Translating English into English seems to be one of the most important labors for an Anglican apologist who wants to help bring understanding to modern readers and thinkers. Would that our language were still the tongue of our English speaking fathers, for then we could lay to rest more easily myths and assumptions about English Reformers and Anglican Divines; indeed we might have had nothing to lay to rest. But, language that is used in the street must shift over generations, and only liturgical languages such as Hebrew, Latin and Prayer Book English, retain the same meaning forever. The Greek Orthodox in Greece cannot understand the strange tongue used in their churches every Sunday, for it is Greek, but they don't speak Greek; rather they speak Greek. The Jews in Apostolic times had to learn specially the Hebrew of Scripture, inasmuch their street Hebrew had evolved into Aramaic. Latin has evolved into such tongues as Italian, and English into this g-awful language we speak today.
The problem of translating English into English is compounded by simplistic study of history, including the history of Christian doctrine. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the self-contradictory thought of Tract 90. In his Anglican days, John Henry Newman demonstrated great care in writing a defense of the Thirty-Nine Articles, showing that the doctrines set forth therein do not contradict the beliefs of the Catholic Faith as known to the Universal Church. In this tract he set forth evidence and sound reasoning about the more difficult passages of the Articles, as well as giving clarification about the Black Rubric, which is not closely related to the Articles, but only distantly related. Even so, he demonstrated that even this unauthorized paragraph that was stolen into the Book of Common Prayer by stealth at the Printer's Shop, does not contradict the High theology of the Sacrament and belief in the Real Presence.
His tone was calm and deliberate, his facts were well-ordered, and his explanations in perfect accord with the mind of Anglican Divines such as Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes and Abp. William Laud. He drew from the Homilies, a source as old (indeed, as olde) as Abp.Thomas Cranmer himself to show why the plain meaning of the Anglican Prayer Book can be understood rightly only as setting forth the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament (Newman mainly considering the 1662 edition, but with clear knowledge of all earlier editions). He states these things clearly enough and often shows that he appreciated the true meaning of these old Formularies. None of his explanations were a mere interpretation, but rather the only possible intended meaning; for, in light of all the evidence, no different conclusions make any sense. He did too good a job to give any ground to the opposition.
But, as good as his reasoning is throughout the body of his argument, he spoils his own ointment with flies, inflicting wounds on his own work. He begins well enough in the introduction, opening the tract with an excellent sentence that summarizes the argument to follow:
IT is often urged, and sometimes felt and granted, that there are in the Articles propositions or terms inconsistent with the Catholic faith; or, at least, when persons do not go so far as to feel the objection as of force, they are perplexed how best to reply to it, or how most simply to explain the passages on which it is made to rest. The following Tract is drawn up with the view of showing how groundless the objection is, and further of approximating towards the argumentative answer to it, of which most men have an implicit apprehension, though they may have nothing more.
To this beginning we have nothing to say but, "amen" and "of course." But, at the end of the introduction he weakens his own case.
But these remarks are beyond our present scope, which is merely to show that, while our Prayer Book is acknowledged on all hands to be of Catholic origin, our articles also, the offspring of an uncatholic age, are, through GOD'S good providence, to say the least, not uncatholic, and may be subscribed by those who aim at being catholic in heart and doctrine.
Indeed, his tone was conciliatory, for in his day the Anglo-Catholic movement had its opponents (though often in matters not of doctrine, but of liturgical practice). But, in yielding ground to the other side for no reason, he committed an error against historical fact. The phrase, "the offspring of an uncatholic age" is misleading altogether. He is left with having to attribute only to Providence the fact that the Articles are "not uncatholic," as if somehow the framers did not believe what they said, wrote, practiced and many times defended; as if they were called "papists without the pope" and defended their Catholic Practices against the Puritans, without ever meaning what they said and did. Sadly, Newman weakened, by his uncalled for and unjustified concession, all that follows in the excellent body of the Tract (certainly worth the time to read).
In the conclusion he should have argued that the Catholic faith and intentions of Protestant Reformers, evident through reasonable and careful study free of knee-jerk reaction, has been aptly demonstrated. In such a conclusion he could have offered a meeting of minds to the Anglicans of the Nineteenth Century (which would have served well the century that followed), a place of peace and unity, the very unity he called for in his opening of the Tract. Indeed, he offers this excellent thought as part of the conclusion: "In giving the Articles a Catholic interpretation, we bring them in to harmony with the Book of Common Prayer, an object of the most serious moment in those who have given their assent to both formularies." But, he has spoiled already the promise of such thinking by having said, "In the first place, it is a duty which we owe both to the Catholic Church and to our own, to take our reformed confessions in the most Catholic sense they will admit; we have no duties toward their framers. [Nor do we receive the Articles from their original framers, but from several successive convocations after their time; in the last instance, from that of 1662.]"
The conclusion shows that Newman, as brilliant as he had been in writing the body of the Tract, could not free his mind from the false choices of his own day, having accepted a chasm between "Catholic" and "Protestant" that made these words contrary to each other, these words that had been seen in the earlier generations of Anglicanism as complementary. He lost sight of the complement, interpreting the past by the prejudices of his own era. In the end, having proved his case, he relegates it to a mere Anglo-Catholic interpretation of Protestant Articles. What a sad way to conclude a Tract that had proved its point by use of the old Homilies, the Prayer Book, and by sound historical and theological reasoning.
