:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Sunday, September 28, 2003 ::

A Dialogue with a Traditionalist

This is my dialogue with a Traditionalist. My words will be under "Response" and his will be in black.

Hey Apolonio,

I like your writings. However, I have some problems with some of the things you say. First, I believe that you do not understand the Traditionalist position. We Traditionalists don't believe that Vatican 2 is the cause of all these problems.

Response:
I have to disagree. The people who calls themselves "traditionalists" do believe that Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2 are the cause of these problems and are responsible for it. Not to mention that there are some Rad-Trads who believe that JPII does not hold the Catholic faith and I also know of a Rad-Trad that believes he is a better Catholic than JPII because he is not a Catholic at all.

We simply believe that we do not have to agree with everything Vatican 2 says.
However, this does not mean that we can go around and rebuking him. What you have to distinguish are the ultra-traditionalists who uses polemics and dissent externally and those who simply disagree or dissent internally with the non-infallible teachings of the Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2 and does not dissent externally.

Response:
Most people who call themselves "traditionalists" **do** dissent externally. If they didn't, then I wouldn't have a problem with them.

There are many things that JPII has done which I disagree with. But we
Traditionalists do not dissent externally. The Traditionalist point of view is like that of Cardinal Biffi. We disagree with the Assisi event, but we do not write articles being critical of him. We Traditionalists are those who simply like it as the way it was before Vatican 2.

Response:
I do agree that you are using the word "Traditionalist" in a correct way. However, the people who I refute are those who dissent externally. I also know enough to know that most of them have no clue of what they are talking about. One example is quoting Ratzinger in his book "The Principles of Catholic Theology". They criticize him for calling Gaudium et Spes a "counter-syllabus". Of course, they put enough "..." in order to try to prove that Ratzinger hates pre-Vatican 2.[1] They also misquote Aquinas and Bellarmine. Shawn has already refuted those claims. They are simply irresponsible and ignorant (I remember Chris Ferrara saying that "particular churches" refer to protestant sects.LOL) and God will judge them for that.


Before being critical of some of the things you said, let me praise you for some of the things you did. Your view on obedience is correct. I have been involved with religious orders such as the Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Benedictines, and the Jesuits. Most of them, if not all, will agree with your view on it.

Response:
:-) I thank God for raising me in a family who taught be what obedience entails. This would include my aunt who is a Franciscan Nun. And was she strict! I also learned from saints and other religious orders. Simply, I believe that Rad-Trads don't know what traditional obedience means. You do, but most don't. They are not used to obedience. If they only read great saints and spiritual writers, then they will learn. Most of them have an apologetic view, which is very limited. I know this Rad-Trad Adrian who admits that he has not read a lot of spirituality. And it didn't surprise me. know this other person, who was a Rad-Trad, moderated his views, and it was probably because he reads a lot of spirituality books.


You said the following to me, "The reason why I have to get permission from
Rome is because I want to be sure that it is orthodox. Yes, I can certainly read Popes, Councils, and the Church Fathers, but I do not trust my knowledge of them to be absolute." Though I disagree that you should hold such a meeting, I believe that you are a sincere and good Catholic. It is a great example of humility, which is the root of obedience. As Aquinas said, "Out of humility one does not trust one's own knowledge."

Response:
Amen.

I am critical of what some of the things you say though. First, you claim that you are a thomist. Now, I have been a thomist for 25 years. I can tell you that you are not a Thomist, a neo-thomist at best. I say this because your view on theology is not really Thomistic. It seems that you have more of a resourcement view of theology than a thomistic one.

Response:
I don't see why the resourcement view is not Thomistic. Yes, I love St. Thomas, but I can change hats. I believe that some of what the resourcement theologians have to say is true. And if a person is a Thomist, one must unite it to the truths which a person already knows. It was because of my study of Thomism and Personalism which got me interested in some of what the resourcement theologians say (though I still find most of them boring). Jacques Maritain said it best:

"There is a Thomist philosophy; there is no neo-Thomist philosophy. I am not trying to include the past in the present, but to maintain in the now the presence of the eternal.Thomism does not want to return to the Middle Ages. As I wrote in the preface to Antimoderne, "If I am anti-modern, it is not by personal taste, certainly, but because modern self-complacency, the offspring of the anti-Christian revolution, obliges me to be so by its spirit; because it itself makes opposition to the human patrimony its own distinctive characteristic, hates and despises the past and adores itself, and because I hate and despise this very hating and despising and this spiritual impurity; but if it is a matter of saving and assimilating all the riches of being which are accumulated in modern times, of desiring renewals, and of loving the effort of those who continue to pioneer and break new ground, then I wish nothing so much as to be ultra-modern. And in truth do not Christians beseech the Holy Spirit to renew the face of the earth? Are they not awaiting the life of the world to come? It is there that there will be something new, and for everyone. I love the art of the cathedrals, Giotto and Angelico. But I detest neo-Gothic and pre-Raphaelism. I know that the course of time is irreversible; much as I admire the era of Saint Louis, I do not therefore wish, according to the absurd desire that certain penetrating critics generously claim for me, to return to the Middle Ages. I hope to see re-stored, in a new world, and for the informing of a new matter, the spiritual principles and the eternal norms of which medieval civilization, in its better periods, presents us with but a particular historic realization, superior in quality, despite its enormous deficiencies, but definitely past."Thomism claims to use reason to distinguish the true from the false; it does not wish to destroy but to purify modern thought, and to integrate everything true that has been discovered since the time of Saint Thomas. It is an essentially assimilative and unifying philosophy, the only one which attempts, across the centuries and continents, a work of continuity and universality." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Preface to the French Edition)


Don't get me wrong, you have a great potential to be a great theologian. However, I would not consider you a thomist, though your philosophy is thomistic to me.

Response:
LOL..what?!?!? That doesn't make any sense. The way I do theology is simply putting what I learned from philosophy to doctrine. So again, I don't understand. Maybe I am an "all-around" type of a person. Who knows :-)

Your view on ecclesiology is a "communio" view.

Response:
With good reasons. And this is what Rad-Trads simply don't understand. The communio ecclesiology is the ecclesiology of the Church Fathers. If they work hard and study the Church Fathers, then some of the things JPII and Ratzinger say would make sense.

I also like how you are trying to get the Eastern Orthodox to view authority in a different way. You said,

"The mistake of the Eastern Orthodox churches is that they limit authority in a mere legal way. However, this is a misunderstanding of what authority means. Authority should not be limited to "power". Authority should be understood in terms of service. The Pope, with St. Peter, as the foundation of the Church, must "hold up" the Church just as any foundation would hold the building up. A foundation is usually close to the ground. And since the Pope is the foundation, he must lower himself just as a foundation is lower than the bulding. He is a servant and he must carry the Church. At the same time, we must rest on the foundation and be obedient to it. So there is a mutual service between churches though have different types. The other churches serve in the sense of resting on the foundation, while the Church of Rome must stay low and uphold the Church."

This is a very good. I like how you are trying to show them another view point of authority, however, you must not be so confident on dialogue and ecumenism.

Response:
I disagree. From my study of personalism, dialogue is necessary for inter-subjectivity. I do like to debate, but I prefer a dialogue.[2]

I don't believe it has worked at all. The Eastern Orthodox are still stubborn and will
simply not convert to Catholicism.

Response:
Yes, some of them are stubborn. But so is everybody. Imagine you had a sister and she was not Catholic. She was the most stubborn person you have ever met in your whole entire life. Wouldn't you try to keep on trying to make her become Catholic? Wouldn't you try to use different kinds of methods of injecting some truths to her? Of course you would.

They will not convert until we give up some doctrine.


Response:
I disagree. First, I would say it has worked. None of the things done by the Eastern Orthodox would have been done before Vatican 2. Only a great Pope like JPII can do that. Second, "convert" is a misleading term, especially to the Eastern Orthodox. They believe that "conversion" means conformity. They believe that if they convert, it means that they have to become like the Church of Rome, giving up their traditions. This of course is not true. What we need to tell them is that they can still keep their traditions but must be in communion with Rome, though one can still become like Rome if they wish. "Unity" is a much better word and it will not confuse them. As Ratzinger said, "A basic unity—of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church—must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it." (what I said above is basically the interpretation of what Ratzinger meant by these words)


The same with other dialogues with Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. I just want to say that I like some of the things you write, but you misunderstand us Traditionalists. We Traditionalists are faithful to the Magisterium. We do not dissent from any encyclicals or even pastoral decisions. However, there are some things such as actions of JPII that we do not agree with. But those we disagree with are not infallible. We do not disagree with his teachings nor even things such as canonizations since they are infallible. We simply like how the Church was before and we like to keep it that way. Do not confuse us with schismatics and other disobedient Catholics.

