One big clue to the pope’s thinking came in his 1997 book, titled “Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977” and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.
…
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope’s new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary
What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let’s be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed “pre-conciliar” and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything “post-conciliar.”
Further, not all “traditionalists” take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream —- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council — not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.
As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.
Yet, What I refuse to promote is outright Lucifer-ous type of attacks and rebellion against the Church Our Lord had established from those who disguise themselves as true Catholics and, even far worse than that, have the blasphemy which lies at the core of these attacks disguised as Traditional Catholic Teaching, which itself is so far from the Truth!
Many of John’s post have promoted disobedience and disrespect against the Catholic Church and, in fact, its Traditional Teachings. Papal Authority is at the heart of Traditional Catholic Teaching, the very core that, in fact, many brave Saints like Thomas More and hundreds of others throughout the centuries gave their very lives for since it is this Authority which Christ Himself established for HIS Church in St. Peter and his Successors.
Yet, not only does John attack this Traditional Teaching of the Catholic Church, but he villainously goes on to actually disguise his rebellious attacks against the Church as well as this refusal to recognize Papal Authority as even Traditional Catholic Teaching!
Further, he has the gall to declare Pope John Paul II as well as Pope Benedict XVI as APOSTATES!
It was bad enough that he had spread calumny and other such treacherous lies against JP II and B16 as well as Mother Teresa in previous posts, but he goes as far as placing upon himself an authority that is not his own!
If John has the right to spew his venomous attacks against the Church and purposely misrepresent actual Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church here (as some have wrongfully advocated — and even compared him to a Saint, of all things!) then I don’t see why folks like Maguire shouldn’t be allowed to continue to do the same!
Thus, John holds nothing of Traditional Catholic Church Teaching as Sacred nor does he care for the many Souls that have been saved and converted to the Catholic Faith!
John would rather that Protestants as well as non-Christians be damned to Hell than even join the Catholic Church! If you actually read many of his posts to me, he condescendingly looks down on Protestants and non-Christians as something less than dirt and treats them with such disdain and hate!
If this is the kind of True Catholic that the Rad Trads adore and promote, better that I become a Protestant than a servant of Lucifer as this!
Readers of JA.O know about the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith–the universal Church’s doctrinal watchdog group. What many may not know, though, is that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has an equivalent body, known as the Committee on Doctrine.
Whereas the CDF is tasked with dealing with global problems in the area of theology, the COD is tasked with dealing with local (i.e., national) ones, and it’s just delivered a stinging warning about the writings of one of our home-grown dissenters, Daniel Maguire of Marquette University.
GET THE STORY.
MAGUIRE TALKS BACK HERE.
It’s interesting how Maguire accuses the COD of being "obsessed with sex" when it was his writings on sexual issues that contained clear contradictions on Church teaching.
Marquette’s response is also interesting.
And disappointing.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
I have to wonder why the Committee on Doctrine didn’t have anything to say on the USCCB’s catechism which maintains the Mosaic covenant is still valid for the Jews….
Marquette appears to believe in the right to express opinions. I thought all bloggers subscribed to that!
Hm… I wonder… if I start saying that, Dr. Sailorette, teach with medical authority that your skin tone is an acurate way of figuring out how good you are at math, will folks say that I’ve got the right to express my opinions?
Or will they correctly point out that, when speaking on an authority not my own, I *don’t* have a right to my own contradicting opinion?
Red Herring, James. No one has said that Maguire, or anyone else, does not have the right to express an opinion. The bishops merely corrected Maguire’s lies about Catholic moral teaching.
Dan Maguire has been complaining about Mother Church being “obsessed with pelvic issues” since at least like the 1970s. IIRC, Peter Kreeft says he’s like a pot-smoking teenager who whines that his parents are “obsessed” with his habit for ragging on him once a month.
The bishops teach! Hooray!
“Maguire, a theology professor at the Jesuit-run university in Milwaukee since the early 1970s”… is only expressing an opinion? I would call it as it is, which is, ‘promoting and teaching anti-Catholic Doctrine’ at a Roman Catholic University.
Shame on the Jesuits to permit such an abomination!..and on any other Catholic institution that likewise permits such anti-Catholic teachings, in the name of Christ, whose Voice IS the Catholic Church!
“Marquette’s response is also interesting.
And disappointing.”
And predictable.
>Marquette appears to believe in the right to express opinions.
and the right to worship mirrors.
He is free to do so, but he can’t call himself a Catholic at the same time. That is called L-Y-I-N-G.
correction: Marquette has the right advocate mirror worship, but not at the same time as they are claiming to be a Catholic institution.
I just read Maguire’s pamphlet. As I read the following excerpt, it tells me he is arguing that since a number of people did not follow Church teaching, then the Church’s teaching must not be authoritative. Thou shalt not kill, but there are plenty of murders. This does not mean murder is wrong.
“Christianity reacted against infanticide, but there is evidence that it continued to be practiced…
“However, during the middle ages infanticide was much less common than abandonment… This meant that children could be offered to the church to be raised in religious monasteries. Many of them eventually became celibate nuns and monks, thus leading to further containment of fertility.”
It’s interesting how Maguire accuses the COD of being “obsessed with sex” when it was his writings on sexual issues that contained clear contradictions on Church teaching.
Maguire’s complaint is the clearest case of psychological projection I’ve seen in years.
“Containment of fertility”??!! oh brother.
“Duty to dissent”? I’ve never heard of that one. He must think the Church is a parliament.
I for one am pleased with Marquette’s statements, and would only consent to teach at a school that would so well protect the rights of its teachers. Though Maguire is absolutely wrong about two of the three issues (abortion and gay “marriage”), he should have the right to voice his opinion. In other disciplines, this right is given. There are political scientists who believe America is not really a democracy, biologists who deny evolution, physicists who believe in perpetual motion, and they should be protected by the tenure process, and are.
As for handing them out as pamphlets, it depends on who his target audience is, at least for the sake of his own respectability. But under no circumstances should his job be threatened because of these personal opinions.
There are other religious institutions, “universities” of a sort, that would subscribe to firing such dissenters. But these “universities” would certainly be devoid of any respectable professors.
I forgot to include my name in the last post.
Yet another university to cross off my son’s potential college list.
At this point, considering the dearth of truly Catholic engineering schools, he’ll apply to only secular universities (MIT and U of Michigan). At least that way he won’t be fooled by “Catholic” theologians.
Life’s confusing enough to have to deal with priests submitting their own warped, disobedient, heretical views of Catholicism.
‘thann
I know they say better late than never, but I have heard of Maguire and the errors he was spreading as a “Catholic” theologian for at least the last 25 years. How did it take so long for the UCSSB to hear of him?
Paul, no one is arguing that Maguire cannot voice his opinion or that he does not have the right to do so.
He should NOT, however, pass off his opinions as fact; i.e., as official Catholic teaching. THAT is why he was censured by the USCCB; not because he expressed his opinion, but because he tried to pass off his PERSONAL opinion as the opinion of the Catholic Church.
JoAnna,
It is Maguire’s opinion that the Catholic Church works in a different way than the Pope and others claim it works. So long as he’s not teaching these views in class on Official Catholic Teaching or Catholic Theology or the like, he can write pamphlets.
He can even share his views (carefully clarifying that these views conflict with the current accepted views) within those classes, as a special day-topic. This, of course, provided that he spend the majority of time on the accepted theological perspective.
I had to go through the same nonsense when I took a biology class with a creationist teacher. He spent one day on Intelligent Design, clarifying that this is a minority view within the scientific community that he held. I lost respect for him because of the class, but I definitely hold that he should not be fired or repremanded in any way for using his class time in that manner.
Somebody help me here. Wasn’t it John Paul II that issued a statement that Catholic Universities as a duty to their students were supposed to ensure that the professors, especially those that teach theology. were to be practicing, believing Catholics. Not that I saw any big changes made at the big Catholic Universities.
Paul, your opinion is interesting because of your personal experience, but there’s a flip side. It’s unprofessional to use one’s classroom to disseminate personal opinion. “Special topic day” is a crock, frankly. If a topic is introduced, the instructor has an obligation to approach it with the same amount of preparation and materials that are available to other topics in the syllabus; e.g. giving the students time to prepare, to discuss and possibly to debate the issues.
I liken Maguire’s pamphlet-writing to an old codger in my parents’ day who taught history but wrote a great many articles on HIS “special topic”, the insuperiority of certain races and ethnicities. The right to one’s opinion doesn’t mean that one has a right not to be criticized or to take one’s professional lumps.
If Catholic University’s are not to discipline theology faculty for heterodoxy, there is absolutely no point to their existence. In fact, they are downright counterproductive. If Paul’s POV is correct, Catholic institutions of higher learning should be dissolved, their resources diverted to care for the poor, and their students and faculty sent off to the local state university. At least then the students and parents will know what to expect and the faculty will be kept honest.
What is meant by “practicing, believing Catholics”? Complete submission to the magisterium? In that case, Catholics wouldn’t really have universities. Instead there would be “sunday school colleges” and Seminaries.
For there to be academic life to a University, there must be academic freedom. Maguire isn’t saying that Catholicism is the devil; he just has a bit of a different idea about how the Catholic heirarchy works. I think he’s wrong. But he definitely should have the right to share his opinions in a university.
The minute Catholic universities fire faculty for diverse perspectives on what it means to be Catholic, the minute the Catholics will have no more universities. Just Seminaries and glorified sunday schools.
MissJean,
I know a philosophy professor who is outspoken on his views of racial superiority, even in some of his classes. The University keeps him around because he is a very fine logician.
I’m not saying what Catholics should do. I’m not Catholic, so I really shouldn’t have a say.
Maybe Maguire should be reprimanded. Maybe Catholics shouldn’t have universities.
Folks, Daniel Maguire is a THEOLOGY professor at a ‘prestigious’ CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY.
If he wanted to be an INSTITUTED LECTOR at the Chapel of the same University, an office substantially below that of a ‘professor of Theology’, he would NECESSARILY NEED TO BE REFUSED, according to the instructions in “Redemptionis Sacramentum”:
46.] The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them. It is fitting that such a one should have received a liturgical formation in accordance with his or her age, condition, state of life, and religious culture.[117] No one should be selected whose designation could cause consternation for the faithful.[118]
Let’s highlight ..”should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them”.
Therefore, Daniel Maguire wouldn’t have a chance at passing this requirement needed to be a Lector at Mass.
What a great shame, and mystery also, that the spiritual requirements, including moral integrity, and ‘fidelity to the Magisterium’, are less for a professor of Theology at a Catholic University than for an instituted lector at any normal parish!
… doesn’t make much sense, does it?
If Catholic University’s are not to discipline theology faculty for heterodoxy, there is absolutely no point to their existence.
Why not exist for the sake of providing a diversity of viewpoints within what is commonly called “Catholic”, including some of the fringes? University implies independent thought. “Catholic” implies from a certain overarching perspective. I think some Catholic universities, like Notre Dame, are quite good at this.
If Paul’s POV is correct, Catholic institutions of higher learning should be dissolved, their resources diverted to care for the poor, and their students and faculty sent off to the local state university. At least then the students and parents will know what to expect and the faculty will be kept honest.
I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. Much better than calling religious institutions “universities” when they manifestly aren’t.
Paul,
There are many areas for diversity of opinion in the Catholic Church (death penalty, for example). But these 3 areas he has chosen are not open for diversity of opinion as a believing Catholic.
” There are political scientists who believe America is not really a democracy…
and they’re right. America is a representative republic. Unfettered ‘Democracy’ would be seemingly organized anarchy.
There are many areas for diversity of opinion in the Catholic Church (death penalty, for example). But these 3 areas he has chosen are not open for diversity of opinion as a believing Catholic.
Some would argue that accepting Intelligent Design would necessarily preclude someone from being a successful researcher in Biology. Yet there are a handful in the University system.
I do not find it said by any real authority that informed and believing Catholics couldn’t have diversity of opinion in those three areas. Just that such diversity of opinion would constitute a mortal sin.
Should the requirement be that only Orthodox theologians who are not persisting in mortal sin be allowed to teach in a Catholic university? In that case, the institutions are seminaries and Sunday schools, with electives in the math and science areas. At best they could be seen as universities with an outside seminary. There would be no Theology Professors, in any real sense. What happens if a certain theologian in this debacle of higher education comes to a realization that gay “marriage” is possible? Should he keep his views hidden, or leave for a real university?
This is why, often, the more “Orthodox” a university is forced to be, the worse its science department is. And this is true across the board, for any denomination.
Sorry about the italics. My fault.
correction: Marquette has the right advocate mirror worship, but not at the same time as they are claiming to be a Catholic institution.
BobCatholic,
Right on!
As I mentioned previously, don’t confuse actions taken by/in Catholic Universities as those of the Catholic Church!
In fact, below, you can see how Cardinal Ratzinger insisted that Catholic colleges adhere to magisterial teaching:
“…But it was the Catholicity of the nation’s Catholic colleges and theologians that arose as the first major issue at the news conference.
Ratzinger said that by insisting on adherence to magisterial teaching, Rome actually promotes academic freedom.
“As you see with a medical faculty, you have complete academic freedom, but the discipline is such that the obligation of what medicine is determines the exercise of this freedom. As a medical person, you cannot do what you will. You are in the service of life,” Ratzinger said.
“So theology also has its inner exigencies. Catholic theology is not individual reflection but thinking with the faith of the church. If you will do other things and have other ideas of what God could be or could not be, there is the freedom of the person to do it, clearly. But one should not say this is Catholic theology.” ”
In rare U.S. visit, Ratzinger urges scholars to ‘think with the church’
Esau, I agree with you. Labels should be accurate.
Intelligent design isn’t science. Contraception isn’t Catholic Theology.
But does that mean that all those who support intelligent design aren’t scientists?
Or that all those who support contraception aren’t Catholic theologians?
“…”Catholic” implies from a certain overarching perspective”.
Really? And then this ‘certain overarching perspective’ has nothing to do with the Gospel or teachings of Jesus Christ..or the Institution (ie. CATHOLIC CHURCH) that HE FOUNDED, on St. Peter and the Apostles?
That’s a pretty broad interpretation of the meaning of “Catholic University”!..wherein the authority of the ‘Universal’ Church, established by The SON OF GOD, (who also said “one is your Teacher”..is nowhere to be recognized!
I would like to see another “Motu Propio” sent out…and this one taking away the title of “Catholic” from any Catholic School or institution actively permitting or teaching doctrines contrary to the Roman Catholic faith!
“Use it, or Lose it”…could be an appropriate title of this Motu Propio 🙂
David B,
Thank you for making my point.
A. Williams,
I would argue that it is being recognized. Just in a different way than you or I would likely recognize it.
And I am not entirely against such a “Motu Proprio” being sent out. It would at least show to the world that the Catholic Church does not want universities… real universities, anyway.
Or that all those who support contraception aren’t Catholic theologians?
As Ratzinger points out:
”If you will do other things and have other ideas of what God could be or could not be, there is the freedom of the person to do it, clearly. But one should not say this is Catholic theology.”
This is what is the heart of the matter — it was mis-represented as Catholic teaching, which it is not.
Sorry, Paul, but I don’t agree with your definition of ‘University’, much less, “Catholic University”.
Paul,
you’re welcome. I like friendly comboxs!
;>I
Again, just in case Paul’s Italics may have somehow distorted Ratzinger’s point:
“…But it was the Catholicity of the nation’s Catholic colleges and theologians that arose as the first major issue at the news conference.
Ratzinger said that by insisting on adherence to magisterial teaching, Rome actually promotes academic freedom.
“As you see with a medical faculty, you have complete academic freedom, but the discipline is such that the obligation of what medicine is determines the exercise of this freedom. As a medical person, you cannot do what you will. You are in the service of life,” Ratzinger said.
“So theology also has its inner exigencies. Catholic theology is not individual reflection but thinking with the faith of the church. If you will do other things and have other ideas of what God could be or could not be, there is the freedom of the person to do it, clearly. But one should not say this is Catholic theology.” ”
In rare U.S. visit, Ratzinger urges scholars to ‘think with the church’
Esau,
Great! So what they hold opinions to, and even present in their classes (taking up very little time), isn’t Catholic theology. Does that mean that they are not Catholic theologians?
