Some questions and truths at the heart of the “New” Evangelization

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 11/6/2013 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[dsc]

“Catholic Caucus on FR is one, so you cannot say you have not heard of any.”

How is it a lay apostolate, and who are the members?

[annalex]

It is, of course informal, but it is a lay apostolate: lay (mostly) Catholics defend and explain their faith, mostly, to non-Catholics. Most are at some kind of peace with Vatican II even though the opinions vary.

[dsc]

“Most are at some kind of peace with Vatican II...”

That’s really scary.

[annalex]

And most, like myself, generally agree that the abuses of the liturgy that you and I enumerated are intolerable. That is even scarier, isn’t it?

That is, I think, — looping back to my original statements, — because Vatican II was a reaction against modernism rather than itself a conduit of modernism. It just wasn’t successful at that. The consensus is, it seems, that Vatican II needs to be itself reformed and re-studied, but not overturned altogether.

[dsc]

“And most, like myself, generally agree that the abuses of the liturgy that you and I enumerated are intolerable. That is even scarier, isn’t it?”

Not to me. It’s more a reality check that came back good.

“because Vatican II was a reaction against modernism rather than itself a conduit of modernism.”

What sort of reaction? An attempt at compromise? I don’t see where it fought against modernism, so if you know, please pass on the info.

“The consensus is, it seems, that Vatican II needs to be itself reformed and re-studied, but not overturned altogether.”

More than the documents of VatII themselves, I think the problem was that it created a chink in the Church’s armor through which the forces of evil drove main battle tanks.

The abuses have had effects that completely overwhelm the effects of VatII, in terms of the changes they wrought.

The singularity wrt VatII, if I may be permitted to force that word into an unfamiliar usage, is the fact that it occurred. Compared to that single fact, the documents it turned out are almost meaningless.

[dsc]

How in the world do you find the time and energy to compile all these lists of links?

I can’t even click all of them.

[annalex]

What sort of reaction? An attempt at compromise?

How about this:

1. Our world no longer can be presumed to consist of the Catholic civilization, Protestant error, and non-Christian savages. Instead, we see respectable civilizations in Asia, Jews that formed a part of the Western culture, and suffered persecution to the point of genocide for their assimilationist tendencies, and we have the Muslim world with its own quite elaborate religious views, not unrelated to Christianity. The Church needs to be seen in relation to these non-Christian civilizations, yet there is virtually nothing in the magisterial teaching on the Church in the non-Christian world.
2. Latin is no longer a universal language of the literate class; and at the same time the literate class is today nearly everyone. The role of Latin needs to be re-examined in this changed context.
3. A typical layman in the 20 century is literate and with the rise of the intellectual class (professorate, science, engineering, etc.) capable of understanding theological concepts even without taking systematic theology like the priests do. It seems good to energize this intellectual potential in the educated classes to the greater glory of the Church.
4. Progress of historical science allows us a better insight in the likely esthetic of the First Church's liturgy. In it not likely to be baroque. Perhaps the liturgy should be brought closer to its late antiquity and early medieval roots.

You can see, no doubt, the relationship between these questions and the efforts of Vatican II. Yet neither item of my sampler promotes modernism in any way; it simply acknowledges modern realities such as they are. For example, from the fact that other religions exist and have apparent fruits of their own it does not follow that we now should have our popes praying in synagogues or kissing Korans; it simply follows that "exra ecclesiam nulla salus" requires a commentary in this light.

To answer these questions simply means to take our own religion seriously. It is not a compromise to acknowledge the modernist challenge. I maintain that a compromise no doubt happened, but it was not intended by Vatican II as a body; perhaps by some modernists among the bishops, but not by their consensus.

[annalex]

(*) "there is virtually nothing" -- prior to the Vatican II documents, that is.
(**) "In it not likely to be baroque" -- It is not likely to be baroque

[dfwgator]

It is not likely to be baroque

If it's not baroque, don't fix it.

[annalex]

There are problems with Baroque esthetic from the theological stand point. It continued the Renaissance tendency toward illusory art, in itself not wholesome for sacred art which is supposed to show the life of the spirit. To the Renaissance illusionism Baroque added agitated emotionalism, thus driving prayerful reflection out.

Observe:

Madonna and Child
Segna di Buonaventure
c. 1325-30

This is a medieval Madonna. No attempt is made to make her pretty, or make Christ an adorable baby. It is truly Mother of God and her Divine Child, looking at you from eternity. This is sacred art at its theological pinnacle.

Next:

The Sistine Madonna
Raffaello
1513 - 1514

This is a masterpiece, but the sacred element is nearly gone. The baby is cute, the girl is pretty. The curtain suggests an illusion of seeing people walking on clouds in a circus-like display. I am shown, possibly, a miracle, but a magician's illusion describes it just as well.

Madonna Enthroned with St Matthew
Carracci
1588

This is baroque. Things have gotten considerably worse. Now everyone is in some nervous agitation; none is sitting still; reflection, let alone adoration is impossible. Christ in Raffaello's painting was at least calm; now we have a frightened child about to fall from His mother's arms. Everyone wants to go someplace they are not. Tertiary personages, like the angel with great legs at the bottom, demand too much attention. This is an impressive painting that completely fails as an object of veneration.