:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 ::

DISSING SEIG HEIL “CATHOLICISM”:
The Remnant Gets It Right

Every now and then the writers of The Remnant get something right. After all, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Case in point: This year, The Remnant’s January 31 and February 15 editions included a detailed and well-informed two-part article by columnist Michael Cooper exposing the pagan and occult nature of Nazism and –consequently-- its modern offshoots and corollaries, neo-Nazism, Christian Identity, and similar “white nationalist” movements.

That “national socialism” and its racist “blood” ideology was rooted in two strands of “thought,” namely, (1) Darwinism and (2) pre-Christian Nordic paganism (specifically, “Aryan” magic and mythology), has been long-established in academic circles as well as in popular media --e.g., the Indiana Jones movies, and the success of New Age-oriented books like The Spear of Destiny and Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Moreover, the Nazis’ choice of symbols, as Cooper points out, was a dead give-away to those who knew what they meant and where they came from --namely, ancient Germanic occultism and radical forms of Eastern mysticism. The fundamentally pagan nature of Nazism, and the Nazi elite's belief in the magical power of symbols, was not at all lost on certain well-educated people during the early days of Hitler’s rise: One of them was the Papal Nuncio to Germany, one Eugenio Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII. According to Washington Times columnist Donald Devine, "Pacelli had read Hitler’s 'Mein Kampf' as early as 1925 and told fellow diplomats that Hitler was 'obsessed' and a 'new manifestation' of the Anti-Christ. As papal nuncio in Germany, he drove policy on the Nazis, criticizing them 40 times before 1929." (Washington Times, April 30, 2000). In 1935, before a large gathering in Lourdes, France, he denounced Nazism as a "pagan novelty" and “cult of blood and race.” The Church, he said, "will never come to terms with Nazis as long as they persist in their racial philosophy.”

Mr. Cooper opens his article admonishing “Catholics who claim to be ‘traditional’ or ‘conservative’” against flirting with the teachings of Nazism or its spinoffs, and correctly so:

The foundational “theory” of Nazism was the absurd “blood and soil” myth promulgated by occultist and chief Nazi “philosopher” Alfred Rosenberg, published in his 1930 book The Myth of the Twentieth Century: Rosenberg insisted that racial makeup collectively determines an individual's thinking and behavior, up to and including the formation of culture and religion. The Jews, because of their “inferior” Semitic "blood," Rosenberg argued, teach and practice an "unnatural" religion (Judaism) and created its equally "unnatural" offshoot (Christianity). In the eyes of Hitler and the entire Nazi elite, both were equally corrupt and had to be eliminated –the former quickly by enslavement, violence, and (eventually) genocide; the latter gradually by a kulturkampf (“culture war”) of repression, redefinition, takeover, and assimilation --for example, the Nazis' attempt at creating a faux Christianity, the Volkskirche or "German Christianity." (cf., For the Soul of the People by Victoria Barnett [Oxford University Press; 1998])

Thus, from the gitgo “national socialism” was and remains inherently heretical and anti-Catholic. As Pius XI declared in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge (written in German by Pacelli), “national socialism” and all that flows from it is incompatible with Christianity.

Therefore, those within the “traditionalist” movement who --whether self-consciously or unwittingly-- “borrow from” or otherwise give credence to Nazi views or Nazi opinions or Nazi theories (including anti-Semitism and lunatic fringe "international Jew" mega-conspiracy theories) also betray the very Faith they claim to preach and practice. While we’re pleased to see that someone at The Remnant seems to recognize that fact, the real problem is that any professing Catholic would need to be reminded of it.

:: John M. Esparolini 10:59 AM [+] | ::

************************************

The front page of CAI includes the following tidbit worthy of comment: "Since we launched our new website earlier this year, we have no doubt edified our supporters and scandalized and petrified our opponents.”

Some definitions appear to be in order:

The first words of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article “Scandal” read: “According to St. Thomas (II-II, Q. liii, a. 1) scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin. It is a word or action, that is either an external act—for an internal act can have no influence on the conduct of another—or the omission of an external act, because to omit what one should do is equivalent to doing what is forbidden; it must be evil in itself, or in appearance; this is the interpretation of the words of St. Thomas: minus rectum.” Now I’m sure Bob would argue that his site has contributed to the spiritual ruin of those who oppose him (certainly an open question), but how would he address the issue of CAI being “evil in itself”? I'd posit that, should CAI be a "scandal", its impact would be more on the allegedly edified supporters. After all, they're the ones who are having difficulty finding a place in the Body of Christ.

