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

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

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

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

DEFINING MODERNISM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From here more of the speech is deleted. What is missing will be italicized and underlined:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not really:

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

And again:

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a continuation of the thread started HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. THE CHURCH AND ROMAN SLAVERY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the canon:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same article even refers to the Synod of Melfi:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still not convinced the Church supported slavery?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dubitum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reverse your question on you:

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

Additional Reading on the Application of Divine Laws

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Did the Church Support Slavery?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salvation Outside the Catholic Church

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

To be continued...

Notes:

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

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

Points to Ponder:

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

Real Presence Essay Revision Completed:
(aka "Sixteen down, one to go" Dept.)

Here is the link:

On the Real Presence

Though I released it yesterday, it was not until this morning that some serious glitches in url 2 could be fixed. If I do not blog again until then, may you all have a happy and holy Easter.

Points to Ponder:

On this day our Lord suffers on the cross for our sins. Suffering is the universal of every age, man and woman, rich and poor. It is the result of our first parent's disobedience. Therefore it is through suffering that God choose to redeem our fallen race. As I ponder the blood stained cross I marvel at how God could take such ugliness and despair and change it into glory. It gives me hope that when I deliver the ugliness and despair of my life into the beautiful hands of Jesus, it too is transformed into glory! [Bill Brutland (4/18/03)]

I had hoped to have done for release today the revised text of my essay on the Real Presence originally written three years ago this month (and released in early June 2000). But indeed I found last night that "the spirit was willing but the flesh weak". Nonetheless, I hope to have the urls posted tonight and the new version available for reading by tomorrow. The piece reads about 95% the same content-wise but the differences are in some respects significant and some of them (such as the layout) very obvious. I do not intend to update the writings template for this one or the next one.{1} Anyway, you will read about the availability of the upcoming two pieces in their new formats here as they come available. But I have to get back to completing the essay on the Real Presence now so until we meet again, adieu and have a blessed Holy Thursday...

Note:

{1} After the Real Presence essay, all of my writings will have been retouched to some extent except for one. The last piece is about half done now and will be the last of my writings to be retouched and/or revised. Hopefully it will be ready for republishing by Mercy Sunday.

A Commentary on Canon Law 747-755:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is to some extent a sequel to an earlier response which can be read HERE. However, it also functions well on its own as a commentary on particular sections of canon law which are relevant for those who are engaged in disputations with those of various outlooks who try to disparage or downplay the obedience owed to the ecclesial magisterium as manifested in different forms.

For those who got to this link from the earlier link Addressing "Progressives" and Misunderstandings of Vatican II (Part I), it would be good to read these threads in sequence. For those who are interested in the canon law commentary alone, it is not necessary to read the first part of the response. In this installment, my sources will be in darkgreen font when quoting the Code and in darkblue font when quoting other sources. Without further ado, let us get to it.

I apologize for the delay in continuing the thread but I have had more pressing issues to contend with than message board apologetics. To summarize the entire thread from Canon 747-755 is the goal of this post. Here are the first canons of the thread titled The Teaching Office Of The Church.

Can. 747§1 It is the obligation and inherent right of the Church, independent of any human authority, to preach the Gospel to all peoples, using for this purpose even its own means of social communication, for it is to the Church that Christ the Lord entrusted the deposit of faith, so that by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it might conscientiously guard revealed truth, more intimately penetrate it, and faithfully proclaim and expound it.

Can. 747§2 The Church has the right always and everywhere to proclaim moral principles, even in respect of the social order, and to make judgments about any human matter in so far as this is required by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls.

The Church has rights of a secondary nature (to the primary end of preaching the Gospel and unfolding the deposit of faith explicitly) to pass judgment on issues which pertain to the salvation of souls. This can be done either in expounding on moral principles of the social order or passing judgment on human matters insofar as required for the salvation of souls.

Can. 748§1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.

Can. 748§2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.

Notice that the right outlined in Canon Law 748§2 is preceded by an obligation. That obligation as outlined in Canon Law 748§1 on all people is to seek the truth. When that truth is found, they are required by divine law to embrace and keep it. This means that those who recognize the Church as integral in God's plan for the salvation of mankind are required to obey the Church. This requirement is a matter of divine law and cannot be set aside pace the erroneous presumption of some theologians who have opined otherwise. (Such as the late Fr. John Courtney-Murray SJ.)

