On The Passion of the Christ:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Unable to sleep as a result of a stuffy nose and sore throat, I logged on and went to the HMS blog to gather some material for my promised response to Professor Kevin Miller on abortion and politics. While there, I noticed a recommendation from Kevin to read a recent post from The Secret One on The Passion, the Jews, and the Teaching of Contempt.

If you have not read SAM's piece, by all means do so after you finish reading this. After reading his blog entry myself, I begin thinking about a point I have made before on this weblog. I need to set it up properly for the best effect so bear with me while I do just that.

The core argument of those who oppose the Passion movie{1} is that the movie would flare up the attitudes of bigots. Now obviously bigots are going to use any pretext to spew their vitriol; therefore we cannot use as a major governing criteria "what will the bigots say." That point aside for a moment, what Jules Issacs referred to as "the teaching of contempt" did (it must be confessed) permeate the Christian landscape for centuries -and did not receive the definitive axe until the Second Vatican Council's Declaration Nostra Aetate.{2} SAM goes into good detail explaining the multifaceted nature of how this view ("teaching of contempt") was reinforced -even by some canonized saints of the Church. This should not surprise anyone familiar with our wounded nature.

Indeed, readers of this humble weblog are aware that a spiritual instruction on zeal blogged back in late 2002 touched on zeal and how many errors and sins are committed daily in the name of this virtue -even by the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints themselves. That point aside, let us focus on the argument advanced against the movie viz. this concern. I must say it folks: there is hypocrisy involved here. Back when I discussed Mel Gibson and The Passion last year, I pointed out the blatant double standard.

Essentially you have those who on the one hand decry a resurrection of the view that the sins of Jews 2000 years should be revisited onto their heirs -or "the sins of the father be charged to his son" if you will. But then many of these same people cannot stop talking about Hutton Gibson and what Hutton says (or is reputed to have said) and how that should reflect how we view Mel's movie.

I thought charging sons with the crimes of their fathers was what you critics were so concerned with. Why then, pray tell, do you whine about the evil of this practice in the case of modern Jews (being charged with the sins of Caiphus and the like) while you simultaneously castigate Mel Gibson for the sins of Hutton Gibson??? How can anyone take you seriously when you are so unfaithful to your own set standards here??? I want to see an answer to the above questions or else I cannot take critics of Mel's film any more seriously than I do the presidential viability of Reverend Al Sharpton.

Some of SAM's post was a critique of various criticisms of Bill Cork on the film. And Bill, much as the other critics I noted, also has no shortage of hypocrisy on this subject. In Bill's case though, it is not extending the same courtesy towards the so-called "traditionalists" that he seeks to have extended towards Jews and Lutherans. I recognize that he would have a greater closeness to the latter two than the former but that is no excuse.

Principles which are not consistent however are not principles at all. Instead, they are shallow expedients. As far as his current criticisms, I must say that they do not carry much weight with me at all. I realize he has seen the film and I have not (yet) but Bill bitched and moaned about the film for months before he even saw a preview of it. As he went into the project prejudiced against it from the get-go -pious platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding- expecting a reasonably objective analysis from his keyboard after his trackrecord throughout 2003 on this subject is a greater longshot than Detroit winning the World Series in 2004.

Furthermore, in responding to Bill's constant criticisms of the film and of Mel Gibson, I noted that he was too quick to ascribe certain details to apparitions of personages such as Venerable Anne-Catherine Emmerich rather than read his own Bible a bit more carefully and see probable areas which were being referred to. As I noted in the aforementioned response:

[This is] a reinforcement of the stereotype that "traditionalists" never read their Bible.

So let me see, stereotypes about penny pinching Christ-killing Jews are anathema but obviously{3} stereotypes about biblically obtuse, apparition worshipping, unintelligent and anti-semitic "traditionalists" are fair game. By their example as well as their words, so many of Mel's critics fulfill one of the dictums from George Orwell's Animal Farm.{4} Please pardon those of us who dismiss the views of such people out of a concern for fidelity to principles. In the case of this writer, it is the non existent consistency in the case of the bulk of Gibson's critics that is the primary disqualifying criteria.{5} But that is enough musing for now, I want to close with a reiteration of the core question of this post:

Essentially you have those who on the one hand decry a resurrection of the view that the sins of Jews 2000 years should be revisited onto their heirs -or "the sins of the father be charged to his son" if you will. But then many of these same people cannot stop talking about Hutton Gibson and what Hutton says (or is reputed to have said) and how that should reflect how we view Mel's movie.

I thought charging sons with the crimes of their fathers was what you critics were so concerned with. Why then, pray tell, do you whine about the evil of this practice in the case of modern Jews (being charged with the sins of Caiphus and the like) while you simultaneously castigate Mel Gibson for the sins of Hutton Gibson???

Again, I must ask how you can expect anyone to take you seriously when you are so unfaithful to your own set standards.

Notes:

{1} Which I am strongly considering seeing on Ash Wednesday to open Lent.

{2} Which set forth what faithful Catholics are expected to hold viz. how the Jews are viewed. The so-called "theology of contempt" viewpoint (common in some extremist so-called "traditionalist" circles) is explicitly rejected in that Declaration.

{3} Based on how critics of The Passion do not mind doing unto Mel what they do not want done unto them. That this is a violation of Torah (according to the Talmud) is only one of the sad ironies of this situation in light of whom many of Gibson's critics are.

{4} I refer here to (paraphrasing) "[a]ll are equal but some are more equal than others."

{5} The secondary (and by no means insignificant) disqualifying criteria is the positions of some Orthodox Jews whom I highly respect who are on Mel Gibson's side on this matter. (Most notably movie critic and talk show host Michael Medved and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition.)

