Recently in Theology Category

Mark Shea on Sister Helen Prejean and her New Age Gospel at the DNC's interfaith gathering. Like many she is a one trick pony that emphasizes one thing until it eclipses everything else. Both/And seems to be so totally lacking in progressive Christianity.

After reading Anne Rice's Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana I thought a lot about the consciousness of Christ and wanted to read up on the subject. I had remembered in my various readings several references to a recommended book on the subject called "The Consciousness of Christ" by Fr. William George Most. I was disappointed to find that the book was mostly not available until I was delighted to find all of Fr. Most's works are available at Catholic Culture in the Most Theological Collection.

For those who don't know Fr. Most was a theologian and scripture scholar who died in 1999. As I was coming into the Church I read many of his articles and posts since at the the time he was answering scriptural questions on EWTN's forums. I think it is too bad that there are so many other theologians and scripture scholars who are much more well known than Fr. Most was. You would have never seen Fr. Most on the History Channel, Discovery, or TLC in just another one of the dumb shows talking about scripture and biblical history. Fr. Most was a faithful priest and that doesn't make your scholarship too popular.

His book "The Consciousness of Christ" was exactly what I was looking for to answer the questions I had and to more fully understand what the Church teaches on this subject. The introduction to the book Can we Trust the Gospels? is an excellent essay on the subject in and of itself. Since their has been so much biblical criticism that seeks to deny so much of scripture this essay takes up the topic nicely. The end of the book even includes three appendixes which server as a in depth critique of form criticism and the way it has been used.

In the last century there has been much talk on the so-called ignorance of Jesus and the ideas proposed by Fr. Raymond Brown and others that Jesus did not know he was God. This idea has come to be accepted by many people and is routinely taught. Several scriptures form the Gospel appear at first to make this case such as when Jesus says he "does not know the day or the hour." Fr. Most goes through the scriptures as to related to Jesus' apparent ignorance, lack of foreknowledge, the knowledge concerning the Parousia. He details all of the scriptures often used to back up these assertions made by Rudolf Bultman, Fr. Raymond Brown and others. The then examines these scriptures in details and then examines them in their context. Later he looks a the Patristic evidence regarding these scriptural passages and how the Church came to interpret them. There is a definite development of doctrine that really starts quite early when it comes to these issues. The heresies that tried to rip the Church apart in the fourth century and beyond often came down to the view of Christ's consciousness and the false divide trying to split the humanity and divinity of Jesus apart. After this he goes into what the Magisterium has officially taught about Jesus' consciousness. It is quite clear from the Magisterial statements made that the human soul of Jesus enjoyed the beatific vision even from the first moment of His conception. Something many people who were taught novelties in their Catholic education might be surprised to hear.

I really found this book to be a great read and certainly not just dry theology. The concept of "accommodation" in the sense of what the Greek Fathers called oikonoma in what Pope Gregory the Great and others taught in regards to Jesus saying he did not know the day and the hour is quite illuminating. Many passages you wonder about are answered quite well in this book and taught in such a manner that even layman such as myself can easily digest it. Throughout the book he directly answers arguments primarily made by Fr. Raymond Brown and then others in a thorough manner. Though he does it in a scholarly and not polemic manner. I highly recommend this book to everyone.

The B-Movie Catechism is unusually informative and funny and today is no exception with an excellent merging of a series of B-Movie stills and a bit of Thomistic philosophy concerning souls.

The Catholic Beer Reviews writes on the Politics of Beer. He covers some controversies in recent years where beer companies were involved in supporting some evil. For example the Miller Brewing Company and their homosexual advocacy, Samuel Adams with their "Sex for Sam" debacle several years ago, and Sierra Nevada Brewing Company for their support of abortion.

He then "raises the much larger question of a Catholic consumer's responsibility in the face of corporate behavior that runs directly counter to Catholic moral teaching."

To me this would seem to be in the category of remote material cooperation and so it would not be directly sinful to drink their products responsibly. That is unless you specifically like their support of some evil and then it would be formal material cooperation.

Now my taste buds think that drinking Miller beer would be sinful, so I couldn't boycott them anyway. Samuel Adam appears not to have made the same mistakes they did previously and so I don't think their is any real need for a boycott against them. Sierra Nevada is another story and I will be boycotting them. They support as Jeff Culbreath previous wrote one of "Chico's most notorious abortion providers" and the letter they replied to him with doesn't change matters. This is too bad since I really like Sierra Nevada's brews and ironically started buying their beer after Greg Willits of Rosary Army mentioned them.

I will be though looking for Summit Brewing Company's beers since it is run by a pro-life Catholic convert and Catholic Beer Review recommends them as top notch.

I do hope I never find a reason to have to boycott Guinness.

WASHINGTON (CNS) - In an effort to block posthumous rebaptisms by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholic dioceses throughout the world have been directed by the Vatican not to give information in parish registers to the Mormons' Genealogical Society of Utah.

An April 5 letter from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, obtained by Catholic News Service in late April, asks episcopal conferences to direct all bishops to keep the Latter-day Saints from microfilming and digitizing information contained in those registers.

The order came in light of "grave reservations" expressed in a Jan. 29 letter from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the clergy congregation's letter said.

Father James Massa, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, said the step was taken to prevent the Latter-day Saints from using records -- such as baptismal documentation -- to posthumously baptize by proxy the ancestors of church members.

Posthumous baptisms by proxy have been a common practice for the Latter-day Saints -- commonly known as Mormons -- for more than a century, allowing the church's faithful to have their ancestors baptized into their faith so they may be united in the afterlife, said Mike Otterson, a spokesman in the church's Salt Lake City headquarters.

In a telephone interview with CNS May 1, Otterson said he wanted a chance to review the contents of the letter before commenting on how it will affect the Mormons' relationship with the Catholic Church.

