 |
The Record
archives
Monday, January 13, 2003
What Is "Actually" Going On?
Dear Editor,
I found it gracious of Mr. Olson to correct his impresice language in his book review in response to my letter to the DioceseReport. Infact he seems to have replaced the entire review with an excerpt from another source of his. The statement about "acutally" has disappeared. I will assume that this is not an admission of guilt or embarassment on his part.
I would like to respond to Mr. Olson's long critique of my short letter, in his article, "Am I an "actual" heretic?" http://envoymagazine.com/envoyencore/Detail.asp?BlogID=343 which you have linked from DioceseReport's front page.
For the record, I never said Mr. Olson was a heretic; I do not even believe that I implied it, since for the sin of heresy it is necessarsy to be pertinacious, which Mr. Olson obviously is not, since he took down the offending review.
I am surprised, however, that Mr. Olson accuses me of such a false accusation so as to belittle my argument, the gist of which I made clear by the final sentance of my letter: "I'd like to see how he would explain that the documents of Vatican II have nothing to do with the effect that appears evident in his own manner of expression." A rhetorical question that Mr. Olson has not yet answered. To say that one is speaking in terms of a famous or infamous thinker, and presuming that using such terms means that one is thinking in such terms, is by no stretch of language or logic equivalent to saying you are formal disciple of this thinker, let alone a knowing one.
However, if Mr. Olson does not believe his previous blog intended to convey his sentiments that he was being unfairly criticized by Traditionalist, I am sorry for drawing that conclusion. It was filled with such strong language and emotion, I presumed wrongly that that was his intention he sought to convey.
If Mr. Olson would like a calm reasoned response (public or otherwise) to his substantive objections on the traditional movement, I am willing to oblige. But for now, out of charity, I will refrain, because I do not want to offend any more than I have.
Sincerely in Christ,
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The Franciscan Archive
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/
posted by Brian Barcaro 1/13/2003 04:53:04 PM
Wednesday, January 08, 2003
Priest Thankful For Fraternal Correction
Dear Editor:
I had a premonition I was putting my foot where it shouldn’t be when I “rushed in where angels fear to tread” by joining the discussion about the Real Presence initiated by Carl J. Olson and challenged by Brother Alexis Boguolo, O.F.M.
When I used the phrase “not physically present” in my attempt to explain my understanding of the Church’s teaching concerning the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist I made a big mistake. I was rightly corrected by Father Paul J. McDonald and I thank him. Stupidly, I did not re-read Mysterium Fidei before jumping into the fray; I thank Father McDonald for giving me the impetus to read it again.
As my final contribution to this discussion and to make my position absolutely clear, let me tell you what I really, truly, actually believe, have always taught, and would prefer to die than to deny about the Real Presence: I believe what Jesus Christ meant when He taught the multitude they had to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood; what He meant at the Last Supper when He presented the bread and then said, This is my Body and held up the cup of wine and said, This is my blood; what the Church has always taught and still teaches about the Real Presence: At the words of consecration in the Mass a substantial, ontological change takes place so that, in a sacramental way, Jesus Christ is made present, hidden under the species of bread and wine, the substance of which has been replaced by the substance of His Body and His Blood.
Gratia tibi, Domine!
Father Paul A. Hostettler
Copperhill, Tennessee
posted by Brian Barcaro 1/8/2003 04:24:01 PM
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
But We *Do* Have A Five Foot, Eleven Man
Dear Editor:
A recent priest correspondant has said:
Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist, otherwise we would have a five foot eleven, one hundred sixty pound man standing in the place of each sacred host.
But we *do* have a five foot, eleven man, etc., etc., miraculously, really, truly and substantially "standing" (root of subSTANTial)--in a hidden manner-- under the sacred species.
I am uneasy about saying "Christ is not physically present in the Host". There is only one Christ, to whom, in His bodiliness we rightly pray: "Ave, verum corpus natum, ex Maria virgine" He has a physical, human body and it is THAT body which is found under the species of bread after the consecration.
In Mysterium Fidei, 46, Paul VI wrote:
"...once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place. "
I suppose that one could say he is not present in the way physical bodies are normally present, but it is His PHYSICAL body --for He has none other-- that is really, truly, substantially present.
I'm just saying it gives me an uneasy feeling.
