"Christian Unity and the Role of Authority" Dept.
(Plus some musings from your humble servant of Rerum Novarum)


A common pattern that I have recently sought to address with regards to my earliest writings is the voluminous nature of their compositions. One can only hear so much about the pieces being "economy-challenged" before coming to the conclusion that an army of people with the exact same criticism cannot be wrong. (Particularly when that army was in the vast majority of cases otherwise favourable towards the work.)

For a long time has the prospect of making such adjustments been on the back burner. (Over a year in fact.) But only recently (October of 2002) was it feasible for a variety of reasons to actually undertake the process. And even then it took about six weeks to actually start the wheel rolling - the mind finding a million excuses to postpone indefinately the inevitable.

When I started revising the treatise in late November-early December of 2002, the emphasis was on utilizing a lot of short urls to make the piece much easier to read. This pattern continued with revisions to another sizeable project from mid 2000 where the longer urls were divided into several shorter ones for easier reading.

My essays from 2000 were originally over eighty pages apiece on the average. Even adjusting for excessive length of certain projects, the per piece average was still over fifty pages. By 2001 with the exception of my essay on Christian Unity, the average essay was a shade under thirty pages per. (Including the longer work it was thirty-seven pages per.)

It is next to impossible to gauge what an average for 2002 was since only one piece approaching a web essay was actually written since November of 2001. (That would be the open letter to my friend Albert Cipriani.) That one was twenty-nine pages but it also does not have the customary bibliography and notes section that is my wont to put into web writings. So figure with a proper bibliography, etc it would be thirty-one odd pages long.

Other then that, the last five non-extract writings I have done were either for e-zines or were co-written projects for print periodicals.{1} In those cases they were under 2500 words or so per. In addition to those, there will be at least three additional essays published this year which were cowritten earlier in the year with Pete. All of this had me thinking that I needed to make the earlier writings more comprehensible. I had already abridged the first Svendsen essay back in early 2001 when the Appendix material from that writing was excised out. {2}

As the essays from 2001 were all in the 20-45 page range,{3} they did not need tending to in the sense of dividing them up onto multiple urls. (Though they all were to varying degrees refined a little back in January of this year.) However, there were still the essays on the Real Presence and on Justification which were fifty and seventy pages long respectively. They were too complete to be abridging{4} - indeed the one glaring defect they had was a lack of bibliography/notes section as I noted in a previous blog entry. So any revision would involve lengthening them both right out of the starting gate. Nonetheless, shorly after I corrected and resent all the templates from my writings where either Vatican II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church were referenced with live bibliography links,{5} the two essays were started concurrent to one another. The original plan was to rerelease the Real Presence essay on Holy Thursday and the Justification essay on Mercy Sunday. Well, in neither case was the target date successful.

The Real Presence essay ended up being re-released in a three url format on Good Friday. But in reviewing the divided templates of the Justification essay (which will be on nine urls), it hit me that the Christian Unity essay would be a pretty easy reformatting piece to do also. Unlike the Real Presence essay, there would be no adjustments of grammar or added paragraphs, no adjustments of piece sequence, indeed almost nothing to add except for a couple tiny segues where a few of the sections would be divided into urls. So in the span of two hours on Monday of this week, the piece was done except for url 8 where I wanted to tweak the final paragraphs of the essay a bit. That was done on Wednesday and the templates were sent off to Matt this morning. They are now available to be read HERE.

As far as the justification essay goes,{6} it is about seventy-five percent completed now. Among the most noticeable differences it will have with its predecessor (other than the multiple url format) is that each of the nine urls have their own bibliographies and notes sections. There is also a more judicious use of emphasis in the work. And in a few spots some new material is added. It will also be more ecumenical. I will not budge from saying the hard things but at the same time the tone will be more irenic in doing it. This is keeping with the dictum of Bl. Pope John XXIII's Allocution to the Second Vatican Council about "the substance of the ancient deposit of faith is one thing, the manner in which it is expressed is another".

So those who have referred in the past to my rather encyclopaedic length responses can be assured that upon completion of the justification essay reformatting there will be little if any truth to that charge anymore. Thus critics are going to have to find another way to avoid my arguments. Oh well, what else is new???


Notes:

{1} Two of them were co-authored essays with Pete Vere for periodical publication in 2001, two of them were pieces I wrote for e-zine publications from September 2001 and November 2001, one was the essay cowritten with Pete Vere for the March 6, 2003 edition of The Wanderer.

{2} The material was duplicated originally in my treatise prior to abridging that work in December of 2000. Some of the material excised from that revision - which was duplicated in an appendix to the first Svendsen essay - resurfaced in February 2001 when it was published in a short 12 page essay The Mass - A Short Primer.

{3} Except two which were under twenty pages - one of which was a cowritten essay, one which was a shade over forty-five pages long, and the hundred page Christian Unity essay. Originally my Syllabus essay was fifty pages long but I excised the seven page appendix section after finishing the treatise revisions.

{4} The two essays had received favourable email responses. (The essay on the real presence in particular had received favourable email responses - particularly from Eastern Christians.) Though I had planned to revise these two writings as early as late 2001, the circumstances of the time made such an endeavour impossible to do. (Not to mention losing the harddrive in early May 2002.)

{5} This was done in the days before St. Patrick's Day.

{6} The justification essay was actually critiqued by a Reformed Protestant in late 2001. The critique was for the most part ecumenical and I did make a few adjustments in the templates currently being revised which reflected what I could recall from that review. The planned Mercy Sunday release of the justification essay is not to be - though in retrospect, perhaps it is best that the reformatted essay on Christian Unity has been made available instead on that day. (In light of the theme of that piece.)

More From the Mailbag" Dept.

Dear Mr. McElhinney,

Hello Mr. XXXXXX:

I apologize for the delay in responding. I hope your Lent was a fruitful one and that you have a very blessed Mercy Sunday.

I just finished reading you article entitled "The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand.".

I fixed a link on that essay last week. The first link of the "notes" section went to the wrong article. It goes to the right one now.

I think that you make some good points in the article. What I wonder, however, is how you would handle the following quotation from the Council of Trent's Decree on the Holy Eucharist:

CHAPTER VIII.

On the use of this admirable Sacrament.

Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained. And finally this holy Synod with true fatherly affection admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that all and each of those who bear the Christian name would now at length agree and be of one mind in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and that mindful of the so great majesty, and the so exceeding love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His own flesh to eat, they would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His body and blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be to them truly the life of the soul, and the perpetual health of their mind; that being invigorated by the strength thereof, they may, after the journeying of this miserable pilgrimage, be able to arrive at their heavenly country, there to eat, without any veil, that same bread of angels which they now eat under the sacred veils.

I draw your attention to the sentence which reads "Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained." It would seem here that the contrast between the priests communicating themselves and the laymen receiving from the priests would indicate communion on the tongue for the laity.

It may appear that way; however I assure you that is not the case. We know from historical records that the laity in many areas received communion in the hand from the priest at mass. The reception was with the hands in the shape of a cross and then they would lift both hands at the same time to the mouth to receive the host. I documented patristic evidences that directly substantiate this notion and it was not condemned by the Fathers in any way.{1} So it cannot be a statement about communion on the tongue since this practice of reception originated very late. It was not as late as communion under one kind but it was still very late in the first millennium. The instruction in one of my missals for the communion in the hand option stated that "this was the only way communion was received in the first millennium". As usual, church history is much more complex than partisans of either position want to admit to.

I did not refer to the Tridentine quote above in the essay because (i) my intention was to sketch out the early pedigree of this custom and (ii) I did not want to appear to be calling into question the veracity of Trent. Because of the early witness being substantial and also broad - having witness in Africa, Rome, Palestine, and Asia Minor as well as plenary synods of the Orient - either Trent erred or those who interpret Trent's decree to sanction universal custom for communion on the tongue would be misunderstanding the council's intention. I always prefer to err on the side of the individuals to avoid casting aspersions on an ecumenical council.

Even though Trent could be wrong about this and it would not be a big deal (as church infallibility does not touch on matters of history), I still prefer to give the synod the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. And with Trent on this decree that is very much possible. For what Trent appears to have been referring to here is the Nicaean eighteenth canon that forbid deacons from giving communion to the priests. Here is that canon circa 325 AD:

It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. Moreover it has become known that some of the deacons now receive the eucharist even before the bishops. All these practices must be suppressed. Deacons must remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. Let them receive the eucharist according to their order after the presbyters from the hands of the bishop or the presbyter. Nor shall permission be given for the deacons to sit among the presbyters, for such an arrangement is contrary to the canon and to rank. If anyone refuses to comply even after these decrees, he is to be suspended from the diaconate.

In short "those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer". And the practice at liturgy was for the celebrant to give communion to others, not receive it from others - particularly from those who could not offer the sacrifice. The same principle would apply today if an extraordinary minister were to give communion to a deacon. Though not directly forbidden it would nonetheless be condemned at least in spirit by Nicaea and Trent. For the basis of the Nicaea canon is that those who do not offer cannot give the Eucharist to those who do offer. (Remember, it was customary in the early church for all priests present at a mass to concelebrate.) In like manner with the extraordinary minister giving communion to a deacon it would be a member of the clergy receiving from non-clergy. If not directly than at least indirectly this practice would not be allowed under canon or custom. (And of course a deacon or extraordinary minister giving communion to a bishop or priest would be an explicit violation of this Nicaean canon.)

Furthermore, the Council states unequivocally that such a practice has come down from an apostolical tradition.

Correct.

If so, it would seem that communion in the hand is a departure from apostolic tradition and ought to be either abandoned or, at the very least, discouraged.

I'd appreciate hearing your views on the above passage.

Well if communion in the hand is a departure from apostolic tradition then we have saints and doctors of the Church sanctioning such departure. This list other than the ecclesiastical writer Tertullian (if memory serves me) St. Justin Martyr and St. Cyril of Jerusalem. It also includes St. Cyprian of Carthage who is mentioned in the Roman Canon. It also includes St. Basil the Great and St. John Damascene who are Doctors of the Church. It was sanctioned as apostolic by a plenary synod of the Orient - the easterns going so far as to rebuke Rome for contradicting early custom. And finally, it is sanctioned by the Apostolic Constitutions which were once believed to have been handed down by the Apostles themselves.{2}

So whatever arguments someone wants to advance for the allowance or non-allowance of this practice, it cannot be discouraged on the basis of either early practice or the false notion that the laity touching the sacrament is "sacreligious" as some radtrads claim. If it was then the Church sanctioned sacrilege for at least the first millennium and at a near universal degree. No Catholic worth their salt would want to make that assertion.

I have become more tolerant of communion in the hand since that piece was written. (It was written in February of 2001.) When I mean tolerant I mean overcoming my scruples and submitting to the Church. I personally have never have received communion except on the tongue. And while this is my personal preference (as well as my essay coauthor 'Matt1618'), I do not believe personally that any arguments against communion in the hand are persuasive ones except (perhaps) the argument that this custom was reintroduced on basis of certain ordinaries and local churches (particularly in the Netherlands) going against the Church's sanctioned practice.

For Rome making an allowance for this later on could conceivably be said to have contributed to the dissent that would explode with Humanae Vitae and Missale Romanum. (Though the allowance came in 1969 between these two events, it can be plausibly argued that this concession to dissidents may have strengthened the resolve of the 'liberals' opposing Humanae Vitae and given the 'trads' who opposed Missale Romanum the notion that if they acted in like manner, Rome would eventually capitulate to them as well.)

I believe if someone approached the subject from that angle, they could make a very good case for communion on the tongue to be reimplemented as the reception policy. However, appeals to history or other sources would not seem to me to carry much weight. The Magisterium after all did loose this policy. It therefore remains loosed until they choose to bind it again if they ever do. To my way of thinking, that someone is able to receive communion is much more important than whether they receive by tongue or hand.

Notes:

{1} A friend actually sent me a link to a file of his excerpted from a mid twentieth century book on the Mass where there it refers to Pope Gregory the Great giving a woman communion in the hand from the loaf he consecrated on the altar. There is no shortage of such evidences which corroborate what I outlined in that essay.

{2} It is now believed that the Apostolic Constitutions were primarily compiled in fourth century Rome. While they attest to the earliest practices of the Church in many areas, there are nonetheless a few clear redactions from the mid fifth century or later in a few parts of them as well. The latter are mainly (to my knowledge) in the precise trinitarian language ascribed to early saints such as St. Hippolytus who lived in a period before such precise distinctions had been worked out and systemized.

On Weblogs and Message Boards - the Fisking of a Self-styled "Traditionalist"

[Prefatory Note: This post was written approximately three and a half weeks ago and stored at my developmental weblog. It was lightly retouched shortly before posting. Additions to what was written almost a month ago were added today in purple font.]

I start off with an apology to anyone I have promised to respond to who has not received a response. We at Rerum Novarum are very backlogged. Along with finishing refinements and light restructuring of the last of our old writings - which is taking most of our allotted time for evangelization at the present - there is also a backlog on responding to any emails that need more than a quick response to them.

This email is among the backlogged entries and is about two weeks old or so. I post it here because it serves as a representative of the sort of people we deal with in talking to self-righteous Integrists. (Also known as "radtrads", "self-styled 'traditionalists'", or "lidless eyes".) In short, they love to be insulting and then wonder why they are not treated with more than a shrugoff most of the time. (Or, when I do respond to these sorts, I can at times do so in a somewhat heavyhanded manner.) I should probably post this to the Lidless Eye weblog but I am in the mood to make a nice gesture here so I will refrain from that. My words will be in regular font. The email I am responding to will be in black font. Any sources I reference will be in darkgreen font. Having noted that distinction and without further ado, here we go.

I noticed that instead of replying to your "challenge" on the Envoy Encore website, you decided to take my statements (bits and pieces of them) and use them on your own blog.

I responded to this individual in detail back in December and only added one of the messages to the ancillary Lidless Eye weblog back in late January because I ran across it in my notebook. Let us reveal the full thread so that the readers can follow this sequence systematically. First we have the comments thread in its entirety which can be found HERE which includes the response at Envoy Encore that this individual claims I did not make there. (See post #65.) I suggest that the reader open that link in a separate screen to follow along with the sequence I am about to present. As usual with self-styled "traditionalists" such as this individual being fisked, they do not do their homework.

The readers if they follow the thread can note a progression of his snide and rather incoherent comments in response to Pete (#3), his incomplete familiarity with liturgical history and theology (as outlined in #8-#9), and his absolutely idiotic fantasy of Our Lord and the Blessed Mother singing the Psalms in Latin: a spectacle which was even beyond his witless condemnation of so-called "antiquarianism" (for both see post #11).

From there I responded to his broadbrushed treatment of Mediator Dei in two posts (#14 and #16). Rather than engage the arguments made, he proceeded to demonstrate in technicolour an intolerance of reasonable discourse and a marked fondness for shallow invective in a series of posts spanning from #19-#36. By that point, it was clear to me that the person was not interested in a discussion and were prone to labelling with the term "Gnostic" anyone who did not profess the Gospel According to Herr Mershon. I frankly could not see why on earth anyone should take him seriously by this point so I of course refused to do so.

From there he entered a state of recrudesce with his banschee-like shrieking about my being "a 20-something smart aleck." I am not sure what his perceptions of my age have to do with anything as (i) they are erroneous and (ii) surely Our Lord's dictum regarding beams and specks provides sufficient comment on his bad manners. For despite his attempts to utilize big terms like "antiquarianism", I took good measure to deal in detail with the misunderstandings of Mediator Dei he set forth in two posts to that thread (#41 and #44). My "mysterious source" in both responses: the encyclical letter itself. For someone who was so insistent that I respond to their so-called "challenge", this individual was again amazingly silent on my entries on Mediator Dei. Which reminds me.

I will deal with his ignorance of my work further down in this thread. (It is a post in and of itself.) However, I want to first address my reasons for responding on my blogs oftentimes and linking them to message boxes. (Though sometimes I write a message in a box and then blog it later with additions, subtractions, or modifications as I see fit.) Let this response serve as an instruction on the matter.

