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.)
Saturday, September 20, 2003
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.
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
It seems that the more abridged catechism aimed at young people spoken of in October of 2002 by Bishop Donald Wuerl is almost ready for approval by the US Bishops Conference. (Bishop Wuerl last year specified November of 2003 for the approval of the US Bishops.) So I figured that notifying the readers of this upcoming development would be a good thing to do now. See the link above for more details.
Monday, September 15, 2003
While I can (and do) concur with a lot of what Brian Preston notes HERE about anti-war protesters in general, at the same time I seem to be detecting a bit of a Manifest Destiny outlook in Bryan's words:
Reality is what the anti-war people don't want to face. They don't want to acknowledge that we have enemies who will not be placated with nice talk. They don't want to acknowledge that our enemies hate us no matter what we do, because in their minds if all this is our fault it's easier to fix. Fix ourselves and the bad guys will break bread with us. They don't want to acknowledge that the world is a nasty, brutish place that occassionally spawns monsters that good men and women must fight. They just don't want to look evil in the eye, fearing that they will quail and give in to it rather than confront and defeat it. And on that last, they have proven themselves right. Having looked evil in the eye on 9-11, they bent knee and wanted us all to sue for peace. They still don't understand why we didn't.
Well, in some respects this is true but there is more to it than just that. For example, if America were to (i) outlaw abortions (ii) stop promoting a utilitarian mentality that dehumanizes innocent life (iii) cease trying through its courts to expunge God out of the public conscience (iv) stop trying to assimilate them into these and other egregious errors via media industrial forms of imperialism, then yes: there would be a hell of a lot less bad guys who thought of us as The Great Satan.
We deceive ourselves into thinking we are a moral people when we endorse either explicitly or tacitly what is outlined above. And as heinous as the terrorist attacks were, at the same time we need to in part look in the mirror and ask ourselves if we are really as lily white and innocent as many war partisans seem to want to pretend that we are.
Reality is what the anti-war people don't want to face. They don't want to acknowledge that we have enemies who will not be placated with nice talk. They don't want to acknowledge that our enemies hate us no matter what we do, because in their minds if all this is our fault it's easier to fix. Fix ourselves and the bad guys will break bread with us. They don't want to acknowledge that the world is a nasty, brutish place that occassionally spawns monsters that good men and women must fight. They just don't want to look evil in the eye, fearing that they will quail and give in to it rather than confront and defeat it. And on that last, they have proven themselves right. Having looked evil in the eye on 9-11, they bent knee and wanted us all to sue for peace. They still don't understand why we didn't.
Well, in some respects this is true but there is more to it than just that. For example, if America were to (i) outlaw abortions (ii) stop promoting a utilitarian mentality that dehumanizes innocent life (iii) cease trying through its courts to expunge God out of the public conscience (iv) stop trying to assimilate them into these and other egregious errors via media industrial forms of imperialism, then yes: there would be a hell of a lot less bad guys who thought of us as The Great Satan.
We deceive ourselves into thinking we are a moral people when we endorse either explicitly or tacitly what is outlined above. And as heinous as the terrorist attacks were, at the same time we need to in part look in the mirror and ask ourselves if we are really as lily white and innocent as many war partisans seem to want to pretend that we are.
"Miller Time" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Seven Part Update)
A movement is accomplished in six stages...
And the seventh brings return...
Danger: Potential Parodies Ahead!!!
Apparently they sell "Pope Innocent III" action figures up here in Seattle. I am wondering if he comes with (Hans) Kung Fu grip as well.
In other news, here is more evidence of society's decline.
With regards to a recent blog on Microsoft in the schools, I am wondering if Jeff's outlining of Microsoft enabled student is supposed to be a joke or not. I mean, all humour has to have some grains of truth to it to be funny but there is much more than mere grains of truth in this one.
In other news, The Curt One has also put the pieces together on the mysterious relationship between Elvis Presley and Pope John XXIII. In the words of The Monkees, "now I'm a believer." (Or was it "daydream believer"???)
Following the tradition of the "For Dummies"™ instructional series, Jeff gives us Liturgy for Ignoramuses. Thankfully with Blessed Sacrament I do not have to worry about the problems he outlines - not to say that things are perfect of course.{1}
In a breaking newsstory, Jeff Miller has in a rare digital archeological find discovered Adam's BLOG.That is right folks, the fellow known as The First Adam. Click HERE for details.
And finally, as there appear to be a number of "Jeff Miller's" running around, The Curt One wants us all to be properly informed; hence this disclaimer to clear up certain potential confusions. (And possibly create even more but that is another story.)
Note:
{1} There is still the "grip and grin" of course but I have had some thoughts the past few months on this practice and am beginning to see both a biblical as well as practical reason for it if properly conducted. (And yes that means it will be blogged on when I am in the mood to do so.) That the majority of parishoners do not properly exchange the kiss of peace is hardly a thesis that I would defend; however that is another story altogether...
(A Rerum Novarum Seven Part Update)
A movement is accomplished in six stages...
And the seventh brings return...
Danger: Potential Parodies Ahead!!!
Apparently they sell "Pope Innocent III" action figures up here in Seattle. I am wondering if he comes with (Hans) Kung Fu grip as well.
In other news, here is more evidence of society's decline.
With regards to a recent blog on Microsoft in the schools, I am wondering if Jeff's outlining of Microsoft enabled student is supposed to be a joke or not. I mean, all humour has to have some grains of truth to it to be funny but there is much more than mere grains of truth in this one.
In other news, The Curt One has also put the pieces together on the mysterious relationship between Elvis Presley and Pope John XXIII. In the words of The Monkees, "now I'm a believer." (Or was it "daydream believer"???)
Following the tradition of the "For Dummies"™ instructional series, Jeff gives us Liturgy for Ignoramuses. Thankfully with Blessed Sacrament I do not have to worry about the problems he outlines - not to say that things are perfect of course.{1}
In a breaking newsstory, Jeff Miller has in a rare digital archeological find discovered Adam's BLOG.That is right folks, the fellow known as The First Adam. Click HERE for details.
And finally, as there appear to be a number of "Jeff Miller's" running around, The Curt One wants us all to be properly informed; hence this disclaimer to clear up certain potential confusions. (And possibly create even more but that is another story.)
Note:
{1} There is still the "grip and grin" of course but I have had some thoughts the past few months on this practice and am beginning to see both a biblical as well as practical reason for it if properly conducted. (And yes that means it will be blogged on when I am in the mood to do so.) That the majority of parishoners do not properly exchange the kiss of peace is hardly a thesis that I would defend; however that is another story altogether...