"This dicastery is bringing this matter to the attention of the various conferences of bishops," the letter reads. "The congregation requests that the conference notifies each diocesan bishop in order to ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in his territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Another article referencing the recent statement by the CDF on baptismal formulas.

"If someone knows for a fact they were baptized with another other formula," they should say something, said Susan Wood, a theology professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee. But if they don't know the wording used, they shouldn't be anxious, she told CNS.
 
If the baptism took place without the words "Father, Son and Holy Spirit," without anyone realizing it, she said the baptized person still receives grace as part of the church tradition called "ecclesia supplet," meaning the church supplies graces if through no fault of an individual something is not quite right.
 
Wood, who is currently writing a book on the ecumenical and systematic theology of baptism, said she was pleased with the Vatican announcement, noting that there has been a change in baptismal practice in recent years, primarily in Protestant churches but also in some Catholic churches that use gender-neutral terms to refer to the Trinity.
 
"Hopefully this will bring attention to it and bring a return to the more traditional formula," she said, adding that the pastoral response should be "to be aware of what's correct and why and move forward, honoring the tradition of the church."
 
Wood pointed out that an attempt to "avoid male language for God ends up creating more serious problems for Trinitarian theology," because the wording takes away the relationship that each member of the Trinity has with the other and ends up reducing members of the Trinity to their functional roles.
 
"The personal relationship gets lost" in the attempts to "be politically correct," she said.

Quoting another church tradition, Wood said, "We believe according to how we pray," meaning that prayer formulas influence what one believes.
 
In the case of gender-neutral language for the Trinity, she said, it takes away the unique relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and provides an incomplete understanding that could "seriously affect the faith life of the church."

She explains this very well, though I might quibble with the use of "ecclesia supplet" in this circumstance. The term for the "Church provides" has been bandied about recently in regards to the CDF's clarification.

Canon lawyer Ed Peters previously explained on his blog in reaction to Fr. Francis Hoffman writing in OSV's The Catholic Answer.

My concern is not with Fr. Hoffman's answer but with an additional comment he offered at the end: "Nevertheless, the penitent's sins are forgiven because it was no fault of his own the priest used an invalid formula." Hmmm. Careful here. Continuing: "In this case, as sacramental theologians point out, Ecclesia supplet, that is, the Church provides, out of her treasury of grace, the proper remedy for the defect of the minister's actions." Maybe this is a quibble between canonists, but I'm not so sure.

I understand the concept of Ecclesia supplet (1983 CIC 144.1) to describe the Church's power to supply, under limited circumstances, jurisdiction for an act. But there is no question in this case about whether the confessor had jurisdiction; rather, what was missing were sacramental words, that is, some of the words which the Church holds to be necessary for validity of the sacrament. Since what was defective was sacramental form, I don't see how the Church's ability to supply jurisdiction helps our penitent. To adapt a phrase, Ecclesia non supplet quod Ecclesia non habet; the Church cannot supply what the Church does not have, and the Church does not have the ability to supply sacramental form to a minister's deficient utterance. Many historical examples of invalid baptisms, confirmations, or ordinations would seem to bear this out. Ecclesia supplet does not remedy those cases wherein innocent persons bore the consequences of ministers making invalidating changes in sacramental form, and I don't think it does so for confession, either.

So where does that leave our penitent?

Well, even though Ecclesia supplet seems of no avail here, nevertheless, we may hold that, in some way, Deus providet, that is, God provides, or God foresees. If tragedy were to befall a hapless penitent, I think, like Fr. Hoffman, that one's efforts to seek absolution for sins in this life would somehow be rewarded by God in the next.

But short of that, God provides in other ways, too, right here and right now. He provides by giving us priests like Fr. Hoffman who will tell it like it is and alert penitents that such absolutions are invalid; He provides by telling these penitents that, while He knows these mistakes were not their fault, He still expects them to act on their knowledge of the invalidity of such absolutions and return to confession (assuming we're talking about grave sins, etc.); and I even think He provides by giving the faithful the confidence to contact their confessors, and if necessary their bishops, to inform them of serious violations of the gift that is sacramental confession.

Meanwhile, the rest of us need to be wary lest we assume too quickly that Ecclesia supplet will remedy serious mistakes in ministry just because they were not the fault of the faithful. Salvo sapientiorum iudicio.

It is too bad that there are other formulas being used througout Christianity, but this is not just limited to feminist theology and so-called inclusive language.  A segment of Protestantism such as Oneness Pentecostals and others also use an invalid baptismal formula by baptizing "In Jesus' name." This is no suprise since Oneness Pentecostals are not Trinitarian, but some others also baptize this way since they think the shortcut term referenced in the Book of Acts somehow trumps Jesus' own words in Matthew 28:19.  Though it is not just the correct formula that is important since the Vatican previously ruled that Mormon baptisms were invalid since there intent is certainly not Trinitarian even though they baptize "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In sacramental theology there must be proper matter and form along with proper intent for there to be a valid sacrament. 

The chancellor of the diocese, Father Jim Spence, said the priests at the parish were ordered to revert to the traditional formula in 2004 but that some people may still be unaware their baptisms were wrongly administered.

He said he was unaware how many people it may affect. The church is currently considering whether there will be a need for those illicitly baptised to have the ritual legitimately.

"It doesn't mean it's invalid, it just means it's illicit, he said.

"It doesn't mean that it didn't happen, it means that it shouldn't have happened.

"I guess (those affected) would have all sorts of reactions. I would hope that anybody whos troubled by it would get in touch.''

Baptism, the first of seven sacraments in the church, is the rite of initiation into the church and is usually administered shortly after birth.

