Dave,
All you are doing here is pontificating. You never once engage the substance of the arguments in favor of the position you are attacking.
You point out, as evidence that the institutional church has not "caved in" to secularist pressure to change, that the church has not stopped teaching that contraception is evil. Wonderful. That's certainly a brave, counter-cultural stand. But it has stopped teaching that the state has a moral obligation to profess Catholicism and give the Church a priveleged place in the formation of laws and the education of youth, that wives have a moral obligation to submit to the authority of their husbands, that prayer and worship in common with heretics and schismatics is intrinsically evil, that the Bible must be believed to be absolutely inerrant with divine and Catholic faith, that devils are the object of pagan prayer and worship, and that it is a sin for spouses to refuse sex. These changes have a common thread running through them: compromise with the Enlightenment.
We are in a position similar to the 15th century, during which a series of despicable papal bulls (Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex, Inter Caetera) taught that a Christian King has the right to conquer and enslave any non Christian nation in the world for the sole reason that it is not Christian. Hopefully if I had lived then I would be a traditionalist who resisted this novelty coming out of Rome and remained faithful to what the Church used to teach. It's the position I'm in now.
No, by the way, I do not hold this position with a straight face.
Oh, and the reason this doesn't contradict the indefectibility of the Church is because not all of Lumen Gentium 25's criteria for infallibility have been met. Yes, it's an unsatisfying solution, but it's not supposed to be a satisfying solution. The satisfying solution will be when the Pope, allegorically, moves out of France and back to Rome. St. Catherine of Sienna, pray for us.
"taught that a Christian King has the right to conquer and enslave any non Christian nation in the world for the sole reason that it is not Christian"
If that's "despicable," there goes all moral justification for the Crusades.
Following on from ratitifcation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations in the UK, the leader of the Catholic Community I am a member of (mainly made up of immingrant Filipinos) has stated that we are formally in a period of persecution and members of the community could well face imprisonment under the law if we refuse full access to the community to homosexual 'couples.' We are under instructions to be prepared to face prison.
I am so glad people have the time to wrangle over the form of liturgy and yell 'heretic' at people for not using Latin. It's so great people can pour over the papal encyplicals of Pope Pius MCXXVI to tell us "none can enter Heaven who wears a ginger toupee" and give us the words 'heretic' and 'deciever' for our Protestant brethern who will be in the docks with us because I tell you, that's going to help us so much in the UK and Europe as a whole it isn't true. That's really going to help us when the handcuffs come on.
I must build an ivory tower of my own...
Ben,
That is the first time I have seem more specifics on what the "traditionalists" believe. Interesting.
Usually, all I see is that they object to the "new Mass", and not requiring the old Latin mass.
Thanks for those details; it helps us understand what the difference is.
Jordan,
As I understand the Crusades, that was not the primary purpose.
Was it not mainly:
1. Self -defense ? -- to help the Eastern Orthodox from being conquered by the Seljuk Turks, after they had defeated the Byzantine armies in the east (near Lake Van at the Battle of Malazkurt in 1071 AD) and then their armies were surrounding Constantinople?
(But later when the Latin, western Christians starting slaughtering the Eastern Orthodox Christians, this really helped their cause and moral standing, did it not?)
2. To win back Jerusalem and the "holy sites" for relics and pilgrimages for the Christian world. ??
3. They were motivated by "if you fight and kill the infidel (Muslims, Saracens, Moors, Turks), you will do penance and win an indulgence for yourself, lessening your time and purgatory and possibly winning release from other family members in purgatory. Jonathan Riley Smith, the RCC historian has written about this, admitting that the Crusades were "penitential wars". Right? And many of the fighters were criminals and robbers and thieves seeking to make payment and restitution for their sins, right?
4. They were not trying to win Muslims to Christ, and not trying to conquer new territory to "force them to become Christians"; right?
If what Jordan writes is true, then this brings back all the accusations of the world and secular skeptics against the Crusades as "trying to force the Muslims to Become Christians by war" and that is wrong and un-biblical; and makes them un-just and evil. It reduces Christianity to the same low level as the Muslim Jihads.
You seemed to have admitted that the secularists, Politically correct modern views of history, the atheists and agnostics were right in their assessment of the Crusades and then this gives them justification for the condemnation of the Crusades.
But, if it was clearly for self-defense and not for conversion or "conquering" by the sword, then the Crusades was more of a "just war" and our views of them can be balanced.
