:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Sunday, October 26, 2003 ::

On Behalf of Lidless Eye Inquisition:

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the good deeds of a man I have taken issue with in the past on theological and doctrinal issues (among other areas). Terri Schiavo in Florida was spared in part because of the work of one Christopher Ferrara who assisted Terri's parents in their legal fight for Terri's life.

Chris, you can be assured of my prayers for you and yours that the Lord will reward you for your efforts. Whatever our differences in other areas -and they are many- in this one I am grateful that Terri and her family have you in their corner.

:: Shawn 12:26 AM [+] | ::

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

A Couple of Potential Links of Interest for Lidless Eye Readers:
(Courtesy of Rerum Novarum)

The first link involves my defense of a good Catholic man and his business from extremists whose philosophies are hypocritical to the core. The second is a clarification of some points of the first post for better understanding.

Traditional Moral Principles

Miscellaneous Mutterings

:: Shawn 11:14 AM [+] | ::

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

A Potential Link of Interest for Lidless Eye Readers:
(Courtesy of Rerum Novarum)

One From the Vault

The above link was originally written in the form of a discussion list post back in August of 2002 and was posted to Rerum Novarum in August of 2003. I intended to link it to this weblog but forgot to do so at the time.

:: Shawn 8:57 AM [+] | ::

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

The Aggiornamento of Lidless Eye Inquisition

Okay my friends, the update is completed now. The following will be a brief schema of what was done since the last weblog update back in July.

The first phase involved extending the archives out to December of this year, adding Apolonio's weblog link to the "Affiliated Weblogs" section, and adding the apostolate RadTrad Watch to the section titled "Specialty Weblinks." Also, the old defunct Envoy link titled What Makes Us Catholic Traditionalists - written for The Wanderer December 6, 2001 (I. Shawn McElhinney/Pete Vere JCL) was changed to a website link where I posted the essay in its entirety as it was supposed to read. The original printed version had a couple tiny glitches in it which were corrected - including the omission of a key sentence of one of the sources.{1} That concluded the first phase after which I saved the template and republished the weblog.

The second phase involved updating the sections on The Novus Ordo Watch, The Remnant, and The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Here are the additions to each category that were made:

Novus Ordo Watch:

Response to Mario Derksen (Apolonio Latar)

Response to Mario (Apolonio Latar)

Mario on EENS (Apolonio Latar)

More With Mario (Apolonio Latar)

Props to David Alexander (I. Shawn McElhinney)

The last post was added because of an excellent exposure by Mr. Alexander of a significant faux pas by NOW.

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)

Three Cheers for Sedevacantism (Pete Vere)

On Fr. Paul Aulagnier (Pete Vere)

Schism For One Dollar (Pete Vere)

Also in the second set of adjustments, the sections on Controverted Apostolates and Controverted Subjects in General were switched around in order and the following were added to the subsection titled Kevin Tierney and His Apostolate.

A Note About A Blog (Apolonio Latar)

Radtrads Again (Apolonio Latar)

On True and False 'Traditionalism' With Kevin Tierney --Parts I-VII (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, and Global Government (Greg Mockeridge)

Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, and Global Government Part II: Response to the Response (Greg Mockeridge)

Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, and Global Government Part III (Greg Mockeridge)

Clarification on Global Government (Apolonio Latar)

A separate section was put under the section on controverted subjects which was titled Guest Editorials to which was added the blogged email from Gary Gubinski on the subject of Interfaith. So concluded the second part of the update and again the weblog was republished.

The third and final part of the update started with a retitling of the section previously called Controverted Subjects in General to now read Controverted Subjects and People in General. From there the following additions were made to the category:

On the Integralist-'Traditionalist' Connection --Parts I-V (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Discussion With Christopher Blosser on Reflections on Covenant and Mission (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Short Answers on Assisi (Apolonio Latar)

Question About the Magisterium (Apolonio Latar)

John Paul II and Islam (Apolonio Latar)

Have 'Traditionalists' Been Too Hard on the Pope Viz Islam (F. John Loughnan)

Dialogue With Adrian --Part IV (Apolonio Latar)

A Conversation --Parts I-II (I. Shawn McElhinney/Apolonio Latar)

Fatal Flaws of False 'Traditionalism' With Albert Cipriani--Parts I-VII (I. Shawn McElhinney)

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

Spirituality and Radtrads --Part I (Apolonio Latar)

Spirituality and Radtrads --Part II (Apolonio Latar)

Is it Okay to Complain? (Apolonio Latar)

