Friday, January 02, 2004
On the Kiss of Peace:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
When your weblog host was struggling with schismatic tendencies, the matters pertaining to the liturgy were the most difficult to deal with. Indeed, even after my return to the Church from schismatic "traditionalism", if not for the fact that I was attending two to three hours a week of Adoration before the Blessed Sacrament{1} the degree of difficulty in this area would have been probably unbearable.
For despite the theological arguments working fine in the abstract, the emotional undercurrents are always the hardest to overcome.{2} The kiss of peace occupied a place along with the manner whereby the fingers were cleansed after the consecration and communion,{3} the holding of hands at the Pater Noster,{4} and the use of extraordinary ministers in large numbers along with communion in the hand:{5} as areas of difficulty for me to deal with. And while the other areas I noted subsided in difficulty after a few months or more -some of them taking longer than others-{6} the "kiss of peace" persisted to bother me for a rather lengthy period of time-even though I understood the history of this liturgically and it made sense cerebrally.
Starting with late 2002-early 2003 and progressing throughout last year, I gradually discerned something about this action which I begin pondering every time I attended mass and exchanged the sign with others -albeit just those immediately around me.{7} As this gesture probably bothers many of my readers as well, here is what I found myself doing at this time to get through this action if you will.
Essentially I found myself recalling certain principles of the liturgy and the meaning behind the various signs. And with the kiss of peace, here is how I found myself approaching the matter after I forced myself to not react to this action and actually approach it without prejudice.{8}
We are all aware of the prayer that precedes the kiss of peace -the Pater Noster. Within that prayer is a line that is pivotal and I say it louder than any other line when I pray at mass to remind myself of what it calls for. The line is "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. My good friend Dr. Art Sippo considers this to be a blessing we pronounce on ourselves if we forgive others who have wronged us -and a curse we pronounce on ourselves if we do not forgive those who have wronged us. And the literal sense of the prayer supports this interpretation.
However, anyone can say they forgive those who wrong them (either in reality or in the individual's perception which may not be correct). What is needed is an external manifestation of this intention. Noting that, it seems that perhaps considering again the value of external signs in our heritage may be of assistance. And in the Bible, the liturgical acts which accompany such internal dispositions or concretize them if you will are many. Here are just a few that come to mind:
Rth 4:7 Now this [was the manner] in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave [it] to his neighbour: and this [was] a testimony in Israel.
Psa 78:5 For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children:
Psa 81:5 This he ordained in Joseph [for] a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: [where] I heard a language [that] I understood not.
Mat 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Mat 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
Mar 1:44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Mar 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Mar 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
Luk 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Luk 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
Luk 21:13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
Hbr 3:5 And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
Notice in the examples above that there were visible witnesses which attested to the invisible intention. (A very sacramental understanding if we really want to get technical about it.) Likewise the Torah witnesses to numerous rites and ceremonies which were intended to impress upon the heart the precepts of the Law.
As Catholics we have numerous sacramentals which serve a similar purpose. So the kiss of peace as any liturgical action is intended to signify something. This was what I pondered for sometime and gradually came to better understand (I believe).
Initially I believed that if the kiss of peace was to be in the liturgy that it should be moved to either before the offertory (and after the bidding prayers) or to the beginning of mass. This was my justification if you will for tolerating the practice at all -and for sometime it was my defacto setting on the matter.
However, I now believe that the placing of the kiss of peace is where it should be. And having noted that, I believe we should strive to understand its value and have patience for those who do not understand it. (Or worse: who treat it as some kind of "howdy do" moment.) Here is what I have reflected on for about a year now and why the kiss of peace no longer bothers me.
Like everyone who strives to follow the Gospel, I have my moments of stumbling and even falling. Indeed, I have long prayed to become a just man so that I would only fall seven times a day (cf. Proverbs xxiv,16). Forgiving people from the heart is at the heart of what we are commanded to do by Our Lord (Matt. xviii,35).
To what extent do we succeed in doing this -knowing that when we pray the Pater Noster that we are beseeching our Heavenly Father to forgive us as we forgive others??? If there is any shortage in our forgiveness, we make the sacrifice of which we are to partake in impure within us -not because the sacrifice is impure but because we in receiving the Eucharist are giving that what is holy to dogs (meaning ourselves). How can we through manifest the internal intention to forgive others as we want to be forgiven through visible signs??? We can do this through the kiss of peace my friends that is how.
When I exchange the sign, I envision those who have wronged me whom I struggle to forgive in my heart despite doing so in either words or in theory. (I also envision those I may have wronged.) The heart is deeper than we think and we can hold those grudges deep which we are supposed to rid ourselves of. Hence, at the apex of the mass, when the Lamb is to be consumed, we are to be pure of heart in order to be worthy of the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world (cf. Rev. xiii,8).
And this purity of intention can be symbolized in our exchanging of the sign with those around us -envisioning in them those who have wronged us or those we have perhaps wronged (either in reality or perhaps whom we believe this may apply to). Our Lord referred to this principle in the Gospels in the following words:
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. [Matthew v,21-24]
That is the value of the kiss of peace as I have come to see it: it enables me not to have to leave mass to reconcile with those who have wronged me (or whom I may have wronged) before partaking of the sacrifice. Instead, I am able to see in those around me proxies if you will for such people and respectfully "reconcile" through exchanging the sign before receiving the gift from the altar. (And obviously if at all possible reconciling with those people in reality afterwards -whenever we come across them.) If Our Lord saw this as necessary with the sacrifices in the Old Dispensation, how much more important is it in the New when we we partake of that one offering which perfects forever those who are sanctified (cf. Heb. x,14)???
Notes:
{1} Usually this was done for one to two hours before mass and thirty minutes to an hour afterwards in the side chapel where they had Perpetual Adoration at the church of my first communion. (Which was both my last church before involving myself with the SPX as well as my initial port of call after leaving the SSPX.) This was my means of preparing for the areas of difficulty and also "stocking up" if you will on the silence that would be non-existent during mass. (The latter is not a problem at Blessed Sacrament where the Dominicans utilize silence in the liturgy very effectively.)
{2} This is something that I noted in a recent weblog post to Kevin Tierney at Lidless Eye Inquisition weblog.
{3} Many Tridentine supporters would claim that truncating the washing of the fingers (removing Psalm 25 from that section and replacing it with a simple plea for cleanliness) was tampering with 'tradition' but initially the washing of the fingers was a necessity. (This was due to the type of bread being used in earlier days getting on the fingers of the priest.) The addition of the Psalm at this time was to give the priest something to say when he was washing his fingers and Psalm 25 was of course very fitting. Eventually the action became more of a symbolic part of Mass when the need to thoroughly wash fingers was no longer there (and it no longer is). [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part III (c. 2003, 2000)]
{4} I figured out very early a neat way to avoid this and (as a result) have succeeded in never once holding anyone's hand at the Pater Noster while at the same time not being rude to those around me.
{5} [T]here is nothing wrong in other words with Extraordinary Ministers and of course they do not "invalidate" or "Protestantize" the Pauline Mass in any way unless St. Basil the Great, St. John Damascene, and other holy men renowned for their orthodoxy were really proto-Protestants. That is the sort of accusation a 'traditionalist' would have to make for their gripes about Communion in the hand or Lay Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist being problem areas at Mass from a validity or "irreverence" standpoint. (Since logically if lay people could receive by hand then lay ministers could administer the sacrament under the auspices of the presiding priest.) [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part V (c. 2003, 2000)]
{6} Seeing lay people cleaning the paten, etc after communion is still a thorn in the flesh not because they are engaging in sacrilege but because the rubrics have never allowed for it at any time. (And even at Blessed Sacrament -that oasis of sanity smack in the middle of my dioceses with reverent liturgies and powerful preaching- this still happens.)
{7} It still grates on me when people leave the pew or reach over the pews in front or behind them. And priests leaving the sanctuary at this time -as one priest used to do at the church of my first communion as recently as mid 2002- was also a burr in the saddle. Fortunately the latter ceased and I have not seen it since that time at the churches I used to attend. (Though I now attend almost all my masses at Blessed Sacrament so that is a rather moot point now in many respects.)
{8} I readily admit that this is not easy to do -particularly for those who are attached to various forms of the older Latin liturgical usages where the kiss of peace ceased being utilized seven odd centuries earlier.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
When your weblog host was struggling with schismatic tendencies, the matters pertaining to the liturgy were the most difficult to deal with. Indeed, even after my return to the Church from schismatic "traditionalism", if not for the fact that I was attending two to three hours a week of Adoration before the Blessed Sacrament{1} the degree of difficulty in this area would have been probably unbearable.
For despite the theological arguments working fine in the abstract, the emotional undercurrents are always the hardest to overcome.{2} The kiss of peace occupied a place along with the manner whereby the fingers were cleansed after the consecration and communion,{3} the holding of hands at the Pater Noster,{4} and the use of extraordinary ministers in large numbers along with communion in the hand:{5} as areas of difficulty for me to deal with. And while the other areas I noted subsided in difficulty after a few months or more -some of them taking longer than others-{6} the "kiss of peace" persisted to bother me for a rather lengthy period of time-even though I understood the history of this liturgically and it made sense cerebrally.
Starting with late 2002-early 2003 and progressing throughout last year, I gradually discerned something about this action which I begin pondering every time I attended mass and exchanged the sign with others -albeit just those immediately around me.{7} As this gesture probably bothers many of my readers as well, here is what I found myself doing at this time to get through this action if you will.
Essentially I found myself recalling certain principles of the liturgy and the meaning behind the various signs. And with the kiss of peace, here is how I found myself approaching the matter after I forced myself to not react to this action and actually approach it without prejudice.{8}
We are all aware of the prayer that precedes the kiss of peace -the Pater Noster. Within that prayer is a line that is pivotal and I say it louder than any other line when I pray at mass to remind myself of what it calls for. The line is "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. My good friend Dr. Art Sippo considers this to be a blessing we pronounce on ourselves if we forgive others who have wronged us -and a curse we pronounce on ourselves if we do not forgive those who have wronged us. And the literal sense of the prayer supports this interpretation.
However, anyone can say they forgive those who wrong them (either in reality or in the individual's perception which may not be correct). What is needed is an external manifestation of this intention. Noting that, it seems that perhaps considering again the value of external signs in our heritage may be of assistance. And in the Bible, the liturgical acts which accompany such internal dispositions or concretize them if you will are many. Here are just a few that come to mind:
Rth 4:7 Now this [was the manner] in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave [it] to his neighbour: and this [was] a testimony in Israel.
Psa 78:5 For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children:
Psa 81:5 This he ordained in Joseph [for] a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: [where] I heard a language [that] I understood not.
Mat 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Mat 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
Mar 1:44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Mar 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Mar 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
Luk 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Luk 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
Luk 21:13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
Hbr 3:5 And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
Notice in the examples above that there were visible witnesses which attested to the invisible intention. (A very sacramental understanding if we really want to get technical about it.) Likewise the Torah witnesses to numerous rites and ceremonies which were intended to impress upon the heart the precepts of the Law.
As Catholics we have numerous sacramentals which serve a similar purpose. So the kiss of peace as any liturgical action is intended to signify something. This was what I pondered for sometime and gradually came to better understand (I believe).
Initially I believed that if the kiss of peace was to be in the liturgy that it should be moved to either before the offertory (and after the bidding prayers) or to the beginning of mass. This was my justification if you will for tolerating the practice at all -and for sometime it was my defacto setting on the matter.
However, I now believe that the placing of the kiss of peace is where it should be. And having noted that, I believe we should strive to understand its value and have patience for those who do not understand it. (Or worse: who treat it as some kind of "howdy do" moment.) Here is what I have reflected on for about a year now and why the kiss of peace no longer bothers me.
Like everyone who strives to follow the Gospel, I have my moments of stumbling and even falling. Indeed, I have long prayed to become a just man so that I would only fall seven times a day (cf. Proverbs xxiv,16). Forgiving people from the heart is at the heart of what we are commanded to do by Our Lord (Matt. xviii,35).
To what extent do we succeed in doing this -knowing that when we pray the Pater Noster that we are beseeching our Heavenly Father to forgive us as we forgive others??? If there is any shortage in our forgiveness, we make the sacrifice of which we are to partake in impure within us -not because the sacrifice is impure but because we in receiving the Eucharist are giving that what is holy to dogs (meaning ourselves). How can we through manifest the internal intention to forgive others as we want to be forgiven through visible signs??? We can do this through the kiss of peace my friends that is how.
When I exchange the sign, I envision those who have wronged me whom I struggle to forgive in my heart despite doing so in either words or in theory. (I also envision those I may have wronged.) The heart is deeper than we think and we can hold those grudges deep which we are supposed to rid ourselves of. Hence, at the apex of the mass, when the Lamb is to be consumed, we are to be pure of heart in order to be worthy of the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world (cf. Rev. xiii,8).
And this purity of intention can be symbolized in our exchanging of the sign with those around us -envisioning in them those who have wronged us or those we have perhaps wronged (either in reality or perhaps whom we believe this may apply to). Our Lord referred to this principle in the Gospels in the following words:
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. [Matthew v,21-24]
That is the value of the kiss of peace as I have come to see it: it enables me not to have to leave mass to reconcile with those who have wronged me (or whom I may have wronged) before partaking of the sacrifice. Instead, I am able to see in those around me proxies if you will for such people and respectfully "reconcile" through exchanging the sign before receiving the gift from the altar. (And obviously if at all possible reconciling with those people in reality afterwards -whenever we come across them.) If Our Lord saw this as necessary with the sacrifices in the Old Dispensation, how much more important is it in the New when we we partake of that one offering which perfects forever those who are sanctified (cf. Heb. x,14)???
Notes:
{1} Usually this was done for one to two hours before mass and thirty minutes to an hour afterwards in the side chapel where they had Perpetual Adoration at the church of my first communion. (Which was both my last church before involving myself with the SPX as well as my initial port of call after leaving the SSPX.) This was my means of preparing for the areas of difficulty and also "stocking up" if you will on the silence that would be non-existent during mass. (The latter is not a problem at Blessed Sacrament where the Dominicans utilize silence in the liturgy very effectively.)
{2} This is something that I noted in a recent weblog post to Kevin Tierney at Lidless Eye Inquisition weblog.
{3} Many Tridentine supporters would claim that truncating the washing of the fingers (removing Psalm 25 from that section and replacing it with a simple plea for cleanliness) was tampering with 'tradition' but initially the washing of the fingers was a necessity. (This was due to the type of bread being used in earlier days getting on the fingers of the priest.) The addition of the Psalm at this time was to give the priest something to say when he was washing his fingers and Psalm 25 was of course very fitting. Eventually the action became more of a symbolic part of Mass when the need to thoroughly wash fingers was no longer there (and it no longer is). [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part III (c. 2003, 2000)]
{4} I figured out very early a neat way to avoid this and (as a result) have succeeded in never once holding anyone's hand at the Pater Noster while at the same time not being rude to those around me.
{5} [T]here is nothing wrong in other words with Extraordinary Ministers and of course they do not "invalidate" or "Protestantize" the Pauline Mass in any way unless St. Basil the Great, St. John Damascene, and other holy men renowned for their orthodoxy were really proto-Protestants. That is the sort of accusation a 'traditionalist' would have to make for their gripes about Communion in the hand or Lay Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist being problem areas at Mass from a validity or "irreverence" standpoint. (Since logically if lay people could receive by hand then lay ministers could administer the sacrament under the auspices of the presiding priest.) [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part V (c. 2003, 2000)]
{6} Seeing lay people cleaning the paten, etc after communion is still a thorn in the flesh not because they are engaging in sacrilege but because the rubrics have never allowed for it at any time. (And even at Blessed Sacrament -that oasis of sanity smack in the middle of my dioceses with reverent liturgies and powerful preaching- this still happens.)
{7} It still grates on me when people leave the pew or reach over the pews in front or behind them. And priests leaving the sanctuary at this time -as one priest used to do at the church of my first communion as recently as mid 2002- was also a burr in the saddle. Fortunately the latter ceased and I have not seen it since that time at the churches I used to attend. (Though I now attend almost all my masses at Blessed Sacrament so that is a rather moot point now in many respects.)
{8} I readily admit that this is not easy to do -particularly for those who are attached to various forms of the older Latin liturgical usages where the kiss of peace ceased being utilized seven odd centuries earlier.
Periodical Essay Notification:
Readers of The Catholic Answer{1} are already aware of it but an article Pete and I worked on back in the late fall-early spring of 2003{2} was finally published in the January-February 2004 issue of that periodical. Titled Fostering True Christian Unity: Two Former Schismatics Reflect, it is heavily based on this writer's essay on Christian Unity which was posted to the web in January of 2001.
Notes:
{1} I refer here to the OSV publication not Karl Keating's apostolate.
{2} This was done concurrent with the release of an article Yes Virginia, Fr. Nicholas Was Suspended which was published in the March 6, 2003 issue of The Wanderer and to which I contributed to. For those aware of the response of The Remnant's Christopher Ferrara to that article -who were unaware that we responded to his drivel- I will briefly note that it has been adequately rebutted by each of us.
For his part, Pete wrote a short response to it for the August 7, 2003 edition of The Wanderer which can be read HERE. Complementing that piece was a reasonably economical yet detailed web essay composed shortly afterwards by your humble servant at Rerum Novarum which was released on the Feast of the Assumption. That essay can be read HERE.
Readers of The Catholic Answer{1} are already aware of it but an article Pete and I worked on back in the late fall-early spring of 2003{2} was finally published in the January-February 2004 issue of that periodical. Titled Fostering True Christian Unity: Two Former Schismatics Reflect, it is heavily based on this writer's essay on Christian Unity which was posted to the web in January of 2001.
Notes:
{1} I refer here to the OSV publication not Karl Keating's apostolate.
{2} This was done concurrent with the release of an article Yes Virginia, Fr. Nicholas Was Suspended which was published in the March 6, 2003 issue of The Wanderer and to which I contributed to. For those aware of the response of The Remnant's Christopher Ferrara to that article -who were unaware that we responded to his drivel- I will briefly note that it has been adequately rebutted by each of us.
For his part, Pete wrote a short response to it for the August 7, 2003 edition of The Wanderer which can be read HERE. Complementing that piece was a reasonably economical yet detailed web essay composed shortly afterwards by your humble servant at Rerum Novarum which was released on the Feast of the Assumption. That essay can be read HERE.
