:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Thursday, December 29, 2005 ::

Cyprian, Tertullian, Ecclesiology, and the Anglican Divines, Etc.
(Dialogue With Kevin Tierney)

This is a continuation of various threads in one of the comments boxes between Kevin and your humble weblog host on the subjects as noted above. (Time contraints prevents me from finding and linking to them all.) Kevin's words will be in black font and his quoting of previous statements of mine will be in blue font.

Ok going way off on a tangent here, but it's an interesting discussion of Church History:

"I agree. Perhaps what impeded Tertullian's ecclesiology from properly systemizing was his involvement with the Montanists...he was a brilliant writer in so many respects. His views on the Trinity were the most solid of the ante-Nicene Fathers and he anticipated what Chalcedon decreed on the two persons of Christ 250 years in advance. He was not however as prescient on ecclesiology from what I can tell and definitely missed the boat on the non-Christological aspects of Mariology. (Including denying her perpetual virginity.)"

I think we also have to remember that Tertullian was a layman and a rather successful lawyer if memory serves me correctly. (I cannot remember his profession.)

You are correct on both counts. St. Jerome claimed he was a priest but he seems to be the only one who made this claim. Furthermore, Jerome's Scriptural prowess is well known but he had a general carelessness about history which makes me instantaneously doubt anything he says on the matter that cannot be corroborated by at least one or two other witnesses.

As a layman ecclesiology would not really be his forte I think at that time.

Perhaps so. It also may have been as I noted the montanist influence...getting so tied up in involvement with them and their views that he could not see the ecclesiological forest for the trees.

Tertullian was arguably the most brilliant of the early Fathers but everyone has their limits and certain presuppositions that colour their approach to the world...in his case the idea that the montanists were the new prophets channelling the Holy Spirit.

Frankly (and I hate to say it but in the context of this subject matter I must), it looks too much like a kind of proto-charismatic movement to me. And that it went on its own way without concern for the unity of the Church should be something that our charismatic brethren take heed of.

And during that time in a lot of ways many other issues Tertullian was battling, primarily the Docetics and the Gnostic views of Marcion. Things were not very much focused on ecclesiology in that respect.

True. When the attack is upon the very person of Christ and his physical existence, ecclesiological issues are secondary. This makes sense since if there is doubt on Who and what one is supposed to believe in, the question of various affiliations with the root and matrix of Who and what is believed lack their key points of reference.

Now Cyprian, he was battling many times against the Novatians, and was also trying to boost his case against them, and since they were directly attacking the unity of the Church, Cyprian had to present a coherent ecclesiology of the Church.

Coherent in theory. In practice Cyprian was not so consistent as you well know.

The Gnostics and Docetics attacked that unity of course, but it was in a different fashion, as in it was not neccessarily a parallel hierarchy, whereas the Novatian one, though it never got off the ground too much, came awful close.

True.

Cyprian needed to demonstrate that what he was doing was not permissable, because it attacked the unity of the Church, and then he outlined just what that unity consisted of. Yet at the same time he had to demonstrate the importance of the local Bishop, but balance it with the primacy of the Roman pontiff.

This is where he was in theory sound but in practice he vacillated once he found himself on the opposing side of the Church of Rome on a matter pertaining to doctrine.

So while Cyprian was heavily influenced by Tertullian on other issues, in many ways he was sorta "breaking new ground" in the disputes over ecclesiology, since really Ignatius of Antioch was the only one who touched on the structure of the Church in-depth before him. (Irenaeus of Lyons touched on it briefly, but did it in a more Roman-centric matter, as it was the perfect polemic agianst the Gnostics "hidden knowledge."

Indeed. As I noted in a five part series on church models about two years ago:

The model of the Church as mystery (Lat. sacramentum) was probably first explicitly enunciated by St. Cyprian of Carthage in his treatise The Unity of the Church written in approximately 251 AD. It was slightly revised around 256 after his own run-in with the Bishop of Rome on a matter of doctrine[...] but that is another subject altogether. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 23, 2003)]

And again:

Most scholars believe that St. Cyprian's enthusiasm for the See of Peter as the root and matrix of the Catholic Church was diminished after he was on the receiving end of this same authority. Hence, in the redacted version, he emphasized more the episcopate than the papacy -though in both versions he recognized that all the bishops were what the Bishop of Rome was in episcopal dignity. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 23, 2003)]

Part of the reason the Gnostics were able to make early inroads was that there was no systematization as to how the concept of "church" was understood. For this reason, it varied some from locale to locale though there were some specific principles that were recognized such as the primacy of the Roman see (first explicitly set forth by Irenaeus of Lyons and implicitly attested to by Ignatius of Antioch) and the role of the bishop in his dioceses being analogous to that of the pope's towards the universal church. While one could find many implicit attestors to this prior to the early third century, it is St. Cyprian to whom the first explicit systemization is owed...and arguably his delineations are just as valid today as they were then.

"Studying the Anglican divines and then tangling with White and Svendsen & co. is like playing in the major leagues and then being sent to AA ball if you know what I mean "

You ain't kiddin. These men, whatever one may think of them, did at times give Rome a serious run for their money on history, and it took brilliant and gifted historians to prove them false. Men like White, Webster and Svendsen badly recycle their arguments, and attempt to present it in a pop format, not recognizing these men were serious scholars, not pop culture historians.

"And Firmilian was in some far away dioceses at that...one would have thought Cyprian would have found a fellow African bishop if he could have. It is akin to Lefebvre having to look all the way to Campos Brazil to find a bishop (de Castro Mayer) to agree with him in his disputations with Paul VI and John Paul II...history has an uncanny tendency to repeat itself "

My mentor said something of the same thing in regards to Firmillian. By simple stature alone, Cyrpian was a leader bishop. Probably the most well known African Father, he would not have had to seek help if this was some ordinary Bishop. The fact that Rome herself had sided against Cyprian, he was forced almost in desperation to look wherever he could. Though it's also interesting the comparison you make, in that De Mayer would not have been the big name he was had he not sided with Lefebrve. They were definetly not two of the strongest prelates in the Church on this one.

Well said. It would have bode better for Lefebvre to have found a bishop whom the curia in Rome would have been more apt to consider the opinion of...and preferably a cardinal at that. (Say one or more of the newly minted cardinals from the 1985 consistory such as Cardinal Stickler or Cardinal Biffi.) But hindsight is always 20-20 on these matters of course.

:: Shawn 4:38 PM [+] | ::

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

The Gifts Not Under the Tree

A merry Christ Mass to you all, and thanks for your prayers during this election campaign. It has been so intense that it will be nice to have a week off to spend with family. As I do every year, I wrote a Christ Mass essay.

This year's essay is a tribute to a Catholic gentleman named Raymond. It borrows its title from an old New Covenant article called The Gifts Not Under the Tree.

:: Pete Vere 5:28 AM [+] | ::

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

The Organic Development of the Sacred Liturgy

I've been musing over this issue for the past couple weeks as I prepare to launch into my commentary of Eucharistics Prayer II at my own blog Sancta Liturgia. I must confess upfront that it was far easier reading the plethora of commentary on liturgical forms before the reform of H.H. Pope Paul VI of blessed memory. Really all that it entailed was selecting what I thought to be the most germane and choice quotes and compiling them into coherent articles (at least so I hope). I'm currently scrubbing the texts of the Clementine Vulgate (the New Vulgate hadn't yet been promulgated when the reform of the liturgy was in process), Early Church Fathers, various anaphora, Eastern liturgies, the Sacramentaries of Pope Leo and Gelasius, and of course the former missal for phrases, quotes, context. It's exhausting but enlightening work. I'm surprised on two fronts: first that upon a surface comparison with the prayers of the current missal with the former missal the differences seem so stark and second, that there is a deeper level to these modifications and reforms than I have been led to believe from the opinions of others. In any case, I neither have all of the texts nor all of the commentaries I would like to actually engage in a thorough and scholarly exposition of some prayers of the new missal. The end product will not be on par with that of Card. Bona, Josef Jungmann, Adrian Fortesque, Dom Cabrol or any of the other household liturgical names. For that I deeply apologize in advance. Still one must do what they can with what they have.

Cardinal Ratzinger, before his elevation to the Chair of Peter, has called the reform of the liturgy a banal on-the-spot fabrication that deviates from the organic development that has gone before it. Abbot Boniface Luykx has plainly said that what the liturgical renewal movement wanted they didn't get. I have read in so many places by so many people that the reformed liturgy simply is not an organic development that I couldn't possibly list them all in a single article. Nevertheless, it's important to realize that the liturgy of the Catholic Church has never been semper idem in any place or at any time. The mere existence of a plurality of rite long before Vatican II ought to attest to this but it seems that the old fable persists none the less. Even the Roman Rite so revered and loved by traditionalists of different stripes (as also myself) has gone through vast changes from the historical perspective.

