Real Presence Essay Revision Completed:
(aka "Sixteen down, one to go" Dept.)
Here is the link:
On the Real Presence
Though I released it yesterday, it was not until this morning that some serious glitches in url 2 could be fixed. If I do not blog again until then, may you all have a happy and holy Easter.
Friday, April 18, 2003
Points to Ponder:
On this day our Lord suffers on the cross for our sins. Suffering is the universal of every age, man and woman, rich and poor. It is the result of our first parent's disobedience. Therefore it is through suffering that God choose to redeem our fallen race. As I ponder the blood stained cross I marvel at how God could take such ugliness and despair and change it into glory. It gives me hope that when I deliver the ugliness and despair of my life into the beautiful hands of Jesus, it too is transformed into glory! [Bill Brutland (4/18/03)]
On this day our Lord suffers on the cross for our sins. Suffering is the universal of every age, man and woman, rich and poor. It is the result of our first parent's disobedience. Therefore it is through suffering that God choose to redeem our fallen race. As I ponder the blood stained cross I marvel at how God could take such ugliness and despair and change it into glory. It gives me hope that when I deliver the ugliness and despair of my life into the beautiful hands of Jesus, it too is transformed into glory! [Bill Brutland (4/18/03)]
Thursday, April 17, 2003
I had hoped to have done for release today the revised text of my essay on the Real Presence originally written three years ago this month (and released in early June 2000). But indeed I found last night that "the spirit was willing but the flesh weak". Nonetheless, I hope to have the urls posted tonight and the new version available for reading by tomorrow. The piece reads about 95% the same content-wise but the differences are in some respects significant and some of them (such as the layout) very obvious. I do not intend to update the writings template for this one or the next one.{1} Anyway, you will read about the availability of the upcoming two pieces in their new formats here as they come available. But I have to get back to completing the essay on the Real Presence now so until we meet again, adieu and have a blessed Holy Thursday...
Note:
{1} After the Real Presence essay, all of my writings will have been retouched to some extent except for one. The last piece is about half done now and will be the last of my writings to be retouched and/or revised. Hopefully it will be ready for republishing by Mercy Sunday.
Note:
{1} After the Real Presence essay, all of my writings will have been retouched to some extent except for one. The last piece is about half done now and will be the last of my writings to be retouched and/or revised. Hopefully it will be ready for republishing by Mercy Sunday.
A Commentary on Canon Law 747-755:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is to some extent a sequel to an earlier response which can be read HERE. However, it also functions well on its own as a commentary on particular sections of canon law which are relevant for those who are engaged in disputations with those of various outlooks who try to disparage or downplay the obedience owed to the ecclesial magisterium as manifested in different forms.
For those who got to this link from the earlier link Addressing "Progressives" and Misunderstandings of Vatican II (Part I), it would be good to read these threads in sequence. For those who are interested in the canon law commentary alone, it is not necessary to read the first part of the response. In this installment, my sources will be in darkgreen font when quoting the Code and in darkblue font when quoting other sources. Without further ado, let us get to it.
I apologize for the delay in continuing the thread but I have had more pressing issues to contend with than message board apologetics. To summarize the entire thread from Canon 747-755 is the goal of this post. Here are the first canons of the thread titled The Teaching Office Of The Church.
Can. 747§1 It is the obligation and inherent right of the Church, independent of any human authority, to preach the Gospel to all peoples, using for this purpose even its own means of social communication, for it is to the Church that Christ the Lord entrusted the deposit of faith, so that by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it might conscientiously guard revealed truth, more intimately penetrate it, and faithfully proclaim and expound it.
Can. 747§2 The Church has the right always and everywhere to proclaim moral principles, even in respect of the social order, and to make judgments about any human matter in so far as this is required by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls.
The Church has rights of a secondary nature (to the primary end of preaching the Gospel and unfolding the deposit of faith explicitly) to pass judgment on issues which pertain to the salvation of souls. This can be done either in expounding on moral principles of the social order or passing judgment on human matters insofar as required for the salvation of souls.
Can. 748§1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.
Can. 748§2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.
Notice that the right outlined in Canon Law 748§2 is preceded by an obligation. That obligation as outlined in Canon Law 748§1 on all people is to seek the truth. When that truth is found, they are required by divine law to embrace and keep it. This means that those who recognize the Church as integral in God's plan for the salvation of mankind are required to obey the Church. This requirement is a matter of divine law and cannot be set aside pace the erroneous presumption of some theologians who have opined otherwise. (Such as the late Fr. John Courtney-Murray SJ.)
To explain the intricacies of the requirements of the divine law and the allowances of the civil authority is beyond the scope of this post. It suffices at this point to note that the "right" appealed to by so-called "progressives" is applied to absent its proper context: the context of an obligation they have under the divine law to obey the Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. That Church is of course the Catholic Church. Moving right along we come to Canons 749 §§1-3. As I dealt in detail with these canons in my treatise, I will reference it here with only slight modifications. Unlike previous and subsequent sources, this one will be in dark blue font. The name of the individual from the source will be removed to keep this focused properly on issues and not personalities.
It is worth noting that Mr. KKKKKKKKKK has insisted that his questions are asked in good faith as he simply wishes to "attribute to the Council and its documents their proper authority" (From the same statement as the above quote was taken.) This writer will take him at his word on the matter and simply address the flaws in his arguments. To start with, Mr. KKKKKKKKKK referenced the Code before quoting Pope Paul VI; therefore that is how this writer will approach responding to the assumptions he makes. The language of the Code itself is clearly not understood properly by Mr. KKKKKKKKKK. He cited part of Canon 749§2 and 749§3 but he did not mention 749§1. The whole Canon reads as follows (all emphasis is by the present author):
Canon 749§1: In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ's faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.
