Loading ...
Mihi verba infera perdoctaque non sunt; eorum autem scriptor, in umbris volens habitare et sine nomine latere, me tamen poposcit ea in lucem educere. Quam flagitationem his inferis verbis nostro blogo repositis peregi et confeci.
As a contribution to the Society for a Good Time’s continual effort to reach out to all Catholics at Cornell, I attended a Spirit Retreat organized by Catholic students, held last weekend at an Assembly of God Church here in Ithaca. Our interest in the event was piqued largely by the fact that it was going to be lead by a priest from Franciscan University in Steubenville, an institution about which we have heard much. In particular, we had heard that the students in Steubenville believe in the “charismatic gifts,” the most famous of these being the gift of speaking in tongues. We were curious, and this seemed like a good chance to get a glimpse of what really goes on with this crowd. I volunteered to investigate.
The retreat started Friday night, included an overnight stay at the church, and continued through the following evening. I only attended the first evening’s session. I should tell the eager reader right away that I did not see anything that I recognized as the manifestation of charismatic gifts. There was a promise that people would be given an opportunity on Saturday night to “pray to be baptized in the Holy Spirit” or alternatively to have their spiritual gifts unlocked, and that the entire team of Steubenvillers would join in praying at that time. I didn’t get a chance to see that, so I can’t report on what exactly it involved. But I think I saw enough to get a bit of an idea of what sort of a retreat it was.
I got there around 8:30, and upon entering the building, was immediately aware of soft music. I recognized the song as “Lord, I Lift Your Name on High” though a less peppy version than I’ve sometimes heard. Entering the main chapel, I saw thirty or so kids clustered together in the middle section, standing, singing praise and worship music to the accompaniment of a single acoustic guitar. The chapel was clearly equipped for more enthusiastic expressions of praise; the whole front section was a stage, ready for musicians, with speakers and even a full drum set. The walls were arrayed with colorful banners, though I couldn’t inspect too closely because the lights were very dim. In the back of the singing students there was an older man standing in a row by himself. I entered this row and was greeted with a welcoming gesture by the man; only after I had taken my jacket off did I notice the collar. Apparently I was positioned next to the leader, Fr. Stan.
The music went for 45 minutes or so longer — all soft, nothing raucous. Many of the kids had their hands in the air, and some were kneeling in prayer by the end. I didn’t know most of the songs, but they were quite repetitive, so I caught on pretty easily. When the music stopped, a girl came up to the microphone and made a little speech about how happy God is to hear his children praising Him. She encouraged everyone to express themselves in whatever forms of praise appealed to them throughout the retreat. After this little talk, Fr. Stan went to the front of the room to introduce the Steubenville students. The team consisted of seven Steubenville undergrads; little bios of each of them were read, and Fr. Stan made sure to note with great pride that most of them were majoring or minoring in theology. He also gave a brief biography of himself, and the great things God had done in his life.
Three members of the group performed a brief skit, and then a member of the team stepped up to give a talk about faith. This was rather lengthy, and the young man was obviously practiced at giving these sorts of talks; he blended humor and sentiment almost seamlessly throughout the talk. Among his many points, he explained a somewhat simplified version of St. Anselm’s formula for why mankind needed a divine redeemer to pay our infinite debt to the divine. (St. Anselm himself was not mentioned, however.) We were warned not to cease striving against our faults (lest we get hit by a “divine two-by-four”), though we were also urged not to get caught up on prerequisites that we thought needed to be met before we could be of use to God (ie, going to church, going to confession, making restitution for wrongs done). If we were prepared to turn to Him, God could use us at that very moment. Also, we were urged to ask God for any and all favors or spiritual gifts, He being forever delighted to bless us with any good thing that we might desire. A few minutes of silence were observed so that we could present our requests to the Lord. The speaker also put in a request that we “leave theological disputes until Monday” since the retreat was intended in an ecumenical spirit and “we need unity, since there is much more than unites us than there is that divides us.”
Next we were broken into small groups. Each group was assigned a member of the team, and we were given some time to talk about the great things that God had done in our lives. Our team leader, a pretty and fashionable sophomore, told us how her faith life was greatly enhanced by her transfer from a somewhat wild California school to Franciscan University, where students preferred prayer to partying. A Cornell sophomore offered a reflection on how God had motivated her to become involved in community service, and a second said something in a similar vein about his experiences working with disadvantaged children. Another student offered regrets that she often doesn’t fully appreciate the good things that God does for her. Being the only group member who had not yet shared, I spoke for a two or three minutes about my conversion to the True Faith, how unpleasant much of it was, and how I’ve found that many of the most important steps in following Christ must be made on the basis of conviction in the complete absence of happy sentiment. I added that God had at the same time blessed me by putting me into company with Catholic Traditionalists and teaching me to love the Latin Mass. We were then asked to explain what it was that had motivated us to come to this retreat. Some thoughts were offered about the value of spiritual recharging. I declared straightforwardly that I was an emissary from the Cornell Society for a Good Time, that we had heard much about Franciscan University, and that I had come to investigate what sorts of things they actually do. They warmly assured me that they were glad that I had come.
