"Rome, Constantinople and Canterbury, Mother Churches?"

Here are some really interesting podcasts from a conference held at St. Vladimir's Seminary entitled, "Rome, Constantinople and Canterbury. Mother Churches?" As you can see, the program is packed with good speakers. I have only listened to Hilarion Alfeyev's presentation so far, but it goes to the heart of the matter. For more on the subject, I also recommend a paper which I have just put up (with permission) on our Commission website by Adam DeVille called "Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Primacy: A Plea for a New Common Approach".

Thursday June 5, 2008
Metropolitan Philip-Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council
Bishop Keith Ackerman-Authority:Magisterial, Confessional or Conciliar?
Rev. J. Robert Wright (paper read by Fr. Paul Clayton)-Primacy in the Anglican Tradition
Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon-Holy Scripture and the Evangelization of America
Friday June 6, 2008
Fr. John H. Erickson-Primacy and Primacies in the Orthodox Church
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus-Reconciliation Between East and West
Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev)-Primacy and Catholicity in the Orthodox Tradition
Fr. Warren Tanghe-Primacy, Authority and Communion
Panel Discussion - Where Are We So Far?
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Fellowship announcement by Fr. Stephen Platt and a greeting and remarks from Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury (delivered by Canon Jonathan Goodall from the office of the Archbishop
Metropolitan Kallistos-Primacy and the Pope
Igumen Jonah Paffhausen-Primacy and Eccesiology

ICEL's Fr Harbert replies to Bishop Galeone

Both Rocco Palmo and Fr Zuhlsdorf have reported on the "notes" that the chairman of ICEL, Fr Harbert, has sent to Bishop Galeone (the US bishop who raised concerns about the new translations of the propers at the Orlando USCCB meeting) and to a few other interested parties.

It is not an "official" ICEL response, but it does show the thinking behind the translations. In fact, it shows that a LOT of thinking has gone into the translations. Interestingly, Fr Harbert did not think it necessary to reply to Bishop Trautman - the noisiest and least thoughtful critic of the new translations. One imagines it was the "Trautman critique" to which Fr Harbert was referring in his compliment to Bishop Galeone at the beginning of the response:

Bishop Galeone has broken new ground in the public discussion of liturgical language, raising the debate to a higher intellectual level. Whereas critics of ICEL’s recent drafts have mostly commented on individual vocabulary items, his contribution points to structural and semantic issues that are systemic throughout the Missale. His remarks merit a careful response.

One will note that SCM's own critical observations on the prayers has been on "structural and semantic" issues. One can always learn new vocabulary.

However, something that is obvious from reading Fr Harbert's notes is the striking attention to detail in the new translations. If you raise a question about someting in the new translations, you can be certain that it has already been subjected to the carefully considered attention of the ICEL folk. Note too, as Fr Z. does, that the translators even gave attention to the original context in which a given latin prayer appeared historically in the liturgy.

The lesson: New ICEL is not like old ICEL! The New Tranlsations will not be like the Old Translations!

Barney asks: Perhaps you could define "the fundamental nature and mission of the Church as the Catholic Church understands it".

Barney Zwartz of The Age poses this question in the combox on his blog in response to my comment (see the combox of the post below).

In his own article he stated that "the institutional church needs a serious bout of self-examination as it heads into its third millennium" and that "the church can become far more democratic and open without compromising its core message of hope and salvation."

The Church he is speaking of is the Catholic Church, although what entitles Barney to publically hold forth on what this Church should or shouldn't do is beyond me, as he isn't a member of it (except in the "real but imperfect" sense that all believers in Christ are, Barney being one of these).

His article essentially declares his agreement with the published opinions of the "three stooges" of Australian Catholic dissent--Geoffrey Robinson, Paul Collins and Max Charlesworth. All of these argue that the Church should get with the times, that she should dump unpopular disciplines and doctrines, that she should "restructure" along the lines of democratic societies, and that "the recommended changes concern not doctrine but how the church operates".

NO, NO, NO, NO, I argue in response. The way in which the Church is structured, is a direct reflection of the fundamental nature and mission of the Church. The Church's manifestation as an institution in the world is not a matter of barnacles on the ship's hull, so much as leaves on the branches of the tree. The Church is not shaped like a statue being chipped away from the outside, but like a tree growing from the inside. Yes, the "enviroment" if you wish to call it that (the age, the culture, the mores of the times) has an effect on the way in which the Church grows, but may never be the IMPULSE for the growth. A tree branch may grow around an obstacle, but the growth comes from within the tree, not from the obstacle.

Which leads to Barney's question: What does the Catholic Church understand her fundamental nature and mission to be?

The question is immense. The answer even more so. What simple response can be given?

I will limit myself to only those responses that I doubt either Barney, or the Three Stooges, could agree on--the points where I think they part company from the Church's understanding of herself, since Barney has said that "Because, as I understand it, I think I do accept it."

Yes, there are many aspects of the Church's self-understanding of her nature and mission which which I am sure Barney (and Robinson et al.) are in agreement. This would include (for instance) the the Church as "the people of God", and the Church's mission to proclaim the "kingdom of God", to bring God's love to all people, to be witnesses to Jesus Christ etc.

But does it include these essential facts of the Church's self-understanding:

1) The Church has its pre-existent, pre-Pentecost source in the Divine and Holy Trinity, and was established on earth by Jesus Christ in the outpouring of his Spirit at Pentecost.
2) That Christ established gifts and offices in the Church, among which was apostolic teaching office, the ministerial priesthood and the Petrine Ministry (the primacy of the successor of Peter).
3) That the Church is a single, universal, visibile society upon the earth, fully present in every local church, but in such a way that the universal Church is prior to each particular Church.
4) That the Church draws her very life, existence and mission from the Eucharistic sacrifice offered by the ministerial priesthood together with the baptismal priesthood.
5) That the Spirit leads the Church into all Truth, and that the Bishop of Rome and the bishops and Councils of the Church in union with him teach with the charism of infallibility
6) That the governing authority in the Church has been committed by Christ to the successors of the Apostles, the bishops, and to them alone.

Well. Is that enough to be going on with? What about her mission? This is something that you won't hear from the dissenting Stooges:

1) That Christ gave the Church the commission to proclaim the Gospel of redemption in his name to all nations
2) That there is salvation in no other name than the name of Jesus and that the only way to the Father is through him
3) That God has revealed objective and real knowledge about himself--real Truth--in the person of Jesus Christ and that the Church is committed to proclaim and teach this Truth and nothing else
4) That there is no salvation apart from the Church
5) That the whole Church--clergy and lay--are called to a new effort of evangelisation beginning with her own people
6) That the primary motive for this evangelisation is the love of Christ for the eternal salvation of all.

Once again, I could go on. But that should be clear enough why the Church is not much interested in democracy. Believe it or not, she is not much interested in "sex and power" either. While her members may at times be diverted from their core nature and mission, she herself remains focused. You mightn't like it, but the "core mission" of the Church is to conform the world to Jesus Christ--not to conform the "Body of Christ" to the world.

Thanks for that advice, Barney...

...but we generally believe that, as prerequisite, those we consult must have some sort of experience, expertise, wisdom, authority or knowledge in the area on which they are advising. In relation to the nature, structure, dogma and mission of the Catholic Church, Barney ol' boy, you have none of these. Mind you, I'm always prepared to listen to someone who has something original or helpful to say. But your advice (published in today's edition of The Age under the title"Catholicism should lower the drawbridge") was lacking even in this.

I mean, was it you or your editor who chose to put in the subheading "Some changes to church doctrines would make it more appealing"? Come on, Barney. You have been reporting on the changes to doctrine in the Anglican Church long enough. You know the stats. Do you have any proof that the more "go with the flow" approach of the Anglican or Uniting Church has proved "more appealing" to Australians than the doctrinal approach of the Catholic Church?

"Now it is time to try a touch of democracy." What? Do you think that is how it works in the Church? We try this, and if it doesn't work, we try that? That's a little bit like me thinking "I will put LPG gas in my car today, because it's cheaper." Doesn't matter if my car doesn't run on LPG or doesn't even have an LPG gas tank. It looks just the same as LPG run cars, so why not give it a go and see if it will work? The Church might look like any other human organisation, but it is completely different mechanically and it runs on different fuel.

