Monday, June 27, 2016

O JOY! ANOTHER AIR PLANE INTERVIEW BY POPE FRANCIS: APOLOGIZING TO GAYS BUT NO TO WOMEN DEACONS

My comments first:  Pope Francis apologizes to those the Church (meaning members of the Church) have offended or marginalized. There are many public sinners out there as well as others who are more discreet in their sinning. A mortal sin is a mortal sin and the Church's remedy for mortal sin is the Sacrament of Confession which is normally preceded by the grace of repentance and a firm purpose of amendment although many of us backslide on both.

Homosexuals have been villainized for their mortal sins over the centuries more so than the heterosexuals who commit the same kinds of sins with each other. I am not sure why that is. Mortal sin is mortal sin and we are all sinners.

The Church should welcome sinners not by condoning our sins but offering a remedy for them in a safe environment.

Pope Francis also reiterated that women can't be ordained to Holy Orders to include the diaconate which is integral to becoming a priest. He lamented the press and blogs who distort his words.

His Holiness also stated that there are not two popes at this time, but that he is the pope and Pope Emeritus Benedict isn't the pope now, or something like that. 

From John Allen at CRUX:

Pope backs apology to gays, but says it’s not just them


ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE - Pope Francis on Sunday essentially backed a cardinal’s suggestion that Christians owe LGBT persons an apology for past mistreatment or neglect, but suggested apologies are probably in order to other constituencies as well, including the poor, exploited women and divorced families.

Francis was speaking in response to a question that linked the call for an LGBT apology to the recent massacre at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub.

The pontiff said gay persons must not be discriminated against, conceding that there are “some traditions and cultures that have a different mentality,” and said apologies are in order whenever there are “people we could have defended and we didn’t.”

The suggestion for a mea culpa came from German Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who in a recent speech in Ireland said that both Church and society have treated gay persons poorly and that the Church should say it’s sorry.

On other matters, Pope Francis said on Sunday:
  • Despite a senior Vatican official’s recent suggestion that retired Pope Benedict XVI might be part of an “expanded papacy,” in fact “there’s only one pope,” while praising his predecessor’s “courage” and “intelligence.”
  • On the recent Brexit result, while not directly criticizing the U.K.’s decision to withdraw from the EU, Francis did insist that “brotherhood is better than being enemies or distant” and that “bridges are better than walls.”
  • The pope denied that his recent agreement to create a study commission on women deacons means the Church has “opened the door” to the idea, and said that more important than the “functions” women hold is the Church’s determination to hear their voice.
  • He said that he felt that he used the term “genocide” to describe massacres of Armenians by Turks in 1915 because it’s the term widely used in Argentina, and since he’s used it before, it would be “very strange” not to have done so in Armenia.
Francis made the remarks during a roughly hour-long news conference on the plane flying back to Rome Sunday after a June 24-26 trip to Armenia.

During the trip, Francis earned strong applause from Armenians and swift blowback from Turkish officials for using the word “genocide” to describe the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians, in what they claim was a deliberate campaign and Turkey sees as the fallout of a broader war.
“In Argentina, when you speak of the extermination of the Armenians, you say genocide,” Francis said. “I came to Rome with this word.”

The pontiff insisted, however, that he doesn’t use it with “offensive intent” but rather “objectively.”
The idea of an expanded papacy came from German Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the personal aide of Benedict XVI, who recently suggested that the papal ministry now includes both an “active” and a “contemplative” dimension in Francis and Benedict.

Insisting “there is only one pope,” Francis said that Benedict had promised to be obedient to his successor and “he’s done it.”

Laughing, Francis then said he’s heard, without being absolutely sure if it’s true, that some people have gone to Benedict to try to complain about his own leadership, “and in great Bavarian style, he kicked them out!”

Noting that he plans to take part in a small event on June 28 marking the 65th anniversary of Benedict’s ordination as a priest, Francis called him a “man of prayer,” “courageous” and “intelligent.”

On Brexit, Francis had spoken briefly about the results at the outset of his Armenia trip on Friday, saying only that they reflected the “will of the people” and represented a call to “great responsibility” to work for both the good of the U.K. and the coexistence of European peoples.

On Sunday Francis went further, making a distinction between the sort of decolonization that occurred in Latin America and Africa earlier in the century and secessionist movements in Europe today, such as those in Catalonia and Scotland, suggesting that the latter risks becoming a kind of “Balkanization.”

While saying he doesn’t know “what the reasons are for which the U.K. wanted to make this choice,” he said that in general he believes “bridges are better than walls.”

Francis also said the outcome represents a challenge to the EU to become “more creative and flexible,” including by allowing greater independence to its individual members, and also overcoming problems such as widespread youth unemployment.

On women deacons, Francis expressed surprise at the magnitude of the reaction to his decision to create a commission to study the question after a recent meeting with the superiors of women’s religious orders from around the world.

“The next day, it was as if the Church had opened the door to women deacons, but that’s not true,” he said, saying its primary role will be to ascertain the role of female deacons in the early Church.

“I believe this theme has been studied a lot, and it won’t be difficult to shed light,” the pope said.
More important, Francis said, is making sure the voices of women are heard in the decision-making process.

“Women think in a different way than us men, and you can’t make a good or correct decision without hearing women,” he said.

The pontiff said he’s committed to trying to boost the role of women theologians in the Vatican, but that effort is presently on hold awaiting the absorption of the Pontifical Council for the Laity into a new, larger department dedicated to laity, the family and life.

On Marx’s suggestion of an apology to gays, Francis offered a slightly revised version of his famous sound-bite from July 2013: “If a person who has that condition [being gay] has good will and is seeking God, who are we to judge?”

Francis said there are plenty of other groups out there who probably also deserve an apology - while also insisting on a distinction between the Church, “which is holy,” and individual Christians, “who are sinners.”

“[The Church] shouldn’t just apologize to a gay person whom it has offended,” he said.

“It should ask forgiveness also from the poor, from exploited women, from children exploited as laborers. It has to ask forgiveness for having blessed so many weapons … Christians should ask forgiveness for not having accompanied so many persons, many families.”

“All of us are saints, because we all have the Holy Spirit inside us, but we’re all also sinners,” the pope said, saying that even more than saying “sorry,” people need to recover a sense of their need for forgiveness.

164 comments:

Jan said...

And this from a Pope? "Laughing, Francis then said he’s heard, without being absolutely sure if it’s true, that some people have gone to Benedict to try to complain about his own leadership, “and in great Bavarian style, he kicked them out!”

Isn't this more akin to gossip? Should a Pope be engaging in such conversation - doesn't it lower the papacy in the sight of the world?

Gene said...

Yawn...

Gene said...

If women categorically cannot be ordained to Holy Orders or become deacons, then why form a group to study it? More misdirection and disinformation...in a word, deceit.

Anonymous said...

It's a shame that all the good Pope Francis does is overshadowed by comments that are imprudent and down right wrong. What he said about gays etc, this time, is true. But what he said the other day that people living together outside of marriage are really living in a real marriage and receive sacramental grace is not only wrong but scandalous. I don't understand this man.

Where is this Church of Catholics that are being hateful to the poor, the divorced, homosexuals, etc. I have been a Catholic since the cradle and I do not know the hateful Church that Francis seems to think exists. I see an entitled clergy that think they are a bunch of independent princes who can do and say whatever they want. But they aren't denying communion to anyone or barring anyone from the Church because they could care less. Maybe it is perspective. I don't know. But there is something odd about Francis.

I really believe his understanding of the papacy is that he can do whatever or say whatever he wants just because he is pope. Take his latest statements on th just war theory. That has always been the teaching of the Church and he doesn't have the power to change things. He says the Ten Commandments are clear. Well if that's true they are even more clear on adultery but he bends over backwards to accomadate that sin. The Church is not based on the personal whims of one pope. There is something wrong with him and the sooner he dies or goes back to Argentina the better for the Church.

NO D said...

Pope Francis certainly owes a massive and abiding apology to faithful Catholics - those who do receive, accept, hand on, love and seek to live by the Sacred Tradition of the Faith. But it is interesting that he so often de-personalises the Church, the Bride of Christ, and thus Jesus Christ Himself, with us in Person; and he does here even while he distinguishes Her perfection in Him from Her individual members (short-fallen of God's glory in their choice of wrongdoing. The Church owes no sinner an 'apology' for how She treats them, as a Mother, demanding at times, yes, loving always, for sure, and ready to embrace tenderly at the drop of a hat .. if this is sought for sincerely; it is individual members of the clergy, perhaps, and masses of the laity, no doubt, who owe their sinful brethren an occasional apology - if one or more have wronged others; it is, however, never a matter of apology to preach the gospel, however uncomfortable this may be for individuals or groups to hear .. other than if one wilfully perverts it.

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/archbishop-sacrifices-priest-who-cites.html

Gene said...

Gays should be marginalized...tolerated and treated civilly, but marginalized. They are a tiny minority who get a ridiculous amount of press because they are a tool of the Left to de-construct Western Judaeo-Christian values. They are also an anomaly and a perversion. These things should be "marginalized," not main-streamed as our media/Leftist dominated culture is attempting to do.

Marc said...

People who choose to make their sexual proclivities their defining characteristic marginalize themselves.

The pope is wrong. It seems like he hates the Catholic faith.

Dialogue said...

"Homosexuals have been villainized for their mortal sins over the centuries more so than the heterosexuals..." Please, what is the evidence for this? The Church clearly has much more to say in her official teachings and canonical proceedings about adultery and fornication, because these sins are direct assaults on the sacrament of matrimony.

Dialogue said...

Okay, so, as far as critics of the pope are concerned, it's good that "in great Bavarian style, he kicked them out", but “brotherhood is better than being enemies or distant” and “bridges are better than walls”. I detect a contradiction.

Mark Thomas said...

Sorry...but another yawner about His Holiness Pope Francis. Another press conference conducted by Pope Francis...another example of news media hype.

In essence, Pope Francis has returned us to March 12, 2000 A.D., when Pope Saint John Paul II conducted the Day of Pardon ceremony at Rome as he believed that the Church must "purify Her memory".

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JJP2UNPR.HTM

The ceremony featured Pope Saint John Paul II, Cardinals Ratzinger (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), Arinze, Gantin, Etchegaray, Cassidy, Hamao (then-Archbishop), as well as Archbishop François Xavier Nguyên Van Thuân.

Seven categories of sins were listed as having been committed throughout the centuries by Catholics (and others). Each Cardinal/Archbishop listed above introduced a specific sin as having been committed by Catholics (and others).
Pope Saint John Paul II then requested pardon from God in regard to the sin in question.

Example: VI. Confession of Sins Against the Dignity of Women and the Unity of the Human Race

Cardinal Francis Arinze: "Let us pray for all those who have suffered offenses against their human dignity and whose rights have been trampled; let us pray for women, who are all too often humiliated and emarginated, and let us acknowledge the forms of acquiescence in these sins of which Christians too have been guilty. [Silent prayer.]"

Pope Saint John Paul II: "Lord God, our Father, you created the human being, man and woman, in your image and likeness and you willed the diversity of peoples within the unity of the human family.

"At times, however, the equality of your sons and daughters has not been acknowledged, and Christians have been guilty of attitudes of rejection and exclusion, consenting to acts of discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic differences.

"Forgive us and grant us the grace to heal the wounds still present in your community on account of sin, so that we will all feel ourselves to be your sons and daughters. We ask this through Christ our Lord."

R. Amen. R. Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison. [A lamp is lit before the Crucifix.]
==================================================================================

Pope Francis yesterday identified the need for Catholics to beg women for forgiveness of sins that Catholics, throughout the centuries, had committed against women. Been there, done that...on March 12, 2000 A.D.

Not surprisingly, the news media, as well as certain bloggers within the Traditional Catholic blogosphere, have hyped Pope Francis' remarks yesterday as revolutionary ("heretical", according to certain Traditionalists). But the reality is that we have been there and done that in regard to Pope Francis' comments in question.

Another hyped "controversy" in regard to Pope Francis...a big yawner.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald-permitting, here are the seven categories of sins for which Pope Saint John Paul II, on March 12, 2000 A.D., begged God to forgive Catholics for having committed.

I believe that Pope Francis' statements yesterday were linked to Pope Saint John Paul II's Day of Pardon. His Holiness Pope Francis noted yesterday that we must "ask forgiveness to the poor too, to women who are exploited, to children who are exploited for labor". We heard the same from the Day of Pardon.

What Pope Francis said yesterday about homosexuals could be found easily in categories 1, 3, and 5 from the Day of Pardon.

Anyway...from March 12, 2000 A.D., the Day of Pardon:

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JJP2UNPR.HTM
===========================================================================

Solemn Intercessions Confessing Sins and Requesting God's Pardon

Introduction

The Holy Father: Brothers and Sisters, let us turn with trust to God our Father, who is merciful and compassionate, slow to anger, great in love and fidelity, and ask him to accept the repentance of his people who humbly confess their sins, and to grant them mercy.

[All pray for a moment in silence.]

I. Confession of Sins in General

Cardinal Bernardin Gantin: Let us pray that our confession and repentance will be inspired by the Holy Spirit, that our sorrow will be conscious and deep, and that, humbly viewing the sins of the past in an authentic "purification of memory", we will be committed to the path of true conversion. [Silent prayer.]

The Holy Father: Lord God, your pilgrim Church, which you ever sanctify in the blood of your Son, counts among her children in every age members whose holiness shines brightly forth and members whose disobedience to you contradicts the faith we profess and the Holy Gospel. You, who remain ever faithful, even when we are unfaithful, forgive our sins and grant that we may bear true witness to you before all men and women. We ask this through Christ our Lord. R. Amen.

Cantor: Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie eleison.

The assembly repeats: Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie eleison.

[A lamp is lit before the Crucifix.]

II. Confession of Sins Committed in the Service of Truth

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: Let us pray that each one of us, looking to the Lord Jesus, meek and humble of heart, will recognize that even men of the Church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel in the solemn duty of defending the truth. [Silent prayer.]

The Holy Father: Lord, God of all men and women, in certain periods of history Christians have at times given in to intolerance and have not been faithful to the great commandment of love, sullying in this way the face of the Church, your Spouse. Have mercy on your sinful children and accept our resolve to seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, in the firm knowledge that truth can prevail only in virtue of truth itself. We ask this through Christ our Lord. R. Amen. R. Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie eleison.

[A lamp is lit before the Crucifix.]

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Solemn Intercessions Confessing Sins and Requesting God's Pardon

III. Confession of Sins Which Have Harmned the Unity of the Body of Christ

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray: Let us pray that our recognition of the sins which have rent the unity of the Body of Christ and wounded fraternal charity will facilitate the way to reconciliation and communion among all Christians. [Silent prayer.]

The Holy Father: Merciful Father, on the night before his Passion your Son prayed for the unity of those who believe in him: in disobedience to his will, however, believers have opposed one another, becoming divided, and have mutually condemned one another and fought against one another. We urgently implore your forgiveness and we beseech the gift of a repentant heart, so that all Christians, reconciled with you and with one another will be able, in one body and in one spirit, to experience anew the joy of full communion. We ask this through Christ our Lord. R. Amen. R. Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie eleison.

[A lamp is lit before the Crucifix.]

IV. Confession of Sins Against the People of Israel

Cardinal Edward Cassidy: Let us pray that, in recalling the sufferings endured by the people of Israel throughout history, Christians will acknowledge the sins committed by not a few of their number against the people of the Covenant and the blessings, and in this way will purify their hearts. [Silent prayer.]

The Holy Father: God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the Nations: we are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant. We ask this through Christ our Lord. R. Amen R. Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie eleison.

[A lamp is lit before the Crucifix.]

V. Confessions of Sins Committed in Actions Against Love, Peace, the Rights of Peoples, and Respect for Cultures and Religions

Archbishop Stephen Fumio Hamao: Let us pray that contemplating Jesus, our Lord and our Peace, Christians will be able to repent of the words and attitudes caused by pride, by hatred, by the desire to dominate others, by enmity towards members of other religions and towards the weakest groups in society, such as immigrants and itinerants. [Silent prayer.]

The Holy Father: Lord of the world, Father of all, through your Son you asked us to love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us and to pray for those who persecute us. Yet Christians have often denied the Gospel; yielding to a mentality of power, they have violated the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions: be patient and merciful towards us, and grant us your forgiveness! We ask this through Christ our Lord. R. Amen. R. Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison.

