Hating religion and loving Jesus

“Why I hate religion but love Jesus” has gone viral. Have you seen it?

Roman Catholic Fr. Dwight Longenecker, former Anglican, comments on it at First Things. Excerpt:

So maybe we want to get rid of the Christian fellowship completely and be freelance followers of Christ? This is impossible because to follow Jesus, you have to know Jesus, and the best way to know Jesus is through the Church. “I have my Bible!” the eager independent will cry. We only have the Bible because of the Church. Furthermore, what is the Bible but the story of the people of God—first in the Old Testament and then in the New? The Bible reports the history of the people of God and recounts their relationship with God. Jesus himself went to the synagogue, and indeed practiced religion. The New Testament was composed with and for the Church—a group that practices a religion. To say that you are going to follow Jesus but reject religion is like saying you love baseball, but don’t need a team to play on, a league, or a team to root for.

Fr. Robert Barron offers his comments at Catholic News Agency. Excerpt:

What the young man in the video is presenting is a simplistic and radical form of evangelicalism whose intellectual roots are in the thought of Martin Luther. Luther famously held that justification (or salvation) takes place through grace alone accepted in faith, and not from good works of any kind.

To rely on liturgy or sacraments or moral effort for salvation, Luther thought, amounted to a pathetic “works righteousness,” which he sharply contrasted to the “alien righteousness” that comes, not from us, but from Christ. This basic theological perspective led Luther (at least in some texts) to demonize many elements of ecclesial life as distractions from the grace offered through Jesus, and this is why we find, even to this day in many evangelical Protestant churches, a muting of the liturgical, the sacramental, the institutional, etc.

Barron continues with a pretty heavy-handed defense of the Church as founded by Jesus:

What [Jesus] affected was a transfiguration of the best of that classical Israelite religion—Temple, law, priesthood, sacrifice, covenant, etc.—into the institutions, sacraments, practices and structures of his Mystical Body, the Church.

I find Fr. Longecker’s defense of organized religion, though perhaps a bit overstated, more persuasive than Fr. Barron’s. Both point out the communal nature of following Jesus, but Longecker does so without Barron’s triumphalistic, preconciliar-sounding claims about how Jesus founded the Church.

Also unfortunate is Barron’s caricature of Luther. Pro Ecclesia and recent Luther studies, anyone? The New Finnish School, anyone? Barron rightly critiques the video for driving a wedge between Christ and the Church. What a shame that in doing so, Barron drives a wedge between Luther and the Catholic Church. So much for ecumenism.

Whaddaya suppose is up with Bob Barron? He’s a renowned theologian with a sharp mind. But a few days ago he was putting words in the mouth of Elizabeth Johnson (see Grant Gallicho, “The Yawn Patrol” over at Commonweal.) Not long ago he claimed the new Mass translation is beautiful and poetic. And now this.

Commonweal 1, First Things 1, Word on Fire 0.

awr

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, is a monk of St. John's Abbey. He teaches liturgy, liturgical music, and Gregorian chant at St. John's University School of Theology-Seminary. He is widely published and frequently presents across the country on liturgy and music. He is the author of Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform: Treasures and Transformations, and of Responsorial Psalms for Weekday Mass: Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter. He does priestly ministry at the neighboring community of Benedictine sisters in St. Joseph.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

47 responses to “Hating religion and loving Jesus”

  1. M. Jackson Osborn

    Fr Ruff –
    While not wishing to weigh in (at least not yet) on any tacks that may ensue from this post, I do wonder at your intimation that the reality of Jesus’ founding of the Church is merely pre-conciliar baggage (presumably) to be jettisoned if it impedes this or that person’s concept of oecumenism. Could you clarify?

