Fed up with irreverence

[goofyjim]

It is about the prayers of either liturgy. It is not about you (or me). Thus no one is judging your heart (nor should they be).

I find great reverence in the prayers of the NO. I pray it never leaves us.

 

[JReducation]

I can’t include all of Coyote Kate’s post (99) in this one, because it’s long and I don’t want to do a disservice by editing it.

If this post reflects your entire life, you are on the same page with many holy men and women. You have not only effectively separated the sin from the sinner, but you have also made a very fair assessment of the so called sinner, using the information at hand, for we cannot see inside men’s hearts.

It is very true that many times people do or say things in the belief that they are making the best choice or being compassionate and it doesn’t always work that way. The good thing is that the Lord does factor these good intentions in his judgment of the individual. That takes care of the individual, but it leaves the error still to be corrected.

I am reminded of the good thief who hung next to Jesus. While it is true that Jesus canonized him before he died, that did not change the deed. The person who had been robbed or burglarized still suffered the effects of the sin. It’s interesting to wonder how this part was taken care of and we could go all over the place and speculate, but that’s not the purpose of this thread.

In our case, we do have to repair the damage that was done in the name of Vatican II. I say this deliberately, because it was not Vatican II that did the damage. We did the damage. We misinterpreted some things and other things said by Vatican II were given meanings that they did not have. Sometimes the mal-applications were honest mistakes and other times they were opportunistic wrongs.

I remember when our community was going through Perfectae Caritatis. We got some very good guidance from it. We went back to study the Rule of St. Francis, his writings, his teachings, the great Franciscan thinkers and leaders and we found that we had deviated from the original spirit. We had turned a family of Friars, Nuns and Secular men and women into an order of priests where no one else had a role in its governance or in its ministry. Everyone was subservient to the ordained members of the order, contrary to the spirit of Brotherhood that Francis taught and espoused, contrary to the relationship that existed between Francis, Clare the Secular Brothers and Sisters of Penance. We had deviated so far that if Francis had come back he would not have been able to govern his own community, because he was not ordained.

We also made mistakes in our attempt to recover our roots. We took the Rule and Life of the Secular Franciscans and turned it into a “something” that called secular Franciscans to be good Catholics, DUH!!! St. Francis founded an Order of Penance, with a life of prayer and penance, a liturgical life, a community life and a life of detachment from material things and attachment to the Gospel. But our leadership was wise and humble enough to place the blame where it belonged, us. It was not the Council’s fault. We had veered away from the original spirit of St. Francis. The Council called us to recover it. We had swung the pendulum the other way a little too far. That’s not what the Council called us to do. Now we’re in a process of stabilization. We are doing what Perfectae Caritatis called us to do, to revisit St. Francis without throwing out the holiness and replacing it with our definition of holiness. It’s bearing much fruit. The Franciscan family is growing by the thousands around the world. The slowest growth is in the USA.

I share this, because I believe it ties in with Coyote’s post. We have made mistakes in the implementation of Vatican II. Were the mistakes meant to harm the Church or individuals? No. Did they? Yes.

The good news is that every Council in the history of the Church has left a dust storm that took years to clear up. We can’t fool ourselves into believing that at the end of every previous Council everyone shook hands and left with a big smile on their face. NOOOOOOOOOOT!!! Recovery and implementation took time and charity on the part of all. Coyote’s post is an example of the charity that is needed for a healthy and holy recovery.

Let’s roll up our sleeves and do what needs to be done, but with the love that it requires and kindness instead of anger.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[eelpis]

I’m fed up with being told I am not reverent simply because I prefer the NO. STOP judging the heart. Revernece can be found in both the EF and the NO. It is not an exclusively owned thing by either proponents.

Dear goofyjim, if you had read my post you would have seen that I stated that I know alot of priests who celebrate the NO reverently. I’m not saying anything negative about the NO just abuses. I don’t judge anyones heart, I cannot, no one can except God.

 

[Binx]

liturgy in any form must be celebrate with propriety.

This was exactly what he [St. Francis] taught his friars. The channels through which grace is distributed comes from the liturgy itself. This [St. Fancis’s focus on the Real Presence] was not an endorsement for irreverant celebration of the liturgy.

