Modernism and the Magisterium

gkupsidedown.blogspot.com ^ | Monday, November 23, 2009 | Fr. Longenecker

[GonzoII]

Modernism and the Magisterium

After analyzing the modernism in the Anglican Church it was pointed out that there's plenty of modernism in the Catholic Church too. True enough, and because blog posts should be short and punchy, I left this issue for another day.

It is true that all the problems I outlined in the post on Modernism in the Anglican Church are present in the Catholic Church. In many ways the effects have been even more devastating. At least the Anglicans with their good taste have preserved beautiful liturgy, architecture and sacred music in the midst of the modernism. Many Catholics have been even more gung ho on the dumbing down of Christianity, the vulgarization of the liturgy, art and architecture that is the philosophical offspring of modernism. The moral crisis among Catholic clergy which has caused so much pain and scandal is the direct effect of mixing clerical celibacy (which modernists simply cannot understand) with modernism and the moral relativism of the sexual revolution. The resulting cocktail was disastrously poisonous.

However, there are two distinct differences in the circumstances of Anglicanism and Catholicism. The first is that, while the Catholics have fallen into the same moral morass as Anglicanism, what they are doing has not been condoned and sanctioned by the Church. Yes, there are Catholic homosexual priests, Catholic bishops and priests and people who support women's ordination, Catholic people who favor abortion, remarriage after divorce etc. etc. The Church teaching, however, is clear and uncompromising. So in the Catholic Church you find Church teaching which is firm and clear and traditional, but some Catholics dissent and have their own opinion which is liberal. In the Anglican Church is is virtually the reverse: the Church teaching is either non existent, open ended or actually sanctions the modernist stance but you have individual Anglicans who choose to hold to the traditional, historic faith.

The second fact, on which the first is built is that while Catholics are besieged by modernism, we still have the magisterium of the Church which repudiates modernism and offers the guide for authentic historic Christianity in the world today. We have a Catechism which states the church's teaching clearly and positively. The Popes hold the line, defending, defining and teaching the faith in the face of modernism, and in opposition to it. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church defends historic Christianity and those of the faithful who go adrift do so knowingly. They are sheep who have strayed from the fold and from the Good Shepherd.

Individual Anglicans, on the other hand, are sheep without a shepherd. Without a clear authority structure they must make up their own minds, and while there is certainly some value in such independence of mind and action, it must be said that if one is going on a journey it would be possible to wander to the destination asking directions along the way, but it would be more sensible to use a map.

This brings me to the accusation that many non-Catholics make about Catholics: that we are unthinking zombie clones who are drinking the Kool-Aid and marching in lock step behind the Master. To be sure there are some Catholics who switch off their brains (as do many modernists) but this is not the expectation or the ideal. What is the proper relationship to dogma and infallible authority? It must be that the dogma, the moral code and the infallible authority are means to an end--they are not the end in themselves.

For a Catholic the dogma and the moral code which is given by the infallible authority of the Church is simply the ladder on which we climb. They are the map for the journey; the signposts on the way. They are vitally important, but it is the pilgrimage to heaven which is most important, and the final goal in this life is to get to the point where we walk on this pilgrimage so formed and guided by the dogmas and moral code that we no longer rely on them. We have learned to run on the path of God's perfection with the perfect delight of love, doing all those things which were once burdensome with the simplicity of freedom and the beauty of holiness.

Posted by Fr Longenecker

[Zionist Conspirator]

Clearly YHvH did not consider it metaphorical.

And neither were the qorbanot.

I have a very high regard for YHvH's Torah,
Just not the man-made Oral "Torah"

Considering that the Written Torah consists merely of a list of over 304,000 consonants, with nary a vowel or punctuation mark to be found, that the vowels and punctuation marks come from the "man-made" Oral Torah, and that the "man-made" Oral Torah contains the rules and regulations for accurately copying down the Written Torah, that is a very foolish statement.

I wonder where in the Written Torah you find the rules for intercalating the lunar calendar so that the festivals stay in season? So, since those rules also come from the "man-made" Oral Torah, I guess that there is no Jewish calendar and no Jewish holidays?

It's useless to converse with you so long as you adhere to your dogmas and refuse to engage in any thinking.

[Petronski]

Those who prefer scripture to church catechisms for authority...

False dichotomy.

[Petronski]

How deliciously non-specific.

[markomalley]

Except Jesus isn’t being sacrificed in heaven. He is the Lamb that WAS slain, not the Lamb being slain.

True statement. He is not sacrificed again and again.

