A Pernicious Error

This has had a lot of bad consequences in popular spirituality and theology, and now political commentary. There is nothing we have that was given to us by the Father, and nothing that we can return to Him that was not first given to us by Him, and this is true even of the Son of God.

In our relationship with God, everything is given to us in our act of surrender to the Father. To relinquish is to receive. We come to rule ourselves, the only sovereignty that guarantees happiness, when we give power back to God. #ChristTheKing https://t.co/4b45i8TVHI

— America Magazine (@americamag) November 22, 2020

Eucharistia

"Eucharist Means Thanksgiving"

Check out this week's episode of Church Life Today, which features five reflections on the exchange of thanksgiving in the Eucharist.

via @McGrathND and @RedeemerRadio https://t.co/bZtDKefZ6m

— Leonard J. DeLorenzo (@leodelo2) November 23, 2020

Eucharist means "thanksgiving." This simple lesson can help us live with gratitude all year. #BeTheBee https://t.co/PvocIg67Px pic.twitter.com/HjFAoFqqeQ

— Steven Christoforou (@scchristoforou) November 23, 2020

Are the Israelites an Exception or Do They Get Explained Away?

Complex societies gave birth to big gods, not the other way around: study https://t.co/U6ohzveJsC via @physorg_com

— PaleoAnthropology+ (@Qafzeh) November 22, 2020

A 2019 article.

Can't Say Scholastics Are Not Consistent

"Now religion... is a virtue whereby a man offers something to the service and worship of God. Wherefore those are called religious antonomastically, who give themselves up entirely to the divine service, as offering a holocaust to God. pic.twitter.com/FAKHMaqF6Q

— Thomistic Institute (@ThomisticInst) July 22, 2020

MacIntyre on Marxism

Church Life: Marxism and Religion

Only a Latin Traditionalist Who Is a Thomist Could Have Written This?

Would non-traditionalist Thomists or Dominicans agree?

At any rate, the essay deserves a longer response, but I will say that charity has priority and primacy over all else. The problem may lie in St. Thomas's treatment of the virtue of religion, which may need to be reconsidered. (Can we say that religion is concerned with what is directed to the God as end, while the theological virtues are concerned with God as object, if religion is concerned with what we owe to God but charity is also owed to God?)

Ableson Religious Reconciliation Lecture Featuring Dr. William Cavanaugh

Happiness and Religion

Sister Vassa, Spirituality and Organized Religion

Related:

θρησκεία

Στην εκπομπή αυτή θα προσπαθήσουμε εν συντομία να ξεκαθαρίσουμε τις έννοιες Εκκλησία και θρησκεία, μιας και διαχρονικά έ...

Posted by Orthodox Christian Network on Sunday, June 7, 2015

Not Sure How I Missed This Book When It Was First Published

I'll have to obtain a copy.

Edit. Come to think of it, I may have a copy but in storage...

Let us be reminded of this post on Pope Francis's words on adoration and worship -
Aleteia: How Do You Solve a (Liturgical) Problem Like Maria? by Elyse Buffenbarger
If beauty and formality tells us “this matters,” its absence tells us that “this doesn’t.”

Related: The Eternal Liturgy vs. Contemporary Worship

The Virtue and the Corporal Act

Rorate Caeli: For the record: Francis on the importance of adoration in the liturgy
"Adoration is what is most important: the whole community together look at the altar where the sacrifice is celebrated and adore"
AsiaNews

Worship & adoration - chant, ritual and so on should be customary expressions of that interior disposition. And there is also the aesthetic aspect of external worship. If it is not beautiful (founded upon logos - word and reason, not mawkish sentimentality) our reaction when it is associated with God will have deleterious effects. (It may be believed that contemporary liturgical music places a great importance on the lyrics, which often can be criticized for being very poor theologically, but it seems that its adherence to a certain musical style, which supplants the lyrics by its very form, is even more problematic.)

