Well, I'd surely like to know where the heart and mind of the pope are if the rumors surrounding Levada's nomination to head the CDF are confirmed...
New Catholic,
Perhaps you should check out the threads on Levada at Extreme Catholic and Ignatius Insight Scoop.
Rumors are just that, rumors. The MSM were convinced that the CDF Prefect was too *conservative* to be Pope and they were confounded by the Holy Spirit. I look forward to the next surprise. (Personally, I prefer a Dominican monk. The tall and solemn figure in black and white habit would be enough to inspire the fear of God in any heretic 
)
Here's a really exciting rumor: Bruno Forte, a fabulously prolific Italian theologian, successor of Thomas Aquinas at Naples, and now a bishop, is perhaps the next prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Forte is very orthodox but a gifted linguist, a man of dialogue with philosophers (at the biannual Castelli colloquia for example) and with both high and popular culture (he is a well-liked figure on Italian TV broadcasts).
Well, of course there will always be someone to the right who is ready to smear even the most orthodox as crypto-modernist:
http://www.catholicintl.com/cath...s/
ratzinger.htm
fuming rightists have paralyzed the Church for 40 years -- and all for what? To lecture us on arcana like extra ecclesiam nulla salus, infallibility, Marian doctrines, the Latin Mass, and keep us bogged down in arguments that schoolboys battened on in the days of Pius XII. Liberation theology was the last major effort to reconnect church teaching with the agonies of mankind -- working on the inspired lead of Paul VI in Populorum Progression, Evangelium Nuntiandi and Octagesima Adveniens (texts buried in oblivion in the Wojtyla-Ratzinger pontificate) -- and liberation theology was crushed on the basis of picayune arguments about the alterity of theology and politics, the danger of earthly utopias, and the fearful venom of Marxism. Now the only way the church connects with the world is by lambasting an alleged Culture of Death.
Bruno Forte cannot be considered "most orthodox" by any standards...
Joe, Bruno Forte is doubtless bright and learned. But "New Catholic" is also right in considering him problematic. In February, I wrote a post on Forte entitled "Liberal successor to Cardinal Ratzinger?"
"Fuming rightists have paralyzed the Church for 40 years -- and all for what? To lecture us on arcana like extra ecclesiam nulla salus, infallibility, Marian doctrines, the Latin Mass, and keep us bogged down in arguments that schoolboys battened on in the days of Pius XII...."
Joe, you better quit before you show your true colors. What are you saying here? That the Church isn't the ark of salvation after all? That her dogmas have no absolute authority? That the traditional doctrines about Mary, on whose fiat God hinged His whole plan of redemption, are insignificant? That Latin isn't the official language of the Church, or as important as John XXIII declared it was? That the traditional Mass of the Roman rite should be scuttled, although it's the oldest liturgy in Christendom? That what's really important is social gospel? That we need to conform our ideas of what's important to the ideology of Marxism?
Oh, ye lands! Joe, to reduce Christianity to the social gospel is nothing more than the warmed-over recipe of classic liberal protestantism as set forth by Walter Rauschenbusch in 1908; and any version of Marxism is nothing more than a fatal fever doomed to bankrupt any society that embraces it, as the tired (and devastating) experiments in Sino-Soviet Marxism have shown in spades. Talk about arcana!
You want to replace the joy of repentance, reconciliation, changed lives, the love of Christ and promise of Heaven with bread lines? We're called to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, yes; but also to deny our Master, Mother, Teacher, and Lord?
"To lecture us on arcana like extra ecclesiam nulla salus, infallibility, Marian doctrines, the Latin Mass, and keep us bogged down in arguments that schoolboys battened on in the days of Pius XII... Joe, you better quit before you show your true colors. What are you saying here? That the Church isn't the ark of salvation after all? That her dogmas have no absolute authority"
Philip, remember the Hierarchy of Truths -- put the major emphasis where the major importance lies, and that is not in dogmas like those of 1854 or 1870 (the two other Marian dogmas are Christological), in extra ecclesiam nulla salus (a doctrine so radically reinterpreted that the original Cyprian-Augustine slogan is usually quoted as a medieval memory like the Church's authority to depose temporal rulers), infallibility is a meta-dogma discussed by theologians or more often philosophers of religion with time on their hands, the Latin Mass is fine for a certain club but is a red herring from the masssive liturgical challenge of today -- for which we need to consult the other Christian churches. There is a richer understanding of more important dogmas, and there are Scriptural and other truths to which dogmas point, and these would nourish a Christian conversation. The Ratzinger mindset keeps us discussing ad nauseam the very things that schoolboys used to discuss before Vatican II and with very little advance on the categories then in play -- categories that were living then as they corresponded to the authentic devotion to the majority of Catholics at that time.
