Pope John Paul the Great: Key Figure in the New Springtime of the Church
[this person wishes to be anonymous. I have substituted "Bill" for his name]
See the previous three installments:
Critique of Some Comments From a "Traditionalist"
The "Traditionalist" Counter-Responds
Third Reply to a "Traditionalist"
I also wrote the following four papers in reply (to some degree) to things that Bill wrote (the first two as a result of direct challenges):
Is It Dissent Against the Pope and the Church, and Downright Disobedient For a Catholic to Favor the War in Iraq?
Robert Sungenis' Denial of the Catholic De Fide Dogma of God's Immutability and Profound Confusion About Time and Eternity
The Catholic "Traditionalist" Derisive Term Neo-Conservative (Catholic)
Pope John Paul II and the Koran-Kissing Incident: Summary and Analysis of the Incoherence of the Horrified "Traditionalist" Objection
Bill's words will be in blue. My older cited words will be in green, his older words in purple.
* * * * *
So far the debate with Dave Armstrong has evolved into a cordial discussion, and I intend to keep it going down the same path.
I'm pleased as well with the tone.
However, that the 1970 Missal is shot through with Protestant influences is a reality expressed both by the manner of its celebration 99.9% of the time
What is the difference in theology? I see none. One may mention some things more times; that doesn't prove the theology is different. If I say "I believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass" 13 times in the course of this dialogue, and you say it seven times, does that mean I believe it more than you do, or that you don't believe it and have succumbed to the dreaded "Protestant influences"? No.
What is to be done to restore the Catholic liturgy?
Follow the rubrics and promote reverence. Let people choose which Mass they want to attend.
The way to reform is as Pope Benedict has done, making the option available for Catholics.
Great. I wholeheartedly agree.
When we have to talk about "restricting" the Mass of St. Francis de Sales, or of St. Teresa of Avila, of St. Ignatius and St. Vincent de Paul or Dom Gueranger, and of great champions of the faith like Chesterton and Belloc, it calls into question the very existence of the Church.
I'm all for it, but this description goes too far, since I could just as easily say, "when we have to talk about 'restricting' the Mass of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm and St. Francis and St. Catherine and St. Bonaventure and St. Dominic and St. Augustine and St. Jerome and St. Athanasius and St. Bernard and Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Gregory the Great, it calls into question the very existence of the Church." Why should the 16th century be the point beyond which we can't go? If that Mass is for all time and should always be celebrated, why not earlier forms?
Can what was most holy be forbidden and only allowed under certain circumstances?
That's right. I demand the Mass of St. Augustine! I want authentic patristic Catholicism, from the Golden Age of theological development. If it's not allowed, the Church is in grave peril!
Nonsense. Thomism is a awash with disagreements and controversies, and plenty of disunity, that doesn't mean that all Thomists will end up like Rahner.
I never said that all "traditionalists" would end up schismatic; only that they may do so. You frequently overlook the important the qualifications and nuances in my arguments. My words in your latest reply ("therefore [I] strongly urge you to consider where the trajectory may possibly be leading down the line") are right above yours that I cite here, yet somehow they go from my "may possibly" to your "all."
Franciscan Philosophy, a rediscovered and more or less for our purposes nascent branch of philosophy has plenty of disunity, this doesn't mean all Franciscan philosophers will end up like William of Ockham.
Of course not. But it's a non sequitur because of what I just noted. The analogy doesn't fit.
For all you know the Remnant and Catholic Family News might swing around and adopt my position.
Precisely! All you guys are shifting all the time. You're like a bunch of floating ducks at the carnival: one never knows where any particular one will end up in the pool. I already stated that some will move back to mainstream orthodoxy. You quoted these words of mine a little later on:
Others who are where you are now will move to the "center" (regular old orthodoxy without the "trad" trappings), . . .
What is the difference in theology? I see none. One may mention some things more times; that doesn't prove the theology is different. If I say "I believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass" 13 times in the course of this dialogue, and you say it seven times, does that mean I believe it more than you do, or that you don't believe it and have succumbed to the dreaded "Protestant influences"? No.
What is to be done to restore the Catholic liturgy?
Follow the rubrics and promote reverence. Let people choose which Mass they want to attend.
The way to reform is as Pope Benedict has done, making the option available for Catholics.
Great. I wholeheartedly agree.
When we have to talk about "restricting" the Mass of St. Francis de Sales, or of St. Teresa of Avila, of St. Ignatius and St. Vincent de Paul or Dom Gueranger, and of great champions of the faith like Chesterton and Belloc, it calls into question the very existence of the Church.
I'm all for it, but this description goes too far, since I could just as easily say, "when we have to talk about 'restricting' the Mass of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm and St. Francis and St. Catherine and St. Bonaventure and St. Dominic and St. Augustine and St. Jerome and St. Athanasius and St. Bernard and Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Gregory the Great, it calls into question the very existence of the Church." Why should the 16th century be the point beyond which we can't go? If that Mass is for all time and should always be celebrated, why not earlier forms?
Can what was most holy be forbidden and only allowed under certain circumstances?
That's right. I demand the Mass of St. Augustine! I want authentic patristic Catholicism, from the Golden Age of theological development. If it's not allowed, the Church is in grave peril!
Nonsense. Thomism is a awash with disagreements and controversies, and plenty of disunity, that doesn't mean that all Thomists will end up like Rahner.
I never said that all "traditionalists" would end up schismatic; only that they may do so. You frequently overlook the important the qualifications and nuances in my arguments. My words in your latest reply ("therefore [I] strongly urge you to consider where the trajectory may possibly be leading down the line") are right above yours that I cite here, yet somehow they go from my "may possibly" to your "all."
Franciscan Philosophy, a rediscovered and more or less for our purposes nascent branch of philosophy has plenty of disunity, this doesn't mean all Franciscan philosophers will end up like William of Ockham.
Of course not. But it's a non sequitur because of what I just noted. The analogy doesn't fit.
For all you know the Remnant and Catholic Family News might swing around and adopt my position.
Precisely! All you guys are shifting all the time. You're like a bunch of floating ducks at the carnival: one never knows where any particular one will end up in the pool. I already stated that some will move back to mainstream orthodoxy. You quoted these words of mine a little later on:
Others who are where you are now will move to the "center" (regular old orthodoxy without the "trad" trappings), . . .
For that matter, the FSSP, a papally chartered order, thinks much the same as I do, are all of their priests quasi-schismatic because they won't say the Novus Ordo?
What I've seen of them is fine, for the most part (I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of all these things). The groups and people I have critiqued have a host of problems. But I have contended that it is mostly a certain attitude or approach; a mindset.