Response:
Again, I disagree. I believe you are a true Traditionalist, but the false Traditionalists (I call Rad-Trads) don't believe what you believe. Rad-Trad Williamson even said that the canonization of Escriva wasn't infallible. Some question the legitmacy of some of the canonizations. Did JPII canonize a lot of people? Sure he did. But most of them were martyrs and great Catholics like Padre Pio. If one has to question his canonizations, then he must question his canonization of people like Padre Pio. Otherwise, it would simply be arbitrary to question the others and not him simply because it agrees with your views.

Now, you know better than most of these people. I encourage you to help them.

JMJ
A.L. III

[1] Those who read Principles of Catholic Theology knows that Ratzinger also talked about Pope Pius XI's views. However, Rad-Trads don't quote that. Ratzinger also has a footnote which gives a book or an article on a study of the syllabus. I doubt that the Rad-Trads have read that.
[2] I suggest everyone to read Ut Unum Sint regarding dialogue

:: Ap 6:09 PM [+] | ::

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

Points to Ponder:

"He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See." [Maximus the Abbott as quoted by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum §13 (c. 1896)]

:: Shawn 10:02 AM [+] | ::

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

BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION

Pursuant to the warning issued by this weblog on September 13, 2003, and published that same day, because the message box company Haloscan, a resident of the blogosphere, did not within the period that ended on September 27, 2003, give any indication of amendment or repentance for the most serious offense they have committed, this Dicastery, in keeping with this warning, declares that Haloscan has incurred excommunication reserved to the Grand Inquisitor of the Lidless Eye Inquisition.

In having to take the aforementioned action, We at this humble weblog trust that, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the above-mentioned party may rediscover the path of conversion in order to return to the communion with the blogosphere, which they have wounded by their actions.

Seattle, from the Offices of Lidless Eye's Sequestered Inquisition Tribunal, September 25, 2003.

Ivan Dunn, Notary

:: Shawn 12:00 AM [+] | ::

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

Confuting An Attempted "Justification" For Schism (Part II)

The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE. My previous words will be in blue font, the words of my adversary in black font. Any sources quoted by my adversary -including my own words- will be italicized and the ones quoted by me will be in darkblue font.

Shawn: "Bellarmine answers:

"I respond by denying the second part of the argument. For to resist an attacker and defend one's self, no authority is needed, nor is it necessary that he who is attacked be the judge and superior of him who attacks. Authority is required, however, to judge and punish."

Here is the full text:

Argument 7. Any person is permitted to kill the pope if he is unjustly attacked by him. Therefore, even more so is it permitted for kings or a council to depose the pope if he disturbs the state, or if he tries to kill souls by his bad example.

I respond by denying the second part of the argument. For to resist an attacker and defend one's self, no authority is needed, nor is it necessary that he who is attacked be the judge and superior of him who attacks. Authority is required, however, to judge and punish.

Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)

Notice that Bellarmine does not deny the first part: " Any person is permitted to kill the pope if he is unjustly attacked by him."

Since all nine arguments in this section were advocating the position that the pope is subject to secular power and an ecumenical council, any attempt to interpret the first section apart from its context is to be guilty of misrepresenting Bellarmine's argument.

This argument sought to defend the right of kings and councils to depose a pope who either disturbs the state or damages souls by his bad example. The argument itself starts from the premise of self-defense. Bellarmine is not about to deny the right of the individual to self defense; hence he left the first part of the argument untouched.

"I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will."

"First, the passage justifies resistance by kings and councils. It does not say that individual bishops, priests and laymen on their own possess this right to resist the pope and ignore his commands—"

Utterly false.

Wrong again XXXXXXX.

Otherwise Bellarmine would not have agreed with the first part of the argument which reads. "Any person"

I already explained the rationale behind the argument - built as it was on the notion of self-defense. Bellarmine was not about to deny the right to self defense, only the attempted argument from self defense for kings or councils to depose a pope. Again, context is important XXXXXXX.

Bellarmine then specifically states the method of resistance must be by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will.

And of course as Bellarmine explicitly brought up kings and councils preceding that point, you are violating the proper sense of the text by not including them in your analysis. No other authorities were mentioned which could licitly resist the pope in these circumstances. This does not mean that there are none of course, only that you cannot postulate that there are and have recourse to Bellarmine to defend your thesis. For Bellarmine also noted the following as quoted by Fr. John H. Newman in an 1867 correspondence:

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope's word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience. [Wilfred Ward: The Life of Cardinal Newman - Volume II, Chapter 26 (c. 1912)]

Now then, my interpretation of Bellarmine's quote (which is the part underlined above) easily reconciles with the second one. Yours by contrast blatantly contradicts it. Whom therefore are we to believe properly represents the view of Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice??? No one who values logic and reason -as well as consistency- can side with you on this.

Shawn:..."still less that they can set up places of worship in opposition to diocesan bishops a pope has lawfully appointed."

Just as a Pope may be resisted for unjust attacks so may the diocesan bishops according to the same criteria.

And of course since every heretic or schismatic claims to be victims of unjust attacks, I guess everyone and their brother can disobey the divinely vested magisterial authority of the Church on their own whim by simply claiming that the pope was "unjust" towards them.

Cardinal Bellarmine as a top notch theologian and historian was well aware of this and would hardly oppose heretics and schismatics on the one hand and then hypocritically give an endorsement to the very methods from which heresy and schism are propagated. Even in Bellarmine's time the papal primacy was a teaching defined at least three separate times (see Lyons II, Unam Sanctum, and Florence). And as such an interpretation as you give to his statement is blatantly contrary to this defined dogma (and thus proximate to heresy), there is no way I will soil the memory of such a saintly man by lending credence to your attempt to enlist him as an ally in your schism from the Church.

I reiterate: this view (you impute to Bellarmine) contradicts a matter of Catholic dogma on the primacy of the Pope (defined three times before Cardinal Bellarmine was even born) and also a truth definitively taught since time immemorial about the authority of the diocesan bishop.{1}

Shawn; "Second, note the precise causes for resistance in the case Bellarmine is discussing: disturbing the state or giving bad example."

No. Disturbing the state is not the cause. Attempting to destroy the Church (deliberately or not) Destroying the civil order (in the Church) and consequently the lack of grace in Society in general. Giving bad example is a no-brainer.

Your interpretation does not square with the other reference to Bellarmine I noted above. Just as Scripture must interpret Scripture, Bellarmine must interpret Bellarmine.

Shawn: "These, obviously, are not the same thing as papal liturgical legislation,"

When liturgical legislation is used in an attempt to destroy the Church or merely disturb the civil order, it is.

This does not square with Bellarmine's views as espoused in the other quote. Nor does it square with the argument Bellarmine was rebutting which tried to argue on the basis of the principle of self-defense that kings and councils could depose a pope if he disturbs the state, or if he tries to kill souls by his bad example. Bellarmine's statement about licitly opposing the pope in these circumstances must be interpreted in light of the second part of the argument which he is denying. He denies the authority of kings and councils to depose the pope in those cases, but not the right of those same authorities to resist him.

The examples which Bellarmine adduced had nothing to do with the actual ecclesial teachings or directives of the pope. For this reason, you cannot legitimately presume that such areas fall under this argument. And in light of Bellarmine's other comments -which must be used to interpret Bellarmine if you are at all honest about truthfully expressing his mind on the matter- your arguments collapse like a cheap tent in a big wind kemosabe.

The problem is not "liturgical legislation" objectively. It is abuse of liturgical legislation.

Says a schismatic adherent to the SSPX schism. Sorry ye modern day Donatus, I see no reason to accept your private interpretation of what constitutes an abuse of liturgical legislation any more than I accept Luther's appeal to his own authority over and against that of the popes and councils that he scorned at the Diet of Worms.

Shawn: "..disciplinary laws or doctrinal pronouncements which an individual might somehow deem harmful."

Yes they are.

Again ye modern Donatus, your opinion is worthless to me. Further still, you have no right whatsoever to resist the teachings or directives of the ecclesial magisterium. Doing so makes you a schismatic by even the pre-Vatican II definition of the term.

Shawn: " Bellarmine would hardly approve of disregarding, carte blanche, for 30 years the directives of men one claims to recognize as legitimate occupants of the papal office and the vicars of Christ on earth."

Carte Blanche disregarding? Correct. He would not approve. But that is merely your subjective accusation about the motives of the SSPX or any traditional group fighting against the unjust attacks of the Modernists.

