As we have already seen, the Second Vatican Council's document on the liturgy did not happen in a vacuum. There had been a liturgical movement for most of the 20th century and even experimentation in different countries in terms of actual participation and facing the people and reading the Scriptures in the vernacular.
So much of Vatican II was conditioned by what had happened organically in the first part of the 20th century and some of which went back to the 19th century.
The three areas that Vatican II addressed that is still controversial for traditionalists are:
A. Ecumenism: A desire for Christian unity began with Protestantism and even in the early 1900's the Catholic Church participated also in what would come to be the annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity that normally concludes on the Solemnity of Saint Paul.
B. Liturgy: The desire for a reform liturgy goes well ahead of Vatican II. Pope Pius understood this and began to reform the Holy Week Liturgies in light of this organic development. Pope John XXIII made some reforms of the missal which is now the EF's missal.
C. The Word of God: Pope Pius XII understood the scriptural developments taking place and by 1943 opened the doors to Catholic scholarship to the historical critical method of studying the Scriptures.
Each of these areas are conservatively discussed at Vatican II and the documents are conservative in nature while acknowledging the organic development that had already occurred.
But in implementing the vision of Vatican II each of these three areas developed bacteria infections that could easily be described as carbuncles.
A. Ecumenism's carbuncle is a false egalitarianism that says there is no real difference between the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations. This leads to open communion and a loss of Catholic identity.
B. Liturgy's carbuncle is a manufactured liturgy that allows for so much flexibility of style and wording makes it totally different from the template of the Tridentine Mass which is the Mass that is being reformed. Today's expression of the OF Mass in many places is so different from the EF Mass that a Catholic who never experienced the EF Mass would think that it has nothing to do with Catholicism.
C. The Word of God's carbuncle is that the faith of rank and file Catholics is questioned when promoting the term myth to describe the creation accounts and other aspects of the Old and New Testament. Rather than building up faith, it tears it down, a consequence of the Historical Critical Method, if properly used, does not have to take place.
48 comments:
A. Ecumenism. That isn't ecumenism. That is religious tolerance. That is a big difference and one which is lost on the liberal AND mainstream mindset in today's Church. Ecumenism is very precise and it has to do with the Orthodox. Because it deals with a separate Christian Church, which is recognized by the Holy See.
When we deal with Protestants, we are not dealing with a separate Church, we are dealing with separated Catholics. Those sects (or to be more politically correct, ecclesial communions) are born from heresy. We tolerate the ignorance that those adherents have, but we are constantly CATECHIZING them with regard to the truth of Catholicism related to their sectarianism, otherwise known as Protestantism.
B. Liturgy. Pope Pius was being influenced by the Consilium from the beginning. It was Bugnini and his cohorts which pushed and pushed for the Holy Week reforms to be put into place, and Pius acquiesced. As far as the 1958 reforms, those were done months before Pius' demise and he had no real input, but rather it was conducted by the same Consilium through the Holy Office and rubber stamped with Pius' name. None of this is a big secret, all of it has been shown prior, so I will will let all of you google it on your own.
C. Sacred Scripture. There is nothing wrong with the expanding of study of Sacred Scripture, but that doesn't automatically mean that it must be inserted into the Mass. There are downsides to all of that.
As for your critiques Fr. McD, I would generally agree with them. I think that you are not being critical enough, especially with regard to the first two, but the third, I think is spot on correct.
Father,
I wonder if we should be a little more nuanced on the myth point. Clearly, there are some parts of Scripture that we cannot regard as “myth” but need to accept literally – for example, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. But surely there are other parts of Scripture that we have to accept as myth, or risk losing credibility. For example, as a former amateur astronomer and armchair cosmologist, I cannot with any intellectual integrity subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Genesis six-day creation account. And I suspect that those at the Vatican Observatory (and Saint Augustine) would agree.
But, of course, that does not mean that the Genesis account is untrue. Of course, it is true. In fact, as myth, it expresses a timeless truth irrespective of what the latest scientific theories may hold, for it transcends all of our human efforts.
Isn’t the real problem that our language has become so impoverished that we have forgotten what the word “myth” really means?
I thought you were on retreat...How did you get time to blog post in the middle of the afternoon? Hmmm...
~SL
I heard about a year ago on a EWTN radio that the Hebrew word for 'day' can mean either eon or 24-hour period.
Perhpas it never was intended to mean a 24-hour period 'day' in the first place....this explaination makes a whole lot more sense...and shows how much we need linguistic scholars who can understand the original uses of the original languages...so we don't put modern meanings on the vernacular translations that might just totally mistake what the scripture author was saying.
Now, if something about scripture seems too far fetched to be literally true, before I jump to assuming it was 'myth', I either check out the original text as best as possible, or if I am too busy or not concerned too much about it, I simply know that there could be something lost in translation.
Some current Protestant beliefs and errors are based on such mistranslations.
e.g. I'm itching to get into a conversation with a Protestant about eating (gnawing) Jesus' flesh!
on another topic sort of...some things Jesus spoke to apostles...according to this blog author as being just for the apostles (eat and drink). Yet other things He spoke to the apostles for everyone.