[A lamp is lit before the Crucifix.]

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Solemn Intercessions Confessing Sins and Requesting God's Pardon

VI. Confession of Sins Against the Dignity of Women and the Unity of the Human Race

Cardinal Francis Arinze: Let us pray for all those who have suffered offences against their human dignity and whose rights have been trampled; let us pray for women, who are all too often humiliated and emarginated, and let us acknowledge the forms of acquiescence in these sins of which Christians too have been guilty.

{Silent prayer.]

Pope Saint John Paul II: Lord God, our Father, you created the human being, man and woman, in your image and likeness and you willed the diversity of peoples within the unity of the human family. At times, however, the equality of your sons and daughters has not been acknowledged, and Christians have been guilty of attitudes of rejection and exclusion, consenting to acts of discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic differences. Forgive us and grant us the grace to heal the wounds still present in your community on account of sin, so that we will all feel ourselves to be your sons and daughters. We ask this through Christ our Lord.

R. Amen. R. Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison.

[A lamp is lit before the Crucifix.]

VII. Confession of Sins in Relation to the Fundamental Rights of the Person

Archbishop François Xavier Nguyên Van Thuân: Let us pray for all the men and women of the world, especially for minors who are victims of abuse, for the poor, the alienated, the disadvantaged; let us pray for those who are most defenceless, the unborn killed in their mother's womb or even exploited for experimental purposes by those who abuse the promise of biotechnology and distort the aims of science.

[Silent prayer.]

Pope Saint John Paul II: God, our Father, you always hear the cry of the poor. How many times have Christians themselves not recognized you in the hungry, the thirsty and the naked, in the persecuted, the imprisoned, and in those incapable of defending themselves, especially in the first stages of life. For all those who have committed acts of injustice by trusting in wealth and power and showing contempt for the "little ones" who are so dear to you, we ask your fogiveness: have mercy on us and accept our repentance. We ask this through Christ our Lord. R. Amen. R. Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison.

[A lamp is lit before the Crucifix.]

Concluding Prayer

Pope Saint John Paul II: Most merciful Father, your Son, Jesus Christ, the judge of the living and the dead, in the humility of his first coming redeemed humanity from sin and in his glorious return he will demand an account of every sin. Grant that our forebears, our brothers and sisters, and we, your servants, who by the grace of the Holy Spirit turn back to you in whole-hearted repentance, may experience your mercy and receive the forgiveness of our sins. We ask this through Christ our Lord.

R. Amen.

[As a sign of penance and veneration, Pope Saint John Paul II embraced and kissed the Crucifix.]

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

No comment here about how Francis has doubled down on his infamous "Who am I to judge" comment? He's sure as hell judging those of us he believes to be judgmental.

Anonymous said...

Now the Church must apologize to gays and women, ok this my friends has to stop, how much longer can this go on? I have effectively left the Church and have sought refuge in the S.S.P.X. and you can say what you want but my soul is going to be saved is yours??

Gene said...

Anonymous at 10:36 represents an increasing number of Catholics who can no longer abide this heretical and destructive faux Pope. I only wish there was an SSPX Church close enough for me to attend regularly. If this continues, I guess I will join those who
feel that a Church led by such a Pope cannot possibly be celebrating valid Masses.

Anonymous said...

Divorced and remarried people should be marginalized - tolerated and treated civilly, but marginalized. Though they are a majority, they are ignored by the press - unless their "serial monogamy is being celebrated - because they are a majority, yet are a tool of the Left to de-construct Western Judaeo-Christian values. They are also an anomaly and a perversion. These things should be "marginalized," not main-streamed as our media/Leftist dominated culture is attempting to do.

Gene said...

And, in other news, the Pope today said that you are not a Christian if you support gun manufacturers and that the Allies in WW II were complicit in the murder by Hitler of Jews, Homosexuals, and others. Ok, then. Next act...

Peter Gojcaj said...

There are some sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance, so no Padre not all sins are the same.

johnnyc said...

Supreme Court just struck down the Texas Pro Life law. I guess we will have to apologize to planned parenthood now.

Anonymous said...

Gene you are 100% correct, then all of our brave young boys of World War II, World War I, the Korean War, Vietnam War, and the War of Northern aggression all died for nothing and were NOT Christians, what absolute rotten thing to say by this pope. I for one cannot stand these comments any longer and pray to the Holy Ghost for a new Pope, this is sheer madness on his part and no more taken out of CONTEXT EXCUSES they won't fly anymore.

Anonymous said...

Remember Hillary will select the next THREE Supreme Court Justices, God help our country the American people are to stupid and will elect this EVIL woman.

Henry said...

"Homosexuals have been villainized for their mortal sins over the centuries more so than the heterosexuals who commit the same kinds of sins with each other. I am not sure why that is. Mortal sin is mortal sin and we are all sinners."

Prior to Vatican, all seminarians took courses in moral theology, and confessors studied manuals of moral theology. As I understand it, the whole field of moral theology is concerned will differences in seriousness and levels of culpability of different sins. I wonder whether the "mortal sin is mortal sin" mentality was a first step down the slippery slope toward the moral indifference we see now.

According to the CCC, "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered". I know of no source where this is said of heterosexual acts (however sinful they may be).

Anonymous said...

I heard that Pope Benedict kicked out bishops who went to him complaining about how LIBERAL Francis is, if this is true I for one have given up on The Roman Catholic Church and will flee to the Orthodox Churches as many have already done. Thank you Vatican II you have done the devils work and destroyed The Roman Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

On the same flight from Armenia the Pope states that arch-heretic Martin Luther who married a nun was correct about the Roman Catholic Church are you kidding me? The Council of Trent clearly condemned Luther's justification by faith alone garbage but hey Bergoglio says it ain't so. And the nightmare continues folks, when we wake up well who knows?

Anonymous said...

Gene opines: "Anonymous at 10:36 represents an increasing number of Catholics who can no longer abide this heretical and destructive faux Pope. I only wish there was an SSPX Church close enough for me to attend regularly. If this continues, I guess I will join those who feel that a Church led by such a Pope cannot possibly be celebrating valid Masses."

"Increasing number"? I doubt it. This is wishful thinking. Misery seeks company.

"Heretical" As if Gene were competent to judge who is and who is not a heretic.

"I wish there was an SSPX Church close enough for me to attend" So do we.

"...cannot be celebrating valid Masses." AS IF the valid celebration of the Mass were dependent on the person occupying the Chair of Peter.

Anonymous said...

There are many options where one can seek Faith and protection during these very troubling times, whilst some are not in communion with Rome you will save your soul. S.S.P.X. F.S.S.P. S.S.P.V. Institute of Christ the King, Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Orthodox Churches, Melkite, Chaldean, Maronite, to name a few. Rome is falling apart as we speak.

Marc said...

Anonymous, you do not leave the Church by seeking out the SSPX. You come closer to the bosom of the Church's truth by doing so.

"The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) has never left the Church. It is in the heart of the Church. There where the authentic preaching of the faith is, there is the Church. This project of "officialization" of the SSPX leaves me indifferent. We have no need of it, and the Church has no need of it. We are already on the pinnacle, as a sign of contradiction, that attracts those noble souls, that attract lots of young priests, despite our pariah status. One would wish to place our lamp under the bushel for our integration in the Conciliar world.

The irregularity is not ours. It is that of Rome. A Modernist Rome. A Liberal Rome that has renounced Christ the King. A Rome that had been condemned in advance by all Popes up until the eve of the [Second Vatican] Council."

- Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

John Nolan said...

I can acknowledge my own faults. I can't confess others' sins. Apologizing for history is fatuous at best and pernicious at worst, since all too often it is apologizing for a mythical view of history which conforms to 21st century political correctness, and by doing so perpetuates the myth. JP II did both the Church and history a great disservice.

Thank you, Mark Thomas, for reminding us (by quoting it at length) of this arrant platitudinous nonsense which made me cringe at the time and put it out of my mind. That it still rears its ugly head is deeply dispiriting but we need to keep our critical faculties honed and speak out against it. Vehemently. Unequivocally.

I shall now light a lamp in front of the crucifix and pray earnestly that sanity might be restored to those who purport to speak for the Church of God.

Anonymous said...

Johnny c, maybe if he were around today, President Reagan would apologize for appointing Catholic Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court in 1988. He was the deciding vote in striking down the Texas pro-life vote. Otherwise it would have been a 4-4 ties vote, upholding a lower court ruling. In 1992, Kennedy provide the 5-4 margin to uphold Roe V Wade---one vote short of sending the issue back to the states where it belongs. Yes, conservatives complain about who liberal Hillary Clinton would appoint to the Supreme Court, but Republicans have appointed a lot of bad ones too---see in addition to Kennedy, David Souder, O'Connor, Harry Blackmun (author of Roe v Wade), Roberts...I think it is long since time for disciplinary action to be taken against Kennedy if he still is a practicing Catholic....Texas was an independent republic at one time, maybe they should go that route and not have to deal with a Godless, ACLU-minded Supreme Court. Other states probably would want to join too the way this country is going...

Anonymous said...

When HRC is elected POTUS we have Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, and all these FAKE Republicans to thank, and one thing that came out of this whole thing is that these above mentioned people have showed their TRUE FACES, utter and complete frauds who we voted for time and time again. We live in a rigged system just like Mr. Trump has said over and over again. These Republicans have once again ignored the will of the American people and for that reason alone we are no longer a nation. Just like they will not call Radical Islam Islam, but folks just like Geert Wilders of Holland has stated ISLAM IS ISLAM there is no difference it all KILLS!

Anonymous said...

Remember everybody Jesus Christ died for his followers, Muhammad KILLED for his, a BIG difference would you not say?????????????????? Stop allowing the MSM and Obama to call ISLAM the "religion of peace" it is a political ideology bent on world domination, it has been since the 7th century nothing has changed, only the LEFT trying to change the narrative. How sad that the gay community cannot wake up and realize it is not Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Amish, or atheists for that matter who want to kill but Muslims. WAKE UP ALL OF YOU, over 2,000,000 Muslims have been allowed into the U.S. in just 7 1/2 years by the imposter in chief and yet only a trace of Arab Christians allowed in by this evil man.

Gene said...

Anonymous @ 1:39...I am actually pretty well qualified to understand heresy and to know if someone is making heretical statements. Apparently, you are not able to do so.

Anonymous said...

Francis is, if nothing else, a monumental hypocrite. We can never, ever judge--except when we can. And that judgment always seems to be of the Right, not of the Left (not that that changes the basic fact of his hypocrisy).

I have never before been tempted to tell a pope to JUST. SHUT. UP. But as of his utterly irresponsible and damaging comments today, Francis has pushed me to the breaking point. If what he's spouting is Catholicism, y'all can have it.

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

It's hard to gather statistics. How does one count the number of Catholics who still believe that Christ alone saves us from damnation, and that He does so only though the Catholic Church? How do we count the number of Catholics who believes what the Apostolic Tradition teaches about marriage and family? How do we count the number of Catholics who believe the Holy Mass is our participation in Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, or that the Sacrament of Penance is the only ordinary way for Baptized Christians to find forgiveness for sins committed against the Ten Commandments?

But I would agree that there appears to be only a tiny remnant of believers, so few that their movement to communities of sanctuary will hardly be noticed.

Dialogue said...

I think it is unfair to either praise or blame the words and actions of Saint JPII as a precedent for this present situation. JPII consistently made it clear to everyone that sins against the Sixth Commandment are offensive to God. He was consistently supportive of priests, and he never gave the slightest indication that women could receive Holy Orders. He was certainly no fan of either concubinage or sodomy.

Mark Thomas said...

John Nolan said..."JP II did both the Church and history a great disservice. Thank you, Mark Thomas, for reminding us (by quoting it at length) of this arrant platitudinous nonsense which made me cringe at the time and put it out of my mind. That it still rears its ugly head is deeply dispiriting but we need to keep our critical faculties honed and speak out against it. Vehemently. Unequivocally."

I understand your opposition to Pope Saint John Paul II's 2000 A.D. Day of Pardon. Many Cardinals and bishops (as well as countless folks among the People of God) opposed the Day of Pardon.

During his Day of Pardon sermon, Pope Saint John Paul II referenced the release of the International Theological Commission's document "Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past." Pope Saint John Paul II said:

"I thank everyone who helped to prepare this text. It is very useful for correctly understanding and carrying out the authentic request for pardon, based on the objective responsibility which Christians share as members of the Mystical Body, and which spurs today's faithful to recognize, along with their own sins, the sins of yesterday's Christians, in the light of careful historical and theological discernment."

The document was "proposed to the International Theological Commission by its President, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in view of the celebration of the Jubilee Year 2000.

Though Pope Saint John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger supported the Day of Pardon, the document in question acknowledged the following serious concerns:

"Nevertheless, some of the faithful are disconcerted and their loyalty to the Church seems shaken. Some wonder how they can hand on a love for the Church to younger generations if this same Church is imputed with crimes and faults.

"Others observe that the recognition of faults is for the most part one-sided and is exploited by the Church’s detractors, who are satisfied to see the Church confirm the prejudices they had of her.

"Still others warn against arbitrarily making current generations of believers feel guilty for shortcomings they did not consent to in any way, even though they declare themselves ready to take responsibility to the extent that some groups of people still feel themselves affected today by the consequences of injustices suffered by their forbears in previous times.

"Finally, it is to be expected that certain groups might demand that forgiveness be sought in their regard, either by analogy with other groups, or because they believe that they have suffered wrongs."

Catholics were/are free to question the Day of Pardon. Catholics are free to question whether Pope Francis should have, in effect, returned us yesterday to the Day of Pardon in regard to the notion that we should beg forgiveness, for example, from homosexuals.

That said, Christians have committed sins against homosexuals. Does anybody deny that?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dialogue said...

It appears from his talk that priests who are hospital chaplains or prison chaplains are good priests, while priest caring for parishes are the "many" bad priests. I suspect that the Holy Father's lack of experience as a parish priest limits his understanding of this situation. Or, perhaps Argentina really is filled with priests who constantly denounce concubinage, adultery and sodomy.

Mark Thomas said...

As the hype fades from the non-story in regard the Pope's non-earth-shattering press conferences remarks about homosexuals of good will who seek the Lord...

...Pope Francis also dared to say that there have been Christians who have sinned against homosexuals. HERETIC! HERETIC! HERETIC!...

...we are left with a couple of key comments from His Holiness.

1. The Traditionalist/secular news media hype that Pope Francis had opened the door to female deacons, a supposed "done deal" was shattered yesterday by His Holiness. Liberals within and without the Church aren't keen to hype that as that would shatter their narrative that Pope Francis is overthrowing the Church.

Traditionalists are not keen to do so as His Holiness shattered their Pope-Francis-is-a-heretic...get-ready-for-women-deacons-and-priestesses narrative.

2. Pope Francis' comments on Martin Luther. Those are important...far more so than Pope Francis' non-earth-shattering comments in question about homosexuals. I say that the Luther-related comments are important. However, said remarks simply reflected Rome's decades-old ecumenical plan to "rehabilitate" the heretical Martin Luther.

Rome's strategy in that regard is simple. Let us claim that poor Martin Luther was misunderstood and victimized by big, bad Churchmen. Luther's vicious anti-Catholic comments must be understood in context of his time. He was actually a man of deep faith.

Okay. Sure.

In that regard, Pope Francis yesterday held to Rome's decades-old ecumenical party line. But some of Pope Francis' comments about Luther were problematic.

However, ecumenism marches on. Martin Luther will be presented as a solid man of faith. That is the way that it is.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

just a guy said...

Why is it that when the Pope speaks on this topic or any other popular sin his words which qualify his statement are magically forgotten. He starts by saying what he said before, what he always says..... which total changes the context from what you write about him saying. He said:

The problem is a person that has a condition, that has good will and who seeks God, who are we to judge?

Has good will = is trying to live according to the teaching of the Catholic Church
Who seeks God = repents and returns to God, sins no more....

Like when he speaks of mercy, every official speech or written document on mercy the Pope is clear that when one repents, returns to God, returns to living as God wishes.... then mercy. Pope Francis has never said you get mercy if you choose to continue your sin.. no matter what it is.