To explain the intricacies of the requirements of the divine law and the allowances of the civil authority is beyond the scope of this post. It suffices at this point to note that the "right" appealed to by so-called "progressives" is applied to absent its proper context: the context of an obligation they have under the divine law to obey the Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. That Church is of course the Catholic Church. Moving right along we come to Canons 749 §§1-3. As I dealt in detail with these canons in my treatise, I will reference it here with only slight modifications. Unlike previous and subsequent sources, this one will be in dark blue font. The name of the individual from the source will be removed to keep this focused properly on issues and not personalities.

It is worth noting that Mr. KKKKKKKKKK has insisted that his questions are asked in good faith as he simply wishes to "attribute to the Council and its documents their proper authority" (From the same statement as the above quote was taken.) This writer will take him at his word on the matter and simply address the flaws in his arguments. To start with, Mr. KKKKKKKKKK referenced the Code before quoting Pope Paul VI; therefore that is how this writer will approach responding to the assumptions he makes. The language of the Code itself is clearly not understood properly by Mr. KKKKKKKKKK. He cited part of Canon 749§2 and 749§3 but he did not mention 749§1. The whole Canon reads as follows (all emphasis is by the present author):

Canon 749§1: In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ's faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.

§2. The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their Magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.

§3. No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated...

This writer has already demonstrated that on several subjects (Tradition/Living Magisterium and the Mass), there are numerous intricacies involved which the 'traditionalist' often overlooks. This is especially applicable to the Second Vatican Council and its levels of teaching authority. But this is also true of canon law too as will be briefly demonstrated at this time. In brief though, can. 749§3 does not in any way pose a legitimate argument against the status of VC II as promulgating new teachings infallibly. The rationale for this explanation will be set forth using the literal texts referenced above and pointing out a key distinction that Mr. KKKKKKKKKK not only overlooked but that he continually blurred throughout his debate with SSS SSSSS.

Can. 749§3 would not be applicable to all infallible teachings indiscriminately. Instead it would apply to a very specific kind of infallible teaching: a solemn definition of faith. The rationale behind this assessment is that the dividing line intended by the legislator of the Code at this point was not between infallible and non-infallible teachings. Instead the dividing line at this point is between between teachings of faith and teachings which were not of faith but which were still to be held. Both types of teaching are definitive but they do not have the same theological qualification.

The language of the Code emphasizes the charism of infallibility as it pertains to teachings "to be held". This is an important distinction. A teaching that is a definition of faith is not specified in this manner - though teachings de fide are also to be held. The Latin terms are "credenda" (referring to dogma) and "tenenda" (referring to doctrine) signifying that the former was to be not simply held but also "believed". By contrast the later was simply to be "definitively held" (definitive tenenda) and such teachings are often taught in acts which are strictly speaking non-defining. As can. 749§1 and can. 749§2 both refer to infallibility pertaining to doctrines "to be held", they are thus referring to infallibility as it applies to both defining and non-defining acts of the Magisterium: the latter of which do not require any technical formulations of particular solemnity.

By the language of the Code itself, it is manifestly obvious that can. 749§3 cannot be as broadly applied as Mr. KKKKKKKKKK does. Instead it is very specific and refers to defined teachings of faith: teachings that carry with them a censure of heresy if they are culpably doubted or denied. Therefore, claims that a teaching is defined - which are implied in any accusation of heresy - places the burden of proof under the Code on the one making the accusation. As there were no solemn definitions of faith promulgated by Vatican II, there is no need to dwell any further on can. 749§3 as it is a non sequitur to the discussion. All of this is symptomatic of the failure of self-styled 'traditionalists' to make these kinds of fine but necessary distinctions on not a few of the relevant subjects involved in any discussion of this nature pertaining to Vatican II. [I. Shawn McElhinney A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Third Edition Chapter VI (c. 2003, 2000)]

That is sufficient to deal with Canon 749 in all of its parts. I go over the three categorizations of the Profession of Faith and how they are duplicated in the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church HERE. In that link, what is explained is Canons 750-752. I will now post Canons 753-755 before summarizing the entire thread sequentially and discussing the string of canons systematically.

Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.

Can. 754 All Christ's faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops.

