Athanasius Schneider: Clarification of Vatican II Needed

The Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan has become the most recent bishop to speak up on ambiguities and problematic texts in the documents of Vatican II and speak up in favor of an authoritative interpretation or clarification of these documents in continuity with Catholic Tradition.

His comments came in the context of a lengthy interview with Michael Voris of Church Militant TV, who caught the Bishop in Rome and somehow got a 34 minute interview out of him. Click here to check out Michael Voris' interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider; it is long, but well worth it if you have the time.

This is not the first time Schneider has made such comments; in 2010 he called for a "Syllabus of Errors in Interpretations of Vatican II" (see here); but in his comments to Voris he goes further and explains what he specifically objects to in some of the Council documents and what sorts of clarifications are needed.

Bishop Schneider begins by stating that the biggest error relating to the Council is a basic approach to the Council itself that sees it as a rupture with Tradition. In this, he echoes the words of Benedict XVI, who popularized the phrase "hermeneutic of rupture" in his now famous 2005 homily. Schneider notes that this presumption of rupture can be "liberal or traditional", though as his subsequent comments explain, he sees the liberal rupture as much more grave than any potential traditionalist rupture. His proposition for remedying this is a formal declaration that the Council should be interpreted in continuity with Tradition and that the Council Fathers had not no intention to make a break with the past.

Like Cardinal Kasper, Schneider notes that it is not simply a problem with interpretation of the Council, what Benedict XVI called the "council of the media", but with the some of the documents themselves. He states that "majority of the texts of the Council are very rich and traditional", but some are "controversial or ambiguous" and suffer from a "lack of precision." Some of these documents are "open to different interpretations" (what Kasper called "compromise formulas"). Thus, following Kasper, he admits an ambiguity in the documents.

During the interview he is asked about Kasper's comments, and far from denying or contradicting them, he states that Kasper's comments are correct and need to be officially stated by the Magisterium. He calls for an official clarification of the documents of Vatican II, a sort of authoritative interpretative key to ensure that the documents are understood in continuity with Tradition. He states that the Church needs to offer "some clarifications or some indications of the misinterpretations...because we have to be very, very concrete" and suggests perhaps an explanatory note, as Paul VI offered for Lumen Gentium.

By the way, I had proposed a similar concept a few weeks back - that an authoritative interpretation of Vatican II was needed.

Whereas Schneider does not follow Kasper in discussing the intentionality of these ambiguities, he does discuss some very concrete examples of specific passages he finds problematic and asks for the Magisterium to "give us clear, very clear, interpretations of some very specific subjects." He suggests that this clarification should come from the Pope himself.

So, what ambiguities does the Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider find problematic?

His first example is the doctrine of collegiality found in Lumen Gentium. Without citing any passages in particular, he opines that the document teaches the headship of the Pope in an "insufficient" way and that the document can be read to mean that the Pope is a first among equals who has only a of primacy of honor, ignoring or downplaying his actual jurisdiction and role as episcopus episcoporum. Schneider does not cite a text directly so I will not comment any further except to say that the view of collegiality that Schneider finds "insufficient" is very common manner.

Staying in Lumen Gentium, he spends quite a bit of time with Lumen Gentium 16, which he forcefully says  "needs and explanation." The problematic passage he cites is the sentence which states that "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God." His specific problem is which the last sentence, which states that Muslims and Catholics together adore the one God. Schneider says that this statement is extremely clumsy and admits of  "two substantial different levels" of interpretation. He goes on to make a phenomenally important distinction between belief in one God according to natural reason and the supernatural virtue of faith, which alone is pleasing to God:

"We adore God always as a Trinity...our adoration is an adoration of supernatural faith. To worship God as Creator only or one God only, there is no need of faith. The use of your reason is sufficient. This is a dogma of the First Vatican Council, that every human person is able only by his reason, natural light of reason, without the light of faith, to recognize the existence of one God as Creator. Consequently, to worship Him according to his knowledge of natural reason. These are the Muslims - they have no supernatural faith and therefore they have no supernatural act of worship. Even the Jews who rejected Jesus as God, as Trinity, they rejected Him they have no faith. Therefore their worship is also natural, not supernatural."

The Muslim worship of Allah is not the same as the supernatural worship of the Trinity, which alone is pleasing to God. Thus, even if they claim to worship the same God based on a certain historic pedigree, their worship is fundamentally different from Catholic worship and cannot be pleasing to God because they lack the supernatural virtue of faith. When Voris mentions that Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently encouraged Muslims to keep their faith and said that we worship the same God, Schneider dryly says, "The Cardinal was referring to this expression of the council. Now you observe why it is necessary to strengthen this essential distinction."

Also on Schneider's naughty list is Gaudium et Spes 12, which begins with the statement "all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown" (finis et culmin). In his analysis of this passage, :

"I think this expression is very ambiguous. It is not correct because all the things which exist on earth have their finality in God and have to glorify God as their summit...all things that exist are created for the glory of God and for Christ, through Him and for Him. Christ is the end of all created things. The aim of this expression was that God created all non-rational things for the service of man, and that man is the ruler or king of this creation because God gave man such a dignity. But I think we cannot say this in this manner. We have to stress, even so, the created things on earth are created for man, but not ultimately for man...so we have to explain this also, otherwise it is an anthropocentrism, and this is all part of the crisis of this past fifty years, this anthropocentric vision. And not only vision, but practice, also, Christian life, liturgy and theology. Very anthropocentric. And this is the biggest danger of humanity, for the Church to be anthropocentric, because this was the first sin of Adam and Eve. This is very dangerous, and such expression of our Council texts can be used for such things and therefore need more explanation."

When it comes to ecumenism, Schneider has a strong criticism of the tone of the document Unitatis Redintegratio. The document on ecumenism teaches that God can use even the non-Catholic communities as means of salvation. Schneider opines:

"This could also be interpreted in a wrong manner, in a way of the Anglican Branch theory that there are several branches of Christianity who are all means of salvation. Therefore we also have to clarify this expression. We have to say perhaps, nevertheless, God can use other Christians, but individually because they are baptized...Remember what St. Augustine said, what the non-Catholics have, they took from the Church. He even said they have stolen it from our house. What they have, this is Catholic, not theirs. Therefore, we have to explain this. Otherwise, it could be understood wrongly."

In other words, individual non-Catholic Christians, by virtue of the valid baptism they share, can certainly be means of grace; it was a Protestant who first shared the Gospel with me when I was a pagan teenager, and this became a means of grace that was the first step in my whole conversion. But Schneider points out that we cannot attribute this to sects or denominations collectively, as if God wishes to utilize groups in material heresy as some kind of "sub-churches" alongside the Catholic Church. Whatever good individuals do or bring to the table, they bring it by virtue of what they retain from Catholicism. These denominations, on the other hand, owe their very existence to the fact that they reject Catholicism. So the fact that an individual Protestant may be a blessing or be instrumental as a grace-bearer does not legitimize Protestantism as such.

There is much more and I encourage you all to watch the full interview if you have time. But it is important to note that Schneider is the latest voice added to a growing trend: clerics who are admitting that the documents of Vatican II themselves have ambiguities and problems that ought to be rectified. Benedict XVI himself was perhaps the first to raise these objections when he noted some Council documents were "dense" and "weak" (see here) and rectified the subsistit in problem of Lumen Gentium by issuing an interpretive document; more recently we had Kasper's candid admission on intentional ambiguities in the conciliar texts. Now we have these refreshingly honest comments by Schneider about some legitimate problems with several key Conciliar documents.

