:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 ::

Rad-Trads Again

I have said that I don't go to the "Restore the Church" blog. My Rad-Trad friend knew this, so he sent me posts from that blog. Not a link, but the text itself. I said I will not respond to it as much, but that does not mean I will not respond at all. Since Kevin has again lied, I will expose it.

KevinWhat about the people the pope has mislead? Apolonio asks. This is quite a telling statement in and of itself. This vindicates the traditionalist position, that the Pope, while probably(and I would say surely) meaning good, he has misled people. That means the Pope has done quite wrong.


Response:
This of course is a lie. The question Adrian asked was, "What **if** the Pope is really misleading the people?" The question was a theoretical question. What IF he did? What should we do? I didn't say he did.

Kevin
Yet according to Apolonio, we aren't to state the obvious, just pray. In other words, act one way externally, yet another way internally. In short, Apolonio has just inadvertently advocated hypocripsy.

Response:
First of all, one is allowed to criticize. However, one should criticize or complain TO ROME, not to man about Rome. I have said this many times and to him before. He simply does not understand it. Donum Veritatis said,

"If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments. In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth." (Donum Veritatis, 30) (This specifically pertain to a theologian)



Second, Adrian asked, "What ELSE CAN WE DO." In other words, one can we do other than complaining to Rome. Third, yes, we can simply "just pray." It's not my fault Kevin does not put primacy on prayer. I put a heavy primacy on prayer just as many of the saints did. Read any spiritual writer and they will emphasize prayer. And why can't we just pray? What did St. Monica do other than pray? She relied on prayer and God did the rest. Kevin simply doesn't have faith in God that He can turn things around. Prayer can do more than what we can do. Kevin doesn't see this at all. Fourth, it isn't hypocrisy. One can disagree with the Pope, but not criticize him publically (criticizing Rome to man instead of criticizing Rome herself). Cardinal Biffi didn't. Where has Cardinal Biffi wrote anything about Assisi? Of course he didn't go. But where do you see the criticism of it like that of the Rad-Trads? Nothing. Praying for Rome and not doing anything publically is not hypocrisy. This is just bad reasoning.

Kevin
He then tries to defend the idea we shouldn't preach hell, since the Pope doesn't emphasize hell. We are not taught about hell, hence, many people no longer really think it is there, and if it is, then in reality, the only ones there are fallen angels! He talks about the massive suffering that his Holiness has gone through.



Response:
I never said we shouldn't preach hell. I said, "Did he forget the doctrine of hell? Of course not. He simply does not emphasize on it." One can teach hell without emphasizing on it. John Paul II has taught the existence of hell, but did not emphasize on it. He and the Catechism has taught that if you reject God, you will go to hell. This is self-evident. I NEVER said we SHOULDN'T preach hell. This is a lie again. He might say, "Well, didn't you say we shouldn't preach hell to these people?" And as I have always answered, the Pope believes that preaching hell would scare people away and will give the impression of the same old "convert or go to hell". However, Pope John Paul approaches evangelization differently and we shouldn't criticize him for that just because his approach is different. Does this mean that **we** shouldn't or can't? Of course not. It simply does not follow.

Kevin
I eagerly await how either Apolonio(or Shawn McElhinney whom he consulted) is willing to argue that global governance ran by an organization that directly contradicts the Catholic faith, demonizes her morality, and runs independent of God is somehow a good idea for Catholics

Response:
This is really funny since Kevin is the one who has problems with John XXIII's encylical . He has the burden of proof to prove it. He also emailed me about this and I told him to give proof. He said

"what about paragraphs from 100 on, where he states no war is just nowadays, considering the advent on nuclear weapons, and the inability of the current states to bring about the universal common good, so therefore a worldwide body is neccessary, he then states the United Nations as this group. That is particulary around paragraph 130 and beyond I believe, can't remember the exact quote, gimme about an hour or so and i'll present it. Yet what are your thoughts on that, considering you seem to think he hasn't advocated global governance?"

I sent him a Instant Message about this, asking him to show specifically how it contradicted the faith, but he said he was busy. He said he will send me the email either that night or the day after. I never received any email. And I AM STILL WAITING. It's a nice try though, trying to shift the burden of proof.

It's funny though. First, Kevin criticized the Church for its ambiguity. Then, he criticized the Pope's actions. Now, he will criticize an encyclical of John XXIII. I wonder how far he will go. Pius XII said we must give some sort of assent to teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. and Vatican 2 said we must give religious submission of mind and will to the authentic Magisterium. Dr. Ott said,

"The ordinary and usual for of Papal teaching is not infallible...Neverthless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See. The so-called "silentium obsequiosum" does not generally suffice." (FCD, pg 10)

Ratzinger also stated,

"Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest"." (Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fidei, 10)

We Catholics know that Although the acts of the Authentic Magisterium do not possess the charism of infallibility, its acts are not devoid of divine assistance.
Vatican 1 said:

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. (1, Session 4, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, ch. 3, nos. 2-3)

I wonder how far Kevin will go. I await his criticism of John XXIII and the Living Magisterium.

:: Ap 12:11 AM [+] | ::

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

Dialogue with Adrian

To read the previous installment of this thread see this link. To start from the beginning of this thread go HERE.

Adrian: Hey Apolonio

Apolonio: Hey there. I posted my response.

Adrian: Yes I know. Thank you for the books by the way.

Apolonio: No problem. What's up?

Adrian: Ready to have another dialogue?

Apolonio: Sure :-)

Adrian: It's about talking to the Muslims again.

Apolonio: Cool. I was about to write an article on that.

Adrian: I still don't understand why we should have an ecumenical dialogue with them.

Apolonio: Actually, it is not an ecumenical dialogue. Ecumenical dialogue is between the Church and baptized Christians. The proper term should be interreligious dialogue. I forgot this as well.

Adrian: But why does the Church prefer to have them anyway?

Apolonio: Because the Church is a Person.

Adrian: So?

Apolonio: This means that the Church is not an object, but a subject. This is also why the term "subsist" in Vatican 2 is important. It spoke of the Church as a subject, though before, it spoke of its nature.

Adrian: And?

Apolonio: Well, this is crucial because it counter-attacked individualism, which was spreading the world. It attacked individualism by personalism. In speaking of personalism, Donald DeMarco said, "At the metaphysical center of personality is a capacity to give oneself as a person and to receive the gift of another person...Personality shares its own cultivated life with the lives of others. In the process of developing this personal communion with others, dialogue is required." Since the Church is a Person, then she will have a dialogue as well.

Adrian: Ok, ok, ok. I don't like philosophy..lol

Apolonio: Well, you ought to understand it since it clearly shows that the Church has adopted some personalistic views. I suggest you read "Ut unum sint."

Adrian: Okay, I will. But what did it do for Muslims? They are still aggressive aren't they?

Apolonio: Maybe, but we have some progress. John Loughnan posted a progress.

Adrian: But do you know how many conversions it had?

Apolonio: No and I don't think you do don't have any evidence that it didn't. But let me put the question around. Show me evidence that non-dialogue with Muslims worked. Show me evidence of conversions from non-dialogue. I see the evidence points otherwise. I see that from time to time, Muslims has grown. I guess non-dialogue doesn't work! As Belloc said,

"Whatever the cause be, Mohammedanism has survived, and vigorously survived. Missionary effort has had no appreciable effect upon it. It still converts savages wholesale. It even attracts from time to time some European eccentric, who joins its body. But the Mohammedan never becomes a Catholic. No fragment of Islam ever abandons its sacred book, its code of morals, its organized system of prayer, its simple doctrine."

Adrian: No, I don't have any evidence. But I believe there are some conversions before. I also know that there is no conversions or at least, mass conversions from these dialogues. In fact, it created more terrorism.

Apolonio: No, it didn't create more terrorism. It didn't *cause* it.


Adrian: I retract then. But how do you explain things like 9/11

Apolonio: If I am not mistaken, that is against the U.S. And yes, there might be persecutions, and that is why we are trying to soften their prejudice. Fulton Sheen said there was prejudice with the Muslims and charities softened it a little.

Adrian: Sorry to cut this short, but I gotta go.

Apolonio: Okay. God bless.

Continued...

:: Ap 11:24 PM [+] | ::

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

A Response to Adrian

To read the previous installment of this thread see this link. To start from the beginning of this thread go HERE.

This will be a response to Adrian's email. His words will be under "Adrian" and my response will be under "Apolonio".

Adrian
Apolonio,

I read your post on obedience and "complaint". However, what else can we do? What if the Pope is really misleading the people? Shouldn't we do something about it? Shouldn't we lead people to truth? What would you do?

Apolonio
What we can do might be limited. However, we have something which is the most effective and I believe every saint will agree with me on this one. Actually, I agree with them, since it is their idea I am borrowing. What we can do is pray.

The first thing we pray about is ourselves. Are we really following God? We have to pray that we are not the one in error. And this probably takes time since we are very conceited at times and it takes a while to make us think we are wrong. So we have to pray that we are truly believing God's Word.

Then, we pray for the Pope. We pray that he do His will. Either you know it or not, many Rad-Trads tell me that they pray for their bishop's or the Pope's death. I remember a Rad-Trad saying, "If the Pope is evil, then we should pray that God take his soul immediately so he doesn't hurt the Church." This again, shows that they are spiritually immature. I thought Catholics were supposed to pray for the good of people's souls. And that is what I have learned. If the Pope is evil, we have to pray that God change His heart. We must remember that the Pope is a person before he was a Pope. This means he has a soul. And this means that we have to pray for his soul. We have to pray that he becomes a great Pope.

