Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

A weblog dedicated to the exposure of the crackpots of the lunatic self-styled 'traditionalist' fringe who disingenuously pose as faithful Catholics.
Welcome to The Lidless Eye Inquisition | bloghome
"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)." [Pope St. Pius X: Allocution of May 10, 1909]

Join the International Order of 
[:::....Recent Posts....:::]

The revocation of indefinite suspension to this we...

Briefly on A Few Issues... Though the The Lidless...

As I am planning a return to blogging in other for...

Though this weblog has been suspended "in perpetui...

After pondering this in recent days, I cannot thin...

Points to Ponder: I now come to the positive reas...

"One From the Drafting Board" Dept. The material ...

Before this weblog is formally closed in perpetuit...

On Altar Girls and General Norms of Interpretation...

Final Reflections I would like to thank Shawn McE...

The Inquisitors
:: I. Shawn McElhinney
:: F. John Loughnan
:: Peter J. Vere JCL
:: Greg Mockeridge
:: Apolonio Latar
:: Gregory Rossi
:: Keith Kenney
:: The Curmudgeon
:: Mark Bonocore
:: Gregg the Obscure
Affiliated Weblogs/Websites
:: Rerum Novarum [>>>]
:: Sean O' Lachtnain's Home Page [>>>]
:: Envoy Encore Weblog (Peter Vere JCL, contributor) [>>>]
:: Cooperatores Veritatis [>>>]
:: Thoughts of Apolonio Latar III [>>>]
:: Sancta Liturgia [>>>]
:: Disturber of the Peace [>>>]
:: Vita Brevis [>>>]
Specialty Weblogs
:: The (New) Catholic Light BLOG (Peter Vere JCL, contributor) [>>>]
:: John Betts' Boycott BLOG [>>>]
Ecumenical Jihad*
:: Apolonio Latar and Kevin Tierney's Culture of Christ BLOG [>>>]
Specialty Weblinks
:: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' [>>>]
:: On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary [>>>]
:: The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard [>>>]
:: On Assisi and Catholic Principles [>>>]
:: F. John Loughnan's "Classification of Some Integrist (Lidless Eye) Websites" [>>>]
:: A Syllabus of Various (Mostly Pseudo-"Progressivist") Dissenting Authors [>>>]
:: A Canonical History of the Lefevrist Schism - Peter J. Vere's License Thesis From Saint Paul University, Ontario, Canada [>>>]
:: What Makes Us Catholic Traditionalists - written for The Wanderer December 6, 2001 (I. Shawn McElhinney/Pete Vere JCL) [>>>]
:: Yes Virginia, Fr. Nicholas Has Been Suspended - written for The Wanderer March 6, 2003 (Pete Vere JCL/I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Squelching Fr. Gruner's 'Squawking Squire' [>>>]
:: RadTrad Watch [>>>]
:: Antisemitism and the Catholic Right [>>>]
[:::....Site Intention, Disclaimer, Copyright, Etc....:::]
:: Intentions of this Weblog (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Weblog "War and Peace Length" Disclaimer (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Site Copyright (I. Shawn McElhinney/SecretAgentMan) [>>>]
:: Exhortation to Those Who Participate in the Message Boxes (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: On Linking to Tridentine Apostolates, Etc. --A Lidless Eye Inquisition Clarification Thread (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
[:::....Heretical Pseudo "Traditionalist" Apostolates....:::]
Mario Derksen's Catholic Insight
:: Responses to Mario Derksen--Parts I-III (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Mario on EENS (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Mario Derksen's Errors on Man (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Mario Derksen's Sedevacantism--Parts I-III (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Response to Mario --Parts I-II (Kevin Byrne) [>>>]
:: Mario's Sedevacantism and His Conscience (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Points to Ponder -I. Shawn McElhinney's Discussion List Comments on the "Karol Wojtyla is the Pope" Subject (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
Gerry Matatics' Apostolate
:: Gerry Matatics Too Hard Line For The Remnant (Pete Vere)[>>>]
:: Concerning Gerry Matatics and His Alleged Sedevacantism (Pete Vere) [>>>]
[:::....Schismatic and Theologically Specious Pseudo "Traditionalist" Apostolates....:::]
Catholic Apologetics International (or CAItanic)
:: Bob Sungenis' "Reply" to Richard John Neuhaus --Parts I-II (The Curmudgeon) [>>>]
:: Points to Ponder - Richard J. Neuhaus on CAItanic (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: On CAItanic and the "Petrification" of their Opponents (Gregg the Obscure) [>>>]
:: On Stunted Ecclesiology and Other Examples of the Arrested Development of CAItanic (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Baghdad Bob Meets Bible Bob (The Curmudgeon) [>>>]
:: Commentary on CAItanic (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Sungenis/Ferrara and Double Standards (Apolonio Latar III) [>>>]
:: On Sungenis’ “Novelty”--Parts I-II(Apolonio Latar III) [>>>]
:: A Short Response to John Salza and Sungenis (Apolonio Latar III) [>>>]
:: A Brief Clarification by Your Weblog Host On "Mr. Ipse Dixit" (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Matatics vs. Sungenis (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Sungenis and God's Contingent Knowledge--Parts I-II (Apolonio Latar III) [>>>]
:: On "The Big Bang Theory" and its Pertinance to Catholic Doctrine (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
The Novus Ordo Watch
:: On "Novus Ordo Watch" (Gregg the Obscure) [>>>]
:: More on "Novus Ordo Watch" (Gregg the Obscure) [>>>]
:: Props to David Alexander (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
The Remnant
:: Beyond Lunacy (The Curmudgeon) [>>>]
:: The Remnant Gets it Right (The Curmudgeon) [>>>]
:: Commending Christopher Ferrara (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)
:: Points to Ponder - on the SSPX (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: On the "Reconciliation" Rumours of the SSPX (The Curmudgeon) [>>>]
