The Spanish bishops' document sounds like a dossier on the Christology and ecclesiology of the "Spirit of Vatican II". Magister claims that it is a working model for bishops in other nations. One hopes. Could this be a watershed moment? We've known all along that the liturgical crisis at its roots is a crisis of theology. It sounds to me like the Spanish bishops are addressing the root cause of many of the specific problems debated on this blog: a genuine crisis of faith.
One can already hear the tired complaints of "negativity" and "hyper-orthodoxy" splashing up from the hot-tubs of dissent. Of more interest is whether the Mr. Magoos of the world will take solace in this story.
The nonexistent council referred to is Vatican III, presumably, not Vatican II. This syllabus of errors is pretty ineffective it seems to me. It is not written from a position of insight and leadership.
9. It is incompatible with the faith of the Church to consider Revelation, as some authors do, as a merely subjective perception by which “one becomes aware” of the God who dwells within us and tries to manifest himself to us. [...]
THAT COULD BE A PERFECTLY VALID PARTIAL DESCRIPTION OF REVELATION.
It is mistaken to understand Revelation as the immanent development of peoples, and to consider all religions as “revealed,” in conformity with the level of progress they have reached in their history, and in this sense as true and salvific. THAT IS AN ATTACK ON KARL RAHNER, WHO MAINTAINED THIS IN A BOOK COAUTHORED WITH RATZINGER. UNLESS THE WORD 'IMMANENT' IS UNDERSTOOD AS EXCLUDING TRANSCENDENCE AND GRACE, in which case NO Catholic theologian holds that opinion.
In short this set of errors is an uninsightful attempt to characterize current theological thinking from the point of view of people who are not attuned to it and who have no positive vision of their own to offer -- no leadership in short. The people of God are paying for the huge bureaucracy who devote their time to producing such futile documents and to smearing the theologians mentioned in a vain attempt to find efficacious sacrificial scapegoats. Even if all their criticisms or these theologians were correct and all the alleged errors were henceforth avoided, the resulting contribution to strengthening faith and spiritual vitality and church life and church service of humanity would be precisely NIL. Only a future Council can get Catholicism out of its present paralysis;
And to say that this spinoff from Dominus Iesus is going to solve the liturgical crisis is of course idle wishfulness
He's back.
'Even if all their criticisms or these theologians were correct and all the alleged errors were henceforth avoided, the resulting contribution to strengthening faith and spiritual vitality and church life and church service of humanity would be precisely NIL.'
In other words, true Catholic doctrine and belief have NO connection to 'strengthening faith and spiritual vitality and church life and church service of humanity'. What a revealing statement.
Well, see you guys when Dr. Blosser returns to enforce the embargo.
'Even if all their criticisms or these theologians were correct and all the alleged errors were henceforth avoided, the resulting contribution to strengthening faith and spiritual vitality and church life and church service of humanity would be precisely NIL.'
In other words, true Catholic doctrine and belief have NO connection to 'strengthening faith and spiritual vitality and church life and church service of humanity'. What a revealing statement.
Dave | 07.29.06 - 3:24 pm | #
1. True orthodoxy is consubstantial with living faith.
2. The emphasis on an ideologically distorted orthodoxy that is in reality the last gasp of the Ottavianists in their struggle against Vatican II is a source of alientation and paralysis.
3. Even a stress on good doctrinal orthodoxy at the expense of the pastoral efficacy of the church and of its commitment to educating humanity in the ways of peace and justice -- God's ways -- is counter-productive.
4. Presentations of Christology that close off the background of universal revelation of the Word, in grace and salvation from the beginning of human history, are unorthodox in that they diminish the intelligibility of the Incarnation and the reach of Christ's mercy, projecting instead a sectarian exclusivism.
Kathy, I never objected to your presence on this site, despite your many rude remarks about me.
'The emphasis on an ideologically distorted orthodoxy that is in reality the last gasp of the Ottavianists in their struggle against Vatican II ...'
Dominus Iesus is ideologically distorted IN YOUR IDEOLOGICALLY DISTORTED OPINION.
Is Benedict XVI an Ottavianist???
Fr. O'Leary, I don't hold a grudge about your many rude remarks about me, but I am not willing to discuss anything important with you. At a certain point hearts become so hard that any argument just reinforces the error. If it weren't tragic to see the ways you twist and compromise the truth it would be laughable. As it is, I don't want to give you any fodder for your distortions.
Offering truth to you is like putting a penny on the railroad tracks.
Besides which, I just want to talk about the issues rather than arguing against your own personal agenda day after day. You weary me. I only came back because I thought you'd gone. I'll be back when PP comes home.
B16 is to be distinguished from Ratzinger as prefect of the CDF. The reform of the CDF was placed in the hands of Ottaviani after Vatican II -- with the result that it became the bulwark of anti-Vatican II thinking.
Kathy, such contemptuous haughtiness is hardly the sign of one who is offering Truth.
Still no grudge. Have a good life, a holy death, and a happy eternity. Pray that I may see you there.
"Such contemptuous haughtiness is hardly the sign of one who is offering Truth." And hence, I will dismiss anything SV2 has to say.
Kathy,
It will be far less pleasant week without you.
Ralph
'B16 is to be distinguished from Ratzinger as prefect of the CDF. The reform of the CDF was placed in the hands of Ottaviani after Vatican II -- with the result that it became the bulwark of anti-Vatican II thinking.'
I fail to see the logic here. Ratzinger was head of the CDF for 25 years. During that time he was on record as being fully committed to Vatican II. "We cannot go back," he said to Messori in 1985. He maintains the same commitment today. Pope Ratzinger is such a "man of the Council" that the sedevacantists regard him as a heretic and anti-pope.
Dominus Iesus and the Spanish bishops' instruction are fully in accord with the spirit of the Council as interpreted by Ratzinger both then and now.
No sane person would disagree with the justice of the 1991 Gulf War opines Fr Richtsteig on his website. 200000 slaugtered Iraqis in that brutal expedition weigh oh so lightly on the American 'conscience'.