Every heretic and schismatic in history has justified their refusal to obey legitimate ecclesiastical authority with the same kinds of claims you are making XXXXXXX. Please forgive those of us who are not of your ahistorical mould and who realize precisely what poison you are peddling under the guise of "tradition." As St. Vincent of Lerens astutely noted centuries ago:

[T]he more secretly [heretics and schismatics] conceal themselves under shelter of the Divine Law, so much the more are they to be feared and guarded against. For they know that the evil stench of their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with any one if it be exhaled pure and simple. They sprinkle it over, therefore, with the perfume of heavenly language, in order that one who would be ready to despise human error, may hesitate to condemn divine words. They do, in fact, what nurses do when they would prepare some bitter draught for children; they smear the edge of the cup all round with honey, that the unsuspecting child, having first tasted the sweet, may have no fear of the bitter. So too do these act, who disguise poisonous herbs and noxious juices under the names of medicines, so that no one almost, when he reads the label, suspects the poison.

Those who do not know better cannot see in the attempted "honey" of the appeal to Tradition by radtrads like you but with people like me and others around, the poison is exposed for what it is for those who have eyes to see.

Since we're speculating. Bellarmine would wholeheartedly support the efforts of the traditionalists and encourage in even more direct terms the methods needed for proper resistance.

Oh really???:

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed.

And as Newman so excellently expounds on this principle:

No good can come from disobedience. [The pope's] facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope's word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.

There is nothing in the above elucidation from Newman that would not find favour with St. Bellarmine.

So much for the Bellarmine "rebuttal"

Indeed. You were again in error but I have grown accustomed to it XXXXXXX. (As you continue to reveal your true lacuna of understanding of church teaching with practically every sentence from your keyboard.)

Shawn, you are not qualified, kowledgeable enough of me or empowered to declare me schismatic, even if I were, which I am not.

The Church's Law is clear that Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Your "resistance" to the teachings and directives of the last ecumenical council and the popes who confirmed and have sought to implement them is schismatic. Your attending radtrad liturgies with priests who are separate from the jurisdiction of your local ordinary is also schismatic. In short, while the church's definition of schism entails an "either/or" situation, in your case you meet both criteria.

You behave as a Protestant with Scriptures.

I see. And self-styled "traditionalists" do not do the same thing with magisterial texts as Protestants do with Scripture??? Again JP II passed judgment on the matter in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. You do not have to like it but you are no different in resisting it than a Protestant is in resisting submission to the papacy.

For to be in full communion with the Church, there needs to be right faith and maintenance of the communion of the Church. And while inculpable omissions of the above weaken this communion, culpable and obstinate omissions break it completely. By your admitted "resistance" to the Supreme Pontiff you fail to submit to him.{2} And as you cannot avoid schism if you fail to submit to church authority, your claim of "resistance" is what implicates you, not anything I have said XXXXXXX.

So in short, you again fail and fail miserably to justify your rebellion against the Church.

Notes:

{1} This was a teaching affirmed tacitly by Trent and presumed by Vatican I. (As can be discerned by the inference in Pastor Aeternus and the content of the unpromulgated "Second Constitution on the Church" which treated on the subject of the episcopate.) It was also subsequently expounded upon by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Satis Cognitum. Pope Pius XII likewise taught this in his Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis Christi and it was confirmed yet again by the Second Vatican Council in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. (See sections 22 and 25.)

{2} Submission and resistance are principles which are intrinsically antonymous of one another.

:: Shawn 11:33 PM [+] | ::

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

Another Assisi? Part 2

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

David:
Some follow-up questions, if I may. Why do you need your bishop's permission to emulate the Holy Father in this way? And why would he need Rome's permission?

My Response:
Well, it's my house. If the bishop wants to have this dialogue, then I want conditions met. I want it to be perfectly orthodox and so we go to Rome to ask if this is an orthodox thing to do. On a practical level, it is the safest thing to do.

David:
Would you really take down all your Catholic art, crucifixes, etc.?

My Response:
Of the rooms they will do their "thing", yes.

David:
Also, if an animist had invoked his spirit god(s), the Zoroastrian had burned his wood chips and prayed to his deity(ies), the voodoo witch doctor had invoked his ancestors and various spirits, etc. in your home, would you have any concerns that your house might be left demonized (especially since you removed all the holy objects from the rooms)? Would you want a priest
to come and bless/exorcize your house afterwards?

My Response:
I don't think my house would be left demonized simply because it has already been blessed (Actually, only when I came to America that Catholics didn't do these things). Also, millions of rosaries has been prayed in my house in all the rooms (yes, including the bathroom). My house is pretty holy. Heck, I'm in it :-)

David:
What do you think the Catholic missionary-saints who worked among such pagan peoples would advise you do to?

My Response:
I don't think any of them would have a problem with it since I had permission from Rome. I especially don't think Mother Teresa would yell from heaven, "What are you doing?!?!?" Also, missionaries, at least some, aren't really evangelists in our sense (editor's note: evangelist meaning somewhat like the apologetic organizations. Some missionaries simply do acts of charity) . Some believe in "Preach and use the Gospel if you have to." Fulton J. Sheen speaks of how missionaries' job has been softening the prejudice of Muslims (editor's note: by doing acts of charity). Evangelism has many steps. Not everything is under the context of an American liberal college where you need to stand up to the faith against your professor.

David:
Remember this distinction before you answer the next questions below. The Constitution and Declaration have their difficulties. But neither of them *denies*the Kingship of Christ. The Koran curses our Lord and blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity. Thus the documents differ in kind and not just degree.

My Response:
Response:
Okay. But America denies the right to life. Can't I kiss the ground?

David:
You know, Apolonio, I realized after I sent this that I should have placed a further condition on it (I did with Dave Armstrong, although he hasn't answered me yet.) No, you're not allowed to tell your intentions for kissing the Koran. The Holy Father didn't tell us his intentions, but it seems to be your contention that his action is still acceptable despite this

My Response:
I believe the kiss was under the context of his writings. So in that sense, he did "tell his intentions". He definately did not endorse Islam as a whole and even spoke of it as a non-redemptive/personal religion. I knew his intentions and a kiss can be interpreted many ways and it doesn't have to mean an agreement of everything of it.

David:
What other book does a Catholic kiss (hint: it's the Holy Gospel), what does he mean by that kiss, and what might somebody construe if, without any further explanation, a Catholic kisses a blasphemous book? So, will you kiss the Koran with no opportunity to clarify your intentions? (Remember too that your audience is not just those who know Apolonio Latar well, but others who don't know you at all.) Or would that be objectively scandalous and objectively blasphemous, even if your hidden motives were good?

My Response:
No I don't think it would be objectively blasphemous simply because the act of a "kiss" is basically contingent upon the circumstance and the intention. For example, Judas' kiss was not an act of love. And I would kiss things such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer's book "Cost of Discipleship" even though I don't agree with some of the things he says. This is because I am kissing it for its good theology of self-abandonment.

Summary:
I will have an inter-religious gathering in my house. However, there conditions must be met. Since it is my house, I have "rules". I will not have an inter-religious gathering in my house alone however. The bishop must be behind it and he needs to have a good reason for it. He must also ask Rome for permission so that we are safe. Will I kiss the Koran? Why should I? For its religiosity? For worshipping the same God (Vatican 2, Pope Gregory, Garrigou-Lagrange, etc)? Yes. But for *that* reason. This is because a "kiss" is an act that is contingent on the intent and circumstance. It cannot be analogous for something like having an abortion with a good will and a good circumstance (like in the case of rape). Abortion is wrong in itself because it deliberately takes away a human life. What about a kiss? What is a kiss? It cannot be taken in itself without the intent and the circumstance. A kiss can either be a good thing or a bad thing. A kiss can actually be a mortal sin. Abortion means taking away a human life. A kiss can mean anything. I believe that I have proved that JPII's kiss was an act of respect for Muslims and their religiosity. So it cannot be taken as blasphemous. Does this mean that I can kiss a Playboy Magazine? Simply not since they are not analogous. Again, the Koran speaks and encourages Muslims to worship the same God. Playboy doesn't. It wonders me however, that some people do not criticize JPII for kissing the ground of America. It **denies** the right to life. So why kiss it? Wouldn't it be blasphemous?

Would my actions insult the missionary saints? Simply not. Just as I don't think Mother Teresa's words regarding other religions does not insult them as well.

JMJ
A.L. III

:: Ap 1:33 PM [+] | ::

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

Another Assisi? Part 1

Catholics who don't have any problem with the Assisi event have been asked by many people if they would do the same. David Palm has asked me the same question. I believe I responded in a way which is perfectly orthodox. I would note however, that this is my own personal opinion.