As we move further from 1965, it is becoming increasingly acceptable to note the existence of ambiguities and problems in the Council documents, and that this can be done without calling into question the legitimacy of the Council. This is a significant shift, as in previous years there were only two possible positions on the Council: the documents were perfect, the Springtime of the Church had to be affirmed unhesitatingly, and any problems were due not to ambiguities in the documents but to liberals who were twisting the documents, hijacking them, as it were. Or, if you denied any of these assertions, the only alternative was that you were a schismatic who was questioning the legitimacy of the Council and dissenting from the Magisterium. The comments of Benedict, Kasper and Schneider demonstrate clearly that it is possible to have an intelligent conversation about the documents that admits of their weaknesses without in any way being unfaithful to the Church. Indeed, the most recent comments of Schneider show us that this sort of discussion is not only possible, but necessary.

The Advocatus Diaboli ("Devil's Advocate")

In light of the announcement of the impending canonizations of Bl. John XXIII and Bl. John Paul II, I have been doing a lot of research on canonizations in Catholic history, particularly the role of the Promotor Fidei, also known as the Devil's Advocate, whose office was basically eliminated in 1982. Please take some time to read this extensive article on the historical reasons for the institution of the office, the role of the Promotor Fidei, and the consequences attendant upon the elimination of the office. Here is an extract from the introduction:

"Chances are we have all heard the phrase "devil's advocate" to describe the role of a person who argues against a point he is in favor of for the purpose of testing the argument for flaws or weaknesses. The devil's advocate was actually the official name of the Promoter Fidei, an office first attested during the pontificate of Leo X (1513-1521) and formally established by Sixtus V in 1587 during the Counter-Reformation. The duty of the Promotor Fidei was to oversee every aspect of the beatification and canonization process, ensuring that no person received the honors of sainthood rashly, that proper juridical form was observed, and that every potential weakness or objection to the saints canonization was raised and evaluated in order that only those who were truly worthy would be raised to the dignity of the altars. Because the Promotor Fidei took a juridical position against the canonization of any given saint, it was joked that he was taking the devil's part in the proceedings, hence the common appellation "Devils' Advocate" (advocatus diaboli). In this article, we will examine the historical origin, office, and rationale behind the advocatus diaboli as well as the consequences attendant upon the abolition of office by Bl. John Paul II in 1982."

Click here to read the whole article at the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website.

"Saints aren't perfect"

This week's news about the impending canonization of Bl. John Paul II in conjunction with Bl. John XXIII has been met with rejoicing and concern. Many Catholics have been understandably elated with the imminent raising of two new papal saints to the altars, while others have voiced concern about the "fast tracking" process that has made this possible as well as the fact that the many scandalous events of John Paul II's pontificate have never been satisfactorily answered to or explained.

I do not intend to spend a lot of time going over the reasons why I personally believe the canonization of John Paul II is imprudent at this time, but it is necessary to mention them in passing to put some context to what I will say here. The Assisi interfaith meetings were scandalous and confusing to the faithful; I don't care how you try to explain it away, they simply were. The kissing of the Koran and referring to it as the word of God, praying with animists in Togo, allowing pagan Aztec priestsesses to bless him, and all such activities were equally scandalous and unprecedented in papal history. What about asking St. John the Baptist to protect Islam? The list could go on. I am willing to grant that maybe John Paul II was not personally responsible for all of these things; I am not suggesting the degree of personal culpability attributable to the late pontiff. But, they happened on his watch and so they are laid at his doorstep. For these reasons and others, I do not believe it is a good idea to canonize this man.

Here's where people chime in and say, "C'mon! Saints aren't perfect! Sure, the man had flaws. Every saint has flaws. You are being too critical."

Saints aren't perfect. I agree. Saints are not perfect. But we are falling prey to a subtle bait and switch if we accept the rationale that "saints aren't perfect" therefore it is appropriate to canonize someone with so much questionable baggage. Let's dissect this.

No person is perfect. No saint is perfect. And we don't want to be hyper-critical. All saints have very human flaws due to human weakness. St. Jerome was notoriously cranky. St. Augustine, during his latter years, was perhaps unduly pessimistic and dour in his prospects about the human race in general. St. Francis of Assisi gave away his father's fabrics to the poor without permission, which would have technically been a form of theft. St. Dominic, though a mendicant, apparently could be nit-picky about wanting his habit kept clean (at least according to the testimony of colleagues at his canonization hearings); St. Teresa of Avila could be slightly strong-armed when asking potential donors to part with their wealth; if we are to believe the stories, St. Nicholas himself once lost his temper and slapper Arius in the face. Sure, saints have flaws. They are humans and they are subject to human weakness.

But here is the distinction: It is one thing to say a saint has flaws; it is another thing to say he did something fundamentally harmful to the faith or contradictory to the nature of his office. We see St. Francis, with the zeal of a new convert, going beyond the boundaries of prudence and giving away his father's silks without permission. We can understand this. We sympathize. We, too, know the experience of being too overzealous about something and inadvertently hurting someone else because of it. This is not a real strike against Francis' sanctity. It just demonstrates his human side.

But suppose Francis, wanting to give to the poor, had gone out and robbed and beaten up someone in order to steal money that he would in turn give to poor, Would we be so likely to sympathize with him then? Would we understand that? And what if he did this, not in the zeal of a new convert, but very deliberately in his eighth year of religious life and then again sixteen years later? And what if these were not isolated incidents, but were exemplary of Francis' general approach towards giving to the poor?

In that case, it would be very hard to sympathize with him, because we would be dealing not with an understandable weakness of character due to zeal that could happen to any son of Adam, but a series of very deliberate actions that are calculated, reasoned out, and executed with precise intentionality. In the former examples, we have instances of saints demonstrating imperfections despite their will to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect"; in the latter hypothetical example, we have a person utilizing their will to engage in activity that is objectively hurtful to others. We can understand and sympathize with the former; we are confused and scandalized by the latter and feel no sympathy for it. Perhaps if we still had a Promotor Fidei, it would be easier to sort out or categorize these sorts of things. 

To what category, then, do the actions of the late John Paul II fall? What human weakness caused him to "accidentally" invite the leaders from all the pagan religions to Rome to encourage them to pray to their false gods and not preach the Gospel to them the entire time they were present? That's not the sort of thing one just "falls" into. One does not simply go to the trouble of scheduling a papal visit to Togo where one engages in prayer in common with animists just due to common "human weakness." These are not things that just happen to anybody. These are deliberate actions that John Paul II intentionally chose to do or intentionally allowed to happen- and those of us who choose to be intellectually honest understand that they were confusing and scandalous to the faithful, in addition to sending the wrong message to the pagans, who were encouraged in the worship of their false gods. And, even if John Paul II did somehow "fall" into the Assisi meetings in 1986, even if these were a "slip-up", it is hard to see why he went ahead and did them again in 2002. Clearly they were intentionally set up to go down exactly as they did. So this is not really a matter of saying, "Eh, he's not perfect." This is matter of deliberate actions done that were confusing or potentially harmful to the faithful, to say nothing about their harm on the participants, who were falsely led into believing it is acceptable to worship their false gods.

We must remember, when we canonize a person who holds an office, we are also approving the manner in which he administered that office. One of the biggest misunderstandings modern Catholics have about canonization is that it is simply a declaration that someone is in heaven. I'm so sick of hearing that! "What's the big deal? All it means is that he's in heaven." If that were all it was, then we could canonize a death-row murderer who maintained his impenitence until a moment before death when he suddenly decides to accept baptism one minute prior to execution. After all, he's in heaven! Clearly this is too simplistic.

Whenever we canonize someone, we are not just affirming they are in heaven, but we are affirming that they have done deeds that are worthy of emulation. Furthermore, tf this person holds an office, like a bishop, priest, pope, or king, then we are also affirming that what they did in that office is worthy of emulation - that they were not just a holy man or woman, but an ideal abbot, abbess, king, queen or whatever. Has it ever been otherwise? Do you know of any saint-kings who were personally holy but terrible kings? How about sainted bishops who were personally holy but made awful bishops? How about sainted popes who were personally holy but the Church went down the toilet under their administration? When a saint really does look like they will not be able to deal with their office, they resign it, like St. Celestine, or St. Cuthbert, who resigned his bishopric for a life of seclusion. What they do not do is stick around for two decades, mismanage the affairs of their communities, confuse and scandalize everybody and then get proclaimed a saint anyway while everyone shrugs off their very obvious flaws.

