Where locals fear to tread...

Sometimes foreigners can say things that locals would not be caught dead saying (except, that is, the inhabitants of the Cloister, who have that special type of diplomatic immunity that comes with anonymity).

A case in point is Rocco Palmo's (oversimplified but basically correct by all accounts) summation of Australian Catholic ecclesiastical politics on his blog "Whispers in the Loggia":

To bring everyone up to speed, in recent months a high-profile apostolic visitor from abroad [another foreigner from the same shores as Rocco Palmo, we understand] was reportedly dispatched to a rural diocese where, faced with a priest shortage reaching dire proportions, the ordinary used a pastoral letter to muse on the ordination of women and married men as a means to replenish the numbers; in an interview last week, another senior prelate lamented the church’s tendency for being too removed from its own and characterized “radical right-wing Catholics” as “taking the place of God” and being driven to “cut” their opposition’s “head off” (whilst simultaneously defending Humanae vitae); and Bishop Pat Power, the Canberra auxiliary for whom ribbing established teaching is usually akin to breathing, noted in an open letter that “many loyal and committed Catholics want a more open and thorough examination of the issues around the ordination of women.”

Even for all that, though, the controversy is poised to ratchet to a new level... While the continent-nation’s market of ecclesial polemics has been largely dominated by Power – Oz’s answer to the retired Detroit auxiliary Thomas Gumbleton – on the left, and its senior churchman, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, on the right, the retired Sydney auxiliary Bishop Geoffrey Robinson hasn’t been known for his outspokenness.

The rest of the blog entry is about Bishop Geoffrey Robinson's new book. But he has pretty well nailed the Australian ecclesiastical landscape in those few paragraphs. Scary (do you spell "scary" with or without an "e"?) how someone on the other side of the Big Pond can know so much about what is happening Down Under, isn't it. Just goes to show you the power of blogging and the internet communication age.

BTW, Rocco has been covering the media frenzy on the Robinson book quite thoroughly. But he hasn't told us yet just what he thinks of it.

John L. Allen Jnr. on Evangelical Catholicism: A "one-two punch of grass-roots ferment and official support"

Two articles have appeared on the National Catholic Reporter's web site both by my favourite ecclesiastical journalist John L. Allen Jnr:

The Triumph of Evangelical Catholicism

Liberal Catholicism endures in pastoral church

Take my advice and read both of them -- back-to-back. This is Allen at his (literally) balanced best. You could see it as a bet both ways, but you need to remember who his audience is -- writing for a more conservative audience might have produced a different approach. Nevertheless, as he himself would say, the role of the journalist isn't to make the news but to report it as it is. And he does a fairly good job of that.

Assuming you have now taken the time to read these articles, there are a few comments I would like to make. (And for those of you who don't know me, it should be fairly obvious that I self identify as an "Evangelical Catholic").

My first comment is by way of the quibble.

The second, a brief declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, addresses a phrase from the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) that the church of Christ “subsists in” Catholicism. Many people thought it meant the true church cannot be identified with institutional Catholicism, and it was understood as a gesture of ecumenical openness. Now, however, the Vatican has ruled that “subsists in” means the true church “endures” in Catholicism alone, without denying that “elements” of the church can be found in other Christian bodies.

The "quibble" is that Allen consistently uses the word "Catholicism" as a synonym for the communion of Churches which is the "one holy Catholic Church" (ie. the Una Catholica). That will be a cause for misunderstanding if it is allowed to continue. "Catholicism" is usually used to describe that way of being Christian which is Western, Latin, and papal. In truth, the Una Catholica is the Church "governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him". That is manifestly not quite the same thing as "Catholicism". To put it bluntly, to say that "Catholicism" is "the Church" is not to use the word "Church" in the proper sense.

David Bebbington...defines [Evangelicalism] in terms of four commitments: the Bible alone as the touchstone of faith, Christ’s death on the cross as atonement for sin, personal acceptance of Jesus as opposed to salvation through externals such as sacraments, and strong missionary energies premised on the idea that salvation comes only from Christ. Clearly, some of these commitments mark areas of disagreement with Catholics rather than convergence.

Yet if these points are restated in terms of their broad underlying concerns, the evangelical agenda Bebbington describes pivots on three major issues: authority, the centrality of key doctrines, and Christian exclusivity. If so, there’s little doubt that Catholicism under John Paul II and Benedict XVI has become ever more boldly evangelical.

I wonder if we can't analyse this even perhaps a little further. For instance, evangelical Catholics share a high regard for the Bible as Word of God with evangelical Protestants more than they do with liberal Catholics. Evangelical Catholics emphasise the atoning work of Christ present in the sacrifice of the mass. Evangelical Catholics emphasise the personal encounter with Christ in the sacraments. And, as the name would suggest, evangelical Catholics are strongly in favour of the call to the "New Evangelisation". In other words, there are direct correspondents to each of the classic marks of evangelicalism.

To be clear, evangelical Catholicism isn’t fundamentalism... While evangelical Catholics believe in dialogue, they insist it can’t come at the expense of strong Catholic identity. The bottom line is unambiguous assertion that the visible, institutional Catholic church alone possesses the fullness of the church willed by Christ... None of this means the Vatican is claiming that only Catholics can be saved. The congregation stated that other Christian bodies can be “instruments of salvation,” and there’s nothing in the document to roll back Vatican II’s teaching that non-Christians can also be saved “in ways known only to God.” Yet evangelical Catholics reject suggestions that all religions are equally valid; ultimately, they insist, salvation comes from Christ, and the church is the primary mediator of this salvation. This belief remains the basic motivation for missionary work.

In all these statements, Allen hits the nail on the head.

In his second article, Allen asserts that

most sociologists say that complex religious institutions are likely to contain both and many others -- only sects, they argue, have the luxury of rigid consistency.

again he is quite right. This is a sociological reason-- rather than a theological reason--why it is hopeless, and in fact undesirable, to search for a "pure" church.

But the second article was a little too accepting of the claims of the liberal Catholics. He quotes Richard Gaillardetz as saying that

liberal Catholicism is less an ideology than a “pastoral phenomenon … alive in parishes that have a flourishing catechumenate, vibrant liturgies, thoughtful and relevant preaching, and multiple lay ministerial opportunities.”

I beg to point out, that these virtuous attributes are by no means lacking among evangelical Catholics. Evangelical Catholicism proposes and offers catechisation intentionally founded on the church's teaching authority, liturgies vibrant with beauty and sacredness, and a strong emphasis on spiritual gifts, the lay apostolate and personal vocation.

The results of Dean Hoge's research, cited by Allen, is questionable in value with regard to the attitudes of active, faithful lay Catholics, precisely because the "Catholics" he surveyed include (on his own evidence) 76% who believe that "one could be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sunday". One assumes therefore that 76% of his survey total are not in mass every Sunday.

Allen cites "engaging social and political questions outside the church" as a "progressive cause". We will have to wait and see if Pope Benedict is able to reclaim it as an "evangelical cause" in his upcoming encyclical.

The lecture Allen cites by Jesuit Father Thomas Reese is alarming if only for the reason that it considers schism as a possible "survival strategy for reform, minded Catholics". And if "laying the intellectual foundations for change" is cited in support of the liberal cause, evangelicals too (with the help of the Pope) are hard at work on this.

Finally there is far more comfort for evangelicals than for liberals in Allen's constant reminder that the future of the church quite likely belongs with charismatic Catholicism. Evangelical Catholics and charismatic Catholics have, as Allen notes, basic theological ground work in common. Liberal Catholics can take no solace at all in the rise of charismatic Catholicism.

When Being too Thoughtful can be Thoughtless: Jesus, Mary and Osama bin Ladin in Blake Prize Entry

"But I just ask people to think about it a little bit more deeply because it is a very loaded work which means that there are so many different meanings." - Blake Prize entry Artist, Priscilla Bracks.

A friend of mine used to have a saying about "deep thinkers in the shallow end of the pool". Sometimes your thoughts can become so deep that you become thoughtless.

These "works of art" in the picture above were entered by Priscilla Bracks and Luke Sullivan in the annual Blake Prize for Religious Art held in Sydney. You can read the entire story here in The Australian. Coo-ees in the Cloister has some strong words on this too.

I find the Jesus/bin Laden picture truly offensive. I am only marginally less offended by the statue of the Blessed Virgin in the veil. It is not the association of the Blessed Virgin with the Muslim religion that offends me -- after all, Muslims regard Mary with great devotion. My concerns are a little deeper than that.