§2. The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their Magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.
§3. No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated...
This writer has already demonstrated that on several subjects (Tradition/Living Magisterium and the Mass), there are numerous intricacies involved which the 'traditionalist' often overlooks. This is especially applicable to the Second Vatican Council and its levels of teaching authority. But this is also true of canon law too as will be briefly demonstrated at this time. In brief though, can. 749§3 does not in any way pose a legitimate argument against the status of VC II as promulgating new teachings infallibly. The rationale for this explanation will be set forth using the literal texts referenced above and pointing out a key distinction that Mr. KKKKKKKKKK not only overlooked but that he continually blurred throughout his debate with SSS SSSSS.
Can. 749§3 would not be applicable to all infallible teachings indiscriminately. Instead it would apply to a very specific kind of infallible teaching: a solemn definition of faith. The rationale behind this assessment is that the dividing line intended by the legislator of the Code at this point was not between infallible and non-infallible teachings. Instead the dividing line at this point is between between teachings of faith and teachings which were not of faith but which were still to be held. Both types of teaching are definitive but they do not have the same theological qualification.
The language of the Code emphasizes the charism of infallibility as it pertains to teachings "to be held". This is an important distinction. A teaching that is a definition of faith is not specified in this manner - though teachings de fide are also to be held. The Latin terms are "credenda" (referring to dogma) and "tenenda" (referring to doctrine) signifying that the former was to be not simply held but also "believed". By contrast the later was simply to be "definitively held" (definitive tenenda) and such teachings are often taught in acts which are strictly speaking non-defining. As can. 749§1 and can. 749§2 both refer to infallibility pertaining to doctrines "to be held", they are thus referring to infallibility as it applies to both defining and non-defining acts of the Magisterium: the latter of which do not require any technical formulations of particular solemnity.
By the language of the Code itself, it is manifestly obvious that can. 749§3 cannot be as broadly applied as Mr. KKKKKKKKKK does. Instead it is very specific and refers to defined teachings of faith: teachings that carry with them a censure of heresy if they are culpably doubted or denied. Therefore, claims that a teaching is defined - which are implied in any accusation of heresy - places the burden of proof under the Code on the one making the accusation. As there were no solemn definitions of faith promulgated by Vatican II, there is no need to dwell any further on can. 749§3 as it is a non sequitur to the discussion. All of this is symptomatic of the failure of self-styled 'traditionalists' to make these kinds of fine but necessary distinctions on not a few of the relevant subjects involved in any discussion of this nature pertaining to Vatican II. [I. Shawn McElhinney A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Third Edition Chapter VI (c. 2003, 2000)]
That is sufficient to deal with Canon 749 in all of its parts. I go over the three categorizations of the Profession of Faith and how they are duplicated in the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church HERE. In that link, what is explained is Canons 750-752. I will now post Canons 753-755 before summarizing the entire thread sequentially and discussing the string of canons systematically.
Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.
Can. 754 All Christ's faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops.
Can. 755§1 It pertains especially to the entire College of Bishops and to the Apostolic See to foster and direct among Catholics the ecumenical movement, the purpose of which is the restoration of unity between all Christians which, by the will of Christ, the Church is bound to promote.
Can. 755§2 It is a matter likewise for Bishops and, in accordance with the law, for Episcopal Conferences, to promote this same unity and, in line with the various needs and opportunities of the circumstances, to issue practical norms which accord with the provisions laid down by the supreme authority of the Church.
As the above text and link constitutes a detailed exposition on the individual codes and subsections themselves from Canon 747-752, what will now be done is a brief summation of the entire thread. In doing this, the canons listed above without commentary will be dealt with in a detailed exposition along with Canon 752. (Because there is a noted difference between canon 752 and 753 which needs to be made better known.) The basic breakdown of the Code though in the section being outlined is as follows with my comments in the second paragraph of each citation summary:
Canon 747§1 - The rights of the Church to preach the Gospel to all people and use whatever mediums it deems appropriate for expediting this mission. To that extent the Church was given the deposit of faith by Our Lord and has the right to "conscientiously guard revealed truth, more intimately penetrate it, and faithfully proclaim and expound it" (Can 747§1).
In brief, the right to preach the Gospel and to develop and explain the deposit of faith belongs to the Church.
Canon 747§2 - The rights of the Church to propound moral principles - even in respect to the social order - and the right to make judgments in all human matters as required for the salvation of souls. Of course it goes without saying that the Church determines the scope of the above criteria, not individuals practicing their own private judgment.
Canon 748§1 - The obligation of all individuals to seek the truth about Christ and the Church He founded and the further obligation by divine law to adhere to and embrace this truth once it is found. This is the obligation of all individuals under the divine law.
Canon 748§2 - The right of the individual to freedom from coercion of their conscience.{1} Rights of the individual to facilitate the obligations entailed under 748§1.
Canon 749§1 - The infallibility of the Pope by divine design when he proclaims by definitive act a teaching pertaining to faith or morals which is to be held. This applies to dogmas of faith and doctrines which are binding by ecclesiastical faith.
Canon 749§2 The infallibility of the Bishops either in ecumenical council when they in union with the pope proclaim by definitive act a teaching pertaining to faith or morals which is to be held. As in the case of the pope, this applies to dogmas of faith and doctrines which are binding by ecclesiastical faith.
Canon 749§3 - No teaching is to be considered a matter of divine faith without manifest demonstration of such. To summarize this canon, the burden of proof of a charge of heresy is on the accuser not the accused. They must "manifestly demonstrate" the basis of such accusations. Of course the definition of heresy in the Code has not been dealt with in sequence yet.
