Wow! It seems like a real setup! As it is always easer to break some beautiful thing than to fix it, it will take years of careful and dedicated work to repair the damage that has been done to the liturgy. It looks like the council fathers were much too trusting of men.
Mr. Ferrar's thesis is undermined by the sources he himself quotes. F'instance:
"It is a nest of deadly ambiguities the Council Fathers can only have approved in the confidence that the liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite could not possibly suffer a dramatic rupture, because such a thing had never happened before. Indeed, when Cardinal Browne expressed to his fellow Council Fathers the fear that the Latin Mass would disappear within ten years if the Council allowed the vernacular into the liturgy (as Sacrosanctum Consilium provides), he was greeted with incredulous laughter...."
If the Council Fathers were confident the Rome Rite could not suffer a dramatic rupture, then it logically follows that they did not intend SC to be used to justify the dramatic rupture in the Latin Church's liturgy that we have had to endure.
Again, Msgr. Gamber, as quoted by Mr. Ferrara, wrote: "The Council Fathers, when publishing the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, simply did not expect to see the avalanche they had started, crushing under it all traditional forms of liturgical worship ..."
Therefore the conservative argument is correct: if only Sacrosanctum Consilium were implemented "as the Council intended," then we would have an "authentic reform of the liturgy" in the "true spirit of Vatican II" (not the ersatz thing most of us have been exposed to).
"...then it logically follows that they did not intend SC..."
"...if only Sacrosanctum Consilium were implemented 'as the Council intended,'..."
One of the great issues of legal interpretation (also called "legal exegesis") is the dependence or not of legal texts on what the Italians call the "ratio legislatoris", the will of the legislator.
What the Council Fathers "intended" is an interesting tool, but not an exclusive one. The moment a legal text (and we can safely call SC a legal text in most senses) is "released" (i.e. published), it becomes a kind of independent entity.
If the will of the legislator is hard to discern in a short document written by a small number of bright men whose personal thoughts on the matters they discussed is widely known (as it happens with the Constitution of the United States), then imagine trying to discern why each of the 3,000 bishops voted on a certain way on a comma or on a verb...
It is impossible to understand Vatican II without realizing that it was a typically bureaucratic event: after the first throroughly traditional schemes (schemata) written by the preparatory commissions, as wished by Blessed John XXIII, were thrown away at the first session of the Council, that synod quickly became the venue for bureaucratic manoeuvres. The better-prepared bureaucrats (and Bugnini was one of them) were able to write the new extensive schemas in the new commissions -- new schemas which were barely touched by the whole assembly.
So what is the will of SC? Is it what the document expressly predicts? Is it what it allows? "It is what the Council fathers intended!" But which Fathers? And what did they intend? What if most were not completely aware of what was going to happen, as it seemed to be the case? The document is there... The good thing is that, as any mere legal text, it can safely be amended or revoked.
...are widely known...
Please let me get this straight. What is being said is that we have to reject Vatican II, Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, and join the SSPX? Is this the point?
Or should I have wrote: "What is being implied...."?
The problem with Chris Ferrara is that he is a terrible theologian. As for Paul's question, the fact is, Mr. Ferrara might even say "Yes, we should reject them." And that, of course, is simply dumb to say.
Mr. Ferrara is just that, a lawyer. And if he was a careful theologian, he would actually be careful with his language. For example, he said, "Indeed, when Cardinal Browne expressed to his fellow Council Fathers the fear that the ***Latin Mass*** would disappear withing ten years if the Council allowed the vernacular into the liturgy (as Sacrosanctum Conscilium provides), he was greeted with incredulous laughter...."
A good "lawyer" would know that the Latin Mass did not disappear. The New Mass ****is**** a Latin Mass. It's not a Byzantine, Marionite, etc. It's Latin. Now, Mr. Ferrara says,
"In this writer's view, the only answer is to abandon the novel ambiguities of Sacrosanctum Concilium and restore, in all its integrity, the perennial Latin liturgical tradition that was overthrown only 35 years ago."
First, Mr. Ferrara's notion of novelty is ambiguous at the least. According to his standards, the ecclesiology of Vatican 2 is novel. But that just shows his ignorance of Patristic as well as Medieval ecclesiology (ie. his critique of "subsists" is terrible). Second, let me quote Pope Benedict XVI on the liturgy:
"On the other hand one has to admit that the celebration of the ancient liturgy was too lost in the realm of the individual and the private. One must admit that the communion between the priest and the faithful was lacking. I have great respect for our ancestors who during the Low Mass, said the prayers "during Mass" which their prayer book recommended. Certainly one cannot consider that as the ideal of the liturgical celebration! Perhaps, these reduced forms of celebration are the fundamental reason why the disappearance of the ancient liturgical books had no importance in many countries and caused no pain, There was never any contact with the liturgy itself. On the other hand, where the liturgical movement had created a certain love for the liturgy, where this movement anticipated the essential ideals of the Council - for example the prayerful participation of all at the liturgical action - there was a greater pain at the liturgical reform undertaken too much in haste and limiting itself often to externals. Where the liturgical movement never existed the reform did not -it first pose a problem. The problems arose in a spasmodic way where a wild creativity made the sacred mystery disappear.
*******This is why it is so important to obey the essential criteria of the Constitution on the Liturgy*******, which I cited above, even if one celebrates according to the Ancient Missal. At the moment when this liturgy truly touches the faithful by its beauty and depth, then it will be alive and there will be no irreconcilable opposition with the new liturgy - provided that these criteria are truly applied as
*******This is why it is so important to obey the essential criteria of the Constitution on the Liturgy*******, which I cited above, even if one celebrates according to the Ancient Missal. At the moment when this liturgy truly touches the faithful by its beauty and depth, then it will be alive and there will be no irreconcilable opposition with the new liturgy - provided that these criteria are truly applied as the Council wished." (Talk to Pilgrims on the 10th Anniversary of Ecclesia Dei)
And also Fr. Robert Taft:
"The first, the perceived need for liturgical change and renewal, is obvious to anyone who was alive at that time. Present-day nostalgia for what is inaccurately referred to as the Tridentine rite is the luxury of those who, not having been around at that time, do not have their thought processes inconvenienced by such things as facts. The need for liturgical renewal was obvious to everyone at Vatican II except the foolish. What interests me here is the second point: the strategies the reformers used as they went about it, and especially the role played by eastern liturgy in this process." ("'Eastern Presuppositions' and Western Liturgical Renewal")
I recommend reading Fr. Brian Harrison who said that return to the Old Mass is not the best either. There are better reformers than Ferrara.
What an odd argument. Is he saying that the 'loopholes' in SC were inserted by a trickster and that the Council fathers, representing the magisterium, had no idea of the implications of what they composed and voted for? Surely the bishops of the Church freely opened the door to liturgical innovation, vernacularization and acculturation?There is no mystery about their intention. Today the world's bishops continue to support, enthusiastically, the process opened up by SC.
The poverty of the Roman Catholic liturgy today has nothing to do with the decline of Latin -- the Anglicans, very influenced by Vatican II in their liturgy, has no problem celebrating the liturgy in a vernacular, acculturated and innovative manner that remains deeply spiritual and grounded in tradition. The real roots of our problem lie elsewhere.
Liturgical innovation and pluralism are not new ideas. They have been part of Christian liturgical practice from the beginning.
The myth of the Tridentine Mass carries little weight for those of us who were around at the time. It was a Mass reduced to a minimalist, mostly silent set of gestures, bearing very little resemblance to the Last Supper.
"It was a Mass reduced to a minimalist, mostly silent set of gestures, bearing very little resemblance to the Last Supper."
Because, as we all know, you were a witness of the actual event, right? Each time you criticise the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in its traditional Roman rite you make me even more attached to it (if that is possible).
By the way, let me go off-topic here a while; I would like to know father's opinion on the following topics:
-The Immaculate Conception of our dear and most gracious Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary;
-The Perpetual Virginity of our dear and most gracious Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary;
-The Divine Maternity of our dear and most gracious Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary;
-The Assumption into Heaven, in body and soul, of our dear and most gracious Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Here is why Protestants have a hard time taking seriously the Catholic apologetic trump card of so many denominations and the need of a Magisterium. You claim the eucharist is the source and summit of everything, and yet, even with a Pope and a full Council of Bishops, there remains no agreement over a satisfactory rite or translation of the ceremony! How can you ask someone to look to Rome for guidance if three popes and Vatican II were so wrong in their tampering with a sacred act? Such a posture shreds the idea of divine safeguarding of continuity. At the very least the conversation should knock the arrogance factor down a few notches in some apolgetic discussions. Evangelical hairsplitting over inerrancy is no more confusing than conversation like that here.
You're confusing doctrine and discipline, Joe.
Looks like there are three positions being hawked here:
1) Traditional / Ferrara: SC has the status of a binding document, but is loaded with ambiguities, which makes “proper” interpretation impossible – therefore it must be cast aside, and replaced with a document in which ambiguity is expunged, and the truth of liturgical tradition made manifest.
2) Neo-Con / Stravinskas: SC is a binding document, but is loaded with ambiguities, which make “proper” interpretation problematic, but not impossible – therefore, it requires only that an effort be made by all parties toward proper understanding
3) Dissident / O’Leary: SC may or may not be a binding document, but is basically irrelevant, because the controversy that has risen around it is irrelevant – “novelty” has always been a part of the liturgy, and doctrinal justification exists in abundance, therefore SC is not needed to justify the novelties of the past thirty-five years.
Oddly enough, there seems to be basic agreement that SC is a seriously flawed document (for the dissidents, the point is moot). This, in itself, makes the claim that the liturgical document of this supposedly “pastoral” council is binding with the force of the Holy Spirit rather difficult to maintain: after all, as sentimentalists of the faith are wont to remind us, “God does not create junk”.
The dissident argument is notable mainly because it gives the lie to its proponent, who fancies himself the “Spirit of Vatican II”, but seems in this exchange the least committed to that council’s liturgical document. Rather than resting his case for shotgun innovation on SC, he says he doesn’t need it anyway, the case has already been made through the “proper” interpretation of Church tradition as a process of self-deconstruction.
The neo-con argument commits its proponents to an endless mud-wrestle with the dissidents over this crotchet or that wrinkle. What will we do about altar girls, reception in the hand, language issues, ad orientam, the orans posture, proper hymnody, the content of Eucharistic prayer, on and on and on, with no resolution possible, seeing as the final say comes not from the Vatican but from the bishops, each the absolute ruler of his diocesan fiefdom. Compared to this effort to “save the appearances”, the Hundred Years’ War seems like a lunch hour stroll.
The trad argument amounts to a rejection of SC. And let’s be clear about it, if SC can be rejected, then so can every other document of this council. Some would probably say that is exactly what should be done. Personally, I would love to see the toy box of NO innovations done away with at a stroke. I rejoice in the spinal implant given the CDF by Cardinal Ratzinger, and dance a jig every time a Reese or a Curran bites the dust. But there are O’Learys of the right as well as the left. I don’t want to be one of them. Trads may have to ultimately accept a role in the neo-con war of inches. That role may be to fortify th
(ctd)
Trads may have to ultimately accept a role in the neo-con war of inches. That role may be to fortify the more flexible spines of their neo-con brethren, and to sound the alarm every time a document as worm-holed and treacherous as SC is contemplated by the “princes of the Church”.
Jordan: Don't you think that distinction is a bit fine, considering the Church's mission in part, if I understand it rightly, is to present and cherish the Eucharist. If a Council and Popes cannot get that right, is there a reason to trust they get anything else right? The Divinely-appointed guardian and interpreter of the Faith is to present what else other than Christ himself? If the Church convenes, and meditates on how to declare the Truth to the modern world, and the result dramatically re-directs the Church... If that is a mistake, it seems like it is hard to know when if ever the Church *can* be trusted. Does infallibility and divine assistance boil down to the Creeds and 2 Statements on Mary? As I said, that sort of reductionism leaves the claim for the need of an interpreter rather stripped down. It makes one pretty sympathetic to Traditinalist mindsets. My 2.5 cents there.
What are the opinions out there on the work of Denis Crouan who has published his english translations through Ignatius? He seems to think the reform was a good thing but the implementation was a disaster and that we need to return to the mass that Vatican II actually set forth. Any thoughts?
"...let’s be clear about it, if SC can be rejected, then so can every other document of this council..."
Not necessarily, Ralph.Even though I do not particularly like any of the Conciliar documents, some carry with them clear (well, not very clear) programs. These programatic documents, such as SC, which do not involve any particular doctrine, are certainly revisable or revokable...
I have nothing to add, other than another perspective may help with an understanding of these matters.
The Mass of Vatican II is a blog with an interesting thesis - that while the 1965 Missal was marketed as a transitional reform, it is more faithful to liturgical continuity than the 1970 Missal and thus ought to receive more attention from both traditionalists and conservatives.
The author cares little about the reforms proposed by the 1967 liturgical reform document Tres abhinc annos and is about to embark on a critique of its recommendations and mandates.
It ultimately may be of just as much value as Mr. Ferrara's article, but I suspect that it may be much more illuminating.
New Catholic,
Well, for me, the nub of it is whether revocation creates a greater problem than it solves, and the issue is far from settled in my mind. At bottom, I fear we may have too soft and unreliable a clergy, especially at the level of bishop, to cope with the unintended consequences of the steps Ferrara advocates. I may be completely wrong about this, but I think John Paul felt similarly, and believe Benedict does too. “Saving the appearances” – the myth of the “spring time of Vatican II” – may be part of the price of derailing its ill effects.
Yes, saving the appearances. I believe our dear Pope Wojtyla actually believed in the beneficial effects of all documents and of the "liturgical reform"; he was a "Gaudium et Spes" man...
...he was a "Gaudium et Spes" man...
Didn't he help write it?
As for me, I think that BXVI is well aware of all of these problems and their history. As I said above, the solution to this mess is going to take time, and I think that our pope knows where he wants to go in fixing it. To rush things would be to commit the very same error that was committed back when the NO mass was rushed into practice with lots of enthusiasm and very little thought.
"Don't you think that distinction is a bit fine, considering the Church's mission in part, if I understand it rightly, is to present and cherish the Eucharist. If a Council and Popes cannot get that right, is there a reason to trust they get anything else right?"
The question being begged is whether or not the Second Vatican Council and the Popes actually failed to present and cherish the Eucharist. I don't know how it can be seriously argued that they failed to present and cherish the Eucharist. It doesn't mean the policies and reforms were necessarily wise or properly implemented, but it doesn't mean the Church has failed to proclaim the true doctrine of the Eucharist or has lost her regard and reverence for it.
The tumult and controversy that was sparked by the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms HAS been a bad thing, a scandal or stumblingblock for many, Catholic and non-Catholic. But it's just not a case of a true doctrine being lost or denied, or a heresy being promulgated.
"This, in itself, makes the claim that the liturgical document of this supposedly 'pastoral' council is binding with the force of the Holy Spirit rather difficult to maintain."
Actually, many of the documents of Vatican II are capable of being "out-grown" by the Church. Apart from the two dogmatic constitutions, which (I believe) are documents of the highest possible authority an Oecumenical Council can issue, most if not all of the documents of Vatican II are of somewhat lesser authority and/or treat of subjects more in a disciplinary fashion than a doctrinal or dogmatic fashion. Sacrosanctum Consilium is hardly something like the Tome of Leo -- it delineates principles and guidelines for reforming the liturgy as it stood in the 1960s. Many of those principles are bound to be rendered obsolete in the future. I rather suspect some of those principles are obsolete already.
Let's speculate what some of those unintended consequences might be. I can think of two:
(1) Fresh impetus given to the idea that council documents can be revoked, or just ignored. Not that this is anything new, but it is a sword that cuts both ways, and despite the last papal election, the clergy is still a largely liberal institution.
(2) An ugly showdown of Pope vs. bishops, in which many of the latter could refuse to accept the removal of the foundation for NO reforms, and simply maintain the status quo.