“I don't deny a crisis at all. My difference with the radical "traditionalist" position lies in the cause and precise nature of the crisis. I don't locate its primary cause in Vatican II and post-1958 popes (supposedly "modernist" or "ambiguous," etc., etc.), or the Novus Ordo Mass. I place it where it belongs: on the shoulders of heterodox modernists who have worked to undermine traditional orthodoxy and piety and morality”
We must refute things like: moral relativism, epistemological relativism, methodological naturalism, Darwinian evolution, (these links refute Darwinian evolution) http://www.discovery.org/ and http://www.idthefuture.com/ and http://www.uncommondescent.com/ anti-Catholicism, skeptical New Testament scholarship, social liberal views (here is a link that refutes social liberal views) http://homepage.mac.com/francis....with/
Menu3.html Christ wants us to do what is most effective. He wants us to get at the bottom of systems of thought that are harming the progress of the gospel and the nurturing of the saints e.g. get at the bottom of the harmful philosophies above, etc. It is absurd for a radical traditionalist to claim that orthodox Catholics deny the modernist crisis or rationalize or justify it. What are radical traditionalists talking about!? The complete opposite is true. A radical traditionalist should tell Peter Kreeft that he denies the modernist crisis (that would sound very odd). Kreeft refutes the aforementioned problematic philosophies from every angle imaginable. In fact, Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli wrote Handbook of Christian Apologetics, one of the most well-known apologetics books ever written! What more could orthodox Catholics do? Kreeft isn’t the only Catholic that is vigorously trying to refute problematic philosophies! Kreeft and Tacelli, among many others, show that orthodox Catholics have the strongest foundation for reducing evil and advancing Christ’s cause effectively. In addition, the aforementioned authors, among many others, show that it is absurd to say that orthodox Catholics deny the modernist crisis or rationalize or justify it. Orthodox Christians of all types have been getting at the bottom of systems of thought brilliantly and in a highly effective way (I don’t want to give the names of all these orthodox Christians because it would take up too much space i.e. there is too many to even write down because of how much the Kreeft type of apologetics has been growing in recent decades). The true impact of orthodox Catholics and other orthodox Christians for the cause of Christ will only be felt in the next generation.
Hi Ben,
So are you saying that you are wiser than the Mind of the Church in the present age? Do you know better how to run the Church than Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI?
Laurence,
Take your argument to its logical conclusion. Muslims are also opposed to sodomy. They'll be in handcuffs together with you, if what you say is true. Does that mean you should ignore the serious doctrinal differences between your two religions?
Dave,
Are you refusing to engage in anything approaching substantive argumentation? Are you just going to shout incredulously, "how could anyone be more Catholic than the Pope!? That's absurd!"?
Oops, forgot to change my homepage. I'm no longer with CAI.
I'm asking a serious, ultra-relevant question (indeed it is a species of reductio ad absurdum; you almost grasped that). You can choose to bluster and mock what you mistakenly think I am doing (which is, sadly, the usual fare from "traditionalists" in my experience) or answer. The choice is yours.
If you don't yet understand where I am coming from, you will soon enough, if you actually discuss the matter minus the non sequitur potshots. I think you're capable of it.
Of course it was a provocative, go-for-the-jugular question, but so what? Were not many of your claims the same? But you go after the Church. I am simply asking you (one little ole person) a question. If it doesn't apply to you, then simply answer "no" and explain why it doesn't.
You finally left CAI, huh? Good for you. What put you over the edge? Who's the vice-president now?
Dave,
You'll have to define what you mean by the mind of the Church of the present age.
Could I run the Church better than the last 2 Popes? I'm not going to make any claims about my governing abilities. In terms of prudential decisions, my pontificate would probably be a disaster similar to that of Adrian VI. I suppose a Muslim would assasinate me after I published my first encyclical. What I will say is that if I were Pope I would teach Catholic doctrines that the past 2 Popes have not taught.
CAI doesn't have a Vice President now. And I promised Robert I wouldn't talk about why I left.
So you (or else someone of your choice) could do a better job than they could and did, especially in the areas you mentioned?
The mind of the Church is that which is expressed at the highest levels (councils, encyclicals) and repeated themes of the sensus fidelium.
These changes have a common thread running through them: compromise with the Enlightenment.
What and/or who has made these compromises? Ecumenical councils? Popes?
Hopefully if I had lived then I would be a traditionalist who resisted this novelty coming out of Rome and remained faithful to what the Church used to teach. It's the position I'm in now.
I see. So what popes taught what novelties??? I'm curious. Please enlighten us. And it's obvious that you think you know better and could do a better job (or at least that recent popes have done a lousy job). Yet you seemed to get very angry when I simply took your own statements to their inexorable logical end. I wonder why.
Oh, and the reason this doesn't contradict the indefectibility of the Church is because not all of Lumen Gentium 25's criteria for infallibility have been met.
I'm not necessarily talking about infallibility. I'm talking about the given authority in the Church and the Mind of the Church and whether you are willing to submit to it or go on giving your opinions as to how far off the mark the Church has gone (apart from the infallibility issue, which is not intrinsic to my objections).
In other words, what gives you the patently absurd idea that your word is to be seriously accepted and considered in these matters over against popes and ecumenical councils?
The satisfying solution will be when the Pope, allegorically, moves out of France and back to Rome
What popes lived allegorically in France? And who are you to make this judgment?
St. Catherine rebuked popes but she was a saint, mystic, and doctor of the Church, whereas you're just . . . well, Ben Douglass. Can't you see a wee bit of a difference there? I trust that if you can't, most others reading this can.
This is the absurdity running through much of so-called "traditionalism." It strikes me as (in part) almost a glorified, super-ludicrous version of the old generation gap. It's the hopeless idealism of (a certain portion of) youth: all zeal and little wisdom (oftentimes perhaps a severe reaction against liberal parents). Many of us baby boomers did the same thing. I was quite the social and theological and political radical in my early 20s.
(cont.)
. . . After a little while, and a significant chunk of life experience, we figured out (mostly from our own failures to live up to various goals and ideals) that we didn't have all the answers.
