PatrickW

Got a bit worried thought it must of been such a stupid question that know body wanted to repond so thank you so much Patrick. i have always asked the question I needed the answers to silly ones or not.

Macbee

Thanks for that PatrickW.

Wouldn't it be great to have the dismissal at mass as "Go, this is our mission!" That is even more powerful than "go, the mass is ended" or "go in peace to love and serve the Lord".

It brings to mind the enthusiastic and challenging recessional song / hymn "Go now, you are sent forth".

I suppose I should also say " blast (gotta be polite) you PatrickW, I wont be able to get this concept out of my head for a while." Also a positive meditation for Lent.

Again, as Charlie Brown has it, "the theological implications are absolutely staggering".

cheers
BobL

Brian

Yes i watched it just got on to put up a post. I have always wondered where the word MASS came from and it was mentioned tonight regarding the 16 hundreds. Is it a word for a mass of people getting together to hear someone preach about the bible? and is it just a Catholic Word that we use.

Macbee

From Google -

The term "Mass" is derived from the Late Latin word missa (dismissal), a word used in the concluding formula of Mass in Latin: "Ite, missa est" ("Go; it is the dismissal").[2][3] "In antiquity, missa simply meant 'dismissal'. In Christian usage, however, it gradually took on a deeper meaning. The word 'dismissal' has come to imply a 'mission'. These few words succinctly express the missionary nature of the Church" (Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum caritatis, 51)

Thanks, Tony. I find it an intriguing question as to what the average person sees in Jesus — anybody else for that matter. And also to ask the questions: what was Jesus offering? What does the church, or any preacher, offer that suggests we ought to have a relationship with Jesus?

You've given me good material to mull on.

Brian, I hope this is not too far down page two, but anyway just a couple of comments briefly. Thank you for responding to mine.
You write in part. about

...this insight that I think all of us have buried within us some sense of the "ideal me"... of the ideal person we'd like to be, or where we'd like to end up. My personal sense increasingly these days is that "the perfection of this One we imagine as God or the Divine" is some manifestation of the ideal we would like to be: we'd love to be "loving like God". ..."just and fair like God". We'd love to be loved and respected [by them] in some idealised sense. In making the choices we have to make in life... we'd like "to have the wisdom to make the correct choice every time like God". We imagine, I assume, that most people would think that if we were God we might have the wisdom to make "perfect choices" everytime.

I think I see it all a bit differently now, and this new perspective keeps growing day by day. I don't know what it means to 'be like god', so I can't long for that status. It's not something I can even think about.

I don't think Jesus modelled either "a life like god", or a life of eminently good decisions that showed he had "the wisdom to make the correct choice every time like God."

Seems to me Jesus showed how to live life thoroughly, without compromising the core values. At the day to day level he was tossed around by circumstances like anyone else. There is no 'perfection' in the form of making always the correct choice or decision to be had at that level, for the simple reason that we never have full knowledge and awareness of all the facts and circumstances. All we can do is 'give it our best shot' as Mr Spock said.

But not to compromise core values, wedded to a readiness to stand up for the truth, may well lead anyone to the end that Jesus achieved - the total gift of himself in a violent finale. Not the sort of thing you can orchestrate for yourself, but a prospect that can never be excluded. Most political leaders live with it daily, and the more firm they are in giving witness to the truth the greater the danger of getting bumped off.

That is where love can be seen, the love that gives totally. Forget about trying to be perfect other than in loving right to the end. "Having loved those who were his own, he loved them to the end!"

No more now. Authority is another question.
Pax, tony

Yes, I too was very interested and impressed by that posting of Herbie's on authority.

He says his book is out of print - alas. I sent him message via Catholica to ask if he knew of any copies available second-hand and what is the title of the book.

Sadly I have had no reply so far. Is there any CA reader who can help me with this information, please? If the info is confidential, please reply via Brian. Thanks

Mary

PeterR’s post above titled "Authority speaks for itself"…. Has prompted me to respond (briefly) as follows:-

When Jesus spoke, He was listened to, and we continue to listen to Him 2,000 years later.