    Reply
  2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
    Anthony Ruff, OSB

    JMO – I wasn’t tying together the two issues of Jesus founding the church and ecumenism. Whether Jesus founded a church in the strong sense of establishing structures such as three-tier ministry and seven sacraments is a question of historical accuracy. I would not advocate playing down the truth for the sake of ecumenism. The problem here is that some accounts of how Jesus allegedly founded the church are historically and factually erroneous. Broadly speaking, it was somewhat more common to make such ahistorical claims before Vatican II, but theologians have been more honest as a whole since the Council. I very much regret the recent rise of preconciliar apologetics mindsets – not only for their theological problems, but also because they have such dire ecumenical consequences. If all sides are as honest as possible about the source data it won’t solve everything ecumenically, but it sure will help to remove some important obstacles.
    awr

    Reply
  3. crystal watson

    I saw a video recently of Timothy Dolan praising Fr. Barron (eek). I’ve listened to a number of Fr. Barron’s videos and he comes off as more a conservative apologist than a theologian, at least to me.

    Reply
  4. M. Jackson Osborn

    Fr Ruff –
    Many thanks for your careful response. Allow me, though, to pursue the strand. What do you, and others here, consider a proper evaluation of Jesus’ intentions with regard to the structure (if any) of the ‘church’ which would carry on his witness and bestow his blessings. Added to these, is it not a given for Catholics that the ‘structure’ that evolved did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples whom he ordained in the upper room and those who came after them? Failing such, is the Catholic Church then rightly or wrongly considering itself the only ‘whole’ and ‘true’ Church with a magisterial fulness of truth and grace not had by others. (I stress that I am posing questions and am quite far from being an ultra-montanist apologist.)

    Reply
  5. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    Fr. Barron says “What [Jesus] affected was a transfiguration of the best of that classical Israelite religion…” The key word is “affected”–set into motion for others to carry on and from the faith perspective under His guidance in the Holy Spirit. If it is completely valid to critique the Catholic Church and her subsequent developments which includes some corruption, I think too it is valid to critique Martin Luther and what he “affected.” While he didn’t intend to “found” a new Church but to reform the Catholic Church, in effect he “affected” the Protestant break and founding of a separated Church and subsequent splintering of even that–he is partially responsible for this and the diminution of the sacraments to only two, Baptism and Holy Communion and “instituted” a completely new form of “infallibility” or “inerrancy” in “affecting” a rigid reinterpretation of what Bible alone intended and what personal faith brings about. He “affected” the elimination of several books from the canon of the Old Testament and almost “affected” the elimination of the Letter of St. James. We can say the same about Vatican II, while that Council in no way “founded” the reformed Mass and subsequent forms of inculturation and new music, we can surely say the Council “affected” what we now experience today.

    Reply
    1. Gerard Flynn

      Do you mean “effected”?

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        No I meant “affected” as in the following difference between “affected” and “effected” that I copy from an internet site:

        Affected vs. Effected

        Affected and Effected are both verb forms.

        When used as a verb, effect means to execute, produce, or accomplish something. For example, The dictatorial regime quickly effected changes to the constitution that restricted the freedom of the people.

        On the other hand, affect in its verb form means to impact. For example, Carbon dioxide emissions affect the environment.

        So we can say that “The dictatorial regime quickly effected changes to the constitution that affected the freedom of the people.”

      2. Mary Coogan

        Fr. Allen writes, “No I mean ‘affected.'” Really? While the verb affect most often means to have an influence on or to impact, it also means to put on a false show of; to simulate, related to the noun affectation (American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton-Mifflin). Fr. Ruff’s article quotes Fr. Barron using affected, which the writer should avoid in this context since this verb choice is at best ambiguous. I read it as a mistake or typo. I mean I hope it’s a mistake or typo! “What [Jesus] effected [brought about or accomplished] was a transfiguration of the best of that classical Israelite religion…”

      3. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        I think “affect” either in the positive or negative (and certainly you are right in highlighting the dual meaning) is very appropriate. Jesus did not accomplish the “founding” of the Church overnight during his public ministry but set the wheels in motion that others would “effect” and over the course of centuries. We can argue about what subsequently has happened over the course of centuries as either positive or not.

      4. Mary Burke

        I don’t think you quite get the implication of Gerard’s question or the significance of Mary C’s contribution, Father Allan.

        It would also be more helpful if you first digested the material from your internet site. We know affected and effected are past participles. And we know that the former has at least two very different meanings. The issue is not the difference between the two meanings of the same word but that between the two words.