Are they all on a trajectory toward sedevacantism, especially given that their founding members left the SSPX to regain full communion with the Church?
Most of them, no. They're expressly approved by the Church.
What's the difference if I have a link to the Remnant or not?
Because it's a crackpot organization.
What's the difference if I have a link to the Remnant or not?
1) It suggests a substantial (not total) agreement, so that folks who value your opinion will be swayed by your having a link to something or someone.You yourself recognize very serious problems with them:
2) Others will be led astray by their nonsense.
This is another area, where the problem lies with Chris Ferrera and the Remnant. Their position is that Vatican II contains serious errors, but that's okay because the council was only a pastoral council, and therefore not binding. This teaching has serious implications, namely that the gates of hell would triumph. Binding or not, the Church in the person of the Pope can not confirm the teachings of an ecumenical council if they are heretical! It can't be. Their position is opposed to Vatican I, and what the Church has always and everywhere believed.
I've critiqued their errors at length:
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)
I have the Qur'an, the Hadith, and 18 books by Islamic authors on my shelves, but I'm not a Muslim.
You're not recommending Muslims as good ole Catholic "Traditionalists." You list The Remnant under periodicals. You only have six listed. Three, including the Remnant, are pretty far out "traditionalist" organs. One is moderately "traditionalist". The other two are mainstream orthodox. This tells a lot about where you're coming from. It's not analogous to having a Muslim book. I say The Remnant is a radtrad group and that you shouldn't link to it at all. But this is your call. If you prominently link to it like this, don't be surprised if those who know about the group form an impression of you that is to some degree a reflection of that group.
Besides that, do I not see a propter hoc fallacy here?
No. If you link to nuts and extremist "quasi-schismatics" you may be seen as one of them, or having some affinity, anyway. This is a group that you yourself critiqued as denying Vatican I and holding to positions that would entail the gates of hell prevailing against the Church. Is that not itself an objection serious enough for you to take down any link? Aren't you concerned to not lead your readers astray into such fanaticism?
It is logically fallacious that because someone once held a proposition we hold now, that we might become like them. I might also become a Muslim.
It's not "logically fallacious" at all to state a fact and warn people who may possibly go down the same road. I stated a fact and issued a warning, about Gerry Matatics:
I have the Qur'an, the Hadith, and 18 books by Islamic authors on my shelves, but I'm not a Muslim.
You're not recommending Muslims as good ole Catholic "Traditionalists." You list The Remnant under periodicals. You only have six listed. Three, including the Remnant, are pretty far out "traditionalist" organs. One is moderately "traditionalist". The other two are mainstream orthodox. This tells a lot about where you're coming from. It's not analogous to having a Muslim book. I say The Remnant is a radtrad group and that you shouldn't link to it at all. But this is your call. If you prominently link to it like this, don't be surprised if those who know about the group form an impression of you that is to some degree a reflection of that group.
Besides that, do I not see a propter hoc fallacy here?
No. If you link to nuts and extremist "quasi-schismatics" you may be seen as one of them, or having some affinity, anyway. This is a group that you yourself critiqued as denying Vatican I and holding to positions that would entail the gates of hell prevailing against the Church. Is that not itself an objection serious enough for you to take down any link? Aren't you concerned to not lead your readers astray into such fanaticism?
It is logically fallacious that because someone once held a proposition we hold now, that we might become like them. I might also become a Muslim.
It's not "logically fallacious" at all to state a fact and warn people who may possibly go down the same road. I stated a fact and issued a warning, about Gerry Matatics:
"'Traditionalists' beware, seriously ponder, and observe closely: he was once where you are now, and you may one day end up where he is now."Matatics was at one time where you are now. And we can't rule out that some of your group may end up where he is. We don't know the future. If I had said that it is a certainty that you and other "trads" would be like him, that would be plain stupid. But of course I didn't do that. It's like saying "some marijuana users will end up using heroin" and warning them. We all know that this is not always the case (and usually not, in fact). But if you survey heroin users you will find that many started with marijuana, so there is a certain connection. Therefore, it is not improper to make the warning early on to "light" drug users so that they don't move on to become more serious drug addicts. Likewise with quasi-schismatics and actual schismatics or nutcase extremist radtrads. And I'm not saying that "trads" are the equivalent of drug users! It was simply an analogy that came to mind about a later thing being anticipated by a former.
Then why is it that this is not happening? Again, see above. There are Papally chartered religious orders which only say the Traditional mass in good standing with the local Bishop who have not done either, . . .
I have no problem with "Papally chartered religious orders". But I have a huge problem with Catholics who are irrationally hostile to the Mind of the Church, because this is a quite "unCatholic" attitude.
For that matter, Una Voce has been around for almost 30 years and has done neither of these things, and the current Holy Father gave them his support as Cardinal Ratzinger.
Una Voce is a pretty good group. I didn't see any links to nutcase groups like The Remnant or Seattle Catholic or Catholic Family News. Great! It looks very respectable and non-objectionable, in my opinion. They even praise Pope John Paul II, as in one page on their site written by Michael Davies:
The climax of the pilgrimage was the papal audience on Monday 26 October [1998], a memorable day in the history of the traditionalist movement. The most important aspect of the audience was that it took place. It was not certain that it would be accorded until a few days before this date. The Holy Father made it clear to the three thousand traditionalist pilgrims, who manifested their love and devotion to him with such enthusiasm, that he considered them to be as fully Catholic as those attached to the New Mass. He referred to legitimate diversity and sensibilities worthy of respect, urged all Catholic to proclaim the Gospel together, and asked the bishops to have "renewed attention to the faithful who are attached to the old rite."Apparently Davies thought much more highly of Pope John Paul II than you do, huh Bill? The first link on their Archive page is an article: NYC Symposium on Tridentine Rite to Honor John Paul II. So you appear to be quite a bit to the "right" of them.
After his address the Holy Father received individually the superiors of the priestly societies and religious communities dedicated to the Traditional Mass, and a representative of the International Una Voce Federation, Mr. Jan Filip Libicki from Poland. It was presumed that after doing this the Pope would return to his apartments, but instead he left his chair and walked spontaneously to the fifty priests and seminarians standing on the steps of St. Peter's, representing the four hundred and fifty plus priests and seminarians present for the audience. Pilgrims had been advised to be in the enclosure reserved for them by 11.30 am, but by 11 a.m. every place was taken and the monks from Le Barroux, about fifty in number, together with many other priests and seminarians, were unable to gain entrance. The Holy Father was evidently moved by the youth, devotion, and immaculate clerical attire of the seminarians that he met. He spent several minutes talking to them and agreed willingly to be photographed with them. We know from a totally reliable source that after returning to his apartments, the Pope spoke enthusiastically to members of the Curia of the positive impression that the seminarians had made upon him. It would be impossible to lay too much stress on the fact that where the internal politics of the Vatican are concerned, the fact that the audience took place, and that the Holy Father reacted to his meeting with traditionalist clerics in such a positive manner, must be a cause of joy and hope to every traditionalist Catholic. . . .