And what about the people he has mislead? We can pray for them as well. We have to pray that they come back to Jesus. We have to pray for them as if were praying for our own souls. Thus, "pray for others as you will pray for about yourselves." And that's probably the only thing I would do. Pray your best and God will do the rest. Trust in God that He will turn things around. Only He can turn things around, not you.

And for a little defense of John Paul II. Many people criticize him for things like Assisi and the Koran. But I am sure he prays for them more than we do. He prays that they come to Jesus. I am confident that they will turn to Jesus. Those Rad-Trads who don't "see" any conversion simply lacks faith. What if they were Abraham? Would they abandon God because He didn't give them a son? It took Abraham a long time to get his son didn't he? Have faith and hope that God will convert people.

That's basically my advice to you, as well as "complaining" to Rome. You can always write to Rome about your concerns. And if that doesn't work, then you better get down on your knees. You might not like this advice, but it worked for St. Monica.

Adrian:
I also don't think John Paul's statements on hell justifies him for not teaching about it.

Apolonio
You mean the statement:


After the experience of concentration camps, gulags, bombings, not to mention natural catastrophes, can man possibly expect anything worse from this world, an even greater amount of humiliation and contempt? In a word, hell?"


First of all, as a Catholic, you should be understanding. John Paul suffered a lot and his experience influences his decisions. You have to remember that he went through a lot of things and at the same time, offering it up to God. From this, we should listen to him because he is wise. Second, have you ever been to a third world country? It is not as bad as concentration camps, but it is quite an experience. When I went to a third world country, I saw the poor and couldn't believe my eyes. After being there for a while, I even said to myself, "Debating is meaningless. Look at all these people." All I wanted to do was love them and help them out. It literally causes you to have a love for humanity. It causes you not to condemn anyone or at least, lessen your condemnation. This is why you rarely hear Mother Teresa condemn anyone or anything. Third, I suggest you read any holocaust survivor book. Viktor Frankl's books are good. You should read what he has experienced. Imagine yourself experiencing this. Imagine that you have lost all your "identity" and was treated as an object, basically, nothing. You didn't have your cushioned sofas, clothes, or your house. You probably wouldn't care about anything, even hell, because you *are* in hell. That is what John Paul means by those statements. Did he forget the doctrine of hell? Of course not. He simply does not emphasize on it. Hopefully, someday, you will understand. Hopefully, you will understand that John Paul is a great man. As Malcolm Muggeridge said,

"The Pope is a brave man and a tough man . . . he is an admirable choice as Pope precisely because he has been a cardinal in a communist country and therefore knows at first hand what it means to be at the mercy of an atheistic, tyrannical regime . . . His experience makes him - when faced by hostile movements or undermining tactics such as "liberation theology" in Latin America - the best champion to strengthen the authority of Pope and Church. And that strengthening is sorely needed in an irreligious, materialistic world, even at the cost of a certain conservatism." ({My Life in Pictures, NY: William Morrow & Co., 1987, p. 104, from Armstrong's website}

Continued...

:: Ap 2:35 PM [+] | ::

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

A Note About a Blog


I got an email saying:

Apolonio,

If you don't know by now, the people from the "Restore the Church" blog have mentioned your name, responding to your claims on your post. Are you going to answer them?

Anonymous

Response:
Ah yes, the Restore the Church blog. About Kevin's post on ecumenism. As I have privately emailed him, he misrepresented my view. On his post on obedience, I believe the "Spirituality and Rad-Trads" posts are enough for now. On Ian Palko's "On Martyrdom", I have a few comments. He said.

"What we need is not political posturing and kind gestures, but real faithful action, and Martyrs to stand up for the Faith and give their lives for it if necessary."

Of course we need good martyrs to stand up for the faith. It is the blood of martyrs, I believe, which develops doctrine, since they are the closest to Christ. However, what we also need is less persecution from these Muslim countries. And John Paul II is trying to do that by having a dialogue. The Christians from the Muslim countries agree with me that the persecution ought to stop and I believe Ian believes that as well. John Paul II knows this and so does Rome. So how do we stop it? By dialogue. Again, as I have quoted many times, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange said,


"It might be expedient for such to associate commonly with pagans and Jews in order to forward the work of their conversion, at least negatively, by softening of prejudice...And if a doubt were to arise about the sufficiency of reason, the bishop should have the decisive last word." (The Theological Virtues: Volume One On Faith, B Herder Book Co [1965], page 417)

And Kevin said about the new member:

"Hello everyone, please welcome Corey Zelinski to the Restore the Church team, a very intelligent youthful traditionalist, with aspirations of becoming a priest for Tradition. Welcome to the team Corey."

Corey Zelinski by the way, might be joining the SSPX, which Kevin himself believe is schismatic. I don't know how joining the SSPX would be a "priest for Tradition". If I am mistaken on this issue, I will retract. However, I have talked to Corey and others about this and he explicitly said that he was thinking of joining.

And about Corey's post on "True and False Obedience". First of all, I have talked to Corey many times online. And everytime we talk, he always tells me that he does not want to debate. I have already discussed with him things such as the Pope kissing the Koran. Of course, he does not interact and make statements such as "Come on, you don't even want to see our side or at least, interested that there might be another side to this." Such an argument is a liberal one, who accuses people that they should be open-minded. And then he writes a blog on me. That is nothing but a cheap shot. I was willing to debate him on this issue but he didn't "feel like it." [1] He attempted to refute what I said, but when I confronted him "face to face", he doesn't feel like defending what he wrote.

But let me respond to one of the things he wrote. He said,

"We do not judge the orthodoxy of the Pope, or the state of his soul - it would be most assuredly outrageous to arrogate that right to ourselves."

This might be his view, but it is definately not the view of the many Rad-Trads I have talked to. Many says he is a heretic. Even his colleague in his own blog judges the Pope. Jacob Michael for example says the Pope is a universalist. I would think if a person thinks the Pope is a universalist, that would be judging his orthodoxy. And also Mario Derksen. I don't think I have to remind everybody of what he believes.

And that's the problem with the blog basically. They claim to defend "Traditionalism". However, whenever I make a critique, they will say I misrepresented their views. The answer to that is simple. When I make a critique if Rad-Tradism, I don't think of them all the time. They are not the only people who claims that they are traditionalists. There are many Rad-Trads, for example, who believes John Paul II is a heretic or heterodox. However, Kevin, I believe, don't believe that. He then claims they have unity-by-diversity. Let me remind people of what Kevin said about this. He said,

"I agree in a unity by diversity, but what kind of diversity? Do we have liberal modernists coinciding with people who are Orthodox? Absolutely not, and that's a situation we should never settle for, we must be vigilant. Now if he means diversity by Marionite and Latin, or something of that sort, where we still believe the same, yet there are some different nuances in the way we worship, then I'm all for that type of diversity."

Of course, what he does not mention is that they also allow schismatic groups such as the SSPX of which Mario Derksen and Corey are very fond of. He criticized me for my defense of allowing von Balthasar's theory of "hope of hell being empty". Was von Balthasar in schism? No. He died inside the Church. But they will permit a schismatic group. A very nice blog indeed!

I will try not to respond as much to that blog anymore. They are not the only Rad-Trads out there. At times, it gets useless. But I will interact with them if they would want to debate on a particular issue. Kevin and I were debating on the Assisi event a couple of weeks ago and it lead to his criticism of John XXIII, which by the way is an encyclical and it needs some sort of assent as Pius XII and Vatican 2 taught. He is probably working on it. Again, I have to remind you that they are not the only Rad-Trads out there. But it's good to know that I kept them busy for a week. I mean, they mentioned me at least 4 times in a week! I didn't know they like me so much! :-)

JMJ
A.L. III

[1] We were on a chat and I have other people to prove this point

:: Ap 9:51 PM [+] | ::

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

Is it Okay to Complain?

It depends. Fulton Sheen said that we are allowed to complain even to God. Even Mary "complained" after looking for Jesus for three days, asking why He made them worried. But there is a difference about complaining to God and complaining to man about God. There is always a time where we do not understand why things happen to us, more specifically, suffering and trials. And when that time comes, I believe, we can complain to God, asking, "Why God, do you do this to me? I tried to do everything for you and you give me this? Please make me understand." The last sentence might not even be said because we are usually angry when things don't go our way. But God is a wonderful Father and I believe He understands. Fulton Sheen said,

"God does not frown on your complaint. Did not His Mother in the Temple ask: 'Son! Why hast thou done so to us>' And did not Christ on the Cross complain: 'My God! Why hast Thou abandoned Me?' If the Son asked the Father, and the Mother the Son--'Why?' Why should not you?" (In the Fulness of Time, pg. 97)

However, there is one thing we should not do. We should not complain to man about God. In other words, we should not tell our friends, "I just don't know. I have done everything for God and He is giving me suffering and trials." It just shows that you are not willing to see God's purpose in your trials. Fulton Sheen said, "Talk not about God, as Satan did to Eve: 'Why did God command you?' But talk to God as Christ to His Father...They who complain to others never see God's purposes. They who complain to God find that their passion, like Christ's, turns into compassion."

