Loading ...
A couple things which I saw today and wanted to note . . . . After reading this commentary by Diogenes about Bishop Gumbleton’s latest pontifications in the National Catholic Reporter, I realized that there is not only a special theology of Peace & Social Justice, whose most notable spokesman is Bishop Gumbleton, but there is also a special theology of the Holy Eucharist advocated by Bishop Gumbleton. Diogenes brought it to my attention in this passage:
But if we listen closely to the Scriptures today and try to get a deep understanding of what the Holy Eucharist really is, we will understand, I think. The scriptures today reflect the idea that the Eucharist is most of all the living presence of Jesus. To think of the Eucharist as a kind of prize that you earn, that you make yourself worthy to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus — that’s a very wrong approach, a wrong understanding of the Eucharist. It leads us to the idea that we put Jesus in the tabernacle and we worship him and that’s the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus.
First of all, whatever liberal jumbo Gumbleton has in mind when he speaks of listening closely to the Scriptures, I’m pretty sure it was condemned the Apostolic See in, I believe, Innocent VI’s bull Inter perniciosos Scripturae auditus . . . I’ll get back to you on that one. Anyway, Gumbleton’s deprecating remarks about reserving the Sacred Species for the veneration of the faithful indicate that he is, at least, a material heretic. Consider only this proposition, “The Worship of Adoration (latria) must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist” - this is a de fide proposition (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 387). Is it any surprise that one of the foremost demagogues of the Nervous Disorder sounds like an early protestant? They, too, believed in a “living presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, but they rejected reservation and worship.
Of course, I bandy about the term “heretic” pretty freely, as the other members of this Society can tell you. I once accused Iacobus of heresy when, having been asked the question, “Whether it be a grave sin to recite the so-called Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary?” he answered In the negative, though with qualifications. I also once accused Ambrosius of heresy for maintaining the proposition (condemned in the Syllabus Errorum, I believe) that “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those women who are not infrequently found to be wearing pants.” So given all of that, you might want to take what I say with a grain of salt, but you can look at the Ludwig for yourself.
Now I wouldn’t care a wit what this freelancing bishop thinks about the Eucharist, but I noticed a connection between his views and the practice at the Cornell Catholic Chaplaincy. You see, last year, during the Year of the Eucharist, before Fr. Daniel McMullin had arrived, we convinced Fr. Smith to expose the Blessed Sacrament for Adoration in the Blessed Sacrament closet after Mass (around noon) until 5PM or so. This was all going well until Sr. Fannon desecrated the whole thing by taking it upon herself to repose the Blessed Sacrament, which incident, as Iacobus, Ambrosius, and Iosephus will all concur, was specifically mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse as a sure sign of the beginning of the end. At any rate, when certain other students, with whom we only loosely associate on account of their refusal to recognize the degrees of the Holy See laid out in this motu proprio, asked that Adoration be resumed this past fall, the Chaplaincy, under the new leadership of Fr. McMullin, though not necessarily at his insistence, refused.
And now I think I have a better idea why they refused, why they were not eager to encourage or assist in the worship of latria which, de fide, must be given to the Blessed Sacrament. For they are all to a man (and I should say, woman) supporters of Bishop Gumbleton’s new way to be church. Also, their set isn’t a group in which you’ll hear the word “latria” pop up too often. Of course, we’ve known that the Novus Ordo likes to move the Real Presence to the side, but explicit statements of denial concerning the latria to be given to the Blessed Sacrament indicate not just a tendency, but a positive commitment to destroy belief in the Real Presence and to take away honor from Our Lord, as in the Chaplaincy’s refusal to allow Adoration this past year at Cornell.
The second thing I wanted to mention, and completely unrelated - I really liked this piece about David Jones at Seattle Catholic. While reading it, I was reminded that I had first heard of this David Jones fellow while in conversation over a glass of cognac with Ambrosius (whose knowledge of English poetry is excellent) and Fr. Jonathan Robinson (whose knowledge, simpliciter, is excellent) at the Toronto Oratory.
Also, the merit of the author’s concluding advice about how to read Jones’ work and with which piece to begin I did appreciate. Though I would say to Mr. Hennessey that it has been the experience of the Cornell Society for a Good Time, when gathered in solemn assembly, that a “good deep glass of red” enhances the merits of most any poetry, and especially those merits of the fine Catholic poets whom we like to read.
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,
May I play Devil’s Advocate (and speak not metaphorically)? Better yet, may I play Grand Inquisitor? William Thomas Walsh wrote a great book on the Inquisition, and like all great books on this institution, it strongly advocated the public persecution of heretics. One of the major points in the book was how perniciously slippery heretics are in their language. There might actually be a way in which Gumbleton could defend what he said. He said, “It leads to the idea that we put Jesus in the tabernacle and we worship him and that’s the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus.” Scandalous, injurious to pious ears, etc. But I’m betting that you can spin even this bit of sophistry. Here’s a proposal:
1.) When G. said “put Jesus in the tabernacle,” he didn’t mean to deny the fact that we do put Him there. He was rejecting the notion that we put Him there and LEAVE Him there, by not letting Him change our lives outside of Church on Sunday. We should ALSO bring the Eucharistic Lord into the world, by serving our brothers and sisters.
2.) “and we worship him” — not that we don’t worship Him. Rather, G. is saying that we should not pray with our lips when our hearts and hands are idle. We must build the Kingdom by aiding, etc., etc.
3.) “and that’s the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus” — the key word here is “that.” It is used to slight and diminish what precedes. We see this in the line, “That’s it?!” Depending on his tone, you can read “that alone” in place of “that.” He is denying that the Eucharist should be reduced to Holy Communion and Eucharistic Adoration in the absence of what old fogeys like me used to call “works of mercy” (G. would probably call them “works of justice and outreach,” just to be PC).