You chose as your target World Youth Day. Heck, that's to be expected. You can virtually smell the rising tide of sectarian anti-Catholicism in the Australian media as WYD approaches. But its about YOUTH, man! So how on earth do you justify rolling out (as on wheelchairs) the opinions of the the "three stooges" of geriatric Australian Catholic Dissent: Max Charlesworth, Paul Collins, Geoffrey Robinson? It's World YOUTH Day, man! Not World OLD DISSENTERS BEYOND THEIR USE BY DATE Day!

Barney, you say that

In fact, of course, the church can and does change — both culturally and theologically — around the edges while maintaining its central message."

You don't quite get it. Yes, the Church changes, but when it does so it is NOT "responding to its environment". It is responding to its essential mission and purpose which it has from Christ himself. In different contexts, the gospel must be preached in different ways in order to remain the same gospel. The impulse for change comes from within, not from without. It is the difference between a block of stone being shaped by a chisel chipping in from the outside, and a tree being shaped by growing and changing from the inside. If you can't get this, you won't get the Church.

Deary me, Barney. You are the head religion reporter for one of Australia's leading daily newspapers. Take a look at yourself, man, and ask yourself if this un-original sap you dished up for our breakfast today is the best you can come up with.

Important information for International Pilgrims to Melbourne

On Coffee.



Melbourne is the Coffee centre of the world. Yes, it is true. We make the best coffee anywhere. Or at least we did until Starbuck's invaded. (And, for those who have had the benefit, I make a fairly decent cuppa here in the Ecumenical and Interfaith office with my Krups machine - ask those who have had the experience - with nice little halal bikkies to go with it).

Marco Vervoost has found an interesting note on Wikipedia about Australian Coffee:

Flat white
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A flat white is a coffee beverage served in Australia and New Zealand, prepared with espresso and milk. The drink is generally made with an ⅓ espresso and ⅔ steamed milk. The volumised milk is prepared by folding the top layer into the lower layers [1].

A flat white is the same as a properly made North American Cafe Latte, but differs from a Starbucks style latte in the preparation of the milk. Australian lattes and flat whites are usually served in 215-240ml cups, making them stronger than some lattes in other countries.

While this is right about the strength of the coffee (isn't that the main point after taste?), it is wrong in its description of a "flat white". What this article describes is, in fact, also called a "latte" here in Oz. A "flat white" is espresso coffee with steam volumised milk added, but in proportions closer to 2/3 coffee and 1/3 milk. It is a glorified example of what most people would simply call "a white coffee", ie. coffee with milk. NOT milk with coffee (that's a "latte").

And for you Yankees and Canadians: forget about asking for a "coffee with cream" here in Melbourne. It won't work. You will just get a funny look. Ask for a "flat white" and you will get something close to what you are looking for. Only better.

PS. And if you like even less milk in your coffee, go for a "macchiato"

"I have a mustard seed, and I'm not afraid to use it": Spengler on the "threat" Christianity poses to Islam

I'm still here, and still battling my bad neck, so that's why there isn't much blogging going on.

Today I read this interesting opinion piece by Spengler: "The Pope, the President and the Politics of Faith".

I just love his line on Pope Benedict's "threat" to the world: "I have a mustard seed, and I'm not afraid to use it." You can just imagine the Holy Father striding into town and saying "Go ahead, make my day."

But I was somewhat surprised at one of his opening remarks:

Muslims suspect that the pope wants to convert them, a threat they never have had to confront in Islam's 1,500-year history.

What does he mean by that? Surely we, as Christians, have been "threatening" to convert Muslims for centuries?

But Spengler, as always, thinks a little differently from received opinion. His point is that

For the first time, perhaps, since the time of Mohammed, large parts of the Islamic world are vulnerable to Christian efforts to convert them, for tens of millions of Muslims now dwell as minorities in predominantly Christian countries. The Muslim migration to Europe is a double-edged sword. Eventually this migration may lead to a Muslim Europe, but it also puts large numbers of Muslims within reach of Christian missionaries for the first time in history.

He concludes his essay with:

Islam is in danger for the first time since its founding. The evangelical Christianity to which George W Bush adheres and the emerging Asian church are competitors with whom it never had to reckon in the past. The European Church may be weak, but no weaker, perhaps, than in the 8th century after the depopulation of Europe and the fall of Rome. An evangelizing European Church might yet repopulate Europe with new Christians as it did more than a millennium ago.

Yes, it just might. Even yet.

One US bishop who "speaks the English"...

HT to Rocco Palmo for this one from the chair of the USCCB's Committee for Divine Worship, Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson:

Words, like people’s dress, change from one generation to the next and from one group to another in the same society. What one individual calls a “swamp,” another more ecologically conscious individual calls “wetlands.” A politician waxes eloquently about “public participation.” His audience understands him to say “self-denial.” The corporate world routinely uses the noun impact as a transitive verb. People follow happily along.

Today, politically correct as well as linguistically conscious individuals carefully circumvent the word “man” not to offend women. Past generations pronounced the word with never the slightest intention of excluding women. But times have changed. We speak now about humankind. Certainly, we have gained inclusivity. Yet, we have sacrificed language that is not so abstract.

English always has been an open language, ready to welcome neologisms. The Internet has enriched our speech with new phrases and words. Text messaging is altering our spelling and our syntax. Language is a human expression. As people change, so does the way they speak.

In his popular rhetorical guide, De duplici copia verborum ac rerum, Erasmus, the 16th century Dutch humanist and theologian, showed students 150 different styles they could use when phrasing the Latin sentence, Tuae literae me magnopere delectarunt (Your letter has delighted me very much). Clearly, no single translation of any sentence or work will ever completely satisfy everyone. Even the best of all possible translations of the new Missal will have its critics.

But there is something more at stake than pleasing individual tastes and preferences in the new liturgical translations. The new translations aim at a “language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves … dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision” (Liturgiam Authenticam, 25). The new translations now being prepared are a marked improvement over the translations with which we have become familiar. They are densely theological. They respect the rich vocabulary of the Roman Rite. They carefully avoid the overuse of certain phrases and words.

The new translations also have a great respect for the style of the Roman Rite. Certainly, some sentences could be more easily translated to mimic our common speech. But they are not. And with reason. Latin orations, especially Post-Communions, tend to conclude strongly with a teleological or eschatological point. The new translations in English follow the sequence of these Latin prayers in order to end on a strong note. Many of our current translations of these prayers end weakly. Why should we strip the English translation of the distinctive theological emphases of the Latin text? A slightly non-colloquial word order can lead the listener to a greater attention to the point of the prayer.

Our present liturgical texts are framed in simple syntax. The new translations use more subordinate clauses. This, in and of itself, does not render them unproclaimable. By the very fact that, in some instances, the new translations require thoughtful and careful attention to pauses when speaking helps to foster and create a less rushed and more reverent way of praying. Not a small gain for a proper ars celebrandi.

The new translation at times may use uncommon words like “ineffable.” The word is not unspeakable! For sure, this word does not come from the street language of the contemporary individual. But, then, why cannot the liturgy use words that elevate the language from the street to the altar? People may not use certain words in their active vocabulary. This does not mean they will be baffled by their use in the liturgy. “If indeed, in the liturgical texts, words or expressions are sometimes employed which differ somewhat from usual and everyday speech, it is often enough by virtue of this very fact that the texts become truly memorable and capable of expressing heavenly realities” (Liturgiam Authenticam, 27).

Liturgical language should border on the poetic. Prose bumps along the ground. Poetry soars to the heavens. And our Liturgy is already a sharing of the Liturgy in heaven.

The liturgical texts that we are now using are not perfect, but they are familiar. This familiarity makes celebrants at ease with the present texts. The new texts are better. When the new texts are implemented, they will require more attention on the part of the celebrant. But any initial uneasiness will yield to familiarity and to a language that is well suited to the Liturgy.

More on Paul on Salvation, Faith, Justification etc.

Dan Woodring is continuing to work out a few issues surrounding Justification on his Beatus Vir blog. Despite his account of his conversion to be found on those pages, he might still find that (like me, and, I suspect, Neuhaus) that a lot of "Lutheran" still sticks in the basic way of thinking about Catholic issues.

