It's pretty pathetic. All circumstances tend to show a Europe in crisis. And, first among all European nations, the paragon of what Western Europe might face:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/artic...pfv.php?
id=6797
(great article at The Spectator).
Rifkin will make a fortune as a "vision" consultant for every democrat presidential candidate running in 2008.
the problem is :
No european (exept few technocrates) have a European Dream !
European institutions seem to them cold and distant, disconnected from realities.
They seem to not hear what their people says (cf referendum in France and netherland)...
Technocrates have their own agenda...
Europeans people don't share it !
But Brussels don't care...
A european.
1/3 of Americans don't believe in the "American Dream?" What fraction of Europeans believe in the "European Dream"? Is that why the constitution was voted down in France and the Netherlands?
I'm sure more government authority and less economic choice are a dream for certain segments of the American elite, but I don't really see an eclipse. The numbers suggest the European dream is foundering.
I believe in the European dream, as I think many Europeans quietly do. But the EU has so many problems that this pan-European patriotism remains rather sporadic and low-key.
The 25 countries of the EU, relatively small in area, have in the past produced 90 per cent of the great achievements of civilized humanity, despite the fact that up to 1945 they were rarely at peace with one another, and that up to 1989 they were never all free countries. The peaceful union of these states may be the bundling together of dried sticks, or it may the formula for an evolutionary leap forward.
Fr. O'Leary,
I hope that Europe can, as you say, leap forward. I think one thing upon which the existence of a state is predicated is a common defense, and to date Europeans still seem eager to let the U.S. carry the brunt of this.
The closing of the historic Rhein-Main airbase in Frankfurt perhaps suggests that an end to the era of American-guaranteed sovereignty is finally coming. Maybe then the EU will find a little more common ground.
Is Rowan Williams a great European voice?
http://www.archbishopofcanterbur...ches/
050929.htm
Common defense, yes. But I suggest that Europe should become a nuclear-free zone, just as European justice is a death-penalty free zone.
"Some day a great nation will say, 'We are breaking the sword. Better to perish than to live feared and hated by all. Twice better to perish than to live fearing and hating all!" -- Nietzsche.
So what then, is the European response to a nuclear threat? If attacked, should Europe tell the United States (after throwing away their bombs), "Don't retaliate on our account, we don't believe in nuclear weapons." That sounds like a recipe for the end of
Europe.
In any case, no state currently possessing nukes would be willing to give them up. As I recall, France is quite proud of hers.
More from Rowan Williams
Europe’s distinctive identity, then, is a ‘liberal’ identity, in the broadest meaning of the word: a political identity which assumes that argument and negotiation, plural claims adjudicated by law, suspicion of ‘positivist’ notions of political power, are all natural, necessary features of a viable and legitimate communal life in society. But the crucial point for the Christian is the conviction that this ‘liberal’ identity is threatened if it does not have, or is unaware of, that perpetual partner which reminds it that it is under a higher judgement. Unless the liberal state is engaged in a continuing dialogue with the religious community, it loses its essential liberalism. It becomes simply dogmatically secular, insisting that religious faith be publicly invisible; or it becomes chaotically pluralist, with no proper account of its legitimacy except a positivist one (the state is the agency that happens to have the monopoly of force).
The Christian sense of what matters about European identity, then, is not about some mythical unity between the faith and the historic culture of Europe, a ‘Christendom’ picture. Nor is it to insist that what is now politically defined as Europe cannot expand beyond the boundaries of what were once the Christian nations of the continent. It is to argue that the bold experiment of a political life that is not sanctioned by comprehensive religious power, a political life that is not held to be in some way sacred, should continue to leave space for the voice of its critical partner, the community of faith, to be heard. This means a willingness on the state’s part both to safeguard religious liberty (and not to assume that the state can legislate for the religious community) and to enter into some sorts of partnership with the community of faith. It should be willing to entertain collaboration in education, social care and community regeneration, allowing its own goals to be questioned and informed by the agenda of faith, without submitting to any kind of religious tyranny. That is, in the argument and negotiation of public life, the voice of communities of faith can be heard without anxiety or fear of a takeover by religious zealots.
