But the fact that a high ranking cardinal suggested such a thing shows how far we have come from the 1960's when suggesting such a thing would have be impossible to do. This tells me that in the future and under a new pope or even under Pope Francis that ad orientem will become more normative and understood and appreciated.
Nonetheless the following is the mentality of the Vatican II fundamentalists:
"The Council's reformist spirit made possible all sorts of practices not explicitly advocated in its documents." ( You can see how evil the intent of the reformist spirit really is and how they hijacked a perfectly good Council and perverted it since 1965's conclusion of Vatican II!)
"It's time to say say: the so-called 'hermeneutic of continuity' proposed by Benedict XVI in 2005 has outlived its usefulness as a tool for understanding the Second Vatican Council" (How self-serving is this statement coming from a Vatican II progressive idolater? These people are some of the most dogmatic, controlling people there are!)
"For liturgy (at Vatican II), the paradigm shift is from Carolingian clericalized sacred drama to an act of the entire community. Just let the full weight of that shift sink in, including all the possible implications for liturgical practice. There is a reason why the Fathers of Vatican II decided that the 1962 missal would not remain in use in its unreformed state." (Of course dogmatic, controlling Vatican II fundamentalists don't believe that there could be development and open mindedness to the older forms of liturgical practice which Pope Benedict brilliantly advocated and promoted. It erodes their fundamentalistic ideas about Vatican II as though a pastoral council sets in cement its pastoral theology. This is a flimsy as saying Limbo is a dogma of the Church required for Catholics to believe!)
There is no reason why the post Vatican II Ordinary Form Mass can't be celebrated as the "Carolingian clericalized sacred drama or the Pre-Vatican II (now post Vatican II) Extraordinary Form Mass can't be an act of the entire community. In fact it always was and the Church emphasized that the entire Church was present at Mass, not just the Church Militant, but the Church suffering in prugatory and the Church triumphant in heaven. I wonder if Vatican II fundamentalists even consider this as they normally just focus in on the gather visible "assembly" (i.e. congregation or community) and not the entire Church in all its suffering and glory!
AND JUST WHAT IS SO EVIL AND HORRIBLE ABOUT A SACRED DRAMA AND JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS THAT THE PRE-VATICAN II MASS IS A CLERICALIZED SACRED DRAMA IS IT SO? TALK ABOUT BEING A DOGMATIC FUNDAMENTALIST!
You can read more about how one Vatican II dogmatic fundamentalist, in a long line of progressives since Vatican II, has made Vatican II into a demagogue over at the The Catholic Herald.
61 comments:
In regard to Pope Francis supposed "smack down" of Robert Cardinal Sarah:
Don Alcuin Reid, Sacra Liturgia’s international coordinator:
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4919/cardinal_sarah_has_challenged_the_prejudices_behind_certain_modern_liturgical_practices.aspx
"It has to be said that some responses on internet sites and even in prominent journals have been astonishing. To accuse Cardinal Sarah of lying in respect of what Pope Francis has said to him about continuing the work of the Pope Emeritus or about studying a possible reform of the reform, or to say that the Holy Father ‘slapped down’ the Cardinal, is patently absurd and utterly untrue.
"And there is no evidence from the Vatican’s statement, or elsewhere, that the Holy Father was either angry with him or rebuked him. It is quite normal to clarify false reports: that is what has been done – though the clarification itself could perhaps do with some clarification!"
"Cardinal Sarah remains in post and his Address has not been withdrawn. Indeed, it should be noted that he asked us to publish it after his meeting with the Holy Father, and he has withdrawn nothing of what he said in London."