I've asked this question before: which way would the priests go? In this country, at least, the answer most often seems to be, whichever way the prevailing winds blow, though with a pronounced lean toward the status quo left. If true, it can't be encouraging to a pope who ponders ways of cleaning up the mess of the last thirty-five years.
Apolonio, I agree that Mr. Ferrara is a much better lawyer than a theologian. In fact, he's not really a theologian at all, though it seems clear he has some theological opinions. My point is not to defend all that Mr. Ferrara says -- since I have read some things elsewhere written by him that fill me with considerable alarm -- but to centerpiece what I consider a very good question he raises in this article about significant ambiguities in SC itself (Mr. Davies, of course, offers a similar expose of SC in Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II). This unearths the more fundamental question underlying the call of many conservative catholics for a more authentic and faithful implementation of Vatican II and, in particilar here, SC: By what standard is SC to be interpreted? Since SC itself is susceptible of multiple, conflicting possible interpretations, what interpretation is authoritative? It's hardly enough to speak of the Council Fathers' intentions, for the problem is precisely that the SC fails to specify those intentions.
I do think, as Lamont claims in an earlier article I posted on these matters, that the Council was fully within its rights in calling for a reform of the Traditional Latin Mass. The problem now is not only that the reform has been hijacked, but that the canon -- the original standard that was the object of reform -- has been so far lost from view that the term "reform" has lost nearly all meaning.
I do not personally agree with Ferrara's views about returning to the pre-Vatican II Missal of the Latin Mass as the exclusive universal standard for the Western Church. However I do believe it is imperative that the Traditional Latin Mass be amply restored, retrieved, and safeguarded. Why? For two reasons. First, it is the Traditional Latin Mass of the West and has never been and cannot be legitimately abrogated, as Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger has himself noted. Second, it is utterly imperative that both the Novus Ordo and the "Reform of the Reform" (I do not see these as identical) have the Traditional Mass available as an objective benchmark of what proper traditional Catholic Mass is.
Dr. Blosser,
I pretty much agree with you. I don't think there is the problem of bringing the Old Mass back. What I object to is, sacking the New Mass and bringing the old one. I personally believe that having the new and old widely available would be of benefit. The reform of the reform may even come from a synthesis of the two.
As for how Vatican 2 should be interpreted it, if there are ambiguities, it should be interpreted in light of Tradition and/or let the proper authorities like the Pope interpret it. As for SC in general, I favor what Maximos Saigh IV said. It should be interpreted in a collegial way. This means that the episcopal conferences *along* with Rome should have the say. The problem is that some people think that collegiality implies the rejection of Rome's authority while in fact that is not the case. The way the bishops here in this country and the Holy See, for example, are working together for the new translation of the mass is great. Of course, there are barriers where some do not want to listen to Rome. However, I still believe that is how it should be done. This takes away the "Roman centrism" without taking away its proper authority.
I am in no sense a dissident from Sacrum Concilium or any document of Vatican II. Insofar as I have thought about liturgical matters, Sacrum Concilium has been the very foundation of my thinking; we studied it carefully during our first year of theology in 1966-7. (Also, to ask for dialogue and possible development in some areas of church teaching or discipline does not necessarily make one a 'dissident'.)
I would never say that liturgical innovation can be carried on without church permission. What I do say is that innovation has been effected by the church, in an orderly way, throughout its history.
Jordan:
You are far more an authority than I on this turf. I''ll simply say that reading Ferrara most definitely gives on an opinion closer to what I expressed. And if you are on the outside looking in, it makes talk of the 'Teaching Church' much harder to understand, as does--of course--the refere nce-heavy posts of one cleric here. A good deal to stew over.
Thanks.
Any lawyer or literary critic can make any text seem to be 'a nest of deadly ambiguities'. That is child's play.
A responsible hermeneutics will challenge this judgment and defend the coherence of the text when read in depth.
In the case of Conciliar texts legal hermeneutics and literary hermeneutics, however reflected and responsible, are not sufficient; theological hermeneutics are required.
Mr Ferrara's discovery that SC is 'a nest of ambiguities' may reflect only his own lack of theological training. Certainly, his own essay seems to be crawling with inconsistencies. Ne sutor ultra crepidam.
According to Mr Ferrara, "there will be no innovations unless the good of the Church requires them" means "there will be no innovations".
Bill Clinton should have hired this man! Basic logic and grammar go out the window!
Vatican II distinguishes between unchangeable elements of the liturgy, divinely instituted, and others which are changeable. The Council judges that the latter elements need to be reformed so that the texts and rites express more clearly the holy things which they signify, and so that the Christian people can understand them with ease and take part in them fully, actively and as a community (SC 21). My quite detailed and comprehensive memories of the Tridentine mass of pre-1965 confirm that it is not express clearly the meaning of the eucharist, was not understood by the faithful, and discouraged complete and active participation as a community.
The liturgy is generally bad in (Roman) Catholic churches and it is generally excellent in Anglican ones. The reason cannot be the reforms of Vatican II (to which Anglicans also paid great attention). The solution cannot be a return to a previous situation which was just as unsatisfactory.
One part of the problem is the multiplication and routinization of masses in the RC church; another the sense of Sunday Mass as a duty, a chore, that has to be got over; another is the lack of biblical culture of the clergy, whose sermons -- ill-prepared -- hardly ever seem to be inspired by the scriptural readings. Also the English of the translations is flat and charmless, and the proposed new translation is no improvement on this score, whereas the Anglican texts are quite good. Why have we learned so little from the Anglicans, who have centuries of experience with the vernacular liturgy (whereas they have been happy to learn from us)?
"The Latin Liturgical Tradition: Extending and Solidifying the Continuity
http://www.latinliturgy.com/
calk...instalk_lla.htm
by Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins (staff member of the Ecclesia Dei Commission in Rome)".
==
Question: Has anyone ever heard of this person: Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins? Thanks!
Hello Ralph Roister-Doister
I tossed in the link above < Msgr. Calkins' Talk on the Latin Liturgy at the 2001 LLA (The Latin Liturgy Association, Inc.) Convention in Chicago > to help add to your list above. Of the "three positions being hawked here", does it fit in best with the Neo-Cons? Or...?
Thanks!
I see that Ferrara, admitting his lack of any theological formation, nonetheless addressed 64 questions to Ratzinger about Dominus Iesus. He obviously thinks that churchmen are unable to think clearly and need a lawyer to sort them out!
See note 8 in the following for the details: http://www.latinliturgy.com/
calk...instalk_lla.htm
But you nonetheless discuss with this "mere lawyer". Now, why don't you write an article discussing the errors of Mr. Ferrara in your blog and send it to him? It could be a very interesting debate.
Now, I really would like you to please provide us with your opinions on the Marian issues I presented to you before. What do you really think of them?
Any lawyer or literary critic can make any text seem to be 'a nest of deadly ambiguities'. That is child's play.
And this is supposed to give us confidence in your liturgical fidelity when you declare that the "Sacrum Concilium has been the very foundation of my thinking"?
According to Mr Ferrara, "there will be no innovations unless the good of the Church requires them" means "there will be no innovations".
Bill Clinton should have hired this man! Basic logic and grammar go out the window!
No, Mr. Ferrara wrote: "To say that there will be no innovations 'unless' means, of course, that there will be innovations" (emphasis added).
My quite detailed and comprehensive memories of the Tridentine mass of pre-1965 confirm that it is not express clearly the meaning of the eucharist, was not understood by the faithful, and discouraged complete and active participation as a community.
Your detailed and comprehensive memory is surpassed only by your quite overweening and comprehensive presumption. After your amply and publicly displayed track record in this venue, you expect us to repose a neigh infallible confidence in your insight that those who assisted at the Traditional Latin Mass before Vatican II generally had no understanding of the fact that what was being offered was the Sacrifice of Christ for their sins or exhibited any significant spiritual participation in that sacrifice, while the majority of those who sing "Gather Us In" at the New Mass, parrot the Psalm refrains and repeat the "Lord, hear our prayer" at the General Intercessions, hold hands, clap after musical performances, and slouch up to take their "wafers" from smiling soccer mom Eucharistic ministers exhibit a vastly superior spiritual participation in the Eucharistic sacrifice -- uh, excuse me, communal meal? Um ... hello?
Never called him a "mere lawyer" -- all honor to lawyers and their profession.
But, as Paul said, he is a "terrible theologian".
Whether he is a good lawyer is not for me to judge, but his performance above does not impress me.
As to Mariology, let us have respect for our mother.
@Any lawyer or literary critic can make any text seem to be 'a nest of deadly ambiguities'. That is child's play.@
pb: @And this is supposed to give us confidence in your liturgical fidelity when you declare that the "Sacrum Concilium has been the very foundation of my thinking"?@
pb omits my third sentence: @A responsible hermeneutics will challenge this judgment and defend the coherence of the text when read in depth.@
IN OTHER WORDS HE ASCRIBES TO ME A PRINCIPLE I EXPLICITLY REJECT, IN ORDER TO PORTRAY ME AS AN IRRESPONSIBLE READER OF TEXTS!
pb is right about "no innovations" -- I misread the text. Sorry.
Ferrara is wrong to say that the idea of liturgical innovations is without precedent in church history. The very fact that we recite the Nicene Creed at Mass is the result of a liturgical innovation made sometime in the past.
When was the Last Gospel added to the Mass? Is it something fans of the pre-1965 Mass want restored?
"My quite detailed and comprehensive memories of the Tridentine mass of pre-1965 confirm that it did not express clearly the meaning of the eucharist, was not understood by the faithful, and discouraged complete and active participation as a community."
pb: @Your detailed and comprehensive memory is surpassed only by your quite overweening and comprehensive presumption.@
Well, as Bishop Cornelius Lucey said to me when I offered an account of something in Vatican II: @I was there!@
Between 1953 or so and 1965 I must have attended or served as an acolyte at something in the region of 2,000 Tridentine masses, undiluted by any modern innovations.
And the Council Fathers in calling for a reform aimed at restoring the qualities I mentioned bear out my impression that these qualities were indeed lacking back then.
"After your amply and publicly displayed track record in this venue, you expect us to repose a nigh infallible confidence in your insight that those who assisted at the Traditional Latin Mass before Vatican II generally had no understanding of the fact that what was being offered was the Sacrifice of Christ for their sins or exhibited any significant spiritual participation in that sacrifice". The track record stuff means (1) I disagree with what you say; (2) I have no convincing rebuttal.
I did not say the faithful were unaware that the Mass was the sacrifice of Christ or that they had no spiritual participation. But it was individualized and devotional, focused on the moment of awe at the elevation of the host, and on reciting such prayers as "Soul of my Savior" after communion or as a hymn. Eucharistic devotion in fact thrived most intensely outside the Mass itself in Corpus Christi processions, Holy Hours, Benediction.
The text of the Roman Canon and the structure of the Mass were NOT easily understood by the faithful, and did not encourage complete, active and communal participation. Hence the many substitutes provided for the faithful -- prayers to be said during mass etc.
pb: for, while the majority of those who sing "Gather Us In" at the New Mass, parrot the Psalm refrains and repeat the "Lord, hear our prayer" at the General Intercessions, hold hands, clap after musical performances, and slouch up to take their "wafers" from smiling soccer mom Eucharistic ministers exhibit a vastly superior spiritual participation in the Eucharistic sacrifice -- uh, excuse me, communal meal? Um ... hello?
Reply: Dully unimaginative use of the vernacular and bad taste are what you are complaining of. The Anglican Church is generally free of the bad music and unliturgical sloppiness you complain of. We have much to learn from them.
The Eucharist is indeed a communal meal. I don't see what you consider so strange about that.
By the way, clapping after musical performances is not in itself obnoxious. If you ever attend Greek orthodox liturgies you will find that people come in and out and that there is a sense of ordinary life going on throughout the service. Some claim that this is the way it was in the early church.
Paul,
In my opinion, Msgr Calkins appears to be much like Benedict himself, a neo-conservative with a certain sympathy for traditionalist concerns, but with what is, I suspect, the instinct of the bureaucrat to concede as little as possible in the way of admission of error.
His article, though articulate and penetrating, should be read with caution. One reason for this is that he carefully distinguishes between loyal Catholics with traditionalist sensibilities, and Lefebvreite schismatics, and then addresses his criticism of traditionalism solely toward the latter group. Thus, his concept of traditionalism is considerably narrower than the one I was jotting above. IMO, though many of the regular contributors on this site, including myself, harbor "traditionalist sympathies", none of them are schismatics -- thus, Msgr Calkins' article is not directly addressing them.
Another question to consider is that, after reading his article, entitled "The Latin Liturgical Tradition: Extending and Solidifying the Continuity", and consisting largely of criticism of the excesses of traditionalist schismatics, I have to wonder: what, exactly, does Msgr Calkins have to offer Catholics with traditionalist sensitivities, besides lip service? "Extending and Solidifying" seems to him, to consist of little more than offering consoling words, rather on the order of "it's a shame, but . . .". Msgr Calkins should spend a moment considering the question, how can you "extend and solidify" what has already been largely destroyed?
Another question worth considering is that, without hard traditionalists like Lefebvre and his sympathizers (I would include Ferrara and possibly Davies among them), not all of whom are themselves schismatic, WOULD THE NEO-CONS EVEN EXIST AS A GROUP? I believe that the origin of neo-conservatism in the Church lies not only with the O'Learyite depradations of post V2, but with traditionalist criticisms of them, which gave voice to what was with many to that point only a generalized uneasiness.
We owe a lot to people like Michael Davies.
"he carefully distinguishes between loyal Catholics with traditionalist sensibilities, and Lefebvreite schismatics, and then addresses his criticism of traditionalism solely toward the latter group."
THIS IS NOT CORRECT -- HE ADDRESSES HIS CRITICISMS TO A MUCH WIDER GROUP THAN LEFEBVRITES. IN FACT, THE TRADITIONALISM HE CRITICIZES IS RATHER WELL REPRESENTED ON THIS FORUM!
He speaks of "legitimate developments in doctrine which are taking place even in this difficult, but glorious season of the Church's life in which we live."
He speaks of "English-language propaganda for the traditional Latin Mass which comes from various groups not in full communion with the Church, but identifying themselves as the real bearers of the Catholic Tradition and from pressure groups within the Church. Most of this material is written in what I call "attack mode"." He scolds Michael: "such exercises in misrepresentation do not serve to build up the Body of Christ in love (cf. I Cor. 12:25; Eph. 4:12), but continue to lacerate it, to pierce the Hearts of Jesus and Mary."
He attacks '"traditionalism" since it largely dominates the Latin Mass scene' which includes Lefebvrits and "sedevacantists" but does not include "serious Catholics who love the Church, are docile to her teaching and "are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition". The traditionalists he is attacking are "ideologists who have no concern for the care of souls (cf. Jn. 10:12-13) and who are totally committed to a crusade for the restoration of the 1962 Roman Missal at any cost".
He goes one: "traditionalist" doctrine has passed into being a rejection of the Council itself. A standard "traditionalist" argument is that the Council was not convoked to deal with doctrinal matters, but was merely "pastoral" and so can be conveniently ignored. This kind of superficial reasoning completely overlooks the fact that two of the Council's documents are entitled "dogmatic constitutions" and that in a number of significant areas the Council made advances in the development of Catholic doctrine.
He criticizes "a group of American "traditionalists" who published a manifesto addressed directly to the Holy Father and entitled We Resist You to the Face[7] while another prominent American "traditionalist" who admitted that he had "no formal theological training" presented a list of 64 questions to Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, requesting further clarifications on the Congregation's declaration Dominus Iesus seemingly because of perceived lack of clarity in that document's presentation of Catholic doctrine.[referring to Ferrara]
He says: "traditionalists" tend to dismiss any openness to other Christian bodies at all. Another neuralgic issue for them is the question of religious liberty.
