An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History Part III - More on the Emergence of the Ancient Ecclesial Models:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE.
Having already dealt with the model of the Church as political society, and having dealt with the preliminaries of the Church's increased emphasis even during the Counter-reformation on the Church's element of mystery -as well as the magisterium of Pope Pius IX and the intentions of Vatican I- it is now time to consider the developments in ecclesiological understanding during the twentieth century.
Though the model of the Church as Mystical Body made a re-emergence in the nineteenth century -and was even alluded to in the magisterium of Pope Pius IX and the unpromulgated schema on the Church from Vatican I, it still had to struggle to regain the prominence it once had and -during the period prior to the so-called "reformation"{1} and afterwards- fell into not infrequent neglect though it never completely vanished.{2}
Indeed though it was in the background for some time, the body of Christ model received a "resurrection" of sorts in the nineteenth century in the theological schools and the magisterium begin appropriating it to a limited degree -as was noted in the last section of the thread.
It remains to explain how theologians of the twentieth century shaped this and another rediscovered ancient model of the Church and fused them together in a synthesis which was promulgated by the Second Vatican Council in a Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium and some of the aftermath of that momentous event. This section and the next will aim to do just that concluding with final reflections on the dogma of extra ecclesia nulla salus (EENS) and how it pertains to these models outlined for your consideration.
While the magisterium had given enunciation to principles in the older models of the Church, the Bellarmine model was still predominent and in the late nineteenth century -when the first rumblings of the ecumenical movement begin taking shape-{3} the magisterium in its first enunciations on the matter of Church reunion utilized the Bellarmine model in its elucidations.
Pope Leo XIII -in some ways the "Father of Modern Catholic Ecumenism" had the promotion of reunion of Christendom as one of his primary objectives. His eye turned most naturally towards the Churches of the East and in 1894, he issued an Apostolic Exhortation on the subject{4} where the "perfect society" model of Bellarmine was predominent. (And the exhortation was made to the Oriental Churches to "return" to the Church which they had "left" - complete with a degree of retrojection into the past of the later fully developed notion of papal supremacy.){5}
However, Pope Leo's reiteration of the policy of the pope's respecting the ancient traditions and usages of the Eastern Churches was to be a significant milestone in the development of communio ecclesiology as sanctioned by the Second Vatican Council.
For His Holiness followed the aforementioned Exhortation up with an Apostolic Letter{6} addressed to the Oriental Catholic Churches. It traced out a history of the pope's approach to the eastern churches and highlights the dignity and splendour of the eastern usages. Also involved in this Apostolic Letter was the promulgation to all the Oriental Churches the decree originally promulgated by Pope Benedict XIV on December 24, 1743 to the Greek Melkite Churches.{7}
All of this set the stage for a major encyclical letter on the unity of the Church which was promulgated on June 29, 1896. This would be the Encyclical Letter Satis Cognitum which followed in the mould of the previous pronouncements to some degree{8} but which differed significantly in some areas from the previous pronouncements.{9} As one writer who studied these matters noted (and I would say noted well):
Leo XIII reflected on church unity in light of the incarnational economy of salvation. As the divine and human natures were united inseparably in the person of Jesus Christ, so the spiritual and institutional aspects of the church cannot be separated.
The visible structures of the episcopacy and the primacy are necessary for church unity because Christ himself willed to order the church in this way. Thus the unity of Christians is possible only by means of a return to that community governed by bishops in communion with the successor to Peter. [William Henn: Ut Unum Sint and Catholic Involvement in Ecumenism as published in The Ecumenical Review (April 2000)]
Of course one should note that this paragraph has both principles and a prescription for what should be done in light of the principles enunciated. The principles themselves though do not necessarily involve the utilization of the same prescription for action -particularly when we move from the abstract to reality.{10} But as long as the Bellarmine model of the Church was predominant, the "ecumenism of return" would be the policy taken by the Apostolic See at least "officially" anyway.{11}
Thus when the Protestant movements of ecumenism began in the twentieth century, this was the approach "officially" taken by the Church -though the popes since Benedict XV begin allowing "unofficial" meetings of this kind to take place.{12} Pope Pius XI continued this pattern of not allowing "official" meetings but allowing "unofficial ones."{13} Nineteen twenty-eight saw him issue the Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos in January which took issue with the ecumenical movement of his time on certain points of doctrine. The apologetical approach combined with an anachronistic accounting of history on the west-east divide meant that the "official" ban on involvement remained in place. However, as disappointing as this was in some respects, the Holy Father was to contribute another milestone in the development of the current understanding of the Church with another encyclical letter later in that year.
The subject of this encyclical letter was the promotion of Oriental studies. This letter{14} would provide the impetus for studying Church history through the eyes of the east -something which would be of tremendous value in the decades ahead as the ecumenical movement begin to solidify itself and become more credible as a movement. And in part through this study, as the ancient models of the Church began to surface to a wider theological audience, a realization slowly began setting in just how incomplete the Bellarmine ecclesial model really was. However, the model of the Mystical Body -though a welcome refining of the older Bellarmine model, was not free of its own problems. As Cardinal Dulles noted on the matter:
[The Mystical Body model] it raised in an acute way one central ecclesiological concern, in particular the relationship between the mystical and the visible, between the supernatural community of grace in Christ and the visible society of very human beings. The relationship between these two has been perennially problematical. [Avery Dulles SJ: Models of the Church]
Of course the temptation on the part of some towards overreaction against the Bellarmine model -and overemphasizing the supernatural element of the Church- was of course always a danger. To again reference Cardinal Dulles' work:
In 1943 Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi signalled each of these dangers by stressing on the one hand that the Church is not "something invisible, intangible, a something merely `pneumatical'", and conversely that any presentation of the doctrine is to be rejected that makes the faithful in any way pass beyond the order of created things so that even one single attribute of the eternal God can be predicated of them in the proper sense. [Avery Dulles SJ: Models of the Church]
The biblical imagery of the mystical body and of the "head" and "members" was of course much more servicable for enunciating a positive agenda than the "perfect society" model. And though the Church is in some respects a "perfect society" the problem with such monikers is that it was all too easy to blame others for the divisions in Christendom under the guise that a "perfect society" cannot be at fault.{15}
The sanction by Pope Pius XII in his magisterium of the Body of Christ model was another important milestone in the direction of communio ecclesiology. It drew on the Bellarmine model of "perfect society" and also in recognizing the external verificators of what constituted a "member" of the Church{16} and was a model more conducive to action on the part of the Church Militant. (Rather than docile passivity.) However, the problem of how those who were not "members" but of good-will{17} were to be accounted for was not well serviced by this model. However, Pope Pius XII did mention this towards the end of the letter drawing on the teachings of Pope Pius IX and the Vatican I schema previously mentioned:
As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ," and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation.
For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic God of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home. [Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis Christi §103 (c. 1943)]
Pope Pius XII would note that though not part of the visible Church that such people of good-will (or those who were "invincibly ignorant" of their situation) nonetheless had a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer. Exactly how this relationship was to be understood was of course to be worked out in later pronouncements. The first of these was in 1949 when Pope Pius XII had the Holy Office issue a correction to the Archbishop of Boston on the errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney -one who espoused the Bellarmine model in its most literal rendering possible. The correction itself involved approaching this subject to some extent from the realm of mystery and that seems to be the best starting point for discussing the third model of the Church -that of mystery or sacrament. That is where the next section will resume this thread. The promised addressing of the common misinterpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi though it did not materialize in this installment as planned will be the first item in the next one to be treated on.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} I refer here to the previously noted centralization of the papacy after Gregory VII -which reached its apex during the Avignon years, the attitudes of the popes in this period, the resulting conciliarist backlash, and of course the battles fought at Constance and Basle on these matters only to be settled finally at Florence. In this period, the Church as mystical body of Christ and as sacrament gave way to greater and greater emphasis on the visible components of the Church.
{2} Trent's reference to baptism of desire and penance of desire in the Decree on Justification are one such witness to this: arguably the first explicit magisterial pronouncement on this aspect of the Church. (Even if they were mentioned more in passing than anything else.)
{3} The earliest of these was an organization called The Association for the Promotion of the Reunion of Christendom which was founded in 1857 and had both Catholics and Anglicans as members. However, because this association's formula rested on the Anglican "branch theory" of ecclesiology and was rooted in indifferentist outlooks, the Holy Office on September 16, 1864 issued a condemnation of this association and reiterated the four traditional "notes" of the Church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic) and declared that the Anglican Church was bereft of them.
{4} This would be the Apostolic Exhortation Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae promugated on June 20, 1894.
{5} To note a few bits from Pope Leo XIII's Apostolic Exhortation Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae on these subjects:
As we consider the mystery of this unity We see before Us all the countries which have long since passed, by the mercy of God, from timeworn error to the wisdom of the Gospel. Nor could We, indeed, recall anything more pleasing or better calculated to extol the work of divine Providence than the memory of the days of yore, when the faith that had come down from heaven was looked upon as the common inheritance of one and all; when civilized nations, separated by distance, character and habits, in spite of frequent disagreements and warfare on other points, were united by Christian faith in all that concerned religion...
Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental rites who are separated from the Catholic Church. We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: "What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our brethren: to Him who, to unite us and bring us into one fold, came down from heaven, was incarnate, and was crucified? What will our defence be in the eyes of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our brethren."
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by divine charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome...
{6} This was the Apostolic Letter Orientalium Dignitas promulgated on November 30, 1894.
{7} In short, very rigid proscriptions for dealing with those who would "Latinize" the Easterns or in any way try to get them to forsake their traditions for those of the Latin rite. Priests of the Latin rite who would help out the Eastern Patriarches when there were shortages of priests were bound to follow Eastern formularies. (And permission to commune by the Latins in the Eastern rites and vice versa.)
{8} The model of the Church being emphasized was still primarily the Bellarmine model as well as an apologetical approach couched in an "ecumenism of return" styling.
{9} For one thing, Pope Leo placed a heavy emphasis on the role of the episcopate here. This was in part an affirmation of the unpromulgated Vatican I schema which intended to treat on the role of the bishops. Thus, after asserting the primacy of the Roman See as in previous pronouncements, Pope Leo balanced out the reiteration of that teaching with another milestone in the development of communio ecclesiology:
But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also "chose, twelve, whom He called apostles" (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church.
Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule. [Encyclical Letter Satis Cognitum §14 (c. 1896)]
From there the pope outlines the relationship between the pope and the bishops and another milestone towards communio ecclesiology -as well as a milestone in the teaching on the collegiality of the episcopate- is firmly established.
Further still, unlike the previous pronouncements, Pope Leo XIII noted in Satis Cognitum that departure from unity was not necessarily culpable on the part of those he was trying to reach out to (see SC §1). This was yet another important step though there would be some time until it was forthrightly acknowledged by the magisterium that there was blame on both sides for the various divisions in Christendom.
{10} In the abstract, the apologetical approach to ecumenism makes sense; however in reality it does not work as long as only one side is making all the movement. Further still, the divisions -particularly between West and East- were not a case of the easterns "going into schism" as much as it was a process where communion between the Churches broke down for various reasons.
However, as long as it was viewed as the Easterns who "left" the Church and had to therefore "return" -and failure to formally accept some responsibility for the divisions as a result of the actions of previous bishops and popes- then any success at restoring unity among the Churches and ecclesial communities would fail to succeed.
{11} See this link for details.
{12} The Holy Office under Pope Benedict XV issued a decree on July 4, 1919 which forbid involvement in conferences involving Christian unity without explicit sanction from the Apostolic See. Though "unofficial" meetings were allowed -as the source in footnote 11 notes- the "official" sanction was not granted in part until 1949 and to a larger degree after Vatican II's Decree Unitatis Redintegratio. (The latter of which formally committed the Catholic Church to involve herself in the ecumenical movement.)
{13} For this reason, when it was noted in Mortalium Animos §8 that it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises this was (to put it charitably) a half-truth.
{14} I refer here to Rerum Orientalium promulgated on September 8, 1928.
{15} This is an example to some extent of an overemphasis on the divine properties of the Church while overlooking the human elements: almost a form of ecclesial Docetism.
{16} [O]nly those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. [Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis Christi §22 (c. 1943)]
{17} Either because they were not sacramentally baptized or because they were but due to inculpable heresy or schism "could not be accounted" as members.
Sunday, November 23, 2003
An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History Part II - The Overshadowed Ancient Models Gradually Re-Emerge:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE.
Having already dealt with the model of the Church as political society, it leaves us to consider at this time the other more authentically traditional models and how they fared in the period from 1600-1940. Again, they were not lacking; however, the polemical atmosphere of the Counter-reformation led to their being downplayed in favour of the Bellarmine model.{1} And of course the Bellarmine model -being so heavy on the visible constituents of the Church- led as Cardinal Dulles noted to success being measured in statistics of conversions, baptisms, regular attendance and communions. While these are not areas to be disparaged of course, at the same time statistics of any kind can be utilized in a deceptive manner.{2}
There is also in this examination the subject of salvation "outside the Church" which will also be dealt with. It is at least mildly interesting that the Church promoted a paradox over the centuries in espousing the dictum extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while at the same time not specifying her precise boundaries if you will.{3} I will go over that in the last section of this thread as it is not an insignificant point to dwell on. (Particularly for those whose view of the Church is overly-juridical.) Before doing that though, we need to get to the first alternative model of ecclesiology to emerge in the nineteenth and twentieth century to vie for prominence with the Bellarmine model.
In reality this first alternative model was nothing more than one of the ancient models I mentioned already. It never really went away but it did undergo serious neglect probably because (in part) it did not suit the purposes of Counter-reformation polemicists very well. To quote from Cardinal Dulles again on the matter:
After such a long period under one single paradigm, it was the beginning of a new era for ecclesiology when another model began to rise to prominence. This model was the "Body of Christ". It was an ancient model resurrected by the Tubingen School in the nineteenth century (Mohler, Scheeban) then given prominence through the work of such theologians of the 1930's as Emile Mersch and Sebastian Tromp, the latter eventually being the ghost-writer of the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (1943).
This model stressed all those things that were obviously missing from the political society model. It was a more democratic model as well, stressing the activity and gifts of the Spirit in all members and the dependence of all on the contributions of each. It was a welcome and much needed complement of the earlier model, and much enriched ecclesiology and Catholic Church life.
