The Aesthetic Elevator
discusses the problem of a ghetto-ized Christianity that cloaks its
message in jargon and nomenclature, and inspires some thoughts.
The job of the Christian in most cases, it seems to me, is to live a counter-cultural life in the midst of
the prevailing culture. That's what "counter-cultural" means. If we
live off to ourselves in some forgotten corner of the world, we may
live any way we like, but we can't really live counter-culturally
without some culture around us to be counter to.
One can't "swim against the current" in a stock pond.
Some – a few – are
called to withdraw somewhat from the surrounding culture, the better to
cultivate holiness, contemplative prayer and study, but most of us are
not. We are called to live a Christian life (which will always be
counter-cultural, if we're doing it right) as a sign and a light to
those who know us. The problem is, like so many missionaries of times
past, the Church in America has long ago "gone native". We are
influenced by the modern materialist, consumer culture far more than we influence it.
We need to admit that.
The
solution isn't as simple as living like a monk among more jaded and
cosmopolitan peers (though one could do worse, for a start). If we are
to communicate with the culture, we do need to understand the culture
and speak the language, to some extent. I think the Protestant
evangelical churches in America got into in deep trouble when they
failed for a long time to notice that they were trying to express
Norman Rockwell sentiments in King James English to a jaded, post-modern
world that wasn't listening.
One thing I learned from all the
time I spent in school is that a great instructor is one who
understands his subject so thoroughly that he can explain it to almost
anyone, using language that they can understand. Those with a
shallower knowledge of their field, or who just don't care enough to
meet people where they are (by re-casting the fundamentals in common
language) may be competent enough to get by, but they will never be
great teachers.
Of course, sometimes, the cure is worse
than the disease. When the Catholic Church tried to make some
adjustments to contemporary Western culture by making Latin optional
and opening up the liturgy a bit, all post-modern hell broke loose. As
a result, the liturgy in many instances wasn't reformed, but deformed
and made alternately insipid, silly or shocking (or shockingly silly,
etc…). Many Catholic priests, religious, musicians, lay teachers and
others fell all over themselves trying to demonstrate how hip and
current they were, which ironically had the effect of making them
appear desperate and pathetically out of touch, like a middle-aged
chaperone trying to crunk with the kids at the prom.
They might
have done well to remember (if based only on their own experience of
life) that one of the Cardinal Sins of human relationships (whether
wooing a lover or easing into a friendship) is trying too hard.
So
there is a fine line we have to walk. Speaking as an artist who has
(formerly) designed my share of consumer junk for the "Christian
Market", doing the same things the world does and sticking a Bible
verse at the bottom isn't going to cut it. Christian music that is
indistinguishable from pop music (only not quite as interesting and
with tweaked lyrics) isn't the answer.
We need to speak to the culture in precisely the places where the culture fails (which entails not just knowledge of the culture, but understanding of the culture… seeing its strengths and weaknesses). A dull culture needs the bracing blast of real beauty (like the spray
of an ocean wave), not more dullness with an ICTHUS stamped on it. God
forgive his people for peddling such rot in the name of His Son.
A shallow culture longs for depth.
In a consumer culture, people need us to demonstrate the beauty of
living simply. In a frantic and media distracted culture, the world
needs us to model the peace of Christ. An ambitious culture needs
to see what it's like to live in joyful humility. A world of weakened, shallow and
broken relationships needs us to be walking examples of love and
concern for everyone we meet.
All this means making ourselves
vulnerable, and allowing ourselves – setting ourselves up – to be
inconvenienced. It also means not being afraid to be thought a
little… odd (call it eccentric if it makes you feel better). There is
in this kind of life no guarantee of success in an earthly sense. Don't
hold your breath waiting for respect and approval from the broader
culture. As our Lord made clear to those first disciples whom he called
away from their nets, He has bigger fish for us to fry.
(visit Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine)
Tim,
Great post! For some reason I’m reminded of something Archbishop Fulton Sheen said. He said that the world has seen it all and heard it all. The only thing that will convince people of the Truth of Christianity is a life of Holiness in service to God.
Speaking of this subject, Tim J., have you seen the article to which I linked on a comment on you previous post? I think you would like it.
That’s a great post, Matheus. I may have to do some commentary on it over at OWS, though commentary seems kind of superfluous… except to say that I agree with everything Dalrymple says, and can back it up with true stories of my own art school days.
His comments on Koons’ art are spot on… his work is very Dada, in my view. Anti-art. The props department of any movie studio makes and throws away more interesting stuff every day.
Thanks. I knew you would like it.
That would be great to read.
Bravo! I’m going to link back here since I didn’t take the time to thoroughly elaborate on Spackman’s quote in my original post (as I’ve pretty much hashed all these same ideas out on the TAE in times past, or at least it seems that I have in my own head), and because you’ve done a bang-up job in this entry Tim.
With respect to those called to live lives of more solitude than most of us, I’ll add that even they (those in hermitage, nunneries, monasteries . . . ) have influence on the culture. This is something made clear to my wife and I (with our Protestant roots) after reading Kathleen Norris’ Dakota: A spiritual geography.
The phrase “going native” is very telling. Imperialists would deride those colonists who adopted the ways of the “natives,” because it was “objectively true” that the natives were “inferior.”
Naturally, the usage of the phrase can’t but lead one to think that the same thing that was at the heart of the origin of the original use of the expression might also be at work here: hubris, arrogance, and pride.
