On This Feast Day of St. Thomas Aquinas, Chief Among the Doctors of the Church

To the right is an old artistic portrayal known as "The Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas." The image adorns the cover of a book I'm currently reading by Aidan Nichols, O.P. At the top is Christ and directly beneath him are the four evangelists, St. Paul (with the sword) and Moses. Plato and Aristotle are to his left and right. Popes, cardinals, and other influential individuals after his time are among the crowd beneath him, receiving the "light" from his writings. And, I think that is Averroes lying down beneath him with his own book turned face down. If you can see the beams of light, you'll appreciate the painting all the more. This particular saint's influence over the whole Church after his time cannot be overstated.

As he is remembered, celebrated, sought-out in prayers and intercessions, and (hopefully) read on this day above all other days of the year in which St. Thomas is celebrated, I thought it fitting to add a little entry here on one aspect of his thought often neglected.

There is a particular book on the liturgy that has been recommended to me by a close friend. In this book, entitled Theologia Prima, David Fagerberg explores aspects of the divine liturgy relevant to Catholics. One particularly interesting insight he raises is the fact that the liturgy is chief among all celebrations for a Catholic--it is the common, or "public" prayer of the one Church. This is in one sense, of course, unsurprising to anyone. Most other Christian communions would claim that their own worship services are paramount to them too. Perhaps, drawing from the strength in which Aidan Nichols phrases it (and Cardinal Ratzinger in his Spirit of the Liturgy, as well), one can state the case stronger. Nichols argues that, after the Sacred Scriptures, there is no one thing which more defines a Catholic than the divine liturgy of the mass. I think it instructive to see how, when certain Christian communions have downplayed the significance of the liturgy, the sacraments have either been equally downplayed or have disappeared altogether. But, a little more on this below.

Intimately connected with this idea of liturgy being crucial and most basic as to what a Catholic is and what he is regularly to do while here on Earth, are the sacraments. All of the sacraments are tied up with the liturgy. At times, the sacraments of healing (reconciliation & anointing of the sick) take place with reference to a future-oriented look at the liturgy. That is, in the former (reconciliation) one is placed back in a state of full grace and therefore able to participate fully in the mass, including the reception of the greatest of the sacraments--the Eucharist. The latter (anointing of the sick) is future-oriented with regard to either the heavenly banquet or becoming well again here on Earth, so that the Eucharist can be received again in a normal way (i.e., during the mass). Otherwise, all the other sacraments take place within the divine liturgy, hence showing their intimate connection with it.

So, why all of this on the liturgy and the sacraments on this feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas? One might be surprised to learn that St. Thomas had rather a good bit to say on the sacraments and their connection to the life of the Christian and to salvation, ultimately. And it seems to me that his comments make the most sense when one interprets them in the light of seeing that, for a Catholic, nothing is greater that the Eucharistic celebration in the whole realm of his faith. The Sacred Scriptures are paramount, but as they are qualitatively different from the worship celebration, and in fact the Scriptures are incorporated into the liturgy itself, one cannot pit them against each other. If one thinks in terms of Scriptures and Tradition together comprising the one 'divine wellspring' of the Faith, then the liturgy is seen as the most basic and greatest expression of that Sacred Tradition--more than Councils, Creeds, or Fathers.

I think that for the non-Catholic reader of St. Thomas Aquinas (and at times for the Catholic reader as well) it strikes one as strange for St. Thomas to say, which he does, that 'yes,' the sacraments are necessary for salvation. But, when the sacraments are seen as being part and parcel to the divine liturgy (or in some way intimately oriented toward it, as the sacraments of healing are), it seems to me that one might more easily stomach such a reply of St. Thomas Aquinas. (Also, of course, St. Thomas draws on other facets of the sacraments, in terms of their intrinsic nature, e.g., how they incorporate within themselves the duality intrinsic to man--his soul/body unity corresponds to the sacraments, which are simultaneously physical/spiritual, as well, so as to be oriented toward man's own nature).

Below I supply a link to some of his replies to sacramental questions from the Summa Theologica. I hope you enjoy. And I hope you, in whatever way your Christian tradition allows you to, commemorate and celebrate this great saint and doctor of the universal Western Church.
{Read the entire question, but play close attention to St. Thomas' own answer, which always follows the phrase "I answer that."}

Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?