Dialogue With Adrian --Part V (Apolonio Latar)

Dialogue With Adrian --Part VI (Apolonio Latar)

Points to Ponder - from Thomas à Kempis' Imitation of Christ (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Obedience: The Rise of True Catholics --Parts I-II (Apolonio Latar)

Dialogue With Adrian --Part VII (Apolonio Latar)

Radtradism and Mother Teresa (Apolonio Latar)

Common 'Traditionalist' Errors in Dogmatic Theology and the Ordinary Magisterum (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Notes on the Ordinary Magisterium (SecretAgentMan)

Some Self-styled "Traditionalist" Mendacity (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Dialogue With Adrian --Part VIII (Apolonio Latar)

Posting Rules for Radical 'Traditionalists' (The Curmudgeon)

Points to Ponder and a Question on Modernism (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Thoughts on Radtradism (Apolonio Latar)

Incardination of Greg Mockeridge to Lidless Eye and Canonical Warning to Haloscan (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Why Garrigou-Lagrange? (Apolonio Latar)

The Syllabus (Apolonio Latar)

Refutation of Some Common Radtrad Misuses of Citations (I. Shawn McElhinney)

A Significant Oversight by Yours Truly (I. Shawn McElhinney)

The Errors of Michael Malone Revisited (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Confuting an Attempted Justification for Schism --Part I (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Another Assisi? Part 1 (Apolonio Latar)

Another Assisi? Part 2 (Apolonio Latar)

Confuting an Attempted Justification for Schism --Part II (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Bull of Excommunication of Haloscan (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Points to Ponder -Maximus the Abbott as quoted by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum §13 (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Dialogue With a 'Traditionalist' (Apolonio Latar)

"To Be Deep in Catholic Theology is to Cease to Be a (Pseudo) 'Traditionalist'" Dept. -- Courtesy of Rerum Novarum (I. Shawn McElhinney)

Rounding out the update was the addition of Haloscan message boxes. As Haloscan has quite clearly repented of their crimes, their excommunication will be overturned.

The long and short of it is this: the Lidless Eye Inquisition is now updated as of October 3rd. Thank you for your time and patience.

Note:

{1} Pete did yeomans work in editing it -as he had to edit out about two thirds of my draft essay to make it publishable at the time. In this situations there is always some degree of compromise but Pete did not object to the version on the web now. (Which I handtyped out from my hardcopy of the Wanderer issue before making the necesary minor adjustments.)

:: Shawn 1:17 PM [+] | ::

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

Points to Ponder:

The success of every society of men, for whatever purpose it is formed, is bound up with the harmony of the members in the interests of the common cause. Hence We must devote Our earnest endeavours to appease dissension and strife, of whatever character, amongst Catholics, and to prevent new dissensions arising, so that there may be unity of ideas and of action amongst all. The enemies of God and of the Church are perfectly well aware that any internal quarrel amongst Catholics is a real victory for them. Hence it is their usual practice when they see Catholics strongly united, to endeavour by cleverly sowing the seeds of discord, to break up that union. And would that the result had not frequently justified their hopes, to the great detriment of the interests of religion! Hence, therefore, whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.

As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline-in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See- there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.

It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi §22-24 (c. 1914)]

:: Shawn 8:34 PM [+] | ::

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

The "Dogmatic-Pastoral" Artificial Dichotomy (courtesy of the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG)

:: Shawn 4:47 PM [+] | ::

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

Still Only a Buck!



As All Hallow's Eve approaches, now is a wonderful time to order my ebook Schism

:: Pete Vere 7:53 PM [+] | ::

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

He's not a toaster but he may be toast



Fr. Paul Aulagnier, co-founder of the SSPX, speaking with Cardinal Hoyos and Bishop Rifan

Despite my thoughts posted below concerning the SSPX, one SSPX priest I continue to respect is Fr. Paul Aulagnier. Not only is Fr. Aulagnier the first priest ordained for the SSPX, he co-founded the SSPX with Archbishop Lefebvre. Anyway, the Wanderer recently conducted an interesting interview with Father Aulagnier in which he states that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted regularization with Rome. Unable to refute Fr. Aulagnier's claims, some of the SSPX leadership are nevertheless reportedly not too happy about this interview. Anyway, you can read it here...

:: Pete Vere 7:43 PM [+] | ::

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

Two Cheers for Sedevacantism!

One of my favorite Ann Coulter quotes is the following concerning swing voters: "I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster." I think of it everytime someone argues that the sedevacantists are more extreme than the SSPX. Truth be told, with few exceptions I would choose sedevacantism over SSPXism any day of the week.