David:
I am in a dialogue with Dave Armstrong right now on things traditional and I posed this question to him. I thought I'd run it by you to see how you'd respond as well. Given that you (or at least your "Lidless Eye"inquisition) have no particular problem with the Pope publicly kissing the Koran and inviting pagans of all stripes to Assisi to pray publicly for world peace, would you be willing to set a similar personal example of good will and inter-religious dialogue? Will you make your home available for an inter-religious gathering of Moslems, animists, Hindus, voodooists, et
alii to come and pray for peace in your community? Remember, they will be praying according to their own traditional methods to their own deities, so you will need to remove all Catholic art, iconography, statuary, and books from all rooms of your home in order to avoid giving scandal. They will be filmed in your home enacting their various pagan rituals and this will be run on the nightly news to show the good will of one Apolonio Latar III, Roman Catholic apologist, toward his pagan neighbors.

My Response:
First, this is my personal opinion and some may have different opinions. To answer your question, yes I will allow it with some conditions.

1) The bishop must be involved with it and the one who is behind it. He will have to come to me and say, "We are going to have an inter-religious dialogue in your house since your house is so nice."
2) He must have a good reason for it, like it would lessen the prejudice between the religions.
3) The Bishop must have permission from Rome.

As Garrigou-Lagrange says on Communicating with non-Christians:

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

David
As a final gesture, we'll have the Muslim delegation out in your front yard with a copy of the Koran and you will be the first one on line to kiss it; this too will be filmed so that it can be shown in the news and also sent to Iraq, Syria, and Iran to show Catholic goodwill to our suffering brethren in those countries.

My Response:
Response:
I will tell them my intentions for doing it and afterwards, I can kiss it because they know what context I am doing this act on. Just as I would kiss the constitution of America or Declaration of Independence even though it doesn't have any statements which supports the Kingship of Christ ;-) and I say, "America is the greatest country in the world." Hopefully, I won't get attacked by rad-trads for endorsing a pro-death country :-)

David:
No problem? I ask in all seriousness whether you would have any scruples making yourself and your home available for such an event?

My Response:
Yup, no problem and my reasons are given above.

Continued...

:: Ap 1:05 PM [+] | ::

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

Here is another piece of evidence that radtrads take a "ready, fire, aim" approach to issues:

LINK

Kudos to David Alexander for exposing this latest piece of uncharity by the "traditionalists" (falsely so-called) over at Novus Ordo Watch. David is right of course, the likelihood of these guys apologizing for their latest gaffe -without being publicly shamed into doing so- are about 0%.

Thanks to the staff at the new RadTrad Watch organization for the heads up on this one. It is nice to see that Lidless Eye has influenced others to take a critical eye at the constant barrage of ignorant drivel spewed by the radtrads - not to mention documenting it for others of good will to see how un-Traditional these charletans really are. As far as Dave Alexander goes, his inquisitors skills are impressively displayed at the above link so We will have Our blinking eyes on him...

:: Shawn 1:50 PM [+] | ::

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

Confuting An Attempted "Justification" For Schism (Part I):

This is a response to a response to the previous blog on abuses to the thought of Bellarmine and Aquinas from the Envoy threads. My previous words in the exchange will be in purple font with adversary's words in black font. Again the name has been changed to protect the guilty.

Only time for a quick response but, true to form, Shawn provides his own instruments for his downfall.

Well as this person's failing trackrecord to sustain a refutation of any of my arguments thus far is legion on the Envoy threads- I am not surprised that this person thinks that they can adequately respond to something I have said. After all, an altered mind alters all things :)

["XXXXXXX misused the Innocent III quote -presumably this was an innocent mistake by XXXXXXX-"]

Translation: I cannot prove or disprove XXXXXXX's quote so, I'll list it as a mistake.

XXXXXXX, I have yet to run across any quote -patristic or magisterial- that when it is tracked down and examined will sustain the trad thesis of rebellion. So I highly doubt you will be the first person to posit such a response to the thread. But if you want to post the surrounding text along with the source and the intended audience (among other factors important for a correct interpretation), we can then see whether the quote has merit to it. Until then, I see no reason to presume that you can succeed where so many before you have failed.

Meanwhile I'll use supporting documentation from a Sedevacantist to prove my points.

If the argument is valid then it matters now who makes it.

You are in no moral position to sit in judgement on me.

Actually, I stated the truth about your assertions with regards to "____________." If I had lied about you then indeed you would be correct. However, I told the truth and He who knows all things knows I am right about this.

However, as the threads to substantiate the assertion have disappeared, I therefore dropped the subject. However, you apparently still *obsess* about it. Nonetheless, though I *can* on this issue recognize your objective standing in the Church - in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Authority - as far as your subjective standing is, only God knows and no one can judge this. (Nor have I ever claimed I could.)

But objectively there is no doubt what the Magisterium in accordance with Tradition says. For the Church judges you XXXXXXX as you follow and defend those who make a schism in the Church. (Again as declared not by me but instead by the Supreme Authority.)

Therefore, your entire conclusion is null and actually provides for my aquittal.

No XXXXXXX because again you continually shill for a schismatic organization. So there is no acquittal for you.

And quoting Pius X is the most insidious and insulting of logical atrocities.

We shall see...

"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..."

(eg. the entire post-conciliar facade)

You wish. Luther's justification for his schism was because "popes and councils have erred and contradicted themselves" again finds life.

"But judge them by their works."

Clown Masses, sexual abuse scandals, persecution of traditional Catholics, twisting of doctrine so that it loses all objective meaning such as outlined in Pascendi. Suppressing the pious traditions of the people.

Let us number these so they can be responded to in sequence.

1) Clown Masses

2) sexual abuse scandals

Points one and two are frankly stupid on your part. Show me where clown masses are in the approved rubrics of the Roman Missal. And do not try appeals to "inculturation" as they will not work in your favour either. (Since there is nothing to native cultures about clowns.)

Inculturation as a liturgical principle means incorporating sacred practices or core elements of other cultures to the extent that they can be separated from their errors. Find for me a culture that considers clowns part of something sacred or a core practice and then you can legitimately advance this point. (That clowns in any way can be a legitimate appeal to inculturation.) Until then, it goes down in flames.

The second point about sex abuse scandals is an even more noxious statement on your part because there is not and has not been any Vatican approval whatsoever of this behaviour. Further still, there have *always* been sexual abuse in the Church - indeed a retired priest in my dioceses was recently accused of molesting children for over fifty years. (And will probably be part of the dioceses settlement considering that one hundred people came forward about it.) A little information on this particular priest may be of assistance since (i) he predates Vatican II and (ii) my mother happened to know kids who were molested by him.

You see, he was the pastor at the church of one of my mothers friends back in the 1950's. When some of the children in the parish told their parents about it, they were accused of lying. The reason according to my mother was that they were told "priests do not do that sort of thing." There is your "traditional" response to sexual scandal XXXXXXX. Or at least I *could* say that if I approached this issue as tastelessly you do post Vatican II sex abuse cases. Too bad the current abuses did not happen in the "good old days" so that they could remain under wraps eh???

3) persecution of traditional Catholics

This is of course a blanket statement which you do not substantiate. Considering what my Ukrainian Catholic relatives had to put up with from obtuse Latins, I find the cries of persecution from those who repine for the days of Latin triumphalism to be pathetic.

4) twisting of doctrine so that it loses all objective meaning such as outlined in Pascendi.

None of which has happened by the Magisterium of the Church. The problem XXXXXXX is that so-called "traditionalists" do not understand the principle of doctrinal development. Like certain integralists who accused Cardinal Newman of "contradicting Pascendi" you likewise do not understand the dynamics involved here.

5) Suppressing the pious traditions of the people.

Which examples did you have in mind, praying the rosary during mass perhaps??? Yes that was suppressed and rightfully so. My overall view on this subject (the suppression of proven devotions) is probably not too far removed from yours so no need to elaborate on it here.

"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?"

This statement does not exclude the Modernists in the heirarchy themselves. Bishops hating the petrine primacy. Popes hating the exclusive prerogatives and responsibilities of the Papacy. Which Church are they talking about? Why the Church that "subsists" in the Catholic Church but somehow in some unknown way connects all men to the Catholic Church.

Again XXXXXXX, you make it difficult to respond in an economical manner. This reminds me of the Protestant objections where they make a list of "Catholic inventions" each of which could use many pages - sometimes a a book's worth- to adequately respond to. I will try to be brief here:

This statement does not exclude the Modernists in the heirarchy themselves.