To canonize an office holder is to canonize the manner in which they held the office. St. Gregory the Great is a saint not just because he was personally holy but because he was a model pope, St. Charles Borromeo because he was a model bishop, St. Francis because he was a model mendicant, St. Thomas because he was a model teacher and theologian. Nothing is more contrary to the tradition of the Church and the meaning implicit in canonizations than to draw a distinction between someone's personal holiness and the manner in which they fulfilled their vocation. The two are united. In fact, one's personal holiness is directly contingent upon how one fulfills one's vocation. One cannot become a sainted bishop while simultaneously having failed in the most fundamental aspects of an episcopal vocation. It's so simple, we could make a meme out of it:

I have been giving extreme examples, and I am certainly not saying John Paul II was a failure as a pope. There are many things I did that I think were wonderful. I have no qualms, however, about saying that John Paul II was not an ideal pope, much less is he worthy he being called "the Great." The reasons for me saying this are those common to most traditionalists, and I will not argue each point here. But the important thing is to realize that to canonize John Paul II is to canonize his scandals. The faithful will have no way to distinguish between the praiseworthy and the scandalous in his pontificate, especially since those pushing the cause of John Paul II have never offered an official explanation for these scandals (I even tried to write them and ask for one; see here). The faithful will see St. John Paul the Great praying with pagans at Assisi and think this is Catholic missiology; they will see him kissing the Koran and think this is how we ought to interact with Islam. And who will tell them any differently, eh? If nobody bothered to explain it while John Paul II was on the throne, they sure won't bother to now that he's being raised to the altars.

There is much more we could say. I will probably do another post in the near future about this issue of "fast-tracking" the two late pontiffs to get them canonized.

Marriage, Dark Nights and more on USC!

A lot has been going on in my life this past month, but somehow I have still managed to pull together some pretty solid articles on topics as diverse as chant, political authority, marriage, scientific history and more! Please take a moment to peruse these new articles on the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website and forward them on to your friends. I especially recommend the one on the ends of marriage for your liberal Catholic acquaintances who can't seem to understand why homosexual so-called "marriage" can never be tolerated as a true matrimonial union.

Remember, for updates on new posts from USC, please follow this blog or consider following us on Facebook. Here are the new articles from the past couple of weeks:

New Church History RCIA Lesson Plan: Lesson plan on Church History 33-1054 AD now available, along with news on how it is now easier to print or download USC lesson plans from the site.

Catholic Cleric-Scientists: Overview of some of the great Catholic men of science and the contributions that the Church has made to scientific progress; it is amazing how many entire scientific disciplines were founded by priests!

Unofficial Chant Books: Very brief summary of the content and uses of some of the unofficial chant books used by the Roman choir.

Divine Origin of Political Authority: Despite the fact that our political authorities are often immoral and usually inept, political authority itself comes from God and is necessarily inferred from the social nature of man.

Roman Rota on the Ends of Marriage: Given the constant barrage of attacks against traditional marriage these days, let us refresh ourselves on the Church's teaching of the primary and secondary ends of marriage and their relation to one another.

Dark Nights True, False and Fashionable: Just because you are experiencing some momentary dryness does not mean you are going through a dark night. Let's revisit what a dark night it exactly, shall we?

St. Clotisindis and Kin (sancti obscuri)
St. Herve the Bard (sancti obscuri)

Movie Reviews

Man of Steel (2013)
Edward Scissorhands (1990)

Excuses for Liturgical Dancing

Liturgical dance. Though just one of many abuses, it serves as a fitting representation of everything wacky in modern Catholicism. Despite years of teaching that this is utterly foreign and unacceptable in Catholic worship, liturgical dancing continues. It had reared its head almost immediately following the Council, prompting the CDW to issue a statement in 1975 that bluntly stated, "The dance has never been made an integral part of the official worhship of the Latin Church" and forbid it outright. Yet it continues, and is even promoted by certain bishops and diocesan liturgical experts. It is like Catholicism's dirty little secret, something everyone knows we should not be doing but yet occurs all over the place.

Defenders of liturgical dancing have come up with several lame excuses of why this practice is not really as horrendous as we think it is. Let's look at these lame excuses and examine why they are so lame.

First, the lame excuse that liturgical dancing is fitting because David once danced in front of the Ark of the Covenant 3,000 years ago. Never mind the fact that liturgical worship in the Jerusalem Temple never featured dance; David did it once and therefore Christians ought to do it for all time. This excuse has been thoroughly debunked here.

Some, however, have suggested that the complaints about liturgical dance are overblown. Yes, liturgical dancing exists, and yes, it is not traditional to the Roman rite, but it is primarily happening in mission territories - areas that have only been Christianized for a very short time or are only partially Christianized. In these places, liturgical dance is a form of "inculturation", whereby the native customs and practices that are not incompatible with the Faith are incorporated into Catholic life and worship.

However, our friends at Rorate Caeli have recently compiled a Hall of Shame of liturgical dancing from all over the Catholic world, all of the videos taken from thoroughly Christianized countries. In one case, the example comes right from the Basilica of St. John Lateran. Clearly, nobody can claim that these are "mission countries" or that there is any element of inculturation going on here. What we have is liberal nonsense introduced into the Mass with deliberateness and in direct contradiction to the dictates of the Church. The Church says while it may be appropriate there, it is never appropriate here; yet experience shows that it is most rampant here and not there. This is not inculturation. This is insubordination.

Some have said that while liturgical dancing is not fitting in the Latin Rite, it is common in other rites of the Church. Thus, we cannot be too quick to condemn the practice since it is a valid liturgical act in other churches in union with Rome. A prime example is the Ethiopian Catholics, where liturgical dance is said to be a time-honored custom. Even CDW document cites Ethiopian Catholic's "ritualized dancing" as an example of some cultural contexts where dancing might be appropriate given the particular customs of an area.

Well, in the first place, all of the examples linked above are in the Roman Rite, so this excuse about other rites is irrelevant.

But more importantly, it is not true that liturgical dancing is common in other rites, much less the Ethiopian. The Chaldeans use instruments such as cymbals and tambourines in their liturgy, but they are very specialized liturgical instruments, used only by the ordained, and in the same restrained manner that bells are used in the Roman Rite. There is certainly no dancing of any sort.

The alleged "dancing" of the Ethiopian Christians is not dancing either. It is actually a very elaborate processional. To see what I am talking about, take a look at a Timkat (Epiphany) procession in Addis Ababa. The best view of the procession begins around 2:00:

This is the much touted "liturgical dancing." This is clearly not the same thing as the phenomenon we are witnessing around the world in the Roman Rite, such as here, for example. Notice also, that this Timkat procession takes place outside the Church, in the open streets. Though this is a devotional act, it is not a liturgical one, properly speaking, since it does not take place in the context of the Ethiopian liturgy. It is extra-liturgical. Thus, by definition, it cannot be liturgical dancing. This is also why any dancing that occurred in the context of medieval passion plays, which were sometimes held inside churches, is not liturgical dancing, properly speaking.

Dancing in church has always been condemned. Secular historian of the Roman Empire Ramsay MacMullen, who certainly has no axe to grind in the liturgical dance issue, notes that the Fathers of the 4th century frowned upon the practice of dancing in Church because they viewed it as a hold over from paganism:

"Ambrose up in Milan witnessed his congregation dancing during times of worship. He was shocked. Such conduct was pagan. In southern France, the bishop Caesarius [of Arles] castigated "the wretches who dance and caper about before the churches of the saints themselves...and if they appear at church as Christians, yet they leave the church as pagans - for that custom of dancing is still with us from pagan ritual." In the eastern provinces, Bishop Basil reproved the dancers in the very chapels of Caesarea...everywhere we look we find the problem" [Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire: 100-400 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 19840, pg. 74-75].

