Tradition and the new path

A+.

Orthodoxy and tradition are different. Traditions must change in order to preserve orthodoxy - and more importantly, orthopraxis. This is what Augustine meant when he spoke of God as "ancient, yet ever new." Thus, as H-G Gadamer has authoritatively argued in "Truth and Method" and elsewhere, in order for things to remain consistent, they have to change. We cannot apply old truths to present-day realities unless we translate. Thus, in order to be truly "conservative" (to keep the good of the past) we must also always be "progressive". But going back to traditions - Paul wrote in I Corinthians, Galatians, and elsewhere that doing great things without love is empty, and that we must not force the "old man" onto newborn Christians. What is lacking in many "conservative" "orthodox" attitudes is "love, which binds them altogether in perfect unity." That is why the prophets focused on "mercy, not sacrifice." It's why Jesus called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs".

Most Christians you would identify as "modernist" avowedly do not believe that Christianity is about "what man says about himself". But via the insights of two millennia of history and serious, rational observation of the world, they've come to various conclusions about the relationship between God and man than their ancient predecessors. If you wish to engage them on the topic of the value of tradition, you're going to have to better than sloppy caricatures of their beliefs. Most who are interested in the discussion would be willing to grant that you and fellow traditionalists have come to your conclusions for what you beleive are good reasons. Are you actually interested in having that discussion and honestly hearing the alternative viewpoints, or are you just content to whine because people have the audacity to not agree with you?

If tradition or orthodoxy must be mandatory (the opposite of optional) to survive, exactly who is it that should be mandating and enforcing them, and with what means? You and Neuhaus make faith sound like Castro's communism, which must be imposed upon the people for their own good whether they want it or not, because otherwise their sinful/greedy natures will lead them to denounce it.

Ben, your 2:14 is interesting to me.

I recently left a parish I've been attending for some time and am considering another parish which is even *less* outwardly orthodox than the one we left. I don't want to get into specifics, but let's just say that a greater orthodoxy in one area of my old parish's liturgical life was accompanied by a lot of negativity and--well, boorishness, for lack of a better word. Some friends had told us about a parish they were attending, and we visited last weekend. It's a tiny mission church, there are no kneelers because the parish originally was both church and meeting hall (interestingly there are glass doors behind the altar and in front of the Blessed Sacrament which may be, and are, closed after Mass to maintain reverence), and there's a bit of jarring over-friendliness in the announcements made just before Mass (the orthodox Catholics here will know what I mean by that). But after Mass, practically the whole parish adjourned for coffee, there was lots of friendly and welcoming conversation, and the sense of community was overwhelming and joyful.

I'm the last person who thinks that orthodoxy, particularly liturgical orthodoxy, is unimportant. But I've come to recognize that so many people who attend Mass every Sunday don't follow the liturgical battles and aren't at the "agitprop" stage, necessarily; many are quite open to reverence and to suggestions from orthodox parishioners. And the older I get, the more I see how important and irreplaceable some sense of parish community really is.

I don't know if this parish is what God really wants for us, but I can honestly say I'm way more open to the possibility than I would have been even five years ago.

Rod,

Great stuff. One of your best. The story from "Diogenes" about the article in the Ohio State newsletter, "Miriam's Song", is a keeper.

Appreciate also your wise reminder of the distinction between tradition and traditionalism (per Pelikan/Schmemann). I think the Vatican Council was attempting to get the Church to embrace the former (through "ressourcement") and reject the latter. Unfortunately, the post-conciliar implementation was so badly botched that the church in many places literally threw out the baby (tradition) with the bathwater (traditionalism). A tragedy in which millions of souls were lost.

Your "money quote" is: "The dividing line between modern Christians runs not between Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, but between modernists and traditionalists in every church ... Is Christianity primarily about what man says about himself...[or] about what God says to man about Himself?" Rod, it doesn't get much better than that!