Fr Spence said the illicit baptisms did not invalidate subsequent sacraments, including confirmation, penance and marriage.

I hope that Fr. Spence was misquoted, because if not this is serious misinformation. The doctrinal note from the CDF specifically said " Hence, they must them be treated for all canonical and pastoral purposes with the same juridical criteria as people whom the Code of Canon Law places in the general category of 'non-baptised'".

So it is not a case of illicit baptisms, but invalid baptisms. This also does effect some sacraments. For those who were married after an invalid baptism it does not change the fact that they were married, it means they will not be sacramentally married until they are baptized. It also does not effect confessions in any real sense other than that they must be baptized before they can go to confession again now that they are aware of the problem. It does though invalidate anybody who was confirmed or ordained who was invalidly baptized. These two sacraments can only be conferred on a baptized person.

Today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith answered two recent disputed questions regarding allowable baptismal formulas and what to do with persons "baptized" using them:

    Made public today were the responses of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to two questions concerning the validity of Baptism conferred with certain non-standard formulae.

    The first question is: "Is a Baptism valid if conferred with the words 'I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier', or 'I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer'"?

    The second question is: "Must people baptised with those formulae be baptised 'in forma absoluta'?"

American Papist has the story and I doubt my readers will be surprised at the answers by the CDF.

It does make me reflect on the fact that progressives keep finding new ways for people to not actually receive the sacraments.  For example women priests,  Communal confession without individual confession,  and invalid baptismal formulas. And when they are not finding ways for people to not actually receive the sacraments they make excuses for how people can receive them unworthily.

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- A Vietnamese-American theologian's 2004 book on religious pluralism contains "pervading ambiguities and equivocations that could easily confuse or mislead the faithful," the U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine said in a Dec. 10 statement. Father Peter C. Phan's "Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue," published by Orbis Books, also contains "statements that, unless properly clarified, are not in accord with Catholic teaching," the committee said.

In its 15-page statement, the committee said it undertook an evaluation of "Being Religious Interreligiously" at the request of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and "invited Father Phan to respond" to questions.

"Since Father Phan did not provide the needed clarifications, and since the ambiguities in the book concern matters that are central to the faith, the Committee on Doctrine decided to issue a statement that would both identify problematic aspects of the book and provide a positive restatement of Catholic teaching on the relevant points," the statement said.

The statement was signed by Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, and the six other committee members.

Father Phan, a former Salesian and now a priest of the Dallas Diocese, holds the Ellacuria chair of Catholic social thought in the theology department at Jesuit-run Georgetown University in Washington.

The statement on "clarifications required" in Father Phan's book cited three areas of concern:

-- Christ's role as "the unique and universal savior of all humankind."

-- The "salvific significance of non-Christian religions."

-- The Catholic Church as "the unique and universal instrument of salvation."

Quoting frequently from the book, the documents of the Second Vatican Council and "Dominus Iesus," the 2000 declaration of the Vatican doctrinal congregation on the "unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the church," the committee said Father Phan's book "could leave readers in considerable confusion as to the proper understanding of the uniqueness of Christ."

Although "the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is affirmed at some points" in the book, it is presented at other times as "not exclusive or absolute," the committee said.

Father Phan says in the book that the terms "unique," "absolute" and "universal" in relation to Jesus' role as savior "have outlived their usefulness and should be jettisoned and replaced by other, theologically more adequate equivalents."

It is rather interesting that he has decided not to defend himself to either the USCCB or the CDF. His defenders say that his works can be understood in a manner perfectly consistent with the faith and if this was true you would think that he could show his critics how this is true.

But it is pretty hard for statements from his book such as the following can be justified.

Religious pluralism . . . is not just a matter of fact but also a matter of principle. That is, non-Christian religions may be seen as part of the plan of divine providence and endowed with a particular role in the history of salvation. They are not merely a "preparation" for, " stepping stones" toward, or "seeds" of Christianity and destined to be "fulfilled" by it. Rather, they have their own autonomy and their proper roles as ways of salvation, at least for their adherents.

The statement from the USCCB says in response to this concept.

The book reasons that if in fact God has positively willed the existence of the non-Christian religions as ways of salvation, then the very goal itself of universal conversion to Christianity is misguided. "Indeed, if religious pluralism belongs to divine providence and is not just the fruit of human sinfulness, then it may not and must not be abolished by converting all the followers of non-Christian religions, at least during our common journey in history.”

But will this statement signed by several bishops included his own have any effect on his employment status at Georgetown?

A reader sent me a ZENIT piece of an interview with Dominican Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary of the doctrinal congregation concerning the new CDF document. Some have wondered about the timing of the document.

Q: Why was it decided to have this document come out at this time?

Father Di Noia: That's an important question.

I suppose it has to do with the reaction to an earlier document, the famous " Dominus Iesus" that came out, if you recall, in 2000.

I remember that when I was working for the bishops' conference in the United States, and we had received advanced copies of this document, and I was asked to prepare the bishops for " Dominus Iesus," I said well, there is absolutely nothing new here, so the bishops will be fine with it. But as you know, the reaction to " Dominus Iesus" was extremely, let's say, contestative. I mean, it was a very difficult document.

What we saw was the people [...] didn't understand that not simply we had to speak of Christ as being the universal savior, but that the Church was the principle means by which the grace of Christ would be communicated to the world, and that, if you recall, created most of the controversy, certainly ecumenically.

So this was kind of a wake-up call. I'd say that "Dominus Iesus" was a wake-up call, that 30 years after Vatican II, people seemed to have forgotten something very essential that Vatican II taught. And so it was out of that moment that the cardinal members of the congregation -- and also other people, bishops and so on, raising questions about this -- the congregation decided to proceed with a clarification.

