New Blog address: www.scecclesia.wordpress.com

Sentire Cum Ecclesia is shifting domains. I have transferred the entire blog over to word press at the following address: www.scecclesia.wordpress.com.

Please make this change to your links and favourites.

Why have I done this? I'll let you guess, but here is a clue: I have greater control over who can post comments.

Your first comment will need to be moderated by me. Once I approve you as a commentator, you can comment to your hearts content - until you break on of the rules of "How to be nice on this blog". Then I black-ban you. I value the discussion we have on SCE and I want to be able to maintain its high quality.

See you over there at Word Press!

The Glamour of Suicide

The Devil wasn't going to let Lady Day (March 25) go by without having a swipe at the Culture of Life that day so gloriously celebrates. The Age ran a front page story called "Angie's choice: a death with dignity", glorifying a suicide as a "death with dignity". (See also:Angie's choice and Police investigate Angie's lonely death, as well as letters to the editor here and here).

This is nothing new for The Age. A google search of "euthanasia" on www.theage.com.au will turn up 1,020 articles. Compare this to a google search on The Herald Sun's website (which turns up only 256) and it is hard not to get the impression that this is a subject the Editors at The Age are especially interested in. In fact, the Herald Sun seems happy to carry a different line from one of their most popular columnists (Andrew Bolt, Philip Nitschke 'leaves trail of lonely dead').

The fact is that The Age certainly knew that this illegal suicide (suicide is illegal, you know - it is just very hard to prosecute!) was going to take place.

Senior-Sergeant Allen said Ms Belecciu, who told her story to The Age last week in an effort to stir debate about euthanasia, had been found by a motel worker who reported her death to police on Tuesday.

In the light of Senior-Sergeant Allen's comment, I don't think it would be inaccurate to call the story (not the actual death) of Ms Belecciu either a "protest action" or a "media stunt" (depending on your point of view) jointly carried out by Ms Belecciu and The Age.

The letters to the editor the next day included this:

A PALLIATIVE care nurse takes her own life rather than enjoy the benefits of palliative care. This, surely, destroys the myth, created with support of the Catholic Church, that palliative care is a humane solution to the immense suffering that some people have to endure. If only our elected representatives had the courage to stand up to unelected lobby groups and do the right thing — legalise euthanasia.
Evert de Graauw, Wantirna

That reminds me of when I was a kid. If I complained of a sickness or a pain that wouldn't go away, my mum would sometimes joke "We'll just bong you on the head - that'll fix it."

Anyway, now to the reason why I am blogging on this a few days after the event. The Archdiocese has released a public response to this sorry episode. Here it is:

MEDIA RELEASE – 27 MARCH 2009

BISHOP REJECTS GLAMORISATION OF SUICIDE

Bishop Christopher Prowse, Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, said today that he was deeply distressed by the suffering and death of Angie Belecciu (The Age 25 March 2009).

The Bishop said however that he does not abide ‘glamorising’ story telling about her particular circumstances. “Nor do I condone efforts taken by some to assist people in Angie Belecciu’s situation to take their own lives,” he said.

“I wish more could have been done to ease her suffering. My prayers and sympathy are with her family at this time,” he said. “I see nothing ennobling, no validation of human dignity, in suicide. We must do all we can to make the benefits of palliative care accessible.”

The Bishop said that palliative care gives tremendous comfort and support to the terminally ill.

Mr Larkins, Chief Executive Officer of Palliative Care Victoria, told The Age recently that feedback from loved ones of palliative care patients showed a 98% to 99% satisfaction with treatment.

Bishop Prowse said, “Further resources from Government and elsewhere are required to further advance palliative care in Australia. For Christians, life is a gift from God. It is not ours to dispose of.”

The Bishop said the Catholic Church, and many others in the community, regrets any bias towards a euthanasia option that Australian society has long condemned. “May it continue to outlaw euthanasia in all its insidious expressions. Euthanasia is never to be a choice for a healthy society that protects life from beginning to end.”

“Our prayers go out to Angie Belecciu. May she rest in peace. May her family be comforted at this time of sadness,” the Bishop said.

Another call to "de-excommunicate" Luther

This story pops up every now and again. It is in vain that we try to explain that there is no point to lifting an excommunication from a dead man, when excommunication ends at the moment of death anyway.

But that misses the point. If we were honest, we would acknowledge that what Dr Gassmann is asking for in his call to "declare officially that its [the Catholic Church's] excommunication of Martin Luther no longer applies" is a re-evaluation by the Church of the founding father of the school of theology to which Dr Gassmann belongs.

The fact is that that is a complicated business. We have seen that even with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, there is some question as to the exact degree of agreement that has been reached. (Chris Burgwald's dissertation "The Sinfulness of the Justified" seems to offer enough evidence that, while the JDDJ does not actually succeed in doing what it claims to have done - ie. overcoming a "church-dividing" issue (if it had done so, why are we still divided?) - it does go some way to uncovering possible future directions along this line.)

On Saturday I am giving a lecture to our "School of Prayer" on Lutheran Spirituality. It may surprise some readers of this blog that in fact I often come across features in Catholic spirituality that are very close (if not identical) to Lutheran doctrine. Chris Burgwald cites one of them in his dissertation: St Therese of Lisieux's statement

"In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in our eyes. I with, tehn, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself."

The simple fact is that such ideas are more often to be found in writings on spiritual theology rather than dogmatic theology, which points to the fact that the greater part of Lutheran doctrine was concerned with pastoral and experiental theology rather than objective and metaphysical theology.

My point is that there are certainly aspects of Luther's theology which can and ought to be re-evaluated. Not only is there much in his theology which agrees with Catholic theology, but there is much that could bring greater insight into the Gospel and a more lively application of the doctrines of the faith in the lives of Catholic believers.

At the same time there are real errors in his theology which the Church will never be able to grant or re-evaluate positively. Luther is a tree on which there is rich and healthy fruit, but also some fruit that is infected and unhealthy.

Perhaps then, the first step towards "rehabilitating" Luther would be to adopt a somewhat more nuanced judgement, one which neither attempted to declare everything he taught to be heresy, nor attempted to raise him to the level of a doctor of the Church. We need to learn to make distinctions - something which I believe Dr Martin himself once declared was the core of the theological endeavour.

