Treatise on Obedience (Part I):

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. Divisions have been made in the section for easier reading - as well as the occasional underlining for emphasis - but the rest remains untouched. Scriptural references will be in italics throughout this series.

Here begins the treatise of obedience, and first of where obedience may be found, and what it is that destroys it, and what is the sign of a man's possessing it, and what accompanies and nourishes obedience.

THE Supreme and Eternal Father, kindly turning the eye of His mercy and clemency towards her, replied: "Your holy desire and righteous request, oh! dearest daughter, have a right to be heard, and inasmuch as I am the Supreme Truth, I will keep My word, fulfilling the promise which I made to you, and satisfying your desire. And if you ask Me where obedience is to be found, and what is the cause of its loss, and the sign of its possession, I reply that you will find it in its completeness in the sweet and amorous Word, My only-begotten Son.

So prompt in Him was this virtue, that, in order to fulfill it, He hastened to the shameful death of the Cross. What destroys obedience? Look at the first man and you will see the cause which destroyed the obedience imposed on him by Me, the Eternal Father. It was pride, which was produced by self-love, and desire to please his companion. This was the cause that deprived him of the perfection of obedience, giving him instead disobedience, depriving him of the life of grace, and slaying his innocence, wherefore he fell into impurity and great misery, and not only he, but the whole human race, as I said to you. The sign that you have this virtue is patience, and impatience the sign that you have it not, and you will find that this is indeed so, when I speak to you further concerning this virtue. But observe that obedience may be kept in two ways, of which one is more perfect than the other, not that they are on that account separated, but united as I explained to you of the precepts and counsels.

The one way is the most perfect, the other is also good and perfect; for no one at all can reach eternal life if he be not obedient, for the door was unlocked by the key of obedience, which had been fastened by the disobedience of Adam. I, then, being constrained by My infinite goodness, since I saw that man whom I so much loved, did not return to Me, his End, took the keys of obedience and placed them in the hands of My sweet and amorous Word -- the Truth -- and He becoming the porter of that door, opened it, and no one can enter except by means of that door and that Porter. Wherefore He said in the Holy Gospel that 'no one could come to Me, the Father, if not by Him.' When He returned to Me, rising to Heaven from the conversation of men at the Ascension, He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place.

Now I wish you to see and know this most excellent virtue in that humble and immaculate Lamb, and the source whence it proceeds. What caused the great obedience of the Word? The love which He had for My honor and your salvation. Whence proceeded this love? From the clear vision with which His soul saw the divine essence and the eternal Trinity, thus always looking on Me, the eternal God. His fidelity obtained this vision most perfectly for Him, which vision you imperfectly enjoy by the light of holy faith. He was faithful to Me, His eternal Father, and therefore hastened as one enamored along the road of obedience, lit up with the light of glory. And inasmuch as love cannot be alone, but is accompanied by all the true and royal virtues, because all the virtues draw their life from love, He possessed them all, but in a different way from that in which you do. Among the others he possessed patience, which is the marrow of obedience, and a demonstrative sign, whether a soul be in a state of grace and truly love or not.

Wherefore charity, the mother of patience, has given her as a sister to obedience, and so closely united them together that one cannot be lost without the other. Either you have them both or you have neither. This virtue has a nurse who feeds her, that is, true humility; therefore a soul is obedient in proportion to her humility, and humble in proportion to her obedience. This humility is the foster-mother and nurse of charity, and with the same milk she feeds the virtue of obedience. Her raiment given her by this nurse is self-contempt, and insult, desire to displease herself, and to please Me.

Where does she find this? In sweet Christ Jesus, My only-begotten Son. For who abased Himself more than He did! He was sated with insults, jibes, and mockings. He caused pain to Himself in His bodily life, in order to please Me. And who was more patient than He? for His cry was never heard in murmuring, but He patiently embraced His injuries like one enamored, fulfilling the obedience imposed on Him by Me, His Eternal Father. Wherefore in Him you will find obedience perfectly accomplished. He left you this rule and this doctrine, which gives you life, for it is the straight way, having first observed them Himself. He is the way, wherefore He said, 'He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.' For he who travels by that way, travels in the light, and being enlightened cannot stumble, or be caused to fall, without perceiving it. For he has cast from himself the darkness of self-love, by which he fell into disobedience; for as I spoke to you of a companion virtue proceeding from obedience and humility, so I tell you that disobedience comes from pride, which issues from self-love depriving the soul of humility.

The sister given by self-love to disobedience is impatience, and pride, her foster-mother, feeds her with the darkness of infidelity, so she hastens along the way of darkness, which leads her to eternal death. All this you should read in that glorious book, where you find described this and every other virtue."

To be Continued...

Treatise on Obedience (Introduction):

In light of an email received from a good friend last night, I was indirectly reminded that I have been remiss in actually starting the thread on obedience that was mentioned earlier. The previous addition to the ongoing points to ponder series will therefore serve as a prologue of sorts to what we are about to delve into.

To set up in this brief introduction a bit of background information on what will now be presented, St. Catherine of Siena is the subject and her Dialogues the primary source which will be utilized in this particular thread. St. Catherine is a revered figure - particularly amongst the Dominicans as she was a Dominican. (Thus as I attend mass and other functions at a Dominican priory, she seemed a natural ally to bring to the table for a discussion on obedience.)

St. Catherine is often appealed to by those who live in a state of sinful disobedience as a model to follow. But in this appeal, those who seek to utilize her as an ally do so in a deceitful manner. For you see, they focus on her rebuking certain popes and consider this to be some kind of pattern for themselves to follow. This is done without bothering to consider (i) the particular circumstances that occasioned the rebukes and (ii) without considering St. Catherine's weltanschauung when it came to the issue of obedience in general. And finally (iii) by people who show in their actions as well as their words that they are thoroughly ill-equipped spiritually for the task to which they arrogantly take upon themselves to do. Indeed, these kinds of faithless children are too busy cherry picking statements or incidents isolated from context and seeking to spin them in the worst light possible all the while lacking the proper disposition of a traditional Catholic. Others could be listed as well whose spiritual state is about as well afloat as the Titanic but I think the readers get the idea by now. Therefore, let us listen to the Dominican St. Catherine of Siena and one of her dialogues with God the Father. The subject: obedience.

To quote from the introduction to one of the editions, I have in my possession The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena was dictated to her secretaries by the Saint in ecstasy. This is considered to be one of the finest volumes from the treasury of Catholic mystical literature. It will therefore serve as a good start in resuming the thread of spiritual instruction that we have resurrected at intermittent times at this humble weblog. Unlike other series though, in this one from this point on until the end of this thread, the dark blue coloured words will not be the sources themselves but instead my words. Without further ado, let us get to it.

To be Continued...

Points to Ponder:

[Update: This is now part of a series on obedience, the previous installment of which can be read HERE. -ISM (6/09/03)]


I do not have to generally set up a quote in this feature but this particular one requires it to some extent. Cardinal Rampolla for those who do not know was nearly elected pope in 1903 back in the days when certain secular authorities had a veto they could cast in conclave elections. In 1903 the Austrian government vetoed Cardinal Rampolla's eligibility and the conclave elected Cardinal Sarto afterwards - who upon approval took the name of Pope Pius X. In short, this quote is from a man who escaped election as pope by the conclave due to an accident of history. But there is much more to this puzzle than that.