The document is called "Responses to [Some] Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." It is a very narrow point, it's a relatively short document, as you know, and the commentary attached, so it's a very precise set of responses to questions that have arisen.

Because the easiest way to commit controversy in the Church is to restate something she has always believed.

Many people also have raised the issue of ecumenical dialogue and this interview also addresses it. This type of question has always confused me. It it is as if ecumenical dialogue is to conducted in the mode of a used car salesman. "This Church has only been visited on Sundays by old ladies." That the only way to dialogue is to play down what we really believe and to ignore what they believe. The old bait and switch. I would have thought that complete honest was the best form of dialogue.

In related news Phillip Blosser points to a piece in Christianity Today by Stan Guthrie on the CDF document. While Mr. Guthri certainly doesn't accept the Church's teaching he doesn't get worked up over it and appreciates the "bright lines" drawn and know that they are restatements.

Update: Fr. Powell posts on the article and says much better what I was trying to say.

American Papist is doing some fine coverage and provides a a roundup of reactions. He notes "Pope: Only Catholics Have 'Means Of Salvation'" is winning the race thus far and in another post "Vatican hits 'wounded' Christian churches."

In yet another posts he wonders about the journalistic coverage since the majority of pulled phrases have been from the commentary and not the actual document itself.

Part of the negative reaction is that anytime you start a phrase with "One true ..." you are bound to have the highly relativistic media reaction. They see this a great opportunity for a theological cat fight between the Catholic Church and Protestantism by playing up that within the Church's view of ecclesiology that Catholic don't call communities without apostolic succession churches. They will of course not mention that we will call anybody validly baptized a Christian, something that some Protestants are willing to do with Catholics (though this is much improved.)

Though some Protestants are also reacting negatively to this document. It is rather interesting that you rarely ever hear Protestants refer to their church as "the one true Church." It would seem to me that such a claim would be natural to any "church", though I do believe that the Mormons try to make the claim. Maybe since Protestantism is much more highly individualistic and with much of the theology not directed at the visible church that the claim is much more rare. Plus the historical pedigree of so many Protestant churches is tied much more to the current pastor and his preaching style than to a specific set of unchangeable doctrines that can be traced back to their founding.

The Catholic Church can both make the claim as the one true Church and at the same time be able to defend it rationally and historically. Sure some Baptists rely on the phony trail of blood to imagine proto-Baptists that were persecuted throughout history, but it doesn't bear close inspection. For many the so-called Reformation is the beginning of church history and for others than relate it to when Pastor Bob took over at a non-denominational church (which for the first time in history is finally the one that is fully bible believing). "I found the one true church and really lucked out since happens to be in my neighborhood!"

The great thing about being Catholic is that it can satisfy you on so many levels. If someone asks you who founded your church you can reply "Jesus" with a straight face and don't have to account for some 1500 year gap or how the church Jesus founded so quickly apostasized. Though of course the only reason to become a Catholic is that you believe it is the one true Church in the first place. Sure there are theological divisions such as in Protestantism, but there is also a magisterium to handle them. People can still dissent from the authentic teaching magisterium, but you know that they are in fact dissenting.

Not to engage in Catholic Triumphalism, but it is really great to be Catholic!

Zenit publishes an article written by Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, on "The Importance of Priestly Celibacy" that was published in the Italian edition of L'Osservatore Romano. The article is very good and covers both the Apostolic origins and early history of celibacy in the Church along with its theological dimensions. The article is really a good short treatment on the subject to counter such nonsense as the Church supporting celibacy in the 1200's because of property inheritance problems.

One thing that never fails to make me laugh is any mention of The Synod of Elvira (300-303?) . Elvira just does not bring to mind celibacy for me.

From a post by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

...To paraphrase G.K.Chesterton, "Tolerance is a nice word for indifference and indifference is an elegant word for ignorance." The reason for having an open mind (like the reason to have an open mouth) is eventually to close it--because it has been filled with something good.

Tolerance, on its own, is a weak virtue that eventually turns on itself with a suicidal bent. This is because the one thing tolerance cannot tolerate is intolerance, and the more tolerant a person becomes the more every little bit of intolerance becomes intolerable. So the person who puts tolerance as the highest and only virtue, finally is incapable of tolerating anyone or anything or any law that limits or defines anything because to limit or define any behavior or any sort of person is perceived as a form of intolerance.

I recently read Truth And Tolerance: Christian Belief And World Religions by then-Cardinal Ratzinger which was published in 2004. This book is highly recommended if you want to go deeper on the topic of tolerance especially on the topic of religious tolerance. This book proves once again how silly the caricature of him that was made after the publication of Dominus Iesus. Like most books of his on theology I felt the pain of normally unused synaptic muscles being strained to their utmost - but hey no pain, no gain - and this book is definitely in the category of gain.

Listening tot the Gospel today at Mass of Mark 10:2-16 I was reminded me of the same juxtaposition that I had been reading in Matthew 19 recently. Where Jesus teaches about marriage and then transitions immediately to Jesus rebuking the Disciples for not letting the children come to him. This transition brought to me the sin of contraception where deliberately children are prevented from coming to him.

Today at Mass our Deacon did the homily and he brought out the same point in a very good homily. It was great to hear an elegant explanation of the Church's teaching on both contraception and marriage. He even touched on why there can be no such thing same-sex marriage. I really wish I could remember in detail his homily since it had so much red meat in it it would make a vegetarian faint. Homilies of this sort are not rare in my parish, I just thought this one was especially forthright on these subjects.

Mark Shea has an interesting column at Catholic Exchange called "Why Catholics Don't Know What They are Talking About" and later relates why that is a good thing. Specifically he talks about the Council of Nicea and how the results were different than what most observers would have predicted. If Nicea would have occurred in the modern age I am sure they would have received the same treatment that Humanae Vitae received in ours. The overwhelming consensus would be that the Church would accept something that it indeed did not and subsequently there would be shock and surprised at this.