I rely on the teaching authoirty of the Church to clarify these things, yet my inquiring mind would like to know how the Church discerns between the two. When His words apply to everyone, and when they apply to only the apostles?
Anybody know?
~SL
Free time from 12 noon to 4:30 pm :)
Of course the Last Supper offers the paradigm by which bishops and priests will memorialize the Sacrifice of Good Friday and offer it perpetually. The laity are required to "eat and drin" too but in a different manner than the priest who offers the sacrifice.
Is there any other occassion where Jesus' words meant something different for the apostles (and their successors) than it meant for the population of beleivers (the laity)?
Just humbly trying to fully understand...
Anyone know..?
Thank you,
~SL
The great commission to baptize, forgive sins and to loose and bind-- the giving of the keys to the kingdom to Peter...
A2,
Just for fun, what is the difference between 1) reainmating a corpse that has undergone irreversible brain death and all related biological degradation, and 2) violating the basic cosmological principles of laws of physics, other than scale?
(Yes, I'm here assuming that Christ underwent irreversible brain death. But it seems to me that to say he didn't embraces the "swoon" theory. If you can "come back" through explainable biological processes, you never went away.)
I agree, Anon S.L. You make an excellent point. What we imagine is a literal translation may not in fact be such because we may have mistranslated the original. Moreover, one may also have to attend to other parts of the textual context, as in “In the Lord’s eyes, one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as a day” (2 Peter 3:8), although whether this is intended to invite a mathematical calculation or to be a metaphorical reminder to avoid judging by human standards I am unsure. I guess that’s why we need learned Bible scholars to help us understand such matters!
It seems to me that in one sense, the defenders of VII are hoist with their own "organic change" petard.
I'll indulge in some speculation here, but one sort of change going on in other fields in the decades prior to VII was an attack on formalism, the concept that the forms things took had a direct bearing on their substance--the idea that, in some sense, form is substance. As an example, my recent close linguistic analyses of Sacrosanttum Concilium and Cardinal Levada's Responses on recent threads was, in linguistic terms, formalistic, taking as a starting point the premise that these documents mean what they say and say what they mean.
The attack on formalism discounted the importance of form in an attempt to emphasize essentials. (As an aside, I'll note that to say that bread and wine "transform" into the Body and Blood of Christ is dreadfully wrong both theologically and linguistically and reflect a failure to understand the concept of form.)
So as a result of this attack, for instance, we'll worry less about the form of the liturgy as long as its essence (or substance, if you prefer) is there. Pater is the best defender and example of this approach on this blog when he stresses (as he always does with Marc) that he celebrates the Traditional Mass.
But what do we do about formal doctrinal pronouncements? Does it really matter whether or not something was said formally in a papal encyclical, as long as organic development reveals it to be authoritative? Sensus fidei, for instance? I would suspect that the antiformalists would say "no."
If the organic adherents do answer "no"--and I suspect that most of the defenders of VII would so answer--what about the VII documents, assuming arguendo that they're doctrinal? Doesn't this reasoning apply to them as well?
If that's the case, I am squarely in the mainstream of the organic development of anti-formalism if I discount/ignore the troublesome language in VII, even if VII is in fact doctrinal, since it flies in the face of the true teachings of Catholicism as organically developed, preached, and taught over the course of two thousand years.
If the hierarchy tells me I'm wrong about that, I can further ignore that since most such statements don't even arise to the doctrinal level in a formal sense, much less an anti-formal one.
Of course, you could apply my anti-formal approach to attack my understanding of two thousand years of Catholic teaching as well, but that's a lot bigger and more complex target, preaching as it does the same truths in many languages, many forms, and over many generations, and if you do bring it down then we're left with agnosticism.
In short, then, the anti-formalistic approach can simply ignore anomalous VII statements and give them no authority since, despite their formal conciliar status, they formally contradict the substance of prior and firmly-established Catholic teaching. The only remaining problem with this approach is that this old-fashioned and out-of-touch hierarchy we currently have--the magisterium of the current pope, if you will, along with the magisterium of JPII--haven't realized yet that their attempts to defend the erroneous VII forms are nonsensical, useless, and pointless.
Takers, anyone?
Parting shot as to "organic development" in liturgy and ecumenism. Cancer, too, is an organic development.
As always, I submit all of these comments to the Magisterium.
Boy do I feel stupid....
Guess I was having a 'senior moment'.
~SL
SL,
I may be wrong, but the way I read it- if Christ is addressing the crowd, He is speaking to all of us; when He is speaking to the apostles, what is said is for the priesthood; and when He speaks to Peter, that is for the Pope.
Am I right on this, Father?
Anon 5: I don’t think there is a difference. But I am not entirely sure what your point is in making the comparison. I can speculate but it might help if you could spell it out for us. Thanks.
Anon S.L.: Please don’t feel stupid. There’s no such thing as a stupid question. To ask when one is not sure, or can’t quite remember because of a “senior moment,” is the opposite of stupid. Not to ask, now that’s stupid. (BTW, I think I referred to Jesus as the Third Person of the Trinity a while back on the Blog before I realized it and corrected it. No idea why I did that.)
