce knowing that the church does not belong to the hierarchy...coould the Holy Spirit be bringing radicals like me back through the contemplative process? and what will happen if more of us do return? The Dutch church interests me-- I am also desperate to find-maybe start-one of those eucharistic communities-I still can't handle the churches in my home town-- so maybe one of these communities would help me find a way into community and eucharist-

I think the Holy Spirit is up to something-- she's blowing into some unusual places---and I am curious to see what she's doing--and what the fruits will be-

Ruah

It has surprised me at times how few people have connected the dots.

John Paul II was a disaster for the church in the west. The decline in the Dutch church has simply foreshadowed the declines throughout the west - all of Europe (including the most Catholic of Catholic countries - Ireland, Spain, Italy, and now, it seems, possibly Poland), as well as the U.S.

As noted, after Vatican II the church was alive and thriving. And then came HV, and a few years later, John Paul II. The numbers of educated Catholics who have left already are in the tens of millions. They are simply unwilling to go back to the 19th century. And the church everywhere suffers. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic church is dependent on the money of those in the pews. As they leave (and the most highly educated are those who are leaving, and, since they are the most highly educated, they also have, on average, the highest disposable incomes, at one time generously available to the church), the money to support parishes, ministries, churches, seminaries etc is also leaving.

The men in Rome cling to the Constantinian model of empire. That model is over. They just don't realize it yet and are desperately trying to maintain their autocratic power. But, threats don't work anymore. Superstition doesn't work anymore. Many of the laity have more education in theology than do many parish priests. They are no longer intimidated by the priests, because Rome is no longer dealing with the largely illiterate peasantry who, for most of history, depended on the church to teach them about Jesus and God, and had to trust them. Those days are gone.

Vatican II was partly about reform, but also about ressourcement - ironically, it was partly about going back - but not to the 19th century, or the middle ages, not to those long periods of history when Rome was a dominant political power - but to the very early days - to the early church - rediscovering and returning to (as much as practically possible in a church that numbers one billion "nominal" Catholics) the pre-Roman empire model of the early church, alluded to here by several.

Well said! It's nice to know that there are SOME knowledgeble and rational people on here! :-)

The presider at the earliest Christian liturgies was a layman, not a priest!

There has been more than one Council in the Church. I believe that the Council in question concerning laity celebrating the Eucharist comes from The Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D. : ...under certain circumstances "they [the people of the parish] are able to celebrate a real and genuine Eucharist when they are together in prayer and share bread and wine."

P.S. You are on the NCR Online. Expect to find "NCR folks!"

Martin (no last name) questions the factual basis for my earlier assertion that the presbyters of the earliest Christian communities did not exercise a sacerdotal, i.e., priestly, ministry. Martin also states that my references are "mere...'layperson's guide[s]' to Church history" written by authors who somehow lack the "epistemic warrant" necessary for historic credibility.

Regarding the authors Osborne and Egan, they are more than qualified to give us the results of their scholarly research and studies over the years. As for my own background, I am a retired federal employee, have a graduate degree in a secular field of study, applied (and, earlier in my career, enforced) laws and regulations governing federal personnel matters, and use much of my free time to study church and liturgical history. As a grade schooler, I served the Tridentine mass for several years. The Second Vatican Council began a month or so after I entered high school and concluded less than six months before I graduated. After college, I served four years active duty during the Vietnam Era (non-combat) and got an honorable discharge. I strive to be careful with facts and conclusions (indeed, a critical requirement of my work in government).

Unlike Martin (no last name), Egan and Osborne are not afraid to write under their own names, much less defend their research findings and conclusions. We know the nature of their work as well as their background, something that cannot be said (not now anyway) of Martin. In fact, we cannot be certain that Martin is necessarily Martin --- or that Martin is a first name or last name or, heaven forbid, a pseudonym! We don't even know Martin's gender. Based on Martin's critique, we know only that Martin apparently prefers to challenge or criticize --- without offering anything of substance in return! One thing, though, about Martin is certain: Martin does know how to use "twenty dollar words" (like "epistemic warrant") to convey the idea that two Catholic scholars don't know what they're writing about :)

I'm accustomed to critics like Martin. Indeed, about a year ago on another blogsite devoted to the Tridentine liturgy, I had an extended discussion of sorts with several critics who, like Martin, poopooed my comments but offered very little --- if anything at all --- of substance in return. One of my opponents, in fact, identifying himself as "a historian" and later as "doing a PhD" in history, wrote (and I kid you not), "There is no reason why Catholics in our time need to defer to the authority of outdated modernists, when there are perfectly good historical research that is more uptodate, and supports the Catholic viewpoint."

So much for objectivity. So much for scholarship. So much for critical thinking. So much for self-described "orthodoxy."

Benedict's quest for a "smaller but purer" church is in good hands with folks like our blogger "doing a PhD" in history that "supports the Catholic viewpoint."

But ecclesial renewal continues even without the support of a fearful pope and his Roman retinue.

The same time vocations dropped in the US, and the same time period the vast majority of abusive priests were ordained in the US. I guess that was that "spirit of Vatican II" at work. It wasn't the fault of the Council itself, just the complete mockery of the Council many in the Church put on in the last 40 years.

i see this sort of thing a lot. it reminds me of a chesterton quote:

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

Hi,
I think the the seeds of your eventual apostasy from the Church were planted by the Dutch Catechism. Ultimately, the ecclesiology in the DC is heretical since it does not unequivicably teach the Cathlic dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation. The DC, which you credited with keeping you "Catholic" actually set you up (and countless others) to leave the Church (and Her Christ) because of the religious relativism it promotes.
Like you, I searched for spiritual meaning in Buddhism (since of all the other religions out there I found it most similar to Catholicism because of its contemplative dimension). But the farther I went into it the more I realized that Buddhism is not just or primarily about mercy and meditation. Rather, whether in its Zen or Tibetan forms (I explored both at different times) it ultimately reveals itself to be full of contradictory teachings that on the one hand refuses to posit the existence of a personal God while on the other it unabashedly posits the existence of numerous quasi divinities as the preta, asuras, devas, bodhisatvas, and buddhas.
I still consider Siddhartha Gautama to have been a very wise man, enlightened if you will, but ultimately his message of compassion and self-denial only points to the One who is the Light, Jesus Christ, who evidenced in His own life ultimate mercy, compassion, and love and testified by the sacrifice of His body and blood to how personal God really is.
I hope (and will pray) that one day you will experience authentic Catholicism (not the DC version) and so come to know in a personal way the true Church and Her Lord and Savior.

Pax et Bonum