However, it did not solve all theological difficulties. Indeed it raised in an acute way one central ecclesiological concern, in particular the relationship between the mystical and the visible, between the supernatural community of grace in Christ and the visible society of very human beings. The relationship between these two has been perennially problematical. It sees that Church as not just an invisible communion of grace, but it also sees the visible community as the fullness and completion of Christ, Christ in the Church being in some sense brought to complete achievement.
Stressing the mystical dimension of the spiritual communion can take an anti-institutional turn, as has occurred with some Protestant theologians such as Rudolph Sohm and Emil Brunner. On the other hand, stressing the visible community as the Body of Christ, continuation of the Incarnation, and so forth, can draw one towards "biologism" or a form of panchristism, a crassly literal application of the model which is, after all, essentially a metaphor. This leads to a divinisation of the Church, making it one divine organism with the Head, hypostatically united with the divine nature. [Avery Dulles SJ: Models of the Church]
Though theologians had long enunciated that salvation through the Church was not understood solely in an ecclesiocentric sense, the popes had not enunciated in their magisterium anything on the matter directly. The Council of Trent in its Decree on Justification in Session VI had taught that the sacraments of baptism and penance were required either in actuality or in desire.{4} This was a nod to the ancient understanding of the Church as mystery even at the point in history when the Church was most strident to emphasize the visible consituencies of the Church.
The Jansenists in subsequent centuries would present such a rigorous understanding on the Church and salvation that the popes would be forced to intervene. It is also worth noting that not a few of the propositions of the Jansenists which were condemned were ones which restricted God's grace. And with every advanced proposition which attempted to limit God's grace throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the popes routinely issued condemnations. The Church's understanding as mystery was thus indirectly retained despite the overwhelming dominance of the "political society model."
Finally in the nineteenth century, what had long been accepted to varying degrees by the theological schools in the Church found expression in the magisterium of Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878) who in an allocution of 1854{5}, an encyclical epistle of 1856{6}, and another encyclical epistle in 1863{7} was to emphasize both the dogma of EENS and the traditional understanding of invincible ignorance{8} which must always accompany a proper understanding of the dogma.{9}
I mention the magisterial pronouncements of Pope Pius IX here because (i) he enunciates the proper sense of the dogma EENS and (ii) his work was to be incorporated into the unpromulgated schema on the Church -a source which would influence theological reflections on the nature of the Church among theologians for decades afterwards.
It is not commonly known that one of the intentions of the First Vatican Council was to contribute to developing doctrine on the nature of the Church that -due to the circumstances of the time{10}- the council was suspended. It's work lay unfinished, particularly the planned Constitution on Divine Revelation and the Second Constitution on the Church. The latter was to be the first intention by the Church to explicitly set forth doctrine on her very nature and -while the schema was never approved as such- it nonetheless provides some very interesting points of interest on several fronts. Before resuming with the quote from Cardinal Dulles, I want to highlight a significant part of them at this time.
For subsequent developments of Church teaching would to some extent be traced to this schema which -even though it was never promulgated- nonetheless was to influence the thinking of theologians in the period between the two Vatican Councils. But before pointing out some key areas, it is important to recall this schema for it is as important to understanding the intentions of Vatican I (and harmonization between Vatican I and Vatican II on the doctrine of the magisterium) as the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser is to understanding the proper scope of magisterial infallibility.{11} To quote from a pre-Vatican II theology source on this matter:
The third session of the Vatican Council on April 24, 1870 dealt primarily with faith and reason (see Introd. to 58), but in the same place it dealt with the position of the Church as guardian and teacher of the revealed word (see 67, 80) and as a visible proof of its own divine mission (see 68). Originally the council...had planned to define much more on the constitution and nature of the Church, but there was not enough time to complete its work.
The first draft of the constitution...contains no official teaching on the part of the Church, since it was never voted on by the fathers in solemn assembly. However, since it had been carefully prepared by theologians and presented to the fathers of the council, the draft may be said to reflect the mind of the teaching Church at that time...[Schema on the Second Constitution from Vatican I: From The Church Teaches - Documents of the Church in English Translation by Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College pgs 86-87; 93 (c. 1955)]
Now there is no denying that in speaking of the visible Church, the moniker "Catholic Church" has been so often used down through the centuries. However, when speaking on the nature of the Church, there is an amazing reluctance to use this moniker at all. Consider the aforementioned schema, which was intended to explain the more important headings of the true Catholic doctrine on the nature of the Church (Introduction to schema) and the ramifications that such intentions would have on ecclesiology -particularly in light of the dominant model of the previous nearly three hundred years.
The aforementioned schema consisted of ten chapters. I will note them by title and also list the references to the Church in each one -excluding references in the titles of each chapter. Observe:
---Chapter 1: The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ
There is one reference to "the Church."
---Chapter 2: The Christian Religion Cannot Be Practiced Except Through the Church that Christ Founded
There is one reference to "this Church."
---Chapter 3: The Church is a True, Perfect, Spiritual, and Supernatural Society
Four references to "the Church", two references to "this Church" and two to "this society", and one to "a spiritual society."
---Chapter 4: The Church is a Visible Society
Four references to "the Church" and one to "the Church of Christ."
---Chapter 5: The Visible Unity of the Church
One reference to "the true Church of Christ", one reference to "this same Church", and one reference to "the true mysticall body of Christ." In light of how the theology of relation to the Church of non-Catholic bodies is dealt with in this chapter, it is a good thing that this schema was never promulgated as magisterial. (Though there are many fine features in it for the most part.)
---Chapter 6: The Church is a Society Absolutely Necessary For Salvation
One reference to "the Church of Christ", one reference to "his Church", four references to "the Church", and one reference to "the Church of which Christ is the head."
---Chapter 7: Outside the Church, No One Can Be Saved
This section basically recapitulates the teachings on the Church as enunciated in the aforementioned statements of Pope Pius IX. (Essentially a condemnation of indifferentism and a recognition of the existence of invincible ignorance.) As far as references to the Church in this chapter go, they are as follows:
Three references to "the Church" and one reference to "his Church."
---Chapter 8: The Indefectibility of the Church
One reference to "the Church of Christ", one reference to "his Church", one reference to "the Church", one reference to "Christ's Body", and one reference to "Christ's Church."
---Chapter 9: The Infallibility of the Church
This is a section I have typed out on Rerum Novarum before as well as in other discussions -frankly those who claim that Vatican I taught Church infallibility only in ex cathedra pronouncements{12} are in need of an education in this area. However, that is another subject altogether. In this section the references to the Church are as follows:
Two references to "the Church", one reference to "the Church of Christ", one reference to "the whole Church of Christ", one reference to "Christ's Church", and one reference to "his Church."
---Chapter 10: The Power of the Church
Three references to "the Church", two references to "Christ's Church", one reference to "the Church of God", and a final definition of the Church well worth pondering which includes one of the above references and reads as follows:
This true and highly favoured Church of Christ is none other than the one, holy, catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church.
In short, there was no affiliation of the Church of Christ with the Roman Catholic Church in a one-to-one identity. Nor did Pope Pius XII do this in Mystici Corporis Christi as so many people commonly misinterpret that encyclical. And that is where this series will pick up in the next installment.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Presumably because the elements of the Bellarmine model coincided with those which were not infrequently doubted or denied by the so-called "reformers" and their descendants.
{2} The hagiography surrounding the Oriental missions tended to give a greater appearance of success than there actually was -in part due to the manipulation of statistics. (Consciously or otherwise.)
{3} I go over this in my treatise contra "traditionalism" when explaining why subsistare is so much more fitting for describing the locus of the Church of Christ than est is with relation to the Catholic Church. The second Vatican I schema on the Church is also of assistance in this area.
{4} Something taught by St. Thomas Aquinas who was canonized twenty years after Boniface VIII and whose work had supplied Boniface with his definition in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctum. (Indeed the dogmatic definition was taken verbatim from Aquinas.)
{5} Allocution Singulari Quadam promulgated on December 9, 1854. The key enunciation here is as follows:
By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.
{6} Encyclical Epistle Singulari Quidem promulgated on March 17, 1856. The key enunciation here is Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
{7} Encyclical Epistle Quanto Conficiamur Moerore promulgated on August 10, 1863. Sandwiched between a censure of the error of indifferentism -or that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity- and preceding a vigorous reaffirmation of EENS, Pope Pius IX noted that:
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
{8} So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory.
This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of "moral diligence". This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance.
We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circumstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incumbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge.
In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine. [Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article Ignorance (c. 1913)]
{9} That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. [Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius §4,14 (c. 1870)]
{10} I refer here to the invasion of Rome by Italy.
{11} This is a valid criticism that I have not been hesitant in recent years to forcefully assert.
{12} A profoundly erroneous yet sadly not uncommon error even amongst Catholics. (And a key error in the weltanschauung of the so-called "traditionalists.")
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE.
Having already dealt with the model of the Church as political society, it leaves us to consider at this time the other more authentically traditional models and how they fared in the period from 1600-1940. Again, they were not lacking; however, the polemical atmosphere of the Counter-reformation led to their being downplayed in favour of the Bellarmine model.{1} And of course the Bellarmine model -being so heavy on the visible constituents of the Church- led as Cardinal Dulles noted to success being measured in statistics of conversions, baptisms, regular attendance and communions. While these are not areas to be disparaged of course, at the same time statistics of any kind can be utilized in a deceptive manner.{2}
There is also in this examination the subject of salvation "outside the Church" which will also be dealt with. It is at least mildly interesting that the Church promoted a paradox over the centuries in espousing the dictum extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while at the same time not specifying her precise boundaries if you will.{3} I will go over that in the last section of this thread as it is not an insignificant point to dwell on. (Particularly for those whose view of the Church is overly-juridical.) Before doing that though, we need to get to the first alternative model of ecclesiology to emerge in the nineteenth and twentieth century to vie for prominence with the Bellarmine model.
In reality this first alternative model was nothing more than one of the ancient models I mentioned already. It never really went away but it did undergo serious neglect probably because (in part) it did not suit the purposes of Counter-reformation polemicists very well. To quote from Cardinal Dulles again on the matter:
After such a long period under one single paradigm, it was the beginning of a new era for ecclesiology when another model began to rise to prominence. This model was the "Body of Christ". It was an ancient model resurrected by the Tubingen School in the nineteenth century (Mohler, Scheeban) then given prominence through the work of such theologians of the 1930's as Emile Mersch and Sebastian Tromp, the latter eventually being the ghost-writer of the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (1943).
This model stressed all those things that were obviously missing from the political society model. It was a more democratic model as well, stressing the activity and gifts of the Spirit in all members and the dependence of all on the contributions of each. It was a welcome and much needed complement of the earlier model, and much enriched ecclesiology and Catholic Church life.
However, it did not solve all theological difficulties. Indeed it raised in an acute way one central ecclesiological concern, in particular the relationship between the mystical and the visible, between the supernatural community of grace in Christ and the visible society of very human beings. The relationship between these two has been perennially problematical. It sees that Church as not just an invisible communion of grace, but it also sees the visible community as the fullness and completion of Christ, Christ in the Church being in some sense brought to complete achievement.
Stressing the mystical dimension of the spiritual communion can take an anti-institutional turn, as has occurred with some Protestant theologians such as Rudolph Sohm and Emil Brunner. On the other hand, stressing the visible community as the Body of Christ, continuation of the Incarnation, and so forth, can draw one towards "biologism" or a form of panchristism, a crassly literal application of the model which is, after all, essentially a metaphor. This leads to a divinisation of the Church, making it one divine organism with the Head, hypostatically united with the divine nature. [Avery Dulles SJ: Models of the Church]
Though theologians had long enunciated that salvation through the Church was not understood solely in an ecclesiocentric sense, the popes had not enunciated in their magisterium anything on the matter directly. The Council of Trent in its Decree on Justification in Session VI had taught that the sacraments of baptism and penance were required either in actuality or in desire.{4} This was a nod to the ancient understanding of the Church as mystery even at the point in history when the Church was most strident to emphasize the visible consituencies of the Church.
The Jansenists in subsequent centuries would present such a rigorous understanding on the Church and salvation that the popes would be forced to intervene. It is also worth noting that not a few of the propositions of the Jansenists which were condemned were ones which restricted God's grace. And with every advanced proposition which attempted to limit God's grace throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the popes routinely issued condemnations. The Church's understanding as mystery was thus indirectly retained despite the overwhelming dominance of the "political society model."
Finally in the nineteenth century, what had long been accepted to varying degrees by the theological schools in the Church found expression in the magisterium of Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878) who in an allocution of 1854{5}, an encyclical epistle of 1856{6}, and another encyclical epistle in 1863{7} was to emphasize both the dogma of EENS and the traditional understanding of invincible ignorance{8} which must always accompany a proper understanding of the dogma.{9}
I mention the magisterial pronouncements of Pope Pius IX here because (i) he enunciates the proper sense of the dogma EENS and (ii) his work was to be incorporated into the unpromulgated schema on the Church -a source which would influence theological reflections on the nature of the Church among theologians for decades afterwards.
It is not commonly known that one of the intentions of the First Vatican Council was to contribute to developing doctrine on the nature of the Church that -due to the circumstances of the time{10}- the council was suspended. It's work lay unfinished, particularly the planned Constitution on Divine Revelation and the Second Constitution on the Church. The latter was to be the first intention by the Church to explicitly set forth doctrine on her very nature and -while the schema was never approved as such- it nonetheless provides some very interesting points of interest on several fronts. Before resuming with the quote from Cardinal Dulles, I want to highlight a significant part of them at this time.
For subsequent developments of Church teaching would to some extent be traced to this schema which -even though it was never promulgated- nonetheless was to influence the thinking of theologians in the period between the two Vatican Councils. But before pointing out some key areas, it is important to recall this schema for it is as important to understanding the intentions of Vatican I (and harmonization between Vatican I and Vatican II on the doctrine of the magisterium) as the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser is to understanding the proper scope of magisterial infallibility.{11} To quote from a pre-Vatican II theology source on this matter:
The third session of the Vatican Council on April 24, 1870 dealt primarily with faith and reason (see Introd. to 58), but in the same place it dealt with the position of the Church as guardian and teacher of the revealed word (see 67, 80) and as a visible proof of its own divine mission (see 68). Originally the council...had planned to define much more on the constitution and nature of the Church, but there was not enough time to complete its work.