Anon 5: Okay, I’ll play.
My short answer is, as always: Let’s leave it up to the magisterium to figure out and tell us in the fullness of time. This requires patience and trust.
My longer answer is twofold:
First, please see my comment quoting Msgr Ocariz’s article in the post “Yikes or Likes.”
Second, I realize it is not an exact parallel because there are salient differences between legal reasoning and magisterial reasoning (the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for example) but it is, I believe, nevertheless suggestive: We both know that formalistic reasoning in the law cannot solve truly “hard cases,” even when judicial rhetoric pretends otherwise (however, this does not necessarily mean there is no “right answer”). Change a material fact and the decision may be different. So, what are the material facts to which various magisterial statements throughout the ages are responding? It seems to me that this is a deep and complex issue -- which is, of course, why I leave it to the magisterium. Is it possible, then, that your formalistic approach is another example of “theo-logic” (Gene’s term) that causes difficulty because not everything is susceptible to formal logic alone?
Good Father, why do you think that Catholics are too stupid to understand that the creation accounts are mythology? These accounts use "figurative language" as the Church tells us authoritatively. Could it be that YOU don't understand?
My short answer is, as always: Let’s leave it up to the magisterium to figure out and tell us in the fullness of time. This requires patience and trust.
This is all fine and good in theory. But, we are talking about reality. The reality is that millions of souls have been put in danger of eternal damnation since Vatican II due to the hierarchy's failure to clarify and police errors and other heresies among cardinals, bishops, priests, and lay movements.
By the way, the Vatican II documents themselves are pretty clear that the laity have a duty in this world. They can also have certain reasonable expectations of their pastors. To call on those pastors to adhere to the teachings of the Church and provide valid Sacraments is well within our "rights" under Canon Law.
Do not fall into the modern clericalism that elevates the laity while simultaneously putting them off. We can read and are trained in logic. This is not rocket science. The Church is not gnostic, the truth is not reserved to just a few who happen to receive a pallium or a red hat. It is right there in the Traditional catechisms and writings of the Popes and Councils. All one needs to do is read it. There is no mystery to unlock.
PI, the word "myth" has a specific meaning in theological circles that it does not have in "vulgar" language. Myth, theologically, is a story that conveys truth. The "myth" of creation is that God created the world and human being are the crown of that creation and in fact all of creation is for Man and his sustenance. These "myths" are not meant to convey actual history, although salvation history is involved, nor are these myths trying to convey a scientific description as to how all of this came about.
But most people in the vulgar sense understand myth as a make believe story and thus this understanding of myth can diminish or destroy their faith, if their faith is built upon a literal understanding of the words of creation.
But with that said, no Catholic is obliged other the penalty of mortal sin to accept the critical, historical method of Scripture study. A Catholic in good standing may accept the creation accounts literally if they wish, but they are not required to do so. When teaching on the creation accounts the wise catechist, be he priest, deacon or lay person should make that clear.
Marc, keep in mind that ever since Vatican II and yes, beginning with Pope Paul VI and especially in Humanae Vitae, but in other ways, the papacy has been clarifying rather vigorously what Vatican II meant. Pope Benedict has done so in the most explicit way possible and the restoration of the Tridentine Mass as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass that any priest who knows how to celebrate it may do, is the most radical aspect of it. I suspect that during this year of faith and the 50th anniversary of Vatican II that the Holy Father will issue an encyclical on Vatican II clarifying it in the most authoritative way while including in it a "syllabus of errors" to be avoided and declared anathema. I'm clairvoyant you know, but maybe not.
Father, I hope you are right. However, the popes since Vatican II have also scandalized the people by, for example, participating in the Assisi abominations multiple times. So, there are two-sides to what you are saying.
That's not to say, though, that popes have not been scandalizing the people for a long time! I mean, there were popes with children and popes murdering people. The only difference is that now everyone can read and there is a global media.
This is nothing new and is the perfect example of why the Holy Ghost is the protector of the Church. The Gates of Hell would have surely prevailed by now but for our Lord's protection.
I hope you are right about a forthcoming syllabus of errors. Although, I'm certain you and I would disagree somewhat as to what that should contain. For the most part, I think we would actually agree, though.
Carol you are correct, but in establishing the sacraments or anything that gives the apostles authority it all has to do with leading the adopted children of God through Holy Baptism to the Kingdom of God and the "Christification" of the world. The ordained priest differs in degree or character from the baptismal, general priesthood of the laity, but both lay and clergy share in the one priesthood of Christ in differing degrees. So, the priest who celebrates the Mass must "take and eat, take and drink" the Bread and Wine, the Body and Blood of Christ, to complete the Sacrifice of the Mass--this is not required of the laity, they simply share in the fruits of the Sacrifice by receiving our Lord after the priest as completed the sacrifice.
What I have just described would have been very clear to the pre-Vatican II Catholic but has be obfuscated in the post-Vatican II era by progressive Catholics who do not want the ordained priesthood to have a unique status and to differ in degree from the laity's baptismal priesthood.
