Solutions:
1. Allow priests to marry.
2. Allow women to become priests.
3. Defrock all active homosexual priests and bishops.
4. Ordain deacons.
5. Update our theology and history based on current knowledge of what really happened 2000 years ago.
6. Eliminate the concept of original sin and its consequences such as limbo.
7. Downsize the priesthood via use of closed circuit HDTV in all dioceses i.e. five priests saying five Sunday Masses which are broadcast to all parishes.
8. Establish Catholic home schooling for parishes that do not have Catholic schools.
9. Re-establish General Reconciliations.
10. "Pew peasant" written critiques of homolies.
11. Homolies on large screen HDTV's by professional speakers.
12. Catholic newspapers that report news and dissenting opinions. Most Catholic newspapers are simply the local bishop's "goodie" paper towels having no substance and no theological content.
13. Eliminate holy water fonts which are cess pools of disease. Ditto for the Common Cup.
Of course this panic is predicated on a mistaken Syllabus of Errors, as your targeting of the excellent Hunthausen and McCormick shows.
Realist's "solution" is "destroy the Catholic Church." Uh, no thanks.
And who is surprised that Fr. O'Leary is dreadfully wrong about Hunthausen and McCormick?
There is always Orthodoxy. At least there things never change.
JP,
And what might be your solutions be for re-energizing/saving the Catholic Church?
Good man, Dale, as always.
"And what might be your solutions be for re-energizing/saving the Catholic Church?"
Conversion of life and repentance fom sin, and recommitment to the Catholic faith. It's the only thing that the re-energise and save the world, let alone the Church.
The following is an account of an archdiocesan retreat in Seattle sponsored and presided over by he whom SV2 refers to as "the excellent Hunthausen". The account is by George Weigel and related in his book, Tranquillitas Ordinis: The Present Failure and Future Promise of American Catholic Thought on War and Peace (p. 170):
"It was a wet, cold morning in January 1982 as about one hundred of us crossed Puget Sound on a Washington State ferry to attend a day-long retreat at the Ground Zero Center, just beside the Trident submarine base in Bangor, Washington. We had been invited to participate by the Justice and Peace Center of the archdiocese of Seattle. Our retreat would be led by Jim and Shelly Douglass, founders of the Ground Zero Center. On arriving at Ground Zero, we trudged through ankle-deep mud to a semifinished wooden geodesic dome, under which the retreat would be conducted. Once inside the dome, after our eyes adjusted to the dim light provided by a creaking electric generator outside the door, we could see a gigantic golden Buddha, before whom was laid a basket of oranges, and in whose honor joss sticks burned, adding to the dimness and fragrance of our surround[ings]. We were led in an opening prayer by the archbishop of Seattle, and then told by the Douglasses that the purpose of our time together was not to think analytically about the arms race, or the varieties of Catholic moral responses to it, but, rather, to "get in touch with our feelings."
Ah, yes, those were the heady days of "the excellent Hunthausen" indeed!
Vree's comments remind me of an episode of M*A*S*H.
Frank: Do something!!
BJ: What?
Frank: Anything!!
Hawkeye: I agree with Frank. I think we should do anything.
They also remind me of one Don Quixote, who had read so many romantic novels of chivalrous knightly exploits that he decided to go ravage the countryside in the name of all that is holy.
Fix it! Fix it! Do something! At least talk a big game!!!
Realist, thank you for that perfectly brilliant diagnosis of AmChurch -- i.e., the problem. Now for the prescription?
Good man, Dale, as always.
Spoken like a true dittohead.
Not that you ARE one, just that's what it SOUNDS like.
Kathy,
On the other hand, your scenario the other day for our liturgical recovery, surely almost a done deal under Benedict's Pontificate -- with the new GIRM, ad limina visits, new translations, clerics falling in like dominos behind Benedict as he turns ad orientem, return to reverent music, increased traffic in the confessional -- it was all so lovely, I nearly swooned over the romance of it all. I wish I inhabited your novel.
That's what they used to say about all the prophets, PP.
Just kidding. Look, you guys want a guy who plays the piano to play a Rambo. It ain't gonna happen your way. But it is happening.
New Secretary of State. A very big move.
Kathy,
Hello! Back from beating up your trad professor?
Ralph, I don't have the slightest idea what you mean, but, Hello to you, too!
I didn't realize there was a new Secretary for Relations with States today, too!!! Good stuff! Moving forward! Hey, am I dreaming? Auntie Em! Auntie Em!
'7. Downsize the priesthood via use of closed circuit HDTV in all dioceses i.e. five priests saying five Sunday Masses which are broadcast to all parishes.'
Oh, that's brilliant. Yet why bother, if one does not believe that Jesus Christ, Lord and God, is present in the Eucharist? What is the point of doing Mass at all? What is the point of being Catholic? What is the point of being Christian? Realist, your solutions are superfluous in light of your fundamental unbelief.
Hopefully my comments are not cutting or bombastic, but truly I don't understand your purpose in this discussion. Obviously you have abandoned any semblance of Christian faith, to say nothing of Catholic faith. Standing up in Church on Sunday and singing "Gather Us In" with gusto does not make you a Catholic, not when you have already thrown the whole content of the faith overboard.
Is it your purpose merely to aggravate and irritate? If you think that your comments are enlightening, you are only fooling yourself. I'm trying hard to rein myself in here, trying hard to remain charitable, but it's not easy. Proudly boasting in your heresy, blasphemy, and apostasy is not a work of charity. I mean, calling the Cup of our Lord's Blood a cess pool of disease??? It is sad and tragic. I really do pity you. God have mercy.