My personal judgement is that we should make a distinction between Luther's spirituality and the specifically Lutheran doctrines that arose out of an application of that spirituality in a polemical attitude towards the Catholic Church. When I describe myself as "a Lutheran in communion with the bishop of Rome", it is Lutheran spirituality, not Lutheran doctrine which characterises my Lutheran-ness. In every case of dogmatic theology, I submit to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But, when divorced from the polemics which surrounded them in the 16th Century, Luther's spiritual insights are truly valuable. Luther's theology of the Cross, his Christocentrism, his understanding of the Deus revelatus and Deus absconditus, even the famous "simul" (when understood as simul justus et concupiscentius - David Yeago is surely right when he points out that Catholics and Lutherans do not differ in their doctrine of concupiscence, only in their moral evaluation of it as sin "in the strict sense") all give life and depth to the true faith of the Catholic Church.

I believe that the ultimate error of the Lutheran Church (and perhaps even Luther himself?) was to raise the deeply mystical insights of Luther's spirituality to the level of public dogma - and then to rob it of all vitality by developing it into a scholastic system. How else was it possible for them to make the claim that "justification by faith alone" (which is ultimately a spiritual and mystical insight) was "the article" (ie. a dogmatic proposition) "on which the Church stands or falls"? It may very well be an insight upon which the individual believer's relationship with God stands or falls (this is spiritual and pastoral theology) but can it be said to be the doctrine by which all other dogma is to be judged (this is dogmatic theology)?

It is ironic that the Lutherans allowed a mystical insight to trump the actual dogma of the Church, because Luther himself was a critic of mystics and enthusiasts who did not submit their ideas to the "external Word". For Catholic spiritual theologians, the "external Word" is always that which the Church teaches. Personal mysticism submits to public magisterium.

All this being said, when Luther's spiritual insights ARE submissive to the dogma of the Church, they have great benefit and great power. I for one would happily see a refreshed evaluation of these aspects of Luther's teaching in the Church today.

This is truly evil

See the story here. God only knows how we can ever have peace on earth with this sort of stuff. Is this what war and hatred do to the hearts of soldiers?

"How to be nice" - on this blog

WikHow has a useful article on "How to be nice". I thought I might adapt it for "How to be nice on this blog". It might help some people in the combox...

How to Be Nice

You've been told to be nice since you were a child, but what exactly does it mean to not be mean? "Nice" is a vague term to put it. If your parents never gave you the break-down, here it is.

Steps

1. Smile. Well, obviously that's going to be difficult on a blog for a start - since we can't see your face. But if you write with a happy smile on your face, that might help you adopt "a smiley tone" in your comment. It will let people know that you are pleasant and inviting. If you adopte a smiley tone with someone, they won't do anything but adopt a smiley tone back. If they don't, then maybe they are just having a bad day. It is up to you to set the mood of the encounter. Make it happy by being the first to adopt a smiley tone. Normally, the internet equivalent of making faces or moody looks at someone is not nice.

2. Say hello. If you are new to the blog, introduce yourself and let us know where you are coming from. Don't just butt in. Try to acknowledge the presence of other readers with a simple "hello" or "hi" or a nod in their direction.

3. Be a good listener. Bother to read what other commentators have written and take the time to understand them. It isn't nice to just ignore other peoples' opinions and stories. If you find that someone is becoming rude or pushy, acknowledge their opinion, issue a compliment ("Having your own set of values and beliefs is pretty admirable") and excuse yourself politely ("I'm sorry, I've got to go get the groceries so I can meet my husband/wife when they get home.").

4. Be courteous. Always say "please," "thank you" and "you're welcome." You can also address people by sir or ma'am, but that might be a bit formal for this blog. Be patient, observant, and considerate. Treat people with respect. Even if you don't particularly like someone at first, they could end up being a really interesting and kind person. Remember: People aren't dogs or the ground you spit on.

5. Be positive. Well, it's hard not to be negative or critical at times - and even the blog owner finds difficulty in being positive all the time. But keep looking for the positive in any given situation. Think of it this way: Your job is to cheer other SCE readers up and make their day!

6. Be humble. This applies to everyone on this blog except the owner. No, alright, it applies to me too... The key to being nice is remembering that you are not "better" than someone else. You're an individual, but everybody has their struggles, and being nice to one another makes life better for everyone.

7. Be sincere. This is a blog where you can be honest. I don't want to suggest that anyone should hide their true beliefs or opinions on this blog. Don't be nice just because you don't want your comment deleted (which it probably will be if you aren't nice). Be nice because you want to look back on what you have written in the combox and know that, yes, you are indeed infallibly right in your opinions, and yes, you really told those heretics a thing or two, but you are still a nice person, and they will still want to dialogue with you more in the future, and they will still be open to your ideas next time you post a comment, and you don't have to add what you wrote to the list for your next visit to the confessional.

Tips

Always remember the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you want to be treated. Even though some people may not be nice to you at first, they will the more they get to know you.

Assume the best about people. Most people don't mean to insult or offend others most of the time. Unless it's overt, assume the slight was accidental. Don't assume that someone is a heretic until you really know that they are!

If you find yourself thinking poorly about someone, don't worry; you're not a terrible person because we all do this from time to time. However, try to catch yourself doing it, and think of something nice about that person instead. It'll help you look at people more positively, and you'll quickly break the habit of seeing the worst in someone.

Don't laugh at other people's mistakes and don't point out their faults too harshly. It's okay to joke, of course, but use your common sense; think about what you're about to say, and consider the fact that just because you may not be offended by a certain comment, others could be.

Be optimistic about everything, even when you don't particularly feel like it. Always look on the bright side!

Never underestimate the power of optimism, but at the same time, you can crack a joke in a funny way to make you more likable or just something unexpected so long as you counteract it with a lot of positive behaviour as well. Funny, I find, is nice.

Warnings

While being nice, do not be a total pushover. You don't have to compromise your opinions on this blog, but you also should expect to be treated fairly. Don't be afraid to stand up for what is right and do not hesitate to defend someone.

You may have heard that "It's not what you see, it's what's on the inside that counts". This might be true, but on this blog all we see of you is what you write. That's all we have to judge you on. If you are barbarous in your first comments, that is how you'll be known. It will be hard to expect others to treat you fairly since all they know of you is what you write. If you are friendly the first impression, people will know you as nice and sincere.

Vatican Youtube reports on Pope Benedict's Visit to Africa

I haven't had the time to follow the Apostolic journey to Africa - perhaps you have not either? If not, here is the chance to catch up on the event, thanks to the Vatican Youtube:



For more see the Vatican Youtube Channel

Lots happening - trying to keep up with the discussions

Thanks for everyone contributing to the excellent discussions over the last few days. I am astounded that one combox string went for over 170 comments. I am still working my way through all of those.

