Pope Benedict vs. St. Thomas (please go to a neutral corner, and I want a clean fight)

I’ve been following with great interest the texts of Pope Benedict’s reflections during his Wednesday morning General Audiences; and it has led to some reflections which many might consider erudite, if not downright snobbish. Nevertheless . . .

Popes have routinely used the weekly General Audience to focus on some kind of thematic series. John Paul II, having been pope some twenty years, ran through several themes: the Epistles of St. Paul, the theology of the body, etc. Pope Benedict’s first “flight” of General Audience themes has been a series on the Fathers of the Church, which is still ongoing. Typically, he’s chosen one Father per week, with a few of the more important ones receiving two weeks of attention; but for his theological patron, Augustine of Hippo (that’s pronounced “aw-GUS-tin”, not “AW-gus-teen”, by the way), he devoted six whole meditations, giving the last one only last Wednesday. A friend of mine and I decided to reproduce them in our respective parish bulletins week by week. Whether anyone’s read them, your guess is as good as mine; but, they were there in any case.

I was trained in a Roman Catholic seminary where Thomas Aquinas was the soup of the day; so, when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope, I suffered just a mild case of perturbation, along with the rest of the dwindling number of unreconstructed Thomists around the Church. After all, we had suffered nervously in silence for twenty years with the specter of John Paul II’s modified phenomenology hanging over the theology of the Church like a wrecking ball held by a thread, waiting for just that one little, teensy-weensy, unintelligible Husserlite vagary about perception to be uttered in a careless moment, sending the whole thing crashing down to destroy the settled order of nature.

We Thomists, understand, are an odd lot to the modern mind. I remember, as a seminarian in New York, visiting one of my professors in his parish in Manhattan -- he was a Dominican, like Thomas -- when he told me the story of the Franciscan priest who had filled in for him when he was out of town: the Friar Minor complained he couldn’t sleep, saying that he “could sense the realism closing in around him.” Philosophically, a Thomist is an Aristotelian, and his approach to the world around him is decidedly “WYSIWYG” (What You See Is What You Get). Things are what they are all on their own; they are not changed or altered by what you think of them or how you perceive them; and, if you perceive them differently than what they are in themselves, then you either need therapy or glasses.

But it isn’t Aristotle’s philosophy which binds us Thomists together in our shrinking fraternity; it’s his theology, particularly his sacramental theology, which draws a lot from his philosophy -- and it’s a lot different from Augustine’s; and Pope Benedict has already begun to chip away at it. Case in point: the case of the episcopal consecrations of the excommunicated Emmanuel Milingo, former archbishop of Lusaka, Zambia, who married a Korean woman in a mass wedding conducted by the Rev. Moon, and who has started his own schismatic “Church” to champion the cause of married Roman Catholic priests. Not too long ago, Milingo consecrated (or ordained, but we’ll get to that later) a few “bishops” for his “Church.” The Holy See immediately responded that the consecrations (or ordinations) were invalid. “Well, that’s a mistake,” said the secret, underground newsletter for unreconstructed Thomists. Illicit they certainly are, but not invalid. Milingo, nutty as he is, is still a validly ordained priest and bishop even if excommunicated, and his sacramental actions are still valid in spite of his unworthiness to perform them. “Not so,” quipped the Holy See, having located the address of the basement where our newsletter is published. “His actions are extra ecclesia (outside the Church), and are therefore invalid. Kaboom!!! And with that, the unreconstructed Thomists went into hiding. I may be the first to raise my head out of my hole and scream, in my best Nancy Kerrigan voice, “Why? Why?”

You see, on the planet Thomas, so long as you have (1) a validly ordained minister, (2) the correct formula, (3) the proper matter as instituted by Christ, and (4) the deliberate intention to perform the act intended by the Church in this action, your sacrament is valid. It may be illicit (illegal) for a variety of reasons, and its practical effects may be suppressed by the authority of the Church antecedently; but the sacramental effects are there nonetheless. On planet Augustine, you can be four for four as far as the conditions for a valid sacrament are concerned; but if you don’t have the permission of someone whose permission the Church has declared necessary, it’s all just dress-up and make-believe. When Marcel Lafebre consecrated four bishops for his ultraconservative Society of St. Pius V some years ago, that was declared illicit; and it bought him an automatic excommunication since he did it without a papal mandate; but no one said those bishops were not real bishops -- they are recognized as such today. The only difference, I can see, is who was pope in each instance.

Now, to be fair, the Catholic Church has never followed the Thomistic understanding exclusively. In both the sacraments of Confession and Holy Matrimony it has always been understood that proper jurisdiction is necessary for the validity of the sacrament in question. For example, if a priest is filling in for another in a parish not his own, and has no direct permission from either the bishop or the pastor to perform a wedding there, any weddings he may perform would be invalid, and those couples would not, in fact, be married. But to have the previous understanding thrown out in this cavalier way . . . well, it’s like taking your girl to the door after your fifth date which you think went great, and being told, “Why can’t we just be friends?”

