'You have been dining, perhaps with a wealthy neighbor, or fall in with this great Statesman, or that noble Land-holder, who considers the Church two centuries behind the world, and expresses to you wonder that its enlightened members do nothing to improve it. And then you get ashamed, and are betrayed into admission which sober reason disapproves. You consider, too, that it is a great pity so estimable or so influential a man should be disaffected to the Church; and you go away with a vague notion that something must be done to conciliate such persons. Is this to bear about you the solemn office of a GUIDE and TEACHER in Israel, or to follow a lead?'
I cannot help but imagine Cardinal Martini dining with professor mayor Cacciari, and the unfortunate sequel. As I have said, there seem be some Catholic prelates who are more interested in pleasing the spirit of the age than in proclaiming the truth that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Sorry, pb and Dave, but these utterances from the distant past cannot be used to trump the considered judgment of the universal episcopate gathered at Vatican II.
What are you talking about, Father?
I hardly know how to respond, your comment is such a non sequitur.
The fact is that Newman's insight applies today as much as it did then.
I cannot begin to imagine what "considered judgment" of Vatican II you think that we think that Newman is allegedly trumping.
But then sometimes "the considered judgment of the universal episcopate" in these disciplinary matters is mistaken, or limited in application to particular circumstances. It once was "the considered judgment of the universal episcopate" to suppress the Knights Templars, a decision that could hardly be a matter of infallible teaching of faith and morals.
What is the source of Fr. O'Leary's contempt for the "sacramental hermeneutics of fittingness"? Newman puts his finger on the real issue:
'But consider what are the concessions which would conciliate such men [as, say, the learned and agnostic mayor of Venice]. Would immaterial alterations? Do you really think they care one jot about the verbal or other changes which some recommend, and others are disposed to grant -- whether "the unseen state" is substituted for "hell," "condemnation" for "damnation," or the order of Sunday Lessons is remodeled? No, they dislike the doctrine of the Liturgy. These men of the world do not like the anathemas of the Athanasian Creed, and other such peculiarities of our Services.'
It is not the traditional rubrics of the Catholic liturgy that offend, so much as the exclusivity of Catholic doctrine. Fr. O'Leary's remark about the "theological anxiety" of Dominus Iesus provides a clue as to where all of these issues ultimately converge.
Vatican II demanded change,even radical change, in the liturgy; creativity and inculturation.
Vatican II may have been mistaken? So may Newman.
Who is likelier to be mistaken, a young Church of England curate or the assembled bishops of the Catholic Church and their Pope?
Exclusivity of Catholic doctrine? The theology of Vatican too is better described as inclusivist. Rahner represents a liberal form of that; Dns Iesus a less liberal form.
Vatican too SHD BE Vatican II
'Vatican II demanded change,even radical change, in the liturgy; creativity and inculturation.'
Inculturation, to be sure. But "radical" change? "Creativity" in the liturgy? Show us where these demands are stated, please.
Define "inclusivist", please.
For my part I will define "exclusivity": Jn 14:6 and Acts 4:12.
'Who is likelier to be mistaken, a young Church of England curate or the assembled bishops of the Catholic Church and their Pope?'
Observe the shell game closely here, as Fr. O'Leary sets up a false opposition between Newman and Vatican II. Nice try. It is not Newman who contradicts Vatican II, but Fr. O'Leary.
Dave:
As long as he was a Church of England curate, of course John Henry Newman was in error. When he became Catholic, he gave up childish ways.
Who is likelier to be mistaken, the irrelevant fading cadre of clerics infatuated with the failed Change of Course that is sawdust legacy of "The Spirit of Vatican II" and an Irish priest in Japan preoccupied with questions of sexuality, and or the current assembled bishops of the Catholic Church and their Pope Benedict XVI?
Chris,
Surely you don't think that the young Newman was simply "in error" about everything before becoming Catholic. It would seem that Newman grasped a good many truths along the way to embracing the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church.
Calling for "an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy" in some places, the Council asks "what elements from the traditions and cultures of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship".
Did you know that Paul VI put it to the VOTE among bishops whether to allow communion in the hand (914 for, 1233 against)? See Memoriale Domini 1969. In the end the practice prevailed in the later 1970s.
On the reform of the Roman Missal, Paul VI writes: "In recent times there has been at work with ever increasing intensity among the faithful a LITURGICAL RENEWAL which our predecessor PIUS XII described as a MANIFEST SIGN OF GOD'S BENIGN PROVIDENCE TOWARDS THE PRESENT GENERATION OF MANKIND, and as A MOVEMENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT BRINGING GRACE TO HIS CHURCH. This movement of renewal has made it abundantly clear that in certain respects the texts of the Roman Missal now stand in need of revision and simplification. The process was in fact begun by our predecessor in his restoration of the Paschal Vigil and the Restored Order of Holy Week, whereby he took the first steps towards the adaptation of the Roman Missal to the new outlook and spiritual mentality of our times" (Missale Romanum, 1969). I am sure that Newman would have approved, despite the above text that attempts to pit Newman against the
All of these "changes" (to use the word so often on the lips of rattled Irish priests in my youth) stemmed from Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, section III, "The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy".
I think the new ICEL texts, when they come into force in three years time, will great a great ripple of unease throughout English-speaking congregations. Some inkling of what is in store can be gleaned from the "leaked" drafts that were published in the Tablet two years ago. I suspect that the faithful will probably not see the texts until they find themselves confronted with them in Church. This embargo is in order to prevent an outcry before the fait accompli is imposed.
great a great SHD BE create a great
The new ICEL translations seem to be a disaster.
"It is right to give him thanks and praise" becomes "It is right and just." There is something wrong with this. Latin "justum" is not English "just" and "dignum" is very different from "right". The ICEL do not believe in "dynamic equivalence", claiming that this is an outdated theory of translation -- but their own literal equivalence seems to fall into inaccuracy here.
Much better was Cranmer, "It is meet and fitting so to do" (if I remember correctly)
"Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of Hosts," A mistranslation? The Latin never said Sanctus "est" Deus Sabaoth
"Go forth, the Mass is ended." Sounds a bit stagy.
Deliver us Lord, we pray, from every evil,
graciously grant peace in our days
GRACIOUSLY GRANT sounds pleonastic, hard to say every day. IN OUR DAYS is weak, unidiomatic.
that, sustained by the help of your mercy, BY YOUR MERCY would be enough
we may be always free from sin FREE US FROM SIN was more concise
and saved from all distress, ALL is unnecessary -- DISTRESS is not the right word here either
as we await the blessed hope,
the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ. SOUNDS LIKE A MANGLED MEMORY OF SCRIPTURE
"serene and kindly gaze" More vaporous pleonasm.