“Petrify” colloquially means “To make rigid or inert like stone”. That plainly hasn’t’ happened, we’re veritably buzzing with activity. Its more literal meaning is “to convert into stone”. Sungenis is many things, but Medusa he ain’t. However there is a metaphoric sense in which CAI has “petrified” CAI’s opponents – it’s pushed us closer to Peter and his successors.

:: Gregg the Obscure 11:38 AM [+] | ::

************************************

"Feeney...Nothing More Than Feeney" Dept.

TWENTY-FIVE EXPLICIT ERRORS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II (and the corrections immediately following)

Michael Malone

I will respond in purple font to the first three questions in Mr. Malone's "explicit errors". The intention is to demonstrate the unfitness of Mr. Malone as a trustworthy source for properly understanding theology in general and Church teaching in particular.

Number One

"This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, continues to exist (subsists) in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines." Lumen Gentium.

Subsistare does not mean "continues to exist". That is an egregious misinterpretation of a traditional Scholastic term. To correct this profound misunderstanding, I quote from my treatise contra "traditionalism":

Subsistence is a specific kind of existence. The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary defines it as "that perfection whereby a being is capable of existing in itself" (Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary pg. 507). Subsistence (Lat. subsistare) is an old Scholastic term used to explain the manner whereby God exists. Unlike all other entities, God does not depend on another source for His existence. Instead, He is fully subsistent. Likewise the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in such wise as she does not depend on any other Church or ecclesial community for she possesses the fullness of grace and truth. The same cannot be said of other Churches or ecclesial communities which depend on the Catholic Church for what degrees of truth that they possess.

So the Church of Christ can be properly said to subsist in the Catholic Church as this denotes existence to the fullest possible extent. Of course since the Church had never fully specified her boundaries explicitly prior to VC II, there was no way of knowing what the exact boundaries of the Church were. This is why the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church would insist on the necessity of belonging to the Church for one to be saved but they never at the same time declared anyone individually not in the visible Catholic Church to be damned. Think about that for a moment: not one Father said that it was not necessary to belong to the Church for one to be saved. At the same time no one who died outside the Church was ever declared to be damned by the Church in all of history (not even Judas). What this says about the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation is that while it is a necessity surely that nevertheless God in the end is the final judge of who is inside the Church (be they implicitly or explicitly so) because only He knows the inner person...

For an example of an "element of sanctification" that can be found outside the visible confines of the Church, consider the sacrament of baptism. When Pope St. Stephen in the mid third century decreed (against the protestations of St. Cyprian) that heretics were not to be re-baptized and the baptisms of heretics even by heretics were valid (as long as they baptized by water in a Trinitarian fashion), consider what he was saying about the Church as the custodian of the sacraments. The Church has always taught that only she was the custodian of the sacraments but heretics can validly baptize as long as they use the proper formula (Trinitarian formula). What this says is that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church always recognized implicitly that God's grace flowed through the Church and that God did not punish those outside the Church who (through no culpable fault of their own) were ignorant. In short, if they were good people who did as best as they knew how the will of God, then they would be justified in God's eyes (Acts 10:34). God only holds us accountable for what we know and only actual unrepented sins bring about our condemnation.

God is infinitely merciful; therefore He cannot judge someone without taking all aspects into account including that they may have been born in a disadvantaged situation. (Being a cradle Catholic is a blessing that far too many people do not realize.) The knowledge of the truth may through situations beyond their control be limited. As long as they are not knowingly resisting the truth then they can in some cases perhaps be saved in spite of the beliefs they hold and not because of them. The rationale here being that a person who knew the necessity of explicit membership in the Catholic Church if they were of good will and desirous of doing as God wills, they would join the Church. This was the rationale behind the concept of baptism of desire and also an implicit witness to the bounds of the Church which for the first time was explicitly set forth in Lumen Gentium, a Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church.