Congressional Update:
(A Rerum Novarum Breaking Story)
Though there was speculation for some time that conservative Democratic Congressman Ralph Hall of Texas may switch political parties, it became official as of today: the eighty year old congressman is now a Republican. Lane Core, Jr. now has more to add to the thirty-odd part (and growing) list{1} of how the Democratic Party is imploding.
Update Note:
{1} Lane Core Jr himself, authentic interpreter of the Core Magisterium (aka "Blog from the Core") reminded your weblog host that it is actually eighty-plus installments that have been posted on this series. (Eighty-two as of 1/03/04.) Hence this correction being posted to the weblog. [-ISM 1/04/04 circa 8:50 am]
(A Rerum Novarum Breaking Story)
Though there was speculation for some time that conservative Democratic Congressman Ralph Hall of Texas may switch political parties, it became official as of today: the eighty year old congressman is now a Republican. Lane Core, Jr. now has more to add to the thirty-odd part (and growing) list{1} of how the Democratic Party is imploding.
Update Note:
{1} Lane Core Jr himself, authentic interpreter of the Core Magisterium (aka "Blog from the Core") reminded your weblog host that it is actually eighty-plus installments that have been posted on this series. (Eighty-two as of 1/03/04.) Hence this correction being posted to the weblog. [-ISM 1/04/04 circa 8:50 am]
Predictions for 2004:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: In view of the decision to grant a kind of defacto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, I am taking advantage of adjusting these predictions before the midnight deadline today that was previously set. The amended predictions will be in purple font. One prediction which had two components (one in the footnotes) now comprises two separate predictions as the footnoted part was moved to the main list. (I put it in purple font.) Also, a previous prediction I made in light of this news was left in the list but crossed out as I am annulling it here and now. The details for all of this can be read below. [ISM - 1/07/04 (10:05 pm)]
Anyone who wants to make predictions of their own can send me their blog link of the predictions and I will add them to this post. Those without a weblog can send theirs to me and I will blog them at Rerum Novarum. However, in the case of the latter, they have to be in by January 7th. Also, I would request that they send at least five different predictions and no more than twenty. In the meantime, here are my predictions for 2004 -weighted a bit towards the 2004 election and St. Blog's/the blogosphere...
---Howard Dean will win New Hampshire but he will not win by the margin he currently has in the race. Instead, he will win with about a ten to fifteen point spread over John Kerry -who will place or show.
---Howard Dean peaked back in December and will be in decline by the time of Iowa and New Hampshire.
---Senator Joseph Lieberman will target South Carolina as his place to make a splash and will place third at best in New Hampshire.
---South Carolina will be the primary that will make or break Senator Lieberman as a presidential candidate.
---The Democrats willget their clocks cleaned in lose the Presidential election if anyone of that field except Senator Lieberman gets the nomination.
---If Senator Lieberman actually wins the nomination, it will be a tight presidential race; if Dean wins the nomination, it will not be as bad as Reagan-Mondale but it will be about as bad as Nixon-McGovern.
---Because of the previous prediction, Lieberman will not get the nomination.
---No matter who gets the Democratic nomination, the Democrats will lose seats in both houses of Congress in 2004.
---The US military will be wound down in Iraq in the months before the elections ala what Nixon did in Vietnam in 1972.
---As I noted earlier, I am renewing for 2004 my 2003 prediction that President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee will be a Hispanic.
---President Bush will continue to play a two card monte game of "war of terror" and "recovering economy" and disillusion former Republicans (and long-time Independents) like your humble servant. (And his latest pandering is frankly almost enough to make me vote Democrat in the 2004 election.)
---As a result of the latter, this humble weblog will contain at least two or three posts in lament of the fact that there is no viable third party out there who endorses the majority of this writer's principles in reality. (As opposed to the abstract.)
---At least one conservative commentator will launch an influential grassroots movement to have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg removed from the Supreme Court.
---The US Bishops after being humiliated in 2002 and parts of 2003 will seek to regain credibility by faithfully implementing the prescriptions of the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal. (They will also be stricter on innovations in liturgical matters than they have been for at least five decades or more.)
---The US Bishops will also explicitly affirm the core doctrine in Humanae Vitae in at least a USCCB statement.{1} As a result of this, either National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal, or both will publish at least one screed against this accusing the bishops of "ignorance", "lacking enlightenment", "anachronistic outlooks", or something along those lines in their typical snobby overtones.
---Though there are plans for around three web essays this year -and perhaps a periodical piece or two; nonetheless, your humble servant at Rerum Novarum will release at least one web essay in 2004.
---There will be at least seven pieces in The Remnant which will libel either (i) JP II (ii) Vatican II (iii) the falsely-labeled "neo-catholics" (iv) The Wanderer or (v) some of the contributors to The Wanderer.
---Pertaining to the previous prediction, if Chris Ferrara writes any of the pieces predicted and Pete Vere's name comes up in the process, Mr. Esquire will try to focus on irrelevant side topics (such as Pete's reviews for Ronco-type stuff at Amazon) to seek to distract from the main subjects in true Johnny Cochrine fashion.{2}
---The S.S. CAItanic will finish 2004 with a red light rating from Petersnet (or whatever the latter is now calling themselves) and will continue to delude themselves into thinking that they are still "at the forefront of Catholic apologetics" and "faithful to the Magisterium of the Church."
---Albert Cipriani and your humble servant at Rerum Novarum will resume the dialogue in 2004 that in 2003 was near non-existent. (And a degree of convergence beyond what they already have will develop.)
---After the recent round of further degeneration in the Anglican communion in 2003, erudite medieval historian Edwin Tait{3} will have another serious bout with the "Roman Fever" in 2004 akin to what he had in 1999.
---At least one blog entry contra "rock music" will appear at Jeff Culbreath's El Camino Real BLOG.
---At least three weblog entries on themes comparable to "restoring the Tridentine liturgy to the primary liturgy of the universal church" will be blogged as well at El Camino Real.
---At least two commentaries about the capital punishment position of Evangelium Vitae (as it is often improperly understood) will appear at Greg Krehbiel's Crowhill BLOG or on his webpage{4} in 2004.
---Bill Cork will put out at least one blog entry against Mel Gibson where his approach towards the so-called "traditionalists" will mirror one that he would (rightfully) denounce anyone taking towards either Jews or Lutherans.
---Stephen Hand of TCR will continue to be the most prolific and persuasive exponent of Catholic social teaching in cyberspace.{5}
---Societas Christiana and Rerum Novarum -though they will dialogue amicably on issues of difference of course- will continue to be two voices crying out in the wilderness in 2004 on certain subjects they see as key. (And that virtually no one seems to want to contribute to developing in their respective communions.) {6}
---Donna Lewis' Quenta Narwenian BLOG will make at least twenty references to Venerable John Henry Newman -at least three of which will be petitions or prayers for his beatification/canonization.
---The Dyspeptic One will retain his title as St. Blog's most hilarious and hardhitting fisker of idiocy -but only by one fall in a "best of twenty-one odd falls" bout over The Secret One. (And the latter will strive manfully making a close contest out of it to everyone else's enjoyment.){7}
---Relations between the Vatican and the Orthodox Churches will have a breakthrough of some kind in 2004 which will in retrospect be seen as a key to dissolving of another of the few roadblocks between them on the journey to reunion of the Churches.
---2004 will follow 2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000 as bad years for self-styled "traditionalists" as a whole. (Though they will still delude themselves into thinking that they are "winning influence.")
Though the right to add more to this list before January 7th is reserved, for the moment We at Rerum Novarum rest from listing predictions for the year.
Notes:
{1} In part because they believe it but for the most part because of the humiliation of 2002 and its carryover into 2003 -and the need to show Rome that they have learned their lessons.
{2} Further still, Mr. Esquire will continue to demonstrate how facile he and his allies' so-called "traditionalism" really is. (Through a continually manifested disconnect from how truly Tradition-minded people actually approach subjects.)
{3} One-time (and hopefully future) partner of your weblog host in the dialogue.
{4} Oh and Greg, if you are reading this, here are some posts you may be interested in:
On the Death Penalty and its Application (De Virtutibus vs. Rerum Novarum)
I Object, Your Honor! Your Verdict on Evangelium Vitae and Church Teaching on the Death Penalty is Wrong: A Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial on the Death Penalty (By Greg Mockeridge)
"See I Told You So" Dept. (Plus some musings via Rerum Novarum)
More on the Death Penalty (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
{5} Plus, Stephen and Company at TCR will continue to give your humble servant at Rerum Novarum the most persuasive of arguments against this weblog's consistently reiterated position on the war in Iraq and various and sundry related subjects to that one thereof.
I also take this moment to remind the readers that my position on this is one which --unlike certain gung-ho types who shall remain nameless among the pro-war Catholic contingent of St. Blog's and elsewhere-- I have not had to retract and apologize for in any way whatsoever. (Indeed the value of a balanced perspective cannot be overestimated on issues such as this.)
{6} In Tim's case, the call of his Reformed brethren back to what he preceives are the principles of the "Reformation" that were abandoned in the Enlightenment with an eye towards revitalizing or reconstituting Christian society. With your humble servant, the advancement of a consistent line of argumentation that is grounded in Catholic principles but is nuanced enough for usage by anyone of good faith (or no faith) who wants to see society saved from its own excesses and put back on the path of genuine progress in all possible spheres.
It should be noted that these agendas on our respective parts are -at least as I see it- more converging than contrary.
{7} And as part of this prediction and not separate from it, Jeff Miller's title of "St. Blog's Champion of Punditry" will be retained by The Curt One for at least another year. [-ISM 1/04/04 circa 8:40 am]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: In view of the decision to grant a kind of defacto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, I am taking advantage of adjusting these predictions before the midnight deadline today that was previously set. The amended predictions will be in purple font. One prediction which had two components (one in the footnotes) now comprises two separate predictions as the footnoted part was moved to the main list. (I put it in purple font.) Also, a previous prediction I made in light of this news was left in the list but crossed out as I am annulling it here and now. The details for all of this can be read below. [ISM - 1/07/04 (10:05 pm)]
Anyone who wants to make predictions of their own can send me their blog link of the predictions and I will add them to this post. Those without a weblog can send theirs to me and I will blog them at Rerum Novarum. However, in the case of the latter, they have to be in by January 7th. Also, I would request that they send at least five different predictions and no more than twenty. In the meantime, here are my predictions for 2004 -weighted a bit towards the 2004 election and St. Blog's/the blogosphere...
---Howard Dean will win New Hampshire but he will not win by the margin he currently has in the race. Instead, he will win with about a ten to fifteen point spread over John Kerry -who will place or show.
---Howard Dean peaked back in December and will be in decline by the time of Iowa and New Hampshire.
---Senator Joseph Lieberman will target South Carolina as his place to make a splash and will place third at best in New Hampshire.
---South Carolina will be the primary that will make or break Senator Lieberman as a presidential candidate.
---The Democrats will
---If Senator Lieberman actually wins the nomination, it will be a tight presidential race; if Dean wins the nomination, it will not be as bad as Reagan-Mondale but it will be about as bad as Nixon-McGovern.
---Because of the previous prediction, Lieberman will not get the nomination.
---The US military will be wound down in Iraq in the months before the elections ala what Nixon did in Vietnam in 1972.
---As I noted earlier, I am renewing for 2004 my 2003 prediction that President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee will be a Hispanic.
---President Bush will continue to play a two card monte game of "war of terror" and "recovering economy" and disillusion former Republicans (and long-time Independents) like your humble servant. (And his latest pandering is frankly almost enough to make me vote Democrat in the 2004 election.)
---As a result of the latter, this humble weblog will contain at least two or three posts in lament of the fact that there is no viable third party out there who endorses the majority of this writer's principles in reality. (As opposed to the abstract.)
---At least one conservative commentator will launch an influential grassroots movement to have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg removed from the Supreme Court.
---The US Bishops after being humiliated in 2002 and parts of 2003 will seek to regain credibility by faithfully implementing the prescriptions of the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal. (They will also be stricter on innovations in liturgical matters than they have been for at least five decades or more.)
---The US Bishops will also explicitly affirm the core doctrine in Humanae Vitae in at least a USCCB statement.{1} As a result of this, either National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal, or both will publish at least one screed against this accusing the bishops of "ignorance", "lacking enlightenment", "anachronistic outlooks", or something along those lines in their typical snobby overtones.
---Though there are plans for around three web essays this year -and perhaps a periodical piece or two; nonetheless, your humble servant at Rerum Novarum will release at least one web essay in 2004.
---There will be at least seven pieces in The Remnant which will libel either (i) JP II (ii) Vatican II (iii) the falsely-labeled "neo-catholics" (iv) The Wanderer or (v) some of the contributors to The Wanderer.
---Pertaining to the previous prediction, if Chris Ferrara writes any of the pieces predicted and Pete Vere's name comes up in the process, Mr. Esquire will try to focus on irrelevant side topics (such as Pete's reviews for Ronco-type stuff at Amazon) to seek to distract from the main subjects in true Johnny Cochrine fashion.{2}
---The S.S. CAItanic will finish 2004 with a red light rating from Petersnet (or whatever the latter is now calling themselves) and will continue to delude themselves into thinking that they are still "at the forefront of Catholic apologetics" and "faithful to the Magisterium of the Church."
---Albert Cipriani and your humble servant at Rerum Novarum will resume the dialogue in 2004 that in 2003 was near non-existent. (And a degree of convergence beyond what they already have will develop.)
---After the recent round of further degeneration in the Anglican communion in 2003, erudite medieval historian Edwin Tait{3} will have another serious bout with the "Roman Fever" in 2004 akin to what he had in 1999.
---At least one blog entry contra "rock music" will appear at Jeff Culbreath's El Camino Real BLOG.
---At least three weblog entries on themes comparable to "restoring the Tridentine liturgy to the primary liturgy of the universal church" will be blogged as well at El Camino Real.
---At least two commentaries about the capital punishment position of Evangelium Vitae (as it is often improperly understood) will appear at Greg Krehbiel's Crowhill BLOG or on his webpage{4} in 2004.
---Bill Cork will put out at least one blog entry against Mel Gibson where his approach towards the so-called "traditionalists" will mirror one that he would (rightfully) denounce anyone taking towards either Jews or Lutherans.
---Stephen Hand of TCR will continue to be the most prolific and persuasive exponent of Catholic social teaching in cyberspace.{5}
---Societas Christiana and Rerum Novarum -though they will dialogue amicably on issues of difference of course- will continue to be two voices crying out in the wilderness in 2004 on certain subjects they see as key. (And that virtually no one seems to want to contribute to developing in their respective communions.) {6}
---Donna Lewis' Quenta Narwenian BLOG will make at least twenty references to Venerable John Henry Newman -at least three of which will be petitions or prayers for his beatification/canonization.
---The Dyspeptic One will retain his title as St. Blog's most hilarious and hardhitting fisker of idiocy -but only by one fall in a "best of twenty-one odd falls" bout over The Secret One. (And the latter will strive manfully making a close contest out of it to everyone else's enjoyment.){7}
---Relations between the Vatican and the Orthodox Churches will have a breakthrough of some kind in 2004 which will in retrospect be seen as a key to dissolving of another of the few roadblocks between them on the journey to reunion of the Churches.
---2004 will follow 2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000 as bad years for self-styled "traditionalists" as a whole. (Though they will still delude themselves into thinking that they are "winning influence.")
Though the right to add more to this list before January 7th is reserved, for the moment We at Rerum Novarum rest from listing predictions for the year.
Notes:
{1} In part because they believe it but for the most part because of the humiliation of 2002 and its carryover into 2003 -and the need to show Rome that they have learned their lessons.
{2} Further still, Mr. Esquire will continue to demonstrate how facile he and his allies' so-called "traditionalism" really is. (Through a continually manifested disconnect from how truly Tradition-minded people actually approach subjects.)
{3} One-time (and hopefully future) partner of your weblog host in the dialogue.
{4} Oh and Greg, if you are reading this, here are some posts you may be interested in:
On the Death Penalty and its Application (De Virtutibus vs. Rerum Novarum)
I Object, Your Honor! Your Verdict on Evangelium Vitae and Church Teaching on the Death Penalty is Wrong: A Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial on the Death Penalty (By Greg Mockeridge)
"See I Told You So" Dept. (Plus some musings via Rerum Novarum)
More on the Death Penalty (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
{5} Plus, Stephen and Company at TCR will continue to give your humble servant at Rerum Novarum the most persuasive of arguments against this weblog's consistently reiterated position on the war in Iraq and various and sundry related subjects to that one thereof.
I also take this moment to remind the readers that my position on this is one which --unlike certain gung-ho types who shall remain nameless among the pro-war Catholic contingent of St. Blog's and elsewhere-- I have not had to retract and apologize for in any way whatsoever. (Indeed the value of a balanced perspective cannot be overestimated on issues such as this.)
{6} In Tim's case, the call of his Reformed brethren back to what he preceives are the principles of the "Reformation" that were abandoned in the Enlightenment with an eye towards revitalizing or reconstituting Christian society. With your humble servant, the advancement of a consistent line of argumentation that is grounded in Catholic principles but is nuanced enough for usage by anyone of good faith (or no faith) who wants to see society saved from its own excesses and put back on the path of genuine progress in all possible spheres.
It should be noted that these agendas on our respective parts are -at least as I see it- more converging than contrary.
{7} And as part of this prediction and not separate from it, Jeff Miller's title of "St. Blog's Champion of Punditry" will be retained by The Curt One for at least another year. [-ISM 1/04/04 circa 8:40 am]
Thursday, January 01, 2004
On Limbo, Nature, Grace, and Other Tidbits:
(A Dialogue With Gregory)
I'll keep my questions limited to these two that happen to be on my mind. The first one has to do with de Lubac's position of grace and nature. You and others have written that de Lubac's position is actually more consistent with St. Thomas Aquinas's position and the quotes that you guys give from Aquinas certainly seem to demonstrate that you are correct.
Prepare to be labelled a "modernist" now by those who claim to be "The True Believers"™ who actually do not know their theology or church history very well.
But I was reading an article by Father Most on Limbo recently and I suddenly realized something: Aquinas's view of Limbo contradicts, it appears, de Lubac's position.
That is perhaps true.