He says: The so-called "Tridentine" Mass or Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal has become the centerpiece of th
He says: The so-called "Tridentine" Mass or Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal has become the centerpiece of the "traditionalist" struggle for doctrinal purity; it represents for them the most perfect form of worship ever to be devised. It is sometimes referred to by French "traditionalists" as la Messe de toujours, the Mass of all times, literally "the Mass of forever". Aside from being a gross misrepresentation, this kind of language absolutizes this venerable form of the Roman Rite of the Mass, which, in fact, underwent many developments in the course of history, and implicitly ignores all the Church's other venerable rites for the celebration of the Eucharist. Conversely, the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970 is criticized by "traditionalists" as a departure from the tradition.
He says: "traditionalist" apologists tend only to entertain distinctions in favor of their own position. Anyone who opposes them is simply caricatured and dismissed.
He claims that John Paul II "has advanced the development of doctrine on a number of issues... woe to those who misrepresent his doctrine and undermine the faith of others (cf. Mk. 9:42). The burden of proof rests entirely upon them."
He says: "For those who were less accustomed to using a hand missal in assisting at Mass and less formed in certain forms of liturgical piety, the changes in the celebration of the Mass and the introduction of the vernacular were fairly readily received. For those whose piety had long been nourished by the solemn celebration of the Roman liturgy, there was more trauma. In my opinion this was primarily an error in judgment; it did not touch doctrine, but it is understandable that it caused uneasiness, discomfort and at times disorientation."
He says: "the texts themselves which we find in the new liturgical books, despite their often poor vernacular translations. Few are aware, for example, of the scholarly studies on the sources of the present Roman Missal published by Abbot Cuthbert Johnson, O.S.B. and Father Anthony Ward, S.M.[15] and continued by the latter in Notitiæ, the official organ of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. "Traditionalist" polemicists never seem more exultant than when contrasting the two forms of the Roman Rite, often choosing abuses to illustrate the new and insisting on the perfection of the older form and the imperfection of the new. Abusus non tollit usum says the Latin adage; abuse does not take away the legitimate use of a thing. I am certainly not here to defend liturgical abuses, but it is necessary to distinguish the liturgy as it has been given to us by the Church from abuses which have entered in. Such carping is not a Catholic attitude and remains closed to the treasures which remain to be discovered in the reformed liturgy. On the one hand, I readily grant that the classical Roman liturgy should be seen as a normative point of reference in inte
Why don't you just paste the entire article instead of puking it up in disconnected bits? Sometimes the mad dog tone of your notes conjures up a Ralph Steadman drawing accompanying Hunter Thompson's similarly mad dog rants in Rolling Stone back in the day.
If Calkins thinks hard traditionalists are dyspeptic screamers, he should meet up with you.
He says: I believe that there are many riches which the postconciliar liturgical reform has given the Church such as the orations (which must be distinguished from the often banal English translations), prefaces and lectionary, which, according to the desire of the Council Fathers, has opened up the treasures of the Bible "so that a richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word".
As all of us are aware, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has been a strenuous defender of the pastoral provision of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal and "traditionalists" are always willing to cite him about this, but since they are often masters of selective quotation, they often omit many of the important clarifications which he offered in his address on 24 October 1998 on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei". For instance, he singled out #34-36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium and pointedly stated that these paragraphs provide the criteria by which celebrations of the Mass according to the both 1962 Roman Missal and the Missal of Pope Paul VI should be judged. In fact the Cardinal went so far as to say that
If one wished to hold these essential rules in disdain and to set to one side the general norms found in paragraphs 34-36 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, one would be violating the obedience due to the Council!
Further, the Cardinal highlighted a number of the general norms provided by the Constitution on the Liturgy and offered two specific instances from #36. The first section of #36 states that "The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites." This is something that "traditionalists" of all shades will vigorously applaud... However, the Cardinal also cited the second section of that paragraph to the effect that "since the use of the vernacular ... may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in the readings, directives and in some of the prayers and chants.
To hardline "traditionalists", of course, such an idea is anathema, but the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith points out what many of the Council Fathers were particularly concerned about:
HE QUOTES BENEDICT XVI "the celebration of the old liturgy had slipped too much into the domain of the individual and the private, and the communion between priests and faithful was insufficient."
This should be seen particularly as a comment on the ordinary way in which the Low Mass was celebrated, which could be done with very little reference to the people on the other side of the communion rail. Indeed, it should be noted that the great majority of the Bishops at the council, including the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, were convinced that a certain reform of the liturgy was highly desirable and willingly signed the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
I firmly believe that the most pressing need in this entire area today is for a pastoral vision which sees and expounds the value of the celebration of the Mass according to the normative Roman Missal of 1970 and that of 1962 -- without polemics. I stress that this is a pressing need which very largely has not been met. There have been a few Roman documents and a few references in others, but no comprehensive approach that really deals with the issues head-on and in an integrated way. One may, of course, point to Dominicæ Cenæ of 24 February 1980 and to a less known, but truly remarkable, discourse which the Holy Father addressed to the Bishops of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska on 9 October 1998. Among other notable things in this rich miniature treatise on the liturgy the Pope said:
The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part, but this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially the chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman rite, should be wholly abandoned. If subconscious experience is ignored in worship, an affective and devotional vacuum is created and the liturgy can become not only too verbal but also too cerebral. Yet the Roman rite is again distinctive in the balance it strikes between a spareness and a richness of emotion: it feeds the heart and the mind, the body and the soul.[18]
One must ask oneself, however, whether this outstanding address has had any impact on the celebration of the liturgy in any of these states or in our country as a whole, not to mention the universal Church.
"As to Mariology, let us have respect for our mother."
I guess if you say anything on the subject, it will be disrespectful, right?
Let me begin with the Immaculate Conception of Our dearest Lady. Do you have any problem with the concept? And with its dogmatic definition? Do you accept all that it entails, including the actual existence of the Fall and of Original Sin?
Up to now the leaders of the "traditionalist" movement have been emphatic that they want nothing to do with any other movement that has to do with the renewal of the Roman liturgy. They don't want to be seen as part of any broader movement for the restoration of the sacred in the liturgy and aren't interested in working with others on common objectives. Their philosophy is strictly "exclusivist": they want nothing but the 1962 Missal and act as if the influence of the Holy Spirit in the Church definitively ceased in that year. Any development or pastoral adaptation is considered strictly inadmissible.
Not only is "traditionalist" theory "exclusivist", but so is its practice. There can be no question here about the pastoral need of souls. That doesn't seem to enter into the considerations of "traditionalist" idealogues. Michael Davies strenuously objects to the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission's description of its task of "integrating the traditionalist faithful into the reality of the Church". "The reality of the Church in the Western world today," he informs us 'is that it is disintegrating. To take Europe as an example, the Church there is facing extinction, as Cardinal Daneels expressed it. This is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Why should traditionalists wish to be "integrated" into a disintegrating Church?'
In response to this sad lack of sound ecclesiology, of confidence in the providence of God and of filial piety, I would like to quote the late Cardinal de Lubac once again:
The Church which we call our Mother is not some ideal and unreal Church but this hierarchical Church herself; not the Church as we might dream her but the Church as she exists in fact, here and now. Thus the obedience which we pledge her in the persons of those who rule her cannot be anything else but a filial obedience. ... And every true Catholic will have a feeling of tender piety towards her. He will love to call her "mother" -- the title that sprang from the hearts of her first children, as the texts of Christian antiquity bear witness on so many occasions. He will say with St. Cyprian and St. Augustine: "He who has not the Church for mother cannot have God for Father"[22]
IX. What can be done to facilitate Pastoral Integration?
I am genuinely grateful to the Latin Liturgy Association for having invited me to make this presentation. I believe that you perform a valuable function in promoting the celebration of the Mass in Latin according to both versions of the Roman Missal. I regret that most my talk was taken up with the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. This was the case of necessity because this is the most problematic area and the one that I have had to deal with for the past twelve years. At the same time I sincerely want to encourage the celebration of the Latin Mass according to the present normative Roman Missal. For about three years I lived at the
For about three years I lived at the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music where daily the so-called new Mass was celebrated in Latin with gregorian chant with the readings in the vernacular.
I would encourage you to develop literature which will not pit the two forms of the Roman Missal against one another, but that will help to situate both forms of celebration in the wider context of the Church who is our Mother. Polemicism does harm to souls; the truth presented with love for the Church helps them to grow in the same way. Do not support publications, no matter how seemingly intelligent, which are written in "attack mode". Do not be supporters of narrow liturgical polemics or "exclusivism". In this regard Monsignor Gamber made a prophetic remark that is more necessary than ever today:
We cannot and must not leave the fight for the preservation and re-establishment of the traditional liturgy of the Mass to a small group of fanatics who reject outright even those liturgical reforms demanded by the last Council, reforms which are justified, such as the use of the local vernacular in some situations.[23]
Even if I do not share his critique entirely, I believe that his words serve as a very timely and important admonition. The promotion of the Latin Mass in both its forms puts the Roman Rite back in touch with its roots, constitutes a good for the whole Church and thus is too important to be left to fanatics.
In this setting I am very happy to be able to single out Fr. Frank Philips and the Society of St. John Cantius. They are incarnate evidence that the two forms of the Roman Missal do not exclude one another, but complement each other. They give a very important witness and deserve our prayers and support.
I would also propose that the Latin Liturgy Association might consider undertaking the revision and republication of Likoudis and Whitehead's book, The Pope, The Council and The Mass with the original authors. I believe it would constitute a great service to those who have gotten mired down in the polemics of hardline "traditionalist" propaganda.
Up to now the leaders of the "traditionalist" movement have been emphatic that they want nothing to do with any other movement that has to do with the renewal of the Roman liturgy. They don't want to be seen as part of any broader movement for the restoration of the sacred in the liturgy and aren't interested in working with others on common objectives. Their philosophy is strictly "exclusivist": they want nothing but the 1962 Missal and act as if the influence of the Holy Spirit in the Church definitively ceased in that year. Any development or pastoral adaptation is considered strictly inadmissible.
Not only is "traditionalist" theory "exclusivist", but so is its practice. There can be no question here about the pastoral need of souls. That doesn't seem to enter into the considerations of "traditiona
The article, which everyone is quite capable of reading for themselves, says the following in bold print:
Please note that when I use the word "traditionalist" in this presentation I am not referring to serious Catholics who love the Church, are docile to her teaching and "are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition"[6]; I am speaking, rather, of ideologists who have no concern for the care of souls (cf. Jn. 10:12-13) and who are totally committed to a crusade for the restoration of the 1962 Roman Missal at any cost.
I will accept Mad Dog O'Leary's criticism that Calkins speaks to a broader group than "Lefebvreite schismatics" -- my error. But I maintain my belief that those arguing on this forum, Dr Blosser included, do not fit Calkins' description of those "who are totally committed to a crusade for the restoration of the 1962 Roman Missal at any cost." If anything, it appears to me that while Calkins the bureaucrat clearly prefers his traditionalists "docile", O'Leary will only accept them lobotomized.
I have certainly seen the Novus Ordo decried here as heretical, and many other statements going in that direction.
Statements going in the "direction" of heresy? Not surprising: a good half of the comments on these topics are yours.
Here is the kind of "traditionalism" that is being criticized:
"So if I were to point a simple and powerful reform which would fix the main problem of the New Mass, it would be the abolition of all additional "Eucharistic Prayers" and the obligation for the Roman Canon to be said in Latin and ad orientem.
"A Mass without the Roman Canon is not a Roman Mass.
"The good thing is that, as any mere legal text, it [SC] can safely be amended or revoked."
Ferrara and Davies are the "traditionalists" the monsignor names explicitly, they are also the authors quoted with glowing approval by Ph Blosser. So I think the criticisms are very much aimed in that direction, not at safely remote sedevacantists and lefebvrites. If the cap fits...
If you had read Dr Blosser's comments on this thread carefully, you would have noticed that his admiration of Ferrara is carefully measured. I believe he even described certain of Ferrara's opinions as "alarming". No one on this thread has offered an opinion of Davies except me. I find his book "Liturgical Time Bombs" a very effective criticism of SC, and can understand Calkins' displeasure with him (I have not read the specific article of Davies' that Calkins cites). But Fr Joe, devoutly as you might wish that it were so, this does not amount to committment to " a crusade for the restoration of the 1962 Roman Missal at all costs". Mind your own cap, O'Leary.
Must go. Same time tomorrow??
New Catholic, I can appreciate your desire to probe Fr. O'Leary's opinions regarding the Marian dogmas, but it threatens to derail the discussion of liturgical reform going on now. Might I suggest taking this question up in another venue. Perhaps Dr. Blosser could provide a commentbox just for that subject?
Marian dogmas?
The divine motherhood is Christological. It reduces to the doctrine of the Incarnation.
The Immaculate Conception and Assumption are more devotional than doctrinal. I like the thought that Mary is pre-emptively redeemed from all sin, and thus full of grace in a unique sense. Original Sin is of course a doctrine that has been greatly demythologized in modern theology. I also like the idea that Mary shares fully in the Risen Lord's life in a unique sense and is thus a symbol of the eschatological church in its glory.
The Virgin Birth. Like most Catholic theologians today I have difficulty accepting it as historical, biological fact. It fits mythic patterns very well. Tillich even asks if those patterns were an appropriate vehicle of the kerygma.
That's the best I can do. If you guys have some convincing words to speak on these matters, I will hear them gratefully.
I do not see Blosser distancing himself from Ferrara at all. He ends with this: "Again, Ferrara's article is worth reading in full, since it gives a much more thoroughgoing analysis of key articles from SC than I can begin to convey in this limited space. His article, "Sacrosanctum Concilium: A Lawyer Examines the Loopholes," is published in Latin Mass , Vol. 14, No. 4 (Fall 2005), pp. 8-13. If you don't take this intelligent and wide-ranging journal of Catholic culture and tradition, I encourage you to subscribe online at http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/...
See also Michael Davies, Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II: Destruction of the Faith Through Changes in Catholic Worship".
O I see, he does say: "My point is not to defend all that Mr. Ferrara says -- since I have read some things elsewhere written by him that fill me with considerable alarm -- but to centerpiece what I consider a very good question he raises in this article about significant ambiguities in SC itself (Mr. Davies, of course, offers a similar expose of SC in Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II). ...Since SC itself is susceptible of multiple, conflicting possible interpretations, what interpretation is authoritative? [rather hasty hermeneutical relativism here, I think]
I do think, as Lamont claims in an earlier article I posted on these matters, that the Council was fully within its rights in calling for a reform of the Traditional Latin Mass. [this implies a narrow definition of the Council's rights -- the Church's rights...] The problem now is not only that the reform has been hijacked, but that the canon -- the original standard that was the object of reform -- has been so far lost from view that the term "reform" has lost nearly all meaning. I do not personally agree with Ferrara's views about returning to the pre-Vatican II Missal of the Latin Mass as the exclusive universal standard for the Western Church." Blosser is not as radically traditionalist as New Catholic, then.
Paul Borealis,
May I trade articles with you?
http://www.franciscan-archive.or...ca/
rupture.html
Interesting reading for traditionalists, neo-cons and dissidents alike.
You are abslutely correct. These staements are mine: "A Mass without the Roman Canon is not a Roman Mass." and "The good thing is that, as any mere legal text, it [SC] can safely be amended or revoked."
Where exactly is the "schismatic" "heresy" here??? The first is the acknowledgement of a historical fact, that merely because something is concocted in the city of Rome (such as the new "Eucharistic Prayers") they are not properly Roman. The Roman Canon is the heir to thousands of years of Latinitas and two thousand years of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The new "Eucharistic Prayers" are not un-Catholic and they CANNOT be filled with errors (never in the Editio Typica, at least), but they are not exactly Roman.
As for the second opinion, it is pretty obvious that SC can be abolutely repealed. It will probably never happen, but, if it were, Catholic doctrine would not be altered one iota.
--
Now, THIS is heresy:
"Original Sin is of course a doctrine that has been greatly demythologized in modern theology."
"The Virgin Birth. Like most Catholic theologians today I have difficulty accepting it as historical, biological fact. It fits mythic patterns very well."
YOU ARE A HERETIC, FR. O'LEARY.
--
Jordan, I'm through with the small debate on the four Marian dogmas. I already proved what I needed.
