Friday, February 07, 2014

Okay, touché ...

Robert Royal introduces this longer-than-usual provocative piece to deal adequately with the subject:

John Zmirak, "The Shame of the Catholic Subculture" (The Catholic Thing, February 1, 2014):
Come on. You have noticed it too. The Catholic Church, which once evoked the phrase “Here comes everybody” (James Joyce) now brings to mind a narrow, fairly homogenous fragment of a slice of a piece of mankind. Sure, if you’re using the phrase sociologically, or even to include all the people who go to Mass more than twice a year, you can still pretend that the Church contains a wide swath of humanity ...

But let’s use language a good deal more precisely, in a doctrinally rigorous sense. How many people in America actually believe all the central truths of the Catholic Catechism? ...

Practice is not a perfect mirror of what we believe, but surely it tells us something that the rates of divorce, premarital sex, and cohabitation are not a whit lower (and in some cases higher) among Roman Catholics than among most churchgoing Protestants. The explosive growth of annulments is partly an outright abuse on the part of bishops, and partly a recognition that many Catholics enter the sacrament with “defective intent.” Remember that if either party going into a marriage considers divorce and remarriage a possible option it invalidates the marriage. So most of the annulments given out nowadays are quite likely valid – unlike too many Catholic weddings.

There are simple, radical, unpopular steps our bishops could take to stem the collapse of Catholic marriage, but we can see from the case of the German bishops the course they are far more likely to take: to throw out the principle of indissoluble marriage altogether, and shrug off the jurisdiction over marriage that the Church took on at the Council of Trent, leaving it to individual consciences to discern whether one’s first Catholic marriage was invalid, and his second civil marriage in fact sacramental.

The elephant in the bedroom, of course, is contraception. The highest, the very highest, number I have ever seen cited for Catholics who accept and obey the Church’s ban on artificial contraception is 5 percent.... Read more >>
[Hat tip to JM]


27 comments:








Ralph Roister-Doister

said...

Zmirak is a dreamer. The Church of which he dreams is an ash heap, the rubbish of its own implosion, and will remain so well beyond my time on earth, or Zmirak's. Humanae Vitae is merely the inchworm next to the elephant in the room. Most priests view it as unenforcable, and a general pain in the keister re their insipid pastoral delusions. So they follow the lead of upper management and ignore it to death. They toe an invisible line of "love," "evangelism," and "vibrancy" like any good "God is dead" theologian would. But it is "love" without personal involvement, "evangelism" by abnegation, and "vibrancy" through, uh, um . . . oh hell, I have no idea what those idiots mean by "vibrancy"!





Anonymous Bosch

said...

Geeeze-Louize, Ralph. Do you always have to be SO on target?! Can't you let us just for a moment pretend that things could be, like, "Okee dokee" again for a while?





I am not Spartacus

said...

I was one of six childfren raised by Irish-Algonquin Catholics in rural Vermont back during the putative golden age of Amrican Catholicism.

Our family prayed together every single morning. Each of us kids went to what was then called CYO - Catholic Youth Organisation.

We all came of age and left home when the Normative Mass was what is now called the TLM.

My oldest Sister and I are the only ones who are still Catholic. I rreally have no idea what the others are.

Outside of my oldest Sister, all of my other syblings are divorced and remarried (at least once) and yet thay all consider themselves "good."

And the Priests and Bishops back then were not unlike the Priests and Bishops today insofar as they imagined their flocks were well-taught anf faithful.

I think that at any point in time it is prolly true that, roughly, 10% of Christian Catholics are really living the fullness of the Faith.

Pope Francis is right when he describes the Church as a field hospital.

I do not know who it is who has the answers to such consistently massive gaps twixt Doctrine and the praxis of pew dwellers- other than Jesus





Anonymous Bosch

said...

IANS,

You said:

"I think that at any point in time it is prolly true that, roughly, 10% of Christian Catholics are really living the fullness of the Faith."