This is because Aquinas believes that unborn infants probably go to Limbo, where they have a "natural happiness". They are not punished for anything.
St. Thomas' position is one which contradicted St. Augustine's view on limbo. And St. Augustine's view contradicted the views of his contemporaries on the matter as well. All of this is why it would not surprise me if Cardinal de Lubac's position contradicted St. Thomas' view.
But if de Lubac is correct, and humans naturally desire the Beatific Vision, than those unborn children can not be satisfied in Limbo.
If there even is a limbo of course. Remember, we are dealing here with theologomenon. It is also worth pointing out that there were notable theologians who proposed the limbo thesis who also believed that unborn children could receive baptism of desire through the intention of their parents if their parents had intended to baptize them. (One of these was Cardinal Cajetan.) And there are logical extensions from that principle which could also be noted.
Thus being there would be a kind a punishment. For all eternity they would never be able to satisfy their innate desire for the Infinite Good. So what are we to make of this? Is Aquinas contradicting himself, or am I missing something.
Well, all people who desire any good are witnessing to their innate desire for the Ultimate Good. The lure of all sin is that it offers at least a partial good -indeed if it did not then we would not be so susceptable to temptation. (To say nothing about falling which as the old proverb goes "every just man falls at least seven times a day.") Perhaps God if there is a children's limbo does not allow them to realize what they are missing so that a natural happiness (ala what Aquinas speaks of) more than satisfies them. I have not thought too much about this point but offhand the latter possibility would perhaps work as an explanation -again if there is a limbo of course.
Also, have you ever read Cardinal Siri's in "Gethsemane"? I've heard it's a strong attack on the "new theology".
That His Eminence was critical of the "new theology" (falsely-so-called) does not surprise. After all, Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman's much celebrated Essay on Development was at one point attacked by Orestes Brownsen: a man who while intelligent in his own right was not of Newman's calibre.{1} Some theologians at the University of Paris accused St. Thomas Aquinas of heresy. (Men who were not of his calibre as a theologian.) The self-styled "traditionalists" and the "sedevacantists" constantly lambaste Pope John Paul II -whose theological and philosophical brilliance they cannot remotely touch. The same situation presents itself with Cardinal Siri criticising the ressourcement theologians.
I would like to ask questions about Ordinary Universal Magisterium and that whole issue, but I still haven't read your revision of the article "Vatican II and it's Authority".
Well, it would help to read that piece certainly. The revision was not significant except in the sense that I divided the article into two pieces and rearranged the materials to conform more to a sequence of (i) confuting radtrad errors on Vatican II's authority followed by (ii) setting forth a probable theory on the matter which builds on what is noted in the first part and harmonizes all of the apparently conflicting pieces of data into a systematic whole. On second thought, maybe it was significant in the sense that it is easier to follow now than it was before.
I also added to the first part a new subsection on the facile dichotomy of the "dogmatic/pastoral" shibboleth of the radtrads. Basically, I got tired of reading that excuse and decided to confute it with a sub-hypothesis of my own that draws on traditional Catholic principles of theology.{2}
I don't want to waste your time with questions that you've already answered in articles.
If only the critics of the Lidless Eye Inquisition took the same approach you do :) {3}
I would just like to know, however, if you've read the article by Fr. Brian Harrison on whether Humanae Vitae is infallible? You can get it on Ewtn.com's library. It supports your position on this issue.
Yes I read it a while back. I even decided in the first treatise revision (December of 2000) to incorporate the article as a source in the treatise. And last January when setting out the third edition, that policy remained intact. (I actually used quotes or material from three of Fr. Harrison's pieces in the treatise.)
Just thought you may be interested.
I appreciate it. My view of Fr. Harrison personally has soured a bit in the past year but he did do some good work in the 1980's and 1990's. And on the subject of infallibility his understanding of the concepts is pretty good. His best work though is on religious liberty -indeed his work helped me come to grips with that subject in some particulars when it was an area that troubled me. I would read his stuff on biblical study with greater care but it is still worth reading.{4}
And lastly, do you ever get my email on Peter Claver? I thought that was a good example.
If I did it got accidentally deleted. If you resend it, I will look it over.
Anyway, I have found a lot of such "nuggets" against trads in books and encyclopedia articles I've read.
I have no doubt that you have. Anyone who thinks I cornered the market with the material in my treatise has no idea how much stuff I neglected to add. Even in the 2003 revision where I expanded the work a bit in spots, there was a deliberate attempt to not add anything more that would trouble the trad reader than what was already in that work -either explicitly or tacitly.{5}
I've considered putting all that information some day into a little treatise of my own (kinda like a sequel to "A Prescrption again Traditionalism", but far inferior of course), but I highly doubt I will have the time and patience for such a thing.
Well, writing is a discipline and it can be a rewarding one. Give it a try nonetheless and I will look over the draft for you and offer suggestions. Trust me, though I did that a bit with the treatise initially, it was not something I started doing as a rule until my essays on the real presence and justification were being drafted. (Concurrently with the treatise actually.) I had enough foresight to think that I may be drawing my mental resources too thin in covering so much at once so I had two friends review those essays which were my "vacations" from the larger project which was taking the bulk of my free time at the time.{6}
I wish in part that I had done the same thing with the treatise but then again, I would not have been able to refine that work under fire as I did if I had not taken the course I took so for the most part I am glad it worked as it did viz. that project.{7}
I may someday just put all those little arguments and quotes together and send them to you. But for now they'll have to stay in my computer files or in my "notes" that are all over my desk in my room.
Save them to a backup disk. Take it from one whose computer harddrive crashed in May of 2002 and everything was lost:{8} it pays to back that thing up.
Notes:
{1} Not long before his death, Brownsen softened his view of Newman's Essay and also took a less rigorist and more traditional understanding of extra ecclesia nulla salus. But do not expect the latter to be told to you by the Feeneyites who like to reference his earlier material.
{2} I say "sub-theory" because while it is a theory in its own right, it nonetheless forms an additional thesis to the overarching theory of those two parts of the article. (And those two parts of the article comprise one of seven theses of the whole project so in that sense the two parts are "sub-theories" of their own.)
{3} Or those of the Great Facade crowd. It does get tiring when I see recycled the same paltry objections that I deconstructed and confuted piece by piece in essays from years ago. I have another one planned for release very soon which will be in the same vein as those pieces were. (I finished it before my vacation and it is currently being reviewed in private by some friends.)
{4} I touched on it a bit in this weblog entry on biblical study.
{5} Though I did draw out explicitly some points which I had only implied previously.
{6} I did not use any such assistance in revising the treatise in late 2000 but with the intention to complete the job in 2003, I leaned on a couple of good friends who reviewed the templates as I was revising them. One of them read the entire work and one reviewed specific canonical arguments from different sections of the piece and also wrote me an opinion on a point where I was a bit stumped and requested input. As what they wrote back concurred with what I was trying (albeit clumsily) to say, I used what they said in the work crediting them with the argument.
{7} Lord knows it helped with how I approached all subsequent pieces -whether they were trad related or not.
{8} I lost business documents, photos, the templates to all of my web essay writings, unfinished drafts for several other writing projects -some of which were treatise drafts rejected due to project length, and almost a thousand dialogues with various people of various religious, political, social outlooks. By contrast, what has been done at Rerum Novarum dialogue-wise has been but a drop in the bucket. But I digress.
(A Dialogue With Gregory)
I'll keep my questions limited to these two that happen to be on my mind. The first one has to do with de Lubac's position of grace and nature. You and others have written that de Lubac's position is actually more consistent with St. Thomas Aquinas's position and the quotes that you guys give from Aquinas certainly seem to demonstrate that you are correct.
Prepare to be labelled a "modernist" now by those who claim to be "The True Believers"™ who actually do not know their theology or church history very well.
But I was reading an article by Father Most on Limbo recently and I suddenly realized something: Aquinas's view of Limbo contradicts, it appears, de Lubac's position.
That is perhaps true.
This is because Aquinas believes that unborn infants probably go to Limbo, where they have a "natural happiness". They are not punished for anything.
St. Thomas' position is one which contradicted St. Augustine's view on limbo. And St. Augustine's view contradicted the views of his contemporaries on the matter as well. All of this is why it would not surprise me if Cardinal de Lubac's position contradicted St. Thomas' view.
But if de Lubac is correct, and humans naturally desire the Beatific Vision, than those unborn children can not be satisfied in Limbo.
If there even is a limbo of course. Remember, we are dealing here with theologomenon. It is also worth pointing out that there were notable theologians who proposed the limbo thesis who also believed that unborn children could receive baptism of desire through the intention of their parents if their parents had intended to baptize them. (One of these was Cardinal Cajetan.) And there are logical extensions from that principle which could also be noted.
Thus being there would be a kind a punishment. For all eternity they would never be able to satisfy their innate desire for the Infinite Good. So what are we to make of this? Is Aquinas contradicting himself, or am I missing something.
Well, all people who desire any good are witnessing to their innate desire for the Ultimate Good. The lure of all sin is that it offers at least a partial good -indeed if it did not then we would not be so susceptable to temptation. (To say nothing about falling which as the old proverb goes "every just man falls at least seven times a day.") Perhaps God if there is a children's limbo does not allow them to realize what they are missing so that a natural happiness (ala what Aquinas speaks of) more than satisfies them. I have not thought too much about this point but offhand the latter possibility would perhaps work as an explanation -again if there is a limbo of course.
Also, have you ever read Cardinal Siri's in "Gethsemane"? I've heard it's a strong attack on the "new theology".
That His Eminence was critical of the "new theology" (falsely-so-called) does not surprise. After all, Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman's much celebrated Essay on Development was at one point attacked by Orestes Brownsen: a man who while intelligent in his own right was not of Newman's calibre.{1} Some theologians at the University of Paris accused St. Thomas Aquinas of heresy. (Men who were not of his calibre as a theologian.) The self-styled "traditionalists" and the "sedevacantists" constantly lambaste Pope John Paul II -whose theological and philosophical brilliance they cannot remotely touch. The same situation presents itself with Cardinal Siri criticising the ressourcement theologians.
I would like to ask questions about Ordinary Universal Magisterium and that whole issue, but I still haven't read your revision of the article "Vatican II and it's Authority".
Well, it would help to read that piece certainly. The revision was not significant except in the sense that I divided the article into two pieces and rearranged the materials to conform more to a sequence of (i) confuting radtrad errors on Vatican II's authority followed by (ii) setting forth a probable theory on the matter which builds on what is noted in the first part and harmonizes all of the apparently conflicting pieces of data into a systematic whole. On second thought, maybe it was significant in the sense that it is easier to follow now than it was before.
I also added to the first part a new subsection on the facile dichotomy of the "dogmatic/pastoral" shibboleth of the radtrads. Basically, I got tired of reading that excuse and decided to confute it with a sub-hypothesis of my own that draws on traditional Catholic principles of theology.{2}
I don't want to waste your time with questions that you've already answered in articles.
If only the critics of the Lidless Eye Inquisition took the same approach you do :) {3}
I would just like to know, however, if you've read the article by Fr. Brian Harrison on whether Humanae Vitae is infallible? You can get it on Ewtn.com's library. It supports your position on this issue.
Yes I read it a while back. I even decided in the first treatise revision (December of 2000) to incorporate the article as a source in the treatise. And last January when setting out the third edition, that policy remained intact. (I actually used quotes or material from three of Fr. Harrison's pieces in the treatise.)
Just thought you may be interested.
I appreciate it. My view of Fr. Harrison personally has soured a bit in the past year but he did do some good work in the 1980's and 1990's. And on the subject of infallibility his understanding of the concepts is pretty good. His best work though is on religious liberty -indeed his work helped me come to grips with that subject in some particulars when it was an area that troubled me. I would read his stuff on biblical study with greater care but it is still worth reading.{4}
And lastly, do you ever get my email on Peter Claver? I thought that was a good example.
If I did it got accidentally deleted. If you resend it, I will look it over.
Anyway, I have found a lot of such "nuggets" against trads in books and encyclopedia articles I've read.
I have no doubt that you have. Anyone who thinks I cornered the market with the material in my treatise has no idea how much stuff I neglected to add. Even in the 2003 revision where I expanded the work a bit in spots, there was a deliberate attempt to not add anything more that would trouble the trad reader than what was already in that work -either explicitly or tacitly.{5}
I've considered putting all that information some day into a little treatise of my own (kinda like a sequel to "A Prescrption again Traditionalism", but far inferior of course), but I highly doubt I will have the time and patience for such a thing.
Well, writing is a discipline and it can be a rewarding one. Give it a try nonetheless and I will look over the draft for you and offer suggestions. Trust me, though I did that a bit with the treatise initially, it was not something I started doing as a rule until my essays on the real presence and justification were being drafted. (Concurrently with the treatise actually.) I had enough foresight to think that I may be drawing my mental resources too thin in covering so much at once so I had two friends review those essays which were my "vacations" from the larger project which was taking the bulk of my free time at the time.{6}
I wish in part that I had done the same thing with the treatise but then again, I would not have been able to refine that work under fire as I did if I had not taken the course I took so for the most part I am glad it worked as it did viz. that project.{7}
I may someday just put all those little arguments and quotes together and send them to you. But for now they'll have to stay in my computer files or in my "notes" that are all over my desk in my room.
Save them to a backup disk. Take it from one whose computer harddrive crashed in May of 2002 and everything was lost:{8} it pays to back that thing up.
Notes:
{1} Not long before his death, Brownsen softened his view of Newman's Essay and also took a less rigorist and more traditional understanding of extra ecclesia nulla salus. But do not expect the latter to be told to you by the Feeneyites who like to reference his earlier material.
{2} I say "sub-theory" because while it is a theory in its own right, it nonetheless forms an additional thesis to the overarching theory of those two parts of the article. (And those two parts of the article comprise one of seven theses of the whole project so in that sense the two parts are "sub-theories" of their own.)
{3} Or those of the Great Facade crowd. It does get tiring when I see recycled the same paltry objections that I deconstructed and confuted piece by piece in essays from years ago. I have another one planned for release very soon which will be in the same vein as those pieces were. (I finished it before my vacation and it is currently being reviewed in private by some friends.)
{4} I touched on it a bit in this weblog entry on biblical study.
{5} Though I did draw out explicitly some points which I had only implied previously.
{6} I did not use any such assistance in revising the treatise in late 2000 but with the intention to complete the job in 2003, I leaned on a couple of good friends who reviewed the templates as I was revising them. One of them read the entire work and one reviewed specific canonical arguments from different sections of the piece and also wrote me an opinion on a point where I was a bit stumped and requested input. As what they wrote back concurred with what I was trying (albeit clumsily) to say, I used what they said in the work crediting them with the argument.
{7} Lord knows it helped with how I approached all subsequent pieces -whether they were trad related or not.
{8} I lost business documents, photos, the templates to all of my web essay writings, unfinished drafts for several other writing projects -some of which were treatise drafts rejected due to project length, and almost a thousand dialogues with various people of various religious, political, social outlooks. By contrast, what has been done at Rerum Novarum dialogue-wise has been but a drop in the bucket. But I digress.
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And days of auld lang syne?
And days of auld lang syne, my dear,
And days of auld lang syne.
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And days of auld lang syne?
We twa hae run aboot the braes
And pu'd the gowans fine.
We've wandered mony a weary foot,
Sin' auld lang syne.
Sin' auld lang syne, my dear,
Sin' auld lang syne,
We've wandered mony a weary foot,
Sin' auld ang syne.
We twa hae sported i' the burn,
From morning sun till dine,
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.
Sin' auld lang syne, my dear,
Sin' auld lang syne.
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.
And ther's a hand, my trusty friend,
And gie's a hand o' thine;
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
May you all have a blessed and prosperous new year.
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And days of auld lang syne?
And days of auld lang syne, my dear,
And days of auld lang syne.
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And days of auld lang syne?
We twa hae run aboot the braes
And pu'd the gowans fine.
We've wandered mony a weary foot,
Sin' auld lang syne.
Sin' auld lang syne, my dear,
Sin' auld lang syne,
We've wandered mony a weary foot,
Sin' auld ang syne.
We twa hae sported i' the burn,
From morning sun till dine,
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.
Sin' auld lang syne, my dear,
Sin' auld lang syne.
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.
And ther's a hand, my trusty friend,
And gie's a hand o' thine;
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
May you all have a blessed and prosperous new year.
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
Apparently Bill Safire has made an "unconventional" prediction about Howard Dean and how he will do in the Democratic primaries. For the record, I will go six for seven{1} on my 2003 predictions by midnight tonight unless either (i) Robert Sungenis actually repents publicly of his schism and returns to the Church or (ii) the SSPX actually reunites with Rome before midnight. But nonetheless, the Mighty One and The Curt One will probably be darn near perfect on their predictions too. (Jeff will go thirteen for thirteen, Eric will go five-one with two additional "expired predictions".) I am wondering if we can have a St. Blog's "2004 Predictions" kind of competition. Leave it to The SecretOne to compile a list ala Safire's on various subjects (religious, political, social, etc.)
Note:
{1} Actually this is six for six since the seventh prediction (on the Supreme Court nominee being Hispanic) expired since no new court justices were appointed in 2003. I do though renew that prediction for 2004 lest anyone wonder.
Note:
{1} Actually this is six for six since the seventh prediction (on the Supreme Court nominee being Hispanic) expired since no new court justices were appointed in 2003. I do though renew that prediction for 2004 lest anyone wonder.
Responding to Some Declarations of Brian Tierney:
(Part III of III)
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of the thread, please go HERE.
At this time, I remind the readers of many examples Brian Tierney provided of items which supposedly refuted the notion of magisterial infallibility. Here were his words again:
To defend religious liberty would be "insane" and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interest on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right "not only the universal church but the whole world." Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going round the earth.
The first section of this thread dealt with the Galileo subject (the one about the sun), the unbaptized babies subject, the idea that the popes claimed to rule the whole world (meaning temporal as well as spiritual), and the subject of interest taking. The last section of this thread dealt indirectly with the persecution of heretics and judicial torture sections. However, these are so obviously not matters of doctrine that it goes to show that Tierney was basically throwing into the kettle anything that he thinks remotely supports his case.