Dominus Iesus is NOT fully in accord with the spirit of the Council, in the opinion of a great number of qualified commentators.
No sane person should ever say that the Civil War or World War II or even the Gulf War of 1990 were unnecessary in the face of slavery, genocide, and territorial aggression respectively faced in those wars.
NOTE HOW THIS PRIEST USES PUTS THE US COLONIAL AGGRESSION OF 1991 (sic) ON THE SAME LEVEL AS THE WAR AGAINST NAZISM.
'Dominus Iesus is NOT fully in accord with the spirit of the Council, in the opinion of a great number of qualified commentators.'
Ah, well, I suppose that settles it. The self-anointed "Spirit" of Vatican II and his illustrious cadre of "qualified commentators" have spoken. No need to discuss the matter further.
Here's another SV2 throbbing brain, come to save us from our unthinking desire to enslave ourselves to clericism.
http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/
...arson070606.htm
But, with the popularity of EWTN, could it be that the SV2 agenda is just the old clericism in an uglier face? The enemy does have a sense of humor. I hope Fr. Larson will be unenslaved to the SV2 before he further damages himself or others.
'Dominus Iesus is NOT fully in accord with the spirit of the Council, in the opinion of a great number of qualified commentators.'
Ah, well, I suppose that settles it. The self-anointed "Spirit" of Vatican II and his illustrious cadre of "qualified commentators" have spoken. No need to discuss the matter further.
Dave | 08.01.06 - 1:06 am | #
Dave, did you even bother to read one of my long discussions of Dominus Iesus? If you want to discuss you will hardly meet one more eager to discuss than I. I post the reference again:http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/
2005/10/towards_a_buddh.html
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com....com/my_weblog/
2005/10/towards_a_buddh.html
http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...ignificanc.html
http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...ds_a_buddh.html
Thanks, SV2, but I'll pass on the invitation to take a theological "leap into emptiness". Go ahead with your dangerous engagement with Buddhist thought (a danger that you see as both necessary and salutary); I prefer the safety of Mother Church. I can understand that as a daring theologian on the cutting edge of interreligious dialogue, you resent the strictures of Dominus Iesus. I will not judge. Your admonishment in the other combox to mind the log in my own eye is duly noted. Talk to you later.
It's not only a matter of daring theology but of vitalizing Asian Christianity. The failure of Roman theological education and missionary endeavor to take account of local religion and culture is another betrayal of Vatican II. Cardinal Hamao and the Asian bishops have raised voices in protest against Vatican deafness on this front, perfectly embodied in Dns Iesus.
>"It's not only a matter of daring theology but of vitalizing Asian Christianity. "
Does that include advocating sodomy
SV2?
"Father Larson is a priest of and liturgical consultant for the Archdiocese of Seattle."
http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/
...arson070606.htm
'Liturgical consultant’! Is THAT what they call themselves now?
Thanks for this article. I have not read such liberal liturgical nonsense for a while:
"Certainly, they say, allowing the congregation full, active and conscious participation in the ritual is what empties the rites of their mystery, so the further we keep the secular congregation away from the clerical activity and space, the better to preserve the liturgy’s mystery. Thus the need to eliminate any personal touch with the lay folks, and, by all means, do not allow them to communicate with each other, even to wish one’s neighbor the peace of the risen Christ."
Uh? Who said all that? The arch-conservative/traditionalist Cardinal Strawman of course.
"conscious participation". Well, I agree, people should not sleep during Mass. Is that what Father Larson means?
'Conscious' sounds good I suppose, but as opposed to what, unconscious (or non-conscious) participation?
So...would 'unconscious' participation, to such as Father Larson, mean brain death, sleeping, or what? Could it mean mysticism, or worship sensitive to the non- (or not completely) rational? Must liturgy be subject to analytical reasoning?
"personal touch"? Is this 'Conscious' participation? Whatever. I do not know about others, but I am not really into the whole damn liberal touchy feely thing.
"I think the folks responsible for these stuffy liturgies are confusing mystery with mystification."
Trash, utter garbage, but I will read on, oh great liturgical consultant.
"Rites that express mystery will invite people into the unknown, into what lies beyond the action of the ritual. Liturgy done well this way will cause people to ask, “How does this ritual which I can see, and in which I am participating, lead me more deeply into the beyond, into life of the God of mystery whom I cannot see?”"
Um, okay?... before I go on, what exactly is "Liturgy done well this way"? Does it involve liturgical dance, folk/rock/jazz music, liberal presiders, etc?
"Mystification, on the other hand, leads one to ask, “What on earth does that mean, and why in God’s name is he doing that?”"
Sure, sure, pre-Vatican II Catholics were (and traditionalists today are) always doing that... Father Larson, what liberal propaganda trash you write.
Ex-monk Luke Timothy Johnson wrote: "As for the growing similarity among the Eucharistic celebrations of Catholics and Protestants, we should rejoice that Catholics now feel at home at Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopalian worship, and that our Protestant neighbors have gained much through our process of renewal and reform."
Thanks for nothing (post) Vatican II era - especially for the ecumenical liturgy. I was not Lutheran, Methodist, or Episcopalian, and never wanted to be.
==
Continued....
"The Catholic form of worship remains a strong motivation for conversion among adults. As we have known all along, God works powerfully through the words and gestures of the liturgy; the hard work of renewal has served to make God’s work plain and public each Sunday when we gather as ‘church.’”"
"plain and public" + "gather as ‘church.’" = Liberal Catholic nonsense. Blah blah. Boo!
==
'Progressive Mystification, revision, deconstruction and mutilation of the (once sacred now desacralized) Mass by liberal liturgical consultants, on the other hand, leads thinking orthodox Catholics to ask, “What on earth does it all mean, and why the hell are they doing that?”'
Meanwhile, the guitar mutants play on, drums crash and roll, and the prancing dancing ballet women and girls in leotards, unitards, leggings, tights, dancewear and exercise wear, etc., bounce up and down and walking swirl around the altar table, and the blowhard Presider with his loadspeaker chats on and on, and on, blah blah me me me you you you, us us us, together, gathering, we are in spirit, we are Christ making 'church and liturgy' here now future, hug and shake, sway and clap, etc.......