Though our response should be wonder and awe at the Holy Spirit guiding the Church and that no matter how much we try to muck things up the Church survives us. Regardless of what popular heresy is currently being touted and even held by a majority of believers it will become but a footnote in the long history of the Church. Modern heretics just aren't very creative and just rewarm and combine old ones. They won't even get a heresy named after them as a booby prize.

GRAND RAPIDS -- More than 400 years after the Protestant Reformation, the Christian Reformed Church is trying to take back a historic slap against the Catholic Church.

It's not easy.

Delegates to the CRC Synod spent about three hours Wednesday attempting to tone down a 1563 Protestant doctrine declaring the Catholic Mass "a condemnable idolatry."

That section of the Heidelberg Catechism, a preaching and teaching tool for many Protestant churches, still smarts for West Michigan Catholics who work with or marry CRC members.

Two years ago, the CRC Synod declared the controversial passage no longer should apply as written. What they could not decide -- and still could not Wednesday -- was what to put in its place.

In classic CRC fashion, delegates debated a complicated compromise. A study committee proposed keeping the passage but putting it in brackets, accompanied by a footnote explaining members are not required to recognize it.

The aim is to preserve the integrity of a historic text but also "function as a warning" against any idolatrous teachings that deny Christ's final sacrifice.

Advocates said the catechism got the Catholic Mass wrong in the midst of the Reformation's theology war. The CRC consulted with Catholic bishops and their findings were reviewed by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by the future Pope Benedict XVI.

"It demonstrates the maturing of the Christian Reformed Church to the point where we can look at our own mistakes of the past and own up to them," said the Rev. Lyle Bierma, a Calvin Theological Seminary professor who chaired the committee.

The condemnation muddies good working relationships with Catholics and is unlike any other catechism passage, said the Rev. Harry Winters Jr. of Akron, Ohio.

"It's the only one that instead of expressing what we believe, turns on someone else, expresses what they believe and condemns it," Winters said.

Bishop Walter Hurley, leader of West Michigan's 163,000 Catholics, gave the Synod high marks for tackling "a complex issue rooted in historically conditioned documents."

"I respect whatever decision they make," Hurley said. "It's something I find encouraging and that can only bring us closer together."

But delegates got tangled in the wording of a proposed footnote longer than the passage itself. Some argued to keep the condemnation as is, saying the Catholic Eucharist denies that Christ's crucifixion paid for humanity's sins once and for all.

"If the Roman Catholic Church conforms to that, glory be to God," said the Rev. James den Dulk of Sparta. "But don't change the Heidelberg Catechism until that time."

Frustrated by several split votes, delegates sent the issue back to committee for fine tuning. The matter likely will be taken up again today.

Well that is at least progress, but I would suggest that Rev. James den Dulk simply pick up a Catechism to find what the Church teaches on the subject so that he can affirm his "Glory be to God."

The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. 184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. 185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out." 186

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." 187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." 188

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit. 189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

Today being the memorial of St. Catherine of Siena I was reflecting on the fact that she is the only lay Doctor of the Church. Hurray one for our side. Many people don't realize that St. Catherine was a lay person since she always shown wearing a Dominican habit. She was in fact a Third Order Dominican and it was common in that time that those who were part of a third order could wear the habit of that order. I remember when I first heard that I thought how cool it would be to be able to do that today. After 20 years in the military wearing a uniform and never having to worry about what to wear to work that since I was part of the Secular Discalced Carmelites that wearing the Carmelite habit would be really POD. I can see why they have changed this since it would certainly be abused, misunderstood, and easily leading to the spiritual pride of the wearer. Though the regulations in many third orders allow their members to be buried in the habit of their orders.

Also thinking about the story of St. Catherine of Siena it made me think about how things just never change. Lay people and women just don't have any power in the Church and certainly wouldn't be listened to the the Pope or world leaders or be the instrument of reform in the Church. Oh wait I think I got that all backwards.

Update: Jean At Catholic Fire has a great post on Catherine.

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. Phil McCord wasn't looking for a miracle.

For one thing, he wasn't much of a praying man. Not like his Baptist preacher father or the Catholic nuns he saw every day as he managed the buildings for the Sisters of Providence of St. Mary-of-the-Woods near here.

But McCord's fear of a surgeon's knife cutting away the cornea of his impaired right eye led him to God, and to what some believe was a miraculous healing.

McCord's story began in 2001, as he made his way down a long hallway adjacent to the sisters' Church of the Immaculate Conception. He'd been pulled along the path by the melodic sounds of a pipe organ echoing through the church.

He stepped into the ornate sanctuary and settled into a pew. High above his head, McCord could see a nearly century-old fresco of Christ ascending into heaven. On another fresco above the altar, angels were visiting the Virgin Mary. Bathed in the sounds of the organ and the images of icons, McCord decided to ask God to help him overcome his fear with a silent prayer." I try to do things for myself," he said. "But that's not going to happen this time. I'm not going to be able to do this. Can you help me deal with this problem? Can you give me some strength?" McCord felt ashamed of what had humbled him.

But since his recent cataract removal, his right eye had swollen dramatically. His vision was reduced to formless shadows and globs of light. Doctors told him he needed a cornea transplant. But the thought of having his cornea cut out and a cadaver's put in its place made him queasy.He was looking for help -- wherever he could find it.

You there, Blessed Mother? For some reason, McCord thought of the Blessed Mother Theodore Guerin, the little Frenchwoman who had founded the congregation of sisters there 160 years earlier. She didn't have her own fresco, but her spiritual heirs worshipped here every day. McCord wondered whether she might be looking in, and whether she could put in a good word for him with the "big guy." This is your house, Mother Theodore," he prayed, silently, "and I am your servant."