  6. Jordan Zarembo

    The spoken word evangelist’s mention of the (perhaps not so) implicit union between the Republican Party, Catholicism, and a number of Christian traditions confirms my suspicion that a new pietism is arising out of American religious bureaucracy and politicization.

    The evangelist’s recognition of political Christianity’s inclination towards corruption and complicity might result in Fr. Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s childhood experience (as in First Things cited above). Fr. Longenecker’s account of the dissolution of well-meaning personal piety in the corruption of human nature highlights the danger of Christians detached from a developed ecclesiology. Like the 17th and 18th century northern European pietists, what was first sought as a panacea against religious bureaucracy and corruption often became the new bureaucracy and corruption.

    I am a liturgical pietist. The Mass is the prayer of a church and of the Church, for the living and dead, for the Holy Souls, accompanied by the cherubim. The notion the liturgy can be understood through the social sciences or that Catholics must be educated in liturgy troubles me deeply. We come to confession for forgiveness and justification, and receive Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity — the highest nourishment — in the communion. The only true participation is the desire to participate with and in the sacraments. The only liturgist is the missal and its rubrics. A Catholic arrives at these conclusions individually, and not after being told a conclusion.

    My condemnation of what I like to call “liturgical science” and advocation for a liturgical pietism is dangerous in one respect: for some people, structure is necessary to ferment desire for the sacraments. I would like to think that all structure is intellectually self-generated, but for some this is not enough. Here begins again ideological dogmatism.

    Reply
  7. Lee Bacchi

    I am puzzled, maybe because it’s still ealry in the AM. Did Jesus affect a transformation? . . . or did he effect a transformation? . . . there is a difference.

    Or am I being a Pharisee aobut all this, LOL???

    Reply
  8. Bill deHaas

    What’s up with Bob Barron? George’s retirement letter goes out this week – may take one or two years but Chicago will need a “future” cardinal.

    Sorry, you state that he was/is a good theologian – documentation?

    Reply
  9. Jack Rakosky

    On the reactions to the video:

    The video clearly says that it is not talking about the Church or the Bible. “Let me clarify. I love the Church and I love the Bible.”

    It defines religion as human religious behavior. It is against hypocritical religion, that is religious behavior that is accompanied by unchristian behavior.

    Many young people today, the spiritual but not religious, are clearly being repelled by the strong identification of religiosity with the Republican party, mentioned several times at the beginning. Presumably this video is aimed at such young people, and critiques superficial religion in a rather traditional Protestant manner. Although that might not appeal to some Catholics, Jesus was obviously against superficial, hypocritical religion, and superficial, hypocritical religion remains a human problem.

    It is not new that young people are disturbed when they see hypocritical religion. My mother was very disturbed when, as a young women, she discovered a regular communicant was leading a very sinful life. While my mother did not become irreligious she became very wary of exhibiting her own religiosity and skeptical of the religiosity of others.

    The fact that the reactors are more concerned about “defending” the Church and the Bible which are not being attacked than about the issues of religious hypocrisy and the political misuse of religion says more about them than about the video.

    Some Evangelicals are concerned about the inappropriate use of religion in this hot topic
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/march/political-conclave-dangerous.html

    Reply
  10. Halbert Weidner

    I believe that Pope Benedict knows quite a lot of Lutheran theology and he would be appalled at the caricature that emerged in Robert Barron’s reaction to the young evangelical who wanted to follow Jesus but not belong to a church. This attitude is not Lutheran which is ecclesial and sacramental. Dumping American religious problems in the lap of an Augustinian bible scholar from the 16th century requires an incredible number of tricks none of them worthy of a theologian.

    Reply
  11. Paul Boman

    Please note that the young man in the video is not giving a critique of the Roman Catholic Church specifically or exclusively. This free form Evangelical “slam poet” seems to be taking his stand against ecclesial institutional structures generally. The Longenecker critique at least recognizes this but doesn’t really engage the speaker. Still this is more on point that the rather testy attempt at a cheap shot at Luther from Barron. Of course the readers of PTB will see the many flaws in the video, but I suggest we not dismiss our young people when they challenge the Church to be above reproach.