Both depictions offend me because of what they do to the faces of Jesus and Mary. The picture morphs the face of our Lord into the face of the terrorist. The statue hides the face of Mary completely. With this in mind read these following statements from Pope Benedict:

To express ourselves in accordance with the paradox of the Incarnation we can certainly say that God gave himself a human face, the Face of Jesus, and consequently, from now on, if we truly want to know the Face of God, all we have to do is to contemplate the Face of Jesus! In his Face we truly see who God is and what he looks like!

In [Our Lady's] face—-more than in any other creature—-we can recognize the features of the Incarnate Word.

A truly thoughtful person would realise that these "works of art" distort and obscure the face of God which we have been privileged to see in Jesus and Mary.

I, for one, am at least glad that the Blake Prize judges were thoughtful enough not to award these "works of art" any prizes, although a little more thoughtfulness would have excluded the work from the exhibition entirely.

Look out! He's out to get you!

(Thanks to Cooees for this one. Pity it wasn't a bit bigger...)

And another thing, Barney: The Meaning of "Lay"

In the same article to which I refer in the blog below, Barney Zwartz writes:

On power, the Catholic Church has long treated priests and those in religious orders as a higher caste, separate and superior to laypeople. It doesn't even have a collective term for all members in the way that nations have "citizens" — a category to which the newest Australian belongs as much as the Prime Minister — because the primary meaning of "laypeople" is non-clerics.

This is a combination of a gross distortion and a falsehood. Lets start with the falsehood.

The term "lay people" is one of those tautologous terms like the place name "Penhill Hill" ("Pen" is old English for hill). "Lay" comes from the greek "ho laos" which means "the people". As in "The People of God" (or Das Volk Gottes) (eg. Heb 4:9). Vatican II and Papa Benny are particularly keen on this idea. Thus the term "laity" does not primarily mean "not clerical", just as the term "Catholic" does not primarily mean "non-Protestant" or "non-Orthodox".

And the gross distortion is the suggestion that the Church regards "and those in religious orders as a higher caste, separate and superior to laypeople". This may have been the case that for a period (eg. some centuries before the Reformation), but it is not the case in either doctrine or practice in the 21st Century. The doctrines of vocation and charisms have raised up (and praised up) all valid callings, religious or secular, as equal paths to holiness and sainthood. The pope who taught us most on this was John Paul II, and I challenge Barney or anyone else to find anything in his writings (or indeed in the teachings of the Church today) which even suggests that priesthood or religious life is a calling more holy than (eg.) motherhood or garbage collecting.

No, No, No, No, Barney. You've got it wrong from the start.

We are sincerely grateful here in Melbourne that The Age has a religion editor who is a believing and practicing Christian. Barney Zwartz's commentary on religious life in our city is very welcome, as is his blog. Not so welcome, however, is the way he has rather opportunisticly jumped on Bishop Geoffrey Robinson's band wagon and given his own recipe for the reform of the Church. If I may have my say, it is one thing for a retired renegade Bishop to have his thoughts on the radical reformation of the Catholic Church--at least he is (nominally and officially) one of us. It is quite another thing for an outsider (BZ is a protestant, not a Catholic) to weigh in on the debate with their two bobs worth.

And this is just what Barney does, in an op ed piece in today's edition of The Age entitled: "Reform that is crucial to the church". "The church" in question is none other than the Catholic Church--for which I guess we should be thankful that those in charge of writing headlines at The Age acknowledge the latest CDF clarification that "the church" properly speaking is "the Catholic Church".

BUT, Barney's op ed is little more than a repetition of Robinson's basic theses:

Until the Catholic Church tackles deep structural and theological flaws about sex and power, until it is prepared to rethink doctrines dating as far back as Augustine (4th century), it will still be merely "managing the problem" rather than confronting it, the bishop says.

Start with sex.

Yes, let's, shall we? This is what Barney (and presumable the good bishop, whom he is plagerising) says about the Church and sex:

The church holds that sex is designed only for married couples for the twin purposes of expressing love and conceiving children. Therefore, unless conception is possible it is a sin and so are all other sexual acts, as "against nature"...

[But I, Barney Zwartz, believe that] the key to sexual ethics is the good — and harm — done to people and their relationships.

No, no, no, and a thousand times, no, Barney. And if you are just parroting the Most Reverend Bishop Robinson, then I suggest you and he both go and read John Paul II's Theology of the Body, and get it right.

Whether I do "good or harm to people and their relationships" is an inadequate basis for sexual morality--indeed any morality at all. The most fundamental basis for the ethical life is a sure and certain understanding and committment to the essential nature of the human person--in both myself and in my neighbour. Start there, and you will find that the Church's position on sexual morality may be a little more understandable.

The real reformation required is not in the doctrine or faith or practice of the Church, but where all reformations worth their salt should start: in the heart of every man.

["And every woman." "Shutup, Stan."]

Whoo there!

135 hits on Sentire Cum Ecclesia in one day!
Settle down folks!

Actually, your host here at SCE is wondering where you have all been for the last month or so. Things have been a bit quiet. But yesterday and today the sitemeter has gone through the roof. The result is a new record for monthly hits for this blogsite. Keep it up, folks. Your comments are what make this blog really interesting.

A question from a Reader: Sacramental Graces

Today I received an email from a regular anonymous reader:

Do you have time to answer a question on the sacraments?

I was discussing the Sacrament of Reconciliation with someone. This person said that during reconciliation we don't receive any extra grace. God's grace is everywhere and the sacraments are to celebrate what already exists. In Sacramental Confession we celebrate the forgiveness of God that has already occurred (The sacraments are primarily a celebration.)

QUESTION: Where does this idea come from?

ANSWER: I don't know. Outer Space? It doesn't come from the Catholic Catechism at least!

I suggest the person with these ideas is lacking a solid grounding in what Grace is. In short, you should refer him or her to the Catechism, paragraphs 2000-2005, or the Compendium paragraphs 423 and 424. There you will find that Catholic theology distinguishes the workings of God's grace into four separate kinds of operation:

Sanctifying grace: the habitual grace and a permanent disposition which enables us to live and act in keeping with our Christian calling to holiness.

Actual graces: God's interventions in our lives to enable us to perform particular salutary actions. This grace is not permanent & lasts only until the action is complete.

Special graces: “Charisms” or “gifts” of the Spirit to carry out a particular service or ministry, eg. Speaking in tongues, healing, prophecy; but also teaching, administration, music, encouragement etc. (cf. Romans 12:6-8 and Called and Gifted program)

Sacramental graces: the gifts proper to each sacrament.

Of course, sanctifying grace is that grace which justifies us by faith and which pervades our whole life in Christ. But each sacrament has graces proper it, and the graces proper to the sacrament of reconciliation are also listed in the Catechism (1468-1470) under the heading "The Effects of this sacrament" (there is a section like this for the treatment of each sacrament). The special sacramental graces of Reconciliation are then also listed in the "In brief" section at the end of this chapter in paragraph 1496:

1496 The spiritual effects of the sacrament of Penance are:
- reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers grace [ie. sanctifying grace];
- reconciliation with the Church;
- remission of the eternal punishment incurred by mortal sins;
- remission, at least in part, of temporal punishments resulting from sin; - peace and serenity of conscience, and spiritual consolation;
- an increase of spiritual strength for the Christian battle.

Is Jesus with a beer and a cigarette blasphemous?

A Muslim friend sent me the following news report:

Malaysia daily gets one-month ban
By Agencies

Malaysia has imposed a one-month publishing ban on a Tamil-language newspaper for printing a caricature of Jesus holding a cigarette and a can of beer. State news agency Bernama quoted the internal security ministry as saying the publishing permit of the daily Makkal Osai Tamil would be suspended for a month from Friday.

S M Periasamy, general manager of Makkal Osai, which caters to Malaysia's ethnic Indian minority, said his office received the directive by fax from the ministry. He said: "Of course we are shocked by this. My entire staff are all in tears. They will lose a month of income." He said the newspaper would abide by the order for now though it planned to appeal the ban.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Malaysia's prime minister, condemned publication of the Jesus caricature, saying it was unacceptable in a multi-racial society. Last year, Badawi, a Muslim, imposed similar bans on two newspapers that reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

Makkal Osai printed the caricature last Tuesday on its front page with a caption quoting Christ as saying: "If someone repents for his mistakes, then heaven awaits them."

The paper's editor apologised, saying the caricature had been taken from the internet, but a local politician filed a police report, calling it a "threat to national harmony".

Periasamy said the graphic artist who downloaded the picture of Jesus had overlooked the fact that the picture had been altered to insert a cigarette in one hand and another object, possibly a can, in the other. The artist had since been suspended, he said.

Murphy Pakiam, Kuala Lumpur's archbishop, criticised the picture as "desecration" but later accepted the newspaper's apology. Some Muslim groups joined church groups this week in calling for action to be taken against the newspaper.