The rest of the article is well worth reading. It give some more details on Blessed Mother Theodore Guerin and the events surrounding the first miracle and the investigation surround McCord's restoration of vision.

Via a nice looking new blog called Benedictus Deus is this snippet from Pope Benedict on marriage.

To renew man, the Lord — alluding to these prophetic voices which always guided Israel towards the clarity of monogamy — recognized with Ezekiel that, to live this vocation, we need a new heart; instead of a heart of stone — as Ezekiel said — we need a heart of flesh, a heart that is truly human.

And the Lord “implants” this new heart in us at baptism, through faith. It is not a physical transplant, but perhaps we can make this comparison. After a transplant, the organism needs treatment, requires the necessary medicines to be able to live with the new heart, so that it becomes “one’s own heart” and not the “heart of another.”

This is especially so in this “spiritual transplant” when the Lord implants within us a new heart, a heart open to the Creator, to God’s call. To be able to live with this new heart, adequate treatment is necessary; one must have recourse to the appropriate medicines so that it can really become “our heart.”

Thus, by living in communion with Christ, with his Church, the new heart truly becomes “our own heart” and makes marriage possible. The exclusive love between a man and a woman, their life as a couple planned by the Creator, becomes possible, even if the atmosphere of our world makes it difficult to the point that it appears impossible.

The Lord gives us a new heart and we must live with this new heart, using the appropriate therapies to ensure that it is really “our own.” In this way we live with all that the Creator has given us and this creates a truly happy life.

As this blogger said "Isn’t this Pope fantastic?" I love this transplant analogy and I think it can be extended. In the realm of organ transplants often immune-suppressant drugs are given since the body is attempting to reject what it sees as foreign material. You can see the same thing happening in the parable of the sower and the seeds where some also end up rejecting what should be life-giving to them. Accepting the sacred heart of Christ to replace are stony hearts the same thing happens. Leading a life of holiness and humility can be fought by our ingrained habits and our thought processes that have not yet adapted. Our materialistic antibodies can kick in to try to deter us from turning towards God as we cling to our sinful habits and faults which we are loathe to give up. It is only through sheer grace that we can accept this new heart. Transplant patients often have to use these immune-suppressant drugs for their whole lifetime. We too must do the same thing when it comes to grace - the grace of final perseverance.

This analogy I believe goes well with my Divine Physician parody.

Here is part of a nice interview with theologian Sister Marcellina Farina a member of the Pontifical Theological Academy and of the Interdisciplinary Mariological Association.

Q: John Paul II spoke of the "feminine genius." Do you think that Benedict XVI will surprise us with some gesture toward women?

Sister Farina: Benedict XVI follows in John Paul II's footsteps with his own style, made of noble delicacy and clear testimony.

With his first encyclical letter, "Deus Caritas Est," he lets us perceive his profound proximity to the contemporary world and, therefore, to women; he also indicates the path he is taking and which he wishes to propose not just to the Church but to all people of good will.

When one receives God's charity with simplicity and radicalism, the world is transformed; it is reborn as a new spring. Each creature, especially the human creature made in God's image, reflects the luminosity of God, hence, his beauty.

Over this year of pontificate, Benedict XVI has given us a rich doctrinal patrimony in the anthropological ambit. Suffice it to think of the audiences, addresses and messages proposed to the pontifical academies, and of meetings with people of different institutions, believers and nonbelievers.

He has a sober style, made of audacity and evangelical ardor, humility and courage, generous dedication and simplicity. I do not think he will make "astounding" gestures in the phenomenological sense. The wonder he arouses in those who meet and hear him springs from his kind and profound closeness.

Thomas at American Papist has been doing yeoman's work in covering the condom debate. With the swirl of patently false stories making their way around it is good to see a good roundup on this subject.

Via Domenico Bettinelli I found this new blog by James Stroud called Contemplation of Moral Theology which is an excellent addition to St. Blogs. In a current post HIV and Condoms or the Lesser Evil Defense James discussing the lesser evil defense and specifically addresses the issue of a married couple with HIV which has garnered much commenting on one of my previous posts.

Who would have thought that a Bruce Springsteen song could be used to explain papal teachings?

Author and lecturer Christopher West did just that, singing, “Everybody’s got a hungry heart,” to introduce his presentation on “God, Sex and the Meaning of Life: An Introduction to Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.”

West’s presentation was part of the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s annual Adult Lecture Series on April 5, and it drew a packed house of more than 500 to St. Paul Seminary.

The crowd was diverse and multigenerational, with students scribbling notes, grandparents smiling as infants babbled in the arms of their parents, and clergy being applauded for their example.

West is a noted expert on theology of the body, having authored three books, recorded numerous presentations and delivered live presentations in more than 150 cities on four continents.

West explained that theology of the body refers to a collection of 129 talks delivered by Pope John Paul II between 1979 and 1984. Its application is universal, West noted. “If you’ve got a body, this theology applies to you!”

Although the phrase “theology of the body” seems to be self-contradictory (theology being a study of the spiritual and the body being earthly), West explained that when seen in the light of Christianity, its purpose becomes clear. Much of Christianity is making visible of the invisible, and the central tenet of Christianity is that God made himself visible in the person of Jesus Christ. “The theology of the body gets us in touch with the ‘Word made flesh,’” West said.

He explained that the human body was created by God to “make visible the reality hidden in God from eternity”: that God himself in the Trinity is an eternal exchange of love, and he has destined us to share in it. The marital embrace itself is a glimpse of God’s free, total, faithful, life-giving love.

