The Divine Lamp

Dane from CatholicClasses.org alerted me to the podcast their site is hosting.  The first talk can be heard:  HERE.  Don’t let the musical introduction or the introductory banter turn you off.  In this podcast they look at the Pope’s forward to the book, along with his introduction.

Mister Jay Dyer, a self-proclaimed “amateur theologian” who, apparently on the basis of this grand status he has conferred upon himself, decided to defect from Catholicism to Orthodoxy has now, on the same basis, accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) of Nestorianism. Nestorianism is defined as the belief that Jesus was two persons with two natures united in a single subsistent entity. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the matter:

466 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed “that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man.” ⁸⁹ Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: “Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh.” ⁹⁰ (Source)

Is Ratzinger a Nestorain? Does he contradict the ancient Doctrine? Before answering these questions, it would, I think, be a good idea to inquire into the competence of Mister Dyer to answer them.

Dyer the Amateur Theologian

It is logic which put the “logy” in theology. Is mister Dyer possessed of the logic necessary to undertake theology? I do not believe he is.

Mister Taylor Marshall, of the CANTERBURY TALES blog responded to Dyer as follows:

Some Eastern Orthodox bloggers… have accused the Holy Father of heresy - Nestorianism no less! They have found two quotations in Ratzinger’s God and the World (pp. 293-294) that they believe proves that Benedict XVI is heretical.

I took a look at the quotes and they are not as tight as one might expect, but I think that one should first check the English translation of the work. It may be just fine in the German. The Ratzinger zinger-line is this one, which does sound a little strange:

“[Mary] was in the sense of having been the mother of the man that was entirely at one with God.”

One would expect “the mother of the person” because “man” in English does not necessarily mean “person”. But we don’t know what it was in German. Also, we should be willing to grant that Cardinal Ratzinger was not being absolutely precise. I don’t think that makes him a formal heretic. I guarantee that if you asked him personally, the Holy Father would provide a beautiful and orthodox account of the incarnation.

To which Mister Dyer responds:

The real zinger, is, in fact, the later statement:

“The Greek theologian Maximus the Confessor depicts this process in a particularly impressive way. He shows us how the “alchemy of being” is accomplished in the prayer on the Mount of Olives. Here, Jesus’ will becomes one with the will of the Son and, thereby, with the will of the Father. All the rebelliousness of human nature, which shuts itself against death and against the horrors he can see, comes to the surface in this prayer. Jesus has to overcome man’s inward resistance against God. He must overcome the temptation to do it some other way. And now this temptation reaches its zenith. Only the breakdown of this resistance makes this yes possible. It ends with the fusion of his own individual, human will into the will of God, and thus, with a single petition: “But let not my will, but your will, be done (God and World, pg. 327).”

There is no sense in which Jesus united himself to the Son of God. And I’ve had 2 years of German, so this is no German mistake.

Whether Dyer truly understand Ratzinger’s quoted statement here will be dealt with below; for now I wish to focus on this self-proclaimed amateur theologian’s expertise as a German linguist. Notice that mister Dyer nowhere quotes or analyzes the German text. Indeed, he never even tells us he has read it. When Father Al “the Pontificator” Kimel presented an english translation of the German text done by a German friend of his, Mister Dyer did not dispute it; nor did he present us with his own translation; he simply ignored it.

“And I’ve had two years of German, so this is no German mistake.” First of all, the possibility of a mistake isn’t about the German; rather, it’s about the English translation. Notice that the “this” in the quote refers not to the German text, but to the English. If I understand him correctly, the scatologian is claiming to be able to assure the validity of the English translation by working it back into German, after all, he has made no reference to the actual German. It needs hardly be said that, if this is what he intends with the above statement, then it is illogical. If I read an English translation of a German math book and suspect that the equation “two plus two equals five” is erroneous, then I cannot simply re=translate that text back into German because I’ll see the same suspected error. One can only establish the validity of a translation by comparing it to the original language text.

Several people noted that some of the quotes he gave of Ratzinger were capable of being understood in an un-orthodox sense but were not necessarily so. It was further noted that Ratzinger was giving and interview, not writing a carefully crafted theological tome. To bolster their arguments some respondents to Dyer appealed to theological works of Ratzinger which were unequivocally orthodox, to them Dyer replied:

Also, again, it doesn’t matter what Ratzinger says in some other place, when this statement is heretical. Its always been the province of heretics to cloak their words in ambiguity. So, quoting him somewhere else begs the question.

Try putting that into an Aristotelean syllogism and the only thing one would come up with is a Dyerian sillygism.

State of the question: Is such and such a statement by Ratzinger Nestorian?

Premise 1: Certainly this statement is Nestorian. Evidence to the contrary is to be ignored because

Premise 2: Ratzinger is a nestorian.

Conclusion: Ratzinger is a Nestorian.

Dyer the Moralist:

Father Al Kimel, in a response to Mister Dyer prefaced the response with this sound advice:

I agree that the two citations from Ratzinger are awkward and certainly vulnerable to a Nestorian construal; but before advancing the charge of heresy, one has a moral obligation to read the Pope’s published work and to understand his Christology. This Mr. Dyer has clearly not done.