St. Augustine mentions liturgical dancing in his day, but he says it is an abuse that crept in from paganism; the Synod of Laodicea (365) discouraged Christians from dancing at wedding liturgies, but to act "as is becoming Christians." Dancing inside Church was also prohibited by the Quinisext Council of 692 as an activity not befitting Christians and having too much in common with pagan extravagance. So, while we see that dancing was sometimes allowed in extra-liturgical circumstances, it was never encouraged within the context of the liturgy itself. The CDW document quoted above echoes this fact: "If local churches have accepted the dance, sometimes even in the church building, that was on the occasion of feasts in order to manifest sentiments of joy and devotion. But that always took place outside of liturgical services." What we have today where men and women dance in the sanctuary during the Mass is utterly foreign to Christian Tradition, in every rite, and has always been opposed whenever someone tried to introduce the custom.

But such a festive culture as we see among the Ethiopians, surely their liturgies must be equally celebratory and contain some sort of rhythmic movements? Not so. While they may dance and cheer outside the church, here is what the liturgy looks like once they get inside:

No dancing. They might dance around before Mass begins or in extra-liturgical celebrations, but the never introduce it into the liturgy itself.

If this is true of Ethiopia, how much more in the west? The CDW states that there is never an excuse to incorporate dance in the Latin Rite:

"[T]he same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture [as in Ethiopia]. Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure. For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations."

There is simply no excuse to ever introduce liturgical dancing into the Mass in the Latin Rite. Ever. Period.

12 Realistic Reforms the Church Could Implement Right Now

We all have our own opinions about what ought to be happening in the Church. "If only the Pope would do this," or "If only Bishop so-and-so would excommunicate this guy," or "If only they'd make a rule about this." You know what I mean; our wish-list of things the Holy Spirit would get done to help move the Church along a little closer to where it needs to be.

In this post, I will share with you twelve realistic reforms the Church could implement right now that I believe would make a world of difference. I say twelve realistic reforms; I have intentionally omitted things that are so improbable that they will most likely never happen (abolishing the Novus Ordo, Pope firing every bishop in the world, and, sadly, the Consecration of Russia). The twelve reforms I am proposing here are very realistic and could theoretically be implemented at any time without too much of a shake up. These are things we could reasonably hope for.

I offer them in no particular order, but I do invite you to share your own ideas for realistic reforms in the combox.

1. Eucharistic Fast and Manner of Reception

The pope ought to issue a motu proprio regulating certain aspects of how Holy Communion is received. The first part of this motu proprio should extend the Eucharistic fast to three hours. The current one hour fast is so easy that, if you drive more than 25 minutes to get to Mass, you can pretty much eat right up until the moment you get in the car and still technically keep the fast. The fast ought to be extended to restore some discipline and remind people that reception of the Eucharist is something that needs to be intentionally prepared for.

The second aspect of the motu proprio should deal with the manner of reception. It should highlight abuses that have crept in due to irreverent reception of our Lord and proceed to revoke all the indults for reception standing or in the hand, regional episcopal conferences notwithstanding. Reception in the hand has only been the norm for thirty years or so, and it would not be a stretch to say that the experiment has failed and mandate the return to the older practice, with no concessions granted to any episcopal conference or region (though of course with personal concessions for the very elderly, handicapped, etc).

2. Latin

Rather than just saying that Latin is to be "retained", the Pope should mandate that Bishops see to it that every diocese provides at least a full two years training in Latin for all seminarians without exception to region. Furthermore, the language in Sacrosanctum Concilium about Latin being "preserved" should be strengthened and supplemented with another motu proprio that specifically says that Latin is to be exclusively utilized for all fixed parts of the Mass and for the Roman canon especially. There needs to be no ambiguity here, no phrases like "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved"; this motu proprio should say, "Latin is to be the exclusive language of the Mass", at least for the fixed parts.

3. Restoration of Chant (Again)

Pope St. Pius X famously restored Gregorian Chant with his famous motu proprio Tra Le Sollecitudini. Unfortunately, it needs to be restored again, since the "pride of place" envisioned for it in Vatican II has clearly no materialized. Basically, another authoritative instruction like Tra Le Sollecitudini needs to be issued, which specifically says Gregorian Chant is the official music of the Roman rite and simultaneously bans certain instruments by name, including and especially drums and guitars, but also keyboards and pianos. This document needs to not only say what the ideal is, but say what is forbidden as well. The Pope should also ask bishops to take the lead in implementing this directive in their cathedrals and encourage them to generously assist priests who need help implementing Gregorian Chant. For more on Tra Le Sollecitudini, see here.

4. Location of Tabernacle and Posture at Mass

A general instruction should go out giving every parish one year to move the tabernacle back to a central location, and this central location should be unambiguously identified as the center of the altar, preferably a high altar. The purpose of this should be stated as to encourage greater devotion to our Eucharistic Lord, but also to facilitate the ancient and venerable practice of offering Mass ad orientam, which the instruction should heartily encourage and declare to be the norm for the Roman Rite.

5. Reaffirm Episcopal Authority in Cases of Private Revelations

In 1978, the CDF under Pope Paul VI issued a document entitled "Norms of the Congregation for Proceeding in Judging Alleged Apparitions and Revelations." This document laid down the norm that "the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to authorize and promote various forms of worship and devotion" within his diocese, and that "the foremost authority to inquire and to intervene belongs to the local Ordinary." This has generally been taken to mean that a Bishop is the final arbiter of the legitimacy of a private revelation within his diocese, unless he petitions the Vatican to investigate. Still, this instruction is much ignored and does not have real teeth. A reaffirmation of Paul VI's teaching should be issued with a greater emphasis on the role of the local Ordinary. I've even taken the liberty of composing the wording it should incorporate. The document ought to say, "The foremost authority to inquire and to intervene belongs to the local Ordinary, in such a manner that what the Ordinary approves is considered approved, and what he condemns is considered condemned by the Church." This would take the wind out of the sails of Medjugorje, Garabandal and a lot of these other false movements.

6. Cease Interreligious Events

This would be the easiest reform because it would simply entail that the Pope do nothing. In order to stop confusing other religions about how we view them, as well as to stop confusing the faithful and scandalizing other Christians, the Pope and Bishops should cease participating in any interreligious events. No more Assisi gatherings. No more messages from the Pope on the occasions of Hanukkah of Diwali.  No more visits to non-Christian shrines. The Pope should set himself off as the pastor of Christians alone and refrain from attending any more of these sorts of functions. If he insists on having representation at them, an official of Vatican City representing the Pope in a diplomatic sense as a head of state would be more appropriate.

7. Encyclical on Catholic Missions

An encyclical on Catholic missions is direly needed, as Catholic missions are in a terribly sorry state today, mainly because Catholic missionaries have no idea what they are out there for. This encyclical should emphasize three main points:

1) The Church has a universal missionary mandate that is still valid today. This was taught at Vatican II, but it needs to be reaffirmed, as well as expanded on, so as to say that

2) There is no people, no culture, no religion on the planet that is excluded from the Church's universal missionary mandate. This applies to Jews, Muslims, Orthodox, Protestants, whatever, and

3) The primary purpose of Catholic missionary activity is to win souls for the kingdom by formal entry into the Church through baptism as the normative means of salvation. This need no go back on anything the Church has taught prior about baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, but is should reinforce the traditional teaching of formal membership in the Church as normative for salvation.

8. Exorcists

Another encyclical should be written on the angels and the devils, affirming the literal existence of each as personal beings who are pure spirit. This encyclical should serve as a primer on classic angelology and should call for each Bishop to maintain not one but at least five exorcists per diocese and to have recourse to them when diabolical influence is discerned.