Jean Bethke Elshtain Videos

Related:

Antiphon: Louis Bouyer's Defense of Religion and the Sacred: Sacrifice and the Primacy of Divine Gift in Christian Liturgy by Keith Lemna (pdf)

Related:
From 2010: Rev. Louis Bouyer: A Theological Giant | An Interview with Dr. Keith Lemna

Fr. Harrison Revisits Dignitatis Humanae

Living Tradition 151: Dignitatis Humanae: A Non-Contradictory Doctrinal Development

My Beef with ‘Religion in General’ by Andrew Haines

More notes on the virtue of religion

You can see evidence for the evolution of my answer to the question of whether the virtue of religion is possible if one is not in the state of grace and in possession of the virtue of charity on the blog. In my most recent post addressing this question I maintain that one cannot have the virtue of religion without charity. Now it is clear that Aquinas maintains religion is a moral virtue and not a theological one. Is it also an infused virtue? (It seems that this ordering is required both respect to the will and practical reason. One must first know and will the end [God] before one can will the means [the acts of religion] to that end .)

If religion is not an infused virtue, but an acquired virtue, can one not still have the acquired virtue even if the infused virtue of charity is lost? Yes, but I would maintain it would not be exercised (or strengthened) when one is ostensibly performing the acts proper to it. One can perform those acts out of a sense of duty, but it is motivated by his concern with what is right/fitting (and ultimately self-love), and not out of the supernatural love of God. There would be something missing in the ratio of those acts to render them something than true acts of religion. I hesitate to call them acts of some counterfeit habit. Quasi-acts of religion?  "Paying lip service." Rendering what is due to God without the proper spirit seems futile, since acts of religion are not required for God's benefit but ours. This realization would be a reminder to us, if we are in a state of sin, that we should be converted unto Him instead of resisting.

Still, maybe I will switch back to my previous position after some more thought.

It reminds me that I should peruse Anscombe's Intention. (IEP entry on that topic)

An Anscombe bibliography.

Religion versus relationship

All-Merciful Saviour Orthodox Monastery posts the following on FB:

Orthodoxy is NOT a religion, but a way of life that is centered in Jesus Christ. Orthodoxy, as a way of life, has the cure to what ails us and can return us to that state of wholeness that was God's original intent for human kind. Because Orthodoxy is not about religion, it can offer the transformation of the heart that comes with entering into a relationship with our creator. This transformation begins with repentance, that moment when we decide to return to that pure state of communion with God, for which we were created. When we renounce ourselves, we become a difference person through the action of God's grace. Where we were corrupt because of the fall, through repentance we are returned to that state for which we were created.

It's the second time I've seen such a distinction being made in recent days on the Internet.

A Thomist could agree with this in so far as religion (being concerned with practices or rituals and other actions in the service of God) does not have God as its object, as it is not a theological virtue, but has God for its end (and is thus concerned with the means). One needs charity (or perhaps the natural love of God) for religion to be enlivened. Religion by itself does not give the motivating force, nor can it substitute for a living union with God. But this does not mean that for the Christian the virtue of religion is not necessary either.

If, however, religion is defined as faith or belief system then we would have to distinguish between the infused theological virtue and some acquired virtue that is not dependent upon God for the revealing authority, along with an explanation of how faith and charity differ.

Edit. Remembered that this video has been making the rounds on FB, and Catholics and other Christians have been putting up responses. I don't think I'll be responding to that.

Grisez on the Good of Religion

My Finnis books are not handy, so I will use Germain Grisez's treatment of religion* as a reference for the New Natural Law Theory:

[1] "We experience sin and alienation from God; the goods are the peace and friendship with God which are the concern of all true religion."

[2] "Religion is a great blessing, for nothing in life is more important than liberation from sin and friendship with God. However, harmony with God should not be confused with God himself nor with the divine life in which Christians share by adoption. The human good of religion—that harmony with God which perfects human persons as human—is only one human good alongside others (see GS 11). St. Thomas Aquinas makes this point by distinguishing the virtue of religion from the theological virtues. The former, concerned with specifically religious acts, such as prayer and sacrifice, does not bear upon God himself as the latter do (cf. S.t., 2–2, q. 81, a. 5)."