:: SSPX Demotes Key Priest Hoping For Reconciliation (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Three Cheers for Sedevacantism (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: On Fr. Paul Aulagnier (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Schism For One Dollar (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Bishop Rifan the Prophet (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Is the SSPX Still Lefebvrist? (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Civil War Breaks Out in the SSPX's French District (Pete Vere) [>>>]
[:::....Controverted Apostolates...:::]
Kevin Tierney and His Apostolate
:: Responding to Kevin Tierney's Criticism (Gregg the Obscure) [>>>]
:: Some Brief Comments on Kevin Tierney's Response to Gregg the Obscure (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: A Response to Kevin Tierney's Response to I. Shawn McElhinney (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: More Sophistry From Kevin Tierney --Parts I-II (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Briefly on Obedience and Kevin Tierney's Appeal to Canon Law 212 (I. Shawn McElhinney/Pete Vere JCL) [>>>]
:: Responsum ad Tiernam Dubiosum --Parts I-III, Addendum (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: A Note About A Blog (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Radtrads Again (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: On True and False 'Traditionalism' With Kevin Tierney --Parts I-VII (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, and Global Government --Parts I-III(Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]
:: Clarification on Global Government (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Brief Response to Kevin Tierney (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Miscellaneous Musings on Diversity (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: An Example of the Honesty That Must Accompany Dialogue (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Miscellaneous Muttering On Many Subjects (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: A Detailed Response to Kevin on The Revised Missal, Corpus Christi, Church Attendance, Church Forms, Protocol 1411, Etc. (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Miscellaneous Musings (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: "Responsum ad Tiernum" Dept. (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Discussing the Liturgy and Various Contrastings With Kevin Tierney (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Refuting the “He’s Not Disobedient. He's Just Stupid.” Defense (Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]
:: "Responsum ad Tiernum" Dept. (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
[:::....Controverted Subjects and People in General....:::]
:: Response to a Self-styled "Traditionalist" (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: On the Term "Inquisition" (Gregg the Obscure) [>>>]
:: Addressing a Sedevacantist Heretic (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: February's Quote of the Month (The Curmudgeon) [>>>]
:: On TAN Books (F. John Loughnan) [>>>]
:: On Defining Modernism (Chris Burgwald) [>>>]
:: Refuting the Late 'Trad' Michael Malone's Errors on Vatican II (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Points to Ponder - From His Beatitude Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh, Cardinal of the Roman Church (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: The Catechism and Radical Traditionalists (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Screwtape Parody on Radical Traditionalism (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Dialogue With a Rad-Trad --Parts I-II (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: On Hell and the Catechism (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: On Sola Fide Trads (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Some Traddie Fallacies Examined (F. John Loughnan) [>>>]
:: Dialogue With Adrian a Self-styled 'Traditionalist' --Parts I-VIII (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Points to Ponder - From St. Opatus of Milve (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Mr. Smith's Misunderstandings --Parts I-VI (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: On the Integralist-'Traditionalist' Conection --Parts I-V (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Discussion With Christopher Blosser on Reflections on Covenant and Mission (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: On the Morality of Promoting Conspiracy Theories (Gregg the Obscure) [>>>]
:: Question About the Magisterium (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: John Paul II and Islam (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Have 'Traditionalists' Been Too Hard on the Pope Viz Islam (F. John Loughnan) [>>>]
:: A Conversation --Parts I-II (I. Shawn McElhinney/Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Fatal Flaws of False 'Traditionalism' With Albert Cipriani--Parts I-VII (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: A Conversation on Spiritual Maturity and the Traditional Catholic Approach to Difficulties --Parts I-III (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Is it Okay to Complain? (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Obedience: The Rise of True Catholics --Parts I-II (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Radtradism and Mother Teresa (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Common 'Traditionalist' Errors in Dogmatic Theology and the Ordinary Magisterum (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Notes on the Ordinary Magisterium (SecretAgentMan) [>>>]
:: Some Self-styled "Traditionalist" Mendacity (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Posting Rules for Radical 'Traditionalists' (The Curmudgeon) [>>>]