Is there a reason to doubt Dom Alcuin Reid in regard to the above?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
My guess is that the progresses have an entire agenda that Ad Oriented goes against. Their direction seems to be nearly identical to the protestants in everything but name, and to achieve their goal they need to remove everything that is uniquely Catholic. It often the parish council that orchestrates the Mass with the priest performing the functions they are currently strictly prohibited from doing. Crucifixes are often removed from progressive churches, and the bandstand is often more prominent than the altar. Stations of the Cross are often an opportunity for an ecumenical event, or for the bringing in of the clowns. Liberal political agendas are often subtlety endorsed. Often when I sit through a progressive Mass the competition between the council and the priest is unmistakable. During the procession I wonder if that priest will ever reach his destination before being tackled. The Mass as football. An obvious competition. Lately I have even begun to notice how the council gets their homily distributed before the priest; they read it as they mention who the presider will be. In progressive liturgy I see elements of Pentecostalism, and the Presbyterians. The first through he music, the second through the council. The Liturgy of the Eucharist shifts towards Protestantism. I am one who sincerely hopes that what Cardinal Sarah said will come true this Advent.
About Cardinal Sarah, why would a liturgical leader need permission to encourage a legitimate liturgical practice? Also, did the Press Office clarification actual say that ad orientem is no longer allowed, or that the cardinal was wrong to encourage it?
If a priest announces at a private gathering that he would like every family in the parish to pray the rosary after supper every day, but then the bishop issues a clarification that this invitation is in no way obligatory, then we would say that the original request remains legitimate, but that its nature has been properly clarified. It's not a reprimand, just a clarification.
I'm a progressive. I don't hate those things....I don't make idols either. You should paint with a small brush...not a spray gun or a roller or a bucket. Notice, I said "you"...not "conservatives" or "traditionalists" should etc.......
Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to read the full article cited. However:
"For liturgy (at Vatican II), the paradigm shift is from Carolingian clericalized sacred drama to an act of the entire community." I am not sure what "act of entire community" means, but the shift has been away from worshipping God and towards worshipping the communi-ty, a clear influence of communi-sm during the 1960s.
First of all, liturgy as sacred drama goes back to quite a ways before Caroligian times. The liturgy of St James is one example. And so does "clericalism" at least in the East, where huge thrones were built for the presider, and lesser ones for lesser clergy such as in 4th century Tyre. Come to think of it, a lot of post vatican II wreckovated churches have huge thrones for the presider instead of huge thrones for the King of the Universe to reside in, that is, in His tabarnacle: and that tells everything about the faith of those responsible.
Ironically, using argcheologism is the most favourite ploy of the gnostic so called progressives who have a romanticised fantasy of early Christianity. Of course history is easy to be deliberately misused, as the one who controls history controls the present and by implication the future (Orwell). And of course they are usually wrong about their history to begin with. For instance one the biggest changes in the New Mass was the so-called Offertory procession. I dare anyone find me an axample of its ancient usage at Rome. There was none. That was Gallican practice, which the Carolongians, trying to bring Roman liturgical usage to their empire, did not succeed in eradicating completley. It was finally eradicated in Europe by the time of Durandus in the 13th century. Similarly there were never any intercessions before the Offertory in the Western Church. That was later Byzantine practice. In the West, these were already contained in the Roman Canon.
Progressives want the Catholic Church to be as "successful" as the Episcopal Church.
Dialogue says, " then we would say that the original request remains legitimate, but that its nature has been properly clarified. It's not a reprimand, just a clarification."
No, it was a reprimand, even a rebuke, if you will. That's how rebukes are expressed in Vaticanese.
Through the Love, Mercy, and Generosity of Christ, we have been blessed with a Fountain of Holiness from which we can continually wash ourselves clean and receive our replenishment of grace. Christ is the Divine Fountainhead, His Holy Mother, the grace-filled Fountain. Let us ever avail ourselves of this unmerited Source of Salvation, for without its benefits, we would surely perish.
Because the Son of God deigned to become one of us, and to give His life for us, as He even now continuously gives Himself to us; and to us also He most generously bequeathed His Holy Mother to intercede for us, what excuse can we give for not doing what he desires of us?
