A Theology of the Incarnate Body

One of my problems with a lot of contemporary Catholicism (not just the TOB stuff) is how it really lacks an incarnational aspect to it. How this applies specifically to the Wednesday audiences is the subject of my latest column at Catholic Exchange. The short version: a lot of pop evangelists are trying to take their audience to a place that we cannot return to, and even if we wanted to, we are promised something better.

How a Marian TOB Helps Us Understand the Assumption of Mary

When I was studying the Catholic Faith before my conversion, one of the biggest hangups I had was around the Assumption of Mary. While I always believed Mary was perpetually virgin, could accept the Immaculate Conception, and could even believe in Mary as Co-Redemptrix (!), I thought the Assumption was just proof that Catholics were engaging in Mary worship. It was something that you only believed was "Biblical" if you contorted apocalyptic imagery to see what you wanted to see. Since the Church was right on everything else, so I just decided to accept her wisdom and take the darn plunge of faith.

Christopher West: Just Mailing It In

Christopher West  says the following in his latest email reflection:

 

"Strive to enter through the narrow gate." What does this passage from yesterday's Gospel say to us about the way we live and express the theology of our bodies? Striving to enter through the narrow gate in this context means committing ourselves to a continual purification of two misguided approaches to the body: the tendency to worship the body on the one hand (very prevalent in the culture today); and the tendency to reject or devalue the body on the other hand (very prevalent among Christians today). The more we are purified of both, the closer we are to that "vortex" in the center that draws us up bodily into the divine Mystery with all the elemental force of Christ's bodily Ascension and Mary's bodily Assumption. Lord, help us to enter through that narrow gate!

 

To quote that great Western Philosopher Steve Austin:  WHAT?

The Wisdom of St. Pius X

Yesterday in the Ordinary Form, Catholics celebrated the feast of St. Pius X. He is viewed as many things by many people. To some, he was the great Anti-Modernist pope of the legendary encyclical Pascendi. For others he was the liturgical reformer of things such as Gregorian Chant. When I look at St. Pius X, I see above all the insightful pastor who can teach us a lot of things today, if only we would listen. Since we recently had a nice debate about the use of inflammatory labels, I wish I would've found this quote sooner. In his first encyclical E Supremi, the Pope lays out a mission to "restore all things in Christ" and then gives some practical outlines on how to accomplish that. The paragraph that follows might be one of the greatest exhortations on evangelization printed by a Pope. It deserves to be quoted at length:

Pope Francis and the "Mission" Thing

"In time, we will understand the mission of Pope Francis."

"Just give it time, and we will see what great things the Holy Spirit has in store for the Pope."

My friends tell me this all the time whenever the discussion centers on Pope Francis. Some of my traditionalist brethren fear he is going to set back the traditionalist cause decades if not outright killing it. Others parse every word, looking for a grand agenda, and when his sweeping reforms will start. All of this happens even though, according to Pope Francis' own words, he hasn't done much of anything since becoming Pope, and he has played his cards incredibly close to his chest on what he was going to do.

On Divisive Terms, Dialogue, and Reading "The Signs of the Times"... Guest Editorial by I. Shawn McElhinney

KMT note: Longtime readers of the Catholic blogosphere may remember Shawn McElhinney. If you remember him, your perception of him depended greatly on whether or not you attended the Extraordinary Form during the early days of Catholics blogging. He ran the "Lidless Eye Inquisition" with several others in attacking what they perceived to be "radical traditionalists" and "radtrads." Here Shawn explains why he no longer uses the terms.

 

It was brought to my attention recently that Catholic Answers had done a two hour program on traditionalism and terms such as "rad-trad" were utilized as well as a new term "mad-trad." As I helped popularize the terms "radical traditionalist" and "rad-trad" in weblog publications years ago, I was asked by my good friend Kevin Tierney for some thoughts on the use of the term in the modern ecclesial climate. A simple comment would not suffice and after some pondering of the matter, the result is what you have before you. Now I was admittedly privy to some apologists resurrecting the term earlier in the year and proceeding to use it in ways it was never intended to be used. However, that was small potatoes compared to when Catholic Answers (among the largest Catholic apologetics organizations in the world) decides on one of their shows to sanction the use of terms like rad-trad and "mad-trad." With that in mind, a bit of personal disclosure at the outset of this article is necessary.

