Combox for:
Am I a "Neo-Catholic"? / My Belief Concerning the Criticism of Popes is Taken Out of Context and Distorted by "Traditionalists" (in Wikipedia)
[2 June 2009]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...concerning.html
It seems that Armstrong takes Traditionalists to task for criticizing the Holy Father, and various Papal statements and actions, more frequently than Armstong deems prudent. That is, it is legitimate to the extent, and with the frequency, that Armstrong approves; and it is illegitimate to the extent, and with the frequency, with which Armstrong disapproves. I begin to understand. When Traditionalists' private judgement conflicts with Armstrong's private judgement, Traditionalists have erred scandalously! Of course, Armstrong isn't committing the fallacy of Begging the Question because he is, after all, Armstrong.
It seems that...
Does it seem? Or is there an actual argument somewhere with, you know, concrete examples and such?
"It is not so much the "OPINION" per se on popes which many "traditionalists" express, as it is the SPIRIT, SEVERITY, FREQUENCY, and DEGREE of such opinions, and what it appears to indicate about the person making it - about how they view Catholic authority, submission, humility, prudence, and so forth."
Yes, sir; I happen to have read what Armstrong wrote. And it is to this that I alluded--you know, like (huh, huh) evidence and stuff. (I shouldn't return puerility for puerility, should I?) The fact remains (as evinced in Armstrong's words) that he has taken upon himself to determine the propriety
of criticism of a Pope's actions and statements---an exercise that does involve the fallacy of Begging the Question. He doesn't seem to realize that it falls to him to demonstrate--with the testimony and by the standards of the Church Herself, for that is the crux of the matter--how a given criticism is illegitimate. Simply pronouncing it so is cause for dispute.
Hi Bryan.
I also read what Dave wrote,i have to disagree with what you said.And because i disagree,you could if you wish also consider me a neo-catholic,because i agree with everything Dave wrote and explained.
You insist on the fact that a given criticism is illegitimate,i am not trying to defend Dave,but he didnt say it`s illegitimate,in fact he just said that not every catholic is qualified,why do you disagree with that?
I truly suggest that you check again what Dave said about this subject,and please calm down,we dont have to argue even if we disagree on something.
GBU
The Code of Canon Law promulgated by John
Paul II provided:
Can. 212 ß1 Christ's faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.
ß2 Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.
ß3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
Now: I agree that some Traditionalists have, at times, failed to display a degree of decorum befitting a subject of the Vicar of Christ. Conversely, many neo- (er, Conservative) Catholics seem to relish denigrating the "pre-Conciliar Church," as though the vast majority of Catholics were spiritually impoverished for being deprived of the Novus Ordo. Neither attitude is commendable. How does Dave reconcile his contention that the ordinary faithful is unqualified to address his or her concerns to the Magisterium (i.e., "the sacred Pastors"), whereas Canon Law encourages that? (Of course he chides Traditionalists for their fondness for Canon Law! How ironic.) Simply supposing that one who would be inclined to demur from a given Papal policy or statement (to which he hadn't bound the Church or which is not de fide) is naive or misguided--whether per youth or otherwise---begs the question. One should ask: What is the objective truth of the matter?
I recall Cardinal Newman's recounting the laity's crucial resistance of the majority of the Bishops, of St. Athanasius's day, who has imbibed Arius's heresy. Newman credited the laity for the eventual return to orthodox Catholic Faith. It is that very spirit of vigilance that Armstrong seems to castigate. Such vigilance is not necessarily indicative of a defective view of Church authority (as Armstrong implies), nor of a lack of "submission, humility, prudence and so forth." It seems to me this is the type of thinking decried in Mt. 7:1-2.
If, a priori, the laity are unqualified to address their concerns to the Magisterium (which I've shown to be a Straw Man per Canon Law), we are pitiable indeed. It was largely deplorable incompetence on the part of many priests in the 15th Century that set the stage for Luther's successful plot in the 16th. Henry VIII, layman though he was (and...excited... though he was), dared to take up his quill against Luther and was acclaimed Defender of the Faith by the Holy Father. (His eventual defection doesn't detract from the competence of his
All this is to say: We all must be very careful whose motives we presume to ascertain; whose vices we deduce; upon whose mindset we pronounce. We are all prone to such temptations. It is so easy to psychoanalyze (or animanalyze?) those with whom we demur. In my experience, most Traditionalists are sincerely concerned for the well-being and integrity of of the Church and Her Pastors. Let us pray for each other--on all sides--that we may be more effective and faithful sons of Holy Mother Church.