Clearly, ad orientem, turning toward the Lord, irritates--it would not be too extreme to say, frightens the so called progressive camp. It may be argued in many ways but the one that appeals to me is that they are concerned with the question who has the power? Facing toward the East suggests that the Priest, the alter Christus, mediates the prayer offering of the suffering Jesus to secures salvation for humanity. Turning toward the people, the priest seems to be offering Christ's the gift,not to the Father but instead to the people, thus robbing the Father (in a defiant, aggressive act - non-serviam!) of the gift of the Son.
The priest is also robbed of his identity as the alter Christus. His special role as mediator between the people and the Father is obliterated in one simple act, to the new seat of Power the People. Secular psychologist might even spin some tale about the Oedipal complex.
Just saying.
Anonymous,
The Press Office does not have the authority to reprimand a curial prefect. When the Press Office clarifies something Pope Francis says, do you think that, too, is a reprimand?
It is the Pope's Press Office, so when it issues a reprimand.....
Also, this 'Carolingian' thing beloved of liturgical progressives is historical balderdash. Charlemagne sent to Rome for liturgical books because he wanted the liturgy in his empire to be as authentic as possible.
Another silly argument is that it was a disaster for the Church when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. It has never occurred to these idiots that the Incarnation is an historical event, and the fact that it occurred when the Roman Empire was at its height is not a coincidence.
Incidentally, recent scholarship suggests that the liturgy was celebrated in places in Latin from Apostolic times, long before the so-called 'switch' from Greek in the 4th century.
We were told 40-odd years ago that EP II (the so-called 'Canon of Hippolytus') was more ancient and therefore more 'authentic' than the Roman Canon. No-one believes that now and yet the pseudo-Hippolytan-dewfall-trattoria-let's order another bottle-prayer is still in the Missal.
Father McDonald said...z'(I thought Cardinal Sarah would have sought permission from the Holy Father before he make such a request, but he didn't, so the smack down was well deserved.)"
-- We are certain that Robert Cardinal Sarah received a "smack down"?
-- The "smack down was well deserved." Wow. I didn't realize that Cardinal Sarah, a holy man of God, at least I believe that he is holy, deserved a "smack down" for not having said anything egregious during his address in question.
-- I thought that His Holiness Pope Francis desired open debate within the Church? I thought that he was not a man who slapped people around?
-- Is the Church a Papal cult? Must everything a Cardinal, for example, wishes to address publicly be cleared first with the Pope? A Cardinal is not permitted, without having received the Pope's permission, to offer orthodox comments publicly?
I find it unbelievable that Cardinal Sarah, a holy man of God who did not offer anything against the Faith during his address in question, deserved to have been slapped down by Pope Francis.
Buy beyond that, in view of comments offered by Don Alcuin Reid, Sacra Liturgia’s international coordinator, I am not certain that Pope Francis issued a "smack down" to Cardinal Sarah.
Again, as Don Alcuin Reid noted, "Cardinal Sarah remains in post and his Address has not been withdrawn. Indeed, it should be noted that he asked us to publish it after his meeting with the Holy Father, and he has withdrawn nothing of what he said in London."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous,
Did you lose your train of thought? Please complete your sentence.
I think Fr McDonald has fallen victim to the progressives' mantra, that if you repeat something often enough it becomes accepted as true. That is a favourite tactic of ideologues especially in the MSM today.
I do not see any "smack down" of Cardinal Sarah. On the contrary, the Holy Father probably encouraged the Cardinal's efforts at his meeting with him, but would have advised him to tread extremely carefully and cautiously, because, as Fr Ruff's article shows, ad orientem has essentially become a pre-Vatican II vs. post-Vatican II issue, where lines have been drawn in the sand by the "progressives". And the curia is still infested with these "progressives".
Indeed, as Alcuin Reid pointed out, he was asked to publish the address, unchanged. after both Sarah's meeting with the pope, and the Vatican's press communique.