The exposition of the Church in LG is a true development of doctrinal terminology and not an innovation as 'traditionalists' claim it is. However, such an exposition in no way implies that our separated brethren are not to be evangelized of course. Far from it, the Council actually urges Catholics to be more zealous in actively evangelizing our separated brethren as our predecessors in the Faith did. However, the reader needs to ask themselves if they actually see 'traditionalist' groups doing this. Evangelization does not mean (i) getting in people's faces and shouting at them (ii) insulting them by lying about their beliefs or (iii) using coercive means of persuasion. How often do the SSPX or other so-called 'traditionalist' groups engage in true evangelical outreaches??? For those who claim to hold the faith, they are not exactly generous in sharing it with others. And if they deny the rigorous interpretation of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus - which they claim to (Archbishop Lefebvre was a defender of baptism of desire), then they by default profess that the Church of Christ can exist outside the visible boundaries. And to do this is to accept the notion of subsistare.

Traditional terminology of "body" and "soul" sought to explain this mystery but the analogy was flawed in some aspects. By contrast the term subsistare explains the traditional teaching in a manner that fully takes into account the maxim of St. Thomas that God is not bound by the sacraments. (By logical extension, He is not bound to the visible boundaries of the Church in order to save people either.) To accept this principle is to be in accordance with Tradition and also by default to accept subsistare. To reject subsistare is to reject by default Tradition and implicitly accept Feeneyism.

Having clarified that concept properly, let us now see how badly Mr. Malone understands Church teaching.

A) "We must mention another fruitful cause of evil by which the Church is afflicted at present, namely: Indifferentism, that vicious manner of thinking which holds that eternal salvation can be obtained by the profession of any faith, provided that a man's morals are good and decent. Seriously consider the testimony of the Savior that some are against Christ because they are not with Christ, that they scatter who do not gather with Him, and therefore without doubt they will perish in eternity unless they hold to the Catholic faith and observe it WHOLE and INVIOLATE." Pope Gregory XVI

People are not saved because of professing any faith other than the Catholic Faith. However, it is possible to be saved in spite of one's errors if the person erring is doing so in good faith. Pope Gregory was addressing the errors of nineteenth century liberalism. This philosophy held that all religions were more or less equal. Besides, notice that the quote refers to elements of salvation found "outside its visible confines". This refers to the fact that the Church extends beyond its visible structure. Thus all of these quotes are non-applicable since they do not address this point at all.

B) "If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and that of those who have not yet come to the true faith is equal: let him be anathema." I Vatican Council

Vatican II never said anything about equality of condition between Catholics and non-Catholics. In fact, LG explicitly referred to an inequality existing. If Catholics have the fullness of salvation, the Orthodox Churches have less than this, and the Prots have in varying degrees even less still (to say nothing of non-Christians), how can there be an equality??? Further still, the designation of the Prot communities as "ecclesial communities" and not "Churches" properly speaking denotes an inequality. Thus this citation from VC I is non-sequitur.

C) "Neither the true faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church. Neither salvation nor salvation can be found outside the Catholic Church. It is a SIN to believe that there is salvation outside the Castholic Church." Ven. Pope Pius IX

Bl. Pius IX also said the following:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. [Bl. Pius IX: QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE §7]

I guess Pius IX "contradicted" himself. If the reader bothers to read the commentaries of Feeneyites on the above passage, they do everything they can to strip the literal sense of Pius IX's words from context to fit their theology. (Rather than make their theology fit the words of Pius IX.)

D) "All graces given to those outside the Church are given them for the purpose of bringing them inside the Church." St. Augustine

The quote of Lumen Gentium as given by Mr. Malone stops conveniently before the following sentence:

"Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.

Vatican II agrees with St. Augustine. If more proof is needed, consider this from one of his works against the Donatist schismatics:

When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body...All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark". [On Baptism, Against the Donatists]

E) Right Reason: Can "elements" of salvation save anyone, or don't you have to meet the full requirements as commanded by the Voice of God, the Catholic Church?

What Mr. Malone failed to realize is that God can save people however He chooses and in whatever manner He chooses. And while the Church is established for the purpose of saving souls, it is because of His working within her that she has this efficacy. Likewise, for those who are not culpable for being non-Catholics, those who observe the natural law and strive to follow God as best they can in accordance to the dictates of their conscience are not considered to be guilty of willful fault. St. Paul noted this masterfully in Romans 2 and Pope Pius IX in the reference I supplied above gave the exact same rationale.

Can "parts" of truth suffice for the fullness of the Catholic Faith, or is all of it demanded of us, as the Church infallibly teaches?

Those who are aware of the requirement and who do not obey are doomed. Those who are not aware and are incapable of removing this non-awareness by the use of ordinary diligence are not held as liable for it. Coincidentally, this is the very argument that would save Mr. Malone yet he denies it here.