I would never in preaching say: "Christ is not physically present". I would deem it too open to misunderstanding. After all, the Pope said above that He was "coporeally" present. Pretty strong language, what?
Respectfully in our Lord,
the King of the Nations,
and in His Immaculate Mother,
Fr. Paul J. McDonald,
Parish Priest of Niagara-on-the-Lake.
posted by Brian Barcaro 1/7/2003 03:33:50 PM
Precise Language Really Does Make A Difference
Dear Editor,
I would like to follow up to Fr. Hostettler's comments on the Eucharist.
The root of the problem in Mr. Olson's manner of expression is that notion of Pope John XXIII, that the same and ancient faith now be expressed in modern languague without changing its meaning, only its terms. But this position is illogical and contrary both the nature of languague and the science of theology, both of which demand unequivocal expression to achieve the desired communication and understanding.
When speaking about the dogmatic definition of Trent on the Eucharist, it is imprecise to say that it speaks of Christ's presence in terms of "truly" or "really" or "substantially" and thus oppose "actually", for the terms it uses are "vere", "realiter", "substantialiter", the Latin equivalents. "Actual" in English, according to Webster's Unabridged Dictrionary (Random House Edition) means "existing in act or fact", but "actually" as "as an actual or existing fact; really". Now, we could dispute definitions of English words until we were blue in the face; but when the day is done, when speaking in a precise manner about the Catholic Faith and dogmatic definitions (for how Christ is present in the Eucharist is no minor notion, or un-important truth that can be spoken of carelessly) we ought to agree that we ought to speak in a serious, precise and accurate manner.
If you think about it, it is not the same thing to say that "John is really here" and to say that "John is actually talking to me." In the first sentence I refer to the truth of his presence as a thing, and in the latter to the truth of his behavior as an action. This refers back to the definition of both words, for "really" is from the Latin "realiter" which means "as a thing", for "res" in Latin means "a thing" in ontological contexts, and "actually" from the Latin "actualiter" which means "as an action". If one refers to the above definitions of "actually" in English Dictionaries (which are not philosophical nor theological), you can see that both dictionaries appear to confuse the meaning of "really" and "actually". Moreover if you look at the root of "fact" you see that originally it meant "a deed or action done", from the Latin "factum" which means "a deed or action done". Hence by equating "actually" with "as an act or fact" and with "really" both dictionaries are contraposing diverse meanings.
So If an English speaking Catholic says Christ is "actually" present in the Eucharist, another English speaking Catholic will have to fault him for imprecision, since "actually" properly (in the sense of coherent with its root meaning, rather than its common usage's dual meanings") means "as an action", whereas Christ is present, not as an action, but rather as a real substance that is truly Him.
Perhaps this seems unimportant to many, but it isn't. Christ is actually present when His words are read outloud from the Gospel, in the sense that "actually" means "as an action" for by reading those words aloud, the historic action of Christ speaking them, which is transmitted by the Evangelist in the Gospel and through the Gospel in its proclamation at Mass, for example, is made present again to the faithful. Christ is actually present in the Church, since His own historic act founded Her, and She exists now in virtue of that as a constituttive and formal action of foundation. So if anyone should say that Christ is actually present in the Eucharist, he is correct, for Christ, being really and truly and substantially present there, is also active there, though faith alone can see it, barring the extraordinary miracle. But he does not, he has not, unequivocally confessed this by saying "actually".
And this goes back to what I had said earlier about the error of Dom Odo Casel, who held that Christ's theandric actions were made present again in the liturgical rites enactment, and that by means of these actions the faithful were sanctified. I personally do not find it surprising that one who lauds the Novus Ordo, which was constructed by liturgists who adopted Dom Odo Casel's theories, has accommodated his expression of faith in the Eucharist, to Dom Odo Casels actualism, which is, perhaps, a more precise and long-winded way to say what I said in my earlier letter.
Sincerely in Christ,
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The Franciscan Archive
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/
posted by Brian Barcaro 1/7/2003 08:59:25 AM
Monday, January 06, 2003
Priest Prefers Exact Words Of Church Documents On Real Presence
In reference to Brother Alexis Bugnolo's recent message to Diocese Report criticizing Carl E. Olson for defining the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by saying Christ is "actually" present, I see no
fault with the use of the term; although, as Brother rightly pointed out, and all the documents seem to actually agree, the usual terms are "really" and "truly". However, the term "actually" is an adverb meaning
as an actual fact or really. therefore, it seems to be nitpicking to squabble over synonymous terminology. But, personally, I prefer to use the exact words of official translations of Church documents.