And this should also be our attitude with our Church, specifically, Rome. If you are to complain, complain to Rome. How many Rad-Trads actually wrote a letter to Rome telling her their concerns? Isn't this how it was done in the Early Church? Did not the Church Fathers ask Rome for help in times of trouble? Or did they publically criticize Rome for not dealing with the problems? They wrote to Rome, and when Rome spoke, case is closed.

Maybe an action of John Paul II offended you. What do you do? Criticize him publically? Of course not. That would be spiritual immature. What we must do is to pray, asking God that we see His plan in his actions. But we should never attack the Holy Father like what many Rad-Trads do. If something doesn't seem right, we can complain to Rome if we think something is wrong, but we should not complain to man about Rome, like writing anti-Rome articles.

One example is the Pope kissing the Koran. As I said, it would take a spiritual immature person to criticize him publically for it. However, I never said that it was not okay to disagree with him. One can simply disagree with John Paul II on the issue of Assisi and kissing of the Koran and still not publically contradict him. But one may object, "How come St. Paul rebuked St. Peter publically?" Two simple answers. One, St. Paul was not a layman. And two, you are not St. Paul. Well, what about Catherine of Sienna? Well, you are not Catherine of Sienna. Is your level of spirituality the same as that of St. Catherine and St. Paul? And when they complained to the Pope, did they complain to the Pope or to man about the Pope? Many of the Rad-Trads do the latter. They write blogs, articles, and books complaining to man about the Pope.

Do you think that Pope Pius IX would permit this kind of criticism because one does not agree with his interpretation of "Outside the Church, there is no salvation"? Did not the pre-Vatican 2 Pope Gregory say,

"What more can I say about you lay people? I have nothing else to say except that it is not permitted for you to speak concerning ecclesiastical matters. (Commisium Divinitus, 6)"

If we really want to be pre-Vatican 2, then we should follow what Pope Gregory have said. Isn't this part of the perennial Tradition of the Church? Or is it that the Rad-Trads are cafeteria Catholics who only want to pick out what they want from Tradition? I am not really sure. But as for me, I will not believe Tradition unless it be moved thereto by the Catholic Church.

And one might argue, "Well, I have written to Rome and they have been silent about it." Is not God silent in some matters? Do you expect God answer every of your questions? Maybe what you want is not what God planned it to be. I would rather have a silent God rather than having to hear all the attacks of Rome by the Rad-Trads. How we respond to God's silence is what makes us either spiritually mature or spiritually immature.

JMJ
A.L. III

:: Ap 4:02 PM [+] | ::

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

Spirituality and Rad-Trads part 2

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

"It is only in obedience that we grow in wisdom." -- Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

I asked my friend Adrian, who is a Rad-Trad, if he has read any spirituality books. He said no. He admitted that his view of the Church is more Apologetic. I know that he is not the only Rad-Trad who has this kind of view. Some even have a political view of the Church. But no matter what kind of view they have, they are missing the "spiritual view". And that is the problem.

When one reads spirituality books, one will find that it always give an emphasis on obedience. As St. Francis de Sales said, "The Devil does not fear austerity but holy obedience. (Thigpen, 156)" This is because an obedient person cannot be controlled by the Devil. He is controlled by God. An obedient person knows that he himself is nothing. He himself cannot judge a person who is higher than himself. An obedient person is a person who knows that he knows nothing and he needs to be lead. An obedient person is one who looks at the man in the white robe and say, "He leads and I follow." He is the person who says to himself, "Who am I to criticize my Holy Father?" An obedient person is one who knows that he is blind and as St. Joseph of Cupertino said, "Obedience is a little dog that leads the blind. (ibid)"

When we were little, we use to think that our parents are dumb and unjust. We use to say things like, "Hey! How come he can go to the mall?" or "How come I get punished and they don't?" We simply could not understand. And when we get older, we see that our parents get smarter and smarter. This is the same with our Holy Father. We might see that some of the things he does is unjust like excommunicating Rad-Trads but not liberals. But what we might not see is that God is doing this for a purpose. We might not know exactly what the purpose is, but we should know that the purpose is good. In other words, we must abandon ourselves and trust in the Divine Providence. As St. Vincent de Paul said, "The mind must be ever on the alert to discover the indications of Providence, and the will prepared to carry them out. (ibid, 155)" So when a Pope makes a "liberal" a Cardinal, we should know that this is the plan of God. When a Pope teaches something, we must obey and not disobey. Those who have obeyed have been those who are known to be orthodox. Tradition tells us that obedience to authority has always been the rule of orthodoxy. Those who have dissented are those who have fallen into heterodoxy. Luke Rivington said:

"The history of the Church consists of the record of her perpetual proposal of divine mysteries to the human intelligence, and of the acceptance or repudiation of her authority by a nature wounded through the fall in Eden. One result of that fall is the reluctance that men feel to submit to a master. There is no man that is not called at some time of his life to sacrifice his natural love of independence in obedience to authority. But it is not evey man that will bind his intelligence on the mount of sacrifice and merit to receive it back again from God in a new supernatural life...The history of the Church is, therefore, the history of a series of conflicts between authority and the rebellious instincts of our fallen nature, which protests agianst rule, dominion, and lordship, even though submission be the portal of Paradise itself." (The Primitive Church and the See of Peter by Luke Rivington, Longmans, Green, and Co., London and New York, 1894, pg. 153)

I believe that spirituality is what most Rad-Trads lack. There is a "dimension" which they simply do not see. Spiritual truths are truths which has its source in the heart and through the head. Other truths touch the heart from the intellect. And this I believe is what most Rad-Trads have. However, they do not have some of the "spiritual truths" for them to see the "whole picture." A person who is spiritually mature will see the words of a Pope as something which is part of the Divine Providence while a spiritually immature person will look at it in a legal sense. Basically, Rad-Trads look at the Magisterium in a legal way and those who are spiritually mature look at the Magisterium in an organic way.

A spiritually mature person will not even think of disobedience. He will not dissent from the Pope's teaching, because such an idea is absurd in his mind. He will always follow the Pope wherever he goes. As John Newman said:

"Our duty is,—not indeed to mix up Christ's Vicar with this or that party of men, because he in his high station is above all parties,—but to look at his formal deeds, and to follow him whither he goeth, and never to desert him, however we may be tried, but to defend him at all hazards, and against all comers, as a son would a father, and as a wife a husband, knowing that his cause is the cause of God. And so, as regards his successors, if we live to see them; it is our duty to give them in like manner our dutiful allegiance and our unfeigned service, and to follow them also whithersoever they go, having that same confidence that each in his turn and in his own day will do God's work and will, which we have felt in their predecessors, now taken away to their eternal reward." (Pope and Revolution)

Just think of it this way. Are you 100% certain that you are criticizing the Pope justly? Are you 100% certain when you say that the Pope's teachings is heretical or contrary to the Magisterium? If not, just pray that come judgment day, God will not say, "You have disobeyed me. I spoke through my Vicar and you did not listen." You would not want to be one who went against God's Vicar.

We "neo-conservatives", "neo-Catholic", here at Lidless Eye however, will be known as those who defended Peter and his chair, however little it may be. , knowing that "God desires the least degree of obedience and submissiveness more than all those service you think of rendering Him. (St. John of the Cross)"

This is not blind obedience. What is blind is us and therefore, we need to be lead.

JMJ
A.L. III

:: Ap 6:48 PM [+] | ::

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

Spirituality and Rad-Trads

I was talking to my friend Steve the other day about how Rad-Trads attack the Pope for kissing the Koran. He is much smarter and I always ask opinions of those who are smarter and wiser than me. I gave him a link to this blog and he read my post on John Paul II and Islam. He said it was very good. The next thing he said was, "To criticize John Paul's action is to be spiritually immature." My friend Steve is very informed about his faith. He loves his faith and lives it. He reads a lot of things, but does not follow the debates between the so called "conservatives" and the Rad-Trads. But when we were talking about how Catholics themselves attacking the Pope for kissing the Koran, he said, "To criticize John Paul's action is to be spirituall immature."

So it's not just the Inquisitors who believe that to criticize the Pope is to be spiritually immature, but other people as well. I have experienced this with my many debates with them. Why would anyone criticize the Pope for such an action? As I have shown, at least the more plausible explanation, it was an act of politeness.