Things are very busy here as I am preparing for a Joint Muslim Catholic Pilgrimage to Istanbul and Rome after Easter, and for a week in Rome before that (Holy Week!). Hopefully I will have my new laptop with me on the trip and will be able to give regular updates on our journey (you will recall the red-wine incident... )

In the mean time, I just want to throw a few pebbles in the pond - I don't have the time to work these into full separate theses, so they are just ideas:

1) On the invocation of the Saints:

There have been two objections from our Lutheran commentators. The first has been that there is no command or promise attached to the invocation of saints in the Scriptures. The second is how can the dead hear us?

Answer to the first objection could be that we don't have any promise or command in scripture (as far as I know) about asking our fellow Christians to pray for us either. We have the command to pray for others - a command which I presume even the departed saints alive in Christ continue to fulfill. There are examples in the Old Testament of people asking prophets to intercede for them (eg. 1 Sam 12:19, Job 42:8, Jer 37:3). There is a striking parallel in the New Testament of Simon Magus asking Peter and John to pray for him to the Lord (Acts 8:24) - a very interesting case that could be used as the basis for the invocation of saints. Then there are several places in the letters of Paul and in Hebrews where the request is made that the readers "pray for us".

All these examples seem to assume that the one being asked to pray - prophet, apostle, churches - have some influence with God. They are "near to God" in a way that would make their prayers beneficial. This seems to fit with James 5:16-18, where the "righteousness" of the intercessor adds power to the prayer. Again, this would seem to support invocation of saints. We invoke them to intercede for us because they are more righteous, more holy and closer to God than we are.

I can't find anything in the Scriptures that would seem to say that we can't invoke the saints to pray for us - unless of course it is the second objection: that they are dead and this would be communication with the dead, something explicitly rejected in the Old Testament.

But here we come to the fact that the doctrine of the Communion of Saints is based on the doctrine of the Resurrection and new life in Christ. They are not dead, but living, and therefore invoking them does not come under the OT ban.

However, can they hear us? No, not directly. They are not divine or omniscient or omnipresent. (I like the idea that theosis comes into play, but theosis is only complete with resurrection, so I can grant this in reference to Our Lady, but am not sure how it applies to all the rest of the saints beholding the beatific vision.) The Communication of Saints (if I may coin that term) depends on the same thing that the Communion of Saints does: they and we are all one in Christ and in the Spirit. Indeed that is the reason we can ask our brothers and sisters in Christ here on earth to pray for us: not because they can hear us, but because they are in Christ and the Holy Spirit with us. St Paul tells us that nothing, not even death, can separate us from Christ (Rom 8), and so this connection does not cease at death. It is an indirect communication, granted, just as our communion with one another is indirect, whether in this life or in the next. But Christ shares his glory with his people by allowing them to share with him the role of sole intercessor before the right hand of God.

2) On purgatory:

Pastor Weedon said in a combox:

"Purgatory I have no truck with; purgation is another matter. Our God IS a consuming fire. And the way St. Paul speaks in 1 Cor. 3 suggests that purgation is order for all of us. The Lutheran Symbols note - without censure - that St. Augustine apparently so understood it. So not a place, but the final purification that burns out of us all that is not love - and that we rejoice in. An ouch before the "ah" as a friend used to put it. But an ouch to which we cry: Burn, baby! Burn! Destroy in me all that is not the love of God!

Such purgation, I might note, begins long before our death. It is to start at the moment of our Baptism and will be complete when our Baptism is completed in passing through death."

I wonder, what does he actually think it is that we Catholics believe? For in this, he says nothing other than that which the Catholic Church teaches. See a presentation I did on this matter here (powerpoint file)

3) Regarding the Word of God:

Pastor Weedon also said in another combox: "I do deny that the Scriptures are anything less than the active and living Word of God which itself decides truth." I would like to put this alongside something Ratzinger wrote way back in 1965 (you can find it in the Ignatius Press collection of Ratzinger essays "God's Word"):

Can the Word be handed over to the Church, without having to fear that it will lose its own life and power under the shears of the Magisterium or amid the uncontrolled growth of the sensus fidelium? That is the Protestant's question to the Catholic.

Can the Word be set up as independant, without handing it over to the arbitrariness of the exegete, to be emptied in the disputes of historians, and thus to the complete loss of normative authority? That is the question with which the Catholic will directly respond...

I think there are two things going on here. There is the Word of God as it directly and existentially and spiritually addresses me as a creature of God, convicting me of sin, calling me to repentance, forgiving me my sin and strengthening me in faith, hope and love towards God and my neighbour. That is definitely the work of God's living and active Word alone, which no human being can ever control nor for which any human being can ever take credit.

But then there is the other way in which the Word of God works, as teaching and as commandment, creating and ordering the Church and binds me together in community with my fellow believers. In this sense the Word requires an "administrator" as much as the sacraments do; in order for the Word to teach doctrine, there must be a teaching office (Magisterium). But the Lutheran claim is (as Ratzinger puts it in the same essay mentioned previously) that they have

"set the Word of God free from its chains in the ecclesiastical office...

This notion, that in the Catholic Church the Word of God had been fettered by being linked to the authority of office, that it had been robbed of its active, living power, is expressed time and again in the writings of the Reformers... [In the Catholic Church] office appears...as the criterion for the Word. It guarentees the Word. In Melanchthon's thinking, it is the other way round: the Word appears as the criterion for office... The Word has become independant. It stands over and above the office, as an entity in itself. Perhaps it is even in this reversal of the relations between Word and Office that the real opposition lies between Catholic and Protestant conceptions of the Church..."

Does it help if we distinguish between the way in which the Word of God speaks to us as teaching and commandment (requiring "Office") and the way in which it speaks to us for the sake of convinction, repentance, forgiveness and nourishment (independantly of "Office", living and active and powerful)?

An interesting point on Genesis 1, Leviticus 11, and Acts 10

In an essay translated in part by Sandro Magister, Jean-Pierre Sonnet points out the apparent contradiction between Genesis One's "God saw that it was good" and Leviticus 11's division of foods into "clean and unclean". He writes that

The differences introduced in Leviticus 11 apply only to the people that has been "distinguished" [ie. the Jews].

This seems then to give us the explanation for Acts 10, Peter's dream. At precisely the point that God wishes to show that the notion of the "people of God" is to be expanded to include all nations universally, he once again declares that all food is "clean":

“What God has cleansed, you must not call common.”

More on Sola Scriptura in Lutheranism

At the end of a long string of comments on the posting regarding sola scriptura, Pastor Weedon provides a good precis of the teaching of the early Lutheran Church on the perpetual virginity of Mary, and quotes Luther as saying (regarding infant baptism as an example)

"I did not invent it. It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong."