"That the traditional doctrines about Mary, on whose fiat God hinged His whole plan of redemption, are insignificant?" The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption have a symbolic significance, low down in the hierarchy of truths. Taken literally they are problematic -- for instance, the Imm. Conc. presupposed that original sin is transmitted by generation at conception.
"That Latin isn't the official language of the Church, or as important as John XXIII declared it was?" John XXIII's encyclical on that subject was considered a dead letter from the start.
"That the traditional Mass of the Roman rite should be scuttled, although it's the oldest liturgy in Christendom?" It has been scuttled, by Vatican II.
"That what's really important is social gospel?" There are many things that are more important and uplifting than the list of selfconsciously pre-Vatican II Catholic hangups. The social dimension of the Gospel is of course of its essence -- Mt 25.
"That we need to conform our ideas of what's important to the ideology of Marxism?" Nope, that we need to be open to the wide range of sources of truth both sacred and secular.
"Oh, ye lands! Joe, to reduce Christianity to the social gospel is nothing more than the warmed-over recipe of classic liberal protestantism as set forth by Walter Rauschenbusch in 1908" -- to reduce Christianity to ANYTHING is a mistake and to freeze it
in the past or in tightly packaged dogmas that occlude the important issues of "justice, mercy and faith" is a big, big mistake.
By the way, the Mass of Pius V could also be seen as scuttling the older Roman Rite.
To say that the Mass of the years before Vatican II is the oldest liturgy in Christendom hardly makes sense -- it is obviously so elaborate that it must be the product of a long development. In any case oldness is not an absolute value in Christianity.
Joe, I accept your point about the Hierarachy of Truths, but I put the truth of Mt. 16:16-18 (the authority of Peter and the Church) near the top of that hierarchy. Without an authoritative interpretation of tradition (which includes Scripture) and their authority, we're utterly at sea ("authority" means "author's rights," not power; and therefore entails a connection ultimately with the divine Author of the Faith).
I'm all for conversations with our Christian brothers and sisters about the way we worship, but why should we assume any dependent relation between how we worship and what they find to their satisfaction? Should the ancient Jews have consulted the Sumarians about how to modify their liturty according to the latter's tastes?
And, by the way, to say "the Mass of Pius V could ... be seen as scuttling the older Roman Rite" is like seeing the pontificate of Pope Benecict XVI as "scuttling" the direction taken by the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Perhaps the Novus Ordo scuttled the traditional Roman Rite, but hardly the uniforming reforms of Pius V.
You say: "The Ratzinger mindset keeps us discussing ad nauseam the very things that schoolboys used to discuss before Vatican II and with very little advance on the categories then in play ..."
Perhaps the reason why Johnny doesn't know the Faith today is that more schoolboys aren't discussing these basics. And what "advance" in categories do you wish Johnny to master?
'And what "advance" in categories do you wish Johnny to master?'
Good question. First I would like to see catechesis recover the sense of the goodness of the world, guided by God's Spirit to its final consummation, the Kingdom, as the CONTEXT within which Christianity makes sense. Paul VI said that the church exists for the world, the church is at the service of the world.
I would like Johnny to learn ethics in a communal manner rather than in a narrowly individualistic way; that is "thou shalt not steal" is not only a matter of me being a good boy but of my responsibilities to the community, tying it up with the wider questions of social justice.
I would like Johnny to learn to relate his faith to the wider religious quest of humankind -- "I see all the religions of humankind converge on this crib of Bethlehem" said Paul VI at Christmas Mass in 1975, "and as I utter these words my voice trembles -- not with uncertainty, but with joy! la mia voce trema, non d'incertezza ma di gioia!"
I would like Johnny to meet Christ through his teachings, his interacting with the outcasts, his formation of a community, and then to see the passion and resurrection against that background (and not in magical isolation) with the doctrine of the divinity of Christ as its unfathomable further reaches.
I would like Johnny to understand Mary against the prophetic background of Israel, and not as a virgin on a pedestal.
I would like the doctrine of grace to be properly inculcated. Pelagianism is rife in common catholic understanding.