Sunday, September 14, 2003
Mending Wall:
(By Robert Frost)
It is definitely time for a double carona but before leaving you for the night, I wanted to post some poetry. This is an old poem I recall from my high school intensive English class many years ago. For some reason I am in the mood to blog it so here it is. And with God's will and your readership, I shall blog again...
SOMETHING there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
"Stay where you are until our backs are turned!"
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of outdoor game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
He is all pine and I am apple-orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says,"Good fences make good neighbors."
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows."
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That wants it down!"
I could say "Elves" to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there,
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
(By Robert Frost)
It is definitely time for a double carona but before leaving you for the night, I wanted to post some poetry. This is an old poem I recall from my high school intensive English class many years ago. For some reason I am in the mood to blog it so here it is. And with God's will and your readership, I shall blog again...
SOMETHING there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
"Stay where you are until our backs are turned!"
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of outdoor game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
He is all pine and I am apple-orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says,"Good fences make good neighbors."
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows."
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That wants it down!"
I could say "Elves" to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there,
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
Points to Ponder:
The principle that we are happy to make our own is this: Let us stress what we have in common rather than what divides us. This provides a good and fruitful subject for our dialogue. We are ready to carry it out wholeheartedly. We will say more: On many points of difference regarding tradition, spirituality, canon law, and worship, we are ready to study how we can satisfy the legitimate desires of our Christian brothers, still separated from us. It is our dearest wish to embrace them in a perfect union of faith and charity.
But we must add that it is not in our power to compromise with the integrity of the faith or the requirements of charity. We foresee that this will cause misgiving and opposition, but now that the Catholic Church has taken the initiative in restoring the unity of Christ's fold, it will not cease to go forward with all patience and consideration. [Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam §109 (c. 1964)]
The principle that we are happy to make our own is this: Let us stress what we have in common rather than what divides us. This provides a good and fruitful subject for our dialogue. We are ready to carry it out wholeheartedly. We will say more: On many points of difference regarding tradition, spirituality, canon law, and worship, we are ready to study how we can satisfy the legitimate desires of our Christian brothers, still separated from us. It is our dearest wish to embrace them in a perfect union of faith and charity.
But we must add that it is not in our power to compromise with the integrity of the faith or the requirements of charity. We foresee that this will cause misgiving and opposition, but now that the Catholic Church has taken the initiative in restoring the unity of Christ's fold, it will not cease to go forward with all patience and consideration. [Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam §109 (c. 1964)]
Saturday, September 13, 2003
For an excellent article on the number of the elect by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP, click HERE. As the subject of limbo comes up, I want to touch on it briefly as there are many erroneous presumptions about it.
It is claimed in some quarters that the Church at one time taught this as doctrine and now no longer does. This is erroneous on two fronts (i) the notion that limbo was ever taught as doctrine and (ii) the notion that something once taught as doctrine could be scrapped.
Those who find the notion of limbo to be strange should be reminded that it is an acceptable theological speculation. Hence, Catholics who in the guise of a pseudo "progressive" deride such a notion should be reminded of Pope Pius VI's condemnation of the Pistoia doctrine which condemned limbo as a "Pelagian fable" was proscribed as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools."
Such a theological condemnation means that the theory of limbo -though not a matter of doctrine- is nonetheless a viable theological speculation. (Though I am admittedly inclined against this theory myself.) And of course any extreme radtrads who would defend this position as a doctrine are likewise deserving of a stern rebuke.
It is claimed in some quarters that the Church at one time taught this as doctrine and now no longer does. This is erroneous on two fronts (i) the notion that limbo was ever taught as doctrine and (ii) the notion that something once taught as doctrine could be scrapped.
Those who find the notion of limbo to be strange should be reminded that it is an acceptable theological speculation. Hence, Catholics who in the guise of a pseudo "progressive" deride such a notion should be reminded of Pope Pius VI's condemnation of the Pistoia doctrine which condemned limbo as a "Pelagian fable" was proscribed as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools."
Such a theological condemnation means that the theory of limbo -though not a matter of doctrine- is nonetheless a viable theological speculation. (Though I am admittedly inclined against this theory myself.) And of course any extreme radtrads who would defend this position as a doctrine are likewise deserving of a stern rebuke.
Matt Abbot has a good piece on the subject of prudence which can be read HERE. This is definitely worth reading - particularly to those who have a habit of taking a "ready, fire, aim" approach to their interactions with others.
Johnny Cash (1932-2003)
Most people who follow the news are aware that "The Man in Black" Johnny Cash passed away today. He was the only person ever to have been inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and the Songwriters Hall of Fame.
In the next week we will look at some of the songs he wrote as well as others which he sung. In the meantime we extend to his family our prayers and to the souls of Johnny Cash and his recently departed wife June Carter Cash, may they both rest in peace with the souls of the faithfully departed.
Most people who follow the news are aware that "The Man in Black" Johnny Cash passed away today. He was the only person ever to have been inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and the Songwriters Hall of Fame.
In the next week we will look at some of the songs he wrote as well as others which he sung. In the meantime we extend to his family our prayers and to the souls of Johnny Cash and his recently departed wife June Carter Cash, may they both rest in peace with the souls of the faithfully departed.
Friday, September 12, 2003
While I would take issue with some of the content of the responses, I nonetheless cannot see how on the whole this interview with the SSPX's Fr. Aulagnier is not the most valuable contribution to a possible reconciliation from the SSPX's side in a long time. Rerum Novarum certainly prays that this will go a long way towards reunion of the SSPX with the Catholic Church.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
This will be a very unfancy update post because in light of today and the anniversary of the Islamofascists attacking the nation of my birth. A lot was added here, some links were reclassified, some new categories were created, and I even amended my longstanding site disclaimer. This update thread will explain it all.
Because there is so much that parades around as enlightened discourse which is nothing but horseapples, I have supplemented the GK Chesterton quote that has long adorned this weblog with another quote from a man who was among those who grandfathered my intellectual development: Arthur Jones. With the archives I have added links all the way out to October 25th.
Under the subject heading My Writings and Reviews, I have added the piece Why We Are 'Traditionalists' Properly So-Called that I wrote with Pete for the December 6, 2001 edition of The Wanderer. (I recently retyped this piece from my copy of the periodical and made very minor adjustments to it.)
I also relocated to this section the piece Pete Vere and I did titled Yes Virginia, Fr. Nicholas is Suspended from the March 6, 2003 edition of The Wanderer.
Also added to this section is a recent essay titled Squelching Fr. Gruner's Squawking Squire - an essay I wrote in response to a certain seriously misinformed radtrad attorney who responded to the March essay Pete and I did. (The all-important but often overlooked element of spiritual maturity is dealt with in this essay.)
