Father Zuhlsdorf's blog, wdtprs.com, has been covering this .
K.c. would hope deliberation and prayer are emphasized. A couple of things: a branch of blessed Miguel Pro's family lives here in Corpus Christi. In the past, when Mother Teresa was being canonized, Pro's nephew spoke with k.c. and was not happy with how quickly things were proceeding.
Think of it! The Church deliberates 350 years to canonize hung-and-drawn-and-quartered- Edmund Campion; kneeling-firing-squad-executed-Pro still waits for canonization after 80 years; but now for some more media-friendly saints we only need 5 or 6 years!
pray for me!
k.c.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Corpus Christi Cathedral Catechists Unanimously Sign Prolife Pledge!
Kneeling Catholic has it from reliable sources that, as of Dec. 7th, 2009 100% of the Corpus Christi Cathedral catechism teachers have signed on to a pro-life pledge which was circulated by the rector. The pledge declares that the signers will:
1) neither vote for nor support in any way any political candidate who is pro-choice,
2)or supports embryonic stem cell research,
3)or any form of human cloning. ...
1) neither vote for nor support in any way any political candidate who is pro-choice,
2)or supports embryonic stem cell research,
3)or any form of human cloning. ...
so long as there is an opponent whose position on these items is more in line with Catholic teaching.
Some of the Cathedral's staff are even Democratic party stalwarts who hold positions with the diocese! This is wonderful news! maybe the local Democratic party will feel the pro-life pull.
k.c.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
To his Excellency, Bishop Henry of Calgary Canada
(who has declared war on believers who receive Holy Communion on the tongue)
Your Excellency,
First: ( a plus) let me say you are correct in seeing this as a pivotal issue. Many prelates and laity do not see what all the fuss is about!
Second: (a minus) you are eradicating a practice which tangibly unites us with the Tradition of our grandfathers and our great grandmothers. As Catholics, should we not only be one with Catholics across the world, but also with Catholics across generations and times?
Third: (a minus) In our lighthearted North American culture it is hard to imagine Catholics getting belligerent over a matter of Faith, but you have now backed many good people into a corner. They must either obey you or obey their consciences. Maybe you remember those old Tareyton cigarrette commercials?
Your Excellency,
First: ( a plus) let me say you are correct in seeing this as a pivotal issue. Many prelates and laity do not see what all the fuss is about!
Second: (a minus) you are eradicating a practice which tangibly unites us with the Tradition of our grandfathers and our great grandmothers. As Catholics, should we not only be one with Catholics across the world, but also with Catholics across generations and times?
Third: (a minus) In our lighthearted North American culture it is hard to imagine Catholics getting belligerent over a matter of Faith, but you have now backed many good people into a corner. They must either obey you or obey their consciences. Maybe you remember those old Tareyton cigarrette commercials?
I am including it to illustrate how little people can sometimes be very stubborn!
please reconsider your course of action.
k.c.
Monday, November 30, 2009
K.C. comments on Chesterton's 'Orthodoxy' chapter one
from http://yimcatholic.blogspot.com/2009/11/yimc-book-clubbers-update.html#comments
"why I am Catholic" blog invited to K.C. and many others to partcipate in a discussion of Chesterton's little book....(K. C. is i purple)
My comments on the first chapter--Chesterton deflates human pride by pointing to God's Providence. A man imagines he is discovering a new land only to find the 'new land' is the land he grew up in! I get this same sense from some of the things you write. It is a conservative bent! ...
It is hard to be 'avant garde' if you believe the Almighty has been faithfully working thru an identifiable human organization for the past 2,000 years. [even before the Age of Aquarius!] Indeed thru the last and only surviving human institution which was witness to its Founder (no Roman Empire, no Sanhedrin).
...From this perspective, perhaps you see how the 'liturgical wars'-- which errupted in the 60's and 70's and 'liturgists' introducing worship foreign to the 1900 years which preceeded-- cannot not be a matter of indifference! worshiping as our great grandfathers, and great--great grandmothers should not be shrugged off as a peripheral issue since it is a visible sign of our unity with those who came before us. And eradication of their form of worship is a bold and tangible statement that we no longer believe as they did.
k.c.
November 29, 2009 11:36 PM
from YIMC........
Mornin' k.c.! Conservative is a term I would have shunned even 20 years ago. Now I relish it. Maybe it's because my dad died, and he was a conservative (with a heart of gold) but more probably it's that I'm now a Catholic, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Fortunately (?), as a recent convert, I was blissfully unaware of the liturgical wars of my youth, although unfortunately I'm afraid they scared away a lot of god Catholics, some of whom I know pretty well.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
k.c. inspires YIM Catholic post
Kneeling Catholic said...
http://www.pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc2000.htm
above is a link to a collection of recent presidential Thanksgiving day proclamations.
>>it's hard to imagine either Bush, a Clinton, or any other recent president putting God above country
---Mr. Bull, politicians giving lipservice to God is easy to come by. You will find a certain reluctance to mention God directly in Mr. Obama's address which does reveal a lot more than I would have guessed.
However lumping President Bush in with Presidents Clinton and Obama as not giving God credit doesn't square. Dislike of Bush - which you seem to be venting - , by Hollywood, the media and elites, stemmed from one word -- Abortion. Please don't tell me that it is people loving their country more than God that is the problem. It is a fact that people who feel little loyalty to their country generally have a problem with Faith in general. k.c.
November 25, 2009 5:45 PM
Webster Bull said...
k.c, I don't see how you can tweeze "dislike" of Bush out of a statement that puts all recent presidents in one pile and contrasts them with the father of our country, who, with his contemporaries, really took the Christian God into account when writing our founding documents and then governing by them. There is nothing in my write-up that contrasts Obama and Clinton with the Bushes. The contrast is with Washington, over 220 years, possibly with Lincoln over 150. By "lumping" Bush with Obama and Clinton, I am trying to crawl, clamber, claw my way above politics to a broader issue, yes, even broader than abortion. That is: what do I put first in my life, God or Caesar? Do I consider the Beatitudes before I bomb Iraq, for example? Do I consider the Commandments before I support abortion, for another example? I am opposed to abortion. I was opposed to the war in Iraq and remain so.
November 25, 2009 6:04 PM
Kneeling Catholic said...
>>Do I consider the Beatitudes before I bomb Iraq, for example?
---Happy Thanksgiving to you, Mr. Bull! You do know your statement betrays a pacifistic conviction. If the beautitudes make it obvious Bush XLIII should not have attacked, do they then make it obvious that Saddam,--who was paying suicide bombers in Israel [btw no seems to notice that that phenomenon ceased with Saddam's ouster], and had already attempted to assassinate Bush XLI, and did horrible things to the Kurds in Iraq--should still be in business? Do the beautitudes make it obvious that Iraqis should not now be voting in elections? ...
And! [back to George Washington] Do they make it obvious that the American Colonists should not have taken up arms and fought an eight year war?Please forgive my following pontification, but... Pacifism is a haven for elites and ingrates who loath their country. It is not Catholic. And forgive me if I have unfairly tarred you with pacifism, but you did leave yourself wide open...
k.c.
November 26, 2009 12:45 AM
Webster Bull said...
k.c.,Pacifism is indeed Catholic, although it is true that Catholic haters through the centuries have referred to us as "elitist," an obvious attribute of "Papism." The Catholic Church's position on war is, in fact, double. The choice is yours (and mine). The Church supports pacifism, and great Catholics like Dorothy Day and Francis of Assisi were proponents of it, in word and/or deed. The Church also supports the "just war," which is narrowly defined in Church writings, although we seldom hew to that narrow definition. Here it is -- The war must be, first of all, defensive, and given that, the following conditions must hold. * the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;* there must be serious prospects of success;* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.Continuing to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (par. 2309):"These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the 'just war' doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."We can argue about the American Revolution (it was at least defensive), but the Catholic position is unarguable. Let's set aside pacifism (by your choice). Did/does the Iraq war meet these conditions, beginning with "defensive"? (It's Obama's war now, I know that, as is Afghanistan, so this is not Bush-baiting.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to be "tarred with pacifism," a strange phrase but yours, so please write again. And have a great holiday.
later on.....
I can’t think of a better time than Thanksgiving morning to launch a series of posts about the Catholic Church’s position on war—which is a fundamental reason why I am proud to be Catholic and therefore fits comfortably within this blogging niche. I’ve thrown up that Roman numeral in the title of this post because this will be only a prologue.But what a prologue! I’m incited to write about Catholics and war by an exchange of comments with “Kneeling Catholic” that follows my post on George Washington’s first Thanksgiving Day address. The moment the inspiration hit me, I heard the voice of the Peacenik inside me. She said, “But W-e-b-s-t-e-r,” (the Peacenik speaks in soothing tones) “why not read the Divine Office first? It’s always a good idea, W-e-b-s-t-e-r. Why, even The Anchoress does it. It’s not without risks, but . . . ”The Angry Man butted in, “Aw, shut up! Webster—just read the Liturgy!” Which I did, bowing to the combined advice of my angel and my devil. Taking up the Liturgy of the Hours, I found, as I so often do, a reading for today, Thursday of the 34th week in Ordinary Time, that is eerily on point. Here it is. (I’ll be back to this topic later this holiday weekend, after much turkey, much TV football, three or four naps, and, I hope, a viewing of the new film “The Road,” based on Cormac McCarthy’s end-of-days novel.)......
Kneeling Catholic said...
>>>I’m incited to write about Catholics and war by an exchange of comments with “Kneeling Catholic” <<
If 'pacifism' is simply going to war as a last resort then we are all pacifists. If it is the flat refusal to take up arms in service of your country, then it is not Catholic....
" it is just that Christians invade the land you inhabit, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone you can from His worship" ...
Name that Saint!...
pray for me!
k.c.
November 26, 2009 9:31 AM
Webster Bull said...
k.c., my new bff---1. Pray for me!2. I can't name that saint!3. I plan to discuss pacifism in more detail with future posts in this series, and I hope we will have more chances to discuss this, as well as the other doctrinal Catholic position, the just war. (I suspect we will.)4. I'm hoping to clear my head to think about all these things as well as possible.Peace! Webster Ooops, did I betray an elitist position by using the P word? just kidding ;-)
http://www.pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc2000.htm
above is a link to a collection of recent presidential Thanksgiving day proclamations.
>>it's hard to imagine either Bush, a Clinton, or any other recent president putting God above country
---Mr. Bull, politicians giving lipservice to God is easy to come by. You will find a certain reluctance to mention God directly in Mr. Obama's address which does reveal a lot more than I would have guessed.
However lumping President Bush in with Presidents Clinton and Obama as not giving God credit doesn't square. Dislike of Bush - which you seem to be venting - , by Hollywood, the media and elites, stemmed from one word -- Abortion. Please don't tell me that it is people loving their country more than God that is the problem. It is a fact that people who feel little loyalty to their country generally have a problem with Faith in general. k.c.
November 25, 2009 5:45 PM
Webster Bull said...
k.c, I don't see how you can tweeze "dislike" of Bush out of a statement that puts all recent presidents in one pile and contrasts them with the father of our country, who, with his contemporaries, really took the Christian God into account when writing our founding documents and then governing by them. There is nothing in my write-up that contrasts Obama and Clinton with the Bushes. The contrast is with Washington, over 220 years, possibly with Lincoln over 150. By "lumping" Bush with Obama and Clinton, I am trying to crawl, clamber, claw my way above politics to a broader issue, yes, even broader than abortion. That is: what do I put first in my life, God or Caesar? Do I consider the Beatitudes before I bomb Iraq, for example? Do I consider the Commandments before I support abortion, for another example? I am opposed to abortion. I was opposed to the war in Iraq and remain so.
November 25, 2009 6:04 PM
Kneeling Catholic said...
>>Do I consider the Beatitudes before I bomb Iraq, for example?
---Happy Thanksgiving to you, Mr. Bull! You do know your statement betrays a pacifistic conviction. If the beautitudes make it obvious Bush XLIII should not have attacked, do they then make it obvious that Saddam,--who was paying suicide bombers in Israel [btw no seems to notice that that phenomenon ceased with Saddam's ouster], and had already attempted to assassinate Bush XLI, and did horrible things to the Kurds in Iraq--should still be in business? Do the beautitudes make it obvious that Iraqis should not now be voting in elections? ...
And! [back to George Washington] Do they make it obvious that the American Colonists should not have taken up arms and fought an eight year war?Please forgive my following pontification, but... Pacifism is a haven for elites and ingrates who loath their country. It is not Catholic. And forgive me if I have unfairly tarred you with pacifism, but you did leave yourself wide open...
k.c.