Different emergencies in different times
In our time we have inherited the same prejudice that existed in the Nineteenth Century. Today we find that even among those who see the Catholic nature of the old Anglican Formularies, some hesitancy to inform their understanding of the Sixteenth Century by the shape and pattern of Anglican teaching that survived and emerged. Like Newman, they make themselves ripe for the picking, to be carried away into another church body where they may forget, as in time he apparently forgot, the facts that illuminate sound reasoning. The same Newman went on, in his Roman Catholic years, to write many simplistic statements about Anglican doctrine that simply had no basis in fact. His constant swipes at our doctrine, usually in short little sentences, describe beliefs that Anglicanism has never taught, in fact, often the very opposite. The samples are too numerous to list, and they are particularly tragic in nature. The most charitable explanation I can give is this: Perhaps he was addressing the hypocrisy of certain Anglicans who did not believe their Prayer Book and other Formularies. Nonetheless, even in one of his best Anglican works, Tract 90, we see that he judged his Fathers by the errors of his own time, failing to appreciate what they intended in their time, hearing what they said, but crediting only Providence. He failed to question the conventional wisdom of his era, with its deplorable party spirit.
In my paper Anglican Identity (posted here and other places) I said the following:
The English Church established a carefully maintained balance between Rome, Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Zwinglianism, criticizing and rejecting various ideas in each of these systems. This in turn kept the Anglicans in a state of at least some amount of opposition to everybody all the time. Each of these camps saw the Church of England as accepting error by adopting or maintaining some of the ideas and practices of Rome, or some of those belonging to Calvin, or some of those belonging to Luther, but never to the satisfaction of loyalists in any of those parties...They were not weak and lacking in substance, needing to draw strength from the outside. Rather, they were strong enough to deal honestly and seriously with outside influences, all the while resisting the pressure to conform. The strength of Anglicanism, as it emerged, was in its strength to be both Catholic and Evangelical in a way that was entirely unique. And that is Anglican Identity.1
It is intellectually lazy to look at the Reforms of the English Church in terms of our own day. Recently, it was observed here in comments that the 1549 Book of Common Prayer did not allow Elevation of the Host. And, that fact is a perfect example of the kind of thing that will be misunderstood if we allow the prejudices of our time to move us to knee-jerk reaction. The Elevation of the Host in 1549 would have contradicted a major Reform, that of teaching the people that mere "gazing" on the Sacrament was not sufficient; that the Masse is also the service of Holy Communion in which they were supposed to receive this Sacrament that is "generally necessary to salvation." Refusing to allow Elevation of the Host in the context of that era was a necessary step to restoring Catholic Faith and Practice, no matter how much a modern person who refuses to weigh the evidence will insist on seeing something else. About these things I have written before, and you may read what I have already set forth for your benefit (for example this essay found here).
The work of Unconfusing requires translation of olde English into our English, and the labor it requires to understand the times of the English Reformers and Anglican Divines. Anyone who actually thinks that they intended to undermine Catholic Faith is in serious need of true education; for that was never the goal of anyone. The times in which they lived required correction of Medieval errors, superstition and false doctrine, replacing it with sound teaching (indeed, the Council of Trent itself said many of the same things as the English Reformers, and in only slightly different ways, though we cannot give it full assent, and we take issue with some of it). The crises and emergencies of their era were not the same as those we face today; and restoring Catholic Faith and Practice to England required efforts very different from the efforts we must undertake in our time. It included words that need translation from their English to ours for the work of Unconfusing. The tragedy with Newman is that his arguments were right, but he did not stand up for his own words, and could not bear to live with having proved his case. Let us have more freedom to embrace the soundness of our own case.
______________________
1. In this I gave too much ground to our time and its errors, as if "Catholic" and "Evangelical" are, properly speaking, separate. When one has said "Catholic" no more should need to be said. I hope one day that will be enough for clear communication.
The problem of translating English into English is compounded by simplistic study of history, including the history of Christian doctrine. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the self-contradictory thought of Tract 90. In his Anglican days, John Henry Newman demonstrated great care in writing a defense of the Thirty-Nine Articles, showing that the doctrines set forth therein do not contradict the beliefs of the Catholic Faith as known to the Universal Church. In this tract he set forth evidence and sound reasoning about the more difficult passages of the Articles, as well as giving clarification about the Black Rubric, which is not closely related to the Articles, but only distantly related. Even so, he demonstrated that even this unauthorized paragraph that was stolen into the Book of Common Prayer by stealth at the Printer's Shop, does not contradict the High theology of the Sacrament and belief in the Real Presence.
His tone was calm and deliberate, his facts were well-ordered, and his explanations in perfect accord with the mind of Anglican Divines such as Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes and Abp. William Laud. He drew from the Homilies, a source as old (indeed, as olde) as Abp.Thomas Cranmer himself to show why the plain meaning of the Anglican Prayer Book can be understood rightly only as setting forth the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament (Newman mainly considering the 1662 edition, but with clear knowledge of all earlier editions). He states these things clearly enough and often shows that he appreciated the true meaning of these old Formularies. None of his explanations were a mere interpretation, but rather the only possible intended meaning; for, in light of all the evidence, no different conclusions make any sense. He did too good a job to give any ground to the opposition.
But, as good as his reasoning is throughout the body of his argument, he spoils his own ointment with flies, inflicting wounds on his own work. He begins well enough in the introduction, opening the tract with an excellent sentence that summarizes the argument to follow:
IT is often urged, and sometimes felt and granted, that there are in the Articles propositions or terms inconsistent with the Catholic faith; or, at least, when persons do not go so far as to feel the objection as of force, they are perplexed how best to reply to it, or how most simply to explain the passages on which it is made to rest. The following Tract is drawn up with the view of showing how groundless the objection is, and further of approximating towards the argumentative answer to it, of which most men have an implicit apprehension, though they may have nothing more.