    Reply
    1. Jack Rakosky

      “This free form Evangelical “slam poet” seems to be taking his stand against ecclesial institutional structures generally. He says he loves the Church, so I don’t think he is against ecclesial institutional structures.

      The closest he comes is when he says that he was a church kid who attended church on Sunday but was addicted to pornography. He is criticizing himself and everyone else who is a hypocritical about their own sinfulness not the institution of Sunday worship.

      Sunday worship in fact is used by social scientists as the primary indicator of religiosity which is a personal variable not an institutional variable. As a personal characteristic it correlates with a lot of other personal characteristics like voting Republican which is far more the topic of the video than church institutions.

      I think this post is a wonderful example of the inability of religious people to get out of their own thought worlds and address the real world of other people’s religious experiences. People are reacting to this in the terms of what they think religion is, not in terms of how this guy is defining it from his experience which in fact is not much different from how a lot of other young people think of religion.

      He is being treated very unfairly.

      Reply
    2. Jack Rakosky

      Also the video is not asking the Church to be above reproach. Longenecker was mistaken in thinking he was asking or trying to create a perfect church. The video is asking for everyone to admit they are sinners and stop acting as if they were not by being self righteous.

      Reply
  12. Paul Boman

    Jack, I accept your critique. By ecclesial institutional structures I was referring to those aspects of institutional religious bodies which seem to some (like our poet) to reflect more institution than Church. I agree the Sunday worship is not the root of his complaint. Actually, I was (awkwardly perhaps) voicing agreement with you. We don’t have to agree with this fellow, but we ignore his and similar voices at our peril.

    Reply
    1. Jack Rakosky

      Agreed.

      As someone trained in both sociology and psychology, I realize that certain behaviors like Sunday church attendance are from the sociological perspective institutional (shared behaviors of people with shared definitions of the situation) and from the psychological perspective personal (characteristic behavioral of some particular people as opposed to other people). I am used to sorting the two things out and readily understand why others confuse them.

      But the author does give us a “heads up” when he affirms his LOVE of both Church and Bible which should give us a caution before we over react to his contrast between Jesus and Religion.

      Reply
  13. Mary Coogan

    I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. —

    The Life of Frederick Douglass, Appendix, 1845

    Reply
  14. Peter Rehwaldt

    “Also unfortunate is Barron’s caricature of Luther. Pro Ecclesia and recent Luther studies, anyone? The New Finnish School, anyone? Barron rightly critiques the video for driving a wedge between Christ and the Church. What a shame that in doing so, Barron drives a wedge between Luther and the Catholic Church. So much for ecumenism.”

    “Unfortunate” is being kind. But this is only a wedge if Barron’s views are seen as a legitimate depiction of Luther by a much wider portion of the Roman Catholic theological community.

    Thanks for the corrective, Anthony (and others in the comments)

    Reply
  15. M. Jackson Osborn

    AC – Whether modernist, philosophically chic, theologically avant guarde, trendy, socially correct, or just plain agnostic, it does seem to be de riguer amongst certain groups and types to question the Church’s historical account of its establishment, to cleverly hedge, pretend, or half facetiously suggest that, um, we don’t really know what, if any, ordination Jesus intended to bestow upon the disciples when he breathed on them in the upper room. (Jesus didn’t know what he was doing??? He was, then, incompetent???) And since we don’t after all know what his intentions were, or if he even had any, we cannot at all be certain that the heirarchy which evolved did so according to his wishes; nor can we know that the Holy Spirit was guiding this development – He may have meant for something else entirely that was prevented by human willfullness. Well, I would be one among many millions who would be worse than unhappy at (futile) attempts to ‘roll back VII’. But, I have as little indulgence for those who seem bent on dismantling rather sound and well founded bases of the Church and its teachings. It is not a cogent recommendation for anyone’s case to, in so many more or less words, refer to facets of faith, doctrine, and structure as though they were pre-Council baggage which needed to be thrown off the train.