Basically, the SSPX are the swing voters of the traditionalist movement. They have no principles -- or at least none with which they are consistent. Thus the best debates within the traditionalist movement remain those between the indult crowd and the sedes. These are the trads who possess a consistent set of principles.

On the other hand, from my experience SSPX adherents just kinda go along with whatever their leadership tells them is truth today. Thus they have no problem swallowing tomorrow whatever they were told yesterday was unacceptable (such as illicit episcopal consecrations, establishing their own tribunals, have a bishop as superior general, etc...) They also have no serious rebuttals of intellegent indult or sedevacanist arguments. Thus the SSPX has never been able to refute Dom Basile's (from Le Barroux Monastery) thesis defending religious liberty as a legitimate development of doctrine and the SSPX have never been able to adequately refute Fr. Cekeda's various sedevacantist works.

:: Pete Vere 7:34 PM [+] | ::

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

"To Be Deep in Catholic Theology is to Cease to Be a (Pseudo) 'Traditionalist'" Dept.
(Courtesy of Rerum Novarum)

This post contains material posted to one of Mark Shea's message boxes earlier today. Though I may reconsider this later on, at the moment I have decided to change the names to protect the guilty. Their words will be in black font and mine in regular font with sources in darkblue font. Without further ado, let us get to it...

There is enough shoddy theology from BBBBB MMMMMMM on this thread to write a book about. As I do not have that kind of time -and as these messages have limits characterwise- I can only briefly deal with various bits of BBBBB's comments here.

I believe the Holy Trinity is a required dogma of the reality of God. As such, since Judaism rejects Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Islam regards the dogma of the Holy Trinity blasphemy, it is safe to say that they do not worship the same God we do, nor do we worship the same God they do.

If knowledge was *required* to worship the true God then no one prior to Nicaea worshipped the true God since all trinitarian notions in the ante-Nicene period were for the most part incomplete or fragmentary. Shall we therefore declare all ante-Nicene Fathers -all of whom had by later standards heterodox notions about the Trinity- to therefore be worshipping "another God"??? Of course not. The principle here is the same in the implication of the Jews as not worshipping the same God as us.

Further still, the complete hybrid nature of Jesus Christ as the God-Man would not be worked out for an additional three hundred years after Nicaea. So shall we draw the line at Constantinople III and declare that no one prior to that time worshipped the true God??? Of course not.

And if the principle applies to Jews it also applies to Muslims, albeit not as readily so. And the principle I am using here is the one which Our Lord noted to the Samaritan woman. For just as the pagan Samaritans "worship what they do not know", those who do not explicitly profess a belief in Christ "worship what they do not know." By contrast, we who profess the Trinity -beneficiaries of additional revelation about the nature of God that we are- worship what we know.

Please show me in any authoritative pre-Vatican II or Vatican II document.

This is like the Protestant assertion "show me that it is in the Bible." Whether it can be shown in the documents of any period is not relevant since (i) it has been taught in the Magisterium since the Second Vatican Council and (ii) generally it is not until a subject becomes controversial that it is addressed.

There is virtually no magisterial statements about the Jews prior to Vatican II except for papal legislation regulating what Jews could and could not do in society. (And of course decrees issued for their protection by various popes.) Other than those things, the number of actual magisterial texts on the Jews probably number less than three. (And there are even less in the case of the Muslims.)

When it comes to the relationship between the Church and non-Christian religions, there are none prior to the Declaration Nostra Aetate as the subject was never dealt with prior to that time. If you think this is a problem than consider what other areas of Church teaching are similarly "problematical."

If you want to demand pre-Vatican II magisterial statements duplicating what was taught by Vatican II and by the subsequent popes, you should acquire some consistency in your own position. And here is how you can do that.

Please begin by pointing to the magisterial statements prior to 1870 which treated on the infallibility of the pope. From there, please point us to the magisterial statements prior to 1547 (Trent Session VI) that treated on the subject of Justification. Thirdly, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 1215 that treated on the subject of transubstantiation. Fourthly, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 787 that treated on the subject of icons.

From there, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 649{1} that treated on the subject of the number of wills in Christ. Further still, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 449 that treated on the two persons of Christ. Also, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 430 which treated on the subject of Theotokos. Also, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 381 which treated on pneumatology. Finally, I want to see the magisterial statements prior to 325 which treated on the subjects of the consubstantiality and coeternity of Jesus Christ with the Father.