On "dew of your Spirit" the ICEL notes the importance of dew in the context of Palestine, where "it is a vital source of water... during the almost rainless four months of summer. As a figure of speech, it represents abudant fruitfulness, refreshment and renewal, what is beyond human power, and a silent coming," THIS IS THE FATUOUS THINKING OF BUREAUCRATS WHO HAVE JUST DISCOVERED POETRY 101.
"Conferences that do not wish to adopt 'dew' may wish to consider 'dewfall' as an alternative." GROAN. The Epiclesis is a sacred moment and the ICEL introduce distracting rubbish about "dewfall"! Did you ever hear or use the word "dewfall"?
Why not hire local poets or writers in all English-speaking countries to produce beautiful and dignified mass-texts? There is no one standard English today.
If the Canons have such dubious English, what must the state of the Collects and Post-Communion prayers, and the Prefaces? The tasteless sawdust at present expensively printed in our missals is unlikely to be replaced by anything better.
This morning in a missalette I had to use there were really horrible prayers, composed by someone who possibly thought he/she was making the prayers simpler and accessible to kids. But this was the work of an amateur. The ICEL claims to be professionals. Presumably they are even paid for their exercises in unconscious vandalism.
Fr. O'Leary, perhaps we have found something to agree on. The ICEL translation stinks.
It's a shame that we can't go back to the original language.
'Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.' (SC 36. 1)
ICEL represents a RADICAL change to the liturgy (i.e., a butchering of the language) not envisoned by the Council.
By the way, Father, I've been looking at internet images of Pasolini's The Gospel of Matthew. Very striking. I'm sure that it is a fine film (unfortunately I've never seen it), and I wish that it was available. My question is, why must it be pitted against Gibson's film? Could it be because Pasolini was a homosexual Marxist, while Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic? I'm sure that there is no bias at play in one's critical judgment there! 
And before you reply that Gibson is not the ARTIST that Pasolini was, I already accept that distinction. Gibson is very much a popular filmmaker and movie star, not an artiste. Yet that is precisely what makes The Passion so amazing as a work of art -- and it IS a work of art. It's cinematic power is more a testament to FAITH than cinematic genius. It is the former quality that perhaps separates Gibson's film from Pasolini's.
Oh dear.
Dave: John Henry Newman had, before his conversion, bits and pieces of the truth, enough to prompt him to look for the fullness of truth. When he found it, he became Catholic.
About the new ICEL translation-- it sounds as if it is a great improvement over the uninspired nonsense which it will replace.
Chris
'Oh dear.
'Dave: John Henry Newman had, before his conversion, bits and pieces of the truth, enough to prompt him to look for the fullness of truth. When he found it, he became Catholic.'
Chris, where is it that we disagree here?
On the other hand, Newman's early, pre-Anglican conversion to Jesus Christ was a major revelation of truth, was it not?
I hope you're right about the ICEL translation. I'm not terribly impressed with the fragments quoted by Fr. O'Leary. Perhaps we should withhold judgment until we HEAR it spoken in the liturgy.
"Latin 'justum' is not English 'just' and 'dignum' is very different from 'right.'"
The old Missals that show English translations alongside the Latin liturgy disagree with you, Father. They show, "It is fitting and just." "It is right and just" is quite acceptable, unlike the deliberate free-composition that has been unjustly imposed on us, "It is right to give him thanks and praise."
"The ICEL do not believe in 'dynamic equivalence,' claiming that this is an outdated theory of translation"
Yes, this is why their translation, though far from perfect, is a quantum leap above the present spurious gobbledygook ICEL came up with in 1970.
"'Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of Hosts,' A mistranslation? The Latin never said Sanctus 'est' Deus Sabaoth."
"Est" is ellided. The text comes from Isa. 6 and the Book of Revelation, where the angels proclaim, "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD God of hosts."
Personally I think "Sabaoth" should not be translated at all. It's not Latin, but is the old Septuagint transliteration of tseba'ot. Nevertheless, there can be no question that "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD God of hosts" is infinitely better than the mistranslated and ungrammatical, "Holy. Holy. Holy Lord. God of power and might," that we now say. The current mistranslation comes close to transmogrifying the praise of God into profane swearing or taking the Lord's name in vain.
"'Go forth, the Mass is ended.' Sounds a bit stagy."
I don't find anything "stagy" about it. It's not much better than the mistranslation we current have, "Go, the Mass is ended." Ite, missa est more literally would be rendered something like, "Go, you are sent," but that rendering is unsatisfactory.
"GRACIOUSLY GRANT sounds pleonastic, hard to say every day."
Sounds like a good argument in favor of it. The language of the Mass should not be everyday speech. This is sacred language, not casual chitchat.
"IN OUR DAYS is weak, unidiomatic."
In your opinion.
"that, sustained by the help of your mercy, BY YOUR MERCY would be enough"
Not if you want to translate the text of the liturgy.
"we may be always free from sin FREE US FROM SIN was more concise"
Yes, but it was also a mistranslation, was simply erroneous. The Latin doesn't mean, "free us from sin." It means "that we ever may be free from sin."
"and saved from all distress, ALL is unnecessary -- DISTRESS is not the right word here either"
"All" is accurate, and "distress" beats "anxiety" any day.
"as we await the blessed hope,
the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ. SOUNDS LIKE A MANGLED MEMORY OF SCRIPTURE"
I think its your memory of scripture that may be mangled here, Father. As should be well known, the liturgy is interwoven with what you might call mangled memories of scripture.
"THIS IS THE FATUOUS THINKING OF BUREAUCRATS WHO HAVE JUST DISCOVERED POETRY 101."
Their job is to tr
Oh rats, the bottom part got cut off, and I don't have time to rewrite it now. You guys will just have to use your imaginations until later today . . . .
Okay, here's a rewrite of the bottom part of my previous post:
"THIS IS THE FATUOUS THINKING OF BUREAUCRATS WHO HAVE JUST DISCOVERED POETRY 101."
Their job is to translate the Latin text of the Missal, not to substitute an English Missal of their own free composition. The 1970 ICEL English loose approximation of the Roman Missal was ideed the result of fatuou thinking of bureaucrats who seemed like they'd just discovered Poetry 101.
"Why not hire local poets or writers in all English-speaking countries to produce beautiful and dignified mass-texts?"
From what I can tell, I think the new translation is a big step in the direction of having beautiful and dignifies Mass texts in English. Of course, I doubt any English translation will be as beautiful and dignified as the original Latin, but what we've got now is rubbish.
"There is no one standard English today."
True, to an extent. But it doesn't mean the Church is wrong to seek a universal English translation in biblical, sacral language.
"If the Canons have such dubious English, what must the state of the Collects and Post-Communion prayers, and the Prefaces?"
