:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 ::

On "Premature Demands" - A Belated Response to Jacob Michael:

I made a few brief comments some time ago about the entire subject of Tony Blair and receiving communion. My pretext on the matter was a London Guardian article where the notion that the pope had given English Prime Minister Tony Blair communion was dismissed as false. (Instead, it reported that PM Blair came forward for a blessing.) Not to get into the merits or demerits of the idea of non-recipients in the west "coming forward for a blessing",{1} I closed that post with the following words:

I am wondering how many of those who misreported on this subject -including not a few who identify themselves as "traditionalists"{1}- will weigh in now and say "I misrepresented the facts" and will do so as prominantly as they announced their errors to begin with. My guess is that the answer is if not zero than darn near zero of them will.

The footnote above led to this accompanying text:

Including unfortunately some who have my respect. I hope that those individuals will rectify their previously enunciated errors on this situation.

All in all, this was pretty innocuous stuff coming from me -and I am sure many who read my weblogs on a regular basis would agree. Imagine therefore my surprise when catching up on reading at Kevin Tierney's group weblog when I saw this entry from Jacob Michael on the matter:

Not-so Sweet Vindication

My words will be in regular font and any sources cited in darkblue.

I do hate being vindicated sometimes.

Well, when one is not accustomed to being vindicated, I would assume that the feeling can be rather tough to deal with :)

This is one of those times.

We shall see...

Just days ago, Shawn McElhinney was flashing an old copy of The Guardian around, which contained a denial that Tony Blair ever received communion from the pope.

I am unaware that simply making people aware of a newspaper article constitutes "flashing."

He used this as an occasion to rebuke those who entertained the notion that the pope really did give communion to Blair:

I am wondering how many of those who misreported on this subject - including not a few who identify themselves as "traditionalists" - will weigh in now and say "I misrepresented the facts" and will do so as prominantly as they announced their errors to begin with. My guess is that the answer is if not zero than darn near zero of them will.

If Jacob thinks the above public musing constitutes a rebuke...well...I am guessing he does not read my stuff very often.

Now, I pointed out a few things in response to this:

1) With other news reports not taking nearly so definite a stance, the fact that Shawn would be treating this one single report as gospel truth is kind of strange.

I have long expressed a greater trust in the London mainstream papers to get the news right than I do the American mainstream press.{2} Furthermore, The London Guardian to my knowledge is no fan of Prime Minister Blair...at least not since he threw in on the war on the side of President Bush. Indeed, on this issue they actually sided with the pope.

Knowing the manner whereby the media works, if the London Guardian had an opportunity to make Blair look bad here, I have a strong hunch that they would have done so.{3} That is after all how the media tends to work with those whom they are not fond of. (At the moment, Blair is further up that list than the pope is.)

And of course, they are not the only source out there that has made these kinds of statements - a point I will touch on i n this response.

2) Since we know the names of at least two newspapers who actually reported without hesitation that Blair did communicate, the fact that Shawn took the opportunity to chastise "not a few who identify themselves as 'traditionalists'," but never even once mentioned the names of the two newspapers, tends to make me think he was just looking for a reason to poke us in the ribs again.

I noted among other things that [l]ast year, I read on many blogs and discussion groups (and even some message boards) that the pope gave Tony Blair communion in his visit to the Vatican last year. I remember well the stink this caused amongst so-called "traditionalists" who claimed that the pope had undercut the authority of the local ordinary in Mr. Blair's dioceses who had refused him communion.

It would have been a "Grandmaster of the Obvious" moment to have noted that this news was obtained from sources within the media apparatus. The reason I brought up the self-styled "traditionalists" was because generally speaking{4} there are a number of them who have a tendency to look for anything they can find which will either (i) put the Holy Father in a bad light or (ii) can be interpreted in a way that will put the Holy Father in a bad light. And of course on this subject, many of the usual subjects were striving to do one (or both) of those things. (For *that reason* they were mentioned in passing within that note.)

Well, now we can add one more name to that list of "those who misreported on this subject."

Bishops' order is debated

It began as a lone cry in the wilderness: In January, a relatively unknown Roman Ca tholic prelate ordered his priests to refuse Communion to Catholic politicians who supported a woman's right to abortion.

Based on the language in the citation, it is my guess that this is a liberal source that Jacob is quoting.

The prelate, Raymond Burke, newly appointed as archbishop of St. Louis, had imposed that sanction the year before as a bishop in Wisconsin without attracting much notice. But his January directive would be different. This, after all, was a presid ential election year, when the presumptive Democratic nominee was Sen. John Kerry [...]

As a side note: I love the way Kerry wins the Democratic nomination and he is still referred to as the "presumptive nominee." This is not the norm to do with a candidate after a major party nomination has been won.

...a Catholic who supports abortion rights - and only the third Catholic ever to seek the presidency on a major-party ticket.

And by far the worst of the three I might add...

Five months later, 14 American prelates have drawn lines in the sand, including Kerry's own archbishop, Sean O'Malley of Boston, who said Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should voluntarily refrain from seeking the sacrament. But O'Malley made the distinction that he would not turn anyone away from the Communion rail.

It is a judgment call of the prelate certainly. There are few issues where I believe this is a viable course of action to take; however, the issue of abortion is one of them.

"Saying that pro-abortion politicians should be denied Communion ... is a new and, really, a very unusual development," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of America, a Catholic ma gazine. "It's not happening in Europe. It's not happening in Italy. Even the pope gave Communion to Tony Blair, who's a pro-choice Episcopalian, at a private Mass last year." (emphasis added)

This is somewhat amusing because (as usual) my hunches on these matters prove correct. You see gentle reader, America is quite the liberal rag. I would not as a rule trust them with the time of day. Furthermore, I am sure Jacob --if he knew a bit more about them-- would take even more of a hardline stance on them than I would.{5} Yet in this example, they are to be trusted as accurate purveyors of the truth??? Interesting...

Apparently it's not only Traditionalists who have been duped.

Correction: so-called "traditionalists."

Add to the roster one Rev. Thomas Reese, not only a priest, but the editor of a large Catholic magazine.

A large very liberal Catholic magazine and one that loves to cut down or place in an unflattering light the authority of the Pope, of the Cardinal Prefect of the CDF Joseph Ratzinger, and anyone else who does not subscribe to the so-called "progressivist" agenda of appealing to the "spirit of Vatican II."

Now what are we to think? Maybe Reese knows something we don't.

Possibly but not likely: a position I take based on precedent with America and their accuracy trackrecord.

Or maybe he's a closet Traditionalist, which would presumably make him more susceptible to swallowing gross rumors such as these.

There is one for the conspiracy kooks: America the liberal periodical has actually hired as editor a fringe so-called "traditionalist" who is posing as a liberal in a Trojan Horse attempt to bring down the periodical...but only occasionally does he slip up and show his true colours for the benefit of those who have the "magic glasses to see" his hints on the matter. Nice.

In all fairness, the self-styled "progressivists" are as prone to reacting to rumours in this manner as the self-styled "traditionalists" are.

Maybe the story is true, maybe it's not ...

I would not trust America to get many facts straight if I were you Jacob. And those newspapers who draw on them as a source for their "facts" are not as a rule to be trusted when they utilize America as a "trusted source."{6}

I hope I'm wrong. I hope the pope didn't. I hope Blair knew better ...

And of course if the Pope did, it is not as if there is *no* leeway whatsoever on this matter. That is where the Canon that has Mario's skivvies in a twist comes into play. I will touch on it briefly here.

Essentially before he could receive communion in a Catholic mass, PM Blair would have to (i) profess Catholic belief in this sacrament (ii) be properly disposed and (iii) in a situation of genuine need to qualify: at least that is how the Church has established the guidelines for proper reception of the sacrament (cf. Can. 840-844).{7} I fail to see how PM Blair receiving in this situation would qualify under those rubrics but that is neither here nor there.

but either way, Shawn's demand

Again, does what I wrote sound like a "demand" to you readers??? Or is Jacob perhaps failing to disengage himself from "dialectic contrariness mode" to better be able to read what I wrote for the tone it quite clearly reflects???

for a mea culpa from "those who misreported on this subject" is looking - at the least - a bit premature.

Not at all. The major papers in England -both the London Guardian (as I noted previously) and also the London Telegraph deny that this happened. The major sources claiming that it did are the liberal rag America and also The Church Times -the latter believed to be the source from where the rumour originated. Let us consider the latter one for a moment.

According to their own website, The Church Times founded in 1863, has become the world's leading Anglican weekly newspaper. Furthermore, [i]t has always been independent of the Church of England hierarchy. In short, because they strive to be "independent" of episcopal control, they are essentially England's version of America and are therefore hardly to be trusted with the whole truth. Nor for that matter is the National Catholic Reporter in many respects -though they are generally a more reliable source than America is.

Speaking of the NCR, John Allen, the periodical's representative in Rome (and probably among their more reliable sources) weighed in on this matter back in early 2003 with the following words (among others):

The story first broke in the Church Times, an Anglican publication. That report, which is the basis for most of the public speculation, was attributed (though not by name) to a particular liturgist in Rome. I know the man in question, and he denies having said any such thing. Moreover, he was not at the Mass and has no privileged insight into what happened.

It would seem that the "source" for this rumour was not a very strong one doncha think??? Again, I ask if those who made this error so prominantly will retract it as prominantly. Of course they will not do this{8} which was precisely my point.

In summary, to the reader who has any doubts on the matter, if they claim to be faithful Catholics{9} they should look to resolve it in their minds in the manner that does the Holy Father the greatest credit. That is what the authentically charitable thing to do would be after all.

Notes:

{1} I cannot say that I am fond of this particular practice in all honesty.

{2} This position also pertains to what goes on in America incidentally enough. And of course with this sort of issue, there is McElhinney's Media Dictum which kicks in -which essentially states the following:

The media's propensity for error is in direct proportion to the intricacies of the problem p resent. Hence, the more complex the variables, the less the media can be trusted to be reliable in their reporting on them.

And this subject is not one lacking in its complex variables viz. how Canon 844 may or may not apply.

{3} Those who have watched me play blackjack know that my hunches are not to be dismissed lightly. The same situation applies when it comes to the media and how they report: indeed it is more so with the latter.

{4} I have made it amply clear over the years that this is not a monolithic entity: a point I note here briefly to anticipate potential responses if I do not from *some* in this camp.

{5} To make an educated guess based on how certain details (which can make all the difference in assessing a position) seem to be frequently missing in his analyses of more complex subject matter.

{6} Yes Jacob, America along with Commonweal and the National Catholic Reporter are popular press sources for news. (I frankly have very little use for any of them -particularly the first two.)

{7} I note the sequence of canons because they are to be looked at as a unit for proper interpretation. Nonetheless, the subsection of the Code that is most applicable in the case of PM Blair is this one:

Can. 844 §4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

As the diocesan bishop of Rome is the Pope, he would be the one empowered within his dioceses to make this judgment. And even if he did judge in certain circumstances that this was acceptable, the would-be recipient would have to demonstrate Catholic faith in the sacraments received (referring to penance, the eucharist, or anointing of the sick) as well as be properly disposed to receive them.

This is why whether PM Blair received or did not, I am not about to loose sleep over it. The judgment on these matters pertains to the diocesan bishop (cf. Can 838§4) which is as it should be if we are to avoid the kind of harmful private judgment that was the foundation of the major heresies of Protestantism and Jansenism.

{8} Unless they are shamed into doing so of course.

{9} And that particularly applies if they have the temerity to refer to themselves as "Traditionalists": an implication that they are "more Catholic" than thou."

:: Shawn 12:20 AM [+] | ::

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

Kevin Byrne's Response to Mario Part 2

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

REVIEW:
Mario Derksen's argument is, in short, to the effect that John Paul II, the Roman Catholic Pope, is not-the-Pope because he promulgated an "evil Law" allowing "notorious" heretics and schismatics (eg. The Eastern "so-called" Orthodox) to receive "Catholic" sacraments, according to Canon 844. Ch. 3. and Ch. 4. of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is directly CONTRARY, according to "Mr." Derksen (M.A.), to Canon 732. Ch. 2. of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Derksen neglects several things, to wit Apostolic authority "to loose" and "to bind" and "to forgive" or "to retain" essentially the same sins. He also fails to understand the essential ambiguity of the proverbial "letter" of disciplinary-LAW, while completely forgetting THE SPIRIT of ecclesiastical Law, which is to extend salvation (healing/forgiveness) to the entire human community. He fails to mention that newer Codes of disciplinary Law abrogate (repeal; cancel) any laws, customs, etc. which are contrary to freshly promulgated legal Codes. (Canon 6.)

