Mark,
Right on... Good link!
I am SO IN agreement with Mark Cameron! It isn't even funny! But it is joyful!
Unfortunatly Mr. Cameron, my brother the Radtrad Anti-Semitic Fringe (redundant isn't it?) will now label you a "conservitive". Then again that label will no doubt be applyed to all Tradtionalists loyal to the Catholic Faith ("Tradtionalists loyal to the Catholic Faith" another excercise in redundancy).
Nah, Mark doesn't have to worry about being labelled a neo-catholic by the Lidless Eye crowd. He speaks fluent French, has access to authentic traditionalist thinking coming out of France, and can always cross over into, what one author in Latin Crass Magazine denounced as "ambiguous French centrism".
Pete Me Lad!
"Latin Crass Magazine"? Was that a mispelling or on purpose? If on purpose, good work my friend!
Oh yes, and how many times in the past few days have I had to listen to your go on and on about speaking French in order to obtain a true understanding of traditional thinking in the right manner? Yes, one now must speak French to be a real Gnostic traditional Catholic--or perhaps have Canadian roots. Whatever. I agree wholeheartedly with nearly everything Mark Cameron writes, but not so much with what I have seen and how I have seen it written by Mr. Vere and BenYachov. I wonder how come?
I might also add that David Flusser has made a strong case that the "cleansing of the Temple" probably did not involve whips or violent overturning of tables. He makes a good case (based on greek text) that Jesus simply began to remove the offending tables (perhaps rather quietly). The discussion is found in his book "Jesus" republished in a 2000 edition.
ToddV
Ah yes... the wonderfully PC and Exegeted historico-critical version of Sacred Scripture. You're probably right. THe Church has probably been wrong all these years about "righteous indignation." Ah yes...
No. Just said he doubted the whips and violent expression of anger. A rebuke and righteous indignation are not excluded.
By the way, I'm okay with a show of anger in the cleansing of the Temple (and with the whips and all). But if the greek text might better support Flusser's understanding I have no problem with that either.
I don't accept many of the pseudo-scientific certainties of "historical-critical" scholars.
ToddV
So Brian,
You think "righteous indignation" is a good thing? If so I do too. Though you seem to get upset when it's directed at THE REMNANT or heterodox & schismatic fringe groups in their catagory.
Your ad hominem attacks without differentiation are quite childish and getting boring. I don't agree with much of what The Remnant writes, but most of what Thomas Woods and Chris Ferrara write. If you can't make distinctions and want to categorize people broadly, then so be it. However, in an age of ecumenism, don't you find it strange that you are more "ecumenical" to the Jews than you are to your Catholic brethren who don't have the same interpretation of orthodox as you do? Quite interesting, isn't it?
>Your ad hominem attacks without differentiation are quite childish and getting boring.
As it is getting very boring reminding you how I make a distiction between Traditionalist (who are Catholic) & Radtrads who are not.
>I don't agree with much of what The Remnant writes, but most of what Thomas Woods and Chris Ferrara write.
This is good to hear. I'm sure there are some things in their writings I would agree with. I can't comment on Woods but Ferrara has gone off the deep end. Thus it tants him & pushes him off to the fringe.
>If you can't make distinctions and want to categorize people broadly, then so be it.
To bad you don't follow your own advice when it comes to Cardinal Kaspar & Cardinal Ratzinger.
>However, in an age of ecumenism, don't you find it strange that you are more "ecumenical" to the Jews than you are to your Catholic brethren who don't have the same interpretation of orthodox as you do?
Radtrads reject ecumenism as do anti-Catholic fundamentalists. So it is an invaled comparison. Most Jews accept ecumenism.
Tell me Brian (& don't dodge the question by cut/phasting whole books) do you really think the REMNANT crowd is interested in ANY form ecumenism? Outside of ecumenism with schismatic psuedo-Traditionlist groups who share their hatred for Vatican II of course.
>Quite interesting, isn't it?
I agree very interesting.
Actually, sorry to disappoint Pete and James, but I faithfully buy every issue of Latin Mass Magazine, which I find to be one of the most consistently interesting traditionalist publications out there. I have my problems with The Remnant or Catholic Family News, but LMM is, in my books, very good. I don't read French publications all that much, but I would agree that there are some fine trad publications in France. But I fear that Pete Vere and I might disagree as to which ones those were! I would hate for people to think that being Canadian or speaking French makes one an automatic neo-conservative - after all, Fr. Gruner is Canadian, and Abp. Lefebvre was French (this is not intended as an endorsement of either of their views, btw).
As for David Flusser, he was a Jewish scholar, very much concerned to minimize Jewish-Christian differences. I'm not totally opposed to all historical-critical scholarship, but it must be remembered that all scholars have motives. And actually, most "historical Jesus" scholars seem to think the opposite, that Jesus' action in the Temple was a violent, perhaps riotous upheaval. It is often hypothesized that this event was what led to the
Jewish and Roman authorities deciding to arrest and crucify Him. Quietly moving a few tables around probably wouldn't have been enough to provoke that.
Anyway, I am thankful for the plug from Mark Shea, as I wanted to make it clear that even though traditionalists sometimes worry that the U.S. Bishops, Cardinal Kasper, etc. go too far in arguing that Jewish-Christian differences are unimportant, it should not be assumed that we all go to the other extreme of Fahey or Coughlin-style anti-Semitism.
BTW to James, I don't see how Brian can get blasted for not showing due deference to Cardinals Kasper and Ratzinger when the two have been blasting each other in the Catholic press. Ratzinger is widely known to have opposed Kasper's nomination as Cardinal. I have little problem with Cardinal Ratzinger's statements, but I think that Kasper has crossed the line of orthodoxy on several occasions, inclduing his view that Christ is not necessary for Jews.
Mark Cameron,
Well bro, no accounting for taste.
What the hell was with their article attacking Humanae Vitae? Was that really called for?
>BTW to James, I don't see how Brian can get blasted for not showing due deference to Cardinals Kasper and Ratzinger when the two have been blasting each other in the Catholic press.
I'm more annoyed at him misrepresenting Cardinal Kaspar's views & not quoting the Cardinal's own words & providing links to them. So they can be fairly judged. I never said I agreed with Cardinal Kaspar's views or disagree for that matter.
Re: the Latin Mass Magazine on Humanae Vitae
John Galvin's article was a cogent attempt to argue not that Humanae Vitae was wrong, but that it was poorly reasoned compared to traditional Catholic moral teaching, and that this poor argumentation contributed to its non-reception by many Catholics. Furthermore, Galvin was answered by two rebuttals in the very same issue of the magazine. I hardly thought this was extreme criticism of the Pope, nor that it merited the vicious attacks on LMM that it generated.
Let me put to you another way Mr. Cameron. I was once in the catagory of persons who A-prior dissmised Cardinal Kaspar as a hopless liberal. At one time if a "conservative" or "traditionalist" said Cardinal didn't believe in converting the Jews I would have accepted it uncritically.
I've since learned that's not all black & white. I came to these conclusions when I read Kaspar's own words.
"Missionary activity"-- as the Second Vatican Council taught - "is nothing else, and nothing less, than the manifestation of God's plan, its epiphany and realisation in the world and in history" (Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity "Ad gentes", 9).
For Christians this includes giving testimony of Jesus the Christ TO ALL (empisis added) and in all places; for Christians this is the mandate of Jesus Christ himself (Matt 28,19). They cannot renounce doing so without renouncing to be Christians. Yet giving this testimony is undertaken differently in relation to Jews with respect to Gentiles. Our mission (in the wider sense of the word) towards Jews is different from that towards Gentiles. But just as Jews cannot remain silent on their hope in the Messiah to come, we Christians cannot remain silent on our hope in Jesus whom we call the Christ (Acts 4,20), He is for us the foundation, the fulfilment, the joy and happiness of our life. We are called to give account of this hope which is in us (1 Peter 3,14),"
I was not asked what is my view on the Ratzinger vs Kasper debate. I was not asked if I thought Kaspar had an ambiguity problem. I saw it stated that he believed Jews didn't have to become Catholics at all.
Certain persons complain we live in an "age of murkiness..." but where not very clear themselves & keep changing the debate & claiming I believe all traditionalist are "lidless eyes".
Mark Cameron wrote:
>John Galvin's article was a cogent attempt to argue not that Humanae Vitae was wrong, but that it was poorly reasoned compared to traditional Catholic moral teaching, and that this poor argumentation contributed to its non-reception by many Catholics. Furthermore, Galvin was answered by two rebuttals in the very same issue of the magazine. I hardly thought this was extreme criticism of the Pope, nor that it merited the vicious attacks on LMM that it generated.
VERY INTERESTING! Like in the case of Cardinal Kaspar I might have to re-evaluate my views of the "Latin Mass Mag".
Still I guess most "conservatives" (I will include myself in that catagory for sake of arguement) respond to knee jerk tendencies on the part of some traditionlists with knee jerks of their own. I might have very well fallen into this catagory.
Thanks for the straight answer to a straight comment. I may have to change my mind. Straight answers are so much better then innuendo. Mine or others.
"Latin Crass Magazine"? Was that a mispelling or on purpose?
It was a typo. For some reason, something always get lost in the translation when I'm talking about publications like the Remrant and Catholic Famished News.
Brian writes: Oh yes, and how many times in the past few days have I had to listen to your go on and on about speaking French in order to obtain a true understanding of traditional thinking in the right manner?
Well it is not my fault that the traditionalist movement was founded in France, or that the vast majority of authentic and credentialled traditionalist theologians are French.
But I fear that Pete Vere and I might disagree as to which ones those were!
The CIEL proceedings, Kephas, and La Nef are probably the best. In the English language, the three most hopeful traditionalist publications are Oriens, the Latin Liturgy Association newsletter, and The Saint Austin Review. I lost complete respect Latin Crass Magazine after those ugly articles they published about the FSSP and Fr. Devillers a few years ago.
Kasper and Lehmann both allowed the Church to continue giving abortion certificates to women before they were allowed to get abortions even after asking repeatedly to stop it by the Pope himself. Enough said regarding those two.
As for Ratzinger, this quote is from "Theological Highlights of Vatican II" referenced previously, as well as Kasper's quotes and articles that Mark posted here. This was written in 1966 immediately following the Council:
Ratzinger then sums up the new teaching of the Council:
"... the recognition of a plurality of Churches within the Church implies two lines of change:
"(a) The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality. He must also recognize the need for a thorough Catholic renewal (translation: revolution, Ed.), something not to be accomplished in a day. This requires a process of opening up, which takes time. Meantime, the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches. The Church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to."
"(b) A basic unity – of churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it." (3
Comments? If you want the context, I can provide more, but it will prove my case, not the neoCons's case.
"even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it?"
Jesus said: Those who accept His Word will be saved. Those who reject it will be condemned. The NT is chock full of the need for conversion. But, truly, we are seeking a "unity" without necessarily requiring conversion.
James,
The statement you are quoting is from Cardinal Kasper's November 6, 2002 speech, which was in part a response to the "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" document and the ensuant controversy. I must confess I was previously unaware of this speech, and I am glad to see that Cardinal Kasper seems to ave modified his position.
However, undoubtedly the reason he gave it is that it was Cardinal Kasper's own ambiguous remarks that in part justified the original RCM statement. Here are some of Cardinal Kasper's remarks on Dominus Iesus, published May 1, 2001:
"The Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.
