A Brief Dissertation on the Mystical Body:

Hi Shawn, just a quick response to your use of body of Church/soul of Church distinction to explain how non-Catholics belong to the Church.

I did that because it highlights two elements of the Church's mystery: the visible and the invisible.

I'm not sure whether that distinction is the best way to go - whether, i.e., sincere non-Catholics aren't somehow joined to the body as well as the soul of the Church.

The issue is not whether they are or not but whether they can be accounted as such by Catholics. And the answer is that they cannot be.

(Indeed I wonder whether being joined to the soul/"form" is metaphysically possible without being joined also to the body/"matter.")

I doubt that it is metaphysically possible either but any bonds that are there are invisible ones since there is no manifested external verification. Whatever may be the case there is still no visible criteria to account for it. The Council of Trent recognized the validity of receiving the effects of certain sacraments implicitly (referring to baptism for the unbaptized and penance for the baptized) but these are not substitutes for the real thing. It is instead a recognition that God is not bound to the means that He binds us to.

The underlying principle remains: they cannot be accounted as members of the Church who are not baptized, professing right faith, and in submission to the ecclesiasial hierarchy. (See Mystici Corporis Christi §22.) Frederich Jurgensmeier explained it thusly in his book "The Mystical Body of Christ" when treating on the question at hand:

According to her principle, the Church as The Mystical Body of Christ embraces potentially the whole human race. There is but one Head by whom and in whom everything is created [Col. i. 16], and this Head has the tendency to unite all within Himself. According to His predestination and potency [Cf. S.T., III, q. 8, a. 3, resp], He embraces all mankind.

This Body of Christ is intended to extend beyond the present boundaries of the visible Church because it is to include all nations and ages [Apoc. vii. 9: 1 Tim. ii. 4,6: iv, 10]. However, it would be wrong to consider as actual members of the Mystical Body those who, though endowed with sanctifying grace, are not actually members of the visible Catholic Church.

The Second Vatican Council taught the same principle in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium explaining the manner whereby the People of God are both brought into the Church and how they through the sacraments grow in virtue. Reference was made in LG §8 to the Church being governed by the pope and the bishops in communion with him. The obvious implication would be that you cannot understand the later chapters apart from this section - this is a fundamental principle of theological interpretation.

After LG §8 the second chapter of the dogmatic constitution outlines the People of God. This moniker cannot properly apply to anyone who does not accept both episcopal government and the sacraments as channels through which God primarily conveys His grace.

For the elements of episcopal government, reception of baptism, reception of confirmation, and the celebration of the Eucharist are outlined in the exposition along with the sacraments of Penance, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. So no one who does not accept them can be properly accounted as part of the People of God and by definition that includes all non-Catholics except the Eastern Churches not in communion with the Pope and (at least in theory) the High Church Protestants who recognize the episcopate. They though whose bishops are not in communion with the pope would logically be excluded as well.

The bottom line is that only Catholics by definition can qualify as part of the People of God and the sensus fidelis which logically flows from it. All of this is established in Lumen Gentium before the discussion of the "how" of salvation applies. More on this in a moment.

For some thoughts on this, see chap. 7 of de Lubac's Catholicism. (Interestingly, the CCC #846 reformulates the "Outside the Church ." maxim: "it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.")

But the maxim was not controverted. To reformulate something positively simply means that you recognize something in a positive manner and not a negative one.{1} Extra ecclesia nulla salus was defined at points where there was controversy and the authority of the Church was being compromised by heretics. This cannot be lost sight of.

For in the latter kind of situation, you do not give any ground whatsoever to the opponent much as I do not give any ground whatsoever to insolent self-styled "traditionalists" who like to act like misanthropes and trash people by wielding texts from magisterial statements the same way anti-Catholics wield texts of the Bible to "prove" that the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible.{2}

The root and matrix of why the Church is necessary for salvation is because the Church is God's chosen instrument for the propagation of the Gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and other means whereby we can attain salvation by the grace of God. The marital imagery of Ephesians 5 in its application to the relationship between Christ and the Church signifies exactly how close the Church is to Christ: she is "one flesh" with him. Thus no one who obstinately rejects the Church can have any part of the Passion - or as St. Cyprian noted "he cannot have God as a Father who does not have the Church as a Mother".

Lumen Gentium was drafted to explain in detail the Church's mystery and part of that mystery involves salvation and *how* people are saved. Also, Fr. de Lubac had a very strong hand in the text of Lumen Gentium in case you were not aware of that.{3} So while I have not read the source you reference (or nearly as much of de Lubac's writings as I wish I had by this time of my life); nonetheless I do not see how there is a controversion in Fr. de Lubac's view and the view espoused by the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi or the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. The last paragraph of LG 13 will be referenced here to explain the differentiation:

"The members of the people of God are called to share these goods in common, and of each of the Churches the words of the Apostle hold good: "According to the gift that each has received, administer it to one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (i Pet. iv,10).

All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it. And there belong to or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation."

LG 13 makes the distinction in a threefold manner and devotes a section to fleshing out each one. They are (in order) the Catholic faithful who are the only ones who can be properly accounted as members of the Mystical Body (LG 14). From there, it notes others who explicitly profess Christ who are of good faith (thus they are related to the Church in a closer manner then non-Christians through the bond of baptism and other elements) but whose profession of faith or ecclesial adherence is objectively lacking in some form or another (LG 15).

Finally, there are non-Christians who are of good faith and strive to follow the law of God as best as they can discern it by the dictates of their conscience - whose status is even more objectively deficient then non-Catholic Christians (LG 16).{4}

It is also important to remember that statements are not interpreted in a vacuum. (Those of a dissident so-called "liberal" or dissident so-called "traditionalist" stripe do this continually.) Lumen Gentium in perfect continuity with Tradition explains the mystery of the Church and how salvation is possible through the Church. And as a dogmatic constitution its authority surpasses that of apostolic/encyclicals of the popes. I mention that for those who like to invent controversions between that text and previous documents of the papal magisterium by failing to follow the general norms of theological interpretation.

Getting back to the EENS issue, it was Traditionally recognized that people could be saved who were not explicitly Catholic but the "how" part of the equation was seldom touched on. It had always been recognized that people who suffer from some form of ignorance of the truth which could not be overcome with due diligence would not be held accountable for knowing that truth.

Lumen Gentium affirms this and explains how salvation could be attained by those who objectively were in error with regards to certain elements of the Gospel. The emphasis was on the saving elements of truth that non-Catholic Christians to varying degrees possess as well as those that non-Christians possess. For those of good faith the elements themselves can be salvific. For those who are not, they are not only not salvific but indeed are a sentence against them if you will.