As far as I know, those prayers have not yet been translated. But judging from the translation of the Ordo, I'm sure they will be accurate, faithful, grammatical, and a major stylistic improvement over the mishmashtranslations we must endure now.
"The tasteless sawdust at present expensively printed in our missals is unlikely to be replaced by anything better."
Well, if the new translation is anything like those rough drafts we saw about two years ago, then there can be no doubt that the "tasteless sawdust" is about to be replaced by something better.
"This morning in a missalette I had to use there were really horrible prayers, composed by someone who possibly thought he/she was making the prayers simpler and accessible to kids. But this was the work of an amateur."
We agree on that at least: the 1970 ICEL mishmashtranslation does seem like the work of amateurs.
I don't have time to go through all SVII's crits here, so will just take one.
>as we await the blessed hope,
the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ. SOUNDS LIKE A MANGLED MEMORY OF SCRIPTURE<
It sounds to me like an accurate translation of the Latin ('expectantes beatam spem et adventum Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi'). Our current 'translation', which makes the 'beatem spem' apply to our feelings rather than the event we're waiting for, is inaccurate: it emphasises the subjective rather than the objective. The 'beata spes' remains blessed whether or not we are particularly happy about it.
I'll go off at a (relevant) tangent here: it's like the fashion for translating the beatitudes as the happitudes. Those in favour of 'Happy' argue that 'makarios' means 'happy' in Greek - but that misses two points at once.
First, a single word in one language may need several words in another to cover all the meanings: thus 'to know' in English needs both 'savoir' and 'connaître' in French, 'kennen' and 'wissen' in German, and so on. If you pick the wrong one, it's no use defending yourself by saying that 'Well, there's only one word in English'.
Secondly, 'happy' in modern English is a subjective state: 'blessed' is an objective one. You can be blessed with children but still be tearing your hair out over the little horrors. If our Lord meant that those who mourn are simultaneously enjoying themselves, that's not paradox - that's plain daft. No, they're blessed because in the Kingdom of God, all worldly values are turned upside down - objectively.
Returning to our blessed hope: clearly for those who do not know Christ, or for those of us who do, but are in a state of mortal sin, the coming of our Lord is anything but joyful. (And most of us know from personal experience that just because we're standing in church listening to these words does not mean that we are happy about His second coming.) So the current translation is both inaccurate and wrongly focused: and the new one, which SVII sneers at, is accurate and pointed.
My case rests.
Dave, I agree. BUTCHERING is the very word that has been in my mind. Personally, I would love to have the liturgy in Latin. But if they are going to have a vernacular liturgy (and the vast majority want that) then it should by a DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT and not a slavish, atomized translation of the Latin.
I am not "sneering" Sue, I am enraged. I have spoken to countless Catholics who find the liturgy soulless, in part because of its flat language and the poorly chosen biblical translations. Some send their children to church, having given up themselves, and tell me that their childred get "zilch" from it but that it is a good discipline for them.
Now these ICEL people (and note that they are a new commission, the former one having resigned out of exasperation at Vatican heavy-handedness) are making the same mistake all over again. The hungry sheep look up and are not fed by these unimaginative bureaucrats who do not deserve the money they are paid. They should retire to a monastery and spend the rest of their lives in penance.
As to Mel Gibson, de gustibus etc. But the portrayal of a screaming Jewish mob was just one of the demerits of this crass film. Pasolini's portrayal was closer to the Gospel text and made the enemies of Jesus perfectly understandable, as they are in the Gospel.
I thought the portrayal of Mary, especially in the flashbacks, was utterly kitsch and soap-opera-ish; see Pasolini for something in the authentic Pieta tradition.
Or are you saying that a woman wrote the woman's words in Song and that a man wrote the man's words. For a man to appreciate male beauty or for a women to appreciate female attraction would, in your opinion, be obscene?
You should make a more sincere effort to understand the feelings and godgiven sexuality of your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. You might take some hints from the new Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, who is a woman.
Bah, wrong thread again!
In their comments on "dew" and "dewfall" the ICEL people are actually MOCKING the faithful and their harried priests.
Here is another example:
"Therefore, make holy these gifts, we pray,
by the dew of your Spirit . . .
"It has been objected that this translation "does not resonate or communicate with contemporary Christians". (by Bishop Donald Trautman, who made fun of it.) But surely, dew still exists. I noticed an advert on the street yesterday for a drink called Mountain Dew! Dew has a unique set of natural and scriptural associations: it speaks of freshness, new beginning, water (and hence life), beauty, descent from above (and hence divine blessing), and manna (Exodus 16:13-14) (and hence Eucharist). It still appears on the ground in the morning as it did in the time of Moses on the journey through the desert. American people know what dew is - rather better, I suspect, than Europeans, since so many of you get out of bed earlier than we do!
Contemporary Christians are not puzzled when they hear at Mass these words from the Book of Exodus:
In the morning a dew lay all about the camp (Ex 16:13)
Or when they hear Isaac say to Jacob in Genesis:
May God give to you of the dew of the heavens (Gn 27:2
Or when they hear Elijah prophesy:
during these years there shall be no dew or rain except at my word (1 Kgs 17:1)
We do not scratch our heads when in the Liturgy of the Hours we make our own the words of Moses:
(May) my discourse permeate like the dew (Deut 32:2)
Or when with the Psalmist we compare unity to the
dew of Hermon coming down upon the mountains of Zion (Ps 133:3).
In the New American Bible, from which I have taken all these examples, the word dew occurs 41 times, all of them in the Old Testament.
Christian writers developed the idea of the "dew of the Spirit". Saint Ambrose gives that name to the waters of baptism, while for later writers such as Saint Bernard, the dew of the Spirit is the grace of God which descends upon the soul to nourish and enliven it. Hildegard of Bingen says that the dew of the Spirit came down on the Apostles on the day of Pentecost.
The above remarks from one of the ICEL people show a fatuous and patronizing attitude. The Epiclesis is one of the most solemn moments of the mass, not a time for antiquarian musings.
I just wrote an open letter to ICEL Chairman Bishop Arthur Roche: http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...en_letter_.html
Please let me know how I could improve it.
"The above remarks from one of the ICEL people show a fatuous and patronizing attitude. The Epiclesis is one of the most solemn moments of the mass, not a time for antiquarian musings."
I found nothing fatuous or patronising about Bishop Roche's comments on "dew of the Spirit." I thought his comments were helpful and enlightening, and also delivered in a somewhat humorous and entertaining manner (but bishops like Trautman admittedly would give a standup comic plenty of material to work with). It's also wrong to dismiss a review of the biblical and patristic development of a liturgical metaphor as "antiquarian musings." Or perhaps you mean to say that the original Latin of the Missal contains "antiquarian musings"?