9. New Orders

I am not sure about the best forum for introducing this, but given the mass apostasy of the traditional orders, the Pope should make a sweeping call for a new generation of religious orders. He should emphasize discipline, celibacy, devotion to the Church and the Pope, and the wearing of traditional habits. Such a request from the Pope would result in thousands of new vocations in dozens of new orders and most likely reforms or reformed spin-offs of existing orders. When Vatican II and John Paul II called for new lay movements, we got a whole slew of them; a similar upsurge of enthusiasm would happen if the pontiff were to make an impassioned call for new religious who were faithful to the Pope and wore their habits. This call could even take place within the context of the encyclical on missions mentioned above.

10. Reinstate the Oath Against Modernism

Or at least some other kind of oath in which seminarians, theologians, pastors and anyone involved in teaching or theology pledge to avoid certain specifically defined errors endemic in modern Catholicism.

11. Bring out the Triregnum

Some may place this in the realm of the implausible, but I am not suggesting a full and immediate return to papal coronations, the sedia gestatoria and all that - not because it wouldn't be awesome, but because it just wouldn't happen like that. The Pope should begin wearing the triregnum on certain occasions just to bring it back into people's minds; perhaps the Feasts of Peter and Paul, the Chair of Peter and a few other select occasions. This would not be too controversial, and would in fact be quite appropriate and could set the stage for a hearty dialogue within the Church about the papal tiara. Ideally, its use would gradually be extended after the Pope had brought it out a few times.

12. Interpretive Norms for the Documents of Vatican II

I do believe this is probably the most important of all. Benedict XVI identified the hermeneutic of rupture as a major problem in how the modern Church views Vatican II. Towards the end of his pontificate, he even said that the true Council had been swallowed up by a "Council of the media" that obscured the true vision of the Council Fathers. If this really is the case, then why not issue some interpretive norms for the documents of Vatican II so there is no room for theologians to posit theories of rupture? The CDF already did this in their 2007 document on the phrase subsitit in from Lumen Gentium (see here). The purpose of this clarification was to ensure that Lumen Gentium was interpreted in continuity with previous teachings on the Church, such as Mystici Corporis.

Sadly, interpretive norms are needed not only for one phrase in one document, but for the entire Council. Dei Verbum on biblical inspiration. Gaudium et Spes on the Church in relation to the world. Dignitatus Humanae and Unitatis Redintegratio especially need to be clarified in a manner continuous with pre-Conciliar teaching, as does Sacrosanctum Concilium. Or what about Ad Gentes on the Church's missionary mandate? There needs to be a series of norms for reading these documents that say, "If you construe Dignitatus Humanae to mean X,Y, or Z, you are missing it." It is so obviously needed, and it is extremely frustrating that this has not yet been done, since Benedict XVI stated very clearly that the Council has basically been hijacked since day one. Such interpretive norms would provide pastors, bishops and everyone else the firm Magisterial standing they need to permanently lock up the Spirit of Vatican II with all the other evil spirits in the underworld.

And the Extraordinary Form?

I was hesitant of including anything about the EF Mass in here, frankly because I am just not certain how realistic it would be to expect anything more from the Magisterium in the near future about it. But, if I were to add something about the EF Mass, I suppose I would say that the Pope should ask bishops to see to it that every Catholic parish has an EF Mass made available at least once per month. With the average parish offering anywhere between 35-45 Masses per month, mandating that one of those be offered in the EF is not a very radical gesture. It would introduce many more people to the riches of the old Mass and would undoubtedly bear fruit.

What realistic reforms do you think could be implemented right now that would help Holy Mother Church? Remember, they must be realistic - things you could actually imagine a real Pope implementing.

Review: Heralds of the Second Coming

Some time ago, I created and posted a video entitled "Shortcomings of Catholic Eschatology", in which I lamented that I could not really find a decent book on Catholic eschatology. Many readers of this blog chimed in with their own sentiments, many echoing my own. Some authors stepped forward to present me with their own manuscripts, each hoping that their book would be the one to buck the trend.

One of the books I was sent was Heralds of the Second Coming by Stephen Walford (Angelico Press, 2013). Heralds of the Second Coming is no fly-by-night amateurish attempt at eschatology; it has a forward by His Eminence Ivan Cardinal Dias and was personally presented to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI last month, for which the author received a personalized note of thanks.

Heralds of the Second Coming succeeds where so many other modern eschatology books fail. One reason for this is the author humbly and wisely chooses a very restrictive scope; rather than seeking to present the Church's whole teaching on the end times or exegete the Book of Revelation, he focuses in on a very specific aspect of eschatology: the eschatological statements of the popes from Pius IX to Benedict XVI, with a special emphasis on Fatima, the Divine Mercy and Mariology in general. The book is subtitled "Our Lady, the Divine Mercy, and the Popes of the Marian Era from Blessed Pius IX to Benedict XVI", and this really sums up the book's true worth as a compendium of papal statements on the intersection of Mariology and eschatology, encompassing every sort of pronouncement from solemn declarations and encyclicals down to addresses, letters and even anecdotal stories. This treasure-trove of quotes is made more valuable by Mr. Walford's excellent writing style, which gives the book a nice flow.

The picture that emerges from these immense collection of statements is one of striking continuity. In weaving these teachings together, Mr. Walford demonstrates that the modern popes have had a very keen eschatological expectation. Every pope from Pius IX to Benedict XVI seemed to have had a lively sense that the Church was drawing near to the final consummation of all things, and each pontiff considered part of his specific vocation to be the preparation of the Church for this final conflict. Fatima plays a very large role in this expectation, as does the Divine Mercy devotion and the Second Vatican Council, which, rightly or wrongly, the post-Conciliar popes have viewed as a kind of purifying ecclesial event to prepare the Church for the coming of our Lord.

The popes of course never state how imminent they view this return, other than that is is approaching at that we are closer now than ever before. But when talking about an event in the future, these statements are always true. Saints in the 13th century spoke of the end being at hand as well. Mr. Walford is generally extremely conservative with how he presents the popes' teaching and what conclusions he draws from them, but a few times I found myself second guessing his interpretations. For example, in a chapter on the eschatological statements of John Paul II, he quotes the Holy Father as saying to a group of bishops, "The more faithfully and devotedly the religious in your Dioceses live out their commitment to Christ in poverty, chastity and obedience, the more clearly will the men and women of Ghana see that "the kingdom of God is at hand." Given this quote, Walford says that John Paul II "prophesied the imminent coming of the kingdom" (pg. 157-158). I found it a little hard to swallow that JPII prophesied the "imminent coming of the kingdom" just because he cited a passage from the Gospel of Mark that has no doubt been cited thousands of times by hundreds of pontiffs. But these sorts of stretches are few and far between; by and large Mr. Walford's interpretations are cautious, and his quotes are all meticulously documented.

His treatment of Fatima is interesting. While noting that the Fatima consecration has not yet been properly made, he does not get bogged down on this point. Many Fatimists will lock onto the Consecration of Russia as if it is the single most important aspect of salvation history. Mr. Walford is under no illusions about the consecration not having been properly performed, but neither does he waste a lot of pages beating a dead horse. His focus is more on the popes and their statements on the Fatima message rather than the act of consecration. He does take pains to remind us that Cardinal Ratzinger stated the Church was still awaiting the fulfillment of the Fatima message, contra what Cardinal Bertone laughably told us back in 2000.

One very valuable nugget I lifted from Heralds of the Second Coming is that the eschatological statements made by the modern popes leave no room for any posited "Era of Peace", which some Marian movements have proposed, led by Fr. Ianuzzi. In contradiction to those who see a lengthy era of worldly peace and a gradual triumph of the Gospel following the downfall of Antichrist, the eschatological timeline that emerges from papal teaching is clear: a gradual degeneration until the coming of Antichrist concurrently with a massive apostasy and persecution, then the defeat of the Antichrist and the Second Coming and end of the world immediately following the downfall of Antichrist. I was not certain of Fr. Ianuzzi's "Era of Peace" concept even prior to reading this book, but now that I have read it, the "Era of Peace" seems even more untenable. Thus, Walford's book serves as a valuable resource against resurgent forms of semi-Millennialism.