I remember trying to reason with then-19-year-old Mario Derksen about six years ago. He thought he knew better than the Church and popes too. I would convince him of the folly of his ways temporarily (or so it seemed), but then, alas, a month or so later I would observe him drifting back into the same mentality.
And where is he now? He followed his "wisdom" right out of the Church into sedevacantism (as has Gerry Matatics). How very sad in both cases. So I think a lot of "traditionalism" is accounted for by the inability to think with the Church, along with (oftentimes) an insufficient conversion to the Catholic Church and retention of Luther-like individualism and private judgment, from one's Protestant days (or else the Protestant mindset picked up from one's surroundings), combined with the pick-and-choose mentality of liberalism.
I don't know what it takes to convince people of these errors, but I'm giving it the old college try. It requires a paradigm shift. At a certain point, hopefully the internal cognitive dissonance of such a ridiculous un-Catholic outlook adds up to enough "difficulty" that one suddenly switches over to another view: either further "right" into radtrad wacko schism or to the radical center of orthodox Catholicism.
Yes, I think the past several Popes have done a lousy job. John XXIII himself agrees with me: "Silvio, Silvio [Cardinal Oddi]; my pontificate has been a failure." [Alice von Hildebrand, "The Second Vatican Council: Why Pope John XXIII Would Weep," New Oxford Review, (July/August 2004), p. 34] And, like I said, while I would make no claims about my ability to be an effective leader of the universal church, I would at least reaffirm the Catholic doctrines which I mentioned in my first post.
What and/or who has made these compromises? Ecumenical councils? Popes?
Vatican II, the new Catechism, and several Popes have made these compromises by way of ommission (e.g., do you think it's a coincidence neither the new Catechism nor the Compendium says "wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord?"). Explicit contradictions of traditional teaching are more scanty, but can be found in a few apostolic letters, the Assisi prayer gatherings, pastoral guidelines, PBC documents heartily endorsed by both the #1 and #2 man in the Vatican, etc. I'm not prepared to say anything publicly about encyclicals or documents of Vatican II.
The novelty I was referring to was that in the 15th century Popes Nicholas V and Alexander VI (in Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex, and Inter Caetera) gave to Christian kings "free and ample faculty" to wantonly conquer and enslave any non-Christian nation for the sole reason that it is not Christian. This was a contradiction to what the Church used to teach, as I'm sure you as an apologist would be able to document. Thus, a Catholic in the 15th century would be in a position similar to traditionalists of today: he would have had to resist 3 evil papal bulls out of loyalty to what the Church used to teach.
I was annoyed with your response because of the ommission of any interaction with my arguments per se. If, in addition to tackling them head on, you had also asked questions you thought would lead to a reductio ad absurdum, I would not have been annoyed. Lately I have been having trouble getting people to give a straight answer to a question, and it's frustrating.
I don't ask anyone to take my word over Popes and ecumenical councils. I just ask that people read older magisterial documents so they can fill what's missing from their Catholicism. Spiritus Paraclitus, Immortale Dei, Regnans in Excelsis, Quanta Cura, Arcanum, the Roman Catechism, and Craig Allen's recent Latin Mass article on the Holy Office and Communicatio in Sacris would be good places to start.
Any Pope who refuses to teach the kingship of Christ over nations and its consequences for the political and social order, to a greater or lesser extent, is allegorically an Avignon Pope. The last Roman Pope, in that case, would be Pius XII.
St. Catherine of Sienna didn't know she was a saint, and she would have vigorously objected to the suggestion. She wasn't declared a Doctor of the Church until long after she was dead. At the time
...all she knew was that she was a Catholic who loved the Church and didn't want the Pope to destroy it.
Finally, it is rather silly of you to accuse me of internal cognitive dissonance. You yourself, along with Scott Hahn and others, are a resisting traditionalist. Scott Hahn refers to various higher critical theories of Scripture, which both John Paul II and Benedict XVI presuppose as true in their writings, as bullgeschichte. You endorsed my blistering excoriation and denunciation of the official Bible of the American Church, the Bible used in the lectionary at every English language liturgy in the United States. If you agree with me that the official, episcopally and papally approved Bible of the American Church is full of poisonous heresies, then you really think you know better than the Church, don't you? When, O Dave, will you become a consistent and open resisting traditionalist? I think a long conversation with Tom Haessler about biblical inerrancy would do you a world of good. He told me I shouldn't maintain that absolute biblical inerrancy is Catholic dogma, because this view leads to sedevacantism! He's ultimately wrong, because it only leads to a form of resisting traditionalism, but he has a point!
When, O Dave, will you become a consistent and open resisting traditionalist?
And how do I do that? By spewing the quasi-schismatic, private judgment nonsense that you do?
I was annoyed with your response because of the ommission of any interaction with my arguments per se.
My consistent policy since 1999 or so has been to deliberately not engage "traditionalists" in all their multitude of particular gripes, precisely because they are all based on the fallacious premises that I have written about a great deal.
Hence, in my e-book on the subject, I never (like Trent) "named names." Rather, I mercilessly dissected false premises.
There are plenty of folks who will debate all your particulars if you want to do that (e.g., the Planet Envoy discussion board has a trad section).
In other words, first things first. Let the trads establish and defend their initial (false premises) and then we can go from there. As I have never seen them do that yet, I don't see the point or usefulness in debating notions that are built upon unproven premises. I think the general position is as silly and self-defeating as anti-Catholicism and liberalism (neither of which I spend much time at debating, either).