Spirit, as with most of your attempts to persuade, this open letter would benefit from being considerably abbreviated.
Also, "patronizing" doesn't begin to describe your "heavy-handed" tone. As a result you come across as a person who would like to take the authority that bishops rightly hold and wield it tyranically. So again, it's unlikely that this letter will persuade its recipient as an earnest plea for consultation. You seem more amenable to a coup d'etat.
Just my 2 cents.
(Besides which you've forgotten the Rorate Caeli.)
Father O'Leary:
I heartily recommend that you send it, exactly as it is. In this manner the self-important rantings of a disaffected Catholic priest will be open for all to see. Your care for the feelings of the faithful are touching, to be sure, but if all the faithful requested, by petition, to have a full-throated restoration of the Tridentine Missal, you wouldn't be so interested in their opinions, would you?
Generally, though you do it commonly, block capitals are understood to be a modern way to indicate "shouting" -- and you do so much of it in your letter that one wonders if you need a microphone in your own home parish.
"I just wrote an open letter to ICEL Chairman Bishop Arthur Roche ..."
Copied and pasted into a word processor gave it a word count of 6,600.
"Please let me know how I could improve it."
See Kathy's comment, above.
Who is likelier to be mistaken, a young Church of England curate or the assembled bishops of the Catholic Church and their Pope?
Answer: A dissident priest offering his interpretation of them in the name of the "Spirit" of Vatican II.
Newman's thinking substantially shaped Vatican II, which is more often than not a far cry from anything advocates of the "Spirit" of Vatican II read into the Council's significance. Most of the things conjured up by your references to "radical change," "inculturation," and "creativity" in the liturgy are things that would have been unimaginable to most of the Fathers of the Council, let alone mandaged by it.
Not even the Novus Ordo Missae as now celebrated in almost all Catholic parishes is anything of the kind specifically mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium, which said nothing about Masses versus populum, removing Tabernacles, tearing out altar rails, receiving communion standing and in one's hand, or the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, or female altar servers. All of these things are later interpolations.
Did you know that Paul VI put it to the VOTE among bishops whether to allow communion in the hand (914 for, 1233 against)? See Memoriale Domini 1969. In the end the practice prevailed in the later 1970s.
Yes, but the practice was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See -- i.e., it was first strictly forbidden, then reintroduced in defiance, as part of a movement resisting the notion of the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the notion that we should adore Christ in the Host. Not wishing to publicly reprove a brother bishop, Paul VI, who was notorious for avoiding confrontation (like so many recent popes), decided to lift the ban prohibiting Communion in the hand, thus allowing the dissident practice to become mainstreamed and normalized.
Of course there are precedents in the ancient Church, so there is nothing intrinsically wrong with receiving communion in the hand. However, what is simply silly is to pull down the blinders and ignore how these changes have been re-introduced into the Church on the coat-tails of dissent and opposition to orthodoxy, and in flagrant disregard for the traditional Catholic conviction that the Holy Ghost has been leading the Church into fuller understandings of the truth and more appropriate forms of worship through her history. The Blessed Sacrament, for example, was not always reserved in a Tabernacle. Should we therefore cast out all Tabernacles and cease reserving the Blessed Sacrament as those these 'medieval accretions' are mere hocus pocus? "PRECISELY!" will be answer of the dissenters, for whom "hoc est [enim] corpus meum" is little more than HOCUS POCUS. Such silliness.
Fr. O'Leary writes:
'Vatican II managed to say "Jesus is Lord" in a way that grabbed the world's ear, as did Karl Rahner.'
How so? Please explain.
"Spirit," I agree that the ICEL translation is far from perfect, and that the Book of Common Prayer (which you misquote slightly) has a better translation at several points.
In the meantime, if only the bishops would give us the wide and generous permission for the Indult Latin Mass (as requested by John Paul II) while they work out these problems, things could be helped considerably.
BTW, I believe that Vatican II did say "Jesus is Lord" in clear terms, but I want to know how Vatican II's evangelium "grabbed the world's ear" according to Fr. O'Leary's understanding.
If all the faithful requested a restoration of the Latin Mass I personally would be delighted.
But we know that that is not going to happen.
So our task now is to produce vernacular liturgies of high theological and artistic worth.
I have cut down the capitals in my letter to Bp Roche.
As to Vatican II, all I can say is that I lived through those years and there was immense relief and encouragement in the sense that the Church had at last turned toward the joys and hopes, sorrows and problems of humanity and that it was able to see God working and revealing himself in the hearts and religions of all people of good will -- as a result its proclamation of the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Church was more convincing.
Kathy the reason my letter is long is that I quote Bishop Roche's speech in its entirely -- in order to "fisk" it properly.
'If all the faithful requested a restoration of the Latin Mass I personally would be delighted.
'But we know that that is not going to happen.
'So our task now is to produce vernacular liturgies of high theological and artistic worth.'
This is really disengenuous. I can imagine an esthete member of the Politburo saying: "Ah, if every Russian requested a restoration of sacred iconography, I would be delighted. But we know that [after decades of indoctrination in the style of Soviet Realism] that is not going to happen."
If more astute theologians like Fr. O'Leary wrote grandiloquent open letters to all the Bishops insisting on "wide and generous permission for the Indult Latin Mass", perhaps more of the faithful would request a restoration of the Latin Mass, having had a taste of it.
But we know that that is not going to happen.
'As to Vatican II, all I can say is that I lived through those years ...'
Where were you, Father, when the Traditional Latin Mass was being dismantled and thrown on the trash heap, against both the letter and the spirit of Vatican II?
On this blog you regularly scoff and sneer at anyone who expresses a yearning for the ancient Mass ... and you now have the brass balls to say that you'd be "delighted" if the faithful requested its restoration???
I meant I enjoy Latin more than any other liturgical language, and if the Church had stuck with it (though reforming the liturgy as it saw fit) I would not have been unhappy. But I cannot gainsay the wisdom of Vatican II in inaugurating a vernacular liturgy and I see that the whole church is in agreement except for a few cranks.
ICEL's Chairman himself says the the liturgy is more beautiful in Spanish than in English, and I feel the same to be true of the French liturgy (which was largely entrusted to the poet Patrice de la Tour du Pin if I am not mistaken). The Anglicans show that a liturgy in English can also be very spiritual and beautiful.
Wider permission for Latin Mass -- sure, why not. But that is not going to tackle in depth the question of creating meaningful liturgy. It could lead people to embrace a false solution, soothing to Bridesheadian aesthetes but leaving the faithful in the lurch.
