A Response to Dr. Philip Blosser:
Dr. Blosser's words will be in green font. The text which Dr. Blosser emailed to me (and to which I am responding here) can be accessed HERE.
Dear Shawn,
Hello Dr. Blosser:
Thanks for your detailed response.
You are welcome.{1}
I understand all about time constraints and difficulties of engaging the sorts of concerns raised by Mr. David Palm in New Oxford Review.
To David's credit, I am far more inclined to respond to him than to most of his allies.
As I'm sure you would agree, one of the principal challenges facing us in the Church today is the problem of ignorance and confusion. It is no longer a matter of large numbers of rank-and-file Catholics (lapsed or "practicing") rejecting Church teachings or "dissenting" from them; many of them have not the vaguest knowledge of what those teachings are. And, ironically, the more widespread the ignorance about Catholic teaching, the greater the prejudice against the Catholic Church.
Indeed.
The fact that "the truth is out there" somewhere, in encyclicals and historical documents of the Church seems of little avail when one is staring priests and catechists in the face who don't believe in hell or purgatory, and who deny the importance of sacramental confession, observance of holy days of obligation, rubrics of Mass, or importance of knowing the Bible.
This is also true.
It may be that writers such as David Palm are wrong about this or that detail of their patristic interpretation, etc.
They usually are.
But my interest is with what animates their concern in the Church today, which I do not think can be
easily dismissed as a matter of misreading this Church Father or that encyclical. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge . . ." (Hosea 4:6)
Most who call themselves "traditionalists" make the mistake of not handling problematical issues with a proper Catholic way. Hence, they gripe about Assisi and incidents like that forgetting that it is contrary to the dogma of the papal supremacy to refuse assent to the Apostolic See not only in matters of faith and morals but also in matters which concern the Church's general good as well as her rights and discipline.
Catholic dogma is clear that the pope has full authority in the areas of "feeding" (teaching), ruling (directives or disciplines), but also in "guiding" the Church. These distinctions were spelled out by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura: an encyclical that "trads" like to prooftext but obviously have not read very carefully.{2} Likewise, the practice or utilizing terms such as "Neo-Catholic", and "traditionalist Catholic" was clearly condemned by Pope Benedict XV in Ad Beatissimi.{3}
That same pope condemned those who would appeal to the press or media outlets against a judgment or directive of the Holy See.{4} Yet what essentially has David and his allies done repeatedly over the years??? They attempt to defend this dissidence under the umbrella of Canon 212 but that dog does not hunt as Pete Vere has noted on a few occasions.{5} But I am getting ahead of myself here.
Returning to the subject of Quanta Cura and the threefold division it makes (feeding, ruling, and guiding), the trads usually toe the line with the first one and sometimes with the second one. But even people such as David Palm appear to me to be falling short of the third one which deals with the Pope's ability to set the agenda for how the Church is to handle issues in a given epoch of time.
As far as David's other essay goes, I have proposed a way of approaching it on one of your weblogs. Here is the link.
In closing, I agree with you that the concern that animates their positions is important. However, a lot of it is simply a lack of spiritual maturity on their side -something I made note of in many of my writings particularly my August 2003 essay response to Chris Ferrara and my last essay response to David Palm. Previous writings alluded to it and in revising my treatise in late 2002 early 2003, I added a section I wrote in March 2002 specifically for addressing this subject which had become much more obvious to me than it once was. {6} I have enclosed that section in this note as you may find it of interest.
We need your resources.
Fortunately, I have written a lot in the past five years so I can draw on that material as needed. I will do what I can but admittedly because of time constraints being tighter than ever now, I have to be more selective in the topics I discuss.
Notes:
{1} I may blog the bulk of that response later on.