Feast Days this Week of the Liturgical Year

This is indeed an exciting week for Catholics, generally, but especially for those who attempt to exemplify the "domestic church" in their homes by celebrating along with the worldwide Church the liturgical year. We just received our first encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI.

As well, there are numerous feast days of great saints and doctors of the Church this week.

Tuesday - St. Francis de Sales

Wednesday - The Conversion of St. Paul

Thursday - Sts. Timothy and Titus

Friday - St. Angela Merici

Saturday - St. Thomas Aquinas

I would take some time to comment on the new encyclical, but that would seem a bit hasty. Encyclicals, by their very nature, usually have quite a lot of depth to them in their meaning, implications, and applications, and are not often easily digestible. At this point, it seems best to simply direct my readers to interact with the encyclical on their own and do their own digesting. But, I do hope to post a few little reflections on Sts. Francis de Sales and Thomas Aquinas, as they happen to be a couple of my favorite doctores ecclesiae.

Rousseau Quotes Apropos on This Day of Remembrance

I've been researching Rousseau a bit lately and I came across two comments of his from the opening lines of the Social Contract, the first of which is famous and the other of which I found to be insightful. They are especially appropriate to post this weekend when the memories of millions of unborn and aborted children are brought to our minds. I'll just let the quotes stand on their own. I think they need no help from me.

L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.

(Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.)

La plus ancienne de toutes les sociétés et la seule naturelle est celle de la famille.

(The most ancient of all societies, and the only one that is natural, is the family.)

On the "Culture of Life" as the Nation Remembers the Advent of the Culture of Death - January 22

The "culture of death," as the affluent West is commonly called in Catholic circles, did not necessarily start with the decisions of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. But who could deny that these monumental cases bolstered a cultural mentality already oriented more toward death and away from the glories of life? Pope John Paul II did much to counter the cause (worldwide) of a 'culture of death,' but especially pertaining to the affluent West where many deaths are caused, not as a result of famine or disease or some other extreme reason as is the case elsewhere, but simply as a result of "choice," a choice legally and (to an extent) morally legitimized by the two court cases cited above.

On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized abortion throughout America, extending the application of abortion "rights" past Roe v. Wade to entail abortion on demand for essentially any reason whatsoever for all nine months of the pregnancy.

Included in the concept of the "health" of the mother, notice the court's language.

[T]he medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age -- relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).

So January 22 is another day to live on in infamy in American history. It is a day that gave the culture of death an enormous triumph. Now, by virtue of the loosest of all applications of a "right to privacy," the most vulnerable and innocent among us are routinely killed on a daily basis. The numbers are simply staggering: "46,000,000 unborn children in our country have been killed by abortion," reports the Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta, GA.

But everyone knows that a culture opposed to celebrating life is all around us. It does not only extend to flippantly decided-upon abortions. It includes the elderly placed into homes when they become too much of a burden on their children - another instance of the apparently unalienable "right to privacy" in America? It also extends to majorly regulating births in families. The culture of life see things like the following: France is apparently supporting its own efforts at curbing the abolition of the family by giving money to mothers for their having a third child. Excuse me? A third child? Having a family of three children is today constitutive of a large family in the affluent West. "Cheaper by the trio," anyone? In the above article, France seems to boast of its birth rate - it is an amazing 1.9/family, but they still can boast of it relative to their neighboring countries in Europe (excepting Ireland). And France is not the only country offering such incentives. How incredible that only a couple of decades ago the world seemed to have overpopulation as a major concern of its own. And now, the concern in Europe is underpopulation - one cannot help but to interpret this fact as a natural consequence of a culture of death.

Before I became Catholic I could never understand the pro-life camp's opposition to taking "baby steps" in their fight against abortion and their general "all or nothing" view. It was only after I came in contact with some of Pope John Paul II's writings (especially Evangelium Vitae) that I came to understand a little better the "all or nothing" Catholic mentality often encountered in the area of abortion. He writes,

While it is true that the taking of life not yet born or in its final stages is sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism and human compassion, it cannot be denied that such a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays a completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the freedom of "the strong" against the weak who have no choice but to submit.