If they know well what Catholicism teaches, accept most of it, but reject one or two things, and if they consistently teach what Catholicism teaches the majority of the time (Maguire would be expected and required to teach the Pope’s views on contraception, abortion, gay “marriage”, etc.) would they or would they not be Catholic theologians?
I would like to see another “Motu Propio” sent out…
A. Williams,
I think that was the point of the Mandatum; however, it seems, for the most part, that the more popular Catholic Univeristies in America were even responsive to this.
As previously mentioned:
I know they say better late than never, but I have heard of Maguire and the errors he was spreading as a “Catholic” theologian for at least the last 25 years. How did it take so long for the UCSSB to hear of him?
That’s the best part of this whole episode. The Bishops only said something because Maguire made a big spectacle of sending his manifesto to each and every one of them! It’s like the kid who throws a tantrum when his parents ignore him.
You all know the scene I’m talking about:
1. Rotten kid does something rotten in public
2. Mousy parents pretend not to notice
3. Kid throws loud tantrum they can’t ignore
4. Mousy parents issue firm rebuke in weak, calm voices
5. Kid ignores them and continues in his rotteness
It’s always a pathetic display and you feel sorry for the parents’ in that situation. But you know that if they put any effort into laying a “foundation of discipline” at home, the kid might think twice before being rotten in public.
Esau,
Great! So what they hold opinions to, and even present in their classes (taking up very little time), isn’t Catholic theology. Does that mean that they are not Catholic theologians?
If they know well what Catholicism teaches, accept most of it, but reject one or two things, and if they consistently teach what Catholicism teaches the majority of the time (Maguire would be expected and required to teach the Pope’s views on contraception, abortion, gay “marriage”, etc.) would they or would they not be Catholic theologians?
Paul,
Again, you’re missing the point:
As Ratzinger points out:
”If you will do other things and have other ideas of what God could be or could not be, there is the freedom of the person to do it, clearly. But one should not say this is Catholic theology.”
As I mentioned, this is what is the heart of the matter — it was mis-represented as Catholic teaching, which it is not.
A Catholic Theologian CANNOT claim the title “Catholic” if they do not teach faithfully what is the Catholic Faith and, furthermore, do not teach it in its entirety.
For example, would you still consider ‘Judas’ as an Apostle of Jesus Christ after the betrayal?
Would you still consider ‘Benedict Arnold’ as an American after his?
That was me about the mousy parents.
Paul,
Kindly consider first what I just mentioned first prior to any subsequent post:
A Catholic Theologian CANNOT claim the title “Catholic” if they DO NOT teach faithfully what is the Catholic Faith and, furthermore, do not teach it in its entirety.
For example, would you still consider ‘Judas’ as an Apostle of Jesus Christ after the betrayal?
Would you still consider ‘Benedict Arnold’ as an American after his?
Esau,
You will have to forgive me. My mind is fairly slow about certain things.
Maguire doesn’t think that the Pope alone determines Catholic theology. He thinks that his views are part of Catholic theology. So he should be allowed to present such.
However, since he needs to be connected to reality, we must ask another question: does he present his opinion as the majority view? Does he present his opinion as fact (as the only possible interpretation)? Would it be logically impossible for him to be correct?
If the answer is yes to any of these, then he is in the wrong, and should be expected to write a retraction and clarification. If the answer is no to all of these, then he should be allowed the freedom to write his pamphlets.
Paul,
You must forgive me as well but your very statement here:
Maguire doesn’t think that the Pope alone determines Catholic theology.
would suggest that perhaps you, yourself, might be ignorant of just what is Catholic Theology.
Allow me to make this plain and simple:
For a Catholic Theologian to even be considered (and rightfully deserve the title) “Catholic” in the first place, the theology he teaches must, in fact, be “Catholic”.
I think I may have hit on what maybe your stumbling point and that is that you might not very well be aware of what Catholic Theology is in the first place.
That’s not an insult at all, mind you, since I doubt any nominal Catholic these days would as well.
“It is Maguire’s opinion that the Catholic Church works in a different way than the Pope and others claim it works. ”
Earth to Paul: Maguire (& you) cannot define the RC Church. Jesus did that &, hate to tell you, you’re not God. I so don’t care what you or Maguire or Joe Blow at the church down the road thinks is church. There are about a million different versions but, since Jesus gave the RC Church to Peter’s safe keeping, I think I’ll stand by His version.
Paul says (presumably before his ride to Damascus):
“Maguire doesn’t think that the Pope alone determines Catholic theology. He thinks that his views are part of Catholic theology. So he should be allowed to present such.”
However, not at a Catholic university. The local Bishop should exercise his authority over Marquette, and force Marquette to decide whether it is Catholic or not.
The real issue is what is the end of education, truth or relative ideas? True Catholic universities have a preference for truth, and secular Unoversities (such as Marquette) are hotbeds of relativism. I would bet that many Catholics lose their faith there.
I believe that Paul has the secular, perhaps even American-Enlightenment idea of freedom, where it means license, rather than an adherence to reason or acting in accordance with reason. How many students at conventional universities gain a modern education at the expense of their immortal souls? Now, that is one costly education, isn’t it??
I think Easu can agree with me on that.
Paul:
Here, allow me to offer another example.
If I were a Medical Doctor and I started practicing ‘quack’ methods in place of Medicine — such as instead of prescribing the proper medication and treatment for an illness, I started handing out henceforth some sort of voodoo fix in order to treat the patient; could I still be considered a Medical Doctor if I had been practicing such quackery in place of proper Medicine?
Esau,
I am not a nominal Catholic. I am not a Catholic at all. I think papal authority is a bunch of hogwash.
But Maguire is Catholic, and Maguire thinks his position is as well (though he would say it is not popularly recognized as such). So he meets the requirements. Tenure protects him.
Tenure protects academic opinions (even off the wall ones), and should not be violated.
Veritas:
Frightening as though it may seem, I actually agree with many elements in your post, in fact! ;^)
Esau,
Your analogy does not work. Medicine is not academics.
Maybe theology is like medicine, in which case it is not like academics. In which case there should be no Catholic universities. I am okay with that.
Doctors don’t operate based on mere “opinions”. They operate based on opinions that have a basis in fact, and are approved by others in special process. Academics does not and cannot work that way. Results in academics are determined by that process, as is standard operation, but much of academic work does not fit into any approved method.
Universities are places for experimentation. Hospitals are not.
I am not a nominal Catholic. I am not a Catholic at all. I think papal authority is a bunch of hogwash.
I thought as much by the very comment I cited from you.
But Maguire is Catholic, and Maguire thinks his position is as well (though he would say it is not popularly recognized as such). So he meets the requirements.
So, let’s see, if I say that quackery such as voodoo is actually Medicine, does that, in fact, make me a Medical Doctor?
Also, if a Christian subscribes to pagan gods, would that still make him/her a Christian?
[i]I believe that Paul has the secular, perhaps even American-Enlightenment idea of freedom, where it means license, rather than an adherence to reason or acting in accordance with reason. [/i]
I agree.
To quote someone smarter than I,
“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” — G.K. Chesterton
Your analogy does not work. Medicine is not academics.
I was speaking of Medicine in its overall context, which includes its proper training in academia.
Doctors don’t operate based on mere “opinions”. They operate based on opinions that have a basis in fact, and are approved by others in special process.
This is EXACTLY the same thing for the Catholic Theologian (but, since you think that Catholicism is a bunch of bull, I doubt I can expound on this topic further with you).
Just like you mentioned here, Catholic Theologians aren’t supposed to operate based on mere “opinions”. They should operate based on opinions that have a basis in fact, and are approved by others (e.g., the Magesterium) in special process.
Veritas,
I do hold that secular ideal, because that is how Truth (both big and small t) is achieved in many areas. It doesn’t mean all professors will accept what is true. And it doesn’t mean that secular universities adopt relativism, or that I do.
Every question should be entertained, even if it seems silly, and answers should be developed. If someone wants to ask “what if quantum mechanics is wrong?”, the question should be explored, a range of answers should be attained, and then they should be judged based on consistancy and reality. Same thing with “is abortion okay?” or “should we eat babies?” Consistancy and reality should be the measure.
But if a member of a Catholic institute isn’t allowed to give his own answer to “Is contraception wrong?” then the institute is far from a university. It is sunday school. Advanced confirmation class, maybe.
Esau,
But you are missing a very important distinction.
There is medical training, and then there is medical research. In medical research, many ideas are thrown around, results are developed through testing, and there are a whole variety of views.
In medical training, only the well-established results should be taught and paid attention to. Anything else should not be presented.
In theological research, questions should be open for any answers, and the answers should be challenged and discussed openly by students, and especially other faculty.
In theological training (the priesthood/seminary) only well established results should be taught and paid attention to. Anything else should not be presented.
Maguire is a theologian in a University, not a Priest teaching seminary.
But if a member of a Catholic institute isn’t allowed to give his own answer to “Is contraception wrong?” then the institute is far from a university. It is sunday school. Advanced confirmation class, maybe.
But here’s the thing you’re not getting, Paul.
Maguire is well within his rights to posit his own “answer” — BUT HE SHOULD NOT BE PASSING HIS OWN ANSWERS OFF AS OFFICIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING, OR EVEN APPROVED CATHOLIC TEACHING!
Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit inspires the Pope and the Magisterium’s teachings on faith and morals. That is why Catholics do not adhere to sola scriptura — all you have to do is look at the thousands and thousands of Protestant denominations to realize that that doctrine is inherently flawed. 100 people + 100 individual interpretations of Scripture do NOT = 1 Truth, but 100 Truths! Well, which “truth” is correct?
Maguire claims he knows better than the Pope and the Magisterium, the latter of which has taught the same about contraception for 2,000 years. He has nothing to back him up but his own opinions whereas the Church has 2,000 years of teachings AND the inspiration of the Holy Spirit!
As for me, I tend to believe the 2,000 years of teaching.
As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said in Salt of the Earth, “Where no standard exists beyond our own opinions of the moment, arbitrary caprice increasingly reigns, and man degenerates.”
Paul,
To assess your analogy: should the variety of views considered in medical research be presented to students? Or should those views be debated among medical researchers only?
It may be one thing for Catholic theologians to debate “fringe” views among themselves in a search for authentic truth, but quite a different matter to teach those views to students.
Paul:
“In which case there should be no Catholic universities.” and “Universities are places for experimentation.”
How does it follow that there should be no Catholic universities? From what principles or what definition of a university? How do you know that your definition of a university is true? I propose an expirement – to have a university which believes in truth. Since it is an expirement, then it must be valid by your principles.
How do you propose to enforce that Catholic universities aren’t such? – by some sort of law or discriminatory accreditation process? Sounds like the road to totalitarianism, and I venture to say that you are not alone in your “opinion.” And universities are places for expirementation? Is this not another way of saying that there is no truth, or, better yet, all truth is relative. I would say that rather there are some things at least that are known, that it is unnecessary to question certain things. That nature does not equal power. And in the words of Christopher Derrick, “Pigs are pigs.” That is something a secular university cannot deny. Christ said that “The Truth shall make you free.” That means, of course, that the truth of certain things is knowable. And really, you cannot truthfully deny it. When one says, as I once heard in a college logic course, that all truth is relative, the proper question is whether that statement is true or not. Students need to stop expirementing and need to learn the truth sooner or later, for one day, they may find themselves standing in front of the Ultimate Truth.
Paul writes:
However, since he needs to be connected to reality, we must ask another question: does he present his opinion as the majority view? …
If the answer is yes to any of these, then he is in the wrong
Substitute “majority view” with “Catholic teaching” and then you agree with most of the posters here.
In theological research, questions should be open for any answers, and the answers should be challenged and discussed openly by students, and especially other faculty.
Again, Paul, you are not paying heed to the fact that it must be CATHOLIC THEOLOGY.
Perhaps this from Ratzinger might shed some light:
I believe, yet again, that it is your ignorance of Catholicism and actual Catholic Theology that is behind your inability to understand all this.
Again, that is no insult but fact.
Maguire is not the final arbiter of whether his position is Catholic or not.
Popular recognition does not matter. Recognition of the Magisterium matters.
Misplaced “so.” You haven’t made your case.
Tenure does not protect someone from teaching as Catholic theology items that are opposed to Catholic theology.
Tenure does not protect someone from teaching “off the wall opinions” as Catholic theology at a Catholic university.
Students at a Catholic university have a right to the truth about what Catholic theology is and what it is not, and Catholic universities have an obligation to teach the truth in this regard as the truth.
In other words, if the Magisterium (the final arbiter of what is or is not Catholic doctrine) has said, Catholic doctrine is “X”, a theology professor at a Catholic university is not “free” to teach that Catholic doctrine is “not X” or that “X” is not Catholic doctrine. They have an immense amount of freedom, as I understand it, to teach “not X,” but not as Catholic doctrine.
Esau writes:
I believe, yet again, that it is your ignorance of Catholicism and actual Catholic Theology that is behind your inability to understand all this.
Paul had written earlier:
Maybe theology is like medicine, in which case it is not like academics. In which case there should be no Catholic universities. I am okay with that.
Esau,
I think you and Paul disagree less than you think: Paul is willing to accept that Theology is like Medicine — that is, Theology has certain tenets which cannot be ignored or discarded based upon mere opinion due to what is at stake (the physical life of a person in the case of Medicine and the soul of a person in the case of Theology).
The real disagreement here is probably “what is a University”?
The real disagreement here is probably “what is a University”?
Smoky,
That’s wrong —
The real disagreement here is: “what is a Catholic University”?
I believe that he is allowed to give his own answer, as his own answer, and not as the Catholic answer. This has nothing to do with academic freedom, Sunday school, or advanced confirmation class.
Maybe theology is like medicine, in which case it is not like academics. In which case there should be no Catholic universities.
Smoky,
I hope you’re well aware that in his statement here, his conclusion didn’t necessarily follow the premise.
Esau writes:
Smoky,
That’s wrong —
The real disagreement here is: “what is a Catholic University”?
And later:
Maybe theology is like medicine, in which case it is not like academics. In which case there should be no Catholic universities.
Smoky,
I hope you’re well aware that in his statement here, his conclusion didn’t necessarily follow the premise.
But you’re making my point about Paul’s point: he objects to the label “University” in a context that does not allow complete freedom to question and experiment and teach the resulting opinions to students.
Thus, I think Paul would hold that doctors do not go to Medical Universities, but to Medical Training Schools or some such.
‘thann, University of Dallas is a catholic school that has an arrangement with a nearby TX state college for an engineering program. This allows the student to get some good Catholic liberal arts as well as an engineering degree. UD offers degrees in physics, math and sciences as well. There is also a Cistercian abbey across the hwy from the university that has the Latin Mass. There is also the diocesan seminary on campus, a house for retired Dominican priests, as well as the campus chapel, so there are probably 6 daily masses available for the students. Just so’s you know!
Does UD have a Latin Mass on campus? If not, it isn’t in accord with Vatican II.
“if I start saying that, Dr. Sailorette, teach with medical authority that your skin tone is an acurate way of figuring out how good you are at math, will folks say that I’ve got the right to express my opinions?”
If you’re talking about whites and blacks with partial white ancestry, then it may not be a great way to gauge mathematical ability, but it might be useful. Blacks in the United States score an average of one full standard deviation below whites on IQ tests and the evidence strongly suggests that there is a large genetic component to this disparity.
Explain?
>Maguire doesn’t think that the Pope alone determines Catholic theology.
he thinks the mirror alone determines Catholic theology.
>Does UD have a Latin Mass on campus? If not, it isn’t in accord with Vatican II.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
Pau, does a professor of mathematics have the right to teach that 2+2+5?
To answer a whole bunch of questions:
1) I think that most Medical programs are part of universities, and that the better ones incorporate both research programmes and the standard MD programmes.
2) Students should be shown new research presented as such: as new research. Not as the next thing to try on unsuspecting patients. Very little of medical school concentrates on new research or unsubstantiated claims. But much of medical research (within Biophysics, or Biochemistry) concentrates on these sorts of claims, with the goal of substantiating them.