{2} [We cannot] pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. [Pope Pius IX: Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura §5 (c. 1864) as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]
{3} It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §23 as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]
{4} [W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §22 as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]
{5} See this link for details:
No, Canon 212 Does Not Grant An Imprimatur To Publish Irresponsible Opinions
{6} Psychological Factors:
As none of the changes made to the liturgy in any way infringes upon unalterable Tradition, none of them are valid excuses for avoiding the Pauline liturgy. (Those with the licit option to attend the Tridentine Mass in their dioceses can do so of course.) The only arguments can be made are ones of personal preference and not for the invalidity of the Pauline Rite. (And arguments about any rite being "superior" are by their very nature very subjective judgments.)
Objectively speaking, since the merits of the Mass are infinite regardless of the rite used, arguments from any position except those of personal preference are illegitimate and those who claim otherwise are opposing themselves to the judgment of the Church. Indeed often statements about one rite or another being "superior", one rite providing "greater motivation to pray better" or the claims that "I get more out of it" are statements that this writer has heard different Catholics make about the various rites sanctioned by the Catholic Church. (Including some converts who have told him that understanding what is said at mass with the newer rite was a pivotal part of their conversion process.) Whichever liturgy this attitude is taken towards, it is a dangerous principle for reasons that will now be outlined in brief.
One constantly hears in the west that many people do not go to church because they "do not get anything out of it". Now many Catholics claim that they attend a rite of mass that they are "motivated to pray better" with, and a lot of them justify rending the cloak of Christ by partaking in liturgy with groups that are schismatic either de facto or de jure. Hence, that this attitude can lead to shipwreck of the Faith, it must be repudiated.
The reader can start by asking himself or herself why they are "better motivated" - if indeed they are - at a particular liturgy. They need to ask themselves why they "get more out of" one liturgy than another. They need to really focus on the fact that their motivation may seriously be misplaced - because it is. An easterner would hear a statement like "I do not get anything out of it" and be shocked that someone could be so shallow, so selfish. The reason for this is that the Easterners recognize oftentimes that what one "gets out of it", is the inestimable privilege of glorifying Almighty God.
This has nothing to do with what you the reader subjectively feel. Instead, it is recognizing that Mass is to honour the Lord of Hosts. Ergo, if you cannot place the honour of the Lord above your own personal motivations, then you are not approaching worship as a Catholic should. This is how a Catholic who prefers a rite of mass that is not licitly celebrated in their dioceses needs to approach this subject, lest they be like the "spiritual gluttons" spoken of by the great mystic and Doctor of the Church St. John of the Cross:
"You will find that many of these persons [spiritual gluttons] are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure, thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would. For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, faint-hearted, and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God..."
"These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures have another great imperfection, which is that they are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross; for the soul that is given to sweetness naturally has its face set against all self-denial, which is devoid of sweetness..."
"And many of these would have God will that which they themselves will, and are fretful at having to will that which He wills, and find it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. Hence it happens to them that oftentimes they think that therein they find not their own will and pleasure is not the will of God; and that on the other hand, when they themselves find satisfaction, God is satisfied. Thus they measure themselves by God acting quite contrary to that which He Himself taught in the Gospel, saying: 'That he who should lose his will for His sake, the same shall gain it and he that desires to gain it, the same shall lose it.'"
"These persons likewise find it irksome when they are commanded to do that wherein they take no pleasure. Because they aim at spiritual sweetness and consolation, they are too weak to have the fortitude and bear the trials of perfection. They resemble those who run fretfully away from everything that is hard, and take offense at the Cross, wherein consist the delight of the spirit. The more spiritual a thing is, the more irksome they find it, for as they seek to go about spiritual matters with complete freedom and according to the inclination of their will, it causes them great sorrow and repugnance to enter upon the narrow way, which says Christ, is the way of life." ...