Cardinal Rampolla was one of the most influential prelates of his time. He was Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State, assisted the Holy Father in his liberalization of the papal administration. Cardinal Rampolla was also one of the primary assistants to Pope Leo XIII in the drafting of the landmark encyclical letter Rerum Novarum - from which this humble weblog took its name. Pope Pius X appointed Cardinal Rampolla as Prefect of the Holy Office in 1908. In layman's terms, his position and authority was the same then as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's is today as prefect of the CDF.

Pope Pius X's campaign against modernism is not unknown; however what is often unknown is the extremist reaction to the modernists which was referred to as "integralism." Many of us refer to certain self-styled "traditionalists" today as Integrists because of the pattern that they share with the aforementioned extremists. But getting back to Cardinal Rampolla and to summarize he was (i) Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State (ii) highly influential in the changing attitude of the papacy in Pope Leo's pontificate (iii) the primary draftsman of Pope Leo's Rerum Novarum. Further still, he was (iv) Pope Pius X's choice to head the Holy Office. So this is a man whose opinion is deserving of respect on matters pertaining to the faith. What did he have to say about those who were "more anti-modernist than the pope and college of bishops"??? The following is from Cardinal Rampolla as quoted in The Life of Benedict XV written by Rev. Walter H. Peters. This is taken from the chapter titled Modernists and Integralists and is his criticism of the Integralists:

Words can not describe the sad impressions that have been made on me by the agitation continually growing among Catholics, by these intolerable polemics, by this confusion of ideas, and above all by this lack of respect and of obedience to the Holy Father. I regard this as the worst of all the damage, and I offer most earnest prayers for this to come to an end.For us Catholics the name of the Pope is sacred and untouchable. The confusion which dominates minds, the doubts which arise from it, the judgment of the press, sometimes so unjust,and finally, the outbursts of emotions constitute a state of affairs which is deplorable. It behooves all of us to pray to God that some remedy be found. [Cardinal Rampolla: As quoted in The Life of Benedict XV written by Rev. Walter H. Peters. (c. 1959)]

Those who wonder why web writings such as this, this, this, and this (among others) exist need to look no further than what His Eminence noted above. (The same is the case for weblogs such as The Lidless Eye Inquisition.)

Consider this a prologue of sorts for the upcoming series on obedience - the next installment of which can be read HERE.

The subject of obedience is at the heart of the discord between self-styled "traditionalists" and those they often deride with epithets such as "Neo-Catholic." Often have I thought that the best way to address the issue of obedience would be to try and peek into the mind of God on the issue. For many are the excuses used to jusify disobedience and the epithet of "blind obedience" is commonly sung as a refrain by the dissident - whomever they are.

Cardinal Newman dealt with it in his day when responding to the the Anglican Gladstone and there is no shortage today of those who furl the banner of "traditionalist" who are in reality nothing more than "neo-Gladstones" if you will. However, at the same time, it is pointless to simply tell people to read a bunch of books even if this would help to solve a lot of the problems that those who argue on these points tend to have.

These are presuppositional flaws if you will. And as long as they exist, the individual will err in the same manner on any subject they endeavour to discuss that pertains to this subject. It is not without reason that I have recently seized on the William Blake statement "an altered eye alters all."{1}

Rather than refute these errors myself -as I am nothing special- it seems appropriate to do so with the assistance of a Doctor of the Church who lived many centuries ago. In doing this, the points can be made that I would make - and arguably a lot better to boot - and they would carry an authority that nothing I say would to someone who would claim the banner of "traditionalist."{2}

As a ressourcement-minded individual, it seems appropriate to me to yet again go "back to the sources" on this one. So that is what We at Rerum Novarum will do in the coming days. We will cover the subject of obedience from the standpoint of a revered saint and doctor. The reader can then discern whom and whose weltanschauung either mirrors or comes closest to what will be covered. Stay tuned for more details...

Notes:

{1} For examples, see the links from Rerum Novarum located HERE,HERE, and HERE. It first hit me to use this metaphor when composing a response to CAIraqi leader Robert Sungenis which can be read HERE. I had in mind Blake's dictum when writing the line I was not inclined to want to challenge my sanity in responding to someone whose eye is so clearly altered. Granted this is not an insight that is exactly new but it is a very descriptive way of explaining the problem of trying to have a discussion with someone whose frame of reference is so diametrically different. By logical extension the metaphor "an altered mind alters all" could also be used and indeed in the example above, who could credibly argue that it is not applicable???

{2} This is not to diminish anything I have done mind you but simply to note that those who want to ignore my arguments can simply tag me with "Neo-Catholic", "liberal", "modernist", "reactionary", "fundamentalist", "traditionalist", "Satan's schill", etc. (Believe me, I have heard them all before.) These arguments cannot be applied by anyone claiming to be a "traditionalist" to someone who was canonized centuries ago and who is recognized as living a saintly life and also as possessing of fidelity to the Church.

To be Continued...

Points to Ponder:

The Church is going through a terrible crisis. But crisis is its essential condition. God wishes it so. The Church was already in crisis when St. John wrote the Apocalypse...Look, ours is an age of decadence. It's like shooting an arrow. The arrow must be drawn backwards before it can be shot forwards. See, today we are being pressed backwards. But we are on the eve of many changes. The next century will be the age of new evangelization, and light will fill the Church once more. But my eyes will no longer be there to see it. [Jean Guitton: From his interview with La Stampa on the 30th anniversary of Vatican II (10/11/92)]

More From the "Altered Eye Alters All" Dept.

This comprised the postscript notes to the previous post in the discussion forum. Again my sources will be in darkblue.

In TGF we also point out that "Cardinal Ratzinger provided no proof that what 'seems' to be the complete identity between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ in the teaching of Pius XII is 'not the case.'"

If Mr. Ferrara knew how to read magisterial texts and avoided prooftexting, he might see the forest for the trees.

Moreover, there was no demonstration that Pius XII "shared" the view that the Orthodox churches are "authentic local churches," an assertion that also appears in DI 17, which calls the Orthodox Churches "true particular churches."

A true Church is one with valid episcopacy and valid sacraments. Are Mssrs. Ferrara and Woods claiming that Pius XII denied the validity of Orthodox orders and sacraments??? Because if he claims the pope affirmed their validity then he affirms that the Orthodox Churches are true particular churches. It is that simple really. In fact, if Mr. Ferrara actually read Dominus Iesus (rather than simply hunt and peck it for proof texts) he would see this very distinction made in section 17:

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense...[Declaration Dominus Iesus §17]

I hope it is becoming clear why it is a waste of time to involve oneself too much in refuting the kind of nonsense put forward by individuals such as Mr. Ferrara.

If Pius XII or the other preconciliar Popes had ever taught such a thing, one supposes their teaching would have been cited rather prominently in DI to show its continuity with the perennial Magisterium.

Not really. It is a given to anyone moderately versed in ecclesiology so there is no need to cite references for support of the assertion.

On the contrary, as we point out in TGF, Leo XIII taught the following about the ecclesial status of non-Catholic sees in his encyclical Satis Cognitum:

[I]t must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.

When did any of the Orthodox bishops "deliberately secede" from the Roman Church in the past five hundred years??? Since this did not happen, Mr. Ferrara's quote is irrelevant. Further still, to argue on the basis of second millennium developments is anachronistic to the core. It suffices to say that the Orthodox churches have valid episcopate and valid sacraments but according to Catholic understanding they exercise them illicitly. But at least unlike some "trad" groups which lack validity to certain sacraments (penance and matrimony) and liceity to the others, the Orthodox have all valid sacraments.