Metting Halfway

Something happened during the debate surrounding "radtrad" and "radical traditionalist." No, everyone didn't suddenly convert to the position they disagreed with before.  Instead, I think everyone is regressing to the mean after some initial bumps in the road.

Giving the Status Quo a Push (More on the whole Radtrad Debate)

Nobody died and made me leader of a cause, but the way I see it, traditionalists should keep the following things in mind moving forward:

Latest Column at Catholic Lane

So I said before I have bad timing, and here is what I mean.

 

Over the past two weeks I've been working on an article which calls for the terms "radical traditionalist" and "radtrad" to be dropped from the popular lexicon. Part of this was even done in a dialogue with Dave Armstrong one can see in previous posts. I advocated dropping the term not to help out those classified as "radtrads", but as a way of cooling the temperature of the debate. "Radtrad", like "Neo-Catholic" is a way to demean and insult the dreaded other. That both have pretty precise definitions is utterly beside the point. It still comes across as hopelessely polarizing, and the last thing we need is more polarization.

 

Of course, this happens around the same time that a little tempest in a teapot begins brewing regarding the Latin Mass and a religious order. It is a bit tough to call for friendlier dialogue with greater charity when you see a lot of the reactions of some traditionalists, who used this more as a pretext for pope bashing than anything else. Let's be honest. Some people here doing this are people who are legitimately worried about the Latin Mass. They might be overreacting, but they mean well, and people should remember that. Yet there are others who simply use whatever they can as a pretext to air out their grievances about how they really don't like Pope Francis for whatever reason you want.

 

There are also traditionalists far better than yours truly using the moniker as a way of rebuking their actions. I sympathize with that stand. This behavior is wrong and intolerable. Yet now more than ever we need to be above reproach and charitable, even with those who deserve it least. It's a principled stand few will listen to, but few listen to me anyways, so I might as well plant the flag. Using these terms do nothing but add strife and vision, and it is possible to do this stuff without using such language. It isn't easy, and we fallen human beings take the easy way out far too often. I get that. Yet just this once, let's appeal to our higher nature okay?

Charity Reigns Within the House of God

For all of the good that social media has given us, one cannot deny the negatives that have come with it.  One of the biggest negatives is the way we dehumanize those we disagree with on the blogosphere.  One would think that Catholics would be above this.  One thinking this would also be incredibly naive.  Sadly, some of the most well known Catholic bloggers are professionals at little else nowadays than dehumanizing those they disagree with.  When you rebuke them, others will rebuke you, reminding you that "they also do a lot of good which you don't see, so you should let it go."

While we should always make accommodation for fallen human nature, we shouldn't hesitate to realize what we are doing is making an accommodation.  These types of individuals do just as much damage to the gospel as the benefit they do from that positive work.  St. Cyprian elaborates on this issue in On the Unity of the Church:

Therefore also the Holy Spirit came as a dove, a simple and joyous creature, not bitter with gall, not cruel in its bite, not violent with the rending of its claws, loving human dwellings, knowing the association of one home; when they have young, bringing forth their young together; when they fly abroad, remaining in their flights by the side of one another, spending their life in mutual intercourse, acknowledging the concord of peace with the kiss of the beak, in all things fulfilling the law of unanimity. This is the simplicity that ought to be known in the Church, this is the charity that ought to be attained, that so the love of the brotherhood may imitate the cloves, that their gentleness and meekness may be like the lambs and sheep. What does the fierceness of wolves do in the Christian breast? What the savageness of dogs, and the deadly venom of serpents, and the sanguinary cruelty of wild beasts? We are to be congratulated when such as these are separated from the Church, lest they should lay waste the doves and sheep of Christ with their cruel and envenomed contagion.
 

The people that St. Cyprian has in mind are primarily heretics, but it is interesting that he first slams them for horrible morals in their lack of charity, not horrible doctrine.  (He touches upon the doctrine in the next segment.)  In the mind of this great saint, a lack of charity has no place within the Church.  By her very nature as an evangelical church, charity is part of the Catholic Churches nature. 

Some will counter "well sorry, I believe that error needs to be condemned as error, and we shouldn't be having a tea party with evil people."  Of course nobody is saying you cannot condemn error.  Indeed, St. Cyprian is very strong in condemning error in this and several other treatises.  The point is instead to stick to issues, not the person as much as possible.  Whenever you bring up the defects of another, ask yourself "is this relevant to the argument."  If it isn't, then don't bring it up.

