The Chuch confronts Modernity

Seattle Catholic ^ | November 15, 2004 | Walter M. Hudson

[ultima ratio]

BOOK REVIEW The Church Confronts Modernity: Catholic Intellectuals in the Progressive Era (Thomas E. Woods, Jr. - Columbia University Press) reviewed by Walter M. Hudson

As readers of this journal are aware, modernist control on preconciliar history has for decades been seemingly uncontested in Catholic universities and intellectual circles, continuously reinforced in the pages of journals such as Commonweal and America, and rigorously defended by the likes of Garry Wills and former Archbishop Weakland. The "resistance" to this intellectual paradigm has too often relied on a faulty ultramontanism that Newman warned us about over a century ago. But the modernist moment is nearly done. In tactical terms, it no longer holds uncontested mastery of the intellectual high ground; indeed, its flank is very much "in the air."

And this reader can think of three books, published within the past two years, that have aided in exposing that flank and that have helped us recover the riches of Catholic tradition that existed not in the antiquarian past, but just a few generations ago. Dom Alcuin Reid's The Organic Development of the Liturgy (reviewed recently by the late, great Michael Davies) reveals that there was both a purposeful, prudent, and organic preconciliar liturgical movement as well as a destructive, reckless, and authoritarian one — indeed, one can make a much stronger case that the summation of the liturgical movement was the Missale Romanum, not of 1969, but of 1962. Tracey Rowland's Culture and the Thomist Tradition After Vatican II demonstrates how the Council Fathers kowtowed to a modern world that was already disappearing and how the rejection of Catholic tradition lay at the very core of the primary Council document, Gaudium et Spes.

The third book in this trilogy must be Thomas E. Woods' The Church Confronts Modernity: Catholic Intellectuals and the Progressive Era. One can only be astonished at the young Woods' quantity of output, range of intellect, and scope of pitch. He has published two books (with at least two more approaching publication) and countless op-ed pieces and articles on topics ranging from slovenly dress to medieval science; he is an authority on everything from the Southern Confederacy to the Austrian School of economics; and he can write in a punchy, combative style (see his book co-written with Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade), as well as a coolly reasoned one (as in this work).

In this groundbreaking work, Woods contends that during the "ideologically charged and intellectually vigorous" era of American social progressivism in the early 20th Century, Catholic intellectuals were a vigorous presence, and offered a unique, and uniquely Catholic, alternative to Progressivist and Pragmatist ideas. What precisely were Progressivism and Pragmatism? Religious Progressivism was best exemplified by the "Social Gospel," whose most notable proponent was Walter Rauschenbusch (and who, incidentally, was the grandfather of the most famous and influential contemporary Pragmatist, Richard Rorty). It sought to "recapture the social teachings of Christ" though works, but without doctrine, dogma, or creed. It found philosophical expression in Pragmatism, which ought to do away with deductive first principles, metaphysics, ontology — all considered a waste of time. What could best be attained was "warranted assertability" — simply put: did something, within the subjective conscious, seem to have present value? Did it make sense within contemporary society?

Pragmatism, Woods points out, was a primarily "home grown" philosophy that arose from New England transcendentalists and intellectuals such as Emerson, William James, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Sanders Peirce, and John Dewey (ably recounted in a recent book The Metaphysical Club, by Louis Menand). But Woods also shows that Catholic intellectuals such as Father Edmund Shanahan traced back Pragmatism to the Protestant Reformation, which by separating faith from reason, led to Kant's private, pietistic view of existence, in which "things in themselves" were ultimately unknowable.

Resisting this was a strong, healthy Catholic body of thought that was both deeply traditional and not simply reactionary. To put it in terms of the prominent contemporary philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, the Catholic preconciliar response to Progressivism and Pragmatism was a coherent one within the framework of a functioning tradition. Despite what the modernist politburo and its apparatchiks want us to believe, the American Catholic milieu that arose in the late 19th and early 20th century (and from which the vast majority of American Catholics today trace their roots) was not some post-Tridentine intellectual wasteland.

Plumbing the depths of the tradition is one of the things Woods does so well in this book. We hear from not just the educators and thinkers at the foremost Catholic Universities, such as Thomas Shields and William Kirby, but also from Sister Mary Ruth of the Sisters of St. Dominic, doubtless representative of the countless heroic teaching nuns who put educators' ideas into practice. We thus can see how "thick" the tradition was in the early 20th Century. It was not a kind of intellectual superstructure forced on a cowering faithful (as was, say, the postconciliar liturgy), but deeply embedded in the culture and tradition of American Catholicism at the time.

