Tuesday, February 16, 2010

A couple of odds and ends

Proof reading
I rejected a comment because it was written to pick on a typographical error, belittling someone. The worst proof reader in the world is the writer of any given piece or comment, seeing what he meant to write rather than what he typed. It happens to the bbessttt of uss.

In light of a recent essay that has been posted to the internet, I find it wise to post a link to one of our earlier pages, from Sept of 2008. It concerns the thinking of Eric Lionel Mascall, and what he actually wrote about the papacy.

I will quote two portions:

From Father Eric L. Mascall. Corpus Christi: Essays on the Church and Eucharist. London: Longmans, 1965. 2nd ed. Pages 17f.

"...the Church, as a visible and tangible society, living in the historic process, needs a visible and tangible organ of its unity, though that union is, as I have emphasised, an interior and mystical unity and not a moral or political one. The Church is a visible and tangible society, but it is a sacramental one, and the organ of its unity will be a sacramental organ. This is why, as I see it, the apostolic Episcopate precisely fulfils the requirements for such an organ, for the episcopal character is conferred by a sacramental act. And this is why it seems to me impossible to locate the organ of the Church’s unity in the Papacy, for the papal character is not conferred by a sacramental act at all, but by the purely administrative and organisational process of election. Whether the Papacy has, by divine providence, a unique status in the Church and, if so, what are the functions which rightly attach to it are, of course, important questions, but by its very constitution the Papacy does not, so far as I can see, possess the nature which is required in the organ of the Church’s unity."

The second quotation is:

"As for Eric Mascall, he was greatly troubled by the idea that the Church of England might eventually 'ordain' women, and he expressed his anguish to Dr. William Tighe in private conversation. Nonetheless, he died a Church of England priest. In his book The Recovery of Unity, he wrote at length his apologetic for the Anglican position, and with respect argued against the Roman teaching on the papacy as it has developed (the above statement is from a separate work, and summarizes part of the more detailed argument in the book). The same is true of the Dogmatic Theology series by Francis Hall, in which a defense of the Anglican position was skillfully written in light of theology and history."

I will add that Francis Hall also wrote his own criticism of the modern Roman teaching about the papacy in Dogmatic Theology.*

It is useful also to quote a comment from that thread by Fr. Laurence Wells:

"Professor Tighe's information is always helpful and certainly accurate. But he omits one fact: whatever their views on this or that, Lewis, Dix and Mascall all died as Anglicans. Whatever Dix thought about the papacy, it was not enough to push him into the Tiber."

I suggest reading it all; it is not long. I assure you, mysterious as it may be, posting this is timely. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in it." Hamlet Act 2, scene 2,


* Included in the evidence for his position, Hall mentioned an 1850 Roman Catholic catechism in which the question was asked, is the pope infallible? The answer was "no." The Church, it taught, is infallible, but not the pope. After 1870, when the pope became infallible retroactively, those old catechisms were rounded up and destroyed. Hall's copy escaped.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Included in the evidence for his position, Hall mentioned an 1850 Roman Catholic catechism in which the question was asked, is the pope infallible? The answer was "no." The Church, it taught, is infallible, but not the pope. After 1870, when the pope became infallible retroactively, those old catechisms were rounded up and destroyed. Hall's copy escaped."

What is the name of the catechism?

Robert

Canon Tallis said...

As someone who also knew Father Mascall and had loved his writings from my teen years, I fear that I would be much angered by any attack upon him or his work. He may have realized that the Church of England had been captured by those who not only did not share the faith of its formularies, but who probably had no real faith at all. But he did not leave. And a good argument that he did not do so for the same reason that he would not cross the Tiber.

Consequently, I am just as glad that you did not post a link to that "new essary" since I would like to have a fairly decent Lent.

Mark VA said...

From the Roman perspective:

"...but by its very constitution the Papacy does not, so far as I can see, possess the nature which is required in the organ of the Church’s unity."

In view of this statement, should the Continuing Anglicans subscribing to such notions see any distinction between the "Patriotic" and the underground Catholic Church in China?

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Robert:

The copy of Hall's Dogmatic Theology I always used is currently two states away in Maryland. I have to replace it with my own copy of all ten. Did it have a name? We can trace the use of the official catechism used in Ireland in 1850.

Mark VA

One that question we agree. The State run church in China is not legitimate. But, that is because in the Roman Catholic Church the reality of Apostolic Succession is present with the full sacramental power of the episcopacy, and the state church has no such thing as far as we know. Mascall was saying that there is no sacramental "Petrine Charism."

Fr. John said...

The Keenan Catechism

“In a pastoral issued by the Roman hierarchy of Ireland, 1826, the words occur, ‘it is not an article of the Catholic faith, nor are we thereby required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.’ Keenan’s well-known catechism, prior to its revision after the Vatican Council, declared the doctrine of papal infallibility to be `a protestant invention, and it is no article of the Catholic Faith. No decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received by the teaching body—that is by the Bishops of the Church.’”

Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, AUTHORITY Ecclesiastical and Biblical by Francis J. Hall pg 159, foot note 1, section 4

Sean W. Reed said...

Fr. John wrote:

"...“In a pastoral issued by the Roman hierarchy of Ireland, 1826, the words occur, ‘it is not an article of the Catholic faith, nor are we thereby required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.’ Keenan’s well-known catechism, prior to its revision after the Vatican Council, declared the doctrine of papal infallibility to be `a protestant invention, and it is no article of the Catholic Faith. No decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received by the teaching body—that is by the Bishops of the Church.’”..."

This would seem a bit of a red herring. This very quotation qualifies itself with the phrase: "unless it be received by the teaching body - that is by the Bishops of the Church."

Keenan's opinion was prior to the First Vatican Council when the doctrine was "received by the teaching body - that is by the Bishops of the Church."

Perhaps not the definition of "the Church" accepted by a majority of those on this blog, but nevertheless it was "the Church" in terms of the position of the Roman Catholic Church.




SWR

Fr. Robert Hart said...

SWR

Well, then, how would you explain the rest, that says that papal infallibility is, "a protestant invention, and it is no article of the Catholic Faith"?

Fr. John said...

Sean W. Reed wrote;

''Keenan's opinion was prior to the First Vatican Council when the doctrine was "received by the teaching body - that is by the Bishops of the Church."''

Precisely the point Sean, this is a new doctrine, not an ancient one, and one certainly never held by the undivided Church.

Fr. David M said...

The key statement from Dr. Mascall's 'Corpus Christi' has to be that dealing with the statement 'I believe in one church' and his exposition of the general misuse and misunderstanding of the meanihng of the simple word 'one': he cites St. Thomas Aquinas (p.2): 'we must distinguish between 'one, which is the principle of number' and 'one, which is convertible with being', that is, between numerical and ontological unity. He continues a little later (p.3): 'When hovwever, Catholic Christians profess their belief in one Church, they mean much more than that the church is one numerically. They mean that the Church is one organically, an organism, a coherent whole and not a mere aggregate of items.' Thus, we can be in unity with those whose worship may take different form, but who are still an organic unit of the Body of Christ: they may have some similarity, but the essential likeness is in the acceptance of Holy Scripture and the gifts of the Sacraments and the Holy Ghost as guide and mentor in the trials and tribulations of this earthly pilgrimage. And thereby, although we may have different gifts and talents, we are still one in Christ, members of the body, faithful: not of Appolos, not of Paul, not of Peter - but of Christ.