This touches the problem of mission towards Jews, a painful question with regard to forced conversion in the past. Dominus Iesus, as other official documents, raised this question again saying that dialogue is a part of evangelization. This stirred Jewish suspicion. But this is a language problem, since the term evangelization, in official Church documents, cannot be understood in the same way it is commonly interpreted in everyday’s speech. In strict theological language, evangelization is a very complex and overall term, and reality. It implies presence and witness, prayer and liturgy, proclamation and catechesis, dialogue and social work. Now, presence and witness, prayer and liturgy, dialogue and social work, which are all part of evangelization, do not have the goal of increasing the number of Catholics. Thus evangelization, if understood in its proper and theological meaning, does not imply any attempt of proselytism whatsoever.
On the other hand, the term mission, in its proper sense, is referred to conversion from false gods and idols to the true and one God, who revealed himself in the salvation history with his elected people. Thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the true and one God. Therefore – and this is characteristic - it does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews. There is dialogue with Jews; no mission in this proper sense of the word towards them."
These were the remarks of Cardinal Kasper that had conservative and traditional Catholics upset, not his subsequent clarification.
From Fr.William Most and EWTN's website from his 600 level theology course on the "Authority of the documents of Vatican II":
Appendix I:
Decree on Ecumenism Summary
Preliminary observation: This decree shows a more
sharp change than any other document of Vatican
II. To grasp this we need to keep in mind three
distinctions: 1)Doctrine -- This we believe
because of the promises of Christ; Vatican II
reversed no doctrine,made only a few small
changes by giving decisions on previously debated
points; 2)Legislation or commands: Vatican II
made large changes in the legislation on liturgy
-- We should obey commands unless immoral.The
changes in liturgy of course are not immoral. But
some Bishops do give immoral commands,e.g, an
order to use textbooks for Catholic schools which
do not convey the faith or even contradict it;
3)Prudence or good judgment -- this refers to
either of the two items above. But here there is
no promise of Christ,no claim by the Church,to
protection in prudence. So if someone thinks
something is done in defective or poor
prudence,he is not breaking with the Church
(e.g,the prudence of liturgical changes or of
handling of ecumenism). So these three
distinctions are important: someone not knowing
them might break on the matter of prudence,but
then, not knowing the lines and distinctions,
might go on to break on items 1 or 2,where he
should not break.
From the Document on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council:
"However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic
communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which
of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action."
Ecumenism is DISTINCT from ecumenical action. If that's the case, then what is the ultimate goal. How do we have unity without truth and conversion?
Pardon "reconciliation" is DISTINCT from ecumenical action. So is the goal of ecumenism the conversion of the material heretics or isn't it?
Mark: I agree totally with what you wrote on your blog.
My respect for LLM died when I heard that they had published "We Resist You to the Face"; what was that all about?
As for the cleansing of the Temple, I don't agree that it was nonviolent, though I was always under the impression that the whip of cords Our Lord used (St. John 2:15) was to drive out the sheep and oxen. He did not swing it at the people, but expelled them by His forceful words - and by flipping the tables over.
A lovely little Catholic book, _My Mediations on the Gospel_, published by the Confraternity of the Precious Blood, argues that Jesus' righteous anger was nonetheless controlled by His reason, so He did not go overboard, but showed just the right amount of force and indignation called for by the situation.
Sorry, that's LMM, not LLM; so much for hasty typing.
"We Resist You to the Face" wasn't put out by Latin Mass Magazine - that was The Remnant. I agree that there was a lot in that book that went way, way too far.
Mark Cameron,
Like I said I was put off at the misrepresentation of Cardinal Kaspar's view (based on one paraphrased quote taken out of context. I have no trouble with an honest critique of the Cardinal Kaspars published statements. Still people who read into them what they want get on my nerves.
Mark C. wrote: "'We Resist You to the Face' wasn't put out by Latin Mass Magazine - that was The Remnant."
Not so fast. The problem with the "We Resist You With a Turkey Baste" statement is not only that it was put out by the Remrant and Catholic Famished News, which is not surprising given that they more or less draw their writers from the same puddle, but that its principle defenders at the time (Woods and Ferrara) came from Latin Mass Magazine. (In fact, wasn't Woods, if I recall correctly, LMM's managing, or at least associate or contributing, editor at the time?) In my opinion as a canonist, the piece was at least materially schismatic. Additionally, while I'm not normally one for guilt-by-association, given some of LMM's other activities at the time (like, for instance, bashing Fr. Devillers, the current Superior General of the FSSP) along with a number of other traditionalists back home, I began to wonder whether the only ideological difference between LMM and the Remrant is about three years. Regardless, I stopped reading LMM at that point because I really wasn't interested in finding out. Fortunately, our chapel back home is bilingual, so following our priest we all switched over to La Nef.
So Brian,
Rather than talk about one thing at a time you want to talk about half a dozen things at a time.
Typical. Didn't you just notice Mr. Cameron changed my "neo-con" mind about the Latin Mass Magazine. He just went straight to the point. Unlike some people who just want to throw globs of mud to see what sticks.
Brian wrote:
"Kasper and Lehmann both allowed the Church to continue giving abortion certificates to women before they were allowed to get abortions even after asking repeatedly to stop it by the Pope himself. Enough said regarding those two."
WHAT THE HECK IS THIS NONSENSE? Cardinals giving abortion certificates to people? I have never heard of such a thing. Cardinal Kaspar giving abortions to people?
Pete? Mr. Cameron? Do you know what he is talking about.
Brian also wrote:
""... the recognition of a plurality of Churches within the Church implies two lines of change:
"(a) The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality. He must also recognize the need for a thorough Catholic renewal (translation: revolution, Ed.), something not to be accomplished in a day. This requires a process of opening up, which takes time. Meantime, the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches. The Church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to."
"(b) A basic unity – of churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it." (3
Comments? If you want the context, I can provide more, but it will prove my case, not the neoCons's case."
Just one comment. It took me just about five minutes to figure out your "quote" are cut & paste off of CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS a Radtrad rag.
Found here:
http://
www.catholictradition.org...reparation3.htm
I would have been more impressed had you found the full text of Cardinal Ratziner's writings online & gave a link. So we could all read it for ourselves.
Instead you give it to us pre-packaged from an Oh sooooo unbiased (sarcasim alert!) lens of Radtrad fringers.
I would rather debate a Protestant & have him give me a link to a text of one of the Church Fathers. Then have him cut & paste William Webster's pre-digested views of the Fathers (In which he has a tendency to make them look all soooo Reformational).
In short Brian. I can't take you seriously. Try quoting the unbiased texts & providing links next time. There is a good fellow.
Mark C:
Guess I didn't make myself clear; I meant that I had heard that LMM had approvingly published the text of the aforementioned "Turkey Baste" manifesto in their magazine two years ago (Sept 2000, maybe?). Whether it was printed in its entirety or just exerpts, I'm not sure. My source could be mistaken, though.
A lot of comments here that are probably losing a lot of people.
First to James, Brian is right about the abortion certificates. German law said that women had to get certificates from a counselling centre in order to have an abortion. Some Catholic church funded clinics were giving out these certificates, and Rome protested against the practice for years. Lehmann, the head of the German bishops conference at the time, defended giving the certificates and his diocese was one of the last ones in Germany to continue issuing them, and Kasper defended Lehmann in doing so. Then they both became Cardinals.
The quote from Ratzinger is accurate, whatever its on-line source was. However, I'm not sure that it's fair to quote the progressivist Ratzinger of 1966 compared to today's Cardinal. It is widely acknowledged that Ratzinger shifted right some years after the Council due to student radicalism in Germany, the decline of faith in the Church, etc.
To Rosemarie, no, LMM never published the "We Resist You to the Face" piece (it was about 100 pages long, as I recall). Woods and Ferrara, who are indeed LMM contributors, and Woods an editor, did write subsequent articles - not in LMM, but in the Remnant - which did not defend the content of "We Resist You", but defended its authors from the charge of schism and sedevacantism, and more generally defended traditional Catholics from the hysterical attacks of Stephen Hand and others in the Wanderer. Woods' and Ferrara's defence was infinitely more theologically precise and logical than the original book.
And Pete, when are you going to get over this "I speak French" arrogance? It reminds me of nothing more than Crusty the Clown saying, "Nobody who speaks German could be bad, could they?"
I'm an outsider to much of the Catholic nuance here, but a healthy and scriptural take on supersessionism might be that God has a soft spot for the Jews as a group but still offers salvation to individuals through Jesus' substitutionary death.
It's a stretch to conclude that Gentiles have to come to Jesus for salvation while post-resurrection Jews get grandfathered in with the Mosaic covenant. It might not be politically correct to say so, but it's the best take I can come up with.
Mark:
1) While I disagree with Lehmann and Kasper, their point, if I recall correctly, is that the German goverment was going shut down Church run pregnancy crisis centers, which had done a reasonable job dissuading abortions. Thus they could prevent more abortions by tolerating the certificates than by a blanket refusal.
2) Hand's response in the Wanderer was not hysterical. In fact, the turning point for Hand, after which everything turned bitter, was Woods and Ferrara's hatchet job.
3) It is not arrogant to point out that most authentic traditionalist thought has arisen out of France, or that traditionalists in France have produced most of the competent and credentialled theologians within the traditionalist movement. Rather, it is arrogance on the part of certain English-speaking tridentinists and Lidless Eye integrists to maintain that their position is the traditionalist one, and that everyone who disagrees with them (and takes a more respectful approach to the Holy See and the Second Vatican Council) is a neo-Catholic or a ambiguous French centrist (LMM's term for Fr. Deviller, the Superior General of the FSSP, if I recall correctly).
On the other hand, and this was reportedly a huge concern of the traditional Benedictines in 1988, I think it is fair to ask whether English-speaking Tridentinist thought has been unduly influenced by Anglican converts who have not completely shaken their Anglo-Catholic baggage. If I recall correctly, Williamson is a convert from Anglicanism, as is Davies and a number of other influential English-triddy writers.
Mark Cameron,
I can always apreciate a straight answer as opposed to inuendo & undocumented accusation. Also a little history, backround & context help clear up matters.
"German law said that women had to get certificates from a counselling centre in order to have an abortion."
I know in Eqypt if a Coptic Orthodox Christian wishes to convert to Islam Egyptian Moslem law tells him he must first talk to an Orthodox Priest. The Priest would be given a chance to talk him out of it.
Mark where can I go find links explaining the German situation? Were the counciling certificates originally supposed to be along these lines?
On another note:
"The quote from Ratzinger is accurate...". Yes but what would the context be? It is a fact St Alphose De Liguri called Our Lady a goddess. But does he REALLY believe Mary is some fourth person of the Trinity (no doubt some fundies reading this are drooling)? Context is everything. Even in the case of "Liberal" Cardinal Kaspar all his writings should be taken into account (such as those other quotes from Kaspar I gave you that you liked). 1966 "liberal" Ratzinger is no different.
"I'm not sure that it's fair to quote the progressivist Ratzinger of 1966 compared to today's Cardinal. It is widely acknowledged that Ratzinger shifted right some years after the Council due to student radicalism in Germany, the decline of faith in the Church, etc."
Is it not interesting that Vatican II, according to the High Church Protestant Radtrad propaganda, which is supposed to be this great Liberal power in the Church moved Cardinal Ratzinger Right in later years?
Ratzinger is one of the great Champions of the Council & yet it movied him right. Interesting.
It goes to show what reading the council will do as apposed to living the "spirit" of it.
Thanks for the info Mr. Cameron. Pete do you have any comments?
Wait! I'm now reading Pete comments. Stand by......
"1) While I disagree with Lehmann and Kasper, their point, if I recall correctly, is that the German goverment was going shut down Church run pregnancy crisis centers, which had done a reasonable job dissuading abortions. Thus they could prevent more abortions by tolerating the certificates than by a blanket refusal"
So it's not all black & white. It's not like Cardinal Kaspar was trying to help women have abortions. Anymore than Pius XII's "silence" was trying to help the Nazis. They where trying to do their best in a bad situation. Very interesting. I love straight answers as opposed to inuendo.