==
oh, did I forget the wanna be liturgical torch singers? and the groovy prog-protestant-type choirs...?
==
Let's hold hands! = Liturgical 'reform'.
==
SV2, O'Leary, or whatever avatar you're adopting at the moment,
You are the bottom of the barrel, a vast wasteland. You have no principles and nothing to say. You go from one religion to the next in a futile search for some meaning to your trivial life.
In case you didn't know it (and you don't seem to), doctrine and practice are two sides of the same coin. Therefore, Dominus Iesus and liturgy go together. Of course, the liturgical crisis is a crisis of theology. Liturgy has gone from gathering in the presence of God, to join in the eternal liturgy of heaven, to something that we "do." This is only Pelagianism in modern guise. This has been accompanied by religious pluralism, as the Spanish bishops say, which relativizes Catholicism to just one among many. These and other items mentioned in the Spanish document have been staples in the American Church for the last forty years.
This has greatly affected the RCIA we have in the US. Converts are badly instructed and bring more of their Protestant ethos with them than any Catholic sensibility. It's warm and fuzzy and doctrinally unsound. Jesus is presented in completely human terms and ontology is absent.
Not that I'm waiting, but it would be great if the American bishops could produce a document like this, but first we'd have to have some theologically-literate bishops. I envy Spain.
"Dave, did you even bother to read one of my long discussions of Dominus Iesus?"
How can we get through to O'Leary
his word count is making us weary?
Does he not realize
the strain on our eyes?
His prolixity leaves our sight teary.
The "Spirit of Vatican II" is a non-entity used by tired dissenters to cover their eternal disappointment that the true Council didn't teach heresy.
In other words, who gives a damm if Dominus Iesus isn't in accord with the mythical SV2.
According to some histories I have read, Spain and France were already lost to the Church decades before the heydey of Kueng and Schillebeeckx and Fr O'Leary. Comunione e Liberazione was founded in Italy as a response to modern apostasy -- back in 1954. Christianity was "dead" at the time, according to witnesses from those times.
Santiago,
The problem addressed in the bishop's document is that of "the secularization within the Church". You are certainly correct to say that this problem did not start with Vatican II. The pernicious influence of modernism within the Church was recognized as far back as Pius IX. "Secularization" is the fruit of that influence -- an attempt to turn Catholicism into something else, something unspiritual and doctrinally spineless. V2 was the occasion for its metastasis. After V2, what was formerly hidden and repressed became open, obvious, and dominant.
But I am not referring so much to "the Church" as I am to the Christian people. The Christian people had lost faith in Christ long before Vatican II. Most of these people had never read any theologians. Already with Bernanos and Leon Bloy you get a sense of the secularization of pre-war and post-war Europe, and the rise of Communism and other left-wing movements in Spain before the Civil War was not accidental. The question was put forth by Eliot: did mankind fail the church or did the church fail mankind? I am too young to know; but I'll go with Luigi Giussani's modest answer: a little bit of both. But the unbelieving theologians are as much victims as they are perpetrators. And the problem is with all of us, not just with them.
Well, I will concede you part of your point. Europe was morally and spiritually exhausted at the end of WW2. I don't know as they have ever recovered. I grew up in fifties America, and as I recall (not that my recollections are in any way special), it wasn't that way here, although in retrospect things were certainly leaning in a secular direction. It took the sixties, with all of its emphasis on new thoughts, new values, new directions, new, new, new, to bring down the Church to the level of AmChurch. V2, with all of its burbling about newness, was a part of that, like it or not.
I will also concede that we have failed our Church at least as much as certain of its leaders have failed us. In America, we were dehumanized by our prosperity, and redefined by corporate marketers and middle brow intelligentsia as the sum of our appetites and orifices. We were not so much exhausted as seduced.
But still, I think it is fair to ask: should we not have expected more from our leaders than from the shmoes they led?
"We were not so much exhausted as seduced."
And, in the interest of full disclosure, we were most often willing participants in that seduction. Myself as much as anyone.
Hi Ralph,
Interesting post. My mother is my informant for Catholics from the fifties. Nihilism and Communism didn't have the force here that they had in Europe, but what we had here was lousy catechesis (yes, even before Vatican II), no real thinking about the faith or theology. Even to this day, Americans are not in the forefront of theology or biblical exegesis. I think one important reason that the faith collapsed so dramatically after Vatican II (and it's similar to teh state of the Church before the Reformation and in the period before the Enlightenment challenge to Christianity) was the dismal state of Christian and Catholic education.
By the way, during the October 2005 Synod of Bishops, one bishop was heard to say "we've always had bad catechesis" as though it was of no moment. That's unfortunately the mindset of the episcopacy. They've always got better things to do.
(Janice, by the way, Ralph LOVES the word "orifices.)
A lady sociologist of my acquaintance, who was raised Catholic and now goes to an evangelical non-denominational megachurch, thinks that in addition to catechesis being generally poor (actually hers wasn't too bad) the main problem was that no one was ever expected to discern God's will prior to VII. The emphasis on obedience was so strong that no one had to think--with the Church or otherwise. One just had to listen and follow whatever was dictated.
In a way this makes sense although it seems stereotypical too.
The rest of her theory is that the reason her generation (Ralph's, more or less) embraced whatever they were told by the Charlie Currans of this world was that, again, they had had no practice with discernment but plenty of practice with obedience. So when they were informed that everytrhing had changed, now, please take your seats in the folding chairs and we'll have a nice beer and pretzel celebration, tape your symbol on the banner, they just obeyed. If everything had changed, well, that's what they were supposed to be on board with.
