"For all" versus "For many"
#21
subscribed
Reply
#22
(05-28-2015, 04:14 AM)Catherine Wrote:
(05-28-2015, 12:19 AM)richgr Wrote: If you come across something that you do not understand, is your first impulse to do away with it? Where did you ever get that idea?

I think you misunderstood- I totally agree with you. It's the people in my life who dislike the new NOM translation and the extraordinary form who are saying that. To clarify what I meant, I'm tired of people saying that we should keep things easy to understand and non-offensive. It's an excuse that insults the intelligence and sincerity of many Catholics. It's an attitude causing problems way beyond swapping "for all" for "for many." It's not the only reason for the mess the Church is in. But how can people develop their understanding of the faith if you're shielding them from the "hard parts?" If you're anticipating that they will be bored by the mystery and offended by the truth, and therefore change things like the mass, you're not giving the faithful a chance. You might accidentally end up getting what you expect.
Sorry, I did misunderstand you.

There are so many factors involved in this, it's very hard to begin anywhere except with ourselves and hope that grace pours over into others.

Even the notion people have "understanding the faith" is very different than how it would have been spoken among earlier Catholics before the modern era and before Protestantism.

There is always the temptation to demystify the supernatural, and with this process comes inevitably compartmentalization and the packaging of mystery into concepts. Perhaps the Western mind has always had a certain propensity towards this packaging because of the rigorous organization of the Roman, Latin mind, a propensity that clearly was not and is not present in Ancient Greece and the East. Catechism although necessary may be conducted in a manner that has tended to become progressively scientistic and methodological rather than heuristic and one that produces connaturality with the realities behind the doctrinal formulas.

Even the attitude today, so prevalent, that the ancients used "gods" and myths to explain terrifying natural phenomena is a crude anachronism of the empirical mindset that was not at all present in early cultures and civilizations. It wasn't at all a matter of explaining reality but of reverencing mystery in the form of ritual. There was something very primal and raw in this early, universal paganism that God baptized and transformed into Christianity. Whereas ritual was before a manner of reverence by entering into an uncontrollable reality, ritual today is the activity of obsessional neurotics by which they seek to unconsciously avoid death by becoming mechanistic, undead automata themselves. And couldn't this be applied to so many facets of modern life, from cubical data entry to the constant wreckage of the body through piercings and tattoos, from checking text messages on cell phones to the constant drone of pop-packaged "indie" music in coffeehouses?

Anyway, sanctity is dynamite in a world so inundated with artificial, digital color filters that it has become monochrome.
Reply
#23
(06-01-2015, 04:04 AM)richgr Wrote: There is always the temptation to demystify the supernatural, and with this process comes inevitably compartmentalization and the packaging of mystery into concepts. Perhaps the Western mind has always had a certain propensity towards this packaging because of the rigorous organization of the Roman, Latin mind, a propensity that clearly was not and is not present in Ancient Greece and the East. Catechism although necessary may be conducted in a manner that has tended to become progressively scientistic and methodological rather than heuristic and one that produces connaturality with the realities behind the doctrinal formulas.
Woo! I think we can get into disagreements about this.

Good ole Uncle Tom (Aquinas) spent most of his adult life showing the congruity between Faith and Reason.

I am always deeply suspicious of name-dropping sermons that denigrate common people's concepts. The almighty "sensus fidelium" is all about how the faithful understand or "conceptualise" the teaching of the Apostles... not individually but collectively over a long time... from the beginning.
Reply
#24
(05-24-2015, 11:04 PM)AntoniusMaximus Wrote: I ain't no fancy linguist, but pro multis is more accurately translated as "for many."  That being said the lameduck ICEL translation from the 70s and a travesty of scholarship did translate it as "for all" if my memory does recollect.

The initial translation into English here in the U.S. said "for all men."  The word "men" was dropped sometime during the 1970s as a result of pressure from "feminists" and their sympathizers because the word "men" was considered "sexist."

The majority of Catholics, being completely ignorant of their own Faith, didn't even stop to think that, if the translation had been done properly, the "sexist" issue wouldn't have even been an issue in the first place.

Reply
#25
(06-01-2015, 07:41 AM)Oldavid Wrote:
(06-01-2015, 04:04 AM)richgr Wrote: There is always the temptation to demystify the supernatural, and with this process comes inevitably compartmentalization and the packaging of mystery into concepts. Perhaps the Western mind has always had a certain propensity towards this packaging because of the rigorous organization of the Roman, Latin mind, a propensity that clearly was not and is not present in Ancient Greece and the East. Catechism although necessary may be conducted in a manner that has tended to become progressively scientistic and methodological rather than heuristic and one that produces connaturality with the realities behind the doctrinal formulas.
Woo! I think we can get into disagreements about this.

