tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post4686340565231392395..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: GEN-X AND THE VERY BROAD SILENT APOSTASYFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-44275354799653815122012-06-13T19:49:52.455-04:002012-06-13T19:49:52.455-04:00Millie, you obviously haven't read much about ...Millie, you obviously haven't read much about mysticism. And, who is excluding philosophers from theology or vice versa? I have spent much of my life studying both, in fact, I had a long discussion with my mentor and former Philosophy professor the other week and I made the statement that I do not see how anyone can adequately understand or study theology without a solid grounding in Philosophy. He agreed.<br /><br />You don't really see Dasein as a theological construct...well, do you?<br /><br />Dr. Millies, if you and I had met on a campus somewhere, we might have had a great philosophy discussion over coffee and that would have been fine. I would not presume to teach you political theory, but you presume to teach us theology. Do you see a problem here?Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47627552043104560512012-06-13T19:18:17.082-04:002012-06-13T19:18:17.082-04:00Steven, isn’t Gene partially correct insofar as ev...Steven, isn’t Gene partially correct insofar as even some Christian mystics, even perhaps St. Thomas (no longer regarded as heretical), emphasize the ultimate Unknowability of the Godhead, and certain of them, such as Meister Eckhart (still regarded as heretical), seek to transcend all categories, including those of theism, and espouse panentheism (but not pantheism)? However, that type of a-theism is very different from the contemporary secular form of atheism. Moreover, Catholicism has nurtured, and continues to nurture, a vital (in all senses) Mystical Tradition that is fully consistent with orthodoxy, as I am sure some of the monks up at Conyers would be pleased to confirm.<br /><br />I think I agree with Steven about Burke’s comment. I suspect it needs to be contextualized to the occasion and also placed in the broader context of his thought.<br /><br />Re: Dasein -- Gene, have you read Steven’s piece? I was thinking in particular about the discussion of politics at the end of it. That said, although I realize that Heidegger left the Catholic Church, he retained much of his religious sensibility if I understand him correctly (always a challenge with Heidegger =). I am not well read in Heidegger but some of his essays -- on Rilke, for example, make the point. And why can’t Dasein be compatible with our faith? Would we prefer Descartes?<br /><br />Thanks for coming back to the puddle.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-11282214861407418112012-06-13T13:23:10.133-04:002012-06-13T13:23:10.133-04:00Except that Burke wasn't a theologian, I suppo...Except that Burke wasn't a theologian, I suppose. <br /><br />But if you're excluding philosophers from theology, theologians from philosophy, then you've got even bigger problems.Steven P. Millieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08644543488139200412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-87926523132673278642012-06-13T13:22:27.650-04:002012-06-13T13:22:27.650-04:00Umm. No.
Wrong on every count. Just factually w...Umm. No.<br /><br />Wrong on every count. Just factually wrong.Steven P. Millieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08644543488139200412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-51733244593483152592012-06-13T10:42:37.270-04:002012-06-13T10:42:37.270-04:00Burke was no theologian. Mysticism, in the broader...Burke was no theologian. Mysticism, in the broader religious sense is simply another form of atheism/agnosticism.<br />Burke's comment that "all that should be heard from pulpits is the voice of Christian charity" is dismissive of the theological altogether. It is just saying, shut up and take a poor person to lunch."<br /> RE: Heidigger: Dasein is not a theological construct. What could it possibly have to do with a discussion of Catholic tradition?<br /><br />So, Millie's view of Catholicism and Christian belief is that it "enriches the historical consciousness?" So did the Third Reich, for God's sake...Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-32063677511065648352012-06-13T09:26:40.535-04:002012-06-13T09:26:40.535-04:00Anon2, a little more time to think and, now, a ful...Anon2, a little more time to think and, now, a fuller reply to your first reply.<br /><br />1) Yes on Heidegger. Heidegger is important for an understanding of modernity's richness and failure. Modernity is a properly classical tragedy, as was Heidegger. More and more I think the two are inextricable. In some way he could barely articulate ("Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten"), I think Heidegger knew it, too.<br /><br />2) Remember that I'm doing politics, primarily, and so a piece like the one I've sent is self-consciously attempting to adopt a kind of pluralism that invites all comers from all traditions, but which (because I'm writing it) offers a comfortable space for Catholic Christianity to fit. Indeed, I'd describe that as something like a life's work--'A Catholic Modernity' where both can co-exist with external harmony and internal authenticity. Of course, because I believe the Church brought modernity forth from its own Tradition, I can believe that optimistically have-it-both-ways solution is possible.<br /><br />3) and 4) I guess I'd only agree, again noting the tragic irony, that Gene and I probably agree about 95% of things, and the 5% isn't the Resurrection. I've just put a long, (I hope) thoughtful post on yesterday's thread about my disappointments in this blog, which are disappointments I have in the Church. Tone and emphasis are the problem, not substance. But, as we've seen here, tone and emphasis can clutter up a lot of the picture.Steven P. Millieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08644543488139200412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-81487549343195781792012-06-12T22:17:40.535-04:002012-06-12T22:17:40.535-04:00Anon2,