I'm not sure you intend this, but this makes it sound as if you think there is really no difference between Catholics in the past and what today, by any measure, can only be said to look like a massive apostasy.

"Pope Francis is right when he describes the Church as a field hospital."

If we are as bad off and uncatechized today as I think we are, then maybe Francis is just what the Doctor Ordered -- that is, "Catholicism for Dummies" on crack. Perhaps we're so far gone that we can't handle the "meat" of solid doctrine referenced by St. Paul, but only the watery "milk" of the Gospel of Francis: "Who am I to judge? Come to Jesus. He'll be your buddy."





Anonymous

said...

The Church is seeing the fruits of its actions.

I am about to leave this Church due to its false charity disguised as being pastoral.

I can no longer support it. There is no place else to go, nor do I have the "right" to start my own Church, but it has been made clear to me that there is no place for me left here.

I remained faithful (still do and shall) to my abandoned marriage for decades but saw only welcoming for those who destroyed it and have never stopped.

I can see only destruction if what has ocurred, continues to occur but I see no desire or ablity to address the many problems, particularly those involving marriage.

God have mercy on all of us. We are seeing the implosion of our society and of the Catholic Church.

It is very depressing.






Pertinacious Papist

said...

Anonymous,

I have seen you drop in here over the years and continue to feel your pain.

As St. Peter said to our Lord, when asked if he and the apostles would also be deserting Him: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of Eternal Life."

I am sure not a few souls feel this quandary, at least those who have the eyes to see what has been happening, or those who have suffered unjustly because of bad judgements by those at the levers of power in church office.

The fact is, there is no where else to go, as you yourself have suggested. If I may presume a little, I would point to the example of someone like Michael Davies, who suffered bitterly, but kept faith as well as his sense of humour until the end. He "finished strong." Pope Benedict XVI himself honoured him with high praise upon his passing.

As a good friend of mine told me, in times like these, one can do little better than to focus upon his own soul in preparation for our meeting with our Lord on the occasion of our particular judgement.

Kind regards, -- PP





Ralph Roister-Doister

said...

The 10% rule is nothing new. In fact, it is as old as sin. People have always been sinners, and that includes popes and cardinals.

What is new these days is that sinners are no longer afraid of their sins. The eternal round of sin and repentence strikes them as old hat, and not a little duplicitous. And that is where the change comes in: Church leaders are not interested in correcting sin, maintaining standards of holiness, etc. They are more interested in reinterpreting the symbol of Church itself, sawing away 1500 years of accumulated wisdom and tradition and reinventing Catholicism in their image of post-kantian, God-is-dead theatrics. For them, "leadership" is an exercise in literary interpretation, another tired reimagining of Moby Dick. Theology is as much a publish-or-perish academic occupation as any other, and massaging the metaphor, stroking the symbol, is far more likely to gain the attention of the truly "vibrant" souls out there than cobbling together another "merely orthodox" manual.

Now the nouvelles (my cover-all term for the entire plague of post-kantians, existentialists, aesthetes and organicists) have a new toy, an entire new Church to reimagine, and the first fruit of their efforts is an emptying-out of the pews, by serfs who sense that their new leaders no longer consider sins sinful, so why should they. That's new.

And if Francis is right in his little bit of symbol-stroking that the Church today is a field hospital, he is remiss in "forgetting" to mention that the reason for the lousy survival rate at that hospital is that the nurses and doctors are incompetent, ill-trained, and more interested in what is happening at the country fair across the meadow.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear A.B. At one time every single baby Baptised in Europe was Baptised by a Catholic Priest or Bishop and yet the Protestant Revolution was wildly successfu there..

Failure of catechesis?

The Church in the Garden of Eden could not have had a more congenial atmosphere for fostering the Faith and yet 100% of that Church committed mortal sin.

Failure of catechesis?