On this issue of forgiveness, like the original comment 3 years ago on a plane when he was asked about a specific priest who had allegations of some behavior as a teen, who was now in middle adulthood, who had admitted his failing, confessed and received forgiveness and who had never been found to have had that behavior since - pretty limited situation... who is he to judge? someone who is no longer sinning and who Jesus have it is assumed, forgiven in confession. It is wrong to condemn them. They are not living the inclination, they admitted their failing and have been forgiven. they should be treated like any heterosexual who is not married who has sex, exactly the same. One can differ on marriage but Catholics still believe the Bible when it tells us marriage is between an man and woman and you can't have sex outside of marriage no matter who it is you are attracted to. Why twist the words of the Pope? Is it to make the Church look bad when the truth comes out? No teaching has changed, according to the Pope... why say it has?

Anonymous said...

Gene - You are not COMPETENT to determine who is or is not a heretic. That COMPETENCE does not come from reading lots of books or studying for lots of years in Protestant seminaries.

That COMPETENCE is a charism given to BISHOPS. They, not you, are the authentic and trustworthy teachers and guardians of the Faith.

You, with your Protestant upbringing, your Protestant education, your decades of Protestant preaching and teaching, have YET to understand much about to Catholic Faith. Among these is the COMPETENCE that is required to judge the orthodoxy of other persons or their ideas.

rcg said...

As bad as the deeds of the Church were in those days can you imagine how bad Her Liturgy was in those days? On the other hand what birthed the current state of perfection?

Jan said...

Francis is calling on "the Church" to apologize to Gays. Does he mean apologize for what is stated in the Catechism?

"1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel,139 The sin of the Sodomites,140 The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 The cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.14

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144

and:

"2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."


It seems to me Francis has put himself between a rock and a hard place, as homosexuals will soon be questioning his apology, saying it has a hollow ring to it and he is merely paying lip service when the catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered". Francis will then be put into a position where he will have to clearly state whether he upholds Catholic teaching or not.

Gene said...

Orthodoxy and heresy are theological/doctrinal concepts that are clearly defined in the Creeds, Holy Scripture, and the dogmas of the Church. Anyone can read them and discern whether or not a statement, a theological stance, or an individual is in conflict with
Catholic/ Christian doctrine. Now, it may be that a a formal council of Bishops has to officially pronounce, etc, etc. But, just how well have these Bishops with their "charisms" been doing so far? I think to use the term "trustworthy" in reference to many Bishops today is a stretch. "It don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Dialogue said...

Is anyone here competent to determine what is or is not an appropriate use of all-capitalized words?

Dialogue said...

just a guy,

Why do you think the typical newsman will have sufficient grasp of the Apostolic Tradition to place the pope's remarks in a faithful context?

Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

Anon. at 10:15:

If the Church solemnly teaches X this year as a doctrine of the faith, revealed truth to be held by the faithful, and then next year solemnly teaches not-X as a doctrine of the faith, revealed truth to be held by the faithful, it doesn't take the charism of a bishop to know that the Church has taught error on at least one occasion. That's logic 101.

Similarly, if the Church solemnly teaches X and anyone--including a pope or some other bishop--proclaims not-X, even informally (as in a press conference) then that pope's comments are, if not heretical, at least erroneous.

Further, the notorious paragraph in AL can be read as permitting and even encouraging those in mortal sin to receive Communion. This contradicts two thousand years of Catholic teaching. If that reading is right, then the Church has formally taught error.

Francis's famous "who am I to judge" and "who are we to judge" statements can be interpreted in more than one way. The most orthodox way is to assume that he means he cannot judge the state of the soul of the person in question. On the other hand, perhaps he means he can't judge the sinfulness of the act itself, which may well put him on a collision course with the doctrine to which even he is subject. In that case doctrine wins and the pope loses.

But even if we accept the former reading, and the pope has said that he can't judge the state of someone's soul, then the pope reveals his hypocrisy by doing exactly this when he presumes to insinuate that various people (such as Trump and gun manufacturers) aren't Christian. The only statement I can think of that's more judgmental than that would be if the pope said these people were going to hell. As it is, it's still plenty judgmental.

Catholics don't switch off their brains when they become Catholic. If you want a religion that doesn't care about the laws of logic, then look elsewhere.

Marc said...

Anonymous, Gene did not claim competence to judge the crime of heresy, which is that competence that you are referring to that is reserved to the pope and bishops. He asserted his qualification to know if someone is making an heretical statement.

Logically, you must believe that random people on the internet are qualified to make such a judgment of someone else's error since you have asserted that Gene's remarks are in error.

TJM said...

Francis is not an intellectual or systematic thinker like John Paul II or Benedict. He really should stop talking because he is only demoralizing Faithful Catholics and giving comfort to the non-faithful. I've pretty much tuned him out and await the next papacy when the restoration of the true Faith will resume.

Gene said...

Three Classic Laws, Excellent post...thanks.

Anonymous said...

Marc - "Error" and "Heresy" are not comparable.

I can go to a grocery, ask for a pound of bologna, be handed a pound of salmon, and tell the grocer he has made an error. We have the competence for that.

Heresy is a profoundly different matter, and you know it. If you don't know it, see canon 751.

TKM - when you "tune out" Peter, you tune out the Church. Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesiae.

Marc said...

Error and heresy are comparable for purposes of this discussion since we are talking about heretical statements and not a juridical judgment of heresy. You are incorrectly trying to conflate the recognition of error or heresy with the ecclesial judgment of the crime of heresy. They are profoundly different, and you know it. But your argument against Gene rests on your conflation of the two distinct concepts, as well as the underlying misinterpretation of his plain words.

John Nolan said...

Mark Thomas

'Christians have committed sins against homosexuals'. What on earth does that mean? Sins are an offence against God, and our treatment of our fellow man can certainly constitute sin. Since when have those with a disordered sexual orientation qualified for special treatment?

To have committed a sin WITH rather than AGAINST homosexuals by engaging in unnatural sexual relations is another matter.

Reading your comments I detect an underlying orthodoxy overlaid with considerable confusion. Others have also remarked on this. Would it be too much to expect that you get your ideas in order?

Gene said...

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith;

So, Anonymous, what is your point?

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan (at 5:20 a.m.):

Why didn’t you go on to quote CCC 2358 and 2359 as well? Here they are:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Aren’t these the passages Pope Francis had in mind?

More generally, are we trying to be partisan advocates on this blog or to try to achieve a fuller understanding of a situation?



Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws of Thought:

Yes, all true enough, but as you yourself recognize, if the premise is false the conclusion drawn from it will be false too. The premise you posit is that the Church teaches (or the Pope pronounces) “not A” when the Church has traditionally taught “A.” The burden of proof is on those claiming this to be the case because the presumption is that the Church continues to teach (and the Pope continues to pronounce) “A,” a presumption supported by various traditional hermeneutical techniques, including what “A” actually means and whether “A” is limited to particular circumstances.

Some people here are all too willing to jump to the conclusion that the Church must be teaching (or Pope Francis must be pronouncing) “not A” in contradiction to the traditional teaching of “A.” The interesting question is why.

Also, regarding being judgmental, I am not sure how far you are hedging with the word “insinuate” but Pope Francis never actually said that Trump was not a Christian. Here is an account of what he did say:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/20/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-trump-not-being-christian.html

Nor did he exactly say that gun manufacturers are not Christian. Here again is a fuller account:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-gets-it-mostly-right-on-pope-francis-and-weapons-manufacturers/article/2566812

Ideally I would like to read the complete transcripts in a reliable translation.

As you say people do not or at least should not switch off their brains when they become Catholic.



Anonymous said...

Obviously, the point is that Pope Francis has not evidenced "obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith."

No, we are not talking about "heretical statements" since, apparently, none have been issued by His Holiness. We are talking about a poorly informed "Catholic" making judgments he has no competence to make, and posting them publicly on this blog.

Marc said...

Catholics can make a judgment about whether someone, including the pope, has made heretical statements. This is merely the inverse of your judgment that he has not made heretical statements. Both of us are making judgments -- there is no reason why Gene's judgment that he has made heretical statements is less valid than your judgment than he has not made heretical statements.

No one here is arguing that it is within the competence of an individual Catholic to judge whether the pope is obstinate in his denial of some truth. That is a juridical judgment reserved to the competent authorities.

Again, you are confusing the crime of heresy, which requires an ecclesial judgment, with the utterance of heretical statements, which is simply an occurrence of which one might take notice.

As an illustration, imagine the pope denied the personal judgment of souls immediately after death. This is an heretical statement since it is contrary to the Church's defined teaching. Any Catholic aware of the Church's teaching can notice that this statement is heretical. We do not know whether the pope uttering it is obstinately denying the revealed truth, though. That would require the competent authorities to issue a warning to the pope, giving him a chance to recant his heretical statement. If he did not recant, the competent authorities could judge the pope to be a heretic and recognize that he was deposed by Christ.

Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

Anonymous at 5:30:

Are you even bothering to read the responses on this thread to your statements?

Gene said...

Now, Three Classic, why on earth would he want to condescend to actually read our statements?

Anonymous 2 said...

I think this one did not make it through, so here it is again:

Three Classic Laws of Thought (at 9:06 a.m.):

Yes, all true enough, but as you yourself recognize, if the premise is false the conclusion drawn from it will be false too. The premise you posit is that the Church teaches (or the Pope pronounces) “not A” when the Church has traditionally taught “A.” The burden of proof is on those claiming this to be the case because the presumption is that the Church continues to teach (and the Pope continues to pronounce) “A,” a presumption supported by various traditional hermeneutical techniques, including what “A” actually means and whether “A” is limited to particular circumstances.

Some people here are all too willing to jump to the conclusion that the Church must be teaching (or Pope Francis must be pronouncing) “not A” in contradiction to the traditional teaching of “A.” The interesting question is why.

Also, regarding being judgmental, I am not sure how far you are hedging with the word “insinuate” but Pope Francis never actually said that Trump was not a Christian. Here is an account of what he did say:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/20/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-trump-not-being-christian.html

Nor did he exactly say that gun manufacturers are not Christian. Here again is a fuller account:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-gets-it-mostly-right-on-pope-francis-and-weapons-manufacturers/article/2566812

Ideally I would like to read the complete transcripts in a reliable translation.

As you say people do not or at least should not switch off their brains when they become Catholic.


Gene said...

The Pope places Islam on the same level as Christianity, saying that we both worship the same God. This is Vat II nonsense and certainly heretical. Islam is non-Trinitarian and denies that Jesus is the Son of God. This is not only heretical, but it is a logical contradiction...if Islam is non-Trinitarian, then it is impossible that they worship the same God. If anyone cannot see this, they are not only heretical but just plain stupid. We are not talking about deep theological contemplation here...this is just simple basics.

John II, 9-11: "Anyone who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting, for he who greets him shares his wicked work."

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, I asked a question: "Francis is calling on 'the Church' to apologize to Gays. Does he mean apologize for what is stated in the Catechism?" and I set out what in the catechism I thought he may be asking an apology for in 1868, 1869 and 2357. I don't think Francis is asking the Church to apologise for 2358 or 2359 of the Catechism, do you? Except perhaps as it states that the inclination to homosexuality is "objectively disordered".

When he states "the Church", I can only take it that he means "Church" as in the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, he has a problem being Pope of a Church that he seems to think needs to apologize for her teaching on homosexuality and her catechism which sets out the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Like others have stated on this blog, I have never seen Catholics behave in any discriminatory way against homosexuals, women or the poor. If he felt he had to say something about Orlando then Francis should have directed his words towards the perpetrators of the problem in Orlando which is Islam and the Koran.

Jan said...

Marc's statement at 6.09 is well articulated: a Catholic who is aware of Church teaching on any matter and reading a statement that is dissenting from Church teaching - ie heretical - is certainly competent to state that such and such a statement is heretical because it dissents from Church teaching.

Anonymous 2 said...

Question:

Can an heretical statement be made by someone who is not a heretic?

In other words, does Canon 751 also mean that a statement can only be heretical if the baptized person making it evinces obstinate denial or obstinate doubt in making the statement?

Observation:

Gene (at 11:14 a.m. on June 27) very clearly referred to “this heretical . . . faux Pope.”





Anonymous 2 said...

Marc:

“Catholics can make a judgment about whether someone, including the pope, has made heretical statements. This is merely the inverse of your judgment that he has not made heretical statements. Both of us are making judgments -- there is no reason why Gene's judgment that he has made heretical statements is less valid than your judgment than he has not made heretical statement.”

I beg to differ. The Pope’s statements benefit from a presumption of consistency with Catholic teaching and thus orthodoxy. Judging the Pope’s statements as heretical requires a different kind of presumption.

Gene said...

Anon 2, Yes, I think a heretical statement can be made by someone who is not a heretic. I laugh because, a few years back, when Marc and I were teaching RCIA and it was his night to teach, he was lecturing on the Holy Trinity. There were some questions and, as an effort at clarification, I used the old "three clover" analogy...to which Marc pointedly replied, "And, that would be Modalism."
When a non-heretic makes such a statement and is corrected or asked for clarification, things usually get cleared up and the person who mis-spoke moves on.

As for your second question, an heretical statement is a heretical statement whether there is ":obstinate denial" or not. The obstinate denial is merely the confirmation that the person making the statement is, indeed, a heretic. This is what bothers me most about this Pope and others like him. In an age of eclecticism, cultural and religious syncretism, and a secular attack upon the Church it is important, above all, that our theological and doctrinal speech and teaching be clear, direct, and unambiguous. This Pope fails on all three of those points. When I say "heretical, faux Pope," that is, of course, my personal opinion and reaction to his overall manner. He has sown confusion and created ambiguity and uncertainty through many of his careless and doctrinally questionable remarks. This behavior, in one who is supposedly the guardian of the Faith, only indicates some doubt and reservation on his part regarding the doctrines and dogma he supposedly embodies. That can only be deliberate in one who surely knows the issues. This is not what the flock needs in such times as these. It is the same reason I get disgusted with you and others with an academic background in humanities...you are so molded to weigh judgement, examine every possible angle to a statement or argument, and rationalize intellectually (all positives in an academic and perhaps courtroom setting), that you cannot or will not make a clear, unambiguous, statement on many issues. It is like you won't take sides because you do not know which side to take.

Marc said...

Can an heretical statement be made by someone who is not a heretic?

Yes.

Marc said...

Can an heretical statement be made by someone who is not a heretic?

Yes.

Anonymous said...

Three - Yes, I am reading posts.

"If the Church solemnly teaches X this year as a doctrine of the faith, revealed truth to be held by the faithful, and then next year solemnly teaches not-X as a doctrine of the faith, revealed truth to be held by the faithful, it doesn't take the charism of a bishop to know that the Church has taught error on at least one occasion."

On no occasion that I am aware of has Pope Francis done the "X then not X" thing you describe. It simply has not happened.

Not only that, but Gene, despite his theological background, refuses to acknowledge the presence - even the necessity - of nuance in expression. As a result he is claiming - falsely - that Pope Francis HAS done the "X then not X" thing.

Why is this? 1) Gene believes his understanding of Catholic theology is superior to that of the pope and virtually every cardinal and bishop in the Catholic Church. 2) He is unnerved by the discovery that the Catholic Church is not what he thought it was when he jumped ship some years ago and boarded the Bark of Peter. He thought it would be smooth sailing, but has discovered a stormy season. 3) The Church does not share, much less support, his politics, his economics, or his approach to life in general.




Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

A2,

Why must the presumption be that the Church continues to teach A? What is your authority for that statement? Is it not possible that the Church is a purely human institution that can thus teach doctrinal error through contradiction? Isn't that the elephant in the room we're dancing around? Are you not begging the question? Shouldn't the burden, rather, be on those who argue a supernatural basis for the Church in the face of statements that may at least possibly be taken as contradictions?

Re trump and guns, you're arguing a straw man. I never stated that Francis said Trump and gun owners weren't Christian. I said (as you acknowledge elsewhere in your post) that he _insinuated_ it. The definitions of insinuate upon which I rely are Collins: "[T]o suggest by indirect allusion, hints, innuendo" and Merriam-Webster: "[T]o impart or suggest in an artful or indirect way." With these definitions in mind, examine the circumstances in which the statement was made.

In the first case Francis was responding to an express question about Trump. Francis then described a hypothetical very close to the facts regarding Trump and Trump's statements about the wall. Francis said "[A] person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. . . . this man is not Christian if he says things like that." Why isn't that an insinuation? Burden of proof shifted to you.

As for gun makers: You said you'd like to read the complete transcripts. I can't provide that, but I can provide something better than your very flawed link. The link below, unlike yours, quotes the language I'm relying on.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-turin-arms-idUSKBN0P10U220150621

And, excerpted from that article here's the quotation itself: "It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn't it?"