Likewise, in his letter on reunion with the Eastern churches, St. Pius X declared as follows:

Let, then, all those who strive to defend the cause of unity go forth; let them go forth wearing the helmet of faith, holding to the anchor of hope, and inflamed with the fire of charity, to work unceasingly in this most heavenly enterprise; and God, the author and lover of peace, will hasten the day when the nations of the East shall return to Catholic unity, and, united to the Apostolic See, after casting away their errors, shall enter the port of everlasting salvation.

Two points:

1) The "ecumenism of return" approach is ecclesiologically and methodologically faulty. St. Pius X had good intentions but was promoting a faulty method functionally speaking.

2) I have yet to see any authentic charity from Mr. Ferrara or the Remnant crowd. The very manner whereby they attribute the worst motives to the popes and the Council, to those who strive to implement properly the teaching of the Council, and other factors (such as their serial suspicion of anything that is not Counter-reformational in attitude or approach) is not the benchmark of a true and charitable outlook.

St. Pius X would have lowered the boot on people like Mr. Ferrara and company and would not have looked kindly on those who profess to love the Church, to follow the Church, and yet who showed clear and unmistakably that they despised the bishops of the church and the pope. He would have blasted these sophists as the hypocrites that they are for claiming to "withhold obedience" to the post Pius XII magisterium. In fact, let the Holy Father himself from a speech given in 1909 express his mind about such people:

Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). [Pope St. Pius X (c. May 10, 1909)]

Here are two terms that apply to the Integrist bunch:

Suspicion - St. Thomas distinguishes three degrees of suspicion: when one begins to question anothers goodness on slight grounds, usually a venial fault; when one thinks on slight ground that another is certainly wicked, and this is a mortal sin in the case of grave matter; and when one condemns another outright merely on suspicion, and this is a sin against justice. "If we cannot avoid suspicion, because we are men, we should at least avoid judgments, that is, definite and positive opinions" (St. Augustine)". [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pg. 510 (c. 1941)]

Pride, a capital vice opposed to humility (q.v.) consisting in excessive love of one's own excellence, exhibited in three ways: (a) Contempt for lawful authority - a mortal sin; (b) Contempt for equals or inferiors - mortal or venial according to the depth of contempt; (c) Desire to surpass one's equals - a venial sin. St. Thomas and many other spiritual writers put pride in a class by itself as the most deadly and devastating of all vices, which has its part in every sin, of whatever sort that is committed; for every sin is in its degree a contempt of God and often our superior and our neighbour as well. Pride feeds and thrives itself, continually stirring up the mind and will of man to rebellion against the moral law and against his lawful and qualified teachers, whether religious or civil. Ambition, presumption, and vainglory (qqv) are among the most immediate handmaids of pride".{Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pg. 422 (c. 1941)]

Both of these apply in spades to Mr. Ferrara and his cohorts.

In TGF we state our view that there is an urgent need for the Magisterium to clarify how churches that lack all jurisdiction, are separated from the very foundation of the Church, are outside the edifice of the Church, not within the fold, exiled from the Kingdom, and not yet in the port of everlasting salvation, can be "true particular churches" or "authentic local churches" in any sense that matters.

Already dealt with in this response.

YT completely ignores these astonishing statements in his defense of Ratzinger and his attack on TGF. But Cardinal Ratzinger has never retracted this opinion. Perhaps this explains why DI, of which Ratzinger was the principal author, contains not a single reference to the Catholic doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Declaration Dominus Iesus was subtitled On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. The subject was not on the juridical concept of "mystical body". Likewise, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, which this text draws heavily from, was concerned with sketching out in detail the nature of the Church and its universal mission. As the nature of the Church transcends by far the mere visible parameters, the subject matter goes beyond the expositions of previous magisterial texts.{1} Maybe if Mr. Ferrara paid attention to the purpose of certain texts he might be able to answer some of his own questions. As my good friend Dr. Art Sippo noted once "a burro can ask more questions than a wise man can answer."

DI 16 does refer to "a single body of Christ," but makes no mention of the Mystical Body of preconciliar teaching, identified so precisely with the Roman Catholic Church by Pius XII and Leo XIII.

This oversimplification was dealt with in the previous installment of this series.

In TGF we ask: "Are we witnessing the "shedding" of more "terminological armor" for the sake of ecumenism?

No, we are witnessing two burros (Ferrara and Woods) asking more questions than this present semi informed writer has time to answer.

Note:

{1} Though Mystici Corporis was a source heavily drawn on in Lumen Gentium, the particular subject matter dealt with in Dominus Iesus did not pertain to the subject of the mystical body except by ancillary extension at best.

"An Altered Eye Alters All" Dept.

This is a sequel in some respects to the thread located HERE. Apparently Mr. Ferrara was not too keen on a recent review from The Wanderer on his book. Nor was he too keen on a review from Michelle of the And Then? weblog either.

After musing on the matter for a bit, I decided not to link to either Omar Gutierrez' review or Mr. Ferrara's response to it. In the case of the former, I have only read parts of it in detail and have scanned the rest. As for the latter, the problem is one I pointed out that is common with Integrist screeds in my previous entry. The essence of the point was [how] easy it must be for Mr. Ferrara to make such wide sweeping indictments which he knows his opponent would have to take some time and energy to unpack in order to refute properly. Indeed one would have to write a book to respond to it all. I do not have that time nor do I plan to set aside time to do so. However, as a friend of mine indicated an intention to do a more complete response of one of Mr. Ferrara's articles, these notes of mine from a May discussion list on this subject (taken from the article my friend plans to respond to) are posted for his assistance and also for the musing of the readers of this humble weblog.

As in the last response, Mr. Ferrara's parts will be in dark yellow font with his sources italicized. My sources will be in darkblue font. "TGF" is a reference to Mr. Ferrara's book The Great Facade. "YT" is shorthand for "young theologian". This is Mr. Ferrara's snide deriding of Mr. Gutierrez - presumably because of the latter's age.

In order to expose YT's error and its relation to his critique of TGF, some preliminaries are necessary. I begin by noting that in his monumental encyclical Mystici corporis, Pope Pius XII, citing the teaching of his great predecessor Leo XIII in Satis cognitum, expounded with great force and clarity the Church’s traditional ecclesiology, according to which the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are held to be one and the same thing.

Satis Cognitum is an encyclical letter on the unity of the Church. Besides, for one who wants to reference SC, there is a passage that Ferrara and the Remnant sorts do not seem to want to focus on:

The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head" (St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, 9, xxxix., a. I). From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by schism, as well as by heresy. "We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism" (writes St. Jerome): "heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some Episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church" (S. Hieronymus, Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. iii., v. 1011). In which judgment St. John Chrysostom concurs: "I say and protest (he writes) that it is as wrong to divide the Church as to fall into heresy" (Hom. xi., in Epist. ad Ephes., n. 5). Wherefore as no heresy can ever be justifiable, so in like manner there can be no justification for schism. "There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism....there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church" (S. Augustinus, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. ii., cap. ii., n. 25). [Satis Cognitum §10}]

I go over this in more detail HERE. In brief though, Satis Cognitum is concerned with pointing out the doctrine of the Church pertaining to the Roman Pontiff, the Bishops in communion with him, and the entire hierarchial structure of the Church and how it safeguards the unity of the Church. The intention to deal with those who had long been separated from the Apostolic See was not the intention of the encyclical. Nor was the subject of salvation for those not in visible communion with the Church a subject covered in that encyclical. But much as proof texters do, Mr. Ferrara will cite whatever he thinks can make his case - proper context of the statements themselves be damned.