Moreover, the irony here is that there is no “counter-cultural” aspect here: Christianists and other Christians determine the prevailing religious narrative in America.
That there is any counter to the narrative at all, is what’s amazing, not that Christianists have an attitude of hubris towards those they view as religiously incorrect.
Try being Buddhist – yes, even a Buddhist of European descent – for a millisecond and see what being counter-cultural really is.
Finally, I get it that neither you nor Mr. Akin actually lived through Vatican II, and hence has pretty much no first hand knowledge of what you’re talking about in this regard.
The real problem with Vatican II was that it exposed a great deal of the underlying hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, and the reactions to it were a reaction to the shame and guilt that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church felt at the prospect – gasp – that they might be viewed by their benefactors as human beings.
Which was all ultimately good, because there are many of us ex-Catholics now.
Modern Buddhism as “counter-cultural“? That’s a really good joke.
“One can’t “swim against the current” in a stock pond.”
That’s a great line, Tim, and so true. I wonder if you are aware of this line from Archbishop Sheen, or even had it in mind?
“Dead bodies float down stream. It takes live bodies to resist the current.”
Great post! Tim hits the nail squarely on the head.
I lived through Vatican II, Tim. John K is right: you nailed it.
Seconding John K and Bill912 from someone who also lived through Vatican II.
Wow. I had no idea Buddhists were so testy.
I also remember Vatican II (somewhat) and the changes that resulted (rather better), and I have to add my voice to the din of agreement.
I have to say that Mumon is correct in one sense: hypocrisy was exposed as a result of Vatican II. However, it wasn’t the hypocrisy suggested; it was the hypocrisy of those who claimed to be ‘reforming’ the Church in the “Spirit of Vatican II”. Frequently (at least) their ‘reforms’ weren’t and had little if anything to do with Vatican II.
For instance, one of the early changes they promoted was the priest celebrating the Mass ‘versus populum‘ was the norm resulting from Vatican II. However (as I recall, at least), then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy (English translation ca. 2000), says that ‘versus populum‘ is NOWHERE indicated in Vatican II documents.
Though that’s the only appearance of accuracy that I could locate. Perhaps if I knew what a ‘Christianist’ might be??
Excellent link, Matheus.
“Try being Buddhist – yes, even a Buddhist of European descent – for a millisecond and see what being counter-cultural really is.”
Please! In my public junior high school, there were two Buddhists teaching meditation as a regular elective. A Buddhist could be elected mayor here far more easily than a churchgoer who admitted it. I have seen more neighbors’ eyes dilate and constrict in half-hidden panic and distaste as their lips curl contemptuously and heard their voices go hysterical, syrupy-condescending or spitting, hissing seething in outrage because, during a nice conversation we’d been having, I acknowledged that I believe in God, go to a church and read the Bible. This is in reply, not out of the blue. I used to stress out over how to bring it up or let it leak in a calm, gradual, safe way to each person, but finally I decided that being a follower of Christ means taking the hatred of the culture that dominates today’s world and not trying to escape all of it.
It is a revolutionary act to be open as a Christian. It is a mainstream expression of up-to-date, acceptable, stylish good taste to be a Buddhist. That’s been the case where I live for decades. I am almost old enough to have been alive for Vatican II, but not quite. I do know it was the 1960’s when Eastern religious practices began to remold the way school, work, public art and entertainment worked. I do remember the Buddhist/Eastern/New Age perspective was dominant in effect though small in numbers in the later 1980’s and gained ground ever since. I do know it was materialism it pushed out, not Christianity, and definitely not Catholic Christianity, which has never been dominant in America.
“Try being Buddist-yes, even a Buddist of European descent-for a millisecond and see what being counter-cultual really is.”
Like Schopenhauer?
“Wow. I had no idea Buddhists were so testy.”
Ah yes, you can see more such testiness here. (Scroll down a bit to the posts from this year.)
“The real problem with Vatican II was that it exposed a great deal of the underlying hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, and the reactions to it were a reaction to the shame and guilt that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church felt at the prospect – gasp – that they might be viewed by their benefactors as human beings.
Which was all ultimately good, because there are many of us ex-Catholics now.”
I puzzled over these paragraphs awhile before realizing I would not at any foreseeable time figure out what you meant by them. Oh well.
It’s all to the good, because there are many of us converts to Catholicism now.
I used to be a Buddhist. When I noticed the Buddhist philosophy was without rational, factual or intuitive basis and was only the least-resistance trip for me, I decided to seek truth with a mind open to finding truth wherever it might be, and now I’m a Catholic.
Apparently the Fifth Noble Truth is: Be an energy monster.
This is silly. One reason that Buddhism is so popular, nowadays, is that Buddhism has an air of mystery. Zen koans, anyone.
Well, guess what cd was recently at the top of the charts? Once again, it was a Benedictine chant cd. Those odd, mysterious, men, making music that draws one to another odd, mystery – the mystery of God, is what drives the sales. It is mystery.
The church used to be about mysteries. Now, in many ways, it is about good feelings and a relationship with a personal(ized) God. I sometimes think that a good Catholic is not meant to be a counter to the culture, but rather, a living mystery, within the culture.
Try that approach on for size when you have to encounter the culture. One reason the church has been rejected by modern society is that it has tried to get too close to the culture. It has tried to romance the culture and the culture has rejected it because it no longer amuses it.
