People bill this blog in various ways. I must say, however, that the worst billing of all is that it is an anti-SSPX blog. It annoys me, largely because it is usually said by people with an SSPX-centric view of the world. In fact, by most mainstream standards, I run a very pro-SSPX blog, not because I support that movement, but because I happen to believe that though their analysis is flawed in various respects, theirs is a voice which ought not to be ignored.
Still, just sometimes, they try my patience beyond due measure, and tonight is such a time. In the latest SSPX UK District Newsletter, the District Superior Fr Paul Morgan reflects on the unacceptable situation of communities which have 'sought a practical agreement' with the Roman authorities (Curious expression, 'Roman authorities'). The accusation against the Papa Stronsay monks is that they have left themselves at the mercy of those who have no understanding of, or engagement in, the fight for Catholic Tradition (viz, the Bishop of Aberdeen), they have no canonical ministry other than on their island and on Stronsay(whereas before they went wherever they wanted), that their superior (Fr Michael Mary) questions the salvation of the SSPX members and supporters, and that one of the priests (Fr Anthony Mary) has questioned the wisdom of sending children to SSPX schools for fear of their imbibing a schismatic mentality. Fr Morgan is alarmed that these men have changed their positions so quickly, but less suprised that these view should come from those who believe the propblems of the Church are no longer primarily doctrinal.
I am a little surprised that Fr Morgan has relied for his information on Fr Nicholas Mary - a dissident member of the community - for he could have consulted the Transalpine blog, or indeed, written to Fr Michael Mary had he wanted to examine the position of the community. I fear, therefore, he will not see Fr Michael Mary's response to his newsletter, posted on the Transalpine Redemptorist blog on Sunday, dealing with the two main charges against them: why make a pragmatic accord and the relationship of the SSPX to the Church and the salvation of their supporters. He says nothing about the remarks of Fr Anthony Mary. I'll leave it to readers to make of it what they will.
So, why am I impatient, or exasperated really? Because it seems to me that if anything the SSPX are even more entrenched in their positions at the end of 2009 than they have ever been. And because nobody but nobody in their ranks is showing the slightest sign of examining the principle elegantly expressed in the famous five conditions of June this year, which read:
"The commitment to avoid the claim to a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not propose the Fraternity in contraposition to the Church."
Now, the SSPX vehemently deny that they do such a thing. But what is this resistance to a practical agreement if not an implicit assertion of doctrinal superiority? As they see it, the SSPX have nothing to negotiate with the Church; in fact, their request for doctrinal discussions is really a euphemism for the creation of some forum in which they can explain to the the Church where it is wrong about Vatican II and where they are right. The Church, by which I mean the visible, hierarchical insitution founded by Christ and now continued through the ministry of the successors of the Apostles, is thus not regarded as the guardian of truth; it is the mere corroborator of truth, the ecclesial rubber-stamp. In fact, the crisis in the Church can only come to an end for the SSPX when Rome recognises the doctrinal errors it has embraced and renounces them.
Now, put this principle to any representative of the SSPX and they will instantly start to try to prove the point that they are right about the crisis and that Rome is wrong. They will thus avoid examining the central plank of their argument which is that nobody ex officio provides an authoritative reading of the faith of the Church.
If you wish more proof of this, read Fr Morgan's remarks in the Mater Dei magazine immediately after the reconcilation of the Transalpine Redemptorists in July. I commented on these remarks at the time because I found them immensely revealing:
"Indeed, any agreement made with the Roman authorities at the price of tacit compromise over the causes of the crisis within the Church tends to place the question of 'visible communion' with modern Rome before that of communion with eternal Rome and her perennial magisterium."
Two implicit points are worth drawing out of this statement:
1) one can compromise over the 'causes of the crisis' (an implicit admission that the SSPX pits its own theses against the Church's)
2) Rome is not ex officio the guide to the perennial magisterium
One might add a third: the visibility of the Church is unconnected to her mission as teacher of the faith
Thus, as far as Fr Morgan is concerned, the only time he will be making an agreement with Rome is when Rome ceases to refuse the SSPX's understanding of the crisis, and when Rome abandons her claim to be the authoritative guide to the perennial magisterium. Then, it will be relatively plain sailing.
Well, call me a cynic, but that ain't gonna happen!
Still, is there a middle way? Is there some kind of solution that can be more than a practical accord but be less than the pipe dreams that preoccupy the Morganic mind?
If there is such a way, it might be something like this:
1) the SSPX makes a practical agreement with Rome which allows them to function as a world-wide diocese
2) they transform their current policy of attritional denoucement into a sustained explanation of their position (through publications, colloquia, conferences, publications) during which they must engage with the other members of the Magisterium of Teachers
3) they are allowed to present their theses to the CDF and ask clarification of teaching on the four controversial points of religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism and the New Mass.
The only condition? That when due consideration has been accorded their theses, they must agree to abide by whatever decision Rome arrives at concerning the extent to which their positions represent Catholic doctrine.
So, would the SSPX be prepared to accept this last condition? On that principle could depend their commitment to remain in touch with the visible society founded by Christ. Of course, if to embrace that principle, they had to 'compromise on the causes of the crisis', then I imagine they might refuse, at least by Fr Morgan's logic. I suppose it all depends what they want.
Bishop Fellay has organised another Rosary Crusade praying for the lifting of the excommunications, and I'm happy to join my prayers to such a cause. Who wouldn't be? But at times like these, I cannot but help think again of those words of Charles Peguy, a counsel of courage against all calculation:
On ne sauve pas son âme comme on sauve un trésor. On la sauve comme on perd un trésor. En la dépensant. (You don’t save your soul in the same way you save treasure. You save it in the same way you lose treasure. By spending it).
The Sensible Bond?
A Sensible Bond Retrospective
A word about comments
The Sensible Bond and the SSPX
Blog Archive
About Me
- Ches
- Benedictine loyalist, lecturer, bored musician, occasional poet, minor polemicist, enemy of knuckleheaded partisanship.
Number of Visitors
71 comments:
In statements where I find the SSPX using phrases like "Rome" or the "Roman authorities" I get the sense that they would have a more difficult time making the same statement but instead using phrases like "The authorities of the Roman Catholic Church" or the "Pope and his magisterium". I think the language they use is functioning euphemistically within their group.
I would imagine that the reconciliation of the Transalpine Redemptorists makes some within the SSPX uncomfortable with their own position.
Bishop Fellay has organised another Rosary Crusade praying for the lifting of the excommunications, and I'm happy to join my prayers to such a cause. Who wouldn't be?
Having observed how Bishop Fellay allows his hounds to tear into Fr. Michael Mary and the F.SS.R., I'm not so sure that I'm willing to join my prayers to his at this juncture -- especially not if his prayer is for a unilateral gesture on the part of Rome.
Thanks for thoughtful and constructive post. There has to be a middle way to reconciliation, but it has to be sought and wanted. The SSPX has become very independent over the years, but with the 'Moto Proprium',the Holy Father offered a real opportunity for discussion and possible reconciliation, which ultimately, the SSPX effectively dismissed.The Holy Father is the Head of Christ's Church on earth, and it is incumbent on the SSPX to show due humility and respect towards him. I have not noticed a great deal of either, but it may be that I have missed something. I seem to remember reading somewhere that 'humility' was the greatest of all virtues, and on which all others depended.If perhaps the SSPX adopted this precept in their dealings with the Holy Father, then indeed through God's grace,a miracle might happen.
Too much legalism and papolatry for me (and I´m not even a FSSPX suporter). It´s a pity, for I like your blog. But I simply can´t buy the "It´s raining because the Pope says it is" kind of argument (cf. Rex in "Brideshead Revisited").
One example. Whoever knows what Rome to-day teaches on religious liberty? Do you? Does anyone? I have never found anyone who could actually tell me. However, one thing seems clear: a great deal of what Catholics less than 50 years ago - among which many bishops - thought to be Church doctrine in these matter has obviously been discarded by Rome. Then... what to make of it? Was Rome wrong 50 years ago? Is it now? That is if we could actually agree as to what Rome is saying about Dignitatis Humanae...
And I could go on. The laws of logic were not invented by Rome. Nor is reality. If there is contradiction and problems, what´s the point of a statement pretending there are not? What good will it do? Make reality go away? Rome changed the introduction to the Missal of Paul VI but left unchanged the missal based on the principles explained in this same introduction. It is all such a mess...
I understand you critique of the FSSPX. But I don´t share your claims for Roman infallibility adn weather-making. (Altough I most certainly believe what Pastor Aeternus taught).
Confiteor,
I see your point, but I don't think a few extra rosaries ever did any harm...It certainly isn't a frivolous intention. Maybe the excommunications will be lifted because SSPX begins to change it's tune. There are infinite ways the desired result might occur.
Ches,
Perhaps those who are less boisterous in SSPX are hesitant to say anything because they are worried about fractures in their organization. If the tiny Transalpine Redemptorists had such a tumultuous transition, you can only imagine what will occur when SSPX makes a similar move. The only comments I've heard or seen that seem really disagreeable are from people who were making crazy statements ages ago. Fr. Morgan is hardly the voice of SSPX, although he seems to be on one side of the spectrum. I'm pretty sure that if Bishop Fellay reached an agreement with Rome there would be a large section of SSPX that would break off to form the REAL SSPX. That would be disastrous for the faithful, especially those who simply don't know any better.
That is my optimistic stance on the issue. Ches, I expect you'll say, "Keep telling yourself that, kid." I am prepared to be terribly disappointed, so don't worry.
Cheers
Nobody I know claims that people have to accept Dignitatis Humanane because it is infallible. I think JK,
I have answered this point in Confessions of a Nobody. What you seem to imply is that the only choice is between privatised readings of the Magisterium and legalism or papolatry. I do not think that is the case at all.
Felicity,
I think you are probably right about people not wanting to rock the boat. Fr Morgan is not the voice of the SSPX, but his attitudes on point of reunion are perfectly in line with Bishop Fellay who has allowed himself (willingly or unwillingly) to be painted into an impossible corner. By all means be optimistic; prayer can make the difference! But, not wothout a lot of pain and, yes, division, as you say.
I would like to thank you Ches for your very clear understanding and postings on the problems with the SSPX. I am not an avid SSPX supporter but I have attended Mass at my local SSPX church and plan to do so over Christmas because I like to sing the traditional Gregorian Chant which I have known over very many years.
That said, I would never become a regular SSPX supporter. What really sticks in my gut is the fact that they operate outside of the canonical norms of the Church. I would never go to Confession to an SSPX priest because he does not have the permission of my local Ordinary to hear my confession. His Masses are indeed valid but his ministry to the faithful is illicit.
JARay
If the Vatican stated their condition as you quote it ["The commitment to avoid the claim to a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not propose the Fraternity in contraposition to the Church."] perhaps it was the egregious split infinitive which soured the SSPX.
"Nobody I know claims that people have to accept Dignitatis Humanane because it is infallible. I think JK,
I have answered this point in Confessions of a Nobody. What you seem to imply is that the only choice is between privatised readings of the Magisterium and legalism or papolatry. I do not think that is the case at all."
Ches,
Thanks for your answer.
First, most serious Catholics I know don´t know anything except the kind of blind obedience to Rome´s least whim that "conservative Ctholics" have made sort of mainstream (and which, of course, is a bitter legacy from Ultramontanism, but made worse by the whims and "sic volo sic iubeo" style of Paul VI and John Paul II). Catholic theology is little known. And since paul VI did pretty much what he wanted regardless of custom most believe te Pope is a tyrant who must be obeyed unless one wishes to go to hell.
Second: no, I do not posit what you think I am saying. I can easily imagine another option than those of Private Judgement on one side and papolatry on the other. Actually, I always defend a 3rd way my self. However, I didn´t find this 3rd way expressed in "Fata morgana". I shall have to go study that earlier text you are pointing me to.
I´ll be back.
My firm belief is that the crisis of the last decades has proven the failure of extreme ultramontanism. The papl office is one of preservation, not one of detail ruling, much less one of inventing stuff. I believ the Holy Father is making this point rather often. In Summorum P for instance. A point missed by both most "conservatives" and "traddies".
Kind regards,
JK
Finecrown,
Must have been the translator who split the infitive.
JK,
Very glad to discuss anything.
Other Posters whose comments didn't make it today:
I am not inclined to publish comments with personal or unsubstantiated claims about any individual, be they Redeptorist, SSPX, or the Holy Father himself. Keep the tone up, and you can post. Lower the tone, and you're off!
A "third way" is suggested by the late Bishop de Castro Mayer in a 1980 interview:
Prof. Plinio: When these heterodox interpretations comprise a system of thinking, they point to a suspicion of heresy, don’t they?
Bishop Mayer: Yes, there is no doubt about that. The Council was written with great care to avoid such a suspicion, but actually that is what happened. Further, there is the general principle that when the Church teaches, she cannot use ambiguous words. Her teaching is to clarify and illuminate minds; she cannot teach [ambiguous] theses that obscure minds.
When I visited Msgr. Kurtz [not identified] in Rome, he told me: “We need to demand that the Council be interpreted in the light of Tradition.” I told him: “How can you interpret religious liberty in the light of Tradition?” There is no way to do it. A conciliar perito who helped to write the Constitution about the Church [Lumen gentium] afterwards admitted: “We used ambiguous words so that the Council can give the interpretation it deems legitimate.”
