Assisi-ism – Update
Bishop Williamson’s weekly blog addresses Pope Benedict’s recent announcement–the subject of an earlier thread initiated by Paul Moses– that he wishes to revive “the spirit of Assisi.” It may be recalled that the 1986 meeting of leaders of religions in that city was a last straw for Archbishop Lefebvre, who soon after consecrated four bishops and so incurred excommuication. Here are the beginning and closing paragraphs of Bishop Williamson’s remarks:
Some people are still afraid that Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St Pius X is on the way to a bad agreement with Benedict XVI’s Rome, but by the Pope’s Assisi-ism amongst other things, one might say that Benedict XVI himself is doing his best to prevent any such occurrence.
Six days ago he argued in theory that the world’s “great religions” can constitute “an important factor of the peace and unity of mankind”. Five days ago he announced in practice that in October of this year he will go “as a pilgrim” to Assisi to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Prayer Meeting of World Religions held there by Pope John-Paul II in 1986. But the theory of all “great world religions” contributing to world peace was absolutely rejected by Archbishop Lefebvre, and the practice of the 1986 Prayer Meeting in Assisi he condemned as a flagrant violation of the First Commandment, which, coming from the Vicar of Christ, constituted a scandal unheard of in all the history of the Church. Only the fear of too much repetition being counter-productive might have stopped him from castigating this latest piece of Assisi-ism.
….
Therefore if by their past and future Assisi events, Popes John-Paul II and Benedict XVI have encouraged souls to think that Catholicism is not the one and only way to a happy eternity, but merely one amongst many other promoters (even if it is the best) of mankind’s “peace and unity” in this life, it follows that both Popes have facilitated the dreadful damnation of countless souls in the next life. Rather than have any part in such a betrayal, Archbishop Lefebvre preferred to be scorned, rejected, despised, marginalized, silenced, “excommunicated”, you name it.
There is a price to be paid for holding to the Truth. How many Catholics are ready to pay it
Here now are the remarks of Bishop Fellay, who also is not happy about the Pope’s announcement: http://www.sspx.org/
Is it silly to ask how Christians actually do pray with those whose concept of the divine is so radically different from ours? if someone does not believe in a personal God, is a Christian praying alongside her/him or with her/him. Is it legitimate to ask this?
Saints preserves us! (referring to Bp. Williamson)
It is not silly to ask these questions. We do pray with, alongside, for, and at others. And it’s not always clear how which prepositions apply.
Williamson et al hold that peace is a belief. No..Peace is a stance. therefore I would rather ‘stand-alongside’ a peaceful atheist rather than a warrior Roman Catholic.
Does anyone for one slight moment think that this church needs the likes of Williamson et al back in the fold?
Has Benedict really taken to speaking of the world’s great religions?
Joe Gannon: Here are three sections of the Pope’s letter for the World Day of Peace in which the phrase “great religions” appears. Is this a novelty in his thought?
7. The exploitation of religious freedom to disguise hidden interests, such as the subversion of the established order, the hoarding of resources or the grip on power of a single group, can cause enormous harm to societies. Fanaticism, fundamentalism and practices contrary to human dignity can never be justified, even less so in the name of religion. The profession of a religion cannot be exploited or imposed by force. States and the various human communities must never forget that religious freedom is the condition for the pursuit of truth, and truth does not impose itself by violence but “by the force of its own truth”.[10] In this sense, religion is a positive driving force for the building of civil and political society.
How can anyone deny the contribution of the world’s great religions to the development of civilization? The sincere search for God has led to greater respect for human dignity. Christian communities, with their patrimony of values and principles, have contributed much to making individuals and peoples aware of their identity and their dignity, the establishment of democratic institutions and the recognition of human rights and their corresponding duties. ….
10. In a globalized world marked by increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies, the great religions can serve as an important factor of unity and peace for the human family. On the basis of their religious convictions and their reasoned pursuit of the common good, their followers are called to give responsible expression to their commitment within a context of religious freedom. Amid the variety of religious cultures, there is a need to value those elements which foster civil coexistence, while rejecting whatever is contrary to the dignity of men and women. …
11. For the Church, dialogue between the followers of the different religions represents an important means of cooperating with all religious communities for the common good. The Church herself rejects nothing of what is true and holy in the various religions. “She has a high regard for those ways of life and conduct, precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men and women”.[13]
The path to take is not the way of relativism or religious syncretism. The Church, in fact, “proclaims, and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 14:6); in Christ, in whom God reconciled all things to himself, people find the fullness of the religious life”.[14] Yet this in no way excludes dialogue and the common pursuit of truth in different areas of life, since, as Saint Thomas Aquinas would say, “every truth, whoever utters it, comes from the Holy Spirit”.[15]
The year 2011 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the World Day of Prayer for Peace convened in Assisi in 1986 by Pope John Paul II. On that occasion the leaders of the great world religions testified to the fact that religion is a factor of union and peace, and not of division and conflict. The memory of that experience gives reason to hope for a future in which all believers will see themselves, and will actually be, agents of justice and peace.
“Does anyone for one slight moment think that this church needs the likes of Williamson et al back in the fold?”
Williams is so out there that even the SSPX has begun to distance themselves from him. See, e.g.:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8345
It’s highly likely the a future return of SSPX leaders from schism will not include Williamson himself.
I find it hard to understand why Pope Benedict, with the best of intentions I’m sure, reached out in a gesture of reconciliation to the schismatics (Lefebrites) on the right, who will still not accept the general thrust of Vatican II. They may be able to accept what is absolutely demanded of them by the Pope, but no more. He is so intent on reconciling with the likes of Williamson, but seems utterly unconcerned about the ‘silent schism’ that has been taking place for years: the exodus of Catholic who have lost hope that Vatican II will ever be fully implemented. If the Pew
surveys are correct, we have lost one-third of our Catholic population in he last ten years, where is the Pope’s concern for that one-third. I don’t see it.
Bishop Williamson probably represents the right wing of the Lefebvrites who don’t think their society should even be in conversation with “the Church of Vatican II,” as they dismissively call it. Williamson is correct that reviving “the spirit of Assisi” will make it even more difficult to reach an agreement with the schismatics.
Of course, it is easier to reach out toward the Lefebvites because they are a clearly defined group on the right. How well defined are those who constitute the exodus of the left? As for the statistic, that one-third of Catholics have been lost in the last ten years, surely this refers to U.S. Catholics, not to the total Catholic population?
Regarding the newness of the expression “world’s great religions,” here is the most closely related passage from Caritas in veritate:
55. The Christian revelation of the unity of the human race presupposes a metaphysical interpretation of the “humanum” in which relationality is an essential element. Other cultures and religions teach brotherhood and peace and are therefore of enormous importance to integral human development. Some religious and cultural attitudes, however, do not fully embrace the principle of love and truth and therefore end up retarding or even obstructing authentic human development. There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement. One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour this kind of syncretism[132] by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.
For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal[133]. Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who wield political power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of respect for the common good. Such discernment has to be based on the criterion of charity and truth. Since the development of persons and peoples is at stake, this discernment will have to take account of the need for emancipation and inclusivity, in the context of a truly universal human community. “The whole man and all men” is also the criterion for evaluating cultures and religions. Christianity, the religion of the “God who has a human face”[134], contains this very criterion within itself.
56. The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions. The Church’s social doctrine came into being in order to claim “citizenship status” for the Christian religion[135]. Denying the right to profess one’s religion in public and the right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon public life has negative consequences for true development. The exclusion of religion from the public square — and, at the other extreme, religious fundamentalism — hinders an encounter between persons and their collaboration for the progress of humanity. Public life is sapped of its motivation and politics takes on a domineering and aggressive character. Human rights risk being ignored either because they are robbed of their transcendent foundation or because personal freedom is not acknowledged. Secularism and fundamentalism exclude the possibility of fruitful dialogue and effective cooperation between reason and religious faith. Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent. For its part, religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to show its authentically human face. Any breach in this dialogue comes only at an enormous price to human development.
57. Fruitful dialogue between faith and reason cannot but render the work of charity more effective within society, and it constitutes the most appropriate framework for promoting fraternal collaboration between believers and non-believers in their shared commitment to working for justice and the peace of the human family. In the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, the Council fathers asserted that “believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordered towards man as to their centre and summit”[136]. For believers, the world derives neither from blind chance nor from strict necessity, but from God’s plan. This is what gives rise to the duty of believers to unite their efforts with those of all men and women of good will, with the followers of other religions and with non-believers, so that this world of ours may effectively correspond to the divine plan: living as a family under the Creator’s watchful eye. A particular manifestation of charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity[137], an expression of inalienable human freedom. Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those plans. Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way[138], if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.
John S, –
In fact the Christian concept of God includes notions from pagans (Plato, Aristotle), Jews of course (as recently as Moses Maimonides the medieval Jewish theologian), and Muslims (alFarabi and Avicenna). No, they are not exactly alike our concepts, but there is a lot of similarity.
Buddhism didn’t influence the Christian concept of God, but consider this summary of Buddhist teaching about the Ultimate:]
” THAT which is the Unborn, the Unmade, the Unmanifested, the Not-Made, the Unconditioned, the Truth, the Uncreated, the Unconstructed, the Not-Created, the Subtle, the Stable, the Undecaying, the Unaging, the Undying, the Deathless, the Taintless, the Peace, the Bliss, the Purity, the Excellent, the Perfection and Grandeur of Wisdom, the State of Freedom from Ill, the Release from Ill, the Nameless, the Serenity and Purity of Absolute Changeless Reality ITSELF, the Norm, the Wonderful, the Goal, the REAL.”
http://www.fundamentalbuddhism.com/buddhism.htm
And though the Hindus have many gods, there are some similarities in some of them. In one of the passages of the Bhagavad Gita, LOrd Krishna (one of the manifestations of God), says to Arjuna, a young man, “Do you not know that I love you?” So here is a god who explicitly loves his creatures too.
Zoraostrians (there are few left) believed that there was one god, the god of all and that all people were his children. He was also the god of love.
Comparative religion is fascinating. Maybe the Assisi meeting will encourage Catholics to learn more about other religions.
Bishop Williamson strikes me as the kind of person who think that only Catholics can go to heaven. It is not a heaven I would want to have any part of.
“How well defined are those who constitute the exodus of the left?”
How about VOTF, We Are the Church, Call to Action, Women’s ordination, Matthew Fox etc..
Catholic News Service has an article about Pope Benedict’s former position about “multireligious prayer” which he held at the time of the first Assisi meeting sponsored by JP II:
“At the same time, he said, it would be “wrong to reject completely and unconditionally” what he insisted was really a “multireligious prayer,” one in which members of different religions prayed at the same time for the same intention without praying together.
“In multireligious prayer, he wrote, the participants recognize that their understandings of the divine are so different “that shared prayer would be a fiction,” but they gather in the same place to show the world that their longing for peace is the same.”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100061.htm
But it seems to me that this view of several groups directing totally different prayers of offerings of homage to many different deities is too complex a description of what happened at Assisi the first time. Why? Because a simple notion of “the Ultimate” was common to all notions of deity, and, it seems to me, so long as there is even just this simple sort of commonality of understanding among those who pray/pay homge, that is enough to have a unity of will. In other words, even though the concepts of any two groups at the first meeting showed more or less agreement depending on the groups compared, there was in every case a fundamental agreement about the Ultimate, and in some cases there was a concept of an Ultimate who is creator and absolute Good.
Maybe Benedict has come to see this. Unfortunately, for the likes of Bishop Williamson this is more reason to think that Benedict has gone astray.
So far as I know there are no more Manichees — no more major religiouns who thing that there can be a god who is not good. No, not all religions see God as a personal God, a loving father in contact with His children. But all, so far as I can see, believe that He is a an absolute, unchanging, good reality. And isn’t that enough to say that we all direct our prayer, our homage to the same Reality?
Consider what happens when
Bill: I think you’ve made my case for me. Have you ever seen the catalogue for the annual convention of Call to Action?
Joe, you have to be more specific. Secondly, does your disparaging apply to the other organizations that I listed?
The bishop is correct. He’s merely repeating the unchanging and unchangeable truth of the Catholic Church.
“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”
And as the bishop stated clearly: “All being requires a First Cause. That Cause, to be the First, must be Being Itself, which must be all-perfect being, because any second god, to differ from the First, would have to have some perfection lacking to the First. So the true God can only be one. This one true God took human nature once, and only once, in the divine Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who proved his divinity by a quantity and quality of miracles that have accompanied no other man ever, but have accompanied his Church ever since : the Roman Catholic Church. Membership of that Church is by faith and is open to all men. If they believe, that is the indispensable start of their eternal salvation. If they refuse to believe, they are on their way to eternal damnation (Mk. XVI, 16).
It seems like many are truly ignorant of the Catholic faith and more inclined towards the modernist heresy that has plagued the Church and kept people from knowing, loving and serving God for more than a century in favor of placating their feelings about God, Heaven, Hell, Judgment and Sin.
The organizations you have cited, Bill, are not identical, don’t pursue the same goals, have no common organization, are not, in short, well-defined. Taken singly, Call to Action and We Are the Church” are the least well-defined.
Pretty sure Mark 16 doesn’t say anything about the Roman Catholic Church, let alone the necessity of being in it.
@Abe–You have it backwards, it’s the Catholic Church that defined the Gospel of Mark as being inspired.
Unless of course you doubt the veracity of the Gospels or the Church’s authority to declare them inspired. If that’s the case, why comment at all? The bishop is repeating the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church. Period.
Gerard, read Luke 15, not to mention those scriptural passages where Jesus reminds his listeners (Jews, not Catholics like us) that God allows the rain to fall on the just and the unjust, that we should accept the challenge to love those who do not love us. The God portrayed by Jesus is a God of unconditional love.
Pastor Komonchak, I agree with your observations. Instead of the groups mentioned by Bill, we might consider other Catholic churches not in formal communion with Rome, e.g., the Old Catholic Church, the PNCC, as well as independent Catholic parishes with married and/or female presbyters. Perhaps a key distinction here (one you suggest) is that of group vs. church.
Gerard, it is you who have it backwards: What the RCC “defined” as canonical does not include any reference to the RCC. Furthermore, Jesus in the gospels is portrayed as preaching, teaching, performing miracles, expelling demons, and observing the genuine obligations of the Jewish faith, not any kind of “Christianity”. Indeed, the Christian religion (of which the Catholic and Orthodox Communions are the oldest churches) came about primarily because (a) the Jesus followers were seen as troublemakers in the Temple and synagogues and, as a result, (b) the Roman authorities denied Christians the rights extended Jews, thus forcing the primitive followers of Jesus to set up their own communities for religious and social support.
Even a future pope observed more than 40 years ago that “facts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine” (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010).
We’re talking historical fact, Gerard, not doctrinal belief.
Even theology is customarily defined as “faith seeking understanding”.
