Praytell, a more progressive blog and sometime loopy, has Fr. Anthony opining about his experience in what he thought would be a Catholic Mass in the Netherlands which turned out to be a schismatic liberal experience of post-Catholicism. You can read his somewhat humorous post if it weren't so sad there by pressing here, Sunday Mass in Amsterdam.
What he unwittingly does is to show how the liberal trajectory of faux Catholic theology has had such a detrimental effect upon Catholic institutions, whether that be the Catholicism of an entire nation, such as Holland, or religious orders, especially those of the LCWR ilk. Is there any liberal Catholic institution that is actually growing and gaining young new adherents? The Sister of Mercy of the Union? No! The Sisters of St.Joseph of Corondelet? No! But look at the Nashville Dominicans and the Ann Arbor Dominicans or the Sisters of Mercy in Michigan or the Sisters of Life in New York. These are young, traditional and up and coming religious orders.
What many of the religious orders of the LCWR ilk, (not all certainly) have in common with each other is what they have in common with the liturgy described in Amsterdam by Fr. Anthony Ruff. They have deconstructed their religious life and their prayer and liturgical life and made it so dreadful that the only ones who appreciate it are the aging hippies who crafted it when they were young and supposedly on the cutting edge. Now they are in their final years of life and still touting their renewal as renewal when in fact it has been suicide for them. This is what is called pathological denial and it is to be pitied.
I have a unique view from history. I was formed in a seminary where some of the professors there, certainly not all and many were very good, orthodox teachers, thought the future of the Church and her liturgy and life would be what Fr. Anthony describes in his blog from yesterday's worship service in Amsterdam. In fact I was taught that the Dutch, whose so-called renewal began prior to Vatican II but went into high gear afterward, especially in the 1970's was the wave of the future now (in the 1970s) and what we could expect by 1990 in the USA.
Holland's Catholic Church today is gone with the wind. Not even the Protestant Pentecostals can rescue it from its descent into hell. I am certain that Pope Francis would say that these people have been seduced by Satan and yes, they have.
Read Fr. Anthony's account of yesterday's abysmal post-Christian service of worship:
Dominicuskerk is a big neo-Gothic building. Now, there is a platform against the left wall in the middle of a long narrow nave, congregation gathered around all sides, piano and choir opposite platform. Pretty full church, virtually all over 60 or 70. Only a few who looked to be in their 30s or 40s, all female. About three children.
I looked at the Order of Worship handout. No Penitential Act, Gloria, or Collect. No first reading, responsorial psalm, second reading, Alleluia, or Gospel. Rather: song, prayer by female prayer leader, song repeated; welcome talk by another woman; song; a man read from Dorothee Sölle; homily by another woman; song; and on to the collection with piano intermezzo. Uh, no Nicene Creed. Then a table prayer with sung elements (no Sanctus) led by seven people (5 women, 2 men, none vested), and sharing of the bread and wine. Then general intercessions, blessing, and song. Coffee served at the platform.
I was flabbergasted by all this, to say the least.
And hence, you see the difference between liberal schismatic tendencies from Orthodox Catholicism, what A-5 would appropriately call "heterodoxy" and what those who lean toward the semi-schismatic traditional groups such as the SSPX. The traditional groups preserve the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching in the areas of faith and morals and do so through the liturgy, the heterodox liberal groups do not, they create something altogether different and not Catholic as expressed in their neo-liturgies.
Another fact is that the traditional groups maintain a younger face and are the seed for renewal of Christianity in countries in Europe, such as France, where Catholicism has disintegrated in the post-Vatican II era and has not been able to withstand the onslaught of secularism. Liberal Catholicism capitulates to society trends and acculturation in this regard, traditional Catholicism stands up to it.
54 comments:
Hey, it's Holland...they smoke dope in the streets over there...
A word...a few words...no, more than a few words about the Church in the Netherlands:
1) This is the nation that welcomed John Paul II by throwing things at him and chanting anti-pope slogans
2) This is the nation that introduced Communion-in-the-hand to the western world, nearly institutionalizing a practice that invites liturgical abuses and makes desecration of Sacred Hosts much easier for those with malicious intent
3) This is the nation (along with their close neighbor, Belgium) that has the distinction of giving the world its most prolific Cardinals known for protecting sexual abusers among their clergy
4) This is the nation that introduced suicide as a "right" to the western world
Most unfortunately, they have been applying their love of suicide to all things ecclesial since the 1960's. We can only pray that America's current fascination with European fads won't include following in the footsteps of the Dutch Church.
