The organ: king of instruments

Here is Pope Benedict XVI describing why the organ is better than guitars in worship:

The organ has always been considered, and rightly so, the king of musical instruments, because it takes up all the sounds of creation – as was just said – and gives resonance to the fullness of human sentiments, from joy to sadness, from praise to lamentation. By transcending the merely human sphere, as all music of quality does, it evokes the divine. The organ’s great range of timbre, from piano through to a thundering fortissimo, makes it an instrument superior to all others. It is capable of echoing and expressing all the experiences of human life. The manifold possibilities of the organ in some way remind us of the immensity and the magnificence of God.

(source)

Okay, he’s not directly contrasting with guitars, but it’s probably in his mind after a few too many hokey John Paul II masses.

Conservatives vindicated

I am not one to parrot conservative rhetoric about big government, and the health care controversy has elicited some of the most vociferous rhetoric to date. Well, I have to say that all the rhetoric about how the government, once given the power, will suppress religious liberty, not just economic liberty — all that rhetoric was correct! As you should know by now, Obama has refused after repeated appeals from the bishops to allow an exception for religious employers in the new health care law, which requires all insurance plans to supply contraceptives, along with sterilization procedures and the morning after pill. There are a lot of excellent commentaries on this legislation and what it means for religious liberty, but (not surprisingly) Ross Douthat in the New York Times has the clearest entry I’ve read thus far (ht: Matthew Lee Anderson):

Critics of the administration’s policy are framing this as a religious liberty issue, and rightly so. But what’s at stake here is bigger even than religious freedom. The Obama White House’s decision is a threat to any kind of voluntary community that doesn’t share the moral sensibilities of whichever party controls the health care bureaucracy.

The Catholic Church’s position on contraception is not widely appreciated, to put it mildly, and many liberals are inclined to see the White House’s decision as a blow for the progressive cause. They should think again. Once claimed, such powers tend to be used in ways that nobody quite anticipated, and the logic behind these regulations could be applied in equally punitive ways by administrations with very different values from this one.

The more the federal government becomes an instrument of culture war, the greater the incentive for both conservatives and liberals to expand its powers and turn them to ideological ends. It is Catholics hospitals today; it will be someone else tomorrow.

The White House attack on conscience is a vindication of health care reform’s critics, who saw exactly this kind of overreach coming. But it’s also an intimation of a darker American future, in which our voluntary communities wither away and government becomes the only word we have for the things we do together.

Amen!

The Modern Theologians Reader, ed. David Ford et al.

This new publication will be of interest to readers of this blog: The Modern Theologians Reader, edited by David F. Ford and Mike Higton. This can be a stand-alone text or serve as a companion volume to Ford’s celebrated, The Modern Theologians. Here is the table of contents:

Introduction.

Part 1: Classics of the Twentieth Century.

Chapter 1: Karl Barth.

1. The Theme of the Epistle to the Romans.

2. Jesus Christ, Electing and Elected.

Chapter 2: Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

1. Ultimate and Penultimate Things.

2. Letters and Papers from Prison.

Chapter 3: Paul Tillich.

1.The Actuality of God: God as Being and Living.

2.The Meaning of Salvation.

Chapter 4: Henri de Lubac.

1.Surnaturel: Divine Exigence and Natural Desire.

2.Allegory, Sense of the Faith.

Chapter 5: Karl Rahner.

1. God of My Life.

2. What Does It Mean to Say: ‘God Became Man’?.

Chapter 6: Hans Urs von Balthasar.

1. Christ’s Mission and Person.

2. Dramatic Soteriology.

Henri de Lubac on “created grace”

Click to enlarge. "We shall attain the excellence of virtue with the grace of God and the effort of our will." I saw this in one of the rooms of the Vatican Palace.

 

From what I understand, the criticism of the Catholic (Thomistic) doctrine of created grace is that it cedes too much to the nature and power of man in the process of sanctification. It also tends to reduce the role of the Holy Spirit once the habits of virtue/charity have been created. The Easterners are especially not happy about the second point, whereas us Protestants are especially not happy about the first point. I’m far from being an expert on the topic, so I’m far from any willingness to pronounce a firm judgment, one way or the other. I do like Henri de Lubac’s presentation of the doctrine, which surely mitigates some of the problems or at least points in that direction. The following is from A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace (Ignatius Press, 1984):