We need to draw the culture to the Church, not the Church to the culture. This is one way that Vatican II was badly implemented.
The Chicken
Matheus:
We’re what, 2% of American society, with representation in the Federal Government of no more than 2 Congressman, max, and you think it’s a joke that we’re counter-cultural?
My suspicion is you have us confused with the people who buy stuff for stores. Which, as it would happen, are the same folks who make us Christmasland every year, so there it is again…
bill912:
It might be interesting to compare experiences: Prior to Vatican II, the congregation in which I grew up was bored and silent, as naturally nobody spoke Latin – its major function as a language was to inhibit communication (regardless of one’s esthetics about the sounds of languages) and, in a religious setting, its usage was as inappropriate as if I used some of the language here you might find on my blog.
After Vatican II, that changed: people were heartfelt in their expression no matter how ineptly the expression was made, and sometimes it was made that way. And besides, every single, last one of these masses contained the essentials going back to the Didache, and used in every vernacular mass prior to Vatican II. Including Latin, which was once a vernacular.
But more often than not, heartfeltness won the day.
I have seen bad masses in suburban neighborhoods, and I have seen the best mass – a combination of reverence, powerful homily which was addressed to adults who could think, and execution at St. Ignatius of Loyola, in Manhattan. Which was the church the Kennedys went to.
Having said that, the act of “bringing the priest back down to earth” did show the pretense of their position regardless of Catholic theological positions they acted with hubris, as though they were in somehow a higher spiritual station with respect to others, and still do today, and this attitude extends up the hierarchy of the church: John Ratzinger has kept Bernard Law in his organization.
My conclusion: For an educated person, language doesn’t matter actually, but there were good reasons the vernacular was adopted, and it is either out of ignorance or hatred that one would claim otherwise.
Want a well-performed mass? Go to the richest part of town. Want an earnest mass? Go to a place where people care about what they believe (and I say this as an ex-Catholic). Want a mass? Go to any Catholic church – they still use the same forms that were used in the original vernacular masses about a couple thousand years ago.
Matheus:
We’re what, 2% of American society, with representation in the Federal Government of no more than 2 Congressman, max, and you think it’s a joke that we’re counter-cultural?
My suspicion is you have us confused with the people who buy stuff for stores. Which, as it would happen, are the same folks who make us Christmasland every year, so there it is again…
bill912:
It might be interesting to compare experiences: Prior to Vatican II, the congregation in which I grew up was bored and silent, as naturally nobody spoke Latin – its major function as a language was to inhibit communication (regardless of one’s esthetics about the sounds of languages) and, in a religious setting, its usage was as inappropriate as if I used some of the language here you might find on my blog.
After Vatican II, that changed: people were heartfelt in their expression no matter how ineptly the expression was made, and sometimes it was made that way. And besides, every single, last one of these masses contained the essentials going back to the Didache, and used in every vernacular mass prior to Vatican II. Including Latin, which was once a vernacular.
But more often than not, heartfeltness won the day.
I have seen bad masses in suburban neighborhoods, and I have seen the best mass – a combination of reverence, powerful homily which was addressed to adults who could think, and execution at St. Ignatius of Loyola, in Manhattan. Which was the church the Kennedys went to.
Having said that, the act of “bringing the priest back down to earth” did show the pretense of their position regardless of Catholic theological positions they acted with hubris, as though they were in somehow a higher spiritual station with respect to others, and still do today, and this attitude extends up the hierarchy of the church: John Ratzinger has kept Bernard Law in his organization.
My conclusion: For an educated person, language doesn’t matter actually, but there were good reasons the vernacular was adopted, and it is either out of ignorance or hatred that one would claim otherwise.
Want a well-performed mass? Go to the richest part of town. Want an earnest mass? Go to a place where people care about what they believe (and I say this as an ex-Catholic). Want a mass? Go to any Catholic church – they still use the same forms that were used in the original vernacular masses about a couple thousand years ago.
Serena:
OK, I will admit that we Buddhists do have something powerful and attractive to offer the rest of the English speaking world, though we’re only about 2% of it: we do know something about Breathing.
When I noticed the Buddhist philosophy was without rational, factual or intuitive basis and was only the least-resistance trip for me, I decided to seek truth with a mind open to finding truth wherever it might be, and now I’m a Catholic.
It was the opposite with me and Catholicism: when I noticed that, yeah, my idea of me was itself hubris, there was no evidence whatsoever a me that was separate from anything else (and vice versa).
Nobody said the word “mystery.”
And “least resistance?” I’d beg to differ. It’s quite challenging (and useful) to cultivate the skills of practicing mindfulness and compassion when your body’s not in the mood.
It is a revolutionary act to be open as a Christian. It is a mainstream expression of up-to-date, acceptable, stylish good taste to be a Buddhist.
No it’s not. Republicans are Christians. It’s the exact opposite of revolutionary: it’s reactionary, and the conservative variety always was the bunch of religious folks about whom Jesus himself complained.
I cannot help the fact, though, that in terms of what we know about philosophy and science and observation that Buddhism accords more with these things than Christianity; it accords more with them than the extinct Western religions as well. And yes, the ability to move in the world selflessly is good taste, even if other folks don’t like it and the majority religioni adherents feel threatened by it – which is not intended.
But that makes it all the more revolutionary: there is a strong desire throughout the world to react to reality in ways that are expressions of anger, hatred, and denial, because they challenge one’s beliefs.