Under the heading of General Political/Social Subjects I have added two links - one titled On The Political Double Standard and another dealing with the canard of conservatives being "opposed to progress."
Under a new subject line titled Political Election Issues I have relocated my post-election analysis of trends from November 2002 and added my recent analysis of Hillary Clinton's Political Options For 2004 and Beyond.
Under the old heading titled On Church Authority I have relocated the thread titled SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum On Communion Posture and the Authority of Bishops (Parts I-V) and added the followup thread titled SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum on Communion Posture and the Authority of Bishops (Book II, Parts I-IV). Also added to this category is a recent brief musing on the Canon of Scripture.
Under the heading titled On 'Traditionalism' (Falsely So-Called), the following two links were added:
The Problems of Self-Styled 'Traditionalism' Viz. Dogmatic Theology (Rerum Novarum Responds To Adam Kolasinski)
Rerum Novarum Unmasks Yet Another Pseudo-'Traditionalist'
Under the heading titled On 'Traditionalism' (Properly So-Called), the following four links were added:
Spiritual Maturity and How to Handle Theological Perplexities (Parts I-III)
A Response to Jeff Culbreath on the Rome/SSPX Situation
On True and False 'Traditionalism' With Kevin Tierney (Parts I-VII)
Musings on the Ordinary Magisterium
Under the heading titled On Controverted Subjects the following six links were added:
Musings on Atheistic Evolution
"The Kenotic Husband" and "Wifely Submission" Subjects (Rerum Novarum vs. El Camino Real)
My Involvement With the SSPX - Musings From August of 2002
Personality Profile of Rerum Novarum
Musings on Cigar Preferences
On "Catch and Release" Conservationism
For those who think the SSPX link should be listed under false "traditionalists", I chose for pastoral reasons not to do this. (Hopefully upon reading the link my reasons for this will be clear.) Those who are shills for SSPX should not interpret my placement of the link as in any way implying any ambiguity viz the objectively schismatic status of that organization.
In light of today and the war we are fighting, I have launched a new categorization that will allow me to potentially put a broader spectrum of sites on this weblog which are non-Catholic in composition. This new section is titled Ecumenical Jihad and to it I have reclassified Anne Wilson's BLOG and added the following two sites:
Rabbi Daniel Lapin's Toward Tradition
Tim Enloe's Societas Christiana BLOG
Rabbi Daniel Lapin is an Orthodox Jew and is also among my favourite talkshow hosts. (He is talkshow host Michael Medved's rabbi.) Tim Enloe is my favourite Reformed Protestant. Both have sites which are dedicated to restoring the Judeo-Christian foundation of civilization and this is a sentiment that I also personally share.
Under the heading Other Approved* Sites or Links of Interest the following links have been added:
Rerum Novarum Encyclical Letter on Capital and Labour (Pope Leo XIII)
Two Languages of Salvation - Cardinal Avery Dulles
Finally, because this new category (Ecumenical Jihad) is unlike others I have posted in the margin, an adjustment to the disclaimer was needed. Thus the disclaimer now reads as follows - with the new additions in purple font:
[:::....Any correspondence will be presumed eligible for blogging unless the sender otherwise specifies. This is referred to as the Welborn Protocol and is a policy that will be followed at Rerum Novarum. (Though name and email information will as a rule not be posted without explicit request to do so by the sender.)
Rerum Novarum is properly understood to be copyrighted in accordance with other writings of I. Shawn McElhinney except with regards to Guest Editorials to the extent necessary for the authors of said pieces to thereby retain all rights to their work thereof.
*My approval of a website, weblog, or essay is to be properly understood as approval of a macro nature and not necessarily a micro one. With those weblogs or websites under specialized headings (i.e. "Predominantly Political", "Ecumenical Jihad") the macro approval pertains to the general theme so categorized not necessarily to micro elements not pertaining to said theme thereof.
*Ecumenical Jihad listing is for weblogs or websites which are not Catholic but which nonetheless are either dedicated to or which to the webmaster (i) are worth reading and (ii) characterize in their general outlook the preservation of general Judeo-Christian morality and which are aimed at positively integrating these elements into society.
As society has grown more estranged from its founding principles, I wish to note sites which share the same sentiments for the restoration of society even if the means advocated in this endeavour differ. Rerum Novarum does not necessarily endorse particulars with sites under this heading. ....:::]
Nothing fancy today to end this update my friends, no solemn titles like "sovereign thane", no majestic "we's", no canonical rescripts, noting of the sort. In fact, after offering the intention that all the souls of those who died on September 11th may rest in peace - and that the scumbags who perpetrated this have the longest most painful purgatory possible - this post will end right now.
Because there is so much that parades around as enlightened discourse which is nothing but horseapples, I have supplemented the GK Chesterton quote that has long adorned this weblog with another quote from a man who was among those who grandfathered my intellectual development: Arthur Jones. With the archives I have added links all the way out to October 25th.
Under the subject heading My Writings and Reviews, I have added the piece Why We Are 'Traditionalists' Properly So-Called that I wrote with Pete for the December 6, 2001 edition of The Wanderer. (I recently retyped this piece from my copy of the periodical and made very minor adjustments to it.)
I also relocated to this section the piece Pete Vere and I did titled Yes Virginia, Fr. Nicholas is Suspended from the March 6, 2003 edition of The Wanderer.
Also added to this section is a recent essay titled Squelching Fr. Gruner's Squawking Squire - an essay I wrote in response to a certain seriously misinformed radtrad attorney who responded to the March essay Pete and I did. (The all-important but often overlooked element of spiritual maturity is dealt with in this essay.)
Under the heading of General Political/Social Subjects I have added two links - one titled On The Political Double Standard and another dealing with the canard of conservatives being "opposed to progress."
Under a new subject line titled Political Election Issues I have relocated my post-election analysis of trends from November 2002 and added my recent analysis of Hillary Clinton's Political Options For 2004 and Beyond.
Under the old heading titled On Church Authority I have relocated the thread titled SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum On Communion Posture and the Authority of Bishops (Parts I-V) and added the followup thread titled SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum on Communion Posture and the Authority of Bishops (Book II, Parts I-IV). Also added to this category is a recent brief musing on the Canon of Scripture.