Well, at least following their example with statues of the Buddha could bring statues back to many of our denuded US churches.
Fr, I was in theology grad school and seminary during the same period as you. I had to carefully choose my professors (when I could) in order to avoid the humanist/neo-prot indoctrination that was so rampant at the time. I doubt if it was quite as bad in Catholic seminaries, but I do know that it was not uncommon. People who were not there just do not understand how widespread this de-construction of Church dogma and Christian doctrine (protestant and Catholic) was or how deep the roots of liberal theology have sunk.
For instance, we were required to take, as freshman in grad school, the course on "Ecumenical Theology." It was taught by a Catholic Priest from Notre Dame who was at the time unapologetically shacking up with a female professor at the Divinity school. The text was the documents from COCU...Committee on Church Union, which was the prot version of Vat II and a response to it. All of us students called it "COO COO." I attended a Communion service conducted by this Priest in the Commons Room of the University in which prot and Catholic students were in attendance. The Communion hymn was "Bridge Over Troubled Waters," and the Priest administered Communion to everyone there with a jug of Gallo red and a loaf of French bread from Kroger. The wine was passed around in a pottery mug with a hunk of French bread in it, and the loaf was passed while each person broke off their own "Host." Even I (a hard core Presbyterian) thought, at the time, that this was a liturgical outrage but, hey, it is a Catholic Priest with a PhD ( I was still awed by PhD's at that time).
There were a number of nuns and Priests in the grad school. The nuns all wore street clothes, some quite fashionable, and the Priests often wore their collars under sweat shirts, polo shirts, dashiki's (white Priests), or denim work shirts (to identify with the workers, don't ya' know). A nun taught a course on human sexuality using, as one text, Alex Comfort's "how-to" sex manuals! You would not believe the hoots, hollers, and off-color remarks from the students! LOL! Hans Kung and Teilhard were considered to be the pinnacle of Catholic theology at the time, and the protestant professors and grad students were celebrating Vat II as the end of Catholic "archaism" and the beginning of a new Catholic openness to a "wholistic" theology (read"heresy").
These people are still running around out there, pastoring churches, being Bishops, Priests, and nuns and continuing to corrupt parishes and seminaries everywhere. They may be beginning to die off, but their influence is not going away any time soon without an aggressive approach to suppressing it...that's right, I said "suppress."
This is why, for me, Benedict was a somewhat hopeful phenomenon, whereas, Francis' laid back approach and emphasis upon social work is disappointing. He may say all the right things, but his actions don't match up.
(cont'd)
Was Thomas Merton orthodox or heterodox? I can't get past his dabbling with Buddhism. It seemed he walked a fine line and had he lived longer, would have crossed over.
(cont'd)
Now, mainstream protestantism can pretty much be written off as a sunken ship. With the exception of the Baptists, the theology of belief and traditional Trinitarian doctrine have eroded to a disturbing extent. The congregational/evangelical/pentecostal groups are still devout believers, however, their individualistic, non-doctrinal theologies present an insurmountable array of unintended heresies and mis-teachings. Strange that the Baptists and Catholics may end up being allied when all is said and done.
Anyway, over the past 20 or so years, prot ministers and seminarians have been exiting the denominations like rats off a sinking ship. Many have become Catholic because they find in the Magisterium an anchor for Biblical theology and belief that, so far, has been unassailable by the forces of unbelief and secularism. I am one of these and I finally realized that, if we shall know them by their fruits, the Catholic Church continues to produce true and good doctrinal fruit. I have friends who are former prot ministers who are now Catholic and they agree that, once they entered the church, the devotional life of Catholicism was like a cleansing and restorative experience. Everything just fell into place. Now, however, we find ourselves fighting the same damned battles with the minions of progressivism that have destroyed even the staunchest Calvinist traditions...
Case in point (and I am going to use an ugly word. Please remove all children and PC types from the room)...the unbelieving morons in the Presbyterian church have decide to change the words of an old and favorite hymn, "In Christ Alone." The offending line is "that God's wrath be justified," referring to Christ's Sacrifice. They want to change it to (ready..anyone want to guess...),"that God's love be magnified." The rationale was that the original line is "harsh and offensive."
This is not just one littler anecdote...it is wide spread in protestantism. Back in the 70's, there was a strong move among the SBC (Baptists) to remove many of the "blood" hymns from the hymnal. The reasoning was that "all the references to blood were crass and offensive...." (What was it Paul said about "offense?")