The Abortion Litmus Test Issue:
(Note of a Forthcoming Response to Kevin Miller)

In the public arena, Professor Kevin Miller has defended a position that seems to be prevalent among faithful Catholics viz. how to vote in political elections. I noted earlier that I would be responding to this bearing as it does on some of the discussions that Kevin seems to be having in the public forum at this time. However, I also noted last week the problem of time constraints being even more of a factor now than they were previously.{1} So all of these elements require a proper balance and if there is one element that Rerum Novarum has always focused on it is balance.{2}

So I note this so that Professor Miller and others who take pretty much the same position that he does (including my good friend Pete Vere) that I will be responding to their arguments in time. I hope to do so by Sunday but I cannot make any guarantees. Nonetheless, the tentative goal is on or before this coming Sunday afternoon. I also plan to use some of a private email that Kevin sent to me on this subject after I expressed some off-the-record comments on the matter in a previous email to him. (And I will probably use parts of that email I sent as well.)

I note this upfront because if Kevin has objections to me doing this, he should let me know by email about it. The response time if he does not want those sources used would be even longer than it already will be so I would ask him to take that into account if he has objections.{3} But I have to get back to business matters now so that is all I have time to note at this time.

Notes:

{1} Unlike more recent responses where I have not even had to put much actual effort into the response except for the typing part, Kevin makes some very trenchant points. I therefore cannot merely throw a response out there or else I would not do my own position proper justice. (Nor would I be giving Professor Miller's position the respect that it deserves.)

So I will start a response if not late tonight than early tomorrow morning and perhaps work on it Saturday morning as well as time affords. (And post it Sunday morning.) It is not that the response will necessarily be a long one that will delay this response. However, the arguments themselves touch on the realm of moral theology and that is Professor Miller's strong suit if memory serves. So I have to weigh what I say carefully -particularly since (i) I am not a "manual theology" kind of thinker and (ii) Kevin is a formidable theologian.

{2} No, this is not the same thing as so-called "moderates" in the political arena refer to. The difference between the two is that political "moderates" (and presumably many who consider themselves "religious progressives") have a lack of principle whereas my approach seeks to look at the whole picture. (Not just select parts of the photograph that appeal to my particular whims or wants.) This is a distinction with a difference and a significant one at that.

{3} There was nothing of a "personal" nature in that email he sent me -and of course if there was it would not be used anyway.

More Mailbag Material:
(Aka "Exposing Another Pseudo-'Traditionalist'" Dept.)

With the exception of some new material (see footnote one), this is almost verbatim text from an email which was sent out Tuesday evening. It is a continuation of the thread located HERE in some respects.

my dear bugnini,

[rest of text deleted]

XXXX you walked right into the trap I set for you. You are a propagandist precisely as I suspected.{1} There is no talking to people like you; hence I am not even going to try after this email goes out. Only two points to address and then I am finished with you.

As far as my work goes, I stand by every position taken and assert that you cannot find for me one single author who has taken more effort than I have to allow their readers to actually verify his use of sources. Unlike your sources, I have nothing to worry about in this area.

I am used to running into my share of people like you. When the attempt to intimidate me with links fails, then the real side of you comes out in view. Since you cannot interact intelligently with my arguments, you have to try subtle character assassination tactics. (The "bugnini" tag being but one example of what I refer to here.)

I have no time to court pernicious prevaricating poltroons like you. When you decide to discuss actual liturgical history rather than the confessional propaganda of pseudo-quack liturgical "scholars" -and garden variety sophistic arguments-{2} then email me back. But not until you have had time to actually do some studying.

For that reason, any email I see from you in the next six months will be deleted unread. And if I see the same drivel in emails after that time (should you send any), it will be another six month period of deleting your stuff unread. And that is how it will continue until you start showing some authentic Christian charity.{3}

In the meantime, you can return to your vomit (cf. 2 Pet. ii,22) as I have more important matters to tend to than entertaining such "blind guides who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel" (Matt. xxiii,24). Oh and do not bother writing until August 17th because all emails of yours will be deleted unread until then. (So there is no reason to waste time writing until that time.)

PS I leave you with the following words for reflection:

"[T]hose who cling to the 'Tridentine Missal' have a faulty view of the historical facts. Yet at the same time, the way in which the renewed Missal was presented is open to much criticism. We must say to the 'Tridentines' that the Church's liturgy is alive, like the Church herself, and is thus always involved in a process of maturing which exhibits greater and lesser changes. Four hundred years is far too young an age for the Catholic liturgy - because in fact it reaches right back to Christ and the apostles and has come down to us from that time in a single, constant process. The Missal can no more be mummified than the Church herself.

Yet, with all its advantages, the new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual grown process. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth, and it has resulted in the nonsensical notion that Trent and Pius V had 'produced' a Missal four hundred years ago. The Catholic liturgy was thus reduced to the level of a mere product of modern times. This loss of perspective is really disturbing.

Although very few of those who express their uneasiness have a clear picture of these interrelated factors, there is an instinctive grasp of the fact that liturgy cannot be the result of Church regulations, let alone professional erudition, but, to be true to itself, must be the fruit of the Church’s life and vitality.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents in concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.

In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church's earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy Ignatius Press, San Francisco, Ca, pgs. 86-87 (c. 1986)]

Notes:

{1} I knew a response like the one I previously wrote to you would elicit one of three possible responses. Either you would (i) email in a more irenic tone voicing any perceived disagreements in an reasonably intelligent manner.

If this was not the case, then there was always that you would (ii) email a venomous tone whereby you would reveal some semblance of a fruitful future dialogue after perhaps some initial rough exchanges. (Mainly because despite the tone you would still strive to make some good arguments against certain positions I have espoused: less preferable than the first option but at least workable.)

Or finally, (iii) you would send a venomous email lacking any semblance of decency or any attempt to sustain your previous generalizing statements -opting instead to utilize insults and gutteral invective completely unfit for someone who actually is capable of interacting intelligently with the viewpoints of other people.

