The Lidless Eye Inquisition

*Ecumenical Jihad listing is for weblogs or websites which are either dedicated to or which to the webmaster (i) are worth reading and (ii) characteri ze in their general outlook the preservation of general Judeo-Christian morality and which are aimed at positively integrating these elements into society. (Such sites need not even be Catholic ones.)

As society has grown more estranged from its founding principles, I wish to note sites which share the same sentiments for the restoration of society even if the means advocated in this endeavour differ. The Lidless Eye Inquisition does not necessarily endorse particulars with sites under this heading.

On Altar Girls and General Norms of Interpretation:

The following is the text of an email received ~~earlier this month~~ last month and to which I responded to recently. The interlocuter's words will be in dark green font.

Hello Mrs. XXXXX XXXXX:

This is a response to your email dealing only with the root issue involved. Nonetheless...

Your statement on Altar Girls that it "was never anything intrinsically wrong" is So WRONG and it is contrary to Church teaching.

It is obvious by your statement that your knowledge of the church's doctrine on the sacrament of order is askew.

I am going to quote past popes and early church fathers who called it an EVIL practice to have women serve at the altar and it is in fact a scandal, intrinsically wrong

I will get to this in a moment.

and leads to the belief that there can be women priests

This is an argumentation fallacy of questionable premise which you are engaging in. The existence of altar girls does not inexorably lead to the belief that there can be women priests anymore than the discipline of priestly celibacy means that priests cannot be married. That is not to say that an argument cannot be made for what you are claiming viz a possible tentative connection but these matters are by no means "obvious" so kindly stop claiming they are.

and it is NOT just a bad policy

Whether or not it is a bad policy or not is debatable. As you can note in my words which you quoted, I do not view this as a prudent policy. My view since those words were written is both more and less restrictive -to explain this would take more time than I have at the moment so that will have to do for now.

but it is as Pope Celsius said an "evil practice"

You mean Pope Gelasius. And he did not say "evil practice." That interpolation was from Pope Benedict XIV. It is furthermore not as obvious what he meant by those words as you would claim. If you read Allante Sunt at all apart from the proof-texted passages you have gotten from some pseudo-"traditionalist" rant tract, you would notice that it was concerned to some extent with matters of ecclesiastical disciplines pertaining to the Latin and Oriental rites. The words towards the beginning of this encyclical epistle (not encyclical letter) make this clear. To wit:

These questions were, as We have said, submitted by this missionary to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. As is customary, it sent them to the Congregation of General Inquisition. This Congregation met in Our presence on March 13. The Cardinals Inquisitor unanimously answered that "no innovations were to be made." We confirmed this decision in conformity with a former decree of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith published on January 31, 1702; it has subsequently been renewed and confirmed several times. That decree reads as follows: " At the instance of its Secretary, R.P.D. Carolus Augustinus Fabronus, the Sacred Congregation has commanded that it be ordered, and by the present decree it is so ordered, that each and every missionary and prefect of Apostolic missions should not dare in future, in any circumstance or under any pretext, to give a dispensation to Catholics of any oriental nation in matters of fasts, prayers, ceremonies, and suchlike from the prescriptions of their own national rite which are approved by the Holy and Apostolic See. Moreover, the Sacred Congregation has decided that it neither has been nor is permitted for those Catholics to abandon in any respect the custom and observance of their own rite which has likewise been approved by the Holy Roman Church. The complete and straightforward observance of this decree, renewed and confirmed by each and every prefect and missionary, has been commanded by these most eminent fathers." This decree, indeed, applies to Catholics of the Oriental Church and to their rites which have been approved by the Apostolic See.

If you look at the bolded words above, it is clear that Pope Benedict XIV wanted no deviations whatsoever from established customs in either rite and no innovations by private parties whatsoever. That does not mean however that Pope Benedict XIV's successors could not loose what he had bound or insisted was to remain bound. Pope Benedict XIV may well have thought that altar girls was an "evil practice" but his opinion on the matter (or that the Latin was to preferred to other rites: something else he said in that encyclical letter) is no more requiring of assent by us than Pope John Paul II's opinion that the death penalty should be rare if not non-existent because of some subjective opinion on modern prison efficacy. (Or Pope Pius XII's opinion that white should not be used in funeral masses, Pope Paul VI's opinion that Vatican II was the greatest of all the councils, etc.) Furthermore, Pope Benedict XIV obviously did not quote Pope Gelasius' words so if you continue to claim he did, you will be engaging in a lie.

and it was Pope Benedict XIV who was quoting him.

