_______, Mathematician, lay man baptized and confirmed in the Diocese of _______;¹
In friendly and supportive response to Dr. Peters,
write:
I am not a lawyer of any sort; but I can read books and apply argument.
On sacramentality; The strangeness of the very simple composition of valid marriage of Christians into a Sacrament has nothing peculiar to marriage in it. The necessary condition for sacramental baptism is the imposition of clean water with the proper invocation of the Trinity; no particular consent in the baptizand is required for the sacrament in that moment beyond that he not resist, which is the ancient explanation of why it makes sense to baptize infants; nor need the person handling the water and invoking the Trinity actually believe what he is doing either — which was the admonition Athanasius received when he were a boy. The necessary condition for the confection of the Eucharist is that a Priest, with one of the right matters (wheat bread or live grape wine) speak the relevant famous Words; that this Priest, whatever his subjective beliefs or feelings in that moment, intend to do "as the Church does" in signs at least; one can go through the list, but the general principle is that the Sacrament is effected by making the sign that signifies it upon the matter that constitutes it. And in many cases, the wrong circumstance can make the valid sacrament nonetheless illicit, or a sacrilege.
The developed formula summarizing the preceding principle — that the sacrament is made by making the sign — is the Latin phrase "ex opere operato".
So, "how" is this-or-that a Sacrament? Why, the right form being worked upon the right matter. Peters has recently had occasion to emphasize that form, in the case of the sacrament of Marriage is the exchange of consent in clear sign, between the free and baptized man and woman. My point is that all sacraments are that simple. How Peters' other frequent concern, "Canonical Form", impinges on validity is, actually, the much-trickier issue to sort out theologically. It may have something to do with: the Church was always at work in every marriage, pre- or post- codified-Form, but is free to say She will not act henceforth in absence of a Minster-Designate. Something similar is at work in the necessity of Jurisdiction for Confession. (Why She may be unfree or unwilling to similarly prevent sacrilegious confection of the Eucharist, or rogue Orders, I do not know... ) Or it may be that, Canonical Form being codified, complete and free consent itself is absent in the absence of Canonical Form. I do not know. To my recollection, the Council that first imposed Canonical Form did not explain the operation of the impediment.
And that is all I have to say about Sacramentality.
Now, about solubility. Our modern ears suffer a little (English ears, anyways) in that the lovely word "consummation" has, through its recent relative rarity, fallen to the status of Euphemism for the incarnated union of man and woman. But this is a complete inversion of the proper sense of things: "Consummation", fulfilment, isn't something a man and woman can do before they are married, because absent marriage there is no marriage to fulfil.² Peters quotes an expression, “exchange of rights to the body” as from 1917 CIC; but strictly speaking, that exchange of rights has already been given, specifically in the marriage ceremony because that's a great part of what is consented. Rather, the incarnated union of husband and wife is the realization, the enactment of the consent already exchanged. (Enactment both as something done and something real and present). The incarnated union of husband and wife becomes the consummation of marriage in this sense: the Consent Spoken is then Lived.
So consider by way of analogy that other physical Sacrament, the Eucharist, again: the Sacrament is present, Our Living Lord corporeally present, from the time of consecration; but the purpose, the fulfilment of the sacrament has not occurred before one receives Him in Communion — though, Importantly, not all who witness the consecration need then receive Him — but, if one does, what then? Would any change their mind and spit Him out again? Could that ever be good? Heavens forefend!
the undersigned, who admittedly am also single and know anything only from reading and observation
1) write to qnoodles at gmail for details.
2) I do not suggest that Peters suffers such a confusion; merely that he does use the "c" word, that confusion is possible, and would be particularly unfortunate in the present discussion.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Monday, January 29, 2018
ill-constituted ponderings
I read somewhere recently1 (smarter suppliants of the Spiders maybe will be able to find it quickly?) a historian contending that the Mediaeval and similar documents (primarily Magna Carta) such as we would now call constitutions were attempts to codify what "everyone" "here" was already doing; that "Bad" King John had been checked by his barons and given this constitution because he had tried to change the rules. Or some such thing. (The original Carta was promptly invalidated by John deftly submitting his Kingdom as a Direct Subject of the Pope... which gave the Pope ideas... which may, I am fuzzy on tracing the threads through the centuries, have had some bearing on the unfolding of Avignon/Urban/"Consiliarism"... which left Europe ripe with ferment for Luther to sour... oh, that Bad King John...). But a Funny Thing Happened in 1775 in the British Colonies.
The colonists, you see, had got tired of how Westminster wouldn't give them seats (never mind Two Figs that it would take a week to get there, and a week to argue things over, and a week to get back, every time... in Good Weather... once the Colonies had Heard What Was Up in the First Place)... despite Westminster taking as much money as they could manage. You know, the King's business. Anyways, the upshot was that the colonists decided to chuck King George and Westminster, and ... all that. But knowing they didn't want anarchy (most of them) they decided to set down what The Rules ought to have been all along. Which was, mostly, the same as they always had been, but with some pointed Differences, mostly to make the Revolution consistent with the new Constitution (it couldn't be consistent with the Old). This was, I believe, the first instance of a Constitution being an instrument of revolution.