You think (i.e., with regard to all the usual trad hot-button issues) like a mixture of a Protestant and a liberal. But like a fish in water, you can't see how you are bound and confined. The only way to break that down is to keep confronting trads with this reality. Eventually some may see the folly of their ways and come back to the radically orthodox center.
You sit there with a straight face and judge Holy Mother Church and recent Holy Fathers of the Church and actually expect me to waste my time debating such things with you, with that sort of ludicrosity in your premises?
Nope; like a good Socratic, I will always go right after the premises that I regard as questionable and unproven. This is my standard methodology, honed now for over 25 years of apologetics. You may like it or not (probably not, I imagine), but that's what you have to deal with when you interact with me.
Oh, meant to ask: is Pope Benedict XVI considered a big disappointment now, in trad ranks, and a "liberal" or "neo-Catholic" like all the rest? I remember how overjoyed they were when he took office. What's the buzz now?
Dave, just take baby steps. Start by following your opposition to the NAB to its logical conclusions, and stating them openly.
I think I've already established my premise, that in certain situations it is licit to resist Vatican documents of fairly high authority. Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex, and Inter Caetera prove this. What would you have done, Dave, if you lived during the 15th century?
And Benedict XVI is not a disappointment for me, because I never expected great things from him. I don't recall many trads entertaining lofty hopes for him. It's mostly groups like the Wanderer who thought he was really going to bring in the calvary and crush dissent. Instead, he has appointed men like Niederauer.
To understand Benedict XVI, and the Church today at large, I think it's good to keep in mind that he was considered a liberal at Vatican II, and when people have asked him why he has become a conservative, he has stated that it's not him who's changed, it's everyone else who's moved to the left. This is an accurate assessment of the state of things. The only thing I would add is that conservatism at Vatican II (Ottaviani, Siri, Bacci) represented the ordinary magisterium. What was liberalism at Vatican II was dissent then, and it is dissent now.
And so on and on it goes. Why don't you become Orthodox, Ben, if you think things are so grim?
I’m not making an argument. I know from bitter experience how these kinds of arguments go. I have far more success engaging with the militant atheists of the UK than Radical Traditionalists. I will say that I have at least one Muslim friend who is untied with me on the issue and implications of the ‘Sexual Orientation Regulations. You see, when you deal with Muslims, or Jews of Hindus, especially in a time of persecution, you really start to appreciate what is really important and what isn’t. You start to work with what you’re willing to be arrested for.
It sobers you.
You don’t care what language the Mass is in when you look to a future in which there is the possibility of being arrested for it. Personally, I feel the Rad-Trads strain out gnats of personal ‘piety’ and papal encyplicals and swallow camels of Pharaseeism, schism and judgement.
There is a story, I don’t know if it s based on fact, that at the storming of Constantinople the Bishops were in conference asking “If a fly falls in the holy water, is the water defiled or the fly sanctified?”
The Barbarians are at the gates here in England. I ain’t spending time arguing whether Protestants are Christians, the Mass should only be in Latin, or the 101 reasons why Pope JPII was a heretic. I ain’t doing it. Trust me, I’ve really got other things on my mind.
Thank God you have the time and freedom to do so as you wish.
I also echo Dave’s comments as I find discussion with Radical Traditionalists (like anti-Catholics) just impossible. Besides, with the Radicals the ‘True Catholic Church’ is only ever them, their mate Derek and his pet tortoise Cecil. Everyone is a heretic, including the Vatican. You can’t argue with that mentality. It’s closed world reasoning.
Well-spoken, Laurence. I can only hope and pray that we have some significant persecution here in the US, too, so the revival can truly begin. I almost envy you over there where things are relatively worse. God is on the verge of doing great things.
Thanks to you Dave! Oddly enough, while I've been foretelling persecution since 1989 and been very pessimistic, I am getting a sense in prayer that, yes, great things are going to happen. It hasn't happened yet. SOR does not come into effect until May but I feel things are stirring.
We shall see. I blessed with a good, faithful community.
God bless one and all. If you remember (no pressure) spare a word up to the Big guy (ooh, I'm irreverent!) for the souls the UK. We're leading the world in drive to total secularism now and Christians are (nearly) on active duty.
I'll let you know if anything positive spiritual develops!
Dave, I won't become Orthodox because the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. How good or bad things are in a given institution is irrelevant. The Pentecostals are in wonderful shape, and growing like gangbusters.
Laurence,
You state, "I will say that I have at least one Muslim friend who is untied with me on the issue and implications of the ‘Sexual Orientation Regulations. You see, when you deal with Muslims, or Jews of Hindus, especially in a time of persecution, you really start to appreciate what is really important and what isn’t. You start to work with what you’re willing to be arrested for."
So does opposition to sodomy take precedence over one's profession of Christ? And friendship is irrelevant to this discussion. I can also be friends with non-Catholics. The issue is profession of a common faith, and what is essential to that faith. Furthermore, I don't care nearly as much about whether the Mass is in English or Latin as about whether the Pope and bishops teach the entirety of the Catholic religion. You are projecting beliefs you have observed in others onto me, with no justification from anything I have said. The most egregious example of this is when you accuse me of believing the Catholic Church is just me and like minded individuals. That is entirely false. The Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, I go to daily Novus Ordo Mass, and the majority of my friends are not like-minded.