    Reply
    1. Andrew Czarnick

      Mr. Osborn,

      My last comment got the boot, but I think I left out my email address so, mea culpa. Anyway, yes, I agree it has certainly been all the rage in the past 40-50 years to openly flaunt what the Church, in Councils, Popes and Doctors had clearly taught over the centuries as so much unrefined, knuckle-dragging garbage. It is one thing to disagree with the Church, but quite another to propose such innovations as really “Catholic” and correctives to the Tradition.

      There is no need to “roll back” VII as if it didn’t happen because it did. However, some of it definitely needs clarification/correction. Some of it needs to be ignored (much like Inter Mirifica got…) and much of what came afterward (i.e. the liturgical revolution) needs to be corrected. Regardless, an honest and orthodox reading of the VII documents do not formally give license for the confusion, dissent and heresy that some (especially the hard proponents of the nouvelle theologie like Kung, Rahner and Schillebeeckx) have read out of them even though they had a hand in writing them.

      Reply
      1. Jonathan Day

        In fact it has been ‘all the rage’ for over some 2,000 years, as with the debates in the early church (Acts 15) and between Peter and Paul (Galatians 2.11).

        Here is how Newman described it – a process that is ‘noisy’ but fundamentally very good –

        The energy of the human intellect “does from opposition grow;” it thrives and is joyous, with a tough elastic strength, under the terrible blows of the divinely-fashioned weapon, and is never so much itself as when it has lately been overthrown…. It is necessary for the very life of religion, viewed in its large operations and its history, that the warfare should be incessantly carried on. Every exercise of Infallibility is brought out into act by an intense and varied operation of the Reason, from within and without, and provokes again, when it has done its work, a re-action of Reason against it; … Catholic Christendom is no simple exhibition of religious absolutism, but presents a continuous picture of Authority and Private Judgment alternately advancing and retreating as the ebb and flow of the tide;—it is a vast assemblage of human beings with wilful intellects and wild passions, brought together into one by the beauty and the majesty of a Superhuman Power—into what may be called a large reformatory or training-school, not as if into a hospital or into a prison, not in order to be sent to bed, not to be buried alive, but (if I may change my metaphor) brought together as if into some moral factory, for the melting, refining, and moulding, by an incessant noisy process, of the raw material of human nature, so excellent, so dangerous, so capable of divine purposes.

      2. Rita Ferrone

        Andrew, please dial down your rhetoric, or the rest of your comments will get the boot as well.

        Do you realize how arrogant you appear when you say that Vatican II “needs correction” and some of it “needs to be ignored”? Our popes have not said this, and frankly it’s an outrageous claim. Are you a Sedevacantist?

        More fundamentally, do you believe that an ecumenical council is no more than an historical fact that must be accepted only because “it happened”? “Accepting” a council is not the same as accepting historical facts as facts, simply because they happened.

        Such a view is lacking in the proper understanding of an ecumenical council and its role in the life of the Church, and if you do hold this view, your claim to being the arbiter of what is “truly Catholic” is indeed quite weak.

      3. Samuel J. Howard

        Do you realize how arrogant you appear when you say that Vatican II “needs correction” and some of it “needs to be ignored”? Our popes have not said this, and frankly it’s an outrageous claim. Are you a Sedevacantist?

        That’s ridiculous. Dial down the rhetoric indeed!

        Councils act and teach at various levels of authority from the merely disciplinary to the infallible. Some of which is perfectly open to correction.

      4. Jordan Zarembo

        re: Andrew Czarnick on January 24, 2012 – 10:05 am

        It’s important to separate liturgical text from “liturgical revolution.” The Ordinary Form has been promulgated in the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum. The OF has the same orthodoxy and validity through this document as the Extraordinary Form has through Quo Primum. The typical OF liturgy cannot be “rolled back”, even if the way in which the OF has been celebrated by a number of priests disturbs both you and me. No manner of celebration is intrinsic to the Ordinary Form liturgy.

        Every person has his or her own idea of what the Mass should resemble. To criticize any viewpoint on the Mass is, in some respects, criticizing individual aspirations or even anger at perceived injustice. It took me many years to learn that what I might perceive as absurd is indeed quite dear to another.