By all means, I'd be delighted. Send ...Anon2,<br /><br />By all means, I'd be delighted. Send it on to your colleague, and I'll be checking my mailbox for your proceedings. I'm looking forward to it. <br /><br />Please, if you like, include an e-mail address of your own. Perhaps we can have a more direct conversation.<br /><br />Thank you!Steven P. Millieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08644543488139200412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45267588475691695512012-06-12T17:17:39.465-04:002012-06-12T17:17:39.465-04:00Steven, we have just published the papers from a S...Steven, we have just published the papers from a Symposium that I had a hand in organizing last October on “Citizenship and Civility in A Divided Democracy: Political, Religious, and Legal Concerns.” There is one paper in there, written by the same colleague I mentioned yesterday, that seems to resonate with what you say about mystery and about Burke’s value for our politics (aka the political conversation) today. If I may, I would like to send my colleague your piece and also to send you our issue (unfortunately, it is not yet electronically accessible), which may take our conversation further in some additional directions. I have found your home page on the Web. Would that be alright?<br /><br />Thanks again!Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-82318925790383781052012-06-12T17:16:45.294-04:002012-06-12T17:16:45.294-04:00My goodness, Steven, that is just lovely. Thank yo...My goodness, Steven, that is just lovely. Thank you so much for sharing it. There is a lot there, and it is of great interest to me. Ever since I discovered them, I have been much influenced by Burke and Russell Kirk (as an aside, I was stunned at what I take to be MacIntyre’s misreading of Burke in “After Virtue,” although perhaps he has corrected himself on that, as he has on other matters). However, my knowledge of Burke is not as extensive as yours clearly is. So, although I am familiar with much of what you say, your piece has helped to deepen my knowledge and understanding of Burke (and associated matters). It will help me in my next project too, I think, so I may be citing you!<br /><br />I particularly like the connection that is made between Burke’s thought and the Christian Mystical Tradition. I had not seen that connection before but it feels right, in part because I see in myself not only a sadness that contemporary American conservatism, with its ideological fanaticism and idolatrous worship of the "free market" and other “causes,” has betrayed Burke in so many ways (rather as Margaret Thatcher’s brand of British conservatism did in England with her disdain for long-established institutions, but Tony Blair was even worse), but also because I have long lamented the suppression (that seems the best word for it) of the Western Mystical Tradition within our modern religious traditions (Catholics tend to do better in this respect than Protestants but not by much I think). I pick on American conservatives because Burke should be at their fountainhead, at least on Kirk’s interpretation of the Founding. Paradoxically, then, so-called American liberals are sometimes more true to Burke than so-called conservatives today, although they are certainly not immune from their own ideological excesses and idolatries, as readers of this Blog know well.<br /><br />I have some questions. First, am I right to detect resonances with Heidegger (authentic appropriation of tradition, throwness of Dasein into the world, and so on)?<br /> <br />Second, granted what you say on page 30 regarding how “the awareness of Providence and eternity . . . . enrich [es] the historical consciousness” in all places and at all times, doesn’t there still remain the question about Catholic Tradition, which claims special privilege in this respect, together with a unique hermeneutic and an authoritative practitioner of that hermeneutic.<br /><br />Third, and related, how does Gene’s concise formulation of the problematic fit into this?:<br /><br />“Long, continuous, consistent practice over centuries develops an almost archetypal norm around which all practice tends to cluster. If the reform of the reform continues to have legs and brings about a return to more "traditional" practice, then I think that will be anecdotal evidence that I am correct. It will mean that the collective Catholic consciousness has judged that the practice has gone to far off the norm and needs reigning in [sic]”<br /><br />Fourth, I see connections here between Gene’s work on Kant that he mentioned in an earlier post and the passage on page 33 that: <br /><br />Burke’s own analysis of the problem reinforces Walsh’s reading of Kierkegaard, that “The openness of one human being to another arises from their prior openness to God,” that “the performance of duty…that had so preoccupied Kant has now been reached in the love that fulfills the law.”<br /><br />Gene, does that connection sound right to you?<br /><br />(continued)Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-64733183927888368672012-06-12T11:00:11.507-04:002012-06-12T11:00:11.507-04:00Amen, Anon2.
