Secularism's growing cloud - refuting secularist arguments - Part II

As I said in my last post I'll be looking at a snippet from Dawkins on Thomas Aquinas.

I think it's important that we engage to some degree with critics such as Dawkins and not merely dismiss it, noting as we do that he would struggle to pass philosophy 101 however arguable that is. In any case, as mentioned in the comments by one of my co-bloggers, secularism is the fastest growing "religion" in Australia. Of course this actually represents the growth of irreligion. As people become increasingly irreligious it is possible that they will turn to the more militant secularists such as Dawkins to provide a justification for their lifestyle. Only possible however. I would not put it past a great many to not even care that much. I'm mostly going by the fact that a great many copies of his book have been sold leading people to read and be willingly convinced by its contents.

Dawkins' summary of the first way which he subsequently attempts to "refute" is "Whatever moves has a prior mover." At this point we know one thing, which is that, whatever Dawkins follows this with, he will not be refuting the first way as it is stated in the Summa. He will be refuting something else for the simple reason that this is a completely botched presentation of the argument. Without wanting to get Dawkins off the hook I have to admit that this is actually a common mistaken presentation of this argument and even theists make it from time to time.

A note on the first way before we continue to look at exactly what has been mucked up. Modern ears are generally not attuned to this argument which is commonly called the argument from motion. Motion to us generally means locomotion. In the first way it is means any kind of movement from potency to act. It is in fact what might be better called the argument from change. Personally it's one of my favorites so I am always on the look out for how people present it.

Back to Dawkins: the argument is not "Whatever moves has a prior mover." It is rather "whatever undergoes motion is moved by another" or "whatever is moved is moved by another." There is a crucial difference between the two. I don't intend to provide in this post a full presentation of the argument. However it would be wrong from the point of view of the argument to assert that whatever moves needs a prior mover. The first mover, God, moves after all, yet we do not say that He has a prior mover. That is to say, He moves, puts into motion, something else. What is important to the argument is that He does not himself undergo motion. For anything that undergoes motion (is moved not just moves) is in a state of progression from potency to act. Given that something isn't what it is yet to become (1) it needs some sort of "outside help" to "lift it" from one state to the other.

So in summary it is not that which moves that has need of a prior mover but whatever undergoes motion.

Dawkins also has issues related to infinite regresses but I think I will examine that topic in its own right and in general, not necessarily as related to Dawkins although it will help answer him.

One other objection I'll mention here that Dawkins makes. He asks whether, given God is omniscient (knows all things), can he in his omnipotence change his mind? That is, does he have the power to change his mind? If he can't change his mind does that not limit his almighty status? Of course this is simply the old "can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it" question dressed up differently. The ability to change one's mind is not a strength but a weakness. It is really no power at all. An omniscient being that could change it's mind is as much a contradiction as a square circle (or a rock an almighty being cannot lift for that matter). Omnipotence is the power to do all things. A contradiction is not a thing but a nothing. The terms cancel one another out. Remember: nothing is impossible to God - literally.

(1) This is simply a rephrasing of the "golden rule". The principle of non-contradiction which can be stated in a variety of ways. It is the main self evident premise on which the argument rests.

Next post: answering an atheistic article that appeared some time ago in the national daily The Australian

The two strands of tradition (2)

I was surfing through the blogosphere this afternoon, and found the latest news on the briefing on the Motu Proprio last Wednesday. This causes me to correct the previous blog slightly. The news from the briefing is that terms such as "Tridentine" or Novus Ordo" are no longer to be used. There is one Roman Rite (which is what I have been saying all along) with two forms "Ordinary" previously the Novus Ordo, and "Extraordinary" (the Mass of Bl John XXIII). We will be using these terms from now on.

Secularism's growing cloud

The problem of secularism is something that confronts us nearly every time we walk out of our door. Well, it depends on where you are headed (there is very little secularism present at Marian Valley) but if you are speaking of your modern school or university then you are definitely in the ballpark of secularism.