The reader needs to honestly assess if they are acting in the same manner as the "spiritual gluttons" outlined in St. John of the Cross' work. This writer asserts that anyone who feels the need to disobey their ecclesiastical superiors in any area (except of course for a command to sin) is spiritually immature. A spiritually mature Catholic, who prefers a rite of mass that is not licitly celebrated in their dioceses, does not disobey their ecclesiastical superiors by attending illegally celebrated masses by clerics who do not have the communion of the Holy Father. This will be dealt with in greater detail in the upcoming treatise urls lest the reader falsely ascribe as "non-authoritative" or "optional" teachings or directives which are in reality binding. (Or ascribing ecclesiastical communion to those who do not have it.) [I. Shawn McElhinney: From the treatise "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" Part V (c. 2003, 2000)]
For bibliographical and notes on this entry, see url five at this link.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
"Slouching Towards Gommorah" Dept.
Your weblog host received this link (among other materal) from Kathryn Lively earlier today:
Stop the Morning-After Pill! Over-the-Counter approval to be decided by the FDA May 21. No age limits, no medical supervision, no parental involvement!
Please take a moment and read the material at that link carefully.
As the arguments that undergird these subjects are so similar, We at Rerum Novarum remind the readers that your weblog host mused on the teen smoking/teen sex double standard last year. For the record, Our views have not changed and the above link outlines a classic example of such hypocrisy. We therefore, take the time to reiterate anew our previous observations on this obvious double standard and exhort you all to contact your senators and representatives. {1}
To facilitate contact of these representatives, if it helps any, We release from our normal site copyright any and all of the material in the aforementioned link. The readers of this weblog may thereby utilize it as they see fit without concern for proper crediting thereof.{2} Our only recommendations is to apply such points -if they are utilized at all- with measured care. It is imperative that anyone contacting their congresspeople try to avoid coming across as someone that can be typecast as a fringe lunatic. There are very good arguments in our favour consistency-wise which can be used to advance this cause. Please try to approach it from that issue however passionate you may be on this issue. (And We trust that you are plenty passionate about it.)
Notes:
{1} See the link as supplied by Kathryn Lively. Here is a sample letter to send to congresspeople and the president which you will find among the materials at the aforementioned link:
Dear Senator ____________ (or Congressman _____________):
I understand the FDA is set to decide whether or not the morning-after-pill (MAP) will go over-the-counter on 21 May 2004. I believe that pressure from you and your colleagues could stop this
dangerous drug from being made available to very young girls without medical supervision or parental knowledge. Would you please advise the FDA to cease and desist? If MAP is approved, then it won't be long before the FDA makes the birth control pill available over-the-counter. This will further compromise the sanctity of life and the integrity of the family.
Thank you.
(Signed)
Your name
Address
City, State. Zip
Phone
It also would not hurt to remind your congresspeople (and any senators you have who are up for election in 2004) that you will be active in that election and will remember how they stood on this crucial issue. Again though, please do this tactfully for the best possible effect.
{2} However, for all other post entries -along with any essays written by your humble servant- the site copyright and respective essay copyrights remain intact, stable, and valid all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Your weblog host received this link (among other materal) from Kathryn Lively earlier today:
Stop the Morning-After Pill! Over-the-Counter approval to be decided by the FDA May 21. No age limits, no medical supervision, no parental involvement!
Please take a moment and read the material at that link carefully.
As the arguments that undergird these subjects are so similar, We at Rerum Novarum remind the readers that your weblog host mused on the teen smoking/teen sex double standard last year. For the record, Our views have not changed and the above link outlines a classic example of such hypocrisy. We therefore, take the time to reiterate anew our previous observations on this obvious double standard and exhort you all to contact your senators and representatives. {1}
To facilitate contact of these representatives, if it helps any, We release from our normal site copyright any and all of the material in the aforementioned link. The readers of this weblog may thereby utilize it as they see fit without concern for proper crediting thereof.{2} Our only recommendations is to apply such points -if they are utilized at all- with measured care. It is imperative that anyone contacting their congresspeople try to avoid coming across as someone that can be typecast as a fringe lunatic. There are very good arguments in our favour consistency-wise which can be used to advance this cause. Please try to approach it from that issue however passionate you may be on this issue. (And We trust that you are plenty passionate about it.)