To this beginning we have nothing to say but, "amen" and "of course." But, at the end of the introduction he weakens his own case.
But these remarks are beyond our present scope, which is merely to show that, while our Prayer Book is acknowledged on all hands to be of Catholic origin, our articles also, the offspring of an uncatholic age, are, through GOD'S good providence, to say the least, not uncatholic, and may be subscribed by those who aim at being catholic in heart and doctrine.
Indeed, his tone was conciliatory, for in his day the Anglo-Catholic movement had its opponents (though often in matters not of doctrine, but of liturgical practice). But, in yielding ground to the other side for no reason, he committed an error against historical fact. The phrase, "the offspring of an uncatholic age" is misleading altogether. He is left with having to attribute only to Providence the fact that the Articles are "not uncatholic," as if somehow the framers did not believe what they said, wrote, practiced and many times defended; as if they were called "papists without the pope" and defended their Catholic Practices against the Puritans, without ever meaning what they said and did. Sadly, Newman weakened, by his uncalled for and unjustified concession, all that follows in the excellent body of the Tract (certainly worth the time to read).
In the conclusion he should have argued that the Catholic faith and intentions of Protestant Reformers, evident through reasonable and careful study free of knee-jerk reaction, has been aptly demonstrated. In such a conclusion he could have offered a meeting of minds to the Anglicans of the Nineteenth Century (which would have served well the century that followed), a place of peace and unity, the very unity he called for in his opening of the Tract. Indeed, he offers this excellent thought as part of the conclusion: "In giving the Articles a Catholic interpretation, we bring them in to harmony with the Book of Common Prayer, an object of the most serious moment in those who have given their assent to both formularies." But, he has spoiled already the promise of such thinking by having said, "In the first place, it is a duty which we owe both to the Catholic Church and to our own, to take our reformed confessions in the most Catholic sense they will admit; we have no duties toward their framers. [Nor do we receive the Articles from their original framers, but from several successive convocations after their time; in the last instance, from that of 1662.]"
The conclusion shows that Newman, as brilliant as he had been in writing the body of the Tract, could not free his mind from the false choices of his own day, having accepted a chasm between "Catholic" and "Protestant" that made these words contrary to each other, these words that had been seen in the earlier generations of Anglicanism as complementary. He lost sight of the complement, interpreting the past by the prejudices of his own era. In the end, having proved his case, he relegates it to a mere Anglo-Catholic interpretation of Protestant Articles. What a sad way to conclude a Tract that had proved its point by use of the old Homilies, the Prayer Book, and by sound historical and theological reasoning.
Different emergencies in different times
In our time we have inherited the same prejudice that existed in the Nineteenth Century. Today we find that even among those who see the Catholic nature of the old Anglican Formularies, some hesitancy to inform their understanding of the Sixteenth Century by the shape and pattern of Anglican teaching that survived and emerged. Like Newman, they make themselves ripe for the picking, to be carried away into another church body where they may forget, as in time he apparently forgot, the facts that illuminate sound reasoning. The same Newman went on, in his Roman Catholic years, to write many simplistic statements about Anglican doctrine that simply had no basis in fact. His constant swipes at our doctrine, usually in short little sentences, describe beliefs that Anglicanism has never taught, in fact, often the very opposite. The samples are too numerous to list, and they are particularly tragic in nature. The most charitable explanation I can give is this: Perhaps he was addressing the hypocrisy of certain Anglicans who did not believe their Prayer Book and other Formularies. Nonetheless, even in one of his best Anglican works, Tract 90, we see that he judged his Fathers by the errors of his own time, failing to appreciate what they intended in their time, hearing what they said, but crediting only Providence. He failed to question the conventional wisdom of his era, with its deplorable party spirit.
In my paper Anglican Identity (posted here and other places) I said the following:
The English Church established a carefully maintained balance between Rome, Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Zwinglianism, criticizing and rejecting various ideas in each of these systems. This in turn kept the Anglicans in a state of at least some amount of opposition to everybody all the time. Each of these camps saw the Church of England as accepting error by adopting or maintaining some of the ideas and practices of Rome, or some of those belonging to Calvin, or some of those belonging to Luther, but never to the satisfaction of loyalists in any of those parties...They were not weak and lacking in substance, needing to draw strength from the outside. Rather, they were strong enough to deal honestly and seriously with outside influences, all the while resisting the pressure to conform. The strength of Anglicanism, as it emerged, was in its strength to be both Catholic and Evangelical in a way that was entirely unique. And that is Anglican Identity.1
It is intellectually lazy to look at the Reforms of the English Church in terms of our own day. Recently, it was observed here in comments that the 1549 Book of Common Prayer did not allow Elevation of the Host. And, that fact is a perfect example of the kind of thing that will be misunderstood if we allow the prejudices of our time to move us to knee-jerk reaction. The Elevation of the Host in 1549 would have contradicted a major Reform, that of teaching the people that mere "gazing" on the Sacrament was not sufficient; that the Masse is also the service of Holy Communion in which they were supposed to receive this Sacrament that is "generally necessary to salvation." Refusing to allow Elevation of the Host in the context of that era was a necessary step to restoring Catholic Faith and Practice, no matter how much a modern person who refuses to weigh the evidence will insist on seeing something else. About these things I have written before, and you may read what I have already set forth for your benefit (for example this essay found here).