This also goes for John Paul asking John the Baptist to protect Islam. I was taught from childhood, from my parents and my Franciscan nun aunt, that we should love Jesus and our neighbor. To love our neighbor means to not look for bad things over a person. I also learned this from Fulton Sheen. And this was also the spiritual maxim of Teresa of Avila. She said, "Do not think of the faults of others, but of what is good in them and faulty in thyself.(#28) " He said that people with pride are those who look for evil things in a person. At the same time, I also learned that when a person speaks, we should always interpret his words in the most charitable way. This is called the Ignatian principle of charitable interpretation I believe. How about when our Holy Father speak? I would think that when people with higher authority speaks, I would be extra-charitable. For example, we may not be as charitable to our brothers and sisters, but we will always give more respect and be more charitable to our parents. St. Francis of Assisi said that even when he meets the worst priest, he would give honor and bow down and receive a blessing. In our day, we may not give honor as much anymore, but when a Pope speaks, we must give him more honor because he has higher authority. Again, we must try to follow St. Teresa of Avila's instruction of, "Be ever ready to perform the duties of obedience, as if Jesus, in the person of the prior or superior, had laid His commands upon thee. (#26)"

There are also times when Rad-Trads say, "John Paul II is contradicting past magisteriums! He cannot invent new docrtrine!" What do we say? Obey. Obedience always come first. The Holy Rule of St. Benedict Chapter 5 on Obedience says:

"The first step of humility is unhesitating obedience, which comes naturally to those who cherish Christ above all. Because of the holy service they have professed, or because of dread of hell and for the glory of everlasting life, they carry out the superior's order as promptly as if the command came from God himself. The Lord says of men like this: No sooner did he hear than he obeyed me (Ps 17[18]:45); again, he tells teachers: Whoever listens to you, listens to me (Luke 10:16). Such people as these immediately put aside their own concerns, abandon their own will, and lay down whatever they have in hand, leaving it unfinished. With the ready step of obedience, they follow the voice of authority in their actions. Almost at the same moment, then, as the master gives the instruction the disciple quickly puts it into practice in the fear of God; and both actions together are swiftly completed as one...For the obedience shown to superiors is given to God, as he himself said: Whoever listens to you, listens to me (Luke 10:16). Furthermore, the disciples' obedience must be given gladly, for God loves a cheerful giver (II Cor 9: 7). If a disciple obeys grudgingly and grumbles, not only aloud but also in his heart, then, even though he carries out the order, his action will not be accepted with favor by God, who sees that he is grumbling in his heart. He will have no reward for service of this kind; on the contrary, he will incur punishment for grumbling, unless he changes for the better and makes amends."

Applying this rule, when you think that it is not wise if the Pope teaches a doctrine or do things like kiss a Koran, we must forget what we think is best for the Church and obey the Pope instead. Philip Lawrence, OSB comments:

"Even when we think that the superior is stupid or wrong or stubborn, strong obedience gives us a wonderful grasp of what it means to seek God's will and not ours. We must face the modern thinking that says that we should seek truth together and discern it together."

and he also said:

"Obedience teaches us that we don't have to have the final say on most things—in fact, on nothing except that which is immoral, and most of us will not have to deal with a person like Hitler in our lives."

A person who is spiritually mature will not ask things such as, "What if he tells us to murder my mom?" He will not try to even think of that. But what exactly is the answer? It is common sense that if it is self-evidently immoral, we should not do it. However, it is not in the nature of the Papacy to declare something like that. So the Rad-Trads' dissent is not justified by that kind of reasoning. Whenever a Pope issues an encyclical, we must at least give submission of mind and will as Vatican 2 and Pius XII taught. Pius XII did not say, "See if the encyclical is in par with Tradition." He just said to give submission or assent. However, many Rad-Trads don't follow this. They act as if they are interpreter of encyclicals and Tradition. They will make statements such as, "John Paul II is a heretic! He teaches universalism!" A spiritually mature person would not even think of making that kind of statements because he practices the Ignatian principle of charitable interpretation, which many Rad-Trads lack. A person who is spiritually mature will not even say, "Look! JPII contradicts past magisteriums!" As St. Teresa said:

"When one superior bids thee do a certain thing, do not say that another superior has given a contrary order; but obey in what thou art commanded, and consider that the intentions of all are good. (#46) "

Thomas More once said, "If a man will not take the teachings of the Catholic faith as a rule of interpretation when he studies the Scripture--but instead, being distrustful, studies the Scripture to find out whether or not the faith of the Church is true--he cannot fail to fall into errors. (A Dictionary of Quotes from the Saints by Paul Thigpen, pg. 206)" And this should also be a rule for interpreting Tradition. "If a man will not take the teachings of the Catholic faith as a rule of interpretation when he studies Tradition--but instead, being distrustful, studies Tradition to find our whether or not the faith of the Church is true--he cannot fail to fall into errors."

And the Imitation says:

"IT IS a very great thing to obey, to live under a superior and not to be one's own master, for it is much safer to be subject than it is to command. Many live in obedience more from necessity than from love. Such become discontented and dejected on the slightest pretext; they will never gain peace of mind unless they subject themselves wholeheartedly for the love of God. Go where you may, you will find no rest except in humble obedience to the rule of authority. Dreams of happiness expected from change and different places have deceived many. Everyone, it is true, wishes to do as he pleases and is attracted to those who agree with him. But if God be among us, we must at times give up our opinions for the blessings of peace. Furthermore, who is so wise that he can have full knowledge of everything? Do not trust too much in your own opinions, but be willing to listen to those of others. If, though your own be good, you accept another's opinion for love of God, you will gain much more merit; for I have often heard that it is safer to listen to advice and take it than to give it. It may happen, too, that while one's own opinion may be good, refusal to agree with others when reason and occasion demand it, is a sign of pride and obstinacy." (Imitation of Christ, Book I, Chapter 9)"

Continued...

:: Ap 6:46 PM [+] | ::

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

A Post of Possible Interest to Lidless Eye Readers:

A Conversation on Spiritual Maturity and the Traditional Catholic Approach to Difficulties (Parts I-III)

:: Shawn 10:50 PM [+] | ::

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

More Conversations With Apolonio:

This is a continuation of the thread which was started HERE. In this conversation, Apolonio's words will be in black font and his sources italicized. My previous words will be in light blue and italicized, my current words in regular font, and my sources in dark blue

I am not sure if this is accurate or not. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange OP was from what I can gather a moral theologian primarily. That does not mean that he was necessarily a very good speculative or dogmatic theologian. (I have become more sympathetic to him as my affiliation with the Dominicans has developed by my own admission.)

I'm not sure if he was a moral theologian. An ascetical/spiritual theologian would be more appropriate since he is well known for his studies on John of the Cross, Teresa, and Catherine of Sienna. His sources are primarily Dominican, which is not bad, but it is limited.

All sources I am growing fonder of myself. But I think Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was in a very integrally functional sense a monarchist who saw political monarchy as necessarily part of the Church divine constitution. (Which it was not.) In that light, the admonishments of the prophet Samuel against the children of Israel for wanting a monarch rather than the system of judges that they had interestingly enough Samuel said only what God told him to say. (See 1 Samuel viii for details.) Is it maybe because the system of judges better mirrored the nature of God and of the heavenly realm than one single ruler???

Someone noted once that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange emphasized the universal call to holiness and thus to a certain extent influenced this agenda item of Vatican II. I do not know enough about his work to be able to comment intelligently on whether that is an accurate assertion or not.

I would say that is accurate since he does emphasize a universal call to holiness and self-abandonment to the Divine Providence. The only "bad" part, if I can say that, is that it may be dry for some people since it doesn't really "talk to you" like some spirtual books does.

Check.

Mario always uses the excuse that he does not have the time to read anything. (I remember him using this when I recommended that he read my treatise.) My opinion is, if he is going to be a critic, he has a responsibility to inform himself. He is making the same paltry arguments I shredded over three years ago - not to mention what other writers in that span have done to them. But this should not surprise as he is basically to "trad" apologetics what Mohammed Saheed al-Sahhaf was to the "ministry of truth" for Iraq.

:-) Mario *does* use the excuse of "I have no time". I understand that and so do many people.

Heck I use it too. Everyone's time is limited for this sorta thing except those who are fulltimers.

However, he keeps on making the same assertion over and over. For example, he spoke of Honorius being a heretic. I challenged him to a formal email debate like what Art and Adam had. He said, "I have no time." But then, after a couple of emails, he keeps on asserting that Honorius is a heretic. If you don't have the guts to defend it, then don't make that assertion. Any philosopher should know this.

Amen brother.

And a note...Mario embarasses the Catholic Church when he debates with people. One example is his debate with Shandon Guthrie on Sola Scriptura. He lost that debate and even Kevin Tierney agrees. And also...when he debated God's existence, he used Peter Kreeft's arguments without giving him credit like the "SOS" graved in on a desert island.

Well, he is so critical of Peter Kreeft that it would reflect badly if he came across as having to use Kreeft's arguments. Not that one cannot be critical of Kreeft - I know that Art is on a couple of things - but Mario basically considers Kreeft a heretic and then resorts to Kreeft's philosophical arguments (which are quite good ones) rather than come up with his own or use other sources. I find this less than honest on his part - particularly considering some of the criticisms of me that came from that quarter a few years ago.

There have been a number of times I have made an argument against a Protestant or an Orthodox on a discussion list that Mario thought was "great" or "brilliant" which - if he read with greater care he would notice that it indicts his own positions as well.

You should expose it :-)

Well, if I ever have this harddrive professionally redone and the lost info retrieved, sure that is a possibility. But there is one possible demonstration that can currently be made.

The example that comes to mind is my first Svendsen essay which Mario for some time had up at his site.{1} If you read that and then read my approach to the "trads", there is no tactical distinction of any significance. But I am writing "great stuff" when taking it to Svendsen and when I do the same with "trads" (using the same approach) then of course it is not so great. The exact arguments may differ but the foundational principles behind them are almost exactly the same. And there is no significant difference functionally to warrant such a diametrical view of them - except of course that one plays into his agenda and one does not.

He is supposed to have a bachelors in philosophy, surely he should be able to make the kinds of elementary distinctions that a lot of trad laymen may have difficulties with...I am not sure if he is intellectually incapable of doing so or if he is capable but is simply dishonest.

I'm not going to say he is a good or bad philosopher. However, when I ask him something, he doesn't "remember". And I'm sure everyone can't remember what we learned in school and we have to look at our notes.

