The National Chismatic Reporter (NCR) features an editorial by the former priest turned psychologist who certainly by now must be in late retirement, who gushes at what he perceives to be Pope Francis' broadside of the Pelagians, (Catholic right-wingers)as the pope describes them, when in fact the pope really broadsides the Gnostics, post-Catholicism born of the enlightenment. You can read the full editorial HERE.
But here is an excerpt:
Just when Pope Benedict XVI had reassured traditionalist Catholics that his reform of the reform would overturn the Second Vatican Council and make it safe for them to stay out of the sanctuary and yield it to the clerical culture cardholders who, backs turned to the faithful, could make the Mass mysterious again by mumbling it in Latin, along comes Pope Francis who, to traditionalists' horror and discomfort, is recalling the church to Vatican II and emphasizing its themes.
My Comments: The Former Father Kennedy, who left the priesthood in the heady days after the Second Vatican Council thinking it was all over for celibacy and chastity, is really deceitful in his commentary as the Holy Father has never criticized those Catholics who have a powerful Marian devotion, acknowledge the smoke of Satan in the Church and that as a real entity, the devil prowls the world seeking the ruin of souls. The Holy Father has never singled out for criticism those Catholics who are faithful to the pope and the Magisterium to include this new Pope's Magisterium and the bishops in union with him. This Pope's themes have consistently been about fidelity, fidelity, fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and the Pope as the Supreme legislator and his call to Marian devotion and fear of the devil.
Is there one word about the core of Pope Francis' Magisterium from the good, former priest, Kennedy in his broadside of a rather small group of traditionalists in the Church, the SSPX and its off-shoots which he seems to want to include Archbishop Chaput, who is far from that category? What does the Former Father Kennedy fear and why is he setting up straw men in this regard?
Yes, there are some traditionalists who don't like how the pope dresses or his liturgical style in this regard. He is, as he himself has stated, more emancipated liturgically than his excellent Master of Ceremonies Msgr. Guido Marini.
But when it comes to calling Catholics to fidelity, fidelity, fidelity to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, a powerful Marian devotion and rediscovering other devotions (popular piety) as well as acknowleging the reality of the devil in the world and unfortunately in the Church, this pope has no recent equals, not even the Emeritus!
In this regard, Pope Francis is like Saint Pope Pius X whom the Church just celebrated on August 21. This great saint-pope (and there aren't too many popes who are saints) condemned Moderism in the CAtholic Church which was born of the Enlightenment. Isn't this exactly what Pope Francis is doing and isn't Pope Francis in many ways more like Pope Pius X than Saint Francis of Assisi?
Zenit has an article of Saint Pope Pius X comparing him to Pope Francis. You can read the entire article which includes a link to the Encyclicals of Pope Pius X also by pressing HERE.
Here are some excerpts:
Commemorating the anniversary, L’Osservatore Romano this week paid tribute to his life with text and pictures. One reflection proposed some similarities between him and Pope Francis. It noted Pius' disdain for ecclesiastical triumphalism, his sober and modest style, and it claimed that, like Francis, he had a “more pastoral than magisterial interpretation of the role of Peter.” It recalled how Pius XII paid tribute to him at his canonization, describing him as a “country priest” – a label also given to Pope Francis.
[Pope Pius encyclical] Pascendi Dominici Gregis has many striking passages, not least his solemn warning that modernists wish to “lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires.” Then, having struck at this root of immortality, he adds, “they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt.” He stresses that agnosticism is the movement’s “philosophical foundation”, and one whose natural end is relativism and atheism.
Three years later, in 1910, St. Pius required all priests, religious superiors and seminary teachers to take an oath against the modernist heresy, a requirement that Pope Paul VI abolished in 1967.
Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be,” Pius X explains, adding that although Jesus was “kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared.”
“He loved them all,” Pius says, “but He instructed in order to comfort them.”
Jesus, he continues, “was as strong as he was gentle” and “He reproved, threatened, chastised.” He lifted up the lowly, but “not to instil” rebelliousness and disobedience. Jesus did not announce a “reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished,” Pius adds. “He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven, the royal way of the Cross.”
Such teachings are “eminently social” he says, and show Jesus Christ as someone “quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.”
St. Pius X doesn’t hold back from reprimanding Catholics who seek to establish “the reign of love and justice” on earth based solely on the uniting influence of a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can.”
He reminds them that establishing the “Christian City” needs much more than a “vague idealism and civic virtues”, and instead requires “the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace - the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man.”
Presciently, St. Pius says he fears worse is to come. “The end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish,” he says. Instead it will “be a religion [more] universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men to become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God", "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."”
With this in mind, Pius X encourages the bishops to “carry on diligently with the work of the Saviour of men by emulating His gentleness and His strength.” He urges them to “preach fearlessly their duties to the powerful and to the lowly” and to “form the conscience of the people and of the public authorities.” He further calls on the bishops to “ take appropriate measures, with prudence but with firmness also” with regards the Sillonists, and ends by calling on the Church to pray that the Lord may cause them to understand the “grave reasons” for any particular sanction placed on them.
Pius X was a prolific writer during his 11 years as Pope, penning 16 encyclicals all of which can be read in English on the Vatican Web site here. While some passages are clearly suited to another era, for many Catholics St. Pius X’s uncompromising style makes welcome reading in a world where the modernist heresy has long taken hold.
MY FINAL COMMENT: The neo-schismatics of the Church such as the Former Father Kennedy and those who support the drivel of the National Chismatic Reporter are in gross denial about the sentiments of Pope Francis and his affinity for Saint Pope Pius X and his condemnation of the Gnosticism of his era, Modernism in the Catholic Church.
Faithful Catholics who love the Church and her Magisterium and understand the need for fidelity and not some sort of loyal opposition or dissent either in the Pelagian way or God-forbid in the worst way possible, the Gnostic way, know that Pope Francis in continuity with his predecessors will guide the Church in a way that is faithful to God, not to man.
66 comments:
St. Pius X is one of my favourite saints and his works against modernism feature highly on my blog. What has confused me is the acceptance of socialism by so many, indeed the majority of Catholics, in Europe and increasingly so in the States. This pernicious ideal undermines the dignity of the person and the family, as well as making the state a god.
That this peasant Pope saw the evils of this form of of government, as did his namesake Blessed Pius IX (who should be canonized), has been forgotten by most priests, and bishops. Let us hope and pray that the good Pope Francis addresses both socialism and communism directly in the near future for the sake of souls.
Good post, and thank you.
What continues to fascinate me about the gnostics in the Church (as Pope Francis would use the term) is that they continue to try to drive a wedge between this very orthodox pope and the traditionalists who are orthodox but certainly would prefer a pope that is more like Benedict liturgically than Francis. But Francis is far from a raging liberal when it comes to the liturgy.