Frankly, comments about "judicial torture" coming from liberals is rather annoying because these are the same kinds of people who are court martialling a certain Colonel West for seeking to extract information from Iraqi seditionists using intimidation tactics. Such people should be ashamed of themselves because when one is at war, such niceties -while commendable at other times- are not commendable at wartime. And the war against the Albigensians -whose beliefs and practices were more dangerous to the society of their day than the terrorism of Al Queda and others are to our own day- likewise niceties back then were not infrequently set aside.
To discuss this with the detail required would take too long and frankly I have neither the time nor the desire to do so. It is adequate to note that the excesses of the Inquisition -the real excesses and not the absurd fictions of anti-Catholic confessional revisionists- were deplorable indeed and that no one with a heart can defend such abuses.
However, at the same time, just as Colonel West acted as he saw necessary in his situation in Iraq, the Church and State acted in response to the Cathari heretics as they thought they had to. The result was a mixed bag with both good and bad in it and I have no patience for those who focus only on the bad -or even those who focus only on the good.{1} But enough on that since it is a subject that has been flogged to death and has no bearing on actual magisterial teaching.{2}
It is also important to note that this subject does not touch on universal legislation since the Inquisition was hardly monolithic by any means. (Each country with an Inquisition tribunal operated their own Inquisition.) Nonetheless, six "proofs" of Tierney shot down in flames and one to go: the subject of religious liberty.
I saved this one for last because of all the objections it is by far the most credible assertion. Indeed there are many Catholics who erroneously believe that the Church changed her teaching here so that others -such as Tierney- would believe this too is not completely their fault. And certainly someone who is unable to see the truth behind such situations as the Galileo event, the subject of interest taking, the unbaptized babies assertion, etc. cannot be expected to make the right distinctions on the subject of religious liberty. But enough ado, let us tackle this point now and summarize the purpose of this thread.
I will use for this point some material from my treatise A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' where the subject of religious liberty was dealt with in some detail.
In these sections, the prooftexts from the so-called "traditionalists" positing contradiction will be in dark spring green. My words in that source will be in dark hard azure and sources in dark violet magenta. The footnote numbers will be replaced in the text with the bibliographical information from the work being cited:
["The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom..." (Dignitatis Humanae, §2)]
They eliminate the context from this quote. Here is the statement in context:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.[Vatican II: Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (DH) §2 (December 7, 1965)]
Notice that this reference in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (DH) is not a reference to some unfettered religious liberty but instead to one that is reasonably circumscribed...
[Contrary condemned statement:" Liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man..." (Pius IX, Quanta Cura)]
Only someone who does not bother reading their sources before quoting them could make this error. Here is what the Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura (QC) actually says:
From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling. [Pope Pius IX: Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura (QC) §3 (December 8, 1864)]
QC §3 is hardly condemning DH §2 when they are both read in context. QC condemns the concept of absolute liberty restrained by no authority while DH claims that religious freedom is a civil right and that someone may not be coerced into acting in a manner contrary to their beliefs whether public or private within due limits. The two statements actually compliment one another and do not at all contradict. [I Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XI (c. 2003, 2000)]
The distinction required here is between the divine and the civil law. I dealt with this in summary form with the following addition to the material above when revising the work to remove any possible confusion that could remain on the matter for those of good faith:
[B]efore moving off of this subject, one of the criticisms of the author's original treatise version - and a criticism that was not addressed in the previous revision of the work - is that Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei presented problems for the religious liberty arguments advanced by DH. As space constraints would not allow for that argument to be refuted in the detail it would require, it suffices to note here that Immortale Dei and Libertas - part of the latter being examined in the appendix of the last url - were concerned with teaching the duties and obligations of the civil authority and all persons to recognize the one true Church of Christ. Far from controverting this position - which was an argument from the standpoint of divine law - the Declaration explicitly affirms it:
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society. [DH §1]
So any attempt to accuse the Second Vatican Council of denying teachings which dealt specifically with the moral duties of men and societies towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ from the standpoint of the divine law- which is what the teachings of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII of venerable memory constituted - can be thrown out of court as a facile accusation based on shallow research and selective citation. (When it is made by those who confidently assert that they are "defending the tradition".) Since the Declaration specifies that it leaves the teachings pertaining to the divine law "intact" and focuses instead on the right to "freedom from coercion in civil society", it is clear that the teachings of the earlier popes and of DH are examples of comparing apples and oranges. [I Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XI (c. 2003, 2000)]
Now of course I do not expect a theological fundamentalist like Tierney to recognize these kinds of distinctions; however, I have a lot of confidence in the intellectual acumen of my friend Tim Enloe enabling him to recognize them. He does not have to agree with them of course; however he should at the very least recognize that viable distinctions nonetheless are being made and that Tierney's condesending attitude in light of his own ignorance on these matters does not help his credibility in the eyes of those of us who have studied these issues and who are not ignorant about them as he so obviously is.
It is also important to note here that despite the Tierney "Cheshire Cat Theology" derisive comments, I quoted all of my sources in context and highlighted the key points of the texts that nuance their proper interpretation. Again, I do not expect someone with Tierney's obvious agenda and manifested disdain for doing the kind of work needed to properly advance in the supernatural science of theology to understand these kinds of principles. However, I do believe that my friend Tim Enloe is interested in seeking the truth.{3} But part of that element is recognizing the position of someone you disagree with in the dialogue for what it is and not for what you want it to be.
I have set forth in these entries what the truth on these points is.{4} Hopefully they will highlight why I do not take Brian Tierney seriously as someone who can analyze equitably whatever bits he pulls from the historical record.{5} This is why I have been critical of Tierney and why he does not deserve to be referred to as a Catholic historian.
Notes:
{1} And yes, there was some good from the Inquisition including the eradication of the Cathari. No one who has not read up on them has any business pontificating on the methods used against them if they do not realize the full extent of the evil being faced by the Church at that time.
{2} If the claim was that the popes were impeccable then yes, I could see focusing on this point to confute the assertion. But impeccability has never been a Church claim on the popes -indeed the history of the tenth century alone would demolish such pretensions. But I digress.
{3} Tim has noted this on his weblog too but I note here that I have heard through the grapevine that he is being rather harshly criticized by former apologetical allies of his for some of his statements viz. Church history and how said allies approach the subject. That is all I will say on the matter though.
{4} Though of course what I noted on how certain points are applied -as in with the subject of judicial torture- simply represent my own personal opinion and is not binding on anyone else.
{5} And one who tries to shut off in advance any legitimate criticism of his statements with derisive epithets.
(Part III of III)
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of the thread, please go HERE.
At this time, I remind the readers of many examples Brian Tierney provided of items which supposedly refuted the notion of magisterial infallibility. Here were his words again:
To defend religious liberty would be "insane" and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interest on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right "not only the universal church but the whole world." Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going round the earth.
The first section of this thread dealt with the Galileo subject (the one about the sun), the unbaptized babies subject, the idea that the popes claimed to rule the whole world (meaning temporal as well as spiritual), and the subject of interest taking. The last section of this thread dealt indirectly with the persecution of heretics and judicial torture sections. However, these are so obviously not matters of doctrine that it goes to show that Tierney was basically throwing into the kettle anything that he thinks remotely supports his case.
Frankly, comments about "judicial torture" coming from liberals is rather annoying because these are the same kinds of people who are court martialling a certain Colonel West for seeking to extract information from Iraqi seditionists using intimidation tactics. Such people should be ashamed of themselves because when one is at war, such niceties -while commendable at other times- are not commendable at wartime. And the war against the Albigensians -whose beliefs and practices were more dangerous to the society of their day than the terrorism of Al Queda and others are to our own day- likewise niceties back then were not infrequently set aside.
To discuss this with the detail required would take too long and frankly I have neither the time nor the desire to do so. It is adequate to note that the excesses of the Inquisition -the real excesses and not the absurd fictions of anti-Catholic confessional revisionists- were deplorable indeed and that no one with a heart can defend such abuses.
However, at the same time, just as Colonel West acted as he saw necessary in his situation in Iraq, the Church and State acted in response to the Cathari heretics as they thought they had to. The result was a mixed bag with both good and bad in it and I have no patience for those who focus only on the bad -or even those who focus only on the good.{1} But enough on that since it is a subject that has been flogged to death and has no bearing on actual magisterial teaching.{2}
It is also important to note that this subject does not touch on universal legislation since the Inquisition was hardly monolithic by any means. (Each country with an Inquisition tribunal operated their own Inquisition.) Nonetheless, six "proofs" of Tierney shot down in flames and one to go: the subject of religious liberty.
I saved this one for last because of all the objections it is by far the most credible assertion. Indeed there are many Catholics who erroneously believe that the Church changed her teaching here so that others -such as Tierney- would believe this too is not completely their fault. And certainly someone who is unable to see the truth behind such situations as the Galileo event, the subject of interest taking, the unbaptized babies assertion, etc. cannot be expected to make the right distinctions on the subject of religious liberty. But enough ado, let us tackle this point now and summarize the purpose of this thread.
I will use for this point some material from my treatise A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' where the subject of religious liberty was dealt with in some detail.
In these sections, the prooftexts from the so-called "traditionalists" positing contradiction will be in dark spring green. My words in that source will be in dark hard azure and sources in dark violet magenta. The footnote numbers will be replaced in the text with the bibliographical information from the work being cited:
["The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom..." (Dignitatis Humanae, §2)]
They eliminate the context from this quote. Here is the statement in context:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.[Vatican II: Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (DH) §2 (December 7, 1965)]
Notice that this reference in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (DH) is not a reference to some unfettered religious liberty but instead to one that is reasonably circumscribed...
[Contrary condemned statement:" Liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man..." (Pius IX, Quanta Cura)]
Only someone who does not bother reading their sources before quoting them could make this error. Here is what the Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura (QC) actually says:
From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling. [Pope Pius IX: Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura (QC) §3 (December 8, 1864)]
QC §3 is hardly condemning DH §2 when they are both read in context. QC condemns the concept of absolute liberty restrained by no authority while DH claims that religious freedom is a civil right and that someone may not be coerced into acting in a manner contrary to their beliefs whether public or private within due limits. The two statements actually compliment one another and do not at all contradict. [I Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XI (c. 2003, 2000)]
The distinction required here is between the divine and the civil law. I dealt with this in summary form with the following addition to the material above when revising the work to remove any possible confusion that could remain on the matter for those of good faith:
[B]efore moving off of this subject, one of the criticisms of the author's original treatise version - and a criticism that was not addressed in the previous revision of the work - is that Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei presented problems for the religious liberty arguments advanced by DH. As space constraints would not allow for that argument to be refuted in the detail it would require, it suffices to note here that Immortale Dei and Libertas - part of the latter being examined in the appendix of the last url - were concerned with teaching the duties and obligations of the civil authority and all persons to recognize the one true Church of Christ. Far from controverting this position - which was an argument from the standpoint of divine law - the Declaration explicitly affirms it:
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society. [DH §1]
So any attempt to accuse the Second Vatican Council of denying teachings which dealt specifically with the moral duties of men and societies towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ from the standpoint of the divine law- which is what the teachings of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII of venerable memory constituted - can be thrown out of court as a facile accusation based on shallow research and selective citation. (When it is made by those who confidently assert that they are "defending the tradition".) Since the Declaration specifies that it leaves the teachings pertaining to the divine law "intact" and focuses instead on the right to "freedom from coercion in civil society", it is clear that the teachings of the earlier popes and of DH are examples of comparing apples and oranges. [I Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XI (c. 2003, 2000)]
Now of course I do not expect a theological fundamentalist like Tierney to recognize these kinds of distinctions; however, I have a lot of confidence in the intellectual acumen of my friend Tim Enloe enabling him to recognize them. He does not have to agree with them of course; however he should at the very least recognize that viable distinctions nonetheless are being made and that Tierney's condesending attitude in light of his own ignorance on these matters does not help his credibility in the eyes of those of us who have studied these issues and who are not ignorant about them as he so obviously is.
It is also important to note here that despite the Tierney "Cheshire Cat Theology" derisive comments, I quoted all of my sources in context and highlighted the key points of the texts that nuance their proper interpretation. Again, I do not expect someone with Tierney's obvious agenda and manifested disdain for doing the kind of work needed to properly advance in the supernatural science of theology to understand these kinds of principles. However, I do believe that my friend Tim Enloe is interested in seeking the truth.{3} But part of that element is recognizing the position of someone you disagree with in the dialogue for what it is and not for what you want it to be.
I have set forth in these entries what the truth on these points is.{4} Hopefully they will highlight why I do not take Brian Tierney seriously as someone who can analyze equitably whatever bits he pulls from the historical record.{5} This is why I have been critical of Tierney and why he does not deserve to be referred to as a Catholic historian.
Notes:
{1} And yes, there was some good from the Inquisition including the eradication of the Cathari. No one who has not read up on them has any business pontificating on the methods used against them if they do not realize the full extent of the evil being faced by the Church at that time.
{2} If the claim was that the popes were impeccable then yes, I could see focusing on this point to confute the assertion. But impeccability has never been a Church claim on the popes -indeed the history of the tenth century alone would demolish such pretensions. But I digress.
{3} Tim has noted this on his weblog too but I note here that I have heard through the grapevine that he is being rather harshly criticized by former apologetical allies of his for some of his statements viz. Church history and how said allies approach the subject. That is all I will say on the matter though.
{4} Though of course what I noted on how certain points are applied -as in with the subject of judicial torture- simply represent my own personal opinion and is not binding on anyone else.
{5} And one who tries to shut off in advance any legitimate criticism of his statements with derisive epithets.
Responding to Some Declarations of Brian Tierney:
(Part II of III)
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE.
In this installment I will deal with the subjects of persecuting heretics and judicial torture. (After all, the most extreme form of persecution is killing and that trumps even minor bagatelles as judicial torture.)
The first and most obvious point is that infallibility applies only to the universal church either explicitly or tacitly,{1} not to particular churches or to individuals. Hence, while one pope could commend judicial torture of a heretic and another might not, this hardly constitutes any problem whatsoever for anyone who makes the distinction between doctrine and discipline which is so vital here.
Nonetheless, in this post I will deal with the notion that Lateran IV and Vatican II contradict on the handling of heretics. The following text is from a discussion list entry circa February 2, 2003. The subjects were (Reformed Baptist apologist) James White, Lateran IV, and Vatican II on the treatment of heretics. My words will be in dark hard azure font and the person I was corresponding with in magenta with my sources in obscure dark blue font:
White brought this up in one article with Dave Armstrong:
IV LATERAN COUNCIL
Convicted heretics shall be handed over for due punishment to their secular superiors, or the latter's agents. . . Catholics who assume the cross and devote themselves to the extermination of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence and privilege as those who go to the Holy Land.
Which he claims contradicts the whole thing on ecumenism and Vatican II's declarations. Of course it doesn't do that at all, and it could be argued that this IS a simple disciplinary rule (a rather strong one at that), but isn't it a bit harsh (unless this is seriously out of context.
First rule of thumb with James White, Eric Svendsen, Jason Engwer, Bill Webster, and their ilk XXXX: at least 60% of the time the quotes they put forward are taken seriously out of context. (The rest of the time they are presented either absent some key context or without additional information that properly establishes the sitz im leben.) Sometimes it takes time to track down the resources to refute an error - and no one can possibly address all of their errors of course - but there are very few charges that these guys make that have any real potential merit to them at all.
One would think that "extermination" implies killing, but if it simply means "eradication"...)?
Let us go with the worst-case example and presume that it means killing. Do public heretics in a Catholic nation have any right to propagate their errors??? No they do not. There is nothing in Lateran IV that is opposed to the divine law whatsoever which (simply stated) is "error has no rights". And while we would recognize that people in error have certain rights, one of those rights is not the public propagation of heresy. Of course we do not have any Catholic countries anymore so this is a moot point but White is concerned that if we were to have Catholic nations again that his ilk would be in deep kimchee. And [viz. the propagation of heresy] he would be right about that.
As far as Lateran IV goes, I would argue that the only canons that are strictly doctrinal from Lateran IV are the first two: the profession of faith and the condemnation of the errors of Abbot Jochiam of Fiore. There are some dogmatic principles in the one about heretics as well as the one on the Greeks and Latins but for the most part the part about heretics and how they were to be handled (not to mention how to approach the Greeks) falls under the realm of pastoral discipline.
Further still, the Church tended to hand people over to the secular authorities for punishment. White seems to forget about Romans xiii,1-4 where the state is recognized as bearing the sword against those who do evil. And the public proselytizing of heresy is one such evil which the sword could be used for - particularly if the person convicted has prior convictions in this regard.{2}
Dave's reply was:
I noted above that I don't have the (technical) materials to delve into this obsession you have with Lateran IV and persecution of heretics. But even if I did, I would not answer until you dealt with the same type of persecution within Protestantism, and what it does to your lofty claims of spiritual superiority to us (see enclosed tract on that).
This is a good veteran reverse. I too like to make these kinds of people do a good amount of the work because we Catholics spend too much time doing the work that they then shrug off with ignorant rhetorical flourishes. I am sure Dave feels the same way and I know Art does. Giving these guys "prerequisites" before discussing a subject with them is not only fair but it is also necessary. (For example, I have recently made my treatise - in the new version - a "pre-requisite" for anyone who wants to discuss the intricacies of "traditionalist" views with me.) Any idiot can sit there and deny things all day. At the very least if they are going to deny something, it should be a reasonably informed denial and not a lazy uninformed or misinformed denial borne out of crass ignorance.
In the eyes of God, ignorance even of a vincible nature is less blameworthy than crass ignorance. And these high-profile so-called "Christian" apologists like White and his ilk are too often guilty of the latter IMHO. I pray that my perception of their culpability is in error but with people such as White I am honestly not optimistic.
For I believe that any honest assessment of history would eventually move someone towards either Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or (perhaps) some High Church Anglicanism or Lutheranism. (The latter one is a bit of a stretch but it is still somewhat feasible.) Anything else is to run contrary to Church history in too many significant parameters to be a serious option for any reasonably informed person.
At [this link], it seems that the outline of the council was for the period of the crusades and such, where heresy was rampant. Since I do not have the original texts of the councils, I do not know if it was a "kill all heretics" decree that White would lead us to think it was, but is such a declaration of a council in line with proper Catholic spirit? Wouldn't it perhaps be better for a papal bull to put down the exact conditions of such things, rather than a council? I was just wondering if anyone had any info on this, lest some other nut case keep bringing this up in the future to prove a "council infallability refutation."
