On Papal Primacy and Church History (Part II)
(Societas Christiana vs. Rerum Novarum)
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE.
If one denies metaphysical realism, as some Medievals beginning in the 11th century began to do (with many more following them as the centuries progressed), and chooses to emphasize the other parts of the Western tradition over the "Pope as principatus" part, one is going to see in Church history far different things than the Roman Catholic sees.
Obviously if one denies there are universal concepts and claims that terms to explain them are mere words, names, terms, or vocal utterances and only particular individual things exist (nominalism) or if they admit of theoretical universals but deny any possible practical application of such (conceptualism), they will not view matters as a Catholic does - of this I have no disagreement with you whatsoever.
This shouldn't be a point that makes the Roman Catholic go, "Well, you're just a rebel playing games with history, because the essence of the history is obviously papalist."
Agreed. But at the same time one who wants to espouse a nominalist or conceptualist outlook should not be too critical of those who believe that (i) there is no contradiction between faith and reason properly understood and (ii) who admit of universals in reality as well as the abstract.
For without the existence in reality of universals, there is no way to meaningfully solve any problems that exist since either (i) one can deny that the solution applies by undermining the very concept of objective truth by denying the meanings applied to the concepts used (ala nominalism). Or, (ii) one can simply deny that there are universals in reality though recognizing that there are in the abstract (ala conceptualism). This is another way of achieving what nominalism achieves by a defacto subjectifying of everything. And as a result, it is another route towards intellectual anarchy.
[B]ut this happens, I believe, because of the perfectionistic demands that things like Vatican I have placed upon the Roman Catholic apologetic.
What "perfectionistic demands" are you referring to??? I happen to be rather critical of a fair amount of what passes for "Catholic apologetic" because often it is not precise enough.{1} And this has little to do with Vatican I except in the frequent misunderstandings of papal infallibility which circulate amongst Catholics. (And I have yet to run across a Protestant who properly understands it; due I am sure to the way most Catholics misunderstand it.)
You have brought up the notion of "Roman perfectionism" many times over the years. I chuckle every time you do by my own admission :)
As a loyal Papal Catholic, Shawn, you're simply not epistemically allowed to think that Church history might reveal something different than Absolute Papalism as the Christ-mandated form of ecclesiastical government.
But I already do. And as I do not deny a single dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Faith - nor am I in schism from either the pope or my local ordinary - I am in full communion with the Catholic Church. So your presumption of what Catholics can and cannot believe on this matter does not withstand the scrutiny of real life example. However, it is important that I am not misunderstood here.
What I assert above does not mean that I do not see the primacy of the pope as a doctrine taught by antiquity both expressly as well as tacitly. Nor does what I assert above mean that I do not accept the teachings of doctrine promulgated by the Catholic Church on the matter. These two are separate matters from what I am asserting - and not incongruent with it however it may appear at first glance.
This doesn't make you dishonest (as many Protestant apologists wrongly charge); it just makes you a theological rationalist.
I would say that a lot of my view is theologically rationalistic.
And again, one kind of rationalism is easily countered either by another kind of rationalism or a simple denial of the legitimacy of thinking rationalistically about the Christian Faith. And again, I take the latter option.
A denial of the role of reason in understanding the Christian Faith - am I understanding you correctly here???
My objection is to the intrinsic rationalism of the concept, which from the outset, before any inquiry is done at all, simply propounds definitions and then, as with all rationalistic schemes from Plato to Newman, makes the data of the world fit the definitions.
And of course there is *no* possibility that what was propounded simply happens to most coherently correspond with the available data right???
It's a very tidy way of thinking, and one which can produce very impressive-looking historical reconstructions and lots of pretty polemic fireworks against other positions. But deny the rationalism that makes the thing go, and it really doesn't have much to say at all.
Of course I am sure you will agree that a denial without providing a reasonable counter-proposal should not carry any weight with people. (It certainly does not with me.)
This is proved by the fact that the consensus response I've received from a number of Roman Catholics to this basic line of criticism is the totally gratuitous incantation "You just have to have faith in the Objective Revelation, which is Papalism."
I cannot speak for the statements of others Tim, only for myself. And the truth -however askew the cogitations of others may be on this thread- is essentially that yes, there *is* an element of faith involved of course. This is particularly since the position has been dogmatically defined as being de fide. While strictly speaking a teaching that is de fide cannot be completely comprehended by the light of natural reason, at the same time the latter is not in opposition to the lights of the natural sciences when properly utilized according to Catholic teaching.{2}
So, in other words, it's not really history that matters, but a certain way of construing history, and if one doesn't contrue history that way one lacks "faith" and unfortunately skews the "objective" meaning of Divine Revelation.
The problem with the above outlook Tim is that it seems to presume that Catholics believe what they do by some kind of philosophical or historical inquiry. Whatever value the latter two have -and they certainly have value- they are not the *determiners* of what we believe.
That sort of circular logic may convince people who are already Roman Catholics, but it isn't likely to do much for those of us who aren't and who simply deny that entire mode of thinking.
Anyone can simply deny something Tim. (The atheists do it with any notion of Infinite Intelligence proposed by a theist.) My position with them is the same as what I espouse with you viz the notion of placing a value on simple denial: I do not do so. Indeed, I tend to reserve my disdain for those who act in this manner because criticism and deconstruction without offering viable alternatives or synthesis contributes nothing whatsoever to the arena of ideas.
It is also true that theologians must always have recourse to the sources of divine revelation; for it is their duty to indicate how what is taught by the living magisterium is found, either explicitly or implicitly, in Sacred Scripture and in divine "tradition".
I have had recourse to Humani Generis more than most Catholics for both sustaining theses of my own as well as refuting others who do not properly understand the manifested intention of that encyclical letter.{3}
And yes, it is the role of theologians to explain to the laity who as a general rule are not well informed on the manner whereby the magisterium draws on Scripture and on Tradition and exactly how the supernatural sciences cohere with the natural sciences. (For we hold that there can be no contradiction between them but that does not mean that every individual can properly recognize this.)
On the next page (p. 641), Pius XII interprets this to be the intent of Pius IX as well, when he states, "Our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX taught that the most noble function of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources . . ."--all emphasis mine
And this is problematical exactly how??? *Obviously* if the magisterium claims to be defining a doctrine contained either explicitly or implicitly in either Scripture or Tradition (or both) that there would require to satisfy things in the natural order a demonstration of how this was done. Some truths are more primary and of an easier verification in these venues; however ones which are more ancillary and which to some extent build on more fundamental tenants may not to the casual observer be so easy to understand.
Again, you will simply have to excuse a great many conscientious, Christ's truth-loving non-RC Christians for thinking this is just a totally wrong-headed way of doing history.
Of course since history was not among the sources being referred to, I am a bit confused as to what you are inferring here. To quote from my favourite academic orientalist Fr. Robert Taft SJ:
"The work of the historian is to remove obstacles to understanding produced by a misreading of the past. Historical scholarship cannot tell the church what it must do. It can only help the church to see what it could do if those in the pastoral ministry deemed it feasible."
Does this mean that history provides us models for imitation? Not necessarily; for the church is never guided by a retrospective ideology. The past is always instructive but never normative. What its study, like all study, should provide is an understanding of Tradition, that essential continuity that can legitimately be labeled "Tradition" with a capital "T," riding above the ebb and flow of the shifting tides of "traditions" with a small "t," Tradition is not history, nor is it the past.
Tradition is the church's self-consciousness now of that which has been handed on to it not as an inert treasure, but as a dynamic principle of life. It is the church's contemporary reality understood genetically, in continuity with what produced it.
Hence while history has a role in this process, it is not in and of itself part of what we mean when we refer to Tradition. But that is all I have time to go over at this time. Hopefully this clarifies matters a bit.
Notes:
{1} Due oftentimes to certain people passing off as Church teaching their own overly simplistic misunderstandings of Church doctrine.
{2} Since human beings are totally dependent on God as their creator and lord, and created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith.
[T]his faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Faith, declares the Apostle, is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. {Heb 11, 1.}
Nevertheless, in order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God's will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit external indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all.
Hence Moses and the prophets, and especially Christ our lord himself, worked many absolutely clear miracles and delivered prophecies; while of the apostles we read: And they went forth and preached every, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it {Mk 16, 20.}. Again it is written: We have the prophetic word made more sure; you will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place {2 Pt 1, 19.}.
Now, although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind, yet no one can accept the gospel preaching in the way that is necessary for achieving salvation without the inspiration and illumination of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all facility in accepting and believing the truth. {Council of Orange II (529), canon 7 (Bruns 2, 178; Msi 8, 713).}...[Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius §3 (c. 1870)]
{3} A recent example of which can be read HERE.
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
On Papal Primacy and Church History (Part I)
(Societas Christiana vs. Rerum Novarum)
The previous comments of this weblog can be read HERE. Tim's previous comments -from which this response will be addressed- can be read HERE and HERE. In this response, Tim's words will be in dark green font.
My objection is that the Roman Catholic "Pope as principatus" story about the stages that the live organism of the Church went through is a rather one-sided story, based on and progressing solely by means of emphasizing only one part of the multi-faceted Western tradition about authority matters in the Church. Note every word in that last clause...
I have. My interest is in highlighting the common thread - the one that can be shown to have existed in some form or another from as early as we have records: the role of guardian of the common unity. Or to quote from a rather rare (and in many ways refreshing) Orthodox source on the subject:
Rome's vocation consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome...
And it is in this function alone which can be shown to have been in effect from as early as we have records. I touch on this in my essay on Christian unity - the section from which titled The Development of the Papal Primacy was made into a short essay of its own. But I do not have time to go into the intricacies of the matter presently.
[W]e don't even have to speak about the East's tradition of "Petrine primacy", for in the West alone there was not merely one tradition, but multiple traditions.
I assume you are referring to conciliarism here. I would argue (and have) that it was the outgrowth of two key elements of the late first and early second millennium (i) the arguments about the limits of Church and civil power and (ii) the centralization of the papacy in the early Scholastic and subsequent Avignon period. This process resulted in a few polemical tracts being written to oppose the pope which resulted in essentially revisiting many previously proscribed errors - including the exaltation of the civil authority over the church and making the latter inferior to the former.
Or if you prefer, multiple strands of the same tradition, which strands worked out their contrary principles at various times in history in concert with the attempt to build and maintain a coherent, vibrant, world-conquering societas Christiana.
The same argument could be made for the Gnostics, the Arians, the Nestorians, or the Monophysites though. (To name a few of those who could be mentioned.)
The key to my objection here is the basic point I have developed at some length in response to SecretAgentMan regarding the philosophically Realistic way that Roman Catholics approach Church history.
If you are claiming that Catholics as a rule approach Church history in a particular manner, this is true. (I will readily admit to it here and now and without hesitation.) However, no one's philosophical or theological views are formed in a vacuum. And as history tends to be unavoidably approached from various presuppositional paradigms, the same situation you find fault with a Catholic doing is likewise present in how the Orthodox/Reformed Protestant/Jew/Muslim/atheist, etc all view history. So there is nothing earthshaking about a Catholic doing this as even you as a Reformed Protestant do this.
For indeed just as a Catholic would as a rule{1} be predisposed to some extent to give the papacy the benefit of the doubt when it comes to subjects which admit of many possible interpretations -as this is what traditional spiritual instruction on charity in our faith encompasses- the same is not the case for the Orthodox and the Protestant as a rule.
Indeed as a rule{2} the Orthodox and the Protestant are not so predisposed. In fact, they are generally predisposed to give the worst possible interpretation they can to anything that can admit of a multiplicity of interpretations - and to which a more positive interpretation might place the Catholic religion in a better light to the detriment of their own outlooks. The very fact that you would look favourably (at least for the most part) on what English history calls the "Reformation" and I would not do this is a clear example of how we are programmed to some extent by our religious outlooks to view a particular event of history.
That is but one event - albeit one of no small significance- and if we extend out over a period of say a hundred years, we could probably pinpoint enough events to spend the next five years on without ever leaving that single century of discussion. And in light of how we have two millennia of Church history to span{3} obviously there are a host of subjects to which we would approach from a different perspective. To try to opine that there is only a particular way of viewing Church history that is used by us Catholics is a rather one-sided view in and of itself.
I think Roman Catholics treat the doctrine of the Papacy as if it's an extra-mental, extra-historical Universal that controls the expression of the actual course of history. Thus, the entire Roman Catholic concept of "development" proceeds upon the gratuitous notion that Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholicism only has correctly identified the Universal that is called "The Papacy" and "objectively" explained its outworkings in the spacetime world.
I am unaware of any Catholics (except some of the "barely Catholic radtrads") who would take this view. I certainly do not.
The entire RC understanding of "development" is, thus, a massive, rationalistically-begged question which can easily be challenged by (1) proposing another, contradictory rationalistic scheme of explaining the Universal, or (2) by simply denying that "the Papacy" is an extra-mental, extra-historical Universal in the first place.
Interesting. Of course with a slight retweaking we get the following:
I think that Reformed Protestants treat the event of the Reformation and the subsequent doctrines as propounded in Calvin's Institutes as if they are somehow of a central necessity to Christian profession. (The "Reformation" as if it was a God-guided movement and the Institutes as if they were from God Himself.{4})
Essentially these are treated as extra-mental and extra-historical{5} necessities that control the expression of the Gospel. Thus, the entire Reformed Protestant concept of "the Gospel" proceeds upon the gratuitous notion that Reformed Protestantism and Reformed Protestantism only has correctly identified the "true Gospel" and "objectively" explained its outworkings.
Or, if we treat on the subject of the papacy for a moment:
I think Reformed Protestants and Protestants in general treat the doctrine of the Papacy as if it's necessarily an extra-biblical and extra-ecclesial non-essential that is "objectively" wrong in not only its various actions but also in its very conception as an element integral to church unity. Thus, the entire Protestant concept of "biblical" proceeds upon the gratuitous notion that Protestantism and Protestantism only has correctly identified the Universal that is called "the Gospel" and "objectively" explained it in all of its parameters.
And my examples above are no less valid than yours if the assumption is being made by you that *only* Catholics have a certain way of viewing Church history. Or to quote myself from the essay Christian Unity and the Role of Authority:
Environment, culture and other factors shape us all and mould our thinking in different ways. Because of the necessity of unity as an identifiable trait of truth, religious convictions in a large part depend on the social influences that shape us from the time we are born and throughout our lifetimes. It is foolish to claim that we are in any way free from these and other influences impacting our paradigms of thought...
And the same principle can be recognized in how you read medieval history my friend. While it is true that you take a position now that is diametrically different than a lot of those who are identified by that wonderfully revealing-yet-concealing broad expression of "Protestant", at the same time, one could argue that you are de facto interpreting any and all evidences that could be viewed as a support for the Catholic concept of primacy in ways to either detract from or downplay this view.