As Pius XII declared: If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ—which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church—we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression 'the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ'—an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.

I am surprised that so-called "traditionalists" make this error continually. I mean Pius XII's magisterium is supposed to be so "perspicuous" according to them. Notice thought where these guys go astray.

Mr. Ferrara quotes Cardinal Ratzinger saying that Pius XII "seemed" to say that the Mystical Body of Christ was identified solely with the Catholic Church in complete identity. This is the core of the very error that snared Fr. Leonard Feeney after Mystici Corporis Christi was published. Meanwhile, Mr. Ferrara proof texts Pius XII a few times to claim there is a contradiction. As usual, Mr. Ferrara failed to do his homework. Here is what Pius XII's encyclical actually says. I will highlight the key points and add the word implied by the text in brackets.

As He hung upon the Cross, Christ Jesus not only appeased the justice of the Eternal Father which had been violated, but He also won for us, His brethren, an ineffable flow of graces. it was possible for Him of Himself to impart these graces to mankind directly; but He willed to do so only through a visible Church made up of men, so that through her all might cooperate with Him in dispensing the graces of Redemption. As the Word of God willed to make use of our nature, when in excruciating agony He would redeem mankind, so in the same way throughout the centuries He makes use of the Church that the work begun might endure.

If we would define and describe this true [visible] Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church -- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.

The visible church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church. This is not the complete identity that pundits such as Mr. Ferrara seem to want to make. The distinction between body and soul of this period resulted in the mystical body metaphor often being applied to the visible church in a predominantly juridical manner. This was the manner in which it was applied in the encyclical Humani Generis:

Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. [Humani Generis §27]

If one notes the footnote at the end of this statement in the text, it is Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq. In reference speak, "Cf" and "Cfr" mean "paraphrase" or "approximation." If not for the fact that the encyclical footnote specifically denotes a paraphrase, one could possibly impute some error to the encyclical Humani Generis (HG) since Mystici Corporis does not say exactly what HG §27 is asserting it does. It is also important to pay attention to context. The error that those who were being corrected was addressed in Mystici Corporis Christi (MCC) and reference to the encyclical duly footnoted would reveal the following:

[T]hey err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.

In short, the proscribed error in HG §27 is the one condemned in MCC about the Church being something solely invisible or "merely peumatological" as if there is not a visible structure also to the Mystical Body. Those who used the term "Mystical Body" in this context were committing an error.

In one simple, elegant sentence Pius XII made it perfectly clear that the Church of Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. In other words: Church of Christ = Roman Catholic Church = Mystical Body of Christ.

The visible Church of Christ is indeed the Catholic Church. And the Mystical Body is the Catholic Church. But to refer to it as the "Roman Catholic Church" is to limit it to the west since the Eastern Catholics are not "Roman Catholics" as that term is generally understood. The problem for Mr. Ferrara is that he does not seem to recognize the shift in emphasis in Lumen Gentium to the Church as predominantly mystery with the visible elements understood as integrated into the whole. It is in essence an inversion of MCC where the emphasis was primarily on the visible Church with a secondary thread devoted to the Church's mystery.

However, the exposition as such in MCC had one weakness to it and that was how to explain those of good will who were not part of the visible church who were nonetheless of good will were saved. The dichotomistic concept of "body" and "soul" was a common analogy at this time. Before concluding the encyclical, here is how Pius XII sought to bridge the chasm:

As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ," and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic God of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.

Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe. Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the "faith without which it is impossible to please God" is an entirely free "submission of intellect and will." Therefore whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See, that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act. For men must be effectively drawn to the truth by the Father of light through the Spirit of His beloved Son, because, endowed as they are with free will, they can misuse their freedom under the impulse of mental agitation and base desires. Unfortunately many are still wandering far from Catholic truth, being unwilling to follow the inspirations of divine grace, because neither they nor the faithful pray to God with sufficient fervor for this intention. Again and again we beg all who ardently love the Church to follow the example of the Divine Redeemer and to give themselves constantly to such prayer. [Mystici Corporis §103-104}]

In short, Pius XII by admitting that "they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" had set the stage for Paul VI's musings on the matter in Ecclesiam Suam and Lumen Gentium's further explanation of how this relationship was to be properly understood.

The distinction was in short between body and soul in Pius' exposition. Lumen Gentium went about expounding on this subject in a different and more complete matter - and was prefigured on this by Pope Paul's first encyclical letter Ecclesiam Suam. In Lumen Gentium, the use of subsistare was making a distinction between the visible church and salvific efficacy. To quote from my treatise on the subject of subsistare:

Subsistence is a specific kind of existence. The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary defines it as "that perfection whereby a being is capable of existing in itself" (Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary pg. 507). Subsistence (Lat. subsistare) is an old Scholastic term used to explain the manner whereby God exists. Unlike all other entities, God does not depend on another source for His existence. Instead, He is fully subsistent. Likewise the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in such wise as she does not depend on any other Church or ecclesial community for she possesses the fullness of grace and truth. The same cannot be said of other Churches or ecclesial communities which depend on the Catholic Church for what degrees of truth that they possess.

So the Church of Christ can be properly said to subsist in the Catholic Church as this denotes existence to the fullest possible extent. Of course since the Church had never fully specified her boundaries explicitly prior to VC II, there was no way of knowing what the exact boundaries of the Church were. This is why the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church would insist on the necessity of belonging to the Church for one to be saved but they never at the same time declared anyone individually not in the visible Catholic Church to be damned. Think about that for a moment: not one Father said that it was not necessary to belong to the Church for one to be saved. At the same time no one who died outside the Church was ever declared to be damned by the Church in all of history (not even Judas). What this says about the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation is that while it is a necessity surely that nevertheless God in the end is the final judge of who is inside the Church (be they implicitly or explicitly so) because only He knows the inner person. Here is the context of the term subsistare from Lumen Gentium (LG) §8.

The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ, the visible society and the spiritual community, the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches, are not to be thought of as two realities. On the contrary, they form one complete reality which comes together from a human and a divine element. For this reason the Church is compared, not without significance, to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature, inseparably united to him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a somewhat similar way, does the social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ who vivifies it, in the building up of the body (cf. Eph. 4:15).

This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." [Lumen Gentium §8]

For an example of an "element of sanctification" that can be found outside the visible confines of the Church, consider the sacrament of baptism. When Pope St. Stephen in the mid third century decreed (against the protestations of St. Cyprian) that heretics were not to be re-baptized and the baptisms of heretics even by heretics were valid (as long as they baptized by water in a Trinitarian fashion), consider what he was saying about the Church as the custodian of the sacraments. The Church has always taught that only she was the custodian of the sacraments but heretics can validly baptize as long as they use the proper formula (Trinitarian formula). What this says is that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church always recognized implicitly that God's grace flowed through the Church and that God did not punish those outside the Church who (through no culpable fault of their own) were ignorant. In short, if they were good people who did as best as they knew how the will of God, then they would be justified in God's eyes (Acts 10:34). God only holds us accountable for what we know and only actual unrepented sins bring about our condemnation.