This may help us think through the relationship between the ‘modern’ state and Islam in a new way. Islam, of course, begins from a different starting point from Christianity. The Muslim umma is inseparably a religious and a political reality, and Islamic political thought seems to have no obvious place for the kind of separation of powers that has been seen as the consequence of Christian theology. Yet in historical practice, there has been differentiation between the responsibilities, within the one umma, of preacher and ruler; some sense of a gap between the community at prayer and the community in legal and administrative mode, and of the need at times for one to challenge the other. Clearly in a non-Muslim society, interesting issues arise over this; a
interesting issues arise over this; and contemporary Muslim legal scholars have given increasing attention to them in recent years. We should not assume that the only valid or serious Muslim position is that which is usually expressed in terms of working for a universal ‘caliphate’, the restoration of a practically homogeneous social order under the governance of a religiously-legitimated ruler.
So that the presence of Islam within Europe, whether in the shape of significant minorities or through the presence of a majority Muslim state, need not be seen as an insoluble problem for what a Christian might see as the European identity. Islam, in such circumstances, is invited to become, along with the historic religious communities of Christian Europe, the critical friend of the modern state, asking awkward questions, forming partnerships. This does suggest the challenge to Islam to continue formulating new ways of understanding itself in a non-Muslim environment; but not some wholesale abandonment of its reflective theological history.
In short, my hopes for the future of Europe are that it will continue to be a culture of question and negotiation – because I believe that this is the way it is truest to its Christian roots. But given the enormous dangers of a dominant secularism, a denial of the public visibility of religious commitment and its role in managing and moulding social identity, I hope for a political climate in Europe that is open to co-operation between state and religious enterprise.
On the nuclear threat, the ideal would be global disarmament. We do not need another 50 years of living with a knife-edge calculus of terror, with the constant possibility of a madman or a mad administration setting off Armageddon, and with the constant commitment to genocide as a means of self-defence. Europe owes it to its honor to vow that under no circumstances would it use a genocidal weapon. Twice better to perish!
CND website: Part of the NATO military strategy is a dependence on nuclear weapons. Those nuclear weapons possessed by the US and UK can be used on NATO’s behalf if necessary. Although ostensibly set up as a defensive organisation, in 1999, its mission statement was redrawn to allow for offensive and Eurasia action.
Around 200 US nuclear weapons, put under the control of NATO, are stationed in seven European states. They are UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Greece, Turkey, Germany and Italy. The nuclear weapons in the UK are based at United States Air Force base at Lakenheath in Suffolk and consist of around 30 B-61 freefall nuclear bombs. They are ready and available for rapid deployment on the F-15 ‘Strike Eagle’ aircraft. The UK has no control over their use.
CND believes that Britain should withdraw from NATO, and all foreign military bases on British soil should be closed. NATO should not be expanded but should be disbanded and the influence, resources and funding of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) extended towards a nuclear free, less militarised and therefore more secure Europe. The first wave of post Cold War expansion in 1999 presents the danger of nuclear proliferation into the new Eastern European states.
Europe was great when it was Christian, Father O'Leary. The miraculous sparkle of the fusion between the Ancient Classic civilization and the Covenantal (Judeo-Christian) system of values generated this wonder which was Europe.
But a faithless, paganised, Europe is as a body without a soul. Its fate is doom and misery, unless it repents and returns to the Church (quite unlikely...).
Fr. O'Leary,
You have presented no practical means by which disarmament can occur. If even one state still has them, disarmament causes a nightmare, not peace.
In fact, it seems to me that nuclear weapons on the whole have caused peace rather than war. Take for example the U.S.S.R. and the U.S., or India and Pakistan. I am not aware of two nuclear-armed states that have gone to war.
It seems to me that clamoring for nuclear disarmament is absurd as long as there are countries that seriously consider going to war. As structurally incompetent as government is, no one is stupid enough to give up nuclear weapons for nothing.
Deterrance has worked up to now, yes, but it takes only one slip to precipitate genocide, and perhaps Armageddon. Nuclear disarmament is a moral imperative and an imperative for the survival of the race. If nations think only of their pride and what they can get out of their nuke blackmail there will be no progress. The USA should have given the lead; instead we have seen proliferation since 1989.
Americans are ill-advised to boast about being a Christian country. Murder, the gap between rich and power, cruel and unusual punishment including the death sentence, and illegal wars are higher in the US than in the EU today.
For cruel and unusual punishment, here's a snippet about a Kansas sex-sentencing that gives an idea of distorted puritan ethics in America: "The case involved an 18-year-old man, Matthew R. Limon, who was found guilty in 2000 of performing a sex act on a 14-year-old boy and was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Had one of them been a girl, state law would have dictated a maximum sentence of 15 months."