For example, the New Law of Christ abrogated Mosaic circumcision and the Apostle's cancelled that Law, although any "Christian" who wished to be also subject to Mosaic Law had to obey Mosaic Law (including circumcision), as well as the New Law, which St. Paul mentions at least once in his Epistles.

But most significant, in refuting Derksen's argument, is his wilfull or, perhaps, simple ignorance ("no excuse") of the reconciliation process begun between the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates and the Roman Papacy in 1965, thirteen years prior to what Derksen argues to be an evil law, promulgated under J.P.II's authority, which is alleged to be "directly-CONTRARY" to a "divine" Canon Law promulgated on the authority of Pope Benedict XV in The 1917 Code of Canon Law.

It is perfectly true that in 1917, when the 1917 Code was promulgated, the Eastern Orthodox "patriarchates" and "members" were "notorious" schismatics. Hence, Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), who promulgated the 1917 Canon Law Code, was perfectly authoritative with Canon 732, quoted by Mario Derksen, as, quote:-

Canon 732 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.

Derksen contrasts this 1917 Canon with parts 3. and 4. of Canon 844. of the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated under John Paul II's authority, quoted as

844. §3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

ANALYSIS:
In short, requote "It is forbidden that the Sacraments..."; (Benedict 15th; 1917), contrasted with the CONTRARY, requote, "Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments..." (John Paul 2nd; 1983) are demonstrated to be the contrary alternatives, which cannot both be acknowledged as true (divinely inspired; lawful; authoritative; valid; indefectible; etc.), according to Derksen's thesis. Of course his thesis is that because our present Pope promulgated an "evil" Law, it is impossible for him to be a Pope. So, the Pope, J.P.II, is not-the-Pope!!!

However, all the best lies consist of true statements and only true statements, where important "qualifications" are left out, or an error is deceitfully let in. Mr. Derksen ignores a very important clause of Benedict's 1917 Canon 732 as well as failing to mention a 1965 reconciliation between J.P. II's predecessor (Paul VI) and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates in the persons of Athenagoras I and his Synod.

Pope Benedict, like all other Popes, always leaves the "door open" into the Roman Catholic Church, requote, "....unless, rejecting errors, they are reconciled with the Church." Derksen's 2nd premise ignores the reconciliation process initiated in 1965 by Paul VI, Patriarch Athenagoras and his Synod in common agreement, which is entirely consistent with the last phrase of the 1917 Code and, in particular, the phrase "unless... they (heretics; schismatics) are reconciled with the Church."

So our modern "Peter", John Paul II, is entirely consistent with All of the Popes Bendict XV , John XXIII and Paul VI by recognizing the reconciliation point of Pope Benedict XV (in "theory"; requote "unless rejecting their errors they be reconciled") and the identical point of Pope Paul VI (in practice; to wit the Joint Catholic Declaration of 1965, where a reconciliation was initiated/promulgated by a Pope who preceded J.P.II), when he promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

As previously mentioned, "Peter" only "judges" the judgments, the arguments and the alleged facts supplied to him by "THE FAITHFUL". Like Christ, quote "...of himself..." our Apostolic "Peter", requote "...does nothing;" (John 8:28). Christ repetitively asserts that The Father has given Christ the words and teaching, while the works (signs; miracles) are done by "The Father", who is always with Him.

Our Apostolic "Peter" is, of course, not that impressive. But you can always literally "see" that various "Peters" continually repeat and continue the words and works of their "brothers of venerable memory". At the same time, those "brothers" repeatedly judge the words and works of "the faithful" vs. "the doubtful". It's fascinating.

In this particular case of The 1983 Code of Canon Law, John Paul II is only completing, verifying and promulgating the words and works of his 2 predecessor "brother" Popes of venerable memory. The 1983 "Code" is a work initiated by John XXIII, which verifies both the words and the works of both John XXIII and Paul VI.

No reasonable person can validly "argue" that the 1983 Code is J.P. II's, even though the Code (1983) was promulgated under the authority of his pontificate. It is completely (though banally) "interesting" that our present Pope's SSPX "critic", utterly ignores the well documented fact that the "Code" (1983) was a hugely collegial work. The pope mentions Pope John's intention to revise the 1917 Code in 1959 at the beginning of his APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION, proceeding to make it abundantly clear that the "Code" was the result of "labours", quote, "brought to their conclusion in an eminently COLLEGIAL spirit." (Apostolic Constitution xii).

John Paul II goes on to mention the Bishops, Episcopal Conferences and experts in the areas of theology, history and, especially, Canon Law, who were consulted and drawn from, quote "...all parts of the world." (xii), especially mentioning the Cardinals Pietro Ciriaci and Pericles Felici, as well as the secretaries of the Commission (Monsignor; later Cardinal; Giocomo Violardo and Father Raimondo Bidagor SJ) along with the, quote "...Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops, and all who were members of this Commission, as well as the Consultors of the individual study groups engaged over these years (1959-1983). Those whom John Paul mentions, by name, are the deceased members of the "Commission".

Then he thanks two of the living Commission members, to wit, his venerable Brother, Rosalio Castillo Lara and "our beloved son, Monsignor William Onclin".

JOHN PAUL II:
"In promulgating this Code today, therefore, we are fully conscious that this act stems (NOTE:- Ah! From the "philosophical" term episteme!!! Philosophy meets "critical/dialectical" Canon Law. Good stuff.) from our pontifical authority itself, and so assumes primatial (cw. Aristotle's "prime"/1st philsophy; a.k.a. "metaphysics") nature. Yet we are no less aware that in its content this code reflects the collegial solicitude for The Church of all our Brothers in the Episcopate. Indeed, by a certain analogy with the Council itself, the code must be viewed as the fruit of collegial cooperation which derives from the combined energies of experienced people and institutions throughout the whole Church."

So, in rejecting the Code of Canon Law (1983) as containing "evil laws", Mr. Mario Derksen (M.A.; SSPX) attributes to both John Paul II and to himself that very "anthropocentric individualism", which Maritain described as the 3rd symptom of "modern man's" basic intellectual disease (circa 1930).

But, ON THE CONTRARY:
Legitimate Popes do not "go-it-alone" as anthropocentric individuals or individualists. They are as collegial today, as described by St. Luke in the ACTS of the original Apostles---probably more so, given the vast numbers of members in various colleges, Episcopal Conferences, Commissions and institutions of "Peter's" Church.

As a consequence, the debates (cw. Acts 15:7; "And after a long debate, Peter got up and said...") are much longer in our "modern" Church. However, modern "critics" are, in general, far more dull than ancient Church "critics", for the simple reason that they are not nearly as well-trained in either so-called "Greek" dialectic or the grammar, rhetoric and LOGIC of the ancient "trivium".

Mr. Mario Derksen is a perfect example of having 3 "two-by-fours" jammed in his intellectual "eyes" (Incompetent "grammar, rhetoric and logic"), while attempting to remove a fictitious "mote" from J.P.II's intellectual "eye"!!!

Both of his premises are false and his "conclusion" does not follow.

:: Ap 9:08 AM [+] | ::

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

Kevin Byrne's Response to Mario

It is a "non-sequitur" (literally a "does not follow"), as you have correctly intuited.

The fellow's argument is, essentially, that since our Pope changed some disciplinary rules, he is not a Pope---at least not from the moment he promulgated some allegedly "evil" disciplinary rules (per The 1983 Code of Canon Law) for Roman Catholic clerics, (as well as for religious and lay persons; Latin Rite) concerning access to the sacraments by "schismatics and heretics".

His first premise is ambiguously true (in many respects) and ambiguously false in one essential respect known as Petrine Supremacy. That 1st premise was, quote

Premise 1: The Catholic Church is indefectible in her universal disciplinary laws.

CRITICISM:
"Indefectible" has the meanings of 1. "faultless" (no defect), 2. "unfailing" and 3. "not liable to decay". The word does not have the same meaning as either "eternal" or "absolute". As far as Petrine Supremacy is concerned, the doctrine is (as are all Roman Catholic doctrines and dogmas) grounded upon Christ's authority, quote:-

MATTHEW 16:18
"And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it;

As to Peter's disciplinary authority and the questions of both "indefectible"/faultless and "absolute"/unchangeable, Christ continues, per Matthew's account, quote

MATTHEW 16:19
"And I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatever thou shalt BIND on earth shalt be BOUND in heaven (indefectibly, infallibly) and whatever thou shalt LOOSE on earth shalt be LOOSED in heaven. (indefectibly, infallibly)."

LOGICAL ANALYSIS:
But binding and loosing are CONTRARY terms, or the most extreme sorts of logically opposed terms. And the terms "Binding" and "Loosing" refer to logically contrary sorts of PETRINE ACTS.

eg. "Peter" (who almost never is, nor works, alone) presently binds Christ's Roman priests to chastity. Peter also binds unmarried laity to chastity. But Peter looses Christ's married laity from chastity and binds them to conjugal acts as well as to unobstructed possibilities of fecundity, as a consequence of conjugal acts. So, an ACT (conjugation) is loosed for priests and religious who are bound by contrary and "voluntary vows" of chastity---entirely CONTRARY to conjugal-fecundity!!!

At the same time, with respect to the Sacrament of HOLY MATRIMONY, as distinct from the Sacrament of HOLY ORDERS, "Peter" does not forbid chaste marriages, by mutual consent, during certain times to which married persons agree. Thus conjugality and fecundity are loosed by "Peter", if both married parties consent to abstain. In terms of "disciplinary" LAW, the primary principle is consent of the governed, who become SUBJECTS of (and to) the LAW.

In terms of Logic, ACTS (one of Aristotle's 10 respects or "thought-Categories") can always be CONTRARY, just as chaste acts and conjugal acts are contrary acts.

But SUBSTANCES (individual units and individual beings) are not and cannot be "contrary", as substances, nor is one SACRAMENT the "contrary" of a different sacrament, while various sacraments "substantially" bind and loose different kinds of ACTS---even contrary acts.

In short there are different disciplines, with much liberty, in The Church. And it is "Peter" who has the final say on both binding and loosing. So, though the Church is without fault, in various diverse RESPECTS, neither "Peter", nor Holy Mother Church, have identical or single vocational disciplines---ABSOLUTELY applied to EVERY Catholic as suggested by your "friend's" first false premise of an irrational argument to "justify" The Pope being a non-Pope---the evidently absurd conclusion of an evidently fallacious argument.

The legal casuists call the phenomenon of "indefectibly"/faultlessly "binding-SOME" and "loosing-SOME" other different members of one, UNIVERSAL-CHURCH, by the name "legal-ambiguity". All "disciplinary" law is fundamentally ambiguous, whereas all actual disciples of Christ are wonderfully "liberated" from strict legalism.

St. Paul has an excellent way of speaking of his paradoxical LIBERTY as Christ's slave when he says in effect that "ALL THINGS are LAWFUL to me, but NOT ALL THINGS are EXPEDIENT." In other words, St. Paul was "above" mere legal rules, just as Christ was above mere Mosaic legal rules, being the fulfillment of those mere rules. So, even though St. Paul had the liberty and right to apply the law, punitively, to transgressors, he preferred to persuade and convert various transgressors of mere laws to Christian discipleship.

St. Paul was a "killer-legalist" in all of 1. Roman Law, 2. Hebrew/Mosaic Law and 3. so-called "Greek" LOGIC, as well as dialectic, which is why he loved to go to any sort of "Court" and preach the Gospel. No one could refute St. Paul after his conversion. No one ever refuted Christ. And your "friend" from the Society of St. Pius the Tenth can't possibly "refute" Christ's latest "Peter" (John Paul II).

There is more than one reason for this fellow "attacking" John Paul II's authority, via the 1983 Code of Canon Law. John Paul II was forced to resort to that Code in excommunicating Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who founded the priestly Society of St. Pius the 10th (SSPX), which is a priestly society---emphasis on "priestly" society. As you should know, Apolonio, priests have teaching authority, in The Church, while in communion with their local Ordinaries (a.k.a. BISHOPS), who are in communion with "Peter" at Rome. But the SSPX "priestly society" has absolutely NO BISHOP, nor Bishops, after Lefebvre died.

Archbishop Lefebvre made his opposition to Vatican II so strident and obvious, as well as public, that he was warned that if he consecrated any BISHOP, without Papal and Vatican approval, and without Papal authority, he would suffer an automatic excommunication ("latae sententiae"; meaning a "latent-sentence", without requiring a formal declaration called a "ferendae sententiae" excommunication), the moment he even intended to lay hands on a "non-PETRINE-approved" candidate for a TEACHING OFFICE/Bishop in the Latin Church.

The formal "ferendae sententiae" excommunication was decreed in 1988, quote


Ecclesia Dei



His Holiness Pope John Paul II
Apostolic Letter
July 2, 1988

With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on June 30 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X founded by the same Archbishop Lefebvre.