Now, how can we accept such a Council? We cannot. For this reason I told Msgr. Lefebvre: “There is only one thing to do about the Council, it is to ask the Holy See for a revision of it.”
http://tinyurl.com/6zudhr
Well, we can ask, can't we?
JK
“Whoever knows what Rome to-day teaches on religious liberty?” - It is in the Decree on Religious Liberty. (1) Have your read it? (2) And if you have do you understand it? (3) If you don’t what is there that isn’t clear to you?
I am not much of an expert for that particular document, but I am sincerely interested to learn what is your problem.
“I most certainly believe what Pastor Aeternus taught” - Could you articulate what is it in that document that you most certainly believe.
CONFITEOR
“Further, there is the general principle that when the Church teaches, she cannot use ambiguous words. Her teaching is to clarify and illuminate minds; she cannot teach [ambiguous] theses that obscure minds.”
Bishop Mayer deplores ambiguity, while he himself is ambiguous.
Does he want to say that the Church cannot legitimately choose an ambiguous language in her teaching; or that in her teaching she cannot possibly use a language, which eventually can be proved ambiguous?
The former would be immoral; the latter is almost inevitable, because the ambiguity is inherent in human language.
The function of the living Magisterium is exactly to clarify the ambiguities of the past Magisterium.
Every new document of the Magisterium, once promulgated, becomes the past document and is added to the lot, together with other witnesses of faith (liturgy, confessional practice, canon law, fathers, doctors etc.) – all that constitutes tradition, the interpretation of which, together with the interpretation of Scripture, is entrusted to the living Magisterium; and so it goes on and on.
That is how I understand the matter; anything else would make no sense to me.
Daley,
Archbishop Lefebvre submitted a Dubia to Rome on the question of Religious Liberty. The Dubia was never answered. I think that it is reasonable for the faithful to continue to ask their shepherds for guidance and direction on this issue. Since Vatican II it's been nothing but wooly non-sequitors. Sorry, them's the facts. JK is correct to point out that Rome has yet to clarify the ambiguities inherent in the Declaration on Religious Liberty.
Confiteor, it isn't true that Rome never answered the dubia. Rome did, and Archbishop Lefebvre said that the answer was unsatisfactory. Since, however, the CDF did not publish the response, and since in the various editions of the dubia that have been published by the SSPPX the CDF's answer has not been published alongside, we do not know what it contains. The CDF might well feel that sufficient response can be found in the Compendium of Social Doctrine published a few years ago. I haven't taken the trouble to read it though.
The Compendium doesn't give us much to go on, but I'll take whatever scrap that I can get:
http://tinyurl.com/5ox4mo
I haven't read it yet, but will do so and comment later today.
Ches, are you privy as to why the SSPX hasn't published Rome's response?
The Religious Liberty section of the Compendium of Social Doctrine (http://tinyurl.com/5ox4mo) is not helpful at all. It merely repeats the ambiguities of Dignitatis Humanae. Nowhere in the document is the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ (much less the social reign of Christ) affirmed. True, the document insists that religious liberty is not a moral license to adhere to error, yet the following line is a blatant contradiction of previous Church teaching:
The dignity of the person and the very nature of the quest for God require that all men and women should be free from every constraint in the area of religion.
Filled with contradiction and ambiguity, the Compendium of Social Doctrine does nothing to clarify the troubling questions raised by Vatican II. If the Compendium is any indication of how the Vatican responded to Archbishop Lefebvre's Dubia, it is no wonder that Lefebvre called the response unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, none of this justifies the current SSPX refusal to reconcile with Rome and submit to the authority of the Pope.
CONFITEOR
I resent polemics; if there is an issue to be solved, I rather take it point by pint, trying to put myself in a search for truth, because that is what God is.
The first thing I would like to read are the Dubia as submitted. Perhaps the way how the Archbishop has put it might give us a clue. Who knows?
Perhaps, the Archbishop hasn’t properly read the DH and the answers to the Dubia are already in some document on manual of Moral Theology or Social Teaching.
The most important thing is not to jump into quick conclusions without an adequate enquiry.
“I think that it is reasonable for the faithful to continue to ask their shepherds for guidance and direction on this issue” Yes, but before wasting their time, we must do our own homework. If the DH is an issue – learn it by heart, try to understood it, and only if we have understood it, see if we can agree or disagree. If yes why yes, if not why not. If we do not understand the document we can neither agree nor disagree. Then go to the professional commentaries. Surely many were written. To see what they have to say etc.
“Since Vatican II it's been nothing but wooly non-sequitors” A bit sweeping and emotional. Could you produce a list of five?
“the ambiguities inherent in the Declaration on Religious Liberty” What are they ?
Quote what is ambiguous, make sure that you have understood it, and say why it is ambiguous.
I am not much fun of that subject, but I would like to see the objections and evaluate them myself. I never try to make the winning an argument my objective. A prosecutor can win an argument and send an innocent person to prison.
Daley,
If you actually know what DH says, well, you ´ll soon be disagreeing with allt those experts who do not agree between themselves.
Yes, thank you for your not too flattering question, I have read the document. My problem with it is obvious.
JK
“all those experts who do not agree between themselves.”
I sincerely do not know anything about it; could you elaborate?
“Yes, thank you for your not too flattering question, I have read the document.”
What is wrong in my question? You have read, so have I. Have you understood it?
I haven’t, sincerely. If you have, could you help?
“My problem with it is obvious.” The implication is that you have understood it. If so, the question (3) in my previous post to you is irrelevant, and we can go on faster than I had expected. Sincerely, no irony is meant. I find difficult to understand the DH, and if you understand it I will sincerely be pleased to learn. The reason more to reply to the question above.
Once I learn how you have understood it, the next question will be more specific: what is it that constitutes for you the “problem” which is “obvious”. Again, no irony meant: just using your words to indicate what I am referring to.
And, could you explain about Pastor Aeternus?
CONFITEOR
I would like to avoid confusion. Your post of Dec.12, at 9.10, was not on display when I posted mine at 11.20. That post of mine was re: yours of Dec.12, at 5.25.
So, I suggest, if you agree, that you reply to mine of 11.20; and in so far as the reply is already contained in your post at 9.10, just refer me to it; in so far as it isn’t contained reply directly. Then I will deal with both. Obviously, all that if you wish to reply at all; you don’t have to.
Daley,
I'll present to you a pair of ambiguities; the woolly fullness thereof has been our inheritance the past 40 years:
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
Does the text define "coercion"? No.
Does the text define "due limits"? No.
Those are ambiguities.
Were those ambiguities exploited to dismantle the last remaining Catholic states? Yes. Was that a slap in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ the King? Yes.
Has the Vatican produced any teaching in the past 40 years to resolve these ambiguities and restore honor to our Lord Jesus Christ the King? No. Has the Vatican produced any teaching to explain to the faithful precisely in what way the novel precepts of DH are in continuity with previous magisterial teaching on the duty of the state to preserve the One True Religion and limit the public expression of false religions? No.
Daley,
Perhaps the important point, which is most relevant to this thread, is that one can express sharp disagreement with the texts of Vatican II, as well as dissatisfaction with the subsequent teachings that have only served to further obfuscate the truth, while insisting that visible and concrete submission to the Vicar of Christ is non-negotiable.
In practical terms, I would like to see the SSPX formally submit to Rome ... and then re-submit the Dubia, heads bowed, hat in hand.
Your proposed solution is a good one, I think. But I dare say what you're probably thinking: the SSPX would object to the condition you specify in the proposal. Their self-assuredness of being in the right would not permit them to even entertain the thought that on even a single foundational point, their understanding of Tradition could be wrong. And it is their sense of "we know we're right" that undergirds absolutely everything they do and say.
P.S. No less than Archbishop Lefebvre himself set the example in this regard: that 1987 CDF response to his dubia on DH that others here are talking about. I find it odd, indeed, that CDF didn't ever publish it ... but then again, isn't it telling that the SSPX never released the exact text either? Especially as one considers the fact that they did contemporaneously release the texts of letters of Pope JPII and Cdl. Ratzinger to the Archbishop in those 1987-88 negotiations. [Cf. Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, Angelus Press.]
Confiteor,
I'm agraid I do not agree with you that a text is ambiguous just because one can ask questions abut it. One can ask questions about all kinds of things, even the clearest texts.
I do not know enough about the literature around DH, but I know there is a huge amount, not the least of which is the oeuvre of John Paul II who spoke frequently on the topic. Perhaps you could explore that first before declaring everything the Church has said on the topic to be unsatisfactory.
Ches.
Ches,
At one time, I was an avid reader of everything written by and about Pope John Paul II, and a firm adherent of his philosophical personalism. I'm well aware of JPII's insistence that religious freedom is inseparable from the moral obligation to seek and adhere to the Truth (which, of course, DH also affirms). Nevertheless, JPII was also known to give himself over to woolly pronouncements on religious liberty, such as the following:
As I have often recalled, the first human right is religious freedom, in the full sense of the term. It means a freedom that is not limited to the private sphere. This freedom presupposes on the part of the authorities and the entire national community, especially the school and the media, which have an important role in transmitting ideas and in forming opinions, an express desire to give individuals and institutions the possibility to develop their religious life, to pass on their beliefs and values and to participate in the different levels of social life and in consultative bodies without being excluded for religious or philosophical reasons, according to the rules of a State governed by law. Ridiculing religious beliefs or discrediting this or that religious practice and the values held by a considerable number of people seriously injures the individuals who profess them, represents a form of exclusion contrary to respect for fundamental human values and seriously destabilizes society, where a certain form of pluralism in thought and action should exist, as well as an attitude of fraternal kindness. It can only create a climate of tension, intolerance, opposition and suspicion, hardly favourable to social peace. (Address to the new Ambassador of France to the Holy See, 10 June 2000)
Do such statements clarify the apparent discontinuity between DH and previous magisterial teaching? I dare say that they do not.
Here is a clear and unambiguous truth: any state that does not formally recognize Jesus Christ as King and the Catholic Faith as the one true religion is a renegade state, a state in rebellion against Almighty God. Perhaps a martyr Pope will someday express that truth and place his head between the jaws of a "healthy secularism" whose true colors are finally revealed.
CONFITEOR
Thank you for your two comments, which, regretfully, I cannot afford to read at present, because I have to leave to be back only after Christmas at the earliest. Happy Christmas to you and others.
"Here is a clear and unambiguous truth: any state that does not formally recognize Jesus Christ as King and the Catholic Faith as the one true religion is a renegade state, a state in rebellion against Almighty God. Perhaps a martyr Pope will someday express that truth and place his head between the jaws of a "healthy secularism" whose true colors are finally revealed."
Hear, hear, Confiteor. The true colours are being revealed even now, of course; the abortion laws that explicitly exclude the recourse to conscientious objection (so much for 'liberty of conscience', I thought that was supposed to be a pretty fundamental tenet of LIBERALism); the obscene 'human/animal hyrbrid' laws; the vilification of those who point out that the 'gay culture' isn't a terribly healthy way to lead one's life.
Why not solve the problem thusly:
1) excommunications are lifted
2) the SSPX makes a practical agreement with Rome which allows them to function as a world-wide diocese
3) SSPX can and should continue to make their theological arguments and thereby help to further Catholic orthodoxy
Because that would not settle the doctrinal differences. What I'm saying is that I agree that the doctrinal differences must be settled. However, they must be settled in a way that is compatible with the magisterial character of the Teaching Church.
Ches,
Do you think that the SSPX would refuse the three-point solution that I proposed?
Brian
Ches, I fail to see the problem with Anon's proposal. Steps 2) and 3) -- in that order! -- were precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre proposed in his letter to Pope John Paul II on 20 February 1988.
IMHO, this is indeed the only way forward. I think that Papa Benedetto would agree to it. Let's keep praying that the SSPX Bishops will come to their senses.
The problems are that the SSPX now in principle reject a pragmatic arrangement (hence my sketch of a via media), and they regard almost all other contributors to the theological debate as compromised.
Unless, the next step enables the SSPX to recover an understanding of the normative character of the judgements of the Teaching Church, then their involvement in furthering Catholic orthodoxy would be limited to telling everyone else how wrong they are. Not very productive, in my view.
... an understanding of the normative character of the judgements of the Teaching Church ...
Does a settling of "doctrinal differences" then involve a simple assent to everything presented in the documents of Vatican II without further question or constructive disagreement?
Let's set aside the SSPX for the moment. What role should the FSSP and FSsR play in contributing to the theological debate? What does that "debate" really look like?
We agree (against the current SSPX leadership) that a practical reconciliation should come first. However, we might have a different idea of what constitutes the subsequent doctrinal discussion.
The SSPX and the FSsR can and should theologize, as long as they undertake that theological task within the boundaries of due respect for the Magisterium.
So let them raise the objections and difficulties which they see, but always with the readiness to submit to the judgments of the Holy See. Anything else will simply prepare the fission which muddles the life of the Anglican church.
Ches,
In your original post you propose:
"3) they (SSPX) are allowed to present their theses to the CDF and ask clarification of teaching on the four controversial points of religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism and the New Mass.
"The only condition? That when due consideration has been accorded their theses, they must agree to abide by whatever decision Rome arrives at concerning the extent to which their positions represent Catholic doctrine."
