tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post2031720613345649660..comments2024-01-29T08:39:40.754-05:00Comments on Musings of a Pertinacious Papist: Who's Betraying Tradition: The Grand DisputeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-54462737490640409652011-06-05T18:17:52.173-04:002011-06-05T18:17:52.173-04:00Rhonheimer: Benedict concluded his exemplificatio...Rhonheimer: Benedict concluded his exemplification of the “hermeneutic of reform” with the doctrine of religious freedom with a concise statement: “The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relations between the Church’s faith and certain basic elements of modern thought, reelaborated or corrected some decisions made in the past…” This correction does not imply a discontinuity at the level of Catholic doctrine on faith and morals – the competency of the authentic Magisterium and possessed of infallibility, even as ordinary Magisterium. The Pope thus spoke here only of an “apparent discontinuity”, since in rejecting an outdated teaching on the State, the Church “has recovered and deepened its true nature and identity. The Church was and is, both before and after the council, the same Church: one, holy, Catholic and apostolic, making its pilgrim way through time.”<br /><br />RRD: What requires “correction”, exactly? If the Church is indeed a “pilgrim” in time, then neither a Catholic state, nor a secular state founded on a doctrine of marketplace individualism deserve any endorsement from it. Indeed, a state which attempts, however ingloriously, to force its citizens to conform to the only principles which can save the individual soul from perdition, is arguably more admirable in its aims than one which claims to allow religious freedom, but which in fact preaches a catechesis of buying and selling, and molds “free” individuals into consumer automata. To transfer the Church’s approval to the latter state may be a matter of social doctrine, but it is a transferral which carries deep reverberations in “dogmatic orientation.” If Vatican II’s teaching on religious freedom had been a genuine "correction" to the Church’s social doctrine, it would have recognized the obvious, that there is no secular statecraft, no governmental organization, which will save a man’s soul. But Vatican II did not advance that doctrine one iota: it did not correct anything – it merely traded one mess of pottage for another, and perhaps a worse one at that. And, it did so as a simple matter of political accomodationism, which apologists such as Rhonheimer have struggled for decades to dress up as something more.Ralph Roister-Doisternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-79948874102451377452011-06-04T20:43:20.809-04:002011-06-04T20:43:20.809-04:00Rhonheimer: Benedict concluded his exemplificatio...Rhonheimer: Benedict concluded his exemplification of the “hermeneutic of reform” with the doctrine of religious freedom with a concise statement: “The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relations between the Church’s faith and certain basic elements of modern thought, reelaborated or corrected some decisions made in the past…” This correction does not imply a discontinuity at the level of Catholic doctrine on faith and morals – the competency of the authentic Magisterium and possessed of infallibility, even as ordinary Magisterium. The Pope thus spoke here only of an “apparent discontinuity”, since in rejecting an outdated teaching on the State, the Church “has recovered and deepened its true nature and identity. The Church was and is, both before and after the council, the same Church: one, holy, Catholic and apostolic, making its pilgrim way through time.”<br /><br />RRD: What requires “correction”, exactly? If the Church is indeed a “pilgrim” in time, then neither a Catholic state, nor a secular state founded on a doctrine of marketplace individualism deserve any endorsement from it. Indeed, a state which attempts, however ingloriously, to force its citizens to conform to the only principles which can save the individual soul from perdition, is arguably more admirable in its aims than one which claims to allow religious freedom, but which in fact preaches a catechesis of buying and selling, and molds “free” individuals into consumer automata. To transfer the Church’s approval to the latter state may be a matter of “social doctrine,” but it is a transferral which carries deep reverberations in “dogmatic orientation.” If Vatican II’s teaching on religious freedom had been a genuine advance in the Church’s social doctrine, it would have recognized the obvious, that there is no secular statecraft, no governmental organization, which will save a man’s soul. But Vatican II did not advance that doctrine one iota – it merely traded one mess of pottage for another, and perhaps a worse one at that – more than anything else as a simple matter of pragmatism. To speak of an act of political pragmatism as a recovery and deepening of the Church’s “true nature and identity” seems to me (a) a reference to a matter of dogmatic profundity, and (b) a case of profound wish fulfillment.Ralph Roister-Doisternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-39057113870411558912011-06-04T20:39:09.300-04:002011-06-04T20:39:09.300-04:00Rhonheimer: This is exactly what the first Christ...Rhonheimer: This is exactly what the first Christians asked during the age of persecutions. They did not demand that the State support religious truth, but asked only for the freedom to profess their faith without State interference. Vatican II now teaches that this is a fundamental civil right of the person – that is, a right of all people, regardless of their religious faith.