Moreover, did Jesus "constitute and organize" His Church on earth as a "society" or not, rather, as a Body -- His own continuing (subsisting) Body on earth?

Certainly.

The latter has been defined; V2 contradicts this.

No, every Body has a Soul or an invisible animating element. If V2 contradicts this, then Romans 2 contradicts this. And Malone should put aside his griping about V2 and start with St. Paul.

Number Two

"All men are called to this Catholic unity which prefigures and promotes universal peace, and in different ways belong to it, or are related to it: The Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation. Lumen Gentium

This is at least an accurate quote to start with.

A) "It is an error in a matter of divine truth to imagine the Church as invisible, by which many Christian communities, although they differ from each other in theirfaith, are united by a bond that is invisible to the senses. Pope Pius XII

This is a butchered quote from Mediator Dei. Here is the full quote:

Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, ###intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say,### by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.

The Church is not invisible; however she does have an invisible element or an element of mystery to her. And this error involved a belief that the Church was "invisible, intangible, something merely pneumatological". Vatican II taught that the Church (i) had a visible structure (ii) is therefore to some extent tangible and (iii) is therefore not "merely pneumatological". Further still the pope noted the following later in the same encyclical:

As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ," and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. ###For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer,### they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. [Pius XII: Mystici Corporis §103]

B) "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all can be saved." Lateran Council IV Pope Innocent III

Lumen Gentium §14 says the same thing. But the Constitution - along with previous popes - recognized that those outside the visible Church were saved through the Church nonetheless: the degree of the Church's presence in each case of course varying with how much of the fullness of Catholic faith they possessed.

C) "Faith in Christ cannot be maintained pure and unalloyed when it is not protected and supported by faith in the Church. Faith in Christ and faith in the Church stand together. If any man does not enter the Church, or if any man departs from her, he is far from the hope of life and salvation." Pope Pius XI

None of this is being denied. What is instead happening is that Mr. Malone is reading into Pius XI's words things that are not expressed. There is also the element of people erring in good faith, something Mr. Malone may possibly not be forgiven for since he is so insistent on denying this possibility for other people. (Let us pray that God is more compassionate towards him than he was towards others who erred.) Pope Pius XI recognized this principle in his encyclical Rerum Orientalium with regards to the Orthodox separated from the Roman See:

Who then...does not trust Jesus Christ the most merciful Redeemer of men, taking pity upon the sad fate of so many, long astray from the right road, will complete what We have begun, and guide His flock into the One Fold, ruled over by the One Shepherd? A special reason for this hope is that among those nations a very great part of Revelation has been religiously preserved, sincere service is rendered to Christ Our Lord, great piety and love are shown towards His sinless Mother, and devout use made of the Sacraments. [Pius XI: Rerum Orientalium §18]

"Sincere service" means service rendered honestly. To some extent they would be in error certainly but to be honest and err in good faith is not held as culpable by Catholic theology and it never has been. Pius XI in his reference to those "not entering or remaining" in the Church refers in all cases to those who do so culpably. Likewise Lateran IV, Unam Sanctum, and every other dogmatic reiteration of EENS.

D) "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted." Catechism of Trent

The Catechism of Trent is not magisterial. Nonetheless, the same catechism noted the following under Article IX:

A person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity.

Pertinacity means "tenacious", "obstinate", and the like. The same principle applies to the subject of schism. And since what I noted here is in the Introduction of Article IX and Malone's quote is further down in the article, his quote is to be interpreted in light of mine and not vice versa. (For mine qualifies the term "heretic" and by extension "schismatic" and his simply uses the term.) Therefore, the passage that defines the term as it is to be understood takes primacy over the passage that simply uses the term unquantified.

E) Right Reason: To say that the Catholic Church only "promotes" a universal peace which She merely "prefigures" is to declare that such peace was not established in her from the beginning, and indeed that she has not found it herself.

To "prefigure" is to foreshadow or to figure beforehand. So if the Church conributes to the advancement or growth of a universal peace which she possesses beforehand (which she does as "possessing the fullness of truth and salvation" as per Lumen Gentium), Mr. Malone's logic again goes askew.

This contradicts the Mark of the Church which recognizes her as "Catholic," namely Universal. To argue that there is more than one way to belong to the true Church is to destroy another Mark called "One," that is: her unicity.