November 26, 2009 12:45 AM
Webster Bull said...
k.c.,Pacifism is indeed Catholic, although it is true that Catholic haters through the centuries have referred to us as "elitist," an obvious attribute of "Papism." The Catholic Church's position on war is, in fact, double. The choice is yours (and mine). The Church supports pacifism, and great Catholics like Dorothy Day and Francis of Assisi were proponents of it, in word and/or deed. The Church also supports the "just war," which is narrowly defined in Church writings, although we seldom hew to that narrow definition. Here it is -- The war must be, first of all, defensive, and given that, the following conditions must hold. * the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;* there must be serious prospects of success;* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.Continuing to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (par. 2309):"These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the 'just war' doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."We can argue about the American Revolution (it was at least defensive), but the Catholic position is unarguable. Let's set aside pacifism (by your choice). Did/does the Iraq war meet these conditions, beginning with "defensive"? (It's Obama's war now, I know that, as is Afghanistan, so this is not Bush-baiting.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to be "tarred with pacifism," a strange phrase but yours, so please write again. And have a great holiday.
later on.....
I can’t think of a better time than Thanksgiving morning to launch a series of posts about the Catholic Church’s position on war—which is a fundamental reason why I am proud to be Catholic and therefore fits comfortably within this blogging niche. I’ve thrown up that Roman numeral in the title of this post because this will be only a prologue.But what a prologue! I’m incited to write about Catholics and war by an exchange of comments with “Kneeling Catholic” that follows my post on George Washington’s first Thanksgiving Day address. The moment the inspiration hit me, I heard the voice of the Peacenik inside me. She said, “But W-e-b-s-t-e-r,” (the Peacenik speaks in soothing tones) “why not read the Divine Office first? It’s always a good idea, W-e-b-s-t-e-r. Why, even The Anchoress does it. It’s not without risks, but . . . ”The Angry Man butted in, “Aw, shut up! Webster—just read the Liturgy!” Which I did, bowing to the combined advice of my angel and my devil. Taking up the Liturgy of the Hours, I found, as I so often do, a reading for today, Thursday of the 34th week in Ordinary Time, that is eerily on point. Here it is. (I’ll be back to this topic later this holiday weekend, after much turkey, much TV football, three or four naps, and, I hope, a viewing of the new film “The Road,” based on Cormac McCarthy’s end-of-days novel.)......
Kneeling Catholic said...
>>>I’m incited to write about Catholics and war by an exchange of comments with “Kneeling Catholic” <<
If 'pacifism' is simply going to war as a last resort then we are all pacifists. If it is the flat refusal to take up arms in service of your country, then it is not Catholic....
" it is just that Christians invade the land you inhabit, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone you can from His worship" ...
Name that Saint!...
pray for me!
k.c.
November 26, 2009 9:31 AM
Webster Bull said...
k.c., my new bff---1. Pray for me!2. I can't name that saint!3. I plan to discuss pacifism in more detail with future posts in this series, and I hope we will have more chances to discuss this, as well as the other doctrinal Catholic position, the just war. (I suspect we will.)4. I'm hoping to clear my head to think about all these things as well as possible.Peace! Webster Ooops, did I betray an elitist position by using the P word? just kidding ;-)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Purple hearts for those wounded in action at Fort Hood?
someone has asked this question on 'yahoo answers'.
Here are some of the responses:
Should every soldier killed or wounded in the Ft Hood shooting be given the Purple Heart Medal? Line of duty?
death or serious wounds are given the Purple Heart Medal, don't the people killed and injured at Ft Hood qualify?
>>Yes they should receive the Purple Heart.*
USMCBAM7>>Unfortunately no they will not receive purple hearts. A purple heart is awarded for Being wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States or as a result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed forces.
Ruth Ann>>I don't think they qualify
Source(s):
http://www.americal.org/awards/ph.htm
Hooah>>>Being a victim of a crime doesn't qualify anyone to receive a Purple Heart. That is only for woulds sustained in combat. Some may argue that a Jihadist committing an atrocity would qualify, but that would be up to the command. I doubt it will happen.
Grambo>>I hope so, they deserve at least that........heroes they may not have died on the 'front-lines' but that is the point where are the front lines?.They are still heroes in my book.
answering the official question of whether or not our soldiers were "wounded in action" is going to put politicians in the military on the spot. They need to be petitioned to encourage them to do the right thing. So does our Commander in Chief.
as for the murderer...
Is it now a matter of indifference to our authorities that Hasan probably has information about other imminent threats? Information he and his buddies hoped he would be taking to his grave. Let's not let that happen!
Mr. Obama! Do you want to revive your approval ratings? Hasan is guilty. We don't need an extended trial to prove that. (if you really are bumfuzzled as to why Nidal Malik Hasan slaughtered our soldiers, then your naivete makes you truly unique!) Is Guantanamo really out of business? Don't we have even one waterboard left? We need to pump Hasan for information and stop worrying about what the world thinks! Does the murderer have buddies? Who are they? and what sensitive information did he have access to that he might have leaked to our enemies?
Did you see 'Taken' where Liam Neeson hooked that guy up to 220 volts AC? Go and do likewise! You have a duty to us and our children, the future targets of terrorists.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
General Casey and Senator Graham emphasize politcal correctness over truth
We have to be careful,” Gen. George Casey said Sunday on CNN. “Because we can't jump to conclusions now based on little snippets of information that come out. And frankly, I am worried – not worried, but I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. It would be a shame, as great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate armed services committee, also counseled restraint.
“At the end of the day, maybe this is just about him,” the "At the end of the day, I think it's going to be about him." (Sen Graham)
We're not supposed to speculate, Senator Graham? Isn't your "at the end of the day" speculation?
So the jury is out. At the "end of the day" we might also find that the mass murder was given encouragement or suggestions or assistance from other jihadists.
What are the General and the Senator going to do when the obvious question of Purple Hearts for the dead and wounded is breached? They might soon find themselves in an awkward position, fighting not only against the truth of what happened, but also against the honor of those wounded and those slain.
k.c.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion who do not purify their fingers
after touching the Eucharist
This is an edited excerpt from a letter written last week by the father of a student at one of Corpus Christi's Catholic high schools... The son is scandalized that the school's new 'spiritual director', a layman, doesn't purify his fingers after distributing Holy Communion:
...my son sees the director as a bad influence since he:
1) Encourages hand Communion (by example)
2) exacerbates the theological problems of the above by performing as an extraordinary minister and not bothering to cleanse his fingers even after distributing the Eucharist.....
I don't disagree with my son that these are related problems...i.e. Hand Communion does promote indifference towards Holy Fragments, otherwise everyone touching the Eucharist would be purifying their fingers before and afterwards, and the 2nd problem, if my son is correct, demonstrates an extremely cavalier attitude since extraordinary ministers - having handled Hosts which have been dusted during the fractioning--will often end up with small Fragments remaining on their fingers......
The doctrine that the Whole of Christ's Divinity is in each tiny Fragment seems to have gone out the window........... But perhaps a direct questioning of our lay people is called for: "Why don't you purify your fingers every time you touch the Holy Eucharist, just as a priest does?" (is the priest doing it just for show?) I'm afraid you would find an abysmal confusion as to what the Church actually teaches.
This is an edited excerpt from a letter written last week by the father of a student at one of Corpus Christi's Catholic high schools... The son is scandalized that the school's new 'spiritual director', a layman, doesn't purify his fingers after distributing Holy Communion:
...my son sees the director as a bad influence since he:
1) Encourages hand Communion (by example)
2) exacerbates the theological problems of the above by performing as an extraordinary minister and not bothering to cleanse his fingers even after distributing the Eucharist.....
I don't disagree with my son that these are related problems...i.e. Hand Communion does promote indifference towards Holy Fragments, otherwise everyone touching the Eucharist would be purifying their fingers before and afterwards, and the 2nd problem, if my son is correct, demonstrates an extremely cavalier attitude since extraordinary ministers - having handled Hosts which have been dusted during the fractioning--will often end up with small Fragments remaining on their fingers......
The doctrine that the Whole of Christ's Divinity is in each tiny Fragment seems to have gone out the window........... But perhaps a direct questioning of our lay people is called for: "Why don't you purify your fingers every time you touch the Holy Eucharist, just as a priest does?" (is the priest doing it just for show?) I'm afraid you would find an abysmal confusion as to what the Church actually teaches.
Friday, November 6, 2009
The President's announcement re: Fort Hood K.C. in purple
It's two minutes and 28 seconds into the light hearted 'attaboys that the President actually gets around to mentioning the tragedy. Remember how as a candidate he said he could multi-task? (as opposed to McCain who wanted to drop everything to deal with crises)
well here's how it works
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins bans Communion on the tongue
Here we go again Friends! Here is how his Excellency worded it....
November 2, 2009
Ongoing Communication regarding the H1N1 Flu Virus
To all clergy and employees of the Archdiocese of Toronto,
I wish to provide you with an additional update regarding proactive measures in relation to the H1N1
Flu Virus. In my communication of September 16, 2009, I provided a number of recommendations
based on counsel from health officials and those experienced with pandemic planning.
We have been closely monitoring the situation. At this time it is necessary for us to elevate our
diligence to the next level in pandemic planning. For the health and safety of all people of faith,
parishes must implement the changes outlined below at all masses as of Tuesday, November 3,
2009 until further notice.
Temporarily suspend communion from the chalice.
Temporarily suspend communion on the tongue.
Parishes should provide hand cleaning stations near church entrances.
Refrain from shaking hands during the sign of peace. A nod, bow or other appropriate gesture
should be encouraged.
All those distributing communion are asked to wash their hands before mass. An alcohol-based
sanitizer should be provided so that all ministers may sanitize their hands before and after
distributing communion.
Please remind your parishioners that if they are feeling sick or ill, it is best for them to stay
home.
I ask that you communicate these changes widely to your parish community. Our Office of Public
Relations & Communications will release this information to local media and through our own H1N1
website: www.archtoronto.org/flu.
To the faithful of the Archdiocese of Toronto, I recognize the distress these changes to our sacred
liturgy may cause for some. Be assured that these are temporary measures only, intended to protect and
care for our most vulnerable brothers and sisters. Please join me in offering prayers for the sick and
suffering in our community.
Sincerely in Christ,
Thomas Collins
Archbishop of Toronto
From Father Zuhlsdorf, who finally says what everyone knows...>>>From my own experience, I have always been able to distribute Communion on the tongue without any contact between my fingers and any tongue. I could probably count the number of times they have made contact on my otherwise dry fingers.<<< ...therefore hand Communion promotes skin to skin contact between the minister and the communicant. Communion on the tongue prevents it. This fact was instrumental in delaying hand Communion's introduction back in the seventies. Now simple logic has been disconnected and we are in the grips of leaders who 'don't let a good crisis go to waste'.
Do not surrender to this 'temporary' measure! Its only support is a false premise. a lie!
K.C.
November 2, 2009
Ongoing Communication regarding the H1N1 Flu Virus
To all clergy and employees of the Archdiocese of Toronto,
I wish to provide you with an additional update regarding proactive measures in relation to the H1N1
Flu Virus. In my communication of September 16, 2009, I provided a number of recommendations
based on counsel from health officials and those experienced with pandemic planning.
We have been closely monitoring the situation. At this time it is necessary for us to elevate our
diligence to the next level in pandemic planning. For the health and safety of all people of faith,
parishes must implement the changes outlined below at all masses as of Tuesday, November 3,
2009 until further notice.
Temporarily suspend communion from the chalice.
Temporarily suspend communion on the tongue.
Parishes should provide hand cleaning stations near church entrances.
Refrain from shaking hands during the sign of peace. A nod, bow or other appropriate gesture
should be encouraged.
All those distributing communion are asked to wash their hands before mass. An alcohol-based
sanitizer should be provided so that all ministers may sanitize their hands before and after
distributing communion.
Please remind your parishioners that if they are feeling sick or ill, it is best for them to stay
home.
I ask that you communicate these changes widely to your parish community. Our Office of Public
Relations & Communications will release this information to local media and through our own H1N1
website: www.archtoronto.org/flu.
To the faithful of the Archdiocese of Toronto, I recognize the distress these changes to our sacred
liturgy may cause for some. Be assured that these are temporary measures only, intended to protect and
care for our most vulnerable brothers and sisters. Please join me in offering prayers for the sick and
suffering in our community.