The first draft of the constitution...contains no official teaching on the part of the Church, since it was never voted on by the fathers in solemn assembly. However, since it had been carefully prepared by theologians and presented to the fathers of the council, the draft may be said to reflect the mind of the teaching Church at that time...[Schema on the Second Constitution from Vatican I: From The Church Teaches - Documents of the Church in English Translation by Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College pgs 86-87; 93 (c. 1955)]
Now there is no denying that in speaking of the visible Church, the moniker "Catholic Church" has been so often used down through the centuries. However, when speaking on the nature of the Church, there is an amazing reluctance to use this moniker at all. Consider the aforementioned schema, which was intended to explain the more important headings of the true Catholic doctrine on the nature of the Church (Introduction to schema) and the ramifications that such intentions would have on ecclesiology -particularly in light of the dominant model of the previous nearly three hundred years.
The aforementioned schema consisted of ten chapters. I will note them by title and also list the references to the Church in each one -excluding references in the titles of each chapter. Observe:
---Chapter 1: The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ
There is one reference to "the Church."
---Chapter 2: The Christian Religion Cannot Be Practiced Except Through the Church that Christ Founded
There is one reference to "this Church."
---Chapter 3: The Church is a True, Perfect, Spiritual, and Supernatural Society
Four references to "the Church", two references to "this Church" and two to "this society", and one to "a spiritual society."
---Chapter 4: The Church is a Visible Society
Four references to "the Church" and one to "the Church of Christ."
---Chapter 5: The Visible Unity of the Church
One reference to "the true Church of Christ", one reference to "this same Church", and one reference to "the true mysticall body of Christ." In light of how the theology of relation to the Church of non-Catholic bodies is dealt with in this chapter, it is a good thing that this schema was never promulgated as magisterial. (Though there are many fine features in it for the most part.)
---Chapter 6: The Church is a Society Absolutely Necessary For Salvation
One reference to "the Church of Christ", one reference to "his Church", four references to "the Church", and one reference to "the Church of which Christ is the head."
---Chapter 7: Outside the Church, No One Can Be Saved
This section basically recapitulates the teachings on the Church as enunciated in the aforementioned statements of Pope Pius IX. (Essentially a condemnation of indifferentism and a recognition of the existence of invincible ignorance.) As far as references to the Church in this chapter go, they are as follows:
Three references to "the Church" and one reference to "his Church."
---Chapter 8: The Indefectibility of the Church
One reference to "the Church of Christ", one reference to "his Church", one reference to "the Church", one reference to "Christ's Body", and one reference to "Christ's Church."
---Chapter 9: The Infallibility of the Church
This is a section I have typed out on Rerum Novarum before as well as in other discussions -frankly those who claim that Vatican I taught Church infallibility only in ex cathedra pronouncements{12} are in need of an education in this area. However, that is another subject altogether. In this section the references to the Church are as follows:
Two references to "the Church", one reference to "the Church of Christ", one reference to "the whole Church of Christ", one reference to "Christ's Church", and one reference to "his Church."
---Chapter 10: The Power of the Church
Three references to "the Church", two references to "Christ's Church", one reference to "the Church of God", and a final definition of the Church well worth pondering which includes one of the above references and reads as follows:
This true and highly favoured Church of Christ is none other than the one, holy, catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church.
In short, there was no affiliation of the Church of Christ with the Roman Catholic Church in a one-to-one identity. Nor did Pope Pius XII do this in Mystici Corporis Christi as so many people commonly misinterpret that encyclical. And that is where this series will pick up in the next installment.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Presumably because the elements of the Bellarmine model coincided with those which were not infrequently doubted or denied by the so-called "reformers" and their descendants.
{2} The hagiography surrounding the Oriental missions tended to give a greater appearance of success than there actually was -in part due to the manipulation of statistics. (Consciously or otherwise.)
{3} I go over this in my treatise contra "traditionalism" when explaining why subsistare is so much more fitting for describing the locus of the Church of Christ than est is with relation to the Catholic Church. The second Vatican I schema on the Church is also of assistance in this area.
{4} Something taught by St. Thomas Aquinas who was canonized twenty years after Boniface VIII and whose work had supplied Boniface with his definition in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctum. (Indeed the dogmatic definition was taken verbatim from Aquinas.)
{5} Allocution Singulari Quadam promulgated on December 9, 1854. The key enunciation here is as follows:
By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.
{6} Encyclical Epistle Singulari Quidem promulgated on March 17, 1856. The key enunciation here is Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
{7} Encyclical Epistle Quanto Conficiamur Moerore promulgated on August 10, 1863. Sandwiched between a censure of the error of indifferentism -or that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity- and preceding a vigorous reaffirmation of EENS, Pope Pius IX noted that:
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
{8} So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory.
This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of "moral diligence". This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance.
We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circumstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incumbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge.
In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine. [Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article Ignorance (c. 1913)]
{9} That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. [Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius §4,14 (c. 1870)]
{10} I refer here to the invasion of Rome by Italy.
{11} This is a valid criticism that I have not been hesitant in recent years to forcefully assert.
{12} A profoundly erroneous yet sadly not uncommon error even amongst Catholics. (And a key error in the weltanschauung of the so-called "traditionalists.")
An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History Part I -Origins of Models and Preliminary Sketch:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The Church's doctrine on the nature of the Church has gone through several different kinds of emphasis over the centuries. I could never hope to cover adequately in detail these factors; however, as a tool for possible future discussions, I want to at this time trace a schema of the pattern of ecclesiology and apologize in advance for any omissions. For assistance on this, I will rely on some work of Cardinal Avery Dulles{1} as well as online sources. Without further ado, let us get to it...
Early and Medieval Pre-Schism Church (ante-1054):
The first millennium of the undivided church saw several models of the Church proposed but the general view was one of mystery. The two most prevalent models were that of the Church as sacrament and the Church as the Body of Christ.
The model of the Church as sacrament has a scriptural basis for it -most significantly the following from Ephesians:
[Submit] yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. [Ephesians v,21-32]
The model of the Church as mystery (Lat. sacramentum) was probably first explicitly enunciated by St. Cyprian of Carthage in his treatise The Unity of the Church written in approximately 251 AD. It was slightly revised in 256 after his own run-in with the Bishop of Rome on a matter of doctrine{2} but that is another subject altogether.
Furthermore, there was coexisting with the Church as mystery model another conception of the Church: the Body of Christ model. This conception of the Church may well have more explicit Scriptural support than the Church as mystery model. Indeed, so many passages could be noted here that for the sake of time I ask the reader to simply trust me on this one.{3}
The ecclesiology of St. Cyprian was influential in the thought of St. Augustine whose work was influential on the thought of the great Scholastics such as St. Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Even with the division of the west and the east, the Church's self-understanding as enunciated by the theologians who wrote tractates on the Church was primarily that of mystery though the increasing centralization of the papacy in the first centuries of the second millennium{4} -and the resultant conciliar backlash-{5} provided the impetus to emphasize with greater explicitness the external (or visible) elements of the Church.
Post-1054 through Counter-Reformation Period and Bellarmine's "Political Society" Church Model:
Naturally as the Church centralized and as the backlash against this policy developed, the visible elements of the Church were emphasized to a greater degree. However, it was not until after the double-whammy of the so-called "western schism" and the so-called "reformation" which followed that a definition of the Church primarily encompassing the visible elements was promulgated not by the Church but by one of its most esteemed of theologians. I refer here to St. Robert Bellarmine who in 1588 presented a model of the Church based on a political society:
The one and true Church is the community of men brought together by the profession of the same Christian faith and participation in the same sacraments under the authority of legitimate pastors and especially of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff.... The one true Church is as visible and palpable as the Kingdom of France or the republic of Venice.
This was the model that would supplant the two much older models previously mentioned and be the primary paradigm in describing the Church from approximately 1600-1940. Cardinal Dulles described this model as follows:
[Bellarmine's] definition, which enumerated only the visible and structural characteristics of the Church, did not fully express Bellarmine's concept of the Church. But it was this definition which Catholicism took to itself with enthusiasm in the following centuries, sometimes referring to the Church as the "perfect society". It is the model that is found in Cardinal Gasparri's Catechism (1932), which intentionally reflects Pius XI's Mortalium Animos (1928). We will generally refer to this model as the "political society model".
It was a serviceable model in the Counter-Reformation period. It gave definite guidelines by which Catholics could identify one another. Some elements of this model must be incorporated into any complete description of the Church...But the emphasis on visible, institutional characteristics alone together with its polemical, exclusivist intent makes it a very deficient model of the Church. The Church is much more than a social structure....In fact, the whole "mystery" dimension of the Church goes unrepresented in this model. And that is surely a basic weakness in a model that aims to express a reality that is above all a mystery of faith.
This model was dominant for far too long, with serious effects on Church life. It fostered what Yves Congar has called a "hierarchology" rather than an ecclesiology. With this went a corresponding over-emphasis on authority and a corresponding lack of lay involvement in the life and mission of the Church. Much heroic missionary activity was undertaken in the period, but the aim was generally to build up the Church society on earth, efforts to save souls being directed precisely to bringing more and more people into the Church society.
Success for the missionary, and for the pastor at home as well, was measured in statistics of conversions, baptisms, regular attendance and communions. Bishop de Smedt was describing succinctly the effects of this model when he criticised the first preliminary schema on the Church presented to the Fathers at Vatican II, using the words "clericalism, juridicism, and triumphalism". [Avery Dulles SJ: Models of the Church]
This is the model of the Church most often referred to as "traditional" by self-styled "traditionalists." However, this is another case of them elevating a post-Trent novelty to the level of "Tradition" and giving short shrift to the more ancient patristic models which are more venerable and have a much longer pedigree of usage. But as dominant as the Bellarmine model became in the Counter-reformation period, the older models never completely disappeared but indeed were witnessed to in some interesting ways.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} I recently heard an excellent program on EWTN where Cardinal Avery Dulles so frequently enunciated my views on Vatican II that it pleased me greatly. (It is nice to know that my views so closely align with this brilliant man.)
{2} Most scholars believe that St. Cyprian's enthusiasm for the See of Peter as the root and matrix of the Catholic Church was diminished after he was on the receiving end of this same authority. Hence, in the redacted version, he emphasized more the episcopate than the papacy -though in both versions he recognized that all the bishops were what the Bishop of Rome was in episcopal dignity.
To quote BC Butler on this subject from his excellent work The Church and Infallibility written in 1954, in the more Petrine of the two passages (referred to generally as the "Primacy Text"):
The comparison with Ephesians...makes it clear that Cyprian is teaching the necessity of retaining communion with the Catholic Church by retaining communion with the Bishop of Rome. And was it not just because of this that at the time of his conflict with Stephen he felt obliged to "soft pedal" his language in the second edition, preserving the notion of the Church's indivisible unity, but giving less emphasis than in the first edition to the See of Rome as unity's abiding source?
But of course the logic of his own first edition defeated him, and the second version itself only achieves full internal coherence (between chapters 4 and 5) when we mentally re-emphasize the point which Cyprian was trying to blur. [BC Butler: The Church and Infallibility - A Reply to the Abridged Salmon pg. 151 (c. 1954)]
{3} But if you need some passages, see 1 Corinthians xii, Ephesians iv,11-16, and Colossians i,18-25 for passages on the Church as mystical body model. For passages on the Church as mystery model, see the Lord's parables of the Church as a sheepfold and the sole gateway to Christ (John x,1-10), the imagery of the Church as a cultivated field planted by the heavenly husbandman (Matt. xxi,33-43; cf. Isaiah v,1-7), and the image of the vine and branches (John xv) - the latter passage also applying to the Church as body of Christ model.
{4} This process started in the eleventh century but only with the Avignon papacy did the degree of centralization begin sparking opposition. To quote from one reliable source on this matter:
From the time of Gregory VII, the government of the Church had become increasingly centralized under the personal control of the Roman pontiff. In many respects this movement reached its climax in the fourteenth century. [G. Mollat: The Popes of Avignon Book III, Ch. III pg. 335 (c. 1963, 1949)]
{5} It is my opinion that the backlash against the papal centralization began after the Council of Vienne (1311-1312) when Pope Clement V basically told the Council Fathers that either they went along with him on a particular judgment -and thus it would be decreed in the name of the pope and other bishops- or the pope would do it himself.
Whatever problems there are in conciliarist theories -and there are many from a functional as well as historical aspect- it is not difficult to understand the undercurrents that developed at the time and would affect the Church until the so-called "reformation" and also the later Jansenist heresy.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The Church's doctrine on the nature of the Church has gone through several different kinds of emphasis over the centuries. I could never hope to cover adequately in detail these factors; however, as a tool for possible future discussions, I want to at this time trace a schema of the pattern of ecclesiology and apologize in advance for any omissions. For assistance on this, I will rely on some work of Cardinal Avery Dulles{1} as well as online sources. Without further ado, let us get to it...
Early and Medieval Pre-Schism Church (ante-1054):
The first millennium of the undivided church saw several models of the Church proposed but the general view was one of mystery. The two most prevalent models were that of the Church as sacrament and the Church as the Body of Christ.
The model of the Church as sacrament has a scriptural basis for it -most significantly the following from Ephesians:
[Submit] yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. [Ephesians v,21-32]
The model of the Church as mystery (Lat. sacramentum) was probably first explicitly enunciated by St. Cyprian of Carthage in his treatise The Unity of the Church written in approximately 251 AD. It was slightly revised in 256 after his own run-in with the Bishop of Rome on a matter of doctrine{2} but that is another subject altogether.
Furthermore, there was coexisting with the Church as mystery model another conception of the Church: the Body of Christ model. This conception of the Church may well have more explicit Scriptural support than the Church as mystery model. Indeed, so many passages could be noted here that for the sake of time I ask the reader to simply trust me on this one.{3}
The ecclesiology of St. Cyprian was influential in the thought of St. Augustine whose work was influential on the thought of the great Scholastics such as St. Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Even with the division of the west and the east, the Church's self-understanding as enunciated by the theologians who wrote tractates on the Church was primarily that of mystery though the increasing centralization of the papacy in the first centuries of the second millennium{4} -and the resultant conciliar backlash-{5} provided the impetus to emphasize with greater explicitness the external (or visible) elements of the Church.
