Free Republic

Ping

Tom Madden ping

Rochester, St. Mary's Downtown, that explains some things.

The statement concludes: "A priest in good standing is entitled to be registered under the Marriage Act of Ontario to legally register marriages that he celebrates. Father Ryan was not registered under the Ontario Marriage Act and now would not qualify for registration. The Archdiocese has thus ensured that Father Ryan would not be able to try to act on his views by performing a civil marriage for a same-sex couple."

I applaud the Archdiocese of Ontario. This strategy is only going to drive the homo promo gang farther in its attempt to control the Church. I would bet money that soon the Ontario Marriage Act will be amended to account for renegade priests (in favor of gays marrying of course), then some requirements will be laid down on the Bishops. The scenario Cardinal George talked about is playing out in Canada before our eyes.

A Fireside Chat with Cardinal George

You have FreepMail with a moderately lengthy treatment of the accuracy of Luke. Plus some some more sources.

The notion of sin as missing the mark is also in Latin. "Peccatus", etymologically, also means missing the mark. This is how Aquinas too used the word. The term is transferred from an action that misses the mark to the person who misses the mark, and precisely to that interior disposition inclining the person to miss the mark. That interior disposition is sometimes called the "stain" or also called simply "sin". Technically, "stain" refers to the loss of the BEAUTY proper to the creature. I think I can show that the Greek Fathers had the same idea, even if they used a different word. For they too -- like Augustine and Aquinas-- thought in terms of an ethic that is totally foreign to us today, namely, virtue ethics. The ethics dominant in the west is not a virtue ethic, but a specific sort of legalism, an ethics of pure duty, confusingly combined with an ethic of simple pleasure calculation. Both of these ethics are alien to the Gospel, and are no good for explaining what sin and salvation are.

Yes, the stain is slight in the sense that it does not cause human nature to cease to exist. Humans are wounded and stained, but still human. The Imago Dei is blurred, distorted, and prone to miss the mark, but still the Imago Dei. Because we are so stained, humans are inclined to miss the mark -- to miss it by a very wide mark. Hence, Auschwitz. Hence, Calvary.

I too try to avoid using all talk of sin-nature, post-lapsarian man, fallen-nature etc. These terms, on my view, reveal the LOSS of any concept of human nature and are discordant with Scripture. The very vocabulary and language that is being used obscures the Gospel. I use these expressions not because they are in my vocabulary, they are not even in Aquinas' vocabulary. They are not in Catholic vocabulary. But they are Calvinist terms, developed under the influence of a human philosophy alien to the Gospel, and I use them only because my interlocutor is Calvinist.

If you want to read a valuable study of the Thomistic concept of sin, and see how close it is to your own, MarMema, I suggest Josef Pieper's book "The Concept of Sin". A whole chapter is devoted to the meaning of peccatus as missing the mark.

I'm going to guess (and correct me if I'm wrong) that when you refer to "the concept of HUMAN NATURE was rejected in the west a century after Aquinas", you're referring (at least tangentially) to the supra-Augustinian development of the Lutheran and Calvinist Protestant doctrines of the "Bondage of the Will" and the "Total Inability" of Man.

Only tangentially. I have in mind first William of Ockham's nominalism and concept of free-will as freedom of indifference (See Servais Pinckaer's book The Sources of Christian Ethics). It was these philosophical positions that were the matrix in terms of which the Reformers did their theology (partly reacting AGAINST the faulty concept of free-will developed therein). Thinking within the terms set up by nominalism, and wrongly reading Catholic theology in those terms, they came to a rejection of Catholic theology. In addition, however, they and their descendants developed a theology of God and man that was situated largely in the same set of terms. Hence, although the word nature might be used, it is construed nominalistically. As I think I can show.