So Kennedy thinks that Archbishop is an ultra traditionalist when it comes to the liturgy, which he isn't and he isn't afraid either of the culture or facing the future. His faith has made him secure like Pope Francis. Chaput, a Franciscan and Francis, a Franciscan are bishop birds of the same feather!
I still have a problem with the application of the term "Pelagian" with so-called "ultra-traditionalists." Modernists are far more "Pelagian" in their belief in humanism and our ability to build a utopia on earth. Also, Modernism implicitly or explicitly rejects the Creed and the Real presence, resurrection, etc. which is a denial of the efficacy of Grace and Christ's saving Sacrifice. That is Pelagian. It seems to me a desire to return to the pre-Vat II Mass, and the traditional Catholic identity is a rejection of Pelagianism and a desire to re-affirm a traditional, Biblical Christology. The term is not being properly used.
I should have said, Francis, a want a be Franciscan.
Gene, I would tend to agree also that Pelagians would better describe the gnostics too. Perhaps pundits trying to decifer exactly who Pope Francis is criticizing have it wrong, maybe the Pelagians and Gnostics are the same group, the ultra liberals in the Church who embrace post modernism in the Church but in different ways. Liberals tend to emphasize the horizontal in the Church and her worship and what we do that attains the kingdom now and leaves little room for the Magisterium and the Holy Spirit working there. They eschew the vertical in worship and the Church in the sense that God is the one who gives us salvation in Jesus and gives us the way to worship in the Sacrifice and gives us faith, hope and love. These aren't our works, but God's works. I don't think traditionalists misunderstand that as do the liberals.
Traditionalists might be the gnostics in the sense that they think they have a truth (pre-Vatican II oriented) that the Post Vatican II Church has lost especially with Vatican II and all the post-Vatican II popes. This would be classical gnosticism in that sense. Ultra traditionalists also make a huge dichotomy between the spiritual and the physical, and tend toward dualism which is also a part of gnosticism. So there is an over emphasis on the evils of the world to the neglect that the world is created by God and thus ultimate good when finally redeemed.
So maybe the pundits have it backwards or don't understand that the pope is making a pan criticism of both extremes in the Church with both terms applying to both.
Fr, I think you are correct. Gnostic-type errors are probably more of a danger to so-called "ultra-traditionalists," whatever they are. It is interesting that many heresies often logically imply others,as in Gnostic/Pelagian, Donatist/Pelagian, Arian/Gnostic, etc.
It strikes me that the Holy Catholic Church and the Magisterium, realizing this, has taken such great pains over the centuries to insist upon right-belief to safeguard her people from error and sin. The Church knows that apparently small things can have great consequences, hence the so-called theological minutiae found in the Scholastics, etc. It really is not minutiae if it could affect our salvation and the future of the Church.
I think this is one reason why many of us are so disgusted with the results of Vat II...intended or not...it was understood as saying, 'Hey, these things don't really matter so much." Theology used to be called "the Queen of the Sciences." Language was used carefully and precisely...the Dogma of the Church has an internal logic that is consistent and compelling...if you believe. It "doesn't matter" only if you do not believe. We have far too many Priests and Bishops (not to mention Catholic laity) who perform the liturgy and recite the Creed "tongue-in cheek."
BTW, Father, that photo you posted is an excellent example of the hideous extremes modern architecture can reach. However, your readers should know that it is not a church, but the Disney Concert Hall in downtown Los Angeles. However, it is not far away from a church building that is equally offensive and drab: The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels (aka The Yellow Armadillo or Taj Mahony). And what about the previous cathedral, St. Vibiana's? It has been sold and is now called "Vibiana" and is rented out for private functions, banquets, rave parties and other "cultural" events. I would venture to say that the person responsible for selling it was not a Pelagian, but a Gnostic.
What's interesting about the look of that concert hall by Disney is that it could be mistaken for a church today so horrible are our church designs today and the loss of architectural identity for churches in the post-modern period!
Found this during coffee this morning: "Left unattended, skepticism, fear and panic can wreak havoc on any change process,” Auster and Ruebottom write in “Navigating the Politics and Emotions of Change,” in the Summer 2013 issue of MIT Sloan Management ...
Somewhere along the way the vision of Vatican II got lost. It is hurting us because, apparently, it is cannot be executed even by the people who were there. Maybe it is only a Tablet of Babel.
Here is a video I recommend to the Priests on this board. The message I would like people to consider is that a Big Idea is executed on the local level in a given moment of time in a focused way.
Intention
rcg - I enjoyed the video. How do you understand its implication for aspects of our faith?
I get your meaning Father. It may not be a new Catholic church, but it's ugly enough to fit the bill!
The Vatican 2 documents are akin to Obama-care's 1000 pages. Both were voted on without thorough evaluation of their potential impact. Hence the ongoing and constant back-and-forth about their precise meaning. In contrast, the debates in Trident went on much longer. The meaning of the Council documents were clearly accessible. At the end the Church emerged with new vigor and strength. No need to belabor what happened after 1965.
"it is cannot be executed even by the people who were there."
Or, perhaps, especially not by the people who were there.
I suspect a faithful implementation of those aspects of Vatican II that are of permanent value will pose less difficulty when it is in the hand of Church leaders whose careers have not been invested in a particular interpretative of the council. After the generation of those with professional roots in Vatican II has moved on, the authoritative evaluation of the council called for by Benedict can and surely will take place, informed by by experience with the disastrous results of the mis-interpretations of the past forty years.
PI, the message I would look for in that video is the idea that trying to be everything to everybody makes us nothing for everyone and even puts us in the way of their progress. It asks "What do we want people to feel?" The answer is the presence of God. But everything we put out trying to relate to people in the name of inclusion over stimulates them and ends up confusing them. It is our combined vanity that makes us try to list the things God wants us to do, to describe God to people. Vatican II seemed to bite off more than it could chew. It clearly was not crafted around the intentions, if those intentions were Unity in Christ. Again, the bishops that came from the conference did all sorts of things in the name of Vatican II but as time goes by we discover that this document that fell from their very fingers is still in need of interpretation? How can they have been mistaken applying the instructions they wrote? In the case of the TLM, how can they have allowed the popular misconception that Latin Mass was not allowed to go uncorrected? the inversion is that they could have said that guitar Mass is allowable as long as it has certain elements, but the Latin Mass is still the source. They were much more conversant in Latin in those days than many priests are today. Why would they have tolerated sloppy translations? Why would they have allowed the hegemony of non-Catholic doctrine in the music?
The video shows the philosophy of a company whose focus is their customer over themselves. I can accept a guitar Mass when everyone involved knows that it is a deviation and why the deviation is occurring. I can accept a Pope in princely garb with a tiara, if he knows that is not really his crown.
rcg - “Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular, may be celebrated lawfully only according to the rite of the Roman Missal promulgated 3 April 1969 by authority of Pope Paul VI.”
The emphasis on the word “only” (tantummodo) is found in the original.