Is this really Bruno Forte?? "The empty tomb, he argues, is a legend tied into a Jewish-Christian ritual performed at the place of Jesus' burial.. nothing else but a "proof" made up by the community. In other words, Forte is trying to change an historic event, the resurrection of Christ, into a myth". Actually, something like this is not uncommon among Catholic exegetes. The empty tomb story has ANGELS involved in all four versions, and the presence of Angels is usually an indication of non-historicity. The best historical evidence of the resurrection concerns the appearances (listed in 1 Cor 15 by the last eye witness), but the narratives in the last chapters of the four gospels are full of legendary or symbolic matter. This is all very well known, since Reimarus's demonstration in 25 points or os of the historical impossibility of the guards at the tomb, as narrated in Matthew (along of the four).
I suppose the non-historicity of many biblical narratives should be taught to Johnny, beginning with Eden. Otherwise his faith will be exposed to unnecessary shocks. Literary sensitivity to the different biblical genres would be a great help here, and this is something that a fundamentalistic approach completely destroys.
On the Redemption, I believe we should not be so keen to emphasize that God is hurt by our sins and that a payment is required, which the Son pays (very much Ratzinger's line). More emphasis on the passion as the result of the sinfulness of human society; not something directly intended by Jesus but an all-too-predictable fate of one who honestly and courageously unmasked oppression. Redemption is not a matter of paying a price to God but of showing how to face tragedy in a loving way -- emphasize Xt's forgiveness of his enemies, thirst for righteousness, etc.
How much time should Johnny spend on the pope and his primacy, infallibility etc.? Not too much.
Joe, you write: "The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption have a symbolic significance [is that like the "metaphorical significance" Jane Fonda attributes to "The Word"?], low down in the hierarchy of truths. Taken literally they are problematic -- for instance, the Imm. Conc. presupposed that original sin is transmitted by generation at conception."
I probably disagree with what you ascribe to these doctrines as their "symbolic" signifiance. But I do grant your point about their positioning in the Hierarchy of Truths. But having said that, I would rush to say what you say about the doctrine of Infallibility--namely, "Who cares? The question is whether they're true." And, contrary to the anti-supernaturalist historical-critical tradition-influenced scholars, I regard these as historically well-attested and theologically basic truths--even if not so basic as the trith of the existence of an infinite-personal God.
"The ancient Roman Rite of the Mass]has been scuttled, by Vatican II."
At last, Joe, something about which you and Pope Benedict XVI agree! Before his election as pope, Cardinal Ratzinger called the Novus Ordo a "rupture" in liturgical tradition. I would agree with him as I would with you.
"The social dimension of the Gospel is of course of its essence -- Mt 25."
Even clearer, Joe, is Mt 7:21ff., but there is clear wrath and judgment and hell associated with that judgment for those who do not do God's will. Why is it always the most heavenly minded (who have a robust respect also for the existence of hell as well) who are the most earthly good? Read Charles Corwin's EAST TO EDEN? about the beginnings of social philanthropy in Asia.
"... we need to be open to the wide range of sources of truth both sacred and secular."
Who would disagree? But you were suggesting that Marx had a great deal to teach Christians. In Merold Westphal's sense, I'd agree. But not in any sense that saw Marxism as the essence of Christianity, which would denature it.
"to reduce Christianity to ANYTHING is a mistake and to freeze it."
On the contrary, not to be able to specify a definable content to The Faith is to have nothing capable of being de-natured by reducing to anything other than it is. You're opposition to "freezing" makes you sound like a nice, warm fuzzy; but even something as fluid as Newman's notion of doctrinal "development" assumed an unchanging and specifiable essence. But of course "anti-essentialism" is au courant these days.
"In any case oldness is not an absolute value in Christianity."
No, but unbroken continuity with the Author of Christianity is.
Joe, your advice for Johnny:
"First I would like to see catechesis recover the sense of the goodness of the world ..."
If that goodness is not also understood to be fallen and broken by the curse of sin, the vision would be utopian indeed. The genius of Judeo-Christianity is it's understanding, in my view, of man's abberations as well as his aspiratins.
"I would like Johnny to learn ethics in a communal manner ..."
Again, I have no problem with this except in terms of how it might be interpreted. One question would be, Which community? Is there only one? Or, if not, would it be a community that included the kinds of Catholics who disagree with you, those whom you disparage as pre-V-II idiots?
"I would like Johnny to learn to relate his faith to the wider religious quest of humankind -- "I see all the religions of humankind converge on this crib of Bethlehem ..."