The reason is simple; He spoke WITH authority.

Those in “authority” mostly speak FROM authority; they do not have to speak with authority, they speak because they have the power to do so.

That is the great issue with the institution; it uses its power, the authority the institution wields to command absolute obedience.

Years ago it had the authority to torture and kill you to demand this obedience.

The institution, if it is to survive, must try to speak with authority.

Bishop Morris spoke with authority; ask anyone in the Toowoomba diocese.

The institution spoke from authority and denied Bishop Morris justice.

(Dear Aragon please take note, I have been reading your arrogance on Catholica).

http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?mode=printpost&post=95047

BRILLIANT POST TONY. Iespecially loved the last paragraph.
“For the life of me I can't see any need in the context of 'religion' of an authority to govern or control my life or the things I choose to do in respect of my highest ideals. Nor can I see that the bible gives anyone this role. In fact, if we dared to read what it says, the bible is the most radical document ever, calling on individuals to do what is right regardless of consequences. And the prototype is nailed to a cross for his pains.”
I think that any where in society where authority is granted/accepted without clear lines of responsibility being spelled out and supervised Christianity will be the loser every time.

Cheers Ian Lawther

Where does personal ego stand in all this, especially when it comes to clerics. How does meat become mind? It's the biggest unanswered question of philosophy and neurology. How do physical processes in the brain give rise to the riddle of mental consciousness?
Theatre director Mick Gordon is also a senior researcher at the Theatre & Mind Unit at the University of Plymouth.
He has set up his own company On Theatre, which explores fundamental preoccupations of modern life through experimental theatre. I look forward to their findings.

My own sense is that we still do need "authorities" in life — about all sorts of things. Life would be chaotic without authority. We need it in realms such as the law simply for the civilised order of any community and we need it in the sciences. It seems to me most people accept authority. There are very few anarchists in the world who reject all forms of authority. Even members of outlaw criminal gangs do respect some kind of authority — it being the authority of their "outlaw organisation". The sciences, perhaps even more than the law (which has been concerned with authority for a lot longer than the sciences), has given modern human beings a new handle on this question of authority. The "truths" of science are something discerned by the entire scientific community in the world (or in specialist realms the particular community working in that specialist realm). The "authority" as to who determines what is "true" though is a shared responsibility of the entire scientific community and slowly a consensus emerges as to what is deemed to be the correct equation or law or explanation for some observed reality.

Brian, I wonder if there is not a third type of 'authority'. I know you are only giving rough 'types' when you say: 'We need it in realms such as the law simply for the civilised order of any community and we need it in the sciences.'

We know that the Law is necessary for the safety of the society, and laws are to be enacted only to protect where protection is needed. We also know that safety standards are formulated on scientific evidence, so again safety requires an 'authority' to authenticate the scientific evidence.

However in the 'religion' field we are more in the realm of ideas. We know that it is not possible to legislate for thoughts, although many despots have tried to curtail freedom of thought by imposing censorship on speech and print, etc.

It seems to me at the moment that the authority recognised in the academic world is the one that would fit the context of 'religion'. The authority has the role of ensuring that correct process is followed, that claims to proficiency are dependent on proper assessment, and so on. In a word, it is 'authority' in the realm of ideas. It might be neccessary to have such an authority that could declare someone as 'unqualified' in order to curtail the activities of charlatons who would con people with empty claims of having 'authority' to lead people by all sorts of false promises.

For the life of me I can't see any need in the context of 'religion' of an authority to govern or control my life or the things I choose to do in respect of my highest ideals. Nor can I see that the bible gives anyone this role. In fact, if we dared to read what it says, the bible is the most radical document ever, calling on individuals to do what is right regardless of consequences. And the prototype is nailed to a cross for his pains.

This is so true, Judith.

"... doesn't the concept of freedom for religion also include freedom from religion for those who do not believe?"

And I suspect that many who went to North America appreciated the freedom of frontier society to do and think as they wished.

I'm intrigued that the role of New York in the development of early US culture doesn't receive the attention that New England does. Maybe because it was above all a trading and commercial hub, and a melting pot for all sorts, from the beginning.