Just over half of Malaysia's roughly 26 million people are Muslims, almost all of them ethnic Malays, who are deemed to be Muslim by birth.

I must confess that I hardly know what to think about this. I haven't seen the picture, so I can't be sure of the intent of the publishers.

I myself smoke (a pipe, not cigarettes) and drink (generally wine rather than beer--which I believe was Jesus' preference also). I don't believe these are sins--although they could be if they were addictive behaviour or caused significant harm to me or any harm at all to others around me.

I guess the difficulty is that most Malaysians (being Muslims) would think that smoking and drinking are sinful acts. In this context, depicting Jesus doing these things may be regarded as blasphemous.

But I guess that more concerning is a lack of understanding of Christianity reflected in the caption that goes along with the picture ("If someone repents for his mistakes, then heaven awaits them"), and the implication that Jesus himself made such "mistakes" and therefore, in spite of doing these "sinful things", he went to heaven. That is certainly one way of understanding the coupling of the caption and the picture. If it was the intent of the publisher, I would be very concerned.

Unfortunately, the Lord Jesus gets far worse treatment at the hands of cartoonists here in Australia on a regular basis in our daily media.

Bishop Geoffrey Robinson speaks his (own) mind

You will have noted that this blog is called "Sentire Cum Ecclesia": to think with the Church. As in: rather than thinking against the Church.

You will also notice Chesterton's little quote about reformers in the header. If you haven't, note it now--it is pertinent to the subject of this blog.

The latest well intentioned "reformer" to hit the headlines in Australia is Bishop Geoffrey Robinson (70), who retired from his post as auxiliary bishop of Sydney in 2004 due to ill health and has just published what looks like being the best seller since Paul Collins' latest tome, "Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus". You can read the introduction to the book here.

One can only imagine that the change in theological climate among the Sydney episcopacy may have been one cause of his ill health judging by the new report in yesterday's edition of the Age: "Bishop calls for Catholic Reform".

John Garrett, the publisher of the bishop's book, hosted the bishop for a speaking event on Friday night. When I first received an invitation to the event, I wondered if he had the requisite permission from the local ordinary. My assumption, given the subject matter of his presentation, is that he did not.

The connection between the two words "power" and "sex" coupled with a third word "church" was always going to ensure that Bishop Robinson's book got attention.

According to The Age report, the Bishop said that

While it [the Catholic Church] refuses to look at some fundamental teachings — including sex outside marriage, women priests, homosexuality and papal power — the culture that produced and protected [sexual] abusers will continue.

A powerful cocktail, you will agree.

In his blog entry, Zwartz compares Robinson to Martin Luther. The comparison, Zwartz admits, is "slightly mischevious" because "Bishop Robinson remains a devout Catholic". However, he thinks that the comparison is justified, because of "the ambition and extent of his suggested reforms".

Well, Luther also regarded himself as a "devout Catholic" and was equally well intentioned with his "reforms". Nevertheless the effect of his teachings was to tear a chunk of the Church right out of its orbit and send it hurtling out of control into ecclesiastical "outer space".

By both his address to the John Garrett crowd and the publication of his book, Bishop Robinson seems intent on stirring the nest of discontented dissenters in the Church. As John Garrett's publishing blurb prophetically states: "Readers will love or hate this book, but will not be able to be neutral."

I agree entirely. I am not so able.

Well may we say, God save Clive James!

Overseas readers may not be aware that there is such a personage as "The Queen of Australia". There is, and she is, of course, one and the same as the Queen of Great Britain, our much loved and revered Elizabeth II Regina. Over the last forty years, there has been a growing republican movement in Australia which reached its zenith with the referendum in 1999 which failed to get the required support to ditch the Australian constitutional monachy which has served us so well since our foundation as a nation in 1901 (under the other great Queen, Victoria).

The question of when and whether Australia will be "free of the British monarchy" continues to be discussed in leftist circles. Clive James, the British-based Australian commentator and wit, who has recently released a book (given a rather cool review by Fr Richard John Neuhaus in the First Things Blog) "Cultural Amnesia", was asked this very question at the Melbourne Writers Festival, according to yesterday's edition of The Age.

You ask when are you going to be free of the British monarchy? You are free under the British monarchy. What you have to guarantee is that you are free under the next system...

I think it's a very advantageous political system to Australia, to have a connection with the old British monarchy...

I know I must be seen as impossibly conservative, but you can be quite on the left, which I am, and still be culturally conservative.

He also said that it was a "generous act of respect" to Britain to keep the Union Jack in the Australian flag. "Generous acts of respect" like that are, we know, very rare these days--especially among the so called "elites" these days--and so we thank Clive for his reply from the bottom of our hearts. Such generosity and unwillingness to give in to the rampant disease of "cultural amnesia" is very much appreciated.

Cardinal Danneels on the Liturgy

Fr Z has done a bit of a critique of this article in the America Magazine by Cardinal Godfried Danneels "Liturgy 40 Years After the Council: High point or regression?" (free registration required), so I won't go into the details. The article shows some signs of not quite being within the guard-rails of a "hermeneutic of continuity", and there is rather too much tendancy to talk in terms of "symbolism", nevertheless, there are some amazingly insightful statements which I would like to highlight for us all to contemplate (Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox and Protestant alike):

• The liturgy is God’s work on us before it is our work on God. The celebrating community enters into it as into a pre-established, divine and spiritual architecture.
• We are not creators of the liturgy; we are servants and guardians of its mysteries. We do not own them, nor did we author them.
• If the liturgy is not simply a structuring of common human religiosity, but rather the epiphany of God in human history (from Abraham to Christ), then we cannot avoid the need for catechesis and initiation. Because it is both proclamation and the celebration of mysteries that have occurred in the history of Judaism and Christianity, liturgy demands schooling.
• Our contemporaries often conceive of “understanding” as the ability to grasp at first hearing. Something is understandable if we can grasp it immediately. Such an approach is valid for the ordinary objects of our knowledge, which can only be grasped at a purely cognitive level. But where the depths of human and divine reality are concerned, this approach does not work. Love, death, joy, solidarity, knowledge of God can never be grasped at once or on first inspection. Profound realities only gradually yield their full significance.
• [When] The liturgy is turned into an unstoppable succession of words [there is] no time for interiorization.
• Liturgy is neither the time nor the place for catechesis... Nor should liturgy be used as a means for disseminating information, no matter how essential that information might be.
• Liturgy belongs to the order of the “playful.” The uniqueness of “play” is that one plays for the sake of playing. Liturgy’s end is in itself.
• Celebrate first, then understand.
• the sense of smell is almost completely unused in the liturgy. It is not to our advantage that the use of incense has been pushed aside into the domain of superfluity and hindrance.
• The life of the Christian is built on cultus and caritas. Liturgy does not coincide with life; rather, it has a dialectical relationship with life. Sunday is not Monday, nor vice versa. What we do throughout the week in a varied and diluted way we also do in the liturgy but in a more concentrated and purified fashion: we live for God and for others.

If Original Sin has been removed from baptised parents, how come their kids still get it?

There is an interesting blog discussion here on Pastor Weedon's blog. You need to go past the blog itself, and into the comments string to get the full force of it.

Basically, it is a question of the Real or Imputed Righteousness. Catholics claim the former, Lutherans the latter. The point at issue is a quotation from St Augustine, ostensibly misquoted in the Lutheran Confessions. Bryce Wandry tells this story:

Professor Richard Rex wrote: "For in the Lutheran tradition, the definition of the concupiscence of the flesh after baptism as sin has been constantly and confidently attributed to Augustine, specifically to his treatise De nuptiis et concupiscentia, and this is demonstrably wrong."

And so, in the Apology, defending Luther's view, Melanchthon writes, "Sin is forgiven in Baptism, not that it no longer is, but it is not imputed." [Rex uses Tappert and gives the page number 105]. And so Rex says further, "So I went back to the Patrolgia Latina, which follows the Benedictine edition based on a wide range of Roman and French manuscripts, to find the following words: 'If somebody asks ... why, if this concupiscence of the flesh can remain in the baptised parent and not be sin, it can still be sin in the offspring: the answer is, that concupiscence of the flesh is remitted in baptism not so that it is not, but so that it is not accounted as sin.' (PL 44.430).

And so Rex concludes, "If we take the trouble to verify this crucial citation, we find that it is the Catholic doctrine, not the Lutheran doctrine, that derives from Augustine. And since Augustine in effect invented the theological concept of original sin, I believe that we are perfectly justified in accepting his account of it rather than Luther's."

