"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements
of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to
love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But
judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the
Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their
authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then
about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about
that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets,
with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)." [Pope St. Pius X: Allocution of May 10, 1909]
Any correspondence will be presumed eligible for
blogging unless the sender otherwise specifies (cf. Welborn Protocol)
*Ecumenical Jihad listing is for weblogs or websites which are either dedicated
to or which to the webmaster (i) are worth reading and (ii) characteri ze in their general outlook the preservation of
general Judeo-Christian morality and which are aimed at positively integrating these elements into society. (Such
sites need not even be Catholic ones.)
As society has grown more estranged from its founding principles, I wish to
note sites which share the same sentiments for the restoration of society even if the means advocated in this
endeavour differ. The Lidless Eye Inquisition does not necessarily endorse particulars with sites under
:: Friday, August 29, 2003 ::
Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, and Global Government
Self-styled “traditionalists” are tireless in their criticisms of the post-Pius XII Magisterium. Gotta hand it to ‘em. They are tenacious. They vehemently upbraid everything from Vatican II, the New Mass, ecumenism, John Paul II and Assisi, and much else. The battle cry of the trad movement can be summed up in the words of trad Mario Derksen, “Rome is burning and the Pope is fiddling.”
Among the laundry list of complaints, at least according to trad Johnny-Come-Lately Kevin Tierney, is that Pope John XXIII, in the 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, promotes the idea of global government ran by the United Nations.
This objection, if followed to its logical conclusion, is tantamount to accusing the pope of promoting the placing the individual sovereignty of nations at the mercy of the U.N.
On its face, this seems like an absurd objection. Even a cursory reading of the pertinent sections of the encyclical will confirm that this claim is indeed silly.
In his dialogue with Apolonio, Kevin states:
"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?"
First, let me briefly touch upon this “no war is just nowadays” business. It does not say what Kevin says it does. In paragraph 127, the pope sates that due to the advent of atomic weapons, it is “contrary to reason to hold that war is now a suitable way to restore rights which have been violated.” (emphasis added) The choice of the word “suitable” is an indication that the pope is speaking in terms of the practical and prudential, not the moral. If he had intended the latter, he would have used a word that carried a direct moral connotation like “just” or “licit.”
Unfortunately, this is not the only erroneous (and I would say disingenuous) statement in Mr. Tierney’s analysis.
Secondly, saying that, given the advances in technology and the fluidity of international travel and its direct impact on how nations relate to one another, an international body made up of representatives of individual nations, vested with some authority, is needed to facilitate those relations (This idea, which is expressed in #130 onward was also universally accepted in the worldwide political community at the time) is not the same thing as stumping for global government. In fact, Pope John argues against the idea of global government. He states in #138:
This public authority, having world-wide power and endowed with the proper means for the efficacious pursuit of its objective, which is the universal common good in concrete form, must be set up by common accord and not imposed by force. ... The difficulty is that there would be reason to fear that a supra-national or worldwide public authority, imposed by force by the more powerful nations might be an instrument of one-sided interests; and even should this not happen, it would be difficult for it to avoid all suspicion of partiality in its actions, and this would take from the force and effectiveness of its activity. Even though there may be pronounced differences between nations as regards the degree of their economic development and their military power, they are all very sensitive as regards their juridical equality and the excellence of their way of life. For that reason, they are right in not easily yielding obedience to an authority imposed by force, or to an authority in whose creation they had no part, or to which they themselves did not decide to submit by their own free choice.
After reading this, one would have to at least admit that if Bl. John XXIII is shilling for global government, he is doing a rotten job of it. The recognition of not only the sovereignty of individual nations, but the need to protect the sovereignty of smaller nations is incompatible with the idea of global government. The idea of global government has as its principle aim to do away with individual sovereignty.
In addition to making an astute observation of the political realities of the day and how to best inject Christian principles into them, he leans heavily on the teaching of his immediate predecessor Pius XII. In #124 he quotes a 1941 Christmas Eve radio address:
...in the field of a new order founded on moral principles, there is no room for violation of freedom, integrity and security of other nations, no matter what may be their territorial extension or their capacity for defense. It is inevitable that the powerful States, by reason of their greater potential and their power, should pave the way in the establishment of economic groups comprising not only themselves but also smaller and weaker States as well. It is nevertheless indispensable that in the interests of the common good they, as all others, should respect the rights of those smaller states to political freedom, to economic development and to the adequate protection, in the case of conflicts between nations, of that neutrality which is theirs according to the natural, as well as international, law. In this way, and in this way only, will they be able to obtain a fitting share of the common good, and assure the material and spiritual welfare of their people. (emphasis added)
Pius XII’s recognition of the validity of international law presupposes the validity of an international organization to facilitate the implementation of that law.
The next error in Kevin’s argument is that John XXIII is giving an unqualified endorsement to the United Nations. While acknowledging that the establishing of the U.N. was a step in the right direction toward “the juridical-political of all peoples of the world,” in #144, he shoots Kevin’s accusation right out of the water, “We are fully aware that some objections and reservations were raised regarding certain points in the Declaration, and rightly so.” (emphasis added)
It is true that in recent years the U.N. has been used as a vehicle for global government and other nefarious agendas. But these agendas not only violate Christian principles, but also the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Against the idea of global government, we read in section 1 of Article 2 of the U.N. Charter:
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. Likewise, we read in section 7 of the same Article:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially with the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter....
The pro-abortion and pro-contraception agenda that is heavily promoted by various U.N. dicasteries such as UNICEF is, believe it or not, in direct violation of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
For example, we read in Article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
We also read in section 3 of Article 16:
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection
by society and the State. (emphasis added)
While those with their hands on the levers of power in the U.N. have done a great deal of damage with its pro-abortion and pro-contraception agenda, they would have done much more damage if it had not been for the Vatican using its permanent observer status to coalesce the support of smaller nations to stave it off. A prime example was the 1994 population conference in Cairo.
Furthermore, Kevin’s position also suffers from a couple of self-contradictions. After upbraiding Pope John for shilling for global government, he says something to the effect of, “ I have no problem with global government just so long as it recognizes Christ’s universal kingship.” He then takes umbrage with the pope for urging cooperation with an international organization that doesn’t.