3) I do think I disagree with Esau very little (in terms of this discussion). I do think theology has much more to do with medical practice than with medical research. So I don’t think there should be academic theologians. They should be called what they are: philosophers.
4) As an Orthodox Christian, I am very much in support of good seminaries. But I wouldn’t send my children to a seminary to learn pure science (except, of course, the science of theology). I would send them to a secular university, where science is done best. That is why I work at a secular university.
5) I define “university” in three ways. (A) A gathering of students and faculty at a university. (B) A diverse establishment, composed of different departments, that engages in serious education and research. (C) The physical structure/structures that houses/house (A) and (B).
Theological programmes are part of a university only if they engage in some sort of research, in which case questions can’t be closed off (otherwise, the programme is only nominally part of a university, or the university is only nominally a university).
Is this definition “true”? No. No definition is true. Definitions either work, or they don’t. And this definition works well because it is accepted by most people within universities, and it does not contradict itself (though the first definition is somewhat self-referencing, so it isn’t the best definition).
6) To the person who said I got one thing wrong, I will be very happy if I have only one thing wrong, about this or anything else.
7) Smokey Mountain Hiker: I agree. Most medical students go through medical training schools.
Should be 2+2=5
bill,
Professors of mathematics should not teach that 2+2=5. This was addressed well when I listed those questions about what qualifies as a defensible academic opinion. The three basic requirements are: how many people accept it or reject it (you just need to be honest about this), what data/arguments support your view, and self-consistency.
If a view is supported by three people, and you claim that it is supported by everyone or by most people, then your claim is indefensible because it is dishonest.
If your view has no evidence, but you claim that it has lots of evidence, then your view is also indefensible because of dishonesty.
If your view is self-inconsistent, then there is no possible way it could be the case.
2+2=5 is believed (though it cannot be proved to be) self-inconsistent. It is taught in logic courses that the matter of “2+2=4” is unproved and unprovable from any set finite set of axioms that hope to span all of arithmetic.
Another quick point:
If Maguire is claiming that his views are official Catholic teaching as commonly understood by Catholic Hierarchy, then he is being dishonest.
But I have not seen him claim such.
His claim is that official Catholic teaching is different from what the Hierarchy understands it to be.
Paul,
I think your comment that views can be indefensible due to dishonesty is exactly what most people on this forum are saying: that Professor Maguire can say whatever he wants, but he must not present whatever he wants as “Catholic Teaching”.
Paul, did you mean to say that 2+2=5 should not be taught because it is not true?
Smoky Mountain Hiker,
But Maguire has a different understanding of what Catholic Teaching is. I think it’s a very bad understanding. But I don’t think it’s academically indefensible. He deserves a voice.
Bill.
No, that is not what I meant.
Maguire is teaching falsity as truth. He is either deliberately lying, is incredibly ignorant, or is mentally ill. There is no fourth possibility.
Bill,
Can you show, by logic alone, that Maguire’s position is definitely false?
Smoky,
Did you even read what I previously wrote in response to Paul?
Doctors don’t operate based on mere “opinions”. They operate based on opinions that have a basis in fact, and are approved by others in special process.
This is EXACTLY the same thing for the Catholic Theologian (but, since you think that Catholicism is a bunch of bull, I doubt I can expound on this topic further with you).
Just like you mentioned here, Catholic Theologians aren’t supposed to operate based on mere “opinions”. They should operate based on opinions that have a basis in fact, and are approved by others (e.g., the Magesterium) in special process.
Your response and Maguire’s claim are self-inconsistent. Catholic teaching is what the Magisterium declares it to be, by definition. Maguire’s “claim” could only be true if the Magisterium does not have the ability to make such declarations. But the ability to make such declarations, and the binding nature of them, are Catholic teachings.
Stated another way, there is no such thing as an “official” Catholic teaching that differs from the Magisterium.
Yes. It’s been done above. Catholic teaching is what it is. There are no Catholic positions on abortion, contraception, and “gay marriage” except that they are grave evils. To teach, as Maguire does, that there are alternative teachings on these subjects that are also the “Catholic position” is not true. Just as 2+2=5 is not true because 2+2=4. There is no other correct answer to that arithmetic problem.
Bill’s right. Catholic theology simply does not work the way, say, political science does. Authority is inherently part of it. If completely unrestrained academic freedom is required by a university, then Catholic theology has no place as a university course. If we were to exclude Church authority in defining what is and is not legitimate, then commenter Realist’s theology, which is probably further from the Pope’s than Zen Buddhism is, would be a legitimate view at Marquette. 2+2 is 231289074655.
That said, I don’t think that a university model that must exclude Catholic theology is the only valid one. It is certainly the norm in the last 150 years, but it has not always been so. And if a Catholic university cannot teach theology, it really ought not exist.
Yes.
In the same way, a mathematics professor who taught that 2+2=5 would either be deliberately lying, incredibly ignorant, or mentally ill.
Yes, Esau, I read what you wrote, and I agree with you. I’m also trying to show you that you have some common ground with Paul on the similarity of Theology to Medicine.
Please don’t create a disagreement with me when there is none. 🙂
Bill,
The argument “Catholic teaching is what it is” is a tautology, and it does not prove anything about Maguire.
Your argument also fails to establish a 1 to 1 correlation between Maguire’s statements and 2+2=5.
You have failed to establish inconsistency.
To establish inconsitency, you would have to start with Maguire’s definitions and suppositions and attain the opposite of his result as well as his result.
Oh, baloney, Paul! I started with the truth and showed the falsity of maguires claims, just as I showed the falsity of the claim that 2+2=5.
[[That said, I don’t think that a university model that must exclude Catholic theology is the only valid one.]]
Since there can be no true research in Catholic Theology (with your view this must be so), then Catholic Theology has no place in a university. This may not be a model you like, and it is certainly not the only valid model. But it is the model we have today, and I think it works very well.
[[And if a Catholic university cannot teach theology, it really ought not exist.]]
We agree on this last point.
Therefore, Smoky, I hope you see the absurdity in your statement below:
Thus, I think Paul would hold that doctors do not go to Medical Universities, but to Medical Training Schools or some such.
My cousin, who is a Doctor, went to Medical School to become a Medical Doctor.
Similarly, somebody seeking to become a Catholic Theologian may go to a Catholic University in order to become one.
Thus, what is being taught there better be CATHOLIC Theology.
Besides, I find it a riscible notion that there shouldn’t be Catholic Universities yet the fact that there are actually Protestant ones is rather conveniently glossed over.
Although, I betcha that what is being taught there in a Protestant university better be in accordance to Protestant teaching.
For anybody who actually know and can recall — Scott Hahn anyone?
Bill,
Your argument really does fail. You don’t need to believe me, and you don’t need to listen to me.
The real question is… since your argument fails, should you be banned from communicating here? Absolutely not!
Should your argument be banned from a University? Also, no.
But it’s still wrong.
Thankfully, we live in a world with secular universities that would welcome both your position, and Maguire’s, for open yet critical consideration.
Paul,
Do you even know what Theology is, for that matter?
Do you even realize that Theology was actually borne out of the Catholic Church?
Also, the fact that you are ignorant about not only Catholic Theology but also Theology as well would beg the question why anybody would take their precious time engaging in such discussions with you.
Don’t you even realize that much of the dogmatic beliefs held in the Christian Faith concerning Christology and what not in ecclesial history issued forth due to Catholic Theology?
This is not the opinion of mere Catholics, mind you, but also certain Protestant scholars as well.
Esquire,
E-mail me, if you wish, with this argument from logic.
Esau writes:
Therefore, Smoky, I hope you see the absurdity in your statement below:
Esau, my statement was regarding my understanding of Paul’s position (which he later confirmed to be his position). So, I hope you can retract that my statement is not absurd (I was correct regarding Paul’s position); what I think you think is absurd is Paul’s position.
Smoky,
I’m sure, based from what I know from a certain of your comments in past threads, that you may well appreciate Traditional Logic, which is the reason why I brought this specific item to your attention.
Esau,
Just as a friendly stylistic comment:
Whether you intend it or no, statements of this form:
Do you even know … ?
Did you even read … ?
come across sort of condescendingly.
I’m sure, based from what I know from a certain of your comments in past threads, that you may well appreciate Traditional Logic, which is the reason why I brought this specific item to your attention.
Lol. But my statement was perfectly correct. It was Paul’s position, embedded in my statement, that you find absurd.
Thanks, Smoky.
It was merely inquiry into… not insult; as I’m sure you well know.
Esau
Theology is the study of God/gods/goddesses, and matters related to the divine.
I do not accept that theology was borne out of the Catholic Church (and definitely not Roman Catholicism, which is Catholic only in name, as I believe). The science of theology existed even before Aristotle (though Aristotle is the first person I know of that calls it a science).
You say that my ignorance begs the question of why anyone would engage in discussions with me. You must find it hard to educate young children. But no matter, it begs the question of you, not of me. So why do you keep discussing? I can tell you why I keep talking with you: I enjoy it and I learn from you. You seem like a very intelligent individual with some misconceptions, like most living breathing humans (myself definitely included).
And most Protestant scholars would have a different understanding of “Catholic” than the Catholics do.
Don’t get me wrong, I have high admiration for Catholicism as commonly understood. I think the Pope has made wonderful declarations, I think the Catholic stand on many things (abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment, the Trinity (minus filioque), the Incarnation, etc.) is absolutely right. But I don’t think it’s the only perspective that should be taught at universities, and I think a university would be worse for not teaching other perspectives.
Lol. But my statement was perfectly correct. It was Paul’s position, embedded in my statement, that you find absurd.
I’m sure that’s what I addressed specifically in my post:
If completely unrestrained academic freedom is required by a university…
No self respecting university allows, much less requires, “completely unrestrained academic freedom.”
Smoky was right. What is misunderstood is the nature of a university, not just the nature of a Catholic university.
Esquire,
The freedom I am talking of is hardly unrestrained. That is clear from my statements. To clarify even further:
Five things a professor would not be allowed to do:
1) Stop publishing entirely (unless retired/not professor/etc.)
2) Teach that 2 = 3 (or any other contradiction)
3) Shoot another professor
4) Teach about subjects outside the field the university allows him to teach.
5) Purposefully mislead students.
These are only five. There are literally hundreds.
Not quite what I call “unrestricted”.
Paul, what may be missing for you is that in one sense, Catholc theology is much like a sudoku puzzle in that there is only one right answer. There are no “alternative positions” on the topics being discussed.
That’s an oversimplification in some ways, but that’s the essential point.
5) Purposefully mislead students.
So this is the key.
I guess that you would hold that Maguire did not purposefully mislead anyone, because he genuinely believes his stance to be consistent with “Catholic Teaching”.
May we add a sixth to your list:
6.) Ignorantly mislead students
?
If so, then if you are shown that he did, in fact, mislead students out of his ignorance of what “Catholic Teaching” is, would you agree that he is in the wrong?
Ohhh… I LIKE this!
Theology is the study of God/gods/goddesses, and matters related to the divine.
I do not accept that theology was borne out of the Catholic Church (and definitely not Roman Catholicism, which is Catholic only in name, as I believe). The science of theology existed even before Aristotle (though Aristotle is the first person I know of that calls it a science).
You seem to be dwelling on the matter as regards Metaphysics; but Theology, as we know it, and its particular method of investigation into the Divine (in accordance with Christian beliefs), was, more precisely and properly, borne out of the Catholic Church as its contemporary usage and meaning would attest.
You say that my ignorance begs the question of why anyone would engage in discussions with me. You must find it hard to educate young children.
You cannot teach Calculus to children.
Students must first have obtained the necessary pre-requisites in order to do so.
In like manner, in order for me to properly discuss such details in their deeper respects, such must also be the case.
But no matter, it begs the question of you, not of me. So why do you keep discussing? I can tell you why I keep talking with you: I enjoy it and I learn from you. You seem like a very intelligent individual with some misconceptions, like most living breathing humans (myself definitely included).
The KEYWORD there: MISCONCEPTION.
And most Protestant scholars would have a different understanding of “Catholic” than the Catholics do.
Don’t get me wrong, I have high admiration for Catholicism as commonly understood. I think the Pope has made wonderful declarations, I think the Catholic stand on many things (abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment, the Trinity (minus filioque), the Incarnation, etc.) is absolutely right. But I don’t think it’s the only perspective that should be taught at universities, and I think a university would be worse for not teaching other perspectives.
Again, the heart of the matter is not the free-flowing investigation and the superficial topic (at least, in this regard since we are actually speaking of another matter entirely) concerning “academic freedom”; as Ratzinger pointed out, there is a time and place for that and folks, clearly, can do so — but that it CANNOT be (mis-)represented as “CATHOLIC”.
From reading these threads, IMHO it seems that the stumbling block to Paul is Church authority. Paul wrote earlier: “I think papal authority is a bunch of hogwash.” What it comes down to is this: The Church, having been founded by Christ and protected and led by the Holy Spirit, teaches what is true, as revealed by God who is Truth itself. The teachings of the Church are true because God is Truth – they aren’t true because the Church says so. That would be akin to putting the cart before the horse. Subsequently, papal authority (and magesterial authority and the USCCB’s authority) comes ultimately from God, who granted authority to His Church.
That being said, Catholic Theologians have an obligation to teach and instruct WHY the Church’s teachings are true, not IF the teachings are true. Or is only one possible “truth” among a collection of “truths”. To do so is to cause confusion. As Catholics, we have an incredible freedom to discover WHY the teachings are true, and do not have to fret over IF the teachings are true.
Paul, apparently Maguire is doing 2) and 5).
Mary Kay,
A very interesting analogy.
There may only be one answer to certain things. But that doesn’t mean only one possible answer should be looked at. Sudoku is a dangerous example because it assumes everyone agrees to the rules.
Maybe I change the rules, and now there are many solutions, or a different solution, or the same solution, or no solutions. Which rules are right?
The Pope and most real Catholics use a set of rules, and Maguire uses a different set. There is ultimately a way to test whether Maguire is correct, or whether his position is likely or unlikely. But silencing Maguire is both unprofessional, and counter-effective. It’s good dogmatics, but very bad academics. And, as Marquette is an academic institution, a University, it will try not to practice bad academics. No matter how much the Pope, Jimmy Akin, or posters would want it to.
Mary Kay writes:
Catholc theology is much like a sudoku puzzle in that there is only one right answer. There are no “alternative positions” on the topics being discussed.
I may be mistaken, but I had thought that there *are* areas of Catholic theology that *are* open to alternative positions because the Magisterium doesn’t teach definitively on those subjects. That’s precisely why theologians exist at all, isn’t it? Inquiry into those as of yet unknown Truths? Obviously, the Maguire subjects do not fall into that class.
Please correct me if I’m mistaken.
I may be mistaken, but I had thought that there *are* areas of Catholic theology that *are* open to alternative positions because the Magisterium doesn’t teach definitively on those subjects.
Smoky,
You are correct here to a certain degree (although, to speak on the actual subtleties would require too much time, space and effort here to give them the proper attention they deserve, so I’ll forego that here).
In fact, there are several areas of Theology that a Catholic Theologian can well explore and have.
It is only those things strictly defined by the Church and the Magesterium that one cannot cross the line, so-to-speak.
I have operated on the assumption that Paul is honestly ignorant of Catholic theology and have tried to explain it to him, as have others here. We have been clear in our explanations. Paul has chosen to cling to his ignorance.
Bill912 writes:
We have been clear in our explanations. Paul has chosen to cling to his ignorance.
Bill,
Please don’t be so quick to pass judgment; people don’t change their minds overnight. To use Esquire’s apt analogy from the DJK days — don’t expect someone to get hit by a lightning bolt every time you speak.
Esau,
I don’t use the same definition for theology that you used. Neither do most universities. Neither did Aristotle. Your definition “theology is the study what is real about God, assuming Catholics have it right” would certainly be founded by catholics. But this means very little to me.
Probably because I am still too “child-like” with respect to a field (Catholic Theology) I consider to be nonsense.
Maguire’s representation may be what Catholicism really is, and the Pope may be wrong. I find this highly unlikely, but not logically impossible.
To LarryD:
Catholic theologians cannot teach “if” a dogma is true, but merely “how” it is true. So I would argue that better philosophers of theology (what academic theologians are and all they can be) would ask “if”.
