:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Monday, March 29, 2004 ::

On "Humanism"

Apolonio,

I was reading some of Mario Derksen's writings on humanism. How would you respond to his citation of Pope Leo XIII, "The world has heard enough of the so-called 'rights of man.' Let it hear something of the rights of God," said the great Leo XIII (Encyclical Tametsi #13, 11/1/1900).

Response:
Actually, let's see what the quote says in its context:

"It is rather ignorance than ill-will which keeps multitudes away from Jesus Christ. There are many who study humanity and the natural world; few who study the Son of God. The first step, then, is to substitute knowledge for ignorance, so that He may no longer be despised or rejected because He is unknown. We conjure all Christians throughout the world to strive all they can to know their Redeemer as He really is. The more one contemplates Him with sincere and unprejudiced mind, the clearer does it become that there can be nothing more salutary than His law, more divine than His teaching. In this work, your influence, Venerable Brethren, and the zeal and earnestness of the entire Clergy, can do wonders. You must look upon it as a chief part of your duty to engrave upon the minds of your people the true knowledge, the very likeness of Jesus Christ; to illustrate His charity, His mercies, His teaching, by your writings and your words, in schools, in Universities, from the pulpit; wherever opportunity is offered you. The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God. That the time is suitable is proved by the very general revival of religious feeling already referred to, and especially that devotion towards Our Saviour of which there are so many indications, and which, please God, we shall hand on to the New Century as a pledge of happier times to come."

As you read the second sentence, it reads "There are many who study humanity and the natural world; few who study the Son of God." The context of that quote is the fact that people back then interpreted or tried to understand man without God. What Pope Leo wanted to do was to bring God back to the picture. This is because man without God is meaningless. The only way we will understand ourselves is if we understand it in the context that God created us in our image and likeness and Christ redeemed us. Vatican 2 and especially John Paul II brought Christ to the picture. In fact, in his first sentence of his first encyclical, John Paul II said that Christ is the "centre of the universe and of history". He also says:

"The man who wishes to understand himself thoroughly-and not just in accordance with immediate, partial, often superficial, and even illusory standards and measures of his being-he must with his unrest, uncertainty and even his weakness and sinfulness, with his life and death, draw near to Christ. He must, so to speak, enter into him with all his own self, he must "appropriate" and assimilate the whole of the reality of the Incarnation and Redemption in order to find himself." (Redemptor hominis, 10)

Mario also said:

If you think I'm off my rocker with that statement, consider some of the statements in Gaudium Et Spes: "According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown" (No. 12).

Response:
What's the problem with that statement? All things **on earth** should be related to man as their center and crown. That's a true statement. Doesn't Scripture say "let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and ever creeping creature that moveth upon the earth"? The statement of Gaudium Et Spes makes sense because traditionally, it has been believed that "for in him, everything else in the world is, in some way, represented". Etienne Gilson said,

"According to the Bible man is made to the image of God as being the vicar of his Creator on earth. Because God made the world, He owns it as His property, and also governs it at His good pleasure but makes over a share of government to man, who thus has a dominion over things analogous to God's...he represents Him as a lieutenant represents his Sovereign." (The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, 211)

God is the center of the universe because He is the Creator and He made it for Himself. However, God shares his "government to man". Man is the "governor" of the earth. Whatever God owns in the world, man, in some sense, "owns" it as well. He can therefore be called the center of the earth. This is the traditional teaching of the Church. Everything on earth is made for man (the Sabbath is even made for man) and man is made for God. [1]

JMJ
A.L. III

[1] Ultimately, everything is made for God.

:: Ap 9:30 PM [+] | ::

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

Refuting the “He’s Not Disobedient. He's Just Stupid.” Defense

Since Kevin Tierney has seen fit to take the “Haloscan Wars” to his blog, I feel compelled to respond with the full weight of my office as Inquisitor. Mr. Tierney accuses frequent Haloscan contributor Jim Scott and myself of a lack of Christian charity in our takes on Jacob Michael’s irresponsible rantings.