Go away, you damn crazy priest!
SYNOD SACRIFICES EUCHARISTIC LIFE OF FAITHFUL TO THE IDOL OF CELIBACY
St. Joseph of Carondelet Sr. Christine Schenk, representing the reform organization FutureChurch, said that "disappointment is a mild way to put it" in describing her reaction.
"Our goal for the last three or four years has been to get the priest shortage on the synod agenda, and it was, so that's something to celebrate," she said. "But in some ways, that makes it even worse" that the synod refrained from recommending a change on celibacy, she said.
Schenk said her group's case for married priests is not based merely on addressing the priest shortage.
"There are a number of good Catholic men who experience a call to the priesthood, but not to celibacy," she said. "They could better understand the struggles of families, of raising children. Celibates can never get it in quite the same way."
Schenk said she was also disappointed that the issue of women in the church did not command much attention in the synod, "when women are holding so many parishes together in the absence of a priest."
Father, do you believe priests should be allowed to marry women or do you also believe that they should be allowed to live in "faithful relationships" with other men?
"SYNOD SACRIFICES EUCHARISTIC LIFE OF FAITHFUL TO THE IDOL OF CELIBACY"
It's nothing more than hypocrisy and deceit for a heretical organisation to complain about the Synod supposedly sacrificing the Eucharistic life of the faithful when said organisation doesn't even believe the Eucharist is what the Church says it is anyway. If they had their way, no one on earth would have any Eucharistic life. I'd also be more likely to give them a hearing when they say they're concerned about "the faithful" if they were themselves among the faithful.
Mr Potter, you are equating FutureChurch with We are Church -- presumably different organizations.
I assume somehow the European Dream got mixed with the recent Synod results? How did this confusion arise? Control of the Synod by "EuroB16ers"? Looks like it!!! Oh, well maybe the young European Dreamers who will replace these old guys in the near future will lead us the promised Land of "non-scribble theology, philosopy, dogmas and encyclicals to include the publication of Scripture verified by history and absent of embellishments.
I wonder if this secret Synod also discussed the billions of dollars we parishoners are paying to settle the abuse cases?
The dramatic reduction in the number of Sisters and Brothers?
The continuing loss of Sunday Mass attendees?
The spread of flu and other viral diseases via holy water fonts and handshaking?
It appears they did address homilies. In my parish, the homilies are so bad the priests would be more effective if they simply read from the any of the books available on prepared homilies. Homilies shown at Mass on big screen TV's would really give some added zip especially if the zip was provided by the best homilists available on DVD.
Actually, by having DVD Masses and pre-prepped Eucharists sent in we could also need a lot fewer priests. Something like the outdoor Masses of JP23???
Better watch out Convergent, you'll end up as a bitter old man mumbling and cursing alone as the Church, renewed and triumphantly orthodox, leave your fresh ideas from 1967 in the dust if history. Just a friendly warning.
"Mr Potter, you are equating FutureChurch with We are Church -- presumably different organizations."
Well, when you Google "FutureChurch," this is what you find on Google's search page:
"Welcome to FutureChurch
FutureChurch is a coalition of parish-based Catholics which works to preserve the Eucharist by advocating for opening ordination to all the baptized."
That statement, however, has been modified, so:
"FutureChurch respects the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and its current position on ordination and advocates widespread discussion of the need to open ordination to all baptized Catholics who are called to priestly ministry by God and the people of God."
Now, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS ordained all baptised Catholics who are called to the ministerial priesthood. What they really mean is that they want the Catholic Church to start pretending to ordain women. But such ordinations would be invalid, which means their Eucharists would be invalid, which means bye-bye Eucharistic life of the Church.
I'm not sure who has more free time: Fr. O'Leary or John Hearn. I have a feeling that in both cases (and at two universities), a lot of students are not being "renewed"...
Why my brave Anon, I would vote for the good Father as his output puts mine in the shade!
Jacob,
Good to see your comments here. Good questions about European self-defense, nuclear deterrance, etc. Similar questions could be asked of Japan, where I grew up, which likewise tends to wax romantically idealistic in talk about peace and never arming itself again. In the meantime, hard-nosed military experts outfit state-of-the-art commercial ships and aircraft and scientific rockets for instantaneous military conversion if Japan has its back slapped against the wall. Romantically naive talk about nuclear-free countries is as scary as the prospect of full-scale unprincipled rearmament such as one sees in China, N. Korea, Iran, etc.