Right. So we can assume that St. Francis and St. Alphonsus would have no disagreement here.

So you can get an insight into his theology of the liturgy here is something that you can find in his writings.

“If I met an angel and the most sinful priest in the world. I would reverence the priest first and foremost. For only through him do we have the presence of Christ in a visible form in this world.”

He is not promoting sin or disrespect for the liturgy. He is teaching his friars that the sinfulness of the priest or other surrounding the liturgy does not take away from the most solemn grace of all, that which comes from the real presence. His focus was on his reverence toward the Eucharist, not the priest’s.

Well and good. He advises that we control, to the best of our ability, what we can. But this is no defense for an irreverent priest or an irreverent mass, whether that irreverence springs from rubrical abuse or from intrinsic inferiority. In fact, I think we can safely assume that St. Francis would commend any liturgy that helped by its very nature the faithful to focus more fully on the Eucharist. Likewise, he would look askance at any liturgy that did not, through its prayers and rubrics, vigilantly protect the Holy Eucharist from novelty, frivolity, innovation, etc…

In fact, if examine his life, there were some unsavory clerics who were Brothers in his order. One of them was his successor, Brother Elias. Francis obeyed him in all things and continued to allow him to celebrate the liturgy. History doesn’t give us many details of how Elias celebrated liturgy. But it gives us many details of his character, which was definitely morally lacking. But Francis bowed to his authority as superior general and to participated in Brother Elias celebration of the liturgy, because for him, the real presence of Christ and the communion with Christ and the proclamation of the Gospel in the liturgy were separate from Brother Elias’ sinfulness.

Yes. The sinfulness of the priest is quite a separate issue from the impermeability of the liturgical form. In fact, the existence of sinful priests is quite a good argument for the need of a sturdy rite, one that is not much subject to what that sinful priest might try to do with it.

no one denies that beauty and reverence must surround the liturgy in any form.

Good. And the form itself should do everything possible within its nature to support that sentiment.

for the Franciscans the real presence was the only thing that really mattered for the liturgy to be fully efficatious. For the Redemptorists, they bring an added dimension which was the idea of a high and low liturgy, which the Franciscans never had and to do not have. Francis never allowed it. The Church accepts that these are two different spiritual paths that lead to the same place and do so very efficaciously.

Neither would debate what is necessary for the Mass to be efficacious. Low mass is, by its nature, less ornamental than high mass. But no traditionalist doubts the efficacy of low mass. When moving from high mass to low mass, there is no loss of prayers, of implicit orthodox teaching, or of rubrical rigor. There is the loss of chant, but that is merely the channel through which the liturgical prayers are delivered. The prayers themselves are unaltered.

today we would say that the differences between the extraordinary form (not TLM0 and the ordinary form (not NO) are radically different. But in the 1200s people felt that the intrdocution of the Gregorian mass by the Franciscans was a radical change. There were several things that were very radical to the people of that time.

1. The Francis moved the tabernacle to the main altar. Previously it had been on a side altar
2. The Francis consoladates these different texts that Innocent III had given him into one missal, which was later adapted and restructured for universal use. The missal that Francis organzied was not the missal in use.
3. He introduced music in the language of the people and reduced and almost eliminated all Gregorian chant from the liturgy.
4. He also introduced the sermon in the language of the people, instead of Latin.
5. He introduces the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours in front of the Blessed Sacrament, instead of in choir, which has been the tradition for over a thousand years.
6. He takes out the Gregorian chant out of the Liturgy of the Hours and insists that it must be recited and not chanted. Which is still in practice to this day.
7. At that time the Liturgy of the Hours was an important part of the liturgical life of the Church and it was usually precided by a priest. Francis presides over the Liturgy of the Hours, with the faithful. He is a Brother and other non ordained brothers did too.
8. He introduced drama into the liturgy, such as the live nativity and the living stations of the cross, which we saw at World Youth Day. The live nativity was acted out during the reading of the Gospel at Christmas mass. This had never been done.
9. He wrote several liturgical hymns in Italian, which had never been done and some survive to this day: “All Creatures of Our God and King”, “Canticle of Brother Sun” written on his death bed, and “Queen of Heaven Rejoice”
10. He eliminates all distinctions between the friars who are ordained and those who have other ministries. Before the age of concelebration, one of the ordainend friars celebrated mass and the other friars ordained or other, attended mass with the congregation. The only day that the ordained friars celebrated mass was on Sundays. For weekdays, only one friar celebrated mass and the entire community attended.
11. He never had a high or low mass in the strict sense as the extraordinary form has it today. There were solemnities which were exactly that, very solemn, such as Christmas and Easter. After his death, his feast day was added to the Franciscan calendar of solemnities. On these days the mass was much more solemn and sitll is, even in the ordinary form. Maybe it can be said that this was their form of a high mass, though the term has never been used among the friars.