Although I surely don't grasp this truth in its entirety, I definitely understand now that there is an approach to life which supports an abortion mentality--and this is a "culture of death." A culture which disdains any type of burdensome life - which only values that life which takes care of itself and is entirely autonomous. So, it is not simply that many (especially Catholic) pro-lifers are anti-abortion; they are, as their name suggests, completely on the side of life with all of its glories and all of its burdens. It's remarkable, if not frightening, to consider for a moment that Our Lord's two greatest qualities, which more than any others exemplified his coming and his work here on Earth - love and self-sacrifice - are in direct opposition to a culture of death. A 'me' culture - a culture sick with its own twisted sense of individualism. A culture which knows much about love of self, and next to nothing of love of others.

I do not write all this to share any deep insights. On this particular issue, I could not even compare with the vastness and profundity which has already been placed before the public in other writings. I simply want to, in solidarity with my Church, bring to my readers' remembrance the infamous events of January 22, 1973, and to further highlight what I take to be the only antidote to such reckless self-love --> a reinvigorating of a "culture of life" and the corresponding virtue of love, which itself gives rise to (and nurtures) all life.

"I Have a Dream"

Upon searching for the title of the famous speech by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. on Google, I came across a site that I thought many would find beneficial, especially those interested in American history. The text of his speech (along with audio mp3 files of it) can be found here. But actually the whole site of American Rhetoric is great. They have the Top 100 American speeches of all time listed there, and they self-verify the authenticity of the transcripts. They also offer the audio of a great many of the speeches.

Check it out if you have a moment and some interest. And certainly, if you've never read the "I Have a Dream" speech in its entirety, you should do so. I was surprised myself a few years ago when I finally got around to reading the whole speech. It has a much more vitriolic tone in the beginning than I ever would have thought. However, given the time-period in which he originally gave it, it rather seems subtle to me now. Give it a read, or (perhaps even better) a listen! The wisdom and rhetorical devices used by Rev. King have been seldomed matched in American history. In fact, this speech is ranked as American Rhetoric's #1!

The Sacred Responsibility of Teaching by Word and Deed

Recently, I came across a post by an acquaintance of mine through a mutual friend. It's entitled "Growing up Catholic: Misgivings." And I'm afraid the substance of the post is no less forlorn than its title. It was a bit of a sad posting and certainly cause for reflecting on our sacred responsibilities as parents. I want to share some of these reflections below.

This fellow left the Catholic Church after high school. He gives many reasons, which are probably all too common. They have precious little to do with dogma and are so much more grounded in practicality. I cannot help thinking that the reasons he gives for leaving, such as they were, are anything but common for countless others just like him who left the Church once upon a time mostly due to, well, a lack of reasons for staying in it. What a grave situation and ironic too.

Vatican II was held in the early 1960's for several reasons, but a chief one was for the renewal of the Church. But in cases similar to these, we can see just how much She has not yet seen this renewal. So much so that rather than everybody prior to Vatican II not having much of an idea what's going on or why (and attributing that to the Latin mass), now we can all be equally confused in the vernacular languages of our culture!

Hoorah.

Clearly something has been missing or has been just not good enough to produce the sought-after renewal in the Catholic Church. Allow me a moment to reflect on what I take to be one of the reasons why?

Our Lord Jesus Christ taught by both word and deed. He spoke the truth, to be sure, but he equally lived an excellent life overflowing with charity. And an expectation of anyone who calls himself His disciple is this: that the disciple would be like the master in these respects. Both word and deed are required. But, through weakness or whatever else, many Christians will often err on the side of one or the other: of either knowing all the right things or of doing all the right things. We typically reduce what it is to be a Christian to a one-sided account, rather than a healthy balance of both, probably just because it's more work to be balanced. And who wants more work to do? It seems to me that post-Conciliar Catholic parents took it very easy and casual on the "word" portion of the "word and deed." They seemed to think that if one just does all the right things, this will be enough for the children to be just fine. Besides which, who knows how much of the truth they had to fulfill that "word" portion of the requirement for good parenting anyway? Perhaps they were rather confused owing to the crisis that any post-Conciliar time experiences.

But, the grace created by goodness, as everyone has seen, only goes so far. If the further graces afforded by truth-telling are not added, the faith of one generation can almost disappear in the very next one. Amazing! Amazing testimony to the requirement of parents to be like their Divine Master: you raise a child in both word and deed. It is not only about doing all the right things. It is also about knowing them and passing on that knowledge to the future generations.