John H.
Bitter, not me! I purchased a new Sony 51" Grand Wega,3LCD, rear projection HDTV a few months ago and the world is being seen in a completely different dimension. Hopefully our Church will also see the Light some day.
Also be wary of that holy water font in your church. Just think about the number of contaminated fingers that use that font on a given Sunday!! Yucky doo!!! Maybe we need to have an ozone bubbler attached to these fonts? I jest not. Any other ideas for purifying holy water fonts? And just what is the history behind holy water anyway?
Then there is the drinking of wine/grape juice via the common cup? So very unsanitary don't you think??
Convergent,
Well as least you have your priorities straight!
Who would've guessed that all the Church needed was a 51' screen TV???
JH,
Amen to that. Any good homilies on DVD? EWTN even in HDTV probably will not be very "zippy". The Jesuits really need to take over for Mother A, IMHO.
By the way "On Demand" is also a great feature on the new cable selections. Hmmm, "On Demand Communion" Consecrated in English/Spanish/French or the all time favorite, Latin. 
John:
"Better watch out Convergent, you'll end up as a bitter old man mumbling and cursing alone as the Church, renewed(?) and triumphantly orthodox, leave your fresh ideas from 1967 in the dust if history. Just a friendly warning."
I have to admit you might have a point to a degree. Certainly there is the very real possibility that a good number of progressive catholics will be frustated to the point that they stop actively participating - I would find that a shame.
I personally attend church service at a very progressive modern parish - our family loves it - this parish is a great model for a modern urban parish IMHO.
I also happen to love very traditional celebrations with organ church music, gregorian chants and perhaps latin and incents.
My progressive parish however only works because a good number of very talented and caring group of parishoners actively participate in creating something remarkable.
Many very traditional parishes achieve the same. Ideally we can coexist.
Certainly you fool yourself if you call your own prefered orthodox direction a 'renewal'.
Society will move forward one way or the other - we as individuals will move forward one way or the other.
If church hirachy insists to have male only celibate priest celebrating mass only in a very specific fashion than this is in my view a loss for us all in the long run.
I am pretty sure God cares more for that we worship him not how.
Grega,
I am very happy to hear that your parish has managed to take its liturgy in such a good direction. Although I myself like the more traditional mass, the reason I do is that my experience is that that sort of liturgy tended result in more reverent masses. If a "progressive" mass can be beautiful and reverent, then that too is a very good thing.
What I meant by renewal, was less concerned with renewal of the liturgy (although that is very important) and more about a renewed respect and understanding of the Churches teachings and dogmas. Our friend Convergent here seems to think that those Traditions of our Church are up for grabs, but I believe that he is only speaking as he has been taught by two generations of unfaithful priests and theologians. He is smart and faithful to his idea of Christianity, which makes me nuts because I believe that idea to be sadly mistaken.
But I agree with you that it is important for Catholics with different "takes" on the Church to try to understand one another and seek for unity based in the Truth that is Jesus Christ.
"creating something remarkable."
Sounds to me like the emphasis here is on us, wonderful us, fabulous us, marvellous us. That's typical of the progressive idea of "remarkable".
Doesn't have a single, solitary thing to do with the Mass, however.
Do you have a curtain call after the dismissal?
" Europe is ahead of the U.S. in its implimentation of certain wireless technologies, and certainly in its quality and pace of urban life, attitude towards leisure, etc." ...
In Europe two ice cubes is considered a wild luxury, as is air conditioning.
But I am certainly glad they are all over that wireless technoogy.
Rifkin... how like totally Seventies!
"Doister Meister" and "Old Time Catholic",
What sourpusses are you!!! We are evolving. Join in the songs of good Cheer. The Historical Jesus lives. Read about Him, converge and embellish no more. Our brother and sister Jews, Moslems and Hindus await!!!
Wait a minute...the conciliatory tones struck by John Hearn are in marked contradiction to the poison he's spilt elsewhere in St. Blog's...are we to pretend he's suddenly a moderate? Take this as a warning, bloggers, this is a full-scale troll who spends his days (and nights!) trolling Catholic websites hurling invectives against all who oppose his hate-filled dogmatism! Be warned!
"The Historical Jesus lives."