Every heretic and schismatic has accused the hierarchy of heresy or schism. Why should anyone believe that your accusations are any more meritorious than those of Tertullian, Donatus, Luther, or Jansenius to name a few of many who could be mentioned???

Bishops hating the petrine primacy.

Why do you presume that bishops hate the petrine primacy??? If you are referring to the emphasis in recent decades of the collegiality of the episcopate, it is important to remember (and trads seem to forget) a few key points here:

1) The bishops are not vice regents of the pope but are instead genuine successors of the Apostles in their own right.

2) As a result of the first point, the diocesan bishops rule with supreme authority in their dioceses in communion with the Pope.

3) Collegiality presupposes the petrine primacy.

Gallicanism and conciliarism - what Lefebvre and others erroneously ascribed collegiality to - were movements that essentially sought to make the pope subject to a general council. Collegiality at its most solemn level is exercised in an ecumenical council; however no council is ecumenical without the Pope's concurrence. Thus there cannot be a loss of papal primacy with authentic collegiality.

Popes hating the exclusive prerogatives and responsibilities of the Papacy.

Now XXXXXXX, any historian worth their salt knows that the second millennium papacy had a lot of accredations to it that were not in keeping with the understanding of the papacy in the period prior to the schism. There is nothing of a perminent nature to these accredations; therefore the popes can in the interest of fostering Christian unity either dispense with them entirely or utilize them differently.

The dogma of the papal primacy as it embraces the Church's practice from the very beginning is therefore able to be utilized in different forms. Unless you want to claim that the popes prior to Gregory VII were in some way not "real popes" you have to recognize as Vatican I did in Pastor Aeternus that the popes as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence have historically exercised their authority in a diversity of ways. And the popes throughout history have been the judges of how the best way to exercise this primacy in light of the times and circumstances then present would be manifested.

Furthermore, just because the popes can intervene at all levels of the Church, history shows that they seldom did - preferring to practice the principle of subsidiarity. And thus, those who recognize this traditional principle and want to see it utilized are not "hating the prerogatives/responsibilities of the papacy" in the slightest.

Which Church are they talking about?

The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church.

Why the Church that "subsists" in the Catholic Church but somehow in some unknown way connects all men to the Catholic Church.

Imagine that: a bit of mystery to the Mystical Body. For far from being a mere abstract theory, the notion of grace transcending nature also applies to the Church the boundaries of which transcens her visible constituents.

But again your shorthand does you no credit. Here is the context of "subsists" (Lat. subsistare):

The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as a visible organization[9] through which he communicates truth and grace to all men. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ, the visible society and the spiritual community, the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches, are not to be thought of as two realities. On the contrary, they form one complete reality which comes together from a human and a divine element.[10] For this reason the Church is compared, not without significance, to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature, inseparably united to him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a somewhat similar way, does the social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ who vivifies it, in the building up of the body (cf. Eph. 4:15).[11]

This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic,[12] which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.[13] Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity. [Dogmatic Constitutio Lumen Gentium §8 (c. 1964)]

Here are the footnotes:

9. Leo XIII, Litt. Encycl. Sapientiae christianae, 10 ian. 1890 AAS 22 (1889-90) P. 392. Id., Epist. Encycl. Satis cognitum, 29 iun. 1896; AAS 28 (1895-96) PP. 710 et 724 ss. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mystici Corporis, 1. c., pp. 199-200.

10. Cfr. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl. Mystici Corporis, 1. c., p. 221 SS. Id., Litt. Encycl. Humani generis, 12 aug. 1950: AAS 42 (1950) P. 571.

11. Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl. Satis cognitum, 1. c., p. 713.

12. Cfr. Symbolum Apostolicum: Denz. 6-9 (10-13); Symb. Nic.-Const.: Denz. 86 (150); coll. Prof. fidei Trid.: Denz. 994 et 999 (1862 et 1868).

13. Dicitur "Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia ": in Prof. fidei Trid., 1. c. et Concl. Vat. I, Sess. III, Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001).

None of this is really difficult to understand XXXXXXX. Subsistare means a lot more than merely "to exist." Instead, it is an old Scholastic term that refers to an entity which exists in itself without dependence on others. I go over this in detail in a few places including HERE so I will not do so here. However, I will touch on this subject in brief and direct you to the aforementioned link for more details.

The Scholastics referred to God as subsisting (and all of creation as existing but dependent on him). In like manner the Council declared that he One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church -the fountain of all salvific truth and grace- visibly subsists in the Catholic Church. All other Churches and ecclesial communities as well as other religions whatever truth or elements of sanctification that they possess these belong by right to the Catholic Church.

I have advanced the thesis that to deny subsistare is to implicitly embrace Feeneyism - for subsistare is a Christocentric principle much as EENS properly understood is. The error of the Feeneyites is to interpret EENS in an ecclesiocentric manner which is contrary to how the dogma was twice defined (Lateran IV and Unam Sanctum) and reiterated by Florence and several popes since that time. (Including Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II.)

The teaching has never been properly understood in a sense that centered on the visible Church. Instead, it was always centered on Christ with the recognition that it was through the Church that Christ chose to confer His grace. As a result, someone outside of the grace of Christ cannot be saved.

To claim an exclusive identity of the One Church of Christ with the Catholic Church is to deny that those outside the visible church can possibly be saved. (And that is Feeneyism.) But this thread is too long to go over that at the moment and as I promised a brief schema on the subject, see the above link for more details.

"Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone"

What you mean Animists and Buddhists at the Assisi meeting were not somehow connected to the Catholic Church because they don't have the message of Christ through the Apostles?

Those who were of good will were not whom Pope Pius X was referring to. The context of the quote is clear on this. Here it is again:

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 [the magisterium's] directives and judgments...

I clarified in brackets as there were a lot of they's and there's in the statement above. It is clear that Pope St. Pius X was referring to those who willfully and obstinately denied and showed derision towards the bishops of the Church -particularly the pope- not everyone who is not Catholic. Again, it helps to have context but I know trads thrive on the absence of context so I understand your unwillingness to utilize it.

The properly instructed Catholic knows that those culpable of either not entering or remaining in the Church cannot be saved. But those who are not so culpable are another story altogether. For example, in an encyclical epistle where he reiterated in the strongest of terms extra ecclesia nulla salus, Pope Bl. Pius IX explained this principle 140 years ago:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. [Pope Bl. Pius IX: Encyclical Epistle Quanto Conficiamur Moerore §7 (c. 1863)]

This principle is based explicitly on St. Paul's teaching in Romans 2 and the Church has always recognized it. Of course why you would immediately presume that the Animists and Buddhists are culpable for their errors is another question altogether - but God will surely measure to you what you measure to others (cf. Mark iv,24; Luke vi,38; Matthew vii,2) so that is all I will say on the matter at this time.

This is too easy.

Since you have not gotten one right yet, I fail to see how you can credibly make such an assertion. But you certainly have the right to your opinion of course. (Wrong though it happens to so frequently be.)

To be continued tomorrow with the Bellarmine stuff, etc. if I have the time...

:: Shawn 11:45 AM [+] | ::

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

The Errors of Michael Malone Revisited:

The first installment can be read HERE.

It has been a while since I have reviewed the late Michael Malone's work. As I was in the mood for a bit of mental exercise - and as Malone was among the most capable of objectors to Vatican II - it seemed addressing another three of his list of twenty-five supposely "explicit errors of Vatican II" would be in order here.

The first three "errors" tackled back in February did not remotely withstand scrutiny. For that reason, those of you who hang your hat on Malone as your "champion" may want to review the first installment before reading this one. But without further ado, let us tackle three more from his list of 25 "obvious errors" of Vatican II.

Mr. Malone's words will be in darkgreen. My words will be in regular font and all sources referenced in darkblue font except sources within sources which are quoted. (These will be in black font.)

Number Four

"These Christians are indeed in some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit for, by His gifts and graces, His sanctifying power is also active in them, and He has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood." Lumen Gentium

Here is the full text interspersed with my comments on some of the smaller sections:

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

This holy Council first of all turns its attention to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.

LG §14 above outlines EENS as it was always properly understood. However, there was another part of the equation that the definition itself was not directed against and that was those who were not culpable in their rejection of the Catholic Church.

Fully incorporated into the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who--by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion--are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but "in body" not "in heart."[12] All children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be the more severely judged.[13]

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, desire with an explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church, are by that very intention joined to her. With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own. [Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium §14 (c. 1964)]

Footnote 12 refers to St. Augustine's fifth Book on Baptism Against the Donatists (see the first installment of this series for details on it) and footnote 13 refers to several passages of Scripture particularly Luke xii,48 which reads as follows:

[H]e that knew not and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.