I myself wrote:

From the Catechism: 2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

Sound advice. However, Mister Dyer, it appears, will have none of it. He proof-texts a passage From Ratzinger’s writing, declares it heretical, and then, this amateur theologian, when presented with texts that don’t square with his declaration, wipes them away like snot on the end of his nose. ‘Fools!’ he says. ‘Et dilettante locuta est: causa finita est’ (the dilettante has spoken: the matter is finished). Then, to end with a comic flourish, he declares his opponents guilty of his own illogical crime: “…it doesn’t matter what Ratzinger says in some other place, when this statement is heretical. Its always been the province of heretics to cloak their words in ambiguity. So, quoting him somewhere else begs the question.”

So, why hasn’t Mister Dyer fulfilled his moral obligation? Apparently he feels he doesn’t have to because this particular moral obligation is a Catholic thing. Here is how he responded to me and my use of the catechism:

I’m not Novus Ordo anymore, so quoting the Novus Ordo catechism at me is meaningless.

The old adage that, “truth is where you find it,” which is so near and dear to both Eastern and Western Christianity, apparently no longer applies. It needs hardly be said that not paying attention to the requirements of the 8th commandment comes in very handy when a man wishes to engage in a hermeneutics of discontinuity.

So, is Ratzinger a heretic?

Dyer sees this quote from Ratzinger as heretical:

A Human Being as the Mother of God!

This is in fact a great paradox. God becomes small. He becomes man; he accepts thereby the limitations of human conception and childbirth. He has a mother and is truly woven into the tapestry of our human history, so that in fact a woman is able to say to him who is her child, a human child: the Lord of the world is within you.

Dyer sees the bold faced words as being heretical. It’s rather obvious however that this is only because he sees them in isolation from the rest of the text. First of all, as the context makes clear, Ratzinger is here repudiating Nestorianism. It needs hardly to be said that a man of average intelligence, who possessed a respect for the 8th commandment might begin to wonder if his understanding of Ratzinger’s words are correct. Notice first of all that the Cardinal’s words appear under the heading “A Human Being as the Mother of God!” Notice that those words are followed, not by a question mark, but by an exclamation point. Furthermore, notice how Ratzinger begins his statement: “God becomes small. He becomes man; he accepts thereby the limitation of human conception and childbirth. He has a mother…” The personal pronoun throughout relates to the God who “became small”. There is no indication of a change in personal pronoun. Dyer himself describes “the principle error” of the Nestorians as, “ascribing simultaneous personhoods to both the humanity and the divinity.” But it is rather clear, when one see the words Dyer finds objectionable in their context, that he has not ascribed a personhood other than the divine to the humanity of Jesus. So, let’s look again at the words Mister Dyer thinks heretical: “so that in fact a woman is able to say to him who is her child: the Lord of the world is within you.” Who is the “him” who is her child? Dyer would have us believe that it was the non-divine person of the Nestorians, but the introductory phrase is conjunctive: “so that in fact a woman can say to him…” So, who is the “him”?

the “God who became small;” he who became man and accepted the limitations of human conception and childbirth.

Ratzinger continues:

For a long time, there was a great deal of controversy about the expression Mother of God. There were the Nestorians, who said she did not of course give birth to God; she gave birth to the man Jesus. Accordingly she should be called the Mother of Christ, but not Mother of God. It was basically a matter of the question of how profound a unity there is between God and man in this person Jesus Christ, whether it is so great we can say, Yes, the one who is born of her is God, and so she is God’s Mother. Obviously she is not God’s Mother in the sense of his having come from her. But she was in the sense of having been the mother of the man that was entirely at one with God. In this way she entered into a quite unique union with God.

The words in italics in the above quote are what Dyer finds objectionable. He writes: “Did you get that? St. Mary gave birth to a ‘human child’ who has ‘God within him,’ and this child was a ‘man’ who was united with God”

But recall that Mister Dyer himself has stated that the Nestorians refused to admit that Mary could be called the Mother of God. With that in mind re-read this statement by Ratzinger: “Obviously she is not God’s mother in the sense of his having come from her. But she was in the sense of having been the mother of the man that was entirely at one with God.” Notice here that Ratzinger is not denying that Our Lady can be called Mother of God; rather, he is describing the sense in which that can be done. Because Mister Dyer wants to prove Ratzinger is a Nestorian he understand the reference to “the man” according to Nestorian theology. Take this assumptiion away, and the Cardinal’s words are orthodox. She is the Mother of God because she was the mother of the man that was entirely at one with God. It’s precisely this oneness that was accomplished by the incarnation when Mary became pregnant. Who was entirely at one with the man? The divine person of the son of God. This is how she can be termed Mother of God. This is how Ratzinger can speak (as we saw earlier) of God becoming small and accepting the limitations of conception and childbirth.

Mister Dyer Gives the following quote from Ratzinger:

“The Greek theologian Maximus the Confessor depicts this process in a particularly impressive way. He shows us how the “alchemy of being” is accomplished in the prayer on the Mount of Olives. Here, Jesus’ will becomes one with the will of the Son and, thereby, with the will of the Father. All the rebelliousness of human nature, which shuts itself against death and against the horrors he can see, comes to the surface in this prayer. Jesus has to overcome man’s inward resistance against God. He must overcome the temptation to do it some other way. And now this temptation reaches its zenith. Only the breakdown of this resistance makes this yes possible. It ends with the fusion of his own individual, human will into the will of God, and thus, with a single petition: “But let not my will, but your will, be done

Dyer comments:

This is astonishing, Did you notice that the human Jesus is said to unite his will with the will of the son! Then, he states the strange view that Jesus had a natural inclination against God, and after Jesus overcame this, he was united in will to God-God the Son. While it is true that there are two sills, these two wills pertain to the two natures in Christ, and not to two persons in moral conjuction.