One source of our Christian/Catholic understanding is history.
To clarify my previous comments, because the Jesus followers were perceived as religious troublemakers by devout Jews, these earliest Christians were kicked out of Jewish communities, thus (as noted above) forcing our primitive ancestors in the faith to set up their own communities that would not be able to enjoy the rights given Jews under Roman law.
As for the word ‘catholic’, its earliest extant reference is in a letter of Ignatius ca. 110 AD, if I remember.
In the end as Ratzinger acknowledged, history trumps non-infallible doctrine.
I’m reeeeeaaalllly not sure about the above scenario for the emergence of a “Christian” as distinct from Jewish church, but insofar as such is not the real subject of this thread, I’ll let that bugger of a beast alone!
When did the Church Fathers assert that “believers and non-believers agree almost unanimously that all things should be ordered towards man as to their centre and summit”, for if it is true that for believers the world derives from God’s plan, and if it is true that Christ received all authority from His Father, then should not all things on earth be ordered towards The Truth of Love in conformity with The Divine Will?
Mr. Rosenzweig, the earlest Christians were of/from the Jewish faith; gentiles would enter Christianity later (albeit not that much later).
On separate note, I overlooked the Oriental Orthodox Christians as also among the oldest churches.
Joseph, God’s unconditional love is not divorced from either His infinite mercy nor his infinite justice. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” It’s a simple statement, those who do not keep His commandments do not love Him and consequently, they will not enter into Heaven.
Re: the authority of the Church to speak on matters. The “Roman” part of the Catholic Church, Mother and Mistress of all Churches, was founded by St. Peter by virtue of the authority given to him by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It was that same authority that “defined” which books were indeed the inspired Word of God. The appeal to the Gospels in an attempt to undermine the legitimate authority that gives the Gospels their credibility is a tautology at best.
Re: Jesus in the Gospels. The failure to see the traditions and practices of the Church foreshadowed in ancient Judaism is simply that. A failure on your part.
Re: The quote from Ratzinger. A quote referencing the epscopal power of the local ordinaries growing after the second Vatican Council really has nothing to do with the point being debated. The problem of de facto episcopal power vs. de jure papal supremacy is simply the fact that for practical purposes, the power of the Pope has been diminished compared to the pre-conciliar era. That is part of the reason why Ratzinger would later lament that the crisis in the Church was due to the “collapse of the liturgy” and as late as 2004 he referred to the situation as personally sorrowing for “the liturgical ruins” we find in the Church.
Re: History: Devout Jews became Christians, the rest became apostates because they had missed the time of their visitation. Judaism ceased to be the true religion once the veil in the Temple was torn on Good Friday.
I sincerely hope the eternal bliss of Gerard and the happy few faithful who sail upon the Barque of Peter will not be unduly diminished by passing thoughts of other Christians, Jews (who missed the boat), and you-name-it, all suffering the torments of Hell. Whatever floats your boat.
What does God do with all the spare rooms?
Those who suffer the torments of Hell simply are enjoying the fruits of their choices. God has revealed the way to salvation, wide is the road to perdition and narrow the way to salvation. How God acts in the last moments of some non-Catholic given a particular grace to enter the Church before the last moments is known only to God. We can speculate on infused knowledge, a movement of the will, miraculous sacraments given outside of the sight of man. But let’s not pretend that the Church or God is cruel in order to justify dissent, heresy and apostasy.
“But let’s not pretend that the Church or God is cruel in order to justify dissent, heresy and apostasy.”
I wouldn’t dream of it. Good luck with spreading the good news of salvation.
Gerard, you contradict yourself: On the one hand, you acknowledge the reality of God’s uncondtional love, but, on the other hand, you have Jesus introducing a condition (obey the commandments) for entrance to heaven.
Again, read Luke 15: It is God who does the finding in all three parables. The prodigal son is *unrepentant*, and the older lad has also offended his father. Yet the father (God) orders preparation of a feast and reassures the older son that he, too, will get his share of the inheritance. It is God who does the “heavy lifting” for our salvation, not man.
Contrary to your assertion, Peter DID NOT found the “‘Roman’ part of the Catholic Church”. Christian communities were already in Rome before Peter’s arrival.
The scriptural passage involving Jesus’ reference to a “church” was an interpolation if one understands it to mean the institutional apparatus we have had since the Resurrection. Jesus and his immediate disciples knew only the Jewish faith and its priesthood.
Foreshadowing proves nothing. In fact, please give me an OT passage to use the next time I find a twenty-dollar bill — or stub my toe!
As for the supposed diminishment of papal power since Vatican II, let us remember that the earliest bishops of Rome did not wield the power and authority that would become associated with later popes. Indeed, it would not have been uncommon for bishops of distant sees to tell a Roman bishop to mind his own business if they saw him interfering in their local church affairs. The papacy has not always been a monarchy.
Your last paragraph, sad to say, enjoys no historical or theological support.
What’s the deal William? Are you worried that truth of the Catholic faith, may be attractive and therefore bring about requirements and responsibilities and ultimately lead to a change of lifestyle? So you rely on strawman arguments instead of dealing with the real thing?
The Church teaches that all are given sufficient grace to enter the Church and attain salvation. The hard fact is that there is only one way to God and other religions, various denominations of so-called “Christianity” as well as modern day Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, Satanism and Modernism and secularism are all in the end false-religions. They are all superstition and ultimately excuses for people to not enter the Church.
“IAM THE Way, and THE Truth, and THE Life, no one comes to The Father except through me.”- THE Christ
Gerard: What do you make of Pope Benedict’s stated desire to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Assisi meeting and to revive ‘the spirit of Assisi”?
On the possibilities of non-Catholics being saved: Vatican II:
LG 14: That the Church is necessary for salvation means that “anyone who might know that the Catholic Church has been made ncessary by God through Jesus Christ, and would refuse to enter her or to remain in her, could not be saved.”
LG 16: How non-Christians and even non-theists can be saved.
UR 3: the “sacred actions” carried out in non-Catholic Christian communities “can truly engender a life of grace and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation. It follows that these separated Churches and Communities…have by no means been deprived of signficance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
GS 22: “All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. Since Christ died for all men and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we must believe that the Holy Spirit, in a manner known only to God, offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.”
Yes, Nancy, and your point?
Joseph, You seem to think that unconditional love means that life is unconditional. That is where you are confused. Are the commandments of God good things that help us be directed towards God? Are they helps towards salvation or impediments to our freedom? Do you resent the “stop sign” on the road or is it there to prevent calamity? Does the person who warns of the danger and establishes rules and boundaries to keep people safe love more than the person that lets people fall to injury without a warning?
Secondly, a “christian community” is not an episcopal see. So, Peter did establish the Church in Rome, the historical record is clear on that.
On your interpretation of Jesus’ words and His intention to establish a new Church along with a New and Everlasting Covenant, it’s simply wrong.
Obviously the earliest Popes were not weilders of great temporal power any more than a seed is the flower in bloom. But the primacy of the Roman See is historically documented.
My final paragraph is factually correct both historically and theologically. Your saying it’s not, doesn’t negate it.
There is only One Truth of Love.
Gerard -
You better look out. You spent your earlier life believing in what Rome told you, now in your older age you are rejecting chunks of the documents of Vatican II (approved by the bishops and popes) who said that not all non-Catholics are going to Hell. Better watch your step.
This Bishop Williamson whose opinions you seem inclined towards is the one who thinks that the Nazis killed only a few Jews — but he can’t account for where the other 5,990,000 disappeared to. Is that the sort of “authority” into whose hands you’re willing to put your soul — a man who misplaced almost 6 million people? Risky, I’d say.
Joseph,
Benedict is an old liberal who has a Hegelian philosophy of trying to create balances in order to establish truths. I have no idea what his plans are for the Assisi meeting. He could make the situation worse or try to “preach Christ crucified” in order to salvage something from the devastating damage done by Pope John Paul II.
Vatican II actually does not explicitly state that non-Catholics can be saved. It simply states in its verbal slobberiness that any graces active in non-Catholic communities or in the souls of non-Catholics are being used to draw people into the Church. Someone may find a belief in God through philosophy or through a so-called “Church” and it may be a stepping stone towards the full revelation of the Catholic Church.
This is ultimately no different than that taught by St. Pius X in his catechism with the term “…on the road to salvation.” That road must lead to the Catholic Church.
Ann,
I grew up in the post-conciliar Church, lost my faith in esssence, swam around in agnostic, comparative mythology, eastern philosophy and sample a whole host of various schools of thought and belief.
The documents of Vatican II are ambiguous at their best. They are only approved in a form that coincides with previous magisterial interpretations. I would suggest you read “In the Murky Waters of Vatican II” by Atila Sinke Guimareas or at least some of the works of the late Michael Davies if you’re interested in the proper understanding of what happened at the Council and how it was implemented.
It the the Holy Father himself who in “Principles of Catholic Theology” stated that Vatican II could turn out to have been ” a waste of time.”
As far as Bishop Williamson goes, years ago after reading terrible things about him, I decided that “nobody could be this crazy” so, I forked about a considerable investment and listened to over 20 hours of interviews with him over a 20 year period. I’ve researched his theological statements, he is a Thomist scholar, well versed in Augustine and virtually every saint in the Church.
His comments on his opinions concerning secular dogmas like the Holocaust and Evolution and other matters are simply minority opinions. It’s the reaction against his unpopular statements that is evidence of the closed-minded. In reaction to that uproar, I’m currently reading Thomas Dalton’s “Debating the Holocaust” and started to look into it. At a later date I may come to a solid conclusion, but to be intellectually honest, we take a lot of information on faith alone in our education. So, hearing a different argument is not necessarily a bad thing. I for one would be very happy if the scale of such an event were found to be far less than previously thought or promoted. Only a ghoulish personality would not look for that ray of hope.
“What’s the deal William? Are you worried that truth of the Catholic faith, may be attractive and therefore bring about requirements and responsibilities and ultimately lead to a change of lifestyle? So you rely on strawman arguments instead of dealing with the real thing?”
I just think this rhetoric is cartoonish, is all. It wins arguments by silencing critics, mostly because few wish to engage in such monochromatic debate. It doesn’t win souls to Christ, and I dare say it pushes people away who don’t already respond to insider rhetoric. It seems to me an unhealthy rhetoric, more bitter pill than nourishing banquet.
But be justified in your splendid temple of truth, if you wish.
William,
My “rhetoric” as you call it is more substantive than your sarcasm. And I believe that I’ve nailed you on your motivation for creating strawmen.
” I for one would be very happy if the scale of such an event were found to be far less than previously thought or promoted.”
And what will convince you that the commonly accepted figures are NOT correct?
Gerard, I think that you’re an Anti-Semite, ergo the kiss-off.
Mr Jaglowicz, fear not! I am definitely aware of the Jewish matrix of Christianity. My disagreement with your scenario stems from a general interest in keeping in mind the very muddy picture we have of any “parting of the ways,” and, more specifically, the fact that I’m not confident that we have much evidence of systematic expulsion of Jewish Jesus followers from the synagogues. Rather, what we do know is that Gentile communities of Jesus followers were already thriving in the time of Paul’s missionary activities (i.e. the late 40s and 50s). There is no indication that these groups came into existence as a result of Jewish hostility; on the contrary, these groups were still interactig with Jerusalem-based Jesus followers, and these latter were still engaged in Jewish life. We don’t have as clear of a picture of what happened to these Palestinian-based Jewish Jesus followers after 70 and especially 135.
The use of “rhetoric” on my part was not meant to be pejorative. The use of “cartoonish” and “insider” as modifiers was. Why? Talking about the (Catholic) Church in this way–which I read as pugilistic and triumphant–is not to my ears a healthy rhetoric. It wins few second dates. It gets boring because it wants to preach truth rather than dialogue with fellow travelers along the road. I worry that it comes far to close to picking fights in a bar.
Jesus’ own rhetoric–difficult and strange as it was–is more compelling. Rhetorically speaking, I prefer the open hand to the closed fist–and announcing that everyone except us is bound for perdition is a closed fist.
“And what will convince you that the commonly accepted figures are NOT correct?”
There seem to be a lot of arguments out there already. I’m not versed in them well enough to be comfortable agreeing with them. Simultaneously, the questions raised make me no longer comfortable relying on the various proponents of the commonly accepted narrative.
In the competition between two positions, the arguments, counterarguments rebuttals and evidence presented would dictate what level of certitude I would have for any position.
No one can say that Bishop Williamson’s position as he stated it was unreasonable. His conclusion (he says) was based on his reading of the evidence and if he read persuasive arguments to the contrary he would change his opinion.
As it stands now, the disproportionate hysteria launched against anyone who doubts, questions or has a different conclusion stands as a marker of “something wrong.”
The fact that people are imprisoned for these questions, opinions, conclusions is the position of a society lacking certitude and therefore trying to quash opposition.
Gerard –
One of the best people I’ve ever known (I’m judging by his generous actions) was a Frenchman who was a member of the Free French forces in WWII. He was on one of the first American jeeps to enter Auschwitz or Belsen or one of the concentration camps. I have every reason to think he told the truth.
But there is no arguing with people like you. You don’t *want* to believe it, so you don’t. So I won’t argue with you anymore. Just remember: practically the whole world has seen what it considers convincing evidence that you are wrong. We don’t *like* to think that humans are capable of such evil. Yet because the evidence is overwhelming, we do believe it. You might ask yourself, “Why don’t I?”
William,
As Chesterton said, “”These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”
What I find boring and worthless is a watered down meally-mouthed, false sense of charity that borders on cowardice. And any “dialogue” that doesn’t lead to conversion to the one, true faith is a waste of time. The blind leading the blind and they both fall into the ditch.
Jesus was Triumphal in his speech and actions. He was pugilistic when he needed to be. He didn’t commission his Church to go and “dialogue” he told them ” Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Jesus was also personal, actions only had merit or meaning “done in MY name.” He was not some peddler of practical wisdom, no different than Confucious or Plato or the Upanishads.
It’s the false accusations of triumphalism and such that are actually attempts to shackle the Church into joining a syncretic culture and indifferent population.
The warning of St. Pius X is coming to pass: “And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. “
I think Peter AND Paul get joint credit for “founding” the church in Rome.
However, I seem to have read that there was a fledgling church there already when they arrived – attributable (again, I think) to the ministrations of James the brother of Jesus.
So who “founded” the church in Rome? Certainly not Peter by himself, it at all.
” — competition between two positions, — ”
Some positions are based in and on fact. Other “positions” are based on nothing but biased thinking.
“Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero
“Never ascribe to malice what can be sufficiently explained by stupidity.” Mark Twain
Ann,
I would recommend you do your own research. There are differences between “evidence” and “testimony” especially considering the fact that you can’t tell for sure what camp the person you mentioned was referring to. It shows the level of “willingness to believe” that we are prone to indulge in when competing positions are not allowed to be presented.