Sincerely in Christ,
Thomas Collins
Archbishop of Toronto
From Father Zuhlsdorf, who finally says what everyone knows...>>>From my own experience, I have always been able to distribute Communion on the tongue without any contact between my fingers and any tongue. I could probably count the number of times they have made contact on my otherwise dry fingers.<<< ...therefore hand Communion promotes skin to skin contact between the minister and the communicant. Communion on the tongue prevents it. This fact was instrumental in delaying hand Communion's introduction back in the seventies. Now simple logic has been disconnected and we are in the grips of leaders who 'don't let a good crisis go to waste'.
Do not surrender to this 'temporary' measure! Its only support is a false premise. a lie!
K.C.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
More Scott Hahn and God's feminity
K.C. has been duly chastised for going out on a limb on this topic...but I am not alone. Here is the latest from 'Unam Sanctam' from a worthy adversary.....lest I respond and get myself in trouble, I leave it for my readership to do the heavy lifting. All two of you!...
----from the ruteger......>>>Nothing wrong with referring to God n the feminine, Pope John Paul I did it in the month of his papacy, the Syrian Church Fathers did it in following rabbinical tradition (as Hahn mentioned ST Ephrem as one), ST Aphraates does too, saying the mother and father of Genesis 2 that a man leaves are God the Father and the Holy Spirit. And even the bible seems to do it in Proverbs 8, Sirach 24, and a couple other places. In the Aramaic version of the New Testament the Holy Spirit is explicitly called "she". One of the earliest orthodox writings of the Early Church, the Odes of Solomon calls the Holy Spirit a She, and it sort of feminizes the Father. Fr Robert Murray addresses this issue in his book "On Symbols of Church and Kingdom" and quotes a few instances where the Syrian Fathers refer to the Holy Spirit in the feminine. ----
<<<< advocates for this position only mention the early Syriac Church because the late Syriac Church stopped saying such things over 1,000 years ago.. what I keep wondering is, if it is indeed true "Nothing wrong with referring to God in the feminine"
then why don't we pray that way? Why didn't our Lord teach us?
>>>the Holy Spirit is explicitly called "she". <<<
There is another half-formed criticism K. C. has with regards to 'the Holy Spirit is the Feminine Person of the Trinity'. That has to do with us English speakers making a big deal about masculine and feminine nouns from other languages... e.g. in Spanish 'Mi hermano es muy buena gente!' 'hermano'=masculine, 'buena'= feminine, therefore 'my bro', besides being good people, must be a little 'feminine'! right?!
right???
K.C.
----from the ruteger......>>>Nothing wrong with referring to God n the feminine, Pope John Paul I did it in the month of his papacy, the Syrian Church Fathers did it in following rabbinical tradition (as Hahn mentioned ST Ephrem as one), ST Aphraates does too, saying the mother and father of Genesis 2 that a man leaves are God the Father and the Holy Spirit. And even the bible seems to do it in Proverbs 8, Sirach 24, and a couple other places. In the Aramaic version of the New Testament the Holy Spirit is explicitly called "she". One of the earliest orthodox writings of the Early Church, the Odes of Solomon calls the Holy Spirit a She, and it sort of feminizes the Father. Fr Robert Murray addresses this issue in his book "On Symbols of Church and Kingdom" and quotes a few instances where the Syrian Fathers refer to the Holy Spirit in the feminine. ----
<<<< advocates for this position only mention the early Syriac Church because the late Syriac Church stopped saying such things over 1,000 years ago.. what I keep wondering is, if it is indeed true "Nothing wrong with referring to God in the feminine"
then why don't we pray that way? Why didn't our Lord teach us?
>>>the Holy Spirit is explicitly called "she". <<<
There is another half-formed criticism K. C. has with regards to 'the Holy Spirit is the Feminine Person of the Trinity'. That has to do with us English speakers making a big deal about masculine and feminine nouns from other languages... e.g. in Spanish 'Mi hermano es muy buena gente!' 'hermano'=masculine, 'buena'= feminine, therefore 'my bro', besides being good people, must be a little 'feminine'! right?!
right???
K.C.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
South Texas Catholic and Father Rolheiser deny the Creed
Spirituality for Life:" Despite the rumours,God judges no one" (October 7th, 2009 By Father Ron Rolheiser published in South Texas Catholic, the Corpus Christi Diocesan Newspaper)
[Father begins this article entitling it with a bald-faced denial of a basic tenet of our Credo: 'From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead'. Not to mention that Christ's Coming as Judge is also integral to the 'Four last things': 'Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell'. Is he just trying to get our attention with a catchy title? Read on! Father really believes what he says! ]
There’s a question about God’s goodness as old as religion itself: How can an all-good God send someone to hell for all eternity? How can God be all-merciful and all-loving if there is eternal punishment?...
It’s a false question. God doesn’t send anyone to hell and God doesn’t deal out eternal punishment. God offers us life and the choice is ours as to whether we accept that or not.
God, Jesus tells us, doesn’t judge anyone. We judge ourselves. God doesn’t create hell and God doesn’t send anyone to hell. But that doesn’t mean that hell doesn’t exist and that it isn’t a possibility for us. ....
Here, in essence, is how Jesus explains this:
God sends his life into the world and we can choose that life or reject it. We judge ourselves in making that choice. If we choose life, [whatever that means...although from Father Rolheiser's earlier columns we know he thinks Holland, with its euthanasia and death panels, is doing a pretty good job of 'choosing life'] we are ultimately choosing heaven. If we reject life, [whatever that means] we end up living outside of life and that ultimately is hell. But we make that choice, God doesn’t send us anywhere. Moreover, hell is not a positive punishment created by God to make us suffer. Hell is the absence of something, namely, living inside of the life that’s offered to us.....
To say all of this is not to say that hell isn’t real or that it isn’t a real possibility for every person. Hell is real, but it isn’t a positive punishment created by God to deal out justice or vengeance or to prove to the hard-hearted and unrepentant that they made a mistake. Hell is the absence of life, of love, of forgiveness, of community, and God doesn’t send anyone there. We can end up there, outside of love and community, but that’s a choice we make if we, culpably, reject these as they are offered to us during our lifetime. Hell, as John Shea once said, is never a surprise waiting for a happy person, it’s the full-flowering of a life that rejects love, forgiveness, and community..... [another secret! just be a 'happy person' in this life and you won't go to hell! Speaking of a 'secret', this is starting to sound like the book 'the Secret'. ]
Sartre once famously stated that hell is the other person. The reverse is true. Hell is what we experience when we choose ourselves over community of life with others [no mention of mortal sin, nor of Justice nor of the saving nature of the Sacraments, the Church or Jesus Christ Himself for that matter. 'just join the commune and you'll be ok! What's the Church good for?]. Human life is meant to be shared life, shared existence, participation inside of a community of life that includes the Trinity itself....
God is love, scripture tells us, and those who abide in love, abide in God, and God abides in them. In this context, love should not be understood primarily as romantic love. The text doesn’t say that “those who fall in love” abide in God (though that too can be true). In essence, the text might be reworded to say: “God is shared existence, [Rolheiser demotes God Almighty from Three Persons to an abstract and impersonal concept. He might as well say 'God is Socialism'...oh wait... he just did!] and those who share life with others, already live inside of God’s life.”...
But the reverse is also true: When we don’t share our lives, we end up outside of life. That, in essence, is hell.
What is hell? The images the bible chooses for hell are arbitrary and vary greatly. The popular mind tends to picture hell as fire, eternal fire, but that is only one image, and not necessarily the dominant one, in scripture. Among other things, scripture speaks of hell as “experiencing God’s wrath,” as “being outside” the wedding and the dance, as “mourning and weeping and grinding our teeth,” as being consigned to the “Gehenna” (a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem), as being eaten by worms, as fire, as missing out on the banquet, as being outside the kingdom, as living inside a bitter and warped heart, and as missing out on life. ....
In the end, all these images point to the same thing: Hell is the pain and bitterness, the fire, we experience when we culpably put ourselves outside of the community of life. And it is always self-inflicted. [Father uses the present tense in preceding sentence to blur the distinction between this life and the next. That's nice. He is saying hell is in the here and now. Yet by claiming that pain and bitterness are always self-inflicted, doesn't this back us into a type of Old Testament caricature which says that those who suffer in this life are being punished by 'karma'? God doesn't control anything! ] is never imposed by God. God doesn’t deal death and God sends nobody to hell.
When Jesus speaks of God, he never speaks of God as dealing both life and death, but only as dealing life. [Matthew 10:28 'And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.'] Death has its origins elsewhere, as does lying, rationalization, bitterness, hardness of heart, and hell. ...
To say that God does not create hell or send anyone there does not downplay the existence of evil and sin or the danger of eternal punishment, it only pinpoints their origins and makes clear who it is who makes the judgment and who it is who does the sentencing.[!!!] God does neither; he neither creates hell nor sends anyone to it. We do both.[Let's see, how does this work?
'hey Charlie (Manson),there's no one sitting up there on that big chair so why don't you hop up there and I'll pretend like I'm you and you can judge yourself! or maybe I can hold a mirror for you. No cheating! this is an honor system! Remember if you don't send yourself to hell, God won't either!']
As Jesus tells us in John’s Gospel: “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. ...
Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, the light has come into the world, and the people loved darkness rather than light … I judge no one.”
[a writer to the South Texas Catholic has pointed out how Father edits this Scripture to present a false picture....perhaps replacing what Father has edited out can help us see what he is hiding....
"John 8:15:
You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.
8:16
And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me."]
He doesn’t need to. [in Father's scheme Jesus doesn't need to judge, but if we read both Father's verse and the following verse, Jesus is judging! What do you know! For a minute Father Rolheiser had me thinking the 'Te Deum', Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed , and the Four Last things were going against Jesus' words. As it turns out, Father is.]
Oblate Father Ron Rolheiser, theologian, teacher, and award-winning author, is President of the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, TX.
[Father begins this article entitling it with a bald-faced denial of a basic tenet of our Credo: 'From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead'. Not to mention that Christ's Coming as Judge is also integral to the 'Four last things': 'Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell'. Is he just trying to get our attention with a catchy title? Read on! Father really believes what he says! ]
There’s a question about God’s goodness as old as religion itself: How can an all-good God send someone to hell for all eternity? How can God be all-merciful and all-loving if there is eternal punishment?...
It’s a false question. God doesn’t send anyone to hell and God doesn’t deal out eternal punishment. God offers us life and the choice is ours as to whether we accept that or not.
God, Jesus tells us, doesn’t judge anyone. We judge ourselves. God doesn’t create hell and God doesn’t send anyone to hell. But that doesn’t mean that hell doesn’t exist and that it isn’t a possibility for us. ....
Here, in essence, is how Jesus explains this:
God sends his life into the world and we can choose that life or reject it. We judge ourselves in making that choice. If we choose life, [whatever that means...although from Father Rolheiser's earlier columns we know he thinks Holland, with its euthanasia and death panels, is doing a pretty good job of 'choosing life'] we are ultimately choosing heaven. If we reject life, [whatever that means] we end up living outside of life and that ultimately is hell. But we make that choice, God doesn’t send us anywhere. Moreover, hell is not a positive punishment created by God to make us suffer. Hell is the absence of something, namely, living inside of the life that’s offered to us.....
To say all of this is not to say that hell isn’t real or that it isn’t a real possibility for every person. Hell is real, but it isn’t a positive punishment created by God to deal out justice or vengeance or to prove to the hard-hearted and unrepentant that they made a mistake. Hell is the absence of life, of love, of forgiveness, of community, and God doesn’t send anyone there. We can end up there, outside of love and community, but that’s a choice we make if we, culpably, reject these as they are offered to us during our lifetime. Hell, as John Shea once said, is never a surprise waiting for a happy person, it’s the full-flowering of a life that rejects love, forgiveness, and community..... [another secret! just be a 'happy person' in this life and you won't go to hell! Speaking of a 'secret', this is starting to sound like the book 'the Secret'. ]
Sartre once famously stated that hell is the other person. The reverse is true. Hell is what we experience when we choose ourselves over community of life with others [no mention of mortal sin, nor of Justice nor of the saving nature of the Sacraments, the Church or Jesus Christ Himself for that matter. 'just join the commune and you'll be ok! What's the Church good for?]. Human life is meant to be shared life, shared existence, participation inside of a community of life that includes the Trinity itself....
God is love, scripture tells us, and those who abide in love, abide in God, and God abides in them. In this context, love should not be understood primarily as romantic love. The text doesn’t say that “those who fall in love” abide in God (though that too can be true). In essence, the text might be reworded to say: “God is shared existence, [Rolheiser demotes God Almighty from Three Persons to an abstract and impersonal concept. He might as well say 'God is Socialism'...oh wait... he just did!] and those who share life with others, already live inside of God’s life.”...
