:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Monday, September 27, 2004 ::

Briefly on the Passing of Michael Davies:

It has been brought to my attention that Michael Davies has passed on from this life. (He passed away three years to the day my material grandmother died.) Those who have read my writings are aware that there is a degree of heated disagreement (to put it mildly) between myself and him on various elements pertaining to liturgical history and other subjects.

While he and his work has not been discussed much at this weblog, I want to nonetheless in light of recent circumstances request from my friends a moratorium of sorts on discussing those subjects if they can at all be avoided for the next three months. Such disputations must take a backseat to the more important concerns such as the state of his soul. In closing, on behalf of the Lidless Eye Inquisition We hope that his soul rests in peace with the Lord.

[Lord, please] remember Michael Davies, whom you have called from this life. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share in his resurrection. [Roman Missal Eucharistic Prayer 2: From Masses for the Dead]

[Update: As Greg Mockeridge recently inquired as to the length of the requested moratorium -as he has been working on a project that predates Mr. Davies' passing and wants to post the material here- I make an exception in his case only provided that any referencing of Mr. Davies' work or references to him personally in the aforementioned project (however problematical) be treated with due care in light of the recent circumstances. -ISM 10/23/04 5:11 pm]

:: Shawn 1:26 AM [+] | ::

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

Coming to Catholic bookstores this week!



Surprised by Canon Law!
150 Questions Catholics Ask about Canon Law
by Pete Vere & Michael Trueman
Forward by Patrick Madrid

For centuries, canon law has been for most Catholics a mysterious and esoteric aspect of Catholicism, […] Not anymore. - Patrick Madrid, Envoy Magazine

Vere and Trueman have made canon law accessible to the average Catholic for the first time. - Karl Keating, Catholic Answers

From time to time, all Catholics have them: nagging questions about church life, often prompted by some personal encounter or challenging situation:

Is a layperson allowed to preach a homily?

Is a pastor required to report to someone regarding parish finances, or is he on his own?

It seems like the parish council is running your parish. Does it have the authority to do so?

Must a child be baptized in a church, or may the baptism take place at home?

Surprised by Canon Law tackles these and many other questions, all of which have been formally addressed by the Roman Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law. The Code-the internal legal system that governs the church's day-to-day workings-deals with far-flung concerns of interest to the person-in-the-pew. This practical guide to the Code provides answers to a range of questions, from "Can the pope resign?" to the more sensitive query "Do you have the right to tell your bishop what the diocese needs?"

In straightforward language the authors discuss the nuts-and-bolts of church life, making canon law accessible to the everyday Catholic.

This volume is readable, interesting, pastoral and completely faithful to Church teaching and discipline. – Fr. Peter Stravinskas, The Catholic Response

I recommend it as a valuable starting point for anyone interested in becoming familiar with canon law. + Adam Cardinal Maida, Archbishop of Detroit

To order your copy today, please visit SurprisedbyCanonLaw.com or call 1-800-488-0488.

:: Pete Vere 9:00 AM [+] | ::

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

Tomorrow, Christendom

Since announcing that our translation of this important French traditionalist work is going to press, a number of readers have asked me what Tomorrow, Christendom is about. Therefore, I've decided to blog an excerpt from this work. It is a homily given by Dom Gerard Calvet at the conclusion of the 1986 Chartres pilgrimage.

As you can see, this is real "meat-and-potatoes" traditionalism. It is not the scandle-rag pablum that passes for traditionalist thought in most of the English-speaking world. The latter is simply the rad-trad world's equivalent to the tabloids you see at the supermarket checkout counter. (These traditionalist scandal-rags and supermarket tabloids even share a similar layout and quality of writing.)

No, Dom Calvet's writing is true, unadulterated, Catholic traditionalism. It is not for the
effeminate or those who are weak in spirit. It is especially not for the whiny. Rather, it is inspiration for the courageous who seek to advance the Kingship of Christ.

-------------------------------

SERMON
Delivered by Dom Gérard,
Abbot of Le Barroux,
In Chartres Cathedral,
Pentecost, 1985.