I'm interested in secularism not only because it impacts on me personally but because I'm interested in human nature itself. It's an interesting subject because man is an interesting creature. For one, he is entirely unique, being a union of spirit and matter. Such a combination makes him a complex creature due to these two entirely different realms of creation being fused into one being and the internal war that wages within him as a result of the fall makes him more complicated still. Given that secularism is an attitude adopted by many it is important that we engage with it.

Currently I'm reading a book called "Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed. It is an explanation of the Catholic view of reality and how only the Catholic view is totally sane. Sanity, after all, is seeing reality as it really is. There is a passage in there that I think is well worth quoting. Think about it and see how much it applies to your own situation. I'd be most interested in a comment.

"One calamitous result of this unawareness that the road of life leads anywhere in particular is that hope dies. 'The mass of men' says Thoreau, 'lead lives of quiet desperation.' I do not know how true that was of his generation but it is fiercely true of ours. Note that it is quiet desperation: not so much active despair as the absence of hope. Men live from one day to the next, hoping that tomorrow may be a little better than today, or if not better then not much worse, occasionally stimulated a little by some extra surge of hope that this or that venture, intellectual or financial or athletic or amatory or what you will, may turn out well. But for most men, even these hopes are impermanent; and just as there is no over-all purpose in life, so there is no over-all hope. They are not living toward anything. There is no great thing in the future drawing them on: no goal."

Of course it is important to distinguish between two main parties in the secularist camp. The first and larger camp are simply the folk that drift through life with no firm anchor. Religion of any sort barely plays a role in their lives. They would no doubt disagree with the Church on many matters but they are not what you would call overtly anti-religious, simply nonreligious. In fact they would be hardly aware of what the Church has to say on anything in the first place.

The second camp is deadly serious in their secularism. They are overtly anti-religious and work actively against it. The recent year has seen them produce several books that have sold well including "Letter to a Christian Nation" and especially "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. This crowd is most certainly interested in religion if only to oppose it.

This brings me to Dawkins' book, a best seller. I confess I have dabbled in it a couple of times in a bookshop and read what is, to me, the part that matters most, viz his interaction and (badly attempted) refutation of Aquinas' five ways. Better attempts have been made before than Dawkin's. It has nothing new. The problem is that, whilst it doesn't take a great arsenal of philosophical training at one's dispoal to see through what he says, most people have never had that training. Given that Dawkin's is a talented writer he has quite a potential to convince the average person. It remains to be seen how effective he is on any mass scale. After all, that there is a God has been the common conviction of mankind throughout the ages.

Let me emphasis again though, that the potential Dawkin's has does not lie in the fact that the average person is stupid. It is a lack of formation.

In my next post I'll have a little more analysis of what I found when I investigated some of what Dawkin's had to say on Aquinas' arguments.

The two strands of tradition

This blog has been about 2 weeks in formulation, which is why I have been relatively silent as of late.

Given that there is reference in the blogosphere to the "traditional" Mass versus the modern Mass, I wanted to say something about really how "traditional" is the Tridentine Mass and how "traditional" is the Novus Ordo Mass as in different documents both Masses claim to be the authentic conduit of tradition. The first question is "what is tradition?".

The Oxford Dictionary defines tradition as "the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation". However, tradition particularly in a sacred context, also evolves. Like a large building the edifice goes up layer by layer from the foundations, but is always supported by the foundations.

The liturgy has been an evolving process and the early liturgy we only have surviving fragments, namely St Paul, then St Justin Martyr, and then the full development of the Mass culminating in the reforms of Pope St Gregory the Great (6th cent AD). Both supporters of tradition and the fathers of the reform in the 1960s agreed that this is the starting point (the template).

I then did a step by step summary of the elements of the Mass, and the furnishings of the sanctuary to compare to see what is the most authentic tradition. This has not been presented here as it is too detailed.

The Tridentine Mass has the elements of the Gregorian Mass as its core but heavily overlaid with prayers that developed between the 11th and 14th centuries. The Novus Ordo sought to simplify back to the Gregorian template, as well as introduce some new prayers which could be used in place of the tradtional. On the basis of general customs it can be said that the two Masses form different interpretations of the one tradition. IT IS THE SAME MASS. In this one tradition there are two streams or strands:

1. a re-creation of the general Mass form of the first Millenium (with some modern add-ons) known as the Novus Ordo Mass (or the Mass of Paul VI)


2. the continual flow of tradition from the first millenium through the second millenium culminating in the Tridentine Mass (or the Mass of John XXIII).
   