BTW, your "Father Wilson" is not unappreciated in these parts. Someday I hope to meet him. His current parish is not far from mine.

Many of those old paved footpaths were arbitrary, or based on other traditions. Like bowing to the four corners of the earth (no explanation necessary here). That's why the protestant reformation was so disruptive.

I agree, it makes no sense to raise speed limits just because everybody is speeding, but it also doesn't mean you should observe the speed limits of the 1700s either.

Core concepts of religious beliefs (truth, self sacrifice, etc) can't change, but Latin or Sanskrit or archaic Greek or Russian as the official language of God, come on....

Max, I'm not sure how to address your point because I'm honestly having trouble identifying this contradiction. Isn't it possible that these poor, benighted souls might really believe that the revelation of God is best understood within the context of the centuries that have followed? That their Christianity is very much about what they believe God says about Himself, but that they understand it in light of what we know now that we didn't know then. Did the ancients have the best and most perfect understanding of God's revelation? If so, why is any "development" of doctrine a good thing? If not, by what rubric do we correct our undertanding?

If those who believe in the [effective] infallibility of tradition could explain how they KNOW they are not wrong now even though they acknowledge that in the past there are instances when they have been wrong, that would go a long way to being more...convincing.

>>>
It matters, because ideas have consequences. Neuhaus's Law: Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. Substitute "tradition" for "orthodoxy," and you see the point of my post.
>>>

You've used that quote a couple of times and I have to wonder - is it really true that orthodoxy will be proscribed? Isn't it more likely to be true that orthodoxy will be one of several options available to those who prefer it?

Consider - Where marriage is optional, marriagge will sooner or later be proscribed. Marriage is optional in today's society, but doesn't seem likely to be proscribed.

On the other hand, maybe this is yet anothe case where a 'to each their own taste' guy like myself doesn't get what an 'eternal verity' fellow like yourself is really getting at...

"Consider - Where marriage is optional, marriagge will sooner or later be proscribed. Marriage is optional in today's society, but doesn't seem likely to be proscribed."

Interesting analogy. No, marriage isn't likely to be proscribed, but think about the state of marriage today, and the likely state of it in the future should the definition be broadened to include same-sex marriage and plural marriage.

Some would say that what we call "marriage" today isn't really marriage, given rampant and no-fault divorce. Some would say that marriage will cease to mean anything coherent when it includes same-sex couples. Some would say it will cease to mean anything coherent when it involves more than two people.

In many societies which are further down this road than we are, marriage is already seen by many young people as an optional and not very interesting cultural relic.

It could be argued that by proscribing a traditional understanding of marriage (one man, one woman, lifetime contract that only death, ordinarily, breaks) our society has already begun the process of dismantling marriage to the point of meaninglessness; it might also be argued that what will be proscribed or marginalized will be any traditional understanding of marriage and anyone who adheres to that understanding.

For those who do adhere to a traditional understanding it is important to have a clear voice telling what that tradition involves. The same is true for other aspects of religious tradition. As important as it is to discern and heed the voice of tradition, though, it is equally important not to make an idol of it: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.: (Mt. 16:19)

John E. asks: "... is it really true that orthodoxy will be proscribed?"

Yes. Rod and others can comment, but I believe the fear that orthodoxy could be proscribed -- even here in the States -- is legitimate. It has been in the past and is, as we all know, the case in many places around the world.

Recently, I read an article in The Touchstone Magazine archives by a priest of the Swedish Lutheran church (name escapes me, but he's a contributing editor at Touchstone, I believe). He describes how that State-affliated church has squeezed out orthodox thinking clergymen. Crushed like weeds in a garden. Rather depressing.

You also have the example of so-called "hate speech" laws in several countries (Scandinavian countries and, reportedly, Canada) preventing orthodox minded clergy from speaking freely from the pulpit on matters involving moral theology. Some have been threatened with jail.