Another point is to show charity to those within your own house.  You don't have to like them.  Yet to hold those as less than Catholic than you are (especially when the Church has not specifically said so) is a sin against charity, and this damages the effectiveness of your message.  To treat anyone as somehow less than human because of said disagreements is beyond shameful, and it doesn't matter how much good that individual has done over the years for the cause.

Latest at Catholic Lane: Why Go to Confession?

At Catholic Lane I offer a bit of biblical study on why we go to confession, and why I think our catechesis towards the sacrament is flawed and ineffective.

The Evangelical Purpose of the Church

Why are we Catholic?  What's the point?  I think this simple point is lost in a lot of the technical discussions Catholics (especially those in the blogosphere) engage in.  This point is lost to the detriment not just of our souls, but of Catholicism as a whole.  Indeed, one of the biggest problems we suffer in the Church today comes from getting the answer to these two questions wrong.  The comforting thought is that the problem we are experiencing today is something that Christians throughout history have confronted.  If we are to solve this problem, we should look to these sources.

Aquinas, NFP, and Modern Day Jansenism

*The Following is a lengthy examination of some very flawed views concerning human sexuality, marriage, and the marital embrace.  Due to the highly sensitive nature of the subject, read discretion is advised.*

When discussing the "Theology of the Body" with supporters of Christopher West, they will quickly pull out the Jansenist card, and declare anyone they disagree with part of this heretical group in the past, using it as a tactic to render their criticism illegitimate.  The overwhelming majority of the time, they are dead wrong.  Yet sometimes they are right, in that the occasional critic of their worldview harbors views that are indistinguishable from a Jansenist.

A Patristic TOB? Talking Points

I had a discussion with +Karee Santos on the issue of TOB, and I said the following, which she found interesting, and hoped I would elaborate on:

"My whole take with TOB is.....  The fathers of the Church did this back in the Early Church.  People need to stop treating this as something new.  Blessed John Paul II didn't, and neither should we."

While I won't write (yet at least) a full column on this, I think we can give a few "talking points" for why I think this is the case.

Making Sense of Tradition

After spending the past few posts outlining what tradition is, what it isn't, and why it matters, I would like to conclude with some general thoughts, and  how Catholics can have a discerning mind with these matters.

First, how does one know if we are dealing with Apostolic Tradition, when they aren't Church historians or theologians?  In this case, the simplest answer really is the correct one.  The Church is very clear on matters of Aposotolic Tradition.  On issues of Apostolic Tradition, the Church is protected by infallability.  We can have confidence that if the Catholic Church proclaims something as an Apostolic Tradition, it is an Apostolic tradition.

Why Tradition Matters

After wrecking the Roman Rite for roughly two or three decades, Msgr. Annibale Bugnini wanted to make even further changes to the spiritual lives of Catholics.  His next "reform" was to radically alter the Rosary.  His proposal was firmly rejected by Pope Paul VI, and the reasoning behind it is the point of this column today.

Making an Idol of Tradition

In order to get a proper understanding of the role tradition plays within the life of the Catholic Church, we sometimes need to encounter some uncomfortable realities.  One of these is that sometimes, traditionalists (and sometimes all Catholics as well!) make an idol out of tradition.

Understanding Tradition

Since we have been on a bit of a back to basics trip lately, I think it's time to examine the proper way to look at tradition.

First, we need to understand the Biblical Concept of Tradition.  In the Bible, St. Paul commends the Thessalonians for adhering to the paradosis they have received, whether by word or letter.  (2 Thess 2:15)  In English, we know that as the word tradition.  Now in the Greek,  paradosis was simply that which was handed down.  So when we speak of tradition, we speak of that (in whatever venue) was handed down throughout the ages in the Church.

The confusion comes from the fact that, like the phrase salvation, tradition can have several different meanings, all compatible with each other.  First and foremost, there is that which is called Apostolic Tradition, which we normally know as Tradition with a capital T.  This comes from either the Bible or the Oral Teaching of Christ & The Apostles, handed down throughout the generations to the present, which is safeguarded by the Holy Ghost so that people can always learn God's truth.  Such a teaching based on Tradition would be that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice where the timeless Sacrifice of the Cross is made present in time to the Christian, or that there are Seven Sacraments.  These are directly matters of revelation, as well as of faith and morals which can be traced throughout history.  As such, they cannot under any circumstances be changed.  Baptism will never cease to be a Sacrament, and the Mass will never be just a communal praise & worship service, women will never be ordained priests, etc.