Good Father - So you practice clerical Gnosticism? You get to know that the creation accounts are mythology, but you don't teach that to your people? Or, as I asked, do you consider them too stupid to understand?
A2,
Replies below in no particular order.
First, re Resurrection versus Creation: my point is simply that if you can believe one impossible thing, why can you not believe in another impossible thing? Science tells us that people cannot come back from irreversible brain death, and it also tells us that the post-Big Bang universe took billions of years to form, and not six days.
Second, I did actually read your final "yikes or likes" posts earlier. Sorry I didn't reply there, but other, newer threads drew away my attention.
Third, glad you picked up on my formalism idea and related it to the legal notion or formalism. I was using as my main guide philosophical formalism, though I'm sure there's overlap between the two.
to be continued . . .
Fourth, I don't disagree in principle with your observation that legal analysis may not be the best tool with which to understand the Magisterium-- within limits. A lot of the analysis I'm using isn't specifically legal, but just basic logic. I guess one can make that same assertion of logical discourse, that it isn't the best or even an adequate tool for theological analysis. Once again, I cite the idea of "believe in order to understand" to show that I do "get it." And, like you, I ultimately do leave things up to the Magisterium, as I've been careful to note in recent posts.
But it's the Church hierarchy that's chosen to undertake to explain the mind of the Church in rational terms, choosing as the vehicle of explanation the verbose Sacrosanctum Concilium. That seems to me to be an invitation to anyone who can read to examine critically the reasoning in that document. [Quare who was/is the specific audience for VII documents--the world? All Catholics? Only Catholic clergy? Only the bishops?] After all, the bishops, rather than using this very troublesome language about subsistence, could have just chosen to order us, in a sentence or two, to believe that Protestants are somehow part of the Catholic Church or else anathema sit.
Likewise (going back to the legal mode for a minute), I suppose common law appellate courts could do nothing but give summary rulings, rather than explaining those rulings with opinions. They provide opinions, presumably, to show that their rulings have reasonable bases. The problem is that writing down the reasoning opens the courts to critical analysis of that reasoning, and often fault is to be found in it. (I'd give John Roberts a lowish grade in an introductory methods class if he played fast and loose with the word "penalty" with me the way he did in the Obamacare opinion, for instance.)
So do we follow those courts' ruling because of their faulty reasoning or because, ultimately, those courts in effect say "Because I'm the mommy--that's why."?
So, if the wording of Sancrosanctum Concilium doesn't make historical or logical sense in light of prior, unquestionably established and clear magisterial statements, what then?
To put it another way--How does the Church propose to rule us? By naked authority? By telling us "You can't understand it, so we won't try to explain it. You just have to believe it"; or by reasoned argument? I will submit to either one, but if they're going to choose the path of authority, I wish they'd quit paying lip service to a reasoning that is prima facie fallacious.
That is probably my main objection here. VII, with its explanations, had the tone of "Let's be reasonable. Here are our reasons. They are sound, persuasive reasons." Since then, in the face of SSPX critiques of that reason, and criticisms from people like me, the hierarchy has changed modes to "Because I'm the mommy--that's why." And yet the hierarchy largely won't own up to the fact that it has changed modes.
In fact, the tone seems to be "Because I'm the mommy, what I say is reasonable." And that essentially redefines the meaning of reason--not just Catholic reason, but basic logical and linguistic reason. Far better and more honest just to say "Because I'm the mommy--that's why." That's something that Catholics can understand and rather easily accept, whereas "Because I'm the mommy, what I say is reasonable" seems to me to be skirting perilously close to stating that the sun orbits the earth.
"You get to know that the creation accounts are mythology, but you don't teach that to your people?"
I've never known a Catholic priest who taught "his people" that the story of the six-day creation is a scientific or literal account, and I'm sure that no one thinks that Fr. McDonald does so. (Indeed, the meaning of the word "story" in this context is the same as "myth" in the theological context, so one who teaches the story of the creation is teaching precisely its mythology.)
So if the premise to this question is vacuous, is not the question itself frivolous? (Unless it reflects a challenged understanding of common vocabulary.)
Let's all rehash this argument on the literal nature of the Creation account once more. Here is the de fide position of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909:
Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation?
Reply I: In the negative.
_____
Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?
Reply III: In the negative.
_____
Summary: As stated by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, polygenism is condemned. Catholics must believe in the ex nihilo creation of humanity (affirmed by the First Vatican Council).
_____
Since A2 seems to think St. Augustine agrees with his view of modern science, perhaps he should consider this quote from that saint:
“Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been...And when they are asked, how…the reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and...thus there was at intervals a new beginning made…But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived…by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.” Augustine, The City of God, 12.10.
_____
Finally, most, if not all, the Fathers of the Church assumed a literal six-day creation. This includes Sts. Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephrem, and many others.
Here is St. Ephrem: "‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,' that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic."
Marc, could we agree that the Church Fathers were not competent to define a literal six-day creation? Since presumably they did not understand that the scientific (rather than religious) concept of a "day" as a measurement of time could not have predated the existence of the solar system whose motions measure days, and that apart from motion in an existing universe the concept of time itself has no meaning for us. So whereas they could pronounce the words, they could not ascribe any meaning to them.
