Points to Ponder:
Friday, September 13, 2019
On the Society of St. Pius X, Their Status, Diplomacy, Etc.:
My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...
So let me make sure I have this right:
1) You are critical of Pope Francis for supposedly saying he is not afraid of a schism in the Church.
But
2) You are often lionizing the schismatic Lefebvre on your page.
Sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.
supposedly saying? He said it. Its not even a question. Francis and benedict were clear that Lefebvre wasnt schismatic.
I noticed that you neglected to mention Pope St. John Paul II who explicitly declared in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed a schismatic act on June 30, 1988: a stance confirmed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in July of 1988 in an address to the bishops of Chile where he explicitly referred to "the schism of Lefebvre." Archbishop Lefebvre died in 1991 and Pope Benedict XVI never reversed the position he took as Cardinal Ratzinger. Pope Francis has not said anything about Lefebvre.
no...it was an objectively schematic act...sure...since 2000 rome has said the schismatic act did not equal a formal schism...successive heads of ED said that...people representing francis said it when visiting sspx...etc...its a 20 year long gone idea that there was a schism...there was a tense situation...distance even...great...im distant from the germans...distance happens...no one knows where the chips have fallen until the dust settles...for 20 years rome has ceased to call it a schism...
Nice try but this does not fly. The idea that just because for diplomatic reasons Rome through the Ecclesia Dei has not referred to them as schismatic does not mean that they are not (and that Lefebvre was not). Case in point: the reconciliation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. They were formed in 1987 and actually approached Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 for his blessing (which he gave). When Lefebvre went off the rails in 1988, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer followed him. After nearly two decades in the ecclesial wilderness, in 2007, they took the occasion of the issuing of the Motu Proprio Summorem Pontificum to approach Pope Benedict XVI for reconciliation and after a process he accepted. Upon returning to full ecclesial communion, the very document regularizing them in the official text mentions the ending of their "schismatic state."
It is not unusual for diplomatic or tactical reasons to soft pedal the language in many respects but in circumstances like this, it is stated more bluntly. For example, when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Mueller explained it as follows:
With all due respect, I would advise you not to not engage in cafeteria style picking and choosing in these areas based on your personal whims or inclinations. Otherwise you are doing nothing different than the Protestants.
My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...
So let me make sure I have this right:
1) You are critical of Pope Francis for supposedly saying he is not afraid of a schism in the Church.
But
2) You are often lionizing the schismatic Lefebvre on your page.
Sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.
supposedly saying? He said it. Its not even a question. Francis and benedict were clear that Lefebvre wasnt schismatic.
I noticed that you neglected to mention Pope St. John Paul II who explicitly declared in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed a schismatic act on June 30, 1988: a stance confirmed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in July of 1988 in an address to the bishops of Chile where he explicitly referred to "the schism of Lefebvre." Archbishop Lefebvre died in 1991 and Pope Benedict XVI never reversed the position he took as Cardinal Ratzinger. Pope Francis has not said anything about Lefebvre.
no...it was an objectively schematic act...sure...since 2000 rome has said the schismatic act did not equal a formal schism...successive heads of ED said that...people representing francis said it when visiting sspx...etc...its a 20 year long gone idea that there was a schism...there was a tense situation...distance even...great...im distant from the germans...distance happens...no one knows where the chips have fallen until the dust settles...for 20 years rome has ceased to call it a schism...
Nice try but this does not fly. The idea that just because for diplomatic reasons Rome through the Ecclesia Dei has not referred to them as schismatic does not mean that they are not (and that Lefebvre was not). Case in point: the reconciliation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. They were formed in 1987 and actually approached Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 for his blessing (which he gave). When Lefebvre went off the rails in 1988, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer followed him. After nearly two decades in the ecclesial wilderness, in 2007, they took the occasion of the issuing of the Motu Proprio Summorem Pontificum to approach Pope Benedict XVI for reconciliation and after a process he accepted. Upon returning to full ecclesial communion, the very document regularizing them in the official text mentions the ending of their "schismatic state."
It is not unusual for diplomatic or tactical reasons to soft pedal the language in many respects but in circumstances like this, it is stated more bluntly. For example, when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Mueller explained it as follows:
"The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church. After that we are not closing the door and never will, but we are inviting them to be reconciled. But they too must change their attitude, accept the conditions of the Catholic Church, and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion for membership." [Cardinal Gerhard Mueller: Interview with Corriere della Sera (circa December 22, 2013)]Or if that is not recent enough for you, consider this statement from the former head of the Vatican Apostolic Signatura as recently as 2017:
"[D]espite the various arguments surrounding the question, the fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff.
And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X. Having said that, we, part of the kind of general confusion in the Church has also entered into this question because the Holy Father has given the priests of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X faculties to celebrate validly marriages, licitly and validly. But there is no canonical explanation for it, and it is simply an anomaly.
And, also Pope Benedict XVI, before his abdication, he lifted the excommunication of the four bishops who were ordained without the papal mandate, but, he, they hadn’t, the requirement for having an excommunication lifted is that a person has withdrawn from his contumacy and now desires to be fully reconciled with the Church but in fact that hasn’t happened, and so that’s another bit of an anomalous situation
They’re no longer excommunicated, but they’re also not in regular communion with the Catholic Church.