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Dear pilgrims of Notre-Dame,

Here you are finally reassembled in the company of your guardian angels, themselves also present in the thousands, whom we salute with affection and gratitude, at the conclusion of this ardent pilgrimage filled with prayer, song, and sacrifice; and already, many of you have recovered the white robe of baptismal innocence. What happiness!

Here you are reassembled by God’s grace, in the heart of this blessed cathedral, under the watchful gaze of Our Lady of ‘la Belle VerriPre’, one of the most beautiful images of the Holy Virgin Mary. The image before which we know that Saint Louis knelt after completing a pilgrimage barefoot.

Is this not sufficient to have us recover the taste for our Christian and French roots? We thank you, dear pilgrims, for having set out by the thousands to honor this Holy Virgin, and it is these thousands of voices, coming from thousands of hearts of all ages and conditions, which afford us, this evening, the most living image of Christendom.

We thank you for presenting yourselves thus, every year, like a living parable; for as you advanced during the course of this three—day trek towards Mary’s shrine praying and singing, you expressed the very condition of the Christian life, which is that of a long pilgrimage, a long march towards Paradise! And your walk ended in church, which is the image of the Heavenly Sanctuary.

The Christian life is a pilgrimage, often painful, which passes through Golgotha, but is illumined by the splendours of the Spirit. And which leads to glory. Oh! We may well be persecuted, but I forbid that we be pitied. For we belong to a race of exiles and voyagers, gifted with a prodigious power of invention, but refusing—that is its religion—to be distracted from the things of Heaven.
It that not what we shall sing, presently, at the end of the ‘Credo’: ‘Et expecto’—and I await,-- ‘Vitam venturi saeculi’,--the life of the world to come? Oh! Not an earthly golden age, fruit of a supposed evolution, but God’s true Paradise, of which Jesus spoke to the good thief: "Today, you shall be with me in Paradise!"

If we seek to pacify the earth, to beautify the earth, it is not in order to replace Heaven, but so that the earth be Heaven’s stepladder.

And if, one day, faced with the growth of barbarism, we were obliged to take up arms in defense of our earthly cities, it is because, as our dearPéguy has said: "they are the image and the beginning, the body and the test of the House of God."

But even before the hour sounds for a military reconquest, is it not permissible to speak of crusade, at least when a community finds itself threatened in its families, in its schools, in its sanctuaries, in the soul of its children?

And so it is, dear friends, that we are not afraid of revolution: we rather fear the eventuality of a counter-revolution ‘without God’!

This would be to remain trapped in the infernal cycle of laicism and desacralization! There is no word to express the horror that the absence of God from the modern world’s institutions should inspire in us! Look at the U.N.: elaborate architecture, giant halls, the flags of every nation blowing in the wind. ‘No crucifix’!

The world organized without God, without any reference to its Creator. An enormous blasphemy!

Visit a state school: the children are instructed in everything. ‘But silence about God’! What an atrocious scandal! This is a mutilation of the mind, an atrophy of the soul—not to mention the laws permitting the abominable crime of abortion.

But the saddest and most shameful of all is that the mass of Christians ends up becoming accustomed to this state of affairs. They do not protest; they do not react. Or, to give themselves an excuse, they invoke the changing norms of society. How shameful!

If there be anything worse than this declared renunciation, said a friend of ours, it is the smiling abandonment of principles, the gradual slide down the slippery slope, with airs of fidelity. Is there not a putrid scent wafting from modern civilization?

Well then! Against this apostasy of state and civilization which is destroying our families and our cities, we propose a great remedy across the entire body politic; we propose what is the ‘idée-force’ of any civilization worthy of the name: ‘Christendom’!

What is Christendom? Dear pilgrims, you know what it is and you’ve just experienced it: Christendom is a covenant between earth and Heaven; a pact, sealed in the blood of the martyrs, between the world of men and the Paradise of God; a play, both candid and serious, a humble beginning of Eternal Life. Christendom, my dear brothers, is the light of the Gospel projected upon our homeland, our families, our mores, our works. Christendom is the earthly body of the Church, her bulwark, her inscription in time.