It is impossible to overestimate the importance of this pilgrimage. The celebration of traditional Masses for overflow congregations has made a tremendous impact in the Holy City itself, above all among students of the Roman seminaries, many of whom were present and took part in the processions. This impact has certainly been noted in the Curia. The fact that the Pope agreed to grant an audience to the pilgrims, that he once more urged bishops to make the traditional Mass available to those who request it, and the fact that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gave a public lecture in favour of the Traditional Mass, have a significance that will not be fully appreciated for several years. Above all, in view of the dearth of vocations in the west, the presence in Rome of more than four hundred priests and seminarians dedicated to the celebration of the Traditional Mass, will have had an impact that cannot possibly be overestimated.
So your observation has not taken into account all Traditionalists in all situations.
Never claimed that it did, so that is neither here nor there.
The fact of the matter is that very few have taken the sedevacantist route (Deo gratias!). So far time is against you, but we'll wait the next 30 years.
If some have, then it is a valid observation that I made. I never claimed "all" -- as you have made out or even necessarily very many. The fact remains that "trads" are shifting all the time going in this direction and that.
I am certain I will be in the same place, and thanks to the work Pope Benedict has set in motion, there will be many other people there with me.
You say you've changed from just a few years ago. You've shifted all over the place through the years, by your own account. How can you be so sure you won't again? You could say this about my Protestant background, and you'd be right. But once I became a Catholic I have been in the same "place" for now seventeen years and I haven't shifted a bit from the center of "radical orthodoxy." I found the pearl of great price. I don't need anything else. I don't need a vaunted "second conversion," as "trads" so often tell us we need.
I can't help but notice, you focus a lot on degrees and qualifications when you are predicting my future
Where did I predict your future, pray tell? You need to understand the distinction between a warning based on analogy and precedent and an outright definite prediction or prophecy.
What fundamental teaching of the Church on ecumenism am I required to assent to in which I do not? (or for that matter anything else?) I accept the authority of the Church to carry out dialogue as it sees fit, I just don't agree that its use of that authority is a good idea.
Your disdain for it (as a good, typical "trad") is apparent in how you deal with the Assisi meetings and the Koran incident, that I have written about. I don't think you understand the principles behind it, that one article on my site (by a Fr. Morselli, explained very carefully, drawing constantly from St. Thomas Aquinas.
There is no doctrine that I pick and choose, and nowhere in scripture or tradition are Catholics required to give their assent to the prudential decisions of the hierarchy. If they were, how could you dissent from Pope John Paul II's determination that the war in Iraq did not meet Just War teaching?
I provided you a lengthy explanation of that, including statements from Pope Benedict XVI that gave Catholics a perfect right to hold opinions on these matters of what is a just war or not. But you don't like ecumenism at all. If it were up to you, would you take the decree on Ecumenism completely out of Vatican II? That gets back to accepting the Council on the surface, yet wishing that it were not what it is. Sorry, that's not accepting the Mind of the Church, if you feel that way. To me it's self-evident. I'm embarrassed to even have to discuss it.
You have pointed out yourself that Catholics who disagree with the Church's current position on the Death Penalty and the War are not considered dissenters.
Precisely because the Catechism and recent popes have expressly stated this!
You went so far as to declare that the modern Vatican is pacifist.
I never stated such a thing. You must be more careful in presenting my opinions. If I weren't replying, someone could read this and think I held to something that I do not in fact hold. You linked to my paper on the Pope and Iraqi issue in citing this. You don't cite my own words, though, let alone provide any of the crucial context. The word "pacifist" appears exactly once in it. Here is the context:
Where did I predict your future, pray tell? You need to understand the distinction between a warning based on analogy and precedent and an outright definite prediction or prophecy.
What fundamental teaching of the Church on ecumenism am I required to assent to in which I do not? (or for that matter anything else?) I accept the authority of the Church to carry out dialogue as it sees fit, I just don't agree that its use of that authority is a good idea.
Your disdain for it (as a good, typical "trad") is apparent in how you deal with the Assisi meetings and the Koran incident, that I have written about. I don't think you understand the principles behind it, that one article on my site (by a Fr. Morselli, explained very carefully, drawing constantly from St. Thomas Aquinas.
There is no doctrine that I pick and choose, and nowhere in scripture or tradition are Catholics required to give their assent to the prudential decisions of the hierarchy. If they were, how could you dissent from Pope John Paul II's determination that the war in Iraq did not meet Just War teaching?
I provided you a lengthy explanation of that, including statements from Pope Benedict XVI that gave Catholics a perfect right to hold opinions on these matters of what is a just war or not. But you don't like ecumenism at all. If it were up to you, would you take the decree on Ecumenism completely out of Vatican II? That gets back to accepting the Council on the surface, yet wishing that it were not what it is. Sorry, that's not accepting the Mind of the Church, if you feel that way. To me it's self-evident. I'm embarrassed to even have to discuss it.
You have pointed out yourself that Catholics who disagree with the Church's current position on the Death Penalty and the War are not considered dissenters.
Precisely because the Catechism and recent popes have expressly stated this!
You went so far as to declare that the modern Vatican is pacifist.
I never stated such a thing. You must be more careful in presenting my opinions. If I weren't replying, someone could read this and think I held to something that I do not in fact hold. You linked to my paper on the Pope and Iraqi issue in citing this. You don't cite my own words, though, let alone provide any of the crucial context. The word "pacifist" appears exactly once in it. Here is the context:
Nations were granted the power of the sword in the Bible itself (Romans 13), and the Catholic Catechism (#2309) freely grants this prerogative to states. Not even the pope can override that. The Catholic Church recognizes this, and a pope can advise nations as to a prudential course of action in real world affairs, but does not have ultimate jurisdiction over them. The Vatican pretty much speaks pacifist-type language all the time, because the pope is part "peacemaker" in his pontifical duties. It doesn't follow that there is no such thing as a justified war, or that nations can never declare war. There certainly are justified wars, and that has been the constant teaching of the Church.
Pacifism is a doctrine of modern liberalism and opposed to the Just War teaching in the Catechism.
Of course it is, as I have always made clear when I approach the topic, as again above.
Should I conclude that you think the magisterium is full of liberals?
No; I conclude that the Vatican generally speaks the language of peacemaking because that is appropriate for his position as the leader of the Church begun by the Prince of Peace. But that makes neither the pope nor the Church pacifist, and it doesn't mean that no one can have an opinion on particular military actions as just.