I offer this in agreement and, per...Amen, Anon2. <br /><br />I offer this in agreement and, perhaps, to deepen an interesting conversation about tradition, modernity, and the historical consciousness.<br /><br />http://www.usca.edu/polisci/facvita/millies/Millies.Fideles.2009.pdfSteven P. Millieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08644543488139200412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-48027750583309878412012-06-12T10:43:48.755-04:002012-06-12T10:43:48.755-04:00Gene,
The written word, especially when delivered...Gene,<br /><br />The written word, especially when delivered in Cyberspace, can give rise to misunderstanding between discussants, and I think that may have happened here again. I don’t mean the discussion of Mystery. We agree on that for sure. How could the Mystery of the Divinity and all His Works be relegated to the banality of mere mystery? A puny creature in space and time (albeit the imago Dei) speaking of the Eternal Ground of All Being outside of space and time calls for some humility I think. But Modernity's hubris knows few bounds I fear. There is an analogous problem with Modernity’s debased and banal transformation of Myth into mere myth.<br /><br />This may provide a key to what I suspect is a misunderstanding between you and Steven, however. I don’t understand Steven to be denying the bodily Resurrection of Jesus. Instead his last post suggests that he is relying upon these very distinctions, and the associated distinction between History and mere history.<br /><br />In any event, perhaps we can all agree about dogs. I grew up with a black Labrador retriever. She wasn’t the brightest dog on the planet but she was definitely the best. My wife, son, and I have a “chiweenie,” who looks like a small Jack Russell with big ears and big eyes. She is now the best dog on the planet. Not that I am biased or anything. Double woof. . .Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-84955166914330243692012-06-12T09:22:21.014-04:002012-06-12T09:22:21.014-04:00LOL.
(Or, whatever verbal confetti is meant to ex...LOL.<br /><br />(Or, whatever verbal confetti is meant to excuse me from what I've said.)Steven P. Millieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08644543488139200412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3261682328715824432012-06-12T09:20:01.891-04:002012-06-12T09:20:01.891-04:00This is nothing more than the application of the s...This is nothing more than the application of the same historical-critical methods we use to understand what the Founding Fathers intended by the Constitution or any other historical event. It's ordinary business, and we rely on it every day for everything else. In this particular case, it is the application of reason to faith. It is our Tradition, and it should neither shame nor frighten us. It doesn't mean that Scripture isn't True, and it doesn't mean that Jesus didn't rise bodily. Certainly it's not an expression of my faith about the Resurrection. It's simply a rational accounting of what the accumulation of human knowledge says about how we can understand Sacred Scripture. It is what those words on 6/7 at 2:28pm mean--spelled out for those who don't understand them.<br /><br />There should be no controversy in saying these things here. But the repeating demands for my litmus test answers prove that there is. And, that's a shame.<br /><br />Let's do it this way. I'll be so small and so petty about faith as to answer y/n to the litmus test questions when someone here can live up (down?) to Gene's own standard and be so small and so petty as to attempt to offer empirical evidence that the Resurrection occurred, that Scripture records historical events. Once you've diminished the Resurrection so much to do that, I'll diminish it by answering the question with a clear and satisfying yes.Steven P. Millieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08644543488139200412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-57967460215512863082012-06-12T09:19:46.993-04:002012-06-12T09:19:46.993-04:00So, there ya have it.