Additionally, Woods shows us, compared to countries during the time such as France, how united and strong the Catholic sensus was in America. For example, the Americanist heresy, while real, was virtually extinguished at least "in its public manifestations" after Leo XIII condemned it in 1899. The American bishops were, as Woods, points out "profoundly conservative … all of them were basically united on fundamentals." And even the most ardent Americanist, Bishop John Ireland, vigorously attacked modernism. The episcopacy displayed a similar united front when Pius X (who loved the young and vibrant American church) condemned modernism. The American Catholic press likewise overwhelmingly praised Pius X for his stance. And after the sainted pope's Pascendi Dominici Gregis came out, modernism's public manifestations disappeared in America — one reason being that the few truly modernist Americans left the Church.

What all this reveals is not simply an authoritarian pope dictating to hapless bishops, but rather an ecclesial hierarchy in remarkable communion — a sign of vibrant, remarkable consensus rooted in tradition. Indeed, as Woods points out to us, the Catholic responses to Progressivism and Pragmatism were more interesting, challenging, and sophisticated after the Modernist condemnation. It was as if, after having ejected from the tradition that which was inimical to it, the Catholic position clarified and grew even more forceful.

Woods, in the best Dawsonian sense, provides a fair, evenhanded hearing to the movements. Again, pace the storyline of preconciliar Catholicism provided by the modernists, American Catholics were not blind to new things with legitimate worth. Some appropriated certain pedagogical ideas from the Progressives. Indeed, Catholic educator Thomas Shields drew legitimate comparisons between the total educational approach of the Progressivists and the liturgy. Father Shields sought, as Progressivist educators did, a total education experience. Instead of, for example, a typical pedagogical textbook approach, he stressed the importance of art and music (especially Gregorian chant) as central to character formation in young students. It is especially impressive to read the enthusiasm of teaching sisters to the Shields' approach to catechism, and worthwhile to note that Pius X was a strong supporter of Shields' educational approaches.

Indeed, Woods tells us that Shields and another Catholic educator, Edward Pace, were mislabeled as Catholic "progressives" — but they could not have differed any more from the Progressive approaches. Indeed, as an example, Fathers Pace and Shields dissented mightily against a "compromise solution" offered up by some in the American clergy of a generation before — that religious education be done after hours, and that" during the schoolday, parochial school education should focus near exclusively on the "three R's.

It was at points such as these that Catholic educators and intellectuals realized that Progressivism and Pragmatism were opposed to Catholicism. And the opposition was deep, not only because it rejected the possibility of objective truth and absolute norms, but because it could never even settle upon a stable idea of what truth was. As philosopher William Turner pointed out, to a Pragmatist, if a contemporary hypothesis satisfied as an explanation, it was sufficient; this "mental satisfaction" "came, consequently, to be considered a test of truth. The problem with this lay in areas where these conclusions had the most significance. In moral reasoning, this led essentially to philosophical incoherence. What, one might ask, provides "mental satisfaction" for what is morally true? Public opinion? An educational elite? The "Great Books"? And the Catholic Church in America firmly rejected social gospel's rather inane self-contradiction. America magazine, for example, launched a devastating riposte to the Progressivist rhetoric of Harvard President Charles Eliot for "[H]aving exploited to the utmost Christ's authority to enjoin service of our neighbor, and refus[ing] to recognize His authority in any other point."

Catholic intellectuals also respectfully considered a relatively new intellectual discipline, sociology, and again Woods illustrates that Catholics did not dismiss it out-of-hand. Father William Kerby of Catholic University even made serious efforts at creating a sociology within the framework of Catholic tradition, founding in 1921 the National Catholic School of Social Service. Kerby and others did not reject sociology as an empirical, data-gathering discipline, but neither did they accept its metaphysical pretensions. Rather, Catholic sociologists successfully integrated sociological ideas into the Catholic faith by sticking fast to two principles: sociology could not claim "autonomy from the inherited moral tradition of the west. And in the realm of applied sociology and social work, the supernatural remained paramount."

Overall, the early 20th Century American Catholic response to challenges from modernity were respectful, coherent, and carefully articulated — all indications that the Church in America was fully functioning, and firmly rooted in tradition. It considered outside influences, assimilated that which it deemed good, and rejected anything that would distort it. It did not dismiss modernity outright, but was not in awe of it either. The question to be answered (that is beyond the scope of this book) is what, or who, turned a coherent intellectual tradition into a shambles. But what Woods does tell us, and tells us masterfully, is painfully clear: if this was the "Catholic Ghetto", it was better, far better than the upscale spiritual and moral wasteland of Catholic America, circa 2004.