I would say that in the 1200s these differences must have been as remarkable to the Church as the extraordinary form and the ordinary form are to us today.

I suspect this would be a difficult argument to make. Perhaps a different question would illustrate better the sudden, profound, and inorganic changes in the modern church: To which mass does the present Extraordinary Form bear a closer resemblance: the Ordinary Form or any typical Fransiscan mass offered in the 1200s?

I’m not sure if I undestood all of your questions correctly. But I have tried to answer them as I understood them.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond. And I hope this present post helps to clarify the discussion.

Best regards.

 

[JReducation]

Right. So we can assume that St. Francis and St. Alphonsus would have no disagreement here.

Most probably they would have very little disagreement on anything regarding the liturgy, as St. Alphonsus had great devotion to St. Francis. St. Francis had a great respect for theologians. He called them “My bishops” (nothing to do with actual order of bishop).

Well and good. He advises that we control, to the best of our ability, what we can. But this is no defense for an irreverent priest or an irreverent mass, whether that irreverence springs from rubrical abuse or from intrinsic inferiority.

Our holy father did not justify irreverence in any form. However, he was surrounded by a very irreverant and inept secular clergy in his time. He always reminded his friars to venerate them, because of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and they were ordered never to say a word against them.

There were also very arrogant priests and powerful bishops in his time who abused their office. He ordered his friars, nuns and seculars to venerate them too in silence. His advice was that one should never do what was sinful, but one should never depart from a sinful priest, bishop or religious superior. To make oneself subject to them was the same thing that Jesus had done. He had subjected himself to Pilate, despite Pilate’s sinfulness. Thus he restored all things to the Father. This was an opportunity to embrace the crucified Lord Jesus Christ.

In fact, I think we can safely assume that St. Francis would commend any liturgy that helped by its very nature the faithful to focus more fully on the Eucharist. Likewise, he would look askance at any liturgy that did not, through its prayers and rubrics, vigilantly protect the Holy Eucharist from novelty, frivolity, innovation, etc…

The subscript is mine. Franciscan theology and as well as the tradition of the Order does not allow to look askance at any celebration of the Eucharist no matter how poorly celebrated it is. The primary focus in Franciscan theology is the incarnate Christ on the altar. If the priest celebrating the liturgy is a Brother, he is subject to the discipline of his superior. If he is not, the friars are to pray for him and leave judgment to his superior or bishop. However, they are never allowed to “look askance” at the liturgy itself. According to the Holy Rule this would be a sin of pride on the part of the friar.

Yes. The sinfulness of the priest is quite a separate issue from the impermeability of the liturgical form. In fact, the existence of sinful priests is quite a good argument for the need of a sturdy rite, one that is not much subject to what that sinful priest might try to do with it.

This is another perspective, which has validity. But it was never the intention of St. Francis or that of his spiritual family. This has always been a matter left to Bishops or Major Religious Superiors. The most profound concern of the Franciscan family has always been Holy Poverty and to correct all abuses against poverty in the Church and the secular world. This is coming up again in the new Franciscan communities such as: Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, the Franciscans of the Renewal, the Little Brothers of St. Francis or the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word.

This is not to say that license is given to violate the rules of the Church regarding liturgy. It simply means that this area of ministry is not the area that Franciscans take on to repair. They take on poverty as the most important area of the spiritual life.

And the form itself should do everything possible within its nature to support that sentiment.

This would be agreable to any of the five religious orders in the Church and the several thousand religious congregations.