Under the heading titled On 'Traditionalism' (Falsely So-Called), the following two links were added:
The Problems of Self-Styled 'Traditionalism' Viz. Dogmatic Theology (Rerum Novarum Responds To Adam Kolasinski)
Rerum Novarum Unmasks Yet Another Pseudo-'Traditionalist'
Under the heading titled On 'Traditionalism' (Properly So-Called), the following four links were added:
Spiritual Maturity and How to Handle Theological Perplexities (Parts I-III)
A Response to Jeff Culbreath on the Rome/SSPX Situation
On True and False 'Traditionalism' With Kevin Tierney (Parts I-VII)
Musings on the Ordinary Magisterium
Under the heading titled On Controverted Subjects the following six links were added:
Musings on Atheistic Evolution
"The Kenotic Husband" and "Wifely Submission" Subjects (Rerum Novarum vs. El Camino Real)
My Involvement With the SSPX - Musings From August of 2002
Personality Profile of Rerum Novarum
Musings on Cigar Preferences
On "Catch and Release" Conservationism
For those who think the SSPX link should be listed under false "traditionalists", I chose for pastoral reasons not to do this. (Hopefully upon reading the link my reasons for this will be clear.) Those who are shills for SSPX should not interpret my placement of the link as in any way implying any ambiguity viz the objectively schismatic status of that organization.
In light of today and the war we are fighting, I have launched a new categorization that will allow me to potentially put a broader spectrum of sites on this weblog which are non-Catholic in composition. This new section is titled Ecumenical Jihad and to it I have reclassified Anne Wilson's BLOG and added the following two sites:
Rabbi Daniel Lapin's Toward Tradition
Tim Enloe's Societas Christiana BLOG
Rabbi Daniel Lapin is an Orthodox Jew and is also among my favourite talkshow hosts. (He is talkshow host Michael Medved's rabbi.) Tim Enloe is my favourite Reformed Protestant. Both have sites which are dedicated to restoring the Judeo-Christian foundation of civilization and this is a sentiment that I also personally share.
Under the heading Other Approved* Sites or Links of Interest the following links have been added:
Rerum Novarum Encyclical Letter on Capital and Labour (Pope Leo XIII)
Two Languages of Salvation - Cardinal Avery Dulles
Finally, because this new category (Ecumenical Jihad) is unlike others I have posted in the margin, an adjustment to the disclaimer was needed. Thus the disclaimer now reads as follows - with the new additions in purple font:
[:::....Any correspondence will be presumed eligible for blogging unless the sender otherwise specifies. This is referred to as the Welborn Protocol and is a policy that will be followed at Rerum Novarum. (Though name and email information will as a rule not be posted without explicit request to do so by the sender.)
Rerum Novarum is properly understood to be copyrighted in accordance with other writings of I. Shawn McElhinney except with regards to Guest Editorials to the extent necessary for the authors of said pieces to thereby retain all rights to their work thereof.
*My approval of a website, weblog, or essay is to be properly understood as approval of a macro nature and not necessarily a micro one. With those weblogs or websites under specialized headings (i.e. "Predominantly Political", "Ecumenical Jihad") the macro approval pertains to the general theme so categorized not necessarily to micro elements not pertaining to said theme thereof.
*Ecumenical Jihad listing is for weblogs or websites which are not Catholic but which nonetheless are either dedicated to or which to the webmaster (i) are worth reading and (ii) characterize in their general outlook the preservation of general Judeo-Christian morality and which are aimed at positively integrating these elements into society.
As society has grown more estranged from its founding principles, I wish to note sites which share the same sentiments for the restoration of society even if the means advocated in this endeavour differ. Rerum Novarum does not necessarily endorse particulars with sites under this heading. ....:::]
Nothing fancy today to end this update my friends, no solemn titles like "sovereign thane", no majestic "we's", no canonical rescripts, noting of the sort. In fact, after offering the intention that all the souls of those who died on September 11th may rest in peace - and that the scumbags who perpetrated this have the longest most painful purgatory possible - this post will end right now.
"One From the Vault" Dept. on Common Problematical Catholic Approaches to the Ordinary Magisterium:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Though I posted some musings from an April 15, 2003 discussion list thread on the ordinary magisterium the other day, this one goes back even further (to October of 2002). The theme was the ordinary magisterium and what I saw (and still see) as the defective way in which this subject is handled by most Catholics who discuss these issues - even at times by seasoned apologists.
What you are about to read was circulated to a group of people who are actively involved in the Catholic evangelization community. (Or in brief, friends, fellow evangelists, and associates.) It was brought about because of an email from a friend in the group which brought up the subject of Vatican I and infallibility. I noted at the time that I may blog this substantially as written in my response; however for many reasons it was not feasible to do at that time. (Though I did allude to the thread below a bit in the blog entry posted HERE.)
Even in this posting, all names will be changed as this was an "in-house" note if you will. Of those who responded to it from the list of names, three were very favourable to it, three were substantially favourable with minor quibbles, and one basically told me in an indirect way to "get stuffed." (All the respondants were seasoned apologists but the dissenting view was from one who was among the "associates" if you will.) Oh well, you cannot please everyone so I have no illusions in that regard.
Without further ado, here is with few modifications to content the piece written and sent out about eleven months ago. My comments will be in purple font with any sources in darkblue font. The footnotes were originally part of the main text which I decided to excerpt out and append to the end of the thread to remove some of the clutter. The words of the person I was responding to will be in black font.
Hi AAAA:
I want to take the opportunity of your email to mention something I have thought about for a long time (a few years) and mentioned oftentimes to those who are desirous of becoming apologists for the faith. And as this list is one of seasoned apologists/evangelists, it seems good to mention this to those who have the greatest influence on the development of "the next generation of apologists" if you will. I also added a few names to the list who are also apologists not necessarily because what I say applies to them personally but because of their influence in web evangelization.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:33:36
AAAA XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
Gentlemen,
In the deliberations of Vatican I and the formulation of papal infallibility, there were supposedly brought forth 40 or so papal errors throughout history. Does anyone have this list or know where I might locate it?
I will see what I can find amongst my sources AAAA. (If I find anything I will send it to you.) In the meantime, I think you are well aware of what some of those "errors" were. Off the top of my head I can think of the following ones - most of which would certainly be on that list:
1) St. Peter at Antioch
2) Pope St. Victor I's reversal of his decision on the Easter controversy.
3) Pope St. Zephrynus' apparent aquiscence to Modalism.{1}
4) Pope St. Liberius condemning St. Athanasius under duress.
5) Pope Vigilius in publicly wavering over an issue of Christology.
6) Pope Honorius I's letter to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople which triggered the Monothelitism heresy.
7) Pope Nicholas V's position on slavery.
8) Pope John VII giving what appears to be an acknowledgment of the Photinian synod which reversed all the judgments of Constantinople IV.
9) Pope Gregory VII's Dictates Papae and some of its explicit statements.