Mark said:
The quote from Ratzinger is accurate, whatever its on-line source was. However, I'm not sure that it's fair to quote the progressivist Ratzinger of 1966 compared to today's Cardinal. It is widely acknowledged that Ratzinger shifted right some years after the Council due to student radicalism in Germany, the decline of faith in the Church, etc.
Well, I just read Ratzinger Report as well as some pages of Ratzinger's other books, as I presumed the same thing. Ratzinger denied both in the Ratzinger Report, and in subsequent interviews that his positions regarding any of these issues has substantially changed. As for the abortion certificates, they were ORDERED to STOP more than once by the Holy Father himself, and they refused. One of the reasons given for their appointment as Cardinals was that the Pope thought they could do less harm in that role than in Germany. Perhaps I will try that at work for a promotion.
As for BenYachov and CONTEXT, first I did NOT get it from CFN, but if the quotes are the same, then that destroys your ad hominem attack (Truth can be found in various places, right?) and secondly, if I could find the entire book online, I would. That is why I referenced the book to you about a dozen times now. I recently read the book, and these quotes ARE IN CONTEXT. I'm not going to quote the entire book online. They mean what they say. Why do neoCons always have to go into this denial when something that challenges their world view occurs?
Pete writes:
", I think it is fair to ask whether English-speaking Tridentinist thought has been unduly influenced by Anglican converts who have not completely shaken their Anglo-Catholic baggage."
The Anglicans believe in Scripture, tradition & reason. By tradition they mean the faith & pratice of the "undivided" church (ie before 1054AD).
The difference between a Traditionalist & a Radtrad is that the Radtrad moves the date from 1054 to 1960.
As for Michael Daves. IMHO he lives in that gray land between loyal Traditionalism & Radtradvile. I can't pin him down.
Don't intend to sound like Andy Rooney, but didyouevernotice that a lot of guys named "Mark" are blogging here? You need a program just to keep all the Marks straight. Or am I missing the Mark?
Whether Ratzinger has changed? I would propose the entire hierarchy of the Church has moved so leftward that by staying where he was in 1966, Ratzinger appears to many to be Ottaviani, which he is not. He is not a big fan of scholasticism. Here is what Ratzinger has said:
Now, has Cardinal Ratzinger changed his views since then?
In 1990, during a visit to Brazil, Cardinal Ratzinger gave an interview to the press, who asked him "What are the most marked differences between the Ratzinger of Vatican Council II and the Ratzinger of today? In other words, who has changed more?" Ratzinger replied, "I do not see a real, profound difference between my work at Vatican Council II and my present work." (40)
To the journalist Vittorio Messori, in 1984, Ratzinger admitted that since the Council, he "has not changed." (41)
The past autumn, after issuing Dominus Iesus, Ratzinger still defended using the word "subsist" to describe the Church.
In a recent interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemine, Cardinal Ratzinger explained,
"Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ Instead, it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church...’ because," he said, "it wished to ‘affirm that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church’." (42)
Brian accuratcy is irelivent. Context which is a concept you hate is relavant. It is accurate that St Alphose called Mary a goddess. Context tells us he was writing mystical poetry not a doctrinal treates.
I simply don't trust Radtrad Private interpretation. Especially when that person has an anti-Catholic agenda.
Let's have the Page numbers from the Ratzinger Report. So I can see what you are taking about. You vague inuendos have been less than helpful.
As long as we're into psychoanalysis here, did you ever notice that former RADTRADS and former Jews and former Catholics of the pre-Vatican II era, always tend to side more with their kind OR totally discredit their entire past and those who were part of it (Stephen Hand, for one, ex-Priests who become Protestant for another) than realizing the Church is large and open to all who profess the Faith. What I find most shocking though, is that those who rely upon what the Church has always clearly and consistently taught at a magisterial level (like Mortalium Animos)have their motivations infringed and get to have labels that are quite curious. I believe that traditionalists who have reservations about ecumenism and religious liberty (as a psychoanalyst myself (sic), perhaps are trying to defend Tradition and the validity of the ordinary magisterium. If not, then the next Pope could come in and say ecumenism and religious liberty are no longer part of Catholic teaching. Obviously, this could happen with ecumenism, since it was forbidden prior to Vatican II in its current form, and is only a prudential method or discipline, NOT doctrine. Comments?
"To the journalist Vittorio Messori, in 1984, Ratzinger admitted that since the Council, he "has not changed." (41"
This is just pathetic Brian. Taking one statement from the man & aboslutizing it. If I looked back at everything you every wrote I could do the same thing to you.
I could also myself say "I have never changed my views in essence." I could also say my views have changed. Both could be true. What do we mean by change? Developement or shift?
The way inviduals precive their thought is subjective. You are trying to absolutize. It's not fair.
BEN YACHOV said: Brian accuratcy is irelivent. Context which is a concept you hate is relavant.
Is this a satire? What is "accuratcy"? What is "irelivent"? What is "relavant"? I'm confused since you harp continuously on me about CONTEXT and ACCURACY, but I can't even read the pig-Latin that you write in your posts.
I've now listed this three times for you. The Ratzinger quotes are from "Theological Highlights of Vatican II" and are somewhere around pp. 78 or 84 or 87. I DO NOT HAVE THE BOOK anymore, but I read it recently for my Vatican II class. It is not available online as far as I can tell. It's not going to be available at most libraries either.
Context is one of those words that means different things to different people. Taking something "out of context" means attributing a certain point of view to someone by lifting two or three sentences out of his writing and making it appear to mean EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the obvious intention. This is NOT the case here. Like I have said before, prior to Vatican II things were quite clear. "The Church of Jesus Christ IS the Roman Catholic Church." Now we get cute and say "The Church of Jesus Christ SUBSISTS in the Roman Catholic Church," on the advice of a Luthern "bishop" to Cardinal Ratzinger during the Council. Ratzinger admits this.
"Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ Instead, it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church...’ because," he said, "it wished to ‘affirm that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church’." (42)
It preferred the expression but did not repudiate it. Also according to LG25 you are required to affirm the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church (as this is the clear teaching of Vatican II). Do you?
"I've now listed this three times for you. The Ratzinger quotes are from "Theological Highlights of Vatican II" and are somewhere around pp. 78 or 84 or 87. I DO NOT HAVE THE BOOK anymore, but I read it recently for my Vatican II class. It is not available online as far as I can tell. It's not going to be available at most libraries either."
We are past that Brian. I'll go find the book & see where you have butchered Ratzinger. Ok. You are a Fundamentalist. You take all words hyper literially. No nueance.
How about this. I assume you must be from one of the younger generations than myself since you want to be spoon-fed everything. Read the entire Ratzinger Report and "Theological Highlights of Vatican II." I have read both of them as well as "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber" and Xavier Rynne's "Letters from Vatican City." The ebb and flow of the Council appears differently from all of these. John XXIII says it is primarily not doctrinal, but then they completely change the nature of the church (subsists) and we then call it dogmatic, even though Paul VI denies this. We don't define ANYTHING at the council de Fide, but then we say each and all the documents must require submission--which parts? The traditionalist paragraphs or the modernist paragraphs? Read the Ratzinger Report and read everything Ratzinger has said. I did. I have drawn my conclusions and I tried to reconcile and harmonize these views with previous teaching and see how they are connected. It is EXTREMELY difficult to do so. Ratzinger seems consigned that we live in a different historical age than before, so the Church must be updated. The Council wanted "resourcement" and a return to Sacred Scripture and the Early Fathers, but the current form of ecumenism is nowhere to be found in Sacred Scripture NOR IN ANY MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENT PRIOR TO VATICAN II. That is some kind of development.
"The Church of Jesus Christ IS the Roman Catholic Church." Now we get cute and say "The Church of Jesus Christ SUBSISTS in the Roman Catholic Church,"
Why can't both be true? You are in Protestant fashon creating a contradiction. I berlieve both the above statements are true. Because I (unlike some of us) believe in an Infallible & indeffectable Church. LG25 says you must submit to the ordinary teaching of the Church. Even if it is not infallible.
Brian I believe (or was it Thomas) said Vatican II taught no error. So the teaching on subsistence must be true.
Trent said water baptism or the desire
there off was neccisary for Justification. Check the pre-Vatican II church teaching. ONLY water baptism makes you a memeber of the visible Church. Thus unless you want to overthrow Trent too you must believe there are two aspects of the One true Church.
I work to do. I will write more tonight when I can think about it & not write off the cuff.
Brian why don't you read this while you are at it.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ382.HTM
I don't think the High Church Protestant religion can answer it.
BEN YACHOV said: Also according to LG25 you are required to affirm the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church (as this is the clear teaching of Vatican II).
I believe the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ are identical and constitute exactly the one and same true Church. I have tried to understand the philosophical word "subsists," and have failed to be able to do so, so I rely upon what the Church has always taught and what my feeble mind can understand. It is the word "is."
I thought I was a RADTRAD? Now I am a fundamentalist. No. I am a journalist by trade who understands the meaning of words is very important. Words mean what they say. As one who will shortly have an MA in Theology, the correct usage of certain words is even more important--as is the spelling if one wants to communicate effectively the intended message to one's audience.
"I have tried to understand the philosophical word "subsists," and have failed to be able to do so, so I rely upon what the Church has always taught and what my feeble mind can understand. It is the word "is.""
Fair enough. You don't understand. But YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY IT IS WRONG.
As for fundamentalist you are using the words of Cardinal Raztzinger in a fundamentalist fasion. NOT trying to understand what he is saying. But reading into him what you want him to say. No impressed.
BEN YACHOV said: "Why can't both be true? You are in Protestant fashon creating a contradiction."
I never claimed that both CAN'T be true. You attributed that to me. Nowhere in my writings did I say that. What I did say is that the word "is" is much more clear than the word "subsists." However, since they both don't mean the same thing, I have sought what Ratzinger's interpretation is since he and the Lutheran Bishop were the masterminds behind the use of the term. Ratzinger said in an interview that of course Pius XII "didn't really mean it" when he used the word "is" in Mystici Corporis AND Humani Generis. Isn't that quaint? The Pope, when issuing a statement that was consistent with the perrenial teacing of the Church didn't really mean it.
"Words mean what they say"
Then St Alpose believes Mary is fourth person of the Trinity. Comments? He did call her a goddess remember?
"I never claimed that both CAN'T be true."
Then why are we arguing? If that is your view you can't be a Radtrad.
"Ratzinger said in an interview that of course Pius XII "didn't really mean it" when he used the word "is" in Mystici Corporis AND Humani Generis. Isn't that quaint?"
I about an exact quote rather than your characterization.
Both are true BTW. There is NO contracdiction between "is' & "subsits". Just a there is no contradiction between Jesus being Fully God & Fully Man. He is both.
The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church & "subsits" in it. Or the Feeneyites are right & only water baptiszed people can be saved. Trent's teaching on baptism by disire must then be false.
What if y'all formed a blog of your own to argue out Reactionary Dissent/Catholic issues?
Just an idea.
I read David Armstrong a long time ago. And his authority in laying out and proposing the groundwork for what constitutes an orthodox Catholic is what? He is a convert and has read a lot and has come to his own conclusions. Wonderful. I'd prefer to rely upon what the magisterium of the Church says rather than upon another convert who thinks he has the entire theological differentiations in the church figured out. Not only that, but he is quite rude and sure of himself. Are you guys friends?
Spoonfed again? I'm not writing a dissertation for a professor. Try Stephen Hand's website (believe it or not). Ratzinger says this in an interview with a journalist in response to questions regarding Dominus Jesus. Find it yourself.