Can. 755§1 It pertains especially to the entire College of Bishops and to the Apostolic See to foster and direct among Catholics the ecumenical movement, the purpose of which is the restoration of unity between all Christians which, by the will of Christ, the Church is bound to promote.

Can. 755§2 It is a matter likewise for Bishops and, in accordance with the law, for Episcopal Conferences, to promote this same unity and, in line with the various needs and opportunities of the circumstances, to issue practical norms which accord with the provisions laid down by the supreme authority of the Church.

As the above text and link constitutes a detailed exposition on the individual codes and subsections themselves from Canon 747-752, what will now be done is a brief summation of the entire thread. In doing this, the canons listed above without commentary will be dealt with in a detailed exposition along with Canon 752. (Because there is a noted difference between canon 752 and 753 which needs to be made better known.) The basic breakdown of the Code though in the section being outlined is as follows with my comments in the second paragraph of each citation summary:

Canon 747§1 - The rights of the Church to preach the Gospel to all people and use whatever mediums it deems appropriate for expediting this mission. To that extent the Church was given the deposit of faith by Our Lord and has the right to "conscientiously guard revealed truth, more intimately penetrate it, and faithfully proclaim and expound it" (Can 747§1).

In brief, the right to preach the Gospel and to develop and explain the deposit of faith belongs to the Church.

Canon 747§2 - The rights of the Church to propound moral principles - even in respect to the social order - and the right to make judgments in all human matters as required for the salvation of souls. Of course it goes without saying that the Church determines the scope of the above criteria, not individuals practicing their own private judgment.

Canon 748§1 - The obligation of all individuals to seek the truth about Christ and the Church He founded and the further obligation by divine law to adhere to and embrace this truth once it is found. This is the obligation of all individuals under the divine law.

Canon 748§2 - The right of the individual to freedom from coercion of their conscience.{1} Rights of the individual to facilitate the obligations entailed under 748§1.

Canon 749§1 - The infallibility of the Pope by divine design when he proclaims by definitive act a teaching pertaining to faith or morals which is to be held. This applies to dogmas of faith and doctrines which are binding by ecclesiastical faith.

Canon 749§2 The infallibility of the Bishops either in ecumenical council when they in union with the pope proclaim by definitive act a teaching pertaining to faith or morals which is to be held. As in the case of the pope, this applies to dogmas of faith and doctrines which are binding by ecclesiastical faith.

Canon 749§3 - No teaching is to be considered a matter of divine faith without manifest demonstration of such. To summarize this canon, the burden of proof of a charge of heresy is on the accuser not the accused. They must "manifestly demonstrate" the basis of such accusations. Of course the definition of heresy in the Code has not been dealt with in sequence yet.

Canon 750§1 - Teachings to be held by divine faith. (Self explanatory.)

Canon 750§2 - Teachings which though not de fide are nonetheless definitively proclaimed and are to be held by ecclesiastical faith. The distinction between truths of divine faith (on God's authority) and truths of ecclesiastical faith (on the authority of the infallible magisterium). This distinction was overlooked in the original Code promulgation but once it was realized, it was rectified with an insertion into the text.

Canon 751 - Definitions of heresy, schism, and apostasy. In brief, one who obstinately doubts or denies a dogma of faith (heretic), one who renounces completely the Christian faith (apostate), and one who though they deny no dogmas of faith nonetheless refuse to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or hold communion with those who recognize his supremacy a doctrine to be held (schismatic).

Canon 752 - The assent owed to teachings promulgated by the pope or the united magisterium which are either not definitive or do not appear to be such. This religious submission of mind and will is different from that owed to lower levels of teaching. It was indeed deemed as being of "a special way" (cf. Lumen Gentium §25) in that it moves beyond submission to the decisions made with a mere "adherence to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind" which was declared as appropriate for "Bishops teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff" (cf. Lumen Gentium §25). That will be covered in Canon Law 753.

Unlike the latter provision (to be covered shortly), there is no provision for any external dissent from, controversion of, or belittling of teachings of either the Roman Pontiff or the bishops of the united episcopate - either gathered in ecumenical council or scattered throughout the world.{3}

With the pope individually, even when he is not manifestly defining "his supreme teaching authority [is to] be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent [to] be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention" (Lumen Gentium §25). With the bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff "[they] are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind" (Lumen Gentium §25).