[Land of the Irish]

The question to be answered (that is beyond the scope of this book) is what, or who, turned a coherent intellectual tradition into a shambles. But what Woods does tell us, and tells us masterfully, is painfully clear: if this was the "Catholic Ghetto", it was better, far better than the upscale spiritual and moral wasteland of Catholic America, circa 2004.

[Stubborn]

The question to be answered (that is beyond the scope of this book) is what, or who, turned a coherent intellectual tradition into a shambles."

"What" turned it into shambles was the loss of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Is it imaginable that error of such magnitude, unpresidented in the history of the Church, could have manifested itself as it has, if at the same time promulgation and celebration of the Eternal Sacrifice remained as the anchor and core of our faith?

[bornacatholic]

After Vatican II demonstrates how the Council Fathers kowtowed to a modern world that was already disappearing and how the rejection of Catholic tradition lay at the very core of the primary Council document, Gaudium et Spes.

Seattle Catholic imagines it is the one to decide what is and isn't Tradition. That is one reason S.C. likes Woods. Woods also thinks he is the authority.

More-Catholic-Than-The-Popers are always attacking the Pope, the Council and the Mass. That is the only constant in these changing times :)

[bornacatholic]

After Vatican II demonstrates how the Council Fathers kowtowed to a modern world that was already disappearing and how the rejection of Catholic tradition lay at the very core of the primary Council document, Gaudium et Spes.

Seattle Catholic imagines it is the one to decide what is and isn't Tradition. That is one reason S.C. likes Woods. Woods also thinks he is the authority.

More-Catholic-Than-The-Popers are always attacking the Pope, the Council and the Mass. That is the only constant in these changing times :)

[gbcdoj]

loss of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

The Church cannot "lose" a Sacrament.

[CouncilofTrent]

Why do you constantly post twice in a row the same thing? Nobody wants to hear two times the junk spewing forth from your mouth.

[CouncilofTrent]

Well maybe the Pope should actually start to issue excommunications to those politicians who support abortion, among other things, and not "excommunicate" bishops who want to uphold Tradition. I guess you are the only one who can judge the traditionalists.

Anyway, who said it was anathema to criticize the Pope when he performs questionable actions, to criticize the council that was never needed, and to criticize the Protestant-looking Mass?

[CouncilofTrent]

Of course, the actions im talking about are not infallible, such as the Assisi debacle and the Koran kissing.

[ultima ratio]

Woods has the authority of past Church teachings behind him. Tradition is, by definition, what has been handed-down in the faith by authentic Church doctrines and practice as transmitted by the Magisterium. It is what we inherit, it cannot ever be novelty, not even if these come out of Rome. No pope has any authority to invent religious belief. He is the steward of the faith--a servant to it, not its creator.

[ultima ratio]

The Church, indeed, cannot lose sacraments--but those who claim to speak for the Church can.

[Maximilian]

The Church cannot "lose" a Sacrament.

No, they just forgot where they put it. Now if only they had a "pager" function like portable phones. They could send out a beep to locate the Catholic Mass which they carelessly mislaid.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

lol

[gbcdoj]

Even the more extreme SSPXers still admit the Mass according to the 1970 Missal to be a Sacrament, do they not? The Sacrament of the Mass is neither lost nor misplaced.

[ultima ratio]

The initial post spoke of losing the "Sacrifice of the Mass", not "Sacrament of the Mass", as you now say. Interesting how you gloss over this difference. The doctrine that is being deliberately subverted by the New Mass lest it offend Protestant sensibilities is precisely the concept of sacrifice as it had always been understood by the Catholic Church and as it was defined by Trent. Rome finesses the problem in the New Missal by redefining the word, substituting a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for a sacrifice of Divine Propitiation. Nice sleight-of-hand trick, but it won't wash because it's not truly Catholic.

[gbcdoj]

The initial post spoke of losing the "Sacrifice of the Mass", not "Sacrament of the Mass", as you now say.

Is the "New Mass" not valid? Is the Holy Sacrifice not therefore present?