I am continuing in my regular reading preparing for the course I am teaching (Reading Paul - you can still come along any time if you live in Melbourne but we are having our last lecture before the World Youth Day madness begins this Monday and won't meet again until the first Monday in August).

We are working through Galatians, and this week will read that famous passage, Galatians 2:16, translated by RSV (and NRSV and NIV and the NASB and the NKJV) as:

"...that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law..."

On the other hand, the KJV has this more accurate translation of the Greek:

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law..."

The "new perspective" makes much of the correct translation of the greek genitive without any prepositions, and claims that a proper translation would be

"...not justified by the works of the Law, but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ..."

The two genitives ("ex ergon nomou" / "dia pisteos Iesou Christou") are parallel, and suggest that in the new covenant a person is not accounted righteous according to his keeping of the Torah but according to the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ", ie. according to Christ's faithful obedience to the will of the Father.

To me this makes a lot of sense. It does not reject the important place that our own "faith IN Christ" has in our justification, but it does point out that the basis of our justification is not OUR faith (something we do) but Christ's faithfulness (something he has done for us).

A few verses later (Gal 2:20) comes Paul's famous saying

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

Here he does use prepositions (chiefly "en" which can be translated either "in" or "by") but even here the traditional translations are a bit sloppy. The repeated "en" occurs at "en emoi" ("in me"), "en sarki" ("in the flesh"), and "en pistei" ("in faith"), but most clearly is NOT there in the phrase "te tou hiou tou theou" ("that [ie. that faith] which is of the Son of God"). Again we have the genitive "faith/faithfulness of the Son of God". So a better translation of this passage would be:

"It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. Which [life] I now live in the flesh, I live in faith[fulness], the [faithfulness] of God's Son, who has loved and given himself for me."

Now here Paul has moved away somewhat from the forensic/legal category of "justification" to a more mystical participatory image of his life "in faith". It describes--not so much his "life in Christ" as "Christ's life in him". But remarkably he does not say here that this life is "by faith in the Son of God" (the traditional translation), but rather "in the faithfulness of the Son of God", and the faithfulness of God's Son consists precisely in this: That God's Son has loved me and given himself for me. See? Again it is NOT the faith that I have in him, but what HE has done for me.

And then we come to the great "simul justus et peccator" idea that has so much importance in Lutheran thought. In exactly the same passage (Galatians 2:15) Paul seems to rule out any idea that one can be in the category of "(gentile) sinner" at the same time as being declared "righteous" (ie. a fully paid up member of the People of God, the Children of Abraham). Paul certainly knows that even righteous Christian believers commit sin--even in his pre-Christian life he would certainly have admitted that those who were children of Abraham by birth (ie. Jewish) still committed sins--but when he talks in terms of "sinners" and "righteous" he is (as was Jesus in the Gospels) speaking in categories, not in terms of individual acts of sin. "Living in sin" or being "dead in sin" (both paradoxically meaning the same thing) referred to someone who was not "justified", ie. who had not (by birth according to the Law as the Jews claimed or by faith in Jesus Christ as Paul taught) been declared to be righteous. No Christian who lives by faith can be said to be "dead in sin", even though they daily commit sin which requires repentance and forgiveness.

The whole of Ephesians 2:1-10 makes it clear that Christians WERE "dead through sin", but NOW God has "made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) and raised us up with him". There is truly no sense of being equally totally "peccator" at the same time as one is equally totally "justus" in this passage.

What difference could such a consideration make to our ecumenical dialogues? I keep asking this question, because we say that we want to be scriptural in our teaching and that the Scriptures are our highest authority. Yet we keep reading them through the controversies of the 6th and 16th Centuries.

Time for a chuckle

It's not immediately a funny picture, so at first I wondered why the Ironic Catholic wanted to launch a caption competition for it.

But one of the winning captions really made me smile:

"Guys, just because you don't labor doesn't mean you should actively ignore me. That's just rude." (notanillusion)

19th Century English Novelists: More on Chesterton on Dickens

First, a little quiz. See if you can put a name to each of the following photographs.




Now, before I reveal the mystery of the final character, another question: Who is your favourite 19th Century English novelist?

All this is apropos of the fact that I have just finished listening to Chesterton's Dickens. The final chapter (a very badly read Librivox recording of Chapter Twelve -- I guess we get what we pay for in quality!) includes this paragraph:

At a certain period of [Dickens'] contemporary fame, an average Englishman would have said that there were at that moment in England about five or six able and equal novelists. He could have made a list, Dickens, Bulwer Lytton, Thackeray, Charlotte Brontë, George Eliot, perhaps more. Forty years or more have passed and some of them have slipped to a lower place. Some would now say that the highest platform is left to Thackeray and Dickens; some to Dickens, Thackeray, and George Eliot; some to Dickens, Thackeray, and Charlotte Brontë. I venture to offer the proposition that when more years have passed and more weeding has been effected, Dickens will dominate the whole England of the nineteenth century; he will be left on that platform alone.

Who on earth is Bulwer Lytton? Well, for starters, he is the person in the third picture above (after Dickens and Chesterton, of course). According to Wikipedia:

Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton (May 25, 1803–January 18, 1873) was an English novelist, poet, playwright, and politician. Lord Lytton was a florid, popular writer of his day, who coined such phrases as "the great unwashed", "pursuit of the almighty dollar", "the pen is mightier than the sword", and the infamous incipit "It was a dark and stormy night." Despite his popularity in his heyday, today his name is known as a byword for bad writing. San Jose State University’s annual Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest for bad writing is named after him.

There must be something to be said of a man whose phrases are better remembered than any of his works as a whole...

But what got me wondering about who Bulwer Lytton was, was the writers that Chesterton left off his list. According to my calculations, Anthony Trollope (one of my favourite 19th Century authors) was a near enough contemporary with Dickens. But not even an honourary mention from Chesterton. Is he telling me he didn't enjoy reading the Barchestor Chronicles? I can barely credit it. Even Wikipedia's short entry on the 19th Century English novel mentions Trollope (but NOT, I note, Bulwer Lytton!).

He leaves off Jane Austen (at her height when Dickens was born) and Thomas Hardy (just getting going when Dickens died). He doesn't mention Lewis Carroll (wrong genre?).

Of course, the remarkable thing is that many of these authors have been given new life through very high quality TV and Cinema adaptions in recent years. Scores of Austen's (current run on the ABC TV on Sunday nights is terrific), great Dickens (the recent BBC production of Bleak House was very good), superb Trollope's, Thackery's etc. etc. I have yet, however, to spot a production of Bulwer Lytton...

Anyway. Who's your favourite nineteenth century English author? Anyone Chesterton and I have not covered?

What "they" think of us...

As if you didn't know, here are two very common (almost paradigmatic) takes on the Catholic Church of Benedict XVI:

1) The Popular
2) The Intellectual

Of course, both views are utter nonsense, but those who hold them feel secure in their delusions...

A winge on a "binge"...

The "wowsers-that-be" here in Australia have issued new guidelines that describe more than four standard (ie. itty bitty) drinks a day as "binge drinking". Our local prophet (aka Michael Leunig) has incorporated this splendid nonsense into his cartoon above (published in today's edition of The Age).

In the car coming home from work tonight, I was listening to a Libravox recording of Chesterton's Charles Dickens (1906). There, in Chapter Nine, we read:

Many modern people, chiefly women, have been heard to object to the Bacchic element in the books of Dickens, that celebration of social drinking as a supreme symbol of social living, which those books share with almost all the great literature of mankind, including the New Testament.

Undoubtedly there is an abnormal amount of drinking in a page of Dickens, as there is an abnormal amount of fighting, say, in a page of Dumas. If you reckon up the beers and brandies of Mr. Bob Sawyer, with the care of an arithmetician and the deductions of a pathologist, they rise alarmingly like a rising tide at sea.

Dickens did defend drink clamorously, praised it with passion, and described whole orgies of it with enormous gusto. Yet it is wonderfully typical of his prompt and impatient nature that he himself drank comparatively little. He was the type of man who could be so eager in praising the cup that he left the cup untasted. It was a part of his active and feverish temperament that he did not drink wine very much. But it was a part of his humane philosophy, of his religion, that he did drink wine.