And then there is the example of many of the Angels and their apostasy that preceded the creation of man.

Whom is to be blamed for their actions?

I do think that Pope Francis is the right man for these prideful times and there is a lot to admire in his humility, love, and simplicity.

Man does need to be reminded constantly that God is love and that Jesus is the Good Shepherd who is anxious to welcome us mortal sinners back home.

All around me I see broken people estranged from family, children, and former spouses.

If those of us, like my own self, had spent more time acting like a Christian rather than blabbering on about the failure of our Popes and Bishops then, just maybe, there would have been fewer faithful fallling into schism, herest,and an apostasy that ends in the loss of hope.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear AB.

Look at these Canons from Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council which the Fathers were constrained to draft owing to the presence of so many queer, shit-faced(clerical keggers?) , idiotic, malingering,clergy who even, like Tony Soprano, put out contracts on persons with far more care and concern than they had for the handling and storage of Sacred Species.



Canon 14.

Clerical incontinence

In order that the morals and conduct of clerics may be reformed for the better, let all of them strive to live in a continent and chaste way, especially those in holy orders. Let them beware of every vice involving lust, especially that on account of which the wrath of God came down from heaven upon the sons of disobedience, so that they may be worthy to minister in the sight of almighty God with a pure heart and an unsullied body. Lest the ease of receiving pardon prove an incentive to sin, we decree that those who are caught giving way to the vice of incontinence are to be punished according to canonical sanctions, in proportion to the seriousness of their sins. We order such sanctions to be effectively and strictly observed, in order that those whom the fear of God does not hold back from evil may at least be restrained from sin by temporal punishment. Therefore anyone who has been suspended for this reason and presumes to celebrate divine services, shall not only be deprived of his ecclesiastical benefices but shall also, on account of his twofold fault, be deposed in perpetuity. Prelates who dare to support such persons in their wickedness, especially if they do it for money or for some other temporal advantage, are to be subject to like punishment. Those clerics who have not renounced the marriage bond, following the custom of their region, shall be punished even more severely if they fall into sin, since for them it is possible to make lawful use of matrimony.

Canon 15.

Clerical gluttony and drunkeness

All clerics should carefully abstain from gluttony and drunkenness. They should temper the wine to themselves and themselves to the wine. Let no one be urged to drink, since drunkenness obscures the intellect and stirs up lust. Accordingly we decree that that abuse is to be entirely abolished whereby in some places drinkers bind themselves to drink equal amounts, and that man is most praised who makes the most people drunk and himself drains the deepest cups. If anyone shows himself worthy of blame in these matters, let him be suspended from his benefice or office, unless after being warned by his superior he makes suitable satisfaction. We forbid all clerics to hunt or to fowl, so let them not presume to have dogs or birds for fowling {4} .





I am not Spartacus

said...

Canon 16.

Decorum in the dress and behaviour of clerics

Clerics should not practice callings or business of a secular nature, especially those that are dishonourable. They should not watch mimes, entertainers and actors. Let them avoid taverns altogether, unless by chance they are obliged by necessity on a journey. They should not play at games of chance or of dice, nor be present at such games. They should have a suitable crown and tonsure, and let them diligently apply themselves to the divine services and other good pursuits. Their outer garments should be closed and neither too short nor too long. Let them not indulge in red or green cloths, long sleeves or shoes with embroidery or pointed toes, or in bridles, saddles, breast-plates and spurs that are gilded or have other superfluous ornamentation. Let them not wear cloaks with sleeves at divine services in a church, nor even elsewhere, if they are priests or parsons, unless a justifiable fear requires a change of dress. They are not to wear buckles or belts ornamented with gold or silver, or even rings except for those whose dignity it befits to have them. All bishops should wear outer garments of linen in public and in church, unless they have been monks, in which case they should wear the monastic habit; and let them not wear their cloaks loose in public but rather fastened together behind the neck or across the chest.


Canon 17.