Now, does not the de-emphasis upon Sacrifice among progressivist Catholics mirror the same mindset? Essentially, they are saying that the fact that Christ shed His blood on the Cross for our salvation is offensive and should not be mentioned in polite company. They find no offense, however, in Leftist and humanistic schemes for salvation which include abortion, gay marriage, the celebration of homosexual and unnatural acts, and highly invasive forms of government.
So, Catholics, listen to us former prots. We have been there and witnessed first-hand the depredations of liberalism and unbelief. Denounce it, reject it, attack it with all your righteous might.
"The Prince of Darkness grim,
We tremble not for him.
His rage we can endure
For, lo, his doom is sure,
One little Word shall fell him."
Equating "liberalism" with heterodoxy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
There is no greater example of the damage wrought by Vatican II than that of the Low Countries. In the 1950s the Dutch Catholic Church was in a healthy state and Belgium was one of the most Catholic countries in Europe. Five years ago on a visit to Brussels the only service I could find that resembled Catholic liturgy was at the SSPX church (which also happens to be the Belgian national shrine). Those who decry the SSPX should be made to live in this part of Europe.
I went over to the PTB site to check this out, and looking at the combox found (unsurprisingly)that this style of post-Christian worship was staunchly defended by Mr Paul Inwood. I am now going to make some derogatory comments, which you may well not want to publish as it might offend some lily-livered readers.
Inwood was for many years the director of liturgy for the diocese of Portsmouth (UK). His wife also holds a paid diocesan sinecure. He used the diocesan offices to promote his music publishing business. His own music was accurately described as "cod plainchant decked out with the harmonies of the 1970s cocktail lounge". The incoming and orthodox bishop, Philip Egan, has dispensed with his services, but he is already of retiring age. The influence of Inwood and others like him has been baleful in the extreme, and yet he pontificates endlessly and with the self-righteousness that characterizes the liberal tendency.
To quote Hilaire Belloc "caritas non conturbat me". A pox on the lot of them, I say.
Sounds like some of us may be off our meds.
Gene
Were you a PCUSA of PCA? PCA is any where near the Unitarian types at PCUSA or are they slipping that way?
So, it's okay to post derogatory remarks about the other posters as long as one does so anonymously?
Father MacDonald,
I may have a premonition. I'm not clairvoyant, like a certain blogging cleric, but this future vision of mine is pronounced at the moment:
I think Pope Francis will call for a doctrinal ecumenical council, to which he will invite Orthodox (with a capital "O") bishops as voting participants, and this council will define doctrines related to mercy, sacramental and otherwise. As a bonus, this council may even provide definitive clarifications of points disputed at VCII.
What do you think?
It's called satire and humor. Look it up.
"Anonymous":
Equating "liberalism" with heterodoxy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
No. Not considering what liberalism among so-called progressive Catholics (at places like Fr. M's favorite liberal blog) has now degenerated into.
Quikness, I was PCUS, but PCA is going the route of all of them.
Anonymous, Why don't you explain your comment to us. What is there about orthodoxy and tradition that is "off meds?" What is it about our actual experiences with these things that is "off meds?" So, you think a Priest shacking up with a female professor is OK? You think nuns teaching sex courses in a theology grad school using "The Joy of Sex" is fine? Tell us your views rather than just running in to make an occasional carping remark like some deranged chihuaha running out from under the couch to bark and snarl. Hey, how about an actual theological observation...a cogent defense of progressivism, an intelligent remark, maybe?
Anonymous, if you would read a theology book or a Church history book now and again, you would see that "liberal theology" is, by definition, heterodoxy. We are not talking about political liberalism here although, in our age, theological liberalism and political liberalism often coincide. Theological liberalism denies that Christ is the Son of God, interprets the Resurrection as merely personal self-renewal based upon an "encounter" with Christ through existential experiences, and understands eschatology to be the hoped for and worked for coming of an earthly kingdom of global, benign government peopled with college professors, old hippies, Patchouli-reeking-Granola crunching earth biscuits, and homosexuals. If that ain't heterodoxy, there ain't a cow in Texas!
I say again, quoting Gene: "It's called satire and humor. Look it up. Are we really that fragile?"
I wasn't making a "theological observation". I was just "running out from under the couch to snarl and bark" and...to pee on your pompous leg.
(However, the ferocity of your response does lend just a bit of credence to my med joke.)
FrJBS, I don't think the Orthodox would take too kindly to the Pope presuming to call a purportedly ecumenical council since, according to the Orthodox, he has no authority to do so. Moreover, I think certain patriarchs and bishops might find themselves deposed if they were to participate in such an event.