You keep using the word we,who are we,now that`s the point?If you mean by we all the catholics,then i disagree,because as Dave said,not every catholic is qualified,and i agree with that.I am catholic myself,and i know many many catholics,which are not at all qualified and dont know much or almost anything about the teachings of the catholic Church.Do you want to tell us,that such persons are qualified among your we?Let them first ,or yet again,let us first learn what we must learn and know,and then and only then we could if we should say something.Because i am very sorry to tell you,but your way of thinking could only lead to protestantism and confusion,because by saying we in general,each and every time one person is not in agrrement on something will begin to criticise and teach and so on.So in my experience,not all tradinionalists are qualified,and not all catholics are qualified to decide for the well being of the church and her pastors.
So yes ,let us pray but let us also learn and let us also be humble,and let us do everything in love and out of love for each other.
The key word on which this discussion turns seems to me to be "faithful." Canon Law provides that the faithful have the right to manifest their views per the good of the Church (quoted above). I am certainly not advocating a capricious, reckless abandon of Sacred Tradition. Rather I am advocating the education of the laity and the discernment that such education can yield (notice I don't say "necessarily yields"). I advocate the sort of familiarity with Theology and History that led the laity of St. Athanasius's day to reject Arianism; that led John XXII's subjects to correct his erroneous teaching per the Particular Judgement (cf. Catholic Encyc., 1913). Further, I reject the notion that a layman's opinion is, a priori, to be subordinated to a Pope's whereas History demonstrates that the laity have at times appropriately corrected Papal misjudgements. Incidentally: Until very recently, a Pope was required to take Pope Agatho's Coronation Oath of fidelity, of which the language would confound most contemporary Catholics. This is the antidiote to Protestantism (which rejects the Papal Magisterium). To assert that I am advocating a road to Protestantism only demonstrates the degree to which you seem to be fundamentally confused. Luther advocated the rejection of the perennial Magisterium and its prerogatives. I advocate familiarity with, and a wholeheated embrace of, the doctrines which the Magisterium has definiively articulated. Your accusation per Protestantism is a Straw Man.
"Until very recently, a Pope was required to take Pope Agatho's Coronation Oath of fidelity, of which the language would confound most contemporary Catholics."
Some basic research demonstrates that this oath is most likely a forgery cobbled together from some of the holy pope's writings, and it contains some serious theological errors:
"...because I am conscious of Thee, Whose place I take through the grace of God..."
The pope does NOT take Christ's place; he takes Peter's, as Christ's Vicar. It is Catholic doctrine that the pope is the visible head of the Catholic Church but Christ occupies His unique role as the Head of the Catholic Church as His mystical Body. The two roles are never commingled. The author of this goes on to state more correctly about the pope's Vicarship, but then there follows:
"I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors...."
Our Lord Jesus Christ has NO successors to His unique role in Christianity. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the perfect Revelation of the Father to mankind. The pope is Peter's successor as Bishop of Rome.
These inaccuracies in the text, nowhere found in the source of the Liber Diurnis, point to a very mangled translation of an oath that fell out of use before Pope John Paul I, II and Benedict XVI. In fact, in a detailed coverage of Pope Leo XIII's coronation and installation as pope, no mention of his taking of an oath is mentioned:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/...=image;
seq=0284
Add to that the fact that the Latin versions of this oath use modern punctuation marks found nowhere in ancient Latin, which used only periods and then very sparingly, it might be best to not use this as any sort of objective evidence of malfeasance or lapse on the part of the popes who did not take it.
Yours in Christ's Love,
Of course we can express our concerns to the priests and bishops. When did I ever deny that?
Most of Bryan's criticisms against me are directed towards straw men. Cardinal Newman is my hero. I have often mentioned his work on the laity and the situation with Arianism, where the laity played a key role.