The supernatural, one might say, is that divine element which man’s effort cannot reach (no self-divinization!) but which unites itself to man, “elevating” him as our classical theology used to put it, and as Vatican II still says (Lumen Gentium, 2), penetrating him in order to divinize him, and thus becoming as it were an attribute of the “new man” described by St. Paul. While it remains forever “un-naturalizable,” it profoundly penetrates the depths of man’s being. In short, it is what the old Scholastics and especially St. Thomas Aquinas called (using a word borrowed from Aristotle which has often been completely misunderstood) an accident, or call it a habitus, or “created grace”: these are all different ways of saying (even if one thinks they need various correctives or precisions) that man becomes in truth a sharer in the divine nature (divinae consortes naturae; 2 Pet 1:4). We do not need to conceive of it as a sort of entity separated from its Source, something like cooled lava — which man would appropriate to himself. On the contrary, we wish to affirm by these words that the influx of God’s Spirit does not remain external to man; that without any commingling of natures it really leaves its mark on our nature and becomes in us a principle of life. This Scholastic notion of created grace, so often belittled today, does express the incontrovertible fact that “it is we, ourselves, and our creaturely being, which the active presence in us of the Spirit makes divine, without for that reason absorbing us and annihilating us in God” (Louis Bouyer, Le Père invisible, Paris: 1976, 288).

…

For St. Thomas, as Fr. Louis Bouyer explains,

the soul…will find its completeness and go beyond itself in God. Disagreeing with Peter Lombard, in fact, he would not admit that grace is purely and simply the gift of the Holy Spirit, of the Third Person of the Trinity as it is in itself…. He realized that if such were indeed the case, man would certainly be the temple of the Spirit, but not God’s living temple, vivified by the presence of its Guest who assimilates our life to his divine life. The uncreated grace of the gift of the Spirit, according to him, has its prolongation in the soul itself in created grace, i.e., a divine quality that assimilates the soul to God and makes it share in his own life. (Introduction à la vie spirituelle, Paris: Desclée, 1960, 154-55)

Grace is supernatural in the fundamental sense that it is superior to any created or creatable nature, but it is in no sense a “supernature.” It is, so to speak, a new “accident,” “hidden in and penetrating the substance of the soul and rendering it, as a soul, capable of living God’s own life, his divine life” (Ibid).

[A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, pp. 41-42, 45-46]

The Great Debate

Henri de Lubac

Without doubt, the great debate of the 20th century and continuing today has been the relationship between nature and grace. Alan P. F. Sell, author of numerous interesting books, once wrote a book called, The Great Debate, a historical-theological survey of the disputes between Calvinists and Arminians. That debate continues, especially in American evangelical circles, but the great debate in recent history, occupying the attention of every leading theologian, has concerned nature and grace. For the young student of theology, it’s a daunting subject, made especially difficult since it requires an understanding of both the Protestant participants and the Catholic participants.

Their concerns overlap, but differ in regard to historical readings and appropriation of key figures in the respective traditions. So, the Protestants have been concerned with a certain reading of the Reformers over-against their successors, the Lutheran and Reformed scholastics. Emil Brunner, Karl Barth, T. F. Torrance, et al. agreed that the scholastics, as opposed to the Reformers, were working with a more heightened view of the province of philosophy and the epistemic situation of natural man. Similarly, the Catholics have been concerned with a certain reading of Thomas Aquinas over-against his successors. Etienne Gilson, Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, et al. agreed that the Thomist commentators (Cajetan, et al.), and the later manual tradition influencing (and influenced by) the First Vatican Council, posited a strict delineation between the gains of philosophy and the dogmas of faith; whereas Thomas himself blurred the lines. Thus, both the Protestants and the Catholics believed that a certain rationalism had crept into the successor traditions of, respectively, Reformational and Thomist theology.

In more recent decades, these historical readings have been vigorously challenged. Paul Helm, Richard Muller, and numerous others have argued for an essential continuity between the Reformers and the scholastics; and, likewise, Romanus Cessario, Lawrence Feingold, and numerous others have argued for a greater continuity between Thomas and his Thomist successors. For various reasons, I lean toward the first group discussed above: the loosely-labeled “neo-orthodox” or “neo-reformational,” on the Protestant side, and la nouvelle théologie of the resourcement movement, on the Catholic side. Though, I’m willing to concede some of the historical points to the new crop of scholars.

That’s a very brief sketch. If you would like to read a great presentation of this debate on the Catholic side, I highly recommend Nicholas Healy’s article, “Henri de Lubac on Nature and Grace,” from Communio 35:4. Healy gives an overview of the controversy from de Lubac’s perspective, the recent criticisms of de Lubac, and where these criticisms fall short.