“Ordinaries must ensure that all priests and people of the Roman Rite, “notwithstanding the pretense of any custom, even immemorial custom, duly accept the Order of Mass in the Roman Missal.”
“Conferentia Episcopalium” (Oct. 28, 1974).
This was the juridical abrogation of masses other than the NO.
I can agree, to a point, that we have to ask "What are you looking for?" in thinking about liturgy. I think there are many forms of music, architecture, language, etc., that can point people towards the Lord or inspire them to seek him.
In any case, I did enjoy the vid.
Re: Architecture and Restoration
Go here, click on Renovation on the left side (warning, this site will play music when you go to it)
http://www.stmarynorwalk.net/
Fr. Z has a video of the renovation in my last post. It's worth watching, if you want to increase your faith that things are slowing getting better. If only there were more brave priests and bishops out there! Let's pray for them!
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/08/st-marys-is-getting-a-continuity-makeover-video/
At its recent conference the LCWR has signally failed to address any of the issues raised by the CDF. Why should they? Didn't Pope Francis tell their Latin American counterparts to disregard letters from the Congregation? I can't imagine Pius X acting in this way. Nor, for that matter, 'good Pope John' whose apparent amiability won plaudits from the non-Catholic media (similar to those showered on Francis) but who in 1959 placed the writings of Sr (now St) Faustina Kowalska on the Index.
Well, Fr. Kavanaugh, although there might be many forms of art, music, and architecture that point toward God, as you say, the Mass may only lawfully be celebrated in accordance with the Missal. So, those artistic, musical, and architectural forms that fail to comply with the Missal (which would include its associated instructions and documents) are unlawful.
Since the accompanying documents specify the hierarchy of musical forms to be used, which excludes guitars and other profane instruments, such Masses that include those things therefore are unlawful.
As we all know from our analysis of a nameless group that our host considers schismatic, assisting at unlawful (and so illicit) Masses is sinful in itself. So, to assist at a Mass featuring unlawful instruments, such as guitar, is sinful due to being a cooperation in an illicit Sacrament.
(And just so this post doesn't start a huge discussion about the SSPX, schism, guitars, illicit Masses, and all that stuff we've gone over a thousand times, I ask everyone to please note that this post is mainly intended sarcastically, as satire, of our discussions on this blog.)
Marc - The Missal does not tell us what style of architecture to use, what style of vesture to use, or what style of music to use.
Nor should it.
No satire intended.
Let us not forget Cardinal Merry del Val – the man behind the curtain (so to speak) when one thinks of St. Pius X. At the first dedication and consecration of a church I attended, a relic of Pius X was used by the Bishop for the altar. The music was rendered by the local Methodist ensemble with bells. The irony of this always gives me a chuckle.
I'd like to hear Sanctus done by a chorus of banjos in the Crystal Cathedral. I want Hooters girls for altar servers...there is literally nothing that forbids it.
PI, a Mass cannot be juridically abrogated, only a law. Paul VI could have specifically abrogated Pius V's 'Quo Primum' but chose not to do so. Bugnini wanted a declaration to the effect that the celebration of the Old Mass was forbidden de jure, but was prevented by the Secretary of State from even applying for one as it would be "odious in the face of liturgical tradition".
Paul VI certainly wanted to sign off the Novus Ordo without delay, since unauthorized liturgies were proliferating in continental Europe - more than 300 Eucharistic Prayers were circulating in France alone. It remained to be seen what demand, if any, there would be for the Old Rite, and it was assumed that any issues relating to it could be dealt with at local level.
There is also the wider question as to whether even the pope is competent to suppress the Roman Rite. Since we now have it on authority that he did not do so, that particular minefield is avoided.
It has always fascinated me from a sociological point of view, how the easing of discipline and/or restrictions in the Church, her liturgy, religious life, etc, had the effect of open Pandora's Box and almost immediately following the Council. Certainly there must have been a repressiveness in the Church prior to the Council with a seething resentment, an adolescent rebellion never realized, that was unleashed. Perhaps part of the problem with the Church prior to the Council was arrested development of clergy and religious who never went through a normal adolescent/rebellion at the time most go through it, teenage years, and it was delayed to a much later time and called renewal when it occurred.
Good Father - I think your analysis of the cultural changes we saw in the 50's and 60's is fairly accurate. There was a "rebellion" in many areas of society, some necessary and helpful, some selfish and destructive. That is the nature of most rebellions.
African-Americans rose up to reject the Jim Crow oppression of their race, women threw off their "Margaret Anderson wear-them-while-you-do-housework" pearls, and we saw the beginnings of the movement that would bring those with physical and developmental disabilities into mainstream society. The best of times, the worst of times.
Ecclesiastically, a very European (Roman) rite had been imposed on the Church throughout the world, without regard, in many cases, for the cultures of the people. With the raised consciousness of various people, there was a legitimate questioning of the propriety of a culturally "foreign" liturgy being used for local worship.
In those places where the dominant colonial forces were from "Catholic" countries, even the liturgy with its European basis came to be seen as a symbol of oppressive foreign domination.
In Corsica, for instance, the indigenous chant was suppressed, replaced by Gregorian. Only recently has the beauty of "Chant Corse" been rediscovered and re-introduced into both liturgy and performance.
Many suggest that "the long 19th century," that is, the time from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (ca 1750) through the American and French Revolutions until the end of World War 1 and the collapse of Eurocentrism, was a time of foment across Western cultures. Distracted (to say the least) by the First World War, the roaring 20's, the Depression 30's, the Second World War, only in the 1950's did we have the luxury of exploring the benefits and the burdens of the lack of intentional development.
Did this have a particular reflection in the lives of individual clerics and religious? I don't know. I tend to think that, as products of their cultures, including their ecclesial culture, they were no more "repressed" than anyone else.
It is, though, an interesting consideration.
Oh, to have been born a European polyglot circa 1650....
Corsican Chant: Tantum Ergo It's very nice and dignified. (IMO) Somewhat reminiscent, to me, of Byzantine Chant.
http://youtu.be/0jam_YctN34
Rob
Pater: While it's possible to find resentment of Catholicism and the Mass in a great many eras, the French Revolution, fueled by the Enlightenment, took it to a whole new level. The republicanism born of the revolution resulted in a deep western hatred of monarchy, aristocracy, and privilege, as well as a radical "authoritative egalitarianism" (read: Marxism, anarchism), and helped produce the modernist ideas that came out of the French and other seminaries in the 1800s. Since the scriptural bases for God as monarch are inescapable, that meant that the very concept of God, as well as the liturgical trappings of monarchy, had to go, whether or not they were objectively right or doctrinally non-negotiable.
The Church managed to maintain her hierarchcal authority despite these movements (just as most European monarchs managed to remain in the saddle) until the 1900s. The monarchical model survived in the Church even past World War I perhaps because she, unlike most monarchs, retained some sort of moral authority in the wake of that catastrophe.