These comments are as amazing to me as the ones about "ad orientem" and just about as ahistorical. For example, if you read St. Paul First Epistle to the Corinthians and then the First Epistle of Clement to the Corintians you will notice that the problems in Corinth took a while to resolve. Second, the Church is a corpus permixtum and that's just the way it is. Third, the Church is a hierarchy and change is dependent on that. If you want quick change, then go out and found your own church and set it up according to your more perfect notions of what is right.
'5. Update our theology and history based on current knowledge of what really happened 2000 years ago.'
How about updating your worldview based on knowledge of what is happening today, if only you make an act of faith? Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Lord of Hosts, is alive. Jesus Christ is Lord of History and Lord of you, Realist, whether you acknowlege Him as such or not. He loves you and will forgive you all of your blasphemies, if you turn to him in faith.
I don't know who you are, but I'm praying for you in the Holy Name of Jesus.
My Lord, will you folks please stop bickering about who isn't working fast enough to fix the mess. The mess is right here in our midst. A lost soul, a scattered lamb, whose heart and mind is filled with spiritual POISON. Pray for our lost brother -- even though I suspect that he will scoff at it.
Dave, any person who has taken JD Crossan as his intellectual master.... just say a prayer for them, and let it be. In any case, do not let it upset you so. I was not aware that the topic here was JD Crossan; it does not seem relevant. My opinion, nothing more….Do what you like.
==
Realist former Convergent;
Re: your Solutions list. Very funny.
==
'5. Update our theology and history based on current knowledge [provided by JD Crossan] of what really happened 2000 years ago.'
Jesus was killed, left to rot, and was eaten by dogs. End of case. Re: your Solutions list. Very funny.
==
Solution for RfC: Take your Solution #5 and substitute the word "theories" for the word "knowledge."
Anyhow, what, concretely, are we supposed to be "doing?" The only concrete suggestions Vree offers are making known that there's a problem and documenting the details.
The Likoudises passed through Buffalo a long time ago. I remember them as being edgier then than James' current caramel-centeredness would suggest. Of course, in this diocese, Mr Rogers would be considered edgy.
If any of you have listened to the Pope during his visit to Bavaria, you have heard him say repeatedly that you can only do what is within your powers and you must leave the rest to God. That would be good advice for Dale Vree and for all of us. If we really trust in God, that is. Those like Vree and SSPX do not trust in God and take matters into their own hands. That is NOT saying that you let all things pass without trying to change them, but you have to know your own (considerable) limits and acknowledge them.
Christ talked about maintaining an attitude of vigilance, watchfulness for events yet to come. I can see Kathy saying, "ok, so I'm vigilant, NOW what? Sheesh!"
Stay awake, maintain the attitude, and the events will come. That's all Vree is saying.
As for the rest of this combox babble, I don't know, maybe Happy Hour has started early.
Judge David,
Note that I said the "Common Cup" i.e the cup of wine/blood sipped from by 100 or more parishioners. It is obvious that one sick parishioner will convert the cup to a cess pool of disease. Ditto for holy water fonts but even more so considering the larger number of parishioners who potentially put their virus/bacteria coated fingers in these fonts. Tis indeed a minor issue in making changes unless you are one of the unfortunate parishoners who contract a "disease of the font". 
One of God's greatest gifts to us is intelligence. Continued use of holy water fonts and common cups would IMHO be declared "significantly stupid" by any hygienist.
And when you get time, read Crossan's books or any of the analogous books about the historic Jesus. At the moment, you are appear to be stuck in a dark age rut of "old white guy" orthodoxy.
"Those like Vree and SSPX"
When you've finished preaching to us about charity, forbearance, and trusting in the Lord, Janice, will you take your little bucket of tar with you when you go?
I think Dale Vree and current RCIA types are simply two sides of the same coin. They both want to take all matters into their own hands. They don't realize that everything is on God's timetable, even the bad things. A little humility and modesty would seem to be in order, especially on the part of those on the right and left.
RFC,
You are absolutely right. We should go back to reception under one species ASAP. And sack the EMHCs on the way out, please.
Ralph,
It's not a bucket of tar, it's recognizing patterns of thought and behavior. And I just linked Vree and current RCIA types together, too. So you can be outraged by that as well. It's all based on people who think that human effort will solve everything and leave nothing for God.
And by the way, Ralph. If the attitude of the SSPX and their fellow travellers is so fruitful, why haven't they been more influential? My guess is because all they have engendered is an attitude of hate, misanthropy, and disobedience. All they really stand for is standing by themselves, without God.
Janice,
So then you think this notion of the Holy Spirit inspiring us to action, of God using us as the instruments of His will, the founding of religious orders, the Crusades, Lepanto, etc, etc -- is all a lot of testosteronish bunk. We should all be doing Catholic yoga.
This idea always seems to be most popular among those who believe that their oxen are in danger of being gored.
Janice,
Please don't attempt to maneuver me into the role of defender of the SSPX. You truly are determined to hang that rap on someone here, aren't you? Perhaps you should leave all that to God.
I heard that they did a study in which people who drank from the common cup were compared to people who didn't, and all were found to have the same incidence of communicable disease.
Still, we're way too casual about the Eucharist.
Realist,
Your so-called "historical Jesus" is a figment of your imagination and the diabolical product of JD Crossan's intellectual pride. Modernist exegetes think that they can stuff the Son of God into their historico-critical box of textual and archeological methods. The real Jesus is God and totally bursts asunder the foolish reasonings of fallen Man. Crossan et al have rejected the gift of faith and have established all-too-human reason as a substitute, and are thus blind from the very start of their vain "scientific" inquiries.
When you have a chance, read the article by Ratzinger that I shared several days ago, which refutes the dubious methods of your favorite authors.
I will stick with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, thank you very much.
"Judge David" ... such a clever retort. So original.