Of course there is nothing wrong the pious acceptance of the phrase "literal six-day creation", even if the phrase itself is devoid of meaning and therefore incapable of belief in any rational sense (wholly apart from any question of its historical truth).
Henry, your point is a good one. I am personally not as convinced as many seem to be regarding the infallibility of modern science. At other points in time, "scientists" exhibited the precise sort of recentism hubris as today's "scientists." There is nothing to say that modern science is in any better position than historical science. In other words, there is every likelihood that we will look back on modern astronomy and medicine with the same disdain as we currently view the astronomy and medicine of the middle ages.
I am not a literal six-day creationist mainly because I do not think it matters. I believe what the Church tells me to believe without questioning it. That is, I believe in ex nihilo creation and the special creation of man (and all the other things defined by Pope Pius XII and the Pontifical Biblical Commission).
Father, I hope you are right. However, the popes since Vatican II have also scandalized the people by, for example, participating in the Assisi abominations multiple times. So, there are two-sides to what you are saying.
That's not to say, though, that popes have not been scandalizing the people for a long time! I mean, there were popes with children and popes murdering people. The only difference is that now everyone can read and there is a global media.
Marc, lumping Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI in with popes who had children and who murdered people is uncalled-for and grossly unfair. Besides, while I do believe the Assisi gatherings were unwise and didn't succeed in achieving what they were really intended to do, to call them "abominations" is harsh. In previous blog entry comments I've talked at length about Assisi. Do you want me to access it for you?
M.I., you are welcome to expound on your point, if you wish to do so. I was not "lumping together" the two disparate scandalous activities of the various popes, but merely making a point about the Church in the midst of modernity with the advent of globalized media.
The Assisi gatherings are certainly scandalous. I would argue that they are objectively scandalous because they lead the faithful (i.e., myself) to an attitude of indifferentism at the very least. For example, when our Holy Father concelebrates a Divine Liturgy with the Patriarch of Constantinople, it shows to those of us who are already struggling with these issues that perhaps Orthodoxy is a viable option. This is a bit paradoxical because the Holy Father is, in a sense, abdicating his own authority as Vicar of Christ and Universal Pontiff.
This is more true for those who are more susceptible to such scandal because they tend toward overtly heretical sects and "religions."
So, I maintain that Assisi is an abomination. If you disagree, that is fine. But, objectively, there is little difference between the pope covertly fathering children (thus leading those who are aware of such into scandal) and the pope's "rubber stamping" erroneous belief in the worldwide media (thus leading large numbers of people into indifferentism).
To co-opt a good quote, "To be deep in history is to cease to be ultramontain."
As an aside, I happen to be a great supporter of our Holy Father and attempt to pray for him daily. As for John Paul II or any other deceased pope, I am not in a position to judge (nor is anyone since no one can judge a pope). I know that empirically, the Church suffered greatly under his reign as Pontiff (and continues to do so), so I am certainly not on the "'Pope John Paul the Great' bandwagon." But, that is merely because I can read and digest information. I concede, however, that he was personally a very holy man. I question the fact that merely two popes have been canonized in the last roughly 500 years. So, the movement to canonize recent popes is somewhat dubious in my book (those two saintly pontiffs were very clearly saintly - Popes Pius V and Pius X). But, I defer to the Magisterium in this and all things.
Marc: "For example, when our Holy Father concelebrates a Divine Liturgy with the Patriarch of Constantinople"
I am not aware that this has happened. Though we can all pray for the day when it will licit and therefore possible.
Just in case this got lost in cyberspace last night, I am sending it again:
Marc: In response to my comment “Let’s leave it to the magisterium to figure out in the fullness of time,” you replied: “This is all fine and good in theory. But, we are talking about reality. The reality is that millions of souls have been put in danger of eternal damnation since Vatican II due to the hierarchy's failure to clarify and police errors and other heresies among cardinals, bishops, priests, and lay movements.”
I am glad that you made this observation. This is the sort of thing I have been seeking for a while when I kept on asking: What’s really at stake here? What are the deepest values underlying our concerns? etc. This is also what I suspected was the answer to these questions. When you mention the threat of eternal damnation, it seems to me that you raise the stakes regarding “wrong belief” enormously. But this is, of course, a theological matter on which we need expert guidance (at least I do). So, I ask our priests, Father McDonald and Pater Ignotus, and any others who may feel qualified, to address your observation, as they see fit.
Anon 5: On Resurrection versus Creation, as far as I know, scientists have no direct evidence whatsoever regarding what happened in the Tomb; they have a lot of direct evidence regarding the evolution of the universe (but see further below).
On “Because I’m the mommy”, I believe Father McDonald’s 8:14 a.m. response to Marc addresses this point.
BTW, does my “differences in material facts” point make any sense to you (or anyone else)?