        Tread lightly.

      5. Rita Ferrone

        Sam! Nice to see you again!

        Ridiculous? No. I stand by my statement.

      6. Mary Burke

        “Councils act and teach at various levels of authority from the merely disciplinary to the infallible. Some of which is perfectly open to correction.”

        Yes. Just like popes. For example the recent papal attempt at the revivification of an abrogated form of the Latin rite.

      7. Jeffrey Pinyan

        Is it sedevacantist to say that some of Lateran IV or Trent or Vatican I should be ignored, or that some of what followed them needs to be corrected?

      8. Rita Ferrone

        Hi Jeffrey,
        The term Sedevacatist refers to a specific phenomenon that arose in response to the Second Vatican Council. The thinly veiled suggestion that the Second Vatican Council was advised by heretics and/or led to heresy is what made me think of Sedevacantism.

      9. Jeffrey Pinyan

        I apologize, Rita, that was the wrong word for me to latch onto in my response. I meant rather to focus on the question of arrogance.

        Is it arrogant to say that some of Lateran IV or Trent or Vatican I should be ignored, or that some of what followed them needs to be corrected? Is it not (as) arrogant because of the chronological distance from those councils, or perhaps because other councils have come since then?

      10. Samuel J. Howard

        Rita, Andrew Czarnick’s comment is obviously somewhat confused, somewhat poorly thought out, etc., but to ask him if he’s a sedevacantist in the same comment as one where you tell him to dial down his rhetoric. There’s a one-sided application of principles of civility here.

      11. Rita Ferrone

        Jeffrey P, I am sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Much going on here.

        Anyway, in answer to your question, I think you are right to point out that there is a difference between evaluating an ecumenical council which is the latest one and those at a greater historical distance, when other councils have intervened between them and us, influencing how we read them.

        At the same time, it seems to me that re-evaluations of certain positions held in earlier historical epochs is traditionally done in tones of the utmost respect and reverence. Church theologians don’t speak of “correcting” Trent. They affirm Trent, while pointing out that Vatican II reached a new synthesis or presentation of certain issues, etc. It’s the whole idea of the development of doctrine. Can’t be done without respect.

        Yet your point is well taken, Jeffrey. We have a pope who was actually active at the Second Vatican Council! We are not so far away from it, and thus to dismiss parts of it out of hand is particularly damaging to unity and cohesiveness, and, yes, it sounds arrogant.

        Sam, you seem to think that I was applying the term Sedevantist as a term of abuse. No, it was a question and a challenge. I disagree strongly with Sedevacantists, but that does not mean I do not recognize their existence or that it is uncivil to advert to their point of view. Some of what my interlocutor said suggested that he does not accept Vatican II as a council but only as a historical fact. You’ll notice I mentioned all popes since the council having affirmed the Council. I don’t expect this to hold water with sedevacantists, since they don’t believe any pope is legitimate since Pius XII. That’s why I asked if he was a sedevacantist.

    2. Jim McKay

      MJO,

      You make a very revealing mistake when you question “we don’t really know what, if any, ordination Jesus intended” by asking “Jesus didn’t know what he was doing??? He was, then, incompetent??” Our knowledge is not the same as Christ’s knowledge, so humility is not dismissed this way.

      Certainly there are some who disagree for their own purposes, but most are reacting with faith. When JP2 said the example of Jesus is binding, it was an act of faith to ask what was his example. Fideistic would just take what authority says as true, but a more robust faith holds it up for examination by reason, faith, and memory. That is the only way to grow in faith in response to any teaching, by examining and fitting the teaching into one’s understanding. Faith seeking understanding coordinates with understanding seeking faith, and both avoid unthinking repetition of an authority’s position.

      Reply
  16. M. Jackson Osborn

    JMcK –
    I’m not ready to concede a ‘revealing mistake’. Nor, though, do I wish to question your, or anyone’s, faith. Perhaps, then, we might observe that VII, like all other councils, did not occur in a vacuum in which all its deliberations were unrelated to all that came before. I believe that it behooves us to ponder in what ways the council was part of a continuum than continually to behave as though it was a bolt of lightening that abrogated all that came before it. If we are continually judging faith, morals, church structure, and all in terms of their being pre-conciliar we are, I should think, making a very ‘revealing mistake’.