These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail. [Cf. Informatory note of June 16, 1988; L'Osservatore Romano, English ed., June 27, 1988, pp. 1-2.]

2. This affliction was particularly felt by the successor of Peter, to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church [Cf. Vatican Council I, "Pastor Aeternus," Ch. 3; Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3060], even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few, since every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the cross for the salvation of all. The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective, in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.

3. In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience--which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy--constitutes a schismatic act. [Code of Canon Law, 751.] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1382.]



[N.B. What Lefebvre implied by his disobedient practice, your friend now
asserts to be the infallible conclusion of his very fallible "argument"---
ie. Peter is not-Peter; a.k.a. Lefebvre's disciple rejects the Roman Pontiff!]



4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers, who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth." [Vatican Council II, "Dei Verbum," 8; cf. Vatican Council I, "Dei Filius," Ch. 4; DS 3020.] But especially contradictory is a notion of tradition which opposes the universal magisterium of the Church possessed by the bishop of Rome and the body of bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church. [Cf. Mt. 16:18; Lk, 10:16; "Pastor Aeternus," Ch. 3; DS 3060.]

5. Faced with the situation that has arisen, I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.


(snip---full text at New Advent)



7. As this year specially dedicated to the Blessed Virgin is now drawing to a close, I wish to exhort all to join in unceasing prayer, which the vicar of Christ, through the intercession of the mother of the Church, addresses to the Father in the very words of the Son: "That they all may be one!"
Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, July 2, 1988, the 10th year of the pontificate.
John Paul II

COMMENTS:
Your friend's argument is basically this:- John Paul II rejected my Bishop, so I have "thought up" an (allegedly) infallible-ARGUMENT to "prove" that John Paul II is not the Bishop of Rome. In short, the pope is not the pope!!!

The problem, of course, is that your friend has no authority and his "Society" has no validly consecrated Bishops to "teach" such non-sense, even though the argument from authority is the "weakest" philosophical argument. In contrast, our present POPE was legitimately voted into Office, by an electoral college of entirely legitimate-CARDINALS and with the joyful approval of most of the entire Church (Cardinals, Bishops, priests and Laity). So John Paul II has that sort of authority and approval---which is still "philosophically-weak", but Theologically, a very "strong" argument for Cardinal Wojtyla's papacy.

More significantly, as well as logically and morally-authoritative, is the fact that all priests, Bishops and Cardinals take vows of obedience, according to St Paul's evangelical "counsels" of poverty, chastity & obedience! And no one, in The Church, can break a vow and claim lawful authority to break-a-vow!!! The moment Lefebvre disobeyed both a Vatican and a "Petrine" ORDER, he was no longer a Roman Catholic Bishop---just a disobedient priest.

Your "friend's" second premise is even more absurd and is "grounded" by the same fallacy, to the effect that Peter "cannot" bind at one time, or in one case, and "loose" at another time, and/or in another case or even the same case.

Premise 2: The 1983 “Code of Canon Law,” published by John Paul II with all the force of his supposed authority, contains laws that are in and of themselves evil and harmful to souls.


As to binding and loosing, for example:- Bishops (pleural) consecrate other priests as Bishops, by the laying on of hands and granting of the "Episcopal-ORDER" all the time. But several Bishops usually recommend several suitable priests for the "Episcopacy" (Episcope/overseer; 'piscope/Greek-"short-form"; = Bishop/Latin-name) in concert with their brother-priests. Then "lists" of such recommended (as suitable) candidates are sent to Rome to be reviewed, so that many Bishops, Cardinals and priests are involved in selecting each Bishop. However, in the SSPX "case", only one warned-Bishop (Archbishop Lefebvre) "selected" and attempted to confer the "Episcopal-ORDER" on some brother-priests, CONTRARY to ordinary lawful procedures and his ORDAINED-vow of obedience.

So the identical ACT of one Bishop consecrating another priest as a fellow Bishop is bound by Papal and collegial authority in one case (validly consecrated Bishop) and loosed (nullified; voided) in a "case" such as Lefebvre's, requote (J.P.II), "unlawful episcopal ordination".

So, it is very easy to literally "see" what is driving Mario Derksen's argument. He has absolutely no "ground" for asserting or arguing that Pope John Paul II was not lawfully elected as "Peter's" lawful successor, in 1978. So he "argues" for some ACT of the Pontiff, which made him a non-Pontiff prior to 1988, when the Pope (in consultation with the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops) excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre for disobedience and simultaneously declared Lefebvre's "proteges" and SSPX colleagues "in schism".

So he mentions schismatics and "John Paul II's" provision for "Catholic" sacraments to be provided (according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law) to what he calls "notorious" schismatics (But only under extreme circumstances---danger of death---no availability of a minister from one's own rite). But he neglects to inform anyone that the 1983 Code of Canon Law was the "idea" of Pope John XXIII, in 1958 or 1959, in concert with a multitude of priests, Bishops, theologians and Canon lawyers. In short, the 1983 Code was not generated under the authority of this pope, nor because of any singular desire of this present Pope. Even Wojtyla's papal-name signifies an intent to finish the work inspired in/by 2 other Popes.

In short and in effect, where "2 or more are gathered in my name---there I am among them."

Derksen also fails to mention that Pope Paul VI, in concert with the Orthodox Patriarch, Athenagoras, of Istanbul, both simultaneously nullified the arguably unjust, and mutual (ie "tit" for "tat") personal excommunications of the individuals involved in CAUSING what led to the schism between Orthodox and Roman Congregations in 1054.

Both PRIMATES (once again, two Bishops in college with their "brother-priests" and brother-Bishops) made that common and mutual declaration, replete with forgivenesses and apologies on exactly December 7th, 1965---long before the papacy of John Paul II, in 1978. Of course, the SSPX people don't accept Vatican II---so a new schism seems to have replaced an ancient "schism".

The details of the original Orthodox/Roman "schism" of 1054 are interesting. A papal legate of The Holy See (ie. Roman Curia Officials) under the authority of Cardinal Humbertus excommunicated Patriarch Michael Caerularius and two other persons. So Caerularius, in concert with his Synod of Bishops, at (then) Constantinople, excommunicated Humbertus, members of his Vatican legation and, perhaps, the Pope upon who's "authority" Humbertus, et. alia. relied to "excommunicate" the "Greek" Patriarch. In short "tit" for "tat". Most Latin rite writers place almost the entire blame on Caerularius for 3 reasons:-

1. Casting aspersions on the Latin Eucharist of "azyme" (unleavened) bread as "souless" or "dead"; 2. Closing the Latin rite churches and monasteries and expelling such "Francs" from their property at Constantinople; 3. Striking the Pope's name from "dyptichs"

But if I recall correctly, the Pope (St. Leo IX) upon who's authority Humbertus' legation relied had been DEAD for about 2 months prior to the "excommunications" made in his name.

Hence, it was a total "screw-up" on both sides, while the large distances and difficulties in communication (after the Roman secular Empire's collapse) made reconciliation extremely difficult. The Muslim conquest of the former Eastern Roman Empire (Including the "sees" of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch) had basically put most Orthodox primates and believers behind a Muslim "iron curtain" circa 300 yrs. before the dubious schism of 1054, whereafter 2 Ecumenical Councils apparently healed the breach---only to be renewed/reversed.

However, in 1965, two Christian primates and "1st-among-equal-Bishops"/primus-inter-pares (Paul VI and Athenagoras) in concert with their "brother priests" and Bishops began to repair the schism, upon which your friend primarily relies for the "authenticity" of his 2nd fallacious premise (which emphasizes schismatics). Yet, the "schismatics" began a reconciliation process, with Rome, 13 yrs. before John Paul's papacy.

The 2nd premise is to the effect that this pope is catering to the Orthodox, who are "notorious schismatics" (reconciling in 1965!) when it is his SSPX group who are the most recently decreed "notorious" schismatics (1988).

In sum, Derksen's entire argument involves ambiguous and false premises. He has no personal authority other than an "MA". His organization has no Bishops. And this pope is the Pope, although this pope's authority for the legitimacy of his acts primarily lies with the (priestly, prophetic and Kingly) authority of his 2 immediate predecessors, to wit, Pope John XXIII (New Code of Canon Law) and Pope Paul VI (removal of the excommunications which unjustly condemned all Orthodox Bishops as schismatics and all Roman Catholics as "schismatics" to Orthodox Bishops).

His errors are primarily errors of MAJOR or material logic, to wit the facts of how and why the New Code of Canon Law came into being prior to John Paul II's pontificate and the fact that 2 Primates and their brother priests and Bishops agreed to reconcile, once again, prior to John Paul II's pontificate. Then there is also the fact of Lefebvre's lawful excommunication for disobedience to both a POPE and the college of Bishops responsible for the ordination of Brother Bishops in the teaching and "disciplinary" functions/Offices of Christ's Bishops.

Obedience is a really big thing in the Roman Catholic religion. Christ, himself, was even obedient to death upon a cross (ie. Not my will...). So it was a very small thing for Archbishop Lefebvre to be obedient in not ordaining Bishops until he and his Congregation of priests worked out their differences with Rome concerning Vatican II. But Lefebvre would not obey and we have another actual schism to replace a highly dubious ancient "schism". It is a very ancient "game". But it is always played-out the same way, with rebellion to lawful authority being the "sine qua non" of the "game" and individuals being the primary rebels. It is basically the same "game" that Satan played with Adam and Eve.

A question is asked, which raises a doubt. The question and the doubt leads some individual to believe a lie ("Surely you won't die!" believed by Eve). Then others go along with the lie (Adam)---but nobody "checks-back" with the original authority (God), nor with the original arguer and his argument (Satan), until they have disobeyed an "order", which was really only a promise and a warning to both 1. believe the truth and 2. obey a "command"---given to them, and made for them, for their own benefit/happiness and to benefit their friends!!!

AS TO PURELY LOGICAL GROUNDS:

The reason why "Peter" is infallible and "indefectible" is because of FORMAL LOGIC, as follows:-

1. "Peter" doesn't, usually, state the facts. His brother Bishops, priests and lay-brethern usually do that.

2. "Peter" doesn't, usually, start the argument---although when he does, there is big trouble, as when the original Peter actually argued with Christ about his coming passion. Christ's reply to the original Peter was "Get behind me Satan, you are a scandal to me!", which must have really "shocked" Peter, because being described as "Satan" followed closely upon Christ's foundation of The Church upon him as "the rock" (Cephas/Petros).

3. Finally, the "art" of LOGIC involves/entails the logical integration of 1. True Statements (a.k.a. facts) into/within 2. CORRECT (a.k.a. rational; a.k.a. logical) FORMS (of argument), from which "follow" 3. TRUE and LOGICAL conclusions, also known as JUDGMENTS.

So, when "Peter" does not state facts and does not argue either the opinions or the alleged facts, it is NOT the "judgment" of Peter. "Peter" is judging between the equal judgments of equal Roman Catholics (who are not "Peter"). "Peter" is judging between the equal arguments of equal Roman Catholics (who are not "Peter"). And finally, "Peter" is judging between the equal "alleged facts" of equal Roman Catholics. It is, in sum, EVERYONE, other than "Peter" who is making various diverse judgments (arguments and allegations).

So, in fact, truth and LOGIC, when you, as "Peter", are not the judge, you are infallible, which is a variation upon Christ's "JUDGE-not, lest you be JUDGED. For with what JUDGMENT you JUDGE, it may be JUDGED to you!"

Christ also admitted that he didn't come to judge but to save what was "lost". According to John, Jesus tells his pharisee-judges ("You bear witness to yourself! Your witness is not true!) that that they judge according to the flesh, but he judges no one. But even if he did, his judgment would be true, because, "I (Christ) am not alone but with me is he who sent me, the Father. And in your (Mosaic) Law the witness of two persons is true." (John 8:15-17)

So "Peter's" infallibility comes from listening to the witness of 2 persons (and in disputes many more witnesses) whether their witness involves
1. Alleged facts; or
2. Rational arguments; and/or
3. Rational judgments.

So, in all cases set before "Peter", and his Apostolic successors, the above are the 3 "parts" of LOGIC as an "art" form. But none of those "parts" belong to "Peter". And none of the logical "parts" are persons. The "parts" belong to other alleged or actual disciples of Christ. So the judgments are not "Peter's". They are the "judgments" (arguments and allegations) of rational believers vs. irrational non-believers. They are judgments between honest believers and dishonest heretics. They are judgments between the truth and the lie, none of which belong to "Peter", who remains the "judge" of opposed judgments---infallibly.