_If everything had changed, well, that's what they were supposed to be on board with._
I read somewhere that there are philosophical and anthropological/doctrinal roots to that problem in that way many Catholics lived out their faith over the past few centuries, but I can't remember now anything about that. One of the names for this problem, though, is clericalism. It's delightfully ironic that the same folks who generally decry clericalism or the obligation Catholics have to assent and obey are now the ones getting upset that, often enough, faithful Catholics aren't willing anymore to just drop their pants and bend over when they're told that "everything has changed."
Catechesis has always been a problem. There was vibrant catechesis in the New Testament period and in the ancient Church. Preachers and bishops took their work seriously. The very definition of episcopos was "teacher." Just read Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Dionysius of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Leo the Great.
Nowadays, it's not just that bishops are administrators, it's that they don't know the first thing about theology. At the 2005 Synod of Bishops, one remark that was made at its conclusion was how disappointed the Pope was with the low theological preparation of most of the bishops (and the is bishops worldwide, not just US). Theology has devolved only to professional theologians.
Having shirked their duty as teachers, bishops have also neglected catechesis. It now resides in "professional" catechists. I know some of these people. Their preparation is spotty, their outlook is more on the "liberal" side of things. Thomas Groome is their guru. All of this speaks for itself.
Kathy, your friend is absolutely right. If there's no individual discernment and no personal relationship with Jesus Christ, then there's no real catechesis. The neo-Scholastic "obedience" track was designed to produce robots who never had to think or deal with real life issues.
This robotics thing is maybe too easily disparaged from our contemporary "vibrant" point of view. It has not been that long since the days when men were little more than drones, Joe Shmoes slaving away in factories or on farms dawn till dusk, and women were drudges around the house if they were lucky, and drudges both around the house and at THEIR jobs if they were not. I would say that it has been less than 100 years since man became a creature of (some) leisure, and it has only been since the television age that he has been informed of his own unique wonderfulness. Only in that time has man discovered that rote learning and obedience of faith is beneath him. Sure, there were rumors of such things in the dark bowels of academe, where horrible Deweyan creatures scuttled to and fro in the muck, but it took television to create, from the common clay of Joe Shmoe, Joe Sixpack, individualist Everyman, paragon of olympian self-regard, and quotidian Whitmanesque self-dramatizing doofus.
Now, Joe Sixpack and his progeny memorize nothing and know nothing. If they memorize anything, it is the names of the 30 starting quarterbacks of the NFL, or the top ten bestselling rap artists and the "lyrics" to their greatest hits. If they celebrate anything, it is likely the release of "Girls Gone Wild, Vol XXXVI".
If neither Joe possesses the ideal qualities of sainthood, it is still fair to ask, which of them is the better Catholic? Which is more likely to know his basic prayers and actually say them? Which is more likely to attend Mass, even if he fails the appearance tests of communitarian ecstasy? Which is better able to say, with complete honesty, before his God, that he did the best that he knew how?
Ralph,
By using the term "robot," I was not referring to memorizing prayers. I was talking about an approach to basic issues. The robotic approach is characteristic of neo-Scholasticism (neo-Thomism), which doesn't really engage life, just hands down doctrinnaire platitudes.
If you want an orthodox approach, use ressourcement theology and recover the Fathers of the Church. They hadn't been corrupted by Suarez and could speak to real life and yet remain orthodox. Read Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, or the Eastern Fathers, like Maximus the Confessor.
As to rote memorization, of course there is a need for that. That part of your argument, Ralph, is a straw man. As to the "vibrant" thing, I don't know what you mean. There's little vibrancy to our age. Secularism has drained most of this away. If you want real vibrancy, you must praise God as the first duty of humanity (Luke 2.20). That's the way to true vibrancy.
I would make a distinction between catechesis and learning to discern. Faith is propositional: That is Thomas, not his popularizers. And the content of the faith is passed on through catechesis: it can be told by one believer to another.
I would not include things like discernment, mental prayer and contemplation in catechesis for several reasons. They require a lot of one on one guidance, for starters, and that's less of a catechist's job than a spiritual director's or pastor's. Also their passivity is differently directed: people being catechized have their course of study directed by their catechist, whereas people learning to discern the Lord's will have to follow the Lord's timetable. He teaches all things, of course, but is more directly active in matters of the Spirit than in matters of the faith.
Some of these issues are just terminological. Origen ran what we now refer to as a catechetical school (I'm not sure if that was his term but that's how I've heard it described.) He, like most everybody after him, thought that there were 3 basic stages of the spiritual life. For Origen, Scripture could be read on three different levels, corresponding to the 3 stages: according to the flesh, according to the soul, and according to the spirit.
I'd restrict "catechesis" to the first and into the second levels. One really should have everything nailed down by then, or there could be deceptions later. Look at the gurus gone bad--not pretty. The third stage is not anything anyone could predict or teach, but is up to God. BTW I wouldn't put it past God to bring people into the third stage before they've learned diddly. He provides but not necessarily according to our schemes or schematics.
W
"The robotic approach is characteristic of neo-Scholasticism (neo-Thomism), which doesn't really engage life, just hands down doctrinnaire platitudes"
This sounds a bit to me like a 'doctrinaire platitude'. - So what you are saying is that philosophers of neo-Thomism, like Etienne Gilson and Jacques Maritain in the 20th century, are robots?
"If you want an orthodox approach, use ressourcement theology and recover the Fathers of the Church."
Catholics were reading the Fathers of the Church long before the 'ressourcement' and nouvelle theology. To notice does not mean I intend to underrate or disparage patristic scholarship and publishing work done in the early to mid-twentieth century or thereabouts. Nor am I saying that Catholic theology today cannot profit from revisiting the Fathers. But still (for example), in post-reformation times Maldonatus and a Lapide, and in the 19th century Abbe Migne, would find it all a bit rude to be told that they knew nothing about the Fathers.
==
'could speak to real life'
That is real?
==
'could speak to real life'
Then I ask, what is real?
==
Kathy,
Faith is not specifically propositional, i.e., it is not a sheer abstraction. Propositions make it seem as though Christianity exists independent of culture and that simply isn't true. That was Thomas' mistake and it was passed on to his school and down through to his popularizers.