Again Mister dyer insists on interpreting thing with the assumption that Ratzinger is a Nestorian.

First, regarding the statement that “he states the strange view that Jesus had a natural inclination against God.” No, that is not what he says. He speaks about the rebelliousness of human nature which Jesus sees in his prayer on Mount Olivet. The temptation Jesus experiences to “do it some other way” is clearly an outward temptation, not the product of his own human nature which was un-fallen. Perhaps this would have been a little clearer to Mister Dyer had he paid attention to the previous paragraph which he nowhere quotes:

Jesus can see the whole abyss of human filth and human awfulness, which he has to carry and through which he must make his way. In what he sees, which goes far beyond anything of which we can be aware — and even we can feel horribly sick if we take a look at the awfulness of human history, into the abyss of denial of God, which can destroy people — in this he sees how dreadful is the burden that is being laid upon him. This is not just anguish in the face of his execution; it is being confronted with the entire, fearful, abyss of human destiny, which he has to take upon himself.

As is clear from the above, along with the mention of the name St Maximus the Confessor, the “alchemy of being” refers to the fact that the one divine person, who possessed two natures showed forth the unity of those natures in one person in the prayer on Olivet. Rather than listening to the scatologian’s torturous eisegesis of the Cardinal’s theology ought not look at the Cardinal’s teaching itself?

“It is common enough for the theological textbooks to pay scant attention to the theological development which followed Chalcedon. In many ways on e is left with the impression that dogmatic Christology comes to a stop with a certain parallelism of the two natures in Christ. It was this same impression that led to the divisions in the wake of Chalcedon. In fact, however, the affirmation of the true humanity and the true divinity in Christ can only retain its meaning if the mode of the unity of both is clarified. The Council defined this unity by speaking of the `one Person’ in Christ, but it was a formula which remained to be explored in its implications. For the unity of divinity and humanity in Christ which brings `salvation’ to man is not a juxtaposition but a mutual indwelling. Only in this way can there be that genuine `becoming like God,’ without which there is no liberation and no freedom.

“It was to this question, after two centuries of dramatic struggles which also, in many ways, bore the mark of imperial politics, that the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) addressed itself. On the one hand, it teaches that the unity of God and man in Christ involves no amputation or reduction in any way of human nature. In conjoining himself to man, his creature, God does not violate or diminish him; in doing so, he brings him for the first time to his real fullness. On the other hand (and this is no less important), it abolishes all dualism or parallelism of the two natures, such as had always seemed necessary in order to safeguard Jesus’ human freedom In such attempts it had been forgotten that when the human will is taken up into the will of God, freedom is not destroyed; indeed, only then does genuine freedom come into its own. The Council of Constantinople analyzed the question of the two-ness and the one-ness in Christ by reference to the concrete issue of the will of Jesus. It resolutely maintains that, as man, Jesus has a human will which is not absorbed by the divine will. But this human will follows the divine will and thus becomes one will with it, not in a natural manner but along the path of freedom. The metaphysical two-ness of a human and a divine will is not abrogated, but in the realm of the person, in the realm of freedom, the fusion of both takes place, with the result that they become one will not naturally, but personally. This free unity – a form of unity created by love – is higher and more interior than a merely natural unity. It corresponds to the highest unity there is, namely, Trinitarian unity. The Council illustrates this unity by citing a dominical word handed down to us in the Gospel of John: `I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me’ (Jn. 6, 38). Here it is the divine Logos who is speaking, and he speaks of the human will of the man Jesus as his will, the will of the Logos. With this exegesis of John 6, 38 the Council indicates the unity of the subject in Christ. There are not two `I’s in him, but only one. The Logos speaks in the I-form of the human will and mind of Jesus; it has become his I, has become adopted into his I, because the human will is completely one with the will of the Logos. United with the latter, it has become a pure Yes to the Father’s will.

Maximus the Confessor, the great theological interpreter of this second phase of the Christological dogma, illuminates this whole context by reference to Jesus’ prayer on the Mount of Olives, which as we already saw in thesis I, expresses Jesus’ unique relationship to God. Indeed, it is as if we were actually looking in on the inner life of the Word-made-man. It is revealed to us I the sentence which remains the measure and model of all real prayer: `Not what I will, but what thou wilt’ (Mk. 14, 36). Jesus human will assimilates itself to the will of the Son. In doing this, he receives the Son’s identity, i.e., the complete subordination of the I to the Thou, the self-giving and self-expropriation of the I to the Thou. This is the very essence of him who is pure relation and pure act., Wherever the I gives itself to the Thou, there is freedom because this involves the reception of the `form of God.’ [The Absolute].

But we can also describe this process, and describe it better, from the other side: the Logos so humbles himself that he adopts a man’s will as his own and addresses the Father with te I of this human being; he transfers his own I to this man and thus transforms human speech into the eternal Word, into his blessed `Yes,’ Father.’ By imparting his own I, his own identity, to this human being, he liberates him, redeems him, makes him God. Now we can take the real meaning of `God has become man’ in both hands, as it were: the Son transforms the anguish of a man into his own filial obedience, the speech of the servant into the Word which is the Son.