Keep puttin' up the straw men. I get bored with that last week.
Yes, it's very convenient to dismiss critical arguments as Straw Men without dispelling them when one is given to ad hominem dismissal of one's interlocutors--such as objecting to Traditionalists' polemic on account of their youth, as though citing the accident of age were a refutation of their arguments. You didn't address my engaging your quotations---and this is not surprising. I didn't claim you were ignorant of Newman or his championing of the laity's role. I pointed out that his championing the laity's competence belies your view of the laity's competence.
The word "vicar" signifies, "a substitute," from Latin: i.e., "a person or thing acting in place of another." Do you reject the papal title, "Vicar of Christ"? That is what you have done substantially. Again you evince fundamental confusion in your attempts at refutation.
"We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontifff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ" (Pope Eugenius IV, Council of Florence, "Laetentur Coeli," 7-6-1439).
I should have specified that I directed my last response to Dominicanis per his remarks regarding the Papal title.
The word "Vicar" in Roman Catholic usage designates a priest who acts for or represents another, often higher-ranking member of the clergy, not a replacement or succession to that member. The papacy's role finds its Old Testament prefiguring in Isaiah 22:22 in the description of the steward and the keys of authority. The pope is the Vicar of Christ; he is Our Lord's prime minister, His legate who is empowered to act on His behalf. Our Lord remains the Head of the Catholic Church while the Holy Fathers serve as visible leaders here on earth. At no time in Church history has the pope arrogated to himself Christ's role or claimed succession to Him; popes are Peter's successors in Peter's role. This distinction is vitally important.
The paragraphs in the common text of the oath found on many traditionalist sites that begin with "I swear ... defined and declared" and "Accordingly, without exclusion ... blasphemous venture", and the phrase "I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I" are nowhere found in the original text of the official ancient Church documents in the Liber Diurnis, which is the repository for the oath of Pope Agatho. Another theological error present in the text is the phrase "...through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess", which would render the pope as the "Vicar of God", a title never given to any pontiff; it is rather a Protestant construct. And the sentence "I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors." is also problematical, as it indicates an endowment of ongoing revelation and not a safeguarding of a given revelation.
I am curious to know if you have ever critically analyzed the Latin version of the Papal Coronation Oath and seen how it is not in a Latin sentence structure but an English one. Also, I hope that you will read the richly detailed article about Pope Leo XIII's coronation ceremony. It is a fascinating glimpse into a long-ago time period.
And finally, I sincerely hope that you will cease disseminating claims about the Papal Coronation Oath that at this point can be proven to have the veracity of a religious urban myth. The Catholic Church needs provable truths told in her defense, not rumors, and the last few popes' characters deserve no impugning for their not taking an oath that is provably theologically deficient in its modern renditions on the internet.
Yours in Christ's Love,
I am quite aware of the Scriptural and extrabiblical historical roots of the Papacy. I also understand the distinction between the terms "vicar" and "successor." You appeared to be rejecting the doctrine expressed in the Papal title, Vicar of Christ; I am glad to se that you don't. A vicar is indeed one who takes the place of another. I understand the Christ is the invisible Head of the Church. The Pope is the visible head of the Church precisely because he is the Vicar of Christ.
I shall investigate the authenticity of the Papal Coronation Oath. I have never had any reason to suspect its validity. I appreciate your cautioning me.
Sincerely, in Christ,
Bryan
Dear Bryan,
I appreciate your willingness to do so. If indeed the popes are to be rebuked and/or criticized, they at least deserve to have such offered for what they actually said or did. It is simple justice and charity to do so.
I researched the current Papal Coronation Oath at the bequest of a close family member who shared many of your same concerns expressed here. He and I discovered these things, and he was appalled that the text was clearly a forgery. Lying in the service of our dear Holy Mother Church is no service to her at all, a point with which I'm certain you would agree.
Please pray for me, and I will assuredly pray for you.
Yours in Christ's Love,
I pointed out that his championing the laity's competence belies your view of the laity's competence.