There then follows (in the discussion string) a long question of whether indeed Augustine's words, highlighted in bold above, defend the Catholic doctrine or the Lutheran one. Here are my comments:

Let's return to Augustine's original question about how children born of baptised parents are born in original sin, because it is an important one. From Augustine's answer, we can derive that:

1) Baptism renders the concupiscence "not sin". The concupiscence that remains after baptism is not sin--not in any sense at all, proper or improper. This is what Augustine means when he says "it is not accounted as sin". Not "It is sin, but God decides not to count it as sin", but "It is not sin, and therefore is not accounted as sin".

2) There are two types of sin (original and actual) not three (+ concupiscence). Correct me if I am wrong, but in Augustine's thought concupiscence is the bearer of original sin which gives rise to actual sin. As all are conceived of parents who are concupiscent (even parents who have been baptised and therefore are free of original sin), the one conceived is born concupiscent, and (until baptised) with the accompanying result of original sin.

3) Baptism alone renders concupiscence "not sin". Unlike original sin, purity from sin cannot be inherited by offspring through conception. Christ did not receive his purity from sin from his immaculate mother; on the contrary, she received her immaculate condition from him. Without baptism, concupiscence carries original sin and leads to actual sin.

Hence Augustine is speaking of real and not simply imputed righteousness after sin.

Does that make sense?

More clues from "Jesus of Nazareth" on the new Encyclical

I might keep posting these as I find them--and then see how accurately they reflect the Encyclical when Pope Benedict (or his Curia) finally get around to (translating and) releasing it.

Today's snippet is again from "Jesus of Nazareth":

For the rabbis, everyone is tied by the same relationships to a permanent social order; everyone is subject to the Torah and so everyone is equal within the larger body of all Israel. [Rabbi] Neusner thus concludes: "I now realise, only God can demand of me what Jesus is asking" (p.68).

We come to the same conclusion as in our earlier analysis of the commandment to keep the Sabbath. The Christological (theological) argument and the social argument are inextricably entwined. (p115)

Don't throw stones inside your own glass house: An Eastern Catholic criticizes Celibacy for Latin Catholic Priests

This piece by Joseph Wakim ("Enlightenment from the East") is really unhelpful. In an earlier post I acknowledged that the East and the West have different (but not unrelated) disciplines with regard to priestly celibacy. The Latin (Roman) Catholic Church acknowledges and in no way seeks to interfere in the Eastern Catholic rites' discipline in this area. However, she also has her own tradition, as venerable as the tradition of the East, and it is a little much for an Easterner to take his fellow Latin Catholics to task in the secular press over this matter.

Here are a few paragraphs from his article, with my comments in [bold]:

Maronite Catholics from Lebanon, one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, have had an unbroken communion with Rome, yet about half their priests are married. There is no evidence that their holiness or sanctity is compromised by their matrimonial and paternal role. [The Latin Church is not suggesting that marriage compromises personal sanctity, and it is dishonest of Mr Wakim to suggest we do. If marriage compromised sanctity in any way, the Church could hardly propose it as a legitimate and blessed Christian calling].

...Anecdotes abound about good examples of married priests. The real irony is not that they already thrive within the Catholic Church, but that the arguments against such ordination echo the arguments for celibacy a millennium ago. [Why should we be surprised that the arguments for celibacy are the same today as they were a 1000 years ago? Has our theology changed? Does Mr Wakim suggest it should have? How would he feel if the Pope were to suggest a few changes to the ancient Maronite discipline because they are not "up to date"?]

Today, we hear the voices of establishment [Who? The Holy See? The Catholic bishops? How would he feel about us calling his Maronite Church leaders "the establishment"?] endeavouring to trivialise the calls for a rethink [The Latin Church may consistently reject calls for a "rethink", but it is too much to suggest that she "trivialises" these calls] with condescending conclusions such as: They regard the priestly vocation more as a right than as a gift from God [never heard this brought up in a discussion regarding celibate priesthood--with regard to ordination of women, yes, but not celibacy]; they want the priesthood to be modelled on their own selfish image rather than that of the celibate Christ [again, I have never heard calls for an end to compulsory celibacy for Latin priests put down to "selfishness"]; they are petitioning bishops rather than petitioning Christ through prayer [ummm... relevancy???]. They are from the Flower Power generation, who were anti-tradition and ordained in the '60s and '70s [who are these "they" that Mr Wakim keeps saying the "establishment" keeps going on about?]. They want to solve a "temporary staffing problem in one part of the world" by overturning important traditions. [I don't think anyone sees this in terms simply of staffing. It is a matter of vocations.]

These "holier than thou" dismissals are fraught with contradictions. [Well, yes, but they are "straw men" made up by Mr Wakim. -- None of them are authentic reasons why the discipline of priestly celibacy is maintained in the Latin Church.]

...For the first millennium, married priests were commonplace. In 1074, Pope Gregory VII announced that anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy, as ordination marked the end of married life together – "priests (must) first escape from the clutches of their wives" [I found this quotation only on two places on the web: on a "Future Church" website and on an "atheists" website newsletter...]. This was enshrined during the First Lateran Council in 1123, when Pope Calistus II decreed that clerical marriages were invalid. [This is too much--it is as if to suggest that up until 1123, it was lawful for those in major orders in the Latin Church to marry. It was not. The first council in the West to order clerical celibacy was in 305AD. The marriages were declared invalid because they were contracted against the canons of the Church--just as if a priest today were to attempt a marriage without first being laicized].

...Church leaders could mount arguments that go to the core of the real crisis [They do. The Holy Father himself gave such core arguments in Sacramentum Caritatis p. 23-25. But I guess that Mr Wakim has not read the Exhortation.]. The decreasing number of priests cannot be separated from the decreasing number of parishioners, the pool from whom the priests are called. Celibacy per se may not be the core problem, as married men could become Catholic deacons and serve the church, if this was the stumbling block. [Que? I don't get it.]

...Celibate priests have traditionally been on call 24 hours a day. ...Therefore, this begs a different question – would the parishes benefit by a pool of "part-time" priests to complement the supermen? [In the Latin Church, there are no "part-time" priests. Priesthood is regarded as a "whole-of-life" vocation, like marriage. The situation of a Permanent Deacon is entirely different due to the different nature of the ministry.]

In short, I think that Joseph Wakim fails in three regards on this matter:

1) It is at least impolite and at most uncharitable for a Catholic of one rite to criticise the legitimate and venerable practices of Catholics of another rite.
2) It cannot be for the good of the Church that such discussions take place in secular media.
3) Mr Wakim misrepresents the Latin Church's reasons for maintaining celibacy -- in fact one is led to conclude that he may actually be ignorant of these reasons.

The Golden Compass Movie: Cause for Concern?

When Cathy and I last went to the movies (to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix -- sans kids) we saw several clips for other upcoming fantasy films. One of them was "The Golden Compass". It looked like a really classy, intriguing and exciting film. We instantly put it on our "must see when it comes out" list.

Last week, I read this news story on CathNews: My new film not anti-church, pleads Catholic Kidman. I didn't give it much thought then. Nor did I connect the title of the film to the trailer Cathy and I had seen in the cinema.

But then today I read this on The Cafeteria is Closed: Atheist's children book turned into movie, and then I finally put the two together.

Is there cause for concern? First the details:

Watch a five minute trailer here.
Read about the movie here (check out the parental guidance section on the left hand side)
I couldn't get the movie site to work, but you might have more luck.
Here is the Wikipedia site for the book on which it is based ("Northern Lights") and for the whole "His Dark Materials" trilogy.

Now, I haven't read the books. I think I might now, however. As far as I can tell, it is anti-Catholic, anti-Christian ideology in a very attractive three-volume package.

My concerns? Well, if it was the movie only, I wouldn't be too concerned. The movie will poison the term "Magisterium" (more's the pity)--but it is a term that doesn't usually enter into the basic Catechesis of most Catholics, and those who learn the term are usually beyond being poisoned by stuff like this at a popular level. I also note in the trailer that the Professor is condemned for an idea which is said to be "heresy"--so not all the ideology has been removed from the film. But it seems that our Nicole is right--there isn't much directly in the movie that could be said to be explicitly anti-Catholic. The implicit undertones however... well, there is a lot more to be concerned about here than with Harry Potter, which simply ignored the spiritual side of reality (at least until the last book).

But it isn't only a movie. It is based on the first volume of that trilogy--and that is a real concern. Because kids who enjoy the movie will want to read the books, and that is where the real damage can be done. It is one thing, perhaps, that outside the Canada and the United States the book is not know as "The Golden Compass" but "Northern Lights". But I expect it will not be long before editions of the book start appearing Down Under with the title "The Golden Compass" as a tie in to the movie.