Marc again: Perhaps I should have been clearer on the Augustine point. I did not mean to imply that Augustine would have agreed with the modern scientific accounts of the creation and evolution of the universe; in fact, quite the opposite. My point is that I believe he would have warned us not to subscribe dogmatically to any particular account because the Church loses credibility if the available evidence suggests that such account is incorrect. What the Church can, and indeed must, do is to insist on the timeless religious truths that hold on any account. The Church needs to stay out of the science business, and science needs to stay out of the religion business. That way, we avoid the conflict between science and religion.
I do agree with your observation that in the end it doesn’t matter which way the scientific evidence points. God is bigger than all of our human efforts at explanation. Doesn’t it seem like a serious category mistake for a human being, a creature in time and space, to try to understand God, the Creator in Eternity outside time and space? Or why He chooses to fashion Creation in one way rather than another? So what if He chooses to let the universe “evolve” over fifteen billion years? And just what is time anyway? Is it even meaningful to speak of time if there is no-one there to “sense” its “passage”? And if not, what does it actually mean to say that the universe is fifteen billion years old and the Earth 4.5 billion years? Moreover, how much of “Reality” lies beyond the ken of our five senses and human reason? I am unqualified to answer these questions but for me they suggest the need for humility in the face of the ultimately Unknowable.
Pope, Orthodox Patriarch join for Divine Liturgy - 11/30/2006
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=47934
Anon 2, I doubt that any great doctrinal or theological depth--which in any event cannot automatically assumed of one trained in a typical post-Vatican II seminary--is required to substantiate the fear that improper liturgy imperils souls. Not if one believes that the liturgy is the "source and summit of our faith", that it was proper liturgy--and not scripture when few could read, nor adequate catechesis when there was none--that inculcated and sustained belief down through successive ages of faith. Until recent decades of liturgical disintegration during which the great mass of people lost the simple (if perhaps untutored) faith their forebears retained.
The Holy Father was present but did concelebrate or receive Holy Communion. Apart from a faux scandal that Something a pope chooses to do to foster inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism I suspect the universal authority of the successor of St. Peter has caused great scandal over the last 2000 years. It is sad though when Catholics who should know better are scandalized by the pope when using his God-given authority works on his own initiative and authority toward interfaith harmony and ecumenism with the Orthodox as well as with SDPX to heal schism and/of avert it!
Marc, I saw on TV that 11/30/2006 divine liturgy in Istanbul. The pope merely attended it as an observer, and most certainly did not concelebrate it nor receive communion. Just as an Orthodox prelate attended, but did not concelebrate or receive communion at, the papal Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome this past June 29.
One should realize that the continuing lack of common union between Rome and Constantinople means precisely that they cannot concelebrate the liturgy of either.
Unless, perhaps, one is a progressive Novus Ordo type who believes that members of the congregation concelebrate the liturgy with the "presider" who's merely leading them.
Henry, thank you for your correction. I watched the video on youTube and was mistaken. I apologize for my confusion on this.
Father, I would say this sort of scandal is unfortunatley particularly prevalent for "Catholics who should know better."
For example, when I read a pope saying "it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics." And then I see another pope taking part in the assemblies of non-Catholics, it raises questions. Now, those questions can be answered in part by recognizing that the Pope as supreme earthly lawgiver is above that law. But, just because a question has an answer does not mean there is no question to begin with.
I was raised agnostic and am formerly an atheist. I have been Catholic for four and a half years. So, yes, aspects of the faith are sometimes still a struggle for me as I continue to learn. I also admit that I am prone to over analyzing and over intellectualizing.
Moreover, as I admitted in my original post on this subject, I particularly sensitive to this sort of scandal for reasons I will not go into here (and I do not blame the Pope for that).
Sort of jumping back in this thread: the Genesis Story is not about the creation of out bodies. It is about the creation of our souls.
rcg, Can you share with us the authority for that statement, please?
Marc
RCG, the Genesis story is about Creation of "all things visible and invisible." It has been redacted to death.
This argument about creation "myth or reality" business is another one of those college sophomore discussions that just won't go away. There are many historical and physical realities that have become "mythic" with time and re-telling without becoming less real for all that.
The Alamo, for example. Did Travis say all that stuff and draw a line in the sand? Did Bowie empty his pistols into the Mexicans at the door before he died? Did Crockett die on the wall a la Fess Parker and John Wayne, swinging his clubbed musket or was he executed after the battle? Who knows how it all really happened, but it did.
Then there is the Kennedy myth about that decadent klan being some kind of Camelot and the associated myth of how President Kennedy's death took place. The reality of both his decadence and his death remain true. The myth is a cognitive structure we impose in order to try to gain understanding. It is often dissonant with the actual reality.
A caveat regarding science and faith: I read a lot of astrophysics and such. Timothy Ferris and David Green are two of the authors I prefer. In their recent books, they both suggest that we are reaching the limits of scientific inquiry regarding sub-quantum physics and the Grand Unified Theory. It was thought that "string theory" would finally explain everything, but now that seems to be breaking down. The more rigorous our analysis, the more random our results. Perhaps we are only being given a glimpse of eternity...perhaps our string theory, quantum mechanics, etc. will eventually be viewed as myths that enabled us to understand, in part (through a glass darkly), realities which we cannot ultimately know. These things become analogies of being (analogia entis), of Truth, like in Aquinas and Augustine. (cont'd)
Now, take the mathematical/physics concept of infinity...current thinking is that the universe is infinite in time and space. However, there is a limited amount of matter. This means that, mathematically, eventually all of the particular individual embodiments of humans and animals will reappear. Yep, in an infinite time/space continuum with limited matter, it is inevitable. Perhaps this is an anlogy for us of eternal life/New Creation. Perhaps this is a glimpse of theological realities rather than a challenge to Faith or a barrier to belief...