Smoky and Mary:
His statements are not self-inconsistant (or, if they are, such has not been sufficiently demonstrated), and he is not trying to purposefully mislead people. Accidental (or ignorant) misleading happens all the time when we ask questions. That’s part of academia. And that’s certainly part of science.
I don’t use the same definition for theology that you used. Neither do most universities. Neither did Aristotle. Your definition “theology is the study what is real about God, assuming Catholics have it right” would certainly be founded by catholics. But this means very little to me.
Paul,
You put words into my mouth here.
Though, I am rather curious, in precise terms, please provide me your defintion of Theology with respect to contemporary terms and usage?
Esau posted:
“Just like you mentioned here, Catholic Theologians aren’t supposed to operate based on mere “opinions”. They should operate based on opinions that have a basis in fact, and are approved by others (e.g., the Magesterium) in special process.”
Your post is flawed (as usual). A theologian is not supposed to operated “based on an OPINION THAT HAVE A BASIS IN FACT”
That is the exact approach Protestant and such great Modernistic theologians such as Karl Rahner, DeLubac and others use to push forth their liberal interpretation of what is supposed to be Catholic and what they THINK is catholic, like they did at Vatican II and corrupt thought, instead of following tradition, which can NOT be usurped by even the Pope himself
Today it is funny with so many little fiefdoms run by Bishops, the USCCB even even reach a majority as to whether or not to deny Our Lord to those who put forth the agenda the murder of the unborn. How can they even expect to get Catholic schools to teach what is catholic?
Paul writes:
Probably because I am still too “child-like” with respect to a field (Catholic Theology) I consider to be nonsense.
Paul,
Having identified yourself as an Orthodox Christian, it would be charitable to be more charitable towards the beliefs of the majority of this forum.
There’s really no need for any of us to move one iota away from a civil dialogue.
Great, just when I was having a good discussion with Smoky and Paul…
Having identified yourself as an Orthodox Christian, it would be charitable to be more charitable towards the beliefs of the majority of this forum.
There’s really no need for any of us to move one iota away from a civil dialogue.
Hear, hear, Smoky!
I was actually enjoying the dialogue since, for the first time, at least there was some exchange going on all things considered.
Esau,
Theology is the study of God/gods/goddesses, as well as the divine.
Brought into a more contemporary terminology (Oxford Online Dictionary) “a study of God and religious belief”. Or “the study of gods and goddesses” (Princeton’s Paganism group in their Theology department).
It existed in this light far before Catholicism. I would claim, first with Judaism.
Paul wrote: “Catholic theologians cannot teach “if” a dogma is true, but merely “how” it is true. So I would argue that better philosophers of theology (what academic theologians are and all they can be) would ask “if”.”
Your second statement might be correct, but it can’t apply to Catholic theologians. As the descriptor ‘Catholic’ means, they ought to teach Catholic theology and why (or how) it is true, and how other theologies are not true. In essence, Catholic theology is explaining and defending the faith.
Smoky,
Thank you for pointing that out.
Esau,
I am very sorry. I do not consider Catholic Theology to be nonsense. Much good has come out of Catholic theology (Schonborn’s “God’s Human Face” is an excellent example, better than 90% of Orthodox writing on Iconography). I felt insulted by your statement about me being child-like, and lashed out in a (predictably) child-like way. Please forgive me.
LarryD,
But different people have ideas as to what qualifies as Catholic theology.
In essence, Catholic theology is explaining and defending the faith.
I thought that was apologetics.
Paul,
You claim that Bill’s logic doesn’t hold, although I do not see you providing good proof of this.
Indeed, the majority of people here seem to think it quite solid (which may factor into your decision to want to take this to email where these others aren’t).
By your logic posted above, since the majority of people disagree with your position, the dissenter, Bill, quite likely has the claim to the truth. However if truth is objective and thus independent from popularity, then your logic to support Maguire must be abandoned.
Ergo, you must be mistaken about the popular support for Maguire in some way. QED
Jamor,
I am not claiming that majority determines truth. I am rather saying that academics should be honest as to whether their views have majority approval or not. And “majority” is seen with respect to the relevent academic community, not posters on a blog.
The QED is cute, though.
But different people have ideas as to what qualifies as Catholic theology
Paul, the crux of this discussion is that the above is not true. Catholic theology adheres to Magesterium teaching. Period.
Different people may indeed have ideas as to what qualifies, witness the inaccuracies in most of the media. But their ideas do not constitute Catholic theology (which adheres to, follows from, however you want to say it, Magesterium teaching).
Paul,
You cannot ignore that the contemporary usage and application of Theology as it is known and utilized today was borne out of the Catholic Church, which can be attested to, as mentioned, by even some Protestant scholars.
However, to adequately address this matter, I would have to first expound on some ecclesial history as well as go into specifics as regards background elements in Antiquity and its actual practical application in the Church throughout its history which grew out of the exploration of such matters that concerned weighty topics as that of Christology.
The Christian dogma regarding the Trinity itself was a result of this Theology that grew out of the early Church, which was the Catholic Church.
Again, to properly address these would mean time and effort since I would also have to bring out the Oxford studies, which, at this time, I do not have in my possession nor care to engage in at this time.
The following was written with the assistance of Rahner and other so called “Theologians” or “periti”, in which they espoused in clear contrdiction to sacred tradition and teaching that Protestants with their own liturgy can be saved, and that the catholic church must look within herself as she is not perfect for unity, both clear defections from the faith and actually heresy. So Theologians even at a Vatican council are just those offering opinions and one should follow and adhere to sacred tradition as passed down
DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
“The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them. But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ through the Apostles.
For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church’s image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God’s kingdom is delayed. All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection(24) and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed. For the Church must bear in her own body the humility and dying of Jesus,(25) against the day when Christ will present her to Himself in all her glory without spot or wrinkle.(26)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
“But different people have ideas as to what qualifies as Catholic theology.”
Which people?
Paul, the crux of this discussion is that the above is not true. Catholic theology adheres to Magesterium teaching. Period.
Different people may indeed have ideas as to what qualifies, witness the inaccuracies in most of the media. But their ideas do not constitute Catholic theology (which adheres to, follows from, however you want to say it, Magesterium teaching).
Mary Kay,
I think you hit it precisely here.
Paul,
If a Protestant Theologian taught that Papal Infallibility was actually true and, in fact, Catholicism was the One, True Christian Faith; would he still be considered “Protestant”?
The Hobby Horse has now passed into “Where’s Waldo?” status. Whatever the topic, you know that Waldo, er, the Hobby Horse, is present.
🙂 at Mary Kay.
Pope Benedict spoke on the very topic of Apostolic succession last Weds., in St. Peters Square, while teaching about the life and theology of St. Irenaus. Here is an exerpt(from Zenit.org), since it pertains to the present discussion:
“..the Gospel preached by St. Irenaeus is the one he received from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and the Gospel of Polycarp goes back to the apostle John, Polycarp having been John’s disciple. Thus, the true teaching is not that invented by the intellectuals, rising above the simple faith of the Church. The true Gospel is preached by the bishops who have received it thanks to an uninterrupted chain from the apostles.
These men have taught nothing but the simple faith, which is also the true depth of the revelation of God. Thus, says Irenaeus, there is no secret doctrine behind the common creed of the Church. There is no superior Christianity for intellectuals. The faith publicly professed by the Church is the faith common to all. Only this faith is apostolic, coming from the apostles, that is, from Jesus and from God.
To adhere to this faith publicly taught by the apostles to their successors, Christians must observe what the bishops say. They must specifically consider the teaching of the Church of Rome, pre-eminent and ancient. This Church, because of its age, has the greatest apostolicity; in fact its origins come from the columns of the apostolic college, Peter and Paul. All the Churches must be in harmony with the Church of Rome, recognizing in it the measure of the true apostolic tradition and the only faith common to the Church.
With these arguments, very briefly summarized here, Irenaeus refutes the very foundation of the aims of the gnostics, of these intellectuals: First of all, they do not possess a truth that would be superior to the common faith, given that what they say is not of apostolic origin, but invented by them. Second, truth and salvation are not a privilege monopolized by a few, but something that everyone can reach through the preaching of the apostles’ successors, and, above all, that of the Bishop of Rome.
By taking issue with the “secret” character of the gnostic tradition and by contesting its multiple intrinsic contradictions, Irenaeus concerns himself with illustrating the genuine concept of Apostolic Tradition, that we could summarize in three points.
a) The Apostolic Tradition is “public,” not private or secret. For Irenaeus, there is no doubt that the content of the faith transmitted by the Church is that received from the apostles and from Jesus, the Son of God. There is no teaching aside from this. Therefore, for one who wishes to know the true doctrine, it is enough to know “the Tradition that comes from the Apostles and the faith announced to men”: tradition and faith that “have reached us through the succession of bishops” (“Adv. Haer.” 3,3,3-4). Thus, the succession of bishops, personal principle, Apostolic Tradition, and doctrinal principle all coincide.
b) The Apostolic Tradition is “one.” While gnosticism is divided into many sects, the Church’s Tradition is one in its fundamental contents, which — as we have seen — Irenaeus calls “regula fidei” or “veritatis.” And given that it is one, it creates unity among peoples, different cultures and different communities. It has a common content like that of truth, despite different languages and cultures.
There is a beautiful expression that Irenaeus uses in the book “Against Heresies”: “The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points (of doctrine) just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world.”
We can already see at this time — we are in the year 200 — the universality of the Church, its catholicity and the unifying force of truth, which unites these so-very-different realities, from Germany, to Spain, to Italy, to Egypt, to Libya, in the common truth revealed to us by Christ.
c) Finally, the Apostolic Tradition is, as he says in Greek, the language in which he wrote his book, “pneumatic,” that is, spiritual, led by the Holy Spirit. In Greek, spirit is “pneuma.” It is not a transmission entrusted to the abilities of more or less educated men, but the Spirit of God who guarantees faithfulness in the transmission of the faith.”
Paul,
I don’t think I was saying that you were claiming academic freedom should be unrestrained. I was responding (I think — I only have a minute and didn’t check) to someone else’s statement that began with that assumption.
My point was that everyone agrees that some limitations on academic freedom are good and necessary in a true university, Catholic or not. The real question is what limitations are acceptable, and what limitations are not.
Your list is a good start, and I agree it’s not exhaustive. I’ll try to respond later with more on point.
Esau,
I am very sorry. I do not consider Catholic Theology to be nonsense. Much good has come out of Catholic theology (Schonborn’s “God’s Human Face” is an excellent example, better than 90% of Orthodox writing on Iconography).
I felt insulted by your statement about me being child-like, and lashed out in a (predictably) child-like way. Please forgive me.
Paul,
I think, again, you have inadvertently (?) put words in my mouth and, thus, you ended up with your own version of what I had actually said.
You, in fact, made the comment:
You say that my ignorance begs the question of why anyone would engage in discussions with me. You must find it hard to educate young children.
To which I replied (in accordance with what I said earlier about your needing first to know exactly what is Catholic Theology):
“You cannot teach Calculus to children.
Students must first have obtained the necessary pre-requisites in order to do so.
In like manner, in order for me to properly discuss such details in their deeper respects, such must also be the case.”
Point being, in order to properly engage in certain matters, one needs to take up certain pre-requisites; whether that means reading background material or other research or what not.
🙂 at Mary Kay.
All things considered, this seems a very good thread with most (would’ve said “all” since there is that H.H. rearing its ugly head ever so often) participating rather intelligently.
If anything, Paul has got us back doing dialogue again with Smoky doing some refereeing (?).
Thanks Paul and All!
And even Pope Benedict had something to chime in! : )
Is that all I’m good for? 🙂
Is that all I’m good for? 🙂
All of you (except, of course, H.H.) are good for a lot of other things — including intelligent discussions, as mentioned! =^)
test
You know what’s sad in this whole debate? Yes, MacGuire has freedom of speech, but once again, what is wanted is freedom from responsibility of speech. If Mac wants to teach these things he should not mask himself as a Catholic theologian at a supposed Catholic University. There are plenty of secular universities to be free at. Why is it the intellegensia of the left always cry out for freedom of expression wherever they wish it to be and are not so gratious when it comes to allowing the other side to express themselves on their turf? It is maddening how in this society how we believe we should be able to dissent without any fear of consequences! It is supreme arrogance! Mac wants to say these things? Fine. He’s wrong…but fine. He wants to be embraced for it by Catholicism? Tough…error is error. Mac and the other bevy of hirstute dissenters need to understand that the Holy Spirit was not withheld from the Church before their arrival on the scene. They will say that their theology is Godly…but ever notice how with a vested interest will say anything is gidly so long as they get their way?
You know what’s sad about this debate?
Universities were invented by the Catholic Church, primarily for the teaching of orthodox Catholic theology (with the other liberal arts included). Yet Catholics are apparently supposed to abandon teaching Catholic theology and even having Catholic universities.
No doubt wood is an inappropriate material for a forest, also.
You nailed it, Maureen. (Pun intended).
You know what’s sad about this debate?
Universities were invented by the Catholic Church, primarily for the teaching of orthodox Catholic theology (with the other liberal arts included). Yet Catholics are apparently supposed to abandon teaching Catholic theology and even having Catholic universities.
Maureen,
Thank you for actually reminding folks of that.
It’s a fact that’s often conveniently glossed over by many today.
Thomas Woods, a Harvard graduate, actually questioned his students regarding what they thought the Catholic Church had done to build our modern world today.
Many of them thought it did nothing and there were even those who felt it actually attempted to stop human progress dead on its tracks and attributed many other such negative things to the Church.
I think that’s why he wrote the book: How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.
A Williams posted:
“Pope Benedict spoke on the very topic of Apostolic succession last Weds., in St. Peters Square, while teaching about the life and theology of St. Irenaus. Here is an exerpt(from Zenit.org), since it pertains to the present discussion:”
Yes Mr Williams, he did speak about this topic, but like most Modernists who want to pretend to be in sync with the deposit of faith and sacred tradition, which you so conveniently omitted, the Holy Father added that the folowing, which is just another hidden wording to allow the church to continue to “renew” and “refresh” herself of course with the “holy Spirit” as he said:
“At the same time this also guarantees a “freshness” of the Church. In short “a precious deposit, held within a valuable vase, which renews itself continuously also renewing the vase which contains it”.
Such HOGWASH!!!
“Tradition is not traditionalism”
And finally the apostolic tradition is, in the Greek word “pneumatic”, because, through it, the Holy Spirit continues to enliven and renew the
Church even today”. “It is not a case of the transmission of faith being entrusted to men who are more or less capable, but it is the Spirit of God who guarantees the truth of faith”. At the same time this also guarantees a “freshness” of the Church. In short “a precious deposit, held within a valuable vase, which renews itself continuously also renewing the vase which contains it”.
So easily fooled by such Modernistic talk, the ability to “renew” herself anytime she wants and actually still be in line with sacred tradition
That itself is apostasy
The latest on the JPII “santo subito sham” as reported on Zenit:
The Vatican postulator for JPII’s beatification, Msgr. Slawomir Oder, admitted on March 28, 2007, that he is in such a hurry to rush through JPII’s “cannonization” that alleged “miracles” will not be checked, “since time is needed to validate the cures.” Time that Vatican doesn’t want to take.
The man has been dead for only two years, for heaven’s sake! It took Joan of Arc and St. Thomas More over 400 years to be recognized as Saints. [Source: Zenit]
1) Vatican II BAD!
2) Everything since Vatican II BAD!
3) Paul VI BAD!
4) John Paul II VERY BAD!!
bill912,
Don’t pay attention to the jack-ass, I mean, hobby horse.
I think ignoring him has made him more determined than ever to get his attention (like a little child).
Yet, ultimately, if we ignore him every single time for now on, he might just end up going away permanently. *cross fingers*
Ass-au..I mean Esau
Please be nice
John/Jack,
The quote above from Pope Benedict’s St.Irenaus discourse last Wednesnday, was merely a selection. I’m glad you decided to do further reading from the Zenit site, as it does provide these further teachings you mention.