Rome finesses the problem in the New Missal by redefining the word, substituting a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for a sacrifice of Divine Propitiation

When a solid theological formation is not present, ambiguity is a problem. Especially if the Sacrifice of the Mass is reduced only to the cena, the banquet, then one thinks about what one "does." You do not care sufficiently anymore about the fruit of the participation in faith and love in the Sacrifice of the Lord and of the priest. This is the most important aspect. Concerning this very point, corrections were made in the editions of the missal that came out after the council. In the Institutio Generalis of the first edition of the missal of 1969 in the second chapter, number 7, (March 26,1970) specific references were added to the person of the priest in the Sacrifice of the Mass as personamque Christi gerente, that the priest "presides" bearing the person of Christ. This had been left out before. I am sorry about the "presider" staying there. But the phrase personamque Christi gerente had to be added. Before, it only referred to the priest celebrating at the supper. They also had to add that in the Mass sacrificium Crucis perpetuatur... the sacrifice of Christ is perpetuated. That was not in the first edition. They also put in references to the Real Presence of Christ being present in both of the Eucharistic species. Even today, they forget this, don't they? They also added the word consecratio, when before they spoke only of narratio. This narratio, by the way, could be something dangerous if it is understood as just telling the story of the "institution."

Do you see what one had to do to clarify these things? Some wanted to make the liturgy, in a way, acceptable even to the Protestants, to bring the celebration of Holy Mass close to their notion of Abendmahl. (Interview with Cardinal Mayer, Dec. 4 1993)

Here are the words of one of the high Roman officials - a Cardinal, in fact. You say Rome is trying to redefine the words, but according to Mayer, the original GIRM needed "corrections" to "clarify these things" so that what you are protesting about would be clear! The idea that Rome is looking to make the Mass solely a meal is ridiculous - if they were actually trying, it would be quite obvious (even EP II is unacceptable to doctrinally solid Protestants).

[ultima ratio]

No, what is ridiculous is the spin you place on the re-write of GIRM--which was, at first, a heretical document inconsistent with the teachings of Trent. Rome's rewrite had nothing to do with making something clear, it had everything to do with damage control, since by its first draft it had openly admitted what it disguises in the second. But be this as it may, the MISSAL TEXT ITSELF was left unchanged and retains every grotesque distortion of the Catholic faith that Trent had unequivocally condemned. Those like yourself who deny this, do so in the face of reality. You refuse to admit the altar has become a table, the sacrificial Offertory has been converted to a Jewish before-meal blessing, the Eucharist is no longer defined as the Real Presence but as the communal meal itself, and the encounter with the Divine has been replaced by a focus on the congregation, with the priest himself now transformed from one-who-sacrifices, to one who presides over the assembly, from an alter Christi re-presenting Calvary to just another minister. All this is Protestant, not Catholic.

[gbcdoj]

the MISSAL TEXT ITSELF was left unchanged

The Missal text was not that problematic.

the altar has become a table

Condemned by the "Conciliar Church":

260. In a place of worship, the celebration of the eucharist must be on an altar, either fixed or movable. Outside a place of worship, especially if the celebration is only for a single occasion, a suitable table may be used, but always with a cloth and corporal. (GIRM 260)

the sacrificial Offertory has been converted to a Jewish before-meal blessing

I had no idea that this was a Jewish before-meal blessing:

Hostiam tibi, Domine, humanae reconciliationis offerentes, suppliciter deprecamur, ut ipse Filius tuus cunctis gentibus unitatis et pacis dona concedat. (Prayer super oblata for the "Novus Ordo" Feast of Christ the King)

Yet it seems to be part of the Offertory. Hmm...

the Eucharist is no longer defined as the Real Presence but as the communal meal itself

Do you mean in the GIRM?

The celebration of Mass also proclaims the sublime mystery of the Lord's real presence under the eucharistic elements, which Vatican Council II and other documents of the Church's magisterium have reaffirmed in the same sense and as the same teaching that the Council of Trent had proposed as a matter of faith. (§3)

Nope, can't be it. Perhaps in the Missal itself?

Haec ergo dona, quaesumus, Spiritus tui rore sanctifica, ut nobis Corpus et + Sanguis fiant Domini nostri Iesu Christi. (Eucharistic Prayer II)

Not there either.

the encounter with the Divine has been replaced by a focus on the congregation

How many prayers to the congregation are there in the 1970 Missal? How many prayers to God?

the priest himself now transformed from one-who-sacrifices, to one who presides over the assembly

This is an example of what you mean, right?

Orate, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotem.

P. Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui, ad utilitatem quoque nostram totius que Ecclesiae suae sanctae.

Really, ultima, these assertions won't get you anywhere. If you're going to make any progress in convincing us "conciliar catholics", you'll need to argue from the actual Roman Mass texts and instructions. I think you'll find the task quite impossible.

[ultima ratio]

Wrong on every point.

1. Why cite the Council? It was completely ignored by Bugnini. Luther had far more influence on the New Mass than the Council fathers ever did.

2. The Offertory of the old missal was replaced by the berakoth--a Jewish grace before meals--and the new missal repeats it word-for-word. Here it is in the Jewish original: "Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life."