Doubtlessly, the Church has had some very bad popes. But none of them were interested in changing dogma or doctrine---because "bad men" are not interested in dogma or doctrine. They raised armies, taxes, monuments and even scandals. But they didn't raise disputes to settle questions about their scandalous conduct, in ecclesiastical formal debates. In short, bad men tend to keep quiet about what they already know to be their own bad conduct.

But, in sharp contrast, many other "non-popes" have done such things---thereby proving their malice vs. the holiness of those they accuse, condemn and "judge". Thus, even after the original Peter was gone, his successors have repeatedly been called upon to settle disputes and schisms raised in other "Sees" and canonical jurisdictions---especially the early Eastern schisms, disputes and heresies.

Anyone may confirm this PETRINE judgment "procedure" as early as ACTS, when St. Paul goes up to Jerusalem for a decision by the original Peter, the apostles and presbyters about the activities of "Judaizing" (Circumcision?; Mosaic Law?; Required or not?) proselytizers among the Graeco-Roman converts at Antioch.

Both Paul and Barnabas confronted the "Judaizers" and were confronted by them ("Unless you be circumcized after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved."; Acts 15:1) at Antioch. So, "...they decided that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them (The opponents of Saul and Barnabas on one reading) should go up to the apostles and presbyters at Jerusalem about this question." (Acts 15:2)

Once again, when they arrived at Jerusalem and proclaimed what God had done for them, "...some of the pharisees' sect, who had accepted the faith, got up and said, 'They must be circumcized and also told to observe the Law of Moses.' So the apostles and presbyters had a meeting to look into this matter. And after a long debate *PETER* got up and said to them (as he had previously asked, per Acts 11:3-17, "...who was I that I should be able to interfere with God?") 'Brethern...Why, then do you now try to test God by putting on the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they are." (Acts 15:5-11 passim).

The point (and "procedure") is that Peter listens to a long debate and then issues a "warning" about attempts to "interfere" with God, who has sent the Holy Spirit upon Gentiles (Cornelius the Roman centurion's assembled household; Acts 11:44), who hadn't even been baptized, when the Holy Spirit came upon them. The original Peter has already personally "debated" this very same matter, previously. And that same matter has already been "decided" for him by the Holy Spirit. But when the matter is raised again, he listens to a long debate (both "sides") before he speaks and repeats the same "warning" to refrain from attempts to interfere with God. Then the meeting "quiets down" (15:12), while Saul and Barnabas retell God's Wonders.

If the meeting "quieted down", then it must have been "noisier" during the long debate. Then we hear from James (which would be James-the-Less; a.k.a. James Son of Alpheus; since John's brother, James, had already been killed by "the sword" of Herod Agrippa I), who was a very practical person.

James always rejected the Faith vs. Works bogus "dichotomy". (Faith without works is dead!) He was also somewhat sarcastically funny:- "You believe there is one God. You do well. The devils also believe and/(but-they) tremble." (James 2:19) But, at the meeting in Acts, James is entirely practical, which he "backs-up" with references to SCRIPTURE, quoting both Amos and Isaiah (for speculative support), as well as Mosaic preaching, saying that the prophets agree with what Peter (plus Paul and Barnabus) have experienced with Gentile converts (Acts 15:13-18).

Then, James gives his "judgment", relying upon all of the following:-

1. The experience of Peter, Saul and Barnabas (with God's work among, the, then "modern", gentiles); 2. The prophesies of Scripture; and 3. Mosaic preaching (which would "please"/include the pharisee-converts). And it was James' apparent judgment (NOT "Peter's"; Peter only warned against attempts to "interfere" with God) that the early Church "hierarchy" actually adopted---4 whole rules, in addition to Christ's 2 rules (1. Love God; 2. Love Neighbor---The "summa" of The Law and the Prophets).

In short, the early Church had a Canon Law Code of 6 disciplinary rules (Of which two were positive, 1. Love God; 2. Love Neighbor; and four were negative, as in Abstain from:--- 3. Idols, 4. Blood, 5. Strangled things and 6. Immorality/fornication) and The 10 Commandments (Promulgated by Moses; Fulfilled in Christ). Modern Church "apologists" sometimes note and criticize how the ancient Hebrews (particularly the Pharisees) had inflated the Mosaic Decalogue into about 300 prescriptions and 300 proscriptions---all which had to be observed and obeyed to be a pious Israelite. In short, a lot of rules! However, from the 6 disciplinary rules of ACTS, our Roman Catholic Canon lawyers and theologians have come up with exactly 1752 Canons, many which have several sections and subsections.

Our friend, apparently of the SPX-Society, focuses his "eagle-eye" upon Canons 844 §§3-4 as "evil laws", in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in dialectical contrast to the "good law" of Canon 732 §2, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is excellent "critical" technique.

But the hypocrisy of his argument is made evident by Canon 6., of the 1983 Code, which clearly promulgates the fact that the 1917 Code of Canon Law is abrogated (repealed; cancelled), according to Canon 6. §1.1 of the 1983 code, while 6. §1.2., 3., and 4. either cancel or reorder all other laws, which are contrary to the 1983 Code.

There are literally dozens of other ways to pick his basic argument apart, besides the fact that the 1917 Code is abrogated by the 1983 Code. But all such detailed "picking" can be referred to John's Gospel, to wit, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall FORGIVE they are FORGIVEN them; and whose sins you shall RETAIN they are RETAINED." (John 20:22-23). That is the actual nature of Apostolic authority, even though, as sins, the sins, either retained or forgiven, may be identical.

Then, when you put that authority, given to the Apostles by Christ, together with the joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of Paul VI and Athenagoras I (1965; prior to J.P.II's papacy/pontificate, beginning in 1978), which says, quote:-

4. "Since they are certain that they express the common desire for justice and the unanimous sentiment of charity, which moves the faithful, and since they recall the command of The Lord: "If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go, first be reconciled to your brother" (Matt. 5:23-24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I, with his synod in common agreement declare that:


(among other things, to wit a. and the preliminaries of b.)


4.(b) "...and they commit these excommunications to OBLIVION.

(RECAP:- when you put Apostolic authority; to retain or forgive sins; with the Joint Declartion emphasizing forgiveness, CONTRARY to retention, plus other tenets of the joint Declaration...)

it is not difficult to understand why the alleged "evil laws" to which Mr. Mario Derksen "appeals" in order to "depose PETER" refer to, quote, "members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church" (844. 3.), which Mr. Derksen interprets, as, quote, "Eastern schismatics (e.g., the so-called “Eastern Orthodox”)".

However, when excommunications are requote, consigned to oblivion (Paul VI; Not John Paul II), you are not dealing with schismatics, but, rather, those not in full communion, per the 1983 Code (and the entire Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of Vatican II)

(To be continued/concluded in Part 2)

:: Ap 9:00 AM [+] | ::

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

Another Response to Mario's Sedevacantism

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

To recap, let us look at Mario’s premises:

"Premise 1: The Catholic Church is indefectible in her universal disciplinary laws.

Premise 2: The 1983 “Code of Canon Law,” published by John Paul II with all the force of his supposed authority, contains laws that are in and of themselves evil and harmful to souls.

Premise 2 and Mario’s “evidences” for it have already been refuted by Shawn and Mark Bonocore. That in itself is sufficient.

Mario and I have been emailing each other on this issue. He keeps on telling me that my arguments have been begging the question. He says, “If you want to argue that since a true Pope cannot promulgate evil universal laws and therefore the 1983 Code is NOT evil, then you can only do so logically by PREMISING that Karol Wojtyla is the Pope. But this is precisely what you cannot premise without begging the question.” (6/16/04)

My first response to that would be, why shouldn’t I assume that Karol Wojtyla is the Pope? His position is:

“But I am not arguing that a true Pope ceased to be Pope. I am arguing that because of the evidence I have presented, we know that Wojtyla is not the Pope AT LEAST as of January 1983. Whether he was Pope before or not is not addressed by THIS argument. It will be later, don't worry. But don't think that because my argument doesn't address it, therefore I concede that he WAS Pope before 1983.”

However, Mario has not given any evidence for believing that Karol Wojtyla was not Pope before 1983. He is assuming that he *isn’t*. He admits that if Karol Wojtyla is the Pope, then his promulgation of the 1983 code entails that there are no evil laws. If there is a possibility that Karol Wojtyla is Pope before the promulgation, then his argument is not necessarily true. In other words, his conclusion John Paul II cannot have been the Pope at least from the moment he promulgated his 1983 Code of Canon Law (1/25/1983), as the indefectibility of the Catholic Church prevents any true Pope from authoritatively promulgating evil laws as contained in the 1983 Code is NOT necessarily true simply because Karol Wojtyla could have been Pope before 1983. If Karol Wojtyla was Pope when he promulgated it, then premise 2 is wrong. Mario has not proven that Karol Wojtyla was not the Pope before the promulgated it. As long as there is a possibility of Wojtyla being Pope before 1983, then his premises cannot entail his conclusion. The best Mario can conclude from his premises is that “Wojtyla is possibly not the Pope.”

Along with the lack of evidence Mario has presented, there is also a good reason why a faithful Catholic should assume Karol Wojtyla is the Pope. There are two basic reasons. The first is that the Church has taught the perpetual primacy and succession of the See of Peter. The second is that there are no good reasons to believe that the election was invalid in light of Vacante Sede Apostolis issued by Pope Pius XII in 1945.

Now let’s look at the logic Mario presented to me in email:

Premise 1: A Pope cannot do X.
Premise 2: Claimant Y (Karol Wojtyla) to the papacy has done X.
Conclusion: Claimant Y (Karol Wojtyla) is not a true Pope.

As I have said above, if Karol Wojtyla was Pope before 1983, and Mario has not presented any evidences to believe he wasn’t and I have given two reasons above to believe he was, then premise 2 would be false. That in itself shows that the premises do not necessarily follow. If Mario is not arguing that a true Pope ceases to be Pope, then the logic he has presented is basically meaningless since he has no evidence that Karol Wojtyla isn’t the Pope in the first place.

Appendix

I have shown my first two responses to Mario to a Thomist named Kevin Byrne. He is not my friend and we have fought many “battles” before. He has critiqued my writings (sometimes annoyingly) because of his knowledge of “thought-categories”. He can be contacted at: PaedoSocrates@aol.com

He says:

My thoughts are "By George, he has (pretty-well) got it!!!" Actually the whole refutory treatise of Apolonio Latar was excellent, for several reasons, but primarily because Latar listened well to an adversary and refuted him from his own statements and the inherent plus explicit CONTRADICTIONS within/of his own statements. (6/20/04)

Continued...

:: Ap 1:59 PM [+] | ::

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

"Wast-ing A-way A-gain in Se-de-vac-ant-a-ville" Dept.
("Look-ing for my...lost pa-pal chaaair...")

[Note: This is not the promised third installment of the thread with myself and Mark Bonocore. -ISM]

This exchange is from a private discussion list and is being posted to the weblog at the request of Inquisition member Apolonio Latar III. I am generally loath to mention names publicly because of how that can detract from the issues being discussed. However, in this situation, I judged it as appropriate to depart from ordinary protocol and not edit the text below to conceal the name of the person being talked about.

In what you are about to read, Mark Bonocore's words will be in black font, any sources he references will be in darkgreen. My words will be in regular font and any sources I reference will be in darkblue font.

Apollino, ....

As with Protestants with Scripture, where Mario goes wrong is in his **interpretation** of the 1917 canon.

Indeed. He is a defacto Protestant whether he realizes it or not now.

Again, look at what it actually says:

"It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church."

Well, needless to say, the Catholic Church NEVER gives the Sacraments to "heretics" or "schismatics" --that is, those GUILTY of the sins of heresy or schisms. Rather, what the Catholic Church does, under very special circumstances, is to give the Sacraments to people who are technically separated from the institutional nature of the Catholic Church but not from the Catholic Faith ontologically. Big difference. :-)

Indeed. And no one who lacks Catholic faith in the sacraments can receive them at any time. In short, the Orthodox, other eastern Church's, or some Protestants (i.e. Anglicans, higher church Lutherans and maybe some Methodists) are the intended audience of this canon. Baptists or Presbyterian sorts who do not profess a belief in The Real Presence congruent with Catholic teaching cannot receive the Eucharist.

The thing which Mario and his Rad-trad friends do not realize is that the Church's style of speaking between now and 1917 has changed. ...That is, our understanding of terms like "heretic" and "schismatic" has been nuanced in ways that are STILL in complete accord with Sacred Tradition. For example, please notice how the canon above never distinguishes between formal heretics and material heretics (or formal schismatics vs. material schismatics).

Precisely. And to read into the canon one's own interpretation of words --particularly when said interpretation is contrary to the pronouncements of the Church's Magisterium-- is Protestant private judgment redux. Contemporary with the above canon was the recognition that material heretics and material schismatics are not heretics and schismatics properly speaking.{1} Mario approaches heresy and schism much as the Feeneyites approach the subject of mortal sin. Allow me to briefly digress on this matter so its connection is more obvious to the reader.