Paul is right. Realist, we're getting nowhere with this back and forth debate. I pity you and I pray for you. Your "enlightenment" is utter darkness, but believe me, I am not your judge. Your judge is the Lord Jesus. Lucky for you (and me), he is a merciful judge.
PP,
Prescription for the AmChurch:
Conversion of the Sisterhood/Deaconhood to the Priesthood.
Defrocking active homosexual priests and lesbian nuns.
Voting rights for the "pew peasants". Time to end "taxation without representation".
Election/removal of pastors, vicars and bishops by the vote of said "pew peasants".
Age limit for Popes. Lower age limit for bishops and pastors.
University theologians in leadership diocesan roles and as contributors to Catholic diocesan newspapers.
Parish homolies by university theologians.
J.D. Crossan and Karen Armstrong as consultants to the American Bishops.
Plus the list noted previously. You noted them as problems. I consider them essential motions.
How about your prescription for the AmChurch??
Is it an accident, Realist, that you consistently spell the word homilies homo-lies?
RfC, first off, you're not going to get anywhere telling people to defrock nuns. People will just freak out if you tell them that. Especially lesbian nuns, egads! They will panic and scream. No defrocking of nuns, okay?
Secondly, I've heard the preaching of university professors, and it is not especially inspired, creative, interesting, groundbreaking, etc. etc. Actually it's often less interesting, because almost everybody who speaks publicly for a long time without seriously challenging feedback gets into a very boring groove after a while. It's like a "style," like Tony Bennett. The content can be better, if their learning enables them to avoid more errors. But that's not exactly what you're after, is it?
Lastly, why don't you just let deacons be deacons? You got something against deacons? Or do you think they all would appreciate a "promotion" to the priesthood?
RfC, you really put yourself out there. So I would like to say that your "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" motif is at least in principle part of the Gospel. But I think that's not really our job to put into practice. According to the Magnificat (which I'm sure you consider deuterocanonical because of its derivation from an aramaic song of thanksgiving for harvest, or suchlike), GOD casts down the mighty and lifts up the lowly. The good news is that it will happen like you dream. The bad news is, our job is to wait for it to happen, not cause it ourselves.
God-----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Realist.
That's a fairly large gap.
Dr. Blosser,
Now that I'm done with my shouting match with RfC, I've taken the time to read your post. To answer the question in your last paragraph, I feel that the majority of us have little choice but to "offer it up". Confrontation requires radical humility, and I sorely lack the latter virtue. The best that I can do is offer tiny tokens of resistance, like folding my hands during the Our Father, and then accepting the withering stare of my neighbor when I turn to offer the sign of peace.
Those laypersons who have the requisite humility and credibility within the Church should be encouraged to take a stand and say "the rude thing" to Father when it needs to be said. We need more such prophetic spirits in the Church, and that petition should be included in our prayers.
Not only do I believe that BVI is actually on the move in a big way, but I also don't know how much good can possibly be done by focussing on the negative. To me, that mostly helps to identify what needs to be done. Music is crappy: Write good hymns. Preaching is crappy: Tell priests how good that one good homily was. Study, work, pray, refute, exhort. And away we go.
Also, complaining does two things I'm against in general. First, it "passes judgment before the day of the Lord." We don't know what the plan is, or what God might be doing through somebody else, that looks wrong to me, but might be actually right. Every good initiative in the history of the Church has been opposed--and usually by people in earnest, not just spiteful people. This is the most painful thing that a Christian can go through as a member of the Church, and I don't want to be the one doing that to somebody else. Secondly, complaining tends to lead to partisanship: me and Chris against Grega, Ralph against me, Ralph against me, Ralph--whoops, sorry, got stuck there. Conservatives against liberal wackos, progressives against stick in the mud reactionaries. Pretty soon all we care about is winning. Which means somebody has to lose. Somebody in the Church.
Lastly, I wish everybody would just relax and have a beer!!
Dale Vree is SO embarrassing. He calls homosexuality a sin. He keeps begging the Vatican to speak clearly about Hell. He says the liturgy is infected with modernism and tin-ear prose. He says the bishops who are supposed to be our special link to the Apostles have sold out to liberalism. He even has the gall to say pedophilia is a big problem in the priesthood, and suggest that some Bishops might be gay and the Vatican ought to exercise moral authority there, within its own ranks, before it plays at being the UN Diplomatic Corps. What a kook!
Kathy,
Someone will lose in the Church: there is a place for contention and that is upholding doctrine. The point is it does not have to be done brutally. It can be done in a spirit of confidence, i.e., in a spirit of faith. I think Dale Vree's approach is one of vindictiveness. But that doesn't mean we're one big tent, either. "Partisanship" is very appropriate, but one is not allowed to use any means to make that known. We have taken too much of our method from modern political debate. Charity should be the rule, but it is always allied with truth. Vree's method not only lacks charity, but he is very selective about his truth.
Look, you guys want a guy who plays the piano to play a Rambo.
No, Kathy, I just want a local bishop and parish priest with the courage of conviction to follow to the letter the guidelines mandated by Vatican Instructions, such as Redemptionis Sacramentum #157 and #158. As I said in the subsequent post, Sine poena nulla lex. This isn't limited to the Pope. It goes all the way down. For that matter, for those of us with families, it includues those of us who are parents.
If you want quick change ...
Janice, I understand that many things in the Church take a great deal of time to work out. The Church's teaching on transubstantiation, for example, wasn't dogmatically defined until the 13th century. But I'm not sure that's what we're up against here. If you've seen statistics such as those marshalled by Kenneth Jones' Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II, you can see that certain kinds of changes (not of the happy kind) have occurred in recent Church history with astounding rapidity. When the question is how to stop the hemorrhaging, does one ask the paramedics to slow down and take the long view?