Keep in mind that, strictly speaking, according to Orthodox teaching, those who depart from the Fatih cease to have "valid" orders and that there are no sacraments outside the Church. So, Catholic bishops lack apostolic succession. Having departed from the Faith, the Catholic Bishop of Rome no longer has the primacy to call a council.
Even if he did have that authority, the mere fact that a council is called "ecumenical" means nothing without the approval of the people in Orthodox ecclesiology (see Florence, as an example).
In sum, there would be a huge debacle in the Orthodox Church if bishops tried to participate in a papal council like that (see Florence, once again, as an example). And, keep in mind, the Orthodox are in the midst of preparing a Great Synod (in the vein of an ecumenical council) of their own, and they have been for a while now having preliminary meetings in advance of this. In other words, they have their own business to attend to while, as many see it, "Rome burns" as its failed, erroneous teachings catch up to it. Perhaps they will invite the Pope to this Great Synod and allow him the chance to renounce the post-schism "innovations" in the Catholic Church. How would that go over, I wonder.
Keep in mind, Orthodox saint Mark of Ephesus, in the aftermath of Florence, said, "The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do." The divisions have only gotten worse with the advent of, among other things, papal infallibility and the deterioration of Catholic liturgy.
FrJBS: "What do you think?"
The prospect of a doctrinal ecumenical council in the future would concern me a bit. Wondering how the Church's current bishops might handle such an occasion for further damage.
After all, history shows that the guidance of the Holy Spirit affords little protection from disaster when such opportunities for disaster are presented to the wrong people at the wrong time. Just think of the meltdown of Church and Faith in the wake of Vatican II, or at a local level of some the faith-sapping recommendations of liturgical apparatchiks that our own USSCB has blithely rubber-stamped in recent decades.
Anonymous, as is typical of the libs and progressives who come on this blog, you make no meaningful response at all. There are a number of theological issues being mentioned here and you choose to continue to avoid any real dialogue.
"Some of us may be off of our meds" is neither satire or humor. It is just a snotty remark.
I responded to your statement that "equating liberalism with heterodoxy is a stretch." So, how about it? Let's have a sample of your theological/philosophical background out of which your statement was made. Explain why it is a stretch to say that the theological development from Ritschl, Schleiermacher, Schweitzer to Bultmann, Tillich, Kung, and Teilhard, et al. is a progression of heterodoxy. Please explain why all the Church historians and theologians call this "liberal theology" and why they are incorrect for doing so. I want to hear why Wilhelm Pauck, Langdon Gilkey, Martin Marty, Karl Barth and Hans Urs von Balthassar are "stretching it. Perhaps you can enlighten us. I know when I was studying under three of them, they still called it "liberal theology" and heterodoxy. I await your serious response...
Anonymous: Your mark was insensitive and rude. Have you considered that maybe some of the readers here may in fact be on medications for mood disorders? Now, please answer Gene's 4:59 since you're so well-versed in theology. He's mentioned both Catholic and Protestant theologians, so take your pick. What Gene is describing is a radical departure, pushed in an authoritarian way, from orthodox Christian belief of the preceding 2000 years. If that isn't enough to upset someone who subscribes to that orthodoxy, then what is? And do you really contend that those who preach and practice that kind of faith and moral theology are really in communion with those who subscribe to the traditions that they debunk? Are you able to provide a civil and intelligent response to these questions, or do you just want to show how hip you are by talking some more about bodily functions? (That's _so_ '70's of you.)
Gene: I think anyone who reads your above account of what happened to you in seminary will understand your tone on this blog a whole lot better. Fortunately for me, when I was a Christianity near-major, I was in a pretty orthodox environment (or rather, non-modernist, since it was a Baptist school), so I got to dodge most of the mess you describe.
P.S. Your hit parade was a walk down memory lane. I don't think I've run across a couple of the names on your list (Ritschl comes to mind) since the classes of one T.T., whom you and I both know from M.U. :-)
P.P.S. I'm sorry you aren't sufficiently awed by the innate wisdom I possess by virtue of my exalted Ph.D. Before I got that degree I was merely brilliant, but the moment they handed me the diploma I became incandescent.