Feeneyite error essentially boiled down to asserting that all objectively grave acts were ipso facto mortally sinful. There was no account made with regards to the other factors that went into determining the gravity of the sin as it applied to the individual.

Heresy and schism are mortal sins. They therefore are subject to the same criteria. And just as what is objectively grave is not ipso facto mortally sinful, likewise the material that accompanies heretical or schismatic beliefs{2} is not ipso facto heretical or schismatic. What is required is sufficient knowledge of what is being done by the agent and the full consent of the agent's will. Only with the latter two does there constitute formal heresy and formal schism. And formal heretics and formal schismatics can never receive the sacraments period.

Clearly, the Church can never validly give the Sacraments to formal heretics or schismatics (those personally guilty of heresy or schism...Mario included, by the way ;-)

Indeed. Mario by receiving the sacraments as a manifested schismatic (and now as a manifested heretic) violates the very canon he quotes.

Yet, we can, again under special circumstances, grant the Sacraments to material heretics and schismatics --that is, those who are not personally guilty of these sins.

Precisely. That was not allowed previously{3} but instead was a matter bound by the keys. The Church has chosen to loosen the keys on that matter a little bit as she has the authority from God to do.

Now look at all the other "proofs" that Mario provides:

Sacred Scripture, St. Matthew 7:6:

Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.

Yep. But those who are not personally guilty of the sins of heresy or schism, and who are in agreement with the Catholic Faith when it comes to the Sacraments, do not qualify as "swine." Mario "oinks" quite loudly, however. ;-)

Mario is among the loudest oinkers in cyberspace :(

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (III, q. 80, a. 6, ad 1):

Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs, that is, to notorious sinners.

Material heretics and material schismatics are not "notorious sinners."

If one is not personally guilty of heresy or schism, one is NOT a "notorious sinner." In citing St. Thomas above, Mario has defined the perimeters of this debate and disproven his own position. ;-) If he claims that St. Thomas' teaching above applies to the 1917 canon, then he admits that the terms "heretic" and "schismatic" in the 1917 canon refer, not to material heretics, but to those who are personally guilty of the SIN of heresy and schism. Ergo, the Catholic Church is not in violation of the 1917 canon --period!

Nice one Mark!!!

Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Constitution #3, on Heretics:

Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent people [i.e., heretics] nor give them a Christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see.

This was a disciplinary canon from Lateran IV. Indeed, the only canons of a doctrinal import if memory serves me were canons one and two of Lateran IV.{4} The rest were canons regulating ecclesiastical discipline. And the Church can loose there what she has previously bound.

Uh-huh. :-) Same thing. The Lateran Council is speaking about people who are personally guilty of the sins of heresy and schism; and so the modern Catholic position is completely sound, since it does not violate this.

Agreed.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302):

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins. . . .

Which is Mario's problem since he refuses submission to Pope John Paul II by denying his Apostolic authority. Quoting Unam Sanctum is treading on very thin ice for a sedevacantist...

Ah! :-) But, as I touched on above, the Catholic Church clearly distinguishes between the Church itself and the institutional limits of the Catholic Church. If we did not do this, then things like "Baptism of desire" would be
impossible.

Which would mean that St. Thomas Aquinas (who taught this doctrine) as well as the Council of Trent (who incorporated it into the Decree on Justification) both blatantly contr adicted Pope Boniface VIII. I explained in my response to James White's sophisms on EENS (written in late 2001) why this was not the case. Too bad Mario has chosen to avoid my writings like the plague...he might have actually learned something and eschewed his schismatic behaviour long ago.

St. Jerome noted that schism leads inexorably to trumping up a heresy to justify schismatic behaviour. It is too bad that Mario did not realize this four years ago when I wrote on the matter in my treatise. Among the theories I formulated in that work was that false "traditionalism" taken to its logical conclusion inexorably results in sedevacantism. Quite clearly Mario is the latest real-life example which supports that theory.

Thus, Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctum cannot be applied to the institutional limits of the Catholic Church, but must, by necessity, refer to the mysterious nature of the Catholic Church --those who share a unity of Faith with us despite institutional obstacles.

Unam Sanctum applies to those who were (and are) contimaciously rejecting the authority of the Pope in ecclesiastical matters.

And it is only in this context that the Church may dispense the Sacraments to non-Catholics. What's more, Unam Sanctum was directed toward the Eastern Orthodox; and the Catholic Church has always recognized their ability, again under special circumstances, to receive the Sacraments with us, despite the institutional obstacles of the Schism.

Um, wrong Mark. Unam Sanctum was the last in a series of pronouncements Boniface VIII directed towards King Philip IV. While the Greeks *were* mentioned in Unam Sanctum, the audience of that Apostolic Letter was the King of France Philip IV with whom Boniface VIII was feuding over ecclesiastical matters.{5}

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati, 4 (1829):

Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism. [Eph 4:5] Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark. [Epistle to Pope St. Damasus I]

:-) But those who share a unity of Faith with us, even if they are outside the institutional limits of the Catholic Church, are not "outside this House," but mysteriously united to it. So, Mario's barking up the wrong tree here too.

Indeed. He is an ecclesial and sacramental Feeneyite.

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus, 3 (1862):

Indeed, they [the Church Fathers] have never stopped teaching that . . . He who deserts the Church will vainly believe that he is in the Church [St. Cyprian, de Unit. Ecclesiae]; whoever eats of the lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned [St. Jerome, Epistle 15 to Damasus]. . . .

Material schismatics and material heretics are *not* those who are guilty of deliberate separation from the Church and/or a deliberate denial of a truth of faith. If Mario was half as knowledgable about Church matters as he pretends to be, he would know that. He would also still be in the Church if he did. But Mario continues to vainly assert that he is still in the Church when he has so evidently deserted the Church -in fulfillment of what St. Cyprian noted in the citation above.

Again, this is a reference to people who are **personally guilty** of the sins of heresy or schism (i.e., "He who DESERTS THE CHURCH ...").

As Mario did arguably as far back as four years ago. (And definitely in 2001 and 2002.) Sedevacantism is simply the heresy that he has trumped up to justify his long-standing formal schism from the Church.

As I said, those who are united in Faith with us, but who are technically outside the institutional limits of the Catholic Church, ARE members of the mystical Body; and so no violation of the Amantissimus is taking place.

Correct.

As for Mario's assertion that Canon 844 "contradicts" all of the above, ...

Here, Mario is again simply misinterpreting the canon. Look at what it actually says ...

Canon 844 §3-4:§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed.

The key words here are "not in FULL communion with the Catholic Church" and "properly disposed." Both of these are the all-important criteria that I referred to above. In essence, we recognize that the Eastern Churches are PARTLY in Communion with us --that we both share a deep unity of Faith, even if that unity is ***institutionally*** flawed; and also the canon says that such Easterners must be "properly isposed" ....meaning that they must profess a unity of Faith with us, recognizing that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be ---a true expression of the Apostolic Faith. If they did not believe this, why would they desire our Sacraments???

So, within this context, the obstacle of the Schism is erased, and the possibility of inter-Communion is restored.

That is very clear to see. ...unless you're a blind "institutionalist" like Mario and his Rad-trad friends.

Precisely.

And the canon goes on .....

The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

Same deal. In the canonical language of the Catholic Church, a "church" is any distinct Christian group that has bishops and some vestige of Apostolic succession. And, a member of such a Church, if they are requesting our Sacraments (that is, if they are "properly disposed" to them) are admitting a unity of Faith with us, thereby placing themselves in a mysterious communion with us.

And the canon continues ...

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

There you have it: "Provided that they demonstrate ****the Catholic faith**** in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed." What else needs to be said? :-) That is a unity of Faith despite institutional obstructions.

The situation with the Protestants who request the sacraments are generally much more dire: they have to as a rule be in a serious situation -particularly in danger of death --and be properly disposed-- before they could lawfully receive under Canon 844. The reason in those situations that they could is that salvation of souls trumps ecclesiastical laws which are a *means* to that end but not the end in and of themselves.

So, again and again, the Catholic position reveals itself to be perfectly sound. Mario doesn't see this because he simply doesn't understand what he's reading. He doesn't read with the mind of the Church, but with the narrow mentality of a schismatic (and now a heretic).

In the words of that great philosopher James Hetfield "sad but true." May God have mercy on young Mario.

Notes:

{1} Because heresy and schism require sufficient knowledge and full consent to constitute being formal or to be actual sins of the party involved.

{2} The objectively grave matter of heresy or schism if you will.

{3} Mario betrays his ignorance of Church history and praxis in this regard. It was sometimes hard to tell who was and was not a Catholic in some periods of history especially in the eastern churches but also during [the reformation.] The criteria for dispensing the sacraments was therefore more relaxed. It has been the general policy under ordinary circumstances to reserve the sacraments to members of the Catholic Church...Any baptized Christian is eligible to receive the other six sacraments in time of grave necessity if they meet certain criteria. The stricter disciplines that have been in effect in recent centuries are relatively new and this is another case where radtrads take recent customs and carve them in stone with no understanding of real Church history. [Dr. Art Sippo: Discussion list note circa 6/19/04]

{4} If I recall correctly, the first was a profession of faith and the second condemned the errors of Jochiam of Flores.

{5} Unam Sanctum was **addressed** to Philip the Fair who, carried away by his French/Gallican heritage, was likely to "pull a Henry VIII" and declare the French Church's "independence" from Rome (and thus from France's political rival, the German Holy Roman Emperor, whose "subject" the Pope arguably was). In this, Philip would have been imitating the error of the Greeks, which is why the Greeks (Eastern Orthodox) are cited in the decree --the whole document being directed toward **schismatic Catholics** (whether formal ones, like the Greeks, or potential ones like King Philip); and that's all I meant by my statement above. [Mark Bonocore: Clarification of previous statement circa 6/20/04]

:: Shawn 4:45 PM [+] | ::

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

I believe the template has been fixed now - including the comments boxes where there was a quirk in the HTML. If anyone sees problems with the template, please feel free to contact me about it.

[Update: The Haloscan account has been upgraded. See this link for details. - I. Shawn McElhinney (6/16/04)]

:: Shawn 7:39 PM [+] | ::

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

More on Mario's Sedevacantism

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

So far, I have shown that Mario's logic is a non-sequitur. I will now expand more of the argument I made which contradicts Mario's position.

Mario's premises were:

"Premise 1: The Catholic Church is indefectible in her universal disciplinary laws.

Premise 2: The 1983 “Code of Canon Law,” published by John Paul II with all the force of his supposed authority, contains laws that are in and of themselves evil and harmful to souls.

I submit that premise 1 contradicts Mario's position. With regards to premise 1, Mario quoted:

“Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced.” (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9)

If "discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principls of the natural law", then it follows that Mario cannot reject the 1983 Code of Canon Law because it would contradict Pope Gregory's statement.

He then quotes:

“…[the evil “reformers”] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church in the present day, in its government, and in the form of its external worship which are not suited to the character of our time. These things, they say, should be changed, as they are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion, before the teaching of faith and morals suffers any harm from it. Therefore, showing a zeal for religion and showing themselves as an example of piety, they force reforms, conceive of changes, and pretend to renew the Church. While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). They also attacked the pure doctrine which they say they want to keep safe and sound; either they do not understand the situation or craftily pretend not to understand it. While they contend that the entire exterior form of the Church can be changed indiscriminately, do they not subject to change even those items of discipline which have their basis in divine law and which are linked with the doctrine of faith in a close bond? Does not the law of the believer thus produce the law of the doer? Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?" (Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5 )

First, Mario does not tell his readers that this encyclical is directed "To the Bishops of the Province of Upper Rhineland". Pope Gregory was speaking about those "against the teaching of the Church and its divine authority in the ecclesiastical province of the Rhineland." I suggest every reader to actually read the encyclical and see the context of it for himself.

Second, Pope Gregory in the above quote is speaking of the "reformers" in Rhineland who "try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority". Those who try to make the Church human will "think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities". In other words, those who do not believe in the divine authority of the Church will believe that the disciplines of the Church rests on failures. But isn't this what Mario is doing? If Mario believes that the Code of Canon Law is evil, he has to believe that the Church does not have divine authority. This is because the only way one can say that the disciplines of the Church is a failure is to disbelieve in Divine Authority. To disbelieve in the divine authority of the Church is a **consequence** of believing that "the present discipline of the Church rests on failures". In order to believe that a present discipline of the Church rests on failure, one has to believe in the divine authority of the Church. Mario cannot accept the former while not rejecting the latter.