Naturally, the SSPX would never agree to such a proposal. Would you propose that all Catholic priest, Bishops, and theologians, whether they be traditional, conservative, or progressive similary submit their theological positions to the CDF for immediate judgment and then immediately accept the decision or be excluded from full communion with the Church? Of course not. Why would the SSPX uniquely submit to such an unprecidented requirement?
As you point out, there is significant controversy among Catholic priest, bishops, and theologians about religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism and the New Mass.
In Fr. Michael Mary’s reply to Fr. Morgan, which you cite in your original post, Fr. Michael Mary wrote,
“The ambiguities of the Second Vatican Council remain to be clarified, this is certain. . . How exactly to do so remains the poignant question of our day. It is a question that will not be solved easily nor soon – this we can gather from the manner in which the Church has dealt with problematic declarations of councils in the past.
"We are thinking specifically of the Council of Constance (1414 - 1417) and some of the texts of this council that Pope Martin V could not confirm . . .the issue was really completely solved only at the First Vatican Council in 1870 - more than 400 years later!”
These theological differences could take years to sort out. Why should the SSPX be forced to rush to judgment by the CDF?
I am not aware of any SSPX position being deemed heretical. If the CDF judges any SSPX position as heretical, then the CDF should make that pronouncement and the SSPX should submit.
Otherwise, the SSPX, as with all Catholics, should be permitted and be encouraged and be guaranteed the right to voice their theological position with force and clarity of conviction.
Brian
Brian, it is the SSPX, not I, who insist there must be a doctrinal solution. Those proposals were simpy my attempt to imagine what kind of doctrinal solution can both take account of
a) the positions which the SSPX have argued these last few years and
b) of the magisterial authority of the Church which ultimately is not a dialogue partner.
Now, the SSPX could object to the form of the discussions; but as to the substance, I would have thought that Rome's tutelary role regarding the faith should be at the forefront. Sadly, any claims by Rome to be able to settle the matter tend to get reduced by the SSPX into the assertion of the 'living magisterium'.
But maybe some innovative solution can be found. It depends on God ultimately.
As Fr. Michael Mary points out, it might take many long years for the doctrinal differences to be resolved. The question for the SSPX is whether they are willing to fight it out within the formal structures of the Church.
Ches,
Perhaps the SSPX would reject what I propose, but I don't think so. They have repeatedly requested that the excommunications be lifted. Does not this very request show respect for the magisterium and a desire for full Communion?
Establishing an agreement which provides the SSPX with a structure that allows them to function with guarantees that they will not have to compromise their convictions regarding liturgy and theology is the crucial step.
Given the mess the Church is in and the potential for the SSPX situation never end, it seems to me that the SSPX should be given a structure within the Church that identifies them with an explicit charism and mission to perserve Traditional magisterial teaching as promulgated prior to the Second Vatican Council. Let them criticize current practice all they want. If they are right, we need to hear it. If they are wrong, so what?
With that as their explicit mission, they can serve as a kind of tuning fork as the Church sorts through such controversial issues as religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism and the New Mass. Their theological mission could be seen as analogous to the Traditional Latin Mass with Summorum Pontificum. Just and the TLM serves as a tuning fork to allow for the reform of the Novus Ordo, so could the SSPX's continuous reminder of pre-Vatican magisterial teaching serve as a tuning fork for a hermeneutic of continuity over the coming decades or longer.
Brian
Brian,
What you're seemingly suggesting is that we should recognise the SSPX as a more authentic guarantor of the the deposit of the faith prior to Vatican II than the Teaching Church.
My line is that the arguments they bring forth are valuable in so far as they contribute to the discussion of theology which makes up the internal theological life of the Church; same as anybody else. My problem begins when they assert that these arguments are the authentic meaning of the faith, and that what the mainstream Church proposes, for example in the catechism, can be submitted to a process of free criticism (this at least is the logical deduction from their method of theology).
In any case, the charism you are alluding to could only be exercised in the context of the Teaching Church's activity. The Teaching Church has a tuning fork called the Holy Ghost whose abiding presence in the Church is part of our faith.
Ches,
Please, I am not "suggesting . . . . that we should recognise the SSPX as a more authentic guarantor of the the deposit of the faith prior to Vatican II than the Teaching Church."
If I believed that, I'd be in the SSPX. I am not.
The truth is, since VC2, many of the Catholic teachings prior to the council are neglected. The SSPX can serve to remind the Church of magisterial teaching prior to VC2. These teachings provide the tuning fork.
Have you read Bishop Bishop Kieran Conry's recent interview?: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000353.shtml
Many of the things this Bishop states are extrememly difficult to reconcile with Traditional Catholic teaching.
Pope Benedict seeks a hermeneutic of continuity. The role of the SSPX could be to remind the Church of neglected teachings from Pope Pius X, for example; teachings which are widely neglected, even contradicted these days.
The SSPX can lodge their criticisms of VC2 as well, but ulitimately it will be for the magisterium to reconcile and explain currently controverial topics. This process may take decades or longer.
If in that process, the SSPX crosses the line and strays outside of magisterial teaching, let the CDF formally correct them. Otherwise, let them do what they do. And let them do it within the Church. Their orthodoxy is more sound than many Bishops and Catholic theologians teaching in Catholic Universities.
They could exercise that role if they were prepared to do it in the context of the Teaching Church's mission. But are they?
What would the SSPX's reaction be to Bishop Conry's interview? Sadly, it is unlikely they would follow the approach adopted by Fr Tim Finegan (http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/12/value-of-frequent-confession.html) or indeed by Mulier Fortis on her blog (http://mulier-fortis.blogspot.com/), both of which function as very effective reproaches to the ridiculous remarks of the bishop. I know which approach I think can function better as a tuning fork for the Church.
Ches,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts. You are a gracious host.
I don’t think I did a very good job communicating with my “tuning fork” analogy. Please let’s agree to drop it and let me try again.
With regard to Bishop Conry’s remarks, you prefer the approach adopted by Fr Tim Finegan and by Mulier Fortis. That’s fine.
I am not advocating for the approach that the SSPX takes.
Would you take the position that the SSPX has nothing to offer the Church? If so, I do not share that view.
Would you take the position that because the SSPX is caustic in their criticism of the magisterium, they should not return to full communion with the Church until they change their ways? If so, I do not share that view.
To begin with, the issues of the four Bishops and of schism and of ex-communication are way beyond me. I pray that the Pope simply lifts the ex-communications and that we move on.
If so, then what?
The SSPX sees themselves as fully justified in their language and positions. You know Bishop Williamson personally. You know better than most of us that Bishop Williamson believes in his convictions. You know that he and the SSPX are not going to change. They fully believe that they are right and that they form a righteous remnant.
Others see the SSPX as rude, disrespectful, proud, and misguided in their criticisms of the magisterium.
If one takes the latter view, and I presume that you do, would you take the position that because of their pride, their tone, and their biting criticism of the magisterium that they should not return to full Communion until they change their ways? If so, I don’t share that view.
Even if these problems are valid, do they provide sufficient grounds for keeping these Catholics outside full communions with the Church? I think not. I pray the Church agrees.
Now, does the SSPX have anything to offer the Church? I trust that you would agree that they do. For one thing, they have faithfully preserved the beautiful Traditional Latin Mass. They are not the only ones, but they were among the most courageous leading voices in that long, painful struggle. Some say that their approach caused more damage than help to the cause for Tradition. God knows. I don’t. But I thank God for their fidelity to the Traditional Mass.
In addition, the SSPX has not forgotten the beautiful magisterial teachings of the Council of Trent and pre-Vatican II Popes.
I am not aware of many Bishops or post-Vatican II theologians who emphasize the magisterial teachings found in documents such as: Mirari Vos, Quanta Cura, Diuturnum Illud, Humanum Genus, Libertas Praestantissimum, Lamentabili Sane, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Quas Primas, and the Oath Against Modernism. These are gems that I have only begun to appreciate.
As you well know, some of these documents say things that sound inconsistent with post-Vatican II teaching, thus the controversy.
You are also well-aware that most post-Vatican II Catholics are not even aware that there is a controversy or that these prior magisterial teachings exists. Many priest and bishops discount them as irrelevant. Bishop Conley seems to provide a recent example. That is why I brought him up.
In contrast to most post-Vatican II clergy and theologians, the SSPX emphasizes these pre- Vatican II teachings. (Of course, they are not alone in doing so).
While it may well be true that Vatican II is perfectly consistent with these teachings, this is not always obvious. It may take decades for the Church to settle on language that clearly articulates how these teachings are all faithful to Tradition. The magisterium has issued explanations, but things remain confusing to many Catholics.
The SSPX argues that there are inconsistencies between these magisterial teachings and both the documents of Vatican II and some post-Vatican II magisterial teachings. They argue that the language of Vatican-II is so ambiguous that it lends itself to understandings that are contrary to Tradition. You fault them for that. Maybe you are right.
Given, however, that many post-Vatican II theologians interpret Vatican II in a manner that contradicts earlier magisterial teachings, it might be seen as a fair argument to claim that the documents themselves were potentially misleading. You don’t have to agree with that position, but it strikes me that it may be a fair position.
It does not seem to me that holding that position should exclude one from the Church. Do you believe that that very position of criticizing the language of the Vatican Council is heretical? There appears to be a good deal of controversy within the Church over just how far one may go in disagreeing with such language from conciliar documents and papal teachings. Your position may be correct, but has Rome spoken definitively on this matter? If so, let the CDF condemn the SSPX for criticizing magisterial teaching, and the matter will be closed. If not, then what?
Whether the SSPX remains in their current status (whatever that is) or whether they are brought fully inside the Church, the SSPX is likely going to continue make accusatory remarks about “New Rome,” “New Religion,” and “Conciliar Church,” and claim that the Pope is a “Liberal.” Perhaps you are right that they only hurt their own cause by doing so. I don’t know. On thing is certain, they know how to rub people the wrong way.
Obviously, you do not agree with them. I have a feeling that the Pope does not agree with them either. O.K., but realistically, they are probably not going to change.
Given how adamantly the SSPX criticizes traditional groups that have “returned to Rome,” it is clear that they fear that regularizing their status with Rome, will inevitably involve compromising their convictions. They would see such a compromise as being unfaithful to their perceived mission of preserving Tradition in the Church.
If they are going to return to full communion with the Church, they need to be provided with a structure that guarantees that they will not have to compromise their convictions. If not, this thing will eventually end in irreconcilable rupture.
The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and is our Mother. Whether it be for the benefit of the Church, (as the SSPX might believe) or whether it be for the good of the souls in the SSPX, the Church needs to provide the SSPX with a structure and a well-defined role that fully guarantees that they will not have to compromise their convictions and that they will be allowed to advocate their firmly held beliefs as forcefully as they feel they must.
In addition, I believe that, even if you are correct that others do a much better job than they do, the SSPX can play a valuable role in helping to prod their fellow confused bishops to recall that pre-Vatican II magisterial teachings remain magisterial teachings, and thereby help to heal the disease that has plagued the Church for the past forty years.
(If you are going to respond to this post, I know that you don’t agree with that last point, and that’s fine. You've already stated your disagreement with me on that matter, no need to do so again).
Here's the main point. They are fellow Catholics. Let’s just bring them home.
Brian
Brian, I actually sympathise with most of what you're saying here. I do believe the SSPX has a lot to offer the Church, but it must provide that service on the same basis that everyone else does: freely, and in submission to the successors of the Apostles.
As for the role of SSPX criticisms, there are two issues.
One is the style of their criticism which can be problematic because intemperate. I pointed to the Finigan and Mulier Fortis pieces because they were substantially traditional criticisms but expressed in a way that means their arguments are more likely to be listened to. Bishops can change their ways, but like all people in positions of authority, they rarely do so if under open and heavy attack. POD in Lancaster is a good example.
The second is the assumption that when the SSPX have arrived at a judgment on some question regarding the faith, then that is the definitive position to be held, and nothing can shake them. Regarding the inconsistencies of pre- and post-conciliar documents, it is perfectly fine to advance as a theological argument that there are these differences (e.g., between Quanta Cura and Dignitatis humanae). HOWEVER, the protagonist must acknowledge that Rome has the final say over interpretation. Now, the SSPX still say Rome is in charge, but you're dead right that they will take no correction from Rome in matters of traditional doctrine.
So, what is a pope supposed to do? He would like them in, but only on the terms acceptable to the Church. They would like to be in but only on their own terms, and the Church's terms are described as a way of gagging them. It seems like an impasse.
One senior SSPX priest has just told one of my family that the only appropriate response to the Redemptorists's reconciliation was to turn one's back on them for weakening Tradition. 'How unchristian!' said my relative. 'Well,' replied this priest, 'when Le Barroux made their peace with Rome, the Archbishop said he could no longer have anything to do with them.'
'Mmmm,' said my relative, 'how unchristian!'
I know not every SSPX priest would say such a stupid thing, but that attitude is abroad among their senior men, and you have to wonder seriously what the chances of reconcilation are. Very low, it would appear, while such attitudes prevail.
Brian,
Excellent comments. You have summed up quite well much that has been on my own mind. Thank you!
