Further Thoughts on the System

August 13, 2009

If you remember this post, where our young author talks about “missing out” on various Church traditions and teaching, despite the fact that our author grew up in the Church (a post-V2 church that seemed to lack kneelers…and kneeling).

I then quoted this:

Our entire life, the whole liturgy, and everything ceremonial are symbols. If you abolish the symbols, then you tear down the walls of your own house. When we abolish the signs, we lose our orientation. Instead, we should search for their meaning … one should unfold the core of the symbols. … The signs are not to be questioned, we are.

I then raised the issue as to whether one can really reform something, the Church for instance, when one doesn’t know the basic aspects of the faith and tradition.

I have to complexify this issue, because our author is seriously interested (and knowledgeable…though one would know that from the blog) in theology, particularly feminist theology, and has had classes in “Catholic studies”.  I suppose that raises the question: what qualifies as “basic Catholicism?”

In this very long post, complete with sermon, I drew a distinction between strict theological learning, and being culturally informed.  In that post, I was arguing against my Franciscan friend who wanted to get rid of Latin, and who wanted to avoid doctrinal discussion in the sermon (in favor of a personal, emotionally meaningful message).  In both instances, what I seem to be rebuking is a tendency to deemphasize our Catholic identity and heritage.  In the sermon, I noted that popular Catholic practice helped solidify the Theotokos argument, and in doing that, strengthened Cyril’s Christological position against the reforming urge of Nestorius.  The common people’s strong Catholic identity, which included a deep devotion to Mary Mother of God, helped settle a theological debate.

Today’s reformers seem to know their theology.  In fact, they are quite familiar with their modern Catholic theologians, as well as their modern Protestant theologians.  It is seemly, perhaps even comely, to know Rahner and Tillich.  However, its less seemly to want to look at Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange or de Lubac.  And lets not even talk about Aquinas or Augustine as being theological relevant, apparently.

Even still, many of our reformers only know Post-V2 (and “supposed” V2 inspired) practices, which, in many places literally gutted the Church of 2000 years of history.  In place of this Tradition, a false sense of historicism was adopted.  Like AnaBaptists or Luther, we wanted to return to more “ancient” practice, regardless as to whether the practice was 1) really that ancient, 2) really that common, 3) really that desirable.  In these “older” practices, which were merely (at times) novelties falsely called old, Catholic reformers “discovered” a whole theological “tradition” that they had been waiting for, and strove to put that into practice against the “heavy-handed Medievalism” of the “Tridentine Rite Church”, with her silly beliefs in rosaries, Latin, the Tridentine Rite, etc.

Yet our reformers, in the interest of opposing this oppressive Medieval Church with their “novelties falsey called old (or Historia in aliquid obsoletum detorta),” and having been raised in churches more in line with (seemingly) more Protestant views than Catholic, forcefully rally themselves against around the standard of “true theology,” and carry that against the cultural and historical traditions and aspects of the Church.  Not unlike Nestorius, our reformers want to correct our “medieval  theological understanding,” and show us that, at its basic roots, Catholicism isn’t really that different from anything else.  In other words, we sacrifice identity for theology.

What troubles me is when our young reformers don’t seem particularly interested in studying the basic cultural traditions and identities that exist in Catholicism (unless they are related to a culture that isn’t Caucasian American or Pan-Catholic, i.e. Hispanic culture, African culture, etc.).  The funny thing is that they recognize they are missing out on something, but are still relatively confident that they really know what Catholicism should be.  Much like Nestorius.  We see how that ended.

Of course, one of the reasons I continue reading the blog mentioned above is because the author routinely posts about her own discoveries of  ”traditionally” Catholic practices.  One post mentions Mary.  Another the Communion of the Saints.  I see this as a good thing-her wonder and joy in these “Catholic identity markers” reminds me of my own wonder (back when I was just an unruly convert).  So while I probably don’t agree with her ecclesiology, we both can find something quite “wonder-full” in the delightfully Catholic aspects of our faith (Mary, anyone?).

At least, I think so.


Happy Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria

June 27, 2009

CyrilOne of the priests here (the vocation director) and I often disagree on the amount of doctrine and church history one should introduce in a sermon.  My priest friend is of the opinion that doctrine and church history are important, but one must ultimately give sermons that address the needs and cares of the people, which means distilling the doctrine or history down to a simplified level.  We also disagree on the use of Latin in the Church in general, and in the liturgy.  He believes we should get rid of Latin completely, since no one can understand it.  He also seems to think that people who go to Latin Masses don’t understand the Mass, or like it for purely aesthetic reasons.  He didn’t seem to believe me when I said 1) Everyone has a Missal, everyone follows along and prays the prayers of the Mass with the priest, and b) that people derive spiritual benefit from the Mass, and find it more worshipful that an hour full of noise, without due silence for prayer…I haven’t yet broached the subject of the awful 1970 ICEL translation with him yet.