I guess those poor Oriental Catholic Churches are destroyers of the Church's unity then??? I think not. Yet they belong to the true Church in some ways which are distinct from the Latins. This is what happens when the unlearned and unstable take as univocal a term that is properly understood in the tradition in an equivocal manner.

Number Three

"Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, desire with an explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church, are by that very intention joined to her. with love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own." Lumen Gentium

This quote is also accurately referenced.

A) "It does not suffice to believe. He who believes and is not yet baptized, but is only a Catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation." St. Thomas Aquinas

Nor was Lumen Gentium claiming that the catechuminate was "fully joined" to the Church either. If they were then baptism would be superfluous. What did the Angelic Doctor say about the sacrament of Baptism???:

[T]he sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. ###Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen:### 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for'. [Summa Theologiae", III, 68, 2]

I point to St. Ambrose because Malone will quote him next. But lest anyone have any doubts about St. Thomas, let us recall his dying words:

I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, ###I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church,### in whose obedience I now pass from this life. [The Last Words of St. Thomas Aquinas]

Thus, the teaching of the Roman Church in ecumenical council trumps the opinion of St. Thomas. And this is not merely my opinion but the assertion comprised part of the Angelic Doctor's dying profession of faith.

B) "Now, even the Catechumen believes in the Cross of the Lord Jesus, but unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace." St. Ambrose

See St. Thomas' reference to St. Ambrose's words with regards to a catechuminate above (in that case the Emperor Valentinian). Feeneyites like Malone like to claim that St. Ambrose was merely "expressing the hope that Valentinian was baptised before he died" but the literal sense of the text - as well as St. Thomas' interpretation of St. Ambrose - directly contradict the Feeneyite assertion.

C) "Without the Sacrament of Baptism, no one is ever justified. If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema." Council of Trent

See my reference to St. Thomas and baptism of desire above. Recall also that Trent recognized baptism by desire in its Decree on Justification when it declared:

[A] description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, ###or the desire thereof,### as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. [Trent Session VI: Decree on Justification Ch. IV]

I guess Trent "erred and contradicted itself" right??? My money is on Malone and the Feeneyites misunderstanding and misquoting Trent.

D) "Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without Baptism." Council of Braga (Regional)

The reason this cannot be done publicly is because sacramental baptism is the gateway to all other sacraments or Church benefices. Yet priests are not forbidden to offer masses privately for such people. If no benefit could derive from masses being offered for the sacramentally unbaptized, the Church would forbid masses being offered for them - much as she forbids administering the sacraments to a person deceased. But since she does not, she must recognize value in masses being offered for the souls of the sacramentally unbaptized. Otherwise she would be guilty of profaning the sacred sacrifice by appropriating it for vain purposes. Would Feeneyites make *that* assertion???

E) Right Reason: It is as impossible to be "joined" by our "intention" to the Church as it is impossible to have Electricity By Desire without actually plugging the cord into the socket.

St. Paul disagrees (cf. Romans 2). Besides, if it is possible to commit adultery in ones heart by the mere lustful gaze upon a woman, then the converse is true as well: desire can have the same efficacy as intention. For "[a] desire has the same value in the sight of God as a good work", says St. Gregory the Great, "when the accomplishment of it does not depend on our will". [Fr. RP Quadrupani: Spiritual Instruction on Prayer] I also refer you back to my quote from the Summa above.

And no Catechumen can be "embraced as her own" by a Church which ushers them out of Mass before the Offertory, as is now done in the Novus Ordo around the world (I witnessed this at Sunday Mass in the Fort Worth cathedral).

This is ridiculous. This is akin to the saying that a parent who tells their child to go to bed while they stay up and drink wine and play cards with other adults is not thereby recognized by that parent as their child. St. Paul referred in 1 Corinthians 3 about "feeding milk" because his audience was not capable of receiving certain teachings. Likewise the catechuminate is not capable of fully appreciating the Liturgy of the Eucharist without receiving baptism first. Same principle in both cases.

Point: if they were "joined" "already" and "embraced" as our "own," why were they not allowed to stay? The Movers and Shakers of V2 have self-destructed here.

No, the problem is yet again Mr. Malone's ignorance and instability in the faith. And while I pray that the Lord has mercy on his soul, I do not feel compelled to tolerate these egregious errors which by implication are proximate to heresy. (As they accuse an Ecumenical Council legitimately convoked and universally promulgated by a sitting Supreme Pontiff of contradicting Church teaching.)