Not long before, the implicit constitutions (which Written constitutions were trying to approximate) had been invented or discovered by Rousseau and given the name "Social Contract". And that's the trouble with giving something a name... the name itself quickly gains a weird life of its own, becomes separated from what it was supposed to be and before you know it, people are putting them on pictures of cats and calling that the "meme".2
In other words, by discovering Social Contract, Rousseau made it possible for Constitutions to exist appart from any natural Social Contract, and in particular to become instruments of Revolution, which is exactly what they did. Nowadays it is still more common for Constitutions to become the excuse for whatever revolution — the Soviet Union, e.g., had a beautiful liberal bill of rights in its constitution, singing poetically the dignity of man and his natural democratic freedom... The trouble was: no-one in Russia had ever lived in a democracy, they had no idea how to maintain one whether as its subjects or its enforcers, and the people who had engineered and operated the whole thing had no intention of actually running the country that way.
Constitutions are only as good as the Tradition they draw on. More: Constitutions are only as good as the Tradition that survives them.
There's another Tradition, related to constitutional disobedience, called in the British nomenclature "muddling through". The Constitutionalist implementation of Muddling is mostly accomplished by Ammendment, though Executive Directive also has its place... A cynical interpretation of Muddling would hold that what we actually do has nothing to do with our written laws at all, but we'll update the old ones now and again to make it look alright. A more moderate interpretation would point out that Circumstances Will Arise which the old written formulas simply have not foreseen and won't work for. A good Catholic will point out that Murder is still, and always, wrong. Anyways, back in Europe, treaties were the reigning instrument of what today we'd call International Law, and all the princes who signed them were entirely used to them being broken and ignored left right and centre. (And then there was that one time, Princedom having become so very tired, when scrupulous obedience to Treaty turned into World War I).
Written Treaty was exported, during the colonial period, to North America, and ... you know what, I wasn't there, neither were you nor your grandfather, it was long long before that. I don't know what either side was really expecting, but I'm quite sure that Strict Observance of Treaty was not in the European mind; I'm pretty sure that Elision of Treaty, or its closest analogue, was also a perfectly ordinary thing among the locals — that I've heard stories of this tribe cheating that other, and burying hatchets, and then fighting again...; and all of whom, by the way, were nomadic, even the farmers. How you understand a teritorial treaty with people who just don't stay put I don't... but anyways. The only novelty to them, I believe, was that the European Treaties were written documents and (in some cases) can still be examined in person.
The European of the time probably thought of the Treaty (I guess), in the old Mediaeval way, as recognizing a pre-existing thing. And because of this, ignoring the same treaty you had written would be not quite a dishonest move: just because a thing existed before didn't mean you agreed it would always be a good idea. Having it written out did mean you could tell when you had to talk things over, again, and that can be a good thing for everyone involved. On the other hand, treaty disobedience could certainly be handled in a bad way, too, and certainly Princes have done wicked things, for their worldly enrichment.
I get the impression that there is, in some among today's younger generations, an idea that those same antique treaties have, unammended, moral binding force on today's living neighbours of the people who have held on to the relevant actual written paper. Never mind that one of the Crowns signing those treaties doesn't exist anymore, and the other has suffered heavy changes to its own "Treaty" with Westminster (or the succeeding local Capital). And it's not that I think what's in them might be wrong or such; it's that I think this is a use that neither signatory of those treaties ever intended them to bear. It's either dishonest or a fundmantal misunderstanding. It's not clear to me that Strict Observance of these particular treaties is any good for either side.
Why not let's sit down and write some new ones? But, do you know? ... I don't much trust the heirs of Westminster, today, either.
1) My memory works in weird ways; and this may be a difficulty that limits my effectiveness as a Scholar... "recently" can mean any time since the last Upheaval in my life, and I just can't pin down when this particular reading happened...
2) We live in a strange world in which the same people of a certain kind simultaneously believes that Incorporeal Creatures by the name of Angels are mythical, or at best nonsense, but simultaneously believe that Elemental Communicable Ideas do have a life of their own, and that people can become "addicted" to them. If that's not some kind of Demonic Obsession, I don't know...
The colonists, you see, had got tired of how Westminster wouldn't give them seats (never mind Two Figs that it would take a week to get there, and a week to argue things over, and a week to get back, every time... in Good Weather... once the Colonies had Heard What Was Up in the First Place)... despite Westminster taking as much money as they could manage. You know, the King's business. Anyways, the upshot was that the colonists decided to chuck King George and Westminster, and ... all that. But knowing they didn't want anarchy (most of them) they decided to set down what The Rules ought to have been all along. Which was, mostly, the same as they always had been, but with some pointed Differences, mostly to make the Revolution consistent with the new Constitution (it couldn't be consistent with the Old). This was, I believe, the first instance of a Constitution being an instrument of revolution.