Message boxes do not tend to have the perminency of a weblog response as they fall off the screen as more of them are added. Blogging them therefore allows for the continuation of a subject weeks or months later. By contrast, comments box messages are archived with the main post. They therefore tend to disappear when the message is archived. Also, such messages are frequently at the mercy of software such as Haloscan, Enetation, and YACCS (to name a few) getting a glitch and erasing the message box contents. Because of this, I always consider blogging any response made in a comments box if I think it is a point that may repeat itself later on. I see no reason to reinvent the wheel after all and time constraints do not make repetition expedient if it means restructuring a point from ground zero time and again. I explain this principle in detail HERE.

Blogging is not like essay writing and working for economy of expression without leaving out anything that is essential is a constant task of balancing. (Except when writing for print publications where the same balancing act is called for.) If he feels that my response overlooked something that was an essential constituent to his argument, then a simple email pointing this out can work wonders. (The same applies to others whose emails are blogged.) Unlike certain "infallible 'trads'", I do not hesitate to correct potential misrepresentations of other people's viewpoints - even at times amending the parts used when quoting a source. Contrary to what this person would seem to imply in the tone of their email, there was (and is) no intention to misrepresent.

If there was an intention on my part to misrepresent him, he needs to ask why I would post the entire archive thread from December where I got the Lidless Eye post if I was "worried" about what I said there. I did not act as a juvenile on the thread as this individual did. And yes I will note that here since he has thus far pretended that he can insult people at will and that is somehow okay. I am a reasonable fellow but I have my limits like anyone else. One of those limits is how far I will go in tolerating people who act as he has established a track record of acting. Having noted that, I can now address his email here on Mysterium Fidei. The reference will thus shift from indirect to direct for the duration of this response.

[snipping the quote]

From Alfons Cardinal Stickler with the entire article attached.

Brian, I am amazed that you do not hesitate to insult me when you have not the slightest idea about what I have written. Your questioning of whether I had read Mediator Dei (noted earlier) is particularly egregious since I reference it heavily in at least three separate writings. And no, I do not use single line snippets but instead quote whole chunks of it and in doing so thus insure proper context and not prooftexting. You have a lot of nerve to call me names when you so clearly have either not read my work or you have only given it a cursory scan at best.

I will fill in for this shortcoming on your part here this one time and in the future will expect you to come to a discussion having some degree of knowledge about someone's position before you act like a typical lidless eye quack scholar.{1} I believe people like you are the biggest reason why the Ecclesia Dei indult is not of a much wider scope than it is. If I was a local ordinary, there is no way I would give an indult if most of those requesting it were people like you. I suggest you listen and learn and stop committing ecclesial hari-kari for those whose views may be similar to yours but whom have a thousand times the class that you do. Bad apples like you ruin the entire batch for everyone else.

As far as the article you sent, I read this article eight years ago. (I own the 1995 Latin Mass issue which it ran in initially.) After seeing it touted as some "masterful piece" at a number of websites, I re-read it in January of 2001 and wrote a detailed response to it paragraph by paragraph. And I put out my essay on the web in April of 2001 before Latin Mass Magazine re-released it. When retouching most of my older web writings back in January, I made a few very minor adjustments to it. (A couple grammatical quirks, fixing two broken links, and replacing one defunct source with a newer and better reference text.) Nonetheless, for one who debuted references to me with such self-assured "certainty" I note again: you sure are ignorant of my work. If anything confirmed this for me it was you sending this link to Stickler's essay. The Mediator Dei flubs are at least moderately excusable since most of the writings they are in are rather lengthy. (Prior to the January revision I would have to extend some leeway for this oversight but no longer.) But this is not as I have had that essay on the web for two years now. Unlike longer pieces which have been formatted onto shorter sectional urls for easier reading, this is not a very long piece either. (It is 36.25 pages if I recall correctly.) In this light, such recommendations are not a credit to your ability to pay attention. And paying attention is rather important if you propose to be critical of other people.

I wonder to whom should I listen. You, or a Cardinal who was a periti at the Council and served on the the Committee on the Liturgy.

No matter what I say, you will only listen to whomever tickles your fancy irrespective of whether they are right or not (cf. 2 Tim iv,3).

PS Do you mind explaining to me your theological credentials since you like to mock others so and esp. re: to "established theological norms of interpretation."

Brian, be honest with the readers. You really do not care what my credentials are. You are taking this approach for one reason and one reason only: to try and find a convenient way of avoiding my arguments which are more trenchant than you are willing to admit publicly. Let us explain to the readers why this request of yours is really not relevant to the discussion.

Let us consider the credentials Pope John Paul II has and also those of the other recent popes whom "trads" like to disobey. (Excluding Pius XII whom they selectively obey and conveniently whitewash the rest if it does not square with what they want to believe: see my treatise for details on this.) If "trads" do not consider the credentials of these individuals as adequate - their prerogatives as Vicars of Christ notwithstanding - why should I expect a different treatment from you to stuff I have written??? Let us review them at this time.

Excluding JP I whose reign was brief (and therefore whose credentials are not relevant to this discussion), every one of the recent popes had doctorates in either philosophy (Paul VI, JP II), theology (JP II, John XXIII), or canon law (Paul VI). And all three of the above popes were well-educated in Church History. John XXIII's specialty was the Council of Trent and St. Charles Borromeo's attempts to implement Trent in Milan. (And his intention with Vatican II was to follow a similar policy as St. Charles.) He was also very knowledgeable about Pius IX's reign and was personally devoted to Pio Nono wanting to if possible beatify him personally. (That was unfortunately not possible for him to do.)

Paul VI studied all eighteen volumes of Hefele's History of the Councils and knew inside and out what ecumenical councils historically had sought to accomplish and indeed had. Paul VI was also a formidable theologian and indeed was favourably compared to Pius XII in this area upon his election. (Not to mention in the field of canon law where both Pius XII and Paul VI were among the best canonists of the Curia before their respective elections.) Both John XXIII and Paul VI had reputations as excellent pastors as well as being saintly men. The same traits applied to the current pope who is next in this sequence.

Pope John Paul II is particularly brilliant in both theology and philosophy. There is not a single "trad" or "trad" sympathizer whose pitiful candle of pseudo-theology or pseudo-philosophy can stand next to his blowtorch acumen. His understanding of the human person is to my knowledge without rival. Since you are making such a big deal about my credentials, how about we ask if you consider the aforementioned credentials of three popes who are commonly disobeyed and treated with disdain by "traditionalists" (falsely so-called).

If disobedience to them is considered a virtue by you trads - and if you would only obey them because they have degrees - then you are a fraud and not a faithful Catholic. If you feel that you have some right to criticize and question them at whim and then act offended when someone like me destroys the sacred cows to which you adhere to {2} then you are in need of some serious spiritual direction. If on the other hand you are obedient to the magisterium then I fail to see what your beef with me is.

Further still, if I was such a "traditionalist basher" then you need to ask yourself why do I promote Tridentine apostolates at my weblog, in my writings, and in correspondence. I have done this for years and indeed continue to. But you do not appear very interested in what I really have said because that might cause you to step back and actually interact with viewpoints which are not only well-researched but perhaps directly challenging of your religious weltanschauung. But let us consider another aspect of this mania for "scholarship" that you are putting forth.

Since you want to discuss scholarship - and in this email have "proposed" Cardinal Stickler's deficient essay - how about we discuss His Eminence's essay for a moment. Indeed, let us make this a double-slam since you have also raved on other Envoy message boxes about Fr. Chad Ripperger's very theologically faulty essay Operative Points of View. How about we consider my scholarship compared to these two prelates on the subjects we have covered. I could choose any of my writings but as I have written in response to essays by Stickler and Ripperger; therefore let us contrast these shall we - starting with Cardinal Stickler.

To start with, Cardinal Stickler is to my knowledge neither a theologian or a philosopher in the sense of having any noted degrees in these fields. He has a doctorate in Canon Law but that does not give him a special competence in the areas of theology, philosophy, church history, and liturgical history. And I am critical of the Cardinal's essay on all four of these fronts. Unlike the Cardinal, I sought to use as many accessible sources as I can. My critique of His Eminence was 70% sources that are in some form or another on the web. I do this so that my use of citations in their context can be verified. In my essay contra Fr. Chad Ripperger, all of my sources except one are available on the internet. (To the tune of 96.1% online sources.) Let us now consider Fr. Ripperger's "credentials" before delving further into the issue of sources used.

To my knowledge Fr. Ripperger has a Ph D. in philosophy. As I noted in my critique in the introduction "Father Chad Ripperger teaches moral theology for the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FSSP) at their seminary in Nebraska." Just because someone has a philosophical degree does not mean they know all that there is to know about philosophy. For philosophy has as many divisions within its realm as does theology or science. Therefore, if we really want to get technical about it, a degree in philosophy is not an asset if the individual is discussing a philosophical matter which falls into a realm that they are not specialized in.

Indeed I point out a very crucial philosophical and theological distinction on the subject of immanence that Fr. Ripperger completely misses and I do so with the support of old Catholic sources. (Including the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and Pope St. Pius X's Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis.) That is not the least of the difficulties that his essay has in squaring his presumptions with reality but it is worth noting since unlike other criticisms this to an extent reflects upon a realm that he is credentialed in.

Most of my criticisms of Fr. Ripperger's essay are in the areas of dogmatic theology, church history, norms of theological interpretation, and ecclesiastical practice historically. (I am unaware of any special competence that Fr. Ripperger has in any of these areas.) As far as traversing philosophy, as I noted already there are several branches of that science and it would seem to me that the area I was discussing is not one that Fr. Ripperger is accredited in. If he is than the error I outlined in detail would really give me cause to wonder. Out of charity I presume it simply is not in his area of expertise.

Theologically, Fr. Ripperger's special competence would appear to be moral theology as he teaches it at the seminary. None of my critique touches on this realm at all except (perhaps) in a very indirect manner. As far as sources used, I have in fact tallied the number of pages I have written, the number of sources I have used, their diversity, and the ratio of online to non-online sources per piece of writing. It was done precisely to deal with questions such as these.

You see, I know the kinds of sophisms that "trads" use as I used to use them myself. They are indeed the same kind of sophisms that are common to contra-Catholic polemicists of the Orthodox or Protestant realm. And I have therefore accumulated the hard data on these subjects because it is easy to demonstrate that by far and away and without a shadow of doubt, no "trad" or "trad sympathizer" can remotely approach me when it comes to (i) the quality of the scholarship I have drawn on (ii) the care and concern for proper context in citing sources (iii) the diversity of my sources, as well as (iv) accessibility of the sources used.{3}

After all, it is real easy to make grandiose pronouncements when your readers cannot verify your sources.{4} With the exception of a couple of my earliest post-treatise essays {5}, I have always tried whenever it is possible to use sources that can be easily examined by my readers. Those sources that cannot be thus verified - such as the rare inparagraph short citation here and there from my library or other sources - can be judged as to the basis of their accuracy of citation by my faithfulness to the sources which can be verified. I have nothing to hide and I am not afraid of people checking up on my sources.

Also, I make it a policy to use quality sources and not radtrad hack scholarship and sources produced from a Counter-reformation polemical mindset. With these sources, the truth is viewed as a casualty and to be glossed over if it tells against "the cause" - whatever it happens to be. Such sources when used by me are only used or referred to either to (i) point out nuances that they contain which their users often overlook or (ii) to debunk the veracity of the source as exhausting the franchise on the acceptable views on a subject that a Catholic can hold. (And it is seldom difficult to do that at all.)

That is the difference between me and the radtrads you appear to align yourself with. While they reference sadsack sources like Wathen, Davies, Coomerswamy, and others I discredit the veracity of their sources and (by logical extension) their arguments. I can do this without worrying about the same thing happening with my work because the overwhelming majority of the sources I use cannot be discredited by them without them cutting their own throats in the process.

So at the very least, they have to admit even if implicitly to the credibility of my sources. But it is easy for me to show that your allies do not cite their own sources accurately most of the time - particularly when they use the same sources I do. And when they do cite their sources correctly, the sources cited are usually quack scholarship sources of dubious quality of the sort no one concerned about the truth would deign to use. (Such as Michael Davies books, James Wathen, Atila Guimaraes and the Remnant crowd, etc.) So it is never an even playing field in short because while I do not have to be selective in my sources, your allies often do.

Further still, I do not generally have to use non-web sources. But as I know how lacking in charity and overly suspicious that trad types can often be so I go the extra mile to accommodate them. That way they have no excuses and cannot claim that I am misrepresenting a source as is their wont to do and do frequently. (Particularly when they run across an argument that they cannot cogently respond to.) In that light I find pompous individuals such as yourself particularly tempting to deflate.

I can think of no one who has used a larger proportion of web sources to total sources than I have. (In part because I do not have the kind of extensive library of a Dr. Scott Hahn or a Dr. Art Sippo so I have to compensate for that - as well as being a subpar typist though I have recently started working on the latter deficiency.) Because I use so many web sources, in that sense I am perhaps the most "exposed" of apologists because my sources can be verified as to their usage with a click of the mouse to the tune of 86% of the time on average.{6} Obviously I cannot supply the same service in my essays written for periodicals but at the same time virtually all (if not all) of my resources in periodical essays can be found on the web with a simple search engine.

There is virtually no one that I am aware of who has taken the approach I have in my writings viz the sources used. (And certainly no Integrists.) Not only that but with regards to the subjects I tend to write on which are more than "traditionalist" subjects. (Much more in fact.) "Traditionalist" subjects are not and do not define me as an evangelist or as a writer. And I have refused to allow people to pidgeonhole or typecast me in that manner by writing on a wide forest of subjects including Orthodox and Protestant objections to the faith, Christian unity, Mariology, and the pieces I intend to write on this year are primarily magisterial and also on the respective weltanschauungs of western and eastern outlooks. (A sequel to my essay on Christian unity in essence though it will not be as comprehensive as the latter.)

That is the difference Brian in that Remnant and Latin Mass sorts write very sophistically on a narrow construit of issues which they are as ignorant of as they are narrow-minded. They love to focus on ancillary subjects because they know to focus on primary issues is to insure their discrediting. By contrast, I have sought to write to either fill an existing lacuna in subjects covered or (if the subject was already covered) I have sought to approach it from an angle that to some extent was unique. If I do not feel I can do at least one of those things, then I tend not to write on the subject at all. I focus on primary subjects and theses which are supplemented with ancillary issues only to the extent that they are relevant to the main issue. My treatise alone contains seven such theses {7} - six of which stand alone in the sense that only one of them is needed to sustain a direct refutation of false "traditionalism".

The feedback I have received on various pieces overwhelmingly confirms that my intuitions on these matters were to a large extent correct. So frankly I do not give a damn about what you would or would not think are my "credentials". I will say this much: I have less credentials than the last three popes.{8} If you will not obey the popes then you are a hypocrite for basing the veracity of my arguments on whatever mythical "credentials" you think I should have. Besides, I already know what you would say.

If I told you I had a doctorate, you would want to see two doctorates. If I told you I had a masters, you would want to see a doctorate. Further still, if I said I had a bachelors, you would claim that I was only credible if I had a masters. And finally, if I said I had no degrees, you would claim that I needed at least a bachelors. Because you see Brian, you have made your mind up and do not want to be confused with the facts if they are at all detrimental to your nostalgic fairytale of what the Church should be or ever was. That is your right of course and I would defend your right to your wrong opinions here. But God is watching and He will not be mocked by this sophistic position that you are taking. And if you choose to remain ignorant about the stuff I write about, then it may well not bode for you at the Eschaton Judgment. At the very least if you are going to be critical than represent your opposition fairly. False witness after all is a sin.

Again, I would hardly expect better treatment than you are willing to accord to the popes I mention above - their prerogatives as Supreme Pontiffs aside for a moment. (Or Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Franjo Seper the last two Cardinal Prefects of the CDF.) However, I DO expect people who are as snidely critical as you have been right out of the chute to either interact with my arguments or expect to be consigned by me to the scrap heap as irrelevant to the arena of debate. I suggest you approach these subjects - as well as those you presume are your "enemies" - with the same kind of deference that you expect to be treated. Otherwise I will not be as nice to you as I have been in this response.