Christendom, for us French, is Gallo-Roman France, daughter of her bishops and monks; it is the France of Clovis converted by Saint Clotilde and baptized by Saint Rémi; it is the land of Charlemagne counselled by Alcuin the monk, both of whom organized Christian schools, reformed the clergy, and protected the monasteries.

Christendom, for us, is 12th century France, covered with a white mantle of monasteries, where Cluny and Cîteaux were rivals in holiness, where thousands of clasped hands, consecrated to prayer, interceded day and night for the cities of man!

It is 13th century France, governed by a saintly king, son of Blanche of Castille, who invited to his table Saint Thomas Aquinas, while the sons of Saint Dominic and Saint Francis set out on the roads and in the cities, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Christendom, in Spain, is Saint Ferdinand, the Catholic king; it is Isabelle of France, sister of Saint Louis, emulating her brother in piety, courage, and wise benevolence.

Christendom, dear pilgrims, is the military profession, tempered and consecrated by chivalry, the highest incarnation of the military ideal; it is crusade, where the sword is placed at the service of the faith, and where charity expresses itself through courage and sacrifice.

Christendom is a laborious spirit, the taste for a job well done, the self-effacement of the artist behind his work. Do you know the names of those who crafted the capitals of these columns, and these stained-glass windows?

Christendom is intelligent and creative energy, prayer translated into action, the use of bold, new techniques. It is the cathedral, breathtaking image of Heaven, immense vessel where Gregorian chant, suppliant and radiant, rises unanimous to vaulted heights, and then descends in layers of silence to our pacified hearts.

Christendom, my brothers,--let us be truthful,--is also a world threatened by the forces of evil; a cruel world where passions clash, a country in the grip of anarchy, the Kingdom of the Lilies ravaged by war, fire, famine, pestilence: sowers of death in countryside and city.

A woeful France, deprived of her king, in total decline, headed for anarchy and pillage. And it is in this universe of mire and blood, that the humus of our sinful humanity, watered by the tears of prayer and penitence, would cause to germinate the finest flower of our civilization, the purest and noblest, its stem the straightest ever to appear in our soil of France: Joan of Domrémy!

Saint Joan of Arc will complete, for us, the definition of Christendom. It is not only cathedral, crusade, and chivalry; it is not only art, philosophy, culture, and men’s works rising like a sacred liturgy to the throne of God. It is also, and especially, the proclamation of the kingship of Jesus Christ over souls, institutions, and mores. It is the temporal order of intelligence and love, submitted to the most high and most holy kingship of the Lord Jesus.

It is the affirmation that the sovereigns of the earth are but the viceroys of the King of Heaven.
"The kingdom is not yours, said Joan of Arc to the dauphin, it is my Lord’s"—"And who is your Lord?", Joan is asked.—"The King of Heaven, replies the young girl, and He entrusts it to you, in order that you govern in his name."

What a broadening of our perspective! What a grand vision of the dignity of the temporal order! In one striking phrase, the shepherd girl from Domrémy gives us God’s design for the internal rule of nations.

For the nations,--and ours in particular,--are families loved by God, loved so much that Jesus Christ, having redeemed them and washed them in his Blood, wishes also to reign over them, with a kingship of perfect peace, justice, and love: a prefiguration of Heaven.

"France, are you faithful to the promises of your Baptism?", asked the Pope, five years ago.
Most Holy Virgin Mary, Our Lady of France, Our Lady of Chartres we ask you to heal the illness of this people, to restore its childlike purity, its filial honor. We ask you to renew its farming vocation, its peasant vocation, its large families lovingly and respectfully tending the bounteous land. This land which, over the centuries, has been able to produce honest bread and fruits of holiness.

Most Blessed Virgin, revive in this people its vocation of soldier, plowman, poet, hero, and saint. Restore for us the soul of France!

Deliver us from the ideological scourge constraining the soul of this people. The crucifix has been banned from schools, courts, and hospitals. They have arranged for man to be educated without God, to be judged without God, and to die without God!