Is Kevin correct in his assertions? The reader will be able to decide for himself after my point-by-point analysis of some of his comments. His comments will be in bold and mine will be in regular font.

While as of late I believe Shawn to be exempted from this, if you do not walk the party line of Neo-Catholicism, his fellow inquisitors will do absolutely everything to demonize you they can.

Is taking certain Catholics to task for accusing the pope of dereliction of duty without evidence walking the "party line of Neo-Catholicism” and “demoniz[ing]” those who don’t? If it is, then every member of the Inquisition, including Shawn and myself, stand guilty as charged. It is unfortunate that Kevin uses the term Neo-Catholic, because I actually believe that using such Ferraraisms are beneath him. Besides, when one has a more solid grasp of what Catholic belief is and how it has taken shape throughout history, he will see that those of us who get saddled with the “Neo-Cat” moniker are far more traditional than some of those whom Kevin has chosen to align himself with.

They [us “Neo-Cats”] will cry schismatic, even when they cannot prove the person refuses to recognize the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.

The only ones who I’ve ever called schismatic in the formal sense, viz. the trad issue are Abp. Lefebvre, the four bishops he illicitly consecrated, and the SSPX. I don’t say this because this is merely what I think, but this is what the Pontiff himself has said. (Ecclesia Dei #3) Unless you can prove that “constitutes a schismatic act” doesn’t mean exactly that, I don’t see what your gripe is, Kevin. I have also said that those who distribute such spiritual pornography (thank you, Shawn) like the Remnant etc. exude a schismatic spirit.

They will cry excommunication, when they can not prove the person is excommunicated.

The only one I “cried excommunication” on were Archbishop Lefebvre and the four he consecrated without papal approval only because Ecclesia Dei said so.

They will tell you to take it up with the liberal bishops, when they themselves refuse to do the same.

What have I ever told you to take up with your “liberal” bishop that I myself refused to do? I did say that the local bishop, regardless of whether or not he's liberal, had the authority to allow or forbid a Tridentine Latin Mass in his diocese as per Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei.

They attack you in public, rather than taking it up with your Bishop.

I know of no instruction requiring us to get permission from our bishop before we publicly refute an argument. I’m sure you don’t. So, what is this supposed to mean?

They quite frankly treat Protestants and Non-Christians better and more charitably than they do their fellow Catholic brethren.

Kevin knows this is a bald face lie as it pertains to me. He has witnessed me come down like a ton of bricks on a number of individual Protestants when they tried to jerk me around on the battleacts message board. I do, however, expect more in the way of intellectual honesty from a Catholic precisely because he is a Catholic. Therefore, my wrath is more fierce against Catholics who choose to engage in the same kind of spin-doctoring.

As I noted before, they say a dialogue on these issues can occur, but in reality, that dialogue occurs only when you agree to everything they say and sing cumbaya, it's only a monologue.

Can one have a meaningful dialogue with certain Catholics when they cast aspersions on the orthodoxy of the pope’s ecumenical and interfaith outreaches, like the prayer meetings at Assisi, without evidence? Or when they accuse the Holy See of disregard for tradition when word leaked out that the pope considered canonizing Mother Teresa the same day of her beatification? Of course not. So, the dialogue is frustrated NOT by the “Neo-Cats,” but by the so-called “traditionalists.”

Now if one wishes to raise concerns regarding whether or not some of the interfaith or ecumenical activities of the Holy Father are prudent, while not questioning their orthodoxy, that’s fair game for dialogue. I may not agree with the conclusions of such arguments, but it wouldn’t exceed the pale. But my experience in discussing such issues with Kevin and others who think like him on this issue, it is impossible because the congruence with tradition of Assisi etc. is called into question right of the bat.

Believe what I'm saying is harsh?

No, just wrong!

First off, let me predict an argument of the Lidless Eye folks. They will say I'm going out of my way to defend some people's extreme interpretation of Fatima as they perceive.