Also, Pope Gregory said, "Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?" This is a clear contradiction of Mario's position because he is 1) a private individual and 2) He is telling us that the disciplines of the Church is evil. The Pope says that #2 is only possible if Mario is the Pope. Mario is not the Pope. Therefore he cannot do #2.

Mario also quoted P. Hermann:

“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae

P. Hermann says that if the Church were able to prescrime or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, she would turn away from her divine mission. But as he said, this would "be impossible". We make the logic:

Premise 1: It is impossible that the Church would turn away from her divine mission.

Premise 2: For the Church to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church to the harm of the faithful is to turn away from her divine mission.

Conclusion: Therefore the Church cannot prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church to the harm of the faithful.

Taking that conclusion, the propositions

Proposition 1: "The Church cannot prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church to the harm of the faithful."

and

Proposition 2: "The 1983 Code of Canon Law Pope John Paul II promulgated contains laws that are in and of themselves evil and harmful to souls"

Are contradictory. Therefore the two premises of Mario are contradictory themselves if we are to interpret his premise 1 in light of the quotes above. If they are contradictory, then the two propositions cannot be true at the same time. One must be true and the other is false.

:: Ap 10:58 AM [+] | ::

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

Confuting Radical Pseudo-'Traditionalist' Nonsense (Part II):

The first installment of this thread can be read HERE.
In this installment, the words of the pseudo-trad will remain in darkgreen font and Mark Bonocore's words will remain in black font. (In both cases any sources they cite will be italicized.) My words will be in regular font and any sources I reference will be in darkblue. Without further ado, let us get to it.

After a good laugh from your last letter, I was wondering whether or not to respond until after your next dose of lithium arrives!

Go to hell, my dear. :-)

Yes Mark, I am happy and proud to be both an educator and a lawyer.

Then please rot in hell. :-)

I assume from your lack of ability to reason without mind less, angry name calling you are a blue-collar worker with a high school diploma (from an Ivy league high school no doubt!)

We will note shortly what a hypocrite this individual is for criticizing Mark for name calling while doing the same thing himself. As all laws of logic and reason are suspended to be a pseudo-trad, this should not surprise.

:-) Well, I hope to graduate high school one day. I've spent 27 years as a sophomore now, and am very much looking forward to the junior prom. :-) Seriously though, even if that really were the case, a faithful high school sophomore displays more wisdom and depth of integrated understanding than a twisted, self-important Marcel Lefebvre sycophant groupie like yourself. :-)

Indeed. The wise and the prudent were not given the keys to wisdom but the "little ones." Or has Pseudo-Aquinas forgotten Our Lord's rejoicing of this point in the Holy Spirit?:

"In that same hour He rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was Thy gracious will." (Luke x,21)

In addition to learning to write on a chalk board, perhaps you could learn Christian Charity.

Oh, but John ... :-) Pointing out the fact that you are an ignorant, pseudo-educated dolt is the very **height** of Christian charity. ;-) I'm setting you straight, my friend. Your inability to see that is beside the point, and only speaks louder of your utterly pathetic powers of discernment. So, again, please rot in hell. :-) (see Matt 18:17-18).

Nice retort Mark.

[The] last missive was a superb example of the typical hate ("rot in Hell" etc.) I have come to expect from your cult.

Hell. You. Rot. :-)

I hope for your salvation!

As I hope for the salvation of the "John" whom God created. But, I am not speaking to him, but to the demon who has taken control of your heart and mind. Again, please rot. :-)

A fitting wish for a steaming pile of compost methinks...

I will now attempt a RATIONAL rebuttal to your letter which was replete with every fallacy in the book (straw man, ad hominem, etc.) as well as misinformation.

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla .....and, oh, yes ... Bla, bla, bla. :-)

We shall see just how "misinformed" Mark's response to this individual really was.

Despite my many years of learning and educational awards, I never taught special ed, so I hope you will be able to follow along:

Hear that, folks?! John has "awards." :-) Well, I'm certainly impressed now. Look out James White, here comes your "opposite number."

He is "wise and understanding" indeed while "little ones" like Mark cannot possible compete...

1. "Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia" is good Latin. It's also the basis of an equally good question, "Ubi Petrus?" You beg the question that Karol Wotyla is the pope despite the fact that he is a contumacious heretic who contradicts no less than 100 INFALLIBLE pronouncements!

Says who??? :-)

The descendants of the Protestant heretics who claimed that they could "prove" that the Catholic doctrine contradicts Sacred Scripture. Much as in the case of the Protestant claims of Scriptural "contradiction" in Catholic doctrine, I have yet in years of these kinds of discussions see *one* incontrovertible example of contradiction in the Church's ordinary magisterium. And as JP II for twenty-five years has been contributing to the Church's ordinary magisterium, that is saying a lot. In the case of Pseudo-Aquinas, I must note this: Fr. Luther, line one please...your latest spawn has just weighed in with his own infallible judgment on the orthodoxy of the Pope!!!

I believe that Vatican I (you **do** like that Council, right? :-) clearly teaches that no one may sit in judgement of a reigning Pope.

Thus, by what authority do you claim to judge or countermand John Paul's interpretation or understanding of these "100 infallible pronouncements" which he has supposedly "contradicted"??? After all, it is the Pope's interpretation that is supposed count, not yours.

Mark...sigh...you have not read the Holy Bible, Revised Sedevacantist Version it seems. I quote:

Matthew 23

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; unless you think they are teaching erroneously upon which ye may depose them for their seat is thus vacanted. 4 (Upon such a vacancy you must adhere to the teachings of the Pharisees of "the Eternal Sanhedren" which you should have no problem determining for yourselves even if your level of theological knowledge be no more than that of a small child's.)

This is why Pseudo-Aquinas believes he can stand in judgment of the pope as he presumes to do.

He, not yourself, is supposed to be the final arbiter of Sacred Tradition. And so, ... Ubi Petrus? In the Integrist's opinion, "Petrus" apparently resides with his own personal interpretation of the Faith. ...for it is the integrist, whether alone or with a group of his like-minded friends, who gets to decide how to interpret or apply a previous Pope's supposedly irrevocable teaching. But, how is this any different than Martin Luther's famous doctrine, which ran: "In matters of faith, each Christian is for himself Pope and Church." (Luther, WA 5, 407, 35).

Do not forget the part about Fr. Luther claiming at the Diet of Worms in 1521 that "I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other." As I noted earlier, Fr. Luther, your latest spawn is on line one...

Answer: It isn't any different. Rather, it is merely Protestantism masked in the vestments of supposed Catholic "Tradition."

Yet, as is obvious to any real Catholic, Sacred Tradition is not a static or brittle thing, but a living organic appreciation of the Apostolic Deposit as it is applied to different times and circumstances. Otherwise, John's way of thinking suddenly gets him into trouble once it is applied to Catholic history.

To cite just one of countless examples, ... In the year 873, Pope John VIII, one of the ablest pontiffs of the 9th Century, FORBAD the inclusion of the Filioque clause in the Creed. Yet, his successor, Benedict VIII (1012-1024) FORBAD the recitation of the Creed ***without*** the Filioque. :-)

So, are we to say that Pope Benedict "contradicted the infallable pronouncement" of his predecessor, Pope John?...and, in doing so, became a "contumacious heretic"?? :-) After all, that's what the Eastern Orthodox say. So, how is the case of John Paul II any different?

The answer of course is: it is not.

In reality, however, both Pope John VIII and Pope Benedict VIII were speaking during different times and addressing very different situations. Both were correct to decree what they decreed. But, because situations change, a Pope must be beyond the letter of any decree ...which is, of course, why the Lord empowered the Papacy with the authority to both "bind" and "loosen."

And the same is taking place in the case
of John Paul II, who is speaking to a very different (modern-secular) civilization, and using a modern lexicon that is very different from the language of Pius X or his contemporaries. The Integrists fail to see this, however.

That is a concise outline of the problem that the pseudo-trads have in their weltanschauung at the foundational presuppositional level.

...Again, because they are 2-dimensional, pseudo-educated idiots. Thus, I respectfully suggest that John grow up.

That would be a miracle on the order of Moshe parting the Red Sea but I digress...

He also kisses the evil and false Koran because it contains "some truth."

I have still never seen any conclusive evidence for this whatsoever. All I see is a photo of John Paul putting his face close to (I don't see a kiss) some unidentified book with a guy wearing an Arab headdress standing next to him. Proven sacrilege doth not this make. :-)

But, even if it were true, didn't John just say in his [response] to XXX: "No Pope is infallible in his assessment of everyone, and the sick with stomach cancer Pius, made some bad judgement calls with certain people."? :-)

Nice catch of one of Pseudo-Aquinas' flim flams.

Well, if having stomach cancer led Pius XII to make some mistakes (if you look it up, by the way, he decorated Von Hildebrand before he got sick ;-), then having Parkinson's disease might "cloud the judgment" of John Paul in a reception line once or twice too, don't cha think? :-)

Careful Mark, that is taking the charitable approach in line with the exhortations of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition...you cannot be a self-styled "traditionalist" and do that.

Clearly, no Papal decree ever came from John Paul which teaches us to revere the Koran or instructing us to kiss it. So, your point is moot.

On top of that, it is stupid. St. Francis de Sales says that one who suffers spiritual jaundice is...well...I will let him say it so that Pseudo-Aquinas may be confuted by a canonized saint and Doctor of the Church:

"[T]hey who drink the juice of the Ethiopian herb Ophiusa imagine that they see serpents and horrors everywhere; and those who drink deep of pride, envy, ambition, hatred, will see harm and shame in every one they look upon. The first can only be cured by drinking palm wine, and so I say of these latter,--Drink freely of the sacred wine of love, and it will cure you of the evil tempers which lead you to these perverse judgments.

So far from seeking out that which is evil, Love dreads meeting with it, and when such meeting is unavoidable, she shuts her eyes at the first symptom,and then in her holy simplicity she questions whether it were not merely a fantastic shadow which crossed her path rather than sin itself. Or if Love is forced to recognize the fact, she turns aside hastily, and strives to forget what she has seen. Of a truth, Love is the great healer of all ills, and of this above the rest.

Everything looks yellow to a man that has the jaundice; and it is said that the only cure is through the soles of the feet. Most assuredly the sin of rash judgments is a spiritual jaundice, which makes everything look amiss to those who have it; and he who would be cured of this malady must not be content with applying remedies to his eyes or his intellect, he must attack it through the affections, which are as the soul's feet. If your affections are warm and tender, your judgment will not be harsh; if they are loving, your judgment will be the same." [Introduction to the Devout Life]

This view is seconded by Thomas a Kempis:

"What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God?" [Imitation of Christ]

And again:

"Do not be ashamed to serve others for the love of Jesus Christ and to seem poor in this world. Do not be self-sufficient but place your trust in God. Do what lies in your power and God will aid your good will. Put no trust in your own learning nor in the cunning of any man, but rather in the grace of God Who helps the humble and humbles the proud.

If you have wealth, do not glory in it, nor in friends because they are powerful, but in God Who gives all things and Who desires above all to give Himself. Do not boast of personal stature or of physical beauty, qualities which are marred and destroyed by a little sickness. Do not take pride in your talent or ability, lest you displease God to Whom belongs all the natural gifts that you have.

Do not think yourself better than others lest, perhaps, you be accounted worse before God Who knows what is in man. Do not take pride in your good deeds, for God's judgments differ from those of men and what pleases them often displeases Him.

If there is good in you, see more good in others, so that you may remain humble. It does no harm to esteem yourself less than anyone else, but it is very harmful to think yourself better than even one. The humble live in continuous peace, while in the hearts of the proud are envy and frequent anger." [The Imitation of Christ]

Thus upon the testimony of two witnesses (cf. Deut. xix,15; Matt xviii,16) -and authoritative ones at that- Pseudo-Aquinas' facade of being an authentic Traditionalist is exposed for the counterfeit it is.

Using the same logic you could kiss the Satanic Bible since it contains the Truth of Lucifer's existence and expulsion from Heaven!

And I am sure there is some truth in Fr. DuPaw's posterior...need I say more???

Phenomenology makes the demonstration of God's existence by the light of human reason an impossibility.

Tell that to St. Thomas Aquinas (the Angelic Doctor, not your cat). :-) As I recall, he was the one who produce a certain "Five Proofs" for God's existence based solely on human reason.

This directly contadicts the Infallible pronouncement of Vatican I in 1870.

Balderdash. Also, it sure would be nice if you guys paid heed to ALL of Vatican I. :-)

Including the dogma on the perpetual primacy of Peter which is anathema to sedevacantist nonsense.

How then can JPII be a Catholic, let alone pope?

Because he succeeded to the Chair of Peter after John Paul I, Paul VI, and John XXIII, you sedevacantist loonie. ;-)

You can educate someone but you cannot teach them how to think: Pseudo-Aquinas is demonstrating that maxim in spades here...