Ches,
Based on your knowledge of the Archbishop, how much do you think that the senior SSPX men learned their uncharitable ways from him? Was he "unchristian" in the same way as those who have turned their backs on Fr. Michael Mary today? If still alive, would the Archbishop turn his back on Fr. Michael Mary? Given the circumstances that have evolved since 7 July 2007, would the Archbishop behave differently today than he did when Le Barroux made their peace with Rome?
Ches,
I enjoyed this exchange.
Have a Blessed Christmas.
Brian
One is the style of their criticism which can be problematic because intemperate.
The Pope tolerates modernist bishops who spit in the face of a personal act of supreme papal legislation (Summorum Pontificum), yet he cannot cope with being called a "perfect liberal" by Bishop Fellay?
Confiteor,
I'd like to think ABL would not take the same attitude to Fr MM as Fr Morgan has. I suspect that ABLs attitude to Le Barroux was because he felt betrayed personally by Dom Gerard at a moment in which he had felt greatly tested and under pressure. There was indeed an emotional side to ABL that is not often recognised. Perfectly human, but I suspect in this instance it got the better of him. Not then an example to emulate in this regard.
It does look inconsistent not to reprimand bishops with modernist tendencies but to reprimand Bishop Fellay over the 'liberal' label. Remember though that while the pope does not/cannot police the conduct of all the bishops at large, Bishop Fellay is in a fairly unique position. That, it seems to me is at the root of the difference in treatment, rather than a desire to tolerate doctrinal dissent but punish name calling.
Happy Christmas to you too.
CONFITEOR, happy Holy Season and the New Year.
Re: 13 December, 2008 (two posts)
(1) Personally I have no problem in accepting Vatican II, and it isn’t clear to me what the “disagreement with the texts” and “dissatisfaction with the subsequent teachings” are all about; still less can I figure out how they “obfuscate the truth.”
(2) In my view, the matter is not in merely external submission, but of faith. The submission by the SSPX of the kind suggested would be only a paper submission, unless it were to imply a willingness to admit the possibility of error, and to refrain from any public dissent should the Pope judge them to be in error even if they wouldn’t be able to see that it is an error.
After all, no individual Catholic, except the Pope and he only ex cathedra, can be sure that his own appropriation (grasp, understanding) of the faith of the Church authentically reflects that faith: we can only try our best to be faithful in so far as we are able to understand the Faith, always aware that the appropriation of the Faith is a continuous process, a growth during which we realise our limitations and learn all the time. The worst one can do to himself is to stay entrenched, turning a blind eye if one sees that he should, instead, humbly admit his own mistakes and reconsider his position.
(3) The Faith is a great mystery, and an undeserved Gift to us, and I must not be over- ambitious, but rather sober in my own self-assertiveness. The pride is supposed to be one of the deadly sins. And this is what the external behaviour of the SSPX suggests.
(4) In a broader sense the Faith is more than an assent to what is proposed “infallibly”: it certainly includes all that is proposed authoritatively although not infallibly, and yet proposed for acceptance; as well the rules which have to be obeyed. According to the traditional Moral Theology a dissent in matters of doctrine, whether proposed “infallibly” or not proposed infallibly; and a disobedience to ruling, are all, in various degrees of seriousness, morally evil choices against the Faith. What L. Ott p.10 says is applicable to the documents of Vatican II, and to the subsequent documents as well, although he wrote before the Council.
(5) I see no “ambiguity” in the terms “coercion” or “due limits”. Perhaps, some would like a greater precision; but that is not what the Church can always provide, because different circumstances may demand different applications of these more general principles, and it is impossible to envisage all possible circumstances which one can encounter when trying to apply the general principles to a concrete situation.
An example in individual morality. The moral norm is that one must not cooperate with what is evil, a pornography for instance. But what is an employee supposed to do if he took a job in a shop when they were selling a variety of goods, but a pornographic material was added to the stock later, after he had taken the job; and he happens to be occasionally assigned to a section in which exclusively that material is on offer? Supposing he has a family to maintain, which is also a moral norm; and the contract requires of him to give, say, a three months’ notice if he wants to leave, the honouring the contract being also a moral norm. A confessor cannot but give him more than an opinion; otherwise he would take on his own conscience the responsibility which should be the enquirers. The employee is, as Vatican II puts it, “alone with God”, and has to take responsibility that accords with his conscience, which must be neither lax nor scrupulous, but prudently balanced. The employee accepts the moral norms, but is faced with a choice how to apply them in a specific situation. Should one really expect of the Church to provide recipes for this and thousands of similar situations so that there is “no ambiguity”?
Likewise in social morality, it is a duty of civil authorities, it falls on their conscience, to ensure public order based on active cooperation of citizens, not imposed. Such an active cooperation cannot be expected of those social groups whose freedom to act according to their beliefs is unreasonably curtailed. To ensure public order the authorities have to grant as much freedom as it is possible to give to all social groups, and the Church cannot possibly provide recipes applicable to all situations the authorities may face from time to time. It is up to the public authority to specify the kind of “coercion” and “due limits” that all social groups would accept as reasonable and necessary for the sake of mutual coexistence, and would cooperate positively.
(6) I doubt that there ever were creatures called “Catholic states”; and those “last remaining” have gone, I think, not because of Vatican II, but for the same reasons as those many had gone before and were not among the last remaining when the DH was promulgated.
(7) Regarding the “previous magisterial teaching”, the first thing to establish is to determine its status. In principle, a Conciliar document is a higher theological source than an encyclical, can supersede it, and can also supersede other papal documents unless a definition is involved. In any case, the DH “leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of man and society towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ” (1/3). So, unless one is determined to misinterpret the DH, the interpretation must be consistent with this assertion. And with another, you quoted yourself (9).
(8) I have some of the papal 19th cent. documents; and one of them might have the passage to which you refer: the “the duty of the state to preserve the One True Religion and limit the public expression of false religions”. I’d like to see it in the full context, because I don’t believe that the pope in the 19th century had in mind, for example, China, Russia, Sweden, or Turkey. Could you let me know about the document?
And has the pope defined unambiguously the “false religion”? Is it sensible to refer to the Orthodox religion as “false”?
Imagine an Ukrainian village with a mixed, Orthodox and Easter Rite Catholic population. What is a material difference between what the two populations respectively profess? They have no clue what the fillioque, purgatory, or infallibility are all about. And the pope is supposed to insist that the Orthodox population should be tolerated and the Catholic treated with favours – all that in what was then Russia?
From the post of 12th December
(9) “True, the document insists that religious liberty is not a moral license to adhere to error, yet the following line is a blatant contradiction of previous Church teaching:
The dignity of the person and the very nature of the quest for God require that all men and women should be free from every constraint in the area of religion. “
If the “blatant contradiction” is involved, the following should be found in one of the previous teachings, but I doubt that there is such assertion, or anything like it:
“The dignity of the person and the very nature of the quest for God DOES NOT require that all men and women should be free from every constraint in the area of religion. “
(10) “Vatican responded to Archbishop Lefebvre's Dubia, it is no wonder that Lefebvre called the response unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory.” Has the “Vatican” response been published, and what is in it that the Archbishop found unsatisfactory?
(11) “Nowhere in the document is the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ (much less the social reign of Christ) affirmed.” (Re: The Religious Liberty section of the Compendium of Social Doctrine)
Hasn’t He said that His kingdom is not of this world, and advised the Pharisees to give to the king what is his own?
What that “social reign of Christ” is supposed to be? And what thr religious liberty has to with it?
Daley,
'The Church's teaching is that the State has an obligation to render public worship to God in accord with liturgy of the true Church, the Catholic Church, to uphold its teaching, and to aid the Church in the carrying out of her functions. The State does not have the right to remain neutral regarding religion, much less to pursue a secular approach in its policies. A secular approach is by that very fact an anti-God and an anti-Christ approach.' (Michael Davies, The Reign of Christ the King)
DH fails to affirm the moral duty of the STATE to submit to our Lord Jesus Christ the King. The fact is that any state that fails in that duty is a rebel state, a state in rebellion against Almighty God. The reference in DH to "the moral duty of man and society" leaves out the moral duty of the state. DH is an ambiguous and slippery document. Lefebvre was right to oppose it.
CONFITEOR
The author you quote is not a magisterial authority. What you give is of little value unless you can quote the magisterium, and give the source to enable me to find and read the passage in its original, full context.
At the first glance, it makes no sense, does it? Which states are covered by “any”? Japan ? Babilonian? Ancient Egypt ? Ethiopia? Medieval states? 19th cent. European states? All modern states? China? Saudi Arabia?
The “society” includes the “state”, does it not? So, if the society has a moral duty toward the “true religion” the state has it too. The society covers also a group of states, as well as various international institutions present in many states. That is all perfectly clear. See also the last paragraph, below.
“DH is ambiguous and slippery document”. The assertions of this kind are useless in a debate unless one can provide evidence from which such assertion so logically follows that it cannot be disputed. Thus far I haven’t seen any ambiguity: only declaration of it.
I have consulted the Compendium of the Social Doctrine in connection with what I posted under (5) on 27th December, which was my own understanding of the text at the time, before I have read the Compendium. I was right:
“The just limits of the exercise of religious freedom must be determined in each social situation with political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority through legal norms consistent with the objective moral order. Such norms are required by “the need for the effective safeguarding of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also by the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally by the need for a proper guardianship of public.” – I have no issue with this. What is wrong?
The same Document has this: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups.” – This too is perfectly acceptable. The Saudi Arabia should cease discrimination toward the Catholic Church. It is natural, however, that they should give to Islam a special recognition. They are not a “rebel state”, but the state to which we were not able to bring Christ’s Message in the first place, and it is our own fault. If there were really Catholic states in existence, as different from the nominal ones: Catholic Faith – special recognition, Islam – no discrimination.
Daley,
1. Regarding your example from individual morality: the norms for individual co-operation in evil require that the co-operation be
1.1 purely material,
1.2 remote, and
1.3 involve a grievous proportional cause.
So in the example of a Catholic shop assistant being required to sell pornography, I think it would (and I stress, this is just my own evaluation of the situation) be licit to do so, since it is the viewing for the purpose of titillation, not the mere purchase, of pornography that is evil (hence the condition of remoteness is satisfied) and if he were threatened with unemployment if he refused to do so then the condition for grievous proportionality would be satisfied. But it goes without saying that the shop assistant ought to look for a job that does not require him to wrestle with his conscience like this.
2. The same norms apply to social morality. The State may only cooperate in sin and error (e.g. heresy, atheism) if it be purely material, remote and involve a grievous propotional cause. Here the grievous proportional cause is the State’s duty to build up the common good.
3. I think you might have a mistaken concept of the duties of civil authorities. The State’s purpose is not mere public order; rather, the State’s purpose is the common good. The State should only concede freedoms to non-Catholics if it expects, by doing so, to avert a greater damage to the common good or to procure a greater benefit to the common good.
4. In your section (6) you assert that you
“doubt that there ever were creatures called “Catholic states””
But Leo XIII made it clear in Immortale Dei, sections 21 and 22, that successful Church-State relations in the Middle Ages exemplify the ideal of the Catholic State.
5. Regarding your section (7): the Magisterial status ofQuanta Cura exceeds that of Dignitatis Humanae, because the former was an Act of the Extraordinary/Solemn/Ex Cathedra Papal Magisterium. And you note that DH leaves the Traditional teaching untouched. So I ask you then: who more frequently reminds Catholics of the Traditional (that is, Mediaeval/Gregory XVI/Pius IX/Leo XIII/Pius X/PiusXI/Pius XII) teaching, the S.S.P.X. Bishops or mainstream Bishops?
6. You say that you
“have some of the papal 19th cent. documents”
I strongly, strongly urge you to read them in full, particularly Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors, Immortale Dei, Libertas and Diuturnum. In Quanta Cura you will see that two of the duties of the State to
“preserve the One True Religion and limit the public expression of false religions””
are specified, or I suppose counter-specified, as follows:
CONDEMNED ERROR
"the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones."
/CONDEMNED ERROR
CONDEMNED ERROR
"that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require."
/CONDEMNED ERROR
Leo XIII explained the latter as follows:
“to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection”
So the State may refrain from punishing offenders of the Catholic religion when the common good requires it, but the best condition is one in which the State imposes restrictions on offenders of the Catholic religion.
7. You ask
“Is it sensible to refer to the Orthodox religion as “false”?”
Yes.
8. You say that DH says that
“The dignity of the person and the very nature of the quest for God require that all men and women should be free from every constraint in the area of religion. “”
Could you provide a citation for this? I am no fan of DH but I do not recall it going that far.
9. In your section (10) you ask, regarding the C.D.F. response to Msgr. Lefebrve’s dubia,
“what is in it that the Archbishop found unsatisfactory?”
Dr. Sudlow has quoted Msgr. Tissier’s biography of Msgr. Lefebrve as recording that the response spoke of a ‘social sphere of autonomous activity’ or some such, which is clearly a sophistry since if activity is social then it is not autonomous—it has the potential to scandalise or edify others.
10. You say that
“Hasn’t He said that His kingdom is not of this world”
This means that His Kingdom did not originate in this world, but as Leo XIII taught in ID section 6 and Pius XI taught in Quas Primas, section 18, Christ is King of men not only individually but also socially, and since the State is society taken at its highest natural level, He is King of the State, which draws its blessings, its authority and its very existence from Him.