Certainly God's people perish for lack of knowledge, and knowledge of other religions is a helpful thing indeed-- particularly where people see all roads as, let us say, leading to the top of Mt. Fuji, without asking whether some could be using these roads to come down the mountain as well as to go up. As the the convergence upon the Bethlehem crib-- there is an old hymn that says "... the hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight." The wisdom here is that religion offers something positive not only in the hopes it elicits, but in fears too. We used to talk about the "fear" of God until pop psychologists got us thinking that this was only an unhealthy lack of self-esteem; whereas "fear" in the sense identified by Otto involves a proper respect and awe regarding What utterly transcends us, and a respect
for His will. All religions may contain some truth. But not all religions are compatible. Any illusions about that betrays abysmal ignorance of world religions.
"I would like Johnny to understand Mary against the prophetic background of Israel, and not as a virgin on a pedestal."
Why understand this as a disjunct? Why not both? I put my mom on a pedistal, don't you? I wouldn't know what to think of you if you didn't. The commandment even says to "honor" your mother. Hey, what's the problem?
"I would like the doctrine of grace to be properly inculcated. Pelagianism is rife in common catholic understanding."
Bravo! I agree. But I see it no less rife in liberal catholic reduction of the essence of Catholic Christianity to "peace and justice" issues. They want to overlook sexual promiscuity and abortion because of "grace," but cried "cheap grace!" and "cost of discipleship!" at anyone failing to work for the Democratic Caucus and election of Kerry-Edwards.
Joe, you defend Bruno Forte's demythologizing exegesis by saying:
"Actually, something like this is not uncommon among Catholic exegetes. The empty tomb story has ANGELS involved in all four versions, and the presence of Angels is usually an indication of non-historicity."
According to what authority? (Again, an appeal to authority!)
"This is all very well known, since Reimarus's demonstration in 25 points or os of the historical impossibility of the guards at the tomb, as narrated in Matthew (along of the four)."
So your authority is an Enlightenment rationalist and anti-supernaturalist? Why should I believe any of these guys. They completely lack intellectual integrity when dealing with the Christian tradition. (Read Ch. 3 of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg's The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Kaesemann.
"I suppose the non-historicity of many biblical narratives should be taught to Johnny... Otherwise his faith will be exposed to unnecessary shocks...."
Joe, I'm going to have to stop offering my responses to you. Not only do I not have time anymore. I see that we live on two different planets. You obviously accept (I would say "uncritically") the balance of contemporary historical-critical biblical scholarship. I don't. I lack the faith and confidence in it that you seem to exhibit. You seem to take "current scholarly opinion" as having the last word on matters, when I find such opinions usually--I'm sorry to say--laughable.
This seems clear from your statement that "Otherwise [Johnny's] faith will be exposed to unnecessary shocks...." What will schock him? "Current scholarly opinion"? Well, certainly it may expose an abyss between his assumptions and theirs. But why should he take their opinion that his are the laughable views? What's the shocking issue? Evolution? Some people seem to put more stock in that theory than Church teaching. It reminds me of the confidence of Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists in the Ptolmaic theory of the heavens prior to the Copernican Revolution. Why should we take as our ultimate authority a current scientific hypothesis? A forteriori, why should we bow and scrape before biblical scholars whose premiese are fundamentally inimical to the Judeo-Christian worldview?
"So your authority is an Enlightenment rationalist and anti-supernaturalist? Why should I believe any of these guys. They completely lack intellectual integrity when dealing with the Christian tradition." I am not arguing from authority but from the facts as they have painfully impinged themselves on the minds of Christian exegetes over 250 years. The Dominican theologian Schillebeeckx was not (sic) condemned by Rome for his efforts at exegesis of the Resurrection narratives, which are very much along these lines. A Jesuit in the Biblicum in Rome assured me in 1987 that there are certain topics that are avoided there for reasons of caution (or fear) -- namely, the resurrection, the virgin birth, ministry, and divorce; he felt that he himself was a brave man to have written on the latter topic. I can well imagine that to allow a student to do a doctorate on any of these issues could be seen as giving him a rope to hang himself with.
The theory of evolution by the way is more than just a theory (as John Paul II went out of his way to stress).
The Archbishop of Dublin warmly welcomes the Irish Prime Minister's proposed legislation to give civil status to cohabiting couples, including gay couples. A student of Canon Law in Rome assures me that a Vatican approved course also teaches a positive attitude to such legislation. Reality moves on.