West said our “hungry hearts,” our natural human longing for life, is actually a manifestation of our longing for God. “God’s love is what those ‘housewives’ are really ‘desperate’ for,” West noted, also quoting G.K. Chesterton, who wrote, “Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is actually looking for God.”

Amazing what happens whey you actually teach the faith and the deep beauty of it instead of crap like the musical erotica.

From the Pope's Wednesday audience as translated by ZENIT.

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

In the new series of catecheses, which we began a few weeks ago, we wish to consider the origins of the Church to understand Jesus' original plan and in this way understand what is essential in the Church, which endures with the passing of time. We also want to understand the reason for our being in the Church and how we must commit ourselves to live it at the beginning of a new Christian millennium.

Reflecting on the early Church, we can discover two aspects: The first aspect is forcefully underlined by St, Irenaeus of Lyon, martyr and great theologian of the end of the second century, the first to leave us, in a certain sense, a systematic theology.

St. Irenaeus writes: "Where the Church is, there also is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace, as the Spirit is truth" ("Adversus Haereses," III, 24, 1: PG 7, 966). Therefore, there is a profound relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Church. The Holy Spirit edifies the Church and gives it truth and, as St. Paul says, infuses love in the hearts of believers (cf. Romans 5:5).

But, in addition, there is a second aspect. This profound relationship with the Spirit does not eliminate our humanity, with all its weakness and, in this way, the community of disciples experienced from the beginning not only the joy of the Holy Spirit, the grace of truth and love, but also trial, made up above all by the contrast between the truths of faith and the resulting lacerations of communion.

Just as a communion of love has existed from the beginning and will exist until the end (cf. 1 John 1:1ff), so, sadly, from the beginning division has also erupted. We must not be surprised by the fact that it exists also today: "They went out from us," says the First Letter of John, "but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us" (2:19).

Therefore, the danger always exists, in the vicissitudes of the world and also in the weaknesses of the Church, of losing the faith and thus, of also losing love and fraternity. Therefore, it is a specific duty of those who believe in the Church of love and want to live in her, to recognize this danger also and to accept that communion is not possible with those who do not abide in the doctrine of salvation (cf. 2 John 9-11).

That the early Church was clearly aware of these possible tensions in the living of communion is shown very well in the First Letter of John. There is no other voice in the New Testament that is raised so forcefully to underline the reality of the duty of fraternal love among Christians, but that same voice addresses with drastic severity adversaries, who have been members of the community but no longer are.

The Church of love is also the Church of truth, understood above all as fidelity to the Gospel entrusted by the Lord Jesus to his own. Christian fraternity is born from the fact of being children of the same Father by the Spirit of truth: "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" (Romans 8:14). But, to live in unity and peace, the family of the children of God needs someone who will keep them in the truth and guide them with wise and authoritative discernment: This is what the ministry of the apostles is called to do.

And here we come to an important point. The Church is totally of the Spirit, but it has a structure, the apostolic succession, which has the responsibility to guarantee the Church's permanence in the truth given by Christ, from which the capacity to love also proceeds. The first summary of the Acts of the Apostles expresses with great effectiveness the convergence of these values in the life of the early Church: "They devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching and fellowship ('koinonia'), to the breaking of bread and the prayers" (Acts 2:42).

Communion is born from faith aroused by the apostolic preaching, it is nourished from the breaking of bread and prayer, and is expressed in fraternal charity and service. We are before the description of the communion of the early Church in the richness of her internal dynamisms and her visible expressions: The gift of communion is kept and promoted in particular by the apostolic ministry, which in turn is a gift for the whole community.

The apostles and their successors therefore are custodians and authoritative witnesses of the deposit of faith given to the Church, and they are also the ministers of charity: two aspects that go together. They must always think of the inseparable character of this double service, which in fact is the same: truth and charity, revealed and given by the Lord Jesus. In this connection, they carry out above all a service of love: the charity they must live and promote cannot be separated from the truth they keep and transmit.

Truth and love are two sides of the same gift, which proceeds from God and which, thanks to the apostolic ministry, is kept in the Church and comes to us in our present [time]! Through the service of the apostles and their successors we also receive the love of the Triune God to communicate the truth that makes us free (cf. John 8, 32)! All this which we see in the early Church leads us to pray for the successors of the apostles, for all bishops, and for the Successors of Peter so that they will really be custodians of truth and at the same time of charity, so that they will really be apostles of Christ, so that their light, the light of truth and charity will never be extinguished in the Church and the world.

From Archbishop Chaput:

God remakes the world with our deeds, not our intentions. What distinguishes real faith from surface piety is whether we actually do what we say we believe.

Our mission as disciples is not simply to pass along good morals to our children, or convey a sense of God’s hand in the world. These things are vital, of course, but they don’t exhaust our vocation. Our mission is to bring the world to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ to the world. Each of us is a missionary, and our primary work is the conversion of our own hearts and the hearts of others so that someday the whole world will acknowledge Jesus Christ as humanity’s only savior and Lord.

That’s a big task. We can’t do it by just “dialoguing” about it, any more than Christ could redeem us by writing an essay on sin. The Gospels have power because they tell the story of what God did; what his only son did; and what Christ’s followers did. The Passion accounts of Christ’s suffering and death move us so deeply because they show in bitter detail how unashamedly God loves us.

This is the hot spark at the heart of every other sincere attempt to tell the Passion story. God spared not even his own Son in saving us. No wonder the cross draws the eye of great artists again and again down through the centuries. The blood of the cross reminds us that — at least on one day in history — love had no limits. And since then, everything has been different.

God built the Church we’ve inherited through the love of generations of believers. Their witness made our faith possible. It’s now our turn to shape the future by the zeal we bring to our own daily witness. It’s our turn to act. It’s our turn to live our Catholic faith with all the courage and strength Christ brought to loving the Church he founded.