I'm faculty advisor to our campus Newman Club. Most of our Catholic students on campus haven't been to Confession or Mass in years. Neither have their parents. They haven't been catechized. When they used to go to church, they got some watered down Catholic version of Barney and Friends. What's wrong with this picture that requires generations to fix?
Yes, I want a quick change. I want priests unafraid to start preaching what the Church teaches immediately on homosexuality, extramarital cohabitation, addiction to pornography, the predatory mindset produced by autoeroticism, the reality of hell, the dangers of materialism and conspicuous consumption, abortion, contraception, the dangers of identifying God with country, the whole nine yards. No more Barney and Friends. No more veil of illusion and self-deception. In short, what I want is honesty.
Those like Vree and SSPX do not trust in God and take matters into their own hands.
Wow, Janice! Wow! If I were fortified with the alcohol of John Wayne and the brass of Rambo, I don't think I could bring myself to say somthing quite that insinuating! I'm simply amazed.
Realist,
I must admit I am sympathetic to certain aspects of your prescription. For one thing, I love your constant reference to "pew peasants"! I resonate to that. And I admit there are times I wish we peasants had more leverage over things in church on Sunday, especially when the liturgical Nazis are so ruthless. But I suppose that's where we'd part company. The problem there, my view would be, is that the Nazis are imposing something foreign upon us that is alien to Mother Church. But I suppose you might plead otherwise, that this is a matter of popular taste, or something of that sort. I would just beg to differ, on the grounds that I think aesthetic norms aren't purely a matter of subjective preference, but are grounded in objective qualities of fittingness that are discernable if we take the time to study them.
Some of your prescriptions I couldn't go along with on the grounds that they're proscribed by the nature of the Church, the reality which she understands, and her teaching, such as ordination of women. On the other hand, those same grounds would lead me to assent to your suggestion: "Defrocking active homosexual priests and lesbian nuns."
I do like your idea of university theologians contributing to diocesan papers, provided that they do so under the authority of the local ordinary under the provisions of the mandatum. I'm open to the idea of lay homilists under the same conditions, but the conditions would have to be very carfully spelled out.
The reason they would have to be so carefully spelled out is that you might get someone preaching the views of Crossan and Armstrong, for instance, which are heterodox hipster intellectuals who've been bitten by the snake of post-Kantian critical epistemological distinctions between the noumenal/phenomenal, values/facts, historical/personal, etc., which just don't fly, I'm afraid.
But I do love your "pew peasants"!
PP,
Very balanced and charitable response to the Realist. I feel ashamed.
PP,
I assume your comment that Crossan and Armstrong (along with Borg, Funk, Vermes, Pagels, Meyer, Mack, Doherty, Ehrman, Eisenman, Fredriksen, Ludemann, Macoby, Meier, Sanders, Freke and Gandy, Horsley, Johnson, Wright, Strauss, Reimarus, Holtzmann, Bultmann, Kasemann, Robinson and Schweitzer) are "heterodox hipster intellectuals" are based on reading their books??
RfC, Try N.T. Wright.
And first, note the difference in length between Wright's explanation of his method and Meier's. (Dozens of pages difference.) Note the difference in that method from the Jesus Seminar's, wherein they TAKE A VOTE on whether Jesus *really* said something or not. Honestly. Somebody should be thinking, instead of swallowing every smooth drink of sludgewater he's handed.
Kathy,
The members of the Jesus Seminar review and discuss to include using their own substantial NT backgrounds before voting on a NT saying/miracle as to the historic nature of said saying or miracle.
Even the Vatican Councils and Congregations vote on issues. As do the Bishops and Cardinals on important issues.
Realist's point, however strained, is that one vote is pretty much the same as another. The fact that this is mostly nonsense won't quiet him, but there it is. Kathy and others around here seem to believe that God inspired men when He says so, and that therefore not all votes are equal. Voting among the Cardinals is an act of God, not democracy. Voting in a polling booth is an act of democracy, not God.
Re: Realist's impressive list of authors. I'm sure that PP or someone here could produce an equally long list of biblical scholars whose methods and conclusions are totally at odds with the Jesus Seminar. Pope Benedict XVI, Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, and Rev. N. T. Wright come immediately to mind. If we compare the authors on the opposing lists, who is right? From a purely academic standpoint, that question could be debated forever. The point that I've been trying to impress upon Realist, in my heavy-handed way, is that it's not a purely academic question. Fundamentally, it is a question of faith. I know that's not the answer that Realist wants to hear, but it's the only answer I can offer. All biblical scholarship begins with an a priori decision for or against faith. Biblical scholarship cannot produce faith; only God can produce faith. Nor can biblical scholarship destroy faith; it can participate in the destruction of faith, but only if the seeds of destruction have already been planted. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that JD Crossan's faith had already begun to unravel before he began his misguided quest for the "historical Jesus".
In the interests of full disclosure, I have not read anything written by JD Crossan and his cronies in the modernist exegetical movement, nor do I plan to read anything by such heterodox authors in the future. I do not need to read those authors, first of all because I am not a professional scholar, and second of all (and more importantly) because I already know them BY THEIR FRUITS: heresy, blasphemy, and apostasy.
St. Paul warned that bad company corrupts good morals. That is why, in a more vigilant day and age, authors like Crossan were put on the Index of Forbidden Books. Who needs 'em? Life is too short to spend it burrowing our noses in theological trash.
Dave,
But your knowledge base would be so much increased by reading any of the books by experts on the historic Jesus. One book that has been on at least one best seller list and translated into eight different languages is Crossan's The Historical Jesus. I recommend it for your X-mas gift list.
as per www.amazon.com:
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (Paperback)
by John Dominic Crossan (Author) on
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
List Price: $19.95
Price: $13.57
Used: $5.47
Realist:
I ask this question out of ignorance, so please make the assumption that I'm not posturing:
Do any of these scholars whom you cite, up to and including Crossan, accept as POSSIBLE that the Jesus Whom the Catholic Church announces through Her constant magisterium IS the Jesus of History?