It should be noted also that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 1376) teaches that at the consecration in the Mass the substance of bread and wine are replaced by the substance of the body of Christ and
the substance of the blood of Christ and (no. 1377) that Christ is whole and entire in each of the species. Furthermore (no. 1378), states that the Church offers to the Eucharist the cult of adoration. If Christ is
not actually present, such adoration would be idolatry.
It is possible the good Brother has confused the terms “actual” and “physical”. Actual means real while physical means material. Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist, otherwise we would have a five
foot eleven, one hundred sixty pound man standing in the place of each sacred host. But the substance of Christ which is under the appearance of bread and wine is present. Since Christ’s substance is present under the sacred species, it seems to me to be equally true to say Christ is really and truly present and that he is actually present.
Father Paul A. Hostettler
Copperhill, Tennessee
posted by Brian Barcaro 1/6/2003 06:49:10 PM
A New "Bible Belt" Emmerging In The South
Dear Editor:
While the Deep South has been used to the conservativism of Bible Belt Baptists and fundamentalists of other denominations, a new "traditionalism" is rising within the borders of South Carolina.
With only 3 percent of the entire state of South Carolinians declaring themselves to be Roman Catholic, there is an influx of Yankee (Northern) transplants and a steady stream of local converts (several young men who have decided they want to become Roman Catholic Priests) spurred on by the visits of Catholic apologists/converts Gerry Matatics, Steve Wood and Scott Hahn (all three former Presbyterian ministers), over the past couple of years. This stream of Catholics from the North and from within is also being geometrically multiplied by the burgeoning Hispanic population, and has the Greenville, South Carolina Catholic population approaching 10 percent, not including many of the Hispanics who are not officially registered in their parishes.
This stream, which started out as a trickle, and is becoming a flood, speared six local Bob Jones University-affiliated churches to hold a four-day anti-Catholic conference back in February 2003, in which they brought in six ex-Catholic Priests and seminarians to innoculate their congregations against the horrors of "the whore of Babylon." As a result of the publicity surrounding this conference, another young man in his early 20s, a youth minister at another local Protestant Church, has recently been inquiring about becoming Catholic because he is discerning a call to the Priesthood as well.
In the midst of the everyday anti-Catholic environment has emerged a growing movement of traditional Catholics whose numbers are difficult to calculate, but have included from 130 to over 200 attendees at five traditional Latin Masses over the past year and a half.
Now, this traditional Catholic community moves forward, and perhaps the irony is that the "spirit of Vatican II" that every Catholic in his 40s and 50s and above was brainwashed with over the past 40 years, is perhaps really and simply a return to traditional Catholicism. These Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina-based Catholics will get the opportunity to attend the traditional Latin Mass (pre-Vatican II liturgy) on a monthly basis (third Sunday of every month) in Blessed Trinity in Greer, South Carolina at 5:30 p.m. Father Mark Fischer, a Priest with FSSP, who is based in an Atlanta-area Latin Mass community, will make the monthly trek up to the Greenville-Spartanburg area, and will also hold catechesis classes beginning at 4:30 p.m. through 2003. This Holy Mass is being celebrated through the gracious permission of His Excellency, Robert J. Baker, and Father Steve Brovey, Pastor of Prince of Peace in Taylors and Blessed Trinity in Greer.
Of course there are lots of older folks that attend this liturgy, but what is interesting is that there is an ever-increasing number of younger people and especially young families--BIG families--who were born after the Mass was changed to English and the Priest began to face the people, rather than offering sacrifice turned toward God.
All this in the heart of Bob Jones University territory. Perhaps "the spirit of Catholicism" in its "old-time religion" fits into the landscape in the Deep South much better than anyone could have ever imagined. God works in mysterious ways!
Written In Memory of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers
Brian Mershon
Taylors, South Carolina
posted by Brian Barcaro 1/6/2003 06:45:43 PM
Friday, January 03, 2003
Respond To What Is Written
Dear Editor,
I do not hold a degree in Theology. I am sure there is a real or actual meaningful difference in the words actual and real. My dictionary in the number one definition, defines actual as "Existing in fact;real". So I do not see a problem with the word itself.