Meanwhile, I would really appreciate suggestions from those of you who are in sympathy with my criticisms of the ICEL about how to improve my letter to Bishop Roche, which now reads as follows: http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...en_letter_.html
Or put it another way: what I would really love would be the OT Readings in Hebrew, with the Psalms sung by Jewish cantors, then the NT passages in Greek, and a choice of Eucharistic prayers including the Roman Canon in Latin, the Greek and Russian ones in Greek and Church Slavonic, with music drawn from the best of the Classical repertory. Who can doubt that this would be a marvelous liturgy? But I am not such a crank as to go around canvassing support for it.
'Wider permission for Latin Mass -- sure, why not. But that is not going to tackle in depth the question of creating meaningful liturgy.'
"Creating" meaningful liturgy is precisely the problem: the liturgy has become the community's sandbox.
It's not so much that the commissars of the so-called "spirit" of Vatican II have dismantled the Traditional LATIN Mass, as that they have dismantled the TRADITIONAL Latin Mass. The replacement of the traditional LANGUAGE is less to be lamented than the tossing overboard (by "creative" liturgical innovators) of the traditional FORMS that underscored the sacredness of the Mass and its theological content, e.g., worship of the real, true, and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
Please notice how Father O'Leary has positioned himself to be on the side of both the people and the asthetes -- he sounds remarkably like others who have tried to be on both sides of simple, cut and dry issues.
Indeed, Father O'Leary manages to set himself against the "Bridesheadian aesthetes" who wish to restore the Traditional Latin Mass, even as he aligns himself with the modernist aesthetes who see the liturgy as a sandbox for their "meaningful" creativity and innovation, while gutting it of its real theological meaning.
In the final analysis, it matters little that Fr. O'Leary is a more high-minded aesthete than the creators of Cardinal Mahoney's "California dreamin'" liturgy (which the "Spirit" of Vatican II approves in any case): the theological deconstruction of the Mass is the same. BTW, I'm reading PB's essay on Fr. O'Leary's "hot tub" Christology, which sheds a unifying light on many of these seemingly unrelated threads.
[ ICEL's Chairman himself says the the liturgy is more beautiful in Spanish than in English, and I feel the same to be true of the French liturgy (which was largely entrusted to the poet Patrice de la Tour du Pin if I am not mistaken). ]
Since we're in the realm of opinion and anecdote here anyway, let me share one of each. We had a young man visit us from France last year. He belongs to the French "aristocracy", that is, a family in the royal lineage. Good breeding, good education, a fine young man. Anyway, he was raised in the traditional Latin Mass and the first time he assisted at the Novus Ordo in French (during boy scouts or something like that) he said he was shocked at how banal and bland the French is.
But part of that can also be the underlying text of the Novus Ordo itself, which has been deprived of a great deal of distinctively Catholic content.
See e.g. Fr. Hugh Thwaites, S.J. "Was Dom Gueranger Right After All?"
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Peri...1/
thwaites.html
Here are a couple more parallel examples. Note well the doctrines that consistently go missing in the Novus Ordo texts. The Catholic content of these can't be salvaged by a new translation:
First Sunday after Pentecost (New Calendar: First Sunday in Ordinary Time)
TLM: O God, the strength of those who trust in You, mercifully hear our prayers; and because without You our mortal weakness is incapable of anything, grant us the help of Your grace, that in fulfilling Your commandments, we may please You both in will and in deed.
NO: Father of love, hear our prayers. Help us to know your will and to do it with courage.
Friday in Passion Week
TLM: Mercifully pour forth, we beseech You, O Lord, Your grace into our hearts, that we who restrain ourselves from sin by voluntary penance may rather suffer in time than be condemned to eternal punishment.
NO: Lord, grant us your forgiveness, and set us free from our enslavement to sin.
March 4, St. Casimir
TLM: O God, You strengthened Saint Casimir with the virtue of constancy in the midst of royal delights and the snares of the world; we beseech You, grant by his intercession, that Your faithful people may despise the things of the world and ever aspire to those of heaven.
NO: All-powerful God, to serve you is to reign: by the prayers of St. Casimir, help us to serve you in holiness and justice.
March 8, St. John of God
O God, You caused Blessed John, burning with love of You, to pass unharmed through flames, and through him You enriched Your Church with a new offspring; grant, through his interceding merits, that our sinfulness may be healed in the fire of Your love, and that we may receive healing remedies to life everlasting.
NO: Father, you gave John of God love and compassion for others. Grant that by doing good for others we may be counted among the saints in your kingdom.
Here are a few more:
March 27 (New Calendar, 4 December), St. John Damascene
TLM: O almighty and everlasting God, You conferred upon Blessed John heavenly learning and wonderful fortitude of spirit, that he might uphold the devotion due to holy images; grant us through his intercession and example, that we who venerate images of the Saints may both imitate their virtues and enjoy their patronage.
NO: Lord, may the prayers of St. John Damascene help us, and may the true faith he taught so well always be our light and our strength.
March 28, St. John Capistran (who preached a Crusade to which 70,000 Christian warriors responded and successfully defeated the Mohammedans)
TLM: O God, through Blessed John, You made Your faithful people triumph over the enemies of the Cross by the power of the most holy name of Jesus; grant, we beseech You, that by his intercession we may overcome the snares of our spiritual foes and be found worthy to receive from You the crown of righteousness.
NO: Lord, you raised up St. John of Capistrano to give your people comfort in their trials. May your Church enjoy unending peace and be secure in your protection.
June 18, St. Ephrem the Syrian
TLM: O God, You willed to enlighten Your Church by the wondrous learning and glorious merits of Blessed Ephrem, Your Confessor and Doctor; we humbly beseech You, to defend her by his intercession and Your continual power against the snares of false teaching and iniquity.
NO: Lord, in your love fill our hearts with the Holy Spirit, who inspired the deacon Ephrem to sing the praise of your mysteries and gave him strength to serve you alone.
June 28, St. Irenaeus
TLM: O God, You granted to Blessed Irenaeus, Your Martyr and Bishop, to stamp out heresies by the truth of his doctrine and happily to establish peace in the Church; we beseech You, give to Your people constancy in holy religion, and grant us Your peace in our days.
NO: Father, you called St. Irenaeus to uphold your truth and bring peace to your Church. By his prayers renew us in faith and love that we may always be intent on fostering unity and peace.
31 July, St. Ignatius of Loyola
TLM: O God, to spread the greater glory of Your name, by means of Blessed Ignatius, You strengthened the Church militant with a new army; grant that, with his help and by his example, we may fight on earth, so as to become worthy to be crowned with him in heaven.
NO: Father, you gave St. Ignatius of Loyola to your Church to bring greater glory to your name. May we follow his example on earth and share the crown of life in heaven.