The work of Unconfusing requires translation of olde English into our English, and the labor it requires to understand the times of the English Reformers and Anglican Divines. Anyone who actually thinks that they intended to undermine Catholic Faith is in serious need of true education; for that was never the goal of anyone. The times in which they lived required correction of Medieval errors, superstition and false doctrine, replacing it with sound teaching (indeed, the Council of Trent itself said many of the same things as the English Reformers, and in only slightly different ways, though we cannot give it full assent, and we take issue with some of it). The crises and emergencies of their era were not the same as those we face today; and restoring Catholic Faith and Practice to England required efforts very different from the efforts we must undertake in our time. It included words that need translation from their English to ours for the work of Unconfusing. The tragedy with Newman is that his arguments were right, but he did not stand up for his own words, and could not bear to live with having proved his case. Let us have more freedom to embrace the soundness of our own case.
______________________
1. In this I gave too much ground to our time and its errors, as if "Catholic" and "Evangelical" are, properly speaking, separate. When one has said "Catholic" no more should need to be said. I hope one day that will be enough for clear communication.
30 comments:
Dear Fr. Hart,
I do so enjoy your tete-a-tete op-eds with Cardinal Newman. I am caught on time so i'll make a few brief comments.
1) This quote: "His constant swipes at our doctrine, usually in short little sentences, describe beliefs that Anglicanism has never taught, in fact, often the very opposite." is ridiculous. It perhaps better describes my contributions here due to the size of the comment box and my own lack of time. If you want long, accurate sentences by Newman read his Anglican Difficulties. It is available through Real View Books.
2) Your first paragraph argument on languages and ultimately neutrality and faithful representation could be ripped apart by anyone specialising on the philosophy of language.
3) I like what you had to say in your Anglican Identity paper you quoted here for reasons I'll explain later.
3) I just want to provide some short quotes on the reaction to Tract 90 by those who were sympathetic to the Tractarians, just to give you an idea on how opposed they were to it:
From Bishop Phillpotts:
Tract 90 "as it respects our own Church is offensive and indecent, as it regards the Reformation and our Reformers absurd as well as incongruous and unjust"
Another: Tract 90 earned "the most distinct of condemnation" etc...
5) This statement of yours: "The times in which they lived required correction of Medieval errors, superstition and false doctrine, replacing it with sound teaching"
is very accurate of the mindset I believe. All I'll say is look how far it went...Thomas Arnold viewed Tract 90 as "a memorable proof of their idolatry"
That's all for now. Email me if you want references etc...
I pray you all God's love,
J.T.
Luther believed there was a benefit to "ocular communion," and it was a common occurrence for men to ride their horses to church, remain mounted, peer through a crack or window until the elevation, and then ride away thinking that they had satisfied their holy obligation.
Under these circumstance the reformers actions are more clearly understood.
Jakian Thomist wrote:
1) This quote: "His constant swipes at our doctrine, usually in short little sentences, describe beliefs that Anglicanism has never taught, in fact, often the very opposite." is ridiculous.
The quotations of Newman's misleading and offensive swipes are many, and written over a long period. Your use of the word "ridiculous" is simply offensive, even if you do afterward close your comment with words about God's love (making it even more offensive). I have read Newman himself, and his many ridiculous assertions about Anglican belief, outrageous as they are, should be quite apparent to everyone. The body of his works, taken together, does not impress me. His "Anglican Difficulties" is full of rubbish and unproved assertions, assertions that compound the very confusion I am working to clean up. His famous Difficulties is a short route to fantasy land, the world of fiction and silliness, convoluted, confused and, certainly, unhistoric. The best word for his arguments in that well-known work is sophistry. My own essays have been called "Non-Anglican Difficulties" for good reason.
2) Your first paragraph argument on languages and ultimately neutrality and faithful representation could be ripped apart by anyone specialising on the philosophy of language.
Philosophy of langauge? The definitive work on Language Shift over generations was by the same Brothers Grimm who are better remembered for their collection of fairy tales. Any "langauge philosopher" (if there is such an animal) who might want to rip my argument apart would certainly come across as a fool in the eyes of a linguist or historian (an example will suffice: Please define the word "let"). I dare anyone to try to rip it apart. In fact, I am amazed that anyone would even think to challenge what I said, since to any well-read person it obviously true. The best word for what I said is "self-evident," at least to educated persons.
All I'll say is look how far it went...Thomas Arnold viewed Tract 90 as "a memorable proof of their idolatry"
You may wish to look instead at how far the confusion went.
I regard your offer of resources as an insult, cleverly veiled. Just who do you think you are dealing with? Trying subtly to suggest a lack of erudition will not work here.
Dear Fr. Hart,
I regret writing quickly because I fear it may lead to me being misunderstood. But I am under time pressure and tbh I wouldn't have commented if you didn't mention Cardinal Newman.
If you had said the following at the start "The body of his works, taken together, does not impress me." I would have accepted that, but your statement I commented on made a claim of fact - "in fact, often the very opposite". I regard this as very offensive (as well as untrue) but I didn't say it and it comes across as an ad hominem attack on him and his person, when I can quote you several statements by Non-Catholics attesting to his honour. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish whether you disagree with him or just plain don't like him.