:: Thoughts on Radtradism (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Why Garrigou-Lagrange? (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: The Syllabus (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Refutation of Some Common Radtrad Misuses of Citations (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: The Errors of Michael Malone Revisited (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Confuting an Attempted Justification for Schism --Parts I-II (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Another Assisi? Parts I-II (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Points to Ponder -Maximus the Abbott as quoted by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum §13 (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Dialogue With a 'Traditionalist' (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: "To Be Deep in Catholic Theology is to Cease to Be a (Pseudo) 'Traditionalist'" Dept. (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Points to Ponder - From Pope Benedict XV (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: On Charles de Nunzio (Gregg the Obscure) [>>>]
:: For Those Interested (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Refuting Mike's Errors (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: A Response to Mike Tucker (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Will it Merely Be More Uncatholic "Business As Usual"??? (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Points to Ponder - From St. John Bosco (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Points to Ponder - From St. Irenaeus of Lyons (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Dialogue/Debate on Pascendi (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: Points to Ponder - From Cardinal Ratzinger on the Revised Roman Missal (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Responsum ad Hibernius (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Miscellaneous Material (Gregory Rossi) [>>>]
:: On Liturgical Dance (Gregory Rossi) [>>>]
:: On Humanism (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: On Humanism and Vatican II (Gregory Rossi) [>>>]
:: John Paul II and Universalism (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: On Scruples (Gregory Rossi) [>>>]
:: On Tony Blair and Receiving Communion (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Confuting Radical Pseudo-'Traditionalist' Nonsense --Part I (Mark Bonocore) [>>>]
:: Confuting Radical Pseudo-'Traditionalist' Nonsense --Part II (Mark Bonocore/I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: "Wast-ing A-way A-gain in Se-de-vac-ant-a-ville" Dept. (Mark Bonocore/I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: On the McElhinney Media Dictum (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Tomorrow Christendom (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Correcting a Common Misperception of This Weblog (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Response to a Guimaraes Article (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: A Response to Fr. Nitoglia (Apolonio Latar) [>>>]
:: More on "Tomorrow Christendom" (Dom Calvet/Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Surprised by Canon Law (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Briefly on Michael Davies' Passing (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: On Redemptionis Sacramentum and Canonical Implications for Ecclesia Dei (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Notification of Assisi Essay, Etc. (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Points to Ponder - Richard John Neuhaus on the Vatican and "Americanism"--Parts I-VI (I. Shawn McElhinney)[>>>]
:: 8 Things You Can Do to Stop the Judaizers (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: On Circumspection in Speech and Public Writing (Gregg the Obscure) [>>>]
:: On the Revised Missal Ordination Rites and Other Tidbits (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
::Points to Ponder - John Laux on an Interesting Parallel from History on the Subject of "Preserving Tradition" (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: In Fairness to Michael Forrest (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Michael Forrest and the Jews (Pete Vere) [>>>]
::Points to Ponder - Pope Gregory XVI on the Authority of the Popes (I. Shawn McElhinney)[>>>]
:: Michael Forrest and the Jews--Part II (Pete Vere) [>>>]
[:::....Miscellaneous Dialogual Subjects...:::]
:: Real Catholic Traditionalism (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: An Open Challenge to Catholic Traditionalists (Dom Gerard Calvet/Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Briefly on Quo Primum (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Traditionalist Debate of the Millenium: Pete Vere vs. Shawn McElhinney (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Dialogue on Ecclesia Dei With Mark Downey (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Sister Lucia of Fatima, Ora Pro Terri Schiavo (Pete Vere) [>>>]
:: Ecclesia Dei And Respect for Traditionalists (Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]
:: On "The Vile Spectacle of Traditionalists Rooting for Bad News" --Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>> [>>>]
:: On Liturgical Nonsense, Recent Restore Rants, Church Music, Etc (I. Shawn McElhinney)[>>>]
:: Briefly Revisiting an Old Subject (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Examining Kevin Tierney's "Catholic Contract" (I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
[:::....Guest Editorials...:::]
:: The Problems Some Have With Interfaith Outreach (Guest Editorial by Gary Gubinski) [>>>]
:: On the Liturgical Movement (Guest Editorial by the Society of St. John; Prologue by I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
:: Jacinta's Vision (Guest Editorial by Fr. Thomas Carleton) [>>>]
:: Guest Editorial on Private Revelation (Kevin M. Tierney) [>>>]
Any correspondence will be presumed eligible for blogging unless the sender otherwise specifies (cf. Welborn Protocol)