Kevin’s “social kingship of Christ” argument can be just as easily used against his own political position. What do I mean? Kevin is pro-American in his political mindset. (Not that there is anything wrong with that. I myself am very pro-American in my own.) You will nowhere find a recognition of the universal kingship of Christ in any of the founding documents of the United States. In fact, many trads, like Charles De Nunzio (www.charlesdenunzio.com) use this “social kingship of Christ” position as a basis for arguing that the founding principles of America are dangerous to Catholic faith.
It is true that recognizing the Universal Kingship of Christ in the area of civil government is, ideally speaking, a matter of Catholic faith. However, making this idea, like other Catholic teachings, a practical reality, is more difficult. This is especially true when it comes to the idea of making Christ’s Kingship a political reality in a world that is increasingly being influenced by Atheism or indifferentism.
Far from shying away the need to recognize God and the order laid down by Him being the basis of human relations, he begins the encyclical by stating that explicitly. He then very methodically explains that man, in all his facets, is an image of God. It is through this paradigm that he looks at the political realities of the day.
It is frustrating enough when non-believers and non-Catholics fail to see this, but it is not only frustrating, but also extremely destructive when certain Catholics cannot or will not see it because they are so wedded to pre vs. post Vatican II view of the Church.
The encyclical Pacem in Terris can be accessed here
When I wrote this the first time and showed a Traditional friend of mine, He said, "How come you cannot be 'ecumenical' to your Traditionalist brothers and sisters?" Since he is a good friend of mine, I listened to him and changed my tone. I did the best I can to make it an "ecumenical tone" even though Rad-Trads don't believe in such a thing as ecumenism (I tried very hard).
I went to Novus Ordo Watch (NOW) today and read a couple of things. The website is very anti-Catholic. Everything Mario (the maker of NOW) puts is an attack on the Catholic Church. He does point out the terrible things that go on in the Church. However, he puts a twist on it and blame Rome. His intent is very anti-Rome. He finds a way, somehow, to attack her. Anything anti-Rome he reads, he puts up. Sadly enough, it gets him into trouble. For example, he said,
We Apologize for Linking the Texe Marrs Story Earlier--It Contained Errors and Incorrect Paraphrases and Unjustly Defamed the Vatican--The Truth is Bad Enough Already, so please accept our apologies
We first had unintentionally put forth a misrepresentation of Fr. Serpa's position. It has been corrected and we apologize.
Here is a hint: Why not check the sources before you post them up? In fact, as I have noted, this is not the first time he did this. This happened before and he even got in "trouble" from his peers about it. He reads something and doesn't check the source (ex: offertory).
In one of his latest anti-Novus Ordo agenda, he attempted to refute Fr. Serpa of EWTN. It can be viewed here:
I will try to respond to some of the things he said.
Fr. Serpa put forth precisely what the Bl. Pope Pius IX condemned as erroneous,
namely, that "[g]ood hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ" (Syllabus of Errors, 1864, condemned proposition #17).
However, note the words "in the true Church of Christ". What does this mean? Mario also quoted Pope Gregory I:
"The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved" (Pope St. Gregory I, Bull Summo Iugiter Studio)
And I agree. I will say this: Non-Catholics will not be saved. Only Catholics will be saved. However, does this mean you have to be formally inside the Church? A person can be Catholic without being visibly a Catholic. As Garrigou-Lagrange said,
"Mystical graces improperly so called or minor mystical graces are not only possible outside the visible Church, but they can occur rather frequently in the holiest of souls in the state of grace" He then quotes Fr. Lemonnyer, "If they are born candidates for the minor mystical graces, they are unknown Catholics, members of one spiritual Church.." (Our Savior and His Love for Us, 379)
So a person who is not visibly a Catholic can still be a Catholic. Mario goes on and say:
If it's true that he can be saved by being a devout Jew, why does Fr. Serpa want him to convert nonetheless? Here Fr. is being inconsistent. But much worse than that, Fr. actually has the audacity to suggest that if Jacob (and other "sincere" Jews) do not accept Jesus, they do so because they have not been "given the grace" to do so! In other words, it's God's fault! Since God is the one who gives grace, then, if Jacob cannot recognize the Messiah, then it's because God didn't give him the grace!
This is poor logic. I don't see how Fr. Serpa is in any way being inconsistent. God can give grace to a Jew, and a Jew can reject it. All of us have rejected grace at some point of our lives. We have been given graces to become a saint, yet we reject it. We have been graces to become the next St. Vincent de Ferrer, but we reject it, the next Mother Teresa, but we reject it. We have been given graces to accept all of the Church's teachings including Vatican 2, John XXIII's, Paul VI's, and John Paul's teachings, but we reject it. Does it mean we cannot be saved? Does it mean it is God's fault? Certainly not.
Mario goes on:
The question of invincible ignorance is really irrelevant to the issue at hand, as Jacob, the Jew who posted on EWTN's forum, knows about Christ and is therefore not ignorant, much less invincibly so. But if Fr. Serpa thought Jacob was invincibly ignorant, then why did he not preach the Gospel to him so that he would be enlightened? Alas, Fr. decided to basically tell him that 'it would be nice if you could become Catholic, but if you can't, don't bother.'
Here might be a reason why Fr. Serpa did not preach the Gospel to Jacob: He was answering a specific question. He was asked if a non visibly Catholic can be saved. Fr. Serpa answered it. You don't expect him to say, "Convert!" He certainly can, and I believe he would want to, to talk to Jacob (the Jew who asked the question) about the faith, but he doesn't have to do it in a Q&A forum. Also, one does not have to come out and say "Convert!" in order to convert anyone. Mother Teresa converted a lot of people without saying a word.
Mario goes on:
Somebody is "invincibly ignorant" of the Gospel when he does not know about the Gospel through no fault of his own.