I understand, I think, your point that our post-fallen nature is satanified, that it consists in rebellion, etc. You seem to think that this is much more horrifying than the Patristic and Thomistic view. I think, rather, that it does not take seriously enough the concept of a wound of nature. Aquinas includes on his classic list of the four wounds MALICE toward God and neighbor. I fail to see in your descriptions of post-fall nature anything more than the malice he describes. Are we rebels? Yes. Are we satanifed as you say? Yes. Are we incapable of fulfilling covenental precepts (i.e. meriting)? Yes. Are we bound to sin mortally? Yes. Are we deicidal? Yes. The question is whether these are wounds of human nature or human nature itself.

The difference between my view and yours seems to turn on the difference between a wound of nature and a nature.

I think what you want to say is that after the fall human nature consists in, its very essence, is rebellion, deicidal pride, etc. Whereas I admit that humans have these features, but they are wounds of nature, not the very nature itself. You are thinking nominalistically, I think, because you are treating every universally predicable term (e.g. rebellion) as an expression of the essence of man. All humans are born on planet earth, but that feature is not essential to man nor the very nature of man. It is possible, and perhaps some day will be so, that some human is not born on planet earth. A man born on a moon base is a man nonetheless, because being born on planet earth is not the essence of man but an accident (a property that can be gained or lost without a thing ceasing to be what it is). To say that being born on planet earth belongs to the essence of man just because all men have the feature is as nominalist as can be, even if you use the WORD "nature".

Your post, oddly, seems to say that human nature did remain continuous between pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian humans - at least in one respect.

the Imago Dei is there, and it is not silent. It is active, operative, and will-fully blasphemous.

Is this the same Imago Dei possessed by Adam and Eve or a different one? Surely it acts differently than theirs did, but natures are not actions or action-types. Are these rebellious actions constituitive of the Imago Dei or not? If post-lapsarian man has the same Imago Dei as pre-lapsarian man, then the characteristic of rebellion counts as a wound of the image, it is not what the image itself consists in. If it is what the image itself consists in, then the pre-lapsarian people would have acted the same way. If post-lapsarian man has a different image than pre-lapsarian man had, and if human nature is nothing other than the image, then human beings ceased to exist at the fall and a new kind of being -- call them fallen-man--came into existence.

Let me ask you some questions. I think that this is the best way to sort out what we each think a nature is, and what we each think human nature is. If you could be so kind as to answer briefly, I would much appreciate learning from you.

1. Do post-fallen humans have the same nature or a different nature as Adam and Eve originally had? Is the post-lapsarian Imago the same imago or a differnet imago than the pre-lapsarian imago? I understand that the individuals of that image ACT differently, but is the ACTION the image itself or not?

2. Did Adam and Eve cease to exist at the Fall and an entirely new entity, fallen-Adam and fallen-Eve, come into existence? Did humans cease to exist at the fall and some whole new species of creature come into existence? Is there ANYTHING continuous between pre-lapsarina and post-lapsarian man, or are the two entirely discontinuous down to the very essence?

3. Do terms describing sinful characteristics, e.g rebelliousness, signify the same sorts of reality as terms describing holy characteristics, e.g. charitable? Are evil-predications predications of a privation or of something having positive existence in reality?

4. Do you distinguish between things predicated as belonging to the nature or essence of a thing and things predicated of a thing but not as belonging to the essence? If so, how do you distinguish between the two?

5. Is sodomy an act in accord with the nature of Adam and Eve? Or is sodomy contrary to the nature of Adam and Eve?

6. Do you assign sovereignty as God's primary attribute, and define his other attributes (e.g. goodness, love, justice, mercy) in terms of His sovereignty, or is some attribute other than sovereignty (e.g. wisdom, goodness) God's primary attribute in terms of which sovereignty is defined?

7. Does God command things because they are good or are they good because he commands them? Are evil things evil because he forbids them or does he forbid them because they are evil?

8. What is punishment?

I apologize for the length of the questions. Please, take your time and get back to me. I think this could be a profitable discussion.

I went and saw it last night with forty undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty. We saw the 10 pm showing which got out at midnight. We arranged in advance to have a holy hour after viewing it. So we held a Eucharistic vigil from quarter past midnight to 1:15 am.