Notes:
{1} See the link as supplied by Kathryn Lively. Here is a sample letter to send to congresspeople and the president which you will find among the materials at the aforementioned link:
Dear Senator ____________ (or Congressman _____________):
I understand the FDA is set to decide whether or not the morning-after-pill (MAP) will go over-the-counter on 21 May 2004. I believe that pressure from you and your colleagues could stop this
dangerous drug from being made available to very young girls without medical supervision or parental knowledge. Would you please advise the FDA to cease and desist? If MAP is approved, then it won't be long before the FDA makes the birth control pill available over-the-counter. This will further compromise the sanctity of life and the integrity of the family.
Thank you.
(Signed)
Your name
Address
City, State. Zip
Phone
It also would not hurt to remind your congresspeople (and any senators you have who are up for election in 2004) that you will be active in that election and will remember how they stood on this crucial issue. Again though, please do this tactfully for the best possible effect.
{2} However, for all other post entries -along with any essays written by your humble servant- the site copyright and respective essay copyrights remain intact, stable, and valid all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.
Dear Shawn,
Hello Gregory:
[N]ow that I'm in touch with you, I would like to ask a few questions. Hope you don't mind.
I do not mind.
First, I have a lot of news pieces, which are relevant to "traditionalism", that I've put in files on my computer. I was entertaining the idea of posting some of them on the LIdless Eye blog, but I would like your opinion first. What do you think I should do with them??
Feel free to post them there.
Furthermore, I believe (and I'm sure you agree) that traditionalists, in attacking VII's teachings (and the Pope's) don't understand the concept of
"paradox" (GK Chesterton had some interesting stuff to say on that).
Yes, I have long thought that was one of the significant problems that they have as a rule. (Though there are of course exceptions.)
But here is were the trouble is. If we can use the argument "don't disagree with Church teachings merely because you don't understand how they are consistent; things are more complex then they seem", how can one, like myself who is not a theologian, say for that a certain position is "immoral" or "heretical". It seems to me that once you say that paradoxes exists which can certainly seem like contradictions, you have eliminated the foundation for making judgments on peoples theological opinions.
This is a good question. The best answer you can give in my opinion is that you do not judge anyone. As a Catholic we leave such judgments of the internal forum to God and of the external forum to the Church. If the Church defines something as being de fide, then those who do not accept this teaching as such are heretics. We of course do not make the demarcation that strict but instead recognize most non-Catholics as heretics only in the improper sense. And because this sense is improper,{1} and has long been recognized as such,{2} we no longer utilize terms like "heretic" or "schismatic" on the broadbrush basis as they were once used.
Also, on your blog today you have a post about "How grammatically sound are you?".
It is one of those web quizzes. Things were rather hectic today and I needed a bit of levity.
I was just wondering why you didn't think that picture, with it's title, wasn't somewhat disrespectful to God. I'm not saying that *I* believe it was disrespectful, but I think some people would feel that way.
It was a bit irreverent perhaps but that is all in my opinion.
I'd like to know how you would defend that.
I amended that post a bit to address this concern. You will see my answer to that question there.
Finally, (this is a little off topic) what is your opinion of modern art?
My view of modern art is not one that I can give in a brief sentence or two. Perhaps another time I will go over that subject. In the interim, I will simply note that my view of most modern art is akin to my view of 95% of what is published on all subjects ala the dictum of the great Arthur Jones. (Not the guy who writes for NCR.)
Notes:
{1} Since it applies to a denial of material that requires belief rather than a conscious and willful active rejection or doubt which is properly referred to as formal. For this reason, the Church has seen fit in recent decades to no longer use such improper terminology and instead only apply it to those who can be reasonably discerned by her to be rejecting such truths in a formal sense.