Not long before, the implicit constitutions (which Written constitutions were trying to approximate) had been invented or discovered by Rousseau and given the name "Social Contract". And that's the trouble with giving something a name... the name itself quickly gains a weird life of its own, becomes separated from what it was supposed to be and before you know it, people are putting them on pictures of cats and calling that the "meme".2
In other words, by discovering Social Contract, Rousseau made it possible for Constitutions to exist appart from any natural Social Contract, and in particular to become instruments of Revolution, which is exactly what they did. Nowadays it is still more common for Constitutions to become the excuse for whatever revolution — the Soviet Union, e.g., had a beautiful liberal bill of rights in its constitution, singing poetically the dignity of man and his natural democratic freedom... The trouble was: no-one in Russia had ever lived in a democracy, they had no idea how to maintain one whether as its subjects or its enforcers, and the people who had engineered and operated the whole thing had no intention of actually running the country that way.
Constitutions are only as good as the Tradition they draw on. More: Constitutions are only as good as the Tradition that survives them.
There's another Tradition, related to constitutional disobedience, called in the British nomenclature "muddling through". The Constitutionalist implementation of Muddling is mostly accomplished by Ammendment, though Executive Directive also has its place... A cynical interpretation of Muddling would hold that what we actually do has nothing to do with our written laws at all, but we'll update the old ones now and again to make it look alright. A more moderate interpretation would point out that Circumstances Will Arise which the old written formulas simply have not foreseen and won't work for. A good Catholic will point out that Murder is still, and always, wrong. Anyways, back in Europe, treaties were the reigning instrument of what today we'd call International Law, and all the princes who signed them were entirely used to them being broken and ignored left right and centre. (And then there was that one time, Princedom having become so very tired, when scrupulous obedience to Treaty turned into World War I).
Written Treaty was exported, during the colonial period, to North America, and ... you know what, I wasn't there, neither were you nor your grandfather, it was long long before that. I don't know what either side was really expecting, but I'm quite sure that Strict Observance of Treaty was not in the European mind; I'm pretty sure that Elision of Treaty, or its closest analogue, was also a perfectly ordinary thing among the locals — that I've heard stories of this tribe cheating that other, and burying hatchets, and then fighting again...; and all of whom, by the way, were nomadic, even the farmers. How you understand a teritorial treaty with people who just don't stay put I don't... but anyways. The only novelty to them, I believe, was that the European Treaties were written documents and (in some cases) can still be examined in person.
The European of the time probably thought of the Treaty (I guess), in the old Mediaeval way, as recognizing a pre-existing thing. And because of this, ignoring the same treaty you had written would be not quite a dishonest move: just because a thing existed before didn't mean you agreed it would always be a good idea. Having it written out did mean you could tell when you had to talk things over, again, and that can be a good thing for everyone involved. On the other hand, treaty disobedience could certainly be handled in a bad way, too, and certainly Princes have done wicked things, for their worldly enrichment.
I get the impression that there is, in some among today's younger generations, an idea that those same antique treaties have, unammended, moral binding force on today's living neighbours of the people who have held on to the relevant actual written paper. Never mind that one of the Crowns signing those treaties doesn't exist anymore, and the other has suffered heavy changes to its own "Treaty" with Westminster (or the succeeding local Capital). And it's not that I think what's in them might be wrong or such; it's that I think this is a use that neither signatory of those treaties ever intended them to bear. It's either dishonest or a fundmantal misunderstanding. It's not clear to me that Strict Observance of these particular treaties is any good for either side.
Why not let's sit down and write some new ones? But, do you know? ... I don't much trust the heirs of Westminster, today, either.
1) My memory works in weird ways; and this may be a difficulty that limits my effectiveness as a Scholar... "recently" can mean any time since the last Upheaval in my life, and I just can't pin down when this particular reading happened...
2) We live in a strange world in which the same people of a certain kind simultaneously believes that Incorporeal Creatures by the name of Angels are mythical, or at best nonsense, but simultaneously believe that Elemental Communicable Ideas do have a life of their own, and that people can become "addicted" to them. If that's not some kind of Demonic Obsession, I don't know...
Thursday, January 4, 2018
False Friends
in this instance, potential Anglo-Polish bemusements.
In Polish, sok is for drinking, skarpety for wearing, and a dywan for walking on; while in English, if you tried to drink your socks or wear a carpet or stand or walk on a divan, ... people would look at you funny.
In Polish, sok is for drinking, skarpety for wearing, and a dywan for walking on; while in English, if you tried to drink your socks or wear a carpet or stand or walk on a divan, ... people would look at you funny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