Thinking that there might be more interested in this talk, I’ll include the last few paragraphs in theri entirely. this way, others can read for themselves to see if you make any sense with your complaints against it:
Pope Benedict’s talk on St. Irenaus, St. Peters Square, Weds. March 28th, 2007, (continued from former post, above.)
________________________________
c) Finally, the Apostolic Tradition is, as he says in Greek, the language in which he wrote his book, “pneumatic,” that is, spiritual, led by the Holy Spirit. In Greek, spirit is “pneuma.” It is not a transmission entrusted to the abilities of more or less educated men, but the Spirit of God who guarantees faithfulness in the transmission of the faith.
This is the “life” of the Church, that which makes the Church always young, that is, fruitful with many charisms. Church and Spirit are inseparable for Irenaeus. This faith, we read in the third book of “Against Heresies,” “which, having been received from the Church, we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth also. … For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace” (3,24,1).
As we can see, Irenaeus does not stop at defining the concept of Tradition. His tradition, uninterrupted Tradition, is not traditionalism, because this Tradition is always internally vivified by the Holy Spirit, which makes it alive again, allows it to be interpreted and understood in the vitality of the Church.
According to his teaching, the Church’s faith must be preached in such a way that it appears as it must appear, that is “public,” “one,” “pneumatic,” “spiritual.” From each of these characteristics, one can glean a fruitful discernment of the authentic transmission of the faith in the Church of today.
More generally, in the doctrine of Irenaeus, human dignity, body and soul, is firmly rooted in Divine Creation, in the image of Christ and in the permanent work of sanctification of the Spirit. This doctrine is like the “main road” to clarify to all people of good will, the object and the limits of dialogue on values, and to give an ever new impulse to the missionary activities of the Church, to the strength of truth which is the source of all the true values in the world.
A. Williams:
Splendidly well-handled, Sir, with admirable charity, I might add!
God bless you!
Mr Williams
You are a scholar and a gentlman, someone I can respect and have an intelligent discussion using facts without name calling
Esau-you are a nasty hypocrite who has an agenda
Thank you Mr Williams, though you failed to respond to why the Vicar of Christ decided to add the following, which seems to contradict all of the good which he said in the earlier portion and again leave the door open for modernistic interpretation:
At the same time this also guarantees a “freshness” of the Church. In short “a precious deposit, held within a valuable vase, which renews itself continuously also renewing the vase which contains it”.
Mr Williams
“You are a scholar and a gentlman”…. well I think it’s clear that Pope Benedict is the scholar here. But having the sensitivity, as St. John the Baptist did, in recognizing the greatness of Jesus,and to put Him first, I too recognize real virtue, both in Popes like Benedict XVI and other holy teachers. So I am content to comprehend and ‘agree’ with their ‘scholarly’ teachings, thereby honoring them and ‘putting them first’, over my limited abilities! So I don’t know if it means that I am actually a ‘scholar’ in any way, but rather, one who both recognizes, loves, and honors such holy scholar’s of the Holy Catholic Faith.
And I can be a gentleman sometimes… but I don’t know if my wife will actually agree with that assessment! : )
John, you note this passage:
“At the same time this also guarantees a “freshness” of the Church. In short “a precious deposit, held within a valuable vase, which renews itself continuously also renewing the vase which contains it”.
Don’t you think that every breath we take is a gift of life from the all powerfull, all-loving God? And in each moment of our lives, from our very conception, that this is the case, and that we are always alive and renewing ourselves?
I think the above analogy is kind of like another I recently read:
“We pray as we live and we live as we pray”
This highlights the inter relationship between ‘life and spirit’, and shows that they both effect one another.
The spirit does indeed have a great impact on our bodies,and indeed can “‘renew’ the vase that contains it”, in many ways… especially in regards physical and mental health. And also, our bodies can impact the spirit, and can aid or damage it, depending on whether we practice vice or virtue.
And the analogy of a single person can be applied to the Universal Church herself. So I find nothing wrong with these analogies that you are so concerned with. They’re really just rehashing some common principles found in the spiritual teachings of Catholic saints and doctors, through the centuries.
John,
I though about another saying you might think about. And this is because you frequently seem to focus on the necessity to ‘purify’ all of the ‘percieved’ errors of the modern Church. However, maybe there are some things that need ‘cleaning’, but this doesn’t necessarily mean the ‘entire body’…but maybe only ‘parts’:
“Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. 9 Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. 10 Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly.”
This proves that Jesus Himself realizes that some items will need to be frequently and continually cleaned in the Church, even as ‘feet’ are, if you’re walking in sandals, or worse yet..barefoot! The more we have contact with the ‘filthy’ earth, the more we need to wash! But it also means that we don’t need to wash the entire body..as the Lord clearly points out!
You are a scholar and a gentlman, someone I can respect and have an intelligent discussion using facts without name calling
Esau-you are a nasty hypocrite who has an agenda
Oh please, John, quit with your lying, puh-leaze!
Anybody can dig up your posts from the past where you, in fact, did many such things, and you even did so to those who were actually clergy, in fact!
You have no respect for not only priests, for bishops, but not even the Pope as well as no respect for Christ as well!
What a tragedy and a viscious hypocrite.
A. Williams may not know you well and what you had done in the past and even in the present. He may even choose to gloss over that, but God sees what you’re doing to Him and His Church and that’s all that matters.
A. Williams:
Can you please not continue with your dialogue with John?
This thread is supposed to be concerning the piece above.
I liked it this morning when Paul, Smoky and me as well as many others here were actually engaging in discussion of that topic.
Please don’t be an accessory to John’s hijacking of this thread for his specific purpose of, again, attacking the Catholic Church as well as the Pope unless you actually believe the same.
Thanks.
Your right Esau…and it’s easy to get ‘off-topic’.
However, the quotes I mentioned above might actually help John a bit. They should at least be considered. The Lord, and Gospels, highlighted and mentioned this act of ‘cleaning the feet’, for a reason. And this might be good to consider for both John, and many others, who have problems with the teachings and discipline of the ‘living’ Catholic Faith and Church.
..”unless you actually believe the same.”
Let’s just say I Love the Catholic Church and Pope, as anyone who has read my posts can figure by now. But your statement was a bit amusing!
A. Williams,
I doubt that it will help, but your efforts are admirable.
Yet, I’ve conducted and completed research into John (jtnova@optline.com) and from the evidence gathered, it appears that his agenda is simply to attack the Catholic Church and declare B16 (just like he mentioned above) as an Apostate as well as John Paul II (which he already did in the past).
Therefore, instead of promoting his efforts by your participation in such discussions with him, please ignore his anti-Catholic posts in these and other threads or else this will continue onwards ad infinitum in each and every thread (as have been the case) until John has successfully hijacked every piece out there that comes from Jimmy Akin, Tim J., and/or SDG.
Thank-you.
Esau posted:
“A. Williams:
Can you please not continue with your dialogue with John?”
Esau-you once again think you are God and can control this thread and blog. Your hypocracy and agenda are clear for all, you are a Protestant who pretends very well to be a catholic and wants to weaken everything the church has stood for the past 2000 years, while pretending to be obedient-but to the modernistic aspects of the church that in defection from true past teachings of the church for the past 500 years, try to insinuate that Protestants can be saved as I have illustrated from the Vatican II documents in the Decree on Ecumenism, possible so the rest of your Protestant family can feel good about themselves and feel that they shall be saved
You are truly a hypocrite, while at the same time as many Vatican II supporters, while loving those who are Protestant in the name of Ecumenism hate with a passion true Catholics, the Traditionalists, because they are what you and many never thought would take place, a minority who would stand up for what today is being sold off as Catholic but the world truly knows it is not such, as B16 is slowly realizing hence the MP and other small concessions till the restoration is complete
Relevent Radio rejects Vatican II and no one bats an eye – a guy at Marquette University challenges another more conservative church teaching and suddenly the local henchmen get out their bats… kinda sad, not a lot of consistency.
Daniel McGuire should not be teaching at a Catholic School.
This is a very sad story.
We all need to pray more.
A. Williams is a great writer.
Although I have to agree with Esau regarding John, I go to the Traditional Latin Mass (indult in Chicago) and I have been at and sympathize with SSPX although do not attend at a regular basis and have not yet made it to Institute Christ the King by the University of Chicago. I study Latin and Greek. I teach my kids from the St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism. I pray the Rosary. I think I would be considered a traditionalist–however, I was not always one and Pope John Paul II helped bring me back into the Church–even if I am critical of many of the excesses of Vatican II. Pope John Paul II helped convert many many people that I know personally that attend the TLM. Pope John Paul II writings on the Theology of the Body have helped my marriage immensely.
The faith of the Polish people and affection for Pope John Paul II, which is so evident in Chicago is amazing and I saw virtue develop in terms of forgiving relatives and not going to bars and drinking in people after the Pope died.
The Church has many problems, theologians like McGuire, financial problems, problems confronting modernity and secularism, an increasingly hedonistic culture around the world, science that has cloning, DNA changing, and the priestly abuse crisis. Pope John Paul II may not have been perfect nor always good as a manager–but he was incredible as a teacher and preacher. The hate some traditionalists have for him and some posters on this and other blogs is sad and downright evil. Pope John Paul II should be called the Great and was a good and holy man. He helped my conversion and spiritual life. Again, I wish all people could and would go to the Traditional Latin Mass (post Trent/pre 1962/pre-Vatican II/Tridentine), I wish all kids would be taught the St. Joseph’s Baltimore Catechism, I wish everyone would pray the Rosary–but God is not here to micromanage liturgy, or want us to criticize without charity every bishop and priest–I believe that God wants us to develop an interior life and cultivate virtue. I believe that God wants us to go to Heaven and gives us Himself in Jesus, the Church and Sacraments to get there. I believe that the seat of Peter is not empty but is filled and was filled with vibrant Holy men of God in John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Please pray for John, Daniel McGuire and all those filled with hate and in error.
Also, Esau is not a Protestant–that is an absured statement.
Again, A. Williams is very insightful–I learned a lot.
Please someone ask my question: Why does a Catholic University allow McGuire to remain?
I do agree there is room for theological speculation and disagreement on some topics. However, for him to say there is a strong pro-choice tradition in the Catholic Church is crazy and not meeting with any historical or theological reality. Also, to justify gay marriage, even if issues of respect and orientation may be open to speculation and can be guided by science–gay marriage is not an option in Catholicism with a clear emphasis on new life and love based in fidelity.
This is not debate between Karl Rahner or Hans Urs von Baltasar even if both can be wrong on issues that have not been settled by the teaching authority of the Church or are more prudential. These men, yes even Rahner, love the Church, believe in God, believe in Jesus, believein the Pope, believe in Christ in the Eucharist–people like Kung and McGuire–very simply do not believe in the basics of Christianity–they are very simply heretics–in an objective sense of the word and not necessarily pejorative although I would view it as such.
The whole McGuire thing makes me very sad and I feel very concerned about misguided students who believe him
I also feel sad for and at John and his feelings so negatively against the last successor of Peter.
Please pray for the Church and let us work together to help it and not tear it apart.
Don’t worry Joe.
We won’t.
The Church is is a Divine Institution.
So its salvation will be a Divine Intervention.
Perversi difficile corriguntur et stultorum infinitus est numerus!
Joe,
Thanks for the compliments, and I learn alot from the other writers here also, and even John and Esau.
That being said, I confess I was in error, above, when I agreed with Esau on being “off topic”.
Although, John and most of us here on the J.A. Blog, have strayed off topic, and some more than others, this was not the case in this instance. For instance, If we are talking about Fr. Fessio’s job status at AMU, as we were recently, and the subject is turned towards Papal errors after VATII, there is a real shift of direction in the conversation, which is clearly wrong.
However, in this present topic, we are discussing a topic that is relevent to some of John’s favorite themes and arguments, the title here being”USCCB SMACKDOWN”. This, of course implies an analysis of the degrees and extents of Church’s Magisterial authority’, which are ‘fair play’ for this com-box, and one might say… even “right up John’s alley”.
So in other instances, there were definitely excessive deviations from the topic, but here, no. If there is a correct time to bring up ‘papal authority’, its probably on a subject such as this. And this is why I quoted from Pope Benedicts Weds. Audience, because, ‘providentially’ he was focusing on this very subject matter, (so fought over in the com-boxes these days).
Moreover, since alot is argued on this matter, and even in a fairly ‘crude’ manner, at times, I think it good to read someone like Pope Benedict discuss this topic. He makes a great case, and is concise also, here. So it is very good ‘food for thought’ for all interested in the history and reasons behind ‘Papal and Magisterial Authority’ in the Catholic Church.
One other comment. For both Esau and John: Saints such as St. Francis of Assisi and also St. Anthony Mary Claret were insistent on being very patient, and with even blasphemers against God and the Church! St. Francis once healed a man who could hardly refrain from blasphemeing everyday, such that all of his other brothers could not stand it any longer, and would not help this man, as was commanded of them by St. Francis! But, having no one else to do this work, St. Francis said that he would serve this BROTHER in their stead! And patiently he served and attended to the man who couldn’t keep his mouth shut from the most abusive blaspheme’s against everything religious!
However, the patience of Francis won in the end, and the man was cured from both his sickness of body and also his sickness of soul!
St. Anthony Claret was also never disturbed by those who speak badly against the Church. He said that if your ‘brother’ has a high fever, he will say many things tht are ‘out of his mind’. However, we still must serve and love this brother, and wait and hope for the fever to subside.
So, here we find some practical examples from great Saints on how to deal with others who oppose both our ways, and even the ways of the Church!
Just my 2 pesos!
Mr Sallas posted:
“Although I have to agree with Esau regarding John”
Mr Sallas-your description of your beliefs (except of JPII) seem to be exactly in line with myself, as I to attend the indult and consider myself a traditionalist, and am against the excesses of Vatican II-But then I am bashed by Esau. You also I guess dont see the continued embrace of modernism “aggorniomento”, and “renewal” that keeps being thrown around, which is just another word of modernism which if condemned by a saint in Pope St Pius X as well as Leo XIII and others-Could they have been so wrong and John XXIII and onward be so correct? Clear contradiction and a pope is not allowed to redefine a church position that another Pope has already defined, but it is being done today with clear disregard
So-where do we stray of course? Stick around long enough and continue to post your “traditional” views and you as well will be bashed by Esau as well and then I will still see if you think that you agree with him regarding myself, whom you dont know
If Esau bashes traditionalists than I will criticize that. His issue seems to be more with you individually and your lack of charity to Pope John Paul II.
I will pray for you, please pray for me.
“Relevent Radio rejects Vatican II and no one bats an eye”
Relevant Radio does not reject Vat II in any way at all. You are hallucinating.
John,
Pope St. Pius X had a much different view of modernism than you do. He saw very clearly that the root cause of modernism, its very foundation, lay in a disregard and disrespect for proper authority. You very clearly miss that.
You are not “bashed” by Esau or anyone else for attending the indult Mass. You may consider yourself a traditionalist, but you reject in practice the most traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
And lets break down the “excesses of Vatican II” about which you speak. If you were referring to excesses in the implementation of Vatican II, you would have the enthusiastic agreement of most here. Even a cursory review of your posts, however, demonstrates that you mean that Vatican II itself was excessive, wrong and just plain heretical.
There is simply no way to reconcile that belief with traditional Catholicism.
That is why you are “bashed” when you come riding your hobby horse in on post after post after post.
I think you would need examples to prove your point. From the Relevent Radio website:
“In fidelity to God, Relevant Radio creates, promotes and endorses programming that follows the post-Vatican II teachings of the Roman Catholic Magisterium. Relevant Radio is the first and only radio network to be approved by the USCCB as a national media outlet and through a strategic collaboration with bishops and their dioceses, Relevant Radio is able to serve the Church by providing programming that is adapted to the needs of the listening audience.”
Joe
Agreed
God bless
Esquire posted:
“Pope St. Pius X had a much different view of modernism than you do. He saw very clearly that the root cause of modernism, its very foundation, lay in a disregard and disrespect for proper authority. You very clearly miss that.”
Esquire-please expand. Would Pope St Pius X, who demanded each and all to refute Modernism, and I shall “cut and paste” rrom EWTN:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P10MOATH.HTM
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
Pope Pius X
——————————————————————————–
Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.