St. Robert Bellarmine as well as many other Fathers and Doctors of the Church teach that a contumacious heretic ceases to be pope!

How about a list of these "many Fathers and Doctors." The only name repeatedly adduced in this area is St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine. And that can only be done via an egregious misrepresentation of the outlook of Cardinal Bellarmine.

See my treatise Appendix D. (One of a couple of new additions I made to the work last year.) In the deputation on the pope's infallibility, the following points were made by the relator to the voting Fathers on the proposed schema that was to become the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus. All emphasis is mine:

"As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words:

'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion. [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XVI --Taken from Appendix D: Excerpts from the Forgotten Vatican I Relatio circa July 1870 (c. 2003)]

So enough calauminy and misrepresentation of Cardinal Bellarmine please. That dog will not hunt. And St. Bellarmine would be horrified at anyone using his words against a judgment or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

[small snip of Mark's sardonic wit for the sake of brevity]

If JPII said "Abortion is no longer a sin" would you go along since Vat Cats "obey"?

Of course not. But, this would be a case where a reigning Pope "went off his nut," which is something very different than the entire colleage of cardinals (and the bishops of the Church) consecrating (and recognizing) a professed heretic to be Pope --the scenario your ilk presents to us. Also, in 2000 years of Church history, we have yet to have a Pope make a universal decree that was erroneous in the areas of faith and morals. The dogmas of the Church are sound, and continue to be sound and unthreatened well into the twilight of JPII's Pontificate.

2. I am not a Feeneyite.

You sure smell like one. :-)

Agreed.

All Catholics must believe in the Infallible axiom Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. I believe in Baptism of Desire and Blood according to the Constant teaching of the Church up to Pope Pius XII (the last true Pope).

Hee hee. "Last Pope" indeed. :-)

Pseudo-Aquinas has just blatantly contradicted solemn Church dogma on the perpetual primacy of Peter in the Church for all time. I quote from Pastor Aeternus Chapter II (footnotes included):

"That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the Blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock,will stand firm until the end of time {See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48}.

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood {From the speech of Philip, the Roman legate, at the 3rd session of the council of Ephesus (D no. 112)}.

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received {Leo 1, Serm. (Sermons), 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146)}.

For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body {Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. (Against
Heresies) 1113 (PG 7, 849), Council of Aquilea (381), to be found among: Ambrose, Epistolae (Letters), 11 (PL 16, 946)}.

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. [Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus Chapter II as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XIV (c. 2003, 2000)]

In short: sedevacantism is heresy plain and simple.

Here is a Straw man--you misrepresent my position then attack your imagined Feeneyism!

You misapply the the doctrine of "extra ecclesia." That IS the error of Feeneyism. But, the ancient Church has ALWAYS taught that "we can say with utmost certainty where the Catholic Church **is** (i.e., those who stand with the successor of Peter). Yet, we cannot say with the same utmost certainty where the Church ***is not***."

Baptism by desire is a great mystery, and takes many mysterious forms. As Scripture tells us, Jesus desires all men to be saved; and He does indeed save some (applying the grace of Baptism to them) apart from the visible ministry of the Church. However, what the Lord NEVER does (and this is where you misapply post-Vatican II refined teaching) is to save someone apart from the grace that He supplies through His Catholic Church. Rather, whenever a soul is saved, the principal of "ecclesia supplex" ("the Church supplies the grace") is in action, since Christ is instrinsically united to His Body, the Church, and never acts apart from that Body --that living embodiment of His one-Flesh Covenant with man.

THIS is what "extra ecclesia nulla salus" refers to, and Vatican II refined and stated it BETTER than it was ever addressed before. And, if you reject what Vatican II taught on this subject, you then have to deny the whole basis of Baptism by desire, etc.

In the case of pseuo-trads like Pseudo-Aquinas, it is a case of claiming to believe in baptism of desire but then denying any actual application of the principle in reality as opposed to the abstract.

What would Mother Teresa do before Vat II? Teach Latin to the Indians!! (As well as the True Faith).

Actually, Mother Teresa, like all the nuns of Calcutta before her, would have been cloistered behind the walls of a convent school and spent her time teaching the children of wealthy Indians and Catholic European residents. That's what the order she came from did. NO ONE ministered to the Calcutta poor. It was the reforms of Vatican II that enabled her to do it. Without Vatican II, she would have no ministry like the one she had.

As for teaching Latin and "the true Faith" to these poor, ... I don't know about you, but it's kind of difficult to learn Latin declensions or study the Sum ma when you have maggots living in your bowels or when your flesh is covered with leprosy. So, as I said before, you are living in a LeFebvrist fantasyland. You and objective reality clearly spend very little time with each other.

Either Christ is able to reach suffering and dying pagan peoples exactly where they are, or He is not. Mother Teresa, and the real Catholic Church, say that He can --in a very direct and profound, albeit it unconventional and largely mysterious way. Your 2-dimensional, legalistic "faith" denies this. ...And thus you reveal how incredibly alienated from the Gospel you are.

Game, set, and march for Mark!!! That is the essence of the entire argument there and until Pseudo-Aquinas interacts with Mark's recourse to *reality* over and against Pseudo-Aquinas' nominalistic fantasyland of abstract theorems (which really do not mean what he claims them to mean), there is little else that can be noted to him without wasting a lot of time and precious keystrokes. Nonetheless, though it is a mere formality at this stage, I will interact with the rest of this note.

The Franciscans didn't force conversion (which would be wrong)but they did forcefully proclaim the Truth which Mother Teresa did not.

You don't speak Mother Teresa's language. She **did** proclaim the Truth of the Gospel very loudly and very clearly. The reason you don't realize this is because she didn't do it according to your preconceived cultural notions. She is too big for your very little imagination. But, this is a problem with all schismatics like yourself. You hold a very a narrow and exclusive impression of a supposedly "Catholic" (universal) Faith.

Mother did not believe that the faith was expressed in dry propositional theological abstractions but instead was living and incarnated in time. She chose to give food to the hungry and and clothe the naked. By contrast, Pseudo-Aquinas would rather tell them "go, be ye warm and filled." And as St. James noted, the latter faith -the kind of "faith" that Pseudo-Aquinas and his radtrad comrades profess- is a dead faith (cf. James ii,14-26).

She also (like you) was an Ultramontanist, insofar as her false idea of "obediance" led her to give out the Novus Bogus cracker in the hand after she said it was wrong and against her conscience!

May that "Novus Ordo Cracker" send you where you deserve to go on the Last Day. God tends to be a little "heavy handed" when it comes to Eucharistic blasphemy.

As for Communion in the hand, ... While I, like Mother Teresa, don't believe that it is wise or appropriate for this time in history, the simple fact is that the ancient fathers all did it, and endorsed it.

Go read St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Read St. Justin Maryr. So, if it is objectively wrong, then the ancient fathers are heretics too. Also, only a Godless renegade like yourself would classify Mother's obedience to Church authority, despite her personal feelings, as "Ultramontanism." :-)

The evidences to support Mark's assertions above are unmistakable to those with eyes to read. See this essay on the red herring of communion in the hand.

So, I suppose that the obedience displayed by people like St. Theresa of Avila, who was (for a time) forbidded to write, and told to burn her beloved spiritual books, or the obedience of St. John Vianney, who was temporarily suspended from saying Mass publicly, were manifestations of "Ultramontanism" too??? :-) At this point, it is fairly clear to me that you don't even know what Ultramontanism is. But, let me define it for you:

Ultramontanism is when one disdains the legitimate authority of one's own local ordinary and refuses to submit to a teaching until the See of Rome itself confirms or denies it. And this is EXACTLY why, despite your silly notions, it would not be proper or just for the Vatican to interfere with the internal workings of the Archdiocese or Boston or the Archdiocese of Rochester, NY, so as to strip either Cardinal Law or Archbishop Weakland of their episcopal dignity simply because they mismanaged their dioceses.

So, needless to say, you can't have it both ways. Either Ultramontanism is right or it's wrong. You can't both advocate it and criticize others for it ...not that you can pin it on Mother Teresa in the example above, because that is totally sensless and loonie.

This so-called "intellectual" has violated the Law of Non-Contradiction in his simultaneous advocation of Ultramontanism (in the case of Weakland and Law) coupled with condemning Ultramontanism (in what he perceives to be the case of
Mother Theresa). With these kinds of people teaching the youth of today, is it any wonder things are in the mess they are in???

Baptism of Desire does not mean all the Hidus are "anonymous Christians" as archheretic Karl Rahner exploits the Dogma.

Now who is doing the namecalling??? Whatever anyone thinks of Karl Rahner (and there is plenty to both commend and criticize in Rahner's work), the only authority who can make an objective judgment of heresy is the See of Rome. And whatever suspicions someone may have of Rahner's later work, they cannot be utilized in pronouncing a judgment of heresy without violating every maxim of charitable interpretation inculcated by the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition: great saints such as St. Catherine of Siena OP, St. Frances de Sales, St. Theresa of Avila, and St. John of the Cross to name a few luminaries of many who could be noted.

No one says that ALL Hindus are anonymous Christians. However, some of them MAY be. ...in a very real but mysterious sense. Go read Matt 25:31-40.

Pseudo-Aquinas probably will not read his Bible. But if he does, my money is on him trying to explain away the judgment scenes much as the sola fide hardshell types among the so-called "traditionalists" do.

They need to be boldly taught the Truth and urged to receive Baptism.

And when did Mother ever teach otherwise??? What do you think she did for Hindus and Muslims on their death beds, boy-o??? :-)

Precisely. Anyone who makes such claims about Mother's treatment of the dying who does not have adequate evidence to substantiate their claims is a calauminator and calauminy in serious matters is a mortal sin.

3. Our converts are manifold (you're corresponding with one! I was converted by Father DePauw who REJECTS Vatican II and does not mention JPII in the Canon of the Mass!

"Mass"? :-) You call that a "Mass," huh? Go read St. Cyprian. Sacerdotal unity lies in communion with the Bishop of Rome. To reject him, is to render your Mass into a schismatic shadow of the Sacrament. The Real Presence is there. But you are not partaking of it. ...Which is, of course, why you are going to hell.

Spiritual adultery is what Pseudo-Aquinas involves himself in, plain and simple.

As for you converts being "manifold," ... Please, John. :-) As we both know, that's just funny.

Get your facts straight!)and our seminaries are FULL,

Yeah, all "two" of them. :-) And define "full." How many students does an average Sedevacantist "seminary" hold?

Three. And it takes all three of them to figure out how to screw a wax candle into its candleholder. (Cannot use electricity since that is a "modernist tool" right???)

vocations abound, and no sex scandals as we reject sodomites who apply!

:-) And you know them when you see them? Also, what you're saying, then, is that you have a large numer of sodomites among your laity??? Well, if that's the case, then you're clearly doing a fine job of sanctifying the faithful in your tiny "true Church." :-) If I were a priest in your cult, I'd be real careful next time I made a "profound bow" at the altar. You do face **away** from the congregation, right?

LOL

We also reject the "third way" of Vat II which caused many priests to break their vows.

Uh, ...... :-) If you say so.

Meditations on Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell keep us on the straight and narrow while Vat Cats reject it as "negative theology" and promote the "playboy priesthood."

That's right. It's nothing but a homosexual "sex fest" in today's Catholic priesthood. All our priests do (and I mean ALL of them) is ravage little boys and go to Gay bath houses. None of them are praying. None of them are saying Mass. All they do is have a "Gay ol' time." :-) Does that "version of reality" help you to not tremble in fear for your soul, John? Good. Because God knows you have enough to be afraid of.

So, please ... Keep rationalizing away your heresy; keep celebrating the liberal American media's version of Catholic priestly life. And maybe the night-terrors will begin to g o away. ;-)

Atheists rationalize away the existence of God in much the same way as Pseudo-Aquinas and radical self-styled "traditionalists" do with the Catholic faith.

4.It is heresy to claim that you can be saved by works alone! Baptism by desire requires BELIEF in certain basic truths of the Faith, such as the existence of one God who rewards and punishes--

Wrong. :-) Now, it is true that works alone cannot justify someone --that is, what St. Paul calls "works of the law" --works done with the expectation of reward (i.e., I gave to the poor, so I get to go to Heaven). However, works of LOVE (what we in the Latin Church traditionally call the "corporal works of MERCY" --miserecordia = amor) are another matter all-together.

Genuine works of **love** CAN save a person, since, as St. Paul says, they "cover up a multitude of sins." And no one can perform said works of love without, in a mysterious sense, acting as a disciple of Jesus Christ.