Your list is funny. For example, you include Doherty, Freke and Gandy in the same list as Bultmann and (NT) Wright!
Ha Ha
www.timothyfreke.com/
"In their groundbreaking books The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy explored the secret teachings of the original Christians that lead to gnosis or spiritual enlivenment. In his seminars Tim presents the essence of these teachings in a revolutionary new way, making this ancient wisdom easily accessible and relevant today.
Gnosis is the experience of lucid living, a state of consciousness [...] Lucid living is being conscious that life is like a shared dream and we are dreaming right now.
[...]
Lucid living is a beautiful experience of communion and compassion, into which we dissolve when we see through the illusion of separateness and realise that all is one.
In these extraordinary seminars Tim offers the philosophical inspiration and practical guidance we need to live lucidly. If you want to wake up and experience gnosis for yourself, you have found what you are looking for."
Elaine Pagels is moving in this direction.
You list:
Johnson? Not Luke Timothy Johnson, I suppose.
Meyer? Not Ben F. Meyer, I expect.
==
I have nothing against Freke and Gandy, I am sure they work hard for a living, and I am sure that they are experts at what they do, and what they stand for -
I was laughing at your list, not at you, and not at them.
==
Well, I will grant you one thing, Bultmann and Freke and Gandy both see gnostic influences in Christianity.
==
"both see gnostic"
should be:
all see gnostic
==
""No," he says, "silence is not golden; it's yellow.""
Great stuff. Yes! In my opinion, you have to do what you have to do. Just make sure that you really should be doing it (according to, and in defence of, Church teachings), and then do it for the right reason. Choose your battles wisely, and with charity fight for authentic Catholic truth in a holy and responsible way, and prepared to lose, etc. Perhaps salvation is in the struggle.
As I get older, I get more and more cynical about the institutional church, and myself.
Vree and Suprenant each make good points, worthy of consideration. Beware of giving scandal.
==
Probably those of us who dislike speaking out should speak out more and also pray more, and maybe those who can never shut up should learn to do so on occasion. Speaking out is most productive when done by those who do not speak, even partially, in order to please themselves.
Dr. Blosser,
I really don't understand why you're amazed by my comments about Vree and SSPX. They do want to take all things into their own hands, decide for themselves who's right and wrong, dictate the course events should take, and becoming dissatisfied when all of their prescriptions are not followed to the letter. In sum, the SSPX was so dissatisfied, it went out and created its own church. Strident voices, like Vree's, are in that same tradition. You're also painting with too broad a brush. Perhaps in your area Church teachings are not being addressed sufficiently, but that is not true in other areas. Moreover, a new generation of priests is coming up, which is characterized by strict adherence to Church teaching. And it does take time to fix things, unfortunately, just as it took time to break them.
Chris,
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is based on the foundations of said Church. i.e. Gentile money, the whims of Pilate, the swords of Constantine, Paul's Second Coming promise, and of course the words and examples of Jesus. With this in mind, the Magisterium needs to be updated to the reality of what really happened 2000 years ago. And all references to prophets and prophecies should be deleted since even God does not know the future if you accept Schillebeeckx's rationale.
Of course, you can continue to believe in Divine omniscience as taught by the Magisterium but then you must accept that our good and all-merciful God allows birth defects and tragic natural disasters.
Here's a question for you, Realist, in all seriousness. You say that you are a practicing Catholic. I assume that you attend Mass. During the Creed, do you remain silent? Or do you recite the first article only (since you are obviously not an atheist)? Do you mumble over the Christological articles without giving them a thought? Or do you recite them while making a conscious mental reservation? I'm interested to hear how you deal with this perplexing issue.
'Of course, you can continue to believe in Divine omniscience as taught by the Magisterium but then you must accept that our good and all-merciful God allows birth defects and tragic natural disasters.'
For one who practices such a "mature" and "advanced" form of Christianity, this strikes me as rather infantile.
"I have nothing against Freke and Gandy"
This Jesus-Myth, Pagan-Jesus, Jesus-Never-Existed-but-was-invented-by-Gnostics sort of stuff has been refuted so many times, that I can only feel sorry for those who actually buy into it.
To me, it seems irrational and inconsistent to buy into it, and then under false pretenses remain Catholic. To my knowledge, I do not think Freke and Gandy do this.
==
Realist, voting is different at a Council than at Jesus Seminar conventions. The members of the Jesus Seminar are not bishops. There's no magisterial gravitas to their proceedings. Basically, who cares what they say?
And nobody has to read any book to know how distorting Crossan's work is. He's the kind of guy who can't say no to a TV camera. Every Christmas, every Easter, every dying pope, every pope sworn in--there's Crossan, mouthing off about the historical Jesus. Wait till Billy Graham passes over to the opposite shore--there will be Crossan, mouthing off. "Don't worry, there are no consequences to anything! Jesus was just this guy, you know? Constantine! Greek philosophy! Damn, Dan Brown made all that money! Gotta get me some of that!"
"[...] fight for authentic Catholic truth in a holy and responsible way, and [be] prepared to lose, etc. Perhaps salvation is in the struggle."
More and more I think that 'salvation is in the struggle'. But it still bothers me that so many good orthodox Catholics have to struggle against people who are ‘in the Church’. The liberal/progressives ‘in the Church’ do not apparently have the courtesy to leave the visible Church when they clearly think, teach and act against Catholicism. If they have lost their faith, they should seek help, or move on. Just my opinion.