Canon 750§1 - Teachings to be held by divine faith. (Self explanatory.)
Canon 750§2 - Teachings which though not de fide are nonetheless definitively proclaimed and are to be held by ecclesiastical faith. The distinction between truths of divine faith (on God's authority) and truths of ecclesiastical faith (on the authority of the infallible magisterium). This distinction was overlooked in the original Code promulgation but once it was realized, it was rectified with an insertion into the text.
Canon 751 - Definitions of heresy, schism, and apostasy. In brief, one who obstinately doubts or denies a dogma of faith (heretic), one who renounces completely the Christian faith (apostate), and one who though they deny no dogmas of faith nonetheless refuse to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or hold communion with those who recognize his supremacy a doctrine to be held (schismatic).
Canon 752 - The assent owed to teachings promulgated by the pope or the united magisterium which are either not definitive or do not appear to be such. This religious submission of mind and will is different from that owed to lower levels of teaching. It was indeed deemed as being of "a special way" (cf. Lumen Gentium §25) in that it moves beyond submission to the decisions made with a mere "adherence to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind" which was declared as appropriate for "Bishops teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff" (cf. Lumen Gentium §25). That will be covered in Canon Law 753.
Unlike the latter provision (to be covered shortly), there is no provision for any external dissent from, controversion of, or belittling of teachings of either the Roman Pontiff or the bishops of the united episcopate - either gathered in ecumenical council or scattered throughout the world.{3}
With the pope individually, even when he is not manifestly defining "his supreme teaching authority [is to] be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent [to] be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention" (Lumen Gentium §25). With the bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff "[they] are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind" (Lumen Gentium §25).
Failure to obey teachings of this classification are generally not considered incurring of the penalties incurred by schismatics.{4} Nonetheless, the faithful are "to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord" with the doctrine handed on which is of this theological qualification (cf. Can 752). This denotes an exterior and interior obedience to the teaching that leaves no room for what is popularly referred today as "dissent."
Can 753 - The assent owed to teachings of bishops "individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils" (Can 753). The verdict here is religious submission. This is not submission to the same extent as with the united episcopate or the pope as per canon 752 but obedience is still required nonetheless.
To summarize the difference, this obedience is one we can challenge provided that we are still respectful of what is prescribed -as it not a part of the permanent ordinary magisterium unless the pope or an ecumenical council decides otherwise. Should the latter occur, the qualification would move from Canon 753 regulations to those of Canon 752 with a corresponding increase in the manner of religious submission owed to the teaching.
Can. 754 - Obedience to all judgments issues for the proposition of doctrine or proscription of errors - particularly those of the Pope or the College of Bishops.
Self explanatory except the Code has to put in a legal provision to prevent the kind of sophisms perpetrated by those who would claim to obey the magisterium but not obey its actual teachings as promulgated in magisterial texts. It is important to note though that in order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops to constitute authentic magisterium "they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the Bishops belonging to the Conference and having a deliberative vote" (Pope John Paul II: Apostolic Letter Apostolos Suos). Further still "[n]o body of the Episcopal Conference, outside of the plenary assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium". (ibid.) Finally, "the Episcopal Conference cannot grant such power to its Commissions or other bodies set up by it". (ibid.) Just as the pope cannot delegate his charism of infallibility to anyone, the conferences cannot delegate its magisterium to commissions or other legislative bodies.
Nothing short of the plenary synod requires religious submission of mind and will from the Bishops conferences.{5} Plenary synods do constitute such magisterium but since they are so rarely held,{6} it is not necessary to mention them here.
Canon 755§§1,2 - In brief, the competence for directing the ecumenical movement is based firstly on the college of bishops and the apostolic see (755§1) and secondly on individual bishops and bishops conference in manner congruent with the preceding text (755§2). This is common sense in that it is the bishops who are heads of the dioceses and the apostolic see -the pope personally or those who govern various dicasteries by virtue of his authority- who are the ones who should be directing the ecumenical venture with its various delicacies and potential pitfalls for those who rush in uncritically. But that is neither here nor there.
In summary of this commentary, there is a unified and hierarchial thread here of subjects. Hopefully what is noted here is of assistance in outlining and explaining the diverse elements involved in a reasonably economical yet fairly comprehensive manner.
Notes:
{1} The act of faith by its nature is not considered genuine unless it is given freely and a coerced conscience is not one which can give that assent freely. This must however be understood in the context of ecclesiastical authority's obligation to protect the faithful from errors which are harmful to the faith as well as civil authority's right to insure public order and the common good of society. This freedom of conscience is not unlimited.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church covers the subject of conscience in detail from CCC §1776-1802. I recommend reading those parts to properly understand the nuances of this subject. However, for those who appeal to conscience over and against the teaching of the Church, focus on CCC §1792 which states that "Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct."
As an aside, I wonder if there is a parallel between the CCC posting this as section 1792 and the historical event of the egalitarian Jacobans overthrowing the Constitutional government established in 1789 and inaugurating the and the "edict of fraternity" in 1792 and numbering the years from that point the "years of liberty". (With the resultant calls for overthrowing all secular and spiritual rulers.)
{2} This is an area where self-styled "progressives" and self-styled "traditionalists" tend to go askew and therefore this addition was necessary so that these truths have corresponding penalties under the Code.
{3} In short, the Church's ordinary magisterium.
{4} This does not mean that they are not schismatics of course, only that they are not punished with the penalties applicable to schismatics.
{5} With the exception of when the conferences are reiterating Catholic doctrine of course.