To healthy European philosophy wine is a symbol; to European religion it is a sacrament. Dickens approved it because it was a great human institution, one of the rites of civilisation, and this it certainly is. The teetotaller who stands outside it may have perfectly clear ethical reasons of his own, as a man may have who stands outside education or nationality, who refuses to go to a University or to serve in an Army. But he is neglecting one of the great social things that man has added to nature.

The teetotaller has chosen a most unfortunate phrase for the drunkard when he says that the drunkard is making a beast of himself. The man who drinks ordinarily makes nothing but an ordinary man of himself. The man who drinks excessively makes a devil of himself. But nothing connected with a human and artistic thing like wine can bring one nearer to the brute life of nature. The only man who is, in the exact and literal sense of the words, making a beast of himself is the teetotaller.

I'll drink to that (says he, reaching for his second slightly-larger-than-standard glass...)

New Translation of the Propers of the Mass struggle to get up in the States

John Allen has a fascinating report of what happened at the USCCB meeting in Orlando when the new translation for the Propers of the Mass were put forward for voting. Thought to be a laid down mazaire, it turned out to be a hung vote:

After all that the bishops were unable to reach a decision, largely because of the electoral math.

The rules of the conference require that the text be approved by two-thirds of its members, not just those physically present. Since there are 250 Latin Rite bishops in the United States, 166 “yes” votes are required to approve it, while 83 “no” votes are necessary to reject it.

As it turns out, the Orlando meeting was sparsely attended – one headcount yesterday found just 178 voting members. As a result, this morning’s ballot failed to get enough “yes” votes to approve the text, or enough “no” votes to block it.

As a result, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the conference, announced that bishops who were not present will receive ballots in the mail in order to settle things one way or the other.

The Propers have, of course, been passed in Australia and the other three Bishops Conferences who will be adopting the English translation. If the US bishops vote differently, that means they would dissent from the rest of the English speaking Catholic world on this matter.

I have some sympathy with the position presented by Bishop Galeone, although my own main criticism of the texts is largely a single stylistic one involving the strict translation of the Latin second person singular relative "who" clauses (a form that is very common in the latin texts but which reads very awkwardly in English). It is not surprising that Bishop Trautman should use Bishop Galeone's criticisms as the chance to put in his own two bob's (or is that "two dime's"?) worth, and it goes without question that I have no sympathy with his opinions.

Anyway, there is little doubt that the postal vote will get the required support eventually. But it is just one more hold up for the Americans. And if they do get a different version, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a number of Australian priests who will use the American version rather than our local version.

Great Conference with Great Speakers to download

I can highly recommend the MP3 recordings that you can download from the St Vladimir's Seminary website--and I haven't even listened to them yet! The reputation of the speakers is enough!

The conference was entitled, "Rome, Constantinople and Canterbury. Mother Churches?" The speakers included Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, Fr Richard John Neuhaus, and Canon Robert Wright. The topics included: Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Authority:Magisterial, Confessional or Conciliar?, Primacy in the Anglican Tradition, Primacy and Primacies in the Orthodox Church, Reconciliation Between East and West, and Primacy, Authority and Communion.

That should whet your appetites!

This is scary: My Result doing a "Which Lost Character are you?" Quiz

I did this "Which Lost Character are you?" quiz. (Yes, I still watch Lost, although Cathy has given up on it).

The result?

Wait for it.



Benjamin Linus.

How's that for scarey?

The blurb says: "You are an enigmatic leader who strikes fear, optimism and bizarre confidence in all who follow you. You are strong of will, intimidatingly intellingent, and have strained relationships with those in your family. You have possibly lived on an island most of your life."

I swear, I did not make that up.

Anyway, the reason why there hasn't been much activity on the blog of late is two fold:

First, I have a very sore neck receiving medical treatment, which means that I am even more stiff necked than usual. Probably Cause of Malady: Lap top computer and work/blogging.

Second: The eschaton approacheth. By which I mean Days in the Diocese and World Youth Day. There is no time after July 20. There is no time before it. It is Judgement Day (at least for any of us who have to do any sort of organising involved with it).

Saved by Faith?

Now this is interesting. Reading Tom Wright's writings on Paul, especially the "new perspective" on the meaning of "justification" in Paul, led me to ask:

Does Paul actually ever say that we are "saved by faith"?

I put this question to my Logos bible computer software in the form of a search for verses with "pistis" and "sozdein" (I don't know if I have transliterated that last one right) and their cognates in the same verse.

What did it show? Well, aside from all the predictable "Your faith has saved you" passages in the Gospels and Acts (where "sozdein" actually is better translated "healed" than "saved") and in James 5:15 where the same applies (in reference to the "prayer of faith" of another), and an obscure passage in 1 Tim 2:15 which says that a woman is saved through childbearing if she continues in faithfulness, there are only two places where the two congnates occur together:

James 2:14 "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" (lit. "Is the faith (he pistis) able to save him?")

Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" ("grace" is dative of instrument, and "through faith" is "dia pisteos").

Strictly then, not only do the two passages do not contradict one another (the Ephesians passage says that it is grace that saves, albeit through faith) but nowhere in the scripture does it say that "faith" (let alone "faith alone") saves, except in the sense that people are "healed" of illness by faith.

There are plenty of passages in Paul that assert that "justification" is by faith (Romans and Galatians mainly, with James 2:24 as a dissenting voice). But, if I read the "new perspective" rightly, "salvation" and "justification" are different categories, just as "justification" and "sanctification" are different categories.

In view of the "new perspective" therefore (post Augustinian/Pelagian theological development notwithstanding) I think it is quite possible for a Catholic to affirm that justification is "by faith alone" in the terms that Paul originally meant it (although not in the terms in which the Reformers and Trent argued the point out).

On the other hand, one can speak of being "saved by faith" if one understands "salvation" as "healing", but one must also acknowledge that in this category of "healing", to be "healed by works" makes no sense at all. So the New Testament (and Paul himself) never really envisages a controversy about whether one is "saved" by works or by faith.

To follow this further, we would need to see "salvation" (and all its cognates) as being parallel to the terminology and imagery of "justification", "sanctification", "participation", "forgiveness", "redemption" etc., rather than the latter categories as a subset of the former.

The controversy of "faith and works" belongs to the terminology and imagery of "justification", but makes no sense in the terminology of "sanctification", "participation", "forgiveness", or, I am arguing, "salvation".

What do you think?

A different perspective on Interreligious Dialogue

One of our auxiliaries just returned from Rome where he attended the first plenary session of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue as one of their new members. He commented on the vast variety of viewpoints and perspectives from around the world on this most challenging dimension of the Church's evangelising mission (cf. (Dialogue and Proclamation).

The Holy Father addressed this gathering of the PCID, and you can read his speech here. Probably best you do before you read the rest of this blog.

Sandro Magister also reports on the meeting. There is no doubt that something new is happening in the Vatican with regard to interreligious dialogue. The concern now is, without question, the concern to give witness to the Truth, that is (in Christian terms) to Jesus Christ.

Which makes another story Magister tells all the more interesting. The Algerian perspective is, obviously, different from the Australian perspective on interreligious dialogue. Recently the Algerian courts convicted 4 people of the crime of converting from Islam to Christianity. A Muslim leader has spoken out against the convictions. But not necessarily in terms which would give much comfort to Christians. Magister reports:

Meanwhile, one of the 138, Mustafa Cherif, a former education minister and ambassador of Algeria, has published a commentary on two recent events in his country in the monthly "Mondo e Missione" of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions.

The first of these events, which took place in early June, was the sentencing of four Algerians for converting from Islam to Christianity. The four are Protestant, but a similar sentence had been pronounced previously against a Catholic priest, guilty of leading a prayer, at Christmas, for a group of immigrants from Cameroon.

Cherif calls "incomprehensible and deplorable" the ways in which the question of proselytism is addressed in Algeria, because "our vision of law is founded on the Qur'anic principle: no imposition in matters of religion."

And he adds: "Moreover, our Catholic friends in Algeria, who have been here for fifty years, have never tried to convert anyone, although they do have the right to witness to their faith. This, in spite of the fact that the current pope frequently recalls the central nature of the evangelizing mission for the Catholic Church."