Christians were happy to see the "Lord of the Rings" and "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" made into movies, precisely because it encouraged children to read these great fantasy novels--and thus to expose them to some of the greatest Christian themed fiction ever written. But the cinematic industry is a two edged sword, and "The Golden Compass" cuts the other way.

The New Encyclical of Benedict XVI

News is out that Papa Benny's next encyclical is on the way, and it is about (wait for it) social and economic justice. According to Timesonline:

It will focus on humanity’s social and economic problems in an era of globalisation... The encyclical, drafted during his recent holiday in the mountains of northern Italy, takes its cue from Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples), issued 40 years ago. In it the pontiff focused on “those peoples who are striving to escape from hunger, misery, endemic diseases and ignorance and are looking for a wider share in the benefits of civilisation”. He called on the West to promote an equitable world economic system based on social justice rather than profit.

When is he going to get around to writing that hard-hitting, reform-of-the-reform, Rottweiler dogmatic treatise we've all been waiting for? Has the Holy Father gone all leftie on us?

Of course there was a lot of surprise when the first encyclical came out. But anyone who had read anything written by Joseph Ratzinger (other than the edicts of the CDF) was not surprised that his first encyclical was on love. The same goes for this new encyclical (if the reports are correct). There are clues all over the place.

Last night I was reading through Benedict's "Jesus of Nazareth", and just came across this line in the Sermon on the Mount chapter:

Of course, this brings up the whole question of the relationship between faith and social order, between faith in politics. (p112)

Yesterday I was also reading the Holy Father's August 1 general audience on the topic of St Basil. After treating (briefly) Basil's theology of the Trinity, the Holy Father went on to treat at some length Basil's theology of Justice. In fact, he said

We see that St Basil is truly one of the fathers of the church's social doctrine.

basically the audience is one quote after another from St Basil regarding our duty of charity towards our fellow human beings. He concludes:

Dear brothers and sisters, I think one can say that this Father from long ago also speaks to us and tells us important things.
In the first place, attentive, critical and creative participation in today's culture.
Then, social responsibility: this is an age in which, in a globalized world, even people who are physically distant are really our neighbours; therefore, friendship with Christ, the God with the human face.
And, lastly, knowledge and recognition of God the Creator, the Father of us all: only if we are open to this God, the common Father, can we build a more just and fraternal world.

I would be very disappointed the next encyclical was simply a restatement of the social doctrine of the church are ready to be found in the Church's compendium of social doctrine. But I would be surprised if this was all it was.

I believe that we have some clues in this general audience on St Basil and the chapter on the Sermon on the Mount in Benedict's book on Jesus. The chapter of the Sermon on the Mount shows that the confession of the divinity of Christ is at the centre of Jesus moral teaching. The Pope's citations from St Basil show that social doctrine is firmly based on the Church's doctrine of the holy Trinity. Both methods would seem to suggest that as with the last encyclical we will receive something in two parts: the first part being a dogmatic reflection and the second part the practical conclusions that we must draw from this theology.

New Religious Movements: Do we include them in Interfaith relations?

My job sometimes involves diplomatic difficulties. Like what to do when the Universal Peace Federation of Victoria wants to nominate you for a Peace Ambassador Award. The UPF is better known as the Unification Church or even more colloquially as "the Moonies" (after their founder, the Korean Rev. Sun Myung Moon). Yes, they are the ones to whom Archbishop Malingo has so infamously attached himself.

Now, you might just as well say "Don't touch them with a barge pole--they're a sect". And I might well agree with you. The Second Vatican Council, in Nostra Aetate, said that one should enter into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions "with prudence and charity"--the emphasis in this case being "with prudence".

Perhaps one of the stickiest points is that an invitation to be involved in the UPF's otherwise praiseworthy agenda of world peace and harmony is an invitation to be involved in their religious agenda of world spiritual unification. I rather sympathise with world spiritual unification, but through communion with the One Triune God in the One Church of the One Saviour, Jesus Christ, not through the program of the Unification Movement. Archbishop Malingo's downfall was that he saw the goals of the Movement as worthy of his endorsement and discovered (too late) that one could not endorse their goals without endorsing the religious agenda behind it.

Catholics do not enter into collaboration with any other religious groups with the goal of getting them to participate in our religious agenda. We are definitely wary of any invitation that might try to involve us in the religious agenda of other groups. One difficulty in engaging with the Unification Movement in any activity designed to promote unity and harmony among religious believers is that such activities do form such a core part of the religious agenda of the Movement. We are invited to "transcend" our limited religious understandings and embrace a higher truth in love.

Aside from this, there remains the basic question of how the Catholic Church is to engage with the new religious movements like the Moonies, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Scientologists (yes, I have them visit from time to time too), etc. It seems to me antithetical to Nostra Aetate to simply dismiss them as "sects", containing nothing but falsehood. After all, Christianity was once viewed as a sect--as was Islam and Buddhism in their turn. It also seems rather elitist to say that we should only deal with the ancient world religions. Afterall, for some reason (which I can't quite fathom--unless it is ideological) the Bah'ai faith has been embraced in the "interfaith network", even though it is no more ancient than the Latter Day Saints.

Or do we reject these new movements as "religions" in their own right just because they are (usually and rather obviously) Christian heresies? In a parallel case, even quite open and moderate Muslims will draw the line at interacting with Bah'ais, which they regard as a Muslim heresy rather than a separate religion.

Or, in the end, do we avoid these guys because 1) there aren't enough of them (yet) to make it worth while compared to the other (bigger) guys? or 2) because taking them seriously might just be a little bit embarrasing?

"Decisive Premier acts for most Victorians" - The Age (just not those in the womb)

VICTORIANS who believe abortion should not be a crime — and polls suggest that is an overwhelming majority of the state's population — can be grateful they now have a Premier who sees himself as a decisive, cut-through leader. - The Age (21/8/07)

And the rest of us? This is what I meant about the dangers of "governing for the majority". The tyranny of democracy. Take note:

1) You are not a "Victorian" citizen till you are born. With this bill you will not even be regarded as a human being until you are born. You will have no rights until you are born. Since what is being proposed is the removal of abortion from the criminal code, it will no longer be a crime to kill or otherwise harm an unborn child in Victoria.

2) Like a sick paradox, this comes at precisely the time that the Premier is proposing to place a specific crime of child homicide on the law books of Victoria--because they want to "get serious" about child abuse. Yeah. Right. As soon as you are out of the womb, you are the most precious thing on earth to the Victorian Goverment. Before that, you are slime.

3) Victorians who oppose the decriminalisation of abortion (those who don't belong to the "most Victorians" category above) aren't going to get much of a say on this. Because Opposition Leader Ted Ballieu is of one mind with Premier Brumby on this matter. You're damned if you're Labor and damned if you're Liberal. (Especially if you are a "non-citizen" yet to be born).

4) What is being proposed is that the crime of abortion be removed from the Crimes Act and the whole matter of abortion shifted to the Health Act. Why? Because abortion is a health issue for women, stupid, not a crime against a human being. Read their lips. Currently there is protection for at least third trimester babies. But if it is no longer a crime to kill an unborn child, what happens to the rights and protection for unborn children who have been lucky enough to make it that far?

5) And what about those "polls" that show "the overwhelming majority of the state's population" believe abortion should not be a crime? What were the people asked? What were they told to inform them about the way the Act currently works? What were they told about the implications of decriminalisation? What percentage of those polled were potential victims of abortion? In a word, how moral is it to base legislation affecting human rights on polls?

There are some who are seeing the withdrawal of Candy Broad MP's bill as an answer to prayer. Not yet, folks. Now the real battle begins.

Tribute to Monsignor Geoff Baron - and welcome to Dean Johnson

Its a funny thing when you find out about local news on Yahoo. I was signing into my yahoo mail account today when I saw the news that a new dean has been appointed for St Patrick's Cathedral here in Melbourne, following the resignation of Monsignor Baron.

It is with great sadness that I wish to farewell Dean Baron. The circumstances of his resignation reflect unfairly upon the great service he gave to the Archdiocese and the Cathedral especially during his years as dean. I was often involved in visits of groups from other churches and other faiths to the Cathedral, and everyone commented on the obvious love and enthusiasm that Fr Geof had for the building as a house of God.

I personally am thankful to him for embracing the idea of a sung lunchtime mass on Fridays at 1pm. They were modest affairs--always unaccompanied--but I like to think that folk looked forward to them. The dean had a fine chanting voice, and it was always encouraging to hear the voices of the worshippers raised in the simple chant responses that made Friday lunchtimes special.

I don't know anything at all about the new dean Fr Gerard Johnson--other than that he has been parish priest of the combined parishes of Kyneton and Trentham. I am looking forward to working with him, and especially hope that Monsignor Baron's institution of sung masses at Friday lunchtimes will continue under his leadership.