I am not saying you are doing this consciously of course as history in general is a complex endeavour to study. (And Church history is no different.) But at the very least you should recognize that the charge if applicable in one case (i.e. the Catholic one) likewise applies in the case of the non-Catholic as well.
[I]f one is not already predisposed to a Realistic conception of reality (whether Platonic, Neoplatonic or Aristotelian is immaterial at this point in the argument) through which one is filtering ideas such as "apostolic succession" and "Petrine primacy", one isn't going to read somebody like Pseudo-Dionysius coining the word "hierarchy" (hierus + archus) and explaining how all power and authority in the world flows downward through a gradation of lesser powers from the Absolute One, who alone guarantees their legitimacy, and go, "Ooh, I bet this is the Apostolic Doctrine about the Papacy!"
And if one is predisposed to a particular form of nominalism, they essentially model a given concept on its external object and (as a result) consequently deny the existence of universal concepts and the notion that the intellect has the power of engendering them. (Essentially collective terms such as "animal, "tree", "house", "city", "nation", and even "hierarchy" have no objective real existence corresponding to them. Instead, they are mere words, names, terms, or vocal utterances and only particular individual things exist.)
Or, if one is predisposed to a particular form of conceptualism, they essentially admit the existence of universal concepts but professes a form of agnosticism as to whether said universals actually exist in reality to the extent that they can be framed in the abstract. (Essentially the concepts have value but whether that value transfers from the realm of the abstract into the realm of reality is either denied or simply held as unknown.)
It would seem clear to me that nominalism and conceptualism are the other "strands" you are referring to.{6} And as they have no solid foundation that I am aware of prior to the tenth century, I do not believe it can be held against those who refuse to admit them as having an equal weight as the various forms of realism which either predate them or were developed from core realist outlooks in response to them. Whatever abstract value they may have, they are hardly able to be applied in practice without disastrous results.{7}
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} The failure of the so-called "traditionalists" to apply this with consistency is one of the soundest proofs that they are frauds and not authentically Catholic. The same is the case for the so-called "progressivists" who have their own agenda which differs in the end but utilizes the same means as the "trads."
{2} There are of course exceptions to this rule.
{3} Not including the preChristian Jewish faith which also makes up Church history and extends all the way back to at least Abraham. (If not to Noah or Adam.)
{4} "[We] pronounce and declare the said book of the Institutes to be well and saintly made, and its teaching to be the holy doctrine of God... and that, now and in the future, no one may dare speak against the said book, nor against the said doctrine." [Council of Geneva: November, 1552]
{5} Essentially virtually everything between the death of St. John and the sixteenth century except for selected parts of St. Augustine is not a factor in the arguments set forth in that compendium. Calvin even goes so far as to ridicule the Fathers when they do not agree with him in many spots. Hence the "extra-historical" tag being applied here.
{6} This is based on your reference to a Realistic conception of reality (whether Platonic, Neoplatonic or Aristotelian is immaterial at this point in the argument). As nominalism is the opposite of realism -and conceptualism is a functionally impotent version of a via media between realism and nominalism- by deductive reasoning you must be referring to one of these two principles of interpretation.
{7} The sages, it is often said, can see no answer to the riddle of religion. But the trouble with our sages is not that they cannot see the answer; it is that they cannot even see the riddle. They are like children so stupid as to notice nothing paradoxical in the playful assertion that a door is not a door. The modern latitudinarians speak, for instance, about authority in religion not only as if there were no reason in it, but as if there had never been any reason for it. Apart from seeing its philosophical basis, they cannot even see its historical cause.
Religious authority has often, doubtless, been oppressive or unreasonable; just as every legal system (and especially our present one) has been callous and full of a cruel apathy. It is rational to attack the police; nay, it is glorious. But the modern critics of religious authority are like men who should attack the police without ever having heard of burglars. For there is a great and possible peril to the human mind: a peril as practical as burglary. Against it religious authority was reared, rightly or wrongly, as a barrier. And against it something certainly must be reared as a barrier, if our race is to avoid ruin.
That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, ‘Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?’ The young sceptic says, ‘I have a right to think for myself.’ But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, ‘I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.’
There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H. G. Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called ‘Doubts of the Instrument.’ In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled.
The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define, the authority even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all -- the authority of a man to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing it.
For we can hear scepticism crashing through the old ring of authorities, and at the same moment we can see reason swaying upon her throne. In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved.And in the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of that human authority by which we do a long-division sum. With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it. [G K Chesterton: Orthodoxy Ch. 3 excerpts (c. 1908) as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's Christian Unity and the Role of Authority Part I (c. 2001)]
(Societas Christiana vs. Rerum Novarum)
The previous comments of this weblog can be read HERE. Tim's previous comments -from which this response will be addressed- can be read HERE and HERE. In this response, Tim's words will be in dark green font.
My objection is that the Roman Catholic "Pope as principatus" story about the stages that the live organism of the Church went through is a rather one-sided story, based on and progressing solely by means of emphasizing only one part of the multi-faceted Western tradition about authority matters in the Church. Note every word in that last clause...
I have. My interest is in highlighting the common thread - the one that can be shown to have existed in some form or another from as early as we have records: the role of guardian of the common unity. Or to quote from a rather rare (and in many ways refreshing) Orthodox source on the subject:
Rome's vocation consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome...
And it is in this function alone which can be shown to have been in effect from as early as we have records. I touch on this in my essay on Christian unity - the section from which titled The Development of the Papal Primacy was made into a short essay of its own. But I do not have time to go into the intricacies of the matter presently.
[W]e don't even have to speak about the East's tradition of "Petrine primacy", for in the West alone there was not merely one tradition, but multiple traditions.
I assume you are referring to conciliarism here. I would argue (and have) that it was the outgrowth of two key elements of the late first and early second millennium (i) the arguments about the limits of Church and civil power and (ii) the centralization of the papacy in the early Scholastic and subsequent Avignon period. This process resulted in a few polemical tracts being written to oppose the pope which resulted in essentially revisiting many previously proscribed errors - including the exaltation of the civil authority over the church and making the latter inferior to the former.
Or if you prefer, multiple strands of the same tradition, which strands worked out their contrary principles at various times in history in concert with the attempt to build and maintain a coherent, vibrant, world-conquering societas Christiana.
The same argument could be made for the Gnostics, the Arians, the Nestorians, or the Monophysites though. (To name a few of those who could be mentioned.)
The key to my objection here is the basic point I have developed at some length in response to SecretAgentMan regarding the philosophically Realistic way that Roman Catholics approach Church history.
If you are claiming that Catholics as a rule approach Church history in a particular manner, this is true. (I will readily admit to it here and now and without hesitation.) However, no one's philosophical or theological views are formed in a vacuum. And as history tends to be unavoidably approached from various presuppositional paradigms, the same situation you find fault with a Catholic doing is likewise present in how the Orthodox/Reformed Protestant/Jew/Muslim/atheist, etc all view history. So there is nothing earthshaking about a Catholic doing this as even you as a Reformed Protestant do this.
For indeed just as a Catholic would as a rule{1} be predisposed to some extent to give the papacy the benefit of the doubt when it comes to subjects which admit of many possible interpretations -as this is what traditional spiritual instruction on charity in our faith encompasses- the same is not the case for the Orthodox and the Protestant as a rule.
Indeed as a rule{2} the Orthodox and the Protestant are not so predisposed. In fact, they are generally predisposed to give the worst possible interpretation they can to anything that can admit of a multiplicity of interpretations - and to which a more positive interpretation might place the Catholic religion in a better light to the detriment of their own outlooks. The very fact that you would look favourably (at least for the most part) on what English history calls the "Reformation" and I would not do this is a clear example of how we are programmed to some extent by our religious outlooks to view a particular event of history.
That is but one event - albeit one of no small significance- and if we extend out over a period of say a hundred years, we could probably pinpoint enough events to spend the next five years on without ever leaving that single century of discussion. And in light of how we have two millennia of Church history to span{3} obviously there are a host of subjects to which we would approach from a different perspective. To try to opine that there is only a particular way of viewing Church history that is used by us Catholics is a rather one-sided view in and of itself.
I think Roman Catholics treat the doctrine of the Papacy as if it's an extra-mental, extra-historical Universal that controls the expression of the actual course of history. Thus, the entire Roman Catholic concept of "development" proceeds upon the gratuitous notion that Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholicism only has correctly identified the Universal that is called "The Papacy" and "objectively" explained its outworkings in the spacetime world.
I am unaware of any Catholics (except some of the "barely Catholic radtrads") who would take this view. I certainly do not.
The entire RC understanding of "development" is, thus, a massive, rationalistically-begged question which can easily be challenged by (1) proposing another, contradictory rationalistic scheme of explaining the Universal, or (2) by simply denying that "the Papacy" is an extra-mental, extra-historical Universal in the first place.
Interesting. Of course with a slight retweaking we get the following:
I think that Reformed Protestants treat the event of the Reformation and the subsequent doctrines as propounded in Calvin's Institutes as if they are somehow of a central necessity to Christian profession. (The "Reformation" as if it was a God-guided movement and the Institutes as if they were from God Himself.{4})
Essentially these are treated as extra-mental and extra-historical{5} necessities that control the expression of the Gospel. Thus, the entire Reformed Protestant concept of "the Gospel" proceeds upon the gratuitous notion that Reformed Protestantism and Reformed Protestantism only has correctly identified the "true Gospel" and "objectively" explained its outworkings.
Or, if we treat on the subject of the papacy for a moment:
I think Reformed Protestants and Protestants in general treat the doctrine of the Papacy as if it's necessarily an extra-biblical and extra-ecclesial non-essential that is "objectively" wrong in not only its various actions but also in its very conception as an element integral to church unity. Thus, the entire Protestant concept of "biblical" proceeds upon the gratuitous notion that Protestantism and Protestantism only has correctly identified the Universal that is called "the Gospel" and "objectively" explained it in all of its parameters.
And my examples above are no less valid than yours if the assumption is being made by you that *only* Catholics have a certain way of viewing Church history. Or to quote myself from the essay Christian Unity and the Role of Authority:
Environment, culture and other factors shape us all and mould our thinking in different ways. Because of the necessity of unity as an identifiable trait of truth, religious convictions in a large part depend on the social influences that shape us from the time we are born and throughout our lifetimes. It is foolish to claim that we are in any way free from these and other influences impacting our paradigms of thought...
And the same principle can be recognized in how you read medieval history my friend. While it is true that you take a position now that is diametrically different than a lot of those who are identified by that wonderfully revealing-yet-concealing broad expression of "Protestant", at the same time, one could argue that you are de facto interpreting any and all evidences that could be viewed as a support for the Catholic concept of primacy in ways to either detract from or downplay this view.
I am not saying you are doing this consciously of course as history in general is a complex endeavour to study. (And Church history is no different.) But at the very least you should recognize that the charge if applicable in one case (i.e. the Catholic one) likewise applies in the case of the non-Catholic as well.
[I]f one is not already predisposed to a Realistic conception of reality (whether Platonic, Neoplatonic or Aristotelian is immaterial at this point in the argument) through which one is filtering ideas such as "apostolic succession" and "Petrine primacy", one isn't going to read somebody like Pseudo-Dionysius coining the word "hierarchy" (hierus + archus) and explaining how all power and authority in the world flows downward through a gradation of lesser powers from the Absolute One, who alone guarantees their legitimacy, and go, "Ooh, I bet this is the Apostolic Doctrine about the Papacy!"
And if one is predisposed to a particular form of nominalism, they essentially model a given concept on its external object and (as a result) consequently deny the existence of universal concepts and the notion that the intellect has the power of engendering them. (Essentially collective terms such as "animal, "tree", "house", "city", "nation", and even "hierarchy" have no objective real existence corresponding to them. Instead, they are mere words, names, terms, or vocal utterances and only particular individual things exist.)
Or, if one is predisposed to a particular form of conceptualism, they essentially admit the existence of universal concepts but professes a form of agnosticism as to whether said universals actually exist in reality to the extent that they can be framed in the abstract. (Essentially the concepts have value but whether that value transfers from the realm of the abstract into the realm of reality is either denied or simply held as unknown.)
It would seem clear to me that nominalism and conceptualism are the other "strands" you are referring to.{6} And as they have no solid foundation that I am aware of prior to the tenth century, I do not believe it can be held against those who refuse to admit them as having an equal weight as the various forms of realism which either predate them or were developed from core realist outlooks in response to them. Whatever abstract value they may have, they are hardly able to be applied in practice without disastrous results.{7}
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} The failure of the so-called "traditionalists" to apply this with consistency is one of the soundest proofs that they are frauds and not authentically Catholic. The same is the case for the so-called "progressivists" who have their own agenda which differs in the end but utilizes the same means as the "trads."
{2} There are of course exceptions to this rule.
{3} Not including the preChristian Jewish faith which also makes up Church history and extends all the way back to at least Abraham. (If not to Noah or Adam.)
{4} "[We] pronounce and declare the said book of the Institutes to be well and saintly made, and its teaching to be the holy doctrine of God... and that, now and in the future, no one may dare speak against the said book, nor against the said doctrine." [Council of Geneva: November, 1552]
{5} Essentially virtually everything between the death of St. John and the sixteenth century except for selected parts of St. Augustine is not a factor in the arguments set forth in that compendium. Calvin even goes so far as to ridicule the Fathers when they do not agree with him in many spots. Hence the "extra-historical" tag being applied here.
{6} This is based on your reference to a Realistic conception of reality (whether Platonic, Neoplatonic or Aristotelian is immaterial at this point in the argument). As nominalism is the opposite of realism -and conceptualism is a functionally impotent version of a via media between realism and nominalism- by deductive reasoning you must be referring to one of these two principles of interpretation.
{7} The sages, it is often said, can see no answer to the riddle of religion. But the trouble with our sages is not that they cannot see the answer; it is that they cannot even see the riddle. They are like children so stupid as to notice nothing paradoxical in the playful assertion that a door is not a door. The modern latitudinarians speak, for instance, about authority in religion not only as if there were no reason in it, but as if there had never been any reason for it. Apart from seeing its philosophical basis, they cannot even see its historical cause.
Religious authority has often, doubtless, been oppressive or unreasonable; just as every legal system (and especially our present one) has been callous and full of a cruel apathy. It is rational to attack the police; nay, it is glorious. But the modern critics of religious authority are like men who should attack the police without ever having heard of burglars. For there is a great and possible peril to the human mind: a peril as practical as burglary. Against it religious authority was reared, rightly or wrongly, as a barrier. And against it something certainly must be reared as a barrier, if our race is to avoid ruin.
That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, ‘Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?’ The young sceptic says, ‘I have a right to think for myself.’ But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, ‘I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.’
There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H. G. Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called ‘Doubts of the Instrument.’ In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled.
The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define, the authority even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all -- the authority of a man to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing it.