*Ecumenical Jihad listing is for weblogs or websites which are either dedicated to or which to the webmaster (i) are worth reading and (ii) characteri ze in their general outlook the preservation of general Judeo-Christian morality and which are aimed at positively integrating these elements into society. (Such sites need not even be Catholic ones.)

As society has grown more estranged from its founding principles, I wish to note sites which share the same sentiments for the restoration of society even if the means advocated in this endeavour differ. The Lidless Eye Inquisition does not necessarily endorse particulars with sites under this heading.

:: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 ::

Today Apolonio Latar has posted on "humanism" and Vatican II. He made some good arguments and I would like to add a few points on this important issue which traditionalists frequently carp on. "Traditionalists" seem to believe that to start with man, in philosophizing and theologizing, is to put man in God's place. Now it is true that Catholics must believe that God is the beginning and end of all things. But there is a distinction here which "traditionalists" fall to make: the first thing that humans come in contact with in life is not God, but people (parents, friends, ect.). The existence of God can be proved from reason, but it is not self-evident. When one is trying to make sense out of the world, out of one's very existence, he must start from self-evident postulates and things that he is immediately in contact with. In fact, it was the anti-Christian, pantheistic Benedict Spinoza who claimed that philosophical knowledge should begin with the idea of God. Catholics thinkers start with human beings and the material world. That certainly does not mean that humans are greater than God, but merely that we come to a knowledge of Him through his creation. The two quotes below are from Catholic Apologetics: God, Christianity, and the Church (Benzinger Brothers, 1928) by Father John Laux, M.A.