And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated:
Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.
Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.
Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our Creator and Lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality—that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.
Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact—one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history—the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
NOW ESQUIRE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHY THE POPES AFTER VATICAN II STOPPED TAKING THE ABOVE OATH, AND IF THOSE POPES OF TODAY ARE INDEED IN LINE WITH WHAT OUR BLESSED SAINT PIUS X TAUGHT US
Obviously there is a divergence and your above statement is flawed, JPII is a modernist and his teaching is either heresy and one must question his papacy or Pope Pius X was wrong which we know is not true
John,
What in the oath do you believe that the great Pope John Paul II rejected? I saw nothing.
Obviously there is a divergence and your above statement is flawed, JPII is a modernist and his teaching is either heresy and one must question his papacy or Pope Pius X was wrong which we know is not true
How do you know that Pope Pius X wasn’t wrong?
Esquite posted:
“John,
What in the oath do you believe that the great Pope John Paul II rejected? I saw nothing.”
For starters, lets just take a look at this past week, where our present pontiff whom I admire, but is still infected with Modernism, stated the following:
“It is not a case of the transmission of faith being entrusted to men who are more or less capable, but it is the Spirit of God who guarantees the truth of faith”. At the same time this also guarantees a “freshness” of the Church. In short “a precious deposit, held within a valuable vase, which renews itself continuously also renewing the vase which contains it”.
Lets now compare this to the Oath:
“Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously”
Complete and utter contradiction. A “deposit of faith” which continuously “renews itself”
IMPOSSIBLE!
John, what is your definition of ‘renew’?
JoAnna,
You beat me to it.
John,
When Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II used the word “renewal” in this context, they certainly did not mean that “dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.” They would agree completely with St. Pope Pius X.
When they use the term renewal in this context, it frequently means to return to the original sources (i.e., pre-Vatican II) and make them visible to the world.
Much like Christ (and St. Pope Pius X, among others) did.
Pope Benedict condemn the “dictatorship of relativism,” and John misinterprets his words. Ergo, Pope Benedict is ‘infected with modernism’. I love it when people misinterpret others words, then condemn their supposed meaning.
John,
” Obviously there is a divergence and your above statement is flawed, JPII is a modernist and his teaching is either heresy and one must question his papacy or Pope Pius X was wrong which we know is not true ”
You are denying John Paul II’s papal authority? that’s it.
Thank you, Esquire! Once again, I am indebted to you for your kindness and work of mercy!
As many of my past posts will, in fact, corroborate, I used to attend the Tridentine Mass when it was made available until the priest who celebrated it retired and, in fact, have promoted it on this very blog several times.
In fact, yesterday afternoon, I had posted the following concerning the anticipated Motu Proprio on several sites:
I viewed the term renew as a renewal of the Holy Spirit in our spiritual life and our ability to renew the culture. I did not view it as a call to renew dogma or evolving doctrine. But I could be wrong.
Wow – did this thread get out of hand.
But to return to Paul’s position: What he says seems to suggest that before the 1960’s, there were no Catholic universities that qualified as “real.”
Which is curious, since the Church essentially invented the university in the High Middle Ages. So forget all that rich speculative theology done by Aquinas, Bonaventure, Vitoria, Suarez, Scheeben, Garrigou-Lagrange, Rahner, or even Ratzinger – they weren’t doing it at “real” universities (which happened to be the Universities of Paris, Padua, Salamanca, the Angelicum, and Tubingen). They only magically became “real” after the Land ‘O Lakes Conference.
Speculative theology in the academic setting, properly considered, allows considerable room for theological speculation in research and writing, exploring areas yet to be formally defined by the Church. But certain boundaries are set by magisterial teaching, as indeed they are in any denominational teaching’s doctrinal authority. Paul is right that the Pope does not determine what Catholic teaching is; it is the magisterium which does, and any pope is merely the servant of the magisterium and tradition it defends and transmits, not its master.
There are certain parallels between theology and accrediting and peer revieiwing requirements in academic in general. But even so, theology is a somewhat different discipline by its nature; its boundaries are determined not by empirical data but by magisterial authority. I don’t much care if Marquette employs Maguire to teach philosophy or logic or religious studies. But Marquette should darn well care if he’s teaching Catholic theology.
So should Marquette’s bishop.
“If John has the right to spew his venomous attacks against the Church and purposely misrepresent actual Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church here (as some have wrongfully advocated — and even compared him to a Saint, of all things!) then I don’t see why folks like Maguire shouldn’t be allowed to continue to do the same!”
Esau, I hope you’re not insinuating that anything I wrote compared John to a Saint!
However, I will defend the rights of everyone to an opinion, even if I don’t like the opinion that they give, and Jimmy has all the right in the world to decide who he wants to blog here.
Don’t we need to remember that this is an APOLOGETICS site, which by its very definition means that there will obviously be some arguments and opposition here?And also, the arguments might very well be ‘illogical’, or even out right lies. However, thats why they call it apologetics! It’s for good apologists on the Catholic side to refute such things…and do it in a Christ-like manner as well.
So, what’s the big deal?
John raises a point that he believes Papal authority has some limitations. This is a applicable proposition for this topic which deals directly with Papal and Magesterial authority in the case of Daniel Maguire of Marquette University.
Without getting all upset, why don’t we just shed some light on the gift of Christ to His Church of Apostolic Succession?
Let me paste up the very first part of Benedicts talk on Wednesday..because it might answer some of these questions better than I:
On St. Irenaeus of Lyons
“The First Great Theologian of the Church”
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 28, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI gave at the general audience today in St. Peter’s Square. The reflection focused on St. Irenaeus of Lyons.
Dear Brothers and Sisters!
In the catechesis on the great figures of the Church during the first centuries, today we reach the figure of an eminent personality, Irenaeus of Lyons. His biographical information comes from his own testimony, sent down to us by Eusebius in the fifth book of the “Storia Ecclesiastica.”
Irenaeus was most probably born in Smyrna (today Izmir, in Turkey) between the years 135 and 140. There, while still a youth, he attended the school of Bishop Polycarp, for his part, a disciple of the apostle John. We do not know when he moved from Asia Minor to Gaul, but the move must have coincided with the first developments of the Christian community in Lyons: There, in 177, we find Irenaeus mentioned among the college of presbyters.
That year he was sent to Rome, bearer of a letter from the community of Lyons to Pope Eleutherius. The Roman mission took Irenaeus away from the persecution by Marcus Aurelius, in which at least 48 martyrs died, among them the bishop of Lyons himself, the 90-year-old Pothinus, who died of mistreatment in jail. Thus, on his return, Irenaeus was elected bishop of the city. The new pastor dedicated himself entirely to his episcopal ministry, which ended around 202-203, perhaps by martyrdom.
Irenaeus is above all a man of faith and a pastor. Like the Good Shepherd, he has prudence, a richness of doctrine, and missionary zeal. As a writer, he aims for a twofold objective: to defend true doctrine from the attacks of the heretics, and to clearly expound the truth of the faith. His two works still in existence correspond exactly to the fulfillment of these two objectives: the five books “Against Heresies,” and the “Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching” (which could be called the oldest “catechism of Christian doctrine”). Without a doubt, Irenaeus is the champion in the fight against heresies.
The Church of the second century was threatened by so-called gnosticism, a doctrine which claimed that the faith taught by the Church was nothing more than symbolism for the simpleminded, those unable to grasp more difficult things. Instead, the initiated, the intellectuals — they called themselves gnostics — could understand what was behind the symbolism, and thus would form an elite, intellectual Christianity.
Obviously, this intellectual Christianity became more and more fragmented with different currents of thought, often strange and extravagant, yet attractive to many. A common element within these various currents was dualism, that is, a denial of faith in the only God, Father of all, creator and savior of humanity and of the world. To explain the evil in the world, they asserted the existence of a negative principle, next to the good God. This negative principle had created matter, material things.
Firmly rooted in the biblical doctrine of Creation, Irenaeus refuted dualism and the gnostic pessimism that devalued corporal realities. He decisively affirmed the original holiness of matter, of the body, of the flesh, as well as of the spirit. But his work goes far beyond the refutation of heresies: In fact, one can say that he presents himself as the first great theologian of the Church, who established systematic theology. He himself speaks about the system of theology, that is, the internal coherence of the faith.
The question of the “rule of faith” and its transmission lies at the heart of his doctrine. For Irenaeus, the “rule of faith” coincides in practice with the Apostles’ Creed, and gives us the key to interpret the Gospel, to interpret the creed in light of the Gospel. The apostolic symbol, a sort of synthesis of the Gospel, helps us understand what the Gospel means, how we must read the Gospel itself.
In fact, the Gospel preached by St. Irenaeus is the one he received from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and the Gospel of Polycarp goes back to the apostle John, Polycarp having been John’s disciple. Thus, the true teaching is not that invented by the intellectuals, rising above the simple faith of the Church. The true Gospel is preached by the bishops who have received it thanks to an uninterrupted chain from the apostles.
These men have taught nothing but the simple faith, which is also the true depth of the revelation of God. Thus, says Irenaeus, there is no secret doctrine behind the common creed of the Church. There is no superior Christianity for intellectuals. The faith publicly professed by the Church is the faith common to all. Only this faith is apostolic, coming from the apostles, that is, from Jesus and from God.
To adhere to this faith publicly taught by the apostles to their successors, Christians must observe what the bishops say. They must specifically consider the teaching of the Church of Rome, pre-eminent and ancient. This Church, because of its age, has the greatest apostolicity; in fact its origins come from the columns of the apostolic college, Peter and Paul. All the Churches must be in harmony with the Church of Rome, recognizing in it the measure of the true apostolic tradition and the only faith common to the Church.
With these arguments, very briefly summarized here, Irenaeus refutes the very foundation of the aims of the gnostics, of these intellectuals: First of all, they do not possess a truth that would be superior to the common faith, given that what they say is not of apostolic origin, but invented by them. Second, truth and salvation are not a privilege monopolized by a few, but something that everyone can reach through the preaching of the apostles’ successors, and, above all, that of the Bishop of Rome.
* * *
The 2nd and 3rd parts to this address can be found in the combox above.
David B posted:
” Obviously there is a divergence and your above statement is flawed, JPII is a modernist and his teaching is either heresy and one must question his papacy or Pope Pius X was wrong which we know is not true ”
You are denying John Paul II’s papal authority? that’s it. ”
David B, you clearly do not know what the Papal limitations are as clearly defined by Vatican Council I (You have read such , have you not?)
It appears that you are speaking to one of those “lay theologians,” , Pope St Pius X clearly defined Modernism and the deposit of faith as binding and not “renewed”,as the present crop of Popes think it can be defined and changed (just another word for renewed) at their own whim.
Popes are subservient to the Deposit of Faith, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and have no authority to change it. If you dont accept that point, clear dogma defined at Vatican I and you deny that doctrine, than you and anybody else is a clear heretic, that simple.
“as the present crop of Popes think it can be defined and changed (just another word for renewed) at their own whim.”
Give some evidence of that. And no, your misterpretation doesn’t count.
“Popes are subservient to the Deposit of Faith, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and have no authority to change it.
“If you dont accept that point, clear dogma defined at Vatican I and you deny that doctrine, than you and anybody else is a clear heretic, that simple.”
Where did I say that I don’t accept the deposit of faith? Re-read my post. I only called you on your misrepresentation of the Holy Father’s words. That. Is. All. Quit trying to project your opinions about what you think I said onto my words. It won’t work. I done. see ya round.
“one must question his papacy…”
Is this not a denial of JP II’s Validity as the successor of ST. Peter? In my first post, I wasn’t trying to say that any pope could override the Deposit of Faith. I was saying that I’m sick of you trying to say JPII wasn’t really the pope.
Okay. Now I’m done here.
In the last paragraph of the discourse above Pope Benedict talks about the teachings that aren’t of ‘apostolic origin’, but rather, ‘invented’ in one way or another outside of the Apostolic succession.
This is John’s problem. He can’t see that the Bishops of the Church and especially the Bishop of Rome, are the holders of this office of ‘apostolic’ succession and authority.
He claims these successors, the Bishops and Pope of the current Church, are themselves the ones who are ‘inventing’ things. However, this really makes no sense! As Pope Benedict teaches, further, in this same talk, it is not the argument’s, logic or philosopies raised, that give the authority to the church, but the Faith of Christ, transferred one Bishop to another, through the centuries!
Pretty easy to understand. Follow those who sit in the ‘Chair of Peter’…against which the ‘Gates of Hell shall not prevail!”
All other arguments are therefore mute, and mere philosopies of would be ‘gnostic’ type intellectuals, who would like to interpret, or ‘invent’for others what THEY THINK is the true Christian faith. This applies to both John and Danial Maguire, also. If you aren’t united with the Bishops, and Pope, of the Catholic Church, you DON’T have the ONE ONLY CATHOLIC FAITH. So to sum things up.. if we want to hear the voice of Christ in this world, “those who hear you, hear Me”, we must attentively listen to the Catholic Bishops of the world, which are united to the Bishop of Rome, THE POPE.
” And as he spoke these things, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them; and they were afraid, when they entered into the cloud. 35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is my beloved Son; hear him.”
BONES MY BREAK
MAY STONES AND STICKS
BEGONE, YE NASTY I- TAL- ICS
Well, the spell didn’t work.
So, here’s another attempt to use html to banish the italicization.
I wrote to the Professor Mac, and excerpt the following from my comments:
Your illogical syllogism seems to be as follows:
“I’ve written all these articles trying to get the Church leadership to change their teaching on ‘pelvic issues’.
The Church leadership steadfastly forges ahead teaching consistently against my point of view.
Therefore, THEY are obsessed with ‘pelvic issues’.
That strikes me as extremely hubristic.”
I have been trying to follow the argument that Paul was making and it seems that he has a “Socrates forced to hemlock” idea of what the bishops said. They, in union with the rest of the magisterium, are in fact the guarantors of Catholic doctrine. No theologian who is not ordained with that gift of the spirit is empowered to speak as part of the magisterium.
He also seems to think that because his idea of university has “evolved” from the original (ahem, Catholic) institutions created to teach Truth, as understood by Catholic scholars, that Catholics are not allowed to hold on to universities that follow their traditional functions. This is a common argument, extending to Catholic hospitals being driven to assist in the culture of death, Catholic elementary schools being pushed to teach other religions or other “lifestyles,”etc.
Two analogies that may be more pertinent to the Maguire case: a French teacher insisting on teaching the numbers as uno, deux, trois, quatre, cinco… When it is pointed out that some of the numbers are in Spanish, he insists that he is French, therefore they are French and he has a right to teach them as French to students who are paying for instruction to learn to speak French, and no one has the right to stop him, since they are valid names for the numbers they represent. Further, he states that all French language dictionaries, teachers and French documentation of the words in their language are incorrect, because he has as much authority as they do.
The second: the salesman that makes up his own “catalog” for the company that he is selling for, containing things not manufactured by the company and misrepresenting things that are manufactured by the company that hired him. No matter what he thinks or believes about what he is doing, he is materially harming both the company that he is hired to represent and the customers who think they are getting the products of that company, when in fact they are not.
In both analogies, like Maguire, the misrepresenters insist on their “rights” to the proceeds of their actions in direct opposition to any rights of others to what they are contracting for. In a word, fraud. Maguire, by fraudulently naming his teachings as Catholic, intends to supercede those teachings which are identified by the teaching authority of the Church as its own and are being expected and paid for by the students.
I also find it interesting that the teachings that Paul “agrees with”( Mar 30, 2007 1:41:25 PM) are 1) those guaranteed and taught by the Magisterium and 2) in opposition to and incompatible with those taught as “Catholic” by Maguire. Go figure.
A Williams posted:
Pretty easy to understand. Follow those who sit in the ‘Chair of Peter’…against which the ‘Gates of Hell shall not prevail!”
Mr williams, if you are truly a student of Catholic history, we have had one heretical pope, (3) men claiming it all at the same time in the 15th or 16th century I recall until Pope Martin was declared the true pope (actually it is ironic that Pope John XXIII was the name of the deposed pope who was later run out of town as an imposter)with the chair “vacant” for 2 years.