For we can hear scepticism crashing through the old ring of authorities, and at the same moment we can see reason swaying upon her throne. In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved.And in the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of that human authority by which we do a long-division sum. With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it. [G K Chesterton: Orthodoxy Ch. 3 excerpts (c. 1908) as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's Christian Unity and the Role of Authority Part I (c. 2001)]
Monday, September 29, 2003
Sunday, September 28, 2003
"Ecumenical Jihad" Dept.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, President of Toward Tradition and among the allies of Rerum Novarum in the Ecumenical Jihad has weighed in with a balanced and cogent response to those who have been savaging Mel Gibson's movie The Passion. Here is just a taste:
As an Orthodox rabbi with a wary eye on Jewish history which has an ominous habit of repeating itself, I fear that these protests, well intentioned though some may be, are a mistake. I believe those who publicly protest Mel Gibson's film lack moral legitimacy. What is more, I believe their actions are not only wrong but even recklessly ill-advised and shockingly imprudent. I address myself to all my fellow Jews when I say that your interests are not being served by many of those organizations and self appointed defenders who claim to be acting on your behalf...LINK
For our part, We at Rerum Novarum have already weighed in on this subject in different formats though not on this weblog. (At least not yet.) Perhaps in the coming days that will change but as it stands now, Rabbi Lapin's commentary will suffice to give a macro view of how this weblog writer feels on this matter; ergo it has been posted here for your consideration.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, President of Toward Tradition and among the allies of Rerum Novarum in the Ecumenical Jihad has weighed in with a balanced and cogent response to those who have been savaging Mel Gibson's movie The Passion. Here is just a taste:
As an Orthodox rabbi with a wary eye on Jewish history which has an ominous habit of repeating itself, I fear that these protests, well intentioned though some may be, are a mistake. I believe those who publicly protest Mel Gibson's film lack moral legitimacy. What is more, I believe their actions are not only wrong but even recklessly ill-advised and shockingly imprudent. I address myself to all my fellow Jews when I say that your interests are not being served by many of those organizations and self appointed defenders who claim to be acting on your behalf...LINK
For our part, We at Rerum Novarum have already weighed in on this subject in different formats though not on this weblog. (At least not yet.) Perhaps in the coming days that will change but as it stands now, Rabbi Lapin's commentary will suffice to give a macro view of how this weblog writer feels on this matter; ergo it has been posted here for your consideration.
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Points to Ponder:
If I had to do it over again, would I become a celibate priest? Or, if I was a young man with the option between celibate and married priesthood, would I choose celibate priesthood?
These are tricky questions. Obviously I didn't leave the priesthood when it was possible to do so and marry. I know now far better reasons for celibacy than were ever given us in the seminary. The priest is a specially trusted confidant. The priest is a sign of mystery and fascination, pointing to a world beyond himself (hence people's fascination with my novels about priests); the priest is perhaps the most fascinating man in the world, potentially at any rate. He has more freedom for more total commitment. Spare me any comparisons between celibate Catholic priests and married Orthodox priests or Protestant ministers...
A zealous married man will accomplish a lot more than a lazy celibate, but just as obviously a zealous celibate has more time for more extensive and more intense relationships than does a married clergyman with proper commitments to his wife and children..
Som unlike many of my collegues, I think celibacy is one of the treasures of the Western Church and would hate to see it lost...The strength and the independence and the vigor of the celibate Catholic priesthood (when it is lived to the fullest and does not become an excuse for irresponsibility, insensitivity, and laziness) is a strength and a glory for the Western Church, a strength and a glorgy for which, unfortunately, the Western Church does not bother to make many theological or psychological arguments because for the last thousand years it had blindly enforced celibacy as a rule.
My own solution to the celibacy problem is a limited-term priesthood, a "Priest Corps," not unlike the Peace Corps. In the not-too-distant past, to be a priest forever meant to be a priest for ten years because, on the average, priests died at about thirty-five (in nineteenth-century Chicago, from cholera epidemics). Can we not create an environment in which, after someone has fulfilled a commitment of five or ten years to the priestly ministry, he may go forth with dignity and honour and gratitude - still a priest but not in the active ministry save in times of emergency? Would not such a man be a specific kind of husband and father in the world because of his years of service in the priesthood? Given the fact that young men now become priests with far more awareness of withdrawing from the ministry than we did, it would seem to me that such a strategy would merely make a virtue of necessity, and would give us far more priests than we presently have.
Moreover, the demands made on a parish priest these days are so intense that many of us burn out by the time we are forty. There is no point in constraining someone to stay in the priesthood when he has given his best for a long time and really has little left to offer. If you are able to work with teenagers after forty, for example, it is a special grace of personality and biology, not something that can be routinely expected. It is a hideous mistake to keep men in the priesthood who are not happy with the work. They do enormous harm to the unfortunate lay people of God on whom they take out their frustrations and unhappiness. My limited-term "volunteer" priesthood would seem both to protect celibacy and to give those priests who want to marry an option of doing so with dignity and honour when their term of service is finished.
Our sociological research shows it would also solve the vocations shortage overnight. [Fr. Andrew M. Greeley: Confessions of a Parish Priest pgs. 117, 118, 119]
If I had to do it over again, would I become a celibate priest? Or, if I was a young man with the option between celibate and married priesthood, would I choose celibate priesthood?
These are tricky questions. Obviously I didn't leave the priesthood when it was possible to do so and marry. I know now far better reasons for celibacy than were ever given us in the seminary. The priest is a specially trusted confidant. The priest is a sign of mystery and fascination, pointing to a world beyond himself (hence people's fascination with my novels about priests); the priest is perhaps the most fascinating man in the world, potentially at any rate. He has more freedom for more total commitment. Spare me any comparisons between celibate Catholic priests and married Orthodox priests or Protestant ministers...
A zealous married man will accomplish a lot more than a lazy celibate, but just as obviously a zealous celibate has more time for more extensive and more intense relationships than does a married clergyman with proper commitments to his wife and children..
Som unlike many of my collegues, I think celibacy is one of the treasures of the Western Church and would hate to see it lost...The strength and the independence and the vigor of the celibate Catholic priesthood (when it is lived to the fullest and does not become an excuse for irresponsibility, insensitivity, and laziness) is a strength and a glory for the Western Church, a strength and a glorgy for which, unfortunately, the Western Church does not bother to make many theological or psychological arguments because for the last thousand years it had blindly enforced celibacy as a rule.
My own solution to the celibacy problem is a limited-term priesthood, a "Priest Corps," not unlike the Peace Corps. In the not-too-distant past, to be a priest forever meant to be a priest for ten years because, on the average, priests died at about thirty-five (in nineteenth-century Chicago, from cholera epidemics). Can we not create an environment in which, after someone has fulfilled a commitment of five or ten years to the priestly ministry, he may go forth with dignity and honour and gratitude - still a priest but not in the active ministry save in times of emergency? Would not such a man be a specific kind of husband and father in the world because of his years of service in the priesthood? Given the fact that young men now become priests with far more awareness of withdrawing from the ministry than we did, it would seem to me that such a strategy would merely make a virtue of necessity, and would give us far more priests than we presently have.
Moreover, the demands made on a parish priest these days are so intense that many of us burn out by the time we are forty. There is no point in constraining someone to stay in the priesthood when he has given his best for a long time and really has little left to offer. If you are able to work with teenagers after forty, for example, it is a special grace of personality and biology, not something that can be routinely expected. It is a hideous mistake to keep men in the priesthood who are not happy with the work. They do enormous harm to the unfortunate lay people of God on whom they take out their frustrations and unhappiness. My limited-term "volunteer" priesthood would seem both to protect celibacy and to give those priests who want to marry an option of doing so with dignity and honour when their term of service is finished.
Our sociological research shows it would also solve the vocations shortage overnight. [Fr. Andrew M. Greeley: Confessions of a Parish Priest pgs. 117, 118, 119]
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(Dialogue with Tim Enloe -- Part II of II)
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE.
(2) I'm very glad to see a Catholic who can wade right in to a discussion on the papal monarchy of the later Middle Ages without batting an eyelash; you and I could probably have some interesting conversations about what went wrong under the Papacy's direction in the period from roughly 1076-1509. But such conversations will have to wait, as again, I'm simply buried right now.
No problem. I would argue that the period you outline is a mixed bag and does not lend itself either to the picture of complete degeneracy common to most Protestant polemic (broadly speaking) or the full flowering and pristine notion common to some (even many) Catholics who embrace the view common to confessional Catholic outlooks.
(3) My remarks to QB were not an attempt to undermine Catholic beliefs, but rather, to show Catholics and Protestants both that it is possible to take the history of the Middle Ages VERY seriously and yet NOT convert to Rome.
This is true. I would argue that to do as you say involves to some extent a degree of arrested development. However, that is not to accuse you or anyone else of scholarly dishonesty. Everyone operates from certain presuppositions and the sooner we all admit to it the easier it is for fruitful discourse to take place. As I see it, there is a lot of surface fluff that accompanies the Catholic common stance that can be stripped off as not essential to the doctrines themselves. (Stuff that often gets the goat of those who have the biggest problems with the papacy from the standpoint of legitimate perplexities.) The subject is a complex one and not done justice by superficial commentaries from anyone - whatever their position on the subject is.
I feel no urge to cross the Tiber simply because I pick up some volume of Medieval writings and see people lauding the Bishop of Rome and appealing to his authority and receiving archepiscopal dignities from him and referring doctrinal questions to him, etc.
Nor would I expect such things in and of themselves to constitute a sufficient motive of credibility for you to do so.
These things simply don't add up to "Universally sovereign Papacy is what Christ set down from the beginning."
Well, much of it is not that is for sure. The appointing of bishops used to be localized and only later (much later actually) did the papacy reserve the right to themselves. And of course anyone can laud an authority and that in and of itself is not conclusive proof either. It is similar to the rockery I built in my garden a couple of weeks ago: each rock in and of itself does not make a rockery. But when you stack enough of them together and in the right way, a structure is present that no individual rock can create.
However, I am about to appear to contradict myself in stating that there is one "rock" in all of the claims made either by or about the papacy over the centuries that constitutes the "corner-stone" of the edifice if you will. And that is the subject of resolving doctrinal questions. I would argue -and have for a long time- that the subject of being the final court of appeal in resolving doctrinal controversies is the core of the doctrine of the primacy claim. Everything else that you can note is to some degree an ancillary and is not essential in that if it does not happen somehow the core claim is impaired. There was a lot of centralization that took place in the early to mid second millennium - some of it was in my view good (even very good) and some was not so good (even at times very bad). All of it can be boiled down to how the core principle of primacy was applied.
My remarks to QB were designed not to destroy the Papacy, but to show that the Papacy is a legitimate office in the Church which should be respected for the many good things it has done, but which need not be bowed to as some kind of vicarius Petri, or even vicarius Christi.
It seems that you are approaching this from the standpoint of "primacy of honour" theology. Obviously I do to some extent not agree with such an outlook - seeing it as historically unviable as well as unworkable in practice. However, I do not expect you to accept what I say about that simply because I say it of course. Anyone can make claims unsubstantiated.
I must say though that compared to where we were on this subject about two and a half years ago that you have made a quantum leap in my direction. And with that in mind, it bears noting to any readers of this thread who take a facile approach to these subjects that there are principles to consider here.
Essentially as a Catholic, I profess a proposition that you do not accept. It is important for people to realize before anyone can give assent to a proposition (whatever that proposition may be), that they have to reach a point where they recognize a certain accumulation of evidence that for them substantiates the credibility of said proposition. In its discussion on Christian Doctrine The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it as follows:
No one may prudently embrace the Christian religion unless he sees clearly that it is credible. Hence the motives of credibility, the sure arguments that convince the understanding and move the will to command the assent of faith, must be clearly set forth. The higher the social or intellectual position of inquirers, the more thorough and diligent should be the instruction...In the case of uneducated persons who are drawn to the Church, the prudent director will avoid such controversy as might lead his pupil to defend errors hitherto unknown. Better educated inquirers are to be fully satisfied on all points that they have held against Catholic doctrine and must be provided with the means of resisting both internal and external temptations. The length of time and the character of the instruction will vary with each individual.
I note this as it highlights the root and matrix of the entire equation and that is this: you cannot be expected to assent to a proposition that you see as either a mere possibility or even as probable. There must a certainty of conviction reached first. Therefore, and radtrads especially will hate hearing this but it must be said: unless or until you find the authority claims of the Catholic Church convincing, it would be a violation of conscience on your part to subscribe to them.
And while it is true that we have a fairly large theological playground in the Catholic Church; at the same time, many Catholics appear to mistaken their particular understanding of a Catholic teaching as *the* teaching. (And not infrequently these people are in serious error themselves.) I have enunciated this criticism more times than I can count and indeed you probably recall some of them years ago when we were at Steve's board.
I've indicated my willingness as a convinced Reformed person to seek a renewed **catholic** unity with other Christians (indeed, at this point I am even willing to stipulate that I have to privately maintain my Calvinism because I think it is true, but could publicly submit to a broader consensus of the Christian community that was not Calvinist),
Not to sound like a commercial but there is a venerable school of thought in the Catholic Church that in several areas comes close to Calvinism.
but frankly, if Catholics can't meet this attitude halfway because they're just too deeply attached to an "all or nothing" concept of the Papacy's place relative to everything else, well then, I'm afraid unity is going to continue to elude us all.
I agree. That is one reason that Pope John Paul II has extended the invitation to non-Catholics to involve themselves in advancing propositions for how he can exercise his ministry for the benefit of and to promote Christian unity. Obviously there are certain areas which are not negotiable. But these are much fewer than the overwhelming majority of Protestants or Orthodox would realize. (Heck, I would argue that probably a majority of informed Catholics would not realize it either.)
Hopefully in future discussions we can go over some of them. Now that you are blogging, it makes such discussions easier to have than on a message board where each of us throws volume-length posts at one another.
I really wish the box hadn't cut off the rest of my response. I tried to detail what I meant by "catholic Christian culture", and that's what got lost. Let me make it clear, hopefully, that my concept doesn't require Catholics to give up their essential beliefs--that would be unrealistic and unfair. But again, at the same time my view does also require Catholics to meet others halfway--keep your Vatican I if you must, but hopefully Quickbeam is right in his belief that Ut Unum Sint allows for the Catholic distinctive to be "administered" differently toward other communions than it is administered toward the Catholic communion. Because if he's wrong, and as far as Catholicism is concerned everyone has to bow and kiss the Pope's ring just like Catholics do, I'm afraid any kind of substantive cooperation and effort toward reunification simply is going to die the moment it sees the light of day.
In essence Tim, there are two sides of the puzzle: (i) doctrines and (ii) how they are applied. It is one thing to admit the principle of papal supremacy but if that doctrine is applied in an overly centralized entity that appears to try to micromanage everything, that will of course not work in reality. (And it would of course cause a degree of resentment from those who felt that certain legitimate liberties were being trampled on.)