We are because you are defending Jacob’s extreme interpretation of Fatima, which includes an unsubstantiated accusation of dereliction of duty on the part of the successor of Peter, which is no minor bagatelle. Furthermore, the methodology you employ is embarrassingly beneath you. BTW, it’s not just AS I, BUT AS BOTH THE HOLY SEE AND SR. LUCIA PERCEIVE.

Fatima is only accidental to the discussion here.

No it isn’t, despite anything Kevin may want the reader to believe. Besides being blog and (soon webpage) Brothers-In-Arms with Jacob, why else would Kevin risk shooting his own credibility in the head defending him? Reading his post “Putin Further Limits Press Freedoms in Russia” of 9/9/03, leads this writer to believe that Kevin holds a similar position to that of his colleague.

The substance of this discussion is focused on the absolute hypocripsy of Neo-Catholicism, and several members of the Inquisition in general. (Note, I exempt Shawn, Gregg the Obscure since he is on hiatus, Peter Vere and Gregory Rossi from the charges of hypocripsy. Also is Dr. Sippo, being he hasn't posted, and we have never interacted on anything before, so out of charity, something my colleagues refuse to practice it seems, I will withold judgement and practice reverent silence on my medical colleague. I also excuse my Culture of Christ colleague Apolonio Latar for the time being, as he has been out of the traditionalist battles as of late, to focus with me on Cultural issues, and on writing about devotion to our Blessed Mother, both very noble acts.)

Unless Kevin intends to call The Curmudgeon, Secret Agent Man, Chris Burgwald, F. John Loughnan, none of whom have posted at least since last summer, hypocrites along with yours truly, Kevin must believe I have been cloned several times over. Rest assured, Kevin, I have no evil twins. I am an evil twin unto myself.

Lemme get this straight, Kevin is willing to practice reverent silence on Dr. Sippo, but not on the Holy Father? Now I don’t have anything against Art, don’t misunderstand me. But I think the pope is more worthy of “reverent silence” than any of us at the Inquisition, including the good doctor.

This charge of hypocripsy is indeed not something to charge lightly, and the burden is on me to substantiate my allegations.

No, it isn't and yes it is, respectively.

I do this not to poison the well.

Now what makes you think I would suspect that?

I do this, in of all things, to further the spirit of humble dialogue myself and Shawn have had as of late.

How does this “further the spirit of humble dialogue,” pray tell?

I post this publicly and not privately in an e-mail to Shawn to outline the false definitions and spiritual immaturity exhibited by certain members and close colleagues of the Inquisition.

I guess you can be wrong if you want. After all, it’s a free country, at least for now.

Much [sic] bridges have been built lately by Shawn and myself so that both sides may understand our positions, where we agree, where we disagree, and how we interact with each other.

Good.

In today's confused enviroment [sic] this must happen. All too often, we brethren let pride puff us up.

True.

In these heated polemics, it becomes more of who can score the bigger rhetorical kill, not who is most accurately representing the faith of our Fathers.

Truth usually does “score the bigger rhetorical kill,” but I digress.

Such rhetoric from his colleagues as of late does not produce such an enviroment [sic], and indeed, hampers the cause of dialogue.

How do my statements hamper the cause of dialogue between you and Shawn, hmmmmm?

Since Shawn is big on dialogue as I am, and I wish to prevent my brethren from being swayed by Greg Mockeridge and Jim Scott's clever argumentation, I shall raise this issue publicly.

Well, I do not want to speak for Jim, but the last thing your “brethren” need to worry about from me is to be taken in by “clever argumentation.” I may be a lot of things, but clever isn’t one of them.

Let us look at what the comment boxes read:

Otay (a little Buckwheat lingo there).

Whether or not Jim likes it, Jacob is still a Catholic as well as those "insane colleagues" of his.

I know of no instance where Jim has said Jacob (or any of his “insane colleagues” for that matter) wasn’t a Catholic.

Jim also did not get Jacob's reasons before making such a judgement.

You mean Jacob’s website and blog musings do not accurately represent his position?

I would love to see Jim make this kind of comment about Jews or Protestants without him first getting their side of the story. Little hint, Jim would never do such a thing, since he practices Christian charity with them.

