If you remember this post, where our young author talks about “missing out” on various Church traditions and teaching, despite the fact that our author grew up in the Church (a post-V2 church that seemed to lack kneelers…and kneeling).
I then quoted this:
Our entire life, the whole liturgy, and everything ceremonial are symbols. If you abolish the symbols, then you tear down the walls of your own house. When we abolish the signs, we lose our orientation. Instead, we should search for their meaning … one should unfold the core of the symbols. … The signs are not to be questioned, we are.
I then raised the issue as to whether one can really reform something, the Church for instance, when one doesn’t know the basic aspects of the faith and tradition.
I have to complexify this issue, because our author is seriously interested (and knowledgeable…though one would know that from the blog) in theology, particularly feminist theology, and has had classes in “Catholic studies”. I suppose that raises the question: what qualifies as “basic Catholicism?”
In this very long post, complete with sermon, I drew a distinction between strict theological learning, and being culturally informed. In that post, I was arguing against my Franciscan friend who wanted to get rid of Latin, and who wanted to avoid doctrinal discussion in the sermon (in favor of a personal, emotionally meaningful message). In both instances, what I seem to be rebuking is a tendency to deemphasize our Catholic identity and heritage. In the sermon, I noted that popular Catholic practice helped solidify the Theotokos argument, and in doing that, strengthened Cyril’s Christological position against the reforming urge of Nestorius. The common people’s strong Catholic identity, which included a deep devotion to Mary Mother of God, helped settle a theological debate.
Today’s reformers seem to know their theology. In fact, they are quite familiar with their modern Catholic theologians, as well as their modern Protestant theologians. It is seemly, perhaps even comely, to know Rahner and Tillich. However, its less seemly to want to look at Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange or de Lubac. And lets not even talk about Aquinas or Augustine as being theological relevant, apparently.
Even still, many of our reformers only know Post-V2 (and “supposed” V2 inspired) practices, which, in many places literally gutted the Church of 2000 years of history. In place of this Tradition, a false sense of historicism was adopted. Like AnaBaptists or Luther, we wanted to return to more “ancient” practice, regardless as to whether the practice was 1) really that ancient, 2) really that common, 3) really that desirable. In these “older” practices, which were merely (at times) novelties falsely called old, Catholic reformers “discovered” a whole theological “tradition” that they had been waiting for, and strove to put that into practice against the “heavy-handed Medievalism” of the “Tridentine Rite Church”, with her silly beliefs in rosaries, Latin, the Tridentine Rite, etc.
Yet our reformers, in the interest of opposing this oppressive Medieval Church with their “novelties falsey called old (or Historia in aliquid obsoletum detorta),” and having been raised in churches more in line with (seemingly) more Protestant views than Catholic, forcefully rally themselves against around the standard of “true theology,” and carry that against the cultural and historical traditions and aspects of the Church. Not unlike Nestorius, our reformers want to correct our “medieval theological understanding,” and show us that, at its basic roots, Catholicism isn’t really that different from anything else. In other words, we sacrifice identity for theology.
What troubles me is when our young reformers don’t seem particularly interested in studying the basic cultural traditions and identities that exist in Catholicism (unless they are related to a culture that isn’t Caucasian American or Pan-Catholic, i.e. Hispanic culture, African culture, etc.). The funny thing is that they recognize they are missing out on something, but are still relatively confident that they really know what Catholicism should be. Much like Nestorius. We see how that ended.
Of course, one of the reasons I continue reading the blog mentioned above is because the author routinely posts about her own discoveries of ”traditionally” Catholic practices. One post mentions Mary. Another the Communion of the Saints. I see this as a good thing-her wonder and joy in these “Catholic identity markers” reminds me of my own wonder (back when I was just an unruly convert). So while I probably don’t agree with her ecclesiology, we both can find something quite “wonder-full” in the delightfully Catholic aspects of our faith (Mary, anyone?).
At least, I think so.