If reality is at war with your beliefs it’s time to re-examine them.
John Kasaian:
I wake up a lot earlier than Shoepenhaur. But you get points for not mentioning Thoreau. Or Alan Watts.
Masked Chicken:
Mystery? No we don’t do that. Koans? There not mysterious if you’ve actually done that practice. To steal Thomas Merton’s simile the purpose of them is to get you to play tennis without your discrminating mind kibbitzing.
Mumon,
most atheists enjoy the popular “Catholic show” that goes on in many places because it’s effect is emotional, and dislike the solemn spiritual reverence of a properly celebrated Mass, because it’s effect is spiritual, a phenomena you deny. Sadly, the former has led so many to leave the Church, either officially, or more insidiously. The Church is about saving souls, not “feel good”.
Matt
“bored and silent”
Bored? Did you go to mass to be entertained? I go to mass to experience the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. Boredom is a sign that you weren’t putting any of yourself into the mass.
Latin’s “major function as a language was to inhibit communication”.
The old missals had the prayers in Latin on the left-hand page and the vernacular translation on the right-hand page. If that was an attempt to “inhibit communication” it was an awfully poor one.
“…there were good reasons the vernacular was adopted, and it is either out of ignorance or hatred that one would claim otherwise.”
No other possibilities? Have you truly been endowed with such omniscience?
“…there was no evidence whatsoever a me that was separate from anything else…”
A combination of pantheism and solipsism certainly does explain everthing. However, if there is any evidence to support such a belief, I’m unaware of it. But it does allow a person to wall off from his mind anything he doesn’t wish to be true. There is no way to breach such a wall with mere facts or logic. Only Grace can do that.
bill912:
If you note the text I was speaking about the congregation.
True, they did have Latin-English translations, but that made the use of Latin that much more useless. Unless of course one wanted to show that they were some how “separate and better” from those who didn’t use the magic language. Which of course makes my point.
No other possibilities?
Got any? Maybe you’ll cite the Orthodox churches’ use of dead languages? And why is that relevant? Or is that not more of the same thing, just with more facial hair?
bill912:
Pantheism?
That was always a problem for Christians to explain Buddhist viewpoints and experience. No, we don’t have a theos so there can’t be a pantheos.
Ssolipsism?
While there are in fact schools of Buddhism that are “mind only,” the use of solipsism is incorrect as well.
Maybe, going to Serena’s point the best correlates for Buddhism in Western philosophical terms are the French Phenomenologists, Existentialists Deconstructionists and Postmodernists. Can’t help that. That’s a combination of the conditions of the state of Western philosophy which brought the West there and their opportunity to read Eastern texts.
“Which of course makes my point.”
He certainly side-stepped that question.
As he did my “No other possibilities” question.
Not to mention my question of his assumption of omniscience.
Maybe he should buy a dictionary and look up the definitions of the words “pantheism” and “solipcism”.
Matt McDonald:
I wouldn’t “deny” the emotional tenor of many Catholic masses (and when you write solemn that’s what it is. As for “reverence” and “spiritual,” the former connotes at least in part mindfulness, and yes, we do think that’s spiritual.
The difference unfortunately for ecumenism, is the degree to which it’s Buddhist is the degree to which it’s spiritual to a Buddhist, which you would deny. Does it help cultivate wisdom, generosity and compassion and loving kindness to all? Does it help to dispel greed, hatred, and ignorance? To the extent that the Catholic Mass does this, it’s spiritual, and to the extent that it doesn’t, it’s not. For us, “solemn reverence” is a tool in a toolkit to help achieve the above ends which we frequently employ; there are times – even within the midst of a chanting service – in which it might be proper to jettison solemn reverence.
bill912:
I could go a bit further in my reply to you; but suffice it to say that if you explore the question “Who am I?” without recourse to a catechism, you might soon find yourself speechless (e.g., here: http://mumonno.blogspot.com/2005/05/who-are-you.html).
bill912:
I’m sorry I thought what I was writing was obvious: since we don’t have a theos, we can’t have a notion that anything or everything is a deity and therefore it is incorrect to label Buddhists as pantheists.
The preferred English term these days for us is “nontheists,” though other terms have been used.
As for the “no other possibilities,” I’d think it’s incumbent on you to come up with them, not me.
“I could go a bit further in my reply to you…”
Prove it. Stop dodging.
Republicans are Christians.
This poster is a troll.
Do not feed the troll.
“..I’d think it’s incumbent on you to come uup with them, not me.”
I was pointing out your insistence that there are no possibilities other than the two you mentioned, which would require a tremendous amount of knowledge, bordering, atleast,on omniscience, on your part.
bill912:
To me it appears that you are dodging. You can’t address the issue of the motivations for use of dead languages in Christian services, and you can’t address the issues related to who you are.
Me? I already said it: what I call me is a mental construct, an idea. That’s not to say there’s nothing in meat-space typing this; of course there is, but what’s in that bag of skin takes in oxygen, pollutants, etc. and exhales and excretes and so forth, and the barrier between “me” and “everything else” isn’t much of a barrier.
This is manifestly obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds.
So please stop dodging yourself. It’s a nice gambit, I suppose if one wishes to deflect attention, but when it’s written down for all to see it doesn’t do anything for your case but weaken it, since it’s a form of an ad hominem attack.