If infallibility (i) pertains only to matters of doctrine or morals and (ii) only the first two canons were directly touching on these issues than (iii) infallibility would not be enjoined on the bulk of the remaining seventy-odd canons of the council which were almost purely administrative. (Arguments may be made for the canon on heretics and the one on approaching the Greeks but for the most part they are directives on how to deal with heretics/schismatics. Even if they were in error, I cannot see how such canons would in their substance involve council infallibility.)
James White though probably has a neo-ultramontaine notion that Lateran IV was infallible in all of its parameters. Frankly he should recognize that these issues are not as simplistic as he wants them to be. But he has a caricatured view of Lateran IV as demanding that all heretics be killed and Vatican II as demanding that all heretics be treated nicely. In both regards he is sadly in serious error IMHO and I will explain why here.
I would argue - and have in addressing this point with both White and his lackeys{3} - that Lateran IV was right. From the standpoint of divine law, no one who perniciously propagates heresy has a right to do so. And in a Catholic country, such a person is an objective threat to the common good of society: part of which would involve protection from the scourge of proseltyzing heretics. (And as such would not fall under the notion of "public order" as defined by Vatican II: a distinction reserved for those who are not disrupting the order of society.) So of course this is a major burr in White's saddle because his livelihood would be snuffed out in a Catholic country and his sophistries not tolerated.
For even under Vatican II's Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, a Catholic country would have the civil right to suppress proseltyzing heretics who would represent a threat to the common good as well as society's public order. Hence DH taught that:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.[DH §2]
These "due limits" were defined later on in the text:
The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility.
Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.
These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary. [DH §7]
James of course deliberately omits the latter parts - as well as the "within due limits" clause of his reference to DH §2 because if he has to admit that there are "due limits" to DH, that may force him to actually think about the subject rather than just react and prooftext. (Not to mention DH specifically referring to certain regulatory norms for governments to deal with religious profession.)
In short, there are safeguards in DH which do not allow for coercion non-Catholics unless they are being menaces to society in accordance with objective criteria. So far from contradicting Lateran IV, Vatican II also allows for the state to suppress those who undermine a society. This would not apply to the average Protestant of course. But it would apply to agitators like White.
Having noted that, I want to point out that I am not advocating anyone's persecution or death but only pointing out what a public and unrepentant heretic objectively deserves in a Catholic country. This does not mean that because they would objectively deserve such a fate that they have to be executed of course. Our Lord forgave the adulterous woman who according to the Law was to be stoned. Did Jesus therefore "contradict the Law"???
The principle is the same here as while heretics who disrupt a Catholic society objectively deserve death if they do not repent of this crime, at the same time we are not obligated to have them killed. But notice the words "convicted heretics" in the Lateran IV decree. This means someone who has been tried for heresy and convicted of it. Notice here the text that White ellipses out from Lateran IV's canon on heretics (the parts he cited will be in bold font):
We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics.
Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith -- saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.
Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction.
Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see. Similarly with regulars, let them be punished with losing their privileges in the diocese in which they presume to commit such excesses. [Lateran IV: Canon 3 on Heretics]
As usual, there is plenty which White does not want to focus on because his position is in jeopardy in the process. This is probably one of the last areas he would overcome if ever he was to move towards becoming a Catholic.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Notice that I have not committed the profound error of confining infallibility only to ex cathedra definitions of dogma de fide as many Catholics erroneously do -even those who think they are reasonably informed on this subject.
{2} I wrote the rest of this response last night but literally at the last moment (my mouse pointer was on "send", finger on the button) I thought to check Msr. Hughes History of the Councils on Lateran IV. It pointed to something I had forgotten and which really puts the decrees of Lateran IV into proper context. I will note it briefly here and supply some links I reviewed this morning for those who want to look at this with greater detail.
At the time of Lateran IV, the particular heresy that was most problematical was the poisonous Albigensian heresy - arguably the worst heresy in Church history. I am glad that I thought to quickly check Msr. Hughes' History of the Councils before sending this email because I completely forgot that it was them whom the Council was primarily convoked to address with regards to repressing heresy.(Abbot Jochiam and his followers were not a threat and the abbot submitted to the judgment of the Council.) Here is Msr. Hughes' outline of Lateran IV. And here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Albigensens. Hopefully they will help fill in any additional details.
{3} Of course James ignored it and continues to propagate this lie.
(Part II of III)
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE.
In this installment I will deal with the subjects of persecuting heretics and judicial torture. (After all, the most extreme form of persecution is killing and that trumps even minor bagatelles as judicial torture.)
The first and most obvious point is that infallibility applies only to the universal church either explicitly or tacitly,{1} not to particular churches or to individuals. Hence, while one pope could commend judicial torture of a heretic and another might not, this hardly constitutes any problem whatsoever for anyone who makes the distinction between doctrine and discipline which is so vital here.
Nonetheless, in this post I will deal with the notion that Lateran IV and Vatican II contradict on the handling of heretics. The following text is from a discussion list entry circa February 2, 2003. The subjects were (Reformed Baptist apologist) James White, Lateran IV, and Vatican II on the treatment of heretics. My words will be in dark hard azure font and the person I was corresponding with in magenta with my sources in obscure dark blue font:
White brought this up in one article with Dave Armstrong:
IV LATERAN COUNCIL
Convicted heretics shall be handed over for due punishment to their secular superiors, or the latter's agents. . . Catholics who assume the cross and devote themselves to the extermination of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence and privilege as those who go to the Holy Land.
Which he claims contradicts the whole thing on ecumenism and Vatican II's declarations. Of course it doesn't do that at all, and it could be argued that this IS a simple disciplinary rule (a rather strong one at that), but isn't it a bit harsh (unless this is seriously out of context.
First rule of thumb with James White, Eric Svendsen, Jason Engwer, Bill Webster, and their ilk XXXX: at least 60% of the time the quotes they put forward are taken seriously out of context. (The rest of the time they are presented either absent some key context or without additional information that properly establishes the sitz im leben.) Sometimes it takes time to track down the resources to refute an error - and no one can possibly address all of their errors of course - but there are very few charges that these guys make that have any real potential merit to them at all.
One would think that "extermination" implies killing, but if it simply means "eradication"...)?
Let us go with the worst-case example and presume that it means killing. Do public heretics in a Catholic nation have any right to propagate their errors??? No they do not. There is nothing in Lateran IV that is opposed to the divine law whatsoever which (simply stated) is "error has no rights". And while we would recognize that people in error have certain rights, one of those rights is not the public propagation of heresy. Of course we do not have any Catholic countries anymore so this is a moot point but White is concerned that if we were to have Catholic nations again that his ilk would be in deep kimchee. And [viz. the propagation of heresy] he would be right about that.
As far as Lateran IV goes, I would argue that the only canons that are strictly doctrinal from Lateran IV are the first two: the profession of faith and the condemnation of the errors of Abbot Jochiam of Fiore. There are some dogmatic principles in the one about heretics as well as the one on the Greeks and Latins but for the most part the part about heretics and how they were to be handled (not to mention how to approach the Greeks) falls under the realm of pastoral discipline.
Further still, the Church tended to hand people over to the secular authorities for punishment. White seems to forget about Romans xiii,1-4 where the state is recognized as bearing the sword against those who do evil. And the public proselytizing of heresy is one such evil which the sword could be used for - particularly if the person convicted has prior convictions in this regard.{2}
Dave's reply was:
I noted above that I don't have the (technical) materials to delve into this obsession you have with Lateran IV and persecution of heretics. But even if I did, I would not answer until you dealt with the same type of persecution within Protestantism, and what it does to your lofty claims of spiritual superiority to us (see enclosed tract on that).
This is a good veteran reverse. I too like to make these kinds of people do a good amount of the work because we Catholics spend too much time doing the work that they then shrug off with ignorant rhetorical flourishes. I am sure Dave feels the same way and I know Art does. Giving these guys "prerequisites" before discussing a subject with them is not only fair but it is also necessary. (For example, I have recently made my treatise - in the new version - a "pre-requisite" for anyone who wants to discuss the intricacies of "traditionalist" views with me.) Any idiot can sit there and deny things all day. At the very least if they are going to deny something, it should be a reasonably informed denial and not a lazy uninformed or misinformed denial borne out of crass ignorance.
In the eyes of God, ignorance even of a vincible nature is less blameworthy than crass ignorance. And these high-profile so-called "Christian" apologists like White and his ilk are too often guilty of the latter IMHO. I pray that my perception of their culpability is in error but with people such as White I am honestly not optimistic.
For I believe that any honest assessment of history would eventually move someone towards either Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or (perhaps) some High Church Anglicanism or Lutheranism. (The latter one is a bit of a stretch but it is still somewhat feasible.) Anything else is to run contrary to Church history in too many significant parameters to be a serious option for any reasonably informed person.
At [this link], it seems that the outline of the council was for the period of the crusades and such, where heresy was rampant. Since I do not have the original texts of the councils, I do not know if it was a "kill all heretics" decree that White would lead us to think it was, but is such a declaration of a council in line with proper Catholic spirit? Wouldn't it perhaps be better for a papal bull to put down the exact conditions of such things, rather than a council? I was just wondering if anyone had any info on this, lest some other nut case keep bringing this up in the future to prove a "council infallability refutation."
If infallibility (i) pertains only to matters of doctrine or morals and (ii) only the first two canons were directly touching on these issues than (iii) infallibility would not be enjoined on the bulk of the remaining seventy-odd canons of the council which were almost purely administrative. (Arguments may be made for the canon on heretics and the one on approaching the Greeks but for the most part they are directives on how to deal with heretics/schismatics. Even if they were in error, I cannot see how such canons would in their substance involve council infallibility.)
James White though probably has a neo-ultramontaine notion that Lateran IV was infallible in all of its parameters. Frankly he should recognize that these issues are not as simplistic as he wants them to be. But he has a caricatured view of Lateran IV as demanding that all heretics be killed and Vatican II as demanding that all heretics be treated nicely. In both regards he is sadly in serious error IMHO and I will explain why here.
I would argue - and have in addressing this point with both White and his lackeys{3} - that Lateran IV was right. From the standpoint of divine law, no one who perniciously propagates heresy has a right to do so. And in a Catholic country, such a person is an objective threat to the common good of society: part of which would involve protection from the scourge of proseltyzing heretics. (And as such would not fall under the notion of "public order" as defined by Vatican II: a distinction reserved for those who are not disrupting the order of society.) So of course this is a major burr in White's saddle because his livelihood would be snuffed out in a Catholic country and his sophistries not tolerated.
For even under Vatican II's Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, a Catholic country would have the civil right to suppress proseltyzing heretics who would represent a threat to the common good as well as society's public order. Hence DH taught that:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.[DH §2]
These "due limits" were defined later on in the text:
The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility.
Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.
These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary. [DH §7]
James of course deliberately omits the latter parts - as well as the "within due limits" clause of his reference to DH §2 because if he has to admit that there are "due limits" to DH, that may force him to actually think about the subject rather than just react and prooftext. (Not to mention DH specifically referring to certain regulatory norms for governments to deal with religious profession.)
In short, there are safeguards in DH which do not allow for coercion non-Catholics unless they are being menaces to society in accordance with objective criteria. So far from contradicting Lateran IV, Vatican II also allows for the state to suppress those who undermine a society. This would not apply to the average Protestant of course. But it would apply to agitators like White.
Having noted that, I want to point out that I am not advocating anyone's persecution or death but only pointing out what a public and unrepentant heretic objectively deserves in a Catholic country. This does not mean that because they would objectively deserve such a fate that they have to be executed of course. Our Lord forgave the adulterous woman who according to the Law was to be stoned. Did Jesus therefore "contradict the Law"???
The principle is the same here as while heretics who disrupt a Catholic society objectively deserve death if they do not repent of this crime, at the same time we are not obligated to have them killed. But notice the words "convicted heretics" in the Lateran IV decree. This means someone who has been tried for heresy and convicted of it. Notice here the text that White ellipses out from Lateran IV's canon on heretics (the parts he cited will be in bold font):
We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics.
Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith -- saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.
Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction.
Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see. Similarly with regulars, let them be punished with losing their privileges in the diocese in which they presume to commit such excesses. [Lateran IV: Canon 3 on Heretics]
As usual, there is plenty which White does not want to focus on because his position is in jeopardy in the process. This is probably one of the last areas he would overcome if ever he was to move towards becoming a Catholic.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Notice that I have not committed the profound error of confining infallibility only to ex cathedra definitions of dogma de fide as many Catholics erroneously do -even those who think they are reasonably informed on this subject.
{2} I wrote the rest of this response last night but literally at the last moment (my mouse pointer was on "send", finger on the button) I thought to check Msr. Hughes History of the Councils on Lateran IV. It pointed to something I had forgotten and which really puts the decrees of Lateran IV into proper context. I will note it briefly here and supply some links I reviewed this morning for those who want to look at this with greater detail.
At the time of Lateran IV, the particular heresy that was most problematical was the poisonous Albigensian heresy - arguably the worst heresy in Church history. I am glad that I thought to quickly check Msr. Hughes' History of the Councils before sending this email because I completely forgot that it was them whom the Council was primarily convoked to address with regards to repressing heresy.(Abbot Jochiam and his followers were not a threat and the abbot submitted to the judgment of the Council.) Here is Msr. Hughes' outline of Lateran IV. And here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Albigensens. Hopefully they will help fill in any additional details.
{3} Of course James ignored it and continues to propagate this lie.
Responding to Some Declarations of Brian Tierney:
(Part I of III)
Though not a part of this thread, the previous two part response to Tim Enloe can be read HERE. This thread while not intended to be part of the aforementioned one nonetheless will supplement it by dealing with some of Brian Tierney's statements in one of his books.
Before getting to the subject of this thread, I only want to note up front that I do not want this thread to distract from the previous one. I believe the previous thread covers points more conducive to Tim and I outlining the differences in our respective weltanschauungs. This one is only to point out why I do not worry about people such as Brian Tierney and why Tim should take anything he says with a saltshaker when it comes to matters of theology.{1}
We can deal with Tierney's historical stuff later on perhaps but since it ties into theology to some extent -and since Tierney has made some bold pronouncements on these matters in works that Tim has lauded publicly- let us look at what Tierney believes are areas where the magisterium has erred or where the claim of papal infallibility is considered (by him) to be falsified.
To defend religious liberty would be "insane" and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interest on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right "not only the universal church but the whole world." Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going round the earth.
Before dealing with these points one by one, it is important to note some key distinctions that are required in theology to properly assess the theological weight of a given magisterial pronouncement. For this I quote the late Fr. William G. Most:
[W]e must carefully distinguish and keep separate three areas: (1) The teachings of the Church (doctrine); (2) the rules or commands of the Church (legislation); (3) the question of how prudently the Church has acted in a given case.
As to the first, namely teaching, we saw that Christ, the Divine Messenger, promised to protect that teaching; so we believe. As to the second, that is legislation or commands, Christ gave authority to rule to the Church; so we obey. But the third is different: There are no promises by Christ that the Church would always act prudently, and would do things in the best way. It is one thing to teach truth or give binding laws and another to act in the best, most prudent way. On this third point, prudence, there are no promises of Christ nor any commission from Christ. So the Church does not now claim, and never has claimed, assurance of prudence.
The distinguishing between teaching and directives alone is not made by those who lazily sluff off supposed "errors" by the bucketload. But it is an important distinction to make. I have no respect whatsoever for those who pontificate authoritatively on these matters and cannot make this simple distinction. And the reader can judge based on what will now be covered if this indictment by your weblog host does or does not apply to Brian Tierney. This particular post will deal with the following summary of points:
---religious liberty.
---persecution of heretics was commendable and now no longer is.
---the licitness of judicial torture.
---taking interest on loans is a mortal sin.
---the pope would rule by divine right "not only the universal church but the whole world."
---unbaptized babies punished in hell for all eternity.
---the sun revolving around the earth (i.e. the "Galileo thing").
There is a lot of material to cover in one post so I will briefly dispatch with each. To start with, the matter of unbaptized babies being punished in hell was never at any time a matter of Catholic doctrine. This language is so ridiculously sloppy theologically that I am tempted to throw the entire paragraph out of court. But I will relent for your sake Tim since you like Tierney and wonder why I dismiss him as I do.
With regards to limbus infantium, there were various schools of thought on the matter but the existence of such a place was never a matter of Catholic doctrine. Indeed, there is only one single magisterial document (from the eighteenth century) which mentions "the children's limbo" at all and its viability as a theological speculation or a "pious belief" if you will was upheld in that document. Upholding the viability of a speculation hardly constitutes "teaching."
With regards to the unbaptized babies being punished in hell, this was actually a rather novel notion of St. Augustine. Prior to his time, the Fathers held varying views on the matter but the consensus was that the only "punishment" if you will was exclusion from the beatific vision. But even this view was not unanimous as there were Fathers who did not take this view but judged that infants were innocent and that original sin was an inclination towards evil and not guilt in the strictest sense. But regardless of the position taken, there was no suffering involved in the equation whatsoever in any of these scenarios. And there was no magisterial teaching on the matter -it instead remaining open to speculation.
Though he initially agreed with the earlier more prevalent view that only exclusion from beatific vision was the fate of unbaptized infants; nonetheless, St. Augustine later on began the school of thought that held that unbaptized babies suffered. Though he took this view before the Pelagian controversy one could just as easily see him trying with this view to stake the strongest polemic possible against the Pelagian notion that people could by their own efforts earn their salvation.
In the context of the latter heresy, Augustine even sought to procure from the 418 Council of Carthage a dogma of faith on this subject which the Council seems to have approved of but which Pope Zosimus did not confirm.{2} Nonetheless, the theology of the ninth canon held sway for a while -due to the tremendous influence of Augustine- before being challenged and eventually overcome by later theologians. This began happening noticeably with the theology of St. Anselm. Nonetheless, there was no magisterial teaching on this matter whatsoever so Tierney's assertion here fails.