The final event of the evening was a renewal of baptismal promises, directed by Fr. Stan. He began by telling a story about a young man he had baptized on a mission trip in Honduras, and then offered some thoughts on infant baptism among Catholics. He had great sympathy, he said, for people who believed that a person should not be baptized until adulthood, when it would be their own personal decision and hence would be more meaningful. But, he explained, Catholics don’t do that because they want baptism to symbolize the way in which the graces received from God are *completely* undeserved. A baby can’t have earned anything, and so Catholic baptism must symbolize (the precise word he used) a free gift from God. No mention was made of cleansing babies’ souls of original sin and thus potentially saving them from Hell. Finally, Fr. Stan went through the baptismal promises. On the final one (”Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic church…?”) he made sure to pause in the middle to explain that this was “with a small ‘c’, not a large ‘C’, meaning the Universal Church.”
All of this took about three hours to watch, and the whole time I kept turning this question over in my head: what are we to make of these, shall we say, Charismatic Catholics? Let me, for a moment, bracket out the most obviously objectionable things about the event: the suspicious comments on infant baptism and the fact that students were invited to a *Catholic* retreat and then subjected to bold expressions of indifferentism. I will return to this point later, but the fact remains that one could certainly imagine an event that was *similar* but cleansed of heresy and scandal. The praise and worship songs, the faith groups, and even the majority of the talks, would pass muster. In that event, would a Spirit Retreat be an acceptable way of evangelizing young people? Franciscan University seems to be operating on the assumption that this sort of charismatic activity can be fully compatible with Catholic orthodoxy, and I expect they’re probably sincere when they claim to be entirely in conformity with the directives of the Holy See. For a Traditionalist, of course, the corny skits and pop-style songs are distasteful, but they do certainly seem to be popular among the youth. If the disagreements are merely aesthetic, then it only seems fair to compromise by letting each produce their music of choice among those who prefer it.
Under very restricted conditions, this might really be the best attitude to take. When music is being selected for a Mass, there are a number of factors to consider, which I will not discuss here. But outside of Mass, outside of the sanctuary, I think it’s all right to enjoy some musical forms other than Gregorian Chant, and if the students of Franciscan University like to get together on weeknights to sing their campy songs it would seem a bit Draconian to forbid them. But further, I will admit that, to my mind, praise and worship music is not entirely without merit. Its aim is to appeal to the essentially adolescent mind, and it does this quite effectively. It speaks directly to the wishes and anxieties that are typical of adolescents. Consider this lyric from the praise-and-worship classic, Amazing Love (sung multiple times at this retreat):
I’m forgiven, because You were forsaken.
I’m accepted; You were condemned.
I’m alive and well! Your spirit is within me,
because You died and rose again.”
What could be simpler or more pleasing than that? Adolescents worry all the time about being lonely, left out, or just not good enough. And they’re certainly familiar with guilt, lostness, and emptiness. Combine these words with a pop-style melody that’s easy to learn and remember, and this is an instant balm for all those bad feelings. I’ve noticed that praise and worship songs are almost always in the first person (or occasionally the second, talking to God.) With a little accompaniment and a crowd of other enthusiastic youth, getting into the spirit of things is almost effortless.
Now, a praise and worship advocate might point out here that this music is not *purely* psychological candy. It has a clear Christian message. It does not lie. In a way, you might even say that it teaches young people the right way to respond to these growing pains, which are no less painful for being juvenile. If St. Augustine is right, then all our feelings of neediness and anxiety are all manifestations of our need for God. So in a way, this music is just trying to cut to the chase and give the troubled soul exactly the right medicine. Surely there is something beautiful about the simple and direct appeal to God’s love, even for those of us who would prefer that it not be encapsulated in this style of music? I’ll admit to sometimes finding this same quality appealing in folk and gospel music, and after all, we are told in the Gospels that we must enter the Kingdom of Heaven with a childlike faith.