December 6, St. Nicholas, Mass
TLM: O God, You adorned the Blessed Bishop Nicholas with countless miracles; grant, we beseech You, that by his merits and prayers we may be delivered from the flames of hell.
NO: Father, hear our prayers for mercy, and by the help of Saint Nicholas keep us safe from all danger, and guide us on the way of salvation.
Thomas WB, Thanks for those comparisons. Telling.
It isn't even a case of heresy being taught, only that the prayer is severely impoverished (can a prayer become emaciated?) and important content omitted.
Quiz:
What is the antecedent of "it" in the preceding post?
a) The whole substance of Fr. O'Leary's posts.
b) The Novus Ordo English translation.
c) The Novus Ordo in the Original Latin.
d) All of the above?
As to Vatican II, all I can say is that I lived through those years and there was immense relief and encouragement in the sense that the Church had at last turned toward the joys and hopes, sorrows and problems of humanity and that it was able to see God working and revealing himself in the hearts and religions of all people of good will -- as a result its proclamation of the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Church was more convincing.
One can't but be touched by the remarkable optimism and hopefulness of Fr. O'Leary's observation about V-II and the spirit of the times. In one way, perhaps the most charitable way, the best thing I can perhaps say is that he has more 'faith' than I can possibly muster, for as a man of 'reason' this is hardly the way things appear. But then, perhaps I lack the eyes of his 'faith'?
So eloquently poetic ... The Church, he says, "had at last turned toward the joys and hopes, sorrows and problems of humanity..." It is as if the Church had hitherto cold-heartedly closed its shutters and heart to the world.
Further, he adds, the Church during Vatican II was finally "able to see God working and revealing himself in the hearts and religions of all people of good will ..." So God's grace was seen, not merely as pouring out to the world through the Church, whose shutters and windows were now finally open to the world, but also pouring into the Church "from religions of all people of good will." We were finally seeing God's largesse poured out upon the world in the graces he bestowed upon us through Tendai and Shingon Buddhists, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, sincere Talaban Muslims -- oh, and we can't forget those sincere followers of that religion described in Ann Coulter's new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, with its sacraments (abortion), its scripture (Roe v Wade), its martyrs (from Alger Hiss to Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school and university teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).
Last of all, our good priest declares, of Vatican II: "-- as a result its proclamation of the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Church was more convincing."
But I must say that Fr. O'Leary does not convince. He doesn't readily dispose one to confidence in accepting anything he says about the "Lordship of Christ" or the "authority of the Church" -- let alone anything, which, in his view, might render these "more convincing." Does he wonder why that is?
"But I must say that Fr. O'Leary does not convince."
That's because he's not trying to convince. For example, he says "I would really appreciate suggestions from those of you who are in sympathy with my criticisms of the ICEL ..."
[ It isn't even a case of heresy being taught, only that the prayer is severely impoverished (can a prayer become emaciated?) and important content omitted. ]
I agree, Chris. Although the two Rites are equal in terms of their sacramental validity, they clearly are not equal in terms of the scope and depth of their Catholic content or in what they ask of Almighty God on behalf of the faithful.
If, as Vatican II says, the sacred liturgy is the lifeblood of the Church then perhaps part of the reason the Catholic Church is so anemic these days is because we get what we pray for.
Thanks, Thomist, for that wonderful list of bad, bad prayers in the current missal.
But what guarantee is there that ICEL's new batch, to be printed expensively before anyone gets a look at them, and then imposed on priests and faithful for generations, will be any better?
I think we are on exactly the same page here.
And I detest the heresy of Pelagianism.
Aren't the only heresies homophobia, fundamentalism and loyalty to the institutional Church?
Homophobia is not technically a heresy any more than antisemitism or racism is. It is an unfortunate condition, giving a dank and morose character to mind and blocking insight into one's fellow humans.
Fundamentalism could be called a heresy; it gives rise to many heresies.
Loyalty to the institutional church can be a critical loyalty, such as a that of the theologians who corrected the sixteenth century decrees on usury or the nineteenth century ones against religious liberty (freedom of conscience) -- and were subsequently thanked for their services.
But let's stick to the topic of this thread -- the tendency of our DISMAL Collects, Secrets and Postcommunions to blur the contours of a Christian, Pauline understanding of Grace.
Thomist, I put your list of dismal orations onto my letter to Bp Roche: http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...en_letter_.html
[ But what guarantee is there that ICEL's new batch, to be printed expensively before anyone gets a look at them, and then imposed on priests and faithful for generations, will be any better? . . . I think we are on exactly the same page here. ]
Well Father, as much as I would like to be in agreement with you, I don't think we are. Certainly the NO prayers that I cited are flat and lifeless, but my point was that the problem is not exclusively with the translation but with the actual typical Latin text of the Novus Ordo rite. No translation can recover the distinctive Catholic doctrinal content that has been excised from them.
As Fr. Hugh Thwaites asks, "Is the text of the new Mass now so ecumenical that it sometimes no longer expresses our traditional Catholic faith? When I suggest that this is so, people rally to its defense. “But that’s just the ICEL translation. The Mass itself is still completely Catholic. It’s just the way they’ve translated it.” However, a closer look shows that the compilers of the new missal left nothing to chance. They gave a decidedly Protestant slant to the original texts."
Or as Msgr. Klaus Gamber states in "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy":
"Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology—for example, references to a God who judges and punishes."
The translation is mere window dressing compared to the larger concern; does the new Rite adequately express our distinctive Catholic Faith?
Fr. O'Leary, by "fisking" one assumes the role of professor or at least teacher above the one who is being critiqued. It's like red-inking all over somebody else's essay. It's a valuable tool for pundits, but given your position relative to the Chairman of ICEL--a bishop vs. a priest, the duly appointed chair of a commission vs. an educated commentator--it comes across as rude and usurping of another's rights.
Remember that the Canons suggest that when we speak our minds to the proper ecclesiastical authority, making our needs known, we are supposed to do so respectfully.
Here are the opening lines of Father O'Leary's postscript to his letter to Bishop Roche:
'POSTSCRIPT Here is a list, compiled by someone who rejects the Novus Ordo totally, of the poor translations of the orations in it; I do not agree with his rejection, but I think it is prompted by the flatness and sloppiness of the language, chiefly.'
Clearly, Fr. O'Leary and TWB are not anywhere near to being on the same page here.
'Fr. O'Leary, by "fisking" one assumes the role of professor or at least teacher above the one who is being critiqued. It's like red-inking all over somebody else's essay.'
This should come as no surprise, Kathy. Fr. O'Leary does the same thing with Holy Scripture all the time.
'The Epiclesis is one of the most solemn moments of the mass ...'
Why does Fr. O'Leary say this? What makes the Epiclesis solemn? What is happening at that moment? What is its significance?