Preceding that verse was Luke xii,47 which reads as follows:

that servant, who knew the will of his lord and prepared not himself and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

In short, the distinction being made is between those who were culpable of their errors (many stripes) and those who were not (few stripes).

Other passages referenced here were Matthew v,19-20:

He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew vii,21-22:

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

Matthew xxv,41-46:

Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

And what would appear to be Luke ii,14:

Glory to God in the highest: and on earth peace to men of good will.

If we look at all of these passages, the context is clear: the position of the heart is what is judged, not the visible constituents. Obviously someone who is aware that Our Lord requires them to enter and remain in the Church who does not do so fails the heart test. If they feed the hungry, give clothing to the thirsty, visit the imprisoned, and in short fulfill the law through love of their neighbour (cf. Romans xiii,8-10), they would be judged on the last day to be among the sheep and not the goats. They would have a few stripes to endure of course in the process (i.e purgatory) but as they were of good will, they would achieve salvation. Their exalted standing in the Church would thus be magnified by their doing the will of God whereas their failure to do so would mean the most severe of judgments.

LG §15 (part of what Malone notes above) in full reads as follows:

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.[14]

For there are many who hold sacred scripture in honour as a rule of faith and of life, who have a sincere religious zeal, who lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and the Saviour,[15] who are sealed by baptism which unites them to Christ, and who indeed recognize and receive other sacraments in their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them possess the episcopate, celebrate the holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion of the Virgin Mother of God.[16] There is furthermore a sharing in prayer and spiritual benefits; these Christians are indeed in some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit for, by his gifts and graces, his sanctifying power is also active in them and he has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood. And so the Spirit stirs up desires and actions in all of Christ's disciples in order that all may be peaceably united, as Christ ordained, in one flock under one shepherd.[17] Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may be achieved, and she exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the Church. [Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium §15 (c. 1964)]

Here are the section footnotes:

14. Cfr. Leo XIII, EPiSt. Apost. Praeclara gratulationis, 20 iun. 1894; ASS 26 (1893-94) P. 707.

15. Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl. Satis cognitum, 29 iun. 1896: ASS 28 (1895-96) P. 738. Epist. Encycl. Caritatis studium, 25;iul. 1898: ASS 31 (1898-99) P. 11. Pius XII, Nuntius radioph. Nell'alba, 24 dec. 1941: ASS 34 (1942) P. 21.

16. Cfr. Pius XI, Litt. Encycl. Rerum Orientalium, 8 sept. 1 928: AAS 20 (1928) P. 287. Pius XII, Litt. Encycl Orientalis Ecclesiae, 9 apr. 1944:AAS 36 (1944) P. 137.

17. Cfr. Inst. S.S.C.S. Officii, 20 dec. 1949: AAS 42 (1950) P. 142.

In short, all of these statements have magisterial support or support from Scripture. So let us now deal with Mr. Malone's errors one by one.

A) "The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ, of which He is Head and Savior. We must always remember the unity of the Mystical Body outside which there is no salvation; for their is no entering into salvation outside the Church. Truth, grace, the Sacraments: all the certain norms for our journey to God come from the Church. The Catholic Church is the extension of Jesus Christ in time and space. Outside this Body the Holy Spirit does not give life to anyone. Those who are enemies ot unity do not participate in the charity of divine life; those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Spirit. A Christian must fear nothing so much as to be separated from the Body of Christ. If he is separated from Christ's Body, he is not one of His members; he is not fed by His Spirit." Pope Paul VI

Strange to see a radtrad quoting Pope Paul VI for support. However, if the reader notes all that I cover and then read the passage from Pope Paul above, there is no contradiction whatsoever. The entire text of LG hinges on the principle that those who are not aware of the Catholic Church as "they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it" (LG §14). Those who do not of course culpably refuse to enter or remain in the Church could possibly be saved nonetheless. The means whereby they would be saved would vary of course to how much of the fullness of truth that they retained.

Again as St. Augustine noted to the Donatists, "it is the place of the heart that matters." Lumen Gentium simply recognizes that there are many who profess to be Christian who "by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis §103) and from there examines this phenomenon in greater detail as it pertains to non-Catholic Christians (LG §15) and non-Christians (LG §16).

B) "If those unwilling to be at agreement in the Church be slain outside the Church, they cannot attain to the rewards of the Church." Pope Pelagius II.

What document is this from??? Since it is long been recognized that not all statements from the pope carry the same authority, I have to ask what Apostolic Letter or Epistle did Pope Pelagius III utter these words??? (Or were they uttered in a sermon???)

Accepting for a moment that they are magisterial, they refer quite clearly to those who are "unwilling to be in agreement in the Church" who left the Church and were slain outside. This denotes a culpable rejection of truth and of course harmonizes with LG §14 which noted that they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it (LG §14).

Obviously those who do *not* know this do not have the same certainty of damnation as those who do know but do not do. Again the parable of many stripes and few stripes comes to mind here.

C) "No one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV

It is debatable if the above is even a definitive statement; nonetheless, Mr. Malone again does not supply proper context. To quote from this writer's essay 'Mr. Critic' and Salvation Outside the Catholic Church on the summary text from above with the intext citations in black font:

Let us examine the two threads that permeate this section and observe the manner in which opponents of the Catholic Church read into the text assumptions that are not stated. Here is the first part of the summary statement of the Decree Cantante Domino:

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; [Council of Florence: Decree of Union with the Copts (c. 1443)]

The statement says clearly that those who are outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved. This is the case not only if they are pagans, but also Jews, heretics, or schismatics. They will do into everlasting fire unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives. How must they be joined to the Church to be saved??? Florence does not state that it must be corporate or visible in every instance and therefore those who read the statement this way are transposing their own interpretations unto the text. Obviously the Copts understood this union and the necessity for it to be corporal. Therefore, the necessary union with the Catholic Church for them would be unity of the ecclesiastical body. This is what God intends for all men, therefore those who are sufficiently aware of this obligation must comply with it or they will not be saved.

In reality, anyone who reads the full Decree (which is about seven pages) would notice that this is a summary statement where the Council recapitulates all past condemned heresies and schismatic groups. The emphasis therefore is corporeal as this writer noted earlier, not individual. Only later on in a Decree on Justification would the Council of Trent outline what was necessary for individual salvation. The sacraments of baptism and penance are required either in re or in voto (reality or desire) and obviously the actual reception whenever the person is aware of its necessity and it is reasonably possible to receive them is required. Now to cover the second part of the Florence statement referenced by 'Mr. Critic' and his allies:

that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has perservered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. [Council of Florence: Decree of Union with the Copts (c. 1443)]

Notice what this is saying: it is directed to those already in the ecclesiastical body and it is saying that they cannot benefit from the sacraments or any of the corporal works of mercy, or even shedding their blood for Christ unless they do so in the bosom of the Catholic Church. This is Catholic dogma and as we have already pointed out that one can be joined to the Church in soul and not necessarily body, the same principle applies here. In essence, anyone culpably leaving the Catholic Church who was within her bosom commits a mortal sin and will be damned for it unless before they die they repent of this crime and are reconciled. There is nothing in this teaching that is in any way contradicted by the later papal magisterium of the popes or by Vatican II. [I. Shawn McElhinney: 'Mr. Critic' and Salvation Outside the Catholic Church (c. 2001)]

In short, the third objection for Mr. Malone on this point fails to withstand scrutiny. Finally, we have his "right reason" segment:

D) Right Reason. The Holy Spirit cannot recognize members of the Body He gives life to who differ in faith, sacraments, or submission to spiritual authority for "He cannot deny Himself" (II Tim.2:13). The Holy Spirit cannot sanctify with the same Grace souls both inside and outside the Body of Jesus. Some are claimed to have shed their blood for Jesus, but this cannot be said to have come from the strength of the Holy Spirit of Truth, since it is the "right" to promote error they are defending. If they truly loved Jesus enough to die for Him, they would have been keeping His commandments (Jn 14:23), one of which is to be a member of His Church and receive Him in Holy Communion.

More sadly convoluted pseudo-"Catholic" thinking there. The first Scriptural passage noted reads as follows:

If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he cannot deny himself (ii Tim. ii,13).