Vatican I was called for just that reason, to define the papacy and the “GATES OF HELL” /church appear to have nothing at all to do with the Vicar of Christ.
If you look at Vatican I, where it states very clearly that :
This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath…THIS HAS BEEN CLEARLY CONTRADICTED IN VATICAN II’S DECREE ON ECUMENISM.
CONTINUED
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This holy see has always maintained this, the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
I SEE NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT THE POPE SPEAKING ABOUT THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH BEING RENEWED. VERY CLEAR, HE MUST ONLY SAFEGUARD IT
WITH RESPECT TO THE GATES OF HELL
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
THE JPII QUESTION IS JUST THAT AS I HAVE READ ON OTHER BLOGS UP TO 100 ACTIONS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED HERESY. But I leave that for God to figure out not myself
Well, John, congratulations. You’ve convinced me.
However… I still think you’re following an invalid Pope and an invalid Mass.
I’M joining the SSPI!
Maguire seems extremely liberal and should retire.
Oooo, JoAnna!
The SSPI?
The real one is the Greek Orthodox Church….
Joanna –
Do we get a secret decoder ring?
Cudos on your delightful send-up of misguided Rad-Trads, but don’t expect it to make any impact on them. Most seem to live by the mantra “Don’t confuse me with the facts”.
Speaking of which, I’ve lost track of who’s turn it is to refute John’s combox screeds.
John, why don’t you just join an Eastern Rite church and be done with it? Why pretend to be Roman Catholic any longer?
Mallys, VERY good post, above. Great analogies. Non-Catholics may not get it, or like it, but there simply is no argument possible within Catholicism about where the teaching authority of the Church rests. It rests, and has always rested, with the Pope and the bishops. Period. To argue that is to argue your way right out of the Catholic Church.
Oh, and icatholicus, the true Catholic (Universal) Church could never be any merely national Church, like the Greek Orthodox.
The Roman Church is not the Church of Rome, but of the whole world. This is reflected in the reality that the last two popes have been a Pole and a German. Any chance of a non-Greek head of the Greek Orthodox Church?
John–schismatic does not equal heretical. From what I know of history, none of the so-called antipopes preached heresy. The tragedy of the schism was a political, not a theological issue.
That said, I was surprised to find the following in a web search:
This quote is by St. Robert Bellarmine
“On this question, it must be observed that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II, misled by falsified documents purporting to stem from the sixth ecumenical council, erred in judging Honorius to have been heretical, we cannot deny, nevertheless, that Hadrian, together with the Synod of Rome, and even the eighth general council, considered that IN THE EVENT OF HIS BEING FOUND HERETICAL THE ROMAN PONTIFF COULD BE SUBJECT TO JUDGMENT.”
I believe the caps were added by the person quoting the original.
Nonetheless I believe with all my heart that the Holy Spirit does not allow the church to elevate heretics to the Papacy. If I believed that were possible I never would have become a Roman Catholic. You either believe in the infallibity and the authority of the Bishop of Rome or you are not Catholic, no matter what you may call yourself.
Tim –
Do we get a secret decoder ring?
Yes, you’ll need to to translate all papal documents.
(FYI, to give credit where it’s due, the whole SSPI thing came from the link in my OP.)
I’m with you JoAnna!!..hey you think there’s anyway that if I study hard the Greek language and the Apostolic Fathers, etc.., I can become Pope? I’m married, but that shouldn’t be a problem anymore!
Down with those modernist Romans..they’re always trying to change things!!
On second thought, maybe the Council of Jerusalem was wrong ..and we should all be studying Hebrew? ..or how about Aramaic? Moreover, we can re-canonize the New Testament with the books that we want, because the other Councils were called by the heretic Greek and Roman ‘Modernists’, and so the Bible all these years has been clearly in error!
Decrees of VATICAN COUNCIL I, Session 4 July 18, 1870, on Papal authority:
Chap.3:8
Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
And for those that would further set themselves to be a ‘judge’ or ‘interpreter’ of the extent of authority of the ‘Roman See’, they can consider the following, from the same VATICAN COUNCIL I:
————————————————-
From Chapter 4:
The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
sometimes by
summoning ecumenical councils or
consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
special synods, sometimes by
taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,
defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with
sacred scripture and
the apostolic traditions.
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
Therefore,
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
Tim J . . .
I’m Catholic, not Greek Orthodox.
🙂 at Joanna’s post. I want a secret decoder ring too.
S’okay, icatholicus, I was just sayin’ – you know, for the record.
I did assume you were Greek Orthodox, though… NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT…
TimJ
There have been Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople who were bishops of American cities.
Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, “Patriarch*” of Kyiv-Halych for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was American before becoming the head of the UGCC.
So, there are cases where Americans have been Patriarchs of Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople was from Antioch (which should have been his See.) yet he became the Archbishop of a Greek city.
I ask out of sincere curiosity. Would it be possible for there to be a non-Greek head of THE Greek Orthodox Church?
Am I wrong in assuming that Lubomyr Cardinal Husar was of Ukranian descent (though born in America)?
It just seems like (if true) this would support the notion that these are national churches, rather than THE Universal Church.
TimJ,
Do you mean like a Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Archbishop becoming Patriarch of Constantinople? Then probably not.
If you mean someone like Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware, who is English, then yes.
There are now “American” priests in the UGCC who are not Ukrainian. Theoretically, they could become the “Patriarch” of the UGCC.
Orthodox Eccesiology is different than Catholic in that there is no Universal Bishop. Each Bishopric is a Church unto itself as it were.
Addendum:
Then the Church as a whole decides as the Bishops get together for a Council or Synod. So Orthodoxy is composed of individual Churches bound together by the first 7 Ecumenical Councils and a common Eucharist.
So a Patriarch only has a Primacy of Honor in his own Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople is not the “Pope of Orthodoxy.”
And according to the Orthodox, the Pope of Rome has only a Primacy of Honor in that he sits at the head of the Ecumenical Council but is not over and above any other bishop.
So Vatican I is a serious affront to the Orthodox. But not me 🙂
And for those that would further set themselves to be a ‘judge’ or ‘interpreter’ of the extent of authority of the ‘Roman See’, they can consider the following, from the same VATICAN COUNCIL I
Just shows it’s not the first time.
Joanna posted:
“Don’t be fooled by PHONY “Vulgate” neotraditionalists, who claim to protect tradition, and yet still defend the RADICAL and totally UNCATHOLIC reforms of the 4th century A.D.”
Joanna, wow, the 4th century, is that before Constantine invoked the Council of Nicea in 325 and Christianity became “legal”
I have to think you are being a bit sarcastic. I shall stick to the organic liturgy as codified by Pius V
Thanks!
Hobby horses are humor challenged.
John,
From what I get out of reading “Pascendi Dominici Gregis”, ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS,
Encyclical of POPE PIUS X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907,..
is that the definition of ‘modernism’, although actually still quite applicable to these modern times, was probably a different phenomena during the time of St.Pius X. It really reads like he is addressing the theories of EVOLUTION and also Marxism/Communism, which were just in their infancy at the time of this encyclical.
So to classify JPII as a modernist according to the definitions described in the above mentioned encyclical, might fail to consider how Pope JPII was probably much more aware than probably even we are today, of the devastating effects that PIUS X ‘modernists’ could actually have on a society! He was living proof of the effects of such ‘modernist’ doctines, especially living under Communist rule in Poland.
So it really isn’t a great argument to call JPII a modernist, when in fact, he was the great hero, that indeed put the ‘modernist’ empire..the USSR..into the grave!
However, unfortunately, St.Pius X was right in his fears and forsight that lead to the encyclical, and it seems that most of the evils that he fortold came true, ie. with communism indeed having “spread it’s errors through the entire world” and notions of evolution, atheism and secularism rampant in the world, and especially in Europe.
However, the modern world seems to have cleared the ‘hurdle’ of Communism, and seems to be addressing evolution to some degree. Also, all of the new Vatican Liturgical documents, encyclical’s,Roman Missal, Catequism, code of canon law, etc.., put the Church on a pretty orthodox footing for the future. Everything is spelled ouyt very clearly what exactly the Catholic Church is teaching in our Modern world!
However, I do think the ‘Oath against Modernism’ was an excellent resource for keeping teachers such as Daniel Maguire out of Catholic Schools and Institutions, and I wouldn’t mind seeing the oath pushed again for the same purpose. Maybe we’ll have to see What Pope Benedict ‘has up his sleeve’ for the future ‘reformation of the reformation’. Maybe he will indeed enforce the same oath, or something similar some day? How could it hurt?
I might add that Pope Pius X never directly mentioned Russia in this encyclical, but rather gave a summary of all types of current ‘modernist’ ideologies, many of which appeared to be reflections of marxist/socialism. I referred to the USSR because of the ‘prophesy’ of Our Lady of Fatima, that Russia would spread its errors throughout the world, which it did. However, before any revoloution can take place, there are certain cultural and ideological conditioning that is needed, and the ‘Modernist’ ideologies that the pope discusses in the encyclical, certainly appear to be such preparatory requisites for something as grand as an ‘athiest’ revolution, of which Commumism surely was.
We can also speculate that his ‘oath against modernism might have had some positive benefits for Europe, although it didn’t prevent WWI, which also might have been a result of ‘Modernist’ pride and ideologies. However, we do note that it was in Russia that Communism was born and not in Europe,(as warned by Our Lady of Fatima) and I wonder if this is not the result of the ‘forsight’ of Pope Pius X, and the effects of this encyclical to ‘stem the tide’ of Modernism in the Europe of his time? Maybe to some degree his counter measures worked, considering there were no MAJOR Communist revolutions in either Catholic Europe or the America’s, but only in Orthodox Russia and USSR and then in pagan China? Just a thought.
Mr Williams
We can agree with much of what you posted except :
“it really isn’t a great argument to call JPII a modernist, when in fact, he was the great hero, that indeed put the ‘modernist’ empire..the USSR..into the grave!
We can start and entire thread that would probably run for 300 posts, as JPII did not bring down Communism as today just this past month the Archbishop appointed by B16 was found to be a communist collaborator as up to 30% of all of the clergy there, including some with direct ties to John Paul
I think that the timing of Ronald Reagan “Mr Gorbachov, tear down this wall”, economics and Gorby brought down Communism. After all, Vatican II refused to denounce communism as John XXIII had made an agreement with the communists not to do so, and this well documented and can probably be found on the vatican archives website
And Mary Kay who posted:
“Hobby horses are humor challenged”-I shall ignore you, but quite possibly all those who are “attached” to the New Mass who claim that the New Mass is right from the times of St Justin maybe SSPI is right for you! But we all know it is not, or else if the new mass was right from the times of Justin Martyr, we would not even have the Nicean Creed which did not come until Constantine and even the Gospels were not canonized
Long Live the church and her unwavering traditions against those who think that she can “renew” her deposit to suit their modernistic ideas and agendas!
John,
Maybe what is needed is a distinction between a Pope Pius X definition of a ‘modernist’ and a more ‘modern’ definition, updated a bit to our present century. The reason is that St. Pius X was highly influenced by the ideologies particular to his times, ie. infantile Marxism, the Industrial Revolution, unrestrained Capitalism, the newness of the Darwin/Evolution debate, etc….whereas we, having already lived through the effects of these developements and movements, have the benefit of hindsight.
But, as you say, many posts would be needed to hash all of this out.
However, I do think a careful analysis of Pope Pius X’s definition needs to be examined carefully, so to understand the difference between his century, and ours. And also, so as not to mistakenly term someone like JPII as a ‘modernist’ as described in the sense given by Pope Pius X, but maybe only ‘modern’, in that he promoted the traditional Catholic faith and doctrine to the ‘modern’ world, as a Pope of these modern times which we live, and which is what Vatican II was all about!
And Mary Kay who posted:
“Hobby horses are humor challenged”-I shall ignore you, but quite possibly all those who are “attached” to the New Mass who claim that the New Mass is right from the times of St Justin maybe SSPI is right for you!
Thank you for proving my point. 🙂
However, I do think the ‘Oath against Modernism’ was an excellent resource for keeping teachers such as Daniel Maguire out of Catholic Schools and Institutions, and I wouldn’t mind seeing the oath pushed again for the same purpose. Maybe we’ll have to see What Pope Benedict ‘has up his sleeve’ for the future ‘reformation of the reformation’. Maybe he will indeed enforce the same oath, or something similar some day? How could it hurt?
Oh, you mean a mechanism by which to ensure that Catholic Theologians are actually Catholic in their Theology and to safeguard such teaching of Catholic Theology in College Universities?
Hmmmm…. I think that was the point of the Mandatum:
Posted by: Esau | Mar 30, 2007 10:17:36 AM
A Williams,
Communism does flourish in Catholic Cuba.
And Fascism started in Catholic Bavaria, Catholic Italy, and Catholic Spain.
Don’t use the fact that Communism started in predominately Orthodox Eastern Europe as an apologetic. Especially since it took hold in Catholic Poland, Catholic Hungary, Catholic Slovakia, and the Catholic Czech Republic.
Actually, Dr. Eric, as much as I disagree with A. Williams in what he said here (as well as in other matters), I must disagree with you as well.
The fact is that the Communism that resulted in these countries cannot really be said to be due to the country being actually Catholic as this was more so a result of the State.
Mind you, Communist Italy had actually confiscated Papal lands and reduced it to a mere insignificant remnant of what it was?
This is a matter of mere correlation rather than causation.
It would be just as erroneous an assumption as those who actually claimed that Sir/St. Thomas More’s Utopia actually advocated Communism, which those actually familiar with the work would strongly disagree — even More himself, for that matter, had he been alive to witness such irony.
Esau posted:
“Oh, you mean a mechanism by which to ensure that Catholic Theologians are actually Catholic in their Theology and to safeguard such teaching of Catholic Theology in College Universities?
Hmmmm…. I think that was the point of the Mandatum”
Esau-Let me ask, are there any theologians, Popes and Councils that you actually believe in from say the time of St Thomas up to Pius XII?
I have seen you quote Trent from time to time, but if you truly understood Trent you would understand the true meaning of a sacrament and the mass but again that is another thread (was not the past councils so easy to read and understand with a statement and “let him be anethema”, instead of thousands of words which basically mean little?)
For this am I very sure and perceyue it well not onely by experyens of myne owne tyme & ye places where my selfe hath ben with comen report of other honest men from al other places of crystendom but by bokes also & remembrauncys left of long tyme with wrytyng of ye olde holy fathers and now sayntes in heuen yt from ye appostles tyme hytherto this maner hath ben vsed taught and alowed and the contrary commonly condempned thrughe the hole flocke of all good crysten people.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/MODERSM.TXT)
The following authored by James Akin himself in 1994 in the EWTN’s library is quite fascinating as it appears as if the church has come full circle with respect to Modernism. JPII even weighed in on the subject in Veritatis Splendor in 1992 and I must take the time to read this encyclical, as I question if he actually lived out what he taught from 1992 to his death as it is clear before 1992 with the disaster at Assissi, it is questionable
Please note how Jimmy clearly broke up the summary of Modernism from 1910-1966 (when the oath was abolished), and then to today, easily refuting the idea that what was “Modernism” in 1910 was not the same “Modernism” today as clearly the church after Vatican II (1962-1965) accepted Modernism but in a slightly different form that is today. The following is from Jimmys article on EWTN. Amazing reading, especially 5, 52, 64 and 65
MODERNIST ERRORS (AS TAKEN FROM
4. The magisterium of the Church, even by dogmatic definitions, cannot determine the genuine sense of the sacred Scriptures.
5. Since in the deposit of faith only revealed truths are contained, in no respect does it pertain to the Church to pass judgment on the
assertions of human sciences.
7. When the Church proscribes errors, she cannot exact any internal assent of the faithful by which the judgments published by her are
embraced.
11. Divine inspiration does not so extend to all sacred Scripture so that it fortifies each and every part of it against all error.
14. In many narratives the Gospel writers related not so much what is true, as what they thought to be more profitable for the reader, although false.
18. John, indeed, claims for himself the character of an eyewitness concerning Christ, but in reality he is nothing but a distinguished
witness of the Christian life or of the life of the Christian Church at the end of the first century.