Does Fr. O'Leary believe in transubstantiation? Does he encourage eucharistic devotion and adoration outside of Mass? Does he promote the restoration of the Tabernacle to the center of our Catholic churches?
Fr. O'Leary's statements against the Pelagian heresy are duly noted. Should we take warm comfort from these statements? I'm not ready to hop into the hot tub just yet. I would need first to understand the Christological basis (if any) of Fr. O'Leary's anti-pelagian stance.
[ 'POSTSCRIPT Here is a list, compiled by someone who rejects the Novus Ordo totally, of the poor translations of the orations in it; I do not agree with his rejection, but I think it is prompted by the flatness and sloppiness of the language, chiefly.'
Clearly, Fr. O'Leary and TWB are not anywhere near to being on the same page here. ]
Clearly you're right, Dave.
Fr. O'Leary, my criticism of the Novus Ordo is informed primarily by such authorities as Cards. Ottaviani, Bacci, and Stickler, Dietrich von Hildebrand ("The Devastated Vineyard") and most notably Msgr. Gamber ("The Reform of the Roman Liturgy", the foreword of which is by none other than Card. Joseph Ratzinger.) Believe me, it extends far beyond bland translations, but it does not extend as far as "total rejection".
OK, I'll alter that comment about rejection.
Dave, there are answers to all your questions both on my weblog and in my postings here, so why not look them up before disseminating your uncharitable suspicions?
Fr. O'Leary, the answers to my questions are by no means evident from your postings on this blog, at least not the ones that I've read. God knows I cannot keep up with all of them. Nor are they evident from a cursory glance at your blog. Without a search engine, where do I begin? I did notice in your "The Riddle of Sacrifice" essay that you seem to acknowledge the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. I do not know your views concerning transubstantiation, eucharistic adoration, etc., yet your dismissive attitude toward traditionalist Catholics, which seems to appear in every combox that concerns the "sacramental hermeneutics of fittingness", warrants a certain degree of suspicion, I think.
If your blog provides clear answers to my questions, please provide the relevant links.
Fr. O'Leary, I do not think that my suspicions are uncharitable, not when I read this:
'Is the Incarnation [of the Son of God, Jesus] a massive and unique event, the central reality of history and indeed of being? Or is it a cipher for a more subtle, historically textured disclosure process which is intimately linked with the broader web of human evolution, not as dominating that web, but as drawing its sense from it?' (Fr. Joseph O'Leary, "Demystifying the Incarnation")
You can understand that I have my questions.
Cipher? That sentence certainly is not one I would stand over as a reflection of my considered views. The universal salvific revelation of the divine Logos, conterminous with human history, is one thing; the specific historical and eschatological mission of Jesus, which has soteriological primacy within that universal history is another. In the latter "the Word is made flesh", enters human history in a unique and definite way -- an entry that is mediated by the history of Israel and the Church as dimensions of the history of Jesus.
"This more open-textured interpretation of incarnation attenuates the clash between the Christian claims and non-Christian religions, for the incarnation of God in Christ continues to unfold along the paths of historical, fleshly contingency as his Gospel and his pneumatic presence are redeployed in different cultures, and enter into dialogue with other historical apprehensions of divine presence in the world. Christian faith and devotion gravitates to Christ in a spontaneous and instinctive way, conferring on him the high titles which dogma subsequently interprets in a critical clarification. Is this gravitation a brute given, or can we map it as a geodesic within a relativistic interreligious space? Is the Incarnation a massive and unique event, the central reality of history and indeed of being? Or is it a cipher for a more subtle, historically textured disclosure process which is intimately linked with the broader web of human evolution, not as dominating that web, but as drawing its sense from it?"
I think the word "cipher" is misleading here. I should rather say "the central node of".
I just altered the text on my weblog.
On transubstantiation I believe the entire reality of the meal event becomes totally transformed into the reality of a participation in the Paschal Mystery, and that Christ is present in the fullness of his being and activity in that eucharistic meal in a special way.
The present of Christ in the eucharistic species cannot be divorced from (1) their form as bread and wine -- that is their form as elements in a human meal event; (2) the practice of the eucharistic meal event, in which the human meal is transubstantiated into something of a different order. The reserved sacrament is an extension of the Eucharistic event.
'On transubstantiation I believe the entire reality of the meal event becomes totally transformed into the reality of a participation in the Paschal Mystery, and that Christ is present in the fullness of his being and activity in that eucharistic meal in a special way.'
Ok, I'll buy that. Question: is Jesus of Nazareth -- bodily resurrected, ascended, and glorified -- really consumed in the eucharistic meal event, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity?
The word "cipher" still appears in the text. The phrase "central node of" would be an improvement, yet the text as a whole remains a cipher at best. Jesus appears to be a subordinate element in a larger process, one chapter (albeit unique and, in a sense, "primary") in the career of the Spirit.
'The reserved sacrament is an extension of the Eucharistic event.'
When I pray before the reserved Sacrament, it is JESUS to whom I pray, JESUS in whose presence I find repose, and JESUS through whom I meet the Father. I don't pray to, find repose in, or meet the Father through an "extension" of an "event". Sorry, that is not the language of adoration.
The first purpose of reserving the sacrament is as viaticum for the sick; the second purpose is for adoration; but this adoration is regarded as an extension of the Eucharistic action itself (at least in the official Vatican theology on this).
Is Jesus consumed in the Eucharist?
Not of course in a materialist sense -- he is not bitten, chewed, swallowed or digested. But in a spiritual sense we feed on his body and blood. John 6 has the strongest language on this, but with the appended note: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing".
Other texts are a little less direct: "When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus until you come in glory". Or even: "Take and eat, this is my body" -- the bread is the body of Christ in the dynamic action of the meal-event; that is, the action of the physical eating of the bread is in its essential meaning the action of a spiritual consuming of the body of Christ.
The Eucharist is dynamic through and through. That is why the Vatican is nervous about eucharistic adoration that divorces the real presence from the eucharistic action. That can lead to reification, or to what one Cameroons theologian calls fetishization (with a corresponding tendency to see the consecration as magic).
"The word "cipher" still appears in the text. The phrase "central node of" would be an improvement, yet the text as a whole remains a cipher at best."
Jesus is both cipher and central node of the entire process. Using cipher in a somewhat Jaspersian sense.
" Jesus appears to be a subordinate element in a larger process, one chapter (albeit unique and, in a sense, "primary") in the career of the Spirit."
No, the ultimate significance -- and therefore identity -- of Jesus is to represent the entry of the divine Word into history in a unique way. Thus the coming of the Word into human minds from the beginning is carried over and continues in a new concreteness in the figure of Jesus. The precise finite history of Jesus is of course limited as the divine Word is not, but the Word incarnate in Jesus is reaching out to itself at work everywhere when the Gospel of Jesus is preached, dialogally, in successive times and cultures. Sorry if that sounds turgid, it's muggy weather here.