Based on the manner whereby you sent those three emails, I sensed that the third option was likely applicable but was not completely sure. To test my assumption, I crafted a response to test my assumption on the matter. And by the very kind of response that you sent to me, you stepped right into the trap and revealed your true colours as a pseudo-"traditionalist" polemicist who has no inkling about what they are talking about.

All you can do is send links and argue as the example in footnote two outlines. So go peddle your facile pseudo "traditionalist" hypocritcal crap elsewhere XXXX, you will not find any buyers here.

{2} How to Argue Like a Sophist in Ten Minutes

As I noted already, the above link applies to you in spades XXXX.

{3} Spiritual Instruction on Charity

Though any of the instructions subjects I have blogged on would apply to you XXXX, this one is particularly apparent. (With the instruction on authentic zeal being a close second.)

I got this quiz from The Old Oligarch and will interact with it bit by bit much as he did his results.

Your Brain Usage Profile

Auditory : 40%
Visual : 60%
Left : 63%
Right : 36%

Shawn, you are somewhat left-hemisphere dominant and show a preference for visual learning, although not extreme in either characteristic. You probably tend to do most things in moderation, but not always.

So far this is accurate.

Your left-hemisphere dominance implies that your learning style is organized and structured, detail oriented and logical. Your visual preference, though, has you seeking stimulation and multiple data. Such an outlook can overwhelm structure and logic and create an almost continuous state of uncertainty and agitation. You may well suffer a feeling of continually trying to "catch up" with yourself.

This is a strange analysis -more of a mixed bag than solidly accurate. I seldom have uncertainty on any subject for long -though I do tend to wait for a position to crystallize before I start writing on it most of the time. But that is because I tend to approach subjects methodologically even when there is no apparent method involved. (Sorta like thinking three to seven moves ahead in chess.) That is not to say that I am always cool and calculating of course -Lord knows that is not true. But the balance of the time I do not have the kind of agitation that the test notes that my profile is susceptible to.

Your tendency to be organized and logical and attend to details is reasonably well-established which should afford you success regardless of your chosen field of endeavor. You can "size up" situations and take in information rapidly. However, you must then subject that data to being classified and organized which causes you to "lose touch" with the immediacy of the problem.

Okay, one point that must be made is that I am not as perfectly attuned to details as this analysis implies. And the rather "perfectionistic" attitude of subjecting data to "classification" and "organization" is also inaccurate. The parts about "sizing up" situations and rapidly taking in information is accurate though. (Though when I was younger I was more of a "sponge" in this regard.)

Your logical and methodical nature hamper you in this regard though in the long run it may work to your advantage since you "learn from experience" and can go through the process more rapidly on subsequent occasions.

This is accurate in that I do learn from experience and the same processes can be done quicker in subsequent situations than they can initially. But that is to some extent par for the course with a lot of left-brain dominant people.

You remain predominantly functional in your orientation and practical. Abstraction and theory are secondary to application. In keeping with this, you focus on details until they manifest themselves in a unique pattern and only then work with the "larger whole."

This is quite accurate actually.

With regards to your career choices, you have a mentality that would be good as a scientist, coach, athlete, design consultant, or an engineering technician. You can "see where you want to go" and even be able to "tell yourself," but find that you are "fighting yourself" at the darndest times.

I have been an athlete, a consultant, and also (in some capacities) a counselor of sorts. So these picks are accurate in that regard. (I am also currently a consultant as well in the finance field.)

As far as "fighting" myself, I do at times fight myself sure. That is the nature of the beast viz. having a speculative aspect to my musings. There is always the struggle to insure that one looks at things as they are rather than as one wants them to be.

My occasional overly-idealistic "engage the culture and change it for the better" inclinations tend to be balanced out by my occasional inclinations towards a "40 acres and a generator" like Donatist separation from it all. In that sense perhaps I am "conflicted" but it is a paradoxical element that I have come to accept in myself -particularly as I have gotten older.

In summary, this is a mostly accurate analysis of me; however there are areas which are not applicable. However, these tests often note probable tendencies and of course they are a form of "pop psychology" so in that respect there will be a degree of inaccuracy. But some areas are interestingly accurate nonetheless.

Ultrabrief Responses to Tim Enloe:

On the Papacy

On Society in General and Approaches to Renewing It

[Update: There is a response from Tim and a further response from me at the first link above. - ISM 5:15pm]

"Tales from the Mailbag" Dept.

XXXX:

I was going to respond irenically to your first two emails; however this email changed my mind on that matter:

shawn,reading your article reminds me of what chesterton said to colton he seems to know so much but understands so little.

Which "article" of mine are you referring to??? I have written many articles.{1} Some specificity here would be in order. Also, if you want to criticize an article without pointing to the areas you take issue with (and why you do), how can I be expected to take you seriously???

i suggest a book you should read HOW CHRIST SAID THE FIRST MASS author FR.JAMES L.MEAGHER,D.D. you may learn something.

These are pretty arrogant words on your part XXXX. This you may learn something comment is the kind of stuff that pompous blowhards say. A bit of humility on your part would go a long way.

alas it was written after that most important council of all vaticanll so you may not be interested.

This is rather intriguing. I wrote most of my work contra false "traditionalism" with predominantly pre-Vatican II sources to show that the theories advanced by the so-called "traditionalists" cannot even pass muster with the common sources of the pre-Vatican II era.

This was also done because most so-called "traditionalists" have a hermeneutic of suspicion about anything that is concurrent to or subsequent to Vatican II. Now you come along and castigate me for not using enough post Vatican II sources!!! The irony here is thick enough to cut with a machete.

There is also the fact that you are all over the map here XXXX. First you email me with an article from the dioceses report (which I will get to shortly). Then you email me with an article from one Deitrich Von Hildebrand on the liturgy.{2} Now you send a book recommendation. If not for the fact that I have probably read a lot more on this subject than you have{3} -and definitely from much more than confessional sources as well-{4} I would laugh at the manner whereby you approach me.