Well, not everything certainly. But I do have a very good recall of significant stuff prior to about three years ago.{2}

I do too (I actually don't take notes..that's weird).

Well, in light of the charges he likes to throw around, he should have a hell of a lot better memory than he does.

However, if I can't remember something off the bat like, "What is time?" then it shows that I have not really learned it. I remember asking him what his views on the 4th way of Aquinas. He doesn't remember and I had to explain it. And that's his problem. I'm not saying one has to memorize everything, but you have to *know* it. And not remembering the 4th way of Aquinas?!?!? I mean...that's probably what he is famous for..his 5 ways.

Heck, until you mentioned the 5 ways, *I* was not sure what you were talking about. I presume you are referring to the five proofs of God's existence. I am not sure I can recall them all in sequence but most of them I can remember. But then again, since I know where to find them when needed, that mitigates it somewhat. Like a lot of things, seeing a few words or a phrase can trigger the memory to recall the rest.

It took me hours figuring out, trying to understanding backward and forward the 1st way of Thomas Aquinas. Just the first way!!! So when someone asks me off the bad, "What is the first way of Aquinas?" I can explain it to them so that they can understand. I may be exaggerating a bit, but that's what I have learned from the words of Fulton Sheen.

I enjoy reading Bishop Sheen's stuff.

And also another thing..I asked him his opinion on whether he thinks JPII's condemnation of abortion is de fide credenda or de fide tenenda. He said he didn't know the difference...Right...and he has the guts to criticize a Pope...

I would say de fide credenda. It is too attested to throughout church history for JP II's condemnation to be mere tenenda. I would not normally say that about a teaching not solemnly defined but with abortion and euthanasia it is simply too foundational on top of being attested to both explicitly as well as implicitly. I mean, criminy the Didache condemns abortion and you cannot go back much further than that - even some NT books are probably not as old as the Didache. Euthanasia I would argue is directly contrary to all the biblical passages that exhort people to honour those with wisdom. (To say nothing of the fifth commandment of course.)

I am more a fan of Congar and de Lubac... Interestingly enough, the former was a major influence on Pope Paul VI, the latter on Pope John Paul II. I like much of what I have read of Danielou also.

A little note...Maritain also influenced Paul VI and Garrigou-Lagrange influenced JPII.

I would say that Jacques Maritain influenced both of them. (Though Paul more than John Paul.) And yes, JP II was a student of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange OP's at the Angelicum. And those who note that the Pope's doctoral thesis was on St. John of the Cross are also aware (as you noted) that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange OP was a student of St. John of the Cross too.

They're not idiots. JPII is definately not an idiot.

JP II in my opinion is the most brilliant pope since Leo XIII. And considering the quality of the twentieth century popes on the whole, that is some formidable company. History will remember him among the greatest popes in history - for those who actually know their history anyway.

His Acting Person is brilliant.

Yes.

He uses phenomenology as a *tool* with a Thomistic foundation. And that's what you are supposed to do. St. Thomas is not a complete philosopher/theologian. And you are supposed to **add** from him, not subtract nor stay in one spot. And that's the problems with Rad-Trads. They don't like to add anything.

Indeed.

Their position is basically that of the Augustinians in the medieval times. They condemned scholasticism because they didn't think it was Christian. Etienne Gilson said,

"We are reminded in the first place of all those vehement protests made by the Augustinians of all ages against the paganization of Christianity by Thomism....the mediaeval Augustinians were beforehand with them in denying that Thomism is faithful to the Christian tradition." (The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, pg. 7)

And that is what the manual theologians have done to the "new theologians".

my two cents..

Nah, there is at least seven cents worth there. Well done :)

Notes:

{1} The piece was originally a private email list of questions I worked on in January of 2000 when taking a break from drafting sections of my treatise; it was revised and made into an essay in September of 2000.

{2} March of 2000-August of 2002 was not a period that was beneficial for me from a memory standpoint - particularly after June of 2001. By early December of 2001 my short term memory, cognitive thinking faculties, and multitasking capabilities were beyond shot. Fortunately, they began a gradual recovery a couple months after that - particularly since late July 2002 - and have recovered in most parameters since then - except most of the multitasking capabilities where I have only regained a few bits of my former abilities.

:: Shawn 12:58 PM [+] | ::

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

Conversations With Apolonio:
(Aka "Cleaning Out My Notebook" Dept.)

In this conversation, Apolonio's words will be in black font and his sources italicized. My previous words will be in light blue and italicized, my current words in regular font, and my sources in dark blue. In light of some recent correspondence with Kevin Tierney, I have modified my original comments from the conversation with Apolonio a little. I trust that he will not mind this at all.

I like the recourse you have to Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange OP. In essence you are taking away a popular "ally" of theirs by doing that. No wonder Super Mario kicked you off of his list ;-)

Thanks for the help Shawn. Kevin responded again and he said a couple of things.

I am not surprised.

He said:

"What I am arguing is that John XXIII was arguing for universal disarmament(which is hardly unprecendented, both Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII argued for such), yet John XXIII used the basis of global governance and the ideas of a universal republic for such, which is at odds with his predecessors. That institution, as we both know, was the masonic, and secular United Nations, not a restoration of adherence to the Kingship of Christ."

I remember making similar statements about the UN back in my conspiracy days. In recent years, after acquiring some degree of balance on the matter, someone pointed out to me that Jacques Maritain was heavily influential in the drafting of the UN charter. Yup, a real "mason" and "secularist" Maritain was. I have no love for what the UN has become but that does not mean that it was not founded on the part of most of those involved with decent intentions.

The biggest problem "trad" conspiracy theorists have is that they do not realize that the Protestant nationalists who pioneered this kind of theorizing do not have to defend certain properties such as the "indefectibility of the Church" as we do. Let me explain this a bit as it was the lynchpin that unraveled my conspiracy mindset like a sprung clockspring.

The same Prots who spin the conspiracies about the UN also believe not infrequently that the Catholic Church and the Jesuits are in on the racket as well - and have been for a long time. The problem therefore is finding a consistent rationale for rejecting the attempts to implicate the Catholic Church while still maintaining the conspiracy theory approach.

In other words, it must be a method that does not beg the question. I do not believe it can be done. (I certainly tried and failed to do so.) But that aside, another point comes to mind that I am not sure I have mentioned before and that is the "trad" promotion of the "Kingship of Christ."

I have for some time had a serious problem with the way "trads" try to promote the Social Kingship of Christ. It seems to me that it is all an attempt to cram everyone into a neo-scholastic (theological), monarchial (government) mould of thinking that is essentially a form of ecclesial imperialism with dualistic outlooks dressed up in the garb of "promoting Christ."

It is especially suspicious to me because these are the same people who scoff and ridicule those who (i) do not think as they do and (ii) who strive to incarnate the Beatitudes in divers manners following the evangel of St. Paul in accomodating themselves to their environment to promote the Gospel.

It is possible perhaps that I am simply overreacting to see in the "trad" approach an anachronistic attempt to promote outdated theological and civil formularies under the mantle of Christ much as people like Fr. Gruner promote their disobedience to the Church and defend themselves by trying to wrap the mantle of Mary around them. (As if Mary could ever be separated from the Church.)

I have not talked about this element publicly because I want to avoid the same thing that the "trads" do in causing scandal by making assertions which do not edify. But as this is a private list, I think it can be aired out a little and given consideration.

[Obviously I decided to note this publicly so that those who read this weblog can reflect on the matter. However, at the same time, I do not intend to dwell on it in any significant detail publicly. -ISM]

He has "beef" with the Church trying to work with the United Nations.


He seems to have a real disconnect with reality at times. If you review my response to him, you will note that he speaks of the Vatican as if they are capable of giving "retribution" to the Muslims or others who get out of line. As I noted in responding to him "[i]f Kevin actually believes that Vatican City has the industrial capacity, the financial capacity, or the military muscle to give 'retribution' to the Islamofascist terrorist sorts, then maybe we should ask what he is mixing in the Kool-Aid if you catch my meaning..."

In one of his responses to Gregg, Kevin stated the following after another round of griping about the UN:

(Kevin) "No one is afraid of a reprisal from the Vatican, where as during the days of Pius IX's syllabus of errors, and Pius X's Pascendi, the world was outraged, and most of all, afraid of the Churches counterattack. My how 100 years has changed things in the Church!"

If Kevin thinks the Church has been able to strike "fear" into the world the past few centuries...well... he is engaging in errors of anachronism. I will briefly explain why this is so - and I assure you a lot more could be brought forward to substantiate what I am about to say. (Lest people think this brief digression exhausts the franchise of what could be said on this.)

If there was ever a time when the popes had the ability to strike fear into people temporally it was in the Middle Ages after Pope St. Gregory the Great for all extensive purposes instituted the papal monarchy. If we really want to get technical, the high point of papal temporal power was achieved between 1150 and 1300. (After that point, the papacy went into a decline that it did not fully recover from until after Vatican I when it was shorn of its temporal power by King Victor Emmanuel II and the Italian government.) But even in the periods of peak influence temporally, there were not a few examples of popes kidnapped and coerced by the civil authority.