The second event Cherif comments on is connected to this previous observation: the resignation, for reasons of age, of the archbishop of Algiers, Henri Teissier, made official by the Vatican last May 24.

Cherif draws a portrait of the elderly archbishop as "one of those moderate priests who seek the right balance, aware also of the reforms needed within the Church, and not hesitating sometimes to express their disagreements with the Vatican, especially over relations with Muslims."

As evidence of the "right balance" sought by Teissier, Cherif writes: "Last December, the Vatican published a doctrinal note that reaffirms the mission of evangelizing non-Catholics. [...] Sometimes, nonetheless, after leaving to evangelize the world, many priests and pastors have set themselves to learn from the people they have encountered and from their culture, without necessarily seeking to divert them from their original religion. Archbishop Henri Teissier is one of those great men of faith who respect the other."

I don't quite know if all that quite adds up to a compliment...

House Churches Smouse Churches...

I am astonished how prevalent the myth is that the early Church did not have dedicated buildings for worship but that the Church worshipped "in private houses" until the time of Constantine made it possible to build "official" buildings. The myth is popular because of the mileage that one can get out of it. Most recently I found the "house church" myth put forward as fact in the History Channel DVD's of the History of Christianity. In that case, they were using it as an argument for the ordination of women in the early Church. The arguement was that, because worship was held in private homes, the leaders of the congregations naturally included the woman of the house.

Well, in any case, the "house church" myth is easily disproved by archeology. Yes, of course, early Christians met in private homes for worship--just as the Jewish diaspora did. But whenever it was possible they sought out a common space which could be specifically dedicated to the sacred purpose of celebrating the liturgy (again, just as the Jews built synagogues when they were able to).

However, even I am astounded by the claim in the news today that archeologists have found the remains of a church in Jordan dating back to pre-AD70!

"We have uncovered what we believe to be the first church in the world, dating from 33 AD to 70 AD," the head of Jordan's Rihab Centre for Archaeological Studies, Abdul Qader al-Husan, told reporters according to The Age. He said it was uncovered under Saint Georgeous Church, which itself dates back to 230 AD, in Rihab in northern Jordan near the Syrian border.

"We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians, the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ," Husan said. These Christians, who are described in a mosaic as "the 70 beloved by God and Divine," are said to have fled persecution in Jerusalem and founded churches in northern Jordan, Husan added. He cited historical sources which suggest they both lived and practised religious rituals in the underground church and only left it after Christianity was embraced by Roman rulers.

Now it is hard to know how much is supposition in this case, but the main thing is

a) it is not a private dwelling (even though, being underground, it can hardly be described as a public edifice either)
b) it was dedicated to the single purpose of Christian ritual
c) it is very, very early, predating the Church built above it--which itself "dates back to 230AD"--a full eighty years prior to Constantine.

Add to that this interesting snippet:

Inside the cave there are several stone seats which are believed to have been for the clergy and a circular shaped area, thought to be the apse.

I was struck, when I visited the ruins of the 6th Century church of St John the Divine near Ephesus, at precisely this feature. I saw it again at the Hagia Sophia Church in Nicaea, dating back only to the 9th Century. But that this feature should be in a Churh from the 1st Century itself says something about the structure of Church leadership at the time.

What exactly? Well, that's for the archeologists and historians to argue out. But it sure as hell doesn't support the thesis of "the leadership by the woman of the house"!

Some (basically) positive suggestions on the Papacy in Ecumenical Dialogue

John Allen reports in NCR on a speech given by Margaret O’Gara of the University of St. Michael’s College (and the outgoing president of the Catholic Theological Society of America) on the future of the papacy in ecumenical dialogue.

I think her talk is basically positive, and I certainly agree with some of her statements, such as her acknowledgement of

the readiness of other Christian churches to embrace the papacy, citing a statement from the Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogue that the papacy is “part of God’s design for the church” and from the Lutheran/Catholic dialogue in the United States that the pope can function as a spokesperson for the gospel at the world level.

Some problems facing the ecumenical dialogue that need to be overcome include

what she called a confusion between papal infallibility and papal primacy, with the latter referring to the pope’s regular business of governance

and the fact that

many of the agreements worked out in ecumenical dialogues have yet to be officially ratified and implemented by participating churches. Instead, she said, they “remain stacked up on the sidelines, gathering dust, as our churches procrastinate in their next steps.”

She also points, very realistically, to the

new issues on the ecumenical agenda. First, she said, many Evangelicals are troubled by the Catholic church’s post-Vatican II emphasis on the possibility that non-Catholics and non-Christians can be saved. Second, other Christians disagree with Catholicism’s position on the ordination of women. Without entering into the merits of those positions, O’Gara simply observed that neither were matters of dispute at the time of the Protestant Reformation. ...O’Gara also pointed to new difficulties arising from pursuing dialogue in a globalized world, in which fault lines are not merely confessional but often cultural.

And, on a humourous note that rather appeals to me, I do approve her citation of Karl Rahner's quip about occasionally sensing a “neurotic fear that we may be in agreement.”

But she does cite a list of issues that she sees as ecumenically problematical and basically negative outcomes over the last decade or so that she believes indicates areas for reformation in the exercise of papal primacy:

1. The Synod of Bishops remained merely advisory to the pope;
2. The authority of episcopal conferences was restricted;
3. A Vatican document on “Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion” asserted that the Petrine ministry is “interior to every fully local church”;
4. The Vatican document Dominus Iesus said that some Protestant and Anglican bodies aren’t really “churches”;
5. Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper carried out a debate over whether the local or universal church has priority;
6. The term from Vatican II that the church “subsists” in Catholicism was understood to mean that it exists fully only in Catholicism;
7. The ban on women’s ordination was declared definitive;
8. The volume of papal teaching raised questions about its authority, and what role it would play in sister churches if present divisions could be overcome.

It is hard to see how any of these except for 1 and 2 actually relate to the exercise of papal primacy. Issues 3-7 directly relate to the Church's understanding of her essential nature rather than to the way in which the primacy is itself is exercised. No. 8 partly arises out of the fact that in this information age, the papacy is able to exercise its regular teaching office far more effectively than at any time in the past and the fact that we have had, in the last three popes (Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI) outstanding teachers of the faith sitting on the chair of Peter. But this list is really an example of the way in which the Petrine ministry of unity involves

"keeping watch" (episkopein), like a sentinel, so that, through the efforts of the Pastors, the true voice of Christ the Shepherd may be heard in all the particular Churches. (Ut Unum Sint, 94)

And so it is apparent that if the papal office did not have "the power and the authority" that belong to it by its very nature "such an office [of maintaining unity in the Church] would be illusory." (UUS 94) The power and the authority of Papal Office exists precisely so that, presiding

in truth and love...the ship—that beautiful symbol which the World Council of Churches has chosen as its emblem— will not be buffeted by the storms and will one day reach its haven.

I would suggest too that O'Gara could have done well to cite the example of how the papal primacy is exercised in the 21 non-Roman rites in communion with the Holy See. At the same time, she should have pointed to John Paul II's own invitation to our separated brethren and sistern

that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned. This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea "that they may all be one ... so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (Jn 17:21)? (Ut Unum Sint, 96)

Bishop Geoffrey Robinson... Some more thoughts

Well, today Cathnews serves the Catholic community of Australia by giving us an update on the Robinson Tour. Not much that's news there, only the continuing saga of the opposition that Robinson is meeting in the US from the local bishops of the dioceses he is visiting. Lest we think that it is only the Australians paying attention to this tour, it is high enough on the American radar to be picked up by CNS (Rocco Palmo at "Whispers in the Loggia" see here where Rocco Palmo gives continuing reports). Apparently the opposition is not simply being orchestrated at the local level but has come from Head Office. The prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista, has himself urged (commanded?) Bishop Robinson to desist.

So, two issues. First, what is the issue? Why is Robinson being opposed. The cynical would say that it is because of his raising the issue of the responsibility of the bishops themselves for the sexual abuse crisis. They don't want any adverse publicity or any finger pointing so they are opposing Robinson because he is doing just that: raising the issue publically and pointing the finger. This impression is supported by the fact that some of the bishops who have directly opposed him have indeed been responsibile in some degree for the crisis in the first place. Human nature being what it is, it is hard to dismiss this cynical interpretation.