Again, would you not call that an insinuation? If not, why not?

Re your suggestion that I've switched off my brain: You used a straw man, you cherry-picked a web page, and you made an argument from authority. Look to the beam in your own eye.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2 - who apart from yourself has stated that "The Pope’s statements benefit from a presumption of consistency with Catholic teaching and thus orthodoxy"? Your statement has no foundation because the only statement a pope can make that is guaranteed to be free of error is when he pronounces something ex cathedra, which Francis hasn't done to date. Many of his off-the-cuff statements certainly could not be said to be consistent with Catholic teaching.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous Anonymous 2 said..."...Pope Francis never actually said that Trump was not a Christian. Here is an account of what he did say:"

Thank you for telling the truth about that. There are conservatives and Traditionalists who have perpetuated the false story that His Holiness Pope Francis declared that Donald Trump was not a Christian. Pope Francis never said that.

1. The news media reported that Pope Francis had declared (he did not) that Donald Trump was not a Christian.

2. On the night that the news media had misrepresented Pope Francis' comments in question, Donald Trump appeared at a Republican Town Hall meeting hosted by CNN.

3. Donald Trump said that earlier that day, he had read the transcript of Pope Francis' actual comments.

4. Donald Trump, on CNN, then blasted the news media for having lied about Pope Francis.

5. CNN, via its news reports, acknowledged that "Trump called the Pope a 'wonderful guy' and blamed the day's drama on the press. I think he said something much softer than was originally reported by the media."

Unfortunately, there are Catholics who continue to claim that Pope Francis declared that Donald Trump was not a Christian. That is true, in particular, of conservative/Traditional Catholics.

Anyway, as Donald Trump declared on CNN, the news media misrepresented Pope Francis' comments in question.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Gene said...

Anonymous@7:38 who is really old "Won't Confess" Kavanaugh, There is nothing nuanced about Christian Doctrine or Catholic Dogma. As far as the rest of your insipid post, it is just your same garbage. Everyone on this blog, with the exception of Anon 2, has there same reaction to you...you don't pay attention, you are arrogant, and under-educated for the conversations in which you attempt to engage. The fact that you wear a collar is indisputable evidence that God has a wry sense of humor.

Marc said...

A2, there are some concepts involved here that are getting jumbled, but that necessitate differentiation. First, there is the general concept that separates the statement from the subject making the statement. In other words, there is a difference between a heretic and an heretical statement. The heretical statement is that which is not congruous with the Church's doctrine. The subject making the statement might be subject to some canonical censure for making the statement, if the person is pertinacious in so doing. The latter describes the juridical penalty attached to the crime of heresy after the crime is proven to the competent authority. So, you can see that it does not follow that the person uttering heresy is a heretic.

Second, there are various types of statements that we are generally lumping together as heresy in this conversation because we are speaking colloquially. I think you'll find this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia to be a useful guide in categorizing the sorts of things that we are generally describing as "heresy."

The point of all of this is as I've stated: There is a competent authority that judges heresy and imposed a canonical censure (this is a complicated issue when it comes to the pope since there is no competent authority to judge the Apostolic See, but that is a different discussion). It is within the competence of anyone who has studied the faith to take note that some statement is heretical (or next to heresy, proximate to heresy, rash, et cetera). Making that sort of judgment cannot lead to a judgment of the person uttering the statement as being culpable for the crime of heresy (since that is reserved to the competent authorities) or the sin of heresy (since that is a matter of the internal forum). But one can note, as with any sin, the objective facts about the situation to make a determination as regards the matter.

Ultimately, the purpose of the discussion is not to condemn the pope or any other person making public statements since that sort of condemnation is reserved to the competent authorities. Instead, the purpose is to counsel the ignorant by pointing out the objectively problematic nature of the statements and show the person the truth of the Catholic faith that the problematic statements appears to contradict to some degree or other.

We can see that this is very important because, even here, we have people who are essentially arguing for a sort of gnosticism wherein the knowledge of the doctrine of the Church is reserved to a certain class of people holding a particular office or having a particular sort of background. As I've said before in these comments, the Church's teaching is not hiding from us. In my opinion, this is one of the greatest issues in the Church today: the doctrine is so destabilized that, before people can have a discussion about a particular doctrine, they must first debate precisely what the doctrine even is.

Finally, I want to address your idea that the pope's statements have the benefit of a presumption of orthodoxy. That idea seems to have been rejected by the fathers at Vatican I, who set very specific parameters around papal infallibility in contravention of certain theologians (including some saints) who claimed the pope could never err or fall into heresy. There does not appear to be such a presumption, although the statements of the pope should be received with filial affection and given great consideration (this is especially true with regard to his written statements). At any rate, even if there were such a presumption, the presence of a presumption does not mean that judging ceases. It simply colors the way that the judging is done.

Gene said...

Well, I want to go on record right now with an apology to gays...I am profoundly sorry that you people lead a disordered and perverted life style. I am deeply sorry that the Pope, who should be counseling you to abstinence and encouraging you to seek help is, instead, choosing to degrade all of us and the Church by insisting that your behavior is acceptable and trying to shame normal people into enabling you in your disorder.

Marc said...

Anonymous at 7:38 says, "On no occasion that I am aware of has Pope Francis done the 'X then not X' thing you describe. It simply has not happened."




Evangelii Gaudium 255: “This [religious freedom] includes ‘the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public.’”

Syllabus of Errors 15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Condemned."
_____

Evangelii Gaudium 247: "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked."

This is contrary to the ordinary and universal Magisterium, as explained by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis: "By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished. . . . Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross."

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws:

The presumption comes from tradition. First, as I understand the matter, Catholics owe “religious submission of intellect and will” to the ordinary magisterium exercised by Popes and Bishops in communion with the Pope when they make non-infallible statements. Second, again my understanding is that traditional hermeneutical techniques include a presumption that an ambiguous statement does not contradict the established teaching of the Church. I believe this second point has been extensively discussed on this blog in recent threads.

You are in no position to complain about cherry-picking. First, your first quotation from Pope Francis is incomplete. This is the complete text:

“And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he says things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”

Moreover, Father Lombardi later reinforced the last point (which you omitted):

“The Pope has made it clear that he would not enter into the [Presidential] election campaign in the United States and he has also said— which was not reported by many—if it were correct and true what he was told—he would give the benefit of the doubt over what had been reported about the Republican candidate’s expressions.

Second, the link you provide for the second quotation is no less flawed than the one I provided and I invite readers to compare the two. I am not happy with either link. I do not know exactly what Pope Francis has said about all this. That is why I need to see the transcript so that I can put the relevant statements in their proper context.

As for switching off brains, aren’t you the one who said, sorry insinuated, (in the context of the exchange on the thread), that unless we had switched off our brains we would be able to see that Pope Francis may well have been making unorthodox statements?


Gene said...

Not to mention Pope Benedict's book on "Jesus of Nazareth" in which he explains that Jesus is telling people, through word and action, that He is the New Torah.

Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

Anonymous @ 7:38: The fact that you say the X and Not-X scenario "simply hasn't happened" a) is merely conclusory on your part, since this is one of the very things being debated about AL, and b) suggests that you _haven't_ been reading the replies since I expressly mentioned the AL paragraph.

You can argue that it "simply hasn't happened" all you want. That doesn't make the possibility go away. The footnote on its face can be reasonably taken to mean that people in mortal sin may receive Communion. That may not be the correct meaning but it's a possible meaning. And if the Church is capable of teaching error then it's no answer to say that this possible meaning is wrong in light of the Magisterium's infallible nature; that infallibility is the very point we're debating. No question-begging, please. You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

But based on what you've posted, this isn't a matter of me saying that AL violates prior teaching and you saying it doesn't. We haven't even gotten to that debate. Rather, you haven't even addressed the AL issue, which I raised in my posts. If you really are reading the responses to you, you either aren't doing so very carefully or you simply don't care what they say.

Marc said...

Anonymous 2, the idea of "obsequium religiosum" (religious submission) to which you referred comes from Vatican II's Lumen Gentium. I understand that you might consider that to be a presumption "from tradition." Whatever the case, for our present purposes, the submission is defined as one given to the "authentic magisterium" of the Roman Pontiff. Further in the weeds of the definition, the withholding of assent is provided for in certain situations.

I am not sure that anyone is claiming that the statements we are discussing form part of the authentic magisterium, since they are usually off-the-cuff statements given on airplanes (for example). Even if they were an attempt at an authentic magisterium, as in the quotations I supplied from Evangelii Gaudium, those quotations are pitted against other, definitive statements of the ordinary magisterium, which must be firmly accepted and held by believers.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

A2,

I'm glad for your understanding about tradition and traditional hermeneutical techniques, but you're still question-begging and making a arguments from authority. If the pope has taught error, I owe him nothing (and certainly not religious submission of intellect and will), for he is therefore the leader of a false religion. And if the pope is merely being a hypocrite or making erroneous statements in non-magisterial speech, then he's owed nothing by anyone; rather, it is he who owes apologies.

Re the section of the quotation I omitted--how does it change the meaning of the quotation for the purposes for which I quoted it? I argue in response to your charge of cherry-picking that that 1) it does not change the meaning, in which case I'm not cherry picking but omitting pointless verbiage, and further that 2) the omitted material actually makes Francis's statement even worse. It's worse because Francis says he isn't going to get involved in politics, but in his next breath says that this (hypothetical) man who bears a striking similarity to the candidate Trump whose political position he's been expressly been asked about 30 seconds earlier isn't Christian because of that political position. If I tell you that I'm not going to get into a discussion of teaching and in my next breath say that someone who teaches like you is a lousy teacher, I've gotten into the issue of teaching _and_ insinuated that you're lousy at it, no? You really shouldn't have dragged in that omitted portion; it helps you not at all.

The second link, unlike yours the one you provided, contains the specific quotation regarding the point under discussion. But since you're unhappy with it, ignore it and just focus on the quotation itself, which I provided in my post and which you haven't discussed. (Barring the availability of a transcript, I, too, invite readers to compare the two links. Mine is better.) We can speculate and contextualize and hypothesize all we want, but I only work with what Francis and the Vatican care to give me. And my reading of Francis's words, rendered by Reuters (a reputable news agency) are as I have stated. Your only challenge to my argument on this point thus far is to say that that perhaps those words are badly translated or out of context. Perhaps they are and perhaps they aren't. Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese. But this quotation what we've got and they are, on their face, very judgmental and very hypocritical. Again Francis is free at any time to speak up and walk back or clarify his statements or provide an official transcript or whatever, but so far there's only been deafening silence. Qui tacet consentire videtur ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

As for Fr. Lombardi, I have no interest in his comments. (If you're worried about the authoritativeness of a flawed translation or out of context statements, then what about the interjection of a third party and possible changes of meaning he may make either intentionally or negligently? It seems some distortions are unacceptable to you but others are--if they support your position.) I, by contrast, do Francis the courtesy of taking him at his word (_his_ words, not a spin doctor's)--something you seem extremely disinclined to do here. If Francis himself wishes to issue a clarification, we can discuss it then.

You appeared to other readers to compare our respective links. I appeal to the readers to read the two quotations I've provided and make up their own minds.

Anonymous said...

Marc - The passages you cite cannot be considered "contrary to the ordinary and universal Magisterium" unless one has a serious misunderstanding of what constitutes magisterial teaching.

As you were wrong in your understanding of the passages of Quo Primum that seemed to you to preclude any and all changes in the liturgy of the Church, you are wrong in your understanding of the nature of the Syllabus of Errors and other passages you may care to cite.

The SoE does not - cannot - represent the last word, the unalterable and unchangeable word in these matters. It cannot do so because, as much as it pains you to consider it, doctrine develops and evolves. It always has and it always will.

Consider: Card Joseph Ratzinger, First centenary of the Death of Cardinal John Henry Newman, 28 April 1990 “Even deeper for me was the contribution which Heinrich Fries published in connection with the Jubilee of Chalcedon. Here I found access to Newman's teaching on the development of doctrine, which I regard along with his doctrine on conscience as his decisive contribution to the renewal of theology.”

Consider also: Stephen Pope and Richard R. Gaillardetz, Commonweal, January 21, 2016 "IT IS NOT only ahistorical but even strangely un-Catholic to assert that doctrine does not and cannot change. In responding to Protestants and Anglicans who criticized Roman Catholic teachings for introducing innovations (concerning the Blessed Virgin and the doctrine of Purgatory, for example), John Henry Newman developed an extended account of how doctrine develops from what was implicitly present in Scripture and the Christian tradition. The bishops at Vatican II built on Newman’s insight when they wrote:

'For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her' (Dei verbum).

Genuine doctrinal development flows from a new and sometimes deeper understanding of the Gospel than was possible to Christians of earlier centuries. The fact of development underscores the importance of a distinction articulated by John Paul II in Sollicitudo rei socialis. Speaking of the body of Catholic social teachings, he wrote: 'On the one hand it is constant, for it remains identical in its fundamental inspiration, in its “principles of reflection,” in its “criteria of judgment,” in its basic “directives for action,” and above all in its vital link with the Gospel of the Lord. On the other hand, it is ever new, because it is subject to the necessary and opportune adaptations suggested by the changes in historical conditions and by the unceasing flow of the events which are the setting of the life of people and society.'



Marc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

Anon. at 5:43:

Ah, the old "doctrine develops" argument. We're going in circles, guys. I chose my my nomme de guerre because I began my posts on this thread by trying to point out something very basic, something that I thought any reasonable person should be able to see and would quickly admit so we could go on to the harder questions: The Second classic law of thought, the Law of Non-Contradiction. Applied here, that law states that if doctrine can develop (which I here concede arguendo so we don't get bogged down in that discussion), it cannot develop to the point of self-contradiction without destroying the authority of the Church and thus her claims to divine inspiration.

The reason for this is that the Church would have claimed both statements to be true, but according to the basic rules of logic and grammar, both could not be true. X cannot be not-X. It doesn't take the charism of a bishop or even the training of a lawyer (I lack the first but have the second, as does Marc)to understand this.

So, here's a question: Can y'all progressives out there at least expressly concede (or even expressly deny) the validity of the Law of Non-Contradiction? Can you do just that much for us? If not, we're all just burning a lot of time on this thread spinning our wheels for nothing, because your thought processes are ones that I (and I daresay Marc, Gene, John Nolan, Jan, and others) can't even begin to comprehend, much less have a rational discourse with. Maybe they're superior to mine, but I cannot comprehend them. I actually have better things to do with my time than try to have such a discourse with you if such is impossible.

Next, if you do admit the Law of Non-Contradiction, then we can move on to another question, viz. Can you show that Evangelii Gaudium 255 isn't the negation of Syllabus of Errors 15 (i.e., that one is X and the other is not-X)? Alternatively, can you show that at least one of these statements isn't magisterial?

And please don't try to worm your way out of answering my questions here by telling me that bishops and theologians can reconcile the two statements and I have no business trying to, and that I just owe submission of intellect and will. I cannot subject my intellect and will to two statements that, to my limited mind, say exactly the opposite of each other unless somebody (a bishop, perhaps) tells me _how_ to do it. I can manage either one, but not both. To subject my intellect and will to either one is for me to reject the other. It does me no good at all for you to tell me that bishops and theologians understand them when I cannot understand or apply them.

The questions I've posed on this post really are quite simple. I just don't know why some people here won't confront them head-on.

Marc said...

Three Classic Laws,

Not only are you correct from the natural perspective of logic, the Church has definitively declared the following at Vatican I:

"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

The law of non-contradiction is practically rejected by New Church. The Church of Christ, though, since she is divinely founded, upholds the objective truths handed down to us from God and taught consistently by the popes throughout all time.

Gene said...

Three Classic Laws, You are a welcome presence here to many of us, so please do not let the unbelievers on the blog run you off tearing your hair. The old "doctrine develops" mantra has been trotted out here many times by Kavanaugh (also, now that he has a new parish, an Anonymous) and several others. It is sort of like the Constitutional de-constructionists who love to say, "Oh, the Constitution is a living document," or the Modernist morons who love to say that the Bible is a "living document," which is just code for "we can mess with it any way we like."
Since you are new here, and so you will know with what you are dealing, Kavanaugh/Anonymous is the Priest who, when asked directly by a blogger if he believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and the Real Presence in the Mass, refused to answer, saying the question was a "trap" and that it was "beneath him to answer." Kavanaugh's main purpose here on earth, I have decided, is to prove that Donatus was wrong and that God has a wonderful (though sharp-edged) sense of humor.

