Not to stir the fire unnecessarily, but I meant to say that, even through we generally take language to be transparent, I think this often involves a bit of suspension of disbelief. Language is impoverished in many ways, and we can’t always express the truth of the matter fully. Philosophers will sometimes get into analysis of the gap when they discuss sense and reference and these sorts of things. But even without delving into that, we can approach the issue intuitively, can’t we? We can all think of times when words don’t seem enough to capture the whole truth, and surely great theological truths will be like this if anything will. That doesn’t mean that dogma is false; only that it is, in some senses, incomplete, and thus not synonymous with truth.

If that is right, then you can presumably see why I wouldn’t want to think of it as “logically prior” to liturgy. What is logically prior to the liturgy is the truth itself – for example, the actual Assumption is prior to the liturgy, but not the statement “the Blessed Mother was assumed.” When we think of it in the way TP suggests, the dissatisfaction that we sometimes feel over the inadequacies of dogma to express the greatness of theological truth, are then foisted off onto liturgy also. Liturgy really seems to lose some of its power when you think of it as a dogma-pageant. (Of course, we’re also overlooking the genuine metaphysical events that take place in the Mass if we think of it that way.) Dogma and truth cannot be identical, because the former must, by definition, be linguistically formulated, whereas the latter need not. Dogma thus inherits all the limitations of language.

Anyway, thanks to Tobias Petrus for sticking this one out. I suppose we’ve each made our positions sufficiently clear now, and we agree on the more fundamental point – that dogma and liturgy are connected on a deep level, and both are very necessary to us as Catholics.

Well, I assume that I see the same thing being at stake as you do in taking the opposite viewpoint — the truth of the matter is at stake. Which is why I’m being tenacious — not upset, just tenacious.

I agree that some dogmas are phrased with precise philosophical terms — “hypostasis,” “ousia,” “substance,” “accident,” etc. It might take centuries to find the right words to define the Eucharistic Real Presence in Aristotelian terms. But once you know the terminology, the statement expresses (i.e. is) merely what the Church has always had in the depositum, implicitly (i.e. logically) or explicitly.

On the other hand, I know that some dogmas are not philosophical. Hence, it is not something essential to dogmas that they be philosophically-worded. I provided one example that merely answers the question “where is the body of the Blessed Mother physically located?” Do we agree that philosophical wording is not a *necessary* attribute of dogmas?

One major problem I have with your position is this: I do not understand what the “truth” of this or that dogma is other than the dogma itself. Let me concede for the argument that a dogma is merely an “expression” of a truth. So what is the truth beyond the dogma? It sounds as though the truths of the faith (which I normally call dogmas) are now placed in some non-intellectual, pre-intellectual realm. This sounds all rather mystifying, obscure, and neo-Platonic.

Obviously the event of the Incarnation is different from my description of the Incarnation, but don’t we usually treat language as a “transparent” medium for the sake of communication? This all reminds me of that famous painting of a pipe, with the caption “this is not a pipe,” i.e. it is just a painting of one. “Tim is my brother.” “No, Tim is the *proper noun* by which you designate your brother.”

What, by the way, do *you* see as being at stake here? Why is it so important to insist that dogma is identical to truth and not merely a correct expression of it?

Yes.”

2.) “As I said earlier, I am not talking about this or that dogmatic formulation, but the truth conveyed thereby.”

I don’t think that there is a real contradiction between my two statements. It took a long time for the Church to formulate and define dogmas, but those definitions are nothing but statements of what has always been in the depositum, implicitly if not explicitly. Some dogmas logically imply other dogmas. Belief in the Immaculate Conception may logically be inferred from the All-holiness of Mary. The content of the 1854 definition did not “develop” — it was always in the deposit of faith that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin.

Logical anteriority: These “ecstatic prophecies” basically are dogmatic propositions as such. “The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” That’s as basic as it comes — not philosophical at all. God revealed to St. Elizabeth basic dogmatic truths: “Your cousin is the Mother of your Lord.” These were also prayers, as the Creeds are also prayers. Simple dogmatic statements can be liturgical, yes. These prayers convey that St. Elizabeth recognized a situation and rejoiced in it. If she did not recognize the situation, i.e. the contents of God’s revelation to her, as true, she could not have rejoiced. What is so difficult here? I need to believe in God’s mercy before I can praise it. “Before” here is logical, not temporal, for I might praise it the first instant I recognized it. But the praise is a response to recognition of the real situation. All I am saying is that St. Elizabeth rejoiced because of what was going on — and she could not have rejoiced unless she knew it.

Yes.

” I say that dogma is a particular sort of philosophical formulation of truth, whereas liturgy is a different form for expressing it.”

“Maria assumpta est” is not particularly philosophical. It is the simplest possible expression of what happened. I do not see how declarative propositions are necessarily “philosophical” by nature.

“And who’s to say that the Apostles, after witnessing the Assumption, didn’t begin by bursting out with a spontaneous hymn about it?”

No doubt they did, upon recognizing the *fact* “Maria assumpta est,” which IS the dogma of the Assumption. If they did not know this fact, they could not have expressed it in hymns. And that hymn may have been used to convey the fact to others. But the dogmatic *fact* (Maria assumpta est), which is part of the depositum fidei, is the logical premise for the hymn.

“If it were, that would contradict the Catholic teaching that the Church has had all the truth from the beginning, because the process of formulating dogma has obviously been gradual.”

As I said earlier, I am not talking about this or that dogmatic formulation, but the truth conveyed thereby.

