Diet of Regensburg (1541) & Colloquy of Poissy (1561): Protestant "Ecumenical" Efforts at Christian Unity?

Catholic historian Warren Carroll writes:

Reform-minded Cardinal Contarini attended the Diet of Regensburg and its religious discussions. and managed to obtain agreement on both sides on a statement on justification, but only by using a new concept of "duplicate justice," which recognized that God gave justifying grace to men in baptism, but also stated that "a yet higher justice, that of Christ Himself, becomes necessary in order to attain a perfect renewal, this latter being given and imputed to men through faith." It seemed an inspired straddle, but the Council of Trent later repudiated it [Dave: Luther had refused to accept it also]. Jubilation over this paper harmonization . . . soon faded when the conferees took up theor differences on the Mass and the sacraments, which were absolutely irreconcilable. The Catholic Faith cannot be practiced without the Mass, and the Protestants had totally rejected the Mass. Just a week after the illusory agreement on justification, Cardinal Contarini wrote that he had been astonished to discover that the Protestants rejected both the Real Presence and veneration of the Blessed Sacrament outside Mass. On May 16 Contarini wrote to Rome: . . . "strife proceeds neither from the Holy See nor from the Emperor, but from the obdurate adherence of the Protestants to their errors."

(The Cleaving of Christendom [A History of Christendom, vol. 4], Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000, 179)

Noted Protestant Church historian Roland Bainton wrote about the same diet:

Protestants and Catholics were in attendance and the purpose was to see whether accord could be achieved. There was some real hope because the leader of the Catholic side was Cardinal Contarini, one of the Italian liberals of the Erasmian brand, and the leader on the Protestant side was Martin Bucer of Strasbourg, noted for his mediatory role between the Swiss and the Lutherans. The cardinal doctrine of Luther, justification by faith, proved after all not to be an insuperable obstacle because Contarini was ready to accept it, though whether he meant by it precisely what the Lutherans did is another matter. But the Protestant rejection of transubstantiation was more serious and Bucer, unlike Melanchthon at Augsburg, was very insistent on the rejection of papal authority. Union failed . . .

(The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Boston: Beacon Press, 1952, 152)

So we see that the Catholic side was willing to "compromise" on the Protestants' leading ("cardinal") concern: justification, but the Protestants would not flinch on matters of supreme importance and "non-negotiability" for the Catholics: transubstantiation and papal authority. We see almost the same exact dynamic and Protestant inflexibility at the Colloquy of Poissy in 1561. Carroll describes that event:

A group of French Calvinists headed by Theodore Beza had been invited to present the case for their religion to the bishops assembled to prepare for the Council of Trent . . . the government made public a series of edicts drawn up three weeks earlier, which while continuing to forbid public Calvinist worship, allowed it in private homes, recommended that judges be more lenient with Calvinists, and granted a general amnesty to those in prison charged with heresy.

. . . The colloquy itself began September 9 with another speech by [Chancellor] l'Hopital urging religious unity and pledging that the government would no longer persecute the Calvinists. But . . . the Colloquy of Poissy was no exercise in "ecumenism." Even less than the Lutherans were the Calvinists interested in ecumenism, Like all revolutionaries, they would accept it only on their own terms. On this first day of discussion Beza threw down the gauntlet with the explicit and shocking denial of the Real Presence . . .:

If we regard the distance of things (as we must, when there is a question of His corporeal presence, and of His humanity considered separately), we say that His body is as far removed from the bread and wine as is heaven from earth. [September 9, 1561]

. . . The Real Presence, like the Incarnation, is a doctrine on which there can be no compromise for a serious Catholic . . . Still Catherine de Medici and l'Hopital set up a committee of twelve Catholics and twelve Calvinists to continue the discussions. In a meeting of this committee, Beza attacked the doctrine of papal primacy and papal succession from Peter, using the absurd fable of "Pope Joan" to support his argument, and denied that Scripture depended on the authority of the Church or that there was any infallible source of religious truth. Catholic theologian l'Espence responded by pointing out that the Calvinist ministers lacked any claim to authority whatsoever. By now the discussion had degenerated into a shouting match . . . Efforts to find a compromise formula of language for the Real Presence were torpedoed by Peter Martyr Vermigli, a radical Calvinist . . .

(Carroll, ibid., 281-283; Beza citation from p. 235)

Bainton practically agrees with Carroll's implication that any hope of conciliation was destroyed by Protestant intransigence:

Theodore Beza was given unrestricted opportunity to state the Protestant case. In so doing he not only failed to conciliate the Catholics but succeeded also in alienating the Lutherans by stating in the baldest terms the Calvinist doctrine of spiritual communion only in the Lord's Supper, seeing that the body of Christ is as far from the bread and wine as heaven from earth. Agreement on any such basis was of course out of the question.

(Bainton, ibid., 167-168)

A Protestant web page called Reformed Sovereign Grace (which includes in its repertoire, the interesting article, "Biblical Reasons for NOT seeing the 'Passion of the Christ' Movie"), stated in its biography of Beza:

In a confrontation with the cruel and bloodthirsty Duke of Guise, Beza made his memorable statement: "Sire, it belongs, in truth, to the church of God, in the name of which I address you, to suffer blows, not to strike them. But at the same time let it be your pleasure to remember that the Church is an anvil which has worn out many a hammer."

Noted Protestant historian Phillip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church (1910 edition of Charles Scribner's Sons, vol. 8, ch. 19, § 170. "Beza at the Colloquy of Poissy"), describes the scene:

He then addressed the assembly upon the points of agreement and of disagreement between them, and was quietly listened to until he made the assertion that the Body of Christ was as far removed from the bread of the Eucharist as the heavens are from the earth. Then the prelates broke out with the cry "Blasphemavit! blasphemavit!" ("he has blasphemed"), and for a while there was much confusion. Beza had followed the obnoxious expression with a remark which was intended to break its force, affirming the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist; but the noise had prevented its being heard. Instead, however, of yielding to the clamor the queen-mother insisted that Beza should be heard out, and he finished his speech.

The tragedy of these so-called "ecumenical" gatherings (at least from my admittedly biased Catholic perspective) is twofold. First of all, we observe Protestant utter intolerance of various Catholic doctrines, held for many hundreds of years and passed down in apostolic Tradition, so that compromise (or even agreement to disagree) is made impossible by definition right from the outset (Bucer and Beza).

Why, then, even attempt a dialogue, if the Protestants went into these meetings determined to not agree with or even allow any Catholic doctrine which they rejected? Reconciliation and whatever compromise is possible (without either party forsaking their own principles and deepest beliefs) is a two-way street, after all.

It may very well be (I suspect it probably was the case) that the Catholics were just as inflexible and stubborn, but certainly no more so than the Protestants. So any implication that the Protestants were all for freedom of religion and tolerance (either far more than the Catholics, or exclusively) is simply false to history.

Somewhat ironically, the second pronounced Protestant fault in these "ecumenical" gatherings was equivocation and astonishingly two-faced proclamations (such as those of Melanchthon at Augsburg -- see my paper, The Real Diet of Augsburg; Protestant Intolerance in 1530)

John Calvin wrote a fascinating letter which dealt with events shortly before the Diet of Regensburg and proves once again the first Protestant tendency mentioned above: equivocation in negotiations with Catholics (this time by both Bucer and Melanchthon). Phillip Schaff introduces it:

Calvin . . . gave a decided judgment in Latin against transubstantiation, which he rejected as a scholastic fiction, and against the adoration of the wafer which he declared to be idolatrous. He was displeased with the submissiveness of Melanchthon and Bucer, although he did not doubt the sincerity of their motives. He loved truth and consistency more than peace and unity. "Philip," he wrote to Farel (May 12, 1541), "and Bucer have drawn up ambiguous and varnished formulas concerning transubstantiation, to try whether they could satisfy the opposite party by giving them nothing [Schaff footnote: These formulas are printed in Melanchthon's Epistolae, IV. 262-264]. I cannot agree to this device, although they have reasonable grounds for doing so; for they hope that in a short time they would begin to see more clearly if the matter of doctrine be left open; therefore they rather wish to skip over it, and do not dread that equivocation (flexiloquation) than which nothing can be more hurtful. I can assure you, however, that both are animated with the best intentions, and have no other object in view than to promote the kingdom of Christ; only in their method of proceeding they accommodate themselves too much to the times .... These things I deplore in private to yourself, my dear Farel; see, therefore, that they are not made public. One thing I am thankful for, that there is no one who is fighting now more earnestly against the wafer-god [Schaff footnote: Or, in-breaded God, impanatus Deus], as he calls it, than Brentz."

(n Schaff, ibid., vol. 8, ch. 11, § 89; the entire letter is also published in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters: Letters, Part 1, 1528-1545, vol. 4 of 7; edited by Jules Bonnet, translated by David Constable; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House (a Protestant publisher), 1983, 262-264; reproduction of Letters of John Calvin, vol. 1 [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858] )

For any progress to have taken place, both parties needed to be straightforward and honest with each other. Equivocation was not the route to success, because it would only backfire later, when the true nature of Protestant beliefs became apparent. Nor is total inflexibility. Both sides were inflexible, granted, but a major difference between the two is the fact that the Catholic beliefs had been held for many centuries, whereas the Protestant beliefs on things like the Eucharist were new and novel.

Along these lines, the Protestant historian Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote, in a remarkable passage in one of his Critical and Historical Essays:

The immediate effect of the Reformation in England was by no means favourable to political liberty. The authority which had been exercised by the Popes was transferred almost entire to the King. Two formidable powers which had often served to check each other were united in a single despot. If the system on which the founders of the Church of England acted could have been permanent, the Reformation would have been, in a political sense, the greatest curse that ever fell on our country. But that system carried within it the seeds of its own death. It was possible to transfer the name of Head of the Church from Clement to Henry; but it was impossible to transfer to the new establishment the veneration which the old establishment had inspired. Mankind had not broken one yoke in pieces only in order to put on another. The supremacy of the Bishop of Rome had been for ages considered as a fundamental principle of Christianity. It had for it everything that could make a prejudice deep and strong, venerable antiquity, high authority, general consent. It had been taught in the first lessons of the nurse. It was taken for granted in all the exhortations of the priest. To remove it was to break innumerable associations, and to give a great and perilous shock to the principles. Yet this prejudice, strong as it was, could not stand in the great day of the deliverance of the human reason. And it was not to be expected that the public mind, just after freeing itself by an unexampled effort, from a bondage which it had endured for ages, would patiently submit to a tyranny which could plead no ancient title. Rome had at least prescription on its side. But Protestant intolerance, despotism in an upstart sect, infallibility claimed by guides who acknowledged that they had passed the greater part of their lives in error, restraints imposed on the liberty of private judgment at the pleasure of rulers who could vindicate their own proceedings only by asserting the liberty of private judgment, these things could not long be borne. Those who had pulled down the crucifix could not long continue to persecute for the surplice. It required no great sagacity to perceive the inconsistency and dishonesty of men who, dissenting from almost all Christendom, would suffer none to dissent from themselves, who demanded freedom of conscience, yet refused to grant it, who execrated persecution, yet persecuted, who urged reason against the authority of one opponent, and authority against the reasons of another. Bonner acted at least in accordance with his own principles. Cranmer could vindicate himself from the charge of being a heretic only by arguments which made him out to be a murderer.

Thus the system on which the English Princes acted with respect to ecclesiastical affairs for some time after the Reformation was a system too obviously unreasonable to be lasting.

("John Hampden," December 1831)

In other words, it was far more objectionable for the Protestants to be totally dogmatic about their "new stuff" than for Catholics to be totally dogmatic about their "old stuff."

An Eloquent Statement Against Child-Killing

She looked into the camera and said, "I think it is just sad that we have to be here today." She was talking about being one of more than half a million people gathered in Washington in support of "abortion rights." Yes, I agreed: it is very sad. The march was called the "March for Women's Lives." Given that nearly half of those who lose their lives in the murder of unborn children are women, the title is tragically ironic. And the woman's statement, meant to say that we should be "beyond" the debate over abortion, reminded me of the description of those who become accustomed to evil in Isaiah 5:20, who call evil good and good evil.

You see, we live in a day when the humanity of the pre-born child is so clearly documented, so forcefully proven through our modern technology, that every possible excuse that could be offered has become absurd on its face. When I listen to the mindless rhetoric shoveled out by those who seek to defend this "right" I am forced to recognize again the truth that total depravity extends to the mind of mankind, so that "they became futile in their reasoning and their senseless hearts became darkened" (Romans 1:21). This is all that can possibly explain how we can have such compelling, convincing evidence of the humanity of the pre-born child and yet these image bearers seek to continue the holocaust of innocents with every fiber of their being, all the time fleeing in panic from any logical challenge to their tortured reasoning. Yes indeed, those who refuse love the truth will be caused to love a lie.

Oh God, save the little ones. Melt the hearts of stone of those who murder them. Grant repentance, we pray.
----------------------------------

Who wrote this? Dr. James White, on his blog; 4-27-04.
Good to agree on something once in a while . . .

Luther Was Not a Revolutionary?! Huh?!

Many Protestants have argued that Martin Luther never intended to start a "new religion" or denomination, or to split Christianity; in fact that he never intended to leave the Catholic Church. One can quibble about when and why he intended on starting a new version of Christianity, but the fact remains that he did. It is foolish to think that the Catholic Church was supposed to simply bow to Luther's novel ideas, rather than assert its own received Tradition and demand a retraction on his part.

Luther refused to retract his revolutionary opinions, so unless one thinks that any Christian communion is obliged to bend its doctrines and beliefs to the whims of one dissenting person, then there is a sense in which Luther "intended to start his own religion" (I myself wouldn't say it is a new religion, because it is still Christianity; I prefer the terminology of a revolt against the Catholic Church and the beginning of a new denomination or form of Christianity).

It is also said that Luther's case against indulgences was clear-cut and unambiguous: that the Catholic Church was in the wrong, through and through. There were indeed abuses, and the Church dealt strongly with them -- to that extent we might be grateful to Luther, I suppose. But he wasn't content to deal just with abuses -- as true Catholic reformers all through the centuries had done. He had to "throw the baby out with the bath water," and so rejected indulgences altogether, along with many other received doctrines too numerous to mention.

One Protestant who wrote to me stated: "the Church's marketing strategy was 'as the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.' " But this is untrue. This was neither a "marketing strategy" nor does this characterization present a totally accurate assessment of Johann Tetzel's actual views: the famous figure who often represents in the mind of the non-Catholic all that is excessive, foolish, and evil in the Catholic Tradition. Luther lied when he said of Tetzel in a 1541 pamphlet: "He sold grace for money at the highest price." Tetzel's teaching was erroneous in some respects, according to Catholic dogma. But it was not identical to the silly stereotype. What have most anti-Catholics, or even non-Catholics ever read about indulgences from a Catholic perspective? If they had read much at all, they would not repeat the tired slanders against both the Church and Tetzel. But such is the way of cultural mythology and fables -- passed down for generations.

Luther (not immune to slander when it suited his polemical purposes) wrote of Tetzel:

He wrote that an Indulgence is a reconciliation between God and man and takes effect even though a man performs no penance, and manifests neither contrition nor sorrow.

In point of fact, Tetzel's teaching, which we have in written form in his Vorlegung, states precisely the opposite:

The Indulgence remits only the pain [i.e., the penalty] of sins which have been repented of and confessed . . . No one merits an Indulgence unless he is in a truly contrite state.

He did indeed exaggerate the monetary aspect of the indulgence, but not according to Church teaching. Even the silly saying about the "coffer" cannot be traced to Tetzel with any certainty. He did teach a version of what the saying conveys, but it was -- again -- not the official teaching of the Church, as is often ignorantly and slanderously implied. The view was not supported by the Papal Bulls of Indulgence, and the pope had not taught this, as Luther falsely charged.

(Background Source: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, S.J., translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: 1914-1915, 6 volumes; taken from vol. 1: 342-344)

As for the relative "case" and justifiability of the actions of Martin Luther and that of the Catholic Church, particularly between 31 October, 1517 (95 Theses) and 3 January 1521 (Luther's excommunication), one might do well to ponder the following facts:

By that time he had written at least three scathing denunciations of the Catholic Church (all in 1520). I shall comment on two of them:

The first is To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation. In this work, he invited the German princes to take the reform of the Church into their own hands. He wrote:

When necessity demands it, and the pope is an offense to Christendom, the first man who is able should, as a true member of the whole body, do what he can to bring about a truly free council. No one can do this as well as the temporal authorities . . .

(in Three Treatises, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, revised edition, 1970, 23)

This is a complete rejection of traditional Catholic authority, and a direct attempt to set up a State Church, which in fact occurred after Lutheranism became established. It is quite questionable, to put it mildly, that secular princes can do a better job at Christianity than bishops and popes. In fact, Luther and his right-hand man Philip Melanchthon admitted many years later that the jurisdiction of bishops was superior to the jurisdiction of politically- and economically-motivated princes.

So the Catholic Church is supposed to merrily accept this, as if it is not fatal to its ongoing structure? Just bow to all of Luther's demands? Of course this is absurd. No institution can operate in such a ludicrous fashion. That would change the Church into a dictatorship -- much as many Protestant denominations and split-off cults in fact become. Popes never even dreamt of the power and self-granted infallibility that Luther claimed in his own created church.

In The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther called for the even more revolutionary notion of abolition of five of the seven Catholic sacraments, and the Sacrifice of the Mass. So, again, the Catholic Church was supposed to just go along with Luther's radical program of "reform," rather than excommunicate a son who was clearly obstinate and no longer a faithful Catholic? I would contend that the honest thing for Luther to have done would have been to leave the Catholic Church, since he no longer accepted its doctrines -- rather than create a spectacle and a schism that had repercussions we still live with today. Surely he must have known that the revolutionary rhetoric of his treatises of 1520 would have the effect they did. If not, then he had to be one of the most naive persons who ever lived.

Yet commonly Protestants tell us that Luther only wished to reform, not revolutionize the Church. This makes no sense, once all the historical facts are taken into account. To ditch dozens of beliefs and practices of any institution, and revise it almost entirely is
not reform, but rather transformation, evolution, or revolution. I have outlined above what Luther was calling for in 1520 -- before he was excommunicated. The Church had previously operated on the principle of preserving its Tradition, received in an unbroken line from the apostles. Neither the pope, Luther, nor any other self-anointed "reformer" is at liberty to change apostolic doctrine at their whim and fancy. Luther even approached biblical books cavalierly, thinking that they were legitimate or not based on his personal opinion alone, as I demonstrated -- from his own words -- in my paper on that topic (Luther vs. the Canon of the Bible).

How in the world anyone can maintain that Luther was not a heretic (in those areas where he diverged from Catholicism), by the criteria of Catholic dogma, is beyond me. Obviously, he is not by Lutheran criteria, but if one wishes to blame the Catholic Church for excommunicating him, then they must explain how his views were not heretical by Catholic standards. This simply cannot be done; it is impossible.

As for not wanting to start his own church, I think this desire is implicit in his radical rejection of the Catholic Church. After Luther asserted in 1520 that the temporal princes ought to overthrow the rule of bishops and popes, is it reasonable to maintain that Luther thought he would play no central role in such a "counter-church"? That makes less than no sense to me.

The standard Protestant party line (which I myself used to enthusiastically embrace) is that Luther's stance in support of Faith Alone and in opposition to indulgences was heroic and altogether necessary. But I say his position on these points was folly, because the former was based on a gross misunderstanding of Catholic soteriology (that it was somehow Pelagian and rejected not only Faith Alone, but also Grace Alone), and a novel exegesis of Scripture, which many Protestant scholars and exegetes have rejected. His polemic against indulgences was also based (arguably in large part) on misunderstanding, caricature, and slander, as I have partially demonstrated above.

Another constant theme we hear from Protestants about Luther is that he was "not perfect." Of course he wasn't (who is?). My point, however, about him has been that founders of Christian churches ought to be subjected to a higher standard than the rest of us (to vastly understate it), as the Bible teaches about Christian elders, etc. The fact that Luther had many glaring and serious faults (all freely acknowledged and discussed by Protestant historians) does not bode well for the truth of his claims against the Catholic Church, in my humble opinion. True reformers are pretty holy people. A St. Bernard, a St. Francis, a St. Catherine of Siena, or a St. Ignatius Loyola immediately come to mind.

It is said that Pope Leo X was just as imperfect. This may be granted by a Catholic. But he didn't deign to create a new sect of Christianity. His imperfections had few lasting repercussions. One might argue (I think falsely) that his intransigence caused Luther to be cast out, and that therefore he started the schism (or was more to blame for it than Luther was), but I think the facts of the matter show quite otherwise. Luther had already become a heretic (by the received criteria of what constituted heresy and departure from Catholic, apostolic Tradition) before he was excommunicated.

Every Christian group has a perfect right to determine who is faithful to its theology and doctrine and who is not. Therefore, the action of the Catholic Church in excommunicating Luther is not one whit any essentially different from the Dutch Reformed Calvinists determining that the Arminians were no longer "orthodox" by their standards and separating from them, in the Synod of Dort (1618-1619).

Among the decrees made was a sentencing of the prominent Dutch jurist and theologian, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) to life imprisonment (he escaped and settled in Paris in 1621. Louis XIII provided him with a pension, but he didn't convert to Catholicism). 200 Arminian clergy were deprived of their ordination privileges, and one J. van Oldenbarnevelt was "beheaded on a false charge of high treason."

(See: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1983, 421, 604)

How is this different in principle from Luther's excommunication (except that Luther was allowed to keep his head)? If the Catholic Church is deemed more (or solely) guilty of the Protestant-Catholic schism because of its supposed "intransigence and inflexibility and dogmatism," then why are the Dutch Calvinists not equally accused with regard to the Calvinist-Arminian schism?

Didn't they know that the Arminians possessed many truths that they were duty-bound to accept, in order to reform themselves and avoid a tragic schism? Don't they know it was all their fault, because of their 100-year process of corruption and dogmatic, self-righteous tyranny over the consciences of their subjects, and hardly at all the fault of the sincere, Bible-loving, freedom-loving Arminian "reformers" who dissented on things like God's predestination of sinners to hell apart from their free will and consent to reject God?

Erasmus on Luther & Protestantism, & Luther on Erasmus

Appendix Four of my book: Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic.

Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1469-1536), Greek scholar and Christian humanist, is widely regarded as the greatest man of letters and intellect of the 16th century. He was highly critical of corruption in the Church and was initially somewhat favorable to the Protestant cause, but soon (after 1521 or so) turned against it after he saw the direction it was going, and remained a lifelong Catholic. He engaged in a famous written debate with Luther on the issue of free will. These are some of his words about the early Protestants and Martin Luther himself:

Nothing was ever seen more licentious, and, withal, more seditious; nothing, in a word, less evangelical than these pretended evangelists. . . All is carried to extremes in this new Reformation. They root up what ought to be pruned; they set fire to the house in order to cleanse it. Morals are neglected; luxury, debauchery, adulteries, increase more than ever; there is no order, no discipline among them . . . I find more piety in one good Catholic bishop than in all these new evangelists.

(in Bishop James Bossuet, History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, 2 volumes, translated from the French, New York: D. & J. Sadler, 1885 [orig. 1688], vol. 1, 155-156)

What can be more ruinous than to let such words as the following come to the people's ears? -- 'The Pope is Antichrist; Bishops and priests are mere grubs; man-made laws are heretical; confession is pernicious; works, merits and endeavors are heretical words; there is no free will; everything happens by necessity' . . . I see, under the pretext of the Gospel, a new, bold, shameless and ungovernable race growing up -- in a word, such a one as will be unendurable to Luther himself.

(in John L. Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith, New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1922, 97)

The Reformation seems to have had no other purpose than to turn monks and nuns into bridegrooms and brides.

(In Stoddard, ibid., 92)

Luther has covered us and good learning with hatred. Everyone knows that the Church is overburdened with abuse of authority and ceremonies and man-made decrees for the purpose of gain. Many people are now wishing for a remedy, but often an imprudent attempt at a cure makes things worse. I wish that man had either been more moderate or else left things alone!

What a mass of hatred Luther is bringing down on good learning and Christendom!

(in Margaret Phillips, Erasmus and the Northern Renaissance, New York: Collier Books, 1965, 171. From the year 1521)

I greatly wonder, my dear Jonas, what god has stirred up the heart of Luther, in so far as he assails with such license of pen the Roman pontiff, all the universities, philosophy, and the mendicant orders . . .

Perhaps there were some who out of honest zeal favored calling the orders and princes of the Church to better things. But I do not know if they are those who under this pretext covet the wealth of the churchmen. I judge nothing to be more wicked and destructive of public tranquility than this . . . This certainly is a fine turn of affairs, if property is wickedly taken away from priests so that soldiers may make use of it in worse fashion; and the latter squander their own wealth, and sometimes that of others, so that no one benefits.

I do not even agree with those men, my dear Jonas, who say that Luther, provoked by the intoerable shamelessness of his adversaries, could not maintain a Christian moderation. Regardless of how others conduct themselves, he who had undertaken such a role ought to be faithful to himself and disregard all other matters. Finally, a way out should have been provided before he descended into that pit . . . We see the affair brought to that point that I reasonably see no good outcome, unless Christ through His own skill turn the rashness of these men into a public good . . .

How great a swarm of evils this foolhardiness now yields! And ill will greatly weighs down the study of letters as well as many good men who in the beginning were not particularly hostile to Luther, either because they hoped he would handle the matter differently or on account of the enemies they had in common . . .

And here, my dear Jonas, I have been forced at times to wish for evidence of the evangelical spirit when I saw Luther, but especially his supporters, strive with skill, as it were, to involve others in a hateful and dangerous affair.

. . . So far am I from ever having wished to be involved in a faction as dangerous as this! . . . Moreover, I am desperately afraid lest among the other nations this affair bring a great disgrace to our Germany, as the great mass of men are accustomed to impute the foolishness of a few to the entire nation.

What else has been accomplished, therefore I ask, by so many harsh little books, by so much foolish talk, by so many formidable threats, and by so much bombast . . . ? . . . Luther could have taught the evangelical philosophy with great profit to the Christian flock, he could have benefited the world by bringing forth books, if he had restrained from those things which could only end in disturbance.

. . . Above all, I am of the opinion that discord, ruinous for all, must be avoided. And that thus by what I might call a holy artfulness the needs of the time must be served, that by no means the treasury of the Gospel truth be betrayed, whence can come the reformation of corrupt public morals. Perhaps someone will ask whether I have another mind regarding Luther than I had formerly. No, indeed, I have the same mind. I have always wished that, with changes made of certain things which were displeasing to me, he discuss purely the Gospel philosophy, from which the morals of our age have departed, alas, too far. I have always preferred that he be corrected rather than suppressed. I desired him to carry on the work of Christ in such a way that the leaders of the Church either approved or certainly not disapproved . . .

(in Christian Humanism and the Reformation, [selections from Erasmus], edited and translated by John C. Olin, New York: Harper & Row, 1965, 152, 157-159, 161-163; Letter to Jodocus Jonas, from Louvain, May 10, 1521)

Wherever Lutheranism prevails, learning and liberal culture go to the ground.

(in Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910; orig. 1891, vol. 3, 355; Letter to Pirkheimer)

The study of tongues and the love of fine literature is everywhere growing cold. Luther has heaped insufferable odium on it.

(in Hartmann Grisar, Luther, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 volumes, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1917, vol. 6, 32)

All this laziness came in with the new Evangel.

(in Grisar, ibid., vol. 6, 32; regarding the downfall of the schools of Nuremburg)

When I admonished Zwingli in a friendly way he wrote back disdainfully:

What you know is of no use to us; what we know is not for you.

As if he had been caught up like Paul to the third heaven and learnt some mystery which was hidden to us earthly creatures!

(in Phillips, ibid., 195; Zwingli was a Protestant founder who had previously – like Luther – admired Erasmus)

Sound human reason teaches me that a man cannot honestly further the cause of God, who excites so great an uproar in the world, and finds delight in abuse and sarcasm, and cannot have enough of them. Such an amount of arrogance, as we have never seen surpassed, cannot possibly be without some folly, and such a boisterous individual is not at all in harmony with the apostolic spirit.

(in Stoddard, ibid., 97)

All good people lament and groan over the fatal schism with which you shake the world by your arrogant, unbridled and seditious spirit.

(in Archbishop Martin J. Spalding, The History of the Protestant Reformation, 2 volumes, Baltimore: John Murphy, 1876, vol. 1, 464)

I shall show everybody what a master you are in the art of misrepresentation, defamation, calumny and exaggeration . . . In your sly way you contrive to twist even what is absolutely true, whenever it is to your interest to do so. You know how to turn black into white and to make light out of darkness.

(in Grisar, ibid., vol. 4, 100-101. From Erasmus’ work Hyperaspistes, [1526], I, 9, col. 1043)

. . . The whole world knows your nature, according to which you have guided your pen against no one more bitterly and, what is more detestable, more maliciously than against me . . . The same admirable ferocity which you formerly used against Fisher and against Cochlaeus, who provoked it by reviling you, you now use against my book in spite of its courtesy. How do your dcurrilous charges that I am an atheist, an Epicurean, and a sceptic, help the argument? . . . It terribly pains me, as it must all good men, that your arrogant, insolent, rebellious nature has set the world in arms . . . You treat the Evangelic cause so as to confound together all things sacred and profane, as if it were your chief aim to prevent the tempest from ever becoming calm, while it is my greatest desire that it should die down . . .

(Letter from Erasmus at Basel to Martin Luther at Wittenberg, April 11, 1526; in Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1911, 209)

It is part of my unhappy fate, that my old age has fallen on these evil times when quarrels and riots prevail everywhere.

(in Philip Schaff, The History of the Christian Church, Volume VII: History of Modern Christianity, Chapter IV, section 71, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910)

This new gospel is producing a new set of men so impudent, hypocritical, and abusive, such liars and sycophants, who agree neither with one another nor with anybody else, so universally offensive and seditious, such madmen and ranters, and in short so utterly distasteful to me that if I knew of any city in which I should be free from them, I would remove there at once.

(Ibid.)

By the bitterness of the Lutherans, and the stupidity of some who show more zeal than wisdom in their endeavors to heal the present disorders, things have been brought to such a pass, that I, for one, can see no issue but in the turning upside down of the whole world. What evil spirit can have sown this poisonous seed in human affairs? When I was at Cologne, I made every effort that Luther might have the glory of obedience and the Pope of clemency, and some of the sovereigns approved of this advice. But, lo and behold! the burning of the Decretals, the 'Babylonish Captivity,' those propositions of Luther, so much stronger than they need be, have made the evil, it seems, incurable ... . The only thing that remains to us, my dear Berus, is to pray that Christ, supreme in goodness and in power, may turn all to good; for he alone can do so.

(in Schaff, ibid., Chapter IV, section 72; letter to a friend in Basel, Louis Berus, dated Louvain, May 14, 1521)

An iconoclastic riot took place in Oecolampadius' Basle, Switzerland, on February 9, 1528. Erasmus was an eyewitness of this event, and described it in a letter to his friend Pirckheimer:

Not a statue has been left, in the churches . . . or in the monasteries; all the frescoes have been whitewashed over. Everything which would burn has been set on fire, everything else hacked into little pieces. Neither value nor artistry prevailed to save anything.

(in Phillips, ibid., 197)

One cannot help but be greatly disturbed by this vivid image of crazed mobs dashing through sublimely beautiful churches, with self-righteous fury, slashing to bits handcarved crucifixes representing our Lord's death on our behalf, on grounds that all such works of art were idolatrous. Erasmus, fearing that "the reign of the Pharisees will be followed by that of the pagans" (Phillips, ibid., 198), left Basle on April 13th, despite the pleas of his friend Oecolampadius. Blessedly, the later Protestants softened their hatred of art, and Martin Luther had always strongly opposed iconoclasm, and promoted art and music (hence the magnificent Bach was to emerge from the Lutheran milieu). Luther, of course, had plenty to say about Erasmus in return:

Erasmus of Rotterdam is the vilest miscreant that ever disgraced the earth . . . He is a very Caiaphas.

(Table-Talk, translated by William Hazlitt, Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society: n.d., #667, 350-351)

Shame upon thee, accursed wretch! . . . Whenever I pray, I pray a curse upon Erasmus.

(Ibid., #668, 351)

Erasmus was poisoned at Rome and at Venice with epicurean doctrines. He extols the Arians more highly than the Papists . . . he died like an epicurean, without any one comfort of God.

(Ibid., #675, 355)

This I do leave behind me as my will and testament . . . I hold Erasmus of Rotterdam to be Christ's most bitter enemy . . . the enemy to true religion, the open adversary of Christ, the complete and faithful picture and image of Epicurus and of Lucian.

(Ibid., #676, 355)

Erasmus writes nothing in which he does not show the impotence of his mind or rather the pains of the wounds he has received. I despise him, nor shall I honor the fellow by arguing with him any more . . . In future I shall only refer to him as some alien, rather condemning than refuting his ideas. He is a light-minded man, mocking all religion as his dear Lucian does, and serious about nothing but calumny and slander.

(Letter to Montanus About Erasmus, May 28, 1529; from Preserved Smith, ibid., 211)

I thank you, my excellent friend, that you give me so candidly your opinion on my book. I care not at all that the Papists are offended: I did not write on their account, for they are not worth my writing or speaking in Consideration of them any more. God has given them up to a reprobate mind; so that they even fight against that, which they know to be the truth.

My cause was heard at Augsburg, before the emperor Charles, and the whole world, and found to be irreprehensible, and to contain sound doctrine. Moreover, my Confession and Apology are made public, and set in the open light throughout the world. By these, I have answered an infinity of my adversaries' books, and all the lies of the Papists past, present and to come!

I have confessed Christ before this wicked and adulterous generation, and I doubt not but that He will also confess me before His Father, and the holy angels. My light is set on a candlestick! - Let him that seeth it, see it more clearly still; let him that is blind, be blinder still; let him that is just, be juster still; let him that is filthy, be filthier still; - their blood be upon themselves; - I am clean from their blood! I have declared to the unrighteous his unrighteousness, and he will not be converted; - let him therefore die in his sins; - I have saved my own soul! There is no need, therefore, that I should write, or care to write on their account, any farther.

. . . Your judgment of Erasmus I much admire: wherein you say plainly, that he has no other basis wherein to build his doctrine but the favour of men; and attribute to him, moreover, ignorance and malice. And if you could but convey this judgment of yours with conviction to the minds of men in general, you would in truth, like another stripling David, by this one blow, lay our boasting Goliath
prostrate, and at the same time, eradicate the whole of his sect. For what is more vain, more fallacious, in all things, than the applause of men, especially in things spiritual! For, as the Psalms testify, "There is no help in them:" again, "All men are liars."

. . . I at one time attributed to him a singular kind of inconsistency and vain-talking, for he seemed to treat on sacred and serious things with the greatest unconcern; and on the contrary, to pursue baubles, vanities, and things laughable and ridiculous with the utmost avidity; though an old man, and a theologian; and that, in an age, the most industrious and laborious. So that I really thought, that what I had heard many men of wisdom and gravity say, was true - that Erasmus was actually mad.

When I first wrote against his Diatribe, and was compelled to weigh his words, (as John says "try the Spirits,") being disgusted at his inconsiderateness in a subject of so much importance; in order that I might rouse up the cold and doltish disputer, I goaded him as if in a snoring sleep; calling him a disciple, at one time, of Epicurus, at another, of Lucian, and then again, declaring him to be of the opinion of the sceptics; supposing, that by these means he might, perhaps, be roused up to enter upon the subject with more feeling. But all was in vain. I only irritated the viper, . . .

. . . But the truth is, he hates all the doctrines together. Nay, there can be no doubt in the mind of a true believer, who has the Spirit in his nostrils, that his mind is alienated from, and utterly hates all religion together; and especially, the religion of Christ. Many proofs of this are scattered here and there . . .

. . . He published lately, among his other works, his Catechism, a production evidently of Satanic subtlety. For, with a purpose full of craft, he designs to take children and youths at the outset, and to infect them with his poisons, that they might not afterwards be eradicated from them; just as he himself, in Italy and at Rome, so sucked in his doctrines of sorcerers and of devils that now all remedy is too late . . .

. . . he does nothing but set before them those heresies and offences of opinions, by which the Church has been troubled from the beginning. So that in fact, he would make it appear, that there has been nothing certain in the Christian religion . . .

. . . I began to suspect him of being a plain Democritus or Epicurus, and a crafty derider of Christ: for he every where intimates to his fellow Epicureans, his hatred against Christ: though he does it in words so figurative and insidious, . . .