Neither would debate what is necessary for the Mass to be efficacious. Low mass is, by its nature, less ornamental than high mass. But no traditionalist doubts the efficacy of low mass. When moving from high mass to low mass, there is no loss of prayers, of implicit orthodox teaching, or of rubrical rigor. There is the loss of chant, but that is merely the channel through which the liturgical prayers are delivered. The prayers themselves are unaltered.

Right.

I suspect this would be a difficult argument to make. Perhaps a different question would illustrate better the sudden, profound, and inorganic changes in the modern church: To which mass does the present Extraordinary Form bear a closer resemblance: the Ordinary Form or any typical Fransiscan mass offered in the 1200s?

Subscript is mine. Considering that the form that St. Pius V promulgated was an adaptation of the liturgy celebrated by the Friars Minor the answer is obvious.

But the point was that the “Gregorian form” used by the Friars in the 1200s was actually a collection of books that Innocent III had shelved and not in use by the Church at the time. Francis had the missal created out of these documents. He took a great deal of criticism in his day for introducing what the secular clergy believed to be something new and for what they thought was his arrogance as he was a lay man, never a cleric.

The situation is similar toay with the ordinary form. Francis resurrected an ancient form of the liturgy which St. Pius later organized. The post Vatican II Church resurrected an ancient form of the liturgy in an attempt to recover the primative celebration of the Eucharist and that has cuased problems.

To be fair and honest, one must admit that the problems are different. Nonetheless, they have to be recognized and corrected. They can be corrected without aboloshing the ordinary form as was done to the “Gregorian form” that had been relegated to the library of Innocent III.

I use quotations around the term “Gregorian” because it was not called that until much later. I have no idea what Innocent knew about this form of the liturgy. But we suspect that Francis knew very little of its history, judging from his writings. He says little about it. Mass is only mentioned once in his rule. The focus is poverty and prayer which have 12 chapters dedicated to them.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[PrayforMallory]

Agreed. Where are any of us on the ol’ totem pole, to be passing judgement on our clergy?

What’s true is true. Judging the interior state of clergy (or anyone else) is not anyone’s prerogative.

Practices, ideas, movements, etc., are always up for reevaluation though. Otherwise, we’d be stuck where we are, and there would be no growth!

 

[JReducation]

What’s true is true. Judging the interior state of clergy (or anyone else) is not anyone’s prerogative.

Practices, ideas, movements, etc., are always up for reevaluation though. Otherwise, we’d be stuck where we are, and there would be no growth!

Let us always remember the words of St. Edith Stein (Teresa Benedicta).

“Truth spoken without charity and kindness is not truth. Charity and kindness delivered without Truth is not charity.”

JR

 

[Binx]

Let us always remember the words of St. Edith Stein (Teresa Benedicta).

“Truth spoken without charity and kindness is not truth. Charity and kindness delivered without Truth is not charity.”

Are these her exact words? If they are, and without the benefit of full context, I must respectfully disagree, at least in part, with the good saint. Truth without charity is still truth. The reason is that truth exists objectively, apart from the dispositions of those who speak it. Now it is right that we OUGHT to speak the truth with charity, but that is a rhetorical issue: i.e. real charity allows for truth to be well-received. But if by chance a true thing is said without charity, the true thing itself has not been altered by this travesty. To argue otherwise is pure subjectivism (as in, a thing is true or not depending on the intentions of the individual making the statement).

By contrast, the second sentence of the quotation–that charity without truth is not charity–is absolutely accurate. This is because charity exists by way of act and is therefore tied to the individual performing such action (as opposed to truth, which exists apart from the individual). To give someone a truth is by its nature a charitable act because the recipient now has access to an intrinsic good: the truth given. Correspondingly, to give someone an untruth is by its nature an objectively uncharitable act–no matter how extraordinarily nice the giver is in the giving–because the thing given is in fact a nought, the absence of a good, a lie.

Therefore, whatever is true in liturgy is true regardless of the interior dispositions of the officiating priest. In essence, this has been JR’s (and others’) argument from the start. However, if we agree that what is true is best delivered charitably, then liturgy is best when charity is best protected. How is charity protected? Well, first by truth (as established above). Every and any untruth uttered during the Mass–coming from the lips of a priest especially–is flatly uncharitable by nature. Furthermore, any essential truth of the Faith omitted from liturgy is also uncharitable, as are important truths stated ambiguously.

