Malurgy

[BobHayes]

Especially if there's a faint risk that consistent with Catholic Tradition is code for blasé about historical accuracy.

Absolutely. The quest for historical accuracy is to be applauded; unfortunately some of the manifestations along the road of historical research - the Jesus Seminar springs to mind - foster dissent and outright heresy. I should hasten to add that I am not accusing Gregory Dix of promoting heresy!

[mcb]

Gregory Dix' The Shape of the Liturgy reflects the historical realities of the Anglican liturgy.

Seriously? He's definitely writing about liturgical history from before the C of E was even thought of. Here's the book on line; readers can judge for themselves. (It looks interesting reading, not that I've made it from one end to the other.)

[BobHayes]

I am not questioning the scope or depth of Gregory Dix' work; far from it - it is an impressive narrative with many thoughtful insights. Historical interpretations inevitably reflect the era and context within which the historian is working. Dix' cross-references include the Cheka, Gestapo and Hitler - hardly surprising given that he was writing in 1945. Had he been writing in the 1960s it is likely the Cold War would have figured and in the present century perhaps globalisation. Dix himself candidly noted the challenge:

Where present controversies are bound up so closely with questions of history, it is difficult in the extreme to be sure that one has seen the facts oneself without prejudice, and almost impossible to convey them to the reader in the exact proportion that one understands them without their being interpreted by his prejudices without his knowledge. (p. 614)

Given the ongoing separation of the Anglican Communion from Rome and, for example, its rejection of the Papacy as Successor to Peter are vivid examples of 'present controversies', it is inevitable that the 'side' we are on is very likely to shape our viewpoint. I know which 'side' I am on and I know that it influences my views - thanks be to God.

[Southern Comfort]

Well, thank you, Bob, for your endorsement of one of the classics of liturgical scholarship — by authors of all denominations. I assume you are aware that, as with biblical studies, the denominational affiliation of the top scholars has been an irrelevance for a number of decades now. Today, liturgical and biblical scholarship both benefit from the insights of researchers and teachers across the whole gamut of confessional affiliation.

If they were to bring demoninational bias to bear, they would no longer be respected as reputable scholars. So they don't. Dix didn't. He was one of the liturgical pioneers. While today some of his views have been superseded by more recent scholarship and the availability of further sources and resources, no one (until you) has questioned the level of his scholarship on the grounds of his being an Anglican. I am profoundly shocked.

[mcb]

I know which 'side' I am on and I know that it influences my views

I think we're in trouble if the truth is subordinated to tribal or confessional loyalty. A historian must be evaluated according to the acuity of their insights, not which side they come from. Anything else is sectarianism.

The recent bust up between historians Eamon Duffy and Diarmaid MacCulloch was over MacCulloch's claim -

Duffy ceases to be a Tudor historian who is a Catholic, and becomes a Catholic historian. That will please many, but it's a shame.

Duffy took great exception to this, and his defenders stoutly resisted the idea that he could be described as a mere Catholic historian.

[Peter Jones]

I know which 'side' I am on and I know that it influences my views - thanks be to God.

Bob - just so we know and therefore do not misinterpret your posts - which side is that?

[Peter Jones]

..........I assume you are aware that, as with biblical studies, the denominational affiliation of the top scholars has been an irrelevance for a number of decades now. ......

My own latest acquisition: The Eucharistic Liturgies - Paul Bradshaw (Anglican) Maxwell Johnson (Lutheran)

Review: "......a standard for scholar and student alike for years to come." John Baldovin (Jesuit)

[BobHayes]

Well, thank you, Bob, for your endorsement of one of the classics of liturgical scholarship — by authors of all denominations. I assume you are aware that, as with biblical studies, the denominational affiliation of the top scholars has been an irrelevance for a number of decades now. Today, liturgical and biblical scholarship both benefit from the insights of researchers and teachers across the whole gamut of confessional affiliation.