And what does no fault of their own mean? If a person cannot honestly believe the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ by some circumstances, and yet, "being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?" And Garrigou-Lgrange says:
souls really endowed with good faith and good will in the theological sense can attain a true spirit of prayer, as missioners have often noticed. In consequence these souls may make more or less permanent attempts at attaining the Gospel in their religious teachings, especially if there remain traces of the Gospel in their religious teachings, as in the doctrine of Islam and some of its traditions. (footnote) ..quoting Rev. Allo, "The Mohammedan contemplatives have deepened and vivified the monotheism of the Koran, which has always been their dogmatic authority...The Indian Vedanta also had its dogmatic authorities...They do not admit the Incarnation, which is a Christian dogma. They deeply venerate Jesus,...who was to them the perfect example of transforming union..." We can see that in such environment and in the face of such trials there may well have existed among the best of these souls a certain intimacy with God and genuine inspirations of the Holy Ghost."(Our Savior and His Love for Us, 379)
And also St. Gregory Nazianzus:
For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes themother from our body (the Church), so many of those outside belong to us,who by their way of life anticipate the faith, and need (only) the name,having the reality (ergon). (Oration 18. 6. PG 35)
In closing, let us ask God to help Mario come back to the Church for he has attacked and dissents from the Church especialy the Roman Pontiff. For if the Church is where Peter is, which is in his successors, then anyone who is not with Peter is not with the Church. Mario is not with the Pope. Therefore.......
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus!
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, save a soul, forgetting not my own.
Canonizations of the "Newchurch": Adrian Agrees with Me!
To read the previous installment of this thread see this link. To start from the beginning of this thread go HERE.
Adrian: Have you read Bishop Williamson's article "Newchurch Canonizations?"
Apolonio: Yes. It was terrible.
Adrian: I think I have to agree with you on this issue.
Apolonio: First of all, Williamson is excommunicated (Ecclesia Dei). Second, his argument is terrible. In speaking of St. Escriva and John XXIII, he says, "Therefore such "canonizations" are certainly to some extent contrary to Catholic Tradition, and to that extent they are automatically not infallible, without my having to examine any further." Of course, this sort of argumentation is unTraditional.
Adrian: Aquinas says that canonization is infallible right?
Apolonio: Yes. He says that if an error on canonization occurs, it would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church. How can the Church make us venerate a "false" saint?
Adrian: Do you know any magisterial teaching on this issue?
Apolonio: This has always been taught. But at the top of my head, Cardinal Ratzinger said in his Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fidei that canonizations are held definitely. Infallibility also reaches the realm of dogmatic facts.
Adrian: I also have to disagree with Richard Williamson because he said that we should not venerate the post-Vatican 2 canonizations. However, after John Paul II canonized Padre Pio, I knew I could not use the same argumentations made by other Traditionalists because that means I would be picking and choosing what I think is true rather than submitting to authority.
Apolonio: :-) Yes, that is arbitrary.
Adrian: Why do you think John Paul canonized many people though? I have no problem with it, but why so many?
Apolonio: What's wrong with honoring great men? Shall we honor false idols? I rather honor St. Escriva than Britney Spears. Also, Garrigou-Lagrange said that canonizations were increasing year by year. And this was pre-Vatican 2. So I would think it would increase after Vatican 2. You also have to remember that Pope Leo consecrated the world to the Sacred Heart. This means that graces will increase. And recently, the world was consecrated to Our Lady. So I will expect more saints.
Adrian: But it seems that he beatifies or canonize people so easily though.
Apolonio: Well, most of the people John Paul II canonized or beatified were martyrs. They were great men. Also, it seems that many people don't know what a "saint" mean.
Adrian: Yes, that's true. Many think a saint is a big superstar. But I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger who said," Heroic virtue does not mean that the saint performs a type of "gymnastics" of holiness, something that normal people do not dare to do. It means rather that in the life of a person God's presence is revealed -- something man could not do by himself and through himself. Perhaps in the final analysis we are rather dealing with a question of terminology, because the adjective "heroic" has been badly interpreted. Heroic virtue properly speaking does not mean that one has done great things by oneself, but rather that in one's life there appear realities which the person has not done himself, because he has been transparent and ready for the work of God. Or, in other words, to be a saint is nothing other than to speak with God as a friend speaks with a friend. This is holiness."
Apolonio: I love that quote. And what is a saint but a holy person? Mother Teresa for example will not be a saint because she did great things, but small things with great love. A saint is a person who acted extraordinarily in his ordinary life; who sacrificed himself no matter how small an act is. St. Monica didn't really do anything "extraordinary". She simply prayed for her son. However, she would pray everyday. This means that she gave up her time doing anything she wants for her son. And this small act of love is what makes her extraordinary. St. Therese did the same. She offered her sufferings up for the salvation of souls. In other words, saints were Catholics no matter how small their situation was.
Adrian: Yes. Self-abandonment to Divine Providence.
Apolonio: Exactly. That's the meaning of sainthood. A saintly act is none other than a Catholic act, which is a self-giving of one's self for another and seeing His face in the face of many.
Note: After this exchange, another Rad-Trad sent me Kevin Tierney's statements regarding canonizations. At one point, Kevin says:
""Luciani is not a holy saint characterized by many miracles or works of who-knows-what extent," he added. "His holiness consists in the exercise of daily virtues, in the ordinary character of life." " -His Excellency Vincenzo Savio
In other words, they believe he should be canonized a saint because he ACTED AS A CATHOLIC! One of the truly embrassing feats of the Neo-Catholic excuse factory is excusing the gutting of the canonization process, and how to be a saint has truly lost all meaning.
I wonder what he thinks a saint is, if it is not acting as a Catholic. Mother Teresa said, "Little things are indeed little, but to be faithful in little things is a great thing." And is not being faithful in little things, to give love in small things what makes a Catholic what he is? If what Bishop Savio said is true, then Pope John Paul I should be canonized. This is not losing all meaning, but what has been taught by the spiritual masters. The words "holiness consist in the exercise of daily virtues in the ordinary character of life" is a good definition of a saint. What is a saint but he who exercises virtues (faith, hope, and love) in ordinary life? To exercise virtue in our ordinary life is not easy. It's an extraordinary thing.
So what then is Kevin suggesting? After being influenced by great spiritual writers and saints such as Brother Lawrence, St. Therese of the Child Jesus, Fulton J. Sheen, St. Teresa of Avila, Mother Teresa, and Thomas A Kempis, I would say that Bishop Savio is right.
To read the previous installment of this thread see this link.
After going to confession, I got an email from none other than Mario Derksen. Before I read it, I prayed, "Please God, let him come back to the Church." Then, I read it. It's a good example of how God does things in His own time. Mario has not come back, but is still the old Mario who does not obey the Pope. And yes, since John Paul II is the Pope, he needs to be obeyed.