<br /><br />RRD: On the other hand, Christians did not protest strenuously when Constantine made Christianity – Catholicism -- a state religion. Nor should they have. The transformation was an immeasurable improvement, at least for a time.Ralph Roister-Doisternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-66337911526647809442011-06-04T20:36:55.719-04:002011-06-04T20:36:55.719-04:00Rhonheimer: "Precisely here lies Vatican II’...Rhonheimer: "Precisely here lies Vatican II’s discontinuity with the doctrine of the 19th century popes – a discontinuity, however, that brings into view a deeper and more essential continuity. As Benedict explained in his address: “With the Decree on religious freedom, the Second Vatican Council both recognized and assumed a fundamental principle of the modern State, while at the same time re-connecting itself with a deeply rooted inheritance of the Church.” This fundamental principle of the modern State that is simultaneously a deeply-rooted inheritance reassumed by the Church is, for Benedict, the rejection of a State religion. “The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in the God revealed to them in Jesus Christ, and as such they also died for freedom of conscience and for the freedom to confess their faith.”<br /><br />RRD [forgive my incorporation of an earlier comment here]: This is a fair point to make: the western world is no longer predominantly Catholic, or even Christian, so the situation is no longer that faced by Gregory XVI or Pius IX. It is probably inevitable that the balance of power between Church and State would shift to the latter. All true. But it is a far cry from this recognition of a shift in the realpolitik to a remarkably sudden and convenient discovery that this recognition is, on some “level”, also a reconnection with a “deeper and more essential continuity,” namely that of the Church’s passionate commitment to religious freedom. It seems disingenuous to co-opt the martyrs of the early Church as proto-libertarian patriots. Doing so is essentially saying that martyrs died for the rights of other Catholics not to be martyrs. I personally doubt that any such thoughts ever crossed Peter's mind. <br /><br />Well, maybe they crossed St Lawrence's mind, for it is said he died laughing.Ralph Roister-Doisternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-67174999978489853022011-06-04T20:33:11.270-04:002011-06-04T20:33:11.270-04:00"The warning was enthusiastically taken up by..."The warning was enthusiastically taken up by Catholics faithful to the Pope, with the opinion spreading that, in his speech, Benedict had opposed the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” with a “hermeneutic of continuity”. [...] This understanding, however, is unfounded. In the Pope’s address, there is no such opposition between a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” and a “hermeneutic of continuity”. Rather, as he explained: “In contrast with the hermeneutic of discontinuity is a hermeneutic of reform…” And in what lies the “nature of true reform”? According to the Holy Father, “in the interplay, on different levels, between continuity and discontinuity”.<br /><br />“Continuity”, therefore, is not the only hermeneutical category for understanding the Second Vatican Council. The category of “reform” is also necessary, a category which includes elements of both continuity and discontinuity. But as Benedict emphasized, the continuity and discontinuity are “on different levels”. It is important, therefore, to identify and distinguish these levels correctly." <br /><br />Fr Rhonheimer’s clarification is welcome, but it changes little. Either “reform” is subsumed in the larger category of continuity, or it becomes discontinuity: one must ultimately be either on the bus or off the bus. Further, Benedict’s use of the word “interplay” in the quote above seems to me a bit coy. There may be “interplay” between distinct elements within a whole – subatomic interplay within the atom, so to speak. But the “interplay” of opposites is perhaps better known as dialectic, and it seems to me that, at that point, we are back to the former contrast of continuity vs. discontinuity. The further complication of the metaphor through the introduction of “levels” is, to say the least, needless.Ralph Roister-Doisternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-40466461810936670932011-06-04T09:22:44.652-04:002011-06-04T09:22:44.652-04:00NC, thanks for the heads-up about Sandro Magister ...NC, thanks for the heads-up about Sandro Magister here.<br /><br />Ralph, I had an uneasy feeling about that martyr connection too, but couldn't put my finger on what it was. <br /><br />Thanks for the clarification.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-53593984773590612072011-06-03T01:44:49.896-04:002011-06-03T01:44:49.896-04:00"The martyrs of the early Church died for the..."The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in the God revealed to them in Jesus Christ, and as such they also died for freedom of conscience and for the freedom to confess their faith."<br /><br />Co-opting the martyrs of the early Church as proto-libertarian patriots seems a rather disingenuous claim for a pope to make. It is essentially saying that martyrs died for the rights of others not to be martyrs. I personally doubt that any such claptrap ever crossed Peter's mind. <br /><br />Well, maybe it crossed St Lawrence's mind, for it is said he died laughing.Ralph Roister-Doisternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-12865336050240364562011-06-02T23:45:48.848-04:002011-06-02T23:45:48.848-04:00Thank God there is not exactly a "standoff&qu...Thank God there is not exactly a "standoff" and that the discussions took/have been taking place in private. <br /><br />For people like Magister, it is all lots of fun: he places himself as a moderate arbiter (for instance, in his very latest article, following the first references to Rhonrheimer, he begins with deception by saying, "The instruction 'Universæ Ecclesiæ' of last April 30, the feast of Saint Pius V, did not calm down the confrontation between the staunchest supporters of the Mass in the ancient rite and of that in the modern rite, both of them tempted to maintain that only their own rite is valid and legitimate.") That last assertion, for example, is of course untrue.<br /><br />He is not interested in debate: he is interested in a certain portrayal of some people; it is unfortunate that some have fallen for it.<br /><br />NCNew Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04118576661605931910noreply@blogger.com