If they were to bring demoninational bias to bear, they would no longer be respected as reputable scholars. So they don't. Dix didn't. He was one of the liturgical pioneers. While today some of his views have been superseded by more recent scholarship and the availability of further sources and resources, no one (until you) has questioned the level of his scholarship on the grounds of his being an Anglican. I am profoundly shocked.

I have already stated, 'I am not questioning the scope or depth of Gregory Dix' work; far from it - it is an impressive narrative with many thoughtful insights'. I have not questioned the level of his scholarship, but it is widely accepted that even the best academic history will always include nuanced insights that reflect the context within which the author writes. Furthermore I quoted Gregory Dix's own concerns regarding this very matter. Scholars may not bring an explicit denominational bias to their work, but it would be extremely difficult to totally exclude the nature of their faith from their work.

[mcb]

I think you've dug yourself into a hole, Bob. Either Dix's work is 'tainted' by the fact that he's not a Catholic, or it's not. I think the former view is pretty ugly.

[BobHayes]

I know which 'side' I am on and I know that it influences my views

I think we're in trouble if the truth is subordinated to tribal or confessional loyalty. A historian must be evaluated according to the acuity of their insights, not which side they come from.

I agree entirely with your second sentence, but the first troubles me somewhat. It raises the spectre that may lead to us subordinating our faith in the supernatural Holy Trinity to the human discipline of historical research and interpretation.

When we (Catholics and Anglicans) say The Creed we are expressing our belief:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

[Source: Church of England website - http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-w ... creed.aspx]

We do not seek to bolster divine revelation with historical or scientific evidence. We believe and if we have firm belief, then surely it will influence what we think. If we are readily able to set-aside our faith to embrace a supposed 'neutrality', do we really believe?

[mcb]

I think we're in trouble if the truth is subordinated to tribal or confessional loyalty. A historian must be evaluated according to the acuity of their insights, not which side they come from.

I agree entirely with your second sentence, but the first troubles me somewhat.

Blimey. Discussion over, then. (Except for this mischievous aside: if I'd spelt truth with a capital T, would you have felt differently?)

[Peter Jones]

Scholars may not bring an explicit denominational bias to their work, but it would be extremely difficult to totally exclude the nature of their faith from their work.

If you are firm in the faith of the Catholic Church, does that matter? Does it not, as it were, inform you of where the author is "coming from"? For all you know, the author is likely to be acting in both a disciplined, academic manner and concomitantly according to his/her conscience. Following Aquinas' thoughts, Newman would come to state, "I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards." That Dix, unlike Newman, was unable to "cross the Tiber" neither puts he himself beyond the pale nor relegates his writings to whatever the modern equivalent of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum might be - if there is such a thing. Dix, doubtless, followed his conscience.

Do enjoy your Catechism course at Maryvale. Perhaps pay particular attention to questions 830 through to 856 (and even the conciliar documents of which these questions form a synopsis). (See also 1776 - 1794)

[BobHayes]

I know which 'side' I am on and I know that it influences my views - thanks be to God.

Bob - just so we know and therefore do not misinterpret your posts - which side is that?

I know that I am a Catholic and that my Faith influences influences my views. I am merely being candid about my bias.

[alan29]

Given that Dix celebrated using the Roman Missal, as has already been mentioned, thereby rejecting the BCP and its reformed theology, your views about the value of Dix's research would seem closer to prejudice than bias.

[Peter Jones]

I know that I am a Catholic and that my Faith influences influences my views. I am merely being candid about my bias.

Well I'm Catholic too, and probably unlike yourself, I have taken a solemn, public oath to preach and teach the Church's teaching and nothing else. As I said, enjoy your course on the Catechism.... and where that book embraces the subjects of ecclesiology and moral conscience, and you take to heart the Church's teaching, you might find yourself coming over in this forum as a better informed and better Catholic than that which is coming over at the moment. (You've managed to shock one RC cathedral d.o.m. someone who it is rumoured might have a responsibility for liturgy and music in a diocese somewhere, and one diocesan chair of a liturgy and music committee, sometime teacher of fundamental liturgy at a major seminary, so far.)