I have news for you XXXX: I do not need other people to do my research or my thinking for me. I utilize confessional scholarship as a rule with several grains of salt because it is at times too selectively researched. (As in "we cannot admit to anything that would put in a bad light 'the agenda'" -that particular agenda in question varying with the group involved.){5} So your articles with their gratuitous statements that I happen to know are blatantly false...well...why should I uncritically accept what they have to say???

since i know you will not respond i shall keep you in my prayers...XXXX XXXXXXX

Usually people who say "I know you will not respond" are trying to get people into responding to them. Usually I do not fall for this trick but I will make an exception this time. But before I close this email, a quick address of your other two emails is in order so here goes.

Email #2

[link snipped]

shawn,one more article to help you understand how inferior the new mass is...GOD BLESS YOU...XXXX XXXXXXX

Email #1

[link snipped]

sir,read article above so that perhaps you may have a glimmer of what is really at stake...XXXX XXXXXXX

XXXX, I find the article you refer to above to be rather facile in its analysis. If I had time, I would explain in detail why this is so; nonetheless I have gone over related subjects at my weblogs more times than I can count. As I have emailed you this link to my main weblog, you can thereby review these matters if you so choose.

The idea that there is no authentic pluralism in Catholicsm involves quite an ignorance of Church history.{6} I read your other email as well. I appreciate your concern but I have studied these issues in depth and have written on them in the past. My positions not only have not changed since the articles I wrote in the past but further research has in many areas only confirmed and sustained my previous theses.

If you want to take issue with any of them, you need to make it clear which ones and why. Then perhaps an intelligent discussion can be had. This broadbrush attempt to avoid interacting with my arguments is old and quite predictable. Usually it comes from people who -upon having a discussion with them- it becomes clear that they have not actually read my work at all. (At best they have scanned it to cherry-pick statements from their context to set up the man of straw.) You will have to pardon me if I have no patience whatsoever with such people -though I have yet to conclude that you are among them.

Now if you want to discuss these subjects in a dispassionate and logical manner, I have no objections. However, my time for dialogue at this time is not very extensive. I would suggest though that before any such discussion is made that you at least read my treatise confuting false "traditionalism."

The three sections in that work which treat on the mass (a macro examination and a two part micro examination) go into a fair amount of detail as to why the common garden variety arguments against the Revised Missal by Latin mass partisans have little if any merit to them from an *objective* standpoint. I also have a short primer essay on the mass which can be accessed at my weblog which was written about four years ago.

Now obviously I am not going to begrudge people their own liturgical preferences.{7} However, I have little patience by my own admission of the prevarications of the una voce crowd and their resident quack scholar Michael Davies.

Also, do not think that I am one of those people who will simply accept something because a book was written about it. I have found a number of mistakes in often recommend books on these kinds of subjects. Confessional scholarship tends to have its share of select omissions since its interest is primarily in promoting an agenda. In this environment, facts that undermine such "agendas" are either dismissed in short form or glossed over. As I have no patience whatsoever for such duplicity from any side of a dispute, you should keep that in mind in any discussion you want to have with me.

Again I must note that if you want to discuss these issues, do not waste my time with confessional style drivel -such as the stuff of Michael Davies or others of his ilk.{8} I and associates of mine have discredited much of his work on the liturgy already along with some other confessional style so-called "scholars." I do not have time for those kinds of forays anymore for a variety of reasons; however, if you want to have a discussion on the subject of the liturgy, that will be fine with me. But it had better be a discussion and not you sending me a bunch of links to read.

If we balanced out who has read what, I should be the one sending you stuff to read XXXX. Indeed with regards to the mass I am doing just that in recommending the three treatise urls on the mass. The mass primer essay can be seen as "extra credit" and is not in my view necessary for reading if we are to have an intelligent discussion on these matters. I document my sources very well -certainly better than any of the articles you have sent me have done. Keep that in mind at all times because there is a reason I utilize sources as I do -and try to make them easily accessible for my readers.{9}

Having noted all of that, I do nonetheless thank you for your prayers and you can be assured of mine in return.

Notes:

{1} Counting web essays and print periodical essays, there are probably thirty essays I have written either by myself or as a coauthor in the past four years. So phrases such as "your article" are about as specific as statements like "that sentence in the Declaration of Independence."

{2} Von Hildebrand was a moral theologian (and a very good one at that), not a liturgical scholar.

{3} Unless you have a couple decades plus on me in age as my good friend F. John Loughnan does, my assumptions are darn certain. (I doubt I have read as much on these matters as FJL has but I digress.)

{4} Which were often little better than propaganda.

{5} And The Dioceses Report is replete with confessional style polemicists and propagandists. Whatever "wheat" is there would require a "chaff sifter" and I do not have that kind of time. (And what time I do have there are a hell of a lot more productive ways to utilize it than quibbling with those whose visions of the older liturgy are not inconvenienced by such things as facts.)

{6} Indeed I would argue that many who are aware of this variegation do not fully grasp what it entails. For example, my good friend Tim Enloe is a Reformed amateur historian/theologian. He is in the process of setting forth a theory on church government that involves various strains of divergent authority spanning the centuries. His theory -though it will have its difficulties which I hope to address in time- is far more accurate than your confessional propaganda of the "the church never changes" prevarication.

Indeed no serious historian or theologian can take this assertion seriously. The variegation of Church disciplines, theology, and customs is a factor that must be squarely faced by anyone who wants to be taken seriously and not be dismissed as a propagandist.

It is certainly true that those who delve into this subject have a good possibility of being swept away by its current. Nonetheless, I have a lot more patience for those who honestly strive grapple with this factor -however they may do so- than those who claim that it did not exist or indeed do not acknowledge it.

(As was par for the course in the days of confessional polemics and the prevarication of the "unchanging church" that held sway from roughly the French Revolution until Vatican II.)