==
Paul,
I suppose that we can hope that someone like Realist, by staying in the Church (if only to amuse himself by playing the role of turd in the punch bowl), will somehow benefit from the graces supplied, in spite of his repeated denials. The Lord must have some reason for keeping people like Realist in the Church, even as they insult him with every revolting blasphemy that comes out of their muddled minds and mocking mouths. Such merciful love is beyond human reckoning.
"And all references to prophets and prophecies should be deleted since even God does not know the future if you accept Schillebeeckx's rationale."
Why would Silly Beaks know better than anyone else whether or not God knows the future? Is Silly Beaks also among the prophets?
Jordan:
Silly Beaks is omniscient, of course. God isn't, but that's because he is merely an academic theory. Silly Beaks, on the other hand, is firmly rooted in relative truth and cynicism, the most essential tools for evangelization.
"Of course, you can continue to believe in Divine omniscience as taught by the Magisterium but then you must accept that our good and all-merciful God allows birth defects and tragic natural disasters."
So, what you are saying is: If God the Creator could foresee the less than perfect world that would result from his act of creation, he should not have created anything? He is at fault for creating and allowing a less than perfect world?
Or are you saying that God could not foresee that He was creating a less than perfect world, and therefore he is not totally at fault? But he still did not create a perfect world…. why? Is it because of a lack of intelligence, or lack of will, power, or materials, or…
Or he could not know, or did not want to know, that things could go bad?
Or are you saying that God was less than perfect, and/or too dumb and weak to create a perfect world?
Or would you, Gnostic-like, simply want to say that the Creator God is Evil, and by necessity or design makes or emanates a less than perfect world? The good God does not create worlds, especially imperfect or corruptible ones?
It seems that any 'good and all-merciful God', merely by his allowing a less than perfect world to exist at all, is in big trouble with Schillebeeckx or you? Do we want God to be a Dr. Kevorkian?
"even God does not know the future if you accept Schillebeeckx's rationale"
Where does he write this? Is this theodicy, or is he just pissed off at God?
The Son of God, the Divine Word, became man and shared our sufferings.
==
Paul,
In Church: The Human Story of God, Schillebeeckx says,
"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."
Bottom line: One of God's greates gifts to us is that of the Future.
Schillebeeckx was responding to the Dutch citizens who were blaming God for the North Sea storms that destroyed a significant number of levees resulting in a significant loss of life and severe storm damage. Sound familiar??
Let us all march to the New Magisterium based on the reality of the historic Jesus and his movement and its foundations i.e. Gentile money, the whims of Pilate, the swords of Constantine and Paul and his historic epistles, leaving out the embellished ones.
And Dave, my Mass is definitely guided by the new Magisterium of Reality and the gift of Future unencumbered by prophets and prophecies.
"Strident voices, like Vree's, are in that same tradition."
Janice,
And what tradition are those "voices" who council charity and repose in the bosom of the Church while tarring anyone they please with baseless, if not downright stupid, accusations under the loose cover of "recognizing patterns of thought and behavior"? At least when the FBI "profiles", it does so with some semblance of scientific method. You measure "blasphemous" talk and "intemperate" behavior by its variance from the golden mean of Janicespeak.
One minute counciling moderation and charity, the next flinging mud at Neuhaus, or Vree, that awful Rorate Caeli mob, or anyone else whose thoughts you happen not to fancy: such is the essence of the vindictiveness you attribute to Vree. It's not a bad example of hypocrisy, either.
God's knowledge cannot be limited. But since God is absolutely incomprehensible we have not a clear idea of what this means. One could say that from out his eternity he knows all events as they happen in a here and now beyond our perspectives of past and future, so that his knowledge does not destroy freedom or contingency. But of course that is only our human way of speculating.
'... my Mass ...'
In those two words, Realist, your hubris is enshrined.
Life is too short to waste another moment of it arguing with you.
Ralph,
You are childish. I can certainly take issue with SSPX, et al., for their stridency. Here is the common denominator: "I want what I want and I want it now." They do not listen to the Church, they listen only to themselves and thereby construct their own church and their own god.
Ralph,
you and your fellow travelers seem to take yourself and your personal opinions more than a tad too serious. Here you have arrived at a point where you 'know' what is best for church -and you 'know' that the Pope is not coming through properly, at least not to your enlightened satisfaction. So what is wrong when Janice puts two and two together for you. You know what the next logical step in store for some of you guys is.
Some will start your own 'proper' church - good luck.
Hope you have some deep pockets to go along with the tiring "we know what is best for you - trust us" rethoric.
"Schillebeeckx was responding to the Dutch citizens who were blaming God for the North Sea storms that destroyed a significant number of levees resulting in a significant loss of life and severe storm damage. Sound familiar??"
Why yes, it sounds just like Hurricane Katrina!
Zounds! Silly Beaks truly is among the prophets! He foretold Hurricane Katrina, years and years before it hit New Orleans!
Janice,
You present yourself as a "conservative" Catholic, who is dismayed, if not disgusted, with the depredations of liberals within the Church these past forty years. Yet, every fellow Catholic who speaks up against these same depredations seems to earn your displeasure somehow. Neuhaus? Too recent a convert -- his understanding of the issues is insufficiently pure. Vree? Rorate Caeli? SSPX fellow travellers -- serpents within the bosom of Janice's Church.
Is there anyone other than yourself, Janice, of sufficient purity and temperament to be able to open their mouths without drawing your censoriousness, and your calumny, down upon them?
It is certainly legitimate to counsel trust in the Lord, as does Suprenant. To point out that the necessary changes will not come overnight is to belabor a painfully obvious point. But if all you are willing to countenance is a passive toleration of the unacceptable, then the unacceptable, in the form of parrots like grega, is all you are likely to get. The Church Militant has not been rechristened the Church Recumbent.