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws (at 4:45 p.m.):

Yes indeed, I am certainly making an argument from authority. Nothing fallacious about that in the Catholic tradition! And I maintain that religious submission of intellect and will and/or hermeneutical techniques create a presumption of orthodoxy for statements made by recognized authority. All this is perfectly consistent with the notion of a rebuttable presumption (please note I never claimed the presumption was irrebuttable). Specifically, then, the presumption is that the Pope has not taught error, and the burden of persuasion is on those charging that he has taught error to overcome the presumption that he has not by adducing evidence meeting the appropriate standard of proof. What is that standard by the way?

I’m sorry but I fail to comprehend how being willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt regarding a particular charge is irrelevant or makes it even more likely that said someone is guilty of the charge (in casu the charge that said someone is not a Christian).

The moon is made of green cheese argument is silly. We all know that the moon is made of yellow cheese. We do not know what Francis meant by that statement read out of context. I repeat that I would like to see the context. In the meantime, what about that old presumption again? Pope Francis could be saying a number of different things, only one of which is the meaning all the headlines jumped on (Why?). Surely your moral imagination can see more than one possible meaning here.

Why are you so dismissive of Father Lombardi’s clarifications? Isn’t he the Vatican spokesman?

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws (at 7:11 p.m.):

Regarding the law on non-contradiction, how can one know whether one is dealing with an A not A situation before the relevant language has been properly interpreted according to accepted hermeneutical techniques?


rcg said...

I am sorry to have noticed this so late: "Francis said there are plenty of other groups out there who probably also deserve an apology." It seems like you want to be fairly certain about you apologies or they might come across as sort of half hearted. I hope that is another example of poor editing and journalism than an actual quote.

As far as the press conference gaffs it reminds me of an Oxford don named Spooner who was prone to inserting the wrong word into his extemporaneous addresses, often to hilarious effect. The students would sometimes clamour outside his home asking for a speech. He would chase them away telling them that they only hoped he would say "one of those THINGS." Is Zacahrias a saint? Perhaps a prayer for his intersession would be in order........

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene (at 6:52 a.m.):

“It is the same reason I get disgusted with you and others with an academic background in humanities...you are so molded to weigh judgement, examine every possible angle to a statement or argument, and rationalize intellectually (all positives in an academic and perhaps courtroom setting), that you cannot or will not make a clear, unambiguous, statement on many issues. It is like you won't take sides because you do not know which side to take.”

When a clear, unambiguous statement is warranted, I make it and when it is necessary to take sides, I take one. Here is an example: As a Catholic, I defend the Pope. What about you?


Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws:

“Next, if you do admit the Law of Non-Contradiction, then we can move on to another question, viz. Can you show that Evangelii Gaudium 255 isn't the negation of Syllabus of Errors 15 (i.e., that one is X and the other is not-X)? Alternatively, can you show that at least one of these statements isn't magisterial?”

And here we return to the subject of proper interpretation according to accepted hermeneutical techniques. We cannot answer your questions without identifying and answering several other questions, including:

(1) What does the language used in Evangelii Gaudium actually mean, in its textual and historical context?

(2) What does the language in the fifteenth condemnation in the Syllabus actually mean, in its textual and historical context?

(3) Related, what does the language in the magisterial documents (Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851) referred to and summarized in the fifteenth condemnation of the Syllabus actually mean, in its textual and historical context?

(4) What is the magisterial status of the Syllabus?

(5) What is the magisterial status of the documents "Maxima quidem” and "Multiplices inter" June 10, 1851) referred to and summarized in the fifteenth condemnation of the Syllabus?

(6) What is the magisterial status of Evangelii Gaudium?

And we also return to the subject of presumptions and burden of persuasion. Why place the burden on those defending the statement in Evangelii Gaudium? That document should benefit from the rebuttable presumption of orthodoxy enjoyed by non-infallible magisterial documents. Surely, then, the burden of persuasion regarding the above questions is on those seeking to rebut the presumption.




Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. By “magisterial status” I mean relative magisterial authority, i.e. a document’s magisterial authority relative to other magisterial documents.

Marc said...

Since there has never been an A not A situation, according to some here, it follows that those commenters hold that the faith has not changed (since it is not contradictory with itself). I am sure, then, that you all firmly believe the defined doctrine of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, which taught the following:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

Three - Your error is the same as Marc's. You assume, wrongly, that the Syllabus is the last word on the topics it addresses. And you wrongly assume, as Marc does, that your interpretation of the Syllabus (and all magisterial documents) is the correct interpretation.

Marc quotes: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

Notice that the passage says "...that from which the CHURCH has understood and understands:..." (caps mine)

It does not say "...that from which MARC or THREE CLASSIC LAWS has understood and understands:..." (caps mine)

I will stick with the Church's understanding, not Marc's or Three's.

Anonymous The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

A2 at 9:44,

You just don’t get it. You are appealing to an authority that arguably has compromised itself. When I attempt to point that out, you say (or at least implicit in your statement is the assertion) that it can’t have compromised itself because of its authority. That’s not only a fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam but a case of fallacious petitio principii.

Regarding the benefit of the doubt you want me to give: What doubt is there about what Francis said? I can see only two: a) it was fabricated; b) it was mistranslated. Nobody on that plane, including reporters from competing news agencies, is claiming fabrication. Nobody who was present, to my knowledge, is claiming mistranslation. This is reinforced by the fact that (to my knowledge) the Vatican hasn’t released either an official transcript or an official translation. Again, qui tacet consentire videtur ubi loqui debuit ac potuit. Thus, there’s no doubt to allow a benefit.

Re context, I (and you) can’t know whether the context changes the prima facie meaning of the statements until someone produces it. You are the one whose arguing that it might change the meaning. Thus, speaking of presumptions, isn’t the burden on you to show that given this unknown context Francis didn’t mean what he said? Until you can meet that burden, Francis’s statement stands, and so does my analysis. When you can provide me with the transcript we can have another debate.

Re Fr. Lombardi, if you wish I will arguendo accept the authority of his “clarification.” Here again for reference is the text you supplied: “The Pope has made it clear that he would not enter into the [Presidential] election campaign in the United States and he has also said— which was not reported by many—if it were correct and true what he was told—he would give the benefit of the doubt over what had been reported about the Republican candidate’s expressions.”

Here’s why that “clarification” doesn’t improve things.

a) Fr. Lombardi’s statement on its face contradicts Francis’s. “The Pope has made it clear that he would not enter into the [Presidential] election campaign in the United States.” Yes, that’s what Francis said and then he immediately entered into that campaign in the manner I have described above. Lombardi’s opening statement doesn’t change that even if Lombardi (or Francis) kept saying it until he was blue in the face. In other words, Francis did not at all make clear what Lombardi said he made clear, or if he did, then Francis immediately refused to do what he clearly said he was going to do.

b) Fr. Lombardi’s statement on its face claims nothing I haven’t always admitted, viz., that the pope was speaking hypothetically about someone in Trump’s position. If what had been reported about Trump’s position was wrong, then the hypothetical (which neither Francis nor Lombardi disavowed) wouldn’t apply to Trump. But guess what? Trump _is_ in Trump’s position. Nobody--_nobody_--is claiming that Trump hasn’t talked about building a wall. So despite Francis/Lombardi’s benefit of the doubt, the applicability of the hypothetical to Trump stands, and nothing in Francis’s or Lombardi’s statements changes that.

Thus, according to Lombardi, Francis said something like this: “I’ll say nothing about teaching. I make it clear that I will NOT talk about teaching. But teachers like you are lousy teachers, unless you don’t teach that way (which you admit you do). See? I made it clear that I said nothing about teaching.”

If Lombardi, or Francis, had simply issued an apology and/or a statement to the effect that Francis misspoke or spoke without thinking, that would be a much more credible statement. Instead we have spin by an interested party that either doesn’t change the meaning of the original statement or reinforces it’s prima facie contradictions.

By the way, I have no affiliation to the site my name links to. I merely provide the link so those who are inclined can reference the laws to which I refer.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

A2 at 9:45,

You're missing my whole point, which is that the language is sufficiently clear and non-technical that "Proper interpretation" (whatever that is--I suspect you mean "authoritative interpretation by popes or bishops") isn't needed. Indeed, any interpretation by them would simply be to the effect that at least one of the statements in question doesn't say what it says. You know, like when the Bible uses the word "God" it really says (and means) "Satan," but only in some places and not others. At some point such "proper interpretation" as this fails to pass the laugh test, no?

Anyway, since we don't now know what it means, lacking "Proper interpretation," how am I to practice the faith? Am I to defend peoples' right to practice other religions, or am I to attack it? Am I sinning by promoting free exercise or am I building up riches for myself in heaven? I'm still waiting for that "Proper interpretation" that will make all clear to me. The Church has been waiting for it for a half-century.

Anonymous The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

rcg,

It would be nice if what we had with Francis is nothing but a series of Spoonerisms (as they are called). The problem is that given the pattern of statements, they seem genuine reflections of what Francis believes.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

A2 at 1:07,

I don’t have the time or inclination (having spent too much time on this thread already) to get into an extended discussion of this. Here are my basic answers.

1) I assert that the best guide to the meaning of the statement is the words of that statement. In the common law tradition it’s called the “plain meaning” rule. Ann Coulter devoted a column, a year or so ago, to the argument that Hispanic anchor babies weren’t citizens of the United States. To support that claim, she employed the hermeneutical techniques and the context you keep appealing to. She persuasively demonstrated that a) when the 14th Amendment was written, nobody in Congress talked about Hispanic anchor babies, b) that the place of African-Americans in American society had been a matter of hot debate for at least two generations--anchor babies, not so, c) that the war which produced the Fourteenth Amendment was at least partly about the integration of African Americans into mainstream of society and not at all about anchor babies, d) that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, on which the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was based, was a response to the plight of African-Americans, e) that the Citizenship Clause was a response to Dred Scott, which had nothing to do with anchor babies, and several other points of evidence. It was a thorough analysis. Problem was, she never quoted the actual words of the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” A long, detailed investigation into context or a plain statement with the force of law? Incidentally, are anchor babies citizens, do you think?

2) If we apply your hermeneutical/contextual approach, we can never be certain of anything the Church says, even the existence of God, for when would we know that we understood the whole context? Are humans even capable of knowing it? I have to act now, here, today. Do I give the beggar money or don’t I? Am I helping him or hurting him? I need to know. You don’t seem to grasp that my questions aren’t theoretical: I need to know how to live my life on a day to day business and if I have to wait for appropriate authorities inthe Church to use the proper hermaneutical techniques and contexts to give me an explanation (which would itself be subject to the same hermaneutical and contextual requirements) I would never know how to avoid sin or achieve salvation. And even if we understood the whole context of a single statement, then the instant the context changed, we’d have to begin the whole process all over again. Perhaps the Church said God existed in New Testament times but the Church today says God doesn’t exist? Your approach takes us into an existential morass in which nothing is certain and thus faith is pointless since we wouldn’t know what to have faith in.

I submit that what you’re doing--perhaps unwittingly--is muddying the waters in an attempt to avoid confronting the inconvenient truth that your Church has taught error through self-contradiction and that thus, perhaps, nothing she says is true. If that gives you spiritual solace, so be it. But don’t let’s chase this rabbit, for intent versus meaning arguments have gone on for centuries without resolution. We aren’t going to solve it here. Your concept of the Church is utterly useless to me.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

Marc at 8:11:

It's possible you're being unfair. I think the better statement is that we can't know whether there's been an A/not-A situation without investigation using appropriate contextualization and hermeneutical techniques. That will require utterly exhaustive investigation of each statement, each sentence, and each word, presumably by magisterial authority, and a pronouncement by said authority of what the statement (even a statement plain on its face) really says. Of course, we cannot then accept the pronouncement without appropriate magisterial authority subjecting it to the same contextual/hermeneutical analysis as the original statement, and so forth.

So it isn't that there's never been such a case; it's just that we can't know whether there's ever been such a case.

I wonder several things, particularly:

1) Will someone charge me with reductio ad absurdum? I'm willing to accept the charge if someone can clearly show me the appropriate stopping point for the application of contextualization and hermeneutic technique (though my guess is that any such stopping point provided will be self-serving).

2) Will this post of mine be used as a pretext for not answering my other posts of this morning?

Gene said...

I kinda' like this as an A is A/B is not A example (there is nothing like clarity...Athanasian Creed):

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Gene said...

anon 2 @ 9:55, I responded to your post, but Fr. did not post it, probably because I said something negative about the alleged Pope. I support the Church, Christian/Catholic Doctrine, and the institution of the Papacy. I do not support Leftist, Third World political hacks in Papal Regalia.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

Anon. at 8:40:

I assume nothing. For purposes of my post at 7:11, my first question: do you accept the law of non-contradiction--makes no reference at all to the Church or her teaching. My second question invites readers here to show that one of the statements in question is not the negation of the other, or that at least one of the statements in question is non-magisterial (for purposes of this discussion I don't care which). If the Syllabus 15 is the negation of Evangelii Gaudium 255, then Evangelii Gaudium 255 is the negation of Syllabus 15. That's simple logic and makes no claim as to which one is correct. Your statement that I think the Syllabus is the last word shows that you, and not I, are the one doing the assuming, or else that you aren't reading my posts very carefully.

I repeat: Irrespective of what the Church teaches or does not teach--with no reference at all to doctrine--do you or do you not accept the validity of the Law of Non-Contradiction? Let's just start with that. Once you've answered, we can then try discussing doctrine.

Gene said...

Three Classic, I'll bet you a steak dinner Anon 2 will waffle on the Law of Non-Contradiction. He will try to redefine it or say that it somehow does not apply.

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws (and Marc):

Let’s take this one step at a time. Let’s begin with my fourth question: What is the magisterial status of the fifteenth error in the Syllabus? Does it have independent weight or is it essentially just a shorthand (and relatively non-authoritative) summary of the contents of the other, authoritative magisterial documents to which it refers? Is it, in other words, any more than a rough guide to these other documents—a kind of index if you will? Conversely, is it intended to state a culminating truth drawn from these other documents, which can effectively therefore now be ignored?

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws (and Gene):

I will answer about the law of non-contradiction for my part. I understand the law of non-contradiction to be that “A” and “not A” cannot both be true.

As applied to the Church:

If the Church infallibly teaches A it cannot then legitimately teach not A.

On the other hand, if A is a non-infallible teaching of the Church, then it may be legitimate for the Church subsequently to teach not A.

Does that sound right to you?





Marc said...

A2, I'd argue the Syllabus is precisely the sort of papal clarification that you're usually seeking since it is a pope collating the Church's teaching contra liberalism and promulgating it in one place in a succinct fashion. So it is part of the ordinary magisterium as it is a recitation of the Church's constant teaching.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

A2,

Re your 7:37, thank you and yes, I would agree entirely.

Re your 7:27, I will defer to Marc.

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws and Marc:

So I think we can all agree that it really is important, as a starting point, to determine the magisterial authoritative status of the Syllabus of Errors. I do not know the answer to this myself but Wikipedia records a dispute about it (I looked for a better succinct discussion but could not find one):

“The document met with a mixed reception among Catholics; many accepted it wholeheartedly, others wanted a clarification of some points, and still others were as shocked as their Protestant neighbors by the apparent broad scope of the condemnations.

Catholic apologists such as Félix Dupanloup and Blessed John Henry Newman said that the Syllabus was widely misinterpreted by readers who did not have access to or did not bother to check the original documents of which it was a summary. The propositions listed had been condemned as erroneous opinions in the sense and context in which they originally occurred; without the original context, the document appeared to condemn a larger range of ideas than it actually did. Thus it was asserted that no critical response to the Syllabus which did not take the cited documents and their context into account could be valid (Newman 1874). Newman writes:

‘The Syllabus then has no dogmatic force; it addresses us, not in its separate portions, but as a whole, and is to be received from the Pope by an act of obedience, not of faith, that obedience being shown by having recourse to the original and authoritative documents, (Allocutions and the like,) to which the Syllabus pointedly refers. Moreover, when we turn to those documents, which are authoritative, we find the Syllabus cannot even be called an echo of the Apostolic Voice; for, in matters in which wording is so important, it is not an exact transcript of the words of the Pope, in its account of the errors condemned, just as would be natural in what is an index for reference.’