Annie

Brian and others, doesn't the concept of freedom for religion also include freedom from religion for those who do not believe? If a society is truly equal, then this must be so. But the rights and values of all must be equally respected, and that is too often the receipe for chaos.

Human beings are strange critters, but God made and loves us in all our varieties.

I recommend Ken Follett's books "Pillars of the Earth" and "World Without End" as great views of the medieval world in England and the various conivings which went on behind the scenes in both the ecclesiastical and secular realms. Nothing much changes, except that, with the advent of the media, we hear about things more quickly. Another good book of his is "Fall of the Giants" which centres around World War I and is equally broad in scope. Not much work was done here yesterday as I got "Pillars" from the library on Friday afternoon and finished it last night (very late). Luckily it was pouring rain for most of the day so I could enjoy being inside reading without feeling guilty. God bless whoever invented slow cookers as I could cook dinner and not have to worry about it while I was reading.

Thanks for this, Brian. I'll be waiting for the next episode with interest ( I prefer the big screen. )

My point was that other basic religious and ethical strands in US history need examination, not just the puritan/calvinist one. George Whitefield (the other major figure examined in Episode 1) came out of the calvinist wing of the Anglican church.

The continuing existence of the attitudes of the old southern colonists, now seen throughout the US, can be seen in the almost visceral hatred of Obama, which seems to me to be based on a subliminal racism rather than his policies. IMHO, as always.

Annie

Thanks for that Brian.
It was a good programme, I feel.
Freedom and authority needs to be reconciled, I feel?!
One needs to be free to the point that freedom doesn't curtail that of others,which does seem difficult when egos come into plsy?!
One needs to continually look at Christ in order to try and get that balance?!
Oh it's hard to be humble?!
Just some thoughts.
georgeh

Annie and all,

I do recommend a visit to the PBS website [LINK], which is much more comprehensive than the Australian site. Before I went to sleep early this morning I watched episode two. I sense some of the issues you raise are explored but the principal focus of the series seems to be how religion helped shape the public life and character of the United States. By the way Episode Two has a great section devoted to the influence of the fourth Catholic Bishop/first Archbishop of New York, John Hughes. Hughes had been mentioned by Dr Len Swidler in the series on Democracy in the Church we published here on Catholica – and which I intend now to read again in the light of what I am learning in this PBS series [LINK to Swidler's series]. Here's the blurb from the PBS website explaining what the series is about.

Puritan "city on a hill" beckoned on the horizon of the New World, religious faith and belief have forged America's ideals, molded its identity and shaped its sense of mission at home and abroad.

For the first time on television, God in America explores the tumultuous 400-year history of the intersection of religion and public life in America, from the first European settlements to the 2008 presidential election. A co-production of AMERICAN EXPERIENCE and FRONTLINE, this six-hour series examines how religious dissidents helped shape the American concept of religious liberty and the controversial evolution of that ideal in the nation's courts and political arena; how religious freedom and waves of new immigrants and religious revivals fueled competition in the religious marketplace; how movements for social reform — from abolition to civil rights — galvanized men and women to put their faith into political action; and how religious faith influenced conflicts from the American Revolution to the Cold War.

Interweaving documentary footage, historical dramatization and interviews with religious historians, the six-part series is narrated by actor Campbell Scott and includes appearances by actors Michael Emerson (as John Winthrop), Chris Sarandon (as Abraham Lincoln. and Keith David (as Frederick Douglass), among others.

"The American story cannot be fully understood without understanding the country's religious history," says series executive producer Michael Sullivan. "By examining that history, God in America will offer viewers a fresh, revealing and challenging portrait of the country."

As God in America unfolds, it reveals the deep roots of American religious identity in the universal quest for liberty and individualism -- ideas that played out in the unlikely political union between Thomas Jefferson and defiant Baptists to oppose the established church in Virginia and that were later embraced by free-wheeling Methodists and maverick Presbyterians. Catholic and Jewish immigrants battled for religious liberty and expanded its meaning. In their quest for social reform, movements as different as civil rights and the religious right found authority and energy in their religious faith. The fight to define religious liberty fueled struggles between America's secular and religious cultures on issues from evolution to school prayer, and American individualism and the country's experiment in religious liberty were the engine that made America the most religiously diverse nation on earth.