In the wake of World War II, though, any authority that wasn't "grass roots" in nature came under fire: it was in Hitler and in Jim Crow that you get the culmination of the identification of "sovereign" with "evil." Vietnam confirmed this when it struck at the heart (via the draft) of the youth who'd been bred to resent authority; it was in fact the perfect war to do so, being mismanaged and ill-conceived as it was. At that point, any authoritative institution (government, school, Church) was by nature evil and thus had to go (or be radically changed in its essentials). (Effectively, the antiauthoritarian revolt that had been simmering for a century and a half finally managed to scream in a discernible way "See! We told you so!" and people listened. Only by at least masquerading as one of the people, or as a populist movement, could one survive.
Of course, we have to have institutions. Certain individuals have to drive the train. This is the great fallacy that wrecked Marxism, and this is what the revolutionaries of the 1960s didn't get. The 1960's modernists began by clamoring for a place at the table and the need to "dialogue" (verbing a noun in the process.) But when they got that place in the table, they tended to become even more oppressive than the monarchs they'd displaced, censored, and beheaded over the past centuries. Just as Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler (all of whom claimed to be the embodiment of the people or the race or the spirit of egalitarianism or whatever) became far worse tyrants than the traditional monarchs they replaced, so, too, are the liturgical and theological modernists of the '60s just as assertive of their oppressive authority as the "bad guys" they threw out. I've personally witnessed this intolerance, backed by pastoral authority, on more than one occasion, and I've read of many other examples.
Add to this the fact that the white middle class generation of the Baby Boom were the most spoiled in history (and threw tantrums against the college or the government or the Church in the 1960s when they didn't get their way) so, too, do you see the tantrums continue. We will all like guitar music, or else. We will all stand to receive Communion, or we will be excommunicated. We will all immediately cease asking what various passages in VII documents mean, or we will be called schismatics and gnostics and maybe even pelagians.
Granting this perspective, you perhaps will see why I'm very leery of the idea that all that has happened in the past 50 years are merely disciplinary changes that are permissible variants of doing things since they merely reflect different times and cultural diversity. At the very least, such changes have their genesis in anti_Catholic mindsets; even if they are valid per se, that doesn't make them at all healthy.
Your thoughts?
Lots of wisdom there, Anon 5! One sentence struck me in particular: “But when they got that place in the table, they tended to become even more oppressive than the monarchs they'd displaced, censored, and beheaded over the past centuries.” This is, of course, why everyone should read Orwell’s Animal Farm (and Nineteen Eight Four, of course), and take the lessons to heart. It is also why I am in favor of as much liturgical pluralism as is legitimate – for example, Novus Ordo_and_EF; Gregorian Chant_and_ reverently performed folk music; kneeling_and_standing; receiving on the tongue_and_in the hand.
Of course, one could say that I just want to impose this pluralism on everyone else. And Gene would say that I am being a relativist and an appeaser. Is there an answer to these charges? I believe there is -- To the extent Vatican II, as properly interpreted and implemented, permits such pluralism, I stand with the magisterium and it is the magisterium that imposes, as is its prerogative. To the extent it can be shown that such pluralism is contrary to Vatican II as properly interpreted, I will modify my position accordingly.
A2,
I think the lessons I draw from Animal Farm are a bit different from the ones you see. The monarchs of the 20th century who were the model for Orwell's rulers (Hitler, Stalin) exercised an absolutism beyond even that of absolute monarchs of the past. Many monarchical schemes throughout history have been two-way, relational, as opposed to dictatorial, with responsibility as well as right. Thus, I don't see pluralism as a cure for the evils of monarchy but potentially the subversion of it.
I myself would prefer the abandonment of deficient and dangerous practices (a Protestantized Novus Ordo, a permissive Communion in the hand that is faux-historical and facilitates desecration), but a _true_ pluralism would be at least a step in the right direction. Modernists _say_ we have pluralism, but their hostility to the old practices is effective suppression (or strong discouragement) of them. They refuse to offer the Tridentine Mass and then give as a reason its lack of popularity. They say that communion in the hand is a right, so they do nothing to encourage people to consider the option of receiving on the tongue. I have seen and heard almost nothing from clergy that even encourages modest dress or lack of gum chewing at Mass--matters of the most basic civility--much less encouragement of things such as mantillas or staying after mass to pray (universal when I was growing up) or the stuff I've mentioned above--not even a pointing out that which of the old things are still permissable. So I take any claims of pluralism with a very large grain of salt.
In brief, then, I would take issue with you on pluralism, but I'll wait to debate you on that until we really have it. :-)
P.S. Correction – in the first paragraph of my 7:55 p.m. post yesterday, I should have said “It is also one reason why I am in favor . . . etc." There are other reasons: for example, more effective evangelization by making the Mass accessible and attractive to as many people as possible (provided that the diverse forms remain within the range of what is permissible under Vatican II as properly interpreted).
Anon. 5: I agree that we don’t yet have true pluralism, but I think we should, which is why I support the traditionalist impulse insofar as it seeks to restore what should never have been suppressed in the first place, e.g., the TLM (although not insofar as it in turn seeks to suppress other non-traditionalist forms that are permitted on a proper interpretation of Vatican II). So my comments were more normative than descriptive.
As for Animal Farm, perhaps I am just more skeptical about the libido dominandi that lurks in our human nature than you are. The twentieth century monarchs (Hitler, Stalin) had a technology of terror and oppression that just was not available to monarchical rulers before. Of course, I understand the ideal of virtuous Christian Monarchy too, even if it was honored as much in the breach as in the observance. Machiavelli has a lot to answer for, doesn’t he?
You are assuming that "pluralism" is a desirable thing... which is the basis for globalism, multiculturalism, moral relativism and egalitarianism. I think that is a huge assumption and a wrong one. VAT II was the French Revolution of the Catholic Church...complete with the iconoclasm. I get tired of all the intellectual calisthenics trying to find "the proper interpretation of Vat II." What if there isn't one? What if it was a huge mistake? Perhaps that nothing infallible issued from it is God's way of sadly smiling and shaking His head.
Anon 5, You are one of the main reasons I read this blog. Your brief and insightful observations and analyses are spot on and actually recall things my own history professors said years ago. It is encouraging to see that there are still historians and cultural observers who are not revisionist/egalitarian sycophants.
I think the two greatest "heresies" in the Church, to which Vatican II opened the door, but perhaps unwittingly, are "inculturation" as it concerns the official liturgies and sacraments of the Church and the embrace of "modernism" and the elimination of the "oath against Moderism" that Pope Pius X establish and Pope Paul VI removed. It seems to me that in terms of modernism, the new Pope is fully aware of its devastating effects on the Church when he describes his own version of Gnosticism today--this truly applies to the progressives who have embraced Modernism thinking that Vatican II overturned Pope Pius X's teachings against it. It is not entirely their fault as Pope Paul VI was an enabler of this.