. . . This observation fixes in me a determination (let others do as they please) not to believe Erasmus, even if he should openly confess in plain words, - that Christ is God. But I would address to him that sophistical saying of Chrysippus, 'If you lie, you lie even when you speak the truth.'

. . . Our king of ambiguity, however, sits upon his ambiguous throne in security, and destroys us stupid Christians with a double destruction. First, it is his will, and it is a great pleasure to him, to offend us by his ambiguous words: and indeed he would not like it, if we stupid blocks were not offended. And next, when he sees that we are offended, and have run against his insidious figures of speech, and begin to exclaim against him, he then begins to triumph and rejoice that the desired prey has been caught in his snares. For now, having found an opportunity of displaying his rhetoric, he rushes upon us with all his powers and all his noise, tearing us, flogging us, crucifying us, and sending us farther than hell itself; saying, that we have understood his words calumniously, virulently, satanically; (using the worst terms he can find;) whereas, he never meant them to be so understood . . . . .

(Letter to Nikolaus von Amsdorf, Concerning Erasmus, from the web page of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Covenanted – no date for the letter indicated)

Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff paints quite a different picture of Erasmus, strikingly contradictory to that of Luther:

Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) was the king among scholars in the early part of the sixteenth century. He combined native genius, classical and biblical learning, lively imagination, keen wit, and refined taste. He was the most cultivated man of his age, and the admired leader of scholastic Europe from Germany to Italy and Spain, from England to Hungary . . . No man before or since acquired such undisputed sovereignty in the republic of letters . . . Erasmus shines in the front rank of the humanists and forerunners of the Reformation, on the dividing line between the middle ages and modern times. His great mission was to revive the spirit of classical and Christian antiquity, and to make it a reforming power within the church. He cleared the way for a work of construction which required stronger hands than his . . . He did more than any of his contemporaries to prepare the church for the Reformation by the impulse he gave to classical, biblical, and patristic studies, and by his satirical exposures of ecclesiastical abuses and monastic ignorance and bigotry.

. . . Protestants should never forget the immense debt of gratitude which they owe to the first editor of the Greek Testament who enabled Luther and Tyndale to make their translations of the word of life from the original, and to lead men to the very fountain of all that is most valuable and permanent in the Reformation . . . His exegetical opinions still receive and deserve the attention of commentators. To him we owe also the first scholarly editions of the Fathers, especially of Jerome, with whom he was most in sympathy . . . he cannot be charged with apostasy or even with inconsistency. He never was a Protestant, and never meant to be one.

. . . Erasmus was, like most of the German and English humanists, a sincere and enlightened believer in Christianity, and differed in this respect from the frivolous and infidel humanists of France and Italy . . . He devoted his brilliant genius and classical lore to the service of religion. He revered the Bible as a divine revelation, and zealously promoted its study. He anticipated Luther in the supreme estimate of the word of God as the true source of theology and piety . . . He had a sharp eye to the abuses of the Church, and endeavored to reform them in a peaceful way. He wished to lead theology back from the unfruitful speculations and frivolous subtleties of scholasticism to Scriptural simplicity, and to promote an inward, spiritual piety. He keenly ridiculed the foolish and frivolous discussions of the schoolmen about formalities and quiddities, . . .

(Schaff, ibid., Chapter IV, section 71)

Schaff renders his own judgment as to the personal conflict between the two men:

Luther abandoned Erasmus, and abused him as the vainest creature in the world, as an enraged viper, a refined Epicurean, a modern Lucian, a scoffer, a disguised atheist, and enemy of all religion. We gladly return from this gross injustice to his earlier estimate, expressed in his letter to Erasmus as late as April, 1524:

The whole world must bear witness to your successful cultivation of that literature by which we arrive at a true understanding of the Scriptures; and this gift of God has been magnificently and wonderfully displayed in you, calling for our thanks.

(Schaff, ibid., Chapter IV, section 73)

Doubts About Protestant First Principles From a Protestant

Excerpts from various places on the traditional Anglican Pontifications blog (I link to it on my sidebar). Normally, I wouldn't post material like this, as this sort of painful examination of one's own position is a very personal and private thing, and I do my best to respect that. But since it is already "out there" in public on a blog, I am particularly interested in hearing other Protestants interacting with these observations. I'm always one to go right to the premises of a position, so I find this discussion very worthwhile.
-----------------------------------------------
There is an inherent theological and ecclesiological flaw in Protestantism that makes it helpless in the face of neo-Gnostic modernity. My unoriginal diagnosis of our disease: the absence of magisterium–the absence of a true teaching office and the absence of an authoritative tradition. Consequently, Protestantism is unable to effectively defend Holy Scripture against idiosyncratic and hostile interpretations. Is it accidental to Protestant identity that Protestants find themselves incapable of dogmatically asserting the fullness of catholic faith? Is it sufficient to say that only if we would be true to our Reformation principles we would produce orthodox teaching and practice?

The best biblical theology of the past 100 years has always been written by Protestants. That doesn’t change the fact that we now find ourselves in a heretical denomination. And it’s not just ECUSA. The churches of the Reformation, arms locked together, are marching right into apostasy–that is the point. And it is this fact that cries out for explanation.

The real question is, What does it mean to be faithful to the Reformation? Whose Reformation? Are we talking about faithfulness to content, method, or the English monarch?

Bottomline: We are Protestants, just like the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Church of the Brethren. Sola scriptura and private judgment. And our contemporary judgment always trumps the past.

Anglican theologians of course, have advanced and will continue to advance their individual, and often conflicting, theories about what it means to be the Anglican church, just as they have advanced and will continue to advance their theories on the nature of the Episcopal office. Dreamers dream dreams. But these theories do not constitute our ecclesial identity; they do not express reality. “Too much Anglican writing about bishops,” Sykes remarks, “is about the episcopacy of a church which does not exist.” The same thing can be said about most Anglican articles and books about what it means to be Anglican.

Is it possible for a Protestant denomination to invoke an authoritative tradition?

Both Orthodox and Catholics know they are the Church of the Apostles. They know they are the same Church that Christ founded. And they know that the Spirit has created a Holy Tradition that authoritatively governs their interpretation of Holy Scripture. It’s not a theory; it’s reality for them.

Was the Reformation a Blunder? Darn tootin’! Fifteen years ago I would have been shocked at such blasphemy. But now the answer seems obvious. I am certainly not suggesting that the European Church was not in drastic need of both theological and ecclesiastical reform. Everyone seems to agree on this. But was the corruption of such degree that it justified the breaking of the Western Church? (Yes, I know all about Tetzel’s bad stewardship program.) And did the Reformation actually provide the cure?

But surely, after almost five hundred years, we can look back and legitimately question whether the Reformation was the cure for what ailed the Church. Look at the thousands of sects that have since sprung up, each one justifying its existence by appeal to the Bible. Which Reformation confession or catechism are we going to subscribe to? Augsburg? Heidelberg? Dort? Westminster? The Articles of Religion? Or perhaps we’ll just align outselves with one of the nondenominational “Bible only” denominations. It’s cafeteria Christianity. And today the situation is even worse. The heirs of the Reformation, under the relentless attacks of modernity, have lost their grip on the essentials of Christian doctrine. So what is the Protestant solution to Protestant apostasy? Create another denomination, of course. Revolution and schism seems to be built into the Protestant DNA.

The Reformation formulation of justification by faith alone was a novelty in the history of the Christian theological tradition. Look far and wide and you will not find the pre-Reformation Church teaching “justification by faith alone.”

Like the other Fathers of the early Church, Augustine spoke of justification as a process, a process from a state of sin to a state of holiness. We can find some instances where the Fathers appear to talk about imputed righteousness and justification by faith (see Thomas Oden’s The Justification Reader); but on the whole one does not find even an incipient Lutheranism in the patristic period.

The liberating gospel of grace may have been lost for fifteen hundred years–golly, it sure got misplaced early on, didn’t it?–but Martin Luther finally unearthed the message of grace and salvation after centuries of corruption, irreligion, and idolatry. Just as Paul had to fight against the works-righteousness of second-Temple Judaism, so Luther fought against the pernicious Pharisaism of medieval Catholicism. But now non-Roman scholars like E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, Jacob Neusner, Krister Stendahl, and N. T. Wright, tell us that that this portrayal of Judaism is pure caricature, a projection into the first century of 16th century polemics. Moreoever, it looks like Saul of Tarsus did not suffer from episodic depression, a poor self-image, and bouts of self-hatred. His concern was the inclusion of the Gentiles into Israel apart from submission to Torah. With the advent of this new perspective we can no longer identify Luther’s understanding of justification with the understanding of the New Testament.

Luther & Melancthon’s interpretation of St Paul and their specific theological proposals were new! They broke with fifteen hundred years of exegetical and theological tradition. It was therefore wrong for them to insist upon their formulations to the point of fracturing the Church. Those who advance theological novelties should be a bit more humble and patient, don’t you think?

There is so much misunderstanding about justification by faith. If Protestants think that either Catholicism and Orthodoxy (at their best) teach that sinners may rely upon their works for final salvation, they are wrong. Both traditions embrace the sola gratia. Both teach the baptized to rely ultimately, not upon their own works and strivings, but upon the mercy and grace and love of God, freely given in the sacramental and ascetical life of the Church.

Spell Checker

Eye have a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye cannot sea.

When eye strike a quay, right a word
I weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar wright
It shows me strait aweigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two late
And eye can put the error rite
Its rarely, rarely grate.

I've run this poem threw it
I'm shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect in it's weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

[not original]

Brief Exposition on Mary Mediatrix

From: Q & A Forum #2:
---------------------
What level of delegation is involved by God to Mary? The image I am struggling with is that God, after the atonement, left Mary to "mind the store", in which case it almost seems uneccesary to do any prayer apart from asking for Mary's intercession. What is more comfortable for me is to view her as more of a passive channel.

The idea is not that Mary is involved in every single intercession (from us to God); we can pray as we choose: directly to God, or asking saints to intercede for us. Rather, it is that God chose her as the vessel to distribute His graces to mankind, and she always intercedes for us. To use an analogy, He is the lake; the water is His grace. Mary serves as the conduit to get the water / grace to us. We believe that this is how God designed it. He could do anything He wanted to do. We know from revelation that He likes to involve His creatures in the redemptive process. He became a Man after all. In the OT, we see Moses interceding to make "atonement" for the people. In the NT, we see Paul speaking of being "poured out as a sacrifice" for the sake of others. It's all over the Bible.

You are right to view Mary's mediation as relatively "passive." Her involvement does not in the least mean that God's involvement is LESS. This is the mistake in Protestant reasoning, so often. They see things in an "either/or" or "zero sum game" way, and create many false dichotomies, where if one thing is emphasized, something else must be lessened (whereas Catholics think in terms of "both/and"):

1. Mary helps distribute God's grace (even up to and including every instance of it).

2. Therefore, God must be doing less in the overall scheme of things than He does in the Protestant view, where Mary plays no role in grace at all.

This doesn't follow at all, not even logically. It is a fallacy. God still does it. He is the only source of grace. He's the sole cause. It is only for Him to give, because He is God; He's the one who forgives us and enables us to become more holy. He simply chooses to distribute it with Mary's participation. He chooses to involve men and women. He always does this. He gave us the Bible through men. He gave the Ten Commandments through Moses. The gospel was promulgated by the apostles. He gave His message to the Hebrews through the prophets, and announced the coming of Jesus and the New Covenant through John the Baptist. Jesus was born of Mary. He could have simply appeared as a 30-year-old man if He so chose (like the theophanies in the OT, where God appeared as a man). But God wanted to involve human beings! It shows how highly He loves and values us.

How you characterized it above, then, is not a very accurate description at all of how we view this. God is still in complete control. He gives all the grace, and it was Jesus' death on the Cross that makes salvation possible for us. Period. All Mary does is assist her Son in that process and God the Father. God does it, using Mary as a means of application. In no sense is He sitting back on His heavenly rocking chair (as the stereotype would have it; stroking His long white beard) and delegating this job to Mary as if that means He does nothing in that regard.

The Epistemology of My Conversion / My (Protestant) Letter to Karl Keating in 1990 / How I Became an Apologist

From the Q & A #2 Thread. I have added significant new material: lengthy excerpts from a letter I wrote to Karl Keating in February 1990, when I was a Protestant and still eight months away from conversion. This is probably the primary written document I have, pertaining to my opinions of Catholicism, as I was just starting to seriously study it. It also strongly puts the lie to claims that I wasn't a "real" Protestant (James White) or that I never correctly understood sola Scriptura and perspicuity (Tim Enloe and others -- Tim thinks I don't understand those things to this day, yet I did in 1990 and earlier, and was citing Hodge and Calvin).
-----------------------------------------------
EL Hamilton is asking the questions in italics:

I'd be interested in knowing what teaching(s) of Catholicism you found hardest to embrace during your conversion-study period.

Papal and conciliar infallibility.

I don't necessarily mean historical "scandals" ("this Pope was corrupt", or "the Crusades were too violent"), but actual dogmatic teachings.

That stuff was highly offensive to me as well. I wrote a letter to Karl Keating complaining about all that. Here are some excerpts from it. It was dated 25 February 1990, which was near the beginning of my serious study of Catholicism (initially purely out of curiosity). I had begun my ecumenical group discussions only the month before and this was before I changed my mind on contraception. This is the first time I have ever cited this since my conversion. It may provide some insights to people who wonder how I was thinking when I was a Protestant considering Catholicism:

I am an evangelical with growing and sincere respect for Roman Catholics, largely due to my increased communion with them by virtue of the Operation Rescue movement . . . I consider Catholicism as a fully Christian faith . . . I am, with you, disgusted and scandalized by works such as Boettner's and Jack Chick's and all such ilk, which, if any works deserve to be censored, certainly qualify in the highest degree.

I then proceeded to a lengthy exposition on my disagreement with Keating's constant use of the term "fundamentalist" on the grounds that it paints with too broad a brush, and wrongly included many ecumenical evangelical Protestants (like myself at that time) in its sweeping scope. I argued that this was setting up a straw man and was, though on a much lesser scale, what the anti-Catholics did to Catholics in their literature. I suggested that he use "evangelical" or "Protestant" instead. I wrote, "I'm concerned with being lumped in with people I have very little affinity with."

After that, I objected to a subtle insinuation Keating made, that Jehovah's Witnesses were a species of Protestant, and made an argument that if they were similar to any Christian groups, it was Catholicism. I concluded:

The idea of sola Scriptura and individual conscience and study would release thousands of JW's from their spiritual bondage to false and deceitful leaders. But if it's so clear that a JW should "check up" on the validity of his leaders by reading the Bible, why should this not be the case with Catholics?

I then strongly objected to an article by William Reichert, entitled "I will be where Peter is," in This Rock, January 1990 (in retrospect this was really hitting a nerve). I responded to two paragraphs which I described as "logically outrageous," "rather foolish," and guilty of "unfounded and illogical conclusions." I stated that Riechert "betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly perspicuity is." To show what it was, I cited Charles Hodge, backed up with two citations each from St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine. I wrote:

Therefore, differences over "minor" matters not necessary to salvation do not cast doubt on the concept of perspicuity by definition. Protestants are merely allowing freedom of diversity on matters such as church givernment. modes of baptism, views on the Lord's Supper, worship style and liturgy, etc. On central doctrines, we are indeed unified (God , Man, Salvation, Biblical Authority). So we have unity as Christians, at the same time allowing for differences of opinion on non-crucial items, and we all mutually-recognize one another as part of the Body of Christ -- something Catholics cannot comprehend because of their different view that the Church is equivalent to an ecclesiastical organization -- i.e., Roman Catholicism.

The falsity of that view is well dealt with by Calvin in Book IV of his Institutes. Although it is unfortunate that denominations (usually smaller ones) do split over much more trivila matters than those mentioned above (die to sin, to be sure, on someone's part), I still prefer this state of affairs to the purely formal "unity" Catholics have.

In theory, no diversity on doctrine is allowed, but in practice, you well know (and I'm familiar with enough Church History) that there is much dissension held privately -- notable examples today being widespread Catholic dissent concerning contraception, abortion, and even fornication, but particularly the first, because it is so summarily and disobediently broken. Likewise, theological liberalism looms large in Catholicism, despite this supposed "unity" you claim.

Human nature is everywhere the same, and there will be diversity of opinion, whether due to illogic, different perspectives, evil, conscience, or whatever. We recognize it and allow for its expression, within certain bounds, whereas you attempt to deny and suppress it, which only causes it to flourish and become rebellious in spirit (I see this in countless young former Catholics whose questions were ignored).

Further, it is true that many will differ due to ignorance (Hodge: "things hard to understand") or evil (Hodge: "all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit"). These are not incredible assertions nor are they peculiar to Protestants, and they are quite consistent with perspicuity rightly understood, as opposed to the caricature of it by Reichert. The least one can do in "refuting" a position is to portray it accurately (another "straw man").

Catholics recognize the same two factors in their distinction between formal and material heresy, denoting evil and ignorant differences from catholic Dogma respectively. I can't resist mentioning in passing the case of Galileo, whose views which were condemned as heresy were neither ignorant nor evil -- far from either, whereas his accusers were obviously ignorant and arguably evil as well.

. . . for us, unity is not "a joke." For the invisible Church is a far more profound unity than a merely formal, artificial, organizational unity, as it is comprised of those truly in Christ, including those now with the Lord -- somewhat like your "communion of saints." You might say we value individual conscience and standing under God more than the unity you aspire to -- in fact, we regard separation from a group with which we cannot agree as a duty, not as a dreaded "schism" -- far preferable to the spectre of millions of Catholics refusing to honestly acknowledge that they are not "true" or "good" Catholics.

Lastly . . . I would like to see how you would respond to the material enclosed. Are you familiar with a book: The Infallibility of the Church, by George Salmon, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI (orig. 1888)? It is very good (from my perspective!). The photocopies are from a work very well-written and worthwhile (Salmon) -- it is not at all stylistically like Boettner. Salmon is an Anglican with much respect for Catholicism.

The fundamental disagreement between Catholics and Protestants is, I believe, the issue of Apostolic Succession, Tradition, and its corollary, Infallibility. Therefore, I've set out to show that Catholicism has in fact not been infallible historically, by means of clear logical contradictions and instances of undoubted heresy. If this is shown, then the whole edifice collapses, and you are on the same ground as we are. I think that such an utterly extraordinary and remarkable claim as Infallibility must be prepared to meet objections of example seemingly contradictory to that claim. Thus, out of motives of sincere inquiry and interest, I seek your assistance on that score. Thanks so much for your time.

With respect and sincerity,

Dave Armstrong

And did you resolve that opposition more by 1) convincing yourself that your objections were unfounded, or 2) just deciding to submit to the authority of the church even when you didn't understand it?

Both, but more so, the first. The first thing I changed my mind on was contraception, so that could be classified under "moral theology" or "the moral argument." But it also related to the history of dogma because I was shocked to discover that all Christians opposed contraception until 1930 (and Church history and doctrinal precedent were highly important to me. I had a strong "historical sense"). In my own developing moral theology (especially all the "sexual" issues whch are always controversial -- for some odd reason), I had arrived on my own at positions that were invariably held by the Catholic Church all along. I increasingly felt that "here was the place where someone (at last) got it all right -- the traditional Christian moral teachings are all firmly in place."

As for infallibility, I was studying all the "usual suspects": people like Hans Kung, Joseph Dollinger, and George Salmon (precisely as the anti-Catholics do today: people like William Webster and Jason Engwer and David T. King: those who concentrate on historical critiques). I even worked up a long paper of 95 Feces, containing difficult "problems" of Catholic history and alleged contradictions and so forth, to torment my Catholic friends with, in the discussion meetings I was having at my house. So I was behaving very much like the big bad (cynically chuckling) "Catholic-slayer" and gadfly, who brings up all the "embarrassing" facts of the scandalous history of the Beast (though I was never anti-Catholic, I hasten to add; just thoroughly Protestant, through and through).

Anyway, while I was doing that, I was also fair-minded enough (at first out of sheer curiosity; never thinking I would possibly convert) to read Catholic works, like Karl Adam's The Spirit of Catholicism, and Chesterton, and Thomas Howard, and Thomas Merton, and Alan Schreck's Catholic and Christian. And then I took to studying the Protestant Reformation from a Catholic perspective. I discovered that my hero, Martin Luther, was not this perfectly noble guy who was merely bringing the "gospel" back from darkness, etc., and that the actual facts of what happened during that volatile time were immensely more complex than I had been led to believe as a Protestant: hearing only one side all those years.

At length, I read Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which brought about a paradigm shift in my thinking. he explained all the facts of doctrinal development in a way far more plausible than I had ever heard before. It was simply a brilliant historical and analogical argument, and I found myself unable to refute it. I was honest enough with myself to admit that I could not, and had to admit that this was a huge problem for me to resolve.

My conversion, then, was a combination af the cumulative effect of three different "strands" of evidences, all pointing in the same direction. This was perfectly consistent (epistemologically) with my apologetic outlook that I had developed over nine years: the idea of cumulative probability or what might be called "plausibility structures."

So I converted (apart from God's grace; I am talking specifically about my thought processes -- not denying God's role) because I was convinced on all three grounds. The Catholic arguments were better than the ones I had been setting forth previously. I was simply ignorant about early Protestant history (I accepted what might be called "the Protestant myth of origins" uncritically); I had come to agree on my own with Catholic moral teaching, and the historical arguments of Newman blew Salmon and Kung and all their ilk out of the water, revealing them to be mostly special pleaders or sophists with an axe to grind (which is the way I myself had been acting in my arguments about papal infallibility).

All this stuff led me to the notion that the Catholic Church had a unique status, and so I accepted its authority in faith. Of course, I hadn't answered every jot and tittle of the arguments I had myself produced (no one ever answers everything; it is unreasonable to think that they can), but I had seen more than enough to come to a place where I was more than rationally justified to accept the authority of the Catholic Church and to reject the Protestant rule of faith (private judgment and sola Scriptura).

So there is faith involved; of course, just as in any religious view. I keep saying: "Christianity is not philosophy." But at the same time, I was following the direction that my mind and thinking had led me. I would never adopt a view which was contrary to my reason or thinking. Since then, I have become always more convinced, as I keep defending the Catholic faith and observing how weak or nonexistent the opposing arguments are. I didn't, for example, do all the "biblical Catholicism" stuff I do now, before my conversion. I started that right after my conversion, in an attempt to justify my change of mind to my Protestant friends, and to strengthen my own newfound, fledgling faith. It is then that I learned how very strong the Catholic biblical "case" is.

The version of my conversion that goes into the above dynamics the most, would be:

How Newman Convinced me of the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church

Do you think one of those two approaches is better than the other, with respect to either Catholicism in particular or "mere Christian" apologetics in general?

I don't think we have to choose; consistent with my longterm apologetic outlook. One ought to always have a reasonable faith, supported by as much evidence as one can find (I thoroughly oppose fideism or "pietism" -- which attempt to remove reason from the equation). We accept in faith what appears most plausible and likely to be true from our reasoning and examination of competing hypotheses and worldviews. We are intellectually "duty-bound" to embrace the outlook that has been demonstrated (to our own satisfaction, anyway) to be superior to another competeing view.

Is that absolute proof? No, of course not. I think "absolute proof" in a strict, rigorous philosophical sense is unable to be obtained about virtually anything. But one accepts Catholicism in and with faith, based on interior witness of the Holy Spirit and outward witness of facts and reason and history; much like one accepts Christianity in general or how the early disciples accepted the Resurrection and the claims of Jesus.

For my general epistemological outlooks, see:

Catholic Apologetic Method, Epistemology, and Open-Mindedness

The Relationship Between Christianity and Philosophy (particularly regarding the interpretation of the Church Fathers)

Catholics and Reason: Reply to Certain Misrepresentations of Catholic Apologetics and Philosophy -- including excerpts from Newman's Grammar of Assent --

"Chronological Snobbery": History of Ideas, Socratic Philosophy, Christian Worldview, Scientists and God (Dave Armstrong and John Kress)
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
I have been doing apologetics since 1981 (initially influenced by C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, and Walter Martin). I was a full-time campus missionary as a Protestant from 1985-1987 and then part-time till 1989. After I converted in late 1990 I kept writing, but had no intention to publish at first (I was writing strictly for my Protestant friends, then, in order to explain / defend my conversion). I happened to meet Fr. Peter Stravinskas in Steubenville at the Defending the Faith Conference in 1992, and gave him copies of some of my writings on Martin Luther. He liked them a lot, and so an article on Luther in his magazine, The Catholic Answer, in 1993, was my first published piece as a Catholic.

So I kept on writing and seeking publication. I got my conversion story in This Rock in late '93 and then in Surprised by Truth in 1994. The latter, of course, gave me much name exposure (though not one penny in royalties), as it has sold some 200,000 copies.

It is really the Internet that has made so much possible for me. The first, much larger draft of my first book (about 750 pages), A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, was completed in 1994. Fr. John A. Hardon, one of the most respected and orthodox catechists in America, whom I had met in 1990 and with whom I attended many "Ignatian Catechist" courses, recommended it and wrote a foreword. Of course that was a big boost and vote of confidence.

I went online in March 1996 and was active in the Compuserve Religion Forum (where I had the pleasure of meeting the winsome anti-Catholic, David T. King). I started posting excerpts from my book, and shorter articles there. In March 1997 I began my website, where a virtual exlosion of writing was able to be promulgated. People like Scott Hahn and Marcus Grodi were saying nice things about my writing, which confirmed to me that I was doing the right thing. After that I just worked worked worked!

My first book (revised, shorter version) was done in May 1996 but was turned down by five publishers. One had actually accepted it (I had a signed contract and an advance), but then business problems set in and they never published it. So -- exasperated and absolutely disgusted with publishers -- I decided to do it myself with 1stBooks Library in October 2001. It sold well, so that eventually I convinced Sophia Institute Press to pick it up, in 2003. So basically it took me seven years to get published by a "real" publisher.

I lost my delivery job in December 2001 through no fault of my own (they went out of business), -- a month after my daughter was born --and so I decided to see if it was feasible for me to be a full-time apologist (which is all I had really wanted to do with my life, since 1981). I was getting good royalties from my book (perfect timing!) and received many donations when I announced what had happened on my website. So I have succeeded as a full-time apologist since then. I've also tried to network with virtually all the apologists I know of, by sending out my monthly updates, and keeping in touch, making links, meeting them at Steubenville and other conferences, etc.

I've gotten to the place where I am through endless hard work -- much of it without any remuneration at all -- (basically, I had to wait 20 years to really be able to devote myself totally to my calling in life), determination, and a spiritual assurance that this is my vocation. I have tried to simply do my writing and let whatever value it has speak for itself, with a bare minimum of "begging."

But I do need contributors badly, and I hope whoever reads this and whoever likes my work, or has been helped by it in some fashion, will prayerfully consider becoming a monthly supporter or one-time contributor, or buying one or more of my books. I have to feed my family, and the Bible says that "the laborer is worthy of his wage." By contributing, you help to make possible, conversions and a rejuvenated faith-life for many people (I know, because I get letters from folks saying how their lives have been changed, by God's grace, helped in some small way by this unworthy vessel). Thanks!

Reply to a Muslim on the Two Natures of Christ & the Incarnation

Full paper, on my website: Reply to a Muslim Apologist Concerning the Two Natures of Christ and Trinitarianism
(vs. Shabir Ally) (93K)

This is my first "official" dialogue or exchange with a Muslim on my website (one of the last major "frontiers" of my apologetic endeavors). The discussion is not so much about Islam, however, as it is about philosophical reasoning regarding the plausibility and possibility of trinitarianism and Chalcedonian Christology (Jesus has Two Natures: He is 100% God and 100% man: one Person Who has a Divine Nature and a Human Nature).

It is also a strong protest against the practice of heterodox, ultra-liberal "Christians" being utilized to bolster a case against orthodox, historic Christianity. In this respect, the Muslim apologetic or polemic against Christianity is quite similar to theologically liberal polemics against orthodox theology, and also to Jehovah's Witness methodology. What follows is a short excerpt; it serves as a good concise "capsule summary" of my overall argument. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.
-------------------------------------------

Now let us closely examine this assertion that the Incarnation and the Two Natures of Jesus (and by inevitable implication, the Holy Trinity also) are logically impossible, meaningless propositions. Upon close scrutiny, all these arguments utterly collapse, and it will be plain to see that they do, and why they do.

First of all, the most obvious difficulty has to do with God's omnipotence, which Muslims and Christians both accept. Now, the claim is that God could not become a man, because it is "logically impossible" (God and man being different and thus, unable to be merged in a single being). This involves a logical absurdity, seen in the following straightforward chain of reasoning:

1. God is omnipotent, meaning that He possesses all power and can do everything which is logically possible to do.

2. God created man out of nothing, as Creator (which is a function of His omnipotence and His nature as the Essential, Pure, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Self-Subsisting, Infinite, Eternal Being).

3. Furthermore, we are told that man was created in God's image (Genesis 1:27).

[Muslims have traditionally believed that the Old Testament and especially the first five books, or Torah, is an inspired revelation. See: What Does the Qur'an Say About the Jewish and Christian Scriptures?, by Samuel Green]

4. And God, on several occasions, took on human form, according to the Old Testament (what are known as "Theophanies"):

GENESIS 18:1 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day. (KJV; cf. 18:13,17,22)

GENESIS 32:24,30 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day . . . (30) And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (cf. 35:9-15)

EXODUS 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and {there was} under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, . . .

ISAIAH 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

EZEKIEL 43:6-7 And I heard {him} speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me. (7) And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, . . .

5. God also appeared in the form of the "Angel of the Lord." An angel is a creation, not an eternal being, so if God appeared as an angel, He assumed a form and a nature (as in the Theophanies above) that is not intrinsically God; much like the Incarnation itself:

JUDGES 2:1 And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I . . . have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

JUDGES 6:12,14 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, and said unto him, The Lord {is} with thee, thou mighty man of valour . . . (14) And the Lord looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee? (cf. 6:16,20-23)

ZECHARIAH 12:8 In that day shall the Lord defend the
inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David {shall be} as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.

(cf. Genesis 31:11-13; Exodus 3:2-6,14-16; Joshua 5:14-15)

6. What do these Theophanies suggest? The Bible described God as able to be "seen" in the above passages, and others (such as Genesis 17:1, 33:11, Numbers 12:7-8, Deuteronomy 34:10, Judges 13:22, and Isaiah 6:5). For those who deny the incarnation of Christ, Theophanies do show that the notion of God becoming a man is not altogether incomprehensible or impossible, but rather, downright plausible.

Theophanies might be considered precursors (along with verses such as Isaiah 9:6 and Micah 5:2) of the incarnation of the Messiah Jesus, the Son of God. Now how is it possible for the invisible God, Who is a Spirit, to be seen, and to have a body? Yet this is what we are told in the Old Testament. This is scarcely any different from the incarnation, yet Mr. Ally tells us that the latter is "logically impossible"!

7. How is it, then, that Mr. Ally believes that the incarnation cannot possibly happen, based on purely logical considerations? We start with an omnipotent God. He makes man in His image; He appears as a man; He appears as the angel of the Lord (and angels are not eternal, and they are creatures; so this -- like the Theophanies -- is a supposed "contradiction" since it opposes God's Nature). He can and does do all that, yet supposedly He can't become a man. This is what is logically absurd, not the incarnation, as seen in the following logical chain:

A. God has all power.

B. God appeared as a man, supposedly "contrary" to His nature as invisible, eternal, and a non-creature (which man is).

C. God appeared as an angel, supposedly "contrary" to His nature as invisible, eternal and a non-creature (which an angel is).

D. God created man in His own image.

E. But God cannot become a man. This is logically impossible.

Oh??!! How is it logically impossible for a Being with all power, Who appears as a man and an angel, and Who creates man in His own image, to become a man? By what ironclad, indisputable logic do we completely distinguish the concepts of appearing like a man or an angel in all outward aspects, and becoming an actual man? Certainly the two notions are quite close, and if one is actual, we cannot plausibly rule out the other concept as "impossible." We might be able to reasonably infer (apart from revelation and faith considerations) that it didn't happen in fact, but we can't reasonably infer that it is "logically impossible."

And that is because of the well-known maxim and prior widely-accepted axiom that "the stream can't rise above its source." If God can make a man, He can easily become one, without yielding up His divinity, which cannot by definition ever be given up. To say that He could not do so would be to say that a mere creature possesses attributes (existence in human form) that the Almighty God does not and cannot possess, and that is absurd.

Contingent and derivative creatures can never be greater than their own cause: the First Cause and Prime Mover and Creator of all: the Almighty God. If God switched from being God to being a mere man, that would be absurd, because of the immutability (unchangeability) of God. But if He takes on human nature in addition to His Divine Nature, which He always has, and cannot ever lose, it is no contradiction at all; it is simply part and parcel of
His omnipotence. The legitimate reasoning chain, therefore, works as follows:

A. God has all power.

B. God created man.

C. Man has the attribute of existence in human form.

D. Therefore, existence in human form is logically possible, because it exists and is manifestly apparent.

E. An omnipotent God can do all that is logically possible.

F. Existence in human form is logically possible (D).

G. Therefore, God can so exist as well (while simultaneously and necessarily remaining God), since He created the human form, and made the human form in His own image, and even assumed it in the Theophanies (and in angelic forms).

H. Otherwise, He is not omnipotent, for man would be able to do something (exist as a man) that the very Creator of man, Whose image man reflects, cannot do.

I. Omnipotence is central to the definition of God. Therefore, H must be false (granting the theistic nature of God), and G must be true.

J. Ergo, the Incarnation is not only not logically impossible; is quite plausible from reason alone, and an actuality, based on reason and revelation and historical argument.

Dialogue: Catholic "Traditionalism": the Dreadful Malady of the Mind and Scourge of an Optimistic Faith in God's Protection of His Church

(Dave Armstrong vs. David Palm and Mario Derksen)

Their words will be in blue and green:

I have a challenge for you guys. The reply could come back from the sisters that they are only being "ecumenical" by allowing the use of their facilities by Wiccans. . . . Add to this the fact that Pope John Paul II was publicly present with African and North American animists and Zoroastrians at a religious gathering in Assisi in 1986.

Here's the unfolding news on our coven of witches. We have sought to get the bishop to place the Franciscan Spirituality Center under interdict if they persist in hosting the Wiccan coven. But when I spoke to one of our most orthodox priests to get his support for that idea, he resisted it by bringing up the example of.....you guessed it, the Holy Father's hosting of pagans at Assisi, including his allowing them to use Catholic facilities for pagan ceremonies.

I told him that I believe that this is precisely why the Holy Father should not be involved in such things as the gathering at Assisi and that it is an example of ecumania rather than true ecumenism.

Hi [Name and Name],

You asked for it! Are you sitting down? :-) I guess so, if you're at your computer . . .

I agree with you (based on what I know from your report) that what is going on in your area with the witches is weird and scandalous and disgraceful, for whoever is allowing it. I disagree (surprise!) that this is the equivalent of, or consistent with, or logically flows from, legitimate Catholic ecumenism or the Assisi meeting. Why I think that has been well laid-out in my papers on ecumenism; I need not reiterate it here (nor do I wish to). But I have more than enough to express in this letter nonetheless. In my last exchange with you guys I expressed what I feel are the glaring logical fallacies and extremities of a hostile opinion towards (real Catholic, Vatican II) ecumenism.

I don't think you guys "get it" with regard to ecumenism. You don't seem to make the necessary (elementary) distinctions, and you jumble things and ideas together that don't belong together (even though liberals and suchlike often join them, to the detriment of everybody - to that extent, you repeat their errors, though for much different - far superior - reasons and motivations). There are liberal lies about and distortions of ecumenism, and there are "traditionalist" lies about and distortions of ecumenism. The liberal "useful idiot" buffoons get more and more heterodox and wacko and New Age, and the "trads" get more and more conspiratorial and exclusivistic; almost Pharisaical at times, in their strong tendencies towards absurd, short-sighted hyper-legalism.

Some "trads" I've seen (not you guys, I hasten to add) make the John Birchers look like flaming Leninists. LOL Many would have been Arians or Nestorians or Monophysites in the old days, I am quite convinced (or Old Catholics, with Dollinger in 1870): fighting the "liberal" innovations and corruptions of Nicaea and Ephesus and Chalcedon alike, which (so they would tell us) "threaten passed-down orthodoxy." Down with development! Down with new and fresh approaches from the same orthodox Catholic standpoint (e.g., St. Francis, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Therese of Lisieux, Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Pope John Paul II, etc.), in order to deal with and better reach modern man and the secular society we find ourselves in. Down with increased sophistication and nuance and a proper, orthodox sense of social and theological progressivism.