{2} Schismatic. In its strict sense, one who voluntarily, knowingly, and deliberately separates himself from the unity of the Church. Ordinarily one who is so separated is called a schismatic regardless of the circumstances, but "anyone born and brought up in a schismatic church and turned away in good faith from the Roman Church, not knowing her to be the one true church...is called by the epithet 'schismatic' only in an improper sense; he is not in fact party to the sin of schism" (Jugie, Theol. Dogm. I. pg. 17). Such is apparently the state for the overwhelming majority of non-Catholic Christians today. [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pgs. 476-477 (c. 1941)]
Dear Shawn,
Hello Gregory:
[N]ow that I'm in touch with you, I would like to ask a few questions. Hope you don't mind.
I do not mind.
First, I have a lot of news pieces, which are relevant to "traditionalism", that I've put in files on my computer. I was entertaining the idea of posting some of them on the LIdless Eye blog, but I would like your opinion first. What do you think I should do with them??
Feel free to post them there.
Furthermore, I believe (and I'm sure you agree) that traditionalists, in attacking VII's teachings (and the Pope's) don't understand the concept of
"paradox" (GK Chesterton had some interesting stuff to say on that).
Yes, I have long thought that was one of the significant problems that they have as a rule. (Though there are of course exceptions.)
But here is were the trouble is. If we can use the argument "don't disagree with Church teachings merely because you don't understand how they are consistent; things are more complex then they seem", how can one, like myself who is not a theologian, say for that a certain position is "immoral" or "heretical". It seems to me that once you say that paradoxes exists which can certainly seem like contradictions, you have eliminated the foundation for making judgments on peoples theological opinions.
This is a good question. The best answer you can give in my opinion is that you do not judge anyone. As a Catholic we leave such judgments of the internal forum to God and of the external forum to the Church. If the Church defines something as being de fide, then those who do not accept this teaching as such are heretics. We of course do not make the demarcation that strict but instead recognize most non-Catholics as heretics only in the improper sense. And because this sense is improper,{1} and has long been recognized as such,{2} we no longer utilize terms like "heretic" or "schismatic" on the broadbrush basis as they were once used.
Also, on your blog today you have a post about "How grammatically sound are you?".
It is one of those web quizzes. Things were rather hectic today and I needed a bit of levity.
I was just wondering why you didn't think that picture, with it's title, wasn't somewhat disrespectful to God. I'm not saying that *I* believe it was disrespectful, but I think some people would feel that way.
It was a bit irreverent perhaps but that is all in my opinion.
I'd like to know how you would defend that.
I amended that post a bit to address this concern. You will see my answer to that question there.
Finally, (this is a little off topic) what is your opinion of modern art?
My view of modern art is not one that I can give in a brief sentence or two. Perhaps another time I will go over that subject. In the interim, I will simply note that my view of most modern art is akin to my view of 95% of what is published on all subjects ala the dictum of the great Arthur Jones. (Not the guy who writes for NCR.)
Notes:
{1} Since it applies to a denial of material that requires belief rather than a conscious and willful active rejection or doubt which is properly referred to as formal. For this reason, the Church has seen fit in recent decades to no longer use such improper terminology and instead only apply it to those who can be reasonably discerned by her to be rejecting such truths in a formal sense.
{2} Schismatic. In its strict sense, one who voluntarily, knowingly, and deliberately separates himself from the unity of the Church. Ordinarily one who is so separated is called a schismatic regardless of the circumstances, but "anyone born and brought up in a schismatic church and turned away in good faith from the Roman Church, not knowing her to be the one true church...is called by the epithet 'schismatic' only in an improper sense; he is not in fact party to the sin of schism" (Jugie, Theol. Dogm. I. pg. 17). Such is apparently the state for the overwhelming majority of non-Catholic Christians today. [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pgs. 476-477 (c. 1941)]
You are a GRAMMAR GOD!