In this country, you have church agencies being prevented from observing their deepest beliefs in practice. Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had to shut down its adoption programs because of a state law prohibiting agencies from placing children for adoption only with heterosexual married couples. Here in New York state, a law was pushed through that REQUIRES Catholic organization that provide health insurance to their employees to include coverage for birth control costs.

And, of course, we have the French Revolution and the twentieth century experience with Communism and Nazism as further examples of how orthodoxy has been "prosoribed."

Well, tradition worth keeping should have the attributes of authentic and worthy knowledge. Defenders should be able to demonstrate that a particular tradition or part of a system of them has sufficiently legitimate origins, relevance and fit to reality to adequate measure, and deep truth that connects the two things. Traditionalists and their institutions are in decline in the present in the face of that testing.

As to sheltered orthodoxy and orthopraxis, Heschel's observation is that it leads to religious behaviorism. Well and long trodden paths often lead to blocked passes, washed out bridges, or merely scenic spots- and in the spiritual life, often simply circle back to the start line. Others lead to the lemmings' famous cliff.

The wise person knows that the vast majority of Believers never come close to the destination they seek. And therefore at some fork in the road the unfavored road must be the right choice, the advice given by the supposedly knowledgable be in the wrong.

Testing? Jillian, what testing due you propose for the liturgy of the Catholic Church?

For example, whether people want it back after enough of the alternative. Whether, after due consideration, people find themselves willing to sing or be sung its particular lyrics.

The only scandal in the Catholic Church came from liars that snuck their way into the priesthood and lived their lives like Hollywood and San Francisco/Boston progressives. Pederasty and pedophilia is the name of the game in leftist ideology. That is why "the age of consent" gets lowered (by laws) wherever leftists take root. It is their way. Pederasty is a reality and it is always the elitists that perpetuate and enjoy it. Pedophilia is no more a mental illness than other forms of deviance and perverted sex that a so-called "group" of people enjoy. How many people "on the left" celebrate and take "pride" in deviant sex being a civil right? Why is perverting youth so accepted in "the entertainment media" (liberal through and through) and fought and rejected in Christianity? Because this is an evil versus good situation. This Pope is going back to the Bible and ridding the body of Christ of those that live a liberal belief system. - Note how many liberals desire to teach children how to have "safe" sex. - Jesus gave us clear directions to get these people out of the Christian community. The Apostles taught on it too. God bless Pope Benedict.

As far as I know, the dead only get to vote in Cook County.

Actually, the more I think about it, those who advocate having sex with children in the U.S., like the current polygamous sect in Texas, seem to find a basis for it in the Bible.

Per Rod: "I'm sure a good argument could be made that an overreliance on traditional claims to authority in the pre-councilor decades caused the Church's authority to be hollowed out from within. It could be the case that the Church thought it was upholding tradition, when in fact it was living by traditionalism."

I've been waiting for someone to interpret that. What are some pre-councilor examples of traditional claims BY THE CHURCH which were merely traditionalism?

Not saying there weren't any, and maybe I'm missing something.

Per Max: "If God has an official language, shouldn't it be Hebrew?"

Nope. Adam and Eve weren't Jewish; they spoke Paradisean; heard only in Heaven these days ;-)

The official language of the Mystical Body of God is Latin; an orthodoxy my pastor has proscribed. He's not about to surrender the new concrete path to modernity.

I know it was a joke, Max. So was my reply.

But seriously, the chosen language was Aramaic.

Brian writes:

"The sex abuse scandal is isolated to the Catholic Church and a very few fringe perverts in the general society."

That is either monumental ignorance or hard shell bigotry. It is ignorance if what is meant by "scandal" is what is defined by the media. Otherwise this is hard shell bigotry if Brian really thinks sexual abuse of minors today is existentually a "Catholic problem", so as to ignore the true tidal wave of sexual abuse of minors in other groups-public and private.

My guess is that Brian is far more of a bigot than an ignoramous.