" read David Armstrong a long time ago. And his authority in laying out and proposing the groundwork for what constitutes an orthodox Catholic is what?"
This is an excuse to dismiss Dave's reasonings & arguments without engaging them & yet you have so much confidence in your own reasonings & arguments. wonderful. Dave arguments uphold the Catholic Church. Yours tear it down.
Mark Shea wrote:
"What if y'all formed a blog of your own to argue out Reactionary Dissent/Catholic issues?
Just an idea."
I guess this in a hint to stop arguing here. Ok. He is right. We should comment on Mark Cameron's post not argue this side issue.
At this point I don't even know what Brian & I are argueing about anymore. I think we are argueing past one another. I prefer to talk to Markl Cameron. From him I can get the low down on loyal traditionalism. I can't pin Brian down. So I really can't say he is a Radtrad. He just keeps so much un-said that he springs on me later. I can't talk to the man so I will stop.
James wrote: "So it's not all black & white. It's not like Cardinal Kaspar was trying to help women have abortions. Anymore than Pius XII's "silence" was trying to help the Nazis. They where trying to do their best in a bad situation."
As far as I can remember, this is basically correct. And keep in mind I agree with the Holy Father and Cardinal Ratzinger, and not the two other German cardinals. However, the context was a difficult one, which is why you didn't have a clean conservative-liberal divide over it. In fact, some of the more liberal bishops sided with the Holy See, while one of the most conservative German bishops held-out against Rome until they removed his juridiction over the issue in order to avert a potential schism.
It basically came down to a principled stand vs. a pragmatic one, in which in the short-term (and possibly the long-term) the principled stand, while removing any appearance of ambiguity over the Church's condemnation of abortion as intrinsically evil, would result in more abortions.
I have seen similar debates play out politically in the pro-life movement in Canada, which is why you often see staunch pro-lifers and rabid pro-aborts oppose the same act of legislation designed to limit access to abortion. (The pro-aborts oppose it because they want free access to abortion, whereas the pro-lifers oppose it because in principle they want no access to abortion.)
In the political sphere, I'm very much in favor of the incrementalist or pragmatic approach, which seeks to limit abortion as much as possible until we can build up enough support to ban it completely. This is the approach generally taken by American pro-lifers from what I understand, and it has worked well. Basically, it acknowledges that there is a problem with the state, and we will accept temporary and small victories as we work to fix it. However, I'm not at all in favor of doing the same when it comes to the Church, since the Church must unambiguously uphold the Divine Law and the Natural Law, regardless of the political situation.
Pete,
I prefer the Life Dynamics International approach. Sue the abortionists into backrupcy! The sting operation they done against Planned Parenthood. Beauty!
Mark Cameron,
Do traditionalists believe Vatican II taught any doctrine?
Do Radtrads OTOH believe Vatican II taught doctrine but did so falliblly & it's teaching can be ignored?
Or is it believed by some that Vatican II taught nothing & only instituded Pastorial Changes in the Church? Nothing more. Your thoughts.
I'm tempted to agree with Mark Shea that we should have a separate blog to hash out trad-conservative issues. The only difficulty is that it now seems to be impossible to subscribe to the YACCS or Haloscan comment services. (BTW, anybody who can help me with a comment service, please send me an e-mail - I tried Enetation, but it didn't seem to work, but I'm not much of a techie).
On the question of abortion counselling, there is a difference between principled incrementalism in restricting abortion, as discussed in Evangelium Vitae #73 (which I support) and co-operation with evil in hopes of accomplishing some other good, as discussed in EV #74. It is a well accepted principle of Catholic moral theology that one cannot do evil so that good may come.
But I find it interesting to see Pete Vere defending the good faith and good intentions of liberal bishops who opposed the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger on a matter of Church discipline and moral teaching. Why don't traditionalists who disagree with the Holy Father on some matter or other (generally of lesser importance) get the same treatment? Instead, when a traditionalist order of priests voted overwhelmingly to limit saying the Novus Ordo to optional concelebration of the chrism mass with their local bishops, they had their elected Superior General replaced with a Roman appointee. Did Rome act like that towards the much more widespread dissent of Lehmann, Kasper, etc.? No, it gave them red hats in hopes that they would become more compliant (a generosity that was rewarded by Kasper attacking Ratzinger in print).
I also take exception to Pete Vere's innuendo about ex-Anglicans (Pete knows I am one), but perhaps he can take it up at a later date with Cardinal Newman, Cardinal Manning, Msgr. Benson, Msgr. Knox, and G.K. Chesterton. I might make a similar remark about ex-SSPXers being unable to shake off their habits of polemicism and arrogance. There is more to traditionalism than the French, ambiguous centrist or otherwise.
I don't agree with Brian on the issue of Cardinal Ratzinger. Ratzinger may argue that he didn't change, it was the other people who changed (like Reagan said he never left the Democrats, the Democrats left him), but I think this is rhetoric. Ratzinger has clearly changed in many of his judgments, and even more so in his style. (He wore a suit and tie at Vatican II - he is always in a cassock today.) The negative effects of the Council (or of the Spirit of the Council, if you prefer) and of the general cultural upheaval of the late 60s-early 70s moved him to the right.
P.S. I made a major error in quoting from the sacred Canon. I said that Crusty the Clown said "nobody who speaks German could be bad, could they." In fact, in the famous "Cape Fear" episode of the Simpsons, it was Sideshow Bob who, while applying for parole, said that the tattoo on his chest reading "Die Bart, die" was German for "The Bart, the", and it was a parole board member who replied, "Oh! No one who speaks german could be an evil man!" Mea maxima culpa
To James,
When the Council is called "pastoral", that doesn't mean that it only spoke on pastoral matters related to church organization, discipline, etc., but that when it speaks on doctrinal matters, it did not attempt to do so by formally defining doctrines, but by expressing previously held doctrines in modern, more accessible, language. Whether it was successful in this effort is still an open question.
I believe that Vatican II certainly taught about doctrinal subjects, but I believe that with the exception of places where it simply reiterated previous teachings (e.g. the Real Presence, the Trinity, the inspration of Scripture), which must be accorded infallible authority as part of the Church's ordinary and universal Magisterium, the bulk of its teachings consist of authentic, but non-infallible, uses of the ordinary magisterium. See my comment on Envoy Encore for details.
" Why don't traditionalists who disagree with the Holy Father on some matter or other (generally of lesser importance) get the same treatment?"
They should. I believe this happens because the Radtrads go too far (by blaming the Council instead of owning it) & the Traditionalists get caught in the crossfire.
I agree wholeheartedly here with Mark's assessment. BTW, I agree in principle with most all of Vere AND Cameron's analysis, for the record. I'd be interested in hearing a response. The bottom line, Pete, is that Kasper and Lehmann ended up being "promoted" after their DISOBEDIENCE.
"But I find it interesting to see Pete Vere defending the good faith and good intentions of liberal bishops who opposed the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger on a matter of Church discipline and moral teaching. Why don't traditionalists who disagree with the Holy Father on some matter or other (generally of lesser importance) get the same treatment? Instead, when a traditionalist order of priests voted overwhelmingly to limit saying the Novus Ordo to optional concelebration of the chrism mass with their local bishops, they had their elected Superior General replaced with a Roman appointee. Did Rome act like that towards the much more widespread dissent of Lehmann, Kasper, etc.? No, it gave them red hats in hopes that they would become more compliant (a generosity that was rewarded by Kasper attacking Ratzinger in print)."
As far as Ratzinger goes, I'd like to think he has changed from 1966, but he has claimed he hasn't according to all evidence, so I will take him at his word.
Brian,
I'm am not trying to be hostile here. I just want to know. Do you believe Vatican II taught any error? If so where. If not why complain about it? Or are you just upset because you don't like the pastorial changes that the taken place.
In reply to Mark BYRON's remark that "It's a stretch to conclude that Gentiles have to come to Jesus for salvation while post-resurrection Jews get grandfathered in with the Mosaic covenant":
The Catholic answer to this is that Jews and other non-Christians can be saved through an implicit desire for baptism - if they had known the truth of Christ, they would have accepted it, but they were prevented from knowing Christ through invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance doesn't necessarily only apply to the south sea islander who has never heard the Gospel, but also to those who are brought up in an atmosphere of deep prejudice against the Gospel. Their rejection of Christ is therefore not culpable. (Oh boy, now I'm going to have the Feeneyites on my case, too.)
Evangelical Protestants may not like the idea of virtuous Jews, Muslims, and pagans getting to heaven because of their invincible ignorance, but invincible ignorance is what Catholics believe gives Protestants the hope of salvation as well (as Protestants, even if validly baptized, are in schism and / or heresy)!
However, my concern about the U.S. Bishops' Reflection on Covenant and Mission document and some of Cardinal Kasper's statements is that they imply that Jews are saved through the Old Covenant and have no need of the New, even implicitly.
Mark C wrote: "But I find it interesting to see Pete Vere defending the good faith and good intentions of liberal bishops who opposed the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger on a matter of Church discipline and moral teaching."
Ah Mark, it wasn't just the liberals. There were a number of conservative German bishops as well. The point is, when Rome reigned them in, they complied.
"Why don't traditionalists who disagree with the Holy Father on some matter or other (generally of lesser importance) get the same treatment?"
They did. Dom Calvet got his Abbey, Bishop Rangel got his apostolic administration, and Fr. Rifan got his mitre.
"Instead, when a traditionalist order of priests voted overwhelmingly to limit saying the Novus Ordo to optional concelebration of the chrism mass with their local bishops, they had their elected Superior General replaced with a Roman appointee."His term had expired, he was no longer Superior General.
According to one conservative German bishop who held out to the end, yes.
I also take exception to Pete Vere's innuendo about ex-Anglicans (Pete knows I am one), but perhaps he can take it up at a later date with Cardinal Newman, Cardinal Manning, Msgr. Benson, Msgr. Knox, and G.K. Chesterton.
None of these, as far as I can tell, condemned the Sound of Music, took issue with the canonization of Padre Pio, or wrote for publications that condemned heliocentrism. Not did they take upon themselves airs of being More Catholic than the Pope. Thus the great tradition of Anglican converts continues today, through such gifted individuals as Dwight Longnecker, Adam DeVille, Chuck Wilson and others whom the Lidless Eye crowd would probably denounce as neo-Catholics. But that's exactly my point -- why is it that the conservatives get all the good converts from Anglicanism and we traddies get stuck with the guys like Williamson?
"I might make a similar remark about ex-SSPXers being unable to shake off their habits of polemicism and arrogance."
Well go ahead then, make your comment.
There is more to traditionalism than the French, ambiguous centrist or otherwise.
Yes, and it is often quite entertaining.
A blog for Trads and Cons? I've just done it. Check out the homepage link, and please email me if you're interested in being in on this blog. Thanks!
Actually Mark (C.), all joking aside, my comment about Anglican converts who become pseudo-tridentinists was not intended to be polemical. Rather, the question whether or not many of the more prominent ones ever truly shook their Anglo-Catholic baggage needs to be asked, especially in light of the failed negotiations with the SSPX last year, as well as the successful outcome to the Campos negotiations. Both Bishop Rangel and Fr. Rifan are craddle Catholics if I recall correctly. On the other hand, Bishop Williamson and Fr. Peter Scott are both converts from Anglicanism if memory serves. From what I was able to see, it was the American contingent of the SSPX that more or less took the hard-line during the negotiations with Rome (although they were assisted by the division among the French).
Ben Yachov wrote: Do you believe Vatican II taught any error?