If your mission in life is not already to
preserve the English tongue, it should be.
Congratulations and thank you!
How grammatically sound are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
In light of how this picture could possibly be construed, it seems appropriate to note that any similarities between anyone either living or dead is purely coincidental as far as I am concerned.
My #1 result for the SelectSmart.com selector, Medieval Figure Selector, is Justanian
To quote my late father (when he paraphrased Dirty Harry with deliberate sarcasm): "Marvelous!!!"
Among all the medievals on this list, they tell me that I am most like the Emperor that harrassed Pope Vigilius??? This is not exactly someone I would have picked from that list. For those who are interested, here was the rest of the top 20 in order of closest match:
2) Charlemagne
That one would have been much more acceptable to me.
3) King Arthur
This would have probably been first if I was choosing them myself.
4) Constantine
I am starting to see a pattern here...
5) Frederick Barbarossa
I would have liked this one too...
6) King Alfonso
7) Richard the Lionhearted
8) Pope Urban XVII
Are there only monarchs and popes in this quiz or is it simply my draw that my answers are thus far all of this categorization??? With regards to "Pope Urban XVII", I presume they meant Pope Urban VIII there. (Cannot say I would object to that one based on what I know of Pope Urban VIII.)
9) William the Conquerer
10) King Clovis
11) Pope Leo I
12) Saladin
13) Theodora
I am more like an Empress than a man in tights apparently...
14) Robin Hood
15) Ghengis Kahn
Not "Jenjis Kahn" as Senator Kerry referred to him back in 1971 before the US Senate...
16) Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (El Cid)
17) Zoe
18) Joan of Arc
19) Belasarius
20) Mohammed
I am glad that Mohammed was dead last on that list. I can deal with most of the rest -even if wincingly at times- but I want no similarity to someone who invents their own religion. I may be dogmatic at times but I am never that dogmatic.
To quote my late father (when he paraphrased Dirty Harry with deliberate sarcasm): "Marvelous!!!"
Among all the medievals on this list, they tell me that I am most like the Emperor that harrassed Pope Vigilius??? This is not exactly someone I would have picked from that list. For those who are interested, here was the rest of the top 20 in order of closest match:
2) Charlemagne
That one would have been much more acceptable to me.
3) King Arthur
This would have probably been first if I was choosing them myself.
4) Constantine
I am starting to see a pattern here...
5) Frederick Barbarossa
I would have liked this one too...
6) King Alfonso
7) Richard the Lionhearted
8) Pope Urban XVII
Are there only monarchs and popes in this quiz or is it simply my draw that my answers are thus far all of this categorization??? With regards to "Pope Urban XVII", I presume they meant Pope Urban VIII there. (Cannot say I would object to that one based on what I know of Pope Urban VIII.)
9) William the Conquerer
10) King Clovis
11) Pope Leo I
12) Saladin
13) Theodora
I am more like an Empress than a man in tights apparently...
14) Robin Hood
15) Ghengis Kahn
Not "Jenjis Kahn" as Senator Kerry referred to him back in 1971 before the US Senate...
16) Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (El Cid)
17) Zoe
18) Joan of Arc
19) Belasarius
20) Mohammed
I am glad that Mohammed was dead last on that list. I can deal with most of the rest -even if wincingly at times- but I want no similarity to someone who invents their own religion. I may be dogmatic at times but I am never that dogmatic.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
New Perspectives on Paul (NT Wright)
Very rarely will your humble servant recommend a work he has not yet read. However, on occasion, a friend whose perspectives he respects will recommend something for reading. In the case of the above article, it was recommended by Dr. Art Sippo. It is therefore offered to you at this time and your weblog host will personally begin reading it as soon as this posts. The article is about the controversial New Perspective and the observations of one of its more prolific exponents.