. He also says, regarding my assertion that his position regarding Scripture and Tradition (Tradition teaches sola scriptura) is contradictory:

I do not see a contradiction at all. Sacred Scripture teaches us the value of Tradition (and also teaches us to distinguish between mere human traditions and apostolic ones); Tradition teaches us that the sacred Scriptures are the sole source for the foundations of Christian dogma because our faith rests upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets and not on any other revelations made to men, regardless of their sanctity. The Scriptures do not derive their authority from Tradition's witness about them; they derive their authority from being incontrovertibly the Word of God.

Pastor, you say you cannot see the contradiction. Let me lay it out once more for you.

I agree that Scripture is (to the faithful) "incontrovertibly" the Word of God and that their authority does not derive (as a source) from the Tradition but from God himself. The Church, using Tradition as a guide, recognised their authority and which books were and were not authoritative. Thus again, we see the teaching authority of the Church, which is not above that of God's Word in Scripture, but in the service of God's Word in Scripture.

The same could be said of Tradition itself: The Church recognises authentic Tradition on its own self-evident nature as witness to the Word of God. For Catholics, this witness is also "incontrovertible".

We recongise that just as the authority of the Church and Tradition is not "incontrovertible" to non-Catholics, so the authority of Scripture is not "incontrovertable" to non-Christians.

But you say that "Tradition teaches us that the sacred Scriptures are the sole source for the foundations of Christian dogma becasue our faith rests upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets and not on any other revelations made to men."

Note first: we agree that "our faith rests upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets and not on any other revelations made to men." What we do not agree upon is that this revelation is completely contained in the written revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets. We point to two ways in which the revelation was passed on: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

So where does the "sola" come from? You say it "Tradition teaches" it.

Now, if the Tradition of "sola scriptura" is a "Christian dogma", then there is a contradiction, for this dogma does not have its foundation in Scripture alone.

Even if it is not a dogma, but a "principle" a difficulty still exists for you: namely that the authority for this principle comes from (one reading of) Tradition. Tradition therefore has a recognised authority as a basis for a theological principle alongside Scripture itself.

The result is that Scripture is no longer the sole authority for the foundation of teaching within the Lutheran Church. Again, a contradiction.

I note in your precis of Lutheran teacing on the perpetual virginity of Mary that Luther said (regarding infant baptism) "I did not invent it. It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong."

That is precisely our point. Luther refers to his own authority as a scriptural interpreter.

How is this any less controversial than our claim that this or that doctrine "came to us from Tradition, and the CHURCH has not been persuaded by any Word of Scripture that it is wrong"?

It is a case of submitting to
1) the Authority of Scripture
2) the Authority of Tradition
3) the Authority of the Church as interpreter of Scripture and Tradition

rather than to
1) the Authority of Scripture
2) the Authority of Tradition
3) my own Authority as interpreter of Scripture and Tradition.

PE has said that the first schema ends in "the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church."

I contend that the latter schema ends in "Me, me, me."

Update on the Brazilian abortion case

All readers of this blog will be thankful with the reaction of several curial officials in the Holy See to the way in which the Brazilian abortion case was (mis-)handled. See the full update on Cathnews here. Apparently the original source is in the Italian daily edition L'Osservatore Romano. The following is from report from the International Herald Tribune.

Fisichella stressed that abortion is always "bad." But he said the quick proclamation of excommunication "unfortunately hurts the credibility of our teaching, which appears in the eyes of many as insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking mercy."

The Vatican teaches that anyone performing or helping someone to have an abortion is automatically excommunicated from the church, and the Vatican prelate underlined that abortion is "always condemned by moral law as an intrinsically evil act."

"There wasn't any need, we contend, for so much urgency and publicity in declaring something that happens automatically," Fisichella wrote.

Writing as if he were addressing the girl, Fisichella said: "There are others who merit excommunication and our pardon, not those who have allowed you to live and have helped you to regain hope and trust."

Note two things: first the reference to latae sententiae excommunication. Fisichella seems to be saying that while it is true that such an automatic excommunication comes into play with the act of abortion, nothing publically should have been said about this, and mercy (ie. the lifting of the automatic excommunication) should have been immediately applied to the situation.

Note too that there seems to be some doubt as to whether anything was really actively done as far as the imposition of excommunication goes. Here is something from one of the links given by Cathnews, from the Latin American Herald Tribune:

Brazil’s Catholic bishops conference denied that the archbishop of Recife and Olinda, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, excommunicated the mother and doctors who practiced a legal abortion on a 9-year-old girl that was pregnant with twins after being raped by her stepfather.

The secretary general of the bishops conference, Dimas Lara Barbosa, said that the prelate “at no time excommunicated anyone.”

"Hermeneutic of Continuity"?

The Pope's letter raises issues of continuity and discontinuity in the teaching of Church as regards the Second Vatican Council - a topic that has often been discussed on this blog. He writes:

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

A simple word count of this passage will show which tendancy the Holy Father views as more injurious to the Church.

Nevertheless, the question of legitimate and illegitimate change, of continuity and discontinuity, clearly remains at the heart of the question of the interpretation of (or even validity of) Vatican II.

In light of this, I find two recent articles of special interest. The first is by our eminent friend and companion of the port bottle, Cardinal Pole, on his blog: "On traditional socio-political doctrine and Vatican II". It is fairly long and lengthy, but worth ploughing through to get to the end where he writes:

But as you know, the Conciliar document that really sticks in my craw is the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanæ... I could see how Dignitatis Humanæ might, might, be reconciled with Tradition, and would have no problem whatsoever with taking it as a policy document, but I do not see how its teachings could be regarded as constituting a development of the earlier body of doctrine; at best they would be a statement of some abstract, subjective principles. As for the other documents, if unambiguous clarification from the Magisterium is not forthcoming then I find the solution of Pope St. Gregory the Great in the aftermath of Constantinople II, mentioned recently at Athanasius’ blog, rather appealing: St. Gregory “counselled prelates to ignore the 2nd Council of Constantinople for the sake of peace and unity.”

The main point in Cardinal Pole's assessment of Dignitatis Humanae is the distinction he makes (originally made by Lefebvre himself) between "subjective freedom" and "objective freedom". He makes the piont that while the declaration is clear about the rights of the subject who worships, it does not make any statement regarding the object towards which one is free to direct one's worship.

I am not sure that this point can be conceded. The Declaration clearly defends the individual's right to "his own beliefs". Would this not imply that the "object" of the individual's subjective right to religious freedom is the object of the subject's "own beliefs"? And yet the question of the object of the freedom of religion can be thrown into relief with the following set of questions:

1) Does a Muslim have a right to practice his religion?
2) Does a person who is convinced of Islamic doctrines have a right to act upon this conviction (ie. the right of conversion)?
3) If everyone has a right to be Christain, does everyone have a right to be a Muslim?
4) If everyone has the right to hear the Gospel, does everyone have the right to hear the message of the Prophet?
5) Is there a distinction to be made between divine and human rights in these questions?