"The contemplation of nature leads us to believe and hope in God, and to love Him; but from the study of our soul, we derive a truer and deeper knowledge of God than from all the rest of creation, because our soul alone is made according to the image and likeness of God. Our Natural knowledge of God is indirect, or mediate. We do not see God immediately, but only through the medium of his works. Our knowledge of God, though real, is only analogical; that is, our concepts or notions of God are taken from created things." (page 1; emphasis mine)

"To speak of man, says St. Augustine, is to speak of the universe. The Greeks called man microcosmos, the world in miniature, because he combines in himself the elements of the universe: the gravity and extension of the mineral, the vegetative life of the plant, the sensitive life of the animal, and the intellectual life of purely spiritual beings. 'What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!'" (page 25; emphasis mine)

Now "Christian humanism" merely takes this principles to deeper levels by means of new philosophical concepts. Human beings must be treated as "subjects", individual personalities, who know and love, and not simply "objects" who are known. From this deeper understanding of man, we come to understand better the God who made man.

Further, Mario Derksen is not giving a complete picture of what Vatican II taught by quoting one sentence out of context. In the same paragraph as the sentence he quotes , Gaudium et Spes says, "For Sacred Scripture teaches that man was created 'to the image of God,' is capable of knowing and loving his Creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures that he might subdue them and use them to God's glory." Paragraph 45 says, "The Lord is the goal of human history, the focal point of the longings of history and of civilization, the center of the human race, the joy of every heart and the answer to all its yearnings." Paragraph 19 says, "The root reason for human dignity lies in man's call to communion with God. From the very circumstance of his origin man is already invited to converse with God. For man would not exist were he not created by Gods love and constantly preserved by it; and he cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and devotes himself to His Creator. Still, many of our contemporaries have never recognized this intimate and vital link with God, or have explicitly rejected it. Thus atheism must be accounted among the most serious problems of this age, and is deserving of closer examination." The "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", No. 16, says that "rather often people, deceived by the Evil One, have become caught up in futile reasoning and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21,25) Consequently, to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all such persons, and mindful of the command of the Lord, 'preach the gospel to every creature' (Mk. 16:16), the church painstakingly fosters her missionary work."

Further, the prelates of the Church during and after Vatican II have never interpreted the Council as supporting secular humanism. For example, here is what Cardinal Percle Felici, former President of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law, had to say on humanism:

"The doctrine of the Council stresses the dignity of man. Some people have wished to see in this the consecration of a humanism. But there is humanism and humanism. The humanism of the Council is that of Christ who, to carry out the plan of redemption, assumed human nature ennobling the human creature with liberation from the sin and with the enrichment of divine life. The leit-motif of conciliar doctrine on man is taken from the psalm: ''You made him a little lower then the angels, you crowned him with glory and honor, and put all things under his feet'' (Ps. 8:6; Heb. 2:7, 8) And is it not holiness, that is, imitation of Christ, the supremely verticalists idea that pervades the whole content of the Council?" (From *L'Osservatore Romano*, January 13, 1977 issue)

[note: notice that the Cardinal uses the word "doctrine" with regard to what the Council said. This shows that "traditionalists" are simply wrong when they say "Vatican II was not intended to be binding and everyone knew it". The Church taught at Vatican II; it did not merely give some practical suggestions.]

So let us rejoice in that fact that the Catholic Church has not abandoned the Faith. Laus tibi, Christe!

:: Gregory 1:31 PM [+] | ::

:: Monday, March 29, 2004 ::
On "Humanism"


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

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

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

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

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

Mario also said:

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

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

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

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


[1] Ultimately, everything is made for God.

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

:: Monday, March 22, 2004 ::
There are "traditionalists" who believe that dancing can never be an act of worship. Frequently this results from a sectarian viewpoint: we Westerners do not regard dancing as sacred, so it can never be regarded as sacred. Now it is true that liturgical dancing is not appropriate in the West, just as the Vatican has said. Nevertheless, this does not mean that that other cultures can not use dancing in their worship. I have provided the following three quotes to show both that dancing has been regarding as part of religious worship in many cultures for centuries and that the there is no reason Catholics should consider this as inherently base. This is not to say that every pagan dance can be used in Catholic worship or is moral; in this post I am dealing with religious dancing in general. I realize that the first quote has many ellipses. I took out the needless parts of the article which spoke about secular dances.