“Perhaps the truth isn’t satisfying.” (Catholic novelist Muriel Spark)

The BBC has an online archive of video interviews conducted with several of the great British novelists of the last century (Iris Murdoch, J. R. R. Tolkien, P. G. Wodehouse, et al.). Here is an interesting bit from the interview with Muriel Spark, discussing her conversion to Catholicism:

Spark: Largely I’m still a Catholic because I can’t believe anything else. I’d often like to, but I can’t.

Host: And you find it a satisfying religion for you?

Spark: No, but I can’t believe anything else. Perhaps the truth isn’t satisfying. It may be that.

Spark was not exactly a saintly role model. It seems that her life parallels Graham Greene in this regard. Both led lives marked especially by “lusts of the flesh,” both experienced profound conversions to the Catholic faith, after which they both wrote their best novels. But the further removed from their conversions, the worse the novels get. Catholicism for both resulted in an introspective deepening and imaginative boost, but the dominance of sin ultimately dampened their genius.

So, what are we to think of Dame Spark’s statement (“Perhaps the truth isn’t satisfying”)? Of course, I heartily agree that the truth condemns our complacency and pet idols, calling us to a radical obedience. Herein we find discomfort. Yet, the truth of the Cross includes the truth of the Resurrection, and this truth is the most satisfying of all truths: life freely given. The Holy Spirit convicts, yes, but he also bears fruit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. This was said by Saint Paul, who was equally quite aware of the hardships bestowed by the Lord. Once again, we have a dialectic where discomfort and comfort are united in one expression of truth. If you lose the dialectic, you lose the truth. Unfortunately, we live in an age where the comfort side of the dialectic is elevated over-against the discomfort. In this context, Spark’s statement is refreshing.

ECT on Mary

If you have not already read the latest statement from Evangelicals and Catholics Together, you should. The topic is Mary. Most ecumenical statements are pretty bland and predictable. We’re all familiar with the conciliatory nuances involved with statements on soteriology or ecclesiology. But when it comes to mariology, it’s pretty hard to nuance “conceived without sin” or “bodily assumed into heaven.” So, we have the Evangelicals saying, more or less, “Nope, not gonna go there. What Bible are you reading?” Actually, they did a very admirable job of accommodating, albeit minimally, certain intentions enshrined in the Catholic position. For example:

Evangelicals find unnecessary and unbiblical the notion that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her conception. Still, we affirm much of what this teaching is intended to convey—that Mary was the object of God’s gracious election in Christ; that she was uniquely prepared to become the mother of our Lord; that she is an extraordinary model of the call to discipleship and the life of holiness; that her assent to the purpose of the Lord was itself the result of God’s unmerited favor toward her—an example of sola gratia; and that she should be honored and called “blessed one” in all places and by all generations.

The entirety of the Evangelical response is marked by a deep understanding of both the history and the theology behind the Catholic position. Thus, they rightly note the apocryphal sources as varying tradents, as well as the pious intentions in the trajectories which yielded the dogmatic formulas. I was very impressed. I would really like to know who was the principal writer for the Evangelical response — perhaps Professor John Woodbridge (TEDS) and/or Professor Kevin Vanhoozer (Wheaton), signers of the statement.

The Catholic portion of the statement was also well done. Of particular interest, the Catholic position makes it clear from the beginning that they are working with a “progressive revelation” of sorts (of course, they would never say “progressive revelation”). Thus, we read:

The Bible is the foundation of all Catholic teaching. Catholics also believe, in accordance with Jesus’ promise to send the Holy Spirit to teach the Church all things (John 14:16), that, under the influence of the Spirit, the gospel of grace is more fully and completely understood. Thus the Catholic Church believes that in its listening to, praying with, and reflecting on the truth of Holy Scripture, the Spirit is active as a divine guide, leading to a rich and comprehensive consideration of God’s Word. The Spirit leads the Church to see the full implications of the gospel through the teaching of the early Fathers, through ecumenical councils, through prayer and liturgy, through the lives of the saints, and through the study of theologians. All of these help the Church to see more clearly the profound meaning of Christ’s message and the extraordinary role of his mother, Mary, in the history of salvation.

The key word here is “implications.” St. Thomas and others would say, “fittingness.” The bridge between fittingness and knowledge is the Roman Catholic magisterium. That’s the divide between Evangelicals and Catholics.

Gothic art and the inclusion of ugly

There are a lot of dubious interpretations of Gothic art. Victor Hugo’s Romanticist anti-clericalism is one example, and it is a popular one among those more inclined to view religion from its populist-sociological angle, which tends to forget dogmas and doctrinal trends. As such, the gospel commission of the Church is less important than discerning the human yearnings projected by the community.