25. The assent of faith ultimately depends on an accumulation of probabilities.
27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels but is a dogma which the Christian conscience has deduced from the notion
of the Messiah.
28. When Jesus was exercising his ministry, he did not speak with the purpose of teaching that he was the Messiah, nor did his miracles have as their purpose to demonstrate this.
29. It may be conceded that the Christ whom history presents is far inferior to the Christ who is the object of faith.
35. Christ did not always have the consciousness of his Messianic dignity.
36. The resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order, but a fact of the purely supernatural order, neither demonstrated nor demonstrable, and which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other sources.
52. It was foreign to the mind of Christ to establish a Church as a society upon earth to endure for a long course of centuries; rather,
in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven together with the end of the world was to come presently.
53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable, but Christian society, just as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution.
55. Simon Peter never even suspected that the primacy of the Church was entrusted to him by Christ.
64. The progress of the sciences demand that the concepts of Christian doctrine about God, creation, revelation, the person of the
incarnate Word, and redemption be readjusted.
65. Present day Catholicism cannot be reconciled with true science unless it be transformed into a kind of non-dogmatic Christianity, that is, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.
*********************
This article was taken from the November 1994 issue of “This Rock,”
published by Catholic Answers, P.O. Box 17490, San Diego, CA 92177,
(619) 541-1131, $24.00 per year.
He sayd not that the holy goste sholde at his commyng wryte them all trouth nor tell them all the hole trouth by mouth but that he shold by secret inspyracion lede them into all trouth. And therfore surely for a trew conclusyon in suche meanys by god hym selfe by the helpe of his grace ye ryght vnderstandynge of scrypture is euer preserued in his chyrche from all suche mystakyng wherof myght folow any damnable errour concernyng the fayth.
Esau,
My point exactly, it cannot be said that since Communism took hold in Orthodox countries as well because they were Orthodox.
Weak governments cause the rise of worse governments.
My point exactly, it cannot be said that since Communism took hold in Orthodox countries as well because they were Orthodox.
I agree!
Right on!
Folks, I was trying to make the connection that the very growth of Communism throughout Europe before and during the pontificate of Pope Pius X, could have been a major cause for his encyclical and oath against modernism( 1910). From the Communist Manifest(pub.Feb 21, 1848),itself, we find this in the Introduction:
“A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?”
Clearly Pius X (1903-1914) was aware of the evils that Communism presented to the World. Also, as I said it wasn’t until the October Revolution in 1917 Russia that communism got a foothold in any large scaled way.
from Wikipedia History of Communism: “Led by Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik Party, it was the first large scale attempt to put Marxist ideas about a workers’ state into practice”.
My point I was that I think Pope Pius X might have been concerned with ALL TYPES of “Modernism” when he wrote the encyclical against it, and forced the “Oath Against Modernism” in the Church. And the only reason why I’m mentioning this is to try to distinguish the notion of ‘modernism’ that Pius X might have had, from any notion we might have of it today. For instance, to call someone a ‘modernist’ today, might have been different from calling someone a ‘modernist’ in 1910. I was trying to defend the idea that Pope JPII was not a ‘modernist’ in the sense that Pope Pius X defined in his encyclical,and as John frequently insinuates that he was.
Pantheism is indeed heresy and JPII professed such as did Vatican II
Heresy is to doubt or deny a particular truth of the faith, or perhaps some truths of the faith, e.g., the divinity of Christ or the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist
JPII professed to be Catholic and from time to time said some very Catholic statements, but he did not adhere to all of the articles of faith which he professed to believe. He does not adhere to them because for him these sacred truths do not exclude what is opposed to them.
John Paul II said time and time again that the cornerstone of his pontificate would be ecumenism and an ecumenist can not at the same time be Catholic. An ecumenist is someone who believes that all religions contain a certain measure of the truth, some more, some less, and that they all therefore have a certain value. All religions therefore are true religions with some merely better than others.
The “Church” for them is all humanity, as per Vatican II said in Gaudium et Spes, Christ united himself in some way with every man because of His Incarnation:
“Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him [Christ], has been raised in us to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man. (Gaudium et Spes, no. 22)”
At the pan-christian ecumenical day of Assisi in October 27, 1986 JPII stated:
Such a day seemed to express, in a visible manner, the hidden but radical unity which the Word has established among men and women of this world… the fact of having come together at Assisi is like a sign of the profound unity of those who seek spiritual values in religion… The Council has made a connection between the identity of the Church and the unity of the human race. (Lumen Gentium 1 and 9; Gaudium et Spes, 42)”
Therefore every man, inasmuch as he is united to the Word by virtue of His Incarnation only, is a member of the Church of Christ. The Church of Christ is nothing else than the whole human race without any exception.
Vatican II also said:
“But despite such divisions, they are included in the grand and single design of God in Jesus Christ, who united himself in a certain way with every man (Gaudium et Spes, 22) even if he is not conscious of it.”
John Paul II has frequently repeated the heresy of Vatican II: that the Holy Ghost has not hesitated to use non-Catholic religions as means of salvation.
Faith is an adherence to a dogma based on the authority of God revealing. Hence what we believe by the virtue of faith is absolute and unchanging. Martyrs profess their adherence to these unchanging dogmas by giving up their lives, sometimes after having borne atrocious torture. Hence the virtue of faith cannot tolerate ecumenism. Ecumenism is directly contrary to the assent of faith, and therefore is a serious violation of the First Commandment of God: I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
But when one accepts all faiths as having some truth, as a Modernist does, then one is rejecting Christ and his Catholic church
John,
A serious question for you.
We agree that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, and that one cannot knowingly reject the Catholic Church without rejecting Christ.
It is the means salvation for all.
Now, having accepted that, let’s assume that an atheist comes to believe in Christ as the Son of God because of his contact with a Methodist church. He attends that Methodist church for some time, studying the Bible and listening to the Minister give sermons on the early Church Fathers. Along the way, this former atheist continues to study on his own, and becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. He enters an RCIA program and converts.
Given the above, can you see that it would be correct, in some sense (but not an absolute sense) to say that the Methodist church was a means of the former atheist’s salvation, because it led him to the Catholic Church, the one, true means of salvation?
“Pantheism is indeed heresy and JPII professed such as did Vatican II”
John, if you want to imply that JPII is a heretic because of this:
“Pope brings world religious representatives to Assisi to pray for peace
February 11, 2002
Pope John Paul II drew together a group of diverse religious leaders January 23-25, 2002. He thanked them for making a commitment together “to end violence in the name of God.” These leaders represented 12 major religions, including Islam. ”
….Your argument against the Pope of supporting Pantheism, and thereby being a ‘heretic’, is rediculous.
Recall the intent above, which is, “the end violence in the name of God”.
Now if you think tring to “.. end violence in the name of God”, is not necessary or noble endeavor, in a world such as ours, where the Moslems are possibly on the verge of starting WWIII, and possibly with nuclear or biological weapons.. your eyes are closed to such a catastrophic potential! I can only thank God that Pope JPII’s eyes were not so closed!
It is really a great thing that both Pope JPII and Pope Benedict have been trying to accomplish, which is reaching out to the Moslems, to try to teach them a more peaceful and reasonable way (even if only according to ‘natural law’) of practicing their religion!
So, I think your notions of JPII being a ‘Pantheist’ are a little exaggerated, and even nonsensical.
In this scenario, Jesus must have been also been a ‘heretic’ and ‘pantheist’, as the Pharisees so often complained about, because He was always in the company and midst of ‘Sinner’s and ‘tax collectors’.
So too, He even called a pagan Roman centurian, a ‘man of great faith’, and a ‘Syro Phonesian woman, who was also pagan, whom he shortly before, termed a ‘dog’, a ‘woman of great faith’. He also fed the 4000 pagans in Gennesaret from the ‘multiplied loaves’, and healed multitudes of their sick. Moreover, in the parables, Jesus used ‘pagans’ such as the Samaritans, to teach that God will be worshiped, in the future Church, in ‘Spirit and Truth’, and that, ‘our neighbors’ are all of humanity, and shouldn’t be ‘passed by’ in their time of need(Good Samaritan).
Now, don’t you think that these Gospel teachings, whom Jesus mandated to be ‘spread throughout the whole world’, are meant to be carefully studied and meditated on, and then practiced?? Isn’t this what the Church is all about in the first place…spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ??
So, it’s very good for a Catholic to not only pay attention to ‘canonical’ definitions, whose legal interpretations can be subject to very fine interpretations, but ALSO to the Holy Gospel, so as to try to understand the context of these same ‘canon’s’, and in the most spiritually accurate way possible.
This way, you might not so quickly throw words such as ‘pantheist’ and heretic’ around in such a casual and general way, which is nothing more than ‘rash judgement’. Rather, before ‘condemning’, it’s best to make a case with REAL and SUBSTANTIAL evidence and detailed proofs…especially when you are presuming to condemn a POPE and a VATICAN COUNCIL!
Maybe also, it is good for you to examine carefully all of the GOOD in the Catholic Church…sort of like piecing together a puzzle, whereby the picture of the puzzle can be seen by the gradually revealed ‘sum’ of all of it’s parts. For instance, when looking at all of the good acts of the JPII pontificate, you might be able to better interpret something that might be considered ‘borderline'(especially if they are scrupulous), in a positive light. In some ways, even Pope Benedict had some reservations about the ‘Assisi’ interreligious event, and even about the ‘Bob Dylan Concert’, but was wise enough to understand that these events, though in some ways possibly embarressing, were in no way ‘Pantheistic’ or ‘Heretical’. Moreover, the motive for the Assisi event was patently good…in that it sought, as mentioned above..”the end violence in the name of God”.
So, I’d suggest that you try to form your conscience and opinions with the love and wisdom found through knowing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therein, you might be a little less eager to judge, not only others, without substantial and overwhelming evidence, but especially the Pontiffs and HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH herself, and with the very meager proofs and evidence that you provide!
For those interested in what it takes for a pope to be declared a heretic, and what impact it might have upon his pontificate, you can consider the following:
“What of the case of a hypothetical pontiff who is orthodox when elected but falls into heresy during his pontificate? Does he thereby lose the papacy? It would seem contradictory, in the light of the conclave law we have just noted, if the answer were yes. Why should a pope who has been a secret traitor to Christ from the beginning of his pontificate have some sort of advantage over the man who at least began his pontificate with the faith of Peter?
In any case, canon law makes it clear that such a pope will not lose his power to govern the Church validly, not even by public expressions of heretical doctrine. In the 1917 Code, we find that apostates and heretics incur latae sententiae (ipso facto) excommunication (canon 2314 §1), but we need to consider other canons in order to see how excommunication relates to loss of ecclesiastical office.
Canon 2263 states that an excommunicated person, as we would expect, “is forbidden to exercise ecclesiastical offices or duties”—the first among which is, of course, the papacy. However, the next canon (2264) affirms the following: “An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or the external forum, is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to canon 2261 §3; otherwise it is valid.” (The other canon cited here, 2261 §3, makes an exception to this invalidity when it is a case of an officially excommunicated priest giving absolution to someone in danger of death.)
These last four words—”otherwise it is valid”—are highly significant. Let us assume that this pope, the validity of whose election no one disputes, refused to admit he had fallen into heresy. Since no other earthly person or authority—not even all the rest of the bishops gathered in an ecumenical council—would be competent to pass a condemnatory sentence against this pope or to declare that he has incurred excommunication, it follows from the Church’s law that, if he refuses to resign, all his acts of jurisdiction would remain valid, even though they would be illicit. So while this pope would offend God gravely by exercising his office while under an (undeclared) excommunication, all his official acts still would be juridically valid and binding on the Church’s members.
There is one other canon in the 1917 Code that might at first glance seem to provide a legal basis for the sedevacantists’ thesis that a pope could lose his office by falling into heresy after his election to the chair of Peter. Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (” A fide catholica publice defecerit”). However, to “defect publicly” from the faith clearly means something more drastic than making heretical (or allegedly heretical) statements in the course of public speeches or documents.
This particular cause of losing an ecclesiastical office is found in that section of the Code dealing with the resignation of such an office (canons 184–191) and is part of a canon which lists eight sorts of actions which the law treats as “tacit resignations.” In other words, they are the sorts of actions that can be safely taken as evidence that the cleric in question does not even to want to continue in the office he held up till that time, even though he may never have bothered to put his resignation or abdication in writing.
Other examples within canon 188 make clear the sort of thing that is contemplated. Paragraph 3 has in mind a priest who accepts promotion to another ecclesiastical office incompatible with his previous one (e.g., a new diocesan bishop, whose very consecration could be taken as a tacit resignation from his previous office of being pastor of a certain parish). Paragraph 5 mentions clerics who get married, whether canonically (with a dispensation) or merely civilly. Paragraph 6 mentions clerics who, contrary to canon law, spontaneously join the secular armed forces.
In such a context, therefore, canon 188 §4, in speaking of “public defection from” (or “abandonment of’) the Catholic faith, can mean only that kind of defection that is obvious and indisputable before all the world, even to doctrinally illiterate Catholics and non-Catholics. In this kind of defection, the cleric in question ceases even to profess the Catholic faith and clearly has not the slightest desire to continue in his previous clerical office.
What the Code is contemplating here would be, for instance, a priest who openly joins a Protestant sect or a Masonic lodge or who declares himself an atheist and joins the Communist Party. In such sad cases as these, it is common that the priest in question simply packs up and leaves without ever bothering to submit a formal letter of resignation to his bishop.
It is quite obvious that none of the post-conciliar popes has ever acted in any way that is even remotely comparable with these sorts of “public defections” from the faith. Sedevacantists must admit that these occupants of the Apostolic Palace, recognized by the world as popes, have all at least publicly professed to be Catholics throughout their respective pontificates and have shown every public sign of intending to continue exercising the papal office until their dying day.
To sum up then:
1. The traditional and continuing law of the Church, expressed repeatedly in papal constitutions ever since the Middle Ages, allows for a heretical or apostate cardinal to participate fully in a papal conclave and even to be elected pope. If he could validly attain the papacy as a heretic or apostate, he could certainly retain it validly, even while remaining in that unhappy spiritual state.
2. A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate would thereby legally incur excommunication. However, even if his heresy or apostasy should become publicly discernible, the absence of any competent authority on earth who could lawfully declare his excommunication would mean that, if he refused to resign and continued to insist on carrying out acts of papal authority, those acts, though illicitly exercised, would still be valid. In other words, he would still be juridically the true pope whom we would have to recognize and obey in all things but sin, even though at the inner level at which grace operates he might well be totally separated from the mystical body of Christ.
So when the white smoke rises from the Vatican signifying that the college of cardinals has elected a new pope, we are assured that that pope’s authority is valid. Thus God guards his Church from the possibility of being cast into chaos by being left without an earthly governing authority.
Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., writes from Ponce, Puerto Rico, where he is head of the Roman Theological Forum. A version of this article first appeared in the May 2000 issue of Living Tradition, the organ of that organization.
For this am I very sure and perceyue it well not onely by experyens of myne owne tyme & ye places where my selfe hath ben with comen report of other honest men from al other places of crystendom but by bokes also & remembrauncys left of long tyme with wrytyng of ye olde holy fathers and now sayntes in heuen yt from ye appostles tyme hytherto this maner hath ben vsed taught and alowed and the contrary commonly condempned thrughe the hole flocke of all good crysten people.
…
He sayd not that the holy goste sholde at his commyng wryte them all trouth nor tell them all the hole trouth by mouth but that he shold by secret inspyracion lede them into all trouth.
And therfore surely for a trew conclusyon in suche meanys by god hym selfe by the helpe of his grace ye ryght vnderstandynge of scrypture is euer preserued in his chyrche from all suche mystakyng wherof myght folow any damnable errour concernyng the fayth.
Good! I guess that means that Mr. Chaucer is in complete agreement with Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S.’s hypothesis, on the “.. case of a hypothetical pontiff who is orthodox when elected but falls into heresy during his pontificate?”.
I’ll take the above to mean “Yay, the trew and holy father Brian hast wrot well, and therfor conveys a ryght vnderstanding and the trouth that nev’r can a holy pope lose his ryght and valid authoryte wonce elected to the holy papacy!”.