There is no quote from Pope Gelasius I in Allante Sunt. The exact quote of Pope Gelasius I does not say what you claim but instead read as follows:

"[W]e have heard to our annoyance that divine affairs have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to officiate at the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex to which they do not belong."

This is a nuanced statement to put it mildly. Review it again and observe what is highlighted in particular:

"Nevertheless, we have heard to our annoyance that divine affairs have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to officiate at the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex to which they do not belong."

The problem Pope Gelasius I had was with women "officiating" at the altar which means they were acting in the capacity of a priest. It would also appear to be them acting in the role of deacon and perhaps minor orders like a subdeacon which at that time was seen as a step in the chain of becoming a deacon and then a priest. (At one point all rank of the minor to major orders were seen as one long chain of sorts.) The term "officiate" means a position of authority and an altar server has no authority in the sanctuary whatsoever. The only persons in the sanctuary with authority to officiate properly speaking are members of the ordained ministry.

Furthermore, the presence of women in the sanctuary was not allowed by ecclesiastical custom which by Pope Gelasius I's time had become defacto law; ergo those who were violating it were engaging in an evil practice not intrinsically but because they were contravening existing ecclesiastical law. This mentality permeates church history not only on the part of the popes but also the councils approved by the church. For this reason, something that at one point is viewed as evil later on can be viewed as licit not because what was previously viewed as such was itself intrinsically evil but because it was forbade by ecclesiastical authority. If you doubt me on this, ask yourself why in the Tridentine liturgy people do not receive communion from the cup.

If you claim that the reason was that the Council of Constance in the fifteenth century prescribed reception under one form only for those not celebrating mass, then you have to explain why Constance contradicted Pope Gelasius I who in the late fifth century mandated reception of the cup in the city of Rome by all who received communion and those who did not receive communion under both forms were excommunicate. Either Pope Gelasius I erred, Constance and Trent erred, or the pope prescribed a practice that was later abrogated by his lawful successors or by lawful synods recognized by his successors. (And later permitted under certain circumstances by Vatican II and extended to additional circumstances by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II.)

Similarly, in the third century, Pope Callistus I involved himself in a radical revision of the apostolic penitential discipline for which hard core "traditionalists" like St. Hippolytus and the African ecclesiastical writer Tertullian mocked him for. Pope Callistus I justified his radical departure by having reference to Matthew xvi,18-19 in what was probably the first papal appeal to this scriptural grant of authority to St. Peter and his successors by Jesus.{1} More examples could be given but the principle I have noted is adequately sustained with those examples from church history.

You are basically acting like a Protestant as I noted earlier in this email and ignoring that the power of the keys involves not only binding but also loosing. Your approach to papal documents is no different than Protestants who quote Scripture against the supposed "unbiblical" doctrines, traditions, customs, etc. of the ancient Apostolic Churches. But that is not all.

There is a principle in Catholicism called "general norms of theological interpretation" and it requires a proper sense of discernment. A sentence in a document does not immediately become magisterial or irrevocable -be it a statement from a pope or from a council. To take that approach is to open a whole host of problematical situations and not just since the beginning of the pontificate of John XXIII but also prior to that as well.

For example, I just showed that Pope Benedict XIV interpolated on the statements of Pope Gelasius I. That does not mean Pope Benedict XIV was wrong of course -he has as much of a right to his opinion as anyone. However, papal infallibility does not extend to matters of scholarship so you should not pretend that it does (even if by implication). Furthermore, papal opinions do not have the weight of even papal legislative rescripts -the latter of which require proper assent albeit not to the same extent as doctrinal judgments.{2} But enough on that for now..

Your statement on Altar Girls:

To put it as bluntly as possible: since Pope John Paul II ruled definitively (and hence infallibly) in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that woman cannot be priests, this is not the issue that it once was. There was never anything intrinsically wrong with using female altar servers except perhaps for the "window" this arguably opened for those who were pushing to see women ordained to the priesthood . As the subject of woman priests has been dealt with decisively, this issue is no longer as weighty as it once was. While the role of the server has no bearing on the Mass' validity, it should not be an issue at all but it is addressed here because of the constant carping that many 'traditionalists' do about this policy. You would think female altar servers constituted "the abomination of desolation as spoken of by Daniel the Prophet" to listen to some of these self-styled 'traditionalists' talk. However, just because something is not wrong does not mean that it is automatically right or is a good policy. In light of the fact that women can never become priests (and that the server role can be recognized at least in part as a step towards higher ministry), it would be wise to restrict the role of server to boys only.