10) Pope Stephen VII's reversal of all of his predecessors decrees, coupled with exhuming the body, dressing it in pontifical robes, and holding a "trial" for the corpse whereupon he excommunicated his predecessor. Then Stephen's successor anulled all of Stephen's decrees and reinstated those of his predecessor.{2}
11) Pope Boniface VIII's Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctum as it has been commonly misinterpreted.
12) Pope John XXII's sermons on the just not seeing the Beatific Vision until the final resurrection.{3}
13) Pope Sixtus V's Apostolic Constitution promulgating a faulty Latin Vulgate "in perpetuity".
14) The Galileo incident.
15) The supposed "reversal" on usury by Benedict XIV.{4}
The following would also apply according to the criteria above:
Pope Pius IX's teaching on invincible ignorance as "contradicting Unam Sanctum and Cantante Domino of Florence."
Papal approval of the cult of St. Philomena in the nineteenth century coupled with St. Pius X's apparent claim that the cult was not suppressible.{5}
Pope Pius XI on the holiness of marital intercourse in Casti Connubi.{6}
Pope Pius XII on birth spacing and family planning by rhythm method in an Allocution to Italian Midwives in October of 1951.{7}
Now I know how many on this list will seek to address these issues (and have) but I believe the garden variety "apologetics" approach - used by countless apologists including some on this list - are faulty and should be discarded on the scrap pile. Why??? Because it makes too many unnecessary concessions.
The first rule of successful warfare is to avoid any unnecessary concessions. And anyone who does not think what we are doing is a form of warfare - and treat it as such - has no business being in that field at all. It is almost as if Catholic apologists are so eager to play the "pope is not impeccable" card or the "it is not ex cathedra" card when in reality these cause as many problems as they solve. For the approach defacto makes infallibility the criterion of obedience and seriously sullies the integrity of the ordinary magisterium as a reliable norm for understanding the truth.
In light of today's faith crisis, the methods of the confessional polemic need to be killed and buried. People do not have the same degree of respect for authority today as was common even fifty odd years ago by not only Catholics but also by non-Catholics as well. Thus we need to use an approach that restores some degree of this respect or at least mitigates against the anxiety of accepting Church authority on faith or else we will be building arguments on potentially shiftable foundations and giving those who are less informed many unnecessary anxieties.
Before explaining my proposed alternative a few points need to be addressed. For one thing, most Catholics have absolutely no idea what they are talking about on the issue of church infallibility.{8} Infallibility is much more organic and much less legalistic than it is commonly thought to be. If one reads the commentaries of writers - even some who have an Imprimatur on their work - the standard approach is to make some kind of legal formula as a prerequisite. I have seen this almost every time I have read a source on this subject. This is despite the primary architect (and the relator) of the schema which was to become the fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus specifically stating that there was no prescribed form for "instant ex cathedra" judgments.
The relator also stated to the voting Fathers that the word defines was not to be understood in a juridical sense and yet the apologists who continue to explain it in that manner to varying degrees are legion. To contradict the proper sense of a defined dogma is to go against a doctrine of Vatican I as set forth in Dei Filius which stated definitively that doctrines are to be understood in the sense they are defined in and no recourse to any other proposed interpretation is at any time acceptable.
Yet what do almost all people --including not a few apologists-- do??? Why they explain papal infallibility in a sense that was not only not voted on at Vatican I but which was directly repudiated by the relator in the sessions. In fact, they apparently do not realize that the decree actually was written as it was to mitigate against the misunderstanding that today is so wide-spread. That is one problem that needs to be addressed and dealt with properly. Please reflect upon it after reading this note.
Another problem is the issue of reading into statements words which are not only not there but which are not even inferred. Statements such as "the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra" come to mind here. This is patently false and Vatican I does not say or even allude to this.
Instead, what is said is that it is a matter of divine faith that when a pope speaks ex cathedra he is possessing of infallibility. That is not a limitation of scope to only matters which are strictly speaking de fide but instead is a clarification of theological qualification. To use theological terminology it is de fide that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra while it is a matter of faith in the Church (fides ecclesiastica) that infallibility extends to a whole host of other areas required either directly or indirectly for the upholding of the faith.{9}
In short, there is more to infallibility than matters of divine faith, MUCH more actually. But secondary truths are so often overlooked in this equation and that is setting up a house sans a foundation by preparing the ground for the same kinds of errors that the Jansenists espoused.{10} But lest I digress I want to get to the gist of this point quickly by quoting Hans Kung.
I am sure people would wonder why Hans Kung can be of assistance on this subject. Well it is because on this point I believe Kung is right in part:
"For a long time, too, Catholic theologians in their works on apologetics . . . were able to successfully ward off any questioning of infallibility by the use of a basically simple recipe: either it was not an error or - when at last and finally an error could no longer be denied, reinterpreted, rendered innocuous or belittled - it was not an infallible decision".
Now I believe Kung is as guilty of overreach on this subject in toto as any "trad" is of post VC II magisterial statements. But the statement itself - its sarcasm and unwarranted assumptions viz "errors" aside for a moment - is substantially true. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have seen an apologist pull the "it is not an error" and then (if they cannot answer the argument or even if they concede an error - whether one is real or not) they say "well it does not fulfill ex cathedra conditions". There is a reason anti-Catholics accuse us of trying to "out-Jesuit" them and it is because of this kind of apparent shiftiness.
I realize we are seeking to defend the indefectibility of the Church but there is no need to appear as doing an apologetical version of the "snake oil salesman". Again I am not naming names but probably everyone on this list - myself included - has done this at one time or another possibly out of old habit or momentary laziness if you will.
I expect these kinds of arguments from beginners - not that I like such arguments but beginners have to start somewhere. But when I see seasoned apologists use them, it tends to grate on me because they should know better. I realize apologetics is supposed to be "faith 101" stuff but if the experts are erring or recommending faulty approaches then we cannot expect those who learn from them to get it right now can we??? So I want to start with ex cathedra and make a statement that is incontrovertable by anyone who properly knows their dogmatic theology. And that statement is this:
"There are NO required "conditions" for ex cathedra teaching except the pope intending to bind a teaching on the church universal and expressing this intention - either in an expressed or tacit manner."
That is correct, no conditions. I see people doing this three or four step process as if it is a checklist when that misses the entire substance of the teaching. (And has led to some egregious errors in print over the past hundred odd years on this subject.) With regards to what the pope does not need to do to speak infallibly includes the following:
1) He does not have to use magic words like "infallible" or "defines".
2) He does not have to verbally specify the teaching to be held definitively.
3) He does not have to expressely say anything of the sort since a tacit acknowledgment is adequate to qualify depending on the circumstances which occasion the utterance.