As far as supposedly "mocking" others, you could not be further off base.{9} I point to the general norms of interpretation because (i) they are expected to be followed by those who would immerse themselves in the sacred sciences and (ii) "trads" and "liberals" by their prooftexting are notoriously guilty of not following them. I have discussed them before on discussion lists and message boards though I am generally inclined to let the terms stand as an indictment for the hack scholarship and constantly suspicious attitude that so-called "traditionalists" so frequently approach these subjects. I tire very quickly of explaining these things in detail to those who simply brush them off and proceed to posit yet more feeble and pathetic objections where such principles as are necessary to filter out so much of the "trad" bilge are ignored. Therefore, if I choose to leave a little homework for others to do, that is my prerogative. Either acquire the knowledge required to discuss these things intelligently or remain ignorant. The choice is up to you.

For my part, I expect those I dialogue with who claim to be faithful Catholics to either put up or shut up. I am willing to extend some leeway towards them if they demonstrate a traditional notion known as "charity". I also do this with non-Catholics who are unfamiliar with our conventions. And those who are my friends whom I disagree with are given a cut above that still. However, those who have the temerity to call themselves "traditionalists" and be critical of things that they do not remotely understand - while demonstrating an uncharitably snide tone and a childish comportment: these are frankly deserving of at least a rebuke.

By contrast, those who affiliate themselves with the term "traditionalist" who demonstrate a genuinely traditional Catholic attitude are responded to diametrically differently than those whose attitudes create unnecessary division (Gk. schisma). Surely the fact that you and Gerard {10} were treated differently by me at Envoy Encore than David Smith, Jeff Culbreath, or Mark Cameron should have been the tipoff if you were actually paying attention. (That the tone of response to you was not because of your arguments themselves but the way you were trying to advance them.) But then those who are interested in polemics and prooftexting as you seem to be seldom tend to be inclined to notice the more subtle substructures of dialogue. But I digress.

"The world has heard enough of the so-called 'rights of man.' Let it hear something of the rights of God." Pope Leo XIII, Nov. 1, 1900, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus.

Yes but again there is context to that statement. (And context is one of the general norms.) Here is the text - I will divide it in parts to make it easier to read:

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. But as this consummation cannot be hoped for except by the aid of divine grace, let us strive in prayer, with united heart and voice, to incline Almighty God unto mercy, that He would not suffer those to perish whom He had redeemed by His Blood. May He look down in mercy upon this world, which has indeed sinned much, but which has also suffered much in expiation! And, embracing in His loving-kindness all races and classes of mankind, may He remember His own words: "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself' (John xii., 32). [Pope Leo XIII: Encyclical Letter Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus §13 (c. 1900)]

The context of the statement is a plea from Pope Leo to clerics and other Christians to do their part to make Our Lord better known as He really is. For too many people "it is rather ignorance than ill-will which keeps multitudes away from Jesus Christ" (TFP §13). The first step in this was according to Pope Leo "to substitute knowledge for ignorance, so that He may no longer be despised or rejected because He is unknown" (ibid). Further still, Leo is referring to certain false notions which were masquerading in his time as "human rights". I recommend reading Claude Frederic Bastiat to get a good idea of the sort of false rights that were rampant in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I ran a series on his magnum opus The Law from September 30, 2002 through the first week of March 2003 at my weblog at intermittent periods. Go HERE to read that from start to finish. (I hyperlinked all the links of that series together.)

As far as the quote of Pope Leo XIII from the encyclical Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, to each and every part of the above statements - indeed the entire text - I and my friends in evangelization who are faithful to the Church fully concur. And as in Pope Leo's time, the world of the twentieth century sinned exceedingly but also suffered in a magnitude never before known in history. And we have seen no abatement of either in our day and age. This is worth noting here as an outro to this response as it constitutes the chief difference between Catholics who can properly be called "Traditionalist" and those who claim the title for themselves who are by their statements and actions engaging in fraud.

For one of the truths of Catholicism is that it expresses one interior faith in a diversity of exteriors. Indeed true Catholics rejoice in the Church's diversity of expression of its one faith. True Catholics do not react suspiciously at every sneeze or hiccup that differs from others in their piety and practice that the individual is perhaps not accustomed to. Those who are not authentically traditional would prefer to see a return to the ghetto mentality which breeds a outlook which is zenophobic and smacks of partiality (cf. James ii,1-13).

Yet strangely enough, those who act this way tend to be the ones that blow their horns the loudest about supposedly being "traditional" while basing their claims for this moniker on superficial exterior trappings and ignoring the all important interior qualities that denote a person of true traditional character (cf. Matthew xxiii,23-28). And one of the flaws of these kinds of people is that they presume that others are necessarily as partial as they are. Thus you presume that I am as polemic or as uncharitable as you are by postulating that I sought to deliberately misrepresent you.

Of course if I was as partial as you seem to presume then you should consider my willingness to edit my post to the Lidless Eye weblog to correct what you claim are misrepresentations of your viewpoint. (I am serious: if you can demonstrate within reason that such an amendment is needed I will do it.) You should also consider the breadth of links at my weblog for apostolates and/or outlooks that I do not necessarily endorse in full. What matters in the case of the latter is that the Church allows for the views espressed at these apostolates and I submit to her judgment whether I like it or not.{11} That is the hallmark of what true Traditional Catholics do and there is no "gnosis" in that whatsoever notwithstanding the standard "trad" assertions that you regurgitate. Now let us summarize and end this response.

You recommended to me an article by His Eminence Cardinal Alphons Maria Stickler that you believe is if not magisterial then at least authoritative. I respond: I have already refuted that essay on theological, historical, and liturgical-historical grounds and I did so in detail. The essay was released in April of 2001. See this weblog for details as the link is not hard to find here. I have also refuted in detail that other essay you raved about at Envoy by Fr. Chad Ripperger. The essay was mostly written in April of 2001 even before it appeared in Latin Mass Magazine. (I read it in Christian Order after being sent the link by someone who asked me for an opinion on the piece.) That essay was finished in September of 2001 and released to the web. So you need not send me the link to that piece either.

You act as you do because you do not know. And it is only because of your insolent attitude that I take the tone I do here with you. Lucky for you, I have St. John of the Cross to rebuke me for my faults this Lent and he does a much better job of it than you ever could.

IC XC {12}

Post-Easter Addendum:

As you titled your email "Mysterium Fidei", apparently you are hung up on the reference from Dz. However, I question the veracity of your citation. For taking one sentence from a source does nothing to show the context of the statement. In light of the care I take in revealing my sources, how about you typing out the full text of Denzinger 414-15 and sending it to me. I will gladly read and interact with it if you do this. But if you do not, then let it be known that you sought to hide behind an out-of-context citation of Dz rather then follow the general norms of interpretation - one of which is that a passage needs to be understood in its proper context. Anyone can prooftext. And in light of how quick you were to cast aspersions on my veracity - for which you have yet to apologize for btw - as I see it the weight is on you to provide the context.

I am tired of typing out these kinds of sources or doing the extra labour only so that people who scoff and are critical can lazily sluff them off. I therefore put the weight for the Mysterium Fidei discussion on your shoulders. I have already written plenty on this subject which you have apparently chosen to ignore believing that you have a trump card in your mangled citation from Dz. Well, I call your bluff.

If you are so sure you are right, you should not hesitate to send me the source typed out in full. And should you do this, I will post it in its entirety after checking it for accuracy. Then the readers can judge whose understanding of the text is correct yours or mine. The ball is back in your court Brian. Are you up to playing the game???

Notes:

{1} By contrast, I should not be expected to see you any differently than the smattering of wiseacres who email me who are itching for attention. You certainly have provided no cogent reasons for me to do so thus far. So while the door is not completely closed that you will, it suffices to say that it is within a quarter-inch of being latched.

{2} I could have included a fair amount of very damning information in my writings which I chose to leave out due to concern about unduly scandalizing my readers. What is there already is adequately condemning so I resisted the temptation to throw some additional "bunker buster" facts into the equation.

{3} Indeed I have actually received some criticism with regards to the fact that I arguably do not draw enough on more modern scholarship in the formulating of my essay writings.

{4} This is not an accusation of either of these prelates of dishonesty.

{5} Referring to the essays on the Real Presence, Justification, and the first Mr. Critic piece which were written concurrently with my treatise's original version. The meticulous nature of my bibliography and notes construction in that large project did not carry over to a couple of the pieces written concurrent with and released shortly after it except the short Pauline Liturgy Restoration piece which used many of the same sources as the treatise did. [Note: The 'Mr. Critic' piece had a bibliography and notes section added in late 2001. The Real Presence essay was reformatted slightly and re-released on Good Friday 2003 with these elements included. The remaining essay is currently being reformatted onto multiple urls and when released will also have these elements. I hope to have it done before the end of April.]

{6} And yes I ran the numbers. If not for the giant exception of my Christian Unity essay, that figure would be around 95-98%.

{7} Seven if you count the refutation of sedevacantism: a thesis which also stands alone but (of course) does not refute all of false "traditionalism" - only the sedevacantists.

{8} But if this constitutes an indictment, I warn you that the same indictment applies to every "trad" writer out there and virtually every non-trad apologist as well. And I know as sure as the sun rises in the East that it also applies to you and your "heroes" too.

{9} One should always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of their neighbour, and whenever possible avoid putting an unfavourable interpretation upon their statements or actions. St. Francis de Sales noted that the same actions may be looked upon under many different aspects. The difference is that a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. As tempting as it is, I am ruling out presuming the worst about you at this point. Whether I do or not in the future is entirely dependent upon you and your response to this response of mine.

{10} Not Gerard Serafin who is truly Traditional and not a counterfeit as the Gerard who hangs out at the Envoy Encore comments section is.

{11} Anyone who paid close attention would know (to name one example) that I had problems for a long time with certain elements of Opus Dei. I did not however, blow a trumpet and make these difficulties known but I instead practiced religious submission as Pope John Paul II had beatified Josemaria Escriva and had encouraged Opus Dei. I very seldom spoke about this publicly and when I did my tone was cautious and deferential.

It is one thing to practise religious submission and another to openly promote a position. All the way up to the canonization, I never did any promotion whatsoever of this position. However, within days after St. Josemaria Escriva was canonized, I added a link to Opus Dei at my weblog. The reason: canonization mandates veneration by the universal church and it served as a reminder to me that my concerns of days past are no longer viable. The magisterium of the Church has definitively spoken and I do not hesitate to heed her judgment.

{12} IC XC is not a "Gnostic" expression.

Liberalism is a sin, and rock music is liberal according to this pro-liberal website.

Well my friend, the phrase "liberalism is a sin" is frankly a very broadbrush statement. It is akin to saying that "slavery is a sin". In both cases the term has many applications. I remind you of the benefits and dangers of syllabus style statements and point you to a recent post on slavery and usury posted to Rerum Novarum where the so-called "progressive" treated those terms as you are doing with "liberalism".

Jesus Himself was in some ways very "liberal". (This got him in dutch with the Jewish leaders of His time.) If liberalism is a sin then Jesus sinned. If Jesus did not sin then liberalism is not ipso facto sinful. And just as there are those who commit (and have committed) abominations under the mantle of "free speech", there are those who do the same under the umbrella of "liberalism". I suggest reading my multipart series on Claude Frederic Bastiat's The Law to thereby discern false (or sinful) liberalism from true (or acceptable) liberalism.

I have decided to move all blogroll experiments to my Miscellaneous BLOG. See this link for more details on the matter.

As blogroller has announced the addition of "new gadgets" to the software, I think I will hold off on blogrolling anything until someone explains to me how to set up tables as I have in my margin already. Basically, I would like to set up twenty tables to categorize the stuff in the side margin as I have it now but I do not know if (i) that is possible and (ii) if it is, I would have no idea how to do it. Technophiles who know about these things, please email me on the matter. Until then, I will continue to toy with the program.

A Monitum For the Readers:

I have just added blogrolling capabilities to Rerum Novarum. This was done to expedite the frequency whereby this weblog is updated. Therefore, if things look a bit haywire for a time, it is me adjusting to this new method.

Updating my weblog is never a fun task. And while I have been subscribed to blogroller for a few months, I have hesitated to actually implement it without thinking carefully about all possible contingencies. Contingencies to consider such as (i) will this really make updating easier??? (ii) will it involve a restructuring of my template too much??? and (iii) if I do not install it properly, will I have to rebuild the whole darn thing???

I struggled to learn how to customize my own template and even then all I was doing was reorienting an existing basic template model. I could never actually build one from scratch so if I screwed this up, I would be "up on cripple creek" (to quote an old song from The Band.) Nonetheless, as I have more or less a duplicate of the template as it read back in January at another private blog, I decided to take the risk as if it messes up, I will not have to recreate the wheel. (Even if it would still be a hassle to correct.) Yes, my general scrupulosity however I have banished it from my psyche on some subjects continues to haunt me on others (sigh).

Some of it is probably because this software is new. I am hardly one to oppose new things - indeed my weblog title means just that. However, it is more a cautious and qualified acceptance. The dual tendencies I have consist of being open to new things but not indescriminately so - coupled with the hesitation to uncritically cast aside old things. It is a continual tension within me. In short, there is on my part some hesitation by nature. And with blogrolling programs this is no different. I mention it here because I am completely flying by the seat of my pants here with the blogroller and am thus in uncomfortable waters. So if there are updating problems as a result of this decision, I apologize for them in advance.

On Biblical Study:

This is a dialogue with a friend from a discussion list. His words are in black with sources italicized. My sources are in darkblue.

Since my original post about the Infancy Narratives didn't go over very well in the attention it received, I'll ask a much shorter and more direct question.

Hi XXXXXXX:

It is possible that people on the list were swamped when you put that one out. I for one have had very limited time as I try to ready one of my early writings for a Holy Thursday re-release.{1} In taking a break from the tediousness of that task, I am using this response as a reprieve if you will. It therefore will be reasonably brief but hopefully at the same time detailed and thought-provoking. I may even assign homework ;-)

What is the Catholic understanding of Biblical inerrancy and inspiration? What is allowed, what is not?

Two items I bring into question from this link.

Aah yes, the Living Tradition Forum :)

19. The definition of biblical inspiration. "In the reference to Providentissimus Deus (EB 125) made by the Second Vatican Council (DV 11) in the preceding paragraph, the following definition of biblical inspiration is given:

Hence, the fact that it was men whom the Holy Spirit took up as his instruments for writing does not mean that it was these inspired instruments - but not the primary author - who might have made an error. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write - He so assisted them when writing - that the things which He ordered, and these only, they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers (Prov. Deus, EB 125).

Translation: Scripture contains no errors. That is solemn Catholic doctrine.

The neo-Patristic approach accepts without limitation or equivocation this authentic and precise definition of biblical inspiration, and it excludes in the Catholic tradition every attempt to reduce its span of inerrancy, as explained in the great encyclical letters of Popes Leo XIII, Benedict XV, and Pius XII.

Frankly I think sometimes that the fellas at the Roman Theological Forum (who have written some very good stuff by the way) border on fundamentalism when it comes to how they understand the Bible. They come very close to extending inerrancy to cover areas where the Bible was never intended to cover.

The following introduction may be of assistance in explaining the context of Providentissimus Deus and the problems that plagued Scripture study in the late nineteenth century:

On biblical study

It is easy to understand when the environment of the time is comprehended exactly why Pope Leo was unwilling to grant more than a limited and grudging acceptance of the methods such as historical criticism and the like. However, the Church has gradually allowed greater inquiry into these matters as the methods have become more specialized.

While it is true that Pius XII's encyclical letter was not the wholescale reversal of policy that liberals like to pretend it was, at the same time there is a lot in that encyclical and in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum that does not IMO bode well for the rigid approaches advocated by Fr. John McCarthy and Fr. Brian Harrison. These guys have done some very good work (I particularly enjoy Fr. Harrison's stuff) but on Scripture study it appears to me that in trying to trim the sails of liberal exegetes they are leaning too far in the other direction.