As for the rest, Mr. Malone appears to be presuming that everyone who is not Catholic immediately incurs a mortal sin for unbelief and is thereby damned for it. This is contrary to a Traditional Catholic understanding of mortal sin. Or to quote this writer's good friend Dr. Art Sippo on the matter:

[The Feeneyites] say that anyone who has reached the age of reason who is outside of the RCC is in mortal sin. Why? Because they allege such people have no valid excuse for not becoming Catholics. They will say something like "Their guardian angels, the saints, the BVM, the Holy Spirit, and Christ himself are constantly whispering in their ears and enticing them to join the Church. Therefore no one can be considered invincibly ignorant of thier obligation to join the one true Church of Jesus Christ."

It is at this point that the Feeneyites depart from solemn Catholic teaching. You see, they are claiming that ALL people remaining outside of the Church are committing mortal sin by doing so.

Now to commit a mortal sin you must meet 3 basic criteria:

1) The moral action must involve an objectively serious matter
2) The agent must know that it is an objectively serious matter.
3) The agent must fully consent to it with his will.

In classical Catholic thinking, to commit a mortal sin it is not enough to do something that is seriously wrong in the objective order. You must know what you are doing and fully will to do the evil act. In other words, culpability can be attenuated by either ignorance or ambivalence.

This is what the Feeneyites deny. If we take their thesis to its logical conclusion, then all objectively serious moral acts are automatically mortally sinful. This not only puts them at odds with St Thomas Aquinas and St Alphonsus Liguori (2 great doctors of the Church who dealt with the defintion of mortal sin). It also puts them in opposition to solemn Magisterial teaching (See Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 17§12 -Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of His Holiness Pope John Paul II issued on 2 Dec 84).

In essence, their aberration is not merely about the "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" question. They are excessively rigourous in their definition of mortal sin and their opinions border on Calvinism and Jansenism. [Dr. Art Sippo: No Salvation Outside the Church (c. 1998)]

Frankly, Mr. Malone only digs himself deeper with every objection he makes. None of these withstand legitimate scrutiny. Let us see if his next bit of evidence fairs any better.

Number Five

"The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God." Lumen Gentium

Quite a tiny snippet but yes it is an accurate summary statement. However, if Mr. Malone was not such a prooftexter he would have at the very least quoted the text as follows:

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.

Nonetheless, let us look at his paltry objections now:

A) "The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot truly be adored except within its fold." Pope St. Gregory the
Great

This is of course not contrary to what is noted in LG §16 at all. Just because the Muslims adore the same God we do does not mean that the adoration is therefore on an equal footing. Mr. Malone in presuming that LG is saying this when in fact the document makes a clear demarcation between the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind (LG §13). And in that sequence and gradation does the standing before God objectively remain.

Catholics possessing the fullness of truth thereby insures that those who are faithful objectively adore God to a greater degree than other Christians who to varying degrees lack the same fullness of truth. (Chief among them the Orthodox Churches.) And likewise other Christians objectively adore God to a greater degree than non-Christians do.

These are of course objective statements and it is possible (even likely) that individuals of these groups could subjectively be closer to God than where they would objectively be constituted in the above scheme.

B) "The Catholic Church alone preserves true worship." Pope Pius XI

See my earlier comments as the same principle applies.

C) "A true worshipper is one whose mind has not been defiled with any false belief." Pope St. Leo the Great

See my earlier comments. Again, someone who is not culpable of possessing a false belief is not truly tainted by it. Therefore, someone who is objectively in error could subjectively be a true worhipper. The law of charity would require us to presume the good faith of others who err unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. And this principle extends as far as not rashly placing a bad interpretation on the sayings and doings of others. Thus far Mr. Malone has not done this in any of the texts we have looked at. I only hope God is more merciful to him than he is with others like him who have also sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (cf. Rom. iii,23).

Before responding to the last point here, it would seem to be good to post the entire relevant part of LG §16. The part Mr. Malone quoted will be put in bold to highlight just how absent proper context it really is:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation.[19] Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. [Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium §16 (c. 1964)]

Keep an eye on the bit about the "unknown God" as it will factor into the next part of this sequence.

D) Right Reason. No man can worship the one true God "together with us" if they do not share our one true faith.

In one sense this is true as we cannot admit them to the sacraments of course. However, if the Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham, who are we to say that they are not doing so - even if they have an erroneous conception of Him??? We have the advantage of understanding God up close and as He is: as a Trinity of Persons as the Scriptures interpreted in the light of Tradition attest to. The Muslims however - much as the Jews do - see Him from a distance unaided by the additional Divine Revelation that we possess.

Islam teaches that Jesus is not God and that there is only one person in God; hence, they do not believe in the God we worship. Thus, they can in no way worship "with us" our God.

Pope Gregory VII of course did not agree with Mr. Malone on the matter:

This is the charity we owe to one another and even more we owe it to the other people, because we recognise and confess, in a different way, that is true, the One and only God, whom we glorify and venerate everyday, as Creator of the centuries, Lord of this world, according to the word of the Apostle: He is our peace, who has made of the two one people. [Pope Gregory VII: Epistle to the King of Mauritania (c. 1076)]

Though only possessing the authority of what would today be referred to as an "encyclical epistle", that is nonetheless adequate enough authority to rebut Mr. Malone's erroneous view on this subject. Btw, Vatican II in the Declaration Nostra Aetate referenced the epistle quoted above when referring to the fact that Moslems adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth. (NA §3) Mr. Malone of course takes issue with Vatican II but the notion being espoused above has an ancient pedigree predating Vatican II by nearly a thousand years.

A man cannot worship in any way that which he does not believe in, for the Law of Praying is the Law of Believing, and vice-versa.

Does this mean that we should presume that Mr. Malone and the rest of us whose utter failure to completely understand God in all of His infiniteness means that we cannot render true worship??? If that is the case than no one outside of heaven who does not see God face to face can truly worship Him. All the Church dogmas combined paint but a very veiled picture of God. Granted our veiled picture is much clearer than the Muslims but it remains veiled nonetheless.

If they believe in a one-person deity, THAT is what they worship, and in no way "with us" can they worship the Holy Trinity, the Second Person of Which is a human being like us in all things but sin.

When Jesus told the Samaritan woman You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know he must have been likewise committing the same error as Gregory VII and Vatican II - if we trust Mr. Malone's view of these things. However, since Our Lord did not err, there must be a truth in John iv,22 that applies to this situation: to Catholics and other Christians "worshipping what we know" whereas the Muslims worship "what they do not know" as the Samaritans did before them.

Please pardon this writer if he places more stock in Our Lord and Saviour as well as Gregory VII and Vatican II than he does in Mr. Malone. And as none of the quotes Mr. Malone raised from Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, or Pius XI - even in the mutilated form that Mr. Malone provided of them - controvert the passage from Lumen Gentium §16, again his assertions stand soundly refuted as unviable.

Number Six

Number six is basically a duplicate of number five with a different "Right Reason" statement. Thus to refute this point will only need reference to the different statement so here it is:

D) Right Reason: No one can adore "together with us" a God they do not believe in (the Trinity). We cannot adore "together with" them a deity we do not believe in (one who permits four wives, as does the Koran).

The errors in this statement were already dealt with in the last installment. If Our Lord can assert that the pagan Samaritans "worshipped what [they] do not know" and if St. Paul can say to the pagan Athenians that in finding their altar "to the Unknown God" that What therefore you worship without knowing it, that I preach to you then he recognized as did Our Lord and the Second Sacrosanct Council of the Vatican that however much knowledge can increase the intensity of belief when one has more knowledge of whom they are worshipping, ultimately belief does not depend on knowledge for validity.

Three more multipart objections from Mr. Malone. Twelve more multipart proofs examined and on all points they were found to be not the problems that Mr. Malone claimed they were. So another three up and three down and Mr. Malone's side has been struck out yet again.

:: Shawn 6:23 PM [+] | ::

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

A Clarification on "Global Governance"

Kevin said, "His own Lidless Eye colleague Apolonio advanced the possibility that global governance was not only advocated by John XXIII, but is a logical conclusion of Leo XIII's teaching! So therefore, this is an issue that is far more simple than a yes or no answer."

Kevin is a little, note little, inaccurate. What I said was that we should read Pope John XXIII's encyclical in the context of Catholic teaching, like the principle of subsidiarity, as taught by Leo XIII and Pius XI (email to Kevin 8/1/03). I even gave a reference, which was Pius XI's encyclical. The reference was Quadrageismo Anno, 80 which reads:

"The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State."

If we keep on reading, Pius XI goes on to say:

Furthermore, since the various nations largely depend on one another in economic matters and need one another's help, they should strive with a united purpose and effort to promote by wisely conceived pacts and institutions a prosperous and happy international cooperation in economic life. (ibid, 89)

I would have quoted Pacem in Terris, 138 like Greg did. However, Kevin and I never got to the actual documents itself. I did tell him that Pius XI taught the same thing as John XXIII did, but the only difference was that there was no UN.