Let me see, out of the twelve contrary texts he supplied for these first three, not one single citation withstood scrutiny. Likewise his three appeals to "right reason" also backfired drastically. (In baseball they call this "striking out the side".)

:: Shawn 12:22 AM [+] | ::

************************************

The Site Copyright:
(Lidless Eyes...Be Warned!!!)

It is rather interesting to see the way certain self-styled "traditionalist" groups act when their sources are cited. On the one hand, it is not uncommon for these kinds of people to quote entire articles from other sources without proper approbation but quote a hiccup from their stuff and they posit several line copyrights and a bunch of whining about filing lawsuits and other such schemes. Therefore, it only seems fitting to remind these people that the same standards they hold others to are ones that they are expected to follow themselves.

In this light, The Lidless Eye Inquisition sets forth the following copyright written by good friend and legal eagle "SecretAgentMan". Those who are not self-styled "traditionalists" (or "Lidless Eyes") need not worry about this of course. However, those who *are* do and remember: we here at The Lidless Eye Inquisition declare who is and is not a "Lidless Eye". Having clarified that, here is the site copyright:

The Lidless Eye Inquisition forbids memorizing, remembering, or thinking about any material that appears on this website, unless prior, written permission has been granted from The Lidless Eye Inquisition. This prohibition does not apply to those who use Lidless Eye Inquisition material clandestinely. The prohibition, however, does forbid reproducing, quoting, or mentioning The Lidless Eye Inquisition material to God, angels, or other human beings, whether in conversation, on other websites, emails, blogs, books, barbecues, articles, television programs, dentist visits, documentaries, encyclopedias, laundromats, radio programs, telephone conversations, telegrams, notes (scribbled or otherwise), semaphore, heliograph, sonar, or radar, or any other place where two or more persons are gathered for any purpose, unless prior, written permission has been granted from
The Lidless Eye Inquisition.

:: Shawn 9:10 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Bob Sungenis’ “Reply” to Richard John Neuhaus (Continued)

To read the previous installment of this thread see this link.

In another section of Robert Sungenis’ response to Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ criticism of his organization (links in previous blog) we read the following:

Fr. Neuhaus: The Church teaches that Protestants are damned; Vatican II says they have means of grace and may be saved.

R. Sungenis: I don’t know where the Church has ever taught that “Protestants are damned.” Perhaps Fr. Neuhaus can show us a reference in his next issue of First Things….

Fr. Neuhaus: The Church says that Jews are collectively guilty of the death of Christ; Vatican II says not.

R. Sungenis: First, I don’t know of any dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that says “Jews are collectively guilty of the death of Christ.” Perhaps Fr. Neuhaus can site a reference if he thinks otherwise….

Here Sungenis seems to have completely missed Fr. Neuhaus' points. Here is the section of Neuhaus’ article from which the above “quotes” (in underlines) come:

In another long essay from CAI, we are told that “it appears that Vatican II, in intention but not in fact, did redefine the perennial teaching of the Church.” “That is to say that ‘the Spirit of Vatican II,’ as it is interpreted and applied by the more progressive innovators . . . appears to be exactly in line with what the Council itself intended to present.” The Church teaches that Protestants are damned; Vatican II says they have means of grace and may be saved. The Church says that Jews are collectively guilty of the death of Christ; Vatican II says not. The Church says that religious freedom is a pernicious heresy; Vatican II affirms religious freedom. On each point, the CAI document cites earlier councils, popes, and saints in order to establish the “perennial teaching” of the Church. The unavoidable implication is that Vatican II was a false council and the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II are devoid of magisterial authority. Like his soulmates on the far left, the CAI author has no use for Newman’s understanding of the development of doctrine, an understanding explicitly endorsed by the Magisterium since Vatican II. Every so–called development is, in fact, a radical change, a contradiction, and an effort to reform the irreformable. That Vatican II and subsequent pontificates are heretical is a thought not to be entertained lightly by a Catholic. Our author writes, “Please God, may I be wrong about this. If ever there was a time that I wished to be corrected and proved wrong, this is it.” As it happens, in the essays on my work and on Vatican II, there is not the slightest indication that the author wishes to be corrected, never mind to be proved wrong….

When read in their context, the real meaning of Sungenis' "quotes" become obvious: In these "quotes" Fr. Neuhaus was paraphrasing what he perceived to be Mr. Sungenis’ positions. Neuhaus was not expressing his own.