Also, I read from there, that in 1920, Pope Benedict XV wrote in one of his encyclicals: "Then there are other assailants of Holy Scripture who misuse principles - which are only sound if kept within due bounds - in order to overturn the fundamental truth of the Bible and thus destroy Catholic teaching handed down by the Fathers. If Jerome were living now, he would sharpen his keenest controversial weapons against people who set aside what is the mind and judgment of the Church, and take too ready refuge in such notions as `implicit quotations' or `pseudo-historical narratives' or `literary genres' in the Bible such as cannot be reconciled with the entire and perfect truth of God's word, or who suggest such origins of the Bible as must inevitably weaken - if not destroy - its authority (Spiritus Paraclitus, EB 461)."

Correct. But it is important to remember that Spiritus Paraclitus was written primarily to commemorate the death of St. Jerome, exalt him as the pre-eminent Scripture scholar amongst the Fathers of the Church, exhort scholars to strive to emulate St. Jerome, and to correct some misinterpretations of Pope Leo XIII's manifested intention. (And in doing these things benefit greatly the advancement of biblical studies.) Providentissimus Deus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, and Dei Verbum were specifically drafted to discuss and promote the study of Sacred Scripture first and foremost and the proper methodology of literary forms. They therefore should be seen as taking a primacy over Spiritus Paraclitus on the issue of Scripture studies if there is any controversion. I do not believe there is any though one reading uncritically may presume that there is.

A lot of the reason for that is the revisionist history put out by liberals that before 1943 there was some "repressed Scripture study period" which started around 1907 with Pascendi and Lamentabili. These same people overlook that the Biblical Commission only two years later issued a Responsum on the first three chapters of Genesis that allowed for a diversity of inquiries into the kind of history that was being set forth.

To deny that there are different genres in the Scriptures is naive. The Church has always recognized this - indeed the Medieval "4 Senses of Scripture" are based on this very principle. The magisterium through the Pontifical Biblical Commission had in 1909 issued a decree on the first three chapters of Genesis which recognized this principle explicitly.{2} Spiritus Paraclitus did not controvert this understanding. And both Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum embraced and developed the principle of literary genres further.

Now, I read Fr. Most's work on Biblical inerrancy (well, parts of it), and he seems to rather like the idea that genres do exist, and indeed quite abundantly so (as much as even in the book of Daniel, which is not entirely historical).

Fr. Most I believe walked a good and tight line of successfully refuting Brown/Fitzmeyer, and others of that ilk while avoiding the kind of historicism that impairs the western post-Enlightenment mind. The extreme examples of this of course are creationists and dispensationalists. But there are other shades that are just inside of those extremes which need to be monitored.

My Catholic studies prof. would go as far as to say that it's ALL genres, and it's not intended as 20th century Western-minded history per se (not to say that key events didn't happen, as he isn't a heterodox liberal!).

Well, he is actually close to correct in my view. The problem is that emphasis on genres in the turn of the century disputes was seen as a way of undermining the manner whereby Scripture was understood. The proper way to do it is to take the approach that the Bible is free from error and presuming that any problems are that of the codex or the understanding of the exegete. However, the pattern in Leo's time (and even into Benedict's time) by some exegetes was to essentially put the burden of proof on the Scriptures and presuming a priori that any apparent incongruity was due to some "error" in the Scriptures. The popes were right and proper to condemn such attitudes and insist on the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

And today it seems that there are some exegetes like Fitzmeyer and company who construct a revisionist history of scriptural studies as if the "great Leo's encyclical" was somehow "freed up from the darkness of the previous nineteen hundred years" only to be "repressed by Benedict and the PBC" only to be "freed up and expounded further by Pius XII". As Fr. Harrison and Fr. Most have both noted and noted well, this is a fantasy of revisionists.

This approach allows more room for percieved "historical inaccuracies," but is it allowed? If one was to take what the popes have said, and what the document seems to say, this sort of method is utter heresy!

It is good that you say "seems to say" XXXXXXX because one of the truisms of theological study of magisterial texts is that they often appear to say things they actually do not. Let us take the quote you posted of Spiritus Paraclitus:

"Then there are other assailants of Holy Scripture who misuse principles - which are only sound if kept within due bounds - in order to overturn the fundamental truth of the Bible and thus destroy Catholic teaching handed down by the Fathers. If Jerome were living now, he would sharpen his keenest controversial weapons against people who set aside what is the mind and judgment of the Church, and take too ready refuge in such notions as `implicit quotations' or `pseudo-historical narratives' or `literary genres' in the Bible such as cannot be reconciled with the entire and perfect truth of God's word, or who suggest such origins of the Bible as must inevitably weaken - if not destroy - its authority" (Spiritus Paraclitus, EB 461).

A questions on the text for you XXXXXXX:

1) Does the text above completely outlaw the study of literary genres??? If you think so, explain why and if not, explain why not.


What is the orthodox Catholic understanding of this issue? For example, if one finds a situation that history doesn't support outright (example, the enrollment of Luke 2 under Quirinius), what is the "Catholic thing to do" in such a case?

It is to always give the Scriptures the benefit of the doubt starting out. To not presume that just because something you run across is not fully grasped as to how it reconciles to presume that you should be able to know all things. Many exegetes of a liberal bent are very quick to ascribe any difficulty to an "error" because they (i) do not have the necessary faith to properly approach these issues and (ii) despite priding themselves on being "scholarly" are nonetheless inevitably naive and presume that problems can be solved without difficulty.

Scripture studies are not akin to Ozzie and Harriet, The Brady Bunch, or The Cosby Show: where the problems of the show are solved before show ends. This did not bother exegetes such as St. Jerome and St. Augustine - who fully expected such things - but today's "sitcom mentality" does not deal well with unsolved problems.

No offense, but when reading declarations like those, I can't help but feel a little bit frustrated. It seems that they advocate a fundamentalist Protestant case of literalism (unless I misunderstood, but saying that "literary genres" have no place?!), that can get many people in trouble when skeptics come and tell you "hey, you know what, the book of Daniel is full of historical inaccuracies" or a Prot tells you that the "Apocrypha contradicts events in true Scripture," or the famous case of the Infancy Narratives I pointed out.

Pope Leo answers your question in Providentissimus Deus. But first I want to address point 20 from the link you sent. Fr. McCarthy quotes Pope Leo as follows:

But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics -- and to seek in them, to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully employed their talent and their labor. For although the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind -- as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages -- that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt out side of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.

In light of the way he quotes Spiritus Paraclitus, the appearance is given that studying literary genres is either forbidden or to be discouraged. But Pope Leo in reality says nothing of the sort.

A good rule of thumb is when you see someone start a quotation from a source with a word like "but", to track down the source and read what precedes it. Let us now do that with Providentissimus Deus. I will put in darkgreen the part conveniently overlooked by Fr. McCarthy. Key parts which nuance his quote will be marked [in bold]:

The Holy Fathers "to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth -- who have planted, watered, built, governed, and cherished it," the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of doctors, unofficially; not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic Books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of His light. Wherefore the expositor should make it his duty to follow their footsteps with all reverence, and to use their labors with intelligent appreciation.

But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine -- not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate. Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense, more especially when such interpretation is justified by the literal, and when it rests on the authority of many. For this method of interpretation has been received by the Church from the Apostles, and has been approved by her own practice, as the holy Liturgy attests; although it is true that the holy Fathers did not thereby pretend directly to demonstrate dogmas of faith, but used it as a means of promoting virtue and piety, such as, by their own experience, they knew to be most valuable. The authority of other Catholic interpreters is not so great; but the study of Scripture has always continued to advance in the Church, and, therefore, these commentaries also have their own honorable place, and are serviceable in many ways for the refutation of assailants and the explanation of difficulties. But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics -- and to seek in them, to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully employed their talent and their labor. For although the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind -- as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages -- that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt out side of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith. [Providentissimus Deus §14-15]

The teaching in a nutshell is to respect the Catholic patrimony and not presume that one needs to go outside of it to find answers to questions. This is not the same thing as reading the works of non-Catholic exegetes along with Catholic exegetes. Frankly I believe the quality of much of the ecumenical scholarship in recent decades is on the whole superior to the sort of confessional scholarship of Pope Leo's era. This is a component that I believe is not focused on very often unfortunately.

Further still, Fr. McCarthy does not properly represent Pope Leo's views when he mentions that Leo "Already in 1893...cautioned against the use of higher-criticism." Higher criticism as a method was in the early stages then. Many of these kinds of methods became refined with the passing of time and Pope Pius XII in 1943 was able to encourage a wider usage than his predecessors had for this reason. Hence he noted the following (key points emphasized by me):

In the accomplishment of this task the Catholic exegete will find invaluable help in an assiduous study of those works, in which the Holy Fathers, the Doctors of the Church and the renowned interpreters of past ages have explained the Sacred Books. For, although sometimes less instructed in profane learning and in the knowledge of languages than the scripture scholars of our time, nevertheless by reason of the office assigned to them by God in the Church, they are distinguished by a certain subtle insight into heavenly things and by a marvelous keenness of intellect, which enables them to penetrate to the very innermost meaning of the divine word and bring to light all that can help to elucidate the teaching of Christ and to promote holiness of life.

It is indeed regrettable that such precious treasures of Christian antiquity are almost unknown to many writers of the present day, and that students of the history of exegesis have not yet accomplished all that seems necessary for the due investigation and appreciation of so momentous a subject. Would that many, by seeking out the authors of the Catholic interpretation of Scripture and diligently studying their works and drawing thence the almost inexhaustible riches therein stored up, might contribute largely to this end, so that it might be daily more apparent to what extent those authors understood and made known the divine teaching of the Sacred Books, and that the interpreters of today might thence take example and seek suitable arguments.

For thus at long last will be brought about the happy and fruitful union between the doctrine and spiritual sweetness of expression of the ancient authors and the greater erudition and maturer knowledge of the modern, having as its result new progress in the never fully explored and inexhaustible field of the Divine Letters.

Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis; likewise by the reiterated attempts of St. Jerome so to translate the Psalms that the literal sense, that, namely, which is expressed by the words themselves, might be clearly revealed.

There are, in fine, other books or texts, which contain difficulties brought to light only in quite recent times, since a more profound knowledge of antiquity has given rise to new questions, on the basis of which the point at issue may be more appropriately examined. Quite wrongly therefore do some pretend, not rightly understanding the conditions of biblical study, that nothing remains to be added by the Catholic exegete of our time to what Christian antiquity has produced; since, on the contrary, these our times have brought to light so many things, which call for a fresh investigation, and which stimulate not a little the practical zest of the present-day interpreter.

As in our age, indeed new questions and new difficulties are multiplied, so, by God's favor, new means and aids to exegesis are also provided. Among these it is worthy of special mention that Catholic theologians, following the teaching of the Holy Fathers and especially of the Angelic and Common Doctor, have examined and explained the nature and effects of biblical inspiration more exactly and more fully than was wont to be done in previous ages. For having begun by expounding minutely the principle that the inspired writer, in composing the sacred book, is the living and reasonable instrument of the Holy Spirit, they rightly observe that, impelled by the divine motion, he so uses his faculties and powers, that from the book composed by him all may easily infer "the special character of each one and, as it were, his personal traits." Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed.

Thus can he the better understand who was the inspired author, and what he wishes to express by his writings. There is no one indeed but knows that the supreme rule of interpretation is to discover and define what the writer intended to express, as St. Athanasius excellently observes: "Here, as indeed is expedient in all other passages of Sacred Scripture, it should be noted, on what occasion the Apostle spoke; we should carefully and faithfully observe to whom and why he wrote, lest, being ignorant of these points, or confounding one with another, we miss the real meaning of the author."

What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use.

For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East. The investigation, carried out, on this point, during the past forty or fifty years with greater care and diligence than ever before, has more clearly shown what forms of expression were used in those far off times, whether in poetic description or in the formulation of laws and rules of life or in recording the facts and events of history. The same inquiry has also shown the special preeminence of the people of Israel among all the other ancient nations of the East in their mode of compiling history, both by reason of its antiquity and by reasons of the faithful record of the events; qualities which may well be attributed to the gift of divine inspiration and to the peculiar religious purpose of biblical history.

Nevertheless no one, who has a correct idea of biblical inspiration, will be surprised to find, even in the Sacred Writers, as in other ancient authors, certain fixed ways of expounding and narrating, certain definite idioms, especially of a kind peculiar to the Semitic tongues, so-called approximations, and certain hyperbolical modes of expression, nay, at times, even paradoxical, which even help to impress the ideas more deeply on the mind. For of the modes of expression which, among ancient peoples, and especially those of the East, human language used to express its thought, none is excluded from the Sacred Books, provided the way of speaking adopted in no wise contradicts the holiness and truth of God, as, with his customary wisdom, the Angelic Doctor already observed in these words: "In Scripture divine things are presented to us in the manner which is in common use amongst men." For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, "except sin," so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error. In this consists that "condescension" of the God of providence, which St. John Chrysostom extolled with the highest praise and repeatedly declared to be found in the Sacred Books.

Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis. Not infrequently -- to mention only one instance -- when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients, which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctioned by common usage.

When then such modes of expression are met within the sacred text, which, being meant for men, is couched in human language, justice demands that they be no more taxed with error than when they occur in the ordinary intercourse of daily life. By this knowledge and exact appreciation of the modes of speaking and writing in use among the ancients can be solved many difficulties, which are raised against the veracity and historical value of the Divine Scriptures, and no less efficaciously does this study contribute to a fuller and more luminous understanding of the mind of the Sacred Writer.

Let those who cultivate biblical studies turn their attention with all due diligence towards this point and let them neglect none of those discoveries, whether in the domain of archaeology or in ancient history or literature, which serve to make better known the mentality of the ancient writers, as well as their manner and art of reasoning, narrating and writing. In this connection Catholic laymen should consider that they will not only further profane science, but moreover will render a conspicuous service to the Christian cause if they devote themselves with all due diligence and application to the exploration and investigation of the monuments of antiquity and contribute, according to their abilities, to the solution of questions hitherto obscure.

For all human knowledge, even the nonsacred, has indeed its own proper dignity and excellence, being a finite participation of the infinite knowledge of God, but it acquires a new and higher dignity and, as it were, a consecration, when it is employed to cast a brighter light upon the things of God.

The progressive exploration of the antiquities of the East, mentioned above, the more accurate examination of the original text itself, the more extensive and exact knowledge of languages both biblical and oriental, have with the help of God, happily provided the solution of not a few of those questions, which in the time of Our Predecessor Leo XIII of immortal memory, were raised by critics outside or hostile to the Church against the authenticity, antiquity, integrity and historical value of the Sacred Books. For Catholic exegetes, by a right use of those same scientific arms, not infrequently abused by the adversaries, proposed such interpretations, which are in harmony with Catholic doctrine and the genuine current of tradition, and at the same time are seen to have proved equal to the difficulties, either raised by new explorations and discoveries, or bequeathed by antiquity for solution in our time. [Divino Afflante Spiritu §29-42 (c. 1943)]

Sorry for the long cite but there was too much good stuff to know where to cut off the citation.

Me and MMMM talked briefly about how the Catholic understanding is much different from the Protestant, and I sure hope so, but from what I gather from "official" statements, it seems woefully similar.

Hopefully what is outlined in Divino Afflante above is enough to assuage your discomforts. But lest there appear to be a discontinuity in the magisterial texts, Divino Afflante was clearly intended to build on Providentissimus Deus by the pontiff's own admission {3}:

"The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately -- the words are St. Augustine's -- the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things -- that is the essential nature of the things of the universe -- things in no way profitable to salvation"; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history," that is, by refuting, "in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks." Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if "copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible," or, "if the real meaning of a passage remains ambiguous." Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden "either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred," since divine inspiration "not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church."

This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously. No less earnestly do We inculcate obedience at the present day to the counsels and exhortations which he, in his day, so wisely enjoined. [Divino Afflante Spiritu §3-4 (c. 1943)]

In essence, the Scriptures are like the Lord Jesus who was fully divine and fully human. The Scriptures have God as their Author and therefore are free from all error. However, the Scriptures are also a material text and therefore can be studied with all the means appropriated by the scholar to seek to investigate and understand what they are conveying.