But the reverse is also true: When we don’t share our lives, we end up outside of life. That, in essence, is hell.
What is hell? The images the bible chooses for hell are arbitrary and vary greatly. The popular mind tends to picture hell as fire, eternal fire, but that is only one image, and not necessarily the dominant one, in scripture. Among other things, scripture speaks of hell as “experiencing God’s wrath,” as “being outside” the wedding and the dance, as “mourning and weeping and grinding our teeth,” as being consigned to the “Gehenna” (a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem), as being eaten by worms, as fire, as missing out on the banquet, as being outside the kingdom, as living inside a bitter and warped heart, and as missing out on life. ....
In the end, all these images point to the same thing: Hell is the pain and bitterness, the fire, we experience when we culpably put ourselves outside of the community of life. And it is always self-inflicted. [Father uses the present tense in preceding sentence to blur the distinction between this life and the next. That's nice. He is saying hell is in the here and now. Yet by claiming that pain and bitterness are always self-inflicted, doesn't this back us into a type of Old Testament caricature which says that those who suffer in this life are being punished by 'karma'? God doesn't control anything! ] is never imposed by God. God doesn’t deal death and God sends nobody to hell.
When Jesus speaks of God, he never speaks of God as dealing both life and death, but only as dealing life. [Matthew 10:28 'And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.'] Death has its origins elsewhere, as does lying, rationalization, bitterness, hardness of heart, and hell. ...
To say that God does not create hell or send anyone there does not downplay the existence of evil and sin or the danger of eternal punishment, it only pinpoints their origins and makes clear who it is who makes the judgment and who it is who does the sentencing.[!!!] God does neither; he neither creates hell nor sends anyone to it. We do both.[Let's see, how does this work?
'hey Charlie (Manson),there's no one sitting up there on that big chair so why don't you hop up there and I'll pretend like I'm you and you can judge yourself! or maybe I can hold a mirror for you. No cheating! this is an honor system! Remember if you don't send yourself to hell, God won't either!']
As Jesus tells us in John’s Gospel: “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. ...
Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, the light has come into the world, and the people loved darkness rather than light … I judge no one.”
[a writer to the South Texas Catholic has pointed out how Father edits this Scripture to present a false picture....perhaps replacing what Father has edited out can help us see what he is hiding....
"John 8:15:
You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.
8:16
And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me."]
He doesn’t need to. [in Father's scheme Jesus doesn't need to judge, but if we read both Father's verse and the following verse, Jesus is judging! What do you know! For a minute Father Rolheiser had me thinking the 'Te Deum', Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed , and the Four Last things were going against Jesus' words. As it turns out, Father is.]
Oblate Father Ron Rolheiser, theologian, teacher, and award-winning author, is President of the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, TX.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Te Deum Laudamus
My apologies for not finding an English or Spanish translation of this German video...
Bishop Werth tells the story of how, in 1931, his family, from a colony of German Catholic Farmers on the Volga river, was deported by Stalin into Kazakhstan. It was Fall and there was no shelter. Of the original 30,000 people, only 12,000 survive the first winter there.....
...4 minues 20 seconds into the video..
."There is a story, you can believe it or not, that 'There, under the open Heavens, in the empty steppe, an old man stood up and addressed everyone...Brothers, do we only praise God in the good times? We must not forsake Him in evil times! and He began to sing 'Te Deum Laudamus..' we know the hymn as 'Holy God we praise Thy name'...."
A beautiful story about a beautiful Faith. It is sad that now-a-days so few even know what the Te Deum is! We have allowed liturgists to push out the old and valuable hymns with the 'modern'. lex orandi lex credendi
K.C.
Bishop Werth tells the story of how, in 1931, his family, from a colony of German Catholic Farmers on the Volga river, was deported by Stalin into Kazakhstan. It was Fall and there was no shelter. Of the original 30,000 people, only 12,000 survive the first winter there.....
...4 minues 20 seconds into the video..
."There is a story, you can believe it or not, that 'There, under the open Heavens, in the empty steppe, an old man stood up and addressed everyone...Brothers, do we only praise God in the good times? We must not forsake Him in evil times! and He began to sing 'Te Deum Laudamus..' we know the hymn as 'Holy God we praise Thy name'...."
A beautiful story about a beautiful Faith. It is sad that now-a-days so few even know what the Te Deum is! We have allowed liturgists to push out the old and valuable hymns with the 'modern'. lex orandi lex credendi
K.C.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Father Peter Marsalek wins October 'Don Camillo' award!
(K.C. has it from reliable sources that...)
Friday, 16 October, Father Peter Marsalek S.O.L.T. explained to the Bishop Garriga students in Corpus Christi, Texas that receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is a better way than hand Communion. Father Marsalek is president of both Bishop Garriga Middle School and John Paul II High school.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Rosemarie and Ben from Unam Sanctam blog take K. C. to woodshed!
(K.C. is purple) Ben and Rosemarie continue with the discussion : 'Is the Holy Spirit the most feminine member of the Holy Trinity?'
As you can see, this has branched out (of control). We are discussing the meaning of 'co-Redemptrix' and whether Our Lady is only spouse to the Holy Spirit. Rosemarie fears I think co-redeemer is equivalent to Redeemer.
Rosemarie!..What was the name of Captain Sullenberger's copilot? You might have to seriously google to find out that answer :-)
Hence! you see that 'copilot' is not nearly equivalent to 'pilot'. ditto for 'co-redeemer' and 'redeemer'. No mealy-mouthing needed!
>>> I think 'redemptor' simply means 'redeemer'... therefore co-Redemptrix must mean co-redeemer.
[Rosemarie]That is not the proper understanding of the term. The Church teaches that Jesus is our only Redeemer. Here's a quote from the Council of Trent, Session 25, “On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images”:The holy council commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching... (that) they above all instruct the faithful diligently in matters relating to intercession and invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their prayers to God for men, it is good and beneficial suppliantly to invoke them and to have recourse to their prayers, assistance and support in order to obtain favors from God through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior....But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema. (emphasis mine)(Read the original in context: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent25.htm )
[Rosemarie]This is an infallible teaching of the extraordinary Magisterium. It rules out Mary being a "co-redeemer" if by that we mean a redeemer alongside Christ. Many English-speakers misunderstand the term “Co-redemptrix” because in our language the prefix “co-“ usually means "equal-to", like a co-worker. However, it comes from the Latin word “cum,” meaning "with", not "equal to". So Co-redemptrix means "with the Redeemer", and since it has a feminine suffix ("-trix"), it indicates a female. So in Catholic Mariology, Co-redemptrix means "Woman with the Redeemer", not "female co-redeemer."
Mary is the Woman who is specially associated with Our Lord in His earthly mission. She cooperates in His work of redemption but is not herself a redeemer. This is the common Mariological understanding of the term "Co-redemptrix>>>If all the term meant was "Woman with the Redeemer", not only would all Catholics have signed on to 5th dogma petition.....all Baptists, Mormons and Muslims would have joined in!Baptists, and Evangelicals in general, are not likely to sign on to any Catholic idea that has even a whiff of exaltation of Mary. Many of them reject the title "Mother of God" even though they believe that Jesus is God and Mary is His Mother, simply because it "exalts Mary too much" in their eyes. [I don't see how 'Woman with the Redeemer' is an exaltation. The preposition 'with' is ambiguous and it certainly does not imply Mary's Immaculate Conception, nor her redemptive human suffering]So there's no way they would sign on to this idea.Mormons are a somewhat different bird but I suspect they also wouldn't sign on to a Catholic belief like that. Muslims don't even believe that Jesus is the Redeemer, so they certainly wouldn't call His Mother the "Woman with the Redeemer."
>>>With regards to the Holy Spirit being a sort of "Redeemer"
[Rosemarie]I keep stressing that He is not “a sort of Redeemer," but One who works with Christ the Redeemer in applying the fruits of redemption to us. Jesus alone is Redeemer, but others work with Him in applying that redemption to souls, especially the Holy Spirit in and through Our Lady.(continued)
>>> In the 'Te Deum' Christ's redeeming roll is tied to His humanity - 'You redeemed your people with your precious Blood'. Therefore I think it also our Lady's human suffering which qualifies her as a redemptrix, the Immaculate suffering for the wicked.
[Rosemarie]Yet she herself is among the redeemed, and so cannot be a redeemer with Our Lord. If I may quote Ludwig von Ott:The title Corredemptrix =Coredemptress, which has been current since the fifteenth century, and which also appears in some official Church documents under Pius X (Dzgr 1978,) must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the sole Redeemer of humanity (I Tim. II:5) As she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by Christ, she could not of her self merit the grace of the redemption of humanity in accordance with the principle: Principium meriti non cadit sub eodem merito. (The author of an act of merit cannot be a recipient of the same act of merit.) Her co-operation in the objective redemption is an indirect, remote co-operation, and derives from this that she voluntarily devoted her whole life to the service of the redeemer, and under the Cross, suffered and sacrificed with Him. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 213)Jesus alone redeems, His suffering and death alone have the power to free us from sin. Mary's sufferings cannot redeem us, but united to Christ they gain redemptive value. The value comes from Him, not her, since He is the sole Redeemer. Thus Mary shares in Our Lord’s act of redemption without herself being a redeemer/redemptrix.
>>> This is why I believe Redemption is Jesus Christ Incarnate's roll in the Holy Trinity, and not the Father's nor the Spirit's.
[Rosemarie]Technically, it’s not His role in the Holy Trinity but in His earthly mission. We’re talking about the economy of the redemption, not the inner life of the Godhead.Jesus is the Redeemer and the Holy Ghost is He Who works with the Redeemer, hence the “Co-redeemer” (cum – redemptor, “with the redeemer”). The Spirit dispenses the graces and merits of Christ’s Redemption to us through Mary, thus making her the Co-redemptrix, the “Woman with the Redeemer.” Yet neither He nor Mary are redeemers. Am I finally clear enough?(continued)
>>> It reminds me a little of modalism when we start saying the Spirit is some kind of Redeemer, or for that matter 'because Mary is the Holy Spirit's spouse she must be Christ's as well.
[Rosemarie]'Except that I haven’t said those things. It’s not that Mary must be Christ’s spouse because she is spouse of the Holy Spirit. It would be that she is espoused to the entire Godhead, but this relationship is commonly appropriated to the Third Person. It’s the theological principle of appropriation: that something common to all Three Persons can be attributed to one of the Persons in particular because of a certain “fittingness.” The principle of “appropriation” not modalism; it’s Catholic theology. This article in the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it:Appropriationhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01658a.htm
>>>On another note...speaking of Mary's iconship not being limited to the Holy Spirit...I think she images the Father in being Theotokos.
[Rosemarie]Yes;Matthais Joseph Scheeben wrote: “The motherhood of Mary is the most perfect image of the paternity of God the Father with regard to the Son of God in His humanity” (Mariology 1:176)She also images Christ insofar as her life “mirrors” His in many ways, since God conformed her to her Son. I doubt Dr. Hahn would say that she only images the Third Person of the Trinity and not the other Two.
>>> keep praying for me! maybe I'll come around
[Rosemarie]I recommend you study some Catholic theology and Mariology. You would find it helpful.[ZA-ZING!]
>>>nice switcheroo there! 'close union with' substituted for 'earthly image of'.
[Rosemarie]”It’s not exactly a switcheroo.
I was responding to your statement:
“I still don't see how, if Mary is the human analog or icon or quasi-incarnation to the Holy Spirit, that her co-redeeming fits that role.
[Rosemarie]”Maybe we are just talking past each other here. We probably both read what Dr. Hahn said in different ways, so what you mean by “human analog or icon or quasi-incarnation” may not be what I think Scott means by it.In Jesu et Maria,Rosemarie
(from Ben)
Dear Kneeling Catholic, You write:
"I believe [Mary] is only spouse to the Holy Spirit, and not the spouse of her Divine Son or Heavenly Father."
I'm sure we can agree that Mary is the prototype or personal symbol of the Church. If that's true, then she's also Spouse of Christ, since St. Paul says: "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body." So if Christ is Bridegroom of the Church, He is also Bridegroom of the embodiment of the Church. Saint Germanus calls Mary "God-wed" (indiscriminately, to the whole Godhead). Mary is married spiritually to the Father, according to St. John of Damascus, who says: "It was fitting that the spouse whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine Mansions".