Inculturation is another problem. In the pre-Vatican II Church this was encouraged for popular devotions, street processions and the like, but not for the official liturgies of the Church, such as the Mass, the other sacraments and the Liturgy of the Hours--these had to be universal, although there was some slight adaptations culturally for some of the "symbols" of the sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony, but very slight. And of course the pre-Vatican II Church allowed for cremation in countries like Japan where it was their custom.
But dragging cultural aspects into the Mass and Liturgy of the Hours was not done except by a few elitists in the pre-Vatican II era.
Gene and Father McDonald:
Do you agree that it is perfectly legitimate for someone who is trying to be a faithful Catholic, such as myself (albeit failing in different ways), to accept Vatican II? Also, do you agree that it is perfectly legitimate to accept magisterial interpretation and implementation of Vatican II in the exercise of “religious submission of intellect and will” (the appropriate response regarding the ordinary magisterium, at least as I understand it but Father please correct me if that is wrong)? I leave aside the question whether these things are actually required. I just want to know if you think it is legitimate.
I hope you see the bind we are in when fellow lay Catholics, such as you Gene, or our priests, such as you Father, urge us to reject either Vatican II, or its interpretation by other instantiations of the magisterium.
For example, Father, you do not like folk masses. I understand that. But does that mean all of us must reject them as illegitimate examples of a perverse “spirit of Vatican II.” Perhaps they are. I am certainly open to that possibility. On the other hand, they are widely practiced and, the faithful Catholic must assume, endorsed by the magisterium. So, I hope you can understand that it is rather difficult to move to a place where we say “Oh, this is wrong; such masses are illegitimate and the Catholic Church must not have them.”
The EF is, itself, a prime example of inculturation. It did not appear in its complete form all at once, but evolved and developed within a particular culture over centuries. Any history of the development of the EF clearly shows that it is a product of the culture in which it grew up.
The dominant "elite" culture (elite here meaning educated and in control) used Latin; therefore, Latin became the language of the liturgy.
The dominant "elite" culture used Gregorian chant; therefore, it became the music of the liturgy.
The dominant "elite" culture preferred vesture of a particular style; therefore, that particular style of vesture became the vesture of the mass.
Styles of sacred vessels, church architecture and decoration, the use of linen for altar cloths, beeswax for candles, the wearing of birettas, cassocks and surplices - these are all perfectly legitimate examples of culturally conditioned aspects of the EF liturgy.
But you can't bemoan inculturation, then argue that the EF is not, itself, a product of the culture from which it sprang. And that was most certainly an "elite" culture made up almost exclusively of clerics.
The question becomes, then, is it beneficial to impose the highly inculturated European/Roman EF liturgy on the entire world. That is was done for a considerable period of time does not answer the question.
Gene:
Regarding pluralism, I was writing about liturgical pluralism specifically, not all those other things you mention. But yes, I was assuming that liturgical pluralism is a desirable thing – provided, and this is important, it remains within the limits of legitimacy, specifically within the limits of what is authorized by Vatican II as properly interpreted.
As for pluralism more generally, and the other things you mention, sometimes pluralism is desirable, sometimes it isn’t. For example, I am sure you would agree that the pluralism of products and services fostered by the “free market” is desirable. By contrast, a pluralism of attitudes towards respect for the sanctity of human life isn’t.
Indeed, to consider the market is instructive. We can talk about a free market of ideas, or a free market of religions. But there is a huge difference between pluralism and relativism – not all products on the market are of the same quality, for example, even though we decide to “tolerate” bad ones because we value economic freedom (within limits, of course, which is why we need prudent regulation of the market). And this is why, of course, we can accept that other religions may have a part of Truth but that Christ is the sole means of salvation, and the fullness of Truth resides in the Catholic Church.
I get very frustrated with “liberals/postmodernists” who either cannot or will not see the huge distinction between pluralism and relativism. Sometimes, it seems there is a similar blindness among “conservatives” who should, of course, know better.
So, because of this blindness to the distinction, pluralism_can_lead to relativism, but it need not and it should not. Similarly, pluralism need not lead to those other things you mention – globalism or multiculturalism as ideologies of relativism (as opposed to ways to promote mutual understanding, which is different).
Anon 5 – The monarchy, aristocracy, and privilege that were overthrown by European revolutions were based on false notions of the dignity of humans. The right to rule (monarchy) does not properly originate with who one’s father or mother is or whose army is victorious in battle. The right to be a member of the ruling class (aristocracy) does not properly originate with being in the favor of the monarch. And the right to property at the expense of others (privilege) does not properly originate with social standing or personal wealth. So if these things were overthrown by the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” then I say that was a good thing indeed. And we are better for it.
The divine monarchy in which we all share is not domination in the sense of having control or power over others. [This “control” notion underlies what I think could be a very dangerous phenomenon - the Christian Dominion movement.] Rather, our having dominion means that we are to care for the earth and all that is in it in the manner that God cares for the earth. Human monarchies of the time of revolutions were, in the great majority of cases, anything but “God-like” in the way subjects were treated. The “divine right” of monarchs does not give them carte blanche to act as they please, but to rule as God rules – with virtue and with justice and the common good as primary goals.
I don’t follow the jump you make from Robespierrist Terror in France to McNamarist Terror in Vietnam. I certainly agree that this war was a tragic mistake. If you are suggesting that public anti-war sentiment arose from the anti-monarchical movements of the previous two centuries is, then I can’t agree. It arose because 1) the war was a tragic mistake from the beginning and 2) we sat and watched this tragedy unfold before our eyes on TV every evening with Walter Cronkite or Huntley/Brinkley and whoever was on ABC. At least McNamara did not lose his head and was able to understand his and our government’s massive errors: "We were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why." (Robert McNamara, “In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam”)
And I don’t agree that the changes we have experienced in the last 50 years, either in the Church or in society in general, arise from an anti-Catholic mindset.
Anon 2, Of course a faithful Catholic can accept Vat II. He can wallow in it like a pig in...well, you know. But, it is not compelling to many of us who are also devout. Many discerning Catholics with some background in theology, doctrine, and liturgics find Vat II to be extremely problematic and the cause of a loss in Catholic worship and identity.
Ignotus, everything could be described as "inculturated. Uniformity and consistency are protection against "inculturation" because the Mass is its own culture. It does not matter how it began. It existed as a uniform and consistent rite for centuries
which does give it the force of time and practice. The Roman Mass is, after all, a product of Western European culture, nut it has long transcended that origin. You really like the word "elite" to throw around as a slur. Well, I like the word "rabble," of which you seem to be a supporter.
Pater: Well thought-out response, although I take issue with a fair amount of it.
Re your first paragraph: Do you seriously contend that the governments of the past 200 years or so, founded in popular revolution and popular sovereignty, have produced qualitatively better governments than existed under the absolutist monarchies? If mass guillotinings are being carried out, does it matter whether the entity denying due process is a king or "the people?" It's an easy thing to see that "the people" can be, and have been every bit as tyrannical as monarchs, and make just as strong a claim to Divine Right.