Shame on you, Dave, for calling that calumny "well-spoken."
Also, you would do well to actually engage even just one argument (for example, the argument from Dum Diversas et al). Please, enough derisive questions and cheering on of ignorant rants.
One necessarily generalizes in discussion with trads (as with Protestants), because there are 100 different varieties. One also tends to exaggerate out of frustration. I'm sure that accounts for the portions of Laurence's so-called "ignorant rant" that offend you.
If the idea is to deliberately avoid all arguments that are based on false premises, it makes no sense to engage even one. It's a futile exercise. It just goes round and round. This thing needs to be strenuously attacked at its roots. That will ruffle feathers and make the person issuing the critique mighty unpopular. But what else is new with me?
So there is an issue of principle, but it is also true that whenever I've tried to argue particulars with traditionalists (as in the late 90s and 2000-2001) it quickly became a three-ring circus. It's best to just agree to agree where we can and let the other stuff alone.
Trads never interact with my critiques, either, so why should I do a one-way thing? It's like trying to argue with a liberal. They are what they are, and mere argument will not change their minds. It's too deeply entrenched.
One can only hope to plant tiny seeds of doubt and chip around the edges, and pray that perhaps a fault line can be found that will bring the whole thing down so that the person can finally see past these fatal false presuppositions.
Let us not forget the Papal encyplical 'Vesper Manderina' in which the Blessed Pope Pius MCXXVI states in 1341 "None may be saved who wears a ginger toupee."
I'm British. I use humour and irony a lot. Having said that, I note with interest that the Radical Traditionalists seem to be deficient on humour.
Douglass, I really am not going to get involved in a discussion here. Sorry. It will take far too much time and, based on experience, lead nowhere. Suffice to say that I do not believe that Vatican II brought 'apostacy' into the Church and I can personally trace the crisis in the Church to the arrival of the Beatles and the contraceptive pill. I'm sorry if I offended by painting with a broad brush but, I was recounting my overall experience with Rad-Trads, not pointing directly at you. I must confess I have never encountered Radical traditionalism except on the web and it has stunned me! I've never seen such Pharaseeism. I mean, when people are looking around them to see when people kneel a second too late at the consecration to see if they are being reverent enough (I'm not kidding!) there is something wrong. Now, that may not be your style but in my overall experience a Radical traditionalist is immovable. So there's no point in discussing because it's closed world mentality. We're al heretics to we're wrong. The fact we disagree is proof we're heretics. I haven’t got the time!!! The barbarians are crashing through the gates and I'm getting married to a girl in Indonesia!
So, if you don't mind, I'm digesting the pastoral letter from the Bishop of Paisley my sister has sent to me in which (and I quote) "We also need to be attentive to the wider issues. We cannot but sense that something sinister is happening" I must mull on his advice in this matter. That's where the battle is. The Church has woken up to find itself in Pagan territory again.
And yes, I am going to major on the BASICS of the faith in evangelism and not every dot and dash of the Immaculate conception. I'm in the process of having to explain to Brits that belief in a God does not equal mental illness. (I'm having some success but it's taken three years of hard graft to stop people saying "All religious believers are irrational.") If you have the time and the comfort to argue over the 'entirety of the faith' then good for you. Good luck to you. The rest of us have more pressing, more basic issues right now.
Was I right in my assessment of the Crusades; or was Jordan's position more accurate??
If Jordan's position (and the more conservative Traditionalists, as he seems to imply that that is their position also - that the RCC had the right to conquer non-Christian lands in the name of Christ); then the secular skeptics, atheists, etc. indeed do have lots of ammo against the Crusades and it is not just "Politically -correct modern speech".
Which one is closer to the truth?
Ben Douglas wrote:
"We are in a position similar to the 15th century, during which a series of despicable papal bulls (Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex, Inter Caetera) taught that a Christian King has the right to conquer and enslave any non Christian nation in the world for the sole reason that it is not Christian. Hopefully if I had lived then I would be a traditionalist who resisted this novelty coming out of Rome and remained faithful to what the Church used to teach. It's the position I'm in now."
OOPs -- my mistake on your position --
Sorry -- now I understand your position better - you were saying that idea is despicable and Jordan was responding to that and even implies that is it OK.
I was going from memory, but after I went back and re-read, I see you don't agree with what Jordan implies. Please forgive me.
Ken, yes, I didn't respond to Jordan Potter's argument because I thought you handled it admirably. The Crusades were not fought to conquer the infidels just because they were infidels, but rather for the reasons you listed, and others as well.
Dave,
Tell me what the false premise is in the following:
1) In the 14th century, three papal bulls taught that a Christian King ought to conquer and enslave any and every non-Christian nation he encountered for no other reason than that it is not Christian.
2) This teaching is evil.
3) It would have been proper and just for Catholics to oppose and resist this teaching.
4) In some situations, it is proper and just to oppose and resist high level magisterial documents.
Now, you have two options: tell me how it is that Dum Diversas et al don't actually teach this doctrine, or tell me how my reasoning is flawed.
You really haven't attacked my position at the roots. Rather, you have, as a matter of principle, avoided dealing with my position at all. Your only argument is that it is Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy, a proposition which you have certainly failed to justify.