I think all these considerations need to be taken seriously. At the same time, it seems right to be dubious about a spiritual journey that can be made so easily. Charismatic Catholics will agree in theory that we’re all sinners, but one wonders whether they really take that very seriously. I think it’s safe to say that most of our wills are rather gravely disordered, and, that being the case, it won’t be possible to fix them by getting exactly what pleases us. Praise and worship music aims to make people feel better about themselves; the trouble is that we’re really supposed to be dying to ourselves.
Dying to oneself is hard to do, of course, and we’re simultaneously under orders not to despair. Holy Mother Church understands our weakness, and mercifully breaks things down into more manageable pieces. But there’s a trick to everything that we do in the life of the Church. The tasks themselves are within our reach (praying a rosary, assisting at Mass, giving alms to the poor) but they put us in touch with deeper truths. Instead of trying to bring pieces of Heaven down to bandage our hurts, they pull us out of ourselves and towards Heaven. There is no trace of self-gratification involved in singing, “Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus sabbaoth.” It is one devotion that we are certain not to outgrow.
Sometimes, when people are really in a bad way, they may need the kind of immediate relief offered by praise and worship music. To the untrained mind, Masses and missals are just confusing, and people need to be motivated to investigate further. If the guitars and spontaneous prayers are needed to get people in the door, I might be willing to make some allowances. But such efforts need to be seen for what they are — training wheels. When I was in college, I used to draw an analogy to the materials used to in building a fire. Sometimes if the wood is wet, you need to get things started with pine needles and twigs. But it’s understood that these are just a beginning; it’s the logs that will keep you warm all night long. A man who tries to keep his campfire going on pine needles will find his resources running low in a hurry. Likewise the man who tries to feed his faith with pop music.
If this rings true for the music, I think it’s more or less applicable to the Steubenville approach in general. Why was there so much talk about what God has done in the lives of the individuals present, but absolutely no mention of the lives of the saints? Why couldn’t they use any of the Church’s beautiful set prayers, which surely have more depth than the improvised mutterings of undergraduates? The effects of this kind of worship can be seen, I think, in those deviations that I bracketed earlier. Fr. Stan is so practiced at making people feel good that it’s easy for him to forget that baptism is more than a symbol and that its purpose is not just to show God’s love but to correct a grave defect in our souls which would otherwise lead to our damnation. The obtuse attempt to be ecumenical made it easy to bring the whole group harmoniously together, but rendered impossible the only useful thing that such an event could accomplished — to point the students in the direction of the kind of food that has power to sustain their faith. After three hours of talking and singing, if I had asked myself “Well, now that I’ve had a chance to reflect, what should I do to make my life better?” I wouldn’t have been able to think of a single thing. After all, I’m forgiven, accepted, alive and well!
I like to make allowances for differences in personal tastes. If nobody complains about my gospel and bluegrass, I’ll let them keep their Jars of Clay. But we have to keep our eyes focused on the right things. In the end, nothing can substitute for the words of the saints and the liturgy of our Holy Mother Church, which become deeper and more real the closer we get to our Heavenly home.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
A non-revenue program? Well, I am not the author of the report, and I won’t speak for her. But as for me, I should never be in another - our universities have been lost by becoming technical training schools for engineers, doctors, lawyers, and the like.
How are we to be human beings if we do not study letters?
In that case, Plumlines, have you read Joseph Bottum’s recent article in First Things? But as always with that journal, watch out for creeping ecumenism! ;)
A good article, Iacobus; I just finished reading it.
Thank you kindly, Iacobus, for the link. It’s a wonderful article; it’s well expressed and perfectly captures Wodehouse’s genius. First Things is not part of my usual reading so this came as a very pleasant surprise. They can’t be all bad if they appreciate Plum!?
I agree with the author that a little lightheartedness helps maintain perspective and a healthy, balanced outlook. This tradi Catholic mom of many has certainly profited spiritually from Wodehouse’s work over the years!
I did not attend FUS or Cornell. I attended a real Catholic university - Villanova. Lord save me!
As for the retreat - milk before meat.
As for the the study of theology versus engineering - choose the better part.
Glad to see Cardinal Levada has an handle on the situation…
I am recalling the former Cardinal Ratzinger on the *only* American interview with him back several years ago. He comments on the new forms the Holy Spirit is reaching out in these times with regard to the charismatic movement.
Just a thought.
Additionally, I am reminded of St. Paul’s words in the Scriptures (1 Cor 14: 27-28) where he comments that tongues are intended to be interpreted and not some group gibberish. In any case I also came across the following from the Catholic Catechism:
“Whether extraordinary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world.
Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them and by all members of the Church as well. They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and for the holiness of the entire Body of Christ, provided they really are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic promptings of this same Spirit, that is, in keeping with charity, the true measure of all charisms” (CCC #799 + 800).
God bless all those who build up the Church with the charism of tongues the Holy Spirit grants them. I have yet to meet someone who has this special charism.
In my personal experience I have not necessarily heard tongues to my knowledge; I have experienced the Holy Spirit speaking through people where they say one thing but without them knowing it actually meaning something else that is crystal clear to person who recieves the words; and it builds up their faith.
Some people actually experience this as the priest preaches the homily, for example.
I think this is perhaps not necessarily tongues; but different charisms of the Holy Spirit reaching out to people.
To finalize my comments I would additionally enjoy noting that I believe Stuebenville is a power for Catholicism simply because they seem to be in line with the Church 110%.
I would additionally note the Church’s wise discussion on the necessity of “discerning” tongues.
This is for obvious reasons. One I would assume being a goofball that is not receptive to the Holy Spirit. The other is of course the seductive influence of the angels down below; something to which we are all in some respects capable of falling into.
“At 7:05 PM, April 25, 2006, Joe Six Pack said…
What are all these Catholics doing with these theology and philosophy degrees?
How many egghead Philosophers or Scott Hahn wanna-be’s do we need?
Go to regular schools and get hard science, medical, engineering, or business degrees. And go out win souls in those worlds for Christ.
Leave all the rest to the priests and religious.
It really bugs me to see all these Catholic men getting degree upon degree in philosophy and theology, and then they get married, and live in virtual poverty.
At least that’s the experience I’ve seen with my own peers.”
Mr. Six-Pack,
-One of the most recurring problems that I have with so-called ‘Traditionalists’ is that they think they are high and mighty. I see this reflected in your post.
-However, I am put into a difficult situation–I find myself agreeing with various things that ‘traditionalists’ say and so there is a complex.
-Yes, I agree, people do come here and study theology and philosophy and then live in abject poverty. It is lamentable and believe me, you don’t want me to go off on that subject.
-What I do want to say is that I think your comments are highly judgmental. You do not know me or my intentions. Although if you visited my web site as given above, you’d have quickly noticed that I’m planning to do with my Theology degree.
-KJS
Kevin,
I’m happy to see traditional Catholics educating themselves in theology and philosophy (case in point the contributors to his blog).
I’ve just seen too many associates with these degrees, starting young families, and having to eat a steady diet of government cheese, turn down the heat in the winter to unbearably cold temperatures, and practice NFP — this being the biggest tragedy since it reduces the number of Catholics in this world and the next.
My comments aren’t intended to cast judgment on individual cases.
Mr. Six-Pack,
-Again, I certainly understand what you are saying. I myself try to keep a critical mindset with the ‘pop-theology’ that is rampant here at Steubenville. If I told you what the entire campus was just treated to last Friday or even what happened at the 12:05 Mass today, you’d about die from the shock of it.
-In fact, we’d probably be the best of friends if I wasn’t cautious about the snootyness that I mentioned earlier. I do thank you for clarifying your words.
-The one point that I find most of the ’snooty traditionalists’ (not saying you ARE one) is that they lack charity. Remember, St. Cyprian disagreed with Pope Stephen on re-baptism, but Cyprian’s charity refused to allow him to go into schism over it.
-When I see so-called ‘traditionalists’ upholding the Pope of Rome in one hand and then smashing him with the other, that is wrong. It is a sin and completely uncalled for. We, as Catholics, are not about such things. If we aren’t with the Pope and when he speaks, we are against him.
-Perhaps if ‘traditionalists’ would just listen to the Popes, they’d see the Papacy a little differently. In other words, ‘traditionalists’ tend to see the Pope as someone who fires off anathemas at the slightest bit of heterodoxy. Such days are gone and is to be lamented to some degree, but not to the point of smashing the Pope around.
-We live in a complicated age and all is not what is appears to be. Much discernment is required and if we aren’t listening to the Holy Father, then it’s time for us to examine ourselves first and foremost before converting the guy next to us.
In pacem, benedicamus Domino!
-KJS
Thanks, Kevin,
I agree with what you say.
I’ve never spent much time examining and commenting on any of the modern popes’ actions. I’m too busy working out my own salvation to be examining the pope’s business.
I may make a comment only insofar as I detect Catholics being led astray, not so much by things the pope says, but by the errors propagating throughout the world due to his silence and lack of clarity.
Again, however, is the Pope truly being so silent and not speaking clearly?