Arranging the Holy Hour was an inspiration. It was the perfect way to begin digesting the movie for all of us. Our minds were swirling with images of Jesus, Mary, the Eucharist. I was, and still am, speechless. This movie must be prayed through. And prayed after. It will take a couple of days for all of us to absorb it.

My only remark is that the place of Mary in the movie is simply awesome.

The online version that you refer me to is only a very brief summary, almost like a table of contents. I do not think the full version is available online, and the St. Vladimir's edition has a wonderful introduction by C.S. Lewis. I call it "Augustinian" only because in certain parts of it there is to be found the idea of satisfaction in the sense of paying what is "due". I am thinking of chapter 4, section 20, speaks of "settleing the account" and "death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid"

Here, clearly, is the language of "due" (Latin "ius", unsure of the Greek) and the paying of what is due. Thus, there is a component of satisfaction. However, anyone who has read the previous chapters knows that what is "due" is due not merely because God demands it with His will, nor even because divine Justice requires punishment for vengeance's sake, or even for Justice's sake. Rather, the reader knows that what is due is due because of the law written in our nature, namely, the gratuity of the divine image spoken of in the first chapter, the injunction to guard the gift of the image, and the subsequent refusal to do so. God owes it to his GOODNESS to heal us of the self-inflicted penalty of death that we are already paying, not to his JUSTICE to punish man further for sin. The whole purpose of the incarnation is to glorify the body and liberate it from the inevitable penalties that we already voluntarily impose given teh wounds of nature. That is what is DUE to God -- to glorify the human body and liberate from all penalties-- not FURTHER penalties over and above what is already coming to us.

Unfortunately, the concept of ius was transformed AFTER Aquinas so that the "due" is something owed to an impersonal JUSTICE, not something God owes to his own love and goodness and wisdom. Again, I submit that when Augustine and Aquinas are read correctly, their concept of satisfaction (and hence their satisfaction theology of the atonement) has much more in common with the Christus Victor approach than it has when read backwards through a Clavinist, Lutheran, Ockhamist lens.

In short, prior to Ockham and the Reformers, to pay what is due is nothing other than to give medicine, to heal, to rehabilitate human nature. That is what God owes to his goodness, love, and wisdom.

After Ockham and the Reformers, to pay what due is to give to God something that is his RIGHT, to satisfy His right to our pain and punishment. On this view, Christ's suffering pays what is due because God has a right to pain and punishment so great that humans cannot pay it off. The offense is infinite or something. Hence, God must become man to fulfill God's right to infinite pain and punishment for man. This is absurd in the extreme if pressed even a little, but it is the predominant way people think of it. Frankly, I think this absurd theory of the atonement is one large factor in the de-Christianizing of the West. The popular understanding of the atonement really is absurd.

On the traditional view, both East and West, to pay what is due is to PERFECT A THING ACCORDING TO ITS NATURE. God in Christ pays what is owed to HIS GOODNESS, LOVE, AND WISDOM, and what God owes to God is that man be healed in his nature, and to conquer death, to liberate us from incessant self-infliction of the wounds, to elevate us beyond human nature, to divinize and deify man, and to glorify the BODY. Christ fulfills what is due on the cross AND in the resurrection.

The God of Ockham and the Reformers is a sadistic monster, exacting vengeance for vengeance's sake, in the name of Justice. If that is what God is, I am an atheist. The God of the Patristics and early Scholastics is merciful in the technical sense -- mercy is the action proceeding from love to relieve the afflictions of others.

I cannot urge you enough to purchase and read many times this classic book by St. Athanasius. It is short, comprehensible, Scriptural, and an excellent source of answers to all the "Why did he have to suffer" and "why did God do it that way" sorts of questions -- from creation to the consumation of the world. It is not available online in full:

On the Incarnation of the Word

I am headed tonight to the theaters with a group of forty undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty.