I could use many sources but I will quote from Sir Nicholas Cheetham's History of the Popes since I have it handy and it is (I have found) an accurate chronicle of the popes. When speaking of Pope St. Gregory VII - the first pope to actually depose an emperor and one of the stronger popes personality-wise in history:

In view of his evident determination to retain the right of investiture, Gregory decided to bring matters to a head. In December 1075, he sent the King the sternest possible message of admonishment, summoning him to conform under pain of excommunication, deposition or even the fate of Saul. The confrontation had now become critical.

In the same month as he launched his ultimatum, the Pope was kidnapped. The reason for this extraordinary occurrance are not clear, but it certainly demonstrated that no mediaeval pontiff, however popular at the moment, was immune from local violence. When he was celebrating midnight Mass in Santa Maria Maggiore on Christmas Eve, armed men rushed into the church and snatched him from the altar...Slightly wounded Gregory was held prisoner in a fortified tower and a large ransom in the form of church property was demanded of him.[History of the Popes pg. 95 (c. 1982)]

As Pope Gregory was popular with the crowds, they managed to secure his release by causing a ruckus at the tower. My point in bringing this up was that even a powerful personality like Gregory VII was not immune from the secular authority seeking to use force against him. Oh and it is also worth noting that [Gregory] called a counsil of German princes and bishops at Worms in order to consider his riposte. Unwisely influenced by Hugh Candidus, a Cardinal whose services Gregory had used often but with whom he had later quarrelled for personal reasons, the council decided to attack the Pope not on basic issues but on the ground that he had been uncanonically elected and that his subsequent actions had therefore been illegal. It summoned the 'false monk Hildebrand' to resign and couched the demand in downright, if not injurious terms." [History of the Popes pg. 95 (c. 1982)]

It was after this that Pope Gregory deposed the Emperor Henry. And if not for Gregory calculating this action correctly - not to mention Henry being a young monarch - this tactic would probably have backfired. For indeed the Church historically has been at the mercy of secular rulers and has wielded her authority primarily in the spiritual sphere.

Seldom has she had armies that she could muster - indeed it was not until 1058 that the Church was able to keep the Emperors from basically crowning their own popes as they had for about six hundred years previously. Even after that point, it is not as if the secular authorities were unable to influence the papal elections.{1} The popes have had to be very calculating and pick their spots to exercise their authority effectively in the temporal realm. (The same is the case with the spiritual realm to some degree.) Another example from the "peak period" of papal temporal influence comes up which I will briefly touch on here.

Now it is no secret that self-styled "traditionalists" love to quote the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctum. However, there is always a key part of this puzzle that they do not tell you - their failure to utilize general norms of interpretation aside for a moment. What is not told is the response to this letter from the Pope. Rather than "strike fear" into the intended target of that letter (King Philip IV), the king basically spit in the pope's face and then hounded him unceasingly until Boniface VIII died a year later in 1303.

(After another attempt to kidnap a pope to try and influence his policies.) Yup, real "fear" there. As Mr. Tierney referred to things being so "different" a hundred years ago, let us go back two hundred years and trace forward to the time of Vatican I and its aftermath to see if these assertions really carry any credit or not.

To start with, Napolean Bonaparte was hardly "quaking in his boots" when he encountered resistance to his agenda in the person of Pope Pius VI (r. 1775-1799). Indeed, Napolean dealt with this by having Pope Pius VI kidnapped and paraded about like a carnival event. (All of which hastened the death of Pius VI.) Again I quote from Cheetham:

From Briancon, the small band of ecclesiastics who had accompanied Pius from Italy was separated from him and sent to Grenoble. Only his confessor, a physician, and two servants were left. At the beginning of June, however, the authorities relented and he was able to rejoin his suite...

Finally, on 14 July he reached Valence on the Rhone, his final resting place....Although he was dying, the authorities would not leave him in peace; they were constantly threatening to remove him to Dijon. He survived six weeks, agonizing but lucid." [History of the Popes pg. 246 (c. 1982)]

As far as Pius VII goes, again I quote from Cheetham:

Before reaching Rome and establishing himself at the Quirinal palace, he heard that Bonaparte, now Consul of the Republic and master of France by the coup d'etat of Brumaire, had crushed the Austrians at Marengo. The French were once again the overlords of Italy and he faced, like Pius VI, the proposition of deportation and exile." [History of the Popes pg. 248 (c. 1982)]

And the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Napolean Bonaparte notes in detail the actual kidnapping of Pius VII by Napolean. The latter was so "feared" of Pius VII that he declared after the pope issued a Bull of Excommunication of Bonaparte "So the pope has aimed an excommunication against me. No more half measures; he is a raving lunatic who must be confined. Have Cardinal Pacca and other adherents of the pope arrested." [Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pius VII (c. 1913)] Pius VII was treated for six years like Pius VI was (between 1809 and 1814). So much for the notion that Napolean "feared the Church's counterattack" as Kevin claimed.

Leo XII was a weak pope and accomplished little - certainly no one "feared" him. Pius VIII was a stopgap pope who reigned less than a year. Gregory XVI (r. 1831-1846) was a traddy's dream pope: forceful and (in some areas) intolerant. He accomplished nothing to speak of in civil affairs because of this approach. Certainly no secular authorities with any real clout "feared" him.

That brings us up to Pius IX the supposedly "feared" issuer of the Syllabus, again I quote Cheetham - the time frame was 1848:

For nine days after Rossi's murder, the pope remained a prisoner in the Quirinal, closely watched by the Civic Guards. Not so carefully, however, to prevent his escape in what was to be the last in the historic series of papal flights from Rome...the pope and Antonelli reentered Rome on 12 April 1850 among the plaudits of the citizens." [History of the Popes pgs. 260-61 (c. 1982)]

And of course the Italian civil government under King Emmanuel II so "feared" Pius IX that they seized all the papal lands in 1870. I could list numerous historical examples that are in this vein. As far as Pascendi goes, I suppose I could again quote Cheetham:

St. Peter's chair had been filled for over half a century by two very imposing personalities, Pius IX and Leo XIII. The issues in which they played a leading part had commanded the widest attention; their pronouncements had echoed through the Victorian world and further afield. They had inspired fervent support and encountered vehement opposition. It was otherwise with Pius X. He was a secondary figure and his pontificate an anticlimax...

The mainstream of history seemed to be leaving the papacy high and dry, absorbed in irrelevant controversies... [Pius] foresaw with perfect clarity that a European war was impending in which Catholic nations would be involved on both sides with calamitous results, but realized equally well that it could not be prevented by prior warnings and exhortations from the Holy See." [History of the Popes pg. 275 (c. 1982)]

All of this talk about power and intimidation by Rome outside of the doctrinal realm is a bunch of hooey. Kevin needs to get with reality and set aside his mythical visions of the "intimidating Rome." But then to do that would mean that he has to stop parrotting some of the party line commonly espoused by "trads." So much of what they espouse is pure fiction and hopefully this very tiny example helps to make this point clear. For other examples, see the entries of this weblog and Rerum Novarum not to mention the well-indexed writings of the present author.

About Garrigou-Lagrange....I don't think he is an ally to the Rad-Trads at all.

He was in the sense that as a neo-scholastic theologian he was opposed to the theological methods of several people whom the "trads" like to uncharitably villify. Admittedly this is more indirect than direct.

Mario Derksen sent me an article titled They Think They've Won which you probably read.

Yes, it is typical radtrad quack scholarship.

It emphasized a lot on Garrigou-Lagrange. I also heard about him after my "search for Thomists" philosophers/theologians I wanted to read. Mario said that Garrigou-Lagrange is probably the best Thomist of the 20th century.

I am not sure if this is accurate or not. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange OP was from what I can gather a moral theologian primarily. That does not mean that he was necessarily a very good speculative or dogmatic theologian. (I have become more sympathetic to him as my affiliation with the Dominicans has developed by my own admission.)

Nonetheless, he does not seem from what I have read of him to have been any kind of theological pioneer in the tradition of von Hildebrand, Newman, Bellarmine, Aquinas, Albert the Great, Anselm, or Augustine (to name a few of note) or even many of the theologians he was rather stridently opposed to. (Some of whom were pioneers of this mould but that is another subject altogether.)

Someone noted once that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange emphasized the universal call to holiness and thus to a certain extent influenced this agenda item of Vatican II. I do not know enough about his work to be able to comment intelligently on whether that is an accurate assertion or not.

He also loves Etienne Gilson (except for the fact that he is influenced by Henri de Lubac), but hates Jacques Maritain because of Integral Humanism.

I will not say what philosophical clothing of Maritain's that Mario could not get within ten thousand miles of - and leave it at that :)

So I got Degrees of Knowledge from Jacques Maritain. I thought to myself, wait a minute, this is very good." I then took a look at ND's website which has his works. I said, "This is very good!" So I bought some books by Garrigou-Lagrange some of which I got from Mario. I read them and it contradicted a lot of what the Rad-Trads asserted. Basically, I don't think they read any of his works.

They do not read much of anything actually. When almost all of the sources I use to refute trad nonsense predate Vatican II, that is the best indicator to me that they do not have a very good grasp of the issues.

For one thing, Garrigou-Lagrange ****praised***** Jacques Maritain. I told Mario this. I then showed him the quote I sent to Kevin. He then said, "Uh oh, this doesn't sound right." LOL...He then told me that his SSPX friend likes Jacques Maritain (again, he doesn't like him because he thinks he is a sillonist). So basically, Mario Derksen gets info from secondary sources but never reads them directly.