Post-1054 through Counter-Reformation Period and Bellarmine's "Political Society" Church Model:
Naturally as the Church centralized and as the backlash against this policy developed, the visible elements of the Church were emphasized to a greater degree. However, it was not until after the double-whammy of the so-called "western schism" and the so-called "reformation" which followed that a definition of the Church primarily encompassing the visible elements was promulgated not by the Church but by one of its most esteemed of theologians. I refer here to St. Robert Bellarmine who in 1588 presented a model of the Church based on a political society:
The one and true Church is the community of men brought together by the profession of the same Christian faith and participation in the same sacraments under the authority of legitimate pastors and especially of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff.... The one true Church is as visible and palpable as the Kingdom of France or the republic of Venice.
This was the model that would supplant the two much older models previously mentioned and be the primary paradigm in describing the Church from approximately 1600-1940. Cardinal Dulles described this model as follows:
[Bellarmine's] definition, which enumerated only the visible and structural characteristics of the Church, did not fully express Bellarmine's concept of the Church. But it was this definition which Catholicism took to itself with enthusiasm in the following centuries, sometimes referring to the Church as the "perfect society". It is the model that is found in Cardinal Gasparri's Catechism (1932), which intentionally reflects Pius XI's Mortalium Animos (1928). We will generally refer to this model as the "political society model".
It was a serviceable model in the Counter-Reformation period. It gave definite guidelines by which Catholics could identify one another. Some elements of this model must be incorporated into any complete description of the Church...But the emphasis on visible, institutional characteristics alone together with its polemical, exclusivist intent makes it a very deficient model of the Church. The Church is much more than a social structure....In fact, the whole "mystery" dimension of the Church goes unrepresented in this model. And that is surely a basic weakness in a model that aims to express a reality that is above all a mystery of faith.
This model was dominant for far too long, with serious effects on Church life. It fostered what Yves Congar has called a "hierarchology" rather than an ecclesiology. With this went a corresponding over-emphasis on authority and a corresponding lack of lay involvement in the life and mission of the Church. Much heroic missionary activity was undertaken in the period, but the aim was generally to build up the Church society on earth, efforts to save souls being directed precisely to bringing more and more people into the Church society.
Success for the missionary, and for the pastor at home as well, was measured in statistics of conversions, baptisms, regular attendance and communions. Bishop de Smedt was describing succinctly the effects of this model when he criticised the first preliminary schema on the Church presented to the Fathers at Vatican II, using the words "clericalism, juridicism, and triumphalism". [Avery Dulles SJ: Models of the Church]
This is the model of the Church most often referred to as "traditional" by self-styled "traditionalists." However, this is another case of them elevating a post-Trent novelty to the level of "Tradition" and giving short shrift to the more ancient patristic models which are more venerable and have a much longer pedigree of usage. But as dominant as the Bellarmine model became in the Counter-reformation period, the older models never completely disappeared but indeed were witnessed to in some interesting ways.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} I recently heard an excellent program on EWTN where Cardinal Avery Dulles so frequently enunciated my views on Vatican II that it pleased me greatly. (It is nice to know that my views so closely align with this brilliant man.)
{2} Most scholars believe that St. Cyprian's enthusiasm for the See of Peter as the root and matrix of the Catholic Church was diminished after he was on the receiving end of this same authority. Hence, in the redacted version, he emphasized more the episcopate than the papacy -though in both versions he recognized that all the bishops were what the Bishop of Rome was in episcopal dignity.
To quote BC Butler on this subject from his excellent work The Church and Infallibility written in 1954, in the more Petrine of the two passages (referred to generally as the "Primacy Text"):
The comparison with Ephesians...makes it clear that Cyprian is teaching the necessity of retaining communion with the Catholic Church by retaining communion with the Bishop of Rome. And was it not just because of this that at the time of his conflict with Stephen he felt obliged to "soft pedal" his language in the second edition, preserving the notion of the Church's indivisible unity, but giving less emphasis than in the first edition to the See of Rome as unity's abiding source?
But of course the logic of his own first edition defeated him, and the second version itself only achieves full internal coherence (between chapters 4 and 5) when we mentally re-emphasize the point which Cyprian was trying to blur. [BC Butler: The Church and Infallibility - A Reply to the Abridged Salmon pg. 151 (c. 1954)]
{3} But if you need some passages, see 1 Corinthians xii, Ephesians iv,11-16, and Colossians i,18-25 for passages on the Church as mystical body model. For passages on the Church as mystery model, see the Lord's parables of the Church as a sheepfold and the sole gateway to Christ (John x,1-10), the imagery of the Church as a cultivated field planted by the heavenly husbandman (Matt. xxi,33-43; cf. Isaiah v,1-7), and the image of the vine and branches (John xv) - the latter passage also applying to the Church as body of Christ model.
{4} This process started in the eleventh century but only with the Avignon papacy did the degree of centralization begin sparking opposition. To quote from one reliable source on this matter:
From the time of Gregory VII, the government of the Church had become increasingly centralized under the personal control of the Roman pontiff. In many respects this movement reached its climax in the fourteenth century. [G. Mollat: The Popes of Avignon Book III, Ch. III pg. 335 (c. 1963, 1949)]
{5} It is my opinion that the backlash against the papal centralization began after the Council of Vienne (1311-1312) when Pope Clement V basically told the Council Fathers that either they went along with him on a particular judgment -and thus it would be decreed in the name of the pope and other bishops- or the pope would do it himself.
Whatever problems there are in conciliarist theories -and there are many from a functional as well as historical aspect- it is not difficult to understand the undercurrents that developed at the time and would affect the Church until the so-called "reformation" and also the later Jansenist heresy.
Saturday, November 22, 2003
I should have quit youuuu
A long time agoooo
I should have quit you baaabyyy
A long time agoooo
I should have quit you yeah
And went on to Mexico...{1}
It is official now, your humble servant at Rerum Novarum will be spending Christmas this year in Mexico -roughly a week in the sun, surf, and other amenities. Last Christmas was simply awful in light of all the deaths that took place the previous two years - even worse than in 2001 which was the hardest hit year.{2} But the lifelong cycle was broken with the various traditional gathering holiday's in 2002{3} and Humpty Dumpty thus far has not been put together again. (Not that it ever will be the same again of course.)
An attempt will be made with Thanksgiving this year -which will be spent with a part of the family that I have never celebrated holidays with.{4} But this is a case of my sister and I deciding to placate my mother on this one. I have no idea what to talk about with people so diametrically opposite my views on practically every subject under the sun{5} but we are going for mom if you will. But Christmas will be in Mexico and only the immediate family will be going. How things will shape up in 2004 on this front is anyone's guess at this point.{6}
Anyway, I will probably not blog for about a week prior to the trip and about a week after it so I wanted to let the faithful readers know when they see a long gap from roughly December 15th through January 4th or so. I will update this site probably around the thirteenth of December and will begin the blog sabbatical on the fourteenth or so. I may even extend the sabbatical past January 4th but at this time I am not sure one way or the other.{7} But I will resume blogging sometime in January of the new year so worry not my friends, like General MacArthur, I shall return -after I leave of course. (And the interim period will not approximate Battan for you.)
[Note: An update on the Thanksgiving situation can be read HERE. -ISM (12/10/03)]
Notes:
{1} First verse from the song "Killing Floor" written by Chester Burnett.
{2} At least there was a family get together that year and several of us cooked the traditional Ukrainian Christmas food -though we did not have grandma's help that year -dying as she did the previous September.
{3} Referring to Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas -particularly the latter. Christmas of 2001 was spent at my Uncle Dave's place. Easter of 2002 was spent basically knowing that my Uncle Dave was going to die -as he did on May 19th. (Something that four months prior would have been inconceivable.) May he and the others rest in peace.
{4} People we used to see once a year at a large gathering of the McElhinney's, Kanski's and various related families. In its heyday -which was about 1978-1989- these were quite vigorous gatherings. But when someone on my mothers side of the family took over the coordinating from my dad around 1993, it ended up becoming just my mom's side of the family by default and I stopped going to these gatherings in 1997 for various reasons.
{5} Basically these are liberal Catholic social activist types (of the secular sort) who are big on travelling all over creation, heavily Democratic, members of "Washington Ceasefire" (think gun control), and an entire plethora of other subjects which do not resonate with me in the slightest. Almost no matter what I say an argument will ensue so it will really be fun if you know what I mean. But I digress...
{6} Neither my sister nor I have spouses or children -and the extended family situation has both of us at odds with various cousins and the like. And my sister is still going through the "mad at God" bit of the past few years so it is all up in the air after this Christmas.
{7} Though there is a slim chance that I will blog from Mexico, this is not likely.
A long time agoooo
I should have quit you baaabyyy
A long time agoooo
I should have quit you yeah
And went on to Mexico...{1}
It is official now, your humble servant at Rerum Novarum will be spending Christmas this year in Mexico -roughly a week in the sun, surf, and other amenities. Last Christmas was simply awful in light of all the deaths that took place the previous two years - even worse than in 2001 which was the hardest hit year.{2} But the lifelong cycle was broken with the various traditional gathering holiday's in 2002{3} and Humpty Dumpty thus far has not been put together again. (Not that it ever will be the same again of course.)
An attempt will be made with Thanksgiving this year -which will be spent with a part of the family that I have never celebrated holidays with.{4} But this is a case of my sister and I deciding to placate my mother on this one. I have no idea what to talk about with people so diametrically opposite my views on practically every subject under the sun{5} but we are going for mom if you will. But Christmas will be in Mexico and only the immediate family will be going. How things will shape up in 2004 on this front is anyone's guess at this point.{6}
Anyway, I will probably not blog for about a week prior to the trip and about a week after it so I wanted to let the faithful readers know when they see a long gap from roughly December 15th through January 4th or so. I will update this site probably around the thirteenth of December and will begin the blog sabbatical on the fourteenth or so. I may even extend the sabbatical past January 4th but at this time I am not sure one way or the other.{7} But I will resume blogging sometime in January of the new year so worry not my friends, like General MacArthur, I shall return -after I leave of course. (And the interim period will not approximate Battan for you.)
[Note: An update on the Thanksgiving situation can be read HERE. -ISM (12/10/03)]
Notes:
{1} First verse from the song "Killing Floor" written by Chester Burnett.
{2} At least there was a family get together that year and several of us cooked the traditional Ukrainian Christmas food -though we did not have grandma's help that year -dying as she did the previous September.
{3} Referring to Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas -particularly the latter. Christmas of 2001 was spent at my Uncle Dave's place. Easter of 2002 was spent basically knowing that my Uncle Dave was going to die -as he did on May 19th. (Something that four months prior would have been inconceivable.) May he and the others rest in peace.
{4} People we used to see once a year at a large gathering of the McElhinney's, Kanski's and various related families. In its heyday -which was about 1978-1989- these were quite vigorous gatherings. But when someone on my mothers side of the family took over the coordinating from my dad around 1993, it ended up becoming just my mom's side of the family by default and I stopped going to these gatherings in 1997 for various reasons.
{5} Basically these are liberal Catholic social activist types (of the secular sort) who are big on travelling all over creation, heavily Democratic, members of "Washington Ceasefire" (think gun control), and an entire plethora of other subjects which do not resonate with me in the slightest. Almost no matter what I say an argument will ensue so it will really be fun if you know what I mean. But I digress...
{6} Neither my sister nor I have spouses or children -and the extended family situation has both of us at odds with various cousins and the like. And my sister is still going through the "mad at God" bit of the past few years so it is all up in the air after this Christmas.
{7} Though there is a slim chance that I will blog from Mexico, this is not likely.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is called arguing ad ignorantiam. Arguing to the other person's ignorance, and supposing that this suffices to win the debate. Just make the other person look like a fool, and save yourself the trouble of actually making a substantive argument. It's a logical fallacy.
It is correct that argumentum ad ignorantium is a logical fallacy. However, your utilization of this term is erroneous. It is not argumentum ad ignorantium to argue to another person's ignorance. Rather, argumentum ad ignorantium is an argument that asserts the truth of a proposition on the basis that it has not been proven to be false.
My appeal to your ignorance of certain points was of course (in part) to discredit the veracity of your arguments. But this policy does not ipso facto prove that my arguments are true.{1} The very fact that you think this is the case is actually a logical fallacy whether you know it or not.{2} And the fact that you are unaware of this does not in any way make my argument invalid any more than me arguing that something cannot come from nothing by natural means is invalidated simply because I may not be familiar with the latest fancy dancy secularist evolutionary theory. Indeed this very reasoning on your part is a non-sequitur in and of itself but I digress.
Notes:
{1} Nor have I ever argued in this fashion -at least not since high school anyway. (And my study of the writings of Senator Barry M. Goldwater, RIP.) I am quite clearly not deficient in the propounding of substantive argument department. And this is not a statement which lacks the possibility of falsification because it is one that anyone familiar with my writings is well aware. (Whether they agree with all of my arguments or not.)
{2} It is the fallacy of false dilemma often propounded in the form of "either/or" assertions where such a dilemma is treated as present whether it actually is or not.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is called arguing ad ignorantiam. Arguing to the other person's ignorance, and supposing that this suffices to win the debate. Just make the other person look like a fool, and save yourself the trouble of actually making a substantive argument. It's a logical fallacy.
It is correct that argumentum ad ignorantium is a logical fallacy. However, your utilization of this term is erroneous. It is not argumentum ad ignorantium to argue to another person's ignorance. Rather, argumentum ad ignorantium is an argument that asserts the truth of a proposition on the basis that it has not been proven to be false.
My appeal to your ignorance of certain points was of course (in part) to discredit the veracity of your arguments. But this policy does not ipso facto prove that my arguments are true.{1} The very fact that you think this is the case is actually a logical fallacy whether you know it or not.{2} And the fact that you are unaware of this does not in any way make my argument invalid any more than me arguing that something cannot come from nothing by natural means is invalidated simply because I may not be familiar with the latest fancy dancy secularist evolutionary theory. Indeed this very reasoning on your part is a non-sequitur in and of itself but I digress.
Notes:
{1} Nor have I ever argued in this fashion -at least not since high school anyway. (And my study of the writings of Senator Barry M. Goldwater, RIP.) I am quite clearly not deficient in the propounding of substantive argument department. And this is not a statement which lacks the possibility of falsification because it is one that anyone familiar with my writings is well aware. (Whether they agree with all of my arguments or not.)