Update:

I am told that Fr Johnson was the Vocations director for the Archdiocese prior to Fr Paul Stewart's term in that office (prior to current occupant Fr Anthony Denton). He is highly spoken of around the office.

A couple of ideas...

As a Lutheran pastor, one of my main responsibilities in the parish was catechisation--not just of the young, but of adults also. Mainly this took the form of bible studies, but it also included more in-depth courses on particular books of the bible or on various aspects of the faith.

Tonight I completed the fourth in the six part series for Anima Education "Ours is a Sacramental Faith". I only have five students at the moment--but we have a lot of fun, as much with the various "red herrings" that come our way as with the actual substance of the course itself.

Someone asked me tonight if I could recommend somewhere where they could go just to study the bible--under a Catholic teacher, of course. None of the academic courses offered by the various universities or theological colleges would really have hit the mark. This person was not asking for scriptural theology courses, but a faith based introduction to the Scriptures.

Which brings me to two ideas I have had for a while and which I would love to have the opportunity to put into reality:

First: A year long introduction to the Scriptures for adult Catholics, which would survey the whole of the bible from Genesis to Revelation introducing the major threads and themes that run throughout from the beginning to the end.

Second: A regular weekly meeting group that would read and discuss the Holy Father's weekly audience (or any other major work eminating from his pen).

My idea for both groups is that they would include prayer, and would develop and follow through ideas into the teachings of the Catechism.

If there is any parish or community or individuals out there who would like to put either idea into action here in Melbourne, just let me know.

The Mary of History and the Theotokos of Faith

Courtesy of the journal "Ecumenical Trends" an article by Dr Richard L. Jeske has just come into my hands. The article is a "review from a Lutheran perspective" of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) agreed statement "Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ". The document (not online--request a copy in the comments box if you like and if I have your email address I will send it to you) was actually produced for the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue of New York. Dr Jeske is the Director of Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations at the American Bible Society. So we are in the same business.

But Dr Jeske is (unlike your correspondent) a New Testament scholar, with a PhD from Heidelberg. This could be a reason why a) he is working for the Bible Society, and b) he is very keen on historical criticism and form criticism.

The latter is what concerns us here.

His chief concern with the ARCIC document is that it employs an eschatological, ecclesial, ecumenical hermeneutic of the scriptures in reference to Mary:

By now, at the beginning of the 21st century, we should be ready to acknowledge the value, precisely for ecumenical conversations, of historical-critical methodology and that we've been able to apply its best resources for the ecumenical task. There is no excuse for a document that wishes to begin with biblical material to ignore the results of critical biblical scholarship... While solidarity with the ancient church (with some reservations even there) may be claimed, can the clock really be turned back again to a pre-critical, a-historical employment of Scriptural texts?

Deary me. Thus his "point one" in

this "Lutheran perspective" on the ARCIC document is that of a renewed application of the question of continuity: does ecumenical discussion of the role of Mary in the life of the church, in order to achieve convergence between church traditions, ultimately commit us to the veneration of a mythological figure?

This, he says, is where we end up if we give primacy to the "realm of worship", doxology, and the "eschatological perspective".

Add to this the ambiguous warning (par. 7) that Reformation emphases (eg. calling for "a return to the Gospel message") can become "reductionist" and that historical-critical methods can become "overly historicist", and this Lutheran New Testament historican becomes somewhat edgy indeed.

Of course the whole matter boils down to a Marian version of the quest for the Historical Jesus. Jeske himself puts the question in exactly those terms:

To what degree is the continuity between the historical Mary and the Mary of faith maintained?

There are other aspects of this review that could be treated, but this one will do for now. Several points:

1) The Church traditionally recognises two legitimate ways of interpreting scripture: the literal and the spiritual. The former is the exegetical mode (which also may legitimately use various critical methods), the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses (for more detail, see the Catechism par. 115 and following)

2) Among critical methods, historical and form criticism are just a little dated, and very dated if used in isolation. Other significant methods include sociological and narrative criticism. I find especially the latter very useful in that it forms a bridge between the literal and the spiritual interpretations of scripture.

3) Employing hermeneutics that are ecclesial, doxalogical and eschatological may have fallen out of favour in the 20th Century, but are well represented in the history of the Church. Rediscovering these hermeneutics may well have an healing effect upon the oikumene.

4) I value immensely the work of folk like Tom Wright and Joseph Ratzinger who, without rejecting the great fruits of 20th Century critical methods, have nevertheless been able to demonstrate the continuity between the "Jesus of History" and the "Christ of Faith" (to use these rather inaccurate and perjorative labels). I am convinced that with Mary we are facing the same truth: The simple Nazarene girl who became the mother of the Galilean is indeed the one and the same Mother of God, the Body and Blood of whose Son I expect to receive in Holy Communion tomorrow morning.

Now that, I realize, is a staggering claim. But there it is. That's the Christian faith. The opinions of New Testament historical critics notwithstanding.

Louis Bouyer: The Catholic Principles of the Reformation

Some time ago, Paul T. McCain left a comment on my post "A Cardinal in the Car":

Dave, your comments about the JDDJ are proof positive that you never understood either Lutheranism's or Romanism's doctrine of justification.At no point has Rome ever taught that justification is anything other than by "grace alone." The issue is not "grace alone" but if it received by means of faith alone.I suspect you know that, but you must ignore that point in order to reconcile your decision to abandon ship on the Biblical doctrine of justification

As always, Paul does not mince words--but I wonder if he is right? I don't mean right about the bit about me never understanding "either Lutheranism's or Romanism's doctrine of justification"--personally I think I have a pretty good grip on both--but rather whether he is right when he says that the issue is "not "grace alone" but if it [grace? Christ? salvation?] is received by means of faith alone."

Now he is indeed right that that "faith alone" has become the point of contention between Catholics and Lutherans over the centuries--BUT I wonder if "faith alone" was in fact the primary "sola" of the Reformation. That is, I wonder if the Reformers really regarded "justification by faith alone" as "the article upon which the Church stands or falls". I understand that it was of the "doctrine of justification" as such (and not specifically that justification was "by faith alone") that Luther said "When this article stands, the church stands, when it falls, the church falls." (WA 40 III, 352, 3).

My thesis is that the Reformer's primary concern was "Grace Alone", and not "Faith Alone". Luther emphasised "faith alone" (not a scriptural formulation) because of his agreement with St Paul that justification cannot be earned or merited by works, but rather comes BY grace, IN Christ, THROUGH faith (the exact prepositions used in Romans 3:24-25). That is, Luther wanted to emphasise our justification is by Christ's merit and God's unmerited grace rather than by our works. That faith was the means through which one is justified, Luther takes directly from St Paul. Yet faith is not the opposite of works--for saving faith is no less a gift of God's grace than good works. To argue that faith saves APART FROM GRACE would simply be to make faith into a good work that merits salvation. Luther did not intend this.

Therefore the primary concern of the Reformation was not that salvation was by FAITH alone, but that salvation was by GRACE alone. Indeed it is possible to teach a doctrine of "Faith Alone" which denies "Grace Alone"--ie. when my faith is made my work by which I merit justification. To put it another way, the article upon which the Church stands or falls is NOT the doctrine of justification by "Faith Alone", but the doctrine of justification "by Grace, in Christ, through faith". This is the biblical doctrine of justification, and it is in total accord with the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

A few weeks ago, Fraser Pearce gave me a second hand copy of Louis Bouyer's "The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism". I haven't read it yet. But I have read the excellent summary of this work by Mark Brumley "Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work". You might want to take a look at this.

Brumley argues that the three "solas" (Gratia, Fide, Scriptura) are solidly Catholic doctrines, but that these solas lose their meaning when separated from the Catholic faith. At one point Brumley makes the following assertion, which by now you will see that I fully agree:

According to Bouyer, the main thrust of the doctrine of sola fide was to affirm that justification was wholly the work of God and to deny any positive human contribution apart from grace. Faith was understood as man's grace-enabled, grace-inspired, grace-completed response to God's saving initiative in Jesus Christ. What the Reformation initially sought to affirm, says Bouyer, was that such a response is purely God's gift to man, with man contributing nothing of his own to receive salvation...

Thus, Bouyer's point is that the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) was initially seen by the Reformers as a way of upholding justification by grace alone (sola gratia), which is also a fundamental Catholic truth. Only later, as a result of controversy, did the Reformers insist on identifying justification by faith alone with a negative principle that denied any form of cooperation, even grace-enabled cooperation.

The whole article is worth reading--especially if you think you might be wavering on the edge of jumping into the Tiber for a swim. If you read it and find yourself agreeing with Brumley, you might be surprised to find that you are nearer the far bank than you realise. If you find yourself violently disagreeing with him... --well, stick with Pastor McCain.