One can't admit error (interestingly enough, my prof. said that a concept of error in text is simply absurdly ambigious, since text cannot err!), so one has to say "it's some sort of genre" or that "the author intends something else in this case."

This is where the element of faith comes in XXXXXXX. Someone can find "errors" in anything if they do not properly understand it. Terms can often be used in different senses but partisans choose one sense oftentimes and then claim that differing senses are "errors" rather than potentially congruent approaches. Just because the Scriptures have no errors does not mean that we can expect to read them at face value and fully comprehend all of them. The presumption of those who act in this manner is egotism of the worst possible kind. To quote Cardinal Newman "what, is none their equal in wisdom anywhere?"

Raymond Brown would say the former in this case (it's error!), but he can hardly be called a standard for Catholic dogma.

I wonder sometimes if Brown is simply not misunderstood due to the manner in which he uses terms. The manner whereby he uses theologomenon is what caused the mixup in my understanding of MMMM's appropriation of the same term. If I did not know that MMMM was eminently orthodox, there would be a sea of red flags flying up rather than the yellow ones that cropped up in the other thread.

A Protestant would say the opposite, and that the Biblical books are strictly historical in all aspects. Then you get into Creationism and geocentrism (well, can you blame the fella, if he reads only stuff like that.

Indeed. If you read the link above you will see the sort of distinctions that creationists and geocentrists do not make.

Can a Catholic take an "easy way out" when problems arise in this sense? If not, then it really does feel at times that someone's telling you that there's a pink elephant in the room, when you very well know there isn't.

Well, a good rule to follow is one set down by Leo XIII and confirmed by his successors. I will close with it and one from Pope Benedict XV. First from Leo XIII:

"[One] must not...consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine --not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires."

And now from Benedict XV:

"We fully approve, of course, the project of those who, in order to help themselves and others find a way out of difficulties in the sacred text, are using new avenues and new methods of investigation, relying on every means of assistance that can be afforded by critical scholarship in the effort to clear up those difficulties. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor's injunctions and overstep the limits set by the Fathers."

There is just enough in those passages to allow for flexibility lacking to a fundamentalist and enough accompanying structure to allow for a stability lacking to many exegetes who do not focus on the literal and obvious sense first and foremost.

Notes:

{1} Referring here to my essay on the Real Presence. I should have the text retouched tonight and the new version will hopefully be released tomorrow on the web.

{2} Basically the PBC affirmed that the text was historical and not a mere myth but it did not try to explain how this is so leaving that for exegetes.

{3} Or perhaps by Father Augustin Bea - Pius XII's confessor and considered to have assisted the pope in the role of primary drafter of this encyclical letter.

A good commentary on charity by my fellow Blessed Sacrament parishoner Mark Shea can be read HERE.

Btw, I met Mark Saturday Sunday after Vigil Mass with the Dominicans. Yeah we are down with the OP's :) It was a beautiful liturgy with rows of candles in that old dark architecturally impressive church. The smell of incense in the air and the echo of the readings and responses was atmospherey for lack of a better word. The start was at nine and the mass concluded about five minutes from midnight.

Mark and I met kinda by accident because I was talking with a Dominican friar and a parishoner about the RCIA program at the church. (It was a natural segue from the subject of the three baptized and half dozen odd confirmed from that night - one of the candidates was a man who had to be in his eighties.) The person I was talking to happened to say, "in fact that parishoner over there Mark Shea" (then he pointed towards Mark) was in a couple of RCIA programs. So after we concluded the discussion - where he, the friar, and myself were talking about the new encyclical and also Fides et Ratio, I walked over and introduced myself. Mark the longtime parishoner at Blessed Sacrament meets Shawn the started-attending-Blessed Sacrament-last-year parishoner.

During the week Mark goes to daily mass over at St. Pius X in Mountlake Terrace - the church I was attending most of the time since leaving SSPX and before attending Blessed Sacrament. There is some more coincidences in that as it was also the church I received first communion at and a few years of very poor catechesis before leaving in 1983 for a mixture of SSPX and not going to Church at all. (Only to settle into a routine at an SSPX chapel around 1986.)

The liturgies at St. Pius X in Mountlake Terrace are much better now in most parameters then they once were - as is the catechism program from all appearances. They have Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Like some of the churches in my once liturgical-wasteland diocese, they celebrate mass good. But they are not Blessed Sacrament, they are not the Dominicans. Let me explain the differences briefly as I am still on a bit of a high from the Easter Vigil.

St. Pius X does not have that optional Latin hybrid noon mass with incense and cantor for those days when I really want Latin in my ordinary mass prayers and most other liturgical songs. (Unlike Blessed Sacrament which does.) Until around December of last year that was almost the only mass I attended there. It is now option 2 but a very fine option 2 it is. I have weeks where I need it and it is available. (There is also the Saturday evening mass which is kind of a hybrid of the two with a cantor and no musical accompanyment - I go to that sometimes too.) What else does St. Pius X not have???

Well, they do not have a contemporary soloist liturgy in the evening with guitars tastefully played rather than folksy as is with some churches. (They have though gone to piano almost exclusively. Back before I left for SSPX they had folk guitars.)

They also struggle as many parishes do with silence. By contrast, the Dominicans welcome the silence. Even in the contemporary liturgy there are pauses for "digestion" if you will after the readings, the response psalm, the Gospel, the homily, to name a few spots. They never start the Offertory prayers until after the collection has been made. At both churches the choice of hymns is a good mix of old and new but Blessed Sacrament does a better job because they have two hymnal books: one from Oregon Catholic Press and one which is a red hardcover book called Worship II from 1975. (This is a book that should IMHO be reprinted and replace Oregon Catholic Press in every Latin rite Catholic Church in America.) Other differences could be mentioned as well.

The priests at St. Pius X as well as their deacon give good sermons with bits of meat to them. Blessed Sacrament is a parish community of Dominicans. No more really needs to be said then that as every priest or friar I have heard give a sermon at Blessed Sacrament is an excellent orator. They all quote copiously from the magisterium of Pope John Paul II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Second Vatican Council, St. Thomas Aquinas and other Dominican masters, the Church Fathers, etc. I frankly have never had it this good sermonwise in my life and I believe I have heard some pretty good priest orators in my time on the whole. (From the SSPX days my former pastor Fr. John Rizzo - who was my pastor from 1987-1993 gave really good sermons but not like the Dominicans.) Enough on that subject though for now.

In summary, St. Pius X celebrates the liturgy good. But Blessed Sacrament does so even better and in all the little areas that appeal most to me. All other things being equal though (which they are assuredly not), Blessed Sacrament and its thirty minute drive beats St. Pius X and its fifteen minute drive on the architecture alone. But I digress...

El Camino Real vs. Rerum Novarum:
(The saga continues...)

This post was almost entirely written before I learned about Jeff Culbreath giving up the blog for Lent. Posting it after Ash Wednesday and before Easter would not have been conducive to the degree of discourse that we have maintained which I believe has been respectful on both sides.

In light of those whom I will respond to later, it is worth noting that Jeff is a Traditionalist not a 'traditionalist'. To understand the distinction go HERE and read my December 4th entry on the subject. The January 26th entry is also worth considering as that is my norm if you will for these kinds of discussions.

I am not sure if Jeff has read the work I refer to there or not but either way, he is "grandfathered in" as I see it so I do not consider it a pre-requisite for him. The norm of course is there to separate the wheat from the chaff. With Jeff this "prerequisite" is not necessary as he is already among the "wheat" if you will. And as he is now back in the blogosphere, I can post this response to him as he now has the opportunity to respond to it. Jeff's words are below in black font. My words are in regular font colour with all sources in darkgreen.

DEFINING MODERNISM

I. Shawn McElhinney has asked me to define Modernism, and to explain what I meant by "modernist tendencies" when I wrote that such tendencies could be found in the Second Vatican Council, the works of recent popes, and even the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger. I was hoping to have the luxury of replying from the comforts of home with a few books at hand, but alas, I have no idea when this opportunity might arise. Yet I do owe Shawn a reply, so I'll do my best.

Shawn's challenge puts me in the awkward position of having to comb through papal writings looking for specific examples of "modernist tendencies". This is not something I want to do at all: when I read the writings of a pope, I'm looking for truth and clarity, not imperfections. When I have noticed "modernist tendencies" in certain writings, I have not taken pains to commit these to memory. Shawn, therefore, knows this will be a difficult task for me and goes against my nature.

Yes Jeff I am not unaware of the difficulty of this request. However, I also believe that as an honourable man you would not let this request go unanswered. I could claim that there were "Humanist tendencies" in the Council of Trent and the teachings of both previous and subsequent popes. This was the claim of the Jansenists and used by them as an excuse to belittle the binding authority of Trent. I know that Jeff does not intend by such statements to belittle the binding authority of the Second Vatican Council or the subsequent popes.

Hunting for Modernism in the recent statements of councils, popes, and cardinals is like searching for pornography in several dozen issues of Cosmopolitan magazine. Like pornography, it is notoriously hard to define, but "I knows it when I sees it".

So we are to conclude that what is and is not "modernism" is to be left at the discretion of the individual interpreter in essence it seems.

A text with modernist tendencies can go on for pages and pages without really saying anything specific: however, the effect of the text is to create certain impressions.

Theology is a very broad science Jeff. Trying to limit speculation along certain "acceptable" lines was a novelty of the Counter-reformation polemic. It was a way of trying to exaggerate Protestant disunity by focusing on their varieties of doctrine and practice and contrasting them with the "united" belief and practice of Catholics. In reality the only "unity" that exists is in matters of defined dogma and matters of declared doctrine. (And even in the case of the latter there is some debate over theological qualification even by those who assent to these teachings.) Worship, theological speculation, disciplinary practices, devotionals: these are all very open since Vatican II crushed the artificially imposed "conformity" of post-Trent and returned to the authentic tradition of catholicity as unity-in-diversity.

The popes have in recent years tried to accomplish two tasks: one is teaching of course. The other is not trying to appear to favour any of the legitimate schools of thought - either the traditional ones or even ones which are more recent. Being a declared "traditionalist" and hanging your hat on the distinctions of the Counter-reformation for the most part {1}, I can see where the magisteriums of the last five popes could appear to by that definition be "modernist in tendency". I include Pius XII because he was in many ways a kind of "transitional pope" in some ways that his more recent predecessors were not. I probably could include Pius XI in that classification too but I have to draw the line somewhere and Pius XII is a better fit than Pius XI in that there are more of his statements which are sanitized by many "trads" to make him a more "comfortable" ally. In reality the "trads" would have to go back to Gregory XVI to find a pope more to their liking generally. There are parts to all of the popes since Pius IX which are not congruent with the paradigms of many if not most who identify themselves as "traditionalist". But I digress.

I want to use your definition that you will propose here to paint a picture in a sense Jeff. But first I need to let you say it so here goes...

Furthermore, Modernism, like pornography, admits of degrees, and the Modernism of recent papal and CDF statements is very moderate and cautious.

Jeff, you appear to be falling into the trap of painting with a broad brush anything that is new (or appears to be new) as immediately suspicious. I am reminded of the warning given by Pius XII in his Encyclical Letter Divino Afflante Spiritu{2} about intemperate zeal:

Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected.

Now before launching the next part of what I am going to say, I wnt to make it clear that you do not tend towards this the way many whom would align with you to a large extent on the spectrum would.{3}

Unlike your caution and deference, I cannot see how periodicals such as Christian Order, Latin Mass, and others of that sort do not fall into this trap repeatedly. Yet they claim to be "traditional". In reality, what Pius XII noted above is Traditional. I go over the subject of zeal from an eighteenth century source HERE. These principles can be shown to be preached throughout Church history. I of course am not blaming you for appearing to have at-times intemperate zeal here Jeff. I believe this is an area that we are all susceptable to at times. (Myself included.) To your credit, you are much more balanced than a lot of people who identify themselves as "Traditionalist".

Modernism is really about avoiding certain uncomfortable truths. If a text purports to address an important doctrine but fails to state the very truth that is at the center of the controversy, that is an example of "modernist tendencies".

Explain then please how the common "traditionalist" emphasis on the sacrifice of the mass is not exactly what you are detailing above. My good friend Dr. Sippo wrote a short piece on the sacrificial emphasis of the second eucharistic prayer. Within that piece the following points were made:

When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he did so in the context of a Jewish Passover meal or Seder. The Seder in Our Lord’s time was a sacrificial meal since in that meal the participants consumed a lamb that was a sacrificial victim the blood of which was offered to God in the Temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, many experts consider the Seder to be an example of a Todah sacrifice, which in Old Testament times was often made to God in thanks for God’s providence or in anticipation of deliverance from some threat. The Todah sacrifice was the only one in which the lay people who commissioned the sacrifice were permitted – in fact required – to partake of the flesh of the sacrificial victim. The word ‘todah’ in Hebrew means ‘thanksgiving.’ The Greek equivalent is ‘eucharistia.’ By its very nature therefore the Last Supper and the Mass, which is derived from it, represents a sacrificial meal, not merely a sacrifice. Overemphasis on the sacrificial aspect to the neglect of the meal aspect therefore detracts from what Our Lord was actually doing. While the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist as Jesus instituted it is clear for any unbiased person to see, he did not use any of the overtly sacrificial terminology that the Integrists think is lacking in EP2. In fact there is more sacrificial language in the Mass using EP2 than in what is preserved of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper or in the traditional Jewish Seder liturgy.

How then are self-styled "traditionalists" not guilty of "modernism" by your definition Jeff??? You may say that the element Art refers to is not a "hard saying" but in fact for "trads" it is because this was a truth that the Protestants were emphasizing. Rather than affirm it along with the truths the Protestants were neglecting, the common Counter-reformation ploy was to hype up the sacrifice of the mass and downplay if not ignore the other essential elements of the liturgy.{4} I could list numerous others but as this example gets at the very heart of our faith, it is as good an example as any to use.

One example that comes to mind is a little book by Cardinal Ratzinger, concerning the doctrine of creation, titled "In The Beginning...". There is much that is good and worthy in the book, but it attempts to minimize or avoid completely certain uncomfortable truths, such as the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and the historicity of Genesis. The book also uses the word "evolution" in a very misleading and imprecise way.

I do not have this book so I cannot vouch for any of its contents. However, it is worth noting that while Scripture is certainly inerrant, this is only in the sense that God intended to speak through its various literary forms. As one cleric noted in the days of the Galileo controversy "the Scriptures tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". I believe a lot of those who identify themselves as "traditionalists" fail to take this adequately into account.

However, if you want to point out areas which you think are problematical, I would be happy to discuss them to the extent that I am competent to. [Addendum: I recently wrote a detailed response on a message list on the subject of Scriptural inerrancy that I may blog later at Rerum Novarum -ISM]

Another example might be JP-II's statement about the nature of Hell, where he is reported to have said:

"This is precisely the tragic situation described by Christian doctrine when referring to damnation or Hell. It is not a punishment from God inflicted from outside, but the result of positions taken by man already in this life ...The same dimension of unhappiness that this dark condition entails can be understood to a degree in some of our terrible experiences, which turn life, as the saying goes, into a 'Hell.'

You are omitting the first parts of the general audience speech. I will insert the full text in dark green where there are either omissions or inexact translations:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

1. God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”.

...In the theological sense, Hell is something else: it is the final consequence of the very sin that turns back on the one who committed it.

In *a* theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life.

JP II referred to "in *a* theological sense", not "*the* theological sense". This is significant because it shows that he is not limiting theological speculation on this subject. Also, hell is not the ultimate consequence of "the very sin" as in the sin that damns people but instead it is the consequence of sin itself. All sin leads to death. And those who reject the mercy of the Father are laying the foundation for hell. If this rejection is sustained at the last moment of their lives, they have bricked themselves in hell for all eternity.

It is the situation in which the one who rejects the Father's mercy, even at the last moment of life, finally places himself.