Re your second paragraph: Lest you misunderstand, I'm not endorsing Louis XVI and his ilk. The germanic monarchies, illustrated by Branagh in his St. Crispin's Day Speech, is more the model I have in mind, and I hope and think you'd agree that such a portrayal fits your model too. But my whole point is just because Louis XVI perverted the model, doesn't mean that the model itself is inherently wrong.
Re your third paragraph: Yes, of course television played a crucial role in stirring the people to action in Vietnam, just as it had in the Civil Rights Movement (albeit to a lesser degree). But we've had televised wars since then that have failed to produce the same result, and I don't think anyone would believe that Vietnam-like TV coverage of the US in WWII could possibly have produced a Vietnam-like effect. Given the mutual racism of the Pacific War alone, every time a Marine lit up a japanese soldier with a flame-thrower, the viewing audience at home would have been cheering him on.
The problem was that the youth of America got angry, _and_ the government was essentially nonresponsive. If you don't think the imperial presidency of the post-Roosevelt era wasn't the heir of absolutism and wasn't eliciting a similar response, please take another look. 18 year olds, largely disenfranchised at the time, were being ordered unilaterally (or very nearly so) by a president whom they had no voice in electing (even as VP) to be drafted and go and fight in an ugly imperial war "declared" by the executive, and aided by nonresponsive power structures in academe, and they revolted. In its essentials that's little different from 18th century absolutism.
Aon 5 - Yes. I think popular sovereignty has produced better governments than absolute monarchies. But, that is not the question. The question is "Does being the child of a monarch give one a right to govern?" I would answer in the negative.
I believe the model of hereditary monarchies is inherently wrong.
I don't agree that scenes of carnage from WW2 would have had Americans cheering on anything. The horror or war, whether the war is "just" or not, remains horror. And if the cheering you suspect would have been present, it would largely have been the result of the racism you rightly acknowledge.
The difference between the imperial presidents post-FDR and the imperial monarchs of the 1700's and 1800's in Europe was that we could vote out the president if we did not prefer him. That was not an option when kings claimed to rule by divine authorization. It took a civil war to remove despots, not an election.
Anon 5
I would certainly endorse Louis XVI above his two predecessors, and his authority was much more limited than that of the British government of the day, which despite having a constitutional monarchy ruled over a centralized state, the Tudors having removed local franchises and privileges more than two centuries before, and even seized control of the Church.
A lot is made of "Gallicanism" and the venality of prelates like Rohan, Talleyrand and Lomenie de Brienne, but at grass-roots level the French Church provided a system of education and welfare provision which was sorely missed when the Revolution destroyed it. Adult literacy rates were higher in pre-Revolutionary France than in the 21st century USA. The one thing that Louis couldn't accept was the Civil Constitution of the Clergy which nationalized the Church in the way Henry VIII had done in England, and which was to bring him to the scaffold, along with his pious sister Madame Elisabeth (guillotined a week after her thirtieth birthday) and his queen Marie Antoinette. As far as I am concerned they were martyrs for the Roman Church, no less than Fr Pinot, who, still in the Mass vestments he was wearing when he was seized, said as he mounted the scaffold "Introibo ad altare Dei".
If WW II had been televised, I do not believe the cheering would have been because of racism. It would have been because the enemy that bombed Pearl was getting their just due. I still cheer (in my heart) when I watch WW II movies and see the Japs and Krauts get their due. There may have been mutual racism in WW II Pacific, but that was hardly the reason we celebrated victory. And, just what kind of less than intelligent person worries about the racism of the Pacific when the racism of Nazi Germany was far more fundamental, systematic, and thorough.
My father hated the Germans until the day he died because of what he saw them do in French villages and to some American wounded and prisoners. He was also present at some of the concentration camps...I have the pictures he took of the dead and the ovens.
My Uncle Wallace (Guadalcanal/Pelelieu veteran, Gunnery Seargent, DSC medal) hated the Japanese until the day he died because of what he saw them do. The few incidents of atrocities on the part of US soldiers hardly register in comparison (although I'm sure those are what Ignotus would choose to focus on.)
We killed gooks in Vietnam, not because we were racist, but because you de-humanize the enemy as a part of war. A lot of people served because they were patriotic and loyal and did not choose to act like a rabble in the streets protesting a war they did not understand and spouting Marxist nonsense they had been fed by professors who would cower and foul themselves if they heard a gunshot close by.
So, where are all the protestors now when we have been conducting unnecessary sandbox wars since George Bush II and now this incompetent ninny in the WH? Where is the outrage? Do you think for one minute that, if there was no oil under all that sand, we'd even have an embassy there? Vietnam was far more justified, given the Cold War and the times, than this nonsense going on now. So, why aren't the pampered college kids out in the streets howling about Obama? It is because they all have IPODs now and they can play video games all day and have all the sex and drugs they want. We need to re-instate the draft ASAP. That would get them howling...LOL!
Pater,
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There are many monarchs who were children of monarchs whose regimes were better than that of many popularly-elected officials. There are also popularly-elected (and also popularly-tolerated) leaders whose regimes have been horrific. But a lot of these details are digression. My point is that if one has suffered under a monarchy and then been indoctrinated in the idea that monarchy not responsible to the people is, by nature, evil, then the Judeo-Christian concept of God is going to take an unjustified but real body blow in the eyes of such persons.
The fact that it would be racism causing the American people to cheer the incineration of Japanese, had it been televised, is immaterial. The fact that they would be cheering is the point. It wasn't the televising of Vietnam, but its nature, that lay at the heart of the protest. Television simply fueled the flames.
Imperial presidents FDR to LBJ could be voted out by 21-year-olds. That was irrelevant to the 18-to-20 year olds who were drafted to kill and die in Southeast Asia. They had not much more authority to remove LBJ than commoners had to remove Louis XVI. Representative government is a charade to those who aren't represented. One might as well say that there as no point in giving blacks the right to vote since FDR could have been voted out of office.
John Nolan: Your breadth of knowledge never ceases to amaze me. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Gene:
Isn’t there outrage at the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan? Perhaps there are no large street demonstrations because people see that, in contrast to Vietnam, we have become very efficient at killing the enemy with relatively few casualties by using professional soldiers (not draftees) and technological sophistication. But that does not mean that there is no outrage. Try this, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5FaMbnINwc
Perhaps what we should also be outraged about is the shabby treatment of our veterans, so many of whom have been stressed to the extreme and are then given inadequate support when they return home with physical and psychological wounds. But I am glad to see your own outrage at our involvement in these unnecessary and costly wars.