But the "putting the best construction on everything" interpretation is by far the simpler explanation. This explanation is purely and simply the one that arises from the Australian Bishop's statement about Robinson's book "Confronting Sex and Power in the Catholic Church". They acknowledge Robinson's legitimate concern and his record of good work in this area in the past. If Robinson had simply written a book about that, that would have been confronting but not objectionable. It would even perhaps have done us all a great service. Instead, he chose to see the essential structure and nature of the Church herself as the most significant factor causing the entire crisis, and so calls for (what can only be described as a) "root and branch" revolution in the Church's governance. The "reforms" for which he calls are entirely incompatible with the Church's own understanding of her nature. These reforms include calls for re-evaluating the morality of sex outside marriage and homosexuality, allowing women priests, and dismantling papal authority. These are one thing--but they stem from a more serious attitude in the book, which reviewer Richard Gaillardetz identifies as

a deeper reflection on Christian faith and the ways in which unhealthy conceptions of God, revelation, divine providence and Jesus Christ inevitably have negative ecclesial consequences.

That's his take. The Australian Bishops describe this attitude as "Bishop Robinson’s uncertainty about the knowledge and authority of Christ himself". That's the real problem here. If the accusation is true, it is very, very serious. MORE serious, may I say, than the sexual abuse crisis itself. (I have just committed some sort of heresy in saying that?) He is trying to cure the disease by taking a knife to the heart of the patient.

That's the first issue. The second issue is that this man is a bishop. That's why this book and its author is getting so much attention from people for whom addressing the sexual abuse crisis is not their primary objective. In the Cathnews article, we are told that retired King County Superior Court Judge Terrence Carroll said:

I think it's a shame that [a bishop] of the Catholic Church cannot be welcomed into our diocese simply because the message he has to give is one that they don't want to hear. ...The clergy abuse issue brought front and centre for many Catholics the whole issue of the structure of the Church hierarchy and the various parts of the faith that need to be open for discussion beyond the handling of this specific issue. All of these things need to be talked about. That's all [Robinson] is asking to do.

But does Robinson still consider himself "a bishop of the church"? Not according to the same article in which it is stated that

Robinson said he ultimately concluded that he could not continue to serve as a bishop of a Church that left him with such "profound reservations." He resigned and began to write his book....

The fact is that canonically he is still a bishop. He may be retired, but he has not sought to resign from the episcopacy, nor has he been deprived of that office by the Holy See.

There is a saying (coined by your's truly) that "There is nothing more dangerous than a retired bishop". Witness John Shelby Spong. He has all the status of a bishop, without being answerable for the way in which he uses that status.

If you want to gripe about the Queen...

Give us an alternative.

If you don't have something better to propose, stick with what you have. It might not seem a very good reason for sticking with the political system you have, but I think it is as good a reason as any.

Today's Queen's Birthday edition of "The Age" has the predictable anti-monarchy editorial. It gives a host of reasons why the monarchy is no longer relevant to Australia - but omits the greatest reason for its continued relevancy: It is our current political system AND IT WORKS.

Moreover, the opponents of Australia's constitutional monarchy have yet to come up with an alternative system on which a majority of Australians can agree. What is really telling is the standard by which any alternative is measured: it must be at least as good as the system we currently have.

So that's the fact. The current sytem, "irrelevant" and "anachronistic" as it may be, nevertheless continues to provide the Commonwealth of Australia with political stability and and its citizens with a degree of personal freedom that is the envy of the world. While discussing many of the injustices and atrocities that take place elsewhere in the world, my youngest daughter asked the question "Why do those things happen in other places but not here?" A good question. One the editors of The Age would do well to ponder.

They might also like to ponder this:

I cannot come to the Banquet...

“A man once gave a great banquet, and invited many; and at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come; for all is now ready.’ But they all alike began to make excuses. ...Then the householder in anger said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame.’ And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’ And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.’”

Jesus' prophetic words from Luke 14. Prophetic? But of course! The Word of the Lord is always prophetic.

Take the parable as a prophecy of World Youth Day and the scheduled ecumenical meeting of the Holy Father with the local heads of churches in Sydney. Those who WON'T be there--a list which includes at least two Archbishops--will be conspicuous by their absence.

Which reminds me of a story that takes me back 22 years to the days when I was a Lutheran Seminary student. Pope John Paul II had just completed his visit of Australia, and I was talking to the (then) General President of the Lutheran Church of Austrlia, Dr Les Grope (known affectionately as "Pope Grope"). He was telling us about his recent encounter with the Bishop of Rome at the ecumenical gathering in Melbourne.

"The General Church Council forbade me to accept the invitation to this event," he said. (The GCC is the highest executive body in the LCA when the Synod isn't in session). "But I went. And do you know what they were really worried about? They were concerned that I would need to address him as "Holy Father". Do you know how I addressed him when he greeted me?" No, we didn't know; please, tell us how you handled this difficult confessional situation! "I called him "Holy Father"," he said with a quiet look of satisfaction on his face.

Dr Grope was (is--I believe he is still with us in this world) a true gentleman. Strong and firm in relation to his faith, kind and gentle with all whom he met. An example to some others who take their faith as seriously as he did but who are somewhat less adroit at showing common human courtesy.

In the mean time, they are coming from the hedgerows and streets and lanes from all directions in answer to the invitation. Mind you, that appears to be where most of them will be sleeping! Hopefully, not the Schutz-Beatons! See this article.

In Search of ... a Via Media?

Over 150 years ago, Cardinal Newman realised that he could no longer regard the Anglican Church's cherished "via media" character as a workable notion.

Today there is hardly an Anglican left who would defend it as a virtue let alone as a practical rule of faith. Certainly there are none in Sydney or in New Hampshire. Are there in fact ANY "via media" Anglicans anymore? Is that why they are no longer able to hold their show together?

See this article by Randy Sly "Anglicans and the Via Media".

History and Faith in Sentire Cum Ecclesia

I hate pseudo-historians. Current hate: Elaine Pagels and James Carroll. See these comments on Constantine's Sword and the Gospel of Judas.

In fact, let me be very daring and make a suggestion that will probably make Past Elder's and Brian Coyne's blood boil...

Part of "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" is that "readiness to believe" of which Trollope wrote (see quotation in side bar). One thing that distinguishes the Catholic "readiness to believe" from that of all other religions is the absolute confidence that history will bear out the dogma of the Church. This confidence includes everything from the historicity of the Resurrection to the vindication of Pius XII.

We are confident--"ready to believe"--that whatever "facts" honest historical investigation might throw in our face, it will, ultimately, bear out our Christian faith. We therefore never have anything to fear from historical investigation into the origins and basis of our belief, and are able to make the audacious claim that "to be deep in history" is to be Catholic (Newman: "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant").

But how does this square with Cardinal Manning's comment that we must "overcome history with dogma"? Isn't that precisely what the pseudo-historians Pagels and Carroll do? Ie. fabricate or omit historical evidence to fit their ideological pre-conceptions? Assuming that Newman was being serious and Manning was being frivolous (Catholics are capable of both at times) we can understand them both to be saying the same thing, namely that if we are faced with an historical account unfavourable to the teaching of the Church, our task is to delve deeper into the historical evidence, in the complete confidence that when properly investigated, history will bear out our dogma.

Thus, when historical accounts arise that purport to disprove the historical basis of the Church's dogma, we may be confident that at some level:

1) They may be shown to have omitted evidence favourable to the dogmatic tradition
2) They may be shown to have fabricated evidence unfavourable to the dogmatic tradition
3) In situations where the evidence is inconclusive or ambiguous they may be shown to have made a choice to interpret the evidence in opposition to the dogmatic tradition.

Now, I find it no small coincidence that, in the middle of formulating these ideas, I stumbled upon some historical evidence which supports this intuition. You may not believe this, dear Reader, but I have, in fact, never before read Pius X's 1910 Oath against Modernism. Yet there I find exactly what I have been trying to express:

I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful.

I so swear!