What is it then that consitutes organic development? I find myself at a loss to answer this question. Was it organic the first time in Paris when the host and chalice were lifted above the priests head for adoration at the consecration? Was it organic when parishes and cathedrals stopped being built with reference to an East-West axis (the apse preferrably orientated to the East)? Was it organic when the Gloria was wholesale introduced into the liturgy? Or how about when the Kyrie was also not only imported to the Roman liturgy but altered in the process? Are these not, at least in their genesis, but perfect examples of the inorganic development of the form of the liturgy? I'm not sure that I can answer an unqualified "Yes" or "No" to these questions. There must be a method surely for testing such alterations against the lex orandi and lex credendi of the universal Church. Is it mere subjectivity or is there not an objective method to discover here. I have the inkling that the answer resides in what Fr. Alexander Schmemann calls liturgical theology as differentiated from the theology of the liturgy. I think Vatican II in Sacrosanctum Concilium gives us the locus theologicus for a real understanding of the liturgy in its forms and its essence: the sacred liturgy is the source and the summit of Christian life. This sounds quite spectacularly as that which Pope Callistus enlisted in the fight against Nestorianism as the lex orandi est lex credendi. Our liturgical life is not simply that which is properly called liturgy. The liturgical life of a Christian precedes the liturgy and flows from it. It is both a participation in the heavenly Jerusalem and a work carried out during our earthly pilgrimage.

We all know these things, both traditionalists and non-traditionalists. Even if we are not fervent for the same forms, we are fervent for many of the same ideals and certainly for the same faith. Perhaps among the readership here we can offer one another some tentative ideas on this very topic.

Laudetur Iesus Christus!

:: Keith Kenney 12:43 AM [+] | ::

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

Revisiting the Latin Mass 1995 Cardinal Stickler Interview:

This is a revisiting of sorts (in hopefully a more compact fashion) of a subject I wrote on at Rerum Novarum and this weblog in September of 2003. And while it is advisable to review that thread before reading this one, strictly speaking it is not necessary to do so. The aim of this thread is narrower and to deal with what many perceive to be a contradiction in some of Cardinal Stickler's statements in that article. The words of the person I am interacting with will be in black font and the article in full can be read HERE. But before I start this off, I want to make it clear (lest there be misunderstanding) that though this is on Kevin Tierney's new website, the material interacted below was not written by Kevin.{1} Having noted that, let us get on with it...

I wanted to touch on something posted to your [Kevin's] site commenting on the bit from His Eminence in the 1995 Latin Mass Magazine. Here is what is posted there (my comments interspersed):

In a previous post I cited the commission of cardinals mentioned by Alphons Maria Cardinal Stickler. I need to correct my arguments a bit before Kevin publishes a response. He and I were privately discussing the responses and through some questions demonstrated to me a need to clarify things.

From Latin Mass Magazine, Summer 1995, here is the interview in question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is necessary to notice that the privilege is given to the bishops, not the faithful. So a bishop can use the privilege or not.

I orginally said that the subject was Quo Primum which it was not directly.

I do not want to give the impression here that this commission was juridical in any way, simply that it does demonstrate at least one senior cardinal and eight others have opinions that the Tridentina Missal was not and cannot be forbidden.

I will get to this in a moment.

The logical step from here is what I was arguing. I in effect skipped that point. I provide it here.

If Pope Paul did not suppress the Tridentine Missal then it is not possible to argue that Missale Romanum somehow did prohibit the Tridentine Missal. At the most it could be said from this as I have argued, the privledges granted still exist even if the bull Quo Primum was derogated to allow the Novus Ordo Missae. Yet we have the CDW documents Kevin cites as proof Missale Romanum did abrogate Quo Primum and prohibit the use of the Tridentine Missal. So it must be that either this comission was not aware of the CDW documents or they did not think them authoritative. The lack of comment makes it impossible to assume either way.

I am presuming that because it mentions "Kevin" that it was Ian's argument being made here.{2} Either way, it ignores the fact that Quo Primum established a juridical framework granting all priests the right to use the Missal of Pius V which was canceled out by Missale Romanum. The latter action did not actively forbid the liturgical usage but it also did not positively allow for it either except in very limited circumstances. Just because something is not forbidden does not mean it is automatically allowed. There are a lot of things not expressly forbidden which are done in the celebration of the revised liturgy. That these gestures or statements are not expressly forbidden does not of course make them permissible. The same principle also applies to the celebration of the older rite. The promulgation of the revised missal by apostolic constitution revoked the law in which the older liturgy was sanctioned{3} which thus affected a kind of passive prohibition by logical extension. Now is not the time to go into the active and passive principles in ethics and theology but briefly: they are akin to material and formal elements when ascertaining heresy, schism, and apostasy insuchwise that active prohibition would involve a formal element whereas passive prohibition would be purely material in nature.

That all nine agreed that no bishop may forbid a priest in good standing from using the Tridentine Missal also seems to indicate that there is a privledge granted to priests (which would indicate Pope Paul VI did not abrogate these privledges granted in Quo Primum) or that the Tridentine Missal enjoys the status of immemorial custom (which would mean the Pope Paul VI did not abrogate the custom in Missale Romanum).

I think this agrees with my argument from before. I felt it was necessary to correct myself.

Again, the question dealt with a passive negative prohibition. In other words, did Paul VI actively forbid the usage of the older liturgical rite with Missale Romanum??? The answer is no, he did not. However, he did replace the previous law with one giving the same right previously given with the older liturgical form to the revised liturgy. There was in other words a functional replacement of one liturgical law with another...probably an obrogation but possibly an abrogation. I favour the former myself{4} but I am not a canonist and there are eminent canonists who have argued for abrogation. Either way, the functional result is the same and there was (other than the 1984 Indult) no legal standing for the older liturgy in the church after 1970. Obviously with 1988's motu proprio this changed to some extent but even that wider application did not allow for celebrations apart from communion with the local ordinaries...a point made obvious by John Paul II's exhortation of generous cooperation on the part of the local ordinaries in facilitating a means of celebrating the older rite in his communion (via the motu proprio).

There seems to be a problem with the text here, though. I don't have the original article in hand, and I am using the text given to me.

I presume that Ian got the text from Kevin who got it from me at some point...

The Cardinal seems to contradict himself. The comission says that no bishop may forbid a priest from using the Tridentine Missal, yet he seems to indicate that it is possible for a bishop to forbit it. I do not know what to make of this seeming contradiction here, but I present it for your consideration. It would seem important to note that I know of no bishop who has explicitly forbidden the use of the Tridentine Missal in his diocese.

No bishop has to explicitly (or if you will, actively) forbid the usage of the Tridentine Missal in the dioceses for it to not be allowed. Liturgical rubrics and laws tell us what to do not what we are not to do. What Cardinal Stickler relates is that there were some cardinals who (because of no active prohibition of the older missal by Paul VI){5} favoured Pope John Paul II signing a juridical decree making manifest to all priests the right to use the older missal. This is what His Eminence meant when he said "informed of this argument, I think, the Pope abstained from signing this permission." If Pope John Paul II had signed such a decree (or a "permission" if you will establishing what is sometimes called a "privilege" for all the clergy) as those cardinals were in favour of him doing, then the matter would not be one that the local ordinaries could decide on as they could under the structure of the 1984 Indult and still can under the 1988 Ecclesia Dei motu proprio. With the kind of privilege the cardinals favoured, the bishops could not forbid celebration of the older rite in their dioceses but without it they can. In short, there is no contradiction at all in His Eminence's words from the Latin Mass 1995 article whatsoever.

Notes:

{1} For those who are interested, I have dealt with the Quo Primum subject in past essays and blog threads though I do not have time to track them down at the present time. Nonetheless, Kevin's responses to Ian at his site are well done and worth your time to read if this is a subject that interests you.

{2} I received an email confirmation from Kevin that indeed this understanding was correct. Whether or not such a correspondence by private email constitutes an actual exercise of the authentic Tierney magisterium or is merely the view of Kevin as a private commentator is something that I leave for the debate of others if they so want to do so ;-)

{3} I explained this in some detail in a seven part dialogue on true and false "traditionalism" with Kevin which was blogged to Rerum Novarum in August of 2003 (see part VII). Though several dialogues with Kevin on various subjects have been posted to Rerum Novarum since that time (including some in early 2004 on church-state issues that I thought turned out quite well on both sides), the latter one was the first of its kind to be posted over there. If it reads a bit pointed in some spots, it was primarily because we had not been dialoguing long and initial suspicions had to be overcome to eventually establish what the French call rapport with one another.

{4} I use as my pretext for favouring obrogation as opposed to abrogation the very words of Pope Paul VI himself issued in a solemn consistorial allocution to the college of cardinals a few months before Archbishop Lefebvre incurred his ad divinus suspension:

We must attach to this refusal to respect the liturgical norms laid down a special grievousness in that it introduces division where Christ's love has gathered us together in unity, namely, into the liturgy and the eucharistic sacrifice. For our part, in the name of tradition, we beseech all of our children to celebrate the rites of the restored liturgy with dignity and fervent devotion. Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 provided the celebration of Mass according to the former rite would be permitted, by faculty from the Ordinary, only for aged or sick priests offering the sacrifice without a congregation. The new Ordo Missae was promulgated in place of the old after careful deliberation and to carry out the directives of Vatican Council II. For a like reason, our predecessor St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, commanded the use of the Roman Missal revised by his authority.