Guest Blog by Christine: On Godfrey Diekmann

Christine made the following comment in the comment box of "Once a Jew always a Jew", and I think it deserves a more prominent airing.

On Godfrey Diekmann, OSB.

Diekmann's name was somewhat familiar to me because of his ecumenical connections and as I recall he favored inclusive language in the Mass, women's ordination and a married clergy, along with that awful "Worship" publication that he was involved in. Pfui !!

Wasn't he also a member of ICEL?

He has gone on to his reward, whatever it might be. The Motu Proprio would probably have given him apoplexy. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

Here's a rather amusing gem about him:

An incident recounted in Sister Kathleen Hughes' biography of Godfrey Diekmann, A Monk's Tale, illustrates this dismissive attitude. In the late fifties St. John's Abbey in Collegeville built a new abbey church. Its design, in which Diekmann was involved, was decidedly “contemporary”.
Andrew Greeley visited the abbey, and Diekmann showed him the model, enthusiastically pointing out all its advanced features.

Greeley asked the perhaps not too innocent question: "But Godfrey, what if it is not the architectural wave of the future?" Godfrey stopped dead in his tracks, frowned as though this thought had never occurred to him, and then waved his hand: "Impossible!"

Novus Ordo Mass in Latin: St Brigid's 6pm, 26 August

Joseph writes:

The sixth of these monthly Solemn Masses, for the 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time, will be celebrated on Sunday 26 August at 6pm.

Please feel free to pass this on as widely as possible.

Regards
Joseph

You can keep up to date with these Masses and new mass times by visiting the Glorificamus website: http://glorificamus.blogspot.com/

Statistics and Majorities are not our Divinity

I loved the bit in Pope Benedict's recent talk-back to the priests of the dioceses of Belluno-Feltre and Treviso when he said "statistics are not our god".

Last night, I read this from Ratzinger's 1997 book Images of Hope (English Edition 2006) from the chapter "Primacy in Love: the Chair Altar of Saint Peter's in Rome":

The Church can remain one only from communion with the crucified Christ. No organizational efficiency can guarantee her unity. She can be and remain world Church only when her unity is more than that of an organization--when she lives from Christ. Only the eucharistic faith, only the assembly around the present Lord can she keep for the long term. And from here she receives her order. The Church is not ruled by majority decisions but rather through the faith that matures in the encounter with Christ in the liturgy.

...She does not need the majority principle, which always has something atrocious about it: the subordinated part must bend to the decision of the majority for the sake of peace even when this decision is perhaps misguided or even destructive. In human arrangements, there is perhaps no alternative. But in the Church the binding to faith protects all of us: each is bound to faith, and in this respect the sacramental order guarantees more freedom than could be given by those who would subject the Church to the majority principle. (My emphases)

When I reflect on the narrow majority vote in the ELCA to condone actively homosexual pastors, and recall the endless knife-edge votes of the Lutheran Church of Australia over whether or not to ordain women pastors, it is with relief that I throw myself once again on that universal eucharistic communion of love and faith which is the Catholic Church, guided by the Chair of Peter.

Funny Cats

Do I need an excuse for this blog entry? I have two:

1) Like the Holy Father, I am a cat lover.

2) Just as it is a fun pastime to put captions to funny pictures of the Holy Father (a sport that is much enjoyed by the Catholic blogging community) so it is fun to put funny captions to funny pictures of cats.

The upshot of which is that there is something very cat-like about the Holy Father.

Here's the Link to LOLCat.com . A warning: the very last one on page five is not suitable to show your children. Some of the others might require passing over quickly...

Too much Theology and not enough Catechisation?

At first glance, Bishop Manning's outburst against "too much theology" seems worrying. Isn't it precisely in the area of theology that so much is going haywire in the Church today?

But reading carefully, I see that what he is saying is not much different from what I was saying below about "expert litugists".

One of the things that struck me when I entered the Catholic Church is that these terms "theologian" and "liturgist" are used with a strong "professional" and "academic" edge.

When Bishop Manning says ""Many people have educated themselves in theology and so on. I often wonder what it is for?", he isn't criticising people for doing a bit of adult education, or for seeking out opportunities for catechesis and deepening their faith. There needs to be much more of this type of "grass roots" learning about the Church's faith.

Bishop Manning appears to be talking about people doing degrees in theology--without having a clear ministry objective or service area in which they intend to use this knowledge. And I must say I share his question: "What is it for?"

All the baptised are "theologians" by their birthright. That means that they have a right to learn about the Faith of the Church and to deepen their knowledge of God's Word. It means they have a responsibility to use their knowledge for the building up of the Church.

The Church needs Catechists and Evangelisers, and these people need to be "Deep in the Faith". In other words, we need practical and pastoral theologians.

But I agree with the bishop. The Church needs more professional "theologians" almost a little as it needs more professional "liturgists".

"Yesterday's Blogger Get-together"???

Marco says it was a "Blogger Get Together", but of course, it was just me and him. Are there any other Catholics blogging in Melbourne who would like to be on the next invite list?

Its all there at last: English Translation of Benedict XVI's meeting with the clergy of Belluno-Feltre and Treviso

You will recall that the Pope had another talk-back session with his priests while on holiday in July. Up till now, it has only been available in French and Italian (except for the section translated by Sandro Magister), but here it all is in English.

He covers the following topics:

Conscience
Priorities in the priesthood
Internal evangelisation
Divorce and remarriage (again!)
The mission ad gentes
Despair among the young
New Evangelisation
and most importantly: What happened after Vatican II!

ELCA Lutherans to allow pastors in gay relationships

From Reuters:

Homosexual Lutheran clergy who are in sexual relationships will be able to serve as pastors, the largest U.S. Lutheran body said on Saturday.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) passed a resolution at its annual assembly urging bishops to refrain from disciplining pastors who are in "faithful committed same-gender relationships."

The resolution passed by a vote of 538-431.

"The Church ... has just said 'Do not do punishments'," said Phil Soucy, spokesman for Lutherans Concerned, a gay-lesbian rights group within the church. "That is huge."

The ELCA, which has 4.8 million members, had previously allowed gays to serve as pastors so long as they abstained from sexual relations.

The conference also instructed a committee that is developing a social statement on sexuality to further investigate the issue. The committee is scheduled to release its report in 2009.

Since the ELCA was founded in 1988, the group has ordered three pastors in gay relationships to be removed from their ministries. The most recent case was decided in July when the ELCA's committee on appeals voted to remove an openly gay pastor from St. John's Lutheran Church in Atlanta.

The gay clergy issue has become a flashpoint in other faiths, including the Anglican Church.

That's a 55% majority. Quite large--but not overwhelming. One wonders what this means for the ELCA? For Lutheranism in America? I presume there will be a fair number of folk (45%?) who strongly disagree with this new "law" in the ELCA.

Are evangelical catholic Lutherans in the ELCA now asking "What does this mean for us?" Will they go LCMS? Will they leave the Lutheran Church entirely for some other body (Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical?).

On majorities, I was inspired to thought by a petition in yesterday's Prayer of the Faithful in my local parish:

"Let us pray for our elected representatives in the goverment, that they remember they are elected to serve everyone, and not just minorities".

I immediately thought that the better prayer would have been "...to serve everyone, and not just majorities".

A "verse I never saw": "It is hard for you to kick against the prick"

Marcus Grodi, of the Coming Home Network and EWTN's "Journey Home" program, has a list called "The Verses I never saw", meaning the biblical verses he never noticed prior to his journey into the Catholic Church. Today I found my own "Verse I never saw".

I occasionally visit Mild Colonial Boy's blog, as I did today, and was surprised to find that it has been renamed "Kicking against the pricks". That's a bit rude, I thought, and then saw in his header this quotation from Acts 26:14 (KJV): "I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

What, I thought? That's not how I remember it. But sure enough, that is what it says. There is an explanation of the phrase here.

I still think it sounds a bit rude. Perhaps that is what the Mild Colonial Boy intended.

No, you're not too late, come on in...

I think you will find a seat over there around the side.

Elizabeth Harrington on the Liturgy: "Leave it to us Experts"

Jokes about liturgists (more correctly, "Liturgiologists") in the Church are like jokes about lawyers in the rest of society. The best known is "The Liturgist and the Terrorist" joke ("You can negotiate with a terrorist"), but here are few others:

What is the definition of a liturgist? It's someone who doesn't care how many Persons of the Trinity there are, as long as they're all standing in the right place.

“What is the difference between a liturgist and a prison?”; Answer: “There is always the possibility of escaping prison!”.