You obviously are an apostle for a certain position, not based on a real study but rather on what you “want” to believe. I’m not at the point where I want to argue for a certain position. I’m more interested in the fact that researching something and taking in different sides is rational and reasonable.
Gerard: I think you came to the wrong page. You should be @ The Wanderer. They’ll LOVE your ideas/”positions” there.
Those who lived through the Holocaust know that words can not even begin to describe the evil of the Holocaust.
“Hearing a different argument is not necessarily a bad thing.” Where have we heard that argument before?
Jimmy,
Peter had the primacy of place. He established the episcopla see in Rome.
James was not the brother of Jesus, he was a cousin like Jude.
People throwing people in jail for holding positions on a matter of history aren’t working from a position of “strength” in terms of “facts” they are dogmatizing. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking a coerced position based on faith is serious objective history.
It’s funny how it’s expressed here that I should doubt my religion but take secular history on faith, or face ridicule. (which is fine, I just like pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals)
All right, we’ve all had a little run into various tangents. Perhaps it’s time to close this thread?
Nancy,
It seems from my research that not all of the people who were in the camps agreed on the details and extent of the suffering that went on. It was those people that actually started the questioning of the conclusions. And it also is apparent that researchers of good reputation have come to different conclusions from other researchers that vary in the millions from the largest to smallest estimates.
We also know that alot of propaganda has never been clearly denounced enough as such. We know that the shrunken heads, and some of the more outlandish stories have been dropped while new stories are made out of whole cloth that didn’t occur but claim by their authors to have been true.
Gerard, there are at least four levels of conflict, and your comments introduce conflict based on values (the other levels being conflict based on fact, method, and goals). As another organizational trainer and I used to tell our medical center participants, conflict over values can be the most difficult to resolve, if, indeed, it can be resolved at all.
Now to your reply earlier:
a. Your view that the commandments are like a STOP sign is fallacious. JPII is said to have observed that we make our own hells. To me, this is psychological truth. Jesus, I remind you, not only told listeners to sin no more, but he also instructed them to forgive indefinitely. It would stand to reason, I think, that God the Father (through the Son) would not demand more of us than God would demand of himself. As I’ve noted on dotCom and NCROnline, the act of forgiving benefits the one doing the forgiving, not necessarily (or at all) the one being forgiven. Jesus knew psychology! Again, Luke 15 demonstrates the unconditional love of God. It is love, not condemnation, that ultimately saves us. The prodigal son, like the lost coin and sheep, is “lost”, but the Father receives this young lad back anyway — without conditions!
b. There is no evidence that Peter saw himself as a bishop/pope. For more on this subject, I recommend Francis Sullivan’s FROM APOSTLES TO BISHOPS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EPISCOPACY IN THE EARLY CHURCH and Richard McBrien’s LIVES OF THE POPES.
c. Your assertion about Jesus establishing a new church is simply wrong. Your comments reflect doctrinal belief, not historical fact.
d. Is “the primacy of the Roman See… historically documented”? Yes, but the documentation supports primacy only so far back in time. Again, see McBrien’s and Sullivan’s work.
e. Your statement that those Jews who did not embrace the Christian faith “became apostates” indicates your lack of knowledge of the word ‘apostate’. Your belief that “Judaism ceased to be the true religion” reflects a values-based judgment, and the rest of us, I suspect, are going to disagree with you.
Gerard, I also recommend James Tunstead Burtchaell’s FROM SYNAGOGUE TO CHURCH: PUBLIC SERVICES AND OFFICES IN THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES.
Mr. Rosenzweig, I agree that the picture of this very earliest period is “muddy”, but would you not agree that Jewish hostility was, nonetheless, part of this scenario?
Joseph,
I suggest you stop reading heretics of dubious intelligence and limited scholarship like the agenda-driven Richard McBrien. McBrien is a poor man’s Karl Rahner who sought to impose his own personal experience universally on the Church. What’s next? Tielhard de Chardin’s “Phenomenon of Man?”
a) Commandments being like a “stop sign” is not fallacious. JPII was simply spreading ambiguity around a concept clearly taught by Aquinas. Also, again you are it seems purposely ignoring the concept of Justice as if it is nullified by forgiveness. Jesus also said that sins against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven. He also said he that is not with Me is against Me. Jesus also gave the Apostles instructions and the power to hold bound those sins that they would hold bound. And the act of making reparation benefits the person who has been forgiven more than the one doing the forgiving. Jesus knew far more than psychology. And Luke chapter 13 demonstrates that people of their own free will, will choose sin and damnation rather than God despite His willingness to forgive.
b) I would recommend “Jesus Peter and the Keys” by Butler Dahlgren and Hess and Jurgens’ “Faith of the Early Fathers.”
c) Claiming my assertion is wrong, does not make it wrong. As is your false assertion that a doctrinal belief and a historical fact aren’t both true.
d) McBrien is a dishonest, agenda driven, heretic. Years ago I watched Malachi Martin make a fool of him on ABC’s Nightline. Even America magazine, called his work “unreliable” and his editorial decisions “questionable.”
e) The law of non-contradiction is what informs me that Judaism ceased to be the true religion when the Catholic Church was founded by Christ. Talmudic Judaism views Christ as the ultimate apostate, (yes I do know what the term means- “to stand away from” which is what the Jews who rejected Christ did. They removed themselves from the fulfillment of their covenant. )
And God bless you, too, “Gerard”.
Joseph J. ==
Isn’t it interesting how name-callers often refuse to give their own names. Theyre kind of like Ninjas == they throw stones while they remain invisible. Clever. Or is it cowardly?
Gerard, regarding the merits of Assisi-ism, whether Econian Catholicism is a good interpretation of true Roman Catholicism, and your conflicts with Joseph Jaglowicz, much depends upon whether the gospels, as you say (and let me add the book of Acts) are historically reliable.
But why should we accept this claim? Because of internal inconsistencies (Matthew v. Luke on whether Joseph and Mary can make their peaceful return from Bethlehem through Jerusalem to Nazareth if a blood bath apparently not worth mentioning is underway, the Great Commission to the disciples in Matthew v. the disciples in Acts on mission to Gentiles, Matthew v. Acts on whether the priests or Judas himself buys the Potter’s Field, or how about the combination of (i) the Annunciation, (ii) the visit from the Magi, and (iii) the whole nunc dimittis thing in the temple, but nevertheless we find Mary and the rest of the family thinking Jesus is out of his mind when he speaks about who he is) and because of lack of support from external sources (slaughter of the innocents, the census, Matthew’s Star Show Extravaganza, Pilate as a man who frets over how to avoid the wrath of the leaders of a conquered people), how can a prudent person accept the claim that the gospels and the book of Acts are historically reliable? (Notice I haven’t questioned claims about miracles or a resurrection because of any alleged anti-supernaturalist bias.) How many contradictions and unsupported claims should it take for the prudent person to reject this most basic claim of the apologist, that these texts are historically reliable, from which the apologist will then build the rest of his or her case regarding Jesus claiming divine authority, signs and wonders attesting to that authority, and the use of that authority to establish the Roman Catholic Church and no others?
Why do I focus on what a prudent person would make of this stuff? Here’s where I hope to appeal to a shared premise and so not waste your time:
St. Thomas says God uses creatures to govern his creation. Humans play their part in that governance and flourish by means of free prudent acts. Now, God wouldn’t rescue those humans by making them abandon that which makes them flourish, free prudent acts, right? Otherwise God wouldn’t be rescuing them but attacking them.
It seems that, following Thomas and God, as I bet you’d like to, we must be prudent, and because we must be prudent, we must reject your premise that the gospels and Acts are historically reliable, and reject claims which require the these texts to be historically reliable. Now after rejecting this premise, I don’t know where we are supposed to find materials with which to build up the exclusivist case. Because this is so, we can take another look at Assisi-ism.
Is traditionalist Roman Catholicism now part of your past? You can accept inerrancy and inspiration but take the Bible to be full of inerrant and inspired symbols for you to encounter, symbols that will bring you deeper into the experience of interpreting natural theology’s “presence of immensity” as “love”, interpreting that “love” as drawing you into transformative “friendship” with it, and also interpreting the proclaimed Jesus of its books as parable of God and paradigm of humanity. Now doesn’t that sound fun, Gerard? Hey, this doesn’t have to be the end of the world. And besides, the old mass can work well as a symbol for this stuff too. Didn’t Loisy and Tyrrell celebrate the old mass? Dominus vobiscum.
I invite you to think again about Rahner and McBrien. They’re sharp and might help you, and wherever they fail to make their case, you’re not obliged to follow them. If you are competent enough to condemn them, aren’t you competent enough not to follow then when and if they err. And if so, what’s the danger? Enjoy it, and then offer your McBrien-enjoyment to God, living your life from blessing to blessing.
Returning to the core issue of the thread – namely the inter-religious prayer for peace. I do not see how participating in such an event can imply religious indifferentism. For the record, while at first I was enticed by Rahner’s “anonymous Christian”, I am no longer when I heard the critique by Schillebeeckx who as I recall suggested that it was a pretty arrogant concept; like a Buddhist referring to a Christian as an “anonymous Buddhist”.
Still, religious minded Christians have a mission in this world marked by violence. We should be celebrating the contribution that the Church can make to the world by bringing religious leaders together, that in itself is a form of evangalization.
As to Bishop Williamson, I am reminded of the story of St. Dominic spending all night in the inn discussing theology with one of the Albigenses. As one commentator pointed out, St. Dominic obviously did not spend all night telling him how wrong he was about everything. As an aside, from what I understand Albigenses were vegans which is enough for me to support the Church’s concern at the time. ;)
Although it is true that man is the center and the summit of God’s creation, to say that “all things on earth should be ordered towards man as to their centre and summit”, sounds too much like relativism.
I would not be surprised if Pope Benedict at Assisi prays that Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph sooner, rather than later.
When did the Church Fathers assert that “believers and non-believers agree almost unanimously that all things should be ordered towards man as to their centre and summit”…?
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.” Genesis 1:27-28
for if it is true that for believers the world derives from God’s plan, and if it is true that Christ received all authority from His Father, then should not all things on earth be ordered towards The Truth of Love in conformity with The Divine Will?
Why would being ordered toward man be different from being ordered toward the Truth of Love…?
“Why would being ordered toward man be different from being ordered toward the Truth of Love…
We are not God. The Word of God is The Word of Perfect Love.
In agreement with Nancy, we need to remember that man is created in the image of God and is to be a reflection of His love.
Rather than making ourselves (i.e., Man; a reflection of God) the center of our attention, we do better to look toward God Himself.
I should say
“…we do better to try and look toward God Himself.”
Hello Fr. Komonchak,
Bishop Williamson probably represents the right wing of the Lefebvrites who don’t think their society should even be in conversation with “the Church of Vatican II,” as they dismissively call it.
I can’t help the feeling that there is a calculation being made in Rome that some, but not all, of SSPX can be brought back into the fold. This is no doubt why they are (relatively) pleased to have Bishop Fellay, not Williamson, as their primary interlocutor.
Which is not to say that a full concord even with the seemingly more moderate faction led by Fellay will be easy.
Of course, it is easier to reach out toward the Lefebvites because they are a clearly defined group on the right.
It seems ecclesiological in perception. Anything that looks like schism, where the leadership has apostolic succession, has always been more dreaded in Rome, because history shows that schisms become harder to resolve with every year that passes. Dissent on the left has not had that kind of formal manifestation – so far.
But it may also be true that there is a significant chunk of the curial leadership, including the Pope, that feels more affinity (not to be overstated, however) with traditionalists than they do with factions on the other end of the spectrum.
As I recall, then-Cardinal Ratzinger was one of the harsher critics of the 1986 Assisi meeting. I would be surprised if this year’s meeting doesn’t look rather different in tone and substance than 1986′s did. If so, the likely reaction of the SSPX leadership will be at best a very secondary consideration.
Gerard, Father Richard McBrien is a validly ordained priest in good standing of the archdiocese of Hartford, teaching theology at the University of Notre Dame with the permission of his ordinary, Archbishop Henry Mansell. By what authority do you get to decide he is a heretic? The magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church has not done so. Do you and others who continually disparage Father McBrien claim to be a parallel or alternate magisterium? It is fine to critique his work and argue against his ideas, although it would serve all involved better if that is done specifically, citing specific examples, and with at least a modicum of Christianity. It is calumny to call Father McBrien a heretic. David Philippart, National Federation of Priests Councils.
“James was not the brother of Jesus, he was a cousin like Jude.”
Your point has been and remains debatable. There are differing reputable opinions about that, i.e., that he might have been a half-brother of Jesus.
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.html
I understand your position because it is the only one possible IF you accept the perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus.
Again, there are other credible theological opinions, irrespective of the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon in 451:
“There are several passages that mention the siblings of Jesus (Mt. 12:46ff; 13:55-56). Catholics appeal to the fact that the term ‘brother’ (adelphos) is *sometimes* used in a broader, kindred sense, e.g., ‘cousins.’ While adelphos (which literally means, ‘out of the same womb’) is employed loosely on occasion in some literature, in the New Testament adelphos is never used for a ‘cousin.’ The word anepsioi signifies that relationship (cf. Col. 4:10).”
Another possibility, of course, is that James is a son of Joseph from a prior marriage. Scriptures say nothing either way about Joseph’s background prior to marrying Mary.
Bishop Williamson’s remarks regarding Assisi are in total conformity with Pope Pius XI’s Papal Encyclical MORTALIUM ANIMOS published January 6, 1928. In this encyclical, Pius XI reiterates the constant teaching of the Catholic Church regarding false religions.
“Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises. . . .
I agree that Bishop Willamson’s views are in accord with “Mortalium animos”; but the present Pope has no less authority than Pius XI, and Vatican II, an ecumenical council, has more authority than a papal encyclical, particularly on a matter of discipline, such as whether Catholics may take part in ecumenical or inter-religious meetings or pray together.
What David Philippart said.
But back to the subject of the thread.
The current pope seems to have a penchant for recapitulation. His whole approach seems to be “redoing” the recent past (or, with vesture, redoing more distant models). So while I would be pleased to think that he wants to affirm something and build upon it directly, I also suspect he wants to “redo” Asissi in some way. How, precisely, I don’t know. The outreach to the SSPX seems in a way to be a “redo” also, of a split he experienced and didn’t want to happen.
I wonder how history will view this pope. I can imagine he is much concerned by religious violence today and perhaps belatedly has realized that the people who launched “A Common Word” were right in the main. But I worry that he is going to leave his mark not as a leader but as a critic.
Hmm. Interesting, Rita. Benedict also seems to have tried to re-do Vatican II. Maybe you’re on to something.
Kip,
There is nothing called “Econian Catholicism” it is simply Catholicism in its fullness.
Re: Internal inconsistencies in the Bible. I reject the premise. A simple reading over the catena aurea or the notes from the Haydock Bible shows that these supposed inconsistencies are not inconsistent at all and were dealt with harmoniously centuries ago.