4) There is the often overlooked element of repetition of a teaching which also plays into the equation. And by repetition a teaching can be handed on infallibly through reiteration of the same teaching in statements none of which in themselves are necessarily infallible.
Because this subject is so easily misunderstood and because it is so complex, this is why religious submission to all papal magisterial teaching is required as per Lumen Gentium §25. And in that light I want to be directly critical of the approach taken by many apologists in how they deal with "errors" either real or preceived.
For as religious submission is required regardless, it is important to start any defense with a defense of the ordinary magisterium either expressely or tactly. Rather than taking the "Johnny Cocherine" approach to the subject that many apologists take (and to an outsider that is how it appears, let us be honest now) one should start by not being so quick to concede error in the ordinary magisterium. Does this mean that a bit of work may be needed??? Of course but it only serves to make the case stronger.
The basic divisions to be used in this approach are "magisterial doctrine" and "magisterial discipline". This is not a difficult distinction to make and if you were to go over the above list or the forty from Vatican I that AAAA mentioned, I am virtually certain you would find that not a single one of them would qualify as magisterial.{11} So in short, ignore infallibility completely and focus on whether or not something is magisterial. Because if it cannot even meet that criteria, there is no point in discussing infallibility at all.{12}
To use a poker metaphor, if you can win a hand by exposing only two aces, why show them the rest of the hand??? If you are holding a full house and all that is needed to win is a pair of aces, show only the aces and make them pay to see the rest. In the case of critics they can "pay" by doing the footwork themselves to prove a teaching is magisterial: a battle with odds that heavily favours a seasoned apologist and gives better than even odds to an amateur or beginner just getting their feet wet.
Considering that religious submission to all non-definitive teaching of the ordinary magisterium is required under the new Profession of Faith,{13} it is high time that Catholic apologists rethink how they approach the subject of potential "errors" in the magisterium at any level. The old garden variety approaches were effective but flawed for the reasons I noted above. And what I am proposing is a means that is both effective and it keeps the apologist from falling into canned responses - the surest way to shut off the thinking mechanism that I can think of on the issue of theology and explanation/defense of the faith.
Oh, and perhaps it would help to note that I have yet in years of explicitly using this approach to find a single incontrovertable error in the ordinary magisterium.{14} That does not mean there are none - only that if there are they are so remote as to not be a stumbling block to those whom we instruct to obey the ordinary magisterium in all of her decisions.
For when we have the ordinary magisterium so tightly shored up as I suggest above, it becomes apparent that recourses to arguments about certain teachings being "infallible" or not are seldom necessary except as an add-on or corollary if you will. And that IMHO is how it should be to avoid any possibility of infinite regress.
Notes:
{1} Basically he was negligent.
{2} And we thought the OJ case was bizarre.
{3} Might sound minor but repetition by the pope is not a minor bagatelle viz. determining the importance he attached to a particular teaching.
{4} Or his successors depending on whether you think Benedict sought to "pull a Jesuit" on the subject in Vix pervenit as some - even Catholics I have spoken with - have claimed.
{5} In 1961 it was suppressed.
{6} No pope had ever taught this in his magisterium and in fact several had made at least implicit assertions to the contrary though not as far as I can tell in any magisterial enunciations.
{7} The genesis of what has become several magisterial nods to what is has developed into NFP.
{8} Nor do most apologists sad to say - whether they are professionally trained or not.
{9} A position taught by Vatican II officially in a Dogmatic Constitution and thus this is a theological issue that is no longer debatable amongst theologians.
{10} Which as I noted in my treatise are in many ways identical to the errors espoused by the "traditionalists."
{11} They would fall under areas of unpromulgated doctrine or magisterial discipline at best. I know the ones I listed above do not qualify as controversions of magisterial teaching or even - in most cases - as magisterial teaching at all. Those that do when looked at from a standpoint of comparing apples with apples are not as problematical as they first appear.
{12} In short, focus on authority instead of infallibility as the latter is only an ancillary of the former and not the criterion for either (i) the irreformability of a particular teaching (ii) the truth of a particular teaching, or (iii) whether or not a particular teaching requires obedience.
{13} For professions of faith put forward either by the pope or an ecumenical council are exercises of the solemn magisterium akin to any dogmatic definition.
{14} Or potentially any error period when all factors are considered.
{The above post was written on October 20, 2002 and is posted here with only the most minor of modifications - ISM}
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Though I posted some musings from an April 15, 2003 discussion list thread on the ordinary magisterium the other day, this one goes back even further (to October of 2002). The theme was the ordinary magisterium and what I saw (and still see) as the defective way in which this subject is handled by most Catholics who discuss these issues - even at times by seasoned apologists.
What you are about to read was circulated to a group of people who are actively involved in the Catholic evangelization community. (Or in brief, friends, fellow evangelists, and associates.) It was brought about because of an email from a friend in the group which brought up the subject of Vatican I and infallibility. I noted at the time that I may blog this substantially as written in my response; however for many reasons it was not feasible to do at that time. (Though I did allude to the thread below a bit in the blog entry posted HERE.)
Even in this posting, all names will be changed as this was an "in-house" note if you will. Of those who responded to it from the list of names, three were very favourable to it, three were substantially favourable with minor quibbles, and one basically told me in an indirect way to "get stuffed." (All the respondants were seasoned apologists but the dissenting view was from one who was among the "associates" if you will.) Oh well, you cannot please everyone so I have no illusions in that regard.
Without further ado, here is with few modifications to content the piece written and sent out about eleven months ago. My comments will be in purple font with any sources in darkblue font. The footnotes were originally part of the main text which I decided to excerpt out and append to the end of the thread to remove some of the clutter. The words of the person I was responding to will be in black font.
Hi AAAA:
I want to take the opportunity of your email to mention something I have thought about for a long time (a few years) and mentioned oftentimes to those who are desirous of becoming apologists for the faith. And as this list is one of seasoned apologists/evangelists, it seems good to mention this to those who have the greatest influence on the development of "the next generation of apologists" if you will. I also added a few names to the list who are also apologists not necessarily because what I say applies to them personally but because of their influence in web evangelization.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:33:36
AAAA XXXXXXXXXX wrote:
Gentlemen,
In the deliberations of Vatican I and the formulation of papal infallibility, there were supposedly brought forth 40 or so papal errors throughout history. Does anyone have this list or know where I might locate it?
I will see what I can find amongst my sources AAAA. (If I find anything I will send it to you.) In the meantime, I think you are well aware of what some of those "errors" were. Off the top of my head I can think of the following ones - most of which would certainly be on that list:
1) St. Peter at Antioch
2) Pope St. Victor I's reversal of his decision on the Easter controversy.