A Red under every bed next ...So, there ya have it.<br /><br />A Red under every bed next to a prevaricating academic. And, probably, 81 Communists (at least!) masquerading as Democrats in the House. There's just no pleasing some people who cannot conceive of how to proceed with charity, to presume good will, and to enter into regular discourse. Conspiracies everywhere! As much as with American politics, this sort of attitude is the biggest problem in the Church today. This sort of General Jack D. Ripper-like obsession with purity reaches such absurd heights that it can seem "highly presumptuous" to a certain sort of person that I "come on a blog such as this pretending to be Catholic." I don't even need to pass a litmus test like that to enter a Catholic Church on a Sunday morning, to get on line to receive the Sacrament. But this blog is sacred space! Purity of essence allowed, only. Please take our litmus test at the door. (I assume pink is the wrong answer?) This would be merely foolish if it weren't so destructive.<br /><br />How did all of this start? There's a good question. I'll bet that it all tracks back to these words in my 6/7 2:28pm post: "The events recorded by Scripture are not history, though they are True in ways a historical account cannot be because recorded events do not capture the fullness of reality. They represent the perceptions of those who recorded them, as they also evoke idiosyncratic perceptions in those who read them." Ergo, I am suspect. Ergo, I must now pass the litmus test.<br /><br />So, in the name of intellectual honesty, let me say this--even as I know it will strengthen a false perception of me here in minds ready to doubt me because, I guess, I read books. But I'll throw it down as a gauntlet. It is possible to be orthodox AND to say that there is no shred of evidence of which I'm aware to tell us that even one word of the New Testament was written by a person who saw the Risen between the Resurrection and the Ascension. (I'm not a Scripture scholar, but I've read about this. I'll be corrected happily if I'm mistaken.) The earliest documents in the NT are the epistles of Paul, and it is generally accepted that the Pauline vision of the Resurrected came after the Ascension (if we go by Acts). (Of course, Paul's authorship of all of those texts also is disputed.) The canonical Gospels came later, and their authorship also is much disputed. It seems clear that the earliest of them, Mark, was written no sooner than 65AD--more than a generation later. These Gospel stories were, most likely, an oral tradition told and re-told by a very frightened early Christian community until someone wrote them down. Perhaps that Q author was an eyewitness to the Resurrection. But we don't know who Q was so we can't say that, either.<br />{Continued...}Steven P. Millieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08644543488139200412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45779806345065909132012-06-12T08:39:10.231-04:002012-06-12T08:39:10.231-04:00Anon 2, The Lab reference was in friendly jest. I ...Anon 2, The Lab reference was in friendly jest. I am a dog type, too, and have three at this moment (they're mutts, but one is a Lab/ Chow mix). I think Labs get a bad shake on the brightness scale...their intelligence is so bracketed by their genetic love for water and hunting that they sometimes appear dumber than they are. Labs are actually used as guard dogs in some <br />police work, and there are numerous accounts of Labs saving children from fire and water and attacking intruders. A noble breed, in all. Woof...Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-35717198802807376672012-06-12T07:24:44.817-04:002012-06-12T07:24:44.817-04:00Oh, one last thing (I guess I have some Lab in me,...Oh, one last thing (I guess I have some Lab in me, too): Mystery is not some vague catch-all dodge into which we relegate anything we do not want to, or cannot, answer...like the recipe to Grandma's caramel cake. The Mystery is s theological concept with a "theo-logic" supporting it. The Mystery of Jesus birth, death, and resurrection rests upon the Miracle of his bodily resurrection. The miracle represents the Sovreignty of God who created and rules the universe and who chose to enter linear history tangentially by transcending the laws of physics and biology. Likewise, the miracle of Jesus' Virgin Birth and Resurrection rests upon the Mystery of God's love which would move Him to enter history to redeem us who are unworthy. God's love and sovreignty are inseparably intertwined with the Mystery and the Miracle. The Mystery is not an existential shrug of the shoulders, nor is it some scientific conundrum, "Gee, how could that be explained?" It is the most fundamental challenge to our humanity, our understanding of life and history. Do you believe that this Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of the Living God who was bodily raised from the dead and who will come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead? Our answer to this colors our entire understanding of history, morality, politics, and the future. The Mystery includes and encompasses our response to this question...see: election.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-56951618648690367632012-06-12T05:55:13.350-04:002012-06-12T05:55:13.350-04:00I think your summary captures the essence of it, G...I think your summary captures the essence of it, Gene.