That ain’t solipsism, and it certainly ain’t pantheism.
bill912:
I’d reconsider my position if other possibilities were present, which so far you’ve failed to do.
Mary, as usual, is right. When the “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” response is put forth, you know that feeding time is over.
Dear Mumon
Your official political representation may be as you say, but counter-culture refers to, you know, culture, and on this realm you have Richard Gere, Oliver Stone (also a convert from Catholicism, if I’m not mistaken), and many others whom I don’t remember now in liberal show-business, academia and the intelligentsia in general. Hardly counter-cultural, indeed.
Mumon,
cultivate the skills of practicing mindfulness and compassion when your body’s not in the mood
I suppose now is one of those times:
ignorance or hatred that one would claim otherwise
so much for Karma, right?
Mary:
LOL. That’s almost haiku. I have no idea why you found that statement disturbing or why you wanted. As to why it provoked the reaction from you, that fascinates me; I only thought I was stating a fact.
But it is not my aim to provoking others into an emotional response here, so the use of the term “troll” is inappropriate.
Let’s “review the bidding.” There was a post on this blog that made comments that were derogatory towards non-Christians and towards faithful Catholics who understand and uphold Vatican II. I responded to it. The response was emotional, to be sure, but one would think that if one claims to have a representation of truth that one could exhibit it soberly.
It might do well for you and bill912 should examine your consciences in this regard. My only intent was to point out, respectfully, that differences do indeed exist, and that the motives as to why people are not Christian might be deeper and more well considered and well lived than the author of the original post presented.
And also that there were good reasons for Vatican II.
But of course your responses were responses about yourselves as well.
Good day, and may peace prevail upon you.
Dear Mumon
The Dalai-Lama himself has recently said that he is “half Communist, half Buddhist“, despite the situation in Tibet. What if we said Buddhists are commie sell-outs. Would you like the uncharitable generalization?
Matheus:
Sorry all, I just want to get one last response in here:
culture, and on this realm you have Richard Gere, Oliver Stone (also a convert from Catholicism, if I’m not mistaken), and many others whom I don’t remember now in liberal show-business, academia and the intelligentsia in general. Hardly counter-cultural, indeed.
Point taken: we do admit we – all of us – create our own culture.
That said, I wouldn’t trade Richard Gere or Oliver Stone for Mel Gibson whether I was Catholic or Buddhist.
Many of us are embarassed by these Hollywood types, just as most Catholics are embarassed at Mel Gibson’s shenanigans. For a great laugh, if you ever get a chance see the documentary “Words of My Perfect Teacher” about some folks who make a documentary following some Tibetan Lama around (a bit too attached IMHO, but I don’t do Tibetan Buddhism). Steven Seagal makes quite a buffoon of himself in the movie, and encapsulates everything that’s wrong with any Hollywood religious nonsense: it’s inevitably shallow.
Matheus:
What if we said Buddhists are commie sell-outs.
I’d say did you ever read what Thomas Merton wrote about small-c Communists?
There’s no denying many in the Republican party want to make it a “Christian” party. Whether it’s Christian or Buddhist, it’s a big topic right now about What to Do about People Who are Embarassing.
Ted Haggard. Various American Buddhist ordained teachers who exploit members of their sangha.
It’s all the same.
But your response is encouraging, in that it seems you’d like distance from the Republican party.
And now back to our regularly scheduled post…
One of the key sentences in Tim’s post is: “We are called to live a Christian life *(which will always be counter-cultural, if we’re doing it right)* as a sign and a light to those who know us.”
What an incredible responsibility that is. “To whom much is given, much will be required.” It’s an impossibility without Grace. But “with God, nothing will be impossible”.
“There was a post on this blog that made comments that were derogatory towards non-Christians and towards faithful Catholics who understand and uphold Vatican II”
I made comments derogatory to non-Christians? Where, precisely?
And Hold the Phone! I *never* disparaged Vatican II itself, or those who uphold it with a clear understanding… seeing that I would be in that category.
Vatican II *was* used as a convenient excuse by a lot of self-aggrandizing pseudo reformers within the Church to justify making the Mass over in their own image, rather than implementing changes organically and in a reverent spirit.
“After Vatican II, that changed: people were heartfelt in their expression”
I have never even attended a Latin Mass (though I would like to), but they would have to work very hard to create the level of boredom apparent at the Novus Ordo Masses I frequent.
I recently found a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in my area that (in the REAL spirit if Vatican II) gives pride of place to Gregorian Chant and to Latin prayers and responses. This was one of the most reverent, inspiring Masses I have ever been to, and NOBODY was bored.
But that kind of response to Vatican II requires, you know, actually reading and respecting the documents of the council, which most Spirit of Vat II FreeLove/Liturgical Dance/Happy Hands Club enthusiasts find disturbs their chakras or dampens their aura, or whatever.
There was a post on this blog that made comments that were derogatory towards non-Christians and towards faithful Catholics who understand and uphold Vatican II
Vatican II specifically prescribed that Latin must be retained in the liturgy of the Latin Rite and Gregorian chant must be given pride of place over other forms of music. I don’t see how any of Tim Jones’ comments were derogatory toward people who uphold these disciplines of the Church. He correctly called out people who use Vatican II as an excuse to implement every kind of innovation – even those in direct contradiction of what the council documents actually say.