The only way Christianity forms a distinctively Christian culture is not via a set of propositions, which are just impersonal statements, but through a distinctive theology, anthrology and the affirmation of certain values. It is only in this venue that meaningful catechesis can occur. Impersonal propositions cannot produce a countercultural stance vis-a-vis secularist or nihilist claims.
Moreover, discernment, mental prayer and contemplation occur in community, even if they appear as solitary activities. We are shaped in community and approach even private prayer in that fashion. The Thomistic notion that the faith could be summarized in propositions may have been useful for the classroom, but it also produced the notion that one could assent to these propositions purely on a mental level, free of the community and free also of the personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Janice, just guessing, are you involved with Communion and Liberation?
In any case I double dare you or anyone to affirm some expression of the Creed--as you are, affected as you are by the realities you affirm--and condemn the words you say as "merely abstract." For my own part I can't express the delight I feel in Holy Week when they sing "Christus factus est pro nobis obediens." That's Creedal language and it is a source of delight and joy and hope.
The propositions ARE personal. Alone, if I heard them in the desert, they would signify relationship. They are about persons I care about, not least significantly me. Most significantly about the Persons Who involve me in their eternal life--a life rather completely populated with PERSONS.
Kathy,
No, I'm not directly involved with C&L, although I've read Giussani's books. But I came to my conclusions about propositions before I read his books, after studying the Summa.
You're right, creedal statements are propositions. But the contexts of creedal statements, the Nicene Creed or baptismal creeds, and the propositions created by the Thomist tradition are very different. The Thomist tradition became very stagnant and degenerated simply INTO propositions rather than summarizing, as the baptismal creeds did, the living relationship with the Triune God. The baptismal creeds (and, by extension, the Nicene Creed) resulted from the personal reception of revelation over the first centuries of Christianity that had been codified. But the personal element in revelation, as the Fathers noted, is of primary importance. Dei verbum is all about an encounter with God, not propositions about God.
Dei verbum is all about an encounter with God, not propositions about God.
Strange that you would dichotomize. In my experience they are inseparable. You are at least very incorrect to oppose them.
They are also inseparable in the Gospels. Look for an encounter: you will find a proposition. Not just in John, either. Look at the centurions, for example.
But besides my own experience, which includes, again, delight and spiritual consolation in saying the Creed AND in reading the Summa, there are two significant problems with your exaltation of the Fathers' supposed disdain for propositions.
1. THEY DIDN'T DISDAIN PROPOSITIONS. They loved true statements and hated false ones. This is true in the East as well as in the West. Maximos, Ephrem, Athanasius--all persecuted for PROPOSITIONAL truths they would not discard.
Athanasius is particularly useful as a counterexample to your attitude about propositional truth. His argument in On the Incarnation was not "I've experienced the living God in a certain way and therefore..." but rather "If it's true, as we believe, that we are saved, then Jesus Christ must be..."
If I may ask, what Fathers exactly did you have in mind who didn't think that revealed truth could be stated?
2. Bad theology leads to bad interpretations of experience. If I'm not mistaken in this, and I'm pretty sure I'm not, Arianism took root because it makes more sense to prayer experience to think of God as one, and the Son as a lesser delegate reaching out from heaven but not consubstantial with God. In other words, "the encounter with Jesus" in itself is somewhat misleading because of the way we think (i.e. three is three and one is one and that's that). It takes serious theological reflection, moving from the soteriological to the dogmatic (as Athanasius did) to discern the truth about the Triune God through the encounter with Jesus. Again if I'm not mistaken, this inability is one major source of the problems with many Jesuits today. Rooted as they are in the Spiritual Exercises and the personal encounter with Jesus, some cannot purchase for themselves--most readily bought with propositional formulas--the necessary distance between their apprehension of the Lord and the fact of His divinity.
(For some reason that's especially a problem if they spend any time at all in India.)
BTW, you aren't being clear about your problem with the Summa. Does the fault lie in Thomas or in Thomists, in your opinion?
I guess most people are smarter than I; because I do not understand what is being discussed. It sounds like the old question 'Is Jesus your saviour? Do you know Him and love Him?' Yes, of course. One must obtain and cultivate a faith and love relationship, but this is not anti-doctrine/dogma, nor is it contra Grace. But it has to begin somewhere I suppose, and we need guidance in this life, reference points, thus propositions and the like are used by God (the Word) through Mother Church, for our sake.
"Jesus said to his disciples: "Love one another even as I have loved you."1
2196 In response to the question about the first of the commandments, Jesus says: "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."2
The apostle St. Paul reminds us of this: "He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,' and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."3
1 Jn 13:34.
2 Mk 12:29-31; cf. Deut 6:4-5; Lev 19:18; Mt 22:34-40; Lk 10:25-28.
3 Rom 13:8-10.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ca...hism/
p3s2c2.htm
==
One needs to start, then grow in the reality to which the words refer, and from which they arise: St. Teresa of Avila understood that I think. Perhaps all Catholics should want/need to be mystics, which is our true calling. St. Teresa, pray for us.
"9. By some mysterious manifestation of the truth, the three Persons of the most Blessed Trinity reveal themselves, preceded by an illumination which shines on the spirit like a most dazzling cloud of light. 6 The three Persons are distinct from one another; a sublime knowledge is infused into the soul, imbuing it with a certainty of the truth that the Three are of one substance, power, and knowledge and are one God. Thus that which we hold as a doctrine of faith, the soul now, so to speak, understands by sight, though it beholds the Blessed Trinity neither by the eyes of the body nor of the soul, this being no imaginary vision. All the Three Persons here communicate Themselves to the soul, speak to it and make it understand the words of our Lord in the Gospel that He and the Father and the Holy Ghost will come and make their abode with the soul which loves Him and keeps His commandments. 7
10. O my God, how different from merely hearing and believing these words is it to realize their truth in this way! Day by day a growing astonishment takes possession of this soul, for the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity seem never to depart; it sees with certainty, in the way I have described, that They dwell far within its own centre and depths; though for want of learning it cannot describe how, it is conscious of the indwelling of these divine Companions.