Further, if Mary is the New Eve, then she is married to the New Adam (the Son). [Stop! Ben, I don't see how that follows. Our Lord and our Lady did not come here to imitate Adam and Eve. Jesus and Mary, thru their obedience and their suffering, undid the sin of Adam and Eve. I believe that by itself merits the names 'new Adam' and 'new Eve'. How does marrying them help us? I don't see the logical connection ] St. Ephraim and St. Peter Chrysologus both refer to her as Bride of Christ. Obviously, the "Bride of God" image is a metaphor. What it signifies is unitive love: "The union brought about by married love is the most intimate of all." (St. Maximilian). If this is true, then Mary is Spouse of the whole Godhead, since she is united to all the Persons in a unitive love. [Ben, I admit I went way out on a limb saying Mary is only spouse to the Person of the Holy Spirit and you might be correct. Nevertheless when you say 'Spouse of God' must mean the spouse of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I fear you are wrong. Otherwise saying 'Mother of God' must mean the mother of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thanks for joining in!]
K.C.
As you can see, this has branched out (of control). We are discussing the meaning of 'co-Redemptrix' and whether Our Lady is only spouse to the Holy Spirit. Rosemarie fears I think co-redeemer is equivalent to Redeemer.
Rosemarie!..What was the name of Captain Sullenberger's copilot? You might have to seriously google to find out that answer :-)
>>> I think 'redemptor' simply means 'redeemer'... therefore co-Redemptrix must mean co-redeemer.
[Rosemarie]That is not the proper understanding of the term. The Church teaches that Jesus is our only Redeemer. Here's a quote from the Council of Trent, Session 25, “On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images”:The holy council commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching... (that) they above all instruct the faithful diligently in matters relating to intercession and invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their prayers to God for men, it is good and beneficial suppliantly to invoke them and to have recourse to their prayers, assistance and support in order to obtain favors from God through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior....But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema. (emphasis mine)(Read the original in context: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent25.htm )
[Rosemarie]This is an infallible teaching of the extraordinary Magisterium. It rules out Mary being a "co-redeemer" if by that we mean a redeemer alongside Christ. Many English-speakers misunderstand the term “Co-redemptrix” because in our language the prefix “co-“ usually means "equal-to", like a co-worker. However, it comes from the Latin word “cum,” meaning "with", not "equal to". So Co-redemptrix means "with the Redeemer", and since it has a feminine suffix ("-trix"), it indicates a female. So in Catholic Mariology, Co-redemptrix means "Woman with the Redeemer", not "female co-redeemer."
Mary is the Woman who is specially associated with Our Lord in His earthly mission. She cooperates in His work of redemption but is not herself a redeemer. This is the common Mariological understanding of the term "Co-redemptrix>>>If all the term meant was "Woman with the Redeemer", not only would all Catholics have signed on to 5th dogma petition.....all Baptists, Mormons and Muslims would have joined in!Baptists, and Evangelicals in general, are not likely to sign on to any Catholic idea that has even a whiff of exaltation of Mary. Many of them reject the title "Mother of God" even though they believe that Jesus is God and Mary is His Mother, simply because it "exalts Mary too much" in their eyes. [I don't see how 'Woman with the Redeemer' is an exaltation. The preposition 'with' is ambiguous and it certainly does not imply Mary's Immaculate Conception, nor her redemptive human suffering]So there's no way they would sign on to this idea.Mormons are a somewhat different bird but I suspect they also wouldn't sign on to a Catholic belief like that. Muslims don't even believe that Jesus is the Redeemer, so they certainly wouldn't call His Mother the "Woman with the Redeemer."
>>>With regards to the Holy Spirit being a sort of "Redeemer"
[Rosemarie]I keep stressing that He is not “a sort of Redeemer," but One who works with Christ the Redeemer in applying the fruits of redemption to us. Jesus alone is Redeemer, but others work with Him in applying that redemption to souls, especially the Holy Spirit in and through Our Lady.(continued)
>>> In the 'Te Deum' Christ's redeeming roll is tied to His humanity - 'You redeemed your people with your precious Blood'. Therefore I think it also our Lady's human suffering which qualifies her as a redemptrix, the Immaculate suffering for the wicked.
[Rosemarie]Yet she herself is among the redeemed, and so cannot be a redeemer with Our Lord. If I may quote Ludwig von Ott:The title Corredemptrix =Coredemptress, which has been current since the fifteenth century, and which also appears in some official Church documents under Pius X (Dzgr 1978,) must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the sole Redeemer of humanity (I Tim. II:5) As she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by Christ, she could not of her self merit the grace of the redemption of humanity in accordance with the principle: Principium meriti non cadit sub eodem merito. (The author of an act of merit cannot be a recipient of the same act of merit.) Her co-operation in the objective redemption is an indirect, remote co-operation, and derives from this that she voluntarily devoted her whole life to the service of the redeemer, and under the Cross, suffered and sacrificed with Him. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 213)Jesus alone redeems, His suffering and death alone have the power to free us from sin. Mary's sufferings cannot redeem us, but united to Christ they gain redemptive value. The value comes from Him, not her, since He is the sole Redeemer. Thus Mary shares in Our Lord’s act of redemption without herself being a redeemer/redemptrix.
>>> This is why I believe Redemption is Jesus Christ Incarnate's roll in the Holy Trinity, and not the Father's nor the Spirit's.
[Rosemarie]Technically, it’s not His role in the Holy Trinity but in His earthly mission. We’re talking about the economy of the redemption, not the inner life of the Godhead.Jesus is the Redeemer and the Holy Ghost is He Who works with the Redeemer, hence the “Co-redeemer” (cum – redemptor, “with the redeemer”). The Spirit dispenses the graces and merits of Christ’s Redemption to us through Mary, thus making her the Co-redemptrix, the “Woman with the Redeemer.” Yet neither He nor Mary are redeemers. Am I finally clear enough?(continued)
>>> It reminds me a little of modalism when we start saying the Spirit is some kind of Redeemer, or for that matter 'because Mary is the Holy Spirit's spouse she must be Christ's as well.
[Rosemarie]'Except that I haven’t said those things. It’s not that Mary must be Christ’s spouse because she is spouse of the Holy Spirit. It would be that she is espoused to the entire Godhead, but this relationship is commonly appropriated to the Third Person. It’s the theological principle of appropriation: that something common to all Three Persons can be attributed to one of the Persons in particular because of a certain “fittingness.” The principle of “appropriation” not modalism; it’s Catholic theology. This article in the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it:Appropriationhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01658a.htm
>>>On another note...speaking of Mary's iconship not being limited to the Holy Spirit...I think she images the Father in being Theotokos.
[Rosemarie]Yes;Matthais Joseph Scheeben wrote: “The motherhood of Mary is the most perfect image of the paternity of God the Father with regard to the Son of God in His humanity” (Mariology 1:176)She also images Christ insofar as her life “mirrors” His in many ways, since God conformed her to her Son. I doubt Dr. Hahn would say that she only images the Third Person of the Trinity and not the other Two.
>>> keep praying for me! maybe I'll come around
[Rosemarie]I recommend you study some Catholic theology and Mariology. You would find it helpful.[ZA-ZING!]
>>>nice switcheroo there! 'close union with' substituted for 'earthly image of'.
[Rosemarie]”It’s not exactly a switcheroo.
I was responding to your statement:
“I still don't see how, if Mary is the human analog or icon or quasi-incarnation to the Holy Spirit, that her co-redeeming fits that role.
[Rosemarie]”Maybe we are just talking past each other here. We probably both read what Dr. Hahn said in different ways, so what you mean by “human analog or icon or quasi-incarnation” may not be what I think Scott means by it.In Jesu et Maria,Rosemarie
(from Ben)
Dear Kneeling Catholic, You write:
"I believe [Mary] is only spouse to the Holy Spirit, and not the spouse of her Divine Son or Heavenly Father."
I'm sure we can agree that Mary is the prototype or personal symbol of the Church. If that's true, then she's also Spouse of Christ, since St. Paul says: "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body." So if Christ is Bridegroom of the Church, He is also Bridegroom of the embodiment of the Church. Saint Germanus calls Mary "God-wed" (indiscriminately, to the whole Godhead). Mary is married spiritually to the Father, according to St. John of Damascus, who says: "It was fitting that the spouse whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine Mansions".
Further, if Mary is the New Eve, then she is married to the New Adam (the Son). [Stop! Ben, I don't see how that follows. Our Lord and our Lady did not come here to imitate Adam and Eve. Jesus and Mary, thru their obedience and their suffering, undid the sin of Adam and Eve. I believe that by itself merits the names 'new Adam' and 'new Eve'. How does marrying them help us? I don't see the logical connection ] St. Ephraim and St. Peter Chrysologus both refer to her as Bride of Christ. Obviously, the "Bride of God" image is a metaphor. What it signifies is unitive love: "The union brought about by married love is the most intimate of all." (St. Maximilian). If this is true, then Mary is Spouse of the whole Godhead, since she is united to all the Persons in a unitive love. [Ben, I admit I went way out on a limb saying Mary is only spouse to the Person of the Holy Spirit and you might be correct. Nevertheless when you say 'Spouse of God' must mean the spouse of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I fear you are wrong. Otherwise saying 'Mother of God' must mean the mother of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thanks for joining in!]
K.C.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Rosemarie (Unam Sanctam Blog) does not disappoint!
K. C. and Rosemarie continue arguing even though everyone else has moved on.
>>>Now, while it’s true that the Holy Spirit is not the Redeemer, neither is Mary, strictly speaking. "Co-redemptrix" doesn't mean "coredeemer," but "Woman with the Redeemer." <<<<
Rosemarie!
One of us is just plain wrong on this! I think 'redemptor' simply means 'redeemer'... therefore co-Redemptrix must mean co-redeemer.
If all the term meant was "Woman with the Redeemer", not only would all Catholics have signed on to 5th dogma petition.....all Baptists, Mormons and Muslims would have joined in! Talk about an ecumenical ground swell!!..
On another note...speaking of Mary's iconship not being limited to the Holy Spirit...I think she images the Father in being Theotokos. Don't we believe Christ is born of the Father before all ages? ex Patre-ex Maria
keep praying for me! maybe I'll come around
K.C.
Rosemarie's post for all who would like to respond....
>>>I still don't see how, if Mary is the human analog or icon or quasi-incarnation to the Holy Spirit, that her co-redeeming fits that role.
To answer this, I’d like to begin by quoting a Mariologist, Fr. Rene Laurentin. While I don’t always agree with him on everything, he does make some good points on this topic that I’d like us to consider. In his _ A Short Treatise on the Virgin Mary_,...
Fr. Laurentin writes:Here again, therefore, Mary is seen entirely in relation to Christ. Less recognition has been given to the complementary truth that she is also entirely relative to the Holy Spirit. She acts in dependence on him. The title of “coredemptrix” which was coined for her and widely attributed to her by Mariologists, though not retained by the papal magisterium or by Vatican II, would fit the Holy Spirit in the primary and strictest sense of the term; for he is the Spirit of Christ, and by his anointing and breath the whole saving work of the Redeemer is animated. The title “co-Redeemer” would aptly describe him, according to a divine equality that would give full force to the prefix “co-“. Mary owes the fact that she was able to communicate in this sacrifice to the Holy Spirit, who not only cooperated in the essential work by his anointing, but also divinely stirred up the cooperation of the first of the redeemed. With him who is “co-Redeemer” she contracts this new bond at the time of the essential sacrifice. The Spirit had urged her on to Calvary so that she might stand there as the first fruits of the cooperating Church, at the very hour when the sign of the Church was to appear from the pierced side of the Savior (Jn. 19:34). (pp. 242-243.)Now, while it’s true that the Holy Spirit is not the Redeemer, neither is Mary, strictly speaking.
"Co-redemptrix" doesn't mean "coredeemer," but "Woman with the Redeemer." Mary works with Jesus, playing a subordinate role in the redemption of the world. The Holy Ghost also works “with the Redeemer,” so that ties into Fr. Laurentin’s assertion that He could be called “co-Redeemer” (although he is not our Redeemer).Mariologists say that the Blessed Virgin’s role as Co-redemptrix is threefold.
First, she gave Jesus the Body and Blood that He offered up to the Father for our salvation. This was, of course, effectively accomplished in her by the Holy Spirit, as we say in the Creed that Christ was “conceived by the Holy Ghost.” Second, she united her sufferings to His on Calvary. Fr. Laurentin says above that the Spirit “stirred” her to do this. Third, she participates in the distribution of the grace of salvation that her Son gained on Calvary. Recall that St. Maximilian wrote, “as the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she shares in the distribution of all graces.” So here, too, we see the action of the Third Person of the Trinity in and through Mary.