This assessment bears itself out in a reading of the text itself for Lumen Gentium deals with EENS in the exposition on the Church's mystery in LG 14. LG 14 explicitly affirms the sense in which EENS was defined and redefined in: those who are aware that the Church is necessary for salvation and refuse to enter or remain within her:

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (Cf. Mc 16, 16; Jn. 3, 5. ) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

That is the essence of every dogmatic pronouncement on EENS in Church History: they were all made to those who were not unaware of this obligation but were contumacious in their disobedience to the Church. This is why to focus only on that element of the equation when explaining the mystery of the Church is woefully inadequate but when one is dealing with someone who knows the necessity of the Church for salvation but who refuses to submit to the Church (like many self-styled "traditionalists"), all that is necessary to emphasize is that those who are outside the Church cannot be saved.

Lumen Gentium goes on to explain the "how" of this mystery as it pertains to Christians and non-Christians who strive to follow the dictates of their conscience and the elements of the full deposit of grace that they possess that come from the Church herself. To continue with the reference of LG 14:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

12 Cfr. S. Augustinus, Bapt. c. Donat. V, 28, 39; PL 43, 197: Certe manifestum est, id quod dicitur, in Ecdesia intus et foris, in corde, non in corpore cogitandum. Cfr. ib., III, 19, 26: col. 152; V, 18, 24: col. 189; In Io. Tr. 61, 2: PL 35, 1800, et alibi saepe.

13 Cfr. Lc. 12, 48: Omni autem, cui multum datum est, multum quaeretur ab eo. Cfr. etiam Mt. 5, 19-20; 7, 21-22; 25 41-46; Iac., 2, 14.

It is interesting that the Council chose as one of the reference texts for those who do not practice charity the fifth book of St. Augustine on Baptism Against the Donatists. And for the part about being more severely judged among the Scriptural texts referenced is the judgment scene in Matthew's Gospel where Jesus tells the "goats" where they went wrong in their lives.

Remember, it is a theologically certain teaching that we cannot account amongst the members of the Church anyone who is not (i) baptized (ii) professing the full symbol of faith and (iii) in submission to the ecclesial magisterium of the Church. Lumen Gentium used the concept of "incorporation" to explain the membership element of the equation which is an objectively better way of explaining it.{5}

But this does not detract from the fact what what is being explained is a theologically certain truth: that we cannot extend table fellowship to non-Catholics because they are (to use the "member" analogy) "in arrears".{6} The choice of the word "incorporation" and its implied derivatives are different (and preferable) to the older more imprecise "member" terminology but the essence and intent is to hand on the same teaching. I hope this off-the-cuff explanation is not too confusing.

Notes:

{1} For example, seeing a glass with 50% volume of water as "half full" rather then "half empty".

{2} It is one thing to do this out of ignorance and another to do so to stubbornly resist church authority. If it is clear I am dealing with the latter I am not that genteel about it.

{3} And quite likely he was the most influential of the Council periti on the text of Lumen Gentium - at least with the first three chapters anyway.

{4} Among the latter the Jewish people have pride of place if you will and are in some ways rather unique amonst non-Christian people.

{5} Since one can be incorporated by degrees and this is difficult to explain with the "member/non-member" distinction.

{6} Much the way those conscious of mortal sin cannot receive the Eucharist.

Courtesy of Donna Lewis' Quenta Narwenion BLOG is the following test which I recently took:


The sixth book written, you're nevertheless the first chronologically. You not only describe the creation of Narnia and tell where the White Witch, the lampost and the wardrobe came from, you get to bounce between worlds with the help of Uncle Andrew's weird magic rings.

Find out which Chronicles of Narnia book you are.


Hopefully Donna Lewis and other CS Lewis fanatics will not excommunicate me when I say that I only read the first four books of the Narnia series. (The first three in fourth grade and the Silver Chair in fifth grade.) In essence I am a book that I have never read.

As far as the Narnia series goes, I kinda lost interest admittedly in them but I was reading books by the score at that time on various subjects - a trend that continued through elementary and secondary school and into college. (Only in the late 1990's with the struggles over "traditionalism" did I have a reading spurt akin to the ones I used to have years ago.) Some friends are reading the books to their children now and they are what in retrospect are "useful fiction" if you will. (As opposed to a lot of stuff which is "non-useful fiction".) The nice thing about Lewis' Narnia series is that it is written in a way that appeals to children but at the same time can be appreciated by adults too. Kinda like the old Warner Brothers cartoons and the new "Pinky and the Brain" series. (Not to mention SpongeBob Squarepants which appears to me to be a cartoon Lucy and Ethel.) But I digress...

My interest in CS Lewis was rekindled in reading some of his apologetics materials - of which The Screwtape Letters was a favourite one. Seeing the Narnia quiz got me to thinking about the whole Harry Potter situation - one that I frankly have no competence to comment on since I have not read or seen Harry Potter at all. (I do not watch many movies anymore and I tend to not read much fiction anymore except the occasional "traditionalist" periodical.) I get the impression that a lot of people are critical of the author of Harry Potter because she is not as good a fiction writer as J R R Tolkien. I find it interesting that people cannot enjoy a work on its own merits but one element of the Potter series that I have heard about is somewhat troubling. Is it true (I ask those familiar with the series) that the Harry Potter series tends to glorify disobedience to lawful authority??? Inquiring minds want to know...

Some very observant comments on the "traditionalist" issue courtesy of Greg the Obscure can be read HERE.

Clarification to the Previous Post:

This is to expand upon a point of the previous post which was marked with a *

After conceding amongst some friends that despite his obvious shortcomings in theology, history, science, and the like that I thought Bob was at least a pretty good cartoonist (he outclasses me in this area by my own admission) one of my friends who actually knows a thing or three about the subject of sketching/cartooning, etc. responded as follows:

Actually, as professional graphic artist who does a fair amount of cartooning, I think [Bob is] a TERRIBLE cartoonist:

After giving an analysis on the manifold flaws in his style my friend concluded as follows:

If he can take his hand out of the Kookie Jar long enough to take art lessons, he should run and not walk to the nearest art school ASAP.

Now I suppose I could claim that my friend the professional artist does not know what the hell he is talking about and puff myself up as a "sketch expert" but I would then be emulating the superrr genius and who wants to do that???

Rerum Novarum Update:

I hope to do a more thorough update in a week or so. (Right now I am rather strapped for time and have a lot of irons in the fire so to speak.)

Under the "Semper Fi" section I added some clarifications I made about the Profession of Faith and how it is rooted both in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as Canon Law. (This technically is a theological musings entry but hopefully putting it here will help in providing a clarification of the Profession that those who are enrolled in the Faith Legion have all publicly made.)

Under the Weblog section I added Dylan's "Tenebrae" BLOG

Under the "Other Approved Sites or Links of Interest" section I added some excerpts from Fr. Newman's sermon "Faith and Private Judgment". It was put under the link to some of my "trad" writings (and pieces by others contra "trad" drivel) not by accident.

Under the Approved Websites section I added The Catholic Legate. On this one permit me for a moment a brief digression.