But charity goes further than textual content, and this is where reverence has relevance as well. Because of the dignity and magnitude of the truths presented in the Mass, it is impossible to overestimate the need for reverence–both external and internal–in order to deliver those truths with consummate charity. Therefore, anything in the Mass that works against reverence (or even any failure simply to employ it as a matter of course) works also against charity and, by implication, against the reception of truth.

 

[JReducation]

Are these her exact words? If they are, and without the benefit of full context, I must respectfully disagree, at least in part, with the good saint. Truth without charity is still truth. The reason is that truth exists objectively, apart from the dispositions of those who speak it. Now it is right that we OUGHT to speak the truth with charity, but that is a rhetorical issue: i.e. real charity allows for truth to be well-received. But if by chance a true thing is said without charity, the true thing itself has not been altered by this travesty. To argue otherwise is pure subjectivism (as in, a thing is true or not depending on the intentions of the individual making the statement).

By contrast, the second sentence of the quotation–that charity without truth is not charity–is absolutely accurate. This is because charity exists by way of act and is therefore tied to the individual performing such action (as opposed to truth, which exists apart from the individual). To give someone a truth is by its nature a charitable act because the recipient now has access to an intrinsic good: the truth given. Correspondingly, to give someone an untruth is by its nature an objectively uncharitable act–no matter how extraordinarily nice the giver is in the giving–because the thing given is in fact a nought, the absence of a good, a lie.

Therefore, whatever is true in liturgy is true regardless of the interior dispositions of the officiating priest. In essence, this has been JR’s (and others’) argument from the start. However, if we agree that what is true is best delivered charitably, then liturgy is best when charity is best protected. How is charity protected? Well, first by truth (as established above). Every and any untruth uttered during the Mass–coming from the lips of a priest especially–is flatly uncharitable by nature. Furthermore, any essential truth of the Faith omitted from liturgy is also uncharitable, as are important truths stated ambiguously.

But charity goes further than textual content, and this is where reverence has relevance as well. Because of the dignity and magnitude of the truths presented in the Mass, it is impossible to overestimate the need for reverence–both external and internal–in order to deliver those truths with consummate charity. Therefore, anything in the Mass that works against reverence (or even any failure simply to employ it as a matter of course) works also against charity and, by implication, against the reception of truth.

I don’t think that this is the kind of truth that she’s talking about. Unfortunately, the quote is taken from her canonization. I don’t have the writing where it came from and it does not reference it. I couldn’t even check out the entire passage, if I wanted to. But I found it rather striking.

Go to the section “The Pope Speaks” and you’ll find it in the fourth paragraph. My wording is not exactly the same, but close enough.

Here’s the link.

fatherpius.littleway.ca/carm03.html

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Are these her exact words? If they are, and without the benefit of full context, I must respectfully disagree, at least in part, with the good saint. Truth without charity is still truth. The reason is that truth exists objectively, apart from the dispositions of those who speak it. Now it is right that we OUGHT to speak the truth with charity, but that is a rhetorical issue: i.e. real charity allows for truth to be well-received. But if by chance a true thing is said without charity, the true thing itself has not been altered by this travesty. To argue otherwise is pure subjectivism (as in, a thing is true or not depending on the intentions of the individual making the statement).

By contrast, the second sentence of the quotation–that charity without truth is not charity–is absolutely accurate. This is because charity exists by way of act and is therefore tied to the individual performing such action (as opposed to truth, which exists apart from the individual). To give someone a truth is by its nature a charitable act because the recipient now has access to an intrinsic good: the truth given. Correspondingly, to give someone an untruth is by its nature an objectively uncharitable act–no matter how extraordinarily nice the giver is in the giving–because the thing given is in fact a nought, the absence of a good, a lie.

Therefore, whatever is true in liturgy is true regardless of the interior dispositions of the officiating priest. In essence, this has been JR’s (and others’) argument from the start. However, if we agree that what is true is best delivered charitably, then liturgy is best when charity is best protected. How is charity protected? Well, first by truth (as established above). Every and any untruth uttered during the Mass–coming from the lips of a priest especially–is flatly uncharitable by nature. Furthermore, any essential truth of the Faith omitted from liturgy is also uncharitable, as are important truths stated ambiguously.