God is infinitely merciful; therefore He cannot judge someone without taking all aspects into account including that they may have been born in a disadvantaged situation. (Being a cradle Catholic is a blessing that far too many people do not realize.) The knowledge of the truth may through situations beyond their control be limited. As long as they are not knowingly resisting the truth then they can in some cases perhaps be saved in spite of the beliefs they hold and not because of them. The rationale here being that a person who knew the necessity of explicit membership in the Catholic Church if they were of good will and desirous of doing as God wills, they would join the Church. This was the rationale behind the concept of baptism of desire and also an implicit witness to the bounds of the Church which for the first time was explicitly set forth in Lumen Gentium, a Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church.

The exposition of the Church in LG is a true development of doctrinal terminology and not an innovation as 'traditionalists' claim it is. However, such an exposition in no way implies that our separated brethren are not to be evangelized of course. Far from it, the Council actually urges Catholics to be more zealous in actively evangelizing our separated brethren as our predecessors in the Faith did. However, the reader needs to ask themselves if they actually see 'traditionalist' groups doing this. Evangelization does not mean (i) getting in people's faces and shouting at them (ii) insulting them by lying about their beliefs or (iii) using coercive means of persuasion. How often do the SSPX or other so-called 'traditionalist' groups engage in true evangelical outreaches??? For those who claim to hold the faith, they are not exactly generous in sharing it with others. And if they deny the rigorous interpretation of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus - which they claim to (Archbishop Lefebvre was a defender of baptism of desire), then they by default profess that the Church of Christ can exist outside the visible boundaries. And to do this is to accept the notion of subsistare.

Traditional terminology of "body" and "soul" sought to explain this mystery but the analogy was flawed in some aspects. By contrast the term subsistare explains the traditional teaching in a manner that fully takes into account the maxim of St. Thomas that God is not bound by the sacraments. (By logical extension, He is not bound to the visible boundaries of the Church in order to save people either.) To accept this principle is to be in accordance with Tradition and also by default to accept subsistare. To reject subsistare is to reject by default Tradition and implicitly accept Feeneyism. [A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism', Part X (c. 2003, 2000)}]

The biggest problem Mr. Ferrara has is one which is common to those of a more rationalistic mindset. Like all obnoxious Integrists, Mr. Ferrara has no apparent understanding that the mystery of the Church and the relationship of people to her transcends mere theological cogitations. Paul VI noted this in his first Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam where many of the pointers were put down which would be developed by the Council in its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium:

The mystery of the Church is not a mere object of theological knowledge; it is something to be lived, something that the faithful soul can have a kind of connatural experience of, even before arriving at a clear notion of it. Moreover, the community of the faithful can be profoundly certain of its participation in the Mystical Body of Christ when it realizes that by divine institution, the ministry of the Hierarchy of the Church is there to give it a beginning, to give it birth, to teach and sanctify and direct it. It is by means of this divine instrumentality that Christ communicates to His mystical members the marvels of His truth and of His grace, and confers to His Mystical Body as it travels its pilgrim's way through time its visible structure, its sublime unity, its ability to function organically, its harmonious complexity, its spiritual beauty.

Images do not suffice to translate into meaningful language the full reality and depth of this mystery. [Ecclesiam Suam §37]

The inability to understand traditional ecclesiology by Mr. Ferrara continues.

Yet, as we show in TGF, it was none other than Fr. Ratzinger who lauded the "shedding" of the term "membership" at Vatican II, calling that term "terminological armor." It was necessary to shed this "terminological armor," wrote Fr. Ratzinger, because "The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality...Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches…" —meaning, Protestant sects.

What idiocy!!! Fr. Ratzinger as a good ressourcement theologian was not referring to Protestants as Churches because they are properly speaking not Churches. To be a Church there has to be episcopacy and valid sacraments. The argument by Fr. Ratzinger was that the Catholic needed to understand that the Church is more than just the Latin rite. This was a problem before the Second Vatican Council and even today it still is - albeit not nearly as much as it was previously.

The theology of communio (communion) recognizes a collection of Churches diverse in expression but professing one faith and united with the See of Peter - the source of communion of the universal church. Protestant groups could not be included in this vision without first the establishment of an episcopate and then unity in doctrine. With the Orthodox Churches, the degree of unity is over 95% in doctrine even if theological expositions on that unity of doctrine differ in some respects. As the Orthodox are already Churches properly speaking, all that is needed is unity in profession, not absorption of them into the Latin rite as Indian Reservations called "rites."{1}

Fr. Ratzinger even went so far as to say that "A basic unity—of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church—must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.

This is correct. In dealing with the Churches, the emphasis must be towards the individual Churches retaining their own liturgies and devotions and other traditions as far as this is possible. "Conversion" is a term that applies as much to Catholics as to anyone else. Hence the idea that others have to convert and Catholics do not is implied and this is erroneous because all of us are in need of repentance and turning back from sin. What is conversion but "turning back" after all right??? The types of sins may differ but we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (cf. Rom iii,23). A theology that recognizes this is indespensable when it comes to the subject of Christian reunion.

Based on these considerations, TGF expressed the concern that Cardinal Ratzinger's opinions appear to be irreconcilable with the teaching of Pius XII and his predecessors that the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. And this is no mere academic dispute. The doctrine of the Mystical Body affirmed by Pius XII (and even Vatican II!) is essential to preserving the vital distinction between the inside and the outside of the Church (for purposes of the dogma "no salvation outside the Church"), and membership and non-membership in her.

Aah but Mr. Ferrara supports schismatics. By the doctrine of Pius XII, he is therefore not to be accounted as a member of the Church. (See MC §22). At least our separated brethren have a ton of potentially inculpable ignorance they have to plow through to see the Church as she really is. What is Mr. Ferrara's excuse???

If these distinctions are lost, Pius warned, the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation will be reduced to "a meaningless formula"—one of the signal errors of neo-modernism.

What is so meaningless about "those who are ignorant of Christ and his Church and are incapable of removing their obstacles through the use of ordinary diligence are not held as liable for it"??? This is not a declaration of anyone in particular being invincibly ignorant. Nor is it an excuse for people to remain where they are using this as a "loophole" if you will. There is no "meaningless formula" being espoused as per the serial suspicions of Mr. Ferrara.

As we have seen over the past forty years, this error leads inevitably to a drastic waning of the Church's missionary zeal.

In the past ten plus years there has been a resurgence in conversions. In 1997 for example there were over 150,000 Catholics brought into the Church including baptisms, reversions, and conversions in America alone. And half of that total was converts.{2} Throughout the 1990's this was the trend. It may not be as quantitative as in a few of the years preceding the Council but it is comperable to that period. And as far as the qualitative nature of converts today, it is on the whole arguably of greater import than in the nineteenth century through early twentieth centuries - to say nothing about the mid twentieth century period.{3}

For why should anyone be terribly concerned about making converts if formal membership in the Church—being inside the Church as a visible Mystical Body—is no longer viewed as crucial to anyone’s prospect of salvation?

And who has claimed that there is "no concern" on the matter??? To again quote myself:

[T]he Council actually urges Catholics to be more zealous in actively evangelizing our separated brethren as our predecessors in the Faith did. However, the reader needs to ask themselves if they actually see 'traditionalist' groups doing this. Evangelization does not mean (i) getting in people's faces and shouting at them (ii) insulting them by lying about their beliefs or (iii) using coercive means of persuasion. How often do the SSPX or other so-called 'traditionalist' groups engage in true evangelical outreaches??? For those who claim to hold the faith, they are not exactly generous in sharing it with others. [A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism', Part X (c. 2003,2000)]

Mr. Ferrara can continue to whine, disingenuously misrepresent magisterial teaching, promote factionalist uncharitable behaviours, and undermine the credibility of the Church if he wants to. (For his pride continually feeds on itself and spurs him to rebellion against the magisterium and thus against the Church he claims to defend.) The rest of us will carry the weight of bringing the Gospel to others each according to their abilities. Hopefully in time Mr. Ferrara can "spiritually become a man and put away the things of a child" (cf. Cor.xiii). Until then prayer is probably our best recourse in his case.