I have long enjoyed conversing with John Pacheco on discussion lists that we have been on over the past few years. (And also reading his writings.) John is the webmaster of The Catholic Legate and other Staffers include Anthony Schratz, Dr. Wibisono Hartono, Suzanne Fortin, Jason Moran (staff canonist), and Fr. Ignatius. "Canadian Apologetics in da hoooooouse" in short to do my best "yo MTV raps" impression.

[My rap imitations are at least marginally better than Bob E. Sungenis' attempts at cartooning - which in essence means they are quite horrid indeed* ;-)]

Anyway, to all of the aforementioned links as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum I give them all motu proprio declaring that their content is approved in the sense previously outlined in the margin of this weblog all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Extreme Christmas Poetry

Blogging has been light recently and this week will also be rather light too. I started revising my treatise last night and finished the first part. It appears that I will be going with a fifteen url format this time with each url averaging about 20 pages in length. There will also be a clean sweep of the live links to insure that they all work correctly - some apparently have expired in the past year plus since that work was last given a small touch-up. I saw Koko Taylor at Jazz Alley and ...well ... she is definitely the Queen of the Blues. Very powerful performance and she toured with an excellent backing band too. If she is in your area I recommend going to hear her sing live.

Spiritual Instruction on Prayer (Part III):

The last part of this series can be found HERE. To start from the beginning go HERE.

5. St. Francis de Sales teaches us that merely to keep ourselves peacefully and tranquilly in the presence of God, without other desire or pretension than to be near Him and to please Him, is of itself an excellent prayer. "Do not exhaust yourself," he says, "in making efforts to speak to your Divine Master, for you are speaking to Him by the sole fact that you remain there and contemplate Him."

"Remember that graces and favours of prayer do not come from earth but from heaven and therefore no effort of ours can acquire them, although, it is true, we must dispose ourselves for their reception diligently, yet withal humbly and tranquilly. We ought to keep our hearts wide open and await the blessed dew from heaven. The following consideration should never be forgotten when we go to prayer, namely, that we draw near to God and place ourselves in His presence principally for two reasons. The first is to render God honour the honour and homage we owe Him, for the duty is fulfilled by acknowledging that He is our Creator and we are His vile creatures, and by remaining before Him, prostrate in spirit, awaiting His commands. The second reason is to speak to God and to listen to Him when He speaks to us by His inspirations and the interior movements of grace.....Now, one or the other of these two advantages can never fail to be derived from prayer. If, then, we can speak to our Lord, let us do so in praise and supplication: if we are unable to speak, let us remain in His presence notwithstanding, offering Him our silent homage; He will see us there, our patience will touch Him and our silence will plead with Him and win His favour. Another time, to our utter astonishment, He will take us by the hand, and converse with us, and make a hundred turns with us in His garden of prayer. And even should He never do this, still be content to know it is our duty to remain in His retinue, and it is a great favor and a greater honour for us that He suffers us in His presence.

In this way we do not force ourselves to speak with God, for we know that merely to remain close to Him is as useful, nay, perhaps more useful to us, though it may be less to our liking. Therefore when you draw near to our Lord, speak to Him if you can; if you cannot, stay there, let Him see you, and do not be anxious about anything else....Take courage, then, tell your Saviour you will not leave Him should He never grant you any sensible sweetness; tell Him you will remain before Him until He has given you His blessing." - St. Francis de Sales.

6. The same Saint gives further valuable advice as follows: "Many persons fail to make a distinction between the presence of God in their souls and the consciousness of this adorable presence, between faith and the sensible feeling of faith. This shows a great want of discernment. What they do not realize God's presence dwelling within them, they suppose that He has withdrawn Himself through some fault of theirs. This is an ignorant and hurtful error. A man who endures martyrdom for love of God does not think actually and exclusively of God but much of his own sufferings; and yet the absence of this feeling of faith does not deprive him of the great merit due to his faith and the resolutions it caused him to make and to keep."

7. Your vocal prayers should be few in number but said with great fervor. The strength derived from food does not depend on the quantity taken but upon its being digested. Better one Our Father or one Psalm said with devout attention than entire rosaries or long offices recited hurriedly and with restless eagerness.

If you feel wilst saying vocal prayers - those not of obligation - that God invites you to meditate, gently and promptly follow this divine impulse. You may be sure that in doing so you make an exchange most profitable to yourself and agreeable to God from whom the inspiration comes.

To be continued...

"JunkYard BLOG" Dept.

PARTYING LIKE IT'S 1995

Senate Minority Leader (soon to be...) has finally lost it. Today, he compared Rush Limbaugh and other righties to Islamic terrorists...Click here for more

On the combatting terrorist front:

ATTENTION PENTAGON SHOPPERS

The Pentagon is looking into the feasibility of tracking consumer purchases, ostensibly to look for tell-tale signs of terrrorist activity.

Edward Aldridge, undersecretary of Acquisitions and Technology, told reporters that the Pentagon is developing a prototype database to seek "patterns indicative of terrorist activity." Aldridge said the database would collect and use software to analyze consumer purchases in hopes of catching terrorists before it's too late. Click here for more

On the above subject I am not as divided as Bryan is. For as much as I abhor the degenerative nature of conspiracy theory, this is one area that would frankly give too much credence to that realm. (Though not as much as something I recently heard about which falls into the "it would be evil if if fell into the wrong hands" category. I may write on this subject soon if time affords.) Nonetheless, that is nearly enough reading for this entry. One more on this subject to complete the "triple spin":

ONE MORE MURDERER OFF THE STREETS


Woo-hoo! We've nabbed al Qaeda's top guy in the Persian Gulf region...Click here for more

"ACME Industrial Powered Catholic Refutometer" Dept.

As readers of my web essays are aware, I have been rather critical of Reformed "theologian", "historian", and "philosopher" Eric Svendsen for having an amazing degree of obtuseness in some of the most fundamental elements of theology, history, and philosophy. (I demonstrate this in two essays at my writings link in the margin: the first on a garden variety number of subjects and the second on his ignorance of Church history and the Christological heresy of Nestorianism which Svendsen is unquestionably an adherent of - along with many elements of a Manichaean outlook.) Before posting another example of his egregious mistakes, permit me for a moment this small observation.

Eric kinda chases after the Catholic Church and her evangelists like Wil E.Coyote chasing after the Roadrunner. And like Wil E. Coyote (who self dubs himself "Superrr Genius") he crashes and burns continually. Well this time The Curmudgeon plays the part of the Roadrunner and yet again Eric is exposed for an ignoramus. Here is the link: Bambi vs. Godzilla.

Maybe the "E" in Wil E. Coyote's name stands for "Eric". After a few years of watching him crash and burn I think this is a very viable theory.

Note to Michael (Pax): My response to you is finished and I hope to email it tomorrow evening or so. I apologize for the delay but I am rather behind on responses over the past week plus.

More on Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus:

A continuation of the thread started HERE.

Dear Shawn,
Thanks for 10 point summary of your position on EENS.