John Nolan above points out the dangers of archeologism. In this connection, I was shocked to read an article by Alcuin Reid in the new book that he edited on the proceedings of the Sacra Liturgia USA 2015 conference ("Liturgy in the Twenty-First Century), concerning the Holy Week reforms beginning in the 1950's ("Holy Week Reforms Revisited"). One of the new sources he studies is from Fr Braga who, as someone having direct contact with these 1950 reforms (as well as being directly involved in the litrurgical reforms following the Council) pointed out the cherished principle of the 1950 reforms, that acheiving a truly pastoral and participative liturgy requires a simplification of rites, and a purging of everything that is not seen as directly serving those aims. It is needless to say that that also became the guiding principle of the post-concililar reforms, a major triumph, in my opinion, of the gnostic Liturgical Movement.
One who is not a progressive....is a regressive...?
The sentence is completed with an ellipsis.
'WHY DO PROGRESSIVES HATE .. ' There are very many kinds of 'progressive' .. conservative, orthodox, revolutionary, occult, heterodox etc .. depending on where they think they are progressing to (if anywhere, in particular). However there is at least one key element or principle that unites all of the current progressivisms: the ideology of Modernism, and the hydra-headed notions that they stimulate. Among the myriad notions there are a few which seem to predominate in the area of 'hate' for the teachings of the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council, not least the versus apsidem/ ad orientem = God-centred form of worship; I suspect that chief among these is that until the mid-1960's (at least officially, though clearly often not in practice) the idea of conformity to the world, its flesh-centred ways, and the imperious demands of its ruling guide(s) was considered anathema to the Catholic sense of the Faith (other 'senses' require their own study) .. that is, a God-centred orientation constantly confronted both priests and people (if only for brief periods, and not always profoundly) throughout their lives.
This was often presented (in perverse readings of social justice) as a malign and anti-Christian rejection of the world in need, which of course God so loved that He sent His own Son to redeemed it. Nothing could have been further from the truth, which probably goes without say - even down to a close co-operation between the Two Cities operative in our common lives (where at all possible, e.g. between the State and the Church). It was indeed an outright rejection of many well-beloved 'modern' ideals - free-market capitalism, state-idolised societies, self-expressionism, and me-focus - but mostly these were rejected because they were in fact ancient or old errors dusted off and given a bright, shiny, new 'perspective' or means of delivery (super-man, super-party, super-sized, super-sexed, super-duper-must-have worship of self .. at various times already having afflicted the Church or rather Her allotted governors, laity and clerks alike).
Father McDonald, I believe that you are a holy priest. I believe that far more often than not, your lack of either right-wing or left-wing bias has equipped with to have commented accurately upon Church-related news.
Father, considering your moderate, rational approach, I don't understand as to why you believe that Robert Cardinal Sarah committed an horrific mistake in regard to his address about ad orientem worship. Even more baffling to me is your insistence that Cardinal Sarah deserved the "smack down" that he had received supposedly from His Holiness Pope Francis.
What on earth did Cardinal Sarah say that was improper? Did Cardinal Sarah declare that Pope Francis had mandated ad orientem worship? Did Cardinal Sarah espouse unorthodox views during his address?
Must Cardinal Sarah, and, for that matter, each Cardinal/bishop, show to Pope Francis each address that they plan to offer? Must they obtain from Pope Francis approval to offer orthodox comments publicly?
I don't understand what Cardinal Sarah did that deserves a Papal "smack down." Father, please explain the grave mistake that Cardinal Sarah made that resulted in his having received a deserved "smack down" (if he even received that).
Father McDonald, thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
You make very good points that I hope the good Father will address further. In the Sixties and Seventies (and beyond), bishops and priests made a great many changes to the sacred liturgy without any mandate to do so. Why, then, are the sort who made such changes suddenly determined to denounce more traditional changes simply because these are without mandate? It's all very puzzling, unless we assume a lack of good faith on their part.