After I recorded my video last year, I threw out probably half of my collection of Catholic eschatology books. I am glad I did, because now I have room to permanently add Stephen Walford's Heralds of the Second Coming to my collection. It was excellently written, very responsible in its use of citations and interpretations, and responsibly narrow in scope. It provides a fascinating insight into a very important aspect of modern eschatology and I recommend it highly.

You can purchase Stephen Walford's Heralds of the Second Coming here.
 

Biblical Contradictions and more on USC!

Today is the Feast of St. Boniface of Germany, who is half-way the patron of this blog. I say half-way because my profile picture is actually of Pope Boniface VIII, not St. Boniface, and the blog title "Unam Sanctam" is a reference to the famous 1302 Bull of Pope Boniface VIII. But, since Dante put Boniface VIII in hell, I like to hedge my bets and claim St. Boniface as my co-patron.

I have been very busy lately, but have managed to get a few great articles posted over on the new website. I would especially like to draw attention to a post on alleged Contradictions in the New Testament that I worked for a long time on, and you will see why when you read it. I have made it a point over the years to address concerns about alleged contradictions of discrepancies in the Bible; whether synthesizing Resurrection appearances, dealing with the problem of genocide in the Book of Joshua, or whatever. I have noticed that it is a given among atheists and skeptics that the Bible is "full of contradictions", which is something I have always taken umbrage at, since in 19 years of intensive Bible study I have never run across what I consider to be a true contradiction. Well, earlier this week in a conversation with a friend about the uniqueness of the mediatorship of Jesus Christ, some smarmy skeptic posted some link to a site that claimed to find "194 Contradictions in the New Testament" and I thought, "That's it. I'm taking these down." I spent the next several days refuting every single alleged contradiction; the result is this post. Please share with all your skeptical friends. I will get Part 2 and 3 up when I can.

Here's what else is new:

The Exorcism of Nicola Aubrey: An exorcism of 29 demons out of a young girl in 16th century France proves the reality of our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist and converts scores of Protestants.

Dulling Disparity: A survey of how various cultures in the western tradition have attempted to deal with the problem of wealth disparity by cultural or legal structures that entrust the care of certain projects or individuals to the rich.

Contributions of the Cluniacs: Four important ways the Cluniac movement shaped the medieval Church and civilization.

Evaluating Private Apparitions: In an age when people are following absurd private apparitions of anonymous "prophets" on the internet, here is some sanity on how we are to judge whether a given private apparition has any legitimacy.

Can a priest and people 'dialogue' during a homily? Latest liturgical quod libet on an irritating modern trend.

"For the sake of our salvation": Revisiting the controversial passage in Dei Verbum 11 in the context of the reflections of Cardinal Bea (who actually wrote the document) proving that the Council Fathers intended the text to be interpreted in continuity with previous statements from Pius X, Leo XIII, etc.

St. Triduana (sancti obscuri)
Like Stars on Earth (movie review)

Also, in case you have not seen it or haven't had time to check it out, I have edited a book of St. Cyprian's writings for Arx Publishing, now available on the Arx website as well as on Amazon. The book is a complete compilation of all of Cyprian's works in English with apologetical footnotes (as opposed to the anti-Catholic footnotes in the Ante-Nicene Fathers). The introduction to the book was written by none other than Ryan Grant, formerly of Athanasius Contra Mundum.

Thank you for your continued patronage of this blog and website.

Retraction and Final Thoughts on Labels

A while back I published an article on the fittingness of utilizing labels in denoting certain trends within Catholicism; this was not the first time I have written on this subject, and my taking up of the question was in response to the statements of some that the term "traditional Catholic" is redundant because to be Catholic is to stand within the great stream of Tradition. Aside from the obvious problem that the vast majority (85% at least) of Catholics do, in fact, not stand in the tradition of the Church, some have pointed out that the utilization of labels is improper because it is divisive. I argued that this was the case, but that this division was sometimes necessary in times when there is great confusion over what it means to be Catholic, and cited in example the tumultuous periods after the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon as well as prior to Vatican I.

However, it has come to my attention that Pope Benedict XV had actually weighed in on this specific question in 1914, at which time he asked Catholics not to make use of modifiers. The pontiff stated:

"It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." (Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24)

That being the case, I would like to retract my former posts on the appropriateness of labels; how can I call appropriate what such an august pontiff has said is not? I believe no other pontiff has spoken officially on this since then, so I assume he has the last word. However, I do have a few thoughts here:

The rise in the use of labels is a manifestation of the disorder in the Church. As I demonstrated in my previous posts, it is only in times of great disorder that these labels come to be used - and they are generally not used except when they serve a useful purpose in making a distinction.

Because of their proliferation now, and even a century ago, the Pope wished their usage to be curbed to maintain unity, which I can understand. However, in this day with its attendant problems, this is really addressing only a symptom. Rather than worry about the potential divisiveness caused by labels, we should be asking how we can rectify the condition within the Church so that the faithful will not feel the need to have recourse to labels. We cannot cure poverty by outlawing begging, and we cannot bring unity to the Church by outlawing the use of modifying labels. I concur with the Benedict XV and submit my judgment to his words, though I do think this is only a skin-deep remedy.

In Praise of Virginity? Anybody?

While the secular world continues its onslaught against the family with its relentless promotion of same-sex so-called marriage, the Church has been enduring a parallel attack against the discipline of celibacy. Both attacks are diabolical, both equally ferocious, and both based on the premise that human beings are absolutely and utterly incapable of moderating their sexual appetites.

On the homosexual question, conservative pundits, mostly Protestant and severed from Catholic Tradition, can offer no defense of traditional marriage grounded in natural law and largely stand by dumbly, protest on the grounds of biblical prohibitions, or else meekly acquiesce so they can be "on the right side of history." Similarly, as the discipline of celibacy is assaulted within the Catholic world, no one steps forward to boldly praise the ancient discipline. While liberal ecclesiastics clamor for its abolition, conservative clerics fumble about the practical difficulties of a married clergy or, even worse, meekly shrug and say "It's only a discipline. It could be changed," as if one of the Church's most ancient disciplines could be tossed aside with no consequences.

It is not surprising that the Faith is under attack; a reflective view of Church history reveals that the Faith is always under attack. But what is surprising with regards to celibacy is the lack of any truly zealous defenders of the discipline. Sure, we get apologetics and defenses of the reasonableness of celibacy, but when was the last time we really heard a bishop speak out boldly in praise of virginity, as the Fathers of the Church used to do? Arianism threatened the Church, and St. Athanasius opposed it with such rigor that the heresy was subdued; St. Augustine almost single handedly undid the Pelagians with his masterful exposition of the doctrines of grace; when Iconoclasm reared its destructive head, St. John Damascene slew the beast with his treatises in praise of holy images; St. Gregory VII, Anselm and Thomas Becket humbled kings and emperors who sought to define the Church as a functionary of the state, St. Thomas Aquinas put the nail int he coffin of Latin Averroism, and St. Francis of Assisi's life and message served as a stinging rebuke to the worldliness of his day, just as the holy life and teachings of St. Ignatius served as an antitode to the poison of the Protestant revolt and the bold defense of papal primacy made by Bl. Pius IX and St. Pius X served to combat the errors of modernism.

Where, then, are the zealous promoters of celibacy who will rise up in this hour and glorify the Church's teaching on holy virginity? Where are those ecclesiastics who, with their teaching, will not only meekly defend the legitimacy of the practice, but will actually show forth its splendor and praise it? Where are those who will speak of the radiant beauty of the consecrated soul, the many spiritual and temporal benefits that virginity bestows upon him who practices it, and the immense merit consecrated virgins accrue before the throne of God?