In the wake of the controversy following the document's release, Pius IX referred to it as 'raw meat needing to be cooked.' However, others within the church who supported the syllabus disagreed that there was any misinterpretation of the condemnations.”

In case you want to consult the original here is the link to the Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors

Assuming that the Newman quote is accurate, there would at least seem to be a serious question regarding the independent status of the Syllabus. I think Newman is a credible and serious voice. The subsequent characterization by Pope Pius IX, again assuming its accuracy, is also interesting. What are your thoughts about this point?



The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

A2 and Marc,

I break my answer to A2’s 2:03 into two parts. The Part I accepts, arguendo, Newman’s authority and characterization of the Syllabus. Part II takes issue with them.

PART I. If Newman is right, then in theory all we need to do to avoid his objections and settle the question is go to the document(s) from which Prop. 15 was culled. These are identified by the Syllabus itself as the Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862 and the Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851 (not to be confused with the “Inter Multiplices” of Mar. 21, 1853). Denziger adds specific references within the above documents, viz., "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851 (Prop. 15, 21,23, 30, 51, 54, 68) and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862 (Prop. 1--7, (15),19, 27, 39, 44, 49, 56--60, 76, NB), although it’s impossible to say which of these sections are the bases to Prop. 15. http://patristica.net/denzinger/#n5000

Unfortunately, the Web doesn’t yet contain the cited documents in their entirety, although I did find some references to their contents along with excerpts. “Multiplices inter” condemns certain writings of one Francois de Paule, of whom there’s more than one I identified who are candidates. http://www.gcatholic.org/documents/year/1851.htm#1491
For "Maxima quidem" see pp. 394-98 of this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=IHZHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA394&dq=pius+syllabus+%22Maxima+quidem%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikm-rrvtLNAhXDYiYKHQrLBCoQ6AEIXDAM#v=onepage&q=%20%22Maxima%20quidem%22&f=false . My take on the excerpts is that nothing in them contradicts Prop 15 but, if anything supports it.


Part II is in the next post.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

PART II. My three objections here:

a) Newman isn’t authoritative as he wasn’t a bishop but only a cardinal (interesting way of looking at it).

b) Newman was wrong to deny the authority of the Vatican bureaucrat to issue the Syllabus. Here’s what Newman says: “Who is its author? Some select theologian or high official doubtless; can it be Cardinal Antonelli himself? No surely: anyhow it is not the Pope, and I do not see my way to accept it for what it is not. I do not speak as if I had any difficulty in recognizing and condemning the Errors which it catalogues, did the Pope himself bid me; but he has not as yet done so, and he cannot delegate his Magisterium to another. I wish with St. Jerome to "speak with the Successor of the Fisherman and the Disciple of the Cross." I assent to that which the Pope propounds in faith and morals, but it must be he speaking officially, personally, and immediately, and not any one else, who has a hold over me. The Syllabus is not an official act, because it is not signed, for instance, with "Datum Romæ, Pius P.P. IX.," or "sub annulo Piscatoris," or in some other way; it is not a personal, for he does not address his Venerabiles Fratres," or "Dilecto Filio," or speak as "Pius Episcopus;" it is not an immediate, for it comes to the Bishops only through the Cardinal Minister of State.” http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section7.html My response to this is the same as my response to A2 is twofold: a) Once again, as in the case of Francis’s recent controversial quotations, qui tacet consentire videtur ubi loqui debuit ac potuit. Pius lived 13 more years and never disavowed the Syllabus. B) Also, if A2 is willing to accept the authority of Lombardi’s “clarifications,” then shouldn’t he likewise accept the authority of the author of the Syllabus? In brief, since the Vatican let the Prop. 15 stand, and because the documents upon which they’re based aren’t readily availablke, and the parts of the documents that are available don’t contradict it, and because no one to my knowledge has asserted that the proposition _isn’t_ a fair statement of those documents, then why should we not accept the authority of Prop 15? Again, isn’t the burden on A2 to a) provide those documents and b) show that they don’t support the proposition?

To illustrate, please see Part IV of the following book, which begins on page 35. I find the hypothetical about Titus speaking for Paul to be particularly persuasive. https://books.google.com/books?id=eJteAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22Ad+apostolicae%22+1851+pius++-syllabus&source=bl&ots=pXq7I5SOZg&sig=_HTbQkJLGmIrcV4DOwrFkXlDOkg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPqLTKttLNAhXH4yYKHa8bA2cQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=Maxima%20quidem&f=false


c) Newman is wrong (either wrong when he wrote, or else he ultimately proved wrong after he wrote) in his statement that Pius hadn’t ratified the bureaucrat’s work. Here I quote from Ward’s book (link above): “Had all this been a delusion, Pius IX., by keeping silence, would have been guilty of no less a crime than this : he would have connived at a false rule of belief being promulgated in his name, and would have been the accomplice of sacrilegious deception under shelter of his very office as Universal Teacher. But he did not even keep silence. On June 17, 1867, he both authenticated the Syllabus as having come from him, and expressly confirmed it. f‘ In the Encyclical of 1864, he said to the bishops, ‘and in that which is called the Syllabus, I declared to the world the dangers which threaten society, and I condemn the falsehoods which assail its life. That act I now confirm in your presence, and I set it again before you as the rule of your teaching.’”

I could go on, but ‘nuf said.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

It's been 72 hours since I asked Anonymous (not A2) to affirm or deny the Law of Non-Contradiction and he hasn't deigned to answer. Perhaps he's busy; or perhaps he's avoiding. Since we can't know (pending his answer) whether he accepts it, then we can't know whether or not we can even converse with him in any meaningful way. He could use the same word twice in a row, right next to each other, and the two uses could be the polar opposite of each other. Language itself becomes pointless in such a circumstance.

I thus urge all of us simply to ignore this particular Anonymous in the future, at least until he affirms not only the Law of Non-Contradiction but the other two classic laws (Identity and Excluded Middle). Attempting to communicate with him is like attempting to describe the moment before the Big Bang or the inside of a black hole. Our laws of physics simply don't allow these things because those laws don't hold true in those circumstances. So, too, our laws of linguistics apparently don't hold true or permit communication with Anonymous.

Marc said...

A2, did you happen upon Quanta Cura, the encyclical promulgated by Pope Pius IX with the Syllabus?

You might also consider reading Cantate Domino, Unam Sanctam, Mirari Vos, and Mortalium Animos to gather an understanding of the constant nature of the proposition, especially 15, set out in the Syllabus.

Gene said...

Anon 2 wants to place EG and the Syllabus on the same footing, thus reducing the authority of the Syllabus and elevating EG, a non-authoritative Vat II mish mash, to a higher plane. Won't work.

Gene said...

If we disengage with the Anonymous in question, we also must disengage with Kavanaugh since they are the same person. I'm all for it, but all three of us need to do so and not get sucked back in by his illogic, arrogance, and dilettantism. We are certainly wasting ink on him, but deceivers like him need to be answered for the sake of those who may actually take him seriously, not having understood Eph. 6. But, there are plenty of others on the blog who can deal with him.

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws (and Marc):

Thank you for doing that helpful research advancing the conversation.

Re your Part I: I cannot get the link for Maxima Quidem to work. However, perhaps that does not matter as I did manage to find an English translation of the entire document, published very recently it seems:

https://thejosias.com/2015/06/10/maxima-quidem/

Here is what seems to be one very pertinent passage:

“Thus, according to the prating of these most unruly adherents of perverse dogmas, the moral law is in no need of divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary for human laws to conform to natural right or receive their binding force from God. And therefore they assert that there is no divine law.

In addition, they dare to deny any activity of God in men and in the world. And they rashly assert that human reason, without any reference to God, is the only judge of truth and falsehood, good and evil, and that human reason is a law unto itself, and suffices by its own natural power for the care of the good of persons and peoples. But since they perversely dare to derive all truths of religion from the inborn force of human reason, they assign to man a certain basic right, from which he can think and speak about religion as he likes, and give such honor and worship to God as he finds more agreeable to himself.

But they indeed arrive at the impiety and effrontery to try to attack heaven and remove God Himself from our midst. With singular lack of principle, equal only to their folly, they do not scruple to assert that there is no all wise and provident Divine Being distinct from the things of this world, and that God is identical to nature, and that He is therefore subject to change; and that God is really coming to be in man and in the world; and that all things are really God and of God’s substance; and that God and the world are really one and the same thing, and so too spirit and matter, necessity and freedom, truth and falsehood, good and evil, just and unjust are all really the same.

Certainly nothing more demented, nothing more impious, nothing more repugnant to reason itself can ever be imagined or devised than this. But they prattle about authority and right so heedlessly, that they impudently say that authority is nothing other than the sum of number and material forces, and that right consists in material fact, and that all duties of men are an empty name, and that all human deeds have the force of right.”

The fifteenth error in the Syllabus seems to resonate with the second paragraph, and if this is indeed the relevant text, then it would indeed seem to provide a limiting context for the statement in the Syllabus.

[continued]

Anonymous 2 said...

Re your Part II:

(a) The Wikipedia article also mentions Félix Dupanloup but provides no citation unless the citation for the Newman quote is intended to cover both (more on that cite below). Here is the Wikipedia entry for Dupanloup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9lix_Dupanloup

(b) I am sorry but I cannot get this link to work either. As to providing the documents, please see my response to your Part I above. As to burdens, please see my previous post of 1:07 a.m. on June 30.

(c) Yes, but what exactly is “the rule of your teaching”—the statements in the Syllabus alone or the statements in the referenced and summarized documents or the statements in the Syllabus_and_the statements in those documents? Here we have another question of interpretation.
________________________
On the general question of interpretation of magisterial pronouncements, the following book (cited as the source for the Newman quote in the Wikipedia article) seems to be very relevant. I have been meaning to obtain it for some time (it is in my Books to Get file) but still have not yet done so:

https://www.amazon.com/Creative-Fidelity-Interpreting-Documents-Magisterium/dp/1592442080



Anonymous 2 said...

Marc:

Thanks, I will try to read those documents (again?) later today. I have no more time right now.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene:

What I want or do not want (or what Three Classic Laws or Marc, or indeed what you, want or do not want) should not be relevant. Let’s follow the evidence and the arguments where they lead. But let’s not_necessarily_expect a clear answer (which brings me back to my default position, stated years ago and shared by Anonymous, of deferring to the hierarchy).

Marc said...

A2, it seems Three Laws has you busy. Focusing on the discussion with him would likely be more profitable, so I'll bow out for now.

Have a great Fourth of July! Or, well, do you American Brits celebrate the Fourth of July...? :-)

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

A2,

Thanks for finding Maxima Quidem. The links seem to work for me. To bypass them, though, go to Google Books and search for the following: Bernard O'Reilly, A Life of Pius IX and William George WARD A second Letter to Father Ryder. If that doesn't work I shall get the pdfs of the books to you somehow.

Re your other comments, just a few generalizations since I've already spent too much time researching all of this. First, I'm not sure exactly how MQ would limit Prop. 15. Second, by chasing it thus in a search for the proper context or seeking to interpret all of the documents holisticlaly, as you suggest may be the correct approach, we drift towards that same infinite regression that I mentioned several posts ago. That way lies epistemological nihilism. I prefer the plain meaning approach to Prop. 15 since a) Prop 15's meaning is . . . uh . . . plain, b) it was ratified by Pius and thus is presumably as authoritative as any of the documents upon which it was based, and c) arguably is exactly the sort of summary of text and context of prior statements that you seem to be seeking.

Here's a question: let's say you arrived at an understanding (I'll call it understanding U), based on valid contextual and hermeneutical analysis, that unquestionably supported your position. Would you then let is rest and declare the issue was settled? Or would you be open to a further exploration of the context which threatened, at least in theory, to refute U? (My point being that no matter how far one goes in terms of contextual/hermeneutical analysis, one could always take it one step further.)

Gene said...

You are wasting your time. Anon 2 is a doctrinal relativist, such that there is nothing that is absolute or exempt from de-construction or rationalizing. He and Kavanaugh are much alike, with the possible exception that Anon 2 doesn't really know just what he believes and all of this head trip BS is reflective of his personal struggle with the Faith. I hope that is the case, otherwise he is just another academic who has lost his faith (such as it was) and is struggling to keep playing the game. Kavanaugh knows exactly what he is doing and the whole blog/faith discussion is merely a game to him.

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws (and Marc):

“You are wasting your time.”

Well, we had better stop then. Gene has spoken!

Thank you for the good conversation.

Happy Fourth everyone!

Anonymous said...

Who among the posters here has referred to the President as a N*****R and then defended himself by saying that all his intelligent buddies do the same?

And who here has proudly and, recently again, announced that he skips Mass?

And who among us has rejected the Church's teaching on the killing of innocents?

The deceiver, that's who. By his fruit you shall know him.

As much as Gene likes to pretend that he's a "T"raditional Catholic and a defender of Catholic belief and teaching, his words reveal that this is not the case.

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws (and Marc):

Upon reflection I think that Gene’s comment is best ignored. I don’t think he should be permitted to interrupt a reasonable and civilized conversation between adults.

I could not put our conversation out of my mind and decided to confront the issue of plain meaning. Therefore I went back to look at the relevant passage in Evangelii Gaudium. When I did so I read the following:

“255. The Synod Fathers spoke of the importance of respect for religious freedom, viewed as a fundamental human right.[202] This includes ‘the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public’.[203] A healthy pluralism, one which genuinely respects differences and values them as such, does not entail privatizing religions in an attempt to reduce them to the quiet obscurity of the individual’s conscience or to relegate them to the enclosed precincts of churches, synagogues or mosques. This would represent, in effect, a new form of discrimination and authoritarianism. The respect due to the agnostic or non-believing minority should not be arbitrarily imposed in a way that silences the convictions of the believing majority or ignores the wealth of religious traditions. In the long run, this would feed resentment rather than tolerance and peace.”

As you can see, the language that troubles you is not even Pope Francis’s language. Judging by the sources cited in note 203, he seems to be quoting from an earlier document authored by Pope Benedict, i.e., the 2012 post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Ecclesia in Medio Oriente” Here is a link:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20120914_ecclesia-in-medio-oriente.html#_ftnref21

Searching for a relevant passage in this document I came upon paragraph 26, which reads as follows:

“26. Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public.[21] It must be possible to profess and freely manifest one’s religion and its symbols without endangering one’s life and personal freedom. Religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the person; it safeguards moral freedom and fosters mutual respect. Jews, with their long experience of often deadly assaults, know full well the benefits of religious freedom. For their part, Muslims share with Christians the conviction that no constraint in religious matters, much less the use of force, is permitted. Such constraint, which can take multiple and insidious forms on the personal and social, cultural, administrative and political levels, is contrary to God’s will. It gives rise to political and religious exploitation, discrimination and violence leading to death. God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).”

Footnote 21 cites the following sources:

“[21] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, 2-8; Benedict XVI, Message for the 2011 World Day of Peace (8 December 2010): AAS 103 (2011), 46-48; Address to Members of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See (10 January 2011): AAS 103 (2011), 100-107.”

So, before I can confront the issue of plain meaning (or lack thereof) by comparing the language of Evangelii Gaudium and Proposition 15 in the Syllabus, I have to deal with the preliminary issues of (a) who is the target here: Pope Francis or Pope Benedict? and (b) How do the textual context of paragraph 26 above and the cited sources in note 21 affect the meaning (plain or otherwise) of the language that Pope Francis quotes, but does not originate, in Evangelii Gaudium?

What are your thoughts about all this?


Gene said...

Anon 2, I assure you I am not the only one who feels this way. People do communicate.

Gene said...

Anon 2, You have spent the vast majority of your time on this blog defending Muslims and attempting to relativize Church teaching in order to support Muslims, gays and adulterers. Your efforts on the blog have all been toward loosening the structure of Church teaching and rationalizing departures there from. As Three Classic Laws intimated, you always try to take things back to another level regardless of the illogic of doing so. I know you are not stupid, and you are not a dilettante like Kavanaugh, so I can only conclude that you are deliberately attempting to subvert Church teaching and relativize dogma to fit your liberal, Modernist perspective. Your kissing up to Kavanaugh is further evidence of where your true feelings lie. Dealing with you is, indeed, a waste of time except for, perhaps the mental exercise or the bizarre entertainment of seeing just how ridiculous your intellectual twists and turns may become...I say "intellectual," but even academic rationalization approaches chaos after a time.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

A2,

I'll break my reply into three parts (I think we have a record here for thread with the most posts!). This is part I.