But let's get back to the question of hermeneutics and Vatican II.

Yesterday, I read this entry on the first things blog by Edward Oakes: "Benedict's Vatican II Hermeneutics" in which he argues that there are regularly four different possible assessments of Vatican II based on a a matrix of whether it is assessed in terms of continuity or rupture, and whether this continuity or rupture is seen to be good or bad. He even names examples of these four hermeneutics:

Continuous, and thus good: Cardinal Dulles.
Continuous, and thus bad: Hans Küng
Discontinuous, and thus good: John O'Malley
Discontinous, and thus bad: Marcel Lefebvre

However, he suggests that the reality is far more subtle and complex than this, and goes on at length to analyse the Holy Father's address to the Roman Curia in 2005 in which Benedict famously didn't coin the term "Hermeneutics of Continuity". The term the Pope really coined was "innovation in continuity". Oakes says that Benedict was precisely not proposing that Vatican II was completely continuous with the teachings of the past. He says that the pope pointed to a real discontinuity that occurred in the Second Vatican Council, a change that was necessary for the sake of reform:

How best should the Council be understood? For Benedict the key term is reform: “It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists” [all emphases are added]. In other words, to refuse to admit any disjunction with the Church’s past would not only distort the historical record (which shows clear instances of both continuity and discontinuity in the conciliar documents), but also would inevitably block reform, which requires not a convoluted combination between continuity and discontinuity but rather, in the pope’s own words, “innovation in continuity.”

And then, as an example of this "innovation in continuity", Oakes pointed to Benedict's choice of Dignitatis Humanae:

Among these undeniable innovations, Benedict above all stressed Vatican II’s Decree on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae). Frankly admitting that Vatican II broke with the “fortress mentality” set in motion by Pius IX’s open hostility to the modern world and by his condemnation of religious liberty in his Syllabus of Errors (1864), Benedict explained the reasons for the Council’s departure from that teaching.

Oakes' analysis of the Pope's analysis of the complete "volte-face" between the teaching of Pius IX and the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty and church and state is that the circumstances in which the teaching was made had changed and hence the teaching itself needed to be reformed in order to remain true to the essential principles of the Church's teaching.

This in fact, has always been the way I have understood the discontinuity inherant in the Second Vatican Council. Only blind Freddy would deny the real discontinuity that exists between the Council's teaching and some of the explicit teachings of the Magisterium before the Council. The times changed, and so therefore the way that the essential teaching of the Church was expressed and practiced had to change. We call this "reform". I agree that Vatican II proposed no new doctrines - but it certainly reformulated the doctrines in a totally new way for a new world - just as John XXIII originally requested.

The difficulty in this is always the question of how much change or what change can be made without throwing the baby out with the bath-water. In other words, what is and what is not "authentic" reform. There are many different answers to that question. Five hundred years ago, the Protestants used "Sola Scriptura" to determine the answer. Catholics, on the other hand, rely on the authority of the Church to make this distinction for them. We think with the Church.

I guess that opens us to up to the accusation of being docile sheep in this matter. A good thing we have a Good Shepherd, then.

A Poem

We met and fell in love
in the poetry section
of the local library.
We were married
among the fairytales.
Afterward,
when the kids were born,
we moved to non-fiction.
Which seemed more
appropriate.

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre

Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!

The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.

An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council – steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the days of Pope John Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.

Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren’t other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: "You… strengthen your brothers" ( Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" ( 1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1) – in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.

Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.

So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.

With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain

Yours in the Lord,

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

From the Vatican, 10 March 2009

This is, I think, a most remarkable letter. It reads like a letter of St Paul himself - you can hear the Holy Father speaking, expressing his regrets, pleading for his brother bishops to work in unity with him. Even making a wry joke! ("At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate.")

There is so much in this letter - the style and content of which is quite unique. Prompted by Cardinal Pole, I was going to write about the Papal Bull Exsurge Domine (1520). What a comparison these two letters would make! And about such similar issues!

Ah, that's for another time. Tell me what you think about this letter (and, PE, please be restrained in your invective - remember Galatians 5:13-15 - and the port bottle).

Scripture and Tradition in the teaching of the Catholic Church

I wish to continue here the discussion begun in the post and following combox below. You might wish to take up the discussion there in the combox here - as I will append my reactions to the previous discussion here also.

One comment first: I asked the question in the last post about the "origin" of the doctrine - or principle - of "sola scriptura". The responses from PE and Pastor Weedon were sufficient to ascertain one thing - indeed the answer I was expecting from such honest chaps: Neither of them argued that "sola scriptura" is a doctrine/principle which has its origin in Scripture itself. Both believe that it arose through the reflection and development of the post-apostolic Church. THAT is significant. It is tantamount to admitting that "sola Scriptura" is a (gasp! shock!) tradition of the Church.

But, for now, the teaching of the Catholic Church on Revelation and the nature of the Sacred Scriptures from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

74 "God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations. " [DV 7; cf. 2 Cor 1:20; 3:16 - 4:6].

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel [Nb. not write]… In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel [nb. not "the scriptures"] was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline"32 [DV 7; cf. Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15].

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on [nb. Latin. transmissio] in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on [nb. Latin: tradiderunt], by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established [nb. Latin: in praedicatione orali, exemplis et institutionibus], what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit." [DV 7]

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing" [DV 7].

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority" [DV 7# 2; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 3, 1: PG 7/1, 848; Harvey, 2, 9]. Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time." [DV 8# 1].

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it… "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition…" [DV 8# 3].

79 "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son…" [DV 8# 3; cf. Col 3:16].

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal" [DV 9].

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit"42 [DV 9].

"And (Holy) Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching." [DV 9].

82 As a result the Church…"does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone…" [DV 9].

83 …The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from…["]traditions["], born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these ["]traditions["] can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei) [DV 10# 1; cf. I Tim 6:20; II Tim 1:12-14(Vulg.)], contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church…

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone [nb. Latin: soli vivo Ecclesiae Magisterio!]. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ" [DV 10# 2]. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it…" [DV 10§2].

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", [Lk 10:16; cf. LG 20] the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely [ie. his Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity] [cf. Heb 1:1-3]:

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body… [cf. DV 21].

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God"67 [Th 2:13; cf. DV 24]…

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture…
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books…
107 The inspired books teach the truth…

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book". Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, "not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living" [St. Bernard, S. missus est hom. 4, 11: PL 183, 86]…

111 …The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. [cf. DV 12# 4].
112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture"…
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church"…
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith [cf. Rom 12:6]…

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God" [DV 12# 3].