Alas, if it takes writing a critique of your book on traditionalism to get some kind of meaningful response out of you, I guess that's what I'll have to do.
The premises I am talking about lie much further behind the propositions you talk about. They are:
1. What makes you think that you can continually sit there as a young layman and judge decisions of the Church?
2. What makes you think that you can either fully understand or explain everything in the Church's history and teaching? Not just in this particular instance, but your overall attitude, expressed in this thread, which ties into your approach to particular "problems." Very few can.
3. What distinguishes your attitude from that of Luther at the Diet of Worms in 1521? He, too, claimed that the Church was massively self-contradictory. He claimed that he knew better than the Church, and had the right to judge and condemn it, strictly from a standpoint of his private judgment and supposed support in Scripture. The Church refused to argue with him and instead demanded a recantation of his errors.
The Church was right (though I think it would have been helpful for individual Catholic apologists to dissect Luther's many errors, as I and others do today).
On a related note: personally, I don't know all the ins and outs of which document is infallible and which isn't. That's a very complicated topic, so I usually defer to canon lawyers and theologians and bishops (or at least apologists who are more oriented towards "legal" type distinctions of that sort; e.g., Jimmy Akin).
But what I find interesting is the instant willingness of trads to make such judgments, as if they were unarguable. Why should I even assume that you know what you are talking about at all? It's obvious that you have no authority. You don't even have any real credentials.
Why should I think that some young guy in 2007 has come up with this amazing difficulty in Church teaching (or assume that no one has ever thought about the same thing from a position of orthodox faith) that casts doubt on the reliability of the papacy: itself protected by God from teaching error? It is, prima facie, an utterly implausible scenario, IF one accepts beforehand, in faith, that the Church is protected.
Do you believe that the papacy and the Church are infallible or not, for heaven's sake? You can accept that in faith without having a ready explanation of every conceivable difficulty in documents that you may see, just as we believe Scripture is infallible without being able to explain every minute seeming discrepancy that people bring up.
Now, folks may want to (on a purely abstract intellectual plane) argue every jot and tittle of all these various papal pronouncements, etc. That's fine. Let them do it if they like. But I reject the idea that folks like you and I can sit and judge the Church with such a casual "I know better than the Church" attitude. It's folly and it's stupid. That's why I refuse to do it and only attack the false presuppositions and first premises behind it.
I acted very similarly as a Protestant. My specialty was
(cont.)
. . . "proving" that the Church had erred and contradicted itself, and was not infallible at all. To "prove" this, I consulted people like George Salmon (anti-Catholic Anglican), Hans Kung (modernist heretic) , and Joseph Dollinger (the theologian who rejected papal infallibility in 1870 and was excommunicated).
One can always find materials like that to play around with (with great selectivity, just like trads), and run down the Church. But I learned better once I read Cardinal Newman, and various responses to Salmon and Kung (e.g., Butler and Costanzo and George Kelly).
How is your attitude different from Luther's or mine before I converted? And why should anyone entertain it?
Those are the premises I am talking about.
Dave,
Is it possible that JP II was wrong to engage in the 2 Assisi events? If Benedict stil rejects Pauline authorship of the Pastorals (as he did while heading the congregation for the faith) is it possible he is in error?
What's your purpose in asking, Jeb? And do you think Catholic Christianity is true Christianity?
I do not think that Catholic Christianity is true Christianity.
I ask because, if you believe that the "mind of the Church" as represented by B16 and JP2 can err (for example, accepting higher criticism of the bible) then apparently you have a standard by which you judge current church teaching. I'm curious what that standard is.
I do not think that Catholic Christianity is true Christianity.
And I don't try to dialogue with people who believe that, because if one can't even figure out elementary things, how will they be able to understand complex things?
If Benedict stil rejects Pauline authorship of the Pastorals (as he did while heading the congregation for the faith) is it possible he is in error?"
Is this true, Benedict XVI does not believe Paul wrote the Pastoral epistles?? Wow. That is serious heresy, if true.
Really? Funny, then, that he stated on 12-13-06:
"Let us take up, finally, the recommendation that the Apostle Paul makes to Titus in the letter he addresses to him: "This saying is trustworthy. I want you to insist on these points, that those who have believed in God be careful to devote themselves to good works; these are excellent and beneficial to others" (Titus 3:8 )."
http://www.piercedhearts.org/ben...s/
dec_13_06.htm
Dave,
It's not uncommon for those who deny traditional authorship to refer to a book using its traditional author. "Matthew says . . . "
In Principles of Catholic Theology at p. 101, Ratzinger says:
"they [certain theologians] regard with suspicion everything that comes after Paul, especially then the wrtings of St. Luke and, a fortiori, the pastoral epistles." (You can check for yourself on amazon)
In Called to Communion, he also rejects Pauline authorship (the statement isn't as clear as the one above).
But the pope didn't refer to the book; he referred to the Apostle Paul himself: "the Apostle Paul . . . in the letter he addresses [to Titus] . . . "
So he didn't mean what he said in the book I referenced?
He also said in his book The God of Jesus Christ that he thinks Daniel is 3d century BC.
On top of what Jeb Protestant and Ken Temple have pointed out, he also refers to "trito-Isaiah" in Many Religions, One Covenant. He pretty clearly believes in all the mainstream higher-critical theories of Scripture. This is something Dave, and also Scott Hahn, for example, need to own up to. Hahn calls these theories bullgeschicte.