Evangelical Catholics in Canada

John Allen has an interesting column following up his previous discussions about "Evangelical Catholicism" (of which, if they had cards, I would count myself as a card-carrying member!). He interviews the very well spoken of (I am thinking of comments from my good Canadian friends Paul and Carol Quist - Hi! if you're reading this!) Archbishop Thomas Collins -- who, incidentally, is coming here to Melbourne for our Days in the Diocese prior to World Youth Day (I hope I'm not letting any cats out the bag am I? It makes up, in a very small way, for Cardinal Kasper's cancellation...). I will give you the gist of it. John Allen leads off...

NCR: One word that seems to come up in describing the new crop of Canadian bishops, yourself included, is 'evangelical.'

Archbishop Collins: I hope so...

NCR: Part of what people mean by calling you 'evangelical' is a willingness to challenge the prevailing secular consensus.

Archbishop Collins: Oh, absolutely...

NCR: So the new Canadian bishops are determined to push back?

Archbishop Collins: I think so. We've had enough. We're here, and we're part of this society...

NCR: To what extent is this evangelical spirit present at the grass roots?

Archbishop Collins: I feel extraordinary hope...

NCR: It sounds like you're trying to project a robust Catholic identity, but one that's outward-looking rather than moving into a ghetto.

Archbishop Collins: Definitely not a ghetto. We're part of the society...

Well, there you go. For the actual substance go read the article yourself!

Use it or lose it - Stealing a conversation back from Pastor Weedon!

One difficulty with the blog format is that blogs cannot easily hold conversations with one another. Comboxs flow on from a particular thread, and if you have a blog, you want that thread to be on YOUR blog, not your dialogue partners! Perhaps Pastor Weedon and I ought to start a joint blog where we can hammer these things out...

Anyway, Pastor Weedon posted a comment from Chris Jones in one of my comboxes on his blog, and an interesting discussion ensued. There was very interesting quote from Luther who seemed to deny the "desert island" theory that a congregation could appoint a pastor to celebrate the Eucharist for them -- Luther used the example of stranded Christians in Ottoman Turkey without a priest and said that they would just have to do without the Eucharist. Telling.

But even more telling is this exchange between Pastor Eric Brown and Dixie. Since it was about my blog, I am claiming the thread back here (with my commentary)!

Rev. Eric J Brown said...
I think too often we make this discussion about power or ability - do I have the power to do this, do I have the ability to do this?

That's not quite the proper question....Pastors aren't dealing with a special power or ability that they have - rather this. They are fulfilling an office they have been placed into - and unless you have been placed into that office, you shouldn't take it upon yourself [An interesting use of the passive voice - begs the question of who placed the pastor in this office]. You would in no wise suddenly announce one day, "I am now the town mayor - listen to me." Nor would you suddenly say, "I'm now a policeman." You might have the abilities to do all these things - but if you aren't placed there, you shouldn't be trying to do the things that pertain to those offices.

The Pastoral office is the same way. Our God is a God of order - He is a God of authority and who uses authority ["I am a man under authority and of authority" (Luke 7:8)]. When people try to buck that order or avoid proper authority - bad things happen [Ah, but there's the rub -- and it hit me like a sledge hammer when I was wavering between Lutheranism and Catholicism. Wasn't this just what happened at the time of the Reformation? Didn't Luther, by claiming authority in 1536 that was proper only to a bishop and ordaining a man to the presbyterate, "buck" the established order and "avoid proper authority"?]. Thus, it is best to simply do things as God provides for them to be done.

8:55 AM
Dixie said...
Pastors aren't dealing with a special power or ability that they have - rather this. They are fulfilling an office they have been placed into - and unless you have been placed into that office, you shouldn't take it upon yourself. ...

The Pastoral office is the same way. Our God is a God of order - He is a God of authority and who uses authority. When people try to buck that order or avoid proper authority - bad things happen. Thus, it is best to simply do things as God provides for them to be done.

Pastor Brown,

I honestly don't think Herr Schutz (David, if you are reading, chime in. [Coming through loud and clear, Dixie!]) would disagree with you at all, in principle, with this.

The disagreement would come at doing things as God provides for them to be done. Some Lutherans say the Holy Spirit calls through the congregation. The Catholics (and some Lutherans) say the Holy Spirit works through the Bishop and some other Lutherans say it could be either way. That is the real crux of the discussion because if the starting point ain't right then everything done after that becomes dicey [My point exactly, Dixie, and for Lutherans the "starting point" was when they stepped outside the line of episcopal authority to ordain to the office of the ministry, claiming that, as the true Church of God, they had the right to do so].

11:51 AM
Rev. Eric J Brown said...
Dixie ...

I haven't looked at Herr Schultz's [oh dear, oh dear, oh dear] post at all. . . my comment was based simply on the thread as put here.

Now, just with what you have introduced, I would point out what both a congregational based call and what a Bishop based call have in common - they are extra nos - they are where the pastor is given that duty by someone other than himself - he is placed into office - and in both cases, congregation or bishop, with the understanding that God is working His will in the calling/placement [so it doesn't matter who gives the authority, I just can't authorise myself? That sounds dicey. It means that any breakaway group in the Church can ordain whoever they like and claim that he has been ordained to the ministry of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church? Odd. That doesn't seem to have been the official position of any Lutheran Church I have ever known--especially not the one to which I once belonged!].

I guess I'd fall into the either camp of Lutherans - I think it is folly to demand one over the other - and I don't think you can demand one over the other from the example of the early church (where bishops appointed clergy, and yet bishops were elected by the congregation - ack! [Elected, yes, sometimes true (although I don't think St Timothy was elected by his congregation -- St Paul appointed him and then insisted that he not listen to any objections from his flock to the contrary), but the congregation did not "ordain" their own clergy. That remained the responsibility of those to whom the office had already been committed.]) But I hadn't seen that as the context of Jones' quote or the discussion here.

2:11 PM
Dixie said...
Pastor Brown,

...Regarding the relationship of your comments to Herr Schutz's [thank you for getting the name right, Dixie!] post...actually your comments just added clarity in my mind as to where the real issue was...at the start of a sequence of events that begins long before the words "This is My Body" are spoken. [Indeed. And in the Lutheran case that "sequence of events" goes right back to the Reformation when they first tried "to buck that order or avoid proper authority".]

2:40 PM
kjslutherisch said...
For anyone interested, I had a moment and tracked down Jack Bauer's Luther quote about the situation in Turkey.

The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests (1533) American Edition, Volume 38, pg. 207. [Thanks for the reference, kjs]

I barely know what to make of this...

For a man who never enjoyed being the centre of attention, I can imagine that our good friend felt particularly awkward in this situation. I hardly dare to suggest a caption competition... (HT to Cooees)

"Is there a potential "Windows" of Christian/Muslim relations out there?"

That's the question John Allen poses in an interesting analogy between the current state of Christian/Muslim dialogue and "the early days of computing", when it was considered "the rarefied pursuit of experts typing in strings of DOS commands to run even simple operations".

My first wife (yes, folks, I've been married before--if you didn't know that you haven't been reading my conversion blog) got her first job after graduating from Uni looking after the University student computer lab. There was this new thing called the "internet" which none of her older colleagues could understand, so they gave it to this fresh young thing to look after. That was in 1989. You know what happened next. She just rode the wave going from success to success.

Well, all these years later, I do have the feeling that I might (belatedly and not so young or fresh) be doing much the same thing with our own local Muslim dialogue. I am beginning to be amazed by people contacting me as "the expert" in this area, when not so long ago I wouldn't have even been able to tell you what the five pillars of Islam were, and wouldn't have gone near interfaith dialogue with a barge pole.

Back to John Allen, his interview in the same column with 80 year old Muslim Sorbonne/Princeton academic Mohammed Arkoun reveals some interesting stuff. Arkoun is the author of a book called "the Unthought in Contemporary Islamic Thought" (you can read a bit of it here). Here's some things he had to say about Benedict XVI's approach to the question of faith and reason in Islam:

Pope Benedict has said that an intimate relationship between reason and faith does not exist in Islamic elaboration and expressions. This statement, historically speaking, is not true. If we consider the period from the 8th century to the 13th century, it is simply not true. … [But] after the death of the philosopher Averroes in 1198, philosophy disappeared in Islamic thought. … To that extent the pope was right, but he didn't mention this history.