{2} It is the fallacy of false dilemma often propounded in the form of "either/or" assertions where such a dilemma is treated as present whether it actually is or not.
"Ecumenical Jihad" Dept.
(Courtesy of TCR)
Here is the unsettling news from Stephen Hand's area of the country...
Mass SJC Decision Against Marriage, Natural Law Means Time for Ecumenical Action
Christians and Non-Christians can act together and also pray for those who would eliminate the Natural Law
The decision means that "within 180 days same sex marriage could be allowed in Massachusetts and that could lead to court cases throughout the country. This is the trigger we knew was coming so now is the time for action". This past summer the Vatican in a document, entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, set out a battle plan for politicians opposed to legislation permitting gay marriage and adoption by gay people. Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to publicly oppose such legislation and to vote against it in parliament, it says. "To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral." Now we are all in it. Christians and Non-Christians must stand together.
In light of these developments; mindful of Our intentions to set forth fundamental principles solid enough to confute the forces of the culture of death{1} and also the need to affix these principles firmly into the psyche of those who believe in traditional principles{2}; aware of the necessity of upholding the public order of society in both religious contexts as well as contexts which are of the natural order; We declare anew this weblog's opposition to the Culture of Death and exhort Our readers to immerse themselves anew in the principles long enunciated and often inculcated on this weblog and in other mediums by your humble servant. (Supplemented with prayer and reflection of course.)
Even those of you who are not religious, I have through ressourcement set forth principles that are beneficial for maximizing freedom within the boundaries of societal order. So do not feel that my arguments cannot be applied by you. Indeed if there is any doubt that they can, I exhort you to look into the matter because trust me: this is as much in your interest as it is anyone else's if you truly care about upholding the fundamental tenants of civilization.{3} And that is the bottom line really...
Notes:
{1} And yet adaptable to changing circumstances as well.
{2} Whether they are Catholic Christians, are not Catholic Christians, or even if they are not Christian necessarily at all.
{3} Those who do not believe in religion, I exhort you to consider my defense of private property rights (see "Traditional Moral Principles") and how this defense ties solidly into a defense of the right to life (see the Terri Schiavo links). But this even involves such cherished natural principles as rights and free speech.
It all connects together my friends and as I have noted before: there are three fundamental rights which must be defended or all is lost.
Contingent to these rights -or any ancillaries derived from them which are proclaimed as "rights"- is a requirement for said rights to not be detrimental to the just public order of society as well as the common good of its citizenry. This is where same-sex marriage runs aground in the natural sphere: it erodes the public order of society and thus civilization. And for this reason, it is in your best interests to uphold traditional understanding of marriage (as between a man and a woman) for the preservation of civilization or in short: for the common good.
(Courtesy of TCR)
Here is the unsettling news from Stephen Hand's area of the country...
Mass SJC Decision Against Marriage, Natural Law Means Time for Ecumenical Action
Christians and Non-Christians can act together and also pray for those who would eliminate the Natural Law
The decision means that "within 180 days same sex marriage could be allowed in Massachusetts and that could lead to court cases throughout the country. This is the trigger we knew was coming so now is the time for action". This past summer the Vatican in a document, entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, set out a battle plan for politicians opposed to legislation permitting gay marriage and adoption by gay people. Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to publicly oppose such legislation and to vote against it in parliament, it says. "To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral." Now we are all in it. Christians and Non-Christians must stand together.
In light of these developments; mindful of Our intentions to set forth fundamental principles solid enough to confute the forces of the culture of death{1} and also the need to affix these principles firmly into the psyche of those who believe in traditional principles{2}; aware of the necessity of upholding the public order of society in both religious contexts as well as contexts which are of the natural order; We declare anew this weblog's opposition to the Culture of Death and exhort Our readers to immerse themselves anew in the principles long enunciated and often inculcated on this weblog and in other mediums by your humble servant. (Supplemented with prayer and reflection of course.)
Even those of you who are not religious, I have through ressourcement set forth principles that are beneficial for maximizing freedom within the boundaries of societal order. So do not feel that my arguments cannot be applied by you. Indeed if there is any doubt that they can, I exhort you to look into the matter because trust me: this is as much in your interest as it is anyone else's if you truly care about upholding the fundamental tenants of civilization.{3} And that is the bottom line really...
Notes:
{1} And yet adaptable to changing circumstances as well.
{2} Whether they are Catholic Christians, are not Catholic Christians, or even if they are not Christian necessarily at all.
{3} Those who do not believe in religion, I exhort you to consider my defense of private property rights (see "Traditional Moral Principles") and how this defense ties solidly into a defense of the right to life (see the Terri Schiavo links). But this even involves such cherished natural principles as rights and free speech.
It all connects together my friends and as I have noted before: there are three fundamental rights which must be defended or all is lost.
Contingent to these rights -or any ancillaries derived from them which are proclaimed as "rights"- is a requirement for said rights to not be detrimental to the just public order of society as well as the common good of its citizenry. This is where same-sex marriage runs aground in the natural sphere: it erodes the public order of society and thus civilization. And for this reason, it is in your best interests to uphold traditional understanding of marriage (as between a man and a woman) for the preservation of civilization or in short: for the common good.
Points to Ponder:
The trap of improper compromise differs from proper compromise, which is an approach taken to get half a loaf rather then none at all. The latter is used by those who are not in power or who do not have the power to get all of what they are seeking at the present time. (An example would be voting for a bill that restricted abortions — evil is thereby reduced — versus the purist who would vote against anything that is less than their ultimate agenda.) Unacceptable is the policy that insists on all or nothing when it comes to limiting evil. Politicians who are capable of realistically achieving their entire agenda improperly use this policy of half a loaf. When applied to areas that are either evil in and of themselves or which are conducive to opening or expanding a realm of greater evil, they move into the forefront of the improper compromise. [I. Shawn McElhinney: excerpt from Opening Pandora's Box, Yet Again (c. 2001)]
The trap of improper compromise differs from proper compromise, which is an approach taken to get half a loaf rather then none at all. The latter is used by those who are not in power or who do not have the power to get all of what they are seeking at the present time. (An example would be voting for a bill that restricted abortions — evil is thereby reduced — versus the purist who would vote against anything that is less than their ultimate agenda.) Unacceptable is the policy that insists on all or nothing when it comes to limiting evil. Politicians who are capable of realistically achieving their entire agenda improperly use this policy of half a loaf. When applied to areas that are either evil in and of themselves or which are conducive to opening or expanding a realm of greater evil, they move into the forefront of the improper compromise. [I. Shawn McElhinney: excerpt from Opening Pandora's Box, Yet Again (c. 2001)]
On the November First Things Issue:
(Musings of your humble servant of Rerum Novarum)
[Update: I added an extra footnote and a couple more links to this entry as well as making a couple of other modifications of a very minor nature. - ISM (11/20/03 4:17 pm)]
I readily admit to having a thrifty side to my nature - perhaps realized quite clearly in the fact that I have never prior to today actually been "caught up" on the issues of First Things.{1} But today when I was at a book store a few miles from home{2} checking up on books, the opportunity to "catch up" presented itself rather unexpectedly. For you see, before leaving the store, I stopped at the magazine rack to briefly look for one of the few magazines I read on occasion{3} and (when looking for it) spotted instead the latest issue of First Things on the rack. Fr. Martin Rhonheimer's article on the Holocaust caught my eye and after allowing myself to "sneek a quick peek", the devouring nature of reading the article{4} took over and I had to buy the issue -particularly after scanning the Public Square section and seeing the comments on a recent collection of writings by one Cardinal Walter Kasper.
I must note upfront an agreement with Fr. Neuhaus that at his best, [Kasper's] writing advances the goal of the Second Vatican Council, aggiornamento through ressourcement -renewal through a reappropriation of the fullness of the tradition. The problem is, I see much of a mixed bag in Kasper's stuff -at least what I have read which admittedly is not expansive enough to form a definitive judgment.
Further still, there are enough people who pontificate ignorantly on Kasper's statements publicly to give me a general disinclination to add to the criticisms{5} except of course for the occasional aside comment.{6}
I will simply note here that Kasper has a lot of general principles correct from what I can tell but often IMO draws conclusions from them that are of a questionable import. This is not to say that he makes bad arguments pe se only that (to quote Neuhaus) Kasper has a sympathetic appreciation of liberal "discontents" with church structures. It is true that Kasper (to again quote Neuhaus) [has a] conviction that a deeper understanding and living out of apostolic meaning of those structures is the path to renewal -and that this also touches on the ecumenical initiative. However, it would seem to this writer that Kasper's position (perhaps because of too much emphasis on the first point) leans noticeably more towards the Concilium school than towards the Communio school. And for those of us familiar with the personages that inform both sides of this division in approach, this leaves room for viable concerns.
Many people who are mildly aware of the history of the Council are aware that theologians on both sides of this divide were censured by the Curia or by the superiors of respective religious orders prior to the Council.{7}However, those who know their history of the Council properly -which alas is not many it seems- are aware that while the Concilium theologians (who leaned towards the aggiornamento principle as primary to ressourcement){8} received a lot of the headlines and were credited with a lot of the Council that they did not deserve. In reality, it was the Communio theologians -who placed the emphasis of the aggiornamento on ressourcement methodology-{9} who as periti to the bishops -or bishops- were the primary influences on the content of the Council's texts.
I am making a somewhat anachronistic division here admittedly{10} but it is necessary to properly understand the dynamics involved. More on this later on if I am inclined but for the moment hopefully these somewhat disjointed musings provide some points to ponder for you the reader.
Notes:
{1} As all issues except the most recent one are available at their website, I tend to wait and read them as they appear online -thus by default being "a month behind."
{2} Third Place Books for you Seattle (and vicinity) dwellers.
{3} My view of magazines for the most part is akin to the view of TV among the "kill your television" crowd.
{4} It is not exactly an alcoholic with his bottle but I have been admittedly a bit of a voracious reader all my life with a diversity of subjects. (Some more than others of course.)
{5} I will not name names at this time for the sake of not throwing fuel on the fires but will note it briefly to the discredit of those who frequently carp on Kasper.
{6} Or a thread formed as a result of the same or similar correspondences.
{7} I will avoid for the sake of brevity going into the politics involved in this. For a brief explanation see this entry blogged to Rerum Novarum about a year ago.
{8} To give some examples, the Concilium crowd included names such as Karl Rahner SJ, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx OP, and de Chardin. Their influence on the Council has always been exaggerated but that is another story altogether.
{9} The Communio crowd included Louis Bouyer, Christopher Butler OSB, Marie-Dominique Chenu OP, Yves M. Congar OP, Jean Danielou SJ, Henri de Lubac SJ, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthazar, and Karol Wojtyla. All of the above except Butler and Wojtyla were peritus to bishops at the Council rather than having a direct voice in things as the latter two (as bishops) did.
{10} I say "anachronistic" in that the journals that bear these names -while attesting to the division in the outlooks now- were not the case initially. After all, those who founded Communio (in 1972) originally were also contributors to Concilium before the latter (founded in 1965) was essentially dominated by the aggiornamento primary people. Hence, the word "anachronistic" applies here but not in a negative way.
(Musings of your humble servant of Rerum Novarum)
[Update: I added an extra footnote and a couple more links to this entry as well as making a couple of other modifications of a very minor nature. - ISM (11/20/03 4:17 pm)]
I readily admit to having a thrifty side to my nature - perhaps realized quite clearly in the fact that I have never prior to today actually been "caught up" on the issues of First Things.{1} But today when I was at a book store a few miles from home{2} checking up on books, the opportunity to "catch up" presented itself rather unexpectedly. For you see, before leaving the store, I stopped at the magazine rack to briefly look for one of the few magazines I read on occasion{3} and (when looking for it) spotted instead the latest issue of First Things on the rack. Fr. Martin Rhonheimer's article on the Holocaust caught my eye and after allowing myself to "sneek a quick peek", the devouring nature of reading the article{4} took over and I had to buy the issue -particularly after scanning the Public Square section and seeing the comments on a recent collection of writings by one Cardinal Walter Kasper.
I must note upfront an agreement with Fr. Neuhaus that at his best, [Kasper's] writing advances the goal of the Second Vatican Council, aggiornamento through ressourcement -renewal through a reappropriation of the fullness of the tradition. The problem is, I see much of a mixed bag in Kasper's stuff -at least what I have read which admittedly is not expansive enough to form a definitive judgment.
Further still, there are enough people who pontificate ignorantly on Kasper's statements publicly to give me a general disinclination to add to the criticisms{5} except of course for the occasional aside comment.{6}
I will simply note here that Kasper has a lot of general principles correct from what I can tell but often IMO draws conclusions from them that are of a questionable import. This is not to say that he makes bad arguments pe se only that (to quote Neuhaus) Kasper has a sympathetic appreciation of liberal "discontents" with church structures. It is true that Kasper (to again quote Neuhaus) [has a] conviction that a deeper understanding and living out of apostolic meaning of those structures is the path to renewal -and that this also touches on the ecumenical initiative. However, it would seem to this writer that Kasper's position (perhaps because of too much emphasis on the first point) leans noticeably more towards the Concilium school than towards the Communio school. And for those of us familiar with the personages that inform both sides of this division in approach, this leaves room for viable concerns.
Many people who are mildly aware of the history of the Council are aware that theologians on both sides of this divide were censured by the Curia or by the superiors of respective religious orders prior to the Council.{7}However, those who know their history of the Council properly -which alas is not many it seems- are aware that while the Concilium theologians (who leaned towards the aggiornamento principle as primary to ressourcement){8} received a lot of the headlines and were credited with a lot of the Council that they did not deserve. In reality, it was the Communio theologians -who placed the emphasis of the aggiornamento on ressourcement methodology-{9} who as periti to the bishops -or bishops- were the primary influences on the content of the Council's texts.
I am making a somewhat anachronistic division here admittedly{10} but it is necessary to properly understand the dynamics involved. More on this later on if I am inclined but for the moment hopefully these somewhat disjointed musings provide some points to ponder for you the reader.
Notes:
{1} As all issues except the most recent one are available at their website, I tend to wait and read them as they appear online -thus by default being "a month behind."
{2} Third Place Books for you Seattle (and vicinity) dwellers.
