|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 5, 2017 20:56:47 GMT
A little blunder which indicates the collective loss of knowledge. Recently I have been reading a series of detective novels by Anthony Quinn set in post-Troubles East Tyrone; the central character is a Catholic PSNI detective called Celsius Daly. In the third novel, SLEEPLESS, during an investigation Daly visits a Franciscan "monastery" and talks to the "abbot". Franciscans live in friaries, and their superior is called the Friar Guardian.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 24, 2017 22:14:10 GMT
Recently the IRISH TIMES had a front-page report in which a Redemptorist giving a mission at Galway Cathedral says that people are showing signs of coming back to Confession but treating it as "a chat". He claims that this was what confession was about before the Church surrounded it with rules and regulations - an anam-chara offering guidance. Herewith a brief refresher course: The Early Church practiced PUBLIC confession of sins, followed by often lengthy PUBLIC penances in church (sometimes lasting for years) before readmission to communion. [Incidentally, elements of this practice were reintroduced by post-Reformation Calvinists, though they have now abandoned it again: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stool_of_Repentance] Private confession was introduced from the sixth century, largely by travelling Irish monks, as a substitute for the older practice while retaining the element of confessing sins and doing penance, which was at the core of the original. Receiving spiritual guidance was also part of the process, but it wasn't separable from confession and penance. For most of the middle ages and to some extent afterwards, the assumption was that most people would make their confessions to their parish clergy, who would get to know their spiritual make-up over the years and would thus be able to treat them appropriately. (Of course this assumes that most people will be peasants living in the same place all their lives, and that most parish priests will stay in their parish for their whole life after obtaining it.) This assumption was one reason why the new orders of friars which spread from the early C13 were severely criticised by monks and parish clergy - because strolling friars were accused of giving cheap absolution to penitents who were strangers to them and hence could not be assessed properly by them. I wonder if the same criticism was made of the Redemptorists when they appeared in the late C18? (Of course there were two sides to the story - the friars and later the Redemptorists were responding to a demand created when parish clergy were negligent, corrupt or absent altogether in search of richer pickings.) The difference between this and the Redemptorist Father's claim that penance and confession of sins were superfluous accretions by the Church, which he seems to assume characteristically gets everything wrong, needs no further comment. St Alphonsus, pray for some of your Irish sons, who sorely need it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 8, 2017 18:35:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 18, 2017 20:25:54 GMT
Some interesting discussion of how discussions about what Jesus knew in His Human Nature seem in some recent commentators to slide into Nestorianism (this is an early Christian heresy which distinguishes the human Jesus from the divine to such an extent that He seems almost to be a man adopted by God - the opposite error is monophysistism, which immerses His humanity in the Divine to such an extent that it becomes a mere mask). The subtext is that if Jesus didn't necessarily know what He was doing, we are not bound by His precepts. Some time ago I read an account of an Irish Presbyterian heresy trial in the 1920s in which the accused had said, amongst other things, that "it is not the Galilean Jew whom we worship" and complained that he was being misrepresented because his fundamentalist accusers had failed to quote the next clause "but that which is enthroned in him, the Infinite" The fundamentalists handled their case very badly and the accused was acquitted of their charge that he was an Arian (i.e. that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus). I was thinking it over again recently, and I suddenly realised that he was a NEstorian. BTW Louis Bouyer, himself a convert from Lutheranism, said Lutheranism tends to develop into monophysitism and Calvinism into Nestorianism. www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/09/15/was-jesus-ever-ignorant-of-his-mission-that-just-isnt-catholic-doctrine/www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/shabbiness-of-untruth-dictatorship-of-relativism/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 20, 2017 21:01:08 GMT