:: John M. Esparolini 8:09 AM [+] | ::

************************************

On Bob Sungenis' "Reply" to Richard John Neuhaus

[Revised and Updated 2/14/03]

In his response to Fr. Richard John Neuhaus' criticism of the Arlington, Virginia-based Catholic Apologetics International (CAI) in the January 2003 edition First Things, CAI head Bob Sungenis asserts that Fr. Neuhaus "specifically denies the teaching of Pius XI and Pius XII on the necessity of converting individuals to the Catholic Church." He offers as "evidence" of this nothing more than the following anecdote:

...Fr. Neuhaus has a better idea. Here it is, as quoted from his Wheaton College address of April 2002: "Does that mean that the solution to what has happened in the last 500 years in Western Christianity is simply for everybody to pack up and return to the Catholic Church? And the answer is no, that is, number one, that is not stated to be the goal, number two, it is a totally implausible goal..."

But nowhere in his "rebuttal" does Mr. Sungenis provide a reference for this qoute so that the reader may easily look up the source and read Fr. Neuhaus' remarks in their context. Perhaps there's a good reason for Mr. Sungenis', um, "oversight": It seems that the meaning Mr. Sungenis attaches to Fr. Neuhaus' words is not the meaning Fr. Neuhaus intended and communicated to others who heard the same address at Wheaton College, a prominent Evangelical school, in April 2002. (Neuhaus and Evangelical leader Charles Colson spearhead the social issues-and-dialogue-oriented ecumenical movement Evangelicals and Catholics Together.)

For example, Fundamentalist Tom McMahon, executive director of notorious anti-Catholic propagandist Dave Hunt's Berean Call ministry, came away with a rather different interpretation of Fr. Neuhaus' presentation [emphasis via underlines added]:

....Following Neuhaus’s address, in which he presented his own dream of "full communion" of all Christian denominations with Rome, I asked him who would be in charge when this full communion took place. He replied that it was not plausible for everyone to "pack up and return to the [Roman] Catholic Church." He felt such a thing would do "great injustice" to the gifts and works of the Holy Spirit, which have manifestly flourished over the last 500 years "outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church." He sees "full communion" as a "new thing" which acknowledges "the Apostolic Deposit," the "Petrine Ministry... Peter among us [i.e., a Vicar of Christ] to keep everybody in communion."...

If Fr. Neuhaus "denies ...the necessity of converting individuals to the Catholic Church," at least one prominent anti-"Romanist" doesn't seem to think so. The real "problem" is that Neuhaus' thinking on the subject is more nuanced and multi-dimensional than Sungenis' simplistic caricature of it. Ironically enough, Fundamentalists of McMahon's ilk tend to view ecumenical efforts like Neuhaus' as a sneaky "Romish" plot to trick Protestants into becoming Catholics through the back door.

Despite the paranoid spin they put on it McMahon & Co. may be correct --in a way. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day: As noted above, Neuhaus, according to McMahon, envisions an eventual full communion of all non-Catholic bodies and their members with the See of Peter. In other words, he envisions them becoming Catholic. (Whether or not they actually take the name "Catholic" is another matter entirely, and a wholly separate issue.)

Such a position is hardly the same thing as "den(ying) ...the necessity of converting individuals to the Catholic Church," especially since --contrary to what Mr. Sungenis seems to infer from Fr. Neuhaus' statements-- the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

[NOTE: Those who are convinced that Neuhaus "denies ...the necessity of converting individuals to the Catholic Church" would do well to read his own personal testimony about his conversion from Lutheranism to Catholicism. This article was published, ironically enough, in First Things the very same month and year Neuman gave the address at Wheaton College into which Mr. Sungenis reads far more than Neuhaus actually said.]

Continued...

:: John M. Esparolini 6:44 AM [+] | ::

************************************

Can somebody please define Modernist??

One problem with those who reject VII and the post-conciliar Magisterium in content if not in form is the way they bandy about the term "modernist" without ever defining what it means; they simply use it as a catch-all to categorize and demonize those with whom they disagree. Although one would presume that it has something to do with the modernist heresy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, an even cursory survey of that era and what that modernism was reveals little in common with contemporary "modernism".