For one example, your timeline is way off concerning the Nativity, the Presentation and the much later visit of the Magi and the Slaughter of the Holy Innocents. To call complementarity contradiction is simply erroneous. The fact that one Gospel account may refer to the Angel appearing to Joseph and another doesn’t mention it but rather refers to the Annunciation does not mean the Angel could have only appeared to one of them.
If you would like, I will explain all of your examples.
The fact that you and those you espouse would call these things contradictions when they clearly are not would not be the work of a prudent person. So, your whole premise fails for the dissenting McBrien/Rahner, Raymond Brown concoctions which they trick people into thinking is Catholicism.
“Is traditionalist Roman Catholicism now part of your past?”
No. I was taught a post-Vatican II liberal Catholicism and found it empty and wanting.
Re: the reformulation of God as “love” or “the force” etc. That Joseph Campbell picture is sincerely lacking and ultimately unfulfilling because it is a fiction.
Your “paradigm of humanity” concept is probably simply an inverse of the seductive tale told by the serpent in the garden.
“Now doesn’t that sound fun, Gerard?”
No. I’ve been down that road. It’s a tiny god that is presented and alot of self-worship. It’s a pseudo-belief system built on doubt.
“I invite you to think again about Rahner and McBrien.”
Thank you. I’m sure I will revisit them again shortly. I invite you to explore Roman Amerio’s Iota Unum, Atila Sinke Guimaraes 11 volume “Eli Eli Lamma Sabacthani” series on Vatican II and for the older folks. Cardinal Siri’s “Gethsemane” in which he evaluates the modern theologians Rahner, Du Lubec and shows exactly where their errors are and consequences of their thinking. For a more balanced philosophy with a modern flair I would recommend Dietrich Von Hildebrand’s works.
“By what authority do you get to decide he is a heretic?”
His heresy is manifest. I don’t need authority to see what is manifest. Are you claiming that if someone denies the Assumption of the Virgin boldly that I can’t determine that is heresy?
“The magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church has not done so. Do you and others who continually disparage Father McBrien claim to be a parallel or alternate magisterium?”
No. Hiding behind canonical standing is not relevant. If a man commits a crime and is not caught by the police, the reality of the crime is not negated. But rather it is a Spiritual work of mercy to rebuke the sinner as well as a blessing to hunger and thirst for justice.
“It is fine to critique his work and argue against his ideas, although it would serve all involved better if that is done specifically, citing specific examples, and with at least a modicum of Christianity.”
“Christianity” by McBrien’s definition or the Catholic Church’s definition? Does McBrien believe that the Church does not have the power or authority to ordain women? Does McBrien believe in the Devil? Does McBrien believe that the Catholic Church of today is the same Church founded by Jesus Christ?
McBrien doesn’t fairly critique the ideas, traditions and teachings that he dissents from. Why should anyone treat him and his poisonous,scandalous ideas with anything other than scorn?
“It is calumny to call Father McBrien a heretic.”
No it isn’t. Fr. McBrien engages in calumny and heresy when he denounces traditional Catholic practices like Eucharistic Adoration or the Traditional Latin Liturgy.
I just remembered another example of Fr. Richard McBrien’s utter liturgical and sacramental stupidity. In one of his critiques, he argued against the Traditional Latin Mass because the Pater Noster was “almost anticlimactic” by being said after the consecration. As if the consecration wasn’t the climactic moment of the Mass but “handshaking” was.
He is a man of narrow vision presenting himself as one of broad vision. It’s a case of the blind leading the blind and they both fall into the pit.
As a theologian who participated, a bishop/cardinal entrusted with interpreting and now as Pope, Benedict XVI will probably be seen as the authentic voice of V2. While interpretations may diverge, isolating or ignoring his dedication to the Council will be judged as ignoring the Church.
That does not mean that all of his opinions will be accepted. Nor does it mean that our understanding of his positions is the one that will prevail. His “outreach” to SSPX may be seen as a challenge to their intransigence, as a way to get them to acknowledge the truth of the Council. No matter what changes he makes at Assissi, it will not be a ‘redo’, but the original event will be understood in terms of what he does. It may look different to us, but it will look like a continuation to the historians of the future. What he says and does reflects a deep devotion to the Council, and that dedication will be acknowledged by those who care to judge.
Nancy & Ken,
you have a right to your opinion.
For myself, I will take the position that is put in the mouth of God in the first chapter of our scripture, and which was repeated by the Pope in his teaching capacity. If God loves Man so deeply, I am going to try and incorporate that perspective in my own faith.
Gerard, dispense your mercy elsewhere.
Jim McK, I don’t know how you can be so sure. Any number of historical figures who are positioned as authoritative voices can later be judged to have missed the mark or led others into a cul-de-sac. He’ll be judged by his deeds.
;)
In reading this thread I kept thinking about the poltical divisions spotlighted by the Tuscon murders.
The divisions here are equally clear and as per Rita: I don’t think the aAssissi gathering will do much to breach them.
BXVI is again on the attack of “Christianophobia” where the murders of innocent Christians in some Muslim countries is conflated with the secular Europe,
I wis I could see a unifying watershed moment in our Church (just as in our country) down the road, but postures and emphases are too rigidly set in most quarters for a significant movement that way.
Although we may not know what Pope Benedict will do or say as he participates in ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue, we do know he won’t compromise The Truth:-)
Mr. Rosenzweig, I’ve come across two pieces of information about the earliest Judeo-Christian relations and offer them for what perspective they may shed on the subject:
“”The constantly strained relations between the fretful mother church in Judaea and the increasingly gentile communities which Paul had founded were regularly assuaged by subsidies sent to Jerusalem. A series of droughts and famines in Judaea made this largesse necessary, but it was also politically helpful. How the funds traveled across borders in violation of imperial restrictions (the Jewish temple tax was granted a rare and explicit exemption) is not clear.”
James Tunstead Burtchaell. FROM SYNAGOGUE TO CHURCH: PUBLIC SERVICES AND OFFICES IN THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES. Cambridge University Press, 1992/2004, p. 315. Burtchaell devotes an entire chapter to “Community organization in the early Christian settlement” from which the above quote comes.
“The great success of the Gospel among the Gentiles was in stark contrast to its fate among the Jews. Those Jewish Christians who tried to convert their fellow Jews met with continued hostility and rejection; around A.D. 85 a formal anathema of them was incorporated in the synagogue liturgy. Nor were matters helped by the attitude of Gentile Christians who denounced the Jews as stiff-necked apostates deservedly punished by God when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and burned down their temple in A.D. 70. A critical stage was reached in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which made rejection of Judaism essential for Christians and characterized return to Judaism as apostasy. Left alone and unsupported, the Jewish Christians gradually slipped into oblivion.”
Thomas Bokenkotter. A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Doubleday, 2004, p. 23.
In his THE JEWS IN THE TIME OF JESUS (Paulist Press, 1996), Stephen M. Wylen (a rabbi and instructor at a Catholic university at time of publication) writes that “the Jewish Christians passed the rebellion [66 - 70 AD] in Antioch. They avoided the general slaughter, though their avoidance of the common fate may have been one significant wedge in the break between Judaism and Christianity” (p. 79).
I’m far from an expert in this area, but I suspect (human nature being what it is) those Jews who remained in the faith of old would have harbored not a little resentment toward their fellow Jews who joined the new movement. I vaguely recall reading the substance of my earlier comments in some reference, but, unfortunately, I did not make written note of it at the time.
Anyway…
(oops, make that *three* references :-)
“Does McBrien believe that the Church does not have the power or authority to ordain women?”
Perhaps it shows a higher understanding of the Church to hold that it has such power or authority — God gives his people a larger freedom than fearful hierarchs want to know.
“Does McBrien believe in the Devil?”
Such a use of the word “believe” borders on heresy itself. The devil is a mythological concept; McBrien probably has a deeper sense of the reality to what that concept points than do his angry and unteachable critics.
” Does McBrien believe that the Catholic Church of today is the same Church founded by Jesus Christ?”
Historically, most scriptural scholars say, Jesus did not found a Church. “Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom and it was the Church that came” (Loisy) — not a put-down of the Church (as Benedict XVI and many others read it) but a statement that the gospel message of the Kingdom finds its concrete historical embodiment in the Church (as in Luke-Acts).
“Fr. McBrien engages in calumny and heresy when he denounces traditional Catholic practices like Eucharistic Adoration or the Traditional Latin Liturgy.”
Maybe he is just putting things in perspective. According to Pius XII Eucharistic Adoration is to be seen only as an extension of the Viaticum which itself is an extension of the Mass. When Eucharistic Adoration becomes autonomous, or when Corpus Christi processions are made a demonstration of Catholic belief over against Protestantism (as in the 16th century), things go wrong and true eucharistic orthodoxy suffers.
Joseph,
1) So you admit that McBrien is a dissident when it comes to the pronouncements from the Holy See that the Church does not have the power or authority to ordain women.
McBrien’s vogueish and superficial understanding of the Church fuels his dissidence.
2) I take your answer to be that you believe McBrien does not believe the devil exists. The Devil is real whether you believe it to be a “concept” or not. I hope God grants you the blessing of a meeting with it before you reach your judgement.
3) Again, the answer as finessed and full of hyperbole is “no” McBrien does not believe the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus. McBrien is in direct contradiction to the Perennial Magisterium of the Catholic Church. One wonders why he became a priest at all. He could’ve joined the local Lodge and been a grandmaster with his views.
4) Re: Adoration, McBrien lacks understanding of the Mass because he lacks understanding of Redemption, because he lacks understanding of fallen nature. (He lacks understanding of religion in general because of his arguments in favor of vernacular language in worship–because throughout all religions in history, the vernacular language used in worship tends to die out and become a sacred language)
He consequently invents strawman arguments in order to cover over his confusion and lack of understanding of concepts and experiences that are far far deeper in profundity than his short-sighted secular left-wing agenda, costumed up as a hip, 60s style religion.
Perhaps he’s just too smart for everyone and should formally leave the Church and establish his own. He can found one that doesn’t recognize nature, but is “green” and talks alot of talk about “life” but isn’t against killing children in the womb or euthanizing the elderly to “alleviate their suffering.” It will be his church of “tolerance” that will have an iron hand of tolerance on anyone who disagrees with him. Instead of the sign of the Cross, a dismissive smirk will be the gesture of worship.
McBrien’s main problem is that he’s closed-minded. Like someone who is sure of his conclusions because they are based on his first impressions, his wants or his resentments, he filters everything he sees and hears to serve his agenda.
By not listening and by not forgetting himself and his pet theories or desires, he misses the most simple and profound understandings of God and His relationship with Man.
Much like Martin Luther who refused to obey the directives of his spiritual director because he suffered from scrupulosity and a lack of faith, he embarked on a series of errors that have drenched the nations in blood over the centuries. Hopefully McBrien won’t have that kind of impact in his dissidence.
Gerard, it’s like you’re trying to mess with Grant. Maybe you don’t realize the impression you’re making.
As long as you’re here: Because you referred to “the force” (from Star Wars?) and to Joseph Campbell, and because I know how badly those two things are regarded within the traditionalist subculture, having once upon a time been a participant-observer in it, I think you might have taken my writing about God as “presence of immensity” and “love” and my writing about “friendship” with God to be nutty.
So let me clarify. Presence of immensity is an attribute of God. It is a term for God present in his effects as an agent is in its effects. It is God as primary causality making to be and present to the set of all secondary causes for as long as that set gets to be. As for God as love, infinite goodness knowing itself perfectly is going to be love. Friendship with God? When we are freely given a finite participation in the divine life proportioned to our nature by means of sanctifying grace, God nourishes us toward our flourishing, transforming us. And getting nourished into flourishing is friendship. So we say we are
friends with God. I hope this better shows you where I’m coming from.
Gerard: You are no longer welcome to post on dotCommonweal.
Discipleship is about communion. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew28.htm
It is through the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium that The Truth remains consistent. Without recognizing an authority, there can be no cohesiveness of belief. Without a cohesiveness of belief, there can be no cohesiveness of Faith, without a cohesiveness of Faith, there can be no communion. Those who reject the authority of The Magisterium, reject the cohesiveness of our belief and thus reject our Faith and are no longer in communion.
“It is through the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium that The Truth remains consistent.”
Nancy –
When I was young we were taught that there are only two sources of Revelation: Sacred Scripture and Tradition. The magisteriums were expressions of the official Church telling us its/their current understandings of S.S. and Tradition.
By adding “the” magisterium you and your author are guilty of creeping infallibility — you’re trying to add ceretain understanding of the Faith that God never promised us and we don’t have. Only Scripture and Tradition are infallible, and it is terribly difficult to get at exactly what they mean.
Ann,
Vatican 2 provided the idea that Nancy is expounding, in its document on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum:
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls..
It just seems strange that she posted these remarks in a discussion where she questioned a sentence from a magisterial document?
Grant,
What did I do to offend you? I don’t think we’ve had any interaction except you attacking me. What gives?
Jim, I questioned the clarity of a statement. For example, for those who have not been properly catechized regarding the Mass and Eucharistic Adoration these statements help to clarify that The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Life and Mission of The Church:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html
http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/documentText/Index/14/SubIndex/0/ContentIndex/560/Start/557
as does The Vision of Tuy and The Prayer taught to The Little Sheperds at Fatima
Most Holy Trinity, I adore you! My God, My God, I Love you in The Most Blessed Sacrament.
That being said, there is a difference between ecumenism which seeks to make disciples of all Nations and false ecumenism which seeks to compromise The Truth. If at Assisi we hear Pope Benedict speak of Mary’s Peace Plan and Christ’s desire that His Church be One while clearly articulating The Truth of our Faith, be not afraid, if, however, there is a reference made to a blending of religions and religious truth (such as the lingo used in the series Lost), we should assume our Pope is under some kind of man-made spell.
Nancy,
I think you need to reread your earlier comments here. You took a sentence from Benedict XVI and asked “When did the Church Fathers assert that…?” You then provided a rationale for rejecting what B XVI said “should not all things on earth be ordered towards The Truth of Love in conformity with The Divine Will?”
Because your question carries an implied “all things should NOT be ordered towards man as to their centre and summit”, I asked why being ordered toward Man had to be different from being ordered toward “the truth of Love.” You pretty explicitly replied that the two were irreconcilable.
If these are merely “questioning the clarity”, I hope you will extend the same generous interpretation to others when they less strenuously disagree with Papal statements. It is a very generous standard!
Even accounting for the difference between ecumenism and inter-religious dialog, you scenario betrays misunderstandings about dialog as Paul VI described it. If B XVI shows up and starts talking about Mary’s Peace Plan, he will sound a lot like Lost. Thankfully, B XVI sounding like Lost is less likely than his sounding professorial. Hopefully he will not cite any obscure Byzantine emperors or Patriarchs, Muslim Caliphs or Sufi, or any other figure that could give offense.