So far you have not shown that you want to interact with this factor XXXX. Hopefully, this post can serve as a prod to get you to do so.

{7} As authentic catholicity -in direct contrast to the article you sent me on that subject- is unity of faith in diversity of expression.

{8} See footnote four.

{9} Oh, I would also suggest before reading those mass sections that you carefully read the treatise's disclaimer. (In the first url.) If I do not say this upfront, I can anticipate the kinds of email response I will likely get from those who think I am using certain terms in a broader sense than I really am.

"Waaaas-tin' Aw-aaay A-gain in Sede-va-cant-a-villeeee" Dept.
(Loook-in' for myyyy lost paaaa-pal chairrrr...)

This entry will deal not only with sedevacantism but also with the theme of justification by faith. Since I have received four emails in the past two days from sedevacantist disciple Bridget Burrows, it seems appropriate to deal with them here.{1} It also seems appropriate in light of some questions I plan to ask of certain Reformed associates (in the coming weeks or months) to get this subject out of the way early on.

Bridget's words in this post will be in dark yellow. I have determined not only to make this a magisterial exercise of the Welborn Protocol but also to not follow my usual protocol of omitting the mention of people's names without their concurrence to do so. Readers who see this as a reason not to email me can rest assured that I very seldom do what they are reading here.

I think I have only one or two other times posted people's names without their concurrence -explicitly or implied- in eighteen months of blogging. And I have blogged numerous dialogues in that span of time. My rule is not to do this but it admits of exceptions. I will now explain briefly why this is a departure from my normal approach.

The reason is because Bridget seems not at all interested in interacting with my work,{2} -but instead of peppering my email box with articles to "prove" I am wrong. And I of course have little patience for such people. She is also not exactly a neophyte garden variety sede but is instead a resolute despiser of JP II for at least four years.

For these reasons, I see no reason to allow her to benefit from the cloak of anonymity as per my usual applications of the Welborn Protocol. The latter is reserved for those who actually do try to interact with my arguments however well they actually succeed in doing so. (Or who have legitimate questions or criticisms.)

The issue with me in other words is how one approaches disagreement with another. One can do so honestly and above board -and about 95% of those who email me with disagreements do this. But there are also those who do not do this. Since Bridget falls into the latter group, she needs to be called out to put up or...well...you know.

Again, Bridget's words will be in dark yellow font and the sources she recommends will be in purple font when I quote them. My other references will be in darkblue font.

The Joint Declaration contains alot of heresy. See the following link:

[link snipped]

Bridget, Bro. Michael Dimond cannot even get his starting definitions of significant terms right. The axiom that a small error in the beginning leads often to a huge error at the end applies here -except these are large errors at the beginning.

If small errors in the beginning can lead to large errors at the end, large errors at the beginning can lead to errors of Ruthian proportions when everything is said and done. And the latter is what happens with virtually everything Dimond writes on any subject. Here is how he defines heresy, schism, and apostasy:

A Heretic is a baptized person who rejects an authoritative teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.? A schismatic is a person who refuses communion with a true Pope or refuses communion with true Catholics.?An apostate is a person who rejects the Christian faith completely.

My 1941 Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary Tenth Edition (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur 1930) defines heresy and schism significantly differently than Bro. Dimond does. A heretic is defined as someone who willfully doubts or denies a dogma of Catholic faith. The same dictionary makes it clear that only formal heretics are heretics in the truest sense. Material heretics -as most Protestants, Orthodox, and non-Catholics are- are only referred to as heretics in an improper sense.{3}

Again, this is a pre-Vatican II dictionary that defined these terms and it went through twenty five editions or more and was still being printed at least as late as 1997. The definition of heresy is the same in the 1997 edition of the work as it is in my 1941 edition. It is also the same definition that the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church uses.

There is a hell of a lot more to authoritative teaching than dogmas of faith. Someone can accept all dogmas of faith and they are still not out of the woods. There is still schism and schism is defined as the refusal to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff or hold communion with those who are subject to him.{4} Again the 1997 edition has the same definition as my 1941 edition. And this also the same definition of the term that the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church uses.

Bro. Dimond's stupid patchwork definitions are amateurish to the core. At least he got the definition of apostasy right. A .333 batting average is great for a baseball player but it absolutely stinks for a theologian -let alone someone who has "reformer"-like pretensions as to their own competency and/or delusions of possessing the special ear of the Holy Spirit.

Let us touch on a few of the idiotic statements from this thread you sent me:

The Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification is so heretical that there are almost no words to describe it. It completely repudiates the Council of Trent.

This is a pernicious prevarication as soon will be summarily noted in this response.

With regards to a statement about how the anathemas do not apply to Lutherans of today, the link states the following:

This means that the remaining differences between Lutherans and Catholics on Justification - for example, the fact that Lutherans don't accept the Council of Trent's Decree on Justification as dogmatic - are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.? This is blatantly HERETICAL.

No, this means that the excommunications (which is what "anathema" means) do not apply to the Lutherans because they are no longer within the ecclesiastical body. You cannot expel someone from the body who is not already within it.

There is also the issue of whether the proscribed position actually is what the Lutherans profess. The infallibility of Trent's definitions applies only to the teachings themselves, not whether or not the teachings actually apply to certain individuals.

The Church has never ruled on the latter at any time when it comes to the various Protestant sects. While it is true that the Church can rule on matters such as dogmatic facts -which includes determining the objective sense of a given text- the entire issue of dogmatic facts did not even arise until the later Jansenist heresy. It is therefore the heighth of anachronistic error to retroject this principle back to the days of Trent when the issue was not even on the radar screen.

The very fact that the Lutherans don't accept the Council of Trent's Decree on Justification as dogmatic is an occasion for their doctrinal condemnation.

The Lutherans of today claim that the sense of sola fide as proscribed by Trent's decree and canons does not apply to what they profess the term to mean. Are you claiming that Trent in the sixteenth century could define infallibly what Lutherans in the twentieth century understand viz. the meaning of a core term??? Such an assertion is utterly ridiculous on the one hand.