Failure to obey teachings of this classification are generally not considered incurring of the penalties incurred by schismatics.{4} Nonetheless, the faithful are "to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord" with the doctrine handed on which is of this theological qualification (cf. Can 752). This denotes an exterior and interior obedience to the teaching that leaves no room for what is popularly referred today as "dissent."

Can 753 - The assent owed to teachings of bishops "individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils" (Can 753). The verdict here is religious submission. This is not submission to the same extent as with the united episcopate or the pope as per canon 752 but obedience is still required nonetheless.

To summarize the difference, this obedience is one we can challenge provided that we are still respectful of what is prescribed -as it not a part of the permanent ordinary magisterium unless the pope or an ecumenical council decides otherwise. Should the latter occur, the qualification would move from Canon 753 regulations to those of Canon 752 with a corresponding increase in the manner of religious submission owed to the teaching.

Can. 754 - Obedience to all judgments issues for the proposition of doctrine or proscription of errors - particularly those of the Pope or the College of Bishops.

Self explanatory except the Code has to put in a legal provision to prevent the kind of sophisms perpetrated by those who would claim to obey the magisterium but not obey its actual teachings as promulgated in magisterial texts. It is important to note though that in order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops to constitute authentic magisterium "they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the Bishops belonging to the Conference and having a deliberative vote" (Pope John Paul II: Apostolic Letter Apostolos Suos). Further still "[n]o body of the Episcopal Conference, outside of the plenary assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium". (ibid.) Finally, "the Episcopal Conference cannot grant such power to its Commissions or other bodies set up by it". (ibid.) Just as the pope cannot delegate his charism of infallibility to anyone, the conferences cannot delegate its magisterium to commissions or other legislative bodies.

Nothing short of the plenary synod requires religious submission of mind and will from the Bishops conferences.{5} Plenary synods do constitute such magisterium but since they are so rarely held,{6} it is not necessary to mention them here.

Canon 755§§1,2 - In brief, the competence for directing the ecumenical movement is based firstly on the college of bishops and the apostolic see (755§1) and secondly on individual bishops and bishops conference in manner congruent with the preceding text (755§2). This is common sense in that it is the bishops who are heads of the dioceses and the apostolic see -the pope personally or those who govern various dicasteries by virtue of his authority- who are the ones who should be directing the ecumenical venture with its various delicacies and potential pitfalls for those who rush in uncritically. But that is neither here nor there.

In summary of this commentary, there is a unified and hierarchial thread here of subjects. Hopefully what is noted here is of assistance in outlining and explaining the diverse elements involved in a reasonably economical yet fairly comprehensive manner.

Notes:

{1} The act of faith by its nature is not considered genuine unless it is given freely and a coerced conscience is not one which can give that assent freely. This must however be understood in the context of ecclesiastical authority's obligation to protect the faithful from errors which are harmful to the faith as well as civil authority's right to insure public order and the common good of society. This freedom of conscience is not unlimited.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church covers the subject of conscience in detail from CCC §1776-1802. I recommend reading those parts to properly understand the nuances of this subject. However, for those who appeal to conscience over and against the teaching of the Church, focus on CCC §1792 which states that "Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct."

As an aside, I wonder if there is a parallel between the CCC posting this as section 1792 and the historical event of the egalitarian Jacobans overthrowing the Constitutional government established in 1789 and inaugurating the and the "edict of fraternity" in 1792 and numbering the years from that point the "years of liberty". (With the resultant calls for overthrowing all secular and spiritual rulers.)

{2} This is an area where self-styled "progressives" and self-styled "traditionalists" tend to go askew and therefore this addition was necessary so that these truths have corresponding penalties under the Code.

{3} In short, the Church's ordinary magisterium.

{4} This does not mean that they are not schismatics of course, only that they are not punished with the penalties applicable to schismatics.

{5} With the exception of when the conferences are reiterating Catholic doctrine of course.

{6} The last in America was in Third Synod of Baltimore held in 1884. This does not mean that Bishop's Conferences are not authoritative of course, only that the decisions of such conferences barring approval of the Apostolic See cannot legislate in matters binding on their respective areas. A subject too complex to deal with here in brief so I will simply note here that simplistic interpretations of this statement of mine are bound to be erroneous ones.