How can it do that when I agree with it, pray tell? I've had my share of unfruitful conversation lately. I'm not about to start up again. The hostility manifest in your replies to me proves that this will go nowhere. And that's why I have not answered point-by-point. If you want to keep insulting, feel free. It's your life and your image.
Hey everyone,
Re: the "vicar" and "successor" titles / distinction...
St. Peter Damian, writing to Pope Nickolas II, (a.d. 1059) and wherein "he deplores the situation in which bishops live in public concubinage to the scandal of some, and to the delight of others who ridicule the leadership of the Church on this account” (p. 3) addressed the Pope thus:
“But you, my lord and venerable pope, you who take the place of Christ, and the successor to the supreme shepherd in apostolic dignity, do not through sloth allow this pestilence to grow, do not by conniving and dissimulation loosen the reigns on this raging impurity.”
Letter 61:14
Peter Damian: Letters 61-90 (Fathers of the Church, Medieval Continuation), Owen J. Blum (Translator), Catholic University of America Press, 1992, ISBN0813207509, p. 14
http://books.google.com/books?
id...tTzDpKqMu_zlf8K
I am inclined to pursue this controversy further; however, it seems to me to be imprudent under the circumstances.
From Pastor Aeternus:
"If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honor only: let him be anathema.
If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. -- let him be anathema"
From the CCC:
"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" (CD 2).
553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepher
Sorry, got cut off....
"553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom."
The governing office
894 "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426
895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.
896 The Good Shepherd ought to be the model and "form" of the bishop's pastoral office. Conscious of his own weaknesses, "the bishop . . . can have compassion for those who are ignorant and erring. He should not refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his very own children. . . . The faithful . . . should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father":428
More to follow.
Yours in Christ's Love,
Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the college of presbyters as the apostles; respect the deacons as you do God's law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the bishop.429
1560 As Christ's vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: "Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church."41"
In current usage, "vicar" is applied to every bishop, while the pope's office is entitled "Vicar of Christ"; the term means "representative", not "successor" or "replacement". Another use of "Vicar of Christ" is found in the writings of John Cardinal Newman, who wrote to the Duke of Norfolk: "Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ."
None of this touches on the fact that the oath that circulates on the internet is a provable forgery, but it is interesting food for thought.
Yours in Christ's Love,
"I am inclined to pursue this controversy further; however, it seems to me to be imprudent under the circumstances."
I respectfully demur; while indeed pursuit of controversy may be imprudent, investigating the veracity of evidence used against the popes is pursuit of truth in this matter, not controversy, and therefore is necessary. If we are going to hold them accountable for their speech and actions, then those who originated the forged oath (that may never be knowable) and those who disseminate it as evidence against Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI deserve the same rebuke and criticism that they seek to level at these two men. That would be both just and charitable.
Yours in Christ's Love,
I didn't intend to imply a reversal of my pledge to investigate the Coronation Oath. Thanks for your concern.
My apologies for misunderstanding you, Bryan. God bless you on your search.
Yours in Christ's Love,
Ha! Traditionalists have actually written an “encyclopedia” article about their in-house term! What a hoot! As if we didn’t already have plenty of evidence of how bad a joke Wikipedia is. I especially liked this bit:
“The term was originally used by traditionalist Catholics to describe other Catholics that have a particular set of theological opinions and political ideologies opposed to most traditionalist Catholics. In more recent times, some Catholics have taken to proclaiming themselves Neo-Catholics with pride in support, especially, of the Neo-Catholic theological opinions.[citation needed]”
“Citation needed” indeed. Does anybody on earth except traditionalist Catholics use that term? I’ve never heard of anybody calling himself a “Neo-Catholic.” And why would they even feel a need to use it – it’s only traditionalists, not ordinary Catholics, who would be motivated due to their theological and liturgical concerns to use such a compartmentalising label. It’s just a convenient neologism intended to help traditionalists keep themselves pure and distinct from non-traditionalist orthodox Catholics. Functionally it’s a traditionalist shibboleth, much as Catholics speak of “the Blessed Virgin” or “the Blessed Mother” while Protestants never speak that way, instead saying “the Virgin Mary” or just “Mary.”
Commenting by HaloScan