The silence is appalling. Oh, don't get me wrong, we have plenty of folks out there defending celibacy. We have plenty of priests who are willing to explain its reasons and its legitimacy and point out the possible difficulties we would run into if we had a married clergy. But to defend the validity of a discipline is not the same thing as to praise it, and to coolly remind the hostile world of the reasons behind the discipline is not the same thing as to heap glory upon a custom that is universally praised in the eastern and western traditions.

When Tertullian and Cyprian and Augustine write in praise of virginity, their goal is not to explain virginity to a hostile world, but to laud virginity among other Catholics, helping them to see the mystical reality behind the discipline. When the Church Fathers praise virginity, the praise it as men who have seen a vision of something truly beautiful, something gloriously resplendent, a pearl of great price that they do not offer a defensive apologetic for, but rather a glowing hymn in praise of.

The modern apologists attempt to convince the intellect to accept the reasonableness of celibacy; the Church Fathers attempted to move the will in order that their hearers would personally embrace celibacy themselves as a positive good to be sought.

It is difficult enough these days to find someone who will rigorously defend celibacy, let alone attempt to convince their readers to take up the discipline. Yet this is how the practice was first introduced to the faithful, not as a practice that the Church should accept, but as an ideal way of life that is actually superior to matrimony.

There are many facets to the vocations crisis - there is the man-made aspect of it, in which the crisis is artificially blown out of proportion for the purpose of creating lay-run parishes; like the canard of "religious liberty", there is the fact that most American Catholics cannot offer satisfactory answers to critics of the discipline. But can the major problem perhaps be that we have lost sight of celibacy/virginity as a treasure to be cherished? That in fighting so hard to defend it against a hostile world without and a skeptical Church within, we have contented ourselves with defending the existence of celibacy alongside of marriage when we should have been praising it as a superior vocation to marriage? As is the case with so many other issues in the Church today, can our problem be not that we are expecting too much, but that we have been habitually aiming too low?

"As a Church living in expectation of glory to be revealed she will find ever greater strength to proclaim the value of celibacy that is lived for the Kingdom of God." (John Paul II, ad Limina Address, "The Church of the Millennium Bears Witness to Christ with No Fear of Displeasing the World," L'Osservatore Romano English ed., April 25, 1988, 5,8).

The Fittingness of Labels (Portuguese)

Though officially I am still on hiatus, I wanted to do a little something special in honor of the Feast of Pentecost. I have always been amazed that, according to the analytics I have tracking this website, a sizable minority of the people who read this blog are Portuguese speakers - many from Brazil, but many from Portugal as well. Therefore, in honor of the Feast of Pentecost, when the Church spoke the languages of all nations, I am publishing an article in another language: Portuguese, which you can find below. The article is about these mainstream Catholics who talk about how using labels like "traditional Catholic" or "charismatic Catholic" are redundant because "just Catholic is enough." While I totally see where they are coming from, I disagree and think there is a utility for labels when discussing trends within the Catholic faith.

To read the article in English via Mediafire, please click here. If you choose to comment, please remember that I do not speak Portuguese; a friend of mine translated this for me.

Enjoy!

Quando eu li pela primeira vez o artigo “Católico. E tenho dito.” (“Catholic. Nuff Said”) por Marc Barnes sobre a superfluidade de se usar rótulos para designar grupos ou movimentos dentro do catolicismo, eu comecei a trabalhar numa exaustiva crítica ponto a ponto, mas eventualmente abandonei a ideia, porque minha resposta se tornou muito longa e me levou a muitas outras tangentes. Isso porque Barnes está correto em algumas coisas e errado em outras e sem querer enfastiar meus leitores com algo tedioso, decidi contrariamente. Eu recomendo que você leia o artigo do Barnes antes de ler isto; ele basicamente afirma que rótulos não têm lugar dentro da Igreja. Aqueles que dissentem ou espalham heresia, não deveríamos chamá-los “católicos liberais”, porque isso basicamente os legitimiza, sugerindo que ‘catolicismo liberal’ é apenas um tipo de catolicismo no espectro católico, quando de fato é um desvio total do espírito do catolicismo. Por outro lado, àqueles grupos que são fiéis à Igreja não se pode adicionar nada com adjetivos como “tradicional”, “fiel”, “ortodoxo” ou o que seja; ser católico é ser “universal” e não se pode adicionar nada ao universal, tanto quanto não se pode dividir a eternidade. Portanto, enquanto rótulos são úteis paracategorizar heresias fora da Igreja (arianos, pelagianos, calvinistas etc.), eles ou são inúteis ou danosos quando aplicados a movimentos ainda dentro da âmbito da Igreja. Barnes destaca “católico tradicionalista” como um rótulo que ele acha particularmente inútil, pois ele parece pensar que ele coloca muita ênfase na Missa como um monumento, e não o suficiente na Missa como uma realidade vida e presente.

Ao invés de examinar as declarações de Barnes ponto a ponto, eu decidi oferecer um ponto de vista contrário, que pode lidar com os pontos do Barnes aqui e ali, mas cuja intenção não é tanto uma refutação, quanto uma visão por outro ângulo, ultimamente vindicando o uso de rótulos em geral e o rótulo “católico tradicionalista” em particular.

Eu escrevi sobre este tópico anteriormente, em resposta a um artigo similar por George Kendall, que havia declarado no Wanderer que “Não existe catolicismo tradicional. Existe apenas catolicismo e não-catolicismo. Se você é católico, você é tradicional. Se não, você é não-católico.” (George A. Kendall.  "More on the Sacrifice of the Community to Progress". Wanderer, Feb. 2009). A minha resposta a isso pode ser encontrada  aqui. O que podemos dizer sobre isso? Façamos algumas observações, compreendendo que a principal questão é: pode qualquer palavra modificadora jamais ser aplicada ao substantivo “católico” que adicione qualquer real valor? Ou, como Barnes diz, “qualquer modificação limitadora na palavra ‘católico’ é uma contradição em termos”?

Primeiro ponto:  Rótulos devem ter algum tipo de uso significativo ou então pessoas não os usariam. Este argumento procede da forma em que pessoas usam as palavras de fato. Barnes argumenta que não deveríamos fazer distinções como “católico tradicional” e “católico carismático”, porque ambas são expressões da catolicidade da Igreja. Entretanto, na vida real, pessoas usam os rótulos “tradicional” e “carismático” regularmente e isto significa que esses rótulos têm algum significado real, ou então ninguém os usaria. Adjetivos criam distinções; “cadeira” é um conceito geral, mas nosso conceito de cadeira se torna mais refinado se introduzimos os termos “cadeira de madeira” ou “cadeira de aço” – eles denotam duas formas diferentes de ser uma cadeira e são ferramentas lógicas que ajudam a mente a se mover de verdade a verdade. Neste caso, “tradicional” e “carismático” refletem duas formas diferentes de ser católico; se as duas formas são de igual valor é outra questão, mas o ponto é que quando as pessoas usam esses termos, elas estão chegando às distinções concretas que nos auxiliam a falar sobre as realidade dentro da Igreja. Elas não são supérfluas ou sem significado, ou então não seriam empregadas tão frequentemente no vocabulário cotidiano.