Nothing much to argue with in your other postings.
PS If Schillebeeckx seems another discredited "authority" try Raymond Brown -- Ratzinger said that the Church needs more exegetes like him -- he was active in the Vatican's International Theological Commission and/or Biblical Commission.
Exegetes generally find only two historical nuclei to the resurrection accounts in the New Testament -- namely, the Appearances -- relatively well attested, from I Cor 15 (cf. Gal 1.15 and the 3 accounts of the road to Damascus event in Acts) -- and the empty tomb -- merely possible. The guard at the tomb, the movements of the angels, the various appearance stories (in Galilee in Mt and Jn 21, in Jerusalem in Lk and Jn 20 -- there are none in Mk as we have it; the part after 16.8 does not belong to the original gospel; there is a contradiction between the Jerusalem and Galilee appearances because in Mt/Mk 16.7, followed by Mt 28.7, the angel says the apostles should go to Galilee and that Jesus will appear to them there, whereas in Lk/Jn he appears to them in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday). Mt also has Jesus appear to the women and repeat the angel's words about going to Galilee, Mt 28.10. Galilee is a long way from Jerusalem. Different traditions are jostling here. In Luke TWO angels appear to the women, as again at the Ascension in Acts 1. They change the Galilee reference as follows: "Remember what he said to you when in Galilee, that the Son of Man must suffer etc." Lk 24.6. Nothing about "you will see him in Galilee". The Magdalene see two angels in Jn 20.12, though Peter and John in this version have already inspected the angel-less tomb; again a contradiction with the synoptics. All of this is very obvious, not even Exegesis 101.
Possibly interesting discussion of these thorny issues: Kessler Hans, Sucht den Lebenden nicht bei den Toten. Die Auferstehung Jesu in biblischer, fundamentaltheologischer und systematischer Sicht. Neuausgabe mit ausführlicher Erörterung der aktuellen Fragen, Würzburg 2002.
Do I believe in the Assumption of the BVM? I interpret it to mean that she fully shares in the glory of the risen Christ and is thus an eschatological sign of the church's future glory.
It is a nice idea, rich in symbolism. I think Catholics will consider themselves free to believe it or not; it is hardly something one would go to the stake for.
Inclusive community must entail a willingness to embrace also those whose faith is not the full shilling in terms of the current orthodoxy (and still more in terms of orthodoxies that have become a dead letter). Jesus got on quite well with Samaritans, but very badly with Scribes and Pharisees, the watchdogs of orthodoxy of that time. But he did not exclude them either -- Simon the Pharisee is reproved for his inhumanity to a fallen woman who bathes Jesus's feet, but reproved in tones of friendship.
I'd put more stock in modern "exegesis" if it didn't rely so much on the Anal Auto-Extraction Methodology.
What a dizzying lot of nonsense, Mr. O'Leary. I have tried to read carefully your odd view of things, and have similarly tried to see in what universe the collection of them make up a coherent whole. Here is what I have come to conclude. You accept the "nice story" approach to Catholicism. If Jesus' teaching can be reduced to a nice story -- but ultimately one we shouldn't take too seriously -- then that's just fine. You have been reading too much stuff by a group of people called the Jesus Seminar. They VOTE on what Jesus said. Who is more likely to know that? If I have to pick between God's infallibly guided Church or some bunch of scholars who only believe the social gospel, I know where I will place my bets.
Here is another thought. You, no doubt, want us to accept the necessity of Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion "because otherwise Mass will take too long", and because "the Communion rite shouldn't take more than 5 or 7 minutes. Having been to daily Mass when I lived in North Carolina, a Mass at which there were a dozen (literally) who might receive Communion somehow needed Extraordinary ministers, I can say with absolute certainty that the "need" for extraordinary ministers has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping Mass short enough. Likewise, these silly ideas about accepting only the truths which modern science accepts are just that: silly ideas.
Whatever the Holy Father meant in his comment about evolution, he certainly didn't mean that it must be understood as consonant with Divine Revelation. Here's a perfectly sensible understanding of what he said:
Evolution is more than a theory, it's an ideology more pernicious than communism. In essence it removes the "need" for God -- because it insists that God is un-necessary to understanding the well organized universe, a universe in which we can see design and thus infer a designer. This, after all was the ontological proof of God's existence, wasn't it?
Chris
Commenting by HaloScan