The same question arises: why? Why would an all-loving being arrange things in such a fashion that any of this is "necessary"? Why not simply forgive Adam and Eve and be done with it? How can anyone who listens to talking snakes be held morally culpable for his actions? Eternal punishment? To be just, a punishment must fit the crime: what crime merits eternal suffering? These are serious (and ancient) questions that the immense popularity of Gibson's film _should_ invoke.

You are absolutely right, these are serious questions that drive right to the heart of the Good News. Obviously, these questions have been taken up and answered for thousands of years already, starting with the Scripture and reflecting upon the Scriptures.

I cannot urge you or any Christian or seeker strongly enough read St. Athanasius' book On the Incarnation of the Word

It is a short, Scripturally based, comprehensible, intense reflection on the Atonement that takes up all the big, common, "why did God do it that way" sorts of questions, beginning with creation and ending with the final glorification of God and creation at the end of the world.

If you read this work, you will see that the "traditional" answer you talk about is not nearly as traditional as you might think.

MarMema, have you read St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation of the Word"? Just wondering. In this text he lays out an explanation of why Christ had to suffer and die to save us.

Athanasius is an Eastern Father if ever there was one, and it is rather obvious from his text that he thought there were far more reasons for Christ to suffer than merely to offer an example of virtue, although to offer an example was certainly one reason.

In order to answer the question why did Jesus have to suffer, I cannot recommend too highly this work by St. Athanasius. It is not long, and very comprehensible to the eyes of faith. It is an absolute gem.

St. Athanasius On the Incarnation

BTW, I also think the text shows that there is something fishy about this line that "the East rejects Augustine, and in so doing developed a different theology of the Atonement" (a line favored by Frederica Matthews-Greene). After reading Athanasius, I was surprised (perhaps wrongly) at just how "Augustinian" it is -- even though it was written fully two generations before Augustine's conversion.

I think that Anselm and Aquinas should be read as continuators of the Athanasian train of Atonement theology. Although they use the WORD satisfaction in their explanations, their CONCEPT of it is the same as Athanasius'-- which is wildly different than the concept of satisfaction popularized after the concept of HUMAN NATURE was rejected in the west a century after Aquinas.

After the rejection of the conept of human nature, the concept of satisfaction mutated from meaning rehabilitation and medicine for human nature to mean the fulfillment of an entirely arbtirary divine command issued from God's will alone -- the divinely issued command that sin is to be punished extrinsically or from without. If that is what satisfaction is, then I could not possibly be a Christian. Where is the mercy is that theology of the atonement? And dont tell me it is because Jesus chose to suffer when he did not have to suffer for us, for God need not have issued the command in the first place. It was entirely arbitrary. Athanasius clears all this up by presenting the Atonement in terms long lost to the west -- in terms of human nature.

I am a Catholic, and I hold that until an Athanasian concept of the atonement is retrieved and popularized in the west, and until the Catholic saints and doctors are read more correctly as continuators of the pre-modern tradition of the atonement as medicine for a wounded nature as well as the source of divinizing elevation, Christianity will continue to evaporate in the west -- simply due to senselessnes concerning a central teaching.

The Passion of the Christ

brought to you by the Daughters of St. Paul.

FYI.

A good place to send seekers.

FYI

Mark Shea's blog --Catholic and Enjoying It-- notes that Ascension Press has already sold 130,000 copies of the book prepared by Catholic Exchange for folks seeing the Passion:

Catholic Passion Outreach

Rod Dreher notes, in the comments boxes on the blog, that 75,000 copies sold suffices for a book to earn the title of "bestseller". Shea notes that this book is now considered the fastest selling book in the history of Catholic publishing.

Thanks. William Lane Craig has entire virtual office online complete with transcripts of formal debates. Just google in his name.

Also, he has several of these debates in book form. The best published debate is "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" in which he debates John Dominic Crossan, and, in my view, crushes him. The book will be persuasive to anyone who is not yet a committed liberal.

What do you think of post #8.