Cardinal Sarah preceded his ad orientem suggestion with the following statement that he made it personally only as a priest and a bishop, rather than officially as prefect of the CDW:
“In the light of the fundamental desires of the Council Fathers and of the different situations that we have seen arise following the Council, I would like to present some practical considerations on how we can implement Sacrosanctum Concilium more faithfully today. Even though I serve as the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, I do so in all humility as a priest and a bishop in the hope that they will promote mature reflection and scholarship and good liturgical practice throughout the Church.” (emphasis added)
The crux of the Vatican Press Office’s “clarification” was a disclaimer that any ad orientem was imminent. Who could have been so naïve as to read any such thing into Cardinal Sarah’s personal plea for priests to do the right thing on their own initiative, in full accordance with existing norms, no further top-down authorization being required?
Surely, Cardinal Sarah deserves nothing but our admiration and gratitude. Only when sufficiently many bishops and cardinals speak out with similar clarity and devotion will the current mess at the top of the Church begin to be cleaned up.
At any rate, it is not Cardinal Sarah who deserves a smack-down for imprudent public statements. We all know who it who does.
Most clerics cannot admit that the last 50 years has been one, big, massive, mistake. If they were officers of a business corporation they would have been shown the door long ago, and their "practices" discarded.
Dialogue is correct that many changes imposed upon the sacred liturgy were done without mandate. Now, it is "controversial" and deserving of a "smack down" should a Cardinal suggest that legitimate practices, such as ad orientem worship, be utilized when offering Mass.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
'After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West ... The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity ... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of sacred Tradition. Still less is any kind of general "freedom" of manufacture, degenerating into spontaneous improvisation, compatible with the essence of faith and liturgy. The greatness of the liturgy depends - we shall have to repeat this frequently - on its unspontaneity (Unbeliebigkeit).'
[Joseph Ratzinger, 'The Spirit of the Liturgy' (2000) pp 165-166]
The erroneous assumption of many here is that changes to the liturgy required some highest level "mandate."
They did not.
National/Regional episcopal conferences were authorized to make national/regional changes. These, in turn, rec'd approval from Rome.
Making such changes was authorized and legitimate.
Mark Thomas,
Be of good cheer. These evil, left-wing loons who have wreaked so much destruction these last 50 years are near their end. Young faithful Catholics, including the younger clergy, will restore the Faith and its public worship. That is why these evil old men attack holy priests, like Cardinal Sarah, because they know they have ultimately failed in their mission to destroy the Catholic Faith. Although not generally given to conspiracy theories, you have to wonder if the Church wasn't infilitrated with non-believers determined to destroy Holy Mother the Church.
'National/Regional episcopal conferences were authorized to make national/regional changes' Authorized by whom? And on what authority? This is really the crux of the matter, and Ratzinger addresses this (vide supra).
Whether these changes were felicitous or otherwise is immaterial. Whether or not they were 'approved' by some Vatican dicastery is likewise immaterial. The whole argument has moved from quibbling over details to seriously questioning the legitimacy of the entire liturgical reform project, the liturgical hermeneutic underlying it, and the question of papal authority regarding the liturgy.
Benedict XVI, wisely, took the shackles off the Roman Rite (which the post-Conciliar reformers thought they had effectively demolished) but left the question open for future generations. The liturgical assumptions of the entire 20th century may well prove in the end to have been mistaken. Perhaps the 1960s hotheads who insisted on changing virtually everything have done us all a favour in the long run.
And it will be a long run - the end of this century is probably thinking short-term.
"Perhaps the 1960s hotheads who insisted on changing virtually everything have done us all a favour in the long run."
Very likely. The terrible mess of the liturgy today will spur future generations in its cleanup.
"And it will be a long run - the end of this century is probably thinking short-term."
Indeed it will. Very likely, no one alive today will see the end of the restoration of the liturgy. But, like Madame Defarge, we will at least be able to say that we saw its beginning. Which, despite some appearances, is even now underway.
So who's gonna be the first genius to tell us that God sent the earthquake to Italy as a warning...that Francis is messing up His Church?