As this writer is one who believes that the most fruitful manner of approaching dialogue is to look for common ground from which to strive for a consensus{1} -and who seeks to properly represent the views of others- in that spirit this article is presented as another way of looking at the writings of St. Paul. However, as the writer of the above article is not Catholic, he feels the need to note this up front. This is properly done so that (i) Catholics will understand going in that there will be some areas they are not going to agree with and (ii) as a pretext for requesting to everyone not to dismiss NT Wright's entire paradigm for those reasons.
Note:
{1} However, this writer would be remiss to not note here that there are certain areas where he diverges with NT Wright and quite sharply at that. On the subject of justification these differences can be noted in this writer's essay on justification written about four years ago.
Very rarely will your humble servant recommend a work he has not yet read. However, on occasion, a friend whose perspectives he respects will recommend something for reading. In the case of the above article, it was recommended by Dr. Art Sippo. It is therefore offered to you at this time and your weblog host will personally begin reading it as soon as this posts. The article is about the controversial New Perspective and the observations of one of its more prolific exponents.
As this writer is one who believes that the most fruitful manner of approaching dialogue is to look for common ground from which to strive for a consensus{1} -and who seeks to properly represent the views of others- in that spirit this article is presented as another way of looking at the writings of St. Paul. However, as the writer of the above article is not Catholic, he feels the need to note this up front. This is properly done so that (i) Catholics will understand going in that there will be some areas they are not going to agree with and (ii) as a pretext for requesting to everyone not to dismiss NT Wright's entire paradigm for those reasons.
Note:
{1} However, this writer would be remiss to not note here that there are certain areas where he diverges with NT Wright and quite sharply at that. On the subject of justification these differences can be noted in this writer's essay on justification written about four years ago.
Briefly on the Recent CDWDS Document:
(Dialogue With F. John Loughnan)
This is a response to my good friend and fellow Inquisitor F. John Loughnan. His words will be in blue font with the words he responded to in black font. My words will be in regular font.
Fr Joe put this link on his home page. It is the answer to all the
abuses to the Liturgy of the Mass that have been going on and that they
are to stop immediately per Rome. Now let's see what happens.
Well, the "form" of the abusers regarding prior (and similar) documents has been: Oh yeah (yawn) - another bloody Roman document to file(read "burn")
This indeed has been the case.
Where are the "teeth" in this document to deal with the abusers; and how many bishops have the will to see it through?
As far as how many bishops have the will to see it through it is too early to tell at this stage obviously. However, it would seem that after the scandals in recent years, the bishops will as a rule be more inclined to toe the line on these issues than they were previously. From a merely human standpoint they have to restore their own credibility after all. And any belief that such things can be achieved while continuing the saimo saimo approach as before on this matter is delusional.
Also, it must not be overlooked that we who have the ability to get this in the hands of our pastors have to do our part to do that. Otherwise, it will once again be "so much sound and fury signifying nothing" much as the vast majority of supposed outrage is. This is not the 1970's or 1980's where information exchanges are difficult. Instead, everyone reading this can download the text and print it in a matter of minutes and take it to church on Sunday after they have carefully read it and highlighted within it the particular abuses or negligences that they have seen regularly at their parish from the various priests and deacons, etc.
I emphasize regularly because this is not a case of jumping on Fr. X for missing a word in the canon last week when this is not a pattern for him. In those situations we need to give the benefit of the doubt of course. But there are other situations -even in the best of parishes- where this is not necessary to do. The Instruction from the CDWDS is not ambiguous with regards to what is allowed and what is not.
As far as the "teeth" goes, I was actually surprised that this document had a harsher tone than is common for statements from the popes or their dicasteries in recent years. It is way too early to know one way or the other how this will go but if the recent observations of Fr. Andrew Greeley are correct, the support structure is there now in many areas where before it was lacking. We shall see.
Refer [HERE] for the latest "bun-fight" with my Archbishop.