Dave,
I've never claimed to fully understand everything in the Church's history and teaching. But I can understand, for example, that the Church teaches today that contraception is sinful. And by the same standards by which I determine that the Church teaches today that contraception is sinful, I can also understand that it used to teach that wives have a moral obligation to obey the authority of their husbands, to mention one of several issues. My arguments don't rest on tendentious exegesis or several steps of logic. All that they presuppose is that the Church is capable of communicating its teachings intelligibly, and therefore that it is possible to determine what they are through study.
The difference between my attitude and Luther's attitude is that, if he identified any papal aberrations from Catholic Tradition, he used this to justify rejecting Tradition. I identify aberrations (e.g. Romanus Pontifex versus just war tradition) for the purpose of proving that aberrations are possible, and therefore that the documents coming out of Rome today might contain aberrations.
My lack of authority is irrelevant. A syllogism is a syllogism, regardless who writes it. It contains true premises and sound logic, or it doesn't. Interact with it on its own terms. If I am way off base and just don't know what I'm talking about, you should be able to demonstrate this.
And I don't claim to be the first person to discover Dum Diversas et al and realize they contradict Catholic teaching on the criteria for a just war. That would, indeed, be a silly claim. This knowledge has been in circulation for many years, and it only takes a little bit of intellectual honesty to follow it out to the logical conclusion that it is possible for Popes to teach false doctrines in documents of high authority.
Of course I believe that the Pope is infallible. I believe the doctrine in the sense it was defined at the first Vatican Council, that is, several criteria have to be met for the Pope to teach infallibly. For all my problems with the modern Popes, I have never accused them of teaching error infallibly.
wives have a moral obligation to obey the authority of their husbands,
What do you think that means? Please give me some examples.
From The Christian Home, by Celestine Strub, O.F.M.:
"In case the parents cannot come to an agreement in private on a particular question, then it is the duty of the wife to submit to her husband, so long as no violation of moral or religious duty is involved; for St. Paul says: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church" (Eph. 5, 22)." This is a general principle, and can apply to any particular, such as where the children will go to school, what punishment to assign for such and such an offense, or which home to purchase. You can find the same doctrine in the Fathers and in Leo XIII and Pius XI's encyclicals on Christian marriage. It is contradicted in Mulieris Dignitatem of John Paul II, and absent from both the new Catechism and the Compendium.
Please show me, then, if you could, exactly where you (or Strub) think this was "contradicted" by JPII.
Dave,
Strub is long dead. The Christian Home was written in the '40s. It's on EWTN's digital library.
Anyway, here is the key passage from Mulieris Dignitatem, commenting on Ephesians 5:22: "whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the 'subjection' is not one-sided but mutual."
This is an arbitrary intrusion into St. Paul's simile. According to St. Paul, the relationship of authority between husband and wife is precisely like that between Christ and the Church, in that Christ is the head of the Church and the Church has a moral obligation to submit to His authority. The Church is in no sense an authority above Christ. The relationship of authority is entirely one sided, as JPII recognizes. So also is the relationship of authority between husband and wife, which is what JPII is denying here.
The best possible argument in defense of Mulieris Dignitatem is that when JPII speaks of mutual submission between spouses, he is not speaking of submission in the order of authority, which is one sided, but submission in the order of charity, which can properly be described as mutual. Both parties in a marriage are called to self-sacrificing love, which in a sense is submission. However, if this is what JPII meant, he would not have said that submission between spouses is mutual unlike the submission between Christ and the Church. Christ most certainly does submit to the Church in the sense of loving her and giving Himself up for her!
In sum, in the sense that the relationship between Christ and the Church is one sided, so is the relationship between husband and wife. In the sense that the relationship between Christ and the Church is mutual, so is the relationship between husband and wife.
Ben,
as to your comments of 2/07-good points. Apparently, Dave cannot tell the difference between his Protestant church experiences or his current NO/AM Church ones-then again, maybe that is the problem, we look too much alike now and hence, comfy for some to move to.
I just had to go to another church other than my own while traveling, beleive me-the fight against liberals, etc is faaar from over, as the entertainment hour that supposedly passed for "sacred" liturgy. It did nothing to lift me out of my realm, as the testimony given by the Russian agents to Constantinople reported in the 900's.
It was more like cheesy, feel good-isms. No Dave, the fight is looong way from over. A few gutsy stands do not replace the desicated, baby boomer led Masses in most parishes. If I had to attend that Church I visited regularly, i would not have the deep spiritual insights now or the respect and awe.
Then again, nor did most there in their shorts, sports shirts and chatting/back slapping more commonly found in Evangelical churches and pre-service Protestant faiths. No holiness, no attention, no reverence. Nothing.
St. Catherine rebuked popes but she was a saint, mystic, and doctor of the Church, whereas you're just . . . well, Ben Douglass. Can't you see a wee bit of a difference there? I trust that if you can't, most others reading this can.
Geesh, how insulting-but then, Ben is not as Bible savvy, poor guy he is just a dumb cradle, no?
What we see in Dave-and Jimmy AKin, etc-is the tendency, when leaving Protestantism, to go to extremes, in this case it is "No laity should ever question a Pope, criticize him, etc". If you do, you are some loony Sede or something.