In virtue of the supreme authority granted to us by Jesus Christ we command the same ready obedience to the other laws, relating to liturgy, discipline, pastoral activity, made in these last years to put into effect the decrees of the Council. Any course of action seeking to stand in the way of the conciliar decrees can under no consideration be regarded as a work done for the advantage of the Church, since it in fact does the Church serious harm. [Pope Paul VI: Excerpts from an Allocution to a Consistory on Loyalty to the Church and to the Council, 24, May 1976: AAS 68 (1976) 369-378; Not 12 (1976) 217-223]

Roma locuta est, causa finita est!!!

{5} This was also reasonably ascertainable based on what Pope Paul VI made provisions for as noted in the above consistorial address or (to quote some of my words in the aforementioned seven part dialogual thread):

Pope Paul VI gave Indults in 1970 to Cardinal Heenan and Archbishop Lefebvre for the celebration of the older litirgical forms - as well as a privilege to elderly priests to celebrate it in private[.] [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 3, 2003)]

The existence of such limited (but nonetheless real) exemptions from the normative law are a strong implicit argument against the idea of an active prohibition by Pope Paul VI of the older rite and (presumably) are what the cardinals had in mind when giving their opinions on the matter (contra an active prohibition) to Pope John Paul II in 1986.

:: Shawn 4:00 PM [+] | ::

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

Sedevacantists are less extreme than Lefebvrists, part 756839

I really ought to be on the campaign trail, however, Fr. Cekada just forwarded me his latest response to Chris Ferrara and the Remnant. It is called "Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism and Frakenchurch". It is a great of example of sedevacantism NOT being as extreme as Lefebvrism or other resistance positions.

While I vehemently disagree with Fr. Cekada's ultimate conclusion (namely, that there's no pope), he presents a number of strong premises to show that a valid Pope cannot promulgate a defective or invalid liturgical rite. Thus the future of the traditionalist movement will be a debate between Ecclesia Dei trads and sedevacantists/privationists.

:: Pete Vere 5:15 AM [+] | ::

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

Break From Blogging and Canon Law Course

Even our prime minister has admitted that Canada's government will likely fall within the next month, if not weeks. I've been asked to take on some pretty heavy local responsibilities in this election. This comes as I am putting the final polish on lectures for a distance education course on canon law that Catholic Distance University invited me to write (and for those who are interested, teach this January -- there are still some open spots, but you need to sign up by December 1st).

Therefore, I would ask you to please spare any prayers you can send Canada's way. Additionally, this also means a leave from blogging as well as day-to-day private emails over the next couple of months. Thanks for your understanding.

:: Pete Vere 6:45 AM [+] | ::

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

Open Forum:

As I have done in months past, this is a continuation of the open forum idea where people can talk about whatever they want and have a bit of a free-for-all without as much concern for being congruent to the post they comment on. The only real rules are the usual ones for conduct (including avoiding name calling) and avoiding posting spam (do not even think about it) or lengthy tracts from others. Other than that, have at it!!!

:: Shawn 6:03 PM [+] | ::

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

Surprised by EWTN

For all those who wonder just how geeky I really am (name one other northerner who would set up his indoor firing range next to his computer so that he can target practice while writing articles about canon law), please check out EWTN Bookmark this week.  Doug Keck and and I will be discussing Surprised by Canon Law.

:: Pete Vere 1:47 PM [+] | ::

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

Is Gerry a Sedevacantist?
The Dimond Brothers Respond

As most of you know, the Dimond brothers now claim that Gerry Matatics is a sedevacantist. Not convinced by their claim, I fired off the following email to them yesterday:

Dear Brothers Peter and Michael,

How can you conclude, based on his initial email to you, that "there is no doubt that Gerry is a sedevacantist?" After all, most sedeprivationists would also affirm article #4 in Mr. Matatics' initial email to you. Therefore, I suggest you ask Mr. Matatics the following questions -- each of which can be easily answered "yes" or "no":

1) Are you a sedevacantist?
2) Are you a sedeprivationaist?
3) Is Benedict XVI a MATERIAL pope?

Pax Christi,
Peter Vere

I just received the following response from Br. Peter Dimond:

Peter:

See below an e-mail from Gerry to us in which he put himself with the
sedevacantists: "...Ferrara is attacking us in that periodical as well."

There is no doubt that he is a sedevacantist.

By the way, what do you think of the fact that your "Pope" says that
Protestantism is not heresy?

-Bro. Peter Dimond

Dear Brothers:

Please expand your "Response to the Attack on Sedevacantism in The Fatima Crusader and Catholic Family News" by appending a point-by-point rebuttal of Chris Ferrara's latest installment in the October 15 issue of The Remnant.

(You might wish to consider slightly re-titling your "Response" to include "and The Remnant" in your title, since Ferrara is attacking us in that periodical as well.)

Thanks.

God bless,
Gerry Matatics

Here's the reply I just fired off to the brothers:

This doesn't prove anything because:

1) Ferrara, like most Americans, mistakenly classifies sedeprivationism
under sedevacantism when in fact it is its own distinct theory. (Thus by
"us" Gerry could be saying "sedevacantists and sedeprivationist")

2) Similarly, the possibility of Siri-Vacantism is not eliminated either.

Pax Christi,
Pete Vere

:: Pete Vere 11:42 AM [+] | ::

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

An Open Letter to Mr. Gerry Wells in Defense of Gerry Matatics

Geesh, today must be indy chapel day. All my most interesting email is coming from readers who attend so-called independent chapels. For those who were wondering where to find a copy of what was probably the most well-known letter written in defense of Gerry Matatics, one of my indy chapel readers found it. Here's a couple of the more interesting quotations:

Gerry told me that Keating's accusations of "Feeneyism," schism and heresy were utterly false and had nearly ruined his apostolate, causing him to lose numerous speaking engagements around the country as reflected in cancellation letters citing Keating's statements in This Rock and The Wanderer.

[snip]

We discussed Gerry's views on various matters of the Faith, and I found them to be nothing more or less than the views of a typical "traditionalist" Catholic in full communion with Rome, exercising his right under John Paul II's 1988 apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei (not to mention the immemorial custom of the Church) to abstain from the new liturgy, while not denying its essential validity as a rite of Mass. In this regard, Gerry is no different from the priests of the papally-chartered Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, at whose seminary he teaches Sacred Scripture, and innumerable other orthodox Catholics who feel that they cannot worship in peace in the new rite.

Anyway, you can read the full article here.

:: Pete Vere 5:29 PM [+] | ::

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

Siri-Vacantism?

Okay, I cannot believe that I didn't think of this one. If what is said in the following email checks out, then I may in fact owe Sungenis and Keating an apology:

cher dr. vere,

i attend an indy chapel in california with sedevacantist leanings. we sometimes see m. matatics here. i assure you he is no sedeprivationist. i think he supports the siri thesis.

Can anyone confirm this?

:: Pete Vere 3:40 PM [+] | ::

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

Fr. Feeney was too Liberal!
(Matatics Reportedly Clarifies His Clarification of His Clarification)

Okay, this is why I much prefer disagreeing with Sungenis. The language may be brutal between us at times, however, at least I know what the disagreement is about. Can anyone decipher what is being said in this latest reported email to the Dimond brothers?

Anyway, here are some of the more interesting quotations attributed to Gerry:

In any case, I said absolutely nothing in my October 29 e-mail, and have done absolutely nothing anywhere else, to distance myself from you or your position in any way… I did state in that e-mail that I am not a "Feeneyite," which is perfectly true, but I have ALWAYS said that for years now, because:

1) I do not in fact derive my belief in the absolute necessity of water baptism from Fr. Feeney (I have yet, after all these years, to read a single one of his works right through), but rather from the infallible pronouncements of the Church's Magisterium, and

2) I disagree (as far as I can see, based on the fragments of Fr. Feeney's stuff that I have read) with his belief that one can be justified without water baptism, with his acceptance of Paul VI as Pope, his acceptance of the essential validity of the New Mass, etc. etc.

But you can hardly, in fairness, construe this as a distancing of myself from you or your position since you yourself state the EXACT SAME THING about yourself as I did about myself! You emphatically state, on pp. 235-6 of your aforementioned book, that you are NOT a "Feeneyite," and you give the exact same abovementioned two reasons that you are not a Feeneyite that I give for not being one!

What's more, to ensure that no one could reasonably read my disclaimer (that I am not a "Feeneyite") as in any way implying that I DID take the more liberal view (that there are exceptions to the absolute necessity of water baptism) so prevalent among most traditionalists (including the SSPX, CMRI, the individuals such as John Daly and John Lane you previously mentioned, et al.), I (after stating that I was not a "Feeneyite") immediately and categorically asserted that I did NOT, on the other hand, hold to the more liberal view! Re-read my e-mail!...”