No he doesn't -- he was turned into doggy doo about 1,970 years ago.
Japan, where I grew up, which likewise tends to wax romantically idealistic in talk about peace and never arming itself again. In the meantime, hard-nosed military experts outfit state-of-the-art commercial ships and aircraft and scientific rockets for instantaneous military conversion if Japan has its back slapped against the wall.
DOUBLE-TALK ON DEFENCE is not a Japanese specialty. Andrew Bacevich in The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War detects it in Thomas Friedman of the NY Times:
"Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturallly and politicallly set apart from the rest of society."
Romantically naive talk about nuclear-free countries is as scary as the prospect of full-scale unprincipled rearmament such as one sees in China, N. Korea, Iran, etc.
THERE IS A CONTRADICTION IN THIS SENTENCE -- A CHINESE WOULD SAY THAT YOU ARE BEING ROMANTICALLY NAIVE IN CALLING THEIR REARMAMENT UNPRINCIPLED!YOU MAY BE SURE THAT THESE COUNTRIES HAVE JUST AS PRESSING REASONS FOR SEEKING NUKES AS THE US HAS IN KEEPING ITS VAST NUCLEAR SUPERIORITY.
Military defence is a necessary, but militarism is a pathology. The reason the world is armed to the teeth with weapons capable of destroying it many times over is that the military-industrial complex has had things its own way, and the democratic will to arrest nuclear proliferation has been infirmed.
JP et al,
But don't we all turn to some sort of "doggy doo" and eventually be recycled in the great circle of life? God being God cannot violate His Laws of Nature.
It is all about Spirit(s)and where they reside IMHO.
Anyone have anything on keeping holy water fonts sanitary?
Why can't God "violate" the rules by which He has decreed His creation usually will function? Is He the Creator or just a part of the creation?
Convergent, I understand that you do not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, but perhaps it might not seem too strange that we Catholics would actually believe in it. If Christ is not risen, none of us has any hope.
JP,
Spirits (souls) rise, bodies do not IMHO. Also, there is some debate as to what the original Catholics believed. And also, JP23 declared Heaven to be a Spirit state so where are all these resurrected bodies going?
I apologize for the reiteration of what is being taught in some Catholic universities (Catholic U? Notre Dame? ) but I believe it is important to view the current thoughts of our academics whenever possible.
In iteration:
"1. Yes, Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.
2. Yes, Christ 's and Mary's bodies are not in Heaven (based on #1). For
one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.
> Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.
> 3. Yes, The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
> corpse) into heaven did not take place (based on #1). The Ascension
symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church. Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as
> "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's
positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies."
So who are we to believe? If these current teachings disagreed with those of Crossan et al, I would accept those of the academics where economic incentives are not an issue.
Since these teachings correlate well with Crossan et al's conclusions, I accept them as being true.
"a full-scale troll who spends his days (and nights!) trolling Catholic websites hurling invectives against all who oppose his hate-filled dogmatism!"
Yee-haw, all right John!! You can put that one on your resume.
"Spirits (souls) rise, bodies do not IMHO."
It is also the opinion of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is not what Christianity has always believed.
"Also, there is some debate as to what the original Catholics believed."
There is probably some debate about everything in the universe, but the fact remains that the original Catholics believed in the resurrection of the flesh and rejected the view that the body will never be redeemed.
"And also, JP23 declared Heaven to be a Spirit state so where are all these resurrected bodies going?"
John Paul XXIII? Who was that? I suppose you meant John Paul II, and as you well know, he believed in the resurrrection of the body, like all faithful Catholics. What he said in July 1999 is what the Church has always believed, and nothing he said there denies or contradicts the doctrine of the resurrection.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPA...OC/
JP2HEAVN.HTM
As for "all these resurrected bodies," the Church teaches that there are currently two such bodies -- the bodies of Jesus and Mary. We don't know if there are any other resurrected bodies in heaven at this time, but we believe that for practically all of us, the resurrection of the body will take place at the end of time, not while the present form of this creation still exists.
"1. Yes, Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions."
True, that is what the Church has always believed.
"2. Yes, Christ's and Mary's bodies are not in Heaven (based on #1)."
False. Jesus and Mary are united with their bodies, and Jesus and Mary are in heaven -- therefore their bodies are in heaven. If their bodies were not in heaven, their bodies would be unredeemed and unglorified, but Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium affirm that they now enjoy what God promises to man, the redemption of the human creature, body and soul.