11. And you say that Our Lord
“advised the Pharisees to give to the king what is his own?”
But as Bl. Pius IX taught in Etsi Multa, we render to God what is God’s, and we render to Caesar what is Caesar’s on God’s account. Hence the indirect subordination of the State’s purpose to the Church’s purpose, and hence the former’s ministerial function with respect to the latter.
12. You ask
“What that “social reign of Christ” is supposed to be? And what thr religious liberty has to with it?”
I would say, in a nutshell, that the Social Reign of Christ requires that not only must people in a society acknowledge Christ’s Kingship, but that people as a society must acknowledge Christ’s Kingship. And since the State is society taken at its highest natural level, the State itself must acknowledge Christ’s Kingship. The unsurpassed treatise on this is, of course, Pius XI’s Quas Primas, which I commend to you. As for what religious liberty has to do with it, see again the teaching of Leo XIII: the greater the number of people who refuse to acknowledge Christ’s Social Kingship, the further away from perfection is society.
13. If you do not have time to read all the key Magisterial texts then I offer you my own summary of the Traditional teachings on these matters, as drawn from the teachings of Leo XIII:
http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2008/12/on-socio-political-magisterium-of-leo_16.html
14. The quotation from the New Catechism that you provide indicates one of the ambiguities of DH. The Catechism speaks of limitation
"according to the requirements of the common good"
But DH avoids invoking the common good as the criterion for restricting liberties. The Catechism appears, therefore, to uphold the Traditional teaching (at least in part); but DH is largely silent on it.
15. As for the other ambiguities of DH, Msgr. Lefebrve summarised them as follows:
15.1 Confusion between objective and subjective rights
15.2 Confusion between ontological and operative dignity
15.3 Illegimate break between positive and negative rights
15.4 False symmetry drawn between being forced to disobey one's conscience and being restrained from obeying one's conscience.
I recommend that you buy or borrow a copy of Religious Liberty Questioned and see how Msgr. Lefebvre explains these problems; I can't do it justice in a humble blog comment.
The same Document has this: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups.” – This too is perfectly acceptable. The Saudi Arabia should cease discrimination toward the Catholic Church. It is natural, however, that they should give to Islam a special recognition. They are not a “rebel state”, but the state to which we were not able to bring Christ’s Message in the first place, and it is our own fault.
Just what is DH saying here? Talk about ambiguity! Are we to believe that it is "natural" for a state to enshrine a false religion that explicitly denies our Lord Jesus Christ? Is an Islamic state acceptable in the eyes of God, so long as Catholics enjoy their precious "religious liberty"? Is that what DH teaches? If so, then I cannot and never will accept that document. My sensus Catholicus forbids it.
I cannot pretend for an instant that I have all the answers to these kinds of problems, but I do think both Cardinal Pole and Confiteor might consider the following:
Is it true that
1) that the State is the origin of the public domain, and therefore, supremely powerful over all social relations?
2) that a State constituted democratically is unproblematically comparable to a monarchically constituted state?
3) that the duties attributed to the 'person' of the state in the letters of Popes Gregory, Leo and Pius have the same soteriological value as those attributed to individual persons?
It's worth pointing out these things, not least because in the way you have both presented the 19th-century papal letters - indeed, in the way ABL understood these letters - are assertions about what the State can and cannot do which are not principles of natural law but of political science.
As I say, I do not pretend to have the answers to all these things, but I do think our thinking has to be carried out within the context provided by the Magisterium both in the 19th and 20th centuries. And if not, why not?
Those are good questions, Ches. Let me mull on them and I'll come back with a reply later.
Here are my short answers; I'll let Cardinal Pole fill in the details.
1) The State is not (nor should it be) supremely powerful over all social relations. I'm not sure how this point bears on the ultimate question at hand.
2) The State has a moral duty to recognize, preserve, and defend the ONE TRUE RELIGION, irrespective of how the State is constituted.
3) The State as such will not go to hell if it fails in its duty to render due honor to our Lord Jesus Christ the King. Those persons who run the State, on the other hand, do run that eternal risk.
The absolute duty of the State in regard to our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Faith is a question of moral and divine law. How that duty is fulfilled in practice is a question of political science.
Dr. Sudlow,
regarding your question about whether:
"the State is the origin of the public domain, and therefore, supremely powerful over all social relations?"
The State is not the origin of the public domain; rather, it is the public domain--society--taken at its highest natural level. That is, the State is the only natural perfect society. (The Church is, of course, the supernatural perfect society.) The State is indeed supremely powerful over all relations within society to the extent that those relations contribute to or detract from the common good, which is the State's end, and of course the chief characteristic of a perfect society is that it has within itself all the means necessary for accomplishing its end. Hence it would be contradictory to assert both that the State is a perfect society (whose end is the common good) and that it is not supremely powerful over social relations (which affect the common good) within it.
Point 2): whether
"a State constituted democratically is unproblematically comparable to a monarchically constituted state?"
I would object to the term "constituted democratically", since democracy is a legitimate form of government but not a legitimate principle of government; in a sense, every State is monarchical in its constitution. But if you mean to ask whether
'the democratic form of civil government is unproblematically comparable to the monarchical form of civil government?'
then I would say: essentially, yes, because either way the State's purpose is the common good.
As for point 3):
"3) that the duties attributed to the 'person' of the state in the letters of Popes Gregory, Leo and Pius have the same soteriological value as those attributed to individual persons?"
I was not sure why you brought up this particular point. The implications of differences in form of government and degree of religious tolerance for the salvation of the State's subjects are a distinct question from the one of the State's relations with Christ the King and with His Church. So even if (for the sake of argument) we suppose that a Confessional State were no greater a help to citizens' salvation than a liberal one, the Confessional one would be preferable insofar as it does greater justice to God.
Finally, could you elaborate on what you mean by
"the way [Confiteor and I] have both presented the 19th-century papal letters - indeed, in the way ABL understood these letters - are assertions about what the State can and cannot do which are not principles of natural law but of political science."
? In my comment I think I dealt with the basic natural-law principles rather than more advanced questions of political science. I always try to keep clear the distinction between natural law--pertaining to justice--and political science--pertaining to prudence--and I don't think I have lost that distinction here. For example, it is always just to punish offenders of the Catholic religion, but I know that it is not always prudent to do so.
CARDINAL POLE
I am drafting reply, and will also include a response to the recent Confiteor and Ches. I hate the subject, but we have to try to sort it out. My “gut feeling” is that the 19th cent. Popes address the question which is not the question addressed by the DH. I have also drafted an analysis of dissent from the viewpoint of Moral Theology, as accounted in the Vol.II (Living a Christian Life) of Grisez’ The Way of the Lord Jesus. He aims to articulate the classical teaching, prior to the post-Humanae Vitae scandal. Those interested may Google: Welcome to the Catholic Church, CD. which contains the whole Grisez’ 3 vol. manual, besides many other things. The publisher of the CD might be willing to permit one access to the text. The CD costs $100.00; the books are obtainable from the Alba House, New York, for ca $40 each (900 pages each)
CONFITEOR, 30th December
Re: quote from DH on special recognition by the state.
There is no “ambiguity” here. The "natural" is my word, and is not meant to refer to the natural law but to the natural inclination of an individual to favour his religion.
Whether his religion is “true” or “false” is irrelevant, in the context, because whatever it is, it is a fact. It is not disputable that everyone should accept the “true” religion, but if authorities of a state with an overwhelming majority of the population do not accept the “true” religion but profess the “false”one, it is unreasonable to expect of them to favour the “true” religion which they believe to be false, and tolerate the “false” religion which they believe to be true. And, it would contradict the Catholic doctrine on conscience.
The classical doctrine on conscience is that one is bound to follow it even if the conscience is in error. An Islamic leader, who chose to give favours to the Catholic religion and to tolerate Islam, would commit a formal mortal sin. All the Church can expect of him, without enticing him to commit a mortal sin, is that he gives freedom to the Catholic religion within due limits which for the sake of common good has to be a compromise between what every religion present in the state wants and what is possible to grant without others being curtailed.
My use of inv. commas with reference to the truth and falsity is not meant to express an indifferentism, but to hint at the inadequacy of use of these attributes to any religion. It is sweeping to qualify any religion, understood in its entirety, as false. There is nothing false in Islam’s profession of faith in one God, in praying five times daily, in an exemplary modesty of Moslem women etc. This all is a part of the Catholic faith too. That the Moslems do not profess the Catholic faith fully is, for the most part, not their own fault, but our lack of evangelizing zeal, as well as narrow mindedness of many Catholics who wouldn’t admit any good in Islam, and the low morality of the majority of the nominally Catholic population. In theory, we have much to offer, in practice, what any one of us here debating the issue has done for the conversion of Moslems?
“Are we to believe that it is "natural" for a state to enshrine a false religion that explicitly denies our Lord Jesus Christ?” It depends on what one means by “natural”. In Catholic theology the word is used for the natural religions to distinguish them from the revealed one. They are a natural phenomenon, containing at least some good and truth, and are, for that very reason, recognized as legitimate by all civilized states. This recognition doesn’t necessarily imply an admission that all what they profess is true.
“Is an Islamic state acceptable in the eyes of God”. Partly yes, in so far as it promotes a submission to God, regular worship, and a modest behaviour; partly not, in so far as it promotes false doctrine. An Islamic state can become a Catholic state only if the Moslems accept the Catholic faith. God wants it to be achieved in accord with the human dignity: man is created to His image and likeness, with reason to learn the truth, and the free will to accept it, and any kind of open or subtle compulsion in that respect is incompatible with the “sensus Catholicus”..
CHES, 30th December
I must confess that I am not sure what you mean under 1,2,3. Could you elaborate, or refer to earlier comments that you might have made, if any.
Re: about natural law and political science. The natural law, as I understand it, is about both individual and social morality, and the state and politics definitely come into this domain. I do not claim familiarity with the subject, but the “the popes”, ABL makes so much of, seem ambiguous to me.
I agree that “our thinking has to be carried out within the context provided by the Magisterium both in the 19th and 20th centuries”, but this “context” shouldn’t be conceived as if the texts of 19th cent. popes (not to be confused with the authority of these popes at the time when they were in charge) could be put on an equal footing with the recent documents; still less that an individual Catholic may disagree with the living magisterium. The former texts are dead letters not persons, and themselves are not our teachers here and now. Our teacher is the living magisterium, which interprets the past documents’ significance for us at present. The DH was an articulation of the doctrine of the living magisterium when it was promulgated. It was taken over by the next generations of the magisterium, and more/less kept unchanged since. There were occasional clarifications in the meantime, like the recent Compendium, which did not amount to much. So, for practical purpose, one can say that the DH is still the last word on the subject, and binding our conscience in proportion with the degree of assent expected, which is the matter of theological interpretation of the text itself.
CONFITEOR
15th December (to Ches).
If what Confiteor quotes from JPII is all he has said, on that occasion, it is – I would agree – woolly, because he omits the “due limits”. But it is, I believe, an oversight rather than a departure from the teaching of DH, because, as the quote stands, what the Pope says would lead exactly to the climate of tension, intolerance, opposition and suspicion, hardly favourable to social peace, i.e. to the policy some of the 19th cent. Encyclicals would lead to if implemented. If not an oversight, the Pope might have been reluctant to appear as lecturing to the distinguished audience as if it were a group of schoolboys.
20th December (to Ches)
“Does a settling of "doctrinal differences" then involve a simple assent to everything presented in the documents of Vatican II without further question or constructive disagreement?”
According to my understanding of Catholic moral doctrine, the answer is “yes” in principle, provided the “simple” doesn’t mean an indiscriminately equal “yes” to every single proposition therein. It is the matter of interpretation to discern a degree of assent required to every proposition contained in the document, the correct interpretation being a complex issue in which many factors have to be considered. But the main thrust is that the whole approach of a Catholic has to be the “yes” approach, subject to the degree of the assertion required; and in no case the “no” approach, with a qualified “yes” if what is asserted in the document fits into an individual’s notion of “tradition”.
“The office of interpreting authentically the word of God, whether scriptural or traditional, has been entrusted exclusively to the living voice of the Church’s magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ” (DV 10/2, and it is adopted by the CCC 85). What the 19th cent. popes taught belongs to the tradition. At the time of Vatican II, the living voice of the Church’s magisterium was the Vatican II itself, and the DH is an authentic interpretation of the whole tradition on the subject of religious liberty, in the name of Jesus Christ. That is perfectly clear to the truly Catholic traditionalists.
The SSPX is not the magisterium, but an usurpation of the magisterium. It claims that the office of interpretation of the tradition is entrusted to them, not to the living magisterium.
They are acting as if we were at a debating stage prior to promulgation of the DH, and not at an interpreting stage of the document promulgated by an ecumenical council after a lengthy debate in the course of which all the bishops who wanted to be involved were listened to.
The DH is binding for Catholics and, in principle, no longer debatable. What can be debated, but only by those who accept it in principle, are some issues of its interpretation, which is, I believe, what Confiteor means by “further question”, but a Catholic can’t make his acceptance of an official interpretation conditional to his notion of what such an interpretation should be.