In matters of Faith and Morals, NO. Do I believe every sentence from Gaudium Spes as if it applies to us today? NO. It says in GS, paraphrased, "The world is growing closer together day by day in unity" or something to that effect. The decree on social communications in the Church is NOT an infallible, dogmatic decree. Why an ecumenical council even wasted its time discussing such a thing is beyond. I'm for making distinctions re: Vatican II. I submit to its authority in light of Tradition, as Cardinal Ratzinger says.
If so where.
See above. Specifice statements can be in error, but NOT heretical. I could name many in Gaudium et Spes, but they are NOT concerning faith and morals. I heard from Fr. Fessio's lips that certain sentences in VII were in error.
If not why complain about it?
Not complaining at all.
Or are you just upset because you don't like the pastorial changes that the taken place.
I'm not upset. I believe that much of what is written is Vatican II can be interpreted legitimately to fit a modernist or a more conservative or traditional interpretation. I think it was a mistake to rely upon the New Theologians to direct the course of the Council, (which they did) and I find it ingenuous when neoCons say the REAL Vatican II has not yet been implemented. Who else knew better how to implement the intentions of the Council than the Pope who was there and the Bishops and theologians? I believe that the "implementation of the Council" or perhaps even the murky nature of the documents itself has brought about an unmitigated crisis in the Church as exemplified by Pat Buchanan's recent column. The Holy Spirit protects the Council from issuing heretical statements in faith and morals binding on the faithful. It does not guarantee that it was a good idea to have one or that the FRUITS afterward will be beneficial, esp. re: ecumenism and the liturgy.
Pete,
In the end it's not wuther you are a convert or not? It's wuther you are obedient or not. I truly pity them as I pity the modernists & myself because I'm a sinner.
If the SPPX doesn't want to obey Christ then they do so to their eternal misforture.
Though like I said before Radtradism has a certain Anglican quality. They just move the cut off date from 1054AD to 1960AD.
Except for the fact that Anglicans preach heresy and the SSPX are validly ordained Catholic Priests that adhere to the doctrine and morals of the Faith as always taught. The Priests are in an "irregular" situation just like the Orthodox, but the SSPX adheres to the teaching of the Church. Probably should be AT LEAST as ecumenical with them as we are with the Orthodox and Anglicans, don't you think Ben Yachov?
Mark said:
Invincible ignorance doesn't necessarily only apply to the south sea islander who has never heard the Gospel, but also to those who are brought up in an atmosphere of deep prejudice against the Gospel. Their rejection of Christ is therefore not culpable. (Oh boy, now I'm going to have the Feeneyites on my case, too.)
First, one is NOT automatically saved just because one is invincibly ignorant. Invincible ignorance neither saves nor condemns. Cardinal Manning wrote exquisitely, as well as Pius XI and XI and XII on this topic. Second, they may be less culpable if they reject Christ's message, but ONLY God can judge individual souls. To assume that Protestants in good faith are invincibly ignorant goes beyond Church teaching. We may NOT have GOOD HOPE for the eternal salvation of those who die outside the visible Church. This is from the Syllabus of Errors. Just modifying somewhat your post, not disagreeing exactly, but trying to clarify.
FWIW, Williamson was only a nominal Anglican and a practical secular humanist before his conversion to Catholicism at age 30. Culture Wars magazine says that Williamson was baptized by Lefebvre at Econe in 1973 (it doesn't say whether this was a conditional baptism or not). So I don't think he qualifies as an Anglo-Catholic convert.
Brian,
Yes, your qualifications on my post on invincible ignorance are correct. Invincible ignorance means that there is a chance for salvation, not that it is salvific. We cannot be "saved by ignorance", but rather by cooperating those graces which we are given despite our ignorance. Saying we can't ahve "good hope" means we can't have false assurance. This is why traditionally one could have a priest say a private Mass for a deceased non-Catholic, but not a public Mass. (I think this restriction was relaxed after Vatican II.)
Brian wrote: "Except for the fact that Anglicans preach heresy and the SSPX are validly ordained Catholic Priests that adhere to the doctrine and morals of the Faith as always taught. The Priests are in an "irregular" situation just like the Orthodox, but the SSPX adheres to the teaching of the Church. Probably should be AT LEAST as ecumenical with them as we are with the Orthodox and Anglicans, don't you think Ben Yachov?"
Actually, if we followed the traditional ecumenical pecking order, we should be more ecumenical with the Orthodox than with the SSPX. The Orthodox are a communion of Apostolic Churches in schism, whereas the SSPX are a schismatic movement and not a Church. Both the Orthodox and the SSPX would, however, outrank the Anglicans in the ecumenical pecking order since, despite their protests and pretensions, the Anglicans are a Protestant ecclesial communion and not a Church.
However, one of the problems right now is where exactly should the SSPX be classified on the ecumenical pecking order? They are not a Protestant ecclesial communion, since for the most part they have valid sacraments (even the two sacraments that are often invalid at present, namely confession and marriage, will be valid come another generation.) On the other hand, in theory they don't follow the traditional hierarchical structure of a Church. In practice, however, and having overturned Archbishop Lefebvre's prohibition against the Superior General being a bishop, I'm not sure Bishop Fellay's status as a bishop can really be kept separate from his status as superior general. However, I think it will take another generation or two for the SSPX to admit the schism exists and they exist as a separate Church, at which point they will settle into the position of "equivalent in law to a Church" within the ecumenical pecking order.
Brian,
"Do I believe every sentence from Gaudium Spes as if it applies to us today? NO. It says in GS, paraphrased, "The world is growing closer together day by day in unity".
Forgive me Brian but this seems rather trival. "Growing closer in unity" can mean anything. Heck the invention of the Internet shows that statement is true. It doesn't help to complain about petty things.
"The decree on social communications in the Church is NOT an infallible, dogmatic decree."
Says who? The Pope or you? I myself don't know but will wait to be spoon fed by the Church. I believe it is very wise to let the Church make such judgements. If we want to make private opinions well that's fine. However we should have the humility to realize they are only our private opinions till the Church clears it up.
"Why an ecumenical council even wasted its time discussing such a thing is beyond. I'm for making distinctions re: Vatican II. I submit to its authority in light of Tradition, as Cardinal Ratzinger says."
This is subjective. The Council can do what it wants. Still I have no idea why one should take such a negative view of the Council over such triviality.
"I'm not upset. I believe that much of what is written is Vatican II can be interpreted legitimately to fit a modernist or a more conservative or traditional interpretation."
Then stop complaining about Vatican II & do the later. Modernism is for knuckleheads. Vatican II is a sword to slay them. Who do you think the Holy Spirit will champion? Not the modrnist heretics! In the end only the orthodox will prevale. Come on man! CRY HAVOC! Unleash the Dogs of Orthodoxy!
"I think it was a mistake to rely upon the New Theologians to direct the course of the Council, (which they did)"
In the end if a theologian is orthodox who care if he is new? Augustine relyed on Plato Aquinus on Aristotile(God I can't spell!). One is not "right" or "wrong" it's just different.
"and I find it ingenuous when neoCons say the REAL Vatican II has not yet been implemented."
They are right of course. France didn't impliment Trent till the 1700's or so I've read. Same S*** different story.
"I believe that the "implementation of the Council" or perhaps even the murky nature of the documents itself has brought about an unmitigated crisis in the Church as exemplified by Pat Buchanan's recent column."
Pat could be very wrong. He is a fallible human being. It is interesting you have one standard for Pat & another double standard for Dave.
It's like blaming the Arian Crisis which got going after Nicea on Nicea. It's like blaming the Book of Romans because the Protestants found away to use it to justify their nonsense.
It's one thing to believe Altar girls are a very very bad idea. But YOU & I can't change it. All that we can do is get up in the morning & ask ourselves "What have I done to help instruct my fellow Catholics on why we have an all male Priesthood?"
You can't fly to the Moon by flaping your arms. You can't help fix the Chrch by carping about what you can't change.
This is what I mean when I say part of the problem vs part of the solution.
"The Holy Spirit protects the Council from issuing heretical statements in faith and morals binding on the faithful. It does not guarantee that it was a good idea to have one or that the FRUITS afterward will be beneficial, esp. re: ecumenism and the liturgy."
True. However the judgement on wuther or not it was a good idea to have a council is a fallible judgement for EVERYONE concerned. I have no compeling reason to believe the modernist crisis wouldn't still have happen even if we didn't have a council. So I see no reason to blame the council anymore than I see a reason to blame the Book of Romans for Protestantism.
I agree with Michael Davies. The Pope's pastorial judgements can be good, indifferent or a disaster. The Pope is fallible in such matters. But what gets my goat is the Papal critics don't want to acknowlage they are just as fallible in making such judgements on the nature of the Pope's pastorial judgements.
There is NO infallible authority instituded by Jesus Christ that can tell me Altar girls are wrong.
In the end all we can do is teach the Faith & support the Pope. Lets stop flaping our arms. The Moon is not getting any closer.
I'm spent!!!! Happy New Year Brian. I think it helps when we ask each other questions & not attack each other. Cheers!
Then stop complaining about Vatican II & do the later. Modernism is for knuckleheads. Vatican II is a sword to slay them.
What in the world does that mean? You see, I am completing my Vatican II master's class. I've read the documents. They can have a variety of interpretations. The Deposit of Faith as taught by the Fathers with emphasis on the pre-Vatican II period is "the sword to slay them."
Who do you think the Holy Spirit will champion? Not the modrnist heretics! In the end only the orthodox will prevale. Come on man! CRY HAVOC! Unleash the Dogs of Orthodoxy!
"I think it was a mistake to rely upon the New Theologians to direct the course of the Council, (which they did)"
In the end if a theologian is orthodox who care if he is new? Augustine relyed on Plato Aquinus on Aristotile(God I can't spell!). One is not "right" or "wrong" it's just different.
Pete & Brian,
I've brough this up to Brian before. He has not yet answered me. To be fair a lot has been put on his plate. So it is no doubt an oversite on his part.
Does the SPPX believe in Eccuminism? If not how can we be eccumenical with them? It's like trying to be eccumenical to THE REMNANT or Chick Publications. Eccuminism is a two way street.
Mark C: Given the decline of the Anglican communion since Little Lost Lambeth in the 1930's, when the Anglicans permitted contraception (and then appear to have applied it to their ecclesiology), is there honestly a difference between contemporary Anglicanism and secular humanism? Which brings me to my first question. Among the many Anglican converts that have come into the Church in recent years and hooked up with tridentinism, how do we differentiate those whose primary motivation is to embrace Rome from those who are primarily fleeing Cantebury?
Secondly, regardless of how devout he was or wasn't, Williamson was still a cultural Anglican growing up. How much of that baggage was he able to shed before his baptism (whether conditional or not)? And how has this affected his theology and actions since? Basically, you now have as one of the most powerful SSPX bishops a man who spent his formative years in communion with putative bishops that claim catholicity, but who were probably not troubled by the fact they weren't operating in communion with Rome.
"The Deposit of Faith as taught by the Fathers with emphasis on the pre-Vatican II period is "the sword to slay them."
What in the world does that mean?
Ben Yachov:
There are so many things you misunderstand and misunderstood about what I just wrote that I can't respond to them all right now.
Suffice to say that as a homeschooling father of five living children who is working FT and assisting through Una Voce in bringing the Traditional Latin Mass to Greenville (on a monthly basis) and pursuing an advanced degree in theology, I believe I am doing what I can to assist in building God's kingdom.
Sorry you thought the points raised about Vatican II were without merit. Just FYI, Mark Cameron's posts are quite right on with most of my take on things.
"There are so many things you misunderstand and misunderstood about what I just wrote that I can't respond to them all right now."
Fair enough!
"Suffice to say that as a homeschooling father of five living children who is working FT and assisting through Una Voce in bringing the Traditional Latin Mass to Greenville (on a monthly basis) and pursuing an advanced degree in theology, I believe I am doing what I can to assist in building God's kingdom."
Diddo! I'm a Father trying to help my autistic four year old. I'm a great believer in home schooling.
"Sorry you thought the points raised about Vatican II were without merit."
It's only my fallible opinon. Let the Church decide!
" Just FYI, Mark Cameron's posts are quite right on with most of my take on things."
I agree with much of Mark & much of Pete. They may be the difference between saying 1+1+3 vs 2+3. In the end they both equal 5.
Does the SPPX believe in Eccuminism? If not how can we be eccumenical with them?
Although a few do in principle, under very strict and limited conditions, in practice the SSPX denounce (I think it was either Scott or Williamson) even what they call trad-ecumenism, which is why they prohibit their followers from even frequenting the indult. I think one of their superiors (I cannot recall which) even went so far as to state it was a mortal sin to do so. In fact, Mark and Brian probably haven't been around the traditionalist movement long enough to remember (although I think Mark might have come in at the tail end), but up until maybe five or six years ago, the official position of the SSPX was that those who frequented Ecclesia Dei masses were not even traditionalists, but conservatives who had sold out. So yeah, ecumenism with them is kinda difficult. As a veteran of the ugly, and often polemical, battle where authentic trads (and other Ecclesia Dei tridentinists) asserted ourselves as traditionalists against the SSPX and sedevancantists, I cannot help but chuckle everytime I hear newcomers to traddyland fling around the term "neo-conservative" and or attempt to label me with it.
Pete,
I'd be careful about blasting the state of the Anglicans too much after Lambeth. It's just too easy to make invidious comparisons with the state of Catholicism after Vatican II. There has always been an Anglo-Catholic wing resisting liberalism and modernism within the Anglican Church. For instance, T.S. Eliot wrote his Thoughts After Lambeth after the 1930 Synod, railing at the Anglican Church for succumbing to the spirit of the Age:
"The World is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time: so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization, and save the World from suicide."
Evelyn Waugh (another Anglican convert who became a trad Catholic) could not have said better in a "Thoughts After Vatican II."
Over time, many of the Anglo-Catholics did become Catholics, as the Anglican Communion gave in on one issue after another - abortion, the ordination of women, etc. C.S. Lewis did not, so evidently he thought that the Anglican Church was still something more than secular humanism as late as 1963, but many of his literary disciples have converted.
But even today, there are still those who are "fighting the good fight." The best of them are in the Forward in Faith movement, which the Church of England has given four extra-territorial bishops (would that Rome treated the FSSP and other indult communities as well), and of course there are the various "continuing churches" such as the members of the Traditional Anglican Communion.
Those who have converted in recent years tend to be of the highest quality - the editors of the New Oxford Review, Thomas Howard, John Saward, Fr. Graham Leonard (former Anglican Bishop of London), William Oddie, etc.
Why, then, haven't all the Anglo-Catholics converted? In part because many of them are attached to what they see as good and noble in the Anglican tradition - Hooker, Laud, Little Gidding, Froude, Keble, Pusey, etc., and they don't want to be forced to give it all up, especially given the state of the current Roman liturgy and ecclesiastical chaos. Some Anglican converts have been treated well, but some have been treated abysmally: e.g. retired Epsicopalian Bishop Clarence Pope of Texas, who participated in direct negotiations on the reunion of traditional Anglicans with Cardinal Ratzinger and was told by the Pope himself that they were "in communion", was then denied even priestly ordination Catholic priest by his local ordinary - because his preists' council had voted against accepting an old conservative who was against women's ordination. Very, very few Anglican parishes that have been converted have been allowed to use the approved Anglican-use liturgy (I think about seven in the U.S. and none in the U.K.)
Given the shoddy treatment some converts - especially priests or whole parish groupings - have received from the American, English, and Canadian Catholic bishops, many of the remaining Anglo-Catholics would rather work within their own structures like FIF or the TAC and approach Rome to discuss corporate reunion, not individual conversion.
I suggest that we should have a sympathetic spot in our hearts for Anglo-Catholics and conservative Anglicans who are doing their best in exceedingly difficult circumstances. This is the approach of Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, who has been an ally of FIF, as evidenced by this speech he gave to their recent congress.
Pete,
Like I've said before. What is a "conservative" Catholic? Any regular Traditionalist who disagrees with the Radical, Anti-Semetic, lunatic & conspearacy minded psuedo-traditionalist fringe.
In time Mr. Brian, Mr. Cameron & anyone who belongs to PFSP or Una Voce or some other loyal traditionlist group will have that label thrown at them by the Lidless Eye.
Here is a thought. The Radtrads are not the Lidless Eye. The Modernist are. The Radtrads are Saruman of Many Colors. It's a better analogy.
Saruman's job was to help fight the Lidless Eye! In the end he betrayed the White Council & joined with Sauron. The Radtrads have denounced Church authority to adopt the error of Private interpretation like the modernists.
They should be loyal & fight the Lidless Eye. In the end the Radtrad like Saruman are headed for a world of hurt. Pity. Such wasted potential.
Mark Cameron,
100% agreement on the treatment of Anglican converts. Reminds me how the convertion of the Ethopian Coptic Church was botched up big time!
James (and Mark Shea, if you haven't totally tuned out - and who could blame you),
I agree with you about Saruman. I have long thought that this is the better analogy for extreme, schismatic traditionalism than Sauron's Lidless Eye. Modernism, "the synthesis of all heresies" as St. Pius X called it, is the Sauronic evil power of our day. We have to remember who the ultimate evil in our day is. I was just re-reading Ronald Knox's Belief of Catholics, which says "It seems probable enough that the Armageddon of the future lies between Cathoicism and some form of humanitarianism - I mean the attempt in some form to produce a perfect huamnity through the external pressure of breeding, education, and legal coercion." Is that more likely to come from Bishop Williamson and The Remnant, or Mikhail Gorbachev, Hans Kung, and the United Religions Initiative?
But traditionalism in its degenerate forms does have the capacity to use the powers of goodness it has been given and twist them to evil ends, as did Saruman. So please start calling extreme traditionalists "the White Hand", and I won't complain about the term so much.
Mark C., I have to blunt here. You write:
"I'd be careful about blasting the state of the Anglicans too much after Lambeth."
I would probably have more sympathy for Anglicanism and Lambeth, which I suppose is their attempt to play ecumenical council, if the Anglican communion (not Church) would admit their protestantism, accept their status as such, and quit trying to assert themselves on par with with the Orthodox in terms of respect and ecumenism. This is why my personal preference, when it comes to Catholic-Protestant ecumenism, is for the Lutherans.
"There has always been an Anglo-Catholic wing resisting liberalism and modernism within the Anglican Church."
As long as they persist in perpetuating their rebellion against Rome and as long as they continue to simulate holy orders and the other sacraments, in my opinion they are simply the right-wing of the liberals and modernists.
I know this sounds harsh, but it is how I feel. Simply put, my interest in Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism has made me much less tolerant of non-traditional forms of Christianity like Anglicanism and other forms of Protestantism. Additionally, because the Lutherans are at least honest enough to admit they're Protestant, I can respect them because Christ says "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no." On the other hand, in my opinion this honesty is lacking among Anglicans in general, and Anglo-Catholicism in particular, who concoct a theology of via media in which they assert themselves as the middle road between Catholicism and protestantism. Again, not to sound harsh, but doesn't Christ address this type of deceptive thinking in Revelation 3:16?
Those who have converted in recent years tend to be of the highest quality - the editors of the New Oxford Review, Thomas Howard, John Saward, Fr. Graham Leonard (former Anglican Bishop of London), William Oddie, etc.
Again, I have mentioned a number of converts from Anglicanism who are of the highest calibre. This is not my bone of contention. Rather, my problem is with those who only semi-convert, bring in their baggage with them, and then presume to tell the Church what to do. Put another way, I have no problem with Scott Hahn or Marcus Grodi coming into the Church from their former Reformed Calivinist roots. I don't even have a problem with each of them teaching Catholic theology or catholicizing what can be brought in from their former denomination. I do, however, have a problem when former Reformed Calvinist ministers come into the Church and begin to preach geocentrism, Nazi wartime propaganda, and other kooky ideas as authentic Catholic teaching, then presume to denounce as heretics anyone who disagrees with them, and last but not least, receive the red carpet from so-called traditionalist publications (I note none of which were French, btw) who misrepresent this as a "neo-Catholic" persecution.
Finally, with regards to New Oxford Review, I feel we are increasingly uncovering their Anglo-Catholic baggage as they go from being cheeky and fun to just plain bitter in my opinion. Additionally, I was horrified at their recent denunciation of Scott Hahn as a modernist when Dr. Hahn wrote of the feminine attributes of the Holy Spirit. Not only can these be found in Holy Scripture, but NOR but it is part and parcel of the Eastern Patrimony (both Catholic and Orthodox) which has been around when the natives of England were still worshiping poorly carved stone beatles in grass huts.
"Why, then, haven't all the Anglo-Catholics converted? In part because many of them are attached to what they see as good and noble in the Anglican tradition - Hooker, Laud, Little Gidding, Froude, Keble, Pusey, etc., and they don't want to be forced to give it all up, especially given the state of the current Roman liturgy and ecclesiastical chaos."
Again, not to sound harsh, but it would thus appear to me that these folks are more concerned about maintaining their current charade than pursuing Truth or examining the state of their soul. Again, no matter how many problems Catholic liturgy in the West is suffering from, validity generally is not one of them. On the other hand, no matter how lovely and traditional the celebration of the Anglican liturgy, it still a prayer meeting and not the Mass. Either they want to embrace Rome, or they don't. However, if they're only coming over to escape Canterbury, and are not truly going to embrace Rome, then I'm more than a little weary of corporate communion as well.
Pete,
All I can say is that you really know nothing about Anglicanism or Anglo-Catholicism, and you are showing it.
There is always a danger of converts bringing their baggage into the Church with them. There are former Protestant converts who argue that Luther was right about justification by faith. There are Pentecostal converts who import a spirituality which is alien to Catholic worship. And there are undoubtedly Anglo-Catholic converts who import overly fastidious attitudes towards the liturgy, or an inordinate love of sherry. But your wholescale dismissal of Anglo-Catholicism, which has really been an incredible outpouring of grace for the church since the Oxford Movement began, is appalling.
All I can say, as somebody who professes to be interested in Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism, is that you are not likely to impress many Orthodox by bashing the Anglo-Catholics, who they have long looked at as their closest allies in the West. When the former Ukrainian Orthodox Governor-General of Canada died last week, his Orthodox funeral liturgy was celebrated in Ottawa's Anglican cathedral.
"All I can say is that you really know nothing about Anglicanism or Anglo-Catholicism, and you are showing it."
Mark, I think I clearly stated that these are simply my feelings, thus I don't claim to be an expert on Anglicanism, nor am I particularly interested in becoming one. That being said, three things are obvious:
1) Anglicans don't have valid orders, hense they are an ecclesial communion and not a Church as the Catholic Church defines Church for ecumenical purposes. This seems to offend Anglicans for some reason.
2) Anglicans are Protestants, not Catholic, and hense the term Anglo-Catholic is at best innacurate. This implies a rejection on my part of Anglo-Catholic branch theory, namely, that Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans make up the universal Catholic Church
3) As Protestants, Anglicans don't deserve the same honor and respect that is due to the Orthodox.