Such nay-saying is, I think, the equivalent of anti-intellectual Protestant fundamentalism, stuck (in their case) in the 1890s, unwilling to admit that there has been such a thing as the 20th century, or a Bible translation other than the King James.

St. Paul must have been a modernist and dreaded "ecumenist," too, I guess, when he sought to approach people differently, based on their place in the scheme of religions and ideas. "I have become all things to all men, that by all means I may save some." He paganized himself in the market square at Athens, referring to weird false gods and even pagan poets. What an indifferentist, he! Obviously compromised . . . clearly he would have kissed the Koran too. Tsk, tsk, tsk! Shame on him. How did he make it into the Bible anyway? Maybe the liberal Chalcedonians screwed around with the "real" Bible so Paul could get in . . . . . .

[don't make the mistake of thinking that my sarcasm does not have a deadly serious meaning underlying it. Some ideas require sarcasm to be refuted - pure, non-acerbic reason not having worked very well]

And then there is simply orthodox Catholic ecumenism, standing in that glorious position of the "middle" or the mainstream, which Chesterton refers to often (in different terms) in his book Orthodoxy.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend or to accept? You want to put the Holy Father out on the extreme fringes of ecumenism (in the wider, not always orthodox sense of the word)? Go ahead . . . I think it is nonsense (in fact, not because I am some sort of "papal slave," as those obedient to the pope are often falsely accused of being), and I think you make yourself look foolish in so doing.

I have always said that Catholic "traditionalism" of the common sort today is a problem of faulty thinking, perhaps foremost, but also of a loss of supernatural faith (in the full Catholic sense). It blends (quite ironically and astonishingly) the Protestant principle of private judgment with the liberal principle of (arbitrary) pick-and-choose. I see both of you falling into these traps, to some extent, the more I read about what you believe. It is distressing. Do I have to observe the tragic spectacle of one or other of you going SSPX one of these days? I guess human nature is prone to separatism, disobedience, and the creation of conspiratorial theories.

Once a false idea takes hold in a group, it spreads like wildfire or cancer. This "traditionalist" stuff reminds me (sociologically) of my former days in the charismatic denomination Assemblies of God. Though it formally decried the "name-it-claim-it, hyper-faith, God always heals" heretical nonsense of Copeland, Hagin, Tilton et al (i.e., the fringe elements of pentecostalism), yet there were people everywhere to be found within A/G ranks who believed this claptrap, because it was tolerated and not severely rebuked. That led me to do a huge refutation of it way back in 1982, but I had little success with individuals, once they had "caught the disease" of the so-called prosperity gospel. It was never an intellectual process to begin with for these people, but an ear-tickling and narcissistic path, so Bible-quoting and reason was of little use.

I made a similar point when I critiqued the Remnant. I argued that technically the views expressed might be orthodox and non-schismatic, but when you come right down to it, the views were so close to schism and disobedience (and the pope and Vatican II railed against so incessantly), that in a very real practical (or what one might call a psychological) sense, there is virtually no difference. And this "ultra-conservative" mindset seems impervious to all reasoning and appeal to any Church teaching whatever (at least in my experience). In fighting so hard against the liberals (for which you have my highest commendations), you have, strangely enough, adopted a hybrid persona of liberal Catholic/fundamentalist Protestant/"orthodox Catholic" - having assimilated key ideas and premises from all three camps, yet not seemingly aware that you have done so.

There is an old saying: "scratch a Protestant and you get a Nestorian." I think there is a lot of truth to that. Well, now I suspect that if you scratch a so-called "traditionalist," you may wind up with a closet-SSPXer (i.e., schismatic). The behavior of those in the Remnant subsequent to my critique spectacularly confirmed my thesis in that paper, I think. The quasi-schismatics either did cross the line or got dangerously close to it (e.g., the ISOCC video), while Stephen Hand started to see the writing on the wall and got out. I'm not saying at all that I caused all this with my paper (of course not! LOL). I'm just making a sociological observation that what I warned about indeed occurred (sociology was my major, after all, and I do manage to utilize a wee bit of it every now and then :-).

Anyway, that's how this stuff strikes me (in my analogical mind). None of this is intended to be personal at all. As always, I am strictly criticizing ideas and what I see as tendencies and trends of thought (which necessitates much generalizing and broad analysis), without ever implying obstinacy or lack of intelligence or bad motives or anything of the sort. I hope you guys know me well enough to know that. But you asked my opinion, and I have given it. :-)

You guys have been pretty silent on this. Anybody agree with me? Disagree with me?

Speaking for myself, that is because I am sick and tired of this so-called "traditionalist vs. conservative" debate. I was sick of it before I did the piece on the Remnant over a year ago. I only did that because it was sort of a "deal" I made with [Name; one of the correspondents]. I think it zaps energy, creates needless animosity, is one of Satan's clever schemes to divide the Church, and detracts from the truly important business of sharing the Gospel and the truth of the fullness of the Catholic Church with Protestants and infidels alike. And it takes people away from other far more important issues such as charity, social and pro-life activism, and family and devotional time.

Wish I'd shut up? ;o)

No, I would never tell anyone to do that (well, maybe Jesse Jackson), being the Socratic and passionate advocate of free speech that I am. :-) My wish for you is that you could straighten this out for yourself, stop being so "troubled" and attain to the trust and comfort that God is in control of His Church, warts and all, 100% sinners and all, and that the present Holy Father is one of the greatest popes in history. That's my wish for you two, and others of like mind. Pray for real problems, do all you can to resolve them, rebuke (real) hypocrisy as you wish, but please, stop being so "troubled." You ought to be at peace with yourself, your God, and the Church. If you wanted to continue worrying about everything, you could have stayed in man-centered Protestantism, where there is every reason to be concerned about any number of heterodoxies and morally relativistic beliefs.

I think that ultimately it is a matter of faith, and that "traditionalists" - somewhere along the way - have lost some of this faith in indefectibility and ecclesiological infallibility and the Holy Spirit's guidance of Holy Mother Church in all times and places.

Respectfully, your brother and friend in Christ,

Dave

Hi [Name],

I much appreciate your cordiality, as always, if not several of your ideas. I will make a few replies, because - as you know - I try to avoid lengthy dialogues on this topic. I have more than enough on my site, and not much to add to them, at least at this point in my life. But this very letter is a case in point, for one of my gripes. If I wasn't doing this, I would be writing to a Lutheran friend who may convert. In my opinion, that endeavor would be far more important than this little debate. I'm tired tonight and don't know how much writing I will be able to get done. But here I am because you're so nice and I wanted to at least offer some response. :-)

I don't think that this was really [Name's] point. I think the real point was that, de facto, the Assisi event is USED to explain and justify such Wicca events within Catholic territory.

So what? People commit fallacies all the time. If I tried to refute all of those I would do nothing else (actually, I think I do do quite a bit of that, come to think of it LOL). But I was tryng to get at the deeper, underlying assumptions, as is my custom and usual methodology.

OK, shift back a few gears concerning your word choices now.... :-)

Hey! I resemble that remark! (making my best Curly-face) LOL

The fact of the matter is that the traditionalist realizes that the perhaps intended ecumenism of a few orthodox Cardinals in the Vatican just isn't there. It's not practiced. You may point to this and
that document pointing out that, doctrinally, the idea is orthodox, but DE FACTO, it just
doesn't happen.

So ECT wasn't real? The Lutheran Agreements weren't real? Or the many agreements with the Orthodox? Or the siding with the Muslims at one of those feminist world conferences? I guess we really do live in two different worlds, my friend.

The Vatican may say something about religious liberty, and the world takes it to mean indifferentism.

Why should I care what the world thinks? They think a lot of false things. It matters not what the Church does. It will always be wrong in the world's eyes, either triumphalistic or touchy-feely inclusivistic (sometimes both simultanesouly, so we are told by our holier-than-thou secularist critics).

Sorry but I can't help putting these words now: BLAH BLAH. That "middle" ground may exist
on paper, but not in the real world. It's just not there.

It certainly is. The center ground is orthodox Catholicism, which has always existed, and always will exist. My primary point was concerning orthodoxy, and if you claim that it has ceased, then you have accepted defectibility and are no better than an Anabaptist.

Who cares about Spong and McBrien? See, this is part of your problem. You are concerned about the buffoons, whereas anyone who has any sense of the perspective of history knows that their time has long passed, and that they are living fossils (just like the stubborn and persistent Marxism at American universities). You are trapped in your own time - the current zeitgeist -, like a fish in a dinky tank. This is why history is so important, among many other reasons. And Church history is more exciting than any other.

"clearly-schismatic Remnant"?? I think it's bold enough for Stephen Hand to claim it's schismatic, but now you're saying it's CLEARLY schismatic??

Yes; not that I am an expert, but from what I have seen, it is quite sufficient to convince me that they are schismatics, at least in spirit, if not in letter, per my reasoning all along. The spirit comes first. One has a spirit of lust before one commits the act of adultery. Adultery of the heart comes before adultery of the genitals. One has a spirit of division (Luther in 1517 / Lefebvre, Dollinger, Kung, Curran, and Matthew Fox) before one actually splits "in the real world" (Luther, 1521). This shouldn't be any sort of controversial observation on my part. But to one who is a canonical, liturgical, and conciliar hyper-legalist, I suppose it would seem that way.

(The SSPX, by the way, was allowed to say Mass on some of the side altars during the Jubilee Year---perhaps this is one of Rome's ecumenical favors).

Indeed it would be that. There is a place for prudence and diplomacy, in the attempt to win people back to the Faith and the Church.

Ah, there we go! That's precisely what I think about the so-called "middle ecumenism." Technically, it may be correct and praiseworthy, but it ain't there in practice.

So, according to you, all ecumenism (in reality, in practice) is wacko indifferentist, touchy-feely, liberal, modernist, relativism. Is that what you wish to contend?

Hold it right there, Dave. Let me show you what the problem is with your position here. We
cannot heal anyone else or convert anyone else before we haven't solved our own problems.

If that were true, then we would have done no evangelism for 2000 years, because there have always been problems in the Church, due to sin (not in its dogma). You're digging yourself deeper and deeper, my friend. This is utterly nonsensical. I'm really surprised you would make such a weak and pathetic argument as this.

By converting a Protestant to Catholic, you're doing a great thing, but it doesn't take long and he'll realize that there are tremendous problems in the Church, and if he realizes this soon enough, he may not even convert to Catholicism!

How, then, can it be that there has been a tremendous number of converts despite your Chicken Little scenarios about the current-day Church? Hmmmmmmmmmm????????????? Were all us converts dupes who should have stayed in the "conservative" denominations? I'm here in the Church because it taught against contraception, like all Christians did before 1930. How many Catholics disbelieve the teaching was absolutely irrelevant as to my decision to convert or not. The doctrine was correct. Same thing with divorce. Same thing with abortion. This is what attracted me to the Church, because moral laxity can be found anywhere (original sin). But true, traditional, unchanging Christian moral teaching is only found in one place.

That's what I had been seeking for, for ten years as a serious Christian. I found it, and here I am, and quite glad to be here, thank you, and not at all constantly "troubled" like you two seem to perpetually be. It must get very tiring. I've found the pearl of great price. You guys seem to want to prove that the pearl is really a jagged, stinky lump of coal, or worse (an almost-dead jellyfish, perhaps?). You won't succeed with me; I'll tell you that right now.

So we're supposed to stop making converts and devote ourselves to house-cleaning exclusively? Yeah, right. Where in the world do you find that in the Bible or in the Church's directives to laymen? My vocation is as an evangelist and apologist. By definition the former is to the non-Catholic, and the latter is primarily to be used as a method of clearing roadblocks to the Faith (though it is useful for bolstering the faith of Catholics also - but that, too, has nothing to do with most of the "trad" critique). These offices and tasks don't cease because there are "problems" in the Church - as if that is some new thing that wasn't always there.

If the Protestant-turned-Catholic reads what we believe about the Eucharist, it won't take long for him to ask, "Wait a minute, why do you give it in the hand? And why doesn't Father take more care in handling the Body and Blood of Christ?" It is such things that, IF NOT WORKED OUT, will STOP people from converting.

Again, this was not at all true in my case, and I don't think I am all that un-representative of the average fairly-educated convert. We all know (and knew) that there are problems of liberalism in the Church! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Liberals (like the poor) will always be with us. But - again - only one Church has true doctrine in toto, true moral teaching, the most sublime spirituality, saints and miracles and all the rest, and the unbroken history to verify those. That is what brings converts in, because we are well-acquainted with the absolute chaos and anarchy in Protestantism.

So, in short, I think you conservatives are still living in a fancy wonderland of "everything's alright with the Church,

Doctrinally, yes. In practice, we never reach perfection, and will always fall short as a group. Whoever says "everything is alright" (which I have never done nor would ever dream of doing), is the one in a wonderland, not a realist so-called "conservative" such as myself. If I thought there were no problems how could I give you "traditionalists" such a hard time, as one of the "problems" I would identify? Why would I have a page on modernism? Etc., etc. C'mon! You can do better than this. I believe the doctrines are very much "alright," and infallible.

and John Paul will be called 'the Great'

He will indeed, as (I believe history will record) the vanquisher of modernism, Communism, the culture of death, and unisexism, if not many more things.

and a new Springtime is ahead in the Church".......

Absolutely. This has always been the case in the next century after a terrible one, as Chesterton loves to point out ("the Church has gone to the dogs at least five times. In each case the dogs died"). The 20th has been the worst in history, by far. So the 21st century (if history teaches us anything) will be a time of one of the greatest revivals in the history of the Church. This is what the late Fr. John Hardon (flaming modernist that he was) believed. The pope believes it. So do I. If you want to sit around and moan and groan and cry in your beer and be a pessimist and a cynic and a doomsayer while revival breaks out all around you, go ahead. You won't take away my excitement when I start to see it. No way! In fact, I say that the seeds of the revival are all well-planted already. We will see the growth soon, no more than 20-40 years away at the latest, I would speculate.

unfortunately, the doctor who can't figure out what's wrong with the patient until he's almost dead will have a much harder time healing him.

If the Catholic Church were "almost dead," we would look a lot more like Anglicanism or even more far-gone denominations like the United Church of Christ. You want some profound deadness? Grow up in Methodism in the 60s as I did. Deader than a doornail (at least the church I attended). I don't think you have the slightest inkling of what real "near-spiritual death" looks like. Whole denominations which fully accept abortion and fornication and homosexuality. And you're most concerned about Catholic ecumenism???!!! Good heavens! What a waste of energy and emotion . . .

This is depressing . . . the only thing that cheers me up in such a discussion is pondering the revival that will almost certainly occur in this century. I used to think (as an evangelical dispensationalist enamored of pop prophecy) that the world would end in 10, 20 years. I'm glad that I take a much longer view of Church history now, rather than dwell in this sort of doom-and-gloom conspiratorial apocalypticism which is yet another hallmark of so-called "traditionalism."

God bless,

Dave

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 21 January 2001.

Dialogue on "The Remnant" ("Traditionalist" Group) (vs. Mark Cameron)

Remnant luminaries John Vennari and Michael Matt

The following exchanges stem from my paper: Critique of The Remnant, with Copious Documentation. In it, I expressed a willingness to interact with (to some extent), counter-replies. No one at The Remnant has been willing to formally debate these past three months since the critique was uploaded (or make any response whatsoever, in most cases). Another non-affiliated, more moderate "traditionalist," however (Mark Cameron), did send a very thoughtful, challenging letter. It was later posted on The Remnant website. As such it is the closest thing to a direct response I am likely to get. That's fine with me; I'm content to let readers judge the competing visions of Catholicism for themselves. Comments from others shall be in blue.

* * * * *

Two Letters From Traditionalists

I thought this was great that you were challenging . . . the Remnant. I have been reading the Remnant for about five years and enjoy their paper; however, they do go way out in some of their thinking. I have wanted a good debate in this area for years so I welcome you to the debate! . . . I hope [they] will challenge you, in detail, so that we can all learn from this . . . You are one of the few Laymen with the gifts to be able to do this.

While I have wavered back and forth on your assessments of traditionalists (being one myself), I must disprove your theory that we are all entrenched in our ways, and not open to change our views. You (and Father Most and Father Hardon, Father McCarthy and Harrison) have all helped me to see the illogic of many of the tenets of the more extreme traditionalism. All I have wanted was for someone who wasn't a Modernist to disprove many of their (Remnant-type) arguments and assumptions. While I do not agree with all of your assessments in your critique, I thank you for bringing me back toward the heart of the Church. Whether I am a traditional conservative or conservative traditionalist I don't know, but your critique has gone a long way in helping me see the illogic in many of their arguments, especially John Vennari and Michael Matt; however, unlike others, I do NOT systematically condemn ALL of their writings and opinions and do believe they are at least expressing Catholic lay opinions (not theologians) that need to be expressed.

Next are excerpts from a thought-provoking and articulate letter from Mark Cameron, a "traditionalist" not affiliated with The Remnant, who disagrees with them on several issues. I will respond to it insofar as it is directly related to my paper. As stated in my Critique, I am not interested in a full-fledged debate on "traditionalism." I have more than enough of that type of endeavor already on my website (perhaps more than can be found anywhere in one place on the Internet), and I have devoted far more time than I would have preferred to this debate as it is.

Open Letter to Dave Armstrong: Can Traditionalists Question Magisterial Teachings and Still Remain Loyal to the Holy Father?

Mark Cameron

NOTE: After the first round (I have edited the "rounds" together to make the dialogue flow back-and-forth), Mr. Cameron made the following statement in a letter to me:

First of all, at several points in your reply, I think that you misrepresent what I am trying to say by omitting key portions of my argument [Dave: such was not my intention at all]. I hope, out of courtesy, that you will link your reply to the full text of the letter itself.

I am happy to comply with this hope: here is the link to Mr. Cameron's complete letter: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/armstrong1.html I remain firm, however, in my resolve to not debate every jot and tittle of this issue, per my statements in the Introduction of my original critique of The Remnant, and those above, introducing this debate. The arguments in that paper are what I am fully willing to defend and devote increasingly-limited time to. As it is, the following debate tends to "drift" further and further from my original paper, so my replies are not to be regarded as "systematic" or "comprehensive." This is the dilemma when one wants to debate certain aspects of a matter, but not all. The opponent tends (unconsciously, no doubt) to keep broadening the parameters of the debate, contrary to the wishes of his partner.

* * *

I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic loyal to the Holy Father. I attend the traditional Latin Mass available under the terms of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. I like your website very much, and I also like [the] Remnant Resistance website very much. Both are bookmarked, and I check both frequently. I suppose I would consider my theological position to be a little bit to the "right" of you, and a little bit to the "left" of [The Remnant]. But I think that your recent long article attacking various articles . . . fails to distinguish between legitimate traditionalist questioning of certain elements of the Vatican II documents and post-Vatican II magisterial teachings and practices, and heterodox dissent. Many faithful Catholics, "traditionalists" and "conservatives" alike, believe that the Church is undergoing a period of crisis.

Anyone who is conscious knows that . . .

. . . I must begin by pointing out that traditionalists are not alone among orthodox Catholics in questioning some emphases of recent magisterial teaching. For instance, some conservative Catholics have questioned the Holy Father's adamant opposition to capital punishment.

But this is proper and permissible because capital punishment is not an absolute evil. It can't possibly be, since God has commanded it (and given the analogy of war and lethal force of police). So it is a "disciplinary" and socio-political question of the just exercise of this prerogative of states, and therefore, one can differ with it without being a dissenter; I agree. In any event, this is a far cry from denigrating the New Mass, and an Ecumenical Council, believing in defectibility, or quasi-defectibility, etc.; so different that it can hardly be deemed an analogy, in my opinion.

a) This is not simply a disciplinary matter (like clerical celibacy), but a matter of the correct interpretation of natural law, as was Humanae Vitae.

In this case, the application of the natural law (affecting justice and the right of states to protect citizens) has been applied differently - analogous to the varying application of the Mosaic Law, as I argue below. Contraception is far less ambiguous, as to practice. It is simply wrong, and there is no two ways about it.

b) In saying this, you are already revealing yourself as less of a "conservative" than Russell Shaw of the Knights of Columbus, Charles Rice of Notre Dame Law School, and Our Sunday Visitor. They have all said that the recent exercise of the magisterium on the terms and conditions of capital punishment demands a religious submission of mind and will on the part of the faithful.

I would essentially agree with them (as far as I am able to speak on such technical matters). I was simply making the point that this disagreement is significantly different in type than the major disagreements which "traditionalists" express (and the spirit of disobedience they often embrace), as noted above. "Traditionalists" seem to habitually ignore this aspect of "religious submission of mind and will" so it is pointless for me to emphasize it in debate with them (they will just ignore it and move on). I must momentarily assume the (as I see it) "legalistic," "hyper-technical" mindset of "traditionalists in order even to engage in meaningful conversation with them.

c) How is the "socio-political question of the just exercise of this prerogative of states" different from the socio-political question of the just prerogative of states to censor or suppress the public expression of heretical opinion, which central to the traditionalist critique of the Declaration on Religious Liberty?

It isn't that different, in terms of the relatedness of ideas; this is a great point you make. The matter of religious liberty is indeed similar to the question of capital punishment (and the relationship to the Inquisition, etc.). I was assuming that the statements of the Holy Father on capital punishment possess less authority than those of Vatican II. The application and strategies in these areas can, and have, changed. I would argue that the so-called "innovations" of Vatican II concerning religious liberty are merely a return to the status quo of the early Church, over against the Church of the High Middle Ages. The Council, in decreeing this, lends its authority to the current "move" of the Holy Spirit towards more tolerance and ecumenism, while not compromising or sacrificing doctrine in the process. Your point is well-taken, and I appreciate it, but I don't think it is proven by any means that the Vatican II emphasis on religious liberty is a corruption or reversal of previous Tradition, since this was the primitive (apostolic) Tradition, and since application may vary, according to times and places.

. . . In my view, traditional Catholics do no differently, except that their disagreement is with a wider range of recent magisterial teaching.

I disagree: I think there is a qualitative difference, as alluded to above, and as argued throughout my long paper.

. . . Now, is Father Neuhaus correct that there is a right for Catholics to express their disagreement with magisterial teachings?

On certain limited matters, with all due respect, and other times in grave circumstances, yes. The "traditionalist" critique, however, is way beyond (like Pluto to Mercury) a disagreement over what constitutes legal and societal justice, with regard to criminals (or, formerly, heresy). That has obviously changed, from the times of the Crusades and Inquisition, etc. But this involves no dogma of the faith, or proclamations of a complete "reversal" of doctrine and precedent.

I believe that the traditionalist critiques are on "limited" matters (innovative Conciliar or Papal teachings taught with only the authority of the authentic, non-definitive magisterium), and this because of "grave circumstances" (the crisis in the Church that you agree that "anyone who is conscious" is aware of).

But that leads us to another topic: the authority of Vatican II, which I have dealt with elsewhere. This current exchange is supposed to have some relation to my critique of The Remnant, no?

I am not referring to schismatic traditionalists who deny the validity of the Novus Ordo, the Council, the post-Conciliar Popes, or believe that the Church has defected and Rome has become the seat of the anti-Christ. I am referring to traditionalists loyal to the Holy See who nonetheless believe that certain errors, ambiguities, and omissions in the documents of Vatican II and in recent Papal teaching have contributed to the crisis of the Faith which we all agree is occurring.

I have argued that The Remnant is both contradictory, and ambiguous on these matters. No one has yet seen fit to challenge my evidences for that assertion, thoroughly documented. I continue to deny that Vatican II itself, or the teaching of John Paul II is in any way responsible for the modernist crisis. I simply don't locate the cause in those places (and I am as free to think that as you claim you are to assert the contrary). I think that Catholics ought to submit to the Council even if fine points of non-infallibility can be established by authorities competent to do so. My position has been falsely portrayed by "traditionalists" as never allowing any criticism of the pope. The other extreme to that scenario is to - in effect - believe that no submission is mandatory unless it has to do with technically infallible decrees. This is what breeds chaos in "traditionalist" ranks. Infallibility and submission are two different things.

. . . it is clear that all of the teachings of Vatican II and recent Papal encyclicals fall into this category of authentic, but non-definitive teaching.

It's clear as mud, but I'm not gonna debate that here.

This is a rather crucial point: the degree of authority which is attached to the Conciliar documents and Papal encyclicals. However, you do discuss the issue of Conciliar infallibility below, so I will save my comments for later.

Indeed it is crucial, but again, the current debate - at least as I see it - is not about that, but about the wider issue of defectibility and the extreme nature of many statements on The Remnant web page concerning which you and I are largely in agreement.

I would add that this only applies to the new teachings of Vatican II or Papal encyclicals. When Vatican II or the Holy Father reiterates the constant teaching of the extraordinary or ordinary and universal magisterium, they are teaching infallibly.

Ah! Okay; so we have to define "new." If by it you mean that these teachings are corruptions rather than developments, then you would have a non-controversial point. But I deny that they are corruptions at all. Ecumenism has many seeds in the early Church (particularly in how it regarded the Donatists). Religious liberty clearly has much precedent in the early Church. The espousal of the use of force in religious matters came later. If anything was a "corruption," that was, not the freedom of religion which the Fathers generally taught (though the issue is very complex, and I have written on this, too).

It is very important to define what we mean by "new" teaching, I agree. The Holy Father himself said in Ecclesia Dei:

The extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

So he agrees that there are new doctrinal teachings in Vatican II. That these teachings (on religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, the salvation of non-believers, etc.) are not obviously and easily derived from earlier teachings is apparent, or else the Pope would not have found it necessary to call, over 30 years after the Council, for a renewed study to show their harmony with Tradition.

But this does not establish the radical "traditionalist" critique at all; quite the contrary. The Holy Father is clearly using "new" in the sense in which the New Testament was "new," or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was "new," or the inclusion of Gentiles into Christianity was "new." In none of these cases was the "newness" a corruption of what came before; rather they were developments. And in each case there was much misunderstanding and dissension, and accusations that the "new" doctrine had forsaken the "old" ways. Secondly, John Paul II refers to "points of doctrine," not "doctrines" per se - which cannot happen, as all dogmatic doctrines are received from the Apostles, and cannot be changed.

Right in the quote (somehow you overlooked it), he refutes the falsity of your interpretation of it, since he writes of "the Council's continuity with Tradition." He doesn't see any discontinuity. The "evidence" of this citation in favor of your point is exceedingly weak; almost nonexistent, in fact. Jesus spoke of the "new wine" and used other similar metaphors (see, e.g., Mk 2:21-22; Lk 5:36-39). Does this prove that He was introducing "new" doctrines "not obviously and easily derived from earlier teachings"? The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) dealt with the Judaizers. There had been some confusion and "ambiguity." What caused that confusion, I ask you? The proclamation of the gospel itself? Paul's preaching? Peter's preaching? I don't see any major differences here. I see many analogies, but none of them seem to me to support your "traditionalist" ideas about the causes of error being found within the documents of Vatican II.

So - as I see it - the entire debate (even as you are now framing it) does indeed hinge on an application of Newmanian development to the disputed issues. I emphasized this in my debate, but my original opponents have refused to interact with it. You have done much better (if only I had the time to fully engage this - I may do so yet, given certain conditions). In my opinion, you have to demonstrate that ecumenism, religious liberty, etc., are total corruptions of Catholic Tradition. If you cannot do that, then you have already conceded the case, by your own stated criteria, as they would then be part and parcel of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

I do not think that one has to say that these teachings are "total corruptions." They may be partial corruptions, inexact, contradictory, ambiguous and giving rise to erroneous interpretations, etc. Surely this would be enough to justify asking for corrections and clarifications.

Well, since the Holy Father has stated that this should take place (evidenced by your quote), then where is the beef? If the Church makes some pronouncement, but it is not infallible or ex cathedra, you "traditionalists" will squawk about its "insufficiency" or "too little too late." Or you will moan and groan that he is taking too long to even commence the formal process, etc. Nothing ever seems to be good enough. I continue to maintain that there is a harmful and deleterious "spirit of traditionalism" - if you will, that runs contrary to the spirit of obedience to the pope and Church authority, and to a bright, optimistic, hopeful faith (which martyrs possess in the very worst of circumstances). The doom-and-gloom mentality, exclusivistic orientation, and tendency to resort to conspiratorial explanations for things one is unable to comprehend also typifies certain strains of political conservatism, and "fundamentalist" branches of Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

Note, e.g., a remark by Anne Roche Muggeridge (author of The Desolate City):

I try to practise the virtue of hope, but the Irish aren't congenitally designed for it. I hope for the Church in the long run, but the dismal short run, where we are now, is exasperating and discouraging to all but the holy and the fantasists. The disaster has been so great that it is hard to believe in any extensive survival of the Church on earth, let alone a glorious recovery. (Catholic Eye, December 19, 1992).

Secondly, even if the new teachings are not corruptions but genuine developments, that would not make them part of the "ordinary and universal magisterium" automatically. The universal magisterium implies continuity in time. If the current magisterium clarifies something which the earlier magsiterium did not teach (or taught to the contrary), then the new teaching simply has the weight of the authentic magisterium unless it is proclaimed as infallible by the extraordinary magisterium.

Thus, in Pope John Paul II's statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis -- "in order that there remain no doubt on a question of such importance concerning the divine constitution itself of the Church, I declare, by virtue of my mission to confirm my brethren, that the Church simply does not have the power to confer priestly ordination on women and that this position must be definitively held by all the faithful of the Church." -- he reiterates an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium, even if he does not define it as a dogma by an exercise of his extraordinary magisterium. But his statements about democracy and capitalism in Centesimus Annus or on capital punishment in Evangelium Vitae, while exercises of his authentic magisterium, are non-definitive teachings.

I agree (as far as I understand these technical canonical matters).

. . . What kind of assent does the authentic magisterium call for on behalf of the faithful? . . . In my judgment, the CRC and the Remnant sometimes fail in not showing the proper "obsequium" towards legitimate authority, but in many cases I find myself in agreement with the substance of their critiques, even if the tone is overly belligerent for my tastes.

This discussion over the precise translations of Latin words, is over my head, and beyond my purview. I will not attempt to discuss such issues and pretend that I am qualified to do so.

I don't consider myself to be technically qualified in this area either. I simply quoted authorities (Fr. Francis Sullivan, SJ, and Bishop B.C. Butler) who are. Lack of qualifications in Latin does not usually prevent conservatives from quoting Lumen Gentium 25 to mean that traditionalists must "submit" to every novelty that comes forth from a Roman dicastery from allowing altar girls to endorsing the Lutheran-Catholic declaration on justification.

:-) You made your rhetorical point. I won't go down this rabbit trail (one of many in this exchange).

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913, "General Councils"), e.g., wrote about submission with regard to Ecumenical Councils:

. . . Denzinger's (ed. Stahl) "Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum", under the heading (index) "Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience) . . . before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff's ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ's co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving.

. . . Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope.

. . . An opinion too absurd to require refutation pretends that only these latter canons (with the attached anathemas) contain the peremptory judgment of the council demanding unquestioned submission. Equally absurd is the opinion, sometimes recklessly advanced, that the Tridentine capita are no more than explanations of the canones, not proper definitions; the council itself, at the beginning and end of each chapter, declares them to contain the rule of faith.

{From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright 1996 by New Advent, Inc. }

The last section of this quoted text was the only one you have cited that gave me pause. Of course I acknowledge that Ecumenical Councils are instruments of infallible teaching authority, but I have been convinced by reliable authorities that the Vatican II documents are worded in such a way as to make clear that the Council was not engaging its infallible teaching authority.

But who has the authority to declare that and allow you to authoritatively believe it, as a good Catholic? You will listen to a theologian, when he contradicts what popes say about the authority of the Council? That is pure modernist methodology (inherited from Protestant notions of "authority"), as you must know.

Your last quoted sentence, however, indicates that perhaps Conciliar documents enjoy a broader kind of infallibility than I had previously been led to believe.

Great.

But when I read the section of the article in question, I find that you have quoted it extremely selectively.

Yes, precisely because the whole excerpt is reprinted in the web article referred to above, on Vatican II. I'm not about to repeat things over and over on my website, when a hyper-link can immediately take the reader to something. True, I didn't point this out specifically above (though it is strongly implied by my introductory remarks), but now everyone knows. I figure that if I repeat things enough times, maybe some of it will sink in, and indeed some did, with you.

[I deleted citations of other parts of the article - the reader can simply follow the hyper-link above]

Since the expressed purpose of the Second Vatican Council was not to advance new doctrines, or to resolve doctrinal controversies, but to explain the traditional doctrines of the Faith in a matter suited to the modern world, it would seem that the vast majority of its statements "represent too much of the human element, of transient mentalities, of personal interests to claim the promise of infallibility made to the Church as a whole." The Documents of Vatican II contain lengthy discussions of theological, scientific, and historical matters, but precious little that approaches a dogmatic formulation.

Again, this is exactly the sort of discussion I am not willing to engage in, as I don't feel qualified, and since it is far from the subject of the extremity of Remnant opinions and expressions.

The part you selectively cite illustrates that the Chapters of the Council of Trent were intended to have authoritative dogmatic weight as well as the particular Canons with attached anathemas. But the Second Vatican Council avoided using the expressions which would indicate that it was undertaking any definitive act. Even in the document with the most important doctrinal content and the most authoritative weight, Lumen Gentium, the Council uses the term "decernimus ac statuimus" (We decree and establish) rather than the traditional formulation "definimus" (We define), which is found in the decrees of Trent and Vatican I.

This is all talk for canon lawyers. The pope is there for a reason, and in God's Providence, Paul VI presided over the ending of the Council. What did he say about its authority?:

APOSTOLIC BRIEF IN SPIRITU SANCTO FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL - DECEMBER 8, 1965 (POPE PAUL VI)

{read at the closing ceremonies of Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council}

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church . . .

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us . . .

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.

That's more than sufficient for me. You go nitpick and fuss and complain about this and that, if you wish, and act as your own canon lawyer; I will obey the Council and the pope who "approved and established" it. If you want to "play Protestant," feel free. Having played that game myself, I have no particular need or desire to return to it at this point. If Catholic authority seems "oppressive" to you, then please read Newman's Grammar of Assent, now available online. For readers desiring more statements concerning conciliar infallibility, see also: Conciliar Infallibility: Church Documents.

. . . Having attempted to show that there is a right for an informed Catholic to respectfully disagree with certain non-infallible teachings of the magisterium, let's look at some of the recent teachings which particularly concern traditionalists . . . As for ambiguity, it cannot be denied that certain liberal and modernist theologians were involved as periti in the Council (Rahner, Kung, Schillebeeckx, Murray, Baum, etc.) and that they laboured long and hard to insert certain ambiguous formulae into the texts of the Vatican II documents. At several points things were so bad that Paul VI intervened to remove certain items from the authority of the Council (e.g. birth control - read the ambiguous statements of Gaudium et Spes on this subject - and Papal authority versus collegiality in Lumen Gentium, which the Pope insisted on clarifying in an "explanatory note" attached as an appendix to the document).

But this is nothing new (why would you think it was?). This is one of the functions of the pope - to remove such errors (e.g., Pope Leo the Great did that at Chalcedon in 451: the famous 28th canon concerning Constantinople). That doesn't prove that Vatican II is qualitatively different; quite the opposite. But the pope's charism of infallibility enables him to weed out the errors brought in by nefarious or other means by bishops.

This is an example where I think your omissions from my text have caused my views to be misrepresented.

I will let readers judge that, by visiting your URL if they so choose.

You argued against the traditionalist view that the Conciliar documents are laced with ambiguity. I pointed to Paul VI's interventions to point out that he himself was aware of what the modernists were up to.

Sure they were (and of course he knew); this doesn't prove that the heterodox nonsense made it into the documents! I couldn't care less about what went on behind the scenes - that has occurred at all Councils, bar none; people being people.

He prevented some of these errors and ambiguities (on Papal authority and contraception), but allowed others (on religious liberty and ecumenism) to pass.

This is absolutely classic. You sit there and blithely judge the pope - say that he screwed up, that the charism of infallibility exercised in ratifying an Ecumenical Council was only half-effective. And you will claim that this is not private judgment, and deny that it is the Protestant principle of "every man his own pope," and you will expect me to sit here and accept your pontifications declaring that the real pope was wrong in his authoritative judgments of an authoritative Council. Flat-out amazing! One can only shake their head, and hope that readers will comprehend the manifest absurdity of such a modus operandi, especially under the assumption that it is a self-consistently Catholic approach - even a traditional Catholic notion.