That being said, I must disagree with the Dimond brothers (and Keating, Sungenis, Pacheco, Woods, Akin, but not Sippo) when on the basis of Gerry's initial statement to them they conclude that "there is no doubt that Gerry is a sedevacantist." In short, most sedeprivationists also believe the following reportedly written by Matatics:

4. I believe, and publicly teach, that the Catholic Church has always infallibly taught that because heretics are not members of the Catholic Church, they cannot validly hold office in the Church, according to divine law, and that, should they seem to hold such offices, the believing Catholic must conclude that their election to and possession of such offices is null and void. This would include, not only the manifest heretics John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, but also the manifest heretic and present illicit and invalid occupant of the See of Peter, Benedict XVI, who has the further handicap (unlike his immediate four predecessors) of not even having been validly consecrated a bishop, which, in addition to all other considerations, makes it impossible for him to therefore function as Bishop of Rome.

:: Pete Vere 10:34 AM [+] | ::

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

Kevin Tierney Not Wanted at So-Called "Traditionalist" Sites Like AngelQueen
(And That Goes Double for So-Called "Moonbats" Like Shawn McElhinney)

I suppose the title might get one wondering: "Huh?" Yet this is exactly the attitude lately portrayed at the SSPX sympathetic forum AngelQueen, as Kevin Tierney found out. He's posted his commentary on these happenings at his blog. I thought I'd give it some blogtime here, since this kind of stuff is exactly what LEI is all about bringing to your attention.

It happened that a member of the forum questioned Kevin's stances for the very fact of their not being in line with the radical polemic that he was used to (hardhitting as that member put it). It seems any concession outside the pale of the polemic, especially the SSPX variety, makes one a non member of the so-called traditionalist community ( a fringe pseudo-traditionalist IOW). The responses to this inquiry from various members took the form of critcizing him for his friendship with Shawn (sorry, Shawn you're out before you even get in!) "who is against traditional Catholics." Nevermind that Shawn supports the Ecclesia Dei Indult and actually contributed to its implementation in his diocese, but I digress since this is about Kevin. They even took shots at his politics for being an "Americanist and supporter of Bush and the Iraq War" which is apparently sufficient to make any of his other opinions "worthless."

Kevin joined the fray to defend himself as well as to share his opinions. The one that finally got him banned? "Rome and Lefebrve, for whatever reason. Rome would not allow Anti-semitic holocaust denying moonbats like Richard Williamson the episcopate." The moderator quoted this from Kevin's posting and added: "Goodbye Iceman. Should've known it was just a matter of time before you exploded." Apparently, the moderator missed the calling of other Bishops 'moonbats' in the eight or so previous posts. The point? It really isn't about the use of the term 'moonbat,' it's about two things: criticizing a SSPX Bishop (who happens to grant them exclusive interviews) and holding a deviation of opinion from their point of view.

In the end, it means that if you're not SSPX, well, you're not really a 'traditionalist.' As one poster put it, "Semi-Traditionalism = FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, Society of St. John Vianney, "Indult" Priests, etc." You have to have just the right amount of vitriol to be a 'traditionalist' because it's not really about the Holy Mass. It's about a superficial understanding of what constitutes tradition. It's about being vehemently against an Ecumenical Council and making excuses for why one doesn't have to obey their superiors: whether they be pastors, bishops, or popes. (Obedience to the illicitly consecrated and subsequently excommunicated SSPX bishops notwithstanding, since they don't have any jurisdiction, our obedience is due to the local ordinary.)

Part of the problem, at least as it seems to me, is the label of traditionalist. While I grant that it is oftentimes a necessary one in conversation, certain distinctions ought to be made and kept in mind. Shawn's addressed this before so I see no need to go into any specifics here. It is sufficient to state that one may very well be a Catholic who seeks to promote a return to a more traditional liturgy, whether that be through the auspices of the Ecclesia Dei Indult, an Adoremus reform of the reform, or simply the mere implementation of current liturgical laws. From the other side of the aisle, there are those who aren't 'traditionalist Catholics' but rather simply 'traditionalists' who find themselves more or less in agreement with Catholicism, as far as its principles appear pleasing to them. And that's the rub, which is also what leads one poster at Angelqueen to state unequivocally, "This here "Ecclesia Dei type", pascendi, doesn't want Shawn or the Lidless Eye Inquisition "defending" my indult. As far as I'm concerned, these moonbats need to take a hike." That's my very point, if you don't take the party line then it's really just "a vain attempt to come off as defenders of traditional Catholicism."

Anyone that wants to take a look at serious authentic traditional liturgical discussions should visit The New Liturgical Movement and Friends of La Nef (which is just getting off the ground). If you have a sincere desire for truth and a love of the holy liturgy as the "source and summit" of Christian life or if you have an affection for any other liturgical form (Eastern or Western) than the one commonly called "Tridentine" just don't go to AngelQueen. They don't want you there anyway. Even if they're talking about you or analyzing your public writings. Kevin's certainly not wanted and though this has been happening of late to him (those who follow his blog will understand the reference) at least he's still got his integrity. I, for one, though disagreeing with him over particulars from time to time in the short span we've been emailing, enjoy sharp and witty banter with him. As we said in the Navy: "Bravo Zulu." (Well done)

:: Keith Kenney 2:30 PM [+] | ::

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

Open Forum:

As I have done in months past, this is a continuation of the open forum idea where people can talk about whatever they want and have a bit of a free-for-all without as much concern for being congruent to the post they comment on. The only real rules are the usual ones for conduct (including avoiding name calling) and avoiding posting spam (do not even think about it). Other than that, have at it!!!

:: Shawn 1:28 PM [+] | ::

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

On St. Robert Bellarmine and Papal Heresy:

It seems appropriate to post this as a thread in its own right so that the Matatics thread below can stay properly focused. Without further ado...

Apolonio: My Church history is admittedly weak, but...

I believe there were once three claimants to the Papacy. Different saints believed different Popes to be the true Pope. Some of them were wrong.

Correct. That situation is improperly referred to as a "schism" since most of those involved were seeking to follow the person they honestly thought was pope at a time when there was confusion as to who was pope. I say "most of those" because there were probably some who followed the claimant who was to their advantage to follow...particularly among some of the kings and other aristocrats. But on balance, most people did not do that.

Is this simplistic outline not a similar analogy--in at least a minimal sense.

Perhaps.

Obviously, a Pope can declare heresy--even publicly. It can even go in the Acta. He is can even be an obstinate heretic. There is no way to dispose him.

Um, it is actually not "obvious" BBC that either (i) a pope can declare heresy privately or publicly, (ii) such a declaration can go in the Acta, (iii) or that a pope can be an obstinate heretic. However, you are right that the pope cannot be deposed. I will now quote from a source that is virtually unknown in the English speaking world yet is supremely important for properly understanding the proper sense of the dogma of papal infallibility.

The Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser is the most authoritative commentary on the dogma's proper understanding because Bishop Gasser delivered it to the Fathers of the Council before they voted to approve Pastor Aeternus. In it, he explained the proper understanding that the dogma was to have in many parameters. This source was not only viewed as highly authoritative at the time but the Fathers of Vatican II had recourse to Bishop Gasser's relatio four times in the twenty-fifth part of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium when explaining the infallibility of the pope. I doubt I need to say any more about it than that to emphasize its importance so I will not. However, I am in citing it here not doing so on the subject of papal infallibility except indirectly. Instead, I want to focus on certain things that Bishop Gasser told the assembled Fathers about certain theories about popes falling into heresy and the views of St. Robert Bellarmine. The latter being so often seriously misrepresented by sedevacantists and others, such a clarification will hopefully assist readers of this weblog on how St. Bellarmine's view is properly understood. But without further ado...

Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection which has been made from this podium, viz. that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith. Indeed this is a very grave objection, and, when I heard it from the mouth of an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking. Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma, and is Bellarmine brought forth as the author of the fourth proposition of the Declaration of the French Clergy? For, if I may begin from the last point, what is the difference between the assertion which the reverend speaker attributes to Bellarmine, viz., "The Pontiff is not able to define anything infallibly without the other bishops and without the cooperation of the Church," and that well-known 4th article which says: "in questions of faith the judgment of the supreme Pontiff is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church accrues to it"? In reality there is hardly to be found any difference unless someone wants to call the disagreement of the bishops the cooperation of the Church so that a dogmatic definition would be infallible, even though the bishops dissent, but as long as they had been consulted beforehand. These things are said about the opinion of Bellarmine. 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. [Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen: Relatio on the Proper Sense of the Proposed Doctrine of Papal Infallibility (c. July 11, 1870) as quoted by I. Shawn McElhinney's A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XVI, Appendix D (c. 2000, rev. 2003)]

In other words, to claim that St. Bellarmine took such a view of the possibility of a pope falling into heresy as is so often imputed to him by sedevacantists and others is to do St. Bellarmine a great injustice. For truth be told, St. Bellarmine was so cautious and concerned about any imputation of heresy to a pope that he actually went on record denying that Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by Constantinople III!!! I do not know why he did this and certainly Pope Leo II did explain the proper sense of that condemnation as not meaning that Honorius himself was personally a heretic. It is also possible that St. Bellarmine has the latter interpretation in mind with his stated position but it is also possible that he was involved in the kinds of apologetical controversies that can at times overly simplify matters. Nonetheless, St. Bellarmine was so careful in how he approached the subject of even the possibility of a pope falling into heresy that he actually viewed the theory that it was not possible for a pope to be a pertinacious heretic to be "the most common and certain opinion." But that is not all.