If John Paul II's job is to promote peace and never admit war when it is in fact justified, how can he be in line with his own Catechism which maintains that war is Just under certain conditions and circumstances?
Because talking in terms of peace and reconciliation does not logically require one to be a pacifist. If, for example, I tell my son and some kid he is hanging out with (where there is somewhat of a history of conflict) that they should get along and not fight with each other, that is a true statement. I believe that, and it is good advice. But if a situation comes up where this other kid starts to get violent with my son, then I (the same person who talked "peace") completely agree that he should defend himself if necessary. Is it a contradiction? No, because you give the advice for peace and harmony, according to the best case scenario. But you also remain realistic (just as Jesus did when he told the disciples to buy a sword) as to the time and place where self-defense is quite justified. Likewise with popes and just war. We know just war is the teaching of the Church. Reasonable Catholics in good faith have the prerogative to disagree on particulars.
Furthermore if the determination of whether an initiative meets the qualifications of just war is up to states, then you will have anarchy since in the modern constitution of states no one abides by Catholic teaching.
Romans 13 does that. The Catholic Church merely follows Holy Scripture. So now you want to war against St. Paul too?
Essentially, such a teaching gives Adolf Hitler the right to decide he is justified in invading Poland, since as you claim Just war teaching gives states the right to determine what is a just war.
States have the jurisdiction; it doesn't always follow, however (quite obviously), that they will exercise this prerogative justly or wisely.
But we are getting too far afield. I have no problem with your ability to criticize the Pope on the issue of the Iraq war,
Really? Then you must have had a great change of mind, since you wrote (just a little over a month ago, in the post that caused me to take notice of your site because I was mentioned in it, and I saw it in a Google search):
Consider those who remained completely in favor of the Iraq war, just as the mainstream of neo-conservative apologists were, when their hero, John Paul "superstar" condemned it? You get a situation where I, one of the late Pope's critics, agree with him, and your ever faithful apologists opposed him! Yet no claims of disobedience arose, and when confronted with it they will ignore you or say they just cut the Pope some slack by not criticizing him. Seriously, is that not private judgment?
Of course it is, as I have always made clear when I approach the topic, as again above.
Should I conclude that you think the magisterium is full of liberals?
No; I conclude that the Vatican generally speaks the language of peacemaking because that is appropriate for his position as the leader of the Church begun by the Prince of Peace. But that makes neither the pope nor the Church pacifist, and it doesn't mean that no one can have an opinion on particular military actions as just.
If John Paul II's job is to promote peace and never admit war when it is in fact justified, how can he be in line with his own Catechism which maintains that war is Just under certain conditions and circumstances?
Because talking in terms of peace and reconciliation does not logically require one to be a pacifist. If, for example, I tell my son and some kid he is hanging out with (where there is somewhat of a history of conflict) that they should get along and not fight with each other, that is a true statement. I believe that, and it is good advice. But if a situation comes up where this other kid starts to get violent with my son, then I (the same person who talked "peace") completely agree that he should defend himself if necessary. Is it a contradiction? No, because you give the advice for peace and harmony, according to the best case scenario. But you also remain realistic (just as Jesus did when he told the disciples to buy a sword) as to the time and place where self-defense is quite justified. Likewise with popes and just war. We know just war is the teaching of the Church. Reasonable Catholics in good faith have the prerogative to disagree on particulars.
Furthermore if the determination of whether an initiative meets the qualifications of just war is up to states, then you will have anarchy since in the modern constitution of states no one abides by Catholic teaching.
Romans 13 does that. The Catholic Church merely follows Holy Scripture. So now you want to war against St. Paul too?
Essentially, such a teaching gives Adolf Hitler the right to decide he is justified in invading Poland, since as you claim Just war teaching gives states the right to determine what is a just war.
States have the jurisdiction; it doesn't always follow, however (quite obviously), that they will exercise this prerogative justly or wisely.
But we are getting too far afield. I have no problem with your ability to criticize the Pope on the issue of the Iraq war,
Really? Then you must have had a great change of mind, since you wrote (just a little over a month ago, in the post that caused me to take notice of your site because I was mentioned in it, and I saw it in a Google search):
Consider those who remained completely in favor of the Iraq war, just as the mainstream of neo-conservative apologists were, when their hero, John Paul "superstar" condemned it? You get a situation where I, one of the late Pope's critics, agree with him, and your ever faithful apologists opposed him! Yet no claims of disobedience arose, and when confronted with it they will ignore you or say they just cut the Pope some slack by not criticizing him. Seriously, is that not private judgment?
or even for you to claim he is a pacifist.
But I never claimed that (nor have I ever believed it); it is a distortion of what I stated.
The point is that you are doing it.
I never called the pope a pacifist.
If one prudential decision of the Pope can be criticized, so can another, so long as we do not add in epithets, or make judgments on things we couldn't possibly know such as his motives.
Once again: it is one thing to disagree on a matter where the pope expressly says that a Catholic is fully at liberty to disagree; quite another to trash the entire Mind of the Church with regard to ecumenism. You seem to have never "met" an ecumenist endeavor that you ever liked. You appear to collapse all of them into ersatz liberal ecumenism. That would include the many ecumenical efforts I have undertaken myself, or have defended, and I ain't no liberal, any more than the last two popes were.
I don't know why the Pope kissed the Qur'an, and I don't need to know unless he would have decided to fly out here and tell me while he was alive.
You've figured it out in your own ruminations on the issue.
The point of it is the action in itself is an affront to every Catholic martyr to Islam, and it was imprudent. To say that is not to approach Protestantism.
I disagree strongly, and I explained why in my recent paper on that vexed issue. You are burdened by fallacious reasoning again.
Ecumenism and apologetics are different, but they are not antithetical to each other. I've made this point a thousand times. Ecumenism is about looking for existing common ground with others and rejoicing in that. Apologetics is about defending and contending for one particular view as the best one to have. How is this contradictory?
It isn't if Ecumenism as practiced was what you say it is. But if we say Vatican II reconciled with Tradition says that there is one true Church, and we will pretend that it isn't the case, then they are in fact contradictory, especially when the Ecumenical movement is a novel creation of the 20th century, was previously condemned by Pope Pius XI specifically because it espoused the covering over of differences.
Where to begin? So you say that Vatican II contains no heresies, and we have the Decree on Ecumenism. You have conceded that this decree contained within itself the notion of the One True Church and convincing people to become part of it, as the ultimate goal of ecumenism. Now you say that Pope Pius XI condemned the "Ecumenical movement." How can this be? How can a pope in a magisterial pronouncement (if what you refer to is that) contradict an Ecumenical Council? It's exactly what Martin Luther argued at the Diet of Worms in 1521, of course. He's the guy who thinks Ecumenical Councils contradict each other.