Mario always uses the excuse that he does not have the time to read anything. (I remember him using this when I recommended that he read my treatise.) My opinion is, if he is going to be a critic, he has a responsibility to inform himself. He is making the same paltry arguments I shredded over three years ago - not to mention what other writers in that span have done to them. But this should not surprise as he is basically to "trad" apologetics what Mohammed Saheed al-Sahhaf was to the "ministry of truth" for Iraq.

There have been a number of times I have made an argument against a Protestant or an Orthodox on a discussion list that Mario thought was "great" or "brilliant" which - if he read with greater care he would notice that it indicts his own positions as well.

He is supposed to have a bachelors in philosophy, surely he should be able to make the kinds of elementary distinctions that a lot of trad laymen may have difficulties with.{2} I am not sure if he is intellectually incapable of doing so or if he is capable but is simply dishonest.

About They Think They've Won articles...I don't agree with their condemnation of New Theology. They misinterpreted a lot of what de Lubac and von Balthasar has read.

And Congar. And Danielou. And Blondel. And I am certain many of the others as well. The moment I hear that Humani Generis "condemned de Lubac", I know the person making the statement does not know what the hell they are talking about. (It is rumoured interestingly enough that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was if not the ghostwriter of Humani Generis then at least a significant contributor to it.)

Von Balthasar's theology *is* difficult. In fact, I find them boring.

I am not that familiar with Von Balthasar to be honest. He seems to have his greatest strength in his ability to systemize. His mentor Fr. de Lubac thought he was the most cultured man of his time. That may well have been true.

I am more a fan of Congar and de Lubac.{3} Interestingly enough, the former was a major influence on Pope Paul VI, the latter on Pope John Paul II. I like much of what I have read of Danielou also.

But they are difficult since he is very deep. Some of the terms he uses isn't scholastic language so it may sound heterodox. I don't agree with some of the things he has written, but if he should be critiqued, he should be critiqued theologically in his own grounds, which is a principle of Thomism.

Exactly.

We should not say "He is a heretic" like what many Rad-Trads do. The problem of the Rad-Trads and also with Garrigou-Lagrange and the manual theologians is that they don't recognize that a person can be doctrinally sound, yet theologically unsound. They take it too far when they call someone a heretic.

This is true. I am not sure if it is even good to say "theologically unsound." I mean remember, the neo-scholastics had some pretty unsound positions of their own.

They espoused the duplex ordo theory on nature and grace - which de Lubac proved was not a teaching of Aquinas at all but a corrupt post-Trent gloss on Aquinas' thought.

Some of them also had the idea that monarchial government in the civil sphere was bound up in Catholic teaching. (Garrigou-Lagrange told Maritain during the WWII that support for the Free French against the Vichy regime was a mortal sin.)

And while other examples could be noted, I will wrap this up with pointing out that they espoused some really stupid notions on religious liberty in the civil sphere which were both contradictory and also disingenuous.{4}

So while there may be some value to the notion that the so-called "new theologians" had some theological difficulties in a few of their formulations, their critics hardly had their theological eyes free from mote either.

Again, I don't agree with some of von Balthasar, but I do tolerate it.

As you should. Von B was a brilliant theologian. And that JP II was going to give him the red hat should IMHO be viewed as a vindication from any previous suspicion that anyone may have had. Popes are not infallible in giving the red hat but it should be piously believed in the era of non-nepotism that they would not give that honour rashly.

One example is his critique of scholasticism in The Fathers, Scholastics, and Ourselves.

One of Mark Bonocore's favourite pieces to recommend to people. Prepare thyself for Mark's wrath now ;-) {5}

His criticism of scholasticism is basically the same as of the Eastern Orthodox to the Latin Church.

Well, some of those criticisms are not without merit. Scholasticism had its strengths but it was not the be-all and end-all of theology as many like to presume. I would argue that the "majoring in minors" aspect of some of scholasticism resulted in the construction of a vision of the Church which was foreign to the first millennium. To quote from my favourite academic orientalist Fr. Robert Taft SJ - who spells this out as good or better than I could:

The more I study liturgy and liturgical theology across the east-west divide, the more I am convinced that the spectre of late medieval western scholasticism still haunts us.

Let me say from the start that the western middle ages and its scholasticism deserve to be treated with the same scientific objectivity and respect as any other historico-cultural period. I have no patience with those who raise the shibboleth of scholasticism without ever having read a line of Peter Lombard, Albert, Thomas, Bonaventure or Scotus--indeed, would not know enough Latin to do so even if their life depended on it. I was educated in scholastic philosophy in the days when every student had his own copy of the Summa in Latin, and read it. So I am not the enemy of any period in cultural history. Such an approach to history is fatuous in the extreme.

But the more I study the history of east-west relations from the late scholastic period on, the more I am convinced that it furnished an ever more aggressive Catholic west with a narrowing of vision that rendered it incapable of understanding the east.

It is enough to read the extraordinary incomprehension and arrogance with which the Latins treated the Armenians of Cilicia during the Crusades. The Armenians, always more open and lacking the chauvinism and bigotry of the Byzantines after Trullo (692 A.D.) and of the medieval Latins, were quite prepared to accept communion with the Latins provided their integrity was not violated.

Anyone who reads that history with openness and objectivity can only conclude that the Armenian Apostolic Church, when confronted with the obtuseness of the Latins, was fully justified in rejecting a communion which threatened not only their integrity, but the very survival of their age-old tradition. The contentions in large part concerned the liturgy and its theology.

One problem for the Latins were the liturgical intercessions for the Mother of God and the saints in the Armenian anaphora, where, as in the Byzantine Chrysostom anaphora, one continued to pray "for" Mary and the saints indifferently, along with the rest of the departed. Here as elsewhere, modern studies have shown that the Armenians had preserved the ancient tradition, and that the Latins were simply wrong. The same can be said for the hylomorphic theory of the sacraments, one more Latin novelty foreign to the undivided church of the first millennium.

The issue is not that the Latins do not have the same right as everyone else to theologize about their own tradition, and to explain it as they wish within the parameters of the common apostolic faith. The issue is the tendency of the Latins in the late scholastic period to elevate their own medieval departures from the common tradition into a norm, then use it to challenge those who had simply continued to believe as they always had." [Robert Taft SJ: excerpt from Eastern Presuppositions and Western Liturgical Renewal]

What is outlined above summarizes in a very good snapshot portrait the very problems that not only neo-scholastic/manualists but also radtrads have in abundance. This is also why they are so often confused about the Church's movement in the post-Vatican II period.

The tension in the movement since the Council has been between those who seek aggiornamento for its own sake (the so-called "progressives") and those who seek aggiornamento through a return to the sources of the Great Tradition (the ressourcement school of theology).

I personally identify in many ways with the latter - due in no small part to the increased awareness theologically of my eastern roots the past five years. This is a key reason why I am so hard to pidgeonhole for the "trads." And this is the reason I take such offense at their attempts to call me a "conservative." I am one certainly but not as that term has come to be understood in the past century.{6}

Hence, until and unless someone intends to apply to the term a definition akin to what I have given, any attempt to use it to define my outlook is as far as I am concerned a profound insult.

But if we are going to critique him, we should go to their own grounds unlike what the Rad-Trads are doing.

Precisely.

Overall, I like Garrigou-Lagrange with some disagreements. He is good enough to be an ally of mine rather than the Rad-Trads :)

Well, I have found that a lot of people or sources the "trads" think are their allies are actually opposed to integral elements of the "trad" philosophy. I have no doubt that this would also apply to the Dominican Thomist Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange as well.

To read a continuation of this thread, please go HERE.

Notes:

{1} Indeed as late as 1903 there was secular interference in a papal election when Cardinal Sarto was elected as a result of the Austrian government vetoing the candidacy of Cardinal Rampolla. One of the first things Cardinal Sarto did upon becoming pope was outlaw in future elections the interference of secular authorities.

{2} The degree of ignorance Mario displays on elementary issues of Catholicism is embarrassing to put it frankly. Kevin is better but he still has a very simplistic outlook on many of these issues. I still hold out hope for Kevin though as he is evidently a smart fellow. Mario though is, I believe, a lost cause unless he withdraws for a while and actually starts reading substanitive materials detached from a serially suspicious and uncharitable approach to studying issues.

{3} The two theologians whom I would argue were most influencial in the drafting of - and the content of - the council's documents. (Particularly the two Dogmatic Constitutions, the Decree on Ecumenism, and the Decree on the Oriental Catholic Churches.)

{4} Cardinal Ottaviani for example actually defended a schema at Vatican II on religious liberty where he claimed that this was something the Church claimed when in the minority but when in the majority did not have to concede to others. Yeah, THAT would really persuade a non-Catholic that the Church was anything but the Inquisitional caricature of anti-Catholic polemicism and the fabled "enemy of rational thought." But I digress.

{5} [{P}lease understand that my praise for Hans Urs only goes so far. I do think that his essay is very useful and excellent for setting up the present context of post-Vatican II Catholic intellectualism. Yet, I also see some minor problems with it ...as I do with other elements of Von Balthasar's theology (e.g. 'no one may be in hell,' etc...). So, I guess I never had a chance to point such things out about my take on Von B. (Clarification from Mark Bonocore - 7/21/03)]

{6} I defined at this link - for the benefit of Kevin Tierney whose definitions I was critical of - what a true conservative is:

Definitions of "Conservative" and "Conservatism"

:: Shawn 2:45 PM [+] | ::

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

Apolonio vs Adrian

To read the previous installment of this thread see this link. To start from the beginning of this thread go HERE.