Kevin, how can you say such a thing without getting Jim’s side of the story first?

The only problem is, Christian charity does not discriminate, as the blesed [sic] apostle Paul tells us.

Nor does Christian charity preclude calling a spade a spade. In fact, in many cases, it demands it.

One should always be willing to give charity, as fallible fallen men we are, misunderstandings may arise.

Tell me, Kevin, how can one understand a clear accusation of dereliction of duty as something other than...well...a clear accusation of dereliction of duty? Inquiring minds want to know.

Yet the Catholic in question here is more willing to give that charity to one not of his family, instead of HIS OWN BROTHER.

Gee, Kevin, I thought that Protestants were separated brethren and hence, members of our catholic family. Or is that just another Vatican II ambiguity?

Now onto Greg Mockeridge.

Finally. The suspense was killing me.

So far, Greg has joined the Lidless Eye Inquisition not to educate the Christian people on the truths of Catholicism, and what he sees is false in the "traditionalist" position, but to attack fellow Catholics.

How can you accuse me of such a thing without getting my side of the story?

Out of all his posts, all of them have been attack peices against individuals.

Well, when you consider the “mission statement” (A weblog dedicated to the exposure of the crackpots of the lunatic self-styled 'traditionalist' fringe who disingenuously pose as faithful Catholics.), attack pieces tend to come with the territory, but again, I digress.

I will make a few salient points.

Whether or not they are salient is open to interpretation.

In order to be disobedient to something, a lawful command or directive must be given by a superior.

I would consider “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor a lawful command, and I think it would be safe to say that God would qualify as a “superior.”

Greg cannot prove either has been given.

Kevin does have a point here. After all, I wasn’t with Moses on Mt. Sinai with when God gave him the Decalogue. I have to rely upon second hand information (Scripture and Tradition), that that event did indeed occur.

Since the matter is of private revelation, none really can be given, since it is not binding on the faithful.

Tell that to Jacob. He’s the one accusing the pope of dereliction of duty viz. Fatima. If it’s not binding on the faithful, it’s especially not binding on the pope. Ergo, Jacob’s accusation is absurd.

While the people Greg mentions may be mistaken, they cannot be disobedient.

This is something of a rephrasing from how Kevin said it in the Haloscan box:

How is it disobedience to you for me to say you aren't doing your job? Could it be an unfoudned criticism, and sheer stupidity(being I don't know your job?) Sure. yet is it disobedience, no. And there's a huge difference.

To which I responded:

So, what are you saying , Kevin? Jacob's not disobedient, he's just stupid? Boy, you really do have your colleague’s back, don’t you? With defenders like you, who needs detractors?

This is something I find all too typical amongst Neo-Catholics. They re-define their terms, and expect us to play along. I for one refuse, so I will challenge Mr. Mockeridge here, as I did in the comment boxes. Provide me either 1.) The Pope claiming I have consecrated Russia, all further discussion on this issue should cease or 2.) Where in any book that teaches the faith pre or post Vatican II that one must be obedient to a command not even given.

The pope sent for the Our Lady of Fatima statue to be transferred from the chapel in Fatima to Rome for the1984 consecrations and that Sr. Lucia is on record stating that the 1984 consecrations fulfilled Our Lady’s request more than satisfies your first request. As to the second, I’m not bagging on Jacob for discussing Fatima, but for claiming that the consecration requested by Our Lady was not done despite conclusive evidence to the contrary and his serious accusation that the pope is derelict in his duties in regards to it. Give it up Kevin. You have no case.

Now as Aquinas teaches us, one has to have an intent to sin, for it to be classified as a sin.

In terms of subjective guilt, yes. But regardless of whether or not one is subjectively guilty, the act remains sinful in object. Lemme ‘splain it to ya, Amigo. Let’s say you wake up in the middle of the night with a splitting headache and you go into your medicine cabinet and take what you think is a Tylenol, but it’s a cyanide tablet instead. Are you guilty of the sin of suicide? No. But are you dead? Yes. You are not responsible for killing yourself, but that doesn’t change the fact that you actually killed yourself in object by taking the cynanide. The same principle applies here with Jacob bearing false witness against the pope (i.e. accusing him of dereliction of duty). He does so in object. Whether he is actually guilty of it or not is another thing.