I do not expect a non-Catholic to fully grasp the kind of latitude that a Catholic has in matters liturgical, theological, devotional, disciplinary, and the like. Those are the areas which most directly impact the individual and those are also the areas where there is the most flexibility. But we can go over that another time perhaps.
Catholics can't just decide to act like the last 1,000 years don't matter, but then, neither can the rest of us.
True. One positive element of Catholicism is that it is historically an assimilative outlook to some extent. It is this element that many ignorant fundys associate with paganism. So we have the means to assimilate a good amount of Calvinist outlook. Am I correct in detecting from your recent material that you believe it may be possible to do the same in the Reformed camp too???
(Dialogue with Tim Enloe -- Part II of II)
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE.
(2) I'm very glad to see a Catholic who can wade right in to a discussion on the papal monarchy of the later Middle Ages without batting an eyelash; you and I could probably have some interesting conversations about what went wrong under the Papacy's direction in the period from roughly 1076-1509. But such conversations will have to wait, as again, I'm simply buried right now.
No problem. I would argue that the period you outline is a mixed bag and does not lend itself either to the picture of complete degeneracy common to most Protestant polemic (broadly speaking) or the full flowering and pristine notion common to some (even many) Catholics who embrace the view common to confessional Catholic outlooks.
(3) My remarks to QB were not an attempt to undermine Catholic beliefs, but rather, to show Catholics and Protestants both that it is possible to take the history of the Middle Ages VERY seriously and yet NOT convert to Rome.
This is true. I would argue that to do as you say involves to some extent a degree of arrested development. However, that is not to accuse you or anyone else of scholarly dishonesty. Everyone operates from certain presuppositions and the sooner we all admit to it the easier it is for fruitful discourse to take place. As I see it, there is a lot of surface fluff that accompanies the Catholic common stance that can be stripped off as not essential to the doctrines themselves. (Stuff that often gets the goat of those who have the biggest problems with the papacy from the standpoint of legitimate perplexities.) The subject is a complex one and not done justice by superficial commentaries from anyone - whatever their position on the subject is.
I feel no urge to cross the Tiber simply because I pick up some volume of Medieval writings and see people lauding the Bishop of Rome and appealing to his authority and receiving archepiscopal dignities from him and referring doctrinal questions to him, etc.
Nor would I expect such things in and of themselves to constitute a sufficient motive of credibility for you to do so.
These things simply don't add up to "Universally sovereign Papacy is what Christ set down from the beginning."
Well, much of it is not that is for sure. The appointing of bishops used to be localized and only later (much later actually) did the papacy reserve the right to themselves. And of course anyone can laud an authority and that in and of itself is not conclusive proof either. It is similar to the rockery I built in my garden a couple of weeks ago: each rock in and of itself does not make a rockery. But when you stack enough of them together and in the right way, a structure is present that no individual rock can create.
However, I am about to appear to contradict myself in stating that there is one "rock" in all of the claims made either by or about the papacy over the centuries that constitutes the "corner-stone" of the edifice if you will. And that is the subject of resolving doctrinal questions. I would argue -and have for a long time- that the subject of being the final court of appeal in resolving doctrinal controversies is the core of the doctrine of the primacy claim. Everything else that you can note is to some degree an ancillary and is not essential in that if it does not happen somehow the core claim is impaired. There was a lot of centralization that took place in the early to mid second millennium - some of it was in my view good (even very good) and some was not so good (even at times very bad). All of it can be boiled down to how the core principle of primacy was applied.
My remarks to QB were designed not to destroy the Papacy, but to show that the Papacy is a legitimate office in the Church which should be respected for the many good things it has done, but which need not be bowed to as some kind of vicarius Petri, or even vicarius Christi.
It seems that you are approaching this from the standpoint of "primacy of honour" theology. Obviously I do to some extent not agree with such an outlook - seeing it as historically unviable as well as unworkable in practice. However, I do not expect you to accept what I say about that simply because I say it of course. Anyone can make claims unsubstantiated.
I must say though that compared to where we were on this subject about two and a half years ago that you have made a quantum leap in my direction. And with that in mind, it bears noting to any readers of this thread who take a facile approach to these subjects that there are principles to consider here.
Essentially as a Catholic, I profess a proposition that you do not accept. It is important for people to realize before anyone can give assent to a proposition (whatever that proposition may be), that they have to reach a point where they recognize a certain accumulation of evidence that for them substantiates the credibility of said proposition. In its discussion on Christian Doctrine The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it as follows:
No one may prudently embrace the Christian religion unless he sees clearly that it is credible. Hence the motives of credibility, the sure arguments that convince the understanding and move the will to command the assent of faith, must be clearly set forth. The higher the social or intellectual position of inquirers, the more thorough and diligent should be the instruction...In the case of uneducated persons who are drawn to the Church, the prudent director will avoid such controversy as might lead his pupil to defend errors hitherto unknown. Better educated inquirers are to be fully satisfied on all points that they have held against Catholic doctrine and must be provided with the means of resisting both internal and external temptations. The length of time and the character of the instruction will vary with each individual.
I note this as it highlights the root and matrix of the entire equation and that is this: you cannot be expected to assent to a proposition that you see as either a mere possibility or even as probable. There must a certainty of conviction reached first. Therefore, and radtrads especially will hate hearing this but it must be said: unless or until you find the authority claims of the Catholic Church convincing, it would be a violation of conscience on your part to subscribe to them.
And while it is true that we have a fairly large theological playground in the Catholic Church; at the same time, many Catholics appear to mistaken their particular understanding of a Catholic teaching as *the* teaching. (And not infrequently these people are in serious error themselves.) I have enunciated this criticism more times than I can count and indeed you probably recall some of them years ago when we were at Steve's board.
I've indicated my willingness as a convinced Reformed person to seek a renewed **catholic** unity with other Christians (indeed, at this point I am even willing to stipulate that I have to privately maintain my Calvinism because I think it is true, but could publicly submit to a broader consensus of the Christian community that was not Calvinist),
Not to sound like a commercial but there is a venerable school of thought in the Catholic Church that in several areas comes close to Calvinism.
but frankly, if Catholics can't meet this attitude halfway because they're just too deeply attached to an "all or nothing" concept of the Papacy's place relative to everything else, well then, I'm afraid unity is going to continue to elude us all.
I agree. That is one reason that Pope John Paul II has extended the invitation to non-Catholics to involve themselves in advancing propositions for how he can exercise his ministry for the benefit of and to promote Christian unity. Obviously there are certain areas which are not negotiable. But these are much fewer than the overwhelming majority of Protestants or Orthodox would realize. (Heck, I would argue that probably a majority of informed Catholics would not realize it either.)
Hopefully in future discussions we can go over some of them. Now that you are blogging, it makes such discussions easier to have than on a message board where each of us throws volume-length posts at one another.
I really wish the box hadn't cut off the rest of my response. I tried to detail what I meant by "catholic Christian culture", and that's what got lost. Let me make it clear, hopefully, that my concept doesn't require Catholics to give up their essential beliefs--that would be unrealistic and unfair. But again, at the same time my view does also require Catholics to meet others halfway--keep your Vatican I if you must, but hopefully Quickbeam is right in his belief that Ut Unum Sint allows for the Catholic distinctive to be "administered" differently toward other communions than it is administered toward the Catholic communion. Because if he's wrong, and as far as Catholicism is concerned everyone has to bow and kiss the Pope's ring just like Catholics do, I'm afraid any kind of substantive cooperation and effort toward reunification simply is going to die the moment it sees the light of day.
In essence Tim, there are two sides of the puzzle: (i) doctrines and (ii) how they are applied. It is one thing to admit the principle of papal supremacy but if that doctrine is applied in an overly centralized entity that appears to try to micromanage everything, that will of course not work in reality. (And it would of course cause a degree of resentment from those who felt that certain legitimate liberties were being trampled on.)
I do not expect a non-Catholic to fully grasp the kind of latitude that a Catholic has in matters liturgical, theological, devotional, disciplinary, and the like. Those are the areas which most directly impact the individual and those are also the areas where there is the most flexibility. But we can go over that another time perhaps.
Catholics can't just decide to act like the last 1,000 years don't matter, but then, neither can the rest of us.
True. One positive element of Catholicism is that it is historically an assimilative outlook to some extent. It is this element that many ignorant fundys associate with paganism. So we have the means to assimilate a good amount of Calvinist outlook. Am I correct in detecting from your recent material that you believe it may be possible to do the same in the Reformed camp too???
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(Dialogue with Tim Enloe -- Part I of II)
Hi Tim:
I will very briefly touch on your comments located HERE and HERE. Might as well start from the first one so here goes. (Your words will be in dark green font.)
(1) I remain unconvinced **from the sources** that the papacy exercised the type of authority it does now "from the beginning", and I think the incredible weakness of such a viewpoint is shown precisely in the fact that one MAJOR way it is shored up today is by reference to "development of doctrine".
I do not see how reference to a development in doctrine indicates a weakness in the Catholic doctrinal position on the papacy. If anything it recognizes the principle that all live organisms go through various stages in their manifestation. Of course the papacy exercises a lot of levels of authority today - not as many as in the past but still quite a few. And to be a legitimate claim there has to be some evidence of it even if the evidence is initially more implicit than explicit. I blogged a very good summary statement on development from a Lutheran theologian HERE.
I could say more but brevity would be compromised if I did. The core claim which the historical record shows as I see it is the authority to determine the conditions of the common unity. I see no record of this authority itself ever being challenged as to its legitimacy - even by the Fathers who occasionally found themselves at odds with it. I underlined the above because controversialists can point to many objections to the use of the authority but that is not the same thing.
Oh yes, doctrine has "developed".
It always does. Every doctrine we can mention has at one point or another gone through development. I would argue that if we consider the doctrines of Our Lord's Consubstantiality and Coeternity with the Almighty Father, it is easier to outline the doctrine of papal primacy/supremacy in the ante-Nicene period than it is to demonstrate the former two doctrines. (Though with papal primacy it is through demonstration that it is attested to, not any treatises devoted to the theme.) But I digress.
One need only look at what was done by Pseudo-Dionysius on the Neoplatonic foundation bequeathed by St. Augustine, and then what was done with Pseudo-Dionysius beginning in roughly the 9th century and going onward through the Gregorian reforms to see that doctrine has, indeed, "developed".
Genuine developments of doctrine by their nature must have some degree of presence at all times - even if initially this presence is more latent. However, to some extent this is context-switching because Pseudo-Dionysius is not a doctrine but instead was a work attributed to another writer. But let us consider the Pseudo-Dionysius for a moment.
Pseudo-Dionysius' writing was thought to be genuine and they were therefore used as authoritative sources. You may say "but the Fathers and Doctors were using some forged sources" and this is true. However, if (i) they corresponded in general content to sources that were genuine and (ii) the sources were not known to be forged, then I fail to see what the problem really is. Just because a source is forged hardly means that it does not enunciate certain truths. For this reason, claiming that because the source itself was forged that any argument or statement from the source is ipso facto false is quite a stretch in my opinion. (And I doubt you would seek to advance such an argument explicitly.) There is also the manner whereby ancients used to attribute certain works to certain writers.
It was not uncommon in earlier periods to attribute later writings to earlier authors. Indeed many scholars believe that much of the Torah was not actually written by Moses himself. Yet these books are still referred to as the "5 books of Moses." The Psalms are all attributed to King David but there is no certainty that he actually wrote every single one of them. (Nor does there have to be.) The Wisdom literature was often referred to as the "5 Books of Solomon" even though Solomon at the most wrote three of them - and probably only two. The rest were attributed due to a similarity of style. I realize that this concept is difficult for moderns like us to grasp but maybe the best way to look at it is in the context of a modern "ghostwriter" who writes a work that is attributed to someone else.
The same thing is possible with a work such as Hebrews which differs so much stylistically from the rest of Paul's epistles{1} that it is likely that it was written by one of his disciples who sought to cover a specific point by expressing the thoughts of Paul but in their own way. (And thereby they attributed the work itself to the Apostle Paul on whom they learned the teachings thus expounded upon in their work.) 2 Peter differs significantly in its form than 1 Peter - hence it is also possible that someone associated with Peter wrote the epistle. (Or maybe Peter dictated to someone who wrote it in the same informally controlled manner whereby many scholars believe the Synoptics were written.) The same is the case with 2 John and 3 John. And these are not the only biblical books which could be mentioned.
Now lest I am understood here, none of what I am saying in any way infringes on the inspired status of these books. Instead, it is recognizing an ancient reality that modern literalists often do not realize. For if the aforementioned biblical works being attributed to authors who did not actually write them{2} is not a disqualification of their merits substance wise, then there is no reason to treat the Pseudo-Dionysius as if it is of questionable content simply because it did not issue forth from the pen of the same Dionysius the Areopagate to whom it was attributed. This is why we need to be very careful in how we appropriate concepts such as "forging" by modern vernacular and also how we reckon works which come to be known as authored by different sources than originally was thought to be the case.
But "development" doesn't equal "X is the 'essence' of Y, and X is the 'ancient and constant faith of the universal Church' (Vatican I).
Of course as you are not a Catholic, I extend to you some leeway in not understanding the norms of theological interpretation that are supposed to guide a proper interpretation of Catholic magisterial documents. One of these is understanding what the magisterium means by the phrase "ancient and constant faith of the universal Church" and its equivalents. Vatican I recognized explicitly the concept of development of doctrine - even referencing verbatim from St. Vincent of Lerens' commonitory on the subject. From the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius - which preceded the better known Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus - I quote from the fourth chapter on the subject of faith and reason:
On faith and reason
The perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.
With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.
With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.
Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things, comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones.
Now reason, does indeed when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly, achieve by God's gift some understanding, and that most profitable, of the mysteries, whether by analogy from what it knows naturally, or from the connection of these mysteries with one another and with the final end of humanity; but reason is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object.
For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight.
Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason...
