Pages

Saturday, January 25, 2020

Plotting out "Theological Drift" or Who's Drifting?


No matter how brief or elementary the account of the life of Saint Ignatius of Loyola, there is usually some mention of his conversion which took place during the long period of his confinement in bed while recovering from a very serious battle wound. The onetime soldier of fortune read much while convalescing. He came to identify the difference between the fruits of his reading of knightly tales of adventure and errancy and his reading of Sacred Scripture and the lives of the saints. St. Ignatius' insight was foundational to his teaching on the discernment of spirits and contributed greatly to changing him and the world around him for the good. By their fruits you shall know them.

I suppose that the kind of discernment of spirits we are talking about with Ignatius as evidenced in the life of an individual is or can be much more straightforward than when applied to an institution, specifically when it concerns weighing developments in the life of the Church. Trying to discern the path forward is never easy for individuals, let alone for an institution. In a complex reality like the ecclesial body there just have to be more variables and increased difficulty in sorting out intentions or insights.

For this reason, I find it ludicrous for a so-called theologian to accuse Pope emeritus Benedict of suffering from "theological drift". On what grounds does this guy claim to have sure knowledge of the way forward for the Church, which must ever be discerning, weighing the spirits, if you will? He gives his own or one popular interpretation of Vatican II a pass and expects us to buy his simplification to the exclusion of a process which has gone on always and everywhere in the life of the Church. It would seem that this guy has little appreciation for the struggles which accompanied centuries of debate over the issue of conciliarism and even less for what it cost at Vatican I to hammer out a definition of infallibility, to accompany sure apostolic teaching on indefectibility. Et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam...

Historically, from the period of the great ecumenical councils of the troubled but not yet divided Church of east and west, we have a rather clear cut example of a rapid course correction after a conciliar hijacking. The Second Council of Ephesus was a Christological church synod in 449 AD convened by Emperor Theodosius II under the presidency of Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria. It was intended to be an ecumenical council. It was explicitly repudiated by the next council, the Council of Chalcedon of 451, and it was named the Latrocinium or "Robber Council" by Pope Leo I. 

Looking at the ecumenical councils of the second millennium, we see no such condemnations or repudiations as took place back at Chalcedon, with the exception of the repudiation of Pisa (1409) by the Council of Constance (1414-1418). After the first seven ecumenical councils, it might be fair to say that until the Council of Trent, the councils convened had a successive or progressive sort of an incremental or refining function over time. It would not be unfair to say that perhaps as one council failed to achieve its stated goals the next or a later council continued the process. Disciplinary issues were revisited again and again in an ongoing attempt or repeated effort to get it right. Much of the legislation for defining and reforming the office of bishop, including enforcing the obligation of residency in one's diocese, only came to be after centuries in the course of the implementation period after Trent. 

Occasionally, one hears that Vatican II was intended also to bring to completion the work set out for Vatican I but not achieved under the pressure of armed conflict. Would it be so terrible if the Church were to revisit Vatican II and find it wanting? From the point of view of historical precedents, I think not.

In other words, don't burden me with nonsense about "theological drift"! Pope emeritus Benedict is a lamp shining in a dark place for the sake of furthering the process of discernment. We thank God for his ongoing teaching, not the least of which are his three volumes Jesus of Nazareth. In speaking this way I am purposely understating, as my conviction would be that in the penultimate successor of St. Peter we have all that and much more.

Wherever we look in the world today, the Church is suffering from a certain malaise. Vatican II and the course of its implementation over the last half century cannot be exempted from that refinement process which has worked to keep the Church on track in the face of error and ambiguity. At no time since the Protestant Reformation have we been subjected to such an outright challenge to the Sacraments and ministerial priesthood at the center of life in the Church. Prayer as the staple of the everyday life of our people is lacking. We could use a preacher like St. Vincent Ferrer, OP, to call people back to basics. The discursive character of the reformed liturgy has all it can do to keep from banalizing divine worship, and sadly fails more often than not. Obviously a recovery of the tradition in worship is no more than the cornerstone to an edifice built of sound catechesis, personal prayer and penance, recovery of the sanctity of the celibate priesthood and the full gospel on marriage and family life.

Through the intercession of St. Ignatius of Loyola, we pray for more discerning leadership in the Church! May certain glib "theological" tongues hold their peace and permit the process of discernment to proceed unimpeded!

PROPERANTES ADVENTUM DIEI DEI

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.