"For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a 'spiritual body.' No one knows exactly what he meant by this term."
This is gobbledygook. St. Paul does not speak of the body of the dead in I Cor. 15 -- he speaks of the resurrection body. Those are are raised from the dead are not dead. St. Paul says the resurrection body is a "spiritual body," which the Church understands to mean that the glorified, resurrected body will no more be subject to sin and its consequences, death, decay, disease, pain, hunger, exhaustion, and age. Instead, it will obey the spirit in all things.
"Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person."
I don't know who these "most" are who believe this, but it's not what the Fathers believed and it's not what the Church says. St. Paul is talking about the resurrection body in I Cor. 15, not the bodiless state between death and resurrectio
resurrection. Of course the disembodied spirits of the dead are in continuity with the selves they were while living as embodied persons on earth -- that's not the resurrection, though. Jesus did not appear to the disciples as a disembodied ghost, but as an embodied man.
"3. Yes, The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place (based on #1)."
All of that is damnable heresy. It is impossible to reconcile the Catholic faith with denials of the resurrection of Christ's body, the Ascension of His resurrected body, and the glorious Assumption of the Blessed Virgin's body into heaven to be reunited with her soul. Notice how this heretic deliberately mocks the Catholic faith, mischaracterising the Resurrection as a mere reanimation of a corpse and the Ascension and Assumption as the mere levitation of rotting corpses.
"The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church."
It wasn't not just the symbolic end of His earthly ministry -- it was the literal end of His earthly ministry. The Church says the Ascension really happened. All faithful Catholics believe that.
"Only Luke's Gospel records it."
Um, no -- it's also in the Acts of the Apostles.
"The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers."
????? I think our dear heretic confused the Descent of the Holy Spirit with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.
"The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as 'Christ bearer' (theotokos)."
That's true, though it's not just symbolic, but really happened.
"It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death."
"Derived" by worms? Is English not the first language of our heretic? I think he meant "devoured."
"Mary's assumption also shows God's
positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies."
Very true. In other words, those who deny the Assumption may be suspected of harboring or fostering misogynistic attitudes.
"So who are we to believe?"
Hmm. Let's see here. On the one hand, we have the Church, our Mother, who is a living eyewitness to what God did in and through Jesus and Mary 2,000 years ago. On the other hand, we have someone who can't tell the difference between the Descent of the Holy Spirit and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and who doesn't know the difference between "derived" and "devoured." Who to believe?
Okay, I choose Holy Mother Church.
Ralph,
Yeah, I really have something to live up to now! I wonder when my wife will catch on that that I am spreading my cb venom night after night while she thinks I'm sitting next to her on the couch doing penance by watching chick-flicks with her...
Hi John;
I appreciate your courteous responds and will try to respond myself in kind.
You wrote
"Although I myself like the more traditional mass, the reason I do is that my experience is that that sort of liturgy tended result in more reverent masses. If a "progressive" mass can be beautiful and reverent, then that too is a very good thing."
I again have to give it to you might have a point.
I can only speak from my limited experiences: My (for simplicity reason let's continue to call it) 'progressive' parish IMHO perhaps indeed falls a bit short in creating a strictly speaking reverent mass. Some other parishioners will perhaps disagree with this assessment.
I would rather call the mass meaningful and engaging perhaps even uplifting. Our family sometimes attends mass on Saturday nights with a smaller group of parishioners. Saturday’s service is a much more peaceful and perhaps reverent service.
I can see a number of reasons why you would not enjoy mass at my parish - and this is O.K. and just speaks to the fact that the Catholic Church attracts a very diverse group of believers - which I find very positive.
Unfortunately from my POV the catholic church currently is not exactly in favor of local variance to the standard way to celebrate mass - thus it will continue to be a challenge to offer the kind of mass this particular group of Catholics prefers.
If the church leadership is indeed set on shrinking the church to a smaller more dedicated and easier to manage group - they certainly have all the power to do so. I personally find this direction wrong.
IMHO our parish can do a splendid job in outreach to otherwise tough to get groups. The local bishop seems to
agree with this point.
JP,
Right Pope, wrong #. How did I get J23 mixed with JP2? Sorry about that.
With respect to the discussion, I have a great Catholic with a PhD in theology teaching at one of the large Catholic universities in the USA answering my faith questions and I have a number of others well schooled in orthodoxy giving me opposite answers. Either way it does not condemn the professor, you or me to Hell since it has no bearing on the Twelve Commandments.