{3} My view of magazines for the most part is akin to the view of TV among the "kill your television" crowd.
{4} It is not exactly an alcoholic with his bottle but I have been admittedly a bit of a voracious reader all my life with a diversity of subjects. (Some more than others of course.)
{5} I will not name names at this time for the sake of not throwing fuel on the fires but will note it briefly to the discredit of those who frequently carp on Kasper.
{6} Or a thread formed as a result of the same or similar correspondences.
{7} I will avoid for the sake of brevity going into the politics involved in this. For a brief explanation see this entry blogged to Rerum Novarum about a year ago.
{8} To give some examples, the Concilium crowd included names such as Karl Rahner SJ, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx OP, and de Chardin. Their influence on the Council has always been exaggerated but that is another story altogether.
{9} The Communio crowd included Louis Bouyer, Christopher Butler OSB, Marie-Dominique Chenu OP, Yves M. Congar OP, Jean Danielou SJ, Henri de Lubac SJ, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthazar, and Karol Wojtyla. All of the above except Butler and Wojtyla were peritus to bishops at the Council rather than having a direct voice in things as the latter two (as bishops) did.
{10} I say "anachronistic" in that the journals that bear these names -while attesting to the division in the outlooks now- were not the case initially. After all, those who founded Communio (in 1972) originally were also contributors to Concilium before the latter (founded in 1965) was essentially dominated by the aggiornamento primary people. Hence, the word "anachronistic" applies here but not in a negative way.
Miscellaneous Musings:
(On Church Architecture)
It is impossible these days to do virtually anything without a permit or some kind of license. Why therefore would this not apply to the building of churches and shrines???
Please tell me I am not the only one that believes that any proposed architect for a church building should have to pass an "aesthetics test" and be given some certification indicating that they understand the importance of art, architecture, and the like before they are allowed to renovate any churches. (Or have a hand in their design or building.)
(On Church Architecture)
It is impossible these days to do virtually anything without a permit or some kind of license. Why therefore would this not apply to the building of churches and shrines???
Please tell me I am not the only one that believes that any proposed architect for a church building should have to pass an "aesthetics test" and be given some certification indicating that they understand the importance of art, architecture, and the like before they are allowed to renovate any churches. (Or have a hand in their design or building.)
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
For the first time I can ever recall it,{1} I constructed a blog post and right before posting it deleted the text. The main reason was in rereading it I noticed that one could much too easily read things into what I was saying that were not my intentions. There was also criticism of a rather prominent member of the blogosphere - a name that I believe has never crossed the pages of this humble weblog before. Just as the post itself could have too easily (in retrospect) have been misconstrued, my criticisms of the personage in the piece{2} might be construed incorrectly as some form of envy.
Thus to avoid these misperceptions, a blog entry for the first time that I can recall in a long time (if ever){3} was deleted. Hopefully this will not become a pattern.
Notes:
{1} The first time with the weblogs that is. I did do this on rare occasions with message board posts in the past but very rarely.
{2} Who admittedly does not impress me an iota.
{3} I have postponed entries, updated entries previously posted at times, and even slightly revised entries previously posted at times. But I cannot ever recall deleting a planned blog entry -particularly moments before publishing it. I hope I am not reading too much into this action but I digress...
Thus to avoid these misperceptions, a blog entry for the first time that I can recall in a long time (if ever){3} was deleted. Hopefully this will not become a pattern.
Notes:
{1} The first time with the weblogs that is. I did do this on rare occasions with message board posts in the past but very rarely.
{2} Who admittedly does not impress me an iota.
{3} I have postponed entries, updated entries previously posted at times, and even slightly revised entries previously posted at times. But I cannot ever recall deleting a planned blog entry -particularly moments before publishing it. I hope I am not reading too much into this action but I digress...
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Responsum ad Palmum
[Update: Subsequent to this post it was determined that this writer wronged David Palm on the subject matter pertaining to what was once referred to as the "Palm Desert Dept." post. For this reason, an apology was issued which can be read here. - ISM (12/22/03 12am)]
The following is a response to David Palm. His words in all three emails will be in light red font. His quoting of my previous words from either previous emails or a discussion list will be in blue font italicized. His words from the same list will be in blue initalicized font. My quotes of his previous words (from another source) will be in purple font. My sources (if any are used) will be in dark blue font.
Hi Shawn (et al.):
Hello David:
I decided to exercise the Welborn Protocol with this series of emails since (i) everyone you emailed the first time was a member of the Inquisition and (ii) nothing in the email you sent me privately is requiring of confidentiality.
Email #1 (circa 10/27/03):
Thanks for writing.
You are welcome.
I'd like to address some of the points in your post, but there is one central one that needs resolution before anything else.
Okay.
You wrote:
In the meantime, I responded some time ago on Rerum Novarum to your assertion that Vatican II"did not address the errors [outlined in Humani Generis] in any meaningful way."
Yes, I did.
I note that in those blog entries you cite seven sentences plucked from some unspecified source. They are devoid of any context and there is no way for the reader to obtain any. Would you please forward me the entire e-message in question that shows those sentences in their entire context? Thank you.
This is a reasonable request. When I comment on a source, I tend whenever possible to utilize the entire source. The context of your words can be discerned by stringing all the black parts of the text together. The reason my comments took up so much space is because you made statements that I sought to address in detail. There is no context therefore which is missing from what I responded to.
You also wrote:
I for one have experienced the David Palm shuck and jive on discussion lists and frankly it gets old really fast.
This is very interesting, Shawn. On the CatholicTheology list just about one year ago you made a similar statement:
Considering how adeptly you have evaded several questions which appear to make you "uncomfortable" David, I find this characterization rather interesting.
In light of you asking me for context to the source I used -and again this is a reasonable request- I formally request the same in this case.
To which I replied:
You'll have to be more specific, Shawn. As I've said, I don't always catch what others consider the most salient of their queries. And Peter just likes to bait me, so I generally ignore his pokes. Please restate what I have evaded and I'll do my best to answer directly.
I presume the "Peter" in the above was Pete Vere. (I cannot recall offhand any other Peter's on that list.)
You did not bring forth any specifics at that time, Shawn, so I chalked up your prior statement as mere posturing (or perhaps "shucking and jiving", if you please). If you have some specific questions now, however, I'd would seek to address them as best I can.
We had a number of threads going as many discussion lists do.{1} I cannot recall which thread in particular you are referring to with the above quote. Further still, if I recall correctly (and I may be mistaken here) not long after I made the comments you quote, I also made protests to the moderator about a certain participant to the thread{2} who was poisoning the discourse and another who was constantly making abrupt challenges to others only to be smacked down again and again.{3}
I specifically told the moderator that if the former personage was not ejected from the forum that I would leave. As the moderator did not do this, I kept my promise and unsubscribed from the list. What I had wanted from the list was later realized in a new list to which I was invited upon its launching. And I have been a contributor to that list's discussion environment ever since -albeit the degree of involvement has varied over the months depending on many factors -particularly time constraints.
As far as the old list goes, I can barely remember all the threads on the lists I am on now which are ongoing -how am I going to remember divers stuff from a list of over a year ago??? I have some of the emails from the older list only because I saved them for blogging later on.{4} Other then those, I cannot remember much of anything in particular about the list you refer to.
The next two emails will be without greeting and closing:
Email #2 (circa 11/03/03):
I'm wondering if you could please send me the entire e-message you excerpted for your six-part commentary entitled "Palm Desert Dept."? Thank you.
Email #3 (circa 11/10/03):
I'm wondering if you could please send me the entire e-message you excerpted for your six-part commentary entitled "Palm Desert Dept."? I know how important it is to you to have things read in their entire context, so I would very much like to see the sentences you excerpted in their entire context. Thank you.
Since you asked more than once, here is the entire source. It is an email you made to Albert's old list. Albert posted it on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 10:55 am - presumably you wrote it a day or two prior to that. Here is the full text:
Assuming Shawn's historical claim is true (that problems perdure for 40 to 60 years after a possibly apply this standard to Vatican II? When Bl. John XXIII first called the Council, he did not do so to address any problems; rather, he attested to the health of the Church at the time. That there were errors and corruption in the Church at the time has now been established beyond any doubt -- but the Council was not called to address them and in fact did not address them. For example, consider the errors that Pope Pius XII sought to address in Humani Generis.
Did the Council address these errors? How about the issue of contraception, once again threatening the Church because of the invention of the Pill. Did the Council address this issue? How about Communism? What about the issue of the Chinese Church?
Saying historically that problems persist for 40 to 60 years after a Council has sought to address them is evading the issue. THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Moreover there is not the slightest indication that the Church's problems are going to go away in 2 or even 20 years.
Pax tecum,
David
That is the entire thread I responded to.{5} Breaking it down section by section in my response, you will see the following divisions utilized.
Part I addressed these parts of the email:
Assuming Shawn's historical claim is true (that problems perdure for 40 to 60 years after a possibly apply this standard to Vatican II? When Bl. John XXIII first called the Council, he did not do so to address any problems; rather, he attested to the health of the Church at the time.
The rest of Part I and all of Parts II, III, and IV addressed the next two pieces of the email in detail.{6}
That there were errors and corruption in the Church at the time has now been established beyond any doubt -- but the Council was not called to address them and in fact did not address them. For example, consider the errors that Pope Pius XII sought to address in Humani Generis.
Did the Council address these errors?
Part V addressed these points of the email:
How about the issue of contraception, once again threatening the Church because of the invention of the Pill. Did the Council address this issue? How about Communism? What about the issue of the Chinese Church?
Saying historically that problems persist for 40 to 60 years after a Council has sought to address them is evading the issue. THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Moreover there is not the slightest indication that the Church's problems are going to go away in 2 or even 20 years.
Part VI was a summation of the thread and additional bits for pondering from the wellspring of the Catholic tradition of spiritual instruction. In short, there was no prooftexting involved here. Instead, it was a detailed interaction with one of your emails where you made a bunch of (to put it nicely) "factually-challenged statements."
Hopefully that suffices to respond to your inquiries.{7}
IC XC
Notes:
{1} Heck, a list that was formed about a month after I left the list you refer to will celebrate its one year anniversary tomorrow. At the moment it has almost 4350 posts to it and a membership of about 35 people. (About half of which are regular contributors.)
{2} The name of which will not be mentioned to protect theguilty person.
{3} Neither of these people was you lest the readers wonder.
{4} Some of which I have blogged and some of which I have not. (At least not yet.)
{5} Sans the closing of course.
{6} With a commentary on the various parts of the encyclical Humani Generis so commonly misunderstood (and misappropriated) by the self-styled "traditionalist" crowd.
{7} To review the threads of which David refers, see this link.
[Update: Subsequent to this post it was determined that this writer wronged David Palm on the subject matter pertaining to what was once referred to as the "Palm Desert Dept." post. For this reason, an apology was issued which can be read here. - ISM (12/22/03 12am)]
The following is a response to David Palm. His words in all three emails will be in light red font. His quoting of my previous words from either previous emails or a discussion list will be in blue font italicized. His words from the same list will be in blue initalicized font. My quotes of his previous words (from another source) will be in purple font. My sources (if any are used) will be in dark blue font.
Hi Shawn (et al.):
Hello David:
I decided to exercise the Welborn Protocol with this series of emails since (i) everyone you emailed the first time was a member of the Inquisition and (ii) nothing in the email you sent me privately is requiring of confidentiality.
Email #1 (circa 10/27/03):
Thanks for writing.
You are welcome.
I'd like to address some of the points in your post, but there is one central one that needs resolution before anything else.
Okay.
You wrote:
In the meantime, I responded some time ago on Rerum Novarum to your assertion that Vatican II"did not address the errors [outlined in Humani Generis] in any meaningful way."
Yes, I did.
I note that in those blog entries you cite seven sentences plucked from some unspecified source. They are devoid of any context and there is no way for the reader to obtain any. Would you please forward me the entire e-message in question that shows those sentences in their entire context? Thank you.
This is a reasonable request. When I comment on a source, I tend whenever possible to utilize the entire source. The context of your words can be discerned by stringing all the black parts of the text together. The reason my comments took up so much space is because you made statements that I sought to address in detail. There is no context therefore which is missing from what I responded to.
You also wrote:
I for one have experienced the David Palm shuck and jive on discussion lists and frankly it gets old really fast.
This is very interesting, Shawn. On the CatholicTheology list just about one year ago you made a similar statement:
Considering how adeptly you have evaded several questions which appear to make you "uncomfortable" David, I find this characterization rather interesting.
In light of you asking me for context to the source I used -and again this is a reasonable request- I formally request the same in this case.
To which I replied:
You'll have to be more specific, Shawn. As I've said, I don't always catch what others consider the most salient of their queries. And Peter just likes to bait me, so I generally ignore his pokes. Please restate what I have evaded and I'll do my best to answer directly.
I presume the "Peter" in the above was Pete Vere. (I cannot recall offhand any other Peter's on that list.)
You did not bring forth any specifics at that time, Shawn, so I chalked up your prior statement as mere posturing (or perhaps "shucking and jiving", if you please). If you have some specific questions now, however, I'd would seek to address them as best I can.
We had a number of threads going as many discussion lists do.{1} I cannot recall which thread in particular you are referring to with the above quote. Further still, if I recall correctly (and I may be mistaken here) not long after I made the comments you quote, I also made protests to the moderator about a certain participant to the thread{2} who was poisoning the discourse and another who was constantly making abrupt challenges to others only to be smacked down again and again.{3}
I specifically told the moderator that if the former personage was not ejected from the forum that I would leave. As the moderator did not do this, I kept my promise and unsubscribed from the list. What I had wanted from the list was later realized in a new list to which I was invited upon its launching. And I have been a contributor to that list's discussion environment ever since -albeit the degree of involvement has varied over the months depending on many factors -particularly time constraints.
As far as the old list goes, I can barely remember all the threads on the lists I am on now which are ongoing -how am I going to remember divers stuff from a list of over a year ago??? I have some of the emails from the older list only because I saved them for blogging later on.{4} Other then those, I cannot remember much of anything in particular about the list you refer to.
The next two emails will be without greeting and closing:
Email #2 (circa 11/03/03):
I'm wondering if you could please send me the entire e-message you excerpted for your six-part commentary entitled "Palm Desert Dept."? Thank you.