However, those who are more inclined toward extolling the value of theology and the work of the Church, in forming piety and artistic expression, will appreciate Roland Recht’s interpretation of Gothic art, in his volume, Believing and Seeing: The Art of Gothic Cathedrals (U. Chicago, 2008). The following excerpt is from the final, concluding chapter. The last paragraph reminds me of Flannery O’Connor.

[The focus on structural form] does not do justice to three other factors that complement and reinforce each other, without which no “Gothic” art would ever have seen the light of day: the way the sacrament of the Eucharist developed; the mysticism of the Passion inaugurated by St. Bernard of Clairvaux and extended in the practices initiated by St. Francis; and the new standing of the visual arts in a society where the written word surrendered its dominant position to them. The result was necessarily a rethinking of architectural language. The mysticism of the Passion, thanks to the renewal of modes of figurative expression, acquired an ever more elaborate mode of representation, and thanks to architecture it acquired a space entirely governed by the “eucharistic perspective.”

“Gothic” art is first and foremost an abundance of visual images that make architecture their support. But the architecture itself is treated as an image; it solicits attention continually, one form pointing to another in accordance with a play of relationships, never allowing the human eye to rest. Never were forms so numerous or so complex, giving the visible shapes to the teachings of Scripture, with pride of place taken by the Incarnation and its final, tragic act, the Passion — which allowed evil, cruelty, hatred, and suffering to enter the artistic representation. Everything that Neoplatonism had dismissed from the definition of beauty thus found a place in the story of salvation. Christ is God, “but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” as we read in the Epistle to the Philippians.

…

St. Augustine wrought a revolution in the classical art of oratory by rejecting the hierarchical classification of the three modi, or genera, of discourse, handed down from Cicero and deemed to correspond to, respectively, sublime, intermediate, and lowly subjects. This distinction has no relevance, St. Augustine argued, to spiritual subjects concerning the salvation of mankind. In the Christian view, nothing is low or despicable; everything has its place in the overall plan of salvation. Similarly, the comical, the obscene, the ugly occupy a position equal to that of the beautiful. Thus ugly is not the diametrical opposite of the beautiful, which means that it is possible for the devil to adopt the lineaments of divine beauty. If the truth of the Scriptures remains inaccessible to many, it is not because their style is too lofty but because the truth is lodged in the most profound depths of the text, where greatness and littleness mingle. It is humility that will show us the only path of access to this truth.

pp. 308-309

Internal Correctives in Catholic Apologetics…finally!

The blessed souls at Pugio Fidei, a Catholic apologetics website, have posted a thoughtful and extensive list of bad arguments used by Catholic apologists (HT: James White).

I have the utmost respect for Catholic theology. But, there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, Möhler, Rahner, and Ratzinger, and, on the other hand, the staff of Catholic Answers and all the e-pologists, who shall remain nameless. Many of us would like to extend the list at Pugio Fidei, but this is a good start. I don’t have a lot of confidence in the moral acumen of most current Catholic apologists, but maybe the next generation will start caring more about truth and basic facts, instead of just winning as many converts as possible and keeping financially afloat.

St Teresa on prayer

Teresa has a nice realist take on prayer. Perfection, or a high motivation thereto, is not a prerequisite for prayer. The love of God is not even a prerequisite for prayer. Prayer can achieve these ends, but prayer is first and foremost undertaken as an ignorant sinner.

And anyone who has not begun to pray, I beg, for love of the Lord, not to miss so great a blessing. There is no place here for fear, but only for desire. For, even if a person fails to make progress, or to strive after perfection, so that he may merit the consolations and favours given to the perfect by God, yet he will gradually gain [through prayer] a knowledge of the road to Heaven. And if he perseveres, I hope in the mercy of God, Whom no one has ever taken for a Friend without being rewarded; and mental prayer, in my view, is nothing but friendly intercourse, and frequent solitary converse, with Him Who we know loves us. If love is to be true and friendship lasting, certain conditions are necessary: on the Lord’s side we know these cannot fail, but our nature is vicious, sensual and ungrateful. You cannot therefore succeed in loving Him as much as He loves you, because it is not in your nature to do so. If, then, you do not yet love Him, you will realize [through prayer] how much it means to you to have His friendship and how much He loves you, and you will gladly endure the troubles which arise from being so much with One Who is so different from you.

St Teresa of Avila, The Life of the Holy Mother Teresa of Jesus, The Complete Works, vol. 1 (Burns & Oates, 2002), trans. E. Allison Peers, p. 50.