For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. [Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius]
The Council therefore was asserting that what was being defined was contained in the deposit of faith - at least in latent form - from the very beginning. This is not the same thing as retrojecting later dogmatic definitions into the early Church. I doubt many of the Fathers would recognize the doctrine of papal infallibility as it was defined. Nor would we expect them to since part of the discernment of the teaching was to be borne out in the myriad confrontations that took place over the centuries between the heretics and schismatics and the Church. To quote part of Cardinal Newman's essay on the subject:
[W]hen some great enunciation, whether true or false, about human nature, or present good, or government, or duty, or religion, is carried forward into the public throng of men and draws attention, then it is not merely received passively in this or that form into many minds, but it becomes an active principle within them, leading them to an ever-new contemplation of itself, to an application of it in various directions, and a propagation of it on every side...Let one such idea get possession of the popular mind, or the mind of any portion of the community, and it is not difficult to understand what will be the result. At first men will not fully realise what it is that moves them, and will express and explain themselves inadequately. There will be a general agitation of thought, and an action of mind upon mind. There will be a time of confusion, when conceptions and misconceptions are in conflict, and it is uncertain whether anything is to come of the idea at all, or which view of it is to get the start of the others. New lights will be brought to bear upon the original statements of the doctrine put forward; judgments and aspects will accumulate. After a while some definite teaching emerges; and, as time proceeds, one view will be modified or expanded by another, and then combined with a third; till the idea to which these various aspects belong, will be to each mind separately what at first it was only to all together. It will be surveyed too in its relation to other doctrines or facts, to other natural laws or established customs, to the varying circumstances of times and places, to other religions, polities, philosophies, as the case may be. How it stands affected towards other systems, how it affects them, how far it may be made to combine with them, how far it tolerates them, when it interferes with them, will be gradually wrought out. It will be interrogated and criticized by enemies, and defended by well-wishers. The multitude of opinions formed concerning it in these respects and many others will be collected, compared, sorted, sifted, selected, rejected, gradually attached to it, separated from it, in the minds of individuals and of the community. It will, in proportion to its native vigour and subtlety, introduce itself into the framework and details of social life, changing public opinion, and strengthening or undermining the foundations of established order. Thus in time it will have grown into an ethical code, or into a system of government, or into a theology, or into a ritual, according to its capabilities: and this body of thought, thus laboriously gained, will after all be little more than the proper representative of one idea, being in substance what that idea meant from the first, its complete image as seen in a combination of diversified aspects, with the suggestions and corrections of many minds, and the illustration of many experiences.
This process, whether it be longer or shorter in point of time, by which the aspects of an idea are brought into consistency and form, I call its development, being the germination and maturation of some truth or apparent truth on a large mental field. On the other hand this process will not be a development, unless the assemblage of aspects, which constitute its ultimate shape, really belongs to the idea from which they start. [Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine Ch. I]
An example of development of an idea can perhaps be envisioned by comparing Newman's explanation of development with that of Vincent of Lerens writing fourteen hundred years earlier:
The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant...In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits. [Commonitory]
It is clear to any objective observer that Newman's explanation is much more sophisticated than that of Lerens; however the essence of Lerens' thesis is found in Newman albeit expanded in a more complete manner. That is one value of (i) fourteen hundred years of additional data on the subject on the part of Newman and (ii) having Lerens to build on.
Likewise, it can be reasonably shown that what was defined at Vatican I conforms to the views of the Fathers on papal primacy as Newman does to Lerens. The two are not identical of course -far from it. However, (to quote Newman) "scanty as the Ante-nicene notices may be of the Papal Supremacy, they are both more numerous and more definite than the adducible testimonies in favour of the doctrines of our Lord's Consubstantiality and Coeternity with the Almighty Father."
In short, the subject of development is not an easily discussed subject since the principles that accompany such a discussion are so often misunderstood. However, that does not mean that many do not try to utilize it at least in some way. For example, a reasonably informed Catholic knows that it is easier to show a pattern that supports the doctrine of papal primacy throughout the first four centuries of the Church than there is for the various doctrines that comprise the orthodox understanding of the Trinity as professed by the first two ecumenical synods. They may not know how to draw this out as well as it could be oftentimes; however the basic principle is understood even if imperfectly so.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} I happen to opine that Hebrews may well have been written by Clement of Rome. (As the styles are quite similar between it and 1 Clement which was written approximately a decade after it.)
{2} And this has long been the consensus amongst biblical scholars.
(Dialogue with Tim Enloe -- Part I of II)
Hi Tim:
I will very briefly touch on your comments located HERE and HERE. Might as well start from the first one so here goes. (Your words will be in dark green font.)
(1) I remain unconvinced **from the sources** that the papacy exercised the type of authority it does now "from the beginning", and I think the incredible weakness of such a viewpoint is shown precisely in the fact that one MAJOR way it is shored up today is by reference to "development of doctrine".
I do not see how reference to a development in doctrine indicates a weakness in the Catholic doctrinal position on the papacy. If anything it recognizes the principle that all live organisms go through various stages in their manifestation. Of course the papacy exercises a lot of levels of authority today - not as many as in the past but still quite a few. And to be a legitimate claim there has to be some evidence of it even if the evidence is initially more implicit than explicit. I blogged a very good summary statement on development from a Lutheran theologian HERE.
I could say more but brevity would be compromised if I did. The core claim which the historical record shows as I see it is the authority to determine the conditions of the common unity. I see no record of this authority itself ever being challenged as to its legitimacy - even by the Fathers who occasionally found themselves at odds with it. I underlined the above because controversialists can point to many objections to the use of the authority but that is not the same thing.
Oh yes, doctrine has "developed".
It always does. Every doctrine we can mention has at one point or another gone through development. I would argue that if we consider the doctrines of Our Lord's Consubstantiality and Coeternity with the Almighty Father, it is easier to outline the doctrine of papal primacy/supremacy in the ante-Nicene period than it is to demonstrate the former two doctrines. (Though with papal primacy it is through demonstration that it is attested to, not any treatises devoted to the theme.) But I digress.
One need only look at what was done by Pseudo-Dionysius on the Neoplatonic foundation bequeathed by St. Augustine, and then what was done with Pseudo-Dionysius beginning in roughly the 9th century and going onward through the Gregorian reforms to see that doctrine has, indeed, "developed".
Genuine developments of doctrine by their nature must have some degree of presence at all times - even if initially this presence is more latent. However, to some extent this is context-switching because Pseudo-Dionysius is not a doctrine but instead was a work attributed to another writer. But let us consider the Pseudo-Dionysius for a moment.
Pseudo-Dionysius' writing was thought to be genuine and they were therefore used as authoritative sources. You may say "but the Fathers and Doctors were using some forged sources" and this is true. However, if (i) they corresponded in general content to sources that were genuine and (ii) the sources were not known to be forged, then I fail to see what the problem really is. Just because a source is forged hardly means that it does not enunciate certain truths. For this reason, claiming that because the source itself was forged that any argument or statement from the source is ipso facto false is quite a stretch in my opinion. (And I doubt you would seek to advance such an argument explicitly.) There is also the manner whereby ancients used to attribute certain works to certain writers.
It was not uncommon in earlier periods to attribute later writings to earlier authors. Indeed many scholars believe that much of the Torah was not actually written by Moses himself. Yet these books are still referred to as the "5 books of Moses." The Psalms are all attributed to King David but there is no certainty that he actually wrote every single one of them. (Nor does there have to be.) The Wisdom literature was often referred to as the "5 Books of Solomon" even though Solomon at the most wrote three of them - and probably only two. The rest were attributed due to a similarity of style. I realize that this concept is difficult for moderns like us to grasp but maybe the best way to look at it is in the context of a modern "ghostwriter" who writes a work that is attributed to someone else.
The same thing is possible with a work such as Hebrews which differs so much stylistically from the rest of Paul's epistles{1} that it is likely that it was written by one of his disciples who sought to cover a specific point by expressing the thoughts of Paul but in their own way. (And thereby they attributed the work itself to the Apostle Paul on whom they learned the teachings thus expounded upon in their work.) 2 Peter differs significantly in its form than 1 Peter - hence it is also possible that someone associated with Peter wrote the epistle. (Or maybe Peter dictated to someone who wrote it in the same informally controlled manner whereby many scholars believe the Synoptics were written.) The same is the case with 2 John and 3 John. And these are not the only biblical books which could be mentioned.
Now lest I am understood here, none of what I am saying in any way infringes on the inspired status of these books. Instead, it is recognizing an ancient reality that modern literalists often do not realize. For if the aforementioned biblical works being attributed to authors who did not actually write them{2} is not a disqualification of their merits substance wise, then there is no reason to treat the Pseudo-Dionysius as if it is of questionable content simply because it did not issue forth from the pen of the same Dionysius the Areopagate to whom it was attributed. This is why we need to be very careful in how we appropriate concepts such as "forging" by modern vernacular and also how we reckon works which come to be known as authored by different sources than originally was thought to be the case.
But "development" doesn't equal "X is the 'essence' of Y, and X is the 'ancient and constant faith of the universal Church' (Vatican I).
Of course as you are not a Catholic, I extend to you some leeway in not understanding the norms of theological interpretation that are supposed to guide a proper interpretation of Catholic magisterial documents. One of these is understanding what the magisterium means by the phrase "ancient and constant faith of the universal Church" and its equivalents. Vatican I recognized explicitly the concept of development of doctrine - even referencing verbatim from St. Vincent of Lerens' commonitory on the subject. From the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius - which preceded the better known Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus - I quote from the fourth chapter on the subject of faith and reason:
On faith and reason
The perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.
With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.
With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.
Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things, comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones.
Now reason, does indeed when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly, achieve by God's gift some understanding, and that most profitable, of the mysteries, whether by analogy from what it knows naturally, or from the connection of these mysteries with one another and with the final end of humanity; but reason is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object.
For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight.
Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason...
For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. [Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius]
The Council therefore was asserting that what was being defined was contained in the deposit of faith - at least in latent form - from the very beginning. This is not the same thing as retrojecting later dogmatic definitions into the early Church. I doubt many of the Fathers would recognize the doctrine of papal infallibility as it was defined. Nor would we expect them to since part of the discernment of the teaching was to be borne out in the myriad confrontations that took place over the centuries between the heretics and schismatics and the Church. To quote part of Cardinal Newman's essay on the subject:
[W]hen some great enunciation, whether true or false, about human nature, or present good, or government, or duty, or religion, is carried forward into the public throng of men and draws attention, then it is not merely received passively in this or that form into many minds, but it becomes an active principle within them, leading them to an ever-new contemplation of itself, to an application of it in various directions, and a propagation of it on every side...Let one such idea get possession of the popular mind, or the mind of any portion of the community, and it is not difficult to understand what will be the result. At first men will not fully realise what it is that moves them, and will express and explain themselves inadequately. There will be a general agitation of thought, and an action of mind upon mind. There will be a time of confusion, when conceptions and misconceptions are in conflict, and it is uncertain whether anything is to come of the idea at all, or which view of it is to get the start of the others. New lights will be brought to bear upon the original statements of the doctrine put forward; judgments and aspects will accumulate. After a while some definite teaching emerges; and, as time proceeds, one view will be modified or expanded by another, and then combined with a third; till the idea to which these various aspects belong, will be to each mind separately what at first it was only to all together. It will be surveyed too in its relation to other doctrines or facts, to other natural laws or established customs, to the varying circumstances of times and places, to other religions, polities, philosophies, as the case may be. How it stands affected towards other systems, how it affects them, how far it may be made to combine with them, how far it tolerates them, when it interferes with them, will be gradually wrought out. It will be interrogated and criticized by enemies, and defended by well-wishers. The multitude of opinions formed concerning it in these respects and many others will be collected, compared, sorted, sifted, selected, rejected, gradually attached to it, separated from it, in the minds of individuals and of the community. It will, in proportion to its native vigour and subtlety, introduce itself into the framework and details of social life, changing public opinion, and strengthening or undermining the foundations of established order. Thus in time it will have grown into an ethical code, or into a system of government, or into a theology, or into a ritual, according to its capabilities: and this body of thought, thus laboriously gained, will after all be little more than the proper representative of one idea, being in substance what that idea meant from the first, its complete image as seen in a combination of diversified aspects, with the suggestions and corrections of many minds, and the illustration of many experiences.
This process, whether it be longer or shorter in point of time, by which the aspects of an idea are brought into consistency and form, I call its development, being the germination and maturation of some truth or apparent truth on a large mental field. On the other hand this process will not be a development, unless the assemblage of aspects, which constitute its ultimate shape, really belongs to the idea from which they start. [Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine Ch. I]
An example of development of an idea can perhaps be envisioned by comparing Newman's explanation of development with that of Vincent of Lerens writing fourteen hundred years earlier:
The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant...In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits. [Commonitory]
It is clear to any objective observer that Newman's explanation is much more sophisticated than that of Lerens; however the essence of Lerens' thesis is found in Newman albeit expanded in a more complete manner. That is one value of (i) fourteen hundred years of additional data on the subject on the part of Newman and (ii) having Lerens to build on.
Likewise, it can be reasonably shown that what was defined at Vatican I conforms to the views of the Fathers on papal primacy as Newman does to Lerens. The two are not identical of course -far from it. However, (to quote Newman) "scanty as the Ante-nicene notices may be of the Papal Supremacy, they are both more numerous and more definite than the adducible testimonies in favour of the doctrines of our Lord's Consubstantiality and Coeternity with the Almighty Father."
In short, the subject of development is not an easily discussed subject since the principles that accompany such a discussion are so often misunderstood. However, that does not mean that many do not try to utilize it at least in some way. For example, a reasonably informed Catholic knows that it is easier to show a pattern that supports the doctrine of papal primacy throughout the first four centuries of the Church than there is for the various doctrines that comprise the orthodox understanding of the Trinity as professed by the first two ecumenical synods. They may not know how to draw this out as well as it could be oftentimes; however the basic principle is understood even if imperfectly so.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} I happen to opine that Hebrews may well have been written by Clement of Rome. (As the styles are quite similar between it and 1 Clement which was written approximately a decade after it.)
{2} And this has long been the consensus amongst biblical scholars.
Those who are interested in ecclesiology may find this link of interest. The piece is one from Fr. Yves M. Congar OP, quite possibly the pre-eminent twentieth century Catholic theologian on the subject of ecclesiology. (And one whose work heavily influenced Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium.)
Interestingly enough, there are some references to the work of the Jesuit theologian Fr. Sebastian Tromp in this 1939 essay as well. Readers who are not familiar with him would do well to note that he was the primary draftsman of Pope Pius XII's 1943 encyclical letter Mystici Corporis Christi - an important milestone in the Church's magisterial pronouncements on ecclesiology. (And without which Lumen Gentium would not have been possible - and not only because LG references MC twelve times{1} on various themes pertaining to the nature of the Church.)
Oh, I should probably also note that the piece is technical in spots and should not be read lightly. Nonetheless, it is well worth reading - particularly for ecclesiology buffs.
Note:
{1} Of the forty-six references to the magisterium of Pope Pius XII in LG, MC is referenced twelve times: by far more than any other source - and twice as much as the encyclical Mediator Dei. (The second most heavily referenced source.) Further still, seven of the twelve references to MC are in sections which deal with the mystery of the Church (chapters one and seven).
Interestingly enough, there are some references to the work of the Jesuit theologian Fr. Sebastian Tromp in this 1939 essay as well. Readers who are not familiar with him would do well to note that he was the primary draftsman of Pope Pius XII's 1943 encyclical letter Mystici Corporis Christi - an important milestone in the Church's magisterial pronouncements on ecclesiology. (And without which Lumen Gentium would not have been possible - and not only because LG references MC twelve times{1} on various themes pertaining to the nature of the Church.)