{6} The last in America was in Third Synod of Baltimore held in 1884. This does not mean that Bishop's Conferences are not authoritative of course, only that the decisions of such conferences barring approval of the Apostolic See cannot legislate in matters binding on their respective areas. A subject too complex to deal with here in brief so I will simply note here that simplistic interpretations of this statement of mine are bound to be erroneous ones.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is to some extent a sequel to an earlier response which can be read HERE. However, it also functions well on its own as a commentary on particular sections of canon law which are relevant for those who are engaged in disputations with those of various outlooks who try to disparage or downplay the obedience owed to the ecclesial magisterium as manifested in different forms.
For those who got to this link from the earlier link Addressing "Progressives" and Misunderstandings of Vatican II (Part I), it would be good to read these threads in sequence. For those who are interested in the canon law commentary alone, it is not necessary to read the first part of the response. In this installment, my sources will be in darkgreen font when quoting the Code and in darkblue font when quoting other sources. Without further ado, let us get to it.
I apologize for the delay in continuing the thread but I have had more pressing issues to contend with than message board apologetics. To summarize the entire thread from Canon 747-755 is the goal of this post. Here are the first canons of the thread titled The Teaching Office Of The Church.
Can. 747§1 It is the obligation and inherent right of the Church, independent of any human authority, to preach the Gospel to all peoples, using for this purpose even its own means of social communication, for it is to the Church that Christ the Lord entrusted the deposit of faith, so that by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it might conscientiously guard revealed truth, more intimately penetrate it, and faithfully proclaim and expound it.
Can. 747§2 The Church has the right always and everywhere to proclaim moral principles, even in respect of the social order, and to make judgments about any human matter in so far as this is required by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls.
The Church has rights of a secondary nature (to the primary end of preaching the Gospel and unfolding the deposit of faith explicitly) to pass judgment on issues which pertain to the salvation of souls. This can be done either in expounding on moral principles of the social order or passing judgment on human matters insofar as required for the salvation of souls.
Can. 748§1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.
Can. 748§2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.
Notice that the right outlined in Canon Law 748§2 is preceded by an obligation. That obligation as outlined in Canon Law 748§1 on all people is to seek the truth. When that truth is found, they are required by divine law to embrace and keep it. This means that those who recognize the Church as integral in God's plan for the salvation of mankind are required to obey the Church. This requirement is a matter of divine law and cannot be set aside pace the erroneous presumption of some theologians who have opined otherwise. (Such as the late Fr. John Courtney-Murray SJ.)
To explain the intricacies of the requirements of the divine law and the allowances of the civil authority is beyond the scope of this post. It suffices at this point to note that the "right" appealed to by so-called "progressives" is applied to absent its proper context: the context of an obligation they have under the divine law to obey the Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. That Church is of course the Catholic Church. Moving right along we come to Canons 749 §§1-3. As I dealt in detail with these canons in my treatise, I will reference it here with only slight modifications. Unlike previous and subsequent sources, this one will be in dark blue font. The name of the individual from the source will be removed to keep this focused properly on issues and not personalities.
It is worth noting that Mr. KKKKKKKKKK has insisted that his questions are asked in good faith as he simply wishes to "attribute to the Council and its documents their proper authority" (From the same statement as the above quote was taken.) This writer will take him at his word on the matter and simply address the flaws in his arguments. To start with, Mr. KKKKKKKKKK referenced the Code before quoting Pope Paul VI; therefore that is how this writer will approach responding to the assumptions he makes. The language of the Code itself is clearly not understood properly by Mr. KKKKKKKKKK. He cited part of Canon 749§2 and 749§3 but he did not mention 749§1. The whole Canon reads as follows (all emphasis is by the present author):
Canon 749§1: In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ's faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.
§2. The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their Magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.
§3. No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated...
This writer has already demonstrated that on several subjects (Tradition/Living Magisterium and the Mass), there are numerous intricacies involved which the 'traditionalist' often overlooks. This is especially applicable to the Second Vatican Council and its levels of teaching authority. But this is also true of canon law too as will be briefly demonstrated at this time. In brief though, can. 749§3 does not in any way pose a legitimate argument against the status of VC II as promulgating new teachings infallibly. The rationale for this explanation will be set forth using the literal texts referenced above and pointing out a key distinction that Mr. KKKKKKKKKK not only overlooked but that he continually blurred throughout his debate with SSS SSSSS.
Can. 749§3 would not be applicable to all infallible teachings indiscriminately. Instead it would apply to a very specific kind of infallible teaching: a solemn definition of faith. The rationale behind this assessment is that the dividing line intended by the legislator of the Code at this point was not between infallible and non-infallible teachings. Instead the dividing line at this point is between between teachings of faith and teachings which were not of faith but which were still to be held. Both types of teaching are definitive but they do not have the same theological qualification.
The language of the Code emphasizes the charism of infallibility as it pertains to teachings "to be held". This is an important distinction. A teaching that is a definition of faith is not specified in this manner - though teachings de fide are also to be held. The Latin terms are "credenda" (referring to dogma) and "tenenda" (referring to doctrine) signifying that the former was to be not simply held but also "believed". By contrast the later was simply to be "definitively held" (definitive tenenda) and such teachings are often taught in acts which are strictly speaking non-defining. As can. 749§1 and can. 749§2 both refer to infallibility pertaining to doctrines "to be held", they are thus referring to infallibility as it applies to both defining and non-defining acts of the Magisterium: the latter of which do not require any technical formulations of particular solemnity.