But as I pointed out in my earlier post, we must always remember that time in a heavenly sense is not the same as time in an earthly sense. To quote St. Peter again,

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Of course, you know Hebrews 9:9 -- talking about how the things of before were a figure for (or symbolic of) the work of Christ (the actual Greek is "a parable")

In light of that, I would point out a couple of other verses in Hebrews.

In Hebrews 7:23-24, we read, The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. It goes in talking about how the old testament priests were prevented by death from continuing in office, thus, there were many of them. They could not make intercession for men for all time, even in their imperfect way, for this reason. Christ, on the other hand, was able to make that intercession in the perfect fashion with the perfect sacrifice for all time.

In Chapter 8, we see the contrast between the furnishings of the Old Covenant and the New. Again, the point that the Old Covenant is being shown as a copy of the heavenly sanctuary of the New Covenant.

Then we enter into Chapter 9, which details the sacrifices offered in the old covenant and new. Of particular interest is Heb 9:11-12 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Where was this Holy Place? Heaven. Looking toward verse 24, we see For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Chapter 9 continues on to talk about how it is one sacrifice, one set of suffering, because the sacrifice was perfect and sufficient for all time. Chapter 10 culminates this particular discourse where it says that we have been sanctified by the offering of Christ once for all. And that this offering was accomplished once and for all, after which He sat at the fight hand of God.

All well and good. But, we see what St John saw in heaven: I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, Why would John, writing his apocalypse in 95 or 96 AD, depict having a vision of the Lamb standing. And He is still immolated. (Note: I did not say that he was immolated afresh). In Hebrews 10, He was identified as being seated. In Revelation 5, He is identified as standing. Likewise in Hebrews 10, He is identified as being done (signified by sitting), but in Hebrews 9:24, He is NOW offering intercession for s entered into the heaven, the sanctuary made without hands, itself, NOW to appear on our behalf.

If we recognize the significance of the above-quoted 2 Pet 3:8, we can see that heavenly time is not the same as our time. And then it starts to make a bit of sense...maybe some things should be considered somewhat in parallel rather than strictly serially.

And that is basically why I wrote:

If one could look into heaven and see what was going on, though, one would still see the mortally wounded Lamb, despite His wounds, being fully alive (See, for example, Rev 5:6).

Yes, Jesus isn't being sacrificed in heaven. He was sacrificed on Calvary. He was slain, he is not being slain.

But where did He, the High Priest of the new covenant, offer Himself, the Paschal Lamb? From what I see, He did this offering in Heaven.

Let me ask you one question (as a Baptist, you are likely more conversant than I am, as a Catholic, in the Scriptures): in the old covenant, was there ever an occasion where sacrifice was offered in anticipation of future sins? (If so, could you show me where in the OT that this was documented)

[blue-duncan]

“Let me ask you one question (as a Baptist, you are likely more conversant than I am, as a Catholic, in the Scriptures): in the old covenant, was there ever an occasion where sacrifice was offered in anticipation of future sins? (If so, could you show me where in the OT that this was documented)”

There is this between Naaman and Elisha:

2Ki 5:18 In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, [that] when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing.

19 And he said unto him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way.

[Mr Rogers]

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I differ from some in that I see no evidence from scripture that God is not ‘in time’. I used to assume God was outside of time, but when I went looking for a verse that indicated it, I failed. If you know of any, please share them - I don’t pretend I couldn’t have missed them.

As for Peter, what he writes covers God’s eternity and infinite nature. For an eternal and infinite being, a thousand years IS like a day, or even a second.

The second part refers to God’s infinite nature. Infinity divided by any number is still infinity. God has a thousand years worth of attention to pay to markomalley’s day. Jesus said the hairs on our head are numbered. There are roughly 100,000 on a man’s head, with 100-200 falling out each day. God knows when markomalley’s hair 44,569 falls out...there is no aspect of your day to small for God’s attention.

A priest has several roles. One is offering sacrifice. That is why the NT has no role for Christian Priests - there is no sacrifice for them to offer. The only Christian Priest is Jesus Christ, who offered himself “once for all”.

But a Priest also is a mediator between God and man...and again, we now have one mediator who intercedes for us.

Please notice what it says in Hebrews 7: “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” What does he do? “He always lives to make intercession for them.” Not sacrifice, but intercession.

But what about the sacrifices, such as the Aaronic priesthood offered? “He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.”

No more sacrifices. “He has no need”.