Thus we come to grasp the manner of our liberation, our participation in the Son’s freedom. As a result of the unity of wills of which we have spoken, the greatest possible change has taken place in man, the only change which meets his desire: he has become divine. We can therefore describe that prayer which enters into the praying of Jesus and becomes the prayer of Jesus in the Body of Christ as freedom’s laboratory. Here and nowhere else takes place that radical change in man of which we stand in need, that the world may become a getter place. For it is only along this path that conscience attains its fundamental soundness and its unshakable power. And only from such a conscience can there come that ordering of human affairs which corresponds to human dignity and protects it. Every generation has to seek anew this right ordering of the world in response to a conscience that is alert, until the kingdom of God comes, which God alone can establish.

They were all gotten from Ignatius Press. The first is JESUS, THE APOSTLES, AND THE EARLY CHURCH by Pope Benedict XVI. These are his catechetical lectures on what I suppose one could call our New Testament Fathers and Mothers. You can easily access all those lectures, along with some suggested readings by me, by CLICKING HERE.

The second book is BEHOLD, GOD’S SON! Encountering Christ in the Gospel of Mark By Christopher Cardinal Schonborn.

The third is GOD IS NO DELUSION A Refutation of Richard Dawkins by Thomas Crean,O.P.

The fourth is GOD AND HIS IMAGE An Outline of Biblical Theology by Dominique Barthelemy, O.P.

The fifth one is THE REGENSBURG LECTURE. This is an “explication” by Father James Schall of the famous speech Pope Benedict XVI gave at Regensburg on Sept 12, 2006.

I’ll be posting on some of these in the future; but for now, pardon me while I make some espresso, take my books, lay on the couch, drag an afghan over me, and enjoy myself.

Posted by Dim Bulb. Check out my OTHER SITE.

For my notes on article 1 of Sacramentum Caritatis, go here.
2. In the sacrament of the altar, the Lord meets us, men and women created in God’s image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:27), and becomes our companion along the way. In this sacrament, the Lord truly becomes food for us, to satisfy our hunger for truth and freedom. Since only the truth can make us free (cf. Jn 8:32), Christ becomes for us the food of truth. With deep human insight, Saint Augustine clearly showed how we are moved spontaneously, and not by constraint, whenever we encounter something attractive and desirable. Asking himself what it is that can move us most deeply, the saintly Bishop went on to say: “What does our soul desire more passionately than truth?” (2) Each of us has an innate and irrepressible desire for ultimate and definitive truth. The Lord Jesus, “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), speaks to our thirsting, pilgrim hearts, our hearts yearning for the source of life, our hearts longing for truth. Jesus Christ is the Truth in person, drawing the world to himself. “Jesus is the lodestar of human freedom: without him, freedom loses its focus, for without the knowledge of truth, freedom becomes debased, alienated and reduced to empty caprice. With him, freedom finds itself.” (3) In the sacrament of the Eucharist, Jesus shows us in particular the truth about the love which is the very essence of God. It is this evangelical truth which challenges each of us and our whole being. For this reason, the Church, which finds in the Eucharist the very centre of her life, is constantly concerned to proclaim to all, opportune importune (cf. 2 Tim 4:2), that God is love.(4) Precisely because Christ has become for us the food of truth, the Church turns to every man and woman, inviting them freely to accept God’s gift.

I find it interesting that the Pope would bring up the Genesis passage about our being made in God’s image while saying that in the sacrament the Lord “comes to meet us” and “becomes our companion on the way.” These phrases bring up to my mind other passages of Genesis. The Hebrew word for “way” is halak, and it can mean way, as in Psalm 1:1. But it can also mean walk, and is in fact the word used in Gen 3:8 when it is said that the fallen Adam and Eve heard God “walking in the garden.” This was of course after they had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of (in the biblical sense of experiencing) good and evil. As a result of this meeting between our first parents and the Lord, Adam and Eve lost access to the tree of life and were banished from the Garden. The Eucharist is part of God’s reversal of that situation.

Consider this. St John tells us that the multiplication of the loaves and the discourse which followed it took place when “the Jewish Feast of Passover was at hand” (Jn 6:4). We know that in Jesus’ day the readings used in the synagogue liturgy near Passover were Genesis chapters 1-8. Now read Genesis chapters 2 and 3 and note how many times the word “eat” is related to “life” and “death”. Then read John’s Eucharistic discourse and do the same thing. Coincidence? While you’re at it, read also Exodus chapters 12 and 16; and Numbers chapter 11, again noting the themes. These passages were also used in the synagogue at Passover time. Interesting, ain’t it? Also, it makes you want to think twice about an unworthy reception of “the food of truth,” doesn’t it? (See Here)
Also, Jesus was crucified and rose again at Passover time. This is what John writes in 19:41-42:

41: Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid.
42: So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.

The old Adam brought the curse of death upon himself and us and died outside the garden. But the Lord came to “meet us” and “became our companion along the way” of this life in our fallen world. Becoming a curse for us he died upon a tree (see Galatians 3:13), outside a garden and, within that garden, he came to new life.

Our old mother, the woman Eve, took the fruit from the tree and gave it to her husband, setting in action our fall. It is fitting, therefore, that our new mother Eve, the woman Mary, mother of Jesus, was there. For when the Word became flesh, the second Adam, he became the fruit of her womb, and it is this which hung upon the tree.

Don’t you wish you knew the Bible better? What’s stopping you? Get thee to an adoration chapel or an altar rail.

I want to say something about Jesus as the “food of truth”, but this will have to wait, my mind is starting to wander.

