Can a heretic or a schismatic hold the same thesis as the Pope? Does that make the heretic not a heretic or does it make the Pope a schismatic?
On a lighter note, while I was giving a spelling test this morning I coined a new term for the Biblical Scholarship of the O'Leary school:
Babblical Critischism.
I get books through Ohiolink - and interlibrary loan program for Ohio colleges and universities. Many Catholic colleges participate. There is not a single copy of Iota Unum in any Catholic college library in the state of Ohio.
This is quite a taboo.
"But in spite of this, an almost total silence on the part of Catholic public opinion punished Amerio both during his lifetime and after it, even though he never went along with the Lefebvrist schism, and always remained utterly faithful to the Church."
'Catholic public opinion'... Interesting choice of words. Discuss.
"...he never went along with the Lefebvrist schism...". Good man.
Regarding the english publisher, is not Angelus Press 'Lefebvrist'? Does it matter?
Finally, what does any of this 'really' have to do with Pope Benedict XVI (or Ratzinger)? Please help me to understand.
==
Amerio is a somewhat obscure figure -- I found an interesting piece of his on Paolo Sarpi.
I just REVISED my long essay on the Encyclical (see weblog).
"The photo above depicts a famous gesture from the pontificate of John Paul II: his making himself "a Jew for the Jews," in Jerusalem, inserting a slip of paper with a prayer written on it into the wall of the Temple.
Most people, from all over the world, praised this ecumenical gesture. But there are also those who, though being faithful Catholics, contest it at its roots." Thus wrote Sandro Magister.
Huh? What did this gesture have to do with 'ecumenism', which is (or so I thought) an exclusively 'inter-christian' undertaking? So I thought the gesture, for good or ill, was more in the spirit of 'inter-religious' relations, dialogue, and the like? Does Magister or others know otherwise?
==
"...in the name of the Great Tradition." [GT]
Does this label, GT, include Eastern Orthodoxy? It perhaps should....
"...in the name of the Great Tradition."
Love the capitalization.
Sounds a bit like an advertisement for (or triumphal battle cry of) the Lefebvrists.
Radaelli of the GT wrote "of the Pope´s "going Jewish" in Jerusalem, with the gesture he made at the Temple wall": ""how can we upbraid the Jews for not believing in the New Temple of Christ, if we ourselves run to pray at their dead, empty, and by now merely idolatrous temple?"".
"idolatrous temple".
I must say, I doubt even St. Stephen would have used those words. Maybe I misunderstood.
==
"Theologians, monks, and cardinals fall beneath Radaelli´s severe and highly reasoned criticisms. The cardinals still living who are most targeted are Roger Etchegaray, Edward Cassidy, Carlo Maria Martini, and Joseph Ratzinger. "
Oh, I am beginning to see how this relates to Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
He does not, in a 'severe and highly reasoned' fashion, pray and do homage 'in the name of the Great Tradition', is that it?
==
"And Antonio Livi [Opus Dei priest] agrees with him [Radaelli] in his introduction to the book."
Hey, this is interesting.
"He asserts the author´s absolute right to dissent from the Church´s modern teachings on ecumenism. This is because these teachings, he says, are by their own admission "pastoral, not dogmatic," and therefore subject to dispute,"
Well, well. An absolute right? Is this an infallible dogma now? Can we doubt?
Fr. Spirit of Vatican II, please come check out this liberalism - from an Opus Dei priest...!
"while infallible dogma is to be found in the Great Tradition - that of the apostles and of the fathers of the Church - which Radaelli invokes on every page of his book."
Once a liberal Jesuit told me that SSPX and Opus Dei were basically the same. I told him he was wrong. But maybe I was.
==
"He asserts the author´s absolute right to dissent from the Church´s modern teachings on ecumenism."
Umm, does he mean 'ecumenism', or 'inter-religious' relations, or...?
==
"This is quite a taboo."
Yes, we should call it: 'Critischism of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council'.
==
Vatican II wisely refrained from laying a burden on conscience by formulating dogmas or anathemas. Gospel Truth persuades by its own merits.
I welcome Phil Blosser's denunciation of homophobia in a recent message. I was appalled at the following spectacle of homophobia action (and Archbishop Akinola, chief schismaticist of Anglicanism, seems to be consenting to it): http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.c...-
continues.html
For fiendish laughter at the foreseen collapse of ECUSA, just look at the Pontifications site. This seems to me deeply anti-Christian. Yet the heroes of these people are far more obviously anti-Christian. Yes, I mean Archbishop Akinola. Tell me why I am wrong? http://topmostapple.blogspot.com...ny-we-
keep.html
Of course one has a right in conscience to dissent from the Church's teachings on ecumenism if one has good reason and sincerely believes them wrong. Church authorities may deplore this but they would be wrong to cut one off from communion because of it.
A case could be made for downgrading all moral teachings of the Church from the "dogmatic" to the pastoral. Put opposition to abortion on the same level as opposition to capital punishment, for example. The Commandments and Natural Law and the Gospel Law of Love can look after themselves, without having clumsy theological notes pasted onto them.
I remember seeing articles in chiesa at the outset of Benedict's papacy identifying ecumenism as an issue which Cardinal Ratzinger felt had gone too far during John Paul's papacy. The general feeling was that this was an area in which some retrenchment would quietly take place. Like so many things coming out of Vatican II, ecumenism is an issue -- perhaps THE issue -- which has been most miserably implemented, and it is imprudent in the extreme to brand its critics as heretics and schismatics. It seems to me that there is a great deal of retrenchment going on right now -- be careful, lest you be hoisted on your own petard.