Oh, I should probably also note that the piece is technical in spots and should not be read lightly. Nonetheless, it is well worth reading - particularly for ecclesiology buffs.
Note:
{1} Of the forty-six references to the magisterium of Pope Pius XII in LG, MC is referenced twelve times: by far more than any other source - and twice as much as the encyclical Mediator Dei. (The second most heavily referenced source.) Further still, seven of the twelve references to MC are in sections which deal with the mystery of the Church (chapters one and seven).
Sunday, September 21, 2003
Guest Editorial on the Pro Multis Subject:
(By Father Thomas Carleton)
[This entry was revised with material sent to your weblog host by Fr. Tom Carleton - the author of this editorial. Please see the footnoted section below -as well as the attacked footnote for details. (ISM 9/22/03 3:50 pm)]
Longtime readers of this humble weblog know the process of the Guest Editorial feature. For those who have tuned in more recently, the words between ### lines are those of the person submitting the piece for publication - barring the occasional editing of this weblog host.
Details on submitting a Guest Editorial for publishing at this weblog can read the principles outlined HERE to learn how to go about doing this. Without further ado, let us get to it.
#######
THE "PRO MULTIS" QUESTION
Beyond the overall distress at the changing of the Latin Mass, there is particular unease and even anger over the changing of the words in the Canon of the Mass from "pro multis" (as in the old Mass and in the original Latin of the Novus Ordo) into "pro omnibus" (as in the vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo). We should, nevertheless, keep in mind the following:
Firstly, most of the Church's principal Doctors and theologians (who have, implicitly or explicitly, expressed themselves on this matter) believe that the form of Consecration does not include the words in dispute, but rather consists only of these words: "This is the chalice of My Blood", as in the Latin Church, or "This is My Blood", as in the Greek Church.
These authorities include: Saint Ambrose, Saint Thomas [in quoting St. Ambrose]:
"the form of this sacrament involves only the consecration of the material, which consists in the transubstantiation, that is when it is said, 'this is my body', or, 'This is the chalice of my blood'" (III, Q.78, a.1),
Saint Bonaventure:
"Forma consecrationis calicis, videlicet: 'Hic est calix sanguinis mei', est recta et certa et congrua; sed utrum sit tota, anquod sequitur sit de integritate, dubium est; creditur tamen, quod est tota. . . Est etiam tota et perfecta: sufficiens enim est ad significandum transubstantiationem vini in sanguinem Christi.' (IV, dist. 8, p.2., a.1, q.2),
as well as other authorities including Toletus:
"Illa sola esse de essentia: 'Hic est calix sanguinis mei'; reliqua ad essentiam non pertinere." (Q.78; art.3;
Cardinal Toledo, d. 1596),
Alexander, Durandus, Cajetan, and Billuart:
"Dico. Probabilius videtur haec sola verba, 'Hic est calix sanguinis mei', vel 'Hic est sanguis meus', esse formae calicis essetialia" (Dis.V. art.3).
More recently, the learned Father Nicolas Gihr, who has written at length on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, expresses it thus:
"'Ceci est le calice de mon sang'. . . Selon le sentiment commun, ces paroles seules composent la forme essentielle de la consécration du calice; elles opèrent et figurent la présence réelle du sang de Jésus-Christ sous les espèces du vin. Les autres mots: 'novi et aeterni Testamenti, - mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum', ont été ajoutés pour des motifs de haute convenance" (LE SAINT SACRIFICE DE LE MESSE; 6 Fr.ed.; org. 1897).{1}
If the words following: "This is the chalice of My Blood", were, in fact, necessary, it would call into question (which no one does) the validity of the Mass in the Greek Church, whose liturgies, completely or in part, omit them.
To clarify the point, let us give the following hypothetical case: If the priest during a Holy Mass had a heart attack before finishing the words: 'This is the chalice of My Blood', the wine would not be consecrated into the Blood of Christ. If, on the other hand, the priest had a heart attack after saying those words, but prior to saying the passage including "pro multis" or "pro omnibus", the wine would have already been consecrated into the Blood of Christ and would therefore have to be consumed or otherwise safeguarded.
In a word, the debate concerning the changing of the words: "pro multis" into "pro omnibus", however important, does not involve the Consecration of the wine into the Blood of Christ.
Secondly, the "pro omnibus" is, in fact, Scriptural: "For the Charity of Christ presseth us: judging this, that if one died for all (pro omnibus), then all were dead. And Christ died for all (pro omnibus); that they also who live, may not now live to themselves, but unto Him who died for them and rose again" (2 Cor. V, 14-15).
Thirdly, it should be pointed out that the part of the Canon where the "pro multis" occurs is already a scriptural composite: for example, the "pro vobis" is from Saint Luke's Gospel; the "pro multis" is from Saints Matthew and Mark; and the "in remissionem peccatorum" is from Saint Matthew's Gospel.
Having made these observations for the benefit of devout faithful who might have, regarding this particular issue, doubts about the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses which they, in good faith, have attended; we cannot help but regret that this text was tampered with. After all, the original Latin exemplar, the "editio typica", did not change these words from the Tridentine Mass and besides specifically warned that no one was authorized to change them.
As I finish this clarification, word has arrived of an eight year old boy, son of a gentleman very dedicated to the old Mass, was diagnosed with a form of cancer; we beg all, therefore, to remember him in your Masses, Rosaries and prayers.
In Christ,
Father Thomas Carleton
Note:
{1} "'For this is the chalice of My Blood'. . . . According to the common opinion these words alone constitute the essential formula for the Consecration of the chalice; for they signify and effect the presence of the Blood of Christ under the appearances of wine. The remaining words: 'the Blood of the new and eternal testament - the mystery of faith -, which (Blood) shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins,' are appropriately added" (THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS; 1897/1902) .
#######
Those who have read my work on this subject are not unaware of my view of the pro multis question. In summary, I believe the current translation is more accurate if translated from the underlying Greek hoi pollen but not from the Latin text pro multis.
And as the typical Latin edition of the Revised Missal uses "pro multis", it is my view that either the Holy See should amend the Latin addition to read "pro omnibus", "pro multitudinis", or insist on the vernacular translations of the upcoming Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal to properly translate pro multis as it should read: which is not "for all" but instead as "for the many", "for the masses", or even "for many." I personally prefer the first two options for reasons I have explained before. Nonetheless, if the only options we had were between "for many" and "for all" as a translation from the current text, then it is "for many" which should be used as it is more accurate than "for all" is.
Finally, if the readers of this weblog could offer some prayers for the eight year old boy with cancer that Fr. Thomas refers to, it would be most appreciated.
(By Father Thomas Carleton)
[This entry was revised with material sent to your weblog host by Fr. Tom Carleton - the author of this editorial. Please see the footnoted section below -as well as the attacked footnote for details. (ISM 9/22/03 3:50 pm)]
Longtime readers of this humble weblog know the process of the Guest Editorial feature. For those who have tuned in more recently, the words between ### lines are those of the person submitting the piece for publication - barring the occasional editing of this weblog host.
Details on submitting a Guest Editorial for publishing at this weblog can read the principles outlined HERE to learn how to go about doing this. Without further ado, let us get to it.
#######
THE "PRO MULTIS" QUESTION
Beyond the overall distress at the changing of the Latin Mass, there is particular unease and even anger over the changing of the words in the Canon of the Mass from "pro multis" (as in the old Mass and in the original Latin of the Novus Ordo) into "pro omnibus" (as in the vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo). We should, nevertheless, keep in mind the following:
Firstly, most of the Church's principal Doctors and theologians (who have, implicitly or explicitly, expressed themselves on this matter) believe that the form of Consecration does not include the words in dispute, but rather consists only of these words: "This is the chalice of My Blood", as in the Latin Church, or "This is My Blood", as in the Greek Church.
These authorities include: Saint Ambrose, Saint Thomas [in quoting St. Ambrose]:
"the form of this sacrament involves only the consecration of the material, which consists in the transubstantiation, that is when it is said, 'this is my body', or, 'This is the chalice of my blood'" (III, Q.78, a.1),
Saint Bonaventure:
"Forma consecrationis calicis, videlicet: 'Hic est calix sanguinis mei', est recta et certa et congrua; sed utrum sit tota, anquod sequitur sit de integritate, dubium est; creditur tamen, quod est tota. . . Est etiam tota et perfecta: sufficiens enim est ad significandum transubstantiationem vini in sanguinem Christi.' (IV, dist. 8, p.2., a.1, q.2),
as well as other authorities including Toletus:
"Illa sola esse de essentia: 'Hic est calix sanguinis mei'; reliqua ad essentiam non pertinere." (Q.78; art.3;
Cardinal Toledo, d. 1596),
Alexander, Durandus, Cajetan, and Billuart:
"Dico. Probabilius videtur haec sola verba, 'Hic est calix sanguinis mei', vel 'Hic est sanguis meus', esse formae calicis essetialia" (Dis.V. art.3).
More recently, the learned Father Nicolas Gihr, who has written at length on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, expresses it thus:
"'Ceci est le calice de mon sang'. . . Selon le sentiment commun, ces paroles seules composent la forme essentielle de la consécration du calice; elles opèrent et figurent la présence réelle du sang de Jésus-Christ sous les espèces du vin. Les autres mots: 'novi et aeterni Testamenti, - mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum', ont été ajoutés pour des motifs de haute convenance" (LE SAINT SACRIFICE DE LE MESSE; 6 Fr.ed.; org. 1897).{1}
If the words following: "This is the chalice of My Blood", were, in fact, necessary, it would call into question (which no one does) the validity of the Mass in the Greek Church, whose liturgies, completely or in part, omit them.
To clarify the point, let us give the following hypothetical case: If the priest during a Holy Mass had a heart attack before finishing the words: 'This is the chalice of My Blood', the wine would not be consecrated into the Blood of Christ. If, on the other hand, the priest had a heart attack after saying those words, but prior to saying the passage including "pro multis" or "pro omnibus", the wine would have already been consecrated into the Blood of Christ and would therefore have to be consumed or otherwise safeguarded.
In a word, the debate concerning the changing of the words: "pro multis" into "pro omnibus", however important, does not involve the Consecration of the wine into the Blood of Christ.
Secondly, the "pro omnibus" is, in fact, Scriptural: "For the Charity of Christ presseth us: judging this, that if one died for all (pro omnibus), then all were dead. And Christ died for all (pro omnibus); that they also who live, may not now live to themselves, but unto Him who died for them and rose again" (2 Cor. V, 14-15).
Thirdly, it should be pointed out that the part of the Canon where the "pro multis" occurs is already a scriptural composite: for example, the "pro vobis" is from Saint Luke's Gospel; the "pro multis" is from Saints Matthew and Mark; and the "in remissionem peccatorum" is from Saint Matthew's Gospel.
Having made these observations for the benefit of devout faithful who might have, regarding this particular issue, doubts about the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses which they, in good faith, have attended; we cannot help but regret that this text was tampered with. After all, the original Latin exemplar, the "editio typica", did not change these words from the Tridentine Mass and besides specifically warned that no one was authorized to change them.
As I finish this clarification, word has arrived of an eight year old boy, son of a gentleman very dedicated to the old Mass, was diagnosed with a form of cancer; we beg all, therefore, to remember him in your Masses, Rosaries and prayers.
In Christ,
Father Thomas Carleton
Note:
{1} "'For this is the chalice of My Blood'. . . . According to the common opinion these words alone constitute the essential formula for the Consecration of the chalice; for they signify and effect the presence of the Blood of Christ under the appearances of wine. The remaining words: 'the Blood of the new and eternal testament - the mystery of faith -, which (Blood) shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins,' are appropriately added" (THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS; 1897/1902) .
#######
Those who have read my work on this subject are not unaware of my view of the pro multis question. In summary, I believe the current translation is more accurate if translated from the underlying Greek hoi pollen but not from the Latin text pro multis.
And as the typical Latin edition of the Revised Missal uses "pro multis", it is my view that either the Holy See should amend the Latin addition to read "pro omnibus", "pro multitudinis", or insist on the vernacular translations of the upcoming Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal to properly translate pro multis as it should read: which is not "for all" but instead as "for the many", "for the masses", or even "for many." I personally prefer the first two options for reasons I have explained before. Nonetheless, if the only options we had were between "for many" and "for all" as a translation from the current text, then it is "for many" which should be used as it is more accurate than "for all" is.
Finally, if the readers of this weblog could offer some prayers for the eight year old boy with cancer that Fr. Thomas refers to, it would be most appreciated.
Saturday, September 20, 2003
John Pacheco Campaign Update:
(Plus Reaffirmation of Endorsement and Strategy Suggestions for Upcoming Debate)
Your humble servant heard yesterday through the grapevine that the Canadian Parliment voted to designate the Bible as "hate literature" because of its clear denunciations of sodomite behaviour. Though not sure if this is true or not, We at Rerum Novarum want to take this time to vigorously reaffirm our endorsement of our friend John Pacheco in Ottawa South. John's campaign site is HERE. Please include him, his family, and those actively running his campaign and their families in your prayers. (As well as help out however you can be it time, talent, or treasure.) If what was heard through the grapevine is correct, things are only getting uglier up there in Canada.
On a more positive front, it was nice for yours truly to find himself on the same side of the fence as Pat Buchanan again - something I have not seen too often since repudiating the Republican Party after the 1996 elections.{1} Nonetheless the following article from anthropologist Peter Wood is in a magazine of Buchanan's and it is worth reading and - in your case John - using in your debate. If I may offer some advice for the latter occasion, it would be the following:
Do not make this primarily a faith issue or you will likely not have the convergence needed to (at a minimum) split the ticket to divide your opposition. Winning is of course nice but must be seen as an additional perk to playing the saboteur against the liberals and (at a minimum) striving to divide their house. (The old adage "taking them down with me if I am going down" applies here.)
For that reason, I would recommend the tactical approach of making the faith part of this fight a secondary prong to the equation. Primarily I would advise fighting this battle based on the anthropological implications the gay "marriage" idea will have for society. (As such an approach will more readily convince those of good will who are not of faith and only more solidly confirm the view that those of faith already have.) Here is the Wood article for assistance in your debate:
Sex and Consequences - by Peter Wood
And an epilogue quote for pondering from the above text:
Anthropology—hometown to cultural relativists and all-night diner for disaffected intellectuals—may not be where you would most expect to find good reasons to defend traditional American family values. But anthropology, in fact, guards a treasure house of examples of what happens when a society institutionalizes other, arrangements.