Email #3 (circa 11/10/03):
I'm wondering if you could please send me the entire e-message you excerpted for your six-part commentary entitled "Palm Desert Dept."? I know how important it is to you to have things read in their entire context, so I would very much like to see the sentences you excerpted in their entire context. Thank you.
Since you asked more than once, here is the entire source. It is an email you made to Albert's old list. Albert posted it on Fri Jun 20, 2003 at 10:55 am - presumably you wrote it a day or two prior to that. Here is the full text:
Assuming Shawn's historical claim is true (that problems perdure for 40 to 60 years after a possibly apply this standard to Vatican II? When Bl. John XXIII first called the Council, he did not do so to address any problems; rather, he attested to the health of the Church at the time. That there were errors and corruption in the Church at the time has now been established beyond any doubt -- but the Council was not called to address them and in fact did not address them. For example, consider the errors that Pope Pius XII sought to address in Humani Generis.
Did the Council address these errors? How about the issue of contraception, once again threatening the Church because of the invention of the Pill. Did the Council address this issue? How about Communism? What about the issue of the Chinese Church?
Saying historically that problems persist for 40 to 60 years after a Council has sought to address them is evading the issue. THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Moreover there is not the slightest indication that the Church's problems are going to go away in 2 or even 20 years.
Pax tecum,
David
That is the entire thread I responded to.{5} Breaking it down section by section in my response, you will see the following divisions utilized.
Part I addressed these parts of the email:
Assuming Shawn's historical claim is true (that problems perdure for 40 to 60 years after a possibly apply this standard to Vatican II? When Bl. John XXIII first called the Council, he did not do so to address any problems; rather, he attested to the health of the Church at the time.
The rest of Part I and all of Parts II, III, and IV addressed the next two pieces of the email in detail.{6}
That there were errors and corruption in the Church at the time has now been established beyond any doubt -- but the Council was not called to address them and in fact did not address them. For example, consider the errors that Pope Pius XII sought to address in Humani Generis.
Did the Council address these errors?
Part V addressed these points of the email:
How about the issue of contraception, once again threatening the Church because of the invention of the Pill. Did the Council address this issue? How about Communism? What about the issue of the Chinese Church?
Saying historically that problems persist for 40 to 60 years after a Council has sought to address them is evading the issue. THE PROBLEMS OF TODAY WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Moreover there is not the slightest indication that the Church's problems are going to go away in 2 or even 20 years.
Part VI was a summation of the thread and additional bits for pondering from the wellspring of the Catholic tradition of spiritual instruction. In short, there was no prooftexting involved here. Instead, it was a detailed interaction with one of your emails where you made a bunch of (to put it nicely) "factually-challenged statements."
Hopefully that suffices to respond to your inquiries.{7}
IC XC
Notes:
{1} Heck, a list that was formed about a month after I left the list you refer to will celebrate its one year anniversary tomorrow. At the moment it has almost 4350 posts to it and a membership of about 35 people. (About half of which are regular contributors.)
{2} The name of which will not be mentioned to protect the
{3} Neither of these people was you lest the readers wonder.
{4} Some of which I have blogged and some of which I have not. (At least not yet.)
{5} Sans the closing of course.
{6} With a commentary on the various parts of the encyclical Humani Generis so commonly misunderstood (and misappropriated) by the self-styled "traditionalist" crowd.
{7} To review the threads of which David refers, see this link.
On "Traditionalism", "Antisemitism", and Mel Gibson:
In a recent post, Bill Cork continues to employ the kind of approach to Mel Gibson and his movie The Passion that he criticizes in others who do this with USCCB subcommittee documents. The intention of this entry is to try to provide a bit of balance to this subject from one who spent a good part of his life affiliated with the same kinds of theological outlooks that Gibson has. As a former Lutheran (and a pastor), Bill has at times been critical of the approaches that non-Lutherans take towards the theological stances of Lutherans. Hopefully he therefore will understand that I approach the subject of "traditionalism" the same way and for similar reasons.
For despite these jabs at Gibson's movie, the reader needs to understand that Bill has not seen it whereas those critical of a certain USCCB subcommittee document from last year did see the document even if most people did not necessarily understand its manifested intention. Anyway, without further ado, let us interact with this entry a bit:
Touching a raw nerve
Why have so many rightwing commentators rushed to defend Mel Gibson from the charge of antisemitism? Some, I think, must feel the charge is correct, and are uncomfortable because it exposes their own attitudes. Not all, of course, but enough that we should be concerned.
Presumably amongst the people he is labeling as "right wing" would include your humble servant at Rerum Novarum who not only drew people's attention to commentaries on the reactions to the movie from two Orthodox Jewish commentators{1} but who also has weighed in on the Mel Gibson movie subject. But let us return to Bill's thread and address the attempt to put this into context that he supplies.
Let's put this in context. Many rightwing Catholics defended one of their own who went so far as to plagiarize Nazis and well-known white supremacists.
As my track record well indicates, I have consistently not defended the person Bill refers to. In fact, I was critical of that person behind the scenes for a couple of years prior to the debacle of last year. But rather than belabour that point, let us move onward.
Others, while embarrassed by his extreme statements, were equally blunt in attacking the US Bishops Conference for recent statements on the Jews.
Again, not this writer. That is not to say that I was pleased with what the conference said. However, I was deliberately hesitant to comment too much on this subject early on except very briefly. And of course when reading the comments of others, I was not shy to point out whose positions were problematical and whose were not from a theological standpoint.{2}
Were they just using theological criteria in doing so? I'm not so sure.
Presumably charitable criteria is out of the question here.
An adminstrator on one conservative Catholic message board today said that if Jews like the movie, "The Gospel of John," something must be lacking in its presentation. And if Jews dislike Gibson's passion, that is a point in its favor.
No comment.
I've tended to say that I think such statements are merely evidence of ignorance of the consistent Catholic teaching since Nostra Aetate. I think I was being naive.
When I first heard of Gibson's movie, I thought it sounded intriguing. When I heard Jim tell of seeing the trailer at the Atlanta Eucharistic Congress, I shared the enthusiasm of many others. When I heard of the questions that were being asked based on a copy of the script obtained by a group of respected scholars, I began to be concerned, but I supposed that once some people were able to see the film, we would have some answers.
Of course since Bill has not seen the film yet the readers should take that into account when reading his comments on it.
I wrote in June, I want to like this movie. In light of the comments that have been made by those who have seen the trailer or the rough cut, it sounds like an impressive piece of film making.
Michael Medved says that it is the best biblical epic film he has ever seen. And Medved has probably seen more films than the entire St. Blogs contingent combined. And as an Orthodox Jew who takes his faith seriously, if he saw problems with the film -technically or otherwise- it would be unlike him to not comment on them.
My alarm bells started ringing when one person who saw it and invited questions refused to answer even the simplest, and used terms like "demonic," "vile and disgusting," "absurd and frivolous" to describe the questions raised by some of the leading Catholic and Jewish scholars in the field of interfaith relations.
Of course these are many of the same people who raise nary a voice about the reams of movies that impugn Catholic teaching or practices. When these people apply this kind of criticism across the board, then I for one will take them seriously. But not until then.{3}
People began to refer to the film as "inspired" and "a source of theology." Others, even evangelical Protestants, saw the film and were so caught up in the emotion that they couldn't distinguish between those scenes that are faithful to Scripture and those that are additions from questionable sources.
Of course the idea that Mel Gibson might be trying to create a primarily devotional film or a film that will prompt people to reflect upon the event of the crucifixion itself is not admitted as a possibility. Movies have different aims and the best source for determining the intentions of a particular film is to ask the filmmaker.
Most Christians who have seen it have been so caught up in their own positive experience that they can't imagine how anyone could possible have a different experience. And they patronizingly tell Jews they have nothing to worry about.
For some reason I doubt that Bill has conducted a poll of "most Christians" on this or any other matter. And of course any film about Jesus of Nazareth is bound to get the skivvies of some Jews in a bunch.
Since June, I've read the scholars report, and have been able to speak with many Jews and Christians who have seen the film, and so have been able to develop a pretty good understanding of what is in the film now and what changes were made from the original script.
All films go through changes in the script. Rent any DVD of a recent movie and you will generally see lots of extras such as deleted scenes, alternate takes, and the like. I fail to see why we should expect that Mel's movie would be any different in this regard.
I've been able to see how it affects people. I've spoken to people who have seen both "The Passion" and "The Gospel of John," and it has been fascinating to hear the comparisons and contrasts.
I've waited to hear the defenders of "The Passion" mention "The Gospel of John," which, unlike Gibson's film, is truly a faithful telling of the gospel story.
I have seen neither film. But then again, I am not inclined to rail against films I have not seen. However, others who have are apparently not taking the position that the Gospel of John film is as faithful to the Gospel as Bill says it is.
But they say nothing, all the while lifting Gibson above the evangelists themselves, and canonizing his Traditionalist take on the passion.
This is really the meat of the matter: Bill is so sensitive to the views of Jews and even of Lutherans -which in and of itself is fine- but those whom he has never had an affiliation (the so-called "traditionalists") are of course not accorded the same respect.
Besides, it seems that Bill is quite quick to hang any incongruities between the Gospel of John (Mel's main template) and the movie with visionary stuff rather than go to the three most obvious secondary sources. Here is one example{4} of him doing this:
There's also a scene in it from Emmerich in which the earthquake at the death of Jesus strikes the temple in divine retribution; this didn't appear to be in the script they saw.
Of course this has to be from Emmerich. After all, Mel being a "traditionalist" has never seen a Bible in his life.{5} Perhaps Bill should open his Bible to the Gospel of Matthew and read along with us for a moment:
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "This man is calling Eli'jah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Eli'jah will come to save him." And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. [Matthew xxvii,45-53 RSV]
Mark's Gospel also refers to the curtain in the temple being torn in two as does Luke's Gospel (see Mark xv,38 and Luke xxiii,45). Matthew's Gospel it is true is the only one that speaks of the earthquake taking place but it seems to this writer that the scene above was taken from Matthew's Gospel, not the works attributed to Anne Catherine Emmerich. And lest Bill think that as a former "traditionalist" that I am an "apologist for Emmerich" I was critical of some of her stuff before I disassociated myself with the radtrads.{6}
Now then, is it at all possible that Gibson was supplementing his epic with material from the other Gospels??? A dialogue partner of mine even noted that one scene (of a Jewish mob "brutalizing" Jesus) has a very close parallel in the Gospel of Luke and "[t]he men who held Jesus in custody ridiculing and beating him" (cf. Luke xxii,63-65).
Of course as the Gospel of Luke notes, this preceded these same men taking Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Mark's Gospel actually has this event happening after the visit to the Sanhedrin and after the high priest accused Jesus of blasphemy (see Mark xiv,65). Likewise, Matthew's Gospel has this scene after the visit to the Sanhedrin (see Matthew xxvii,67-68).
This is not the place to go into informal controlled formats of oral tradition so for the moment merely recognize that three Gospels relate this same event and the Gospel of John is silent on the matter. Bill would probably chalk this up to a "vision of Emmerich" also -which seems to this writer to be a reinforcement of the stereotype that "traditionalists" never read their Bible.{7} Otherwise, I am left asking why Bill would presume a priori that Gibson must have gotten the material not in the Gospel of John from non-biblical sources.
They expect miracles of the film, and conversions, and this only hardens their belief that any questioning of it must be rooted in unbelief.
How about this novel concept: let Gibson make his movie, watch it, then criticize it (if you feel inclined to).
They've turned Gibson's movie into a Sacrament; those who question it take the role of the scourgers of Christ, and they become Simon of Cyrene. And then it comes. Then they say, "What do you expect? This is what they did to Jesus 2000 years ago."
All of this is what is referred to in a court of law as "hearsay."
In closing, Bill Cork as a former Lutheran minister as well as (if I recall correctly) someone with Jewish ancestry has a natural sensitivity towards these groups of people. However, he is quite clearly more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than he is the so-called "traditionalists."
Nonetheless, as he set his entry up with a contrast between (i) the approach taken towards the public antisemitism of Robert Sungenis (ii) the approach taken by many of the same people towards the USCCB and (iii) the approach most Catholics have taken towards the accusations leveled at The Passion, it is clear that Bill sought by default to discredit the criticisms of anyone who was inconsistent in the above scenarios. And as one of the only Catholics who has not been inconsistent on the above matters,{8} it seemed to this writer that a response was needed.
Hopefully Bill will recognize that in this response that as a former self-styled "traditionalist",{9} my criticisms of him here are in the same vein as his criticisms of non-Lutherans pontificating with dogmatic authority on the theological positions of Lutherans. For the casualty of consistency here is not on my side but instead it is on his.
Notes:
{1} Referring here to movie critic and talkshow host Michael Medved and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition. (Who is a weekend talkshow host as well as a substitute host at times for Michael Medved and Medved's rabbi.)
{2} This does not mean that I necessarily agreed with the stances of those whom I pointed out were approaching this subject correctly -either fully or for the most part.
{3} And yes, this is the position I have consistently taken over the years -even when doing so makes me "unpopular."
{4} From the link located HERE. Notice if you will that Bill misses the entire thrust of Rabbi Lapin's article which was directed towards the critics of the Passion, not the uncompleted film itself.
{5} Many do not this is true. However this is a stereotype and for one who rightfully decries stereotypes against the Jews, it is amazing that Bill seems to imply that what is good for the gander is in this case not good for the goose.
{6} And readers of Envoy Encore can attest to, I am no fan whatsoever of the Emmerich-attributed visions: at least 90% of which are inauthentic.
{7} Like most stereotypes it has some foundation in reality but that is still no excuse.
{8} Bill is certainly not unaware of my stances on the Sungenis situation. However, my criticisms of the way most Catholic commentators handled the USCCB situation -being fewer in number and less frequent- may not be as known to him. Nonetheless, like the war subject -another one where many gung ho Catholic types have had to backtrack on- I have been consistent in my stances all along.
{9} And as no one can accuse me of a lack of criticism viz the so-called "traditionalists", Bill cannot chalk this up as a blind defending of them on my part. (As he could do with numerous others who might seek to defend them.)