A few weeks ago Fr Joe McVeigh the Fermanagh liberation theologian sent in a letter to the IRISH CATHOLIC demanding that the Fatima Prayer "Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, lead all souls to Heaven especially those most in need of thy mercy" should be not merely discouraged but rigorously suppressed because it represented "bad theology". He made the same complaint about the older form of the Act of Contrition "O God, I am very sorry for all my sins and I heartily repent them, not only because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell, but because they offend thee, O my God, Who are all good and worthy of all my love. And I firmly intend with the help of Thy Grace to do penance and amend my life hereafter". Fr McVeigh did not, of course, deign to explain in what way these prayers represent "bad theology". If he means they refer to Hell as a possibility, quite a lot of the Gospels and the explicit words of Jesus would have to go after them.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 4, 2018 23:16:44 GMT
The distinguished academic Luke Gibbons has published a new collection of essays on James Joyce, Ireland and modernism. One of these essays discusses the Catholic priest turned Protestant missionary Thomas Connellan, who was active in Dublin at the beginning of the twentieth century and makes a brief appearance in ULYSSES. Gibbons quotes a short memoir published by Connellan which states that when he was a Maynooth seminarian in the 1870s anyone caught with a copy of George Eliot's novel THE MILL ON THE FLOSS would have been expelled. (George Eliot, aka Mary Ann Evans, was a very outspoken agnostic and lived with a married man.) Some of you may remember that a couple of years ago the writer John Boyne published a novel called A BRIEF HISTORY OF LONELINESS about clerical child abuse. Several reviewers noted with puzzlement that the first-person narrator stated that THE MILL ON THE FLOSS was a forbidden book at the Irish seminary which he attended in the late 1960s/early 1970s. I now have a very plausible theory, which may be proved or disproved by further evidence. John Boyne came across the Connellan passage - perhaps he attended a lecture by Gibbons, or came across the Connellan book somewhere. He then assumed that seminaries in 1970 were in all respects identical with seminaries in 1870, and so applied the MILL ON THE FLOSS detail to a period when George Eliot had in fact come to be regarded as a respectable classic. Perhaps for his next trick John Boyne will write a novel about how Jack Lynch and Garrett Fitzgerald coped with the rise of the Land League, or how Charles Stewart Parnell handled the Northern Ireland Troubles when he was Taoiseach in the 1970s.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 21, 2019 0:46:26 GMT
I have referred in other threads to a blogger who engages in a form of online stalking of the Anglican Ordinariate, especially in America. My impression is that he does point up some legit problems but that he displays an obsessive hatred which leads him to treat any argument as good enough to hit the Ordinariate with, even when this involves him in calumny (by which I mean he has made online insinuations about individuals - e.g. that they were divorced and remarried, that their credentials as a lawyer were false - which he has withdrawn after short online searches, which it seemingly never occurred to him to undertake before he made these claims). A couple of his recent posts startled me by their ignorance of the history of Anglican conversions to Catholicism. Here are a few points relating to the two posts linked below: (1) He doesn't seem to realise that before the late 1940s it was utterly impossible for married Anglican clergy converts to be ordained as Catholic priests while living with their wives (the option of separation being pretty much ruled out after the Pierce Connelly fiasco). (2) He suggests that there is something improper about an Anglican bishop becoming a Catholic bishop (as is the case with the head of the US ordinariate), which he compares to divorce and remarriage. Doesn't he realise that (a) The Church has quite consistently held that Anglican orders are invalid (b) the objection he makes would rule out former Anglican clergymen becoming Catholic priests,which has been common practice. (3) He suggests that Anglicans are entitled to accuse their bishops who become Catholics of apostasy and breaking the vows taken at their installation. This once again would apply to all Anglican clerics who sign the 39 Articles, which specifically renounce papal jurisdiction, and it comes very oddly from someone who is himself a (lay) convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism. stmarycoldcase.blogspot.com/2019/08/jeffrey-steenson-on-levi-silliman-ives.html(4) In the post linked below, his analysis of the past appeal of Anglo-Catholicism treats this entirely in sociological terms without spiritual or theological content. A proponent of the "inevitable secularisation" thesis could substitute "Catholicism" or "Christianity" for "Anglo-Catholicism" and there would be a startling resemblance. (5) Some of the people he lists as Anglo-Catholic converts, like Waugh and Greene, were not Anglo-Catholic or even Anglican except in the most nominal terms (while others such as Knox were indeed classical Anglo-Catholics). I suspect this reflects our stalker's tendency to see Anglo-Catholicism as an expression of Anglophile snobbery without regard to spiritual/theological content. stmarycoldcase.blogspot.com/2019/08/what-does-bp-ives-add-to-picture.html