I personally find his view insulting to the laity, because it seems to question their intelligence.  I also find it disturbing, as the priestly office (in the sermon) seems to be an extension of the teaching office of the bishop.  As such, it is necessary for a priest to talk about doctrine and church history in such a way that we don’t water-down the message.  He seems to view all theological thoughts and discussion as being more a hindrance than a support for faith (he also doesn’t like Greek or footnotes, which I very much do).  At the same time, I can appreciate what he is saying.  Theology can get in the way of faith-my time at YDS has done so for me, I fear.  Yet, I still think that it should be possible to tell the story of Christian history and doctrine without being dishonest to the sources involved.

Should I put my money where my mouth is?  Sure.  Let me take a crack at being doctrinal, historical, entertaining, and thoroughly spiritual (with a touch of Chesterton, perhaps, as well):

By a fortunate happenstance, today is the feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria.  I consider this fortunate, as Saturday’s are usually reserved for Vigil Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  If we should celebrate any two individuals on one day, it would most certainly be St. Cyril and the Blessed Mother.  For you see, it is because of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s brilliant theological mind, in defense of popular devotion, that we are allowed to call Mary the Blessed Mother of God.

As we all know, there are many roles to be played within the life of the Church.  Some are called to be religious, some to the priesthood, and some to marriage.  Some people, however, have the dubious fortune to be called “theologians”.  Now today theology bears the stigma of being too esoteric, speculative, and off-putting.  Theologians seem to delight in writing complex treatises and entertaining novel, heretical doctrines to such an extent that the average reader is liable reject theology altogether.  Thus, we must realize that just as some people become religious, priests, or get married who should not, there are a legion of individuals who, wrongly, consider themselves theologians.  As St. Gregory Nazianzus warns us, there are far to many “theologians” who theologize out of pride, “who delight in profane babbling, and…knowledge falsely so called” (Or. 27.1).

One such example of proud and vain “theologizers” is Nestorius.  You see, we wouldn’t remember Nestorius if it wasn’t for the fact that he was made Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope of the East if you will, around 428AD.  The region of Constantinople, and especially Ephesus, had a great devotion to the Virgin Mary.  In this region (and, indeed, throughout Christianity at this time), there was a very common and popular devotion to Mary as “Theotokos,” which is Greek for God-Bearer, or more easily stated: The Mother of God.  Nestorius, upon taking the Patriarch’s chair, immediately began to preach against the idea of Mary “Theotokos”, Mary God-Bearer.  You see, Nestorius found this popular devotion “intellectually weak.”

The common man and woman in the 5th century (much as we do today) realized that Jesus Christ was the Incarnate Son of God.  Jesus, as we profess in the Creed, was both “True God” and “became man.”  In a particularly delicious irony, considering his intellectual pretensions, Nestorius’ Jesus was “human” and “divine,” but to such an extent that the divine never “became” human.  To use an analogy, he “put on”  the human Jesus Christ like a costume, and left it behind before the Crucifixion.  Thus, as much as Nestorius disdained the simple piety of the populace, so to did God so disdained becoming human that he merely wore Jesus like a cheap suit until our  “salvation,” however Nestorius conceived it, was complete.

Thus enters our hero, St. Cyril of Alexandria.  St. Cyril, unlike Nestorius, was one of those men called to the theologian’s life, and this was demonstrated in his refutation of Nestorius.  You see, Cyril sided with the popular devotion of the people, and put his mind, made eminently theological by both long study, deep prayer, and liturgical devotion, towards refuting Nestorius.  Cyril believed that a union between the “human” and “divine” was possible, and had happened, in the person of Jesus.  While Nestorius saw “two-ness” in Christ: the human Jesus and the Divine Word, Cyril believed that the human Jesus and the Divine Word were “one and the same,” that in the Incarnation, Jesus was fully human and fully divine, yet one Person.  There never was a time when the human Jesus Christ was not the Divine Son of God.  Thus, when Mary gave birth to Jesus, she gave birth to God.  Mary was very truly, Mother of God.

This should serve as an important lesson for all people, theologians and laity especially.  You see, theology, the beliefs of the Catholic Church, are not reserved for theologians.  Just as the laity of the 5th century were intimately familiar with the theology of their Church, so too we should take the time to study it, learn it, and pray upon it.  As you saw in our story, and as happens far too often today, too many men and women rise up to declare themselves “theologians,” and to teach what they think the faith “should” be, and not what it is.  It is incumbent upon all of us to learn our faith, both through study and prayer, so that we can bear the true Gospel and true Faith to all those we love, and be able to counter the false “revelations” of our friends, neighbors, or loved one’s.

And to those with aspirations to theology: remember the people.  While the most theologically refined protagonist of our story is St. Cyril, the loudest and most influential were the people.  The people, both knowledgeable about the faith and pious in disposition, smelt Nestorius’ ratty theology, and called him upon it.  Thus, theologians must remember the people in two ways: first, we must, as theologians, seek to catechize the people into the truth of the Gospel, as taught by the Magisterium of the Church.  We should not seek novelty for novelty’s sake, as Nestorius did.  Rather, we should absorb within ourselves the fullness of revelation as taught by the Church, help the people to learn this doctrines, and correct them when they stray into the realm of novelty and heresy.  I can assure you, if Cyril had thought the term Theotokos heretical, I would be giving a far different sermon.  Let us all, theologians and laity, not be swayed by public opinion, but by the Word of God.