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me [St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei 5, 6: PL 42, 176].

120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books90 [cf. DV 8# 3].

124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament" [DV 17; cf. Rom 1:16] which hand on the ultimate truth of God's Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son… [cf. DV 20].

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:
1. The life and teaching of Jesus…
2. The oral tradition…
3. The written Gospels…

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself [cf. Mk 12:29-31]. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament [cf. 1 Cor 5:6-8; 10:1-11]…

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture" [DV 24].

133 …Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ [DV 25; cf. Phil 3:8 and St. Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam libri xviii prol.: PL 24, 17B].

More to read in the comments in the combox!

The Origin of "Sola Scriptura"?

In a recent combox thread, Pastor Weedon thoughtfully provided us with a number of texts which - in his view - prove that the Fathers of the Church taught the doctrine of "sola scriptura". Here are the texts he proposed:

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

"It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments." St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 2

"Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8

We will not, at this point, quibble about Pastor Weedon's interpretation of these passages (although it is obvious to us that these same Fathers also taught doctrines which Lutherans would reject on the basis of "sola scriptura", eg. the intercession of saints and the sacrifice of the mass and the necessity of episcopal ordination). We will accept - for the sake of the arguement - that by the time of the great post-Nicene Fathers, the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" was in place.

Now here is my question: When did this doctrine originate in the Church?

For it is plainly obvious that the doctrine could not have been apostolic. We are aware that Jesus and the apostles regarded the Hebrew Scriptures (or properly, to the Greek Scriptures of the Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books) as the written and authoratitative Word of God (cf. the numerous references to "scripture" and "the scriptures" in the NT, including 2 Tim 3:16) - but they did not teach that these pre-Christian books were "sufficient" in themselves.

The writings of the apostles gradually gained acceptance as "sacred scripture", although it is obvious also that in the Church of the later half of the 1st Century and the 1st half of the 2nd Century, there still was not anything that could be called a "canon" in this regard. Even with the death of John and the final completion of the book of Revelation, not all Christian communities had access to all the writings of what we call "the New Testament", and that some regarded books as Christian Scripture that we today do not.

Therefore, in the first century or so after the death of the apostles, we can hardly think that anyone would have argued the principle of "sola scriptura" as the basis for all teaching and practice, since the OT was not regarded as sufficient and the NT was still in formation.

So at what stage did the Fathers begin insisting upon "sola scriptura" (remember, I am granting Pastor Weedon's point for the sake of the argument)? Any ideas?

(PS. I just checked Pastor's blog, and he has a really cool video of Vespers in his church. Check him and his people out in action here.)

Jumping the Gun on the New Liturgical Translation in South Africa

Can you make sense of this story in Cathnews or the picture (above) they chose to accompany it?

1) Why did Cathnews re-head the story "Southern Africans rebel against new Mass translation", when in CNS, where it was originally printed, the heading was "Southern African bishops seek Vatican OK to keep new Mass translations"?

2) Why is the story illustrated in Cathnews with something called the "Vatican II Missal"? Is there such a thing? I didn't think so... If anything deserves to be called that, wouldn't it be more like the Missal of John XXIII than of Paul VI?

3) What is the story actually about? It appears like the bishops in South Africa gave permission for the new texts to be used, and where it was used there was some negative feedback from the pews. Well, that's to be expected, especially if they were introduced cold, rather than using this period before the universal implementation of the new translations as a period of catechesis and preparation.

4) Still, far from this being a case of the "bad ol' Vatican" telling people they HAVE TO use the new translations, it appears that the Vatican is in fact saying that they SHOULD NOT be using them. So exactly what is the point of the Cathnews heading about "rebellion"? It appears that the "rebels" are those who want to use the new translations ahead of time, not those who don't want it!

Latae Sententiae excommunication: Misunderstood again

This is a horrible story - and for once I am not talking about the journalism (although that leaves something to be desired in this case too). The situation of the little girl and the abuse she suffered from her father are (for one who is himself a father of girls that age) too horrible to contemplate.

I can quite easily imagine where comments on this story might go in the combox, so I will ask you to please be polite and thoughtful in your responses (we don't want this to become a shouting match).

First, we should observe that carrying the twins to full term might have been physically very dangerous for the life of such a young girl. That brings into the moral equation the law of double effect, which is never straightforward.

Secondly, the child and her mother have obviously suffered a great deal in this situation, and what is needed above all from the Church is pastoral care and compassion. This may in fact have been offered by the Church - the issue seems to have been politicised by the fact that abortion is usually illegal in Brazil "except in cases of rape or if the woman's health is in danger" (both of which would appear to have made this case legal).

Thirdly, and most importantly, there is a point that might have been lost in translation or in the rush to make political capital out of the story: In saying that "the church was excommunicating all those responsible for the abortion: the medical team and the girl's mother... The adults who approved, who carried out this abortion, will be excommunicated", the archbishop may simply have been pointing out that anyone who procurs or cooperates in the procurement of an abortion is automatically (ie. latae sententiae) excommunicated. An explicit act of the Church is not required for such an excommunication to come into effect.

And so, like with the SSPX bishops, we see that once again the meaning of a latae sententiae excommunication is misunderstood by the media - although they could look it up on Wikipedia if they wanted to.

In addition to this, and hopefully this was immediately offered by the family's pastor, any priest is authorised to lift a latae sententiae excommunication which has been incurred in the case of abortion.

It is a horrible case, and I hope and pray that (despite the tone of the story in The Australian) the poor child and her mother and family are being surrounded by the love and compassion of Christ through his Church at this time.

Von Balthasar: "Blog On!"

Every now and again people ask the question "Why do Catholics blog?" In particular, why do amateur Catholics (like your blogmeister) blog? After all, on what authority do they take up their pen (umm... keyboard?) and take it upon themselves to be apologists for the Catholic faith? In this interview with Ignatius Insight, Gil Bailie gives a reason from von Balthasar:

At an earlier stage of our present crisis, Hans Urs von Balthasar, pointing to "the confusion of clerics and theologians," insisted that lay Catholics "have the absolute duty to care for the condition of Catholicity," adding with emphasis, "by protest if need be." For a Catholic sensibility, of course, protest is always a last resort, and there are today enough signs of episcopal and clerical revitalization to make even less justified. But the lay Catholic's obligation—in proportion to his or her respective gifts and competence—to "care for the condition of Catholicity" remains.