Pope Pius XI condemned indifferentism, as he should, because it is theological relativism and minimalism. Vatican II ecumenism does not pretend that Catholics don't believe what they do. The ecumenical strain of thought goes back to the early centuries. We see it in how St. Augustine approached the Donatists. We see it in St. Paul on Mars Hill and in Jesus when He dealt with the Roman centurion and the Samaritan woman. It is in St. Thomas Aquinas to a great degree and in many patristic passages dealing with salvation outside the Church. I've written about all these things in papers listed on my Ecumenism page.
You have simply assumed that the "Ecumenical movement" (however you are defining that) is indifferentist. But Vatican II ecumenism certainly is not, nor is the ecumenism practiced by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. If you condemn the liberal version of ecumenism, then you have no beef with me, because I do the same, and have for many years, just as vigorously as any "traditionalist" does.
This is why Traditionalists automatically eye the word with suspicion, because Popes when there was not a widespread apostasy in the Church warned us about it.
Because again you throw the baby out with the bathwater, as so often. You confuse abuses and distortions of things with the things themselves.
Can it be practiced in a Catholic way? Sure, if it does what you describe. The problem is it does not.
You simply assume that; and I say it is without adequate reason or factual basis.
But I suppose it is private judgment to suggest what my human reason tells me when I see Cardinal Kasper or the USCCB telling me Jews don't need Jesus Christ to be saved.
I'm not gonna go down that road. I'm sure in context it is all consistent. There are nuances of meaning and different senses of things.
To say that Pope John XII was wrong for having homosexual relations in the Lateran palace is not approaching private judgment. Why?
Obviously not. If something was a (verified) fact, then we ought to condemn it. I've written a lengthy post about the bad popes.
There is less condemnation in scripture for homosexuality than there is for idolatry. I don't think you could find anyone but a crack pot liberal to defend that. Yet John Paul II advocated for false religions to pray to their false idols for peace, twice in 16 years, in a manner reminiscient of David and Solomon, minus that he didn't do it himself.
He did not. He said, in effect, "let us all pray together in the same place, for the same purpose. My two papers posted on my site in defense of the Assisi conferences (one / two) explain this. The principles of such an action are drawn directly from St. Thomas Aquinas.
He probably did it with great intentions hoping, no, longing for peace. You noted that he is a pacifist, so this would make sense.
I did not, as noted twice above. Please read my words in context. Thank you.
The fact is that he encouraged idolaters to pray to their false gods on the sacred ground.
I deny this. There is a sense in which one can acknowledge even a false religion. St. Paul did it in Athens, saying:
Acts 17:23-29 So Paul, standing in the middle of the Are-op'agus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, `To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, for `In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, `For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.
Note how St. Paul cites (bolded above) two pagan poets and/or philosophers: Epimenides of Crete (whom he also cites in Titus 1:12) and Aratus of Cilicia (17:28), and expands upon their understanding as well (17:29).
What you are doing when you argue and think like this, is adopting the Protestant mentality of the Church not being able to recognize truth in non-Catholic religions, and even utilizing aspects of them, "baptizing" them for use in Catholicism. Surely you are familiar with this process with regard to Christmas, Easter, and Halloween. But a certain kind of Protestant doesn't get that. For them, there can be no good thing in a non-Christian religion. Black and white. Either/or. it must be completely evil. This is how many fundamentalist Calvinists think. But that is not how the Church approaches things.
It is not as if he was on some traditional Hindu site and observed silently as a diplomatic figure some Hindu worship. If that were all that took place anyone making a serious issue out of that would but nuts. The problem is he actually commissioned himself the Hindu worship.
He did not in the sense in which you imply, as if he was giving consent to the religion itself. St. Thomas Aquinas would defend it (that is, the thing rightly understood and portrayed).
In the basilica of St. Francis of Assisi in a separate room.
It wasn't in the basilica; only the Christians prayed there (see more on that below).
It is even on the Vatican website.
Great. Now we can look at something concrete (the link you gave). Let's see what this source tells us:
He did not in the sense in which you imply, as if he was giving consent to the religion itself. St. Thomas Aquinas would defend it (that is, the thing rightly understood and portrayed).
In the basilica of St. Francis of Assisi in a separate room.
It wasn't in the basilica; only the Christians prayed there (see more on that below).
It is even on the Vatican website.
Great. Now we can look at something concrete (the link you gave). Let's see what this source tells us:
Some of the Representatives then read testimonies in favour of peace.
The second part is given to prayer. The Representatives and their delegations, respecting their own religious convictions, go to pray in different places. Christians of the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities pray together in an ecumenical celebration in the Lower Basilica of Saint Francis.
As a sign of communion and hospitality, the programme also includes a fraternal meal for the Representatives and their delegations in the Sacro Convento.
So you're saying that representatives of the world religions cannot come together and pray separately in different rooms for world peace? That's some terrible thing? You'd say, "no, we can't do that, because to do so necessarily presupposes and sends a message to the world that we all think all religions are equal because we agree that world peace is something worthwhile to pray for." This is ridiculous.
Apparently the main ceremony was in a square in Assisi, not in a church. The Christians prayed in the "lower basilica". The non-Christians prayed in a convent. Thanks fore the reference! You make me argument a lot easier to make, and save me the trouble of looking stuff up.
If they are praying to the same God why do they need separate rooms?
No one's saying that they are praying to the same God. That's not possible with regard to religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism. You make the false assumption and foolishly think that this was the premise of what took place there. But it is not. It couldn't possibly be from a Catholic perspective.
What is it about Dominus Iesus that is so hard to comprehend? One would think this would be more than sufficient to verify that nothing has changed, and to stop this nonsense of reducing Catholic ecumenism to supposed indifferentism. We know what John Paul II thought about other religions. This document cites him:
To introduce any sort of separation between the Word and Jesus Christ is contrary to the Christian faith . . . Jesus is the Incarnate Word -- a single and indivisible person . . . Christ is none other than Jesus of Nazareth; he is the Word of God made man for the salvation of all . . . In the process of discovering and appreciating the manifold gifts -- especially the spiritual treasures -- that God has bestowed on every people, we cannot separate those gifts from Jesus Christ, who is at the centre of God's plan of salvation.