He sent me a link to Restore the Church blog where he attempted to respond to the things Shawn and I have said about him. He says:
When it comes to some posts by Apolonio and Shawn McElhinney, I cannot help but feel that it's nothing more than a private exchange filled with gossip about third parties (such as myself) that they desire to make public.
If anyone actually reads the purpose of the blog, one can see that it is "a weblog dedicated to the exposure of the crackpots of the lunatic self-styled 'traditionalist' fringe who disingenuously pose as faithful Catholics." And Mario is just that. So you would expect things like that on the blog.
He kept on ranting:
Pope Honorius I was called a heretic by the third council of Constantinople, which was ratified by Pope St. Leo II. It is true that Pope Leo qualified in what sense Honorius I was a heretic, but he was a heretic nonetheless. I'm merely repeating what two Popes and a council have said about Honorius.
Mario is being dishonest and he knows it. He believes that Honorius was a heretic, and what I meant was that was "a person who taught or followed a heresy." This is what Mario believes. But the fact is that he is wrong. "Heretic" meant negligence in the case of Honorius. He goes on:
My goodness, the Catholic Encyclopedia sums up the matter very well, and it lends credence to what I have been saying: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned."
He quotes Catholic Encyclopedia as if I never responded to this before. I already told him that the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong. And we should not be surprised that this is what the article on Honorius says since the author is Dom John Chapman. I disagree with Chapman and believe he is wrong. And that's why I challenged him to a debate. So why keep on quoting this? He says:
The Lidless Eye post continues: "If you don't have the guts to defend it, then don't make that assertion. Any philosopher should know this." It has nothing to do with guts; it has everything to do with preparing properly for a debate. I'm not someone who's terribly interested in history, even Church history. I can't change it; history simply isn't something I'm very interested in. To suggest that there I cannot make statements about history is ridiculous.
Right. I have already refuted his statements on Honorius many times and even challenged him to a debate. He then says no which is fine. Then, he turns around and quotes Chapman again! Just imagine an atheist saying, "There is no scientific support for theism and Richard Dawkins says so." The theist responds, "Richard Dawkins is wrong and there *is* support such as irreducible complexity. How about we debate on this issue?" After hearing this, the atheist says, "I'm sorry, I have no time to debate you on this." The theist says, "Fine." Then three days later, the atheist comes back and say, "There is no scientific support for theism!" This is exactly what Mario does. He simply does not want to engage in a debate, but would assert things anyway. He is a good example of a Sophist. He then says:
Is this so hard to understand or accept? It has nothingto do with not being sure of what I said or with "fear" of what the opposition might say.
It's hard to accept when an assertion is being challenged and you don't want to step up. Afterwards, you make the same assertion. Again, very good sophistry. He goes on:
On a more general note, one cannot and need not be competent on every matter.
I agree. But for a person to not know what the difference of de fide credenda and de fide tenenda, to judge a Papal statement or Vatican 2 as heretical is simply stupid. I asked Mario a simple question, "Do you think the condemnation of abortion is de fide credenda or de fide tenenda?" He said, "I don't know the difference." I asked a simple question and I simply got a stupid answer. Now, I am ignorant of a lot of things as well. However, you don't see me making up a website called "Novus Ordo Watch". How does he know if Vatican 2 made any de fide tenenda statements? He doesn't. Yet, he has the pride to label things heretical. He then says:
So, for instance, when I said that "Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange is probably the best Thomist of the 20th century," I said that because I know he is very well-respected among philosopher and other competent people whom I trust, and he was orthodox.
Right. Then I showed him a quote which disturbed him. He then said, "uh oh this doesn't look good." Here's a hint: maybe Mario's thoughts are the ones that does not look good. Ever thought of that? And when he says "orthodox" of course, he means Rad-Trads. This is basically the problem. Mario does not look up the source for himself. He reads every anti-Vatican 2 book he reads but never looks it up himself. That is why his website said things such as:
We Apologize for Linking the Texe Marrs Story Earlier--It Contained Errors and Incorrect Paraphrases and Unjustly Defamed the Vatican--The Truth is Bad Enough Already, so please accept our apologies
We first had unintentionally put forth a misrepresentation of Fr. Serpa's position. It has been corrected and we apologize.
Hint Hint: Look up the source before you post it up. This is not the first time this happened. But I already talked about the other stupid things he did so I don't need to mention it again.
I heard from reliable sources that Maritain became modernistic in 1926, when Pope Pius XI condemned the Action Francaise.
Oh right. So Maritain became modernistic in 1926, but was still being praised by Garrigou-Lagrange. Don't you think an anti-modernist such as Garrigou-Lagrange would notice it? And again, this proves my point that all his sources are secondary sources.
In short, I have ample reason to be suspicious of Maritain and his work--which is not to say, of course, that all of his work is bad. No, on the contrary, it seems he has done quite some good for the Thomistic movement, and I was told--again by someone who is competent in philosophy and whose opinions I value very much--that his Degrees of Knowledge is a real masterpiece.
Actually, it was more than suspicious. Mario have told me many times not to waste my intelligence by reading Maritain because he was a modernist. And this was on the context of me asking if he had read Degrees of Knowledge.
Oh, which reminds me: another reason I was suspicious about Maritain was because of none other than Etienne Gilson, perhaps my favorite philosopher (died 1978), who very convincingly argued against the epistemological position of "critical realism," a position which Maritain defends in his Degrees of Knowledge.
First of all, that is a terrible method of finding out what is good or not. Just because his belief on critical realism is bad, it does not mean all of his works are. And that's exactly what Mario implied when he told me I should not waste my intelligence on Maritain.
More from the clowns at the Lidless Eye: "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." I find that curious. I would love for them to point out to me just why they thought I lost that debate. Obviously I wouldn't have it featured on my site if I thought I did. Perhaps they wish to argue it was a tie -- fine -- but a LOSS for me? Interestingly enough, and embarrassingly for THEM, much of the material for this debate actually came from Brent Arias. Ah yes. Next.....
I'll give my reasons why I believe Derksen lost. Kevin might or might not agree, but here is my personal opinion. 1) Mario does not refute Sola Scriptura after apostolic times. 2) Failure to address the true meaning of 1 Cor 4:6 effectively. 3) Failure to address #6 of Guthrie's reasons for Sola Scriptura. There are more reasons of course, I think the three is enough. Kevin, do you agree? What are your reasons? :-)
there are some disappointing things to be found (e.g., in the latter, which deals with a fictional dialogue between Socrates and Marx in the afterlife, he puts Marx in purgatory instead of hell).