If interested in reading more on the follies of Mr. Ferrara, see the thread located here to read a postscript to the above materials.

Notes:

{1} Or functionally speaking as as defacto "Satellites" of the Western Patriarch.

{2} Sometimes entire parishes have been received into the communion of the Catholic Church.

{3} If the converts of the past were properly taught certain key distinctions, the "traditionalist" movement would not have arisen as it did sapping the Mystical Body of needed energy in the immediate period after the Council.

The Lidless Eye Inquisition weblog has been rather active in the past couple of weeks. I posted a new entry to it today on the subject of "sola fide trads." Here is the link if you are interested:

The Lidless Eye Inquisition

Some very intriguing insights from my friend Pete Vere on a recent event that may signal an unfortunate trend in the SSPX and their negotiations with Rome. After almost two hours on the phone tonight with Pete discussing this subject (among others) let us just say what he notes here is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Points to Ponder:

It is impossible that the precious blood should not in some measure overflow the chalice at Mass and some day--at least at the moment of death-- purify those straying souls who do not resist divine attentions or the actual prevenient graces that inspire their conversion. [Fr. Reginand Garrigou-Lagrange OP: Our Savior and His Love for Us]

I have said it many times - though not often on my weblog admittedly - that Michael Jackson has a job that I wish I had. I have sampled Kingfisher mentioned at the link above and it is quite good. Casual readers who still think I am referring to the Michael Jackson of Jackson 5 fame, please click on the link above and be disabused of this egregious error on your part.

Priests such as Fr. Jim Tucker of Dappled Things really give me optimism about the younger generation of seminarians and priests who have been cropping up in the past ten years. His homily from last Sunday can be read here and is something that we all should read and reflect upon.

Points to Ponder:

"But for the grace of God," the cliché goes, "goes I". On the lips of the self-righteous it can be a careless cliché. But who can deny its terrible truth when sufficiently pondered?[Stephen Hand: The City and the Cross]

Those who have been critical of me for emphasizing the importance of general norms should pay very close attention to the approach taken by the scholar Thomas Lessl in the article The Galileo Legend obtained courtesy of Greg Krehbiel's weblog. Proefessor Lessl explains a truism that is so often overlooked today and it is worth quoting here:

In our milieu it is often assumed that "factual" simply means "true," and that "facts speak for themselves." But facts seldom do. Our convictions do not arise from facts alone but always from some whole, some picture that we compose from these smaller pieces of information.

If only we can get modern fundamentalists to understand this concept, perhaps a lot of the bickering that takes place will cease. But to accept such things requires a bit of humility and that is always a bitter pill to swallow by anyone. But I digress...

Veritas has been silent for a while.

Well Worth a Read:

Dialogue on Religious Freedom (John Pacheco vs. Robert Sungenis)

Maybe Mr. Sungenis will interact with John's questions in the next installment as he certainly did not do so here for the most part. Notice what I said earlier about how to discern authentic charity from false zeal and see which of these two approaches the subject in an authentic and Traditional manner. I will give you a hint: it is not the one who would call themselves a "traditionalist."

Dave "the Axe" Armstrong cuts up dialogues with Matt "Oil" Slick of CARM semi-fame in an exchange which can be read HERE. Reading Matt's responses at the latter link reminded me of one of the dictums of talk radio's Michael Savage:

"Extreme liberalism is not a political philosophy, it is instead a mental disorder."

I happen to believe that the same is the case with a certain other belief paradigm I have discussed over the years and written about quite a bit. I am sure the reader who has followed this weblog knows of what I speak so there is no need to mention it here.

Points to Ponder:

WHEN Jesus is near, all is well and nothing seems difficult. When He is absent, all is hard. When Jesus does not speak within, all other comfort is empty, but if He says only a word, it brings great consolation.

Did not Mary Magdalen rise at once from her weeping when Martha said to her: "The Master is come, and calleth for thee"? Happy is the hour when Jesus calls one from tears to joy of spirit.

How dry and hard you are without Jesus! How foolish and vain if you desire anything but Him! Is it not a greater loss than losing the whole world? For what, without Jesus, can the world give you? Life without Him is a relentless hell, but living with Him is a sweet paradise. If Jesus be with you, no enemy can harm you.

He who finds Jesus finds a rare treasure, indeed, a good above every good, whereas he who loses Him loses more than the whole world. The man who lives without Jesus is the poorest of the poor, whereas no one is so rich as the man who lives in His grace.

It is a great art to know how to converse with Jesus, and great wisdom to know how to keep Him. Be humble and peaceful, and Jesus will be with you. Be devout and calm, and He will remain with you. You may quickly drive Him away and lose His grace, if you turn back to the outside world. And, if you drive Him away and lose Him, to whom will you go and whom will you then seek as a friend?

You cannot live well without a friend, and if Jesus be not your friend above all else, you will be very sad and desolate. Thus, you are acting foolishly if you trust or rejoice in any other. Choose the opposition of the whole world rather than offend Jesus. Of all those who are dear to you, let Him be your special love. Let all things be loved for the sake of Jesus, but Jesus for His own sake.

Jesus Christ must be loved alone with a special love for He alone, of all friends, is good and faithful. For Him and in Him you must love friends and foes alike, and pray to Him that all may know and love Him. [From The Imitation of Christ, Book II, chapter VIII via Gerard Serafin]

"From the Mailbag" Dept.

Hello Shawn.

I've wanted to get in touch with you for awhile now. I finally found your email on the Lid-Less Eye blog.

Hello XXXX:

I decided to post this to Rerum Novarum instead of The Lidless Eye Inquisition even though the subjects covered pertain more to the latter than this humble weblog.

Well, I'm a 17 year-old teenager and I love reading debates and controversal issues. I also come from a strong Catholic family, so I like to read about my faith.

Debates and controversial issues are fine but they cannot replace living the faith. It is good to hear that your family is strong in the faith.

Last year I started to kinda get into the traditionalist movent (reading their material that is), but within the last 6 months though I started reading people who support your position on this issue. I now agree with the "neo-conservatives".

Well, if we want to get technical about it, the true "neo-conservatives" are those who like to apply that label to others. I discuss this subject among others at this link if you are interested. Authentic conservatism historically has been proactive and ressourcement oriented, not reactive and oriented towards a blind and uncritical preservationist approach. Only in the twentieth century did the historical understanding of "conservative" undergo a diametric change and come to represent a sort of fundamentalist incarnation. It is for this reason that I reject the label "conservative" root and branch. If the term was understood as in the traditional sense than I would without a problem embrace it. But until then, I cannot in good conscience do so.

I do still have a lot of questions though. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to answer some of them. Right now I don't have time to search through your writings to find the portions on which I am confused, but for now I'll just ask two questions that I have about this whole issue.

Okay. I would recommend reading my treatise A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' for a systematical and multifaceted refutation of a lot of the arguments raised by self-styled "traditionalists" on a whole cornucopia of primary subjects. I have had to in recent months make that a "prerequisite" when dialoguing with most people who want to discuss these subjects because too many people are not familiar with the root and matrix issues on these matters. Having said that, I merely offer it to you as a proposal and not a dialogue requirement. Having noted that, onto your questions we go :)

1) Has John Paul II ever talked about having a particular devotion to the Divine Mercy? The reason I'm asking it is because CAI has claimed that in his first encyclical our Pope said that everyone has been redeemed.