Do not claim that you are not so bound to prove such things while those you ask for proof are not. But as I recognize that I asked a lot of questions here, let us make it fair and reduce it to one proof for you.

It will suffice for you to produce the magisterial statements prior to 325 which treated on the subjects of the consubstantiality and coeternity of Jesus Christ with the Father. Remember, they have to be *magisterial* statements. Not that I am saying you could prove this doctrine by a consensus of the ante-Nicene Fathers{2} but since you seem to think that something must be enshrined in a magisterial text, let us see you prove two key points to what you have called a required dogma of the reality of God from pre-Nicene magisterial texts.

Again, this refers to Christ the Lord's consubstantial nature with the Father and also his coeternity. Show us the magisterial texts pre-Nicaea that teach these truths and then you have valid grounds to make these challenges to others.

It is also worth noting that the denoting of those who were recognized as not believing in God was that of "heathen." But the Church has never referred to Jews or Muslims as "heathens." Instead, the term they used was "infidel" - a term which in classic theology admits of three applications. (Not all of which is a sin.)

The "infidel" was one who though believing in the one God professed some incomplete or malformed notion of Him. Generally it was applied to the unbaptized though it could be said to apply to baptized non-Catholics as well. Nonetheless, an "infidel" is not one who believes in another God than Catholics, only one whose understanding of the one God is to some extent erroneous.

I do not have to PROVE to you what the Church DOES NOT teach.

This sounds like the Protestants who defend sola scriptura by saying "Catholics have to prove the infallibility of their Church or else sola scriptura stands." To make an affirmative statement or deny a proposition in philosophy or theology is useless without supporting the statement with evidences and argumentation.

You have made the claim that Jews do not worship same God as Christians. You have further asserted that those who say they do are making assertions that are contrary to what the Church taught pre-Vatican II. Then you have the burden or proof to demonstrate this supposed "teaching" BBBBB. This is basic "disputation 101" here: you have made the assertion so you must defend it. That is how it works outside of journalism school.

It is evident. Read the text and look for the words "same God as Christians" or "one, TRUE God." Nowhere to be found.

What idiocy. Here is the text from Nostra Aetate:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful, ###the Creator of heaven and earth who has spoken to men###...

Apparently, the "Creator of heaven and earth" is not the same God that Christians worship. At least not if we accept what BBBBB has to say. As far as the Jews go, the synod recognized that the foundations of the Church's faith are "found among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets" (NA §3).

It is called the Trinity, of whom Jesus Christ is man and God and the second person. This is the God of the NT, right?

Are you claiming that the God of the OT is not the same as the God of the NT???

As for allowing Catholics "theological speculation," I would recommend reading the condemned propositions in the Syllabus of Errors and the Errors of the Modernists prior to thinking this proposition is allowed Catholics.

And you will show us a condemned proposition in these sources that proscribes what is being asserted??? If so, where is it??? If not, then why bring these sources up???

Humani Generis and Mystici Corporis by Pius XII might also shed some light on worshipping the one, TRUE God.

Read them all and do not recall anything said about whether or not Jews worship the same God as Christians do. But then again, maybe BBBBB can refresh our memories on the matter. Where is this subject discussed in any of the sources you mention??? The answer of course is NOWHERE.

Have you actually ever read Newman's Development of Doctrine?

I have read it and also reviewed it for Amazon.

It says the germ of doctrine MUST be in the root of the tree (the Church), so it is VERY IMPORTANT to know where this so-called "doctrine" sprung from because otherwise it may be what Newman calls a "corruption" rather than "development."

This is for the most part accurate.

Something has to "develop" from a kernel that already existed previously.

Okay then, if Christianity is a true development of the Jewish religion, then there must be kernals in the Jewish religion. One of these kernals would have to be worship of the one true God since the claims of Jesus the Jew was that he came "not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill" (cf. Matt. v,17).

So if Christianity and the New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old Testament, then if those who believe in the Old Testament do not believe in the true God, neither by logical extension do those of the New Testament. So according to Newman's understanding of development, Christianity would be a corruption of primitive Judaism rather than an authentic development. If we accept your untraditional view on the matter that is. Fortunately no Catholic on this thread is doing that.


Notes:

{1} I say 649 because there are magisterial statements prior to Constantinople III on this subject. (Specifically one from Pope Martin I.) Hence, I want to see magisterial statements before 649 condemning what Pope Martin condemned and what was later condemned by Constantinople III on the subject of one or two wills in Christ.

{2} Because I already know you have not a ghost of a chance to prove this.

:: Shawn 4:01 PM [+] | ::

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