Here are some excerpts from a Pastoral letter on the Eucharist(1988) from the
former bishop(now deceased) of Arlington, Virginia,the Most Reverend John R. Keating:
While the aimed to launch a whole new era of liturgical reform and renewal, it explicitly called for the preservation of three traditional externals that for centuries had served the Church's liturgy, especially the Mass, with dignity and decorum. They had to do with sound and the sense of hearing, the three sounds of language, song, and musical instrument:
1) Gregorian chant ". . .should be given pride of place in liturgical services." (SC 116)
2) "The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, for it is the traditional musical instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up men's minds to God and higher things." (SC 120)
3) "The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (SC 36.1)
The liturgy is such a sacred possession of the Church that no one, "not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority" (SC 22). Many subsequent documents have reiterated this basic norm of the :
"Only the supreme authority of the Church, and, according to the provisions of the law, the bishop and episcopal conferences, may do this. Priests should, therefore, ensure that they so preside over the celebration of the Eucharist that the faithful know that they are attending not a rite established on private initiative, but the Church's public worship, the regulation of which was entrusted to the apostles and their successors." (EM 11 IV D)
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote this memorable phrase: ". . .liturgy can only be liturgy to the extent that it is beyond the manipulation of those who celebrate it." (, p. 85) The liturgy, by its very nature, is the public patrimony of the whole Church; it cannot be the possession or hallmark of an individual priest or a particular parish community.
"The priest must realize that by imposing his own personal restoration of sacred rites he is offending the rights of the faithful and is introducing individualism and idiosyncracy into celebrations which belong to the whole Church.—(LI 1)
In the liturgy the priest acts , in the person of Christ, not in his own name or by his own authority. How the priest conducts himself at the altar has to be based not on a sense of personal ownership of the ritual, but on the deference and reverence owed to the Lord Himself, who entrusted the Mass to His Church. It is the ultimate, most prized and jealously guarded possession of the Church. It is no surprise that the Church insists on the use of officially authorized rituals and missals, rubrics and directives for the externals of its liturgy. (CCL 846.1)
And when you speak of the Eucharist, how ironic that the Mass should sometimes become a cause of disunity, division, or resentment, as it can when its ritual is tampered with. Pope John Paul II writes:
"Above all I wish to emphasize that the problems of the liturgy, and in particular of the Eucharistic liturgy, must not be an occasion for dividing Catholics and for threatening the unity of the Church. This is demanded by an elementary understanding of that Sacrament which Christ has left us as the source of spiritual unity. And how could the Eucharist. . . form between us at this time a point of division and a source of distortion of thought and of behavior, instead of being the focal point and constitutive center, which it truly is in its essence, of the unity of the Church herself." (DC 13)
SC-Sacrosanctum Conclium
LI-Liturgiae Instaurationes
CCL-Code of Canon Law
DC-Dominicae Cenae
Anon5, Do not sell yourself short. I covet your company because, when we talk, rays from your incandescence are shed upon me and I become...well..."enlightened."
Quickness, RE: Merton. I read Seven Story Mountain back in school and some essays by him. I do not know if he was ever chastised by the Church, but much of his thought walks a fine line between orthodoxy and "out there." I find value in his concern that Christianity had given up too much of its mystical tradition in favor of more linear, analytical theology. However, I think he took it to the point of theological anarchy. I think Merton should be read, but I wouldn't remain there. Anon 5 probably knows something more about him than I do.
Anon 5...I myself am on a medication for anxiety....so I know personally what it means to be "off my med".
For some reason Fr McD did not post a message I sent some time ago that said that there are two different people posting as anonymous. One (I) am talking about meds. Somebody else is talking about liberalism and heterodoxy....not I(even though I am probably both).
One would think that something so much more compatible with and accessible to people would be in wider demand and growing, while the more arcane and difficult would wane and fall into disuse. But the opposite is true.
qwikness, I too have wondered about where Thomas Merton was headed and thought that perhaps his death was somehow a means of sparing him from a slide away from Christ and His Church. In a similar vein, I have thought that C. S. Lewis might have been unable to cope with the "developments of the '60's" and become simply a crochety old man.
As to Merton, I have just recently read "Seasons of Celebration," a collection of articles written from 1950 to 1965, and found in it a reminder of the hopes and ideals that many of us had at the time of the Second Vatican Council, hopes in some way based on things like Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei and Mystici Corporis. At the time, I also liked Merton's "Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander."
-Ancil Payne
Question 1: If there are two of you posting as Anonymous, why don't each of you do the considerate thing and provide an identifier in your title.
Question 2: If you are liberal and heterodox, then why are you even on this blog? I don't go over to Pray for Tail and annoy people on a blog that I know is liberal. Actually, you are both trolls and, if Fr. was a little tougher, he would ban you both.
Regarding Merton and Eastern Religions:
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to himself." Nostra Aetate
Recognizing that Christianity and other religions share aspects
of the Truth is not sybncretism, it is not a threat to Catholic identity, and it is not to be feared or shunned.
