From: jocallag@bach.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Nature of List--Fossil
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:57:41 GMT

In article <Eeyj8Xq_NU00QHJDgq@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com> Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> writes:
>
>Well, what I meant was that they would find fault in both some attitudes
>of priests and bishops prior to Vatican II (ultra-conservatism) and some
>attitudes of priests and bishops after Vatican II (modernism).

Most likely true, as they found fault with and amongst themselves.
As far as ultra-conservatism and modernism are concerned, "the poor
you will always have with you."  A good book on this is John Courtney
Murray's "The Problem of God."

>
>I think that you would agree that while the church is one and eternal,
>sometimes it leans too much in one direction or the other.  I think that
>anyone who thinks that the church was going in the right direction prior
>to Vatican II should review the church over a period of 2,000 years, and
>not just since Trent.

Do you mean to suggest that the Church was going in the *wrong* direction
before Vatican II, i.e. possibly in error?  'Church' in this context
is terribly ambiguous.  My faith on this is that the Church as Church,
i.e. the continuation of Christ's salvific sacrifice in history, is always
going in the right direction, and that Vatican II was, as are all councils 
of the Church, a particulary intense moment in the fulfillment of the
goal that lies at the end of that right direction.

>
>Now if you ask, how do I think that the Church Fathers would have been
>unhappy with the pre-Vatican II church?  Well, for one thing, the
>imposition of one language -- and the exaltation of this language as
>"better" than any other would have been foreign to the early Fathers.
>They probably would have been surprised at the emphases placed on rules
>and regulations.  I think that the Tridentine Mass places far too much
>emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice -- I think this is an overreaction
>from the Reformation and not necessarily healthy.

But you're not one of the Fathers.  There is a danger of too great appeal
to the primitive Church, i.e. pre Constantine, and the Fathers.  The danger
is that it refuses to recognize the Church as living.  You can certainly
say that the Church Fathers would be surprised at the way the Church has
developed, providing you make that conclusion on the supposition that 
the Church Fathers have the same knowledge and experience they had in
the first centuries of the Church's existence.  If however, you grant them
the experiential and historical knowledge of the Faith as it has continued
to live in the Church to this day, you have no idea how they would react to
the developments that have taken place.  In the first scenario 
*Transubstantiation* would boggle most of their minds.  In the second it
would not.  As our Greek brethren would no doubt point out, the filioque
would also boggle their minds in the first scenario, but as we would
no doubt point out, not in the second scenario.  These are of course
instances of dogma, but the Church has always maintained that dogma
does not exhaust the life of faith in the Church; it is also expressed
in the sacramental and especially liturgical life of the Church.  Most
of them in the first scenario would find personal private confession
extraordinarily odd in the first scenario, but perhaps not in the second.
For all you know they would find the emphasis upon sacrifice extreme in 
the first scenario; but also for all you know they would find it perfectly
appropriate in the second scenario; heck for all we know they might think
it was not emphasized enough given the second scenario.  We have no way
of knowing.  I guess what I'm saying is that I find appeals to the Fathers
difficult for straightforward examination of developments in the Church.
Certainly they tell us what the Church believed, and development must be
measured against what the Church believes, as it finds expression through
history, and especially in Scripture, the Fathers, and the Councils; but
this seems to be a task suitable only for the magisterium.  In argumentative
contexts like this, I find what the Fathers say interesting, but I don't find
it particularly helpful for evaluating or understanding how we ought to
view developments within the Church, that is unless some development directly
contradicts them.
These are more reflections of mine Eric, than argument with you.  I guess
I'm just saying appeal to the Fathers seems only to help when something
directly goes against, i.e. is inconsistent with the life and faith of
the Church as told to us by the Fathers.  I'd be interested to know what
you think on this some more.  My views on this are not set in stone, as my
posting might appear.  Perhaps I'm asking what role you see the Fathers
as having in the Church today, if it is significantly or even moderately 
different from what I have sketched above.  I realize I may have taken your
comments to seriously.  But hey, as I got going, I got interested in the 
question in general.

>No doubt that there are problems with the church today.  But let's not
>ignore history and say that the church as it existed before Vatican II
>is the ideal solution.
>
>Eric

Who's saying that except schismatics?  Short of the Second Coming, the 
Church before or after Vatican II may be the solution, but it is not
ideal.  But I think that it will never be *ideal*, even after the
Second Coming; it will be perfectly real, i.e. perfectly drawn into
the life of God by union.
Peace,
John