Wednesday, 23 December 2009

We Remain the Church of Tradition

In the Catholic Herald today, is a wonderful exchange going on between author Moyra Doorly and Fr. Aidan Nichols. I recommend the entire post to you and will offer a bit of words from Fr. Nichols below. It is really a fantastic piece and I was glad to see Fr. Nichols' hopes for an added Anglican Catholic tradition to the richly varied Catholic Church. Give your thoughts in comment.
It is part of the richness of Catholicism - of the "Catholic tradition" - that it luxuriates in such variety. Not for nothing are we a Church made up of numerous ritual churches, Eastern and Western, with which (I hope) a church of Anglican Catholic tradition will one day be numbered. To limit the Catholic Church to those ways of presenting Tradition typical of a Scholastically oriented Latin Catholicism in the middle decades of the 20th century cannot be right. This was Archbishop Lefebvre's mistake.

But to belong to so richly varied a Church - varying in the ways in which it presents Tradition, through time and across space - comes with a price attached. There must be unceasing vigilance to ensure that "traditions" (lower-case "t") - whether ancient and inherited, or emerging and thus relatively novel - genuinely permit "Tradition" (upper-case "T") to make its appearance, really allow Tradition to enter minds and hearts. The tail must not wag the dog, the medium control the message. And this is where Archbishop Lefebvre was exactly right. If Tradition is Revelation itself as transmitted in the Church (and in that sense it may be said to include Scripture, just as in another sense it can be described as complementing it), then the continuance of Christian truth turns crucially on the authenticity of the manner in which this process of transmission is carried out. That is why the Pope and bishops, as, by Christ's will and determination, the chief witnesses to Tradition have a duty to "guard the deposit".

Was the deposit guarded at the Second Vatican Council? This will need to be the subject, Moyra, of another exchange. For the moment, it will have to suffice to say that the doctrinal Modernism combated by Pope St Pius X seems to me to play no role at all in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. The place to find it, were it to exist, would undoubtedly be the Council's Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation, Dei Verbum. In speaking of how "the tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit", Dei Verbum explains such development (para. 8) as "a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down". There is here accretion in understanding through - we are told - contemplative study (on the model of Our Lady at Nazareth) and mystical insight, and this finds sanction in the preaching of those who have received the "sure gift of truth" (a quotation from the second century St Irenaeus) in episcopal consecration. There is no suggestion in this text of accretion in the deposit itself. I see nothing here remotely reminiscent of Pascendi, no bubbling up from the depths of the collective subconscious, no insinuation that doctrines are only symbols of truth rather than triumphant acquisitions of truth. I find no spirit of accommodation to what Jones, or the man on the Clapham omnibus, can swallow.

That in the situation of anomie in the still not fully resolved crisis in our Church episcopal guardianship has often been lacking, I have no doubt. Nor do I think Neo-Modernism is merely a chimera. But I am equally convinced that the Church of the post-conciliar popes remains the Church of Tradition. What we need now is to recover, for the sake of their great serviceableness, many of the venerable traditions - conceptual, liturgical, and the rest - in which Tradition has been presented. I am speaking of their serviceableness to a Gospel which must, by ever-new inventiveness, be preached to unbelievers in the world of today. This was what was done by the scribe of the Gospels whom the Lord commended for bringing from his treasure chest things both old and new.

4 comments:

Fr John Abberton said...

I have seen elsewhere (on an Anglican blog) the suggestion that the Holy Father is hoping that "Anglican Use" (if this is a correct phrase) might help correct some of the "mistakes" that have crept into - or have even been shoved into - the post-conciliar Liturgy.

May I tell a quick story which may pick up some of these things? I once stayed at Campion House in Oxford (The Jesuit house). On the Sunday many of the priests went out to help in neighbouring parishes. The Sunday Mass in the house was a concelebration of three Jesuits plus me. It was lacking any real atmosphere of celebration. I found it depressing. It would be unfair to suggest any conscious "dumbing down" but that's how it felt. Afterwards I decided to go into Oxford to find a church where I could sing and rejoice. I found St. Mary Magdalene's (Anglo-Catholic). What I witnessed and took part in (to the extent possible)was a beautiful Catholic liturgy - carefully and reverently celebrated, beautifully sung - with incense and even a bishop to preach.
Tradition was certainly to be seen in both those Masses, but was more evident in the Anglican celebration. I could have said the same of an Orthodox Liturgy (and had there been one to hand I might have even gone there in preference). The point I want to make is that we must all strive for that unity which will not only preserve or develop Tradition but which will celebrate it in a life-affirming way, giving witness to the beauty of the Gospel. Where unity is still lacking, so is the full realisation of Catholic life and faith.

Anonymous said...

Well, scholasticism (or rather Aristotelianism as mediated and improved by St Thomas) is either right or wrong. It and its opposite are conradictories, not mere contraries. One must be right, one must be wrong - it's not possible for both to be either right or wrong. And since the natural realism of St Thomas and Aristotle and syllogising are the natural philosophical positions and practices of mankind, it doesn't look too good for St Thomas' naysayers.

In fact, philosophical error has been rife for a long time - especially neo-platonism amongst the fathers - with disastrous results as far as their influence on matters not protected by the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium are concerned.

+ Albrecht von Brandenburg

Lee Faber said...

"Scholasticism" is not co-extensive with "Thomism"; there is also termininism/nominalism, Scotism, Albertism, all of which disagree with Aquinas and use the same methods (syllogism, consequentiae) and authorities, and in the case of Scotism and Albertism, are also realists. So perhaps "scholasticism" is not so cut and dried, nor obviously right or wrong.

johnf said...

I regard myself as the Roman Catholic on the Clapham omnibus and I am not impressed with Fr Nichols' arguments.

He is complex, and obscure. I have to keep rereading what he says to have any inkling of his arguments.

Moyra Doorly, by contrast sets out here argument very clearly. She is sympathetic to the claims of the SSPX, that Vatican 2 allowed liberalism to creep into the Church.

“.. the new theology adopted by Vatican II has falsified, adulterated and disarmed Tradition, so that sterility and not fecundity is the mark of the Conciliar Church, as evidenced in the dearth of vocations, the widescale abandonment of the Faith, and empty churches”.

Fr Nichols really does not answer these points. He talks of richness of the Catholic Church, with its Eastern and Western Traditions, and then goes on to say that it cannot be right to limit the Western Tradition to Scolastically Oriented Latin Catholicism – and then says that this was Archbishop Lefevre’s mistake. Why not? Why not preserve Latin Tradition? The Eastern Traditions - Slavonic Catholicism, Maronite (Arabic) Catholicism, Coptic etc and are preserved. Why should the Western tradition be looked on as something inferior and therefore needing to be changed?

What Vatican 2 did was to replace a beautiful time-honed liturgy by a banal mess which is “improved upon” by the whim of every parish priest in the western world.

That cannot be right!

By the way, if the Anglican Catholics do respond to the Holy Father’s invitation (and I pray that they do) this liturgy would be a beautiful complement to the Latin Tradition.

I recommend Martin Mosebach recent book “The Heresy of Formlessness” which eloquently develops points such as those made by Moyra Doorly.