Sometimes the best way to address an issue is when no one knows you did.
That, it would seem, is a hallmark of excellent convincing skills.
That said, let me say that I do trust Ratzinger very much. I just found out a story today that told me he is definitely up to speed and handling issues.
Pax!
-KJS
Kevin,
Some 95% of Catholic married couples contracept, this is due from the confusion caused by the failure to preach Catholic Faith and Morals and to appoint good bishops and remove bad bishops.
This is the key to the failure of the JP II papacy and this current papacy.
Read:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/12006b.asp
Instead of clarifying doctrine and speaking simple truth, the modern popes have added to the confusion out there. And they have appointed and promoted wolves as shepherds of their flocks - allowing morals to be corrupted, the young to be sodomized, and souls to be damned.
And what is the legacy of these modern popes:
God is Love!
and
Naked without Shame!
Read this:
http://www.giftfoundation.org/pages/naked_without_shame.htm
Six Pack,
-I see your reference and I’ll raise you some sense.
-First off, you cite Christopher West in your defense of ‘cloudy papal teaching.’ If Christopher West is the measuring rod by which you judge JPII’s Theology of the Body, you’ve got a very serious problem.
-West is not taken seriously by every single academic. People in the JPII Institute even think he is a little off his rocker. I have this on the authority of people who are ‘in the know’ as it were.
-I tend to take seriously the witness of others, especially in areas where I’m vastly ignorant of (JPII’s TotB being one area). Combined with my own personal experience with Christopher West, well, let us just say that I have enough to be concerned with.
-If for nothing else, these ‘pop theologians’ aggravate me terribly. They aggravate me because I get sick of the attention they get and that their word is treated like gold. Whenever modern Catholic faithful hold up someone as a model, I’m cautious. Why? Because I try to be scholarly about things.
-I don’t just accept these people right off the bat. They are to be tested, tried and must prove their worth. Mr. West has, so far, demonstrated himself to be a little too ‘pop’ for my taste and so I avoid him.
-Now, as to the “God is love” bit, remember that St. John preached that.
-Your problem is that you want the Pope to drive the hard line right down the middle and knock all of these people into oblivion. Where is caritas? Knocking for the sake of knocking? We know very well that these (do I dare say heretical?) people are obstinate and won’t change their ways because the Pope said to.
-Again, have you considered that the Pope(s) are seeing something much deeper? You are not omniscient and for that matter, neither are the Popes. However, the one thing that they have that we don’t are entire Congregations that receive mail and reports from all over the globe.
-Your position would have to admit willful ignorance on the part of the Popes in order to be properly understood. To hold such is not only ridiculous, but ultimately an insult to said Popes.
-Ratzinger is not going to lay the “ecclesiastical smack-down.” Get used to it. Your vision of the Papacy is extremely narrow and that is why you don’t get why the Popes have acted the way they have been. You do understand that if you think the situation is bad now, you should get a grip on some considerations from the early Church.
-Bishops were elected by their own particular churches. Imagine what that would be like nowadays? Oh good grief, I don’t even want to imagine the horrors. There are politics that go on in the Vatican, you must understand that. What reaches the Pope, I do not know. I do know that things get blocked deliberately.
-When it comes to the appointing of Bishops, does the Pope ever really know any of these people? He is dependent upon the witness of those who submit the names to him. In short, Six Pack, the door is left wide open to deceit. Yet are you going to say this is wrong?
-What sort of system do you then suggest to put in place for the lawful succession of Bishops? Shall we go back to the early custom of the Church in this day and age? Personally, I think not.
Shall we appoint a committee of laypeople (or priests or deacons or bishops) to decide? We must then ask ourselves who decides what person should be on the committee?
There are going to be pros and cons involved in these things. Each is going to have their weaknesses. In the mind of many so-called ‘traditionalists,’ the Pope is the almighty firer of anathemas. That is not the role of the Papacy and the Council teaches us this.
-The Church has rooted herself in the teachings of Vatican II. You must accept that and study the documents as well as the theology behind them. It is only then that you will be able to understand why the Popes conduct themselves as they do now.
-The problem here is that a good number of so-called
‘traditionalists,’ quite frankly, don’t give a hoot about these documents. But the answers to their questions lie in these very documents that they think ill of (in some cases, reject).
-I hear conspiracy theories. I hear of Masons hijacking the Council. I hear Gruner and Kramer spouting their untruths concerning Fatima (Sr. Lucia herself denounced Gruner, fyi), I hear all sorts of garbage. Yet when I go back to the documents and read the commentaries, daybooks, etc., I just don’t see a lot of what people talk about them.