That passage is accurate. From here you omit another section of the speech which I will add here in dark green before resuming your thread in black. Similar sections if needed will be interspersed in darkgreen throughout the cited reference:

2. To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language which will gradually be explained. In the Old Testament the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by Revelation. Moreover it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, a land of darkness (cf. Ez 28:8; 31:14; Jb 10:21f.; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one cannot reascend (cf. Jb 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6).

The New Testament sheds new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ by his Resurrection conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead.

Redemption remains as an offer of salvation, which man should freely embrace. This is the reason why each one will be judged according to his works.

From here more of the speech is deleted. Here is what is missing surrounded with ###:

Redemption ###nevertheless### remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). ###By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31).

The Book of Revelation also figuratively portrays in a “pool of fire” those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a “second death” (Rv 20:13f.). Whoever continues to be closed to the Gospel is therefore preparing for “eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thes 1:9).###

Moreover, the pictures of Hell given to us in Sacred Scripture must be correctly interpreted. They express the total frustration and emptiness of a life without God. More than a place, Hell is the state of the one who freely and finally removes himself from God, the source of life and joy. Condemnation must not be attributed to God's initiative, because in his merciful love he cannot but will the salvation of the beings he has created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Condemnation consists, precisely, in the final removal of oneself from God, freely chosen by man and confirmed by death, which seals the choice forever. God's sentence ratifies this state."

The above is accurately translated. The following completes the speech from the part you left off:

4. Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying “yes” or “no”, which marks the human creature’s freedom, some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, DS 800-801). What happened to them is a warning to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who lived his life with a “yes” to God.

Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Rm 8:15; Gal 4:6).

This prospect, rich in hope, prevails in Christian proclamation. It is effectively reflected in the liturgical tradition of the Church, as the words of the Roman Canon attest: “Father, accept this offering from your whole family ... save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen”.

Where to begin? Is not Hell a punishment from God? John Paul II says, "It is not a punishment from God inflicted from outside ...", but what does this mean?

Since man himself freely chooses to cut himself off from God, the punishment is inflicted from within in such wise as man rejects God and his grace. If he persists in this state when he dies, God simply ratifies his choice for eternity. So in a sense, hell is not best understood as a punishment from God but is better understood as a self-infliction freely chosen by the individual. God would have all people live but He cannot without violating their free-will impose Himself onto them. If they reject Him up to their last breath, they have made their choice and God ratifies it.

Man is responsible for his choices, so in a sense he does inflict his own punishment, but does not God actively respond with the punishment of Hell? That is classical Christian doctrine; that is the language of Jesus Christ in the Gospels; that has been the language of the Church from the beginning.

Actually Our Lord's very criteria of judging men by their works of charity dovetails nicely with JP II's exposition. As far as being the "language of the Church from the beginning" this is overly simplistic Jeff.

The Church has from her beginning allowed a fairly wide theological inquiry on this subject. All we are taught to believe fundamentally is that (i) there is a hell (ii) it is eternal (iii) those who commit "sins unto death" (cf. 1 John v,16) who die unrepentant go there and (iv) the sufferings borne are infinitely beyond human comprehension. The first three are de fide, the fourth is to my knowledge sent. certa. Even common attestations (such as that the punishments of hell are proportional to the individuals guilt) are not teachings which we are bound to assent to. (They are common theological opinions which should be respected but we are not bound to agree with them.)

Likewise, your assertion that God actively consigns people to hell is not de fide, it is not sententia certa, it is not sententia fidei proxima. Whatever theological qualification it has, it is not to my knowledge a part of doctrine which must be believed or held.

To discuss the active or passive role of God in this is to deal with the teaching of predestination. This is an area where there are divergent views even among the most famous of the theological schools and it is not therefore appropriate for either of us to try and posit our theological opinions as the teaching of the Church.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Holy Father's remarks about the justice of Hell -- that Hell is just punishment for the sins of men. The pope also says, Condemnation must not be attributed to God's initiative, because in his merciful love he cannot but will the salvation of the beings he has created. This is beautiful poetry, but it is hopelessly murky theology.

Not really:

I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1 Timothy ii,1-4]

And again:

If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. [Romans xi,16-22]

In short, God's allowing man to determine by his own free-will whether he wants to accept the Lord or reject Him is self-evidently just as far as I can see. Mercy by its very nature has to have justice as its balancer. For if (i) God is infinitely merciful and (ii) the person chooses to reject God's mercy up to (and including) their final breath then logically (iii) God by respecting man's free-will would have to confirm his decision and (iv) this respect of man's free-will would - in light of the infinite mercy which this man was extended during his life and which he rejected - be equally just.

Justice is giving someone what they deserve and a man who makes it clear that he does not want God, God by withdrawing His presence from him is logically acting in a very just manner. If God refused to do this then he would violate man's free-will to reject Him which would be unjust. If the latter is unjust, the converse is therefore just.

God's revealed will is both mercy and justice; He actively created both Heaven and Hell. No one exists apart from the will of God, not even in Hell. These truths are unpopular today, and perhaps the pope was merely trying to salvage what is left of orthodox belief among the Catholic faithful. But the result is that Catholics will now be even more confused and misled by this unfortunate "clarification".

I disagree with your assertion of the pope's motives. The pope tends to speak up or down to his audience depending on who they are. He is capable of theological and philosophical abstract theology when amongst scholars and to speak to the average person in ways that they can comprehend. The speech you refer to was almost certainly given to catechized people. It seems to me that you are presuming in your view here that every discourse on a subject needs to reiterate the same fundamentals. There is a lot more to theology and church teaching than Baltimore Catechism Four or St. Pius X Catechism.{5} Anyway, while more could be noted on this point, I will let what is written stand as adequate and I look forward to what I know will be a charitable response. Glad to see you back from Lent and I trust you made good use of the brier in the absence of blogging :)

Notes:

{1} I could argue that virtually all of the areas where Trent went against precedent should be held as "suspicious" using this same rationale. There are not a few so-called "progressives" who do this. You can usually tell them from the rest by their repeated calls for "Vatican III" and their denunciations of JP II for "seeking to overturn Vatican II" in his proper implementation of the latter. Councils historically took some time to be accepted and implemented.

Considering how much Vatican II set out to do, four decades is hardly an abnormal period of post council confusion and disarray - certainly there were other synods which dealt with a lot less that took a lot longer to be accepted and implemented. (Including four of the first seven ecumenical councils.)

{2} Compared to some of the magisterial texts on scripture studies prior to DA, the latter would (by your criteria) be a "modernist" document. Likewise Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum which was very "new" in many of its ideas and directions at the time it was promulgated. Likewise I could point to the notion of a universal calendar (seventeenth century novelty), the Treaty of Brest in 1596 comes to mind. (Where certain Eastern Churches were in essence made "Satellites of the Western Patriarch" contrary to all precedent.)

There is also Pope Gregory XIII's Gregorian Calendar in 1582, Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum of 1570, the Index of Forbidden Books as called for by Trent, the hylomorphic theory of the sacraments as taught by the Schoolmen, Pope Boniface VIII's "two swords" theology, Gratian's Canon Law collection - or the idea of a uniformed canon law in the Church. There was also Pope St. Gregory VII deposing of an Emperor: an action that was without precedent at any time in history.

How about the idea of saint-making being reserved to Rome??? This happened in the twelfth century by Pope Alexander III. Considering that the first papal canonization was in 993 AD, this was a very novel idea of its time. Let us consider some highly esteemed theologians before wrapping up this note.

St. Thomas Aquinas is considered the model theologian today but there were ordinaries condemning as heretical many of his propositions less than three years after his death. (St. Albert the Great at the age of nearly eighty had to come out of retirement and defend the orthodoxy of his star pupil from those who were suspicious of his "novel" methods.) Like student like master as St. Albert the Great was also an iconoclast of his time - not to be confused with iconoclastic heresy of the eighth and ninth centuries.

Saints Dominic and Francis of Assisi founding the mendicant orders of the Dominicans and the Franciscans in the thirteenth centuries. This was a new and novel form of monasticism - indeed Dominic's notion of democracy in the Order of Preachers was masterful and easily four centuries ahead of its time.

Venerable Cardinal Newman was tainted as a "liberal" by not a few in his lifetime. When he received the red hat by Leo XIII - who made Newman his first cardinal - this was seen as a vindication of him against his detractors. Yet today there are some who do not take the same approach when it comes to JP II's selections for the red hat. Popes are not infallible in selecting cardinals; however, it would be profoundly rash to presume that they would make very many poor choices particularly since they generally do not do these things hastily. The cardinals hat has become in recent centuries - since the nepotism element was removed from the equation - a reward of sorts for good service rendered to the Church. Those selected deserve the benefit of the doubt at all times in my opinion.

Thus the carping that many people calling themselves "traditionalists" do to Cardinal Kaspar for example is inexcusable. This does not mean one cannot be critical or voice certain concerns. However, as a Prince of the Church he deserves due respect. Hence in my essay taking Cardinal Stickler to task on certain problems in one of his essays, I sought above all to be respectful to him as a Prince of the Church. Admittedly I have not always succeeded in being properly deferential even in my post-SSPX days. (To say nothing of before that time of course.)

{3} To the extent that we can even say that there is a "spectrum". Theology not being well served by political metaphors I am hesitant to use them here except as broad markers at best.

{4} This was also demonstrated in the neglect of the homily, the absence of instruction being given at different points of the liturgy for the faithful's edification - as Trent decreed, and the neglect of the truly traditional understanding of the laity's role during the liturgy: many of these roles were either absorbed by the priest and lower orders or taken over by the choir.

{5} In my opinion the Pope St. Pius X Catechism is far superior to the Baltimore Catechism in both clarity and (most importantly) charity.

"Addressing Progressivist Misunderstandings" Dept.
(Part II of II)

This is a continuation of the thread started HERE

Indeed, some conservatives at CCF already accept that Ecumenical Councils use "sloppy language", as MDS argues in the case of the canon regarding the ordination of deaconesses at the Council of Chalcedon (canon 15).

You are all over the map here. Please stay on topic and avoid these kinds of distractions. Chalcedon needs to be interpreted in the light of Nicaea where the non-ordained status of the deaconess was pointed out:

19. Concerning the former Paulinists who seek refuge in the catholic church, it is determined that they must be rebaptised unconditionally. Those who in the past have been enrolled among the clergy, if they appear to be blameless and irreproachable, are to be rebaptised and ordained by the bishop of the catholic church. But if on inquiry they are shown to be unsuitable, it is right that they should be deposed. Similarly with regard to deaconesses and all in general whose names have been included in the roll, the same form shall be observed. We refer to deaconesses who have been granted this status, for they do not receive any imposition of hands, so that they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity.

While a deaconess underwent a form of ordination, they nonetheless did not receive the imposition of hands. This was clear in the fourth century compendium of Apostolic Constitutions where it was expressly stated that the deaconess gives no blessing nor fulfills any functions of a priest or deacon. I quote from the eighth book of the compendium:

XXVIII. Concerning the canons I the same make a constitution. A bishop blesses, but does not receive the blessing. He lays on hands, ordains, offers, receives the blessing from bishops, but by no means from presbyters. A bishop deprives any clergyman who deserves deprivation, excepting a bishop; for of himself he has not power to do that. A presbyter blesses, but does not receive the blessing; yet does he receive the blessing from the bishop or a fellow-presbyter. In like manner does he give it to a fellow-presbyter. He lays on hands, but does not ordain; he does not deprive, yet does he separate those that are under him, if they be liable to such a punishment. A deacon does not bless, does not give the blessing, but receives it from the bishop and presbyter: he does not baptize, he does not offer; but when a bishop or presbyter has offered, he distributes to the people, not as a priest, but as one that ministers to the priests. But it is not lawful for any one of the other clergy to do the work of a deacon. A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency. A deacon separates a sub-deacon, a reader, a singer, and a deaconess, if there be any occasion, in the absence of a presbyter. It is not lawful for a sub-deacon to separate either one of the clergy or laity; nor for a reader, nor for a singer, nor for a deaconess, for they are the ministers to the deacons.

So much for your vaunted "deaconess" as an excuse to support the ordination of women to the diaconite. (Ordination of women to the priesthood already being definitively closed.)

At lower levels of authority, the ordinary magisterium also supported slavery in the following instances:

Sorry but you are about to confuse local synods with the ordinary magisterium. This is inexcusable. See my definition from the previous entry for what constitutes "magisterial teaching". I will briefly summarize it here.

The ordinary magisterium is the day to day government of the universal church by the bishops of the episcopal college dispersed throughout the world under the authority of the pope. It manifests itself in (i) the pope's universal teaching and governing (ii) each bishop in communion with him exercising their lawful duties. Obviously there is no ordinary magisterial authority in the bishop in his everyday pastoral duties anymore than the pope has when he performs his priestly duties for his dioceses in Rome.

Individual bishops do not comprise the Church Magisterium except insofar as they teach in communion with the pope and in accordance with his teachings. When the bishops do this as a college, they are infallible authorities. However, the college of bishops is not able to be partitioned into locales. Even a local synod is not properly understood to be part of the magisterium unless the pope or an ecumenical council confirms its teachings. And even in those instances, only the approved doctrinal decrees of such synods are magisterial. This is why positing individual canons from local councils is pointless and does not ipso facto constitute a valid defense of any position you want to bring forward. I will explain why here in brief.

Just as bishop's conferences today are authoritative in their domains but not part of the ordinary magisterium,{1} local synods were authoritative in their respective areas but were not part of the magisterium unless they received papal approbation. In short, just because you can quote a synod decree does not make that decree magisterial. As this is an important but often misunderstood or overlooked element, I will repeat it:

Even in synods which the pope or an ecumenical council accepts as magisterial, that does not mean that all the synod's canons are accepted.

The popes have approved as magisterial certain synods but rejected one or more of their canons. (They have even rejected canons or decrees proposed by ecumenical councils.) That is why merely quoting a canon or a decree from a local synod - even an ecumenical synod - is not proof of the sort you are asserting.

Before dealing with your claims, I believe we need to make it clear the varied forms of slavery that existed prior to the High Middle Ages. I quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on slavery and Christianity:

I. THE CHURCH AND ROMAN SLAVERY

The first missionaries of the Gospel, men of Jewish origin, came from a country where slavery existed. But it existed in Judea under a form very different from the Roman form. The Mosaic Law was merciful to the slave (Ex., xxi; Lev., xxv; Deut., xv, xxi) and carefully secured his fair wage to the labourer (Deut., xxiv, 15). In Jewish society the slave was not an object of contempt, because labour was not despised as it was elsewhere. No man thought it beneath him to ply a manual trade. These ideas and habits of life the Apostles brought into the new society which so rapidly grew up as the effect of their preaching. As this society included, from the first, faithful of all conditions -- rich and poor, slaves and freemen -- the Apostles were obliged to utter their beliefs as to the social inequalities which so profoundly divided the Roman world. "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal., iii, 27-28; cf. I Cor., xii, 13). From this principle St. Paul draws no political conclusions. It was not his wish, as it was not in his power, to realize Christian equality either by force or by revolt. Such revolutions are not effected of a sudden. Christianity accepts society as it is, influencing it for its transformation through, and only through, individual souls. What it demands in the first place from masters and from slaves is, to live as brethren -- commanding with equity, without threatening, remembering that God is the master of all - obeying with fear, but without servile flattery, in simplicity of hear, as they would obey Christ (cf. Eph., vi, 9; Col. iii, 22-4; iv, 1).

This language was understood by masters and by slaves who became converts to Christianity. But many slaves who were Christians had pagan masters to whom this sentiment of fraternity was unknown, and who sometimes exhibited that cruelty of which moralists and poets so often speak. To such slaves St. Peter points out their duty: to be submissive "not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward", not with a mere inert resignation, but to give a good example and to imitate Christ, Who also suffered unjustly (I Peter, ii, 18, 23-4). In the eyes of the Apostles, a slave's condition, peculiarly wretched, peculiarly exposed to temptations, bears all the more efficacious testimony to the new religion. St. Paul recommends slaves to seek in all things to please their masters, not to contradict them, to do them no wrong, to honour them, to be loyal to them, so as to make the teaching of God Our Saviour shine forth before the eyes of all, and to prevent that name and teaching from being blasphemed (cf. I Tim, vi, 1; Tit., ii, 9, 10). The apostolic writings show how large a place slaves occupied in the Church. Nearly all the names of the Christians whom St. Paul salutes in his Epistles to the Romans are servile cognomina: the two groups whom he calls "those of the household of Aristobulus and "those of the household of Narcissus" indicate Christian servitors of those two contemporaries of Nero. His Epistle, written from Rome to the Philippians (iv, 22) bears them greeting from the saints of Caesar's household, i.e. converted slaves of the imperial palace.