JIm McK –
Nancy makes a trinity of Scripture, Tradiiton and “the Magisterium”. True, “the magisterium” can mean simply the teaching authority of the Church, but given that meaning we aren’t talking about a source of Revelation but a method of discovering what Revelation means.
As Nancy uses the term “the Magisterium” it seems to mean all the documents ever produced by JP II and Benedict. That is quite a different meaning. They are interpretations of Scripture and Tradition, not original sources themselves.
Jim McK,
I don’t understand. Why would you care what Pope Benedict would say in an Assissi III gathering? What is wrong with preaching Christ crucified and the perfection and privileges of his mother?
Why not take the opportunity to de-mythologize the limiting and bleak ideas of Karl Rahner embodied in most conciliar overtures that lead to nothing. This failure happens frankly because they have removed all of the real sense of mystery and replaced them with anthropological myths about “Man” that are simply the inversion of the lie of the serpent in the garden?
The modern post conciliar Church has a false sense of mystery, a lack of understanding of the difference between God and Man and this all has its roots in 19th century economic ideas that bled their way over into materialist philosophies.
But taking the modern and modernist ideas at face value, they should not be concerned about the formulations that the Church has had the most success with because they were the formulations that are most compatible with Man as a being seeking the transcendent and finding it’s complement in Divine revelation.
The truth is not that Man is God or is the image of God. Man is the creature of the Creator made in the image of God. That image is now fallen in our sensory experience. The second person of the Trinity from all Eternity generated in time, became man in order to redeem that Fall and thus partook in our humanity in order to allow us to partake in Divinity with a material body far different from the fallen nature that we look upon now.
That is a far more enticing and exciting teleological plan than the limited and narcissistic anthropological theology peddled over the last few decades. And it would certainly be more effective in bringing people out of the darkness of false, incomplete or flat out incoherent religions and philosophies.
Ann,
Perhaps you aren’t being specific enough with the term “Magisterium” Namely, an act of the Authentic Ordinary Magisterium is simply an opinion of the holder of the office and has no binding character nor any protection of infallibility. That is contrasted by the protection in defining (ie. limiting interpretations) in the Ordinary Infallible and the obvious Extraordinary Infallible invocation of the Magisterium of the Church.
One may disagree with the ideas presented by Benedict or John Paul II in many of their utterances and encyclicals because they are merely authentic. The binding character of something like JPII’s statement on female ordination or Paul VI’s condemnation of chemical and physical birth control is manifest.
Jim, sometimes a sentence needs clarification as a result of being lost in translation, or because the meaning is simply not clear. My guess is that the clarity of the sentence was lost in translation.
“The binding character of something like JPII’s statement on female ordination or Paul VI’s condemnation of chemical and physical birth control is manifest.”
IF they were truly manifest, we all would agree.
Ann,
How are they not manifest?
Follow up question: What would you consider manifest and therefore submit to?
Gerard, this is not a place for you to declare anyone heretical.
“How are they not manifest?”
It’s called “reception”, Gerard, and the Catholic faithful have not yet “received” such teachings.
now we have “ordinary infallible” and “extraordinary infallible.” That’s gratuitous and part of the major push of maximal magisterialism some embrace.
The Truth, unfortunately (as we see in the repeated Nancy entries) has become a mantra for whatever the ecclesiastical party line of the moment happens to be.
I find that sad, going forward, as it depicts a Church policy makin ggroup “scared -a term that croped up recently at a major confernc ein Philadepjhia – of losing its authority/credibility -which already has been widely lost.
What we’ve got here is a problem of homonyms gone wild.
The more liberal people who claim to be Catholic have adopted the theological novelties of the last century and used the same vocabulary in order to replace the ideas of the traditional Catholics.
John XXIII wanted new language to express the same Catholic faith. What we got was a new religion using the old language.
In the debate we’ve seen here, “doctrine” has two understandings, “magisterium” has two different meanings, “faith” has two understandings.
You can go through the entire lexicon and see that the moderns refuse to accept the clear definitions of the Catholic vocabulary but refuse the courtesy of finding new vocabulary to express clearly the new ideas that they support.
Unfortunately in the early 20th century, the modernists openly admitted that they were purposely cultivating “indefinition” in order to avoid condemnation.
Gerard –
You used the term “manifest” first. You tell us your meaning.
It often happens that what is manifest to one is not to another. St. Augustine had a lot to say about how our inner eyes need to be purified in order to be able to see the truth, and in one place he said that it does no good for the sun to shine if people are blind. And Jesus said, of course, “Let those with eyes see, and those with ears hear.” And don’t we sometimes say of ourselves: “How could I have been so blind!?”
Joseph,
Re: “Reception” There is ignorance and it is divided into two types vincible (ie. culpable) and invincible (non-culpable). Information is readily available on the doctrine of the Church.
The doctrine has been clearly presented, “reception” consists of accepting that doctrine, one can either accept it as part of the deposit of faith or be dissident and place themselves out of communion.
Ann,
I suspect you are being coy. If you’re first question had been asking me to define “manifest” I wouldn’t have questioned it. But the fact that you used the word in the phrase “truly manifest” as condition for our agreement. It seems you don’t want to go out on a limb. My meaning is simply “the” meaning of the word manifest. Plainly evident.
Now, about my follow up question…what is the formulation of doctrinal teaching from the magisterium that you willingly submit to that authority on regardless of whether or not you can understand it?
Grant,
I’m sorry if I offended your sensibilities with the totally Catholic term “heretic” which denotes an obstinate belief or doubt at variance with the definitions the Church has taught regarding the Deposit of Faith.
“I suspect you are being coy. If you’re first question had been asking me to define “manifest” I wouldn’t have questioned it. But the fact that you used the word in the phrase “truly manifest” as condition for our agreement. It seems you don’t want to go out on a limb. My meaning is simply “the” meaning of the word manifest. Plainly evident.”
Gerard –
YOur reply shows that you have little understanding how language works. First you insult me (“I suspect you are being coy”) and ;this is never a good procedure for real discussion. Makes the other person angry, never a good way to come to a meeting of minds.
At the end you refer to “”the”" meaning of the word. Come now. Language is intrinsically ambiguous,and “manifest” is a word.
Learn some more about how language works and desist calling names and I’ll discuss the issue with you.
I don’t understand. Why would you care what Pope Benedict would say in an Assissi III gathering? What is wrong with preaching Christ crucified and the perfection and privileges of his mother?
Gerard,
I don’t get your point. Why do you think I care what B XVI says at Assissi? I stated that if B XVI talked about an arcane theological notion, like Mary’s Peace Plan, to a group of people who do not accept his premises, he would be violating Paul VI’s guidelines on dialog. This would be much like what Lahaye and Jenkins did in the Lost series, which Nancy posed as an inappropriate style.
Rather than adopt such a questionable policy, I hope that B XVI is true to himself, ie professorial. That is the way best suited to his life and person, and would most likely provide insight and enlightenment to those who hear him. That opportunity for enlightenment is why I care what he says, and it will be more available if he speaks with respect, humility, and love, as our tradition has long taught.
Frankly, the rest of your comment is difficult for me to follow. You make claims about Rahner, for instance, that could mean any number of things, and without addressing Benedict’s own differences from Rahner. Do you think an event like Assissi can only take place under Rahnerian terms? Do you think Rahner rejects the teleological plan you offer as more “exciting”? Or Ratzinger? On what grounds do you make such statements?
It appears you join Nancy in her obstinate rejection of B XVI’s teaching that the universe is ordered to Man, though I am not really sure that is what you are addressing. But the contradictions in your presentation confuse me. The truth is not that Man is God or is the image of God. Man is the creature of the Creator made in the image of God. ??? Is Man the image of God or not?
I would say that Man was made in the image of God, and God remains faithful to that image. God gave Man dominion over the whole universe, meaning in some sense that the universe is ordered BY GOD to Man. Displacing Man from that position does not respect God or Creation. I assume that is the point B XVI is making in the given passage. God is not God if God does not love us, and any attempt to honor God has to recognize that about God.
Ann,
I encourage you to read chapter 2 of Dei Verbum. It provides the foundation for the “trinity” of Scripture Tradition and Magisterium. Nancy’s remarks are based on that text in some way, though I have difficulty getting such precise meaning as you seem to glean. You will do better if you try find common ground, and Dei Verbum seems like the place to start.
Ann,
Forgive my manifest ignorance. No insult was meant. By “coy” I merely meant you were reluctant to commit to a definition that would delineate whether or not your positions were consistent in their logic.
My singular definition of “manifest” was to signify what I wrote: “plainly evident.” I honestly didn’t believe you might be confused into thinking I was referring to a ship’s manifest. Which I admit is another definition of the word albeit a noun.
Since you are so well-versed in language, perhaps you could condescend to presenting a plethora of definitions for “manifest” and you select the one that you believe refers to what you would qualify as “truly manifest” regarding an act of the Magisterium of the Church. I’ll then see if any of the definitions coincide with the murky concept I’ve been clawing at while furrowing my brow in frustration.
Again, no insult was meant and your manifest charity in telling me I have little understanding how language “works” is most appreciated.
I look forward to a linguistic tour de force that would make Chomsky and Hofstadter beam with pride and the certitude that will accompany it.
Fiat Lux!
I look forward to a linguistic tour de force that would make Chomsky and Hofstadter beam with pride and the certitude that will accompany it”
More nastiness, Gerard. Bye.
Jim McK,
“Why do you think I care what B XVI says at Assisi?”
It seems from your post that you care more that he doesn’t say certain things.
“I stated that if B XVI talked about an arcane theological notion, like Mary’s Peace Plan, to a group of people who do not accept his premises, he would be violating Paul VI’s guidelines on dialog.”
1) The guidelines are to foster understanding. They may not accept Catholic premises, but they should be aware of them if true, mutual understanding is to be fostered.
2) Paul VI’s guidelines are just that: guidelines, not rubrics. As we know, on policy one Pope can’t bind another. Paul VI wisely warned against adding mysteries to the Rosary but that didn’t stop JPII. Benedict is not bound by Paul VI’s guidelines any more than he was bound to uphold the alleged excommunication on the six bishops from 1988′s consecrations at Econe.
3) Arcane notions that have supernatural origins may have grace accompanying them that lead to a different conclusion than a purely pragmatic evaluation would anticipate.
“That opportunity for enlightenment is why I care what he says, and it will be more available if he speaks with respect, humility, and love, as our tradition has long taught.”
Anything can be said with respect, love and humility but I would add that a respect,love and humility towards Our Lady as Mediatrix of Grace would provide grace for both enlightenment and conversion.
“You make claims about Rahner, for instance, that could mean any number of things, and without addressing Benedict’s own differences from Rahner.”
Rahner has an almost Calvinistic approach to whatever he calls “God” as irresistible and Ratzinger’s view incorporates a “free will” aspect opposed to the inevitability that Rahner espouses. They are both imposing an evolutionary mentality on their evaluations of the temporal landscape which is unfounded. Rahner also is a disciple of Heidegger while Ratzinger is a Hegelian in outlook.
“Do you think an event like Assissi can only take place under Rahnerian terms?”
They have thus far with no perceptible benefit to anyone.
“Do you think Rahner rejects the teleological plan you offer as more “exciting”?”
Of course, Rahner never understood the physical manifestation of the Fall. Viewing it more as an “interpretation” by the writers of Genesis. Rahner’s final end of the individual is rather nihilistic.
“Or Ratzinger? On what grounds do you make such statements?”
From my familiarity with their works, particularly “In the Begginning” by Ratzinger, “Spirit in the World” by Rahner also various analyses of their works like Iota Unum by Romano Amerio and Gethsemane by Siri as well as a few others. Robert McCarthy’s “A Critical Examination of the Theology of Karl Rahner.”
“Is Man the image of God or not?”
No. Man WAS made the image and likeness of God. That image and likeness is now fallen, as is the tri-dimensional physicality that we inhabit on a universal scale.
Man displaced himself from the position of dominion over the earth and so God built the natural sanctions into the re-ordered universe.
I get the impression that the centrality of Christ is being transmuted into the centrality of any human on a metaphysical level. Christ is fully human and fully Divine but that doesn’t make anyone else fully human or fully divine. We are still fallen but with an opportunity to act on grace given by God, given by Christ in satisfaction for that fall. The final phase is the judgment in which those who actually accepted Christ’s invitation, followed His commandments and responded to His graces will be reunited body and soul, but the physical body will be of a higher order than it is in its fallen stature.
If you want to think of it in evolutionary terms. God is not a uniformitarian nor a neo-Darwinist, he is the catastrophist of a one time punctuated equilibrium that will instantly transform the whole of humanity throughout all time into a new physical reality. The consequences of that transformation will determine where and in what state each individual will spend eternity.
That perspective is far more intimate than Rahner’s or Chardin’s or even Ratzinger’s cloudy and imprecise understandings while being totally in harmony with revelation and orthodoxy.
Ann,
It’s a shame your refusal to define your own terms boxes you in and makes you lash out like that. False accusations of nastiness and such. Calumny is bad mojo.
And for your perusal:
“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
Good luck submitting to that simple, clear and manifest declaration.
From the NEW COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CANON LAW, sponsored by the Canon Law Society of America:
“The universal body of the faithful who have received the anointing of the holy one (see 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot be mistaken in belief” (LG 12).
“Nearly all of the vast amount of papal teaching, i.e., encyclicals, exhortations, letters, addresses, homilies, etc., is non-infallible. That is, most of the time the pope makes no pretense of teaching definitively, of defining doctrines…
“Similarly, even the college of bishops teaches solemnly, as it did at the Second Vatican Council, it does not exercise its infallible authority. If it wished to teach infallibly within or outside of an ecumenical council, the college would have to do so quite explicitly, that is, with the expressed intention to act infallibly and the agreement that an opinion is to be definitively hold…” (p. 913)
Canon 749.3 means that “[u]nless a teaching is clearly established as infallibly defined, it is not infallible. ‘Manifeste’ means manifestly, plainly, evidently. Doctrines which are assumed or deduced or inferred to be infallible do not so qualify. The action of teaching infallibly must be clear and unambiguous, so that it does not engender confusion” (p. 914)
The CDF Responsum “that the teaching to the effect that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women requires the definitive assent of the faithful since ‘it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium’ is an exaggeration. The teaching…does not meet the test of explicitness; neither the pope nor the college of bishops declared that they were making an infallible definition, nor has it been demonstrated that the whole body of Catholic bishops has taught the doctrine in such a way as to oblige the faithful to give it definitive assent. Consequently its infallibility can hardly be considered ‘manifestly evident’.” (f.n. 2, p. 913)
“[T]he notion of ‘reception’ [is included in canon 750.1]. The ‘common adherence of the Christian faithful’…is what makes manifest a teaching which emanates from the ordinary and universal magisterium. The people’s ‘sense of faith’ (‘sensus fidei’), aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, receives the word of God and adheres unfailingly to the faith (LG 12). The Spirit facilitates the interaction between God’s holy word and the belief of God’s holy people.” (p. 914)
Theologian Francis A. Sullivan’s assessment of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis should be available at http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/sulliva1.asp
CORRECTION:
Fourth paragraph should begin with “Similarly, even when…”
Fourth paragraph should end with “…to be definitively held…” (p. 913)
But back to the subject of the thread.