And so the whole thing is very complicated, but I would say to you that, I don’t think it’s a good sign to receive sacraments in the Priestly Society of St. Pius X because that’s not helping them to, first of all, the sacraments are not celebrated licitly. They’re valid, there’s no question about it if the priests are validly ordained, but it’s not a, it’s a countersign to the communion of the Church. Instead we should be encouraging the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X to be reconciled with the Church." [Cardinal Raymond Burke: Sacred Liturgy Conference in Medford, Oregon Q&A Session (circa July 15, 2017)]
With all due respect, I would advise you not to not engage in cafeteria style picking and choosing in these areas based on your personal whims or inclinations. Otherwise you are doing nothing different than the Protestants.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Briefly on Pope Francis, Handling Difficulties, Principles of Dialogue, Etc:
My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...
no one ever knows what the Pope is saying
Actually, I have as a rule not found it difficult to figure out either what the Pope is saying or how it coheres within the broader Catholic tradition. The good priest would do well to remember these words from Donum Veritatis -though directed towards theologians, the words of this Instruction are no less important for regular layfolk as well (all emphasis is mine):
"Donum Veritatis" is referring to legitimate disagreement with official (but undogmatic) Church teaching, not to public correction of heretical or otherwise destructive hierarchs, particularly those with diarrhea of the mouth who have already, and on numerous occasions, obstinately refused to entertain private corrections, or private invitations to clarification and self-correction.
XXXXXX while speaking of their willingness to dialogue lol
You cannot publicly trash your perceived enemies -- particularly when the enemies in question are orthodox Catholics and objectively innocent of wrong-doing -- and then demand that any and all retort must be made privately
Donum Veritatis is a text outlining the ecclesial vocation of the theologian. The principles involved in the Instruction however apply across the board as there are not more restrictions on these matters applied to theologians whereas the much more ignorant (as a rule) laity are given carte blanche to kvetch and whine publicly about every little matter. There is an acceptable and unacceptable manner for dealing with teachings as well as prudential interventions. Unfortunately, not a few Catholics who loudly proclaim themselves "orthodox" and/or "traditional" far too often run afoul in these areas and are as stubborn about being corrected here as they are in certain unorthodox positions they espouse. If their attitude was more humble and sincere, it would be a different story but alas the latter are the exception in More Orthodox Than Thou circles, not the rule. (At least online anyway.)
As far as "publicly trash[ing] perceived enemies", so-called "traditionalists" do so online all the time. So much so that it is extremely difficult oftentimes to separate this attitude from any potential points of value they might on occasion make. And the orthodoxy of many (thankfully not all) of them can very easily be questioned, particularly when they ignore general principles of traditional Catholic spiritual instruction while simultaneously claiming to be Traditional. Actions after all speak louder than words.
As for "willingness to dialogue", the latter presupposes by its very nature "the good will of both parties to the dialogue" (cf. Ecclesiam Suam 81,3). Sadly, a lot of folks have shown publicly and objectively that they lack such good will; ergo, they by their actions and statements forfeit this general courtesy.
My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...
no one ever knows what the Pope is saying
Actually, I have as a rule not found it difficult to figure out either what the Pope is saying or how it coheres within the broader Catholic tradition. The good priest would do well to remember these words from Donum Veritatis -though directed towards theologians, the words of this Instruction are no less important for regular layfolk as well (all emphasis is mine):
"...If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.
In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth..."
"Donum Veritatis" is referring to legitimate disagreement with official (but undogmatic) Church teaching, not to public correction of heretical or otherwise destructive hierarchs, particularly those with diarrhea of the mouth who have already, and on numerous occasions, obstinately refused to entertain private corrections, or private invitations to clarification and self-correction.
XXXXXX while speaking of their willingness to dialogue lol
You cannot publicly trash your perceived enemies -- particularly when the enemies in question are orthodox Catholics and objectively innocent of wrong-doing -- and then demand that any and all retort must be made privately
Donum Veritatis is a text outlining the ecclesial vocation of the theologian. The principles involved in the Instruction however apply across the board as there are not more restrictions on these matters applied to theologians whereas the much more ignorant (as a rule) laity are given carte blanche to kvetch and whine publicly about every little matter. There is an acceptable and unacceptable manner for dealing with teachings as well as prudential interventions. Unfortunately, not a few Catholics who loudly proclaim themselves "orthodox" and/or "traditional" far too often run afoul in these areas and are as stubborn about being corrected here as they are in certain unorthodox positions they espouse. If their attitude was more humble and sincere, it would be a different story but alas the latter are the exception in More Orthodox Than Thou circles, not the rule. (At least online anyway.)
As far as "publicly trash[ing] perceived enemies", so-called "traditionalists" do so online all the time. So much so that it is extremely difficult oftentimes to separate this attitude from any potential points of value they might on occasion make. And the orthodoxy of many (thankfully not all) of them can very easily be questioned, particularly when they ignore general principles of traditional Catholic spiritual instruction while simultaneously claiming to be Traditional. Actions after all speak louder than words.
As for "willingness to dialogue", the latter presupposes by its very nature "the good will of both parties to the dialogue" (cf. Ecclesiam Suam 81,3). Sadly, a lot of folks have shown publicly and objectively that they lack such good will; ergo, they by their actions and statements forfeit this general courtesy.
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
Points to Ponder:
"[I]f we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power. And atheism leads to brutality...it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth." [Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (circa December 24, 2009)]
"[I]f we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power. And atheism leads to brutality...it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth." [Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (circa December 24, 2009)]
Monday, September 09, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)