In a recent post, Bill Cork continues to employ the kind of approach to Mel Gibson and his movie The Passion that he criticizes in others who do this with USCCB subcommittee documents. The intention of this entry is to try to provide a bit of balance to this subject from one who spent a good part of his life affiliated with the same kinds of theological outlooks that Gibson has. As a former Lutheran (and a pastor), Bill has at times been critical of the approaches that non-Lutherans take towards the theological stances of Lutherans. Hopefully he therefore will understand that I approach the subject of "traditionalism" the same way and for similar reasons.
For despite these jabs at Gibson's movie, the reader needs to understand that Bill has not seen it whereas those critical of a certain USCCB subcommittee document from last year did see the document even if most people did not necessarily understand its manifested intention. Anyway, without further ado, let us interact with this entry a bit:
Touching a raw nerve
Why have so many rightwing commentators rushed to defend Mel Gibson from the charge of antisemitism? Some, I think, must feel the charge is correct, and are uncomfortable because it exposes their own attitudes. Not all, of course, but enough that we should be concerned.
Presumably amongst the people he is labeling as "right wing" would include your humble servant at Rerum Novarum who not only drew people's attention to commentaries on the reactions to the movie from two Orthodox Jewish commentators{1} but who also has weighed in on the Mel Gibson movie subject. But let us return to Bill's thread and address the attempt to put this into context that he supplies.
Let's put this in context. Many rightwing Catholics defended one of their own who went so far as to plagiarize Nazis and well-known white supremacists.
As my track record well indicates, I have consistently not defended the person Bill refers to. In fact, I was critical of that person behind the scenes for a couple of years prior to the debacle of last year. But rather than belabour that point, let us move onward.
Others, while embarrassed by his extreme statements, were equally blunt in attacking the US Bishops Conference for recent statements on the Jews.
Again, not this writer. That is not to say that I was pleased with what the conference said. However, I was deliberately hesitant to comment too much on this subject early on except very briefly. And of course when reading the comments of others, I was not shy to point out whose positions were problematical and whose were not from a theological standpoint.{2}
Were they just using theological criteria in doing so? I'm not so sure.
Presumably charitable criteria is out of the question here.
An adminstrator on one conservative Catholic message board today said that if Jews like the movie, "The Gospel of John," something must be lacking in its presentation. And if Jews dislike Gibson's passion, that is a point in its favor.
No comment.
I've tended to say that I think such statements are merely evidence of ignorance of the consistent Catholic teaching since Nostra Aetate. I think I was being naive.
When I first heard of Gibson's movie, I thought it sounded intriguing. When I heard Jim tell of seeing the trailer at the Atlanta Eucharistic Congress, I shared the enthusiasm of many others. When I heard of the questions that were being asked based on a copy of the script obtained by a group of respected scholars, I began to be concerned, but I supposed that once some people were able to see the film, we would have some answers.
Of course since Bill has not seen the film yet the readers should take that into account when reading his comments on it.
I wrote in June, I want to like this movie. In light of the comments that have been made by those who have seen the trailer or the rough cut, it sounds like an impressive piece of film making.
Michael Medved says that it is the best biblical epic film he has ever seen. And Medved has probably seen more films than the entire St. Blogs contingent combined. And as an Orthodox Jew who takes his faith seriously, if he saw problems with the film -technically or otherwise- it would be unlike him to not comment on them.
My alarm bells started ringing when one person who saw it and invited questions refused to answer even the simplest, and used terms like "demonic," "vile and disgusting," "absurd and frivolous" to describe the questions raised by some of the leading Catholic and Jewish scholars in the field of interfaith relations.
Of course these are many of the same people who raise nary a voice about the reams of movies that impugn Catholic teaching or practices. When these people apply this kind of criticism across the board, then I for one will take them seriously. But not until then.{3}
People began to refer to the film as "inspired" and "a source of theology." Others, even evangelical Protestants, saw the film and were so caught up in the emotion that they couldn't distinguish between those scenes that are faithful to Scripture and those that are additions from questionable sources.
Of course the idea that Mel Gibson might be trying to create a primarily devotional film or a film that will prompt people to reflect upon the event of the crucifixion itself is not admitted as a possibility. Movies have different aims and the best source for determining the intentions of a particular film is to ask the filmmaker.
Most Christians who have seen it have been so caught up in their own positive experience that they can't imagine how anyone could possible have a different experience. And they patronizingly tell Jews they have nothing to worry about.
For some reason I doubt that Bill has conducted a poll of "most Christians" on this or any other matter. And of course any film about Jesus of Nazareth is bound to get the skivvies of some Jews in a bunch.
Since June, I've read the scholars report, and have been able to speak with many Jews and Christians who have seen the film, and so have been able to develop a pretty good understanding of what is in the film now and what changes were made from the original script.
All films go through changes in the script. Rent any DVD of a recent movie and you will generally see lots of extras such as deleted scenes, alternate takes, and the like. I fail to see why we should expect that Mel's movie would be any different in this regard.
I've been able to see how it affects people. I've spoken to people who have seen both "The Passion" and "The Gospel of John," and it has been fascinating to hear the comparisons and contrasts.
I've waited to hear the defenders of "The Passion" mention "The Gospel of John," which, unlike Gibson's film, is truly a faithful telling of the gospel story.
I have seen neither film. But then again, I am not inclined to rail against films I have not seen. However, others who have are apparently not taking the position that the Gospel of John film is as faithful to the Gospel as Bill says it is.
But they say nothing, all the while lifting Gibson above the evangelists themselves, and canonizing his Traditionalist take on the passion.
This is really the meat of the matter: Bill is so sensitive to the views of Jews and even of Lutherans -which in and of itself is fine- but those whom he has never had an affiliation (the so-called "traditionalists") are of course not accorded the same respect.
Besides, it seems that Bill is quite quick to hang any incongruities between the Gospel of John (Mel's main template) and the movie with visionary stuff rather than go to the three most obvious secondary sources. Here is one example{4} of him doing this:
There's also a scene in it from Emmerich in which the earthquake at the death of Jesus strikes the temple in divine retribution; this didn't appear to be in the script they saw.
Of course this has to be from Emmerich. After all, Mel being a "traditionalist" has never seen a Bible in his life.{5} Perhaps Bill should open his Bible to the Gospel of Matthew and read along with us for a moment:
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "This man is calling Eli'jah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Eli'jah will come to save him." And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. [Matthew xxvii,45-53 RSV]
Mark's Gospel also refers to the curtain in the temple being torn in two as does Luke's Gospel (see Mark xv,38 and Luke xxiii,45). Matthew's Gospel it is true is the only one that speaks of the earthquake taking place but it seems to this writer that the scene above was taken from Matthew's Gospel, not the works attributed to Anne Catherine Emmerich. And lest Bill think that as a former "traditionalist" that I am an "apologist for Emmerich" I was critical of some of her stuff before I disassociated myself with the radtrads.{6}
Now then, is it at all possible that Gibson was supplementing his epic with material from the other Gospels??? A dialogue partner of mine even noted that one scene (of a Jewish mob "brutalizing" Jesus) has a very close parallel in the Gospel of Luke and "[t]he men who held Jesus in custody ridiculing and beating him" (cf. Luke xxii,63-65).
Of course as the Gospel of Luke notes, this preceded these same men taking Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Mark's Gospel actually has this event happening after the visit to the Sanhedrin and after the high priest accused Jesus of blasphemy (see Mark xiv,65). Likewise, Matthew's Gospel has this scene after the visit to the Sanhedrin (see Matthew xxvii,67-68).
This is not the place to go into informal controlled formats of oral tradition so for the moment merely recognize that three Gospels relate this same event and the Gospel of John is silent on the matter. Bill would probably chalk this up to a "vision of Emmerich" also -which seems to this writer to be a reinforcement of the stereotype that "traditionalists" never read their Bible.{7} Otherwise, I am left asking why Bill would presume a priori that Gibson must have gotten the material not in the Gospel of John from non-biblical sources.
They expect miracles of the film, and conversions, and this only hardens their belief that any questioning of it must be rooted in unbelief.
How about this novel concept: let Gibson make his movie, watch it, then criticize it (if you feel inclined to).
They've turned Gibson's movie into a Sacrament; those who question it take the role of the scourgers of Christ, and they become Simon of Cyrene. And then it comes. Then they say, "What do you expect? This is what they did to Jesus 2000 years ago."
All of this is what is referred to in a court of law as "hearsay."
In closing, Bill Cork as a former Lutheran minister as well as (if I recall correctly) someone with Jewish ancestry has a natural sensitivity towards these groups of people. However, he is quite clearly more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than he is the so-called "traditionalists."
Nonetheless, as he set his entry up with a contrast between (i) the approach taken towards the public antisemitism of Robert Sungenis (ii) the approach taken by many of the same people towards the USCCB and (iii) the approach most Catholics have taken towards the accusations leveled at The Passion, it is clear that Bill sought by default to discredit the criticisms of anyone who was inconsistent in the above scenarios. And as one of the only Catholics who has not been inconsistent on the above matters,{8} it seemed to this writer that a response was needed.
Hopefully Bill will recognize that in this response that as a former self-styled "traditionalist",{9} my criticisms of him here are in the same vein as his criticisms of non-Lutherans pontificating with dogmatic authority on the theological positions of Lutherans. For the casualty of consistency here is not on my side but instead it is on his.
Notes:
{1} Referring here to movie critic and talkshow host Michael Medved and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition. (Who is a weekend talkshow host as well as a substitute host at times for Michael Medved and Medved's rabbi.)
{2} This does not mean that I necessarily agreed with the stances of those whom I pointed out were approaching this subject correctly -either fully or for the most part.
{3} And yes, this is the position I have consistently taken over the years -even when doing so makes me "unpopular."
{4} From the link located HERE. Notice if you will that Bill misses the entire thrust of Rabbi Lapin's article which was directed towards the critics of the Passion, not the uncompleted film itself.
{5} Many do not this is true. However this is a stereotype and for one who rightfully decries stereotypes against the Jews, it is amazing that Bill seems to imply that what is good for the gander is in this case not good for the goose.
{6} And readers of Envoy Encore can attest to, I am no fan whatsoever of the Emmerich-attributed visions: at least 90% of which are inauthentic.
{7} Like most stereotypes it has some foundation in reality but that is still no excuse.
{8} Bill is certainly not unaware of my stances on the Sungenis situation. However, my criticisms of the way most Catholic commentators handled the USCCB situation -being fewer in number and less frequent- may not be as known to him. Nonetheless, like the war subject -another one where many gung ho Catholic types have had to backtrack on- I have been consistent in my stances all along.
{9} And as no one can accuse me of a lack of criticism viz the so-called "traditionalists", Bill cannot chalk this up as a blind defending of them on my part. (As he could do with numerous others who might seek to defend them.)
Points to Ponder:
(Early Understandings of Communio Ecclesiology)
It will be remembered that from 1921-1925 Cardinal Mercer, approved by Benedict XV and Pius XI, had received Anglican Church delegates in loyal dialogue. The surprise at these conversations was the reading of a memorandum by Dom Beaudouin on the matter in which an English Church united to the See of Rome could remain herself...
The Anglican Church has had, since its origins, a strong attachment to the See of Peter. Vested with the symbolical cloak of the Prince of the Apostles, the Archbishop of Canterbury shares in the apostolic jurisdiction , not only over the faithful but also over the pastors. The truth is that an Anglican Church separated from Rome is above all a historical heresy. In short an Anglican Church absorbed by Rome and an Anglican Church separated from Rome are two equally inadmissible premises. The true formula must be found in the via media, the only historical way: an Anglican Church united with Rome.
There exists a catholic formula for union between churches, which is not an absorption., but which saves and respects the interior, autonomous organization of the great historic churches, while maintaining their perfect dependence with regard to the universal Church. Indeed if there is one Church which by its origins, its history, the habits of the nation, has a right to concessions of autonomy, it is certainly the Anglican Church. Practically, the Archbishop of Canterbury would be reestablished in his traditional and effective rights as the patriarch of the Anglican Church. After having received his investiture from Peter's successor, by the historic imposition of the pallium, he would enjoy his patriarchial rights over the whole Church of England.
The Canon Law of the Latin Church would not be imposed on the Anglican Church, but the latter in an interprovincial synod, would determine its own ecclesiastical law.
It would also have its own liturgy, the Roman liturgy of the seventh and eighth century, as was in use at that time.
Obviously, all the ancient historic sees of the Anglican Church would be maintained and all the new Catholic sees created since 1851 would be suppressed. [Jean Guitton: Dialogues of Paul VI with Jean Guitton pgs. 195-96 (c. 1966)]
(Early Understandings of Communio Ecclesiology)
It will be remembered that from 1921-1925 Cardinal Mercer, approved by Benedict XV and Pius XI, had received Anglican Church delegates in loyal dialogue. The surprise at these conversations was the reading of a memorandum by Dom Beaudouin on the matter in which an English Church united to the See of Rome could remain herself...
The Anglican Church has had, since its origins, a strong attachment to the See of Peter. Vested with the symbolical cloak of the Prince of the Apostles, the Archbishop of Canterbury shares in the apostolic jurisdiction , not only over the faithful but also over the pastors. The truth is that an Anglican Church separated from Rome is above all a historical heresy. In short an Anglican Church absorbed by Rome and an Anglican Church separated from Rome are two equally inadmissible premises. The true formula must be found in the via media, the only historical way: an Anglican Church united with Rome.
There exists a catholic formula for union between churches, which is not an absorption., but which saves and respects the interior, autonomous organization of the great historic churches, while maintaining their perfect dependence with regard to the universal Church. Indeed if there is one Church which by its origins, its history, the habits of the nation, has a right to concessions of autonomy, it is certainly the Anglican Church. Practically, the Archbishop of Canterbury would be reestablished in his traditional and effective rights as the patriarch of the Anglican Church. After having received his investiture from Peter's successor, by the historic imposition of the pallium, he would enjoy his patriarchial rights over the whole Church of England.
The Canon Law of the Latin Church would not be imposed on the Anglican Church, but the latter in an interprovincial synod, would determine its own ecclesiastical law.
It would also have its own liturgy, the Roman liturgy of the seventh and eighth century, as was in use at that time.
Obviously, all the ancient historic sees of the Anglican Church would be maintained and all the new Catholic sees created since 1851 would be suppressed. [Jean Guitton: Dialogues of Paul VI with Jean Guitton pgs. 195-96 (c. 1966)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)