What Catholic would want anyone to be in hell? Why would someone even think of people going to hell? Should we not pray that they go to heaven? This is a GREAT example of spiritual immaturity. A spiritual mature person, like Peter Kreeft, will in hope, pray that people go to heaven. This is not Catholicism. This sounds more like Calvinism to me. However, we Catholics believe that no matter how bad a person is, that God will give him the grace to repent of his sins before he died. Catholics know better. Unfortunately, Mario doesn't.
In my paper against abortion, which I presented at the 3rd Ohio Univeristy's Student Ethics Conference, I draw on an anti-abortion argument made by Kreeft, AND I GIVE HIM CREDIT! But of course, neither Apolonio nor McElhinney know that. Nevertheless, they feel confident they can pass judgment on me.
Like I care. I was talking about the one on God's existence. And yes, I will excuse Mario for that one because he was ignorant and he was still not brainwashed by the Rad-Trads. By becoming a Rad-Trad, he had to give up obedience and follow the "spirit of pre-Vatican 2".
Though I divided this into more parts, it is nonetheless a shorter response than the one I posted to this weblog back in June. Hopefully future threads can cover fewer subjects and therefore be of shorter duration. (Unlike the previous longer response this one actually took a fair amount of time - particularly with the formatting which was for some reason much more difficult than normal.)
I was going to post the aforementioned link to this weblog earlier in the week. However, someone made me aware of a piece recently composed by Adam Kolasinski where I was for some reason mentioned. It seemed appropriate to respond to the pertinent parts of that piece before posting the link to my response to Kevin. Therefore, I wrote a reasonably terse response to part of Adam's piece on Friday morning and formatted it Saturday night for posting today. Here is the link to that response as well:
This is a dialogue with a Rad-Trad. He permitted me to post this, though he wants his name to be a secret. So I will call him "Rad-Trad".
Rad-Trad: Why don't you like Traditionalists? Aren't they your brothers in Christ too?
Apolonio: I like Traditionalists. One example is Peter Kreeft. He is a true Traditionalist. But you will probably not call him a Traditionalist because he does not fit in your man made traditions and doctrines of, "Let's stay out of Vatican 2." It just amazes me how you Rad-Trads define your own beliefs, etc. Almost like another religion.
Rad-Trad: That's not true, We Traditionalists just believe that it was better pre-Vatican 2. And that Vatican 2 caused a lot of mess. And no, I would not consider Peter Kreeft a Traditionalist.
Apolonio: Why not? Let me guess. He is just a "neo-Catholic" who likes Latin Mass.
Rad-Trad: Yes. He is just that.
Apolonio: LOL! Even though he criticizes the same things as you do like the abuse of the Novus Ordo, religious relativism, etc he is still a neo-Catholic. In fact, you would agree with what he says in Snakebite Letters.
Rad-Trad: I read that. I agreed with most of the things he said.
Apolonio: Oh really? You agreed with his views on rock music too?
Apolonio: What about ecumenism?
Apolonio: What about his views on John Paul II?
Apolonio: Oh? Why not? Why can't a person still be "revolutionary" as you Rad-Trads want to be, but still believe in ecumenism, John Paul as John Paul the Great, religious dialogues, etc?
Rad-Trad: It's contrary to Church teaching.
Apolonio: Oh? The Church did not teach those things?
Rad-Trad: No. Read Pius XI.
Apolonio: Wait..The Church does not teach those things? Ever heard of Vatican 2? Isn't Vatican 2 part of the Church teachings?
Rad-Trad: Some are some are not.
Apolonio: So they are only part of Church teachings when it is in par with your interpretation of Tradition.
Rad-Trad: And that's your fallacy right there and from all your writings. You think a Catholic cannot know what the Church taught before. You think a Catholic cannot know Tradition.
Apolonio: It's not fallacy. Your fallacy is the Luther fallacy which says, "The Roman Church's fallacy is that she thinks an ordinary man cannot know what Scripture says." But the Church answers, "Yes he can, but only when he is in conformity with what the Church teaches." And yes, the Church means the present Church, the Living Magisterium.
Rad-Trad: That's a bunch of bullcrap. Show me ONE teaching of the so called "living magisterium" before Vatican 2. You can't.
Apolonio:"Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own." (Satis Cognitum, 9) You said you read my writings. You should know that I quote this. Hurts when God humbles ya ,eh? Maybe if you actually rely on what the Church teaches, instead of your man-made traditions and doctrines of your buddies, you can actually learn the Truth.
Rad-Trad: Again, we Traditionalists simply listen to what has been taught before Vatican 2.
Apolonio: Apparently not. You didn't even know Pope Leo's teachings. I bet you just read Rad-Trad articles and books and never see the sources for yourself.
Rad-Trad: It is self-evident that Vatican 2 taught some new doctrines. It cannot be reconciled with past teachings.
Apolonio: Maybe you can't. However, you are not the Magisterium, thank God. Heck, I was just reading Mr. Ferrara's critique of Ratzinger and he said that "churches" refer to Protestant sects. How pathetic is that!
Rad-Trad: I like Mr. Ferrara. However, you have to admit that there is a lot of bad things going on.
Apolonio: Of course I do. But I don't blame the Church nor do I say Vatican 2 is the cause of it. Peter Kreeft certainly does not believe so and he is a Traditionalist.
Rad-Trad: What do you think of ecumenism? Do you think the past magisteriums would have approved of this?
Apolonio: First of all, that's your fallacy right there. It violates St. Teresa of Avila's maxim, "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." Second, you fail to realize that there can be developments.
Rad-Trad: Right. It is okay to go to countries without telling them to go to Christ, but everything is a-okay.
Apolonio: I wasn't finished, but let me respond to that one. Mother Teresa didn't tell them to convert either.
Rad-Trad: And that's why I have problems with Mother Teresa.
Apolonio: Oh God have mercy on you. I can't believe you are one of those people.
Rad-Trad: She said, "I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you've found God, it's up to you to decide how to worship him." She also said things like, "I love all religions."