Actually, it would be historically innacurate to state that they were "concocted" in Rome; they were published in Rome, but they were concocted elsewhere, by "liturgists" filled with the mistake of "archaeologism" and who thought they knew better than dozens and dozens of generations of Western scholars.
What is striking to me is to compare the liturgical reform movement which is existed prior to the Council with the revolution that occurred after it. The former is measured, moderate, respectful of Tradition and by all appearances willing to work within the Tridentine framework. Sure, you'll see some anachronism and worship of an ahistorical ideal early church, but the same movement also produced the Lasance Missal, the sung High Mass and the dialogue Mass, none of which do the slightest damage to Tradition.
Sometime between 1962 and 1970 that movement vanished, and the Bolsheviks stormed to power. There's a story in that disconnect, and a telling one at that. I'm reminded of the vignette from one of the pioneers, Fr. Martin Hellriegel, who responded to the chaos of the post-conciliar liturgy thusly:
"That is not what we meant. That is not what we meant at all."
http://www.adoremus.org/
0702Litu...Conference.html [Scroll to the bottom.]
Sorry to quibble, New Cath, but the biological reality of the Virgin Birth is not actually a litmus test of heresy. Schillebeeckx, for example, denies it, but nonetheless the book in which he denies it was scrutinized at Rome and acquitted of the imputation of heresy.
Silly Beaks denies that the Blessed Virgin was a virgin when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and conceived in her God Incarnate? Or does he deny that the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Blessed Virgin? Or does he claim Jesus was the son of Joseph or Panthera?
As I recall, earlier this year (or was it last year), the National Catholic Distorter said Silly Beaks questioned the virginity of Mary and consequently received notifications from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that his writings conflicted with Church teaching. What is your evidence that the book in which he espouses the heresy that Mary wasn't a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to the Messiah was acquitted of the imputation of heresy?
Schillebeeckx was summoned to Rome three times, accompanied by Cardinal Alfrink the third time. Even though a hotheaded Jesuit denounced him on Vatican Radio as a heretic, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith did not find him heretical and did not take away his license to teach as a Catholic theologian (unlike in the case of Hans Kueng). The Vatican did say that it was erroneous to deny the Virgin birth, but was not willing to make a major song and dance about it. Catholic theologians today in their vast majority are silent on the subject of the Virgin Birth. If you ask their personal opinion, most of them will give the answer I gave to New Catholic. Sorry, folks, but that's how the cookie crumbles.
"Luke and Matthew trace this 'being filled with the Spirit' back to Jesus' birth (infancy gospels). For a man is a prophet 'from his mother's womb' (Jer. 1:5; Is. 49:1-3; Ps. 110)." Schillebeeckx, Jesus, p. 478.
Luke quite unselfconsciously calls Joseph and Mary the "parents" (goneis) of Jesus, "your father and I", Luke 2:41, 48. No need of Roman soldiers.
Since it is quite difficult to find liberal theology on the internet, which is swamped with conservative think-tanks and their propaganda, I forward this link: http://global-dialogue.com/
swidl...terabsolute.htm
In the NT the virgin birth is mentioned only in the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke; the rest of the NT, including the body of these two gospels and Acts makes not mention of it; it is clearly not an essential part of the Christian kerygma.
Dear hetetical priest, I do not care what the Dutch said or did not say. It is pretty clear that the Holy See has chosen in the past 40 years not to comdemn all heretics, but to dissuade them... It is the wrong strategy, in my opinion, but that is the Vatican way these days, except in those rare cases in which they are forced to act because the heretic was considered in the secular world a "voice" of the Church (not the case of the Dutch). They probably could not write an Index of heretical self-declared "Catholic" theologians if they wanted to -- it would be a list longer than Holy Writ itself...
New Catholic, do YOU believe in the reality of the virgin birth as a strictly historical, strictly biological fact? If you do, please give persuasive reasons why the rest of us should as well. I am quite happy to believe it is you can make it even minimally credible. Please make reference to genetics.
Or, to make it easier for you, please quote to me, or give a link, to one convincing defense of the virgin birth. I will be happy to put my doubts at rest.
What are you talking about, dear heretic? The Virgin Birth of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ of the Ever-Virgin Mother of God, Our Dearest and Most Blessed Lady, WAS historical and obviously biological. It is not for me to explain what the Church has always taught.
Heretics and enemies of the One True Faith have always ridiculed and blasphemed the Blessed Mother. It is awkward to have a self-styled Catholic priest saying what anti-Christians have always said, but that is life in our corrupt age...
WAS historical and obviously biological....
You could equally say, WAS mythological and obviously a literary-theological construction rather than historical fact....
Virgin births are a common theme in mythology, and they are biologically impossible (since the male chromosomes would have to be created ex nihilo).
Theologically, the humanity of Jesus would be imperilled since his chromosomes would not come from the human species.
So I think it is more credible historically and more satisfying theologically to suppose that Jesus was the normal human offspring of Joseph and Mary (as indeed all the other references to Joseph and Mary and the brothers of Jesus in the New Testament would suggest as well).
Luke and Matthew, drawing on anterior tradition, projected onto the birth of Jesus a mythological schema. I hear there is a mythology of the virgin birth in Zoroastrianism (a virgin bathing ina certain lake is impregnated by the messianic seed every 1000 years) and the Magi of Matthew 2 would have come from Persia -- part of the same mythological complex. I have not checked this in depth, but it is credible that such a mythic schema was imposed on the birth of Jesus.
The church has always taught the Virgin Birth, no doubt. But the church has always taught many other things that have gone by the board in light of (a) modern science (b) historical-critical study of scripture. Why should we be so sure that the virgin birth is not another of these things?
James Still writes:
Biblical scholars have long ago dismissed the literal interpretation of the miraculous virgin-birth of Jesus. ..
The pre-civilized world of ancient Mesopotamia, consisted of small farming settlements whose people worshipped Ishtar, a fertile, mother goddess. Ishtar caused the rains to fall and the crops to grow in a continuous cycle of birth, life, and death. Over time, Ishtar-worship began to wane as the warlike male gods of neighboring tribes emerged in positions of prominence. The warrior-kings of neighboring desert tribes continually invaded the fertile lands of Mesopotamia, eventually seizing the land and incorporating it into their own rising and falling empires. One of the first warrior-kings to rise up among these early peoples was Sargon of Akkad, who established his kingdom in 2200 BCE. Ishtar was by now fully absorbed into the stronger cults of the patriarchal deities and she became a lesser deity who was subservient to the new male gods of the warrior-kings.
Sargon is perhaps the first Babylonian king who was said to have a larger-than-life birth and childhood. He was born in secret to a mother of lowly birth and a father who was a mountain god. In a motif which would later be borrowed and attributed to Horus and Moses, Sargon's mother placed the child in a basket of rushes and sent him down a river to protect him from the god's enemies. The babe was rescued downstream by simple folk and the goddess Ishtar loved and guided Sargon through his early childhood and to his final destiny: the ascension of the throne. Sargon's biography started a "tall tale" tradition that subsequent kings felt the need to match. The attribute of divine birth and predestination became an important vehicle whereby a mortal king was said to be god-favored; gaining recognition and power during his life which often continued into posterity long after death.
By 1000 BCE, we find this tradition improved upon so that the biography of kings and important men insist that they were not only divinely born, but said to have transcended death to become gods themselves. Zoroaster, the Persian prophet and patriarch who lived and preached in ancient Babylon, was said to have been God-begotten and virgin born. Virgin-birth was the responsibility of the Ishtar priestesses, who conducted fertility rites, prophesied and performed elaborate rituals in the temples throughout Babylon. The priestesses who administered the temples also managed a lucrative prostitution business that provided a steady stream of financial support for temple activities. Upon their return to Palestine, Hebrews of the Babylonian captivity brought back to the Mediterranean peoples wondrous tales of the priestesses and their blasphemous sexual ministries to the men who visited them. The role of the Ishtar priestess was to act as both mother to the prospective man's child and minister to the child's divine needs:
"Holy Virgin" was the title of harlot-priestesses of Is
"The Vatican did say that it was erroneous to deny the Virgin birth, but was not willing to make a major song and dance about it."
True, the Vatican doesn't seem too willing to make a major song and dance about anything -- this certainly isn't the time of Pius X, that's for sure. But that doesn't mean that Silly Beaks isn't a heretic. Anyone who denies that the Virgin Birth is a historical and biological reality has denied the Catholic faith. I haven't read any Silly Beaks, and probably never will, but I'll take your word for it that he denies the true faith and is therefore a heretic.
Or do the words of the Creed not really mean what they say? Or when the Holy Spirit said Jesus was born of a virgin, perhaps the Holy Spirit didn't know what He was talking about?
Is the Holy Spirit another of these teachings that must go by the board? After all, according to those teachings, He is the sperm donor, and how can He, a mere spirit, meet the biological and genetic requirements of nature? And anyway, what scientific basis can there possibly be for this "triune God" stuff? Defies not only science but mathematical logic! Downright embarrassing baggage for our exquisitely sophisticated theologians to have to carry! Especially if the brilliant Scott Hahn is right, and the Holy Spirit is the "feminine identity" of God. A cornucopia of pansexual delights!
"So I think it is more credible historically and more satisfying theologically to suppose that Jesus was the normal human offspring of Joseph and Mary."
I've previously noted that Fr. O'Leary's christology seems to be erroneous in the area of his opinions regards Jesus' knowledge, but his skepticism of the Virgin Birth is the real clincher. He may be a Catholic priest, but he does not hold, profess, and teach the Catholic faith.
Please come back, Father.
You are incredible, O'Leary, in the most etymological sense: it is almost beyond belief that people like you exist and are allowed to call themselves "Catholic priests"... The Virgin Birth of Our Lord is BEYOND DISCUSSION, don't you understand??? This is not an apologetics blog in which I would be obliged to explain things to an avowed atheist...
You have been consecrated priest of the Holy Catholic Church! Esto vir! Stop with your silly games which will precipitate you into hell.
"Holy Virgin" was the title of harlot-priestesses of Ishtar (and) Asherah. The title didn't mean physical virginity; it meant simply "unmarried." The function of such "holy virgins" was to dispense the Mother's grace through sexual worship; to heal; to prophesy; to perform sacred dances; to wail for the dead; and to become Brides of God."
The Zoroastrian cosmology told of the world lasting for twelve thousand years in four, three-thousand year blocks of time. The last block of time began with the divine birth of the prophet and would end by ushering in the apocalyptic end of the world and the restoration of good over evil:
[Zoraster's] birth and teaching in the world marked the opening of the final three thousand of the world span of twelve thousand years--at the end of which term his spritual sons Saoshyant, "the Coming Savior," the World Messiah, would appear, to culminate the victory of Truth over the Lie and establish forever the restoration of the pristine creation of God...
... One result of the Persian-Hellenic blend of myths was Mithras... Mithras is the most recognizable of the Mediterranean gods that was said to have been physically virgin-born; a flattering imitation of the Ishtar priestesses of Babylon. ..[Mithras'] birth is said to have been brought about solo aestu libidinis, "by the sole heat of libido...." The earth has given birth--a virgin birth--to the archetypal Man.[7]
Mithras was born on December 25th, the eve of the winter solstice when the sun is at its lowest point in the sky. With the dawn of light on Mithras' birth "the priest emerged from the temple to announce triumphantly: The God is born!"
..[Mithras] was said to have been sent by a father-god to vanquish darkness and evil in the world. Born of a virgin (a birth witnessed only by shepherds), Mithras was described variously as the Way, the Truth, the Light, the Word, the Son of God, and the Good Shepherd and was often depicted carrying a lamb upon his shoulders. Followers of Mithras celebrated December 25th (the winter solstice) by ringing bells, singing hymns, lighting candles, giving gifts, and administering a sacrament of bread and water. Between December 25th and the spring equinox (Easter, from the Latin for earth goddess) came the 40 days' search for Osiris, a god of justice and love. The cult also observed Black Friday, commemorating Mithras' sacrificial bull-slaying which fructified the earth. Worn out by the battle, Mithras is symbolically represented as a corpse and is placed in a sacred rock tomb from which he is removed after three days in a festival of rejoicing.
Jesus' virgin-birth was probably attributed to him during this time. Matthew and Luke write that Jesus was born of a virgin in 1:18-25, and 1:26-35, respectively. Mark, the earliest of the synoptics, makes no such claim... The Gospel of Mark aligns itself closely with the earlier Q--the forty or so oral tradition sayings that are believed to be derived from Je
Ralph, you're certainly right that with Fr. O'Leary's modernist rejection of the Virgin Birth must also go pretty much everything else the Church believes. Like the thread on the knitted sweater -- Fr. O'Leary has pulled out one thread, but he's finding the whole sweater falling apart now.
The virgin birth is BEYOND DISCUSSION only if you are not interested in the truth or falsehood of your beliefs. I was thought that one could discuss anything, beginning with the existence of God. Clutching that the idea of the Holy Spirit as a "sperm donor" (Roister) does nothing to make the Gospel meaningful or credible today.
You can EASILY refute my doubts about the biological reality of the virgin birth by quoting some leading Catholic theologians and what they say about it. If you just say it is BEYOND DISCUSSION, you may mean that these theologians are very carefully avoiding discussion of it, as I fear is the case. In fact, a theologian at the Biblicum tells me that no one there does research on Mary because it is too dangerous for their careers.
"Clutching that the idea of the Holy Spirit as a "sperm donor" (Roister) does nothing to make the Gospel meaningful or credible today."
Well, except that it undergirds the whole doctrine of Christ as the Son of God and of Man.
As for the appropriateness of the "sperm donor" reference, it was you who chose to be Science's Strong Right Arm in this discussion, not me.
I do not reject the virgin birth, I just am not able to believe in it as a biological fact. I wonder if you guys really believe in it either. Saying it is BEYOND DISCUSSION does not inspire confidence at all.
The truths of faith that impose themselves on mind and heart with credibility usually make some sense and have some experiential correlate. I am not aware that this is the case for the virgin birth as a biological fact. It seem to me to be on the same level as the changing of water to wine as a literal historical fact etc. Biblical scholars generally do not treat such stories as literal fact. The virgin birth has enjoyed a protected status; the taboo on discussion is much more strict than in the case of the more implausible biblical miracles; but in fact it is not much more important than these miracles and is not central to the New Testament kerygma.
Christ as Son of God is a doctrine expressed independently of the virgin birth by John, for example. The virgin birth could be seen perhaps as an effort to undergird it, or as a less-developed expression of it, but it is certainly not essential to that doctrine and could even take away from it, by suggesting a rivalry between human and divine parenthood, humanity and divinity, which would be untrue to the doctrine of the incarnation.
Of course modern "theologians" are afraid to wander in the territory of Mariology! It is not by chance that Our Lady is the great Vanquisher of Heresies.
But if you still want to blaspheme her immaculate and perpetual virginity, go on! But don't be surprised if, in hora mortis, she is not there to pray for your final perseverance.
Fr Joe, do you believe in the omnipotence of God?
If so, what is the experiential basis for your belief?
Also, if so, why is it impossible for you to believe that an omnipotent God could effect an impregnation that did not violate the virginity of Mary?
If that is too hard for a Catholic priest to believe, than I have to wonder about the depths of his Catholicism, and have to conclude that he is dangerously obsessed with the mechanics of sex.
Not to mention that a Catholic priest is supposed to believe that the power of the Almighty allows him to effect the transformation, through his words, of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Incarnate Divinity Himself. Close to this, the Virgin Birth is almost "too easy"...
"I do not reject the virgin birth, I just am not able to believe in it as a biological fact."
I see. So, by "not reject[ing]" it, you are saying you accept it? As what? A metaphor? A manner of speaking? A "sex-event"? Dance, Bo Jangles, dance!
why is it impossible for you to believe that an omnipotent God could effect an impregnation that did not violate the virginity of Mary?
An omnipotent God could do such a thing, but I don't see why he would.
The balance of probabilities suggests that the Bible can be taken literally when it calls Jesus the son of Joseph and that the virgin birth narrations are not to be taken literally. They are a symbolic narrative of some sort.