"Dancing in the oldest and liveliest of the arts. Men in all countries and in all times have expressed their feelings in rhythm and body movements. Our ancestors left pictures or writings which told of their dances. Men who study these records have found out why these people of ancient times danced, and how they danced... The earliest records of people dancing are cave paintings in northern Spain... We can learn a great deal about their way of life from studying these pictures. Probably the most important activity in the life of primitive peoples and ancient civilizations is the dance. From the dim past until today, primitive man has danced when his children were born, when they were old enough to be accepted as adult members of the tribe, when they were married,, and when they died. He has danced to gain courage for battle. When the enemy was beaten, he has danced to celebrate the victory and to pray to his gods. Primitive medicine men have danced to drive away evil spirits which were thought to bring disease and misfortune. Primitive farmers had special ceremonial dances to bring rain and make crops... Primitive tribes today are just as serious about the dance as they were hundreds of years ago. Expeditions have brought back motion pictures of the primitive dances among the peoples of Africa Australia, and the Pacific islands. Anyone who sees these movies will realize that the dance is a ruling part of primitive life....

The Egyptians believed that their gods danced. Thus magic and religion inspired the early dances. Often the priests performed them. One interesting dance which the priests did was an astronomical dance. In this the priests expressed symbolically the harmony of the universe, with every star and planet in its place and moving in rhythm with the others. Egyptians kings must have danced. Ancient writings (hieroglyphics) and carvings on tombs show the kings dancing before the gods. But the proud Egyptians has no social dance, and they did not dance for joy. Some of the religious dances had acrobatic movements... Greek dancing also came from religion. Most of the Greek writings about dancing have been lost. We have learned about their ancient dances from sculpture and vase-paintings. There were special dances for each god. Dances in honor of the god Dionysus were the beginning of the drama in Greece.... Romans added little new material to the dance. Like the Greeks, they had religious ceremonial dances... The hoop dance is one of the several dances performed as religious ceremonies by the Pueblo Indians of Taos, New Mexico...

The Middle East gave full importance to song and dance. But there the dance was usually concerned with religion or ceremony... The Arabs had a great many dances. Some are closely related to Hebrew dances. One of the early Arab dances is like the sword dance of the bride described in the Hebrew "Song of Songs". In the Arab world we find the religious sects of the whirling dervish. The dervishes twisted and turned to imitate the movements of the planets. Their movements called for aid from the good stars and appeased the evil stars... The Far East is best known for its gesture dances, which were perfected thousands of years ago in India. In these dances, every gesture, every movement, has a meaning. The dancer can tell a wonderful story merely by placing certain parts of the body in certain positions. Only by hard work could a student learn the language of gesture. Dancing in India is not entertainment. It has a high purpose. Dance is supposed to be a gift of the god Siva. Every dance contains a prayers. The dance may be dramatic or it may be humorous. But its movements tell the legends of the Hindu gods and heroes. Every audience understands the complicated language of the dance. The Nautch dance, a survival of old Indian culture is part of all Festivals. As the Hindu religion spread, so did the mythical legends and dances of the Hindus. From India the dances traveled to Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia, and Burma. In each country they took on the special characteristics of the people... China's ceremonial dances are as old as the country's history. The Chinese dances of today can be traced directly back to six ancient dances of the Chou dynasty (1027-256 B.B.) These were the split-feather dance, to drive away evil spirits; the whole-feather, used in worship; the regulating dance, to drive away ill winds... Dhinese dancing takes place at funerals, sacrifices, and big festivals... Japan's people built their first dances around religion. They were greatly influenced by China... Among the favorite folk dances are the Bon and Catfish, the religious Kugura, and the lion-mask dances." The World Book Encyclopedia (1972), Vol. 5, "Dancing". (emphasis mine)

[note: I just want to point out that we Westerners must try to understand how dissimilar peoples of other cultures are from us; they live in a different world than we do. The above quote says not only that dancing was used as an expression of worship, but that in some civilizations dancing was performed at funerals! This shows that dancing for some other cultures does not have the same meaning it has for us. We consider dancing as merely recreational and so we would never dance at a funeral. This may seem strange, but we must understand that many physical actions are relative. Genuflection, for example, is considered a sign of adoration for us. But why? All one is doing is touching the ground with one knee. However, it has great symbolic meaning for us. For other cultures, genuflection may mean something different. In past centuries people would genuflect before earthly kings. Therefore even if religious dances seem strange and meaningless to us, we need to have empathy for these non-Westerners. Just as we love the things we have always known, so these people have affection for the things they are familiar with. This is simply part of human nature.]