Apolonio: Okay, first of all, Mother Teresa's purpose was to love everyone and to help everyone. She was to bring God to them by making them experience love (God is love). Her purpose was to **live** out the Gospel just like St. Francis did. Also remember St. Francis's words of, "Preach and use words if you have to." Mother Teresa didn't have to at times. The trouble with you is that you reduce evangelization to "try to convert the other person." It is good and all, but it is a reduction of evangelization. It is a Protestant version actually, since that is what evangelization mean to them, "to try to convert the other person." That was not her purpose.
Rad-Trad: What about those words?
Apolonio: It is not to be taken literally. She does not mean, "Remain a Muslim who believes in no resurrection." She means that if one remains a Muslim, one has to be a good person. And what does a good person do? Love. And is not God present in love? Of course. God is Love. So when one loves, God is with them in some way.
Rad-Trad: Nice try. But she said, "I love all religions but I am in love with my own."
Apolonio: First of all, you didn't quote the rest. She was asked if everyone should love Jesus. She answered, "Naturally, if they want peace, if they want joy, let them find Jesus. If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God. When they come closer, they have to choose." First, the "I love all religions." Of course, she does not mean "I love all doctrines of religion." She simply meant, "I love all people in all religions." Now the "better Muslims, etc". Her "type" of evangelization is by action, which is the best one and it has converted many and more than all the Rad-Trads combined with their debate mentality. All she is saying that again, they become better people they will begin to come closer to God. Then they have to choose. They have to choose, "Do I want natural peace?" If the answer is yes, then they have to love Jesus.
Rad-Trad: It stills leaves a bad message or it will confuse people.
Apolonio: It will confuse those who has a soft mind and a hardened heart, yes. A lot of things Jesus said confuses people too.
Rad-Trad: And you think Rad-Trads have a soft mind and a hardened heart?
Apolonio: Some do. They have a minimist view of Catholicism, reducing it to a mindset of an Apologist or a "debate mentality". This is of course from my experience.
To read the previous installment of this thread see this link. To start from the beginning of this thread go HERE.
Adrian: Hey there
Adrian: What's up?
Apolonio: Nothing really. Just reading Jacques Maritain. You know, philosophy stuff you don't like. :-)
Adrian: Is there any reason why you are reading him?
Apolonio: Well, one, he is a Thomist :-). Second, he says a lot of things about personalism, and I am interested in it. I believe personalism is the background of Vatican 2. That is also why I read John Paul II's The Acting Person. This way, I can understand more of his writings. Also, I can know what the Church is thinking. For example, what did the word "subsist" mean? It spoke of the Church as a subject, more specifically, a person. And though something can be cut off from a person, the part still retains its nature. For example, if I cut off my hand, my hand is still "human". It is wounded, but it is still "human". So too if individual parts of the Church, with its valid apostolic sucession and sacraments, are cut off, they are still called "churches".
Adrian: And you got all that from reading Maritain?
Apolonio: Well, yes and a couple of other philosophers.
Adrian: I have a problem though. Why does John Paul II make liberal cardinals or appoint bad men at high positions?
Apolonio: I don't know the reason. I can't read his mind. You should write to Rome or something. Did you read my latest response to Adam Kolasinski?
Adrian: No I haven't. But I will. I want to know your personal view though.
Apolonio: Personally, I don't know. Just as I don't know why Jesus appointed Thomas. However, I do know that He did it for a purpose. So too I know all these "bad" cardinals is for a purpose. Self-abandonment to Providence. And even if I did not like them, I can complain to them and if not, pray for them.
Adrian: But JPII doesn't have to appoint these liberal cardinals. He could have appointed better ones. And he can also excommunicate the bad ones like the Church did before.
Apolonio: Again, I personally don't know because I trust God. And Jesus did not excommunicate the His apostles when they were doing something wrong. He would let them learn from their mistakes or let them fall by themselves.
Adrian: So we should let cardinals lead people to astray?
Apolonio: What I'm saying is that I can see beyond the evil things and know God is involved and that the purpose is good. Sometimes, God permit evil things to happen for a greater good. I don't see why this isn't the same case.
Adrian: So that's it. We don't do anything at all.
Apolonio: You can complain to them and pray for them. And I trust that God holds the evil people in His hand. And yes, if there are any evil cardinals who leads people astray, He has those people in His hand as well. I don't merely look at what I can see, but also what I don't see. This is what I have learned from the great saints and the spiritual masters.
Adrian: Okay, I agree with that and all, but is that all we can do?
Apolonio: Complain and pray...yes. I would think that's enough. We are not even theologians for goodness sake. Donum Veritatis is actually intended for theologians, not non-theologians. However, since people think that if they get into Apologetics, and read the Bible and Church history, they somehow think they can be the great St. Athanasius of our day. Too many people try to strive as the great Athanasius, but few strive to be like the Child Jesus Who was obedient. Some people simply are not used to obedience or don't know what true obedience entails.
Adrian: So if we disagree with something, we are disobedient? We are not with the Church if we disagree on something like Assisi?
Apolonio: Nope, never said that. If a person puts obedience first, he will see that he might not see things the Church can see. So he will shut his mouth and pray about it. If it bothers him, he will "complain" to Rome. But he will never publically criticize the Church because that would imply that he knows more than what the Holy Father or Rome is doing. An obedient person puts the higher authority first.
Adrian: Wait..how can we be 'with" the Church if we criticize her, even if you criticize *to her*?
Apolonio: Again, when you complain to her, you are implicitly saying, "I may not see what you can see. Therefore I ask for your explanation." And by the way, Vatican 1 says that we should submit to her in matters concerning the government of the Church. It's funny though Adrian, you told me before that we should trust George Bush on WMDs and his position on Libya and Saudi Arabia. I just pray you have the same or even more trust to God in His handling of His Church.
Adrian: Okay, but I criticize Bush as well.
Apolonio: I know you do. I was talking about trust. I would also recommend you read Shawn McElhinney's response to Kevin Tierney. Then read my response to Adam Kolasinski. Or you can read Vatican 1, Vatican 2, etc. Or maybe some Thomists if you want. :-)
Apolonio: Pay attention to what Shawn says on obedience (as well as other things such as communion by hand, Assisi, Pius XII and WW2, etc). He said, "Traditional obedience is not contingent on whether or not the pope does wrong or theoretically can do wrong."