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 21, 2019 11:42:17 GMT
I have referred in other threads to a blogger who engages in a form of online stalking of the Anglican Ordinariate, especially in America. My impression is that he does point up some legit problems but that he displays an obsessive hatred which leads him to treat any argument as good enough to hit the Ordinariate with, even when this involves him in calumny (by which I mean he has made online insinuations about individuals - e.g. that they were divorced and remarried, that their credentials as a lawyer were false - which he has withdrawn after short online searches, which it seemingly never occurred to him to undertake before he made these claims). A couple of his recent posts startled me by their ignorance of the history of Anglican conversions to Catholicism. Here are a few points relating to the two posts linked below: (1) He doesn't seem to realise that before the late 1940s it was utterly impossible for married Anglican clergy converts to be ordained as Catholic priests while living with their wives (the option of separation being pretty much ruled out after the Pierce Connelly fiasco). (2) He suggests that there is something improper about an Anglican bishop becoming a Catholic bishop (as is the case with the head of the US ordinariate), which he compares to divorce and remarriage. Doesn't he realise that (a) The Church has quite consistently held that Anglican orders are invalid (b) the objection he makes would rule out former Anglican clergymen becoming Catholic priests,which has been common practice. (3) He suggests that Anglicans are entitled to accuse their bishops who become Catholics of apostasy and breaking the vows taken at their installation. This once again would apply to all Anglican clerics who sign the 39 Articles, which specifically renounce papal jurisdiction, and it comes very oddly from someone who is himself a (lay) convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism. stmarycoldcase.blogspot.com/2019/08/jeffrey-steenson-on-levi-silliman-ives.html(4) In the post linked below, his analysis of the past appeal of Anglo-Catholicism treats this entirely in sociological terms without spiritual or theological content. A proponent of the "inevitable secularisation" thesis could substitute "Catholicism" or "Christianity" for "Anglo-Catholicism" and there would be a startling resemblance. (5) Some of the people he lists as Anglo-Catholic converts, like Waugh and Greene, were not Anglo-Catholic or even Anglican except in the most nominal terms (while others such as Knox were indeed classical Anglo-Catholics). I suspect this reflects our stalker's tendency to see Anglo-Catholicism as an expression of Anglophile snobbery without regard to spiritual/theological content. stmarycoldcase.blogspot.com/2019/08/what-does-bp-ives-add-to-picture.htmlDoes a blogger on such a recherché topic deserve so much analysis? I greatly fear the phenomenon of "ever decreasing circles" when it comes to Christian discourse. I do think Pope Francis has a point when he warns us against becoming "self-referential". Given how few Anglicans actually go to church or practice their faith, how much good (or bad) can the Anglican Ordinariate really achieve? In all honesty, I would be more pleased to hear of an Anglican revival than that Catholics were picking off the remnants. (Please note I am not calling the virtue of the Ordinariate into question, as far as it goes. I'm saying I don't think it goes very far, and indeed, it seems clear now that the hopes invested in it were much exaggerated.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 21, 2019 20:54:35 GMT
I'm not criticising him because of his views on the Anglican Ordinariate (as I said, I think some of his individual criticisms seem well-founded, such as congregations having a very nebulous idea of historic Anglican belief and practice, schools being started on insufficient resources etc). I'm criticising his use of shoddy thinking and reckless slanders.
I don't see the Ordinariate as a shining beacon or an atrocity - just a small subculture entitled to "live and let live" unless it does something really harmful. (It has its flaws - I notice some of its exponents have developed the Pusey dismissive attitude towards bishops'authority, which Newman rightly saw as completely illogical and leading to"every man his own bishop".) I have no particular attraction to Anglicanism. What I don't like is someone devoting so much effort to trying to stamp it out, especially when his arguments would logically imply that (for example) the Eastern Rite churches should not exist, that dioceses should be entitled to exclude religious orders more or less arbitrarily etc. Legit criticism is one thing - a post suggesting that anyone who criticises Pope Francis's China policy is a heretic (which the stalker actually has done) is quite another, and it's important to know the difference.