I am sure you have heard the expression about taking something "with a grain of salt." Well in the case of CAItanic, unless you are taking Greek lessons from Mr. Sungenis it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that you should take anything they say with an entire salt mine.

I think a good way to explain this, as a loyal Catholic, would be to say that he means that Christ died for everyone. In THIS SENSE the Redemption was universal, but the application of the fruits of Christ's sacrifice is a TOTALLY different matter.

Indeed, you have made the distinction that Fundamentalists such as CAItanic are constitutionally incapable of making. It is not without reason that I often say "to be deep in dogmatic theology is to cease to be a 'traditionalist.'" The same principle applies to liturgical history, Tradition, and also church history among other areas of note. Let us consider one example from church history that is particularly applicable in this example: the parallels that self-styled "traditionalists" have to the Jansenist heretics.

You will find many of today's so-called "traditionalists" take issue with the notion that Christ shed his blood for all men. (Indeed any reading of "trad" literature in a six month span would have to have resulted in you coming across the pro multis canard at least a few times.) Consider if you will what other historical group had problems with the notion of Christ shedding his blood "for all men" - setting aside for a moment the question of pro multis with regards to being an accurate translation of the Greek hoi pollen.

It was the Jansenist heretics of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries who claimed that the expression "Christ shed His blood for all men" was "Semi Pelagian". (Which is a way of saying it was heretical since Semi-Pelagianism is a heresy.) Pope Innocent X of blessed memory condemned that proposition along with several others from the work Augustinus as heretical. Typically you will find with heretics or schismatics that they have two common traits amongst them generally speaking (i) they never admit that they are heretics or schismatics and (ii) they always attempt to minimize the Incarnation to some degree. With Jansenist/Calvinist sorts, this is usually done by claiming that the atonement is limited (and usually dramatically so) and with the kind of partiality that would make some of the Pharisees of Our Lord's time blush.

There is an irony that the Jansenists hated the Sacred Heart devotion claiming that it was too "humanistic" (much as they disparaged the Council of Trent) whereas the very "trads" devoted to the Sacred Heart --who often lambaste the Second Vatican Council and the Popes for preaching a "false humanism"-- cannot see the blatant (and unflattering) historical parallels. It does not surprise me that some disparage the Divine Mercy. Indeed it would be more worrisome if they did not do this because then they would not conform quite as easily to the historical template of how heretics and schismatics tend to behave. (They still would but the template would not be as precise you might say.)

One thing that the Scriptures show in more than one place - particularly the Gospel and Acts - is that those considered to be "outsiders" were at times not only not what they appear to be but indeed they can be truer to the essence of the Gospel than those who from all appearances are the most secure of "insiders." This is a lesson that is so frequently overlooked by those who would make the New Covenant contain less graces than the Old Covenant. The pattern in both testaments is clear: the secret sanctuary of the heart is where the real evidence of one's allegiance lies in other words.

My good friend Dr. Art Sippo likes to say that "Christ is the New Adam, not the new Moses or new Abraham." He got the terminology from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans but consider the ramifications that this teaching contains. St. Paul in using this terminology of "New Adam" was not speaking in the sort of restrictive terms that many like to assert. The first Adam brought destruction on the human race, the second Adam restored the human race. Notice in the Encyclical letter Redemptor Hominis that Pope John Paul II lays a heavy stress on this teaching from Romans. I will put the footnotes in the text in brackets for help in ascertaining the proper context according to the general norms of interpretation:

The Redeemer of the world! In him has been revealed in a new and more wonderful way the fundamental truth concerning creation to which the Book of Genesis gives witness when it repeats several times: "God saw that it was good".{Cf. Gen. 1 passim} The good has its source in Wisdom and Love. In Jesus Christ the visible world which God created for man {Cf. Gen. 1:26-30.39}-the world that, when sin entered, "was subjected to futility"{Rom. 8:20; cf. 8:19-22; Vatican Council II: Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 2, 13: AAS 58 (1966) 1026, 1034-1035.}- recovers again its original link with the divine source of Wisdom and Love. Indeed, "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son."{Jn. 3:16.} As this link was broken in the man Adam, so in the Man Christ it was reforged {Cf. Rom. 5:12-21}. Are we of the twentieth century not convinced of the over poweringly eloquent words of the Apostle of the Gentiles concerning the "creation (that) has been groaning in travail together until now"{Rom. 8:22} and "waits with eager longing for the revelation of the sons of God"{Rom. 8:19}, the creation that "was subjected to futility"? Does not the previously unknown immense progress-which has taken place especially in the course of this century-in the field of man's dominion over the world itself reveal-to a previously unknown degree-that manifold subjection "to futility"? It is enough to recall certain phenomena, such as the threat of pollution of the natural environment in areas of rapid industrialization, or the armed conflicts continually breaking out over and over again, or the prospectives of self-destruction through the use of atomic, hydrogen, neutron and similar weapons, or the lack of respect for the life of the unborn. The world of the new age, the world of space flights, the world of the previously unattained conquests of science and technology -is it not also the world "groaning in travail"{Rom. 8:22.} that "waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God"{Rom. 8:19}?

In its penetrating analysis of "the modern world", the Second Vatican Council reached that most important point of the visible world that is man, by penetrating like Christ the depth of human consciousness and by making contact with the inward mystery of man, which in Biblical and non-Biblical language is expressed by the word "heart". Christ, the Redeemer of the world, is the one who penetrated in a unique unrepeatable way into the mystery of man and entered his "heart". Rightly therefore does the Second Vatican Council teach: "The truth is that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a type of him who was to come (Rom 5:14), Christ the Lord. Christ the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling". And the Council continues: "He who is the 'image of the invisible God' (Col 1:15), is himself the perfect man who has restored in the children of Adam that likeness to God which had been disfigured ever since the first sin. Human nature, by the very fact that is was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his Incarnation, he, the son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man. He worked with human hands, he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin"{Vatican Council II: Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 22: AAS 58 (1966) 1042-1043.}, he, the Redeemer of man. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis §8 (c. 1979)]

Frankly, the context of the passage could hardly be plainer. So in one sense CAItanic would be right in that the human race has been redeemed. But of course rather than admit to that eminently Catholic teaching, the CAIraqi leader tries to find universalism in what was said. This is an example of the sort of thing that people who are disingenuous tend to do: they look for the worst possible interpretation of any circumstance. As I have noted on not a few occasions a true and Traditional Catholic should [a]lways be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action...may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Fr. RP Quadrupani referencing St. Francis se Sales (c. 1795)] Negative judgments in short should not come rashly and not without plenty of rope if you will being advanced. Unfortunately some such as those you mentioned eventually hang themselves with the rope. But that is their prerogative to do of course.

Our Pope wants to bring the hope to world that God actually died for every single person. This wicked world of ours needs this hope; it needs something to live for. It needs to know that someone LOVES the world more than we can imagine. And then people will have something to live for; something they can have as the center of their lives (instead of chaos). Something even to die for. And.... well I better stop since I'm sorta digressing.