Indeed I have been following situation with Archbishop Hart. You have handled yourself in this unfortunate situation in a manner that I believe is commendable and as a model for others whereby they can approach their local ordinaries with regards to dissident clerics.{2} It is also worth noting here that the recent CDWDS document quite clearly supports your approach over and against what Archbishop Hart had to say:
Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ?s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity. [CDWDS: Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum Chapter VI]
You have done everything that the Holy See would expect in such matters. All you can do now is appeal to Rome on the matter and hopefully Archbishop Hart will listen to them. And hopefully by noting these matters here at Rerum Novarum, your example can be learned from by others who seek to have their ordinaries act as proper shepherds and gently but firmly correct liturgical abusers -even resorting when all else fails to canonical penalties. Of course those who do not follow the proper approach as you have are not in much of a position to complain. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} And of course the "choir directors" and self-styled "liturgists" as well.
{2} Or even (in some cases) dissident local ordinaries.
(Dialogue With F. John Loughnan)
This is a response to my good friend and fellow Inquisitor F. John Loughnan. His words will be in blue font with the words he responded to in black font. My words will be in regular font.
Fr Joe put this link on his home page. It is the answer to all the
abuses to the Liturgy of the Mass that have been going on and that they
are to stop immediately per Rome. Now let's see what happens.
Well, the "form" of the abusers regarding prior (and similar) documents has been: Oh yeah (yawn) - another bloody Roman document to file(read "burn")
This indeed has been the case.
Where are the "teeth" in this document to deal with the abusers; and how many bishops have the will to see it through?
As far as how many bishops have the will to see it through it is too early to tell at this stage obviously. However, it would seem that after the scandals in recent years, the bishops will as a rule be more inclined to toe the line on these issues than they were previously. From a merely human standpoint they have to restore their own credibility after all. And any belief that such things can be achieved while continuing the saimo saimo approach as before on this matter is delusional.
Also, it must not be overlooked that we who have the ability to get this in the hands of our pastors have to do our part to do that. Otherwise, it will once again be "so much sound and fury signifying nothing" much as the vast majority of supposed outrage is. This is not the 1970's or 1980's where information exchanges are difficult. Instead, everyone reading this can download the text and print it in a matter of minutes and take it to church on Sunday after they have carefully read it and highlighted within it the particular abuses or negligences that they have seen regularly at their parish from the various priests and deacons, etc.
I emphasize regularly because this is not a case of jumping on Fr. X for missing a word in the canon last week when this is not a pattern for him. In those situations we need to give the benefit of the doubt of course. But there are other situations -even in the best of parishes- where this is not necessary to do. The Instruction from the CDWDS is not ambiguous with regards to what is allowed and what is not.
As far as the "teeth" goes, I was actually surprised that this document had a harsher tone than is common for statements from the popes or their dicasteries in recent years. It is way too early to know one way or the other how this will go but if the recent observations of Fr. Andrew Greeley are correct, the support structure is there now in many areas where before it was lacking. We shall see.
Refer [HERE] for the latest "bun-fight" with my Archbishop.
Indeed I have been following situation with Archbishop Hart. You have handled yourself in this unfortunate situation in a manner that I believe is commendable and as a model for others whereby they can approach their local ordinaries with regards to dissident clerics.{2} It is also worth noting here that the recent CDWDS document quite clearly supports your approach over and against what Archbishop Hart had to say:
Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ?s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity. [CDWDS: Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum Chapter VI]
You have done everything that the Holy See would expect in such matters. All you can do now is appeal to Rome on the matter and hopefully Archbishop Hart will listen to them. And hopefully by noting these matters here at Rerum Novarum, your example can be learned from by others who seek to have their ordinaries act as proper shepherds and gently but firmly correct liturgical abusers -even resorting when all else fails to canonical penalties. Of course those who do not follow the proper approach as you have are not in much of a position to complain. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} And of course the "choir directors" and self-styled "liturgists" as well.
{2} Or even (in some cases) dissident local ordinaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)