-I’d be willing to bet that Ratzinger is seeing a larger problem at hand. So the question is, why would Ratzinger’s first Encyclical be “God is Love?” It is a return, Six Pack, a call for humanity to return back to the fundamental tenets of Christianity. The ills of the world can only find their proper resolution in Christ.
-Just as John makes the point in his Epistle that God is love, if that needs repeating in our day and age, then it will be repeated. The difference is the significance and shade of meaning required of it in light of the events of modernity.
-The question that lies before us today is what are WE doing to preserve the Faith and its integrity? The Pope needs help, Six-Pack, but his voice gets lost amidst the sea of bickering among the very fold he protects. We who know the truth of the Church’s teachings also have a grave moral responsibility to inform our own as well as to preach the Gospel to those without.
I’ll end with the following:
What are you doing for the encouragement and building up of the City of God in these our tough days? Do you lament the loss of the old days when things were easier with the Pope doing all the work? Or, do you help the Pope not by tearing him down but by listening to his message and implementing it in your own life?
-KJS
Kevin,
First, thanks for your thought provoking response. You write with both clarity and charity.
We hear God is Love everyday from the novus ordo pulpit. How can it be said that that particular message isn’t getting out.
I’ll admit that I’m not capable of getting deep into the theology of these troubling issues.
I’m simply looking at empirical evidence.
1) The Church, in her human elements, is failing and dare I say corrupt.
2) Two consecutive popes (JP II and B XVI) have promoted an understanding of modern Judaism that is anathema to traditional Christianity’s understanding (both found in Sacred Scripture and Tradition) of Judaism.
3) Granted, it’s impossible to know everything about every possible candidate for the episcopacy. But, certainly we should expect that once a man is shown known to be a pervert or a protector and promoter of perverts, he should at the very least be not promoted into even higher officer, and perhaps should be removed from his current office. Both JP II and B XVI have promoted known promoters of perversion.
4) The Mass of All Time is the greatest way known to man to worship God. The Novus Ordo is a total fabrication that is less reverent and can lead Catholics to have a cavalier disregard for their faith. JP II and B XVI are strong supports of the NOM and barely tolerate the MOAT.
5) If the Vatican approves this limited use of condoms document, what will your thoughts be then?
Six-Pack,
-See, it is precisely the fact that you can’t enter deeply into the theology of these troubling issues that makes the discussion handicapped.
-I am slated to graduate with an M.A. in Theology in 9 days. No, I am not making a vain attempt to lord anything over you or to say, ‘look at me, I’m so smart.’ I say this because I am an academic. I’ve been in this mode for quite some time now and as a result, I’ve been exposed to much of the thought, theory and point behind it. My approach to these subjects is due to that.
-”God is Love” from the N.O. pulpit….well, first I’ll disavow myself from the smack to the N.O. inherent within the comment. Secondly, I’ll grant the benefit of the doubt and run with the it is preached everyday for a moment. I don’t think people quite get it. There is a factor called sin and concupiscence that plays into our scenario. We have darkened minds and intellects and I can tell you that people don’t get the message.
-I just dealt with a particularly nasty situation here in Steubenville. A couple of fellow students decided to go to the airwaves and slander my name. I warned one of them previously that what they were doing was not only an offense to charity but was not virtuous. Trust me, the response would make you sick.
-For the most part, I let this person walk the line he desired to travel and he fell into disgrace after some actions he undertook. Did he understand charity? Certainly not and I ask you to please pray for him.
-My point is this: even at the center for neo-catholicism that is Steubenville, the students DO NOT ‘GET IT.’ Again, this is so for varied reasons that I shall not get into here. So why do we constantly hear ‘God is love?’ Because we don’t get it. If we did, then there’d be no problem(s) would there?
-There is a developed theology on the subject. What you need is a theological master to be able to explain it. We have a couple of good professors here at Steubenville and I’m sure elsewhere in the US of A. If we don’t study philosophy and theology, we won’t understand what the Popes are trying to tell us. We have been mandated by the Popes to take up arms and fight according to our means.
Now to your points:
1.) Can you demonstrate that every Bishop was perfect in the pre-Vatican II period? Can it truly be said that the Church’s human elements weren’t failing even then? A particular emphasis is needed on the fact of the “new theology” coming to bear at Vatican II.
2.) Perhaps this is because I just went over the point for my Comp. Exam, but are you aware that a new development in the theology of grace has occurred? If you’d like, I’d be glad to write up a little summary for you and we can talk more at length.