Fr. Brian Harrison made a similar point regarding Michael Davies:

Michael Davies . . . there are thousands of traditionalist Catholics out there who quite literally set more store by the judgments of Davies than by those of the Supreme Pontiff. Traditionalists, it must be remembered, are by definition those who have to a large extent lost confidence in the post-conciliar papacy, because of what they see as its aberrations from Sacred Tradition. And Davies is widely seen in such circles as the most eloquent and reliable exponent of that Tradition at the present time. This means that whatever he says will have significant ramifications - for good or for ill - in regard to one of the most pressing pastoral problems in today's Church: the centrifugal and even schismatic tendencies which prompted the Pope to set up a new arm of the Vatican to help safeguard the unity of the Church - the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Read Fr. Wiltgen's The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber for a definitive account of the manipulations of the liberals and modernists in their attempts to get ambiguous statements into the Vatican II documents.

[technical discussions of Vatican II teaching on biblical inerrancy deleted]

Again, that is irrelevant to the debate, if one believes that Councils are ultimately protected (primarily by means of the pope) from adopting errors arising from such wicked schemes. If you or others wish to deny this, then please get consistent and apply this analysis to the other Councils also, since this sort of subterfuge and intrigue has always been present to some extent - men being men. The most obvious example is the Robber Council of 449, which was rejected by the pope as heretical.

The Robber Council isn't a very good example, since it was condemned by the Pope, and therefore was no true Council.

But my point was that it was a striking example of the usual machinations and realpolitik of sinful, fallen, ambitious, prideful men. That point holds whether it was a true Council or not.

A better example is Second Council of Constantinople in 553. The Emperor Justinian, a Monophysite sympathizer with a Monophysite wife, suggested that a Council be convened to condemn Nestorianism, a long dead heresy which erred in the opposite Christological direction as Monophysitism. Furthermore, the Emperor wanted the Pope (the weak Vigilius) to condemn the "Three Chapters," the writings of three dead theologians tainted by Nestorianism, but two of whom had been reconciled to the Church at Chalcedon. Thus, under the guise of orthodoxy, the Emperor hoped to take aim at Chalcedon. Vigilius agreed to condemn the "Three Chapters" which led to riots against him in Rome. Vigius then retracted his signature, but in the end agreed to hold a Fifth Ecumenical Council, hoping that he could get a council to agree to more balanced language. Instead, the Council went even further than Vigilius wanted in condemning the Three Chapters. Vigilius died, but his successor Pelagius (not the heresiarch) accepted the Fifth Council as Ecumenical in order to placate the Emperor, which led to a fifty year schism between Rome and the more staunchly Chalcedonian see of Milan.

Now, was the Fifth Council heretical? No. It was formally correct in its denunciation of Nestorianism. But it had disastrous consequences for the Papacy, and temporarily undermined the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. So, here is an example of a valid, but ill advised, council, with ambiguous if technically orthodox texts, and with very negative consequences for the Church. Vatican II is not "unique," but it is more like Constantiniople II than Vatican I or Trent. There are several other councils which seem to have had flawed elements either in the way they were called, their politicization in one way or another, or problematic aspects of their canons and decrees. The guarantee of Conciliar infallibility is limited by the same limits as Papal infallibility: a council is infallible to the extent that its canons and decrees propose to teach defnitively on a matter of faith and morals in a manner binding on all Catholics.

Very interesting (as you must know by now I love analogies). I don't really know enough about the particulars to comment intelligently (let alone for public consumption), but I would suspect that several points of your argument here could be disputed. The main thing to me is your denial that the Council was heretical. You say the same about Vatican II. This is God's protection (all the more noteworthy given the modernist presence at Vatican II). To me that is the bottom line. The "ambiguity" is in miscomprehension and/or misapplication (or wholesale distortion and twisting) of the actual conciliar teaching. Something is either "orthodox" or it is not. "Ambiguity" is extremely subjective and not particularly relevant, in my opinion, once one concedes that a Council is orthodox in the first place.

However, I do not believe (nor do most traditionalists except perhaps among the ranks of sedevacantism) that the Council was invalid or intrinsically heretical.

But that is the absurdity and equivocation of the "traditionalist" position, as I argued repeatedly. The sedevacantists are at least consistent, not having to engage in special pleading of the most objectionable sort. Not having the guts to simply pronounce the hated Council invalid, instead we receive from you guys this balderdash of "ambiguity," which then becomes a convenient "club" to bash the Council with impunity, not allowing (like all conspiratorial theories) of any rational disproof. Thus the very methods of the enemy are adopted: the ambiguities of the "traditionalists" ironically far surpass those of the modernists.

This is nonsense. You constantly imply that traditionalists would really like to denounce Vatican II, the recent Popes, or the Novus Ordo as "invalid," but avoid doing so for purely pragmatic reasons or a lack of courage.

I don't know what the reasons are - that is not for me to say (though I suppose I have speculated here and there). I merely pointed out the verbal and mental gymnastics and profound wavering and self-contradiction throughout The Remnant website. One can't fail to notice this.

Our more careful, cautious language is not motivated by fear (except maybe fear of the Lord) but because we believe Christ's promises to his Church. We believe in the Church's indefectibility. We are struggling to reconcile teachings and practices that seem inconsistent with the previous patrimony of Catholic tradition with the promise that "I am with you always." And for this, we are less honest than the sedevacantists and sneakier than the modernists?

There is a certain intellectual and theological inconsistency (not deliberate dishonesty), in my humble opinion, yes. I grant that these things are troubling to you (out of - I would say - a lack of proper understanding with regard to such matters as ecumenism and Salvation Outside the Church). The difference lies in how one initially approaches the issue. I assume, as a devout Catholic - in faith and given the evidence of Church history - that the Council is consistent with previous Catholic doctrine. I think this can be demonstrated, as well, though I may not be able to do it myself - I surely cannot, as I have said (not being properly trained for it). But others have done so (e.g., Fr. Harrison, Fr. Most, Fr. Hardon).

Now, when you approach the Council, do you view these so-called "innovations" or "novelties" - in faith - as developments which are difficult to understand, or corruptions which are difficult to reconcile? It is all in the premise . . . To simply work out difficulties, nuances, and complexities is one thing. I believe the Bible is inerrant; that doesn't mean for a second that there are not textual and theological and exegetical difficulties to be mulled over and worked through.

Likewise with the Council. One has to start with either a hostile or an embracing assumption. To take the hostile assumption is to go against what the pope said about the Council, and the analogy of earlier Councils; therefore involving the utter absurdity (granting Catholic ecclesiology) of placing theologians or private persons (say, Mr. Matt or Mr. Vennari) over against the pope - precisely as both modernists and Protestants do. Thus you are to the Council what the liberal higher critics are to the Bible! Their initial hostile assumption is fallacious, so that the house of cards they build upon it is fundamentally flawed. Likewise with your presuppositions and your " 'traditionalist' house."

It is a valid council, and its documents are valid exercises of the authentic but non-definitive magisterium.

But you have simply assumed that the entire Council is "non-definitive" in the sense of not requiring internal assent and submission. That is far from proven, in my opinion.

I haven't simply assumed it. I have studied it and documented it, from the words of the Popes and the Council Fathers themselves.

But you selectively choose which papal words you will heed and which you reject; this is nonsensical (literally). The pick-and-choose mentality is one of the major problems here. The heretics pick and choose (as Newman would say, generalizing and making the analogy). The Catholics accept what their lawfully-ordained authorities proclaim.

Where learned Catholics have serious disagreements with its documents, based on inconsistency with previous Catholic teaching, I believe that they have the right to make these disagreements known and ask the Holy See to clarify the ambiguities,

Again, I deny the supposed inconsistency. I'm convinced more strongly all the time that this very charge betrays an inadequate understanding of development of doctrine. In your particular case, I would have to see how you would present and define development, and how you would apply it to any of the most disputed Council teachings, in order to determine whether this lack of understanding applies to you. But I have seen too many "traditionalists" (and Orthodox and Protestants) write many exceedingly ridiculous things about development to not be wary of this distinct possibility.

I hope to do so. It is far too easy to justify any and every change or innovation as a "development." Unfortunately, modern theology tends to treat "development" in the same way that the Supreme Court of the United States treat the Constitution -- looking for "emanations of penumbras" so that doctrines can come to mean the exact opposite of what was originally intended.

I agree 100% - well-stated (as to modernism). But I don't apply this to the Council at all, like you do.

I believe that "development" is possible, but I have yet to see some of the Conciliar novelties successfully justified as genuine developments.

So in the meantime do you consider them corruptions? This gets back to my point recently made, about your initial premises.

Many traditionalists (and by no means only Lefebvrists or sedevacantists) believe that some of the teachings on matters of ecumenism, religious liberty, and the possibility of salvation outside the Church in the documents of Vatican II and post-Conciliar magisterial teaching are not authentic developments, but innovations.

That remains to be proven (and it interests me). In my humble opinion this is the crux of the issue, along with the closely-related notion of indefectibility.

I would like to do so, and am currently rereading the Essay on Development to help formulate my thoughts. This will take a bit more time and thought to analyze fully, so I hope you will wait patiently for my Newmanian critique of Conciliar and post-Conciliar innovation.

Excellent. Again, this is the heart of the matter as I see it. I am more than happy to wait for someone actually willing to apply Newman's thinking to the dispute at hand (and especially this particular book of his which was so instrumental in my own conversion). I commend you!

I do not think that some of these teachings meet Cardinal Newman's seven notes for authentic development as explained in his Essay on the Development of Dogma: preservation of type, continuity of principles, assimilative power, logical sequence, anticipation of the future, conservative action on the past, and chronic vigour.

Now we are down to brass tacks! Good for you! I would love to see this expanded and elaborated upon and developed (pun intended).

To take the case of religious liberty, it seems to many serious critics (e.g. Michael Davies) that Dignitatis Humanae actually contradicts previously condemned propositions of Mirari Vos (Gregory XVI), Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX) . . .

But these are related to the same issues as the dispute over capital punishment. It is extremely complicated, and again I don't pretend to be an expert on these matters, but perhaps these are the sorts of things which can change, as they have to do with discipline and application of unchanging truths, just as the Law remained the same between the OT and the NT, but the application changed radically. In that case, there would be no essential change in the underlying principles; hence the development is legitimate. Also, there may very well be different uses and senses of words and phrases, just as condemnations of indifferentism are taken to mean blanket condemnation of Vatican II-type ecumenism, which is the furthest thing from indifferentism - rightly understood.

If you think that religious liberty is the same type of issue as the recent controversy over capital punishment, and you are ready to tolerate debate and discussion of the Pope's teaching on the latter, then why are you so concerned about traditionalists who reject the Council's teaching on the former?

Because it was proclaimed more authoritatively.

The Declaration on Religious Liberty is the most contentious item in the Council documents for traditionalists, and faced strong opposition from many bishops during the Council itself.

Even Abp. Lefebvre signed it; why?

Fr. Brian Harrison, another theologian I greatly respect, thinks that they can [be reconciled], albeit with difficulty and only by a very particular interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae (not the interpretation favoured by the John Courtney Murray cheering section on the left and right of the American Church).

Fr. Harrison writes - in critique of Michael Davies (note the extreme complexity of this discussion):

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN NON-CATHOLIC SOCIETIES.

To sum up our argument so far: the novel element in Dignitatis Humanae's doctrinal teaching is that under some circumstances non-Catholics can have a natural right to immunity from coercion in the public manifestation of their religion. Davies has not succeeded in showing that this proposition was condemned by pre-conciliar Popes; and (contrary to what he thinks) it had been at least implied or insinuated by some of the more recent Popes, especially Pius XII in Ci riesce: if at times the state has no God-given right to repress certain errors, that seems to imply that those who propagate them do have a God-given right, under those circumstances, to be immune from such repression. It would be interesting to know Davies' answer to the following question: in countries where Catholics are a minority, do the non-Catholic citizens have a natural right to immunity from coercion in publicly practising their religion (at least insofar as they remain within the bounds of natural law)?

After all, article 7 of the preparatory schema for Vatican II (praised by Davies as a good summary of pre-conciliar doctrine) asserts that the state "should concede" that sort of immunity under those circumstances (ibid., p. 301); and there seems only a short distance between saying that these non-Catholics "should" be given this immunity and saying they have a right to be given it. Davies could not consistently use the mere fact that pre-conciliar documents spoke only of "tolerating" non-Catholic cults to justify a negative answer to the above question, because he already concedes to me (pp. 46 and 216) that a right to immunity from coercion for non-Catholics (if it exists at all) can also be called, without any contradiction in terms, a "right to be tolerated". (To "tolerate" merely means to permit some evil, and does not necessarily imply that the repression of it would also be a just and legitimate option. If it did, then of course the notion of a "right to be tolerated" would indeed be a contradiction in terms.)

Hence, if Davies answers negatively to my question, he would logically have to adopt the position which I have already argued is more severe than anything taught by traditional doctrine: that is, the view that in the case of non-Catholic religions, their false or erroneous elements as such (that is, considered in the abstract and in isolation from all questions of the overall effect of these religions on society) are sufficient to ensure that those who would practise such religions in public absolutely never have any natural right to immunity from coercion. I would say that this view, while it may have been quite common before Vatican II, was always implicitly opposed to orthodox doctrine, which always recognized (at least implicitly) that the state's coercive power is at the service of society as a whole, and cannot justly be exercised against individual citizens unless the welfare of society requires this.

If, on the other hand, Davies is willing to answer "yes" to my question (that is, if he agrees that, in non-Catholic societies, non-Catholics have a natural right to immunity from coercion within the bounds of natural law), then I would say he has already conceded the central doctrinal development of Dignitatis Humanae, as spelt out in the first paragraph of article 2. Taken just as it stands, this core affirmation of Dignitatis Humanae does not say anything one way or another about the treatment of public non-Catholic manifestations in Catholic states. (That issue, of course, is Davies' main bone of contention, and I shall deal with it shortly.) Article 2 just embodies the thesis that there is a limited natural right (the limits are not in any way specified) of the human person - and therefore of non-Catholics as well as Catholics - to immunity from coercion in the public as well as private practice of religion. And Davies could not answer "yes" to my question, logically, without assenting to that thesis.

Furthermore, Davies could not answer affirmatively to my question without retracting his opinion that the distinction (emphasized by Murray, De Smedt and myself) between affirming a right to spread a false religion and affirming a right not to be prevented from spreading it "is no more than a semantic quibble" (ibid., p. 230). If (as I hold, and I hope Davies holds), Orthodox Christians in central Russia today have a natural right not to be prevented from publicly practising their religion, this by no means implies that they have a natural right to practice it. As Pius XII makes clear in Ci riesce, nobody has a natural right even to believe - much less to propagate - any false doctrine, including, therefore, the false Eastern Orthodox doctrine that submission to the Roman Pontiff's supreme jurisdiction is not required by divine law . . .

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN A CATHOLIC SOCIETY.

Even if my arguments so far have been both valid and convincing, Davies will certainly insist that I have not yet come to grips with his central objection to Dignitatis Humanae, namely, his contention that: (a) traditional doctrine excludes the possibility that, in a predominantly Catholic society, there can be any natural right of non-Catholics to be tolerated in the public profession of their religion; (b) Dignitatis Humanae affirms (or at least implies) such a right; and that in consequence an ineluctable doctrinal contradiction exists between Vatican II and the pre-conciliar Magisterium. My short answer to this objection is that while (a) is true, (b) is false, so that there is no contradiction.

Before explaining this, however, a subsidiary issue needs to be clarified. I am very glad that my work has helped Davies (as he says on pp. 272-273) to see that there is no formal contradiction between Pius IX's 1864 encyclical Quanta Cura and the doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae. This encyclical (whose teaching, I agree, is ex cathedra and irreformable) is often a major stumbling-block for traditionalists who find genuine difficulty in accepting the Vatican II teaching. I hope that Davies' influence amongst such Catholics will be a significant factor in laying this unnecessary scruple to rest . . .

. . . it must be acknowledged that Leo XIII and the other earlier Popes certainly did frequently urge (in concordats and other lesser documents) the repression of all public non-Catholic manifestations in Catholic states or societies. This policy was such a firm and unanimous norm of public ecclesiastical law - universally applied throughout centuries of Christendom - that I believe (as I am sure Davies does) that the Holy Spirit could not have permitted it if it were, per se and intrinsically, a violation of natural law. Indeed, all traditional theologians (and thus, the Popes and Bishops who approved their works) have taught it as theologically certain - a conclusion inseparable from revelation itself and therefore part of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium - that the Church's sanctity and indefectibility exclude the possibility that any general disciplinary norm of the universal Church (as distinct from a merely local norm) could be intrinsically (per se) contrary to divine law, whether natural or positive.

It follows that if Dignitatis Humanae affirmed a natural right not to be prevented from publicly propagating non-Catholic religions in Catholic societies, then indeed the Declaration would implicitly contradict the aforesaid doctrine of the Ordinary Magisterium. However (as I said in my "short answer" above), I do not believe Dignitatis Humanae teaches this, and I am surprised that Davies has paid so little attention to what I say in my book about the vital distinction between natural law (which is a branch of divine law) and public ecclesiastical law (cf. Religious Liberty and Contraception, pp. 57-60, 87-89, 141-143).

{From Internet article, The Center is Holding: review of Michael Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty}

But this is precisely the kind of issue that traditional Catholics insisit that the magisterium address clearly and directly, rather than simply asserting that there is no inconsistency between the old teachings and the new.

I would agree with that. I disagree with the notion that there could be no conceivable reason not to make such a clarification immediately. In a nutshell, I trust the Holy Father to do what is right and best. Mr. Matt and Mr. Vennari and their comrades-in-arms obviously do not. But I'm all for further explanation, myself. I'm trying to do it - as a lowly amateur lay apologist; why not the pope? But in the meantime, I don't wring my hands in despair and believe that the Church is near collapse, in ruins, shambles (and all the other illustrious, dramatic terms which The Remnant habitually employs).

You agreed at the outset that the Church was in crisis. Now it is healthy and fine. Which one is it?

Don't be silly. The fair-minded reader can clearly see the distinctions I was making above, and read my earlier comments about the crisis.

If the Church is in crisis, then the Holy Father and the bishops have a responsibility to do something.

They are doing plenty; you guys just don't like it, because it isn't done in your way, according to your thinking, and your timetable. Luther had to have it his own way, and Calvin and Zwingli and Henry VIII. The Catholic, on the other hand, humbly bows to the will of Holy Mother Church, and trusts that God is in control, despite all.

Most conservatives are not reluctant to question their local diocesan bishop when he errs (even though the bishop too is part of the Church's magisterium). Why can't we question the Pope if we are concerned that his teachings or actions are not adequate in response to the crisis?

One can question to an extent (especially matters of discipline: how to deal with the liberals) within a posture of obedience and deference, as I have said all along. I object to the flat-out disobedience and overriding characteristic of overwhelming, unedifying and never-ending criticism, which I so often observe in "traditionalists" - as exemplified at The Remnant.

It is my sincere hope, and the hope of a great many traditionalists, that the Holy Father, the Curia, and the bishops will begin to take seriously the challenge of reconciling the new teachings and practices of the post-Vatican II Church with the perennial Catholic tradition. In asking for such a reconciliation, traditional Catholics may not have always expressed their disagreement with the deference due the august person of the Holy Father.

You sure got that right! But haven't you read any of the apologetics on the subject? Don't they help you to reconcile these supposed contradictions at all?

You have some very good stuff on your website, but I think that your grasp of traditionalism is one of your weak spots.

Good! Does that mean I can move onto other things, soon, since my arguments are so weak? :-) As Engelbert Humperdinck sang: "please release me; let me go . . . "

The only convincing efforts I have seen to reconcile "conservative" and "traditional" beliefs is in the work of Frs. McCarthy and Harrison of the Roman Theological Forum. They are willing to give traditional Catholics the benefit of the doubt about their being in good faith, will admit it when faced with a strong traditionalist argument, and are very sympathetic to many traditionalist demands, if not necessarily to all of their beliefs. They also admit that there are conciliar "ambiguities." Unfortunately, they seem to me to be mostly alone among conservative theologians in treating traditionalist positions seriously.

I think their work is excellent, too. I have had a link to this site for some time now. I readily attribute good faith to "traditionalists" - as far as that goes. I don't get into inner motives; just the beliefs that people hold. I might observe actions and tendencies, but I try my hardest not to speculate about the inner intentions.

The history of the persecution of traditional movements and of the suppression of the traditional Latin Mass, including by persons within the Curia and the hierarchy, have contributed to an atmosphere of mistrust that makes respectful dialogue difficult. (Even in recent weeks there have been new challenges to the integrity of the traditional religious institutes established under the terms of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei).

I don't follow all the political machinations, but I agree with your general principle that respectful dialogue is crucial. My own bishop doesn't allow the Tridentine Mass in my archdiocese - which reticence I strongly oppose, but I myself prefer the Novus Ordo Latin Mass, so am not personally affected. I'm all for liturgical diversity; I think the Eastern Rites are great, too (though they are not to my taste).

I'm all for liturgical diversity, too. For any approved rite of more than 600 years duration ;-) But you do see the problem. On the one hand, ecclesiastical bureaucrats (not excluding those in the Vatican) relentlessly harass anybody who has the temerity to ask for a Tridentine Mass, even denying people funeral requiems.

I think that is atrocious, and pragmatically ridiculous as well. Clearly, the Tridentine Mass is needed, if for no other reason than to prevent further schism and scandal among the "traditionalists" and traditionalists.

On the other hand, when it comes to doctrinal matters, we are supposed to believe that these same people are infallible instruments of divine teaching authority, and are expected to docilely accept every new theological whim.

More caricature of true Catholic obedience; common in "traditionalist" rhetoric.

The actions of the recent Popes and the Curia (and a fortiori the actions of the bishops) have caused traditionally minded Catholics to lose the automatically deferential attitude towards Church authority that had characterized Catholic laity since Vatican I. We still believe in Papal and Conciliar infallibility and the authority of the magisterium, but since we have experienced injustice in the exercise of the Church's disciplinary authority, we have come to view the Church's teaching authority within its proper, theologically defined limits, rather than simply ascribing quasi-infallibility to any and all statements of the teaching Church.

It's not "quasi-infallibility"; it is the duty of routine obedience and submission.

These difficulties do not excuse the attitude of some traditionalists, but neither does it diminish the pastoral responsibility of the Holy Father and the bishops in union with him to engage in a dialogue on these serious matters.

I agree.

It is also to be hoped that "conservative" Catholics can contribute to and learn from this dialogue rather than simply denouncing traditional Catholics who are attempting to make their objections to certain teachings known to the Holy See as heretical or schismatic.

I don't apply those terms to "traditionalists" of your sort (I do for the sedevacantists and SSPX). I speak sometimes of the "schismatic spirit," just as you might speak of the "modernist" or "ambiguous" spirit. So once again, the "traditionalist" often criticizes the Church severely for not engaging in dialogue, etc., then does the same thing himself. "Identifying with the oppressor"? I highly respect your reasoned, calm approach to this - though we, too, have profound disagreements. It has been a pleasure interacting with you. On the other hand, your positions (and rhetoric) are not nearly as extreme as those to which the bulk of my critique were directed. Those outrageous statements remain undefended against my criticisms, but I have done my part, in any event.

Personal Letter to Mark Cameron: 20 October 1999

(selective; omitting personal material)

I think that in the course of this dialogue we have narrowed our differences on several points, and I hope we can both agree that whatever differences we may have, these are differences between Catholics in good faith, and not on either side matters of orthodoxy or heresy.

For the most part, yes. I continue to believe, however, that the strains of traditionalism which violate any of the six tenets I outlined in my Introduction to the long Critique are seriously in error, and therefore harmful in some real sense. As far as I know, you agree with me on most (all?) of those.

Clearly, we cannot both be correct, but we have reduced our differences to grey areas where people can disagree in good faith and where the magisterium has not acted decisively.

I wouldn't go that far, either. Suffice it to say that I regard this exchange as substantive, mutually-respectful, and amiable, and that is very important itself. I enjoy it a lot.

I am still disappointed that you do not put my remarks in their complete context.

That's because I made it clear from the outset that I was not willing to engage every jot and tittle of the "traditionalist" debate. That's just how it has to be. For that reason, I don't cite the entire article (otherwise I would, as I do in virtually all my posted debates). I'm trying to keep it focused on the areas I consider central, as much as I can (I don't mean at all to be unfair to you, or maliciously or evasively selective).

You have generally done a good editing job, but you leave some important things out.

They may well be important in many ways, but I feel that they are too far off the immediate subject, as I see it (or involving technicalities I am not qualified to determine anyway - such as the "inerrancy" argument you made). And we are usually far from any relation to The Remnant, which the web page I post this on is ostensibly dealing with.

My next piece will be an article on applying Newman's theory of development to Vatican II. This will be a more serious piece of work, and may take a couple of weeks.

I will count the days! I am extremely interested in this, and I thank you for your work on it.

[that piece and my reply to it will be on another web page, to be linked from this one once it is uploaded. But I have been waiting three months, as of this writing]

At the outset, what is striking is that in many respects today's traditionalists are closer to Newman - looking at the continuities in the Church's perennial magisterium - while today's conservatives are closer to the Ultramontanists like Manning, Talbot, and Ward - supporting a view of Papal authority at odds with traditional understandings, and summed up in Pius IX's statement "La tradizione son' io." Temperamentally, Newman is more like a moderate liberal theologian like Congar, while we traditionalists have to love the brashness of a Cardinal Manning. But theologically, I think the tables have turned. Anyway, more on this in a couple of weeks.

I myself am infinitely more like Newman (he is my all-time favorite "intellectual" Catholic - even more than Augustine and Aquinas) than like the Ultramontanists, who suffered a moderate defeat in Vatican I, after all. I love your analysis of this, though. It appeals to the "sociologist" in me (that was my major).

You make an interesting point about the pessimism of trads, summed up with your quote from Anne Roche Muggeridge . . . First of all, I recently learned that Mrs. Muggeridge recently suffered a severe stroke, and is quite incapacitated and unable to talk. Your prayers for her and her family would be appreciated.

I'm sorry to hear this, but thanks for telling me. I will include this request in our Rosary intentions. Have you heard about Dr. Warren Carroll's stroke, too?

[as of 10 November 1999, Dr. Carroll is at home and improving, but still in need of prayer for further recovery to normalcy, as much as possible]

. . . I began to think that the Church that I had read my way into no longer existed. I wondered what had gone wrong. Then I found a copy of Anne Roche Muggeridge's The Desolate City.

I read that after my conversion. I was confused about the modernist crisis. I also read The Ratzinger Report and Neuhaus's The Catholic Moment at around the same time (early 90s).

Believe it or not, this book confirmed me in my desire to become a Catholic, because I began to understand the sources of many of the problems, and how it was possible to believe that this was still Christ's Church despite the mess it was in.

Well, yes; indefectibility is retained, but it seems as if it hangs by a hair's thread in her book, and many "traditionalist" utterances. This is why I will talk about the "spirit" of "traditionalism" or schism at times - because it is so close, even if not technically heterodox or schismatic. I argue the slippery slope . . .

So you see, curmudgeonly, angry traditionalists can actually help some people find their way into the Church.

:-) Well, as you probably know, people to the "left" of me often denigrate apologetics as an exercise in the same sort of realistic, tough love, exclusivistic outlook. But I think it is clear that apologetics helps prospective converts.

Our dooming and glooming turns some people off, but others find it to be refreshingly honest and realistic.

One can be both realistic (about human reality) and optimistic (with the eyes of faith). I would like to think that is how I am.

Our message is "Climb aboard the barque of Peter and help us start baling."

LOL Well, we all have to deal with scandals in the Church. I have never sought to deny them when talking to possible converts (that sets them up for horrible disenchantment). But I go on to say that there have always been problems, as there were in the Corinthian and Galatian churches, and the churches in the book of Revelation.

Many of the lapsed and fallen away find that they cannot stomach the "soft" Church of today, but can come back if they find a Latin Mass.

Well, I can relate to that. I despise liturgical and architectural and theological and spiritual mediocrity myself.

In other words, we trads have an evangelistic mission to our fellow curmudgeons. We even have our patron curmudgeonly saints (Saint Jerome, Saint Columbanus, Gregory VII, Pius IX, etc.) proving that God can draw straight lines with crooked sticks.

LOL. I love this! Of course I knew that there would be exceptions to what I would see as the "rule" of doom and gloom among traditionalists. You are surely one of them. But again, I keep pointing out that your "brand" is not nearly as offensive to me as The Remnant's is.

Part of the reason that we insist on maintaining the traditional liturgy, customs, and teachings of the Church is that in the economy of grace, perhaps we are still needed to carry on this "old evangelization."

Interesting . . .

Thanks for your wonderfully warm and personal letter. I feel like we are becoming friends to some extent now, which is great. We have far more in common than what divides us.

In His Church,

Dave

Revised by Dave Armstrong: 24 January 2000.

Critique of "The Remnant", with Copious Documentation

John Vennari

Do the Beliefs and Opinions of this "Traditionalist" Organization Exhibit a Certain "Schismatic Spirit"? What Does it Believe About Vatican II, the New Mass, the Pontificate of Pope John Paul II, and the Indefectibility of the Church?

This paper consists of critical commentary on particularly objectionable, questionable, and revealing portions of the following articles (excepting the Michael Davies piece, with which I totally agreed) - all are connected with The Remnant "traditionalist" organization.

* * * * *

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction Dave Armstrong / My God, My God, What Did the Council Do? Fr. Charles Fiore

The Debate Between the Abbe de Nantes and Fr. Congar / THE NEW �ORDO MISS�: A BATTLE ON TWO FRONTS the Abbe de Nantes

THE CHURCH IS INDEFECTIBLE IN HER DIVINE CONSTITUTION Michael Davies

Pope John Paul II and the Lutheran-Catholic Accord John Vennari

A Short Catechism on the "New Theology" John Vennari

Appeal for an Ex-Cathedra Judgment on Vatican II Toni des Fresnes

THE ONE CATHOLIC MASS: ITS VALIDITY, LICEITY, AND BENEFIT the Abbe de Nantes

The New Mass Revisited Michael J. Matt

My Afterword Dave Armstrong

INTRODUCTION

The following does not purport to be an exhaustive critique (i.e., vigorously argued to the fullest extent that it could be argued, either by myself, or by others). I have neither the time nor energy for such an undertaking, having long since tired of "dialogues" with so-called "traditionalists," and having learned firsthand that such efforts are usually perfectly futile. I have never claimed to be (nor wished to be) an expert on the minutiae and technicalities of Canon Law, or the intricacies of the ecclesiological arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Robert Bellarmine or Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. I think all those things (and people) are wonderful (I am not in the least disparaging them), but I am unwilling to become an expert on such matters simply in order to express my own opinion of the shortcomings and radical inconsistencies of "traditionalism" so-called.

Neither Chesterton nor Belloc nor Muggeridge (all much-loved by "traditionalists" and myself) were theologians, by any means, but that doesn't stop Catholics from reading them and immensely benefitting from their insights (C.S. Lewis provides an analogous conservative Anglican example). I claim the same prerogatives as they - to comment on Catholic affairs even though not formally trained in theology, let alone specific areas of it, such as Canon Law. I am, however, a published Catholic apologist of long standing and much informal study, with nine years of active Protestant apologetics (largely consistent with Catholic theology, in my case, as I was neither a Calvinist nor an anti-Catholic) also behind me.

If The Remnant - a lay organization - feels competent and fully within its rights to routinely judge the pope and an Ecumenical Council (i.e., the very highest levels of Catholic magisterial authority), then I can certainly judge them (in the proper sense of discernment) and compare and contrast their views with Catholic orthodox theology and ecclesiology. It appears to me that the dynamic is precisely the same, in the sense of a layman's duty and privileges. But of course they take it upon themselves to judge (and in effect, disobey) bishops and popes - their spiritual superiors; whereas I merely judge (in large part) fellow laymen, or priests who themselves are harshly or rashly judging their superiors.

So there can be no a priori objection to my undertaking, as if it were impermissible or unseemly. Furthermore, since The Remnant - like all advocacy groups (I speak from a sociological perspective for a moment), freely takes potshots at innumerable targets, it is only fair that their views be subjected to a little criticism as well. I wish I had more time and desire to do a more thorough job than I will be able to do, but circumstances have forced me to at least state my case - weak though it may be by certain criteria of argumentation or theological rigor. Such is life. Some effort is better than none at all. We can always do better (and being a compulsive perfectionist myself, how well I know that!), but we should at least do something, if we feel compelled to speak or act about an issue we deem important and worthwhile. Truth - if indeed it is truth - can be expressed by Balaam's ass as well as by the most eloquent orator or scribe.

I do believe, at any rate, that there are clear and crucially important underlying principles at stake here which can be grasped by any reasonably catechized and faithful Catholic. I have compiled many dialogues and papers on the general subject on my "Traditionalist" Catholics Page, and my thoughts and numerous biblical, historical, philosophical, and analogical arguments are presented in great detail there, for all to see. Hence part of my reluctance to engage in the current critique - a lot of this is "old ground" for me, and I have expressed myself in many ways and repetitively on this matter.

The present endeavor is an effort to deny a claim (and a challenge) that The Remnant represents a perfectly acceptable and pious orthodox Catholic viewpoint. I take for granted that the vast majority of serious, committed, orthodox, magisterial Catholics will quickly recognize the impiety and imprudence - if not always technically heterodox nature - of the opinions which I document here (I know from sad personal experience that most professed "traditionalists" will be little affected, let alone persuaded, by the following evidences).

I also hope to demonstrate, by means of brief but ongoing and hard-hitting commentary, that "traditionalist" logic (even in its "moderate" manifestations) is curiously and fatally self-contradictory, ironically exhibiting many of the same characteristics which it claims to decry in theological modernism and Protestantism, and in what it denigrates and despises as a compromised, so-called "conservative" Catholicism, allegedly in cahoots with (or at the least, blind to) the attempted modernist (or liberal, or "progressive") crisis which has rocked the Church in recent years.

This self-contradiction and strong tendency towards the "slippery slope" is one reason why "traditional Catholicism" - by its own admission - suffers from the never-ending internal splits and conflicts typical of all schismatic and sectarian and heretical movements which operate on the false principle of private judgment. Thus they (including The Remnant) will severely criticize movements to their "right" (e.g., sedevacantists or the SSPX) - not seeing that their own underlying principles, premises, and presuppositions lead inexorably to such "further out" conclusions which are more consistent and coherent (albeit more distant from orthodoxy) than their own.

I should make it abundantly clear (for obvious reasons) that I (like the pope) have no problem whatsoever with a devotion to the Tridentine Mass, or traditional liturgical practice and devotion (not to mention traditional morality and catechesis). Quite the contrary: I myself have been a member, these last eight years, of an extremely traditional parish, which celebrates the Mass in Latin every Sunday. I utterly despise liturgical and aesthetic, architectural mediocrity and modernism. I was received into the Church by Fr. John A. Hardon - a theologian renowned for his impeccable orthodoxy even by many "traditionalists," and catechist for Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity. He has formally recommended my writing. My website has been commended by Gerry Matatics. I strongly believe in Fatima, Lourdes, and the Rosary, and even fully accept the controversial proposed Marian definitions.

I have a particular devotion to Cardinal Newman (I have the largest Newman web page on the Internet) and love Chesterton, Belloc and Knox, and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. I am an old-earth creationist - one who has debated evolutionist scientists on my website. A rejection of contraception and an aversion to the events and philosophy of the Protestant Revolution were two of the major reasons I converted to Catholicism in 1990. The Remnant website itself has in the past even seen fit to link to no less than four of my web pages (as of 3 October 1999 - maybe not after this page. I have had my Newman-influenced appears!): St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, Medieval and Renaissance Culture, Malcolm Muggeridge, and my Sacred Scripture and Sacred Traditionconversion story published in The Latin Mass magazine also (Fall 1999).

Therefore, despite my strong, heartfelt, passionate disagreements with "traditionalists," indeed we have much in common, and nowhere (to my knowledge) do I say that they are not Catholics. When discussing these matters, I usually prefer the description of "schismatic spirit" as opposed to outright schismatic (excepting SSPX and sedevacantism). I speak of "un-Catholic" beliefs or principles, but not of "non-Catholics" - a crucial distinction to bear in mind.

In light of all of the above, it will be observed, I hope, that I possess no knee-jerk or merely temperamental or so-called "progressive" objection to a legitimate traditionalism per se. I have no agenda other than the pursuit of truth. I would deem myself a traditionalist in the proper sense of the term (i.e., simply an orthodox or magisterial Catholic).What I strongly deny as true and genuine Catholic traditionalism (hence my habitual use of quotation marks) is a position which incorporates one or more of the following heterodox and un-Catholic propositions. I will stress these repeatedly in my critical comments:

1) That the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid or "objectively offensive to God."