With regard to the claim that the pope would rule by divine right "not only the universal church but the whole world, this is almost certainly a reference to Unam Sanctum and Pope Boniface VIII's teaching that salvation is contingent upon submission to the Roman pontiff.{3}
I have gone over the subject of extra ecclesia nulla salus elsewhere and the attempts by magisterial fundamentalists to put concepts in Pope Boniface VIII's statement which were never stated will not fly with anyone remotely concerned about the truth on that issue. However, there are two more issues in that regard: the "two swords" theology and the idea that the spiritual exceeding the temporal made the king the pope's subject. As Fr. William Most noted years ago, the best interpreter of Boniface's intention on this point is Boniface himself:
The best explanation of the point about the two swords comes from Boniface VIII himself. In a consistory of June 24, 1302, before legates from France, he complained that he had been falsely accused, as if "we had ordered the king to acknowledge his royal power was from us. For forty years we have been a legal specialist, and we know that there are two powers ordained by God. Can or should anyone believe, then, that there is such folly in our head? We say that in no way have we desired to usurp the jurisdiction of the king, and thus our brother Portuensis said. The king cannot deny, nor can any other one of the faithful, that he is subject to us in regard to sin."
That clarifying note happens to precede the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctum in the Denzinger compendium. So far from "hermeneutical gymnastics" I simply used Boniface to clarify Boniface. But I am sure Tierney would accuse me of "Cheshire Cat Theology" or crap of that sort anyway because that is what arrogant self-styled "all-knowing" types like him tend to do when their pontifications are shot down. Two down and five to go.
As far as the geocentrism thing and the subject of taking interest, I kill these two canards with one post at this link where I also touch on EENS and slavery as well. (Two more shibboleths of the self-styled "progressivists.") I am sure that again the fact that the decision of the Holy Office itself only called Galileo's view "suspect of heresy" - which is a theological and not doctrinal judgment- and that Pope Urban VIII{4} did not confirm the decision{5} are of course just more "excuse-making" on my part though right??? (After all, every syllable of a pope in *any* capacity constitutes binding doctrine under pain of sin seemingly in the world of people such as Tierney.)
The long and short of it is that the Galileo red herring does not match up either. And I am not even going to play the "it is not ex cathedra" card which I have noted before is an approach that grates on me. Instead, I will simply note that it is not magisterial since no document which is not confirmed by the pope is rightfully understood to be magisterial. This is pretty basic stuff but of course dissidents like Tierney do not tend to inform themselves on these small but significant matters.
The subject of the licitness of judicial torture is of course laughable since it can hardly fall under the realm of doctrine. But I will deal with it, the "killing of heretics" one and the religious liberty subject in the next installments.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Of course Tierney himself has already poisoned the waters here by insinuating that any attempt to explain what he sees as "obvious" errors as anything but what he claims they are is some kind of "chicanery":
The difficulty in this position is that the pronouncements of popes, even of modern popes, sometimes contradict one another (notably, for example, in the matter of religious toleration).
This is standard fundamentalist methodology here: each pronouncement carries the same weight regardless of what the intention of the teacher happens to be. But there is more...
Some theologians therefore have upheld the infallibility of contemporary decrees without giving serious consideration to the possibility of their conflicting with preceding ones. In effect, they are content to pretend that the past did not happen. There is at least a beguiling innocence in this approach. Other theologians, more reprehensibly (from a historian's point of view), have devised hermeneutical principles so ingenious that the documents of the past can never embarrass them.
This is soooo typical of the agenda-driven self-infallible sorts like Tierney. *Obviously* it cannot be thatTierney simply does not have the theological astuteness to make certain key theological distinctions on these matters. Nope, to him all magisterial statements -whatever their intended weight or intention- carry the same qualification and "any milkmaid, nay a child of nine" can understand them. This is why anyone who tries to explain such statements in context has *got* to be dishonest at worst or naive at best with people like him. But there is more...
By applying such principles, they can reinterpret any doctrinal pronouncement, regardless of its actual content, to mean whatever the modern theologian thinks that its framers ought to have meant.
Imagine that: theology is actually not a simple science for any idiot plowboy or milkmaid (or child of nine) to effortlessly grasp. This "regardless of its actual content" is rather disingenuous since Tierney's agenda depends on taking everything in the most literal matter possible and not distinguishing between teachings and directives. (To say nothing about the difference between teaching and opinions.)
The infallible doctrine of the past remains infallible but it is deprived of all objective content. This procedure seems based on a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland logic.
Who says that the doctrine lacks objective content??? The fact that the Church has utilized certain axiomatic statements over the centuries which have always had more nuance to them than the casual reader might presume is something that simply grates on people such as Tierney. It really does not do justice to their agenda which is precisely why they must dismiss them and ridicule anyone who asserts them against the fundamentalist hermeneutic of Mr. Tierney.
One is reminded of the Cheshire Cat?the body of a past pronouncement disappears but its grin of infallibility persists.
This is absurd. I have already pointed to certain elements of one of these infallible pronouncements which nuances its understanding -and used the words of the very pope who promulgated the teaching to do it. I suppose the pope who promulgated the teaching does not know his own manifested intention but we must rely on people like Tierney to "explain" it to us all??? Hardly.
The general principle underlying this second major approach to the problem of infallibility might be summarized in the formula, "All infallible pronouncements are irreformable?until it becomes convenient to change them."
Of course since no infallible pronouncements have been changed in their doctrine, this assertion is ridiculous. I will not deny that the application of certain teachings has changed in light of certain underlying variables on which said teachings were based changing. (An example of this are the subjects of slavery and usuary.) But that is too complicated a subject to discuss with someone whose hermeneutic theologically is one of such obvious fundamentalism as Tierney's is.
It seems only fair to add that most Catholic theologians have continued to opt for some version of the relatively simple and straightforward Pickwickian position.
Other then the fact that his theological acumen is weak, it is this kind of "keister covering" on his part which makes him of little use to anyone serious about matters of theology.
{2} This is the ninth canon that appears in some codices.
{3} This is clear by the context of the Apostolic Letter a restatement of the dogma from Lateran IV as Unam Sanctum opens with the following words:
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
As far as the historical events impacting the audience of this letter, see my essay on salvation outside the Church for details. Nonetheless, the claim that the popes claimed to "rule the world" or that Boniface VIII with Unam Sanctum sought to usurp the jurisdiction of the king is effectively confuted.
{4} Pope Urban VIII was a good friend of Galileo in case you did not know.
{5} Without papal confirmation, no text can be properly understood as magisterial -let alone infallible.
(Part I of III)
Though not a part of this thread, the previous two part response to Tim Enloe can be read HERE. This thread while not intended to be part of the aforementioned one nonetheless will supplement it by dealing with some of Brian Tierney's statements in one of his books.
Before getting to the subject of this thread, I only want to note up front that I do not want this thread to distract from the previous one. I believe the previous thread covers points more conducive to Tim and I outlining the differences in our respective weltanschauungs. This one is only to point out why I do not worry about people such as Brian Tierney and why Tim should take anything he says with a saltshaker when it comes to matters of theology.{1}
We can deal with Tierney's historical stuff later on perhaps but since it ties into theology to some extent -and since Tierney has made some bold pronouncements on these matters in works that Tim has lauded publicly- let us look at what Tierney believes are areas where the magisterium has erred or where the claim of papal infallibility is considered (by him) to be falsified.
To defend religious liberty would be "insane" and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interest on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right "not only the universal church but the whole world." Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going round the earth.
Before dealing with these points one by one, it is important to note some key distinctions that are required in theology to properly assess the theological weight of a given magisterial pronouncement. For this I quote the late Fr. William G. Most:
[W]e must carefully distinguish and keep separate three areas: (1) The teachings of the Church (doctrine); (2) the rules or commands of the Church (legislation); (3) the question of how prudently the Church has acted in a given case.
As to the first, namely teaching, we saw that Christ, the Divine Messenger, promised to protect that teaching; so we believe. As to the second, that is legislation or commands, Christ gave authority to rule to the Church; so we obey. But the third is different: There are no promises by Christ that the Church would always act prudently, and would do things in the best way. It is one thing to teach truth or give binding laws and another to act in the best, most prudent way. On this third point, prudence, there are no promises of Christ nor any commission from Christ. So the Church does not now claim, and never has claimed, assurance of prudence.
The distinguishing between teaching and directives alone is not made by those who lazily sluff off supposed "errors" by the bucketload. But it is an important distinction to make. I have no respect whatsoever for those who pontificate authoritatively on these matters and cannot make this simple distinction. And the reader can judge based on what will now be covered if this indictment by your weblog host does or does not apply to Brian Tierney. This particular post will deal with the following summary of points:
---religious liberty.
---persecution of heretics was commendable and now no longer is.
---the licitness of judicial torture.
---taking interest on loans is a mortal sin.
---the pope would rule by divine right "not only the universal church but the whole world."
---unbaptized babies punished in hell for all eternity.
---the sun revolving around the earth (i.e. the "Galileo thing").
There is a lot of material to cover in one post so I will briefly dispatch with each. To start with, the matter of unbaptized babies being punished in hell was never at any time a matter of Catholic doctrine. This language is so ridiculously sloppy theologically that I am tempted to throw the entire paragraph out of court. But I will relent for your sake Tim since you like Tierney and wonder why I dismiss him as I do.
With regards to limbus infantium, there were various schools of thought on the matter but the existence of such a place was never a matter of Catholic doctrine. Indeed, there is only one single magisterial document (from the eighteenth century) which mentions "the children's limbo" at all and its viability as a theological speculation or a "pious belief" if you will was upheld in that document. Upholding the viability of a speculation hardly constitutes "teaching."
With regards to the unbaptized babies being punished in hell, this was actually a rather novel notion of St. Augustine. Prior to his time, the Fathers held varying views on the matter but the consensus was that the only "punishment" if you will was exclusion from the beatific vision. But even this view was not unanimous as there were Fathers who did not take this view but judged that infants were innocent and that original sin was an inclination towards evil and not guilt in the strictest sense. But regardless of the position taken, there was no suffering involved in the equation whatsoever in any of these scenarios. And there was no magisterial teaching on the matter -it instead remaining open to speculation.
Though he initially agreed with the earlier more prevalent view that only exclusion from beatific vision was the fate of unbaptized infants; nonetheless, St. Augustine later on began the school of thought that held that unbaptized babies suffered. Though he took this view before the Pelagian controversy one could just as easily see him trying with this view to stake the strongest polemic possible against the Pelagian notion that people could by their own efforts earn their salvation.
In the context of the latter heresy, Augustine even sought to procure from the 418 Council of Carthage a dogma of faith on this subject which the Council seems to have approved of but which Pope Zosimus did not confirm.{2} Nonetheless, the theology of the ninth canon held sway for a while -due to the tremendous influence of Augustine- before being challenged and eventually overcome by later theologians. This began happening noticeably with the theology of St. Anselm. Nonetheless, there was no magisterial teaching on this matter whatsoever so Tierney's assertion here fails.
With regard to the claim that the pope would rule by divine right "not only the universal church but the whole world, this is almost certainly a reference to Unam Sanctum and Pope Boniface VIII's teaching that salvation is contingent upon submission to the Roman pontiff.{3}
I have gone over the subject of extra ecclesia nulla salus elsewhere and the attempts by magisterial fundamentalists to put concepts in Pope Boniface VIII's statement which were never stated will not fly with anyone remotely concerned about the truth on that issue. However, there are two more issues in that regard: the "two swords" theology and the idea that the spiritual exceeding the temporal made the king the pope's subject. As Fr. William Most noted years ago, the best interpreter of Boniface's intention on this point is Boniface himself:
The best explanation of the point about the two swords comes from Boniface VIII himself. In a consistory of June 24, 1302, before legates from France, he complained that he had been falsely accused, as if "we had ordered the king to acknowledge his royal power was from us. For forty years we have been a legal specialist, and we know that there are two powers ordained by God. Can or should anyone believe, then, that there is such folly in our head? We say that in no way have we desired to usurp the jurisdiction of the king, and thus our brother Portuensis said. The king cannot deny, nor can any other one of the faithful, that he is subject to us in regard to sin."
That clarifying note happens to precede the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctum in the Denzinger compendium. So far from "hermeneutical gymnastics" I simply used Boniface to clarify Boniface. But I am sure Tierney would accuse me of "Cheshire Cat Theology" or crap of that sort anyway because that is what arrogant self-styled "all-knowing" types like him tend to do when their pontifications are shot down. Two down and five to go.
As far as the geocentrism thing and the subject of taking interest, I kill these two canards with one post at this link where I also touch on EENS and slavery as well. (Two more shibboleths of the self-styled "progressivists.") I am sure that again the fact that the decision of the Holy Office itself only called Galileo's view "suspect of heresy" - which is a theological and not doctrinal judgment- and that Pope Urban VIII{4} did not confirm the decision{5} are of course just more "excuse-making" on my part though right??? (After all, every syllable of a pope in *any* capacity constitutes binding doctrine under pain of sin seemingly in the world of people such as Tierney.)
The long and short of it is that the Galileo red herring does not match up either. And I am not even going to play the "it is not ex cathedra" card which I have noted before is an approach that grates on me. Instead, I will simply note that it is not magisterial since no document which is not confirmed by the pope is rightfully understood to be magisterial. This is pretty basic stuff but of course dissidents like Tierney do not tend to inform themselves on these small but significant matters.
The subject of the licitness of judicial torture is of course laughable since it can hardly fall under the realm of doctrine. But I will deal with it, the "killing of heretics" one and the religious liberty subject in the next installments.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Of course Tierney himself has already poisoned the waters here by insinuating that any attempt to explain what he sees as "obvious" errors as anything but what he claims they are is some kind of "chicanery":
The difficulty in this position is that the pronouncements of popes, even of modern popes, sometimes contradict one another (notably, for example, in the matter of religious toleration).
This is standard fundamentalist methodology here: each pronouncement carries the same weight regardless of what the intention of the teacher happens to be. But there is more...
Some theologians therefore have upheld the infallibility of contemporary decrees without giving serious consideration to the possibility of their conflicting with preceding ones. In effect, they are content to pretend that the past did not happen. There is at least a beguiling innocence in this approach. Other theologians, more reprehensibly (from a historian's point of view), have devised hermeneutical principles so ingenious that the documents of the past can never embarrass them.
This is soooo typical of the agenda-driven self-infallible sorts like Tierney. *Obviously* it cannot be thatTierney simply does not have the theological astuteness to make certain key theological distinctions on these matters. Nope, to him all magisterial statements -whatever their intended weight or intention- carry the same qualification and "any milkmaid, nay a child of nine" can understand them. This is why anyone who tries to explain such statements in context has *got* to be dishonest at worst or naive at best with people like him. But there is more...
By applying such principles, they can reinterpret any doctrinal pronouncement, regardless of its actual content, to mean whatever the modern theologian thinks that its framers ought to have meant.
Imagine that: theology is actually not a simple science for any idiot plowboy or milkmaid (or child of nine) to effortlessly grasp. This "regardless of its actual content" is rather disingenuous since Tierney's agenda depends on taking everything in the most literal matter possible and not distinguishing between teachings and directives. (To say nothing about the difference between teaching and opinions.)
The infallible doctrine of the past remains infallible but it is deprived of all objective content. This procedure seems based on a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland logic.
Who says that the doctrine lacks objective content??? The fact that the Church has utilized certain axiomatic statements over the centuries which have always had more nuance to them than the casual reader might presume is something that simply grates on people such as Tierney. It really does not do justice to their agenda which is precisely why they must dismiss them and ridicule anyone who asserts them against the fundamentalist hermeneutic of Mr. Tierney.
One is reminded of the Cheshire Cat?the body of a past pronouncement disappears but its grin of infallibility persists.
This is absurd. I have already pointed to certain elements of one of these infallible pronouncements which nuances its understanding -and used the words of the very pope who promulgated the teaching to do it. I suppose the pope who promulgated the teaching does not know his own manifested intention but we must rely on people like Tierney to "explain" it to us all??? Hardly.
The general principle underlying this second major approach to the problem of infallibility might be summarized in the formula, "All infallible pronouncements are irreformable?until it becomes convenient to change them."
Of course since no infallible pronouncements have been changed in their doctrine, this assertion is ridiculous. I will not deny that the application of certain teachings has changed in light of certain underlying variables on which said teachings were based changing. (An example of this are the subjects of slavery and usuary.) But that is too complicated a subject to discuss with someone whose hermeneutic theologically is one of such obvious fundamentalism as Tierney's is.
It seems only fair to add that most Catholic theologians have continued to opt for some version of the relatively simple and straightforward Pickwickian position.
Other then the fact that his theological acumen is weak, it is this kind of "keister covering" on his part which makes him of little use to anyone serious about matters of theology.
{2} This is the ninth canon that appears in some codices.
{3} This is clear by the context of the Apostolic Letter a restatement of the dogma from Lateran IV as Unam Sanctum opens with the following words:
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
As far as the historical events impacting the audience of this letter, see my essay on salvation outside the Church for details. Nonetheless, the claim that the popes claimed to "rule the world" or that Boniface VIII with Unam Sanctum sought to usurp the jurisdiction of the king is effectively confuted.
{4} Pope Urban VIII was a good friend of Galileo in case you did not know.
{5} Without papal confirmation, no text can be properly understood as magisterial -let alone infallible.
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
"The Enloe Files" Dept.
(Part II --Addressing Other Points in Brief)
The first part of this thread can be read HERE.
Shawn cites Cardinal Newman's Faith and Private Judgment to buttress his own viewpoint:
I decided at this point to snip the citation as Tim quoted it and extend it out a bit. The added text will be in purple font:
Now, in the first place, what is faith? it is assenting to a doctrine as true, which we do not see, which we cannot prove, because God says it is true, who cannot lie. And further than this, since God says it is true, not with His own voice, but by the voice of His messengers, it is assenting to what man says, not simply viewed as a man, but to what he is commissioned to declare, as a messenger, prophet, or ambassador from God.
In the ordinary course of this world we account things true either because we see them, or because we can perceive that they follow and are deducible from what we do see; that is, we gain truth by sight or by reason, not by faith. You will say indeed, that we accept a number of things which we cannot prove or see, on the word of others; certainly, but then we accept what they say only as the word of man; and we have not commonly that absolute and unreserved confidence in them, which nothing can shake.
We know that man is open to mistake, and we are always glad to find some confirmation of what he says, from other quarters, in any important matter; or we receive his information with negligence and unconcern, as something of little consequence, as a matter of opinion; or, if we act upon it, it is as a matter of prudence, thinking it best and safest to do so. We take his word for what it is worth, and we use it either according to our necessity, or its probability. We keep the decision in our own hands, and reserve to ourselves the right of reopening the question whenever we please. This is very different from Divine faith; he who believes that God is true, and that this is His word, which He has committed to man, has no doubt at all. He is as certain that the doctrine taught is true, as that God is true; and he is certain, because God is true, because God has spoken, not because he sees its truth or can prove its truth.