No bearing on the Twelve Commandments? Not even the one that says we are to have no other god but God and to worship no idols? Or how about the one that says we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind? Seems to me that rejecting the things that He has revealed to and through His Church would have something to do with those commandments.
JP,
And thats the rub, what did He really reveal? And what was added later? "And thou art Peter" is a later addition based on the analyses of most contemporary biblical scholars. Ditto for the other "infallibile proof" verses.
Idols? Not and never here.
"And thats the rub, what did He really reveal? And what was added later?"
Jesus said He would establish the Church and the See of St. Peter to be a trustworthy teacher of His revealed truth, so if you want the answers to those questions, listen to Mother Church.
"'And thou art Peter' is a later addition based on the analyses of most contemporary biblical scholars. Ditto for the other 'infallibile proof' verses."
Wow, what an amazing coincidence that every single scriptural text that teaches the infallibility of the Church and the Pope turns out to have been a later addition to the text. That sure is convenient, isn't it?
Sorry, but there's not a shred of evidence that any of those verses are later interpolations. Every biblical manuscript includes them, and the Fathers were aware of them. You're asking me to put my faith in "most contemporary biblical scholars" -- but they weren't there, weren't eyewitnesses. The Church was there, and She's still here -- I put my faith in her teachings, not the arrant speculation of scholars who do not believe the Catholic faith.
"Jesus said He would establish the Church and the See of St. Peter to be a trustworthy teacher of His revealed truth."
Not quite right -- the Petrine texts of Mt 16 and Jn 21 are late texts; in the case of Mt the equivalent passage in Mk, which Mt is building on, does not contain any promise to Peter.
However, Peter was the first of the Apostles, and his leadership role can traced to the historical Jesus (at least I am not aware of anyone having questioned this).
Much of the account of what Church is in the NT derives from post-Easter experience, not directly from the historical Jesus. But one can surely trace lines of development and continuity from the early Church's self-understanding back to the practice and teaching of Jesus.
Not indeed that NT teaching depends for its authority on such speculative historical reconstruction of its development.
"Not indeed that NT teaching depends for its authority on such speculative historical reconstruction of its development."
And that's the main thing -- even if Tu es Petrus, etc., were "late" (meaning post-70 A.D. first century texts rather than pre-70 A.D. first century texts -- for there can be no reasonable doubt that they are first century texts), it wouldn't matter a hill of beans -- they're inspired, inerrant, infallible scripture, and as such can be trusted by the faithful as transmitting to us the truth.
The truth, yes, but not always in the guise of a literal factual report.
Not always literal, yes, but always factual -- Jesus really did tell St. Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church. . . ." If other evangelists summarise their accounts of that incident, it doesn't make for a contradiction, just a different theological, doctrinal point being emphasised about what Jesus said and did on that occasion.
JP,
Does the Divine Right of Kings and Queens come from the same biblical verses/embellishers? Oops, it looks like it was another error by that "expert" Augustine.
Fr. O'Leary,
I think you make a fair point on principled vs. unprincipled armament. It is hard to discern on the face of it whether building or posessing weapons is principled or unprincipled. One can only really discuss unprincipled uses of weapons.
I think the only unpricnipled use of a nuclear weapon that we see is to use it as a threat to coerce other countries, as North Korea routinely does. Iranian mullahs have often suggested that possessing a nuclear weapon is an imperative for the muslim world because just one could wipe out Israel. I don't know of anyone in the Iranian government making such a threat. To my knowledge, China has never used nuclear weapons in this way (unprinicpled use of conventional weapons is a whole other debate).
I still don't see how western nuclear disarmament would encourage the rest of the world to disarm. Nuclear weapons are the only way any country (with some notable exceptions) in the world has of achieving something like military parity with the United States, which has an Air Force and Navy that is capable of asserting total dominance over most countries.
You are right that nuclear weapons pose a constant mortal risk. However, the risk is that a marginally stable country like Pakistan or Kazakhstan will lose it's weapons in the midst of a coup, not some inattentive airman pushing the wrong button. Getting such countries to give up their weapons by diplomacy is impossible for the strategic reason I mentioned.
Again, how in any way will the world be made safer through western nuclear disarmament? Other than feeling self righteous as the world goes to hell, what will we accomplish?