Besides, any Catholic who is even the least bit educated in the faith knows that leveling such a serious accusation against the pope without sufficient proof is bearing false witness. This tells us a lot about Kevin’s judgment (or lack thereof) in choosing his associates. {1}

Now I will excercise charity in realizing perhaps Greg has just been caught with his polemical pants down.

I think it is more than safe to say at this juncture that it is Kevin who has his Fruit of the Looms in public view, not me. Hey, at least he’s keeping his ankles warm. Being originally from Detroit (a great place to be FROM) myself, I know how cold it can be this time of the year.

I offer him the chance to retract those lousy arguments. Indeed, we all make this mistake sometimes.

Let me get this straight, Kevin. Jacob parrots the Grunerite conspiracy theory on Fatima, which is as tired and stale as it is false. I rightly take him to task for it, more than sufficiently substantiating my assertions inso doinf. You then try to defend him with a sorry piece of lawyering. And you’re demanding that I retract? What kind of fool do you take me for? Look man, I was born in the morning, but not this morning!

I of course hope and pray that I am wrong, as Greg, when he is not in rhetorical attack mode, is a very intelligent person, and worthy of such a dialogue as myself and Shawn have.

With all sarcasm aside, I appreciate the kind words contained in this last statement and reciprocate by saying that when Kevin is not defending the indefensible, he can be a very effective apologist. Two examples of this are his refutation of Protestantism and Culture of Christ blog.

We at Restore the Church implore our frequent sparring partners at the Lidless Eye Inquisition to give this some serious thought.

If you say things worthy of serious consideration, we will have no choice BUT to give serious thought to whatever points you raise.


Notes:

{1} His choice of Apolonio as his Culture of Christ blogmate was at least one wise choice on his part. I hope that this is a beginning of a trend.

:: Greg Mockeridge 4:27 PM [+] | ::

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

Into the Darkness of Sensationalism and Disobedience Via Jacob’s Ladder
(From the Dis “Gruner” fication of Fatima Dept.)

Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart

Our Lady of Fatima, Queen of Heaven and Mediatrix of Grace: I offer you, as a gesture of filial love and devotion, this consecration of Russia to your Immaculate Heart, in reparation for the deriliction of duty in this regard on the part of our Holy Father and the bishops of the world. I consecrate Russia to your Immaculate Heart, and request that you will obtain for our Holy Father the graces necessary to heed your request. Crush the Serpent's head, O Blessed Virgin, by trampling out the errors of Communism that are even now poisoning the world and infecting the Holy Church. I also consecrate the United States to your Immaculate Heart, and commend the preservation of the Holy Catholic Faith in this Nation to your maternal bosom. Show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O merciful Mother! Our Lady of Fatima, Defeater of Heresies, ora pro nobis.

With this “prayer,” on his homepage Jacob Michael has added his voice to the crackpot chorus of those following in the footsteps of suspended priest Fr. Nicholas Gruner who claim that the consecrations requested by Our Lady of Fatima have not yet been carried out and that the Holy Father, along with the world’s bishops, is derelict in his duties for not doing so, despite numerous statements to the contrary by surviving Fatima visionary Sr. Lucia Santos O.C.D.

In “reparation,” he takes it upon himself (and anyone else who wishes to join him by adding their name to the list of “consecrators” listed just below the prayer) to consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart. In addition to being downright laughable, it is hypercritical as can be. Here he is taking the Holy Father and the bishops to task for not doing as Our Lady requested. But he disobeys Our Lady as well, because she specifically requests that the Pope and the bishops of the world carry out the consecrations, not some layman with a Messiah Complex.