Greg says, "What I said was that his objections, if followed to their logical conclusions are tantamount to accusing Pope John XXIII of advocating a global government that places the sovereignty of individual nations at the mercy of international body, which, of course, in this case is the U.N."

I believe the same. I told Michael Brendan, his colleague, the same thing. I remember clearly saying the exact same thing and he asked me, "Then what kind of authority is it?" But I remember making the same kind of argument because I quoted #138.

From Kevin's emails, it seemed that he was against global governance. Of course, I kept on asking what he meant by that. But I thought it was very probable that he was against global governance Itself. Michael Brendan sure was against it. In fact, he gave four reasons why he opposes global governance. He gave it to me on 7/3/03 , 12:38-12:42 am in an Instant Message conversation (yes, we have late conversations). And I thought Michael and Kevin would have a similar position.


JMJ
A.L. III

:: Ap 7:50 PM [+] | ::

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

A Significant Oversight By Yours Truly:
(But one which *will* be corrected soon)

[This entry was also blogged today at Rerum Novarum due to (i) the larger readership of that weblog (ii) the light this post sheds on a commonly misunderstood subject amongst radtrads and (iii) the note it contains about an oversight in one of my writings that will be tended to - ISM]

It was brought to my attention recently that I overlooked a part of the statements of Cardinal Alfons Stickler in the section of my treatise which dissects piece by piece the stock "we are not in schism" pamphlet by the SSPX.

Now those who have read that section of the treatise before already know that all of the SSPX's "experts" who supposely vindicate them in reality explicitly condemn them as schismatics and their bishops as excommunicates - except Cardinal Stickler.{1} But the reason for the latter not being posted by me as a condemner of their position was that they quoted Cardinal Stickler on the subject of the Tridentine mass, not on the SSPX's illegal and criminal consecrations or other elements pertaining to their schism. (Which was what I focused exclusively on when drafting that section in November of 1999.) Nonetheless, one small point slipped under my radar and it is the ellipse (and the lack of some ellipses) in the following part of the pamphlet:

Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine [Latin] Mass in the present day? The answer given by eight of the cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. There was another question, very interesting. 'Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?' The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition... because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever." (Latin Mass Magazine, May 5, 1995)

Now I have gone into detail on other occasions about why it was not allowed for celebration of the Tridentine liturgical usage prior to 1984 except in very rare cases where there were exceptions made. Pope Paul VI granted Indults to Cardinal Heenan and Archbishop Lefebvre in 1970 - though Lefebvre by his suspension could no longer lawfully utilize it. There was also an exception made for elderly priests who were viewed as either too old to learn the new rite or who wished to celebrate the older usage in private. So while it is true that there was no suppression of the older usage, at the same time prior to 1984 it was funcionally almost non-existent.

And since then with the Indults it has been the responsibility of the bishops to allow or not allow it as the pope has not (yet) ordered that they have to. So I note this here because it is clear from the rare allowances Pope Paul made for the use of this liturgical form that he has not forbid it. He had cancelled out the law that prescribed that liturgical usage universally and gave any priest throughout the world the right to say that particular mass though.

Currently the only Missal that has this right throughout the world is the Revised Roman Missal of Pope Paul VI. The Tridentine liturgical usage is regulated by derogation from the law prescribed by Pope Paul with Missale Romanum - a derogation put in place by Pope John Paul II in 1984 with a limited Indult - followed by a wider Indult in 1988 which abrogated the Indult of 1984.

I will not go into further details of the 1984 and 1988 Indults here as this has been done elsewhere. And of course the church law which prescribed the Missal of Pius V for usage throughout the Church was quite clearly cancelled out{2} and my intention at this time is not to go over why appeals to immemorial custom will not work in this case - at least not at this time. In summary, while Pope Paul never forbid the older mass form, at the same time it was not allowed under Church law prior to 1984 except in the rare cases where Pope Paul granted a privilege for its celebration - and those granted such a privilege had not been suspended of their faculties as Archbishop Lefebvre was in July of 1976. I note that here so that the reader does not misunderstand what Cardinal Stickler's words actually convey.

Having been brought to my attention another blatantly dishonest quoting of sources by the SSPX, I tracked down my Spring 1995 copy of The Latin Mass with the Cardinal Stickler piece in it. There is his essay which I have already written a detailed confutation of back in early 2001. (See my Writings url for details.) But the quotes from the SSPX come from another section which runs on the same pages of the essay but underneath it in gray colour titled Cardinal Stickler Speaks Out.

Ironically, I completely forgot about this section as I had not read this issue for about six years. (Even when I wrote my rebuttal piece I used a web version so that I would not have to type out the piece at all.) And as I forgot I had the issue until very recently, the issue played no role in my treatise where I treated on this subject matter. (The intention there was to point out that Stickler had nothing whatsoever to say about the schism subject so the SSPX could not cite him as an ally.) Anyway, I repost the SSPX quote and will add in purple font what they "conveniently" do not mention - the one word omission intrigued me to track down my hardcopy of the magazine and many other forgotten goodies presented themselves in that section.

Any notes in brackets were added to His Eminence's comments by Latin Mass Magazine and I decided to leave them in despite not agreeing with the terminology used (i.e. traditional mass). The Cardinal's words as quoted by the SSPX will be in blue font. I will add words and paragraphs in purple which are either not included in that pamphlet or disingenuously excised to manipulate the words of His Eminence. All bold and underlined parts for emphasis are also courtesy of yours truly. But without further ado, let us get to it.

Did Pope Paul actually forbid the old rite?

Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day?No. He asked Benelli explicitly, "Did Paul VI forbid the old mass?" He never answered - never yes, never no.

Why? He couldn't say "Yes he forbade it." He couldn't forbid a mass which was from the beginning valid and was the Mass of thousands of saints and faithful. The difficulty for him was he couldn't forbid it, but at the same time he wanted the new Mass to be said, to be accepted. And so he could only say, "I want that the new Mass should be said." This was the answer all the princes gave to the question asked. They said: the Holy Father wished that all follow the new Mass.

The answer given by eight of the cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. Only one was against. All the others were for the free permission: that everyone could choose the old Mass. That answer the Pope accepted, I think; but again when some bishops' conferences became aware of the danger of this permission, they came to the Pope and said, "This absolutely should not be allowed because it will be the occasion, even the cause, of controversy amongst the faithful." And informed of this argument, I think, the Pope abstained from signing this permission. Yet, as for the commission -I can report from my own experience- the answer of the great majority was positive.

There was another question, very interesting. 'Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?' The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition not because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever. Those words of Pius V were common for an important decision of the Pope. He always said, "This is valid forever." But this was not a theological, it was not a dogmatic statement, this decree of the Pope promulgting his Tridentine Mass order. And so it could be changed by his successors....

In Italian, they say that one pope gives the bull and another takes the bull again, that is, he can change the disposition of his predecessor...

So what about a bishop forbidding the Mass in the case of a priest or a whole dioceses? You must realize that a bishop is the only one who has responsibility for his dioceses....Bishops have no jurisdiction over their collegues. A bishop in his dioceses, for his dioceses and his subjects, can find the arguments to forbid it. He can say, "This is disturbing to the peace in the dioceses."

It is necessary to notice that the privilege [of saying the traditional Mass, under the papal indult of 1984] is given to the bishops, not the faithful. So a bishop can use the privilege or not. [Latin Mass Magazine Summer 1995]

And of course if the bishop does not use the privilege, then those under him cannot either. Hence the argument that any priest anywhere can say the Tridentine mass without recourse to their local ordinary - a position that the SSPX deliberately misrepresented Cardinal Stickler as a proponent of - goes down in flames along with the other "proofs" decimated by yours truly in that section of the treatise.

Oh, and I *will* be adding this material to that url in the coming days so yet another lie of the SSPX and radtrads who mimic their lies stands refuted. And by an ally of the Tridentine movement no less.


Notes:

{1} While Cardinal Cassedy also does not explicitly condemn them as schismatics but he does imply it in his comments about the Society being "not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the [Ecumenical] Directory." However, to explain that would be beyond the scope of that project as it delves into intricacies of Canon Law which are beyond the competence of this writer to adequately handle. In short, ask Pete Vere about it.

{2} The general allowance to celebrate the Missal of Pius V was cancelled out when Pope Paul promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum in place of the previous Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. The latter was either abrogated (annulled) or obrogated (replaced) depending on which canonist you ask. But the functional effect is the same in both cases.

:: Shawn 1:00 PM [+] | ::

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