I have to take issue with Apolonio Latar's apparent statement that before the "enligthenment" of Vatican II "dialogue," the Catholic Church did not do well converting Muslims. Where did he get that? Does he have statistics to back that up? I find it quite daring that anyone should suggest that the evangelization of the Church from 33 AD until the 1960's did not produce fruit with the Muslims. Says who? The only way to convert people is by evangelizing them. Christ's Great Commission was "preach the Gospel to every creature" and not "dialogue with every creature." Evangelization by means of conversion (or "non-dialogue") was good enough for over 1900 years. It's good enough now.
This is really funny. Kevin Tierney argued that dialogues have not been fruitful and evidence shows otherwise. He also asked for empirical evidence that dialogues have worked. This reasoning is flawed and Michael Brendan agrees, though for not the same reason as mine. What empirical evidence is there that non-dialogued has worked? Did it make Muslims less militant? Hillaire Belloc, as John Loughnan has already showed, 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." (The Great Heresies)
I talked to many Muslims about this. I asked them a straight question, "What will make persecution of Christians stop?" Most of them said, "Stop sending missionaries and it will stop." But the Church cannot do that since it would be disobeying our Lord's command. I then asked, "What do you think of John Paul II?" Half of them liked him. I then asked, "What do you think of having dialogues with the Catholic Church?" Half of them said they didn't like it. Half of them said it would be a good idea. One said, "Yes, dialogue will work. The more people you meet, face to face, the more tolerant you are." I saw that the Muslims themselves were divided on this issue. Some liked the dialogue and some stayed with their bigotry. The people who liked the idea of the dialogue did not respect Catholicism, but they did respect the Catholics, the people themselves. One said, "If only we had more John Paul II, the persecution might stop." This reminded me of Ghandi saying that if Christians acted as Christians, the whole country of India would be Christian.
Has dialogue worked? Matthew Bunson said,
"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."
We have three choices.
1) Do not send missionaries. 2) Non-dialogue and keep sending missionaries. 3) Dialogue and keep sending missionaries.
The Church prefers #3. Islam lacks personality, a loving of neighbor. They do not believe in the golden rule. To counter this, the Church as a Person, will dialogue with them since "dialogue is an indispensable step along the path towards human self-realization, the self-realization both of each individual and of every human community." The more John Paul have dialogues with them, the more they will realize that Catholics are persons themselves, who has dignity. And that is what we need. We need them to respect Catholics. And if they respect us, they will stop the persecution. We can pray to God that dialogues will help. We should not rule them out as a possibility.
However, the main problem with Mario is that he does not believe in dialogues at all. But who is he to say this? What is his authority? The Holy Father says we should have dialogues, and therefore the case should be closed. 
 I have already shown how Garrigou-Lagrange would support me on this. Also, Kevin Tierney has made a comment regarding dialogue with Muslims. He said;
"One of his (me) primary arguments seems to be that since non-dialogue with them didn't work, dialogue is now the best policy. That of course is a fallacy right there. Just because A didn't get the job done doesn't mean B will."
Let me just say that this was never my argumentation.
Clearly, as we can see from the above, it is permissible for learned Catholics, or theologians at the very least, to respectfully call into question the validity of non-infallible teachings, such as Vatican 2’s declaration on religious liberty.
But again, this means telling the Magisterium your problems, not writing "The Great Fascade". Adam goes on to say:
When someone kisses an object, it means he is showing it reverence, so the most one can say about the pope’s kiss is that it expressed reverence for the Koran, an indefensible act to be sure.
A kiss is also an act of love. And as I have shown before, the kiss probably meant a respect for their religiosity, especially their fidelity to prayer. If we have a problem with this, we should let the Magisterium know. However, writing articles saying, "This is blasphemy!" is not the proper way of submission.
And I would also say that it is not "indefensible". There is nothing wrong with kissing a book which has partial truths. The Muslims, as taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (Vatican 2) " adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.(Nostra Aetate, 3)" It also quotes Pope Gregory's letter to the Muslim king Anzir. Yes, it may just be one quote out of many Church Fathers and Magisteriums, but the living Magisterium is the true interpreter of Tradition. Even if it is one quote, it is still true because the Magisterium says it is. She "picks" out what is true from Tradition, not us.
Perhaps they would not feel so compelled to defend the indefensible, as they did the Koran-kissing episode, the Assisi gathering, the incessant apologies for things which the Church owes no apology, and the like.
I disagree with this. John Newman tells us to follow the Pope wherever he goes and it is dangerous to be against him even in secular matters. On things like Assisi, I have shown that a Pope can have these dialogues. It is the fault of Rad-Trads who think, "pray" means "pray to your false gods". Who knows who the pagans are praying to? How do we know that God was not please with their prayers? It is true that God is authentically united with people even if they are not Christians. As Garrigou-Lagrange said:
"Mystical graces improperly so called or minor mystical graces not only are possible outside the visible Church, but they can occur rather frequently in the holiest of souls in the state of grace...In this way souls really endowed with good faith and good will in the theological sense can attain a true spirit of prayer, as missioners have often noticed. In consequence these souls may make more or less permanent attempts at attaining the Gospel in their religious teachings, especially if there remain traces of the Gospel in their religious teachings, as in the doctrine of Islam and some of its traditions. (footnote) ..quoting Rev. Allo, "The Mohammedan contemplatives have deepened and vivified the monotheism of the Koran, which has always been their dogmatic authority...The Indian Vedanta also had its dogmatic authorities...They do not admit the Incarnation, which is a Christian dogma. They deeply venerate Jesus,...who was to them the perfect example of transforming union..." We can see that in such environment and in the face of such trials there may well have existed among the best of these souls a certain intimacy with God and genuine inspirations of the Holy Ghost."(Our Savior and His Love for Us, 379)
At best, we do not know. If we do not know, then the best thing to do is to remain silent and pray. It would also be a good idea if we let the Magisterium know about what we think about it. It would not be a good idea however, to label ourselves "traditionalists" for a license to criticize the Pope publically.
Adam's final statements were:
Neo-Catholics might become more open to the possibility that popes during and since Vatican 2 made some errors, in prudential judgment as well as in non-infallible teaching, and traditionalists might be made to understand that Catholics are called to a greater respect for the Holy Father than they are exhibiting. Let us pray both sides will change their ways.
I respectfully disagree with the first statement Adam says. Again, as Ratzinger says,"...it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission."