Chapter 8 asks the question, what does this new high priest offer? He then digresses to criticize the old priesthood, before resuming this theme in Chapter 9. In verse 11 he points out, “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.” To repeat, “he entered once for all into the holy places”.

And why did he do it? “For Christ has entered...to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world.”

He enters on our behalf, but not to offer himself repeatedly, “for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world”.

So what does he do? As best I can tell - Hebrews jumps around a bit - “Behold, I have come to do your will.” No more offering for sin...”But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God...For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified...then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”

So Christ doesn’t offer sacrifice. He DID that, and Hebrews repeatedly makes the point that he does it no longer. Now he intercedes for us, and offers obedience to God. This may be a bit of a stretch, but since we are the body of Christ, perhaps our obedience is his offering. I don’t know that, just thinking out loud.

You write: “Let me ask you one question (as a Baptist, you are likely more conversant than I am, as a Catholic, in the Scriptures): in the old covenant, was there ever an occasion where sacrifice was offered in anticipation of future sins? (If so, could you show me where in the OT that this was documented)”

To the best of my limited knowledge, no. But then, the point of Hebrews is how vastly superior the New Priest is to the old priesthood. One Priest, not many. One offering, not many. And the Law is written on our hearts, not on stone tablets, and God remembers our sin no more...so there is no need for further sacrifice.

“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.”

As for sitting or standing, I don’t think that is meant literally. Sitting probably means He is resting, and the stuff being discussed is finished. Standing probably means he is about to act, because what is being discussed needs action. Just a guess. I’m sure someone somewhere has studied what those phrases mean.

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind reply.

Made it back to pottery today and am exhausted so to bed shortly.

I will offer this definition of ritual:

—a set, prescribed, sequence of ceremonial actions—usually repeated more or less endlessly over time in a certain context, situation, set of conditions.

Religious rituals are probably the most common such.

Obsessive Compulsive Rituals would also more or less fit the definition.

Will try to get to your kind posts tomorrow.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

As you know about half my family is Catholic. Two of them are my husband's elderly cousins - one of whom is a stroke survivor and must be pushed along in her wheelchair.

I attend Mass with them and help them participate.

Seems to me the services, unlike most Protestant services, are quite interactive. It's not so much a venue for instruction in the words of God, i.e. a long sermon versus readings plus a short homily, as it is a venue to participate in the worship.

And I suspect the protocols, the repetition of words and physical acts make it appear ritualistic to an outsider, especially one who expects services to be equally teaching and worshiping.

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind observations.

Much appreciate your perceptiveness and perspective.

[markomalley]

There is this between Naaman and Elisha:

Thanks. But I was specifically looking for an incident of sacrifice at an altar (tabernacle, temple, etc.)

My understanding of that incident is "If I have to look like I am worshiping there with my master, know that I really am not, but am just going through the motions...sorry for me going through the motions, but I don't want to be a martyr"

But thank you for the reference, though.

[markomalley]

I differ from some in that I see no evidence from scripture that God is not ‘in time’. I used to assume God was outside of time, but when I went looking for a verse that indicated it, I failed. If you know of any, please share them - I don’t pretend I couldn’t have missed them.

As for Peter, what he writes covers God’s eternity and infinite nature. For an eternal and infinite being, a thousand years IS like a day, or even a second.

Well, I did not specifically assert that God was outside of time in citing 2Pt3:8. When I stated maybe some things should be considered somewhat in parallel rather than strictly serially, I was merely referring to a multi-processing capability when I spoke of operating in parallel, rather than a 'one at a time' that would be characteristic of serial activity.

Having said that, I do believe that God is "above" time and "outside" of space. Whether referring to praises of His eternal nature, such as in Ps 90, or referring to His foreordaining certain events like our salvation before the foundation of the earth, as described in Ephesians 1, or revealing sure prophecy to certain men of God, I cannot picture "how" this would happen without having a nature that has Him above time, so that He could see tomorrow as clearly as He could see yesterday. As if it was all an eternal "now." Do I have a proof text? No. And, frankly, we only see through a glass, darkly. So if there is another construct that helps explain these things and does have a proof text, I would be more than happy to do so.

Substantially, I agree with what you are saying about the nature and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ.

But there are a couple of minor points I would like to bring out. You cite Hebrews 7:25 and point out that Christ lives forever and continually makes intercession for us (Also see Rom 8:34).

You also rightfully point out that He made one sacrifice. Not many. He entered once for all.

One point that I would make: His making intercession for us and acting as the mediator are clearly, due to their placement in Hebrews, a function of His role as high priest of the order of Melchizedek.