"Native Christians are not excluded from the ranks of the clergy, and it is the duty of the missionaries to provide themselves prudently with auxiliary workers in their missions. To draw the infidels to the Faith, the missionaries ought, like St. Paul, to make themselves all things to all men, adopt the customs of the country, acquire the native language, establish schools and charitable institutions, preach especially by their example, and show in their lives how the religion they have come to teach is to be practiced (cf. Instruction. of the Prop. to the Vicars Apostolic of China, in the 'Collectanea S.C. de Prop. Fide'. n. 328)." The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VIII, pg. 3, "Infidels". (emphasis mine)

"In the art of dancing there is nothing evil or reprehensible: it is in itself nothing more or less than an innocent means of enjoyment and relaxation, and of promoting good feeling and friendly intercourse among men. Among the Jews the dance was often made a part of divine worship; we read that when the Ark of the Covenant was removed, David danced with all his might before the Lord (2 Kings vi. 14). The Hebrew maidens performed round or processional dances on many religious festivals (Judg. xxi. 21; Exod. xv. 20); and St. Basil and St. Gregory the Great state as their opinion that the angels move in the solemn measure of the dance before the throne of God in heaven." Father Sprango, The Catechism Explained (New York, 1899, 1921), pg. 447. (emphasis mine)

:: Gregory 9:49 AM [+] | ::

:: Thursday, March 18, 2004 ::
Refuting the “He’s Not Disobedient. He's Just Stupid.” Defense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Believe what I'm saying is harsh?

No, just wrong!

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

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

Fatima is only accidental to the discussion here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do this not to poison the well.

Now what makes you think I would suspect that?

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us look at what the comment boxes read:

Otay (a little Buckwheat lingo there).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now onto Greg Mockeridge.

Finally. The suspense was killing me.

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

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

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

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

I will make a few salient points.

Whether or not they are salient is open to interpretation.

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

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

Greg cannot prove either has been given.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which I responded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

:: Sunday, March 07, 2004 ::
Since this is my first post here, I wish to say that most of my posts on this blog are going to consist of some quotes from books, encyclopedias, or magisterial documents followed by some comments on why I believe the quote/quotes contradict traditionalists' claims. I probably will not post any "point by point" responses to "traditionalist" rebuttals; I don't desire to debate at great length with any of the "traditionalists" that my fellow Inquisitors debate with often.

Further, although "traditionalists" do have some legitimate concerns now and again, I believe that many of them have faulty, and at times dangerous, opinions. So my hope is that my "tidbits" will help to reinforce the "neo-conservative" position and refute the arguments of radical "traditionalism". I hope everyone recognizes that not every criticism of mine applies to everyone who calls himself "traditional". I recognize that there is a big difference between what Kevin Tierney believes and the propaganda of the Remnant. Please keep that in mind, so that we will have less confusion. Lastly, I am sorry if this post seems rather dense, but that is the way I usually write.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

The below quote is from Fr. John Laux's book Catholic Apologetics: God, Christianity, and the Church:

"The Historical Argument or Man's need of God:

All races, civilized and uncivilized, are at one and have ever been at one, in holding that the facts of nature and the voice of conscience compel us to affirm the existence of God. Religion- that is, the knowledge of God, of His will, and of our duties towards Him- not Materialism, is the inalienable possession of the human race. Religion belongs to man's nature just as truly as thought and free will, language, customs, and art.
There is no race of men without religion. It used to be confidently asserted, especially by the Materialistic evolutionists of the last century, that savage tribes existed destitute of all religious notions, and that man in his original state had no religion whatever. To-day all anthropologists agree that "there are no races however rude which are destitute of all idea of Religion" (Jevons, Introduction to the History of Religion, p. 7).