Want to know what it really means for a society to recognize “gay marriage”? Or for a society to permit polygamy? Or when the stigma on out-of-wedlock birth disappears? Care to know what happens to a human community that tolerates sexual experimentation among pre-adolescents and teenagers? Are fathers and mothers really interchangeable? Anthropology actually has a large amount of empirical evidence on all these matters—and many others that are now on the table in the United States thanks to various advocacy movements.
The Leftist political convictions of many of my fellow anthropologists tend to keep them silent about some of the scientific findings that have accumulated over 150 years or so of systematic ethnographic study. But these findings strongly suggest that the family is a bedrock institution and that the kinds of modifications to the family advocated by gays, feminists, and others who speak in favor of relaxing traditional restrictions on sexual self-expression will have huge consequences.
Let’s take an anthropologically informed look at two of these proposed changes to the family: gay marriage and polygamy.
For more, see the article link above. Oh be warned though, it is not suitable reading for children.
Note:
{1} In 1996 I was selected as an alternate at one of our state caucuses to represent Buchanan at the state party convention. Though I repudated the Republican party after this point, I did not follow Buchanan whom it became clear to me was a better policy analyst or point man than an actual leader. (In retrospect I think this may also have been in part because I was entering into the first throes of challenging my radtrad weltanschauung and Buchanan's connection there is known to all.)
(Plus Reaffirmation of Endorsement and Strategy Suggestions for Upcoming Debate)
Your humble servant heard yesterday through the grapevine that the Canadian Parliment voted to designate the Bible as "hate literature" because of its clear denunciations of sodomite behaviour. Though not sure if this is true or not, We at Rerum Novarum want to take this time to vigorously reaffirm our endorsement of our friend John Pacheco in Ottawa South. John's campaign site is HERE. Please include him, his family, and those actively running his campaign and their families in your prayers. (As well as help out however you can be it time, talent, or treasure.) If what was heard through the grapevine is correct, things are only getting uglier up there in Canada.
On a more positive front, it was nice for yours truly to find himself on the same side of the fence as Pat Buchanan again - something I have not seen too often since repudiating the Republican Party after the 1996 elections.{1} Nonetheless the following article from anthropologist Peter Wood is in a magazine of Buchanan's and it is worth reading and - in your case John - using in your debate. If I may offer some advice for the latter occasion, it would be the following:
Do not make this primarily a faith issue or you will likely not have the convergence needed to (at a minimum) split the ticket to divide your opposition. Winning is of course nice but must be seen as an additional perk to playing the saboteur against the liberals and (at a minimum) striving to divide their house. (The old adage "taking them down with me if I am going down" applies here.)
For that reason, I would recommend the tactical approach of making the faith part of this fight a secondary prong to the equation. Primarily I would advise fighting this battle based on the anthropological implications the gay "marriage" idea will have for society. (As such an approach will more readily convince those of good will who are not of faith and only more solidly confirm the view that those of faith already have.) Here is the Wood article for assistance in your debate:
Sex and Consequences - by Peter Wood
And an epilogue quote for pondering from the above text:
Anthropology—hometown to cultural relativists and all-night diner for disaffected intellectuals—may not be where you would most expect to find good reasons to defend traditional American family values. But anthropology, in fact, guards a treasure house of examples of what happens when a society institutionalizes other, arrangements.
Want to know what it really means for a society to recognize “gay marriage”? Or for a society to permit polygamy? Or when the stigma on out-of-wedlock birth disappears? Care to know what happens to a human community that tolerates sexual experimentation among pre-adolescents and teenagers? Are fathers and mothers really interchangeable? Anthropology actually has a large amount of empirical evidence on all these matters—and many others that are now on the table in the United States thanks to various advocacy movements.
The Leftist political convictions of many of my fellow anthropologists tend to keep them silent about some of the scientific findings that have accumulated over 150 years or so of systematic ethnographic study. But these findings strongly suggest that the family is a bedrock institution and that the kinds of modifications to the family advocated by gays, feminists, and others who speak in favor of relaxing traditional restrictions on sexual self-expression will have huge consequences.
Let’s take an anthropologically informed look at two of these proposed changes to the family: gay marriage and polygamy.
For more, see the article link above. Oh be warned though, it is not suitable reading for children.
Note:
{1} In 1996 I was selected as an alternate at one of our state caucuses to represent Buchanan at the state party convention. Though I repudated the Republican party after this point, I did not follow Buchanan whom it became clear to me was a better policy analyst or point man than an actual leader. (In retrospect I think this may also have been in part because I was entering into the first throes of challenging my radtrad weltanschauung and Buchanan's connection there is known to all.)
Upcoming Apostolic Exhortation:
Pope John Paul II will be promulgating on October 16, 2003 (twenty-fifth anniversary of his pontificate) an Apostolic Exhortation on the figure of the bishop. According to Zenit this is a post-synodal exhortation which will gather the conclusions of the synod of bishops, held in the Vatican from Sept. 30 to Oct. 27, 2001, on "The Bishop: Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World." See HERE for more on this subject.
Hopefully this time after many of them have been humiliated by their negligence in the fallout of 2002 that they will finally start paying attention to what they are supposed to be doing: teaching, governing, and sanctifying their flocks not being a bunch of paper-pushing bureaucrats.
Pope John Paul II will be promulgating on October 16, 2003 (twenty-fifth anniversary of his pontificate) an Apostolic Exhortation on the figure of the bishop. According to Zenit this is a post-synodal exhortation which will gather the conclusions of the synod of bishops, held in the Vatican from Sept. 30 to Oct. 27, 2001, on "The Bishop: Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World." See HERE for more on this subject.
Hopefully this time after many of them have been humiliated by their negligence in the fallout of 2002 that they will finally start paying attention to what they are supposed to be doing: teaching, governing, and sanctifying their flocks not being a bunch of paper-pushing bureaucrats.
Friday, September 19, 2003
On A Significant Oversight:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[This entry was also blogged today at The Lidless Eye Inquisition due to (i) its importance on a commonly misunderstood subject amongst radtrads and (ii) the note it contains about an oversight in one of my writings that will be tended to - ISM]
It was brought to my attention recently that I overlooked a part of the statements of Cardinal Alfons Stickler in the section of my treatise which dissects piece by piece the stock "we are not in schism" pamphlet by the SSPX.
Now those who have read that section of the treatise before already know that all of the SSPX's "experts" who supposely vindicate them in reality explicitly condemn them as schismatics and their bishops as excommunicates - except Cardinal Stickler.{1} But the reason for the former not being posted by me as a condemner of their position was that they quoted Cardinal Stickler on the subject of the Tridentine mass, not on the SSPX's illegal and criminal consecrations or other elements pertaining to their schism. (Which was what I focused exclusively on when drafting that section in November of 1999.) Nonetheless, one small point slipped under my radar and it is the ellipse (and the lack of some ellipses) in the following part of the pamphlet:
Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine [Latin] Mass in the present day? The answer given by eight of the cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. There was another question, very interesting. 'Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?' The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition... because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever." (Latin Mass Magazine, May 5, 1995)
Now I have gone into detail on other occasions about why it was not allowed for celebration of the Tridentine liturgical usage prior to 1984 except in very rare cases where there were exceptions made. Pope Paul VI granted Indults to Cardinal Heenan and Archbishop Lefebvre in 1970 - though Lefebvre by his suspension could no longer lawfully utilize it. There was also an exception made for elderly priests who were viewed as either too old to learn the new rite or who wished to celebrate the older usage in private. So while it is true that there was no suppression of the older usage, at the same time prior to 1984 it was funcionally almost non-existent.
And since then with the Indults it has been the responsibility of the bishops to allow or not allow it as the pope has not (yet) ordered that they have to. So I note this here because it is clear from the rare allowances Pope Paul made for the use of this liturgical form that he has not forbid it. He had cancelled out the law that prescribed that liturgical usage universally and gave any priest throughout the world the right to say that particular mass though.
Currently the only Missal that has this right throughout the world is the Revised Roman Missal of Pope Paul VI. The Tridentine liturgical usage is regulated by derogation from the law prescribed by Pope Paul with Missale Romanum - a derogation put in place by Pope John Paul II in 1984 with a limited Indult - followed by a wider Indult in 1988 which abrogated the Indult of 1984.
I will not go into further details of the 1984 and 1988 Indults here as this has been done elsewhere. And of course the church law which prescribed the Missal of Pius V for usage throughout the Church was quite clearly cancelled out{2} and my intention at this time is not to go over why appeals to immemorial custom will not work in this case - at least not at this time. In summary, while Pope Paul never forbid the older mass form, at the same time it was not allowed under Church law prior to 1984 except in the rare cases where Pope Paul granted a privilege for its celebration - and those granted such a privilege had not been suspended of their faculties as Archbishop Lefebvre was in July of 1976. I note that here so that the reader does not misunderstand what Cardinal Stickler's words actually convey.
Having been brought to my attention another blatantly dishonest quoting of sources by the SSPX, I tracked down my Spring 1995 copy of The Latin Mass with the Cardinal Stickler piece in it. There is his essay which I have already written a detailed confutation of back in early 2001. (See my Writings url for details.) But the quotes from the SSPX come from another section which runs on the same pages of the essay but underneath it in gray colour titled Cardinal Stickler Speaks Out.
Ironically, I completely forgot about this section as I had not read this issue for about six years. (Even when I wrote my rebuttal piece I used a web version so that I would not have to type out the piece at all.) And as I forgot I had the issue until very recently, the issue played no role in my treatise where I treated on this subject matter. (The intention there was to point out that Stickler had nothing whatsoever to say about the schism subject so the SSPX could not cite him as an ally.) Anyway, I repost the SSPX quote and will add in purple font what they "conveniently" do not mention - the one word omission intrigued me to track down my hardcopy of the magazine and many other forgotten goodies presented themselves in that section.
Any notes in brackets were added to His Eminence's comments by Latin Mass Magazine and I decided to leave them in despite not agreeing with the terminology used (i.e. traditional mass). The Cardinal's words as quoted by the SSPX will be in blue font. I will add words and paragraphs in purple which are either not included in that pamphlet or disingenuously excised to manipulate the words of His Eminence. All bold and underlined parts for emphasis are also courtesy of yours truly. But without further ado, let us get to it.
Did Pope Paul actually forbid the old rite?
Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day? No. He asked Benelli explicitly, "Did Paul VI forbid the old mass?" He never answered - never yes, never no.
Why? He couldn't say "Yes he forbade it." He couldn't forbid a mass which was from the beginning valid and was the Mass of thousands of saints and faithful. The difficulty for him was he couldn't forbid it, but at the same time he wanted the new Mass to be said, to be accepted. And so he could only say, "I want that the new Mass should be said." This was the answer all the princes gave to the question asked. They said: the Holy Father wished that all follow the new Mass.
The answer given by eight of the cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. Only one was against. All the others were for the free permission: that everyone could choose the old Mass. That answer the Pope accepted, I think; but again when some bishops' conferences became aware of the danger of this permission, they came to the Pope and said, "This absolutely should not be allowed because it will be the occasion, even the cause, of controversy amongst the faithful." And informed of this argument, I think, the Pope abstained from signing this permission. Yet, as for the commission -I can report from my own experience- the answer of the great majority was positive.
There was another question, very interesting. 'Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?' The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition not because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever. Those words of Pius V were common for an important decision of the Pope. He always said, "This is valid forever." But this was not a theological, it was not a dogmatic statement, this decree of the Pope promulgting his Tridentine Mass order. And so it could be changed by his successors....
In Italian, they say that one pope gives the bull and another takes the bull again, that is, he can change the disposition of his predecessor...
So what about a bishop forbidding the Mass in the case of a priest or a whole dioceses? You must realize that a bishop is the only one who has responsibility for his dioceses....Bishops have no jurisdiction over their collegues. A bishop in his dioceses, for his dioceses and his subjects, can find the arguments to forbid it. He can say, "This is disturbing to the peace in the dioceses."
It is necessary to notice that the privilege [of saying the traditional Mass, under the papal indult of 1984] is given to the bishops, not the faithful. So a bishop can use the privilege or not. [Latin Mass Magazine Summer 1995]
And of course if the bishop does not use the privilege, then those under him cannot either. Hence the argument that any priest anywhere can say the Tridentine mass without recourse to their local ordinary - a position that the SSPX deliberately misrepresented Cardinal Stickler as a proponent of - goes down in flames along with the other "proofs" decimated by yours truly in that section of the treatise.
Oh, and I will be adding this material to that url in the coming days so yet another lie of the SSPX and radtrads who mimic their lies stands refuted. And by an ally of the Tridentine movement no less.
Notes:
{1} While Cardinal Cassedy also does not explicitly condemn them as schismatics, he does nonetheless imply it in his comments about the Society being "not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the [Ecumenical] Directory." However, to explain that would be beyond the scope of that project as it delves into intricacies of Canon Law which are beyond the competence of this writer to adequately handle. In short, ask Pete Vere about it.
{2} The general allowance to celebrate the Missal of Pius V was cancelled out when Pope Paul promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum in place of the previous Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. The latter was either abrogated (annulled) or obrogated (replaced) depending on which canonist you ask. But the functional effect is the same in both cases.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[This entry was also blogged today at The Lidless Eye Inquisition due to (i) its importance on a commonly misunderstood subject amongst radtrads and (ii) the note it contains about an oversight in one of my writings that will be tended to - ISM]
It was brought to my attention recently that I overlooked a part of the statements of Cardinal Alfons Stickler in the section of my treatise which dissects piece by piece the stock "we are not in schism" pamphlet by the SSPX.
Now those who have read that section of the treatise before already know that all of the SSPX's "experts" who supposely vindicate them in reality explicitly condemn them as schismatics and their bishops as excommunicates - except Cardinal Stickler.{1} But the reason for the former not being posted by me as a condemner of their position was that they quoted Cardinal Stickler on the subject of the Tridentine mass, not on the SSPX's illegal and criminal consecrations or other elements pertaining to their schism. (Which was what I focused exclusively on when drafting that section in November of 1999.) Nonetheless, one small point slipped under my radar and it is the ellipse (and the lack of some ellipses) in the following part of the pamphlet:
Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine [Latin] Mass in the present day? The answer given by eight of the cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. There was another question, very interesting. 'Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?' The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition... because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever." (Latin Mass Magazine, May 5, 1995)
Now I have gone into detail on other occasions about why it was not allowed for celebration of the Tridentine liturgical usage prior to 1984 except in very rare cases where there were exceptions made. Pope Paul VI granted Indults to Cardinal Heenan and Archbishop Lefebvre in 1970 - though Lefebvre by his suspension could no longer lawfully utilize it. There was also an exception made for elderly priests who were viewed as either too old to learn the new rite or who wished to celebrate the older usage in private. So while it is true that there was no suppression of the older usage, at the same time prior to 1984 it was funcionally almost non-existent.