3. Why quote GIRM again--which was fraudulently rewritten to eradicate earlier heretical statements? Of course it gives the appearance of orthodoxy--now that Rome realizes how unCatholic the original version really was. But the theological underpinnings of the new missal remain Protestant and profoundly unCatholic nonetheless.

4. You think the New Mass does not focus on the congregation? Then how do you explain the shunting-aside of the tabernacle and the relentless insistence that the priest should face the people, rather than eastward, symbolic of turning toward God the Father as the Church had always done since time immemorial? In fact, the insistence is logical and makes explicit what the missal is implying all along.

5. The use of the word "sacrifice" does not mean what it meant in the old missal. Remember, we had been warned by the teachings of Pius X that modernists introduce subtle changes to the faith by retaining terms but tinkering with their definitions. Here the word "sacrifice" has nothing to do with immolation, it refers to a thanksgiving in the Protestant sense. That is the key point about the New Mass that you refuse to acknowledge. It is thus in flagrant violation of Trent.

[gbcdoj]

1. Why cite the Council? It was completely ignored by Bugnini.

That was from the GIRM, as the parentheses noted.

The Offertory of the old missal was replaced by the berakoth

You are exaggerating, and that was my point. The Jewish prayer is not the entire offertory - some of the older prayers were retained, as was the prayer super oblata - often the traditional secrets were retained by the Consilium in this prayer and it usually expresses the offertory idea clearly.

Why quote GIRM again--which was fraudulently rewritten to eradicate earlier heretical statements?

You say it was "fraudulently" rewritten - a Cardinal says it was corrected to fix the problems. I'd think Cardinal Mayer knows a lot more about the subject then you.

the relentless insistence that the priest should face the people

The 1970 rubrics still assume Mass ad orientem as the norm. Ad populum was intended to be only an option, and it was not intended for the purpose you state. In fact, the preconciliar Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae for the Mass of St. Pius V makes provision for the ad populum offering of Mass (source).

It would be a grave error to imagine that the principle orientation of the sacrificial action is [toward] the community. If the priest celebrates versus populum, which is legitimate and often advisable, his spiritual attitude ought always to be versus Deum per Jesus Christum, as representative of the entire Church. The Church as well, which takes concrete form in the assembly which participates, is entirely turned versus Deum as its first spiritual movement. (Congregation for Divine Worship, Declaration on the Orientation of the Priest at Mass)

The use of the word "sacrifice" does not mean what it meant in the old missal.

There is no reason to believe that is true. Where can we find the new meaning of sacrifice? Let's try Paul VI - he, after all, promulgated the New Mass:

It is a good idea to recall at the very outset what may be termed the heart and core of the doctrine, namely that, by means of the Mystery of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Cross which was once carried out on Calvary is re-enacted in wonderful fashion and is constantly recalled, and its salvific power is applied to the forgiving of the sins we commit each day. (Mysterium Fidei, 27)

Apparently that's not it - looks like the old meaning to me.

Perhaps in Sacrosanctum Concilium?

Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, "the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross" (20), but especially under the eucharistic species...At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again...

20. Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, c. 2.

It would seem the new meaning is not to be found there either. Let's try the GIRM:

What the Council thus teaches is expressed constantly in the formulas of the Mass. This teaching, which is concisely expressed in the statement already contained in the ancient Sacramentary commonly known as the Leonine—"As often as the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our redemption is carried out"—is aptly and accurately developed in the Eucharistic Prayers. For in these prayers the priest, while he performs the commemoration, turns towards God, even in the name of the whole people, renders him thanks, and offers the living and holy Sacrifice:, namely, the Church's offering and the Victim by whose immolation God willed to be appeased; and he prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may be a sacrifice acceptable to the Father and salvific for the whole world. (§2)

Well, that's still the old meaning. Where else could the new meaning be? To look at the Missal itself:

Memores igitur, Domine, eiusdem Filii tui salutiferae passionis necnon mirabilis resurrectionis et ascensionis in caelum, sed et praestolantes alterum eius adventum, offerimus tibi, gratias referentes, hoc sacrificium vivum et sanctum.

Respice, quaesumus, in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae et, agnoscens Hostiam, cuius voluisti immolatione placari, concede, ut qui Corpore et Sanguine Filii tui reficimur, Spiritu eius Sancto repleti, unum corpus et unus spiritus inveniamur in Christo. (EP III)

Looks like the old meaning to me. So where is this new meaning, and how can it be the true meaning when every relevant source disagrees? Look at the prayer - explain to me how this can be understood as meaning only a sacrifice of thanksgiving.

Is thanksgiving a "Sacrificial Victim, by whose immolation you willed to be appeased"?