I spoke too soon. The Iranian government has also expressed desire to obliterate Israel.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005...6/news/
iran.php
"Does the Divine Right of Kings and Queens come from the same biblical verses/embellishers?"
No, the verses that teach ecclesial and papal infallibility do not also teach the divine right of kings and queens.
"Oops, it looks like it was another error by that 'expert' Augustine."
Bad Augie! Bad!
Augie naughty! Bad! No biscuit for you!
Nukes will be useless in defence against avian flu or whatever other catastrophes nature has in story. Perhaps we will be forced to abandon the luxury of war?
Catastrophes nature has in store, I mean.
Unprecedented storms, droughts (Amazonia), tsunamis, pandemics...
Hubristic man, drest in a little brief authority, may find himself out of his depth.
Maupassant, traumatized by the Franco-Prussian war, said it disconnected one's faith in human reason. Some catastrophes are too awesome for our reason to come to terms with them.
JP,
But you do admit that the Divine Right of Kings, Holy Roman Emporers and Queens was given by God and verified in Scripture as per Augustine/Church theology?
Crossan needs to write a book on the history of Augustine et al . "The Errors of the Scribblers, Augie et al" sounds good to me Or how about, "The New European Dream, The Return of God-given Royality" ?
I really don't know what you're referring to, Convergent, but as I've mentioned before, I have been known to drink a toast to the King over the Water -- and all Christians yearn for The Return of the King.
JP,
There is no need to wait. A gamma ray burst (grb) will fry us before any physical return. And the good souls of the "fried" and "pre-fried" will go/have gone directly to Heaven as they always have.
Gamma rays, eh? Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!
JP aka Captain JT Kirk,
Very Good!! Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
For more on gamma ray bursts and the answer to the Fermi Paradox see Astronomy Magazine, November, 2005. GRBs are closer than you might imagine. Just think, there might be some Jar Jar Binks in Heaven already considering the number of planets that are being found. I wonder how "Augie" would scribble that into Catholic theology?
"When a Man stops believing in God he doesnąt then believe in nothing, he believes anything."
- Chesterton
John,
Too bad Chesterton did not live to see the expanding universe of thought, new non-Solar planets, black holes, nebulas, supernovas, space stations, rovers, GRB's and galaxies. But who knows, maybe his soul is in the second or third universes which some astrophysicists predict are outside our own universe??
John, that's probably about as good as response to Convergent's moonbeamism as any. I really don't know what else could be said in a comment thread that has ranged so far and wide. I really don't know where this gamma ray burst stuff suddenly came from, and haven't the slightest inclination to find out.
JP,
It is all about modern day discoveries. In the Dark Ages, discoveries were called "miracles".
Convergent,
Which astrophysicists predicted universes outside our own? I know Weinberg is fond of the the antrhropic principle (as an atheist astrophysicist must be), but a prediction in science is restricted to something observable. Unless there is some proposed measurement for these alternate universes, you have simply given new names to heaven and hell. They are not in any way less remarkable or transcendent.
Jacob,
See Astronomy Magazine, October, 2005,
Features
Making multiverses --
New twists on old theories suggest our universe may be one of many that exist by STEVE NADIS, p.34. I don't see Weinberg's name mentioned in the review.
Its not the European Dream but the Dream of the Universe (s)!!
Convergent,
I can't get the article online, but it looks like the multiverse theory is a new twist on inflationary cosmology. Different expansion rates in different regions lead to distinct regions that are not in causal contact - there is no way for either particles or light to get from one region to another, and hence could be thought of as different universes.
This is certainly allowable by general relativity, although it involves mystery paramters for which we have no theory. Unfortunately, if it is true, we will never be able to observe it. From the review I read, this is another attempt to explain away fine tuning, which is a physics euphemism for God. As I said before, this is speculation, not science. If someone makes a prediction about something we can observe, then you will have something. Philosophically, this is at the same level as intelligent design - it explains a lot, but is untestable.
Probably read too much into a flippant remark, but I might as well make use of my astrophysics coursework.
Jacob,
No "flippancy" here only concern that many responders on this blog are unaware of how close we could be to a global catastrophe. i.e. GRB's, asteroids, and/or colliding galaxies.
I given up on the converging of religions after the recent rhetoric from Iran and the continued terror tactics of "religious" fanatics.
RFC,
gotcha. History is replete with species-threatening disasters that came with almost no warning.
Commenting by HaloScan