You insist that things are getting better . . . uh, in places. Janice, coming from you I'm not even sure what that means. I do know that passive toleration of the unacceptable has gotten us, among so many other things, a corps of craven and contemptible bishops -- some of them sexual perverts, others merely dodgy, still others hapless careerists -- who "tolerated" homosexual behavior, even the seduction and rape of children, by their wretched priests. What has counsel such as Suprenant's, unsupplemented by willingness to act, done to repair this egregious damage to the Church? What has the "SSPXer" invective out of your own mouth accomplished?
I would suggest that, if the Church has "gotten better", it has done so in spite of the attitude you have presented in these comboxes.
Oregon Catholic Press!!
About a year ago I ran into an item on another blog (Ipsissima Verba, a good one that no one ever visits except Joe, the lonely liberal from Louisville). It concerned the cover of the new missalette offered by that very outfit.
It pictured the Pentecostal gathering, the apostles gathered around the table, tongues of fire in place, bearded faces, eyes heavenward -- OOPS! WHAT'S THIS?? There's a g-g-g-girl at the table! Could this be a mistake? Beardless, slim, feminine features, boy it sure looks like . . . .
The wife of this blog's proprietor went so far as to contact Oregon Catholic Press, and enquire about this seeming faux pas. The response was printed on the website, one of the sniffiest, snarkiest notes I've ever read from a businessman (that's essentially what these guys are) supposedly concerned with not upsetting the public: we do not interfere with artistic interpretation, the figure in question is John, who was after all, a lad, a comely unisex stripling, at the time, etc, etc.
Busted!!
The whole thing was absolutely hilarious. I just finished searching the Ipsissima Verba archives for this item. I couldn't find it. How I wish I could!
One of the other apostles looked like Jerry Garcia, too.
Oh, darn! I meant to file the preceding note in the "Sine poena nulla lex" combox!
PP, I was very hopeful when i read the questions at the end of your post & saw all the comments that I might find something of substance. These are questions that I too have struggled with but unfortunately there isn't much in this combox that helps me.
On the one hand, I can see that Leon S. is correct. I know that Catholics like Padre Pio responded to Church censure the way that Leon recommends and with amazing results.
On the other hand, I know that "evil flourishes when good men do nothing". Maybe part of the problem is that, in this culture at least, we tend to think of Leon's suggestions as "doing nothing" or a passive approach. Anyone who has ever tried to live out each of his suggestions on a daily, consistent basis knows that it takes very vigilent, active & holy determination to do...which is anything but a passive approach!
"All references to prophets and prophecies should be deleted since even God does not know the future if you accept Schillebeeckx's rationale."
The person who wrote this is guilty of many things, but being Catholic is not one of them. I think he would be more at home in the 'Barbara Streisand and James Brolin Talk About God' chat room.
GB,
Good point. You write: "Anyone who has ever tried to live out each of his suggestions on a daily, consistent basis knows that it takes very vigilent, active & holy determination to do...which is anything but a passive approach!"
True. I do think, though, as I suggested to Janice in response to her "quick change" remark, that some criteria are needed as to the kind of evils we're facing. Ordinarily we should be answerable to our clerics as to God. However, we know that our clerics are not impeccable, which opens the division St. Peter referred to in extremis, when he said "We must obey God rather than men." We're all answerable to God as well as to our clerics. David refused to kill Saul because he was God's anointed. But he didn't submit to allowing Saul to kill him when that was clearly Saul's intention. God's anointed was pathologically or diabolically disturbed at that point. What would St. Padre Pio have counseled the victims of priestly pederasty? What would he have counseled their parents or teachers? It's a fair question, is it not?
GB,
Whatever your past struggles with these matters may have amounted to, it appears from your own words that you have already resolved them. What, then, would that "something of substance" be? Controversy, or validation?
Jordan,
How very sad it is that you believe God was responsible for the destruction of New Orleans!!
I guess we really are "puppets" of the Almighty!!
Balderdash. I don't believe God was responsible for Katrina. It's Silly Beaks who predicted Katrina, so Katrina is obviously his fault, not God's.
Unless you're implying that Silly Beaks IS God, that is. That would explain a lot about you, if that is what you believe.
Perhaps, Jordan, the problem is that Sillybeaks does know the future and GOd doesn't. Therefore God is less than Sillybeaks? That would make someone guilty of the sin of pride....
Jordan,
I fail to see how Father Schillebeeckx predicted Katrina or any other natural disaster. Again his conclusion about God and Future:
" Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."
Again, I highly recommend Father Schillebeeckx's book, "Church, the Human Story of God".
"Perhaps, Jordan, the problem is that Sillybeaks does know the future and God doesn't. Therefore God is less than Sillybeaks? That would make someone guilty of the sin of pride...."
Yes indeed, and it would seem that the one guilty of the sin of pride is God, for pretending to know the future when in fact it is Silly Beaks who does.
The sheer absurdity of such things is exceeded only by the power of many in our day to read satire as if it were history.
Realist former Convergent, quoting Schillebeeckx, wrote
"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."
Of course this is wrong; God by definition is omniscient. Schillebeeckx's mistake is the anthropomorphosis of God. God is not bound by the constructs of "past" and "future" imposed upon us by our limited human perspective.
By screwing this up, Schillebeeckx informs us that he has nothing useful to contribute to intellectual dialogue.
Hmmm, Jordan, Chris and now Jonathan vs Father Edward Schillebeeckx, now who knows God better? Who has the maturity, education, background and publications? Who is one of God's annointed leaders of the Faith?
Common sense and Reason, two more God-gifts also verify Schillebeekx's conclusions. Again, as per this famous contemporary theologian, we are not God's puppets.
And again, if anyone knows of a Vatican rebuttal to Schillebeekx's conclusions, please cite the reference.