TJM's comment is very important. When things are not going well for a public company, the shareholders start demanding changes, even replacing the CEO and other high level managers. In the Church as an organisation, the managers are there for life. No matter what the faithful as analogous to shareholders do, they will not displace the upper level management. When things started going bad for the Church after the Council, the management, perhaps out of pride to save face, were in denial, often repeating the matra that Vatican II had not been fully implemented yet. With regards to church attendence, the mantra was that the severity of social changes had not been expected so it was not their fault. This whole old boy's club mentality in the management of the Church continues to this day.
The New Pentecost never came after the Council. The first point of contact for church "customers", the liturgy, failed to attract more customers, and seemed, on the contrary, to repel them. Any CEO in his right mind would immediately have taken action. And yet the mantra of excuses continued. Can you imagine Macdonald's restaurant working this way (no pun intended)? It would be a McWho?
Cleary the liturgical reforms did not bring more people to churches, but on the contrary, pews became more and more dust collectors. The notion of participation according to the experts alienated a lot of people. The point of first contact is where the trouble lies. It is a dated liturgy manufactured with dated ideas for a dated interest group that is slowly but surely disappearing. That is the issue to be addressed and it wonderfull that we have a top manager, Cardinal Sarah, finally raising the issue. But look at the old boy's club opposition he faces, just for suggesting a no-cost change in staff orientation....
I Q,
Sounds like you just did, genius!
Victor,
I couldn't have said it better! I always laugh when left-wing loon nuns talk about the glories of "renewal" vis-a-vis their orders. And when you ask them how many novices or postulants they've had in the last ten years, they change in the subject. What they're peddling, young women apparently don't want.
God sent the earthquake to Italy as a warning that Francis is messing up His Church. Genius.
It has often been said the Church thinks in centuries.
This makes me think or wonder how will the era approx 1965 to 2015 be treated in an honest, orthodox history of the Catholic Church say 500 years from now or even 100 or 200 years from now?
Paul.
1965 is late. The thought that led to the Second Vatican Council is at least 75 if not 125 years older. Vat 2 was a culmination as much as it was a starting point.
Anonymous at 12:02
1965 is a legitimate starting point because that is when the rails came off and the loons became visible.
TJM - No, what came to pass with the close of Vat 2 began decades, maybe a century, before then.
Cardinal Sarah is commenting publicly on the controversy regarding his July proposal: “Last month, in London, I gave a presentation ‘Towards an authentic implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium’ … This talk received a lot of attention — some of it not always very accurate!” (Catholic Herald Online)
Anonymous is referring to the genesis of the Modernist heresy, and his chronology is roughly correct. However, it did not move centre-stage until the 1960's. Vatican II needs to be understood in its historical context and viewed as an event in history. Until recently it was invariably approached by analyzing its documents from the point of view of their theology, which is as fine as far as it goes but cannot explain why its results have been overwhelmingly negative.
John Nolan,
Thanks for reminding me of the Modernist heresy, which sadly, Anonymous appears to be an adherent of that ideology.
My reference was not to Modernism, not at all. There is much that underlies the thinking that was developed by the Second Vatican Council, much that is and will be beneficial to the Church.
As Pope Leo XIII recognized in Rerum Novarum, the world and the Church have changed dramatically since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The manner in which the Church relates to the world has had to change, to adapt to remain a force for good.
Anonymous,
Well by any objective measure the Church did more good in the world with the EF than it has with the OF. Today, there are just tons less of faithful, committed Catholics since the introduction of "Brand X." I see a lot of sadness and loss with all of the Catholic insitutions, such as schools, orphanages, homes for the age, hospitals that no longer exist because we are so "vibrant" today.
Leo XIII did not say the Church had changed dramatically since the beginning of the 19th century. The papacy had to adjust to changed political realities, but the papacy is not the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. Quantitative judgements don't apply. St Paul tells Christians not to be conformed to this world.