P.S. What’s heartfelt about professing to be Catholic and yet disobeying the disciplines the Church imposes on the celebration of the sacraments? To me it’s two-faced. You made an honest choice when you left the Church, Mumon, you realized that you could no longer fulfill the obligations the Church required of it’s members and so you left. I would call your actions heartfelt. Calling the “Spirit of Vatican II” crowd heartfelt is a sleight to others who, like you, had the courage to follow the logical conclusions of their beliefs.
I have a question for Tim J. or SDG (or anyone else who’d agree with it) re: this claim, “We are called to live a Christian life *(which will always be counter-cultural, if we’re doing it right)* as a sign and a light to those who know us.”
It is certainly the case right now that to truly live Christ’s teachings is counter-cultural, and I don’t see a truly Christian culture emerging in the near future, but how does the claim that it will always be so reconcile with Christ’s promise of the Kingdom of Heaven?
Christ has promised us our bodies back, so Heaven will not be a purely spiritual affair; it is appropriate to the soul to be in the body. So shouldn’t we expect that the purpose of our works as Christians is to bring about that Kingdom (consider the meditation for the 3rd decade of the Luminous mysteries) on earth? So that there’d one day be governments that sought God’s will in all things? And the same for the media, private entities, etc.? In that case, shouldn’t things at some point, perhaps many lifetimes from now, start to get better here, so that “the world” may eventually be reconciled to the Kingdom?
I guess I’m asking whether or not there’s a scriptural basis for the hope that this will happen. The only alternative I can think of jives more with a dim reading of Revelation in which the present order, irreconcilable to God, is destroyed and the few are saved.
JRC, I think the answer is “both/and” rather than “either/or.” On one hand we need to strive to raise up an authentically Christian culture, on the other hand only God can bring about the Kingdom of Heaven. We will always have some combination of good and evil in this world – we cannot make the new heaven and new earth described in Revelation despite our best efforts.
Mumon,
Try being Buddhist – yes, even a Buddhist of European descent – for a millisecond and see what being counter-cultural really is.
Being counter-cultural for the sake of being counter-cultural is not the point. The Unabomber was counter-cultural, but I know few who would describe him as enlightened. The purpose for the authentic counter-culturalism of Christianity is, as has been noted previously, to bring the culture to our Lord and Creator.
Republicans are Christians.”
You cannot expect us to take you seriously when you have created what we recognize to be nothing more than a sloppy caricature of Christianity, bearing little resemblance to the Real Thing. That others in our culture (many self-proclaimed Christians included) share your delusion does not make it true (although it might speak to just how “counter-cultural” you are).
Me? I already said it: what I call me is a mental construct, an idea. That’s not to say there’s nothing in meat-space typing this; of course there is, but what’s in that bag of skin takes in oxygen, pollutants, etc. and exhales and excretes and so forth, and the barrier between “me” and “everything else” isn’t much of a barrier.
This is manifestly obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds.
If by “everything else” you mean all creation, you may be nearer to the Truth than you realize. But you fail to see the vastness of the barrier between you and your Creator, which really is manifestly obvious to anyone who approaches with humility in an earnest search for the truth. (As is the fact that, yes, there really is a Creator.)
Brother Cadfael:
Being counter-cultural for the sake of being counter-cultural is not the point.
That is true, actually. Given that we make our own culture whatever our background, why is this dichotomy even being set up? Well the short answer is that there is a privileged, dominant culture. It ain’t Buddhist though.
You cannot expect us to take you seriously when you have created what we recognize to be nothing more than a sloppy caricature of Christianity, bearing little resemblance to the Real Thing.
This is The True Scotsman Fallacy as it’s known. Are there [not] Republican Christians and Catholics? Well, yeah. If your point is there’s no Buddhist counterpart to Pat Buchannan, or E. J. Dionne, point taken. And made.
…earnest search for the truth.
I long ago realized that, despite my earnest search for truth (been there, done that, thank you very much) there were matters that required …more immediate attention. And still do.
Sorry if that offends, but there are things that require more immediate attention than religious correctness.
I think the problem here is that we are tossing about words without defining them, or ensuring we mean the same thing. Because a lot of the dispute here could be resolved with an understanding of what we each mean by “Christian,” for example. More than 90% of the population of the country calls itself Christian, and churches of all kinds far outnumber temples and non-Christian houses of worship. And there is no question that a Muslim, or a Buddist, or an Atheist could not be elected president (and, frankly, even a Jewish person would have a difficult time). But narrow the definition of Christian to someone who goes to Church every week, and prays regularly, and lives a life of charity not acquisition, and it is a different matter.
I think we need persepective, too, on what it means to be different from, or outside, the “culture” (and I would argue this country is too diverse to have one culture — NYC is not the same as LA or Salt Lake City or small-town Iowa or San Juan). I have lived in the Northeast almost my entire life, and gone to liberal arts universities, and live in NYC now, and you can bet I have felt like an outsider, and been mocked, for being a practicing Catholic. But I have not been beaten up for being Catholic, as many Jews have been for being Jewish (yes, here in NYC). I have not been killed for wearing a crucifix, as Sikhs have been for wearing turbans. My house of worship did not need police protection in the wake of 9-11, as the Islamic center across the street from me needed. Even if only on a superficial level, by being Christian I am “mainstream” in this country.
Dear Murnon,
You wrote:
Given that we make our own culture whatever our background…
A culture of one? A rare use if the term.