3.) I can honestly state that I don’t know why this has happened. What I do want to say is that your idealization of the pre-Vatican II period causes a serious bias here. Remember, even Padre Pio had to deal with a homosexual bishop.
4.) I can tell you’re a so-called ‘old school’ Roman Catholic by this statement because it excludes the Eastern Catholic liturgies. So many Catholics think they are better than the Easterners and it is really becoming a disgusting offense that rises to heaven.
To be quite honest, some of their liturgies are rather beautiful and call the theology of the ‘tridentine’ liturgy into question in a few regards.
There is quite a bit I can say on this subject. Perhaps that’s because my spiritual director is a Byzantine priest. At this time, however, I’ll leave further comment for naught.
5.) Are you so caught up in the media that you didn’t get the WHY we are even discussing this? Cardinal Martini made a comment that was well off-line. Prompted a lot of media response and a high-level Vatican meeting to discuss it and Martini. It also prompted the Vatican to issue a clarification that it was NOT going to change its doctrine.
Now, what should be the fate of Martini? If we think in the ‘old days,’ he’d be perfect bait for excommunication. Nowadays, I’m not so sure.
Benedict once stated, as Cardinal, and in so many words, that the best way to deal with heretics (to sum it up) is to challenge, oppose and disprove them. You know what? He was right. With the means of social communication being the way they are, we’d have a lot of martyrs very quickly if we just fired off anathemas. Think ‘Da Vinci Code’ and you’ll see my point.
Having been a student of communications as well of theology, I can tell you that the ramifications of the media would be infinitely worse. Better to play it prudent than to cut off our own head.
We already see the media at work in the Martini case, so let us think further. If you’ll pardon the expression, among the vulgar slangs of today, there is one that I will cite here. The Martini case shows us that we really do not want to have our a**** handed to us by the media. It is a serious embarrassment and does nothing for the Church’s divine claims.
I could be wrong in all of these things, but our task is to think further in a scholarly way on these subjects. That is what, I hope, we are attempting to do here.
-KJS
Kevin,
Thanks for your comments, but, a couple things:
There is a developed theology on the subject. What you need is a theological master to be able to explain it. We have a couple of good professors here at Steubenville and I’m sure elsewhere in the US of A. If we don’t study philosophy and theology, we won’t understand what the Popes are trying to tell us. We have been mandated by the Popes to take up arms and fight according to our means.
Are you trying to say that only a few super-theologians really know what the heck the modern Popes are trying to tell us in their encyclicals? That is really, really goofy.
So many Catholics think they are better than the Easterners and it is really becoming a disgusting offense that rises to heaven.
That’s a pretty strong claim. Perhaps these Easterners are just too easily offended?
To be quite honest, some of their liturgies are rather beautiful and call the theology of the ‘tridentine’ liturgy into question in a few regards.
Of course they’re beautiful! But, watch your words, sir. We know about the major differences, the unique and perhaps unexplained changes in the Roman Mass with respect to the other ancient rites, but none of this calls its theology into question.
3.)What I do want to say is that your idealization of the pre-Vatican II period causes a serious bias here.
Don’t drag that stuff out here. The point is not how great things were before the Council (and certainly the evil roots had long existed), but how tremendously bad they are now, not just relative to the 1940’s, but to the entire rest of the history of the Church. Have you read any serious works on the modern crisis in the Church?
“Are you trying to say that only a few super-theologians really know what the heck the modern Popes are trying to tell us in their encyclicals? That is really, really goofy.”
Respondeo:
-No, I am not. I was speaking to your situation directly. It would benefit you to find someone with a mind for theology who understands the broad issues at stake here.
“That’s a pretty strong claim. Perhaps these Easterners are just too easily offended?”
Respondeo:
-If you noticed, I never said the Easterners thought it was offensive. I was speaking for myself and what I personally have noticed. I am a Latin Catholic, not Eastern. Yes, you are correct, it is a strong claim, but not so strong as some of the insinuations I’ve seen among the ‘traditionalists.’
“Of course they’re beautiful! But, watch your words, sir. We know about the major differences, the unique and perhaps unexplained changes in the Roman Mass with respect to the other ancient rites, but none of this calls its theology into question.”
Respondeo:
-So the Eastern theology is to be called into question? If anything, theirs is a lasting theology that continues down to the present age. Can’t say much for the Roman Church these days if the traditionalist position is to be (tenuously?) held.
“Don’t drag that stuff out here. The point is not how great things were before the Council (and certainly the evil roots had long existed), but how tremendously bad they are now, not just relative to the 1940’s, but to the entire rest of the history of the Church. Have you read any serious works on the modern crisis in the Church?”