But charity goes further than textual content, and this is where reverence has relevance as well. Because of the dignity and magnitude of the truths presented in the Mass, it is impossible to overestimate the need for reverence–both external and internal–in order to deliver those truths with consummate charity. Therefore, anything in the Mass that works against reverence (or even any failure simply to employ it as a matter of course) works also against charity and, by implication, against the reception of truth.

Very good post, Binx. You make a lot of sense. Looking forward to reading more from you.

 

[Binx]

I don’t think that this is the kind of truth that she’s talking about. Unfortunately, the quote is taken from her canonization. I don’t have the writing where it came from and it does not reference it. I couldn’t even check out the entire passage, if I wanted to. But I found it rather striking.

Go to the section “The Pope Speaks” and you’ll find it in the fourth paragraph. My wording is not exactly the same, but close enough.

It is, I agree, rather striking.

Here is the original from the link you provided:

“Do not accept anything as the truth if it lacks love. And do not accept anything as love which lacks truth! One without the other becomes a destructive lie.”

What makes this quite different from your paraphrase is that the concept of “love” here is not attached to the person who is speaking a truth, but rather to the truth itself. “Love,” here is referring to the very nature of truth. In other words, she’s saying that if a thing is true (in the noblest sense of that word), it must by necessity be a thing of love as well. Likewise, any thing of love must by necessity also be true.

To put it another way, if a thing is untrue, there is no love in it; or if a thing lacks love, it cannot be true.

To apply her statement to the Mass, we would get something like this: Do not accept any mass as true if it lacks in charity (i.e. love of God in all its attributes). And do not accept any mass as charitable that lacks in truth. A mass lacking in either truth or charity becomes a destructive lie.

 

[ethelzguy]

Amazing, the lengths some people will go to, in order to justify criticizing the Church, it’s clergy, or the form of a Mass.

If we got rid of every priest and bishop that offended our sense of “right” within the Church, we wouldn’t have any left.

But that would be all right by some, because it’s more important to be “right” after all, isn’t it?

 

[Jeanette_L]

Are these her exact words? If they are, and without the benefit of full context, I must respectfully disagree, at least in part, with the good saint. Truth without charity is still truth. The reason is that truth exists objectively, apart from the dispositions of those who speak it. Now it is right that we OUGHT to speak the truth with charity, but that is a rhetorical issue: i.e. real charity allows for truth to be well-received. But if by chance a true thing is said without charity, the true thing itself has not been altered by this travesty. To argue otherwise is pure subjectivism (as in, a thing is true or not depending on the intentions of the individual making the statement).

Something about this doesn’t sit well with me, so bear with me please.

Charity is not a disposition, but a reality. It is in itself an objective truth. And truth without charity ceases to be true.

When we say God is Love, are we saying God is disposed toward Love, or are we saying God IS Love?

When we say Christ is the Truth, are we saying Christ is disposed toward Truth or are we saying Christ *IS *Truth?

Charity/Love is not a disposition. It is an objective reality. Truth is not a disposition, it is an objective reality. And the two cannot be separated or they both cease to exist. They are part of a whole.

Which is why the Holy Scripture says that if we say we love God but do not forgive one another, or in other words love our brother, we are liars. The Truth has been voided by the lack of Charity in some regard.

I’m certainly not a philosopher, but I just needed to express that thought.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Charity is not a disposition, but a reality. It is in itself an objective truth. And truth without charity ceases to be true.

This is sound reasoning. However, the real question is whether the person telling the truth has to do so charitably.

When we say God is Love, are we saying God is disposed toward Love, or are we saying God IS Love?

The latter.

When we say Christ is the Truth, are we saying Christ is disposed toward Truth or are we saying Christ *IS *Truth?

The latter.

Charity/Love is not a disposition. It is an objective reality. Truth is not a disposition, it is an objective reality. And the two cannot be separated or they both cease to exist. They are part of a whole.

However, a person can have a charitable disposition at a point in time (or not).

Which is why the Holy Scripture says that if we say we love God but do not forgive one another, or in other words love our brother, we are liars. The Truth has been voided by the lack of Charity in some regard.