As I pointed out above, Sr. Lucia herself debunks the myths advanced by the Fr. Gruner Wing of the rad-trad movement. Responding to an inquiry on August 29, 1989 regarding the consecrations made by Sr. Mary Bethlehem, Sr. Lucia states:

“On Oct. 31, 1942, His Holiness Pius XII made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made as Our Lady requested. I answered "NO," because it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.

Later, on May 13, 1967, His Holiness Paul VI made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made as Our Lady requested. I responded "NO," for the same reason, it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.

On May 13, 1982, His Holiness John Paul II made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made. I responded "NO." It was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.

Then this same Supreme Pontiff, John Paul II wrote to all the bishops of the world asking them to unite with him. He sent for the statute of Our Lady of Fátima -- the one from the little Chapel to be taken to Rome and on March 25, 1984 - publicly - with the bishops who wanted to unite with His Holiness, made the Consecration as Our Lady requested. They then asked me if it was made as Our Lady requested, and I said, "YES." Now it was made.”

July 3, 1990, in a letter to Fr. Robert Fox, the same Sr. Lucia states:

“I come to answer your question, "If the consecration made by Pope John Paul II on March 25, 1984 in union with all the bishops of the world, accomplished the conditions for the consecration of Russia according to the request of Our Lady in Tuy on June 13 of 1929?" Yes, it was accomplished, and since then I have said that it was made.”

And finally, on November 17, 2001 she was asked by Archbishop Tarcisco Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation of the Faith the following:

"What have you to say about the stubborn assertions of Fr Gruner, who has been collecting signatures, asking the Pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary at last, as if this has never been done?".

Sr Lucia replies: "The Carmelite community has rejected the forms for the collection of signatures. I have already said that the consecration desired by Our Lady was made in 1984, and has been accepted in Heaven".

Instead of accepting these facts, they concoct this cover-up conspiracy theory of Art Bell-like proportions. {1} Furthermore, in the interests of consistency they would have implicate Sr. Lucia as being in on it, even if her statements were fabricated. Would not Sr. Lucia, by her silence in the face of a Vatican orchestrated cover-up, be disobeying Our Lady’s instructions too? I mean, after all, if Our Lady’s request is as binding as they think it is, would not Sr. Lucia’s obedience to Mary trump any gag order placed on her by her superiors, or even the Vatican? Yes, it would.

Even if the claims bandied about by the Gruner-Groupies were true, which, of course, they are not, it would all be irrelevant anyway, because private revelations, like the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, and any messages associated with them, do not bind the faithful, much less the pope and the bishops. In other words, the pope would not be derelict even if he not carried out the consecrations as per Our Lady’s instructions.

From this, one must conclude that the “Russia has not been consecrated yet” crowd either does not understand the place that private revelations enjoy in the life of the Church or that they are preying upon the ignorance of those well-meaning souls who do not. That, in addition to the other things already discussed, speaks volumes about their agenda.

In his theological commentary on the Third Secret of Fatima, Cardinal Ratzinger states:

"Those who expected exciting apocalyptic revelations about the end of the world or the future course of history are bound to be disappointed. Fatima does not satisfy our curiosity in this way, just as Christian faith in general cannot be reduced to an object of mere curiosity."

What this writer finds interesting is that those who accuse us of the Lidless Eye Inquisition and other “Neo-Catholic” apologists of a thirst for novelty are the ones that are most likely to be taken in by a novelty that reduces both Fatima and the Catholic faith to “an object of mere curiosity.”

Notes:
{1} Art Bell hosted a late night radio talk show called Coast to Coast. The show promoted every conceivable conspiracy theory from alien abduction to time travel. Up until his death, Malachi Martin was a frequent guest on the Art Bell radio show. And the main topic discussed was Fatima, the Third Secret and the consecrations namely. While on the graveyard shift this writer caught Fr. Gruner on Coast to Coast with George Noory discussing Fatima while channel surfing the radio. George Noory took the show over from Art Bell. Now why would anyone promoting a legitimately Catholic idea plead his case on the most whack-job show on the air?

:: Greg Mockeridge 6:53 PM [+] | ::

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