2) That the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is qualitatively different from preceding Councils, or invalid, or intrinsically heretical (modernist), or shot-through with modernist "ambiguity," or a corruption or "evolution" of received Catholic dogma - as opposed to a consistent (Newmanian and Vincentian and Thomistic) development - so that it is not binding on Catholics, and may be routinely opposed, and not obeyed.

3) That Vatican II is the root and central cause of the present modernist crisis (as opposed to the machinations of theological liberals and heterodox, who "hijacked" or "co-opted," distorted and twisted the orthodox, papally-approved Council for their own wicked ends).

4) That the pontificates of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are qualitatively different from those preceding them, or that they have knowingly (or even unknowingly, as dupes) presided over the destruction of the traditional Catholic Faith, passed down from the Apostles, or that they are material or formal heretics.

5) That (authentic Catholic) ecumenism, or the notion of religious liberty, or salvation outside the Church, properly understood in light of Sacred Tradition - as promulgated and developed especially by Vatican II - are radical innovations not present at least in kernel form in previous received apostolic Catholic Tradition.

6) That the Catholic Church could ever institutionally depart from the True Faith (defectibility). This includes conspiratorial notions that the Church could ever be substantially and institutionally overthrown by movements such as Freemasonry, the New World Order, Radical Secularism or Humanism, Enlightenment philosophies, Protestantizing elements, etc.

The following excerpts are clearly thought to be altogether acceptable and in accord with the general outlook of The Remnant (assuming that its creators maintain the usual editorial responsibility and vigilance). The words of members or contributors to The Remnant will be in blue. My critical comments will be in black

My God, My God, What Did the Council Do?

A Review of In The Murky Waters of Vatican II By Atila Sinke Guimaraes

Father Charles Fiore

( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/genmod.html )

. . . And how did the Council "subvert," and instigate the "auto-demolition" of the Church's Magisterium . . . ?

"Auto-demolition" is a favorite Remnant expression for the alleged institutional demise of the Church. Yet do they apply this term to any other troubled period of Church history, I wonder? Since the Church always revived itself from very deep pits of decadence and heretical outbreaks in the past, according to the principle of indefectibility and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it obviously would make no sense to do so. But as the people constituting the so-called remnant apparently aren't sure of the outcome of this crisis, seemingly lacking faith in God's designs in the worst of circumstances (we call that Providence and Sovereignty in theology), they utilize a phrase which would be patently ludicrous in other historical circumstances. Malcolm Muggeridge spoke of "The Great Liberal Death Wish." I guess the folks at The Remnant believe that Christ's own Church - His Body - is rapidly committing suicide as well. How sad . . .

. . . In a word, the "fathers" of the Council and their collaborators deliberately chose to conceal the lack of conformity of key Council documents with the Magisterium by means of their ambiguity, i.e., by use of language that is philosophically inexact, by appeals to the "findings of modern and contemporary social sciences," and synchronicity with "the modern world," . . .

This is a classic tactic of the "traditionalist" mindset: to posit a deliberate "ambiguity" in the Council, according to conspiratorial scenarios and the devious designs of the liberals. No informed, orthodox Catholic I know will deny that the modernists had insidious designs, or at least dangerously false beliefs sincerely-held (heresy is always with us - bishops and theologians not being immune to it). What we assert is that heresy can never subvert an Ecumenical Council, ratified by a pope. God simply won't let that happen. This is a tenet of faith, and is part and parcel of Catholic ecclesiology. "Traditionalists" don't talk in this fashion about any other Ecumenical Council. They single this one out, even though its validity and legitimacy is based on precisely the same criteria as all the others (in fact, I believe it had the greatest number of bishops present, by far). Knowing this, they adopt the equivocating, hair-splitting scenario of "ambiguous but not technically heterodox."

Nice try . . . This is clearly rationalization and special pleading which allows no rational response, as it is so nebulous and subjective by its very nature. If one points out that such-and-such a doctrine can be shown to have an orthodox pedigree and consistent development, the "traditionalist" simply replies that the Council conspirators placed ambiguous language in it, in order for it to be subverted later. In other words, their cynical interpretation is always the "winner" because they have this simplistic and easy sleight-of-hand of "ambiguity" always ready and at their disposal. But the only reasonable way to determine orthodoxy is to simply look at the conciliar words (and those of previous Councils) themselves (which - strangely enough - these scathing critiques rarely take the time to do). Actual words are objective tools, just as one engages in exegesis and cross-referencing when interpreting Sacred Scripture.

As always, the "traditionalist" wants to have it both ways, and adopts a fortress mentality whereby any challenger to the self-proclaimed "orthodoxy" is automatically written off as a modernist, or modernist dupe, and patronized as a "conservative," simply because we don't play the game in this irrational, Alice in Wonderland fashion, where words - like a wax nose - can always be shaped according to the skeptical whims of the anti-conciliar party line. And that is one of the more striking instances of irony in this whole debate: criticizing alleged all-encompassing "ambiguity" in the Council, they hypocritically become far more truly ambiguous in the logic-torturing and circular theories they invent in order to bolster their own preconceived notions. I have noted this on many occasions in my Internet debates.

. . . the radical departure of the Second Vatican Council from the tradition that preceded and, indeed, should have anchored it. For example, Chapter Seven explains the "doctrine" that underlies the ambiguity, i.e., that a "hesitating" theology is normal, the Church is part of evolution, and so is semper reformanda---always in need of reform . . .

This section is rich in error. First of all, it is simply assumed that the teaching of Vatican II is a departure (i.e., corruption), rather than a Newmanian development of previous dogma and theology. This is by no means proven - much as "traditionalists" casually assume. I have plenty of material and links even on my own website which demonstrate that the so-called "evolved" or "novel" doctrines can be synthesized and harmonized with traditional Catholic dogma. Apparently, many "traditionalists" have never read (or didn't understand, if they did), John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. There, the great and Venerable Cardinal lays out the principles which distinguish a legitimate development from a corruption. If no seeds whatever could be found in ancient Church history for the emphases of Vatican II, a case might be made, but in fact, much can be found in the present instance (there aren't many explicit seeds for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, or the Immaculate Conception, or Original Sin, either).

The Debate Between the Abbe de Nantes and Fr. Congar

( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/crc1.html )

AT ANNECY, ON 8 FEBRUARY 1977. From chapter 11 of the book For The Church by Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels, CRC. . . .

. . . Abbe de Nantes: Ah well, for my part, it is my absolute certitude that the Council as a whole is in the process of delivering the Church to the world, making our children lose the faith, and multiplying scandals. . . .

No mincing of words here! The Council is literally an instrument of the devil. This is not, and cannot be, Catholicism. I would have known this even as a Protestant.

. . . "Whether he wishes it or not", the Abbe de Nantes will conclude, "the father of the Fathers of the Council [Fr. Congar] will always be nonplussed when confronted with our two theses: 1. The Second Vatican Council contains no infallible teaching.

This is as complete a reversal of the traditional understanding of Ecumenical Councils, as could possibly occur. I suppose the Abbe de Nantes will also say that it shouldn't be obeyed in the least, either? No one asserts that the Council contained ex cathedra proclamations. Perhaps that is what is meant here. But Fr. Congar, in the debate, freely admitted that (as it is clearly true).

2. On the other hand, it contains novelties that have been infallibly condemned as insanity and heresy right up to our own times. It is on these bases that we remain impregnable, demanding 'Truth and Justice whatever it may cost'."

This is an explicit belief in the defectibility of the Church, as far as I am concerned. He even dispenses (refreshingly) with the specious pretense of "ambiguity." I condemn this opinion unequivocally, as it is against the clear teaching of the Magisterium and Catholic Tradition. As I mentioned previously, the principle of indefectibility is upheld by The Remnant as one of its core beliefs, and Michael Davies defends it on the site, yet the Abbe de Nantes is clearly also a pivotal, influential figure among those who write for the website; not that such glaring internal contradictions among "traditionalists" ever surprise me. I am well-used to them. One expects such things to be routinely and blithely accepted, just as one expects Protestant sects to contradict each other, and hardly even care, after a certain point. It amounts to institutionalized theological relativism and ecclesiological chaos. The important thing among all these "true believers" is for them to know what they are against. That is sufficient for inclusion into the club. "My enemy's enemy is my friend." The same dynamic also applies to anti-Catholics in all their various nefarious manifestations. Some Fundamentalists are even willing to absurdly embrace the Albigensian Gnostics, in the attempt to claim a pedigree apart from the Catholic lineage.

THE NEW "ORDO MISSAE": A BATTLE ON TWO FRONTS

the Abbe de Nantes

( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/crc1.html )

. . . For myself, I was absorbed by the doctrinal combat, by the denunciation of the grave falsifications of the faith which the Council and the Pope, followed by so many books, particularly the new catechisms, had introduced and spread throughout the Church with their authentic magisterium. . . .

More defectibility. If the Council and popes are positively promulgating "grave" heretical error, then surely the Satanic conspiracy to overthrow the Church is complete. Yet note the diametrically opposed position of Michael Davies:

I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS

THE CHURCH IS INDEFECTIBLE IN HER DIVINE CONSTITUTION

Michael Davies

( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/indefect.html )

In his Consistory Allocution of 2 June 1944, "The mandate Confided to Peter", Pope Pius XII stated:

Mother Church, Catholic, Roman, which has remained faithful to the constitution received from her divine Founder, which still stands firm today on the solidity of the rock on which His will erected her, possesses in the primacy of Peter and of his legitimate successors, the assurance, guaranteed by the divine promises, of keeping and transmitting inviolate and in all its integrity through the centuries and millennia to the very end of time the entire sum of truth and grace contained in the redemptive mission of Christ.

Pope Pius XII was referring here to one of the greatest prerogatives of the Church, her indefectibility. The word indefectible means unable to fail. When used with reference to the Catholic Church it means that the Church will persist until the end of time, and that she will preserve unimpaired her essential characteristics. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men . . .

. . . We can be absolutely certain of this because the constitution of the Catholic Church has a divine origin. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself founded His Church, and He imparted to her the divine constitution which He has solemnly guaranteed will remain essentially immutable until the end of time . . . If any essential change took place in her constitution she would cease to be the Church which He had founded. It would mean that Our Lord had made promises which He could not fulfil, which would mean that He was not divine. This would make the entire Christian religion meaningless . . . It is manifestly impossible that such a situation could ever occur if Our Lord is indeed divine, if He did indeed found a Church and did indeed endow it with an indefectible constitution. This is explained very clearly in The Catholic Encyclopedia:

For the Church must endure to the end the very same organization which Christ established. But in an organized society it is precisely the constitution which is the essential feature. A change in constitution transforms it into a society of a different kind. If the Church should adopt a constitution other than Christ gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no longer be the divine kingdom established by Him. As a society it would have passed through essential modifications, and thereby would have become a human, not a divine institution. None who believe that Christ came on earth to found a Church, an organized society destined to endure for ever, can admit the possibility of a change in the organization given to it by its Founder.

. . . St. Pius X assures us in his Encyclical, Iucunda Sane, 1904, that Our Lord will never allow His Church to fail:

Never throughout the course of ages has supernatural power been lacking in the Church; never have the promises of Christ failed. They remain as powerful today as they were when they filled the heart of Gregory with consolation. Rather, having withstood the test of time and the change of circumstances and events, they possess even greater assurance...

... The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a stream of documents upholding orthodoxy of which many Catholics seem unaware. Justice demands that we judge the orthodoxy of any Catholic (and thus certainly the Pope) by the totality of his published opinions, and not solely by particular actions or statements which appear suspect or ambiguous.

{from I Am With You Always, the Neumann Press, 1997, pp33,34; 53,54}

For a change, I can joyfully and totally agree with something stated on this site.

Pope John Paul II and the Lutheran-Catholic Accord

John Vennari

( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/vennari1.html )

. . . There is no doubt that Pope John Paul II's encouragement for ecumenism places him at odds with his pre-Vatican II predecessors, and transforms the entire Church into a menagerie of religiously hybrid creatures.

Interesting terminology . . . sounds like doctrinal evolution to me, therefore more defectibility, or at least quasi-defectibility.

Every Pope prior to Vatican II condemned ecumenism as it is understood and practiced today.

As I noted above, even the much-maligned (and much lied-about) Assisi gathering can be credibly defended from St. Thomas Aquinas.

The traditional Papal position is best illustrated in Pope Pius XI's 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos, which condemned all interfaith activity; and in Pope Pius XII's 1949 Instruction on Ecumenism in which all the proper safeguards were maintained. Not surprising, neither of these two important documents is mentioned in Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism.

The Church also used to allow married priests in the Latin Rites, and conducted Inquisitions. Does Mr. Vennari wish to return to those practices, too? Obviously, things along these lines can change, as they do not come under the category of dogma, but rather, discipline. What hasn't changed in the least with regard to authentic ecumenism, is its inveterate opposition to indifferentism.

It has been the consistent teaching of the Sovereign Pontiffs that it is a grave sin to place the one true religion of Jesus Christ on the same base level as false religions, as does ecumenism.

As I just anticipated, Mr. Vennari labors under the illusion that Vatican II ecumenism and indifferentism are the same thing. That can be easily refuted from the Council documents themselves - so easily that I won't bother to cut and paste the relevant portions here!

Pope Leo XIII warned that "to treat all religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them equal rights and privileges" is to "adopt a line of action that will lead to godlessness." . . .

Vatican II and Pope John Paul do not regard them as all indistinguishable, in terms of truthfulness. Each may contain partial truth, which can be charitably recognized. In the above-mentioned paper, I wrote:

Catholic thought has developed in this area (just as it has in many - if not all - areas), especially in the last fifty years or so, during which time the development has been noticeable and rapid. But fairly explicit precedent exists for such ecumenism at least as far back as Pope Leo XIII [r. 1878-1903], who tried to encourage an attitude of respect and friendship with regard to the Churches of the East. In his encyclical Praeclara Gratulationis [1894], he used expressions which had previously rarely been seen in papal documents:

We cast an affectionate look upon the east . . . the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in the ancient faith and glorious past . . . the distance separating us is not so great . . .

Leo XIII never calls the Orthodox, or speaks of them, as schismatics. He tries to describe the schism in a way that - though faithful to his own Catholic convictions - yet is not insulting or condescending towards the Eastern Christians. For Leo XIII the Orthodox are separated Christian, or "dissident Christians."

Of course, the Councils of Lyons and Florence also included reconciliation with the Orthodox, which might be regarded as precursors to Vatican II ecumenism. So what does the "anti-ecumenist" conclude about Leo XIII? That he fell prey to the demons which later subverted Vatican II,and contradicted himself as well as supposed dogmatic Church teaching? One can always find pre-conciliar popes espousing what is allegedly so hideous in Vatican II.

. . . we must hold fast to the unchanging teaching and tradition of the Catholic Faith. On this point, St. Vincent of Lerins has left us firm instruction on the Catholic's duty not to compromise when confronted with a grave crisis of Faith in the Church:

What then should a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity [tradition] which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty.

And the same St. Vincent also wrote explicitly (around 434) about development of doctrine - so much so that Cardinal Newman took him as the primary source in his own theory of development:

In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is, then truly and properly Catholic . . .

Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly there is, and the greatest . . . But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself; by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily . . . and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion. The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were . . . Although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains.

Dogma . . . may be consolidated in the course of years, developed in the sequence of time, and sublimated by age - yet remain incorrupt and unimpaired . . . so that it does not allow of any change, or any loss of its specific character, or any variation of its inherent form.

It should flourish and ripen; it should develop and become perfect . . . but it is sinful to change them . . . or mutilate them. They may take on more evidence, clarity, and distinctness, but it is absolutely necessary that they retain their plenitude, integrity, and basic character . . .

The Church of Christ is a faithful and ever watchful guardian of the dogmas which have been committed to her charge. In this sacred deposit she changes nothing, she takes nothing . . ., she adds nothing to it.

{Notebooks, 2 and 23}

This is what occurred at Vatican II, if only "traditionalists" could see it!

A Short Catechism on the "New Theology"

John Vennari

( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/Vennari2.html )

. . . Who were some other admirers of the New Theology?

At Vatican II, two prominent admirers were Father Joseph Ratzinger from Germany and Archbishop Karol Wojtyla from Poland. As these two men advanced in today's Church, so did the influence and acceptance of the "New Theology," despite its condemnation by Pius XII. In the 1980s, de Lubac and von Balthasar were both named Cardinals, without ever having to retract their dangerous doctrines. . . .

So, the pope and Cardinal Ratzinger are modernists. More refreshing honesty, at least. But is this not also quasi-defectibility? For 20 years, John Paul II has been allowed by God to unleash this poison upon the Church? At least with Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius, their error was short-lived, and not pronounced with any authoritativeness.

But why do some of the advocates of the New Theology sometimes sound somewhat conservative?

Because they don't always take the principles of their flawed system to their logical conclusion. The New Theology is subjectivist by nature.

Well, that is a familiar scenario to me, having seen the logical absurdities that writers for The Remnant come up with!

. . . Further, as Suzanne Rini rightly observes, the New Theology should not even be called a "theology" since it is simply resuscitated gnosticism.

This is too delicious! Now the pope and Vatican II are "Gnostic"?! Wow! How does one respond to this with a straight face? I won't waste my time with such wild accusations.

What have been the results?

The Vatican II church of ecumenism and neo-modernism, showcase of the "New Theology", is in shambles.

The dictionary defines shambles as "ruin" or "wreckage." Therefore I conclude - if words mean anything - that Mr. Vennari, too, believes that the Church could defect and depart from the Faith.

. . . Ignatius Press is the main publishing house for main- streaming the leaders of the New Theology into the English-speaking world. Why waste time reading these suspect men when there are so many thoroughly orthodox saints and authors to read?

Do you also place Cardinal Newman in your pantheon of modernists, I wonder? It is often said that his "spirit" pervades Vatican II.

Appeal for an Ex-Cathedra Judgment on Vatican II

Toni des Fresnes

( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/excathedra.html )

The Remnant website exclaims about this article: "Toni des Fresnes here gives a "snapshot" view of the Abbe de Nantes' critique of Conciliar theology and his most profound proposal for a way out of the most dramatic impasse of our time. Perhaps the most important article you will read this year!"

. . . we are perfectly free to repudiate a counterfeit doctrine, which is represented as "infallible", but is nevertheless alien to the authentic traditional Magisterium.

Indeed; you can get consistent and leave the Church, if you are so convinced things are this desperate and hopeless.

Indeed, we have the duty to recognize, resist and reject any such falsehood.

As I reject yours . . .

. . . The source of this new religion, masquerading as "Catholic", must be permanently removed, in order for true Catholicism to grow in the future and to flourish once more.

As clear and unambiguous a statement as any by non-SSPX, non-sedevacantist "traditionalists" (and glowingly, ludicrously espoused by The Remnant website editors) of defectibility ("new religion"), and Vatican II as the "source" of virtually all ills and heresy in the Church.

We might argue that our present woes began long before the Council.

Yes; I would argue that they go back to the Fall of Adam and Eve, and with them, the human race . . . .

But the fact remains that without Vatican II the auto-demolition of our Faith and our Church could not have been implemented.

There's that curious term "auto-demolition" again . . . I wonder if the author nevertheless regards Vatican II as "valid"?

This unprecedented "pastoral" Council was by no means infallible in all its teachings. In contrast to Vatican II, the previous twenty valid ecumenical Councils of the Church held over the past nineteen centuries, were all dogmatic and therefore infallible � containing no trace of error in their texts, teachings and penalties.

I fail to comprehend by what intellectual gymnastics such a remarkable conclusion can be made. I stand by Cardinal Ratzinger's comment above.

. . . Indeed, it is high time for Vatican II to be re-visited and judged, with its errors exposed and condemned. How and by whom? Only a Pope or a Pope-in-Council can judge the Second Vatican Council and its legacy, the cult of man.

The time for that was at the close of the Council, when Pope Paul VI had the duty and prerogative of "vetoing" any questionable documents (as Leo the Great did with regard to the famous 28th Canon of Chalcedon). But he did not. This is how the Catholic Church operates. There is no such thing as going back to an Ecumenical Council 30 or more years later, and "deleting the whole thing from the record," so to speak. This is impossible, both from the nature of things, and because it would constitute a glaring contradiction between one pope and another. One could, however, adopt Luther's position of being totally willing to abandon any mere Council or papal decree (even an entire Christian Tradition), if his conscience so dictated. But of course that is Lutheranism, not Catholicism . . . Once again, "traditionalism" betrays its latent Protestant affinities and sympathies . . .

Why has our Supreme Pontiff not used his Petrine power to clear up the appalling confusion perverting faith and morals throughout the Church today?

One could make a strong argument that he indeed has, but it seems as if nothing ever pleases "traditionalists."

Surely Rome is not blind to the fact that once the errors of the Council are vanquished and its "spirit" exorcised, the present apostasy or revolution in the Church will be finished?

One doesn't get rid of the dirty bathwater by throwing out the baby . . .

It is unfortunate that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was deftly sidetracked into a liturgical dispute, apparently choreographed in Rome. If only he had invoked his episcopal right to a solemn judgment on the documented errors of Vatican II, he would have won a universal victory for the Faith (including of course, for the traditional Latin Mass). The very last thing Rome wanted was to be forced to deal with a legal ecclesiastical case which would publicize the theological flaws of the Council.. . .

This is priceless, in that it illustrates another suspicion of mine: that if you scratch a self-proclaimed "traditionalist" in communion with Rome, you get an SSPXer. If you scratch an SSPXer hard enough, you get a sedevacantist. Yet The Remnant website purportedly condemns both positions. Abp. Lefebvre as the sad, tragic, misunderstood hero-figure, and martyr for the noble cause of schism, rather than the disobedient excommunicate. A wistful reflection on "if only" . . .

. . . At the very least, an information campaign would certainly help Catholics, both religious and lay, to understand why we need to be released from the grip of Vatican II . . .

Why would a Catholic want to be "released" from the divinely-ordained Magisterium of the Church, for heaven's sake? Nowhere does anyone show that the Council was invalid; therefore, we are all bound to it. There is no middle, "ambiguous" position.

. . . The bottom line here is that an infallible judgment will break the conciliar bonds which keep us hostage . . .

Pipe dreams . . . sheer silliness and Luther-like stupefaction as to the essential ecclesiology of the Church . . .

. . . Consequently a line from the Apocalypse comes to mind: "Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?" (Ap. 13:4) Who then is capable of challenging Vatican II? . . .

I thank the author for this bit of honesty as well. Now Vatican II is compared to the very Beast of Revelation!! If it wasn't so sad, it would be uproariously funny.

. . . The errors and ambiguities of Vatican II cannot be eradicated by trying to interpret them "in the light of tradition", because the modernism animating this conciliar reformed religion contradicts previous papal teachings, the magisterium and in short, the Catholic Faith. . . .

A pitiable bit of entirely circular reasoning . . . In effect, no one is allowed to even begin such an endeavor, as it is clear from the outset that it is futile and doomed to failure. Very convenient . . .

. . . The Christian deposit of Faith remained non-negotiable to "reform" until the Protestant revolution. Yet our Catholic doctrine (in toto) was unassailed from within until Vatican II when, with immense pride and presumption, for the first time in the history of the Church a brand new set of beliefs was conjured up (without dogmatic authority) under the catch-phrase "renewal". . . .

In other words, the Church was finally won over by the devil, and defected, contrary to Jesus Christ's explicit promises. That would mean that, in turn, Jesus, our Lord and Savior, was a liar and a fraud, as Michael Davies implied in his truthful comments on the matter above.

. . . Vatican II was used as a springboard to jettison the past and to introduce a revolutionary philosophy for the "Pilgrim Church" on earth. The laity had their life blood injected with a batch of experimental, synthetic sera. After the Council closed in 1965 and based on its authority, everything was made new. The Classical Roman liturgy was suppressed and a new Mass was fabricated by a committee. The Sacraments were changed and rewritten. The Divine Office was constructed in a different format and divorced from Latin. A new Code of Canon Law was produced and an official new universal "Catechism" appeared. In fact, a whole new religion took shape. . . .

I'm beginning to think that verbal precision (not to mention logical rigor) is almost an afterthought or an irrelevancy in "traditionalist" rantings such as these. What is a rational person to do with an absolutely ridiculous phrase such as "a whole new religion"? I don't know what to do with it - as I am normally accustomed to some semblance of reason in my opponents - , so I will desist, and leave it to others far more patient and longsuffering than I am.

. . . We recognize particularly Paul VI and John Paul II, in sympathy with Modernism, but nevertheless legitimate Popes. . . .

More face-saving equivocation . . .

. . . Obviously, the conciliar legacy is not merely watered-down Christianity, but an alien departure from what the Church has always taught for nineteen and a half centuries. The New (so-called) Catechism of the Catholic Church is riddled with the "old" faith being mixed up with the "new" ideology. . . .

More defectibility and Newmanian corruption.

. . . Vatican II not only ushered in a new religion, but a new way of governing the Church. The laity were empowered at the expense of downgrading the unique and sacred powers of the priesthood. . . .

Ditto.

. . . In Tertio Millennio Adveniente John Paul II claims: "During the Council� the Church� rediscovered episcopal collegiality". This is not true. Collegiality was not "rediscovered" since this phenomenon never previously existed, even in Apostolic times. Collegiality was invented by Vatican II � designed to weaken the Petrine authority of Peter. Collegiality is a complete fabrication. . . .

Quite the contrary, it goes back to the first Church Council in the book of Acts (where Peter presided) and the scriptures about all the Apostles being given the power to "bind and loose" (again with Peter being preeminent, supreme, and unique - having been given the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" by Jesus, and called the "Rock" upon which the Church would be built). It is grounded in the very notion of a bishop. Otherwise, why have them at all? Just have a pope and a bunch of priests! From the beginning, the pope was head, but worked with the bishops, especially in Council. This is the uniqueness of solidly biblically-based Catholic ecclesiology, in contradistinction to Orthodoxy and Anglicanism (Councils with no pope) or Protestantism (no Councils at all, excepting perhaps the first four given non-obligatory respect). Conciliarism over against the pope - the heresy of Gallicanism - is, of course, heretical, but that wasn't what Vatican II proclaimed at all. It repeated virtually word-for-word the proclamation on papal infallibility from Vatican I, thus making the dogma even more certain (if indeed that can be said about a defined de fide dogma).

. . . The term "conciliarism" is used here to describe contemporary pseudo-Catholicism which, like a chimera, was unleashed by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. What then is the essence and purpose of the conciliar religion? As previously reviewed in some detail, the essence of conciliarism constitutes a body of evolving teachings, theology, doctrine and practice, which is contrary to authentic traditional Catholicism. And its purpose is to provide a vehicle, disguised under a Catholic veneer, to animate the realm of a New World Order. In a word, Conciliarism was crafted to serve as the Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Democracy. . . .

Ah, so now we predictably enter the "anything-goes" world of conspiratorialism.

. . . As for "conservative" Catholicism, which helps to sustain the liberal monopoly of power by its vacillating apathy and antipathy towards Traditionalism, there is only this to say� "conservatives" stand for nothing and fall for everything, since they are "neither hot nor cold"�

That comes as news to me. I defy anyone to look over my website, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, and claim that I "stand for nothing and fall for everything." I could no more do that than I could turn myself into the Loch Ness Monster. :-) The same holds for any number of fellow apologists, who don't fall for "traditionalist" falsehoods and illogic, and the impious, schismatic spirit that it entails - clearly demonstrated above, time and again.

THE ONE CATHOLIC MASS: ITS VALIDITY, LICEITY, AND BENEFIT

the Abbe de Nantes, CRC Journal, April 1975.

( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/valid.html )

[though he accepts the technical validity of the New Mass, nevertheless he writes:]

. . . As for us, we consider the Missal of Paul VI to be the work of men's malice. Its definition of the Mass is perversely heretical, its inventions are copies of protestant rites, and its minor alterations are inspired by a doctrinal relativism and an infectious spiritual lethargy, which gradually poisons and misleads those who make use of it. Finally, it has given the green light to every kind of degradation of the sacred rites, even the very worst profanations. Such at least is our opinion, demonstrated, proclaimed, and never refuted.. . .

Yet another quintessential example of the typical "traditionalist" skeptical and cynical "distinction without a difference," thus making it irrelevant and of no particular effect (as to the ultimate fruit of their beliefs) when they claim to uphold the validity of popes, Councils, and the New Mass, blah blah blah.

The New Mass Revisited

Michael J. Matt, editor, The Remnant

( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/massmatt.html )

. . . the agenda undertaken by the revolutionaries in our own day and age who infiltrated (and determined the outcome of) the Second Vatican Council.

In other words, it is a heretic Council, which (amazingly enough) overcame the heretofore guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid . . . (well, maybe it does, as we find out later in the article). Mr. Matt shows himself one of the more frank and consistent "traditionalists."

And what, after all, was the crowning achievement of Vatican II and its opprobrious "spirit" . . .

What do you call your spirit, I ask? I say it is the spirit of schism and disobedience and private judgment and the "pick-and-choose" cafeteria Catholic mentality - all suggesting a loss of faith in God and in Holy Mother Church, the Body of Christ.

. . . if not the attempted suppression of the venerable Tridentine Rite of the Catholic Church and the promulgation of a New Liturgy?

Who in his right mind would argue that the New Mass is anything other than the product of the same Modernist revolution, against which Pope St. Pius X warned the Church back in 1907? And, if we are to accept that the New Mass is the product of certain Modernist churchmen attempting to make the Church "more sympathetic to the tolerant spirit of the present age [by] relaxing its former strictness [and being] more indulgent toward modern views and methods," then, in the spirit of Pascendi, is it not the duty of Catholics to "question" the New Mass with all the fervor with which we are obliged to "question" Modernism itself?

So you will have the guts and self-consistency to say it is invalid and a stench in God's nostrils?

Modernism: wielding its capable battle weapons of the new Theology and false ecumenism (of which the New Mass is merely the natural outgrowth): is not merely a threat to the liturgical preferences of Catholics. No, it is a threat to the entire deposit of the Catholic Faith, to the physical and spiritual well-being of Christians, and indeed to the very foundation stones of civilized society itself. . . .

So has the Church defected yet (given all this melodramatic hysteria)? If not, why, and what will be the sign that it has? You can't continue to play this game of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

. . . By definition, then, is not Traditional Catholicism fundamentally opposed to Modernism and all its works and pomps?

So you say, yet you and your fellow reactionaries continue to "identify with the oppressor" by adopting (consciously, willfully or not) so many of its tenets: selective espousal of Councils and papal decrees - even preconciliar papal teaching (e.g., they don't like Humanae Vitae; you despise Ut Unum Sint - could they not argue that Paul VI was in error, just as you do?), private judgment, loss of faith, despairing of God's promises, defectibility, hyper-rationalism, a disdain for true development and the mind of the Church, a Pharisaic, legalistic mentality and methodology, disobedience, laxity and compromise with regard to the dangers of errors to your "right," inability to distinguish excesses from essence, insufficient understanding of causation, the schismatic and sectarian spirit, a marked lack of charity towards so-called "conservatives," the Holy Father, other Christians, sinful judgmentalism and condescension, exaggerated self-importance (one might describe that as the prideful spirit), a spiritually unhealthy perpetual gloominess, suspiciousness, cynicism, and skepticism, etc. Orthodox Catholicism, on the other hand - such as what I am espousing, is thoroughly opposed to modernism, yet without hypocritically embracing so many of its tenets, yielding up an Ecumenical Council to the devil, and largely without all the other harmful tendencies and beliefs just outlined (we are sinners, too, of course, but we don't institutionalize and formalize clear errors, as you do - "calling evil good," in other words).

By laboring for the restoration of the Traditional Mass, do we not necessarily impugn the legitimacy of the New Mass?

Not necessarily. E.g., there are many Eastern Rites which have existed side-by-side with the Tridentine Liturgy for many hundreds of years (and the Church acknowledges the validity of Orthodox sacraments as well). We are not tied to one form and one form only. The essence of all valid Masses is the consecration and Real Presence and Sacrifice.

It would seem impossible to have it any other way.

Within the context of your schismatic mindset, of course this follows logically (and in fact), from the initial false premises, as I have been arguing all along, not only concerning the Novus Ordo, but also the recent popes and Vatican II, and the supremely important, presuppositional aspect of defectibility. So throughout this survey, the "traditionalists" of The Remnant have (quite sadly) more than sufficiently confirmed all my worst suspicions and hypotheses about this harmful movement. The more I learn, the worse it gets . . .

I do not merely "prefer" the Tridentine Mass, I see it as the essential touchstone to the old Faith; I see its total restoration as the only hope for millions of souls in the modern world. The New Mass is fraudulent, but more importantly, the New Mass weakens the Faith of the faithful.

How does one prove such an amazing, subjective assertion? Simply because the crisis coincides in time with the New Mass? The fallacy of that "reasoning" is obvious. The height of the modernist crisis might be said to have been 1968, the very year that Humanae Vitae was promulgated. I assume that you accept that wonderful encyclical (perhaps not, as "traditionalists" so despise Pope Paul VI). But by your own warped logic, the teaching against contraception must have caused the large scale disobedience of Catholics in this matter, since it coincided with it.

That which weakens Faith is injurious to Faith; therefore, the threat of the New Mass cannot be overlooked in our pursuit of the restoration of the Old Mass.

You continue to build upon your unproven premises - another troubling tendency of "traditionalists." So the alarmist rhetoric gets worse and worse, as with all conspiratorial schemes and theories trumped-up in order to explain things that people find themselves unable to comprehend or understand (therefore, they disobey and lose confidence in their ecclesiastical superiors). Like Job's comforters, you fail to see that God is at work, mysterious and inexplicable as His ways continue to be. A little reading of Church history (the bleak periods) might do wonders.Catholics take the long view of history; they are not bound up by the fads and peculiarities and zeitgeist of any particular time period. This is one of the glories of the Church; one of the things that so attracted me to it.

According to a recent New York Times poll, seventy percent of young Catholics believe that the Blessed Sacrament is merely a symbolic reminder of the mission of Jesus Christ. The New Mass has led to this frightening crisis of Faith.

Of course this is completely unsubstantiated argumentation, and circular as well. I could just as well say (with far more justification) that the incessant Protestant and secularizing influence and incipient anti-traditionalism of our culture led to this demise in eucharistic faith. How do you know that the New Mass is the (sole?) cause? The fact is that you don't know that. But since it is a convenient fallacy to incorporate within your overall worldview, you adopt it uncritically. But I consider it far worse to have an educated Catholic like yourself blatantly disobeying and disbelieving your Church, its Councils and popes, as compared to an ignorant, poorly-catechized Catholic who doesn't understand or accept the Real Presence. "To whom much is given, much is required."

Its effects on the faithful cannot be tolerated, and the New Mass itself cannot be allowed to enjoy equal status with the Traditional Mass of the ages. . . .

I could just as well say, "the effects of quasi-schismatic 'traditionalism' on the faithful cannot be tolerated, and disobedience and selective espousal cannot be allowed to enjoy equal status with the traditional faith of the ages in the indefectibility of the Church, and the infallibility and sublime authority of popes and Councils." I regard your influence as equally dangerous as modernism, if not more so, because many of you have the outward appearance (and in many aspects and ways, the actuality) of being orthodox, devout, faithful Catholics, yet you spread (sincerely, I freely grant) this poison of skepticism and disbelief in Catholic authority - just as Luther and all the schismatics and heretics throughout history did.

The very fact that "traditionalists" can masquerade as perfectly orthodox Catholics, makes them that much more dangerous, as all error has an element of truth in it, in order to deceive (I speak in the sense of diabolical spiritual warfare, not of conscious personal motives) the gullible and uninformed. Many Catholics can readily comprehend the folly and vapidity of modernist nonsense (when they truly see it in its ugly brazenness), but they cannot so quickly discern the errors of "traditionalism," which are far more subtle, complex, and, well (to use one of your favorite descriptions), "ambiguous." And if you wonder why we so-called "conservatives" are so hard on you, then maybe that is an important clue or a hint. In a word, you should know better. We need your zeal, sincerity, traditionalism (in the right sense of the word), and concern for liturgical purity and orthodoxy on our side, in the battle for pure orthodoxy and for the Church.As I wrote earlier (notwithstanding all my passionate disagreement), we have much in common, and I rejoice in all that.