In 1965 the mores of Western societies and the law which underpinned them still reflected Judaeo-Christian morality. Now anyone who attempts to defend the latter against a new secular morality risks running foul of the law. The gulf between the Church's moral law and society is far greater than it was fifty years ago. In what measurable ways has the 'thinking that was developed by the Second Vatican Council' been beneficial to the Church?
It would be helpful if those who make generalized statements could produce evidence to support their assertions. Not surprisingly, they never do.
Leo XIII recognized that the Church and culture had changed dramatically since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The relationship between the two, how the Church speaks to the culture and how culture understands the Church, most certainly changed.
Separating the papacy and the Church is an artificial construct. While the papacy
"is not the Church," the Church Militant does not exist without the papacy. And while the Church Militant is not "the Church," it is that aspect of the Church that must encounter culture in time and seek to evangelize and transform it.
While Christians are not conformed to this world, neither are we to think that somehow "the Church" is outside and unimpacted by the world.
The loss of the Papal States and the social and political changes of the 19th century did not 'dramatically' change the Church. Please supply evidence that Leo XIII believed or even implied that they had done so. And while you're at it, you might also supply evidence that the much-vaunted 'aggiornamento' of Vatican II has made the Church more relevant to the modern world.
Stop hiding behind pious platitudes and wishful thinking and confront the plain, obvious, incontrovertible and depressing facts. Only by doing this can we make any progress.
Rerum Novarum:
"That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising."
Not just dramatically, but revolutionarily.
"... in the changed relations between masters and workmen;...
"No matter what changes may occur in forms of government,...
Leo is referring to the end of monarchies, I believe.
Yes, Leo recognized the dramatic, revolutionary changes taking place in the world and called for a rather dramatic, some would say, revolutionary response from the Church. This would result in a change in the way the Church sees the relationship between capital and labor, between the Church in the pre-modern world and - wait for it - The Church In The Modern World, etc.
"The Church" is not some untouchable figurine in a display case, only to be admired and never to be encountered. Through the centuries the Church has adapted to the changing societal and cultural, not by changing Her doctrine, but by speaking the truth in a way that can be heard and appreciated by "modern" society.
Anonymous at 12:31m you still fail to address my very correct assertion that the CHurch does far less charity and god today than it did before Vatican Disaster II. You progressives are all alike. Support disaster and engage in denial.
Anonymous (whose style is very much that of Fr Kavanaugh's)
You maintained (twice) that Leo XIII said that 'the Church' had 'changed dramatically' as a result of the Industrial Revolution, whereas he said nothing of the sort, nor would he have done. You tend to play fast and loose with English when trying to make a point. Calling for a 'dramatic response' is not remotely the same as saying that the Church has 'changed dramatically'. If you think it is, I suggest you go back to school.
And you still leave my second point unanswered.
In terms of how the Church changes, one might think of the dramatic, revolutionary change in our understanding of our relationship with Christians of other denominations. In this vein, one would also have to call to mind the dramatic, revolutionary way in which our understanding of the role other Christian denominations play in the economy of salvation.
Did the Church change its doctrine in this regard? No.
Did the Church change how it understands and teaches and lives its doctrine in this regard? Yes, dramatically.
You may assert that the Church is not its doctrine as you have asserted that the Church is not the papacy nor is the papacy the Church. Again, these are artificial, laboratory-esque parsings of a Church that is, after all, One.
Er ... I thought we were discussing Leo XIII, not John Courtney Murray.
Er, no. "When, How, and Why the Church Changes" is the topic of discussion.
Anonymous,
Christ founded one Church: The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Fallible men founded other "churches: E.g, the Anglican (Henry VIII, wife killer, godmother killer, murderer of monks, bishops, and saints) and Lutheran (Martin Luther, anti-semite) I will stick with Christ's Church and its doctrine. In modern times, the Church, mistakenly, has made outreach to the "world" and the results have been disastrous, collapse of attendance at Mass, closed Churches, religious orders decimated, etc. Vatican II was supposed to influence the world for the better. Instead the world has influenced the Church for the worse.