Dissolute prelates

We regretfully relate that not only certain lesser clerics but also some prelates of churches pass almost half the night in unnecessary feasting and forbidden conversation, not to mention other things, and leaving what is left of the night for sleep, they are barely roused at the dawn chorus of the birds and pass away the entire morning in a continuous state of stupor. There are others who celebrate mass barely four times a year and, what is worse, do not bother to attend; if they happen to be present when it is being celebrated, they flee the silence of the choir and pay attention to conversations of the laity outside and so while they attend to talk that is unnecessary for them, they do not give an attentive ear to the things of God. We altogether forbid these and similar things on pain of suspension. We strictly command such persons, in virtue of obedience, to celebrate the divine office, day and night alike, as far as God allows them, with both zeal and devotion.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Canon 18.

Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood

No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. If anyone, however, under cover of this statute, dares to inflict injury on churches or ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure. A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics. Moreover no cleric may be put in command of mercenaries or crossbowmen or suchlike men of blood; nor may a subdeacon, deacon or priest practise the art of surgery, which involves cauterizing and making incisions; nor may anyone confer a rite of blessing or consecration on a purgation by ordeal of boiling or cold water or of the red-hot iron, saving nevertheless the previously promulgated prohibitions regarding single combats and duels.

Canon 19.

That profane objects may not be stored in churches

We are unwilling to tolerate the fact that certain clerics deposit in churches their own and even others' furniture, so that the churches look like lay houses rather than basilicas of God, regardless of the fact that the Lord would not allow a vessel to be carried through the temple. There are others who not only leave their churches uncared for but also leave the service vessels and ministers' vestments and altar cloths and even corporals so dirty that they at times horrify some people. Because zeal for God's house consumes us, we strictly forbid objects of this kind to be allowed into churches, unless they have to be taken in on account of enemy incursions or sudden fires or other urgent necessities, and then in such a way that when the emergency is over the objects are taken back to where they came from. We also order the aforesaid churches, vessels, corporals and vestments to be kept neat and clean. For it seems too absurd to take no notice of squalor in sacred things when it is unbecoming even in profane things.

Canon 20.

Chrism and the Eucharist to be kept under lock and key

We decree that the chrism and the eucharist are to be kept locked away in a safe place in all churches, so that no audacious hand can reach them to do anything horrible or impious. If he who is responsible for their safe-keeping leaves them around carelessly, let him be suspended from office for three months; if anything unspeakable happens on account of his carelessness, let him be subject to graver punishment.





Anonymous Bosch

said...

IANS, your point is well taken. Sin has always abounded. We've had far more immoral popes that recent ones, some that even fathered offspring. The same with immorality in the priesthood.

I also think Ralph is right about where the change lies. Whatever they may have felt personally, even the worst of the Borgia popes, bishops, and priests who had mistresses and fathered children never came right out and openly declared that their behavior was was acceptable or didn't matter. What we have today is exemplified by the German clerics who are trying to remake tradition by saying that it's time to change faith and morals to conform to the changing times.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear AB. But, they did. I'll have to track down the evidence.

I selected those canons from that Council because the Thirteenth is the Greatest of all Centuries;

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Walsh--13th_GOC.pdf

and yet look what was happening amongst many of the clergy.

As to the German Clerics, it happened before in Germany with Luther (a gnostic) and the other apostates who boasted that they were doing right by doing wrong.

There is nothing new under the sun and while I have great admiration for Ralph and his knowledge and while I may be his biggest fan when it comes to his manner of thinking and writing, I disagree that Vatican Two represents a watershed of wickedness (my words, not his, but , ya know, alliteration can become an obsession).

I do think the ressourcement movement amongst the new theologians has borne palatable fruit and those who were under suspicion by the insular Curia were, in the end, not justly under that suspicion.

What is so wrong with, say, de Lubac?





Paul Borealis

said...