3) Pope St. Zephrynus' apparent aquiscence to Modalism.{1}
4) Pope St. Liberius condemning St. Athanasius under duress.
5) Pope Vigilius in publicly wavering over an issue of Christology.
6) Pope Honorius I's letter to Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople which triggered the Monothelitism heresy.
7) Pope Nicholas V's position on slavery.
8) Pope John VII giving what appears to be an acknowledgment of the Photinian synod which reversed all the judgments of Constantinople IV.
9) Pope Gregory VII's Dictates Papae and some of its explicit statements.
10) Pope Stephen VII's reversal of all of his predecessors decrees, coupled with exhuming the body, dressing it in pontifical robes, and holding a "trial" for the corpse whereupon he excommunicated his predecessor. Then Stephen's successor anulled all of Stephen's decrees and reinstated those of his predecessor.{2}
11) Pope Boniface VIII's Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctum as it has been commonly misinterpreted.
12) Pope John XXII's sermons on the just not seeing the Beatific Vision until the final resurrection.{3}
13) Pope Sixtus V's Apostolic Constitution promulgating a faulty Latin Vulgate "in perpetuity".
14) The Galileo incident.
15) The supposed "reversal" on usury by Benedict XIV.{4}
The following would also apply according to the criteria above:
Pope Pius IX's teaching on invincible ignorance as "contradicting Unam Sanctum and Cantante Domino of Florence."
Papal approval of the cult of St. Philomena in the nineteenth century coupled with St. Pius X's apparent claim that the cult was not suppressible.{5}
Pope Pius XI on the holiness of marital intercourse in Casti Connubi.{6}
Pope Pius XII on birth spacing and family planning by rhythm method in an Allocution to Italian Midwives in October of 1951.{7}
Now I know how many on this list will seek to address these issues (and have) but I believe the garden variety "apologetics" approach - used by countless apologists including some on this list - are faulty and should be discarded on the scrap pile. Why??? Because it makes too many unnecessary concessions.
The first rule of successful warfare is to avoid any unnecessary concessions. And anyone who does not think what we are doing is a form of warfare - and treat it as such - has no business being in that field at all. It is almost as if Catholic apologists are so eager to play the "pope is not impeccable" card or the "it is not ex cathedra" card when in reality these cause as many problems as they solve. For the approach defacto makes infallibility the criterion of obedience and seriously sullies the integrity of the ordinary magisterium as a reliable norm for understanding the truth.
In light of today's faith crisis, the methods of the confessional polemic need to be killed and buried. People do not have the same degree of respect for authority today as was common even fifty odd years ago by not only Catholics but also by non-Catholics as well. Thus we need to use an approach that restores some degree of this respect or at least mitigates against the anxiety of accepting Church authority on faith or else we will be building arguments on potentially shiftable foundations and giving those who are less informed many unnecessary anxieties.
Before explaining my proposed alternative a few points need to be addressed. For one thing, most Catholics have absolutely no idea what they are talking about on the issue of church infallibility.{8} Infallibility is much more organic and much less legalistic than it is commonly thought to be. If one reads the commentaries of writers - even some who have an Imprimatur on their work - the standard approach is to make some kind of legal formula as a prerequisite. I have seen this almost every time I have read a source on this subject. This is despite the primary architect (and the relator) of the schema which was to become the fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus specifically stating that there was no prescribed form for "instant ex cathedra" judgments.
The relator also stated to the voting Fathers that the word defines was not to be understood in a juridical sense and yet the apologists who continue to explain it in that manner to varying degrees are legion. To contradict the proper sense of a defined dogma is to go against a doctrine of Vatican I as set forth in Dei Filius which stated definitively that doctrines are to be understood in the sense they are defined in and no recourse to any other proposed interpretation is at any time acceptable.
Yet what do almost all people --including not a few apologists-- do??? Why they explain papal infallibility in a sense that was not only not voted on at Vatican I but which was directly repudiated by the relator in the sessions. In fact, they apparently do not realize that the decree actually was written as it was to mitigate against the misunderstanding that today is so wide-spread. That is one problem that needs to be addressed and dealt with properly. Please reflect upon it after reading this note.
Another problem is the issue of reading into statements words which are not only not there but which are not even inferred. Statements such as "the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra" come to mind here. This is patently false and Vatican I does not say or even allude to this.
Instead, what is said is that it is a matter of divine faith that when a pope speaks ex cathedra he is possessing of infallibility. That is not a limitation of scope to only matters which are strictly speaking de fide but instead is a clarification of theological qualification. To use theological terminology it is de fide that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra while it is a matter of faith in the Church (fides ecclesiastica) that infallibility extends to a whole host of other areas required either directly or indirectly for the upholding of the faith.{9}
In short, there is more to infallibility than matters of divine faith, MUCH more actually. But secondary truths are so often overlooked in this equation and that is setting up a house sans a foundation by preparing the ground for the same kinds of errors that the Jansenists espoused.{10} But lest I digress I want to get to the gist of this point quickly by quoting Hans Kung.
I am sure people would wonder why Hans Kung can be of assistance on this subject. Well it is because on this point I believe Kung is right in part:
"For a long time, too, Catholic theologians in their works on apologetics . . . were able to successfully ward off any questioning of infallibility by the use of a basically simple recipe: either it was not an error or - when at last and finally an error could no longer be denied, reinterpreted, rendered innocuous or belittled - it was not an infallible decision".
Now I believe Kung is as guilty of overreach on this subject in toto as any "trad" is of post VC II magisterial statements. But the statement itself - its sarcasm and unwarranted assumptions viz "errors" aside for a moment - is substantially true. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have seen an apologist pull the "it is not an error" and then (if they cannot answer the argument or even if they concede an error - whether one is real or not) they say "well it does not fulfill ex cathedra conditions". There is a reason anti-Catholics accuse us of trying to "out-Jesuit" them and it is because of this kind of apparent shiftiness.
I realize we are seeking to defend the indefectibility of the Church but there is no need to appear as doing an apologetical version of the "snake oil salesman". Again I am not naming names but probably everyone on this list - myself included - has done this at one time or another possibly out of old habit or momentary laziness if you will.
I expect these kinds of arguments from beginners - not that I like such arguments but beginners have to start somewhere. But when I see seasoned apologists use them, it tends to grate on me because they should know better. I realize apologetics is supposed to be "faith 101" stuff but if the experts are erring or recommending faulty approaches then we cannot expect those who learn from them to get it right now can we??? So I want to start with ex cathedra and make a statement that is incontrovertable by anyone who properly knows their dogmatic theology. And that statement is this:
"There are NO required "conditions" for ex cathedra teaching except the pope intending to bind a teaching on the church universal and expressing this intention - either in an expressed or tacit manner."