Anyway, I am tired of smug scientists and dorm room discussions over volumes of Teilhard. Barf.
A2,
Your "material facts" idea does indeed make a lot of sense, and it may be useful to a degree, but I think you have to be very careful with it here. I think its main application is in the sense of context of a statement.
In fact, it is one excellent "out" for VII, if the Church wishes to take it. In light and context of the large-scale totalitarianism of the 20th century, of course the Church talked about freedom of religion. That doesn't mean that the statement can or does rise to the doctrinal level.
But if the Church speaks magisterially in an absolute, I don't think any material fact in the world can justify it then making that teaching non-absolute.
It's the same fine line between doctrine "developing" (OK and doctrine "changing" (not OK).
For instance, your "material facts" approach could be misapplied thus: Because we understand gender identity better today, we can now ordain women.
Because we have been sufficiently fruitful and multiplied to the point of overpopulation, we may now intentionally contracept.
Because we now recognize the psychological damage of abusive relationships, and because so many divorces occur, we may now recognize the ending of a sacramental marriage by divorce.
And so forth.
Frankly, I'd be happy with that kind of flexibility. As Chesterton noted, people leave the Church not because Catholicism is wrong but because Catholicism is difficult. But I'm not the one who's told God or the Church to speak in absolutes for more than 2000 years.
Re Fr. McDonald's 8:14 "I'm the mommy": yes, there has been a lot of clarification going on, but the clarification of the four problem areas suffers from the safe fallacious linguistic logic as the original documents. See my comment here as a prime example:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7846189835239594160&postID=2596368543202614915
Thus, the mommy problem remains.
Finally, re Creation vs. Resurrection: With respect, I think you're dodging. :-) We know what happens at death generally. Thus my reference to the medical term "brain death," defined as ""A state of prolonged _irreversible_ cessation of all brain activity, including lower brain stem function with the complete absence of voluntary movements, responses to stimuli, brain stem reflexes, and spontaneous respirations. Reversible conditions which mimic this clinical state (e.g., sedative overdose, hypothermia, etc.) are excluded prior to making the determination of brain death. (From Adams et al., Principles of Neurology, 6th ed, pp348-9)" (my emphasis).
Further, we know from Church teaching that Christ _died._ We further know thatthe universal meaning of that word incorporates the idea or irreversable permanence. (That's certainly what I mean, anyway, and I argue that if the Church doesn't mean that, then we alll of us have gravely misunderstood the meaning of Calvary for 2000 years.) Thus we _do_ know enough about what happened in the tomb to know that it involved something unexplainable by, and contrary to, scientific principles as based on a vast experience with observed phenomena. You never saw the Big Bang, but only evidence, or at best, echoes of it. We didn't see what happened in the tomb, but we have seen enough of death to get the general idea. And we _did_ see what happened prior to the body being placed in the tomb, to boot.
To put it simply: If by "death" we mean "something that you can't by the laws of biology or nature come back from," then my question to you stands: What's the difference in Creation and Resurrection other than scale?
rcg:
All the talk in Genesis 2 about dust and nostrils breath and ribs don't seem to be exactly limited to non-carnal matters to me.
Of course, if all that is metaphor, perhaps it is also metaphor to say that God created our souls?
That's the basic problem. Once you start departing from what the Church teaches doctrinally to be true, where does it end?
Anon 2, Phrases like "timeless religious truths" are problematic to me because they abandon theology, Christian theology more specifically, and become philosophical categories for epistemological discussions...which become insanely boring after about three minutes. Creation, Resurrection, Salvation History are not "timeless religious truths." They are the dynamic historical events whereby God chose to enter historical time in a linear and tangential fashion and transcend, if you will, the laws of cause and effect as well as certain biological processes. Christology cannot be discussed as some philosophical category to be factored into some cosmology or other.
What are "timeless religious truths, anyway?" Anyone...anyone...
I can think of three, at least: 1. People are going to worship something. 2. Most often it is the wrong thing. 3. Their primary object of devotion is the self.
What an interesting thread!
Anon 5: I agree one must be careful with the “material facts” approach. The examples you give all involve having to determine whether the facts in question are indeed “material” for the purposes of decision. Presumably, a proper training in the relevant reasoning (legal or magisterial) enables the decision-maker(s) to reach sound determinations in this respect. Just because legal reasoning can be done badly, for example, does not mean it cannot be done well.
On the mommy problem, I can’t get the link to work for me, so I am unable to respond at this point.