    Reply
    1. Jim McKay

      ??

      You don’t think construing “We don’t know what Jesus intended” for “Jesus didn’t know what he was doing” is a mistake? Certainly you’ll agree THAT is revealing.

      I don’t really follow the rest of your remark. It sounds like a way of denying you have any responsibility for understanding papal teaching, but I am not really sure.

      Reply
  17. Jonathan Day

    The only people who believe that Vatican II was “a bolt of lightening [sic] that abrogated all that came before it” are the Lefebvrists and their ilk.

    Everyone else — conservative and progressive alike — holds that “the council was part of a continuum”. What else could it be? The issue for debate is which elements of the continuum are to go forward, and which are not.

    This process of development is nothing new — the Church is constantly called to bring out the old and the new and to judge between them (Matthew 13.52, 1 Corinthians 13.11).

    This is Pope Benedict originally aimed his ill-conceived “hermeneutic of rupture” idea at the Lefebvrists, who continue to rail against it. Of course a “hermeneutic of rupture” is a bad idea — though it seems silly to keep repeating this, because no sane person would view things otherwise.

    Reply
    1. Samuel J. Howard

      This is Pope Benedict originally aimed his ill-conceived “hermeneutic of rupture” idea at the Lefebvrists, who continue to rail against it. Of course a “hermeneutic of rupture” is a bad idea — though it seems silly to keep repeating this, because no sane person would view things otherwise.

      You wrote this in your December 9 article as well:

      The “hermeneutic of continuity” slogan is of no help here. Depending on your preconceptions, “hermeneutic of continuity” seems to mean either that nothing changed at Vatican II or that everything changed. The latter is the view of the Lefebvrists, who were the original target of Pope Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity” idea. It has now been turned on the progressives. “Hermeneutic of continuity” doesn’t provide a lens for interpretation. At best it is a slogan; not a hermeneutic at all.

      But it wasn’t just the Lefebvrists who were the “target.”

      As I wrote then, this concept first came to prominence in the 2005 Christmas address to the Curia, where the Pope explicity says

      On one hand, there is an interpretation that I would like to call “hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture”. It was frequently able to find favour among mass media, and also a certain sector of modern theology.

      The address is clearly not in the first place a critique of the “Lefebvrists.”

      Reply
  18. Andrew Czarnick

    Wow…what is par for one course…

    @Jonathan Day

    I am familiar with Bl. Cardinal Newman’s writings on matters like this. However, it must be understood in his “A thousand difficulties do not make one doubt” sense. He was anything but a heretic or a dissenter, he was adroit enough, however to understand that even when something was infallibly defined (like papal infallibility at Vatican I) there are numerous details and implications that need to be teased out and discussed. He knew there was plenty of freedom to discuss even defined topics within the Church, even that people will vehemently disagree on these points. Such is the true liberty of theological study.

    He also said that to call and Ecumenical Council is to tempt God…

    Reply
  19. Andrew Czarnick

    @ Rita Ferrone

    Sorry to have pushed some buttons here. Just an honest question, do you read much beyond your own bias? I have a bias, obviously, but I like to keep up with what is going on outside of my “camp”. Simply google someone like Mgr. Gherardini and see what our discussion has been.

    Simply look at history. What happened with the Conciliarism of Constance? Or various prudential judgments of the Lateran Councils or even Trent? No Council is beyond criticism, rightly done of course. Vatican II is no exception, other than in this case it never defined anything like Trent or Vatican I and so its texts are much more open to a critical evaluation. Ratzinger said parts of VII smacked of Pelagianism-it is not a crazy Sede thing to do to point out issues with VII.

    Lastly, Sedevacantism is a specific error that deals with the validity of the election of the Pope. The name itself (from sede vacante-the seat is vacant) says what it is-proponents of this “view” say the papal throne has been vacant (usually) since after Pius XII. Nothing I wrote even implies that I deny that Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning, isn’t the true Roman Pontiff.