Segundo ponto, mesmo quanto a distinção expressa por um modificador pode ser inferida no conceito que ele modifica, modificadores ainda podem ser apropriados a fim de enfatizar algum aspecto em particular daquele conceito. Por exemplo,  tomemos a frase “católico romano”. Bem, não está a  romanitas da Igreja expressa no conceito de catolicidade? Afinal, ser católico é estar em união com o Papa, o bispo de Roma, o sinal visível da unidade da Igreja na terra. O conceito de união com Roma é inerente ao conceito de catolicidade. Pelo raciocínio de Barnes, não deveríamos ter ocasião para jamais usar o modificador “romano” com a palavra “católico”, a não ser que talvez estivéssemos discutindo especificamente o Rito Romano. Porém, vemos que a frase “católico romano” é usada muito amplamente, como próprio sinônimo de “católico”, porque a frase ressalta a unidade da Igreja ao redor do bispo de Roma. Podemos similarmente notar os muitos títulos para Nosso Senhor e Nossa Senhora que se fixam em aspectos particulares de Suas pessoas, apesar de quase tudo que alguém poderia dizer em louvor a Jesus ou Maria poderia ser resumido em seus títulos “Cristo” ou ”Mãe de Deus”. Portanto um modificador pode às vezes ser usado não apenas para fazer uma distinção, mas também para elaborar um aspecto em particular de uma ideia maior.

Terceiro, católicos usaram outros títulos para eles mesmos através da história. Durante a controvérsia ariana, católicos ortodoxos referiam-se a si mesmos como homoousianos, para distinguir a verdade do ensinamento herético homoiousiano dos arianos. Apesar de que ser católico é ser homoousiano, os católicos daquela época pensaram que era uma distinção útil e necessária chamar a si mesmos “homoousianos” em adição a “católicos”, devido à confusão prevalente na Igreja naquele tempo.

Similarmente, no século V, sabemos que aqueles que recusaram o consentimento aos cânones do Concílio de Calcedônia foram subsequentemente conhecidos como heréticos monofisitas. Mas o que não é comumente lembrado é que aqueles que confirmaram Calcedônia e as duas naturezas também adotaram um título, chamando a si mesmos calcedonianos, de católicos calcedonianos, com o propósito de distingui-los do crescente cisma monofisita. Eles poderiam simplesmente ter dito que eram “católicos”, já que a crença nas duas naturezas de Cristo é algo essencial ao catolicismo. Porém, novamente, devido à confusão prevalente na Igreja, eles acharam que o rótulo “calcedoniano” era apropriado. Autores subsequentes sobre a história da Igreja também apropriaram os termos sem insinuar que eles diminuem em nada o termo “católico”.

No século XVIII, os racionalistas e opositores da Igreja adotaram o termo “ultramontanistas” para descrever aqueles que se opunham os movimentos das igrejas nacionais inspiradas no galicanismo. Embora originalmente um termo de escárnio, “ultramontanista” foi abraçado pelos fiéis católicos leais ao Papa como um termo de afeição, expressando lealdade à Santa Sé e “ultramontanista” foi adicionado à palavra “católico”, apesar de que, como a  Enciclopédia Católica diz, "[o termo] é aplicável a todos os católicos romanos dignos do nome...seria supérfluo perguntar se ultramontanismo e catolicismo são a mesma coisa: seguramente, aqueles que combatem o ultramontanismo estão de fato combatendo o catolicismo, mesmo que neguem seu desejo de se oporem.” De novo, devido a uma controvérsia na Igreja e aos cismas dos josefitas, febronianos e racionalistas, um modificador em particular foi adicionado ao conceito geral de “católico” para colocar em relevo um aspecto em particular da catolicidade da Igreja – a jurisdição suprema e universal do Papa sobre a Igreja.

Quarto,  apesar de várias práticas diferentes poderem ser encontradas sob a égide católica, nem todas são de igual valor ou refletem igualmente a catolicidade da Igreja e, portanto, rótulos são apropriados para diferenciar esses movimentos. Barnes diz que o uso de rótulos concede um tipo de legitimidade e igualdade a tudo que é rotulado; mas a ausência de rótulos também pode fazê-lo. Por exemplo, tomemos a distinção entre catolicismo carismático e catolicismo tradicional. A Forma Extraordinária da Missa, em sua essência, vem desde o tempo de S. Gregório Magno, foi um produto de um desenvolvimento orgânico do Rito Romano pela era patrística e tem sido usada pela Igreja por séculos e louvada pelos santos como o mais glorioso ato de louvor que o homem pode oferecer a Deus. A história do Rito Romano está enlaçada com o desenvolvimento e identidade a Igreja como um todo. A Renovação Carismática, por outro lado, data da  Renovação Protestante da Rua  Asuza em 1906, foi adotada pela Igreja Católica apenas nos anos 1960, não foi abraçada universalmente dentro do Rito Romano e tem sido permitida dentro da Igreja apenas sob forma de tolerância. Não se pode dizer, de forma alguma, que o catolicismo carismático goza da mesma linhagem, universalidade, louvor ou valor que o Rito Romano tradicional. Porém, se removermos nossos rótulos, dizendo que não podemos falar de catolicismo tradicional ou catolicismo carismático, mas apenas de “catolicismo”, então ambos tornam-se de igual valor e igual autoridade, quando de fato um é a prática histórica da Igreja e o outro é uma inovação que por alguma razão tem sido tolerada e embasada por alguns bispos. Portanto, o rótulo “tradicional” é útil para distinguir o catolicismo histórico de modas modernas.

Em suma, rótulos podem diminuir a catolicidade, mas eles não necessariamente o fazem. Rótulos dentro da Igreja tentem a se tornar muito úteis quanto há uma grande parcela de confusão sobre a identidade católica, como houve durante a controvérsia ariana, as controvérsias cristológicas do século V e as disputas entre o Papado e as igrejas nacionais nas décadas que levaram à definição da infalibilidade papal – eles entram em jogo quando a Igreja entra numa situação “remanescente”, onde a ortodoxia parece subjugada pela heterodoxia, situações onde “o mundo despertou e gemeu ao ver-se ariano”, nas palavras de Jerônimo – situações em que há disputas amargas sobre a identidade católica, como as que temos hoje, com a Igreja repleta de dissidentes que permanecem canonicamente em boa reputação com a Igreja (ao menos no que se refere ao foro externo), enquanto a atacam de dentro, com 85% dos católicos descrendo na Presença Real e praticando a contracepção, com mesmo católicos bem-intencionados perseguindo modas como Merjugorje ou introduzindo espiritualidades fundamentalmente não-católicas como a Renovação Carismática ou o movimento de oração centrante do monge Basil Pennington – com a própria tradição maldita por muitos e rejeitada até por aqueles que deveriam ser os seus mais ardentes defensores – em todas essas circunstâncias, simplesmente dizer “católico” não necessariamente convém toda  a informação necessária em um dado contexto. Um modificador como “tradicional” é apropriado às vezes e ao contrário do que Barnes diz, não são modificadores mas a falta deles que leva a uma igualdade inapropriada entre posições que não são de forma alguma iguais.

Claro, devemos recordar que qualquer rótulo emendado a “católico” é apenas uma convenção; nossa identidade não está ultimamente amarrada com um modificador. Se a Igreja Católica como um todo zelosamente abraçasse a tradição, retornasse à obediência e à disciplina e arrumasse a casa liturgicamente, então eu concordaria que um modificador não seria necessário. Entendo que aqueles que não abraçam a totalidade da Tradição da Igreja estão de fato diminuindo sua catolicidade e não a exemplificando. Ainda assim, enquanto essa situação persistir, rótulos continuarão porque eles continuam a ajudar as pessoas a fazer distinções reais. As distinções provavelmente não deveriam existir; não deveria haver um “movimento carismático católico” ou um movimento Medjugorje ou o que seja – mas essas coisas de fato existem, então a nossa linguagem deve tomá-las em conta e sua relação em respeito a católicos que apenas amam a liturgia
tradicional da Igreja – em outras palavras, católicos tradicionais.

On Hiatus

Good day!

I am going to be taking a little bit of time off from this blog. My life is insanely busy at the moment with the various duties I have due to my state in life. I expect probably a month or so, though I may have something posted for Pentecost.

I will continue to update the USC website as I can, however. Hopefully this month I can plug away at it and get a lot of things going that I have been brainstorming about.

Thank you all for your continued patronage of this blog.

Boniface
Founder, Unam Sanctam Catholicam