Furthermore, schism has shown itself to be far more long-lasting historically, whereas heresies usually die out (completely or substantially). In that sense, one might say that schism poses a greater threat to the Church and to souls. If the pope, e.g., was to crack down on the American Catholic "church" with the full vigor "traditionalists" (and many "conservatives") call for, we can be sure that wholesale schism would result. I say that is a tragic eventuality to be avoided at all costs, as the harm to souls and the Church would be arguably far greater than that caused by the modernist crisis.

The pope is, therefore, between a rock and a hard place with regard to modernist dissent and domination of Catholic institutions such as seminaries, schools, and dioceses. Those who counsel a new Inquisition are much lacking in historical hindsight and prudential wisdom, in my opinion, which is odd, since they ought to know that modernists are every bit as devoted to their cause, and will fight tooth and nail to retain their worldly power and influence. This was all obvious after 1968 at the latest, when we saw the shocking organized resistance to Humanae Vitae.

. . . All of this cannot be considered accidental, or merely a diminishing of the tremendous benefits offered through the traditional liturgy. All of this constitutes an aggressive assault, waged by Modernists with the help of a weak and tragic Pope Paul VI (whom the Modernists dumped in the nearest gutter immediately after they were through with him),

If he was so weak, how, then, could he write the magnificent and heroic Humanae Vitae, against the majority advice of his own advisors - right in the face of the liberals? Nothing was ever so unfashionable as opposition to unrestrained sexual freedom, at that time. This heroic pope suffered "white martyrdom" if anyone ever did. And I happen to personally know one of his close advisors, so I have a little bit of inside information about that, beyond mere outward speculation.

against the sacred traditional liturgy of the Church. And, lex orandi, lex credendi (as we pray, so we believe)�the Novus Ordo is just the external manifestation of the greatest crisis of Faith through which the Church has ever lived. It is not equal to the Traditional Mass "we prefer." It is a travesty and�valid or not�it has become in so many cases a cruel mockery of the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. . . .

This is another classic example of what I have repeatedly stressed: that the hostile attitude of the "traditionalist" towards Council, pope, and New Mass alike, transcends the technical, legalistic, canonical issue of validity. This is precisely why I continually stress the crucial underlying schismatic spirit, whereas "traditionalists" like to maintain the pretense that "we accept the validity of the New Mass, and Vatican II, and the last four pontificates, so we're not formal schismatics . . . ," as if that solves all the problems of their fundamentally disobedient and Protestant- or modernist-like skepticism and disbelief in God's guidance of the One True Church. So "valid or not," (in other words, that matter is practically irrelevant), it is a "travesty" and a "cruel mockery." I can easily rest my case at this point - having been spectacularly vindicated in every particular.

. . . Though I would never attempt to put myself in a position of dictating to others on a matter of conscience such as this one is,

Oh, of course not . . . Far be it from you to pontificate . . .

I still do not hesitate to admit that I will not attend the New Mass. I have made this commitment, not merely because I happen not to "prefer" the New Mass, but rather because it is a travesty its promulgation marks a break with Tradition. It has become in recent years especially a liturgical bow to Protestantism. I do not say it is invalid, because it is not my place to proclaim anything on a matter of such weight. I do, however, believe that it is injurious to the Catholic Faith, as history has clearly shown it to be in recent years. . . .

Another attempt to have it both ways, to be ambiguous and nebulous, just as Vatican II is accused of being. I find all this incredibly ironic and flat-out odd. But, as I just stated, validity is a moot point within the overall context of the radical skepticism and lack of faith (acceptance of quasi-defectibility or literal defection) of "traditionalism."

. . . I realize that the late Archbishop Lefebvre is no longer considered "politically correct" within "new Traditionalism," but I remember a time when his words were taken seriously in the old days, even by those who did not support the 1988 consecrations. . . .

Yet another confirmation of what I stated above: viz., "laxity and compromise with regard to the dangers of errors to your 'right.' " And, "if you scratch a self-proclaimed 'traditionalist' in communion with Rome, you get an SSPXer. If you scratch an SSPXer hard enough, you get a sedevacantist." Not a single harsh word is spoken about the brazen disobedience of Abp. Lefebvre - a direct defiance of the pope's orders. Once one accepts the legitimacy of that premise, the hierarchical structure of the Church ultimately collapses (logically speaking). But no; as above in a previous excerpt, Abp. Lefebvre is clearly wistfully regarded as a "tragic hero," a "martyr for the cause," someone far more respected than repudiated as a formal schismatic (even though The Remnant ostensibly eschews the Society of St. Pius X [SSPX], founded by Lefebvre).

. . . Was that Mass invalid? It seems to us that that's really beside the point.

Of course it is; we understand your schismatic and disobedient mentality very well by now . . .

The Faith is all but lost in the Novus Ordo church--only the COMMUNITY remains, and even that is dwindling rapidly.

A clear proclamation of the defectibility of the Church (thus making Jesus a liar and a fraud, as Michael Davies implied). It is only qualified (as usual, in ambiguous, modernist fashion) by the clause "all but."

Becoming preoccupied with the validity question is a bit like a murderer worrying about whether or not he mixed his poisonous potion properly, even after his victim has fallen lifeless to the floor. Valid or not, the New Mass has been disastrous. The Faith is undergoing its own Black Plague, largely due to the Liturgical Revolution. . . .

Precisely - as I have been arguing. The only difference is that you only see modernism behind every tree and under every rock. I see not only the clear and present modernist threat and crisis, but also your schismatic spirit, wherein validity is "beside the point." Funny, though, that "traditionalists" always appeal to their belief in validity when their orthodoxy or communion with Rome is questioned by orthodox Catholics, such as myself. So it is "beside the point" in one context (i.e., in their internal soliloquies and jeremiads), yet quite to the point and essential as an indicator of Catholic legitimacy in another context (i.e., putting forth an "orthodox appearance" to the outside world). Thus, such a two-faced approach stinks of a sort of esotericism and elitism which is highly detrimental to the integrity and self-honesty of the movement qua movement, in my opinion. This is equivocation in the full, objectionable sense of the term.

. . . the Faith has survived despite the New Mass...but not because of it; . . .

. . . For most of us the threats of the New Mass are very real, again regardless of its validity. . . .

For those who use acceptance of "validity" as a barometer of the "non-aberrant" or "acceptable" nature of "traditionalism," take note. There's much more here than meets the eye . . .

. . . Few would argue that the New Mass was formulated by Modernists. Therefore, Traditionalists are not out of line by "shunning" it altogether. We are content to let a future pope make a judgment on the validity (or lack thereof) of this strange Novus Ordo Missae;

Now agnosticism surfaces. The pope is enthusiastically obeyed insofar as he agrees with the "traditionalist!" Luther would have been very proud!

but, for us, it has become a serious threat to the integrity of the Holy Roman Catholic Faith.

And indeed this is the bottom line for you, once again revealing the belief in quasi-defectibility, when all is said and done.

Conclusion

In the interest of confounding the dictates of the latest heresy de jour "false ecumenism"

Here's a question for you, which needs to be asked: what do you consider a true ecumenism? If there is no such thing, then why do you qualify the word? That would be like saying "avoid a false lust" or "don't engage in false embezzlement." The use of false, therefore, implies the existence of a true (authentic) ecumenism, as in my position.

Traditionalism, therefore, should insist on being defined by its respectful but total opposition to the New Mass,

Now we again descend into the surreal world of doubletalk. Every name in the book is hurled at the New Mass (e.g., "poisonous," "injurious," "cruel mockery"), yet we should be "respectful" towards it, in our noble opposition!

as well as by its "attachment" to the Old Mass. In this way, by demonstrating our willingness to stand against that which is injurious to the old Faith, our liturgical "preferences" will not be perceived by the modern world as mere consequences of nostalgia or selfishness, but rather will be seen as something which is fundamental to the Catholic Faith....Something worth sacrificing everything for indeed, something which is worth dying for, as it was in the cases of More, Campion, and Fisher.

I always grant sincerity of intention. I just think the whole outlook is tragically wrongheaded and quixotic in the extreme. Fight for liturgical reform (against abuses), sure (I have many links along those lines, and I wholeheartedly agree with that goal), but don't make yourself ridiculous by all this hyper-dramatic language in the service of schism and defectibility. "Traditionalism" is sorely lacking in perspective and - oftentimes - plain common sense.

At least, this is how this stodgy, "old" Traditionalist sees it. Call it madness if you will, but it seems to me that this was the standard line among all Traditionalists before 1988. If "new" Traditionalism is exclusive of those of us who respectfully but unabashedly stress the doctrinal contradictions contained within Novus Ordo milieu, then it becomes apparent that there is yet another "remnant" forming�a remnant that is kicking and clawing its way back to the "old" ways. . . .

Thanks (sincerely) for the historical overview and sociological analysis of the strains and fissures of your movement. And I predict that you won't be around much longer. You sound like you are destined for the SSPX. I am delighted to find out that the majority of "traditionalism" (since a new "remnant" is needed) accepts not only the validity but the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo (a rare ray of hope in this discussion) - in other words, they are obviously far to the "left" of the stances of The Remnant, here scrutinized. The type of traditionalist (note the absence of quotation marks) who rejects all six of the distinguishing marks of false "traditionalism," which I outlined near the beginning of this critique, is fine in my book. I have no beef with them whatsoever. This criticism is not at all directed towards them. I respect and admire them (I even admire the false "traditionalists" in some respects). In fact, I would consider myself one of their number. I need to make that clear now and then, lest my outlook and intention be misunderstood or mischaracterized (as I fully expect it to be once this paper hits the Internet).

. . . If new Traditionalism cannot embrace those who will go to their graves decrying the serious errors of the Modernists and their coup d'etat: the Novus Ordo Mass: then so be it and here's to the spirit of the "old Traditionalists." May it live on forever, if only in a remnant. . . .

And one can see the potential seeds of yet another sect developing, out of this rhetoric. Such is the inevitable destiny of all who leave the Church, either formally, or in a perilously-close spirit of disobedience and "material" schism. "Old Catholics"; "Old Traditionalists"; "Old Believers" (self-described "traditional" Orthodox in Russia); "Old Order Amish"; "Old-Fashioned Fundamentalism." Do I detect a pattern here? One keeps closing the circle of true believers tighter and tighter, until (theoretically) there could be ten people in the whole world who constitute the "Catholic Church." That doesn't sound like the One True, Universal, Catholic Church to me. The folly and falsity of this is obvious, but I guess that the lure of felt importance which comes with the self-understanding of being the "pure remnant" can overcome all Tradition and common sense.

My Afterword

I am fully willing to entertain debate and rebuttals to this (and publish on my site whatever portions I respond fully to - see link at the end of the paper), but I am not willing to get bogged down and sidetracked on this issue (per my expressed reservations and complaints in the Introduction), to the detriment and exclusion of many other ones which I deal with in the course of my apologetic writing and apostolate, primarily on the Internet. At least I am willing to interact with criticism (time- and energy-permitting) - unlike many out there in web-land and elsewhere. In fact, I have more dialogues with opponents on my website than any other site I have yet come across. These sad internal battles are most unfortunate and waste vital time and energy which could be devoted to prayer, evangelism, ecumenism, catechesis, social action, and other worthy Catholic pursuits.

Mainly, I am interested in direct replies and counter-replies to my arguments, as opposed to endless citations of obscure canon laws and letters, preaching, party line polemics and slogans, silly and vapid charges that I am a liberal, etc. I tend to approach things from a larger perspective - to look at the "big picture," though I also love to examine premises, and to illustrate logical results by analogy and the use of the argumentum ad absurdum - as often above. Possible dialogical opponents may take heart in the fact that (due to my perfectionism) I almost always write way more than I intend to, and spend far more time than I originally wished, as evidenced by this paper! :-)

Uploaded in 2000 by Dave Armstrong.

Are All Catholic Laymen and Non-Theologians Qualified to Freely and Frequently Criticize the Pope's Opinions and Prudential Judgment?

Ben Douglass

This was taken from correspondence with two fellow Catholics. I dealt with this general subject area briefly in my piece "Laymen Advising and Rebuking Popes." I think it is long overdue for more clarification to be given, in light of the inaccurate portrayals by so-called Catholic "traditionalists" of what I and many others believe to be the orthodox Catholic attitude and belief. Words of opposing Catholic apologists will be in blue:

* * * * *

In my exchange, "Dialogue: Should the Pope Kiss The Koran?: Ecumenism as an Effort to Acknowledge Partial Truth Wherever it is Found", I wrote:

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a picture of Pope St. Pius X in one hand, and a dog-eared Denzinger in the other, going around judging (nay, trashing) the pope or an Ecumenical Council, as if they were some sort of expert . . . This is self-importance elevated to the level of the profoundly ridiculous; almost grotesque or surreal. And they are blind to this obvious reality, which makes it all the more frightening. One can do that in Protestantism, as everyone is their own pope, when it comes down to it. But to attempt that in Catholicism is patently and manifestly absurd.

Another apologist agreed with my sentiment:

It is amazing how people think that just because they have read a Davies book or the theology manuals of of Ott or Tanquerey that somehow they are theological equals to John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger!!! Even in non-definitive teachings the Magisterium is still much more likely to be right than the individual on matters relating to faith and morals and theological matters, etc.

And I continued:

So go ahead and question the behavior of the Holy Father if you wish (though I think it is - broadly speaking - a foolish stance to take). But at least try to understand the possible rationale for what he does (if you must question the "propriety" or wisdom of it).

Yes, one can conceivably question the pope - especially his actions (we are not ultramontanes), yet I think it must be done only with overwhelming evidence that he is doing something completely contrary to Catholic doctrine and prior practice. It is not something that a non-theologian or non-priest should do nonchalantly and as a matter of course. To me that smacks far too much of the Protestant attitude of private judgment and lack of an authority-structure.

There is a middle ground here; one need not be technically a schismatic in making such judgments, but: you wish to criticize the prudence of a pope? Very well, then, I reserve the right to criticize your astonishing lack of prudence (and possibly respect) in leveling some complaint or other at this holy man, who will go down as one of the greatest popes in history. It gets downright silly at times to even think of doing that. One must remember with whom one is dealing. Let's give him some benefit of the doubt, that he knows what he is doing, for Pete's sake (pun intended).

In any event, if you want to take one particular view of what is prudent for a pope to do, that is your perfect right. As for me (and my house), I will side with John Paul II as to matters of prudence, over you, thank you. And that is my "right" too, of course! I think he has more than earned this trust (to put it mildly), even apart from the fact that he is the pope and therefore endowed with special and extraordinary charisms.

I don't think there is reason to believe that JPII will go down as one of the greatest popes in history, much less do I think he will be called "the Great." Others have argued that JPII will perhaps go down as the "weirdest" Pope in history, i.e. the most contradictory one. Wouldn't that be an option too?

Yes (in the technical, "canon-law-speak" of "traditionalists") but a pretty narrow-minded and silly one, in my opinion. Really . . . You expect me to sit here and take seriously your pontifications about the alleged shortcomings and failures and "contradictions" of this present pope?

No. Because they're not MY pontifications. If I were the only in the world who came up with that, you would have a good point. But this is not so.

So you cite others who are acting equally "un-Catholic" to the extent that they rashly and imprudentially judge the pope. But this is a good point; I recognize that you are getting these erroneous beliefs from others.

Again, if these were MY own objections only, and if no one of maturer age agreed, you'd have a point. But as it stands, it's a straw man.

I still say it is silly for you to sit there and "pontificate" about the pope you are supposed to be obedient to, in small matters as well as large. It is unseemly, and silly, and scandalous, in my humble opinion. You always speak in these matters so dogmatically. So you speak for yourself to a large extent, though you are obviously one of many.

I don't agree with making your young age a matter of relevance with regard to apologetics per se, but when it comes to judging a pope, I think it is a bit much for anyone to take. But age is not my primary concern (and I don't claim it is an "argument") - which is, rather, a dismay at the unmitigated gall and essential foolishness of such judgments, as if John Paul II's actions and thoughts and your opinions are (in effect) of equal weight.

It's one thing for someone to opine that the pope made an error in prudential judgment (which is entirely possible; even somewhat likely once in a while, and over time). I have no problem with that. But now you want to run him down with these sweeping judgments . . . I find it appalling. But of course these attitudes are very common in "traditionalist" circles, as Stephen Hand has been eloquently pointing out a lot lately.

You are always complaining about how "ambiguous" Vatican II is. For you, Vatican II is not like Trent. They are of an entirely different order altogether. One is perfect; the other shot-through with liberal nonsense, or halfway-liberal, compromised clues and hints in every nook and cranny of the documents.

The second apologist enters the fray:

Let me ask you, Dave. Would you kiss the Koran?

If the (ecumenical, conciliatory) meaning and intent of my action was completely understood, possibly.

Would you kiss a book that denied the divinity of Christ?

Would you vote for a candidate who allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest? Would you pray with a Protestant (or a Jew) at a school commencement or at a family picnic? Today I even prayed with a Muslim Imam at the George Bush rally I attended (which was marvelous, by the way). Dearborn, MI (where it was held) has the largest Arab population outside the Middle East. Does that make this man a Christian (or terribly compromised), because he prayed with a majority Christian crowd? Of course not. Does that make me a Muslim and mean that I deny the divinity of Jesus? Of course not. Or does it . . . hmmmm; maybe I denied the divinity of Jesus without knowing it . . . ?????

Reflective adults immediately realize that such joint endeavors are based on the common ground we have, while acknowledging self-evident differences. That is the ecumenical enterprise, and if you accept Vatican II, you should know this already. The pope can do apologetics and ecumenism. I say that we are all called to do both to the extent of our abilities. Why should that be so controversial?

Would you kiss the writings of Arius?

It is not a direct analogy, because one is a heresy and corruption of Christianity, whereas the other (though still ultimately incorrect in many ways) is a separate religion altogether. Would you kiss the Hebrew Bible? Would you kiss the famous scroll of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls? No? Why? Yes? Oh, well, then, you are accepting an incomplete, Christ-less religion and denying key tenets of Christianity. How can you do that?!!!!!

Tell us what a kiss signifies in western culture or even in the Arabic culture?

I've already done this in the paper [about the Koran; cited above]. Whoever wants to understand the overall reasoning I gave in that exchange can go read it (and I thought my friend did an excellent job, which is why - in my opinion - it was a constructive, worthwhile dialogue).

I don't question nonchalantly. I always give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I bent over backwards in trying to come up with ONE legitimate reason for it, and I could not find one.

Well, I think I maybe found a few. You can disagree if you like, but it is foolish to believe that the pope would engage in an utterly stupid, mindless act, as if he has no rationale at all for what he does (even if you can't figure it out after wracking your brain trying).

When I think of all of those Christian martyrs around the world being raped and pillaged by Islam, and having Islam forced down their throat by a Muslim theocracy, my stomach starts to turn when I see the Pope kissing the very evil source of their martyrdom.

Oh, I see. So you accept Vatican II with the exception of the following clauses from Nostra Aetate (more of the pick-and-choose cafeteria Catholicism of the modernists, and private judgment of Protestants):

The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God . . . They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God . . . The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding . . . (3)

The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. (2)

The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all men, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values. (3)

Since Christians and Jews have such a common spiritual heritage, this sacred Council wishes to encourage and further mutual understanding and appreciation. This can be obtained, especially, by way of biblical and theological enquiry and through friendly discussions. (4)

When a layman disagrees with the Holy Father on matters of prudence, I go with the pope. When you disagree with the decree of an Ecumenical Council, ratified by a pope, on matters of ecumenism, I - with all due respect - go with the Council. The Muslims do a better job even than Protestants when it comes to sexual morality, the wrongness of contraception and abortion, and pornography and divorce and homosexuality, and the (bizarre, strange) behavior of continuing to want to have large families with two parents of a different gender. But let's simply war against them, rather than work together to fight the evils of Communism, humanism, fringe terrorism, radical feminism, unisexism, widespread abortion and euthanasia, and sexual debauchery and degeneracy. Let's never work together for a better world, based on the many values which we hold in common. That could never do; we don't want that.

. . . you wish to criticize the prudence of a pope?

Yes.

And you expect me to give your opinions as much credence as his? I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see these sentiments expressed.

Frankly. I don't bring up a lot of things the Holy Father has done that are rather controversial. I give him the benefit of the doubt in all of these cases because there are certainly possibly good reasons for doing them.

How considerate of you! You know in your heart that a "lot of things" he does are so "controversial." But out of your instinctive Catholic obedience you put yourself out and resolve not to make an issue of them . . . thanks . . .

But in this case, what do you want me to do?

Understand the possible rationale, for starters. I have not seen a single hint yet that you comprehend it.

Go against what my conscience feels is abhorrent and a slap in the face to the martyrs who died with the Koran shoved down their mouths? I don't think so.

You can reject Vatican II if you like, by decapitating it into "orthodox" and "heretical" portions, based on your own private judgment. But you will no longer be a completely obedient or orthodox Catholic if you do so.

No wonder many Protestants have a skewed view of the role of the papacy in Catholicism.

That is far more likely to occur if a Protestant observes the ludicrous exercising of private judgment against a pope, since any moderately-informed Protestant knows that a Catholic ought to be obedient to the pope in all but the most extraordinary circumstances (that is surely how I would have perceived your spirit in this, when I was still Protestant. I would have immediately determined that you were a liberal or radically inconsistent Catholic).

Even in the rare justified cases of rebuke or dissent against papal actions or decrees, I would say there is a world of difference between a Catherine of Siena or a Francis of Assisi rebuking a pope (or, say, Cardinal Ratzinger or Mother Teresa, privately), and zealous, still wet behind the ears apologists doing so. Wouldn't you agree? One either immediately grasps this self-evident point or they do not. But it's clear that - failing to grasp it - rational argument is pretty much futile.

Having said that, I do think the Holy Father is a very holy man, and may indeed be called 'great',

All the more reason to stifle your doubts about his wisdom, as if you know better. You are acting even sillier than [another apologist-critic] is. Who are you? His advisor? Are you on the payroll at the Vatican? Maybe you should be, huh? Shall we start the petition drive?

but that is not to say that he might not have been imprudent in this case.

Oh, of course not. Give the lip service, then launch into your judgments of imprudence. I find all this beyond surreal; sort of a theater of the absurd.

What then, Dave? Do we run away like cowering little papists and not even dare to respectfully question the Pope?

Apart from your stupid caricature (good grief!), yes, we are obedient 99.99% of the time, barring extraordinary circumstances.

That's not the sign of a healthy Catholic family where quarrels sometime break out (and that is what the Catholic Church is more than anything else - a family with the Pope as father)

Now you argue like a good Catholic liberal or an Anglican. Interesting. Whenever there is a good, honest disagreement, we are to pipe up and make a stink. How often would you say that the pope screws up? You say "a lot of things" he does are "controversial." So do you have a percentage in mind? [The other critic] says he is one of the "weirdest" and most contradictory popes in history (thanks for the lesson in "Comparative Papacy 0101"). One can only take so much of this, and that accounts for my increasingly sarcastic tone, because that's the only way I know to deal with such outrageously self-important sentiments.

- it's more like the brain dead JWs that are 'disfellowed' from even looking the wrong way at the Watchtower Society.

Yes; use the same arguments that our anti-Catholic buddies use. Very nice. Now an obedient Catholic who is extremely reluctant to criticize a pope severely is "brain dead" and like a Jehovah's Witness. I used to make such analogies as an evangelical cult researcher, but I never thought I would see Catholics using them.

I concede that I could be wrong here in judging the Pope's prudence. I understand that.

Very good!!!! Progress! Now we just need to get you to see that the very utterances themselves are improper almost all of the time.

However, the fact remains that the Pope is not guaranteed from dropping the football once and a while.

That's right! He drops the ball on the 49-yard line, and we can count on you and [name] to come pick it up and make things right - to get the "weird" pope back to common sense and away from his senile fantasies and flights from reason. Thank God for that. What a mess we would be without all the armchair quarterbacks out there to constantly correct the coach.

If you're truly a team player, Dave, you don't close your eyes while you opponent scoops the ball up and scores, YOU pick up the ball for him so the team keeps the ball!

Yes, that's why I am arguing against you here, because our opponents win when we can't even agree on the exalted nature of the papacy, and how we are to approach it as mere lay Catholics who don't know a millionth of what the pope knows. I know it's hard to maintain such a low humble state (and often not easy to apply), but welcome to orthodox Catholicism. I could call the shots when I was my own pope as an evangelical. But that got real old after a while. Now I am content to let the pope be the pope while I try to make it through life the best I can, warring against the world, the flesh, and the devil. They used to say "let Reagan be Reagan." I say, "let the pope be the pope."

In union with the Holy Father,

Technically, but not completely consistently and not in spirit when you say the things you have been saying . . .

The first apologist returns:

We're saying what anyone before the 70's (vaguely) in the Catholic Church would have said -- that this is scandalous.

Ecumenism has rapidly developed in the 20th century, I agree. But its kernels can be found all the way back, as is the case with many (actually all) Catholic beliefs and doctrines. I have noted definite precursors in Augustine and Aquinas. So does someone of impeccable, unimpeachable orthodoxy, such as Fr. John Hardon. Development itself is explicit in those two Doctors, and in (classically) St. Vincent of Lerins. Vatican II was in the 60s, not the 70s. :-)

You probably haven't spent much time with traditionalist literature (and I don't mean to blame you for it),

You are correct. I don't have time for wrong-headed, misguided, majoring-on-the-minors stuff when there is so much spiritual treasure out there to read. Everyone makes these judgments of what is worthwhile to read. This is one of mine, based on some significant experience dialoguing with "traditionalists."

but if we actually look at the pontificate of John Paul II, he does seem to be a really strange Pope.

"Strange" in the sense of spectacularly, peculiarly notable, perhaps.

He's done lots of good, oh yes, and I praise him for it.

Do you have a whole paper on your site about all this good stuff?

He's been excellent in certain points. But there are those aspects of his reign that seem to cloud these wonderful accomplishments.

So you say. What do you think Cardinal Ratzinger, e.g., thinks of him (since I know you admire the latter)?

All I said is that some have argued that John Paul II might go down as an extremely STRANGE Pope. I didn't even say I agree with it, though I think there is a good case for it.

You love leaving all your options open, don't you? You come right up to saying something, but then qualify it so you have an "out" if needs be. I have often noted this in your arguments. This is classic "traditional-speak."

Yes, that's called prudence, shrewdness or, to put it in a negative light, ambiguity. But I'm glad you caught that, because this is precisely what we've gotten from the post-Vatican II era.

Nice try. I'm glad you have seen fit to acknowledge your own absurd inconsistency. You have become what you despise. Having railed against Vatican II ambiguity, you have now adopted it as your own modus operandi. You have already in effect adopted the Protestant rule of faith; why not the modernist as well? And I have long noted that curious phenomenon in "traditionalists."

Double-speak; ambiguity (quite ironic itself, given the charges about Vatican II). If you don't believe something yourself, then I plead with you to stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Just don't say the thing at all. It is this necessity to always offer an opinion, on anything, no matter from what source, which is one of the tendencies of youth which has often been noted.

But Dave, you don't know me well enough.

I don't have to; I have observed what you write for a while now, and I know you are very young, which I think is a quite relevant consideration, since you take upon yourself the burden of harshly criticizing the pope's prudence, his orthodoxy, even his rudimentary rationality and consistency. It's unseemly, foolish, and (sorry) downright stupid, coming from a professed orthodox Catholic.

There are plenty of things I don't have an opinion on.

Who cares? I'm dealing with your very strongly-stated opinions! LOL

Church just doesn't happen to be one of them, for obvious reasons. What goes on in the Church is extremely important to me, for this is where I draw my spiritual life from. Every week I feel the struggle in my spiritual life to get to a good confessor and to a traditional Mass. It's not easy. This is intricately connected with my life.

That's great, but I don't know what it has to do with the subject at hand. I don't question your piety or desire to follow Christ. I don't have to disparage and run you down, like these head-in-the-sand buffoons and former "friends" are currently doing to Stephen Hand, because he is courageous enough to both change and speak his mind.

That's why I do have an opinion on this, and that's why I think everyone should. Though, again, I
am open to being taught. But again, that doesn't mean I accept anything just like that--whether by the conservatives nor by the trads.

I have no problem with that. I am the last person to dismiss someone merely because they are young. But prudence and wisdom in matters of behavior and alternate choices regarding non-absolute questions take time, I think, to develop; they require much life experience.

I agree. Hence, I am not out there proclaiming to have the solution to all crises.

That's irrelevant. You violate this necessary "humility" by even stating the things you do about the pope.

On my web site there is basically nothing about the crisis.

I remember looking through some things a while back which really put me off, including your own papers. Perhaps you have removed them.

It is not for nothing that Christianity has great respect for the elderly. This is one reason why I think it is fundamentally silly for someone in their early 20s (whether influenced by many old fogies or not) to offer a scathing critique of an extraordinary, 80-year-old pope, with all his unique gifts (personally, and deriving from his calling), and his equally astonishing experience. So in that sense (if not others as well), I do think age (as well as one's place in the structure of the Church) is a very relevant consideration, far from a mere non sequitur, as you would like us to believe.

But this issue goes beyond the proverbial question of "inexperienced youth vs. wise elders." It is a matter of the prudential judgments and gifts of a pope vs. the rash judgments of laymen quick to condemn things (and - I argue - based on a misunderstanding of the probable intent, or no inkling at all of what was meant).

I don't know what else to say! Some things are self-evident: Catholics obey the pope and do not routinely lambaste him. Elderly, godly men are far more likely to possess greater wisdom and prudence than young men. Does anyone think these things are at all debatable?

So this is an example of the pope exercising prudence in the service of ecumenism and diplomacy. Give him a break! If indeed he has made an abominable mistake, there are far more able and well-situated men and women in the Church to rebuke him for it than you, I, or virtually anyone we know.

As is my custom, I refuse to get as deeply into these "traditionalist" issues as you obviously would like me to. I just don't place the importance on it that you do, and disagree with fundamental premises. I regret the fact that Catholics are wasting all this energy wrangling amongst themselves when we have a pagan culture of death out there, and the world, the flesh, and the devil to contend with, apart from these internal squabbles. I find that very sad. But I'll offer a few comments (ha ha!), since you have taken the trouble to reply in depth . . .

What I am saying is that the position "You see, I am with the Pope" is extremely convenient but in and of itself not very compelling.

Logically, no, but I think that it is very "Catholic." And that is what I always strive to be.

I'd rather be right without the Pope than wrong with him.

That's what Luther thought, too. And Kung et al.

Obviously, we're talking about non-infallible matters.....

Yes. The kissing the Koran thing comes under the areas of prudence/ecumenism/diplomacy. My objection was that people were so quick to judge the pope, as if he had no rationale whatever for what he did. I find that astonishing and troubling.

Dave, please answer honestly. Have you ever read Pope Pius XI's encyclical Mortalium
Animos, which came out on Jan 6, 1928? If not, it is about time. It's not very long, and
it could have been written by a Michael Davies in our time. The difference being that, in
1928, it was the status quo. Today it would elicit the protest of hosts of people with the
accusation of being "integrist."

I don't think I have read it right through at one sitting (I will definitely have to). The whole question here is if it can harmonize with later teaching. That is for theologians to work through, not amateur apologists such as myself (or you). What I have seen is that it does (just as with the "no salvation outside the Church" non-issue). But development, especially in ecumenical matters, so often is regarded as a "reversal" by trads. I just don't buy it. I think they are being too simplistic, and reactionary.

If you don't spend time reading trad. literature, you can't say it's misguided.

I sure can. I don't read Jehovah's Witness literature, either, but I know enough to know it is misguided, and to refute it. I don't have to watch The Last Temptation of Christ to know it is a blasphemous movie. Extreme examples, I know, but I simply disagree with you on this notion that I have to spend my time reading this stuff which I regard as a waste of time, ultimately. I think I know enough to make the comments I make on the subject. I continue to regard myself as a "traditionalist," but in the sense of utter orthodoxy, faithfulness to the magisterium, and a love for traditional liturgy and devotional practice and architecture, etc. (even though I don't want to study liturgical matters).

Again, I am not blaming you for not reading it, but perhaps then you should shift back a few gears when commenting about it.

I've had my share of arguments with these folks, as you well know. They like my writing on this subject, e.g., at the FSSP, as I have heard, so I must make one or two worthwhile points. Many former SSPX members think I do a fine job, without possessing all the technical, "inside" knowledge they have.

As for extensive knowledge of the liturgy and canon law, I have never claimed that I am an expert in those areas; nor do I wish to be (it bores me, personally; I'm much more interested in biblical and historical theology. Everyone has their preferred cup of tea). That doesn't mean that I can't comment at all on the false underlying assumptions I see in this debate. I have a right to comment on anything I want to, as long as I am not presumptuous. That's the luxury of being an amateur, unpaid apologist. LOLOL As long as I do all this for free, I can open my big mouth and speak my mind freely. LOL

And you can critique me as you please, too, and usually I will put all of it on my site for the world to judge (including this, if I think it is good enough when I finish). Remember, both Chesterton and Muggeridge were mere journalists, with no theological training. C.S. Lewis and Thomas Howard were (are) English professors. Yet these guys are among the very best apologists/writers of the 20th century. I am a "popular lay apologist," not a trained theologian, canon lawyer, or a scholar/academic.

I meant "strange" in the sense of "contradictory" or "paradoxical."

So say you. I say that is your lack of understanding of what John Paul II and his teachings are about. Protestants think Catholic teaching in general is "contradictory" or "paradoxical." You foolishly apply that to your own pope. The dynamic is the same, just on a different plane. People often disparage what they don't understand. You say I don't understand trads; I say you don't understand the highest levels of Catholic magisterial teaching, and where the Holy Spirit seems to be leading the Church in the last 150 years or so, as expressed through the teaching of its leaders, in council, and in the person of the Vicar of Christ.

The Latin Mass magazine in one of its recent issues had some very good points. It praised John Paul II for his good actions and encyclicals but also mentioned the dark spots in his pontificate, both of which, I think, balance each other out.

So he gets a C+ in your book, huh?

Let me give an example of the paradoxical state of mind of JPII. Please note that I am using HYPERBOLE here, do not take me literally: John Paul II is such kind of a Pope as to proclaim on Tuesday that there is no salvation outside the Church and on Thursday that all men will be saved; that the Christ is the only Messiah on Wednesdays but on Fridays that somehow Moslems share in the plan of salvation.

What good is hyperbole, if it distorts his actual teaching? Of no use at all that I can see (in fact, harmful). If you are claiming that John Paul II is a universalist, please give me proofs. As for the Muslims, Vatican II is clear that they possess some truth (as virtually everyone does). That is controversial?

I don't think you fully understand paradox, nuance, and the complex balances which Catholic teaching require. Ecumenism does not negate apologetics. Partial truth in another religion does not contradict fullness of truth in Catholicism. It isn't a zero-sum game, as if no other belief-system has any truth and all are worthless, just because we possess the fullness of it. Don't be like Luther, who also had this irritating tendency of creating false tendencies. Man has a sinful tendency, therefore he is totally depraved, and even good acts are sinful; God is sovereign, therefore man has no free will. Etc., etc.

This double-speak has entered into the Church with, no doubt, Vatican II, whether or not that was intended.

No doubt? What makes you so sure? Because of all these books you've read? We are all what we read, as Fr. Hardon was fond of saying. You read all that sort of thing, so it is no surprise that you come out saying the same things they do, like a parrot. They are literally part of your brain. But you have to examine with great scrutiny the premises.

My site does not have much if anything about John Paul II in particular.

I'm certainly glad you are prudent enough to refrain from publishing all your unseemly speculations and criticisms of the Holy Father.

But if you go through my essays, you will see him referred to in a favorable light pretty much all the time.

Good! I appreciate that.

What do you think Cardinal Ratzinger, e.g., thinks of him (since I know you admire the latter)?

I'd have to say that I almost consider Card. Ratzinger in the same state as John Paul II.

Good grief! In the past you cited him to me in defense of various of your assumptions.

They're very similar. If you just compare Card. Ratzinger's statements on the Third Secret of Fatima with one another, there is again this inconsistency.

Or there is this inability of yours to synthesize complementary (even paradoxical, seemingly or actually) teachings.

Again I can tell you haven't looked around much in the traditionalist arena. And that's ok. But then don't call it erroneous.

Dealt with above.

Such people who are now considered integrists by some or at least extreme are or have been very recognized voices in the Church: Msgr. Gamber, Card. Ottaviani, Dietrich von Hildebrand, William Marra, etc.

And some who were considered liberals (John Paul II, Ratzinger) will soon be "very recognized voices in the Church" by your crowd, when they come to their senses and figure out what their priorities in the Christian life should be, and who our true enemies are.