I'm finding it somewhat ironic as I surface this morning given that I'm dealing with my own personal moral dilemma in this place at the moment over the continued freedom to allow one individual to participate in the discussions we're having here. At one level I am a great believer in religious freedom and our right and responsibility to freely air our views. At another level, and as I have argued strongly, at present we have an entire institution (the Catholic Church) where freedom of expression has been severely curtailed — I know because I have been deprived of the freedom to earn an income in certain ways on a number of occasions because of it — and I argue that we have an entire institution, including bishops themselves, which has effectively been reduced to silence unless they "toe the line" perpetrated by a small minority — the temple police/taliban element — within our midst.

As well as the six-part series the PBS site has many other additional video and print resources that I'm going to be interested to explore over coming weeks. The titles of the six parts are:

• Parts 1 & 2: "A New Eden"
  
• Part 3: A Nation Reborn
  
• Part 4: "A New Light"
  
• Part 5: "The Soul of a Nation"
  
• Part 6: "Of God and Caesar"

The "additional feature" on the PBS website include:

• Introduction
  
• The Making of God in America
  
• American Scripture
  
• God in the White House
  
• People & Ideas
  
• The Black Church
  
• Sacred Spaces
  
• Study Guide
  
• Test Your Religious Literacy – Pew Forum Quiz
  
• Viewing Party Kit
  
• Transcripts
  
• Cooperating Organizations
  
• Live Chat with Producers
  
• God in America National Symposium on Religious Literacy (Video)

http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/video/2200650120/God-In-America-A-New-Adam

Also, as the program noted, Anglicanism (Episcopalianism in the US) was very strong in the southern colonies, where slavery was accepted, together with the war on the indigenous people. Many of the founding fathers came from this tradition, including George Washington. It doesn't receive nearly as much attention as the Puritan tradition, but was just as influential.

I've only seen this first episode, which covers the 17th and 18th centuries, as far as the brink of the Revolution. The emphasis is on the Puritans who settled New England, and the struggle, as you noted, Brian, between personal religious liberty and authority. This is certainly a key thread in US history.

But it needs to be seen in a wider contest, that includes the primary reason for the invasion/settlement of North America - the quest for wealth (fish, fur, timber, minerals and above all land). This involved the attack on the indigenous peoples, and the importation of slaves to do the hard yacker. These actions also had moral and ethical implications and consequences, and have had just as much influence on the character of US culture as the quest for religious liberty.

I'll be interested to see if these issues are examined in later episodes.

Annie

I couldn't help thinking after watching the first episode if this question of "authority" is emerging as the key contemporary issue for religion again today? What came through in the first episode is the huge debate that essentially boiled down to the issue of authority: so many claim that they are the ONEs who speak authoritatively on behalf of God. That is a central issue for Catholicism. Is the "great drift away" from practise we see going on in the world today essentially a "rebellion against that idea of authority" (at least in the sense of how we were taught to understand it traditionally)?

My own sense is that we still do need "authorities" in life — about all sorts of things. Life would be chaotic without authority. We need it in realms such as the law simply for the civilised order of any community and we need it in the sciences. It seems to me most people accept authority. There are very few anarchists in the world who reject all forms of authority. Even members of outlaw criminal gangs do respect some kind of authority — it being the authority of their "outlaw organisation". The sciences, perhaps even more than the law (which has been concerned with authority for a lot longer than the sciences), has given modern human beings a new handle on this question of authority. The "truths" of science are something discerned by the entire scientific community in the world (or in specialist realms the particular community working in that specialist realm). The "authority" as to who determines what is "true" though is a shared responsibility of the entire scientific community and slowly a consensus emerges as to what is deemed to be the correct equation or law or explanation for some observed reality.