(Redemptoris missio, 6)
You say they shouldn't even be in the same city as a Christian church, to pray? What are they supposed to do: go to Albania and meet at a garbage dump? Where does that come from? That would mean that St. Paul couldn't be in Athens, down the street from an idol, commending pagan Greeks for their religiosity and favorably citing two pagan thinkers. It would mean that Christians would be adopting the very attitude that Jesus rebuked:
Matthew 9:9-13 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him. And as he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."
If they are not then there is only one conclusion: JPII had asked, for whatever intentions, most likely good, for, scripturally speaking idolaters to worship false gods (which are demons Ps. 95/96).
Nope. He is accepting the fact that folks have different religions. These folks agreed that terrorism was bad and that world peace was good. They came together to express that and make a statement. Folks with different religions pray. The following two propositions (coming, in this scenario, from Pope John Paul II) are not identical:
Matthew 9:9-13 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him. And as he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."
If they are not then there is only one conclusion: JPII had asked, for whatever intentions, most likely good, for, scripturally speaking idolaters to worship false gods (which are demons Ps. 95/96).
Nope. He is accepting the fact that folks have different religions. These folks agreed that terrorism was bad and that world peace was good. They came together to express that and make a statement. Folks with different religions pray. The following two propositions (coming, in this scenario, from Pope John Paul II) are not identical:
1) I am commissioning you to pray to your false gods and idols and expressing my agreement with this action, as equally valid as Christian prayer.#1 sanctions false religion; #2 does not at all. #2 is what Pope John Paul the Great did. #1 is the "traditionalist" caricature of what he did. Thomas Aquinas explains the relevant distinction here, if anyone would just read the paper defending Assisi by Fr. Morselli.
2) I am recognizing that you are a religious person as I am [Acts 17:22]. Though we disagree on many things, we agree on world peace. Let's come together, therefore, and pray as we all believe in good faith, in separate rooms: the Christians in a church and the non-Christians in a nearby location, for the purpose of world peace.
This is what I am talking about when I speak of false ecumenism.
You don't even understand what this was in the first place. Until you do, you cannot make a proper conclusion, because it will be a false one based on a mistaken false premise.
What did any of the Assisi participants think when they left? Did any of them have even the sense that Catholicism believed it was a true religion?
That wasn't the purpose: which was to pray for world peace and an end of terrorism. Your fallacy lies in thinking that any good thing ceases to be a good thing simply because another good thing was not part of it. It's like saying:
Dave Armstrong helped an elderly woman who fell in the street get up, and helped get her a Band-Aid and gave her a glass of lemonade. But the woman went away not knowing that Catholicism was the true Church. Therefore, Dave Armstrong must not believe that Catholicism was the true Church and he must think that all religions are equal.
So now the first act becomes essentially a bad thing, simply because the second didn't occur? Of course not. This is utterly illogical thinking and it is ridiculous. This is such manifestly bad logic that I am embarrassed to even have to explain how it is.
He [Matatics] is taking to himself the authority to determine that the Pope is a heretic
You have said he is a lousy sinner and lousy pope who shouldn't be canonized. Both assertions are falsehoods. I don't see a whole lot of difference, in terms of the offensiveness and "ugliness" of each. In fact, your statements are a lot more offensive, in my opinion, than Matatics' nonsense. At least he holds to sedevacantism and acts accordingly His prior view predetermines how he will view Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. You know better, but you keep saying crazy things like this anyway.
So what is it I am required to do by Vatican II that I don't do?
Understand how authentic ecumenism (including Assisi I and II) is in accord with the developing Mind of the Church and prior Catholic Tradition, and accept it as such, and cease railing foolishly against virtually all ecumenism. If you would confine yourself in your blistering criticisms to the illegitimate manifestations of ecumenism, I would have no disagreement with you.
Not too long ago the Papal nuncio participated in a Hindu religious ceremony at the John Paul II cultural center, and its implications were so obvious that even a non-Traditionalist diocesan priest had to ask whether or not the Nuncio made a mistake, because his Sensus Catholicus looked at that picture and told him there was something wrong. It is not Protestant to suggest that those in authority might make a mistake,
He [Matatics] is taking to himself the authority to determine that the Pope is a heretic
You have said he is a lousy sinner and lousy pope who shouldn't be canonized. Both assertions are falsehoods. I don't see a whole lot of difference, in terms of the offensiveness and "ugliness" of each. In fact, your statements are a lot more offensive, in my opinion, than Matatics' nonsense. At least he holds to sedevacantism and acts accordingly His prior view predetermines how he will view Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. You know better, but you keep saying crazy things like this anyway.
So what is it I am required to do by Vatican II that I don't do?
Understand how authentic ecumenism (including Assisi I and II) is in accord with the developing Mind of the Church and prior Catholic Tradition, and accept it as such, and cease railing foolishly against virtually all ecumenism. If you would confine yourself in your blistering criticisms to the illegitimate manifestations of ecumenism, I would have no disagreement with you.
Not too long ago the Papal nuncio participated in a Hindu religious ceremony at the John Paul II cultural center, and its implications were so obvious that even a non-Traditionalist diocesan priest had to ask whether or not the Nuncio made a mistake, because his Sensus Catholicus looked at that picture and told him there was something wrong. It is not Protestant to suggest that those in authority might make a mistake,
I agree that he acted wrongly, from the information you have given me, so I think you are right to criticize it.
. . . and even to point it out, though granted some Traditionalists do go overboard, but given what the Church has been through in 40 years, can you really blame them?
Yes, because right doctrine and belief have to be in harmony with right reason (Aquinas all the way there). We can't expect to have a proper faith while entertaining a lot of false premises and fallacies because we are so emotional that we can't distinguish properly between true and false ideas, and true scandals over against actions which are not at all. It's lousy thinking! That's the main cause of it; not (I don't think) some desire to be overly schismatic or holier-than-thou.
Catholics never believed that that it was Protestant private judgment to criticize a prelate, or even a Pope if he was doing something wrong.
As you saw (because you cited my related paper, and presumably read the whole thing), my position is not (and never has been) that one can never do it, but rather, that "trads" do it for the wrong reasons and about 432,764 times more often than is proper or necessary.
You bring up this example of burning incense to a false god. That's a clear case of a wrong and scandalous act. But then you seem to equate Assisi I and II with the same thing, when they were not at all. Thus, you are forced to caricature Assisi I and II and caricature my opinions on criticizing popes, to get your point across. This is neither impressive nor persuasive. If your opinions on these matters hold weight and are compelling, then you would not have to construct straw men about the things you are critiquing in order to shoot them down.
Is St. Thomas either a quasi schismatic or (were he alive today) on the road to join the likes of Matatics and Derksen? Certainly not.
I agree; we have no disagreement here. St. Thomas also provides the principles for authentic Vatican II ecumenism, as Fr. Morselli demonstrated.