Regarding your first question as to "target": If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I don't), you're suggesting/assuming that in this part of our conversation (i.e., A/not-A discussion) I'm targeting a particular person for saying something that may be an official negation of Catholic teaching. If so, that's incorrect. I'm targeting the Magisterium itself, or at least the assertion that the Magisterium (or any human agent thereof) has legitimately taught both A and not-A. I will elaborate below in Parts II and III. (I will say that if any pope is complicit in purporting to authoritatively teach doctrines that contradict established doctrines, he will draw my criticism regardless of whether he is Francis, Benedict, or anyone else.)

Regarding your second question, I propose to hold it in abeyance for now for the following reason: EG and the documents it cites--including para. 26 of Benedict's Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, which you quote above--appear to be glosses (authoritative glosses) on an idea first formally introduced in Dignitatis Humanae. I thus propose to examine the text of Dignitatis Humanae and stipulate to the contents of the subsequent documents you've cited.

In Part II I shall provide extensive quotations from some of the documents Marc has cited in his 4:04, along with others. My purpose in doing so is twofold: 1) to show that Prop. 15 is a fair summary of what the Church had authoritatively and repeatedly taught in several documents, thus attesting to the nature of the context you seek and 2) to show that both Prop. 15 and its context stand in stark contrast to Dignitatis Humanae and subsequesnt statements.

In Part III I shall quote the troublesome language from Dignitatis Humanae. I shall also cheerfully incorporate by reference the paragraph you've quoted from Benedict XVI's Ecclesia in Medio Oriente. My purpose is to contrast those statements with the ones in Part II. In other words, Part II is A and Part III is not-A (or part II is not-A and Part III is A--I don't care which).

My challenge is, again, simple: Either 1) reconcile the language of documents in Part II with those in Part III to show that they don't contradict each other, or 2) demonstrate that all of the documents in either part II or Part III aren't magisterial. If you want to add a 3) regarding examining the context, I'm just not sure I can go with that. If you want to say, for instance, that all the documents of Part II come from a specific century in the Church's history, that's an awful lot of history to discount, especially since the circumstances of that period to which the popes were speaking apply even more strongly today. Of course, if you want to argue that something in that century/period rendered all of the documents non-magisterial, I would provisionally accept that approach, pending proof.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

PART IIa: I have to break it down further for purposes of length. (I should preface that the ellipses are used and intended for brevity. They are not intended to take statements out of context. If you think I've been unfair in my deletions, by all means say so.)

**Prop. 15: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

**Mirari Vos (On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism) Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI August 15, 1832: “This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. ‘But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,’ as Augustine was wont to say.”

**Quanta Cura (Condemning Current Errors) Pope Pius IX Encyclical promulgated on 8 December 1864: “For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of ‘naturalism,’ as they call it, dare to teach that ‘the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.’ And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.’ From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an ‘insanity,’2 viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.’"

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

PART IIb

**Quas Primas, Encyclical OF Pope Pius XI, On The Feast Of Christ The King:
“24. If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities. This evil spirit, as you are well aware, Venerable Brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further, and wished to set up in the place of God's religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences. We lamented these in the Encyclical Ubi arcano; we lament them today: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin.”


The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

PART IIc

**Immortale dei, Encyclical of Pope Leo Xiii On the Christian Constitution of States: “23. But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible unheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. 24. Amongst these principles the main one lays down that as all men are alike by race and nature, so in like manner all are equal in the control of their life … that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do …. 25. … And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State … believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favour; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief. 26. And it is a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgment; that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all. From this the following consequences logically flow: that the judgment of each one's conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks. 27. Now, when the State rests on foundations like those just named - and for the time being they are greatly in favor - it readily appears into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven. For, when the management of public business is in harmony with doctrines of such a kind, the Catholic religion is allowed a standing in civil society equal only, or inferior, to societies alien from it; no regard is paid to the laws of the Church, and she who, by the order and commission of Jesus Christ, has the duty of teaching all nations, finds herself forbidden to take any part in the instruction of the people. With reference to matters that are of twofold jurisdiction, they who administer the civil power lay down the law at their own will, and in matters that appertain to religion defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of the Church. They claim jurisdiction over the marriages of Catholics, even over the bond as well as the unity and the indissolubility of matrimony.… If in any State the Church retains her own agreement publicly entered into by the two powers, men forthwith begin to cry out that matters affecting the Church must be separated from those of the State. … 30. Now, natural reason itself proves convincingly that such concepts of the government of a State are wholly at variance with the truth. Nature itself bears witness that all power, of every kind, has its origin from God, who is its chief and most august source.”

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

Now, finally, Part III (i.e. contra all of the Parts II)


**Dignitatis Humanae "2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed."

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Anon 2, Gene is simply wrong. You have not attempted, "to relativize Church teaching in order to support Muslims, gays and adulterers." This is yet another example of Gene's inability 1) to understand the Church's teaching without his own highly prejudicial thought-filters, and 2) to understand that little but very necessary thing called "nuance."

You also haven't "defended Muslims." Rather you have responded to bigoted stereotyping and to ignorance of most thing Islamic.

Gene doesn't want to "deal" with me, so he resorts to third grade tactics - calling names, hurling insults, and making scatological references. It's a shame, because he's smarter than this.

I have concluded that, since he sees his candidate for the Presidency, Donald Trump, (see his comment at February 22, 2016 at 6:38 AM) dropping like a rock in the polls, his anger will double and redouble, his rants will become more and more frantic, and his refusal to deal with issues instead of silly ad hominem attacks will get more vitriolic.

Hang in there! We're in for a wild ride!

Gene said...

Kavanaugh, you may defend Anon 2 all you like. It is exactly what I would expect from you. You, once again, misrepresent my posts. Fr. did not post my initial response to you, which had something to do with your value as a creature, but I will not bother to post an edited version. It is unfortunate that the Church is filled with "Priests" just like you, unbelieving, prevaricating, engaged in living an inauthentic existence while deceiving real believers and other faithful. But, this is where we have come to...which is why the Church is in such dire straits. You and, of course, Anon 2, think everything is just fine and continue to play games. You love to list my sins and dig up quotes, which is quite hilarious to me. But, I will pose this question for the sake of those who may be reading...which is worse, a believing sinner who calls names and makes acerbic remarks, or a willful unbelieving Priest who pretends both to belief and pastoral competence?

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws:

Thank you so much for setting out the pertinent passages. This is very helpful and will enable everyone to understand the point on which issue is joined. I have read through all the passages and have some initial reactions. Before I respond, however, I want to read them through more closely and to reflect some more.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father Kavanaugh:

Thank you for your comments. The problem Gene has with us seems to be similar. First, we both base ourselves on Church teaching (although your own knowledge of this teaching is much more extensive than my own; but I have learned a lot through these interactions on the Blog and researching in preparing responses). Second, we both have an awareness of “nuance.” In other words we try to bring critical thinking skills to bear on various issues.

I do not question Gene’s good intentions or sincerity (in this I give him the benefit of the doubt), but I do suspect that he sees our comments as threatening and reacts in the manner of a True Believer (as opposed to a true believer), as I have suggested elsewhere. These reactions include the playground tactics you mention as well as stereotyping and pigeon-holing. We have to be forced into one of the boxes/categories that are associated with his worldview because only in this way can the perceived threat be contained. In this particular aspect he is not alone on this Blog. Two boxes that are now especially serviceable to this purpose in my case are “doctrinal relativist” and “liberal Modernist.”

Gene:

And so I challenge you to demonstrate just exactly what I have said that “relativize[s] Church teaching” or “loosen[s] the structure of Church teaching or rationaliz[es] departure therefrom.” You have made the allegation. Now show us the evidence to support it.

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws:

Re targeting: I do appreciate that your arguments are general and not explicitly directed at any one figure, specifically Pope Francis. However, you will have to concede that this entire thread began with yet more Francis-bashing and that that your own entry into the fray occurred in this context and indeed referenced “the notorious paragraph in AL.”

This said, my question about targeting was not so much directed at you as other commentators on this thread.

Re the passages: I have to get ready for Mass now but will continue my responses after I return. Let me just say, as a preliminary matter, though, that one thing came through clearly to me when I read the various passages you quoted—an overriding concern about the position of the Catholic Church in the “Zeitgeist” of the nineteenth century. For me this concern colors the proper understanding of these texts in relation to the Vatican II documents. I have found confirmation of this point in various researches that I will share after I get back.



Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Gene - I have not misrepresented you in the least.

Your did call the President a n****r, a post which Fr. McDonald removed. You defended your racist slur by saying all your intelligent friends do the same.

You did announce that you skipped mass and you have announced relatively recently that you are still doing so.

You have repeatedly asserted that Muslims - all of them - should be carpet-bombed or thermo-nuclear bombed.

And you have never, not once, given a shred of evidence that I am an "unbelieving Priest." Not once.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"We have to be forced into one of the boxes/categories that are associated with his worldview because only in this way can the perceived threat be contained."

Indeed.

Marc said...

I guess they didn't teach Kavanaugh about the sin of detraction at his Novus Ordo "seminary."

Gene said...

I called there person in the White House the HNIC. There is a difference.

I did not "announce" that I skipped Mass...I said it in context of despairing at how bad the oF is in most places, in particular, the one I attended. I added that I went to Confession and that I felt bad about it...Priest...

I stand by my Muslim comments...they are enemies of the Church and are in a declared war (on their part) with us. That is covered in CCC.

You have given all the evidence anyone needs to realize that you are a pretender. Your own posts on this blog dating back years are plenty of evidence.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

A2,

Re targeting, and to clarify, point conceded about how I entered the thread. But that was at least 50 posts ago, :-), and I have long since considered that he discussion has moved beyond Francis and AL.

Briefly, I would note that not all of these documents/passages are set in a nineteenth century context. Quas Primas was issued in 1925 and was expressly reacting to the effects of WWI, which destroyed vast swaths of nineteenth century thought. Nevertheless, the particular concerns the popes had with the nineteenth century zeitgeisten--i.e., liberty of conscience--still remain today, a legacy of the Enlightenment and, particularly, the French Revolution.

In sum, the popes have said, over and over again, in different historical circumstances and using different words, that the Church condemns freedom of religion. Even the contexts support these readings. In contrast, VII states that freedom of religion is a right.

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws:

I am sorry to be late in responding but after Mass there was grocery shopping and then dinner with the family.

For the purposes of our discussion I will stipulate to the following: that all the documents you quote for A are part of the ordinary and universal infallible magisterium and that the documents related to not A do not enjoy this status. Also, I will not venture outside the text to consider historical circumstances to challenge a plain meaning that arises from the text (although I will do to support such a meaning). In other words I will make my task the most difficult one. I will adopt your helpful format. Part I will compare language. Part II will seek to explain the language used. Part III will supply some references for additional research.

Part I: As lawyers we both know how critical it is to start with the actual language at issue, in its textual context.

First, then, the contested notion in EG (Pope Francis quoting Pope Benedict) is that “Religious freedom . . . includes ‘the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public.” Now compare this language with the language of proposition 15 in the Syllabus: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” The language is not the same. In particular, the language in EG speaks of “the religion which one judges to be true” whereas the Syllabus speaks of “that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” The stress on “the light of reason” should tip us off to something important. After all Pope Pius could simply have said “that religion which he shall consider true” but he didn’t. Why not? More on this later in Part II. Question to ponder: Are religious Jews and Muslims guided solely by the light of reason?

Second, the other passages you cite all seem to be concerned about an extreme position that maintains an absolute and unqualified freedom of conscience (not just freedom of “religion) for everyone. Thus:

 “that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone” (Mirari Vos)
 “liberty of conscience and worship . . . . a right to an absolute liberty which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever . . .” (Quanta Cura)
 “[T]he plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities . . . There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God.” (Quas Primas)
 “Amongst these principles the main one lays down that . . . each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do. . . [A]ll questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgment; that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all . . . [E]very one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks. . . . [The Church] finds herself forbidden to take any part in the instruction of the people.” (Immortale dei)

Perhaps you have a different sense from mine but all this starts to create a picture of a Church under siege by forces championing absolute liberty of conscience (and resulting action) without any interference from a Church that must be banished from the public square.

[continued]

Anonymous 2 said...

Third, does the Vatican II Church no longer have a problem with these things? Has she changed her doctrine on such matters? Again, we must pay close attention to the language of the relevant documents.

 Critical language in DH qualifies the freedom of religion. Notice, in particular, that the right to religious freedom is asserted only “within due limits” and “provided that just public order is observed.”

 In EG Pope Francis immediately goes on to assert the right of religious believers to public expression of their faith, which should not be coercively confined to the private sphere so as to “silence[] the convictions of the believing majority or to ignore the wealth of religious traditions.”

Part II: Many argue that despite the striking differences in tone and approach DH is a development of Church teaching and not a reversal of it. One source I discovered while researching for this response observes as follows (see the first link in Part III):

“[T]he 19th-century popes . . . had witnessed numerous massacres and open persecutions of priests, religious, and laity in Europe and elsewhere. They witnessed the overthrow of the Papal States and found themselves locked up in the Lateran. Bishops, empowered by hostile governments, were in open rebellion against the popes.

At the root of all this hostility was the new philosophy of the age, a philosophy that argued that reason was the only measure of truth, while tradition and religion were enemies of freedom. Instead of freedom being at the service of truth, truth was at the service of a nearly unbridled freedom. Kant may have believed in a moral order, but with Nietzsche came Beyond Good and Evil. It was the birth of liberalism. . . .

From the start, therefore, the reason for addressing the issue of religious liberty at the Council was radically different from previous attempts. The previous popes were combating liberal excesses that denied any limits to freedom. The Council was laying out what justice demands for human dignity. The popes were writing to Catholic bishops. The Council was speaking to the whole world. The popes were writing on the duties of the State. The Council was focused on the rights of individuals. Is it any wonder the language was so different? Still, the difference is only cosmetic.”

And another source observes (see the second link in Part III):

“[T]here is a serious conflict of policy between Pius IX and Vatican II on our present topic. Pius IX confronted bourgeois revolutionary movements in the full heat of ideological passion, still tasting the first successes of their efforts to transform society; he hoped to roll back those successes and committed the Church to a policy of resistance and restoration; Vatican II confronted the remnants of those movements, gorged with victory but ideologically spent, in the midst of societies more or less irreversibly transformed by a variety of ‘modernizing’ pressures; the Council hoped to ameliorate and gradually ‘Christianize’ these post-liberal societies; abandoning restorationist aims and resistances, Vatican II committed the Church to a policy of accepting the status quo and trying to make the best of it.”

In this light, isn’t it possible to see Pope Francis as attempting to find an even more effective way to engage the world and thereby to create the conditions for a greater receptivity to hearing the truths of the Catholic Church?

Anonymous 2 said...

Part III: Further research and reflection. I think that this is the best I can do with this topic for the moment. I don’t believe in reinventing the wheel and I suspect we could both benefit from further research and reflection. My research term (on Google) was: “How can the Vatican II teaching on religious liberty be reconciled with the earlier teaching of the Catholic Church? I found many sources. The first two argue that there is no contradiction, the first article being a much more basic treatment than the much more complex second article (which will appeal to your fondness for logical analysis):

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1883/vatican_ii_and_religious_liberty.aspx

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8778

And here is at least a partial response that seems to be written from an SSPX type perspective:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-1115-salza-vaticansspx_discussion.htm

Many other sources are brought up by this search term.

Thank you for this very productive and enjoyable exchange. I have learned a lot from our conversation. How do you wish to proceed? Should we continue offline? If so, perhaps Father McDonald can put us in touch with one another.


Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Let me add this one into the mix as well. It also refers to the second article.You now have the first four items that come up for me with my search term:

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FR89103.HTM

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene:

“I stand by my Muslim comments...they are enemies of the Church and are in a declared war (on their part) with us. That is covered in CCC.”

Where in the CCC?

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Gene - The only difference between "HNIC" (which means Head N****r In Chief) and "n****r" is a few letters. You called him a n****r, and there is no running away from that fact.

You announced here, in a public forum, that, when the liturgy does not meet your standards, you skip it. And you have said more recently that you are continuing that practice.

You can stand by your Muslim are "enemies of the Church" comments all you want. However, when you advocate carpet bombing Muslim populations, you directly contradict the Church's teaching which forbids killing non-combatants.