You lose me at this stage of your reasoning. What you post is true, that a person must love his neighbor in order to truly love God. But, the real question being debated is whether a person needs to deliver truth in a charitable way for it to be truth.

In the example you quote from Scripture, the truth of a statement about charity has been “voided” due to lack of charity. On that we agree. But, the question here is whether I can tell you about another truth, but do so uncharitably, and still be telling the truth.

I’m certainly not a philosopher, but I just needed to express that thought.

I think you are making a good point, but not specifically addressing what Binx meant. If I may venture to guess, Binx’s point was that truth can be delivered harshly and still remain truth.

 

[eelpis]

Amazing, the lengths some people will go to, in order to justify criticizing the Church, it’s clergy, or the form of a Mass.

If we got rid of every priest and bishop that offended our sense of “right” within the Church, we wouldn’t have any left.

But that would be all right by some, because it’s more important to be “right” after all, isn’t it?

No it’s not, I am wrong most of the time but I still retain the dignity of an adopted son of God.
The thing is that we all have that dignity and that means we must listen to a respect eachother and most of all respect and obey the Supreme Magisterium. If we don’t we end up in chaos. Even the pope is not some autocrat, the pope is bound to serve the deposit of the faith.

 

[Binx]

Charity is not a disposition, but a reality.

Actually, it is both. One can certainly have a charitable disposition. And God’s charity is a perpetual reality. We can also say that charity is realized by act. In God, it is pure act (and never not a reality), whereas in us it is potentiality, sometimes in dormancy, sometimes in act.

It is in itself an objective truth. And truth without charity ceases to be true.

Right. See my post #110, which addresses this notion in light of St. Teresa Benedicta’s original quotation.

When we say God is Love, are we saying God is disposed toward Love, or are we saying God IS Love?

When we say Christ is the Truth, are we saying Christ is disposed toward Truth or are we saying Christ *IS *Truth?

In both cases, the latter answer is correct. But this is because it is God’s essence to exist, to BE. He is pure act, whereas we are largely in potentiality. Interestingly (and logically), according to Aquinas, potentiality has an inverse relationship to the stature of the creature. The Seraphim, for example, are mostly in act and have very little potentiality, whereas the Angels (those of the guardian choir) would be constituted more closely to human ratios in that regard.

Charity/Love is not a disposition. It is an objective reality. Truth is not a disposition, it is an objective reality. And the two cannot be separated or they both cease to exist. They are part of a whole.

The two cannot be separated in God, that’s true, as he is both attributes perpetually by his existence, and he is also by nature indivisible. Among humans, though, a person who lacks personally the disposition of charity can speak a truth which, by its own nature, carries intrinsic charity with it–because of (as you have noted) the inextricable origins of both in God.

Which is why the Holy Scripture says that if we say we love God but do not forgive one another, or in other words love our brother, we are liars. The Truth has been voided by the lack of Charity in some regard.

In this case, the lack of truth is simply in our claiming we love God. Love of God is true charity and manifests in love of neighbor. So if we are lacking in the latter, it is because we are lacking in the former, which contradicts our “claim.”

I’m certainly not a philosopher, but I just needed to express that thought.

It is a good thought to have expressed.

 

[Binx]

This is sound reasoning. However, the real question is whether the person telling the truth has to do so charitably.

The latter.

The latter.

However, a person can have a charitable disposition at a point in time (or not).

You lose me at this stage of your reasoning. What you post is true, that a person must love his neighbor in order to truly love God. But, the real question being debated is whether a person needs to deliver truth in a charitable way for it to be truth.

In the example you quote from Scripture, the truth of a statement about charity has been “voided” due to lack of charity. On that we agree. But, the question here is whether I can tell you about another truth, but do so uncharitably, and still be telling the truth.

I think you are making a good point, but not specifically addressing what Binx meant. If I may venture to guess, Binx’s point was that truth can be delivered harshly and still remain truth.

Despite the 49-minute difference in time signatures, I didn’t see this post until after I had already posted #115. Had I seen this one first, I probably wouldn’t have added anything more. Striking how similar the two are …

 

[JReducation]

Actually, it is both. One can certainly have a charitable disposition. And God’s charity is a perpetual reality. We can also say that charity is realized by act. In God, it is pure act (and never not a reality), whereas in us it is potentiality, sometimes in dormancy, sometimes in act.