One fact which, in the Church, relieved the condition of the slave was the absence among Christians of the ancient scorn of labour (Cicero, "De off.", I, xlii; Pro Flacco", xviii; "pro domo", xxxiii; Suetonius, "Claudius, xxii; Seneca, "De beneficiis", xviii; Valerius Maximus, V, ii, 10). Converts to the new religion knew that Jesus had been a carpenter; they saw St. Paul exercise the occupation of a tentmaker (Acts, xviii, 3; I Cor, iv, 12). "Neither did we eat any man's bread", said the Apostle, "for nothing, but in labour and in toil we worked night and day, lest we should be chargeable to any you (II Thess., iii, 8; cf. Acts, xx, 33, 34). Such an example, given at a time when those who laboured were accounted "the dregs of the city", and those who did not labour lived on the public bounty, constituted a very efficacious form of preaching. A new sentiment was thereby introduced into the Roman world, while at the same time a formal discipline was being established in the Church. It would have none of those who made a parade of their leisurely curiosity in the Greek and Roman cities (II Thess., iii, 11). It declared that those who do not labour do not deserve to be fed (ibid., 10). A Christian was not permitted to live without an occupation (Didache, xii).

Religious equality was the negation of slavery as it was practiced by pagan society. It must have been an exaggeration, no doubt, to say, as one author of the first century said, that "slaves had no religion, or had only foreign religions" (Tacitus, "Annals", XIV, xliv): many were members of funerary collegia under the invocation of Roman divinities (Statutes of the College of Lanuvium, "Corp. Inscr. lat.", XIV, 2112). But in many circumstances this haughty and formalist religion excluded slaves from its functions, which, it was held, their presence would have defiled. (Cicero, "Octavius", xxiv). Absolute religious equality, as proclaimed by Christianity, was therefore a novelty. The Church made no account of the social condition of the faithful. Bond and free received the same sacraments. Clerics of servile origin were numerous (St. Jerome, Ep. lxxxii). The very Chair of St. Peter was occupied by men who had been slaves -- Pius in the second century, Callistus in the third. So complete -- one might almost say, so levelling -- was this Christian equality that St. Paul (I Tim., vi, 2), and, later, St. Ignatius (Polyc., iv), are obliged to admonish the slave and the handmaid not to condemn their masters, "believers like them and sharing in the same benefits". In giving them a place in religious society, the Church restored to slaves the family and marriage. In Roman, law, neither legitimate marriage, nor regular paternity, nor even impediment to the most unnatural unions had existed for the slave (Digest, XXXVIII, viii, i, (sect) 2; X, 10, (sect) 5). That slaves often endeavoured to override this abominable position is touchingly proved by innumerable mortuary inscriptions; but the name of uxor, which the slave woman takes in these inscriptions, is very precarious, for no law protects her honour, and with her there is no adultery (Digest, XLVIII, v, 6; Cod. Justin., IX, ix, 23). In the Church the marriage of slaves is a sacrament; it possesses "the solidity" of one (St. Basil, Ep. cxcix, 42). The Apostolic Constitutions impose upon the master the duty of making his slave contract "a legitimate marriage" (III, iv; VIII, xxxii). St. John Chrysostom declares that slaves have the marital power over their wives and the paternal over their children ("In Ep. ad Ephes.", Hom. xxii, 2). He says that "he who has immoral relations with the wife of a slave is as culpable as he who has the like relations with the wife of the prince: both are adulterers, for it is not the condition of the parties that makes the crime" ("In I Thess.", Hom. v, 2; "In II Thess.", Hom. iii, 2).

In the Christian cemeteries there is no difference between the tombs of slaves and those of the free. The inscriptions on pagan sepulchres -- whether the columbarium common to all the servants of one household, or the burial plot of a funerary collegium of slaves or freedmen, or isolated tombs -- always indicate the servile condition. In Christian epitaphs it is hardly ever to be seen ("Bull. di archeol. christiana", 1866, p. 24), though slaves formed a considerable part of the Christian population. Sometimes we find a slave honoured with a more pretentious sepulchre than others of the faithful, like that of Ampliatus in the cemetery of Domitilla ( "Bull. di archeol. christ.", 1881, pp. 57-54, and pl. III, IV). This is particularly so in the case of slaves who were martyrs: the ashes of two slaves, Protus and Hyacinthus, burned alive in the Valerian persecution. had been wrapped in a winding-sheet of gold tissue (ibid., 1894, p. 28). Martyrdom eloquently manifests the religious equality of the slave: he displays as much firmness before the menaces of the persecutor as does the free man. Sometimes it is not for the Faith alone that a slave woman dies, but for the faith and chastity equally threatened -- "pro fide et castitate occisa est" ("Acta S. Dulae" in Acta SS., III March, p. 552). Beautiful assertions of this moral freedom are found in the accounts of the martyrdoms of the slaves Ariadne, Blandina, Evelpistus, Potamienna, Felicitas, Sabina, Vitalis, Porphyrus, and many others (see Allard, "Dix leçons sur le martyre", 4th ed., pp. 155-- 64). The Church made the enfranchisement of the slave an act of disinterested charity. Pagan masters usually sold him his liberty for his market value, on receipt of his painfully amassed savings (Cicero, "Philipp. VIII", xi; Seneca "Ep. lxxx"); true Christians gave it to him as an alms. Sometimes the Church redeemed slaves out of its common resources (St. Ignatius, "Polyc.", 4; Apos. Const., IV, iii). Heroic Christians are known to have sold themselves into slavery to deliver slaves (St. Clement, "Cor.", 4; "Vita S. Joannis Eleemosynarii" in Acts SS., Jan., II, p. 506). Many enfranchised all the slaves they had. In pagan antiquity wholesale enfranchisements are frequent, but they never include all the owner's slaves, end they are always by testamentary disposition -- that is when the owner cannot be impoverished by his own bounty, (Justinian, "Inst.", I, vii; "Cod. Just.", VII, iii, 1). Only Christians enfranchised all their slaves in the owner's lifetime, thus effectually despoiling themselves a considerable part of their fortune (see Allard, "Les esclaves chrétiens", 4th ed., p. 338). At the beginning of the fifth century, a Roman millionaire, St. Melania, gratuitously granted liberty to so many thousand of slaves that her biographer declares himself unable to give their exact number (Vita S. Melaniae, xxxiv). Palladius mentions eight thousand slaves freed (Hist. Lausiaca, cxix), which, taking the average price of a slave as about $100, would represent a value of $800,000 {1913 dollars}. But Palladius wrote before 406, which was long before Melania had completely exhausted her immense fortune in acts of liberality of all kinds (Rampolla, "S. Melania Giuniore", 1905, p. 221).

Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery. To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished with Roman society. But to say, with Ciccotti (Il tramonto della schiavitù, Fr. tr., 1910, pp. 18, 20), that primitive Christianity had not even "an embryonic vision" of a society in which there should be no slavery, to say that the Fathers of the Church did not feel "the horror of slavery", is to display either strange ignorance or singular unfairness. In St. Gregory of Nyssa (In Ecclesiastem, hom. iv) the most energetic and absolute reprobation of slavery may be found; and again in numerous passages of St. John Chrysostom's discourse we have the picture of a society without slaves - a society composed only of free workers, an ideal portrait of which he traces with the most eloquent insistence (see the texts cited in Allard, ''Les esclaves chrétiens", p. 416-23). {Slavery and Christianity}

Having outlined the distinctions in the first forms of slavery I noted above with an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, let us notice how haphazard your quoting of references is and how you take no note of any of the distinctions I have referred to above in your crusade to vindicate some view you have that you think the Church should change. (For in my experience, only those who have that agenda in mind argue as you are doing here.) Let us now deal with your "proofs" one by one...

- The local Council at Gangra in Asia Minor, in 362 AD, excommunicated anyone telling a slave to despise his master or withdraw from his service.

Here is the canon:

Canon 3. If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.

This is of course a reference to just title slavery. Notice the exhortations of St. Peter and St. Paul above about the duties of a slave towards his master and vice versa. Though Gangra is not magisterial, its judgment is nonetheless in conformity with the Church's view that the end does not justify the means.

Further still, there was two sides to this coin but you conveniently ignore the whole story so I will outline it here. While the Church held the necessity of obedience by a slave to his master, she also held that the master owed certain rights to the slave. This is an example of making the best of a situation that the Church was not yet in a position to do anything about without violating the maxim that "the end does not justify the means".

And eliminating slavery though a laudable goal was not justified by counselling an undermining of the social order. Hence those who did this were punished with censure and rightfully so. It is akin to the Church's view that though abortion is immoral - and ending abortion is a laudable goal - that this goal does not justify the individual taking it upon themselves to kill those who perform abortions. Different subject but the same principle is involved here: the end does not justify the means.

- The same decree is repeated in a Council under Pope Martin I in 650 AD!

The 649 Lateran Synod is one that received papal approbation. It is therefore properly styled as magisterial. But I have already explained why this decree is not a problem so this example - though magisterial - fails to stand up to scrutiny when examined. Your case thus far is "weighed in the scales and found wanting" (Dan. v,27).

- The ninth Council of Toledo in 655 AD imposed slavery on the children of priests.

Two points:

1) This would not be chattel slavery but instead just title slavery. (If I am correct it was a punishment for priests who had controverted their vows of celibacy and had married.)

2) This synod was styled as the "ninth provincial synod of Toledo" and is therefore not magisterial.

But even presuming that it was magisterial, it is important to consider the form of slavery which is referred to here. I will go into this subject later on in this thread rather then do so here and then repeat myself there.

All I will note on it at the moment is that it is erroneous to draw up conceptions of Harriet Tubman and chattel slavery when reading of "imposing slavery" on people in the age prior to the "Age of Discovery". (Or post fifteenth century.) Yet that is what the so-called "progressive" advocates do. For all their priding themselves on being able to "think for themselves", they sure do not do a very good job of it.

- The Synod of Melfi under Pope Urban II in 1089 imposed slavery on the wives of priests.

It helps to understand the background of the decisions of Melfi before there is blind or uncritical criticism of its decrees. This synod was part of Pope Urban II's following in the footsteps of the reforms of Hildebrand the monk - who was one of the most zealous reformers of his time. (Hildebrand preceded Urban in the papacy ruling as as Pope Gregory VII.) The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us of the terrible state of tenth-eleventh century Christendom - indeed easily the worst period of the Church's history - with the following summary:

Unfortunately, "the Iron Age", that terrible period of war, barbarism, and corruption in high places which marked the break-up of the Carolingian Empire, followed almost immediately upon this revival. "Impurity, adultery, sacrilege and murder have overwhelmed the world", cried the Council of Trosly in 909. The episcopal sees, as we learn from such an authority as Bishop Egbert of Trier, were given as fiefs to rude soldiers, and were treated as property which descended by hereditary right from father to son. A terrible picture of the decay both of clerical morality and of all sense of anything like vocation is drawn in the writings of St. Peter Damian, particularly in his "Liber Gomorrhianus". The style, no doubt, is rhetorical and exaggerated, and his authority as an eyewitness does not extend beyond that district of Northern Italy, in which he lived, but we have evidence from other sources that the corruption was widespread and that few parts of the world failed to feel the effect of the licence and venality of the times. How could it be otherwise when there were intruded into bishoprics on every side men of brutal nature and unbridled passions, who gave the very worst example to the clergy over whom they ruled?

The same article even refers to the Synod of Melfi:

The incidents of the long final campaign, which began indeed even before the time of Pope St. Leo IX and lasted down to the First Council of Lateran in 1123, are too complicated to be detailed here. We may note, however that the attack was conducted along two distinct lines of action. In the first place, disabilities of all kinds were enacted and as far as possible enforced against the wives and children of ecclesiastics. Their offspring were declared to be of servile condition, debarred from sacred orders, and, in particular, incapable of succeeding to their fathers' benefices. The earliest decree in which the children were declared to be slaves, the property of the Church, and never to be enfranchised, seems to have been a canon of the Synod of Pavia in 1018. Similar penalties were promulgated later on against the wives and concubines (see the Synod of Melfi, 1189, can. xii), who by the very fact of their unlawful connection with a subdeacon or clerk of higher rank became liable to be seized as slaves by the over-lord. Hefele (Concilienge-schichte, V, 195) sees in this first trace of the principle that the marriages of the clerics are ipso facto invalid.

As regards to the offenders themselves, the strongest step seems to have been that taken by Nicholas II in 1059, and more vigorously by Gregory VII in 1075, who interdicted such priests from saying Mass and from all ecclesiastical functions, while the people were forbidden to hear the Mass which they celebrated or to admit their ministrations so long as they remain contumacious. In the controversies of this time the Masses said by these incontinent priests were sometimes described as "idolatrous"; but this word must not be pressed, as if it meant to insinuate that such priests were incapable of consecrating validly. The term was only loosely used, just as if it was also sometimes applied at the same period to any sort of homage rendered to an antipope. Moreover the wording of a letter of Urban II (Ep. cclxxiii) enforcing the decree takes an exception for cases of urgent necessity, as, for example, when Communion has to be given to the dying. Clearly, therefore, the validity of the sacraments when consecrated or administered by a married priest was not in question.

In short, as the priests who had married refused to follow the Church's discipline, they were punished appropriately. Those who insisted on remaining priests who did not separate from their wives were punished with censures and the wives and children were as a result relegated to just title slavery. But let us consider more of the background. As good a source as any is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on St. Gregory VII which noted the following with regards to the celibacy of the clergy debate:

Gregory began his great work of purifying the Church by a reformation of the clergy. At his first Lenten Synod (March, 1074) he enacted the following decrees:

That clerics who had obtained any grade or office of sacred orders by payment should cease to minister in the Church.

That no one who had purchased any church should retain it, and that no one for the future should be permitted to buy or sell ecclesiastical rights.

That all who were guilty of incontinence should cease to exercise their sacred ministry.

That the people should reject the ministrations of clerics who failed to obey these injunctions.

Similar decrees had indeed been passed by previous popes and councils. Clement II, Leo IX, Nicholas II, and Alexander II had renewed the ancient laws of discipline, and made determined efforts to have them enforced. But they met with vigorous resistance, and were but partially successful. The promulgation of Gregory's measures now, however, called forth a most violent storm of opposition throughout Italy, Germany, and France. And the reason for this opposition on the part of the vast throng of immoral and simoniacal clerics is not far to seek. Much of the reform thus far accomplished had been brought about mainly through the efforts of Gregory; all countries had felt the force of his will, the power of his dominant personality. His character, therefore, was a sufficient guarantee that his legislation would not be suffered to remain a dead letter. In Germany, particularly, the enactments of Gregory aroused a feeling of intense indignation. The whole body of the married clergy offered the most resolute resistance, and declared that the canon enjoining celibacy was wholly unwarranted in Scripture. In support of their position they appealed to the words of the Apostle Paul, I Cor., vii,2, and 9: "It is better to marry than to be burnt"; and I Tim., iii, 2: "It behooveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife." They cited the words of Christ, Matt., xix, 11: "All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given"; and, recurred to the address of the Egyptian Bishop Paphnutius at the Council of Nice. At Nuremberg they informed the papal legate that they would rather renounce their priesthood than their wives, and that he for whom men were not good enough might go seek angels to preside over the Churches. Siegfried, Archbishop of Mainz and Primate of Germany, when forced to promulgate the decrees, attempted to temporize, and allowed his clergy six months of delay for consideration. The order, of course, remained ineffectual after the lapse of that period, and at a synod held at Erfurt in October, 1074, he could accomplish nothing. Altmann, the energetic Bishop of Passau, nearly lost his life in publishing the measures, but adhered firmly to the instructions of the pontiff. The greater number of bishops received their instructions with manifest indifference, and some openly defied the pope. Otto of Constance, who had before tolerated the marriage of his clergy, now formally sanctioned it. In France the excitement was scarcely less vehement than in Germany. A council at Paris, in 1074, condemned the Roman decrees, as implying that the validity of the sacraments depended on the sanctity of the minister, and declared them intolerable and irrational. John, Archbishop of Rouen, while endeavouring to enforce the canon of celibacy at a provincial synod, was stoned and had to flee for his life. Walter, Abbot of Pontoise, who attempted to defend the papal enactments, was imprisoned and threatened with death. At the Council of Burgos, in Spain, the papal legate was insulted and his dignity outraged. But the zeal of Gregory knew no abatement. He followed up his decrees by sending legates into all quarters, fully empowered to depose immoral and simoniacal ecclesiastics.