Add to that, you have stated that, unless Bishops are speaking "in persona Christi" or "ex cathedra,"they should be ignored. Again, this directly contradicts the Church's teaching on the authority of Bishops.

Nothing misrepresented here.



Gene said...

The stuff about killing enemies in war.

Gene said...

Again, Kavanaugh, you misrepresent my statements, but it does not matter, I have decided that you are both too stupid and too meaningless to engage any further.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

A2,

As we appear (at last!) to be winding down the exchange, I’ll try to wrap up with general thoughts, with and attempt not to introduce any new ones. This is in two parts.

1) Your picture of “a Church under siege by forces championing absolute liberty of conscience (and resulting action) without any interference from a Church that must be banished from the public square” I think is meant to describe the Church in the nineteenth century; but I see exactly that same circumstance today, if not more so, in American and Western society, as well as in totalitarian ones. In fact, I think it blatantly obvious, at least in American society. The Part II papal statements therefore apply now as they did then, in the same way and for the same reasons. I thus argue that this, as well as plain meaning, puts them on a potentially collision course with DH and subsequent statements.

2) I accept your 11:58 and 12:15 links as good evidence of recognition of the problem under discussion, viz., an at least apparent doctrinal contradiction between DH and the prior papal statements under discussion, as well its potential enormity. The links also more or less fairly represent the general types of response to the problem from the various sides (“more or less” because all seem agenda-driven, some more so than others).

3) Restating my essential point, there are only four possibilities. Going from most to least catastrophic, these are: A) the teachings do contradict each other doctrinally, and thus the Church has formally taught error; B) the teachings, all of which are doctrinal, don’t contradict each other; C) the teachings do contradict each other, but at least one set isn’t doctrinal; D) the teachings don’t contradict each other, and furthermore at least one set isn’t doctrinal.

4) Everyone seems to be trying to avoid possibility A, so I won’t chase that here, except to note that if we cannot find B, C, or D acceptable, that’s where we end up; hence the enormity of the issue. Conversely, nobody seems to be paying much, if any, attention to D; I suppose somebody somewhere is arguing it, but for our purposes it’s tangential. For the record, I’d certainly be willing to accept it.

The Three Classic Laws of Thought said...

Continued/concluded

5) The problem I have with B is that the degree of analysis it takes to reconcile the two sets is, to my mind, overly intricate and involves (to quote from Marshner, your first link “a tortured hermeneutic … of the major Papal encyclicals from the 19th century” (saving space, not cherry picking!). This type of analysis, as I’ve noted, is potentially infinitely regressive, extremely complex, and (among other things) fails to comprehend the nature of Hohfeldian concepts of rights and duties. Perhaps the greatest criticism of the approach is that it leaves the believer unsure of what to believe or how to proceed in any given circumstance since the reconciliation process is so complex (see Marshner specifically as a prime example), and if valid leads to what I’ve already described as epistemological nihilism, a Catholicism in which we don’t have the truth about anything but instead must seek it forever (without much or any hope of finding it). This state of affairs isn’t improved at all by the fact that competent magisterial authority, thus far, has (unlike all the unofficial commentators) seemed uninterested in doing any reconciling. Their response, when pressed (e.g. by SSPX) is simply “Shut up and accept it.”

6) In contrast, C is the Occam’s Razor approach. Several popes spoke authoritatively and with clarity, and one summed it up (or at least approved the summing up) with equal or greater clarity (Prop. 15). The language is clear and straightforward. It leads to relative certainty about what the Church teaches and how I should behave. It follows (and is easy to comprehend) that DH, and thus subsequent statements that are based upon it, are merely pastoral, thus removing any doctrinal inconsistency. For obvious reasons, I think this is by far the better approach (as well as being the correct one!).

There’s much--very much--more that could be said on both sides, but unless you take exception to anything, I’m content to leave it there. At any rate, I’ll defer to you if you want to have the last word. Thanks!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Gene, are you now saying you didn't call the President a n****r and that you didn't rationalize it by saying all your "intelligent" friends do the same?

Are you saying that you did not post on this blog that you have skipped mass because you didn't like the way the priest celebrated mass?

Are you saying you have not repeatedly rejected the Church's teaching regarding the immorality and evil of the slaughter of non-combatants?

All are hour assertions. You don't have to engage with me, but you will always have to engage with your own rejection of the Church's teaching.

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws:

Thank you for the response. As you say there is much more that could be said. There is also much more to be studied and thought about. I do have thee parting comments:

(1) If I understand them correctly, the first link I provided and the one I added subsequently argue for your possibility B; the second link argues for your possibility D; the third link argues for your possibility C.

(2) Regarding your concern that the reasoning for possibility B, or indeed by extension the reasoning for possibility D and/or how to choose between B and D, is so complex that “it leaves the believer unsure of what to believe or how to proceed in any given circumstance,” I would offer two thoughts as reassurance:

(a) The magisterial reasoning that you seek is likely present in the totality of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II corpus, including the CCC and Dominus Jesus;

(b) We can apply the presumption of orthodoxy to any uncertainty and accept this corpus and the positions of the Church reflected in them without worrying too much about it. Speaking for myself, I have said before on this Blog that I neither possess, nor claim as legitimately mine, the competence to determine these matters of interpretation. Surely, then, God will not fault me (or you) for following the current teaching of His Church and will not expect me (or you) to second guess this teaching—unless someone clearly demonstrates that it is erroneous and should not be accepted. As far as I know, such clear demonstration has not been made.

(3) Finally, I return to proposition 15 in the Syllabus and to what I said about it earlier. Applying a plain meaning approach (apart from the ambiguity of whether the freedom being addressed is moral freedom or civil freedom or both) I cannot get away from the notion that the freedom being proscribed is the freedom to follow and profess whatever religion a person thinks true “guided [only] by the light of reason;” and that the proscribed freedom of religion is therefore an extreme, unlimited freedom that bases a religion in reason alone and not according to that “ray of that truth which enlightens all men” (Nostra Aetate) or “by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation” (Redemption Missio)—in other words, a freedom that denies the fundamentals of the Abrahamic faiths and furthermore that asserts its own peculiar form of religious belief.

In support I adduce the following extract from Maxima Quidem, one of the texts cited in proposition 15, which will convey a good sense of what Pope Pius may have had in mind when using the limiting language “guided by the light of reason”:

[continued]

Anonymous 2 said...

“Further, they do not hesitate to assert, with the greatest impudence, that divine revelation is not only useless, but even harmful to human improvement, and that revelation is incomplete and therefore subject to a continuous and indefinite development corresponding to the progress of human reason.

Nor do they fear to claim that the prophecies and miracles described and recounted by the sacred scriptures are nothing but the inventions of poets, and the sacred mysteries of our divine faith the result of philosophical speculations, and the sacred books of both Testaments full of invented myths and even (horribile dictu!) that Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is a mythical fiction.

Thus, according to the prating of these most unruly adherents of perverse dogmas, the moral law is in no need of divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary for human laws to conform to natural right or receive their binding force from God. And therefore they assert that there is no divine law.

In addition, they dare to deny any activity of God in men and in the world. And they rashly assert that human reason, without any reference to God, is the only judge of truth and falsehood, good and evil, and that human reason is a law unto itself, and suffices by its own natural power for the care of the good of persons and peoples. But since they perversely dare to derive all truths of religion from the inborn force of human reason, they assign to man a certain basic right, from which he can think and speak about religion as he likes, and give such honor and worship to God as he finds more agreeable to himself.

But they indeed arrive at the impiety and effrontery to try to attack heaven and remove God Himself from our midst. With singular lack of principle, equal only to their folly, they do not scruple to assert that there is no all wise and provident Divine Being distinct from the things of this world, and that God is identical to nature, and that He is therefore subject to change; and that God is really coming to be in man and in the world; and that all things are really God and of God’s substance; and that God and the world are really one and the same thing, and so too spirit and matter, necessity and freedom, truth and falsehood, good and evil, just and unjust are all really the same.”

Of course, ideally I also need to read the other document referred to in Proposition 15 (Multiplices inter) but we do not appear to have ready access to that one.


Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws:

Note: The continuation of my post at 12:24 a.m. seems to have made it through but not the first part. So here is the first part again:

Thank you for the response. As you say there is much more that could be said. There is also much more to be studied and thought about. I do have thee parting comments:

(1) If I understand them correctly, the first link I provided and the one I added subsequently argue for your possibility B; the second link argues for your possibility D; the third link argues for your possibility C.

(2) Regarding your concern that the reasoning for possibility B, or indeed by extension the reasoning for possibility D and/or how to choose between B and D, is so complex that “it leaves the believer unsure of what to believe or how to proceed in any given circumstance,” I would offer two thoughts as reassurance:

(a) The magisterial reasoning that you seek is likely present in the totality of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II corpus, including the CCC and Dominus Jesus;

(b) We can apply the presumption of orthodoxy to any uncertainty and accept this corpus and the positions of the Church reflected in them without worrying too much about it. Speaking for myself, I have said before on this Blog that I neither possess, nor claim as legitimately mine, the competence to determine these matters of interpretation. Surely, then, God will not fault me (or you) for following the current teaching of His Church and will not expect me (or you) to second guess this teaching—unless someone clearly demonstrates that it is erroneous and should not be accepted. As far as I know, such clear demonstration has not been made.

(3) Finally, I return to proposition 15 in the Syllabus and to what I said about it earlier. Applying a plain meaning approach (apart from the ambiguity of whether the freedom being addressed is moral freedom or civil freedom or both) I cannot get away from the notion that the freedom being proscribed is the freedom to follow and profess whatever religion a person thinks true “guided [only] by the light of reason;” and that the proscribed freedom of religion is therefore an extreme, unlimited freedom that bases a religion in reason alone and not according to that “ray of that truth which enlightens all men” (Nostra Aetate) or “by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation” (Redemption Missio)—in other words, a freedom that denies the fundamentals of the Abrahamic faiths and furthermore that asserts its own peculiar form of religious belief.

In support I adduce the follwing extract from Maxima Quidem, one of the texts cited in proposition 15, which will convey a good sense of what Pope Pius may have had in mind when using the limiting language “guided by the light of reason”:

[continued]

Anonymous 2 said...

Three Classic Laws:

Note: The continuation of my post at 12:24 a.m. seems to have made it through but not the first part, although I have tried to send it twice now. The continuation makes little sense without the first part. This is my third attempt. I have no idea what the problem is. Perhaps my computer is malfunctioning, or perhaps Father McDonald’s Blog technology is just observing the occasion by engaging in another act of rebellion against a British post =):

Thank you for the response. As you say there is much more that could be said. There is also much more to be studied and thought about. I do have thee parting comments:

(1) If I understand them correctly, the first link I provided and the one I added subsequently argue for your possibility B; the second link argues for your possibility D; the third link argues for your possibility C.

(2) Regarding your concern that the reasoning for possibility B, or indeed by extension the reasoning for possibility D and/or how to choose between B and D, is so complex that “it leaves the believer unsure of what to believe or how to proceed in any given circumstance,” I would offer two thoughts as reassurance:

(a) The magisterial reasoning that you seek is likely present in the totality of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II corpus, including the CCC and Dominus Jesus;

(b) We can apply the presumption of orthodoxy to any uncertainty and accept this corpus and the positions of the Church reflected in them without worrying too much about it. Speaking for myself, I have said before on this Blog that I neither possess, nor claim as legitimately mine, the competence to determine these matters of interpretation. Surely, then, God will not fault me (or you) for following the current teaching of His Church and will not expect me (or you) to second guess this teaching—unless someone clearly demonstrates that it is erroneous and should not be accepted. As far as I know, such clear demonstration has not been made.

(3) Finally, I return to proposition 15 in the Syllabus and to what I said about it earlier. Applying a plain meaning approach (apart from the ambiguity of whether the freedom being addressed is moral freedom or civil freedom or both) I cannot get away from the notion that the freedom being proscribed is the freedom to follow and profess whatever religion a person thinks true “guided [only] by the light of reason;” and that the proscribed freedom of religion is therefore an extreme, unlimited freedom that bases a religion in reason alone and not according to that “ray of that truth which enlightens all men” (Nostra Aetate) or “by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation” (Redemption Missio)—in other words, a freedom that denies the fundamentals of the Abrahamic faiths and furthermore that asserts its own peculiar form of religious belief.

In support I adduce the follwing extract from Maxima Quidem, one of the texts cited in proposition 15, which will convey a good sense of what Pope Pius may have had in mind when using the limiting language “guided by the light of reason”:

Anonymous 2 said...

In light of the Brexit vote that the U.K. leave the European Union and thus of the likely thwarted opportunity for Britain to acquire a substitute United States, to wit the United States of Europe, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has today re-issued the following royal proclamation continuing the “Forgive and Forget” Program first announced several years ago on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee:

Any American who swears allegiance to Her Majesty within seven calendar days of July 4 of this year will receive a full pardon with ancestral retroactive effect to the time of the Revolution. Applications should be postmarked no later than midnight GMT on July 11, 2014 and sent, in triplicate, to the following address:

Mr. M.E.L. Gibson, C.B.E.
Forgive and Forget Program
1776 If You Believe This, You’ll Believe Anything Street,
London WC 1
United Kingdom

_____________

I just thought readers might like to know about this amazing opportunity. For some inexplicable reason the announcements in previous years resulted in zero applications.


Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. The Palace has issued a correction. Due to the negligence of an underling who has now been reassigned to cleaning out the royal stables, the royal proclamation contained the incorrect date and the date “July 11, 2016” should be substituted for the date “July 11, 2014."

Anonymous 2 said...

Note: The continuation of my post at 12:24 a.m. seems to have made it through but not the first part, although I have tried to send it three times now. The continuation makes little sense without the first part. This is my fourth attempt. I have no idea what the problem is. I don’t believe there is anything objectionable in it. Perhaps my computer is malfunctioning (although two subsequent posts have made it through). So perhaps Father McDonald’s Blog technology is just observing the occasion by engaging in another act of rebellion against a British post =):

Thank you for the response. As you say there is much more that could be said. There is also much more to be studied and thought about. I do have thee parting comments:

(1) If I understand them correctly, the first link I provided and the one I added subsequently argue for your possibility B; the second link argues for your possibility D; the third link argues for your possibility C.

(2) Regarding your concern that the reasoning for possibility B, or indeed by extension the reasoning for possibility D and/or how to choose between B and D, is so complex that “it leaves the believer unsure of what to believe or how to proceed in any given circumstance,” I would offer two thoughts as reassurance:

(a) The magisterial reasoning that you seek is likely present in the totality of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II corpus, including the CCC and Dominus Jesus;

(b) We can apply the presumption of orthodoxy to any uncertainty and accept this corpus and the positions of the Church reflected in them without worrying too much about it. Speaking for myself, I have said before on this Blog that I neither possess, nor claim as legitimately mine, the competence to determine these matters of interpretation. Surely, then, God will not fault me (or you) for following the current teaching of His Church and will not expect me (or you) to second guess this teaching—unless someone clearly demonstrates that it is erroneous and should not be accepted. As far as I know, such clear demonstration has not been made.

(3) Finally, I return to proposition 15 in the Syllabus and to what I said about it earlier. Applying a plain meaning approach (apart from the ambiguity of whether the freedom being addressed is moral freedom or civil freedom or both) I cannot get away from the notion that the freedom being proscribed is the freedom to follow and profess whatever religion a person thinks true “guided [only] by the light of reason;” and that the proscribed freedom of religion is therefore an extreme, unlimited freedom that bases a religion in reason alone and not according to that “ray of that truth which enlightens all men” (Nostra Aetate) or “by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation” (Redemption Missio)—in other words, a freedom that denies the fundamentals of the Abrahamic faiths and furthermore that asserts its own peculiar form of religious belief.

In support I adduce the following extract from Maxima Quidem, one of the texts cited in proposition 15, which will convey a good sense of what Pope Pius may have had in mind when using the limiting language “guided by the light of reason”:

Anonymous 2 said...

All four attempts have now suddenly appeared, including the first one where it was supposed to be. I have no idea what is going on. I do know that computers hate me. =)

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

A2 some of your posts go to my spam box and I don't check that box frequently. But not all your posts go there. Are you using 2 different computers? Yours are the only ones I find in the spam box.

Gene said...

RE: Anon 2 and spam box...LOL! Maybe that says something about his posts...

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald:

Thank you for helping to clear up the mystery.

I suspect that LOL Gene has hacked into your system to divert my posts. =)