By the language of the Code itself, it is manifestly obvious that can. 749§3 cannot be as broadly applied as Mr. KKKKKKKKKK does. Instead it is very specific and refers to defined teachings of faith: teachings that carry with them a censure of heresy if they are culpably doubted or denied. Therefore, claims that a teaching is defined - which are implied in any accusation of heresy - places the burden of proof under the Code on the one making the accusation. As there were no solemn definitions of faith promulgated by Vatican II, there is no need to dwell any further on can. 749§3 as it is a non sequitur to the discussion. All of this is symptomatic of the failure of self-styled 'traditionalists' to make these kinds of fine but necessary distinctions on not a few of the relevant subjects involved in any discussion of this nature pertaining to Vatican II. [I. Shawn McElhinney A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Third Edition Chapter VI (c. 2003, 2000)]
That is sufficient to deal with Canon 749 in all of its parts. I go over the three categorizations of the Profession of Faith and how they are duplicated in the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church HERE. In that link, what is explained is Canons 750-752. I will now post Canons 753-755 before summarizing the entire thread sequentially and discussing the string of canons systematically.
Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.
Can. 754 All Christ's faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops.
Can. 755§1 It pertains especially to the entire College of Bishops and to the Apostolic See to foster and direct among Catholics the ecumenical movement, the purpose of which is the restoration of unity between all Christians which, by the will of Christ, the Church is bound to promote.
Can. 755§2 It is a matter likewise for Bishops and, in accordance with the law, for Episcopal Conferences, to promote this same unity and, in line with the various needs and opportunities of the circumstances, to issue practical norms which accord with the provisions laid down by the supreme authority of the Church.
As the above text and link constitutes a detailed exposition on the individual codes and subsections themselves from Canon 747-752, what will now be done is a brief summation of the entire thread. In doing this, the canons listed above without commentary will be dealt with in a detailed exposition along with Canon 752. (Because there is a noted difference between canon 752 and 753 which needs to be made better known.) The basic breakdown of the Code though in the section being outlined is as follows with my comments in the second paragraph of each citation summary:
Canon 747§1 - The rights of the Church to preach the Gospel to all people and use whatever mediums it deems appropriate for expediting this mission. To that extent the Church was given the deposit of faith by Our Lord and has the right to "conscientiously guard revealed truth, more intimately penetrate it, and faithfully proclaim and expound it" (Can 747§1).
In brief, the right to preach the Gospel and to develop and explain the deposit of faith belongs to the Church.
Canon 747§2 - The rights of the Church to propound moral principles - even in respect to the social order - and the right to make judgments in all human matters as required for the salvation of souls. Of course it goes without saying that the Church determines the scope of the above criteria, not individuals practicing their own private judgment.
Canon 748§1 - The obligation of all individuals to seek the truth about Christ and the Church He founded and the further obligation by divine law to adhere to and embrace this truth once it is found. This is the obligation of all individuals under the divine law.
Canon 748§2 - The right of the individual to freedom from coercion of their conscience.{1} Rights of the individual to facilitate the obligations entailed under 748§1.
Canon 749§1 - The infallibility of the Pope by divine design when he proclaims by definitive act a teaching pertaining to faith or morals which is to be held. This applies to dogmas of faith and doctrines which are binding by ecclesiastical faith.
Canon 749§2 The infallibility of the Bishops either in ecumenical council when they in union with the pope proclaim by definitive act a teaching pertaining to faith or morals which is to be held. As in the case of the pope, this applies to dogmas of faith and doctrines which are binding by ecclesiastical faith.
Canon 749§3 - No teaching is to be considered a matter of divine faith without manifest demonstration of such. To summarize this canon, the burden of proof of a charge of heresy is on the accuser not the accused. They must "manifestly demonstrate" the basis of such accusations. Of course the definition of heresy in the Code has not been dealt with in sequence yet.
Canon 750§1 - Teachings to be held by divine faith. (Self explanatory.)
Canon 750§2 - Teachings which though not de fide are nonetheless definitively proclaimed and are to be held by ecclesiastical faith. The distinction between truths of divine faith (on God's authority) and truths of ecclesiastical faith (on the authority of the infallible magisterium). This distinction was overlooked in the original Code promulgation but once it was realized, it was rectified with an insertion into the text.
Canon 751 - Definitions of heresy, schism, and apostasy. In brief, one who obstinately doubts or denies a dogma of faith (heretic), one who renounces completely the Christian faith (apostate), and one who though they deny no dogmas of faith nonetheless refuse to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or hold communion with those who recognize his supremacy a doctrine to be held (schismatic).
Canon 752 - The assent owed to teachings promulgated by the pope or the united magisterium which are either not definitive or do not appear to be such. This religious submission of mind and will is different from that owed to lower levels of teaching. It was indeed deemed as being of "a special way" (cf. Lumen Gentium §25) in that it moves beyond submission to the decisions made with a mere "adherence to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind" which was declared as appropriate for "Bishops teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff" (cf. Lumen Gentium §25). That will be covered in Canon Law 753.
Unlike the latter provision (to be covered shortly), there is no provision for any external dissent from, controversion of, or belittling of teachings of either the Roman Pontiff or the bishops of the united episcopate - either gathered in ecumenical council or scattered throughout the world.{3}
With the pope individually, even when he is not manifestly defining "his supreme teaching authority [is to] be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent [to] be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention" (Lumen Gentium §25). With the bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff "[they] are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind" (Lumen Gentium §25).
Failure to obey teachings of this classification are generally not considered incurring of the penalties incurred by schismatics.{4} Nonetheless, the faithful are "to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord" with the doctrine handed on which is of this theological qualification (cf. Can 752). This denotes an exterior and interior obedience to the teaching that leaves no room for what is popularly referred today as "dissent."
Can 753 - The assent owed to teachings of bishops "individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils" (Can 753). The verdict here is religious submission. This is not submission to the same extent as with the united episcopate or the pope as per canon 752 but obedience is still required nonetheless.