When Christians encounter the mystery of God’s goodness manifest (!) in various ways in human beings to be found in all the great world religions (!) and in secular people and atheists (!) it is only right that they should participate in the same response that our Lord himself was recorded to have, who, when seeing faith in unlikely places joyfully acclaimed and affirmed it. The Syrophoenician woman, the Centurion whose servant was healed, the Samaritan woman — there are many examples in the gospels of Jesus recognizing faith in the “unlikely” person, the one who was not supposed to be close to God’s kingdom.
On the contrary, he was sharpest in his condemnation of the devout and zealous people of the Covenant who were unwilling to look with the open eyes of charity at their own neighbor, who instead looked for specks in someone else’s eye but did not see the plank in their own, and who merited the term “whited sepulchre” by their pride and pretensions. He also said that many will call “Lord, Lord” on the last day but he will say “I do not know you.”
In short, charity is everything, and God’s grace is at work in the world more abundantly than we know. That is what dialogue and Assisi rest upon. If we don’t accept that, we won’t accept Assissi.
It’s my own view (not a magisterial statement!) that the people who cannot see grace or goodness in others who are “outside the covenant” and therefore see glimmers of God’s work splendidly in all of them, mutatis mutandis, deserve our compassion because they are tasting hell already — that is, with respect to their neighbor they have chosen to place a barrier between themselves and God’s own activity which cannot be moved because they falsely suppose it to be a divine barrier. But God’s barrier is placed only between ourselves and sin. It is sin to reject an infinite Goodness alive and at work in human persons and in our world (and not under our control). The revelation in Jesus actively sets us up to see this Goodness and grace, and respond to it.
I get the impression that the centrality of Christ is being transmuted into the centrality of any human on a metaphysical level. Christ is fully human and fully Divine but that doesn’t make anyone else fully human or fully divine
I think there are problems with your impression. By giving us His Spirit, Christ makes us into His Body. Humans are being transmuted into Christ on a metaphysical level, and that fact should not be obscured by mistaken distinctions between Christ and humanity. The centrality of Christ, rather than Adam, is preserved by seeing the image of Christ that we are becoming rather than just the fall that touches all of us.
I can understand why you would mistake such a Christology as being anthropocentric. It is very easy to drift that way, so I have no doubt that you have encountered many who have crossed the line. But those transgressions should not stop us from being committed to that process of transformation. The centrality of Christ, rather than Adam, demands the centrality of transformation rather than transgression.
The paradox in this is difficult. Recognizing the importance of God as Creator includes accepting what God has created. God cannot be unfaithful. The faith and love that He shows is a model for our own faith and love. God still sees His image in us, most purely in His Son but also in all who are united with Christ. He still sees in us the dominion over all things that was granted to Adam. To be centered on the Truth of Love in God is to be centered also those whom God loves.
If you understand the differences between Rahner and Ratzinger, why would you think Assissi will be Rahnerian?
Rita — Fine post.
The grace of God is everywhere. I know it comes in many forms, but the kind I seem to be most aware of is what I call the “spiritual energy” that is supplied to me when I am weak and faltering and not inclined to do what I ought or to help where help is needed. It occurred to me just this week that many people having seen “Star Wars” are able to articulate explicitly their consciousness of a spiritual energy available to them. George Lucas calls it “the Force”, we call it “the grace of God”. No doubt descriptions of the Force vary somewhat — all spiritual entities are difficult to talk about, but wouldn’t it be surprising if “non-believers” were not aware of the help available to all of us?
Some no doubt would be appalled at saying that science fiction movies are actually about God. But why not? Not only are words ambiguous, but the reverse is also true: different words can refer to the very same thing. So why shouldn’t we pray together?
Prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Approved for Publication by His Holiness Pope John Paul II
John Paul II
October 28, 1995
Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
Letter by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 28, 1995
Letter Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: A definition ex cathedra
By Ansgar Santogrossi
Brother Ansgar Santogrossi, O.S.B., is associate professor of philosophy at Mt. Angel Abbey and Seminary in St. Benedict, Oregon. Within the past year his doctoral dissertation was finished and accepted and he was granted a Ph.D. degree.
“Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium animos: “[T]he teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.”
4 The Report of the Deputation of Faith of Vatican I explicitly rejects the idea that a definition ex cathedra must be clothed in a precise juridic form. The Holy See has already made a very great number of definitions with variable forms, says Archbishop Gasser.5 It would therefore be false to say that a definition ex cathedra must always involve a liturgical ceremony (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption for example) or employ certain juridic formulae. For example, the condemnations of Jansenist propositions as heretical or erroneous in the faith were considered as definitions without the Pope needing to hold a huge ceremony in St. Peter’s. Everyone was in agreement that pontifical definitions had been made, so the magisterial controversy within the Jansenist crisis bore either on papal infallibility itself, or on the famous quaestio facti of the presence of heresy in the book Augustinus by Cornelius Jansen.
Nor should it be thought that a “definition” must always be the new explication of a doctrine which up to that point had only been implicitly taught. It has been said along these lines that OS is not a “definition” because the ordinary and universal magisterium has already explicitly taught the doctrine only “confirmed” by OS. But the Report which explains PA does not say that a “definition” must necessarily be the new explicitation of the implicit: “[T]he word ‘defines’ signifies that the Pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith and morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff.”6 Thus John Paul II has defined the non-ordination of women by attaching the note definitive tenendam to this doctrine. According to the instruction Donum veritatis of the CDF of 1990, this expression signifies the assent which is due to what is necessarily connected to the revealed. The note definitive tenendam is therefore the positive form of the note erronea long attached by popes to propositions which cannot be held without implicitly denying a truth of divine faith. John Paul II has therefore made a definition ex cathedra insofar as he has put an end to a dispute by attaching the theological note in its negative form to a doctrine whose theological note had been debated (of faith or not? irreformable or not? purely disciplinary or not? etc.) for several years.”
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=835&CFID=64608450&CFTOKEN=95190741
Brother Ansgar Santogrossi is entitled to his considered opinion as a philosopher.
However, the issue at hand is a matter of canon law, not of philosophy.
As Francis Sullivan has noted, a Responsum signed by a cardinal of the church and approved by the pope enjoys no claim to papal infallibility.
In his Letter, the cardinal acknowledges: “It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’…In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.”
In other words, Cardinal Ratzinger confirms what JPII was relying upon in his conclusion that the church has no authority to ordain women, to wit, that (in the words of OS) “this teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church…”
And therein, inter alia, is the rub: JPII has made an unfounded assertion.
Again, canon 749.3 comes into play: No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
And, as Sullivan has noted, neither Ratzinger nor JPII relied on the traditional notions of manifest reception.
The proverbial “ball” now remains in B16′s court.
We are looking at law, not philosophy.
CORRECTION:
Sentence near end should read:
And, as Sullivan has noted, the CDF head has not invoked any of the traditional criteria to support its statement that official teaching has been constantly preserved and applied by the ordinary and universal magisterium, to wit: consultation with all the world’s bishops; the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians; manifestation by the common adherence of the Christian faithful.
The placing of a non-infallible commentary on Canon law above a clear doctrinal declaration and claiming an unfounded assertion on the part of the Pope is a circular argument.
It is the commentary that has no claim to infallibility as the following review points out.
Rev Dr John Trigilio, Jr, PhD, ThD–
“While the overall scholarship of the new commentary is impressive, there are some serious, significant and grave errors which compel me not to recommend this book. Instead of relying on sound jurisprudence, this edition degenerates with theological dissent, speculation and confusion. Book Three (the Teaching Office of the Church) is where it begins. The footnote on page 913 in reference to canon 749 on Infallibility attacks ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS when it says: “the statement by the CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] of October 28, 1995, that the teaching to the effect that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women requires the definitive assent of the faithful since `it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium’ is an exaggeration” Classifying the authortative interpretation of the CDF on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as being an ‘exaggertion’ is going well beyond the bounds of judicial commentary and now enters the realm of theological dissent. Cardinal Ratzinger’s Responsum ad Dubium (10-28-95) made it clear that while Ordination Sacerdotalis itself was not an EX CATHEDRA statement (like the papal document MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS of Pius XII defining the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in 1950), nevertheless the TEACHING (doctrine) that only baptized males can be ordained (deacons, priests and bishops) IS infallible as it has been a consistent element of the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM. “All members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein.” The Commentary continues in the footnote to attack the infallibility of the teaching when this is not a canonical issue, rather it is obviously doctrinal and the proper authority (CDF) has made a definitive ruling, not the CLSA.
Canon 752, according to the new Commentary “leaves room for dissent.” This is based on the mistranslation of OBSEQUIUM by the Commentary. Ironically, the translated text in the same book reads “religious SUBMISSION of intellect and will” must be given to the authentic Magisterium (as opposed to an ASSENT of faith required of infallible teachings) whereas the commentary below the translated text keeps translating OBSEQUIUM not as SUBMISSION but as “RESPECT” or “DEFERENCE”. Austin Flannery, OP, had no problem using SUBMISSION for OBSEQUIUM when he translated LUMEN GENTIUM #25 upon which canon 752 is based.
Another of many examples of an underlying agenda is shown in Book Four as well as Book Three. Canon 914 explicitly and unequivocally mandates First Penance BEFORE First Communion, yet the Commentary (p. 1110) suggests “”if the parents, who have the primary responsibility for the child’s catechesis, should determine that their child is not yet ready for first penance but is ready for first communion, the child should not be denied the right to the sacrament.” If that is not encouraging the faithful to oppose the law, what is it? Certainly not orthodox teaching or canonically licit behavior.
All in all, it is sad that the good scholarship has to be eclipsed by the creeping heterodoxy and subtle dissent in major portions of the book. “
With all due respect to Rev. Triligio, his doctorates are in medieval philosophy and biblical studies. He is not a canon lawyer.
On the other hand, Francis A. Sullivan is professor emeritus of theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and is regarded as a leading (if not *the* leading) authority on the magisterium.
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but when it comes to the subject at hand, I’ll give more credence to the commentary of seasoned canon lawyers and an expert on the magisterium rather than to the opinion of a philosopher/biblical specialist.
Joseph J.==
It seems to me that your arguments against Lenny’s authority (he is not competent to determine what “the” magisterium of the Church is) can also be directed against Fr. Sullivan. Neither is a bishop, so while they might be fine historians, they are not fine bishops, not being bishops at all, much less bishops of Rome or an ecumenical council of bishops.
The whole infallibility dogma rests on the assumption that a pope or pope and bishops in council are capable of judging what the teaching(s) of the universal Church have been for 2000 years. But those judgments are themselves dependent on the studies of Church historians who are themselves simply not infallible. It’s sort of like the half-blind (the historians) leading the blind (the non-historian bishops), but the blind claiming that *they* can see what is the truth.
Time to review the infallibility doctrine.
To put it more simply, those who claim infallible competence (in some matters of Church teaching) are dependent on the judgments of those who by definition are not infallibly competent in thoses matters (namely, the historians).
Interesting.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Ann, but I understand the church has no official list of the infallible teachings of the church — although it is understood that the Creeds are dogma.
Joseph J. ==
Except for the claim that only the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception have been declared infallibly by the criteria of Pius IX, I don’t know that there has ever been any such claim about anything else. The historians will have to tell us. But surely the Creeds are generally accepted as foundational. If we don’t believe there is truth there, why else would we accept them? But even they are interpretations of Scripture and what there was of Tradition prior to their expression. Everything that follows are interpretations as well.
That isn’t the only argument against even the concept of human infallibility that I see. Given the nature of language as intrinsically ambiguous, meanings especially of old words are bound to be ambiguous with different shades of meaning at different times nd places and in different people, including different bishops and popes. The trick is to find the meaning(s) the Holy Spirit intends us to find in our own circumstances. Aquinas said there were as many meanings as there are truths to be found in it, and no doubt “the Faith” is a somewhat different experience at different times and places. Not that these interpretations are inconsistent — far from it. But they can be somewhat different.
Another linguistic problem with “infallible” human interpretations is that we never know just exactly what meanings the ancients attached to words. We don’t even know whether what Paul meant by “savior” was exactly the same as what Peter meant. So talk of universal meanings seems prideful to me — as if we can have such absolutely accurate knowledge in this world.
I am far from a skeptic about the fundamentals. But I think humility requires that we admit our intrinsic limitations and the intrinsic limitations of language itself. It is the Holy Spirit Who is infallible, and it is the bishops’ job to find the best available interpretations available to them and to call the truth as they see it. This implies, I think, that we have no choice but to take what they teach extremely seriously. Their place in the Church *demands* that we do so. But that doesn’t mean that we should listen uncritically. It also implies that we have to give up our own pet interpretations when they are shown to be defective.
Complexity, complexity.
Joe,
Canon lawyers are hardly authorities in doctrine. Canon lawyers can alsoe be wrong in translating their Latin.
Appealing to a fallible authority like Sullivan based solely on his authority as a Canon Lawyer (which is subject to the Magisterium, not the Magisterium itself) on an issue of doctrine is placing Sullivan above the Magisterium of the Church.
Regardless of Fr. Trigilio’s other areas of expertise, his argument is based on sound reason and is backed up with facts.
Translational tricks have been a common tool of dissenters sowing confusion in the Church ever since the Council. “Subsistit” being one of themost notorious.
Perhaps because Sullivan is not an expert in philosophy, he has unwittingly ventured outside his area of expertise in his commentary.
The point is no one is entitled to their own facts. Opinions come and go.
The facts are, that the ordination of women is an impossibility for the Church. The teachign office of the Church (without the permission of Sullivan) has clarified (ie defined) a constant teachign that has been challenged. JPII’s statement has objectively all the markers of an infallible definition whether or not Sullivan admits this or not.
If you believe Fr. Trigilio’s wrong on the facts you can present a counterargument.
Here’s another tidbit I was looking for:
“The very definition of a dogma must be held to be BY ITSELF a SUFFICIENT
demonstration, very sure and adapted to all the faithful. Moreover, this is why
such dogmatic definitions have always been and are necessarily an unchangeable
rule of faith. Pius IX (Inter Gravissimas, 1870)
@ Jim McK
“By giving us His Spirit, Christ makes us into His Body.”
To clarify, we become members of his mystical body of which Christ is the Head. We do not enjoy the Hypostatic Union that is Christ.