The reason for detailing all of this is to point out that there is a reason why Gregory and his successors sought the stringent penalty of slavery as they did. It was more merciful than the death penalty and it served notice to these rebellious clerics that they either towed the line or there would be severe consequences.

But why is it that the promoters of clerical marriage like to cite the canons but not the surrounding circumstances to thereby fairly represent the sitz im leben of said decisions??? And further still, why do those who harp on the slavery canard refuse to make the very important distinctions that are called for in these kinds of theological discussions???

In short, the attempt by these so-called "progressives" to postulate that all forms of slavery historically are the same is an example of the facile reasoning they employ and a testament to why they have no business dabbling in theological matters which are so clearly over their heads. In light of the way these clerics acted, the punishment was proper and appropriate. They did not have to agree with it but when lawful authority issues a decree within its particular realm of competence, it is to be followed.

Still not convinced the Church supported slavery?

The Church supported slavery in some forms and condemned it in other forms. Self-styled "progressives" so frequently act like fundamentalists and presume that terms with many applications are to be used monolithically. As it was noted in the eighteenth century British legal case of Somerset v Stewart "Slavery has been attended in different countries with circumstances so various, as to render it difficult to give a general description of it." How unfortunate perhaps that the court did not have so-called "progressives" who distort distinctives and try to treat terms of multiple usages in a monolithic manner. Then you and your "progressive" brethren will castigate fundamentalists for doing the exact same thing you do. Wherefore art thy consistency oh "enlightened" ones!!!

Consider the following quotation from the Apostolic Constitution (which carries more authority than Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)

Of course I knew the moment I read your opening title that you were making these arguments with an agenda. So let us set you straight here where you err again. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis carries a definitive authority because the pope manifested the intention to settle definitively an issue that many had wrongly presumed was still debatable. Papal Bulls are properly styled as "Apostolic Letters" most of the time. They are not properly styled as "Constitutions" unless they are issued to define an issue solemnly or condemn errors of varying theological qualifications including heresy and errors proximate to heresy - and do so with a reasonable degree of exposition. (Most Bulls of a dogmatic nature which are brief and direct are styled as "Apostolic Letters.")

In styling all papal documents as being equally authoritative (which you are doing here), this is a hallmark of the very sort of undiscerning fundamentalism that self-styled "progressives" usually pat themselves on the back about being above doing. Yet in disputing these issues they end up acting in like manner as the fundys they argue with.

written by His Holiness, Pope Nicholas V, on January 8, 1455:

That text is properly styled as an Apostolic Letter. There is little of doctrinal interest in it.

We (therefore) weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery,...

Considering that these kingdoms could have had the infidels killed, slavery was a lessor punishment. I frankly find it disgusting that so-called "progressives" are willing to sacrifice anything in the name of their self-serving crusade. Do I have to remind you that the Saracens were overrunning countries and two years earlier had succeeded in overthrowing Constantinople??? The Saracens were slaughtering people and therefore did not deserve to be spared. Nicholas V saw a sentence of perpetual slavery to be more humane though than killing them. This would be an example of just war theory in practice - particularly since the Saracens had declared war on all non-Muslim nations. But of course you have no interest in looking at this in a level-headed manner for whatever Pope Nicholas says you will find fault with it. Observe:

--If Nicholas had decreed that the Muslims should be slaughtered, you would then gripe about him sanctioning murder. Since he went the route of preferring to consign these murderers to perpetual slavery rather then having them killed, you now whine that he endorsed perpetual slavery for the Muslim invaders and their people.

Probably Nicholas doing nothing less than spreading daisies around and singing hippie tunes about peace and love would be what you would sanction. Of course then you would blame him for the inevitable slaughter that would take place. Oh yes, I forgot: if Christian Europe had simply disarmed so would the Saracens. A little "sword control" and all the problems of war would have ceased. I wonder sometimes just what colour the sky is in the world of so-called "progressives". But I digress...

Note, as well, that Pope Nicholas seems to congratulate Henry, infante of Portugal, for "slaughtering" non-Christians and imposing forced conversions on "negros" and other peoples!

You misread the text. Pope Nicholas was pleased to see that Henry had succeeded in his quest and was listing as some of the casualties of "many wars...against the enemies and infidels...not without the greatest labors and expense, and with dangers and loss of life and property, and the slaughter of very many of their natural subjects, the said infante being neither enfeebled nor terrified by so many and great labors, dangers, and losses, but growing daily more and more zealous in prosecuting this his so laudable and pious purpose, has peopled with orthodox Christians certain solitary islands in the ocean sea, and has caused churches and other pious places to be there founded and built, in which divine service is celebrated".

This was not an extolling of slaughter but a mentioning in passing that what Henry achieved was "not without the greatest labours and expense" and among that expense was "and with dangers and loss of life and property, and the slaughter of very many of their natural subjects". This would be akin to Bush conquering Hussein in a war where 1,000 American soldiers died and someone recognizing that the victory came "at the expense of 1,000 lives". You need to read your sources with greater care before you presume you know what they are saying. Otherwise you end up looking very foolish indeed. (And also very fundamentalist.)

As late as June 20, 1866, the Holy Office (now called the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a statement that said:

"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.

It is a constitutional element of "progressivism" to never quote things in context. Here is the vital information you or your source overlooked - as best I can determine it from my sources. What you quote in part was a response to a particular dubitum sent to the Holy Office in 1866:

Dubitum:

"Is it permitted to admit to the sacraments any Christian merchant who normally abhors the buying and selling of slaves for the sake of profit, but, lest he suffer harm to his family affairs, wants to resell some slaves whom once he was forced, by a seller who was a noble, to take as the price of his wages.”

Based on that dubitum, the following responsum was issued by the Holy Office:

Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.

This is of course consistent with the fact that slavery with certain humane restrictions was permitted under the Mosaic law. It therefore cannot be absolutely immoral in and of itself. This was well explained by the eighteenth century ecclesiastic Cardinal Gerdil - whom I quote here courtesy of the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Slavery is not to be understood as conferring on one man the same power over another that men have over cattle. Wherefore they erred who in former times refused to include slaves among persons; and believed that however barbarously the master treated his slave he did not violate any right of the slave. For slavery does not abolish the natural equality of men: hence by slavery one man is understood to become subject to the dominion of another to the extent that the master has a perpetual right to all those services which one man may justly perform for another; and subject to the condition that the master shall take due care of his slave and treat him humanely.

In short, the Church has condemned chattel slavery and the slave trade but not slavery itself in toto. The reason for this is because condemnations are very precise and slavery is anything but precise historically. To again quote Somerset v Stewart circa 1772:

Slavery has been attended in different countries with circumstances so various, as to render it difficult to give a general description of it.

I am reminded of what self-styled "traditionalists" do with the Syllabus of Errors or other sources which are their favourite prooftexts. Like the Syllabus - which I have written in detail on by the way - self-styled "progressives" have their favourite agenda texts which they horrendously misappropriate as well. Both groups fail to recognize the principle that propositions or subjects are never condemned in a broad brush fashion but instead are done within very specific contexts. Again, as much as self-styled "progressives" castigate the very fundamentalist attitudes of self-styled "traditionalists", they act a lot like the people whose views they abhor.

Much as "traditionalism" is nothing more than "Protestantism of the right", "progressivism" is "Fundamentalism of the left." {2} Your attempt to combine all forms of slavery under one umbrella is the best advertisement for why so-called "progressives" have no business either doing theology or trying to take to task the magisterium for perceived "errors." For much as they pride themselves on being supposedly "clever", in reality the only party "erring" is the party making the accusations to justify their disobedience against the authority which they should be in submission to.

Are the conservatives absolutely sure that we want to consider every authoritative word of the Pope's or even the bishops in Council as infallible and unchangeable?

I reverse your question on you:

In light of how your paltry arguments have fallen flat on their face (and your knowledge of these subjects has been exposed as facile and specious), are you so-called "progressives" absolutely sure that you want to continue to haphazardly ascribe supposed "errors" to the authoritative teaching of the popes either speaking on their own or in union with the bishops in councils - either ecumenical or plenary???

Additional Reading on the Application of Divine Laws

Notes:

{1} If the pope or an ecumenical council accepts the teachings of a plenary synod as magisterial then they are part of the ordinary magisterium. Otherwise though they are authoritative for their respective jurisdictions, such synods are not seen as part of the magisterium.

{2} Much as I hate using political labels, for this particular parallel to be drawn it was necessary to use them.

"Addressing Progressivist Misunderstandings" Dept.
(Part I of II)

Though Lent has given me pause for reflection in the manner whereby I approach these subjects, the addressing of them must continue. Nonetheless, the usual department heading for this is "laying the smack down" or some variant thereof. I have decided to handle this with a greater degree of pastoral sensitivity than I originally intended to. Part of the reason is because I have a few responses to self-styled "traditionalists" and/or their supporters to respond to in the coming days. A few of the responses are weeks or so old but time has been short lately. As a brief window presents itself now, I will take advantage of it by issuing a few of them at this time. In that light, the following is a response which excluding minor tweaking was written over a month ago. It was written to address several canards of self-styled "progressives". Though I never got around to posting it at the time, in light of the other planned responses it seems appropriate to do so now.

For though I have dialogued with and sparred with people of all religious outlooks, my former involvement with the self-styled "traditionalist" movement has resulted in a greater degree of emphasis there then in many other views. As it is always good to strive for balance, it seems to me that refuting the so-called "progressives" is good at this time to undercut the accusation that I focus only on one side of the equation and not the other.

I get emails from some "trads" who claim I am an ally of the so-called "progressives" or - at the very least a "conservative". At the same time, I get emails from liberals who say I am a "reactionary traditionalist" or an "ultra-conservative". None of these assertions are remotely accurate because I have positions that affiliate with each of these depending on the subject or the elements involved. There should be no surprise in that as theological paradigms are done a tremendous disservice when they are confined to the narrow and artificial constructs of political categories.

Having noted that, I move onto the progressive shibboleth of slavery and a few additional side issues which are repeatedly bandied about by them. The words of the self-styled "progressive" will be in purple font. My words will be in regular font and my sources will be posted in darkblue font.

"Did the Church Support Slavery?"

The conservatives here seem to be implying lately that the Magisterium cannot err even when they are not invoking a solemn definition through their extraordinary authority.

I have no idea who these mythical "conservatives" are but it is correct that there is a debate over whether the Church can err in her ordinary magisterium on matters of doctrine and morals. I happen to have examined numerous supposed "errors" in the ordinary magisterium and thus far have not found any that withstands scrutiny as an actual error. However, I want to clarify this a little so I am not misunderstood.

When I refer to an "error" I refer to an actual change in teaching on matters of doctrine or morals where there is an apples/apples parallel in the variables. There are examples such as usury and slavery where there were varying teachings but never was there a reversal of teaching where there were apples/apples variables involved. I explain this in a link to my weblog which I will link to at the end of this message. However, a few points you raise here were not covered in it so I will deal with them now. But first, let us clear the field of your subsidiary points in short order to focus on the primary issue of your post.

The progressives have pointed out that the magisterium has supported slavery, stated there is no slavltion outside of the institutional church, condemened all loans at interest (which would shut down our banks), condemned Galileo on he grounds of a universal consensus that the earth is the center of the universe with the sun orbiting it, and so forth.

I will deal with your ancillary points briefly in reverse order and with the slavery subject in reasonable detail:

[The magisterium has] condemned Galileo on he grounds of a universal consensus that the earth is the center of the universe with the sun orbiting it, and so forth.

Galileo was condemned for trying to impose his scientific theories on the realm of theology. If he had kept to his own sphere, he would have been just fine. Copernicus his predecessor did this and he was never bothered for it. It is further worth noting that (i) while some theologians in the Holy Office called Galileo's view heretical, the decision of the Holy Office itself called it only "suspect of heresy" - which is a theological and not doctrinal judgment.{1} (ii) Galileo's proofs for heliocentricity were never convincing enough in and of themselves to persuade anyone to alter their worldview and accept them.

Galileo's value in science and mechanics was never for his heliocentricity model. Indeed if we were to pinpoint the proponents whose models were influential it would be Copernicus and Kepler, not Galileo. But all of that is really irrelevant if we consider the big picture and the role of Einstein in vindicating the Catholic Church by logical extension.

For as Einstein noted with relativity theory, there is no absolute central point to the universe. The latter is instead relative to the individual whereas the center of the universe for you would differ from where it would for me. So if we really want to get technical about it, Galileo was wrong then and he is wrong now. But why is it that people like you never admit to these things??? Think about it for a moment.

If the Theories of Relativity are right - and there is no proof as of yet to credibly undermine these theories,{2} then Galileo was wrong. Or there is another possibility. If Galileo is right - and we are to accept his proofs for heliocentrism which he never proved were able to be sustained, then Einstein was wrong. You cannot support Einstein's view and also Galileo's because to do so is blatantly inconsistent internally. So make your choice. However, either way you are caught between Scylla and Charybdis so I ask you: which do you choose???

[The magisterium has] condemened all loans at interest (which would shut down our banks)

This is not correct. What was condemned was usury which is defined by the Church as "when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk" (Lateran V Session X). Obviously in the economies of scale throughout most of history, money was not seen as an entity that produces anything in and of itself. In the modern economies of scale of the past two centuries, money has come to be seen differently. However, note the definition of usury from Lateran V: "when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk." Obviously charging interest on a bank loan in today's economic climate cannot be said to have "no expense" or "no risk".

Further still, money today properly invested can indeed produce a return on its investments over and above the sum invested. However, with all such investments, there is varying degrees of risk. So in short, the interest charged on loans by banks today does not qualify as examples of usury in and of itself. (As the money can with some work and possible expense actually produce a return if properly invested - though almost never without a certain degree of risk.) This is why the example of usury is not only a non-sequitur but because there are differing variables in both cases, it is an example of sophism to argue that the Church in changing her policy here committed any "errors". The two examples are clearly apples and oranges to anyone but the most biased of observers.

[The magisterium has] stated there is no slavltion outside of the institutional church,

This has never been the teaching of the Church. I have written in detail on this subject and this is a canard that cannot stand up to scrutiny. The following essay deals in detail with this assertion:

Salvation Outside the Catholic Church

That leaves just one item on your list to tend to: slavery. And I will deal with that subject next along with a few additional attempt you make to postulate a credible base from which to advance your agenda (which will also be pointed out).

To be continued...

Notes:

{1} Furthermore, the Pope himself - a good friend of Galileo's I might add - did not confirm the decision. And without the pope's confirmation, no text is properly understood as magisterial.

{2} And no, this does not vindicate geocentric theory either since both heliocentricity and geocentricity are based on flawed presuppositions if the theories of relativity are correct. (And there is no evidence thus far that they are not pace the theory of geocentrism.)

Points to Ponder:

[W]hen we find it written of charity, that she "seeks not her own," we should thus interpret the words, namely, that the common good is to be preferred to our own selfish interests, and not our own interests to the common good. Judge, therefore, your progress by this rule: whether or not you more and more prefer the welfare of the community to your own private interests, so that in all the needs of this life which pass away that charity may reign which abides forever. [The Rule of St. Augustine used by the Order of Preachers]