That is correct, no conditions. I see people doing this three or four step process as if it is a checklist when that misses the entire substance of the teaching. (And has led to some egregious errors in print over the past hundred odd years on this subject.) With regards to what the pope does not need to do to speak infallibly includes the following:
1) He does not have to use magic words like "infallible" or "defines".
2) He does not have to verbally specify the teaching to be held definitively.
3) He does not have to expressely say anything of the sort since a tacit acknowledgment is adequate to qualify depending on the circumstances which occasion the utterance.
4) There is the often overlooked element of repetition of a teaching which also plays into the equation. And by repetition a teaching can be handed on infallibly through reiteration of the same teaching in statements none of which in themselves are necessarily infallible.
Because this subject is so easily misunderstood and because it is so complex, this is why religious submission to all papal magisterial teaching is required as per Lumen Gentium §25. And in that light I want to be directly critical of the approach taken by many apologists in how they deal with "errors" either real or preceived.
For as religious submission is required regardless, it is important to start any defense with a defense of the ordinary magisterium either expressely or tactly. Rather than taking the "Johnny Cocherine" approach to the subject that many apologists take (and to an outsider that is how it appears, let us be honest now) one should start by not being so quick to concede error in the ordinary magisterium. Does this mean that a bit of work may be needed??? Of course but it only serves to make the case stronger.
The basic divisions to be used in this approach are "magisterial doctrine" and "magisterial discipline". This is not a difficult distinction to make and if you were to go over the above list or the forty from Vatican I that AAAA mentioned, I am virtually certain you would find that not a single one of them would qualify as magisterial.{11} So in short, ignore infallibility completely and focus on whether or not something is magisterial. Because if it cannot even meet that criteria, there is no point in discussing infallibility at all.{12}
To use a poker metaphor, if you can win a hand by exposing only two aces, why show them the rest of the hand??? If you are holding a full house and all that is needed to win is a pair of aces, show only the aces and make them pay to see the rest. In the case of critics they can "pay" by doing the footwork themselves to prove a teaching is magisterial: a battle with odds that heavily favours a seasoned apologist and gives better than even odds to an amateur or beginner just getting their feet wet.
Considering that religious submission to all non-definitive teaching of the ordinary magisterium is required under the new Profession of Faith,{13} it is high time that Catholic apologists rethink how they approach the subject of potential "errors" in the magisterium at any level. The old garden variety approaches were effective but flawed for the reasons I noted above. And what I am proposing is a means that is both effective and it keeps the apologist from falling into canned responses - the surest way to shut off the thinking mechanism that I can think of on the issue of theology and explanation/defense of the faith.
Oh, and perhaps it would help to note that I have yet in years of explicitly using this approach to find a single incontrovertable error in the ordinary magisterium.{14} That does not mean there are none - only that if there are they are so remote as to not be a stumbling block to those whom we instruct to obey the ordinary magisterium in all of her decisions.
For when we have the ordinary magisterium so tightly shored up as I suggest above, it becomes apparent that recourses to arguments about certain teachings being "infallible" or not are seldom necessary except as an add-on or corollary if you will. And that IMHO is how it should be to avoid any possibility of infinite regress.
Notes:
{1} Basically he was negligent.
{2} And we thought the OJ case was bizarre.
{3} Might sound minor but repetition by the pope is not a minor bagatelle viz. determining the importance he attached to a particular teaching.
{4} Or his successors depending on whether you think Benedict sought to "pull a Jesuit" on the subject in Vix pervenit as some - even Catholics I have spoken with - have claimed.
{5} In 1961 it was suppressed.
{6} No pope had ever taught this in his magisterium and in fact several had made at least implicit assertions to the contrary though not as far as I can tell in any magisterial enunciations.
{7} The genesis of what has become several magisterial nods to what is has developed into NFP.
{8} Nor do most apologists sad to say - whether they are professionally trained or not.
{9} A position taught by Vatican II officially in a Dogmatic Constitution and thus this is a theological issue that is no longer debatable amongst theologians.
{10} Which as I noted in my treatise are in many ways identical to the errors espoused by the "traditionalists."
{11} They would fall under areas of unpromulgated doctrine or magisterial discipline at best. I know the ones I listed above do not qualify as controversions of magisterial teaching or even - in most cases - as magisterial teaching at all. Those that do when looked at from a standpoint of comparing apples with apples are not as problematical as they first appear.
{12} In short, focus on authority instead of infallibility as the latter is only an ancillary of the former and not the criterion for either (i) the irreformability of a particular teaching (ii) the truth of a particular teaching, or (iii) whether or not a particular teaching requires obedience.
{13} For professions of faith put forward either by the pope or an ecumenical council are exercises of the solemn magisterium akin to any dogmatic definition.
{14} Or potentially any error period when all factors are considered.
{The above post was written on October 20, 2002 and is posted here with only the most minor of modifications - ISM}
Points to Ponder:
Since the objective truth of faith is universal and the true subject of faith must be conformed to its object, it follows that the subject of true religion is necessarily universal. Real faith cannot belong to man as an isolated individual but only to mankind as a complete unity; and the individual can only share in it as a living member of the universal body.
But since no real and living unity has been bestowed on the human race in the physical order, it must be created in the moral order. The limits of natural egoism, of finite individuality with its exclusive self-assertion, must be burst by love which renders man conformable to God Who is Love. But this love which is to transform the discordant fragments of the human race into a real and living unity, the Universal Church, cannot be a mere vague, subjective and ineffectual sentiment; it must be translated into a consistent and definite activity which shall give the inner sentiment its objective reality. [Vladimir Soloviev Russia and the Universal Church (c. 1889)]
Since the objective truth of faith is universal and the true subject of faith must be conformed to its object, it follows that the subject of true religion is necessarily universal. Real faith cannot belong to man as an isolated individual but only to mankind as a complete unity; and the individual can only share in it as a living member of the universal body.
But since no real and living unity has been bestowed on the human race in the physical order, it must be created in the moral order. The limits of natural egoism, of finite individuality with its exclusive self-assertion, must be burst by love which renders man conformable to God Who is Love. But this love which is to transform the discordant fragments of the human race into a real and living unity, the Universal Church, cannot be a mere vague, subjective and ineffectual sentiment; it must be translated into a consistent and definite activity which shall give the inner sentiment its objective reality. [Vladimir Soloviev Russia and the Universal Church (c. 1889)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)