The Chicken
Italics, off.
That was supposed read:
A culture of one? A rare use of the term.
The Chicken
One more for good measure.
The Chicken
Help, I’m lost in Italicsland…
The Chicken
He released a stream of anti-italics particles into the accelerator…
The Chicken
Italics OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will it work?
You spoiled my fun, TMC…Congrats anyway; I’ve already had the pleasure of doing this once.
Are there [not] Republican Christians and Catholics?
Bait and switch.
It is blog ettiquette to when crossposting an entry, to indicate so at the top of the entry, for obvious reasons
“It might be interesting to compare experiences: Prior to Vatican II, the congregation in which I grew up was bored and silent, as naturally nobody spoke Latin – its major function as a language was to inhibit communication[.]”
It’s a curious thing, but whenever I hear this about the ‘old Latin Mass’ (as it’s usually described) in a parish, I will invariably talk to others in that parish who had no such experience with it. I suppose it’s part of human nature that so many people assume that their reaction to something is the ‘typical’ reaction.
Moreover, it wasn’t that hard to learn enough liturgical Latin to understand what was going on. There was really no good excuse not to. I was still a child, and I have found subsequently that my language skills are fairly average, but I had no particular difficulty learning enough Latin to understand what was going on. Also, Latin was frequently taught in high schools.
And you are exactly wrong when you say that the function of Latin was to ‘inhibit’ communication. The actual function of Latin was as to unify the Church. For instance, my parents spent a year before I was born in a German-speaking area in Europe. Yet went to Mass, it was familiar and easy to follow because it was in familiar Latin. Likewise, the Catholic population in the US earlier int the 20th century was a polyglot of tongues, so just as it unified the Church throughout the world, it unified the Church here.
“Help, I’m lost in Italicsland…”
Yes, Chicken, isn’t that place famous for its funhouse mazes, much the same way other places are famous for their rollercoasters?
“This is The True Scotsman Fallacy as it’s known.” No it’s not. The True Scotsman Fallacy is a subtype of the foregone conclusion. In the world of belief systems (religious, philosophical, political, etc.), one’s behavior and thinking in fact are the defining qualities themselves. A Scotsman is a member of a nationality. A man’s behavior and thinking cannot be reasonably estimated by nationality. They can be by beliefs as beliefs are what orient behavior and thinking. Someone who says, “I am a materialist with no belief in the supernatural at all. Do not walk under that ladder or it will anger the ladder fairies, a supernatural breed of creatures that inflict bad luck on those who cross their territory,” he is not a real materialist/antisupernaturalist, because his statement just contradicted the definiton of one no matter what he calls himself.
“I think the problem here is that we are tossing about words without defining them, or ensuring we mean the same thing. Because a lot of the dispute here could be resolved with an understanding of what we each mean by “Christian,” for example. More than 90% of the population of the country calls itself Christian, and churches of all kinds far outnumber temples and non-Christian houses of worship. And there is no question that a Muslim, or a Buddist, or an Atheist could not be elected president (and, frankly, even a Jewish person would have a difficult time). But narrow the definition of Christian to someone who goes to Church every week, and prays regularly, and lives a life of charity not acquisition, and it is a different matter.
I think we need persepective, too, on what it means to be different from, or outside, the “culture” (and I would argue this country is too diverse to have one culture — NYC is not the same as LA or Salt Lake City or small-town Iowa or San Juan). I have lived in the Northeast almost my entire life, and gone to liberal arts universities, and live in NYC now, and you can bet I have felt like an outsider, and been mocked, for being a practicing Catholic”
I define “Christian” as someone who meets all the following criteria:
Believes in (that is, actually considers to be in existence for real, rather than plays at believing in e.g.)one and only one God, Who made everything in some form and Who then directed closely the main trends and speed of change of everything in nature.
Believes in a soul, the person apart from the body, an eternal and unique being.
Believes in an afterlife, consisting of reward through closeness to God and the other rewarded souls, if s/he has attempted seriously to serve God and other people, and in punishment through isolation from God, the most painful possible experience, if s/he has chosen to spend ths life avoiding God, trying to be God, or otherwise separating from God on purpose. That these states are forever.
Believes that the Y’shu’a Son of Miriam Who preached in First-Century Galilee adn Whose story is told in the canonical Gospels is God and the Son of God. That belief in His Godhood and worship of Him, including some serious attempt at obedience to His recorded commands, is necessary in order to grow close enough to God to be rewarded by full Presence of God forever.
Believes in the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity Who is God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Attempts seriously and again and again to act on these beliefs by trying hard to obey God’s commands as recorded in the New Testament we have today.
Believes that God made the laws of nature and can override them.
I define “culture” as “the influences all around; the hard-to-avoid suggestions, models and stories from which we all continually learn our language, values and mental images of the world.” I define “countercultural” as “directly resisting the prevailing surrounding influences.”
Christianity is countercultural because to take a stand against wearing degrading clothes, loudly making fun of religious concepts on the bus and in the laundry shop, priding oneself on inventive extended obcenities, submitting desecrations of religious objects as class projects, sleeping with one person most nights but another while out of town on weekends, stating that every religion teaches the same thing and that they are indistinguishable, cheating and getting revenge, to name a few customs shoved in one’s face day and night, to resist these as I was saying and take a chance of being seen resisting, is to risk being branded, disciplined at work for failure of diversity awareness, sneered at and publicly mocked by neighbors, shut out of any position requiring general acceptability, even physically attacked. I say this from the Wesern US and I live in a city.