'Since the days of Darwin, the Patagonians of Tierra del Fuego were regarded as a horde of cannibals without any articulate language and without any notions of religion. In 1921 two missionaries of the Society of the Divine Word, Fathers Gussinde and Koppoers, were admitted to the initiation ceremonies by which the full privileges of manhood are conferred on the youths. They were astonished at what they heard and saw. Such names as 'My Father', the 'Highest', the 'Strong One', the 'Almighty', the 'Ancient One in Heaven', were applied to the God worshipped by the people. Before retiring to rest, a father said to his son; 'May the heavenly Father grant us all to see a new and happy day.’ Before setting out on a journey, a young man was heard to say: ‘If my Father is good to me and protects me, I shall return.' Far from being cannibals, these people would not even eat the flesh of animals such as foxes, dogs, and rats, which occasionally eat human flesh.'

The fact the overwhelming majority of mankind have at all times firmly believed in the existence of God clearly proves that man is by nature religions. Man needs God, aspires after Him, seeks union with Him. Man is religious in his intellects, for even the rudest savages recognize God as the creator and ruler of all things. He is religious also in his will, for he sees in God the author and avenger of the moral law. The voice of man's nature proclaims the existence of God, and this utterance must be true. 'What all men, impelled as it were by instinct, hold to be truth, is a natural; truth,' says Aristotle."


Now, I think Fr. Laux in the above quote makes an interesting point: man by nature is religious. Original sin has not wounded mans' nature so much that he does not desire God. There is always a yearning for the Infinite in all man; it can not be satisfied till we are united with God in heaven. Seen in this light, I think one can appreciate more the different non-Christian religions of the world. There are traditionalists who believe that non-Christian religions are simply bad; everything is either black or white for these people. Now there is certainly falsehood in the non-Christian religions. Vatican II says in paragraph 2 of Nostra Aetate, "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men." (emphasis mine)

But I believe traditionalists should have a more positive view of other religions because they reflect the attempts of men, without the aid of revelation, to understand the meaning of life, the meaning of the world. The Holy Spirit has all along been trying to prepare pagans for the Christian faith by making them conscientious about fulfilling their natural duty to be religious. Certainly His work has not completely been in vain. One should not underestimate the Spirit of God. Also, do not many traditionalists believe that it was part of God's Providence for Alexander the Great to bring Greek culture to Asia Minor, as a preparation for Christianity? It is exactly the same way with non-Christian religions. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia on page 227, volume IV, says, "In Confucianism there is much to admire. It has taught a noble conception of the supreme Heaven-god. It has inculcated a remarkably high standard of morality. It has prompted, as far as it knew how, the refining influence of literary and of polite conduct." Pius XII in his encyclical Divine Praecones declared that "The Church has never treated the doctrines of the pagans with contempt and disdain; rather she has freed them from all error, then completed them and crowned them with Christian wisdom." [note: this quote from Pius XII can possibly be interpreted to mean that certain evil things should not be hated. Now I believe one should interpret that quote to mean that external respect is due to non-Christian doctrines even though they are in many areas erroneous. But the quote is still ambiguous, and shows that pre-conciliar documents were not always crystal clear like traditionalists claim]

Another interesting fact about the quote from Fr. Laux's book is the story about Fathers Gussinde and Koppoers. These Catholics priests accepted an invitation to witness a native ceremony without even knowing that the natives believed in God. From the account, it is clear that they showed no disrespect for these natives and their customs by trying to disrupt the ceremony with preaching. In the end they were pleasantly surprised. Christian missionaries must not be hasty in judging non-Christians. These "Patagonians of Tierra del Fuego" were misunderstood at first. To me at least, this proves that dialogue is a necessary thing. You must first know where people are in their journey to God before you can start trying to bring them the riches of our Catholic Faith!

Until next time,

Deo gratias!

:: Gregory 6:34 PM [+] | ::

:: Monday, March 01, 2004 ::
Into the Darkness of Sensationalism and Disobedience Via Jacob’s Ladder
(From the Dis “Gruner” fication of Fatima Dept.)

Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?