Whether or not this impresses the Orthodox is another matter. It should be pointed out that given their own problems and divisions, the Ukrainian Orthodox tend to be more ecumenical than most other Orthodox Churches. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that either Moscow or Constantinople would look upon the Anglican ordination of women as a great move forward in ecumenical relations.
I think perhaps that Pete Vere, as a convert from LidlessEyeism, is still carrying around baggage of his own. Folks of this bent seem to have a deep-seated psychological need for acceptance, a craving to be on the "winning team", a compulsive desire to be in the "inner circle", and a tendency to impugn the motives of everyone who doesn't agree with their brand of religion.
But your wholescale dismissal of Anglo-Catholicism, which has really been an incredible outpouring of grace for the church since the Oxford Movement began, is appalling.
Additionally Mark, I note you use "church" as in small "c". Are you refering to the Catholic Church, or the Anglican communion?
Regardless, I think you're missing the main point. In his Catholic dictionary, Fr. John Hardon provides the following summary definition of Anglo-Catholicism: "Popular name of most Catholic sections of the High Church movement among Anglicans or Episcopalians. It stresses some form of acceptance of the papacy, the seven sacraments, and sacrificing (not merely functional) priesthood." Regardless of how they may feel about certain issues or how they present themselves, until such a time as they return to full communion with Rome, they are Protestants and not Catholic.
Pete:
Doesn't it make a little more sense to address what it is that Anglo-Catholics (or those who call themselves such) say they believe? They don't, in most cases, have valid orders, but they do believe in Apostolic Succession, so that makes them more "Catholic" than Lutherans who think apostolic succession is a bunch of hocus-pocus. True ecumenism looks for common ground, does it not?
On the basis of common ground, the hierarchical order of Catholic ecumenism should look like this:
1. SSPX and traditionalist Catholic schismatics come first. They are the 99 percenters.
2. Traditional Anglo-Catholics come next. They believe in the Catholic doctrines of purgatory, transubstantiation, the primacy of Rome, original sin, and other things that the Eastern Orthodox reject.
3. Eastern Orthodox, who deny purgatory, transubstantiation, and the orthodox doctrine of original sin.
4. Lutherans, whose confessions claim the pope is the Antichrist.
Yet, Pete, you have almost inverted this order because of your personal tastes and preferences. How is anyone supposed to take your claim to "traditionalism" seriously when you would rather dialogue with Lutherans than SSPXers or Anglo-Catholics?
Jeff, rather than dodge the issue, answer the question. Is Anglo-Catholicism, as it stands today, a form of Protestantism or Catholicism?
Answer: It is a form of Protestantism.
But as Fr. Hardon points out, it is the "most Catholic" form of Protestantism.
Like the Lidless Eye religion you supposedly left behind, you seem obsessed with labels rather than content. So instead of dodging the real issue, why don't you answer the question:
Which two religious groups listed above share the most common ground with Catholicism?
Jeff, with all due respect, it might have helped you if, in your conversion to Catholicism, you would acquaint yourself with official Catholic texts as well as the Church's traditional praxis when it comes to dealing with other Christian bodies, rather than try and impose your own Anglican bias. The established ecumenical pecking order is as follows:
1) Eastern Orthodox
2)Other non-Catholic Eastern Churches
3) Equivalent in law to Churches
4) Liturgical ecclesial communions
5) non-liturgical ecclesial communions.
As such, the ecumenical pecking order would run as follows:
1) Eastern Orthodox as a Church
2) SSPX (while we have not yet recognized them as "equivalent in law to a Church", it is simply a matter of time" if they persist in their current schismatic state. Additionally, this only applies to the SSPX, since Rome has given no comment concerning the SSPV, and Rome refuses to recognize the Thuc-line consecrations.)
3) Lutherans and Anglicans as liturgical ecclesial communions.
This is not my personal preference, this is simply the way it is. Now while I would generally argue that Lutherans should be higher in the ecumenical pecking order than Anglicans, I would, in all honesty, argue that Anglo-Catholics should be placed higher than Lutherans. But in the toss-up between Anglicanism and Lutheranism, this is simply my opinion.
What is not my opinion, however, is that Anglo-Catholicism is neither a Church nor recognized as equivalent in law to one. They are considered an ecclesial communion, or part of one. Therefore, they are beneath both the Orthodox and the SSPX in terms of what the law permits, as well as our ecumenical priorities.
Pete:
I'm no canonist, but I've read Dominus Jesus and I know the difference between a Church and an ecclesial communion. Thanks for the reminder, though.
I think we have established that Anglo-Catholics are not Catholic, and that Anglo-Catholics are not a Church with a capital "C". I agree. I get it. Let's move on.
Please direct me to an "official Catholic text" that places the EO ahead of the SSPX on the ecumenical pecking order. This assertion is ridiculous.
It is obviously necessary to distinguish between the specific goals of ecumenism. If the goal is organic reunion, then of course, that places the EO ahead of ACs (and once again, the SSPX ahead of EOs). But if the goal is conversion, or joint proclamation of Catholic truth, the ACs have the edge. That may not be in any official Catholic documents, but it flows from simple common sense.
Jeff wrote: "Answer: It is a form of Protestantism."
Exactly. Therefore, in spite of the fact it has most of the accidents of Catholicism, Anglo-Catholicism is still, in substance, Protestantism. Moreover, lacking valid apostolic succession in most cases, for the most part Anglo-Catholics are not fully initiated Christians.
Now this is not to deny that many converts have come into the Catholic Church as a result of their interest in Catholicism being sparked by certain Catholic elements that Anglo-Catholics have retained within their communion, movement, etc... However, these elements, strictly speaking, are Catholic rather than Anglo-Catholic. Moreover, until such a time as the Church establishes an Anglo-Catholic hierarchy, former Anglicans who come into the Church are Roman Catholics of the Latin Church. Anglo-Catholics, on the other hand, are Protestants.
"But as Fr. Hardon points out, it is the "most Catholic" form of Protestantism."
I don't think this is being disputed.
Pete:
Anglo-Catholicism cannot be accurately described as "in substance, Protestantism". Rather, it is a variant of Protestantism with much Catholic substance. Belief is substance, not accident.
If Fr. Aidan Nichols can recognize in the Anglican divines "the separated doctors of the Catholic Church" ("The Panther and the Hind", p. 12, then so can I, and so can you.
That should be "p. 128" inside the parentheses, instead of "p. 12" with a wicked look. Sorry.
Jeff wrote: "I think we have established that Anglo-Catholics are not Catholic, and that Anglo-Catholics are not a Church with a capital "C". I agree. I get it. Let's move on."
But that's the point, Jeff. Not being a Church, or its equivalent in law, they don't rank as highly in the ecumenical pecking order.
Please direct me to an "official Catholic text" that places the EO ahead of the SSPX on the ecumenical pecking order. This assertion is ridiculous.
It's implicit in the way the Church structures most of its general documents on ecumenism, as well as the Church's traditional practice when dealing with non-Catholic groupings of the faithful. Churches always come first, followed by their equivalents in law, then followed by ecclesial communions. Thus the reason the EO were given more recognition than the Old Catholics and PNCC at the Second Vatican Council.
Admittedly, while I can prove that the SSPX are not a Church, I cannot point to a specific document where the Church has recognized them as equivalent in law, since the Church has not recognized them as such yet. My guess is that the Church is going to wait a little while before doing so, in order to see if reconciliation can be worked out. However, barring any short-term reconciliation, it is simply a matter of time.
My guess is that the SSPX is not recognized as a Church because the schism is viewed as internal rather than external. There can be no "Church within the Church". That being the case, there are fewer objective obstacles to reunion with the SSPX than with anybody else.
Jeff, with all due respect to you and Fr. Nichols, you state: "Anglo-Catholicism cannot be accurately described as "in substance, Protestantism". Rather, it is a variant of Protestantism with much Catholic substance. Belief is substance, not accident."
As long as they believe they can remain outside of the Catholic Church, their belief is Protestant. If they truly believe they must become Catholic, then they need to do something concrete to come into the Church.
That being said, I'm not advocating that they rush into the Catholic Church. Rather, barring any emergencies, they're much better off approaching Catholicism at their own pace.
Jeff: "My guess is that the SSPX is not recognized as a Church because the schism is viewed as internal rather than external. There can be no "Church within the Church". That being the case, there are fewer objective obstacles to reunion with the SSPX than with anybody else."
No, because otherwise the Church would recognize the PNCC and CPNCC as Churches, rather than as equivalent in law to Churches. The SSPX simply don't fall into the traditional category of Church. They're a schism on the Latin side, they don't possess any sees, and they're not traditionally structured in theory. That being said, they're also fresh enough that Rome will probably hold off a little to see if any other bishops reconcile before recognizing them as equivalent in law to a Church.
Pete, I think we really need to strive for clarity here to avoid misrepresentation.
The belief in the Holy Trinity is an objectively, substantively, Catholic belief. The belief that union with Rome is not necessary to be Catholic is objectively, substantively, a Protestant belief. Anglo-Catholics are therefore Protestants who profess so much belief that is substantively Catholic that it is misleading to simply refer to them as Protestants without qualification.
With that said, we've probably already spent too much time on them. There are probably less than 500,000 solid Anglo-Catholics left in the world today, and their numbers are rapidly declining.
With a few exceptions, those who do convert are not running away from anything and don't have axes to grind against their former communions: they typcially have a healthy appreciation of where they came from and are grateful for the Catholic truth they acquired along the way. Fr. George Rutler is much more typical than Bp. Williamson in this regard.
Like Franky Schaeffer, who seems to have become Orthodox mostly as a reaction against Calvinism, the ex-SSPXer who has nothing but venom for those he left behind is not an attractive figure and is not likely to be regarded as objective when dealing with the subject.
Jeff wrote: "Fr. George Rutler is much more typical than Bp. Williamson in this regard."
Since you've wandered into today's discussion rather late, I'm going to suspend the polemic despite your comments about former LidlessEyes. If you scroll back quite a bit, we've already established that I'm not talking about the majority of, let alone all, converts from Anglicanism, High-Church-Anglicanism, Anglo-Catholicism, and I will even add evangelical Anglicanism, etc... In fact, I noted a number of excellent Catholics that are former Anglicans. I simply wonder why the Traditionalist movement seems to pick up a disproportionate number of the kooks like Williamson, as well as hardcases like Fr. Peter Scott, rather than solid individuals as shining lights like Dwight Longnecker or Fr. Rutler. We don't seem to do all that well on former Calvinist ministers either. Admittedly, this is not the case with all Protestants who cross over, since Dietrich von Hildebrands was a convert if I recall correctly, and he certainly was quite sane and balanced.
That being said, the situation is different with regards to the SSPX, in that the traditionalist movement tends to pick up the best of what the SSPX has to offer. Examples of such are: all their Benedictine Monasteries save one, the Society of St. Vincent Ferrer, the whole CIEL crowd, and a number of former SSPX priests who have since joined up with the FSSP.
I'm also wondering, quite openly, whether the SSPX schism would have been healed had Lefebvre heeded the advice reportedly given to him to Calvet, and not consecrated Williamson a bishop.
Jeff wrote: "Like Franky Schaeffer, who seems to have become Orthodox mostly as a reaction against Calvinism, the ex-SSPXer who has nothing but venom for those he left behind is not an attractive figure and is not likely to be regarded as objective when dealing with the subject."
Over supper, it occured to me that as a convert you're probably not familiar with part of the dynamic involved here, since you probably weren't a Catholic before Vatican II and it appears you have little experience with the SSPX.
Basically, before the Second Vatican Council, there was often a certain distrust of converts within the Church until they proved themselves over time. This is part of what Mark Shea and others (including myself for the most part) would call "shadow tradition", as opposed to authentic Tradition. It wasn't universal, but it wasn't uncommon either.