...The Church depends on God who will always protect her. But she also depends on us to carry Christ’s mission into the world. Words are cheap. Actions matter. It’s time to live our Catholic faith as the apostles did — and through it, to reshape the world.

I just have to relate something that happened in Mass today. While at Mass during the consecration something absolutely amazing happened. In fact it was I dare say miraculous. I witnessed the bread and wine transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. In fact another miraculous event also occurred. Even though through transubstantiation what was bread and wine had an actual change of substance the accidents remained - amazing! Two miracles for the price of one. Now I am not trying to pass myself off as special or other than another sinner striving for holiness, but this is not the first time I witnessed this miraculous event. In fact my timing has been perfect in that whether I go to weekday or Sunday Mass or whether I go to one parish or another exactly the same thing happens each time during the consecration! That each and every time through the eyes of faith I witness the same supernatural event. Scoff if you want, but I swear that it is all true.

Seriously though what I wrote above is trying to make a point about what we all can take for granted. That some will chase off towards any rumor of the latest apparition while at the same time the miraculous is constantly happening in our neighborhoods and cities everyday. I was thinking of this fact because I noticed a little heavier attendance at Mass today than normal. Today being the feast day of St. Blaise I am sure many were there to get the blessing of the throat. Not to diminish the effects of sacramental such as blessed candles, but it should be the Eucharist in and of itself that should draw us to Mass. I guess St. Blaise's feast is similar in a smaller way to Ash Wednesday where if the Church uses a sacramental Catholics seem to find time to suddenly go to Mass. The great thing about the Catholic Church is that it is like a late night infomerical. Yes you get Redemption, forgiveness of sins, and the Eucharist. But wait there is more! Much more! Sacraments, sacramentals, indulgences, devotions, etc. We're the sacramental superstore where God uses all he can to bring us to him.

On a side note ironically our priest celebrating the Mass today had a slight case of laryngitis and asked the pastor to bless his throat first. Though if Fr. Keene ever found out I used his picture in my Liturgy for Ignoramuses post I would probably really need a healing of the throat also.

I was daydreaming this morning about one day writing a book about the East-West Schism. Unoriginal and straightforward enough, right? Well, actually, rather than analyzing the typical factors -- theological methodology, cultural pressures, diplomatic gaffes, crusades, excommunications, heresies and the like -- I wanted to make it a love story, of sorts. Since Christianity is fundamentally a marriage – between Heaven and Earth, between the Sheep and the Shepherd, between the Holy and the Forgiven, between all peoples and the Three Persons at one Table – we must view the Church too as a marital saga. A long, long time ago, the East and the West lived as one married couple. They exchanged theological and financial goods, gave birth to children, learned from each other – and also often wounded each other. At some point, the estrangement grew to be too much, and the couple separated. Yet, mysteriously, they could never be divorced, for God had joined them around that one marital Feast, for better or for worse.

Read Elliot Bougis whole post and I especially loved the ending of the post. Earlier this week he also wrote something else profound.

Love is preemptive forgiveness; it is a predetermined benevolence that outlasts the fickleness of sin. Forgiveness is resurrected love; neither it nor the Resurrection is merely "resuscitated" benevolence, but is a glorified, transfigured and life-encompassing renewal of communion.

Kathy Pluth the writer of a new booklet of hymns wrote to me to promote her little booklet of hymns. Judging by the following sample I am very impressed by her style and find this hymn for the Eucharist not only theologically deep, but beautiful as well.

How Light the Bread of Angels
Kathleen Pluth

1. How light the bread of angels upon the human tongue!
This precious weight of glory that binds the Church in one!
The flesh with all its passions could never match the bliss
Of mind and heart and memory caught up in heaven's kiss.

2. How blessèd is this banquet, Christ's sweet and costly meal.
The love within the Godhead mysteriously revealed:
When God the Son gives glory to God the Father high,
As God the Holy Spirit effects the sacrifice.

3. Forth from His wounded body, the water and the blood,
The glad'ning stream of heaven swells to a mighty flood.
It winds throughout the ages and flows into the hearts
Of saints He makes from sinners with skillful healing arts.

4. This food, so light, refreshing, shall speed our pilgrim way,
Until that happy morning when dawn turns into day.
Upon the holy mountain, within God's holy hall,
The Father and the Spirit, and Christ, our all in all.

© 2005 CanticaNOVA Publications

This sample can be used free of charge if the authors name and copyright notice are attached and you can go to their site to see the music that goes with the meter of the hymn.

There is an interesting comment thread over at Mark Shea's blog in response to his question:

What (or who) is it you enjoy about being Catholic?

I find it hard to pin down, because there's so much I enjoy. I like the humanness of the place. I like belonging to a communion of slobs like me (a big relief when you are coming from a tradition whose emphasis on holiness takes on a sort of quasi-Darwinian quality).

I like the balance. I like the breadth. I like the Dickensian love of *characters* that the Church has. The Church has a soft spot for kooks. I like the ability the Church has to love Nature without worshipping it. I love the coolness of the Blessed Sacrament sanctuary on a hot day. I love the warmth of the sanctuary on a cold night in winter. I love being able to take my sins to confession and then forget about them. I love meals in common with our friends. I love that sex is a sacrament. I love that eating is a sacrament. I loved the sound of my friend's voice the morning he made his first confession and I asked him how it went: "I feel.... clean!" he said. I love being able to pray for my Dad, who has been dead for 20 years. I love that Chaucer was Catholic. I love being able to say that the smell of salt air on Puget Sound is what the freedom of the Spirit is like, and knowing that there is a real sacramental connection there and not simply a subjective projection on the idiotic face of matter.

I commented that amazement that something both wonderful and true would have me as a member. Unlike Groucho who quipped he would not join a club that would