As to the “constructive disagreement”, it is only conceivable in the case, as L.Ott (p.10) puts it, of a “competent expert” who “after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at a positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.” No SSPX “theologian” is a competent expert, in my view; but granted some of them are, here is briefly what Grisez writes about it in Vol. II (Living a Christian Life) of his manual (The Way of the Lord Jesus). Nobody can claim that Grisez is a modernist.
“…while a contrary certitude can block a religious assent (to a doctrine which is not proposed infallibly, but yet proposed for acceptance – my note) the responsibility to assent is not blocked by considerations which merely raise doubts; thus such assent is owed to many teachings which one otherwise would doubt” (52).
“…most Catholics have no more reliable way of interpreting Scripture or … tradition than listening to and thinking with the magisterium. Very few are such experts in …scholarship that they would really know that the Church’s teaching depended on mistaken premise … even should that occur. In practice, most of the faithful could question a pope’s or bishop’s judgement only by trusting some scholars in preference to others. But in doing so they would presume to make for themselves the judgement among experts which the pope and bishops are not only divinely authorized but better qualified to make” (p. 51).
What should the competent expert, not the SSPX’ “theologian”, do if he has difficulty in assenting to the teaching not proposed infallibly? He “can publish” his “views and arguments in academic journals and present them at professional meetings …as opinions or difficulties without asserting them unqualifiedly as truths; at the same time” he “can warn the faithful that they should never use the authority of any theologian or group of theologians to justify a refusal to assent to a papal or episcopal teachings; in this way” he “can do everything necessary to promote study and reflection without ever contradicting the teaching proposed by the magisterium” (pp. 53-54, Note 105).
“Where religious assent is known to be due, it is a sin to withhold it … called here ‘deliberate non-assent’ (52). “ To communicate such nonassent to others with the intention of encouraging them to share in it is a more serious sin, called here ‘sinful dissent.’ … Deliberate nonassent is a grave matter …Two factors can aggravate its gravity: (i) if one denies… the papal or conciliar teaching, and (ii) if one persist in the sin after being warned by the Holy See or one’s Bishop” (53).
In this connection Grisez refers to the “canonical crime” c.1371: “a person who…teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teaching mentioned in Can. 752, and when warned by the Apostolic See, or by the Ordinary, does not retract”, OR “who in any way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience”.
The ref. Canon 752: “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act.”
In point of fact, Can.1373 is also relevant: “A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity to the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them…”
23rd December (to Chess).
“The Pope tolerates modernist bishops who spit in the face of a personal act of supreme papal legislation (Summorum Pontificum), yet he cannot cope with being called a "perfect liberal" by Bishop Fellay?”
There is a difference:
No (1) in the language used,
No (2) the modernist bishops do not object openly as the SSPX’ do, so that it is difficult to establish the facts,
No (3) they can, quite legitimately in principle, argue that they interpret papal decrees to the flocks entrusted to them by the pope himself in the way they think fit; and the pope can’t possibly get involved in their affairs – there are 2000 of them - except when something very striking takes place; while the SSPX bishops, although excommunicated, act illegitimately, and openly usurping pastoral office,
No (4) there are, no doubt, and there will always be, failure bishops; due to the ill advised pope: he can’t possibly get personally involved in every single appointment. Nevertheless, nominally, they are his appointees, and he has to put up with them whatever they subsequently turn out to be. He has to act prudently, all things considered. To dismiss just one bishop the pope would have to be involved in a lot of canonical and administrative work, not to mention the bishop’s possible rebellion, and rebellion of many of his clergy and people. The APBL is an example, and imagine a similar example among the modernists. - The SSPX bishops, on the on the other hand, are not only the failure bishops, but were selected and consecrated illegitimately, in spite of lacking appropriate qualifications and Catholic orthodoxy. They would never be even considered for episcopacy in normal circumstances, because with what they believe or decline to believe, they, materially, do not share the faith with the pope, as Williamson has said to Cardinal Hoyos.
CARDINAL POLE, 29th December
Happy Holy Season. I’ll try to reply, but please, take cognisance that my exchange was with Confiteor, so, take it in that context. I will follow the numbers of my last post, 27th December and give yours as well.
No (5); yours 1, 2 and 3.
Re: 1 and 2. The examples are meant to illustrate, in answer to Confiteor’s challenge of ambiguity, that the Church, as a rule, cannot go into details of application of moral norms to concrete situation, whether of an individual or of a public authority. So, no “ambiguity” is involved in the terms “coercion” or “due limits”. I think we agree on this in principle. With regard to analysis of the example – but that is really accidental to the main point - from the viewpoint of the shop assistant, the evil is in his selling itself; whether it is evil to buy (purpose, support of the shop/publisher) is a different matter.
Re: 3, public order v. common good. I see no difference; they are two aspects of the same thing.
That “the State should only concede freedoms to non-Catholics if it expects, by doing so, to avert a greater damage to the common good or to procure a greater benefit to the common good”, is ambiguous. Shouldn’t the same apply to Catholics? One thing is the teaching of the Church; another what individual Catholics make out of it, and it is what the Catholic make out of that teaching that has a social impact.
No (6); your 4.
Immortale Dei, sections 21 and 22. I have counted the paragraphs – my copy is without numbers – and what you say seems to be under my heading The Witness of History. A pope is not a teaching authority in the subject of historical facts, and Leo XIII is ambiguous: he fails to identify the states or period. His romantic account sounds like poetry. One would have to see what was actually, historically, happening in daily life, “once a time“, in those happy days of unidentified states; and discern the papal teachings from the historical embellishments in which they are wrapped.
No (7); your 5.
That the Quanta Cura is “an Act of the Extraordinary/Solemn/Ex Cathedra Papal Magisterium” is an extraordinary assertion, which I hear for the first time, and – with due respect – have to dismiss.
That the DH “leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of man and society towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ” (1/3), means intact as understood by the Council Fathers, not “intact” in an individual Catholic’s mind, or in what the SSPX make of it. My point was that, authentically interpreted, the DH is a development of the authentically interpreted traditional teaching, in so far as it deals with the same subject.
“So I ask you then: who more frequently reminds Catholics of the Traditional …teaching, the S.S.P.X. Bishops or mainstream Bishops?” – For this particular debate the question of what the SSPX or Bishops do in practice is irrelevant. I would be the first to acknowledge that the offering of the Holy Sacrifice in the SSPX churches, in the Russian and other “schismatic” Eastern Churches, can only put to shame our hierarchy. But with regard the doctrine itself the essentials of the 19th cent popes’ social teaching, in so far as they are relevant for the current situation, seem present in the DH and other contemporary social teachings of the Magisterium.
No (8); your 6.
See the context. Confiteor quoted the text you repeated, I asked him for the source, because I “have some of the papal 19th cent. documents”, expecting from him to identify the document from which he had quoted, so that I can find it easily and consult the document myself. I am interested to see whether the pope applied his notion of the duties of state to the “China, Russia, Sweden, or Turkey” – the states in which the “false” religions were predominant in his time; or perhaps to the lapsing “Catholic”states only. Or perhaps, he spoke generally, so that neither explicitly nor from the context can one infer which states he had in mind.
In the meantime I checked my files and have found Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors, Immortale Dei, Libertas, not Diuturnum, however. I have read them long tome ago – they are spoiled by my underpinnings and occasional annotations - but can’t afford reading all again at the moment. However, if you wish to refer to any of these documents in the future, kindly be more precise, possibly giving the starting phrase, title if provided in the text.
Regarding the two CONDEMNED ERRORS, what seems actually condemned is the thesis that the states described are “the best”. Clearly, the best would be if the entire populations of all states were practising Catholics, governed by practising Catholics. In this way the pope would have it his way. But my reading of the quotes as given is that if one doesn’t hold that the states described in the condemnations are “the best”, he doesn’t fall under the condemnation.
Could you indicate the error numbers? Are they in the Encyclical or in the Syllabus, and who signed the latter?
And where the explanation, that you quote at the end, comes from? As to the explanation itself, it goes beyond saying that “the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection”, but the pope doesn’t attribute the “evil” to any specific religion, nor does he rule out the possibility of evil being done by Catholics, whether sinners or nominal. According to some historical accounts, Catholics, with a tacit approval of ecclesiastical authorities, were doing a lot of evil in the “ideal” states of the Middle Ages. Hasn’t Jan Hus been granted protection to
came to the Council of Constance, and yet arrested and put on a stake? What about numerous executed “witches”, and children sent to the crusade?
“So the State may refrain from punishing offenders of the Catholic religion when the common good requires it, but the best condition is one in which the State imposes restrictions on offenders of the Catholic religion.” – Where this conclusion (“So…”) comes from? And who are he “offenders of the Catholic religion”?
No. (8), your 7. What is it that is “false” in Orthodox religion generally, and from the viewpoint of the common good specifically? I gave an example of a situation that really exists in many places. What is materially false in the faith of the Orthodox villagers?
Is there any non-Catholic religion that has been, as such, I mean: as whole, not merely in some of its tenets, declared false by the Magisterium?
No (9); your 8.
I am no fun of DH either, still less of the 19th cent. encyclicals or this whole subject, but have to put up with it. The quote is by Confiteor; I took it for granted; see the context there.
No (10); your 9.
I am still in dark. If the CDF doesn’t expect a discretion (does it? I do not know), why the SSPX are silent if they know? Could it be that they are not able to give a coherent reply, and do not want the facts to be known.
No (11); your 10.
Hasn’t He said that His kingdom is not of this world”, I asked. You say: “This means that His Kingdom did not originate in this world…Christ is King of men not only individually but also socially…of the State”. My reply is: yes but in a spiritual sense, as Pius XI makes it perfectly clear in the paragraph 16 (my copy, starts: “This kingdom is primarily…”) and 18 (“…refrained from exercise”). To say: “Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men”, para 19, would otherwise make no sense. Likewise, Pius’ quote of Leo XIII in the same paragraph.
Could you identify more closely the section of ID in which Christ is mentioned? I can’t find it.
On my understanding, these two encyclicals are about the general dominion of God/Christ over the whole creation, which, of course, embraces all nations, their leaders and subjects. But it doesn’t follow that the states in point of fact do submit to this rule. It is the very reason of these encyclicals to warn the nominally Catholic states – not the whole world, because it would have been taken, by the rest of the world, as a nonsense - that they should submit. The fact that they do not, still less that the rest of the world does not, is the “price He has to pay” for endowing the Man with reason and free will, and permitting him to commit the Original Sin. He had to come down to sort out the mess, to establish the Church to continue his work, but again: not by interfering with the endowments He had granted to the Man in the first place, but by announcing the truth to be accepted freely.
So, the request that the all the states submit to Christ is the same as the request that all the states be Catholic. So long as that is not the case the Kingdom of Christ has to stay in Heaven, except in those few sections of the world’s community, if they exist at all, which are an earthly part of the heavenly Kingdom.
For the time being, however, the actualization on the earth of the heavenly Kingdom is a wishful thinking, and irrelevant, sadly, to the real world we live in. The issue for the Church now is not how a hypothetical Catholic state should manage “false” religions, but what are the Catholic social principles in the current situation, in which there are no Catholic states, and in which perhaps 80% nominal Catholics, including many bishops and clergy, are not really Catholics.
Of course, Christ rules over the whole universe, the states including, but it does not mean that He directly interferes: he honours the freedom given to the man at creation. It is only if the Man in a search for the truth finds Him – all the “false” religions are about this search, that is the reason why they are given freedom by Him – that he (the man) will bring about the kind of states which are fully subject to their King, not only invisibly, but visibly too.
But the reality is, instead, that the Catholic couples will soon have to apply for a permission to have a child, and the old people for a permission to stay alive. Already, the “married” Catholic divorcees, the “partners” living together, whether heterosexual or homosexual etc, can take us to court if we refuse to let them our property. It is practically impossible for a Catholic to study and practice nursing or medicine without moral compromises. One can write a book listing similar examples. In view of this reality, and the worse real prospects, the SSPX’s preoccupation with the “Kingship” of Christ is grotesque. In 15 years during which I was going to Mass in their centres I have never heard a sermon dedicated to the condemnation of contraception - that great cancer that is destroying the Church more than abortion, abuses of the New Mass and all doctrinal deviations together.
No (11), your 11. See above.
No (11), your 12. See above. I am familiar with Quas Primas and have already given some quotes. It might be worthwhile to make three comments: (a) the pope’s reason for writing is a deterioration of faith in the nominal Catholic states (paragraphs 1, 25), (b) his reference to the Eastern liturgies as if they were not “our own” (para 13) is narrow minded, (c) his respect for the “human dignity” (20) suggests that in no case does he conceive as ideal the state in which the persons’ right to act according to the dictates of their conscience may be merely “tolerated”, still less curtailed more than necessary in view of the same dignity of others.
AD YOUR 13
Thank you for the Summary: it made the matter easier, but I have covered the subject already. All that applies to the Catholic states only, if they exist or have ever existed. Otherwise, the pope would contradict the doctrine on conscience. The latter, even if erroneous, must be followed. The pope cannot expect from the head of a state, if he, in his conscience, cannot accept the Catholic doctrine, to apply that doctrine nevertheless, contrary to his conscience. He would commit a formal mortal sin, and the pope would entice him to do so, i.e. commit the mortal sin himself.