Mind you, they bring it upon themselves. Here is Elizabeth Harrington telling off us "amateurs" for the way we read official liturgical documents from the Holy See. Granted, we should never "use these documents to attack others" or "as weapons to browbeat sincere pastors and parishes into their own way of thinking and acting", but to suggest that one needs to have "years of study and experience in the field" to be able to read the simple English (or Latin) in order to be able understand Vatican documents is ridiculous. A degree in Vaticanese may be necessary, but not a degree in Liturgical studies!

The fact is that all Christians are "liturgists", just as we are all "theologians"--it is a part of our baptismal birthright because we all participate in the liturgy, and we all reflect upon God's Word. Secondly, there are many, like myself, who have made a concerted effort to become educated in the liturgy without any specific academic qualifications in the liturgy. It is possible to do this today because we all have access to the same books and online information that the professional "liturgists" do. Perhaps the only thing we lack is access to the ideology that is inclucated in many of the official academic courses in liturgy. And that is no great loss.

Anyway, here is Elizabeth's latest telling off "from an expert". My comments in [bold]:

Interpreting liturgical documents
with Elizabeth Harrington

SOMETIMES it seems that everyone is an expert on liturgy and that personal preference carries more weight than the considered judgement of someone with years of study and experience in the field. [Okay, you know where this is going: My considered judgement is worth more than yours because I'm an expert]

The self-proclaimed liturgy “experts” will often quote liturgical law to prove their point. [So, this is a turf war between "self-proclaimed" liturgy experts and...what sort of expert?]

For example, when the new version of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) appeared in the year 2000, many parish priests received calls from people complaining that the laws were not being observed in their parish liturgies.

They insisted, for example, that parishes immediately alter existing practices concerning the timing of the special ministers coming forward to the altar. [She is probably refering to GIRM 2000 (US), p. 162, which reads: "These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion".]

These “liturgical police” were citing an unofficial translation of the GIRM that had appeared on websites in the USA. [She is quite correct]

I imagine these same people would be upset if someone demanded they obey new road rules that had been issued in America! [The analogy doesn't quite hold, as the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani 2000 has been promulgated in by the Holy See and applies, as far as I know, universally, even if the translation has to be adopted by the local episcopal conferences--I might be mistaken, I am not an "expert"!]

An official translation of the GIRM was prepared by ICEL in 2002 and this version, with adaptations for Australian traditions and circumstances under the provisions of Chapter IX of the Instruction, was sent to Rome by the bishops for approval in June, 2006. On May 24, 2007, Cardinal Arinze, who is prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, advised Australian Catholic Bishops Conference president Archbishop Philip Wilson that this text has been approved. [Quite correct--but then this isn't privileged information, anyone who keeps up with the news knows this, not just the "experts".]

Some people heard news of this approval and are demanding that it be implemented immediately.

The instruction does not come into force until later in the year [be patient guys--and we are still waiting on the Australian vernacular edition of the Third Typical Edition anyway, to which it applies]and in the meantime formation material will be issued by the National Liturgy Office to assist in its implementation.

It seems that some lobby groups see official Church documents – especially those dealing with liturgy – as weapons to browbeat sincere pastors and parishes into their own way of thinking and acting. [This would be an incorrect and uncharitable use of the documents. But even before the documents become L-A-W Law in our local Churches, we can still see them as general indications of how the Holy See desires us to celebrate the liturgy. Since the Latin original of GIRM 2000 (IGMR) also includes the sentence "Hi ministri ad altare ne accedant antequam sacerdos Communionem sumpserit", there is no reason to regard this as a specifically American directive that applies only in the US.]

This is not what they are intended for. [Agreed. They are meant to be received with faithful and willing submission.]

The correct approach to understanding and interpreting such documents involves:

Reading them with an open mind to discover what they are really saying and not relying on media reports or hearsay. [Absolutely. Good advice. We have seen with the Motu Proprio what a hash the Media makes of these things. However, those who are quoting the line about special ministers are obviously not relying on news reports, but have read the actual documents.]

Looking at the overall thrust rather than zeroing in on selective bits that support one’s particular “hobby horse”. [Hmm. I'm not sure the GIRM/IGMR is meant to be read read in terms of "general thrusts" rather than specific directives. Reminds one a bit of that scene in "The Castle": "It's Mabo, it's the Constitution, it's the vibe".]

Putting them in the context of other liturgical and Church instructions rather than treating them in isolation. For example, liturgy documents must always be viewed through the lens of those liturgical principals so strongly espoused in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II. [Ummm... Through the lense of "The Spirit of Vatican II"? Would that be the hermeneutic of continuity or of rupture, Elizabeth? Is she suggesting that the Congregation for Divine Worship would issue statements that were not in accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium?]

Waiting for directives from the diocesan bishop or liturgy office before acting, or expecting others to act, upon new directives. [Yes, we should always follow due ecclesiastical authority. Although it never hurts to draw to the attention of our bishops and liturgy offices the documents issued with the due authority of the Holy See...] Interpreting and implementing documents require the expertise of those with authority and training in theology, liturgy and canon law. [What? even a directive as plain and as simple as "These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion"? What advantage does an "expert" in theology, liturgy or canon law have over us amateurs when it comes to interpreting the meaning of that?]

Considering who the document is written for and directed at. Confusion and hurt sometimes arise when documents intended for the guidance of diocesan bishops, not for the general public, are widely circulated. [Yeah, yeah, and I have even heard people say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church was prepared only for the use of bishops and not for lay people too. One of the great advantages of the current information age is that we lay people have been enfranchised by having access to documents "intended for the guidance of diocesan bishops". We know what Rome is telling them even if they aren't acting on it. Remember: We are the Church! Not the "experts".]

Using common sense when it comes to expecting instant compliance.

Keeping fully informed about the issues by reading Catholic papers and liturgy journals. [Couldn't agree more.]

The way that some people use these documents to attack others causes me great concern. “Love one another as I have loved you”... if we’re not prepared to act by this commandment, what good will all the liturgical laws in the world do us? [Absolutely. Charity above all else. Charity also on the part of diocesan bishops, parish priests and liturgy offices, who should acknowledge in justice "the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline" (<Redemptionis Sacramentum p. 11)]

.My one question is: When the new Instruction does come into force in Australian parishes, will Elizabeth Harrington write a column encouraging compliance with it in all respects, or will some--"whose personal preference carries more weight than the considered judgement" of the Holy See--still be encouraged to follow their own preferences? Will we, in short, see a time when special ministers of Holy Communion only approach the altar AFTER the priest has completed his communion?

___________________

Addendum: To see exactly how Elizabeth Harrington treats liturgical documents not to her liking, take a look at her piece on the Motu Proprio and the comments by Hardman Window at Coo-ees in the Cloister.

Piepkorn on "Why still be a Lutheran?"

Pastor Weedon has blogged on a piece of writing from proto "evangelical catholic" Lutheran theologian Rev. Dr. Arthur Piepkorn. The piece, called "Why still be a Lutheran?" was written in 1965, and, as Pastor Weedon acknowledges, a lot of water has flown under the Lutheran bridge since then. I could add that the river under the Catholic bridge hasn't been frozen solid since then either...

Personally, I think the question that any self-respecting Lutheran should ask themselves every day is "Why am I not a Roman Catholic?" That at least is a question which hones Piepkorn's question to a fine point. Just ask Peter Holmes!

Nevertheless, the points Piepkorn makes are interesting to consider (My comments in [bold]):

Lutherans should seek to witness to Rome:

* That nothing should be allowed in teaching or practice that obscures Christ's saving work. [Granted. Mind you, even from our Catholic point of view, if our teachings or practices obscure Christ, it is not a problem with our teaching or practices in themselves, but that we are not teaching or practicing them properly!]
* The primary authority of Scripture in determining dogma and doctrine. [No problem with this either. Catholics have always regarded Scripture the primary authority in determining dogma and doctrine--just not the ONLY authority]
* A clear distinction between what is of human institution and what divine in matters of church government. [This can be granted too--however Piepkorn probably assumes a little naively that the distinction can always be clearly made, since the Church as the body of Christ led by the Spirit of God is simul humanus et divinus]

Lutherans would seek to witness to other Protestants:

* The role of the Church as interpreter of the Scriptures. [This is not so much a specifically Lutheran trait, as a Catholic emphasis that Lutheranism has, in some quarters, retained]
* The importance of the church's historic dogmas and the necessity of holding a true confessional position [Ditto for the above].
* the true meaning of the sacraments and their central place in the Church's life as acts of God. [Ditto for the above]

So one is led to conclude, that there is little here that distinguishes the unique witness of Lutheranism from the unique witness of Catholicism.

So, Lutherans: "Why still be a Lutheran? Why are you not a Catholic?"