On Creation versus Resurrection, I stand corrected (I think), not for “dodging” but for not thinking my comment through clearly enough. So, let me amend my position. We have good evidence (I won’t get into direct versus circumstantial, hearsay issues, etc) regarding both the Resurrection and Creation. There were no eyewitnesses to either the Resurrection itself or the Big Bang. But there were eyewitnesses to the Resurrected Christ and there are many astronomical observations that support the Big Bang.
My basic point is that the “scientific” accounts of the evolution of the universe do not threaten me in the way they once did when I was still stuck in the highly rationalistic paradigm of modern science. If I understand correctly, the early modern scientists such as Copernicus, Kepler, and so on were on a sacred quest to see into the mind of God through the discovery of His truth as revealed in Creation. Later modern science invited either Deism or atheism as that quest continued, and then transformed, when scientific “truth” seemed to challenge the tenets, or even the foundations, of faith. But postmodern science has retreated from such hubris by revealing a universe that reminds us of our epistemological limits and that the best we can hope for are glimpses (seeing through a glass darkly) of some matters, as Gene so eloquently explains. BTW, here is another tantalizing glimpse into eternity by analogy (from Houston Smith): Photons travel at the speed of light by definition. Relativity theory suggests that no time at all will pass for the photon that now arrives after a journey of what from to our vantage point is billions of years. Those billions are to the photon an instantaneous moment. Moreover, as I suggested earlier, we are limited by five senses and human reason anyway; and I believe Kant has already demonstrated the epistemological limitations that result from that.
So, if the available scientific evidence suggests that the universe is 15 billion years old and that humans evolved from lower primates, then again I ask: so what? The “truth” (meaning “the best theory so far” – it could all change tomorrow in light of new evidence anyway) cannot threaten us because our God is a God of truth who, I believe, wants us to use our minds. However, we have to use them with proper humility or else we will mislead ourselves. Perhaps indeed one reason He wants us to use our minds is to discover just how much we cannot ever know.
Gene: On “timeless truths,” I intended to indicate truths that are truths about God and the human condition that are in a different category from the scientific “truths” just discussed. As revealed truths, they remain true however much the scientific theories and explanations may change. Thus, whether God created the universe in six chronological days or in fifteen billion chronological years, and whether humans evolved from lower primates does not alter the truth that He created the universe ex nihilo and that He created human beings in His image. So, they can be timeless truths about His action in time, and all the more “timeless” because they originate in eternity. Again, I should have expressed myself more clearly.
Henry, to respond to your earlier point about imperiling souls:
Perhaps no theological or doctrinal depth is needed to understand the abstract proposition at a high level of generality. But, the devil, as they say, is in the details – literally in this case, it would seem. Moreover, it seemed to me that Marc’s comment extended far beyond matters of liturgy.
So, here are some questions concerning the “details”:
(1) For Catholics, how does good faith reliance upon magisterial direction, guidance, and signaling relate to the conditions for the existence of “mortal sin,” even if such direction, guidance, and signaling are erroneous?
(2) For non-Catholics – for other Christians, those of other faiths, and those of no faith – what are the conditions for salvation versus damnation, and, again, how does good faith reliance upon magisterial direction, guidance, and signaling relate to those conditions, even if such direction, guidance, and signaling are erroneous?
(3) What understandings of the nature of God, and of the human condition, are implicated or assumed in the various answers that might be given to these questions?
It seems to me that these are extremely important, and deeply troubling, questions. There is nothing more important than the eternal destiny of a person’s soul. And there is nothing more disturbing to contemplate than the consequences of somehow “getting it wrong.” Personally, I have no good answers for these questions, which is why I seek expert guidance on them. My suspicion is that I may not be alone in this; and also that there may be some disagreement regarding the answers.
I ask the questions with some hesitancy, and even trepidation. However, I feel the need to ask them nevertheless, in order to get to the heart of the matters are talking about on this Blog and to help clarify the basic premises of the discussions. If my questions are somehow inappropriate or seriously misconceived, I trust that this will be pointed out.
A2, I appreciate your post, particularly your discussion of scientific hubris. This is an important discussion because certain ideas about evolution and the "Creation story as myth" concept impugn the doctrine of original sin. I would caution that you be careful with the idea of macro evolution in the creation of humanity. This is a false belief that is outside of that allowed by the Church.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own."
Ludwig Ott summarizes, as follows, and perhaps this is what you're getting at: "While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible."
Oh, and in case Pater is still reading, there's also this from Humani Generis: "Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things..."
Marc - The understanding that the Creation Accounts of Genesis are mythological is not contrary to the PBC 1909 Q1. The historical reality is that there had to be first humans, otherwise we would not be here. The mythology is a way of "describing" that historical reality, using symbolic language.
The same can be said re: QIII. Understanding the creation accounts to be mytholigical does not challenge the beliefs stated in the query.
Augustine could not agree with modern science any more than Augustine could agree with your mother's admonition to wash colors and whites separately. Augustine comments were addressed to those who tried to make Scripture conform to their own biases, rather than learning from Scripture that which God intends to reveal through it.
Catholic do not have to agree with the ex nihilo creation of humans if, by that, you understand the preclusion of the appearance of humans via the process of Darwinian evolution.
Post a Comment