<br /><br />Speaking for myself, I will take the Labrador retriever remark as a compliment. I have always thought of myself as a dog type. <br /><br />Admittedly, Labrador retrievers are not too bright (I can live with that), but they are friendly, loyal, gentle (albeit a bit clumsy sometimes -- again I can live with that), and like all dogs they enjoy life's simple pleasures, such as a good academic discussion.<br /><br />Woof.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-29181282396486195492012-06-11T21:11:37.619-04:002012-06-11T21:11:37.619-04:00Anon 2, I've said about all I have to say on t...Anon 2, I've said about all I have to say on tradition. Long, continuous, consistent practice over centuries develops an almost archetypal norm around which all practice tends to cluster. If the reform of the reform continues to have legs and brings about a return to more "traditional" practice, then I think that will be anecdotal evidence that I am correct. It will mean that the collective Catholic consciousness has judged that the practice has gone to far off the norm and needs reigning in. <br /><br />Now, you academic boys have fun wordsmithing. You remind me of two Labrador Retrievers when they see a puddle...they can't help themselves, they have to jump in it. LOL!Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-65810545963102373702012-06-11T21:06:17.933-04:002012-06-11T21:06:17.933-04:00Millies, you are prevaricating. The "ministry...Millies, you are prevaricating. The "ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus" doesn't mean much because "resurrection" has been re-interpreted by liberal theologians to mean, "Oh, well, Christ is risen in us." That is the whole point of Pope Benedict's book on Jesus of Nazareth: the so-called "Christ of faith" (a humanistic/existential, non-historical concept) is the same Jesus of Holy Scripture, whose literal, bodily resurrection from the dead is recorded in the Gospels and recalled by Paul and John. This is not new. Martin Kahler, in the early 20th century, wrote a book dealing with the same liberal nonsense: "Die Sobekonnten Historische Jesus und Der Biblische Christ." He was taking on primarily Schweitzer and others of his ilk, but the issue was the same. So, your types have been around a while. Now, you have already said that the accounts in Scripture are "non-historical" (revealing your lack of knowledge of Biblical theology), that is why I stressed,in my question you refused to answer, the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead...you know, history, linear. Your refusal to answer and your smug statement that such a question is beneath you are answer enough. So, I find it very difficult to take anything you say about Catholicism or theology seriously. <br />Now, this thread has reached the second page, which means not many folks will read further. So, I will re-visit this issue when you post more of your drivel in other, more recent threads. But, don't worry, you'll have Ignotus on your side. LOL!Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-84757704570417747092012-06-11T17:32:43.051-04:002012-06-11T17:32:43.051-04:00Anon2, Thank you. Those are kinds words.
Re: Gen...Anon2, Thank you. Those are kinds words.<br /><br />Re: Gene--the tragic irony is that I did answer it (at least, to my satisfaction) at my 6/7 8:34pm post: "The core of our faith is the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus." Why someone would not accept that as a reply, I will not speculate. It is true that it does not give a clear y/n reading on the litmus test. Then again, it seems to me that the Great Mystery should be more than that. Such, at least, is my own faith.Steven P. Millieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08644543488139200412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-37751391093249187162012-06-11T16:44:57.319-04:002012-06-11T16:44:57.319-04:00Thank you, Steven, for those illuminating thoughts...Thank you, Steven, for those illuminating thoughts and for the references. I will get the Taylor lecture as soon as I can and add it to the book recommendation from Gene. In fact, I have just emailed a colleague of mine who has read much of Charles Taylor’s work to ask if he is familiar with the 1996 lecture or the MacIntyre-Taylor 2005 colloquy. All this will also be very helpful when I get to my next project, which will draw on MacIntyre (and, I suspect, now also Taylor).<br /> <br />More generally, I have found what I call “the MacIntyrean dialectic,” i.e., the conversation between rival moral traditions, very helpful in my teaching of, and thinking about, the quest for Truth in a postmodern and pluralistic world, and I find it very telling that MacIntyre has made a lifetime journey from Marx through Aristotle to St. Thomas.<br /> <br />Steven, I don’t really want to get in the middle of this, but is there some way you can answer Gene’s question? For myself, I do believe in the literal, bodily Resurrection of Jesus as an actual historical event. In the face of the great Mystery it does not offend my Reason (and I have Shakespeare’s Hamlet to Horatio in my corner for that as well). That said, it is also surrounded by the awesome Mystery before which I can only be Silent. So, I do understand if you prefer not to answer.<br /><br />And Gene, can you cut Steven a bit of slack?<br /> <br />I won’t suggest that you kiss and make up =), but I hate to see good people so divided. And now I should definitely be silent!Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-76139299244413998692012-06-11T08:39:31.898-04:002012-06-11T08:39:31.898-04:00Anon2, ultimately you broach a good question about...Anon2, ultimately you broach a good question about how applicable those Burkean ways of thinking about Tradition are within the sphere of an authoritative Tradition. Yet, Burke was raised in a Catholic environment and so I think his reflections are not inappropriate. In any event, I continue to hope they are helpful to us.<br /><br />One last note, and I think one touching specifically what is interesting to you (and, most interesting to me). In that 6/7 2:28pm post I described much of what I see posted here as "a sort of fideistic surrender cloaked in the inauthentic trappings of Thomistic rationalism." That's the danger we want to avoid, to give too much credit to the idea of how much we know that the Tradition is unknowable. I think you use the right word--mystery. But it must be a mystery susceptible to human reason, even if it infinitely resists resolution.<br /><br />I think of an extraordinary exchange I heard between two Catholic philosophers in 2005--Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor. I say extraordinary because despite their quite significant disagreements, they came to agreement about something most unexpected. They agreed that St. Thomas, of course, made real contributions to the Tradition. But they also agreed that what he made possible, and what many (most?) of his followers have done, has been less helpful. St. Thomas "made possible the analytical codification" of the Catholic faith and, as a result, his followers have proposed a kind of certainty about the Tradition that leads us down a destructive path of knowing-unknowing. That is, a path of settled certainties that inhibit significant inquiry (because questions fall outside the settled certainties) and redounds into a kind of fideism where faith smothers reason and questions aren't asked because, we believe, they already have been answered fully.<br /><br />To really develop that would take far more space than I have here, but I hope you can see its outline. I really recommend a short work you can find in a few places--Charles Taylor's lecture on receiving the Marianist Award at the University of Dayton in 1996, "A Catholic Modernity?" (Available under that title with responses from Catholic intellectuals from Oxford University Press, and also available in a volume from Fordham University Press, Believing Scholars.) There he begins to discuss both a Catholicism that can interact constructively with modernity and a modernity that better recognizes its debt to Christianity and can fit with Catholicism. For that discussion, an understanding of what tradition is must be essential, and my intimations of a oneness that is a wholeness come from some of Taylor's reflections there--mediated by Burke and other things I've read. I think Taylor gives that subject short treatment there, I think his attempt to develop it in A Secular Age (Harvard, 2007) was disappointing. But I think his argument is essential because it embraces mystery in its integration of oneness and wholeness, tradition with a vertical axis of uniformity and a horizontal axis of unity, together.<br /><br />How can those things operate together? That's the mystery. That they do seems, to me, to be the the eseential point.Steven P. Millieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08644543488139200412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-27438619802638718062012-06-11T06:51:42.935-04:002012-06-11T06:51:42.935-04:00Millies, You never answered my question about the ...Millies, You never answered my question about the resurrection of Jesus. I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who wants to make pronouncements about Catholic/Christian issues who refuse to answer that simple question. I find it highly presumptuous of you to come on a blog such as this pretending to be Catholic.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-87207705203991447642012-06-11T01:50:46.311-04:002012-06-11T01:50:46.311-04:00Steven,
I must plead for even more mercy for I am...Steven,<br /><br />I must plead for even more mercy for I am none of those things. However, I have been a student of the Law for several decades and I bring to my study of the Law an interest in tradition, history, philosophy, political theory, other cultures, etc, however inadequate and incomplete my knowledge of these other subjects (and indeed of the Law itself in all its vastness and complexity) may be. All of which is to say that I appear on this Blog with considerable self-awareness of my limitations and, I hope, with an appropriate humility, but with an inquiring mind and a desire to deepen my own faith.<br /><br />So, yes, I am with you on Burke and Tradition as a general matter. But as you confirm, with Catholicism it may be different because we have an authoritative source for determining the content of Catholic Tradition in the Magisterium. The problem is that SSPX and Rome seem to disagree about the status of Vatican II within that Tradition. And their position, as I understand it, is as you describe in your final paragraph. But then that brings me back to the questions I set out in my previous post.<br /><br />I am just glad I am not the one, or one of the ones, having to sort all this out in trying to achieve some kind of rapprochement between SSPX and Rome!