This is what justified the Good Samaritan --a Samaritan was a non-Jew / non-Christian who did not subscribe to true or orthodox doctrine, but who testified to the truth of the Gospel, despite his heretical heritage, by his **actions**. And a great many people in this world, who either never heard of Christ or ever devoted much time to "religion," stumble onto salvation in this way. These are the very people who Christ describes in Matt 25:31-40.

What's more, the notion that someone must ABSOLUTELY be fully and consciously aware of "certain basic truths of the Faith" is the opposite error of Fideism.

It is essentially the heresy of rationalism -which the Church has condemned. (See Vatican I and the Syllabus of Errors for details on this.)

Christ saves little children and retarded people who do not know their Catholic Faith. He also saves cultural Hindus who are dying in the gutters of Calcutta. And He does this based on the same principle --that of the disposition of their hearts and souls, and their ability to receive Him on the most basic of levels. There is no "catechism quiz" at the Gates of Heaven.

The last sentence says it all really. This fool should read the Judgment scenes in the Gospels and point us to where the "catechism quiz requirement" is made.

and many theologians hold that belief in the Incarnation and redemption by Christ is necessary as well!

I see. So an infant who dies before coming to such personal belief is damned? Ecceslia supplex cannot be applied to them? :-) You've just become a Baptist.

When one is detached from the Rock of Peter, these kinds of shipwreck are not surprising.

Pope Pius XII condemed the exultation of the Corporal Works of Mercy over the so-called "passive" Spiritual Works of Mercy!

Go read what Pope Pius wrote in its proper context. His point was the same point made by St. James in James 2.

A book that Pseudo-Aquinas should read in full and not just in antiLuther polemical snippets.

By the way, this "numbskull" (I guess everyone is entitled to your opinion, or get called names---I'll be happy to compare my academic credentials to yours and let you know if your in my league or if you should stay in the intellectual minors!)

:-) Only a pseudo-intellectual trumpets his credentials. Luther did the same. Your statement above tells me everything I need to know about you, John. Pathetic.

More on this in a moment.

converted both his mother and father from Protestantism and agnosticism--how about you, erudite one?

Cradle Catholic all my life, oh Grasshopper. :-) ...The son of a pre-Vatican II theologian, and heir to the AUTHENTIC pre-Vatican II Tradition. There was no break in that Tradition. Vatican II is in complere accord with what the Church has always taught; and my people are living proof of it. Pity that yours cannot see that.

The "wise and understanding" seldom can Mark.

5. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Primacy and Infallibility of the Pope promulgated by Pope Pius IX as approved by the First vatican Council on July 18,1870 allows the Pope, by DIVINE RIGHT the ability to Rule the Church and "micromanage", if needed, any diocese!

The same Constitution which declared that by divine law Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy for all time??? Is it THAT Constitution you refer to Pseudo-Aquinas???

Uh-huh. And that is correct. But, having the extraordinary right and ordinarily exerting that extraordinary right are two different things. As I said before, it is unnatural and improper for Rome to micromanage the internal affairs of another diocese. This is what Vatican II made clear --balancing the truth of Vatican I with yet another truth.

Which it must be noted, Vatican I intended to do in a Second Constitution on the role of the episcopate and secondary applications of Church infallibility. This Constitution however was never issued due to suspension of the Council upon invasion of the Italian Army.

Another task of Vatican II not often realized was the completion of Vatican I with the issuing of Dogmatic Constitutions on Revelation and on the Church. The latter Dogmatic Constitution among other areas dealt with the latter areas which Vatican I intended to settle but did not have the opportunity to do.

See, it all fits together, my friend ...IF you know how to read it. ... If you, as Aquinas suggested, apply "sentiere cum ecclesiam" --" to think with the Church."

Which of course he does not do.

JPII is now being SUED as an accomplice in the pedophile cover-ups (which he is by his failure to act). It would be better for him if he had a millstone tied around his neck for the children he's harmed in failing to stop what Frank Keating called "the Mafia"

:-) That's right. John Paul did it. And George Bush caused the military prison abuses, etc.

One of many parallels between loony liberals and loony pseudo-"trads" is this kind of unthinking illogic.

But, appealing to sanity for a moment if I may, the simple truth is that a lot of these sex abuses were taking place in the 1950's!! :-)

And some are from the 1940's -quite likely from priests trained in the seminary during Pius XI's pontificate (1922-1939).

....That is, while the "last reigning Pope" (Pius XII) was still in office. And they probably were going on long before that --the practice of "sweeping things under the rug" being a time-honored method for the sexually-uncomfortable Irish Catholic bishops. ;-)

Heck, your Italian ancestors were at least as good at sweeping under the rug as my Irish ancestors Mark.

And so, if John Paul is to blame, then so are all the Popes who ever reigned during sexual misconduct in far-off episcopates.

For goodness sake, if you think about it, at least JPII has a good excuse. :-) He reigns in a time when bishops were given more soverignty. But, how is Pius XII to explain himself before the Throne of God??? :-) Shouldn't he have watched those "rascally bishops" more closely?

Nice one Mark.

Also, ... I thought that John Paul isn't a real Pope??? :-) And, if he's not, then why should he be worried, since no real responsibility lies with him? Gothcha, John. As a lawyer you should know that that's called an 'admission against guilt.' You cannot have it both ways. Either John Paul is a pretend Pope and is innocent of the sex scandal, or he is a real Pope and (in your Ultramontanist view of the Papacy) directly responsible for the entire flock. Which is it?

Another violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction by Pseudo-Aquinas (as ably pointed out by the twenty-seven year high school student Mark Bonocore).

6. The Rhineland theologians were giant heretics and protected by the likes of Bugnini at the Vatican.

Again he namecalls. More internal inconsistency since he berates Mark for this and then does the same thing himself. Oh consistency, wherefore art thou???

How convenient for them. :-) But, I thought the Pope was in control of the Vatican prior to Vatican II? Again, which is it?

They never received any accolades by the pre-Vat II Popes, who are not infallible in making all personal udgement calls.

Again, this is very convenient. But, if their heresy is so obvious, why didn't any of these "Golden Age Popes" say "boo" against them??? Doesn't this, as with the sex scandal, implicate Pius XI, etc. in their guilt as well? Therefore, the last few "real Popes" must all be branded, like Honorius, as accomplices to heresy too, right? So, the problem didn't start with Vatican II. It must have started two generations earlier. :-) How scandalous!

Wait a minute, if we take his argument at face value it could be argued that while the Rhineland theologians received "no accolades" from the Pius XII and earlier pontificates, that the lack of infallibility in such actions (admitted to by Pseudo-Aquinas) may have been at play in those instances.

For if (i) the Rhineland theologians "never received any accolades" from the Pius XII and earlier pontificates and (ii) the popes (and certainly by logical extension their subordinates) "are not infallible in making all personal judgement calls" then (iii) perhaps the failure to give accolades to the Rhineland theologians was an error on the part of those popes and their subordinates.

Mind you, I am not saying that there actions *were* erroneous, only that Pseudo-Aquinas admits that they could have been. So again it boils down to his *opinion* that we are supposed to accept with (presumably) religious submission of mind and will. Fr. Luther, call your office!!!

Montini was exiled by Pope Pius XII on suspicion of heresy and being a Mason.

Bull ka-ka. That never happened, and I DEFY you to produce one shred of credible evidence that it did.

He cannot. And as one who has read three detailed biographies on Paul VI, not one of them sustains this notion one iota. Indeed, if Montini was exiled for being a Mason, it is odd that Pius XII kicked him upstairs to the second most powerful see in Italy after Rome (referring to Milan). Why would he put a suspected heretic and suspected Mason in charge of the powerful and prestigious See of Milan???

He was called back and given a Cardinal's hat by John XXIII.

Pseudo-Aquinas' ignorance of history is glaringly apparent. It is a documented fact that Montini refused the hat in 1953: the year *before* he was exiled when Pius XII had offered it to him.{1} Apparently, that makes Pius XII a "Masonic collaborator" much as shipping Montini off to shepherd the Dioceses of Milan.

And also, Montini was not removed from Milan *until* he was elected pope. Prior to that time, he remained as Archbishop of Milan.{2}

Who was of course head of his "lodge," right? :-) After all, what's an "apron" without a hat to go with it. ;-)

Question: Who gave John XXIII a red hat??? Answer: Pius XII.

By the way, how do you know Weakland was a heretic if he was not a "public" one? Were you sleeping with him too?

Yes, he is my "fuzzy-wuzzy bear." I love him deeply. :-) He is my life. My song. My heart.

LOL

Yet, seriously ... Weakland, like Mahoney in LA, [implies a] person al heresy by various statements that he makes. Yet, liberal subversives like these are very clever, and stop short of saying anything that can commit them to a clear violation of canon. Until they do that, however, Rome is not able to justly move against them.

And (for the record) Weakland resigned several months back from his dioceses.

7.Bishp Kurz was the Bishop of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement led by Father DePauw. You think Fr. DePauw is OK, but not Bp. Kurz? More gnorance. (Get that blackboard!)

Go back and look at what I wrote. I said that DePauw submitted to the Council. ..at least at first, as did Ottavanni in a more lasting way. And they taught you to grade papers like this???!!! :-) You should look at things more carefully.

I think I've proven enough for one letter.

Yes, I stand corrected and am entirely ready to submit myself to the true successor of Peter. :-) Only, how exactly would I go about that? I suppose kissing your own foot would do?

As I noted to the list earlier, responding to this individual would be a waste of time.{3} And as usual for radtrads, his supposed "refutation" has more bald spots than a monastic order.

I want to give you time to get to an anger management class or psychologist appointment.Instead of shaking the dust from your feet, try getting the cobwebs out of your head!

:-) John, as we both know, I made numerous points in my previous email which you simply are not able to address or answer. You are indeed a dolt, but you're not stupid; and so I am supremely satisfied in the knowledge that I have exposed you to be a miserable, unmanly schismatic coward who, like the "clanging gong" of Scripture, is quite happy to shout his doctrinal perversions from the rooftops, but who cannot defend himself when it comes to the fundamental premises of his beliefs.

You are a Protestant, sir; and you know in your soul that you are a Protestant. Nothing more needs to be said.

Oh, yeah ... Again, ... Rot in hell, schismatic. :-)

The subject of "rotting in hell" will be dealt with in the next installment of th is thread. Now that Mark has run the score up on Pseudo-Aquinas, I want to focus on two parts of this person's response that I *knew* would come up at some point in this discussion. Here they are:

I assume from your lack of ability to reason without mindless, ngry name calling you are a blue-collar worker with a high school diploma (from an Ivy league high school no doubt!)

And this one:

By the way, this "numbskull" (I guess everyone is entitled to your opinion, or get called names---I'll be happy to compare my academic credentials to yours and let you know if your in my league or if you should stay in the intellectual minors!)

Mark touched on it earlier but it bears repeating again. For the benefit of the readers of this list, I offer the following short instructional on how to argue like a sophist:

Learn to Argue Like a Sophist in Less than Ten Minutes" Dept.

I remind you again that hypocrisy -like logical incoherence- is in no short supply with the radtrads: particularly (it seems) those who want to compare credentials. But I digress.

To be Continued...

Notes:

{1} As Pius admitted at the 1954 consistory, Monsignor Montini had refused the honour. He had said: "If I did not need a red hat in the Secretariat of State to keep off the sun, why should I need it in Milan to keep off the rain?" [Roy MacGregor-Hastie: Pope Paul VI pg. 185 (c. 1964)]

And again:

In 1939, Montini was appointed papal undersecretary of state and later, in 1944, acting secretary for ordinary (non-diplomatic) affairs. He declined an invitation to be elevated to the College of Cardinals in 1953. In the beginning of November 1954, Pope Pius XII appointed him Archbishop of Milan...[The New Encyclopedia Brittania Fifteenth Edition (Maecropaedia #9) pg. 207 (c. 1985)]

{2} The position to which he was consecrated by Cardinal Tisserant *before* he was sent to the Milan dioceses. Consecration to the episcopate is an odd policy for one being "punished" -particularly someone suspected of what Pseudo-Aquinas asserts.

{3} From a previous email circa June 8, 2004:

To answer your questions in reverse order:

Any former radtrads here?

1) Yes, I am a former pseudotrad.

His e-mail is [deleted]

2) Anyone who would put the name of the Angelic Doctor in their email address is obviously full of themselves and cannot be taken seriously.

He attends a local radtrad church and is well versed on this subject.

3) I have yet to find any "radtrads" who are very well informed on any of the subjects in question -and I say that after years of dialogue with numerous radtrads of divers outlooks.

Anyone interested in dealing with this guy I met.

4) No, for both the reasons already specified and because my time (and patience) are limited for such endeavours at this time.

:: Shawn 8:54 PM [+] | ::

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