It is therefore to a crusade and a reconquest that we are called. To reclaim our schools, our churches, and our families.

So that, one day, if God grants us this grace, we shall see coming towards us, at the conclusion of our efforts, the much loved and radiant features of she who was called by our ancestors, gentle France. Gentle France, image of the gentleness of God!

Would it be permitted us, this evening, before thousands of pilgrims, to speak of the gentleness of God?

It is a monk who speaks to you. And the gentleness of God, you know, rewards beyond all expectation, the battles that his servants wage for the Kingdom.

Paternal gentleness of God. Gentleness of the Crucified! O gentle Virgin Mary, wrap our embattled souls in your mantle of gentleness and peace.

We invite all of Christendom to meet here, next year, at Notre-Dame of Chartres, which, from this day forward, shall be our national Czestochowa.

May the Holy Spirit enlighten you, may the Most Blessed Virgin watch over you, and may the angelic Hosts protect you. Amen!

(Translated from the French by Peter Vere and Raymond Lévesque)

:: Pete Vere 10:46 PM [+] | ::

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

Civil War Breaks Out in the SSPX's French District

It seems that the unresolved chickens from Fr. Aulangier's expulsion have finally come home to roost. Two other popular SSPX moderates from their French District have just been expelled (the second one for agreeing to be the advocate of the first in any canonical proceedings) while a third priest has jumped in to defend the first two. Several other priests from the SSPX's French District are reportedly backing these three priests. While details are still somewhat murky, owing to the polemic between both sides rising to a level that is even intense for the French, I've blogged a number of reports over at Envoy Encore

:: Pete Vere 2:07 PM [+] | ::

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

A Response to Fr. Nitoglia

I will respond to Fr. Nitoglia's analysis on "subsistit". Now, this response is more polemic simply because it seems that Fr. Nitoglia has his gloves off when it comes to criticizing Vatican 2. Well, let me just say that I hope he's wearing a mouthpiece. Here is the text:

http://www.catholicrestoration.org/library/magisterium_v2.htm

He said:

This is the sole Church of Christ...This Church...subsists in the Catholic Church.

"Subsistit In"What does this formula actually mean? It was chosen deliberately in order to deny that the Church of Christ is only the Catholic Church. "Subsistit in" means, in fact, that the Church of Christ is found in the Catholic Church, but is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church.

I find this amazing. First, he does not quote the full text. Second, his explanation shows that he has no idea what subsistence means. First, let me quote Vatican 2:

"This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure."

What does "subsist" means? It simply means the existence of a substance or the nature is to possess a nature as a whole and not as part of another. It is to put being from the quidditative order to the existential order. So when Vatican 2 says "subsit", it means the Church is a concrete subject. It is also important to know what the nature of the Church is. Vatican speaks of the nature of the Church as "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" which is very Catholic. It then says "our Savior, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as the 'pillar and mainstay of the truth'." So here, it is speaking of an element which is part of the nature of the Church. It is speaking of Church authority, more specifically, Papal authority. Then it says "This Church". Now, when it says "this Church", it is still speaking about the Church which it described in the sentence before. So "this Church" has papal authority. Then, when it says "subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him". This means that the Church being described before is actualized in the successors of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him. Contrary to what Fr. Nitoglia said, subsistence does not simply mean to be "found". No where in the document does it say that it is found in any other church. This is impossible simply because no other church has papal authority. No other church has the successors of Peter.

He then said:

In fact Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis, teaches that the unique Church of Christ's (est) the Catholic Church.

Ah! But so what? Did Pius XII said that the Church of Christ is **only** the Catholic Church? I mean, it does not say that the Church of Christ is not the eastern orthodox church does it? So using "est" does not necessarily entail that the Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ. What matters is not whether "est" or "subsistit" is used, but how the Church's nature is defined. Both Pius XII and Lumen Gentium defines the nature of the Church as "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" which has the element of papal authority. For a church to be the Church of Christ, the element of papal authority must be there or else it cannot subsist in it for subsistence of the Church of Christ requires that all the elements in a nature. So a baptist community is not the Church of Christ because it does not have the elements of the sacrifice of the Mass and papal authority.