    If we are going to use labels to caricature our respective positions, I’d prefer it if you called me a Jansenist. Unfortunately, that one doesn’t conjur up images of wide-eyed whackjobs playing Mass at a Holiday Inn.

    Reply
  20. Andrew Czarnick

    @ Jordan Zarembo

    Legitimacy (and I’m using this term in a wider sense, not merely juridical) is a deeper concept than a mere promulgation document. St. Pius V merely codified a streamlined version of the Roman Liturgy for use in the larger Roman Church. The two documents also have a very different “feel” to them, Missale Romanum is almost an apology.

    Regardless, the NO can indeed be “rolled back”. Quinonez breviary anyone? Not that this would be prudent to do right now, all at once but someday hopefully it will.

    The Neo-Roman Rite (as Dobszay aptly called it) in its whole (Missal, Breviary, Ritual, Pontifical and associated books) is not heretical or invalid, but it is an inferior presentation of Catholic liturgy when compared to the traditional Roman Rite.

    Finally, thank you for the reminder about the emotional investments in these kind of debates. I am very well aware of that, but, quite frankly, I see no point in anyone walking on eggshells.

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      “but it is an inferior presentation of Catholic liturgy when compared to the traditional Roman Rite.”

      Your opinion and that of some others. Others would differ. I would argue that the reformed liturgy better integrates the potent implications of the revived participation by the laity in the sacramental life over the past century. That’s a discussion for another time and place. But the assertions of the superiority of the unreformed liturgy have not persuaded me of their correctness.

      Reply
    2. Sean Parker

      Whether one liturgy is inferior to another is very much a personal and subjective decision.

      Of course, many people would prefer that the majority preferred the same liturgy that they preferred themselves. Having multiple liturgies satisfies the spiritual needs of the broadest range of people.

      Taking liturgies away, especially ones that have been previously and legitimately accepted only poisons the well by alienating part of the group.

      Reply
    3. Jordan Zarembo

      re: Andrew Czarnick on January 25, 2012 – 11:03 am

      This is very off topic but I need to say it.

      Andrew, when I was in my early 20s I thought the same way you did. Everything OF was bad. Paul VI was a skooch above the Antichrist for convening the Concilium and issuing the 1970 Missal. The “new Mass” was a manifest error. And so on.

      I still worship at the EF whenever possible. Still, I recognize that the liturgical reforms of 1970 have some merit. There are aspects of the OF I do not like (deletion of Septuagesimatide, for example). There are other aspects of the liturgical reform which were well deserved, such as the reform of the lections and hymns found in the new Office. There are many places where the EF could integrate the reforms of the 1970 Missal and still retain its unique structure and liturgical culture. The “EF vs OF” question isn’t like rooting for your favorite sports team. Yes, the cultures and pieties are different. Still, Pope Benedict isn’t just trying to “appease liberals” when he talks of mutual enrichment.

      PTB reading and participation might change your mind about reforms. If you’d rather not consider that there’s something worthwhile about the post-conciliar liturgies, you might not want to read this blog. I hope you do read this blog anyway and risk the consideration of other viewpoints.

      Reply
  21. Mitch Powers

    Mary Burke :
    “Councils act and teach at various levels of authority from the merely disciplinary to the infallible. Some of which is perfectly open to correction.”
    Yes. Just like popes. For example the recent papal attempt at the revivification of an abrogated form of the Latin rite.

    It was not just Pope Benedict that “attempted” to revivify the 1962 Missal, but a meeting of 9 Cardinals in I believe 1985, brought together by Pope John Paul II to study the question of whether said Missal was abrogated or not and determined that it was indeed never abrogated. 8 of 9 said it was not. And that was in 1985. The laws of abrogation are probably quite complicated or ambiguous enough that understanding how to rule is above most lay peoples heads. It has been ruled never abrogated so your statement about “an abrogated form of the Latin Rite” is inappropriate and perhaps uninformed. Suppressed maybe, abrogated not.

    Reply

Posted

in

, ,

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

, ,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading