Thursday, March 20, 2014

I MUST SAY THAT I AM SYMPATHETIC TO HIS VIEWS ESPECIALLY HIS CRITQUE OF SOME TRADITIONALISTS WHO ARE SO NEGATIVE ABOUT POPE FRANCIS



I copy this from Rorate Caeli:

An Interview with Professor Mario Palmaro
by Lorenzo Prezzi


The Message to Traditionalists: 
“Spread the Faith in the World”



THE LOST OPPORTUNITY OF THE “LEFEBVRIANS”

Professsor Palmaro, you (and the ecclesial world you in some way interpret) rightly supported Pope Benedict’s attempt to bring into [full] communion the “schismatic” Lefebvrian movement. But in July 2012 when their General Chapter refused the invitation from the Holy See, what was your view on the matter? What do you think now of that attitude?

Even though I have never been part of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius (FSSPX) founded by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, I had the fortune of getting to know them firsthand a few years ago. Together with the journalist Alessandro Gnocchi, we decided to go and see this world with our own eyes, and to describe it in two books and some articles. I must say that many prejudices that I had held turned out to be unfounded; I met very good priests, nuns and brothers dedicated to a serious experience of Catholic life, graced with openness and cordiality. I was struck very favorably by the figure of Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Bishop who leads the FSSPX - a good man of great faith. We discovered a world of lay faithful and priests who pray every day for the Pope, even if they have placed themselves in a definitive position of being critical especially with regard to the liturgy, religious liberty and ecumenism. We saw many young people, many religious vocations, many “normal” Catholic families who frequent the Fraternity. Priests in their cassocks, while walking the streets of Paris or Rome, were stopped by people asking them for comfort and hope.

We are well-acquainted with the polymorphism of the contemporary Church in the world, which is to say that nowadays calling yourself Catholic is not the same as following the same doctrine; heterodoxy is greatly diffused and there are nuns, priests and theologians who openly contest or deny portions of Catholic doctrine. For this reason, we asked ourselves: how is it possible that there is room for everyone in the Church except these brothers and sisters who are Catholic in every way and are absolutely faithful to 20 of all the 21 councils which have taken place in the course of Catholic history?

While we were writing the first book, news arrived about the revocation of the excommunications through Pope Benedict XVI’s historical decision. What remained at that point was the canonical regularization of the Fraternity. Pope Benedict held this reconciliation dearly and it has yet to be concretized. I maintain that Benedict’s pontificate was a historical opportunity for full reconciliation, and it was a real shame to let this train pass. I have always sustained that the FSSPX must do all that is possible for their canonical regularization, but I would add that Rome has to offer Monsignor Fellay and his faithful the guarantee of respect and freedom, above all in the celebration of the Vetus Ordo and in the doctrine that is normally taught within the Fraternity’s seminaries, the perennial one.

DEFENSIVE AGGRESSIVENESS

The full support towards Pope Benedict XVI does not seem to be carried out now with Pope Francis. Are popes accepted or are they “chosen”? What does the papacy represent today?

The fact that a pope is “liked” by people is completely irrelevant to the two-thousand-year logic of the Church: the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and he has to please Our Lord. This means that the exercise of his power is not absolute, but is subordinate to the teaching of Christ, which is found in the Catholic Church, in Her Tradition and fostered by the life of Grace through the Sacraments.

Now, this means that the pope himself can be judged and criticized by the [ordinary] Catholic, on the condition that this happens in the perspective of love for the truth, and that as a criteria of reference, Tradition and the Magisterium are used. A pope contradicting a predecessor in matters of faith and morals has to, without question, be criticized. 

We must distrust both the worldly logic where the pope is judged by democratic criteria which satisfies the majority, and the temptation to “papolatry” according to which “the pope is always right.” Furthermore, for decades now we have become used to criticizing many popes from the past in a destructive manner, exhibiting scarce historiographic seriousness; well then, we don’t see why reigning popes or the most recent ones are spared in any way from any type of criticism. If Boniface VII or Pius V are judged why not also judge Paul VI or Francis?

AGAINST MODERNISM

In the world of the sites (internet) and magazines on Tradition, of late, a frequent display of strong aggressiveness has been noted. Is it true? What are the causes? What do you think of this?

The behavior-problems in some tradition-associated people or entities is serious and cannot be denied. A truth presented or proposed without charity is a truth betrayed. Christ is our way, truth and life and therefore we must always take our example from Him, Who was always steadfast in the truth and invincible in charity. I believe the world of Tradition is sometimes sharp and polemical for three reasons: the first, is a certain syndrome of isolation, which renders [them] suspicious and vindictive, and manifests itself through personality problems; the second, is the genuine scandal that certain directions in contemporary Catholicism stir up in those who know the doctrinal teaching of the popes and the Church prior to Vatican II; the third, for the lack of charity that official Catholicism has shown to these brothers, who are apostrophized with contempt as “traditionalists” or “Lefebvrians” forgetting that, anyway they are nearer the Church than the members of any other Christian confession ever could be or even any other religion. The official Catholic press does not even dedicate a line to this reality – which includes hundreds of priests and seminarians – and yet they might offer pages to thinkers that have nothing even vaguely Catholic about them.

Commenting on the Vatican instruction with regard to the Franciscans of the Immaculate, you invoked conscientious objection for the religious as to the liturgical indications. In what way [then] must the religious obey their spiritual family? How do you place conscientious objection in the tradition of the Syllabus?

The issue of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, is in my view very sad. It concerns provisions made by an external commissioner and decided upon by Rome in unusual haste and with equally unexplainable severity. Since I know this religious family very well, I find this decision to be completely unjustifiable and [so] along with other three scholars I presented a sort of appeal to the Vatican.

In synthesis, I remind you, that the provisions “remove” the founder, and forbid the celebration of the Old Rite to all of the priests in the Congregation, [this] in manifest contradiction to what was established by Benedict XVI in his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. You are right: the resistance to an order from legitimate authority always poses problems for the Christian, even more so if he is a member of a religious family. Nonetheless, in this case there are some aspects clearly unacceptable, and I maintain that the priests of the Franciscans of the Immaculate should continue to celebrate the Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Vetus Ordo, securing that bi-ritualism which I know was the normal practice for the Friars. I would add, in a Church shaken by thousands of problems and rebellions where glorious congregations are dying out for lack of vocations, it is not good to see the Franciscans of the Immaculate being hit like this as they instead, have abundant vocations all over the world.

In your opinion, what are the most evident limits of the “conciliar” (or “liberal” if you wish) Catholic sensibility? What are its most obvious weaknesses?

In my view, the fundamental problem is its relationship with the world, marked by an attitude of subjection and dependency, almost as if the Church must adapt Herself to the whims of men, when instead we know that it is man who needs to adapt to the will of Christ, the King of history and the universe. When Pius X harshly attacked Modernism, he wanted to ward off this mortal temptation to Catholicism: the changing of doctrine to go along with the spirit of the world. Given that humanity has been prey to the process of dissolution which began with the French Revolution (followed by modernity and post-modernity) the Church is more than ever called to resist that spirit of the world. Many choices made by the Church in the last 50 years are instead the symptom of giving in [to it]: the liturgical reform, which constructed a Mass for contemporary sensibilities by destroying a Rite in force for centuries, orienting everything towards the word, the assembly, participation, [while] mortifying the centrality of the Sacrifice; the insistence on the universal priesthood, which has devalued the ministerial priesthood, disheartening generations of priests and bringing on an unprecedented crisis in vocations; “sacred” architecture which built anti-liturgical monsters; the de facto abolition of the Four Last Things, when the theme of the salvation of souls (and the risk of eternal damnation) is the only supernatural subject matter which differentiates the Church from a philanthropic agency; and so forth.

BECOMING SAINTS

Believers are united on the essential and are divided on controversial issues. Everyone, however, is called to respect and accompany those who are burdened by suffering and the fatigues of life. How does one’s spiritual sensibilities change when suffering passes through the days with violence, as is happening to you?

The first thing that shakes you up about sickness is that it hits us without any warning and at a time we do not decide. We are at the mercy of events, and we can do nothing but accept them. Grave illness obliges one to become aware that we are truly mortal; even if death is the most certain thing in the world, modern man tends to live as if he should never die.

In sickness you understand for the first time that life on earth is but a breath, you recognize with bitterness that you have not made it that masterpiece of holiness God had wanted. You experience a profound nostalgia for the good that you could have done and for the bad that you could have avoided. You look at the Crucifix and you understand that this is the heart of the Faith; without sacrifice Catholicism wouldn’t exist. Then you thank God for having made you a Catholic, a “little ” Catholic, a sinner, but who has an attentive Mother in the Church. So, grave sickness is a time of grace, but often the vices and miseries that have accompanied us in life remain, or even increase [during it]. It is as if the agony has already begun, and there is a battle going on for the destiny of my soul, because nobody can be sure of their own salvation.

On the other hand, this sickness has allowed me to discover a remarkable amount of people who love and pray for me; families who recite the rosary in the evening with their children for my recovery. I have no words to describe the beauty of this experience which is an anticipation of the love of God and eternity itself. The greatest suffering I experience is the idea of having to leave this world which I am so fond of and is so beautiful even if also so tragic; of having to leave many friends and relatives; but most of all, of having to leave my wife and children who are still at a tender age.

Sometimes I imagine my home, my empty study, and the life that will continue there even if I am no longer present. It is a scene that hurts, but it is extremely realistic: it makes me realize what a useless servant I have been, and that all the books I have written, the conferences and articles, are nothing but straw. But my hope is in the mercy of the Lord, and in the fact that others will pick up part of my aspirations and battles and will continue on in “the ancient duel”.

[Source: Settimana (Ed. Dehoniane), October 27, 2013, issue n. 38/2013, p. 12-13. Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana.]

36 comments:

Gene said...

The damage has been done. Vatican II was a terrible blow to the Church and Catholic identity. Although no doctrines were changed, its de facto effect on belief and worship in general has been devastating. All this talk about being "pastoral" and pastoral sensibilities is treating the symptom and not the disease. It is going to take some very decisive and radical changes from the top to fix anything and it is going too have to start with Liturgy and worship. A spate of articles and apologies for this Pope are no help. They only raise the question, "why does this Pope so need defending?" I see nothing changing under this Pope…the Church is marking time in a bog.

JBS said...

Since the SSPX opposes dialogue with Protestants, Jews and false religions, there can be no room for the Society as an official entity within the Church. Holy Mother Church must hold the line against the Society's lack of evangelical charity.

However, if those lay Catholic communities attached to the traditional Roman Missal and Ritual continue to produce large numbers of vocations to the sacred ministry and to consecrated life, then Pope Francis, or his successor, will eventually notice the good in these communities. These groups will also do well not to ally themselves corporately with particular political ideologies.

Anonymous said...

It's silly season in the church. Cardinals saying stupid things like "bravo" to somebody's choice to live an immoral life. And yes I use the word stupid. That isn't being disrespectful either. It's being truthful. What is disrespectful to faithful Catholics is this pope, yes this pope, bishops and priests not teaching and living the Faith clearly and without ambiguity and causing confusion and doubt. Either you believe what the Church teaches or you don't. What is the problem. If you don't believe what the church teaches then don't be a Catholic. What is so hard to understand. I don't believe in Judaism or Islam or Protestantism or Buddhism etc, that's why I'm not one of them. I also don't care what they believe or teach and I am not trying to force them to change their beliefs. But for some reason every modernist in the world is hell bent on trying to,change, distort or otherwise undermine the Catholic Faith. One must ask the question Why? Why does the pope and the majority of bishops refuse to speak clearly, and Francis does not speak clearly. It has to be that they are doing these thing on purpose. Why? Loneliness of elderly people is a sad thing, but it is hardly the greatest evil in the world. But I would think worldwide murder of babies by their mothers is pretty much at the top of the heap.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I disagree strongly that Pope Francis isn't living the faith and is contributing to confusion. If one listens to all that he has said, even the gaffs, but also the clarifications and his belief in the Deposit of Faith, the Catechism of the Church and his call to fidelity to the Magisterium and the pope who heads it, there is no question of his orthodoxy and his fidelity, yet he is still a sinner. I find people who are overly critical of Pope Francis seeing the speck in his eyes and missing the plank in their own eyes. My biggest criticism of Pope Francis is that he speaks too much and too much off the cuff. He needs to reign it in a bit. I don't like the papacy becoming too pedestrian either, the office demands a humble acceptance of its trappings and history of pointing to the kingdom.

As far as Cardinal Dolan, cut him some slack; he made a mistake during a somewhat "ambush" interview. He could have said, if he had time to think about it, that he isn't interested in hearing the sins of people outside of confession especially if the declaration of sin is a brag rather than a confession and maybe said it in a light humorous way.

The media is obsessed with sex, especially homosexual sex and promoting it. I don't get it as I have always thought that sex is best done behind closed doors and no leaking of information. It isn't any of my business except when sins associated with it are brought to confession and under its seal.

As far as the liturgy, ecumenism and religious liberty, all of these are pastoral decision made in the 1950's mentality and mindset. We shouldn't make too much of these documents nor should these documents be outright rejected. But they can and perhaps should be changed or clarified and made clear these aren't dogmatic teachings but more in the realm of discipline like the vows of chastity and obedience and poverty.

Gene said...

Anonymous, Are you sure you are not my long lost twin…LOL!

Gene said...

Fr, you are going to wear yourself out running from pillar to post defending the indefensible. The people who continue to defend Dolan and the Pope are like an ostrich with a number of differently labeled holes in the sand. Whenever a topic comes up, such as: Dolan opens his mouth again," or, "Pope's off-the-cuff remarks," or "something about Vat II," the ostrich runs and sticks his head in the appropriate hole.
I'll bet you are great at dodging elephants in the living room.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Gene, you underestimate my ability to defend the papacy, the bishops and ultimately the Catholic Church from Protestantizing ideologies rooted in a puritanical spirit. It simply isn't Catholic, your ethos or mentality, it is very much Calvinistic and puritanical.

Novus Ordo Prisoner said...

The SSPX has a "lack of evangelical charity"?

How is it charitable to encourage Protestants, Jews and Pagans to persist in their errors? I have heard the argument that their religions have "elements of the Truth", but that is as ridiculous as a doctor telling a terminally ill patient he has "elements of health".

We do our separated brethren no favors by practicing false ecumenism, or, what we now call "evangelical charity".

Henry said...

"If one listens to all that he has said, even the gaffs, but also the clarifications and his belief in the Deposit of Faith, the Catechism of the Church and his call to fidelity to the Magisterium and the pope who heads it, there is no question of his orthodoxy and his fidelity"

My goodness sakes alive! What working man trying to be a sincere Catholic and good supportive husband and father has time for the full-time agenda you propose? There's no need for all these contortions if the pope's message is clear and concise, simple and direct--as it can be and should be, if the pope is to serve successfully his role as the Vicar of Christ, guiding His Church faithfully in continuity with tradition.

Anonymous said...

"Gene, you underestimate my ability to defend the papacy, the bishops and ultimately the Catholic Church ..,,"

Father, to defend Pope Francis when he says or does something that is causing scandal and confusion to the people he is supposed to shepherd is hardly a laudable thing. Something is terribly wrong in Rome and it's Francis. Forget the off the cuff remarks, read his official statements. They are judge mental, full of name calling, one might even say rude and crass. I don't care that it is Bergolglio the man doing these things, but I care very much that it is a POPE doing and saying these things. It is not compassionate or pastoral to make people comfortable in their sin. The only people Francis calls to "conversion" are traditional Catholics. He calls Muslims to remain good Muslims. But if you have a legitimate love for tradition and what the Church has always taught then Francis calls you a "self absorbed neo pelagian". But if you are a practicing homosexual priest who was notorious he says "who am I to judge". That's a problem.

Henry said...

Although I once long ago got much satisfaction from winning as an interloper the annual scripture and doctrine contest in a large community of Presbyterian missionaries abroad, and afterwards spent the rest of my youth in a community dominated by the famous Presbyterian college of which many of those missionaries were graduates, perhaps I did not absorb enough of their Calvinism. Because to me Gene's ethos seems thoroughly Catholic rather than Calvinist, even though his rhetoric is so forthright as to seem discordant with the prevailing Catholic expression of recent decades.

Pater Ignotus said...

JBS - The Missal I use at OF mass every day is the Traditional Roman Missal. The OF is every bit as Traditional as the EF, though it varies in non-essential, historically conditioned elements.

Traditionalists have attempted, in many cases intentionally while in some unintentionally, to hijack the word and the meaning of "Traditional." They think, wrongly, that they are "traditional" while everyone else is not.

This is balderdash.

"I celebrate the TLM" (traditional Latin mass) some say. I reply, "I celebrate the TEM (traditional English mass) which is, in every way that matters, Traditional.

Gene said...

Fr, just where do you get puritanical and Calvinist from my comments? And, what about all the protestantizing "mis-statements" from the Pope.

No, no…neo-protestantism was very alive and well in the Church long before I ever thought of becoming Catholic. I was there in the 70's and 80's and watched it happen at our major grad schools, seminaries, and Divinity schools. I remember all those nuns at Vandy, Chicago, and Emory running around in Jones of NY dresses and heels with their dog-eared copies of "Fear of Flying" clutched tightly to their chests. I remember the Priests from Notre Dame and Holy Cross shacked up with coeds. I remember the "ecumenical communion services," led by Catholic Priests, using a jug of Gallo burgundy and a loaf of French bread from the local Kroger and "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" as the communion hymn. Oh, and don't forget old Hans…you know Hans Kung, whose lectures I sat in on several times with Priests and nuns drooling on their street clothes. No, no…and, if you must refer to protestantism run amuck, please say "Lutheran" and not Calvinist. There are Presbyterians who are still holding out against secular humanism. I am not sure for who long, however.

JenJer said...

Gene, I have been curious about something (yes, I know about curiosity and the cat--I could get killed here...):
You converted in the era of and to the post-Vatican II Catholic church, verdad? You attended liturgies, spent I'm sure, given your very serious bent, an admirable amount of serious time and reflection. If you believe of Vat II that "...its de facto effect on belief and worship in general has been devastating." in those early days of your conversion, what attracted you? Why invest so much in a church that is "...marking time in a bog."?

I converted to the PRE-Vat II Church, and for all these years have felt a sense of betrayal about the liturgy and direction of the Church in general. I despise the hollow, self-absorbed liturgies and effete agendas that Vat II spawned and Ignotus-like priests embrace. But I know what keeps me here (albeit on a thin thread some days!); I do wonder what keeps you here?

Pater Ignotus said...

"I believe the world of Tradition is sometimes sharp and polemical for three reasons: the first, is a certain syndrome of isolation, which renders [them] suspicious and vindictive, and manifests itself through personality problems..."

Another mis-use of the word "Tradition," but the "suspicious and vindictive" we know all too well.

Pin/Gene - You understanding of grace vis-à-vis predestination and the capacity of humans to reject the saving grace of God is a major example of your Calvinist mindset. Your views do not reflect the Catholic teaching on the role of free will in the process of salvation.

The Puritans sought to create a community in their own image, rather than in the image of Christ and the images given in the Scriptures.

They were intolerant of anyone who disagreed with them and their understanding of their faith, and struck out at them forcefully. The most egregious example of this was the execution of Marmaduke Stepehnson, William Robinson, Mary Dyer, and William Leddra in Massachusetts in the middle 1600's. Their crime, according to the Puritans, was that they were Quakers.

Gene said...

Ignotus, Calvinists were not Puritans. My views on free will and predestination are more Augustinian than Calvinist. Calvinists do not believe that men can reject the saving grace of God, if that is what you meant in your unclear reference. Calvin's theology of free will and predestination is subtle and complex. Although I came to believe it is ultimately wrong in several aspects, it represents a profound effort and struggle to understand the will of God for man. You have a simplistic view of theology…sort of like your views on the Mass and Liturgy.

Carol H. said...

The Pope recently suggested that everyone carry a pocket sized book of the Gospels. He said to read a few verses, as time permits, throughout the day to remind ourselves what it means to be Christian.

I thought this was a wonderful suggestion, and will probably be the biggest improvement this lent will make on my life.

Gene said...

RE: The executions you mentioned, Ignotus. If these people had not continued going back to Boston and openly preaching after they had been banned, they never would have been executed. They just didn't get it, did they?

Now, a Catholic Priest complaining about people being executed and tortured by a church seems a bit much, doesn't it? Can you say irony?

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - At no point did I say or suggest that Puritans were Calvinists. Read it again.

The views you expressed here indicate that you believe that humans cannot reject God's saving grace. That is predestination and it is not Catholic theology.

Here's what you said, "So, Ignotus, let me get this straight, if someone is in Hell it is 100% their decision. So, my will can supersede God's will? I have the power to thwart Grace, negate election, and overthrow God's will…hmmm, that sounds about right for you, Ignotus. However, it is pretty pitiful theology. LOL!"

Again, yes, if someone is in hell it is that person's decision, not God's. And, yes, you have the power to thwart grace, negate election, and overthrow God's will.

Your view is that human choice cannot thwart God's will and that view is not Catholic theology. The CCC is clear: "1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance"...

JBS said...

Pater Ignotus,

Just as there is value in distinguishing "mass" from "Holy Mass", I suggest there is value in distinguishing "tradition" from "Tradition".

Fr. McDonald,

I agree that Pope Francis is quite clear in his orthodoxy, and that those Catholics opposing him or frightened by him are basing their perceptions off of commercial news media reports, an especially poor source for pastoral information. Catholics should read the Holy Father's Apostolic Exhortation. However, I must say I'm concerned when you say, "we shouldn't make too much of these [?] documents...". I'm hoping you are not referring to any of the four constitutions of VCII, since these documents are perfectly Catholic when viewed in continuity with the decrees of the Council of Trent.

Gene said...

You do not read well, Ignotus. I did not say you suggested that "Puritans were Calvinists." I said that you suggested that "Calvinists were Puritans." There is a difference.

Regarding your out of context quote regarding Calvinist theology…clearly you have no understanding at all of Calvin's theology or his struggle with predestination/election or the logic of so-called TULIP theology. It is also clear that you have no understanding of the Calvinist/Augustinian doctrine of the perfect and permissive will of God. I am sorry these subtleties escape you, but things just are not as simple as you want to view them.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think there are things in some of those documents, those things that are not dogmatic or doctrinal that one can disagree or at least disagree with methodology. One can also take into account the "can do all" mentality of this period of world history, especially in the USA.

JBS said...

Good points, Fr. McDonald.

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - The Puritans exiled and executed the Quakers because they were Quakers, not because they refused to stay out of Boston.

In the Puritans' view they Quakers were teaching heresy and it was for teaching heresy that they were executed.

Like you, the Puritans had a highly exalted view of themselves. Like you, they believed they had the knowledge and the authority to pass judgment on any and every thing. Like you, they attempted to bully anyone who disagreed with them.

That's how you are, in my view, Puritanical. Good Father McDonald is spot on.

Your assertion that humans cannot thwart the will of God needs no context. You made the assertion, which is quoted correctly, and that assertion is contrary to Catholic doctrine. In that you are Calvinist, not Catholic.

JBS - I have always distinguished between Tradition and tradition. It is the traditionalists who try to cloud the question in an attempt to make it seem that masses in the vernacular are non-Traditional.

Gene said...

JenJer,
In answer to your question…my struggle was both a theological/doctrinal one and an emotional one. Having been a student of theology all my life, I began to despair of where protestantism was headed and concluded it was due to post-Reformation theology and neo-protestantism. I began to see that Total Depravity led to a universalist logic and that it was un-Biblical (you cannot get around the first chapter of Romans). In re-reading Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin I decided that the Catholic Church was closer to good Biblical theology and that the Reformation was the worst thing to ever happen to the Church (this was before I began to study Vat II). So, my Catholic belief is safe from the depredations of Vat II, loose cannon Popes, and Priests like Ignotus.

Also, I came in to the Church at St. Jo's with Fr. MacDonald. Mass with Fr. and his Vicars celebrating is not what you see everywhere else. It feels Catholic, it looks like Liturgy, and it is dignified, awe-inspiring, and highlights the Mystery. I spent about six months talking with Fr, reading CCC, and attending Mass at St. Jo's. Fr was straight forward, pulled no punches, and wanted me to be sure that there was nothing in CCC that I could not confess. He told me when I was ready; I did not tell him.
So, I believe the Magisterium is the repository for proper theology and true doctrine. I believe the Magisterium trumps the vagaries of Pope's and cultures. I'm here to stay, but I do not have to like what is going on right now. And, yes, traces of Calvinism remain in my little heart of darkness, but they will get dealt with.
I might add that I owe Fr. MacDonald a great debt for bringing me into the true Church. I get frustrated with him because I want him to kick butt on some of the nonsense going on like he kicked butt on me. I do understand his obligation to support and defend the Pope, however.

Gene said...

Ignotus, the people in question were banned first. They came back and would not shut up. Look it up.