<br /><br />Regarding folk masses, etc, I entered the Catholic Church in the late 1970s and became used to different liturgical forms, including a monthly folk mass. Based only on those I experienced personally, I did not find them offensive or spiritually diminishing. However, I also was perplexed that we did not have a Latin Mass as well (we are Catholic after all!). So, my own experience and liturgical tastes were somewhat eclectic and pluralistic. In honesty, I was sad to see the end of the folk mass in our parish. That said, I am following closely all the arguments regarding their appropriateness and must remain open to persuasion, guidance, and inspiration on this point. I find your analogy with the Uniate Churches intriguing, but I don’t know enough of the details to form an opinion on just how far that analogy can be pressed regarding arguments occurring within the Roman Rite itself.<br /><br />However all of these “arguments within our tradition” turn out, Steven, I was struck by your second post on June 7 (2:28 p.m.) and your contentions regarding Truth as a “oneness that is a wholeness” and the ultimately Unknowable nature of the Divinity. I have always assumed that God informs us mere mortals on a need to know basis and subject to our considerable limitations as finite creatures who exist within space and time, although like you and other Catholics I believe that “revelation subsists in a uniquely fulsome way in the Church.” And sometimes indeed, although we humans are creatures who must speak, the response that seems most appropriate in the face of such awesome Mystery is one of Silence.<br /><br />Thanks again for engaging in this very interesting exchange.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-55923271145983310492012-06-10T21:41:53.362-04:002012-06-10T21:41:53.362-04:00Anon2--Thank you.
Here I'll begin by pleading...Anon2--Thank you.<br /><br />Here I'll begin by pleading for a bit of mercy, since I'm not a theologian. (Neither am I a political scientist.) As a political theorist, most of the work I've done has been on the relationship of tradition to history. That is the source of my interest in this issue though, even as I have considerable literacy on the philosophical discussion of those topics, I may not be up to recognizing all of the theological distinctions. With that as prelude, I plunge forward.<br /><br />I'm not certain that the question is of distinguishing between mutable and immutable traditions because, indeed, that seems to me as though it asks us to know the content of the immutable Tradition--it is unavoidable if we are to make the distinction. I would adopt a Burkean approach to this problem, whether it is a political problem or a theological problem. If the balance of human opinion accepts a practice across an adequate span of time, it must be the Tradition. (Shades of Habermas here, too.) There is no mathematical formula for the right number of people, the right passage of time. (Shades of Potter Stewart too--we 'know it when we see it.') But tradition is an expression of a shared sense of who we are, and Tradition--so far as we humans can understand it--can be knowable to us only so far as it is disclosed by acceptance (a standard recognized by medieval law and Aquinas). I'm using Tradition there, by the way, not in a specifically Catholic way but rather in a larger sense that intends to express the order of history--How We Should Live, no matter in what category we discuss it. Within the specifically Catholic orbit, of course our understanding of what we can or should accept as Tradition is guided by Scripture and the Magisterium. That is a considerable help. But, as you say, there are legitimate questions of interpretation.<br /><br />Still here is where I think is the problem with what Fellay seems to be saying. Let us take something so relatively noncontroversial as religious liberty. The Council spoke rather (admittedly, not totally) clearly on that question, but the SSPX does not accept the doctrine as it was developed by the Council at all. The position I am attempting to articulate would say that the Tridentine or the extraordinary form are options that should be available in a truly catholic Catholic Church as nourishment for those who will profit from them spiritually. But that should not license anyone to say that the guitar or the sackcloth are illegitimate liturgical expressions. (I have a former student who once offered what seems to me to be the best expression of how to think about this--think of the relationship of the Roman Rite to the uniate rites.) The Tradition must be able to tolerate these things because they all fall within the orbit of what we can mean today by Catholic. (In this sense, I have been a fan of Benedict's 'footnoting the Tradition' with liturgical garb, etc.) But what cannot be acceptable is to deny the legitimacy of other parts of the Tradition. And that was what Fellay said--"Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite." <br /><br />Unless I am misunderstanding him, it seems to me that he's not merely saying the SSPX will not practice various things we associate with Vat2. He's saying that they can claim ground from which to delegitimize Dignitatis Humanae, vernacular liturgy, etc. from within the unity of the Roman Church. That's deeply troubling. It's a fracturing within the Tradition that cannot really be tolerated.<br /><br />If I'm not clear somehow, please point it out. And, of course, I'll claim all errors honestly.Steven P. Millieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08644543488139200412noreply@blogger.com