11. You may fancy that such a person is beside herself and that her mind is too inebriated to care for anything else. On the contrary, she is far more active than before in all that concerns God's service, and when at leisure she enjoys this blessed companionship. Unless she first deserts God, I believe He will never cease to make her clearly sensible of His presence: she feels confident, as indeed she may, that He will never so fail her as to allow her to lose this favour after once bestowing it; at the same time, she is more careful than before to avoid offending Him in any way."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/...r/tic/
tic29.htm
==
Kathy
I really like 1 and 2, thanks! Lots to think about! But you lost me with the Jesuit thing. I did not understand that part.
==
I am not certain I can agree with this portion of 2:
"If I'm not mistaken in this, and I'm pretty sure I'm not, Arianism took root because it makes more sense to prayer experience to think of God as one, and the Son as a lesser delegate reaching out from heaven but not consubstantial with God."
Was it an issue of 'God as one', or was it instead related to the theology that maintains God as unknowable, hidden, etc?
==
"The Thomist tradition became very stagnant and degenerated simply INTO propositions rather than summarizing [...]"
Was the problem the 'Thomist tradition', or how it was (mis)understood?
Can not the Fathers also be read (wrongly) in the same spirit?
==
"Faith is not specifically propositional, i.e., it is not a sheer abstraction. Propositions make it seem as though Christianity exists independent of culture and that simply isn't true. That was Thomas' mistake and it was passed on to his school and down through to his popularizers.
The only way Christianity forms a distinctively Christian culture is not via a set of propositions, which are just impersonal statements, but through a distinctive theology, anthrology [anthropology?] and the affirmation of certain values. It is only in this venue that meaningful catechesis can occur. Impersonal propositions cannot produce a countercultural stance vis-a-vis secularist or nihilist claims."
Janice, this is very interesting stuff, I wish I knew what you are talking about. One thing for sure, you still want to lay the issue/fault (or whatever) at the door of St. Thomas Aquinas, or his school/followers, etc. (I am not sure which is guilty, or even if the theological/criminal charges against him (and/or the others) are even real! or just!).
In the absence of evidence, I cannot agree with you that any of this is the case.
==
"Faith is not specifically propositional, i.e., it is not a sheer abstraction. Propositions make it seem as though Christianity exists independent of culture and that simply isn't true. That was Thomas' mistake and it was passed on to his school and down through to his popularizers.
The only way Christianity forms a distinctively Christian culture is not via a set of propositions, which are just impersonal statements, but through a distinctive theology, anthrology [anthropology?] and the affirmation of certain values. It is only in this venue that meaningful catechesis can occur. Impersonal propositions cannot produce a countercultural stance vis-a-vis secularist or nihilist claims."
Janice, this is very interesting stuff, I wish I knew what you are talking about. One thing for sure, you still want to lay the issue/fault (or whatever) at the door of St. Thomas Aquinas, or his school/followers, etc. (I am not sure which is guilty, or even if the theological/criminal charges against him (and/or the others) are even real! or just!).
In the absence of evidence, I cannot agree with you that any of this is the case.
==
Hey, how did that happen? There are two posts from me. Let us blame it on Aquinas and his theology perhaps? Maybe Henri De Lubac is behind it all?
Just joking. Sorry.
==
Just joking. Sorry.
It was St. Augustine of course!
==
It was St. Thomas after all!
Paul, if you're going to talk about experience that trumps catechesis, no fair taking it from the seventh (i.e. final) mansion of St. Teresa. That's the end of a very long, difficult road, which includes long training in obedience, including intellectual obedience.
Of course The Christian faith is a set of propositions! It is more than that, but it is at least that much. If it didn't propose specific things about who God is, everyone would happily accept the title Christian and mean whatever he wanted to mean.
"THEY DIDN'T DISDAIN PROPOSITIONS. They loved true statements and hated false ones"
That nails it for me. When I read statements about scintillating new insights into the anthropology of faith, or the cultural basis of religion, I get very uneasy. I do not believe for a moment that Janice is doing this, but I have noticed over the past few decades that statements of faith which are couched in terms appropriated from modernist methodologies are usually uttered by people who want to transform the Church into something else, something "engaged" and "animated" and "vibrant", which usually means something more akin to new-agey unitarianism.
If you want to dramatically upgrade catechetical language at a stroke, seal every document in which the word "vibrant" is used into a large, heavy dumpster, and drop it into the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
"insight"
"Propositions" ought not be posited as one extreme, the opposite of which is some sort of "experience". I don't accuse anyone in particular of doing this, but a dichotomy of that sort does seem to emerge collectively from the last couple dozen notes, and I can't believe anyone here really believes it.
What are the "Our Father", the "Hail Mary", and the "Nicene Creed", if not strings of "propositions" rooted in scripture and Church teaching? If they are outmoded or alien to religious experience, what do we replace them with?
It reminds me, in a way, of all the cultural crap of the 60's (EVERYTHING reminds me of that, which indicates either the degree to which present day attitudes have been suffused with it, or the lamentable fact that I have never emerged from my last acid trip in the Franciscan Babylon at which I tripped over a BA en route to the real world). All the exaltation of phony experiences over simple rules by which people live, as if those rules were based on anything other than accumulated experiences.
I don't want to pursue religious experience with the same gluttonous zeal that people pursue perfect abs or the unending orgasm. For one thing, those whom God has placed in my care would likely suffer from my excess of zeal. Most of us are not built to be saints. Most of us are simply dolts and drudges, who greatly need the grace of simply-stated propositions to remind us what we're about.
Most of us are not built to be saints.
That's crap.
Other than that, well said.
Ow!
Thank you.
I suspect that Ralph R-D meant to say that most of us are not built to be mystics. Yet even on that point I would disagree. I once came across an interesting essay about St. Therese of Lisieux that argued that every Christian is in fact built precisely to be a mystic. Of course, it depends on how one defines the word "mystic". I think that Therese's life provides a good working definition. In particular, see Therese's discovery of her true vocation ("I will be Love in the heart of Church") as told in Story of a Soul. Best of all, Therese was one of those people who loved true propositions and hated false ones!