Good ole Uncle Tom (Aquinas) spent most of his adult life showing the congruity between Faith and Reason.

I am always deeply suspicious of name-dropping sermons that denigrate common people's concepts. The almighty "sensus fidelium" is all about how the faithful understand or "conceptualise" the teaching of the Apostles... not individually but collectively over a long time... from the beginning.
If you've noticed my other posts, you would know I'm a big fan of St. Thomas and would say my thought is almost totally Thomistic. I don't see how what I said above contradicts anything of what St. Thomas wrote. I also don't see how I am at all denigrating "common people's concepts." I also am not sure if you're saying I did any of that or are just commenting openly, springing off of what I said. If you do think I did that, please tell me how.

The sensus fidelium is more than concepts though; it involves supernatural intuitions through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

And also I highly suspect we are using the word "conceptualize" in very different meanings here. The old Scholastic adage: never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish!
Reply
#26
(06-01-2015, 03:18 PM)richgr Wrote: The sensus fidelium is more than concepts though; it involves supernatural intuitions through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

And also I highly suspect we are using the word "conceptualize" in very different meanings here. The old Scholastic adage: never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish!
Uh huh.

Any description of anything involves "conceptualisation" or it is nothing but "white noise"... words are meaningless without some concept of what they signify. You could say anything you like to me in Cantonese and it would not convey to me any concept at all.

"Supernatural intuitions" requires some definition that could keep us arguing for days.
Although I roughly agree in principle, it would be something that cannot be communicated (completely unknowable except to the "initiate" subject) and therefore as esoteric as any magic formula. If Christianity were just a magic formula Jesus would never have told the Apostles to go and teach all nations.
Reply
#27
(06-01-2015, 05:42 PM)Oldavid Wrote:
(06-01-2015, 03:18 PM)richgr Wrote: The sensus fidelium is more than concepts though; it involves supernatural intuitions through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

And also I highly suspect we are using the word "conceptualize" in very different meanings here. The old Scholastic adage: never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish!
Uh huh.

Any description of anything involves "conceptualisation" or it is nothing but "white noise"... words are meaningless without some concept of what they signify. You could say anything you like to me in Cantonese and it would not convey to me any concept at all.

"Supernatural intuitions" requires some definition that could keep us arguing for days.
Although I roughly agree in principle, it would be something that cannot be communicated (completely unknowable except to the "initiate" subject) and therefore as esoteric as any magic formula. If Christianity were just a magic formula Jesus would never have told the Apostles to go and teach all nations.

I understood him meaning the intuition the accompanies faith: faith is the virtue by which we give assent and can hold as truth the revealed truth. So, while everybody can know the revealed truths only those who have faith “get it”, so to speak, because they recognize them as truth. And faith is a gift.

Contra Schuon, Christianity has absolutely no esoterism. Its mysteries are taught in brought day-light and even the highest Mystery, that of the Synaxis, is not closed to prophane eyes anymore. Carpenters and theologians both participate in all the mysteries of Christianity. But only by the gift of faith they are something to those who participate.

I shouldn't answer for rich, and I don't, but there you go.
Reply
#28
(06-01-2015, 05:42 PM)Oldavid Wrote:
(06-01-2015, 03:18 PM)richgr Wrote: The sensus fidelium is more than concepts though; it involves supernatural intuitions through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

And also I highly suspect we are using the word "conceptualize" in very different meanings here. The old Scholastic adage: never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish!
Uh huh.

Any description of anything involves "conceptualisation" or it is nothing but "white noise"... words are meaningless without some concept of what they signify. You could say anything you like to me in Cantonese and it would not convey to me any concept at all.

"Supernatural intuitions" requires some definition that could keep us arguing for days.
Although I roughly agree in principle, it would be something that cannot be communicated (completely unknowable except to the "initiate" subject) and therefore as esoteric as any magic formula. If Christianity were just a magic formula Jesus would never have told the Apostles to go and teach all nations.
You didn't respond to my request to clarify what you were originally saying in response to my post, things regarding Aquinas, faith and reason, and "name-dropping sermons that denigrate common people's concepts." And now I am further confused about where magic and esotericism comes into what I was saying. As such, in all honesty I don't really know you're talking about, no rudeness intended!