I am still not sure just which order from the Pope I am disobeying. Would you tell me, please?

I wasn't making that claim, but criticizing your interior attitude in your constant taking John Paul II to task. That's why I used the word "pontificate" (quite deliberately, of course). Obedience is a concept which goes beyond the letter of the law (e.g., Jesus' scolding of the Pharisees, who missed the forest for the trees).

It is unseemly, and silly, and scandalous, in my humble opinion.

That's just that, then -- your humble opinion.

I never said it was otherwise. But it is just as valid as your opinion about the pope. You judge the Vicar of Christ; I merely criticize a fellow layman for having such a view towards the pope we both ostensibly submit to. If priests and bishops submit to the pope, how much more laymen? To me it is almost an insult (especially being a former Protestant) to even have to argue this with a fellow Catholic. I find it embarrassing; almost tragi-comic.

And again I wish to refer to John Paul II. Some of his statements are EXTREMELY close to error, but there's always a little door that conservatives will be quick to point out, through which one can press an orthodox interpretation. An example: his speech on January 1, 1999.

Ah, thank God we have the authoritative "interpretation" of the pope! What would we do without it? But what is this speech? Don't you believe in documenting things, when you make such charges?

Now, the reason I am so ambiguous about things and leave a way out is simply that I wish to share my thoughts on the matter while at the same time NOT being dogmatic about them. I am quite open to instruction from both camps.

But you always come down in the same fashion, don't you? I don't deny that you are open-minded, but can you point to any major "trad" areas where you have been persuaded from your position (especially in the direction of whatever you call my position)?

But some feel that this means, then, that one cannot say anything. In other words, unless you're completely sure, you'd better not say anything about a crisis in the Church (which you point out below). Well, if we take this stand, we can't ever say anything or do anything. St. Athanasius would never have become what he became.

No one has a problem in acknowledging the obvious crisis. It is the exact nature and causes and solutions and implications which are in dispute. Kind of like the election fiasco. Everyone knows there is a huge problem, but the analyses are diametrically opposed. That's what we have here.

Now, with Vatican II that's a different story. If the bishops made things so ambiguous because they didn't really know which position to take and because they were not dogmatic, then that's a problem.

I don't find it ambiguous. I find it to be ingenious development and progressive, in the best sense of that word: in terms of communicating the gospel and the Catholic Faith anew to the modern world. That was long overdue, and I rejoice to see an Ecumenical Council stress the Pauline principle (which I have always treasured, since before my conversion) of "becoming all things to all men" (while remaining traditional and orthodox; it is a matter of approach). But apparently you don't grasp that point. You see difference of approach as a difference in doctrine. This is simply not the case.

There, then, the difference between the ambiguity of the post-Vatican II church and my own in private e-mails.

Funny, that when you are "ambiguous," it is because of a noble open-mindedness, whereas when bishops in Council are, it can't be a fresh approach to the same Christian truths (as all developments are), but must be some smelly (and successful) liberal conspiracy. There have always been liberals at Councils, because human beings are at Councils. So what! God is bigger than that! They are just puppets in the divine scheme.

Dave, what you're saying sounds very noble in theory, but you have to actually look at the facts.

What do "facts" have to do with the general tendency of the brashness and over-confidence of youth? Young people always think they can make the world right, where all the old geezers have wrecked it. I did the same thing! To some extent I still think that way. Then as we get older we realize that we are no different than the older people we looked down on and despised. We find ourselves making the same compromises and falling on our faces, when we foolishly thought we never would. We find ourselves to be human beings after all. That's what you learn as you get older, my friend. And I'm only 42, but it's a lot different that the early 20's; believe me. You'll see. :-)

Again, this is serious business. We cannot keep our eyes closed in the crisis of the Church.

Again, that is not at issue, but the causes, etc. I say the liberals are on their way out, like dinosaurs. You seem to think they are almost triumphant, having infiltrated and co-opted a Council and the mind of a very influential pope. That is a major difference; I am far more optimistic than you are. Perhaps it is a matter of you lacking faith in God's protection over His Church as well (though that is a much bigger and more complex claim, so I will not assert it).

It won't go away. That's precisely why the neomodernists have had such success. Because the conservatives just wouldn't believe it.

What success? See how differently we view the same situation?

Would anyone in 1962 (when Blessed John XXIII was taking care of the Bride of Christ) have thought that in just ten years from then we'd have a rite of Mass that in no way resembles what most of the Saints had known as "the Mass"?

"In no way"? Prove that statement. This is the sort of comment that tempts one to dismiss an entire letter of yours, because you will come out with some outrageous assertion which is instantly absurd.

And shortly thereafter, we'd have Communion in the Hand, altar girls, etc.?

Communion in the hand was present in the early Church, but I agree that in the present context it has been a harmful development, and I have a paper saying so on my site. At my Church we have the old-fashioned altar rail.

Yet, all of this happened. Compare the Church between 1799 and 1899, and then between 1899 and 1999.

It's nothing compared to the Arian and Protestant crises, or even that of the "Enlightenment." So you fall prey to the silly notion that it is now far worse than ever before . . .

If the wise and elderly share their concerns about the crisis of the Church, they are dismissed as schismatic integrists, old and non-conforming to the "Living Magisterium."

No; it is their false premises and shoddy conclusions as to causes and solutions which is critiqued.

If a young guy does it, it's his inexperienced youth.

My point about youth was specifically with regard to your trashing the pope's motives and alleged imprudence. It was a tightly-argued contention that prudence is particularly something which develops with age; how much more would the pope have a better sense than a young layperson? But you have generalized and twisted my point to serve your own rhetorical purposes. Tsk, tsk.

If all the parties involved would actually give accurate and sincere responses, we wouldn't have this, I don't think.

Ah. Do you think I am sincere? :-)

If the Vatican had actually gotten together with Archbishop Lefebvre in the early 1970's to
discuss his concerns and answer his charges and questions, we wouldn't have come to the
1988 "schism" (I still think it's questionable, but--this is one of those things I don't
have an opinion on. I don't know if it was a schism or not. The evidence seems inconclusive to me.).

Didn't they reach an agreement with him, which he backed out of?

Same thing with the Abbe de Nantes. I do not like him, because he is not charitable enough. He ought to address the Pope with respect, which he doesn't.

I don't think you do, either. So respect and charity is largely in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

However, the Vatican has also failed to respond to him.

Maybe he doesn't deserve a response? Did you ever consider that?

The Abbe brought serious charges of heresy against Popes Paul VI and John Paul II and the "author of the new catechism."

I rest my case. LOL

What did Rome do? Nothing. No response.

That's right; just as they refused to answer Luther at Worms. Some things are clear enough.

Yet, they have all sorts of commissions set up, concerning interreligious dialog and what not, but they just can't get a committee together to respond to serious charges of heresy. What does this mean?

That the charges are worthless . . .

I don't know; but I can tell you that, to the OUTSIDE, it confirms the suspicions of some (like the Abbe) that Rome can't answer the charges, i.e. that the Abbe is right. That's the impression one gets. Sad.

Yes, just as the Protestants think, when we "dissed" Luther. So you repeat the same error.

Your mistake here is again the mischaracterization that traditionalists (of my sort at
least) "routinely lambast" the Pope. It's not true. The way you put it, of course it's wrong. But that's a misstatement. I don't delight in having to share some concerns I have, don't get me wrong.

What's the point of arguing this? I think you do do this. It is a judgment call. I see you making outlandish statements all the time about the pope. They offend me personally as a fellow Catholic. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but that is how I take them.

What else does the Pope have to do before you will say "Enough is enough. This was wrong!"?

I don't know. Perhaps if he kisses a copy of the Vatican II documents? Will that put you over the edge and send you off to the SSPX or some other crackpot group?

I appreciate your time, my friend. Your Brother in the Lord.

This was fun, despite our profound disagreements. And I do consider you a friend as well, and a great apologist (when you get off this topic LOL). Thanks for reading my reply, too.

* * *

I think it is normal and ethical (and quite Catholic) to indignantly respond to the petulant, pompous, and presumptuous tone of so many "traditionalist" statements about recent popes. If they can speak so cavalierly and arrogantly about popes (I had far more respect for them as a Protestant than they do), then surely I can wax indignant at them doing so, without being "rude." That gets us back to the fundamental problem we have here. When one can't see the obvious, then a certain sharpness of tone is called for, and quite properly so. One is not awakened by a soft voice.

So the author of the marvelous, prophetic, heroic Humanae Vitae did an altogether lousy job as pope? Interesting . . .

That one truly heroic encyclical doesn't cut it, Dave, because it is overshadowed by the destructive events over which he presided that went on alongside.

So let's see . . . Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Gregory the Great reigned at a time when the Monophysite heresy was flourishing. Does that make them lousy popes too? When is there ever not heresy, for heaven's sake? You might retort that Paul VI's reign coincided with the beginning of modernism, or liberalism. That would hardly do, since modernism was written about in 1864, 1907, etc. Modernism essentially began with the Enlightenment, if not the Protestant Revolution (actually, the Fall, in a large sense).

So it would be beyond silly to cast the lion's share of the blame for it on Paul VI. The 60s were merely the fruition of a long 200+ years trend, primarily due to the rapid breakdown of the larger culture. Paul VI wouldn't have been able to stop it any more than a twig could stop the water from a burst dam. Doctrinal chaos and upheaval to some extent always happens after Councils, anyway (remember Nicea and Arianism?). But if one knows little of Church history, they wouldn't know that, would they? Conversely, if they did know Church history, that would make the charge all the more unfair and groundless, as it would then become absurdly and arbitrarily selective.

Fr. John Hardon stated (I heard this in person) that what he called the "revolution" in the Church had begun around 1940. So arguably, our present crisis was much more the fault (following your convoluted reasoning) of Pius XII than Paul VI, because the former ought to have stamped it out before it took root and started corrupting the seminaries and colleges and theologians and entire orders. Liberals don't pop out of nowhere, fully in bloom in all their hideous glory. The wheels were in motion long before Vatican II, in the "good ole days." But it didn't manage to corrupt the Council, and thus, for this and the other reasons above, Paul VI is falsely charged by you and others. Could he have been more forceful and vigilant? Sure, but then again John Paul the Great is that, and that doesn't gain him that many more brownie points or Good Housekeeping Seals of Approval from you hyper-critical folks, does it?

It is quite possible to be more Catholic than the Pope, namely then when the Pope is not that Catholic after all . . .

Are you more orthodox than His Holiness John Paul II? If so, how? And why should we believe this if you assert it? Simply by your great wisdom and self-anointed authority?

"Traditionalists" can give their opinions till they are blue in the face (it's a free country with free speech, and God gives us free will, and we are free to say stupid things), but if such opinions are clearly pompous, arrogant, presumptuous, sophomoric, and so forth, it is our duty as Catholics and brothers in Christ to call these folks on it. This stuff is poisonous, and they hurt themselves as much as anyone else by spouting it. Therefore, love demands that they be rebuked, for their sake and that of others. Since when does the duty to rebuke depend on the expected response? The loving thing is to speak the truth, about ethics and charitability and Catholic submission, as well as about doctrine and orthodoxy. A conscientious Catholic can only hear so much of this petulant hogwash without speaking out against it.

It is not so much the "OPINION" per se on popes which many "traditionalists" express, as it is the SPIRIT, SEVERITY, FREQUENCY, and DEGREE of such opinions, and what it appears to indicate about the person making it - about how they view Catholic authority, submission, humility, prudence, and so forth. Nor is it a personal attack to point this out. Rebukes are always regarded as attacks by those who do not or cannot hear them.

If I were to compare the rebukes of popes by St. Bernard, St. Catherine, and the typical so-called Catholic "traditionalist" today, perhaps I could be forgiven if I might perceive but a slight difference of authority and seriousness.

Humanae Vitae was a great document. Too bad Paul VI didn't enforce it, or anything else for that matter. Too bad he let the Canadian Bishops completely oppose HV at will, with no consequences. Too bad he failed to denounce the lay committee, which he appointed, that repudiated HV. Too bad he did nothing to censure the dozen or so "Catholic" theologians who took out the NY times full page ad denouncing HV. Oh yes, Paul VI was a model of competence.

Which is more important: the document itself or possible disciplinary errors with regard to dissidents (just as with the Vatican II documents)? If the former, then why is Paul VI such an "incompetent" pope? If the latter, do you think it would have been a better result to clamp down severely on dissent, thus quite possibly causing a schism of the Canadian and American bishops? I heard firsthand from Fr. John Hardon, who was a close advisor to Paul VI, that this was a very real possibility indeed, lest you think I am merely exaggerating for rhetorical effect. You don't have the slightest idea of what His Holiness Pope Paul VI went through (and again, I know, from Fr. Hardon, who was an eyewitness to it). There is much more going on here than you in your resplendent "armchair poping" can see.

I have already agreed that he could have been more vigilant. But that is a far cry from being one of the worst popes ever, as some "traditionalists" seem to think he is. The worst popes ever were whoring and living it up, not writing heroic encyclicals in direct confrontation with the overwhelming forces of secular culture. Even you admit the document was "great." Contraception was the first thing that caused me to convert to Catholicism. You will never see me totally running down the man who reiterated Church teaching on that matter (in 1968 of all years!). Even Karl Barth commended Paul VI for his great steadfastness and courage. That doesn't sound like a wimp to me.

John Paul II has been called a "mixed bag" by many "traditionalists." Do they mean to pronounce on his lack of holiness? If they aren't in his shoes, and don't know what he does, and don't possess his charism, how can they even pronounce on his disciplinary decisions? Who are they to presume what they do? What are their exalted credentials, whereby they feel so free to sit and condemn entire papacies with one-sentence salvoes?

My point is not that a pope can never be rebuked, nor that they could never be "bad" (a ludicrous opinion), but that an instance of rebuking them ought to be quite rare, exercised with the greatest prudence, and preferably by one who has some significant credentials, which is why I mentioned saints. Many "traditionalists" make their excoriating judgments of popes as if they had no more importance or gravity than reeling off a laundry or grocery list.

Even if they are right about some particulars, they ought to express their opinion with the utmost respect and with fear and trembling, grieved that they are "compelled" to severely reprimand the Vicar of Christ. St. Paul showed more deference even towards the Jewish high priest than such people do to popes (Acts 23:1-5). After saying to Ananias "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall," he stated in v. 5:

". . . I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.' " (NRSV)

Even immediately before His scathing rebuke of the Pharisees, Jesus told His followers to:

". . . do whatever they teach you and follow it . . . " (Matthew 23:3)

Why? Because "the Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat; THEREFORE do whatever they teach you . . ." (23:2-3)

Well, the pope occupies the Chair of Peter, and is the Supreme Head of the Church. Pope-bashing "traditionalists" don't strike me as being willing to "do whatever they teach you and follow it" (including disciplinary stuff, liturgical details, etc.). But the popes certainly have as much authority as non-Christian scribes and Pharisees.

Nor does this mean that one can never criticize the pope, or that if they do, that their responsibility to submit in obedience is somehow lessened. For Jesus went on to denounce their hypocrisy, even calling them "blind guides," "blind fools," "whitewashed tombs . . . full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth . . . full of hypocrisy and lawlessness," "snakes . . . brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?" (23:16-17,27-28,33)

So we have both St. Paul and our Lord Jesus expressing the most vehement criticisms of appointed religious leaders, yet Paul showed quite considerable deference when he found out who he was criticizing, and Jesus commanded obedience to the very same people whose hypocrisy He excoriated. This is all consistent with the traditional, orthodox Catholic (and what is called the "neo-conservative") view.

It is not consistent with much "traditionalist" behavior. Perhaps their personal beliefs, if probed enough, can be synthesized with this outlook, but the routine displays of cavalierly lambasting popes in the broadest, most sweeping terms certainly cannot be. If they reply, "well look at what Jesus and Paul said!," I reply in turn that Jesus was God incarnate and Paul was an Apostle. And they are?: well, too often, a (relatively young) layman with some experience on the Internet. And that gets back to my point about WHO is doing the rebuking.

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong (age 42, if anyone was wondering) on 29 November 2000 from correspondence. Further exchanges added on 18 January 2001 and 5 July 2001.

The New James White Theme Song (a la Rush) Makes Its Debut

And now [drum roll and trumpet fanfare: dut-l-la, dut-l-la, dut-l-la, dut-l-la, dut-l-la, dut-l-la]: the new James White theme song (with a few minor alterations here and there to bring it up to speed to current events). I know that James is a big Rush Limbaugh fan, so I'm sure he'll appreciate this:

I Started a Joke (by the Bee Gees, c. 1968)

[NOTE: one must imagine in their head the pathos, heartbreak, and tragedy of Robin Gibb's singular singing voice, for full effect, and try to put themselves in my malicious, lying, sadistic shoes for a moment]

I started a joke, which started the whole world crying,
but I didn't see that the joke was on me, oh no.

I started to cry, which started White's fan club laughing,
oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me.

I looked at the lies, running my hands over my eyes,
and I fell into dread, hurting White's head from things that I'd said.

Til James finally lied, which started his fan club chuckling,
oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me.

I looked at the lies, running my hands over my eyes,
and I fell into dread, hurting White's head from things that I'd said.

'Til I finally died, which made for a lot less reading,
oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me.

--------------------------------------
Here are the original, outdated lyrics. Or you can listen to the original song on Real One Player, or Windows Media. Turn that on and then come back to this blog to read the new updated lyrics while you listen to this classic. Enjoy!

Q & A Forum #2

Looks like this idea was a smashing success! Thanks for your participation and probing questions. I'll keep making these threads as long as there is interest, and they can also be a place for free discussion as well (I'm considering making a separate ongoing thread for that purpose, too, but maybe one is sufficient).

Just one request: it's okay to discuss "traditionalism" in the threads specifically concerning that (presently two), but I do NOT want that topic to start dominating this blog and taking over threads such as these Q & A ones (like that movie, The Blob; "traditionalism" has a way of absorbing everything else. Nuh uh. Not HERE, it ain't gonna . . .).

I have stated in my introductory remarks that I am generally uninterested in that discussion. There are plenty of venues for it to take place (Mark Shea's blog, for one, where there are apparently swarms of "traditionalists" among his 2500 visitors each day, prompting him to make his remarks that have them all up in arms).

And if someone wants to respond to these remarks (don't tell me; Steve Jackson, right?!), please do it on one of the two relevant threads, not this one. But I may not necessarily respond, per my introductory post on guidelines for discussion here (posted near the top of my sidebar).

Sorry for my terse tone, but if you don't stop things like this early on, things get out of hand, and the discussion here has been far too good to let it descend into the one-note tune of "traditionalism." It may seem like I am over-reacting, too (I probably am), but I don't want the situation that has happened on Mark Shea's blog to happen here. So I am stating my opinion early and forcefully.

Thanks!

15 Old Papers on Catholic "Traditionalism" Resurrected

The Internet Archive! This thing is letting me save a ton of space on my website because it has all my old stuff still out there on the Internet. So things I removed for lack of space and to condense into books by re-writing, omitting opponents' words, etc. can be brought back and listed on my website.
--------------------------------------------

Critique of The Remnant, with Copious Documentation (Dave Armstrong vs. John Vennari, Michael J. Matt, etc.)

Dialogue on The Remnant ("Traditionalist" Group) (Dave Armstrong vs. Mark Cameron)

Syllabus of 60 "Traditionalist" Errors, Fallacies, and False Principles

Critique of my Syllabus of 60 "Traditionalist" Errors and My Counter-Reply (Dave Armstrong vs. Mark Cameron)

A Critique of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), "Traditionalism," and the "Schismatic Spirit" (Dave Armstrong vs. several "traditionalists")

Dialogue With Three Schismatic, "Traditionalist Catholics"

Dialogue: So-Called "Traditionalists" vs. So-Called "Conservatives" (Dave Armstrong vs. two "traditionalists")

Dialogue on Vatican II, Conciliar Infallibility, and the SSPX (Dave Armstrong vs. an SSPX "traditionalist")

Dialogue: Vatican II and Other Religions (Nostra Aetate)

Dialogue: Catholic "Traditionalism": the Dreadful Malady of the Mind and Scourge of an Optimistic Faith in God's Protection of His Church (Dave Armstrong vs. David Palm and Mario Derksen)

Dialogue with a Troubled Semi-Traditionalist on the "Catastrophe" of the Post-Vatican II Church

Reflections on False Catholic "Traditionalism"

How Anti-Catholics Can be Catholics' Brothers in Christ

Dialogue on the Legitimacy of Catholic Development of Doctrine, With Reference to Vatican I, Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Dave Armstrong vs. a Feeneyite and an SSPX sympathizer)

Apologia for Catholic Ecumenism and Christian Unity

Presuppositions & Patterns of Thought Common to Both Protestantism & Secularism

(A Sociological and Philosophical Analysis of the Success and Popularity of Evangelical Protestantism, by an Anonymous Observer)

I have often asked myself a question: what is it about the Evangelical Protestant churches that makes them so popular with contemporary people, including many Catholics? And why was it that when I first started intellectually exploring my own Catholic faith (having spent my youth unquestioningly accepting the secular world-view around me) that it was the Protestant positions which had immediate appeal and familiarity? Why did Protestant views of the Bible, church, sacraments, authority, etc. elicit spontaneous sympathies (even though I had no interest in becoming Protestant) while Catholic viewpoints seemed more foreign? For the Protestant the answer would be very simple --- because their beliefs are true. I, of course, hold a somewhat different position.

It is my contention that the underlying epistemological presuppositions (i.e. how one habitually evaluates ideas, events and things) inherent in Protestantism have permeated our cultural milieu -- albeit in secularized form. This has happened so profoundly that when one starts exploring Christianity, bringing one's mental faculties to bear on arguments and beliefs, the underlying intellectual premises one is working from are already concordant with Protestantism.

What am I getting at? I am saying that every person intellectually approaches truth claims and ideas with his own habitual presuppositions. These assumptions form a kind of cognitive filter through which claims and ideas must initially pass. They help determine one's understanding and response to them. Many of these intellectual presuppositions come from one's cultural milieu. Constant exposure and habitual use of them makes their influence nearly imperceptible. Yet they have a profound influence on our judgments and understanding.

For example, in our society the idea that all persons are somehow 'equal' is culturally normative. It needs no demonstration, is rarely clarified and never challenged. Its influence can be seen in people's hesitancy to recognize or consider relevant any differences between sexes, religions, ethnic groups, cultures, or persons. When new ideas or issues come to the fore that are perceived as having a bearing on equality, only those views intuited as favourable to it are evaluated positively. All others are either spontaneously dismissed or held in doubt, suspicion or disbelief. The presupposition about equality is not questioned; what is questioned is anything that is perceived to challenge or contravene it. In a sense these assumptions are as much individual and cultural moods as philosophical postulates.

Many of our secular culture's intellectual presuppositions have affinities with Protestant thought. How this historically came about is not of interest here. One must first see it as true before one wonders why it is true. I will try to demonstrate that it is so by articulating in propositional form common Protestant presuppositions and then correlate them with the equivalent secular ones. Where possible I will also try to name the type of philosophical view inherent in such a proposition. This is no mean task since most of these assumptions are used in almost an unconscious manner.

Also, Protestantism comes in various forms. Attempts to call any viewpoint 'Protestant' per se will therefore provoke accusations of being 'simplistic' or a 'caricature'. Notwithstanding this it must be recognized that while there is variation of belief and expression in Protestantism it is still an identifiable movement. It has fundamental differences that distinguish it from Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Otherwise the designation 'Protestant' would have no meaning because it would have no reference.

Before I correlate some intellectual assumptions common to both Protestant and secular thought I will first explore some sociological reasons for the appeal of Evangelical Protestantism. While underlying intellectual presuppositions might help explain the general appeal of Protestantism, the phenomenal growth today is in its Evangelical/Pentecostal form. In fact mainline Protestant denominations in the West are stagnating or in decline. While intellectual affinities may tend to lead one towards Protestantism, it is psychological and sociological factors that will tend to lead seekers towards its evangelical expression. Therefore, I shall first give psychological and sociological reasons for why Evangelicalism is so popular, before I give philosophical reasons for why Protestantism is popular, over against Catholicism.

In evaluating the success of evangelical churches (and by implication related movements) I will make no reference to actions of the Holy Spirit since such claims are beyond the nature of this essay and of dubious value. From a sociological and psychological perspective the attractiveness of Evangelical/Pentecostal Protestant churches today can be attributable to a number of factors. They include (in no particular order) the following:

1. Their corporate emphasis on fellowship that gives to members and prospective members Christian support, encouragement, and friendship. This is very appealing in our often impersonal and fragmented society. The congregations impress one as warm, inviting and sincerely interested in you. Congregations not accustomed to offering such fellowship (i.e. older mainline churches) appear cold or indifferent to newcomers and even long-time members. Pope John XXIII once said that there are seven sacraments in the Church that can only be given to Christians but that there is an eighth sacrament that can and should be given to everyone: The Christian himself. Evangelical churches have developed an attitude and method that attempts to do just that.

2. Their zeal and apparent unity, which give positive motivation and a sense of common purpose. Division and dissent in the Catholic Church enervates and demoralizes more than it enthuses.

3. Their emphasis on individual conversions and personal witness. Older churches have developed a missiology that is often too daunting and abstract (e.g., "working for more just and equitable social structures") or associated with a special vocation. Evangelical churches have an approach that is more popular, personal and practical (i.e. "converting people to Christ"). This
appeals by giving every individual a sense of being able to do God's work and without having to change vocations. One's present circumstances and surroundings can become a mission field. Whether you are a student, small businessman, or biker you can concretely evangelize through what you already enjoy doing or are familiar with. This can harness creativity and disperse energy.

4. Their nature as largely lay-run movements. This appeals to egalitarian sentiments and personal ambitions. It removes subtle barriers that often inhibit lay people from taking initiatives in churches with hierarchical or rigidly established structures of approbation. Catholic laity are often
passive, confused or frustrated as to their role and purpose in the church.

5. They have a simple, direct message which is easily understood and can be quite compelling. Its simplicity makes it readily translated into catchy slogans and shibboleths ("Bible-believing," "saving-faith" "born-again," etc.). Its simplicity also makes measuring one's success at "spreading the Gospel" more tangible and therefore encouraging. "Confess your sinfulness and admit Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and Saviour and you're saved!" "Are you saved?" "How many others have you brought to the Lord?"

6. Their straightforward recognition of sin and need for repentance. They do not nuance sin out of existence. This may turn off many but for those who are disappointed or damaged by hedonism or materialism it is often just what they are ready to hear. It challenges them to change what they know needs to change. We have the papacy but often preach pap-acy.

7. Personal testimonials are encouraging, entertaining, and build comeradery. They help others overcome fear of admitting failure and prejudices that Christians think themselves better than other human beings. Stories about people are always popular. People telling their own 'Cross and the
Switchblade' stories can captivate an audience. Such testimonials make God seem more concretely present and active and encourages one to anticipate personal transformation.

8. Promises of assured forgiveness and salvation makes everything seem easier and more certain. Jesus has already done it all for you. No penances, no Purgatories, no need to fret about the Judgment Day.

9. Their emphasis on God's healing and transforming power. Many public 'miracles' and confessions give seeming proof to the reality of God, the validity of belief, the possibility of radical change, and of God's special favour being upon them. Such 'miracles' (some real, some not) help confidence and sustain hope.

10. Their seemingly informal and malleable way of worshiping which can be easily adjusted for the particular audience. Contemporary people associate spontaneity and informality with authenticity and freedom. Set rituals and formality appear artificial, stifling and tediously conventional.

11. The use of contemporary music forms by evangelical Christians for private pleasure and public worship and prayer. Since its inception as a mass industry music has come to play an exaggerated role in people's lives; especially in that of young people. It has become a powerful venue for self and peer identification, mood enhancement, and imaginative escape. As long ago as Plato it was recognized that visceral or sentimental forms of music bypass the intellect and directly appeal to the passions and emotions. The music industry understands this and caters to it.

People who have grown up under its influence have come to expect such a response. If a musical
style does not elicit the expected emotional reaction then people generally perceive it as dull and uninspiring. Classical hymns and traditional sacred music receives this appellation. Christian music that emulates contemporary forms, however, causes the expected emotional response. When used in a worship setting the sentiments evoked are then interpreted spiritually, as when used in
a romantic setting the emotions are interpreted amorously.

In evangelical churches choirs are often replaced by bands. Congregational singing then becomes analogous to a participatory concert. This can attract musically talented youth and their peers, as well as the baby-boomers who grew up with rock 'n roll. It is all very modern and Western but can also have universal appeal insofar as visceral music and 'American pop' have universal appeal. In traditional tribal societies (e.g., African and Native American) and in the lower social stratas of more sophisticated societies music was often more passionate and participatory. In the higher social stratas of sophisticated cultures (eg. Chinese and Indian) music was frequently composed with a more cognitive appeal. Traditional mainline church music also tended to be relatively cognitive and staid. Today popular/contemporary music has become a dominant cultural force. Churches that tend to accommodate themselves and their worship to this reality tend to be the more successful.

12. Their encouragement of strong emotional expressiveness in faith and worship. Human beings are emotional as well as intellectual creatures. In fact, in convincing or attracting people, engaging the emotions is usually more effective than trying to engage the intellect. Advertisers know this well. Evangelical churches intentionally give play to the affective side of man, sometimes even in extravagant forms. Emotional expression is even given divine approbation. This has proven successful around the world.

13. Their newness and youthfulness. As new churches they have short and less significant histories that make them look more ideal and less tainted by the past (e.g., the Inquisition, Crusades, bad popes, Thirty Years War, slavery, etc.). Being also new movements that originated and developed in response to their times, they have a contemporary feel about them that seems more relevant to modern man. And the dynamics of successful religious movements, past and present, is that youth attracts youth, enthusiasm stimulates enthusiasm, and success breeds success.

14. Their implementing of many programs and ministries in their churches. Today people comparison-shop, even for churches, and a one-stop church that addresses a wide range of individual and family needs is consumer friendly. In religion, as in everything else today, marketability depends on discovering what your target audience wants or needs then designing a package that addresses those expectations. When people come to discover the value and need of a Christian moral and spiritual life they also discover just how counterproductive the world is to it. So they turn to the church for guidance and support. This is a large order. Just offering a Sunday worship service doesn't fill the bill. They want a church that meets a wide spectrum of personal and family needs. Evangelical churches do a commendable job at recognizing and trying to address these needs.

15. Often their leadership have qualities or skills that are practical and proven successful (e.g., enthralling preaching style; marketing savvy; youth appeal; organizational skills; dynamic personality; etc.). The number and quality of candidates available makes for greater prospects in selection. So does the freedom available to start one's own church. If one has the requisite qualities or abilities the church might survive and prosper. If not it will fail. The market decides. Catholic leadership (i.e. priesthood) is selected in a more onerous manner. Also, the priesthood presently has little appeal. This means less candidates to select from and less prospects of acquiring those with the most advantageous qualities or skills. This is not said out of cruelty or cynical disregard of divine calling. It is simply stated as a sociological observation.

16. Their appeal to the Bible. This is not uniquely Evangelical. All Protestant churches appeal to the Bible and many expect one to bring a copy to church on Sunday to look up references during sermons. But once one is introduced to other attractive aspects of Evangelicalism this gives it a further feel of validity. One's beliefs are being presented as evident in Scripture.

17. Their strategic moral flexibility. This seems a rather unusual observation since Evangelical Protestant churches usually teach a high moral standard. However, there are three key issues in our society where even Evangelical churches fear to tread: They are the indissolubility of marriage and divorce; conjugal love and contraception; the call to Gospel poverty and admonitions about seeking after material prosperity. In the first two areas Protestant churches have formally compromised or capitulated to their host culture. In the area of material wealth many even claim material prosperity can be a sign of God's favour. The Catholic Church commends one's free choice of material poverty for the sake of the Gospel. It is considered an evangelical perfection. Likewise it warns of the inherent risks in pursuing wealth. Of course, as in the other two areas, many priests and prelates are timid about preaching an unpopular message.

While compromise may be bad for the full Gospel message and ultimately for the health of the soul and society, it does make a church more appealing to the general population. Catholic Church teaching in these areas (especially the first two, which are better known) causes a great deal of
resentment, hostility, and dissent even among Catholics. A lot of Catholics may even be expressing passive-aggressive behaviour (inert parish involvement, tepid practice, lack of financial support, etc.) partially as a response to these teachings. I suspect the attempt of many Catholic hierarchies and their administrations to soften the teachings with ready annulments or silence on contraception only aggravates the situation. They make it look like even the Church doesn't believe its own teachings.

Suspicions may arise that the clergy use these teachings to try to control people's lives and when that fails engage in a kind of hypocritical casuistry to keep support and the appearances of infallibility. In any case these teachings make it easier for many Catholics or potential converts to feel more comfortable in another church.

18. Evangelical Protestantism seems to offer protection from the present state of confusion in the world. It seems so certain and self-confident. Other Christian churches often do not give that impression. In fact the incessant theological controversy and indecisiveness in mainline denominations, exacerbated as it is by the catechetical ignorance of members, weakens their
credibility. Because Catholics and mainline Protestants often do not know or understand their faith very well it appears irrelevant to their lived experience. This leaves them intellectually unsatisfied and vulnerable. Mormons, Secular Humanists, as well as Evangelical Protestants all seem more clear and certain about what they believe. When someone begins the search for some deeper meaning and purpose to their lives these other belief systems all seem to offer something more substantial, stable and secure than present-day Catholicism.

19. Evangelical churches and their members give mutual support to each other, have a welcoming spirit, and openly and aggressively seek new members. In changing one's lifestyle support and encouragement are needed since it is a difficult adjustment and can often cause family tensions
and loss of friends. New friends are needed who understand, care, and encourage one. Conversion can be a lonely prospect without them. In the Catholic Church it often is. In the Catholic and mainline Protestant churches support and friendship can be found but is not readily offered and generally has to be sought out. In the evangelical churches it is automatically given. This support can even be financial. Such kindness and generosity does not go unnoticed.

In the old mainline churches the environment is not geared toward being a support network. Many older mainline church members grew up in an era when this was not generally perceived as needed. Society at large was regarded as Christian. The family and neighbourhood were relatively strong and took care of their own. Also, evangelization had largely ceased in these churches. Most people were 'born' into a particular church and strongly identified themselves with it (even if they did not practice). Aggressive evangelization was seen as disrespectful and confrontational. History had taught the churches to get along by avoiding such things.

With the post-war prosperity, mobility, and moral revolution the strength and protection of family and neighbourhood waned, leaving individuals in the lurch. Mainstream churches did not develop the necessary support networks. Their members were not prepared or accustomed to such an approach. Neither did they yet perceive the necessity for it. It would take decades before the full implication of what was happening would be realized. It still hasn't been. Likewise, the importance of re-evangelizing was not recognized early enough, nor did members and leadership know how to go about it. Their own churches were also plagued with dissent and confusion caused by the same forces affecting society. It was enough sometimes just to keep their heads above water.

In the Catholic Church a further complication was added in some quarters by the existence of a parochial school system. This gave a false hope that the re-evangelization would somehow be there met. It wasn't and yet the running of the schools absorbed much financial cost and human energy. Also, priests were accustomed more to sacramentalizing than evangelizing and found the shifting expectations both unfamiliar and intimidating. Catholic laypeople tended to look upon evangelization as 'missionary work' belonging to the clergy and religious congregations.

Meanwhile, new churches and religions had been developing on the fringes of society that would now come to the fore. These churches and groups (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Pentecostals) already had internal support systems. They also possessed a strong evangelizing attitude and had developed techniques for gaining new members. Because of their different beliefs or practices they had been seen by mainstream churches and society as outsiders since their inceptions. Joining them was, to a degree, a stepping out of mainstream society. Membership growth was largely by conversion.

As a convert to a new and outside group one had to seek support and friendship within its fold. This was known, understood and offered. Established members were expected to be open, friendly, and supportive. Thus when the social revolution hit in the 1960s, with the loneliness, pain and confusion that followed in its wake, these churches and groups were ready with support structures and outreach techniques. For them, the revolution became a source of unprecedented growth while for the mainline churches a cause of radical decline.

Even today, within the older mainline churches, the only substantial growth appears to be among those groups (i.e. the charismatics) who have imitated the fellowship approach, the evangelizing attitudes and techniques --- as well as the other sociological factors mentioned above --- of the most successful of the Christian fringe groups: the Pentecostal churches.