The photos that I took in Rome last year show the two strands as they exist in architecture. The first is of St John Lateran which although heavily renovated in the 17th century, has maintained the older tradition into the 20th century, with its strict basilica layout and free-standing Altar under a spectacular ciborium from the 14th century.

The second, is a photograph of the interior of what I call a "Counter-Reformation" church, Santa Maria della Vittoria, with the Altar arrangement generally consistent with that desired by the reforms after the Council of Trent for a parish church (not a cathedral church but more about that later).

To date, the Latin Church has only been "breathing with one lung", as one of these strands has been suppressed. Note the table Altar in front of the High Altar as a retrofit of the church to shift it from one strand of tradtion to the other. (This was a reasonably good retrofit, compared to some Italian churches, that I saw where a wooden "picnic table" has been set up in front of the main Altar).

The forthcoming Motu Proprio corrects this situation so that we can now enjoy the full tradition, PLUS the church is better secured to its foundations and sub-structures. Two strands may be necessary at this stage because the Church has such a rich tradition that one set of elements or themes cannot be contained in the one Mass.

However, I believe that there are some serious elements missing from the Novus Ordo Mass which have impacted on the manner in which it has been celebrated:

• Veneration of the Altar and the Sanctuary at the start of Mass is excessively abbreviated in a Mass without solemnity (which gets the Mass started the wrong way, particulalry when it is replaced by a mini-sermon)


• There is a general lack of knowledge on the ars celebranda and ceremonial resulting in inappropriate people stepping in and giving direction without any knowledge of the tradition.
  

Furnishings as interpreted in the reform (not the reform itself) has led to a number of problems

• The location of the chair as the priest’s “throne” (not previously done in any tradition - thrones were reserved to bishops), emphasising the celebrant as "presider"



• Tabernacle location is up to a personal decision leading to a poorly designed church, lack of focus and poor behaviours in church



• Lack of Altar rails (an ancient tradition mentioned by Eusebius and Augustine) leads to sanctuary being perceived as common space and encouraging unauthorised access (exacerbated by the presence of lay readers and EMHCs, particularly EMHC’s being in sanctuary for excessive lengths of time).



• Problems with badly designed Altars which are of a size, shape and location that emphasises the celebrant, and the community meal.
  

These issues need to be tackled in any reform of the Mass of Paul VI to make truly fit for the worship of Our Lord.

Medieval helpdesk with English subtitles

I found this video on you tube and just thought it was worth posting, after all sometimes i have the exact same problem with my book!

I think Brother Ansgar, is trying to read the GRIM or the latest encyclical from the Pope, but has the problem that some priests, religious and laity have!

A Special Intention

To all our readers and bloggers. Please pray for the soul of a girl who was tragically killed in a traffic accident in our city last week. She was only 15 and attended one of our Catholic high schools in the city. Her Requiem was today.

I thought that this Collect from Masses of the Dead sums up my sentiments at this time.

Quaesumus Domine, pro tua pietate miserere animae famulae tuae Caitlin, et a contagiis mortalitatis exutam, in aeternae salvationis partenm restitue. Per Dominum.

We beseech thee O Lord, by thy loving kindness to have mercy on the soul of thy handmaid Caitlin, and now that she is released from the contagion of this mortal flesh, to give her part in thine eternal salvation. Through our Lord.

Latin mass Brisbane

Due to the much needed repainting of the interior of the Church of St Luke, the location of the indult mass for the archdiocese, the Latin mass community has been temporally moved to the Church of St Ignatius Toowong.
St Ignatius is an awesome church, in the words of my friends "You looked like a kid in a candy store". The church has 4 side altar and one magnificent high altar. I don't think any of these altars have been used for a long time. it's sad to see these awesome works of devotion, prayer and art sit and gather dust!
So far we have only had low masses, but hopefully next week with the cantata, we can really use the church to it's potential.
Stay tuned for more photo posts, especially with this church.