On PhilLang, all I can say is be very careful when looking for neutrality and knowledge out of language and translation. Neutrality of knowledge is a big problem, are we trapped in our language, culture etc... Read Wittgenstein... all this has big implications for religion and sola scriptura in particular. Just don't stake your faith on it, that's all!
I mentioned the references not to insult but becuase I didn't name one of the Bishops I quoted and I can't assume that you are familar with everything written on the matter. Please don't assume bad faith on my part.
This comment of mine "All I'll say is look how far it went..." is a throw-away comment on my part which I didn't justify. And I apologise for that. It was linked to this statement "in his (Newman's) day the Anglo-Catholic movement had its opponents (though often in matters not of doctrine, but of liturgical practice). I found this very hard to accept especially with the Gorham Case, and the massive question over Baptismal Regeneration.
I must go again and I still haven't had time to say the positive things about your article which I promised and I will. Any personal difficulties between us I'm sure would be resolved over a cool beverage!
Lord, please send your forgiveness into our lives.
Dear Fr. Hart,
Isn't the elevation involve a number of theological questions? For example, isn't the elevation a signal for confection of the elements (Words of Institution being the point of 'transelementation' vs. epiclesis?
How should we understand this today?
This brings up another point. In Haverland's Anglican Faith and Practice, the Archbishop speaks of 'transelementation' not being a spiritual but physical presence of Christ in the bread. I've tried to find out what this term, 'transelementation', means, and it sounds identical to so-called impantation. One thing 'transelementationists' believe is an upward ascent to Christ's person while, I've read, transubstantiation is identified with a descent of Christ's humanity. Could you please clarify...? Any books that might correctly elaborate upon this term, 'transelementation', which the Archbishop feels adequately sums Anglo-Catholic belief?
Readers may enjoy this conversation on transelementation, adoration, and reservation of sacrament between Fr. Alvin Kimmel and George Hunsinger:
http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/eucharistic-presence-a-proposal/
Well, J.T., all I can say is that you attacked the points in question with words like "ridiculous." By offering resources I thought you meant something as accessible as Newman's Difficulties book, and were implying that I must not have read relevant material. If you had not written your first two points the way you did, I might not have taken that last bit the way I did. Perhaps when you are in a hurry you are less than careful.
On PhilLang, all I can say is be very careful when looking for neutrality and knowledge out of language and translation. Neutrality of knowledge is a big problem, are we trapped in our language, culture etc... Read Wittgenstein... all this has big implications for religion and sola scriptura in particular.
I was not bringing neutrality into it at all. I was dscussing the fact that every language that lives as the vernacular undergoes shifts, changes or evolution. Sometimes words end up meaning the very opposite of their original meaning (I have mentioned before the word "protest," which now means the very opposite of what it meant long ago, defying its own etymology). I was discussing, also, the need to read documents in light of their historical context. That hardly could be taken apart by any reasonable person, not even a language philosopher-someday you have will have to introduce one.
As for my observation that Newman, in his RC career, consistently misrepresented Anglican belief, the examples are just as I said, many; usually they are one liners, but he would build on these crazy little statements with a kind of logic. That is, he was often in the business of setting up straw men, and shooting them down. In the process, young people and other sophomoric types are given an entirely false picture of Anglicanism. What I want to know is why he did that and did it so often.
Charles:
It occurs to me that you have taken the word "elevation" and used it differently. I was speaking of elevating as in holding up for all to see. But, the idea of translementation is the opposite focus from the idea of Christ descending into the elements. It can be found today in what modern theologians of the RCC mean by Transubstantiation, thanks to the ecumenically helpful Ratzinger definition.
"Knowing about a transformation is part of the most basic Eucharistic faith. Therefore it cannot be the case that the Body of Christ comes to add itself to the bread, as if bread and Body were two similar things that could exist as two "substances", in the same way, side by side. Whenever the Body of Christ, that is, the risen and bodily Christ, comes, he is greater than the bread, other, not of the same order. The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens...The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different."
In those words Pope Benedict XVI, in good Anglican fashion, reverses the idea of Christ coming down into the sacrament, emphasizing an elevation of the reality of bread and wine into Heaven, that is, into His Person in a mysterious way.
I would like to recall the proximate reason that Newman gave for his leaving the Church of England, the last straw so to speak. It was the establishment of an Anglican see in Jerusalem, or so he writes.
This mystifies me.
And Charles, the reason why the host and chalice are elevated are so that all may see them.
veriword is: jokings
I think that Newman's problem with the establishment of the See of Jerusalem was due to the arrangement of rotating the bishop with the German Lutherans who were not in the Apostolic Succession. Although the agreement broke down before there was a Lutheran bishop of Jerusalem, the fact that the CoE agreed to it in principle was rather heterodox.
(veriword = proto)
Yes, but, the Anglicans insisted on having the Lutheran bishop submit to Anglican consecration, that he use the Anglican service of Confirmation and the Anglican Ordinal.
This was the case even though certain Lutherans always claimed Apostolic Succession, and to this day some still have their charts. This fact is all too easily forgotten. The Anglicans did not consider the need to examine the question closely enough. But, concerning the Prussian Lutherans with whom the Anglicans agreed to cooperate, "The Bishops in Foreign Countries Act" (1841) allowed for only a limited level of cooperation; the Lutheran Bishop could not ordain anyone for ministry in the Church of England, or to members of the Church of England unless he agreed to submit to the Anglican requirements listed above. So, the whole thing broke down; the Lutherans and Anglicans went their separate ways. The English had tried to approach it as English and German (Prussian) rather than as Anglican and Lutheran. Newman's final issue was never a reality on the ground (and no one really ought to have expected otherwise).