[3] Finally, in his summary of the seven basic categories of human goods Grisez writes:
"(4) religion or holiness, which is harmony with God, found in the agreement of human individual and communal free choices with God’s will."

Friendship with God is charity, and should not be confused with the virtue of religion. It is not clear to me that Grisez does not muddle the two in [1], as he says that peace and friendshipw ith God are the concern of all true religion. In [2] the differentiation is clearer.

In his discussion of religion and its act, devotion, Aquinas seems to be saying that there cannot be the virtue of religion without charity, since religion is concerned with the means to the end which is the object of charity, God Himself. In the response to the first objection, he says:

The power or virtue whose action deals with an end, moves by its command the power or virtue whose action deals with matters directed to that end. Now the theological virtues, faith, hope and charity have an act in reference to God as their proper object: wherefore, by their command, they cause the act of religion, which performs certain deeds directed to God: and so Augustine says that God is worshiped by faith, hope and charity.

Can one will something to God as an end without first loving Him? Can there be the act of religion without the virtue of charity? It seems not: charity is the proximate cause of devotion [religion]. How can someone will something as a means to an end without his will first being referred to the end? Without willing the end, how can the means be a means?

Is religion, then an infused virtue, and not an acquired one? It is apparent that there must be an infused virtue of religion that corresponds to the theological virtue of charity.** But is there a natural, acquired virtue of religion matching the natural love of God? Here we enter into the thicket of controversy: the relationship between the natural order and the supernatural order and the consequences of the Fall and effects of original sin.

I tend to think that there is not an acquired virtue of religion after people attain the use of reason. Either they accept God's grace or they do not.

Germain is clearly doing moral theology in his books. But if he follows Aquinas (or this understanding of Aquinas) and implicitly admits in his account of natural law that religion is thus tied to charity, then its usefulness ends. What is needed for non-believers beyond this point, as I said earlier, is not more discourse about the precepts of the natural law, but grace and Christ.

I should compare this with what Finnis writes about the good of religion...

I note that a special issue of the American Journal of Jurisprudence was devoted to Grisez on the question of human fulfillment, and iirc, some of the contributions examined his treatment of religion.


On religion as "belief system" or "worldview":
In a comment to a previous post from today JBS gives a definition of religion:

Religion - that set of rules by which I know I'm ok...and you're not.

This definition allows for many belief-systems not normally thought-of as 'religious' to function, allowing for everyone to have a religion, apart from a real relationship with God.

It seems that here religion is synonymous with belief system or world view. Everyone has a belief system or worldview, which is a mixture of knowledge and set of beliefs about reality. But it is not the same as religion as it is defined by Grisez or Aquinas. People act in accordance with certain first principles, but these first principles may not include God.

What about the pagans and their beliefs and attitudes? Is God or are the gods superior to us? Hence we must give them the proper respect and may even need to placate their anger. Or are they merely used by us? That is, they are servants of our happiness. Whom must we please? Ourselves or the gods?

If the virtue of religion is tied to the love of God, then what motivates those who do not love God but are "imperfect" to perform certain acts of religion? The fear of punishment or the promise of reward (or a certain good of reason), which can be harmonized with the love of self. One does not need the love of God to fear punishment, etc. Similarly, non-Christians do not need charity in order to perform the rituals that they have learned from their elders. Just because certain acts associated with a virtue are being done does not imply that this virtue is present in the agent.

We can use Aquinas's treatment of the Old Law as a model for understanding non-Christian religions*** before the coming of Christ and relate their proximity to the truth through the supposition of a Primitive Revelation. See Journet's The Meaning of Grace for his account of grace before the Incarnation and "God in Search of Man" by Patrick Beeman for more about Wilhelm Schmidt.