This is why I don’t see how her Co-redemptrix role contradicts her close union[nice switcheroo there! 'close union with' substituted for 'earthly image of'. If Dr. Hahn were only saying Mary had a 'close union' with the Holy Spirit then we would not be having this discussion]with the Holy Ghost. On the contrary, the two are very much intertwined. Mary is the ‘Woman with the Redeemer” precisely because the Spirit of God, Who worked with Christ throughout His earthly life and continues to work with Him in the Church, has associated the Blessed Virgin with His work and works through her in a special way. The Spirit works with Christ through Mary, she works with Christ by the power of the Spirit.I hope that helps clarify what I’ve been saying all along. Feel free to ask more questions.>>>Pray for me!Please pray for me as well!In Jesu et Maria,Rosemarie
>>>Now, while it’s true that the Holy Spirit is not the Redeemer, neither is Mary, strictly speaking. "Co-redemptrix" doesn't mean "coredeemer," but "Woman with the Redeemer." <<<<
Rosemarie!
One of us is just plain wrong on this! I think 'redemptor' simply means 'redeemer'... therefore co-Redemptrix must mean co-redeemer.
If all the term meant was "Woman with the Redeemer", not only would all Catholics have signed on to 5th dogma petition.....all Baptists, Mormons and Muslims would have joined in! Talk about an ecumenical ground swell!!..
With regards to the Holy Spirit being a sort of "Redeemer"....In the 'Te Deum' Christ's redeeming roll is tied to His humanity - 'You redeemed your people with your precious Blood'. Therefore I think it also our Lady's human suffering which qualifies her as a redemptrix, the Immaculate suffering for the wicked. This is why I believe Redemption is Jesus Christ Incarnate's roll in the Holy Trinity, and not the Father's nor the Spirit's. It reminds me a little of modalism when we start saying the Spirit is some kind of Redeemer, or for that matter 'because Mary is the Holy Spirit's spouse she must be Christ's as well.'..
On another note...speaking of Mary's iconship not being limited to the Holy Spirit...I think she images the Father in being Theotokos. Don't we believe Christ is born of the Father before all ages? ex Patre-ex Maria
keep praying for me! maybe I'll come around
K.C.
Rosemarie's post for all who would like to respond....
>>>I still don't see how, if Mary is the human analog or icon or quasi-incarnation to the Holy Spirit, that her co-redeeming fits that role.
To answer this, I’d like to begin by quoting a Mariologist, Fr. Rene Laurentin. While I don’t always agree with him on everything, he does make some good points on this topic that I’d like us to consider. In his _ A Short Treatise on the Virgin Mary_,...
Fr. Laurentin writes:Here again, therefore, Mary is seen entirely in relation to Christ. Less recognition has been given to the complementary truth that she is also entirely relative to the Holy Spirit. She acts in dependence on him. The title of “coredemptrix” which was coined for her and widely attributed to her by Mariologists, though not retained by the papal magisterium or by Vatican II, would fit the Holy Spirit in the primary and strictest sense of the term; for he is the Spirit of Christ, and by his anointing and breath the whole saving work of the Redeemer is animated. The title “co-Redeemer” would aptly describe him, according to a divine equality that would give full force to the prefix “co-“. Mary owes the fact that she was able to communicate in this sacrifice to the Holy Spirit, who not only cooperated in the essential work by his anointing, but also divinely stirred up the cooperation of the first of the redeemed. With him who is “co-Redeemer” she contracts this new bond at the time of the essential sacrifice. The Spirit had urged her on to Calvary so that she might stand there as the first fruits of the cooperating Church, at the very hour when the sign of the Church was to appear from the pierced side of the Savior (Jn. 19:34). (pp. 242-243.)Now, while it’s true that the Holy Spirit is not the Redeemer, neither is Mary, strictly speaking.
"Co-redemptrix" doesn't mean "coredeemer," but "Woman with the Redeemer." Mary works with Jesus, playing a subordinate role in the redemption of the world. The Holy Ghost also works “with the Redeemer,” so that ties into Fr. Laurentin’s assertion that He could be called “co-Redeemer” (although he is not our Redeemer).Mariologists say that the Blessed Virgin’s role as Co-redemptrix is threefold.
First, she gave Jesus the Body and Blood that He offered up to the Father for our salvation. This was, of course, effectively accomplished in her by the Holy Spirit, as we say in the Creed that Christ was “conceived by the Holy Ghost.” Second, she united her sufferings to His on Calvary. Fr. Laurentin says above that the Spirit “stirred” her to do this. Third, she participates in the distribution of the grace of salvation that her Son gained on Calvary. Recall that St. Maximilian wrote, “as the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she shares in the distribution of all graces.” So here, too, we see the action of the Third Person of the Trinity in and through Mary.
This is why I don’t see how her Co-redemptrix role contradicts her close union[nice switcheroo there! 'close union with' substituted for 'earthly image of'. If Dr. Hahn were only saying Mary had a 'close union' with the Holy Spirit then we would not be having this discussion]with the Holy Ghost. On the contrary, the two are very much intertwined. Mary is the ‘Woman with the Redeemer” precisely because the Spirit of God, Who worked with Christ throughout His earthly life and continues to work with Him in the Church, has associated the Blessed Virgin with His work and works through her in a special way. The Spirit works with Christ through Mary, she works with Christ by the power of the Spirit.I hope that helps clarify what I’ve been saying all along. Feel free to ask more questions.>>>Pray for me!Please pray for me as well!In Jesu et Maria,Rosemarie
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Travel to notorious countries raised child porn suspicions about bishop Raymond Lahey: Documents
....A former Nova Scotia bishop now facing child pornography charges initially was flagged by customs authorities when he landed at the Ottawa airport because his passport revealed extensive travel to countries notorious as sources of the illicit material, a court document alleges..... read the rest here, it has a very moving video testimony from a victim of priestly sexual abuse.....
the accused Bishop Raymond Lahey on the "seamless garment"of life>>>>
...The inconsistency of approaches to life issues is remarkable. Some vehemently oppose capital punishment but readily accept euthanasia. Others would oppose abortion and then support wars in which children are killed in large numbers. Most frightening are the few who would justify killing those who perform abortions in the name of the right to life. Catholic teaching on life, however, is a “seamless garment,” pro-life from its beginning to its end.
It would defend the tiniest individuated human person from the moment of his or her conception, and uphold the right of that same person to die naturally with peace and dignity. What gives Catholic teaching consistency is the principle that life is God-given: that God is the source of all life, and that human life in particular is the gift of God’s own image and likeness, a gift no other human being has the right to destroy. This is not “church law”, but God’s teaching in the Scriptures....
K.C.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Dr. Scott Hahn's new teaching and its adherents - i'm purple
K.C. has been distracted the past week by a disscussion over on 'Unam Sanctam' blog. Dr. Scott Hahn's teaching regarding the Holy Spirit has been getting some well-deserved air time.
Hahn's style has been to quote a few lesser-known Catholic theologians down thru the ages who have said that the Holy Spirit has a maternal role. This would not be very remarkable except that Dr. Hahn seems to be trying to locate *all* of God's maternity in the Holy Spirit. Like a Family, we know there's a Father and a Son, therefore there has to be a Mother! Process of elimination gives Dr. Hahn only one candidate. The Holy Spirit. After being seized by this simple analogy, Dr. Hahn appears ready to fill out an application for the next ex cathedra definition.
Over the past week I have had the opportunity to see Dr. Hahn and a few of his disciples, Jean Baptiste and Rosemarie, in action in blogdom. I am becoming more skeptical with regards to his claims....
Dr. Hahn uses disparaging words to describe the teaching of Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit, [recall 'absurd' and 'Holy Bachelor'] and Rosemarie questions the teaching's authority. This seems logical. Undermining Mary's Matrimony to the Holy Spirit is to be expected. If Hahn believes the Holy Spirit is Maternal then why would He (??) want to be espoused to a human woman?
But then Jean Baptiste assures me that Dr. Hahn is solidly behind the teaching that Mary is the Holy Spirit's spouse. In such a case, where adherents seem to contradict one another, I think clarity is needed. Is there a Divine Matrimony between the Holy Spirit and Mary, or isn't there?...
Saying she was married to all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity seems to confuse something which *was* quite clear. e.g. When we say Mary is Mother of God, we don't need to specify...we know that she is *not* mother of the Father, nor of the Holy Spirit. So, you see, it is possible to have a particular relationship to One Person of the Trinity which is not shared with the Others. In the same way if we say she is spouse of God, then she does not have to be married to all Three Persons, which is what I understand Rosemarie to be saying...
Furthermore,.....I thought that Mary's Perpetual Virginity relied upon St. Joseph's conviction that Mary should only be the spouse of one Person, i.e. the Holy Spirit! "Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit". This quote comes from a pretty old document, authored by the Person who is the topic of this discussion.
K.C.
>>>We can dispense with this 'quasi-incarnation' nonsense.
Rosemarie:*Sigh* Please scroll up to what I posted above on "October 10, 2009 3:58 PM." It gives what St. Maximilian Kolbe said in full context and so shows just what he meant when he said that the Blessed Virgin is "in a certain sense, the 'incarnation' of the Holy Spirit."
>>>I disagree with your 'mutually exclusive' statement in that the Person of the Holy Spirit is *not* our Redeemer!>>>
Rosemarie:I never said that the Holy Spirit is the Redeemer. What I said is that the Holy Spirit worked *with* our Redeemer throughout His earthly life and continues to do so in the Church. While they are certainly distinct Divine Persons, they are not totally separate from each other since they share one Divine Nature (along with God the Father).Traditional Catholic theology teaches that the Three Persons of the Trinity act together in regard to creatures. So while some distinctions may be made, we can't make a full exclusion of the Spirit from Our Lord's work.
>>>Therefore if Mary is truly Co-redemptrix then she is not in any way fulfilling a role analogous to that of the Holy Spirit. Agreed?
Rosemarie>>>St. Maximilian wrote the following: "As Mother of Jesus our Savior, Mary was the Co-redemptrix of the human race; as the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she shares in the distribution of all graces." (Kolbe, Sketch 1940)So he seems to have made a distinction between her roles as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix, attributing one to her relationship with Christ and the other to her union with the Spirit. But the saint clearly believed in both, even though he emphasized the union between the Holy Ghost and Mary.
>>>So it appears to me Dr. Hahn's speculation being true would do away with Mary's role as Co=redemptrix as well as her being the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
Rosemarie: I don't see how. Dr. Hahn is on record as a supporter of the "Fifth Dogma" of Mary as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. Here is something he wrote:"While I am not naïve, I am hopeful, but only because of the Father’s desire to pour out his supernatural power to unite all of his children around his Son and “our common mother” (Redemptoris Mater 25). That is why I would welcome a new Marian dogma, if the vicar of my Lord should choose to define one. As we approach the Jubilee celebration of the Incarnation, how fitting indeed would a dogma celebrating the role and full identity of the Woman who made the Incarnation possible."From: http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/hahn.htmAnd St. Maximilian still believed that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, he just understood it differently than you seem to.
Why the either/or mentality, KC? How does the bond between Our Lady and the Holy Ghost as expounded upon by St. Maximilian somehow negate the fact that she is the Mother of God the Son according to the flesh? Why can't Blessed Mother have relationships to both Jesus and the Holy Spirit - and to God the Father, for that matter? Mariologists traditionally expounded on her relationships to all Three Persons.[Right, but not the same relationship! Pius XII sums it up quite beautifully ...
" As we gaze upon thee, O spotless maiden and favorite of the Heavenly Father, our minds are lost in admiration! O Virgin, Spouse of the Holy Spirit! O tender Mother of Jesus" ...
hence she is daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son and spouse of the Holy Spirit. She relates to all Three, but uniquely for Each.
...Dr. Hahn's other hero, Matthias Scheeben, was a proponent of Mary as bride of Christ, hence I suspect Dr. Hahn is also leaning towards Mary as bride of Christ or of all Three Persons.]
I don't get why you see these as mutually exclusive; St. Maximilian didn't, Dr. Hahn doesn't, lots of Mariologists people don't. What am I missing here?In Jesu et Maria,Rosemarie
Hey
Rosemarie!
I plainly see that Maximillian Kolbe accepted the teaching that Mary is spouse of the Holy Spirit.