Regarding Teilhard de Chardin:
"We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice, and by transforming our world, give it back to God. The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host." Pope Benedict XVI, 24 July 2009
"Teilhard speaks not only as a research scientist but also as a priest and poet who discerns with Meister Eckhart the 'interdependency of all things.' He shares with the medieval poet Dante the conviction that it is 'love that moves the sun and the other stars.' He combines scientific knowledge and mystical intuition to envision a universe in process towards its completion at a 'centre of cosmic spiritualisation' or 'ultimate centre of personality and consciousness' he calls Point Omega. And the Omega of Evolution, he believes, is none other than the Christ of Revelation: 'The great cosmic attributes of Christ, those (particularly in St John and St Paul) which accord him a universal and final primacy over creation, these attributes only assume their full dimension in the setting of an evolution that is both spiritual and convergent.'
- Sion Cowell, British Teilhard Association
Ignotus, I have read nearly all of Teilhard, have you? No one can read his writings and not see that this is not Biblical Christology or theology. Teilhard was reprimanded on several occasions by the Church and his books were forbidden to be used for a time due to "certain ambiguities and influences which are contrary to Catholic doctrine...etc." Certainly, he is not someone to recommend to Catholics (or anyone else, for that matter) who do not have a theological perspective and discernment. Even to them it is a waste of time when there is so much more and better out there. Again, you choose an author who is "on the line" of heterodoxy, if not over it...just as you chose Margaret Nutting Ralph (an agnostic) for your Bible study and just as you sang the praises of our Episcopalian gyno-Bishop, Jefferts-Schori a while back. Your behavior is quite consistent, which is why we on the blog can safely assume you are, deep down in your little heart of darkness, heterodox. Don't bother with your disclaimers...I've memorized them. Yawn.
Pin/Gene - This is not a disclaimer. It is a correction of your error.
The works of Teilhard were not forbidden. A "monitum" was placed on some of his works, meaning that those wishing to read them had to have the permission of their superiors in order to do so.
And if Pope Benedict XVI has praised some of Pere Teilhard's thinking, who are you to prescind from his judgment?
The fact that Benedict praised some of Teilhard's ideas means little. Benedict also praised Karl Barth, a Calvinist theologian, and the Church, a few years back, came to some kind of rapproachment with the Lutherans over justification by Faith. There are many devout Christian thinkers who stumble into error or who do not think out the implications of what they say. The Magisterium, in its higher wisdom, corrects them.. Zwingli, Hus, Melancthon, Luther, and Calvin were all devout believers...it just so happens that they were wrong. The very existence of the monitum is a red flag. Why not steer the faithful away from such dead ends?
"...It is not a question here of casting aspersions on the faith and person of Teilhard, but simply of noting that the movement which caused so many to follow him is religious and not specifically Christian. What embarrasses him the most is the Christ. He does not know what to do with his incarnation, or with his crucifixion, or with his resurrection. He meets up with him again only at the end as the cosmic Christ, which was also true of all gnosticisms and religions."
Ellul, Jacques. 'The New Demons," NY, 1975, Seabury Press. pp. 152-153
Pin/Gene - Since I am a Catholic who respects scholarship and academic experience, I am far less inclined than you to dismiss out of hand the considered remarks of Pope Benedict XVI regarding Teilhard's thinking. While you may conclude that Benedict "stumbled into error" regarding Teilhard, I do not share your view.
Most progressive thinkers within the Church were "red flagged" at some point in their careers as bishops and theologians. All thinkers have been progressive, by the way, not satisfied with the status quo but developing new ways of understanding God's revelation.
Many, as you know, have been "rehabilitated," and their work has been incorporated into the Church's doctrine over the centuries.
Keep in mind PI, the progressives that you describe as academics or scholars are some of the most clerical in the Church and even in the secular world of academics for they look down their noses at everyone else who is not an academic. It is clericalism wherever it is found, secular or Catholic, priesthood or laity that Pope Francis condemns.
Ignotus, I wasn't saying Benedict stumbled into error (can you comprehend) I was saying that Teilhard did.
PS I believe I am in a better position than you to respect scholarship and academics...plus, I pay attention to what I am reading.
Good Father McDonald - Pope Benedict is a scholar and academic. Surely you would not say otherwise, nor would you say he was guilty of "clericalism"...?
And while you may be uncomfortable with the fact that scholars and academics are better educated than you and I, I am not. Nor do I cast aspersions on them for their superior intellect and/or education. The Church relies on scholars and academics, some bishops and clerics, some lay, and rejoices in the gifts they have been given.