After the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, they generally exercised more scrutiny. However, they were too ready to take the word of officials in the Lutheran Church of Sweden even in modern times.
Father Hart when you write of Christ lifting the bread and wine up, is this not simply an expression of what is to be said in the prayer 'Supplies te rogamus' in which the celerant prays that God will send His angels to bring 'these' to the Altar in the presence of His divine majesty . . . that we may receive' His body and blood.
In that portion of the Latin canon God is asked to transform what is called in the 'unde et memores' the 'panem sanctum . . . et calicem salutis perpetuae'into the body and blood.
As for the elevation at our Lord's words of administration, just try doing that in the chasuble of the day without assistence. It was to facilitate this new piece of ceremonial that the ancient vestment was cut down to baroque tablard and so many ancient and magnificent medieval vestments mutilated.
Ok, I meant to write "celebrant."
Dear Fr. John,
Just to add to Jefferson's point, from what I have read I think Newman viewed the arrangement as too Erastian. He would have left sooner rather than later anyway for the same reason, especially with the Gorham Case on Baptismal Regeneration and the 'Essays and Reviews' controversy on biblical inerrency waiting in the wings.
But of course the causal reason he left was because he did not think he was saved in the CoE and he never had second thoughts of coming back. Let me quote from his letter to Miss Bristowe:
"I left, because I was sure that it [CoE] was not a portion of that Catholic Church which our Lord and His Apostles established, as the source of teaching and the channel of grace till the end of the world. We are saved by grace, and grace is ordinarily supplied to us through the sacraments, and, excepting baptism, no sacrament exists outside of the Church. If the Church of England is not part of the Catholic Church, it does not possess the sacraments of confirmation, penance, Eucharist, or extreme unction to give to its people - and these are the ordinary means of grace. It cannot give them even though it professed to give them".
This does not mean that Newman didn't love individual Protestants or think highly of the CoE as a "great national organ" and a "monument of ancient wisdom" but he ultimately he viewed it as a human work. For the sake of his soul, he felt he had no choice but to convert.
May our Lord bless us and keep us ever close to him!
Dear Fr. Hart,
At last I can come to what I enjoyed in your article! It was particularly this piece from your Anglican Identity paper:
"The English Church established a carefully maintained balance between Rome, Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Zwinglianism, criticizing and rejecting various ideas in each of these systems. This in turn kept the Anglicans in a state of at least some amount of opposition to everybody all the time. Each of these camps saw the Church of England as accepting error by adopting or maintaining some of the ideas and practices of Rome, or some of those belonging to Calvin, or some of those belonging to Luther, but never to the satisfaction of loyalists in any of those parties..."
Yes! Yes! Yes! I totally agree with this. You might be surprised to read that Newman agreed with you also. On the Anglican way he wrote it "is not known positively, but negatively, in its differences from the rival creeds, not in its own properties; and can only be described as a third system neither the one nor the other, but with something of each, cutting between them,...trifling with them both, and boasting to be nearer Antiquity than either".
This was the mind of the English Reformers! They could not be considered Roman Catholic once they took on the "correction of Medieval errors, superstition and false doctrine, replacing it with sound teaching" as you said previously, but in the view of the "Protestants" it didn't reform enough. So in effect, all but the English Church were united in asking 'why does this reformed group want to play Roman Catholic?'
That's why the Platipus works so well as your mascot on the bottom of your blog (perhaps the Mule could be viceroy). Despite all the confusion, he just is!
Jesus send your light into the world!
Oh, J.T., very clever. We must play Chess sometime.
Not all of what the Continental Reformers stood for was a departure from the Faith, and to this recent official Vatican documents agree. The Roman Catholic Church today is, in a good sense, far more in agreement with Protestant and Evangelical doctrine than it was at the time when its moral and doctrinal corruptions forced the people to various Reformations.
You need to understand the Anglican position. There was truth in the Gospel as Luther preached it, and as Calvin preached it, that Rome had strayed from. But, the Reformers on the Continent were throwing away the baby with the bathwater, especially by not sticking to the Apostolic Succession of Bishops. As Bicknell clarified, the English Church expressed views that echoed the Reformers, but stopped short of embracing the extremes, the positions that went too far in their conclusions.
So, the idea that it was all a big denial and negation is cute, clever, and even witty. It is also, if I may use your word, ridiculous.
By the way, at first the Anglican/ Prussian agreement was too Erastian. However, not completely (see what I wrote above). The Lutherans were, in discussion with the English, presenting their bishops as having Apostolic Succession, maintaining the same Sees, passing down their lineage through Laying on of Hands. The facts is, Newman's argument about the deficiency of the Lutheran episcopacy won the day. So here he really won the argument within the Church of England, and later had no cause to be critical of the Church of England over the Jerusalem mission. Anglicans reinforced their belief in the Apostolic Succession of Bishops in that venture. Those who had been mistaken were not denying the need for a true Apostolic episcopate, but misreading history, and failing to scrutinize Lutheran doctrine (which, on this matter was in accord with the beliefs of St. Thomas Aquinas on Holy Orders-one of those interesting little factettes).
I think that Mr Thomist gives Newman too much credit for honesty. His conversion to Rome for whatever reason, and I think the reality of it is much more likely to be found in the details of his burial than in anything else. He was not trusted by the hierarchy of the Roman Church in England, Manning especially, although Rome itself found him a counter to be used against the English Church. He had to maintain appearances and his letter would reflect that rather than an internal reality.