“1. The sacrament of charity (1), the Holy Eucharist is the gift that Jesus Christ makes of himself, thus revealing to us God’s infinite love for every man and woman. This wondrous sacrament makes manifest that “greater” love which led him to “lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13). Jesus did indeed love them “to the end” (Jn 13:1). In those words the Evangelist introduces Christ’s act of immense humility: before dying for us on the Cross, he tied a towel around himself and washed the feet of his disciples. In the same way, Jesus continues, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, to love us “to the end,” even to offering us his body and his blood. What amazement must the Apostles have felt in witnessing what the Lord did and said during that Supper! What wonder must the eucharistic mystery also awaken in our own hearts!”

These words open the encyclical and place its contents under the love of God towards man, shown in what Christ Jesus has done for humanity. Love is the motivating factor behind God’s salvific will towards man: For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in him might not perish but have eternal life (Jn 3:16).

This will of the Father which our Blessed Lord came to accomplish with a zeal he said “eats him up” (Katesthio, See Jn 2:17), it is the “work” which the father has given him to do and the “food” which sustains him: “My food is to do the work of him who sent me, and to accomplish his will” (Jn 4:34). This is the food which our Lord gives us and which can only rightly be consumed in faith: Labor not for the food that perishes but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give…this is the work (labor) of God, that you believe in the one whom he has sent…Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life…this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that you may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (see Jn 6:27-51) I’ve never seen an explicit connection drawn between the food Jesus has to eat and the food he gives us to eat. Does it not stand to reason that the food the Father has given him to eat (i.e. the accomplishment of the Father’s salvific will) is the food he now shares with us (the salvific will of the Father now accomplished in his flesh by his passion, death, resurrection, and glorification)?

The connection between the Eucharist and charity (love) has a very long history. Consider some of the statements by St Ignatius of Antioch:

“Therefore, arming yourselves with gentleness, renew yourselves in faith, which is the Flesh of the Lord, and in charity, which is the Blood of Jesus Christ. Hold nothing against your neighbor” (Epistle to the T rallians, 8).

In his Epistle to the Romans-or so it seems to me- he is talking about accomplishing the Father’s will in his regard by dying a martyrs death. He speaks of these things in a passage loaded with Eucharistic overtones and references to love:

4. I am writing to all the Churches and state emphatically to all that I
die willingly for God, provided you do not interfere. I beg you, do not
show me unseasonable kindness. Suffer me to be the food of wild beasts,
which are the means of my making my way to God. God's wheat I am, and by
the teeth of wild beasts I am to be ground that I may prove Christ's pure
bread. Better still, coax the wild beasts to become my tomb and to leave no
part of my person behind: once I have fallen asleep, I do not wish to be a
burden to anyone. Then only shall I be a genuine disciple of Jesus Christ
when the world will not see even my body. Petition Christ in my behalf that
through these instruments I may prove God's sacrifice. Not like Peter and
Paul do I issue any orders to you. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they
were free, I am until this moment a slave. But once I have suffered, I
shall become a freedman of Jesus Christ, and, united with Him, I shall rise
a free man. Just now I learn, being in chains, to desire nothing.

5. All the way from Syria to Rome I am fighting wild beasts, on land and
sea, by day and night, chained as I am to ten leopards, that is, a
detachment of soldiers, who prove themselves the more malevolent for
kindnesses shown them. Yet in the school of this abuse I am more and more
trained in discipleship, although I am not therefore justified. Oh, may the
beasts prepared for me be my joy! And I pray that they may be found to be
ready for me. I will even coax them to make short work of me, not as has
happened to some whom they were too timid to touch. And should they be
unwilling to attack me who am willing, I will myself compel them. Pardon
me--I know very well where my advantage lies. At last I am well on the way
to being a disciple. May nothing seen or unseen, fascinate me, so that I
may happily make my way to Jesus Christ! Fire, cross, struggles with wild
beasts, wrenching of bones, mangling of limbs, crunching of the whole body,
cruel tortures inflicted by the devil--let them come upon me, provided only
I make my way to Jesus Christ.

6. Of no use to me will be the farthest reaches of the universe or the
kingdoms of this world. I would rather die  and come to Jesus Christ than
be king over the entire earth. Him I seek who died for us; Him I love who
rose again because of us. The birth pangs are upon me. Forgive me,
brethren; do not obstruct my coming to life--do not wish me to die; do not
make a gift to the world of one who wants to be God's. Beware of seducing
me with matter; suffer me to receive pure light. Once arrived there, I
shall be a man. Permit me to be an imitator of my suffering God. If anyone
holds Him in his heart, let him understand what I am aspiring to; and then
let him sympathize with me, knowing in what distress I am.

7. The Prince of this world is resolved to abduct me, and to corrupt my
Godward aspirations. Let none of you, therefore, who will then be present,
assist him. Rather, side with me, that is, with God. Do not have Jesus
Christ on your lips, and the world in your hearts. Give envy no place among
you. And should I upon my arrival plead for your intervention, do not
listen to me. Rather, give heed to what I write to you. I am writing while
still alive, but my yearning is for death. My Love has been crucified, and
I am not on fire with the love of earthly things. But there is in me a
Living Water, which is eloquent and within me says: "Come to the Father." I
have no taste for corruptible food or for the delights of this life. Bread
of God is what I desire; that is, the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the
seed of David; and for my drink I desire His Blood, that is, incorruptible
love.

8. No longer do I wish to live after the manner of men; and this is what
will happen if you wish it so. Wish it, that your own wishes, too, may be
fulfilled. By this short letter I beseech you: do believe me! Jesus Christ
will make it clear to you that I speak the truth--He on whose lips there
are no lies, through whom the Father has spoken truthfully. Pray for me
that I may succeed. What I write to you does not please the appetites of
the flesh, but it pleases the mind of God. If I suffer, you have loved me;
if I am rejected, you have hated me!