On the other, it shows a serious lack of charity as that term is properly understood in the Catholic spiritual tradition. This is a pretty significant oversight by someone claiming to be "more Traditional than thou" as you sedes always do Bridget.

Now none of this means that the proscriptions of Trent are invalidated by any means. Instead, it means that the sense in which the term was condemned in by Trent does not correspond to that which the Lutherans of today profess.

Part of charity authentically understood is to not bear false witness against our neighbour. And if our neighbour claims that we are misrepresenting their view, it is pretty arrogant and prideful for us to be telling them that we know better what they believe than they do!!! Charity according to St. Paul is not presumptuous is not puffed up; ergo we should not take such an approach as you sedes continually do.{5}

With regard to the definitions and declarations of the Council of Trent, the expression sola fide is condemned in the sense outlined in the decree, not necessarily in the sense that a reader of Trent's decree attaches to the term. This is a very fundamental principle of proper (and traditional) theological interpretation which you sedevacantists miss completely.

These are the same problems that trip you guys up in discussing subjects such as religious liberty ala Quanta Cura or Mirari Vos, and the various propositions of the Syllabus of Errors. (To name a couple examples of legion that could be listed.)

Again, condemnations are very precisely worded and the same expression can have several applications. St. Thomas' use of sola fide was orthodox; Fr. Luther's from what we can determine was not. But just because Fr. Luther's was probably not does not mean that modern day Lutherans stance on this point is the same as what the formers definition of the term appears to be.

Anyone who actually knows a whit about Lutheran positions knows that modern Lutherans are hardly aligned with their founder on many points of doctrine. For example, Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, modern day Lutherans almost never do. Luther believed in confession -albeit not as a sacrament- modern day Lutherans almost never do.

Why should any reasonable person believe that somehow Luther's enunciated position on sola fide -one which Trent appears to have condemned- is the same one that modern Lutherans profess???{6}

After the document indicates that the sense of the Lutheran understanding of sola fide -determined by actually talking with them and not by simply accepting Lutheran understanding from Catholic sources, the link you provide says the following:

This means that none of the teaching of the Lutherans in the JD is condemned by the Council of Trent! But in the JD (Joint Declaration), besides the other heresies taught by the Lutherans (as we will see), the Lutheran churches teach the heresy of Justification by "faith alone," which was condemned by the Council of Trent approximately 13 times.

This is fundamentalist stupidity to the nth degree!!! If sola fide is heretical than you had better strike from your calendar canonized saints who held to a form of sola fide understanding. (But not in the sense that Fr. Luther most likely did.) You can start with St. Thomas who is canonized and whose work has been recommended by at least twenty-five popes including not only JP II, Paul VI, and John XXIII but also (i) Pius XII, (ii) Pius XI, (iii) Benedict XV, (iv) Pius X, (v) Leo XIII, (vi) Pius IX, (vii) Pius VI, etc.

I guess these popes are all heretics by your definition then as is St. Thomas. Does that mean your line of "true popes" ends at about 1323 (the year John XXII canonized St. Thomas)??? Remember, this man is a heretic according to you because he affirmed the term sola fide both in his Summa and also in one of his most famous hymns.

Let us consider the following words from a hymn written by St. Thomas Aquinas which is the Office Hymn for the Feast of Corpus Christi. The English (regular font) will follow the Latin (dark blue font) in sequence so the verses are properly understood -the parts of the passages which are in question will be highlighted:

PANGE LINGUA

In supremae nocte coenae
Recumbens cum fratribus
Observata lege plene
Cibis in legalibus
Cibum turbae duodenae
Se dat suis manibus.

At the last great supper lying
Circled by his chosen band,
Duly with the law complying,
First he finished its command,
Then, immortal food supplying,
Gave himself by his own hand.

Verbum caro panem verum
Verbo camem efficit
Fitque sanguis Christi merum
Et si sensus deficit.
Ad firmandum cor sincerum
Sola fides sufficit.

Word-made-flesh, by word he maketh
Bread his very flesh to be;
Man in wine Christ's blood partaketh:
And if senses fail to see,
The heart's sincerity is unmoved
By faith alone sufficiently.

The point St. Thomas makes in the hymn is that the mystery of the Real Presence if the senses fail to understand it -which is inevitable due to transubstantiation- then the heart is truely awakened to behold the mystery by faith alone.{7}

Nor is this the only example of St. Thomas resorting to the concept of faith alone to explain a mystery -he also does so in the Summa when outlining how we to some extent understand God's existence.{8}

Now then, is St. Thomas a heretic or not??? If the Council of Trent in condemning sola fide 13 times (as Dimond claims) suffices to make heretics out of JP II and Ratzinger (for accepting the term in a specific sense) then what about Aquinas doing the exact same thing??? No equivocation please, if the term sola fide is always heretical, you have a serious problem with your position.

For if you make exceptions for St. Thomas and the Pius XII and earlier popes, then you are a brood of hypocritical vipers for not accepting the same allowances to be made in the case of John XXIII, Paul VI, JP II, and Cardinal Ratzinger. And there is no way around this no matter how you try to spin it so put up on this challenge Bridget. Otherwise...well...ceasing to talk about it (to put it nicely) would be in order.

It is not difficult to show that any term admits of various possible definitions. You can pick many words from the dictionary and prove this point to yourself. Only idiotic blockheaded fundamentalist stubbornness due to a desire to follow certain teachers according to your own lusts (cf. 2 Tim. iv,3-4) would prevent you from doing this.

I will expect in the future that you interact with my treatise material or else you are considered by me henceforth dismissed from being considered credible for proper dialogue. In short Bridget, when you decide you want to discuss these things intelligently, only then email me. Until then, your emails of phantom "heresies" -along with shoddy theological understanding and crackpot conspiracy theories- will all be summarily deleted from my lycos account.