Yes, the Germans and the Japanese committed some terrible and horrific atrocities, and I am certainly sorry that your father and uncle had the dreadful experience of witnessing them, but surely you are not suggesting that all, or even most, Germans and Japanese were guilty of this. Since my mother was German, with a brother in the German army, and my father was in the British army and participated in the Invasion of Normandy, going on to meet and marry my mother, I can assure you as a fact that not all Germans committed these atrocities. Also, I wonder how many of those movies you have seen are good old war or post-war propaganda.
Related to propaganda, you are correct, of course, about dehumanizing the enemy – that seems to be rule number one in war. And so, I find it sobering to recall regularly the words of another soldier, who experienced the horrors of trench warfare first hand, regarding the perverse evils of war. I am sure you know Wilfred Owen’s “Strange Meeting,” written in 1918:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176833
anon 2, Of course I am aware that many Germans did not support the atrocities, but they supported the Reich...and many looked the other way.
I am pretty selective in my WW II movies, being something of a WW II buff and having just finished a WW II novel. Yes, many were "propaganda" films, but there are some very fine ones out there..."Band of Brothers," "The Pacific," and "Saving Private Ryan" among them. I also like "Pear Harbor" and cannot understand why critics were lukewarm about it. I laughed at one movie critic's review in, I think, Time magazine. He said that the part about the two pilots getting up in the air and shooting down Japanese planes was an "unbelievable fabrication." It shows you do not have to be well-informed to be a movie critic. At least four pilots attempted to take off that morning. Two were shot up before they could get airborne, but two from another, less known, air field took off and shot down at least seven Japanese planes between them. The Japanese lost 29 planes in all to American fighters and AA fire.
Everything in that movie was historically accurate except for some minor details and the fictional love triangle. But, there were hundreds of stories like that in the war. I went to grammar school with a girl whose father was killed in the war before she was born. Her mother took her to live on a farm with his large family and the mother ended up marrying one of his brothers who raised the child as his own.
One soldier landed at Normandy, met a girl in one of the French villages near the beach, then went back after the war and married her, spending the rest of his life a half-mile from where he landed on June 6, 1944. Truth is better than fiction...
No Christian is justified in hating. Not by war crimes, not by personal assault, not by any harm done.
St John Chrysostom writes in today's Second Reading from the Office: "Would you like me to list the paths of repentance? They are numerous and quite varied, and all lead to heaven. A first path of repentance is the condemnation of your own sins... That, then, is one very good path of repentance. Another and no less valuable one is to pit out of our minds the harm done us by our enemies, in order to master our anger, and to forgive our fellow servants' sins against us. The our own sins against the Lord will be forgiven us."
A Christian who de-humanizes the enemy is acting in a way directly contrary to God's will and, thereby, distancing him/herself from the Reign of God.
CCC 2312 "The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."
We are all quite distant from the Reign of God. I do believe that the enemy has de-humanized me and I have de-humanized him the moment we begin firing at each other. The calling of names and other acts of scorn and derision do seem to sink into insignificance after that point. I do agree that we must maintain the values we are fighting for even during war. Sometimes that is difficult; sometimes impossible.
But, anyway, next time you are being shot at, call a platoon of the USCCB to come and defend you.
Pin/Gene - No, not all are "quite far" from the Reign of God.
Said Jesus to the young man in Mark 12:34, "When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the reign of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions."
When we love God with all our heart, understanding, and strength, and when we love our neighbors (including our enemies)as we love ourselves, we are not far from the reign of God.
Conversely, those who hate, those who do not respect the dignity of ALL humans, enemies and convicted criminals, those who seek to harm others - now THEY are separating themselves more and more for the reign of God.
Gene,
You said “I do believe that the enemy has de-humanized me and I have de-humanized him the moment we begin firing at each other.”
Should we not ask just how matters reached that point, and why, including whether there has been some de-humanizing along the way and by whom?
And, if we can answer those questions, should we not then ask what we might be able to do to prevent the next situation where we are being forced/manipulated to fire at one other.
And anyway, firing on one another will not necessarily dehumanize the combatants. Consider the well known episodes of “truces” and “fraternization” during the first part of the First World War as one example (among many I am sure):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce
But, of course, the generals and “leaders” did not like it. Cannon fodder is not supposed to think and feel for itself.
Recurring to war stories, my Great Auntie May was married to a soldier in the First World War who was killed in action. She was already pregnant. My cousin Bernard never knew his father, or indeed any father figure. May never remarried but raised their son as a single mother, going into business and owning a well known sweet shop in Cowes on the Isle of Wight. I wonder just how many other Mays and Bernards were created by that utterly stupid war.
So, Ignotus, if we all just love everybody and keep the commandments we will usher in the Reign of God? Hey, wow, cool!
Anon 2, it does not matter how "matters reached that point." If I am trying to kill somebody I have de-humanized them.
Ignotus, we are on the dreaded "second page," so this won't be read by many. However, I am sure it will come up again. You try to "proof test" by throwing out an isolated statement of Jesus regarding the "Kingdom" without any look at Jesus and the Synoptics actual understanding of the Kingdom of God. Suffice it to say that there is a clear eschatological understanding of the Kingdom which has come in Christ's presence among them but which is also understood and strongly taught by Christ as a future consummation. We also have to remember that Jesus is talking to the Scribes and Pharisees here and directing his remarks to them. Also, interestingly enough, Jesus speaks paradoxically because the Aramaic for the "Kingdom of God is within you" (which he says in another similar context) can be understood to mean "in the midst of you" as well. This would be in keeping with Jesus' emphasis that He is the present fulfillment of the future Kingdom. So,it is not that simple.
Pin/Gene - What part of Jesus' words to the young man do you disagree with?
What part of Jesus' words do you find "modernist" or "progressive?"
What part of Jesus' instruction do you find to be non-binding, since, of course, it is not an infallibly defined pronouncement?
Anon 5 - So are you arguing that three year olds should be given the vote in order that government won't be a "charade" to them? Of course you aren't. That many who served, even against their will, in Vietnam could not vote does not mean that the government was a "charade" to them.
Representative government grew out of a recognition of the dignity of all persons, not only those born into royal or aristocratic families.
Representative government grew out of a too-long delayed recognition that hereditary monarchies do not reflect the dignity of humans made in the image and likeness of God.
Representative governments grew out of a rejection of the "Some Are More Equal Than Others" philosophy of the ruling classes.
No person has a "Divine Right" to be a head of government.
Ignotus, it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with Jesus' words. You did not pay attention to my post. And, where in my post did I use the terms "modernist" or "progressive?" Nor did I speak about anything being binding or non-binding. You continue to demonstrate your inability to understand Scripture in its proper Christological context, you continue to put words in people's mouths, and you continue to be completely, thoroughly, and intractably intellectually dishonest.
Pater,
You're raising a straw man. Monarchy does not automatically equal divine right. I never said anything about divine right You're the one who introduced that phrase. I merely note that if we hate Louis XVI for what he has done and condemn all monarchy on that basis, and God is a monarch, we're likely to tar God with the same brush as we tarred all other monarchs with.