The fact is today, when one speaks with Muslims, they don't have any idea about this history. … Muslims are totally cut off from their own tradition. … I cannot imagine the name of a Muslim today who could have a true theological debate on the level at which the pope can carry out the debate. For me, this is a battle inside Islam. We must make Muslims understand that they are cut off from their own history. Therefore, they have no right to simply rebel against what the pope has said. There is a part of truth in what he says, and I recognize that.

Although Allen challenges his assertion that it is the Pope's duty to dialogue with scholars rather than with official leaders in Islam, Arkoun insists that:

[The pope should] create a kind of space of debate, instead of all these so-called 'interreligious dialogues' that have been going on since the Second Vatican Council. I've participated in so many of them, and I can tell you that they're absolutely nothing. It's gossip. There's no intellectual input in it. There is no respect for scholarship in it. A huge scholarship has already been produced devoted to the question of faith and reason. All this is put aside and we ignore it. We just congratulate one another, saying, 'I respect your faith, and you respect mine.' This is nonsense.

Interesting observations.

Avery Cardinal Dulles SJ and Sentire Cum Ecclesia

The news is that the only American priest ever to have been made a cardinal without being elevated to the ranks of the episcopate will turn 90 on the 24th of August. This is the man whom the Holy Father himself greeted with the simple and honourable title "Herr Professor". This is a man who is still penning the most insightful essays and speeches despite being confined to a wheelchair and unable to speak.

I would expect that most readers of SCE have at some time read something written by Father (now Cardinal) Avery Dulles. I have always been impressed by the simplicity of his style as he clarifies and analyses various aspects of the Christian faith. And in case you fail to have a proper appreciation for this man's output, take a look at his CV here.

But what really impresses me about this great and humble man is his faithfulness to the dictum of the founder of his order: "Sentire Cum Ecclesia". Here is how he himself puts it:

"I have never tried to create a system of my own, an individual theology. What is specific, if you want to call it that, is that I simply want to think in communion with the faith of the church, and that means above all to think in communion with the great thinkers of the faith. The aim is not an isolated theology that I draw out of myself but one that opens as widely as possible into the common intellectual pathways of the faith."

Brian Coyne keeps asking for a commentary on the dictum "Sentire Cum Ecclesia". Well, that's about as good as it gets.

Read more about this remarkable man here on Whispers in the Loggia and here on the First Things blog.

Okay, here's a tough one...

Should terminally ill people (ie. people who will die in less than 9 months) have sex (of the good, ol' fashioned, non-safe, un-protected, could-make-babies kind)? Or more specifically, should terminally ill women do this?

I simply ask because I was intrigued by a comment by Joseph Bottum on the First Things blog about the season finale of Grey's Anatomy (they must be ahead of us over there). Apparently it:

included a tryst between two supposedly terminal brain cancer patients in their late teens, with their brain surgeons guarding the door. It’s okay if she gets pregnant, right? She’s going to die anyway.

So... leaving aside all other moral problems here, what about the child who would possibly be conceived in such a situation...

I know it's a silly scenario, but playing hypothetical usually throws up some interesting ideas...

My Week of Prayer for Christian Unity homily

Again, for those interested, here is the link to the homily I gave at St Patrick's Catholic Church in Murrumbeena on Thursday at an ecumenical service for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. The title is "Grass Roots Ecumenism in the Bigger Picture".

Unity of God in Christian Doctrine

I was asked to write an article on "The Unity of God in Christian Doctrine" for the next issue of a local interfaith dialogue journal called "Dialogue Asia-Pacific". For those of you interested, here is a preview.

Margaret and David "At the Movies"

Cathy and I are real fans of Margaret and David. To the point of imitation. We have our own monthly column in her parish newsletter called "Cathy and David At the Movies"...

Anyway, tonight's program was good. Margaret and David disagreed bitterly about "Sex and the City". Margaret gave it 4 stars and David only 1 -- AFTER getting the admission out of Margaret that "if you never watched the TV program don't bother with this movie".

But then they both gave glowing reviews of the new Narnia movie "Prince Caspian" -- three stars each -- while admitting that neither of them had ever read the novels (and, from what I understood of Margaret's comment, she had never watched the first film until seeing bits of it on TV the other night). There was a good interview with the director, who made the comment that Narnia is not a place where the Pevensie children "escape from the war... It is a real place." Nice.

Anyway, you can watch the whole program and the interview for yourself here.

New Blog "Jews Christians and Muslims working together"

These three ugly fellows (Reader: You can talk, Schutz!) were my companions in recent days at the 2008 JCMA (Jewish Christian Mulsim Association of Australia) Conference. They are Dave Moskovitz (a Jewish New Zealander), John D'Alton (Antiochian Orthodox Priest, preivously a Church of Christ minister), and Mark Pederson (a convert Muslim)--knaves all three, but excellent fellows to boot. They have a new blog, which you might like to check out: Jews Christians and Muslims working together.

A Jesuit who has his Sun mixed up with his Moon

Spengler has an interesting entry on the First Things blog: "Italian Jesuit Attacks Magdi Allam". You will remember the issue (Sandro Magister at www.chiesa covered it in depth): Magdi Allam was the nominal Muslim whom the Pope received into the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil at St Peter's this year by baptism, confirmation and first Eucharist.

Anyway, according to Spengler, an Italian Jesuit by the name of Fr. dall’Oglio has decided to have a go at the Pope for getting it all wrong. According to Fr. dall’Oglio, the Pope is unaware that the Second Vatican Council declared a "Copernican Revolution...in favor of Islam". In this "Copernican Revolution" the "The moon of urgent concern for freedom of conscience and religion" is supposed to go around "the sun of charitable discretion, of respect for Muslim feelings, and of the renunciation of proselytism."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will!), but I rather think the good Jesuit has his cosmology a little mucked up. I had always been under the impression that (to continue the analogy) the "urgent concern for freedom of conscience and religion" was Vatican II's "Sun" to the "moon" of "charitable discretion", respect for others and renunciation of morally unethical proselytism.

Now, friends, you know me. I am all gung-ho for friendly dialogue with our Muslim brothers and sisters (heck, I had a very enjoyable lunch with a group of them today in which they said their community suspected them of being crypto-Catholics just as much as our community suspects us of being crypto-Muslims!), but I do pride myself in knowing first order issues apart from second order issues. And freedom of conscience and religion is a first order issue without which there can be no respect for the other, no charity, and no ethical proselytism/evangelisation.

Maybe Fr. dall’Oglio needs to go on retreat with his brothers at the Vatican Observatory. They might not teach him anything about theology, but he might get his comsmology straight...

Is a Valid Eucharist dependant upon a Valid Priesthood?

We have spent many kilobytes on this blog arguing about the necessity (or otherwise) of ordination by a bishop in the apostolic succession for a valid priesthood. What we haven't talked about is: Does it even matter?

I mean, what point is there in arguing over whether or not the priesthood/ministry of any particular ecclesial communion is valid, if that communion does not consider the validity of the other sacraments to depend upon such a valid priesthood/ministry?

For Catholics, the question of valid orders is essential because the validity of most of the sacraments (ie. Eucharist, Absolution, Confirmation, Anointing the Sick and, of course, ordination itself) depends upon the validity of priestly orders. Hence the very nature of any given communion as "Church" depends upon the validity of priestly orders.

But for (eg.) Lutherans, the validity of pretty well each of these sacraments is considered to be solely dependant upon three factors:

1) the Word of God

2) whether the sacrament is administered according to Christ's institution (the interpretation of which never seems to include validly ordained ministers)

3) reception of the Sacrament in faith (although strictly speaking, Lutherans deem this necessary only for the efficacy of the sacrament not for its validity).

I do not know of any protestant theologian who would hold that the validity of the sacraments depends upon the validity of the orders of the minister administering them.

Hence, many protestants--even Lutherans--can make allowance for lay consecration of the Eucharist, even if they insist that (for the sake of good order) only ordained ministers should normally do so.

Therefore, here is the issue for discussion:

A key difference between Catholic/Orthodox Churches and Protestant churches is that Catholic/Orthodox Churches would never regard a "eucharist" confected by a lay person as valid; Protestants would and do.