For I do not have the time nor the desire to deal with such stupidity from people who are so obviously unlearned (as Dimond is) and unstable (as Dimond and his followers are). What I touch on in this response is only the tip of the iceberg but it is enough to highlight why Dimond cannot be taken seriously. He is a quack theologian, a schismatic, and a heretic. Hitch your wagon to him if you like but I remind you of the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch:

"Do not be deceived my brethren. Whoseoever follows him who makes a schism in the Church shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Whosoever follows strange opinions has no part in the Passion."

I will pray for you to abjure your association with craven heretics and obstinate schismatics and for your eventual reunion with the Mystical Body of Christ. But until you fulfill the criteria for dialogue that I have set forth, no more shall I respond to you.

Dialogue at its root must be truthful, otherwise it is fraudulent. You have shown no interest in interacting with my work or honestly interacting with the contents of the Joint Declaration or the ramifications that logically flow from it. Why pray tell should I listen therefore to anything you have to say???

Notes:

{1} I would blog this to The Lidless Eye Inquisition but this particular issue has some notable ecumenical signification; ergo, I have posted it to this humble weblog.

{2} For readers interested in the context of this exchange, it started when Bridget sent me an email the subject line of which read "sedevacantism refuted?" I thought it was a question about my essay A Refutation of the Heresy of Sedevacantism or my treatise confuting false 'traditionalism' from which the above essay material was extracted.

However, in opening the email, I saw nothing of the sort. Instead, she was sending me an article that took issue with the work of one Fr. Brian W. Harrison on sedevacantism. Now I had quoted Fr. Brian W. Harrison's article in my essay but it was not something that was necessary for sustaining the thesis I set forth on sedevacantism as a heresy.

Since her response to that writing so obviously proves that she did not read my piece on sedevacantism at all -which at about seven pages or less relieves her of any invincible ignorance in my eyes on this regard unless she cannot read- I sent her a scathing email in true Boniface VIII Unam Sanctum tonalities.

Now she sends three more emails to me with links. As the second two are built on the same fallacies as the first link she sent and she apparently does not want to interact with my treatise contra 'traditionalism' or give it its due -a condition I set forth explicitly in my email response to her- I see no reason to take her seriously at all.

{3} While there is value in using these terms in addressing really spiteful or bigoted people, they are completely inappropriate in addressing other Christians who manifest no contempt or hatred towards us or our beliefs and/or traditions. And no Bridget, disagreement with us -even strident disagreement- is not the same as hatred of us.

{4} See footnote three as the same principles apply to schism as apply to heresy.

{5} And what Bridget implies in her support for Dimond's stuff is precisely the kind of pseudo-"charity" that the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition unanimously proscribe.

{6} These are only a few points of the joint declaration where faith alone (or sola fide) is mentioned. I will quote some them in context so that the reader can judge for themselves who properly represents them -this weblog writer or the pernicious prevaricating poltroon Michael Dimond.

According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide). In faith they place their trust wholly in their Creator and Redeemer and thus live in communion with him. God himself effects faith as he brings forth such trust by his creative word. Because God's act is a new creation, it affects all dimensions of the person and leads to a life in hope and love.

In the doctrine of "justification by faith alone," a distinction but not a separation is made between justification itself and the renewal of one's way of life that necessarily follows from justification and without which faith does not exist. Thereby the basis is indicated from which the renewal of life proceeds, for it comes forth from the love of God imparted to the person in justification. Justification and renewal are joined in Christ, who is present in faith.

The Catholic understanding also sees faith as fundamental in justification. For without faith, no justification can take place. Persons are justified through baptism as hearers of the word and believers in it. The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him.[Cf. DS 1530.] This new personal relation to God is grounded totally on God's graciousness and remains constantly dependent on the salvific and creative working of this gracious God, who remains true to himself, so that one can rely upon him.

Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession to which one could appeal over against God. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the renewal of life by justifying grace, this renewal in faith, hope, and love is always dependent on God's unfathomable grace and contributes nothing to justification about which one could boast before God (Rom 3:27). [See Sources for section 4.3].

In short, the Lutherans see faith as being a composite of faith, hope, and charity whereas Catholics see faith, hope, and charity as outlined by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians xiii. And when the sources for section 4.3 are looked at, here is what we find:

"If we translate from one language to another, then Protestant talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic talk about justification through grace; and on the other hand, Protestant doctrine understands substantially under the one word 'faith' what Catholic doctrine (following 1 Cor. 13:13) sums up in the triad of 'faith, hope, and love'" (LV:E 52).

The Council of Trent affirms the Catholic understanding in its Decree on Justification viz. the meaning of the word "faith":

[F]aith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace. [Trent Session VI, Chapter IX]

Earlier in Chapter VII, Trent says the following:

For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity.

Now then, if Trent defines faith as apart from hope and charity and Lutherans see faith as encompassing hope and charity -as the Lutheran World Federation says they do, then this is not a case of apples and apples as Dimond and his deluded drones so assert that it is. Instead, it is apples and oranges since each side defines "faith" differently.

And it is because each side defines "faith" differently that the condemnations of Trent of "faith alone" -based on the Catholic understanding of faith- do not necessarily apply to the Lutherans of today who affirm that they define the term differently than we do. Though the term is mentioned a couple more times, it is no different in its conception than the sections just mentioned.

For those reasons, nothing that Dimond and his deluded disciples write on this subject is taken seriously by anyone who is reasonably informed of the professed faiths of the Catholic and Lutheran traditions. I would recommend for this subject that you read this paper on the entire subject written by Catholic convert Bill Cork. As a former Lutheran minister, Bill has read more on Luther than I have or probably anyone else who is part of St. Blog's. He certainly knows more about these subjects than Dimond and his drones do.