He said:

Lumen Gentium, on the other hand, changes the est to subsistit because it no longer identifies (est) the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church.

I would like to know which person believes that "subsistence" adds or substract anything of the nature of something. I mean, here is Fr. Nitoglia pretending to know some philosophy and then makes stupid statements about subsistence. If he actually knows philosophy, he will know that "subsistence adds nothing to the quidditative order in its own line."[1]

He said:

Lumen Gentium continues:
Nevertheless, many dements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible confines [that is, outside the Catholic Church]. Since these are gifts proper to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity. (no. 7) This means that elements of truth and holiness, proper to the Church of Christ, exist also outside the Roman Church, that is, they subsist in her, but do not coincide with her. These elements are found in the Catholic Church as they are found in sects, as they are found in every man united to Christ by the very fact of the Incarnation!

Of course elements of truth and holiness exist outside the Church. Baptism is valid even if it is outside the Church is it not? So that's one element of truth and holiness. What about the doctrine that Jesus is both God and man? I know many Protestants who believe that. Is that not an element of truth? Yes it is and it is found both in the Church and outside of her. He says above that "elements of truth and holiness...exist also outside the Roman Church, that is, they subsist in her". Now, this is just plain stupid. He is playing word games. It may be that elements may subsist in other sects, but the Church of Christ cannot subsist in any other. For example, let us take the element of baptism. Baptism as a whole has a nature. Now, this nature can be actualized in a Protestant sect. No problem there. But what about the Church of Christ? The Church of Christ has many elements. It cannot subsist anywhere but the Catholic Church, governed by the successors of Peter.

Also, he fails to read Dominus Iesus which says:


The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. “The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence' of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power” by Father Leonardo Boff: AAS 77 [1985], 756-762). (footnote 56)

He goes on:

Lumen Gentium itself in paragraph 9 explains yet more clearly the meaning of "subsistit" when it affirms: "All those, who in faith look towards Jesus...God has gathered together and established as the Church..."

Let us actually quote the full text:

Israel according to the flesh, which wandered as an exile in the desert, was already called the Church of God.(96) So likewise the new Israel which while living in this present age goes in search of a future and abiding city (97) is called the Church of Christ.(98) For He has bought it for Himself with His blood,(99) has filled it with His Spirit and provided it with those means which befit it as a visible and social union. God gathered together as one all those who in faith look upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and established them as the Church that for each and all it may be the visible sacrament of this saving unity. (1*) While it transcends all limits of time and confines of race, the Church is destined to extend to all regions of the earth and so enters into the history of mankind. Moving forward through trial and tribulation, the Church is strengthened by the power of God's grace, which was promised to her by the Lord, so that in the weakness of the flesh she may not waver from perfect fidelity, but remain a bride worthy of her Lord, and moved by the Holy Spirit may never cease to renew herself, until through the Cross she arrives at the light which knows no setting. (Lumen Gentium 9)

Now, as you can see, the sentence he is partially quoting has a footnote at the end. What does the footnote say? It says:

Cfr. S. Cyprianus, Epist. 69, 6: PL 3, 1142 B; Hartel 3 B, p. 754: inseparabile unitatis sacramentum ..

So we can see that the foundation of that sentence was St. Cyprian. Also, we need to know the context. The context is that God chose His people in history. First, He chose the Jews, who were then called the "People of God". Then, Christ formed His own Church which consists of both Jews and Gentiles, and this is called the New People of God, the Church of Christ. Now let's take a look at the statement:

"God gathered together as one all those who in faith look upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and established them as the Church..."

Can anyone say this is not true? Who are the people of God? Who are the members of the Church? Are not Catholics "all those who in faith look upon Jesus"? Were not the Apostles, Mary, and others look upon Jesus? How exactly did the Church come about? Was it not because they looked upon Jesus? And did not God gather them together to form what we know call Church? Fr. Notiglia did not see this simple fact because he was too busy trying to nail Lumen Gentium and had a misunderstanding of what subsistit mean.