Dear Pertinacious Papist

Thank you very much for sharing that... food for thought.... and it spurred me on to these, which you and others might find interesting. I enjoy your blog. God bless.

===============


Illiberal Catholicism

Catholics used to be open to the lessons of freedom from the American experience. Are we forgetting those lessons?

John Zmirak

31.12.2013 //

http://www.aleteia.org/en/politics/article/illiberal-catholicism-6333360653729792

================

Integralism

Posted on January 16, 2014 by sancrucensis under Politics, The Falcon

If patriotism and love of liberty are beautiful things when well ordered, they are remarkably ugly when disordered. John Brungardt has asked me to respond to a particularly outrageous example of disordered love of liberty from John Zmirak.

http://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/integralism/


======================





JM

said...

"What is so wrong with, say, de Lubac?"

Gateway drug, my man. If you are asking you've already been smoking...

Are you sure you are unawares a Cylon?





Anonymous Bosch

said...

What's wrong with de Lubac?

Easy: http://www.communio-icr.com/files/portier35-3NC.pdf

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/modernism/newtheo.htm

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_December/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartIII.htm

http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/words-of-the-fathers-pt-3-congar-and-de-lubac/





I am not Spartacus

said...

Spe Salvi

Is Christian hope individualistic?

13. In the course of their history, Christians have tried to express this “knowing without knowing” by means of figures that can be represented, and they have developed images of “Heaven” which remain far removed from what, after all, can only be known negatively, via unknowing. All these attempts at the representation of hope have given to many people, down the centuries, the incentive to live by faith and hence also to abandon their hyparchonta, the material substance for their lives. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews, in the eleventh chapter, outlined a kind of history of those who live in hope and of their journeying, a history which stretches from the time of Abel into the author's own day. This type of hope has been subjected to an increasingly harsh critique in modern times: it is dismissed as pure individualism, a way of abandoning the world to its misery and taking refuge in a private form of eternal salvation. Henri de Lubac, in the introduction to his seminal book Catholicisme. Aspects sociaux du dogme, assembled some characteristic articulations of this viewpoint, one of which is worth quoting: “Should I have found joy? No ... only my joy, and that is something wildly different ... The joy of Jesus can be personal. It can belong to a single man and he is saved. He is at peace ... now and always, but he is alone. The isolation of this joy does not trouble him. On the contrary: he is the chosen one! In his blessedness he passes through the battlefields with a rose in his hand”[10].


Not many theologinas are favorably singled-out in Papal Encyclicals.

If he is acceptable to a genius Pope, he is jake with me.

O, and I could post links to the opinions about de Lubac from those who are in union with their Bishop and Pope.

As for the opinions of those who do not accept Pope, Council, or Mass, ehh; Who cares?

O, Spe Salvi

Is Christian hope individualistic?

13. In the course of their history, Christians have tried to express this “knowing without knowing” by means of figures that can be represented, and they have developed images of “Heaven” which remain far removed from what, after all, can only be known negatively, via unknowing. All these attempts at the representation of hope have given to many people, down the centuries, the incentive to live by faith and hence also to abandon their hyparchonta, the material substance for their lives. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews, in the eleventh chapter, outlined a kind of history of those who live in hope and of their journeying, a history which stretches from the time of Abel into the author's own day. This type of hope has been subjected to an increasingly harsh critique in modern times: it is dismissed as pure individualism, a way of abandoning the world to its misery and taking refuge in a private form of eternal salvation. Henri de Lubac, in the introduction to his seminal book Catholicisme. Aspects sociaux du dogme, assembled some characteristic articulations of this viewpoint, one of which is worth quoting: “Should I have found joy? No ... only my joy, and that is something wildly different ... The joy of Jesus can be personal. It can belong to a single man and he is saved. He is at peace ... now and always, but he is alone. The isolation of this joy does not trouble him. On the contrary: he is the chosen one! In his blessedness he passes through the battlefields with a rose in his hand”[10].