Before continuing, I should like to mention that I do not, in fact, disagree with the Augustinian understanding of things; nor do I actually worry about Pope Benedict’s theology, assuming that one could actually be that conceited. But, I am an unreconstructed Thomist, and therefore like to ask questions. Thomas’ whole philosophical and theological method was based on the asking of questions, the giving of answers, the objecting to those answers (with relevant examples), and the answering of the objections (with even more relevant examples). Thomas used to do it all by himself; that’s how he wrote his books. So, to an unreconstructed Thomist, asking a question does not imply disagreement; it’s just how our brains work. To a subjectivist like, say, a Kantian or a Sartist or a follower of Husserl or Hegal or some other kind of epistemologically confused individual, asking a question always implies disagreement, if not open hostility.

As a proof of my orthodoxy and devotion to the Holy Father (which, by the way, has never been questioned on land or sea), allow me to offer the following. It concerns a different -- but related -- question to which I previously alluded, and which may, in fact, help to clarify for myself the previous question (stop and think before you answer):

Good. I will bet you dinner at Bravo (a restaurant that St. Thomas would have loved had it existed in the early middle ages) that your snap answer was, “Yes. It’s a participation in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Three degrees: bishop, priest and deacon.” Now, grab hold of your calimari, because I think you’re wrong.

I’ll bet you that last slice of brucietto that you’re thinking of Vatican II, aren’t you? Go ahead, admit it. All over the place Vatican II talks about the “ordination” of a bishop. Here’s where I swirl a mouthful of capers and let them roll down my throat with just enough airflow to grunt out, “But Trent called it a consecration, not an ordination; and one Ecumenical Council can’t cancel out a point of dogma defined by another, or else the Holy Spirit is suffering serious emotional problems.” This is where you pitch forward in a sudden spasm and spit a mouth-full of Chianti all over the table. Not to worry. Over expressio and canoli I will soothe your nerves with a little history (a shot of Compari wouldn’t hurt, either).

Both councils, Trent and Vatican II, debated at length the question of whether the making of a bishop was a participation in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Both councils taught something particular about it. But the fathers of neither council had the onions (or should we say stugots?) to actually define anything about it. When speaking of the making of a bishop, Trent refers to it as a “consecration”; when speaking of the same thing, Vatican II uses the word “ordination”; but at no point does either council actually decree anything about it. Look it up. I kid you not.

Let’s apply St. Thomas’ question and answer approach to the problem. To “consecrate” a bishop means exactly what it means to consecrate anything else: you bless him and set him aside for special duties, but nothing about him has ontologically changed. To “ordain” a bishop means to give him a higher degree of participation (the highest, in fact) in that sacrament by which men are ordained into the ministerial priesthood of Jesus Christ, thus altering his ontological nature with an indelible mark. The difference is legion for this reason: If a bishop is not ordained but merely consecrated, then the powers of the episcopacy -- to ordain, for example -- must, therefore, be present in every priest. But we know that a priest who is not a bishop cannot ordain; should he attempt it, the ordination would be invalid and not merely illicit, as the Church has explained on numerous occasions. Therefore, the making of a bishop must be a sacrament of some sort.

But, I object (to myself -- it’s just something us Thomists do): for centuries the Church did not have this understanding, as can be demonstrated by this, that, these, those over there, etc., etc. (which I say as I produce handfuls of ancient, crumbling parchments I’ve stolen from the Vatican Library, hidden in my socks). Besides, I’m an Eastern Catholic priest (which I am, by the way); and in our tradition -- which is a lot older than yours, nyah nyah -- we’ve never referred to the making of a bishop as anything but a consecration. So, there!

What I’m actually arguing with myself about is an old theory, probably not taught in the seminary anymore, but which old timers like myself will recognize as “The Bound Powers Theory,” which states, basically, this: Ordination to the Holy Priesthood is, in fact, participation in the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders; but certain powers bestowed in that ordination are “held bound” by the manifest authority of the Church acting in the name of Christ, in such wise that any attempt to exercise those powers extra ecclesia, outside the manifest authority of the Church, would be invalid, not just illidit. This theory, of course, was rampant in the Church long before the time of St. Thomas, which is why the practice of the Eastern Churches reflects it. [*] Guess where it comes from. Go ahead, guess . . .

St. Augustine! You win a cookie. That’s right, NASCAR fans. And with his pit boss, Benedict XVI, keeping the tires inflated after all these centuries, Augustine is making quite a comeback.

What consequences Benedict’s influence will have on the sacramental theology of the Church, only time will tell. A lot, I suppose, will be determined by how long he lives. If he lives long enough, the changes could be very dramatic indeed; for example, if the making of a bishop is just a consecration via the Bound Powers Theory, then the “unmaking” of a bishop is just as easy. And we don't mean just suspending his faculties, either. That thought should cause not a few bad toupees to tremble, don’t ya think?