Granted, I don't know all the details of the SSPX because I don't follow all those things as "trads" do, so perhaps I spoke wrongly in some respect where they are concerned. There is some irregularity there to some extent, in any event, no, at least in the ordinations that were condemned? And why the need for the group at all now, if "trads" are allowed to attend Tridentine Masses, and they are more available than before. What is its purpose and reason for existence?
Now who is practicing private judgment? There has never been the slightest suggestion from the magisterium that those who attend SSPX chapels are schismatic.
Alright. I stand corrected on that point, then. I also heard this confirmed in person by Fr. Joseph Skelton, a priest-friend of mine, who conducted the Tridentine Mass that my family attended last week. That said, I think SSPX should be fully reconciled with the Church. The very fact that we even talk of "reconciliation" and of a need for "full communion" not yet attained means there is some separation. If there were no concerns at all, then the pope wouldn't have this standpoint.
Is it possible? Sure, but it is just as possible for one to go into schism at a local Church in union with his bishop if he wills to separate himself from the Catholic faith.
And that was basically my concern anyway and why I have adopted the description of "quasi-schismatic" for the attitudes and worldviews that I have observed in much of "traditionalism."
So on what grounds can you surmise they are in schism? By exercising private judgment . . .
I wasn't exercising mere private judgment, but going by what the pope said. Now, there have apparently been further developments, and there are, no doubt, nuances involved that I could very well have missed because I haven't been following all this stuff (not much for eight years now), but in any event, it ain't "private judgment."
and assuming that the faithful who go there positively will to separate themselves from all communion with the Roman Pontiff, when in reality I can bet you most of those who are there have been driven there by the Bishops the last 4 Popes put in place who despise authentic liturgy and sent in the clowns for 40 years.
Right, and this is what Luther and Calvin and their minions would have said, too. They were driven to become Protestants by widespread abuses in the Church and purported contradictions between councils and popes.
I basically live my life as if Vatican II never happened. . . . the only time I ever worry about Vatican II is sometimes when I blog. Otherwise I don't really care.
That's the problem. You reject the Mind of the Church after 1962, which is exactly like a Protestant saying that the Holy Spirit stopped operating in and protecting the Catholic Church in 313 or with Pope St. Gregory the Great or around 1000 or in the Middle Ages or in 1517. It's "quasi-defectibility" (to coin another term). You're like Joseph Dollinger and the Old Catholics who couldn't wrap their minds around papal infallibility, and so rejected the authority of Vatican I and lived their lives as if it had never happened (and now the so-called "Old Catholics" have women priests; real "traditional" . . .). But you don't see the absolute folly of all this.
Liberal and conservative are fluid concepts with no fixed meaning, they are different in difference circumstances.
It's easy: a (theological / Catholic) liberal is a modernist or dissenter from one or more dogmas of the Catholic Church; or heterodox. I wasn't talking about economic or political liberalism.
First, as I've noted, you actually work trying to bring people into the Church.
Yes, as do my colleagues in the apologetics movement: some converts and some (e.g., Karl Keating, Pat Madrid, Fr. Peter Stravinskas, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and in the past, Frank Sheed and Hilaire Belloc) not. So why do you scorn apologetics and apologists (seemingly, particularly Karl Keating and Mark Shea) at all? Why do you say we are somehow compromised with modernists, and give us this description of "neoconservatives"? And you pass right by my pointed (and extremely relevant and important) question about being a laborer for the harvest. You have scorned what we do, but offer nothing as an alternative, in terms of bringing folks into the Church. Some might conceivably call this rank hypocrisy or, at the very least, profound inconsistency.
Where is your fruit? Where are the "trad" websites filled with conversion and "reversion" stories, as with the Coming Home Network that I work for, or Pat Madrid's Surprised by Truth book series that have sold over half a million copies: bringing people into the Church by the multiple hundreds? Seems to me that if your ranks do not have that fruit, but desire to see it as a result of the labors of others (us notorious "neoconservatives", in bed with the modernists half the time), then you should refrain from blasting those who are involved in that worthy endeavor. Live and let live. Different parts of the Body of Christ with different functions . . .
You not only blasted apologetics but specifically convert apologists, as if that has any relevance to anything. St. Paul, St. Augustine, Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Ronald Knox, and Evelyn Waugh would be turning over in their graves. We seem to be your biggest target after popes. So you constantly attack the heads of the Church and also those laymen and priests most zealous to defend Holy Mother Church. Sounds very Catholic there. It resembles nothing more than the liberal and Protestant approaches. I'm despised the most by anti-Catholics (both Protestant and Orthodox). My other great critics, historically, have been "traditionalists" and Catholic liberals. I get along fine with most other people, including the majority of atheists I have dialogued with.
Many prelates don't seem interested in that, or else we wouldn't hear of "false ecumenism" on EWTN or Catholic answers.
That's true, but then laymen were given much encouragement in Vatican II and subsequently, to be involved in sharing the faith and defending it. And so we have, and much fruit is evident. Perhaps y'all aren't as interested in apologetics and evangelism since you thumb your noises at Vatican II. So you spend most of your time bellyaching and running down the Church rather than encouraging people to join it as the fullness of truth. I'm happy to hear of one person, though, who came in as a result of your efforts (he reported this on my blog). Does he now think that the Church stinks, too? Has he had his "second conversion" yet?
So while the Traditional Movement has been scorned, persecuted and despised actively by the hierarchy, . . .
Michael Davies didn't seem to think so, in discussing what happened in 1998 (cited above).
in many cases the apologetics movement doesn't have the same stigma, except perhaps in LA or Rochester NY.
We're despised by the anti-Catholics, Catholic liberals, and "traditionalists," as I have said. The conjunction of all three as our biggest critics makes perfect sense, and fits in quite well with my observations of the similarities in all three groups. I often observe "trads" agreeing with anti-Catholics over against the Church. Anti-Catholics regularly cite Matatics these days, in agreement with their positions.
Besides that, who until a few years ago knew anything about the Traditional liturgy at the parish level?
I've been attending a very traditional Novus Ordo Latin Mass for over seventeen years in my parish.
Now that the Traditional Liturgy has been restored to the life of the Church by the Holy Father, . . .
Though you continue, nonetheless, to call him a "modernist" . . .
We're not going anywhere, and as the number of Traditional Masses increases, so do we.
I think the opposite effect may obtain. As the Tridentine Mass becomes more available (I hope it increases exponentially: the more the merrier), then the big gripe that "traditionalists" have will be eliminated, and their existence will have far less justification. Hence they can simply be orthodox Catholics, as I've been all these years, without the need to have a fundamentally negative, reactionary approach to all things Catholic. Perhaps they can learn to again think with the Mind of the Church as she moves through history. Maybe the popes can become good guys and heroes again. You never know. Stranger things have happened. Soviet Communism fell during my lifetime.