The annunciations to Zechariah and Mary by Gabriel belong to the annunciation-of-birth literary genre well known in the OT and they show that God presides over the birth of Jesus, nothing more.
I put forward the above suppositions only tentatively. If someone can persuade me to believe in a literal virgin birth, I am happy to be persuaded.
The silence of almost all Catholic theologians on the virgin birth shows that I am not alone in my misgivings about a literal interpretation of it.
No, it actually shows that they accepted it with no further ado.
"You can EASILY refute my doubts about the biological reality of the virgin birth by quoting some leading Catholic theologians and what they say about it."
Opinions of theologians do not determine what the Catholic faith is and isn't. If the Church says Christ was born of a virgin, then Christ was born of a virgin. If you don't listen to what the Church says, then you do not have the Catholic faith.
"the virgin birth narrations are . . . . a symbolic narrative of some sort."
Symbolic, metaphoric, fanciful. Literary, not literal.
So, if the Son of God did not happen to arrive in the actual womb of the actual virgin Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit, as the gospel narratives say He did, then how DID He get there? Do the Babylonians offer any insight?
If the gospel accounts of His birth are mere "symbolic narratives", then what basis do you have for believing that any narratives of His life and death are more than that? Sure, there's historical evidence that someone named Jesus lived twenty centuries ago, but the Son of God??
Where do you go outside of the "symbolic narratives" of the gospels for verification of that? Fr Joe, are the gospels merely rattling good yarns?
Actually I go to the Fourth Gospel, the Spiritual Gospel, for an understanding of the life, death and exaltation of Jesus as "the Word dwelling among us, in human history". The idea of the divine word being "inserted" in the virgin's womb sound rather crude compared with Johannine vision.
On the eucharistic presence, I also object to crude accounts -- which are one of the reasons why our Roman Catholic liturgy is in such disarray.
Here is what a Russian Orthodox thinker writes on that subject:
In the eucharistic transmutation, the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ. This is not, of course, a physical or chemical transformation; for there in fact is no thing or matter in this world for them to become. The transfigured humanity of Christ abides outside of this world; and the transmutation does not resolve, abolish, or contradict this difference. Indeed, if any such physical change were to happen, the transmutation would be annulled and the power of the sacrament undone. But the entire being of the bread and wine, substance and accidents, is nonetheless converted into body and blood. The transmuted elements stop being themselves, Bulgakov says. They now belong to another world, for they have been assimilated to the body of Jesus–yet they do not lose their “thingness” in the world.
So you also do not believe in the Dogma of Transubstantiation, I suppose. You are probably right: the liturgy of the Western Church is in disarray because of the belief in the essential transformation of the species in the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior... Yep, that sounds about right!
"Actually I go to the Fourth Gospel, the Spiritual Gospel, for an understanding of the life, death and exaltation of Jesus as "the Word dwelling among us, in human history". The idea of the divine word being "inserted" in the virgin's womb sound rather crude compared with Johannine vision."
I must say it is odd that one who proselytizes on behalf of anal sex as much as you do finds the idea of the virgin birth "crude".
Jesus Himself said "I am with you always" (Matthew 2
. You don't have to go to John for that. Nor do you have to set up John's words in opposition to, or as an alternative to, the virgin birth. The idea of "the Word dwelling among us, in human history" does not obviate the teaching that Jesus, as a human being, had a beginning, a miraculous conception and birth, which, no less than the "Johannine vision" you prefer, is documented in the "symbolic narratives" among which you pick and choose so fastidiously.
Matthew twenty-eight. Good grief.
Hello ralph roister-doister
Thanks for the article by 'D. E. Romanae', replying to Msgr. Calkins.
I just read it, and have a few notes and questions on it: please understand that I am not an expert or theologian.
If I were to limit myself to the title, "The Neo-Modernist Rupture in the Council and in the New Rites", it suggests to me ‘right off’ that the point, according to Romanae, is that Vatican II and the so-called "New Rites" are 'damaged', 'broken apart', and completely influenced by a heresy, and therefore are basically heretical, in error, or corrupt. Not orthodox, in any case.
At this time, I am still trying to wrap my head around Romanae's notions regarding “Diachronic Identity”, in my opinion an apparently ‘novel’ conceptual terminology that seemingly implies a new (non-traditional) definition or understanding of Catholic ecclesiology, etc.; honestly, this is the first time I have ever run into it, at least in this form. Yet he (or she) insists that this “diachronic identity is the hallmark of authentic Catholic dogma and doctrine, in faith and morals”, and “it is necessary that the hallmark of diachronic identity be safeguarded to the utmost by those entrusted with guarding the Deposit of the Faith, that is, by the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him”.
Questions: What is being said here, can anybody explain it to me? Is this a traditional orthodox Roman Catholic teaching? Thanks!
By the way, the section entitled “The Principle of the New Theology in the Documents of Vatican II” also troubled me. For Romanae to suggest that 'Dei Verbum' teaches some kind of (neo)modernistic theological evolutionism, is false. He (or she) is in error.
==
Crossan agrees with O'Leary and Schillebeeckx regarding there not being a virgin birth of Jesus. See Crossan's The Historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterrean Peasant, paperback edition, Harper, San Francisco,(1992) p. 371.
26±. Jesus Virginally Conceived: (1) Gos. Heb. 1; (2) Matt 1:18-25; (3) Luke 1:26-38; (4a) Ign. Eph. 7:2; (4b) Ign. Eph. 18:2a; (4c) Ign. Eph. 19:1; (4d) Ign. Smyrn. 1:1b.
Crossan also discusses the Eucharist in the same book:
John 6:51-58 : Crossan gives it a “Not Said by the Historical Jesus” p. 360,
16-. Supper and Eucharist: (1a) 1 Cor 10:14-22; (1b) 1 Cor 11:23-25; (2) Mark 14:22-25 = Matt 26:26-29 = Luke 22:15-19a[19b-20]; (3) Did. 9:1-4; (4) John 6:51b-58.
The discussion in the book is very detailed. Please read it if you have the time.
Paul Borealis,
Please be assured that I am no more a theologian than you are. I am simply a guy in the pew trying to make sense of it all.
I have no special axe to grind about the Romanae article. I happened upon it while searching for information about Msgr Calkins, and. since it was a direct, and rather provocative, response to Calkins' article, I linked it. I figured that, at the very least, it would send Fr Joe into paroxysms, but he did not rise to the bait, nor did anyone else. I suspect New Catholic, Jordan, and even Dr Blosser, in particular, might find it worth reading.
I don't understand why the term "diachronous identity" is so puzzling to you, which may say more about my analytical ability than yours. I suspect that if either of us want to better understand where Romanae is coming from, we will have to delve into Cardinal Journet's "Church of the Word Incarnate", to which he refers in the article. Journet's tome was published in the twenties, prior to the rise of Urs von Balthazar and de Lubac, much less Vatican II, so it seems fair to say that the pseudonymous Romanae, whoever he is, speaks exclusively to traditionalist concerns. It is available in the document library at www.ewtn.com.
I apologize, I am passing on bad information. Journet's book was published in 1955, not in the 1920's.
Hello again;
Thanks for the lead on Cardinal Journet. I will look into it. I think he was at Vatican II…too.
To continue from my last post:
In the section entitled “The Principle of the New Theology in the Documents of Vatican II”, Romanae wrote that
“it is clear that Dei Verbum, the very conciliar document which Msgr. Calkins first quotes [*] [note: Calkins quotes from Chapter 2, Article 8, the entire second paragraph] in his talk, is in its teaching at least very distorted, and hence is a formal cause of a distorted understanding of the very nature of Sacred Tradition and ecclesiastical tradition, precisely because it denies the diachronic identity of the Church's grasp of Divine Revelation”.
“[I]mplicit denial of diachronic identity is the theological reason for the neo-modernist advocacy of the necessity of the Aggiornomento”.
“The key phrase here is . . . ‘the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth’ . . .. At first this may seem Catholic, because it is in fact true to say that the members of the Church are progressing towards the plenitude of the understanding of Divine Truth. But to say that the Church Herself is in progress toward the plenitude of divine truth, means literally that She is not yet in the possession of it [...]”.
“[I]f such a proposition were true, namely that the ‘Church is in progress toward the plenitude of divine truth’ [*][note: partial quote of Dei Verbum: Chapter 2, Article 8, last sentence of second paragraph] there would follow the necessity that She be in a constant change of updating and transformation, both of doctrine and dogma, faith and morals, liturgy and discipline, so as to conform Herself to the plenitude now more grasped. While it is true that the members progress in their own understanding of the Divine Truth, and that this requires a more clear and explicitly holding of the Faith once handed over to the Apostles, nevertheless the fact that the Apostles and the Church through them already have the plenitude of the Divine Truth, is the very principle underlying diachronic identity”.
Wow.
In my opinion, Romanae has seriously misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misrepresented Dei Verbum, and he has staked a lot (if not everything) on his exegesis of it, and also on his notions about ‘diachronic identity’.
All these matters relating to the 'liturgical crisis' in the Church merit attention. Why? Well, I understand that ‘schism’ generally leads to ‘heresy’; Makers of schisms often become heretics. Perhaps I am wrong, and it is the other way around.
==
Ooops! "his (or her) exegesis of it..."
Paul,
Is "diachronous identity" really any different than "immutability"? If we believe that Church dogma is the truth as handed down by Christ, and is therefore immutable, is this any different than saying that the truth as handed down to the Church by Christ is its "diachronous identity"?
The salient point, as you say, is his criticism of the seeming evolutionism implied in the statement from "Dei Verbum". It has a kind of Teilhardian aroma to it, and I wonder if it would have passed muster had Pius XII presided over V2 instead of Paul VI.
It has been called to my attention that one of the most interesting of Cardinal Journet's books, a deep, beautiful book, The Mass, is available at the web: http://www.jesusmarie.com/journet.html
En français, bien sûr.
And now we come back to the beginning.
The Most Blessed Mother has been rightly called "The Eucharistic Woman", since in Her the Word was made flesh. In the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Body and Blood consecrated are those of the Son of the Virgin: yes, the Precious Body and the Precious Blood are the same that were born "ex Maria Virgine", as we sing in the Ave Verum Corpus.
May the Almighty be praised for this immense gift!
My quote from Bulgakov drew the accusation that I do not believe in transubstantiation. This shows that a crude notion of eucharist as a quasi-chemical magical transmuting lies behind the dogmatism of the accuser.
The inner reality of a meal-event becomes the inner reality of a participation in the Paschal Mystery; it is no longer an ordinary meal event but has its reality redefined from the sphere of the resurrection -- this is fittingly called transubstantiation. Please read Bulgakov.
Must I reply to Roister's foud-mouthed stuff? It is he, not I, who reduces homosexuality -- a major anthropological reality involving every dimension of man -- to a single sexual act which he professes disgust at. Thus the crudity of his theology is of a piece with the crudity of his notions of sexuality. The cynic is he who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
In theology the cynic is he who scoffs at Spirit (including John's spiritual understanding of 'flesh') and reduces everything to purely materialistic terms.
GAY RIGHTS, GAY WRONGS
Madam, - Frank Farrell (October 12th) boldly states that "for several millennia it has been the considered conviction of people of vastly greater moral and intellectual weight than will be found among your staff and contributors that homosexual activity is wrong".
Some of the weightiest intellectual and moral figures of the previous centuries justified colonisation through their assertion that Africans, South Americans and Irish did not fully qualify as human. The moral and intellectual consensus within pre-20th century Western society was that women did not fully possess a capacity for reason and thus could not be allowed to vote.
It is a fact that any society creates moral and intellectual boundaries which deem particular forms of thought and behaviour acceptable or not.
This does not mean that all values are relative and exist only within a particular social context. Rather it means that existing ways of understanding our world, such as the belief system of the Catholic Church, must increasingly justify their positions in relation to new forms of knowledge. Thankfully the "fashionable enlightenment" of which Mr Farrell speaks has led to a new moral consensus within our society which rejects the prejudices of those who cannot accommodate homosexuality within their worldview.
A progressive society is not a liberal free-for-all where all opinions are equally valid. It is a society where moral value is conferred according to the insights of reason and knowledge. It is a society where the Word of God is no longer recourse enough to support opinions which cause suffering and shame for some and justify the violence of others. - Yours, etc,
CONN HOLOHAN, Gordon Street, Dublin 4.
Fr. O'Leary said,
"I put forward the above suppositions only tentatively. If someone can persuade me to believe in a literal virgin birth, I am happy to be persuaded."
Response:
I suggest Fr. Rene Laurentin's book "The Truth of Christmas" which argues for its authenticity. It's very detailed and deals with modern scholarship.
I would say that the strongest argument for the virgin birth is that there is no reason to make it up. Isaiah 7 was never interpreted as messianic so why would Matthew use it? In other words, it was because he had to deal with the fact of the virgin birth that made him interpret Is. 7 to be messianic and fit it in. Luke also has a discussion on how Mary was a virgin. So what you have is (at least) two sources for the virgin birth making its way into say...70-90 AD (***if*** we are going to be very liberal in our datings). Is it possible that they could have made it up? Yes, it's possible. But very very very unlikely in a second temple Judaic context with very little time.
Apolonio, Fr. Laurentin's book is of no value to anyone, because he argues that the teachings of the Church and of Holy Scripture are true, whereas we all know that only scholars and exegetes who doubt or deny the truth of God have anything of value to saying about the Christian fairy tale of the Virgin Birth.
Okay, that was all heavy sarcasm there . . .
Paul Borealis,
For whatever it's worth, I read “Dei Verbum” last night, and concluded that Romanae makes a very cogent point, but then draws an overwrought conclusion from it.
The questionable paragraph from article 8 of DV needs to be read in context. The article begins, “The apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” “Preserved”, not grown, not advanced, not developed. – I can’t see Romanae objecting to this, nor to the last sentence of the paragraph, “In this way, the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes”.
Then comes the problematic paragraph. It begins, “the Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit [5]”. IMO, the phrase “makes progress” seems to indicate a movement from lesser to greater, and is thus somewhat misleading. The impression is sharpened by the later sentence, the one to which Romanae objects, which reads, “as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing toward the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in her”. This sentence is clearly seriously flawed. It seems to indicate a changeability in the content of “divine truth”. As Romanae argues, “plenitude” of divine truth exists in the Church, in toto, from beginning to end – it does not develop or “advance”.
[ctd]
[ctd]
Romanae is thus correct, IMO, in objecting to this paragraph as it stands. However, he draws an extreme conclusion (modernist fanaticism), I think because he misses footnote #5, in the first sentence of the paragraph. This footnote refers to a document of the First Vatican Council , “Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith” (Pius IX, no less), as cited in Denzinger, “Sources of Catholic Dogma (SCD), 1800. SCD 1800 is worth quoting in full:
“For the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
SCD 1800 concludes with a quotation from the “Instruction of Vincent of Lerin”:
Therefore . . . let the understanding , the knowledge and wisdom of individuals, as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense, and the same understanding.”
Frankly, the quote from Vincent, with its use of the phrase “grow and progress”, is not as helpful as it might be. Still, it must be clear that the author of the glorious “Syllabus of Errors” is arguing against any assumption of changeability in the nature of “divine truth” and apostolic tradition.
Read in this context, the conclusion I am left with is that DV, article 8, is not an example of embedded modernism, but an example of the kind of authorial incompetence complained of by traditionalists like Michael Davies. The author most likely is victimized by a garbled and unclear reference to the V1 document. It is difficult to compare, side by side, SCD 1800 and DV, article 8, second paragraph, and conclude that they are making the same point. IMO, if some trads are too quick to impute conspiracy to boners like this one, and the pernicious ambiguity which results from them, they cannot be faulted for their essential analysis of so many passages in these documents as deeply “flawed”.
"In theology the cynic is he who scoffs at Spirit (including John's spiritual understanding of 'flesh') and reduces everything to purely materialistic terms."
If you read my note you know I did not do that, but by all means, savor your cheap debater's point.