I also think that encouraging critical thinking is an end in itself. An embattled subculture such as conservative/traditionalist Catholicism is very vulnerable to false messiahs and to self-sealing conspiracy theories that suck people in like a black hole and never let them go. Remember Father Brown's remark to the disguised Flambeau that he knew he wasn't a real priest because "You denied reason. That's false theology." - or the discussion in ORTHODOXY of how a madman may be quite logical if his original insane premise is accepted.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 22, 2019 9:12:19 GMT
I also think that encouraging critical thinking is an end in itself. An embattled subculture such as conservative/traditionalist Catholicism is very vulnerable to false messiahs and to self-sealing conspiracy theories that suck people in like a black hole and never let them go. Remember Father Brown's remark to the disguised Flambeau that he knew he wasn't a real priest because "You denied reason. That's false theology." - or the discussion in ORTHODOXY of how a madman may be quite logical if his original insane premise is accepted. I agree. Although the irony is that conspiracy theorists generally accuse those who disagree with them of lacking critical thinking. I'm reading Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. As most people know, it's a dystopian science fiction story set in a future where books have been banned. This has led to a decline in critical thinking amongst the populace, who are hooked on entertainment and ignore public affairs, allowing the government to drag them into a ruinous war. (Or constant wars-- it's hard to tell from the story so far.) Which is all very well, but reading it, it occurs to me that the population of Europe was probably never more literate than immediately prior to World War One. Critical thinking is a double-edged sword. I remember one philosophy lecturer lamenting that he couldn't teach his students because they challenged everything he said, rather than having the patience to let him build up an argument. They thought this was the way to do philosophy, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 25, 2020 21:28:07 GMT
www.irishtimes.com/opinion/a-bit-of-heresy-now-and-then-does-the-catholic-church-no-harm-1.4183422?__vfz=rtw_top_pages%3D11000002670848Salvador Ryan has a very shoddily-argued piece in today's IRISH TIMES in which he responds to traditionalists who accuse Pope Francis of heresy, not by arguing that the accusations are untrue, but by saying that a bit of heresy now and then never did the church any harm, because it actually leads to fuller understanding of doctrine. Leaving aside the specific accusations against Pope Francis, which I think are overdone, here are a couple of problems with Dr Ryan's argument: (1) If heresy is beneficial because it leads to the clarification of doctrine, surely accusations of heresy are part of the same process and also praiseworthy? (Would the doctrine of the Trinity have been clarified in the manner described by Dr Ryan if St Athanasius and Co had responded to Arius with "Nah - like, whatever"?) (2) An analogy - the blunders of the builders, proprietors and captain of the TITANIC, by causing its sinking and the loss of hundreds of lives, led to the implementation of reforms which greatly increased the safety of passengers on future Atlantic voyages. That doesn't mean the blunders, and the consequent sinking of the TITANIC, were beneficial and should be celebrated. Did I mention that Salvador Ryan is Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Maynooth? Someone should check Mgr Corish's grave, for he must surely be turning.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 26, 2020 8:37:25 GMT
This is not the first light weight piece I have seen from Salvador Ryan, but I have yet to see anything solid from him. The Pontifical University, Maynooth has been in a downward spin for some time.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 17, 2020 20:36:27 GMT
A couple of weeks ago I read an article on the ATLANTIC website which criticised an American Catholic law professor who has called for the creation of a Catholic-integralist state in the US. The writer compared this to Spanish Falangism and suggested that such projects always start off with "the idealised vision of St Augustine's imaginary City of God" and end up with a squalid police state. If our author has read THE CITY OF GOD, he hasn't understood it, because the whole point of the book is that it is not possible to create a perfect Christian state on earth - the City of God and the City of Man, the wheat and the tares, will not be definitely separated until this world ends. St Augustine was responding to the decline of the Roman Empire, and to pagans who pointed out that Christians who predicted that the Christianisation of the empire would lead to its permanent revival had obviously got it wrong and claimed that the falsification of these predictions suggested that Christianity was in fact responsible for the decline. We need to learn from St Augustine in Ireland at the present time.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 28, 2020 0:58:19 GMT
This example concerns trads, and is more about Church history than doctrine: A new book has just appeared profiling a number of cardinals whom the author sees as likely candidates to succeed Pope Francis. One traditionalist site, commenting on a particular individual whom I will call Cardinal X (to make sure what I am about to say isn't misunderstood by some person who doesn't "get" irony) says that he would be the most worldly papal candidate ever. Really? Cardinal X is going to raise an army to reconquer the Papal States? He's going to promise bribes ad favours to the Cardinal Electors? He's going to appoint his relatives to well-paid sinecures which will enable them to build palaces in Rome out of church revenues? He's going to do political and religious favours for his preferred head of state, Boris Johnson/Emmanual Macron/Kim Jong-un/President Lopes Obrador of Mexico/Justin Trudeau/Mohammed bin Salman (add or delete examples as necessary)? However worldly Cardinal X may be, he would have to get up pretty early to be worldlier than any previous Pope -leaving aside those aspects of Papal history which may be summed up in the words "chestnuts" and "Marozia Theophylact". Some people who claim to be traditionalists should really study history, which would disabuse them of the belief that all was sweetness and light till Vatican II came on the scene. The fact that at certain times things have been even worse for the Church than they are now may seem a strange source of comfort, but it may preserve us from despair. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dEfD4VK25A
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 10, 2020 21:09:30 GMT
Currently reading the biography of Peter Sutherland, and have just found a quote from a speech where Sutherland is recalling his role as European Commissioner in charge of competition policy. He says "Like Sir Thomas More, I was a turbulent priest". It was St Thomas Becket. St Thomas More wasn't a priest. What did the Jesuits teach him at Gonzaga?
|
|