It's incredible that Pope St. Pius X, in his encyclical Acerbo Nimis (1905) covering the establishment of CCD in all parishes everywhere, specifically ennumerated the reasons for doing so. He writes,

23. V. In the larger cities, and especially where universities, colleges and secondary schools are located, let classes in religion be organized to instruct in the truths of faith and in the practice of Christian life the youths who attend the public schools from which all religious teaching is banned.

But how many of us know these reasons? We think it's for drive-thru sacrament reception. That's why CCD exists. Little does anyone know it's designed to supplement the lack of religious education in the government schools, and which religious education is (further) designed to supplement the teaching supposedly coming from the first evangelizers and catechists of children: their own parents.

Renewal of the Catholic Church in the West (and especially in America) is apparently just as badly needed today as ever it was. May that not continue with our generation. May all Christians everywhere come to embrace the unmistakable connection between word and deed. How could any of us tolerate another generation of Catholics abandoning the Faith, only to find themselves later struggling for any authentic religion, mostly due to our parental irresponsibility? We do well to heed the words or our Lord when He says, "No disciple is above his teacher, no slave above his master," (Matthew 10:24).

From Heretics to Separated Brethren (Part II)

I certainly agree with all mainstream Catholics that there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils and they are all authoritatively on a par with one another, in terms of their universal decrees. But, it is certainly true that up to and including Vatican Council I the use of the anathema was common. One sees it at many times in the history of the Church, especially in Trent and Vatican I. However, Vatican II shows a conspicuous absence of this process, and in fact no one is anathematized in this Council. As well, it clearly has a pastoral focus unknown to the previous 2 Councils.

But how do I view Protestants, through the lense of Trent or Vatican II? My answer would be that I think Vatican II ushered in what many 20th century Catholics had suspected for some time, and in so doing it brought a genuine progression of view. That is, contemporary Protestants may not be anathematized in the same way and with the same ease that Luther et al were. For Luther (a Catholic when he began, and quite a knowledgeable one at that, with a doctorate and professorship before the age of 30), there can be no excuse. He is no victim of anyone but himself, so it's sensible for all the reasons given by the Council of Trent to condemn him as a heretic and anathematize in that situation. However, 400+ years removed from that whole Renaissance environment, a contemporary Protestant could hardly be held to the same standard as Luther.

Moreover, a sharing of the same view of the Trinity, Christology, the same New Testament, and a common sacramental baptism, all of this (and more) taken together lends itself toward a view of Protestant Christians as, in the words of the Decree on Ecumenism, "separated brethren." Here are some words of the Council, in this regard:

22. Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life, as the Apostle says: "You were buried together with Him in Baptism, and in Him also rose again-through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead".(40)
Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.

I think Vatican II hasn't mention of heresy and anathemas with reference to Protestants because now they are viewed with compassion; or, perhaps more accurately, with pity. All those who have had the misfortune of being products of an original heretical group are not to be easily condemned anymore than it would be legitimate to readily condemn anyone who has been victimized by anything. The Catholic Church argues that a person is held responsible for what he has been in a position to know. And it just is the case that for most Protestants (myself included) unless someone just places the Catholic/Protestant issue squarely in your face, you simply don't give it the treatment you should, because it doesn't occur to you that you ought to. So many recent converts have attested to this fact (e.g., Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, Peter Kreeft, etc.), and it was certainly my experience too. From friends to professors (and especially) to myself, Protestants in my circle of connections were almost wholly unfamiliar with the actual teaching, life, and worship of the Catholic Church, to say nothing of its history. In such a situation, it seems much more reasonable to approach contemporary Protestants in exactly the same way in which Vatican Council II does. And anyway, Lumen Gentium places a knowledge qualifier on the issue of salvation, which gives it a (albeit conservative) inclusivism, so it seems to me. The quote (with my emphasis added) goes like this:

14. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

So, I'd have to say I'm both, and this is the way I reconcile the different 'tones,' as it were, of the 2 great Councils. Yes, the original Protestants were condemned and rightly so. For they would have had no excuse for such open and blatant rejection of teachings and practices long held by the Church. But, today the same could hardly be said of contemporary Protestants. It seems to me that the Church views them more like a man might view a wayward nephew who, through no fault of his own but rather due to neglect and poor teaching of his parents, has ended up rejecting all kinds of good things which that man's family had long practiced and held to be true.