He says:

In order to belong to the body of the Church founded by Christ, it is no longer necessary (as at one time, before the Council) to be baptized with water, to have supernatural faith, to submit to the legitimate pastors and particularly to the Roman Pontiff, and not to be excommunicated or schismatic, but rather only to "look with faith towards Jesus."

Baptism *is* necessary, whether it be water, blood, or desire. Now, if one has faith, it is possible that he belongs to the Church in some way. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote:

"Mystical graces improperly so called or minor mystical graces are not only possible outside the visible Church, but they can occur rather frequently in the holiest of souls in the state of grace" He then quotes Fr. Lemonnyer, "If they are born candidates for the minor mystical graces, they are unknown Catholics, members of one spiritual Church.." (Our Savior and His Love for Us, 379)

He then said:

That the Church of Rome is hierarchical is de fide definita by the Council of Trent, session 23, canon 6: "If anyone should say that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine institution, let him be anathema." (Denz. 966). The same truth is taken up again by Vatican I, session 4, canon 3 (Denz. 1828, and Code of Canon Law, can. 108 para 1 and can. 329 para 1).
That the Church of Rome is monarchical is also de fide definita. The Council of Florence defined that the pope is the successor of Peter:
We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter..." (Denz. 694)That Peter has a true primacy of jurisdiction is de fide definita by Vatican I, session 4, canon 1 (Denz. 1823) and session 4, canon 2 (Denz. 1825):
If anyone says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himsdf, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.
Therefore the assertion of Lumen Gentium, taken in its complete meaning as given to us by all of the "conciliar magisterium," is heretical.

Whoa, "Therefore the assertion of Lumen Gentium...is heretical". First, it's funny how he quotes Vatican 1 and not see how Vatican 2 reflects that. Now, let me quote Lumen Gentium again:

"But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element."

Wait a minute, doesn't that statement speak of a "hierarchical organ"? And doesn't it say that it is both visible and invisible? But wait, there's more. I already quoted it, but let me quote it again:

"This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him..."

Now, is there a contradiction between Vatican 2 and Vatican 1? Not persuaded yet? Let me quote another one:

This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. (no. 18)

How about another one:

In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. (no. 22)

Finally, let me quote another one:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

Fr. Notiglio wanted to reiterate the authority of the heirarchy, especially the Pope. Now, here is a text which speaks of the authority of the Pope which was not taught by Vatican 1. Will he reject this? If so, why? He was complaining how Vatican 2 did not teach the visible presence of the Church and how in some way neglected Church authority. What basis will he now reject Lumen Gentium 25? He wants to defend and defend and defend and defend the office of the Papacy. It's one thing to defend the office of the papacy and it is another to obey the one who holds that office. To obey the one sitting on the Chair of Peter requires humility and sacrifice. You may be great in defending and holding on to the truth of the Papacy, but it takes a humble heart to obey him whom Peter speaks through. Defending the papacy is meaningless without humility of the intellect and will.

Finally, he says:

"Outside the Catholic Church Are Some Elements of Truth and Sanctification"To assert this is to blaspheme and to deny the Catholic Faith.

He then assert how the Protestants and Eastern Orthodox lack essential sanctity, passive sanctity, and active sanctity. Then he says, "Therefore outside of the Roman Church, there are not principles of truth or sanctity." That doesn't even follow. For the sake of the argument, let's say that they do lack those qualities. But just because they lack those elements it doesn't mean they don't have any elements of the Church. Some Protestants who believe in baptismal regeneration have valid baptisms. That's one element. And again, the existence of God, Christ as the Messiah, Christ as God and Man, the Virgin Birth, etc. Those are elements of truth.