Further to the last point ... I would love to witness a debate between St. Therese of Lisieux and Fr. Hot Tub on the essential relationship between mystical experience and dogmatic truth!
Balthasar irked me no end by saying Therese was not a mystic.
IRRRRRRRRRRRRK.
Kathy,
Where did he say this?
J
Well, I was attempting to say that God has directed some of us to handle the more earthbound issues of existence, such as raising kids in a vice-sodden culture. We are not all meant to levitate or live in a cloistered cell, but to change diapers, tie shoelaces, throw passes, adjust brakes on bikes, turn off WWF Raw whenever it magically appears on the devil's box, ruthlessly prune the weeds from the child's garden of playmates, etc. These are acts of charity, but seem to more ambitious souls like so much white noise amid the spectacular cymbal-clashes of saintly accomplishments.
I guess what I was really getting at was the passage from Cardinal Merry de Val's "Litany of Humility":
"That others may become holier than I, provided that I become as holy as I should, Jesus grant me the grace to desire it".
Two Sisters in the Spirit (Ignatius)
Fair enough, Ralph.
IMHO the source of more troubles than saintly ambition is a lack thereof, such that "as holy as I should" becomes "as holy as I feel comfortable with, wouldya hand me another beer and change the channel from HBO to Showtime?"
Whereas what you are talking about is precisely the narrow road, i.e. faithfulness to daily tedium. Joy indeed, if one can find the font of eternity there. THAT'S Theresian mysticism.
'Whereas what you are talking about is precisely the narrow road, i.e. faithfulness to daily tedium. Joy indeed, if one can find the font of eternity there. THAT'S Theresian mysticism.'
Bingo.
By the way, I'm surprised at von Balthasar's verdict that Therese was not a mystic. Again, it depends on how one defines the term. I know that von B did not consider Therese's spirituality to be sufficiently Trinitarian. I read somewhere that Rahner couldn't stand St. Therese. I wonder if that is true. But I disgress ...
Rahner said something interesting about Therese in Theological Investigations VI: that she addressed Lutheranism's concerns about grace. I think the essay is called Simul Justus et Peccator.
For anyone's edification, here are some paragraphs from a paper I wrote once on Balthasar on St. John of the Cross:
What is less clear is whether Balthasar is able to enter fully into the Carmelite perspective that so deeply informs John. Even Balthasar’s phrasing in the passage above is that of a Jesuit; the soul “responds by making a choice of its own”—an expression that derives quite directly from the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. For Ignatius the active aspect of renunciation is always in play; in John, the active is left behind after the first few chapters of the Ascent of Mt. Carmel, his only major work that treats of the beginnings of the spiritual life. The active is left behind, the passive nights begin—and personal freedom is primarily exercised in the soul’s assent to the purification process.
John’s ascesis treads more than the world underfoot. According to John, even spiritual forms and apprehensions must also be left behind. God is not found in even the most sublime mystical forms and figures. And this is because God Himself is utterly without form. It is not clear that Balthasar is willing to grant this premise, nor to journey with John to the far limits of his doctrine: nada, nada, nada. No to the sensory, no to the intellectual—and no, with the exception of direct, ineffable divine touches, to the spiritual. “And even on the mount, nothing.”
A strength of the Catholic Church is its breadth: it has honored places for widely varied spiritualities. Primary among the spiritualities—assuming, as I will, that the Scriptural writers, the magisterium and the Fathers are a heritage common to all—are the spiritualities that belong to the legacy of the great religious founders. The variety is the Church’s wealth, but it leads to difficult problems of interpretation. Misunderstandings between spiritual families are not uncommon, and acrimony has led to disedifying and even scandalous conflicts at times. I think that part of the difficulty of the mutual encounter of the charismatic traditions lies in the difficulty for anyone who has undergone spiritual formation to gain a meta-charismatic perspective. It is very difficult for someone formed into the Dominican ideal of freedom, for example, to understand or even to appreciate the goodness of a vocation to an order founded as an ecclesiatical expression of military obedience, the “Company of Jesus.” The difficulty is primarily due to the depth of the personal integration of the charism. During the process of formation into a religious institute, Religious are guided to accept the charism of their founders as their own. The charism is lived and modeled; it affects intellectual training, prayer, ministerial training, and spiritual direction. Although Balthasar became a founder in his own ri
Although Balthasar became a founder in his own right—a biographical-spiritual characteristic of his that must become a subject of future studies—he was originally formed to be a priest of the Society of Jesus. Given his intensely devoted service of the Spiritual Exercises throughout his lifetime, it would be easy to argue that he never left this formation behind. And thus the question deserves to be asked: can Balthasar truly be expected to understand St. John of the Cross? For in the end, Balthasar is very dismissive of John’s doctrine:
What he gives the Church in the deadly earnestness of his personal struggle and his consciousness of being taken seriously by God constitutes for it a simile, a parable, a poem. And John was absolutely right to present the didactic part of his work as an unsuccessful, defective commentary on his poems, which constitute his message in the proper sense in a way that prose cannot rival. If we trust and agree with the correctness of John’s judgment of himself, then we must see that it is as a poet rather than as a prose writer that he is a Doctor of the Church. Lay Styles
'Rahner said something interesting about Therese in Theological Investigations VI: that she addressed Lutheranism's concerns about grace.'
That is indeed interesting, as von Balthasar said much the same thing:
'One would have to be blind not to see that Therese's doctrine of the little way answers point by point the programme outlined by the Reformers, and that she presents the Church's bold, irrefutable answer to Protestant spirituality. One can find innumerable points of contact between Therese and the Reformers: the rejection of Old Testament justification by works; the demolition of one's own ideal of perfection to leave room for God's perfection in man; the transcendent note in the act of faith, the center of which remains in God; the existential fulfillment of the act of faith, which means more than a mere intellectual assent to the content of faith and involves utter personal fidelity towards the personal truth of God; and, finally, disregard for one's own failings -- even for that joy over them which says felix culpa.'
http://
www.crossroadsinitiative...._Balthasar.html
It's true. I think "Doctor of Grace" is already taken, but that would be a good title for her.