Pin/Gene - You believe you are "in a better position" than anyone who disagrees with you.
Scholars and academics do not necessarily have superior intellect. Many of them got there by long and diligent plodding, for which they should be admired. Also, a lot of education does not necessarily mean good sense, either. I have known many well-educated college professors who did not have enough sense to put gas in the car. A superior intellect is distributive over both the arcane and the mundane.
Once again, you twist Fr. MacDonald's words and imply meanings that are not there. Nowhere did Fr. imply that Pope Benedict was guilty of clericalism nor did he deny that Benedict was a scholar and academic. You are so thoroughly dishonest that you simply cannot hide it. LOL!
Again with the progressive fetish!!! This time from Pater rather than Fr. McD. If I prepare a reading list on Anglo-American historiography discussing the nature of whiggery and the idea of progress showing how imposing such concepts on theology is completely misplaced, will the various priests of whatever persuasion who frequent this blog promise to read the items thereon? This notion that progress is good, or that good is progressive by nature, is an acutely dangerous thing when discussing Catholic theology. It actually comes way closer to real Pelagianism than the practices of the Traditionalists do.
Lest y'all miss my point, consider that the arguments the serpent made to Eve (which she bought) were essentially couched in terms of progress: "You'll grow, you'll change, you'll become something better, you're being held back by authority." She bought the argument and look where it got us.
Gene: QUIT INSULTING ME!!! I MANAGED TO PUT GAS IN MY CAR JUST THE OTHER DAY!!! (OK, I spilled three gallons all over my shoes, but that could happen to anyone, and it was better than I did the rime before. And I am IN NO WAY responsible for that guy who was smoking the cigarette nearby.)
Gene:
I understand that you have reservations about Merton but I was very pleased to read your comment that “I find value in his concern that Christianity had given up too much of its mystical tradition in favor of more linear, analytical theology.”
People have different spiritual sensibilities, and a greater emphasis upon mysticism may not be helpful for some. But for others it may be extremely helpful to allow/encourage this inclination provided all is measured by the standards of orthodoxy. That way, we need not throw out the baby with the bathwater and can sort out the chaff from the wheat in writers such as Merton, Teilhard, and even Meister Eckhart. As a practical matter, it may be good to read such writers under the guidance of a trusted spiritual director.
Gene, I think that on August 13 at 6:43 a.m. you are talking not about me but about the two persons referred to in the post of one of them on August 12 at 9:16 p.m.
Nevertheless your post comes immediately after mine of August 12at 11:35 p.m. And so:
(1) I try always try to sign my name. I am unable to figure out how to post as anything other than "Anonymous" without a Google account or a credit card or "whatever" - i.e., something I don't have or can't figure out. I agree that perhaps the two referred to in the post of August 12 at 9:16 p.m. should do something to create uniqueness. Or else Father McDonald should modify the blog so that one can easily post by name or pseudonym. I repeat that I see no way to post except as "Anonymous."
(2) I vehemently deny being heterodox. I am not sure what liberal or conservative can mean in the context of the Catholic Church, tho' in "everyday" terms I think I am more conservative than liberal. (Incidentally, I thought "Liberal Catholic" was some marginal spiritualist sect.) If I am to be thought "liberal and heterodox" because I spoke of things to like in "Seasons of Celebration" and "Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander," I protest, and suggest that such thinking is overhasty.
-Ancil Payne
Ancil Payne, I was not talking about you...and, nothing you have ever written on here that I remember has ever indicated that you are heterodox. In fact, I look forward to your posts and always read them.
Ancil, after you type your post and enter the crazy verification letters, at the bottom of the page, click the Name/URL radio button. Then you can enter any name you like in the name field and leave the URL field blank. Then click Publish Your Comment.
Your name will show up when you post. You'll have to do this each time.
Anon 5 and Gene: Of course, in the good old days an attendant used to put gas in your car for you (at least they did in Britain, and I assume here also). Attendants were eliminated in the name of efficiency and resulting cheaper gas/petrol. How’s that working out?
Not only did the attendant put gas in your car, he and if others weren't busy would check under your hood to make sure the oil was full, and other liquids, and check the pressure of tires and wash your windshield! All this as we waited in the car with the engine running inhaling the gas fumes, which at that time had lead in it, and enjoying every bit of it! And of course we were not buckled in and had free reign of the back seat and the space between the back window and seat! I use to love to lay up there as we drove down the high way at breakneck speeds! Oh, the memories if only we could go back!
Nanny government. Anon 2, it ain't working out so well...LOL!