I don't see that Dr. Hahn is on the same page as Kolbe since he never quotes Kolbe on that point. I also don't see quotes from Kolbe affirming the Holy Spirit's maternal nature, or femininity. Therefore I think Hahn is using Kolbe selectively. On the other hand Hahn did made that 'Holy Bachelor' snipe when he mentioned Mary's matrimony with the Holy Spirit.... that's all I have to go on. I. Give me something more from Hahn!!....
>>>How does the bond between Our Lady and the Holy Ghost as expounded upon by St. Maximilian somehow negate the fact that she is the Mother of God the Son according to the flesh? Why can't Blessed Mother have relationships to both Jesus and the Holy Spirit - and to God the Father, for that matter? <<<<
I won't repeat, since I apparently was too confusing. How should I put it? You seemed to be saying that Mary, in your belief, is spouse to all three Persons of the Holy Trinity. I was disagreeing. I believe she is only spouse to the Holy Spirit, and not the spouse of her Divine Son or Heavenly Father.
Regarding 'Co-redemptrix' I think a little water has passed under the bridge since Dr. Hahn made his affirmation of that doctrine. At the time, I don't think, he was yet convinced that Mary is the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit. I still don't see how, if Mary is the human analog or icon or quasi-incarnation to the Holy Spirit, that her co-redeeming fits that role...... and if he's only saying that Mary sometimes is and sometimes isn't an 'earthly type for the Holy Spirit' then he's not saying much.
Hahn's style has been to quote a few lesser-known Catholic theologians down thru the ages who have said that the Holy Spirit has a maternal role. This would not be very remarkable except that Dr. Hahn seems to be trying to locate *all* of God's maternity in the Holy Spirit. Like a Family, we know there's a Father and a Son, therefore there has to be a Mother! Process of elimination gives Dr. Hahn only one candidate. The Holy Spirit. After being seized by this simple analogy, Dr. Hahn appears ready to fill out an application for the next ex cathedra definition.
Over the past week I have had the opportunity to see Dr. Hahn and a few of his disciples, Jean Baptiste and Rosemarie, in action in blogdom. I am becoming more skeptical with regards to his claims....
Dr. Hahn uses disparaging words to describe the teaching of Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit, [recall 'absurd' and 'Holy Bachelor'] and Rosemarie questions the teaching's authority. This seems logical. Undermining Mary's Matrimony to the Holy Spirit is to be expected. If Hahn believes the Holy Spirit is Maternal then why would He (??) want to be espoused to a human woman?
But then Jean Baptiste assures me that Dr. Hahn is solidly behind the teaching that Mary is the Holy Spirit's spouse. In such a case, where adherents seem to contradict one another, I think clarity is needed. Is there a Divine Matrimony between the Holy Spirit and Mary, or isn't there?...
Saying she was married to all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity seems to confuse something which *was* quite clear. e.g. When we say Mary is Mother of God, we don't need to specify...we know that she is *not* mother of the Father, nor of the Holy Spirit. So, you see, it is possible to have a particular relationship to One Person of the Trinity which is not shared with the Others. In the same way if we say she is spouse of God, then she does not have to be married to all Three Persons, which is what I understand Rosemarie to be saying...
Furthermore,.....I thought that Mary's Perpetual Virginity relied upon St. Joseph's conviction that Mary should only be the spouse of one Person, i.e. the Holy Spirit! "Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit". This quote comes from a pretty old document, authored by the Person who is the topic of this discussion.
K.C.
>>>We can dispense with this 'quasi-incarnation' nonsense.
Rosemarie:*Sigh* Please scroll up to what I posted above on "October 10, 2009 3:58 PM." It gives what St. Maximilian Kolbe said in full context and so shows just what he meant when he said that the Blessed Virgin is "in a certain sense, the 'incarnation' of the Holy Spirit."
>>>I disagree with your 'mutually exclusive' statement in that the Person of the Holy Spirit is *not* our Redeemer!>>>
Rosemarie:I never said that the Holy Spirit is the Redeemer. What I said is that the Holy Spirit worked *with* our Redeemer throughout His earthly life and continues to do so in the Church. While they are certainly distinct Divine Persons, they are not totally separate from each other since they share one Divine Nature (along with God the Father).Traditional Catholic theology teaches that the Three Persons of the Trinity act together in regard to creatures. So while some distinctions may be made, we can't make a full exclusion of the Spirit from Our Lord's work.
>>>Therefore if Mary is truly Co-redemptrix then she is not in any way fulfilling a role analogous to that of the Holy Spirit. Agreed?
Rosemarie>>>St. Maximilian wrote the following: "As Mother of Jesus our Savior, Mary was the Co-redemptrix of the human race; as the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she shares in the distribution of all graces." (Kolbe, Sketch 1940)So he seems to have made a distinction between her roles as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix, attributing one to her relationship with Christ and the other to her union with the Spirit. But the saint clearly believed in both, even though he emphasized the union between the Holy Ghost and Mary.
>>>So it appears to me Dr. Hahn's speculation being true would do away with Mary's role as Co=redemptrix as well as her being the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
Rosemarie: I don't see how. Dr. Hahn is on record as a supporter of the "Fifth Dogma" of Mary as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. Here is something he wrote:"While I am not naïve, I am hopeful, but only because of the Father’s desire to pour out his supernatural power to unite all of his children around his Son and “our common mother” (Redemptoris Mater 25). That is why I would welcome a new Marian dogma, if the vicar of my Lord should choose to define one. As we approach the Jubilee celebration of the Incarnation, how fitting indeed would a dogma celebrating the role and full identity of the Woman who made the Incarnation possible."From: http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/hahn.htmAnd St. Maximilian still believed that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, he just understood it differently than you seem to.
Why the either/or mentality, KC? How does the bond between Our Lady and the Holy Ghost as expounded upon by St. Maximilian somehow negate the fact that she is the Mother of God the Son according to the flesh? Why can't Blessed Mother have relationships to both Jesus and the Holy Spirit - and to God the Father, for that matter? Mariologists traditionally expounded on her relationships to all Three Persons.[Right, but not the same relationship! Pius XII sums it up quite beautifully ...
" As we gaze upon thee, O spotless maiden and favorite of the Heavenly Father, our minds are lost in admiration! O Virgin, Spouse of the Holy Spirit! O tender Mother of Jesus" ...
hence she is daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son and spouse of the Holy Spirit. She relates to all Three, but uniquely for Each.
...Dr. Hahn's other hero, Matthias Scheeben, was a proponent of Mary as bride of Christ, hence I suspect Dr. Hahn is also leaning towards Mary as bride of Christ or of all Three Persons.]
I don't get why you see these as mutually exclusive; St. Maximilian didn't, Dr. Hahn doesn't, lots of Mariologists people don't. What am I missing here?In Jesu et Maria,Rosemarie
Hey
Rosemarie!
I plainly see that Maximillian Kolbe accepted the teaching that Mary is spouse of the Holy Spirit.
I don't see that Dr. Hahn is on the same page as Kolbe since he never quotes Kolbe on that point. I also don't see quotes from Kolbe affirming the Holy Spirit's maternal nature, or femininity. Therefore I think Hahn is using Kolbe selectively. On the other hand Hahn did made that 'Holy Bachelor' snipe when he mentioned Mary's matrimony with the Holy Spirit.... that's all I have to go on. I. Give me something more from Hahn!!....
>>>How does the bond between Our Lady and the Holy Ghost as expounded upon by St. Maximilian somehow negate the fact that she is the Mother of God the Son according to the flesh? Why can't Blessed Mother have relationships to both Jesus and the Holy Spirit - and to God the Father, for that matter? <<<<
I won't repeat, since I apparently was too confusing. How should I put it? You seemed to be saying that Mary, in your belief, is spouse to all three Persons of the Holy Trinity. I was disagreeing. I believe she is only spouse to the Holy Spirit, and not the spouse of her Divine Son or Heavenly Father.
Regarding 'Co-redemptrix' I think a little water has passed under the bridge since Dr. Hahn made his affirmation of that doctrine. At the time, I don't think, he was yet convinced that Mary is the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit. I still don't see how, if Mary is the human analog or icon or quasi-incarnation to the Holy Spirit, that her co-redeeming fits that role...... and if he's only saying that Mary sometimes is and sometimes isn't an 'earthly type for the Holy Spirit' then he's not saying much.
Pray for me!
K.C.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Athanasius Schneider in Detroit this weekend
Go there!!
Thank you to Te-Deum blogspot
http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2009/10/call-to-holiness-treasures-of-mass-next.html
http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2009/10/call-to-holiness-treasures-of-mass-next.html
Thursday, October 8, 2009
thanks to Jean Baptiste
for clue-ing me in on the Scott Hahn page. For anyone who is still interested in this topic, Dr. Hahn's essay on the "bridal-maternal understanding of the Holy
Spirit" is located at
http://www.salvationhistory.com/documents/scripture/First_Comes_Love_appendix.pdf
Jean Baptiste,
I apologize for the rough treatment. You are obviously a very loyal friend, and that in itself is commendable.
My biggest problem is my own conviction/obsession with 'lex orandi-lex credendi'. Dr. Hahn emphasizes that if his side were to win the day-- and the Church would define the Holy Spirit as the sole maternal member of the Holy Trinity-- then we could still never refer to the Holy Spirit as Mother, or ever pray that way.
If it were to be essentially true, then why not? 'lex orandi-lex credendi'. Moreover if it has been true for so long, then why is it not already reflected in some of the prayers of the Catholic Church? We have had 2000 years of development! And why is this 'truth' not even currently reflected in the prayers of Dr. Hahn's hero, the Syriac Church, wh0 Hahn says abandoned such references 1500 years ago?
I also cannot accept that Mary is solely identified with the Holy Spirit. In her role as Co-redemptrix it seems to me she is very closely identified and united with our Lord.
K.C.
Spirit" is located at
http://www.salvationhistory.com/documents/scripture/First_Comes_Love_appendix.pdf
Jean Baptiste,
I apologize for the rough treatment. You are obviously a very loyal friend, and that in itself is commendable.
My biggest problem is my own conviction/obsession with 'lex orandi-lex credendi'. Dr. Hahn emphasizes that if his side were to win the day-- and the Church would define the Holy Spirit as the sole maternal member of the Holy Trinity-- then we could still never refer to the Holy Spirit as Mother, or ever pray that way.
If it were to be essentially true, then why not? 'lex orandi-lex credendi'. Moreover if it has been true for so long, then why is it not already reflected in some of the prayers of the Catholic Church? We have had 2000 years of development! And why is this 'truth' not even currently reflected in the prayers of Dr. Hahn's hero, the Syriac Church, wh0 Hahn says abandoned such references 1500 years ago?
I also cannot accept that Mary is solely identified with the Holy Spirit. In her role as Co-redemptrix it seems to me she is very closely identified and united with our Lord.
K.C.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Ohio priest eradicates kneeling in his parish
“Finally, it has come to my attention to offer a gentle reminder that the common posture here at St. Susanna after receiving Holy Communion is STANDING. Of course if you have difficulty standing that long, use some common sense and be seated. Otherwise, please remain standing, singing and watching the Body of Christ become the Body of Christ.” Fr. Bob FarrellMaybe this is not aimed at those who kneel during Communion.....
Monday, October 5, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Dr. Hahn and the Holy Spirit (I'm purple)
[new and improved Oct 6, with comments from Dave Armstrong's blog. Thanks Dave!]
not wanting to beat a dead horse, but Dr. Hahn's idea of 'associating' God's mothering actions 'solely' in the Holy Spirit doesn't work. ((Someone might protest and say 'he's quoting someone else' -- yes, but he is accepting their characterization of his position ))
There is a controversy swirling around Dr. Scott Hahn's conjectures regarding the nature of the Holy Spirit. Some have said Dr. Hahn is teaching that the Holy Spirit is feminine. Dr. Hahn denies this. Yesterday he dove into a blog discussion over on Unam Sanctam Catholicam.
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/09/scott-hahns-maternal-spirit-compared-to.html
Dr. Hahn and Boniface,
I'm just wondering what Dr.'s teaching will do to this prayer we recite after each decade of the Rosary (at least when we are at Church) "Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary your well beloved spouse." I'm a big fan of 'As we pray, so we believe'. I am afraid such a teaching might alter the way the Church has prayed for 2,000 years....
A Catholic friend waiting for his plane to Iraq said he was put off by the Methodist chaplain who began his public prayer: "Father-Mother God". Was my friend not well catechized? I'm just wondering. Dr. Hahn is saying that God is Father and Mother.....