No problem. I was unaware that you had the Welborn protocol going on with your list but that is okay :)

We are basically in agreement.

I am glad about that.

I differ only with your means to our shared conclusion, i.e., I object to points 5 through 9.

I had a hunch you would disagree with those points. The reason: I used Council documents and a reference to Pope Paul in making them.

For if I had not included references to Pope Paul and the Council documents my guess is that you would have no disagreements with them at all. Nonetheless, I decided to include them anyway in order to test my hypothesis and you took the bait as I thought you would :)

For I could have referenced Lumen Gentium for point ten and a couple of other points too and originally did but I removed the references in those examples sensing that if I did that you would concur with them. And my instincts were correct as usual.

You are still operating under a hermeneutic of suspicion about Vatican II or anything remotely connected to what you preceive of it. I trust that in time that tendency will be breached though.

It seems metaphysically silly to divide the truth up, as if the Mystical Body of Christ really had arms and legs, a heart and a thyroid gland, bigger and lesser parts. As if the Protestants merely comprise its left foot, while the Pentecostals have no more of the truth than its baby toe.

Again, non-Catholics are joined to the Soul of the Church (aka the "animating principle of the Body" but cannot be accounted as actual members of the Body itself. As far as "metaphysical silliness" goes, well you need not address that to me but instead take it up with St. Paul:

1 Corinthians 12

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.
6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
16 And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.
19 If they were all one member, where would the body be?
20 But now there are many members, but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
22 On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary;
23 and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable,
24 whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked,
25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now you are Christ's body, and 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.

The distinction between the body and the soul is how Catholics and non-Catholics are distinguished for we cannot account as actual members those who are either (i) unbaptized (ii) baptized but failing to profess the right faith or (iii) baptized, professing the right faith, but failing to submit to the discipline and authority of the Church. Anyone with these defects can only be joined to the Church through the soul if at all.

Now while 1 Corinthians 12 gives a description of the body and its members in explaining the diversity of gifts within the Church, the most significant manifestation of the mystical body in the Scriptures is in the fourth chapter of Ephesians:

Ephesians 4

1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,
2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,
3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.
8 Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN."
9 (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love...

Ephesians 5:

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,
30 because we are members of His body.
31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.
32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

And the classic epistle text for the Nuptual Mass in the Tridentine Missal uses the text above from Ephesians in explaining the relationship of Christ and the Church. As in the Corinthians text and the text from Ephesians 4, the imagery is not conveyed that way without purpose.

This theme of the Mystical Body in literal terms was also reiterated in Colossians which some believe was written concurrently with Ephesians and borrowed some of its thought:

Colossians 2

4 I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument.
5 For even though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good discipline and the stability of your faith in Christ.
6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,
7 having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead...

18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

So I reject the VCII notion you seem to be pushing of “the hierarchy of truth” (as if the Mystical Body were a totem pole of higher and lower truths), the “axis of convergence” around which all truth is found (as if there really was a skeleton the various churches hang their pound of flesh upon), and “the fullness of truth” subsisting in the Catholic Church (as if the blood flowing from her wounds in the form of Protestantism could give life to the red dirt).

Then you disagree fundamentally with St. Paul. I doubt there was many subjects where he was clearer on than the very real imagery of the relation of the members of the Body of Christ and the Head of the Body as Christ being joined together as literally as are ligaments, joints, fingers, toes, and other organs joined to a body. This imagery is the very heart and soul of our worship which is a partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion.

For "[i]s not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (i Cor. x, 16-17).

Protestants think our belief in the Real Presence is "metaphysically silly". I suggest you think about the manner whereby they abandon the literal text of John vi because of its "metaphysical silliness" and instead consider that perhaps St. Paul's reiteration of the relationship of the Mystical Body to Christ in literal terms is done with a similar "silly" reason.

I also suggest that in light of what I have pointed out above (and will point to below) that you set aside your constant suspicions on these matters as solemnly proclaimed by Mother Church in the last Ecumenical Council as the manner whereby people are saved through the Church who are saved at all. Oh lest I forget the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium in explaining the mystery of the Church used over 300 Scriptural references including:

1 Cor 12 - 7 references
Ephesians 4:1-16 - 7 references
Ephesians 5:22ff - 6 references
Col 2:4-12; 18-19 - 3 references

There was a reason I suggested reading that open letter concurrently with St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. Hopefully my reason for that is now evident.

"Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology" - St. Thomas Aquinas

Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus - A Brief Synopsis:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

To understand the gist of the response I will be blogging next, I will put up part of an email I wrote which outlined this subject.

My position in a nutshell is this:

1) All salvation comes through Christ.

2) The Church is the sacrament of salvation through which all graces flow.

3) Outside the Church there is no salvation.

4) The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ has both visible and invisible components. Members properly so-called are incorporated by baptism and maintain their membership in the Mystical Body by both profession of faith and submission to the Church's authority. Any one of these elements lacking and the person cannot be accounted as a member of the Church and has no part of the ecclesiastical body.

5) The fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church (cf. Lumen Gentium §8) which is "the axis of convergence" around which all truth is found (cf. Pope Paul VI).

6) Subsistance in Scholastic terminology is a unique quality which denotes existence in itself. Thus God subsists and we merely exist. Existence involves dependance whereas subsistance does not. This is the relationship of all other churches, ecclesial communities, and faiths to the Catholic Church.

7) Any and all Churches, ecclesial communities, or other belief systems to the extent that they proclaim truth proclaim a portion of what the Church possesses and professes.

8) Thus any salvific efficacy from the elements they possess are derived from the Church and without such elements, salvation is impossible.

9) These elements deriving as they do from Christ thus "lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ" (cf. Unitatis redintegratio §3).

10) Those who for reasons beyond their control do not understand the necessity of unity of the ecclesiastical body can through desire to fulfill the will of the Creator and the practice of charity be joined to the Soul of the Church which is the animating element of life of the Mystical Body. (Much as the human soul is the animating element of life for the human body.) In this manner they may achieve eternal salvation.

That in essence outlines my position in brief. It allows for the possibility of salvation for many people not formally within the Church's ecclesiastical body. I am inclined to think that more people are saved then damned if only for the fact that salvation is by grace alone, God is infinitely loving, and I cannot see how the Kingdom of Heaven having less people than the Kingdom of Satan would not give the Evil One cause to boast.

Summary of the Weekend, Current Troubling Thoughts, and Also a Treatise Revision Update:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Over the weekend I attended the wedding of a good friend's daughter. It was at my old SSPX church so I had to be rather diplomatic and bite my tongue. There was much feasting, dancing, and good red wine among other amenities. I met some new people and I even allowed myself to drink on this occasion - a treat as I have been dieting for the past few weeks and had lower caloric intake than what is normal for me.{1} I also had some good conversations with the father of the bride who reminds me in so many ways of my father. On the whole I would give the evening an 8 on the scale of 1 to 10. What prevented it from being a 9 or 10 was one gnawing element that I could not bring up which I mention now:

How after all do you explain to someone that they were simulating but not actually receiving the sacrament of Matrimony and not cause a ruckus??? And is it better in this situation to bring it up later on or should I have mentioned it when they posted the banns???