Not many theologinas are favorably singled-out in Papal Encyclicals.

If he is acceptable to a genius Pope, he is jake with me.

O, and I could post links to the opinions about de Lubac from those who are in union with their Bishop and Pope.

As for the opinions of those who do not accept Pope, Council, or Mass, ehh.

O, did you know that Garrigou-Lagrange's accused Jacques Maritain of having committed a mortal sin because he supported the resistance against the Nazi occupied Vichy government?






Charles

said...

IANS,

I cannot quarrel with your good will towards the genius Pope, but I'm doubtful you are going to persuade your critics.

Popes (including your "genius Pope") have singled out numerous individuals (from Plato to Nietzsche) for favourable reference in their encyclicals and other writings, but that hardly means that they would approve everything written by those authors. Benedict was downright deferential to Teilhard de Chardin in his Introduction to Christianity, but only an idiot could think Teilhard a "doctor" of the Church.

Also, guilt-by-association is an easy game to play, but doesn't prove anything. Pope SAINT Pius X supported Charles Maurras' Action française. So what? Pope Francis also indicated his support for Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez and his neo-Marxist liberation theology. So are you going to become a sedevacantist over that? Of course not. Popes and theologians can be inadequately informed, make imprudent judgments, and even say some downright stupid things. No deal.





I am not Spartacus

said...

(I just found something I rote in response to being accused of "papolatry" when I posted at Free Republic under the S/N, Bornacatholic

Dr. William Marra coined the neologism "Papolatry." It was intended to create a layer of fog obscuring the advance of their untraditional practice of publicly opposing the Popes since 1948. It was intended to put on the defensisve hundreds of millions of faithful Christians who, in the best Traditons of the Church, are obedient to the Magisterium.

It really is no different than when pagans charged the early church with worshipping Mary. St. Augustine's response ("City of God")?

Prove it.

That is my response also.

Prove I worship the Pope.

Like St. Augustine, I say search our Missals and show me where worship is offered to the Pope. Come to the Pauline Rite where we, the redeemed, gather with Christ around the altar and offer the Sacrifice of the New Covenant to God and listen for one word proving we worship the Pope and not God.

The fact of the matter is the self-annointed traditionalists are engaged in craven perfidy. They don't have the cojones to admit the truth of their situation. They are outside the church but they won't admit it. Instead, they label the Faithful as ones violating the First Commandment. It is an ugly and insane accusation but it does tend to befog the minds of some observers and tends to put the faithful on the defensive so the unfaithful can appear to be defending Tradition. It also tends to ensnare in their web of deceit the weak in Faith who become trapped in the schism.

The fact is, the self-annointed schismatic traditionalist acts no different than Luther sounded.

Luther at the Diet of Worms "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

Lke Luther, the self-annointed traditionalist (SAT) rejects the Magisterium as authoritative. Like Luther, the SAT publicly accuses the Popes since 1948 with contradicting previous Popes. Like Luther, the SAT publicly accuses the most recent ecumenical council of contradicting previous ecumencial councils. Like Luther, they think they can, in good conscience, oppose the Divinely-Constitued Magisterium in good conscience. Unlike Luther, they don't have the cojones to speak the truth - "I stand outside the Church." Nope.

They'd rather accuse the real Traditional Catholic - he who hears and obeys the Church, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, of enaging in "papolatry," a mortal sin.

Cowards





I am not Spartacus

said...

22. The success of every society of men, for whatever purpose it is formed, is bound up with the harmony of the members in the interests of the common cause. Hence We must devote Our earnest endeavours to appease dissension and strife, of whatever character, amongst Catholics, and to prevent new dissensions arising, so that there may be unity of ideas and of action amongst all. The enemies of God and of the Church are perfectly well aware that any internal quarrel amongst Catholics is a real victory for them. Hence it is their usual practice when they see Catholics strongly united, to endeavour by cleverly sowing the seeds of discord, to break up that union. And would that the result had not frequently justified their hopes, to the great detriment of the interests of religion! Hence, therefore, whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.