Very astute analysis. God the Father is reputed to have told St. Catherine of Siena:

Man is placed above all creatures and not beneath them, and he cannot be satisfied or content except in something greater than himself. Greater than himself there is nothing but Myself, the Eternal God. Therefore, I alone can satisfy him, and because he is deprived of this satisfaction by his guilt, be remains in continual torment and pain. Weeping follows pain, and when he begins to weep, the wind strikes the tree of self-love, which he has made the principle of all his being." [The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena pg. 203]

Part of the reason that the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II emphasize the dignity of man so much is because this truth has been marred so much in the modern world. Indeed in rereading the encyclical letter you mentioned, JPII's themes are so parallel to what God the Father is reputed to have told St. Catherine that I wonder sometimes how people can be blind to it. The "key" though to unlocking the mind of JP II is actually mentioned in the same Dialogues noted above where the subject of obedience is discussed. I have been considering posting the entire thread on my weblog Lidless Eye and advancing the thesis that "God the Father is a Neo-Catholic." Suffice to say, here are some very small parts of the text on the disobedient:

Oh blinder than the blind, for, having spoilt the key of obedience thou dost not think of mending it! Dost thou think, forsooth, that the disobedience that closed the door of heaven will open it? that the pride which fell can rise? Dost thou think to be admitted to the marriage feast in foul and disordered garments? Dost thou think that sitting down and binding thyself with the chain of mortal sin, thou canst walk? or without a key thou canst open the door? Do not imagine that thou canst for it is a fantastical illusion...What is the reason for all of this, and of such blindness that prevents them from recognizing this treasure? The cloud of self-love and wretched pride, through which they abandon obedience and fall into disobedience. Being disobedient they are impatient, as has been said, and in their impatience endure intolerable pain, for it has seduced them from the way of Truth, leading them along a way of lies, making them slaves and friends of the devils with whom, unless they amend themselves with patience, they will go to the eternal torments...the disobedient walk in pride, holding their head erect, and if sometimes it suits their convenience to obey they do not incline their heads with humility, but proudly do so because they must, which force breaks the neck of their will...Who are her enemies who have been expelled? The chief is self-love, producing pride, the enemy of humility and charity. [Dialogues of St. Catherine of Siena pgs. 287, 291,304,306]

That suffices to explain why those who "resist to the face" or defend those who act in this manner will not inherit the kingdom of God. With one voice has the Church down through the ages taught the evil of schism which is the crushing of the very charity in the soul by which we will be judged.

The reason I'm asking about our popes devotion to the Divine Mercy is because in the Divine Mercy chaplet is says something like "all sinners are in Christ's Sacred Heart".

I went through my booklet on the Novena and while indeed there are prayers for all sinners (those who are lukewarm, heretics and schismatics, pagans and those who do not yet know the Lord, those in purgatory, priests and religious, the whole world, etc) I could not find anything identical to what you are saying. The two prayers of the Chaplet have as a common theme variations of "have mercy on us and on the whole world" but how is that any different essentially than the Fatima Decade Prayer petition "lead all souls to heaven especially those in most need of thy mercy"??? Yet you do not hear those who promote Fatima claiming that such prayers are "universalist." Again, consistency is not a hallmark of self-styled "traditionalsts."

As far as the pope goes, it is worth noting that as Archbishop of Krakow, Karol Wojtyla opened the cause for Sister Faustina. That in and of itself should indicate his devotion to the Divine Mercy. It precedes his reign as pope by at least ten years if not longer.

Traditionalists wouldn't object to this devotion, but they would still insist in their cynical way that our Pope means that everyone is saved.

See what I noted above about those who act in such uncharitable ways. Every schism trumps up a heresy to justify itself historically. With the "trads" they hand heresy on Vatican II and on JP II as a way of excusing their disobedience. They will try to enter the door with the same key as the first Adam (disobedience) rather than use the key of the Second Adam (obedience). To again quote what is reputed to God the Father to St. Catherine in dialogue Dost thou think, forsooth, that the disobedience that closed the door of heaven will open it? Sadly with the "trads" they often tacitly presume this very thing. And that will be to their downfall if they do not repent and seek to be reconciled to Holy Mother Church.

So if it can be shown that he has a devotion to the Divine Mercy this might help them to believe that he truly means what he says in a Catholic sense (even if it can be interpreted at times in a liberal way).

This is a good point but a more fundamental principle is, I believe, worth noting here. A truly Traditional Catholic would never presume that the pope's expressed beliefs are not in a Catholic sense. Whatever this applies to him as an individual (and it should) it is particularly the case when he is teaching in his magisterium. That the so-called "traditionalists" act in a manner that continually reveals a lacuna of authentic charity speaks volumes for just how truly and Traditionally Catholic they really are not.

It is pointless to try to reason on a too frequent basis with those who lack proper charity. All you will do is drain your own spiritual pool and even tax your very sanity in the process.

2) Where has our Pope encouraged people to actually read the Vatican II texts (like Stephen Hands always says people should do).

Most of his assertions have been implicit ones. I recall an explicit request to the interviewer of Crossing the Threshold to review the Declaration Dignatatis Humanae and also (if memory serves) the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. No other explicit statements come to mind but it stands to reason that as he references Vatican II continually in his magisterium that someone studying the texts would refer to the sources as an aid to properly ascertaining the sense being attributed to the text. (Hence the popes and councils historically have had footnotes to aid in this area.) He does encourage the propagation of the Catechism which has over eight hundred references to Vatican II in it.

He has emphasized many times the need to interpret the Council correctly which in and of itself implies that the texts would have to be properly understood. (Which is impossible to do IMHO if they are not actually read.) And statements such as [w]ith the passing of the years, the Vatican Council's documents have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church's tradition are not infrequent if one looks at his many speeches and writings on the subject. Again this is perhaps an implicit evidence but it all adds up. Some more examples of this can be seen HERE.

If it can be shown that he DOES encourage this, that would to show that JPII doesn't support the liberal "spirit of Vatican II", but the what Vatican II actually said (which was clearly CATHOLIC).

Your conclusion is correct but I am not sure about the method. It seems to me that you are giving the "trads" unnecessary leeway here. They cannot be allowed to exercise a form of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam{1} or else you surrender the high ground to them. No, one must make them establish their assertions and not allow them to presume that they can take a defacto position of imputing ill will onto others.

If they will not start from a position of charity themselves then they must be shamed into doing so. For any other starting point except one of charity is blatantly unCatholic and unTraditional. They claim to be "Traditional" so we must hold them to approaching and discussing these subjects as a true Traditionalist would. Otherwise Our Lord's reference to the Pharisees "honouring with their lips while their hearts are far from God" (cf. Mark vii,6; cf. Isaiah xxix,13) would readily be applicable to them.

I guess that's enough for now.

Thanks and God love you always,

Thank you friend. May you and your family likewise be blessed.

Note:

{1} This is in essence an appeal to ignorance. An example of this would be asserting that the absence of a proposition being proven true means that it therefore must be false. This is a fallacious form of argumentation.

"The Enloe Files" Dept.

This is a continuation of the conversation started with Tim located at this link. My good friend and legal eagle SecretAgentMan sought to reformat the three parts below for the board and the results are a mixed bag. Nonetheless, the reader may find them interesting.

Response to my Reformed Friend Tim Enloe (Part I)

Response to my Reformed Friend Tim Enloe (Part II)

Response to my Reformed Friend Tim Enloe (Part III)

[Update: I did an internet archive search for these links and was able to find one of them. For that reason, I am reclassifying this to a relevant category -namely the one titled The Good/The Bad/The Ugly -Apologetics. -ISM 5/19/07 8:40pm]