Friday, March 29, 2013

New Articles on Unam Sanctam Website

Sorry I have not been as prolific this past month as usual, but much of my spare time was understandably taken up following the Conclave and the first days of the ever-interesting Franciscan pontificate. I did manage to get a few things up though. Please take a look, and if you find anything of interest or edification on this blog or the sister-site, please share liberally with others. Blessed Easter to you all.
  • Benedict XVI and the New Clericalism: Why attempts to make the Church more inclusive and less "clericalist" have actually led us into an era of unprecedented clericalism.

  • Stercoranist Objections: Investigation into the obscure medieval objection to Transubstantiation that a real change in the substance means that our Lord's Body would pass through our digestive system and be defecated out.

  • Humility and Station in Life: How humility was exercised by persons of high station in life, according to medieval thought.

  • Can Drums be Used at Mass: Wading through the issues in this question of whether drums can or should be used in the Novus Ordo. You can probably deduce my answer, but I back it up from all the relevant documents.

  • Homosexual and Heterosexual Household Studies: Hard science disproves the lie that children raised in homosexual households are just as healthy as those raised in heterosexual households.

7 comments:

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Boniface. Who wrote that brilliant commentary on Humility?

It comes at THE perfect time.

KUDOS!!!!!!!

BONIFACE said...

I wrote that one! Yes, it was inspired by, say...current events.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Boniface. Fantastic job

Thank you. I hope around 2.1 billion will read it

BONIFACE said...

Thank you for linking it up on Rorate. By the way, I published your article on scandal with some minor additions. http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/320-need-for-theological-precision.html

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Boniface. Many thanks for publishing the piece on scandal. You greatly improved my version to the point where you ought to take sole credit.

In any event, your publication of it has helped ease my troubled soul. The CCC entries on scandal gravely troubled me since the authoritative version of the CCC was promulgated.

I have advanced the complaint to many other "apologists" who would not touch the topic with a ten foot pole.

I had several email exchanges over this with my Bishop and his Secretary with the result being that I am the one who is messed-up not that The CCC required a rewrite of these entries.

And, a while back, I sent the complaint to the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith but I've not heard back so in greatly improving upon what I did and publishing it, you have set my soul and mind at peace.

I did what I did out of love for my Lord and Saviour, Jesus, about whom not one incorrect or imprecise word can be allowed to stand.

Thank you and God Bless you, Boniface.

Anonymous said...

If the answer to the stercoranist objection is that there's no longer a sacrament when the sign is no longer visibly discernible, does that mean that particles of the host that fall to the ground but are too small to be seen are not truly the body of the Lord? I always heard this as the explanation for all the care taken cleaning an maintaining things used around the altar, but I wonder now if I was mistaken.

BONIFACE said...

Anonymous-

There are two things to consider:

1) The distinction between something being imperceptible to the senses absolutely versus something that is theoretically perceptible but goes unnoticed. In the case of the host being eaten and broken down in the body, the form of bread becomes imperceptible absolutely because it is broken down - it would no longer be recognized as bread under any circumstances because it has been broken down, and hence the form ceases to exist. If the form does not exist (i.e., the senses can no longer discern bread under any circumstances), the sacrament cannot be present.

The instances with purification are different. Small crumbs, while they may escape the notice of the eye, could still conceivably be sense perceptible and recognized as bread. The rituals of purification are meant to guard against the presence of particles of the host that may have gone unnoticed or not be discernible that easily. but the difference here is that, even if a particle is extremely small, the form still exists, and still could conceivably be discernible to the senses. In other words, there is a different between the form being broken down altogether and the form still existing but in extremely small particles.

2) The second thing to keep in mind regarding the purification is that the precise boundary between what is sense perceptible and what is not is blurry...it does not simply refer to each person's ability to sense (otherwise, the presence of the sacrament would be subjective rather than objective). The realm of sense imperceptibility is the point where no human being could reasonably identify the presence of the form of bread, and since it is hard to pinpoint where that line is, the purification rites keep us erring on the side of safety.