Gene:
Shouldn’t you direct your comment to Father McDonald rather than to me? After all, isn’t he the one who seems to be gratified that we now have mandatory seat belt laws and unleaded gasoline? And unless I am grievously mistaken, seat belt laws and the banning of leaded gasoline and its replacement by unleaded gasoline both represent governmental regulation of business and interference in the workings of the “free market” as well as infringement on the “liberty” of the individual automobile owner. In fact, are they not both prime examples of the activity of the paternalistic “nanny state” (if you will permit the mixing of gender metaphors)? My goodness, are they not, even worse, examples of the dreaded S word?
And all I was trying to do was to highlight the loss of jobs and the element of personal service by the gas station attendant (as far as I know, such service is no longer even an option even if one is willing to pay a bit more for it), and to suggest the irony that the anticipated resulting benefits of cheaper gasoline do not seem to have materialized to the extent hoped for.
My basic point, of course, is that I fear we have lost something of value (albeit not quantifiable in monetary terms and thus, of course, unrecognized as “value” by those who think exclusively in economic terms) while pursuing what is to some extent an illusion. Remember, I am at heart in many ways a Burkean conservative, like the late Russell Kirk (a founding father of the modern American conservative movement), who I think would agree with me that personal service by a gas station attendant or the family owned grocery store or the milkman delivering milk to the door (as a lad I was a milkman’s helper for several years to earn extra pocket money) are also part of the “unbought grace of life,” and that their sacrifice on the altar of the god of efficiency and “free market forces” is sad and perhaps even unwise. Not only are jobs and the element of personal service lost, but important personal relationships in embedded community are also lost in so many of these cases. Perhaps some of these losses were inevitable (milk delivery to the house seems less practicable when both spouses work outside the home, for example), but surely not all of them?
Anon 2, This time you and I are in complete agreement. Thanks. BTW, speaking of the milk man...
Do you know how a liberal let's the milk man know to leave an extra quart of milk? He pins a note to his wife's bra...
Gene:
I have mentioned before that there is much we agree on, and I am always pleased to find these areas of common ground with you. However, I do not want to create a false impression, and therefore honesty compels me to explain that I am not opposed to all regulation of the market or restriction on individual liberty, just regulation or restriction that is imprudent and unreasonable. And there is certainly a good argument to be made that requiring unleaded gasoline/petrol or seatbelts is prudent and reasonable. I am open to considering arguments, however, that it may not be. But in my original short comment, of course, I was not addressing the role of the state but a totally different point about the nature and quality of civil society.
As to your observation regarding the extra pint of milk (we had pints not quarts), I am afraid that I have no personal insights to offer. There were some things that a 14 year old milk boy was not allowed to help with =). However, the following link to the sad story of “Ernie the Fastest Milkman in the West” as related by the comedian Benny Hill may be of some assistance on the point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwa0vaR7slQ
BTW before becoming a comedian, Benny Hill was a milkman in my home town of Eastleigh, although I never met him myself. His experience as a milkman was clearly the inspiration for the Ernie ballad, which, in recognition of British eccentricity, reached number One in the Hit Parade in 1971.
Gene:
In the last couple of days a friend of mine has made me more aware of the work of Anglican theologian John Milbank. His work seems particularly relevant to our present conversation and the need to restore a vibrant civil society and communitarian ethos. Given your in-depth understanding of matters theological, I would be very interested in your thoughts. Here are two links – the first is to a video interview of Milbank by a Russian Orthodox priest (Milbank’s comments on the relationship between orthodoxy and Romanticism and the aesthetic, and on the restoration of honor in craft beginning at about 11 minutes are particularly fascinating); the second is to a print interview with Milbank addressing many different, though related, aspects of his thought:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnz2v1UvrRU
http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/03/17/orthodox-paradox-an-interview-with-john-milbank/
The PCA is certainly not going the route of the PCUSA. It is the most scripturally sound denomination I have ever encountered. I realize this is a nominally Catholic blog and sola scriptura may not be appreciated, but Gene's impassioned quoting of Luther's hymn (one little Word shall fell him) moved me and I couldn't resist! Anyone concerned about the utter abandonment of Biblical teaching and orthodoxy should be OK in a PCA church. It is also a great place for questions about fine points of scripture (and I do NOT mean the Trinity of Jesus' resurrection, I mean baptismal regeneration for example). I cannot conceive of a PCA pastor vacillating in re Jesus's resurrection. That any Christian clergyman could do so and not be summarily excommunicated or disbarred or whatever word you like is deeply shocking.
Post a Comment