As distressing as our current situation can seem, we must keep before us the injunction we receive from the First Letter of Peter, that we must always be prepared to account for the hope we have in Christ (1 Peter 3:15) [see the banner of this blog!]. We must realize how hopeless a Christless world was and is and always will be. Christianity spread through the ancient world precisely because of the hope it gave to a pagan world desperate for it. At the very moment when civil order seemed to be dissolving, Christians—St. Augustine prominent among them—awakened a hope unlike anything the classical world had known. In the 21st century, under similar circumstances, it will fall to Christianity to supply a hope capable of filling the vacuum left by the naïve optimism of the modern era and the hollow nihilism of postmodern one.

Why comments on this blog is (generally) unmoderated

I was listening to an America Magazine Podcast on which Deacon Greg Kandra was talking about his blog "The Deacon's Bench".

One of the things they talked about was "to moderate or not to moderate?" Both the America magazine blog and Deacon Kandra's blog are moderated - because some people fell below the standard of what could be termed "polite online conversation".

I don't have moderation of comments on this blog - although on one or two occasions where I thought the poster was out of line, I removed the comment. (Once or twice in three years isn't what I would call "moderating", however.)

In part, this is because I haven't found the need for it. In part, it is because of the culture of Sentire Cum Ecclesia.

What I mean by that is that we have - you and me together, dear Reader - created an atmosphere here of chummy too-and-froing, and of respect for one another no matter what "POV" we might present.

I like stimulating argument. I dislike being in a conversation where everyone agrees with one another. SCE is a place where you cannot express a point of view and think that you don't have to back it up with reason.

I like to imagine SCE as an after dinner conversation at my place over port and cheese. Of course, since it is my place, I get to decide what we talk about, but I am happy to sit back and listen to where you guys want to take the conversation.

But I dislike rudeness. If you are rude on this blog, you are either being rude to me as your host, or to my friends - ie. to those who come to read and comment on this blog.

So just a word of warning: If you are rude, you won't get invited back for any more port and cheese at Sentire Cum Ecclesia.

Now is that bottle stuck to the table, or could someone pour me another glass?

Justification by Fast

"Since we were wounded by sin, we must treat it with penance. But penance without fast is worthless. Then by fasting justify yourselves before God!"

—St. Basil, Homily on Fast I, 3

One supposes that St Basil was not arguing that such justification would be "by fast alone"?

An original analysis of the situation at St Mary's

...from a very interesting perspective.

Michael Carden describes himself as "an out gay man, a biblical scholar and currently (Jan 2009) an honorary research advisor in the School of History, Philosophy Religion and Classics at University of Queensland, Brisbane Australia." He has "a long history of trade union, queer community and AIDS activism in Brisbane", and "counts [himself] as a fringe Catholic by religion" who "sit[s] across the boundaries of a variety of catholic communions including the Roman one."

I refer you to his three part (so far) anaylsis:

http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2009/03/st-marys-1.html
http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2009/03/st-marys-2.html
http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2009/03/st-marys-3.html

I appreciate his anaylsis because I believe it to generally be either "wrong for the right reasons" or "right for the wrong reasons".

Except in one matter in particular in which I believe he is absolutely right, and that is in regard to the Eucharist:

I used to attend St Mary's fairly regularly but by 2002 had effectively walked away from it as I believed that it had stopped performing any kind of eucharist that I could recognise as such...

The whole life of the church, indeed its very existence is grounded in the eucharist. Without the eucharist there is no church period...

I also noticed that the eucharistic prayers began to change. More and more it seemed that St Mary's had developed its own anaphora or eucharistic prayer. More and more these prayers began to abandon the standard characteristics of what made a eucharist a eucharist. In the end the only thing eucharistic about it the was the words of institution. But the prayer as a whole lacked any explicit reference to Christ let alone to anything of the sacrificial real presence. Without the words of institution it could have been used in any sort of religious setting Christian or non-Christian with no problem whatsoever. In other words it had been evacuated of any meaningful content whatsoever. Hence I walked. It's a bit like turning up for a vegan feast and constantly being presented with spare ribs. What was happening at St Mary's was a communion service of some sort but not a eucharist.

Or, I would say, like turning up for a spare ribs feast and being offered a vegan dish. But then, I am an unrepentant carnivore (having a tough time during lent. I made a fairly tasty meatless version of chow mien for tea last night, though, a sort of cabbage curry... The kids liked it, believe it or not. But that's another story...)

An email from a Reader

I received the following email from a reader who (for some reason) finds his computer does not let him communicate with this blog (perhaps it is a dissenting computer...?). He gave me permission to stick it up here for your comment:

Hi David,

I have been reading some of the posts on your blog and came to a realisation about the theological position of Past Elder.

Prior to the council there were parts of the Church, and this was a particluar problem in America, which didn't sufficently differentiate between the teachings of the Church and the scholastic theology that sought to explain them. The teachings of the Church were not and are not based on the thoughts of St. Thomas, however mighty those thoughts may have been, nor on the thoughts of any other theologian.

To be clear, unlike the situation in the Anglican Church, theologians as theologians have NO teaching authority within the Catholic Church. No theological explaination, however clear or well accepted, becomes part of the teaching of the Church until it is annunciated by the proper teaching authority - the bishops and the Holy Father in communion - and then only to the extent proper to the manner in which it was annunciated: a favorable comment in a pastoral encyclical doesn't really count as an inclusion in the body of faith.

However, scolastic, and particularly Thomistic, theology was so clear and the explainations were so complete that an understandable confusion arose between these wonderful explainations offered by the Church and the actual teachings of the Church. The problem was that all theology is human thought and thus limited. By the 60s it was clear that scolastic theology has ossified into an intellectual straightjacket that could no longer connect with the ordinary experience of christians or express the mystery which is Christ and His Church.

Vatican II changed not one jot of church teaching but updated and revised whole reams of theological explaination. To those raised in the conservative, intellectually rigerous and Thomistic schools of the US this must have seemed like a revolution.

I think it is to this that PE is referring. The post concicular church was no longer exclusively scholastic in its theology. Actually it never was exclusively. The Augustinians had never gone away and the Franciscan School of Bonaventure was another major way of looking at things while both the Benedictines and Carthusians kept their own style.

This then is the problem: if you identify the teachings of the Church with the scholastic explanations then the Church changed at Vatican II and is not the same body. If, however, you see the theology as secondary to the teaching then the church has changed not at all in its fundamentals - even though the liturgical reforms were not well handled.

"Hans Küng very sad" - OR: "Vatican III: yeah, I'd like to see that!"

This story in Cathnews is reporting that in 2007 there were 4,946 bishops in the Catholic Church. I guess that means that there must be very close to 5000 now?

It kind of makes one wonder how they would ever have a "Vatican III"... It would probably require some radical remodeling of the length of the nave in St Peter's, not to mention a very large increase in the number of hotels near the Vatican...