Br. Bugnolo searched for articles by Carl Olson and this was all he found to question his understanding of Trent or Vatican II? It helps me to read an open discussion of ideas, to form my own opinion, which is why I enjoy Diocese Report. I hope that Br. Bugnolo really responds to what Olson writes in the future in order to help discussion.
Sincerely,
Martin P. Browne
Queens, NY
posted by Brian Barcaro 1/3/2003 09:49:56 AM
Diocese Report Worth Visitng Daily
Br. Bugnolo's refutation of Carl Olson's article on traditionalists all pivots on a single use of the word "actual" in reference to the Real Presence. He seems to imply that this word reflects some heretical belief on Mr Olson's part
While I don't know enough about philosophy or theology to make the subtle distinction between "real" and "actual", I'm quite confident that Mr Olson's beliefs regarding the Eucharist correspond exactly to those of Br Bugnolo.
Another example, Mr Editor, of how the diversity of news and opinions on your website make it well worth visiting every day.
Lance Eccles
Sydney, Australia
Editor's Note: While some would like to "pigeon hole" the Diocese Report into some ideological camp, the real purpose is honest open debate. I fully admit we give less credence to so -called "liberal" Catholic thought because quite frankly it is usually dishonest and often shallow and worthless. But as a news site we feel it is important to let our reader's know what so called "liberal" Catholics are saying. Contrary to others we do not disparage people based on certain philosophical positions as long as there is a genuine attempt to be faithful to Holy Mother Church. Such honest and even heated debate is in our view a positive, not a negative for the Church. Personally this editor does not favor terms such as "neo-Catholic" "Integrist" "Empties" etc. While some writers may not use these terms in a derogatory manner, such terms seems to immediately elicit strong emotional reactions which add nothing to honest debate. These terms have fallen the way of liberal terminology such as "diversity" and "tolerance," they are irrelevant.
posted by Brian Barcaro 1/3/2003 08:57:55 AM
Thursday, January 02, 2003
Envoy Writer Guilty Of What He Charges
Dear Editor,
I saw your recent links to Mr. Olson's anti-traditional screed at Envoy Encore. So never having met Mr. Olson, I did a web search and found this book review at Amazon.com which is by Mr. Olson.
Note his definition of the Real Presence: "The Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ."
Mr. Olson complains that self styled traditionalists unfairly criticise him for his lack of understanding of Catholic Teaching, but I wonder if he has ever read the definition of Trent on the Eucharist, where it says "realy and truly" not "actually" If Christ is actually present in the Eucharist, and not just really or truly, then Dom Odo Casel is right. Further on in this book review (its in fact a comment) Mr. Olson states that personal experience is a powerful tool for convincing Catholics of the "actual" presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is sheer protestant fiducialism, which puts the emotive over the intellectual assent to the truth, wherein true dogmatic faith lies and must reside.
To me, Mr. Olson's own words could not more elegantly prove the criticism he is trying to rebuff, for in imbibing "the Documents of Vatican II under the guidance of the Holy Spirit," as he puts it, he as ended up accepting the fundamental theses of Casel and Luther, and thus no longer thinks as Catholics ought to think.
I'd like to see how he would explain that the documents of Vatican II have nothing to do with the effect that appears evident in his own manner of expression.
Sincerely in Christ,
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The Franciscan Archive
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/
posted by Brian Barcaro 1/2/2003 10:28:32 PM
Thursday, November 14, 2002
Historic Papal Address to Italian Parliament
VATICAN, Nov 14, 02 (CWNews.com) -- Pope John Paul II touched on a series of hotly debated political issues during a 47-minute address to the Italian parliament on Thursday. Speaking in a clear voice, the Holy Father called the Italian lawmakers' attention to the demographic crisis facing their country because of a sharply declining birth rate. He also spoke about living conditions in Italian prisons, the nation's role in building the European Union, and the war on terrorism-- as well more familiar social issues such as family life, abortion, and bioethics.
The Pope's historic address-- the first visit by a Roman Pontiff to an Italian parliament since the reunification of Italy-- met a generally warm reception from the assembled politicians. Parliamentarians on both sides of the aisle, liberal and conservative, rose repeatedly to interrupt the Pope's speech with applause.