And since then with the Indults it has been the responsibility of the bishops to allow or not allow it as the pope has not (yet) ordered that they have to. So I note this here because it is clear from the rare allowances Pope Paul made for the use of this liturgical form that he has not forbid it. He had cancelled out the law that prescribed that liturgical usage universally and gave any priest throughout the world the right to say that particular mass though.
Currently the only Missal that has this right throughout the world is the Revised Roman Missal of Pope Paul VI. The Tridentine liturgical usage is regulated by derogation from the law prescribed by Pope Paul with Missale Romanum - a derogation put in place by Pope John Paul II in 1984 with a limited Indult - followed by a wider Indult in 1988 which abrogated the Indult of 1984.
I will not go into further details of the 1984 and 1988 Indults here as this has been done elsewhere. And of course the church law which prescribed the Missal of Pius V for usage throughout the Church was quite clearly cancelled out{2} and my intention at this time is not to go over why appeals to immemorial custom will not work in this case - at least not at this time. In summary, while Pope Paul never forbid the older mass form, at the same time it was not allowed under Church law prior to 1984 except in the rare cases where Pope Paul granted a privilege for its celebration - and those granted such a privilege had not been suspended of their faculties as Archbishop Lefebvre was in July of 1976. I note that here so that the reader does not misunderstand what Cardinal Stickler's words actually convey.
Having been brought to my attention another blatantly dishonest quoting of sources by the SSPX, I tracked down my Spring 1995 copy of The Latin Mass with the Cardinal Stickler piece in it. There is his essay which I have already written a detailed confutation of back in early 2001. (See my Writings url for details.) But the quotes from the SSPX come from another section which runs on the same pages of the essay but underneath it in gray colour titled Cardinal Stickler Speaks Out.
Ironically, I completely forgot about this section as I had not read this issue for about six years. (Even when I wrote my rebuttal piece I used a web version so that I would not have to type out the piece at all.) And as I forgot I had the issue until very recently, the issue played no role in my treatise where I treated on this subject matter. (The intention there was to point out that Stickler had nothing whatsoever to say about the schism subject so the SSPX could not cite him as an ally.) Anyway, I repost the SSPX quote and will add in purple font what they "conveniently" do not mention - the one word omission intrigued me to track down my hardcopy of the magazine and many other forgotten goodies presented themselves in that section.
Any notes in brackets were added to His Eminence's comments by Latin Mass Magazine and I decided to leave them in despite not agreeing with the terminology used (i.e. traditional mass). The Cardinal's words as quoted by the SSPX will be in blue font. I will add words and paragraphs in purple which are either not included in that pamphlet or disingenuously excised to manipulate the words of His Eminence. All bold and underlined parts for emphasis are also courtesy of yours truly. But without further ado, let us get to it.
Did Pope Paul actually forbid the old rite?
Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day? No. He asked Benelli explicitly, "Did Paul VI forbid the old mass?" He never answered - never yes, never no.
Why? He couldn't say "Yes he forbade it." He couldn't forbid a mass which was from the beginning valid and was the Mass of thousands of saints and faithful. The difficulty for him was he couldn't forbid it, but at the same time he wanted the new Mass to be said, to be accepted. And so he could only say, "I want that the new Mass should be said." This was the answer all the princes gave to the question asked. They said: the Holy Father wished that all follow the new Mass.
The answer given by eight of the cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. Only one was against. All the others were for the free permission: that everyone could choose the old Mass. That answer the Pope accepted, I think; but again when some bishops' conferences became aware of the danger of this permission, they came to the Pope and said, "This absolutely should not be allowed because it will be the occasion, even the cause, of controversy amongst the faithful." And informed of this argument, I think, the Pope abstained from signing this permission. Yet, as for the commission -I can report from my own experience- the answer of the great majority was positive.
There was another question, very interesting. 'Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?' The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition not because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever. Those words of Pius V were common for an important decision of the Pope. He always said, "This is valid forever." But this was not a theological, it was not a dogmatic statement, this decree of the Pope promulgting his Tridentine Mass order. And so it could be changed by his successors....
In Italian, they say that one pope gives the bull and another takes the bull again, that is, he can change the disposition of his predecessor...
So what about a bishop forbidding the Mass in the case of a priest or a whole dioceses? You must realize that a bishop is the only one who has responsibility for his dioceses....Bishops have no jurisdiction over their collegues. A bishop in his dioceses, for his dioceses and his subjects, can find the arguments to forbid it. He can say, "This is disturbing to the peace in the dioceses."
It is necessary to notice that the privilege [of saying the traditional Mass, under the papal indult of 1984] is given to the bishops, not the faithful. So a bishop can use the privilege or not. [Latin Mass Magazine Summer 1995]
And of course if the bishop does not use the privilege, then those under him cannot either. Hence the argument that any priest anywhere can say the Tridentine mass without recourse to their local ordinary - a position that the SSPX deliberately misrepresented Cardinal Stickler as a proponent of - goes down in flames along with the other "proofs" decimated by yours truly in that section of the treatise.
Oh, and I will be adding this material to that url in the coming days so yet another lie of the SSPX and radtrads who mimic their lies stands refuted. And by an ally of the Tridentine movement no less.
Notes:
{1} While Cardinal Cassedy also does not explicitly condemn them as schismatics, he does nonetheless imply it in his comments about the Society being "not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the [Ecumenical] Directory." However, to explain that would be beyond the scope of that project as it delves into intricacies of Canon Law which are beyond the competence of this writer to adequately handle. In short, ask Pete Vere about it.
{2} The general allowance to celebrate the Missal of Pius V was cancelled out when Pope Paul promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum in place of the previous Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. The latter was either abrogated (annulled) or obrogated (replaced) depending on which canonist you ask. But the functional effect is the same in both cases.
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
The Conspiracy of Sandra Meisel!!!
One of the links I was contemplating for the next weblog update was Sandra Meisel's December 2002 article on Swinging at Windmills. However, a scheme was uncovered by your mentally-exhausted-but-still-able-to-sniff-out-a-conspiracy blog host which has quashed this idea. But before I explain the details of this abomination, it is worthwhile to note first that even the title much too closely resembles my reference to tilting at windmills in an essay I wrote in 2001. If that was all there was then chalking it up to coincidence would be possible. But that is not all gentle reader ohh no, we are just getting started.
Consider that the piece she has authored - a piece on conspiracies - has quite possibly had a role in a conspiracy itself!!! This is a bold assertion gentle readers but we will supply the evidence. It will then be up to you to acknowledge the fact that she has hoodwinked you and that Crisis Magazine is clearly in on it as well.
A subtitle of her longer essay is titled The Protocols of Paranoia. This subtitle for some reason did not jump out at me the first time I read the piece earlier this year; however now after reaquainting myself with my old conspiracy paradigm from years back, now it so clearly does. For you see, I find it intriguing that this so eerily comes close to a section of my treatise titled Protocols and Paranoia and which - like Ms. Meisel's section - happens to discuss the Protocols of Zion. The following quotes from Ms. Meisel's piece will be in black while quotes from my treatise will be in darkblue. Without further ado, let us get to it. First we quote from Ms. Meisel's piece:
In the 1890s, the decade of the Dreyfus Affair, czarist Russian secret agents adapted a French satire on Napoleon III into the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
Now from my treatise section Protocols and Paranoia:
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion document was shown to be a hoax over eighty years ago. It was a known forgery even in the early 1920's. (The authorship has been established to have been someone or a group within the Tzar's secret police.) It was written at the earliest in the closing decades of the nineteenth century and based on a French satire.
Now then, what are we to make of this??? I suppose we could simply claim that it is a "coincidence," that Sandra and I happened to seize on and utilize almost the exact same section title. Of course people who say this would probably dismiss as "coincidental" the fact that we both referred to the Protocols as not the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" but instead as the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" rather than as it is commonly referred to. And I suppose both references to a French satire were mere "coincidence" too??? Or was there instead a...deliberate and...premeditated.......borrowing.......by Ms. Meisel.......of my work as part of a..............grand conspiracy to.......................... undermine..............other potential conspiracies??? Oh we are not done yet, here is yet more proof:
cabals of Jewish financiers
cabalistic...Jewish.
These are simply too close to the following from Protocols and Paranoia:
an elite cabal of Jews
And yet we have more...
denied the...Holocaust.
Holocaust denial
Will it never cease???
Jews...Freemasons in the basement? Reds under the bed? Black helicopters in the sky? Answer: A surprising number of otherwise sensible people. Even under the new shadow of terrorism, old fears live on, breeding bogeys that knot together in a vipers’ tangle of menace.
...Judeo-Masonic-Communist conspiracy and/or the imminent arrival of the Antichrist to rule over the New World Order. Their anxieties are often fueled by anti-Semitic screeds, polemical histories, eccentric economics, and even heavenly messages.
the 'traditionalist' movement is home to every kooky fringe theory that you can possibly imagine. There is a whole cornucopia of them from Masons running the Vatican to Jews running the world to Holocaust denial...
And finally, this tidbit:
The protocols provided the foundation for many of the worst anti-Semitic theories in the 20th century, influencing even Hitler.
There was virtually no revisions made to the Protocols and Paranoia section in late December 2002 and early January of 2003 when the treatise was revised, expanded, and made easier to download and read. However, one sentence was deleted from the Protocols and Paranoia section from how it read since 2000 and it was the following one:
Of course this is the same "logic" that Adolph Hitler used in Mein Kampf (written in 1923) when he addressed the fact that the "Protocols" were known to be a forgery even in his day.
Now since Sandra Meisel wrote her article *before* that sentence was excised out of the current treatise section, it would seem to be obvious that the excerpt from her essay was based on the above sentence. I mean come on, the fact that we *both* mentioned the Protocols in relation to Hitler??? Can the evidence be any more convincing???
How anyone cannot so clearly see what all of this adds up to is a mysery to me. Now I suppose that someone could argue that 99% of Meisel's piece shows no potential borrowing of any kind - and even the above are not verbatim bits but you see...that is the whole point: the 99% is a mere *distraction* to allow for the 1% to be snuck into the piece undetected. And the reason they are not verbatim is because Sandra Meisel is much too clever to do that lest her machinations be detected by the untrained eye.
In summary, that there is a conspiracy here is evident to all who can read the tea leaves. Exactly what that conspiracy is will require more research but it is there......."undisputedly" I say!!!
One of the links I was contemplating for the next weblog update was Sandra Meisel's December 2002 article on Swinging at Windmills. However, a scheme was uncovered by your mentally-exhausted-but-still-able-to-sniff-out-a-conspiracy blog host which has quashed this idea. But before I explain the details of this abomination, it is worthwhile to note first that even the title much too closely resembles my reference to tilting at windmills in an essay I wrote in 2001. If that was all there was then chalking it up to coincidence would be possible. But that is not all gentle reader ohh no, we are just getting started.
Consider that the piece she has authored - a piece on conspiracies - has quite possibly had a role in a conspiracy itself!!! This is a bold assertion gentle readers but we will supply the evidence. It will then be up to you to acknowledge the fact that she has hoodwinked you and that Crisis Magazine is clearly in on it as well.
A subtitle of her longer essay is titled The Protocols of Paranoia. This subtitle for some reason did not jump out at me the first time I read the piece earlier this year; however now after reaquainting myself with my old conspiracy paradigm from years back, now it so clearly does. For you see, I find it intriguing that this so eerily comes close to a section of my treatise titled Protocols and Paranoia and which - like Ms. Meisel's section - happens to discuss the Protocols of Zion. The following quotes from Ms. Meisel's piece will be in black while quotes from my treatise will be in darkblue. Without further ado, let us get to it. First we quote from Ms. Meisel's piece:
In the 1890s, the decade of the Dreyfus Affair, czarist Russian secret agents adapted a French satire on Napoleon III into the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
Now from my treatise section Protocols and Paranoia:
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion document was shown to be a hoax over eighty years ago. It was a known forgery even in the early 1920's. (The authorship has been established to have been someone or a group within the Tzar's secret police.) It was written at the earliest in the closing decades of the nineteenth century and based on a French satire.
Now then, what are we to make of this??? I suppose we could simply claim that it is a "coincidence," that Sandra and I happened to seize on and utilize almost the exact same section title. Of course people who say this would probably dismiss as "coincidental" the fact that we both referred to the Protocols as not the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" but instead as the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" rather than as it is commonly referred to. And I suppose both references to a French satire were mere "coincidence" too??? Or was there instead a...deliberate and...premeditated.......borrowing.......by Ms. Meisel.......of my work as part of a..............grand conspiracy to.......................... undermine..............other potential conspiracies??? Oh we are not done yet, here is yet more proof:
cabals of Jewish financiers
cabalistic...Jewish.
These are simply too close to the following from Protocols and Paranoia:
an elite cabal of Jews
And yet we have more...
denied the...Holocaust.
Holocaust denial
Will it never cease???
Jews...Freemasons in the basement? Reds under the bed? Black helicopters in the sky? Answer: A surprising number of otherwise sensible people. Even under the new shadow of terrorism, old fears live on, breeding bogeys that knot together in a vipers’ tangle of menace.
...Judeo-Masonic-Communist conspiracy and/or the imminent arrival of the Antichrist to rule over the New World Order. Their anxieties are often fueled by anti-Semitic screeds, polemical histories, eccentric economics, and even heavenly messages.
the 'traditionalist' movement is home to every kooky fringe theory that you can possibly imagine. There is a whole cornucopia of them from Masons running the Vatican to Jews running the world to Holocaust denial...
And finally, this tidbit:
The protocols provided the foundation for many of the worst anti-Semitic theories in the 20th century, influencing even Hitler.
There was virtually no revisions made to the Protocols and Paranoia section in late December 2002 and early January of 2003 when the treatise was revised, expanded, and made easier to download and read. However, one sentence was deleted from the Protocols and Paranoia section from how it read since 2000 and it was the following one:
Of course this is the same "logic" that Adolph Hitler used in Mein Kampf (written in 1923) when he addressed the fact that the "Protocols" were known to be a forgery even in his day.
Now since Sandra Meisel wrote her article *before* that sentence was excised out of the current treatise section, it would seem to be obvious that the excerpt from her essay was based on the above sentence. I mean come on, the fact that we *both* mentioned the Protocols in relation to Hitler??? Can the evidence be any more convincing???
How anyone cannot so clearly see what all of this adds up to is a mysery to me. Now I suppose that someone could argue that 99% of Meisel's piece shows no potential borrowing of any kind - and even the above are not verbatim bits but you see...that is the whole point: the 99% is a mere *distraction* to allow for the 1% to be snuck into the piece undetected. And the reason they are not verbatim is because Sandra Meisel is much too clever to do that lest her machinations be detected by the untrained eye.
In summary, that there is a conspiracy here is evident to all who can read the tea leaves. Exactly what that conspiracy is will require more research but it is there......."undisputedly" I say!!!
It is a couple months old now but Michael Medved's commentary on Mel Gibson's upcoming movie The Passion is worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)