While Vatican II did away with this mistrust for the most part, it still persisted to some extent within the traditionalist movement. Along with this, at least what would appear to be the case in the SSPX, there was a general mistrust of Americans. With regards to the latter, for example, I don't think there has been an American appointed to a superior within the SSPX since SSPV schism in 1982, nor has there been a graduate from the SSPX's American seminary appointed superior. Regardless, when I became a traditionalist over ten years' ago, this mistrust of both Americans and converts was drilled into me.
In coming back to the Catholic Church, I must admit that these were both issues with which I struggled (initially, it was more so with Americans than with converts). Within the context of the overall Church, it was pretty easy for me to shed this baggage of mistrust toward converts and Americans, many of whom are my closest friends. I think much of it had to do with the fact that some of my best friends while studying canon law were Americans who converted to Catholicism.
However, while I found it easy to so within the context of 99.9% of the Church, for some reason I still found it difficult within the context of traditionalism. Hense the reason my favorite company among other traditionalists tends to be other former SSPX'ers or sedevacantists who reconciled with the Church, especially those who were craddle Catholics. There's simply an understanding there that others within the traditionalist movement don't possess, and I include those who have come into the traditionalist movement from the mainstream of the Church or from Protestantism rather than from the SSPX.
That being said, and I'm only speaking personally here, it is very annoying when those who were never SSPX hook up with the traditionalist movement, especially if they are more recent converts from Protestantism and weren't around when the traditionalist movement and the SSPX split, and presume to tell you what a traditionalist is as well as label you a "neo-conservative", a "neo-Catholic" or some other sanctimonious epithet they picked up from some traddy rag I have watched degenerate over the past ten years. When this happens, old prejudices, or shadow traditions, surface.
Over the past couple years, these prejudices have even hardened somewhat in response to the following: 1) watching numerous close friends among the traditionalist clergy be driven out of the traditionalist movement by recent arrivals to traditionalism (as well as Woods' attacks against Fr. Devillers in LMM); 2) Williamson's response and actions during the negotiations and their collapse; and 3) The negative reaction among Williamson, Scott, the Remnant et al to the Campos reconciliation.
Thus both you and Mark are correct in stating that I brought back some of the SSPX and Lidless Eye baggage with me when I came back to the Church. Nevertheless, in terms of how I view the traditionalist movement, I'm not sure that this is a bad thing.
Actually folks, having slept on it a little, while it was clear from the context that my comments never applied to great majority of converts to Catholicism, but simply a small minority who hook up with the traditionalist movement, I want to apologize if I gave the impression that I think all converts from Protestantism (including Anglo-Catholicism) to traditionalism are kooks. After thinking it over, I recalled the names of a number of my traditionalist friends who are converts and who have a good sense of ecclesiology and Catholicity. While I still feel this may be a legitimate issue that traditionalists need to look into (for example, Jeff's recent comments on his blog suggesting that frequenting the Novus Ordo may be a sin of omission leave a bad taste in my mouth, given that the NOM is the normative liturgy of the Church and the liturgy celebrated by the Bishop of Rome), it is by no means applicable to all converts who come into the traditionalist movement.
Mark Cameron,
I'm not dogmatically against use of the term "lidless eye" (since it involves no dogma only satirical labeling). However "The White Hand" designation may be more accurate to discribe the Radtrads.
You wrote:
" Is that more likely to come from Bishop Williamson and The Remnant, or Mikhail Gorbachev, Hans Kung, and the United Religions Initiative?"
It is most likley to come from the later. However the former will give the later aid & comfort with their witless foolishness & knavery.
LONG LIVE THE KING OF GONDOR! DOWN WITH THE LIDLESS EYE! DOWN WITH THE WHITE HAND!
I'm good for the day.
You can diss Anglicans all you want. But the so-called "Anglo-Catholic" branch nonetheless appears to view communion with Rome as an eventual goal to be pursued. Which makes them just as valid a target for reunion as SSPX or the Orthodox, and more valid than the Lutherans and Calvinists.
The real question of ecumenism for Catholic bloggers (raised by Mark Cameron earlier) is, how is Rome going about it? Honey or vinegar? Acting like the Borg -- demanding that Anglican tradition, liturgy, and song be erased -- is just going to keep large numbers of them out. Hazing the newbies may make the oldtimers feel better, but I'm not convinced it serves a valid purpose.
If Anglican Use, Byzantine, and Tridentine rites, however "different" to children of Novus Ordo, are doctrinally sound, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM with letting them propagate freely? The faithful who find their way to Rome in these other rites should be viewed as an opportunity, not as a problem.
Pete,
Having read your last post, I think you should sleep a little more, and post a little less. Happy New Year!
Hi Craig, you wrote: "You can diss Anglicans all you want."
All grouchiness aside, the issue is not so much Anglicanism as whether Anglicanism should be considered on par with the Orthodox and the SSPX. I don't dispute that there is place for Anglicans within our ecumenical considerations, and that that place may even be first among Protestants, however, our first duty is still toward those non-Catholic individuals and bodies that are fully-initiated as far as the sacraments are concerned.
"But the so-called 'Anglo-Catholic' branch nonetheless appears to view communion with Rome as an eventual goal to be pursued."
From what I'm able to understand from various definitions I have read of "Anglo-Catholicism", however, I'm open to correction on this point, is that a large number of Anglo-Catholics seek corporate reunion with Rome, but that this is not essential to the Anglo-Catholic position, and that other Anglo-Catholics seek to found their own church or communion, while others seek corporate reunion with the Orthodox.
"Which makes them just as valid a target for reunion as SSPX or the Orthodox, and more valid than the Lutherans and Calvinists."
I think we need to be careful to distinguish between a valid target for reunion, and a just as valid target for reunion. In a certain sense, every Christian body is valid target for reunion. However, from the hierarchical perspective with which the Church traditionally approaches ecumenism, Anglo-Catholicism would still not approach the Orthodox (who are a Church) or the SSPX (who are for the most part all fully-initiated sacramental Christians) in terms of ecumenical priority. However, I think it is fair to argue that the Anglo-Catholics should be a priority in terms of ecumenical effort over any other Protestant communion.
"The real question of ecumenism for Catholic bloggers (raised by Mark Cameron earlier) is, how is Rome going about it? Honey or vinegar?"
The problem, I think, from Rome's perspective, is that they tend to be somewhat suspicious of those in the West who ask for corporate, rather than individual, reunion. Granted, Rome has softened somewhat on this point since the Second Vatican Council and because of the freshness of the schism, the SSPX would be an exception to this rule.
Nevertheless, take the issue of clergy seeking reconciliation for instance. I know from my experience that with the exception of Orthodox and SSPX priests, the Church generally requires individual reconciliation as laymen, without any committal as to whether or not priestly faculties will be granted (in the case of a valid ordination) or ordination received at a future date (in the case of Protestant ministers). In short, the Church wants to insure that the non-Catholic clergyman is coming into the Church because he wishes to become a Catholic, and not necessarily a cleric. I'm just speculating here, since I don't know the fine details, but I wouldn't be surprised if Rome took a similar position with regard to Anglo-Catholicism.
That being said, there is a place for converts in the Church, however, it is not necessarily as clergy in every case, nor is it necessarily in one's own hierarchy. Nevertheless, in allowing, where the diocesan bishop is cooperative, for AURL parishes where former Anglicans can preserve their customs and traditions in communion with Rome, Rome has softened at least a little bit since the Second Vatican Council. My guess is that if former Anglo-Catholics can maintain these parishes and grow over time, they could eventually form a hierarchy or structure of their own within the Church.
Hi Mark, you wrote: "Having read your last post, I think you should sleep a little more, and post a little less. Happy New Year!"
Agreed. As I mentioned to Jeff C. in a private earlier today, I stopped participating in on-line traddy wars just a little over a years ago, was much happier as a result, and these last two weeks have been a good reminder why. As one traditionalist canonist forewarned another traditionalist canonist (I won't mention any names, but you know both of them) and I before dropping out himself, "There is nothing more useless to the traditionalist movement at this point and time than a canonist. They never listen to you and you spend more time arguing with traditionalists than you do with anyone else. Then they blame you when they find themselves in trouble for doing exactly what you told them not to do, and expect you to bail them out." From my own experience, as well as from various stories I have heard at canon law conventions from Chancery officials of how traditionalists shot themselves in the foot, this is not too far off.
PS Mark. A blessed new year to you, L. and the kids.
Crag,
You wrote:
"how is Rome going about it? Honey or vinegar? Acting like the Borg -- demanding that Anglican tradition, liturgy, and song be erased -- is just going to keep large numbers of them out. Hazing the newbies may make the oldtimers feel better, but I'm not convinced it serves a valid purpose."
I agree with you here. I believe it's a historic problem as old as Catholicism ("So Mr. Pagan you want to become Catholic? Great! Ya have to stop eating pork. I'll go get the circumcision knife." St. Paul observes then speaks "Hey! Wait just a minute here..."!)
Again you wrote:
"Acting like the Borg -- demanding that Anglican tradition, liturgy, and song be erased".
Not only do I feel we need widespead promulgation of the Anglican Useage. I believe we should in time create a Hebrew useage for Hebrew Catholics as well.
Why should the protestant Messianic Jews have all the fun & get all the converts?
James, you wrote: "I believe we should in time create a Hebrew useage for Hebrew Catholics as well."
Actually, are you sure this is necessary? I'm only going on memory from something I had read somewhere, (and unfortunately I cannot recall where), but didn't Pope Pius XII promulgate some sort or decree or grant some sort of indult allowing Hebrew Catholics to celebrate the Mass in Hebrew rather than Latin? If so, and I'm only speculating, you might already have the basis for a Hebrew usage, although I would agree it would benefit from additional Hebrew inculturation. But I know you're pretty well connected with the Hebrew Catholic movement, so at your convenience, could you please look into this for me?
Pete,
Short answer Yes. Even before Vatican II, I believe Pius XII authorized a Hebrew Trinitine Mass & a Hebrew Syrian Eastern Rite Mass. Please consult the book "Hebrew in the Church" by Pincas Lapide (Many of you will know him as the orthodox Rabbi who wrote a defence of Pius XII's wartime conduct "The Next Three Popes & the Jews").
When I get the chance I will look up the precise references.
Of course Hebrew Masses don't exist much outside of Israel (I've never heard of any, could be wrong though).
The situation is much like the situation with Anglican converts as pointed out by Mr. Cameron.
No small wonder the protestant Messianic Jews are kicking our butts in the "bringing Yeshua to His own people dept".
I'd be interested in the Lapide references on Jewish liturgy. And check out my thoughts on a related topic on my blog. Even more interesting, Lapide apparently believed in the Resurrection of Christ. (He didn't become a Christian, however, because he believed that God meant Christianity to be a Jewish witness to Gentiles, not a religion for Jews.)
Mark and James: Basically, and keep in mind that I'm privately speculating here without knowing the full context of the Hebrew indult, in Ecclesia Dei adflicta Pope John Paul II called for "a broad and generous" application of the Ecclesia Dei indult. While this statement is often erroneously misinterpreted by traditionalists and non-traditionalists alike, it has a very clear canonical meaning, which means a broad (albeit not extensive) application of what may be applied to a particular situation. It also specified, if I am not mistaken, "the liturgical books in force in 1962." If the Hebrew liturgical permissions or indult liturgy was still in force in 1962, then at first glance, I do not see why this could not come under the "broad and generous" application of Ecclesia Dei. However, I'm not giving a formal canonical opinion here, but merely a private and personal speculation without having gathered all the facts. So dispute and disagree with me if you want, just don't quote me on it as a canonist (whether you agree or disagree).
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