Perhaps your problem is that you do not give the material its due, neither in accepting the Church's teaching of the virgin birth, nor in accepting what your Church accepts, that the without-which-nothing fact of the phenomenon of unresisted homosexuality -- homosexuality fully embraced as "natural" -- is its material outcome, which is anal sex. Perhaps the homosexual priests who have ravaged so many boys and young men based their actions in similar denials.
Rave and thrash all you want, Fr Joe, I'm not responding further on this subject.
Polemicism does harm to souls; the truth presented with love for the Church helps them to grow in the same way.
I hear violins playing ... The gracious and compassionate Great-Souled Commentator enjoins us to love one another and not use words that might hurt feelings. Who was it who said he had come to bring, not peace, but a sword and to turn brother against brother, who called his antagonists a "brood of vipers"? Ah, if he only hadn't been cut off so early and had been granted time to grow to maturity ... He might have learned more tolerance.
Do not support publications, no matter how seemingly intelligent, which are written in "attack mode."
Well I'm delighted to see Fr. Bo-jangles swearing off National Catholic Reporter, then.
What's more impressive, even, is that we now see him instructing his readership on the meaning of "traditionalism" and significance of Lefebvre and Davies, et al., and the advisability of the republication of Whitehead's and Lidoudis' volume. Has anyne checked any SSPX blogs to see if he's advising them?
The Great-Souled Commentator should reread some of his own broadsides.
Waal, I'd be much obliged to jaw fer thuh amusemint of ya'll mah ridge-running phobias and pedjoodisses, but I cackelate time's a'wastin', I got tuh make love to thuh wife, an' pick fleas off'n thuh dawg, or vice reversa, I cain't rightly recall.
New Catholic,
You're right in your conclusion regarding Father O'Leary's heresy, but don't trouble yourself trying to demonstrate that to him. He's rather good at that Bo-jangles hermeneutical tap dance thing he does.
It may be instructive to note that he become rather irate after he responded to Ferrara by saying "Any lawyer or literary critic can make any text seem to be 'a nest of ambiguities'" and then I asked: "And this is supposed to give us confidence in your liturgical fidelity when you declare that the 'Sacrum Concilium has been the very foundation of my thinking'?"
Of course what I'm doing is suggesting that he would be no less capable of playing fast and loose with the text than any lawyer or literary critic, even if it were the text of SC he were reading. Here O'Leary shouts back that I omit his following statement to the effect that a "responsible hermeneutic" would have offered a way of correcting Ferrara's view.
Here he gets bent completely out of shape and switches on all caps to accent that I'm unfairly portraying him as an "irresponsible reader of texts" (and what an unfair accusation THAT would be against someone so skilled in this hermeneutical Bo-jangles dance) ...
The problem is that we all know -- and we've heard until we're blue in the face -- what O'Leary considers to be a "responsible hermeneutic" when applied to Scripture, and it certainly isn't what Catholic Tradition has taught.
"...Perhaps your problem is that you do not give the material its due, neither in accepting the Church's teaching of the virgin birth, nor in accepting what your Church accepts, that the without-which-nothing fact of the phenomenon of unresisted homosexuality -- homosexuality..."
If I remember correctly..., I do not recall Father's acceptance of any typically Catholic teaching. He probably accepts the Existence of God, but that's about it... And Jesus is our buddy...
Hello ralph roister-doister
Thanks very much for your post. You were wise and scholarly to check the footnote. I once heard a good priest say one must always do this when reading and interpreting Vatican II, or any Church document. And in this case, I did in fact find it helpful, towards understanding Dei Verbum, Chapter 2, Article 8.
I checked Denzinger yesterday, "The Sources of Catholic Dogma", to get a handle on the footnote (at Dei Verbum, Chapter 2, Article 8, the entire second paragraph), which as you mentioned, references the First Vatican Council thus: "5. cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 4, "On Faith and Reason:" Denzinger 1800 (3020)". It is interesting to note the title Denzinger gives this part (1800): "[The true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed]".
You wrote "the quote from Vincent, with its use of the phrase “grow and progress”, is not as helpful as it might be". For myself, I did find the quote from the Church Father St. Vincent of Lerins helpful and enlightening.
In my opinion, both Vatican I and II (in referencing part of Vatican I Council chapter 4 on Faith and reason - Denzinger 1800) are, as you wrote, "arguing against any assumption of changeability in the nature of “divine truth” and apostolic tradition", yes, BUT at the same time Vatican I and II are expressing what proper true Catholic development and progress are in doctrine and understanding. It is especially helpful to look at the entire section in St. Vincent of Lerins' 'Commonitorium'(AD 434) wherein Vatican I takes its quote:
"Chapter XXIII.
On Development in Religious Knowledge.
[54.] But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged [i]n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning".
Denzinger in english (you have provided the quote from St. Vincent of Lerins above) is a bit different, but I do not think it matters in this case.
In light of all this, I stand by my comment that, in my opinion, "'Romanae' has seriously misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misrepresented Dei Verbum. 'Romanae' has a serious problem.
We should not have to defend an Ecumenical Council of the Holy Catholic Church from so-called 'Catholics' on the right, or left. Paul VI was no more a 'heretic' than Pius XII was, i.e., both were not her
We should not have to defend an Ecumenical Council of the Holy Catholic Church from so-called 'Catholics' on the right, or left. Paul VI was no more a 'heretic' than Pius XII was, i.e., both were not heretics.
==
"Paul VI was no more a 'heretic' than Pius XII was, i.e., both were not heretics."
He was not a heretic, but he certainly was not very careful. Actually, he was quite careless.
As a useful comparison, and in the theme of this thread, one could compare the reform of the Holy Week, very careful, very in line with the organic development of the Roman Rite, which Pope Pius XII published in 1955, and the New Mass, published by Pope Paul...
Paul Borealis,
Thanks for the enlightening quotation from St Vincent.
I don't think you are giving Romanae his due, but I have no inclination to defend him further.
I think I would second New Catholic's remarks about Paul VI.
This was an enjoyable exchange. Thanks, and enjoy your weekend.
I don't often dip into the backwater, or graveyard, of mariological literature, but I am just now looking through 4 publications. In "Mariologia en crisi?" Barcelona 1978 there is an essay by F. de Paula Sola defending the virgin birth; then there are G.L. Mueller, "Was heisst: Geboren von de Jungfrau Maria? (Freiburg, 1989) and K.-H. Menke, "Fleish geworden aus Maria (Regensburg 1999). All three defend the doctrine, but with some quite bad arguments. Dominique Cerbelaud OP, "Marie -- un parcours dogmatique" (Paris, Editions du Cerf, 2003) is refreshingly non-defensive and very illuminating.
gweworGeboren ;publicationOdDp
The Dutch bishops defended the Dutch Catechism in Rome in the late sixties -- it interprets the virgin birth story in much the same terms as I do. They pointed out that the virgin birth was never officially defined. One of the authors above attacks them for this, saying it shows a narrow neoscholastic vision of what counts as authentic doctrine. Surely a bad counter-argument, since much that was part of official doctrine but not formally defined has now been dropped. No agreement was reached between the Dutch bishops and Paul VI, but he was quite upset, and stressed heavily the biological reality of the virgin birth in his Creed of the People of God (a rather dismal document). The Vatican have since helped to destroy the Dutch church.
A bad argument for the virgin birth used in the Catechism is that it is cited by Ignatius of Antioch as proof of the integral humanity of Jesus, against docetism. No doubt, but if Jesus were born of two human parents, instead of having miraculously supplied male chromosomes, that would be still more powerfully anti-docetic.
Apolonio gives a goodish argument. Why would Matthew and Luke have invented such a tradition? I presume it preexisted their gospels. Matthew tells the story through Joseph's eyes; an angel interprets Mary's condition for him (though our friend A Burton Calkins claims that Mary had already told him the story herself). Matt 1.18-23 is very discreet on the matter; the child is of the Holy Spirit, and fulfils the prophecy of Isaiah (typical Matthean prophecy-fulfillment). Luke, on the other hand, adopts Mary's point of view; Luke 1-2 has 73 of the total of 116 verses mentioning Mary in the New Testament. Mary's question, "how can this be since I know not man?" may refer to a biological impossibility; the angel's reply shifts the focus to the theological, "The Holy Spirit shall overshadow thee"; the virginal conception is touched on only in the most discreet, almost elusive way. I suggest to Apolonio that a popular myth-making is being theologically corrected and played down in two gospels just as Mark plays down the theios aner tradition. (Btw, the non-existence of a theios aner, stressed by Ratzinger, is obvious; but the image of the theios aner is a known literary convention of the time, as in Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana; Mark retrieves and corrects that tradition.) Very different is the attitude of the influential Protoevangelium of James, in which Salome verifies the virginity of Mary in partu by testing with her finger in the manner of doubting Thomas.
The virgin birth must imply either the creatio ex nihilo of the paternal genetic program of Jesus under the form of a spermatozoid fecundating the ovum of Mary, or else the production of the male chromosomes from Mary's ovum.
Does the genetics of cloning shed any light on this?
Why would anyone invent the virgin birth?
They could have reasoned that if Jesus is Son of God he cannot have a human father.
Many supernal figures, such as the historical Buddha, were provided with miraculous births.
Even in Palestinian Judaism there were stories of people with no human father.
The story of the priest Nir whose wife Zophanima becomes pregnant even though he has not had sexual relations with her, is found in the Slavonic Book of Enoch (Menke, 90-91). Oddly, Menke does not notice that this tells against his pooh-poohing of mythological sources of the virgin birth idea.
"Creed of the People of God (a rather dismal document)..."
Well, well, isn't that sweet?...
I believe that when the dust settles (in a few decades?...many centuries from now?...), the Credo of the People of God will be considered Paul VI's greatest achievement.
The virgin birth is not as pure and innocent a doctrine as is often imagined. Historically it has been associated with hatred of sexuality, especially of female sexuality (the image of the womb as dirty) and it was used as a badge of Christian distance from Jews. In modern times the inflation of Marian doctrine and devotion has been a Catholic speciality, a badge of difference from Protestants, and regularly associated with rightist regimes such as those of Franco and Mussolini.
Another thought for Apolonio -- is it not significant that the Ebionites or Jewish-Christians, strongly rejected the virgin birth? If it had been a strong early tradition one would have expected them to uphold it.
Philip's grasp of human psychology is in thrall to homophobic pseudo-psychoanalysis of the Charles Socarides school, some 50 years behind the times. One would not know where to being in analying the psychological falsehood nested in the following paragraph:
What agonies of loneliness and insecurity Abraham Lincoln may have suffered may never be known. He did indeed have a cold father, as Esolen notes. "But I assert that his lifeline for not becoming homosexual was the very same friendship that our pansexualists say was proof that he was." In the name of compassion, in the name of protecting homosexuals, we ignore the feelings of boys, says Esolen, and snatch from them their dwindling opportunities to forge just such friendships of which homosexual relations are a "delusive mimicry."
Societies used to have rites of passage for young men. But in our carelessness, says Esolen, we have taken away such signs from boys and left them to fend for themselves.
ONE RITE OF PASSAGE of young men was for them to show their manhood by scorning sissies and gays. Today we are socializing them in a different way, thank God.
In Melanesia, one rite of passage was the ritual buggering of the young men by their elders. O tempora, o mores.
Philip would socialize men to be nervous, defensive homophobes, potential gay bashers. How this would cause genuine male friendship to flourish I don't see. In my experience straight men who have no problem with gays are also the ones most likely to be good at friendship. Homophobes do not make good friends. Two homophobes boosting each other in their pathology make a gruesome twosome.
"The virgin birth is not as pure and innocent a doctrine as is often imagined."
Ha! Ha! Ha! I think that tops it! It is probably the Quote of the Year of Fr. O'Leary, the "Mad Priest of Éire-Honshu".
New Catholic -- following you I now transfer all further discussion of mariology to the Kreeft thread at teh top of this page.
But to reply to your guffaw, what I mean by the phrase you quoted can be gleaned from close study of such utterances as the following: "Your Holiness has done well to condemn the idea that another child could come from the same virginal womb of which Christ was born according to the flesh. The Lord would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he thought she would be so little continent as to soil by the seed of a human union that place from which the body of the Savior was to be born. To say so must mean to assume the unbelief of the Jews who say he could not be born of a virgin. If one accepts the opinion of their priests that Mary seems to have had several children, one is making a great effort to destroy the truth of the faith" (Pope Siricius, 392).
You can see how the virgin birth can go hand in hand with the ideas that sex is dirty and the Jews are wicked.
"Another thought for Apolonio -- is it not significant that the Ebionites or Jewish-Christians, strongly rejected the virgin birth? If it had been a strong early tradition one would have expected them to uphold it."
Sure, let's look to the ones who rejected the Council of Jerusalem and the writings of St. Paul. If they'd reject the teachings of the Church on when it comes to the normativity of the Mosaic Law for Christians, do you think they might also reject other Christian doctrines too? Perhaps? Hmm?
Of course I am not a fan of the Ebionites. I am talking about historical evidence for the ancientness or otherwise of the virgin birth tradition.
Some suggest that the group formed by the mother and brothers of Jesus as opposed to the group formed by Jesus and his disciples (in Mark) reflect the opposition between judeo-christian communities (rejecters of the innovations of the Council of Jerusalem) and gentile-christian communities in the church of that time. See also John 7.5.
The virgin birth was perhaps something these Judeo-Christians rejected as an innovation (as their successors later continued to). This suggests to me that the virgin birth could have had its origin among the gentile-christians.
That is, if one looks at the historical record, the most likely picture that seems to emerge is this:
As far as anyone was aware, in the Jewish world of Jesus and the disciples, Jesus was the son of Joseph (even Paul, in the mid-fifties, may not have known of the virgin birth). The phrase 'son of Mary' in Mark suggests at most that there may have been a question as to the legitimacy of his birth (which if it existed would provide the ideal stepping stone for the 'lectio difficilior' of the virgin birth idea). The virgin birth is first heard of in Matt 1 and Luke 1, texts dating from the 80s of so; the earlier growth of that tradition is totally obscure and may not go back very far.
Correction, I do not see the no-sayers (symbolized by the mother and brothers of Jesus) as rejecting the virgin birth at the time of Mark's gospel; rather I supposed they had never heard of it.
If it had been an ancient tradition, as Apolonio thinks, one might have expected some recognition of it among diehard traditionalists such as the Ebionites were.
The Ebionites were not diehard traditionalists -- they were heretics who introduced their own novel doctrines that contradicted both what the Church taught and what the unbelieving Jews taught. Why should anyone expect a heretical group to espouse a particular orthodox doctrine? They may or may not espouse it, but no one should look to the heretical group to find out what the truth is -- they should look to the Church.
Those who rejected St Paul's teaching on the Law were not innovators, but traditionalists. Probably the same is true of those who resisted the idea of a virgin birth.
Here is what the old Catholic Encyclopedia has on the Ebionites:
The word Ebionites, or rather, more correctly, Ebionæans (Ebionaioi), is a transliteration of an Aramean word meaning "poor men". ..refers.. either to the poverty of their understanding, or to the poverty of the Law to which they clung, or to the poor opinions they held concerning Christ. This, however, is obviously not the historic origin of the name. ..The name may have been self-imposed by those who gladly claimed the beatitude of being poor in spirit, or who claimed to live after the pattern of the first Christians in Jerusalem, who laid their goods at the feet of the Apostles. Perhaps, however, it was first imposed by others and is to be connected with the notorious poverty of the Christians in Palestine (cf. Gal., ii, 10). Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law. These, ceasing to be in touch with the bulk of the Christian world, would gradually have drifted away from the standard of orthodoxy and become formal heretics. A stage in this development is seen in St. Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew", chapter xlvii (about A. D. 140), where he speaks of two sects of Jewish Christians estranged from the Church: those who observe the Mosaic Law for themselves, but do not require observance thereof from others; and those who hold it of universal obligation. The latter are considered heretical by all; but with the former St. Justin would hold communion, though not all Christians would show them the same indulgence. St. Justin, however, does not use the term Ebionites, and when this term first occurs (about A. D. 175) it designates a distinctly heretical sect.