Many go from "me and Jesus alone" Protestantism, where everyone is there own Pope, to the opposite end.
Catholicism is about balance. Did not Paul upbraid Peter about his dinner companions? A bit mild in lieu of later Papal and Curia activities (anyone really condem Savonarola?). Peter did not say "you are a Sede rad Trad, Paul!
No, he repented. Too bad Pope ALexander VI didn't. I truly worry about his soul..... and of course mine as I should.
Dave, have a lot of respect for your work, but you seem to go light in the problems of Mother Church. Sort of the Karl Keating approach-attack anyone, don't confront the problems inside the family, jsut ignore, cover-up and attack anyone that wants to clean house.
"Now, folks may want to (on a purely abstract intellectual plane) argue every jot and tittle of all these various papal pronouncements, etc. That's fine. Let them do it if they like. But I reject the idea that folks like you and I can sit and judge the Church with such a casual "I know better than the Church" attitude. It's folly and it's stupid. That's why I refuse to do it and only attack the false presuppositions and first premises behind it.
I acted very similarly as a Protestant"
Yup, my point exactly-from chaos to over-obediance. No balance.
With Jeb Protestant, you do a lot of ducking and skirting around issues. Evaisve is what I would call it
Final thought--
Ya ever notice the fawning over JP2 that converts like Dave make? or the hero status he and Hahn receive.
It is like going into an Evangelical bookstore and seeing the flavor of the week--now I think it is Beth Moore. The Left Behind is down and I think Hagee may be peeking.
Papal obediance does not = a cult like following. Asssi was shameful, esp since many AmChurchers state that Russia was consecrated in 1984. If so, Assisi 1886 and 2002 was un-needed. If not, than Russia was not consecrated. Some will state both double think positions in defending JP2 and others.
Even my very loyal, hierarchial, pro-absolute monarchist Padre had to state awhile back that JP2 was not that great-holiness and piety aside.
Hi there fellow brothers in Christ,
I am a Maronite Catholic from Sydney within the Archdiocese of Sydney under Cardinal Pell.
Things under Cardinal Pell have improved greatly. Thanks be to God for that.
I have read the above discussions and I think they are all important ones. We to have had similar discussions and debates in Sydney.
My 'traditionalists' friends and my 'conservative' friends are all in agreement about the need not to attack on another, debate one another or engage in anything that undermines the Pope and the Church in public.
Incredibly we work together with Cardinal Pell and various lay catholic groups to improve the situation and to catechize people.
We Maronites Catholics are a lot stricter and tougher in areas we see as being lax within the Latin Rite. Not the defined dogmas etc but discipline wise. However we work with our latin friends and do not engage in any unruly talk, anger etc against them. I aint saying u guys are either, it is pretty clear u love the Catholic Faith and are well informed.
Traditionalists and conservatives, names i Dislike need to really sit down together and work out differences. We have done it and after much headaches lol we now do really get along.
God Bless you all and please keep us in your prayers
Mr Chance
'holiness and piety 'aside'? I would have thought his holiness and piety would be central to an estimation of the man.
Hi Jeb, You said that Pope Benedict was denying his authorship of certain epistles in a statement from one of his books.
I am reading "The Principles of Catholic Theology" now. Pope Benedict is not denying that Paul wrote the pastoral epistles on page 101. The beginning of the paragraph reads:
"False, too, is the closely related attempt to cut tradition off at a given point, to try to save the Church by a liberal or conservative archaeologism. It is important, in my opinion, to realizw that the most rabid forms of progressivism are forms of archaeologism: they are no longer satisfied with limiting tradition to sola Scriptura; they regard with suspicion everything that comes after Paul-especially, then, the writings of St. Luke and, a fortiori, the pastoral epistles. The difference between such progressivisms and a false traditionalism is not a fundamental one; it is merely a question of when tradition ends. True tradition is thus completely and totally falsified. Nor should we overlook the fact that precisely the most archaeologisms are dishonest, for they define tradition according to the need of the moment and depend on reconstructions that are but reflections of their a priori conceptions[.]"
I am afraid you are reading something into your selective parsing of the passage that is not there. It is pretty clear here that Pope Benedict is not talking about his views of authorship, but is talking about those who practice various forms of sola Scriptura.
However, assuming arguendo, that you are right in claiming that Pope Benedict denies that St. Paul wrote the letters himself (which he certainly does not do in the passage you cited), authorship of certain Pauline letters have been argued for a long time. Look at the St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews, for example. However, you fail to show anything that indicates or even suggests that Pope Benedict denies that the letters should be part of Scripture. Whether they are spirit-filled or inspired books of the NT is not, nor has it ever been an issue.
Frankly, it does not matter whether St. Paul wrote the letters himself or whether they were the product of his dictation to a secretary. The Catholic Church holds that that St. Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus are Scripture. Period. That is what is important here.
By the way, here is something that Pope Benedict XVI recently wrote about St. Paul:
"As in early times, Christ today needs apostles ready to sacrifice themselves. He needs witnesses and martyrs like St Paul. Paul, a former violent persecutor of Christians, when he fell to the ground dazzled by the divine light on the road to Damascus, did not hesitate to change sides to the Crucified One and followed him without a second thought. He lived and worked for Christ, for him he suffered and died. How timely his example is today!” (Benedict XVI, 28 June 2007)
Commenting by HaloScan
