St. Isidore succeeded his brother as Archbishop of Seville. He was a master of ecclesiastical learning in Spain and a great Doctor of the Church. He died in 636.
Last night a British priest, Fr Michael Cullinan, gave a lecture entitled, Why St Paul is Important to Catholic Moral Theology Today. I have to say, the British sense of humour and way of speaking is quite entertaining. What is the basis of morality? Law? Or, virtue? The answer that one gives to this question takes concrete shape in the way in which one organizes moral teaching. St Thomas's Summa Theologiae, for example, divides moral theology according to the virtues, while most Catholic moral teaching since has arranged it according to the 10 Commandments (e.g. the new Catechism). Of couse, St Thomas includes the commandments and the new Catechism includes a discussion of virtues, the question is the basis of Christian morality.
The best line of the evening, in my own humble opinion, was in the Q&A portion of the lecture. The speaker said that he abhored legalism entirely in the realm of ethics, but this doesn't mean that there is no place at all for legalism - it should simply be kept where is belongs, such as in liturgical matters.
I'd continue, but the Tigers are playing the White Sox in just a few minutes. So, after an ignominious opening series in which they were swept by the Royals, we'll see if the Tigers can finally get into the win column. One of Lisa's Tigers is on the mound today - Nate Robertson. She's also picking Marcus Thames to have a big night (assuming that he's starting in place of Sheffield whom we've heard was injured yesterday). Guillen's my guy over all while Grandy's hurt, but I also think that Ordonez will get finally get things going tonight. Go get 'em Tig's! [Update] mutter, mutter, spit...
10 comments:
Swept by the Royals. . .
(whimper)
If true religion is ethics (see St. James), why does legalism belong in liturgical matters?
I'm pretty sure that true religion is more than ethics. What does St. James have to say about it?
Legalism belongs in liturgical matters because there is nowhere else to turn but to law. Revelation, natural law, etc. have nothing to say about whether or not "Alleluia" should be said in the liturgy during Lent. That is what he meant by saying you have to be legalistic (say the black, do the red, period).
What about turning to the authentic "sensus catholicus"?
That's good too :)
"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27 RSV)"
Is turning to the law the same as legalism? Must there be a black that must be said and a red that must be done?
Which "sensus catholicus" is "authentic", wooc? (This might be moving toward an answer to my questions above).
I think Fr Cullinan was refering to actions chosen on the basis of law as legalistic. I.e. "do this because the law says so" is legalistic whereas, "do this because it is good and conducive to your happiness" is virtue based.
In many matters of the liturgy one must be legalistic in this sense, but in many others, and these are generally the more important matters anyways, there is more than law involved to be sure - the authentic sensus catholicus, the long established traditions of the Church, etc.
If liturgy were really all a matter of law, and there were nothing else to which one could (and should) appeal, the basis for criticism of the new Missal would be removed inasmuch as it is clearly in accord with the law of the Church.
Along the lines of making moral decisions based on virtue as the means of attaining human happiness, decisions in the liturgy should be made in accord with what best serves the end of the liturgy, which therefore must be considered in all liturgical questions.
If the end of the Mass is primarily the worship of God (it is), and secondarily the salvation of men (it is), then every detail of its liturgy must be ordered towards these ends.
Unfortunately, the true end of the Mass is too often thought to be the worship of men (warning: hyperbole employed).
In response to "Big Daddy's" question:
I am understanding the term "sensus catholicus" to refer to a virtue or quasi-virtue. Thus, like all virtues, it can't be strictly defined; rather, its standard is the one who has it, the authentically Catholic person, and we know this person by his beautiful Catholic actions (for Aristotle, who I always follow when it comes to talking about virtue, beauty is always the standard by which we know true virtue). But we /can/ give a general description of virtues, and thus I think that the sensus catholicus involves an awareness and love of Catholic tradition(s), a desire to express these in one's life, a total orientation towards God, a 'holistic' view toward life working toward the sanctification of all areas of society, or at least all those areas of society in which one is involved, a strong prayer life, particularly a communal, liturgical prayer life, etc., etc.
Another good indicator is that the person with a authentic sense of the Catholic develops a violent twitch whenever songs by Marty Haugen are played at Mass.
twitch, twitch, twitch...
Has Marty Haugen made it to Austria, then? Or are you listening to another Tigers' game?
Post a Comment