Of course if Dr. Hahn wants to get on board with my campaign for Communion kneelers, I might lose some of my fears. We monomaniacs can be very tolerant! :-)
K.C.
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/09/scott-hahns-maternal-spirit-compared-to.html
Dr. Hahn and Boniface,
I'm just wondering what Dr.'s teaching will do to this prayer we recite after each decade of the Rosary (at least when we are at Church) "Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary your well beloved spouse." I'm a big fan of 'As we pray, so we believe'. I am afraid such a teaching might alter the way the Church has prayed for 2,000 years....
A Catholic friend waiting for his plane to Iraq said he was put off by the Methodist chaplain who began his public prayer: "Father-Mother God". Was my friend not well catechized? I'm just wondering. Dr. Hahn is saying that God is Father and Mother.....
Of course if Dr. Hahn wants to get on board with my campaign for Communion kneelers, I might lose some of my fears. We monomaniacs can be very tolerant! :-)
K.C.
[PS on another note I just found: Count Zinzendorf, the founder of the Moravians, openly taught the doctrine Dr. Hahn seems to be hinting at. I believe the Moravians celebrated the Holy Spirit's enthronement as 'Mother' of the Church. This does not necessarily make the teaching wrong...but I don't see how such a teaching won't conflict with the role we traditionally give to Mary... also if Dr. Hahn is giving us a true teaching, then why does its most clear enunciation come from non-Catholic Moravians? I missed the memo where the Church's magisterial faculty got subcontracted out! :-)]
Randy said...
You seem to be implying that Scott Hahn has some big theology in his head that he is only hinting at. Somehow you know what it is and can figure out that someone else who taught something different is really just teaching a clearer version of Hahn's undisclosed theology. What if Hahn is making his true thoughts as clear as he can? What if he is hinting at something mysterious because all he sees are hints of something mysterious and not something clear that he just does not want to tell us?
Mon Oct 05, 03:54:00 PM EDT
Dave Armstrong said...
I've yet to see real interaction by critics with what Scott Hahn actually stated. Instead we get accusations and innuendoes and second-guessing. That is hardly fair to Scott, given the seriousness of the silly charges freely flung about.I guess it is the propensity for conspiratorialism and cynicism among some folks. Even the person who made the charges that Scott responded to withdrew them after Scott clarified.
Mon Oct 05, 06:14:00 PM EDT
Kneeling Catholic said...
Randy and Dave!You guys are formidable! I've seen much of your work. I'm a big fan!However, I think Dr. Hahn, by emphasizing the "motherhood" of the Holy Spirit, and then resorting to 'I never said the Holy Spirit was feminine,' has earned some second-guessing.What part of 'motherhood' is not feminine?!! This is not a rhetorical question. I'm serious.K.C.
Mon Oct 05, 08:41:00 PM EDT
Randy said...
I don't think Dr Hahn has been "emphasizing" the motherhood of the Holy Spirit. He made some carefully worded comments about it. He observed that there was some Catholic tradition behind it. Besides that his comments have been mostly responses to people who have freaked out. The man is a theologian. He is supposed to explore new territory. Give him a break.
Mon Oct 05, 11:36:00 PM EDT
Dave Armstrong said...
But Randy, it's more fun to find a closet liberal disguised as orthodox under every rock. :-)
Tue Oct 06, 12:37:00 AM EDT
You seem to be implying that Scott Hahn has some big theology in his head that he is only hinting at. Somehow you know what it is and can figure out that someone else who taught something different is really just teaching a clearer version of Hahn's undisclosed theology. What if Hahn is making his true thoughts as clear as he can? What if he is hinting at something mysterious because all he sees are hints of something mysterious and not something clear that he just does not want to tell us?
Mon Oct 05, 03:54:00 PM EDT
Dave Armstrong said...
I've yet to see real interaction by critics with what Scott Hahn actually stated. Instead we get accusations and innuendoes and second-guessing. That is hardly fair to Scott, given the seriousness of the silly charges freely flung about.I guess it is the propensity for conspiratorialism and cynicism among some folks. Even the person who made the charges that Scott responded to withdrew them after Scott clarified.
Mon Oct 05, 06:14:00 PM EDT
Kneeling Catholic said...
Randy and Dave!You guys are formidable! I've seen much of your work. I'm a big fan!However, I think Dr. Hahn, by emphasizing the "motherhood" of the Holy Spirit, and then resorting to 'I never said the Holy Spirit was feminine,' has earned some second-guessing.What part of 'motherhood' is not feminine?!! This is not a rhetorical question. I'm serious.K.C.
Mon Oct 05, 08:41:00 PM EDT
Randy said...
I don't think Dr Hahn has been "emphasizing" the motherhood of the Holy Spirit. He made some carefully worded comments about it. He observed that there was some Catholic tradition behind it. Besides that his comments have been mostly responses to people who have freaked out. The man is a theologian. He is supposed to explore new territory. Give him a break.
Mon Oct 05, 11:36:00 PM EDT
Dave Armstrong said...
But Randy, it's more fun to find a closet liberal disguised as orthodox under every rock. :-)
Tue Oct 06, 12:37:00 AM EDT
(added 07 OCT 2009)>>>Further, the association of feminine imagery solely with the Spirit would reinforce the subordination of women in church and society"<<<<<
not wanting to beat a dead horse, but Dr. Hahn's idea of 'associating' God's mothering actions 'solely' in the Holy Spirit doesn't work. ((Someone might protest and say 'he's quoting someone else' -- yes, but he is accepting their characterization of his position ))
Did not our Lord want to gather Jerusalem like mother hen? Don't each of us believe that Christ is born of the Father before all ages? Does not the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and Son? If anything , Father and Son seem to be giving birth to the Holy Spirit!. I bring up these instances as examples of where God the Father and the Son are doing things associated with feminity..
(and the other day I heard Tom Delay say dancing helps him get in touch with his feminine side and bores do indeed have teats! and so do most men. Some even change diapers and wash dishes.)
We have as much reason to say the Father and Son are female as we do the Holy Spirit. Given that....Jesus still taught us to pray.....Pater Noster....
Not to mention what Hahn's compartmentalization does with our beliefs about Mary. Can she be spouse to the Holy Spirit (anymore) when she is the Holy Spirit's quasi-incarnation? If she cannot, then I would say Dr. Hahn has stopped being 'unoriginal' ...What Dr. Hahn has revealed about his ideas reminds me of the false compartmentalization worked into the ICEL's [very poor and now rejected] translation of the Gloria where 'worship, thanks, and praise' are only offered to the Father, instead of the to the entire Trinity.
K. C.
Jean Baptiste has left a new comment on the post "Scott Hahn's Response": KC,Hahn posted a link to the chapter in which he treats your concern. He acknowledges that Mary may be characterized as the "spouse of the Holy Spirit," but only in a figurative sense, not in a strict and proper sense. Hahn cites THE book on St. Maximilian Kolbe's teachings about Mary and the Holy Spirit (Immaculate Conception and the Holy Spirit, by H.M. Manteau-Bonamy, O.P.): "With profound cleverness he (Kolbe) developed the multiple aspects contained in the notion of 'Spouse of the Holy Spirit'.... It is an analogy, Saint Maximilian Kolbe stresses, that gives a glimpse of the ineffable, intimate and fruitful union between the Holy Spirit and Mary." ...
In Kolbe's own words, "the name of Spouse of the Holy Spirit cannot express more than a far-off, pale, imperfect shadow of this union" (p. 152). Hahn tries to show why it cannot be strictly applied to the third Person of the Trinity as anything other than a metaphor: "The eternal personhood of the Holy Spirit... cannot be made to depend upon a creature, no matter how exalted (e.g., Mary is the 'spouse' of the Holy Spirit), since that would imply absurd or impossible notions (viz., before Mary's creation, the Trinity would have consisted of a Father, Son, and Holy Bachelor)" (First Comes Love, p. 205). ..
Jean Baptiste!
Thanks for your interest!..
>>>> "The eternal personhood of the Holy Spirit... cannot be made to depend upon a creature, no matter how exalted (e.g., Mary is the 'spouse' of the Holy Spirit), since that would imply absurd or impossible notions (viz., before Mary's creation, the Trinity would have consisted of a Father, Son, and Holy Bachelor)" (First Comes Love, p. 205). <<<<..
I thought we were talking about one of Mary's legitimate titles, not the Holy Spirit's. Even so, let me adopt the straw man Dr. Hahn gives me. Let's we are discussing the title 'Holy Spirit, Spouse of the Immaculate Conception'. Eternity possesses a foreknowledge we don't. Jesus has the title 'Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.' God knows all of us before we exist. I just don't see the problem here...
>> (Hahn) acknowledges that Mary may be characterized as the "spouse of the Holy Spirit," but only in a figurative sense, not in a strict and proper sense......Hahn tries to show why it cannot be strictly applied to the third Person of the Trinity as anything other than a metaphor <<<..
"....but.....cannot.....absurd...."
It sounds like Dr. Hahn is undermining Mary's title "spouse of the Holy Spirit". At least Dr. Hahn is being logically consistent, but this is exactly where he should not go. That particular title has a long and venerable tradition both in the prayers of the Church (an even better guide to the Faith than College professors) and on the lips of Popes...
>>In Kolbe's own words, "the name of Spouse of the Holy Spirit cannot express more than a far-off, pale, imperfect shadow of this union" (p. 152).<<..
Dr. Hahn's selective quotation here is disturbing. Why did he leave off the beginning of Kolbe's sentence?! I fear that it is because Kolbe uses the dreaded H words, 'he' and 'his' and that is not where Dr. Hahn wants to take us. The entire sentence reads ..
>>The Holy Spirit established his dwelling in Mary from the very first moment of her existence, he took absolute possession of her and so pervaded her that the name of Spouse of the Holy Spirit cannot express more than a far-off, pale, imperfect shadow of this union<<<..
The masculine imagery of the first half of the sentence, along with its pronouns, is hard to miss.
As far as Kolbe's use of the word 'imperfect'....There are different kinds of imperfect.!i.e.' right direction but incomplete' vs 'wrong direction'. Kolbe is saying the title of spouse is right but incomplete. Dr. Hahn is leaning towards 'wrong direction'. And speaking of incomplete!! If Dr. Hahn has truly butchered this quote the way it appears he has, then remind me not to buy a used car off of him!!...
K.C.
Monday, September 28, 2009
'Gail F' of Father Z's discussion on kneelling
Father Z's blog has a little string going on kneeling during Communion. Not everyone is for it. I have copied a few of the comments...watch out for those green comments from Gail F! Gail F's comments put kneeling people in a dilemma...
Apparently Gail F thinks kneeling Catholics are obligated to look around first to see whatever the local ideosyncracy is and then seriously consider going along with the crowd so as not to make a scene......
I have a problem with Gail F's underlying assumption, which seems to be that the crowd should trump your conscience. Gail! You can't be saying that! Help us out here!
>>>>>>>>
I think the first question is, is the person actually doing so out of rebellion? That is, does he/she do this to make a point, or is it because of sheer devotion that makes it impossible to do anything else? Unfortunately, due to many different things going on in the Church today, some people DO genuflect or kneel simply to make the point that everyone else is wrong.
The norm for the USA is to receive standing. In such cases, a person genuflecting or kneeling is to be given the sacrament but to be “counseled” afterward, presumably to be told the correct way to do it. [Gail, the 'correct' way is kneeling]That ought to be done charitably but not every priest is a model of charity. I really don’t see how a person genuflecting or kneeling in the middle of a line can do so without disrupting everyone elseunless the parish has many people who do so, or unless he or she waits to go last. It’s all very well to say, as one commenter did, that disrupting a line is no big deal—until someone [...looses an eye?] trips,[have you had a chance to watch how Communion is distributed by the Pope? I have yet to see anyone fall over!] , or knocks into someone else. So much depends on how many people are there. Much more “disruption” can be done in a small crowd than, say, the parish I went to today—where hundreds of people were winding around in very complex lines.
If this is not the person’s regular parish, then surely he or she must know that genuflecting or kneeling is a roll of the dice—it will be accepted or it won’t, depending on what that parish is used to. Especially as the person refers to this as a “Novus Ordo” church [probably a better term would be 'New American' church, as its pastor is in rebellion to the universal, Catholic Church] and doesn’t seem to be inclined to accept what are, after all, the normal masses for most people in the country. It is insulting to call them “Novus Ordo masses.” They are ALL, as the Pope himself says, the SAME MASS.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/09/quaeritur-if-i-kneel-for-communion-am-i-in-rebellion/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)