I think what this boils down to is banality.
The Tridentine Mass is without a doubt beautiful, but if all it is is an expression of sentimentality then we’ve lost recognition of the essential mystery of the Mass (this is my impression of the few “nit-pickers” who constantly complain that Tridentine Mass isn’t being done “right.”)
The Novus Ordo however was an expression of sentimentality from the get go it seems, being that the sentimentality was created by liturgists to make with the “warm and fuzzies.”
Both Masses contain the essential mysteries of the Mass, but the wrappings are the issue.
I’m not a Liturgist, but I do feel the Mass should be indicative of the reverence and humility with which Catholics clothe themselvs when coming to the Feast.
Music should be sung to honor God, not the parishoners.
Church architecture should either be elaborate with vaulted cielings with room for our spirits to soar or modest as circumstances dictate, but not cold, industrial “theaters.” Of all buildings, a church should be instantly recognizable as a church. Someone passing by might be in need of one (sort of like why uniforms worn by policemen!)
My 2-cents anyway.
I’m posting this quote where I can see it a few times a week:
“A shallow culture longs for depth. In a consumer culture, people need us to demonstrate the beauty of living simply. In a frantic and media distracted culture, the world needs us to model the peace of Christ. An ambitious culture needs to see what it’s like to live in joyful humility. A world of weakened, shallow and broken relationships needs us to be walking examples of love and concern for everyone we meet.”
This is what is countercultural. And, strangely enough, the person who is living simply and modeling Christ is less likely to get caught up in the number-counting mentality of the dominant culture.
hans wrote: “The actual function of Latin was as to unify the Church. For instance, my parents spent a year before I was born in a German-speaking area in Europe. Yet went to Mass, it was familiar and easy to follow because it was in familiar Latin.”
Last year I was reading about Chinese priests writing documents in Latin that Western priests could no longer read. From the accounts, it sounded as if the Westerners expected the Chinese to learn English or Italian to converse. The more I thought about it, a dead language is better because it’s less likely to be politicized (like choosing English as the language) or changed over time (e.g. euphemisms and pop jargon).
Well, I didn’t say that Latin was still familiar, even often to bishops. You make a good point about the lack of politicization of Latin.
Brian Walden,
Thank you, that sounds about right. 🙂
Hello. I would like to discuss the post, which I found fascinating. (Please everyone just drop the Buddhism discussion, which is distracting from what could have been a very fruitful combox.)
I found what Tim said very inspiring. And I have been thinking about it for the last couple days, especially when I turn on the radio or see an icthus. So I came back and re-read the post and noted especially his paragraph with, I think, the solution. (The one starting with “A shallow culture longs for depth…”)
But what about the Christian pop music, and the hat with IHS on it? Are these things bad now? So that we have to beg God’s forgiveness for this “rot”? Or is it just that we aren’t to look at these as the epitome of Christian living? I guess I’m just not sure what Tim’s suggested perspective is on these things.
I mean, I do drive a car, so why not put an icthus on the back? And I do wear clothes, so why not clothes with a religious symbol or words? I guess I don’t have to listen to the radio, or I could listen to the classical station (or the chant station if they had one…).
I wholeheartedly agree with Tim’s ideas, I’m just not sure what shape it will take with regards to these things.
Of course, to keep it in perspective, here’s Tim’s paragraph regarding what we *should* do:
“A shallow culture longs for depth. In a consumer culture, people need us to demonstrate the beauty of living simply. In a frantic and media distracted culture, the world needs us to model the peace of Christ. An ambitious culture needs to see what it’s like to live in joyful humility. A world of weakened, shallow and broken relationships needs us to be walking examples of love and concern for everyone we meet.”
How about: making our own music more; gathering more often; spending less money (which won’t endear us to manufacturers and advertisers, but will set us apart); developing our artistic and other skills to compete with the rest and excel; wearing our symbols proudly so that when we do the many good things we do, people know it was a Christian being a Christian; developing our schools to excel in every subject and teach subjects the public schools don’t bother with anymore; writing literature that can compete with the best and excel; giving up violent entertainment (bye-bye, hockey, boxing and wrestling); wearing pins or shirts that say, “I’m a Christian. Tell me if you need help”.
Tim J: (or others who would like to answer):
I wholeheartedly agree with the post, but I’m not sure now what to think of the “Christian Market” stuff. Do we really need to repent of partaking in any of this “rot”? Is putting an icthus on our car really “rot”? Or listening to the Christian radio station? What should be our participation in these things? (realizing now that we are called to much more)
Tim, you wrote, “I think the Protestant evangelical churches in America got into in deep trouble when they failed for a long time to notice that they were trying to express Norman Rockwell sentiments in King James English to a jaded, post-modern world that wasn’t listening.”
I think that Protestant evangelical churches in America got into deep trouble when they adopted entertainment-heavy services. There’s a lot that doesn’t look so different from pop culture, including weekend missionary “projects” that seem based on Extreme Makeover and the name-it-and-claim-it groups. Maybe it’s just my area, but there seems to be many more Protestant ministers starting their own nom-denom groups.
Ugh. I lost my last paragraph. I was going to say that it’s really hard sometimes to see where the culture leaves off when we don’t have a different way to speaking and relating to other people.