Respondeo:
-Unfortunately, I must ‘drag it out’ because it is the background to this discussion. I speak right to the point and drag the shadows out into the light so we may all see if it is done in God (c.f. John 3:19-21).
-Whether or not you realize it, Six-Pack, many traditionalists idolize the pre-Vatican II period. It becomes the ideal in their mind and forms an immediate bias. Such is passed onto the people they speak to and who may adopt the position.
-In other words, it is a supposition that becomes the unspoken rule like the proverbial pink elephant. Again, I speak to it to expose what is going on in the background discussion.
-My readership in the present crisis in the Church is irrelevant. However, sufficeth to say that it also largely depends upon what you consider to be legitimate sources.
-If you refer to people like Vennari, Ferrara, etc., well, I think those people are quacks, liars and schismatics. Ferrara’s own “We Resist You To Your Face” is proof positive enough of that. They are conspiracy theorists who wouldn’t know truth from the sun rising on a clear day.
-If you are referring to people like Ratzinger, John Paul II, Dom Alcuin Reid, etc., then I would say that you can make a decent case. These are people who have their heads screwed on straight and can argue intelligently.
-So again, this will largely come down to who you accept as authoritative. I’ll leave that for your discussion.
-KJS
Regarding the Jews and the new understanding of grace:
1) Does biblical Judaism still exist today?
2) Does God still have a covenant with the Jews?
3) Do Catholics and modern-day Jews worship the same God?
1) Bring up the Eastern Rites, simply because a traditional Latin Catholic strongly supports the Mass of All Time over the fabricated NOM, is a Red Herring.
I meant nothing against the Eastern Rites.
Isn’t always strange that this Eastern Liturgy red herring is thrown about by Novus Ordo Latin Riters? It’s total obfuscation. Why generate unnecessary claims of offense?
By the way, I’m a Chaldean. My long-deceased great uncle was a Chaldean Archbishop. Pius XI made my great grandfather a papal knight for building Catholic churches in Egypt. I’m a first generation American, my father and his family emigrated from Egypt. So, now do I have sufficient Eastern bona fides, to make my claims about the Mass of All Time? Bring up the Eastern Rites, simply because a traditional Latin Catholic strongly supports the Mass of All Time over the fabricated NOM, is a Red Herring.
I meant nothing against the Eastern Rites.
2) Regarding needing a degree to understand the popes or modern Catholic teaching.
Our Lord established a visible church of true teachers. He did not, as the protestants and some neo-caths seem to suggest, establish an invisible church of true believers.
The Church’s job is to teach and sanctify. If one needs a masters in theology in order to understand the teachings of the Church, than perhaps the human elements of the Church are failing in their primary duties.
The fact that you and I and relatively small universe of Catholics are “on fire” with the faith is meaningless. The Church must speak to world and convert and teach everyone, not just the “degreed.”
3) Regarding the argument used to defend the current Novus Ordo regime: “things weren’t so rosy before Vatican II”
Well, you can say this, but you cannot back it up.
Kenneth C. Jones’ book “Leading Catholic Indicators” clearly shows that in all measurable areas (vocations, mass attendance, faithful adherence to Catholic moral teaching, piety, devotions) the 1950s were a stronger Catholic decade than at any point in American history.
If your argument (that Catholic culture was already on the decline) was correct, one would assume that the decline could be traced leading up to the 1960s.
In fact just the opposite is true. Catholic piety was stronger in 1960 than in 1920 or 1820.
The sudden, almost over-night, self-destruction of Catholic culture which occurred from the late 60s to the early 70s and beyond, cannot be explained on a natural level. On the natural level you want to look for a gradual decline or seeds of dissent being planted decades earlier. To some degree perhaps if you look close enough you can find a few examples here and there. But on a whole, you cannot make an argument based on the natural level.
That leaves the only other possible option: that changes that occurred in the Church are due entirely to the supernatural.
1) The Novus Ordo Missae cannot sustain Catholic piety.
2) Catholic doctrine is no longer being clearly preached and promulgated.
It looks to be a fine, upstanding group of “largely Catholic communities.” : )
Believe me, I don’t like what the so-called charismatic movement preaches as a lot of you don’t. My time in Steubenville showed me that much.
If anyone was interested to learn more of my thoughts, please feel free to E-mail me. I also have another page on my site:
http://www.kevinsymonds.com/respcm.html
-KJS
http://www.kevinsymonds.com/misc.html
-KJS
Thanks, Kevin!