Contrary to so-called "conventional wisdom", Vatican I did not place any limits on papal infallibility except that (i) the pope could not delegate his magisterium to another, (ii) it applied to matters of faith and morals, (iii) there had to be either explicitly or at least by implication the involvement of the universal church. And Vatican I defined as dogma that the pope was infallible when speaking as supreme pastor or what is called ex cathedra. The same Council recognized (according to Bishop Gasser) that infallibility extended to more than ex cathedra pronouncements; however that view was not one of dogma but instead of ecclesiastical faith.

My reason for bringing this up is that there is no magisterial teaching that there can actually be error by the pope in his magisterium; ergo the idea that the Acta (which constitutes official judgments of the Apostolic See of at least an implied universal character) can contain heresy does not have magisterial support. For that reason, one should tread very carefully in presuming that it can since not only do they have no support from the magisterium on the matter but the "most common and certain opinion" viz. the pope falling into heresy was (according to St. Bellarmine) that he cannot do so "not only...as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith. This view according to St. Bellarmine can be believed probably and piously and was considered by him to be "most common and certain".

Now I should note in closing that such a view by St. Bellarmine is not binding in that no one here is forced to believe it of course. However, I note it here for the record so that St. Bellarmine is properly represented and so that what some take to be "obvious" on these matters is properly viewed as anything but "obvious."

I'm not arguing the sede case, and I don't know what each sede holds. I'm sure they do not call themselves sedes--neither did Robert Bellarmine for speculating about it. I think he was a saint--and Catholic.
Bible Belt Catholic | Email | Homepage | 11.09.05 - 11:47 am | #

Yes indeed, he was a Catholic, a great saint, and a Doctor of the Church. However, at the same time, St. Bellarmine is also seriously misrepresented on this matter by sedevacantists as a rule. Hopefully what is noted above from the very authoritative relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser is of assistance in clarifying the matter for everyone reading this thread. And no, I do not take from your statements (nor should anyone else) that you were arguing the sede case BBC so worry not.

:: Shawn 1:23 PM [+] | ::

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

Maybe Gerry should get a job?

With regards to the Matatics situation, a couple people have raised the issue about his wife and children. Basically, if Gerry's fundraising letters are to be believed, Catholic apologetics is how he provides for his wife and family. So the question is... how will Gerry provide if he is pushed out because of this whole sede controversy?

Maybe he can get a job.

Look, I don't mind helping a man who is down on his luck, particularly if the individual is a fellow Catholic apologist. This happens from time to time. In fact, our family has just begun to recover from a rough financial patch owing to our recent move back north.

That being, can anyone remember a time when Gerry wasn't alleging he was going through a rough financial patch? This has been going on for well over a decade. Additionally, there's a difference between helping someone who is a little down on his luck and helping someone who is looking for donations so that rather than go out and get a job he can spend his time convincing people that Benedict XVI is not the Bishop of Rome.

While we all have a duty to defend the faith when it comes under attack, none of us has the right to make a living as a Catholic apologist. Rather, this is privilege, and with this privilege comes responsibility. One's first responsibility is to defend -- and not attack -- the faith. If one spends one's time criss-crossing the nation to reportedly give talks in which it is argued that the current pope is not a validly-consecrated bishop, then one is not acting as a Catholic apologist. Rather, one is acting as an apologist for sedevacantism or sedeprivationism.

So I'm sorry if others find this offensive, but if Gerry cannot support his wife and children doing what he's currently doing, then he needs to find a job like the rest of us. Providing for the welfare of his wife and children are responsibilities he undertook when he married Leslie. The time has come for him to take up these responsibilities and stop trying to pass them along to others.

:: Pete Vere 9:19 AM [+] | ::

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

Miscellaneous Musings:
(On the Types of People Who Annoy Me)

I have been doing some private reflecting in recent weeks upon different personality sorts and how some do not interact well with others. The whole subject resulted in me musing a bit on the types of people who personally annoy me. There are three in particular and I decided to write briefly on them for the benefit of readers of this weblog.

---To start with, I want to note probably the most annoying type of person is the one who is two-faced. These are the sorts who say one thing to a person to their face and another thing behind their back. I have come across this situation over the years{1} of people who act this way and it is usually because of a fear of being forthright on their part. But as the Gospels say that what is whispered in secret shall be proclaimed from the housetops (cf. Luke xii,3), there is really no value in failing to be forthright with someone if they are spoken of at all. Besides, they may well find out about it sooner than one would presume so honesty on these matters is the best policy.

---The second sort of person which annoys me is the one who when they have a problem with someone, they do not seek to address the problem to the person in question if this is at all reasonably feasible to do. Though less annoying than the two-faced, I nonetheless have a very low opinion of these sorts of people and with not a few of the self-styled "traditionalists", this is a common problem they have with me and my work.

If I had a thousand dollars for every time I have encountered a supposed "exposition" of my so-called "errors" and dispatched effortlessly with it, I could probably buy out most small businesses. That is not to say that I am free from error in each and every one of my statements of course{2} only that the "rumours of my supposed 'errors' are profoundly exaggerated" (cf. Shakespeare) and rarely have I had to break a sweat demonstrating it when I am so inclined to do so.

---The third sort of person I do not well tolerate is the one who fails to conform to the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition viz. how they approach controversial issues. This is a subject I have covered many times over the years (including at this very weblog) and do not intend to touch on here except to briefly reiterate it anew. This latter one is however ranked below the other two because it is usually the result of a deficient spiritual formation and not necessarily a character flaw as is commonly the case of the other two.

Now certainly I would be remiss in not noting that I have always made accommodations to varying degrees for dealing with such people -particularly those who are interested in incendiary subject matter of the sort I tend to write on not infrequently. For example, I have had email addresses on my web writings for years and on this and other weblogs since their founding. And on this site I even use comments boxes to better facilitate questions or challenges on issues. If it is a significant enough challenge, I may even take it up...though my days of taking on all comers viz. these issues long since passed away.{3} Usually I can point to something I have written previously which deals with the matter as there is really nothing under the sun which is new (cf. Ecc. i,10) with regards to these matters. However, in cases where previous sources are no longer accessible{4}, it is sometimes viewed as feasible to revisit them if time and the circumstances seems to warrant it.

Anyway, this is a sketch of some of what I have mused about in private in recent weeks and as I rarely muse in private what does not eventually become a public posting in some form or another, it seemed appropriate to post it here for your consideration.


Notes:

{1} And though I rarely if ever talk about it, I have pretty good resources and am usually familiar with either whom these sorts of people are or I find out about it before long.

{2} I am certainly not infallible and have made minor blunders at times. This is particularly the case when writing on the fly and relying on my memory alone for information but this is usually on very minor subject matter and more often than not happens in the comments boxes of posts. When notified of an actual error (rather than a perceived one based on a faulty interpretive paradigm of the one making the criticism), the rule is to correct the error to the extent it is made. (For example, in a weblog post if made in a weblog post, in the comments box of a post if made there, etc.)

{3} A recent example of the kinds of challenges I used to respond to a lot in years past is the one:

Responding to an Email Challenge on Issues Pertaining to "Traditionalism" Falsely-So-Called (circa October 26, 2005)

Others are in the archives of this weblog while some of the ones from years past are on the web in essay form.

{4} For example, old message board postings, material from my old computer harddrive (including about a thousand dialogues if not more) which were lost in a harddrive crash in mid 2002, etc.

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

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

Public Jury on Hold

It appears that the idea of approaching Gerry Matatics with a public jury (to help clarify his views) has been put on hold for the time being. New rumors and allegations are now coming to light, and the situation is just one big mess. What makes this set of allegations interesting is that they are not coming from Novus Ordo Catholics but from fellow traditionalists.

It appears that some traditionalists of the non-sede variety are upset because they donated money to Gerry's St. Jerome Study Center with the understanding that Gerry was not a sede (whether of the vacantist variety as Keating and Sungenis believe, or of the privationist variety as I believe.) They donated under the assumption that Gerry shared their recognition of John Paul II and Benedict XVI as pope and that this would be the prevelant view taught at the Center.

If Gerry was struggling with the sede position during this time, at least one person asked, why did he take donations from non-sedes? Why not wait until after he made up his mind and gone public before accepting donations? I should note that I am not the only person receiving these types of email; at least one other traditionalist author (with whom I have feuded quite openly in the past) mentioned (without identifying the reader) that he had received at least one similar complaint.

Anyway, some of these readers now want to know whether they can take any legal action against Gerry to get their money back. As far as the civil law is concerned, I do not know. I'm not a civil lawyer and thus I could not tell you what recourse you may have before the civil courts. This is the type of information you would need to get from a civil lawyer.

As far as canon law is concerned, the answer is "No" from what I can tell. There is such a thing in canon law as "intention of the donors". This is very important and it must always be honored. The problem is that Gerry reportedly attends the SSPX chapel in Pittston, PA and he also appears to reject the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI as well as that of Pope John Paul II. Thus he has placed himself outside of the scope of the Catholic Church's judicial system and I would be very surprised if he accepted a judgment that came from the Church's tribunals.