AD YOUR 14
What “quotation from the New Catechism” you have in mind? In the comment to Confiteor of 28th December, I quoted the Compendium of the Social Doctrine which speaks of “just limits” of the exercise of religious freedom which must be determined in each social situation with political prudence, according to the requirements of the “common good”. DH uses the terms: “public order and justice” (2/2), “rightful ordering of society” (3/4) and “just requirements of public order” (4/2).
No ambiguity is involved, only the lack of precision, which is inevitable as we, I believe, agreed in No (5), your 1, 2.
“But DH avoids invoking the common good as the criterion for restricting liberties.” I see no difference. See No (5), your 3
AD YOUR 15. I can’t embark on reading the ABPL’s book. If you are familiar, and Ches agreeable, why not post the objections for discussion, not all of them at once, but one by one; and provide your comments?
Cardinal Pole,
Point 1
Your argument about the State not being perfect without supreme power over all social relations is flawed. It assumes that unless the state can exercise a legal power to command some good, it is imperfect. However, this is tantamount to saying that only legal powers can safely ensure the common good, a principle which is itself arguably contrary to the common good.
Point 2
As to your regarding democracy as a constitutional form or a constitutional principle, you must surely see this is deep into the discipline of political science and not a question of natural law. What we must believe is that power comes from God. That is the natural law. How the agent who has responsibility for the common good comes to be that agent depends on all kinds of factors connected to culture, psychology, environment and a community's history. The point of raising this issue, however, is that the more a state's affairs become subsummed into its legislative activities, as indeed has happened in almost all modern democracies, the stronger the argument is in favour of a Church-Nation relationship of custom, rather than a Church-State relationship enshrined in law.
Point 3
The reason I raised the last point was to underline what the purpose of the Church's relationship to the public order is. It is in fact the salvation of her children, and the preaching of the gospel to those who have not received it. How or whether the Church then asks for the intervention of the state has changed throughout her history; you presumably would not approve of the legal coercion of religious practice, but that was a commonly accepted theological opinion at one time.
You're right to distinguish justice from prudence, as long as that justice is correctly understood.
Ches, Daley, and Cardinal Pole,
If I can find time later tonight, I will try to copy / paste / organize the rich material in this comment box over onto my new blog on religious liberty. I'll send a link asap.
Also, I'm eagerly waiting on the postman to bring my newly purchased copy of Religious Liberty Questioned. With ABL's seminal text in hand, I'll be a somewhat less incompetent non-expert! :-)
It is done! I have sifted through the comments in this thread and assembled many (not all) of them on my blog dedicated to the question of religious liberty:
http://tinyurl.com/7zf5ob
The selected comments are organized under three separate posts for ease of reference.
Ches, I hope that this lightens your load as moderator, at least on this thread. I've given your blog credit on each of the above-mentioned posts.
BTW, my newly purchased copy of Religious Liberty Questioned has arrived! I look forward to reading it and informing my point of view.
This is a large and complex topic, and I'm admittedly in over my head. :-)
Dr. Sudlow, Daley and Confiteor,
Thank you for your comments; I won't have time to respond to them at the moment but I'll get back to them within a day or two.
Dr. Sudlow, Daley and Confiteor,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you; since it’s been a week now I’ll try to keep my remarks brief.
Firstly, Daley:
1. You said that
"That “the State should only concede freedoms to non-Catholics if it expects, by doing so, to avert a greater damage to the common good or to procure a greater benefit to the common good”, is ambiguous."
On one level, I can agree with you; for instance, the State might be justified in refusing, say, to shut down a busy freeway in order to allow a Corpus Christi procession. On another level though, I would point out that the key word in your quotation of me is the word concede--it is always a concession, in prudence, for the State to permit heretical/anti-Catholic activity, since this sort of activity is not owed, in justice, any rights, unlike Catholic activity.
2. Regarding Immortale Dei, sections 21 and 22: Leo XIII might not specify certain historical States, but he does point out some of the features that represent the ideal for Church-State relations.
3. Regarding the Magisterial Status of Quanta Cura: Msgr. Lefebvre demonstrates that it was indeed handed down ex Cathedra, and there are other non-S.S.P.X. sources to support this. For instance, Cardinal Newman in his Letter to The Duke of Norfolk speaks of ‘that infallible teaching voice which is heard so distinctly in the Quanta Cura’ and notes that it contains teaching on universal moral matters, and the Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of the Encyclical as containing ‘final decisions’. So Quanta Cura contains: teaching on universal moral matters (Cardinal Newman), delivered as final decisions (Catholic Encyclopedia), with Apostolic authority (Quanta Cura, section 6) and binding on all the Catholic faithful (Quanta Cura, section 6), which satisfies all the criteria for an ex Cathedra teaching. See my blog for more on this:
http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2008/12/more-on-magisterial-status-of-quanta.html
4. Regarding the contemporary relevance of the political teachings of the nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Popes: their teaching was comprehensive enough to give clear teachings on the optimal conditions of religious tolerance and Church-State relations while acknowledging that, in any given set of circumstances, constrained optimisation (as the mathematicians might say) might require prudent tolerance of sin and error.
5. Regarding true/false religion: rather than becoming hung up on questions of truth and error, whether in whole or in part, in any given religion, think of it in terms of ‘offence against the Catholic religion’, which is what Bl. Pius IX spoke of. This is a broad term which would include any offence against the Catholic Church, whether in her articles of faith, her moral precepts, her divine worship or her government. Clearly, then, the Greek-Schismatic Churches, to use your example, can be regarded as offenders against the Catholic religion, since they reject certain defined articles of faith, they defy Catholic moral precepts (such as those regarding the indissolubility of marriage), and they do not have legitimate jurisdiction in their respective Churches.
6. Regarding the two condemned errors that I extracted from Quanta Cura: indeed they do concern what is best for a society. The problem is that at the time, and still today, people were arguing, falsely, that even in a Catholic-governed and Catholic-populated State the State ought to abstain from punishing any offenders of the Catholic religion who might arise. (The errors are not numbered, though they occur early in the document, which I obtained from the Papal Encyclicals website.)
7. Regarding my quotation
“to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires.”
That comes from Libertas, section 34, and is alluded to in Longinqua Oceani, section 6.
8. When I say that
“So the State may refrain from punishing offenders of the Catholic religion …”
the “So” comes from Immortale Dei section 36 and Libertas section 33, and the second part comes from Quanta Cura; as for the concrete example of the Orthodox, see section 5. of this comment.
9. The fact that Christ’s Kingship is, for Catholics, primarily spiritual does not detract from our duty to see that Christ’s Social Reign is advanced, and this Social Reign requires, as a matter of justice, that the State acknowledge Christ as the Source of its authority, its blessings and its very existence, and do Him homage accordingly. Although that might be ‘wishful thinking’ at present, we must not abandon the principle altogether.
10. Regarding when you say that Pius XI’s respect for human dignity
“suggests that in no case does he conceive as ideal the state in which the persons’ right to act according to the dictates of their conscience may be merely “tolerated”…”
there is actually some mention of the question of the appropriate use of the word ‘tolerate’ or ‘permit’ in a source from Pius XI that Msgr. Lefebvre quotes in Religious Liberty Questioned. If I recall correctly, ‘tolerated’ is, in fact, Pius XI’s preferred terminology, but I would have to check this.
11. Regarding what I referred to as a “quotation from the New Catechism”: that was my mistake, I meant to refer to the Compendium of Social Doctrine from which you quoted. Regarding when you say that it
“speaks of “just limits” of the exercise of religious freedom which must be determined in each social situation with political prudence, according to the requirements of the “common good””
Do you see the problem in what the Compendium of Social Doctrine says there? On the one hand it speaks of just limits, while on the other it speaks of political prudence. So is it a matter of justice or of prudence? There seems to be some confusion here.
12. Finally, regarding public order compared with common good: as far as I know they are not just aspects of the same thing; public order is an element of the common good; the common good is something ‘bigger’, so to speak, than mere public order. Indeed, at the Second Vatican Council the International Group of Fathers proposed to vote for Dignitatis Humanae if its authors would just substitute ‘common good’ for ‘public order’, but the authors refused, which seems to me to imply that the authors had something different in mind when they spoke of the latter rather than the former.
13. Regarding the section of ID where Christ is mentioned: most importantly in section 6 (with much the same material provided in Libertas section 21). Also, regarding my reference to Etsi Multa: the relevant part is section 16.
Now, Dr. Sudlow,
1. I disagree that what I said was
“tantamount to saying that only legal powers can safely ensure the common good, a principle which is itself arguably contrary to the common good.”
Obviously the State’s role is largely subsidiary, but it is certainly within the State’s power to legislate in order to direct its subjects towards the common good. This is not to say that only the State can ensure the common good safely, just that it does have the authority to act to do so. Perhaps I have missed your point here? Could you elaborate a little more?
2. Regarding when you say that
“As to your regarding democracy as a constitutional form or a constitutional principle, you must surely see this is deep into the discipline of political science and not a question of natural law.”
But Leo XIII was adamant both that democracy is a legitimate form of government and that the State has a duty to confess Christ and do Him homage, so I still do not see why there should be any serious problem in comparing any given democracy to any given monarchy, for instance, and ranking them as to how well each satisfies Traditional doctrine on the Social Reign of Christ.
3. Finally, regarding point 3: I think I see now what you’re getting at with that point—we were looking at it from different angles, me from the perspective of the State, you from the perspective of the Church. Regarding the level of co-operation that the Church might request, obviously that is a matter for the Church to determine as a matter of policy. Nonetheless, the principle that the State and the Church ought to be united must be upheld and is an irresistible consequence of a State acknowledging Christ as its King. It seems to me that co-operation admits of many degrees, whereas union and separation are binary alternatives.
That went on I bit long after all, I’m afraid, and I understand if you want to wrap this discussion up, Dr. Sudlow, since it has gone on pretty long. I see that Confiteor has a blog dedicated to these matters where the discussion can continue if desired. Once again, my apologies Dr. Sudlow, Daley and Confiteor, for taking so long to get back to you.
Cardinal Pole's summation is preserved for ease of reference and the edification of posterity here:
http://tinyurl.com/7zf5ob
By the way, I'm a bit confused by the following:
Regarding the section of ID where Christ is mentioned: most importantly in section 6 ...
Christ is mentioned all throughout Immortale Dei, although, oddly enough, not in Section 6, which Cardinal Pole cites in responding to Daley.
Daley, can you clarify your question?
All and sundry are welcome to continue the debate on my religious liberty blog ... unless Ches wants to continue moderating it here. :-)
Shall we continue this debate on Confiteor's blog?
http://tinyurl.com/7zf5ob
Thank you, Confiteor, and God bless us all.
CARDINAL POLE , 12th Jan. 09 (Firstly, Daley)
I’ll follow my earlier numbers, adding your present ones.
NO (5); YOURS 3; NEW 1;
about the ambiguity of “conceding” (no 3) freedom to the non-Catholics, while the freedom of Catholics belongs to them “in justice” (new no 1). Ambiguous, because, as it stands, the concession can be equally applied to Catholics. “One thing” I said “is the teaching of the Church; another what individual Catholics make out of it.”
For example, following the Humanae Vitae it was the Patriarch of Constantinople – likewise the Russian Synod more recently - who stood up openly in support of the teaching of the Encyclical, while some of the Catholic episcopal conferences practically rejected it, and the majority were far less supportive than was the Patriarch; not to mention Catholic theologians and laity. According to you, however, the right of the Patriarch, and of the Russian Synod, to speak should be only “conceded” because they are from the Church that is involved in “heretical/anti-Catholic activity, since this sort of activity is not owed, in justice, any rights”, while the “Catholic activity” of dissenting episcopal conferences and thousands of individuals should be fully recognized, and even supported by the civil authorities.
The history is full of materially anti-Catholic activities of the “Catholic” states, popes, bishops, theologians and laity, which should materially fall under your censure, as does the alleged “anti-Catholic” activity of the Orthodox, and yet all these Catholic institutions and individuals have exercised their “right” to the “Catholic” activity in the “Catholic” states.
The fact that somebody is Catholic is no guarantee that his grasp, appropriation, what he makes out, of the Catholic Faith – and that includes the pope and the bishops, the exceptional circumstances apart – really reflects that Faith; or that it reflects it better than what an Orthodox makes out of it; and it is what the Catholics, nominal or true, make out of the Faith, that has a social impact.
What is “anti-Catholic” in the Orthodox Liturgy, for example, which expresses the Catholic Faith in Transubstantiation, Sacrifice and Priesthood better than does the Tridentine Mass, not to mention our new concoction?
Or my earlier example of an Ukrainian village. What is offensive against the Catholic Church in the doctrine, life, and worship of the Orthodox villagers?
NO (6), YOURS 4, NEW 2;
about the Catholic states, for which I expressed earlier a doubt that they had ever existed. You offered Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei as an authoritative evidence of the “Church-State relations in the Middle Ages” (no 4, last time) which allegedly “exemplify the ideal of the Catholic State”; while, in point of fact, the Pope (a) failed to identify the states or period, (b) he is not our teacher of history, (c) we would have to know (a), and the history (b), to assess “what was actually happening in daily life” (as I put it) of these ideal states.