For those who believe this response was too tough or that I should not have used some of the words I used, you may be right and in some point in the future, I may regret them. I try hard not to respond the way I did on this post, especially to a priest. Fr. Nitoglia is a priest and God works through him especially during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If I see him, I will give respect and take his hand and put it to my forehead (how Filipinos show respect for the elderly or those who is in greater authority). However, for Fr. Nitoglia to use the words "heretical" and "blaspheme" to Lumen Gentium and to any other post-Vatican 2 documents is an attack on the Church. We are in a crisis now. We do not need anymore attacks. We had enough from the liberals and anti-Catholic Protestants or Eastern Orthodox. We do not need it from Catholics who pretend they are obedient to the Pope. What we need today is closeness to the Eucharist and obedience to the Pope. We need good priests. We do not need anymore bad ones. I pray that Fr. Nitoglia will listen to Christ on the real meaning of "You are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."



[1] The Degrees of Knowledge by Jacques Maritain, 4th ed., trans. Gerald B. Phelan , Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995, pg. 457

:: Ap 1:58 PM [+] | ::

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

Response to Guimaraes's Article

Guimaraes has written article which can be found here:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/d100htRatzingerFeminism.htm

I will try to respond to some of the things he said.

He said:

In its general lines, the document is clearly personalist, that is, a man or woman would not be able to fulfill himself or herself unless they share their own beings with one another. Only this sharing of two individuals would characterize the “person.” This is an implicit denial of the Thomistic notion of the individual as the first cell of Philosophy, and each one’s search for an Absolute to achieve moral union with God.

The statement above is inaccurate. A personalist approach would be the following:The person is not an object, but a subject; an "I" not an "it". One of our desires as a person is "to know thyself". But we cannot know ourselves simply in a conceptual manner. This is because our intellect knows things as an object. Since we are not an object, but a subject, we cannot know ourselves by simply "thinking". How are we to know ourselves? By loving or giving ourselves for another. As Thomas Aquinas says, "In like manner when a man loves another with the love of friendship, he wills good to him, just as he wills good to himself: wherefore he apprehends him as his other self, in so far, to wit, as he wills good to him as to himself. Hence a friend is called a man's "other self" (Ethic. ix, 4), andsays (Confess. iv, 6), "Well did one say to his friend: Thou half of my soul." (ST I-II, q. 28, a. 1)". How is it that when a person loves another, he can know himself? As Aquinas said, because a friend is the "other self". The more we give ourselves to another the more we learn ourselves. This is because "Love...is capable of reflecting on itself, because it is a spontaneous movement of the lover towards the beloved, wherefore from the moment a man loves, he loves himself to love" (ST II-II, q. 25, a. 1) and the lover is said to be in the beloved according to apprehension" (ST I-II, q. 28, a. 2). So if the lover is in the beloved, then he, in some way, when he loves, loves himself and will learn about himself (knowledge is the cause of love).

Now, getting back to the document, what the document is saying is that a human being isn't simply an individual, but a person, a being who has the capability to give himself. And a person must essentially be in communion with another simply because God is a communion of Persons. So God created man not simply to be alone, but to be in communion with Himself and his wife.

He continues:


Along with this erroneous philosophical approach, the document also presents a progressivist interpretation of creation and the Bible: Adam and Man in Genesis would not refer to an individual of the masculine sex, but to the genre “articulated in the male-female relationship” (n. 5).

First, as I have shown, it is not an erroneous philosophical approach. It is simply applying traditional teaching or theology such as thomism and putting it in a personalistic language. Second, I suggest readers to read any of Dietrich von Hildebrand's writings on marriage and see if they do not find the same concepts written in the document. Third, let me quote what Guimaraes didn't quote in full:

"The first biblical texts to examine are the first three chapters of Genesis. Here we “enter into the setting of the biblical ‘beginning'. In it the revealed truth concerning the human person as ‘the image and likeness' of God constitutes the immutable basis of all Christian anthropology”.4The first text (Gn 1:1-2:4) describes the creative power of the Word of God, which makes distinctions in the original chaos. Light and darkness appear, sea and dry land, day and night, grass and trees, fish and birds, “each according to its kind”. An ordered world is born out of differences, carrying with them also the promise of relationships. Here we see a sketch of the framework in which the creation of the human race takes place: “God said ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'” (Gn 1:26). And then: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gn1:27). From the very beginning therefore, humanity is described as articulated in the male-female relationship. This is the humanity, sexually differentiated, which is explicitly declared “the image of God”.