Secondly, as theologians, we can learn the meaning of devotion from the laity.   We must firmly remain planted in Christian devotion, both in prayer and the liturgical life of the Church, following the example of St. Cyril, of all the great Doctors of the Church.  We must reject the temptation toward intellectual pride and haughtiness.  Remember, God wasn’t born to royalty, the intelligentsia, or the fashionable.  He was born to a peasant girl of little education, simple faith, great love, and humble devotion.  Let us all, theologians and laity, seek to emulate that peasant girl and in so doing, to be bearers of the Word to our world as well.  Amen.

How did I do?  Oh, finally, a note on the life of St. Cyril below.  As you can tell, I really like Cyril.

Orthodox:

Saints Athanasius and Cyril were Archbishops of Alexandria. These wise teachers of truth and defenders of Christ’s Church share a joint Feast in recognition of their dogmatic writings which affirm the truth of the Orthodox Faith, correctly interpret the Holy Scripture, and censure the delusions of the heretics.

St Cyril was the nephew of Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria, who educated him from his youth. He succeeded to his uncle’s position in 412, but was deposed through the intrigues of the Nestorian heretics. He later resumed his See, however.

St Cyril presided at the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which censured the Nestorian blasphemy against the Most Holy Theotokos. His wise words demonstrated the error of their false doctrine.

St Cyril departed to the Lord in the year 444, and is also commemorated on June 9 (the day of his repose).

Catholic:

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Bishop and Doctor of the Church (June 27) Cyril was born at Alexandria, Egypt. He was nephew of the patriarch of that city, Theophilus. Cyril received a classical and theological education at Alexandria and was ordained by his uncle. He accompanied Theophilus to Constantinople in 403 and was present at the Synod of the Oak that deposed John Chrysostom, whom he believed guilty of the charges against him. He succeeded his uncle Theophilus as patriarch of Alexandria on Theophilus’ death in 412, but only after a riot between Cyril’s supporters and the followers of his rival Timotheus. Cyril at once began a series of attacks against the Novatians, whose churches he closed; the Jews, whom he drove from the city; and governor Orestes, with whom he disagreed about some of his actions. In 430 Cyril became embroiled with Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, who was preaching that Mary was not the Mother of God since Christ (the Divine Son of God) was Divine and not human, and consequently she should not have the word theotokos (God-bearer) applied to her. He persuaded Pope Celestine I to convoke a synod at Rome, which condemned Nestorius, and then did the same at his own synod in Alexandria. Celestine directed Cyril to depose Nestorius, and in 431, Cyril presided over the third General Council at Ephesus, attended by some two hundred bishops, which condemned all the tenets of Nestorius and his followers before the arrival of Archbishop John of Antioch and forty-two followers who believed Nestorius was innocent. When they found what had been done, they held a council of their own and deposed Cyril. Emperor Theodosius II arrested both Cyril and Nestorius but released Cyril on the arrival of Papal Legates who confirmed the council’s actions against Nestorius and declared Cyril innocent of all charges. Two years later, Archbishop John, representing the moderate Antiochene bishops, and Cyril reached an agreement and joined in the condemnation, and Nestorius was forced into exile. During the rest of his life, Cyril wrote treatises that clarified the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation and that helped prevent Nestorianism and Pelagianism from taking long-term deep root in the Christian community. He was the most brilliant theologian of the Alexandrian tradition. His writings are characterized by accurate thinking, precise exposition, and great reasoning skills. Among his writings are commentaries on John, Luke, and the Pentateuch, treatises on dogmatic theology, and Apologia against Julian the Apostate, and letters and sermons. He was declared a doctor of the Church by Pope Leo XIII in 1882. His feast day is June 27th.

And the Collect for the day, which we can use everyday as a prayer of devotion for both Cyril, and to Mary:

O God, Who didst make blessed Cyril, They Confessor and Bishop, the invincible champion of the divine Motherhood of the most blessed Virgin Mary: grant that by his intercession, we who believe her to be truly the Mother of God, may be saved by her motherly protection.  Through our Lord.

And finally, a prayer from St. Cyril himself:

Hail, Mary, Mother of God,
venerable treasure of the whole universe,
lamp that is never extinguished,
crown of virginity,
support of the true faith,
indestructible temple,
dwelling of Him whom no place can contain,
O Mother and Virgin!
Through you all the holy Gospels
call blessed the One whom comes
in the name of the Lord.

Hail, Mother of God.
You enclosed under your heart
the infinite God whom no space can contain.
Through you the Most Holy Trinity is adored and glorified,
the priceless cross is venerated throughout the universe.
Through you the heavens rejoice,
and the angels and archangels are filled with gladness.
Through you the demons are banished,
and the tempter fell from heaven.
Through you the fallen human race is admitted to heaven.

Hail, Mother of God.
Through you kings rule,
and the only-begotten Son of God has become a star of light
to those who were sitting in darkness
and in the shadow of death.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Pray for Us.