Therefore, while I believe Gerry has a moral obligation (based upon the implicit or virtual non-sede intention of the donor) to return the money to those who ask, there is no way within the canonical courts to pursue the matter. Of course, I suppose one could always just call Gerry up and ask for one's money back. But unless Gerry agrees to submit to the diocesan Tribunal or some other quasi-judicial body, any legal action would have to be pursued through the civil courts. And one should definitely consult a competent civil lawyer first.

:: Pete Vere 7:54 PM [+] | ::

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

On the Use of Labels:
(Dialogue With Kevin Tierney)

This post is taken from a thread which Kevin and I interacted on back in late September at the Envoy message board with some very minor tweaking made to it. My words will be in regular font except for my previous words in the thread which will be in blue. Kevin's previous words will be in darkgreen font and any previous words of his in additional italics if applicable. My sources will be in darkblue font.

The whole use of labels reminds me of the folllowing admonition by Pope Benedict XV of holy memory against those of his day and age who tried such things:

It is...Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24 (c. 1914)]

Furthermore, the idea that Tradition is based on theological positions, disciplines, liturgical observances, and devotionals is seriously askew. But that is a subject for another time perhaps...it suffices to call all Catholics "Catholic" and avoid these kinds of novel innovations which the popes have proscribed. Those who prefer the Tridentine liturgy can refer to themselves as "Catholics with a Tridentine preference" if they like as that does not presume arrogantly that one group is or is not "more or less Traditional" than another.

There, I have said my piece.

Rerum Novarum

A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'

The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard

Edited by - IShawnM on 09/21/2005 5:22:43 PM

My good friend Shawn protest too much. I can understand the worry about "this group being more catholic than the next" but provided such a spirit is avoided, such classifications are no different than people attaching themselves to particular charisms in the body of Christ.

I respectfully disagree...there are enough divisions without creating more. Besides, I have posited a papal proscription of that approach. If my friend Kevin wants to posit an example of the popes giving a different view on the matter subsequent to 1914, be my guest. However, I doubt he will find anything of the sort from the magisteriums of Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, or John Paul II. We already know that Benedict XVI twenty years ago referred to "so-called "traditionalism" in The Ratzinger Report; ergo he did not countenance such labeling:

It is impossible for a Catholic to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly the two previous councils. It is likewise impossible to decide in favour of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upheld the other councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called "traditionalism", also in its extreme forms…Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can only exist as an indivisible unity.[Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: "The Ratzinger Report" pg. 28 (c. 1985)]

My offer to Kevin to provide a papal counter to what I posted from Benedict XV on this kind of approach remains open of course.

I would more say what constitutes a traditionalist is the worldview they operate from more than anything else.

I do not see a distinction to be made between Catholics Kevin. Either someone is or they are not and if they are, then they are aligned with the Great Tradition whatever their devotions/practices/liturgical preferences/disciplines happen to be. As I have noted elsewhere:

[A]uthentic Traditionalism does not depend on what rite of Mass you attend, what devotional prayers you use, what theological positions you espouse, or what disciplines you follow. Authentic 'Traditionalism' is much more integral then that and it applies to a frame of mind and a certain attitude. It is not and cannot be found in externals - even those which may have the hallowed sanction of time. [A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part I (c. 2000, rev. 2003)]

That summarizes it adequately enough.

Though more often than not, those people with the devotions/practices/theological positions more often than not would coincide within a traditionalist worldview.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I know Ecclesia Dei sorts whom what you say applies to; however, there are others who are more questionable. Likewise, I know non-ED people who could be called authentically Traditional (in the proper sense of that term) and non-ED people who would not be. It is an integral thing but as I said, it involves a frame of mind and a certain attitude and external adornments are derivative at best to the equation. I am not aware of the popes disagreeing with me on this but you are welcome to dispute this.

(And no I do not think the SSPX/remnant addicted to wreckage crowd operates from within that worldview, but that is for another time.)

But they tend to have the same liturgical preferences, the same devotions, the same theological speculations, and the same disciplines as the ED crowd Kevin. What makes them unacceptable by your criteria??? By mine they do not manifest the correct integral frame of mind and attitude and I could posit countless examples to substantiate that theory. But if you admit that it requires what I claim is required, then I fail to see how we disagree on this matter. Which brings us back to my original comments on this thread but I digress...

Edited by - IShawnM on 09/22/2005 6:41:32 PM

Briefly in response to Kev...

I simply submit that you are misinterpreting that papal prouncment, since Benedict had in mind the integrists who state that because they belong to this particular flavor of Catholicism they are "more catholic than thou."

With not a few who call themselves "traditionalists", that is the intended interpretation. And they prove it in spades when they resort to the "neo" labeling which implies that the party so labeled is somehow not authentically Traditional.

If one group emphasizes a particular charism over another, one can classify it that way without stating they are less Catholic. As you well know (at least from my writings) I in no sense employ that, and I'm sure other who use those labels do not either, though many do.

The question remains how many use that expression who do not make the distinction that you do. I would argue that it is more than who do not; ergo for the sake of confusion, the moniker "traditionalist" should be scrapped as being more devisive than unitary.

"I do not see a distinction to be made between Catholics Kevin. Either someone is or they are not and if they are, then they are aligned with the Great Tradition whatever their devotions/practices/liturgical preferences/disciplines happen to be."

It depends on how one defines the term. For one who always likes to talk about the context in which one uses their terms, on this one point you sure do raise a lot of guff in blanket statements.

Actually, the term you are defending the use of is the blanket statement. I prefer (if you need a term of identification) the expression "Catholics of a Tridentine preference" or "Tridentine-inclined Catholics" or some equivalent. That correctly identifies the term and does not make the mistake of claiming that Tridentine-preferences are somehow "traditional" when in fact such a presumption ends up placing the value in the external adornments rather than the internal dispositions which is where authentic Traditionalism subsides.

"Perhaps, perhaps not. I know Ecclesia Dei sorts whom what you say applies to; however, there are others who are more questionable. Likewise, I know non-ED people who could be called authentically Traditional (in the proper sense of that term) and non-ED people who would not be. It is an integral thing but as I said, it involves a frame of mind and a certain attitude and external adornments are derivative at best to the equation. I am not aware of the popes disagreeing with me on this but you are welcome to dispute this."

Frame of mind and attitude, in other words, a worldview. :) Again, you protest too much.

I disagree because I do not tie the worldview to certain externals as you seem to do. For example, when you say that the SSPX are their ideas [are] certainly not traditional with the exception of their liturgy. I see nothing truely Traditional in their approach to the liturgy. Indeed, they are actually the antithesis of a truely Traditional frame of reference. And as time is short, I will reference the definition of Tradition given by my favourite academic orientalist Fr. Robert Taft SJ:

Tradition is the church's self-consciousness now of that which has been handed on to it not as an inert treasure, but as a dynamic principle of life. It is the church's contemporary reality understood genetically, in continuity with what produced it.

This is why Tradition is not found in ancient texts or monuments in its essential form -though the latter can of course bear witness to Tradition. And that is why true Tradition embraces a proper integral frame of mind and attitude as I noted before. A proper understanding of Tradition achieves a few things at once:

---It frees us from the tyranny of any one particular part of the past.

---It frees us from the tyranny of present day cliches.

Authentic and living Tradition is beholden to but never a prisoner of the past in other words. But with so many who call themselves "traditionalists", they essentially are prisoners of the past in a manner that is inauthentic: they tie themselves to old liturgies or prayers with the mistaken notion that these are in and of themselves what constitutes Tradition when instead they are a means or mediating point if you will. Nor for that matter are they the only mediating points but this response is long enough already so I will cut it short at that point.

:: Shawn 5:30 PM [+] | ::

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

Jury Duty

Looks like the idea of having Gerry present and defend his views before a public jury of peers has received some positive initial feedback. I've received enough initial interest to potentially fill every role on the proposed jury except sedevacantist rep. There's still some other details to be ironed out, but everyone seems to agree this is the best way to approach the issue of where Gerry stands.

UPDATE: For those who are wondering, Vin Lewis has agreed to moderate.

:: Pete Vere 10:35 AM [+] | ::

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

"Guess the People Who Said These Things" Dept.
(On the United Nations)

Of course by noting that the subject is the UN, I have already given quite a hint as to the timeframe of these quotes. Nonetheless, the readers are asked to guess who said each of the following statements. Without further ado...

Statement #1:

Who advocated in 1945 "an organ invested by common consent with supreme power to whose office it would pertain to smother in its germinal state any threat of isolated or collective aggression."

Statement #2:

Who in addressing the minister of San Salvador in 1947 said that no dedicated worker for world peace should renounce the use of the world forum of the United Nations "in order to prod the conscience of the world from so high and lofty a place."

Statement #3:

Who said in 1948 "The Catholic doctrine on the state and civil society has always been based on the principle that, in keeping with the will of God, the nations form together a community with a common aim and common duties."

Statement #4:

Who said to the World Federalists in 1951 "[y]our movement dedicates itself to realizing an effective political organization of the world. Nothing is more in conformity with the traditional doctrine of the Church."