Notice the verse the document quotes. It quotes scripture which says "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." The document then makes the following points 1) humanity is described as articulated in the male-female relationship and 2) humanity is sexually differentiated. Let's start with #2 first. No one will disagree with this. It simply means that humanity is divided into male and female and both are declared the image of God. Now to #1, Guimaraes may be right in saying that "Man" is not refer to a male individual. And the document is right in pointing this out. This is because if we read the scripture again, we see that "God created man" and "male and female he created them". "Man" in that passage means "human being" or "person". So the document is saying that humanity is made in the image of God, but it is sexually differentiated. And this is the key issue. Some people today (the liberals) are saying that there are no differences between man and woman. But the document is saying that there *is* a difference. The document is also saying that the male and female are made together and this is an argument against homosexual relationships as well. What the document is saying is that God made man and woman in unity and this unity resembles His image. Why shouldn't it? Isn't God a union after all?

Now, what about the "Adam" issue? The document says:

"The second creation account (Gn 2:4-25) confirms in a definitive way the importance of sexual difference. Formed by God and placed in the garden which he was to cultivate, the man, who is still referred to with the generic expression Adam, experienced a loneliness which the presence of the animals is not able to overcome. He needs a helpmate who will be his partner. The term here does not refer to an inferior, but to a vital helper.5 This is so that Adam's life does not sink into a sterile and, in the end, baneful encounter with himself. It is necessary that he enter into relationship with another being on his own level. Only the woman, created from the same “flesh” and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man. It is therefore above all on the ontological level that this takes place, in the sense that God's creation of woman characterizes humanity as a relational reality." (no. 6)

After looking at the first sentence, we see the document is emphasizing the importance of sexual difference. It then tells us that God formed man "who is still referred to with the generic expression Adam". But notice how no where does it say that Adam is not an individual. In fact it *must* be referring to an individual because it then says that Adam "experienced a loneliness". Now, how can a "genre" or genus experience loneliness? Only individuals can. Finally, we see that the document speaks of how the woman was created from the same flesh. Now, what flesh? Of course, the answer is the man, the individual.


One of the things which made me realize that Guimaraes reads too much into things and is not objective is when he said this statement:

Further, in this paragraph there is a real exaltation of eroticism as the image and likeness of God. Since there is no special emphasis stressing that the sexual act should take place only in matrimony, we have an implicit stimulus toward free love. Even if the sexual act were to be considered only inside matrimony, the strong emphasis given to love implicitly puts procreation in a secondary place, conflicting with Catholic doctrine which teaches procreation is the primary goal of the marriage."

Does anyone actually think that this document gives an "implicit stimulus toward free love"? I mean, this is the same Cardinal Ratzinger who wrote "Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty" and critiqued the modern culture's view on marriage and sex in The Ratzinger Report. No sane person would think that John Paul II or Ratzinger would ever teach anything what Guimaraes is talking about. I suggest anyone to read their writings on marriage and sexuality and see if Guimaraes is right or he is blinded because of his hatred of Rome. Now, what about his statement that the strong emphasis given to love puts procreation in a secondary place? First, let me tell the readers that this document isn't really about marriage, but anthropological. Second, everyone can remember Ratzinger's argument against homosexuality. It was: "Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race." Third, yes, the document emphasizes on unity and this is rightly so. Dietrich von Hildebrand said, "Love is the primary meaning of marriage just as the birth of new human beings is its primary end." Since this document is written from a personalist approach, it does not focus on primary ends, but meanings. Again, von Hildebrand said, "But this primary end is not the only meaning of the physical act. Subjectively speaking, it is not even its primary meaning.Its meaning is primarily the realization of the sublime communion of love in which, according to the words of our Savior, "They shall be two in one flesh."Woman, who according to Genesis was made from the flesh of man (a sign which even then indicated the closeness of their relation and designated her as the inseparable mate of man), is really united to man in this way in marriage."

To put it bluntly: Guimaraes doesn't know what he's talking about.

:: Ap 1:52 PM [+] | ::

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