Of course technically since I do not go to church there, I guess I am not sure if the banns issue would apply to me anyway. And there is of course the element of being very good friends with the father of the bride as well as the entire family. Many old parishioners were in from out of town and many acquaintances were remade. That they are some of the most genuine people I know and have the best of intentions is not to my mind disputable. But then I can say the same thing about many non-Catholics I know as well.

It is not as if religion is not discussed as much as I try in these circumstances to pick my moments and keep the conversations focused on only a few points at most at a time to keep them controlled. But then admittedly the circumstances for these kinds of discussions rarely crop up in the mainstream of discussions had.

The thing that is most paradoxical is that as much of a splash as my treatise made in the web community, there has not yet been an effect at my old church for one very good reason: virtually none of them either have computers or (if they do) it is usually for checking of email, etc. The pastor at my old church (who is not my former pastor btw) found out about my work indirectly and was rather testy about it - not that he has read it as I know he has not. Simply the very *idea* that such a work exists is what annoys him about it.{2}

I made a cardinal mistake with the revision of the work in retrospect by putting it on three urls. The reason??? It makes printing it a very arduous task as each url is over a hundred pages. Even on double-sided paper no public library would want someone taking up fifty sheets a crack with printing and of course single sided it is a hundred pages per url. And in light of some friends who plan to attend Society convents/seminaries/monastaries next year - as well as the contact that I have had with many of my friends in that sphere as of late - I am getting the fire under me stoked to start anew the revisions I started in March of 2002 before losing the harddrive in May.{3}

There is also the fact that I frankly do not like reading my own stuff because so much of that happens when drafting, writing, revising, and reshaping a work that when it is published I am almost always sick of looking at the stuff. (One may not get that impression from how I quote it when doing evangelization but that is because I see no reason to reinvent the wheel and for convenience sake.)

If I had to do all the writings all over again I cannot say I would change what happened in that realm{4} because often making revisions to one work gave me ideas for other projects. (Including some which are still being pondered over for 2003.) In that sense they go together like a patchwork quilt.

The treatise went through a few minor touchups and one major revision the latter happening in the three days following Christmas in 2000. And unlike touchups I did a lot of editing of material out of the work to shorten it and a lot of tightening up what was left so that it was a crisper work with a more systematical flow than the original version.{5}

I also removed a lot of the polemic from that version though I intend to expunge what traces remain when I get to this new revision which will be more of a retouching and restructuring than the previous one was. I am toying with adding five new pages of material. These would be either developing points in the original text that I passed over at the time - mainly because I was sick of the work admittedly - or adding some fresh segues on the psychology element that I deliberately left out of previous versions. I also plan to put this work on 10 urls averaging 30 pages per so that friends with computer access can more readily print the work up for reading - as I tire of people asking when the work is going to be published: frankly I am not sure if it will or not at this time. But I digress.

Getting back to the conundrum above, I freely admit that they were so gracious to me with the tragedies of my father, grandmother, two uncles, two paterna step grandparents, and others who passed in the span of a shade over two years (March 2000-June 2002 with most deaths happening in 2001) that part of me has held back and not wanted to push this issue. All they know is that:

1) I see significant problems with the SSPX and "traditionalism" as a whole.

2) I have written on it though the works are mainly on the Internet domain.

3) I have tended to handle discussions in this vein very diplomatically and done my part to prevent any fissures if you will.

The principle being followed here is that a criticism prudently deferred can be applied later on whereas one imprudently is out there and cannot be retracted. (Yes I *do* take the spiritual instructions I post to this weblog seriously - or at least I try to.)

Unlike most of the deliberately myopic "trads" who make waves on the web, the majority of people are not willfully blind and are willing to consider a point on its merits. Therefore although the response to the treatise was overwhelmingly positive - and I received more heartfelt emails than I can recall - I still may have detracted a little from the force of the arguments by the use of triumphalist tone.{5} I intend to remove as much of this as I can detect in the next version which I hope to start on this coming Saturday night. Friday night Koko Taylor is in town so I cannot start it until Saturday evening.

In short, I guess I am wondering if I am taking the right approach with the marriage thing above. Any comments on the matter are welcome - even if they are critical. As long as my readers consider the spiritual instruction on zeal which I have in the margin of this weblog and consider that I am trying to follow that as a template, then it is okay to be critical with me as far as I am concerned.

These are after all judgment calls we all must make and I lay no claim to infallibility so I may be mistaken to shy away from this subject until I can better accommodate those with printers to print the treatise for reading.{6}

Anyway, that is all I am in the mood to discuss tomight so I will forego anymore posting until probably tomorrow evening or Wednesday. And I hope in that span to catch up on my email stack which is rather large: it should be easier since I have tightened the spam controls at both angelfire to only accept emails from either those in my address book, those I have emailed, or those I have accepted emails from in the past. All others send to lycos. In fact, it is best to send to lycos period as I check that account twice as much as I do angelfire if not more so.

Notes:

{1} Let us just say that some corks were tossed in the old McElhinney family tradition and we will leave it at that.

{2} At least that is the impression I receive from those I heard this from.

{3} When that happened I freely admit to my motivation for doing that sort of thing was shot.

{4} Except for the family members passing on of course who were unexpected and who were too young in my mind. (Three who were in their sixties including my dad come to mind here.)

{5} Some of the stuff edited out was made into essays in 2001 including sketches that resulted in the essay on Christian Unity and Authority which was written in November of 2000 after I decided to revise the treatise before sending it to the censor - a task that got derailed in 2001 when my family started dying left and right.

{6} Yes to those who wrote with this one point of criticism over the months I *do* take email constructive criticism to mind and have weighed this one for some time.

Spiritual Instruction on Prayer (Part II):

Part I can be read HERE. For continuity sake I will reiterate the last paragraph of part I in part II using dark green font.

The very fact that we derive less gratification from such prayer, makes it all the more pleasing to God, because we are thus suffering for love of Him. Let us call to mind at such times that Our Lord prayed without consolation throughout His bitter agony.

"All this trouble comes from self-love and from the good opinion we have of ourselves. If our hearts do not melt with tenderness, if we have no relish or sensible feeling in prayer, if we do not enjoy great internal sweetness during meditation, we are at once overwhelmed with sadness: if we find difficulty in doing good, if some obstacle is opposed to our pious designs, we give way to disquietude and are eager to conquer all this and to be free from it. Why? Undoubtedly because we love consolations, our own comfort, our own convenience. We wish to pray immersed in sweetness, and to be virtuous that we may eat sugar; and we do not contemplate Our Saviour Jesus Christ, who, prone upon the ground, is covered with a sweat of blood caused by the intense conflict He feels interiorly between the repugnances of the inferior portions of His soul and the resolutions of the superior." - St. Francis de Sales.

