Via Mike Potemra at The Corner, this most interesting post by David G. Bonagura, Jr. at The Catholic Thing.
In the current ecclesial landscape, there are Catholics who loyally and fiercely support the Church against the immoral demands of the secular West: they are outspoken opponents of abortion, same-sex marriage, and government encroachments on religious freedom. They adhere to the true teachings of Vatican II as expressed by the Council fathers, not the liberal “spirit” as falsely advanced by what Benedict recently called the “Council of the media.” Their theological standard is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and they are employing it to foster the New Evangelization.
Let us call this perspective the “new orthodoxy,” the position of not a few Catholics in their late forties and fifties, and of a growing number of American bishops, as well as many cardinal electors in the coming conclave. To be orthodox is to hold as true the teachings of the faith, and this group does so with conviction.
Yet the “new orthodox” typically lack something. “Orthodoxy” means “right worship,” but right worship according to Vatican II – a solemn liturgy in which the priest and faithful glorify God together – is not a major concern of the Catholics in this group. Instead, they prefer the people-centered orientation that is the principal feature of the Novus Ordo. At the same time, they remain uninterested in or even hostile to both liturgical beauty as modeled by Benedict and the traditional Latin Mass.
The second group inside the conservative camp, generally of a slightly younger age, shares the same goals as the “new orthodox,” but for them reverently celebrated liturgy is the ultimate standard of orthodoxy. They believe wholeheartedly in the maxim lex orandi, lex credendi – how and what we pray directly influences how and what we believe. For these Catholics, the liturgically minded pontificate of Benedict XVI has brought a great deal of hope and energy to the Church. Let us call this second group the “Benedictines.”
Benedicitines véritables!
Monastère Notre-Dame-de-Bellaigue …. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjGldfIfo8g
sur le monastère…. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbaye_Notre-Dame_de_Bellaigue
leur site web….. http://www.bellaigue.com
Deborah,
From the linked article: “Liberal” or “progressive” were terms applied in the years after the Second Vatican Council to describe Catholics who wanted the Barque of Peter to sail with the winds of secular modernity. Liberals essentially wanted two things: power – a weakened papacy and a more democratic, lay-directed Church – and sex: birth control and women priests, as well as the abolition of clerical celibacy. “Conservatives,” by contrast, were those who defended the traditional teachings of the Church in the face of vociferous demands for change.
Unfortunately, the categories never have been so neat and tidy as this author supposes. Within the author’s category of “liberals,” there are those who favor a gradual progression of reforms as it is expedient to do so and those eager to upset the whole applecart, completely breaking continuity to start over from scratch. Within the author’s category of “progressives,” there are those who keep Christ, and Christian faith, at the center of their social activism and those who become so focused on social activism that they completely lose sight of theological truth. And conversely, within the author’s category of “conservatives,” there are those who carefully distinguish between doctrine and discipline and are open to changes in the latter while steadfastly defending the former and there are those who fail to make that distinction, instead stubbornly demanding absolute preservation of what they knew as children — and these factions persist among the author’s “new orthodox.” It is generally the more moderate groups have forged a consensus and the fringes of all extremes have broken away to promote their own agenda.
From your quotation: Let us call this perspective the “new orthodoxy,” the position of not a few Catholics in their late forties and fifties, and of a growing number of American bishops, as well as many cardinal electors in the coming conclave. To be orthodox is to hold as true the teachings of the faith, and this group does so with conviction.
There is no doubt that the preponderance of bishops and cardinals named during the last two papacies — which spanned nearly thirty-five years — belong to the author’s “new orthodoxy” and that the new pope is very likely to come from this constituency — or at least be perceived as doing so. Alas, there is always an element of “Romanesque” — the reality that one must adhere to the party line in order to get into a position where one has the authority to make the changes that one wishes to make — in the internal politics of the Catholic Church. Thus, the election of a new pope who has a different agenda but has refrained from voicing it is always a possibility.
From your quotation: Yet the “new orthodox” typically lack something. “Orthodoxy” means “right worship,” but right worship according to Vatican II – a solemn liturgy in which the priest and faithful glorify God together – is not a major concern of the Catholics in this group. Instead, they prefer the people-centered orientation that is the principal feature of the Novus Ordo. At the same time, they remain uninterested in or even hostile to both liturgical beauty as modeled by Benedict and the traditional Latin Mass.
Here, the author’s accusations bear no resemblance to reality. There are many people in the pews who have suffered in longstanding forebearance through decades of shoddy celebration of the Pauline form of the liturgy that followed centuries of equally shoddy celebration of the Tridentine form in their parishes, all the while aspiring for the beauty and reverence that the liturgy truly deserves but which derelict pastors have failed to provide. There are also many laity who, frustrated by the shoddiness, go to the pains of travelling to churches and chapels of religious orders or to parishes other than their own where the liturgy is celebrated with the beauty and the reverence that it deserves.
But what is really needed, here, is something more fundamental — pastors who have found a living relationship with the Lord. Once one is living in proper relationship with the Lord, “right worship” becomes the center of one’s life and shoddy liturgy becomes inexcusible. A liturgical minister who is not living in proper relationship with the Lord, however, is a “hired hand” rather than a “shepherd:” the liturgical function is just one of the duties of a job (or a role of volunteer service, with its perceived non-monetary reward) and mere compliance with the letter of the rubrics is an acceptable standard of performance. For this reason, a lot of our present clergy are going to have a lot of “‘splainin’” to do when the day of judgement comes.
From your quotation: For these Catholics, the liturgically minded pontificate of Benedict XVI has brought a great deal of hope and energy to the Church.
Ah, no the last papacy was NOT “litugically minded” at all. The pope emeritus is a brilliant dogmatic theologian, and he approaches the liturgy from a dogmatic perspective rather than a liturgical perspective even in his own writings.
But for his example of proper celebration of the liturgy, we all can be grateful.
Norm.
Pingback: Interesting article on the “new orthodox” and the “Benedictines” | Catholic Canada