That is, faith has two peculiarities;—it is most certain, decided, positive, immovable in its assent, and it gives this assent not because it sees with eye, or sees with the reason, but because it receives the tidings from one who comes from God.
This is what faith was in the time of the Apostles, as no one can deny; and what it was then, it must be now, else it ceases to be the same thing. I say, it certainly was this in the Apostles' time, for you know they preached to the world that Christ was the Son of God, that He was born of a Virgin, that He had ascended on high, that He would come again to judge all, the living and the dead. Could the world see all this? could it prove it? how then were men to receive it? why did so many embrace it? on the word of the Apostles, who were, as their powers showed, messengers from God.
Men were told to submit their reason to a living authority. Moreover, whatever an Apostle said, his converts were bound to believe; when they entered the Church, they entered it in order to learn. The Church was their teacher; they did not come to argue, to examine, to pick and choose, but to accept whatever was put before them. No one doubts, no one can doubt this, of those primitive times. A Christian was bound to take without doubting all that the Apostles declared to be revealed; if the Apostles spoke, he had to yield an internal assent of his mind; it would not be enough to keep silence, it would not be enough not to oppose: it was not allowable to credit in a measure; it was not allowable to doubt.
No; if a convert had his own private thoughts of what was said, and only kept them to himself, if he made some secret opposition to the teaching, if he waited for further proof before he believed it, this would be a proof that he did not think the Apostles were sent from God to reveal His will; it would be a proof that he did not in any true sense believe at all. Immediate, implicit submission of the mind was, in the lifetime of the Apostles, the only, the necessary token of faith; then there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment. No one could say: "I will choose my religion for myself, I will believe this, I will not believe that; I will pledge myself to nothing; I will believe just as long as I please, and no longer; what I believe today I will reject tomorrow, if I choose. I will believe what the Apostles have as yet said, but I will not believe what they shall say in time to come." No; either the Apostles were from God, or they were not; if they were, everything that they preached was to be believed by their hearers; if they were not, there was nothing for their hearers to believe.
To believe a little, to believe more or less, was impossible; it contradicted the very notion of believing: if one part was to be believed, every part was to be believed; it was an absurdity to believe one thing and not another; for the word of the Apostles, which made the one true, made the other true too; they were nothing in themselves, they were all things, they were an infallible authority, as coming from God. The world had either to become Christian, or to let it alone; there was no room for private tastes and fancies, no room for private judgment.
Now surely this is quite clear from the nature of the case; but is also clear from the words of Scripture. "We give thanks to God," says St. Paul, "without ceasing, because when ye had received from us the word of hearing, which is of God, ye received it, not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the Word of God." Here you see St. Paul expresses what I have said above; that the Word comes from God, that it is spoken by men, that it must be received, not as man's word, but as God's word. So in another place he says: "He who despiseth these things, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given in us His Holy Spirit".
Our Saviour had made a like declaration already: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me". Accordingly, St. Peter on the day of Pentecost said: "Men of Israel, hear these words, God hath raised up this Jesus, whereof we are witnesses. Let all the house of Israel know most certainly that God hath made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ." At another time he said: "We ought to obey God, rather than man; we are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Ghost, whom God has given to all who obey Him". And again: "He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He (Jesus) who hath been appointed by God to be the Judge of the living and of the dead". And you know that the persistent declaration of the first preachers was: "Believe and thou shalt be saved": they do not say, "prove our doctrine by your own reason," nor "wait till you see before you believe"; but, "believe without seeing and without proving, because our word is not our own, but God's word".
Men might indeed use their reason in inquiring into the pretensions of the Apostles; they might inquire whether or not they did miracles; they might inquire whether they were predicted in the Old Testament as coming from God; but when they had ascertained this fairly in whatever way, they were to take all the Apostles said for granted without proof; they were to exercise their faith, they were to be saved by hearing. Hence, as you perhaps observed, St. Paul significantly calls the revealed doctrine "the word of hearing," in the passage I quoted; men came to hear, to accept, to obey, not to criticise what was said; and in accordance with this he asks elsewhere: "How shall they believe Him, whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."
Now, my dear brethren, consider, are not these two states or acts of mind quite distinct from each other;—to believe simply what a living authority tells you, and to take a book, such as Scripture, and to use it as you please, to master it, that is, to make yourself the master of it, to interpret it for yourself, and to admit just what you choose to see in it, and nothing more? Are not these two procedures distinct in this, that in the former you submit, in the latter you judge? At this moment I am not asking you which is the better, I am not asking whether this or that is practicable now, but are they not two ways of taking up a doctrine, and not one? is not submission quite contrary to judging?
Now, is it not certain that faith in the time of the Apostles consisted in submitting? and is it not certain that it did not consist in judging for one's self. It is in vain to say that the man who judges from the Apostles' writings, does submit to those writings in the first instance, and therefore has faith in them; else why should he refer to them at all? There is, I repeat, an essential difference between the act of submitting to a living oracle, and to his written words; in the former case there is no appeal from the speaker, in the latter the final decision remains with the reader.
I could quote more but the above is needed to highlight the difference between the approaches that Tim and I take on this matter.
Now certainly all Christians believe that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", for this is what Holy Scripture teaches us. And it is true that no Christian should immediately feel that if something he believes the Christian religion teaches does not appear to be "verifiable" on criteria that are acceptable to skeptics (here "skeptics" does not particularly refer to unbelievers, but generically to anyone who doubts something someone else says) then he is not warranted in believing it to be true.
So far so good.
As Pascal taught us, it is entirely appropriate to hold that "The heart has reasons which the reason knows not", and as the contemporary "Reformed Epistemology" movement has insightfully observed, many of the beliefs that all human beings constantly and unreflectively operate upon (e.g., the reality of the world outside the individual mind, the reality of the existence of other minds) are simply not "proveable" in any sort of "objective" manner, and yet we are still warranted in holding that they are true.
This is to some degree an act of faith but human faith only. It also smacks of some degree of conceptualism which is an impotent via media between realist and nominalist outlooks.
The opposite sort of thinking--expressed in the words of the 19th century philospher W.K. Clifford, that "It is everywhere and always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" is indeed a pernicious error, and it has, it must be admitted, invaded the broad sphere of Christian apologetics at many levels.
This is true; however there is a caveat to be noted and it is this: one person's "insufficient evidence" is not necessarily another person's. In this sense, the grounds of credibility in a given proposition are not the same for each individual and contain a degree of subjectivism to them. This is not to say that the given proposition itself is subjective, only that the outlook of different people towards the given proposition (or their ability to comprehend correctly said proposition) varies.
Many Protestants and Catholics alike do succumb to an "evidentialist" mode of apologetics, acting as if every item of Christian Faith is fully verifiable by epistemically "neutral" standards of proof--an approach that usually results in piling up every scrap of "evidence" one can find and then refracting it all through an allegedly "common sense" analysis to arrive at "the face value" interpretation, which is then touted as "Objective Truth" and its opposite as "bias" and "taking the sources out of context".
If you are claiming that many rely too much on such an approach then you will get no disagreement from me. But if you want to avoid forms of fideism or "burning in the bosom" epistemology then you have to recognize some value in evidentialist approaches. Evidential approaches have their valid usages and dismissing them wholesale is hardly going to convince anyone that you are not arguing like the Gnostics of old with their "secret knowledge."
Against this naive, Enlightenment-driven epistemological folly it is entirely appropriate for a Christian to make a truth claim that he cannot provide "scientific" or "objective" evidence for.
Everyone does to some extent. Unless they are a walking encyclopedia, there are areas where they make claims that they cannot verify based in part on what they can verify.
I will go farther and say that it is entirely appropriate for a Christian to make a truth claim upon the authority of someone else--say, the community of saints to whom he is covenantally bound.
This is a good admission. But of course the question of why someone was covenantally bound to any profession at all comes to mind here. And if they are so bound, then there is the question of whether this body has any actual authority to bind them to it.
St. Paul warned his spiritual son the Bishop Timothy that "there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts" (2 Tim iv,3). And for those who have a lust for learning, it will be those who scratch their rational itch to whom they will heap up to themselves.
So it is not enough to refer to someone being covenatally bound since the very statement presupposes that the community in question actually has the authority to bind people to certain teachings or precepts. Whatever one thinks of the Catholic Church, she does claim to have this authority and always has made this claim. And yes, I can say "always" here as this is one of those "2000 years of Christian history" assertions that is actually not an exaggeration.{1}
Nevertheless, this is not what most Catholics who talk about history seem to do. They are not content to say "My community teaches this and I am loyal to my community." Rather, they say "My community teaches this and this is the verifiable historic faith of the Church." After which they promptly retreat from the "historical"part of their statement and rely upon invocations of "faith."
Again Tim, we walk a fine line on this matter and not always do we keep from going too far one way or the other. Church doctrine cannot be proven from historical evidence nor can it be disproven. The best that history can do is witness to varying degrees towards a proof but never is it conclusive in and of itself. History you might say provides many grounds of credibility for the reader to assent to the claims of the Catholic Church. Not all such grounds of credibility are as significant to one person as they are to another.
As Newman noted on history in reponse to the Duke of Norfolk:
Historical evidence reaches a certain way, more or less, towards a proof of the Catholic doctrines; often nearly the whole way: sometimes it goes only so far as to point in their direction; sometimes there is only an absence of evidence for a conclusion contrary to them; nay, sometimes there is an apparent leaning of the evidence to a contrary conclusion, which has to be explained -- in all cases, there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church." [Letter to the Duke of Norfolk in Difficulties of Anglicans (c. 1874)]
Now you probably find it interesting that an admission is made that on some doctrines (though papal primacy is not among them) there are apparent leanings to a contrary conclusion. The reason of course is that it is impossible to reason from history all Catholic doctrines and someone who was able to do so would not have the most fundamental ingredient to authentic divine faith: belief on the authority of God through His appointed messengers.
The very essence that the early Christians had in the days of the Apostles is what we must have today if we are to consider ourselves their posterity -though the precise application of this is not necessarily the same of course.{2} When Newman said that "[h]e who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic", this is hardly a detraction from the value that history has in the inquiry process. It is simply recognition that one cannot be a Catholic without the virtue of divine faith and that is not possible in the person who only believes what he can verify.
In my long experience with Roman Catholics of many varieties, all of them ultimately refer everything they believe solely to the logic "The infallible Church has said it; therefore it is true and nothing can possibly count against it".
You are essentially saying that they have faith in the Church as speaking with the authority of God much as Our Lord claimed (Matt. x,20,40; Luke x,16, John xiii,20). I will agree that the application of this principle can be abused -indeed it often is. However, in this endeavour, it is always better to err on the side of caution if one must err at all. For what is important is to have faith and that requires certain constituent elements to be genuine. As usual, Newman explained this concept adequately so I reference him here:
Either say that faith is not necessary now at all, or take it to be what the Apostles meant by it, but do not say that you have it, and then show me something quite different, which you have put in the place of it. In the Apostles' days the peculiarity of faith was submission to a living authority; this is what made it so distinctive; this is what made it an act of submission at all; this is what destroyed private judgment in matters of religion. If you will not look out for a living authority, and will bargain for private judgment, then say at once that you have not Apostolic faith. [Faith and Private Judgment (c. 1849)]
Essentially Tim, you are bumping right up against this concept but are seemingly not realizing it. Maybe I should ask what the concept of a revealed religion means to you -maybe then we can not talk past one another here.
Because of this I find it hard to escape the conclusion that the bottom line regarding men like Brian Tierney is essentially that they make "conservative" Catholics feel very uncomfortable by poointing out the serious blind spots that exist in the commonplace Catholic way of construing "Faith".
Tierney does not make me uncomfortable Tim. Thus far I have read nothing of his that I cannot interact with adequately if I had more time to do so. Nor do I anticipate in the future running into anything from him that is problematical. I realize you find this shocking but I have already given you so much of what you are asserting and you have not remotely come close to interacting critically with the core thesis on papal primacy that I have advanced -and have advanced for about four years now.
In my posts with you on this theme I have alluded to it. In my essay on Christian Unity, I dealt explicitly with it. In my review of the vicissitudes of Church history, I have seen nothing that detracts from it whatsoever -and when one looks at some of the unsavory parts of Church history that is saying something because (as you know) it was hardly lacking in its abominations.{3}
All this talk about Gregory VII, the False Decretals, and the whole ball of wax completely misses the central point I have brought up time and time again in our dialogue. And as long as it is eluded, I will wonder if there is interest in grappling with it or merely in throwing out various tidbits that can make those not familiar with them uncomfortable.
That is, men like Tierney (another one who has been viciously maligned is Francis Oakley) actually "dare" to say that perhaps something the Church has said has not been said in a historically honest way or, (gasp!) has actually relied (unintentionally) upon historical falsehoods and thus (unintentionally) distorted the truth.
Considering that I have made similar claims myself on certain matters, in that respect is not where I have a problem with what I have read of Tierney.{4} However, that is neither here nor there. The problem with Tierney that I have is that he seems to tie so much of his outlook to elements which are not essential to the Roman claims. He then leans on these elements and seeks to use them to foster an agenda against the Church for some reason that is not clearly discernable.
Usually such people have some serious bone of contention to pick with the Church and this is why they do it. Sometimes it is simply an honest inquiry but I tend to find that those in the latter category (amongst those who claim to be Catholics) to be in a very small minority.
If necessary, I can cite Brian Tierney (and Oakley) stating unequivocally that the Roman Catholic expression of the Christian Faith-- including many of the traditional claims of the Roman See--is true and that they have no wish to undermine these.
One can have all the best intentions in the world -indeed the old dictum that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind here. I have no doubt that you could cite Tierney or Oakley striving to give with the right hand what they inexorably take away with the left. I see this same approach taken with self-styled "traditionalists" every bit as much as with those you refer to who tend to fall under the category of the self-styled "progressivists."{5}
The "problem" is that unlike "conservative" Catholics (who are forever reacting against the spectral bogeyman of "liberalism", and thus often missing the forest for the trees) men like Tierney do not posit that "faith" is a simple synonym for "whatever the Church says" and so they do not feel obligated to invoke "faith" as the "one size fits all" answer to many things that the historical record says which simply do not comport with the Church's present-day claims.
Here are a few examples of why I do not take Tierney seriously Tim. These are from his book Origins of Papal Infallibility:
If the popes have always been infallible in any meaningful sense of the word—if their official pronouncements as heads of the church on matters of faith and morals have always been unerring and so irreformable - then all kinds of dubious consequences ensue. Most obviously, twentieth century popes would be bound by a whole array of past papal decrees reflecting the responses of the Roman church to the religious and moral problems of former ages...
To Tierney's credit, he at least lists a few examples:
To defend religious liberty would be "insane" and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interest on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right "not only the universal church but the whole world." Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going round the earth.
I have dealt in detail with every one of these pathetic objections over the years and none of them hold water. And I have done this with the texts taken at face value following the general norms of theological interpretation. And I can honestly say that I have never once run across any errors even in the ordinary magisterium when the subjects are compared on an apples-apples basis. But of course people like Tierney who have agendas to promote are not interested in such things -instead preferring to resort to insult and ridicule when they cannot make their case in the arena of ideas.
Ironically, I would say that such men understand the true meaning of "faith" far better than the "conservatives" who oppose them, for the former believe that God protects the Church's continuity and guarantees the ultimate success of her mission in spite of her theological errors (the classical Christian doctrine of the indefectability of the Church) while the former are driven to say that the Church has never made any significant errors from which protection was necessary.
I would presume that you meant "latter" with the last statement. Of course the problem with your formulary is that it is purely subjective in import. Who is to judge if a "significant error" has or has not been made??? As far as those which I noted of Tierney earlier, I will briefly dispatch with every one of them in another installment of this thread using previous work of mine where feasible to do. Maybe then you will not be so quick to laud the "genius" of Tierney or others like him who make a lot of pronouncements that do not survive valid scrutiny. But I digress.
Shawn readily confesses that he has not read much of Tierney's corpus, so it is understandable that he is probably not acquainted with Tierney's exchange with Father Stickler (from which I have cited on this blog) in which the two men debated the relationship of "faith" and "history" in light of the historical claims Tierney had made about the historical setting of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Interestingly, both men claimed that the disciplines of theology and history have their own respective rules and that the rules proper to one may not be able to be applied to the other without distorting its material and conclusions, but both men applied this principle differently.
That does not surprise me at all. Cardinal Stickler has a doctorate in canon law and is reasonably familiar with theological norms of interpretation. Tierney quite clearly is not and this will be exposed in the next installment of this thread. As you make more mistakes in enunciating the manner whereby Catholics understand the role of the Magisterium in subsequent parts, I will cut this section short at this time and proceed to deal with the paltry objections of Tierney in a separate thread. Stay tuned for details on that one.
Notes:
{1} I agree that this apologetical tactic is often used when it is not warranted but this is among the few times where it is not inapplicable.
{2} I do not have time to go into this at the moment.
{3} Though some periods were bleaker than others of course.
{4} I have read nothing from Oakley so I do not comment on him for that reason.
{5} I have tended to find the so-called "progressivists" to be arrogant and boastful of their so-called "superior knowledge" until someone like me pops their little hubris balloons. Then they tend to become even more insulting - all of which proves to me that they are not interested in the truth but in advancing an agenda and damn anyone who does not accept their blather with the same kind of uncritical acquiescence that they bristle at the idea of themselves having to render to anyone else.
(Part II --Addressing Other Points in Brief)
The first part of this thread can be read HERE.
Shawn cites Cardinal Newman's Faith and Private Judgment to buttress his own viewpoint:
I decided at this point to snip the citation as Tim quoted it and extend it out a bit. The added text will be in purple font:
Now, in the first place, what is faith? it is assenting to a doctrine as true, which we do not see, which we cannot prove, because God says it is true, who cannot lie. And further than this, since God says it is true, not with His own voice, but by the voice of His messengers, it is assenting to what man says, not simply viewed as a man, but to what he is commissioned to declare, as a messenger, prophet, or ambassador from God.