Your mis-characterizations of me are understandable, given your inability to read with comprehension and your personal and theological dishonesty. You are living proof of the mysteries of the Divine will and the falsity of Donatism, that God would use you as a Priest. Christ have mercy!

JBS said...

Pater Ignotus,

Point taken.

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - I have not mischaracterized you at all. I quoted your own words.

The Quakers executed by the Puritans in the Massachusetts Colony were executed for heresy - They were banned for heresy and executed for heresy.

JenJer said...

Fair, honest, well-formed answer, Gene, thanks--
Interesting comment on the first chapter of Romans! Since Fr. MacDonald is your source, then you must guard that pearl of great price, and try not to alienate him. Many of us out here struggle with weak liturgies, uninspired clergy, and poor catechesis. Consider yourself very blessed indeed...(:

Gene said...

Ignotus, I was talking about you calling me arrogant and a bully…you know, the name calling and stereotyping that you always say you abhor…LOL!

Gene said...

Pope Francis was in prayer, when suddenly God the Father appeared to him in a vision. Francis said, "God, while you are here, may I ask you three questions?"
God replied, "Yes, Francis."
Francis asked, "God, will there ever be women Priests?"
God replied, 'Not in your lifetime, Francis."
Francis was relieved, and then asked, "God, will birth control ever be sanctioned by the Church?"
God said, 'Not in your lifetime Francis."
Francis was again relieved and said, "Ok, God, I have one last question…will there ever be another Jesuit Pope?"
God replied, "Not in my lifetime, Francis."

Gene said...

Because Ignotus keeps bringing it up, a brief look at Calvin's doctrine of Irresistible grace, which he based upon Augustine's writings on the matter.

Calvin was a lawyer and a scholar and had a very analytical mind (he was also raised Catholic). Simply stated, If God is the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the world eternal, immutable, infinitely wise and infinitely powerful, then to say that man can choose to remove himself from God's grace, thereby thwarting the Divine will is not only granting man power above God's, it is actually a logical contradiction. This is dealt with through the doctrine of the "perfect and permissive will of God," which is an integral part of Calvin's doctrine of predestination and election.
Yes, man may choose to reject God's grace and damn himself, but even such a choice is PERMITTED, not caused, by God's will. Furthermore, this permissive will of God, though inscrutable, is perfect and righteous in its judgement. This is the necessary "theologic" jn Calvin's doctrine. This really does not conflict, essentially, with Catholic teaching. It merely stresses the necessary theological point that nothing occurs without the assent of the Divine will. For Calvin, the logic of theology was primary for a clear understanding of the Sovereignty of God. Man's will is not more powerful than God's will. Man's choices are never made by the raw power of his own human nature WITHOUT the passive and perfect Divine will's assent.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled program...

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - Your error is your error, not Calvin's, though he had many.

On January 17th you stated, "So, Ignotus, let me get this straight, if someone is in Hell it is 100% their decision. So, my will can supersede God's will? I have the power to thwart Grace, negate election, and overthrow God's will…hmmm, that sounds about right for you, Ignotus. However, it is pretty pitiful theology. LOL!"

You err when you suggest that a person in hell is not 100% responsible for his/her predicament.

You err when you suggest that it is, in any way, God's will that any person is in hell. If, on his/her own volition, a person chooses to act in a way that results in his/her going to hell, that is a "thwarting" of God's grace, since God desires (wills) the salvation of all.

in fact, every time we sin we thwart God's will and God's grace.

If you think that our sinning is desired, willed, intended, by God, you err.

It is most certainly known in advance by God that we will sin, but foreknowledge is not forecause.



Gene said...

Ignotus, you simply do not understand the issue and I am not going to argue with you about it. I stated Calvin's doctrine and the issues surrounding it, which are substantial and important in theological/philosophical circles. There is nothing in Calvin that suggests that God causes man to sin…"perfect and permissive will," get it? Augustine dealt with this, too. Maybe you should do a little reading and spend less time watching cartoons.

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - I get that your comments, which I have quoted, are wrong.

When a person goes to hell it IS 100% that person's choice, although you say it is not.

When a person sins, mortally or venially, that is a "thwarting" of God's will, because God does not will/desire that we sin.

No, you are not going to argue because your assertions are wrong and are indefensible as Catholic theology.

Gene said...

Ignotus, *yawn*