Of course, we remember that the calls for a "Vatican III" surfaced within a few years of the close of Vatican II from those convinced that Vatican II did not go far enough (see this extract from Time Magazine in November 1968 for proof).

Of course, one of the loudest exponents of these ideas then was one Father Hans Küng. As his Wikipedia page proclaims, Fr Küng "remains a Catholic priest in good standing" in the Catholic Church. But things have certainly not gone his way, and he knows it.



The same Cathnews article reports that Fr Küng is "very sad" over "the direction the current Church leadership was taking".

What do you think Fr Küng might mean by that? What "direction"?

I mean, there are a lot of people on this blog - Catholics and non-Catholics who, far from wanting a Vatican III, bemoan the effects of Vatican II. They say that ever since Vatican II things have been getting worse and worse in the Church as the "liberals" are taking over.

But consider this:

1) It is evident that the real downward turn in the Catholic Church took place almost immediately after the Council, at which time those whose hopes for change in the Church had not been sufficiently realised were already calling for a Third Vatican Council and already acting as if they had its decrees in their hands as the authorisation for their "reforms".

2) Things stayed at a low point for a while - also depressed by the negative reaction to Pope Paul VI's decision re Humanae Vitae, but the Pontificate of John Paul II revived the Church's confidence once again in the '80's and '90's, and so now we get a "direction" which is now being continued by Benedict XVI; a "direction" which is faithful to the all the Ecumenical Councils of the Church but decidely NOT in the direction of the Conciliarist's long-dreamed-of "Vatican III".

Hence, Fr Küng is "very sad". And I would argue that if Fr Küng is "very sad" about "the direction the current Church leadership is taking", that is good news for the rest of us: the "current Church leadership" is taking us in the right direction.

Isn't that right, Mr Current Church Leadership?

Some questions on the necessity of the Church for Christian faith

To elicit debate and discussion.

· Is it necessary for an individual Christian to belong to a congregation of other Christians in order to be truly Christian?

· Is it necessary for any given congregation of Christians to belong to a wider communion of Christian congregations in order to be a truly Christian congregation?

· Can any Christian believer take upon himself the authority to establish or lead a congregation of Christians, preach and teach the Word, administer the Sacraments, and determine true and false doctrine?

· How do I know what the "clear word of Scripture about salvation in Christ Jesus" is?

· How do I know what the "deposit of faith" / "apostolic faith" is?

· How do I know what is an "addition" to the deposit of faith and what is a "subtraction"?

· If Catholicism is "b+" and Protestantism is "b-" and Orthodoxy is "a", how do I know whether "a" or "b" is right in the first place?

· By what authority are doctrinal errors rejected?

· Who decides which of the following forms of baptism are valid: Baptism with the formula "in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier", baptism with the formula "in the name of Jesus", baptism by sprinkling, baptism of infants, Mormon baptism?

· Who decides what is "contrary to Scripture"?

· To what entity did Our Lord Jesus Christ refer when he said in the Gospel: "Listen to the Church" (Matthew 18:17)?

· Of what/whom does the church consist?

· How does the church speak to the world?

· Who speaks on behalf of the church?

· What is the relationship between authority and ecclesiology?

· On what basis should we judge any Christian community's claim to be "the catholic Church"?

· Which is of greater importance when evaluating the "catholicity" of a given Christian community: its public doctrine or what its constituents actually believe?

· Does existence as a "state church" automatically invalidate a community from being truly "church"?

· Is the Primacy of Peter the cause of "the unity of the Catholic Church" or "the biggest single cause of division within Christendom"?

A message from Vic Police on my mobile phone...

That's interesting. And quite amazing. I didn't know they could do this.

I just received a text message to my mobile phone as follows:

Msg from Vic Polic: Extreme weather in Vic experted Mon night & Tues. High wind & fire risk. Listen to local ABC radio for emergency updates. Do not reply to this.

Did everyone in Victoria receive this message on their phone?

CDW puts the Kibbosh on Ecumenical Service - But is there more to this than meets the eye?

Okay, so it is making a bit of news around the traps today.

According to a story in the Sydney Herald, "the Vatican" has "put a stop to a joint Pentecostal service planned by the Newcastle and Maitland Catholic and Anglican bishops."

The source of this information is said to be "a joint statement" issued by the Right Reverend Brian Farran, Anglican Bishop of Newcastle, and the Most Reverend Michael Malone, Catholic Bishop of Maitland-Newcastle.

I cannot find this joint statement anywhere on the web. Not even on the "media release" page of the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle.

One does like to have the facts before offering comment or analysis. "I read it in the Herald" is not sufficient to say that "it" is true, and still less a basis for explaining or understanding "it".

However, I think we are able to make some comment.

For a start, I think they mean "Pentecost service", ie. a service for the feast of Pentecost, rather than a "Pentecostal service", ie. a service for charismatic Catholics and Anglicans. Can't quite see the two bishops being into the hand-waving...

Still, according to the Herald's report, what was planned wasn't just a run-of-the-mill ecumenical service for Pentecost. Those things happen all the time. Ecumenical services have been the go ever since the Second Vatican Council, and it seems very unlikely that the Congregation is trying to put the kibbosh on these as such. (I recall a very happy event here in Melbourne in 1999 when a joint Catholic-Lutheran Vespers took place in the Cathedral to celebrate the signing of the Joint Declaration).

I think the missing key to the CDW's request to ditch the service is the fact that what was actually being planned was a joint "confirmation service". That would certainly explain why the CDW "expressed concern about a simultaneous celebration and the possibility of confusing messages being given to the people".

Confirmation is a tricky sacrament to pin down. I mean, there are so many variables about the way in which different ecclesial communities celebrate this rite - not to mention the fact that plenty of protestant folks would challenge that it is even a sacrament.

But I think you can say one definite thing about the way "confirmation" is celebrated by everyone and anyone: it is a rite that expresses a baptised person's committment to a particular bishop, local church, confession, rite or community. In other words, while baptism may be universally agreed to be a "rite of initiation" into the Universal Church, confirmation is almost just as universally designed as a "rite of denominational demarcation".

Thus, while one could imagine a situation in which the joint celebration of or rememberance of baptism would be very appropriate for an ecumenical service, the celebration of a joint ecumenical "confirmation service" would indeed by "confusing" (as the Herald suggests that the Bishops suggest that the CDW suggests).

It would be as hard to imagine as an ecumenical ordination service...

I hope that the Anglicans and Catholics in Newcastle go ahead with a joint service at Pentecost. I don't think anyone would have objected to that. But it is very wise of the Congregation for Divine Worship to close down any plans for a joint "confirmation service".