In the ordinary course of this world we account things true either because we see them, or because we can perceive that they follow and are deducible from what we do see; that is, we gain truth by sight or by reason, not by faith. You will say indeed, that we accept a number of things which we cannot prove or see, on the word of others; certainly, but then we accept what they say only as the word of man; and we have not commonly that absolute and unreserved confidence in them, which nothing can shake.
We know that man is open to mistake, and we are always glad to find some confirmation of what he says, from other quarters, in any important matter; or we receive his information with negligence and unconcern, as something of little consequence, as a matter of opinion; or, if we act upon it, it is as a matter of prudence, thinking it best and safest to do so. We take his word for what it is worth, and we use it either according to our necessity, or its probability. We keep the decision in our own hands, and reserve to ourselves the right of reopening the question whenever we please. This is very different from Divine faith; he who believes that God is true, and that this is His word, which He has committed to man, has no doubt at all. He is as certain that the doctrine taught is true, as that God is true; and he is certain, because God is true, because God has spoken, not because he sees its truth or can prove its truth.
That is, faith has two peculiarities;—it is most certain, decided, positive, immovable in its assent, and it gives this assent not because it sees with eye, or sees with the reason, but because it receives the tidings from one who comes from God.
This is what faith was in the time of the Apostles, as no one can deny; and what it was then, it must be now, else it ceases to be the same thing. I say, it certainly was this in the Apostles' time, for you know they preached to the world that Christ was the Son of God, that He was born of a Virgin, that He had ascended on high, that He would come again to judge all, the living and the dead. Could the world see all this? could it prove it? how then were men to receive it? why did so many embrace it? on the word of the Apostles, who were, as their powers showed, messengers from God.
Men were told to submit their reason to a living authority. Moreover, whatever an Apostle said, his converts were bound to believe; when they entered the Church, they entered it in order to learn. The Church was their teacher; they did not come to argue, to examine, to pick and choose, but to accept whatever was put before them. No one doubts, no one can doubt this, of those primitive times. A Christian was bound to take without doubting all that the Apostles declared to be revealed; if the Apostles spoke, he had to yield an internal assent of his mind; it would not be enough to keep silence, it would not be enough not to oppose: it was not allowable to credit in a measure; it was not allowable to doubt.
No; if a convert had his own private thoughts of what was said, and only kept them to himself, if he made some secret opposition to the teaching, if he waited for further proof before he believed it, this would be a proof that he did not think the Apostles were sent from God to reveal His will; it would be a proof that he did not in any true sense believe at all. Immediate, implicit submission of the mind was, in the lifetime of the Apostles, the only, the necessary token of faith; then there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment. No one could say: "I will choose my religion for myself, I will believe this, I will not believe that; I will pledge myself to nothing; I will believe just as long as I please, and no longer; what I believe today I will reject tomorrow, if I choose. I will believe what the Apostles have as yet said, but I will not believe what they shall say in time to come." No; either the Apostles were from God, or they were not; if they were, everything that they preached was to be believed by their hearers; if they were not, there was nothing for their hearers to believe.
To believe a little, to believe more or less, was impossible; it contradicted the very notion of believing: if one part was to be believed, every part was to be believed; it was an absurdity to believe one thing and not another; for the word of the Apostles, which made the one true, made the other true too; they were nothing in themselves, they were all things, they were an infallible authority, as coming from God. The world had either to become Christian, or to let it alone; there was no room for private tastes and fancies, no room for private judgment.
Now surely this is quite clear from the nature of the case; but is also clear from the words of Scripture. "We give thanks to God," says St. Paul, "without ceasing, because when ye had received from us the word of hearing, which is of God, ye received it, not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the Word of God." Here you see St. Paul expresses what I have said above; that the Word comes from God, that it is spoken by men, that it must be received, not as man's word, but as God's word. So in another place he says: "He who despiseth these things, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given in us His Holy Spirit".
Our Saviour had made a like declaration already: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me". Accordingly, St. Peter on the day of Pentecost said: "Men of Israel, hear these words, God hath raised up this Jesus, whereof we are witnesses. Let all the house of Israel know most certainly that God hath made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ." At another time he said: "We ought to obey God, rather than man; we are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Ghost, whom God has given to all who obey Him". And again: "He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He (Jesus) who hath been appointed by God to be the Judge of the living and of the dead". And you know that the persistent declaration of the first preachers was: "Believe and thou shalt be saved": they do not say, "prove our doctrine by your own reason," nor "wait till you see before you believe"; but, "believe without seeing and without proving, because our word is not our own, but God's word".
Men might indeed use their reason in inquiring into the pretensions of the Apostles; they might inquire whether or not they did miracles; they might inquire whether they were predicted in the Old Testament as coming from God; but when they had ascertained this fairly in whatever way, they were to take all the Apostles said for granted without proof; they were to exercise their faith, they were to be saved by hearing. Hence, as you perhaps observed, St. Paul significantly calls the revealed doctrine "the word of hearing," in the passage I quoted; men came to hear, to accept, to obey, not to criticise what was said; and in accordance with this he asks elsewhere: "How shall they believe Him, whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."
Now, my dear brethren, consider, are not these two states or acts of mind quite distinct from each other;—to believe simply what a living authority tells you, and to take a book, such as Scripture, and to use it as you please, to master it, that is, to make yourself the master of it, to interpret it for yourself, and to admit just what you choose to see in it, and nothing more? Are not these two procedures distinct in this, that in the former you submit, in the latter you judge? At this moment I am not asking you which is the better, I am not asking whether this or that is practicable now, but are they not two ways of taking up a doctrine, and not one? is not submission quite contrary to judging?
Now, is it not certain that faith in the time of the Apostles consisted in submitting? and is it not certain that it did not consist in judging for one's self. It is in vain to say that the man who judges from the Apostles' writings, does submit to those writings in the first instance, and therefore has faith in them; else why should he refer to them at all? There is, I repeat, an essential difference between the act of submitting to a living oracle, and to his written words; in the former case there is no appeal from the speaker, in the latter the final decision remains with the reader.
I could quote more but the above is needed to highlight the difference between the approaches that Tim and I take on this matter.
Now certainly all Christians believe that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", for this is what Holy Scripture teaches us. And it is true that no Christian should immediately feel that if something he believes the Christian religion teaches does not appear to be "verifiable" on criteria that are acceptable to skeptics (here "skeptics" does not particularly refer to unbelievers, but generically to anyone who doubts something someone else says) then he is not warranted in believing it to be true.
So far so good.
As Pascal taught us, it is entirely appropriate to hold that "The heart has reasons which the reason knows not", and as the contemporary "Reformed Epistemology" movement has insightfully observed, many of the beliefs that all human beings constantly and unreflectively operate upon (e.g., the reality of the world outside the individual mind, the reality of the existence of other minds) are simply not "proveable" in any sort of "objective" manner, and yet we are still warranted in holding that they are true.
This is to some degree an act of faith but human faith only. It also smacks of some degree of conceptualism which is an impotent via media between realist and nominalist outlooks.
The opposite sort of thinking--expressed in the words of the 19th century philospher W.K. Clifford, that "It is everywhere and always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" is indeed a pernicious error, and it has, it must be admitted, invaded the broad sphere of Christian apologetics at many levels.
This is true; however there is a caveat to be noted and it is this: one person's "insufficient evidence" is not necessarily another person's. In this sense, the grounds of credibility in a given proposition are not the same for each individual and contain a degree of subjectivism to them. This is not to say that the given proposition itself is subjective, only that the outlook of different people towards the given proposition (or their ability to comprehend correctly said proposition) varies.
Many Protestants and Catholics alike do succumb to an "evidentialist" mode of apologetics, acting as if every item of Christian Faith is fully verifiable by epistemically "neutral" standards of proof--an approach that usually results in piling up every scrap of "evidence" one can find and then refracting it all through an allegedly "common sense" analysis to arrive at "the face value" interpretation, which is then touted as "Objective Truth" and its opposite as "bias" and "taking the sources out of context".
If you are claiming that many rely too much on such an approach then you will get no disagreement from me. But if you want to avoid forms of fideism or "burning in the bosom" epistemology then you have to recognize some value in evidentialist approaches. Evidential approaches have their valid usages and dismissing them wholesale is hardly going to convince anyone that you are not arguing like the Gnostics of old with their "secret knowledge."
Against this naive, Enlightenment-driven epistemological folly it is entirely appropriate for a Christian to make a truth claim that he cannot provide "scientific" or "objective" evidence for.
Everyone does to some extent. Unless they are a walking encyclopedia, there are areas where they make claims that they cannot verify based in part on what they can verify.
I will go farther and say that it is entirely appropriate for a Christian to make a truth claim upon the authority of someone else--say, the community of saints to whom he is covenantally bound.
This is a good admission. But of course the question of why someone was covenantally bound to any profession at all comes to mind here. And if they are so bound, then there is the question of whether this body has any actual authority to bind them to it.
St. Paul warned his spiritual son the Bishop Timothy that "there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts" (2 Tim iv,3). And for those who have a lust for learning, it will be those who scratch their rational itch to whom they will heap up to themselves.
So it is not enough to refer to someone being covenatally bound since the very statement presupposes that the community in question actually has the authority to bind people to certain teachings or precepts. Whatever one thinks of the Catholic Church, she does claim to have this authority and always has made this claim. And yes, I can say "always" here as this is one of those "2000 years of Christian history" assertions that is actually not an exaggeration.{1}
Nevertheless, this is not what most Catholics who talk about history seem to do. They are not content to say "My community teaches this and I am loyal to my community." Rather, they say "My community teaches this and this is the verifiable historic faith of the Church." After which they promptly retreat from the "historical"part of their statement and rely upon invocations of "faith."
Again Tim, we walk a fine line on this matter and not always do we keep from going too far one way or the other. Church doctrine cannot be proven from historical evidence nor can it be disproven. The best that history can do is witness to varying degrees towards a proof but never is it conclusive in and of itself. History you might say provides many grounds of credibility for the reader to assent to the claims of the Catholic Church. Not all such grounds of credibility are as significant to one person as they are to another.
As Newman noted on history in reponse to the Duke of Norfolk:
Historical evidence reaches a certain way, more or less, towards a proof of the Catholic doctrines; often nearly the whole way: sometimes it goes only so far as to point in their direction; sometimes there is only an absence of evidence for a conclusion contrary to them; nay, sometimes there is an apparent leaning of the evidence to a contrary conclusion, which has to be explained -- in all cases, there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church." [Letter to the Duke of Norfolk in Difficulties of Anglicans (c. 1874)]
Now you probably find it interesting that an admission is made that on some doctrines (though papal primacy is not among them) there are apparent leanings to a contrary conclusion. The reason of course is that it is impossible to reason from history all Catholic doctrines and someone who was able to do so would not have the most fundamental ingredient to authentic divine faith: belief on the authority of God through His appointed messengers.
The very essence that the early Christians had in the days of the Apostles is what we must have today if we are to consider ourselves their posterity -though the precise application of this is not necessarily the same of course.{2} When Newman said that "[h]e who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic", this is hardly a detraction from the value that history has in the inquiry process. It is simply recognition that one cannot be a Catholic without the virtue of divine faith and that is not possible in the person who only believes what he can verify.
In my long experience with Roman Catholics of many varieties, all of them ultimately refer everything they believe solely to the logic "The infallible Church has said it; therefore it is true and nothing can possibly count against it".
You are essentially saying that they have faith in the Church as speaking with the authority of God much as Our Lord claimed (Matt. x,20,40; Luke x,16, John xiii,20). I will agree that the application of this principle can be abused -indeed it often is. However, in this endeavour, it is always better to err on the side of caution if one must err at all. For what is important is to have faith and that requires certain constituent elements to be genuine. As usual, Newman explained this concept adequately so I reference him here:
Either say that faith is not necessary now at all, or take it to be what the Apostles meant by it, but do not say that you have it, and then show me something quite different, which you have put in the place of it. In the Apostles' days the peculiarity of faith was submission to a living authority; this is what made it so distinctive; this is what made it an act of submission at all; this is what destroyed private judgment in matters of religion. If you will not look out for a living authority, and will bargain for private judgment, then say at once that you have not Apostolic faith. [Faith and Private Judgment (c. 1849)]
Essentially Tim, you are bumping right up against this concept but are seemingly not realizing it. Maybe I should ask what the concept of a revealed religion means to you -maybe then we can not talk past one another here.
Because of this I find it hard to escape the conclusion that the bottom line regarding men like Brian Tierney is essentially that they make "conservative" Catholics feel very uncomfortable by poointing out the serious blind spots that exist in the commonplace Catholic way of construing "Faith".
Tierney does not make me uncomfortable Tim. Thus far I have read nothing of his that I cannot interact with adequately if I had more time to do so. Nor do I anticipate in the future running into anything from him that is problematical. I realize you find this shocking but I have already given you so much of what you are asserting and you have not remotely come close to interacting critically with the core thesis on papal primacy that I have advanced -and have advanced for about four years now.
In my posts with you on this theme I have alluded to it. In my essay on Christian Unity, I dealt explicitly with it. In my review of the vicissitudes of Church history, I have seen nothing that detracts from it whatsoever -and when one looks at some of the unsavory parts of Church history that is saying something because (as you know) it was hardly lacking in its abominations.{3}
All this talk about Gregory VII, the False Decretals, and the whole ball of wax completely misses the central point I have brought up time and time again in our dialogue. And as long as it is eluded, I will wonder if there is interest in grappling with it or merely in throwing out various tidbits that can make those not familiar with them uncomfortable.
That is, men like Tierney (another one who has been viciously maligned is Francis Oakley) actually "dare" to say that perhaps something the Church has said has not been said in a historically honest way or, (gasp!) has actually relied (unintentionally) upon historical falsehoods and thus (unintentionally) distorted the truth.
Considering that I have made similar claims myself on certain matters, in that respect is not where I have a problem with what I have read of Tierney.{4} However, that is neither here nor there. The problem with Tierney that I have is that he seems to tie so much of his outlook to elements which are not essential to the Roman claims. He then leans on these elements and seeks to use them to foster an agenda against the Church for some reason that is not clearly discernable.
Usually such people have some serious bone of contention to pick with the Church and this is why they do it. Sometimes it is simply an honest inquiry but I tend to find that those in the latter category (amongst those who claim to be Catholics) to be in a very small minority.
If necessary, I can cite Brian Tierney (and Oakley) stating unequivocally that the Roman Catholic expression of the Christian Faith-- including many of the traditional claims of the Roman See--is true and that they have no wish to undermine these.
One can have all the best intentions in the world -indeed the old dictum that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind here. I have no doubt that you could cite Tierney or Oakley striving to give with the right hand what they inexorably take away with the left. I see this same approach taken with self-styled "traditionalists" every bit as much as with those you refer to who tend to fall under the category of the self-styled "progressivists."{5}
The "problem" is that unlike "conservative" Catholics (who are forever reacting against the spectral bogeyman of "liberalism", and thus often missing the forest for the trees) men like Tierney do not posit that "faith" is a simple synonym for "whatever the Church says" and so they do not feel obligated to invoke "faith" as the "one size fits all" answer to many things that the historical record says which simply do not comport with the Church's present-day claims.
Here are a few examples of why I do not take Tierney seriously Tim. These are from his book Origins of Papal Infallibility:
If the popes have always been infallible in any meaningful sense of the word—if their official pronouncements as heads of the church on matters of faith and morals have always been unerring and so irreformable - then all kinds of dubious consequences ensue. Most obviously, twentieth century popes would be bound by a whole array of past papal decrees reflecting the responses of the Roman church to the religious and moral problems of former ages...
To Tierney's credit, he at least lists a few examples:
To defend religious liberty would be "insane" and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interest on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right "not only the universal church but the whole world." Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going round the earth.
I have dealt in detail with every one of these pathetic objections over the years and none of them hold water. And I have done this with the texts taken at face value following the general norms of theological interpretation. And I can honestly say that I have never once run across any errors even in the ordinary magisterium when the subjects are compared on an apples-apples basis. But of course people like Tierney who have agendas to promote are not interested in such things -instead preferring to resort to insult and ridicule when they cannot make their case in the arena of ideas.
Ironically, I would say that such men understand the true meaning of "faith" far better than the "conservatives" who oppose them, for the former believe that God protects the Church's continuity and guarantees the ultimate success of her mission in spite of her theological errors (the classical Christian doctrine of the indefectability of the Church) while the former are driven to say that the Church has never made any significant errors from which protection was necessary.
I would presume that you meant "latter" with the last statement. Of course the problem with your formulary is that it is purely subjective in import. Who is to judge if a "significant error" has or has not been made??? As far as those which I noted of Tierney earlier, I will briefly dispatch with every one of them in another installment of this thread using previous work of mine where feasible to do. Maybe then you will not be so quick to laud the "genius" of Tierney or others like him who make a lot of pronouncements that do not survive valid scrutiny. But I digress.
Shawn readily confesses that he has not read much of Tierney's corpus, so it is understandable that he is probably not acquainted with Tierney's exchange with Father Stickler (from which I have cited on this blog) in which the two men debated the relationship of "faith" and "history" in light of the historical claims Tierney had made about the historical setting of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Interestingly, both men claimed that the disciplines of theology and history have their own respective rules and that the rules proper to one may not be able to be applied to the other without distorting its material and conclusions, but both men applied this principle differently.
That does not surprise me at all. Cardinal Stickler has a doctorate in canon law and is reasonably familiar with theological norms of interpretation. Tierney quite clearly is not and this will be exposed in the next installment of this thread. As you make more mistakes in enunciating the manner whereby Catholics understand the role of the Magisterium in subsequent parts, I will cut this section short at this time and proceed to deal with the paltry objections of Tierney in a separate thread. Stay tuned for details on that one.
Notes:
{1} I agree that this apologetical tactic is often used when it is not warranted but this is among the few times where it is not inapplicable.
{2} I do not have time to go into this at the moment.
{3} Though some periods were bleaker than others of course.
{4} I have read nothing from Oakley so I do not comment on him for that reason.
{5} I have tended to find the so-called "progressivists" to be arrogant and boastful of their so-called "superior knowledge" until someone like me pops their little hubris balloons. Then they tend to become even more insulting - all of which proves to me that they are not interested in the truth but in advancing an agenda and damn anyone who does not accept their blather with the same kind of uncritical acquiescence that they bristle at the idea of themselves having to render to anyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)