Statement #5:

Who lamented in 1953 "[h]ow many...continue to shut themselves up within the narrow confines of a chauvanistic nationalism incompatible with the corageous effort to start a world community demanded by recent Popes."

Talk amongst yourselves :)

:: Shawn 5:57 PM [+] | ::

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

A Link of Possible Interest for Lidless Eye Readers:

Holy Souls Mass Registration List

:: Shawn 5:54 PM [+] | ::

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

Matatics Reportedly Not a Feeneyite Afterall

I don't think I'm breaking the letter or the spirit of the truce by pointing out that there are many issues where Sungenis and I have sharp differences. There's a simple reason for this. I know where Sungenis stands on issue A, B, or C and I disagree with his stand. Sometimes the disagreement is very public and extremely heated. But I know where he stands. Even when our relationship is at its most frosty, I can email Bob and ask, "Where do you stand on X?" Regardless of whether I think his answer is correct, I seldom find it ambiguous or unclear.

This is not the same with Matatics. For some reason, it seems that I never quite understand his answers. Even when I think I understood, I later find out that I missed something because Gerry mean't the exact opposite. Others -- from the most liberal Novus Ordoite to the most hardened sedevacantist -- have noted the same phenomenon. While some have accused Gerry of tailoring his message to what his audience wants to hear, I'm willing to give Gerry the benefit of the doubt since the man is clearly a genius and geniuses are often misunderstood.

Here's a good example: While not a Feeneyite myself, I find myself on reasonably good terms with most of them since I'm quite vocal as a canonist when it comes to defending the status of the majority as Catholics in good standing with the Church. From Gerry's various comments to various Feeneyites over the years -- including the most recent email to the Dimond Bros attributed to him (and which Bro. Peter Dimond told me in our phone conversation yesterday was one of several emails they received from Gerry as part of their regular correspondence) the most obvious interprepation to me (as well as Sungenis) is that Gerry is a Feeneyite.

It now appears that Sungenis and I (and several others as well) misunderstood Gerry. Here's an email reportedly circulating among Gerry Matatics' sedevacantist (but not, to my knowledge, his Feeneyite) readership. Although I have not been able to verify its authorship, I believe that it is probably authentic since it reads like many of Gerry's previous clarifications when I or someone else has misunderstood his position. My own comments follow below.

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

From: GMatatics@aol.com [mailto:GMatatics@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2005 9:56 AM
To: GMatatics@aol.com
Subject: Gerry Matatics to clarify his position on baptism of desire, etc.

Dear Concerned Friends:

After seeing an e-mail from me posted on another website (not my own), a few concerned friends wrote me to express their concern that, in their opinion, my position on baptism might not (some of you weren't sure) fully adhere to the Church's teaching on such aspects of the issue as the possibility of baptism of desire, baptism of blood, etc. I'm sending you this brief e-mail either because you are one of those who wrote to me directly, or you have discussed my position with me or others recently.

I deeply appreciate your concern. I humbly thank you for caring enough about Christ's Truth and about me to contact me (those of you who did). And I wish to assure you that I do accept the Church's full teaching on these matters.

I am not a "Feeneyite," as some of you may have thought (though none of you, I believe, actually put it quite that way).

Nor, on the other hand, do I hold to the current, liberal "watering down" (if you'll pardon the pun) of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that is current even among many "traditionalist" circles, a liberalization that Pius XII (in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis) rightly said "reduced the dogma to a meaningless formula."

Instead, I am simply a Catholic who accepts all the Church's perennial teaching on this much-misunderstood issue.

I will be posting a full, detailed statement on my own website (www.gerrymatatics.org) within the next few days (no later than All Saints Day, I hope), demonstrating that my position is the orthodox one, in full submission to all the teaching of the Church's Magisterium.

I will send you an e-mail with a link to the article once I have posted it.

Thank you again for your charitable concern. May God bless you.

In the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts,

Gerry Matatics, Founder & President
Biblical Foundations International
PO Box 569, Dunmore PA 18512 USA
phone (570) 969-1724 / fax (570) 969-1725
e-mail: gmatatics@aol.com
www.gerrymatatics.org

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

Since I don't want to assume bad faith or attribute impure motives to Gerry, I'm going to assume that Sungenis was mistaken in his following response to Matatics in which Sungenis interprets the content of Gerry's reported email as Gerry affirming that is a Feeneyite. Having honestly arrived at the same conclusion as Sungenis, I don't want to attribute bad faith or impure motives to him either. Yet Gerry clearly knows what he believes better than Sungenis or I, therefore I can only conclude that Bob and I were once again mistaken. And if recent correspondence and chatter on various Catholic and traditionalist webboards is any indication, there's a lot of people in the same situation as Bob and I.

As previously mentioned, even many traditionalists are now starting to accuse Gerry of bad faith -- claiming his message morphs to what he believes his audience wants to hear at any given time. If that were the case, however, why would Gerry, in his reported letter to the Dimond bros, state that he would debate the contents of his beliefs with anyone? Why would he encourage me to contact him and verify his position any time I hear rumors (although strangely we always see to get sidetracked into long conversations because Gerry is "very busy and cannot talk at the moment" whenever I attempt to do so)?

With this in mind, I think there's a way we can go about clearing up the whole Matatics situation. This would allow us to clarify each and every misunderstanding about Gerry's position on controversial issues while proving once and for all that Gerry does not tailor his message to his audience. Instead of a formal debate, I suggest that Gerry's critics use the format commonly used for doctoral defenses.

Let's bring together a respected thinker from among the Feeneyites, strict sedevacantists, SSPX adherents, and regular Joe traditionalists. I would suggest Doug Bersaw, Dr. Coomaswarmy, Dr. David Allen White, and Bob Sungenis respectively. Given that Gerry no longer appears to recognize Pope Benedict as a validly consecrated bishop, we really don't need a Novus Ordo conservative or indult trad present (although Karl Keating would be great in the former, and I would certainly enjoy the latter). We also need a moderator whose only job is to maintain order. Vin Lewis would be a good individual for this role.

Each individual would have the opportunity to cross-examine Gerry in ten-to-fifteen minute blocks. They would not be permitted to attack or cross-examine each other, just Gerry. We would have as many rounds as it takes us to clearly understand where Gerry stands on the issues, and we would be allowed to build upon or question Gerry's answers to previous individuals. The traditionalist public would also be invited to attend and submit questions to members of the jury. Finally, the whole thing could be taped.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the issue.

:: Pete Vere 4:02 AM [+] | ::

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

The Flag of Truce and Sungenis

Given everything that is going on with Matatics, and the fact Sungenis is in the best position to respond to it, I would like to propose a temporary LEI moratorium on attacking Sungenis. The situation is reportedly worse than it appears and to his credit Sungenis has taken the most solid lead in addressing it. Let's lay off Sungenis while he's addressing the Matatics situation and assist him through our prayers.

:: Pete Vere 7:02 PM [+] | ::

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

On Doctrinal Teaching, Theological Interpretation, and Other Nuances:
(Dialogue With Pete Vere, Matthew, Hibernius, Jim Scott, JDobbs, and the webmaster of Lidless Eye Inquisition)

The whole subject of Gerry Matatics, the Feeneyites, Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, etc., has gotten quite a conversation thread going. For the sake of greater exactness and also to avoid clogging with a long posting the haloscan boxes, I have decided to repost some of those threads here both to show the variegated ways the subject has been discussed and also to interact with some of them. For differentiation, I have used black font for Pete Vere's words, blue font and darkgreen as alternates for the others, and have designated who is being quoted by name to avoid (I hope) any confusion as to who said what. Nonetheless...


Hibernius:

I've said this in Mark Shea's combox and I'll say it here; Matatics' position is even more insane than common-or-garden sedevacantism. In fact it's self-refuting. Point 2 means that he regards belief in baptism of desire as a heresy - a belief which contradicts infallible teaching and which therefore CANNOT be held by any faithful Catholic even to be a legiimate theological opinion. Surely Baptism of Desire has been held to be a legitimate opinion by other Popes before John XXIII - indeed Pius XII condemned Fr. Feeney precisely for holding that all Catholics MUST hold the rigorist position on EENS, which is precisely the position advanced by Matatics & which must therefore mean that Matatics believes Pius XII forfeited the Papacy if he ever was pope in the first place.

Matatics' view must mean that there has not been a legitimate pope for CENTURIES (e.g. it has been pointed out on this blog that Pius IX explicitly stated belief in Baptism of desire). That sort of persistent error and centuries-long lapsation of the Papal Office is exactly what the concept of Papal Infallibility is meant to exclude; you cannot believe in papal Infallibility AT ALL and hold this position.

Another example of a self-refuting position is a gentleman called Redmond O'Hanlon who for years has written to the papers in Ireland arguing that the condemnation of Galileo constitutes an infallible Papal teaching of geocentrism, which all Catholics are bound to accept, and goes on to complain that the Popes have lacked the courage to uphold it for several centuries - a view which logically implies there is no such thing as papal infallibility, though O'Hanlon fails to see this. He writes for CHRISTIAN ORDER occasionally; I wonder did Sungenis pick it up from O'Hanlon or is there a common source?