So let me ask you, how did the Levitical priesthood make intercession for the people? Answer: they offered sacrifices. Not the sacrifice itself (i.e., the immolation), but the offering of that sacrifice to God (be it a wave offering, heave offering, drink offering, burnt offering, or whatever).

That is the reason I say what I say in regards to the time continuum.

Honestly, thinking about this sometimes is a stretch (as my daughter says, 'it makes my brain hurt'). Sort of like the Ford trying to understand Henry, isn't it?

But you bring up an interesting point when you say, This may be a bit of a stretch, but since we are the body of Christ, perhaps our obedience is his offering.

That is an interesting point...and it calls to my mind verses, such as Romans 12:1 (I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship) and Colossians 1:24 (Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church)

Enjoying the conversation...

[markomalley]

Very good observations.

You said, And I suspect the protocols, the repetition of words and physical acts make it appear ritualistic to an outsider, especially one who expects services to be equally teaching and worshiping.

I am certain that this is the case. I'm also certain that this is a cause for much frustration because of a lack of understanding or appreciation for it.

But from my perspective "on the inside," it allows me to go deeper into the worship than I would be able to otherwise do, if I didn't know what to expect next. Just my experience.

[blue-duncan]

“Thanks. But I was specifically looking for an incident of sacrifice at an altar (tabernacle, temple, etc.)”

The word “pardon” in the King James necessitates an atonement being made for the forgiveness (cf Lev, 4:20 ff).

I think if he was only going through the motions and not really worshipping he would not be asking for forgiveness. Any hypocrisy in the pagan worship would soon be found out in the rituals.

[markomalley]

I think if he was only going through the motions and not really worshipping he would not be asking for forgiveness. Any hypocrisy in the pagan worship would soon be found out in the rituals.

All well and good. But it still didn't involve an offering (Elisha was, as far as I recall, not a Levite).

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>I have a very high regard for YHvH's Torah,

Just not the man-made Oral "Torah" Considering that the Written Torah consists merely of a list of over 304,000 consonants, with nary a vowel or punctuation mark to be found, that the vowels and punctuation marks come from the "man-made" Oral Torah, and that the "man-made" Oral Torah contains the rules and regulations for accurately copying down the Written Torah, that is a very foolish statement.

I wonder where in the Written Torah you find the rules for intercalating the lunar calendar so that the festivals stay in season? So, since those rules also come from the "man-made" Oral Torah, I guess that there is no Jewish calendar and no Jewish holidays?

It's useless to converse with you so long as you adhere to your dogmas and refuse to engage in any thinking.

I sense a pride in the writing of man
which many consider superior to the Word of G-d.

When the writings of man impugn the written Word of G-d,
Rabbinism resembles the Roman church.

The Calendar can be understood as the Kareites
understand it without the additional writings

[Zionist Conspirator]

I sense a pride in the writing of man which many consider superior to the Word of G-d.

When the writings of man impugn the written Word of G-d, Rabbinism resembles the Roman church.

I notice you have studiously avoided responding to the incontrovertible fact that the "man-made" Oral Torah is the only source we have for both the vowels and punctuation of the Written Torah and the rules and regulations for writing a Sefer Torah so that it is an exact and correct copy of the Original Scroll.

The Calendar can be understood as the Kareites understand it without the additional writings

I'm sorry, but the Karaites rely on the Oral Tradition just as much as the Rabbinites do. There is not a word in the Written Torah that says a word about how one determines when the month begins or when the extra month has to be added. I guess that makes them hypocrites.

BTW, you folks who think that Karaism is "Biblical Judaism" should ask them if they believe J*sus is the messiah. You might learn something.

[betty boop]

Seems to me the services, unlike most Protestant services, are quite interactive. It's not so much a venue for instruction in the words of God, i.e. a long sermon versus readings plus a short homily, as it is a venue to participate in the worship.

Indeed dearest sister in Christ! What ritual is clearly not is some kind of attempt to "channel" God.... Ritual (it seems to me) is not at all about manifesting, invoking, or conjuring the Presence of God; it's more about manifesting the Body of Christ — that is, the body of Christian worshippers.

It seems to me the Roman Catholic Church takes more of a "'whole man" approach to human individuals — i.e., the human person is body and soul — than many Reformed confessions do, which tend to be more focused on the spiritual part of man. The more radical confessions among them basically are only interested in the rational aspect of man. In short, body is given short shrift and is often considered to be the "enemy" of the spiritual man.