For instance, an editorial linked (but not written) by Mario Derksen at his website claims that a "coterie of renowned Modernist theologians" had a disproportionate influence at the Council -- for worse, of course -- and it lists them: "Chenu, Kung, Schillebeeckx, Congar, Danielou, Rahner, de Lubac, Ratzinger and the rest."

So whatever "modernism" as understood by this editor means, its is broad enough to include these eight men, whom all have very different theological systems, as anyone who has ever read them could tell you. Unfortunately, those who use the term with reckless abandon these days are like the most notorious of anti-Catholics, in that all to often they tend to "learn" about those they oppose not by reading the actual writers, but by reading the criticisms of others about those held in suspicion. It's sort of like reading Boettner to learn about Catholicism.

:: Unknown 7:13 PM [+] | ::

************************************

The "War and Peace Length" Disclaimer:

As this weblog is finally starting to jell, it is important to have a governing norm established for the participants as well as potential readers and/or critics. The copyright for the weblog cannot at this point be found but the governing norm for the weblog's participants will be established in this post. Though until I can find and post the copyright written by my good friend and attorney "SecretAgentMan", the following will serve as a disclaimer of sorts for this board. (To be supplemented but not abrogated by said copyright upon my locating of the text thereof.)

Though there are sites of this weblog's participants linked to here (by the webmaster), a site linked to this weblog is not to be misunderstood as a blanket or micro endorsement of that site for the materials posted at this weblog therein by the webmaster or by the participants thereof. Nor is participation to be properly constituted as a blanket endorsement by the participant of every element of all things posted to weblogs or sites linked to this weblog by the webmaster. (Or posted to this weblog by other participants including by the webmaster.)

Also, materials posted to this weblog therein are properly understood to represent the opinions of the author who posts them. Inclusion here indicates approval of a macro nature by the participants - properly understood in a generalized sense - and not necessarily a micro nature - meaning in "all parameters" by the participants of this weblog thereof.

In short, we do not march in lockstep at this weblog. We have a common set of beliefs or principles but we have our disagreements in areas where the Church allows for legitimate differences of opinion. Thus the above disclaimer is henceforth and forever lawfully promulgated to this weblog and remains stable and valid in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

:: Shawn 1:14 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Someone recently asked whether TAN books and Publishers were “Traditional”. Here is an expanded reply:

Yes, Tan Books (or more specifically, Thomas Nelson, publisher of Tan Books) IS "traditionalist." Even more specifically, he is a schismatic Catholic member of the spurious Chivalric Order - the Sovereign Military Order of St John of Jerusalem.

The Chaplain of the OSJ is Father James Wathen, O.S.J., who was described by Franciscan Brother. Alexis Bugnolo, as "formerly being a Catholic priest." Fr. Wathen is, of course, the author of "The Great Sacrilege" which sets out to prove that the Novus Ordo Missae IS a Sacrilege and no Mass at all.

TAN Books and Publishers AND Marianland mix bad with the good; selling the works of the schismatics Fr. James Wathen, (O.S.J.), Fr. Anthony Cekada, (former SSPX, SSPV, currently Thucite), Fr.(?)/Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, (Thucite), John Vennari, Atila Sinke Guimaraes (the latter two being “Remnanters”)

Books sold by TAN Books and Publishers and/or Marianland include:

Carre, Marie
"AA-1025: The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle", 1991 .- Marianland
   (A fictional work of the imagination!)

Cekada, Fr. Anthony:
    "The Ottaviani Intervention", 1992 - Marianland
    "The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass", 1991

Coomaraswamy, Fr.(?)/Dr. Rama P.
    "The Problems With the New Mass", 1990. - Marianland
    "The Problems with the New Sacraments" - Marianland

Guimaraes, Atila Sinke
    "In the Murky Waters of Vatican II - Marianland

Vennari, John
    "Permanent Insiruction of the Alta Vendita" - Marianland

Wathen, Fr. James F.
    "The Great Sacrilege", 1971 - Marianland
    "Is the Society of St John Masonic?" - Marianland

For more information of the OSTites:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/weave.htm

http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/bbosj.htm

http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/bbosj1.htm

http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/bbosj2.htm

http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/bbosj3.htm


My advice is to purchase your books from a reliable Catholic supplier - even if it does costs more.

Sean Ó Lachtnáin

:: Anonymous 8:56 PM [+] | ::

************************************

QUOTE OF THE MONTH:

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."
--Jaroslav Pelikan

:: John M. Esparolini 8:56 AM [+] | ::

************************************