Yes, I wrote those words seven odd years ago. And I stand by them as written.

Several Past Popes spoke about how WRONG and EVIL this was because it lends itself to Female Priestess' and the feminist know this.

I already dealt with this prevarication on your part. But to understand better where they were coming from requires that you understand the state of theology and doctrinal development in their day. They understood intuitively that it was a matter of Jesus' will that women were not to be in positions of liturgical authority in the church. The problem was, there was not the same understanding we have now as to where the dividing line was in the sacrament of Order. This was not helped in the west by the various divisions in the Middle Ages of numerous minor orders -anywhere from four to eight or more depending on how you did the dividing. Though there was no certainty in earlier eras as to where the dividing line was, there was certainty in one area and it was this: there cannot be women in any grade of Holy Orders.{3}

Having noted that, the precise boundaries of what constitutes the sacrament of Order was not defined until recently. Indeed, the precise matter and form of some of the sacraments was not defined until the twentieth century. Pope Pius XII settled the question on the matter and form of the sacrament of Order in 1947. And the Second Vatican Council for the first time in a definitive non-defining act{4} settled the issue of the range of the sacrament of Order spelling them all out in a dogmatic constitution and explicitly excluding all ranks below deacon. It was on this decision of the Council that Pope Paul VI restored the perminent diaconite and suppressed the minor orders in 1972 which represented a monumental reversal of about 1500 years of ecclesiastical practice in the west.

Apparently you do not and want to defend the indefensible.

The practice's prudence or lack thereof is not a matter of doctrine. For that reason, you are out of line to declare this as "indefensible" as you have done. You are not a pope or a bishop and you have no authority whatsoever to bind and loose. That this matter of ecclesiastical discipline has been loosed (whether you like it or not) is not debatable however you may or may not like it. If however you are going to argue against it then you need to find another way of doing it -one that is rationally, historically, and theologically viable.{5}

Here is proof for you from past popes and Early Church fathers.

Catholics do not play sola traditio with tradition the way Protestants play sola scriptura with scripture. Or as I wrote in that same writing later on and which you will see if you continue reading it (all underlined emphasis is added as of this email for your benefit):

If the Bible (which is inspired) can be misinterpreted by men or (to paraphrase St. Vincent of Lerens) "is as capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters", the reader needs to ask themselves why any Catholic would be naïve enough to assume that non inspired magisterial documents would be any different. Why would the Bible have "some things that are hard to understand which the ignorant and the unstable wrest to their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:16) while magisterial documents would be free and easily accessible to be understood by anyone at face value apart from the times, circumstances, and assumptions under which they were written in??? Such an assessment is obviously absurd but yet that is what the self-style 'traditionalists' do in trying to polarize the Council teachings against previous teachings all the while ignoring the context from which the teachings were promulgated or the assumptions of the time periods in which they were made. Catholics believe that the truth has been revealed once for all in the Divine Deposit of Faith (Jude 1:3). However, our understanding of those truths will constantly become more refined through the passing of time and years (John 16:13) not as additions to the Deposit but instead in a greater understanding of the manifold mysteries revealed to us once for all time. [Quoted from A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part X]

And again:

Though noted earlier, it is worth reiterating anew: the inspired written Word of God is capable of being misinterpreted by men or "is as capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters" (cf. St. Vincent of Lerens). Therefore, Catholics should not be so naïve to presume that non-inspired Council documents or papal apostolic letters/encyclicals would be any different. It seems quite absurd to presume that the Bible has "some things that are hard to understand which the ignorant and the unstable wrest to their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:16) while Magisterial documents would be free and easily accessible to be understood by anyone at face value apart from the times, circumstances, and assumptions under which they were written in. And much as the latter presumption is problematical for the self-styled 'traditionalist' paradigm, the same principle applies to those seeking to interpret the intricate personal theologies of the Fathers. [Quoted from A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XII]

More could be noted but I have already pointed out the serious doctrinal and theological flaws in your approach so no more needs to be said on it.

This demonstrates clearly that the belief that altar girls are ok is a modernist "new Church" AM Church idea and NOT at all from the sacred Customs handed down by the apostles.

No, this proves the old axiom that "a text without context is a pretext."{6} It demonstrates more than that also but that can be discussed later on perhaps after you start approaching these things with some hint that you actually understand the spiritual comportment that a Catholic should possess.{7} I should further note that your obvious ignorance of general norms of interpretation is a deficiency on your part but it is not as insurmountable as your lacuna in proper spiritual disposition in approaching these kinds of issues.