Adrian: Hey Apolonio

Apolonio: Hey. What's up?

Adrian: I just finished reading yours and John Loughnan's post on Islam on Lidless Eye.

Apolonio: Any thoughts?

Adrian: I still don't get it.

Apolonio: Don't get what?

Adrian: Why John Paul II would do the things he does.

Apolonio: Do you believe that he is a sillonist like some Rad-Trads? lol

Adrian: No. I have changed my position after reading your post. I do believe that he does not believe in pluralism, but the Catholic faith as the true Church.

Apolonio: Then why are you still confused?

Adrian: Because it seems as if he is contradicting himself with his actions.

Apolonio: Oh not you again. Do you worship Mary?

Adrian: No. The Church forbids that.

Apolonio: But why then do you pray to her?

Adrian: I ask her to pray for me like any other Christians. I don't know why you are asking me all these questions. You know all the answers to Apologetic questions.

Apolonio: Is "Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope" not worship? Why is she your sweetness, your hope? Isn't Jesus your hope? And why do Popes say things like bringing prayers to her altars?

Adrian: Again, we're just asking for her intercession.

Apolonio: And light candles in front of the statue of the Blessed Mother?!?!? Do you see where I'm getting at? This is how Protestants attack Catholics. They say, "They claim they don't worship, but they really are worshipping her." It's the same as the Rad-Trad claims that "The Pope claims that Jesus is the only way, but his actions contradict it." Same argument from the same mind, which I believe is the devil.

Adrian: You know what? Tell me this...why hasn't the Pope preached hell {1}?

Apolonio: Has preaching hell worked? Do Muslims believe in hell?

Adrian: I think they do.

Apolonio: Right.."You Muslims believe in Jesus Christ or else be damned." What will they say? "You believe in Allah or YOU will be damned." It will get you nowhere.

Adrian: You don't have to preach hell like that, but that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

Apolonio: And the Muslims will say Allah is. Then what? Then debate? You really think debating will convert the Muslims? Muslims are close-minded people. Even if you beat them on a debate, they will twist a lot of things and will not convert.

Adrian: I've seen people convert from a debate. I don't see why it won't work with Muslims.

Apolonio: Right...you go to Muslim countries and try to preach the Gospel. They will persecute you. The fact is, WE CAN'T EVEN EVANGELIZE TO MUSLIM COUNTRIES!!! Why? Because of violence!!! And that's why John Paul is trying to gain them their trust, so that our missionaries can evangelize there **safely**. They **hate** Catholics in some countries so we have to get rid of that hate.

Adrian: And kissing the koran will do it?

Apolonio: It's a show of respect. To criticize John Paul on his show of respect is spiritual immaturity. Tell me, have you read Therese of the Child Jesus? John of the Cross? Fulton Sheen? Teresa of Avila? Ignatius of Loyola? Or even Garrigou-Lagrange?

Adrian: No.

Apolonio: Let me guess, your view on Catholicism is pretty much Apologetic in nature right?

Adrian: Well, yes.

Apolonio: You are the 4th or 5th person who told me that this week. That's the problem. To have the "sensus fidelium" of the Church, you will have to broaden your view, which includes spirituality. A lot of people are apologetic in nature, which is not in itself wrong, or even political in nature, but they don't have the other "side" of Catholicism. Catholic Church is like a choir, it has the bass, sopranos, altos, and tenors. You can't have a harmony if you only have the sopranos. As von Balthasar said, "Truth is symphonic."

Adrian: I have to admit, that may be my fault.

Apolonio: Maybe if you have a broader view of Catholicism, you will understand why the Church does these things.

(Instant Message exchange July 17, 2003)

JMJ
A.L. III

{1} Though John Paul has taught hell many times, he does not emphasize it as much. His reasons may be found in his book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" in the section "Does 'Eternal Life' Exist?":

"In fact, people of our time have become insensitive to the Last Things. On the one hand, secularization and secularism promote this insensitivity and lead to a consumer mentality oriented toward the enjoyment of earthly goods. On the other hand, the "hells on earth" created in this century which is now drawing to a close have also contributed to this insensitivity. After the experience of concentration camps, gulags, bombings, not to mention natural catastrophes, can man possibly expect anything worse from this world, an even greater amount of humiliation and contempt? In a word, hell?"

Continued...

:: Ap 10:00 PM [+] | ::

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

A Possible Link of Interest for Lidless Eye Readers:

Fatal Flaws of False "Traditionalism" (Parts I-VII)

Worry not about the apparent length - this is actually a short response for the most part. (About a third the length of the three part response to Kevin Tierney last month - sans the addendum.) One of the subjects heavily emphasized is spiritual instruction - with quotes from some of the masters of the Catholic spiritual tradition.

:: Shawn 12:33 PM [+] | ::

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

HAVE "traditionalists" BEEN TOO HARD ON THE POPE RE: ISLAM?

Consider:

PEARS CYCLOPEDIA, 1996 gives the figures for adherents to

ISLAM = over 1,000 million, and

ROMAN CATHOLICISM = 1,040 million.

Now, I guess that one could quibble about the "exact" figures, but I would like to draw your attention to the following interesting points.

Islam may well be said to have commenced with the production of the Quran/Koran in 610.

The pope of the time was St Boniface IV, 608 - 615, the 67th pope.

From his time to (and including) that of the reign of Pope Pius XII there have been 192 popes - including 23 Saints and 7 Blesseds.

Despite any efforts of those 192 popes (73% of ail popes since St Peter) - despite those efforts, the Muslims have increased to over 1,000 million people. In that time - the efforts of the popes to convert the Muslims to Christianity have proven generally unsuccessful.

In fact, the matter of "Mohammedanism and conversion" was discussed at EWTN:

Quote

Question from Lynne on 07-12-2003:

Dear Mr. Bunson:

l have been reading Hilaire Beiloc's The Great Heresies and found interesting one of his comments in chapter entitled The Heresy of Mohammed.
Belioc says:

"Whatever the cause be, Mohammedanism has survived, and vigorously survived. Missionary effort has had no appreciable effect upon it. It still converts savages wholesale. It even attracts from time to time some European eccentric, who joins its body. But the Mohammedan never becomes a Catholic. No fragment of Islam ever abandons its sacred book, its code of morals, its organized system of prayer, its simple doctrine."

This heresy book was first published in 1938. In the past' 65 years; since this book was published, has the Church made any advancements in converting Moslems? According to Belloc Mohammedanism is a heresy of Catholicism and its teachings are based on a simplified version of Catholicism. Because they do have certain similar teachings you would think that converting to Catholicism would be a natural progression from the Moslem faith. As an historian do you think we will ever see mass conversion of Moslems to any kind of Christian faith whether Catholic or Protestant?

Thank you.

Answer by Matthew Bunson on 07-13-2003:

Historically, the question of conversions from among the Muslim populations has been a problematic one largely because of the severe, even hardline opposition from Muslim rulers to missionary labors. Proselytizing by Christian missionaries was largely forbidden in most Muslim states, a reflection in part of the insular nature of those kingdoms or regions and also the determination to maintain the supremacy of Islam as the religion of state. There were also the longstanding resentments in the Middle East over the Crusades and the hostility toward the West in the modern era.

ln answer to your question, it is possible that conversions will take place; first, I have faith in the Holy Spirit that the hearts and minds of men and women will be led to the Catholic Church, a hope that is not specific to Islam but to all people everywhere. Second, the extreme Islamic fundamentalism that currently exists in such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, may eventually change as the ideals of democracy and religious pluralism create improved atmospheres for the Christian faith to be recognized in those regions. Honest dialogue between the Church and these countries may have a significant role to play in this, as will our constant prayers.

For the moment, however, it is, in my opinion, unlikely that large conversions will take place. The chief reason for this unlikelihood is that the countries mentioned above, as elsewhere in the Muslim world, do not permit open evangelization, in some cases have laws against conversions, and often persecute anyone caught attempting to do so. For example, under Afghan's former Taliban regime, religious freedom was severely restricted, and proselytizing was forbidden. Likewise, in Saudi Arabia, the population is Muslim and all other religions are banned. Christians in the area are workers from other countries. In other countries, religious toleration is supposed to be guaranteed by law, but this is rarely recognized in practice.

0ne of the fruits of the efforts in recent years on the part of Pope John Paul II and the Vatican's Congregation for Interreligious Dialogue has been to negotiate easing of restrictions for Church personnel to enter and work in Islamic countries. In 1997, Libya established diplomatic relations with the Holy See and, in conjunction with a U.N. embargo against the country in 1992, the government removed most limitations on entry of Catholic religious orders, especially health care workers. Clearly, more work needs to be done, but there is hope for the future.

LINK

My 2 cents:

So, I think any fair minded Catholic would look at the situation where, in a period of nearly 1340 years not one of the 192 popes in that period (including Saints and Blesseds) could penetrate the Muslim mind with fire and brimstone theology. Why, then, ought not the 262nd pope be encouraged to gain their trust in order to a) lighten the load of the Christian community within Islamic lands, and 2) attempt to penetrate that which has been impossible to date?

F. John Loughnan

July 16, 2003


Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page

:: Anonymous 6:12 AM [+] | ::

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