We Catholics will never stop obeying the Magisterium and will never stop defending her. Jesus told Simon, "You are Peter and upon this rock, I will build my church." The rock is the foundation of the Church. The foundation is usually on the ground, a "servant to the building" if you will. True Catholics were those who never stop guarding the rock no matter how low it is, having confident that in the last days, He will lift up the lowly. So it is of us Catholics. We also pray that those who lifted themselves up rather than staying low with the rock, may be purged in God's flaming love.
Adam Kolasinski wrote an article called: "Exaggeration: the Downfall of Both Neo-Catholics and Traditionalists" which can be found HERE.
First of all, let me start by saying that Adam is one of the few "traditionalists" who I admire. I don't agree with some of his beliefs, but I admire him for not being so radical like the rest of the self-styled traditionalists. When I was in the SSPX email list, he was one of the few people who tried to calm the Rad-Trads down, by making them remember that they are not even theologians and that they need to submit to the Magisterium. However, I still disagree with some of his views. I will only respond to some of the things he pointed out. He says:
"Unfortunately, both sides exaggerate the scope of the dispute and the errors of their opponents, and such exaggeration causes the dispute to become more heated than necessary, often to the extent of becoming uncharitable. Both sides need to keep in mind that no one in this dispute is denying any doctrine that demands the assent of faith, divine or ecclesiastical."
I would say that some Rad-Trads are close or seem to violate the doctrine taught by Vatican 1:
"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. 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." (Session 4, Chapter 3, n 2)
They may not say they deny this, but by dissenting from Vatican 2, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II, they at least imply disobedience. Some would even dare to call John Paul II a heretic, which they don't have any authority to do so. Adam Kolasinski agrees:
"To be sure, some traditionalists, such as those who deny that John Paul II is the true pope or those who deny the jurisdiction of their duly appointed local ordinary, are in fact schismatic, or at least dangerously close. Some, such as those who deny the validity of the Novus Ordo mass (the new rite of mass promulgated by Paul VI in 1969), are dangerously close to heresy."
So on that point we agree. He then says:
"Informed parties on both sides know that Vatican 2 did not teach infallibly, since it has been acknowledged by the papacy numerous times that Vatican 2 defined no doctrine, and it is only when teaching definitively that councils (and popes) are infallible (c.f. Canon 749 of the 1983 Code, Vatican 1, Lumen Gentium, etc., etc.). Of course, the fact that Vatican 2 taught nothing infallibly is lost on a few confused neo-Catholic web essayists such as Shawn McElhinney, who, apparently unable to recognize an oxymoron, thinks Vatican 2 issued decrees that were somehow “definitive in non-defined form,”(http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/distinctions.html)"
I would dispute this. Vatican 2 taught infallibly by means of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. And I would also defend Shawn's case. It is not an oxymoron that something can be "definitive in non-defined form". By my guess, Shawn here is speaking of acts of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Ratzinger says:
"The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining... In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter."(CDF Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fidei, 9)
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B. says:
"Actually, if we consider the act of teaching, the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive either by a defining act or by a non-defining act. First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive, and thus to be believed with divine faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of confirmation and reaffirmation (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an ex cathedra definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium. "(Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent, Section 1, no. 2)
Fr. Adriano Garuti also says:
"... a doctrine can be taught not only by a strictly defining act but also by a non-defining act, as in the case of a teaching (or practice connected with a teaching) of the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops in communion with the Successor of Peter, which can be confirmed or reaffirmed as such by the Roman Pontiff as Head of the College of Bishops, without recourse to a solemn definition: such a doctrine is also taught infallibly and is therefore definitive tenenda, although not de fide credenda. "
(Problem of Dissent in Light of the 'Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Profession of Faith')
So it isn't an oxymoron, but the truth. Adam goes on to say:
"Part of the reason for such exaggeration on the part of neo-Catholics is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what “religious submission” entails. Many hold to the mistaken notion that a Catholic must intellectually assent to all non-infallible teachings, without exception. "
I don't think we misunderstand what "religious submission" entails. Ratzinger speaks of religious submission as a "response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith." (Donum Veritatis, 23) And Fr. Most speaks of religious submission, "What does this require? Definitely, it forbids public contradiction of the teaching. But it also requires something in the mind, as the wording indicates." (Hierarchy of Truths and Four Levels of Teaching)
Adam goes on to quote Donum Veritatis:
"The Church teaches otherwise. For instance, the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, issued by the CDF, states:The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions"
But he fails to quote further. Donum Veritatis goes on to say:
"When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission." (DV, 24)
And that is the problem of the Rad-Trads. Some act contrary to what is said to be "contrary to the truth" above.
Adam goes on to quote more of Donum Veritatis:
"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…"
First of all, that statement tells us to make the Magisterial authorities aware of our problems. It does not tell us to publically criticize or dissent the Magisterium as in blogs, articles, newspapers, websites, etc. He does not quote the rest, which is very crucial:
"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." (DV, 30)
Many people have criticized my post: "Is it Okay to Complain". I admit, I never read Donum Veritatis before I wrote that. All I did is deep prayer and use "Catholic common sense" I learned from Tradition. And by the grace of God, I was right.
Adam goes on to quote more of Donum Veritatis:
"It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question…"
And he also does not quote the rest, which I believe is essential to the debate. Ratzinger goes on to say:
"For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail." (DV, 31)
Again, it does not tell us to dissent publically, but should practice reverent silence. Adam also quotes a protocol with the FSSP. This is the same as above. One can make the Magisterium aware of their problems, but at the same time, avoid the mass media. Public opposition is even called "dissent" (DV, 32). John Paul II also says:
"... it is certainly necessary to distinguish the attitude of theologians who, in a spirit of cooperation and ecclesial communion, present their difficulties and questions, and thus positively contribute to the maturing of reflection on the deposit of faith, form the public stance of opposition to the Magisterium, which is described as "dissent"; the latter tends to set up a kind of counter-magisterium, presenting believers with alternative positions and forms of behavior."Magisterium Exercises Authority in Christ's Name, Address to Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 24 November 1995, 4)
If you rely more upon your intelligence or industry than upon the virtue of submission to Jesus Christ, you will hardly, and in any case slowly, become an enlightened man. God wants us to be completely subject to Him and, through ardent love, to rise above all human wisdom. [Thomas à Kempis: Imitation of Christ (c. 1418)]
:: Shawn 11:30 AM [+] | ::