Regarding the dignity of all persons, I again refer you to the St. Crispin's Day speech. Again, you're arguing against a position I never advocated.
Re your celebration of popular government: Rulers elected by the people have committed offenses to human dignity at least as bad as some monarchs, and I would argue far worse.
If you subscribe to the doctrine of original sin, I'm not sure how you can uncritically accept popular sovereignty/representative government, as you appear to do. The people can tyrannize as effectively as any monarch.
Pin/Gene - You are the absolute KING of putting words in other people's mouths, mine especially.
Everything that you either don't understand, or that you THINK you understand but don't, or that you disagree with you label "progressive" and "modernist." So to shy away from the charges you make repeatedly is pretty meaningless.
And quoting only a fragment of the Catechism regarding Capital Punishment, as you have done, is what is intellectually dishonest.
Anon 5 - Which European monarchies of the 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries did NOT claim Divine Right to rule?
God is not a monarch - that title is far too inadequate to describe God. The Sacred Scriptures SPEAK of God as a monarch, but God is not such.
You may be falling into the same trap of reification (concretism) as Good Father McDonald does from time to time. Monarchy is a metaphor used to describe God's relationship with us. God is not, however, a monarch. Nor, for example, is God a male, even though we use the term "Father" to refer to him. Nor, for another example, is Jesus a "vine" though he used the term to refer to himself.
Any government, monarchy or elected, has committed errors of varying degrees. Systems that allow for popular election of leaders, however, more fully represent the dignity of individuals and the rights of the people to have a say in their governments.
Ignotus, why don't you respond to my posts at 7:37 and 10:04 rather than going off on some unrelated tangent?
I have never put words in your mouth, only called you what you are...a progressivist/modernist. My calling you that is not based upon my not understanding you, it is based upon my understanding you all too well.The fragment of the Catechism I quoted was all that was necessary to make my point.
Gene:
Sorry, very busy day. You said this morning “it does not matter how ‘matters reached that point.’ If I am trying to kill somebody I have de-humanized them.”
I beg to differ. I think it matters a great deal for the reasons I gave.
Also, what about the truces and fraternizations?
You charge Pater Ignotus with not paying attention to what you write and being non-responsive. I could level the same charge at you it seems.
Clearly, you also do not understand the idea of kingship in both the OT and the NT. You attempt to dismiss it as "metaphorical" language or concretism, but it is not that easy. God is, indeed, viewed as a monarch...a perfect and absolute one. He is, after all, the ruler of the Creation. He also evinces masculine and virile attributes and also acts as a Father. We cannot dismiss this by referring to it as merely "metaphorical language." I'm sure this will come up again. I can refer you to several works on "kingship" in the Old and New Testaments by some pretty renowned scholars.
Gene:
Regarding the question whether quoting only a fragment from the Catechism section on capital punishment in the previous thread is intellectually dishonest or not, I suppose it is not in the sense that you could not have intended to deceive anyone regarding what the Catechism says given that I had quoted the section in full and you were responding to my question about that. However, perhaps it is in the sense that you are deceiving_yourself_if you believe that quoting a fragment out of context like that simply makes that context irrelevant as if all the qualifiers and conditions somehow were not there. In any event, it is certainly wishful thinking. Your “point,” in other words, is an exceedingly bad one, and if that is your view of the matter, you are disregarding the Catechism. Moreover, if the Catechism represents the position of the magisterium (even if non-infallible), you are also once again not standing with the magisterium.
Pater: Is the Catechism a magisterial document?
Pater: With respect, do you have some kind of Divine Right fetish? I care nothing for Divine Right and my argument has nothing at all to do with it. I don't care whether the monarchies of the centuries you indicate were based on it or not. My argument rests on the fact of monarchy and not in any way with its theoretical underpinnings. Again, you're the one who brought up Divine Right.
Here's my argument again. Please try to follow it. If a king does something bad, and as a result the people blame not merely the king but the very concept of monarchy (whether based on Divine Right or not) and seek to destroy not merely the king or even his house but the very institution of monarchy on an international scale, then anything that has the trappings or language of monarchy is going to come into disrepute.
I will leave to Gene to debate with you whether or not the language of God as monarch is sufficient or insufficient or metaphor or whatever. But the imagery and construct of God as monarch is pervasive in Scripture and at least little t tradition, and that imagery/construct, whether metaphorical or not, thus opens God up to the same disrepute as all other monarchs in the eyes of the average Christian, especially when leaders both lay and Catholic have bought into the disrepute idea and are telling the laity that in all sorts of contexts. The effect is magnified if the Church is seen as complicit in the perpetuation of an unjust monarchy. (See the quotations attributed to Diderot and Meslier, to the effect that the world will never be free until the last king is strangled with the guts of the last priest.)
You yourself are an object lesson in the very phenomenon I discuss. It has so shaped you that you perhaps can't even see it. Your dislike of monarchies is echoed in your distaste for a liturgy propagated (as you have often reminded us) by the monarchical culture of medieval and early modern Europe. Your championing of a populist government is echoed in your preference for a populist liturgy. You may think that coincidental. To a historian of intellectual movements such as myself, it obviously is anything but.
Anon 5 - I have no Divine Right fetish.
What authority was claimed by the monarchs of Europe in the 17th, 18th, or 19th as the basis for their right to rule? Divine Right.
There was no Divine warrant for Henry I or Henry VIII to assume the throne of England. Nor is there a Divinely originated right for Juan Carlos of Spain, Albert of Monaco, or Elizabeth of Great Britain to rule on their respective thrones now.
Monarchs never had Divine authorization to assume thrones. Just as the scriptural metaphor of "king" is misunderstood today, so it was in the days of reigning and ruling monarchs. They believed it was about power when it is truly about service.
If monarchs had acted properly, reflecting and imaging the manner in which God exercises dominion, they'd never have been replaced.
But they didn't. Misunderstanding the metaphor - thinking that they answered to no one (because God answers to no one), required advice from no one (because God requires advice from no one), and were accountable to no one (because God is accountable to no one), they blew it.
A leader who exercises the dominion of service stand s a much better chance of succeeding than one who wrongly believes he/she is exercising divinely authorized power.
Pin/Gene - Scripture speaks of God as a monarch, but God is not a monarch. God is described as "Father" but is not a male. Jesus called himself the "vine" but is not a climbing or trailing woody stemmed plant."
All the attributes of monarchy we throw on God - crowns, ermine robes, courtiers, etc, - are of our making, not of God's reality.
Anon 2 - The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a magisterial document.
Pater: since you persist in answering arguments that a) I never made, b) don't advocate, and c) have no bearing whatsoever on my own argument, I'll give you the last word. Please feel free to continue to shadow-box. I'm moving on to other threads.
Like I said, Ignotus, I'll be happy to refer you to some scholarly works on Kingship and the concept of the Kingdom in Holy Scripture.
Post a Comment