To summarize the difference, this obedience is one we can challenge provided that we are still respectful of what is prescribed -as it not a part of the permanent ordinary magisterium unless the pope or an ecumenical council decides otherwise. Should the latter occur, the qualification would move from Canon 753 regulations to those of Canon 752 with a corresponding increase in the manner of religious submission owed to the teaching.
Can. 754 - Obedience to all judgments issues for the proposition of doctrine or proscription of errors - particularly those of the Pope or the College of Bishops.
Self explanatory except the Code has to put in a legal provision to prevent the kind of sophisms perpetrated by those who would claim to obey the magisterium but not obey its actual teachings as promulgated in magisterial texts. It is important to note though that in order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops to constitute authentic magisterium "they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the Bishops belonging to the Conference and having a deliberative vote" (Pope John Paul II: Apostolic Letter Apostolos Suos). Further still "[n]o body of the Episcopal Conference, outside of the plenary assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium". (ibid.) Finally, "the Episcopal Conference cannot grant such power to its Commissions or other bodies set up by it". (ibid.) Just as the pope cannot delegate his charism of infallibility to anyone, the conferences cannot delegate its magisterium to commissions or other legislative bodies.
Nothing short of the plenary synod requires religious submission of mind and will from the Bishops conferences.{5} Plenary synods do constitute such magisterium but since they are so rarely held,{6} it is not necessary to mention them here.
Canon 755§§1,2 - In brief, the competence for directing the ecumenical movement is based firstly on the college of bishops and the apostolic see (755§1) and secondly on individual bishops and bishops conference in manner congruent with the preceding text (755§2). This is common sense in that it is the bishops who are heads of the dioceses and the apostolic see -the pope personally or those who govern various dicasteries by virtue of his authority- who are the ones who should be directing the ecumenical venture with its various delicacies and potential pitfalls for those who rush in uncritically. But that is neither here nor there.
In summary of this commentary, there is a unified and hierarchial thread here of subjects. Hopefully what is noted here is of assistance in outlining and explaining the diverse elements involved in a reasonably economical yet fairly comprehensive manner.
Notes:
{1} The act of faith by its nature is not considered genuine unless it is given freely and a coerced conscience is not one which can give that assent freely. This must however be understood in the context of ecclesiastical authority's obligation to protect the faithful from errors which are harmful to the faith as well as civil authority's right to insure public order and the common good of society. This freedom of conscience is not unlimited.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church covers the subject of conscience in detail from CCC §1776-1802. I recommend reading those parts to properly understand the nuances of this subject. However, for those who appeal to conscience over and against the teaching of the Church, focus on CCC §1792 which states that "Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct."
As an aside, I wonder if there is a parallel between the CCC posting this as section 1792 and the historical event of the egalitarian Jacobans overthrowing the Constitutional government established in 1789 and inaugurating the and the "edict of fraternity" in 1792 and numbering the years from that point the "years of liberty". (With the resultant calls for overthrowing all secular and spiritual rulers.)
{2} This is an area where self-styled "progressives" and self-styled "traditionalists" tend to go askew and therefore this addition was necessary so that these truths have corresponding penalties under the Code.
{3} In short, the Church's ordinary magisterium.
{4} This does not mean that they are not schismatics of course, only that they are not punished with the penalties applicable to schismatics.
{5} With the exception of when the conferences are reiterating Catholic doctrine of course.
{6} The last in America was in Third Synod of Baltimore held in 1884. This does not mean that Bishop's Conferences are not authoritative of course, only that the decisions of such conferences barring approval of the Apostolic See cannot legislate in matters binding on their respective areas. A subject too complex to deal with here in brief so I will simply note here that simplistic interpretations of this statement of mine are bound to be erroneous ones.
Pope John Paul's new Encyclical letter on the Eucharist Ecclesia de Eucharistia can be read HERE. It was signed today during the papal mass. I have admittedly not read it yet but just once wanted to possibly "scoop" St. Blog's and post the link first. This immediately becomes my next piece of Lenten reading after I finish meditations on Dark Night of the Soul.
Sunday, April 13, 2003
I mentioned it earlier at the Lidless Eye BLOG so I will also mention it here: an essay by Pete Vere and myself which was recently published in the March 6, 2003 issue of The Wanderer is now on the web. It is available at two different apostolates with our concurrence:
John Pacheco's Catholic Legate Apostolate
Theotokos Catholic Website
Catholic Legate is Canadian apologetics at its finest. (John Pacheco the webmaster is a friend of Rerum Novarum.) Theotokos Catholic Website is an orthodox apostolate dedicated to promoting Fatima from within the bosom of the Catholic Church. We do not hesitate to recommend Catholic Legate{1} and what we have read thus far from Theotokos is worth noting as well.
Note:
{1} Including them in our weblog list of sites.
John Pacheco's Catholic Legate Apostolate
Theotokos Catholic Website
Catholic Legate is Canadian apologetics at its finest. (John Pacheco the webmaster is a friend of Rerum Novarum.) Theotokos Catholic Website is an orthodox apostolate dedicated to promoting Fatima from within the bosom of the Catholic Church. We do not hesitate to recommend Catholic Legate{1} and what we have read thus far from Theotokos is worth noting as well.
Note:
{1} Including them in our weblog list of sites.
I have planned a few detailed responses to emails sent to me in recent weeks. There is also a response to so-called "progressives" and their favourite shibboleths which will balance out the two planned responses. (Both of which are to either self-styled "traditionalists" or to those who are sympathizers to them or their arguments.) Be on the lookout for those if you are interested in detailed and (I would argue decisive) expositions on the issues which will be covered. I may post the first one this evening after mass.
Speaking of JYB:
(aka "Props for the Pope" Dept.)