Now, in 2, you say: “he does point out some of the features that represent the ideal for Church-State relations”. But that does not demonstrate that such relations have ever existed – which was my original point - still less that they are possible unless the rulers and all the citizens happen to be practising Catholics. So, the whole doctrine is an idealized fiction, without foundation in reality; something to be aimed at, as a natural outcome of evangelization, but in no case imposed on civil authorities by the Church, or on a state’s population by the civil authority.
No (7), your 5; new 3; Re: Quanta Cura.
There is no such thing as an infallibly proposed definition of criteria that can be used in assessing whether a particular papal or conciliar proposition constitutes a definition or not (that was the subject of our aborted debate long time ago). It is the matter of consensus of the Church at large as articulated by the Ordinary Magisterium. A pope can claim “definition” as much as he wants to, but unless the Church agrees that a definition has taken place, his claim is in vain because the criteria he uses have never been infallibly proposed, nor can they be.
But in the case of the Quanta Cura the pope doesn’t even claim it: it is you who claim to have proved it, relying on: (a) what ABP Lefebvre thought although he, as an “individual” Bishop does “not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility” (LG 25/2), besides being suspended from teaching, and, possibly, came up with his opinion while ex-communione; (b) Newman was not even a bishop; (c) Catholic Encyclopaedia is not a locus theologicus.
While some theologians might have considered as defined some assertions of the Encyclical, one can hardly speak of the “constant and universal consensus” referred to in the Pius IX’s Tuas Libenter. And you claim to have proved that the whole (not merely some assertions of the) Encyclical “was an Act of the Extraordinary/Solemn/Ex Cathedra Papal Magisterium.”
Can. 748/3: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated”; closely parallels Can. 1323/3 of the 1917 Code.
The DH was approved by 2308 v. 70+8 bishops, and promulgated “by the apostolic authority given to us by Christ …. approve, appoint and decree…in the Holy Spirit…to the glory of God”. Had the Council Fathers considered the Quanta Cura infallible, they would not have voted so overwhelmingly for the document which - you think - contradicts the Encyclical. In fact, the Fathers haven’t put it even as a reference in a footnote, although they did put two Leo XIII’s encyclicals. They have evidently considered the Quanta Cura irrelevant or superseded.
No (7), your 5, now 4.
“Regarding the contemporary relevance”, the earlier Popes’ teaching was far from “clear”; it had to be put in context of the whole teaching of the Church, because these Popes did not leave us with a “clear teachings” about the social implications of the moral obligation of everybody to follow his conscience, which obligation holds true even if the conscience is in error.
As to the “given set of circumstances” they indeed do require a “prudent tolerance of sin and error”, but of both Catholics and non-Catholics, and the former are not entitled to a favourable treatment merely because they belong to the “true religion.”. See also my earlier comment “AD YOUR 13”.
Furthermore, while the sin or error may sometimes be tolerated, there is no need to "tolerate" what is virtuous and true in the non-Catholic religions; rather, it should be welcomed in itself, as well as a pointer to the sinfulness and errors of many Catholics.
No (8), your 7, now 5;
Pius IX about “offence against the Catholic religion”. What he meant by the “offence” and in which document? You say: “This is a broad term which would include any offence against the Catholic Church, whether in her articles of faith, her moral precepts, her divine worship or her government.” But this, really, explains nothing: does it mean that the very existence of any non-Catholic religion is an offence; or only if they openly and aggressively, with their lives, worship and doctrine, challenge the Catholic religion explicitly. Surely, the existence of any religion is essentially dependant on its own missionary activity as a constitutive element, which today includes places of education, public media etc. If that, in so far as it, as a side effect, in one way or another, adversely affects the Catholic religion, is construed as an “offence”, then the whole world, by its very existence, is an offence against the Catholic religion.
Not only that, but the Catholic Church herself, in many individual and collective acts of the kind described by you (faith, moral precepts, her divine worship or her government), would be a great self-offence.
“Clearly, then,“ whether the “the Greek-Schismatic Churches”, are an offence or not depends on how one understands the word “offence”; and in any case – this is another point - it all depends on how one defines the truth and error - the question that can’t be skipped: we can’t avoid being ”hung up on questions of truth and error”.
Can one claim that of the two groups of Ukrainian villagers, which do not know, and therefore do not believe, a particular article of the Catholic Faith, the Catholics are not an offence against the Catholic Faith, while the Orthodox are?
Was the unilateral insertion of the Filioque into the Creed the Western offence of the East, or the Eastern adherence to the original Creed was an offence against the West?
Can the present form of the Creed in the Orthodox Church be an offence when an insertion of the Fillioque, for the Byzantine Catholics (Ukrainians, Melchites, Romanians, Ruthenians), is optional. The original form did not imply a rejection of the Filioque; nor did the East subsequently insert: “and not from the Son.”
It is indisputable that all what the Orthodox positively believe is part of the Catholic Faith too, or “at worst” a complementary enrichment of it. They were an integral part of the Catholic Church during the first millennium, and haven’t changed their faith since.
So, there is no error in what the Orthodox positively believe.
As everything the Catholic Church defined during the second millennium had been implicit in the Deposit of the fist millennium, so it is still implicit in the Faith of the Orthodox, although, for the most part, they do not see it that way at this stage of their theological development. I said: for the most part, because they now, for example, accept that there are seven sacraments, although that doctrine was defined only later, by Trent.
They pray for the dead, so, the Purgatory is implicit. They are divided with regard the Immaculate Conception, and generally resent the definition because, from their viewpoint, it was unnecessary – which is true because they were not exposed to the Enlightenment of the 19th century; but they generally agree that if an Orthodox does believe in Immaculate Conception he is not to be considered a heretic.
Regarding the marriage they consider it indissoluble, but in canonical practice grant a divorce when the marriage has, in their view, de facto ceased to exist, which, materially, overlaps with much of what, in the Catholic Church, goes under the “nullity”. They consider such ending of the marriage a sin, but not a bar to another marriage. As far as I know, that was a canonical practice of the East from the beginning, and never challenged by the West. It is well known that the Tridentine Canon 7 (D 977), was worded in a convoluted way exactly because the Trent did not want to condemn the Orthodox practice.
Is there anything in the Catholic Faith that the Orthodox Church rejects? Officially not, because they have never held an ecumenical council, and the views of their bishops and theologians differ. In any case, a rejection is not what the faith is all about: the faith is about what one believes and not what one doesn’t believe. It can be understood in at least four ways: (a) material rejection of what is known by those who know it, say: of the papal infallibility, by those who exactly know and understand the Catholic position; (b) verbal rejection of what somebody makes out of the Catholic position on the basis of superficial knowledge (an analogy would be the rejection of the DH by the SSPX “theologians” who do not understand the Document); (c) a non-acceptance of what is not known, or is only vaguely known, which is the case with the overwhelming number of the faithful (an analogy: rejection of the DH by those who have never read it); (d) a confident dedication to one’s own tradition without any real interest in the Catholic position.
Only the case (a) constitutes a real rejection, and there is nothing offensive in it, unless an active aggressiveness is involved.
Regarding the jurisdiction of the Orthodox bishops the Catholic Church has never disputed it, nor did the popes ever interfere in their affairs unless invited. Their bishops are in a more direct apostolic succession than the hierarchy of the Roman Patriarchate, and they do not need the Pope’s authorization for exercising jurisdiction, which they haven’t received from him anyway. For example, the Catholic Church has never disputed the validity of their Sacrament of Reconciliation, for which a jurisdiction is necessary.
Is Our Lord in “their” Blessed Sacrament different from “ours”? Is His Self-Sacrifice in “their” Liturgy of a lesser ex opere operato value than in “our” Mass? Isn’t His Self-Sacrifice of an infinite value in both? And yet, according to your “blessed Pius IX”, His Presence, and Sacrifice in the Orthodox Liturgy would amount to an “offence against the Catholic religion”!
To sum up, it can be said that the Orthodox Church is somewhat defective, doctrinally less developed, part of the Catholic Church, which needs very little to be fully Catholic. And if, on the other hand, one considers the real situation in many parts of the Catholic Church today, is can be confidently claimed that they are less Catholic than is the Orthodox Church.
No (8), you’re 6, now 6 again. I have identified the two CONDEMNED ERRORS in Quanta Cur I dealt with the “offenders of the Catholic religion” above. Did the Pope really mean that the punishable offence would be if the Orthodox had their own media of communication and an active missionary activity?
I AM SORRY for being late; will deal with other points as soon as possible.
CARDINAL POLE, 12th Jan. 09 (Firstly, Daley)
Below are the remaining comments. I am sorry if my failure to indicate some of my previous comments by upper case letters, has caused difficulties in reading the text.
NO (8), YOUR 6, NEW 7. The quote from Libertas, now identified, but in section 29 of my copy. The pope doesn’t attribute evil to any specific religion – I said it before.
NO (8), YOUR 6, NEW 8. I can’t identify the places. Are there subtitles in your texts? It could help. See the comment above.
NO (8), YOUR 7, NEW – none
No religion as a whole has ever been declared false by the Magisterium.
NOs (9) AND (10), YOURS 8 AND 9 RESPECTIVELY; NEW – none. Ad 9, I suspect that the SSPX, for some reasons, do not want the things to be known.
NO (11), YOUR 10, NEW 9. Kingship of Christ.
I do not dispute your comment, if it rules out an imposition of the Kingship by the Church on a civil authority or citizens, unless all are practising Catholics, in which case an imposition wouldn’t be necessary anyway. Related to this is YOUR NEW 13. There is no Christ, only God, in my copies of ID 6 or Libertas 21. Could you help with subtitles?
NO (11), YOUR 11, NEW 10. “Tolerated” v. “permitted”
Looking forward to the outcome of your checking the ABP text. But, basically, the pope would be in error if he suggested that the right and duty of an individual, or of a religious group, to act according to their conscience might be curtailed beyond what is necessary for the public order. It would amount to dehumanization of human beings, it would make them second class citizens, and rule out any possibility of a sincere search for God and true Faith by those who are not lucky to be brought up as Catholics.
“AD YOUR 14”; YOUR NEW 11 and 12. Compendium of Social Doctrine.
I see no problem. In interpretation of any text one has to accept the meaning of the words used in a sense in which that meaning is precisely given, or if it is not given, one tries to establish it from the context. An interpreter can’t impose on the words his own notions of what they "mean".
In this case you seem to have identified the virtue of “justice” with the “just limits”, and put it in either/or opposition to the virtue of “prudence”. Justice and prudence are not opposed to one another; they are overlapping. The prudence determines the extent to which the justice may or may not be applied, because it is not always possible to give full justice to everybody or to every religion in a particular context. Thus “just limits” according to the “common good”.
You say: “public order is an element of common good”; I add: common good is an element of public order. The concepts are overlapping, one is not “bigger” than another.
Surely, if the term “common good”, proposed by the group of Fathers, was rejected, the reason must have been given and should be on record of the Acts of the Council. But, again, I fear that SSPX might have vested interest in polemics. Both terms, and others with similar meaning, appear in the text: “due limits” (2/1), “public order and justice” (2/2), “rightful ordering” a denial of which would be “injustice” (3/4), “common temporal good” (3/5), “just requirements of public order” (4/2), “coercion or any other form of dishonest or immoral persuasion” is deplored (4/4), likewise “abuse of one’s own right and an infringement of that of others” (ibid.), “common good” is defined (6/1) and the whole paragraph should be perused, likewise to be read:
7/2 (“rights of others”, “duties towards others”, “common good”), 7/3 (against “abuses …in the name of religious liberty”; no “unfair advantage” to be given “to one group”; “legal prescriptions” must “correspond to the objective moral order”; “harmony”, “public peace”, “justice”, “protection of public morality” are all “basic to the common good” and “essentially connected with the ordering of the society”; “freedom” should be “only limited when and as necessary”);
8/1 (“to throw off…submission in the name of liberty” or “to attach little importance…to the necessary obedience” are deplored); 8/2 (“moral order”, “obedience to legitimate authority”, “love of true freedom”, “truth and justice”, “willing cooperation”).
I think you make of the “public order” v. “common good” more than the DH implies. It can be briefly said that everyone should have a right to freedom so long as that doesn’t violate the rights of others, and the civil authority should regulate the details, keeping in mind all the factors quoted above.
The DH tells us, on my understanding of course, that every individual has a duty to follow his conscience, and, therefore, a right to do so, free of coercion. That includes the duty and right to belong to a religious community he, in his conscience, believes to be the right one; and so, the religious community itself must have, in principle, the right to exist with all its visible manifestations. The authority has a duty to make it possible, but, obviously, without violation of the same duties and rights of other individuals and communities.
CONFITEOR, Your offer is generous and I wish I could afford to put yet another blog on my visiting schedule, and if I did I would choose another subject, and – to be sure – not with a black background, which does no good to eyes, mine in any case. If Ches is interested, he can split the Religious Liberty to several sub-subjects, not according to any preconceived idea but according to the number of contributions each of the subject happens to attract; others being kept under the main subject until, again, an increased interest should require a sub-subject. For each new sub-subject he can produce a new post with a “telling” title. A general scheme would be helpful, as well as an easy, one click, access to each new comment, as Fr. Z and the Cardelians have: it is excellent, because it provides for a revival of a forgotten post, which is sometimes forgotten merely because the new ones attract interest.
Post a Comment