"Stat Veritas" is not easy to find, and I'm not even sure it has been translated into English. "Iota Unum" is Amerio's major work, and it is readily available. If you [and I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular] haven't read it, please refrain from trying to tar it with the "Lefebvreist" brush -- that tar seems to be coming increasingly more washable.
To the point, with a section on Amerio:
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/
a...e_20040406.html
CAUTION: Article is republished from New Oxford Review, whose editor is Dale Vree. Sprinkle your monitors with holy water before reading, lest your eyeballs catch fire.
Chris G.-Z. writes:
"Can a heretic or a schismatic hold the same thesis as the Pope? Does that make the heretic not a heretic or does it make the Pope a schismatic?"
The answer to that is that "...he never went along with the Lefebvrist schism..."
"Spirit" writes:
"I welcome Phil Blosser's denunciation of homophobia in a recent message."
Be careful not to ignore the context here, my friend. I may condemn genuine "homophobia" -- I do grant that there is such a thing, after all. But I also accept traditional Catholic teaching condemning "homosexual sexual activity" and the whole "gay" lifestyle that promotes it. So don't get any mistaken idea that I've turned over a new leaf and come out pro-gay.
"Spirit,"
I read about the gross human rights abuses directed against homosexuals in Nigeria, if that's what you mean when you say "Tell me why I'm wrong" after denouncing some of the "homophobic" reactions to developments in the Anglican tradition and ECUSA. Human rights are grounded in human nature, not in the arbitrary fiat of majority will; and I don't think anyone on this blog has a problem with the notion that all human beings are endowed by their creator, by virtue of being created in His image, with a right to life, basic human dignities, freedom of conscience, and so forth. But notions of "rights" and "freedom" today often morph into something else: the right or freedom to do whatever one wants, governed by no objective standards of justice, equity, or virtue. But even Aristotle knew one cannot be utterly "nonpartisan" lest one undermine the foundations of civil liberty: we must be partisans of virtue, he insisted. And buggering young men is no virtue.
I welcome Pb's recognition that gross human rights abuses are directed against homosexuals in Nigeria (which entails the proposition that there ARE homosexuals in Nigeria). Archbishop Akinola clearly does not see human rights abuses for what they are, and he is the man who has done more than anyone else to split the Anglican Communion in two.
""Iota Unum" is Amerio's major work, and it is readily available. If you [and I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular] haven't read it, please refrain from trying to tar it with the "Lefebvreist" brush -- that tar seems to be coming increasingly more washable."
Yes, some varieties of ‘tar’ can be that way. I was not really concerned with Romano Amerio or the SSPX, but with Enrico Radaelli and his Opus Dei friend - and so my focus was mainly on Magister's review entitled "The Latest Heresy: Ecumenism. Accusations from a Catholic Traditionalist" (April 15, 2003).
Magister wrote: "Just as Manicheanism and Pelagianism threatened the Church during its first centuries, so does Radaelli see the great new heresy of ecumenism threatening the Church today."
It seems to me that Radaelli's 'brand of tar' leaves a bad enough stain; but when thickly and widely applied, is it not potentially destructive to the entire garment? Somebody might want inform Radaelli that this is no way to clean clothes, if that was his intent.
From my lowly perspective, the 'miserable implementation' criticism of contemporary ecumenism seems quite different from - and much more accurate and truthful - than the 'great new heresy' accusation advanced by Radaelli and others.
==
"lest your eyeballs catch fire"
Still laughing.!
"Like so many things coming out of Vatican II, ecumenism is an issue -- perhaps THE issue -- which has been most miserably implemented, and it is imprudent in the extreme to brand its critics as heretics and schismatics."
I see your point. Nothing wrong with healthy criticism of the 'miserably implemented'.
That said, I do not want to falsely accuse the Vatican II Ecumenical Synod of promoting "the great new heresy of ecumenism".
==
Now that Amerio is on the verge of being o' of the boys again, perhaps we can look forward to a reprinting of Hildebrand's "The Devastated Vineyard"? Or Gamber's "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy"?
Speaking of black nasty 'tar', what about this foul and smug insult quite recently thrown at Rome and/or the Apostolic Successor of St. Peter, by Bishop Bernard Fellay, leader of the schismatic group Priestly Society Saint Pius X (SSPX):
"So, per force, we will have relations with Rome. It is a mistake to claim that we must not discuss with them. We expect them one day to become Catholics [...]."
http://www.dici.org/actualite_re...p?id=769&
loc=US
"And so, my very dear brethren, we must carry on. We must continue quite simply and serenely on the path so well traced out by our founder Archbishop Lefebvre, and that is all. We know that the Church has the promises of indefectibility, the gates of hell shall never prevail against her. She will one day overcome this crisis. It is up to us to devote all our energy to work towards overcoming the crisis, and this, obviously, while keeping our own place. So, per force, we will have relations with Rome. It is a mistake to claim that we must not discuss with them. We expect them one day to become Catholics, and we would not discuss with them? Saint Paul, speaking of the pagans, said: "How will they convert, if they do not hear about the faith, if no one reminds them of the principles?" Do we want to invent, or do you want to demand a continual miracle from Our Lord Jesus Christ? This may happen, but God usually uses secondary causes to touch souls. Once again, without wanting to attribute to ourselves a spectacular or extraordinary role, we find ourselves in the historical circumstances in which God placed us. Here and now we must accomplish our duty of state as priest, bishop… everyone in his own place, and try to obtain as much good as possible from these authorities which are certainly still in darkness."
==
Amerio makes the great mistake of asserting that JPII taught universalism when this is explicitly denied in Redemptoris Missio and by Benedict.
There are many other great mistakes also, as well as a load of truths in his work.
Commenting by HaloScan