"If you want to dramatically upgrade catechetical language at a stroke, seal every document in which the word "vibrant" is used into a large, heavy dumpster, and drop it into the middle of the Pacific Ocean."
Perfectly said.
""If you want to dramatically upgrade catechetical language at a stroke, seal every document in which the word "vibrant" is used into a large, heavy dumpster, and drop it into the middle of the Pacific Ocean."
Perfectly said."
Sure guys, kill off the poor ocean why don't you. What are you guys thinking! Given the countless megatonnes of liturgical, catechetical, and theological trash, - the mountains of pollutants produced by noxious Catholic liberals and progressives over the last 40 or so years, - we could never fit all that pathetic waste and rank crap into one "large, heavy dumpster". And even if this were technically feasible, and we could somehow compress and contain it all in an enormous dumpster, I predict dropping such a massive object into the Pacific Ocean would result in a destructive man-made tsunami, the likes of which has never been seen before on this planet.
Yes, I know the problem is enormous, and that the work needs to be done. I do favor the idea of sealing up every 'vibrant' liberal catholic document, and treating it like nuclear waste. But may I suggest that we also look at some other disposal options, such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inc...ki/
Incineration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill
==
Just disposing of the waste produced by Hans Kung and Edward Schillebeeckx would take a lifetime.
==
It stinks. They make the mess, and we have to clean it up.
==
How do they dispose of nuclear waste? You know, the waste that comes from "cleaner" fuel?
They haul it away on a TRUCK.
Oh, the irony!!!
Give it to the folks who make Charmin for recycling? How would you like to have Hans and Ed . . . I suppose I should stop now.
I appreciate your kind discretion, sir.
May I be permitted to propose a solution for disposal of all that stuff?
Crush it- compact it? -- under the weight of just one Gregorian chant introit. Once you remove the fluff and the hot air, it wouldn't take up so much space.
Can we compromise on an introit that is not so ornate that only the schola can sing it?
Or, just train any parish choir to sing Byrd's 3 part Mass. No hot air there!
Viri Galilaei?
It is incompatible with the faith of the Church to consider Revelation, as some authors do, as a merely subjective perception by which “one becomes aware” of the God who dwells within us and tries to manifest himself to us. [...]
The key here is the word "merely." This prevents anything about this from being even partially a "perfectly valid" orthodox description of revelation.
It is mistaken to understand Revelation as the immanent development of peoples, and to consider all religions as “revealed,” in conformity with the level of progress they have reached in their history, and in this sense as true and salvific.
The question is not merely whether or not the word 'immanent' is understood as excluding "transcendence and grace," but what transcendence and grace mean. One may, as does St. Paul in chs. 1 & 2 of his Epistle to the Romans, acknowledge that divine transcendence and grace is amply evidenced in the availability of God's general revelation to the Gentiles and yet acknowledge also, as he does, that it is suppressed in unrighteousness, so that they are "without excuse." What is available, then, is not necessarily what is accessible to the unregenerate heart -- a small point that the ebullient windbags of post-Vatican II millinarian optimism are loath to recognize.
1. True orthodoxy is consubstantial with living faith.
This statement would be true of "faith" means (objectively) the Catholic Faith, but not so where it means (subjectively) the act of intellectual assent or belief which can have anything as a content.
2. The emphasis on an ideologically distorted orthodoxy that is in reality the last gasp of the Ottavianists in their struggle against Vatican II is a source of alientation and paralysis.
Desperate obfiscation borne of alienation and paranoid near-paralysis.
3. Even a stress on good doctrinal orthodoxy at the expense of the pastoral efficacy of the church and of its commitment to educating humanity in the ways of peace and justice -- God's ways -- is counter-productive.
As long as "God's ways" are God's ways and not the "Spirit of Vatican II's" hyper-ideologizing, cold-hearted indifference to the humanitarian rights of the pure and innocent, and those who would be pure and innocent.
4. Presentations of Christology that close off the background of universal revelation of the Word, in grace and salvation from the beginning of human history, are unorthodox in that they diminish the intelligibility of the Incarnation and the reach of Christ's mercy, projecting instead a sectarian exclusivism.
Presentations of Christology that close off the background of Genesis 3 and original sin from the beginning of human history are unorthodoxy in that they diminish the intelligibility of the Incarnation and the point of Christ's mercy, projecting instead a sectarian and presumptuous indifference to the sacrifice of Christ. Two kinds of people: saints who know they're sinners, and sinners who think they're saints. Which are you?
The Gospel of John is NOT fully in accord with the spirit of the Council, in the opinion of a great number of qualified commentators.
So much the worse for the Gospel of John, eh? -- along with Dominus Iesus and Mel Gibson's Passion and everything else that floats your hot tub boat.
"Spirit," what are you doing here? You know you've been banned. I'm gone for a week and you're back in force, having found a back door unlocked. What is this? You've even taken to issuing declarations in which it sounds like you're presuming who should or should not belong on this site, like the following:
"Kathy, I never objected to your presence on this site, despite your many rude remarks about me."
Do you realize how completely convoluted this sounds? On the positive side, I guess we can say that you've inspired some poetry, even if Terrence Berres's eloquence is harnessed in service of what ought to be for you, by now, a monologically clear message:
"How can we get through to O'Leary
his word count is making us weary?
Does he not realize
the strain on our eyes?
His prolixity leaves our sight teary."
Nobody is questioning your intelligence. Nobody is saying you aren't in ways a nice and interesting guy. Nobody is saying he wishes you ill. But I'm afraid you've made yourself unwelcome here. It's time, my friend, for you to give this site a rest. I'm sure you must have bigger fish to fry and better things to do with your time. -- Cheers, PP.
Commenting by HaloScan
