This was written in response to the notion that holding hands at the Our Father was desirable and that Bishop Foys was "out of his mind" for suggesting otherwise....
The conversation progressed and eventually this was made in response to me, which brings me to my overall point of this blog post today:
I'm sorry, Andy, but I felt just as Catholic, and maybe even more so, when I am praying the Novos Ordo than I did when praying the TLM. But that could be because when I was praying the TLM I was a child. Indeed, I identified myself as a Catholic much more with the post-VCII church than I did the pre-VCII Church.
So much of this is perspective. So much of this is experience.
I responded to her: There are two different Churches? A pre-Vatican II Church and a post-Vatican II Church? I was under the impression that Vatican Council II was the logical updating of the Church in the Modern World. To speak of two Churches is to define your Ecclesiology. This is a much bigger problem than just perception. Perhaps you didn't mean to speak this way, but the sad fact is that you did. This is the exact reason why there is a break in continuity (re: Pope Benedict XVI). The Church did NOT change. The fact that the Novus Ordo is considered the "flagship" of a post-Vatican II Church embodies the flawed and sad notion that the pre-Vatican II Church was somehow left behind in a sort of archive.
Clearly, the post-Vatican II Church has failed. People my age (39) and younger don't want the post-Vatican II Church, we want the Catholic Church. That is why since the loosening of the TLM in 1984, this aspect of the Church has grown exponentially, when the rest of the Church has been the fastest growing. Do you know the two seminaries in the USA which are the fastest growing? Our Lady of Guadalupe in Denton, NE and St. Thomas Aquinas in Winona, MN. Both are traddy seminaries, while seminaries like St. Francis in Milwaukee, WI and St. Meinrad in Indiana are woefully empty.
I'm sorry ma'am, I can't agree with you. The Novus Ordo has failed as an experiment and it has done nothing but make it easier for a Catholic to relate to a Protestant and that should never be the goal of Catholic worship.
This idea that there are two different Churches, one that is of antiquity and one that was created after Vatican Council II is not a rare idea. This is a very common thought. Have you ever noticed how people talk about the Church? Listen next time. I've resorted to discussing in this manner, often times, because it is the only way Catholics can relate, but there is no question in my mind, there is one Church. It started with the beginning of time, it was made manifest as an entity with the giving of the keys to Peter. The bottom line, there are not two Churches. When you hear Pope Benedict speak of a hermeneutic of rupture (or discontinuity), this is of what he speaks. The idea that the Church was somehow re-imagined or re-created with Vatican Council II is improper Ecclesiology. The reality is that Vatican Council II was another Council among the history of Councils, it is unique in that it didn't proclaim any dogma or doctrine, but was purely pastoral. This doesn't, though mean that there was a new Church created. Please do all you can every day to be clear that the Ecclesiology of the early Church is the Ecclesiology of the Church today. Even if it makes you unpopular with your pastor and others in your parish. The Truth is the Truth. The Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.