Further, you did not give a definition of conceptualization but an example of how it is commonly used, which is fine but only illustrates my fundamental point, that we're using words and assuming we're saying the same thing.

Here is what I meant by conceptualize when I used it in my original post--if you noticed the context, I was using it as a complement to compartmentalize. We take the mysteries of the faith and instead of seeing their organic unity and application to everything, we remain at the level of their finite concepts, formulas, and twist them according to a vague modernistic worldview that sees religious faith and formulas as one aspect of life that need not affect other aspects. The mysteries, instead of leading to reverence, function as elements in daily life as common and reduced as buying coffee or working in a cubicle. Further, this reductionism is closely related to the general Western bent of mind that seeks to structure and divide things neatly as the Romans did; when the unity of faith is lost sight of, combined with the tendency to divide and focus on minutiae, as in a distorted scientific methodology or as in the mindless repetition and memorization of questions and answers as, for example, in the Baltimore Catechism, or as for example in the pre-Scholastic manuals that were influenced by Enlightenment thought (manuals that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange criticized for their lack of cohesion), or as St. Thomas criticized in other summas of the time that repeated questions endlessly without focusing on essentials, or as Spinoza or Leibniz did in their rigorous philosophies (I am simply giving examples from Western history of this same tendency that traces back to Roman times), when this process occurs, then faith is no longer about reaching connaturality with the movements of the Holy Spirit but is about one further task accomplished and set aside, a burden and drudgery, or at least something thoughtlessly habitual as with most other aspects of modern life.

Thus conceptualize means, in this context, to reduce the original meaning of one of faith's mysteries into an isolated concept, cut off from its relation to God and also in its application to the entirety of one's life. The immediate effect of this conceptualization is that faith can become akin to other neurotic automatic processes, some examples of which I gave earlier. This is of course no longer faith. It is something akin to a "concept mummy" as Nietzsche would say.

Also, as for sensus fidelium, I don't want to discuss it really. I was just making a side comment that it is more than concepts collectively held in the minds of the faithful since the Church's inception. From the ITC document on the sensus fidei:

"On the one hand, the sensus fidei refers to the personal capacity of the believer, within the communion of the Church, to discern the truth of faith. On the other hand, the sensus fidei refers to a communal and ecclesial reality: the instinct of faith of the Church herself, by which she recognises her Lord and proclaims his word" (no. 3).

"The sensus fidei gives an intuition as to the right way forward amid the uncertainties and ambiguities of history, and a capacity to listen discerningly to what human culture and the progress of the sciences are saying. It animates the life of faith and guides authentic Christian action [....] Sometimes the people of God, and in particular the laity, intuitively felt in which direction the development of doctrine would go, even when theologians and bishops were divided on the issue" (no. 70, 72).

In fact, the ITC document on the sensus fidei mostly talks about this sensus in terms of being an intuition or an instinct or a property by which believers and the Church are instinctively guided.

And actually, even if I were to give a sympathetic reading to how you used "conceptualise" when you spoke of the sensus fidelium, you actually were not using it univocally as when you gave your original example of how we must have concepts to understand our words. A collective, diachronic "conceptualization" can never be the same thing as how an individual in the present conceptualizes a doctrine or understands that doctrine in relation to the whole. A collective, historical conceptualization must involve direction and movement. A concept thus is lacking because a concept by itself cannot provide direction. Ends involve a collection of concepts, and the movement towards them involve instincts or intuitions often enough.
Reply
#29
No need to be so touchy; I'm not criticising you personally... more like a kind of misgiving about how some of your ideas come across.

Sensus fidei  (literally, a sense of the Faith) might be described as a kind of intuitive understanding is, although related to, is not synonymous with sensus fidelium which we might define as "the (good) sense of the faithful".

Anyhow, I don't have the time just now to get into a detailed discussion of our misunderstandings. Some other time, perhaps.
Reply
#30
So, the other day I went to a NOM in honor of St. Mary Magdalene, because I like her. At the readings a passage caught my attention, I Cor. 5,15:

Quote:And Christ died for all; that they also who live, may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.

Et pro omnibus mortuus est Christus: ut, et qui vivunt, jam non sibi vivant, sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit.

I suspect St. Paul is talking what I talked about on my first response, but still, its a proof against those who don't want to say “for all” because of some theological impossibility—which is simply false.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)