Right. See my post #110, which addresses this notion in light of St. Teresa Benedicta’s original quotation.

In both cases, the latter answer is correct. But this is because it is God’s essence to exist, to BE. He is pure act, whereas we are largely in potentiality. Interestingly (and logically), according to Aquinas, potentiality has an inverse relationship to the stature of the creature. The Seraphim, for example, are mostly in act and have very little potentiality, whereas the Angels (those of the guardian choir) would be constituted more closely to human ratios in that regard.

The two cannot be separated in God, that’s true, as he is both attributes perpetually by his existence, and he is also by nature indivisible. Among humans, though, a person who lacks personally the disposition of charity can speak a truth which, by its own nature, carries intrinsic charity with it–because of (as you have noted) the inextricable origins of both in God.

In this case, the lack of truth is simply in our claiming we love God. Love of God is true charity and manifests in love of neighbor. So if we are lacking in the latter, it is because we are lacking in the former, which contradicts our “claim.”

It is a good thought to have expressed.

I see Thomas all over the place here. However, I’m not sure how you’re trying to use Thomas. What exactly are you trying to say? I know what Thomas is talking about, no need to clarify that for me.

I’m just not sure what Binx is talking about. No disrespect intended. I just need clarification what you’re applying Thomistic philosophy to? I guess I’m not connecting the dots here.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Maybe I’m coming at this from my Franciscan mindset. But when the Bishops met to discuss the translation of the liturgy from Latin to English, they were looking for the errors and a more accurate translation. They were also looking to correct inappropriate actions that take place in the ordinary form of the mass.

In simple Franciscan language, they were looking to help the clergy and the laity celebrate the ordinary form in the most reverent way possible, using the most accurate language that expresses the reality that takes place in the liturgy.

I don’t see how all of this dialogue on Thomism fits into this situation. The bishops didn’t even get into this. It was a given that they are all Doctors in one branch of theology or another.

Their objective was simple, to ensure that the ordinary form expresses the faith of the Church, not to do a scholastic analysis of God and man’s natures.

Coming from a tradition that is very much into the heart of faith, rather than the head of faith, I’m not sure where all of this Thomism fits into the corrections that have to be done.

From a purely Franciscan and Bonaventurian perspective I understand this. God is perfect love and truth, therefore our hearts and minds must express that love and truth in our worship so that we can carry it out in our lives. In addition, our hearts and minds need help to see Truth and Love. Therefore, liturgical action must reflect both for our benefit, more than for God’s benefit.

That being said, we must always embrace the highest and most perfect truth and love, which is the crucified one present to us in the Eucharist. All other things must serve to help man see the crucified Lord Jesus Christ and to embrace him in the Eucharist.

As St. Francis often reminded St. Anthony, the study of theology is good as long as it does not interfere with real prayer. There is no higher prayer than the liturgy. I think we’re getting stuck on the theology and not working hard enough on encouraging each other to contemplation.

Just my two cents.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Binx]

I see Thomas all over the place here. However, I’m not sure how you’re trying to use Thomas. What exactly are you trying to say? I know what Thomas is talking about, no need to clarify that for me.

I’m just not sure what Binx is talking about. No disrespect intended. I just need clarification what you’re applying Thomistic philosophy to? I guess I’m not connecting the dots here.

JR

Well, for starters, the post you are quoting from is #115, which is a response to something Jeanette wrote in #112, which is in response to what I said in #107, which is in response to your post, #106. I think if you read those four posts in chronological order, you should have a good handle on what exactly I was trying to say in #115.

If that doesn’t work, you could try reading #113, which is also in response to #112, though Miles’s post is more elegant than mine for its concision and less encumbered by Aristotelian language (yet perhaps no less influenced by Thomistic thought).

If things are still unclear after that, you might try rereading #110, as it is at least tangentially related to #115 and gives a bit more perspective on the types of questions Jeanette raises in #112 and therefore might lend itself to a better understanding my meaning.

But if after all of that, you are still not sure what I am talking about in #115, perhaps you could be more specific with your question(s)–pick a particular line or two that seem to go off track and make the dot-connecting difficult.

Then I could try to clarify. As it is, I wouldn’t know where to begin.