Yes, but truth is also expressed in liturgy. You seem to be taking dogma as being essentially synonymous with truth, but surely that can’t be right. If it were, that would contradict the Catholic teaching that the Church has had all the truth from the beginning, because the process of formulating dogma has obviously been gradual. No: I say that dogma is a particular sort of philosophical formulation of truth, whereas liturgy is a different form for expressing it.

“the Apostles witnessed the Assumption and told people about it before anyone could meditate upon it in prayer. Doctrine came first, via preaching, which is how Faith comes.”

I thought we’d already agreed that liturgy very often precedes dogma in the pedagogical sense. And who’s to say that the Apostles, after witnessing the Assumption, didn’t begin by bursting out with a spontaneous hymn about it? That’s what Our Lady did, when she first saw St. Elizabeth, rather than sitting her down and explaining things in plain speech. And the ecstatic prophesying of the Day of Pentecost may have resembled liturgy more than dogma.

As bad as Michigan may have it at times, though, I don’t think that we can compete with Florida where all the bishops (essentially) have rejected the motu proprio.

Undoubtedly, we pray the way we believe.

Logically, we can infer the beliefs of the composers upon which their compositions depend if they are to make sense. Though the individual believer today, the average participant in the liturgy, may not have any belief in the Assumption that temporally preceded his act of prayer to Maria Assumpta (i.e. he probably first learned of the Assumption via the Rosary), the belief in the Assumption was anterior both logically *and* temporally to these prayers. I.e. the Apostles witnessed the Assumption and told people about it before anyone could meditate upon it in prayer. Doctrine came first, via preaching, which is how Faith comes. And in the old days the catechumens were excluded from the Mysteries since they wouldn’t understand them before they’d been catechized.

Though Our Lord established the Sacraments and taught us how to pray, most prayers and most of the liturgy are man-made. That does not mean “unnatural” or “innovative” or “revolutionary” but just that — man-made. Even biblical elements such as the Our Father and the Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus are not necessary to make the Mass a Mass. Somebody thought they should be there, rightly, and so they were put there. Even the words of Consecration are not exactly the same in all the rites of the Church — remember the controversy around “mysterium fidei.” I am not mandating innovation now that we have a great and solid tradition. Rather, I am pointing out that *temporally* the authors of the liturgy needed to have Faith in the truths of the Church before they composed and promulgated liturgies, prayers, etc., that assumed those truths as premises. And, *logically* all such prayers presume theological positions.

So when I say “dogma,” I am not talking about this or that dogmatic pronouncement, but rather the simple declarative truths pronounced thereby. The Mass and Feast of the Assumption came out long before 1950, but the simple truth finally (in both senses) declared solemnly in 1950 was logically anterior to the celebration of said truth in the life of the Church. And temporally speaking the Assumption occurred (thereby making the declarative statement “Maria assumpta est” true) before its anniversary could be celebrated.

To put it another way, the theological virtues in their proper order are faith, hope, and charity. The liturgy is the greatest celebration of both charity for God and for neighbor, and charity is a greater virtue than is faith. Yet faith is necessary in order to have hope, and hope is necessary in order to have charity. What is faith? Not just trust in God’s mercy, but assent to all revealed truths. These truths are expressed as simple declarative sentences, i.e. dogmas.

Certainly, it is right to say that much more is at stake in liturgical disputes than aesthetic gratification! What is at stake is no less important than Christian truth. Iosephus might come back and say that I am muddying the waters with a sense/reference distinction that is peripheral to the main point. But I think it’s important, because there are too many people already who are inclined to think of liturgy as being fundamentally instrumental and, hence, of secondary importance. Instead of saying, “This dispute isn’t just about liturgy,” I want to say, “This is first and foremost about liturgy… and liturgy is about eternal Christian truth.” As we see, those who lose hold of liturgy tend to lose hold of dogma too, and this is not surprising since the two are so intimately connected.

As far as Fr. Mike being a heretic, I never said that he wasn’t. If we really got him to state his views with full philosophical precision, they probably would be heretical, but part of the point is that he probably wouldn’t be able to be that clear even if he wanted to. As it is I find his statements too mushy and vague to really convict him. Iosephus says, “he thinks ecclesiology can change, which is heretical.” But what does he take the term “ecclesiology” to include, and how does he think it’s changed? It’s not always easy to distinguish between willful heresy and extreme confusion. But this point of debate is rather less interesting than the other.

Mind you, Fr. Feeney thought the crowning work of St. Thomas Aquinas was not the Summa, but rather the Mass and Office of Corpus Christi.

In one of his very good books, Ascent to Truth, Merton emphasizes that in the mystical prayer/contemplative system of St. John of the Cross, dogmatic theology is the necessary ground and foundation of the contemplative prayer that is to be built on top of it. This kind of priority, I imagine, is what Fr. Feeney had in mind when he said that dogma comes first.

In the Grammar of Assent, Newman says that he is of the opinion that the Quicumque vult is the most beautiful of liturgical hymns/prayers. This is an admirable, almost perfect instance of “lex orandi, lex credendi” and it’s hardly the case that the liturgical aspect of the Athanasian Creed somehow is prior to the dogmatic part of the creed.

What Fr. Mike is concerned about here, what I’m concerned about, along with TP and JSP, is the sense in which dogma is necessarily prior to liturgy. We don’t deny that there is another way in which liturgy first steals upon the heart and our sense of beauty and may win us towards the Faith. All of us agreed in this matter, though, reocgnize that one great power of the Catholic Mass is the precisely the fact that dogma has, as it were, a logical priority in it.