For without your understanding of the latter, any further attempt at dialogue{8} would be a waste of my time. You are not the first person who has threw a bunch of citations at me which can be easily dispatched of using general norms of theological interpretation. (Indeed I have done this over the years more times than I care to recall.) But until I see something resembling a proper Catholic disposition from you, do not think I am going to invest my valuable time interacting with the quotes just so you can ignore what I write and throw more quotes at me.

I have neither the time nor the patience anymore for that sort of thing. And while I expect that kind of attitude from deranged crackpot conspiracy theorists and rationally challenged so-called "liberals" or "progressivists", I do not accept it from Catholics -and the more they claim to be "traditionalist", the more I expect them to act as they profess. (And your use of terms like "modernist am church" is straight from the trad manual.) Now if any of this sounds harsh and dismissive to you, you can consider the tonality and the temerity of your own email in spots to understand my reason for responding as I have thus far to you. It is part and parcel of the Gospel principle that "what you measure unto others will be measured onto you" (cf. Mark iv.24) so kindly take heed as to how you do your measuring with me.

Never until the 20th century was this practice sanctioned and allowed in the Latin Rite.

So what??? The power of binding and loosing does not admit of a particular statute of limitations but instead remains intact, stable, and valid until the end of time regardless of what you or I or anyone else happens to think of a particular ecclesiastical discipline.

The bottom line is, you have not only failed to prove your assertion but you have methodologically engaged in a Protestant prooftexting methodology coupled with an illegitimate variation of the appeal to authority approach. I would recommend familiarizing yourself with the difference between valid and invalid forms of the appeal to authority (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam) as this is not commonly understood by people today unfortunately. I wrote recently on the subject in a weblog posting and will point you to that post now for further information.

It is true that to some extent with a religion like Catholicism there will be an appeal to authority but there are proper and improper ways of doing it. Hopefully the latter link will help you properly discern the difference and I hope subsequent correspondence from you objectively manifests the intention on your part to follow the principles of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition and thereby a proper respect for the discipline of the dialogue.

~Shawn
http://rerum-novarum.blogspot.com

Notes:

{1} I know I said in my essay on Christian unity (first published in early 2001) that possibly Pope Victor I was the first papal appealer to the binding and loosing prerogatives of St. Peter -something repeated in an extraction piece on the Ante-Nicene development of the papal primacy I did later on in 2001 which involved material from that rather overlong essay. However, I have since that time after reasonable persuasion on the matter by a friend of mine changed my view on this matter now accepting the hypothesis that Pope Callistus I was the first pope to appeal to Matthew xvi,18-19 to justify his dispensing with ancient apostolic ecclesiastical traditions as he saw fit. The same principle holds today with Pope Callistus I's successors up to and including Pope Benedict XVI.

{2} The difference basically is that matters of doctrine require a religious submission of mind and will. Matters of discipline while not irreformable require a lesser assent in that one need not actually agree with the disciplinary positions and even within certain boundaries could work for a change in matters of an ecclesiastical/disciplinary nature. And papal opinions while they should not be rashly derided or cast aside nonetheless fall under the same principles that govern apparitions: namely, you can accept or reject them based on the quality of the arguments advanced to justify them and to the degree to which you view them as probable or improbable.

{3} The formulary for the enrollment of deaconesses was one such implicit manifestation of this principle: it was made clear in the fifth century Apostolic Constitutions that the deaconesses do not receive the sacrament of Order by noting that a deaconess "does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons."

{4} Meaning the decision is not de fide or a matter of dogma. However, the position is one which must be held definitively under what is called "fides ecclesiastica" touching as it does on a secondary element of church infallibility.

{5} For example, one could argue that Pope John Paul II made a concession to the local ordinaries on this matter but that he did not not approve of the practice himself. This is strongly witnessed to by the fact that Pope John Paul II has not allowed altar girls in the Dioceses of Rome and his successor Pope Benedict XVI has acted in like manner.

{6} Namely, a pretext for a proof-text to try and support a preconceived position you hold without concern for the context of the statement you are appropriating.

{7} As taught by the spiritual masters of the great Catholic tradition -I have a few such "spiritual instructions" in the side margin of my weblog from the eighteenth century (look for the title "spiritual instruction" and you will find them) but that is all I will note on them for now.

{8} Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers (circa February 9, 2006)

:: Shawn 8:37 PM [+] | ::

************************************

:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::