The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 1, but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus. Origen is the first (C. Cels., V, lxi) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Hist. Eccl., III, xxvii). Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity. Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection. The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren
The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren, because the denial of the virgin birth was commonly attributed to all. ..
Besides these merely Judaistic Ebionites, there existed a later Gnostic development of the same heresy.
"Those who rejected St Paul's teaching on the Law were not innovators, but traditionalists."
Nope -- the Jews had never believed that only Jews can be saved, and that to be saved a Gentile must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. That was an innovation, a new doctrine that was rejected by both the Apostles and the Rabbis.
Where is the evidence that the Ebionite rejection of the Virgin Birth was a holding fast to the original teachings of the Church? You know full well there isn't any.
"Where is the evidence that the Ebionite rejection of the Virgin Birth was a holding fast to the original teachings of the Church?"
It is just suggestive of an original absence of that teaching, that's all.
The teaching is also entirely absent from the earlier books of the New Testament (Paul, Mark) and indeed from the entire New Testament apart from the two passages in Luke 1 and Matthew 1, which again is suggestive that it was not present or salient in the beginning.
The Jewish-Christians are not innovators insofar as they wanted to keep Christianity Jewish as in its earliest years, in which Gentiles who became followers of Jesus also embraced the Jewish law (of which Mt 5 still promises that not a jot, not a tittle will be done away with).
It might seem obvious to us that Christians need not keep the Jewish law, but it roused fierce controversy in the early Church, still ablaze in the fifties -- years after the Council of Jerusalem.
I don't think Paul's Judaizers were arguing that non-Jews could not be saved.
If the Judaizers did say that only practitioners of the Law could be saved, where did they say it? Where did the Rabbis reject it?
"I don't think Paul's Judaizers were arguing that non-Jews could not be saved."
In the Book of Acts and in St. Paul's epistles, we find references to Jewish Christians who insisted that Gentile Christians must be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses in order to be saved. St. Ignatius of Antioch refers to them as well.
I don't know when the Rabbis rejected the heresy that Gentiles must become Jewish proselytes in order to be saved -- I only know that non-Christian Judaism has never taught that doctrine and does not teach it today. It could be that the Rabbis saw the debate as a Christian concern, and when they rejected the Messiahship of Jesus and expelled His disciples, they had no need to take up the question of whether or not God-fearing Gentiles must proselyte to be saved.
In the Book of Acts and in St. Paul's epistles, we find references to Jewish Christians who insisted that Gentile Christians must be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses OF COURSE
BUT WHERE DO THEY SAY in order to be saved?
Is salvation in the sense of salvation after death present in the Hebrew scriptures?
What notions of salvation after death were current in Judaism in Jesus' time?
To whom was such salvation offered? To all people of good will?
The Judaisers/Ebionites claimed that to enjoy the benefits that the Messiah brought to mankind, all mankind had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses -- the issue of what Jews and Ebionites thought "salvation" meant is tangential to the issue, but we can be sure that they had a belief in a blessed afterlife, "heaven" or whatever you wish to call it. Their insistence that Gentiles had to become Jews was a novelty. You suggest that the concept of salvation after death is also a novelty of the Ebionites and Christians and post-Exilic Jews -- I disagree, but even if you're right it doesn't change the fact that the Ebionite claim that only circumcised Jews could enjoy the benefits afforded by the Messiah was a novelty in Judaism, not a traditional Jewish belief. Hence my point stands -- the Ebionites were not diehard traditionalists, but heretics introducing novelties and rejecting the teachings of the Church.
Spirit of Vatican II,
"BUT WHERE DO THEY SAY in order to be saved?"
"And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That, except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved." Acts 15:1.
Fr. O'Leary,
If you admit that there is a tradition of the virgin birth before Matthew and Luke wrote it, you have to come up with a better suggestion of how it came into being with a very *limited* amount of time. Let me reply to your suggestions.
1) Jesus as the Son of God. But "Son of God" is actually common in Jewish literature and no Jew would be dumb enough to think that a son of Yahweh cannot have a human father.
2) Buddha and other people were thought of having miraculous births. But that doesn't solve the issue that Is. 7 wasn't interpreted messianically. That is something which is unknown of. Matthew (or his source) would not have interpreted it like that unless there's a good reason.
3) Another thought for Apolonio -- is it not significant that the Ebionites or Jewish-Christians, strongly rejected the virgin birth? That's exactly why I believe in the virgin birth. They **rejected** it simply because it is unheard of. There is no tradition of the messiah being born of a virgin. So why make it up?
And again, there were two sources and a very short time. It seems to me that the virgin birth is historical.
Indeed, we have two historical primary sources from the first century A.D. that mention the Virgin Birth as a doctrine of the early Church. In contrast, the historical sources that tell us that the Ebionites (or many Ebionites anyway) rejected the Virgin Birth are no earlier than the second century A.D. Consequently, we have better evidence that the Church in the first century believed in the Virgin Birth than we have that the Ebionites in the first century rejected the Virgin Birth. For all we know, the Ebionites originally believed in the Virgin Birth and rejected it later.
Thanks, Patrick.
Apolonio, no Jew would think a Son of God could not have a human father -- maybe. But perhaps it was gentile christians who thought this?
I'm not so sure that a Jew could not have thought it up. There are many Jewish accounts of miraculous births of remarkable figures, and even some virginal conceptions I think (there is a legend about the miraculous conception of Melchizadech somewhere, but apparently the text as we have it could be the result of Christian interpolation).
Matthew's interpretations of biblical texts as prophecies is often very odd (2.17 and 2.23 for example). It is the Greek not the Hebrew Bible that allows the 'prophetic' interpretation of 'a virgin shall conceive'. Perhaps Matthew was the first to connect the virgin birth tradition with this text; the tradition itself could well be independent of that text (which is not mentioned in Luke's account).
Looking at Karl Barth's defense of the virgin birth (KD I/2.189ff; IV.2,226ff.) I find that it depends entirely on the authority of scripture and the early church.
The problem today is that other miracles taken for granted on the same basis, such as the changing of water into wine, have become much less credible for two reasons: a fuller realization of the physical nature of what is being claimed and a fuller realization of how often biblical texts are shaped by theological motives rather than literal fact.
Even the most conservative theologians, such as Jean Galot SJ, can be found offering a metaphorical interpretation of the virginitas in partu (that the physical virginity is not affected even by the birth of the child). If that is allowed, the metaphorical interpretation of the virginal conception itself is not far behind.
Barth admits that the virgin birth is "only thinly attested in the Bible and even doubtfully in one of the principle places and moreover is surrounded by factual contradictions" (I/2.190-1). But he believes these difficulties can be overcome.
Barth always parallels the virgin birth with the empty tomb as the external signs of the mysteries of the Incarnation and Resurrection respectively. "The Church knows well what she has done in placing this dogma as a sentry, so to speak, before the door to the mystery of Christmas" (19. The two signs have "the specific function of indicating and distinguishing the existence of Jesus Christ as such, under and besides the many other existences of human history, as that human historical existence in which God himself, God alone and God directly, is subject, and whose temporal reality is not only called forth, created, conditioned and sustained by God's eternal reality, but is identical with this eternal reality" (199).
Whence comes Christ? Whither goes he? The virgin birth seals the whence and the empty tomb seals the whither.
So the two have a very coherent role in the edifice of Christian teaching, and are attested fairly early in Christian tradition.
The sceptical question that nags at one, though, is whether it is precisely in view of this sterling theological role that these traditions were created?
Barth deplores Emil Brunner's and Paul Althaus's rejection of the virgin birth and says it casts a twilight over their whole Christology (200-1).
Barth is a theological classic, but of restorationist tendency. Very many people would like to be full-fledged Barthians or full-fledged Catholics in regard to the detail of traditional dogma. But they cannot help feeling that the entire heritage will not pass Ricoeur's test of the "croyable disponible" and that the demythologizers have had the better of the argument in the end, however humbling this is for the classical dogmatic edifice.
Some bad arguments for the virgin birth are summarized by Polanus (Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 422). He had to be pure, as one born of man and woman could not be. He had not need of an earthly father, having a heavenly one. He had to be one person, not two, as he would have been if begotten of two fathers. He had to be seen as an extraordinary person, etc.
Now if the virgin birth produces such bad arguments, tending to docetism, could we not suppose that these very arguments produced the virgin birth in the first case? It would be a regrettable symbolization of the uniqueness of Jesus, tending to docetism, as Paul Tillich argued.
What makes docetism more apparent today is the realization that if the body of Christ is produced "with the sole blood of the virgin" (Diest, in Heppe 421) then she must have produced both the female and male chromosomes of her son, something so unnatural that it threatens to undermine his real humanity. Of course cloning can make this seem less unnatural again, but a cloned human is always cloned from one of the same sex (just as parthenogenesis in nature produces offspring of the same, female, sex).
Here is an example of how the virgin birth is handled in theology courses today: http://www.stjohnadulted.org/creed2.htm
As Nicholas Kristof correctly pointed out, the current revival of virgin birth belief, even among non-christians, is part of the de-intellectualizing of Christianity in America, and a growing gulf between scholarship and piety, that show troubling parallels with similar developments in Islam.
You are so pathetic, O'Leary. Why don't you become an Anglican? You'll probably become a bishop in no time...
The real problem isn't as growing gulf between scholarship and piety, but a growing gulf between scholarship and reality.
FR JOSEPH O’LEARY’S LITANY TO THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
Scorn of cutting-edge theologians, grant me the grace to ignore thee.
Pernicious device of the least-malleable of gospels, grant me the grace to excise thee.
Confection of penguins, grant me the grace to ridicule thee.
Ludicrous emblem of sinlessness, grant me the grace to guffaw at thy unlikelihood.
Horselaugh of gynecologists, biologists, and purveyors of prophylactic devices, grant me the grace not to be laughed at by our secularist brethren, whose approval is paramount.
Crutch of believing Catholics, grant us the grace to kick thee athwart.
Our Lady of Symbolic Narratives, pray for them.
Our Lady of Old Wives’ Tales, pray for them.
Our Lady of Obedience Delivered with Barely Concealed Scorn, pray for them.
Our Lady of Self-Hatred, pray for me.
Yes, Fr Joe, its the virgin birth, not the Immaculate Conception you have been ridiculing, but surely one is no less ridiculous than the other. The Church maintains no concept more outmoded and ludicrous than that of sin, so surely immaculate conception is nothing more than our birthright, sort of like Holy Eucharist on demand.
One late comment on Fr Peter Stravinskas' "not one in a thousand" remark: it seems a rather odd and surly way to initiate "reform of the reform", presumably a collaborative effort, to dismiss the aspirations of one faction with something approaching contempt.
Alice von Hildebrand on her husband, Dietrich:
He believed that after Pius X’s condemnation of the heresy of Modernism, its proponents merely went underground. He would say that they then took a much more subtle and practical approach. They spread doubt simply by raising questions about the great supernatural interventions throughout salvation history, such as the Virgin Birth and Our Lady’s perpetual virginity, as well as the Resurrection, and the Holy Eucharist. They knew that once faith – the foundation – totters, the liturgy and the moral teachings of the Church would follow suit. My husband entitled one of his books The Devastated Vineyard. After Vatican II, a tornado seemed to have hit the Church.
Leaving aside the issues of Catholic Christian orthodoxy, and scandal, for the moment...
With no disrespect: Is there any reason to believe that 'Spirit of Vatican II' is a real Catholic priest, or even a Catholic (or Christian)? Has anyone seriously investigated his (or is it ‘her’) claim to ordination? Has 'Spirit of Vatican II' ever made (and if so, proven) any such claim? Has there been a misunderstanding?
In any case, is there perhaps a case being inadvertently made for ‘ecumenical’ and ‘interreligious’ collaboration in defense of the Virgin Birth? This is very odd indeed. Not sure if I should approve.
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14186.htm
http://www.islamonline.net/
engli...Article04.shtml
==
Philip wrote: "And I just read an essay by Fr. Peter Stravinskas last night, who celebrates the only Novus Ordo Mass in a Traditional Latin Mass parish somewhere (I believe) in Pennsylvania, in which, along with many other wise suggestions he offered for various accommodations, the most notable thing he said, at least as far as I'm concerned, is that he could not imagine the Latin Church returning to the Traditional Latin Mass in a thousand years!".
I wonder what Fr. Peter Stravinskas could have meant? The 1962 Roman Missal is being validly used today (to the Glory of God), and I personally can 'imagine' more than one scenario where it returns to become widespread.
==
"Cardinal Medina’s views on the meeting between Benedict XVI and Bishop Fellay: Priority for doctrinal questions
http://www.dici.org/actualite_re...read.php?
id=644
In an interview on September 26, 2005, the Chilean Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez, a member of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and former Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, replied to questions from I.Media, a partner of the press agency Apic in Rome. (Story by Antoine-Marie Izoard, Rome)".
==
Hello,
As part of my project in Political Theology class, I am writing a Bill of Rights addressed to "God". I agree that this is a lame retro form of address, as the term is usually used nowadays in reference to pop idols, and as a favorite adolescent expostulation against the ridiculous demands of adults, but please help me anyway, I'm really cute, and you should feel sorry for me since you have to deal with the bellyaching of my blockhead of a father.
So, I have written this much so far:
We, the humans of the world wide faith community known as Catholicism, being really smart and hip and knowledgeable about history and all kinds of scholarship and stuff,
(Even though most of that stuff has been deconstructed and shown to be worthless by other scholars and such),
Do politely but firmly demand from you, the aforesaid "God", the following stuff:
(1) no more confession. Sin is an outmoded concept, like damnation, truth, and glam rock. Therefore confession is stupid. Maybe You could turn it into a Hollywood gossip sacrament, where You tell us stuff about what Paris Hilton is doing RIGHT NOW, that would be cool!
(2) communion whenever we want it, only not just bread (so chintzy), how about pizza, wings and toaster pastries set out buffet style?
(3) Hel-loooow, acne is yuck, definitely not one of Your better ideas.
(4) more sermons on really relevant stuff like how to be popular all the time, and ways to get dad to pay for breast enlargments and stuff like that
(5) Like, little TVs in the backside of each pew would ROCK!
Can any of you guys think of any suggestions to fill out this list? I'd really appreciate your help. Well, I've got to go -- L-R is sponsoring a drink-till-you-pass-out-on-the-dean's-front-lawn beer blast for bowling majors, so bye-eeeee!
Like, the TVs in the pews should all have cable . . .
Yo, my girl friend is pregnant and she says I'm the dad, which is sooo totally lame, she says I got her pregnant through the sheer heat of my libido, like, can that HAPPEN, man??
Is that anything like hot wiring a car, dude?
This guy at the L-R drink-till-your-stomach-explodes beer blast told me that this ancient gay people, they worshipped whoopee cushions, and like considered the noise that they made prophecies, and wrote it all down, so there are like, these miles and miles of scrolls with nothing on them but BRRRMMMPPP!!! over and over again, and there are guys today who STUDY this stuff, yo, FOR MONEY!, so like, why am I flipping burgers for $7.50 an hour, dude??
Uh, Ebionites, are they the guys who invented Ebonics?
No, fool, they make bowling balls!
The IRISH invented Ebonics!
Interesting to see from Paul Borealis above that the French Dominican I quoted has been singled out by a Muslim for attack. Muslims of course believe in the virgin birth, but in the context of a totally docetic understanding of the Incarnation.
Roister-Doister seems to confuse the doctrines of the virginitas in partu with the immaculate conception, or is it the virginitas ante partum that he confuses with the immaculate conception? In any case, if he makes such blunders he has obviously never studied these matters at all, as indeed his voluminous guffaws in his string of postings above amply demonstrate.
"Is there any reason to believe that 'Spirit of Vatican II' is a real Catholic priest, or even a Catholic (or Christian)? Has anyone seriously investigated his (or is it ‘her’) claim to ordination? Has 'Spirit of Vatican II' ever made (and if so, proven) any such claim? Has there been a misunderstanding?"