Posted by Dim Bulb

On March 25, 2006, The Solemnity of the Aunnuciation, Pope Benedict XVI con-celebrated Mass with 15 newly installed cardinals.  In his homily he focused upon the importance of Christ’s incarnation and our Lady’s role in it:

Dear Cardinals and Patriarchs,
Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate and in the Priesthood,
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

For me it is a source of great joy to preside at this concelebration with the new Cardinals after yesterday’s Consistory, and I consider it providential that it should take place on the liturgical Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord and under the sunshine that the Lord gives us. In the Incarnation of the Son of God, in fact, we recognize the origins of the Church. Everything began from there.

Every historical realization of the Church and every one of her institutions must be shaped by that primordial wellspring. They must be shaped by Christ, the incarnate Word of God. It is he that we are constantly celebrating:  Emmanuel, God-with-us, through whom the saving will of God the Father has been accomplished.

And yet - today of all days we contemplate this aspect of the Mystery - the divine wellspring flows through a privileged channel:  the Virgin Mary.

St Bernard speaks of this using the eloquent image of aquaeductus (cf. Sermo in Nativitate B.V. Mariae:  PL 183, 437-448). In celebrating the Incarnation of the Son, therefore, we cannot fail to honour his Mother. The Angel’s proclamation was addressed to her; she accepted it, and when she responded from the depths of her heart:  “Here I am… let it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1: 38), at that moment the eternal Word began to exist as a human being in time.

From generation to generation, the wonder evoked by this ineffable mystery never ceases. St Augustine imagines a dialogue between himself and the Angel of the Annunciation, in which he asks:  “Tell me, O Angel, why did this happen in Mary?”. The answer, says the Messenger, is contained in the very words of the greeting:  “Hail, full of grace” (cf. Sermo 291: 6).

In fact, the Angel, “appearing to her”, does not call her by her earthly name, Mary, but by her divine name, as she has always been seen and characterized by God:  “Full of grace - gratia plena“, which in the original Greek is 6,P”D4JTµXv0,  “full of grace”, and the grace is none other than the love of God; thus, in the end, we can translate this word:  “beloved” of God (cf. Lk 1: 28). Origen observes that no such title had ever been given to a human being, and that it is unparalleled in all of Sacred Scripture (cf. In Lucam 6: 7).

It is a title expressed in passive form, but this “passivity” of Mary, who has always been and is for ever “loved” by the Lord, implies her free consent, her personal and original response:  in being loved, in receiving the gift of God, Mary is fully active, because she accepts with personal generosity the wave of God’s love poured out upon her. In this too, she is the perfect disciple of her Son, who realizes the fullness of his freedom and thus exercises the freedom through obedience to the Father.  (Read the rest)

Reuters, which I’m told used to be a legitimate news service,  has a story about the Pope’s speech to Latin American and Caribbean bishops on its site.  It says that the Pope’s remarks “offended” and”outraged and  Indian leaders in Brazil.”   The essence of the story/fable is in these words:

Outraged Indian leaders in Brazil said on Monday they were offended by Pope Benedict’s “arrogant and disrespectful” comments that the Roman Catholic Church had purified them and a revival of their religions would be a backward step.
In a speech to Latin American and Cribbean bishops at the end of a visit to Brazil, the Pope said the Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas.  They had welcomed the arrival of European priests at the time of the conquest as they were “silently longing” for Christianity, he said.

We know that many did indeed embrace willingly the faith.  We also know that some were forced to convert against there will.  An action which the authorities in Rome tried to put a stop to when they learned of it.  Needless to say however, among Brazilians of native religions the Pope’s remarks would cause anger.  The only problem is, he never said them.   Notice that the Reuters story/fable has the Pope talking about the past and in the past tense: “The Pope said the Churhc had not imposed itself…they welcomed the arrival of European priests…as they were ’silently longing’ for Christianity…”

But the Pope was actually talking in the present tense about present and future evangelisation.  Here is what the Pope really said:

To you, who represent the Church in Latin America, today I symbolically entrust my Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, in which I sought to point out to everyone the essence of the Christian message. The Church considers herself the disciple and missionary of this Love: missionary only insofar as she is a disciple, capable of being attracted constantly and with renewed wonder by the God who has loved us and who loves us first (cf. 1 Jn 4:10). The Church does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by “attraction”: just as Christ “draws all to himself” by the power of his love, culminating in the sacrifice of the Cross, so the Church fulfils her mission to the extent that, in union with Christ, she accomplishes every one of her works in spiritual and practical imitation of the love of her Lord.

Talk about manipulation!  But  things get worse.  No where in his speech does Pope Benedict mention the possible “revival” of the native religions.  And later in the story Reuters goes a-whoring after a well known dissident priest for his remarks concerning all the papal news that’s fit to skew.  This is rather ironic, since the priest in question is Paulo Seuss is a pimp for Marxist Liberation Theology.  I say ironic because the Pope ended his speech with these words:

Dear brothers and sisters! This is the priceless treasure that is so abundant in Latin America, this is her most precious inheritance: faith in the God who is Love, who has shown us his face in Jesus Christ. You believe in the God who is Love: this is your strength, which overcomes the world, the joy that nothing and no one can ever take from you, the peace that Christ won for you by his Cross! This is the faith that has made America the “Continent of Hope.” Not a political ideology, not a social movement, not an economic system: faith in the God who is Love—who took flesh, died and rose in Jesus Christ—is the authentic basis for this hope which has brought forth such a magnificent harvest from the time of the first evangelization until today, as attested by the ranks of Saints and Beati whom the Spirit has raised up throughout the Continent. Pope John Paul II called you to a new evangelization, and you accepted his commission with your customary generosity and commitment. I now confirm it with you, and in the words of this Fifth Conference I say to you: be faithful disciples, so as to be courageous and effective missionaries.