Jakian Thomist wrote:
Or actually quoted Cardinal Newman, and I assume in agreement with the quote:
"I left, because I was sure that it [CoE] was not a portion of that Catholic Church which our Lord and His Apostles established, as the source of teaching and the channel of grace till the end of the world. We are saved by grace, and grace is ordinarily supplied to us through the sacraments, and, excepting baptism, no sacrament exists outside of the Church. If the Church of England is not part of the Catholic Church, it does not possess the sacraments of confirmation, penance, Eucharist, or extreme unction to give to its people - and these are the ordinary means of grace. It cannot give them even though it professed to give them".
To which I respond that although not a true statement, Newman drew the logical conclusion from his line of thinking. This begs the question as to why the bishops of the TAC/ACA apparently have not reached the same conclusion, since they continue to dispense fake sacraments, save baptism, to their congregations.
And did Newman also consider that sacraments dispensed through the Eastern Orthodox Churches were invalid? It certainly sounds that way from his writings.
Does the Roman Catholic Church today consider the EO churches to be dispensing placebo sacraments?
How about the name Roman Catholic Church? When did this name first appear in history? Did communicants in the eastern churches consider themselves to be "Roman Catholics" prior to 1054?
There is a distinction between being Catholic and Roman Catholic.
St. Hilda of Whitby would be surprised to be called a Roman Catholic.
I don't really see how Benedict XVI has given a "new" definition of transubstantiation.
Ever since becoming familiar with the philosophy of Aristotle, who introduced the 10 Categories of Being, the RCC has taught that the bread becomes body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ: which is precisely what it taught before, but didn't have a scientific language with which to describe it; only mystical. Real does not mean physically, nor does it mean imaginatively or symbolically.
The change is in the substance. Substance is what a thing is, it is not physical, it is metaphysical; it is real. The substance (essense, whatness, quiddity, nature) was bread. Upon confecting the sacrament, the substance is the Body of Christ (plus blood, soul & divinity). The accidents remain the same. That is, is has roundness and flatness (qualities of shape); it tastes wheaty (a sensible quality), there are many hosts in a paten (not to mention in the world) (Quantity); it is in a paten, or in a palm, or in one's mouth, or elevated (position); it is eaten (passion), and so on. These are all accidents that happen to describe the bread of the host, but once the sacrament is confected, the host keeps the accidents (including the chemical composition of what a physicist would call bread) yet it is very mysteriously, by the power of the Holy Ghost, become The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
If one were to mistake "substance" as something physical, one would not understand transubstantiation. If one were to think that the RCC thinks that it has summed up the mystery of the Eucharist by declaring that transubstantiation, one would misunderstand what the RCC teaches also. They are saying what happens (i.e. bread turns into the Body of Christ), but they are not saying how it happens. That remains a mystery--in both the technical and colloquial uses of the word.
There is only one way to "know" that the Bread has become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ--and that is to believe in the Real Presence. Humans can know only by our senses. Taste tells us it's bread. Smell tells us its bread. Touch tells us it's bread. Sight tells us it's bread. Only hearing--hearing the Word of God--can we know that Christ is Present substantially in the Eucharist. (cf. "Tantum Ergo Sacramentum" a textbook case of lex orandi, lex credendi if ever there was one.
Any one who says "Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist" is either denying the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is clearly Biblical and Patristic (i.e. Catholic broadly understood), or misusing "substance" (i.e. using in a way that is contrary to Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics).
Ratizinger is more of an Augustinian than a Thomist, yet he doesn't make the mistake of dragging too much neo-platonism into his Eucharistic theology. And though the history of 20th century Thomism has been to tease out the strands and strains of neo-platonism in St. Thomas, he is and always will be much more of an Aristotelian--which is how he was treated until Marechal and Blondel and other early 20th century French and Belgian (Louvain) Thomists. This is partly what put Garrigou-Lagrange so far on the outs--he wouldn't have anything of it this neo-platonic business. I lean toward G-L's position, although I have to admit that anyone who had to wrestle with Augustine's theology and philosophy cannot escape coming away with some neo-platonism on his shirt or hands--like tar or bloodstain.
Along with my prior post:
Considering reception of the Eucharist.
Did the RCC ban people from receiving communion or was it just a habit that people didn't? I realize that Pius X issued an encyclical urging all RCs to receive communion as frequently as possible, so it is obvious the problem was real. This is of course predicated on one going to confession and receiving absolution or one's sins. (The RCC seems to have the opposite problem now...everyone coming up without a care in the world about the negative effects of an unworthy reception.)
I don't think any one told the men, "Ride in on horses and gaze at the host through the windows. Say this prayer of spiritual communion and that's good enough." I don't think that was the case at all.
The practice of saying a spiritual communion was for those people who for one reason or another either couldn't make it to Mass (e.g. traveling) or for those who were unable to make it confession before Mass. It did not come from the Pope telling people it was bad to receive communion. Much like many other practices that sprung, that may have been an unfortunate organic development.
I've always found it odd that some churches that criticized this infrequency of communion. I know of many churches that only have communion on special occasions, making me think that in some way they are more medieval than the RCC.
Furthermore, I hope the practice of Eucharistic Adoration is not considered "gazing". For if one believes that the Eucharist is Christ's Real Presence, then why would we not want to pray in His presence? Even if one spends the Holy Hour saying, "Jesus, how are you really present in this little wafer that doesn't taste much better than a dog biscuit?" one's prayer will bear much fruit.