It's certainly understandable that you'd wonder if Fr. O'Leary is really a Catholic priest, but Dr. Blosser has vouched for Fr. O'Leary -- they apparently met each other many years ago in Japan, and Dr. Blosser has posted Fr. O'Leary's photograph more than once -- he's definitely a man, not a woman. (Well, I guess it could be a photo of an extremely ugly Anglican priestess . . .)
"But they cannot help feeling that the entire heritage will not pass Ricoeur's test . . ."
"Feelings. Nothing more than . . . Feelings. . . . Trying to for . . . get those . . . Feelings of loooooooooooooooove!"
Jordan and New Catholic - I am an Anglican who comes to this site and find some interesting discussions. But you guys are a couple of rude putzes. If I should make references to the Roman Catholic Church in any way that you do to the Anglican you'd be outraged. It goes beyond mere bad manners. I would never accuse the RC Church of being heterodox because of the words and practices of some of its members, clerical or otherwise. Thx.
Ooops! I noticed above that I should have written: "The 1962 Roman Missal is being validly and licitly used today [...]". Thanks!
rob k -- they will not see themselves as 'rude putzes' because of their certitude that Roman Catholicism being the One True Church all other churches are heretical and all other religions false; all sexuality other than flawless heterosexuality they regard as evil, so that homosexually inclined people are diagnosed as having a 'grave spiritual malady'. They also believe that a Catholic state would have the right to execute heretics (since this was done in the past and the Church can never be admitted to have erred).
The irony of course is that New Catholic and Mr Potter have strayed very far from the vision of Vatican II, notably in regard to religious liberty and ecumenism, a vision they probably never acquired to begin with.
SOVII - Thanks for your input. I am a close friend of the Roman Catholic, and still hope that with the guidance of the Holy Spirit there can in some way a drawing closer, as seemed to be promising a generation ago. Do you think there is any significance in the fact that B16, while still Cardinal, was very active in pushing for the recent ARCIC agreement on the the theology and place of the BVM in the life of the RC and Ang. churches? Thx.
Rob K, your oecumenical concerns are very beautiful, but they are misguided, especially because Anglican institutions have all but rejected basic teachings of what C.S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity". Traditional Anglicans may return to the Church in the near future, though.
For more information, read the Pontifications blog , by a former Anglican minister who entered the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I have listened to many long Anglican sermons and very many Roman Catholic ones. I have to say that the Anglican ones were distinguished by theological content, biblical foundations, careful preparation and delivery, and purity of doctrine to a far greater degree than their RC counterparts.
I always thought of Ratzinger as a vigilant checker of ecumenical agreed statements, but perhaps his input was more positive. As Pope he seems to be cultivating the art of reaching out.
The ARCIC document on Mary, which I have not read, should have pleased Ratzinger, since it accepts that the two papal Marian dogmas are not non-biblical. If his enthusiasm means that he is prepared to treat these dogmas as proposals to devotion, rather than dogmas about which to make a big song and dance stressing their infallibility and bindingness de fide, that would be nice.
"I am an Anglican who comes to this site and find some interesting discussions. But you guys are a couple of rude putzes. If I should make references to the Roman Catholic Church in any way that you do to the Anglican you'd be outraged. It goes beyond mere bad manners. I would never accuse the RC Church of being heterodox because of the words and practices of some of its members, clerical or otherwise."
I don't say the Anglican ecclesial community is heterodox because of the words and practices of some of its members. I say it is heterodox because it does not hold and teach the Catholic faith. Apparently in Anglicanism it is a matter of indifference whether or not one agrees with the ordination of women and open, active homosexuals. There's also the famous matter of contraception. But most important is that it in Anglicanism it seems to be a matter of indifference whether or not one believes in the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the Two Natures, the Atonement, and the Resurrection. Granted, Anglicanism is closer to the Catholic faith than most other forms of Protestant and post-Protestant Christianity, but the gulf between Anglicanism and the Church seems to be growing, not lessening -- and it's not the Catholic Church that has moved from her position.
The reason we point out that Fr. O'Leary would be more at home in Anglicanism than in Catholicism is that his views are conformable with Anglicanism but irreconcilable with Catholicism. I'm sorry if that offends you, but facts are facts.
". . . notably in regard to religious liberty and ecumenism, a vision they probably never acquired to begin with."
On the contrary, it is due to the Church's teachings on religious liberty and ecumenism that I was able to convert to the Apostolic Faith at all.
"Roister-Doister seems to confuse the doctrines of the virginitas in partu with the immaculate conception, or is it the virginitas ante partum that he confuses with the immaculate conception"
Sorry you missed the note, Fr Bo Jangles, but since you brought it up, do you believe in the immaculate conception? If so, as what? Another "symbolic narrative of some sort"? Isn't original sin one of those silly dogmas we Catholics tend to get hung up on?
"rob k -- they will not see themselves as 'rude putzes' because of their certitude that Roman Catholicism being the One True Church all other churches are heretical and all other religions false; all sexuality other than flawless heterosexuality they regard as evil, so that homosexually inclined people are diagnosed as having a 'grave spiritual malady'. They also believe that a Catholic state would have the right to execute heretics (since this was done in the past and the Church can never be admitted to have erred)." I don't believe any of that stuff, I'm just in it for the primo academic posting and the free meal-events.
That's right, Spritz! These "Jesuit" Universities are fun!!!! And the meal-events are faaabulous, especially here in Tokyo, where meal-events include masses as well as sushi-bars, which is why I call my masses the "cookie-bars"!
Roister, I already explained that I like the immaculate conception as the pre-emptive granting to Mary of the privileges of the redeemed. I think it should be regarded as a matter of devotion rather than doctrine.
The immaculate conception is the doctrine that Mary was conceived without original sin.
The virginal conception is the doctrine that Jesus was conceived without a human father.
Virginitas in partu is the doctrine that Mary's virginity remained physically intact during the birth of Jesus. (Before the doctrine was established, Jerome has the theory that the virginity was restored immediately after childbirth.)
Virginitas post partum is the doctrine that Mary's virginity was never lost at any later stage.
(Note that virginitas in partu is not a miracle in the following case: a woman is artificially inseminated and has a Caesarian delivery!)
Father, do you REALLY believe that Ralph needs these explanations? As far as I remember, I asked you about the four Marian dogmas at the same time, but you chose to discuss the Divine Maternity (the Ephesian Dogma) and, specifically, the "unlikeliness" of the Virginal Conception and Birth of Our Lord and Savior.
I'm pretty sure we all know the dogmas of the Faith, including the Immaculate Conception, which you MUST NOT entertain as mere devotion, but that you MUST believe DE FIDE, if you wish to remain Catholic.
"I like the immaculate conception as the pre-emptive granting to Mary of the privileges of the redeemed. I think it should be regarded as a matter of devotion rather than doctrine."
You "like" it? Well, that makes all the difference.
"As a matter of devotion"? That's a nice tap step, Fr Jangles. It means that you can think warm and loving thoughts about Mary's sinlessness in the privacy of your study, but no one else should -- it's not the kind of idea aristocratic avatars of 21st century Catholicism want to get around, is it? Too much damn attention being paid to dogma as it is, so mum's the word.
So you get the best of both worlds, don't you? You grin slyly, roll your eyes heavenward, and say that your heart beats with "devotion" to Christ's sinless mother. A fine word, devotion. Can mean as much or as little as you like. But dogma? You don't "like" dogma, do you? Ties you down a bit overmuch?
What is it about dogma, anyway? The permanence, I suppose. Any dullard can uphold dogmatic truth (Hah! Look at Pius IX, that plow boy!) Just a matter of conviction. No posing required. No pedantic pirouettes. No scintillating analyses of truth into onion layers of ambiguity. No joy in deconstruction. NO EMPHASIS ON THE PERFORMER! NO RESPECT FOR THE VIRTUOSO!
Philip would socialize men to be nervous, defensive homophobes, potential gay bashers.
I wish my four grown sons had the opportunity to respond to this twittering nonsense, Father. It's unbecoming of you. I raised my sons as I would like to see any boy to be raised, not to be "nervous, defensive homophobes" and "potential gay bashers," but to be ordinary boys who grow up to be men and embrace their responsibilities and gifts as men -- to respect all persons as ends-in-themselves, to love even the worst of sinners, while hating the sin. That, at least, along with their respect for priests, might spare your hide in an encounter with them, Father. I don't think any of them would take kindly to being called "nervous, defensive homophobes" or "potential gay bashers." Nothing nervous about them at all. But a very keen sense of fair-play, Father, which is more than many here might be willing to say for you.
Fr Joe Jangles has no concern for the material. He is quite spiritual, almost evanescent. A dissident priest basher's fist would probably go right through him.
Spirit, Jordan & New Cath. - Thanks for your responses. New Cath, I am a long-time reader of Pontificator's site. Unfortunately I cannot comment on it anymore because I can't provide an e-mail address, since I come in on someone else's computer. Fr. Al is a "former" Anglican priest, not minister, by the way. Both you and Jordan brought up a lot of issues, and I'm glad to respond as I can. Yes, my ecumenical spirit is strong, and I am a believing Catholic. We basically part ways in that Anglicanism is part of the Catholic Church, having kept the three-fold apostolic ministry and historic creeds, and that its sacraments are valid (I am familiar with a lot of the arguments, pro & con), and that in the Eucharist we receive the real body and blood of Christ. Yes, we've got Spong, Mathew Fox, and others, and the WO and gay issues, and I'm awfully familiar with them also. IF we are truly organically part of the Catholic Church, though, the Gates of Hell will not prevail. Thanks for reading. That IF, of course, divides our thinking. FYI, I know several RC priests who think our orders should be pronounced valid by the Vatican. I know all this is a mouthfull, needing (endless?) refinement. Thanks, and please forgive my anger in the previous post.
I'm sure that I'm not as informed on the question of Anglican Orders as you are, but as far as I know, the current judgment of the Catholic Church is that Anglican ordinations are as a rule invalid due to a defect in the rite of ordination introduced by Cranmer in the 1500s. The rite was later repaired, but by that time there apparently weren't any validly ordained Anglican bishops left. The Catholic Church could, I suppose revisit that question and issue a different verdict, but for now the judgment is that the line of apostolic succession was broken in the 1500s. The current Anglican rite of ordination is acceptable, I believe, and is effective so long as a validly ordained bishop uses it. I have no idea if any Anglican bishops today are currently regarded by the Catholic Church as having valid Holy Orders, but if they do, then they can validly ordain new bishops, priests, and deacons, restoring apostolic succession from the Catholic Church's vantage point.
P.S. Don't worry about your previous, um, colorful name you bestowed on me. I've been called worse. No offense taken, and apology accepted.
I thought the Anglican episcopacy today had ensured apostolic succession by having their bishops ordained by validly ordained Old Catholic bishops back in the 19th century?
Sorry, New Cath, I do not believe that imposing the Imm. Conc. and the Assumption as dogmas de fide has been a good thing; it would have been far better to leave them in their previous status as devotional thoughts. In any case they are way down on the "hierarchy of truths" and should not be used as excommunicatory litmus tests.
The biological impossibilities of virginal conception and virginal childbirth, and their docetic implications, remain for me forbidding obstacles to belief in the literal historical factual veracity of these claims. You have not provided a single argument except the appeal to authority.
Spirit - A Dutch Old Catholic line of consecration was introduced in C of E bishops' consecrations in the earlier part of the 20th century.
Jordan - Apostolicae Curae dashed hopes of some people in both C of E and RC churches for the beginning of movement toward some kind of organic union. The basis of the Anglican bishops reply to AC was that the same defect that Pope Leo found in the Anglican rite of the 16th century had existed for a time in the Roman rite itself. Wm. Tighe, and RC, and Frs. Kirby and Hart, Anglicans, who comment on several sites, are much more knowledgeable about the history and details of the arguments pro and con. Of course, WO in the Anglican Church has once again put a damper on the same kind of activity in more recent times. Nevertheless some are still hoping. ARCIC activity continues, and the recently agreed upon statement about the BVM, was, I have been told, pushed hard for by Ratzinger himself. What happens with the TAC group and Rome may give signs for the future. Thx.
rob k, beware of acronyms. What is WO and what is TAC? It is like the Germans talking about GE.
WO is Women's Ordination, I suppose. TAC -- Talking about Apostolicae Curae?
Got it -- Traditional Anglican Communion. Are they the ones breaking away because of the Gene Robinson ordination?
"The biological impossibilities of virginal conception and virginal childbirth, and their docetic implications, remain for me forbidding obstacles to belief in the literal historical factual veracity of these claims. You have not provided a single argument except the appeal to authority."
Fine, I already know you are a heretic, you do not have to repeat yourself.
---
Memorare, o PURISSIME Sponse Virginis Mariae, o dulcis Protector mi, sancte Ioseph, non esse auditum a saeculo, quemquem ad tua implorantem auxilia, tua petentem suffragia, esse derelictum.
Ego tali animatus confidentia ad te venio, tibique fervide me commendo. Noli, quaeso, o Pater PUTATIVE Redemptoris, verba mea despicere, sed audi propitius.
Amen.
Reading about the 250,000 strong TAC movement I recall the words of a 17th century Hugeonot theologian:
"For the Christian, schism is the greatest of tragedies and the greatest of crimes."
Liberal Catholicism has not produced any major schism in recent decades -- although there is a schismatic liberal Bishop Pat Buckley in Ireland -- and I hope that this will remain the case. The liberal Catholic conscience is still respected within the Church, in a way that the consciences of those dissenting from Vatican I was not (hence the formation of the schismatic Old Catholics). The recent cordial conversation between Ratzinger and arch-liberal Hans Kung sends an encouraging message to liberals, to "hang in there" as Kung has done. The same message is being sent to Lefebvrites, inviting them back to full communion with Rome.
What is that prayer? I never knew my patron saint was called "O pater putative Redemptoris" in so many words in a prayer. St Luke simply calls him and Mary "the parents" of Jesus, and he should know.
The Anglican Communion should have given us an example of living with differences. It is particularly painful that their split was occasioned by the gay issue, on which people of good will everywhere have conflicting opinions.
The Roman Catholic Church is actually shaping up quite well on this front. Liberals like myself can flourish in it as can conservatives like our host here. Perhaps the Anglicans will recover their unity when they see how well we are doing.
That prayer is the Memorare to Saint Joseph.
As for "liberals flourishing", I guess we'll have to wait a few decades for the demographic aftermath. The situation in the liberal heartland, Western Europe, does not look goog, Father... You liberals have all but destroyed the Church in the Old World, and only the most conservative will withstand the storm (Poland, Slovakia, parts of Italy and Portugal, small Traditional communities in France, and small congregations elsewhere).
The emerald isle is a mystery. I believe the One True Faith may rise again there... but one never knows... No place seemed more fervently Christian than Anatolia a 1000 years ago...
New Cath, many would say it is conservatives who have destroyed the church by their refusal to enact Vatican II and their disempowerment of the Catholic laity (and of bishops -- collegiality). So your sociological diagnosis is controversial. Had the Church embraced the spirit of the Council we would have more vibrant liturgies, more eloquent and active bishops, a healthier theological culture.
Spirit - TAC, Traditional Anglican Communion, broke away because of Womens' Ordination, not over ordination of active homosexuals. You made an interesting point about the ability of the RC Church to hold different points of view together. I've told some Episcopalians who are overly proud of our "comprehensiveness" that there is actually more theological freedom in the RC Church than anywhere else. I mean that, of course, within the bounds of the faith. Our Bishop Spong, for example, I and many others consider to be out of bounds. But I think the Papacy does provide a center of gravity that can hold the "Big Tent" together, and that it must, in some way or other, be the center of eventual church reunion. More later. Thx.
New Catholic - The way you describe the condition of the Church in Europe sounds like the cries of distress within the Anglican Communion. Spirit - that was the first time I ever used acronyms. I guess I was just trying to follow the crowd. Mike Liccione is the most expert user of acronyms that I have seen.
Commenting by HaloScan