As to the Spirit, one can say that the Spirit is at work wherever God and God's Word are at work, and that the Spirit proceeds with new eschatological force when it becomes the Spirit of the risen Christ. John 7.38 says "there was not yet Spirit", but it means I suppose that the sending of the Spirit on the p
postpaschal community.
I agree that Eucharistic adoration outside of Mass must be intimately linked with the Eucharistic celebration (or "meal event"). Yet ultimately the act of adoration is fundamental. I suspect that many Catholics (and I do NOT mean you, Father, so don't get offended by this) who cast a cynical eye at Eucharistic adoration outside of Mass do not themselves really adore our Lord Jesus in the celebration of the Mass; instead they celebrate and adore themselves.
In the above comment, I do not mean Catholics who simply do not understand or do not practice Eucharistic adoration outside of Mass. I refer primarily to those who actively agitate against Eucharistic adoration.
I agree with you there.
The Eucharist is dynamic through and through.
This comment--which I apologetically take out of context--is interesting to me because it seems to me to bring out an important question of the philosophical underpinnings of many of our discussions. They are also the discussions at play in the Church at large, and I just offer this framework before taking a leave of absence for a while from this blog. It's time consuming to keep up with such earnest argument, for one thing, plus the subject matter is not terribly interesting to me and someone else will have to bring the Spirit of Vatican II to a right judgment concerning matters both schatalogical and eschatological. I'll be supporting any efforts in that direction with my prayers. But mostly I'm offended by my own general tone and need to take a break and cool down.
Anyhow, the philosophical question that's as old as the hills is, is the basis of everything dynamism itself? Or is it a perduring and constant substance? Or both? And in what way?
Later dudes.
Kathy, we shur will miss yew. Like ya said: 'someone else will have to bring the Spirit of Vatican II to a right judgment concerning matters both schatalogical [sic] and eschatological.' Heh heh, that's a good one. I was just gonna say that that thar "Spirit" of Vatican II is full of BOVINE SCATOLOGY.
Bye fer now.
Jeb's comment about SV2's BS aside, I was happy to see that Fr. O'Leary and I seem to agree concerning the right relationship between meal and adoration in the overall Eucharistic event. Hey, this process theology is fun!
Excellent question about the relationship between dynamism and substance. As I recall, this is a core theme in the phenomology of Karol Wojtyla/JPII.
phenomology s/b phenomenology
Dave:
It's "common sand", to borrow an expression from the NOR.
"Common sand" ... Chris, do you refer to my search for common ground with Padre Joe?
Yes.
After reading "Bishop" Schori's dreadful homily (and the refusal of the Episcopalian "Bishops" Conference to affirm the sole Lordship of Jesus Christ), I think that you might have a point, Chris. We see now where all of this seemingly orthodox yet ultimately ambiguous hot tub Christology leads.
I do not like process theology.
Jesus speaks to Jerusalem as a mother and God speaks to Israel as a mother, so Bishop Schori is not far off the mark there.
The Catholic Bishops of Asia have also told the Vatican that premature stress on the Lordship of Christ comes across as bullying and colonialist. There is room for much theological subtlety in proclaiming the eschatological lordship of Christ, rather than firing off the claim like a cannonball. "Dominus Iesus" (2000) was widely criticized for its lack of such subtlety and even for a note of sectarian triumphalism. Cardinal Koenig, who defended Jacques Dupuis against the Vatican absurd and persecutory procedures at that time, had a far saner, wider and more seasoned view of this matter; he edited a groundbreaking on "Christ and the Religions of the Earth" long, long before there was any buzz about inter-religious dialogue.
'... premature stress on the Lordship of Christ ...'
Whatever on earth that means.
I'd love to read the actual statement by the Asian bishops.
'There is room for much theological subtlety ...'
Fr. O'Leary, I think that we have had more than enough of your theological subtlety and the not-so-subtle ends (gay rights gay rights gay rights gay rights gay rights gay rights gay rights) that such subtlety ultimately serves.
Gay rights are human rights. Mocking them is mocking human rights.
The Asian bishops did not use my language but they made their point quite clearly.
If they didn't use your language, Father, perhaps they didn't mean what you did?
'Gay rights are human rights. Mocking them is mocking human rights.'
Bosh. Doing the things that homosexuals do (as described in Dr. Blosser's recent post) and trying to get the Church and society to call it a blessing from God, is not a human "right". It is a human tragedy. Around and around we go.
I'd still like to read with my own eyes what the Asian Bishops actually said.
"In preparation for the Asian Synod, no such sensitivity seemed to be uppermost in the minds of the Roman organizers to ascertain the real concerns of the Asian churches. They thought that making the person of Christ and his mission as “mediator and one and only savior” central to the work of the synod would respond to “the unique set of circumstances within the Church in Asia” and would prepare Asian Christians “to fulfill Christ’s Evangelizing Mission of love and service.” This imposition of Christology with its claim of Jesus as the “mediator and one and only savior”on the Asian Synod’s agenda and conceiving it as the panacea for what may ail the Asian churches constitute, to judge from all the documents of the FABC, a massive misdiagnosis of the situation of Asian Christianity. As we have seen above, neither Christology nor ecclesiology are at the center of the Asian churches’ concerns but God’s reign or a new way of being church. It is most interesting that the FABC’s seventh Plenary Assembly, which took place shortly after the synod on January 2-12, 2000, adopted the second part of the theme of the synod, i.e., “mission of love and service” but replaced the first part “Jesus Christ the Savior” with “A Renewed Church,” thereby subtly but unmistakably subverting the Roman-imposed focus on Christology." More at
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/resea...aejt_6/
phan.htm
Gay rights are human rights: the rights include freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of association, privacy, equality before the law, freedom for discrimination, freedom from hate speech, protection from violence and persecution, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and, yes, "the natural right to marriage" (Pius XI).
If you are an American, Dave, you should be deeply ashamed of your casual disregard for the principles your nation is founded on (but Bush's America is becoming a playground for fascists, as I suppose you are unable to see).
I can assure you, Fr. O'Leary, that the United States of America was not founded on freedom from "hate speech". To the contrary, that absurd postmodernist cant phrase has become an excuse to violate freedom of speech and conscience.
The right to privacy is much in dispute among constitutional scholars in the United States, as I'm sure you are aware.
And needless to say, Pius XI did not include homosexual cohabitation under the the natural right to marriage!
Thanks for the information about the FABC. Very interesting. I plan to follow up with additional research.
Commenting by HaloScan