The Pope's arrival was greeted by an unusually full representation of the Italian parliament. About 750 members of the legislature were gathered in the unusual joint session as President Azeglio Ciampi welcomed the Pontiff to Montecitorio Palace, along with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Instead the parliamentary chamber, he was formally welcomed by the presidents of both the House and the Senate: Pier Ferdinando Casini and Marcello Pera, respectively. At the outset of his address, the Pope remarked that he was 'well aware of the special significance" of his appearance before the Italian parliament. He was evidently responding to complaints about Vatican "interference" in Italy's secular affairs. But he did not back away from his insistence that "the social and cultural identity of Italy& cannot easily be understood apart from Christianity." For that reason, he said, the country's lawmakers cannot ignore moral and religious challenges. "A democracy without principles," the Pope said, "is easily transformed into totalitarianism--whether it is recognized or not--as recent history demonstrates."
The Pope then turned to the specific challenges that face Italy. His first topic was the demographic decline of the nation, which has Europe's lowest birth rate. He then spoke about the decline in family life, and in the respect for the institution of marriage. Among other measures for the defense of family life, the Pope mentioned the role of parents as primary educators of their children-- a topic that raises strong passions in Italy, where the government's treatment of parents who send their children to parochial schools is a controversial matter.
Next the Pontiff spoke on the nation's responsibility toward the poor and needy, including immigrants and prisoners. He recommended a reduction in prison sentences, explaining that such a "gesture of clemency" could provoke a new attitude in society, by giving "clear evidence of a sensitivity which would encourage the convicts in their own personal rehabilitation."
Then the Holy Father turned to international affairs, saying that Italy could help European society to overcome national divisions that are "not natural." Again he stressed that European culture is based on Christianity, and cannot be understood apart from that religious heritage. And he cautioned the lawmakers to be wary of the impulses of "ways of life inspired by a consumerism that is indifferent to spiritual questions." Finally the Pope rallied the legislators to the cause of peace in the world. He mentioned his particular concern about violence in the Middle East, especially in the Holy Land, and about "international terrorism, which has taken on a new and terrible stature." He called upon Italy to work for a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Iraq, warning against "the logic of confrontations that do not produce solutions."
The Pope traveled to Montecitorio Palace by car, with the route through central Rome heavily guarded because of the publicity surrounding his visit and the occasional rumors of terrorist activity. He was accompanied by an impressive retinue of Vatican officials: the Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano; two deputy Secretaries of States, Archbishops Jean-Louis Tauran and Leonardo Sandri; and the prefect and assistant prefect of the pontifical household, Bishops James Harvey and Stanislaw Dziwisz.
The historic importance of the Pope's address was underline by the fact that the Vatican has produced a special medal commemorating the occasion, while the Italian government has issued a postcard featuring the Pope's portrait framed against an image of the parliament building. has previously addressed national legislative bodies in Australia and in his own native Poland, as well as in the tiny European republic of San Marino.
posted by Brian Barcaro 11/14/2002 09:50:23 PM
US Bishops Question Justification For Iraq War
WASHINGTON, DC, Nov 14, 02 (CWNews.com) - The US bishops' conference issued a policy statement on Wednesday questioning whether the case has been made for a moral justification for war against Iraq. "Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature," the bishops said. They also called on Saddam Hussein's regime to "cease its internal repression, end its threats to its neighbors, stop any support for terrorism, abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and destroy all such existing weapons."
The statement questioned whether, despite the litany of aggressive actions by Iraq, the aim of bringing the country into compliance with UN resolutions constituted a basis for a just war.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the criteria for a just war are that "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; and the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated."
The retired Archbishop of New Orleans, 89-year-old Archbishop Philip Hannan, dissented from the consensus, saying his brother bishops do not have a realistic outlook on the situation. "They're not realistic because (they've) never seen what is the result of absolute disregard of human rights," the World War II paratrooper chaplain said. "They've never seen it; they don't know what the hell they're talking about."
Archbishop Hannan recalled that he had stood in two Nazi concentration camps at the end of WWII and compared Saddam Hussein to Communists and Nazis. "You finally come down to a situation where they can enslave whomever they wish, whomever they think is against their particular code, and that's what we cannot tolerate," he said.
posted by Brian Barcaro 11/14/2002 09:49:01 PM
|