A friend who was once Bishop Fulton Sheen's secretary told me that Sheen studied and wrote in a chapel with the Blessed Sacrament exposed. My friend would enter and find the Bishop in deep in prayer with piles of books and papers at his prie dieu. I wish I could spend my life doing the same.
As for the elevation at our Lord's words of administration, just try doing that in the chasuble of the day without assistence. It was to facilitate this new piece of ceremonial that the ancient vestment was cut down to baroque tablard and so many ancient and magnificent medieval vestments mutilated.
Yes, mutilated, but the fiddleback still has at least some dignity to it.
The RCC made a major move to restore "gothic" vestments after the Novus Ordo was promulgated. The only problem is that they were doubleknit polyester with about as much dignity as a leisure suit.
Ok...less dignity with a leisure suit.
RC Cola:
Next time you want to write an essay just submit a whole post to me via email; if it is as good as the above comments I will publish it as an essay with its own thread.
If you have had a chance yet to read Part II you will find that I have identified the problem of confusing the meaning of "Transubstantiation" with the meaning of another word, "Impanation." The Catholic Encyclopedia correctly defines the word; "An heretical doctrine according to which Christ is in the Eucharist through His human body substantially united with the substances of bread and wine, and thus is really present as God, made bread...", but wrongly attributes its meaning to Luther and Consubstantiation (the Cath.Ency. has too many of such mistakes).
What Pope Benedict XVI has done is attack the problem of a kind of "nun theology" or popular superstition.
The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England address many abuses of doctrine, as do other early Anglican writings, in which gazing took the place of receiving, and "sacrifices of masses" (with double plural) replaced the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Church assembled. But, nowhere do these formularies say that Rome was teaching these things. The correction of false doctrine was correction of popular perception allowed by officials of the Church of England before the English Reformation, in which both the See of Canterbury and the See of Rome had shared guilt though their neglect of true teaching.
I appreciate your making the distinction between gazing and Eucharistic devotion. When I made this point years ago blogmeisters of some "Reformed" school blog attacked me and put words in my mouth, and even invented quotations (talk about straw men). It is likely true that the C of E Reformers would, in their day, be horrified at the sight of a monstrance; but, what they wrote about was not that, or even that sort of thing. They wrote about the errors in their time, which included gazing as a worthy substitute for receiving. That problem is not an issue in our time, at least not an issue as far as I am aware.
The problem with the word "Transubstantiation" is that it names a doctrine taught as dogma that exceeds what has been revealed by God. It relies on schools of Greek philosophy to be understood. The Anglican response, expressed best by Hooker in Book V, is to restore mystery and to require humility concerning the mystery, and the limits of what we can understand.
However the Roman Church did make a conscious decision to withhold the cup from the laity.
Thank you, Fr. Hart for your kind words regarding my posts. I also appreciate your comments about transubstantiation & impanation, and the 39 Articles. These are good starting points for me to read further. Eucharistic theology is no easy topic and the way it's been discussed here is precisely why I enjoy this blog.
However the Roman Church did make a conscious decision to withhold the cup from the laity.
True. But it wasn't done as a matter of trying to deny anybody anything, but a matter of Mass-time logistics and a perceived redundancy.
Both the Body and the Blood are considered to contain the other species, so to receive both one only needs to receive one or the other.
As for the logistics, they just considered it cumbersome to line up a churchful of people for both species.
Now I can't say it was the right thing to do, but I also don't think it was done in bad faith. It strikes me as one of those organic developments of discipline that are unfortunate in hindsight.
Veriword: Xesticer. Which book of the Bible was he in?
an addendum to two posts ago.
In my lifetime I've noticed that the RCC has made a strong return to using the expression "Real Presence". This has, to the best of my knowledge, been done for the sake of ecumenism.
The RCC seems to have said that OK, we believe that 'transubstantiation' is a good term to express the changing of bread and wine into the Body and Blood (and soul and divinity) of Christ, but we recognize that our closest brothers in Christ, the Orthodox and Anglicans, reject our terminology and yet believe what we believe (i.e. that Christ is really and truly present). In order to show our kinship and solidarity with these brothers, we are going to use the term they find acceptable, and that term is the Real Presence.
Some of my former fellow traditionalist RCs saw this as a liberal sell-out. The liberal RCs I grew up with either weren't concerned with Eucharistic theology or considered the Real Presence a medieval superstition.
I'll admit to having residual "romanism" in that I don't have a beef with the term transubstantiation. At the same time, I understand entirely why Anglicans and Orthodox are leery of Aristotelian metaphysics commingled with Patristic theology. "Real Presence" is a satisfactory expression since it expresses the reality of the sacrament ("This is my Body." A simple predicate.) while maintaining the integrity and sense of the mystery (technically and colloquially).
No matter how you parse it, the fact that Jesus made it possible to be with Him in the sacrament, so that he is not some distant historic figure, but a real "immanuel"--God is with us--is so profound as to be mind boggling. Forgive my grammar in that last sentence, but at times I'm so moved that I can't even think, let alone express myself clearly.
I basically agree with RC Cola, with one exception. Transubstantiation was never, as I understand it, interpreted to mean that the substance (or fundamental identity/quidditas) of bread is converted into the substance of Christ's Divine Nature as well as his Human Nature. Rather, the "conversion" of the Elements is into the Body and Blood, with which the Human Soul and Divine Nature are inseparably and eternally united. This is another aspect of concomitance.
Post a Comment