The second reading sets before us the magnificent vision of the heavenly Jerusalem. It is an image of awesome beauty, where nothing is superfluous, but everything contributes to the perfect harmony of the holy City. In his vision John sees the city “coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God” (Rev 21:10). And since the glory of God is Love, the heavenly Jerusalem is the icon of the Church, utterly holy and glorious, without spot or wrinkle (cf. EphRev 20:9), because in her is fulfilled the nuptial figure which pervades biblical revelation from beginning to end. The City and Bride is the locus of God’s full communion with humanity; she has no need of a temple or of any external source of light, because the indwelling presence of God and of the Lamb illuminates her from within. (5:27), permeated at her heart and in every part of her by the presence of the God who is Love. She is called a “bride”, “the bride of the Lamb”

This magnificent icon has an eschatological value: it expresses the mystery of the beauty that is already the essential form of the Church, even if it has not yet Gaudium et Spes, 1). If the beauty of the heavenly Jerusalem is the glory of God—his love in other words—then it is in charity, and in charity alone, that we can approach it and to a certain degree dwell within it even now. Whoever loves the Lord Jesus and keeps his word, already experiences in this world the mysterious presence of the Triune God. We heard this in the Gospel: “we will come to him and make our home with him” (Jn 14:23). Every Christian is therefore called to become a living stone of this splendid “dwelling place of God with men”. What a magnificent vocation! arrived at its fullness. It is the goal of our pilgrimage, the homeland which awaits us and for which we long. Seeing that beauty with the eyes of faith, contemplating it and yearning for it, must not serve as an excuse for avoiding the historical reality in which the Church lives as she shares the joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the people of our time, especially those who are poor or afflicted (cf. Constitution

A Church totally enlivened and impelled by the love of Christ, the Lamb slain for love, is the image within history of the heavenly Jerusalem, prefiguring the holy city that is radiant with the glory of God. It releases an irresistible missionary power which is the power of holiness. Through the prayers of the Virgin Mary, may the Church in Latin America and the Caribbean be abundantly clothed with power from on high (cf. Lk 24:49), in order to spread throughout this Continent and the whole world the holiness of Christ. To him be glory, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.

“Call Reuters-Rooter, thats the name, and away goes truth down the drain.”

Father Al Kimel of Pontification has up a series of post on the subject of Limbo.  I would like to summarize some of them.

The first article begins with these words:  I am fascinated by the current discussion on limbo. We are watching the development of Catholic doctrine in action. Some folks are pointing to this development as a counter-example to the claim of the Catholic Church to be the authoritative and reliable steward of revelation; but I do not see it this way. The Church knows more than she can speak, and this speaking may take many lifetimes, many generations, before she finds the needed language and achieves the needed clarity to say what she must say.

This is a very important point.  In fact, it seems to be to be the main point of the entire series:  limbo never rose above what it in fact is, a theological hypothesis.    Those who think it is more than just a hypothesis therefore cannot appreciate what is happening before their very eyes-the development of doctrine.

Father Kimel begins his second post on the subject by noting that many contemporary theologians find the opinion of limbo inadequate, or, to use Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s word “unenlightened.”  He in fact quotes two statements by the Cardinal on this question:

Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally—and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation—I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of “limbo” if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed “limbo” also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be. (The Ratzinger Report, pp. 147-148)

Twelve years later Cardinal Ratzinger elaborated his position:

The question of what it means to say that baptism is necessary for salvation has become ever more hotly debated in modern times. The Second Vatican Council said on this point that men who are seeking for God and who are inwardly striving toward that which constitutes baptism will also receive salvation. That is to say that a seeking after God already represents an inward participation in baptism, in the Church, in Christ. To that extent, the question concerning the necessity of baptism for salvation seems to have been answered, but the question about children who could not be baptized because they were aborted then presses upon us that much more urgently. Earlier ages had devised a teaching that seems to me rather unenlightened. They said that baptism endows us, by means of sanctifying grace, with the capacity to gaze upon God. Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to hell, but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope [John Paul II] made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament. (God and the World, pp. 401-402)

After noting that the Cardinal does not go into details concerning why he find the hypothesis problematic, Kimel gives us two reasons of his own detailing why he himself dislikes it.  “Limbus infantium,” he notes, “undermines the freedom of God.”  In this part of his post he gives an interesting and not very well known account of the great Cardinal Cajetan’s experience at the Council of Trent:

Cajetan’s view on vicarious baptism of desire was discussed by the Tridentine fathers during their deliberations on baptism in February 1547. Thanks in large part to the arguments of Cardinal Seripando, the fathers refused to condemn Cajetan and left the question of waterless baptism dogmatically open (see comment by Dr Thomas Pink).

The comment by Dr Thomas Pink which appears in the Pontifcator’s combox reads:

The non-salvation (in limbo or hell) of children who die before receiving ordinary sacramental baptism by water simply is not a defined truth or dogma of the church, and no serious theologian supposes otherwise. What is a dogma is the necessity for salvation of baptism in some form. But the reference to Cajetan above makes it worth pointing something out of great importance. The issue of how the necessity of baptism was to be understood was discussed at Trent, in February 1547, at the formulation of the decree on baptism.