This same teaching is given by another master of the spiritual life:

"We frequently seek the gratification and consolation of self-love in the testimony we desire to render to ourselves. Thus we are disturbed by our lack of sensible fervor, whereas in reality we never pray so hard as when we are tempted to think we are not praying at all. We fear to pray badly then, but we should fear rather to give way to the vexation of our cowardly nature, to a philosophical infidelity, which ever wishes to demonstrate to itself its own operations - in fine, to an impatient desire to see and feel in order to console ourselves.

There is no penance more bitter than this state of pure faith without sensible support. Hence I conclude that it is freer than any other from illusion. Strange temptation! to seek impatiently for sensible consolation through fear of not being sufficiently penitent! Ah! why not rather accept as a penance the deprivation of that consolation we are so tempted to seek?" - Fenelon.

3. You wll sometimes imagine that at prayer your soul is not in the presence of God and that only your body is in the church, like the statues and candelabras that adorn the altars. Think then, that you share with those inanimate objects the honour of serving as ornaments for the house of God, and that in the presence of your Creator even this humble role should seem glorious to you.

"You tell me that you cannot pray well. But what better prayer could there be than to represent to God again and again, as you are doing, your nothingness and misery? The most touching appeal that beggers can make is to merely expose to us their deformities and necessities. But there are times when you cannot even do this much, you say, and that you remain there like a statue. Well even that is better than nothing. Kings and princes have statues in their palaces for no other purpose than they may take pleasure in looking at them: be satisfied then to fulfill the same office in the presence of God, and when it so pleases Him He will animate the statue". - St. Francis de Sales.

4. When you have not consciously or voluntarily yielded to distractions, do not stop and to find out what may have been their cause, or to discover if you have in any way given occasion to them. This would be simply to weary and disquiet yourself unprofitably. From wherever direction they come, you can convert them into a source of merit by casting yourself into the arms of the Divine Mercy. St. Francis de Sales when asked how he prayed, replied: "I cannot say it too often - I receive peacefully whatever the Lord sends me. If He consoles me, I kiss the right hand of his mercy; if I am dry and distracted, I kiss the left hand of His justice". This method is the only good one for as the same Saint says: "He who truly loves prayer, loves it for the love of God: and he who loves it for the love of God, wishes to experience in it naught but what God is pleased to send him."Now, whatever you experience in prayer is precisely what God wills. [Fr. R. P. Quadrupini: excerpts from his spiritual instruction "Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls" pgs. 20-22 (c. 1795)]

To be continued...

"There Goes Sun-ge-niiiiis....There Goes Sun-ge-nis...(And Its Clear) That He's Wrong Agaaaaaaaaaaaain" Dept.

Little darlin'...CAI's had a long fall from grace this yearrrrr
Little darlin' it seems like years since Bob has been saaaane
There goes Sun-ge-niiiiis, there goes Sun-ge-nis
And I say he's all wrong agaaaaaaaaaaaain...

Veritas takes aim at Robert Sungenis and yet another example of Bob's mania for revisionist theology. Bob's apparent motto is "when you cannot beat them, selectively edit their statements and build a strawman to set fire to". I thought false witness was a sin against the eighth commandment. But what do I know right??? Anyway, here is the link:

"Bob E. Sungenis: Superrrrr Genius"

Little darlin' there's in-co-her-ence in his wri-ting...
Little darlin' has it been years since he made any sense....
There goes Sun-ge-niiiiis, there goes Sun-ge-nis
And its clear, he's all wrong agaaaaaaaaaaaain...

Frankly my friends, someone who is so ignorant of the Gospel, Church History, Theology, and the Writings of Augustine, Aquinas, Trent, and Pius X ...well... my sense of fair play feels violated even responding to them. (And yes I actually *do* have a sense of fair play that works itself into the equation.)

It feels to me like any aim I take at his theological/historical stuff is taking aim at a fish in a barrel with a shotgun. Not that I have any personal interest in repeatedly subjecting the guy to thrashings but as long as he continues to lie, distort reality, and pass himself off as a Catholic, then the Gospel is made a mockery of. Thus in that light if my friends want to lay the smack down on Bob's candy ass, I may not involve myself directly but when I feel it is warranted, I *will* give them the publicity. Error after all has no rights right???

Little darlin' I see his ice of san-i-ty melt-in'
Little darlin' has it been years since he was Cath-olic....
There goes Sun-ge-niiiiis, there goes Sun-ge-nis
And I say he's all wrong agaaaaaaaaaaaain...

"God will not suffer man to have the knowledge of things to come; for if he had prescience of his prosperity he would be careless; and understanding of his adversity he would be senseless."

You are Augustine! You love to study tough issues and don't mind it if you lose sleep over them. Everyone loves you and wants to talk to you and hear your views, you even get things like "nice debating with you." Yep, you are super smart, even if you are still trying to figure it all out. You're also very honest, something people admire, even when you do stupid things.

What theologian are you?
A creation of Henderson

Addendum to the "Groundhog Day" Entry:

A brief notation on the entry on authority located HERE.

I made a few references to "at least six definitions of papal primacy". I mention this here because I did not mention Pope Boniface VIII's definition in the Apostolic letter Unam Sanctum. I mention this for the "trads" who think I am not aware of this text.

(Yes believe it or not I do get emails on occasion from those who seemingly know no other text and who think because I do not habitually refer to it with every cup of tea that either I do not know about it or I do know about it and am "subverting" the faith by not mentioning it with every breath I take as they do.) Remember people "at least six definitions" means there is more than six, not simply "six".

And why are those so hell bent on parroting Unam Sanctum virtually always the very same people who without fail both apply an unRoman extremist hermeneutic to the text along with egregiously violating the very definition in the sense it was defined in??? (I wonder if King Phillip IV responded to Boniface VIII with the claim "sorry chap, I follow 'Eternal Rome' not your 'Hildebrandian novelty' which is contrary to 1300 years of Catholic Tradition".) Inquiring minds wanna know...

"Bastiat's Corner"

Just because the election is over does not mean we stop the instruction. This is an area that Republicans are almost as guilty in as Democrats. The last section of this series can be read HERE.

I suggest that anyone who has not yet started this series to go HERE and start from the beginning. For I assure you it will be more than worth your while to do this - conservatives to fortify and systemize a lot of what they instinctually know already (as well as provide consistency to the conservative rationale which is not common today). For liberals...well...I challenge you to take this thesis on honestly and wrestle with it. Without further ado, Mr. Bastiat has our next lesson on the Law and its proper use vs. improper use.

Plunder Violates Ownership

I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance -- as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it -- without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud -- to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.

It is to be regretted that the word plunder is offensive. I have tried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for I would not at any time -- especially now -- wish to add an irritating word to our dissentions. Thus, whether I am believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so independent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the suffering.