“Humans are being transmuted into Christ on a metaphysical level, and that fact should not be obscured by mistaken distinctions between Christ and humanity.”
Humans are made members of His mystical body by being members of His Church, which consists of the Church Militant, the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant. We are made members of this body by responding to the free gift of faith given by merits of the sacrifice of Christ Himself on the Cross.
“The centrality of Christ, rather than Adam, is preserved by seeing the image of Christ that we are becoming rather than just the fall that touches all of us.”
The centrality of Christ is present in Eternity in the sacrifice of Calvary. We imitate that sacrifice of Christ by the way of the cross. It is through uniting our crosses to His Cross that we are transformed, purified and healed.
“I can understand why you would mistake such a Christology as being anthropocentric.”
What’s even worse, I also see it as taking Divinization and turning it into a Deification of Man.
“It is very easy to drift that way, so I have no doubt that you have encountered many who have crossed the line. But those transgressions should not stop us from being committed to that process of transformation. The centrality of Christ, rather than Adam, demands the centrality of transformation rather than transgression.”
But I think you are leaving out essentials in your formulation. There is a personal Jesus who can descend to communicate to us as we are and have always been. This personalism of Jesus is essential to living in harmony and attaining sanctity. The fallen nature of this world and our own fallen nature is transformed by His grace into grist for our salvation. He transforms us, we don’t transform ourselves. We submit to His will and guidance and He purifies us in the flames as the silversmith and with perseverance the impurities are burned away and the silversmith can see His reflection in what is left.
“Recognizing the importance of God as Creator includes accepting what God has created.”
We accept the essential goodness in created things but we don’t ignore the fallen quality of it.
“The faith and love that He shows is a model for our own faith and love.”
I don’t see where the sacrifice of Calvary comes into your model. It was the purpose for which he was born. A very good read on this is “The Life of Christ” by Fulton Sheen where he shows how Calvary relates to every event in Christ’s life.
“God still sees His image in us, most purely in His Son but also in all who are united with Christ.”
I agree on that. But His majesty implies a certain distance, no one gets to the Father except through the Son. Sin cuts us off from that relationship, which is why we have two amazing gifts, the Communion of Saints and the Sacraments deriving from the Passion.
“He still sees in us the dominion over all things that was granted to Adam.”
That dominion is no longer available to us as it was freely to Adam. All power in Heaven and Earth has been given to Jesus in His glorified form. We won’t have any of the same freedom that Adam had until we’ve been freed from our fallen nature.
“To be centered on the Truth of Love in God is to be centered also those whom God loves.”
Obviously Man’s dignity arises from the fact that he is a creature of God. But there is a heirarchy of charity of which the highest and best desire is the salvation of souls. This is done through His Church and following His commandments.
“If you understand the differences between Rahner and Ratzinger, why would you think Assissi will be Rahnerian?”
I don’t think the critiques of Ratzinger of Rahner’s ideas actually manifests (there’s that word again) in any different outward actions.
You don’t see the sacrifice of the Cross when I say “To be centered on the Truth of Love in God is to be centered also on those whom God loves.”? Sacrifice is the heart of what I am talking about, the transformation of what is not sacred into God’s. God gives His Son so that we can be saved. The sacrifice of Christ is the image of God that we should see in ourselves.
OTOH you propose a God who grasps at His divinity, jealously keeping others from sharing in it. Maybe someday God will allow us a share in the dominion and image we were given at our creation. And to speak of that dominion you cite freedom and power, where I speak of love and humility. That is probably why you so badly twist the promise of our transformation, because you think my references (and Rahner’s?) to refer to power, majesty, etc. where I think of it in terms of faith and love, of the substance of sacrifice rather than of royalty.
I disagree with those who would “deify Man” by turning him into an arbitrary autocratic ruler. I see us rather as being transformed inot people who love as God loves, who are faithful with God’s fidelity. Faith and Love are gifts from God and they are what are transform us into His image.
Your formulation also leaves out essentials. Your seem preoccupied with Jesus, to the exclusion of the rest of the trinity. God created us, and remains faithful to that creation. God redeemed us in Christ from the effects of our own transgressions. And God gives us the Holy Spirit to live in us and with us. Christ is inseparable from the Father and Spirit, and we cannot limit ourselves to what Christ has done, without recognizing what the Father has created and what is done by the Spirit who blows where it will. An event like Assissi reaches out in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit to those who do not know Christ.
Gerard and Lenny are obviously the same person–the man I asked not to return. We’ll be happy to keep deleting his accounts.
Grant,
You didn’t ask me to not return, nor did you even have the courtesy of responding to simple questions. What is your problem with those who accept the teaching of the Catholic Church?
Jim,
Your formulation presupposes that people understand your specific references. By avoiding reference to the historical reality of the Crucifixion only vague notions remain which can be coopted into evoking error.
I propose a God who doesn’t grasp at His divinity but rather a faith that doesn’t grasp at owning the divinity that belongs to God alone. I believe in a jealous God who will not bear His family being taken from Him by false notions of false gods masquerading as Himself. This is because we are made for Him. False gods don’t lead to the peace and love that only He provides. He doesn’t exist for us. Knowing that is love and humility, not avoiding certain hard truths in order to bask in the good feelings that we can evoke. There is joy in suffering united to Christ which is much different than the modern concept of “Happiness” that has been thrown about in the last few decades. God loves us of course and He gives commandments and asks for faith in Him because His plan, His thoughts, His ways are not our ways. And He is the arbiter of what is best for me, over and above my wishes for how I want to interact with my fellow man and Him for that matter.
The freedom I look forward to is the freedom from sin. The power I want is the power to give my all back to God vs. a mixture of ego and rebellion as well as virtue.
Anyone who knows the prayers of the Traditional Latin Mass knows that Christ is the way to the Trinity. No one comes to the Father except through Him. Appealing to those who do not know Christ is like a maze in which you go down one alley only to find it a dead end. The psychological strategies of ecumenists and the false irenicism employed remove the opportunity for the accompanying grace given in the proclamation of Our Divine Lord and Savior.
It seems Grant doesn’t like my presence here so I think we’ll wrap it up. I came on here because a friend of mine, Bishop Williamson was disparaged. I honestly don’t see us belonging to the same religion with my traditional and organically grown understanding and the revolutionary modern formulations. But be assured I’ll keep the people on this board in my prayers for Our Lady’s intercession.
Gerard/Lenny/Whomever:
To repeat, we are discussing canon law, not doctrine. Canon law puts the onus on the official teachers to make their case. Canon law is promulgated by the pope, not by the rest of us. Rome, in other words, has established the rules, and we expect Rome to abide by them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Appealing to the authority of a highly respected theologian like Sullivan is appealing to the professional background of a subject-matter expert (SME), not ignoring or disobeying the legitimate authority of the magisterium. If I want to learn something about a subject whether it be welding, suturing, skiing, history, philosophy, etc., I will seek out a SME, not someone who has no professional background in the subject at hand (which is not to say that information from an otherwise informed person might not be useful in steering me to an expert in a particular field).
No doubt Pastor Triligio would have better command of this area than I, but he is still not a canon lawyer. If I want to learn cardiac surgery, for instance, I will pursue a residency in that field, not in pediatrics or orthopedics.
So far as I know, Sullivan has made no claims to being an expert in philosophy. (Good God, Gerard/Etc., what has this statement to do with the topic at hand???)
I can’t speak to your reference to “translational tricks”. We do know that Latin is a dead foreign language, and we do that knowledgeable people can translate the same Latin word into different English words. Perhaps conservative or liberal bias enters the picture here? I will note this point: Latin is no longer a practical communications tool in today’s multilingual, multicultural church.
I agree no one is entitled to their own facts.
Regarding women’s ordination, Gerard/Etc., we’re beating the proverbial dead horse to death. I’ve blogged extensively both here and at NCROnline on this topic. I rarely try to offer my opinion on a critical question without trying to research the matter beforehand. After much research, I am convinced JPII was in error. I am also in agreement with Ratzinger that JPII’s argument hinges on the question of whether Rome’s position is historically supportable. I have concluded it is not. And let’s recall, too, that the good cardinal clarified that the (purported) infallibility of JPII’s pronouncement was not his Ordinatio Sacerdotalis but, instead, the pope’s appeal to longstanding teaching. Years ago, I worked in Missouri for a year so I’m going to state that if Rome can prove its point, I’ll embrace it. Until then, “ball’s in Rome’s court” — with the blessing of canon 749.3!
If Pastor Triligio wishes to pursue the matter with the CLSA, he’s free to do so.
I have no problem with Gerard/Lenny/Etc. participating on this thread. I didn’t respond to several of his previous comments because — well, because I was feeling like $h!t (sore back, congestion — and decongestants & antihistamines disagree with me).
If anything, I think this thread has revealed the deep fissure within the larger Catholic community between those who accept — and those who reject — the renewal called for by the world’s bishops (all of them products of the old Tridentine school, btw) at Vatican II.
If Gerard/Lenny/Etc. disagrees with me that the Second Vatican Council’s main theme was renewal, I’d be interested in seeing his views on this thread.
Nonetheless, I’m not in charge here so…..
If Gerard/Lenny/Etc. regards Bishop Willilamson as “a friend of mine,” we all know that “birds of a feather flock together.” Historians have had more than half a century to study the Holocaust, and we know so much more than yesteryear about the history of the Christian church. Williamson, perhaps without his awareness or intention, strikes me as an insensitive lout at best — and an anti-Semite at worst!
The “traditionalists” embrace a museum-quality religion, something frozen in time. They allow for no change in the “externals” or “peripherals” of religion. They regard all doctrine (synonym: teaching) as dogma, as unchangeable. They epitomize the narrowly focused mindset that ignores the reality of change and accretion in the life of the Christian church. They display a legalistic attitude that, at its worst, would require a pregnant woman to incur permanent damage to her fallopian tube in order to support obedience to a church teaching that is medically (and honestly) unsustainable. They gravitate toward all the papal and episcopal pomp, perks, power, and privilege that puts the simple gospel message to shame. Indeed, some of these folks in Rome and elsewhere come damn near to striking me as the devil incarnate!
I’m going to ask the Good Lord to help such people open their eyes and ears, cultivate an open mind, and stop their condemning and legalistic behaviors.
And, if you’re still reading these comments, Gerard/Lenny/Etc., I recommend the Linns’ GOOD GOATS: HEALING OUR IMAGE OF GOD. Don’t be fooled by the cover. Peruse. And be open to the possibility (however remote) of being healed of your orthotoxic image of our Loving Creator!
The “traditionalists” embrace a museum-quality religion, something frozen in time.
I think it is important to note that Gerard has presented a very modern theology, formed in the wake of Vatican 2 under the influence of a leading dissenter. It mirrors the preconciliar Church in only the most superficial ways. It reflects what may once have seemed the dominant thread, but it is obvious it was less significant.
RE: Gerard’s comments of Jan 9 @ 3:02 pm
a. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” It’s a simple statement, those who do not keep His commandments do not love Him and consequently, they will not enter Heaven.
A classic definition of love is extending oneself for the benefit of the other. In Christian belief, the Incarnation is seen as God extending himself into the messiness of human creation in order to demonstrate God’s love for mankind.
Love does not presuppose perfection on the part of the other. Indeed, if anything, the words in Mt 5:43-48 tell us that perfection is loving those who persecute us. After all, it’s easy to love one’s friends.
Jesus told his listeners to forgive without limit. Jesus would not have told his disciples to do more than what the Father would be prepared to do. God is not a hypocrite, i.e., do as I say, not as I do.
In Luke 15, Jesus uses three parables to teach his listeners about God’s unconditional love, i.e., no strings attached. Love with conditions is imperfect; God’s love is perfect. We see this gentle and inviting spirit of God again in Mt 11:28-30 (“Come to me, all of you who are heavily burdened…”) and in Mt 12:7 (“I want mercy, not sacrifice.”). The ultimate example of God’s forgiveness is in the words of Jesus on the cross in Lk 23:34 (“Forgive them, Father! They don’t know what they are doing.”).
God is Love. God does not punish. In our sinful behaviors, we punish ourselves. In trying to keep the commandments, we can avoid or at least minimize those behaviors that only serve to hurt/punish us.
For some insight into the distorted image of God’s love, see theologian James Mackey’s “Turning punishment into love” at http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0512/1224270207377_pf.html .
It is not without reason that the so-called “traditionalist” notion of God’s love is labeled “orthotoxic”, i.e., downright poisonous to the gospel message and the image of the Jesus who delivered it.
cont’d from above
b. The failure to see the traditions and practices of the Church foreshadowed in ancient Judaism is simply that. A failure on your part.
Jesus and his disciples used foreshadwing as a communications tool to reach out to their intended audiences. They wanted to relate Jesus’ message in a way that audiences could understand and, hopefully, appreciate and appropriate.
The cardinal rule of preaching and teaching is no different today: Know thy audience! Use those tools (metaphor, terminology, role play, case studies, video, etc.) that can help the target audience grasp the concepts that one is trying to convey. As an example, Jesus’ famous Sermon is described in Lk 6:17 (a Gentile audience) as taking place on a “plain” whereas the sermon in Mt 5:1 (a Jewish audience) is described as taking place on a “mount”. The gospel writers (and, before them, the story tellers) were using language/imagery familiar to their respective audiences.
A present-day example of foreshadowing might be promoting Sarah Palin as the fulfillment of Ronald Reagan’s dream. Such a statement has no factual basis. It is, instead, a communications device intended to motivate support for a particular political agenda, and the imagery used is directed to a target audience. In biblical studies, we can see the difference between exegesis, i.e., critically analyzing a text, and eisegesis, i.e., reading something (not literally present) into a text.
In the end, foreshadowing proves nothing. It is not essential to the practice of one’s faith. On this point, we should remember Jesus’ words to the doubting Thomas: “Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe.” Jesus ultimately is asking us to take his word on faith. His use of foreshadowing, miracles, and parables (Mt 13:10-15) were his means of trying to connect with his audiences.
It’s interesting that the subject of foreshadowing is not found in newer or older editions of The Catholic Encyclopedia in print, much less in the online version (ca. early 1900s).
c. Devout Jews became Christians, the rest became apostates…
By definition, an apostate is one who has abandoned his religious faith. Apostasy is “falling from the faith and defection from the believing community. In its current usage it means the deliberate and complete abandonment of the faith by a baptized Christian…” (Gerald O’Collins, SJ and Edward Farrugia, SJ. A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 16).
After the Temple’s destruction in 70 AD, the Jews did not abandon their faith in God. For socio-political reasons as well as because of the Temple’s destruction, their priesthood disappeared. Their notion of “sacrifice” changed from one of cultic practice to that of upright living. This idea of sacrifice, in fact, coincided with the understanding of sacrifice embraced by the emerging Christian communities.
On the other hand, those Jewish Christians who did renounce, in word and/or in fact, the Christian faith can be said to have apostasized.