Such was the prevailing suspicion of ‘Pelagianism’, Cajetan’s view was found very shocking by many council fathers, and there were requests that it be condemned. But Cajetan’s view was saved from condemnation by Seripando, who defended its licitness by, amongst other considerations, invoking the Divine will that all be saved. Following Seripando’s intervention, the council legates made it very clear that the Council’s definition that baptism is necessary for salvation should not be understood to exclude theories of salvation by ‘waterless’ baptism or baptism-equivalents such as Cajetan’s. By the council’s own will and its understanding of its own decree, the question was to remain dogmatically open. (For the discussion at Trent, see that highly interesting source, the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, volume 2, columns 305-06.) Emphasis in the above quote is mine. Click here for the rest of the doctor’s comments.
All of this helps lead to an important point:

Salvation is by the Incarnate Word alone, for in him divinity and humanity have been reconciled and forever united. He is the mediator between God and man. Salvation is by the Church, for the Church is the sacramental, Spirit-filled body of the glorified Christ and Christ is never found without his body. Salvation is by the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, because Baptism incorporates the believer into the Church, in which he is reborn by the Holy Spirit. If we would properly understand the necessity of Baptism, we must understand the salvific relations between Christ, Church, and sacramental initiation. Baptism is not a mere legal requirement, as if God has arbitrarily decreed that he will not save anyone except those who have been washed with water in the Name of the Holy Trinity. Baptism saves because the Church saves, and the Church saves because Christ saves, and Christ saves because he is the Almighty Creator who has redeemed and deified human nature in himself.

Every person born into the world is born into a state of alienation from God. Every person, therefore, needs to be regenerated in the Holy Spirit; every person needs to be restored to a state of grace and supernatural life. The ordinary and normative “place” for this rebirth is the Sacrament of Baptism. “The Church does not know,” declares the Catechism, “of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” (1257). But our ignorance is not the limit of God’s power and freedom. God has covenanted himself to the sacramental actions of the Church; but he has not restricted himself to them. If the Holy Trinity can baptize infants in his Holy Spirit through sacramental washing, he can, if he so wills, baptize infants in his Holy Spirit apart from sacramental washing.

The second reason Kimel gives for his dislike of the theory of limbo is that “Limbus infantium undermines the Chruch’s apprehension of God’s universal salvific will.”  (As we have just seen the Council of Trent refused to allow this to happen)

This section of his post begins with an historical overview of the idea that “unbaptized children are destined to the fires of hell.”  It is, of course, precisely this idea that led to the development of the concept of limbo as an attempt to do justice to the mercy of God.  Unfortunately, this concept doesn’t do justice to the Universal salvific will of God; and it is exactly on that point that the question of the fate of unbaptized infants must be addressed:

But as popular as the massa damnata, along with the cognate theory of reprobation by preterition, may have have been in portions of the Church in the past, it has never been formally defined by the Magisterium and appears now to have been excluded by the emphatic affirmations of God’s universal salvific will by Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II. The Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes is decisive and clear: “For since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (22). Who would dare to exclude the unbaptized infant from the possibility of sharing in the divine life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

This has only been a thumbnail sketch of the first two posts in Kimel’s five part series; do go and read them for yourself.

In response to the Apostolic Exhortation Sacrament of Charity the press has given us the excrement of their profession. Nice to see they are maintaining their level of idiocy and incompetence.

Mister Augustinus at The Cafeteria is Closed is blogging up a storm on the document itself.

Mister Michael Barber of Singing in the Reign gives an overview of the document and focuses on its treatment of the Eucharist in relation to eschatology (the end times); a subject he promises to post more on in the near future.

Mister Michael Liccione of Sacramentum Vitae promises me he will do a post on the connections between the Pope’s first Encyclical Deus Caritas Est and  the Apostolic Exhortation.
Finally,  Misses Amy Wellborn of Open Book offers up an initial examination of the document, along with a series of topical quotes here, and a summation here.

From a catholicculture.org e-mail:

Pope Benedict Releases Sacrament of Love

Pope Benedict XVI today released Sacramentum Caritatis (Sacrament of Love), his apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist following up the work of the 2005 Synod of Bishops. What this important document covers can be roughly outlined by the titles of its three main parts:

1. The Eucharist, A Mystery to Be Believed
2. The Eucharist, A Mystery to Be Celebrated
3. The Eucharist, A Mystery to Be Lived

The document is available on CatholicCulture.org: Sacramentum Caritatis—Sacrament of Love.

The structure of this document is interesting in that it is clearly designed to assist busy bishops, priests and laity who may not be prone to take the time to read a lengthy academic treatise. Sacramentum Caritatis is broken into numerous subheads, each of which addresses a key point in a succinct paragraph or two. Because of the organization of the document, anyone can scan over it quickly to learn what the Pope wants to emphasize on virtually any Eucharistic topic.

Striking a Blow for Us Oldsters

Speaking of the Eucharist, it is also the source of wisdom. Christ is the Wisdom of God, and so the Eucharist is both Wisdom and its source. Nonetheless, most of us progress toward wisdom very slowly through a combination of grace and hard experience. In other words, the young generally just don’t have it. I address this benefit of age in my current column: Wisdom: The Fruit of Maturity.

The document can be accessed on their site.