Another essay I recommend on the subject of justification is one that I wrote about four years ago and reformatted last year. It can be read HERE and is a more encompassing essay than just the Lutheran point of view.

But first and foremost if you want my attention in the future on your pet issues Bridget, my aforementioned treatise -of which the sedevacantism article you originally referred to is but a small extract of- is required reading if we are to discuss these issues. Otherwise, I will delete your emails unread and shake the dust from my shoes at your impenitent town (cf. Luke x,1-16; cf. Acts xiii,51) and move on.

{7} For there is nothing else such a belief can be based on since all sense perception fails to sustain it.

{8} And of course there is the hymn Tantum Ergo sung at many a Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament ceremony over the past six hundred odd years:

TANTUM ERGO

Tantum ergo Sacramentum
Veneremur cernui
Et antiquum documentum
Novo cedat ritui.
Praestet fides supplementum
Sensuum defectui

Down in adoration falling
Lo the Sacred Host we hail
Older ancient forms departing
Newer rites of grace prevail
Faith, for all defects supplying
Where the feeble senses fail

The principle is the same here: faith supplies for what our feeble senses cannot. And since the Real Presence cannot be apprehended by the senses due to transubstantiation, faith supplies for us this belief. In other words, our belief in the Real Presence is in some respects by faith alone.

As this is an unavoidable conclusion in light of defined Catholic teaching, if faith alone is always a heresy in every possible application, what does the Church's command for the past 681 years to venerate as a saint a Dominican friar who affirmed his own brand of sola fide theology mean for your pseudo- "theory" of only recent -as opposed to centuries of- heretical "popes" and your so-called "sedevacantist" theory???

"Vere's Viewpoint" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

"All gay marriages must by their very nature be heterosexual."

If the above statement is a shocking read to you, well that is a thesis that Pete Vere has set forth to defend. I for one cannot see any logical flaws to it but give it a read and see for yourself. In other Vere News, the subject of Kevin Miller vs. Bill Cork comes up.

Kevin Miller vs. Bill Cork

Kevin Miller blogs an excellent response to Bill Cork in the debate over pro-life and abortion, President Bush, and the current crop of nominees for the Abortion Party. This is not the first time Bill and Kevin have locked horns, as evidenced by this post a year ago on Just War theory.

The Just War position Bill set forth is one that I actually recall concurring to some extent with Bill on if memory serves.

Of course, I find myself agreeing with Prof. Miller in the current debate over whether or not abortion is a defining issue.

I will get to this in an upcoming weblog post. It is an important issue but frankly this is a Trojan Horse issue for too many pro-life people.

As most of my regular readers know, I have the highest respect for Kevin Miller as a theologian.

As do I. The Church needs a lot more theologians like Professor Miller: men who are faithful to the magisterium and place its judgments above their own personal opinions where there is a clash between the two.

Nevertheless, I'm somewhat confused by how Bill appears to raise the issue of the Iraqi War in order to challenge Dubya's pro-life credentials. If we go back exactly one year, I recall that I strongly opposed the War in Iraq, but who was so favorable to the war that he was bandying about the word sedition to describe its opponents, because he intrinsically trusted the President and simply dismissed as ridiculous the arguments of the war's opponents to which he now appeals in the abortion debate?

A few points need to be noted here.

First of all, it must in fairness be admitted that this weblog writer too used the word sedition in reference to certain opponents of the war. I stand by my usage of the term because my target was very precise and not a case of scatter shooting at every duck on the pond who opposed the war. That approach will be dealt with shortly in a future blog post but first it must be noted that key distinctions on the use of this term were made at least at this weblog.

Secondly, as St. Blogs readers are well aware, Pete was indeed a conscientious objector to the war. This writer even spoke favourably of the kind of opposition that Pete had to the war.{1} By contrast, Bill was the one at St. Blogs who was probably beating the drums for war louder than anyone else. He was unequivocally on board the wagon long before most of us who also climbed on board.

Thirdly, your humble servant was also a supporter of the war but his position was not recklessly made. Instead, it was carefully pondered over the span of a few months and when definitively made it was carefully sketched out. For that reason, it is one that remains unaffected by the most recent WMD situation. Indeed I stand by my previous position with minimal (if any) sway while Bill -due to his generally uncritical and over exuberant position on the war- fell flat on his face viz. that subject and thus made a very obvious about face.{2}

This is not the only subject that this has happened to Bill on -indeed the entire Mel Gibson movie subject and Bill's continual carping on Gibson are not exactly a secret to St. Blog's members and readers. I finally got sick of it and blogged a response on that subject which can be read HERE. These are intended to show a trend if you will that has permeated some of Bill's public musings in recent months.{3} But enough on those issues and onto the current one at hand.

Anyway, while Bill is a pretty good ecumenist (since that's his professional specialty within the theological sciences), I think I will stick to Kevin Miller when it comes to moral theology since that's Kevin specialty within the theological sciences. (Also, throughout the Church's history canonists and moral theologians have traditionally been allies).

I would as a rule agree with Pete on this allegiance as well as the alliance he makes here on this issue. (Bill is an ecumenist by training, not a theologian as Kevin is.) But as I will note next, soon, every rule has its exceptions.

That being said, having consistently opposed the war, I still maintain abortion trumps this issue when it comes to the ballot box.

This will be the a subject I deal with next. in a weblog post to be written soon.

Notes:

{1} Not because of agreement with him but because opposition takes several forms and some are legitimate while others are not. See this link for details.

{2} Scan his weblog over 2003 on the war subjects and he even admits point blank to making the about face. He was less forthcoming about falling on his face on the subject -particularly in how he laid into the position taken by the pope's on the matter. (Rather than respectfully disagree and uphold the validity of the pope's position even if he did not agree with it -as this writer did.)

{3} On many other subjects, Bill makes the proper distinctions - something I note here lest anyone get the wrong idea. (Particularly since I have sided with Bill on several issues in the past.)