Three Systems of Plunder

The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries.* Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development.

*If the special privilege of government protection against competition -- a monopoly -- were granted only to one group in France, the iron workers, for instance, this act would so obviously be legal plunder that it could not last for long. It is for this reason that we see all the protected trades combined into a common cause. They even organize themselves in such a manner as to appear to represent all persons who labor. Instinctively, they feel that legal plunder is concealed by generalizing it.

But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value -- the origin and the tendency -- of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder.

Law Is Force

Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion.

Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.

Law Is a Negative Concept

The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed -- then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

The Political Approach

When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.

Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?

But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements -- legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not contain the principle of plunder?

The Law and Charity

You say: "There are persons who have no money," and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.

The Law and Education

You say: "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching - and - learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.

The Law and Morals

You say: "Here are persons who are lacking in morality or religion," and you turn to the law. But law is force. And need I point out what a violent and futile effort it is to use force in the matters of morality and religion?

It would seem that socialists, however self-complacent, could not avoid seeing this monstrous legal plunder that results from such systems and such efforts. But what do the socialists do? They cleverly disguise this legal plunder from others -- and even from themselves -- under the seductive names of fraternity, unity, organization, and association. Because we ask so little from the law -- only justice -- the socialists thereby assume that we reject fraternity, unity, organization, and association. The socialists brand us with the name individualist.

But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.

Authority and Infallibility Yet Again Ad Infinitum:
(aka "Groundhog Day" Dept.)

Dear Shawn,

You wrote, “Theologians are given some leeway whereas they can suspend internal assent but laity can virtually never use this means because they almost always react in an egotistical manner whereby they place the teaching of the Church at their own disposal to pick and choose.”

Not even the eternally indelible transformation of our souls wrought by the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, or holy orders induces in us one iota of moral “leeway.” Yet I am to believe that a mere academic degree in theology does what sacraments cannot do?

The Church has a venerable tradition of suspension of assent as a means whereby difficulties can be worked through. The idea stems from the presupposition that the magisterium expects assent to all of its teachings.

I do not like to discuss this element very often because those who object and gripe at every little thing that does not make them happy do not have the proper frame of mind to be able to utilize this principle in the very judicious manner whereby it is intended.{1} This principle is for that very rare point or two that the individual truly struggles with. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with dissent from teaching which is never permissible.

How can you assume that all us non-theologians “always react in an egotistical manner”?

I said "almost always" and my experience in dialogue on message boards, discussion lists, email correspondence, etc. proves this out. Very rarely do I run across people who are cautious and deferential in the manner whereby they discuss issues pertaining to doctrine or its implementation.

How can you presume that theologians, by virtue of being theologians, are somehow preserved from egotism.

It has nothing to do with being preserved from egotism. What it has to do with is the fact that theologians are almost always far more studied than lay people. (Even someone such as myself who could be classified as an "amateur theologian".) They therefore when they have a problem are usually putting forth a position which has undergone some intense studying on the matter, have approached it in the proper way utilizing norms of theological interpretation, and are thus not reacting flippently.

By contrast I run across lay people who fly off the handle or overreact to issues that - upon a bit of inquiry - it becomes clear that they have a superficial grasp of the factors involved at best. Ergo, such people - particularly since they have no professional training in theology - should be far more circumspect than they quite often are.

A cursory view of the life of Teilhard de Chardin should disabuse you of this.

Actually Teilhard acted appropriately. Church authority told him to shut up and he did. The works of his which were published were virtually all done posthumously - and he published nothing after he was told to shut up. Compared to someone like Lefebvre who did not shut up and who did not bear the sentence imposed upon him with the proper dispositions, I have more esteem for Teilhard than I do for Lefebvre. (To pick one example of several I could list.)

You ask, “Why is it that people cannot seem to get it through their thick skulls that when discussing Catholic teaching and obedience that the issue is not one of infallibility but instead it is a matter of authority???”

Because, authority is fallible but infallible authority is not.

The Church's authority is not made binding or non binding on the basis of the theological qualification of a give teaching. You may recall in my open letter to you that I quoted eight pre-Vatican II popes (Pius VI, Pius VII, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII) on the necessity of obedience to the bishop because he rules with divine authority. Well as I noted last week somehow I overlooked Benedict XV who taught as follows:

There remains one matter which must not be passed over in silence, and that is, to remind the priests of the whole world, as Our most dear sons, how absolutely necessary it is, for their own salvation, and for the fruitfulness of their sacred ministry, that they should be most closely united with their Bishop and most loyal to him. The spirit of insubordination and independence, so characteristic of our times, has, as We deplored above, not entirely spared the ministers of the Sanctuary.

It is not rare for pastors of the Church to find sorrow and contradiction where they had a right to look for comfort and help. Let those who have so unfortunately failed in their duty, recall to their minds again and again, that the authority of those whom "the Holy Spirit hath placed as Bishops to rule the Church of God" (Acts 20:28) is a divine authority. Let them remember that if, as we have seen, those who resist any legitimate authority, resist God, much more impiously do they act who refuse to obey the Bishop, whom God has consecrated with a special character by the exercise of His power.

"Since charity," wrote St. Ignatius Martyr, "doth not suffer me to be silent concerning you, therefore was I forward to exhort you, that you run in harmony with the mind of God: for Jesus Christ also, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father, even as the bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ. So then it becometh you to run in harmony with the mind of the bishop" (Ep. ad Ephes. 3.). These words of the illustrious Martyr are re-echoed throughout the ages by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. [His Holiness Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §28 (November 1, 1914)]

There are fewer teachings that have more of a legitimate claim to the oft-wrongly-thrown-around "2000 years of Tradition" schtick then this one does. Obedience based not on infallibility but divinely vested authority.

The Church would not have bothered to go through all the trouble of defining the dogma of the pope’s infallible authority if we were under just as strict an obligation to obey his fallible authority.

Two points:

1) The definition of papal infallibility only covers what is to be believed de fide. It does not cover a whole host of other area where the pope is also infallible which are too be held by ecclesiastical faith and not divine faith.

2) Prior to defining papal infallibility the Church had already defined the supreme primacy of the pope. She did this at Lyons II and again in the all important sixth session of Florence:

"We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons." [Florence Session VI (c. 1439)]

You may remember this quote from my open letter to you:

"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, BOTH SINGULARLY AND COLLECTIVELY, ARE BOUND TO SUBMIT TO THIS POWER BY THE DUTY OF HIERARCHICAL SUBORDINATION AND TRUE OBEDIENCE, and this *not* only in matters concerning faith and morals, BUT ALSO IN THOSE WHICH REGARD THE DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH THROUGHOUT THE WORLD...[Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus §3,2 (c. 1870)]

Paragraph one of chapter 3 I did not include for the sake of economy. It reads as follows:

"Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence..., which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons."