What you present me on the other hand is no different than a business partner who would withdraw funds if you said something he didn't like.
I do have an Imprimatur on The New Catholic Answer Bible. I have the enthusiastic recommendation of Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.: one of the most respected and orthodox catechists in the second half of the 20th century.
No, the problem is that as soon as we get blasted for it, we backpedal. Within days of its release Cardinal Cassidy declared "Those with ears more attuned to dialogue would have written a different document."
Why is that necessarily "backpedaling"? He's simply saying that ecumenical and more dogmatic or apologetic language are two different things: two different approaches. But different is not the same as contradictory. That is your category mistake.
Why would a document stating Catholic truth cause so many misunderstandings if inter-religious dialogue and engaging non-believers in conversion are the same thing?
They're not the "same thing." This is what you don't seem to understand. But they do not contradict. A lot of people wrongly think they do, though (the same motley group of anti-Catholic Protestants, "traditionalists", and Catholic liberals). Anti-Catholic Protestants like neither ecumenism nor Catholic apologetics, "trads" despise the former (and oftentimes the latter, too!), and liberals trash the latter (I've had them trash my books in reviews; I know). Orthodox Catholics like (and try to engage in) both. It's the importance of both truth and unity insofar as possible without compromise . . . Both/and, not either/or.
But when it comes to the Pope's opinion or Michael Novak's, you side with Michael Novak?
If the pope himself and the Catechism says I am allowed to differ, yes. It's a non-issue.
I think the opposite effect may obtain. As the Tridentine Mass becomes more available (I hope it increases exponentially: the more the merrier), then the big gripe that "traditionalists" have will be eliminated, and their existence will have far less justification. Hence they can simply be orthodox Catholics, as I've been all these years, without the need to have a fundamentally negative, reactionary approach to all things Catholic. Perhaps they can learn to again think with the Mind of the Church as she moves through history. Maybe the popes can become good guys and heroes again. You never know. Stranger things have happened. Soviet Communism fell during my lifetime.
What you present me on the other hand is no different than a business partner who would withdraw funds if you said something he didn't like.
I do have an Imprimatur on The New Catholic Answer Bible. I have the enthusiastic recommendation of Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.: one of the most respected and orthodox catechists in the second half of the 20th century.
No, the problem is that as soon as we get blasted for it, we backpedal. Within days of its release Cardinal Cassidy declared "Those with ears more attuned to dialogue would have written a different document."
Why is that necessarily "backpedaling"? He's simply saying that ecumenical and more dogmatic or apologetic language are two different things: two different approaches. But different is not the same as contradictory. That is your category mistake.
Why would a document stating Catholic truth cause so many misunderstandings if inter-religious dialogue and engaging non-believers in conversion are the same thing?
They're not the "same thing." This is what you don't seem to understand. But they do not contradict. A lot of people wrongly think they do, though (the same motley group of anti-Catholic Protestants, "traditionalists", and Catholic liberals). Anti-Catholic Protestants like neither ecumenism nor Catholic apologetics, "trads" despise the former (and oftentimes the latter, too!), and liberals trash the latter (I've had them trash my books in reviews; I know). Orthodox Catholics like (and try to engage in) both. It's the importance of both truth and unity insofar as possible without compromise . . . Both/and, not either/or.
But when it comes to the Pope's opinion or Michael Novak's, you side with Michael Novak?
If the pope himself and the Catechism says I am allowed to differ, yes. It's a non-issue.
What's so terrible about the vernacular? If the Church from very early on deemed it important enough to translate Holy Scripture into all the languages, then by what principle do you assert that this ought not be done at Mass?
By the principle of a Sacred Language. Jesus said the first Mass in Hebrew, not in Aramaic, as was necessary for the passover at that time. There are three sacred languages which hung over our Lord's head, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and in terms of practability, it is great to have the same Mass in Rome as I might attend in Idaho. It is also a symbol of the universality of the Church.
First of all, Latin was not yet a sacred language at the time of the crucifixion. It was the language of pagan Rome, persecutor of both Christ and Christians. So the Church was wrong to translate Holy Scripture into the vernacular, by this same principle of "Sacred Language"? Certainly if she were wrong to do so with regard to the Mass, then she would also be wrong in the case of Scripture; even more so, because that is God's inspired Word, and was written originally in Hebrew and Greek. But to assert that would be laughable. As another reductio: why even bother with the Latin translation, since Greek was the original and what God chose to use? So this is a thoroughly incoherent position.
I would suggest to you that Islam is growing while Catholicism is declining because of the ritual, the formalized prayers and the discipline,
I would suggest to you that it is far simpler and more elementary than that: Islam is growing while Catholicism is growing (not declining) at a slower pace, because Muslims still believe in having lots of children, and we no longer do. Demographics is destiny: in the religious world as well. They have always had the rituals, but they did not always have to compete with a religion whose "adherents" -- for the most part --, have an anti-child mentality. That came about just in the last 50 years. They have children and they don't kill preborn children as we Catholics and other Christians do by the millions. We are neck deep in the religion of Molech.
Thanks, Bill, for your input and responses, and the challenge. I appreciate the effort and time you have put in, and the cordiality, though we continue to profoundly disagree on many things.
First of all, Latin was not yet a sacred language at the time of the crucifixion. It was the language of pagan Rome, persecutor of both Christ and Christians. So the Church was wrong to translate Holy Scripture into the vernacular, by this same principle of "Sacred Language"? Certainly if she were wrong to do so with regard to the Mass, then she would also be wrong in the case of Scripture; even more so, because that is God's inspired Word, and was written originally in Hebrew and Greek. But to assert that would be laughable. As another reductio: why even bother with the Latin translation, since Greek was the original and what God chose to use? So this is a thoroughly incoherent position.
I would suggest to you that Islam is growing while Catholicism is declining because of the ritual, the formalized prayers and the discipline,
I would suggest to you that it is far simpler and more elementary than that: Islam is growing while Catholicism is growing (not declining) at a slower pace, because Muslims still believe in having lots of children, and we no longer do. Demographics is destiny: in the religious world as well. They have always had the rituals, but they did not always have to compete with a religion whose "adherents" -- for the most part --, have an anti-child mentality. That came about just in the last 50 years. They have children and they don't kill preborn children as we Catholics and other Christians do by the millions. We are neck deep in the religion of Molech.
Thanks, Bill, for your input and responses, and the challenge. I appreciate the effort and time you have put in, and the cordiality, though we continue to profoundly disagree on many things.
.jpg)
.gif)
.jpg)