Maybe Mr. Luther learned his anti-Semitism from some of the Church Fathers like John Chrysostom who wrote, "The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition."…"I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason."
Or Peter the Venerable who wrote, "Yes, you Jews. I say, do I address you; you, who till this very day, deny the Son of God. How long, poor wretches, will ye not believe the truth? Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human… I lead out from its den a monstrous animal, and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheater of the world, in the sight of all the people. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men."
Good Ol' Days indeed.....
Anonymous @ 8:01
No, I disputed what you incorrectly attributed to Leo XIII. To belatedly change the subject under discussion rather than address the questions put to you is intellectually dishonest. However, from the tone and contents of your writings it is difficult to discern either intellect or honesty, which accounts for your preferring to remain anonymous.
And by the way, St John Chrysostom and Bl. Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny (who was the first to translate the Koran into Latin) were far greater intellects than you or I, or anyone living in this benighted century.
Learn some humility. It's always unedifying when great men are mocked by pygmies.
Anonymous at 4:53 pm, you are a real piece of work, and clearly failed logic. Please explain how you conflate Our Lord Jesus Christ with Henry VIII or Martin Luther. I am not interested in the writings of mere mortals you posit.
Humility doesn't equate to glossing over egregious anti-Semitism. Chrysostom and Peter were, though products of their times, ant-Semites. With the coming of the modern era, we have come to understand just how dangerous that deep-seated anti-Semitism was and is and have begun the long process of rooting it out of our Christian souls.
Anonymous,
pertinent ad rem!
It was not necessary for Leo XIII to state "I am changing this or that." That's not how this sort of thing works. And asking for that is, I would suggest, intellectually dishonest.
Rerum Novarum was an explication of how the Church applied its doctrine to a new situation. This is, per se, a change. It is the equivalent of having a baby. The family, by the addition of the newborn, has changed. But note, it remains a family.
Some here seem to believe that for the Church to change, it must repudiate or set aside previous doctrine. Again, that's not how this sort of thing works.
The addidtion of the notion of transubstantiation was, most certainly, a change. It was a change in how the Church understands the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But this change did not require the Church to jettison previous teaching on or understanding of the Real Presence.
Transubstantiation was a development of doctrine, not a change in doctrine. In other words transubstantiation was always implicit in the understanding of the Real Presence, if not yet formally defined.
This is what the Protestant reformers of the 16th century failed to recognize (see Article 28 of the 39 Articles of Religion). This led to them to jettison Tradition and rely solely on Scripture, but in trying to model their public worship on what they imagined to be the praxis and belief of the early Church, they overlooked the fact that the early Church relied more on Tradition than it did on Scripture.
Returning to Rerum Novarum, when it was issued in 1891 the industrialized West no longer presented a picture of workers enslaved by unrestricted capitalism. The previous half century had seen increasing state intervention in economic and social affairs. By 1875 Trade Unions in Britain had full legal rights, and workers in Germany had welfare benefits unequalled in any other country.
What concerned Leo and his co-authors (who included Cardinal Manning) was that workers now faced another form of exploitation, by socialists and anarcho-syndicalists. Rerum Novarum is first and foremost a critique of Marxism, not because it conflicted with Catholic doctrine, but because it contradicted Natural Law. Leo was aware that the Church was in danger of becoming marginalized, but there is nothing revolutionary about his response. Nowhere does he suggest that Catholic doctrine should 'adapt' to changing circumstances. In fact, Rerum Novarum is only indirectly concerned with doctrine.
John says, "Transubstantiation was a development of doctrine." I can't agree that it was, "...not a change in doctrine."
When things develop, they change. Even if transubstantiation was "implicit" - implied though not directly expressed - the expression was a change in the way the Church understood the Real Presence of Christ under the forms of bread and wine.
The same is true of the Church's understanding of her relationship to Christians of other denominations and of their participation in God's economy of salvation. As our doctrine on this developed, our expression of our understanding changed.
Post a Comment