******************************************************************

While Evangelical Christianity's current ascendancy may be understood in psychological and sociological terms, we must still address the intellectual attraction of Protestantism. And I believe much of the intellectual appeal of Protestantism is rooted in a philosophical shift in Western civilization that began before the Reformation, but gained a firm hold through it. I contend that this shift has become so pervasive and profound that the culture at large, even in its secular form, works with many of the same philosophical presuppositions as Protestantism, minus any reference to God, the Bible, or the supernatural. In their stead is usually put the self or another human authority (science, culture, etc).

I will try to illustrate this observation. If I am correct it also helps explain what makes Protestantism intellectually more familiar and appealing than Catholicism. At the cognitive level to become Protestant is simply to factor God back into the underlying epistemological assumptions one already holds. Since our culture operates largely on the same philosophical premises as Protestantism, but in their secular form, these assumptions have more or less influenced everyone in our society. Even nominal or practicing Catholics can have a sense an intellectual affinity with Protestantism.

What I will present in propositional form are at times actual Protestant doctrines. What I am trying to get at, however, are the philosophical underpinnings that influence them and their secular equivalents as well. While certain Protestant beliefs or practices may officially contradict some of these assumptions, I would (brashly) contend that such positions are maintained more out of formal obedience or unavoidable necessity than any intrinsic congruence with Protestant thought. This is not a gratuitous contention. The vague and malleable way these doctrines are defined makes the teaching difficult for a Catholic apologist to pin down and refute them.

A good example of this problem is Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Biblically they are unavoidable practices. That is why virtually all Protestant denominations maintain them as they have not maintained the other sacraments. But they are defined and practiced in widely variant ways. This illustrates the immiscibility of the sacramental nature of Baptism and Eucharist with a purely Protestant theology. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are kept only because they are in the Bible. But one gets the impression that, on the whole, Protestantism would suffer no identity crisis without them. Could Catholicism or Orthodoxy say the same?

When contradiction or tension exists between an explicit belief or practice and an implicit philosophical leaning eventually what is implicit will triumph over what is explicit. In regards to the sacraments, for example, the Anglican and Lutheran churches have tended to maintain a relatively 'high' sacramental theology. Both claim something changes in the bread and wine during the eucharistic service, and something changes in the believer at baptism. Methodist and Baptist churches do not teach this. The Lord's Supper and baptism are strictly symbolic. Nothing changes. The believer's faith and the community's obedience are only publicly manifested.

Protestantism's implicit anti-physicalist spirituality favours the Baptist and Methodist approach. Thus the older churches may hang onto a sacramental theology but their membership will increasingly interpret them in purely symbolic ways. More recent Protestant denominations will tend to be overtly non-sacramental. Anglican and Lutheran sacramentalism is more rooted in their historical proximity to Catholicism than in strictly Protestant theology.

To reiterate and clarify a point: I am not saying all the assumptions listed below have their origins uniquely in Protestantism. Many were floating around Europe long before the Reformation. Some of these presuppositions may even be latent within the human psyche, surfacing around the world and throughout history in various religious and philosophical movements. Catholicism has struggled with them before under other guises. What Protestantism did was give them lasting voice, validity, and venue. And secularism simply adopted them. I think it will be readily seen how each paired premise listed contains an analogous presupposition. The difference between them is that the one formulates the presupposition within a supernatural referent while the other does not.

The following premises suggest presuppositional sympathies which exist between Protestant and Secular thought:

1. Authority

Protestantism: 'Human authorities' (i.e. Church hierarchy and Tradition) denied in favour of the Divine Authority of the Bible. [Human Skepticism]

Secularism: Divine or religious authority denied in favour of the human authority of science, reason, or one's own opinion. [Religious Skepticism]

2. Subjectivism

Protestantism: God is found in the Bible. By reading it He will reveal Himself to you. [Unmediated/Direct, Simplified, and semi-Subjective revelation]

Secularism: Higher consciousness/God is found in oneself. By 'looking' inside you will find God. [Unmediated/Direct, Simplified, and completely Subjective revelation]

3. Radical Individualism

Protestantism: Each individual is guided by the Holy Spirit in interpreting the (literal) meaning of the Bible. [semi-Subjectivism]

Secularism: Each individual is guided by his own values in interpreting what things --- like family, sex, religion, career --- (presently) mean to him. [Subjectivism]

4. Psychological Assurance

Protestantism: The atoning worth of Christ's death and resurrection gives assurance of one's salvation. Past, present or future personal sins cannot eliminate what Jesus has done for me. I am still saved so long as I keep faith in Him. [Subjective Soteriological Assurance; Gnosticism]

Secularism: One's personal motives in acting determine whether one is basically a good person or not. Past, present or future mistakes cannot eliminate one's personal integrity so long as you acted with good intentions. [Subjective Psychological Assurance; Gnosticism]

5. Aversion to Community and Ritual in Worship and Religion

Protestantism: Worship that is pleasing to God is not found in some formal, repetitious human ritual but "in spirit and in truth." Honest and true prayer is from the heart (i.e. subjective) and biblically based (i.e. anti-ritualistic). [Subjectivism, Gnosticism]

Secularism: Each person who prays to "God" does so in his own way. Honest and true prayer expresses one's own experience and understanding of God. Church rituals are seen as unnecessary, cramped and artificial. [Subjectivism, Gnosticism]

6. Emotionalism

Protestantism: Import is given to a positive emotional response in substantiating one's decisions in faith. [Emotivism]

Secularism: Import is given to a positive emotional response in substantiating one's personal decisions. [Emotivism]

7. Personal Relationships

Protestantism: The primacy of one's personal relationship with Jesus. [Individualism]

Secularism: The primacy of one's own needs (i.e. oneself) in all personal relationships. [Individualism]

8. Moral and Psychological Determinism

Protestantism: Man is totally depraved and so everything he does is tainted by sin. The important thing is repenting and accepting what Jesus has done for you. Christ then covers your sins with His atoning sacrifice. Your sins are then forgiven and all penalty due to them is removed. Temporal penance is seen as an inappropriate response. Man cannot rectify his depravity but can respond to it with faith in Christ. [Moral Determinism]

Secularism: Man is impelled by sexual drives and egoistic impulses. The important thing is to recognize and accept them as a natural. One then needs to find healthy ways of expressing them. Feelings of guilt are an inappropriate moralistic response. Man cannot rectify his unconscious, instinctual drives only learn to express/externalize them in appropriate ways. [Psychological Determinism]

9. Radical Autonomy and Anti-Institutionalism

Protestantism: Denial of any divinely established ecclesiastical structure with like authority. Denial of any sacramental mediation of one's relationship with God. Christ's Church is not a visible structure. It is in the heart of all true believers who then gather together to manifest its presence and give mutual support. Grace is not dependent on any sacrament. Such belief puts human works before grace and makes God dependent on them. God gives His grace directly to the believer. 'Sacraments' are merely visible, public symbols performed in obedience to Christ that make visible what He has already invisibly done in the person's own heart. They are not a means of grace but only represent its presence. To think otherwise would be to make grace dependent on human actions. [Angelism: An overly spiritualized understanding of human nature and divine mediation]

Secularism: Denial of any social structures having natural rights over the individual. Denial of any social institutions as necessary to mediate relationships. The individual is an autonomous agent. Social structures exist as human constructs to manifest social bonds and promote the common good. They are a means of providing mutual support to individuals. The exercise of one's freedom is not dependent on state approval. Such a belief puts laws before freedom and makes freedom dependent on the law. Marriage is a publicly and legally recognized social institution. It is established by cultural convention and is performed in obedience to those conventions. As such it symbolizes bonds of love but is not a means to them. To think otherwise would be to make sexual love dependent on social conventions. [Angelism: An overly idealized understanding of human nature and society]

10. The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions

Protestantism: I am saved by faith not works. In fact my salvation is determined by God's predestining me -- not by anything I might do myself. [Religious dichotomy]

Secularism: The true person is known by their intentions more than his actions. In fact the moral nature of an action is determined more by the actor's intention than by what is done (eg. in abortion, euthanasia, pre-marital sex, lying). [Anthropological Dichotomy]
Similar to an earlier premise but highlighting a different philosophical presupposition.

11. Historical Revisionism and Subjectivism

Protestantism: One's Christian life is definitively guided by the Bible, the true meaning of which was rediscovered during the Reformation. Attitudes toward Christian beliefs between New Testament times and the Reformation range from diffident, to indifferent, to suspicious, to contemptuous. Allegiance to much of what was believed in this earlier period is not necessary. Biblical truths may be found then but were progressively corrupted by Romanized interpretations. With the advent of the Reformation the true nature of biblical Christianity was rediscovered. Reformed theology helps guide the individual in understanding what the Holy Spirit is teaching him through the Bible. [Historical Subjectivism; Historico-religious Fiction; Anti-progressivism]

Secularism: A person's life is definitively guided by his own values, within the context of one's culture. Attitudes to the West's moral heritage range from diffident, to indifferent, to suspicious, to contemptuous. Allegiance to the values of the past is not necessary. Many of one's beliefs or values may be found then but often in archaic form or biased by a religious interpretation. With the advent of a more global perspective values have been shown to be culturally relative. Contemporary cultural norms help guide the individual in choosing amongst competing values what ones are true to himself. [Historical Subjectivism; Historico-cultural Fiction; Progressivism]

12. Aversion to History, Heritage, and Tradition

Protestantism: For all practical purposes the above point can also be commonly reduced to this: The believer is guided by the Bible applied to today. The origin of his particular denomination or church and the historical and theological background of their interpretation is of little interest. It just 'came from the Bible.' The historical or cultural context of scriptural passages is of only peripheral importance (it is usually only a concern when a passage is difficult to reconcile with one's own 'biblical' views). That one has reworked or developed an idea or moral view from the Bible goes largely unacknowledged. It is as if God were speaking directly to me and my times. [A-historicism]

Secularism: For all practical purposes (and more so than in Protestantism) the present generation guides itself as if the world began with them. The historical and philosophical background of their culture or views is of little interest. It is just 'the way things are,' or 'what I believe.' It is as if the past has no bearing on the present or anything necessarily of value to teach (it is all 'Dark Ages' or 'ancient history'). It is simply myself and my life and times. [A-historicism]

13. Irrationalism and Anti-Intellectualism

Protestantism: Too much of Catholic theology is empty and vain human philosophy. God revealed Himself for salvation, not speculation. God is beyond human reason. He is known by faith not by syllogism. [anti-intellectualism]

Secularism: Too much of Christian belief is focused on narrow doctrines and right belief. Higher consciousness/God is meant to free our spirits not imprison them in dogmas. Spirituality is beyond human reason. It is grasped more by the heart than by the head. [anti-intellectualism]

14. Pragmatism

Protestantism: Living in God's righteousness can bring immediate blessings as a sign of His favour. These can include spiritual fulfillment, physical health, emotional happiness or financial success. The same is true of church growth: It too can be a sign of God's favour upon true belief. [semi-Pragmatism]

Secularism: Religion is too other-worldly. It has not proven itself beneficial to present human needs. Science and technology have proven practically beneficial. The world has grown healthier and more prosperous because of them. Science has proven itself true while religion only claims to be. [Pragmatism]

15. Legal Positivism

Protestantism: What is morally right and wrong is based on God's decrees and so is absolute. [Moral legalism]

Secularism: Religion claims there are moral absolutes. Actually, what people consider morally right or wrong is based on cultural/religious norms and so is relative. [Moral legalism]

16. Anthropological Pessimism

Protestantism: Sin has left man totally depraved. Therefore, even the good we do is tainted by it. [Anthropological Pessimism]

Secularism: Our psychological history (heredity & environment) effects our thoughts and actions. What we perceive as good to do is influenced by it. [Anthropological Pessimism]

17. Mistrust and Suspicion of Other Belief-Systems

Protestantism: Other religions are false and often under diabolical influence. They are at best human works giving a false sense of freedom from sin or security from damnation. The Bible alone gives us true belief. The battle is between false religion and true belief. Until all are brought to faith in Jesus Christ the world will remain blind and enslaved to sin. The consequence will be damnation for the unregenerated. With belief in Christ comes freedom from sin through Christ's redemptive work and the eternal security it gives us. [Mistrust of other religions and negative assessment of their value]

Note: Historically Catholics have often embraced a similar attitude. As with most of the premises presented this is not completely erroneous. It is simply too one-sided, negative and legalistic an assessment.

Secularism: Religions (and Christianity in particular) are false and often used by the religious elite to control their members. They are at best human myths and superstitious rituals that seek to explain the natural universe and give one a sense of security from harsh natural forces and the reality of death. More often they are a cause of intolerance and war. Science gives us true knowledge of the natural world and universe. Until our secular, pluralistic society came about the West was enslaved to organized religion and its incessant religious wars. Secular pluralism gives us freedom from religious control and intolerance. [Mistrust of religion/Christianity and negative assessment of its value]

18. Radical Egalitarianism

Protestantism: All are equally sinners before God. To think otherwise is Pharisaic hypocrisy. This being so, no human being can claim special status before God. Christ alone is our Mediator. Grace comes to us directly through Him. Thus, Mary and the saints have no personal merits or special intercessory power. Claims of a sacramental priesthood with mediating powers or privilege is clerical arrogance and elitism. [Egalitarianism]

Secularism: All persons, beliefs and values are equal. No religion has a corner on the truth. To claim yourself in a privileged position before God because of your beliefs is arrogant and elitist. [Egalitarianism]

19. Determinism and Fatalism

Protestantism: Our human nature is corrupt and of itself doomed to eternal Hell. We are saved only by faith. Until we recognize this we tend not to realize our predicament nor address it properly. We either don't see ourselves as sinners or, if we do, think we can save ourselves by our actions. Faith alone saves. Faith is given by means of God's grace. No one can earn it. God has to choose to give it. Divine predestination determines your eternal future. [Emphasis on humanity's enslavement to sin resulting in a tacit Denial of Free Will; Double Predestination]

Secularism: Our human nature is controlled by unconscious biological and psychological drives. Many of these drives are affected by heredity or by our upbringing and environment. We cannot control them only respond to them in appropriate ways. But because we are not always aware of this we frequently misunderstand them and respond in inappropriate ways. When we do recognize there is a problem we either deny the cause or think we can repress it. But we can only overcome the negative effects with professional help. We cannot diagnose and treat ourselves. Without it these drives will control one's future direction.

[Exaggerated emphasis on humanity's enslavement to unconscious drives resulting in a tacit denial of Free Will and a type of Double Predestination]

Note: I am using here the psychological model (ala Freud & Skinner). I could just as easily have used the economic model of Marx; the biological-evolutionist model; or the cultural anthropologist model. Each supposes an unavoidable force we are not quite aware of that is controlling much of our attitude, actions and destiny. Usually a degree of liberation is offered either through the acceptance and application of the particular ideology's prescriptive claims, or by the enlightenment it offers.

20. Religious Relativism

Protestantism: Denominations are merely different ways Christians corporately express their [Protestant] faith. No one can claim with certitude his particular denomination is the only true one, only that it is truest for him. [Egalitarianism/Nominalism]

Secularism: Religions are merely different ways humans corporately express their spiritual beliefs. No one can claim his particular religion is the only true one, only that it is true for him. [Egalitarianism/Nominalism]

21. Simplistic Epistemology

Protestantism: God's revelation is found in Scripture alone. Scriptural truths are given with clarity and certitude. The standard for interpreting Scripture rightly is Scripture itself. [Epistemological Simplicity/Certitude; semi-Subjectism]

Secularism: What is true for my life can be discerned by me alone. My heart's promptings and my personal convictions are a sure guide. Each person must judge his life by his own standard. I must be true to my own self. [Epistemological Simplicity/ Certitude; Subjectivism]

If I am correct about this premise then notice how it conflicts with earlier deterministic & pessimistic ones. Protestantism (and secularistic views) have unresolvable internal contradictions. For example claiming human reason corrupted by sin and yet using reason to understand and defend revelation; claiming faith is totally gratuitous and without human contribution yet challenging people to make a commitment in faith; saying all that we need to guide our lives by is in the Bible yet unable to verify this in the Bible; claiming we can be certain of our salvation yet doubting that those who renounce their faith or behave in a way markedly contrary to it were ever really saved; claiming to be a return to the beliefs of early Christianity yet dismissing Catholic elements in early Christian writings; escaping lack of historical evidence for Protestant beliefs in the early church by claiming the true church was always invisible (and evidently inaudible), yet having no problem tracing its historical development since the Reformation.

22. Privatization and Marginalization of Religion

Protestantism: The Church's primary concern is the spiritual and moral life of her members while the state is properly concerned with the civic life of the community. However the state, under God, should respect and reflect Christian beliefs and morals. [Compartmentalization: Between the private and civic spheres]

Secularism: One's values and religious beliefs are strictly one's private concern. Personal values and religious beliefs should not be imposed on the civic life of the whole community. However the state should respect the different values and beliefs of its diverse members. It does this by adopting an religiously neutral or secular position. [Compartmentalization: Between the private and public spheres]

23. "Either/Or" / Dichotomous Thinking

Protestantism: A tendency to radically oppose doctrines in either/or categories. Either one is saved by faith or works; either Scriptures is authoritative or the Church; either righteousness is imputed by Christ or from oneself; either Jesus is our one Mediator or He is not (if you believe in the intercession of saints then He is not); either grace is from Christ or from the sacraments. [Antithetical Approach/Oppositionalism]

Note: The Catholic tendency is often to take a both/and approach.

Secularism: A tendency to radically oppose ideas in either/or categories: Either we have freedom or censorship; either you believe in tolerance or absolutes; either you favour individual rights or state/institutional control; either you believe in science or religion; either you believe in the separation of church and state or you believe in a theocracy. [Antithetical Approach/Oppositionalism]

24. Unnatural Sexuality / Contraceptive Mentality / Hedonism

Protestantism: Christian understanding of human sexuality is dichotomized. Marital love is emphasized as the Christian ideal to the detriment of celibate love. Vows of celibacy are seen as too restrictive and inhuman. When externally imposed by the Church they lead to all kinds of hypocrisy and abuse. Celibacy is left optional and always revocable. The conjugal act is also dichotomized. Morally it can be love-giving and pleasure-seeking without necessarily being open to procreation. God's lordship here becomes a legal formality of restricting sex to within marriage, not over the integrity of the act itself. Contraception is permissible. The morality of variant sexual acts within marriage is not discussed. The moral criteria for choosing to have children or not, and how many is largely undiscussed. [Subjectivism/Gnosticism/Legalism]

Secularism: Understanding of human sexuality is dichotomized. Mutual affection and sexual pleasure are emphasized as the ideal to the detriment of marriage and chastity. Marital vows are seen as too restrictive on sexual expression. When externally imposed by social conventions they lead to all kinds of hypocrisy and abuse. Marriage is left optional and always dissoluble. The sexual act is also dichotomized. Pleasure can be separated from love and either from procreation. Each can be a separate end in itself. Marriage becomes a legal formality without any intrinsic moral relation to sexual activity. Contraception is not only permissible but often proper. Variant sexual acts are accepted and encouraged. Children are an option. [Subjectivism/Gnosticism/Hedonism]

Note: The Protestant view outlined in the last premise is largely modern but is a logical outcome of certain aspects of mainstream Protestantism's approach to marriage and sexuality which was inherently ambivalent, legalistic, and conventional.

******************************************************************

If what I am struggling to present is true --- if Protestant philosophical presuppositions have permeated our society in their secular form --- then beyond the challenge of Protestantism's familiarity and attractiveness is possibly a greater issue. The issue is whether Protestantism can supply the needed corrective to many of the contemporary social problems it decries (individualism, subjectivism, egalitarianism, etc.). For it is a carrier of the same disease. In the end, while many Evangelicals have made heroic and admirable attempts at turning the tide of secularization, Protestantism itself is simply not radical enough to effect the needed change. In fact, it is the precursor of the present situation.

I have tried to avoid any misrepresentation. Some points probably stretch the parallels too far. My purpose is not to score points or posture superior, but rather, to discover and reflect on the nature and meaning of things, including current trends in Christianity and our secular society.

Uploaded, and very slightly edited (mostly the bolding and subject categories) by Dave Armstrong on 6 February 2002.

Thoughts on the Historical Causes of Secularization

Peter Berger, an eminent Lutheran sociologist, who specializes in the sociology of religion, discusses with great insight the crucial role which Protestantism played in the development of the radical secularization with which all serious Christians are plagued today, and from which society at large reels and staggers in moral turpitude:

Protestantism may be described in terms of an immense shrinkage in the scope of the sacred in reality . . . The sacramental apparatus is reduced to a minimum and, even there, divested of its more numinous qualities. The miracle of the mass disappears altogether . . . Protestantism ceased praying for the dead . . . [and] divested itself as much as possible from the three most ancient and most powerful concomitants of the sacred - mystery, miracle, and magic . . . The Protestant believer no longer lives in a world ongoingly penetrated by sacred beings and forces. Reality is polarized between a radically transcendent divinity and a radically 'fallen' humanity that, 'ipso facto,' is devoid of sacred qualities . . .

The Catholic lives in a world in which the sacred is mediated to him through a variety of channels - the sacraments . . . intercession of the saints . . . a vast continuity of being between the seen and the unseen. Protestantism abolished most of these mediations. It broke the continuity, cut the umbilical cord between heaven and earth, and thereby threw man back upon himself in a historically unprecedented manner . . . It narrowed man's relationship to the sacred to the one . . . channel that it called God's word . . . - the 'sola gratia' of the Lutheran confessions . . . It needed only the cutting of this one narrow channel of mediation, though, to open the floodgates of secularization . . .

It may be maintained, then, that Protestantism served as a historically decisive prelude to secularization, whatever may have been the importance of other factors . . . This interpretation . . . is accepted . . . probably today by a majority of scholarly opinion . . .

The Protestant Reformation . . . may then be understood as a powerful reemergence of precisely those secularizing forces that had been 'contained' by Catholicism . . . The question, 'Why in the modern West?' asked with respect to the phenomenon of secularization, must be answered at least in part by looking at its roots in the religious tradition of the modern West.

(The Sacred Canopy, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967, 111-113, 124-125)

I think complex causality and multiple causality are involved in virtually all historical matters, especially those involving ideas, and those as vast and huge as a topic like secularization (arguably one of the most nebulous and subjective of any concept in the history of ideas in general and cultural sociology in particular).

I rarely if ever subscribe to hypotheses concerning Great Cultural Forces so excessively reductionist and simplistic as Neo-Platonism vs. Neo-Scholasticism Within an Overall Realist Framework, or some such Grand Explanation.

To illustrate such erroneous and shortsighted thinking (using one prominent and influential example), I've always loved Francis Schaeffer (I even named my evangelical campus outreach "True Truth Ministries" after a famous phrase of his), but I knew 20 years ago in my evangelical Protestant period that he was all wet when trying to grapple with St. Thomas Aquinas. He was clearly in over his head (and seemed to have no awareness of this at all).

I am not alone in that analysis. Ronald W. Ruegsegger, editor of Reflections on Francis Schaeffer (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), is a philosopher himself, and he takes the same position I have for a long time (which is not against Schaeffer -- he appreciates him a lot, as I do -- ; but rather, simply realistic in appraising his strengths and weaknesses), in his chapter, "Francis Schaeffer on Philosophy":

. . . Aquinas' incorporation of particulars as well as universals seems to be a step in the right direction, rather than a mistake as Schaeffer sees it . . .

Schaeffer overstates his case when he asserts that Aquinas made man's reason -- and thereby products of man's reason such as natural theology and philosophy -- independent from revelation.

. . . Schaeffer is not completely clear about what is at issue in the problem of universals . . .

I think it is indeed important to recognize that Schaeffer is a popularizer rather than a scholar. As such it is not fair to expect him to understand the details of philosophy as well as someone who is trained in the discipline . . . it is a mistake to promote Schaeffer as an authority in philosophical matters. He was not . . . the fact that Schaeffer is enormously popular among evangelicals, despite his not being an authority, suggests that all too often we are satisfied with simple answers to complex questions.

(pp. 114-115, 126-127)

I agree with what Peter Berger says, but his analysis is only on one aspect of many that I think come into play. He can make his point without denying my present one (as suggested in his phrase, "whatever may have been the importance of other factors"). He has a sociological mind which is nothing if not attuned to the variety of factors that play a part in any large-scale societal and cultural force. My own major was sociology (something I have regretted, but sometimes it comes in handy).

That said, I hereby offer an additional analysis of another important cause of secularization, from Catholic (oops; now we know he is incorrigibly biased . . . ) cultural historian Christopher Dawson:

It is difficult to exaggerate the harm that was inflicted on Christian culture by the century of religious strife that followed the Reformation . . . It was during this century of sterile and inconclusive religious conflict that the ground was prepared for the secularization of European culture. The convinced secularists were an infinitesimal minority of the European population, but they had no need to be strong since the Christians did their work for them . . .

It is impossible to ignore this dark and tragic side of religious history; for if we do not face it, we cannot understand the inevitable character of the movement of secularization . . .

The immediate cause of the secularization of European culture was the frustration and discouragement resulting from a century of religious wars, and above all from the inconclusiveness of their end. After the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the necessity for the co-existence of Catholics and Protestants in Europe became generally recognized, and since men still valued their common culture they were forced to emphasize those elements which were common to Catholics and Protestants, i.e., its secular aspects . . .

The merchant class in Holland and England and the lawyers and officials in France gradually took the place of the nobility as the real leaders of culture . . . They were apt to be critical of authority and naturally tended to adopt a sectarian type of religion - Puritans and Nonconformists in England, and Huguenots in France. Theirs was among the strongest influences making for the secularization of culture, as so many writers have argued . . . They regarded religion as a private matter which concerned the conscience of the individual only, whereas public life was essentially business life; a sphere in which the profit motive was supreme and a man's moral and religious duties were best fulfilled by the punctual and industrious performance of his professional activities.

(The Dividing of Christendom, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1965, 9-11, 253-255)

The chief cause of the secularization of Western culture was the loss of Christian unity . . . The mere fact of this loss of unity created a neutral territory which gradually expanded till it came to include almost the whole of social life . . . When once men had admitted the principle that a heretic could be a good citizen (and even that an infidel could be a good man of business), they inevitably tended to regard this common ground of practical action as the real world, and the exclusive sphere of religion as a private world, whether of personal faith or merely private opinion . . .

In this way there arose the new liberal humanitarian culture which represents an intermediate stage between the religious unity of Christendom and a totally secularized world.

(The Judgment of the Nations, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1942, 103-104)

One might argue along these lines that Protestantism emerged as a quasi-Donatist, ostensibly and theoretically (but not in practice or long-run outcome) rigorist and schismatic cultural force in the 16th century. The inevitable split from the Catholic Church led to equally inevitable religious wars (as men on both sides then still cared deeply about religious matters, unlike today where doctrinal disagreements are winked at and cheerfully dismissed as of no import, and nothing worth fighting over -- not even in rational discussion).

The wars in turn led to the cultural exhaustion and malaise described by Dawson. In that sense of a causal chain one might argue that Protestantism caused the drive towards secularization that has never ceased to increase from that day to this. But as I say, this is only one aspect among many, and neither it nor Berger's analysis should be construed as the be-all and end-all of historical discussion concerning secularization. That's far too simplistic, in my opinion.

I would also point out, in fairness (to give much credit to Protestantism in this respect) that the history of revivalism within the Protestant tradition has been a great cultural force against secularization. This can be seen especially in the Wesleyan and Whitefield revivals in 17th-century England, which had vast positive social consequences, and the First and Second Great Awakenings in America: arguably responsible for slowing down the subsequent slide into a thorough quasi-humanist secularism for a good century (for early America was greatly influenced by the Enlightenment, deism, and a liberal brand of disillusioned post-Calvinist, post-Puritan Christianity).

Along these lines, I would cite and recommend books such as Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform, by William G. McLoughlin (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1978), and Revivalism and Social Reform, by Timothy L. Smith (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957). The latter begins with this delightful passage:

Could Thomas Paine, the free-thinking pamphleteer of the American and French revolutions, have visited Broadway in 1865, he would have been amazed to find that the nation conceived in rational liberty was at last fulfilling its democratic promise in the power of evangelical faith. The emancipating glory of the great awakenings had made Christian liberty, Christian equality and Christian fraternity the passion of the land . . . Religious doctrines which Paine, in his book The Age of Reason, had discarded as the tattered vestment of an outworn aristocracy, became the wedding garb of a democratized church, bent on preparing men and institutions for a kind of proletarian marriage supper of the Lamb.

(Preface, p. 7)

These movements were not without their own faults, and arguably contained the seeds of an eventual further descent into secularism and sectarianism, but that is beyond my immediate point, which is simply that Protestant revivalism has been a considerably powerful force against secularism and irreligion, and towards a Christian worldview with culturally-transformative power and import. It would be just as wrong for a Protestant with a sophisticated view of history, sociology, and culture to deny the positive aspects of revivalism, as it would be for a Catholic to do so. What's true (and documented from history) is true.

I would argue (if I must make a general statement) that it is not Protestantism per se which caused secularization, but rather, that some aspects of Protestantism tied in with some aspects of existing forces destructive of the unified medieval and Catholic synthesis and worldview (nominalism, the Renaissance, nationalism, the Divine Right of Kings, unbridled capitalism, the so-called "Enlightenment," the philosophers Locke, Kant, Hume, etc.). Catholicism-in-practice also contributed to this demise insofar as it was nominal and morally-compromised. After all, the rise of Protestantism was not hindered by Italian and Roman decadence, and the "Enlightenment" and the hideous French Revolution took place in Catholic France.

In any event, the medieval synthesis and Christian culture was Catholic through and through, and Protestantism obviously helped to bring that to an end (thus playing a "decisive" role, as Berger argues), but it alone was not the primary factor (though I regard it as a major one), and it often worked as a counter-force to secularization, as argued in the above examples.

Whatever the cause, we are in a mess today, because people do not think "Christianly." One of the most extraordinary and remarkably insightful books I have ever read was The Gravedigger Files, by Os Guinness (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983). The subtitle is "Papers on the Subversion of the Modern Church." It is a masterpiece of Christian sociology, written in the style of C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters. I shall cite just one passage, where Guinness is dealing with what he calls "The Private-Zoo Factor" (privatization of religion):

If the ultimate value is survival and the immediate value is personal peace and prosperity, then those brought up to live for themselves will be less inclined to live (or die) for others . . . the privatized person is . . . a "classic narcissist," client to the multiplying therapeutic agencies in a world in which, as Orwell said, "Freud and Machiavelli have reached the outer suburbs"; . . . The extremes here do not have to be coaxed into a cage; they virtually sit mewing for one.

Notice again how the contradiction between the ostensible freedom and the true situation is entirely to our advantage [these are demons speaking, remember]. Once more privatized freedom is not the freedom it seems . . . In the past we have cultivated religious individualism and have found that certain strains of faith such as pietism are particularly fruitful for our purposes. But never have we had such harvest as this. You know that the Greeks defined the idiot as a wholly private person. Privatization multiplies the number of Christians who fall prey to this and makes such idiocy a spiritual condition.

I would not deny that there are exceptions to all this. There are theological traditions (such as the reformed) which refuse to fall for narrow pietism . . . or recent movements which have made a noise about faith in public (though mostly about more personal things, such as abortion and pornography). But these, fortunately, are exceptions.

(pp. 85-86)

Many evangelical spokesmen have become alarmed at the sorts of trends that Os Guinness decried above. David Wells, professor of Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, wrote:

We . . . are reducing historical Protestant faith to a mass of diverse, conflicting 'models.' I cannot see it all surviving. That a sundering of the movement is coming seems utterly certain to me; the only question is when, how, and with what consequences.

("Evangelical Megashift", Christianity Today, February 19, 1990, 15 ff. )

Jon Johnston, professor of Urban Ministry and Sociology of Religion at Fuller Theological Seminary in California, and a Church of the Nazarene minister, wrote cogently in a work on this very subject, back in 1980:

Evangelicals . . . are increasingly opting for godless cultural values. Our degree of
compromise has reached epidemlc proportions . . .

Popularity can prompt disastrous compromise. I firmly believe that compromise, or
'accommodation,' is the most formidable threat to evangelicalism today' . . . Evangelicalism is in serious danger of . . . becoming engulfed by the surrounding culture.

(Will Evangelicalism Survive Its Own Popularity?, preface, 35, 39)

Lastly, I would cite James Davison Hunter, professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, and one of the leading authorities on evangelicalism today; the author of American Evangelicalism (1983) and Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (1987). Another article in Christianity Today described an address of his on this general theme:

Hunter identified the major combatants in the cultural war. Traditional Orthodoxy, he said, holds a transcendent view of moral authority, as expressed in Scripture, the Roman Catholic magisterium, the Torah. What Hunter called a 'progressive' view of authority, based on Enlightenment thinking, is grounded in human, rational discourse. Hunter contended that advocates of the new way of thinking are winning the war. While allowing that 'evangelicalism is the most vibrant form of religious expression,' he said there is no evidence to support the oft-stated assertion that the evangelical faith is in the midst of revival . . . Hunter . . . added, 'There is a very strong undercurrent of subjectivizing the gospel and the theological task.'

(Randy Frame, "Theological Drift: Christian Higher Ed the Culprit?," Christianity Today, April 9, 1990; citation from pp. 43, 46)

Catholics are, of course, subject to the same cultural influences and are increasingly Americanized, privatized, and rendered ignorant from abominable catechesis and the liberal crisis in our own Church. To the extent that Catholics suffer that fate, they, too, do not think Christianly and contribute to the continuing secularization and decadance of our society and culture.

So (to end on an ecumenical note), I would echo C.S. Lewis's comment that those at the center of their own theological traditions are all closer to one another in spirit than those on the outer edges (liberals, modernists, nominalists, semi-non-Christian syncretists, etc.). This is a fight of serious, committed Christians of all stripes against the postmodernist, humanist culture of death and all that it entails.

That is one reason (of many) why I absolutely despise both anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism, because they zap the energy and influence that the already weak Christian community has (itself the last hope against the encroaching darkness), by dividing Christians and setting them against each other. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. We Christians mock and battle and lie about and misrepresent each other on the Internet while western civilization goes to hell in a handbasket. It is wicked, and it is the devil's victory.

It is to be expected that we will all stand up for our own Christian beliefs in gentlemanly yet vigorous principled discourse; but this should not be to the extent of reading others out of the faith entirely and questioning their personal standing before God and their salvation or eternal destiny, as the case may be.

I wanted to note that two out of the four revivals I mentioned were Calvinist-dominated:

1. The First Great Awakening arguably led by Jonathan Edwards.

2. The Whitefield revival in England.

The other two are Arminian:

3. The Wesleyan revival (which could be said to be an Anglican revival, since Wesley never formally split from that denomination).

4. The Second Great Awakening.

The latter two are more illustrative of what I would say are the inherent shortcomings in the Protestant system. "Mainline" or "culturally-respectable" (which meant largely "properly English") Anglicanism couldn't handle Wesley due to the "enthusiasm" and evangelicalism and so he was forced to take to the fields and reluctantly consent to a start-up of yet another denomination: the Methodists. Thus, further sectarianism is the result even when great, noble men are in leadership and don't desire a split, because the Protestant tendency to dichotomize everything and to create unnecessarily-polarized competing camps would not allow a radical like Wesley to be contained within an Anglican framework.

In Catholicism, on the other hand, there is a place for all these different aspects of Christian expression and emphasis. We have quietism, we have mysticism; we have St. Francis on one hand and St. Thomas Aquinas on the other; St. Therese on one pole (monasticism) and Merton and Dorothy Day on the other (social activism). We have the jolly wise man Chesterton and super-serious folks like St. Ignatius Loyola. Even the charismatic movement flourished recently and was accepted by Rome without a crisis. None of these things cause a split. But Protestants will split because they lack a unifying principle which will prevent this.

As for Charles Finney and the Second Great Awakening, I understand that Finney went liberal (which is a real shame). Arguably, this was due to orthodox Arminianism being distorted and turned into a self-generation of holiness and sanctification. Again, I would contend that this is at least partially because of the structure of Protestantism which is insufficiently "magisterial."

In contrast, the essentially Arminian soteriology of Catholicism does not become transformed into Pelagianism and then process theology, as we see occurring among Protestants (Clark Pinnock being one sad example). One must have some theory as to why this happens. I say that the dogmatic, magisterial structure of Catholicism prevents it, while the individualism and private judgment of Protestantism not only doesn't prevent it, but encourages it by an interior logic.

The individualism in turn evolves into subjectivism and privatization, and there we are: back to some of the important contributing factors of secularization. So the second two revivalistic traditions contained the seeds of later trouble: the holiness movements spawned from Wesleyanism led to some pentecostal groups which were non-trinitarian and other groups which became so isolated, pietistic, and fundamentalist in the anti-intellectual, a-