I don’t know if this is what Gumbleton actually means. He may really be an inveterate denier of the Eucharist. His ambiguity of language (and I really do think this is a case of subtle ambiguity, not outright heresy) may be intentional, in order to distract people away from Eucharistic adoration. Or, he may really believe in the transubstantiation, but his mind has been so addled by all his other great and sundry idiocies that he can’t even express that truth without distortion. He’d be an anti-Balaam — he tries to say something good, and it comes out wrong. “From those who have little, what they have will be taken away.”
At the very least, he is making a false dichotomy between adoration of the Eucharist as a devotion and “true” devotion to the Eucharist, whatever he thinks that entails. Are there people who go to Eucharistic adoration and then don’t give a you-know-what about their family, neighbors, and the poor? I’d like to think not, but there are. But you would never lament that fact the way he did. A priest in such a situation would rather point out that you can say all the prayers you want at exposition, but if you won’t take up your cross in your own life, perform spiritual and corporal works of mercy, and live a life of virtue according to your vocation, you still are not worthy of the Sacrament. Of course, if Americans really wanted a reinvigorated apostolate to the poor, they would revive Eucharistic piety. Gumbleton, even in the most favorable analysis, has gotten it backwards: he’s decided that encouraging an active apostolate depends upon slighting, at least verbally, private and public devotions. So for being so very anti- and un-American in his politics, in religion he’s awfully Americanist.
“He’d be an anti-Balaam — he tries to say something good, and it comes out wrong.”
I’ll give an example. I had a liberal Catechism teacher in high school, who also happened to be my boss at work. He often railed and railed against “conservatives,” both religious and political, whom he saw as “righteous.” I repeatedly pointed out to him that being “righteous” is an unqualified good, and that’s what we are supposed to be. I told him that when criticizing hypocrites he should be denouncing their SELF-righteousness. Now that I think about it, maybe he really did object to other people being righteous . . .
Tobias were your remarks original?
This goofball stuff happens all the time. I always get the impression people who do this are just trying to tick people off or make them feel uncomfortable doing such practices (which ironically have been on the rise). How many Novus Ordo places now have 24-hr Eucharist Adoration or at least some of it during the week? It’s blossoming throughout the Church as a sign of the New Springtime.
In any case I am lost as to Bishop Gumbleton’s logic and how he could make such comparisons and conclusions.
“Tobias were your remarks original?” Johnboy wrote.
Yes, I composed everything except the citations from Gumbleton, which I got from Josephus’ post, and the paraphrase from the Gospel. For Gumbleton’s “apologia,” I drew on stuff I’ve heard over the years from Jesuits and other social justice types. Is that what you’re asking?
For a laugh, I’ll tell you something about my Jesuit alma mater. The “conservative” set had the St. Robert Bellarmine Society, which was focussed on overgrown catechism lessons, Eucharistic adoration, and the Rosary. Then there was JUSTICE, i.e. Jesuit University Students Together In Concerned Empowerment. Need I describe their mission?
“Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, there’s sure to be laughter and red wine,at least I’ve always heard it so. Benedicamus Domino.” –Hilaire Belloc
Thought of this when I read the last line of this entry.
-KJS
I’m working my way through William Thomas Walsh’s book on Queen Isabella of Spain. I just finished the chapter on the Holy Child of La Guardia - the young boy crucified by 5 Jews and 5 Christians (secretly Jews). The young Catholic boy of 5 or 6 had his heart carved out and along with a stolen consecrated host (stolen by the secretly Jewish sacristan of a local church) was given to a Rabbi who performed a ritual cursing the Christians of Spain. This was the culminating event leading to Her Most Catholic Majesty’s expulsion of all Jews from Spain.
JSP, that’s why when I play Civ IV, I always use Isabella. ;)
JSP, you raise an interesting point about child-martyrs. I believe that the accounts approved of by the Church (all 6 or 7 or however many) were true. However, now you will probably be called anti-Semitic just for mentioning them. However, here’s a thought-problem. To suggest that Jews could kill a Christian child out of hatred for the Faith is supposed to be beyond belief, prima facie. But to claim that Christians killed Jews in pure unmotivated hatred, using “ritual murder” as a false pretext, that is acceptable. Now, almost nobody ever bothers to investigate the actual accounts of these events, they just work from assumptions about what is and is not “anti-Semitic.” So are Christians capable of grisly acts of violent bigotry, simply because they’re Christian, but Jews incapable, simply because they’re Jews? What gives? My point is not that we should assume guilt in such investigations — far from it, and the Inquisition did not assume guilt either. However, when “assuming innocence,” we should do so uniformly, shouldn’t we? Of course, we see this sort of “bigotry-under-cover-of-fairness” operating in all sorts of contexts.
Anyway, it’s good to have you back, JSP.
Don’t forget the most important child-martyr of all, Ex-St. Simon of Trent, whose feast was removed and whose veneration was forbidden in 1965.
Holy Child of La Guardia, huh? So when traditionalist Catholics take over this country, we’ll drop the airport’s association with Mayor Fiorello and rename it “Holy Child of La Guardia Airport”! Fiorello was a freemason and an Episcopalian heretic. Surely El Santo Nino would be a worthy Catholic namesake, with some multicultural appeal to the burgeoning Hispanic population, right? ;)
Imagine the reaction from the largest Jewish city on Earth (NYC) should one of their airports get renamed “El Santo Nino de La Guardia”
That will be item #1 on the agenda once the USA becomes a Catholic state.