Another form of tradition is that which we ecclesiastical tradition.  This is tradition not neccessarily handed down from the Apostles, but which is meant to support the truths of the Christian faith.  Such examples would be the rites of the liturgy and the sacraments outside of the essentials.  These make Apostolic Tradition clearer and relevant to the Christian.  Since they are meant to communicate timeless truths to an audience in time, these can change.  Yet organized religion worshipping Yahweh is at least 5,000 years old, and these traditions have developed in just about every circumstance conceivable, and have developed organically over these millenia.  So while they can be changed, you really should have a good reason for doing them, and they should only be done through the highest of channels, lest disaster ensue.  (More on this later.)

There is finally a third instance in which tradition is used.  This refers mainly to local customs and practices which have developed over time.  These aren't universal, and more often than not they aren't even regional.  Some examples of this might be how fasting is applied in your area (which is a lot more diverse than you would think), certain devotional prayers after Mass communities have prayed, etc.  The same rules apply in ecclesiastical tradition, yet they are even more prone to change, and are frequently changed on the local level.

When properly understood, tradition is a lot less confusing than people make it out to be.  Yet based on these definitions, the perceptive reader can see ways in which today's modern audience (on all sides) really misunderstand what tradition is.  This is what we will be discussing in future posts, starting with a bit of in house cleaning:  how some traditionalists fail to properly understand tradition.

Making Christ the King Relevant

If you ask most Catholics today, they give you a blank stare when you talk about the idea of the Kingship of Christ.  Heck, talk to traditionalists and a timeless beautiful doctrine that touches everything from the individual to the role of governments becomes an apologia for early Middle Age monarchism anachronistically interpreted through a modern lens.  At most, the idea of the Kingship of Christ is presented as something simply done by governments.  We just need to wait, and one day the government will become Catholic and enact a confessional state, and all will be well.  Right.....

I think this understanding completely misses the point of Christ the King.  The Gospel makes it very clear "My Kingdom is not of this world."  While all nations should acknowledge Christ, we should be realistic in that most will not, especially as we draw closer and closer to Christ's return.

Given this reality, many modern minds simply relegate the idea of the Kingship of Christ as an eschatalogical hope, something we can simply hope for at the end of time.  Sadly, moving the Feast of Christ the King to the last Sunday of the liturgical year, and giving the readings entirely an eschatalogical feel reinforce this.

Yet the Kingship of Christ is something that is integral to the everyday life of the Christian.  While the ultimate goal is to have society acknowledge Christ, society starts with the individual and most importantly the family.

What we need to do is make sure our catechesis is mindful of this fact.  That Christ the King is not just the concept of nation states, or some eschatalogical incident at the end of time, but rather a concrete reality in this very moment.  We also need to understand that this Kingship is something we share in.  When parents order the home properly, they are participating in Christ's Kingship.  When we help convert people to moral truth in regards to matters of life, we are doing so as diplomats of Christ's Kingship.  This is how nations are conquered for Christ.  Yet even if we can't conquer America and plant the Holy Cross in the middle of DC, we can save our souls and the souls of others.

I might be wrong, but I really don't hear this kind of talk in a lot of areas where Christ the King is mentioned.

Why This (Semi) Capitalist Wants a Social Justice Pope

On Facebook and various other venues, there has been something a lot of people have noted when talking about Pope Francis.  They note his general skepticism of a lot of the way capitalism is practiced today, and wonder what the political right in America will think of that.  While it is still far too early to tell, there is a chance (so the story goes) that Pope Francis will be far less friendly to free market capitalism than one like Blessed John Paul II.

There are quite a few ways to respond to this, outside of the obvious that they probably don't know much about either Francis or John Paul II.  First and foremost, whatever happened in Argentina, a military dictatorship known for its rank nepotism could hardly be viewed as a capitalist entity.  Yet this misses the point entirely.  Quite simply, the Pope is no economist.

Now before everyone thinks I'm going to say we can just safely ignore his teaching if you end up not liking it, no, we really can't.  While there is a difference in weight one might place on issues like the immorality of contraception or abortion and the amount of government involvement in an economy, his voice should carry great weight for Catholics.  The Holy Father is a pastor of souls, and the care of souls is his primary concern.  This leads to a truth that might shock you, so take a deep breath.