In short Vatican I before it defined papal infallibility reiterated and defined anew the dogma of supreme papal primacy and authority. And need I remind you of the sanction attached to this teaching. (I quote again from the open letter):

"So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this NOT ONLY IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS, BUT ALSO IN THOSE WHICH CONCERN THE DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA".

The definition of papal infallibility was preceded by a solid reaffirmation and solemn recapitulation under anathema of the dogma of papal supreme primacy. And within that constitution as I noted in the open letter the full supreme authority of the diocesan bishop was reaffirmed though this area would not be fully treated and completed until Vatican II. Nonetheless Vatican I made it clear that papal primacy did not detract from episcopal authority.

So your assertion that "The Church would not have bothered to go through all the trouble of defining the dogma of the pope’s infallible authority if we were under just as strict an obligation to obey his fallible authority" does not stand up. If we really want to get technical about it, there are two definitions of papal infallibility: Vatican I and the reiteration of the teaching at Vatican II. By contrast there are at least six definitions of papal primacy. I will detail them here starting with the Formula of Hormisdas of 519 AD which was the first and the blueprint for all that followed. (Even Vatican I quoted from the Formula of Hormisdas.) For this I quote from the most authoritative commentary on Pastor Aeternus - that issued from the architect of the conciliar definition of papal infallibility Bishop Vincent Gasser of Brixen:

Now I come to the arguments of tradition which are set forth in the proposed chapter itself, come, that is, to the documents adduced from three councils. As far as these arguments are concerned, they are drawn, as you know, from the ecumenical councils in which - after there had, unfortunately, been schisms between the Eastern and Western Church - the East and West came together to remove this schism. Since many objections have been brought forward in the general congregations with the purpose of weakening the probative force which is contained in these testimonies, it is necessary to review a few things.

As far as the Council of Constantinople IV is concerned, the words adduced in the proposed chapter are almost identical with the formula of Pope Hormisdas, by which the Acacian schism was resolved, and which was approved not only by the Church of the West but also by a very large part of the Eastern Church. It was said that this formula contains nothing more than the confidence that there would never happen to the Chair of Peter what had already regretfully happened to so many other Apostolic Sees, and that the successors of the Prince of the Apostles would function until the end of the world in the task of protecting the Faith and of confirming their brothers.

But this interpretation does not agree with either the literal or the historical meaning of the document in question. It does not agree with the letter because the words of this formula of Pope Hormisdas, which were received almost verbatim by the Council of Constantinople IV, say, as you know, the following: "The first thing required for salvation is to keep the norm of correct faith and to deviate in no way from what the Fathers have established, because it is not possible to lay aside the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, `You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.' These words are proved true by their effects because, in the Apostolic See, the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate. Desiring in no way to be separated from this hope and faith and following in all things what has been established by the Fathers, we anathematize all heretics, etc." And at the end it is said: "Therefore, as we have said before, following the Apostolic See in all things and preaching all things determined by it, I hope that I may merit to be in one communion with you (i.e., with Pope Hormisdas) and with what the Apostolic See preaches, in which See [resides] the integral and true solidity of the Christian religion." These are the words of Hormisdas' formula.

So we have Hormisdas' formulary of 519 which was reiterated at Constantinople IV (869) in their Profession of Faith. This formulary was not allowed to be discussed by Pope Clement IV at Lyons II because the teaching has already been set forth by Constantinople IV and he would not allow it therefore to appear to be called into question. Lyons II followed suit by defining the primacy of the Pope in 1274 for what would be the third definition of papal primacy.

Florence followed suit and defined it as I noted above. Vatican I reaffirmed Florence anew, reiterated the Greek profession from Lyons II, and referred to Constantinople IV and redefined the dogma of papal primacy anew affixing it solemnly with an anathema before defining the part of papal infallibility that was to be held de fide. That was the fifth reiteration of the dogma. And of course there is this definition from Vatican II:

This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful.

That is at least the sixth definition of papal primacy. And papal primacy involves teachings of the ordinary magisterium which are either not recognizably definitive or which are not being set forth either expressly or tacitly in a definitive manner.

Distinctions without a difference are not made. Once made, they ought not be treated indifferently.

The difference Albert is that infallibility flows from the authority of the Church, it is not the criterion for obedience to the Church's authority. In the same way, you to the extent that you reiterate the teaching of the Church to your children faithfully are in this matter materially infallible. But your children are not allowed to presume that when Dad is not reiterating Church teaching that his authority is not to be heeded. There is a natural authority that you possess over your family that is supplemented by the teaching of the Church but is not contingent upon it. This is also how Church authority is properly understood.

So if there’s a distinction between fallible and infallible authority, you must allow for a difference in our response to said distinction.

I do. If the teaching is manifestly definitive then assent is definitive and full. If the status of the teaching is uncertain then religious submission of mind and will is required. The difference between the two is that definitive teaching requires definitive assent period whereas teaching where the definitive character is either uncertain or lacking{2} requires religious submission which entails full but not necessarily definitive assent. In this area there is room for questioning in a spirit of fraternal charity to better understand the teaching being proposed. Difficulties can thus be dealt with and overcome.

Furthermore, not all teachings of this distinction have the same degree of authority. Thus to the extent this is possible the individual needs to strive to conform to the manifest mind of the teacher when we are talking about areas where they have authority to teach. As Pope Benedict XV noted above "[T]hose who resist any legitimate authority, resist God, much more impiously do they act who refuse to obey the Bishop, whom God has consecrated with a special character by the exercise of His power". This is why the issue that is the very root and matrix of all areas of dispute is the issue of authority.

Notes:

{1} And also because most people's problems are resolved through further study and prayer if they have the proper disposition anyway.

{2} A teaching is usually handed on definitively through repetition or a series of teachings none of which individually would constitute an actual exercise of magisterial infallibility. This is one of the major reasons why religious submission to ALL magisterial teaching is and always has been required.

On my "harsh" treatment of those who dissent from magisterial teaching Bill Bannon issued the following response: whence the percentages??...feelings???

Here is my response: I *feel* your pain!!!

"JunkYard Blog" Dept.
(aka "A Rerum Novarum Double Spin")

Some commentary on the Iraqi Parlament and Saddam's attempt to pull a Clinton are available at The JunkYard BLOG. Also available if you scroll down to the article on Nancy Pelosi is my comments on why we as conservatives should feign discomfort about Nancy so that the Democrats think she is a "threat" to us and elect her. Counter-espionage in essence my friends. Which reminds me...

The following short essay by Bryan Preston (aka Lord High Executioner of the aforementioned The JunkYard BLOG) highlights what I have been saying for years about how conservatives need to approach their exercise of power:

Help President Bush Help Us

I tried to find my comments on this from Kevin Miller's De Virtutibus weblog but they appear to have disappeared. (I doubt Kevin deleted them.) Anyway that makes up this edition of the "double spin" but before I forget: Kevin reformatted his weblog and it looks good. Give his site a visit and you will see what I mean.