Pete Vere:

Ben Yachov, I think you're right. For the record, the charges of Feeneyism don't bother me since the vast majority of Feeneyites have now reconciled with the Church and Rome allows them to continue holding to their more strict interpretation of EENS, BOB, BOD. So I consider this an internal Church controversy.

JDobbs:

Pete raises a good point. According to GM, Father Feeney was disciplined by th "last" legitimate Pope, Pius XII, and reconciled to a false Pope, Paul VI. Also, it was the Holy Office under Pius XII which condemned Bread of Life and Cardinal Ratzinger, who he would consider a mere priest, that judged that they can continue to hold a more strict interpretation. His point of view is untenable. But it beats contradicting the Idiots Dimond, I suppose.

Jim Scott:

Feeneyites are forbidden to openly contradict any teaching of the magestarium. Thus no of them can in fact deny Baptism by Desire & remain orthodox.

Thought some have attempted to reconcile their regorist interpretation of EENS(which would only count as saved formal members of the visible Church & formal catacumens) with the statements of Vatican II.

I don't think they can practically do this BUT their effort is legitimate since they are trying to submit to the authority of the Church instead of casting it aside.

Pete Vere:

James, the CDF (then under the authority of the Cardinal Prefect who now happens to be the Supreme Pontiff) has stated that those Feeneyites who reconcile are allowed to deny BOB and BOD. When I last spoke with the PCED concerning the Feeneyites, I was given the same opinion.

If this is good enough for (then) Cardinal Razinger (now) Pope Benedict XVI as well as the PCED, then it is good enough for me. I don't hold their position myself, however, I hold that they are Catholic and in the past I have had no qualms of conscience receiving Holy Communion in their chapels.

James, the CDF (then under the authority of the Cardinal Prefect who now happens to be the Supreme Pontiff) has stated that those Feeneyites who reconcile are allowed to deny BOB and BOD. When I last spoke with the PCED concerning the Feeneyites, I was given the same opinion.

Are you sure you are phrasing this right Pete??? I have heard of the magisterium allowing in instances of particular difficulty for a given group the option of suspending inner assent to a given teaching or so for pastoral reasons but that does not allow them to actually deny it in the external forum. They are either to affirm it or be silent on the matter. Or (and this is a possibility too), they can affirm it but do so in a very narrow scope if you will.

Anyway, if you could clarify a bit on the above point you made, it would be appreciated.

Matthew:

If this is good enough for (then) Cardinal Razinger (now) Pope Benedict XVI as well as the PCED, then it is good enough for me. I don't hold their position myself, however, I hold that they are Catholic and in the past I have had no qualms of conscience receiving Holy Communion in their chapels.

I don't quite get it Pete. Trent dogmatised baptism of desire. You have to admit that Bob Sungenis did a good job of showing this including the cross referencing to other parts of Trent for a fuller understanding. What might be happening is that they are allowed to hold that no one will actually be saved by BOD or BOB. The Church doesn't teach that anyone will actually be saved that way; just that it is possible. Paul VI in the Credo of the People of God said "their number is known only to God" which obviously includes ..... 0. I think this is absurd but legitimate. I can imagine it being allowed. Although it would seem to contradict Pius IX's "it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry." Such a statement applies equally to those who try to widen the road to heaven as those who try to close it further. "Inquiry" is "inquiry" (or speculation) regardless of what the content of it is.

J. Dobbs:

I think if somebody could find/post exactly how the Holy Father termed their permission, it would help greatly.

Pete Vere:

Are you sure you are phrasing this right Pete??? I have heard of the magisterium allowing in instances of particular difficulty for a given group the option of suspending inner assent to the teaching in question but that does not allow them to actually deny it in the external forum. They are either to affirm it or be silent on the matter. Or (and this is a possibility too), they can affirm it but do so in a very narrow scope if you will.

Anyway, if you could clarify a bit on the above point you made, it would be appreciated.

I'm not sure I can explain it. I simply know, as a canonist, that Rome allows the Feeneyites to continue holding their position as well as speak openly about it. Additionally, Rome recognizes the reconciliation of those (including Fr. Feeney) who reconciled with the Church. Thus while I may not completely agree with them theologically, I recognize them as Catholics in good standing with the Church.

Hmmmmm, I am guessing that you did not phrase the statement right. It would appear that what was explained to you was what I noted about having different theories as to the application of a doctrine. The teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not optional for a Catholic. However, that does not mean that one cannot hold to the teachings but take an approach to them that is inclusive or exclusive if you will. Let me use the EENS doctrine as an example of what I am talking about here.

The Church has long taught (and still does) the dogma of EENS. However, until very recently, there was no attempt to actually set forth expository teaching on what constitutes the boundaries of "the church." The dogma is clear and unequivocal: there is no salvation outside the Church. However, there has always been a matter of controversy as to what exactly constitutes "the church" and "outside." In the post-Trent period, the focus was much more than ever before on the institutional structures of the Church and thus (using that paradigm) "the church" was often identified as the institutional structures themselves and thus, those not within the structures were not considered "inside" the Church. However, this narrow understanding was not traditional{1} and in all magisterial pronouncements touching on the nature of the Church all the way up to Vatican II, there was always a kind of "loophole" if you will which was used to explain the righteous or moral non-Catholic.

Vatican II for the first time set forth clear expository teaching on the matter outlining a much more traditional ecclesiology which mirrored the understanding that was common in both east and west of the church prior to the eleventh century breakdown in communion between the Churches -however, it incorporated within the matrix the greater degree of understanding that had occurred with regards to the more visible ecclesial structures. The matter was not completely dealt with in all parameters but it was made clear and in a more integrated matter than previously that salvific communion with the Church can be a matter of degrees.

This explains why a non-Catholic of good will can be considered to potentially be "in the Church" and does so without the dichotomy of "body" and "soul" which was a previous attempt to explain this which was not as successful. The previous explanation was deemed incomplete and the Council denoted not a dichotomous approach to the mystery but instead an integrated one:

[T]he 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. [Lumen Gentium §8]

Essentially, what was emphasized was that we could not say with certainty where the Church was not but we could say with certainty where the Church was. This also explains well why those with an overly-institutionalized (and untraditional) understanding of the Church could be so rigorous in insisting on assimilation into the structure of the Church: they did not well comprehend the nuances of ecclesiology and therefore directed people to where they were certain the Church was (if that makes any sense).

EENS was not defined in an ecclesiocentric sense at all but instead in a Christocentric one: the Church is where Christ is present. In other words, EENS is grounded on the principle that there is one mediator between God and man and that is Christ and apart from Christ, there is no salvation. And while the Second Vatican Council approached this manner in a more positive fashion, at the same time, a deliberate ambiguity on the point of how expansive the actually salvific application was to those who were materially further and further from the center or fullness of truth or from the Church was maintained.

The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium identified the Church "constituted and organized in the world as a society" as "subsist[ing] in the Catholic Church" and which is "governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him" (cf. Lumen Gentium §8). This was done in keeping with the depiction of the Church as a hypostatic union of human and divine, with visible structures and invisible realities (cf. Lumen Gentium §8). This explains why there are "many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure" (cf. Lumen Gentium §8) and how those elements "impel towards catholic unity" (cf. Lumen Gentium §8)

What is noted above is doctrine which is not of optional import for Catholics. However, once again, there is no one way to theorize as to how the manifold elements interact with one another. It is possible for Feeneyites to apply a very exclusivist approach to the mystery as long as they do not insist that their interpretation of those realities is the only one available. In truth, the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS is based on anachronistic errors; however, it is likely that the magisterium is allowing them a proper freedom of speculation on the applicable elements with the idea that with greater study and reflection, they will come to see that the mystery is much greater than they make of it. The probable rubric being used is this one from the CDF Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian:

In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.

Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them. [CDF Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, sections 26-27 (c. 1990)]

In other words, the magisterium would allow for the Feeneyite rigorous interpretation provided that there was {i) a proper exercise of charity in how they approached the differing theological interpretations of others, (ii) provided that they did not argue their opinions/hypotheses as non-arguable conclusions, and (iii) practiced proper discretion by not giving untimely public expression to them. So the bottom line would be (if I am interpreting what you said correctly Pete) that the magisterium allows the Feeneyite theological speculation into the applicability of the doctrines of baptism of blood/baptism of desire but not actually allowing them to reject the doctrines themselves. And from a canonical standpoint (which is the one you mentioned), there would not be canonical penalties involved with such permitted speculations provided that they approached the issues as outlined in the above CDF Instruction.

In summary, Hibernius, Matthew, Jim, J. Dobbs, and Pete are all right as to various aspects of the whole Feeneyite question as far as I can discern. Hopefully the above closing exposition by yours truly adequately highlights some of the nuances involved and explains them. If not, I am sure someone in the comments boxes will tell me about it ;-)

Note:

{1} For more on this subject, see these threads from Rerum Novarum:

An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History--Parts I-V (circa November 23-24, 2003)

More on Church Models (circa July 9, 2005)

:: Shawn 3:45 PM [+] | ::

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