RE: Gerard’s comments of Jan 9 @ 3:37 pm
Those who suffer the torments of Hell simply are enjoying the fruits of their choices.
From a 1999 Catholic News Service item:
[Heaven and hell] are states of being and not physical locations…and the best way to imagine them is to reflect on significant spiritual moments in this life: the pain brought by sin and the happiness experienced when doing good…The pope said physical descriptions of these ultimate realities always fall short; it’s better, for example, to probe the nature of communion with God than conjecture a material scenario for paradise. And it’s not quite accurate to see heaven as the dwelling place of God — God simply cannot be confined by such a concept. Heaven “is neither an abstraction nor a place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Trinity”…Hell, on the other hand, is the state of everlasting frustration experienced by people who have definitively cut themselves off from God, he said…Hell is not the punishment of an angry God, but a self-imposed exile by people who have used their freedom to say “No” to God…It could be that hell is empty of human souls. Or as the pope put it, we don’t know for sure whether any person has been “involved” in eternal damnation.
The biblical notions of hell reflect the imagery that would have been used to reach target audiences. We know much more today about human psychology than people in Jesus’ day and place.
RE: Gerard’s comments of Jan 9 @ 4:30 pm
a. You seem to think that unconditional love means that life is unconditional.
I do not so think (I turn 63 next month).
I take it for granted that people sin, that Jesus knew this fact, that Jesus told his followers not only to “sin no more” but also to forgive without limit, that genuine forgiveness always benefits the forgiver, that true forgiveness can be difficult to do, and that failure/unwillingness to forgive hurts only the victim, the injured party.
In short, I believe that Jesus was/is the psychologist par excellence. Jesus demonstrated an excellent grasp of human nature: By not sinning, we can avoid the pain and achieve some measure of happiness in this life; by forgiving, we can “let go and let God” and thereby regain that measure of happiness in this life.
I believe that God is more than willing to forgive us, as we forgive those who trespass against us. I see God’s unconditional love in Luke 15, Romans 5:8, Matthew 5:43-48, and 1 John 4:10.
b. A “christian community” is not an episcopal see. So, Peter did establish the Church in Rome, the historical record is clear on that.
The “historical record is clear” on the fact that the earliest Christians did not have “episcopal sees”, i.e., “bishops” as we understand this phraseology today. They had unordained community leaders who, by virtue of such standing, presided at their sacred liturgies (“Masses”). Depending on particular community usage, these leaders were known as “presbyteroi” or “episkopoi”, not to be confused with our understanding of “priest” and “bishop” today.
In ELECTING OUR BISHOPS, Joseph O’Callaghan writes that “there was a Christian community in Rome before either Peter or Paul arrived there.” Furthermore, evidence suggests that “the church at Rome was governed by a council of elders or presbyters rather than a bishop.” Likewise, Eamon Duffy in SAINTS & SINNERS: A HISTORY OF THE POPES (1997) writes, “Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume…that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles.”
In ANTIOCH & ROME: NEW TESTAMENT CRADLES OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY (1983) co-authored by John Meier, biblical scholar Raymond Brown writes, “Certainly [Peter] was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense). There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church — a claim not made till the third century.” Brown also quotes the Roman historian Tacitus writing about the persecution of Christians by Nero in 64 AD and concludes, inter alia, “There was a large number of Christians in Rome.” Brown also notes that 1 Clement, “in connection with the deaths of Peter and Paul which had occurred in the author’s own generation (5:1-2), writes of a great multitude…of the chosen who suffered and were gathered to join the two apostles (6:1).”
Continuing (per Brown): “If there were many Christians in Rome in the mid 60s, how much before that time had faith in Christ arrived on the scene? Paul’s letter to the Romans, usually dated ca. AD 58, implies that the Christian community in Rome had already been in existence for a considerable period of time, since Paul says he has been wishing ‘for many years’ to visit (15:23). That this span of time is not pure rhetoric is suggested by Paul’s gratitude to God that ‘the faith of the Romans is being reported all over the world’ (1:18). Such flattery would be absurd if he were writing to a weak community recently founded. Thus the Roman community must have existed by the early 50s.” In fact, Brown cites some evidence suggesting that Christians were in Rome as early as the 40s!
According to Eamon Duffy, “First-century Rome had a large and thriving Jewish population, perhaps as many as 50,000 strong…By AD 49 [Jewish Christians] had become a significant presence in the Roman synagogues, and their beliefs were causing trouble” — so much so that the Emperor Claudius “expelled them from Rome in AD 49.” Duffy notes that the “Christian organization in Rome reflected that of the Jewish community out of which it had grown. The Roman synagogues…had no central organization. Each one conducted its own worship, appointed its own leaders and cared for its own members. In the same way, the ordering of the early Christian community in Rome seems to have…consisted of a constellation of independent churches, meeting in the houses of the wealthy members of the community. Each of these house churches had its own leaders, the elders or ‘presbyters.’”
Perhaps it’s a matter of terminological meaning. The earliest local churches (please note my use of the words ‘local’ and ‘churches’) had minimal formal structure as we understand church structure and offices today. These churches/communities saw themselves as the Body of Christ, the People of God.
In addition to the above sources, you might want to peruse:
+ James Burtchaell’s FROM SYNAGOGUE TO CHURCH: PUBLIC SERVICES AND OFFICES IN THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES, chapter 8,
+ Richard McBrien’s LIVES OF THE POPES, First Edition, pp. 17 – 36,
+ Kenan Osborne’s PRIESTHOOD: A HISTORY OF THE ORDAINED MINISTRY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH,
+ Keith Pecklers’ WORSHIP: A PRIMER IN CHRISTIAN RITUAL, chapters 1 – 3, and
+ Francis Sullivan’s FROM APOSTLES TO BISHOPS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EPISCOPACY IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
RE: Gerard’s comments of Jan 9 @ 8:37 pm
a. Jesus also said that sins against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven.
The CCC-1864 states: “‘Whoever *blasphemes against the Holy Spirit* never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.’ There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.”
“Such hardness of heart can lead…” The CCC, interestingly, does not state “will lead…” The church has never proclaimed or otherwise taught that anybody is in hell. “Contrary to the emphases taken by some of the people of his time, Jesus does not speak of the coming of God’s rule primarily in terms of judgment. The God of the Kingdom is a God of forgiveness and compassion. This is reflected in Jesus’ own ministry of compassion to outcasts and sinners (Lk 15:1-32) and in his call for reconciliation and limitless forgiveness (Mt 18:21-35). The mercy of God’s rule is also transmitted through the miracles of Jesus. His healing touch, his victory over evil in all its forms, his restoration of sight and life demontrate that the saving God of Israel is ‘in your midst’ (Lk 11:22). The miracle activity of Jesus shows that the ultimate goal of his Kingdom ministry is the salvation of all creation. Paul reflects this view when he speaks of God’s rule being complete when the ‘last enemy’, death itself, has been defeated (1 Co 15:24-28)” (Carolyn Osiek, Donald Senior, and Carrol Stuhlmueller, “Biblical Themes” in THE NEW CATHOLIC STUDY BIBLE, Catholic Bible Press of Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985, p. 1367).
cont’d from above
In a syndicated column a number of years ago, Rev. John Dietzen addressed the question of the “unforgivable” sin:
“The most obvious explanation comes from the context in Matthew. Jesus, with the power of the Holy Spirit, has just cured a blind and mute man. Pharisees nearby claim the cure happened by the power of a devil. Jesus responds with the words we’re discussing. To attribute to the devil an action done by God’s power is, he seems clearly to say, a sin, a mockery, of the Spirit of God…[Aquinas and Augustine] believe that Jesus meant the sin of final unrepentance, a refusal to repent of one’s seriously sinful rejection of God even at the moment of death. This probably remains the most common view, since it is total, final rejection of all helps the Holy Spirit offers to turn away from evil and toward God. Another way of saying the same thing is that anyone who consciously and maliciously refuses the helps offered by the Holy Spirit to keep us from sin in the first place sins against the Spirit…When we refuse to hope, when we refuse to acknowledge the majesty and power of God in our lives, we in effect tell the Spirit we don’t need him. Repentance can be impossible, since in that frame of mind there cannot be enough humility for us even to admit we have sinned, that we need repentance at all” (“What is the ‘unforgivable’ sin?”, THE RECORD, undated copy).
This contemporary explanation, however, raises as many questions as it attempts to answer. It includes several qualifications — “consciously and maliciously”, “when we refuse to hope”, and even the very references to “repentance” itself. Christian teaching speaks of “free will”. If one refuses to repent, is such a person really, in fact, “free”? Did Jesus not expel demons to show the power and love of God? Is the sinner necessarily “free”? Perhaps the very act of repentance itself is a gift of God, a God determined to save us from ourselves, from the grip of the devil.
I recommend the Linns’ GOOD GOATS: HEALING OUR IMAGE OF GOD, which looks, inter alia, at repentance.
b. Jesus also gave the Apostles instructions and the power to hold bound those sins that they would hold bound.
Biblical scholar Raymond Brown writes: “There are debates about what is meant by this binding/loosing [in Mt 16:19]. Is it the power to forgive/not forgive sins (as in John 20:23) or to teach what must be observed, with the result that Peter is the chief rabbi? That this section follows a warning against the teaching of the Pharisees and Saducees [Mt 16:5-12] may tilt the odds in favor of the latter, and notice that in [Mt] 23:13 the scribes and Pharisees are criticized for locking the kingdom of heaven to human beings” (AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, ABRC/Doubleday, 1997, p. 189). Brown reminds us that Jesus later tells Peter, “Get away from me, Satan! You are an obstacle in my way…” (Mt 16:23). Peter, the chief rabbi in this view among Jesus’ followers, apparently still doesn’t “get it” vis-a-vis Jesus’ teaching and preaching.
“Christian forgiveness, then, is to imitate the unlimited range of God’s forgiveness, as is confirmed by the eloquent *parable of the unforgiving servant* (18:23-35) that invokes divine judgment on those who refuse to forgive” (Brown, p. 193).
Brown suggests that the binding/loosing in Mt 18:18, by contrast, refers to excommunication (fn 40, p. 189). Note Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 18:15-17 on how to deal with the unrepentant/recalcitrant sinner.
c. [T]he act of making reparation benefits the person who has been forgiven more than the one doing the forgiving.
I think making reparation *can* benefit the wrongdoer (if not done under the wrongdoer’s perception of force by legal mandate) — IF the sinner/offender makes reparation in the first place! A criminal, for instance, can “cool his heels” behind bars without any desire to make reparation. Even in this instance, however, the victim can forgive, i.e., turn the matter over to God and get on with life. True forgiveness always benefits the one doing the forgiving — but not necessarily (or at all) the one being forgiven.
d. And Luke 13 demonstrates that people of their own free will, will choose sin and damnation rather than God despite His willingness to forgive.
You appear to be engaging in eisegesis, i.e., reading into Luke 13 what is not specifically in the text, if my bible’s translation is reasonably accurate. There is no mention of “free will”. Yes, there are references to people sinning, hypocrisy, Jesus healing a crippled woman, the Kingdom of God, the warning to Jerusalem, but Jesus does not address the question of “free will”. If a person is truly free, is that individual even capable of *choosing* sin and damnation? See GOOD GOATS for some thinking on this matter.
e. Claiming my assertion is wrong, does not make it wrong.
I agree, but I try to avoid making assertions without supporting reason(s).
f. As is your false assertion that a doctrinal belief and a historical fact aren’t both true.
History and belief are, quite simply, different things.
History, per my dictionary, is (inter alia) “a chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events.” Belief, on the other hand, is (inter alia) “mental acceptance of or conviction in the truth or actuality of something; something believed or accepted as true, esp. a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.” Doctrine is related to belief in that it is “a principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious…group.”
A former pastor suggested we see the church as the musty old container that holds the crown jewel of our faith. To serve as a safe and continuing repository for this crown jewel, the church must be renewed.
g. Yes I do know what the term ['apostate'] means – ‘to stand away from’ which is what the Jews who rejected Christ did. They removed themselves from the fulfillment of their covenant.
Please see my response posted Jan 17 @ 7:26 pm.
Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. Jesus saw himself as a Jew, and much (most?) of his earthly ministry was to fellow Jews. Jesus died and rose from death a Jew. Even after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the followers of Jesus still saw themselves as devout Jews but, unlike their fellow members of the faith, believed Jesus was the Messiah. Christianity was still a sect within Judaism.
No doubt there were otherwise decent and devout members of the Jewish community who, in good faith, simply could not grasp Jesus’ message. These people, historically speaking, did not “stand away from” their ancient belief in the One True God, the faith of Jesus the Jew. Within this context, the only “apostates” were those converts who eventually (especially after 70 AD) turned their backs on Jewish Christianity and returned to full-fledged participation in Judaism.
Let’s remember, too, that just as Judaism after 70 AD morphed into a religion *without* a cultic priesthood, so Christianity years later would morph into a religion *with* a cultic priesthood. For a number of years during the transition period, both religions would see “sacrifice” as the day-in, day-out struggle to live a life pleasing to God.
RE: Gerard’s comments of Jan 10 @ 10:08 pm
a. Are you claiming that if someone [Richard McBrien] denies the Assumption of the Virgin boldly that I can’t determine that is heresy?
Please review McBrien’s writing on the Assumption in his CATHOLICISM, New Edition, 1994, pp. 1093-4 and 1101-4. Please be prepared to support your viewpoint.
b. Does McBrien believe that the Catholic Church of today is the same Church founded by Jesus Christ?
Please review McBrien’s writing on this topic in his book (above), pp. 577-9, 683-5, and 731-3. Again, please be prepared to defend your viewpoint.
I’m not unmindful of definition of terms here.
I do not see why anyone would object to everyone praying together. After all, the Jesuits dressed as Brahmins in India in 15th Century and prayed with them, and no one objected except the Archbishop in charge. In India, the Jesuits just ignored the Archibishop. In China, when an Archbishop objected to the JEsuits putting Confusius on the altar and praying with Confusious, the Jesuits at first ignored him, and when the ARchbshop became a little too vocal, the Jesuits asked the local authority to put the Archbishop in jail, where he later died in extremis. That is how Catholics are Jesuitically trained to treat anyone who protests such things as praying with those of other religions. I do not think the reaction of the CAtholics responding to Bishop Williamson is enough. They should what they have been Jesuitically trained to do. First, try ignoring him, and if that doesn’t work, put him in jail, and if that doesn’t work, they can try to do what the Jesuits did to Clement XIV, or King Joseph of Portugal, and many others. In other words, we should act like “good” Jesuits.
2 Day diet Japan Lingzhi…
Exactly who doesn’t want to take a look their finest for the breaks? Getting back by using friends and family that you may possibly n’t have noticed for many years is the perfect explanation for many people for you to over indulge during the entire t…