[*] The notion of a three-tiered participation in the Sacrament of Orders was, in fact, a medieval construct. When it appeared, proponents of the Bound Powers Theory artificially inserted it into their way of thinking by saying that the three stages of the sacrament were sub-deacon, deacon and priest. To this day, the making of a sub-deacon in the Eastern Churches is always called an ordination.

To the FReepers in attendance and the millions watching around the world on Pay Per View…Ladies and Gentleman...

LLLLLLLets Get Ready to RRRumblllllllle!!!!

1,500,000,000 rounds of posts, arguments, insults, cheesy graphics, name calling, and ad hominem personal attacks that pass as debate for the FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

"Introducing first, to my right, fighting out of the red corner, wearing their Sunday best with a gold crucifix...weighing in at 810 and 1/4 pounds...the social conservatives, the religious right, the champions of family values...from the Southern States...The Evangelicals!" (wild applause)

"And in the blue corner, wearing an off the rack suit, Goldwater ’64 lapel pin and a belt 2 sizes too small...weighing in at 141 pounds soaking wet...the fiscal conservatives, the last champions of limited government...from the Western States...The Libertarians!" (wild applause)

Chapter 1: Live From the Reagan Building

The winner of the bout gets to take on the Neo-Cons for the undisputed GOP Heavyweight Championship of the World!

I WILL read this, this weekend, I promise. But I'm busy right now.

Usually not having read an article is only a help to me in deciding the issues. In a normal case I'd say, "St. Thomas - Dominican; The Holy Father Papa Ben - NOT Dominican; game, set, match to Thomas, drive carefully on the way home, folks."

But my pastor studied under Papa Ben XVI, and he's on pilgrimage to the Holy Land -- and I don't have his cell-phone number.

So, I guess I'll have to wait until I've read the article before I pronounce my verdict.

“Usually not having read an article is only a help to me in deciding the issues. In a normal case I’d say, “St. Thomas - Dominican; The Holy Father Papa Ben - NOT Dominican; game, set, match to Thomas, drive carefully on the way home, folks.”

But my pastor studied under Papa Ben XVI, and he’s on pilgrimage to the Holy Land — and I don’t have his cell-phone number.”

See how smart you are...you figured out in about 2 seconds why I pinged you! :)

I am not a philosopher nor a theologian but I would like to weigh in on Miligno’s ‘ordination’ of bishops as valid. I do not think that it necessarily satisfies the criterion about ‘doing what the Church intends in ordaining (or consecrating) a bishop.’ It’s one think to examine what Miligno’s intention was (deranged as he seems to be) but one must examine what exactly the Church intends by this act. It would seem to me that the Church intends by ordaining bishops to promote communion within the Church, evangelization and catechesis to fulfill the Church's mandate by Her founder, and a rightful place in the teaching and governance charism of the episcopacy. None of these sorts of things could reasonably be expected to occur in the act undertaken by Miligno.

It would seem to me that the Church intends by ordaining bishops to promote communion within the Church, evangelization and catechesis to fulfill the Church's mandate by Her founder, and a rightful place in the teaching and governance charism of the episcopacy. None of these sorts of things could reasonably be expected to occur in the act undertaken by Miligno.

OK, but by the same reasoning, none of those things coule be expected by the actions taken by Lefebre, either; and validity of his consecrations were never questioned.

If you wanted to argue that Lefebre was trying to promote communion by holding on to previous tradition while Milingo was attempting a break with communion, it seems to me that that's based on a purely subjective assessment of each man's attitude.

I think the bottom line is one of two positions: either (1) a sacrament is valid if you're 4 four 4 on the traditional scholastic criterion of ex opere operato, or (2) you're going to include the notion of extra ecclesia to the mix as an invalidating impediment. Notwithstanding the point you make, I still can't get away from the notion that Lefebre was treated according to one, and Milingo according to the other, the only difference being who was pope at the time.

. But the fathers of neither council had the onions (or should we say stugots?) to actually define anything about it. When speaking of the making of a bishop, Trent refers to it as a Ã‚Â“consecrationÃ‚Â”; when speaking of the same thing, Vatican II uses the word Ã‚Â“ordinationÃ‚Â”; but at no point does either council actually decree anything about it. Look it up. I kid you not.

It interests me that the older Episcopal prayer books had the "ordering" of deacons, the "ordination" of priests, and the "consecration" of bishops — back when there were enough faithful Episcopalians among the leadership to make their opinion matter.

It seems to me that the Biblical evidence of the nature of the difference between a supervisor and an elder is vague enough that maybe the Church is showing her gifts in not hastening to a decision on the question.

Of course, where the rubber meets the road is precisely in the question of the validity of sacramental acts undertaken by the persons in question. It is also, "of course" that the prudent judge avoids establishing precedents whenever he can.

So if I were given the task of deciding about Milingo I'd just say he's too nuts to form any meaningful intention, declare the ordinations invalid on that basis, and leave it at that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.