JYB and others were very critical of the Holy See a while back - something that I addressed HERE. My hunch about the Vatican appears to be correct: opposition to war in Iraq was because of inconsistent handling of similar problems in other parts of the world by the US and its allies. As I noted in the earlier criticism of a Catholic who was critical of the pope (in one of the comments boxes at Dale Price's Dyspeptic Mutterings BLOG):
[T]his war is not going to solve the problems. It is akin to putting a bandaid on a bayonet wound. As long as people continue to fail in addressing the deeper issues of what causes people to act in ways that bring about these kinds of monsters like Hussein, war will always be the default "solution" to clean up messes that never should have been allowed to develop in the first place.
Pope John Paul II has addressed the entire spectrum of these root issues for over twenty-five years now. The fact that most of the world did not listen - and still does not listen - ensures that there will be more Husseins, more Jong II's, more Clinton's, etc.
My suggestion there is one that I reiterate anew at this time:
I would suggest that to understand the pope's view is to understand St. John of the Cross' Dark Night of the Soul. Remember, Fr. Karol Wojtyla wrote his doctoral thesis on St. John of the Cross. As I read and meditate on this work in detail, I can see the influences of St. John's mysticism on this pope's thinking on issues that previously I found puzzling.
Thus whomever wants to be overly critical of the pope for possibly being wrong on the Iraq issue needs to ask themselves if that detracts from him being right about the root and matrix issues that bring about people like Hussein, Jong II, and Clinton. Even if we use the military to crush Jong II, Syria, and even perhaps the Palestinian leadership, if we do not tend to the areas that the Holy Father has meticulously laid out and analyzed in detail, we will within another generation have more Jong II's more Husseins, more Arafats, and will elect more presidents like Clinton. For this is akin to the Hydra of Greek mythology.
President Bush's Iraq campaign is - like any other military campaign against similar despots - cutting off the heads of the monster but more will appear. By contrast, Pope John Paul II - much as the Second Vatican Council before him did - seeks to aim not at the heads of the monster (aka the surface issues) but instead seeks to target the heart of the beast. (For only there can the creature be truly killed.) Thus for those who berated the pope, think long and hard about what I have just said please. For this man is not a shortrange or superficial person but instead is a longrange and indepth thinker. And on the core issues that created Hussein and people like him (and which elected Clinton) the pope was right all along. I wonder if people are going to realize this soon or if we will have to repeat history again.
And btw, this same criticism I extend to those who have railed against the clergy sex abuse case whose idea of a resolution is as superficial as this war in Iraq is to being a true fix to the problems that spawned it. (I point this particularly at those who have supported in any way positions which have undermined the Church's authority in the past forty years.) In both situations above, the pope's policy of handling this has come under fire and in both cases his policies have been on the whole substantial ones aimed at the roots of the problem. (Rather than the predominantly reactionary facades that were commonly propounded by his critics.)
(aka "Props for the Pope" Dept.)
JYB and others were very critical of the Holy See a while back - something that I addressed HERE. My hunch about the Vatican appears to be correct: opposition to war in Iraq was because of inconsistent handling of similar problems in other parts of the world by the US and its allies. As I noted in the earlier criticism of a Catholic who was critical of the pope (in one of the comments boxes at Dale Price's Dyspeptic Mutterings BLOG):
[T]his war is not going to solve the problems. It is akin to putting a bandaid on a bayonet wound. As long as people continue to fail in addressing the deeper issues of what causes people to act in ways that bring about these kinds of monsters like Hussein, war will always be the default "solution" to clean up messes that never should have been allowed to develop in the first place.
Pope John Paul II has addressed the entire spectrum of these root issues for over twenty-five years now. The fact that most of the world did not listen - and still does not listen - ensures that there will be more Husseins, more Jong II's, more Clinton's, etc.
My suggestion there is one that I reiterate anew at this time:
I would suggest that to understand the pope's view is to understand St. John of the Cross' Dark Night of the Soul. Remember, Fr. Karol Wojtyla wrote his doctoral thesis on St. John of the Cross. As I read and meditate on this work in detail, I can see the influences of St. John's mysticism on this pope's thinking on issues that previously I found puzzling.
Thus whomever wants to be overly critical of the pope for possibly being wrong on the Iraq issue needs to ask themselves if that detracts from him being right about the root and matrix issues that bring about people like Hussein, Jong II, and Clinton. Even if we use the military to crush Jong II, Syria, and even perhaps the Palestinian leadership, if we do not tend to the areas that the Holy Father has meticulously laid out and analyzed in detail, we will within another generation have more Jong II's more Husseins, more Arafats, and will elect more presidents like Clinton. For this is akin to the Hydra of Greek mythology.
President Bush's Iraq campaign is - like any other military campaign against similar despots - cutting off the heads of the monster but more will appear. By contrast, Pope John Paul II - much as the Second Vatican Council before him did - seeks to aim not at the heads of the monster (aka the surface issues) but instead seeks to target the heart of the beast. (For only there can the creature be truly killed.) Thus for those who berated the pope, think long and hard about what I have just said please. For this man is not a shortrange or superficial person but instead is a longrange and indepth thinker. And on the core issues that created Hussein and people like him (and which elected Clinton) the pope was right all along. I wonder if people are going to realize this soon or if we will have to repeat history again.
And btw, this same criticism I extend to those who have railed against the clergy sex abuse case whose idea of a resolution is as superficial as this war in Iraq is to being a true fix to the problems that spawned it. (I point this particularly at those who have supported in any way positions which have undermined the Church's authority in the past forty years.) In both situations above, the pope's policy of handling this has come under fire and in both cases his policies have been on the whole substantial ones aimed at the roots of the problem. (Rather than the predominantly reactionary facades that were commonly propounded by his critics.)
The So-called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of the Braindead Communists and Their Sympathizers Progressives:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This entry is to supplement the excellent coverage by Chris Regan at The JunkYard BLOG on the liberal bilge about a "regime change in America". The closest thing we have had to a regime in American history was the very ClintonReich Administration that most of these goons voted for. But since when has there been a concern for logical consistency in any of the arguments offered by these "peace promoters" (falsely so-called)???
Since I know liberalism is not a philosophy but is instead a mental disorder, I will quickly outline what is not acceptable as a response to this situation. Among the unacceptable responses are (to name one example) anything whatsoever that pertains to the Iraq war. If you are not smart enough to notice the similarities{1} between war with an evil dictator who murders his critics and an administration such as Clinton's where many of its more damning critics were either found dead or were the targets of several attempts on their lives then you should have your voting rights revoked. Which reminds me.
A friend of mine saw a vehicle the other day with both a "No Iraq War" bumpersticker on it as well as a "Free Tibet" bumpersticker. I therefore must ask the question:
If it is acceptable to "free Tibet" - and presumably this would involve military force{2} why is it unacceptable to "free Iraq" in like manner??? Indeed I would have more respect for the "free Tibet" crowd if they also had "free Iraq" stickers on their vehicles. For those who would support freeing Iraq who have "free Tibet" stickers as well would at least lend some credibility to the "free Tibet" movement. They would go to show that this position was at least a principled one in its central conception of not all of its ancillary annexations.
But strangely enough, I would wager that you could not find for me someone who was so ardantly "free Tibet"{3} who at the same time was not opposed to freeing Iraq. So it must be questioned as to how these people think Tibet would be freed if not by the use of military force.
It is certainly possible that it could happen through prayer much as militant communism in Russia fell. But these sorts tend to not be very religious. They tend to be egotistical "if it feels good do it" sorts{4} so how they envision Tibet being freed in light of their general abhorrance of military force and their secularist mindset tending to rule out supernatural means is frankly one I cannot fathom. Any readers out there who can, please email me with the solution. But remember, it must be a non-religious and non-military solution. We would not want these people to violate the law of non-contradiction in their solutions after all...
Notes:
{1} I am not implying here that Clinton was anything near as bad as Saddam Hussein was, only that he has more in common with Hussein than those who posit the Hussein/Bush "moral equivalence" schtick will admit to.
{2} How else would these drones suggest Tibet would be freed??? As Bryan Preston recently noted about the the US liberation of Baghdad The US military--doing more to improve human rights around the world in one day than Amnesty International can do in a lifetime. So I await the solution that these "peace promoters" (falsely so-called) have to offer.
{3} That they bumpersticker their cars to advertise this opinion to others.
{4} Yet they are aghast at people like Charlie Manson who apparently killed because it "felt good" to do so. And for all we know, China enslaves Tibet because it "feels good" for them to do it. And if the latter is the case, then these libbers are in quite a quandry.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This entry is to supplement the excellent coverage by Chris Regan at The JunkYard BLOG on the liberal bilge about a "regime change in America". The closest thing we have had to a regime in American history was the very Clinton
Since I know liberalism is not a philosophy but is instead a mental disorder, I will quickly outline what is not acceptable as a response to this situation. Among the unacceptable responses are (to name one example) anything whatsoever that pertains to the Iraq war. If you are not smart enough to notice the similarities{1} between war with an evil dictator who murders his critics and an administration such as Clinton's where many of its more damning critics were either found dead or were the targets of several attempts on their lives then you should have your voting rights revoked. Which reminds me.
A friend of mine saw a vehicle the other day with both a "No Iraq War" bumpersticker on it as well as a "Free Tibet" bumpersticker. I therefore must ask the question:
If it is acceptable to "free Tibet" - and presumably this would involve military force{2} why is it unacceptable to "free Iraq" in like manner??? Indeed I would have more respect for the "free Tibet" crowd if they also had "free Iraq" stickers on their vehicles. For those who would support freeing Iraq who have "free Tibet" stickers as well would at least lend some credibility to the "free Tibet" movement. They would go to show that this position was at least a principled one in its central conception of not all of its ancillary annexations.
But strangely enough, I would wager that you could not find for me someone who was so ardantly "free Tibet"{3} who at the same time was not opposed to freeing Iraq. So it must be questioned as to how these people think Tibet would be freed if not by the use of military force.
It is certainly possible that it could happen through prayer much as militant communism in Russia fell. But these sorts tend to not be very religious. They tend to be egotistical "if it feels good do it" sorts{4} so how they envision Tibet being freed in light of their general abhorrance of military force and their secularist mindset tending to rule out supernatural means is frankly one I cannot fathom. Any readers out there who can, please email me with the solution. But remember, it must be a non-religious and non-military solution. We would not want these people to violate the law of non-contradiction in their solutions after all...
Notes:
{1} I am not implying here that Clinton was anything near as bad as Saddam Hussein was, only that he has more in common with Hussein than those who posit the Hussein/Bush "moral equivalence" schtick will admit to.
{2} How else would these drones suggest Tibet would be freed??? As Bryan Preston recently noted about the the US liberation of Baghdad The US military--doing more to improve human rights around the world in one day than Amnesty International can do in a lifetime. So I await the solution that these "peace promoters" (falsely so-called) have to offer.
{3} That they bumpersticker their cars to advertise this opinion to others.
{4} Yet they are aghast at people like Charlie Manson who apparently killed because it "felt good" to do so. And for all we know, China enslaves Tibet because it "feels good" for them to do it. And if the latter is the case, then these libbers are in quite a quandry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)