In the Church we seem to still have this fiction that some self-selecting elite will determine what is moral or divine truth. The first episode of the series "God in America" showed very graphically how that mindset broke down in the religious colonisation of the United States. I am left wondering if what we are witnessing today is that happening on a new scale internationally and as some further extension of the original Reformation? No doubt someone in the Vatican will soon dub it "the American disease" — and again, like the sexual abuse crisis, they probably believe the American's exported it to the rest of the world.

My own sense is that ultimately we do still require some place of religious, spiritual or moral authority in the world. What has to change is our perceptions of how this is mediated in the modern world. The picture I have is that this Mystery we try to describe with the word "God" speaks through all of humankind and we need some structure or organisation — perhaps a Parliament of the World's Religions — where there is open debate about what is "ultimate truth". This would be some kind of parallel to the methodology that has evolved as to how we determine scientific truth.

If the Roman Catholic Church wants to retain some place of "primacy" amongst the world religions and peoples it needs to re-conceive itself as the facilitator of this global endeavour encouraging the discernment of "ultimate truth". To do that it needs to drop this idea that it is the "prime" channel of communication from the Divine to humankind and place itself at the service of humankind that all people look up to as the coordinating institution or organisation that helps us discern "ultimate moral truth" against all the "noise" created in Creation by our egos, emotions, and the "static" of life. Reading Diarmuid O'Murchu's essay that Helen pointed out yesterday [LINK] I suspect he would understand the point I am trying to make in this post. There are many in the institution, I am equally sure, who wouldn't have the foggiest about what is being suggested here. What is being suggested here for some, I am sure, would actually threaten their entire cosmos and sense of security and emotional balance and understanding of the very meaning of their lives.

If Roman Catholicism refuses institutionally to re-visit this crucial question of "authority" then I think its future definitely is as a "smaller, purer Church" that is basically irrelevant in the great sweep of human affairs for the vast majority in humankind.

As I have suggested in earlier posts, John Henry Cardinal Newman was the great mind in Catholicism who explored this territory and I suggest it is territory that urgently needs to be explored further by the best minds who can take up where Cardinal Newman left off. Unfortunately Newman himself seems to have been "taken over" by some of the most neanderthal elements in Catholicism and what he was seeking to explore in his great series of essays "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine" — which is essentially a series connected with this crucial issue of the bedrock of "authority" — is unappreciated and misunderstood by those elements in the contemporary Church who want to take us back into the theologies, and understandings of "authority", of the Middle Ages.

Dear all,

I can't recommend highly enough the documentary screening in Australia on SBS Television at the moment "God in America". Episode 1 can be viewed online at SBS for the next 6 days and the entire series can be viewed online at PBS (worldwide). It is also available as a DVD from Amazon or as an instant download for viewers in America (US$1.99 per episode, US$10.99 for the series or free for members of Amazon Prime).

Many of the issues explored so interestingly in the First Episode are issues that are at the heart of discussions here on Catholica on the questions of authority and conscience and how a community, nation or an entire church discerns what is true or believable.

What I saw of it was excellent. For some reason our television set went really wierd about a third the way into the program. I thought it was our antenna leads and spent time checking all of them but it must have actually been a fault at SBS here in Sydney or at their transmission tower. I should have checked earlier as all the other television channels were fine so it wasn't our antenna lead. It came good again towards the end of the program but I missed part of the development the scriptwriters are following. From what I've seen though it looks an excellent program — really good analysis of the various different religious influences that helped shaped the religious — and to a significant extent — the national character of the United States. I'm going to watch the episode again online. The program following on the Second World War was also fascinating.

Link to programme details. (I would imagine that links to each episode will appear there).

http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/883/

Brian

Yes i watched it just got on to put up a post. I have always wondered where the word MASS came from and it was mentioned tonight regarding the 16 hundreds. Is it a word for a mass of people getting together to hear someone preach about the bible? and is it just a Catholic Word that we use.

Macbee

Dear all,

There is a brilliant program on SBS Television at the moment titled "God in America". We're just at the first commercial break and it looks brilliant. A comprehensive series looking at the history of religion in America.