{Of course, this is a blogspot treatment of this issue. Much much more could be said and developed, but I'd have to be getting paid before I could do that.}

From Heretics to Separated Brethren: Reconciling the Church's View of Protestants from Trent to Vatican II (Part I)

In this post, I give a preamble to an attempted answer to the question proposed by the title of this post. In the one to follow, I attempt to answer the question more fully. Be on the lookout for it to follow soon.

I have been asked before whether I would desbribe myself as more of a Trentian Catholic or a Vatican II Catholic. Interesting question. As far as I can tell, the two Vatican Councils are simply further progress of dogma of what had previously been believed. If you're wondering what the progress of dogma refers to, note the following illuminating passages from two conciliar documents from Vatican II:

Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through the intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her. (Dei Verbum, 8)

The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27), cannot err in matters of belief. Thanks to a supernatural sense of the faith (sensus fidei) which characterizes the People as a whole, it manifests this unerring quality when, ‘from the bishops down to the last member of the laity’, it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. For, by this sense of faith which is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, God’s People accepts not the word of men but the very Word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13). It clings without fail to the faith once delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3), penetrates it more deeply by accurate insights, and applies it more thoroughly to life. (Lumen Gentium, 12)

In addition to the above, the opening pages of Trent have rather strong declarations on Sacred Tradition (session 4). So, it is not as if an understanding of the threefold nature of authority (Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium) was unknown prior to the 16th century. In fact, that would be a wholly false idea and unreflective of the actual history of the Church. However, staying on this idea of the progress of dogma for a moment, just as St. Vincent of Lerins says, it is genuine progress one sees (especially) in the last 3 Councils. There could be no denying or even downplaying the significant progress and unfolding of dogma seen in Trent, Vatican I & II.

But, to my mind this was not a difference in kind, just in extent. This is what I mean. The sheer breadth of the Councils of Trent and Vatican II is so enormous that they nearly equal the length of all the other 19 Ecumenical Councils put together. I have the 2 volume set Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils edited by Norman Tanner, SJ, which anyone reading this post ought to have on his shelves. And the way he arranges the conciliar decrees is to put all 18 Councils from Nicaea to Florence (1450-ish) in volume I and the last three in volume II. Do you see what I mean? The 2 volumes are nearly the same size, even though the first volume contains the decrees of 18 Councils! So, the point I'm trying to make is that in Trent and Vatican II one sees a sheer size in terms of the decrees themselves and the subjects addressed at length in a way unknown to all previous Councils. But, onto the subject proper in the next installment. These comments seem a necessary preamble though.

(Then) Cardinal Ratzinger on East/West unity

On a recent visit to a weblog which is new to me, I stumbled upon this important entry. It contains great news, though one hesitates to be hasty when news as good as this comes along. It has to do with the Traditional Anglican Church (TAC) ostensibly desiring reunion with the Catholic Church.

And in the spirit of the reunion of Christian bodies too long in schism with each other, I thought some of you might find interesting (then) Cardinal Ratzinger's comments on the reunion of Eastern Orthodoxy with Catholicism. I think the principles he lays out in this quote are equally applicable as regards TAC/Catholic reunion. The Catholic Church must be reasonable in her expectations of reunion with schismatic groups, all the while maintaining her earnest desire for Christian unity. Let me know what you think, if you have any thoughts.

As far as the doctrine of the primacy is concerned, Rome must not require more of the East than was formulated and lived during the first millennium. When Patriarch Athenagoras, on the occasion of the visit of the Pope to the Phanar on July 25, 1967, addressed him as 'the successor of Peter, the first in honor among us, the one who has the presidency of love,' we hear from the mouth of this great Church leader the essential content of the first millennium's statement about the primacy - and Rome must demand no more than this. Reunion could take place on this basis: that for its part the East should renounce attacking the western development of the second millennium as heretical, and should accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form which it has found through this development, while, for its part, the West should acknowledge the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form which it has maintained. {This quote is found on page 209 of the book Theologische Prinzipienlehre: Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie (Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology). The translation from the original German is made by Fr. Francis Sullivan, SJ in his book Magisterium.}