The Roman Church sees the two components — body and soul — as mutually necessary. This is a realist attitude about human existence. As such the Church honors and respects the bodily aspects of human life; and I believe this is what we see reflected in the sacraments and rituals of the Church. Sensory experiences are invoked; the people participate in physical actions that bind them together into a common sense of spiritual unity, as a true Body of Christ, manifesting their thanks and praise to the Lord in so doing.

Christ Himself honored the body by His Incarnation. Thus the body is not to be disparaged.

The truth of [genuine human] development consists in its completeness: if it does not involve the whole man and every man, it is not true development. This is the central message of Populorum Progressio, valid for today and for all time. Integral human development on the natural plane, as a response to a vocation from God the Creator, demands self-fulfilment in a “transcendent humanism which gives [to man] his greatest possible perfection: this is the highest goal of personal development." The Christian vocation to this development therefore applies to both the natural plane and the supernatural plane; which is why, “when God is eclipsed, our ability to recognize the natural order, purpose and the ‘good' begins to wane.” — Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate.

Anyhoot, that's how I'd explain it anyway, FWIW. (Probably I didn't do a very good job!)

Thank you so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your excellent insights into this question!

[Mad Dawg]

I just had my rabies titres done and I'm okay. Well, I'm okay for me ....

This whole question of ceremonial and ritual is difficult to discuss. And certainly, leaving the actual sacraments aside, comportment and "style" in a service of worship ought not, and strictly speaking cannot command, cause, or prevent God's presence.

BUT at least for moi, the 2 hour long midnight Masses of my childhood, flowers everywhere, the church redolent with beeswax, good music well sung with plenty of GOOD hymns which everyone knew but which had literary and musical excellence, the alertness and stillness which being an acolyte required ... all this definitely seemed and seems related to a kind of perception or sense of the wonder and beauty of God.

I think of my daily prayers and vain repetitions that while clearly in one sense they are something I "do," (and to the extent that I do them I do them badly, with wandering and worried mind) still, over time, I find that, to use a banal image, they amount to my "turning the radio on." The scientific outsider would think that ->I<- am doing the praying. Heck even I say, "I'll be up as soon as I read my 'office' (that is, my 'duty.')" But one discovers that all that is important about prayer is done by God. HE prompts me to "ask" by opening my Bible or my prayer book. HE then answers. I "caused" nothing.

Rites and ceremonies, properly, are "done" by all present, not "performed" by a few, though certainly there are "leadership" roles. So, where things are as they ought to be, all present are "doing something beautiful for God." Though the psalmist invited us to "worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness" a beauty only God can grant, still, even if it smacks of a kind of primitive sympathetic magic, our efforts at beauty and at a "set-apart" kind of behaviour seem actually (for some at least) to conduce to a deeper awareness of the presence and beauty of God.

Whether it's a good thing or not is debatable, but I was told more than once by parents who brought their children to services where I was the "celebrant," the kiddies were intently focussed on my gestures (hands lifted up, joined palm-to-palm, palms out to the people or palms up to the 'gifts' on the altar, and of course various signs of the cross) and some kids "followed along" imitating me. It struck me that for them all this folderol -- almost BECAUSE it was folderol -- suggested to them that something very important, something they wanted to be a part of, was going on.

As a Catholic Xtian, I remind myself often, with respect to religious "bling" and the rest, "This is not God." Even of the sacrament we call "the Most Holy" I remind myself that they do not celebrate Mass with bread and wine in Heaven, where the promise of the Mass is finally fulfilled. "When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until [and ONLY until] you come in glory."

But to get back to my earlier point, we attempt to do something beautiful for God. Asked to explain it, we'd say of the whole mishegoss and of our presence and involvement in it that, in divers ways, it all came from Him. And He (sometimes -- He's not a tame lion) does something beautiful in us in response. And I'd venture to guess that even when we do not perceive it, still He is acting, through and in response to our rites and ceremonies, our ritual.

[Mr Rogers]

Unlike the Old Testament, the New had a ‘once for all’ sacrifice of blood. Thus we have One Priest, although we also have a universal priesthood offering a sacrifice of thanksgiving and good deeds, and Paul speaks of his ministry as an offering to God.

That is part of how the New improves over the Old - ONE SACRIFICE, offered ONCE FOR ALL. That Jesus does not continue to offer his blood, and that no other offering atones for sin, are both clearly taught. “Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world.”

Contrast with the Old, not imitation of it.

[markomalley]

Contrast with the Old, not imitation of it.

The old is a foreshadowing of the far superior of the new. The old is the imitation, not the new. ((which is symbolic for the present age))