I am not Spartacus

said...

23. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline-in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See- there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.

24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Charles. Well, there was no Cardinalate for Maurras, Gutierrez , Plato, Nietschze or Chardin and there were far fewer respected orthodox theologians supporting them than supported de Lubac.

I am getting motivated to chase down a few of those endorsements, although, One Pope Saint John Paul II obscures ten trillion Vennaris and Matts





I am not Spartacus

said...

Cardinal Medina: At the moment of the Second Vatican Council, there was general hope for certain changes in the Church, just and justified changes, in my opinion. Above all they were expressed in the dogmatic Constitution of the Church, in the dogmatic Constitution on the Divine Revelation, in the Constitution on the Liturgy, and in the pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. These four documents make up the structure of the Council—the central document being Lumen Gentium—reflecting the wholesome desire to incorporate in the Church these developments of thinking that were opening wider horizons but perfectly orthodox.

(Thinking of the Popes included)

If I could take the example of one person who best represents, in my opinion, the sense of these positive developments—it is Cardinal Henri de Lubac. I knew him personally; he treated me like a friend, even though there was an age difference between him and me; I would return to visit him as often as possible. Lubac was an absolutely orthodox man.

Now, to those who have issued suspicions against his orthodoxy, it was acknowledged by the Church in a brilliant way when the Pope made him a cardinal.

I believe that Cardinal Ratzinger represents exactly the same position as that held by Cardinal de Lubac. Among the works of Cardinal de Lubac, there is a truly remarkable one—the Meditation on the Church, that is truly a masterpiece. And I believe that the Meditation on the Church represents exactly the mode of thought of Cardinal Ratzinger...





I am not Spartacus

said...

The great Garrigou-Lagrane was not entirely just in his attacks on de Lubac and he was his own self simply in error not only about his conclusions about de Lubac but G-L got Saint Thomas wrong - from misquoting him to taking him out of context etc

http://tinyurl.com/motpfxp

There as a time when Aquinas was rejected by the theologians of his time.

Ressourcement Theology is not the project that percolated up from Perdition as the soi disant trads judge it to me





Ralph Roister-Doister

said...

Ok, IANS, how are we going to do this? I have witnessed you do complete 100% flips on two occasions in the past 6-7 years. Not modifications to a basic point of view, but complete pancake flips. That is unusual unless you are a politician or Ab. Gerhard Muller. I trust you are neither.

Are you, the great Irish-Algonquin individualist, now going to present yourself as the defender of the contemporary Catholic establishment? Again? So be it, but with every flip you execute it becomes a little bit tougher to put credence in your machine gun posts, whatever they say. My general policy since you have returned has been to leave you alone. Of course, since at that point we were more or less in agreement on the majority of things, leaving you alone was easy. I think you tend to go overboard in your reactions to what you read, and I try to take that into account in my response to you, which I choose to make infrequently. But it gets tough when I must witness you in February unsaying basically everything you said in December.

I guess what I am saying, IANS, is that I think you're a decent guy, quite intelligent too, but I do not intend to get into another round of daily ninja attacks of dozens of overwrought blog comments from you over every "soi-disant traditionalist" remark I make to which you object in the name of Papa Whatever and the Grub Street hacks who make a nice living having to explain him [and sometimes explain him away]. Life is too short for that. After particular judgment, we'll see what happens. Maybe you can give me that punch in Purgatory (:>D). I would be glad to have it in that place.





Bornacatholic

said...

Dear Ralph. The coining of Grub Street alone prolly qualifies you for a huge partial indulgence.

Despite what many may think of you, Ralph, you are a softy at heart :)





Ralph Roister-Doister

said...

HAR!! Now you're beginning to piss me off, BAC/IANS/BAC!