Realist:
As I have said in other comboxes, our opinion is nothing in any point of Church teaching which we refuse to uphold. Father Schillebeeckx's position can not be reconciled with the God of revelation. That God is omniscient, which a god who doesn't know the future can not be. Your argument (and Reverend Father's argument) collapses because it begins from a false premise.
Chris,
You might want to review the history of our Church's views about omniscience.
The history of the Church's views on omniscience is very simple to tell: in the beginning, we believed God is omniscient. Then we continued to believe He is omniscient. Today we still believe He is omniscient.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, RfC.
"And again, if anyone knows of a Vatican rebuttal to Schillebeekx's conclusions, please cite the reference."
Why don't you try reading the First Vatican Council's dogmatic constitition on the Catholic faith? In particular, you should read Chapter One:
1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
2. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.
3. This one true God, by his goodness and almighty power, not with the intention of increasing his happiness, nor indeed of obtaining happiness, but in order to manifest his perfection by the good things which he bestows on what he creates, by an absolutely free plan, together from the beginning of time brought into being from nothing the twofold created order, that is the spiritual and the bodily, the angelic and the earthly, and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body [10].
4. Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well [11]. All things are open and laid bare to his eyes [12], even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.
1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.
4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.
5. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.
Father Silly Beaks denies several of these dogmas of the Catholic faith, so he has lost all authority to declare to anyone what the Catholic faith is and isn't. It doesn't
Father Silly Beaks denies several of these dogmas of the Catholic faith, so he has lost all authority to declare to anyone what the Catholic faith is and isn't. It doesn't matter what a muddle-head like him may say or think about God if he cannot understand and accept the doctrines taught by Holy Mother Church.
Perhaps someone would like to explain who a God who is ignorant of the future could possibly be "almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection." How can it be said of an ignorant, weak, pitiable deity such as Silly Beaks believes in that, "All things are open and laid bare to his eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures"?
Jordan,
As with the historic Jesus, there is a lot of Church history with respect to omniscience. Copy and paste what you will about Vatican councils and dogma. The truth is that Schillebeeckx views on our God-gifts of Future and Free Will have been discussed and debated for even longer than the historic Jesus.
And I see nothing in the Vatican Council's documentation that negates God-gifts of Future and Free Will.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Inf...on_Christianity
"It was not until the fusion of Platonic and Aristotelian theology with Christianity that the concepts of strict omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence became commonplace. "
And some added questions at http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/...m/
freewill.html.
(No one from the Vatican will be looking over your shoulders when you review this last reference.)
"Free Will contradicts the idea of an Omniscient God"
"Free Will. Religion teaches that God gave us free will, so that we may make our own decisions, decide our own futures, with no coercion from God. If we do good things or bad things it is entirely down to us, God just sits back and watches over us.
This makes no sense at all.
If God knows all things throughout time (as he must, if he is omniscient), then he knows every action I perform, every decision I make throughout my life, before I have done them. If God knows exactly what I am going to do on 10th July, 2030, then how can I do anything other than that? "
God bless God for our gifts of Future, Freedom and Free Will!!!
Realist:
I'm surprised that someone as well read as you can't fathom something this simple.
I'm a school teacher. I have learned certain details about how my students operated, both individually and collectively. I can predict with some accuracy which students will always have their homework completed, and which will nearly always fail tests. I don't cause any of this. If silly, feeble, fallible, mortal me can see this in fellow mortals, why is it impossible for a God Who is so high above mortal man that words can not express the distance to be able to KNOW what I am going to do today, tomorrow or whenever without causing it? Furthermore, as you should also know, God lives outside of time as we understand it, so what appears linear to you and me is seen, known, and understood in the present by God.
Chris,
See also the comments at http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/...m/ freewill.html to include God living outside of time scenario etc.
"And I see nothing in the Vatican Council's documentation that negates God-gifts of Future and Free Will."
I suppose by "Future and Free Will," you mean God being ignorant of the future. The Vatican Council explicitly taught that God knows everything, including the future. But as Chris said, knowing what we will do in the future is not the same thing as predetermining what we will do.
God cannot be other than omniscient. If He isn't omniscient, then He isn't Himself. But omniscience does not contradict human free will. We may not be capable of understanding how that works, but an inability to comprehend is not the same as proof of irreconcilable contradiction.
Oh, and might I suggest you find a real source of information instead of turning to the constantly rewritten and frequently unreliable Wikipedia? The omniscience of God is taught explicitly all over the Old and New Testaments. There has never been a time when the Church has not believed and taught that God knows the future, no matter what the desktop experts at Wikipedia may or may not say.
And when it comes to the questions of God's omnipotence and human free will, you also might want to consult someone who can reason his way out of a wet paper bag, rather than turning to Adrian Barnett's embarrassingly muddle-headed attempts to disprove God's existence.
But that raises the question of whether or not you believe in God's existence at all. After all, the calibre of weapon you've chosen to attack God's omniscience is such as would destroy belief in His existence. Are you really sure you want to follow the logical implications of your beliefs to their necessary ends of atheism and nihilism?
A further thought this morning: As for God's omniscience supposedly making free will impossible, I also note that God is omnipotent, which would indicate to me that He has the ability to create a universe in which real free will exists without being in conflict with His omniscience.
But then I also believe in crazy things like a man named Jesus actually being simultaneously God and Man. If I have the ability to believe in that truth, it stands to reason I can also believe other things that no human being has the ability to understand.
Jordan,
Read some books on the historical Jesus and maybe you can correct some of the "craziness" we have all suffered from for the last 2000 years.
And considering our God-gifts, we all have a bit of God in us helping us to see the correct paths in "free-willing" and establishing a Future of the Good Word.
I've read the four most important books every written about the historical Jesus. That's one of the reasons why I'm a Catholic, as opposed to whatever it is you are.
Commenting by HaloScan
